it does not have to be a Robertson type comment

[dcsmart]

that gets a lashing. I and others gave some pretty strong rebukes to Jim Wallis' blog post on huffignton. I post this only to suggest that even the "good intentioned" religious comments can also have serious flaws.

God Suffers With the Suffering

When evil strikes, it's easy to ask, where is God. The answer: God is suffering in the midst of the evil with those who are suffering. Throughout the Scripture, we find a picture of a God who is with the people, even in their darkest hours. Today, in Haiti, God is suffering with those who are suffering. My prayers go out to the families who are suffering.
Text

The God I serve, the God of the Bible, does not cause evil. God is not a vengeful and retributive being, waiting to strike us down.
Text

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-wallis/god-suffers-with-the-suff_b_423853.html


dcsmart AKA David Cen C on huffington.

my response


Comments like Robertson's are on the same level as Wallis'. The "god of the bible" Mr. Wallis? The Hebrew scriptures (old testament) are filled with the images of a wrathful and angry , jealous, destructive god. Whether you read the bible literally or figuratively, there is violence everywhere. God is behind much of the destruction. So, if you follow the god of the bible, then you follow a god that causes suffering not suffers with the people. The Christian scriptures portray another idea of god, but not much better. Atonement theory is just another appalling symptom of the violence that plagues the bible as a whole. Furthermore, an idea of a suffering god that continues to suffer and does nothing to stop it is nothing more than theological masochism. Why would anyone give any allegiance or respect to something like that. To anthropomorphize god as nothing more than a fellow suffer so powerless to help itself is pathetic.
This is not the thousands of years old theodicy debate I am arguing. A notion of god and evil in the world does not have to present a problem. But, we are not talking about evil here. We are talking about an earthquake that destroyed a country. This a natural disaster that killed and is killing thousands of people . If your god is suffering with these people then that is too bad. Hopefully, aid agencies will make it there in time to save your god along with all the other suffering

[OI812]

1. Well, so much for omnipotence

grrr

[MineralMan]

2. Uh, read this, and see the true face of that god:

ISAIAH 45
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and CREATE EVIL: I the LORD do all these things.

Straight from the deity's mouth, so to speak. Read it and weep, folks who think otherwise.

[dcsmart]

3. exactly

[MineralMan]

4. Most Christians do not know the deity they worship.

It is a jealous, vindictive deity. It makes all the evil, then tells people to do what it says or they'll burn in hell forever.

No thanks. That's evidence enough for me to declare it to be non-existent. It's all randomly generated activity within the mathematics of physics. Any deities were invented by humans.

[dcsmart]

5. well, the problem

is that when people talk about god, they talk not with humility, but with hubris and an epistemological certainty that is unfounded.

[MineralMan]

6. And, most often, they talk from ignorance of their own scriptures.

I mean, if you have a scripture, purportedly dictated by the deity itself, would that seem to be the go-to place to find out the attributes of said deity?

It's all in there. The vindictiveness. The willingness to wipe out the entire population of the planet, save one family. The chutzpah to order that the "chosen" people wipe out an entire population...men, women, and children, except for one prostitute who helped the "chosen" ones out. The ugliness to wipe out two cities because they weren't hospitable enough to some of the deity's folks.

This is their deity, and boy, are they welcome to it, as far as I'm concerned. I'll have none of any such deity. And, so far, I'm still standing, too.

[Angry Dragon]

7. I fear no god...........

it is the people I worry about.

[dcsmart]

11. amen....

[dcsmart]

9. what is a shame

is that in the philosophical and theological world there are some very sophisticated ideas about god and the nature of god, but what you always end up hearing about is the evangelical-pedestrian, what i call it, ideas. I am an agnostic and trained in philosophy and the philosophy of religion and i am sympathetic to some theistic ides, but not the blather that so many hear about. There is nothing wrong for theists to question the idea of a "loving god" when tragedies like this occur, but the first problem is starting with the idea of "loving god." When you do that, there is nothing but problems which have been argued about for thousands of years.

[MineralMan]

18. Well, I'm an amateur philosopher and student of religion, focusing

primarily on the dominant religion of Europe and America. I've been studying it since I was 16 years old, some 48 years ago. I will put my knowledge of the Bible up against anyone who is not a professional theologian, and I know what is written there.

To worship the deity depicted in that scripture is, to me, anathema.

[trotsky]

8. See, that part is metaphorical.

Because I say so.

Thus ends the advanced apologetics class for the day.

