Could I invite any Christians please to answer ...

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As stated, the questions are easily answered when armed with the truth about God's character. These threads aren't conducive for such a lesson--- but that doesn't mean I haven't tried in other posts. In fact, there exists a thread which I spent considerable time and effort in covering this very topic, but the results were yet another side-track.

To fu ...[text shortened]... understand the doctrines or share them when half of the equation has rejected the Christ.

...and there endeth the dialogue, since as soon as you appeal to the notion that you have to wear believer-goggles to really see the truth, sensible dialogue is impossible. You have abjectly failed to offer a coherent answer whilst claiming the exact opposite. A pity.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
...and there endeth the dialogue, since as soon as you appeal to the notion that you have to wear believer-goggles to really see the truth, sensible dialogue is impossible. You have abjectly failed to offer a coherent answer whilst claiming the exact opposite. A pity.

You're asserting something that simply isn't true. While it is true that only believers are able to comprehend the doctrines of God, the gospel is a category of truth specifically designed only for unbelievers. Here, an unbeliever can really see the truth and that without the benefit of any type of goggle.

What your position essentially boils down to is that somehow you (or anyone else, for that matter) possess a superior sense of righteousness than what is assumed to be in God's possession.

What isn't being considered is that most critical first step, the one wherein you must first gain life. Without that life, you're dead in the water--- no pun intended. The most important thing to consider is life and your lack of it. On the one hand, God offers life while on the other, you need it. Whether or not some hypothetical "innocent" suffers "unnecessarily" is really none of anyone's concern but the hypothetical innocent's. Those who try to make an issue of it are merely attempting to divert the focus from their need to God's supposed shortcomings.

Truly, they're simply wanting the game to go by their rules, not God's, as though they know better than He what the important issues are. A touch arrogant, don't you think?

In the good news, that problem is addressed: life is offered. Start there.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You're asserting something that simply isn't true. While it is true that only believers are able to comprehend the doctrines of God, the gospel is a category of truth specifically designed only for unbelievers. Here, an unbeliever can really see the truth and that without the benefit of any type of goggle.

What your position essentially boils down to ...[text shortened]... k?

In the good news, that problem is addressed: life is offered. Start there.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You're asserting something that simply isn't true.
What I'm asserting, I believe to be true, and I can point to the evidence to support it, namely the posts on this thread, in the public domain.

What your position essentially boils down to is that somehow you (or anyone else, for that matter) possess a superior sense of righteousness than what is assumed to be in God's possession.
No. If an entity such as the god to which you allude exists, then by definition, god is sovereign and is the standard by which we judge the good, or the rightous.

You seem not to have noticed that I have taken care to make this clear. How come you didn't notice? Is it because you are on apologist's autopilot? :-)

I'll try to explain again:
1) You can't give full and coherent solutions to the Problem of Evil and the Problem of Suffering. The evidence for this is the lack of such on this thread, instead you have offered arguments consisting in partial and problematic appeals to free will and the eventual retreat to believer-goggles.

2) Whilst unable to offer an adequate solution, you have claimed that the solution is easily delivered. Again, your posts are evidence here.

3) I have said that I regard the most honest and effective christian response to be The Book Of Job Defense. Despite this, in this latest post you are presenting a version of The Book Of Job Defense as if it were news to me. Time to rethink your arguments in my view.

Truly, they're simply wanting the game to go by their rules, not God's, as though they know better than He what the important issues are. A touch arrogant, don't you think?
This is a version of the Book of Job Defense. It is the inevitable line a christian takes if they don't want to lose in debates about the POE and POS. I pointed this out several posts ago. WAKE UP!

Originally posted by mazda9934
Please bring to mind your image of God.

Then, please tell me why he allows very small children to suffer and die ??

(No one has EVER given me a plausible answer to this question)

There is no god.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You're asserting something that simply isn't true.
What I'm asserting, I believe to be true, and I can point to the evidence to support it, namely the posts on this thread, in the public domain.

What your position essentially boils down to is that somehow you (or anyone else, for that matter) possess a sup ...[text shortened]... /b] in debates about the POE and POS. I pointed this out several posts ago. WAKE UP!

No. If an entity such as the god to which you allude exists, then by definition, god is sovereign and is the standard by which we judge the good, or the rightous.
If this were the case, then there would be no argument about the so-called "problem" of evil. If no one was second-guessing God's handling in the current situation, there simply would be nothing but agreement with His standards!

... instead you have offered arguments consisting in partial and problematic appeals to free will...
I've done no such thing. Not once have I appealed to free will; in fact, just the opposite. My statement was along the lines that free will existed before the Fall and will exist in the future perfect state.

The Book Of Job Defense. Despite this, in this latest post you are presenting a version of The Book Of Job Defense as if it were news to me.
Actually, Job's conclusion was a resigned sigh, as though it was all just so inscrutable. Hardly the case offered by me.

What you are failing to see is what has been plainly stated, i.e., that the arguments offered are assuming a higher standard of fair or righteousness than what is currently--- and seemingly--- being observed by God's action/inaction.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]No. If an entity such as the god to which you allude exists, then by definition, god is sovereign and is the standard by which we judge the good, or the rightous.
If this were the case, then there would be no argument about the so-called "problem" of evil. If no one was second-guessing God's handling in the current situation, there simply w ...[text shortened]... usness than what is currently--- and seemingly--- being observed by God's action/inaction.[/b]

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If this were the case, then there would be no argument about the so-called "problem" of evil. If no one was second-guessing God's handling in the current situation, there simply would be nothing but agreement with His standards!
Apart from us being miserable sinners that might be the case.

