What is your story?

[Aaron]

God started out the bible changing the rules

It seems like God gave rules (perhaps guidelines is a more fitting term) for us to follow for our own good and those changed according to the situation at hand (different rules in Eden, different rules after God made his covenant with Israel, different rules after Jesus died and probably different rules in the new heaven and the new earth). However I can't see how God's position on sin - the thing which the Bible says affected our relation to him - has ever changed. Once introduced sin has always been a problem which needed a remedy. It was not as though God said at first, "Sin is something I cannot allow into my presence and it will be a barrier between me and humans until it is removed", and then after a while changed his mind and said, "Ah well I see now sin is just part of what humans are, I can let some stuff slide and just accept you for who you are". That seems to me to be what Sam had in mind, that God just stop being such a stickler and just let go of his stance on perfection, to change his rules.

[Aaron]

That's the problem with a god who can do anything. He can do anything and you can't competently argue why he wouldn't do it. All existence could be nothing more than a cosmic joke god is playing like a bored child, just to see what happens, and no theist has any grounding to argue differently, other than they speciously say he doesn't because he loves us or whatever.

No that your problem. The man who keeps his wife as a slave would say, "That's the problem with a woman who can do anything. She could do anything and you can't competently argue why she would do it. Our relationship could be nothing more than a joke she's playing like a bored child, just to see what happens and I have don't have any grounding to argue differently, other than she speciously says she doesn't because she loves me or whatever".

Real life relationships require trust and love. You know that. It is scary to become to another entirely vulnerable, but how can real love and trust exist otherwise? It does not mean you abandon all of your sense and reason.

[Keep The Reason]

No that your problem. The man who keeps his wife as a slave would say, "That's the problem with a woman who can do anything. She could do anything and you can't competently argue why she would do it. Our relationship could be nothing more than a joke she's playing like a bored child, just to see what happens and I have don't have any grounding to argue differently, other than she speciously says she doesn't because she loves me or whatever".

Real life relationships require trust and love. You know that. It is scary to become to another entirely vulnerable, but how can real love and trust exist otherwise? It does not mean you abandon all of your sense and reason.

A wife (or husband or any other variation of a significant other) is there, exists, and speaks up. She can externalize her position and make it clear to anyone. I make myself vulnerable to my wife, my friends and family, and my community on a regular basis, and you know, she and they actually respond to me in a real physical way, and I get feedback on the actual real relationship.

Let me know when your god physically, actually and demonstrably does the same, and I'll invite him over my house. I've even pay his airfare, if he wishes. But he actually has to show up. This can't just be some nothing you point to and declare "he does speak" or a book you claim is him speaking.

[Aaron]

You've changed your complaint from a God who can do anything and therefore can't be trusted (I assume that's a fair summary) to a complaint about not being able to experience God as you would a person. They aren't the same thing as far as I can tell. That's called setting up a straw man I think. Unless I've missed something.

[Keep The Reason]

You've changed your complaint from a God who can do anything and therefore can't be trusted (I assume that's a fair summary) to a complaint about not being able to experience God as you would a person. They aren't the same thing as far as I can tell. That's called setting up a straw man I think. Unless I've missed something.

It's not a "changed complaint". There are many "complaints" about the assertion of a god, and they don't change as much as they stack up. This is one of those things I consider a "theist trick". You act as if one failing of the theistic worldview is different from another failing of it, and try to swap back and forth.

A "god that can do anything" (but then has a list of weird limits or is "untrustworthy") is a different issue than a "god who doesn't make himself directly known" -- but both (and many dozens more) are legitimate reasons to discard the specious assertions of theists who claim god exists.

[humanguy]

Why would God care about a person in the world crying foul if He were to choose to change the rules, rules that He made up in the first place? Why would God care about a human thinking that God couldn't handle reality as it is? For that matter, He wouldn't be much of a God, would He, if He couldn't handle the reality that He Himself made?

So is there any validity to her question? I can't see exactly where you are trying to go.

Where I'm trying to go is to see your answers to my three questions. It is noted that you cheaply dodged those questions. Now why would you do that?

