The Definition and Existence of God

[Rhyfelwyr]

[..] a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

And he is mincing his words there.

A part from the first and last bits, that's all quite true.

But who says we deserve better? Strangely you mention all these temporal sufferings and not hell, yet these are only a shadow of what we deserve. Throughout the OT, such things are generally given as a display of God's attributes for the good of Israel, or the sad but necessary means of bringing a people to the promised land in a fallen world.

Dawkins obviously regards himself as a good, moral guy. Well, I disagree - for Dakwins, myself, and the rest of humanity. I think he will find his own standards lacking when put to more thorough observation.

[LittleGrizzly]

But who says we deserve better?

We don't cause pain to 'lower' beings than ourselves*, we use them practically to our benefit but we do not cause them unnessecary pain. Even if a dog has killed a little girl or something horrific if we are able to do so we will take down the dog in a non lethal manner.

So collectively we think animals deserve better, and we are much more moral than the animals**

So humans are more merciful and forgiving than God, by the sounds of it yes we deserve better...

*Im thinking collectively and legally...

** In that we will fight our natural instincts if its the wrong thing to do (steal food from a baby) whereas an animal would mostly (if not... other stuff )

[Azathoth]

We don't "deserve" anything. It's simply a matter of preference.

[Adrian II]

But who says we deserve better?

I do. Maybe I don't deserve better, maybe Dawkins is not a good man (I dont know him personally like you apparently do).

But my children deserve to live in a world without your petty, vindictive, pestilential paper god.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I do. Maybe I don't deserve better, maybe Dawkins is not a good man (I dont know him personally like you apparently do).

But my children deserve to live in a world without your petty, vindictive, pestilential paper god.

To be honest, I don't think even Rhy actually likes his God, Adrian.

What about my infinitely merciful, benevolant, loving and compassionate God. Are your children better off without His as well?

[Adrian II]

What about my infinitely merciful, benevolant, loving and compassionate God. Are your children better off without His as well?

As long as he keeps his hands to himself.

But it is not the god of the bible you are talking about here. It is a god of your own choice and your own making. You make him up as you go really. In one post you state that a person can not know another person's substance, let alone god's substance. Yet in another post you discuss god's 'threefold substance' as if he had been your bowling partner for the last 25 years.

Arghh, millions of Napoleons

[Rhyfelwyr]

To be honest, I don't think even Rhy actually likes his God, Adrian.

What about my infinitely merciful, benevolant, loving and compassionate God. Are your children better off without His as well?

Nah he's a great guy. All I am saying is that temporal sufferings should not be used as an argument for God being nasty, when in fact all the harsh things throughout the OT are in some respect done for the good of the church. I'm not just talking about the slaying of the reprobate either. Even for those in covenant with God, look at their lives. Abraham, David, Moses, and most obviously Job; none of these guys had it easy, and yet their wordly sufferings were all in some way for their spiritual good.

As for your God being merficul, you don't even believe he died on the cross for our sins! You believe he only let Christ's human nature suffer in that respect.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As long as he keeps his hands to himself.

But it is not the god of the bible you are talking about here. It is a god of your own choice and your own making. You make him up as you go really. In one post you state that a person can not know another person's substance, let alone god's substance. Yet in another post you discuss god's 'threefold substance' as if he had been your bowling partner for the last 25 years.

Arghh, millions of Napoleons

You still haven't asked why I support Trinitarian doctrine.

The "God of the Bible" is a complete non-entity, you have to sift the books to see the shape God leaves begind. I sift the Gospels, Rhy sifts the Prophets etc.

As for your God being merficul, you don't even believe he died on the cross for our sins! You believe he only let Christ's human nature suffer in that respect.

What I believe is that we are saved through His infinite mercy, as exemplified by His sacrifice, and that the message of forgiveness and repentance can only be conveyed through the suffering of a God and King for His people.

As I said, I don't seperate Christ's natures, but I make the distinction between how the should be percieved, and how He can be percieved in different contexts. Such as whether he speaks primarily as a Man or a God. This is exactly the same distinction as I make about myself, depending on whether I am speaking as a Clerk or a Christian.

[Rhyfelwyr]

In one post you state that a person can not know another person's substance, let alone god's substance. Yet in another post you discuss god's 'threefold substance' as if he had been your bowling partner for the last 25 years.

Knowledge of the particular manifestations of God are a different matter entirely from knowledge of what God actually is. For example, we can claim that the Godhead is present in Christ, without comprehending the substance of the Godhead any more than if it was not.

What I believe is that we are saved through His infinite mercy, as exemplified by His sacrifice, and that the message of forgiveness and repentance can only be conveyed through the suffering of a God and King for His people.

Ah, the substitutionary atonement debate. Well, most of Christendom is with me on this one at least.

[Hax]

I've seen the concept of suffering come up several times in this thread. If you suffer, why not try to end it?

[Adrian II]

For example, we can claim that the Godhead is present in Christ, without comprehending the substance of the Godhead any more than if it was not.

I refer the honourable member to the ghost in my backyard.