[dcsmart]

10. for the most part, yes.

[MineralMan]

19. There ya go. I've been so confused. I see that now.

God is all love and kum by ya. My entire philosophy has changed. :evilgrin:

[MorningGlow]

12. Er...

I'm no longer a Christian, but even I can recognize a poetic description of the balance of the universe (yin/yang by any other name). Anthropomorphizing God as a doer-of-evil is just as bad as anthropomorphizing him as only-a-doer-of-good. God does neither; God just IS. If humans want to apply a Zeus-like personality to God, that's not God's fault.

[dcsmart]

13. yes...that is where a more sophisticated notion of god comes in

[MineralMan]

16. Or, as I believe, God is NOT.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

23. How is that any different than God not existing at all?

I believe that the universe it totally uncaring - it is incapable of any emotion or thought. Good and bad come from it just the same. A god who just lets things happen at random is the same as a god that doesn't exist.

[Sal316]

14. That's the same game the teabaggers played...

...with Psalm 109 and Obama.

Cute, intellectually and theologically dishonest, but cute.

[darkstar3]

15. Except it's not.

You see, the teabaggers were trying to apply a biblical verse to Obama that originally applied to someone else in order to try and stir up the craziest of right-wing nutzoids by giving them a reason to think God was somehow opposed to Obama.

This verse, however, is applied exactly as it should be. The entire chapter is nothing but God making claims about himself, and stating that anyone who stands against him shall fall. Sure, it's OT, which I know you Christians have some rather mysterious problems with, but the bottom line is that the God of the OT is the God of the NT, with the only distinct difference being that "begetting" Jesus seems to have mellowed him out a little.

Aside from all of that, if God IS the "creator" as so many Christians believe, then he HAD to have created evil. So what makes this verse intellectually dishonest?
(BTW: I'm not talking here about strict creationism. Many Christians believe that somehow God just "set things in motion millions of years ago" and that is why he is the creator. But the bottom line here is that the majority of Christians, whether loosely or strictly, believe in God as the creator, and therefore, he must have created everything, including evil.)

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

22. Why don't you explain it to us?

You have stated that MM's interpretation of the verse is wrong. Now tell us why.

[darkstar3]

24. Is it possible

for you to respond to me without getting personal about it?

How about instead of calling MM and myself "stubborn", "anti-theists", and "bigot{s}", you try for once to actually answer the argument put to you and avoid attacking the messenger?

I have stated, clearly, that the entirety of Isaiah 45, the context for the quote MM provided, is about God declaring his might and describing the "Woe" that would fall upon those who oppose him. Since you obviously take issue with this context, it is now your responsibility to provide the context necessary to mediate this verse into something different than what MM, myself, and CHW believe it to be.

[MineralMan]

17. Not in any way. What I quoted is the OT deity speaking directly.

It claims to have created both good and evil. If that is the case, then it caused the disaster in Haiti, the Holocaust and all other evils, starting with the Great Flood.

Read Isaiah. That is your Old Testament God, the one that is part of the triune God, according to Christianity.

The same one that wiped out the entire population of Earth, save one family, if the story is to be believe, because it wasn't worshipped properly.

Do you not see the conflict here? Either the Judeo-Christian deity is a selfish, vindictive, jealous deity or it is not. By it's own word, according to the beliefs of both Christians and Jews, it is just exactly that. I say it's bullshit and that such a deity is non-existent. And, as I said earlier, I am still standing despite my long-term blasphemy.

You may believe as you wish, but the words are right there in the Scriptures. That deity also perpetrated other genocidal escapades, and clearly states itself to be a "jealous God." And people worship such a deity? They also threw human sacrifices down volcanoes. I see no difference.

[Sal316]

21. Nice literalism.

You and Pat Robertson must be in the same book club.

You both read/interpret scripture in the same way.


BTW... I've read Isaiah..numerous times. In fact, I had an entire OT class that focused on the major prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel.

If you want to quote scripture the same way Robertson or any other megaphone-wielding, fire and brimstone street preacher would, feel free.... it's your ignorance you're putting on display.

[darkstar3]

25. You can call it whatever you want,

but until you satisfactorily answer the question of what from the Bible is to be taken as truth, and what is to be taken as metaphor, and what should be interpreted in a different context than what is provided in the Bible itself, then your simple ad hom of "you're a literalist just like Robertson" is pointless garbage.

In other words, why is your interpretation any better than anyone else's, including other DUers who post on this board?

[rd_kent]

26. .