[mitchellmckain]

Why would God care about a person in the world crying foul if He were to choose to change the rules, rules that He made up in the first place? Why would God care about a human thinking that God couldn't handle reality as it is? For that matter, He wouldn't be much of a God, would He, if He couldn't handle the reality that He Himself made?

So is there any validity to her question? I can't see exactly where you are trying to go.

Where I'm trying to go is to see your answers to my three questions. It is noted that you cheaply dodged those questions. Now why would you do that?

Well then by all means lets answer the questions.

1. He should care because such inconsistency doesn't make any sense. Why make the rules in the first place if you are going to break them? Did He or did He not make the rules for a reason? And if He made them for a reason then what happened to the reason for making the rule when He supposedly broke them? Cannot God make up his mind? Has God no integrity to stick to His decisions? If there is a good reason to make exceptions then why did He not see that reason to begin with and if so then why not include this exception in the rule itself? I think the reason for the rules is that they are necessary for the existence of life itself and I certainly don't think that God is going to act against such necessities just because some human doesn't like what happens, but that God will do what He can for those whom He loves within those limitations that He has imposed on HImself for the sake of life itself.

2. God should care about human thinking if it is correct not because a human is thinking it but because the reasons are good and the logic is sound.

3. No He wouldn't be much of a God if could not see the consequences of the rules which He makes and thus be unable to make good rules which He Himself could abide by and then He wouldn't be much of a God if He couldn't then abide by such good rules.

God started out the bible changing the rules

It seems like God gave rules (perhaps guidelines is a more fitting term) for us to follow for our own good and those changed according to the situation at hand (different rules in Eden, different rules after God made his covenant with Israel, different rules after Jesus died and probably different rules in the new heaven and the new earth).

Yes parental commands are very different from the natural laws by which God has made it possible for life itself to exist. These are indeed guidelines that are meant for children to follow when they are at the stage of development in which they are in. Thus a command to our children not to touch the stove or to go in the street are certainly not meant to be commands which they must obey the whole of their lives but only until they understand the dangers involved. The fact is that human beings have been changing and learning and thus the guidlines which they needed at one stage of development are not necessarily going to applicable for all time.

Childish complaints that parents are changing the rules when they have broken the rules are typical of the whining two year olds who don't want to face up the consequences of their own actions.

However I can't see how God's position on sin - the thing which the Bible says affected our relation to him - has ever changed. Once introduced sin has always been a problem which needed a remedy.

Yes bad habits which destroy our free will and potentiality remain bad habits to be avoided because there are consequences to them that continue to be detrimental.

It was not as though God said at first, "Sin is something I cannot allow into my presence and it will be a barrier between me and humans until it is removed", and then after a while changed his mind and said, "Ah well I see now sin is just part of what humans are, I can let some stuff slide and just accept you for who you are". That seems to me to be what Sam had in mind, that God just stop being such a stickler and just let go of his stance on perfection, to change his rules.

But let us be clear however that God did not say any such thing as "Sin is something I cannot allow into my presence" and it is certainly NOT consistent with the behavior of Jesus. So although thinking that God would say such a thing as this is consistent with the religion of the Pharisees it is NOT consistent with anything that can be called Christian. Thus the self-righteousness of the gnostic legalism is NOT Christianity and has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus, however much they may say "Lord, Lord" and that they are doing things in His name.

But it is certainly true that some of the bad habits of human beings, such as the will to blame everything but ourselves for the consequences of our own actions, is barrier between God and human beings because it makes God presence and involvement in their lives something which can no longer be to their benefit.

[Keep The Reason]

1. He should care because such inconsistency doesn't make any sense. Why make the rules in the first place if you are going to break them? Did He or did He not make the rules for a reason? And if He made them for a reason then what happened to the reason for making the rule when He supposedly broke them? Cannot God make up his mind? Has God no integrity to stick to His decisions? If there is a good reason to make exceptions then why did He not see that reason to begin with and if so then why not include this exception in the rule itself? I think the reason for the rules is that they are necessary for the existence of life itself and I certainly don't think that God is going to act against such necessities just because some human doesn't like what happens, but that God will do what He can for those whom He loves within those limitations that He has imposed on HImself for the sake of life itself.

