This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

  • Topic Closed
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. What some of the nonbelievers misunderstand about God, i.e. the Christian God

User Info: TurtleInFreedom

TurtleInFreedom
1 month ago#1
There seems to be a misunderstanding on the total sovereignty of God over all.

God is not under any obligation to a moral standard- the entirety of creation is his, so it is within his right to do whatever he wants to will with it. This is what we call the total sovereign freedom of God.

In another topic a user claims that 'God isn't fair' because he killed some of the Philistines or whomever enemy of the Israelites were at the moment. The entire notion of sin is that you face the just penalty of death for any sin committed- this is God's justice that is working against the world. But why does he save others while he administers justice to others? I don't know. But is that unfair?

Let's say that two people commit a crime and they are convicted in court. The victim of one criminal decides that he or she wants to pardon one while not pardoning the other. Would this make the victim unfair? I think the entire onus being on the victim is erroneous here, and that the pardoning should be painted as an act of grace rather than a suspicion at the standard in which the victim was pardoned.

If there was a standard, then the victim would not be acting out of grace, but out of a neutral, personless cosmological order.

But because God have relations with his elect creation, he chooses to bestow grace- salvation. Salvation is not just a personless cosmological order either as some may envision- it is a payment of debt, something which you did not merit to receive whatsoever.

This is why the redemption narrative is so repeatedly underscored and taught in Christianity.

Anyway as a lay person I just wanted to clear this up because there seems to be a severe lacking in the understanding of the Christian ethos and theology here. Cheers!

User Info: DeadlyNinjaBees

DeadlyNinjaBees
1 month ago#2
Yeah, we understand all of that but just don't indulge him as a theoretical being to allow himself those rights over our own.
Everything attributed to him and his essence is like background info on a Dungeons & Dragons character sheet to an atheist, because for us he simply isn't.

From the sounds of it, you're taking the point that non-believers (we're actually just normal people and don't need the label as the onus is not on us, as atheists, to prove anything beyond the observable and measurable universe) discredit God via his prior actions and motives. I think the important thing for believers to remember is that it's how people use the bible selectively in it's depictions of God and choose the aspects they like. There is a CLEAR and inconsistent change in his behaviour between the first and second testaments, which means if you don't believe, it just seems like a messy narrative that people are scraping their own internalised fan fiction from.
How dare you!
(edited 1 month ago)

User Info: TurtleInFreedom

TurtleInFreedom
1 month ago#3
If there seems to be a discrepancy between the testaments then you've clearly not searched and resorted to resources which show otherwise. The redemption narrative is clear within both testaments and is clear with all the symbolisms and history the testaments reveal. It would be intellectual laziness to claim that the testaments show otherwise, especially when you're living in the age of Google.

User Info: dhalsimrocks

dhalsimrocks
1 month ago#4
TurtleInFreedom posted...
God is not under any obligation to a moral standard- the entirety of creation is his, so it is within his right to do whatever he wants to will with it. This is what we call the total sovereign freedom of God.

What would you say to those who claim that "God is good"? If what you say is true, then that statement is meaningless and technically not true. Either that or you have to redefine what "good" means in that phrase as something that doesn't have anything to do with morality.

I think the entire onus being on the victim is erroneous here, and that the pardoning should be painted as an act of grace rather than a suspicion at the standard in which the victim was pardoned.

If there was a standard, then the victim would not be acting out of grace, but out of a neutral, personless cosmological order.

But because God have relations with his elect creation, he chooses to bestow grace- salvation. Salvation is not just a personless cosmological order either as some may envision- it is a payment of debt, something which you did not merit to receive whatsoever.

The whole problem I have with this line of thinking is that God is the one who established all the rules to begin with. He didn't have to make it a system of debt and repayment at all. He didn't have to be bothered by what humans do. He chose to be the victim. But if, like you said, he can just do whatever he wants, then I'd say I'm not a fan of this God, even if he were real.

But these kinds of explanations are exactly the sort of things that cause many non-believers to conclude that what is really going on is that men are making God in their image.
May all your disgraces be private

User Info: dhalsimrocks

dhalsimrocks
1 month ago#5
TurtleInFreedom posted...
If there seems to be a discrepancy between the testaments then you've clearly not searched and resorted to resources which show otherwise. The redemption narrative is clear within both testaments and is clear with all the symbolisms and history the testaments reveal. It would be intellectual laziness to claim that the testaments show otherwise, especially when you're living in the age of Google.

How do you know that he didn't research resources that show both sides of the argument but still came to the conclusion he did?
May all your disgraces be private

User Info: TurtleInFreedom

TurtleInFreedom
1 month ago#6
I wouldn't characterize it as a system. Relationships are built on trust and repricical feelings- it's more organic rather than systematic, as if it were a law.

User Info: DeadlyNinjaBees

DeadlyNinjaBees
1 month ago#7
I may be an atheist, but I still grew up with the bible and it's teaching etc. I'd say my biblical knowledge level is demonstrably above that of most Christians. For a person reading the thing cover to cover, you have two very distinct depictions of the same god.

As for the redemption narrative, I mean, who cares about that anymore?
The thing is, our DNA shows, very clearly, that there was NEVER a first man or woman: Humanity emerged gradually out of another species over a long, long time. There is no disputing this anymore as the evidence is profoundly incontrovertible and widely available for all to enjoy.

If there was no first man or first woman, then there could not have been an original sin. No original sin means no need for Jesus to arrive and die to redeem of us of our sins (which were put into motion via this 'original sin'). This means ALL of Christianity is demonstrably wrong as it forms it's basis on the notion of Jesus dying for our sins.

No one needs the redemption therefore the narrative is redundant. It doesn't matter what some people believe, only what actually is.
How dare you!

User Info: TurtleInFreedom

TurtleInFreedom
1 month ago#8
I'm sorry, that's an extremely poor exposition of what Christianity is about.. I don't mean to put you down or anything- I'll try and explain more of the redemption narrative and how the theology of the testaments and the doctrine of original sin work in detail in a later post.

User Info: Dancedreamer

Dancedreamer
1 month ago#9
I don't particularly care if God is "fair", I care that he exists or not. And well, he doesn't.

The book upon which Christians base their morality is abhorrent, however. It approves of slavery, views women as possessions, and glorifies a psychopathic genocidal fictional character. Essentially everyone's following Voldemort if Voldemort also claimed to be Harry Potter. And God.
This isn't funny Dean, the voice says I'm almost out of minutes!
~Alexandra
Yeah, I'm with the above user: Religion just isn't pretty anymore.
In this epoch of humanity, we have a greater lens over the top of rights issues and the way everything universally fits together. Unfortunately, whether you choose to be a believer or not, religion isn't seen as a positive force in the world anymore.

I honestly cannot think of one good religion based initiative or humanity-benefiting incentive from ANY religion that has been a factor in the news for the past two decades. Just lots and lots of child sex abuse.
How dare you!
(edited 1 month ago)
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. What some of the nonbelievers misunderstand about God, i.e. the Christian God
  • Topic Closed