God created everything, right?
Yes. Both the concrete and the possible.
If that's the case, he also created the "other men" who are responsible for some of the bad things in the world.
Yes, He created some people who would choose evil. However, since He loves us all equally, what should He have done? Snuffed them out and left the world full of "good" people? How would they know they were good?
God also creates earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanos, floods, hurricanes, to name a few. All of those are "bad things" that cause good & bad people great pain that God could stop and would not infringe upon "free will".
Earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes are a result of the cycle that keeps Earth capable of hosting life. The suffering that results occasionally from these events brings people closer to God or takes believers to Heaven.
Hurricanes water plant life. Occasionally they cause suffering, but see above. Floods are a result of too much watering of plant life, and subsequently occasionally cause suffering, but see above.
I think the natural disasters mankind endures are extremely "monstorous" on God's part.
I would, too, if I blamed God for keeping the Earth habitable.
Originally posted by Joe FistI disagree. The universe is not a cartoon strip. And you could get proof if you asked Jesus into your life. Until then, you'll have to settle for evidence that hints toward it beyond a reasonable doubt.
True, but the evidence you speak of is no more valid than me arguing that the Peanuts character "Snoopy" is God. Neither one of us can conclusively proof either.
None of these quotes are referring to Heaven. Please re-read Numbers and Deuteronomy. Where are these children being taken to? Hint: read Deuteronomy 1:8. The quote from Isaiah is referring to the child Immanuel (Jesus), and not to children in general, and further has absolutely nothing to do with going to Heaven.
I realize the context, however God cannot change. He is eternal. Thus, if He spares children on earth, He will spare them after earth. They do not know what a 'sin' is, so they can't actively choose to sin rather than obey God, and since God is a righteous Judge, He will take that into consideration, as He did while they were on earth. I will also provide what Jesus Himself said:
18:1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? 18:2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. 18:4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 18:5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
So, again, what scriptural evidence is there that God will take all infants who die to Heaven?
Cited above. You were unaware that God is eternal and cannot change.
Surely God is willing that some should perish.
Scripture is quite clear in that He isn't.
If God was not willing, then since he is omnipotent he could present evidence sufficient to convince those who have not accepted Him.
Careful, you're borderlining on expexting Him to coerce, and that is not indicitave of respecting free will.
Note that presenting evidence sufficient to convince somebody is not a violation of their free will, else your own free will was violated when you received evidence sufficient to convince you that Christianity is correct.
There is a difference between presenting evidence and making it available. He made it available and I went looking for it. If He presented it to us, that would be coercion.
Further, even if these infants do go to Heaven (a contention for which you have provided no evidence), then it is still the case that God allows them to often suffer horribly before they are taken to Heaven. This entails that God is not omnibenevolent.
All infants who die suffer? That's not logical or true. I would contend that although infants undoubtedly feel pain, they don't have the mental capacities to suffer. Do you remember feeling pain as an infant?
Please pay attention to what I’m actually writing. I said none of these things and they are not entailed by anything I did say.
You implied that you would prefer the infants to grow up and risk damning themselves.
If God is omnipotent he could bring people to him by presenting evidence sufficient to convince those people, without needing to make them suffer.
Can and should are very different.
He could, for instance, bring it about that people are wistful for Him, and thereby search Him out, rather than relying upon murdering their children.
Firstly, don't make it out like Him allowing infants to die of natural causes is commonplace. Secondly, He does make us wistful. Everyone asks the questions "Why am I here?" and "What is my purpose?" at least once in life.
Alternatively, He could sit everybody down and have a town forum style Q&A session, where people get their questions answered. Either way would require much less suffering that that brought about by allowing infants to have herpes encephalitis and or villages drowned by tsunamis.
No, it would usher in a new kind of suffering. Aside from being blatant and monstrous coercion on His part, the people who would have made a choice to deny Him would suffer in Heaven. They would be unable to show love toward Him or worship Him with their hearts and would disappoint Him and suck for them.
Further, as I mentioned previously, there are instances where the deaths of infants do not create holes in any of the survivors, because there are no survivors. Additionally, there are cases where the death of an infant so damages parents that they are unable to open themselves to God, and that the extent of their being damaged is beyond their control.
I covered the survivor scenario. Yes, some parents who would deny Him anyway continue to deny Him after the death of the infant, but at least they can't raise their child to deny Him, too. Praise the Ancient of Days for that.
But you do think that some actually good people are harmed by natural events, don’t you?
Harmed? Yes. Killed? No. Good people (those who are saved by the grace of God through Jesus Christ) who leave the earth go to Heaven.
Being Christian is not an antidote for ebola virus, nor for surviving tsunamis.
Of course it isn't. But if you don't survive those things, so what? You get to spend eternity in complete happiness and with a Father who loves you more than anyone could ever love anyone else on earth.
Further, when you claim that God is the ultimate good, is that because he conforms perfectly to independent standards of goodness, or is it the case that the term ‘good’ just refers to whatever God is/does? If the former, then morality does not depend upon God. If the latter, then it follows that morality is arbitrary. God could command us to skin puppies on Tuesdays, and that would thereby be good. Of course, this is the Euthyphro question you have still failed to answer.
