Violence belongs to man, not to God. So the one who slashed the tires is man. — Agustino
Nope. — Agustino
Yes, what's the problem with that? All the works of evil are man's (and Satan's) not God's. That's what the Bible shows. — Agustino
because God doesn't make us feel better about our actions or what is done to us, but quite the opposite - God puts all the blame on us - it is revealed that we are behind the evil that is around us. — Agustino
What if the story is told from the perspective of man, and thus from the perspective of the criminal? What if man expelled God but transfers this expulsion onto God? The Prologue to John's Gospel does reveal that the Logos was expelled by man - that He was rejected and refused, and it asks us to read the OT in light of the NT.So eating the fruit of knowledge is equivalent to man doing violence? Disobedience perhaps, but violence I think not. — Frank Barroso
At least not to redefine Him as my Absolute Source of being, meaning, and virtue — MysticMonist
Let me see if I understand you correctly. You objected to me using the word God to describe a range of possible meanings (because I lack certainty on exactly what/who God is), but you don't object if it use it to describe a First Cause or Source of being? — MysticMonist
Just because there is a First Cause doesn't mean it's a diety. I do agree theists hold that God is the first cause, but the terms are not synonymous. — MysticMonist
God puts all the blame on us - it is revealed that we are behind the evil that is around us. — Agustino
Otherwise, in a world created out of love it is a real problem for us due to our limited understanding. — Janus
No. Because your response ignored my basic premise and argued as if it was false. God's love is perceived to be the greatest threat by those who are unloving and violent - just like it was by the Pharisees. This doesn't mean they are correct though, they just have a distorted perception and they input their own violence to God.Now, are you going to respond to my response to you that was on topic? — Noble Dust
At this they covered their ears, cried out in a loud voice, and rushed together at him. They dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. — Acts 7:57-58
No. Because your response ignored my basic premise and argued as if it was false. — Agustino
No. Blame cannot be put - that is merely an expression of speech. Blame always exists on the guilty party - the guilty party places it themselves through their actions. God merely reveals it to us, because we cover our eyes and ears not to see it.the other an action of God — Noble Dust
Both are it. I've clarified what I meant by explaining that blame cannot be laid on someone, it is an objective fact, at most it can be revealed. To lay it on someone would be to lie presumably.What? I quoted a post from a few days ago. Specifically, the quote upon which my response to you was based. Now you quote something you said a few minutes ago. Which is it? — Noble Dust
That's a figure of speech meant to show that he reveals that the blame is on us. So no, God doesn't take this thing called blame that isn't already on us and puts it there.So God doesn't "put the blame on us"? — Noble Dust
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.