Rediversion of Robbie's diversions

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes yes, after wading through the details i am left traumatised by your statements as if I am in a an early Jean Concteau 1930s surrealistic movie in which faces appear on fireplaces and hands reach out from the walls offering me candlight, therefore to get at the very essence of your objections, i needed to simply try to filter and condense what it ...[text shortened]... ng natural laws in said chance occurrences is inert. Is this or is this not the case Mr Agergs?

My response to this requires I go *at least* one quote further back. You said:

och yer bum! I sidestepped nothing! details are everything, and when one is able to discern the entire biblical picture one can readily put its constituent parts together to form a whole, anything less is spiritual myopia. Yes but it comes essentially down to an individual basis, whether we ourselves are willing to accept universal sovereignty under God or a course of moral independence, because suffering exists on a personal and a collective level. You see, because of your myopia, you cannot see that quite naturally, those who perpetrate injustice cannot be allowed to remain, can they, for it is evident that, even as we speak, who is there that does not want to live in peace, yet despite it, there is war. The problem that you have , as with all rationalists, is that you deny the divine element. Economics is a monster, war is a monster, exploitation of the planets resources is a monster, my goodness, there is enough to feed the world many times over, yet some billions of persons go to sleep hungry every day and by the time you have read this sentence another child will be dead from malnutrition. Why is that? Quite simply government. Nationalism, greed and corruption, enslavement etc. How many years of human government must it take in order for you people to realise that it is a fallacy? that is where you should remove your rose coloured spectacles. The problems facing mankind are huge, i would say insurmountable from a human standpoint. who has caused these problems? was it God tht depleted the fish stocks? deforested the rainforest? used Cfcs and bore a whole in the ozone? How much will it take for us to realise that moral independence comes at a price, i dunno?

The salient points I would draw your attention to are the bits where you said

"those who perpetrate injustice cannot be allowed to remain, can they, for it is evident that, even as we speak, who is there that does not want to live in peace, yet despite it, there is war"

and

"war is a monster, exploitation of the planets resources is a monster, my goodness, there is enough to feed the world many times over, yet some billions of persons go to sleep hungry every day and by the time you have read this sentence another child will be dead from malnutrition. Why is that? Quite simply government. Nationalism, greed and corruption, enslavement etc."

So we have established here, there exist people and organisations which stand in the way of the blissful existence you believe this world has the potential to accomodate. In further exchanges (see my the quotes in last post for the details) we established that though these agents exist, they cannot be dealt with by humans. They need to be dealt with by your god.

So given that there is to be *no divine intervention* Robbie, how can you possibly maintain that there could possibly be a time when we'll be free of wars, hunger, etc... given that

- There exist barriers to this utopia
- They can only be removed by God
?

Furthermore, given your god has the power (one assumes) to change things for the greater good right now, and given it is claimed he is both loving and merciful; why does he let all the suffering continue, when again, there exist causes of that suffering which we are unable to eliminate?

This is why I pursue this particular line of attack Robbie, it is because your claims don't stack up. I don't believe your claims about "God".

So given that there is to be *no divine intervention*

Who has stated that there is to be no divine intervention? I have not stated it, far from it, in fact i have stated that ultimately God will, at a point in the future remove those said agencies. Did i not provide even a quotation, in which it was stated that Gods Kingdom, shall, 'crush', those political entities which foment violence, war, famine etc? I merely stated that it seemed to me, that they can only be removed by the intervention of my God, you need to believe nor accept it, if you have a different solution then let it be heard, i for one have evaluated the present climate and have no reservations in stating that to me, divine intervention is the most plausible and viable solution, for I have no reason to doubt God, who unlike humans, has no interest in exploitation, greed, malice etc.