God is good. The two are synonymous. Good would not exist without Him. Euthyphro's question implies that something could exist independant of Him, when He created everything. Does that make morality arbitrary? Of course not. I would argue that sets morality in stone.
Originally posted by DarfiusNOTE: I used to do this whole line-by-line thing too, but it is a pain, so let’s not. I can summarize your views, and if you are a lit major you ought be able to summarize mine. We can correct each other if necessary, but line by line debates end up with massively redundant content, and often lead to snarkiness. So, in this post I’ll skip the redundant parts of your response, and nest time 'round let's stick to the real issues.
None of these quotes are referring to Heaven. Please re-read Numbers and Deuteronomy. Where are these children being taken to? Hint: read Deuteronomy 1:8. The quote from Isaiah is referring to the child Immanuel (Jesus), and not to ary? Of course not. I would argue that sets morality in stone.
REGARDING CHANGEABILITY
I realize the context, however God cannot change. He is eternal. Thus, if He spares children on earth, He will spare them after earth. They do not know what a 'sin' is, so they can't actively choose to sin rather than obey God, and since God is a righteous Judge, He will take that into consideration, as He did while they were on earth. I will also provide what Jesus Himself said:
I’m O.K with your reasoning about children being taken to Heaven.
But why would you say that God cannot change? Being eternal doesn’t entail being unable to change. This is an inference on your part that you have not justified.
If Jesus is God, and Jesus was dead and then arose, then it follows that God was dead and then arose. But being dead and then being alive constitutes a change. Hence, God can change. So, your claim is false.
Further, if God cannot change, then he cannot act, for acting involves an exertion of the will, and this entails being in a particular state at one time and a different state in another. So, if God acts, then God is able to change. Since you are committed to the claim that God has acted, you are being irrational in claiming that God cannot change.
REGARDING THE PROBLEM OF NATURAL EVIL
Careful, you're borderlining on expexting Him to coerce, and that is not indicitave of respecting free will.
No, this is not the case. Presenting information sufficient to convince does not entail forcing somebody to assent. This is a mistaken inference on your part. Further, if God is going around creating holes in people by murdering their children, then he is exerting coercive pressure on people already.
There is a difference between presenting evidence and making it available. He made it available and I went looking for it. If He presented it to us, that would be coercion.
This view entails that your professors are violating your free will when they present you with information sufficient to convince you of something. But your professors are not violating your free will. Hence this view of yours is false.
All infants who die suffer? That's not logical or true. I would contend that although infants undoubtedly feel pain, they don't have the mental capacities to suffer. Do you remember feeling pain as an infant?
Pay attention. I did not claim that all infants who die suffer. Many, many infants who die do suffer, however, and God allows this suffering when alternative courses of action are available of the sort I mentioned above. Further, it doesn’t matter if we’re talking about infants or children (who can suffer), the point generalizes to children. Further, it doesn’t matter if I can’t remember suffering as an infant (though I remember suffering as a child), because all sorts of things happen to us that we don’t remember. I am sure that ten years ago today I had an experience that I cannot remember. The fact that I cannot remember it is immaterial to it having occurred. So, your inference from not remembering X to X not occurring is fallacious.
You implied that you would prefer the infants to grow up and risk damning themselves.
No, you inferred this mistakenly. I would prefer these infants to live, and thus have the opportunity to live lives. God apparently feels differently.
Can and should are very different.
If he can bring people to him by presenting evidence sufficient to convince those people, without needing to make them suffer, then their suffering is gratuitous. If their suffering is gratuitous, then God allows gratuitous suffering. Any creature that knowingly allows gratuitous suffering when able to easily prevent it is not morally perfect. Hence, God is not morally perfect.
Firstly, don't make it out like Him allowing infants to die of natural causes is commonplace. Secondly, He does make us wistful. Everyone asks the questions "Why am I here?" and "What is my purpose?" at least once in life.
It happens all the time. It happened tens of thousands of times in the recent tsunami. I am not claiming that He doesn’t ever make us wistful, but that He could use this instead of creating holes in people on those occasions when He murders infants.
No, it would usher in a new kind of suffering. Aside from being blatant and monstrous coercion on His part, the people who would have made a choice to deny Him would suffer in Heaven. They would be unable to show love toward Him or worship Him with their hearts and would disappoint Him and suck for them.
??? This makes no sense. Having a Q&A session would usher in a new form of suffering? Not if He had it at the Four Seasons, and provided a free buffet. Anyway, can you please rephrase the rest of this comment, ‘cause I can’t parse it.
I covered the survivor scenario. Yes, some parents who would deny Him anyway continue to deny Him after the death of the infant, but at least they can't raise their child to deny Him, too. Praise the Ancient of Days for that.
You’re losing track of the argument. There are times when the deaths of infants and children do not serve to bring the survivors to God because there are no survivors, or the survivors are so damaged by the tragedy that they are hardened to God. In these scenarios, the deaths of infants and children do not serve the functions you describe. Hence, you still have not answered the question why God would allow the suffering and death of innocent infants and children by natural forces.
Harmed? Yes. Killed? No. Good people (those who are saved by the grace of God through Jesus Christ) who leave the earth go to Heaven.
