Hmm, I see your point.  Yet it seems wrong judge actions by whether or not there might be a good or bad end result far off into the future unless you can prove it.

Even then some things I personally wouldn't allow for any justification of being good in the end, nor would I take seriously a warning of bad consequences unsubstantiated, no matter how bad those consequences are said to be.

What good or bad a God might see in the long term end results of things is of little consequence since we are not Gods and cannot see likewise.

Like you said, we can only reach conclusions if our observations are correct.  We can never be totally certain of anything, so it pays to take as many observations as possible.

-------------------------
If there are contradictions between observations, one or none of them may be correct; the more observations that align with each-other, the more likely those observations are the more accurate description of reality.

But if we assume, for the moment, that(the Holy Text of your choice) is by default true, no question, then when a multitude of observations are contradicting your presumed axiom, you have a dilemma.

There are three solutions that are most commonly taken in this case; you reject the majority of observations and stay with the presumed axiom.  This causes a lot of problems for people who do this; it causes them to behave dishonestly and conjecture conspiracies in order to protect their choice.

(the above doesn't even have to be about a holy text, it can be about any assumption if one takes this rout).

The second solution is simply to revise one's position to reject the axiom; this usually happens with less devoutly held positions, and is usually how scientific inquiry proceeds.

The third solution still maintains the axiom of the WOG, but divorces ones interpretation from the actual WOG.  This makes it so that one can consider that they may be wrong without having their faith challenged, since although the WOG is infallible, they are human, and thus are not.
---------------------------------------------------

Though this is beside the point, because at this moment there are not a multitude of observations contradicting your interpretation of the chosen axiom.

You have one person who is part of Group A who doesn't see a problem with performing Group A actions because they believe them to be good to do.

Your interpretation of your axiom of choice says that Group A actions aren't very good to be doing.

And you have at least one person that believes Group A's actions don't do anything at all.  Whether this is good or bad is probably relative; I might suggest that they do something better with their time but that'd be a bias of personal hobby preferences.
This message was last edited by the GM at 04:03, Sun 07 Oct 2012.

I call Bullshit.

You can defend a sovereign g-d.  But not a "good" one as the bible god.

Isaiah 45:7 - I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the L*RD do all these things.


And the L*RD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. (Exodus 32:14)

And when the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the L*RD repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough: stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD was by the threshingplace of Araunah the Jebusite. (2 Samuel 24:16)

And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not. (Jonah 3:10)

A g-d that changes minds is either not a g-d that knows the future (thus to do some far away good) or doesn't commit to good no matter the cost, so he any cost he does "expend" is an acceptable one.

Now you can be consistant and argue that g-d is sovereign and how we feel or what we think doesn't matter.  But you can't make him "pleasant" only a tyrannical king and be consistent with the story.

It's sad that you need to quote Bible verses out of context in order to "Prove" your point.

In reply to Revolutionary (msg # 156):

I would argue that God indeed does not know the future, and some of the verses you mention are evidence of that.  However, it is feasible that he instead has plans for every single possible decision and outcome that could occur.  In other words God knows all that is knowable, and the future is not included in that.

I'd say something about how Prescience, Infallibility, and Free Will don't mix, but it's not the appropriate thread to go into that.

Kathulos, could you explain why those quotes are out of context?

<.< and can somebody explain to me what's up with "g-d" and "L*rd"?  I've seen that before, and I don't really get it.
This message was last edited by the GM at 21:54, Sun 07 Oct 2012.

Yes. That is a fix. g-d can be dumb to the future and can know all knowable but not all knowing without limits.

The Lord, for the Jonah example can change his mind, there's nothing about "repentance" in the moral aspect of the word, involved in changing his mind.

So he didn't repent, is what you're saying?  By which I mean that his particular translation is wrong, and that the word shouldn't be repent?

Or do you mean that repenting for something doesn't necessarily mean that you thought your previous decision was morally wrong?

Or maybe something else?

"He changed his mind"

Why did he change his mind?  If you have no problem with the word "repent", then the answer would be that he changed his mind because he regretted or felt guilt for his past actions.

Ninevah also changed their minds, and then genuinely repented morally.

If you're a parent and you say "Jr. Clean your room Or I'll spank you" there's nothing wrong with that. If Jr. Says "No" you can. But if he says "Okay, I'll clean my woom." And he does it, then you are glad to change your mind right?

In reply to Kathulos (msg # 165):

I really think that it's completely okay, and in fact a much fairer reading of the text, to read it as god actually indeed changed his mind.

The Bible mentions God changing his mind over 30 times - it's not an isolated occurance and it needs to be dealt with in some way.

