I'm just curious where, if at all, god's characteristics are actually enumerated in the bible? I'm thinking of apparently agreed upon characteristics that the christian god is supposed to have: omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc, etc.

God made us in his image...........so God probably has 98% chimp DNA as well.

Alpha....Omega....blah, blah, blah. God is reported to be all-powerful.

In truth, God is as powerful as the human imagination that created him.

All hail the mighty GOOGLE!

http://www.intoutreach.org/God.html

I noticed that website left out his little tidbit:

Romans 9:13 "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated,"

A characteristic of God CANNOT be that he is ALL loving. That much is clear. Please stop saying he is an all loving God, everyone.

A characteristic of God CANNOT be that he is ALL loving. That much is clear. Please stop saying he is an all loving God, everyone.

"I'm thinking of apparently agreed upon characteristics that the christian god is supposed to have"

I'm going by the prevailing popular consensus/thought.

All hail the mighty GOOGLE!

http://www.intoutreach.org/God.html

Thanks Kurd, that helped.

I noticed that website left out his little tidbit:

Romans 9:13 "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated,"

A characteristic of God CANNOT be that he is ALL loving. That much is clear. Please stop saying he is an all loving God, everyone.

You are being completely misleading in your quotation of scripture. You neglect to inform us that God goes on to say that even the doubters of God are still the children of God. Alot of the Christian religion has to do with a Father/Son relationship, as God is our father, sometimes a father must discipline his Son.


What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

Note: I am not a Christian so don't flame me with all sorts of "evidence" against God.

Huh? Must discipline? Wasn't he omnipotent - supposedly? You can't pick and choose when to apply that... Either he must discipline, or he doesn't have to discipline but deliberately chose to do so? Which is it?

Or are you suggesting another "characteristic" of god is that he can do the illogical?

Huh? Must discipline? Wasn't he omnipotent - supposedly? You can't pick and choose when to apply that... Either he must discipline, or he doesn't have to discipline but deliberately chose to do so? Which is it?

I was using "discipline" in the context of the Christian afterlife. We all know that if you've been good God sends you to heaven but, if you've been bad he sends you to hell. It all depends on how you acted in life.

Or are you suggesting another "characteristic" of god is that he can do the illogical?

Well I think by definition an omnipotent being doesn't have to be logical.

You neglect to inform us that God goes on to say that even the doubters of God are still the children of God. Alot of the Christian religion has to do with a Father/Son relationship, as God is our father, sometimes a father must discipline his Son.

Misleading? How? God considering Easu his son does not in ANY WAY detract from my point.

God said he hated Easu. A father can hate one son and love another. A father can discipline a son without HATING him. Most fathers actually do this. Except God of whom it is PAINFULLY OBVIOUS is not all loving.

Basically everything you suggest, does nothing to the point I made. Below is the point, feel free to ACTUALLY address it.

GOD IS NOT ALL LOVING.

I was using "discipline" in the context of the Christian afterlife. We all know that if you've been good God sends you to heaven but, if you've been bad he sends you to hell. It all depends on how you acted in life.


My objection isn't with the "discipline" part. That's actually irrelevant. It's the idea that he "must" do something that is complete incompatible with omnipotence.

He doesn't have to do anything. He can choose to not discipline people, regardless of how we define the term "discipline".


Well I think by definition an omnipotent being doesn't have to be logical.

So then how in the world can we trust those biblical passages. How can we trust something that is attempting to describe a potentially illogical being? Bringing the ability to do the illogical into the equation means there is no certainty in this biblical passages.

My objection isn't with the "discipline" part. That's actually irrelevant. It's the idea that he "must" do something that is complete incompatible with omnipotence.

He doesn't have to do anything. He can choose to not discipline people, regardless of how we define the term "discipline".

Yeah, it's called purgatory.

So then how in the world can we trust those biblical passages. How can we trust something that is attempting to describe a potentially illogical being? Bringing the ability to do the illogical into the equation means there is no certainty in this biblical passages.

Believe in them because you're told to :rolleyes:?

You are being completely misleading in your quotation of scripture.

I will say it again...........I was not being misleading, as Easu being a child of God or in a father/son relationship has nothing to do with the point.

The point is that God hated Easu, and as such, cannot be called ALL loving.

If you have anything valid to actually add, please do, but do not suggest I was being misleading for leaving out something completely irrelevant.

Yeah, it's called purgatory.

Try to make some sense, please.

Again: He doesn't have to do anything if he's omnipotent, yet you just said he must discipline. That's nonsensical, regardless of how you define "discipline".


"Yeah, it's called purgatory" doesn't answer anything I said...




Believe in them because you're told to :rolleyes:?

Which is not a very good reason at all? Awesome!

So far this thread discusses not the 'christian' god, but the posters bias regarding their interpretation of the 'christian' god which seems to be drawn from jewish, roman catholic and even jehovahs witnesses images of god. Most of the NT and the writings of other 'christian' sects, such as the Gnostics and Essenes, present a god, personified as love, a god who is defined by will, and this God's will is life everlasting.

Those who are ignorant of the metaphorical nature of the bible will never see these things, but for those who are willing to see it from another pov, the 'god' of the OT is simply a metaphor for electing to worship the rule of law rather than the spirit that inspires it.

Cheers:)

Try to make some sense, please.

Again: He doesn't have to do anything if he's omnipotent, yet you just said he must discipline. That's nonsensical, regardless of how you define "discipline".


"Yeah, it's called purgatory" doesn't answer anything I said...

Purgatory IS God not doing anything, but still delivering on the promise of an anfterlife. It is neither heaven or hell, reward or punishment, just a waiting room.

....for those who are willing to see it from another pov, the 'god' of the OT is simply inspiring fiction like Peter Pan.

Fixed and Cheers;)

Purgatory IS God not doing anything, but still delivering on the promise of an anfterlife. It is neither heaven or hell, reward or punishment, just a waiting room.

What the fuck does that have to do with the point, which is that god isn't obligated to do a certain thing? Saying that he "must discipline" like you did, is therefore completely wrong.

You cannot compare a god to a father, because a father is not omnipotent. That's the point. Your "theories" on purgatory, which isn't even explicitly stated in the bible, are irrelevant. Not to mention that sending people to purgatory, is... doing something so even your irrelevant point is wrong.

Most of the NT and the writings of other 'christian' sects, such as the Gnostics and Essenes, present a god, personified as love, a god who is defined by will, and this God's will is life everlasting.

Which in turns shows their (your) bias....


However, since the OP explicitly stated he was looking for the popular consensus, and Gnostic beliefs are sure as fuck nothing close to popular consensus...

I will say it again...........I was not being misleading, as Easu being a child of God or in a father/son relationship has nothing to do with the point.

The point is that God hated Easu, and as such, cannot be called ALL loving.

If you have anything valid to actually add, please do, but do not suggest I was being misleading for leaving out something completely irrelevant.

You were being misleading. You posted a random verse that at face value appears to support your claim of God NOT being all loving. But, if you had taken the time to look in what context the verse is being used, you would see that the Christian God doesn't infact hate Easu in the way you are implying. What you're doing is the same thing as taking a quote of John McCain saying "I DON'T support gay marriage" and editing out the don't.