The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday (page 238)

PSacramento

You seem to be having issues with the fact that you simply do NOT agree with my answers, and that is fine as I mentioned before.

We simply do NOT KNOW why God decides to not intervene and we can simplu express POSSIBLE views, which is what I have done.

Agreement with this views is irrelevant to be honest.

You can argue that it makes God this way and that BUT none of that changes anything really.

Natural disasters happen ( though they are only disasters when deaths and damage occure), they are a part of God's creative process ( whether good or bad is not relevant), there is no indication that God is suppose to intervene in these natural processes and the only reason to think He should is because we THINK that He should base don OUR view of what we think God is, correct?

If God is a god of love then He SHOULD intervene because love means having to do everything possible to proctect your loved ones, right?

The thing is, proctect them from what? suffering? pain? death? all things that are part of the natural process of life and existence.

In short we want God to make is immortal, we want no pain or suffering and want God to intervene so there is no pain and suffering and death, ever.

We want to be like god, immortal.

God's replay to that?

God became one of US.

You may not like His reply, may not agree with it, BUT that is His reply.

jgnat

Maybe God didn't do it, and perhaps it's unfair to attribute such inattention as the death of thousands, to Him.

Maybe there's no God to attribute any of this to, which would be the simplest answer.

I'm going to parse this : "issues with the fact that you simply do NOT agree with my answers".

This is a discussion board after all. Taking different sides to an issue is how new ideas, new thoughts are generated. It is true that I am challenging your answers. But your answers are not factual or complete. There are holes. Those holes need to be talked about.

Viviane

We simply do NOT KNOW why God decides to not intervene and we can simplu express POSSIBLE views, which is what I have done.

Your answer is, as I said, "It's a mystery". That's been covered extensively on this thread.

The thing is, proctect them from what? suffering? pain? death? all things that are part of the natural process of life and existence.

In the Christian world view, those are things that God set in motion. This can be reduced down to "protect them from himself". It's a failed argument.

In short we want God to make is immortal, we want no pain or suffering and want God to intervene so there is no pain and suffering and death, ever.

Why don't you address the question rather than attempt to tell other people what they want?

humbled

You, Psac, have not looked at Luke 10's story of the Good Samaritan. To be theological, this rendering of the Judeo/christian text is vital to identifying the union of the dictionary definition and Jesus' definition of compassion.

Though the Golden Rule is often expressed as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" IT IS NOT EVER EXPRESSED THIS WAY IN THE BIBLE. it is consistently written in the OT and NT is this:

Love your neighbor as yourself.

Again the text at Luke 10 says the Samaritan had COMPASSION on the injured man!

How is this story not pertinent to the issue at hand and to the thread's question of how God can be a loving all-powerful God and allow massive suffering to persist? To reframe the words the gospel's wording of the Golden Rule and discount this eloquent illustration of selfless active love and compassion is to cut the floor out from under yourself, Psac.

A suffering neighbor is given compassionate care--this is what we are told to do. But it is not what God does.

These are facts. The conclusion we draw from this is ----WHAT?

PSacramento

This is a discussion board after all. Taking different sides to an issue is how new ideas, new thoughts are generated. It is true that I am challenging your answers. But your answers are not factual or complete. There are holes. Those holes need to be talked about.

Yes there are holes, there are holes in the argument that God SHOULD do soemthing too, but these tend to be holes that are emotion based and from the POV that we, humans, want God to fix things our way and that we can't/won't understand why He doesn't and we think that He can't possibly have a good reason for allowing things to be the way they are.

Viviane

Yes there are holes, there are holes in the argument that God SHOULD do soemthing too, but these tend to be holes that are emotion based and from the POV that we, humans, want God to fix things our way and that we can't/won't understand why He doesn't and we think that He can't possibly have a good reason for allowing things to be the way they are.

You are falsely ascribing a view that many don't hold and dismissing arguments as emotional. Those are both strawmen. You can do better. I hope.

cofty

PSac - The question is simple.

How can the god of christian theism be reconciled with the events of 26th January 2004?

The god of christian theism was revealed by Jesus to be the personification of love.

You have answered the question by expanding the meaning of "love" to include the violent and capricious drowning of a quarter of a million men, women and children.

You still have all your work ahead of you to explain how the meaning of love, as revealed by Jesus, can also embrace this mass slaughter.

It is not that I don't like your answer, it's the fact that your answer is self-contradictory. My objection is not based on emotion but on your irational and internally flawed arguments.

Please ALSO address the other valid objections to your non-answer that have been raised above by Viv, jgnat and Humbled. In particular your "compassion" defense has been demolished by jgnat.

Viviane

Cute puppies well cared for make me feel compassion. Perhaps God should have smote them instead?

PSacramento

In case you haven't figured it our, the love Jesus spoke about ( since it keeps getting referred to) is self-sacrifice.

Which is what God did when He became flesh.

That is His expression of Love, that is Love.

You may see it as flawed and even see my view as flawed from your POV and that's fine, but don't keep brining Christ into this whenm in His own words He says:

John 15:12-13

12 “This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.13 Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.

THAT is the personification of Love in Christ.

As for the arugment for compassion being demolished because SOME people are not compassionate in the face of suffering, well...I don't really view that as an argument at all.

That is like saying that because some people are that are loved are not loving means that loving people doesn't lead to love.

jgnat

...and the rain in Spain lies mainly in the plain.

So you aren't going to work on those holes in your argument, are you?

The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday

Share this