tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post16596254306740798..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Praise God for the Disaster in Haiti! Isn't God Good? Thank You Jesus!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-58987388060617861032013-05-02T03:09:09.932-04:002013-05-02T03:09:09.932-04:00Coolest underwater attractions. Click
www.gofast...Coolest <a href="http://www.gofastek.com/fhs/underwater/" rel="nofollow">underwater</a> attractions. Click <br /><br />www.gofastek.com for more information.<br /><br />Cindy<br />www.gofastek.comCindyhttp://www.gofastek.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-91716094094458405262010-01-22T21:43:43.978-05:002010-01-22T21:43:43.978-05:00Dan(from a while ago),
I don't really understa...Dan(from a while ago),<br />I don't really understand how people believing in God will cause the end of humanity. It gives hope and joy to some people, so why try to take that away? I can understand why someone who believes that the only way to be saved is through belief in Jesus might want to tell others about him and try to convince them to accept their faith. If they don't, they are condemning people to hell! But I don't really understand why it matters for an atheist to convince people God does not exist. Who and how does it help anyone?Gracehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13401933887431096135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-12847103197956126202010-01-18T11:05:11.315-05:002010-01-18T11:05:11.315-05:00Sorry, correct link below:
The Tale of the Twelve ...Sorry, correct link below:<br /><a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/five.html" rel="nofollow">The Tale of the Twelve Officers</a><br />or<br />http://bit.ly/76FrpNAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-63369396726359145792010-01-18T09:27:37.561-05:002010-01-18T09:27:37.561-05:00To Cole Houx: You seem to trust the fifth officer ...To Cole Houx: You seem to trust the fifth officer (and perhaps the third). You might in fact be a close friend of all twelve.<br />Oh, evil, evil.<br />So much is written about the problem of evil. Yet it is all so simple. Read The Tale of the Twelve Officers. There is not much more to be said, I think.<br /><br />http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/five.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-16628453914019471092010-01-17T21:52:52.622-05:002010-01-17T21:52:52.622-05:00Stephanie wrote: Christians do it to make themselv...Stephanie wrote: <b>Christians do it to make themselves feel better. It's a very selfish thing to do when so many are dying."</b><br /><br />M3 wrote: <b>I find it a cruel demand to expect one to become distressed over situations one can not totally alleviate - and yet, so many associate distressfulness and helplessnes as an acceptable relationship habit.</b><br /><br />M3, <br /><br />I don't think this was the point Stephanie was trying to make. <br /><br />Many Christians believe that one of the outcomes of prayer is that God will physically intercede in various situations in the world. However, if this is actually true, God intentionally keeps his existence hidden by only responding in ways that are equal to statistical chance. <br /><br />This has two rather significant implications... <br /><br />01. In regards to actually making physical changes in reality, prayer and non prayer appear be indistinguishable. Lack of prayer results in the same outcome. <br /><br />02. If someone who's intention is to actually cause physical change actually took concrete actions, rather than prayed, the result would be significantly greater as all of these actions would have significantly more effect than statistical chance. <br /><br />To clarify what I belief is Stephanie's point: if someone prays that God would intercede on the behalf of someone other than themselves, and feels better because of it, this isn't a win-win situation. They have solved their problem at the expense of others and spread of mystification. <br /><br />However, to be clear, if it's someone's intention to improve themselves by contemplating their situation, how they could help or to realize there are limits to their ability to make change in a situation, reflection could be fruitful in this area.<br /><br />You might suggest a prayer that God would help one accept that the outcome is in "God's hands" is beneficial since it promotes alleviation of distress in such situations. However, whenever the Bible reveals God's hand was behind the outcome of any situation, it's aways mired in some kind of teaching and punishment or reward on a personal, family or cultural scale. Someone is always to blame and it's often someone close to the situation at hand. <br /><br />For example, we never see God saying something to the effect of, "Scott is a relatively good guy, but saving Scott would put me over quota this month and that would mean there would actually be evidence that I exist. So, while it pains me deeply to do so, I must let Scott die."<br /><br />This is in contrast to one actually paying attention and the practical realization that we are finite beings. Therefore, there is only so much we can do.