CoC doctrine on authority is highly inconsistent

[KLP]

This is how I see things. The ancients commented that God's ways are not Man's ways and that His ways are inscrutable. Wanting or requiring that Man can understand and agree with God's ways before complying has been the problem from the get go. How God judges or deals with souls in the afterlife is also on His end of the stick. It was understood from the early days that relatively "few" would be "saved" ala Noah.

In any case, since there is no control case or parallel universe then there is no basis to assert that God is either under or over performing.

[chrisso99]

So now things are relative? God is defined in absolute terms. ALL powerful, ALL loving, ALL forgiving. Not somewhat powerful depending upon the circumstances.

[agricola]

Not necessarily, chrisso - a lot of that 'all/omni' stuff is either late or a later interpretation. The God in the earlier parts of the Bible isn't always 'omni'. He is a storm god out of the desert - certainly very powerful, but not necessarily ALL powerful. Not every story with God in it has God presenting as knowing everything including the future. Sometimes, but not always.

There are some interesting books out there showing a view of God that changes through time.

The OT as it sits now wasn't written consecutively in chronological order, which makes it tougher, though.

[chrisso99]

Agricola, I'm talking about CoC and fundamentalist doctrine.

[agricola]

One and almost the same - the coc was an early supporter and adherent to 'the Fundamentals of the Christian Religion' after all.

One of the 'fundamentals' was the accuracy and inerrancy of scripture. If anything, the adherents of fundamentalism became MORE rigid about how to understand 'inerrancy' over time.

the 12-volume study The Fundamentals, published 1910-1915.[18] Sponsors subsidized the free distribution of over three million individual volumes to clergy, laymen and libraries. This version[19] stressed several core beliefs, including:

The inerrancy of the Bible
The literal nature of the biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles and the Creation account in Genesis
The virgin birth of Christ
The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross

Like Princeton Theology, The Fundamentals reflected growing opposition among many evangelical Christians towards higher criticism of the Bible and modernism.

'Fundamentalism' as an idea and movement within western Christianity probably began as early as the 18th century. 'The Fundamentals' was actually a kind of 'intermediate' attempt at a reconciliation between even more extreme groups and less extreme ones within the overall movement - and I think it is no special coincidence that the Church of Christ officially was 'born' at about the same time (ca. 1910) as this set of The Fundamentals was published and distributed. Yes the split from DC/CC was precipitated by 'instrumental music' but that wasn't the whole story.

I do know my home coc had that full set of books in the church library (which wasn't all that large - maybe 500 books total) and they were highly regarded and considered 'basic' - fundamental, in fact.

[KLP]

So now things are relative? God is defined in absolute terms. ALL powerful, ALL loving, ALL forgiving. Not somewhat powerful depending upon the circumstances.

huh?
Who said anything about God defined in relative terms? I happen to accept that God is Just and that Man has free will. You asserted that His performance "sucks". I only questioned on what basis do you claim God is a failure? As compared to what...your standard and notions? Some objective standard? How exactly do you (or anyone) determine anything about the performance (failure or success) of God? To do so IMO is to elevate Man to a footing where Man gets to agree, concur, and evaluate God...which as I said, has been the problem from the get go. BTW, IMO this is how Man in effect worships himself even if Man remains in denial about the topic.

[chrisso99]

If God is perfect and possessed absolute power, logic would dictate his efforts should have perfect results in every possible circumstance. If God loves us and wants to "save" us then we should all be saved, on his first try. Furthermore we shouldn't need to be saved to begin with. Christian theology completely falls apart as absurd if God is actually what he is described to be. Hell can't exist. Jesus' sacrifice is simultaneously unnecessary and unmeaningful. Satan can't exist.

And spare me the children metaphors. We let children make mistakes because they are inevitable. I can't control their circumstances at all times. I can't "save" then all the time. I'm not all powerful eternal and perfect. If I could give my kids the ability to be infinitely happy and safe from harm, I would- without condition.

[KLP]

oh ok...so you are measuring God by your standard....OK, then yes, I agree with you then...God is a complete failure by your standard. Well that is easy.

Ya know it seems that this ranting about God being a failure could be considered by some to be a thread hijack and off-topic. I know that concerns some people, so I am going to drop this discussion on my end. Thanks.

[agricola]

It seems like half the (ahem) strong discussions about 'god' exist because what the word 'god' represents is rarely defined ahead of time, and is often totally different from person to person.

I don't think - personally - that (assuming a god exists) that it is even remotely possible to comprehend 'god' and there is no way to actually know (for certain sure, as we used to say) what that god wants, why that god did whatever that god did, etc.

Now many people will say that God could most definitely accurately convey to people all sorts of things - which immediately reveals something about their own conception of 'God'.

I'll have to stick with that Paul thing about 'through a glass, darkly', even though usually he's no favorite of mine. But I think I get what he was saying there. We can't 'see' - or understand - in anything like a clear and useful fashion.

It's our general opinion that God defines what is 'good' (as 'moral') for humans (and has the 'right' to do so, as Creator). But humans can't say what it is for God to be 'good' (moral) because moral actions are defined relative to the community, and God is unique/one and has no 'peers'. It is likely enough that such a 'being' (or the 'ground of being') also has no LANGUAGE, because a language has no use except to communicate to others - and the Creator presumably has nothing and no-one to talk to.

The corollary to that is that we can't 'judge God' or God's (presumed) actions by our standards. God is simply not on the scale of measurement(s) at all. Neither 'good' nor 'evil' nor 'strong' nor 'weak', nor 'powerful' nor 'wise' or anything else which used comparative language. What are you going to compare a unique entity TO?

Thinking you can do that sort of thing leads to those answerless questions, like 'can God create a stone too heavy for God to lift' and such like. It assumes that god-descriptions are just a magnified kind of human-person descriptions.

[agricola]

Sorry - that's pulling the discussion way off the 'coc doctrine on authority' topic.