7
   

God is good but there is still suffering.

 
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2015 12:28 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
But then, I already covered these questions and your conclusion was a snide remark.

You're welcome to chase your own tail by starting here.

Maybe Smileyrius has more to offer.
Your problem is that whenever I expose your failed argument, you consider it a snide remark.

InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2015 12:34 am
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
But then, I already covered these questions and your conclusion was a snide remark.

You're welcome to chase your own tail by starting here.

Maybe Smileyrius has more to offer.
Your problem is that whenever I expose your failed argument, you consider it a snide remark.


neologist wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
It makes God a liar, as well.
So where might we look for the truth?

You?

How does this expose my "failed argument" when it doesn't even address the truth that I pointed out?
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2015 01:32 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
But then, I already covered these questions and your conclusion was a snide remark.

You're welcome to chase your own tail by starting here.

Maybe Smileyrius has more to offer.
neologist wrote:
Your problem is that whenever I expose your failed argument, you consider it a snide remark.
Earlier:
InfraBlue wrote:
It makes God a liar, as well.
neologist wrote:
So where might we look for the truth?

You?
InfraBlue wrote:
How does this expose my "failed argument" when it doesn't even address the truth that I pointed out?
Your dissatisfaction with truth does not make it a lie.

God offered Adam and Eve endless life in paradise for them and their offspring. Their sin did not change God's purpose. Perhaps you could school us on a better course.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2015 07:51 am
@neologist,
Quote:
InfraBlue wrote:
"In regard to the subjects' challenge, God is insincere because he isn't letting them prove it because he has plans for a restoration that make the the chance to prove the challenge moot."


So, you're saying the 6000 or so years God has allotted is insufficient?
OK, I get it.
Neo, the problem with your narrative is that it assumes a global view of mankind. By all the evidence, God doesn't give a **** about 'mankind', only individuals. 6000 years? Your earthly lifespan is all God is going to give you to figure out the basics. Then maybe you get 1000 to finish the challenge.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2015 08:10 am
There are trees older than 6,000 years. Rolling Eyes
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2015 02:43 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
There are trees older than 6,000 years. Rolling Eyes
Just talking about written history.
neologist
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2015 02:51 pm
@Leadfoot,
InfraBlue wrote:
"In regard to the subjects' challenge, God is insincere because he isn't letting them prove it because he has plans for a restoration that make the the chance to prove the challenge moot."
neo wrote:
So, you're saying the 6000 or so years God has allotted is insufficient?
OK, I get it.
Leadfoot wrote:
Neo, the problem with your narrative is that it assumes a global view of mankind. By all the evidence, God doesn't give a **** about 'mankind', only individuals. 6000 years? Your earthly lifespan is all God is going to give you to figure out the basics. Then maybe you get 1000 to finish the challenge.
Certainly the god who usurped control of our world cares not at all about us. But his authority has an expiration date. 6000 years seems about right, IMO.

Apparently that is one point of disagreement between Blue and me.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2015 03:59 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

FBM wrote:
There are trees older than 6,000 years. Rolling Eyes
Just talking about written history.



My bad.
0 Replies
 
Johnjohnjohn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2015 06:10 pm
@FBM,
I really didn't know.

But, What tests have you done to prove so?

I'll conduct a few of my own.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2015 08:03 pm
@neologist,
This, as well, doesn't address the fact that God, by your interpretation of the Bible, is insincere about the challenge to his authority since he's going to restore it anyway.

That's the truth. Deal with it.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2015 08:05 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:
Apparently that is one point of disagreement between Blue and me.

What's apparent is that the point I am making is completely over your head.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2015 11:08 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
. . . the point I am making is completely over your head.
We not on the same page; we are not even in the same library. I wish you well.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2015 11:46 am
@neologist,
So, you've decided not to chase your own tail. Good.

We'll see what Smileyrius has to say about the matter at hand.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2015 05:45 pm
@InfraBlue,
Perhaps he can lead you to coherence.
0 Replies
 
Smileyrius
 
  3  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2015 07:36 am
@InfraBlue,
I have probably not been coherent here, because I understand your point, but it doesn't appear we are on the same page. God is not accepting a challenge so much as answering it, to illustrate..

If you were to challenge adamantly that gravity had no hold on you, and that you could fly out the window, and you did not trust my word enough not to jump, you would excuse me the act of placing a safety net beneath the window in question. Am I insincere in accepting a challenge? by allowing you to jump, all the while ensuring that you do not need to see harm, I am not accepting a challenge at all, but answering it. I am pretty sure you will learn in the best way possible that you were wrong and there would be no need for you or anyone else watching to jump out any windows.

So, ambitious man has challenged his God, God has to answer that challenge, words would do no good as his words had been brought into question as part of the challenge, so the answer has been made through what has thus far amounted to 6000 years of experimentation in many different kinds of rulership (opinions over success may differ) By then contrasting this in full view with his own government for 1000 years, Gods sincerity in the matter is in answering the challenge.

I apologise if I sound bonkers, I appreciate how us theists must sound at times to those of you who do not share in our psychological shortcomings Smile
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2015 07:48 am
@Smileyrius,
Quote:
I apologise if I sound bonkers, I appreciate how us theists must sound at times to those of you who do not share in our psychological shortcomings


I think Nietzsche ultimately reached the wrong conclusion but the following was interesting. He once wrote:
Quote:
"all superior men who were irresistibly drawn to throw off the yoke of any kind of morality and to frame new laws had, if they were not actually mad, no alternative but to make themselves or pretend to be mad"
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2015 08:03 am
@Smileyrius,
Smileyrius wrote:

...
I apologise if I sound bonkers, I appreciate how us theists must sound at times to those of you who do not share in our psychological shortcomings Smile


I have to admit that what you guys talk about would sound a lot more sane and compelling if you were to fix that little problem of lacking evidence that your particular god exists in the first place. I mean, there's an internet debate about who would win a fight between Superman and Batman. Until you've shown that this god of yours exists, I don't see much motivation to regard these discussions about why your god did or didn't do this or that as any more urgent than the Superman-Batman thing. No offense intended, but it just sounds pretty silly and childish.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2015 08:32 am
@FBM,
Quote:
I don't see much motivation to regard these discussions about why your god did or didn't do this or that as any more urgent than the Superman-Batman thing. No offense intended, but it just sounds pretty silly and childish.
We all have our perspectives. I've always thought that the comparison between Superman, Batman, Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, et al and God sounded silly and childish.

If you are not able to see that the Tooth Fairy is not a plausible explanation for life but that the concept of a God is, then you are as thick as they come.

But of course you are not 'thick'. You are just casting insults with your comparison. Childish and silly.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2015 08:37 am
@Leadfoot,
I'm just telling you what your discussion sounds like to me. They're all literary characters based on folklore and myth with no credible evidence to support that they exist outside the human imagination. But OK, instead of Superman and Batman, I could list a few hundred other gods that have equally nonexistent evidential support. Better yet, take your pick: http://www.lowchensaustralia.com/names/gods.htm
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2015 08:48 am
@FBM,
Of course there are a lot of concepts for a God or Gods. Don't know all of them but do know that most have in common an explaination for life as we know it. Superman and Batman do not share that.

Again, a Childish and silly attempt to equate them.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/13/2021 at 07:49:38