# Why God allows suffering



## atlashunter (Oct 19, 2014)

How many of you have heard these responses to the problem of evil?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 20, 2014)

The biggest excuse of all IS a God.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 20, 2014)

I don't know.  I think the position is logically consistent.   If you assume a god, all notions of logic go out the window.  It covers all the bases and is beyond reproach.

The logic is "there is no logic".  Is that logical?


----------



## Rebel 6 (Oct 20, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I don't know.  I think the position is logically consistent.   If you assume a god, all notions of logic go out the window.  It covers all the bases and is beyond reproach.
> 
> The logic is "there is no logic".  Is that logical?



Borrowing some old song lyrics, "Even if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice". 

Using circular logic (which pretty much everything about the Bible and religions use), we are all, as he said, "Too stupid to understand".  Human beings are generally "programmed" to use linear logic.  At least people, who actually think for themselves and have at least half a brain, use linear logic.


----------



## centerpin fan (Oct 20, 2014)

Rebel 6 said:


> Using circular logic (which pretty much everything about the Bible and religions use), we are all, as he said, "Too stupid to understand".  Human beings are generally "programmed" to use linear logic.  At least people, who actually think for themselves and have at least half a brain, use linear logic.



http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Frien...negie+how+to+win+friends+and+influence+people


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 20, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Frien...negie+how+to+win+friends+and+influence+people


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 22, 2014)

If her parents could ask God for one wish, what do you think it would be?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/07/05/the-girl-who-cant-feel-pain/


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 22, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> If her parents could ask God for one wish, what do you think it would be?
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/07/05/the-girl-who-cant-feel-pain/



You're cute.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 22, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> You're cute.



I don't think that's appropriate in this forum.....



I'm on match.com though.


----------



## swampstalker24 (Oct 22, 2014)

Rebel 6 said:


> Borrowing some old song lyrics, "Even if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".
> 
> Using circular logic (which pretty much everything about the Bible and religions use), we are all, as he said, "Too stupid to understand".  Human beings are generally "programmed" to use linear logic.  At least people, who actually think for themselves and have at least half a brain, use linear logic.



Rush??


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 22, 2014)

swampstalker24 said:


> Rush??



"You can choose a ready guide to some celestial voice..."

Hard to dance to.  Doesn't draw too many chicks.....


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 22, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> If her parents could ask God for one wish, what do you think it would be?
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/07/05/the-girl-who-cant-feel-pain/



How about a world where pain isn't necessary?


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 22, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> I don't think that's appropriate in this forum.....
> 
> 
> 
> I'm on match.com though.


That was a good one String


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 22, 2014)

swampstalker24 said:


> Rush??


Rush sucks. Never could stomach them


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 22, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> I don't think that's appropriate in this forum.....
> 
> 
> 
> I'm on match.com though.



I prefer Christian Mingle myself.  That's where the freaky chicks are.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 22, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> If her parents could ask God for one wish, what do you think it would be?
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/07/05/the-girl-who-cant-feel-pain/



They should be thankful that God made their little girl, and 99 others worldwide, so special. Maybe God doesn't feel pain and they are closer to his image and intended plan.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 22, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I prefer Christian Mingle myself.  That's where the freaky chicks are.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 22, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> How about a world where pain isn't necessary?



That's been tried already.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 22, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I prefer Christian Mingle myself.  That's where the freaky chicks are.


"ChristianMingle.com, where the freaky chicks are"

I could see that on one of their commercials.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 22, 2014)

bullethead said:


> They should be thankful that God made their little girl, and 99 others worldwide, so special. Maybe God doesn't feel pain and they are closer to his image and intended plan.



Or maybe they just want their daughter to be able to feel pain.....


----------



## TripleXBullies (Oct 22, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I prefer Christian Mingle myself.  That's where the freaky chicks are.



You beat me to it!!


----------



## bullethead (Oct 22, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Or maybe they just want their daughter to be able to feel pain.....



It is not up to them.
God's Will dictates she is to be unable to feel pain.
Why should they question God? 
Why do you think they deserve a wish to alter God's plan? Do you think their wants for their daughter count?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 22, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> "ChristianMingle.com, where the freaky chicks are"
> 
> I could see that on one of their commercials.



"ChristianMingle.com  Where there's nothing sexier than guilt."


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 22, 2014)

bullethead said:


> It is not up to them.


I realize that.


> God's Will dictates she is to be unable to feel pain.


 I realize that.


> Why should they question God?


I'm not saying they should or shouldn't. As humans, we do have question though, and there's nothing wrong with asking God a question, according to the motivation. 


> Why do you think they deserve a wish to alter God's plan?


I didn't say they deserved a wish.


> Do you think their wants for their daughter count?


Count for what? For God to make their daughter able to feel pain? Obviously not.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 22, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I prefer Christian Mingle myself.  That's where the freaky chicks are.


That is true. An employee of mine signed up on there. I know I'm getting old, old fashioned, etc..... but crazy is all I can say. Everyday he was showing all the construction workers another girl who had sent him naked pictures. Crazy, 1st and second day contacts. Not girls he had talked to for months.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 22, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> where there's nothing sexier than guilt."


. . .


----------



## bullethead (Oct 22, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> I realize that.
> I realize that.
> 
> I'm not saying they should or shouldn't. As humans, we do have question though, and there's nothing wrong with asking God a question, according to the motivation.
> ...



Right. If they are good Christians they should be happy God blessed them with a daughter at all. Whatever her condition is they should accept it and move on.

Why would you then post asking "If her parents could ask God for one wish, what do you think it would be?"
What do YOU think their wish would be? And why?


----------



## swampstalker24 (Oct 22, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I prefer Christian Mingle myself.  That's where the freaky chicks are.



If you like christian mingle, you'll LOVE blackpeoplemeet.com.....


----------



## TripleXBullies (Oct 22, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> That is true. An employee of mine signed up on there. I know I'm getting old, old fashioned, etc..... but crazy is all I can say. Everyday he was showing all the construction workers another girl who had sent him naked pictures. Crazy, 1st and second day contacts. Not girls he had talked to for months.



Girls are like that on all the sites. I thought I would like it..... Apparently I have standards that girls like that don't meet. They throw those pics around without even being asked!


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 22, 2014)

TripleXBullies said:


> Girls are like that on all the sites. I thought I would like it..... Apparently I have standards that girls like that don't meet. They throw those pics around without even being asked!



That's right.  Just cause your forgiven doesn't mean you quit sinning.  (Like the gays)


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 22, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Right. If they are good Christians they should be happy God blessed them with a daughter at all. Whatever her condition is they should accept it and move on.
> 
> Why would you then post asking "If her parents could ask God for one wish, what do you think it would be?"
> What do YOU think their wish would be? And why?



Read the thread title again, and then read the article again, then put the two together.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 22, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Read the thread title again, and then read the article again, then put the two together.



What I think and what you think are only assumptions based off of what we would likely do.
Both are educated guesses based off of very limited knowledge.
Assuming what the parents would do based off of that limited info in the article is still just a guess.


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 23, 2014)

" Our lack of understanding of God's plan is like a child's lack of understanding as to why their parents allow painful vaccinations."


People like this should not be allowed to have opinions.  Much less voice them...


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 23, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> If her parents could ask God for one wish, what do you think it would be?
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/07/05/the-girl-who-cant-feel-pain/



Well, if this affliction kills her, the parents can mumble things like,"God wanted her more", or "She's in a better place now".


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

bullethead said:


> what i think and what you think are only assumptions based off of what we would likely do.
> Both are educated guesses based off of very limited knowledge.
> Assuming what the parents would do based off of that limited info in the article is still just a guess.


lol. 

I'm getting the idea you're not connecting the dots as to why I posted the link.

This thread is about suffering and why God allows it, I showed what life can be like without that suffering. Some of the same reasons that little girl, and all humans, need to feel pain might be some of the same reason God allows pain.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

drippin' rock said:


> " Our lack of understanding of God's plan is like a child's lack of understanding as to why their parents allow painful vaccinations."
> 
> 
> People like this should not be allowed to have opinions.  Much less voice them...



Seems like a pretty good metaphor to me.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

drippin' rock said:


> Well, if this affliction kills her, the parents can mumble things like,"God wanted her more", or "She's in a better place now".


Or, "random selection just wanted her more" and maybe "evolution eased her suffering now"


----------



## bullethead (Oct 23, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> lol.
> 
> I'm getting the idea you're not connecting the dots as to why I posted the link.
> 
> This thread is about suffering and why God allows it, I showed what life can be like without that suffering. Some of the same reasons that little girl, and all humans, need to feel pain might be some of the same reason God allows pain.



Oh I certainly get the dots that you are connecting. I am trying to show you that based on that very limited information it is easy to connect those dots. What I am also trying to show is that you have no idea what else is going in their lives except what little info is given in that article. The article does not even state what religion(if any) they belong to. My main point is that you took a limited amount of info and asserted God into the mix and asserted that the parents would ask God for a specific wish. It is a great example of the individual interpretation that goes on with religion/God. You made what you think is an obvious conclusion based on limited information. You added Dots.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 23, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Or, "random selection just wanted her more" and maybe "evolution eased her suffering now"



No personality needed when random selection is involved. Her condition is based off of a genetic defect. Something went wrong along the process. In nature creatures with that condition will either thrive or be unable to survive.

