An honest question for Christians

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by cinch
If God is omniscient, why couldn't he just *know* that Job loved him only for his blessings? Why did he have to make Job lose all of his blessings to prove this to SATAN, of all beings?? God kills Job's children to prove a point.

And when Job, a just and right man, questions why his children have died? God responds with a poetic ode to... Himself.

Like I said earlier...to lay the smack down.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by cinch
Apocalypse (or anyone, really):





Yeah, but God put Job in that position. He gave all of Job's belongings to Satan to play with, just to prove a point, and rub it in the devil's face. But, yes, it backfired.

God kinda acts immaturely in the Old Testament, eh?



Why does the Bible have to be looked at fully? It's a collection of different books, written at completely different times, by completely different people, tied together somewhat loosely by the appearance of Yahweh & friends. It seems perfectly acceptable to critique certain books and not others.

because it claims to be inspired by the same being

and if you are takign that claim seriously, you have to look at it as a whole

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by cinch
obi:



If God is omniscient, why couldn't he just *know* that Job loved him only for his blessings? Why did he have to make Job lose all of his blessings to prove this to SATAN, of all beings?? God kills Job's children to prove a point.

And when Job, a just and right man, questions why his children have died? God responds with a poetic ode to... Himself.

you know that there are others too

it was not for God's benifit that this is done, but for ours and the rest of creation that is not omniscient

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Since one of the basics of being human is being limited in power, I think it is rather contradictory that a being can be both an omnipotent/omniscient God and still be a man. The only way for God to have been really human is to be non-omnipotent, non-omniscient and have a fear of death. Did Jesus have any of these things in the Xtian mythology?

Christ deffinitely had worries

ever read about the garden?

Jon Miller

[cinch]

because it claims to be inspired by the same being
and if you are takign that claim seriously, you have to look at it as a whole

I'm satisfied by that answer.

It introduces the question, though: If you are looking at the bible, why is it okay to ignore parts of it? Like, say, some of the restrictions and rules in Leviticus? Is it simply because of decisions made by the clerics and popes and such?

Just curious.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by cinch
I'm satisfied by that answer.

It introduces the question, though: If you are looking at the bible, why is it okay to ignore parts of it? Like, say, some of the restrictions and rules in Leviticus? Is it simply because of decisions made by the clerics and popes and such?

Probably because those laws were for the Jews and not gentiles...

[Jon Miller]

once more look at the whole

the things in Leviticus pointing to Christs birth nad death were satisfied with Christs birth and death

like for example, we do not need to sacrifice any more because Christ is our sacrifice

Jon Miller

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


Christ deffinitely had worries

ever read about the garden?

Jon Miller

IIRC, he was worried about the pain of death, not potential oblivion. I don't think Jesus ever feared for his mortal soul, did he?

[Jon Miller]

I always read it that way

edit: I don't actually beleive in all this soul business (at least not as a seperate thing), but I don't think that his worries were of the pain of dying

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

it seemed far more to be the pain of the spirit thant he pain of the flesh

and 'My God, My God, Why have thou forsaken me' does not sound like the cry of a man who has no worries

Jon Miller

[cinch]

the things in Leviticus pointing to Christs birth nad death were satisfied with Christs birth and death

Probably because those laws were for the Jews and not gentiles...

So does that mean that people born before the time of Christ were more inherently evil than those who are born today? Did Christ negate original sin?

I think my main problem with christianity (in particular, as opposed to problems I have with religion in general) comes down to the fact that I have trouble reconciling the God of the old testament with the God of the new. He seems to act as two (or more) distinct beings, with different personalities, which is quite normal... for a human. But an all-knowing and all-powerful being that is not bound by time... should not change over time. God is all-loving, yet he destroys Sodom and Gomorah? This is a problem for me.

Sodomites are not worthy to live, because they fornicate and kill. Lot, on the other hand, a noble and God-fearing man, is held up as a pillar of excellence when he offers up his daughters to be raped by the townspeople. This seems to be a contradiction.

[cinch]

and 'My God, My God, Why have thou forsaken me' does not sound like the cry of a man who has no worries

Yeah, but he was not actually saying that. He was quoting... Isaiah, was it?

Obi's gonna have to help me out here, because I'm not certain on the specifics...

But I do know that "why hath thou forsaken me?" is a line from a very famous (especially at the time) prophecy.

[Alexander's Horse]

The Old Testament God makes more sense when you are a father

[Jon Miller]

God is a god of both justice and mercy

God also judges the heart not the outward actions

there were not 10 people in all the city who were righteous

and if you consider it, isn't it a much bigger deal all those who are not being given enternal life? I mean that seems to be a much bigger death list than Sodom and Gomorah

Jon Miller

[Bosh]

the things in Leviticus pointing to Christs birth nad death

What things?

He seems to act as two (or more) distinct beings, with different personalities

Good point. What also always confuses me is that people always seem to think that the NT one is nicer than the OT. The OT one seems to be able to transcend his nasty combo of bipolarity and OCD to be a nice guy at times and even surprisingly openminded in his own way and even when he's in a bad mood he doesn't do anything worse than kill you and everyone you love. The NT one, on the other hand, seems to be a really twisted stalker-type who's into S&M.