The Issue is Not that God WANTS Us to Suffer...

by AGuest 404 Replies latest jw friends

AGuest

First, I just want to say THANK YOU, dear tec (and peace to you!). It really is that simple, isn't it? So why doesn't he get it? The example that our Lord gave me long ago was a man asking his two year old what color the sky was (and after looking up, the child responding, "Blue") and then asking his adult companion who, after looking up, squinching his eyes, and "examining" the sky says something like "Well, today it's a light shade of steely gray with little wisps of white here and there but if you look toward the east it's got some pink going on due to the sunrise, but an aura of browishness around that due to the smog"... etc., etc., etc. Meaning, some have to make God SO complicated... when He isn't at all... and then wonder why they don't get it. They don't WANT to get it. I digress...
Peace to you my dear Shelby!
The GREATEST of love and peace to you, dear NVL... and before we continue I also want to thank YOU... for keeing this discussion amiable, civil, and kind. Truly.
I am just asking which parts are inspired and right and which aren't.
Ummm... that's not what you asked, actually. You asked: "... has God/Jesus told you which parts of the bible are right and which aren't?" To which I responded, "God, no. Christ… as things come up, yes." If you are [now] asking which parts of the Bible are inspired, the answer is "the scriptures." If you are asking, "Which parts are 'scripture," the answer is "Moses, the Psalms, the Prophets"... and the Revelation. If you are asking are the 'scriptures' right, the answer is to some degree, yes, but not completely as the "false stylus of the secretaries"... i.e., the "scribes"... has rendered them unreliable in their entirety - intentionally and unintentionally (which I also stated... somewhere).
It just seems mildly suspiciuous that when you get backed into a corner on scripture you just happen to get insight on to what's right or not.
I can see how you would think that, given what you've been taught about how one even knows the "scriptures" (i.e., it is subjec to the interpretation of and validation/acceptance by theologians and scholars... and others commonly accepted as having "knowledge"... but no one else, not even God and Christ). But I do not lie to you, dear NVL. You might not believe this but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is something I take VERY seriously...
I mean, YOU are the one picking which scriptures are real or not.
It's not me, truly, dear one. I know that you may have never heard of what I'm sharing (that my Lord speaks)... although you really have... just not from men... but, I am NOT lying to you when I say that I don't know these things. I really don't. I PROMISE you. I'm a little smart, yes, but I'm not THAT smart.
Clue the rest of us in :)
I did, luv: just ask, yourself. As to certain scriptures/verses... or as to ANYTHING you wish to know... including whether I am telling the truth or lying. Just ask. And then put faith in what you HEAR. Don't make it up, though, just to "get" my "goat" - 'cause that might turn out to be blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
If I don't know how to make shakshuka, then I can't. I can learn how, but until I do, I can't.
Yes. And if you don't want to learn, you will never learn how... or make one. In the meantime, can you tell others who can... or who want to learn how... that THEY can't? Or shouldn't? Isn't that WTBTS "dirt"?
If you don't know how to snowboard, then you don't. You might be able to learn, but until then, you can't.
And if I never ever get ON a snowboard... then I won't. However, just because I've never SEEN a snowboard doesn't mean no one else has. Or that no one else know how to snowboard.
Oh, look who suddenly decided to use the WT translation. Let's continue that scripture...
I use virtually every Bible version out there, dear one, so long as the verse it states if corrected transliterated. Every Bible version has some accuracy... and a whole lot of error...
the evident demonstration of reality THOUGH NOT YET BEHELD. Look who stopped short this time, my dear :)
Look who didn't read all that I wrote, which is usually the case and why so many are ABLE to use the Bible to mislead (because they KNOW folks don't fully and accurately SEE what's before their eyes!!). I stated:
"Faith… is the assured expectation of thing hoped for… the EVIDENT DEMONSTRATION OF REALITY. It is just not “beheld”… i.e., not experienced with the senses of the physical man."
Which is another reason why we shouldn't put our faith in the Bible... because we don't always see what even IT states.
Sounds like a thing you a hoping for, a reality, though not yet beheld :)
This is true, though I don't think YOU understand what that means. So, I repeat (because you apparently missed it the first time around):
"... not experienced with the senses of the physical man."
If he decided to jump off a cliff he would go splat.
Not necessarily, dear one. There were skins, leaves, bark, and other material that could have been used to fashion a "kite." And how do WE know one wasn't, say, 3000 years... or more... ago? Maybe he was the one guy who believed it, went out and did it... and his ridiculers tore his little kite up and threatened him with death if he "ever tried a stunt like that again - we say a man CAN'T fly and we ain't gonna let you go around proving us wrong. So cut it out!" And maybe he cut it out... maybe he didn't. Maybe his "design" died with him. Who knows? Oh, that right - "science" hasn't found any "evidence" of such a kite (although all the materials that one would have been made from would most probably have completely decomposed)... and so it never happened. Unless and until "they" find "evidence" that it did.
Funny thing, though: "science" keeps proving ITSELF wrong. Why, just a few months ago they "discovered" that cats aren't color-blind, after all. Guess what? Dogs aren't either (mine aren't and, yes, I've tested it with their water bowls - oh, no, wait, they're not responding to color... because "science" says they aren't... so it must be "something else". Yet, they know which bowls they like drinking out of... and which ones they don't... and they aren't fooled by the color). But "science" hasn't figured that out, yet, and so, until "they" do... dogs are color-blind, too.
Just like the WTBTS' "new light." It ain't so until WE say it is. And whatever WE say is true... at the time... is truth. Okay, dear NVL, but please don't say that I'm the one stuck in WTBTS-thinking mode...
later it might be true, but at the time, it wasn't.
And there you go: the light getting brighter. "At the time WE understood it, it was true; now, we know different so what we know NOW is true." Do you REALLY not SEE that?
It was entirely baseless faith. He had no math, no physics, no nothing on which to base his faith.
Wait... how can YOU say he had no math, no physics? How can you SAY that? Because he didn't publish a theorem? How do YOU know that? True, what he may have "had" may have been primitive to what we have now... but to say he had NO math/physics is absurd. Maybe he though everyone else pretty much thought as he thought... and so he didn't need to make a big deal out of it. Or maybe when he told them what he thought they responded with, "MATH?? What the heck is MATH, Og?? Who are YOU to be telling US about MATH? Did WE discover this math you're always grunting about? No? Then it don't exist. We didn't think of it, we don't know it, and it don't make sense to US... so shut your Og trap and get back to hunting... whatever it is you hunt. And leave the THINKING to us!"
Is that the kind of faith you are suggesting you have?
I have faith that "we" don't know everything... in spite of what our... ummmm... arrogance... tells us. About the present, the past, and certainly not the future. However, there is One who can TELL us... about ALL of these things... if we only ask. I don't ask about math or physics, generally, but it's not like he hasn't broached those subjects. Recently, even. And no, I can't yet explain that to you, as I stated previously. If and when I am able, I most certainly will.
Besides which, you can thing something MIGHT be possible without having faith in it :)
You can. You can also have faith in something you think possible... even though other think you a fool.
As always, I bid you the greatest of love and peace, dear NVL...
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ, who IS alive...
SA

