Is God imperfect or simply indifferent?

[Justin108]

Assuming for argument sake that Mark 16:16 and Revelations 21:8 are both true in suggesting that unbelievers are condemned

If God fails to convince each and every one of us that he exists, this either implies that
a) God was unable to convince us he exists (implying imperfection)
b) God did not care to try to convince all of us (implying apathy)

Is God imperfect? Or simply apathetic in our salvation?

[ttruscott]

This is not just an opinion I am making here. I have evidence. ME! Unless you want to call me a liar.

And your experience is directly contradicted by MY experience. Your view of reality as secular materialism supports your pov and my view of reality as a duality of spiritual and material supports my experience. Your pov can explain my experiences away as delusion, insanity or gullibility but it cannot prove I am deluded, insane or gullible. My pov that you are enslaved by sin also cannot be proven, which I am not interested in trying to do as you seem to be trying to convert me to materialism.

What I am trying to do is to stand against all interpretations of scripture as stupidly illogical and all portrayals of YHWH as evil. I am an apologeticist, not a preacher. That I am firm and adamant about my interpretation of scripture would be taken for granted and applauded in any other forum as denoting sincerity but is here scorned by some as preaching...

If telling the truth as I see it, as my pov tells me it is, is preaching then you too are preaching or you are not telling the truth as you see it. It seems like you are free to say "YHWH is evil" but if I say "No HE is not!" I am preaching...??? Let's sus out a workable definition here not based upon personal bias ok?

[JLB32168]

When someone is attempting suicide, rescuers don't ignore him/ her. If someone is drowning and is unaware of the danger . . .

All analogies are imperfect in that they do not comport 100% with the origin trying to be explained. People say they have not received any revelation from God about his existence. Quite simply, I find it hard to believe that statement (read “I don’t believe that statement.�) Many former Christians here say that they were once firmly convinced of their faith. I accept that they were convinced and that this was because God revealed Himself in some way to them. I reject the notion that they went back and analyzed their position and suddenly realized they had never really believed.

I cannot accept that someone can view the Universe and think “No intelligent entity is involved.� I think that denial is mere self-deception par excellence.

It would be improper of a being, capable of saving the drowning person, to refrain on the basis that the person appears not to want to be rescued.

I stand by my statement that you save someone who doesn’t want to be saved. I lay the responsibility solely at the willfully obdurate.

Your parallel isn't apt because the argument is NOT about someone refusing to be saved but being unaware that there is any danger.

And that suggests that people are oblivious to their conscience, which is made in God’s Image and Likeness. That certainly doesn’t apply to anyone living in the 1st world.

[marco]

People say they have not received any revelation from God about his existence. Quite simply, I find it hard to believe that statement (read “I don’t believe that statement.�) Many former Christians here say that they were once firmly convinced of their faith. I accept that they were convinced and that this was because God revealed Himself in some way to them. I reject the notion that they went back and analyzed their position and suddenly realized they had never really believed.

An interesting theory. I was persuaded because the teachers I had persuaded me and I respected them. I also quite liked the music and the Christmas carols. If people claim they have had a message from God, a revelation, then it is proper that they explain how they know the author's identity.

Your reason for belief seems to be that you look around, see design and deduce a designer. That simplistic way of seeing things is fine. People in the past employed the same tactic. They didn't settle for Yahweh, of course, but for Sun or Thor or Zeus. There may well be an intelligence, dead, alive or indifferent at the base of reality but apart from the fact that reality exists and works we have no indication of the existence of this being (or beings.) There is no sensible reason to assume a singular deity, if one is ascribing design to a deity. You take a leap of faith and cross out Allah or rival deities and settle for Yahweh. That is choice not reason.

I cannot accept that someone can view the Universe and think “No intelligent entity is involved.� I think that denial is mere self-deception par excellence.

And I find it hard to believe that people accept the nomadic creation in the Bible was responsible, singled-handedly, for transporting billions of tons of matter to construct our universe. It strikes me as an absurdity. There may well be a good explanation for the appearance of life; this isn't it.

At best, your theory that God reveals himself to everyone grants acceptance to all religions since each person believes in the god that has been revealed to them. For the vast majority, geography is the basis for their "revelation." The billions who worship Allah say that he revealed himself to them. This is fanciful.

[ttruscott]

IMPO

If your God cannot convince a person that the best thing to do is grab the rope, then that is most definitely a failure on his part.

When someone is attempting suicide, rescuers don't ignore him/ her. If someone is drowning and is unaware of the danger, it would be improper of a being, capable of saving the drowning person, to refrain on the basis that the person appears not to want to be rescued.