In a "god" scenario either she is exactly how God intended her to be or else God screwed up. And in your mind the parents want a perfect God to change his creation to suit their wants and needs.

In your trail of Dots have you allowed for the parents praying daily since the condition has been diagnosed? Has it changed anything?


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 23, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> That's been tried already.



Try? There is no try for the omnipotent. There is only do.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Oh I certainly get the dots that you are connecting. I am trying to show you that based on that very limited information it is easy to connect those dots. What I am also trying to show is that you have no idea what else is going in their lives except what little info is given in that article. The article does not even state what religion(if any) they belong to.


Are you really trying to argue that the parents in that article are possibly ok with the fact that their child cannot feel pain, and if given a choice, would choose to keep her the way she is instead of relieving her of the disease?



> My main point is that you took a limited amount of info and asserted God into the mix and asserted that the parents would ask God for a specific wish. It is a great example of the individual interpretation that goes on with religion/God. You made what you think is an obvious conclusion based on limited information. You added Dots.


I'm not the one who asserted God into the mix, Atlas did.... in the thread title.

You can't ask a person a question about God, and then tell them they are asserting God when they give an answer that includes God. The original question assumes God.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> Try? There is no try for the omnipotent. There is only do.


Then I'll I can tell ya is that ain't the way it was done, and I don't know why.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 23, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Then I'll I can tell ya is that ain't the way it was done, and I don't know why.



It's only a mystery when we assume a god with all the properties christians attribute to their god. The mystery is solved if there is a malevolent god, or a god of limited power, or no god at all. The latter seems the simplest and most likely explanation to me.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> It's only a mystery when we assume a god with all the properties christians attribute to their god.


Yes, it is a mystery, we are not omniscient, some things are going to be a mystery, logically speaking.



> The mystery is solved if there is a malevolent god, or a god of limited power, or no god at all. The latter seems the simplest and most likely explanation to me.


The problem of evil doesn't go away just because a person decides God doesn't exist because He didn't make the world the way they wanted Him too.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 23, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Are you really trying to argue that the parents in that article are possibly ok with the fact that their child cannot feel pain, and if given a choice, would choose to keep her the way she is instead of relieving her of the disease?


I would think that if they found a magic lamp on a beach they would use a wish to help their daughter...that is based off of me being a parent.
According to the article..there is no information that suggests any religious affiliation at all so it is a guess about God being involved.




stringmusic said:


> I'm  not the one who asserted God into the mix, Atlas did.trying . in the thread title.
> 
> You can't ask a person a question about God, and then tell them they are asserting God when they give an answer that includes God. The original question assumes God.



YOU brought in the article AND asserted God into it where no prayer to God was ever mentioned in the article. The article was about the girls condition. Had the article mentioned that the parents prayed for her condition to change then it would fit.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 23, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Are you really trying to argue that the parents in that article are possibly ok with the fact that their child cannot feel pain, and if given a choice, would choose to keep her the way she is instead of relieving her of the disease?


 Lets assume they did ask God.
Why do you think their wish/prayer is not granted?




stringmusic said:


> I'm not the one who asserted God into the mix, Atlas did.... in the thread title.
> 
> You can't ask a person a question about God, and then tell them they are asserting God when they give an answer that includes God. The original question assumes God.


 Atlas has to put it into terms that you guys can talk about.
I think it is a valid question from a non believer to a believer.
But you are right, for the purpose of this thread we have to assume a God, assume he has been asked to intervene and wonder why the little girl is still in the same condition.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I would think that if they found a magic lamp on a beach they would use a wish to help their daughter...that is based off of me being a parent.
> According to the article..there is no information that suggests any religious affiliation at all so it is a guess about God being involved.


That is the entire reason I posted the article. This thread is about why God allows evil/pain, I posted an article of a girl who does not feel pain and asked the question "If the parents could ask God to do something for their daughter, what would that be?", the obvious answer is "to let their daughter feel pain" because of the problems with not being able too.

I'm not sure why you're bringing up a bunch of non related topics like me asserting God or why God hasn't help the girl, non of these issues were being discussed.






> YOU brought in the article AND asserted God into it where no prayer to God was ever mentioned in the article. The article was about the girls condition. Had the article mentioned that the parents prayed for her condition to change then it would fit.


Again, the article didn't have to speak to the parents theological beliefs, that's not why I posted it. If they pray or not has nothing to do with the point I am making.

I didn't post it to prove God exists or to assert God into this discussion because like I mentioned before, God was already asserted.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Lets assume they did ask God.
> Why do you think their wish/prayer is not granted?


Because God has other plans.





> Atlas has to put it into terms that you guys can talk about.


LOL, well yea, it's hard to talk about God if I can't use the word God.


> I think it is a valid question from a non believer to a believer.
> But you are right, for the purpose of this thread we have to assume a God, assume he has been asked to intervene and wonder why the little girl is still in the same condition.


Why would you assume that? You've stated yourself the article does not mention the parents religious beliefs.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 23, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Because God has other plans.


Insightful






stringmusic said:


> LOL, well yea, it's hard to talk about God if I can't use the word God.


Yep



stringmusic said:


> Why would you assume that? You've stated yourself the article does not mention the parents religious beliefs.



So I finally play by your rules and now you swap roles.
10-4


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

bullethead said:


> So I finally play by your rules and now you swap roles. 10-4


How exactly are you playing by "my rules"?

It's a reasonable assumption that her parents want her to feel pain and would ask God to help her do that if they were so inclined.


It's not reasonable to assume they've already done that.

There's the difference in roles.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 23, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> That is the entire reason I posted the article. This thread is about why God allows evil/pain, I posted an article of a girl who does not feel pain and asked the question "If the parents could ask God to do something for their daughter, what would that be?", the obvious answer is "to let their daughter feel pain" because of the problems with not being able too.


You missed the entire point of Atlas's OP question.
The parents would not have to ask God for anything if God didn't allow suffering.
According to believers in God, God exists and suffering exists. We are wondering why. No matter if the parents pray, wish or beg God to change her condition she STILL has the condition. WHY?
All you have shown is that prayer, especially in that case, does not work.



stringmusic said:


> I'm not sure why you're bringing up a bunch of non related topics like me asserting God or why God hasn't help the girl, non of these issues were being discussed.


You introduced praying to God into an article that does not mention God. I just expounded on it.

The girl cannot feel pain. The parents wish she could feel pain so she can avoid situations that would harm her without her knowing she was harmed.

Why if your God is real did he create her to feel no pain?







stringmusic said:


> Again, the article didn't have to speak to the parents theological beliefs, that's not why I posted it. If they pray or not has nothing to do with the point I am making.


1. The article proved conditions exist where people suffer. If anything it backed up the point Atlas made.
2. You specifically included a question that was meant to have us take a guess at what the parents would ask for if they prayed to God. If it had nothing to do with your point then why did you ask it?



stringmusic said:


> I didn't post it to prove God exists or to assert God into this discussion because like I mentioned before, God was already asserted.


So you posted the whole article to give an example of what Atlas already stated?
God + suffering Girl = precisely what Atlas mentioned.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 23, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> It's a reasonable assumption that her parents want her to feel pain and would ask God to help her do that if they were so inclined.


^^Why would it be reasonable to assume her parents would ask god here^^




stringmusic said:


> It's not reasonable to assume they've already done that.


^^But not reasonable to assume they have already asked^^

If they are inclined to ask why wouldn't they ask?


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 23, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Yes, it is a mystery, we are not omniscient, some things are going to be a mystery, logically speaking.
> 
> 
> The problem of evil doesn't go away just because a person decides God doesn't exist because He didn't make the world the way they wanted Him too.



Again you assume the existence of a being which introduces a problem you simply can't explain away. The god described by christians is not consistent with the reality we find ourselves in. That means either they are wrong about the nature of the creator or they are wrong about the very existence of a creator. Either way they are wrong.

Reality is consistent with a god of a different sort than the one christians claim. Reality is consistent with no god at all. Reality is not consistent with the christian god. Given the lack of evidence of any god whatsoever the most reasonable explanation consistent with reality is god(s) doesn't exist.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 23, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> Again you assume the existence of a being which introduces a problem you simply can't explain away. The god described by christians is not consistent with the reality we find ourselves in. That means either they are wrong about the nature of the creator or they are wrong about the very existence of a creator. Either way they are wrong.



I think I finally understand the reasoning of believers.  

If his ways are not our ways then we can't judge what he does against our standards.

God is love and everything he does is good. That's it.  Full stop.  No matter what he does.

When you start with that premise, no other explanation is needed.  It's not like you can argue that god's behavior proves that he doesn't exist.   That's the wrong way to think of it.  Believe first then everything falls into place.  Ain't that right String? 



atlashunter said:


> Reality is consistent with a god of a different sort than the one christians claim. Reality is consistent with no god at all. Reality is not consistent with the christian god. Given the lack of evidence of any god whatsoever the most reasonable explanation consistent with reality is god(s) doesn't exist.



It's not these kinds of proofs that cause believers to believe.  It's exactly backwards.  They believe and now these arguments don't matter. 

God is good.  

They don't care what he does.  