THE GLADIATOR

Such an entertaining discussion! On page 7 - I made the comment: This thread is an example of what happens when we start out with an unproven premise and then build on it in a way that fits in with our personal beliefs. AGuest then claimed that scientists are no better and do the same.

Scientists that do the above are called pseudo scientists. The medical world used to be a chief offender, attempting to heal with magnets, leeches and various guesswork and unproven potions. In scientific terms these are known as the dark ages. Unproven scientific ideas are science fiction.

Modern science now tests all new drugs and they have to pass very strict standard test before they can be sold. Even so mistakes are still made and drugs are withdrawn. Homeopathy is closer to faith healing and has no proven scientific merit. The pills do no harm or good; but with enough faith, the placebo effect can cause healing.

When it comes to faith in a god or gods, we are still in the dark ages. It is still a matter of starting out with an unproven premise and then building on it in a way that fits in with personal beliefs. The catholic church, for example, is still stuck in the dark ages.

The point of my post on page 7, in line with thread topic, was to show that suffering is a natural part of life on earth and always has been. It is not the choice of a creator. Even if such a creator exists, he or she is clearly not all knowing. Faith is a part of life and scientists also have faith in their work. Putting faith in the existence of 'God the creator' who is aware of suffering but chooses not to act, is a specific use of faith. It is not the same as everyday faith and hope in things to do with living in our world.

It is a very personal choice, and though the act of faith in a god or gods is very real, the object of its hope has not yet been proven to exist. That is not to say it never will be proven. But until such proof is found, it remains in the realms science fiction, much like aliens and monsters in outer space. There is so much we do not know about the universe and it is possible that the human race may never know all the answers before the sun burns out and life on earth ends. Such is the way of the universe.

notverylikely

If you are [now] asking which parts of the Bible are inspired, the answer is "the scriptures." If you are asking, "Which parts are 'scripture," the answer is "Moses, the Psalms, the Prophets"... and the Revelation. If you are asking are the 'scriptures' right, the answer is to some degree, yes, but not completely as the "false stylus of the secretaries"... i.e., the "scribes"... has rendered them unreliable in their entirety - intentionally and unintentionally (which I also stated... somewhere).
So Paul, Peter, James are out? By prophets, do you mean ALL of them, includin the minor prophets? Are you also including the gospels?
Oh, and peace to you, dear shelby!
But I do not lie to you, dear NVL. You might not believe this but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is something I take VERY seriously...
Oh, I don't think you are lying. I just think that it makes it diffifcult to have an opposing view when you get daily updates and quote scripture freely and whenever someone else posts commonly accepted scripture, you kick it to the curb as not real. You are playing by a different set of rules. Other people claim to commune in the same fashion you do and hear a different message. Who are we to believe?
Yes. And if you don't want to learn, you will never learn how... or make one. In the meantime, can you tell others who can... or who want to learn how... that THEY can't? Or shouldn't? Isn't that WTBTS "dirt"?
Not at all. This isn't about wanting to learn or not, it's about what someone CAN do. I COULDN'T snowboard until I learned how. You can't change the meaning of "can't" into "haven't learned" or "lazy" to defend your argument.
Which is another reason why we shouldn't put our faith in the Bible... because we don't always see what even IT states.
I apologize for not reading the entire scripture you quoted earlier. Let's just agree to stop using it, then.
Not necessarily, dear one. There were skins, leaves, bark, and other material that could have been used to fashion a "kite." And how do WE know one wasn't, say, 3000 years... or more... ago?
We don't know it. So in the absence of any evidence, proof, we will just have to assume it didn't happen :)
Just like the WTBTS' "new light." It ain't so until WE say it is. And whatever WE say is true... at the time... is truth. Okay, dear NVL, but please don't say that I'm the one stuck in WTBTS-thinking mode...
I never did say that, my dear. I have repeatedly said that reality changes. Today it's not cold where I am, but when winter comes it will be. The reality today, however, is that it isn't. Reality will change, though. And it's not entirely honest to suggest that I am telling you or anyone else what "truth" is.
And there you go: the light getting brighter. "At the time WE understood it, it was true; now, we know different so what we know NOW is true." Do you REALLY not SEE that?
Of course I do. That in no way changes the fact that until the light gets brighter, until something new is learned, developed, invented, the word "can't" still means "can't". Until the light got brighter, I could not snowboard. Perhaps is the issue is you are defining "can not" as "not now and never will be able to do something". If so, that's not what it means.
Wait... how can YOU say he had no math, no physics? How can you SAY that? Because he didn't publish a theorem? How do YOU know that? True, what he may have "had" may have been primitive to what we have now
Because there is plenty of eidence of the kind of math and science that man had available 3000 years ago and there is nothing to suggest that anyone ever had that kind of math and physics knowledge and plenty to suggest that he didn't. Sure it's possible something new might be discovered, but until then, we just have to go with what we got.
I have faith that "we" don't know everything... in spite of what our... ummmm... arrogance... tells us.
I can't for the life of me understand why you think anyone ever said we know everthing. In fact, I said the opposite.
PSacramento

ON a note, when Paul, if it was Paul that wrote 1Timothy, says that all acripture is inspired we need to realize that, when he wrote that, there was NOT NT, there was only the OT, there were no Gospels, outside perhaps some form of early says and such, that would probably not be viewed as scriptures by Paul since he never mentiones any by name or reference.
The gospels and Revelations all came much after Paul.
Thing is,if we look at what Paul wrote in his letters you see that he basically took the 10 commendments and nothing else as "laws", though he take respect some of the traditions, and that he applied the OT passages to Christ.
Beyond that, Paul was pretty silent in regards to scriptures outside this passage.
Think about it, all the letters we have from Paul, huge ones like Romans and Corinthians, and only here, in a letter direct to Timothy that has quite a few parts that are "debated", does he even mention scriptures.
tec

NVL - would you believe that REALITY does not change. But just our knowledge and perceptions of it change?
It is a very personal choice, and though the act of faith in a god or gods is very real, the object of its hope has not yet been proven to exist. That is not to say it never will be proven. But until such proof is found, it remains in the realms science fiction, much like aliens and monsters in outer space. There is so much we do not know about the universe and it is possible that the human race may never know all the answers before the sun burns out and life on earth ends. Such is the way of the universe.
Eloquent and concise summary, Gladiator. I would just add 'except to those who have faith in it' between the two words I bolded. But that's semantics and nit-picking, I suppose, since of course it is implied.
Tammy
notverylikely

NVL - would you believe that REALITY does not change. But just our knowledge and perceptions of it change?
Nope :) Of course reality changes. Reality is tied directly to the forward arrow of time. If reality never changes, then we live in a static unexpanding universe. Energy isn't traveling from the sun to the earth. Our knowledge, ability and perceptions change, but so does reality.
Oh, and I wasn't all that witty last night, I was somewhat....inebriated.
AGuest

