loving and forgiving are a huge component of jesus' message to his disciples.. in answer to the question as to how many times forgiveness should be offered to an offender, jesus gave the reply, "seventy (times) seven.
" (variously interpreted as either 77 times or a multiple of 70 times 7).. an example is given of a man who owed a considerable sum of money whose debt was forgiven.
this man failed to forgive a much smaller debt owed to him.
Judgment is left to God.
We forgive so that we may be forgiven, we forgive because it is a must in the healing process.
There may come a time for judgement but that judgment is left to the One that KNOWS our thoughts, knows WHY we do what we do.
No one else is qualified to judge, much less SHUN anyone.
Jesus even forgave those that rejected Him KNOWING Who and What He was.
But, free will is free will and everyone is free to decide for themselves, free to choose what to do.
Very good post Terry.
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
According to the best defense that Psacramento has offered on behalf of fundamentalists, such an event as the accident involving your friend's son had a purpose.
It seems odd to me that (even assuming the accident did have a purpose, which I find repulsive personally) this so-called loving God has not told her what that purpose is, or that all kinds of suffering has a purpose, or even let her know that her son is safe and well in some kind of afterlife.
Yet the Christian God IS love?...
No, you are misunderstanding it.
The accident having a purpose or not is not the issue, the issue is does the suffering caused by the accident have a purpose.
If it doesn't then suffering has no point, if there is a purpose (such as to develop compassion) then it (suffering) has a purpose.
Agreement is not relevant to the argument, only the ability to understand that a purpose for suffering exists.
http://www.jw-archive.org/post/96026163083/would-taking-the-ice-bucket-challenge-raising-monee.
I don't know about anyone else, but I personally know of quite a few people that have become aware of this disease because of this challenge.
The amount of many raised for ALS has been unprecedented.
It isn't just about reaserch but also the support that familes dealing with ALS need.
Just and FYI:
I lost my Dad to ALS this April 12 after fighting it offically for 2 years ( they were not sure what He had untill two years ago on his 65th birthday when the diagnosis was made "offical".
People had heard of Lou Gherig's disease but had not true idea of how horrific it is, that there is NO TREATMENT and NO CURE and that it is terminal.
I was against this challenge because I saw far too many celebrities involved BUT I was wrong, raising awareness and money IS important in fighting ANY disease but I didn't realize how little people knew about ALS.
You are suppose to do the challenage AND donate by the way, the challenge is NOT a way out of donating.
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
Ok so you don't know and yet you persist on offering something even you do not agree with. You don't subscribe to the fundamentalist view of "none are above suffering," and you don't subscribe to a "end justifying the means," even if the end is eternal blissful life in a god-like state. So what do you subscribe to?
I offered a view that addresses a possibility as to why God allows suffering, and I said as much.
I have already stated that I do NOT know why God allows suffering and that I do NOT have an answer that will satisfy an atheist because unless one believes that suffering CAN be justified, there isn't an answer that ill satisfy them.
That doesn't mean that there ISN'T an answer, just not one that satisfies them.
Now, the answers I have given above: God permits suffering because it leads people to be better and more in direction of what He wants Us to be and that none are above suffering, isn't very satisfying to me BUT that doesn't mean that it isn't a valid answer because, IMO, it is.
It simply is NOt one that I like or am satisfied with.
YET, I can see it as being A answer to the problem of suffering.
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
Will you tell her that her daughter deserved it or shall I?
You mean to say, "Do you want me to tell teh mother that she is not above suffering liek everyone else, or should I"?
Because that is the root of the argument.
In terms of death, Suffering has to do with those that are left behind, the dead no longer suffer.
It is the survivors that have to live with suffering and pain and the loss.
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
Again, you are going back to emotion to refute a possible reason why God would allow suffering and emotion doesn't void the argument.
As much as I AGREE that it is an emotional issue.
The fundamentalist argument, of which I do NOT subscribe to, is that because none are innocent, non are above suffering.
It is not that a person DESERVES to suffer, it is that no person is more than any other so if one is not above suffering, then no one else either.
Emotional arguments against this are just that emotional.
See, you are trying to deny the argument is a valid one because you dont' agree with it, because it makes God look bad ( or because it downplays suffering)and IF God is a God of LOVE then His love should be so much that there would be no suffering at all BUT that suggest that God's love for HOW WE ARE NOW would be have to be greater then His love for how we WILL BE, what He wants Us to be and there is no evidence of that in the Bible.
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
Yes, a plausable reason within the constraints of the bible as regards the attributes of Jesus and his teachings about his father. Jesus showed concern and healed people not only as a showy display of his power but out of true love and concern. He healed even non believers. God does NOT act this way according to the example of the tsunami that was a byproduct of Gods design and an incident he could have stopped. You have not listed a "bible approved" reason. This thread wasn't made for deists.