I provide an anecdote, a true life experience. I was buying petrol at a garage, there were a group of protesters who asked me to sign their petition against this particular oil company which was exploiting natural reserves in a environmentally sensitive area.. I said that because i am apolitical that i could not. When i mentioned that as a Christian i have hope towards god the he shall, 'bring to ruin those who are ruining the earth',Revelation 18:11, the young lady scoffed and suggested that it was better to do something rather than wait for God. I reflect, fifteen years later, what did her protests accomplish? did she and her friends stop the exploitation of the natural resources? nope, they did not. Thus what am i left with but a proper evaluation that if I cannot trust humans to look after and take care of the earth, then why should i not trust God, who has uttered many similar statements, of which i know not one that has not come true, to do as he has stated? It is simply a matter of who you shall trust. If you would like to put faith in humanity, then good luck to you, your gonna need it.

the question to which you are referring, i have already rephrased for you and it is a simple question, why does God permit suffering and the answer is equally as simple, because it has shown, that humans are incapable of exercising dominion over themselves without exploitation and that moral independence from God has proved disastrous. The issue is of course one of universal sovereignty, that being, whether God has the right to set moral standards for humans or whether humans are better off independent from God as was alleged in the book of Genesis.

Perhaps the present state of the earth's affairs may encourage you to consider this reality, even if my words are unable to. Please do not think that you shall evade also your other assertion of Gods inertness, simply because he refuses to suspend natural laws, it is noted and unless you address it honestly it shall become a weakness in your argument, of which, your refusal to acknowledge it, is certainly indicative of.

are you also willing to claim Agers that the earth has not the potential to be a paradise? does not everyone want to live in happiness and in peace? my goodness a million persons in the U.K marched against that war in Iraq and they were unable to prevent it? what hope have you got my friend, really? we all want to live happily and peaceful lives, it matters not if you ask the Afghani farmer, the refugees from Burma, everyone wants to live in peace, yet what prevents it? If you have a solution then let it be heard, I have honestly stated what to me is more plausible, if you do not accept it, then you must state what the alternative is.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
So given that there is to be *no divine intervention*

Who has stated that there is to be no divine intervention? I have not stated it, far from it, in fact i have stated that ultimately God will, at a point in the future remove those said agencies. Did i not provide even a quotation, in which it was stated that Gods Kingdom, shall, 'crush', tho me is more plausible, if you do not accept it, then you must state what the alternative is.

Who has stated that there is to be no divine intervention? I have not stated it, far from it, in fact i have stated that ultimately God will, at a point in the future remove those said agencies. Did i not provide even a quotation, in which it was stated that Gods Kingdom, shall, 'crush', those political entities which foment violence, war, famine etc? I merely stated that it seemed to me, that they can only be removed by the intervention of my God, you need to believe nor accept it, if you have a different solution then let it be heard, i for one have evaluated the present climate and have no reservations in stating that to me, divine intervention is the most plausible and viable solution, for I have no reason to doubt God, who unlike humans, has no interest in exploitation, greed, malice etc.
I see, we arguing over phraseology here, I might have misconstrued your notion of divine intervention where I now gather your God suspends no natural laws (ie: does not alter the mechanics of the universe or mysteriously present some special case of these laws counter to all that one can validly assume is reasonable in our universe), with my interpretation of it where I assumed divine intervention implied "suspend natural laws" in some way.

So given that you have spend the greater part of this day attempting to foster amongst my peers in these forums, a level of contempt or pity for my state of mind/intellect (in foolishly thinking your god should not "refuse to suspend natural laws" ), please tell me what will be the nature of your god's *divine intervention* given it will act within the constraints of how we reasonably expect the universe to operate.

Secondly, and I'll keep it brief...why the wait for this divine intervention? We have already jointly concluded that there exist problems which we cannot solve; so why doesn't he solve *them*? (btw...saying or re-implying your eternally existentent god will attend to these when he's good and ready is a non-answer.)

