The "Leave it to God" clause.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well then I guess we will have to add you to the list of those who cannot (or choose not to) "meaningfully state god's plan".

God has it all covered, thank you very much.
I am sure he has. However, the scenario you described does not, therefore you can't have been describing Gods plan.

The receiver of a gift doesn't need to understand all o real meaning, and certainly bears no relationship to the normal meaning of the word.

Well then I guess we will have to add you to the list of those who cannot (or choose not to) "meaningfully state god's plan".
Why not? I'm sure even God couldn't meet your high standards, so it's not like I'd be in bad company. Funny, I didn't realize I was even asked to explain His plan, but whatever floats your anchor.

However, the scenario you described does not, therefore you can't have been describing Gods plan.
Lost me.

Yet it remains ridiculous that God would make condition it a condition for anything that someone receive a gift that he doesn't understand. Even more ridiculous when he need not understand the giver nor the givers intentions.
Sounds like God specifically wants stupid people only.
Is life a desirable thing (in comparison to, say, death)? God offers life.
Is love a desirable thing (in comparison to hate)? God offers love.
Is joy a desirable thing (in comparison to despair)? God offers joy.
Each of these are basic, universal desires of man and have been since man began. What part of the gift do you consider to be vague or hard to understand, exactly?


Does a child know or understand his father before he accepts a gift from the same? Why so suspicious?

Sounds like God specifically wants stupid people only.
He'll take them, too, but really, His message gets the most bang for the buck among the greedy.

Or so you say, but then I know your sense of justice is warped to the extent that it has no real meaning, and certainly bears no relationship to the normal meaning of the word.
Your supposed normal meaning of the word has no relationship with anything remotely close to objective. As such, it can hardly be called justice, since the term refers to an absolute. The perfect justice which comes from God can only be satisfied with perfection. Seen any of that in your neck of the woods?

Originally posted by twhitehead
There are so many problems with your explanation I wouldn't know where to begin. Lets start with the fact that these people he is waiting for are mostly not even born yet. Why doesn't he simply allow them to be born into the paradise?

there are no problems with my explanation whatsover, simply because you have no knowledge of its constituent parts and therefore cannot put them together to conceive of the whole, is of necessity no reason to project your ignorance on to others. The paradise that that we are referring to is the present earth, the physical earth, why that would bar persons from entering it when the time comes really makes your assertion rather silly, not to mention those still to be born, dont you think.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I play the flute and you refuse to dance on the premise that you dont like the tune, so be it.

I think a better analogy would be that you declare you can play a wonderful tune on the flute. You then produce bouts of lameass out of time, out of tune noodling interspersed with you saying 'and a few more notes should go here, but tut tut don't ask me to actually play them, that is just trivia...' tooot, toot toooooot, toot toot.....

And then you blame me for not dancing 🙂

Originally posted by Lord Shark
I think a better analogy would be that you declare you can play a wonderful tune on the flute. You then produce bouts of lameass out of time, out of tune noodling interspersed with you saying 'and a few more notes should go here, but tut tut don't ask me to actually play them, that is just trivia...' tooot, toot toooooot, toot toot.....

And then you blame me for not dancing 🙂

its not my fault you do not like avant garde jazz, is it. 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its not my fault you do not like avant garde jazz, is it. 🙂

Lol 🙂

I do like it actually, so I know that avant garde jazz isn't lameass out of time out of tune noodling!

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have twice in the last few days come across this interesting attitude from Christians, and I thought it deserved a thread as it is actually quite common and I cant think of a reasonable defense (from the theists side).

The first instance was a movie about a black man who assisted with early heart operations. The parents of one of the patients consult ...[text shortened]... think? Are there areas we shouldn't meddle in for fear of interfering with Gods plans?

With the first example I think that's complete madness - refusing help when a child is sick??? Stuff what God says or anything/one else for that matter when it comes to life or death of the people you love.

The second I'm not so sure. Wanting a baby and not being able to have one so going through IVF is one thing but to select the baby's characteristics is weird - if they want a baby surely no matter what it looks like, colour eyes/hair, tall or small it shouldn't matter right?? In that sense I completely agree that "the ex-terrestrial power" made people the way there are and for the sake of appearances and all the other society screwed load of s**t so many bow down to today we shouldn't change things to please ourselves. I do think that if people want a baby and can't have one naturally then they should be able to have the treatment without the regret of going against God as they are commited to bringing a baby into the world, no doubt that they want it and they will love it that much more - they shouldn't be denied that.

In most cases we shouldn't worry about the rules we've decided to accept have been put in place by "God" but we all need to use our common sense and not take our new found ability to change and alter things too far.

