Summations Only

Good point. We are all "fathers" to each other in the same sense that God is a "father" to us - only we tend to be more hands-on about it. So give us some examples from the Bible. It is, and I have been wrong a time or two. If you actually think about things you're likely to be wrong sometimes. How else would you suggest a person can become "right"?

Actually, if we want to make analogies in that sense, "brothers", "neighbors", "fellow human", and "peers" works just as well for describing our relationship to each other. That relationship does not make me your "God" to reverse the sense of the metaphor. Why do I need to do that? Show me where the Bible describes an obligation to protect you from being eaten by a lion, and I'll be happy to use the Father metaphor to describe that relationship.Edited by NoNukes, : Complete argument.

We should not strive to be wrong by deliberately arguing a metaphor past it's breaking point. I am not just saying that you are potentially wrong, I am saying that you are stretching a metaphor at least to the point where it is not the least bit persuasive. You can call God your Father, but even your own parent is not obligated to watch over you to make sure you don't misstep or encounter danger. If you think there is an obligation, then provide an argument.

Yes indeed. So how does the relationship with "God the Father" differ? Psalm 23 comes to mind:

quote:

---

4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies:

---

You might be able to weasel around the word "obligation" but I don't think you can deny that protection is expected.

We don't "strive to be wrong". We do test a metaphor by stretching it to its breaking point, like we test anything else. Your predictions of the breaking point are less reliable than actual testing. I'm not trying to persuade you. I don't. The Bible does. Sure he is. Ever hear of "child endangerment"? Been there, done that, the T-shirt is in the laundry. To recap: The Bible emphasizes a metaphorical father-child relationship between God and His people. I contend that that relationship implies an obligation to protect His people. His people expect that protection (e.g. Psalm 23). You don't seem to feel inclined to refute my contention with Biblical references, so the contention stands.

That's the first thing that came to my mind when NN asked, and then I also thought that there may be a counter argument that it doesn't explicitly state an obligation.I also thought of Matthew 7:

quote:

---

7 Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

​

9 Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

---

Not only does it hint at an obligation, for if you ask then God will provide, but it also uses the Father-Son relationship in the explanation.

Well done, my son.

Years ago Janis Joplin scientifically tested your concept about God and found it to be untrue.Maybe Matthew 7 is more about what your attitude should be rather than God's obligations to you. Sorry, I guess He's not the Big Sugar Daddy in the sky.P.S. Don't believe a word CS speaks, he is a real snake.Edited by petrophysics1, : Add P.S.

You fundies and your talking snakes.

Nicely done CS. When I thought about the topic offline, this was the best example I could come up with.What I would add though, is that the 'obligation' described here is an obligation that God has taken on. If you want to use this to rationalize that God owes us a world without war or a sun that won't be unsuitable in a few billion years, these verses are not much help.

I smell straw.

Of course God is not obligated to keep His promises.And He's certainly not obligated to keep promises made by someone else.

I believe your nose is in error. I can point to past discussion involving exactly those examples.The real disagreement I have is with the idea that we can use the term 'Father' to make up obligations for God that we have no evidence or scripture indicating that God has agreed to.Edited by NoNukes, : Tweaked to remove endorsement of another poster

Maybe not, but if God breaks such promise, it would not be all that strange that we would judge him by that breach. Yes. This is exactly the point.

And there's nothing saying we can't judge God. In fact, judging God seems just fine: we gain the ability to do so just three chapters in and Abraham and Moses both judged God.There seems nothing wrong with judging God, and there seems to be no reason God should keep His promises.Jon