I want to hear the REAL proof of why they believe.  What did he do?  Quit ya from drinkin?  Made you stop looking at animal porn?  These are real proofs, not some flawed Willard blog.  Someone testify.  What is the REAL proof for you?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 23, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I think I finally understand the reasoning of believers.
> 
> If his ways are not our ways then we can't judge what he does against our standards.
> 
> ...



Sounds like the relationship North Koreans have with Kim Jong Un.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> Again you assume the existence of a being which introduces a problem you simply can't explain away. The god described by christians is not consistent with the reality we find ourselves in. That means either they are wrong about the nature of the creator or they are wrong about the very existence of a creator. Either way they are wrong.
> 
> Reality is consistent with a god of a different sort than the one christians claim. Reality is consistent with no god at all. Reality is not consistent with the christian god. Given the lack of evidence of any god whatsoever the most reasonable explanation consistent with reality is god(s) doesn't exist.


OK? 

but...


stringmusic said:


> The problem of evil doesn't go away just because a person decides God doesn't exist because He didn't make the world the way they wanted Him too.


----------



## Israel (Oct 23, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I think I finally understand the reasoning of believers.
> 
> If his ways are not our ways then we can't judge what he does against our standards.
> 
> ...


You are not far from the Kingdom of God. It is far less than not caring what he does...it is in the not caring, and learning to not care about ones opinion of what he does.
Yes, it is to be found believing "God is good", as you have said, and submiting to whatever revision, in, and to whatever measure is required in the understanding of anything...with that as the bedrock.

We can get real here, for a moment.
Take away the starving children and dreadful photos of diseased bodies some love to post as refutation of the goodness of God in the apparent suffering...and still...with what will you be left?
The debutante who discovers her Vera Wang dress has a cranberry stain on the hem? The GON member who discovers his scope was off enough to cause him to miss that 10 pointer?
You say suffering is not as much found there as in hollow eyes and feverish brow?
Take them away, and you will still have someone howling to the heavens over a broken nail or a late social security check.
Man's response to "not being in charge" is the wailing you hear, the water you carry.
Funny, isn't it...those African babies don't take photos of one another to publicise their grief...and most of the folks lying by the side of the road don't have enough strength to complain about the way things are...they've been broken enough to just know they need help and have learned to ask.
But the guys who think they will capitalize and indict God on their account...well, it just makes plain how completely ignorant a man may be of his own comings and goings.
I once posted in response to some of those photos, and to the "indictment" of God for what appeared the unanswered prayers of parents of children in cancer wards.
You think I cared you were getting too down and dirty?
Not at all.
You just don't know, at all, there's a thing that can get you to cry out from the deepest part of yourself, a place you don't even know is there till you are dragged there, unwillingly, unreadily...where all you can do is cry out in hopes of being heard by another who can do all you now see you plainly are unfit in every measure to accomplish.
I can't tell you a thing to get you to believe there's such a place, I can't get you to believe one such as myself has seen it, been there (if only in part)...but I can tell you this...stuff that does not stand you in good stead at that time is thinking somehow your cleverness has any part in that place...except to accuse you.
You may say, any man may say, all men may say..."there's nothing that could ever move me to pray"
Liars, one...and all.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 23, 2014)

> Originally Posted by stringmusic View Post
> The problem of evil doesn't go away just because a person decides God doesn't exist because He didn't make the world the way they wanted Him too.



Evil is
Without a God evil seems to be as it has always been and as it is right now.
With a God in the mix and evil still being the same does not speak well for the God. Especially if it is a God that is supposed to fight evil..and be Omnipotent...and Omniscient.

The problem of evil doesn't go away if the God of the Bible exists.

What excuses can be made for that?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 23, 2014)

Israel said:


> You are not far from the Kingdom of God. It is far less than not caring what he does...it is in the not caring, and learning to not care about ones opinion of what he does.
> Yes, it is to be found believing "God is good", as you have said, and submiting to whatever revision, in, and to whatever measure is required in the understanding of anything...with that as the bedrock.
> 
> We can get real here, for a moment.
> ...




What makes you think this isn't all in your own head.  Tell me about how you know that he is real. REAL real.  What was it?

I'd rather pray to a rock.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 23, 2014)

Israel said:


> You are not far from the Kingdom of God. It is far less than not caring what he does...it is in the not caring, and learning to not care about ones opinion of what he does.
> Yes, it is to be found believing "God is good", as you have said, and submiting to whatever revision, in, and to whatever measure is required in the understanding of anything...with that as the bedrock.
> 
> We can get real here, for a moment.
> ...


Talk about unwanted suffering...


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 23, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> What makes you think this isn't all in your own head.  Tell me about how you know that he is real. REAL real.  What was it?
> 
> I'd rather pray to a rock.



You'd get the same results.


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 24, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> What makes you think this isn't all in your own head.  Tell me about how you know that he is real. REAL real.  What was it?
> 
> I'd rather pray to a rock.



I've some for sale. Small, medium, and large.  PM me for prices.


----------



## Israel (Oct 24, 2014)

There are literally hundreds.
But one that stand out signally, that has proved a comfort and entrance into things I never imagined, or considered could be in their wondrous pleasure, is this.
"Something happened. The baby has stopped breathing, we are on our way to the hospital".
That call came to us when she was about 6 months old.
To this.
The bottom pic of she and Zeke (and a twizzler) watching me work in the backyard.
And waiting...for me.
If it is ever appointed you to have the storms beat upon your house in any similar fashion...may you also find what a good friend you have, waiting...for you, too.


----------



## Israel (Oct 24, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Talk about unwanted suffering...


You snipe, but miss...you lay in wait, but might just as well be wearing a spotlight ringed in clanging cymbals, you jibe...but never think your maker knows who and how you are...to the atom.
We are so much alike, you and I, it would be scary, except for the one who came...for you, and I.


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 24, 2014)

Israel said:


> You snipe, but miss...you lay in wait, but might just as well be wearing a spotlight ringed in clanging cymbals, you jibe...but never think your maker knows who and how you are...to the atom.
> We are so much alike, you and I, it would be scary, except for the one who came...for you, and I.



This reminds me of a song.....


He knows when you are sleeping,
He knows when you're awake.
He knows when you've been bad or good,
So be good for goodness sake.

Ohhhhh...... You better not pout.....


----------



## Israel (Oct 24, 2014)

drippin' rock said:


> This reminds me of a song.....
> 
> 
> He knows when you are sleeping,
> ...


If there was anything about my being good, I'd suggest you point out where it is recommended.
My appeal was to goodness, not from it.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 24, 2014)

Israel said:


> You snipe, but miss...you lay in wait, but might just as well be wearing a spotlight ringed in clanging cymbals, you jibe...but never think your maker knows who and how you are...to the atom.
> We are so much alike, you and I, it would be scary, except for the one who came...for you, and I.




"Perceive the way of nature and no force of man can harm you. Do not meet a wave head on: avoid it. You do not have to stop force: it is easier to redirect it. Learn more ways to preserve rather than destroy. Avoid rather than check. Check rather than hurt. Hurt rather than maim. Maim rather than kill. For all life is precious nor can any be replaced." - Master Kan


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 24, 2014)

Israel said:


> There are literally hundreds.
> But one that stand out signally, that has proved a comfort and entrance into things I never imagined, or considered could be in their wondrous pleasure, is this.
> "Something happened. The baby has stopped breathing, we are on our way to the hospital".
> That call came to us when she was about 6 months old.
> ...



A family close to my own a few years ago had a little boy about that same age who accidentally got shut in a hot car while playing. When his aunt and mother found him it was too late. He was flown by helicopter to the hospital and all the while his entire family who were staunch pentecostals were praying their hearts out. He died anyway. Of course they didn't blame the god they were praying to for not saving him. Yet had he been saved by the medical professionals who were doing the actual work there is no doubt they would have given credit not to the doctors but to god for performing a miracle and saving the boy. As Sam Harris says, this is how you play tennis without the net.

Good things happen to believers and nonbelievers alike. Bad things happen to believers and nonbelievers alike. If belief in a god that performs miracles yields the same results one would get from superstitious faith in a lucky rabbits foot or an empty milk carton then perhaps they've set the bar too low.


----------



## Israel (Oct 24, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> A family close to my own a few years ago had a little boy about that same age who accidentally got shut in a hot car while playing. When his aunt and mother found him it was too late. He was flown by helicopter to the hospital and all the while his entire family who were staunch pentecostals were praying their hearts out. He died anyway. Of course they didn't blame the god they were praying to for not saving him. Yet had he been saved by the medical professionals who were doing the actual work there is no doubt they would have given credit not to the doctors but to god for performing a miracle and saving the boy. As Sam Harris says, this is how you play tennis without the net.
> 
> Good things happen to believers and nonbelievers alike. Bad things happen to believers and nonbelievers alike. If belief in a god that performs miracles yields the same results one would get from superstitious faith in a lucky rabbits foot or an empty milk carton then perhaps they've set the bar too low.


I am touched by their loss, as I trust you are.
I cannot, and would not dare enter their grief in a contest of faith.
But Ambush asked, and I trust, sincerely...what is real... really real...to me.
I cannot answer but that both my joy, and their grief are both real.
But I was not asked to give an answer for any other than those things I have both "seen and heard".
Yes, I have seen others, as I trust you have, bear many sorrows, and I don't tout my joys over anyone elses grievous loss. Their faith speaks no less than my own, and maybe even more eloquently, I must allow for that.
And I well understand, as best I can presently, that I am just a parable to those who sit in the stands...watching, waiting, some...perhaps even hoping...that something more real than just "in the head" will break through.
I have lost some things...yes...among them, the ability to communicate with you all of myself, and am compelled to be a fool in your sight, which is more than fitting.
After all, I am being comforted, instructed, and "won" away from my own head of mere mush and perishable misgivings by one I no less, in myself, considered a bothersome non-necessity.
But...he kept, and keeps "coming up".
I would say, that's what he does.
But, I think you know that.
I have no problem with thanking God for the doctors who have suffered "on the field" where they find themselves strung tautly between life and death for others. I have no problem with being glad God has made some able to be that.
All I know, is I was in a place where my only confidence was not in my own prayers, their adequacy, or even my own faith.
Life...is good, the giver of it, even when seemingly not seen, is so.
And, if you can receive it, I have no problem with thanking God...for you.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 24, 2014)

Israel I think you missed my point. I'm not suggesting you tout your joys over the grief of others. My point is that what happened to you and happened to them happens to everyone regardless of their beliefs so I'm not sure how it can be attributed to anything more than happenstance. If what happened to them happened to you I doubt you would take it as evidence that god wasn't there. Instead you would give god the credit either way. When you stack the deck like that it can serve as evidence of any superstition. Or stated another way no evidence at all.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 24, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> Israel I think you missed my point. I'm not suggesting you tout your joys over the grief of others. My point is that what happened to you and happened to them happens to everyone regardless of their beliefs so I'm not sure how it can be attributed to anything more than happenstance. If what happened to them happened to you I doubt you would take it as evidence that god wasn't there. Instead you would give god the credit either way. When you stack the deck like that it can serve as evidence of any superstition. Or stated another way no evidence at all.




That's what I'm asking too.  Where does one sense that god was involved?  What kind of sign made it obviously clear that god was involved?  What does it feel like?  How did you know for sure?


----------



## Israel (Oct 24, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> Israel I think you missed my point. I'm not suggesting you tout your joys over the grief of others. My point is that what happened to you and happened to them happens to everyone regardless of their beliefs so I'm not sure how it can be attributed to anything more than happenstance. If what happened to them happened to you I doubt you would take it as evidence that god wasn't there. Instead you would give god the credit either way. When you stack the deck like that it can serve as evidence of any superstition. Or stated another way no evidence at all.



No, I didn't come away from your post expecting you would believe I was boasting, or would boast of how "God works for me.." over others. I have given only one small incident, powerful to me, without question...but I understand to you...just a brief baton twirl in a parade you watch.
You know, I guess I haven't made myself clear, either...to the extent that no matter how much I may say or do...among you all here, among any, anywhere "I" can never give you ample evidence of anything. Maybe you can appreciate, I cannot even prove to you "I" exist...let alone anything...or anyone else.
(I also see that there can be an easy misdirection if I pay less than scrupulous attention to your responses. Both yours...and in this case, too, Ambush's)
I would say on my part...something...someone is making pay attention to you so that to the best of my present apprehension I reply frankly.
You are correct to say you see storms come upon anyone/everyone...and outcomes, as perceived, can easily look as much happenstance in any such situation...and therefore it is a not unreasonable question "so, why believe?" as though the power of believing was first in one's own hands and will, and secondly, that such continuance would surely look foolish if this were clearly demonstrated as so...that "happenstance"...mentioned.
As to the first, the faith of the son of God, that brought me and bought me, is not my own, nor of my will or doing. It had nothing, has nothing to do with my own reasoning. Or reasonings.
This is where we (may) part ways. I don't sense my faith, in any measure has anything to do with me controlling anything other than this...me. So, if I can, I hope to undercut any notion "I believe in God because he answered my prayer ...here...or there...in any particluar instance...this way...or that way...and I like that."
But, I also know I cannot prevent you from attributing that.
You could easily assume "Oh, that guy is just scared of going to heII"
And I could tell you that heII is mostly excluded from all my consciousness, and conscious responses, at least as far as I can tell.
Just as God is not seen as my "candy store" (but I cannot deny I _like _candy)...he is no more a thundering autocrat threatening me at every turn with durnation.
He is, in all the words, all the experiences, all the parade I am allowed to view...what is real. All that is true. 
I haven't figured that out. It has been shown...me...and that...through Jesus Christ. Some of the experiences...at the time (he knows of me)...seemed bitter...seemed everything unwanted, and un-pleaded for. To the outsider, again, I understand...the question then becomes..."why bother, then?"
What I see now is this as I begin to consider. For the reality of a relationship to flourish (and of all the best reasons I may muster, that alone is it...I "need" someone to relate to) there must be the very present respect of another. You are you, I am me...there is a "line"...which...if not respected does indeed lead to only living in ones head...either all the "others" become less real...or...one imagines he alone encompasses all.
I am not God.
Yet...as I am moved...from place to place, experience to experience, time to time...his reality is further confirmed...and (if you can understand this) yours, also.
Where once, I know, from me...at best all some could expect to hear would be a continued reference to "the fool has said in his heart..." now...not so much.
I have seen, after sitting "in the dark" myself, how much we are alike, and who the fool is.
I understand the plea "but how do you know this is real?"
All I can respond is "what tells you....you are...real?"
It's really as simple as that...for me now...where once I delighted in setting hoops and bars, prescriptions and phrases, genuflections and required puddles of (at least to my judgments) sincere tears.
I "like" the me...that is unafraid of you...and your seeming contradictions (at times), and what often appear as hard questions...but mostly, I like that I can like you.
I knew a man that was at war with everything and everyone, a slayer, a mean spirited punk.
He pops his head up occasionally, but the one who does all things well, exposes him...and gives this man...in grace...time to repent.
He does to, and for, a punk what a punk needs, but doesn't know.
Light.
He died...so the punk can die, and see life.


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 24, 2014)

From some of y'all's view, if there is no God, then ask yourselves why do we allow it?  

What causes cancer and other disease? Usually some kind of chemical compound made up by 'scientists', like asphalt or rock quarry dust from man diggin' around, asbestos, smoking tobacco (which is a blood coagulant used on the outside of the body).  Auto fuel, used and made by who? Lead paint,  some brilliant chemist came up with. So on and so on.

So why do we?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 24, 2014)

mtnwoman said:


> From some of y'all's view, if there is no God, then ask yourselves why do we allow it?
> 
> What causes cancer and other disease? Usually some kind of chemical compound made up by 'scientists', like asphalt or rock quarry dust from man diggin' around, asbestos, smoking tobacco (which is a blood coagulant used on the outside of the body).  Auto fuel, used and made by who? Lead paint,  some brilliant chemist came up with. So on and so on.
> 
> So why do we?



All of the components in those things occur naturally in nature. Only recently(compared to the history of the world) has synthetic compounds been invented.
Scientists didn't make lead. 
Scientists didn't make crude oil used in fuel and asphalt.
Scientists did not make tobacco.
Scientists did not make rocks or rock dust.
Asbestos is found throughout the world in certain rocks. If you like to garden or travel over unpaved roads...odds are you are exposed to asbestos.
They all occur naturally.

Whatever roles we have in using those products in a harmful way is our own fault. But it seems that the benefits outweigh the dangers for most of them. The others, as time and testing and scientific advances have shown us, are no longer used in ways that were once harmful.

If dangers are noticed warnings, caution or outright bans are implemented.
In civilized societies "We" do look out for each other.

Seems as though if it were all put on Earth by some designer then it was designed to harm us.


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 24, 2014)

bullethead said:


> All of the components in those things occur naturally in nature. Only recently(compared to the history of the world) has synthetic compounds been invented.
> Scientists didn't make lead.
> Scientists didn't make crude oil used in fuel and asphalt.
> Scientists did not make tobacco.
> ...



I know all that. Once I ask in this section what did scientists 'create'? And those very things that you listed were some of the answers. If it weren't for scientists we wouldn't have some of those things in combination with something else,  right or wrong?  I totally agree that a 'designer' made those things in totality.  What were they created for?  There I again rely on the Bible to explain that satan counterfiets everything God created to 'kill, steal, and destroy'.  Even though things that science has developed, most of y'all's theories about God lies heavily on believing more in science than in God? Why is that?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2014)

mtnwoman said:


> I know all that. Once I ask in this section what did scientists 'create'? And those very things that you listed were some of the answers. If it weren't for scientists we wouldn't have some of those things in combination with something else,  right or wrong?  I totally agree that a 'designer' made those things in totality.  What were they created for?  There I again rely on the Bible to explain that satan counterfiets everything God created to 'kill, steal, and destroy'.  Even though things that science has developed, most of y'all's theories about God lies heavily on believing more in science than in God? Why is that?


You are talking in circles now.
You blamed scientists for asbestos, rock dust, fuel, asphalt, tobacco and lead and now you say God is responsible. 
Make up your mind.
Don't try to throw Satan in there to bail you out.

To answer your last question...science doesn't need a god in order to fill in the blanks.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 25, 2014)

mtnwoman said:


> I know all that. Once I ask in this section what did scientists 'create'? And those very things that you listed were some of the answers. If it weren't for scientists we wouldn't have some of those things in combination with something else,  right or wrong?  I totally agree that a 'designer' made those things in totality.  What were they created for?  There I again rely on the Bible to explain that satan counterfiets everything God created to 'kill, steal, and destroy'.  Even though things that science has developed, most of y'all's theories about God lies heavily on believing more in science than in God? Why is that?


Would you explain this a little more -


> There I again rely on the Bible to explain that satan counterfiets everything God created to 'kill, steal, and destroy'


Are you meaning if a kid drowns it was counterfeit water? If a tree falls on a house killing a person inside it was a counterfeit tree? Counterfeit lightning? Counterfeit bees?


> Even though things that science has developed, most of y'all's theories about God lies heavily on believing more in science than in God? Why is that?


Which do you believe in more -
Science or.... Zeus? Apollo? Wakan-Tanka? Vishnu?


----------



## Israel (Oct 25, 2014)

Not violating one's conscience.
It's a remarkable prescription, easily said, but a little more is required in the execution than may at first be apprehended.
We all know when we do it, we all know when something gets exposed to us, of us, that is less than fitting to ourselves. 
That dissonance within.
We either choose to be real, or clowns.
Like the man who is never wrong.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2014)

mtnwoman said:


> I know all that. Once I ask in this section what did scientists 'create'? And those very things that you listed were some of the answers. If it weren't for scientists we wouldn't have some of those things in combination with something else,  right or wrong?  I totally agree that a 'designer' made those things in totality.  What were they created for?  There I again rely on the Bible to explain that satan counterfiets everything God created to 'kill, steal, and destroy'.  Even though things that science has developed, most of y'all's theories about God lies heavily on believing more in science than in God? Why is that?



Take a look at post #73. YOU listed those things as creations of scientists, not me. YOU tried to use them as cancer causing materials made by scientists, not me.
I did not mention any of those things until post #74 which was in direct response to your examples. Post #73 was meant by you to somehow try to show how bad scientists are by pointing out what you think is man made cancer causing products.
Now you are back peddling. And have to introduce a second made up deity to bail out your first made up deity.

Years ago when asked what scientists "created" NONE of those things were given as answers. You took a lot of liberty in your paraphrasing and got it wrong.


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 25, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Take a look at post #73. YOU listed those things as creations of scientists, not me. YOU tried to use them as cancer causing materials made by scientists, not me.
> I did not mention any of those things until post #74 which was in direct response to your examples. Post #73 was meant by you to somehow try to show how bad scientists are by pointing out what you think is man made cancer causing products.
> Now you are back peddling. And have to introduce a second made up deity to bail out your first made up deity.
> 
> Years ago when asked what scientists "created" NONE of those things were given as answers. You took a lot of liberty in your paraphrasing and got it wrong.




I know all that. Actually what I said was that when I had ask that question on an old thread, some of those things were mentioned, and portrayed as some good things. That's why I used that as an example. Show me the thread you are talking about....the very first one that the person mention was asphalt.

The made up deity was brought up by the OP, wasn't it?. I am not back peddling, so the OP can use a made up deity but I can't, eh? So how should I address my answer. If I refer to the OP using a 'made up deity', then I'm back peddling. If I don't use the made up deity then I'm avoiding the question, eh? So what does that mean? Which is it?  No use in even trying to post in this thread, because no matter what.............

Ok I give up.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 25, 2014)

Why is cancer allowed? Is that a joke?


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 25, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Would you explain this a little more -
> 
> Are you meaning if a kid drowns it was counterfeit water? If a tree falls on a house killing a person inside it was a counterfeit tree? Counterfeit lightning? Counterfeit bees?*Yes that is what I mean hahahahaha, since that's what I said. *
> 
> ...


 Uh I'll pick science....is that the answer y'all want? Ok final answer... science.

All these threads are about is 'bait'. Come in here to give your opinion and you get hammered from all sides.....you'd think I could remember that from time to time.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 25, 2014)

mtnwoman said:


> Uh I'll pick science....is that the answer y'all want? Ok final answer... science.
> 
> All these threads are about is 'bait'. Come in here to give your opinion and you get hammered from all sides.....you'd think I could remember that from time to time.



You asked this question -


> Even though things that science has developed, most of y'all's theories about God lies heavily on believing more in science than in God? Why is that?


The answer to "why is that" would be the same reasons you chose science when I left the Christian God out of the choices.


----------



## Israel (Oct 26, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> How many of you have heard these responses to the problem of evil?



I am not sure if it is you acknowledging evil _as a problem_, or your reference to what you perceive as a "christian's" entrance into a view that involves both _good and evil_.
For if you are the one saying the problem of evil, I am interested to hear, from you, how you came to both conclusions:
1.that evil exists
2 that it is a problem.


----------



## 660griz (Oct 28, 2014)

"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
 - Ned Flanders

The Bible may, indeed does, contain a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre, but we are not bound by any of it because it was put together by crude, uncultured human mammals. --C. Hitchens

"'And don't tell me God works in mysterious ways,' Yossarian continued. 'There's nothing mysterious about it, He's not working at all. He's playing. Or else He's forgotten all about us. That's the kind of God you people talk about, a country bumpkin, a clumsy, bungling, brainless, conceited, uncouth hayseed. Good God, how much reverence can you have for a Supreme Being who finds it necessary to include such phenomena as phlegm and tooth decay in His divine system of Creation? What in the world was running through that warped, evil, scatalogical mind of His when He robbed old people of the power to control their bowel movements? Why in the world did He ever create pain?'" --J. Heller

"The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad." -- Nietzsche

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. -- Steven Weinberg 

And finally...
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? - Epicurus


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Oct 28, 2014)

Wherefore by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin. We are the evil. One might then suggest that God allows us to persevere in our malignity and indignation; it would then, therefore, follow that God allows suffering. Fairly logical. But God has given promise of a reckoning. Setting that which, by man, was skewed, right again. This suffering will not be forgotten by him, should we remember him.
Evil perseveres because man exists. It is not the gun, but the person behind it.

Why does God allow it? I don't know. Why did he make gravity an expression of space/time warping? I don't know, and neither do you. But I have hope that the balance will be restored.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 28, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Wherefore by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin. We are the evil. One might then suggest that God allows us to persevere in our malignity and indignation; it would then, therefore, follow that God allows suffering. Fairly logical. But God has given promise of a reckoning. Setting that which, by man, was skewed, right again. This suffering will not be forgotten by him, should we remember him.
> Evil perseveres because man exists. It is not the gun, but the person behind it.
> 
> Why does God allow it? I don't know. Why did he make gravity an expression of space/time warping? I don't know, and neither do you. But I have hope that the balance will be restored.



Do you view Satan as a power, influencing evil in men and nature, or do you see the physical man/old nature as Satan?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Oct 29, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Do you view Satan as a power, influencing evil in men and nature, or do you see the physical man/old nature as Satan?



I see Satan as an influence in the individual decisions of man. The old man is separated from any spiritual discernment but I don't know the depth of our cruelty without the influence of Satan; and I also find it useless to speculate. According to God: man, left to himself, is evil; and Satan is evil. Satan may, and does, influence but we have to make the final decision.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 29, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I see Satan as an influence in the individual decisions of man. The old man is separated from any spiritual discernment but I don't know the depth of our cruelty without the influence of Satan; and I also find it useless to speculate. According to God: man, left to himself, is evil; and Satan is evil. Satan may, and does, influence but we have to make the final decision.



I'm just trying to develop a feel and an explanation for "suffering."
If it all is related to sin and/or Satan. One point to consider is the suffering caused by Nature in the form of the Ebola virus, and Hurricane Katrina.
I've heard that Ebola is from Satan and Hurricane Katrina was from God. 
Not that I believe either but it shows the confusion of humans both depraved and enlightened.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 29, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I see Satan as an influence in the individual decisions of man. The old man is separated from any spiritual discernment but I don't know the depth of our cruelty without the influence of Satan; and I also find it useless to speculate. According to God: man, left to himself, is evil; and Satan is evil. Satan may, and does, influence but we have to make the final decision.


The second that man (any man) left to himself makes the final decision  to do something good, it makes this false -


> According to God: man, left to himself, is evil;


For this to be true -


> According to God: man, left to himself, is evil;


Man couldn't make any other decision except to be evil and you would have to ignore all the good things man (any and all men) has done.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Oct 29, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> The second that man (any man) left to himself makes the final decision  to do something good, it makes this false -
> 
> For this to be true -
> 
> Man couldn't make any other decision except to be evil and you would have to ignore all the good things man (any and all men) has done.



What if the good that men may do is tainted anyway by the evil that dwells within? A little poison in water makes the whole glass undrinkable.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 29, 2014)

Maybe all suffering isn't necessarily from Evil.
Perhaps we are getting evil and suffering mixed up.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Oct 29, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Maybe all suffering isn't necessarily from Evil.
> Perhaps we are getting evil and suffering mixed up.



I would say that some suffering is surely the direct product of evil, but for all?...I don't know. I would be interested to hear other comments.


----------



## 660griz (Oct 29, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Maybe all suffering isn't necessarily from Evil.
> Perhaps we are getting evil and suffering mixed up.



Could the below be true?

All Evil = Suffering
All Suffering doesn't always = Evil


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 29, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I would say that some suffering is surely the direct product of evil, but for all?...I don't know. I would be interested to hear other comments.



Does god allow suffering?  Absolutely. Could god stop suffering? Absolutely.  It must be part of his will.


Suffering is of god.


I was thinking of a child playing with a lawnmower.  If I allow the child to play with the lawnmower it is not necessarily my will that the child get hurt but I am certainly negligent of preventing them from getting hurt if there was something I could do to stop it from happening. 

I didn't want them to get hurt but I didn't stop them from getting hurt.  What could be my motivation?  Indifference?  Apathy?  A higher purpose?

Pretty sick.

If satan causes suffering but god lets him god either can't control satan or he doesn't want to.  Weird.  Perhaps satan is a tool in god's toolbox.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Oct 29, 2014)

I find this to be more accurate; at least, how I see things.

E ∈ S*M | M*e^E  where ∂E = ∞


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Oct 29, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Does god allow suffering?  Absolutely. Could god stop suffering? Absolutely.  It must be part of his will.
> 
> 
> Suffering is of god.
> ...



I think what your point boils down to, in a basic sense, (correct me if I'm wrong) is that bad things happen to good people. I don't think that there's anything good about us when left to our own selves. It would then follow that bad things happen to bad people, which is just; doesn't mean I like it, but it's just.


----------



## 660griz (Oct 29, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I don't think that there's anything good about us when left to our own selves.



Wow! 

“A man’s ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”
Albert Einstein (1930)


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 29, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> What if the good that men may do is tainted anyway by the evil that dwells within? A little poison in water makes the whole glass undrinkable.


That's a very self serving thought process.
Ask the hungry at a shelter if the food you donated was uneatable because you wrote it off on your taxes.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Oct 29, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> That's a very self serving thought process.



I can see how you might come to that conclusion should you hold there is no God. 



WaltL1 said:


> Ask the hungry at a shelter if the food you donated was uneatable because you wrote it off on your taxes.



A silly argument.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 29, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I can see how you might come to that conclusion should you hold there is no God.
> 
> 
> 
> A silly argument.





> I can see how you might come to that conclusion should you hold there is no God.


Do you also see that because you hold that there is a God you believe that ALL men left to themselves are evil?
Despite the fact that isn't true?
That's what makes it self serving. You are ignoring that which doesn't back up what you believe.


> A silly argument


It fit this perfectly -


> What if the good that men may do is tainted anyway by the evil that dwells within? A little poison in water makes the whole glass undrinkable


You aren't looking at it from the point of view of those who received the goodness.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Oct 29, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Do you also see that because you hold that there is a God you believe that ALL men left to themselves are evil?



Yes. Does this somehow make my position invalid?



WaltL1 said:


> Despite the fact that isn't true?



Could you expound?




WaltL1 said:


> That's what makes it self serving. You are ignoring that which doesn't back up what you believe.



Is there another way by which to defend your beliefs? This is assuming you're talking about the fact that I start with the notion of God. If you're talking about the fact that I start with the notion of man being bent toward evil, you are the one who holds the burden of proof. My God says this is so. If my God exists, that is enough proof. If he doesn't, then it's not. However, since you can't falsify the existence of my God, you, also, cannot falsify the validity of my position. Hence, the ball is in your court.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Oct 29, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> It fit this perfectly -
> 
> You aren't looking at it from the point of view of those who received the goodness.



Oops, forgot about this one. 

I'm not concerned with anyone's point of view. I stated my belief, and gave you a fact to back it up as I see things.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 29, 2014)

Doesn't the Christian's Old Self continue in evilness? What happens at salvation when a Christian becomes a new spiritual being? Does this person still act at least a little bit evil living in his old self? The indwelling of the Holy Spirit can't overcome the evilness of the Old Self. As Christians we continue to talk of evil and righteousness and yet we are neither.


----------



## Israel (Oct 29, 2014)

Because God is good, and the truth of what good is, it's not unusual to find men a little insulted, religious, irreligious, believer and unbeliever alike when brought to confront their own evil.
Sometimes, a lot insulted.
But, it's not insurmountable, if one sees how good God is. It's much better than poking around in ashes.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 29, 2014)

Israel said:


> Because God is good, and the truth of what good is, it's not unusual to find men a little insulted, religious, irreligious, believer and unbeliever alike when brought to confront their own evil.
> Sometimes, a lot insulted.
> But, it's not insurmountable, if one sees how good God is. It's much better than poking around in ashes.



How is God good? With over 20 million deaths to his credit in the Bible alone he doesn't sound "good".


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 29, 2014)

Israel said:


> Because God is good, and the truth of what good is, it's not unusual to find men a little insulted, religious, irreligious, believer and unbeliever alike when brought to confront their own evil.
> Sometimes, a lot insulted.
> But, it's not insurmountable, if one sees how good God is. It's much better than poking around in ashes.



What exactly is my own evil?


----------



## Israel (Oct 30, 2014)

drippin' rock said:


> What exactly is my own evil?


Any man may come to see all that is his own.
You're free.


----------



## Israel (Oct 30, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Doesn't the Christian's Old Self continue in evilness? What happens at salvation when a Christian becomes a new spiritual being? Does this person still act at least a little bit evil living in his old self? The indwelling of the Holy Spirit can't overcome the evilness of the Old Self. As Christians we continue to talk of evil and righteousness and yet we are neither.



A witness is called upon to testify of that which he has seen and heard. 
This doesn't make the witness anything at all, of himself, he has simply either seen and heard a thing, or not.
What a man may learn of this is interesting to the extreme, in that he discovers how precisely he is brought into the experience of the Lord Jesus Christ when all considerations are abandoned except the simple consideration of being faithful to what he has seen and heard...which again, he learns has not made him anything of himself in his own sight.
When faithful in little, he is given a little more, when faithful in that...and so on.
He may become aware of his previous dealings...of trying to "play" to this side or that...either in whatever form he sought to be a "good" witness, for whatever gain he might thereby receive.
We are all, I trust, familiar with attempts to "impeach" a witness's testimony. "That witness is a drunk and a wife beater"..."that witness is on the police's payroll!"..."That witness is a known liar!"..."That witness is the defendant's best friend!".
It's not unusual, I have found, (I believe, for here I testify) for a "christian" to believe Jesus is the defendant in this world.
He is not.
Men may say "but we are trying Jesus, prove to us he is who he says".
The devil remains clever.
But judged.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 30, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Yes. Does this somehow make my position invalid?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Yes. Does this somehow make my position invalid?


To you Im sure its very valid. What would make it invalid to those who don't believe what you do is the fact that you couldn't possibly prove that all men are evil left to themselves. And it would be quite easy to start listing positive things that man does and do.
Come on, its obvious to anybody that man is capable of and does very good things and very evil things.
Its your personal beliefs that puts the spin that even the good things come from a bad place.


> Could you expound?


See above.


> If you're talking about the fact that I start with the notion of man being bent toward evil, you are the one who holds the burden of proof.


Actually no. You made the claim. Wouldn't that put the burden of proof on you?


> However, since you can't falsify the existence of my God, you, also, cannot falsify the validity of my position.


Uh, isn't that a 2 way street?
That sounds a lot like "I can make any claim I want without a shred of proof to back it up because you cant prove God isn't real."
If you believe that validates your position, well ok then.


> Is there another way by which to defend your beliefs?


Im not sure how you can successfully defend something that is based on faith. You certainly can't prove it or you wouldn't need faith.
You can say here's what I believe and why and accept that your only defense is because that's what you believe.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Oct 30, 2014)

Israel said:


> A witness is called upon to testify of that which he has seen and heard.
> This doesn't make the witness anything at all, of himself, he has simply either seen and heard a thing, or not.
> What a man may learn of this is interesting to the extreme, in that he discovers how precisely he is brought into the experience of the Lord Jesus Christ when all considerations are abandoned except the simple consideration of being faithful to what he has seen and heard...which again, he learns has not made him anything of himself in his own sight.
> When faithful in little, he is given a little more, when faithful in that...and so on.
> ...



This is off topic, but just as good a place to mention it as any: I like the poetic way in which you describe things. It's welcome after reading so many articles and books written in the dull "scientific" way; not only this, but your style is easily understandable.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Oct 30, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> To you Im sure its very valid. What would make it invalid to those who don't believe what you do is the fact that you couldn't possibly prove that all men are evil left to themselves. And it would be quite easy to start listing positive things that man does and do.
> Come on, its obvious to anybody that man is capable of and does very good things and very evil things.
> Its your personal beliefs that puts the spin that even the good things come from a bad place..



Man does do good things, in the eyes of other men. This cannot be denied. But as to how these things appear to God...



WaltL1 said:


> Actually no. You made the claim. Wouldn't that put the burden of proof on you?



This much is true. Forgive me, I misspoke. My proof is my faith. Which, I know, is nothing remotely in the realm of proof for you; I respect that fact. 



WaltL1 said:


> Uh, isn't that a 2 way street?
> That sounds a lot like "I can make any claim I want without a shred of proof to back it up because you cant prove God isn't real."
> If you believe that validates your position, well ok then.



A claim very similar to, "I can deny the existence of the Christian God because I have no evidence of the Christian God".



WaltL1 said:


> Im not sure how you can successfully defend something that is based on faith.



 Those that adhere to Neo-Darwinism seem to have no trouble attempting.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Oct 30, 2014)

But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 30, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Those that adhere to Neo-Darwinism seem to have no trouble attempting.



