Why can't Jesus come already?

[2Dbunk]

We've recently had innocent children gassed; school children killed enmass. pedestrians run over in large cities. So when will Jesus say "enough is enough" and come down and save those loyal to him before more of them defect to Donald Trump?

Some may think this is a dare by a disgruntled Atheist -- and they would be right! Enough of superstitious religion in everyman and woman's face, having to prove nothing but reveling and bragging about stupefying expectations. Why isn't "He" down here already, sending me to hell for my apostasy and delivering the brain dead to their ecstasy? Has anyone really thought about the multitudes just these past few weeks, that, because of their evil, will be consigned to everlasting brimstone. The Christian God and his son, knowing all this, are sadistic to the nth degree to allow it to continue. Can anyone logically defend the actions of this Dynamic Duo?

PS - I don't hate God, mainly because he doesn't exist (certainly not the personal kind, anyway).

[Bust Nak]

How can a non-omnipotent being state what an omnipotent being would (or should) do?

With logic, it is universal and apply to omnipotent and non-omnipotent beings alike. That is unless your definition of omnipotence allows the breaking of logic.

Obviously the latter. (it is also possible that you are 'building' incorrectly)

That is possible, I have offered by building steps for examination.

So then there is something wrong with "Christian teaching". I mean, is that even in doubt? The very fact that there are different sects and denominations in Christendom out there teaching opposing things, is proof that there is something wrong with "Christian teaching".

That much is easy, the hard part is getting Christian to affirm that their own version of Christianity is faulty.

There is nothing wrong, however, with Christ's teaching. But there is something wrong with what men have interpreted, or added to, or taken away from, His teaching (in word and in deed).

There is no arguing against that.

[Bust Nak]

If omnipotence is defined to mean HE can do anything that is possible to think can be done then it is wrong. HE is constrained by HIS character, HIS knowledge of what is best for us and the impossibility of doing the logically impossible.

First of all, how is this different from saying "HE can do anything that is possible to think can be done, but he would only do things that are consistent with HIS character, HIS knowledge of what is best for us?"

Secondly, isn't the "the impossibility of doing the logically impossible" bit redundant? I mean you've already qualified the whole statement with "anything that is possible..."

A wrong definition will lead to illogical consequences... How do you define omnipotence?

As typically defined by Christians: Being able to do all things logically possible.

[marco]

You would have to know something about Christian doctrine to understand this.

Moderator Comment

We'll take this as unwarranted advice, Ted, rather than an insult. We should politely take it that our adversaries here do "know something about Christian doctrine."

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 19 by tam]

How can a non-omnipotent being state what an omnipotent being would (or should) do?

Whenever I bring this up Tam, you seem to be able to tell me that because "God is love," or because the Bible says, or any number of other rationales that do not apply to an omnipotent creature.

Would you feel obligated to enforce a contract you made with your dog? Even if it were written in a book somewhere? You might find the analogy nonsense, but an omnipotent creature would be so far above us that contracting with a dog would make sense by comparison.

The bottom line is you are right:
A non-omnipotent being cannot state what an omnipotent being would (or should) do. Even if the Bible or any other reference said so.
Such a creature is simply so far above any obligation as to be meaningless.

You are talking about a creature that can defy logic and the natural world through sheer power. No rules apply, especially Judeo-Christian constraints.

[ttruscott]

Right, but the argument here is, I too know what is needed and at exactly what time certain things must be done. And I say "know" in all seriousness since I am building that knowledge up logically step by step from simple premises, which means either God did not do what is needed at the required time; or the premises I build that knowledge from are faulty.

I wish you had stated what these simple premises were so we could evaluate them.

In simple terms the 'knowledge' I have acquired about how we ended up in this state is:

1. GOD created us able to choose to be holy or evil.
2. GOD promised HE would elect, ie, choose, those who chose good so that they would end in heaven with HIM and warned that to chose evil would end them in hell, passed over for election.
3. Some chose to be evil and some chose to be good.
4. GOD commanded that those who chose good break their relationship with those who chose evil so they could be judged for this crime without harm to any elect.
5. Some of the elect rebelled at the call for judgement and became evil but still under the promise of heaven.
6. To keep from destroying those sinners under HIS promise of salvation HE postponed the judgement until they could be safely returned to their first free will decison to be good.