I've done no such thing. Not once have I appealed to free will;
You said it was a partial solution. Then you went back to insisting that answers had been given, but without offering a coherent account of what they are.

Actually, Job's conclusion was a resigned sigh, as though it was all just so inscrutable. Hardly the case offered by me.
You are confusing the biblical account of Job's response with The Book Of Job Defense. The latter basically makes the case that since god's plan is beyond our understanding, it is not for us to call god to account for evil and suffering in the world.

What you are failing to see is what has been plainly stated, i.e., that the arguments offered are assuming a higher standard of fair or righteousness than what is currently--- and seemingly--- being observed by God's action/inaction.
I'm not sure what you mean here.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If this were the case, then there would be no argument about the so-called "problem" of evil. If no one was second-guessing God's handling in the current situation, there simply would be nothing but agreement with His standards!
Apart from us being miserable sinners that might be the case.

I've done no su ...[text shortened]... ingly--- being observed by God's action/inaction.
I'm not sure what you mean here.[/b]

Apart from us being miserable sinners that might be the case.
This has nothing to do with the argument. The argument from the PoE is one that relies on evil's existence in order to make its case. If indeed God's righteousness were known by man and the same was used as the ultimate standard by man, there would be no argument!

Then you went back to insisting that answers had been given, but without offering a coherent account of what they are.
Whenever you have two wills co-existing, there will always be a "failure" of some sort on the part of one, the other or both. But that doesn't answer the question of the PoE.

One can only answer the issues when one is armed with the relevant information. In this situation, one must know more than just generalities about God's character; one must know the particulars of each one and how they interact with other aspects of His character.

To be half-armed is to end up half-assed.

You are confusing the biblical account of Job's response with The Book Of Job Defense.
Apparently I'm not confused at all, because you just repeated what I had stated: namely that the Book of Job resolves the issue with a resigned sigh over the inscrutable nature of the whole situation.

Clearly, this summation was not the end of the conversation, as God more fully describes both His character and what that means to man's current condition in the other 65 books of the Bible.

I'm not sure what you mean here.
Man looks around at the carnage of this world and compares the same to his concept of one aspect of God's character (for example), His justice. Man cannot reconcile his view of justice with the carnage surrounding him, and concludes that God cannot be just--- even though he believes God to be the standard for justice.

This double-minded thinking leads to all manner of contortion, philosophically-speaking... unless he can somehow reconcile the differing notions within his thinking. The only way such reconciliation can occur is for man to know the true nature of God's whole character, not simply one aspect viewed through a prism influenced by himself.

So, back to believer-goggles!

I think we have been talking at crossed purposes. Your answer simply boils down to "one must know the particulars of each one and how they interact with other aspects of His character. "

So can you give a coherent account of this then? Give us those particulars of the aspects of god's character and how they relate to each other. Then we'll understand why there is evil and suffering.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
So, back to believer-goggles!

I think we have been talking at crossed purposes. Your answer simply boils down to "one must know the particulars of each one and how they interact with other aspects of His character. "

So can you give a coherent account of this then? Give us those particulars of the aspects of god's character and how they relate to each other. Then we'll understand why there is evil and suffering.

So, back to believer-goggles!
That's quite a statement, since your example already has God as the ultimate standard of righteousness. How in the world does an unbeliever arrive at such a conclusion, exactly?


Give us those particulars of the aspects of god's character and how they relate to each other. Then we'll understand why there is evil and suffering.
Given that God is, indeed, the ultimate standard in all aspects of what constitutes holiness, what is the logical course of action in the case that one of His creatures trespasses against Him?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That's quite a statement, since your example already has God as the ultimate standard of righteousness. How in the world does an unbeliever arrive at such a conclusion, exactly?
That's simple, if the god described by christianity exists then god is the standard by which good is measured regardless of whether we, as miserable sinners decide or realise that this is what is to be done.

Given that God is, indeed, the ultimate standard in all aspects of what constitutes holiness, what is the logical course of action in the case that one of His creatures trespasses against Him?
I don't know, I'm not god. Stop changing the subject and clearly articulate those particulars or have the good grace to withdraw your argument and admit that you cannot meaningfully specify them.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Apart from us being miserable sinners that might be the case.
This has nothing to do with the argument. The argument from the PoE is one that relies on evil's existence in order to make its case. If indeed God's righteousness were known by man and the same was used as the ultimate standard by man, there would be no argument!

Then you went b whole character, not simply one aspect viewed through a prism influenced by himself.

One can only answer the issues when one is armed with the relevant information. In this situation, one must know more than just generalities about God's character; one must know the particulars of each one and how they interact with other aspects of His character.

Could you please just explain it to us? It's sort of ironic how you keep talking in generalities about how we need to do away with generalities. The question that prompted this thread was "Why does God allow very small children to suffer and die?" Of course, we would like to be in a position to answer it. So please just go ahead and lay out all these particulars and associated interactions that you think we need in order to answer it.