"Look they do it too" is not a good defense.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Oct 30, 2014)

bullethead said:


> "Look they do it too" is not a good defense.



Neither is yours.

I was simply poking fun at an argument I found sort-of funny.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 30, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Neither is yours.


What defense did I offer?



EverGreen1231 said:


> I was simply poking fun at an argument I found sort-of funny.


10-4


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 30, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Man does do good things, in the eyes of other men. This cannot be denied. But as to how these things appear to God...
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> A claim very similar to, "I can deny the existence of the Christian God because I have no evidence of the Christian God".


They aren't similar. They are opposites.
One is believing without actual proof (faith).
One is NOT believing because there is no actual proof.


> Those that adhere to Neo-Darwinism seem to have no trouble attempting.


It makes it a lot easier to attempt to defend something when you have fossils and skeletons and scientific data and research etc.


> My proof is my faith. Which, I know, is nothing remotely in the realm of proof for you; I respect that fact.


That's the point.
That makes this -


> Originally Posted by EverGreen1231 View Post
> I don't think that there's anything good about us when left to our own selves.


Something you believe, not because you KNOW its true but because your faith tells you to believe it.
If Im going to think that lowly about people Im going to need a few facts first. Just being told to believe it isn't enough for me.


----------



## Israel (Oct 31, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> They aren't similar. They are opposites.
> One is believing without actual proof (faith).
> One is NOT believing because there is no actual proof.
> 
> ...


Could you be surprised at what you believe...simply because you are "told"?


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 31, 2014)

Israel said:


> Could you be surprised at what you believe...simply because you are "told"?



I suppose we all fall prey to gullibilities.  The difference is how long we keep the blinders on.


----------



## Israel (Oct 31, 2014)

drippin' rock said:


> I suppose we all fall prey to gullibilities.  The difference is how long we keep the blinders on.


Something told you to say that.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 31, 2014)

Israel said:


> Could you be surprised at what you believe...simply because you are "told"?


Actually no I wouldn't be all that surprised.
But there is a difference between being told that Ford is better than Chevy and being told people are inherently evil blah blah blah.
One deserves a little more scrutiny than the other regardless of who or what told you.


----------



## 660griz (Oct 31, 2014)

Israel said:


> Could you be surprised at what you believe...simply because you are "told"?



I wouldn't. I was a Christian for years. Even got baptized over things I was told. 
Lottery of birth an all.


----------



## Israel (Oct 31, 2014)

660griz said:


> I wouldn't. I was a Christian for years. Even got baptized over things I was told.
> Lottery of birth an all.


You do understand that your "testimony" is unique to you, right?
You didn't mention Jesus...or do you equate something, others may not?


----------



## Israel (Oct 31, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Actually no I wouldn't be all that surprised.
> But there is a difference between being told that Ford is better than Chevy and being told people are inherently evil blah blah blah.
> One deserves a little more scrutiny than the other regardless of who or what told you.



Yes, though we may sometimes impute motives to one another "he drives a Ford cause his daddy did"...sometimes we later discover he went to an automotive design and assembly institute, or some such, and may even have a degree in metallurgy and mechanical engineering. 

(With no endorsement of Ford, or impugning of Chevies intended)

But! Who knows? When asked he still might say "I drive Fords cause my daddy did."


----------



## 660griz (Nov 3, 2014)

You lost me.
You said:





> Could you be surprised at what you believe...simply because you are "told"?


I replied: 





> I wouldn't. I was a Christian for years. Even got baptized over things I was told.
> Lottery of birth an all.


 I thought that was a pretty straight forward answer.
Then you reply with:





Israel said:


> You do understand that your "testimony" is unique to you, right?
> You didn't mention Jesus...or do you equate something, others may not?



Please explain how the uniqueness of my "testimony", or that fact that I didn't mention Jesus, factors into the conversation?


----------



## Israel (Nov 3, 2014)

660griz said:


> You lost me.
> You said:
> I replied:  I thought that was a pretty straight forward answer.
> Then you reply with:
> ...


You mention "lottery of birth", from which I infer a reference to (perhaps) a so called "christian" home/neighborhood/state/nation...milieu.

Correct me in my understanding, I don't mean offense.
If it's  as simple as "Americans become Christians, Arabs become Muslims" well, even in that I think you'd agree there could be a wide disparity.
But, if that is the bedrock of understanding and proposed assertion, then I would say it is quite salient that Jesus was never mentioned. For the Lord's call is not according to geography, but yes, religions do have a geographical affinity, it seems.

I would not be the first to say, nor (probably) tell you, the call of God transcends whatever limit we may care to prescribe, or to whatever place we would care to proscribe him. 
"I was a Christian for years" you say.
How did the Lord call you? How did Jesus manifest himself to you? I am not trying to put you "on the spot" so to speak, though it may surely sound that way. Do you only have those recollections of an emotional response? (that I do not imply in any way with despite)

"Christians" have a testimony of the Christ, Jesus, and not of "being" or having been, a Christian.
That this is plainly difficult for some, I am more than aware.
"I believe(d) in Jesus" one may say. What then of Jesus was revealed in this having "believed?" 

Christianity is not what Jesus reveals, though some may think it so. "I went to church, I did the things "christians" do...I went to the altar...I prayed for people and myself..." All of which, again, I do not speak of with despite, but what of Jesus? What do you have that you believe he showed you? If he shows one "nothing" of himself, yet according to his promise he does...what then can one receive of such testimony?

I don't despise your testimony, either, again, though it may seem I might. But, it is "unique" to you...and this despite the many others that may nod in agreement and say "yeah, same thing with me, too"

It may well be that the Lord is showing you precisely those things which "have the appearance" are not the real and eternal, and God forbid I get in the way of what he may have begun in you in that showing.

I am a very emotional man, indeed, they have been shown me that...to a fault. I get that if one "lives" simply by an emotional response, the poverty, even the destructiveness of it, can be revealed.
Though once I may too, have discovered the "feelings" can be replicated, even cajoled from one, the things I have seen regarding that, may not be far from our agreement.

In some ways, perhaps, I too can testify "I was a christian for years"...but just as I have had to come in placing "zero" stock in that for the "genericization" of both the word and perception of the description in the utility, I am now left quite content to be described as whatever men care to in the hearing of my only testimony, Jesus is Lord.


----------



## 660griz (Nov 3, 2014)

Israel said:


> You mention "lottery of birth", from which I infer a reference to (perhaps) a so called "christian" home/neighborhood/state/nation...milieu.
> 
> Correct me in my understanding, I don't mean offense.
> If it's  as simple as "Americans become Christians, Arabs become Muslims" well, even in that I think you'd agree there could be a wide disparity.


 No. Children of Christians become Christians, children of Muslims become Muslim, etc. Of course, exceptions do occur.


> But, if that is the bedrock of understanding and proposed assertion, then I would say it is quite salient that Jesus was never mentioned. For the Lord's call is not according to geography, but yes, religions do have a geographical affinity, it seems.


 Not geography. Birth. Usually, the lottery of birth includes parents first however, geography could play a role.

Once again, this has nothing to do with the Lord's call, Allah's call, any calls. It has to do with your question;


> Could you be surprised at what you believe...simply because you are "told"?


My answer still is simply, NO. I am not surprised at what folks will believe simply because they are told.


----------



## Israel (Nov 4, 2014)

660griz said:


> No. Children of Christians become Christians, children of Muslims become Muslim, etc. Of course, exceptions do occur.
> Not geography. Birth. Usually, the lottery of birth includes parents first however, geography could play a role.
> 
> Once again, this has nothing to do with the Lord's call, Allah's call, any calls. It has to do with your question;
> ...


Then, my faith is no surprise to you, for I believe because I was told. 
"Repent and believe the gospel." the Lord Jesus told me.


----------



## 660griz (Nov 4, 2014)

Israel said:


> Then, my faith is no surprise to you, for I believe because I was told.


 Correct.



> "Repent and believe the gospel." the Lord Jesus told me.



Now that is funny right there.


----------



## Israel (Nov 4, 2014)

660griz said:


> Correct.
> 
> 
> 
> Now that is funny right there.



Do you believe your sig line? 
Who told you that?
All hearing, takes place in the mind.
Compressions and attenuations of air, remain just that, in the air, but hearing takes place elsewhere.

"What do you have that you didn't receive? If, in fact, you did receive it, why do you boast as if you hadn't received it?"


----------



## 660griz (Nov 4, 2014)

Israel said:


> Do you believe your sig line?


 I think the message is clear and I thought it was catchy. I haven't really given the validity much thought.  There are some peer reviewed research on the issue. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16973444?dopt=AbstractPlus


> Who told you that?


 Look all the way at the end of the sig. There is a name. 



> All hearing, takes place in the mind.
> Compressions and attenuations of air, remain just that, in the air, but hearing takes place elsewhere.


 We could get into a discussion on the differences between hearing and listening and comprehension but, really not relevant.



> "What do you have that you didn't receive? If, in fact, you did receive it, why do you boast as if you hadn't received it?"


----------



## bullethead (Nov 4, 2014)

Reading is knowledge. Separating the verifiable from the assertions is the trick.
There are studies done that could verify the effects of french fries on the human body.
On the other hand
Jesus never wrote a single thing to anyone.
In fact 
Anonymous authors penned these Jesus quotes and  research leads us to believe that none of those authors actually ever met Jesus, knew Jesus, or witnessed anything he ever said or done.
Saying anonymous authors speak to me..and/or..authors who have never actually met Jesus speak to me would be more accurate.