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-46442232480380767362010-01-17T21:17:58.890-05:002010-01-17T21:17:58.890-05:00Cole wrote: God is good period. Grace is unmerrite...Cole wrote: <b>God is good period. Grace is unmerrited favor. That's just what it is. </b><br /><br />Cole, I know this is what you believe. But, again it doesn't seem to be anything more than a definition theists have created to get around the problem of evil and make it impossible for God to do anything wrong. <br /><br /><b>He obviously has moraly justifiable reasons for allowing evil and suffering.</b><br /><br />As someone outside Christianity, I don't think it is remotely obvious. Instead, it appears to be an assumption you must make so God can exist given what we observe. <br /><br />Perhaps you mean, it's obviously the only way a good God could exist given what we observe? But this doesn't seem to be the same thing. <br /><br /><b>God isn't obligated to keep His promises but He freely chooses to keep them. God isn't constrained by anything outside Himself. He always acts according to His perfect nature. Does that help?</b><br /><br />So, since God "freely" keeps his promises, he is good? Or would he be good even if he didn't keep his promises?<br /><br /><b>God doesn't need anything. He freely creates out of the overflow of His grace.</b><br /><br />While that sounds "profound", I don't see how this explains why God is good.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-88911989782842570632010-01-17T18:35:15.509-05:002010-01-17T18:35:15.509-05:00DamianP,
Thanks for your kind and rational re...DamianP,<br /><br /> Thanks for your kind and rational response. Although we disagree, I always appreciate civility.<br /><br />Kindest regards,<br /><br />-Gleaner63gleaner63https://www.blogger.com/profile/16176301366830968727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-88487038472138564712010-01-17T17:39:26.902-05:002010-01-17T17:39:26.902-05:00Aquinas, NOT Augustine has already answered the fa...Aquinas, NOT Augustine has already answered the false dilemma of the "Euthyphro Dilemma."<br /><br />A duh on my part, sorry. I am used to being able to proof read after I post and then edit...<br /><br />I admit I am wreckless.Breckminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16059206540177008895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-46178573566291234612010-01-17T17:30:44.647-05:002010-01-17T17:30:44.647-05:00"from concluding that God is therefore evil,&..."from concluding that God is therefore evil,"<br /><br />God is light and in Him there is<br />no darkness at all. God is NOT evil..by cosmic default He sets the standard for GOOD in the universe which He created.<br /><br />"are also morally suspect, by definition, for accepting and even praising such evil."<br /><br />I was created to glorify the Creator by mere logic of the Creator/creation relationship. If I do not glorify the Creator then it would be logical for the Creator to eternally disown me. (a very unfathomable and horrible thing for my personal experience).<br />The way WE glorify the Creator is by confessing our sins and TRUSTING in His ability to redeem us from the inevitable sin/disobedience/lack of faith which is cosmically due to a lack of knowledge which must be learned, etc.<br /><br />"if God is also happy to do evil, by definition?"<br /><br />God Who owns and created the universe will only do good by logical definition and default to His Will which trumps all other wills that He created. Augustine has already answered the false dilemma of the "Euthyphro Dilemma."<br /><br />Good is NOT good just because God says something about good as though it is separate from His Will or Nature. It is actually the Nature of the Creator which sets the logical standard for the universe which He created. It is His WILL which would set the standard for all good.<br /><br />Because He has created a universe with "wills" (creatures of volition) this gets complicated.<br /><br />Often the failure to understand is the failure to identify and differentiate between complication and contradiction.<br /><br />Logic = Pray to the Creator for protection. Matt. 6:13. Pray for protection from that which is NOT from God and these things which are subterfuge via invalid inductions which lead to error, as well as unpractical possibilities and circular reasonings.<br /><br />IF you say "God has to be assumed in order to pray to Him - and this is circular" - you have NOT concluded correctly.<br /><br />The Creator is "concluded" via evidences. The logical fallacy of Hard/Explicit/Strong atheism is the first conclusion which leads you to technical atheism or agnosticism. A correct view of science leads you to examining empirical evidences which are falsifiable. False definitions in science lead you to conclude the circular assumption that everything must be explained "naturally" and incorrecly eliminates theistic implication.<br />Science leads you to agnostic theism. Logic and an examination of the evidence that led you to agnostic theism leads you to specific requirements for such a<br />Creator. (concluded). Comparative religions leads you to the conclusion of which Creator is capable of such creation (conclusion).