I provide an anecdote, a true life experience. I was buying petrol at a garage, there were a group of protesters who asked me to sign their petition against this particular oil company which was exploiting natural reserves in a environmentally sensitive area.. I said that because i am apolitical that i could not. When i mentioned that as a Christian i have hope towards god the he shall, 'bring to ruin those who are ruining the earth',Revelation 18:11, the young lady scoffed and suggested that it was better to do something rather than wait for God. I reflect, fifteen years later, what did her protests accomplish? did she and her friends stop the exploitation of the natural resources? nope, they did not. Thus what am i left with but a proper evaluation that if I cannot trust humans to look after and take care of the earth, then why should i not trust God, who has uttered many similar statements, of which i know not one that has not come true, to do as he has stated? It is simply a matter of who you shall trust. If you would like to put faith in humanity, then good luck to you, your gonna need it.
I would be more than happy to give you a response on this in another thread if you wish (I want to limit the divergence from our current argument here, even though I see it could vindicates mine).

the question to which you are referring, i have already rephrased for you and it is a simple question, why does God permit suffering and the answer is equally as simple, because it has shown, that humans are incapable of exercising dominion over themselves without exploitation and that moral independence from God has proved disastrous. The issue is of course one of universal sovereignty, that being, whether God has the right to set moral standards for humans or whether humans are better off independent from God as was alleged in the book of Genesis
I'm not sure what you mean here...Is your god permitting suffering to teach us a lesson? This would be another diversion and I'm happy to give you a longer response/analysis in a different thread.

Perhaps the present state of the earth's affairs may encourage you to consider this reality, even if my words are unable to. Please do not think that you shall evade also your other assertion of Gods inertness, simply because he refuses to suspend natural laws, it is noted and unless you address it honestly it shall become a weakness in your argument, of which, your refusal to acknowledge it, is certainly indicative of.
You have so far issued challenges about my comments on the amish massacre and a half hearted shot from the hip I made about making alcohol taste nasty. I have defended both in this thread. (feel free to look over what I said and find another angle to attack my character on these matters). I am already aware by the way that I made the comment:

"Given that your god is powerful enough to prevent large scale suffering (like the children who have died as I write this post, mass starvation in Africa, oppressive regimes, rape/murder victims, child abuse, etc...) that we cannot (due, say, to those who would oppose us)...Why does he remain inert?"

Indeed, I have done my very best to help you understand precisely what I'm asking in the majority of my recent posts.

What else have I said that bothers you?

are you also willing to claim Agers that the earth has not the potential to be a paradise? does not everyone want to live in happiness and in peace? my goodness a million persons in the U.K marched against that war in Iraq and they were unable to prevent it?
I claim I have no reason to believe it is possible unless your god acts in a way which you imply is silly to consider (suspension of natural law to affect massive changes agreed by the both of us we cannot) Our argument so far has strengthened this position...re read my last post. (s)

what hope have you got my friend, really? we all want to live happily and peaceful lives, it matters not if you ask the Afghani farmer, the refugees from Burma, everyone wants to live in peace, yet what prevents it? If you have a solution then let it be heard, I have honestly stated what to me is more plausible, if you do not accept it, then you must state what the alternative is.
I have no reason yet to assume anything other than a continuation of the present situation (we humans may become extinct we may not...I do not know). I do not (as yet) believe your god exists, and need present no other wonderland solution to support my case.

attempting to foster amongst my peers in these forums, a level of contempt or pity for my state of mind/intellect

i am pained by this statement, for i had no such intention, you are entitled to your evaluations and opinions even as i am to mine, belittling them serves no purpose, and please, will you stop regurgitating everything i say, i know what i typed, there is no need to remind me of it, simply say what you have to say is good enough for me, i mean, do you normally repeat everything others say when conversing with them? Its so tiring having to read massive posts.

Is your god permitting suffering to teach us a lesson?

No the issue could not have been settled any other way, than to let time pass, anything else could be construed as dictatorial.

you have said nothing that bothers me or that i dont chance upon every time i go from house to house speaking about the Bible.

I have no reason yet to assume anything other than a continuation of the present situation,

and quite interestingly no solution either, thankyou for your honesty in this regard.

Just by way of clarification, did i ever state that God never suspends natural laws? No for to do so would be to deny the miraculous?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
attempting to foster amongst my peers in these forums, a level of contempt or pity for my state of mind/intellect

i am pained by this statement, for i had no such intention, you are entitled to your evaluations and opinions even as i am to mine, belittling them serves no purpose, and please, will you stop regurgitating everything i say, i know wh ...[text shortened]... er state that God never suspends natural laws? No for to do so would be to deny the miraculous?