Jesus healed those that came to Him, asked Him to BUT He did NOT stop suffering did he?
He healed to show the kingdon of God was amongst them. Yes He shoudl concern and love, He did suffer and die for Us to show His love BUT He did NOT take away suffering at all BUT warned that it would get worse even.
I don't knwo why He didn't take away suffering BUT the fact is that suffering DOES bring people together, it DOES breed compassion and love, even among enemies, suffering unites people better than anything else it seems.
To say that suffering serves no purpose is wrong and it it serves a purpose then perhaps that is why God allows for it.
I know many people that in suffering turned to God and I also know many that turned aways from God.
You guys keep saying that God designed this world...strange thing to read from atheists...
The argument against this world being made a different way to elminate natural disasters have been addressed by others like Dinesh D'Souza for example, that shows that LIFE on this planet as it is because of how this planet is, natural disaters and all.
Seems like we can't have one ( This type of life) without the other.
Unless of course it has been proven that human life as it is right now would have existed on a planet without the same "natural evils" that ours has.
I don't follow that debate so I honestly don't know if it has.
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
Psac and others and willing to do mental gymnastics to protect the superstitions that they have decided a priori cannot be wrong. This is what faith does.
I openly admited I do NOT have an answer for this question that would satisfy an unbeliever and presented one that I personally have a hard time refuting myself and believe MAY hold part of the answer.
All I know is that God does allow suffering and I do NOT know why.
Psac - I have explained clearly why your answer is impossible for the god of chrisitan theism. You have resorted to dishonesty - you played the emotional card - because you have no rational answer.
Your god is love. Everything he does is love. He cannot take his love hat off and replace it with his vindictive one for a while. Even when he punishes, it must be an act of love.
You are forced to conclude that the capricious drowning of 250 000 men, women and children on 26th December 2004 was a perfect act of love.
This is not possible for a christian because Jesus described the meaning of love.
You propose that it was beneficial that a quarter of a million Asian men, women and children were drowned so that you and your fellow comfortable western christians could learn a little more about compassion.
I am willing to bet that every rational person who is not blinded by religious superstition finds your answer morally repugnant.
It is an emotional response, staements like "morally repugnant", acusing of dishonesty, referring to horric emotional moments in earth's history, accusing God of being horrific and so forth, are all emotional statments. Correct of course from your POV.
You mention repeatly that the Christian God is a God of Love, which means, according to you, He CAN NOT allow suffering If He can prevent it.
I am not sure how you get from A to B...
What I am saying is that God allowing for suffering to build compassion and to bring people to him and make us better in His eyes IS a valid reason for many and the only way to dispute that view is based on the emotional response that the Christian God is a God of love and, accoring to Us, He should love like that, He should allow these things to happen if He really loved us.
As some hard-line fundamenatlist would say, No one is innocent, so no one is above suffering".
We may not like the argument, but it is a valid one.
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
Then if the reason is that God thinks suffering is beneficial for growth or any other variation that is horrific when dealing with murderous rapes or large tsunami death tolls, then he is not worthy of worship. Thats the point! The point is not that you are not stating a reason at all PS, it's that you can't state a reason that makes God worthy of worship. The bible doesn't answer this. Logic and proper morals doesn't answer this. God didn't care to let humans know his reasons yet expects them to worship him regardless.
I thought the point was a plausable reason as to why God permits suffering from natural disaters.
Whether you find God worthy of worship is one thing, whether God is or isn't is another and neither have anything to do with God's reasons to allow suffering.
Now, if you want me to state a reason that God allows suffering that would make Him worthy of worship by you, then that is another question and WHY I asked at the very beginning IF "you" ( the non-beleiver) believe there is ANY possible answer to this question that would satisfy you.
been out now for 10 yrs but life is a mess.
starting to think its because i have no spiritual compass.
why shouldn't i consider going back?.
Hi
Been out now for 10 yrs but life is a mess. Starting to think its because I have no spiritual compass. Why shouldn't I consider going back?
God wants you to take control of YOUR life, not have someone do it for you.
You wont' be able to say to Christ, " I was doing what the elders told me..." or "I followed what the elders or GB said because I thought they were your messengers on Earth", and get away with doing what in your heart you know is wrong. There is no excuse you can give that will obsolve you under God.
You want structure? you want guidance? then Ask Christ, ask you you shall receive because it is up to YOU and no one else.
Don't let anyone take the palce of Christ in your life, there is NO mediator between Man and Christ.
God WANTS that PERSONAL relationship with you, you just have to want it to.