An omni-type god circumvents all of these anthropomorphic utilities. None of these make sense when applied to such a being. "Rules"? He makes the rules any way he wants them. Consistency means nothing to an omnipotent god any more than "inconsistent" means anything-- why be "consistent" or not? Why invent the idea or its reverse in the first place? What is gained from it? Neither consistency nor inconsistency can surprise or matter to an omni-god anyway.

What does "integrity" mean to a being who created integrity (or not) out of nothingness in the first place?

Why bother with life?

Why bother with existence?

Theists cannot answer these questions. What they do is thrust god into a human-like model with needs, wants, desires, expectations -- even though this is completely unneccessary and illogical to apply to an eternal being that created things like the concept of need and necessity and desire and goals out of nothing.

2. God should care about human thinking if it is correct not because a human is thinking it but because the reasons are good and the logic is sound.

God invented caring. God invented sound, logic and reasons. He could invent them in ways completely different from what we see today and we wouldn't know the difference. And the outcome wouldn't matter to him because if he somehow got surprised by the outcome he merely has to think it differently, and so it shall be. Again-- slather god with anthropomrphic characteristics, and you create an illusion that god is in some way behilden to them or that they matter at all.

3. No He wouldn't be much of a God if could not see the consequences of the rules which He makes and thus be unable to make good rules which He Himself could abide by and then He wouldn't be much of a God if He couldn't then abide by such good rules.

He could but he could change them to whatever he wants, or make them not exist, or make them exist in some different manner and you wouldn't have a clue they were different. Your entire reply is easily dismantled by the fact that such a being, if it existed, is beholden to none of it, and you simply grant yourself the luxury to deifne this being who can have no wants or desires or needs whatsoever, somehow has wants needs and desires He created the very concepot of wants, needs, and desires. How can he be lacking and need them fulfilled? He can't.

[humanguy]

Why would God care about a person in the world crying foul if He were to choose to change the rules, rules that He made up in the first place? Why would God care about a human thinking that God couldn't handle reality as it is? For that matter, He wouldn't be much of a God, would He, if He couldn't handle the reality that He Himself made?

1. He should care because such inconsistency doesn't make any sense. Why make the rules in the first place if you are going to break them? Did He or did He not make the rules for a reason? And if He made them for a reason then what happened to the reason for making the rule when He supposedly broke them? Cannot God make up his mind? Has God no integrity to stick to His decisions? If there is a good reason to make exceptions then why did He not see that reason to begin with and if so then why not include this exception in the rule itself? I think the reason for the rules is that they are necessary for the existence of life itself and I certainly don't think that God is going to act against such necessities just because some human doesn't like what happens, but that God will do what He can for those whom He loves within those limitations that He has imposed on HImself for the sake of life itself.

How do you know that inconsistency doesn't make sense to God?

2. God should care about human thinking if it is correct not because a human is thinking it but because the reasons are good and the logic is sound.

What are those reasons?

Which logic is sound?

3. No He wouldn't be much of a God if could not see the consequences of the rules which He makes and thus be unable to make good rules which He Himself could abide by and then He wouldn't be much of a God if He couldn't then abide by such good rules.

No he wouldn't, would he?

[Rhino]

God started out the bible changing the rules

It seems like God gave rules (perhaps guidelines is a more fitting term) for us to follow for our own good and those changed according to the situation at hand (different rules in Eden, different rules after God made his covenant with Israel, different rules after Jesus died and probably different rules in the new heaven and the new earth).

Yes parental commands are very different from the natural laws by which God has made it possible for life itself to exist. These are indeed guidelines that are meant for children to follow when they are at the stage of development in which they are in. Thus a command to our children not to touch the stove or to go in the street are certainly not meant to be commands which they must obey the whole of their lives but only until they understand the dangers involved. The fact is that human beings have been changing and learning and thus the guidlines which they needed at one stage of development are not necessarily going to applicable for all time.

Childish complaints that parents are changing the rules when they have broken the rules are typical of the whining two year olds who don't want to face up the consequences of their own actions.