----------



## Israel (Nov 4, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Reading is knowledge. Separating the verifiable from the assertions is the trick.
> There are studies done that could verify the effects of french fries on the human body.
> On the other hand
> Jesus never wrote a single thing to anyone.



And you know this, how?


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 4, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Reading is knowledge. Separating the verifiable from the assertions is the trick.
> There are studies done that could verify the effects of french fries on the human body.
> On the other hand
> Jesus never wrote a single thing to anyone.
> ...





> Separating the verifiable from the assertions is the trick.


Now THAT would be a miracle!


----------



## Israel (Nov 4, 2014)

I don't believe Paul is anonymous...regardless of how you or I may see the others...


----------



## bullethead (Nov 4, 2014)

Israel said:


> I don't believe Paul is anonymous...regardless of how you or I may see the others...



Paul falls into the "never met and never witnessed" category.
And you know it.
He wrote about his concept of Jesus.


----------



## Israel (Nov 4, 2014)

I would disagree, with both the never met, and never witnessed.


----------



## Israel (Nov 4, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Paul falls into the "never met and never witnessed" category.
> And you know it.
> He wrote about his concept of Jesus.



It would appear, as do you.


----------



## 660griz (Nov 4, 2014)

Israel said:


> I would disagree, with both the never met, and never witnessed.



It can be said he met the 'risen' Jesus but, not the man. 
Meeting the risen Jesus is akin to the Lord telling you something.


----------



## 660griz (Nov 4, 2014)

Israel said:


> It would appear, as do you.



As do all the authors of the New Testament.


----------



## Israel (Nov 4, 2014)

660griz said:


> It can be said he met the 'risen' Jesus but, not the man.
> Meeting the risen Jesus is akin to the Lord telling you something.


Yes, I agree.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 4, 2014)

Israel said:


> I would disagree, with both the never met, and never witnessed.



You have to disagree in order to believe.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 4, 2014)

Israel said:


> It would appear, as do you.



Correct. I have to. It is all I can ever have to go by.
And I would not expect you to believe my concept any more that I believe Paul's.

Without what is written by Paul and in the Bible you would not have a clue to a Jesus.
You have then taken their writings to a personal level where you are able to attribute things in your personal life to Jesus. But in reality those same things happen to people all over the globe without Jesus.
Jesus does not speak to you. YOU speak to YOU and somehow convince yourself it is a guy that is dead for 1,981 years.
When you read "and Jesus said to his followers......" that stuff was written by someone who was not there to hear it. When you read about Jesus having a conversation with the Satan...it is someone making that up because it was only Jesus and Satan(Which is a highly suspect cast and story in itself)present. When you read about Roman Guards conversing with Jewish Chief Priests...unless the author was a Roman Guard or Chief Priest...he wasn't there. 
Throw Paul in the mix and you are following a religion HE is starting.


----------



## Israel (Nov 4, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Correct. I have to. It is all I can ever have to go by.
> And I would not expect you to believe my concept any more that I believe Paul's.
> 
> Without what is written by Paul and in the Bible you would not have a clue to a Jesus.
> ...



So, what you call christianity is, to you, really Paulianity?


----------



## Israel (Nov 4, 2014)

bullethead said:


> You have to disagree in order to believe.


I have a sense of what I believe you are implying, but if I am correct in assuming you mean he didn't "know" Jesus like Peter and John, even there, I would, (according to my own wording) still disagree.
The knowing of Jesus Christ is not how his beard may have looked in the morning after sleeping, the manner in which he chewed his food, or whether his skin was lighter, or darker than one's own.
Even those who may have at one time been aware of these things, having seen them "after the flesh", came to know there was much more to him than met, and was apprehended, by their physical senses.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 4, 2014)

Israel said:


> So, what you call christianity is, to you, really Paulianity?



No. Paul just expounded on the gospel writings and took it in the direction he sought fit to take it.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 4, 2014)

Israel said:


> I have a sense of what I believe you are implying, but if I am correct in assuming you mean he didn't "know" Jesus like Peter and John, even there, I would, (according to my own wording) still disagree.
> The knowing of Jesus Christ is not how his beard may have looked in the morning after sleeping, the manner in which he chewed his food, or whether his skin was lighter, or darker than one's own.
> Even those who may have at one time been aware of these things, having seen them "after the flesh", came to know there was much more to him than met, and was apprehended, by their physical senses.



He can be no more known after the flesh than what an individuals needs require and what their mind can conjure up. He only appears to those people.


----------



## GunnSmokeer (Nov 12, 2014)

*Job*

I've heard a few times in other places that the answer is "because the suffering serves God's purpose" even though we don't know, and probably cannot possibly know and will never know, what that purpose was.

Then they tell the story of Job . A good man who loved God. But  the Devil said that this man only loved God because he had a good life, and that if he were subject to sickness and suffering and had tragedies befall his family, he would reject God.  

So much like Randall and Mortimer Duke from the movie "Trading Places," God and the Devil make a bet, and God lets the Devil torture and torment Job.  Job suffers and complains (he didn't suffer in silence with endless patience.) But he never forsakes God. 

Eventually God declares himself the winner of the bet and restores Job's health, and although Job's entire family has been killed in this experiment, God lets him impregate his women again to create a new crop of sons.

So Job is supposed to be a lesson about how if you trust God, everything will work out OK in the end.

Hmmm.... so it may have been OK in the end for Job, assuming his kids are fungible goods and the new ones fully compensate for the murdered ones.

But how did this work out for Job's sons and daughters?  They were KILLED by the Devil with God's permission and approval for the sake of this experiment.  So why didn't they experience God making it right for them in the end? Or should we assume that they were instantly sent to a heavenly paradise?

 Come to think of it, the lesson about having unquestioned confidence in God is supposed to be shown in the story of Abraham being told to slice his son's throat, and when he was just about to do it, God sent and angel to stop him and basically say, "Dude, I was just messing with you. I can't believe you were really going to do it!"

So Isaac was spared, but not so for the beautiful daughter of Jephthah. He swore to God that he would sacrifice the first creature that he saw on his return home from battle, and she came out to greet him before he saw any farm animals.  So he killed her. Human sacrifice. A promise is a promise. She understood. BUT WHY DIDN'T GOD send an angel to seize his hand? Why didn't this girl get to live?  Was she REALLY allowed to die simply to make a good story that is very memorable about always keeping your promises to God?


----------



## Israel (Nov 13, 2014)

bullethead said:


> He can be no more known after the flesh than what an individuals needs require and what their mind can conjure up. He only appears to those people.



It would appear from your statement that, from your perspective, a disciple of Jesus Christ is one who "conjures".
This, despite the truth to which I refer, that of knowing Jesus "after the flesh" is of no profit, unless he is known according to the spirit.
Before this may be responded to as "there's no such thing as a knowing "in the spirit"...just as I have heard say, there's no such thing as a "soul" (though different occupiers)...I recall a man, very recently who asked whether I could refrain from simply "pouring out my soul" on this forum. It seems that these things seemingly denied, become easy points of reference in parlance, when one is seeking to either restrict or impede another. In other words..."Stop pouring out "that thing" which at other times I say does not exist"
"The reality" of which some appear to make an appeal to others that they might, in a fashion "snap out of it and come to reality", is found as this "I am the way, the truth, and the life"...may be in other terms "I am _the_ reality"...if one can receive that.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 13, 2014)

Soul could very well be meant as a persons inner most thoughts and feelings.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 13, 2014)

Israel said:


> It would appear from your statement that, from your perspective, a disciple of Jesus Christ is one who "conjures".
> This, despite the truth to which I refer, that of knowing Jesus "after the flesh" is of no profit, unless he is known according to the spirit.
> Before this may be responded to as "there's no such thing as a knowing "in the spirit"...just as I have heard say, there's no such thing as a "soul" (though different occupiers)...I recall a man, very recently who asked whether I could refrain from simply "pouring out my soul" on this forum. It seems that these things seemingly denied, become easy points of reference in parlance, when one is seeking to either restrict or impede another. In other words..."Stop pouring out "that thing" which at other times I say does not exist"
> "The reality" of which some appear to make an appeal to others that they might, in a fashion "snap out of it and come to reality", is found as this "I am the way, the truth, and the life"...may be in other terms "I am _the_ reality"...if one can receive that.



No two people, believers and non believers alike,can or do know Jesus in the same way. The version you have in your mind certainly differs from the next persons and those differences are the personal touches you have given him in order for you to make sense of your understanding of him. You make think you have a better understanding of him through your studies and worship habits but those only add to the unique perspective you have formed about him.
He has been dead for at least 1980 years. And all that you know if him has been told to you and what you have formed in your own mind based off of that information. Your obsession now feeds your needs.


----------



## Israel (Nov 14, 2014)

Yes, the feeding of all my needs is accomplished through the one with whom I occupy.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 15, 2014)

Israel said:


> Yes, the feeding of all my needs is accomplished through the one with whom I occupy.


You hit the nail on the head.
The kicker is not everyones needs or how those needs are met are the same as yours.
Its just that simple.


----------

