An Old Argument.... does it hold water? (page 143)

still thinking

He did not sent a tsunami to kill people. ...tec

How do you know that for sure?

tec

Well, first I have no reason at all to believe that.

Second, I know it because Christ never sent a disaster to kill anyone, nor did He kill anyone but rather heal people... and Christ is the image of God. The God that I follow, anyway.

Peace,

tammy

cantleave

Christ and god are very selective with whomn they want to demonstrate their love to.

According to the bible mythology Christ healed a few people on Earth, what was the point? To me it just points to favourtism and / or attention seeking!

tec

He healed those who had the desire AND the faith to be healed.

Peace,

tammy

True love would mean he responded to all that needed him. I would say requiring something back, even faith, makes him no different to an avaricious doctor that won't save a life unless payment is made.

Qcmbr

Tec - you have no way of knowing that. Playing the game that he actually healed someone it might have been against their wishes, despite their lack of faith, as a sign or simply to spite Satan. Making up reasons for actions in a largely fictional book even you must admit is not a strong position.

tec

It is not favoritism Can'tleave, if it is a necessity. You look at faith as a payment... but perhaps it is the 'tool'. Even now we recognize the benefit of positive thinking, and that is just a simple analogy to help you see something on a bigger scale. But if you believe something is impossible or not there, then you cannot find it to 'tap into' it.

If it was favoritism, then it would not be open to anyone... but only a select few.

Tec - you have no way of knowing that. Playing the game that he actually healed someone it might have been against their wishes, despite their lack of faith, as a sign or simply to spite Satan. Making up reasons for actions in a largely fictional book even you must admit is not a strong position.

Can'tleave brought up 'according to the bible'... I responded in kind.

Peace,

tammy

poopsiecakes

I would say requiring something back, even faith, makes him no different to an avaricious doctor that won't save a life unless payment is made.

Great comment, cantleave! Definitely something everyone can identify with, given the whole healthcare debate happening south of me. If indeed, doctors have a moral responsibility for providing care if they have the power to do so, all the more for an all powerful being who can eradicate all sickness and catastrophe.

still thinking

I knew I should have quoted the whole thing....

2 - You're questioning why God 'didn't' do something. He did not sent a tsunami to kill people.

How do you know that for sure?

Second, I know it because Christ never sent a disaster to kill anyone, nor did He kill anyone but rather heal people... and Christ is the image of God. The God that I follow, anyway.

I never said Christ did....but since you mention it...here you say he is the image of god...sooooooo The bible must be TOTALLY wrong. Because according to the bible...God OK'd the killing of many. Encouraged it even. And if the flood was remotely true...OMG! And if it wasn't, what a horrible story.

Given his track record...floods appear to be his forte.

tec

How do you know that for sure?

My answer is still the same. I'm not sure why you think it would be different with the addition of the full quote?

I never said Christ did....but since you mention it...here you say he is the image of god...sooooooo The bible must be TOTALLY wrong.

Um... yeah. LOL.

I have been saying all along that I see God through Christ (his image) and not through the 'bible'. God did not say 'bash babies heads against rocks'. How do I know this? I look at Christ. I apply that to all the OT passages, as well as NT ones such as Revelations. Sometimes there might simply be something about a story that I do not understand, because I was not there... but regardless; God is as Christ showed Him to be.

Peace,

tammy

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

Share this