God the father

Jar,I have to admit I don't get it...

quote:

---

The Bible also tells us the humans are capable of determining what is just and that when god is being unjust, humans need to dope slap the boy and set her straight.

---

It seems to me that none of this demonstrates that god is ever unjust or that man can judge him. I read it as a conversation that paraphrases something like this...Genesis 18...GOD: If the Sodomites are still naughty, they'll be FUBARABRAHAM: But isn't roasting the nice with the naughty bad ju ju? That's not like you. What if there's fifty nice people in there, huh?GOD: If there's fifty, I won't cook 'em.ABRAHAM: What about forty five? Or forty?GOD: If there's forty five or forty, I won't cook 'em.ABRAHAM: Please don't get cranky with me but how about thirty, twenty or ten?GOD: If there's forty thirty, twenty or ten, I won't cook 'em.In all seriousness, what I don't get is how this translates into "when god is being unjust, humans need to dope slap the boy and set her straight."All I see is a demonstration that man has morality, not that he can question god and get away with it. God is simply explaining his intentions, not being corrected.Am I missing context? I've read the bible twice but I'm not going to pretend to have a solid grounding in the text or theology.I just don't see how your quote refers to your point.

quote:

---

The difference we're probably going to have is that you blame God for it and I don't, I blame Satan for it. What God wants, and what he allows, are completely different.

---

This is the problem you are going to get into when you're talking about an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent creator of everything. God is responsible for everything as he knew all things even as he was creating them.You can't shift the blame to satan. God created satan knowing exactly what would happen. If god chooses to allow something then god is to blame.BTW, I don't blame god for anything.

quote:

---

Do you have any kids? Do you need an analogy to show that your statement is incorrect?

​

Maybe you want to reprase it because as you have it now, it's inccorect.

---

OK, how does this work for you?An omniscient, omnipotent god knew that Adam would eat the fruit before he created him.The creation of Adam was the choice of a god who knew that he would sin.He could have created an Adam who didn't sin.It is gods fault as it was gods choice.Free will is an illusion with an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent creator god. If god knows the past and future of everything, then every action must be either naturally predetermined or designed by the creator, depending on your philosophical taste.

quote:

---

But in the story the God character is challenged, and is corrected. Abe points out that God is not acting justly

---

This is where is falls apart for me - I don't see how god is corrected. It's more like Q: "isn't this a bad thing?" A: "no, and this is why"

quote:

---

Now granted this story shows a much evolved God compared to the God of Adam, and of course the "God" character continues to evolve as the societies evolved.

---

Now this is interesting. Are you saying that god himself has changed over time? It's almost like an analogy of a young father who doesn't know what he's doing yet and gradually gets a feel for the role as time goes by. Is this what you mean?This is bordering on the edge of the Man created God point of view as would be argued by a sociologist rather than a theologist.At the risk of being as blunt as a sledgehammer, are you a believer or looking at it as an outsider (like I am)?

Thanks Jar and Jon for the replies.I honestly read that as god reassuring Abraham that the good would not be harmed rather than the way you describe it. I can see how it can be interpreted the other way now too.Jar, I find it interesting that you say that man did create god. To me that sounds like having an imaginary friend that you know you made up. Not trying to throw dirt on your beliefs but that's how is seems to me. If I stretch my interpretation, I can see that this is a form of biblical-philosophical agnosticism - like 'we can't know if he's real but the book itself demonstrates a good philosophy to live by'. Is that pretty close?Jon, Thanks for illustrating the evolution of god within the bible. I have seen the same process within cultures and religions before from a sociological point of view but I've never seen it related like that. To me, it illustrates the maturation of the culture of the authors of the books and I think that's what you mean.To both of you, thanks for the most rational response I've had to a question on religion that I've had for a long time.

Ok, think I've got it...GOD is completely beyond reach to our limited selves outside the conviction that it exists as the creator.God is the the overall human concept of GOD. I feel that your quote from the Nicene Creed is quite universal - well beyond christianity. I am aware that this quote is not the complete creed. I checked I'm just referring to your particular extract here.god is the god of societies and cultures. This is the god of sociology and anthropology. It is this god that is usually argued on this very forum.So GOD is felt as God and depicted as god.About right?

Yep, I can see the exclusion of polytheism in this. No problems there.Thanks for taking the time. Except for the base assumption of GOD, this all works for me. I believe I get it.Cheers.