If you were God, what kind of God would you be?

Peg writes: do you really think that God would send his son to a people who participated in vile acts and who practiced satanic forms of worship?

Peg writes: He did....they are called Gentiles and the christian church today is mostly made up of gentiles.

Ok, here's a contradiction. You said that God wouldn't send his son to unbelievers...then you claim he did. Which is it? If the first one, my point still stands. If it's the second, then why did God need to "favor" Isreal if he could effectively send his son to unbelievers?

Peg writes: And whats more, Jesus didnt even need to be here to bring them into his church.

So, Jesus was unnecessarily tortured and sacrificed? I'm pretty sure that goes against some pretty strong traditions in the Christian Church.

Peg writes: God is not really ruling them.

Then it sure would be nice if God was distinguishable from imagination, right? It would be nice if he was real, and good, and did good things for us in the real world. Then he could kiss our problems and make them better.

It appears that you think you are conveying something more than glazed eyes and the acknowledgment that things could be better, so please elaborate on how a theocracy would be a good idea without fundamental changes to reality as we know it.

absolute morality only works if everyone agrees what it is and to abide by it. Our world shows that they do not.

Well precisely. So why do you think an absolute objective morality exists at all?

Jesus provided a perfect model for absolute morality - 'Love' If we all treated each other with love, then absolute morality could exist.

And who decides what is love?

Gods standards are always stable.

Then why do you keep preaching morality (rape, genocide etc.etc.) on he basis of what is culturally acceptable at any given time?

Perdition writes: Ok, here's a contradiction. You said that God wouldn't send his son to unbelievers...then you claim he did.

in the first instance I was referring to his son being 'born and bought up' within a nation. He was born into Isreal and so the nation needed to be worthy of that honor.

Its a bit like if the queen was coming to visit you. You'd probably clean the house from top to bottom to make your home worthy of her visit. God did the same with the nation he sent his son to.

in the second instance, Jesus was not physically among people...by this stage he was back in heaven, so the circumstances were completely different. People would have to come to him through their faith in him, he didnt have to dwell physically with anyone.

Phage0070 writes: elaborate on how a theocracy would be a good idea without fundamental changes to reality as we know it.

if true theocracy was in place, things would change dramatically. The reality we know today: crime, sickness, starvation, pollution, war etc will be things of the past. They are the very problems that God and Jesus will remove. Jesus showed that he had the power to cure the sick, to feed the hungry, raise the dead and even that he could control the forces of nature. These miracles he performed were fore gleams of what he will do on a much greater scale when his kingdom ruled from heaven.

This was the purpose of gathering people from all nations...it was to prepare people to live as subjects of his heavenly kingdom government.

The prophets spoke of Gods Kingdom as a real government that would take action against this worlds governments and rule in place of them. Daniel 2:44 "The God of heaven will set up a kingdom...and the kingdom will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms and it itself will stand to times indefinite"

So true theocracy cannot begin until all our present governments step aside and acknowledge Gods Kingdom...if they dont, he will remove them himself. Then he will eradicate ALL the worlds problems, reality will be completely different.

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Straggler writes: So why do you think an absolute objective morality exists at all?

because it exists with God. As the creator and life giver, he is the ultimate power of authority and therefore has the legal right to impose whatever morality he sees fit.

Straggler writes: And who decides what is love?

because love is Gods dominant quality, he becomes the standard for what love is. Paul gave a brief summary of what love is:

1Cor 14:4 Love is long-suffering and kind. Love is not jealous, it does not brag, does not get puffed up, 5 does not behave indecently, does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked. It does not keep account of the injury. 6 It does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth. 7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.

Straggler writes: Then why do you keep preaching morality (rape, genocide etc.etc.) on he basis of what is culturally acceptable at any given time?

rape is against Gods law in the bible, the soldiers of isreal were not raping captive women... the warfare that occurred in Isreal in bible times was always for the sake of righteousness and justice. when children die as a result of war its not because God thought it would be good to kill children, but because the leaders and family heads of those nations chose to go to war out of rebellion and hatred. Its not genocide though, not when God makes the way out for those who want it and those who seek it.

Reminder of the topic opener. Since most who come to this forum are unbelievers in God who created the heavens and the earth, and you reject the God of the Bible, I would like to see these folk answer the following questions: (1) What kind of God would you be if you could be God? (2) What kind of cosmos would you have created? Please refrain from the current line of discussion and get back to the topic of the thread. Thanks AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

---

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate