7
   

God is good but there is still suffering.

 
 
hmodahl
 
  0  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 08:20 am
@Glennn,
Ok so going off of your example of brushing teeth, that suffering was brought on by your own choices not to brush your teeth not by your parents. The same analogy is applicable to God. The suffering we experience is brought on by our own sinful choices. God does not cause suffering, we do in our sinful nature.
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 08:24 am
@hmodahl,
All you have to do is prove that your god exists in the first place, and then you'll have a convincing argument.
0 Replies
 
hmodahl
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 08:28 am
@FBM,
Ok let me ask a question. So as you said, Epicurus's claim was intended for doubt, and therefore it doesn't disprove anything. So you think, then, that we need to find our evidence for or against God elsewhere because this argument doesn't prove or disprove his existence? If so, where do you personally look for and/or find this evidence?
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 08:32 am
@hmodahl,
The person/people making the claim bear the burden of proof. You're claiming that your god exists; I say that I'm not convinced. I don't claim to know that it doesn't exist. The burden is on you and anyone else making the claim.
0 Replies
 
hmodahl
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 08:35 am
@Smileyrius,
So I can understand you fully would you mind to clarify what you mean when you say, "Essentially it is the Sovereignty that is the issue, The king is at present allowing his subjects the chance to prove the challenge made in the most effective way. Allowing them to rule without his interference, that includes without the added benefits of Godly rule.
Gods only intervention is to preserve his purpose and the covenants he has made with man, preparing the way for restoration."
And I would love to hear your scriptural references if you have them!
Glennn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 08:59 am
@hmodahl,
Quote:
Ok so going off of your example of brushing teeth, that suffering was brought on by your own choices not to brush your teeth not by your parents. The same analogy is applicable to God. The suffering we experience is brought on by our own sinful choices. God does not cause suffering, we do in our sinful nature.

But if you are in a car accident which was not your fault, and you lose the use of your legs, how can it be said that your suffering is the result of your sinful nature?
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 09:31 am
@hmodahl,
Furthermore, if you follow suffering to its source, you run into your god. Assuming your god created everything, consider the fact that before it created humankind, there was no sin and no suffering. So, it could be said that your god fell into temptation when it decided to create humans, since that action led to the prevalence of both sin and suffering. In other words, creating the source of sin and suffering is, in itself, a sinful act. In fact, if there really is such a thing as original sin, that would be it.

I know that your argument will be that the god offered the gift of freewill, which is all fine and well. But when humans used that freewill to be and to do what they wanted, the god became angry and drowned the object of its anger with a flood. So, besides creating the source of sin and suffering, it also responded to its own error by committing mass murder in a futile attempt to cover up its mistake.

If a tree is know by its fruit, and we be the fruits of god, then what kind of a tree does that make your god? There is a saying that the fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree. Why is that saying not applicable to the god?
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 02:42 pm
@Smileyrius,
The king is at present allowing his subjects the chance to prove the challenge made in the most effective way, but then God is preparing the way for restoration anyway?

The subjects, then, really don't have the chance to prove the challenge made in the most effective way.

FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 08:38 pm
Hmm...

0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2015 06:06 am
Equilibriums come out of fluctuations that allow contextual relative value to have a solid foundation...
"Good" is Equilibrium !
...not general happiness...

....most of these threads are so naive on their aproaches to complexity I dont even know why I bother replying...maybe, just maybe, in the hopes some reader, somewhere, makes it worth explaining it...
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2015 09:46 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
I dont even know why I bother replying

Really? It's not that complex.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2015 04:38 pm
@Glennn,
The problem is precisely you having a point while the topic of good and evil keeps being debated since the Greeks...it should be simple. Aparently most think its a hard problem...
Glennn
 
  2  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2015 04:56 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Yes. The phenomenon of cause and effect is highly underrated. When faced with the reality of cause and effect, some will not only personify both the cause and the effect, but will also assign a cause to the cause and effect dynamic.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2015 06:31 pm
@hmodahl,
It may seem odd, but our current situation originates with the fruit of a tree mentioned in Genesis, ch. 3. God had already proclaimed his humans perfect and offered them a single choice, to eat or refrain. It was God's tree, remember, so he had the right to control.

So, is this about a fruit? Or, is it about something more? Does it not seem likely that the choice involves God's right to set standards for his creation? Put it this way, a product manufacturer honors the guarantee only when users follow the instructions. God's promise of Edenic life carried the same caveat. So Adam's sin brought death. And, because he was no longer perfect, he could pass on only death to his offspring.

It was mentioned a few posts back that God has a remedy. In verse 15 of the above chapter, he fortells the execution of the 'serpent' by a an individual he would later identify.

Well, it's been an awful long time. What's the holdup? First of all, we are not the time keepers. And, a careful reading of chapter 3 will identify several issues that must be settled. After all, what if the serpent was correct in his assertions?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2015 06:36 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
The king is at present allowing his subjects the chance to prove the challenge made in the most effective way, but then God is preparing the way for restoration anyway?

The subjects, then, really don't have the chance to prove the challenge made in the most effective way.
Actually, Satan is the one with something to prove. He's had about 6000 years, give or take. How much more do you think would be appropriate?
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2015 07:14 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
The king is at present allowing his subjects the chance to prove the challenge made in the most effective way, but then God is preparing the way for restoration anyway?

The subjects, then, really don't have the chance to prove the challenge made in the most effective way.
Actually, Satan is the one with something to prove. He's had about 6000 years, give or take. How much more do you think would be appropriate?

Why is there a time limit in the first place in regard to proving the challenge made in the most effective way?
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2015 07:27 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
Why is there a time limit in the first place in regard to proving the challenge made in the most effective way?
I am not in charge of the clock. But if God had simply destroyed the rebels on site, we could not have been born. So, one consideration must be God's desire for all to have opportunity for life. 2 Peter 3:9 seems to bear that out.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2015 08:53 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Why is there a time limit in the first place in regard to proving the challenge made in the most effective way?
I am not in charge of the clock. But if God had simply destroyed the rebels on site, we could not have been born. So, one consideration must be God's desire for all to have opportunity for life. 2 Peter 3:9 seems to bear that out.


So, if there's an ulterior motive, that of all having an opportunity for life, there's dishonesty in taking on the challenge in the first place.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2015 01:21 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
Why is there a time limit in the first place in regard to proving the challenge made in the most effective way?
neologist wrote:
I am not in charge of the clock. But if God had simply destroyed the rebels on site, we could not have been born. So, one consideration must be God's desire for all to have opportunity for life. 2 Peter 3:9 seems to bear that out.
InfraBlue wrote:
So, if there's an ulterior motive, that of all having an opportunity for life, there's dishonesty in taking on the challenge in the first place.
God's purpose was and is for his human creation to have indefinitely lasting life. So how could that be an ulterior motive?

The dishonesty you refer to comes from accusers.

FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2015 01:34 am
@neologist,
Lots of apologists declare that "God's purpose is/was" this, that or the other, and they often contradict each other. How would one who is not committed to any particular set of beliefs, scriptures or traditions decide who actually has special insight into the mind of this god?
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/13/2021 at 06:17:43