😀

Originally posted by ich binimKopfweg
In most cases we shouldn't worry about the rules we've decided to accept have been put in place by "God" but we all need to use our common sense and not take our new found ability to change and alter things too far.

You seem to be defending the "Leave it to God" clause. Have you really thought it through? Where does one draw the line and why? You were quite ready to help the sick child, but are seemingly unwilling to avoid having genetically sick children or a whole host of other undesirable characteristics in children.
Why? Is it not really that you are simply uncomfortable with the concept and thus are using the "Leave it to God" clause to rather avoid thinking about it and not as a genuine argument against it?

Surely if it is wrong for me to deliberately choose to have a blond haired blue eyed daughter, then you should be able to put up a rational arguement to support that rather than hiding behind an appeal to agreement with no argument? ("it shouldn't matter right?"😉.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You seem to be defending the "Leave it to God" clause. Have you really thought it through? Where does one draw the line and why? You were quite ready to help the sick child, but are seemingly unwilling to avoid having genetically sick children or a whole host of other undesirable characteristics in children.
Why? Is it not really that you are simply unco an hiding behind an appeal to agreement with no argument? ("it shouldn't matter right?"😉.

damn I've been smoked out!!! 😀

I was heading from the "I want my child to have big eyes, cut out the red head gene and have long limbs" approach instead of selecting genes which don't code for cystic fibrosis etc - for that I'm totally with my first argument of the sick child.


I'm not uncomfortable with the concept - people are doing it right now and I can sotmach that. I just think it's a waste of money and professionals time with requests that on the whole won't affect the quality of life or eradicate a disease therefore people should be happy with the fact that they can have a child which won't contract any inherited diseases and leave it at that - the whole selection process isn't necessary. I'm not even sure I believe in God so it's really the last thing I'd leave it to.


blond haired blue eyed - no comment

I see it more as a fact that an appeal. It should not and must not matter, the mere fact that designer babies excluding eradicating fatal diseases even exists does make me a little annoyed. I've completely forgotten what your initial argument is.......hmmmm.


😀

Originally posted by ich binimKopfweg
It should not and must not matter,

Yet it does matter. Almost everyone would like to be something they are not, and most parents would wish for changes to their children which they may see as beneficial. How do you separate genetic disease from genetic ugliness or genetic low IQ? And why separate them?
Why is it OK to have a son who is short (and thus will get bullied), has a low IQ (and thus may not earn much) but not OK to have a son who may develop diabetes in later life?
We could argue all day over which characteristics would be desirable, but the fact remains that we as parents do find some more desirable than others and the question is why we should not have the right to choose. So far, you have not given any reason whatsoever for not doing so, other than your own squeamishness.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes. Don't you?

No, the whole ball of wax is built upon our choices. You settle down some
where, it is there your family will have roots, you pick a faith, it is that faith
that seeds the growth of your kids. You seem to be under the impression
that human choices do not have anything to do with this, when in fact
that is all this is.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, the whole ball of wax is built upon our choices. You settle down some
where, it is there your family will have roots, you pick a faith, it is that faith
that seeds the growth of your kids. You seem to be under the impression
that human choices do not have anything to do with this, when in fact
that is all this is.
Kelly

I am afraid I do not understand what you are saying. Could you rephrase it for me?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am afraid I do not understand what you are saying. Could you rephrase it for me?

I thought I was clear, till I reread your post I was responding too and think
I miss read you. Please describe again what you think is wrong and not
justice. Are you saying people have no choice due to the area they are
in or their families pressures, or that God only chooses those under certain
conditions?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I thought I was clear, till I reread your post I was responding too and think
I miss read you. Please describe again what you think is wrong and not
justice. Are you saying people have no choice due to the area they are
in or their families pressures, or that God only chooses those under certain
conditions?
Kelly

I think that what religion we have as adults is largely based on what religion our parents had, and the prevailing religion in the area we live in. I therefore see it as largely a matter of chance that one is Christian.
If entry to heaven is predicated on being Christian, then it seems to me rather unjust as it is equivalent to randomly handing out entry tickets.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think that what religion we have as adults is largely based on what religion our parents had, and the prevailing religion in the area we live in. I therefore see it as largely a matter of chance that one is Christian.
If entry to heaven is predicated on being Christian, then it seems to me rather unjust as it is equivalent to randomly handing out entry tickets.

I don't think so. There are millions of people whose parents were non-religious (like mine) and have become religious themselves.

Originally posted by ich binimKopfweg
I don't think so. There are millions of people whose parents were non-religious (like mine) and have become religious themselves.

Do you really think that this is a counter argument?