An Old Argument.... does it hold water? (page 113)

I think there is to this point, Jay. Because it would be the same if the sentence was in reverse. Millions of people are doing good... but millions of people are also suffering. They tend to cancel one another out in reference to the good or evil nature of God. Unless one posits that God is both good and evil. Some do think this.

Any knowledge I have of God, however, comes NOT from what man does or does not do (good or bad)...but rather from what Christ (the truth, the image of the living god) did and does.

Peace,

Tammy

jay88

There is no reverse, if we have millions doing bad, then it is a reflection on all those doing good.

AGuest

Good morning... and may you all have peace! I see some managed to stay late[r than me] at the zocalo and others have returned for coffee! Well, count me in! I'm always game for a good game of... well, just what is it that we're "playing" here? I can't speak for others but for myself it's nothing more than "Here's what I've come to know... here's how I came to know it... want it?... great... don't?... no worries!" Continuing in the spirit that I am trying to bring, therefore, I wish to respond to the following (thank you, all!):

not childish, even though it's suppose to be.

Indeed, dear N.drew (the greatest of love and peace to you, dear one!)... although "childLIKE" might be a better way to put it, if you get my drift - . But I got what you meant!

If we are trick or treating and I get the best candy haul at a certain house, should I keep it to myself or tell you where to find it too?

Unfortunately, it seems that some here expect BOTH, dear SOG (the greatest of love and peace to you, too!): share it... with the world, even... but also keep it to yourself. Because they chide "us" for NOT "telling the world", sharing it in a more global manner... and then take issue because we share it here, even with them. Would be sad, wouldn't it, if it turned out that perhaps they are among the privileged few... truly "Israel"... who, historically, always got things FIRST... BEFORE the "world" did? Goodness, the "songs" of the children in the marketplace...

I have seen these things. I think you are explaining far more than is needed, and you certainly have no need to justify yourself to me.

Perhaps I am overexplaining, dear one, and I know I need not justify myself to you or others. I have not yet learned, however, how to remain silent with one demands from ME... a reason for MY faith. I am always concerned that it is that bit of information that I DIDN'T share... that could have helped them at least consider.

There is a time to be silent and a time to speak.

There is. And how does one know WHEN those times ARE? Since I KNOW that I am foolish... and nothing more than a good for nothing servant... I have to rely on our Lord to tell me. Thus far, on THIS thread, when I've said, "Well, I've had enough of THIS!" or "Well, I guess that should be clear/enough,"... he has said to ME, "But what of this one, child? Will you not answer THIS question as I have given you an answer? Do not worry about these who "pretend" that they are listening; they are not. But others are. Are they to be left in the fire because YOU have grown "tired"?"

And, the answer is... of course not. This isn't about ME; it's about him (our Lord)... and those who either HAVE ears... or WISH to have ears... so as to hear... HIM. And he is the One who decides when no one is listening anymore. Not me. And given the number of "views" (close to 14,000... and certainly not all are by those who are participating)... I would say that he knows what HE'S doing. So, I must ask YOU to be patient with me/us, if you can, please... and kindly bear with us.

Again, peace to you... and your household!

YOUR servant, sister, and fellow slave of Christ,

SA

AGuest

It's not designed or intended to hurt Shelby. I'm sorry if it does.

I understand that you didn't intend to "hurt" me, dear Size (peace to you!)... and it was not MY intention to relate that you DID, but only that IT did [hurt]. I totally accept your apology although, in truth, none was needed because its "sting" was inadvertent - I totally get that. I have done/caused the same, on occasion... absolutely without any intent to do so. But thank you, because it DID hurt.

When we become convinced of something . . . it carries a smugness and glibness along with it . . . it's human nature.

Interesting comment, dear one. I know some people... JWs in particular... who display this kind of attitude as to what [they think] they know. It's very common with them, actually; par for the course, even. I HATED that about "them"... and tried with all of my might NOT to take on that kind of a persona, truly. It was embarrassing to see it. Bordered on pomposity, in many instances. Outside of the WTBTS, however, I also came to know MANY people... before AND after my association with them... who are/become convinced of something and neither smugness OR glibness are involved. To the contrary, some actually become MORE humble/modest... because of the EFFECT on them of what they now know. Such people range from, say, the 92 year-old-lady in my building... to some of my university professors (my Women's Studies, Quantum Math, and Human Sexuality profs come to mind).

In respect to the OP . . . there have been very few answers here to the subject itself. A huge number of responses, and countless assertions, defending currently held beliefs . . . but few actual answers. That's just my opinion.

And your opinion is noted; however, I must ask: what constitutes an "answer", in your opinion? Because the impression I have... and will most probably leave this thread with is that regardless of what or how any believer responded... it would not, in your (and others') opinion... constitute an "answer." If that's the case, then asking the question in the first place was founded in deceit, was it not... because it can't BE answered, can it... by a believer? If the three options given are the ONLY three that WILL be considered... then the question was intentional misleading and should have included a disclaimer to the effect that "The OP is not interested in any possible alternatives to the options stated; therefore, any response MUST be within the confines of the three scenarios given or will be rejected, even if valid, as they are not with the SCOPE of this particular inquiry." Or something like that.

Of course, some are going to say, "Why would the OP have had to state THAT?" and I would counter that, given the accusations of irrationality, absence of logic, lack of critical thinking skills, etc., stating the question as he did... without such a disclaimer... deceitfully intends TO create such. It gives the propounder unbridled latitude to "reject" anything that he/she doesn't WISH to entertain as an answer and dismiss such as "irrational, illogical, and lacking critical thinking." As done here. It would NOT have been accepted in the very annals that some of you wish to have others believe it would.

So, unless the OP STATES what specifically constitutes an "answer"... what the confines/limitations, if any, ARE... which he did NOT do here... ANY and ALL responses are, in fact, answers.

But, again, I would love to hear what, in YOUR opinion... would constitute an "answer."

Again, peace to you... and to you, dear SOG!

YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

SA, who may be foolish, yes, and good for nothing, absolutely... but certainly ain't the "dummy" some of you might like to think...

TheUbermensch

So the fact that people are helping makes the point that those people that they ARE helping are suffering completely moot? I think that since human beings have to help each other (impossible to help everyone) that is yet another reason to see why God isn't there. He lets measly little humans quibble and suffer and try to support each other while he watches on.

He lets measly little humans quibble and suffer and try to support each other while he watches on.

An Old Argument.... does it hold water?

tec

jay88

tec

jay88

AGuest

AGuest

TheUbermensch

N.drew

TheUbermensch

N.drew

Share this