<br /><br />Praying to the God of the universe who is clearly CONCLUDED (Romans 1:20) when you don't have pseudo limitations in scientific definition is the logical thing to do, especially if you are honest about your own inabilities to prevent yourself from being deceived by your own false definitions and imperfections.<br /><br />Praying to the Infinite Creator is the most logical thing you can begin do.Breckminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16059206540177008895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-20887346647755787072010-01-17T17:00:37.308-05:002010-01-17T17:00:37.308-05:00Yes, DaimanP saying God is good is like saying &qu...Yes, DaimanP saying God is good is like saying "God is God." That is because God is the Creator and Owner of the universe and everything that is in the universe.<br />(Imperfect statement because God does NOT "own" sin and disobedience or the evil creations of those beings He created who create things also).<br />God "owns everything" is in reverence to all matter and existences which He creates and sustains. Beings whom He sustains He owns until He disowns them (this is eternally a bad thing).<br />Logic = we can easily complicate the Ownership of things in the universe with hyper-technicalities.<br />The fact is you have to be pragmatic in your application of logic. Yes, God is an Incredibly Holy and Righteous Creator and because the world does NOT understand this..they do not realize just how "bad" (or what an incredible violation) sin/disobedience/distrust actually is. That is just one small reason why they do not see the logic of eternal separation and exact punishment for exact violations. IF you say "eternal punishment is not an exact punishment for a finite or temporary one time sin"<br />you are MISSING the connected premises of being an eternal being created in the Image of God as well as the Holiness of God and the violation of any sin at all as being incompatible with God's nature..etc. You are also missing the fact that the sin is in the historical record for all of eternity and would exist as a mockery against a Holy God if it is not atoned for of punished. There is also a theory that beings in hell will continue to sin against God and bring forth more punishment for themselves.<br /><br />What this comes down to is the failure to understand the absolute Holiness of God and the violation of sin (which are morally illogical decisions to make).<br />Multiple connected premises make it impossible to isolate on "torture" as though it is simply something one person does to another person. Omniscience and logical Ownership of the universe trumps all created beings<br />objections.Breckminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16059206540177008895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-52260437508815826122010-01-17T16:41:42.397-05:002010-01-17T16:41:42.397-05:00"because you are equivocating between meaning..."because you are equivocating between meanings, and a clear use of language (and hopefully definitions) is essential to communication."<br /><br />Because it is clearly more complicated then simply "blaming God" - this is why we quibble back<br />and forth on why "evil" (a double meaning word) exists - or why God "allows" evil or is in control of evil or in control of circumstances which appear to be evil or "ordains" and "determines" evil.<br />All of these are clearly imperfect especially when you look at the difference between mathematics and philology. Languages are developed by imperfect beings trying to define and redefine meanings. Imperfection is everywhere BUT those who trust God and trust in the LOGIC of God (which is contained all throughout the medium of scripture which is why we use logic as the greatest hermeneutic to interpret scripture)end up on the correct side of truth most of the time(especially with the Help of God's Holy Spirit to open their eyes up to this truth/logic).<br /><br />We are all like little children surrounded by imperfection in our own imperfections. We are all learning. This is logical, btw.<br />Everyone is at different stages of learning...different stages of trial and error..that is why there are so many different denominations in Christianity for example.<br /><br />Any two people who think exactly alike on everything...<br />one of them isn't thinking. Apply this to The WatchTower and you will see a true religious cult.Breckminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16059206540177008895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-32484747462045852782010-01-17T14:15:43.626-05:002010-01-17T14:15:43.626-05:00"believe Jesus was male to demonstrate a huma..."believe Jesus was male to demonstrate a human authority that does not abuse or misuse that power but uses it benevolently and sacrificially to aid vulnerable humanity."<br /><br />How are these male traits? Males don't misuse power?Owenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04547766582911955996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-37516910396967269262010-01-17T14:14:53.650-05:002010-01-17T14:14:53.650-05:00"believe Jesus was male to demonstrate a huma..."believe Jesus was male to demonstrate a human authority that does not abuse or misuse that power but uses it benevolently and sacrificially to aid vulnerable humanity."