Well, on your view nobody is ever killed, so death is really immaterial. Do you think there is ever any unnecessary or gratuitous harm that befalls Christians by natural forces?
REGARDING EUTHYPHRO'S QUESTION:
God is good. The two are synonymous. Good would not exist without Him. Euthyphro's question implies that something could exist independant of Him, when He created everything. Does that make morality arbitrary? Of course not. I would argue that sets morality in stone.
No, the two terms are not synonymous. If the terms were synonymous, they would refer to the same thing. But the term ‘good’ refers to a property, and the term ‘God’ refers to a person. Further, is the terms were synonymous, then by the substitution of synomymous expressions we could derive ‘God created God’ from the claim that ‘God created Good’. But the former is impossible, while the latter is possible. So, your claim that the terms are synonymous is false.
Further, If God created moral goodness and badness, then that means God made it the case that murder is wrong. On this view, it is possible that God could make it the case tomorrow that murder is morally good, while keeping the rest of the world exactly the same. But it is impossible that murder could be morally good, if the rest of the world remained as it is. Hence, your view entails something that is impossible. Hence your answer to Euthyphro’s question is false.
Originally posted by DarfiusI have a whole slew of reasons. The one that I put at the top of my heap would vary depending on when you ask me. At this moment I'll go with this one: The God of the Bible is said to be a personal God. That means he should make Himself available to humans at all times through the means of dialogue. Notice that I did not say monologue. I am talking about two-way communications, just like I have with any of my human friends. Christians fall into two basic camps: those who say God does indeed talk in a literal voice to them, and those who say that God does not talk in a literal voice to them. (Of course you can further subdivide. In the latter group there will be those who say that the Bible does God's talking for Him, and that God does not talk to any modern humans in any other way than through the written word. But there are also those who say that while God has withheld the gift of his spoken voice from them, He has given certain other Christians that gift.) My basic problem is that since I know that God has never communicated in an explicit vocal fashion with me, and since the Bible says God is no respecter of persons, I can conclude that either (1) The biblical God fails to exist, or (2) the Bible is in error when it says that God spoke to Moses or when it says that God is no respecter of persons.
Why do each of you reject God and Christianity?
The excuse that "Well, God didn't give me that particular gift of speaking directly to me..." will never cut it with me. That is just too precious of a commodity to be given to some humans and withheld from others. If God exists, and if He knows that there is an eternity of torture waiting for those who doubt His existence, nothing could be more morally reprehensible on His part than to leave some humans off of his list of who to talk to in a personal way.
REGARDING CHANGEABILITY
But why would you say that God cannot change? Being eternal doesn’t entail being unable to change. This is an inference on your part that you have not justified.
Sorry, I was unclear. I meant He cannot change His attributes. He is good, just, righteous, loving and jealous.
As such, He wouldn't be just (fair) to the children on earth and then not fair when they left earth.
REGARDING THE PROBLEM OF NATURAL EVIL
No, this is not the case. Presenting information sufficient to convince does not entail forcing somebody to assent. This is a mistaken inference on your part. Further, if God is going around creating holes in people by murdering their children, then he is exerting coercive pressure on people already.
First of all, He doesn't murder the children. Natural processes do. He allows it to happen to preserve free will, and because the children go to Him anyway.
If God showed Himself to you before you had made a choice, that would be coercion. You would worship Him to avoid Hell, rather than out of love. He wants your love. He did make a lot of evidence available to find, however. He said Himself "Those who look for me with all their heart shall find me."
This view entails that your professors are violating your free will when they present you with information sufficient to convince you of something. But your professors are not violating your free will. Hence this view of yours is false.
Bad analogy. I pay to hear my professors. If God intruded upon someone to get them to make a choice then and there to accept or deny Him, that's coercion.
Pay attention. I did not claim that all infants who die suffer. Many, many infants who die do suffer, however, and God allows this suffering when alternative courses of action are available of the sort I mentioned above. Further, it doesn’t matter if we’re talking about infants or children (who can suffer), the point generalizes to children. Further, it doesn’t matter if I can’t remember suffering as an infant (though I remember suffering as a child), because all sorts of things happen to us that we don’t remember. I am sure that ten years ago today I had an experience that I cannot remember. The fact that I cannot remember it is immaterial to it having occurred. So, your inference from not remembering X to X not occurring is fallacious.
What sort of options? And I concede the infants may suffer, but it is momentary compared to the eternity they will spend with God.
No, you inferred this mistakenly. I would prefer these infants to live, and thus have the opportunity to live lives. God apparently feels differently.
My inference is proper. You prefer they live this earthly life, risking eternal damnation if they reject God instead of living an exponentially better life in Heaven.
If he can bring people to him by presenting evidence sufficient to convince those people, without needing to make them suffer, then their suffering is gratuitous. If their suffering is gratuitous, then God allows gratuitous suffering. Any creature that knowingly allows gratuitous suffering when able to easily prevent it is not morally perfect. Hence, God is not morally perfect.
All of us suffer in life. Whether it's through insecurity or mental pain or physical pain, we all have a reason for needing someone. God is that someone. No suffering is gratuitous.