It's so clear when taken out of context. Let me put it back in.

God started out the bible changing the rules. Gen. 1 any tree or animal my be eaten for meat. Gen. 2 any tree but...

These were two different creation stories so I will withdraw this as a point of argument. Perhsps you could explain why one day it is ok to eat pork and not the next and why it does not seem to apply any more.

[mitchellmckain]

Well I wasn't really talking to you. I ignored your posts as not even worth replying to. So your original question isn't really relevant as far a I am concerned.

God started out the bible changing the rules. Gen. 1 any tree or animal my be eaten for meat. Gen. 2 any tree but...

These were two different creation stories so I will withdraw this as a point of argument. Perhsps you could explain why one day it is ok to eat pork and not the next and why it does not seem to apply any more.

Why are you making stuff up? You seem to know that this is two different creation stories so why are you making this stuff about rules on two different days? But regardless the explanation I already gave is totally applicable or are you feeding us this utterly absurd nonsense about how a parent sets down the rules for their children all at once? LOL Of course they are explained over time with clarifications continually being added as time goes on. So the question is WHY are you so desperately pushing this ridiculous bogus argument? It is because for some reason you so desperately want it not to make sense in some way so that you feel that you have to ignore the obvious and make stuff up in order to fabricate supposed inconsistencies that are so incredibly silly that a child can see through them.

Perhsps you could explain why one day it is ok to eat pork and not the next and why it does not seem to apply any more.

Perhaps you can tell me why it is good to eat beef in Britain one day and the next they are destroying all the cattle so that nobody would eat them? eh?

P.S. Stuff in color is retracted in response to Rhino's subsequent retraction. It was a simple mistake he explains and so my speculation of ulterior motives is clearly unfounded.

[Aaron]

You've changed your complaint from a God who can do anything and therefore can't be trusted (I assume that's a fair summary) to a complaint about not being able to experience God as you would a person. They aren't the same thing as far as I can tell. That's called setting up a straw man I think. Unless I've missed something.

It's not a "changed complaint". There are many "complaints" about the assertion of a god, and they don't change as much as they stack up. This is one of those things I consider a "theist trick". You act as if one failing of the theistic worldview is different from another failing of it, and try to swap back and forth.

A "god that can do anything" (but then has a list of weird limits or is "untrustworthy") is a different issue than a "god who doesn't make himself directly known" -- but both (and many dozens more) are legitimate reasons to discard the specious assertions of theists who claim god exists.

You see many problems. Fine. It is not productive to offer a complaint, have me offer a response and then instead of issuing your yea or nay on that response go and make a completely different complaint. This seems quite clear to me. Straw man.

[Aaron]

Where I'm trying to go is to see your answers to my three questions. It is noted that you cheaply dodged those questions. Now why would you do that?

I thought my question to you was quite a good response, not a dodge. Let me try another way. Sam asked why God couldn't just change the rules. Now I assume you believe her question is quite a valid one and if there really was a God that he should have to answer it. Because of that I cannot understand why you wouldn't feel the same way about a person in my made up world who asks my question. Hence my reply to you in the form of a question, "So is there any validity to her question?".

Because if you think her question is a valid one then I cannot understand why you would have even asked what you did about mine. So I felt in order to really continue on I had to know where you were about. Of course you can keep that to your self if you like.

[humanguy]

Where I'm trying to go is to see your answers to my three questions. It is noted that you cheaply dodged those questions. Now why would you do that?

I thought my question to you was quite a good response, not a dodge. Let me try another way. Sam asked why God couldn't just change the rules. Now I assume you believe her question is quite a valid one and if there really was a God that he should have to answer it. Because of that I cannot understand why you wouldn't feel the same way about a person in my made up world who asks my question. Hence my reply to you in the form of a question, "So is there any validity to her question?".

Because if you think her question is a valid one then I cannot understand why you would have even asked what you did about mine. So I felt in order to really continue on I had to know where you were about. Of course you can keep that to your self if you like.

There are just...so many things I'd like to say.

[Keep The Reason]

What's stoppin' ya?