by jimwalton » Sun Nov 06, 2022 11:59 pm
> Oh one of those examples where Christians can’t step out of their definition of God even for a hypothetical.
We can't step out of definitions, or we forsake communication. Definitions define essential nature, and to ignore that is to lose any reliable reference point. It would be like asking, "If red were no longer red, what color would it be?" First of all, the hypothetical is pure nonsense, and to entertain the possibility is absurd. Second, to speculate on an answer is pure fabrication.
> It makes the bible a contradict what God is
The Bible can't contradict what God is. The Bible is the source of our knowledge of God.
> It doesn’t make him not God, it makes him not the perfect Christian definition of God.
This is mistaken. If it makes God imperfect, then it certain does make Him not God, by very definition. "If you were not you, would you still be the same you?" Ridiculous.
> all Christians will answer with “who are you to question Gods will?
I never answered with that. We weren't talking about God's will. Is this some hobby horse soap box of yours? If so, we should discuss it.
> He only has to wipe us out one more time to achieve perfection, by his book right?
God doesn't have to achieve perfection; it is part of his essential nature. I presume by "wipe us out" you're climbing onto a hobby horse of Noah's flood. What is it about the exercise of justice that you object to? Are you of the opinion that people should not be treated fairly and justly? We could discuss that, too, if you want.
> If god were perfect surely he wouldn’t have intervene with his own hand to kill so many just so a few may be saved.
Are you still talking about Noah's flood? The Flood wasn't global, but regional. The ones being killed were the guilty ones. The few who were saved were not the guilty ones. Do you have a problem with a concept of justice where the guilty are judged and the innocent are spared?
> The fact God only saves a few souls at the end, by his own word, is a testament to his imperfection.
Are you now talking about the end of time, or still about the Flood? We could discuss them if you want. I have no problem with justice being "people getting what they deserve." If you do, we should talk about it.
> Oh one of those examples where Christians can’t step out of their definition of God even for a hypothetical.
We can't step out of definitions, or we forsake communication. Definitions define essential nature, and to ignore that is to lose any reliable reference point. It would be like asking, "If red were no longer red, what color would it be?" First of all, the hypothetical is pure nonsense, and to entertain the possibility is absurd. Second, to speculate on an answer is pure fabrication.
> It makes the bible a contradict what God is
The Bible can't contradict what God is. The Bible is the source of our knowledge of God.
> It doesn’t make him not God, it makes him not the perfect Christian definition of God.
This is mistaken. If it makes God imperfect, then it certain does make Him not God, by very definition. "If you were not you, would you still be the same you?" Ridiculous.
> all Christians will answer with “who are you to question Gods will?
I never answered with that. We weren't talking about God's will. Is this some hobby horse soap box of yours? If so, we should discuss it.
> He only has to wipe us out one more time to achieve perfection, by his book right?
God doesn't have to achieve perfection; it is part of his essential nature. I presume by "wipe us out" you're climbing onto a hobby horse of Noah's flood. What is it about the exercise of justice that you object to? Are you of the opinion that people should not be treated fairly and justly? We could discuss that, too, if you want.
> If god were perfect surely he wouldn’t have intervene with his own hand to kill so many just so a few may be saved.
Are you still talking about Noah's flood? The Flood wasn't global, but regional. The ones being killed were the guilty ones. The few who were saved were not the guilty ones. Do you have a problem with a concept of justice where the guilty are judged and the innocent are spared?
> The fact God only saves a few souls at the end, by his own word, is a testament to his imperfection.
Are you now talking about the end of time, or still about the Flood? We could discuss them if you want. I have no problem with justice being "people getting what they deserve." If you do, we should talk about it.