It happens all the time. It happened tens of thousands of times in the recent tsunami. I am not claiming that He doesn’t ever make us wistful, but that He could use this instead of creating holes in people on those occasions when He murders infants.
No, there is a different between wistful and an instinct to search for God until you find Him. That would be coercion. And He doesn't murder.
??? This makes no sense. Having a Q&A session would usher in a new form of suffering? Not if He had it at the Four Seasons, and provided a free buffet. Anyway, can you please rephrase the rest of this comment, ‘cause I can’t parse it.
Meaning we would be robots and nothing more. Free will does not exist if you only have one choice to make.
You’re losing track of the argument. There are times when the deaths of infants and children do not serve to bring the survivors to God because there are no survivors, or the survivors are so damaged by the tragedy that they are hardened to God. In these scenarios, the deaths of infants and children do not serve the functions you describe. Hence, you still have not answered the question why God would allow the suffering and death of innocent infants and children by natural forces.
Simply because God knows they will not come to Him does not mean the events do not have to happen. If the events didn't happen, the people wouldn't even get the chance to come to Him. They do not know they will continue to reject Him until it happens. For instance, a parent might leave their son in jail even though they know it probably won't better him, because then he won't be able to say "You never tried to better me."
Well, on your view nobody is ever killed, so death is really immaterial. Do you think there is ever any unnecessary or gratuitous harm that befalls Christians by natural forces?
No. Jesus suffered. The apostles suffered. The early Christians suffered. Suffering on earth prepares us to enjoy life in Heaven, and to appreciate more fully what Jesus did for us. He took on ALL of our suffering on that cross. I can't imagine such pain.
REGARDING EUTHYPHRO'S QUESTION:
No, the two terms are not synonymous. If the terms were synonymous, they would refer to the same thing. But the term ‘good’ refers to a property, and the term ‘God’ refers to a person. Further, is the terms were synonymous, then by the substitution of synomymous expressions we could derive ‘God created God’ from the claim that ‘God created Good’. But the former is impossible, while the latter is possible. So, your claim that the terms are synonymous is false.
By synonymous, I meant Good is God's nature. And since God is eternal, His morality is THE morality. It is neither created, independant nor subjective, since He encompasses all points of view.
Further, If God created moral goodness and badness, then that means God made it the case that murder is wrong. On this view, it is possible that God could make it the case tomorrow that murder is morally good, while keeping the rest of the world exactly the same. But it is impossible that murder could be morally good, if the rest of the world remained as it is. Hence, your view entails something that is impossible. Hence your answer to Euthyphro’s question is false.
I explained this above. Good is His nature. Let me give you an analogy. Would we say that the universe created matter and thus matter is something subjective? Of course not. Matter is inherent in the universe, and it stands above all points of view about it.
Originally posted by Paul DiracI get the feeling you believe the point of accepting Jesus Christ is to go to Heaven. That is false.
I have a whole slew of reasons. The one that I put at the top of my heap would vary depending on when you ask me. At this moment I'll go with this one: The God of the Bible is said to be a personal God. That means he should make Himself ...[text shortened]... e some humans off of his list of who to talk to in a personal way.
The point of accepting Jesus Christ is because you realize He did the most loving thing ever done in history for you, and that you wish to love Him in return. Heaven is just the place we go to love Jesus. Since He encompasses all happiness and our souls are eternal, us being happy for eternity is a byproduct of this love.
Since this is the case, you're asking for God to "talk to everyone" and thus coerce love, something that cannot be done. He gave us evidence, akin to a secret admirer leaving notes in your locker. If you don't give up, you'll eventually find the secret admirer. If love isn't worth it to you, you won't.
Originally posted by DarfiusSo, to get off of this whole line by line response thingy, can we agree that currently the major points of contention are these?:
REGARDING CHANGEABILITY
[b]But why would you say that God cannot change? Being eternal doesn’t entail being unable to change. This is an inference on your part that you have not justified.
Sorry, I was unclear. I meant He canno ...[text shortened]... n the universe, and it stands above all points of view about it. [/b]
1) Your response to the problem of natural evil
2) Your response to Euthphro's question.
If so, then I can present some actual arguments (with premises and everything), so that we can keep on track and others can follow along.
Originally posted by DarfiusYes. Both the concrete and the possible.
[b]God created everything, right?
Yes. Both the concrete and the possible.
If that's the case, he also created the "other men" who are responsible for some of the bad things in the world.
Yes, He created some people who would choose evil. However, since He loves us all equally, what should He have done? Snuffed them out and left the ...[text shortened]... torous" on God's part.[/b]
I would, too, if I blamed God for keeping the Earth habitable. [/b]
I don’t see the need for the distinction. Are you implying God did not create the “abstract”, “intangible”, or “impossible”?
Yes, He created some people who would choose evil. However, since He loves us all equally, what should He have done? Snuffed them out and left the world full of "good" people? How would they know they were good?
Well going back to the making the universe thread, yeah if I was God I would squelch any and all who would choose to do evil. I would have created man where the idea of caring for every single being would be as second nature as breathing. It would make little difference to me if they knew they were good or not. They could be stupid and good for all I care. According to the story, God should have killed Lucifer from the get go and any who followed him but if God was truly perfect, Lucifer would not have had the inclination to challenge him anyway.
Earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes are a result of the cycle that keeps Earth capable of hosting life. The suffering that results occasionally from these events brings people closer to God or takes believers to Heaven.
Sounds kind of screwed up to me. Again, if I were God, I would have made the earth where it would not require all of the natural disasters and millions of lost lives to bring people closer to me. I think that is kind of warped and passive-aggressive. It doesn’t make sense that you need to suffer to be closer to Heaven. It doesn’t make sense that there is this imposed “penance” system that suffering must be endured to enjoy eternal bliss. Why can’t all of man start with bliss, live a blissful life without suffering? The “free will” and Christ dying for my sins also doesn’t make sense to me. So if you are a parent and a lot of people are doing a great deal of bad stuff, the solution is to send your child to die for them? So did Christ take away the sins of the world? It seems to me that sin is running rampant even stronger than before.
Hurricanes water plant life. Occasionally they cause suffering, but see above. Floods are a result of too much watering of plant life, and subsequently occasionally cause suffering, but see above.
Again, if I were God, I think I would have a better plan in place than to have thousands of people die so that my daisies look nice.
I would, too, if I blamed God for keeping the Earth habitable.
I do blame God. Sure it is habitable but he is also the one who created all of the war mongers who continue to fight over land and greed. He still creates all of the disasters, the seven deadly sins, the unnecessary pain & suffering of the world.
Originally posted by bbarrI agree.
So, to get off of this whole line by line response thingy, can we agree that currently the major points of contention are these?:
1) Your response to the problem of natural evil
2) Your response to Euthphro's question.
If so, then I can present some actual arguments (with premises and everything), so that we can keep on track and others can follow along.
Originally posted by DarfiusAs I cannot conclusively proof that Jesus Christ is not the son of God, can you conclusively proof the universe is not a cartoon strip? In no such way I am attempting to be facetious or sarcastic. I am quite serious about this.
I disagree. The universe is not a cartoon strip. And you could get proof if you asked Jesus into your life. Until then, you'll have to settle for evidence that hints toward it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Do you realize that slightly over 500 years ago many people were absolutely certain that the earth was flat?
We have had this discussion about proofing the validity of Jesus and I was not convinced. And how could I get this proof you speak of? The Bible? I have visited it quite extensively in my life and it has actually solidified my current beliefs even more stronger than before.
The world makes sense only when you force it to.
I don’t see the need for the distinction. Are you implying God did not create the “abstract”, “intangible”, or “impossible”?
By concrete I meant everything that exists. By possible I mean everything with the possiblity of existing. Evil doesn't exist inherently. But the choice to deny God brings about the possiblity of evil.
Well going back to the making the universe thread, yeah if I was God I would squelch any and all who would choose to do evil.
Then you wouldn't be loving. God loves us all. Life on earth and existence was a gift to us all. Suffering caused by those who chose evil only brought the good closer to God, and as the evil men couldn't affect their souls, God allowed it to happen, since it was more beneficial than detrimental. Alll of His children experience life and His loyal children get stronger love for Him.
I would have created man where the idea of caring for every single being would be as second nature as breathing.
Man already has that. Environment helps some people to lose this characteristic but we have instincts to run and help when someone screams "help".
It would make little difference to me if they knew they were good or not.
Then you do not care for their feelings, merely there physical well being. Why didn't you make robots, then?
They could be stupid and good for all I care.
I recommend you make robots and don't waste time with thinking folk.
According to the story, God should have killed Lucifer from the get go and any who followed him but if God was truly perfect, Lucifer would not have had the inclination to challenge him anyway.
God loved even Lucifer. And since He knew Lucifer would ultimately tempt men, He allowed Lucifer to live, since Lucifer would be serving Him. Earth is a test, and Lucifer is the jerk next to you asking you to cheat. If you love God enough, Lucifer is not a threat anyway.
Sounds kind of screwed up to me. Again, if I were God, I would have made the earth where it would not require all of the natural disasters and millions of lost lives to bring people closer to me.
Natural processes were not made for the purpose of making people suffer, but to keep the Earth habitable. They do end up negatively affecting people, but people can use that to draw strength from God, which He wishes us to do. Jesus said "Give me your yoke for my burden is light."
I think that is kind of warped and passive-aggressive. It doesn’t make sense that you need to suffer to be closer to Heaven. It doesn’t make sense that there is this imposed “penance” system that suffering must be endured to enjoy eternal bliss.
If you do not know what it means to be sad, how can you know what it means to be happy? If you have never felt pain, how can you feel comfort? If you don't know what it means to feel depressed, how can you feel happiness?
Why can’t all of man start with bliss, live a blissful life without suffering?
Man wouldn't know what bliss was.
The “free will” and Christ dying for my sins also doesn’t make sense to me. So if you are a parent and a lot of people are doing a great deal of bad stuff, the solution is to send your child to die for them?
That you have choices you can make doesn't make sense to you? You can imagine a robot, can you not? Or even a better, the computer you type on. It has to wait for your command. You need not do such a thing. Animals have to obey instinct. You have no such restrictions.
Man was doomed to die because of their sin (because sin is like a virus of the soul). God loved us too much to allow all of us to die, so He came Himself in the form of a man (His 2nd form/also known as Son) because He knew no man would ever be able to live a sinless life. He chose not to sin and thus was a suitable replacement death for all of us. Think of it this way. If a guy pointed a gun at your daughter and was going to shoot, you would jump in the way. God did that for us, when He took our sins and placed them on Jesus Christ, who died as a result, but was raised up to conquer death once and for all.
So did Christ take away the sins of the world? It seems to me that sin is running rampant even stronger than before.
No, Christ made it possible for our sins to be taken away or forgiven. When we believe He did it, and ask for help to stop it, that is when the world becomes better through us.
Again, if I were God, I think I would have a better plan in place than to have thousands of people die so that my daisies look nice.
Come on, Joe. You know it's not to keep the daises nice. It's to give animals food, and thus us food. It's also to water the plants we eat from. If people die, those who believe in Jesus Christ go to a better life (you should be happy for them) and those who would never have accepted Christ anyway go to a place away from God (you should pity them, but take solace in the fact that they won't risk keeping someone else from Jesus).
I do blame God. Sure it is habitable but he is also the one who created all of the war mongers who continue to fight over land and greed. He still creates all of the disasters, the seven deadly sins, the unnecessary pain & suffering of the world.
And that saddens Him more than you know. It's as if you're cursing your mother for your living situation even though she tried her best. God made this world perfect, but our free will choice to sin caused it to become less than perfect. If we turn to Him, though, He gives us the comfort and joy necessary to get through it.
There is no unnecessary pain and suffering. It brings us closer to Him or gives us a chance to get closer to Him. And when we do that, we get closer to true happiness and love.
As I cannot conclusively proof that Jesus Christ is not the son of God, can you conclusively proof the universe is not a cartoon strip? In no such way I am attempting to be facetious or sarcastic. I am quite serious about this.
Let's not waste time proving negatives. You can get proof that Jesus exists when you ask Him to come into your heart and to lead your life in humility. He then reveals Himself to you in the form of the Holy Spirit because you've asked Him to. Rather than demanded.
Do you realize that slightly over 500 years ago many people were absolutely certain that the earth was flat?
Yes, but I fail to see the relevance.
We have had this discussion about proofing the validity of Jesus and I was not convinced. And how could I get this proof you speak of? The Bible? I have visited it quite extensively in my life and it has actually solidified my current beliefs even more stronger than before.
The Bible contains the evidence. The proof is in Jesus.
The world makes sense only when you force it to.
The world is confusing when you force it to be. God makes all the sense in the world, literally and figuratively. 🙂
Originally posted by DarfiusBy concrete I meant everything that exists. By possible I mean everything with the possiblity of existing. Evil doesn't exist inherently. But the choice to deny God brings about the possiblity of evil.
[b]I don’t see the need for the distinction. Are you implying God did not create the “abstract”, “intangible”, or “impossible”?
By concrete I meant everything that exists. By possible I mean everything with the possiblity of existi ...[text shortened]... m. And when we do that, we get closer to true happiness and love.[/b]
I still don’t think it is logical. God created everything and the existence of evil is within everything. I agree evil was not inherent. It was created.
Then you wouldn't be loving. God loves us all. Life on earth and existence was a gift to us all. Suffering caused by those who chose evil only brought the good closer to God, and as the evil men couldn't affect their souls, God allowed it to happen, since it was more beneficial than detrimental. Alll of His children experience life and His loyal children get stronger love for Him.
Still doesn’t make sense to me. In my design of the universe, I would grant every wish anyone would want provided not at the expense of another person. I would program (design) every single being to love and care for one another. The concept of harming another person would have zero existence. This makes me not loving? I think it is an inaccurate blanket statement to say “suffering caused by those who chose evil only brought the good closer to God”. I imagine many reacted in a similar vengeful fashion. I think it is rather a bizarre set of mental, emotional, and spiritual gymnastics that suffering must exist in order to receive the reward of heaven.
Man already has that. Environment helps some people to lose this characteristic but we have instincts to run and help when someone screams "help".
That is far too simplistic of an explanation of why certain people tend to lack moral character.
Then you do not care for their feelings, merely there physical well being. Why didn't you make robots, then?
Sure I care for their feelings. I would program them all to experience bliss constantly.
I recommend you make robots and don't waste time with thinking folk.
I wish I could.
God loved even Lucifer. And since He knew Lucifer would ultimately tempt men, He allowed Lucifer to live, since Lucifer would be serving Him. Earth is a test, and Lucifer is the jerk next to you asking you to cheat. If you love God enough, Lucifer is not a threat anyway.
Again it all sounds very much like some very cruel lesson that God is administering. So you are saying God knowingly let Lucifer pollute the earth with temptation? This is not meant to sound disrespectful to your beliefs but I actually don’t think Lucifer is the jerk. I think God is.
Natural processes were not made for the purpose of making people suffer, but to keep the Earth habitable. They do end up negatively affecting people, but people can use that to draw strength from God, which He wishes us to do. Jesus said "Give me your yoke for my burden is light."