And the kicker:
7. HE decreed that the sinners under HIS promise, (the elect), must live on earth as humans with those condmened for their choice to be evil (non-elect) against HIS warning to learn 1. that these sinners under the promise were indeed sinful for loving those condemned and needed a saviour and 2. that to idolize those condmened already against HIS plan to judge them was not just evil but foolish as the judgement of the non-elect was an absolute necessity to ever free this reality from their pernicious influence.

By their personal experience overseen by GOD to be perfectly suited to the needs of each elect sinner, every sinful good (elect) seed will learn that only accepting in full accord HIS plan for the judgement of the non-elect will end the reign of evil over this world.

How could HIS omnipotent ability to create and destroy change this logical flow of events?

Please remember this is a simple prcis of my beliefs, NOT a full theology. What might seem like a hole in logic is probably caused by the lack of info this short prcis was under constraint to provide.

[ttruscott]

This God can't ungum the celestial pipes and get it done with?

From the context of our religion I suspect that this process of weaning HIS elect but sinful people from their love for those condemned already AND their enslavement to the addiction to evil has taken a long time because of either or both the sheer stubbornness of sinners against letting go of their sin or their frailty to being overwhelmed by rushing this process too fast causing them irreparable damage. In short, all extensions of the timeline for getting it done are due to the sinfulness of HIS elect and their needs.

As such, my faith, my unproven hope, is that every elect sinners gets the perfect life for the quickest return to faith that they can live to come into the fulfillment of HIS promise to them of salvation to heaven. Given the precepts of the religion, how could it be otherwise?

[2Dbunk]

JW, Post #10]

But I thought the OP was built on the prerequisite there is no God.

Or is your OP to discuss how inactive nothing is?

The latter. You hit the nail on the head! I discuss it as being a provocative hypothetical, trying to figure out what makes religionists tick.

ttruscott, I'm reminded how Anatole France described theology: "That science which treats the unknowable with infinitesimal exactness."

Tam's response is indicative of religionists attempt to rational their heritage, even as doubts swirl in their heads.

OVERCOMER, the danger is in religionists making something from nothing then arguing for it. I am daring a non-entity to end it all in order to make a point -- and I feel pretty safe in doing so! Sure we'll go on -- evil will continue for a long time yet, but it won't be ended by Jesus or Allah or Y------h.

[JehovahsWitness]

JW, Post #10]

But I thought the OP was built on the prerequisite there is no God.

Or is your OP to discuss how inactive nothing is?

The latter. You hit the nail on the head!

So you want us to discuss why nothing doesn't do anything? Won't that be a pretty short discussion?...but very well, nothing doesn't do anything because nothing is by definition the absence of anything.


There, I think that's settled that question.


JW

[Tcg]

...nothing doesn't do anything because nothing is by definition the absence of anything.

Which answers the question, "Why can't Jesus come already?". If Jesus was an actual man, he is long dead and has decayed into nothingness. As JW has agreed, "nothing doesn't do anything". What is now the absence of anything, and perhaps never was anything to start with, can't do anything which includes the possibility of coming back.

To sum it up, he can't come back, even if he ever was something, because he is now nothing and nothing doesn't do anything.

[2Dbunk]

Which answers the question, "Why can't Jesus come already?". If Jesus was an actual man, he is long dead and has decayed into nothingness. As JW has agreed, "nothing doesn't do anything". What is now the absence of anything, and perhaps never was anything to start with, can't do anything which includes the possibility of coming back.

To sum it up, he can't come back, even if he ever was something, because he is now nothing and nothing doesn't do anything.

Well put, Tcg! Like humor, religionist have a difficult time recognizing tongue-in-cheek rhetorical questions.