new in booktalk - rosecoutre

rosecoutre · Eligible to vote! Joined: 24 Aug 2005 Posts: 13 Gender:

After some time off, I am writing another bloggy entry of thoughts.

Recent god-existence posts in the religion-and-philosophy forum got me thinking about that subject. The topic heading was "Why did God allow New Orleans to be destroyed?"

My brief studies in theology and religion made me aware of an interesting issue. Theologians emphasize the human concepts of 'good' and 'love' and project them onto God. According to both New and Old Testaments, God created some people for the very purpose of destroying them.

In Pauline letters, Paul notes God's *desire* to destroy people as a fact, and goes further and writes "who are you to question God?" -- emphasizing that God even *forces* people to turn away from him, for the very purpose of sending them to eternal suffering in Hell. In other letters, it is noted that even for God's chosen/elect/favorites, God will compel them to terrible suffering on earth. Is this a human concept of 'good' or 'loving'? Of course not. But that *is* the Christian God according to the information given in the Bible. I wonder why most theologians and believers ignore these attributes of God's nature, which are so prominent in both New and Old Testaments. I don't understand the aversion to accuracy (or is it just lack of effort?).

Regardless of whether you are an atheist, a christian, a theist, or other, I think it is important to be accurate. To accurately discuss the 'Christian God' from any of those frames-of-reference, it is important to have an accurate concept of the God being discussed, in this case, the Christian God. The New and Old Testaments are supposed to be the definitive source of information about the Christian God's nature. Christians and Atheists alike say both positive and negative things about 'Christian God' in ways that clearly show that they got their God-concept from sunday school, TV, or some source other than the primary source. (You have to acknowledge the Bible as the primary source of information on the Christian God's nature--by definition--that is where the Christian God is introduced, and is the final authority on such questions, if I am not mistaken.) If you want to find verification that the Christian God of the Bible exists, then you should be looking for people being destroyed or suffering.

To be accurate, the Bible also says there are cases where God comforts and helps people, but everyone already seems to know that part. I am only pointing out that if *all* people in all the world were happy with no suffering, THAT would be proof that the Christian God of the Bible does *NOT* exist. That would contradict the Bible's statements about God's nature. Having all people in all the world *free* of suffering/destruction, *or* having all people in all the world being destroyed or suffering, both "all" scenarios would be equally against the 'Christian God' -- and therefore might be viewed as evidence that there is no Christian God. As it is, there is no objective evidence whatsoever, anywhere in the world or in history, that God does exist or that God does not exist. There never will be any evidence either way.

You can believe if you want to, or believe for whatever reason/nonreason, or you can dismiss the whole issue of God's existence as irrelevant, or you can devote part of your life to agonizing over whether or not to believe in a God. In any event, in order to have a meaningful discussion, at least get familiar with the subject before you talk about it.

Edited by: rosecoutre at: 9/14/05 10:31 am


	HOME	ABOUT	BOOKS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT