If God Truly Cared About People Wouldn't He DO SOMETHING By Now?

by minimus 392 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Mad Dawg

  “Happy” Guy said:

  No, I have not read anything of Attenborough.

  This is obvious. Google is your friend.

  I am not relying on his argument.

  Your ignorance of the source of your argument does not negate the source of said argument.

  I used the river blindness example because it is simple, there is no way you can blame man, it is not due to the "evil" of the victims, it does not involve the sovereignty issue, and it could easily be rectified if God chose to do so.

  All true and all answered. How do you know what a loving God would do? If you are so sure what a loving God is supposed to do, then what should He do with you when you die? You are the one who claims:

  v To know what a loving God would do, and

  v To absolutely believe in a god – even if he is not loving

  For someone who claims to be so well read, why are you having a problem with this? It should be a simple answer.

  I did not make noise about research,…

  Ummm, do you remember saying this? I have read hundreds of books from all relgious paradigms. I have done scholarly research on many aspects of the Bible, God, religion, etc.

  Sounds like noise to me.

  … in answer to someone who assumed that I have never read the Bible and never read ANY religious works by real scholars but instead got all of my information from publications of the WTBTS,

  I didn’t say you had done zero research, just that your reading did not include anyone qualified to comment on theology.

  I gave a very brief summary of what I actually have done.

  Riiiiight, suuure you did. If someone claims to be a vascular surgeon and can’t locate the brachial artery, I am not going to believe them either.

  I am still waiting to read some of your “scholarly research.”

  Also waiting to know if your beliefs came from aliens. After all, you said: …I have my own spiritual path that did not come from any human or any book. If you are human, it could not have come you. Note the word “ANY.”
• 

  VoidEater

  The reason for suffering may be inscrutable but that does not mean it is gratuitous.

  That would be one of my definitions for gratuitous: intentionally inscrutable. If indeed He has written this Bible, He left a heckuvalot out.

  Frankly, if God were indeed doing "nothing" this world would be in far worse shape than it is. And there would be far more suffering.

  I'm sorry to say this is just horrendous: limits God's ability, and condemns Him to a grauitously sadistic persona.

  To catagorically state that God is doing nothing or that there is no higher reason for something one would have to be God.

  Perhaps we are God. That would explain a lot, eh?

  Again, limiting a transcnending God to the here and now only hinders ones' ability to understand.

  By that token, we must admit we know nothing whatever of God, whether he has the notion (let alone any ability) to act, has what we would consider a personality, or any desires at all. By definition, a transcendant God would be utterly alien to us, impossible to fathom, impossible to beseech.

  Why would a transcendant God care at all?
• 

  minimus

  MD, HG is explaining why it appears God doesn't truly care about what happens to people. Whether he knew about Attenborough or not is immaterial.

  You think YOU are qualified to comment on theology? I didn't know there were qualifications to make comments on this subject.
• 

  AK - Jeff

  I feel like I am shouting into a bucket.

  Jeff
• 

  Mad Dawg

  Ok, now “Happy” is complaining that I am using big words. I will try to use small words for him. The words do mean something. If you were such a “scholarly” person as you claim you would understand what is meant. BTW, I know you read slow, so I am typing slow for you. Maybe you believe you have done research, but looking for the latest Britany Spears video on Youtube is not real research.

  “Happy” said:

  I did not categorically state that God is doing nothing for every example that could be given.

  Who said you did? Where did they say you said that?

  What I did say is that in the example of the river blindness disease, a problem which God directly caused (if you believe in creation) God has done nothing.

  And it has been repeatedly (this means over and over again, sorry for the big word) stated that God allows these things to happen for a higher reason.

  The religionists claim to know god, I am asking them for what the reasons might be.

  You claim to know what a loving God would or wouldn’t do, please explain what He is going to do with you when you die.

  To be frank Matt, most of what you say is complete jibberish, you string together complex sounding ideas to impress.

  If you had anything resembling a good foundation in theology, nothing I write would be complex sounding or impressive. I hope these words aren’t too big for you.

  This kind of 'we can't understand anything" philosophizing is a complete waste of time and shows that your agenda is to impress with big words but not to actually discuss the issue that has been posed.

  Who said, “we can't understand anything"? You have saying that if we don’t understand something then the person who allows, or performs it, must be malevolent (click on the link if you don’t understand the word). That would mean that my dog would correctly consider me malevolent for having him castrated (means his nuts were cut off). His understanding, or lack of understanding, of my reason has no bearing on my reasons for my actions – or perceived lack thereof.

  My hobby is reading textbooks on various subjects. I am sorry for using such big words. If you need help with a word or phrase, just ask. I am happy to help. Or just look it up, dictionary.com is your friend.
• 

  HappyGuy

  MD

  I am still waiting to read some of your “scholarly research.”

  I didn't say I wrote papers for publication, I said I did research. I did this when I had a shipwreck of faith as a JW for my own benefit in order to restore my faith. Needless to say, what I found out had the opposite effect.

  You are attempting to belittle me and insinuating that any research I might have done is "not scholarly enough" to matter.

  I got a lot of the materials at the university libraries in Nashville Tennessee. Vanderbilt library was particularly useful. Feel free to go there and start reading.

  Riiiiight, suuure you did. If someone claims to be a vascular surgeon

  I did not claim to BE anything. I said that I have read books in response to a comment by another idiot on here that I obviously have never read any books. (I forget who said that, perhaps it was you).

  Are you saying that I have never read any books?

  just that your reading did not include anyone qualified to comment on theology.

  And you obtained the list of materials that I studied where?
• 

  AK - Jeff

  Pardon me.

  Is this a thread about Minimus' question, or ad hominen exchanges between MD and HD?

  I smell red herring when this is drug out.

  Jeff
• 

  HappyGuy

  This MD character sure is full of himself, isn't he?
• 

  HappyGuy

  Jeff,

  I still haven't seen anyt posts from any of the religionists that even attempted to address Minimus question. Most of the posts in this thread are attacks on me because I posted an example that would focus the discussion on Minimus' question.

  Now this MD character is saying that I'm not qualified to post an example because I am not a theologan.

  I'm done with this stupiditiy.
• 

  PSacramento

  Jeez,

  I can only speak for myself but I thought I did address the original post.

  I should have quite boxing earlier it seems.