The fact that God deals with possibilites, and not certainties, does not make God smaller, but in my mind, even bigger and more intelligent.  When it is right and virtuous for God to change his mind, he does.  When it is not right to change his mind, he does not.  This is what we would expect a relational God to behave - with flexibility when it matters, and with an unyielding certainity when it matters.

When my kid decides to run out into the middle of the road I am unyielding in my decision to force him to stay in the yard.  I will forcibly grab him and keep him in the yard rather than run out onto the road.

On the other hand when that same child is told that they cannot have a cookie, but then they give me a solid argument as to why they can (this does not always happen, but there are times when it does) then I relent and give them a cookie.  It's a relational way to behave and I am not wrong to change my mind from my initial position, but it is the loving thing to do to respond to my kid in a way that makes sense to further our relationship.

And that's me as a creature who can only see extremely limited possiblities.  Take the limited nature of my brain and increase it to knowing all possibilities to all actions, and take my own limited ability to relate and love and increase it to that same degree and you have a picture of God who the Bible says expresses regret, who is surprised, and who does not have certainty about some aspects of the future.

When God tests individuals it's absolutely insane for Him to do so if he knows the outcome already.  However, even though he may have an incredibly acccurate view of all possibilities, the very nature of free will means that human beings can still surprise him and choose a different option that what he expected.  And yet, even then he has a plan for that, though it is different from what he initially planned!

I love that God shows a sense of frustration in books like Hosea when he asks (non rhetorically from the reading of it), "How long will they (Israel) be incapable of purity?"  It infuses God with a degree of relational reality that calvinism (and other views in Christianity) sucks out of him.

God said he would destroy the Ninevites, or that they would repent.  At that point in time either of those options are available to the people.

So either God is a liar, and really he NEVER intended to destroy the Ninevites but just said it for giggles, or that REALLY was an option but because of the Ninevites change in outlook God then responded and changed his own response (instead of wiping them off the face of the planet).

If it is the second option then Open Theism makes complete sense, and it is how I personally choose to view God and how I interpret (currently) the Bible.

The ancient Hebrews felt God's name was too holy to write down.  His 'real' name was something along the lines of Yahweh, but they couldn't write that down without Him getting annoyed at them for defiling his name, so they just wrote down "YHWH" in the old testament whenever they wanted to write down his name.  That was translated to "the LORD" in most english versions of the bible.  Leaving letters out of God or Lord is sort of a variation on that theme, I think.  Writing down enough to get the idea across, without writing the whole thing, and defiling something too holy for human eyes to see.  A bit along the lines of not showing a picture of Mohamed, perhaps.

First off ugly example. Spanking is abuse.

Second, you did not change your mind. Your mind was a conditional. Had you said your room is messy so that means I will exert physical abuse on you. Then you do not that MAY be changing your mind. You also may have a teenager now who learned how to deal with all problems with physical treats and you know better because he is gonna kick your abusive ass.

It's more along the lines of God not speaking according to English grammatical rules actually.

I have no idea what any of this line means.

Wow, this is a great conversation. However, to help keep things neat, I'd like to transplant it to a different thread:

link to a message in this game

EDIT: Moved my response to the other thread.
This message was last edited by the player at 14:33, Mon 08 Oct 2012.

Thank you for that.  Tiz Helpful

The woman who is the mother of my child and my life partner at one point was a vessel for the power of God, during which time he used her to save a number of children from a serial pedophile. However the cost to her body soul and mind has been horrific, she trusts no one, is in constant pain, and has been considered a suspect in the case by the police in spite of being blameless. Further her latent seizure disorder is no longer latent, she cannot visit many public areas due to the flashing lights risking her falling into status-epileptics and dieing. Yes, she did God's work, and saved even 'these his little ones' from a horrific monster, but the price she paid...

God has no care for the tools he uses to do what must be done, and if they are chipped or broken in his service he discards them, and if they are not, he keeps using them until they are.

In reply to Alexei Yaruk-Mundhenk (msg # 175):

There appears to be little evidence god both cares and has power to stop child abuse. And if it is the bible g_d why think it...he commited child abuse himself...neglect and infanticide.

That explains a lot more, although I admit, I'm still very curious for more details.

(Also, is 'saint of the lord' a term you made up?)

I think he uses the King James Bible:

Psalm 106:16 They envied Moses also in the camp, and Aaron the saint of the LORD.

Unless he has denomination-specific meaning, it's another way of saying you're a holy man, a priest, a disciple of God.

Alexei, it would be most helpful if you could try to explain certain terms which you may use a lot and thus understand, but those of us who aren't familiar with your umm, denomination, subculture, I don't know, wouldn't necessarily understand immediately.

That way we wouldn't have to guess at your meaning, you could just let us know.

If a saint is one who can channel the power of God to perform miracles, then Saints need not be old dead catholic guys. That was All I meant when I said 'A Saint of the Lord' one who is a vessel for God's power.