You implied on at least two occasions that my expectation your god should suspend natural laws if I accept (for sake of argument) your god has the properties/inclinations you so far claim is unfeasibly silly. You mentioned "childish" in one, "amusing" in another. I infer from this a patronising and condescending evaluation of my faculties. Should I reference these posts for you?

The reason I "regurgitate" what you say (and excepting this post shall continue to do so) is so that you can directly and easily evaluate whether what I say in response is accurate, and to limit your wriggle room for ambiguity. Don't forget we are engaging in a debate here. Even if it appears conversational! Furthermore I see it as a sign of integrity that I should at the very least acknowledge all your challenges to my position. Introduce new issues and I have to acknowledge them also. Lest I be accused of cherry picking and running away from *key points*
Also it is difficult for me sometimes to ascertain whether or whether not you know what you have said (or at the very least remember what you meant in saying them...see two lines below with regards to my first comment on this post)

What you said in response to God permitting suffering to teach us a lesson I have no interest in discussing further yet. (at least here)

With your last point you have implied so far I'm silly for thinking your god should suspend natural laws.

Finally I don't consider this argument in the least way resolved favourable to you.

:]

Originally posted by Agerg
You implied on at least two occasions that my expectation your god should suspend natural laws if I accept (for sake of argument) your god has the properties/inclinations you so far claim is unfeasibly silly. You mentioned "childish" in one, "amusing" in another. I infer from this a patronising and condescending evaluation of my faculties. Should I reference t nally I don't consider this argument in the least way resolved favourable to you.

:]

Oh my dear Agers, what seems silly and childish to me is no reflection of you, is it? If i have given the impression that i sought to belittle you then i am truly sorry, nothing could be further from my mind. I have no intention of wriggling anywhere, i know what i profess, and what is more, i can biblically substantiate what i profess, but knowing your apathy for scripture I have deliberately kept and quotations at a minimum, out of sensibility not for me, but for you.

Now you are putting words in my mouth, i did not state that God allows suffering to 'teach us a lesson', they were your words, not mine, for i have stated plainly and openly that Gods permittance of suffering is to prove once and for all time that moral independence is harmful, for the issue of universal sovereignty needs to be settled. Indeed the scriptures make it quite plain, that God does not test persons with trial,

(James 1:13) . . .When under trial, let no one say: “I am being tried by God.” For with evil things God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone. . .


Yes it does appear to me that in the case of every chance occurrence that God should suspend natural laws, this again is something quite different from what you are claiming that i said or what i profess, for every Christian is aware that in the case of miracles God of necessity must have suspended natural laws, that he does not do in every instance is not a negation of this.

It does seem somewhat strange to me that you have many opinions on what God is able/not able, willing or unwilling to do, and yet have no real alternative to the problems we are facing. Is this common among those who profess atheism? that they are simply content to subject another beliefs to scrutiny while providing no alternative of their own? Indeed I asked why the earth cannot become a paradise, surely its a simple matter to provide details as to why it cannot and then to look for solutions? Once a lecturer at art school said to me, 'there are no right answers only right questions', 'why i thought are we searching for solutions if there are no right answers'

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Oh my dear Agers, what seems silly and childish to me is no reflection of you, is it? If i have given the impression that i sought to belittle you then i am truly sorry, nothing could be further from my mind. I have no intention of wriggling anywhere, i know what i profess, and what is more, i can biblically substantiate what i profess, but knowing t questions', 'why i thought are we searching for solutions if there are no right answers'

I don't have anything of value to say to your first two paragraphs + Bible quote.

Yes it does appear to me that in the case of every chance occurrence that God should suspend natural laws, this again is something quite different from what you are claiming that i said or what i profess, for every Christian is aware that in the case of miracles God of necessity must have suspended natural laws, that he does not do in every instance is not a negation of this.
But I never made it a key argument of mine that your god should micro-manage miracles on the set of all events where boulders or pianos may fall on people etc... I provided an example of where he fails to do this (in particular the case of the amish massacre) when you hit me with a response along the lines that god promises to protect those who practice righteousness (I acknowledged later your objection that this "protection" extended no further than the issue of food...I said slightly more on this issue, re-read it if you wish) I may have offered others other than the (already stated as a half-hearted reaction point) alcohol example, and these I'm sure you will find will have been used specifically to counter some assertion of yours.

My actual argument is that large scale, and in a sense non-random suffering of those who starve in Africa, are slaughtered en-masse in oppressive regimes, victims of economic strangulation and greed etc... Issues that are wide reaching and mutually agreed by us both irresolvable by humans would, *if we accept, again for argument sake, your claims about God*, need to be addressed by him now. I am interested in why he does not...given it is supposed he is capable. (Also I don't care for a reformulation of the question which promotes neither a full nor locally precise answer to the original)
I also mension rape and child abuse along with murder because I find these acts particularly repugnant and occur in large numbers.

It does seem somewhat strange to me that you have many opinions on what God is able/not able, willing or unwilling to do, and yet have no real alternative to the problems we are facing. Is this common among those who profess atheism? that they are simply content to subject another beliefs to scrutiny while providing no alternative of their own? Indeed I asked why the earth cannot become a paradise, surely its a simple matter to provide details as to why it cannot and then to look for solutions? Once a lecturer at art school said to me, 'there are no right answers only right questions', 'why i thought are we searching for solutions if there are no right answers'
I operate so far on the basis that I have no reason to accept any claims which can't be demonstrated reasonable empirically or logically (btw demonstrate reasonable =/= prove). To answer why I scrutinise your beliefs whilst providing none of my own consider your writing of:

"Once a lecturer at art school said to me, 'there are no right answers only right questions', 'why i thought are we searching for solutions if there are no right answers"

I offer that even if there are no right answers, asking the right questions will illuminate those which are *wrong answers*, returning to your question, I seek not to know which gods exist (I couldn't possibly know, by definition of what it means to be a god), I seek only to know which gods cannot. (Ie: formulations of them).
Furthermore I have no knowledge of what *does* exist outside any dimensions I can perceive either directly or indirectly and so have no beliefs in a religious or superstitious sense. Simply lack of belief.

Finally, I don't speak for all atheists :]

it seems apparent from a study of scripture that God offers protection when it directly has a bearing on the outworking of his purposes. Thus we find that when persons were trying to kill Christ, prior to his sacrifice God protected him, when the Christian congregation was in its infancy, God protected them. There are many instances of Gods faithful servants being allowed to be persecuted and harmed, some to the point of death, for example God did not intervene to prevent a wave of persecution perpetrated against Christ’s disciples by the Roman Emperor Nero. Christians were tortured, burned alive, and thrown to wild animals. However, this opposition did not surprise the early Christians, and it certainly did not weaken their faith in God’s existence. After all, Jesus had warned his disciples that they would be brought before the courts and that they should be ready to suffer and even die for their faith.—Matthew 10:17-22.

I have already mentioned that time and unforeseen occurrence (the element of chance), befall all persons, for when catastrophe strikes, anyone may be struck. Can those who survive declare that they received divine protection, while those who perished were denied it, hardly.

I have also made it perfectly clear why rape, famine, genocide occur, in that persons have deviated from Gods standards of morality, that God cannot be held responsible for these. Why indeed has God not intervened and brought the wicked to retribution? Quite clearly there is the issue of universal sovereignty, in which it was alleged, that humans would be better independent from God intervention, that they would become , 'god like', in themselves, able to decide for themselves what was, 'good and bad'. Well the only way for the issue to be settled conclusively was to allow it to happen. Indeed one may need to go through a very painful and excruciating operation in order for one to eventually recover and to be made well.

