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.
I have realized that we don't know that god or gods are perfect, omnipotent or omnibenevolent . We don't know if God is omnipotent, all powerful, or a lone god. We don't know if God is all good or if there are good gods and bad gods. We just do not know.
Your answer is "it's a mystery" backed by a feckless God that sucks at his job. Why are you worshipping it?
according to both christian and jewish eschatology, the messiah will come to jerusalem, where he will deliver the jews from hostile nations "round about.
"since the jehovah's witnesses and other adventists don't believe his coming will be literally fulfilled, but figuratively fulfilled, they simply believe he will return to the earth, where he will slay the wicked and the righteous will be caught up to meet him in the air.. first we have a christian declaration:.
and when [jesus] had spoken these things, while [the apostles] beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
Actually, you may be incorrect on every single one of these assertions. His wife may have been Mary Magdalen, at least according to one ancient document (photo below) in which Jesus refers to Mary as his "spouse."
You are literally claiming Jesus had no wife and his wife was Mary Magadalene.
WTF?
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.
My "compassion theory" as you put it, means that suffering is what develops compassion, it has ZERO to do with religion at all.
Or reality.
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.
By my defintion, it does indeed require suffering, where did you get the idea it didn't?
/ kəmˈpæʃən / noun
1. a feeling of distress and pity for the suffering or misfortune of another, often including the desire to alleviate it .
From basic grammar. There would be no need for an OR statement if they were the same thing. It's not suffering associated with misfortune, it's suffering OR misfortune.
Try to twist it all you want, your own provided definition nullifies your argument.
recently there have been several claims made regarding prophecies that came true.
i've not personally seen a prophecy that i would consider as having come true.
i would consider the following as the requirements to say something is a prophecy and evaluate whether or not it came true:.
The claim they would endure into the world we know today and have the influence they do is quite remarkable; evidence for some of divine intervention
We also have the words of Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, Roman, Hindu, Islam Zoroastrian, Semitic and other religions fron thousands of years ago. Are those also here because of divine intervention?
Again, I do understand that the prophecy does not fit exactly into the crtieria required. However, I think it could hit the 'special' knowledge requirement - there were many religious views around at the time, who could have known that this tiny religion would grow to dominate the western world and still be going strong in 2014!? I do understand your point re the quote above - but I am playing advocate.
Understood, I am playing my part also... as myself :)
My counter-argument here is that what special knowledge is required? Lots of people say things will last forever. Religions say that all the time. Why is it special that, out of all of those claims, one happened to maybe be right (since we can't ever prove it came true)?
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.
You said the good was the development of compassion. Compassion, by your own definition DOESN'T require suffering. The suffering can ALSO create incompassion.
Explain how killing or allowing 2500000 people to die was a good plan. Connect the dots, A to B to C. Be specific.
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.
By its very defination, compassion requires suffering to exist, see the dictionary citation above.
Or misfortune, according to your very own posting. Misfortune doesn't require suffering.
Doesn't seem you understand the argument...compassion is needed to fully develop humans to God's greater plan/purpose.
That's simply a version if "it's a mystery", an argument from ignorance since you can't explain in any way how 250000 people dying was necessary for God's plan.
The lack of a trait in some people does NOT invalidate the trait, that is like saying that because some people are dishonest the triat of honesty is not valid.
You're shifting the argument, moving the goalposts. You said suffering could be useful if it helped develop compassion. No one said compassion wasn't a valid trait, but that the method of developing compassion ALSO created incompassion, so the method was clearly faulty (also it killed 250,000 people, so there's that).
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.
Or misfortune. Not just suffering. You're ignoring half of the definition.
In any case, God, in omniness, created the very conditions that caused the suffering. It's STILL ALL HIS RESPONSIBILITY. You are completely ignoring that. It's like saying an abusive father always buys his child an ice cream after the beating, so some good comes out of the beatings.
recently there have been several claims made regarding prophecies that came true.
i've not personally seen a prophecy that i would consider as having come true.
i would consider the following as the requirements to say something is a prophecy and evaluate whether or not it came true:.
To start as any good apologist should I would like to point out, you failed to ackowledge any merit in my post and just flippantly brushed it off without consideration almost as if you are not really interested in exploring the possibilities, it seems you are just baiting to beat down posters.
Nice... ;)
So, playing my part, of course I didn't. I simply seek clarification on what you consider God's word.
You have slightly shifted the burden of proof with your question. If there is a prophecy that god's word is enduring, just because there are potentially false versions of biblical texts, if just one true version remains the prophecy would be still on track.
The burden always lies on the person making the claim. Hence the need for clarification on what you specifically mean by "God's word".
OneEyedJoe also made an excellent point, that something with no end date can't ever possibly be proved true.
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.
No, my argument was that there is NO compassion without suffering, which is a fact.
An observable verfiable fact? Citation, please. Please explain how, when I see a puppy at my local no-kill shelter that is fed, played with, given cet care and has toys and a warm place to sleep, I still feel compassion and want to take it home.
Even IF there no compassion without suffering, your argument is self-defeating. If there were no suffering, then there would be absolutely no need for compassion. The thing you say suffering helps us develop is ONLY needed because God allows the suffering his plans caused! You're right back to failing to connect the dots!
That some people choose to NOT be compassionte in the face of suffering does not change the fact that there is no compassion without suffering.
You've still not explained how the lack of compassion after suffering isn't a valid counterpoint.