So God is not powerful enough to make the earth habitable without causing horrific natural disasters? Wasn’t the Garden of Eden a paradise until Lucifer (that God loved and kept alive) tempted Eve with the fruit and then everything got screwed up from that? I dare say natural disasters do a great deal more than have a negative affect on people. Over 100,000 people died in the tsunami.
If you do not know what it means to be sad, how can you know what it means to be happy? If you have never felt pain, how can you feel comfort? If you don't know what it means to feel depressed, how can you feel happiness?
Easy, if I was God. Why would the two need to go hand in hand? There is no use for pain and suffering.
Man wouldn't know what bliss was.
I bet there are a bunch of us who would love to give it a try, minus the pain & suffering.
That you have choices you can make doesn't make sense to you? You can imagine a robot, can you not? Or even a better, the computer you type on. It has to wait for your command. You need not do such a thing. Animals have to obey instinct. You have no such restrictions. Man was doomed to die because of their sin (because sin is like a virus of the soul). God loved us too much to allow all of us to die, so He came Himself in the form of a man (His 2nd form/also known as Son) because He knew no man would ever be able to live a sinless life. He chose not to sin and thus was a suitable replacement death for all of us.
Yeah but that whole thing is so unnecessary. God created everything, including the capacity for sin so there is no reason why he could not eliminate the desire for it.
Think of it this way. If a guy pointed a gun at your daughter and was going to shoot, you would jump in the way. God did that for us, when He took our sins and placed them on Jesus Christ, who died as a result, but was raised up to conquer death once and for all.
I prefer not to think of it that way and I would prefer if you never use my daughter in any of those type of analogies. I would prefer from this point on if you did not reference her at all.
No, Christ made it possible for our sins to be taken away or forgiven. When we believe He did it, and ask for help to stop it, that is when the world becomes better through us.
Okay. Would it not been better if we never had the capacity for sin in the first place? That Eve never ate the apple? Hell, that God never created the tree of knowledge?
Come on, Joe. You know it's not to keep the daises nice. It's to give animals food, and thus us food. It's also to water the plants we eat from. If people die, those who believe in Jesus Christ go to a better life (you should be happy for them) and those who would never have accepted Christ anyway go to a place away from God (you should pity them, but take solace in the fact that they won't risk keeping someone else from Jesus).
Yeah again, if I were God, no one thing would have to suffer in order to survive. It would rain when it should and be pleasant weather most of the time. I never said I wasn’t happy for the Christians going off to Heaven but I don’t believe the non-Christians go to Hell either.
And that saddens Him more than you know.
Sorry, the feeling is mutual.
It's as if you're cursing your mother for your living situation even though she tried her best.
I do curse my mother for other reasons and I don’t curse God but I am not busy patting him on the back either.
God made this world perfect, but our free will choice to sin caused it to become less than perfect. If we turn to Him, though, He gives us the comfort and joy necessary to get through it.
I will buy that something (be it God) made the world but for me and many others it is far from perfect.
There is no unnecessary pain and suffering. It brings us closer to Him or gives us a chance to get closer to Him. And when we do that, we get closer to true happiness and love.
Really? Please tell all of that to the following:
Terri Schiavo
The victims of the recent earthquake in Indonesia
The victims of the recent school shooting in Minnesota
Jessica Lunsford
This is just in the past month of people who have endured unnecessary pain & suffering.
I still don’t think it is logical. God created everything and the existence of evil is within everything. I agree evil was not inherent. It was created.
To say God created evil is to say God did evil. That is not logical. The person doing the action is responsible. God created the possiblity for evil. Picking up a knife is not creating evil. Using it to kill someone is realizing the possiblity of evil, however.
Still doesn’t make sense to me. In my design of the universe, I would grant every wish anyone would want provided not at the expense of another person. I would program (design) every single being to love and care for one another. The concept of harming another person would have zero existence. This makes me not loving? I think it is an inaccurate blanket statement to say “suffering caused by those who chose evil only brought the good closer to God”. I imagine many reacted in a similar vengeful fashion. I think it is rather a bizarre set of mental, emotional, and spiritual gymnastics that suffering must exist in order to receive the reward of heaven.
You just described Heaven. The point is, God thought we should want Heaven rather than force it upon us. Contrary to your belief, Joe, not everyone WANTS all of that stuff. We show we want Heaven by loving and having faith in Him on earth.
That is far too simplistic of an explanation of why certain people tend to lack moral character.
Some people cannot think of someone else over themselves.
Sure I care for their feelings. I would program them all to experience bliss constantly.
How would they conceptualize what bliss is if they do not know its opposite? That's like asking a blind person to appreciate sight.
Again it all sounds very much like some very cruel lesson that God is administering. So you are saying God knowingly let Lucifer pollute the earth with temptation? This is not meant to sound disrespectful to your beliefs but I actually don’t think Lucifer is the jerk. I think God is.
If Lucifer didn't offer us a choice to deny God, then we wouldn't have free will. We'd have to accept God, love or not. I can't stress this enough. He wants our love.
So God is not powerful enough to make the earth habitable without causing horrific natural disasters? Wasn’t the Garden of Eden a paradise until Lucifer (that God loved and kept alive) tempted Eve with the fruit and then everything got screwed up from that? I dare say natural disasters do a great deal more than have a negative affect on people. Over 100,000 people died in the tsunami.
