If God Truly Cared About People Wouldn't He DO SOMETHING By Now? (page 34)

AK - Jeff

Where, Psac? This is a big thread, and I must say honestly that I have not seen any honest/sensible reply to HG's posts.

Jeff

By that token, we must admit we know nothing whatever of God, whether he has the notion (let alone any ability) to act, has what we would consider a personality, or any desires at all. By definition, a transcendent God would be utterly alien to us, impossible to fathom, impossible to beseech.

You are very close. The only solution would be if He revealed Himself to us.

Why would a transcendent God care at all?

A very astute question. That is the miracle of God – that He loves us. Life is more good than bad, even in the case of blind children. It can always be worse. It is a paradox that people want God to stay out of their lives, then complain when He does.

Min, I agree that the discussion of Attenborough is immaterial. I was pointing out the ignorance of one who claimed to have done “scholarly research”. His research was so thorough that he didn’t know he was parroting Sir David. There are, of course, no qualifications, to post comments on a subject on this board. But, when one has no clue what they are talking about, I will point it out.

PSacramento

In a nutshell I said that we honestly DON'T know why God doesn't do something and at best we can speculate along a few different lines:

Certain things should be left to us ( I think we all agree on that)

Natural disasters can be avoid in some ways and those that can't we need to understand that quakes and such happen for reasons of nature and that the world ( in that regard) was created this way BEFORE we came along so why would God change it for us?

Fundamentalits will have an answer for you, you just might not like it, but it works for them.

Many things that exist on earth exists for a mirad of reasons, some even as "horrific" as population control.

There is no way to reconcile a loving God with a God that turns a "blind eye" to suffereing, that is something that no person can say " I am ok with this" ( well perhaps outside soem extremists groups), but if we choose to believe in God we have ot find an answer that we can "live with" untill we find out the real "WHY" of the matter and only od, if he exists, can tell us.

The other thing is that, asking a question like this presupposes that there is an answer that exists or that we agree on and why would we think that?

HappyGuy

Min, I agree that the discussion of Attenborough is immaterial. I was pointing out the ignorance of one who claimed to have done “scholarly research”. His research was so thorough that he didn’t know he was parroting Sir David. There are, of course, no qualifications, to post comments on a subject on this board. But, when one has no clue what they are talking about, I will point it out.

MD,

So, first you said that you could totally discount the river blindness example that I gave because it came from Sir David. Now you are saying that because I have not read the materials that you said you could completely discount that I am not scholarly enough to pose an example? So, are Sir David materials indispensible to use the river blindness disease as an example of god's inaction to relieve suffering or not? Make up your mind.

The river blindness disease is something I know a great deal about, so I'm not sure what it is that you are saying I know nothing about.

What you are basically saying is that I am too stupid to pose a clarifying scenario to a rather general premise.

So, what is it that I have no clue what I am talking about?

HappyGuy

PS,

This is the problem I have with Christains. First they say, "I can explain God". And I'm like, "okay, go for it". Then they talk about 1 John 4:8 how God is love and how god is all powerful, all knowing, all wise, et al.

Then I pose a contraction to this description and the answer is 'well we cannot possibly understand god".

In which case why did they come to me in the first place telling me they could explain ANYTHING about god?

It is completely preposterous.

Sort of like if I came to you and said "I can explain gravity, gravity makes everything stay put", and then your car starts floating away and you say "BUT WAIT A MINUTE, you said gravity makes everything stay put and my car is floating away", and I say "well gravity is really not something we can understand, gravity probably has a reason for not wanting to keep your car from floating away, we just can't understand the reason".

you would think you were talking to Mad Dawg if I said something like that.

Mad Dawg

I didn't say I wrote papers for publication, I said I did research.

Actually, you said that you did “scholarly research.” One would presume that this would include a written document of some type.

You are attempting to belittle me and insinuating that any research I might have done is "not scholarly enough" to matter.

Let me state it plainly, you would not have been “belittled” if you hadn’t inflated the nature of your research. You claimed to have done “scholarly research” then resort to whining about “big words.”

You made yourself an easy target.

I got a lot of the materials at the university libraries in Nashville Tennessee. Vanderbilt library was particularly useful. Feel free to go there and start reading.

Don’t need to, we have fine libraries here in New York. I have access to the best libraries in the world.

I did not claim to BE anything.

Semantics. If I claimed to have performed surgery, am I not claiming to be a surgeon? I suppose not if my “surgery” was removing a sliver from my thumb. You implied that you were a scholarly researcher and failed to clarify it. Your problem, not mine.

Just that your reading did not include anyone qualified to comment on theology

And you obtained the list of materials that I studied where?

I didn’t have to obtain the list to know that you didn’t know what you were talking about.

I still haven't seen anyt posts from any of the religionists that even attempted to address Minimus question.

Open your eyes.

Most of the posts in this thread are attacks on me because I posted an example that would focus the discussion on Minimus' question.

So now you are a martyr? Is it more loving to point out your ignorance or to leave you in ignorance?

Now this MD character is saying that I'm not qualified to post an example because I am not a theologan.

You can post any example you want, stop crying because you were unable to defend it – be a big boy.

Your example of gravity is nonsense. Gravity has no will to decide anything. You are clueless regarding theology – you asked.

minimus

"I have done scholarly research"....when I read that I understood that since HG is not a "scholar", that what he was saying was that he read books written by scholars and researched them.

AK - Jeff

You can post any example you want, stop crying because you were unable to defend it – be a big boy.

Why does he have to defend anything, man?

He laid down a perfectly good example of River Blindness, which has gone essentially undefended to any great degree by anyone, including you! You have repeatedly attacked HG for anything you can think of: his 'scholarly' work, his education, etc.

You cannot defend your God against river blindness, and other than you, I am sure not not a damned soul following this thread gives one flying damn about Sir David or anyone else whoever postulated anything regarding the matter [and certainly Attenborough was not the only one to do so]. That has red herring written all over it.

Care to actually defend God against the charge?

Jeff

VoidEater

The only solution would be if He revealed Himself to us.

There's the rub - one can only claim this has happened, rather than provide compelling evidence (the writings that various denominations claim as sacred are both contradictory and woefully inadequate).

That is the miracle of God – that He loves us.

So you say.

Life is more good than bad, even in the case of blind children. It can always be worse.

'Poe-tay-toe, poe-tah-toe', dear sir. It can always be better, too. It's all relative, and those that suicide have determined for themselves.

If my head is grazed by a bullet, I can claim God prevented my being shot in the eye; perhaps I should further claim that Satan prevented me being missed completely.

It's a paradox that people want to be blessed by God and damned by Satan rather than deal with the reality of their lives.

It is a paradox that people want God to stay out of their lives, then complain when He does.

I detect an elephant in the room: there seems to be a supposition that God is in some lives, that everyone wants Him there, and that the evils of His grand bet with Satan are somehow our fault...

minimus

Yes, keep to topic. It's about Happy God not Happy Guy.

If God Truly Cared About People Wouldn't He DO SOMETHING By Now?

Share this