I do not believe we have that capacity at all - and, as I posted earlier, even Paul in the bible tells how he fails to do what he wants to do - and does the things he doesn’t want to do.
For example, human emotions like love, sexual yearnings, hate, bitterness, envy etc will often determine what we actually do in spite of how strongly we do not wish to. And that, surely, is what lies behind remorse, regret, bad conscience, guilt, repentance, etc.
I do not think that we always have a clear and free choice in such matters or even such a clear control over our actions.
But I also think it is not what we actually do that counts, but what we truly want to do if only we could.
For example, if a person sees an act of street violence and feels he should intercede, but doesn’t for fear over his own safety, is he condemned for not doing the right thing or blessed for knowing in his heart what he should do in spite of his weakness that prevents him doing it?
Sometimes, life is much simpler and logical without the “god” element getting in the way! Which, afterall, is the title of this thread: “The problem is GOD yes or no?”
Thanks for the effort @SmallPaul, I do appreciate the input, really! But…
No, I cannot accept that. In the same way that I cannot accept that all the evil in the world is the fault of one couple in the shape of Adam and Eve. I can never see that anyone should suffer as a result of other people’s erroneous ways.
And again, it is the sheer extent of the suffering and not just the fact of it that creates doubt over a loving god.
Again, I accept that good can come out of bad - but that does not explain why it has to be that way round in the first place. Are we to accept that god had no other, less painful, way of convincing his creation of his existence?
He created us and therefore controlled how we function. Ultimately it is all his responsibility, the whole thing - the ability to do wrong and the consequences of doing so.
What I do not see is why he made it that way and how a loving god could even premeditate creating such scenarios for those he apparently loves. It is all so unnecessary!
As a side issue here. We often look at nature as beautiful and wondrous. But under the surface it is even more barbaric and brutal than humanity. Take, for example, those parasitic creatures that stun their victims, lay their eggs in their still-living bodies, which then turn into larvae that proceed to eat the victim alive from the inside outwards - and we say cannibalism is evil!
Thanks. I wish to know nothing more about Christianity or any religion because they are all based on the premise that there are gods who are immortal, non-corporeal, who possess powers beyond human abilities and who can affect or create or destroy life on earth. I don’t accept there are any immortal sentient beings of this description, i.e. no gods.
Sorry, @tommor, I know you addressed this to @Dennis3450 but it strikes a chord with me too!
It is extremely irritating how the church changes its views from one generation to another. In the current era we are living the loving grandaddy, marshmallow god who just dishes out grace. we don’t talk about hell and the devil anymore! In the same way, angels are charmingly pretty little girls with innocent smiley faces.
But the angels of the bible are something totally different, as is hell and the devil. In earlier eras the devil and hell played a much bigger role in the church voice to its congregations.
We see this change in many forms. For example, in earlier times suicides could not be buried in a church cemetary. Suspected witches were burnt or drowned. Perhaps the most recent example is the churches’ attitude towards sexual minorities. For centuries the churches condemned these based on biblical scriptures. But nowadays they are accepted under the heading of humanitarian, equality, and understanding, and love. Which is all fine - but the church never admits that they “got it wrong” before or that the bible verses are mistaken or no longer valid, etc.
The church and its pastors are not necessarily the best place to expect the real answers!
You mean regarding accepting sexual minorites?
From wikipedia: " While throughout the majority of Christian history, most Christian theologians and denominations have considered homosexual behavior as immoral or sinful, today, various Christian denominations are accepting of homosexuality and transgender identity and inclusive of homosexual and transgender people, such as the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church, United Church of Christ, and the [Metropolitan Community Church."
To mention just a few denominations/churches.
I stress that I am not stating any personal view on this, only that it demonstrates an example of a reversal in church teaching without explaining why their earlier condemnation based on scripture was apparently wrong.
There are a number of denominations that include blessings for minority couples and even weddings.
I would just like to see someone take the responsibility for the churches’ earlier condemnation of this, which has caused untold suffering for such minorities for centuries - and in some cases even led to physical harm.
There are churches that still condemn such behavior, just as they condemn murderers, rapists, and thieves, but they welcome everyone, since the church is supposed to help sinners change their behavior.
Its understandable that the church has previously condemned what is saw as deliberately non-conformist and unsanctioned behaviours. In those times, homosexuality was seen as a life-choice or wilful sexual perversion, not as an innate biological fact of life. Its good that the church has accepted current scientific knowledge of what homosexuality is. Nobody can be condemned because of their biology.
Nevertheless, the church’s holy texts remain frozen in time, which doesn’t say much for their value as spiritual guidance.
Exactly! And this is a constant problem for the Christian churches. Personally, I think it is right and correct to accept these situations within the definition of normal but old habits die hard amongst congregational veterans who have for years relied on the church teachings for their guidance - and it does not help that the churches are too scared to stand up and say that their understanding of those fairly explicit verses has now changed. How can they lean on scriptural guidance as the unchanging word of the god when they can, apparently, change it as and when they like?
I have heard one (non-church) explanation which I kind of like and find plausible justification:- In those times when scripture was written homosexuality was not actually recognised as a specific form of relationship between persons. But homosexual acts were sometimes part of some temple rituals and services as well as in general life. It is suggested therefore that the texts in the bible are only referring to such same-sex acts as being a form of lust rather than based on love. I don’t know, it is the best explanation (or get-out :D) that I have heard so far that retains some kind of plausibility for these particular verses.
If a church is prepared to allow its pastors to officially give “god’s blessing,” and even wed, same-sex couples then I think they also need to justify why this is now ok in the eyes of god.
If a person is convinced of scientific knowledge but disagrees with what it said about Covid, they can believe one thing and disbelieve another based on their personal feelings.
This is no different from a pastor who believes in God, but changes his stance on homosexuality based on his personal feelings
There can’t be disagreement about what covid is or what it does - these things are matters of scientific fact, and scientific fact is not a matter of conscience or opinion.
Where there’s lots of room for disagreement is in regards to the policies instituted to deal with covid.
I agree. If the pastor always regarded homosexuality as a sin because that was what the bible said, and because science could not say anything different, then at that time he was acting correctly. He was true to his religion’s teachings and did not seek to disbelieve any established scientific fact.
However, modern science now understands that homosexuality is an unconscious innate biological state, not a personal choice. So if he changes his ideas on homosexuality being a sin and accepts it as a human condition, that’s fine by me. What that does to the value of the bible is not my concern.
It doesn’t matter, people here have started threads disagreeing with Covid based on their personal beliefs, I’m talking about a disagreement against their personal beliefs in something