That both these paragraphs express the truth is obvious and inarguable but the conclusion that it is proof that GOD is non-existent or evil is where I call foul since there is another very logical if unsettling option that proves that the quick choice was unnecessary.

impo
IF the person was in the water because he was put off the boat by the order of the Captain after a proper trial as an order of execution for his crimes of unrelenting psychopathic attacks upon the other passengers and the Captain, THEN anyone throwing him a rope would be in contravention of the Judge's order and guilty himself of a crime.

You both seem to assume everyone in the water is innocent but the majority of Christianity, whether by bias or overtly, contends that no innocent suffers or dies but only sinners, that is, those who are guilty.

impo
The analogy also provides an answer of sorts, though imperfect, as to why preach / throw a rope to all if only some can be saved...? There is not just one rope in the water, but one for every passenger on the boat to all those in the water encouraging them to grab the rope in contradiction of the Divine Judge's order believing it to be a wrong decision. The Captain has a huge party planned when they reach shore but as long as even one on the boat is hanging over the edge and focused on the swimmers as needing help, they are being evil (not in accord with the Judge's order) and will never be invited ashore.

imCo
Therefore GOD will let them sway their ropes in the water until they become convinced that because of their hatred of the Judge and their evil criminal nature, no one in the water will ever grab a rope. Psychologically they cannot do it. At that point of realization, the boaters can / may / will drop their ropes and concentrate on getting back in accord with the Captain so the boat can resume its cruise.

imo
Clumsy and not correct in details, this is a fuller use of the analogy from the Christian pov.

[OnceConvinced]

If a man loved the person they threw the line to, they would find some other way to rescue that person.

Like what?

You're asking me? I'm not God. God can do anything right?

Others have already suggested things. Like actually appearing there with the line would be a good thing. The situation you describe is an invisible undetectable being throwing out an invisible line that is intangible.

Just because you and I lack imagination in this department doesn't mean God would. And God being all knowing and all powerful would have other abilities and resources we don't know about or even understand. Or are you going to deny that? Is God's only method trying to convince us of something and nothing more? Is he really that impotent?

I can't believe that god would be that impotent. Clearly not much of a god.

Am I supposed to pull you out of the water when you refuse to leave?

Wouldn't you do that for your own child if they were in that situation? Would you just leave them there to drown? How loving would that be? Sometimes we have to do what we have to do, even if our child doesn't want us too.

But the scenario you are describing does not have an actual physical god there trying to pull you in. Only an invisible undetectable one. Imagine how much different the scenario would be if this god was actually tangable and there physically. I know for a fact I would welcome his line if it were actually there to grab.

If I do, aren’t you going to fault me with breaking some moral something for imposing my will upon yours?

It doesn't matter. What was done would be done for my own good and hopefully I would see that down the track just as I did when my parents forced me to do things I didn't want to do.

Doesn’t that mean I’m still imperfect because I disrespected your wishes?

No. It would prove to me you love me and that you had my best interests at heart. Just because I may have not liked your actions does not mean I'm going to see you as imperfect. My parents made me eat vegetables that I hated. I know now that it was for my own good. My parents made me go to bed early. I know now it was for my own good.

It doesn't matter if I think they are imperfect or not. They did the right thing. They showed me they loved me. You are the one claiming that love is an action in another thread. How would God be showing us his love by letting us drown?

It seems you've absolved yourself of any responsibility, which is an imperfect way of thinking;

Nope. I have not absolved myself of anything. I am a flawed human being remember? I see things through my own eyes and I don't see this god throwing me a line. God created me that way. You however have absolved God of having to show his love to someone he claims to love. Where is that love JLB if he gives up and walks away?

I hope you don't have children. If you did I could imagine them, if they rebel and you simply giving up on them. I would never give up on my children.

therefore, I've little reason to conclude that you're capable of judging the difference between im/perfect.

You are simply making excuses for what is clearly a non-existent or unloving god. Where is the love JLB? The love you insist is an action. It's not there is it? God just flags us away as a lost cause.

[Yahu]

b) God did not care to try to convince all of us (implying apathy)
Is God imperfect? Or simply apathetic in our salvation?

You are suggesting that it is His will that all be saved. I guess you don't understand the parable of the wheat and tares. The tares were always meant for the fires. They are not, and never have been wheat but the seed/offspring of Satan. The only outcome for the tares is to be burned.

No one expects tares to change their nature and become wheat. They were doomed from the beginning.

[ttruscott]

If people claim they have had a message from God, a revelation, then it is proper that they explain how they know the author's identity.

I have had that experience and no one wants to know the answer to that question more than the person with the experience.

The answer I got was "I have promised I will not let anyone who seeks me be deceived by a demon." That is why I am fairly particular about who it is I am seeking, being a specific as I can be. And why I accept the hope without proof that HE is talking to me and also is protecting me from the voices of demons or myself as HIS. What else can I do? Onceconvinced makes a strong argument that no one can go against their own experience...

I cannot accept that someone can view the Universe and think “No intelligent entity is involved.� I think that denial is mere self-deception par excellence.