If humans weren't around to suffer as a result, would they be natural disasters or would they simply be Nature? The Garden of Eden still needed water. Natural disasters happen when Nature imposes on humans, but that's not really God's fault. If we build a sturdy house, hurricanes don't affect us. If we build sufficient drainage systems, neither do floods. Do you see where I'm going with this? God gave man the intelligence to prepare for natural disasters. It is when men do not aid their fellow men that natural disasters take a toll, and that is a result of sin.
Easy, if I was God. Why would the two need to go hand in hand? There is no use for pain and suffering.
Again, can a blind man conceptualize sight? Jesus healed blind men to help them, but also to send a message. We are blind to the cost of sin until we have our eyes opened by faith in Christ. Pain and suffering results from denying God.
I bet there are a bunch of us who would love to give it a try, minus the pain & suffering.
Then accept Jesus Christ out of love. He offers you that. But He won't force it upon you, for His sake and yours.
Yeah but that whole thing is so unnecessary. God created everything, including the capacity for sin so there is no reason why he could not eliminate the desire for it.
And He will, in Heaven. The thing is, those in Heaven will have earned it and desire it, and love God for it. If we didn't have the capacity to sin on earth, that would mean we wouldn't have the capacity to deny God, meaning we'd be His slaves, rather than His children.
I prefer not to think of it that way and I would prefer if you never use my daughter in any of those type of analogies. I would prefer from this point on if you did not reference her at all.
You preferring not to think of it that way does not affect that it is what it is. We are God's children, and He loves each of us more than you love your daughter. I do NOT intend to say that you do not love your daughter more than yourself, what I am attempting to get you to see is how deeply God loves you. He gave us children of our own to help us imagine it. I do not mean to offend you, I won't mention your daughter again.
Okay. Would it not been better if we never had the capacity for sin in the first place? That Eve never ate the apple? Hell, that God never created the tree of knowledge?
No, Joe, because then we would have never had a choice. Don't you see? Love is only true love when it is freely given.
Yeah again, if I were God, no one thing would have to suffer in order to survive. It would rain when it should and be pleasant weather most of the time. I never said I wasn’t happy for the Christians going off to Heaven but I don’t believe the non-Christians go to Hell either.
We don't have to suffer to survive. Suffering happens when man is not duly prepared for nature and when their fellow man is selfish and doesn't help. Any suffering we do receive only helps us enjoy Heaven more! And what is suffering in our finite lives on earth compared to how happy it will make us in our infinite lives in Heaven? Think of it this way. If you were riding on an airplane, and suddenly it lurched and started falling out of the sky. You think "I'm going to die." At the last minute, the pilot regains control and you make it safely to your destination. Won't everything you do that next day be so much sweeter than the day before? That is why the apostle Paul said "All of my suffering here on earth is nothing compared to the love of Christ Jesus." Paul was whipped, tortured, and eventually killed for preaching Jesus Christ' message. And he was proud of it! He knew that suffering would make Heaven all the sweeter.
I do curse my mother for other reasons and I don’t curse God but I am not busy patting him on the back either.
I worship God for many things. First for creating me from nothingness and giving me the gift of life. Secondly for saving me from the death I chose when I defied my Creator by suffering Himself for love of me. I will praise Him forever, and love Him more.
I will buy that something (be it God) made the world but for me and many others it is far from perfect.
It was perfect before Adam and Eve made a mistake many of us would make--defying God--. Now it is just damn good.
Really? Please tell all of that to the following:
Terri Schiavo
Terri was supposedly a Christian before her collapse. She is showing this country exactly where we are headed, and may cause others to look inside themselves to see if they have the capacity for hatred and love of death others in this country do. This introspection may awaken their need for God. In other words, Terri is a beautiful beacon for God right now. And she will be with Him soon.
The victims of the recent earthquake in Indonesia
Their deaths remind others of their own mortality, and subsequently the need for God. And if they had never heard of Jesus, they would be extended a chance to go to Heaven by a righteous and fair God.
The victims of the recent school shooting in Minnesota
I don't know if you know this but the teacher who died in that shooting was Christian. She told her students to hide under the desks and then stood praying to God. The kid came and held up a shotgun, pulled the trigger, it clicked, he then took out a handgun and killed her.
He asked another of the students "Do you believe in God?" and then blasted them away.
At Columbine, one of the killers asked the room "Does anyone believe in God?" One of the students replied "I do." and the killer asked "Why?" and then blew the student away.
The killer at Minnesota and the killers at Columbine all had hatred for God. They were pawns of Satan, pure and simple. The Columbine killers specifically targeted Christians. When you let hatred consume you, you let Satan have reign over you, and he hates Christians most of all, because our Jesus Christ shines through us and makes other men see their own darkness.
Jessica Lunsford
Dear Jessica...I wept for a while for her. She reminded me so much of my own little sister. I have no doubt the Lord was with her and comforted her while she went through what she did. And I have 0% doubt that she is in His arms right this very instant. He wiped all of her tears away.
This is just in the past month of people who have endured unnecessary pain & suffering.
Was it unnecessary? Nothing is unnecessary when God is in control. Was it unfortunate? Of course.