If you do not wish to accept the claims then that is your business, i see no reason to reject them, indeed, after serious evaluation, i am reminded of a quotation by Arthur Conan Doyle which sums up my position, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” thus I have no trust in human agencies to solve our problems, they are corrupt, self serving, greedy and operate without moral restraint and disregard for consequences. You yourself, as you have stated have offered no viable alternative, therefore i am left with the conclusion that after eliminating the impossible, theocracy is the only viable solution to our problems. You perhaps evaluate things differently and need not agree, thus Agers, its makes no difference to me whether you believe in God or not, you are human, i am human, we see things differently.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it seems apparent from a study of scripture that God offers protection when it directly has a bearing on the outworking of his purposes. Thus we find that when persons were trying to kill Christ, prior to his sacrifice God protected him, when the Christian congregation was in its infancy, God protected them. There are many instances of Gods faithfu ...[text shortened]... me whether you believe in God or not, you are human, i am human, we see things differently.

therefore i am left with the conclusion that after eliminating the impossible, theocracy is the only viable solution to our problems

We're doomed.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]therefore i am left with the conclusion that after eliminating the impossible, theocracy is the only viable solution to our problems

We're doomed.[/b]

Lol, not quite, i will be divinely protected , Agers will get zapped!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it seems apparent from a study of scripture that God offers protection when it directly has a bearing on the outworking of his purposes. Thus we find that when persons were trying to kill Christ, prior to his sacrifice God protected him, when the Christian congregation was in its infancy, God protected them. There are many instances of Gods faithfu me whether you believe in God or not, you are human, i am human, we see things differently.

fff! Theocracy 😞

You still dodge the question...I'll even take for sake of argument that a theocracy must occur, exactly how does this happen?
Do you seriously think one day people will wake up and think..."sod it, I've had enough of my private yachts and helicopters...to hell with all these beautiful women keeping me busy whilst on my *business* trip, all this fine food, and technological gadgetry, people falling over themselves to do as I tell them... Having the life I've always dreamed of is rubbish. I'm going to live like Jesus! 😞

If not, and given I certainly wouldn't roll over to the notion of one world under god...exactly how do you get all the people in the world to first believe in your god, then accept a theocratic regime???
If it can be done by humans, say how.
If it cannot be done by humans, say why god doesn't do it.
If there are a number of intermediate steps which you think must be performed before your god steps in, say what they are (and why these must be performed first).

Originally posted by Agerg
fff! Theocracy 😞

You still dodge the question...I'll even take for sake of argument that a theocracy must occur, exactly how does this happen?
Do you seriously think one day people will wake up and think..."sod it, I've had enough of my private yachts and helicopters...to hell with all these beautiful women keeping me busy whilst on my *business* trip, al rmed before your god steps in, say what they are (and why these must be performed first).

how does it happen? I dont think you would believe me even if i told you. As for people leading a pleasure seeking hedonistic lifestyle, 'eat, drink for tomorrow we may die', here are the words of Christ with which they may wish to console themselves,

(Matthew 24:36-42) 36 “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.  For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be.  For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark;  and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be. Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken along and the other be abandoned;  two women will be grinding at the hand mill: one will be taken along and the other be abandoned.  Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming.

Now you can either dismiss the contents as the words of a madman, or you can give them credence, however, are you willing deny that the scene of the world can change cataclysmally within an instance?

You see, if you had a beautiful home which you let to tenants, made sure there was always food in the cupboards, provided endless fuel in the basement, beautiful gardens and rivers teaming with animal, plant and wondrous aquatic life and they started to vandalise your property, what would you do? would you let them decimate your property until it was a barren desert? or would you tuff them out?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
how does it happen? I dont think you would believe me even if i told you. As for people leading a pleasure seeking hedonistic lifestyle, 'eat, drink for tomorrow we may die', here are the words of Christ with which they may wish to console themselves,

(Matthew 24:36-42) 36 “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the he ...[text shortened]... you let them decimate your property until it was a barren desert? or would you tuff them out?

how does it happen? I dont think you would believe me even if i told you
Perhaps not...but probably no less than I believe your claim that your god exists and has the properties you attach to it so why not just hit me with it anyway.

Now you can either dismiss the contents as the words of a madman, or you can give them credence, however, are you willing deny that the scene of the world can change cataclysmally within an instance?
I dismiss the contents of that passage as arbitrary scripture...written by humans, inspired by humans. Compelling evidence on the otherhand may lead me to believe otherwise.
Secondly, define what you mean by "within an instance"...do you mean infinitesimally small period of time between *world* and *cataclysmally changed* world? (I ask this because if all the nukes in the world were let loose, say, then there would be a cataclysmic change indeed, but not instantaneous)...As for whether I'm willing to deny it can (given you mean god just clicks his fingers, so to speak, and it happens) then it remains for me to be convinced (by you, say...or even better, your god itself) that there even is a god, let alone a god who wants to do this at some point. Until such time, it is more reasonable to assume it cannot.