<br /><br />How are these male traits? Males don't misuse power?Owenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04547766582911955996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-51115971199639763532010-01-17T11:41:26.558-05:002010-01-17T11:41:26.558-05:00Written previously, ""I don't believ...Written previously, ""I don't believe God is obligated to be merciful to His creation."<br /><br />I think what is being said here is that God is not under compulsion or being emotionally bullied into caring about humanity such as we are inclined to do, but He also desires to share the good work of caring about one another --- He doesn't use His goodness to bully or subjugate ppl like those who do good works out of moral conceitedness.<br /><br />Then Greg queried, "And since god is gendered (I'll leave it up to you how he might be a "he"), does he experience romantic longing? If not, what is the point of his gender?" <br /><br />While you are thinking in terms of gender for the purpose of romance, I believe Jesus exemplified God as a male because, historically, the male gender is viewed as an icon of empowerment - I believe Jesus was male to demonstrate a human authority that does not abuse or misuse that power but uses it benevolently and sacrificially to aid vulnerable humanity.Manifesting Mini Me (MMM)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08250513504254425163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-28746663063931764212010-01-17T10:58:26.854-05:002010-01-17T10:58:26.854-05:00The face of God's master plan. (Photo gallery ...The face of God's master plan. (Photo gallery from Time Magazine)<br /><br />http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1954087_2025339,00.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-29530496176995191802010-01-17T04:39:41.177-05:002010-01-17T04:39:41.177-05:00"aren't you simply saying you just don...<i>"aren't you simply saying you just don't like the way God does things?"</i><br /><br />In a sense, yes, although I don't want to give the impression that it is why I don't believe in God. <br /><br />It should be completely unreasonable to conclude that God might be evil. I should be the one making all kinds of excuses for why, even though it obviously looks like an all-loving God exists, it is still possible that He doesn't. But we don't live in that world. <br /><br />The problem of evil can be stated in a number of ways. One is as a kind of incompatibility argument, where what we are told about God is then compared to real world facts, and it is concluded that the two are incompatible, and so, God (or at least, that conception of God) doesn't exist.<br /><br />But it is also possible to argue that, even if God does exist, it is reasonable to conclude that He is evil, and that I cannot therefore worship Him. And this argument applies even if God really is all-loving, etc, because it is unreasonable to expect me to accept something that is contrary to reason. Even if I wanted to, I cannot accept that the amount of suffering in the world is either good or necessary. So it would require me to compromise everything that I believe in as a moral agent.<br /><br />And it makes even less sense when you consider that I am supposed to be the finite being. I suppose that this is where faith is required, but even then, it contradicts everything that I have learned from my experience of the world. At best, it is completely unreasonable to expect me to somehow understand (although, of course, I am not expected to, as I am supposed to just accept it in ignorance), and at worst, it is downright cruel and unjust.<br /><br />So, even if I were convinced that God exists, unless I could find a truly satisfactory explanation for what I see and experience, my conscience would not permit me to worship Him. <br /><br /><i>"How does admitting to that amount to evidence against the existence of a diety?"</i><br /><br />It is incompatible with a God that does not want sentient beings to suffer unimaginable and excessive pain and suffering and is able to intervene (or even one that could have created a different world). <br /><br />Now, of course, these kinds of arguments are always open to interpretation, but that is why it is important to agree about what it is that we mean when we say that, for example, God is all-loving, or God is just, or that God is intensely concerned about human affairs. Otherwise, it is trivially easy to say that you don't believe that God is any of those things in order to escape from the argument. <br /><br />So, the problem of evil and/or suffering doesn't rule out all conceptions of God, and it's possible to argue that it doesn't rule out the kind of God that most people believe in, but for many more people, it is very powerful evidence against the existence of a God that cares about human suffering and has the ability to do something about it.DPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04447401108045680545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-88894310295008323962010-01-17T02:17:11.837-05:002010-01-17T02:17:11.837-05:00DamianP,
I think I understand what you are sa...DamianP,<br /><br /> I think I understand what you are saying, and no doubt the question of all the cruelty in the world might be a "problem" for believers and non-believers alike, but, in a nutshell, aren't you simply saying you just don't like the way God does things? For the sake of argument, let's grant that at least part of what you are saying is true; that the world, at least in parts, is very, very cruel. How does admitting to that amount to evidence against the existence of a diety?gleaner63https://www.blogger.com/profile/16176301366830968727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-22671925373959473512010-01-17T01:52:43.926-05:002010-01-17T01:52:43.926-05:00Breckmin:
If everything that God does is "lo...Breckmin:<br /><br />If everything that God does is "logically good", it is no longer useful to even describe God's actions, at all. In fact, it is incoherent, by (our) definition. God just is, then. <br /><br />And that's fine, but you either need to stop applying the word to God, or alternatively to humans, because you are equivocating between meanings, and a clear use of language (and hopefully definitions) is essential to communication.<br /><br />I would suggest therefore that you not bother applying it to God.<br /><br />But here's the thing: none of that prevents us — and I would suggest that it compels us, in fact — from concluding that God is therefore evil, by definition. <br /><br />Now, that may not concern you, but I am also then justified in concluding that you, Breckmin, are also morally suspect, by definition, for accepting and even praising such evil.<br /><br />And it gets even worse, because you'd need to explain why humans have any obligation at all to only do things that are considered good, if God is also happy to do evil, by definition? <br /><br />In other words, if our definition of good and evil does not apply and is not even relevant when speaking about God (because even evil is good), why should we think differently? Because God says so? But again, this is incoherent. <br /><br />And, of course, that suggests that morality really is arbitrary, and that there is no objective or absolute standard, which has always been a fairly devastating objection to any kind of divine command theory (and almost all types of religious objective morality, in fact). <br /><br />So, of course, if God had told us that murder was good, and that compassion was evil, you would be happy to oblige, no doubt? And it's not even as if you can say that God only ever does good by our definition (which is a common objection), because you have admitted that God can do evil by our definition! <br /><br />By the way, you have mentioned that we cannot "understand pleasure without pain". To some extent, I agree, although I would say that we learn and grow from our bad experiences. However, that misunderstands a fundamental aspect of the problem of evil. Nobody, as far as I am aware, has suggested that there should be no evil, pain, suffering, etc, in the world, or even that it would be beneficial, <i>in our current state of being</i>.<br /><br />But there are two objections to this. Firstly, God could have created a world that was exactly as it currently is, and so that we have the opportunity to learn and to grow as we do now, but without any of the bad things, whatsoever. To deny that is deny that God could have arranged things in such a way.<br /><br />Also, even if God had good reasons for allowing us to experience suffering, that says absolutely nothing about the sheer amount of suffering that some humans have to experience, which most people would agree is often entirely disproportionate to the amount of pleasure and happiness that they experience. It is unnecessary suffering that is the problem.<br /><br />And, even if you believe that we somehow need to experience holocausts and natural disasters, that doesn't begin to explain why many animals experience similar, if not far worse, levels of suffering, and have done so for hundreds of millions of years prior to our arrival. <br /><br />To paraphrase a philosophy of religion professor to his students, if you don't think that the sheer amount of cruel and unnecessary suffering is a problem for your religious beliefs, you obviously haven't thought about it enough.DPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04447401108045680545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-43622691766888119012010-01-17T01:27:42.363-05:002010-01-17T01:27:42.363-05:00Re: evil (as in sin, lack of trust, or disobedienc...Re: evil (as in sin, lack of trust, or disobedience)<br /><br />"but in how it is a danger to His Eternal Elect Children Whom He is not willing to lose ANY of."<br /><br />Correction: "how it WOULD HAVE BEEN a danger to His elect children" if Jesus Christ had not given Himself as a Perfect Sacrifice for our moral imperfection.<br /><br />An appeal to molinism even though Molinism is irrelevent (somewhat anthropocentric) to a more accurate theology.Breckminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16059206540177008895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-83663741095392359922010-01-17T01:07:51.775-05:002010-01-17T01:07:51.775-05:00It is also an appeal to "fairness."
Som...It is also an appeal to "fairness."<br /><br />Something which can NOT be defended in a universe of choices (which are both causes and effects for other people)where people are all born under difference circumstances (at different points of time all experiencing the results of different choices of other people).<br /><br />I have asserted the "Law of Unfairness" and will continue to open it up for falsification if someone can give ONE single example of true fairness in this universe (often easily reduced to(situational)sharing).Breckminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16059206540177008895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-5132088649362250742010-01-17T01:00:08.496-05:002010-01-17T01:00:08.496-05:00How can you ever understand pleasure without pain?...How can you ever understand pleasure without pain? How can you ever understand peace and feeling good without suffering? If someone objects "the suffering in Haiti shouldn't have to exist in order for me to enjoy..such and such" - please understand that this is EVASIVE to the concept of contrast and the experience of different degrees. It is also evasive to KNOWLEDGE and our learning.<br />Until you address the experience of contrast itself and how it is related to knowledge you are not answering the question.<br />Having nerves that experience both pain and pleasure is important to teach us knowledge...just as this temporary creation is teaching us about good and evil.<br /><br />Knowledge and experience of contrast is just "one" small piece of the puzzle.Breckminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16059206540177008895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-34701864884555301652010-01-17T00:41:42.479-05:002010-01-17T00:41:42.479-05:00"Try thinking about the suffering now: Those ..."Try thinking about the suffering now: Those who didn't die, and will now have to live with a city and personal property destroyed, dozens of dead family members, perhaps life long injuries. The suffering is immense, and if there is a god, god let this happen, and you apparently think this god has good reason, even though you don't know what it is - you just assume it's good."<br /><br />There is suffering EVERYWHERE in this temporary creation. It is only going to get worse with more earthquakes, more natural disasters, more diseases, etc.<br />It is a temporary creation where God is dealing with the REAL problem of evil...NOT in explaining it..but in how it is a danger to His Eternal Elect Children Whom He is not willing to lose ANY of. (Calvinism doesn't deal with logical concepts that address the multiple connected premises which explain Theodicy).<br /><br />Yes, there is horrible suffering. It should TEACH us so that we never forget for the rest of eternity the consequences of death.<br />The savagery of death is all around us and can be seen when an animal eats another animal. So also is the crushing of human bodies AS WELL as the suffering of the living.<br /><br />What about the "test?" What about those who become closer to their Creator because of such tragedies?<br />What about those who "call on the Name of the Lord" and He saves them for all of eternity. The eternal glorification of LOVE here is greater than the temporary creation which will pass. Does 50 years of suffering really mean that much compared to the suffering which is eternal? Since most people do not know that logical separation and judgement is an actual reality this question will appear superfluous to them.<br /><br />This temporary creation is a test as well as a place to be rewarded for (logically) "trusting" the Creator. The test proves who you are in relationship to the Man that the Creator became.Breckminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16059206540177008895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-19512450463441636702010-01-17T00:24:19.906-05:002010-01-17T00:24:19.906-05:00There are multiple problems here with understandin...There are multiple problems here with understanding concepts relative to consistency. Magnumdb accused me of "tunnel vision" with my defense..but this is exactly what is going on here when failing to address the fact that EVERYTHING God does is logically good...including what WE (as humans)call (the English word) "evil" when we apply it to our own suffering and circumstances.<br />Saying that "God brings forth evil circumstances" is from a anthropomorphic point of view..NOT a cosmic point of view.<br />Because this is complicated at the point of our language structure (which is imperfect with multiple meanings) we fail to see the imperfection of words such as "all loving" (clearly God does not love satan and his demons), "all powerful" (the word 'all' wrongfully encompasses things which are nonsense and self-contradictory) and even the word<br />"evil" is relative to perspectives and circumstances.<br /><br />Beowulf, I am NOT a Calivinist. I reject Calvinism as incomplete {even though I spend much of my time defending the parts that are<br />correct).Breckminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16059206540177008895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-78350240701363028492010-01-16T23:09:17.174-05:002010-01-16T23:09:17.174-05:00The topic that this conversation is moving towards...The topic that this conversation is moving towards is, in a way, talked about in a podcast called Reasonable Doubts. You should check it out. Here is a link where it can be downloaded in full for free.<br /><br />http://doubtreligion.blogspot.com/2009/05/episode-40-unintelligible-god.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-79784072605029307012010-01-16T18:19:40.470-05:002010-01-16T18:19:40.470-05:00Cole, if it cannot be fully understood and is &quo...Cole, if it cannot be fully understood and is "hard to understand", how can you know you have understood it correctly?<br /><br />And since you cannot possibly know you have understood it correctly, stop making assertions as if you do know.<br /><br />Are you God? If not, how can you possibly say what God is like and at the same time say God is incomprehensible?<br /><br />Stop making yourself into God and making assertions as if you were Him. You aren't. If He was around, He would answer for Himself... He wouldn't need you. At all.<br /><br />Cole, you need to learn some humility. You always respond to our questions with assertions. Who gave you the knowledge to make those assertions with such confidence?<br /><br />Cole, you're like Job, circa chapter 37... making confident assertions left and right about things you cannot possibly comprehend among people you think are wrong.<br /><br />No, you're nothing like Job, because you won't even listen to the rebuke.Joshua Junghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15279299202657149978noreply@blogger.com