At best, your theory that God reveals himself to everyone grants acceptance to all religions since each person believes in the god that has been revealed to them. For the vast majority, geography is the basis for their "revelation." The billions who worship Allah say that he revealed himself to them. This is fanciful.

Do you forget that the verse that claims this revelation to everyone is in a chapter, Romans 1, that also claims that sinners repressed this revelation of YHWH's deity from their conscious mind so they feel free to choose their own idols and indulge in their favourite sin?

[marco]

IF the person was in the water because he was put off the boat by the order of the Captain after a proper trial as an order of execution for his crimes of unrelenting psychopathic attacks upon the other passengers and the Captain, THEN anyone throwing him a rope would be in contravention of the Judge's order and guilty himself of a crime.

You both seem to assume everyone in the water is innocent but the majority of Christianity, whether by bias or overtly, contends that no innocent suffers or dies but only sinners, that is, those who are guilty.

Of course one assumes a drowning person is "innocent." Thankfully, here in Britain, coastguards don't first enquire: "Hey you, drowning there, are you sure you're innocent?"

I think sometimes we tie ourselves in knots in our attempts to justify what we personally think God is.

The Captain has a huge party planned when they reach shore but as long as even one on the boat is hanging over the edge and focused on the swimmers as needing help, they are being evil (not in accord with the Judge's order) and will never be invited ashore.

Presumably they are being evil by delaying Captain's big party and seeking to rescue someone. Hmmm. I will think twice about that cruise.

Does all this illustrate God is anything other than callous?

[OnceConvinced]

How is exposing bible contradictions helping your argument? This is not a card game. One scripture does not automatically trump the last scripture that was quoted.

There are many who accept the contradictions as true but Christians do not,

Of course they don't. That would mean the bible would not be able to be considered God's word. I don't have that mindset that it has to be infallible.

It seems like at first you did not know about any seeming contradiction between John 3:16 and 18,

No, I don't see a contradiction there at all.

quoting 3:16 as definitive of Christian thinking in all the world, then you are content to accept that as a real contradiction to scorn belief but only by ignoring the resolution to that non-contradiction that was presented. Oh well, right on track...

I'm not sure what you are getting at there. Can you reword this please?

[OnceConvinced]

This is not just an opinion I am making here. I have evidence. ME! Unless you want to call me a liar.

And your experience is directly contradicted by MY experience.

Hold on hold on. Your claim is that God's existence is obvious to EVERYONE. How can you speak for everyone?

All it takes is for ONE person to step up who does not see God's existance as obvious, then Rom 1:20 is proven false. You do not speak for everyone on the planet or everyone who ever existed.

What may be obvious to you is not obvious to everyone else.

My pov that you are enslaved by sin also cannot be proven, which I am not interested in trying to do as you seem to be trying to convert me to materialism.

I am not trying to convert you to anything. I am just trying to point out that the Rom 1:20 is not true. I am proof it is not true.

What I am trying to do is to stand against all interpretations of scripture as stupidly illogical

What is stupidly illogical is for someone to insist that Rom 1:20 is in anyway true when there are people like myself that prove it isn't.

and all portrayals of YHWH as evil.

The bible shows us that YHWH is evil. We have the bible as proof. It's there in black and white for all to read.

I am an apologeticist, not a preacher. That I am firm and adamant about my interpretation of scripture would be taken for granted and applauded in any other forum as denoting sincerity but is here scorned by some as preaching...

Most of what you do here is indeed preaching. Simply quoting bible verse and your own opinions and interpretations as facts. Other websites may applaud preaching. Churches certainly do, but this is not a church. This is a debate forum. Your opinions and your interpretations are not considered facts.

If telling the truth as I see it, as my pov tells me it is, is preaching then you too are preaching or you are not telling the truth as you see it.

But I told you the truth. Creation is not evidence to me in this universe. Evolution is. I am telling you an absolute fact. That is not preaching.

It seems like you are free to say "YHWH is evil" but if I say "No HE is not!" I am preaching...???

No that's not why you get accused of preaching. You get accused of preaching when you get up on your soap box and quote scripture and your interpretations of it as if they are facts/absolute truth

That is a far cry from stating something about yourself as I was when I said that God's hand is not obvious to me when I look at creation.

You want to make out that I am being blinded or that I am repressing that knowledge. That I am a slave to sin. That is simply your opinion based on your take of the scripture. It is nothing more than preaching... not to mention highly offensive and insulting.

It makes no sense that I would go from a believer to a non-believer because I was trying to repress my beliefs. THAT I would say is stupidly illogical.

Let's sus out a workable definition here not based upon personal bias ok?

Forum rules dictate what is considered preaching and what is not. You have been told numerous times by moderation that quoting scripture and your interpretations of it as if it were fact, without backing those claims up with any evidence... is preaching.