You see, if you had a beautiful home which you let to tenants, made sure there was always food in the cupboards, provided endless fuel in the basement, beautiful gardens and rivers teaming with animal, plant and wondrous aquatic life and they started to vandalise your property, what would you do? would you let them decimate your property until it was a barren desert? or would you tuff them out?
But I wouldn't wait thousands of years to evict them (because I'd be dead), infact I'd probably give them their marching orders at the earliest opportunity...your supposed omnipotent god (who has the opportunity whenever it wants) keeps waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and ... and waiting,...

unless you believe that God exists whatever i say to you shall make no sense, will it?

Secondly you have no reason to dismiss the claim that those words which i quoted were uninspired, for all you know, they may indeed be, simply stating that they are the words of a human, written and inspired by humans does not make it so, indeed there is no conceivable reason for you to reject the import of those words, or none that you have stated.

The idea with regard to 'instant change', was made with reference to human society because it is volatile, and at any moment may change, we have seen it recently within the sphere of economics, one day every one was minted, the bubble burst and suddenly we were owing quadrillions. Who is to sate that there may not be a cataclysmic event in our lifetime? can you honestly dismiss it out of hand?

Lastly what if the tenants had complained that you were a cruel and vindictive landlord? that you arbitrarily made rules and withheld good things from your tenants? that they could look after your property better than you? would you simply murder them and start again? would that not prove indeed that you were tyrannical, that you did not exercise your dominion out of love, but through force and abuse of power? How could you demonstrate your innocence other than to let the tenants have their will, independent from you, until it reached a point where it was imperative that you stepped in and removed them.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
unless you believe that God exists whatever i say to you shall make no sense, will it?

Secondly you have no reason to dismiss the claim that those words which i quoted were uninspired, for all you know, they may indeed be, simply stating that they are the words of a human, written and inspired by humans does not make it so, indeed there is no conc om you, until it reached a point where it was imperative that you stepped in and removed them.

unless you believe that God exists whatever i say to you shall make no sense, will it?
On the contrary, For example I don't believe there exists an omnipotent God, but I can certainly make sense of the notion! furthermore I cannot dismiss it as impossible. I just have no reason to take the idea seriously yet.

Secondly you have no reason to dismiss the claim that those words which i quoted were uninspired, for all you know, they may indeed be, simply stating that they are the words of a human, written and inspired by humans does not make it so, indeed there is no conceivable reason for you to reject the import of those words, or none that you have stated.
How many atheists have you met that
a) don't believe in God
b) Believe your scriptures are inspired by God
??? 😕
(btw, I said compelling evidence would change my mind, which means, for now, I have no reason to assume they are anything other than human works, and I dismiss them as so)

The idea with regard to 'instant change', was made with reference to human society because it is volatile, and at any moment may change, we have seen it recently within the sphere of economics, one day every one was minted, the bubble burst and suddenly we were owing quadrillions. Who is to sate that there may not be a cataclysmic event in our lifetime? can you honestly dismiss it out of hand?
But then we're not talking about instantaneus change (which is what I asked you to clarify). I am being pedantic on this because I fear you might equivocate between finger clicking "within an instant" and quite quickly "within an instant", whereby you then go on to make a false argument.


Lastly what if the tenants had complained that you were a cruel and vindictive landlord? that you arbitrarily made rules and withheld good things from your tenants? that they could look after your property better than you? would you simply murder them and start again? would that not prove indeed that you were tyrannical, that you did not exercise your dominion out of love, but through force and abuse of power? How could you demonstrate your innocence other than to let the tenants have their will, independent from you, until it reached a point where it was imperative that you stepped in and removed them.
Simples...In just the same way you theists arbitrarily set your god up to be ground zero for morality, I set myself up to be ground zero for dictating how tenants should behave in my house.
Who said anything about murdering them??? 😕