AGuest claimed that scientists are no better and do the same.
Not entirely accurate, dear Glad (peace to you!). I put "science" in quotations because science is NOT limited to the [very] small sphere of what can be/has been proven. There is a WHOLE lot more than cannot be/has not been... and yet, is considered "truth."
Scientists that do the above are called pseudo scientists.
Pardon me...
The medical world used to be a chief offender, attempting to heal with magnets, leeches and various guesswork and unproven potions. In scientific terms these are known as the dark ages. Unproven scientific ideas are science fiction.
Well, thank you. I always thought "science fiction" meant just that: fiction... based on "science." Apparently, I was wrong...
Modern science now tests all new drugs and they have to pass very strict standard test before they can be sold.
Oh, stop. Please. Seriously. First, not ALL new drugs are tested... and not ALL pass "very" strict standards before being sold... AND... some are STILL sold, in spite of such "strict" standards showing that they're deadly. C'mon, now, if we're gonna start stating "facts"...
Even so mistakes are still made and drugs are withdrawn.
Mistakes. You mean, what "they" thought ("Sure, it's safe!" "Sure, it'll cure such-and-so".... "No, it won't cause birth defects")... when they FINISHED testing against those "strict" wasn't TRUE? And I am NOT saying that they shouldn't make drugs... not by a long shot. I'm saying that they don't know everything, either... although they sure want folks to believe that. And it looks like you do...
Homeopathy is closer to faith healing and has no proven scientific merit.
I have to say that I don't know enough to dispute this claim. I also have to say that there are those who (1) dispute it, and (2) say that the only reason there IS no "proved scientific merit" is because "he who has the gold" (and so makes the rules)... the pharmaceutical companies... won't allow any testing that will/COULD prove it. But someone else is going to have to argue this one - I don't particularly care either way. I think some drugs work and some done... and some homeopathic methods work... and some don't.
The pills do no harm or good; but with enough faith, the placebo effect can cause healing.
This isn't necessarily MY position...
When it comes to faith in a god or gods, we are still in the dark ages.
SOME of us, yes. I absolutely agree. For example, those who still believe they can find God, Christ... life... in a book of ancient writings. Which I once was. But now... I have seen... the Light himself. And he's there for anyone else to see, as well. All they need to do... is OPEN THEIR EYES. Unfortunately, they are still limited to the thinking of the FLESH... which is a very "primitive" way to go, actually.
It is still a matter of starting out with an unproven premise and then building on it in a way that fits in with personal beliefs.
Like, "Hmmmm... birds can fly... why can't I... I think I CAN fly... some how... some day... some way"???
The catholic church, for example, is still stuck in the dark ages.
Possibly. I mean, I don't believe they've a mass conquest or inquisition in the past, say 100 years... wait, there was the Holocaust and some say they were instrumental in that... but I don't know much about what they do these day, so I could be wrong, either way...
The point of my post on page 7, in line with thread topic, was to show that suffering is a natural part of life on earth and always has been.
Almost always... virtually from day one (well, Day 7), yes. I do not disagree with that. My point was that GOD does not want us to suffer (I think that was the title actually)... but that another claims we'll do anything to avoid it. Which is true...
It is not the choice of a creator.
That's what I say!!
Even if such a creator exists, he or she is clearly not all knowing.
That's another thread, and I tend to agree with you, depending on what you mean by "all knowing"...
Faith is a part of life and scientists also have faith in their work.
Oh... my... gosh. You said it. Actually said it. Do they not ALSO have "assured expectation" of the "thing" THEY "hope for"... when conducting their experiments? They DO!
Putting faith in the existence of 'God the creator' who is aware of suffering but chooses not to act, is a specific use of faith.
Okay, I can agree with that...
It is not the same as everyday faith and hope in things to do with living in our world.
Ah, but you are in error. It IS the same thing. EXACTLY the same thing. You don't GET that because of what "religion" has taught you what "faith" is...
It is a very personal choice...
As is faith in [as yet proven] science...
, and though the act of faith in a god or gods is very real, the object of its hope has not yet been proven to exist.
To YOU, perhaps... and even to others. But that is NOT the case with EVERYONE...
That is not to say it never will be proven.
But that IS what some say, isn't it?
But until such proof is found, it remains in the realms science fiction, much like aliens and monsters in outer space.
By the choice of non-believers. In our minds... and hearts... is simply remains in the realm of "as yet proven" science.
There is so much we do not know about the universe and it is possible that the human race may never know all the answers before the sun burns out and life on earth ends.
That is the possibility... and eventuality... that YOU put YOUR "faith" in. I put MY faith in my Lord's words to ME, that we will INDEES know ALL things... and even if our sun did burn out... it wouldn't have any bearing on us because we will no longer be in bodies that depend upon the sun... for anything...
Such is the way of the universe.
The physical universe... which, although vast... is still less that the "world" from which it came.
I bid you peace, dear Glad, truly.
A slave of Christ,
SA
THE GLADIATOR

AGuest I am flatter that you have taken time to dissect my offering in such detail but then you do have eternity at your disposal, while I am a mere mortal who has accepted that my moment in time is limited. You appear to be on a mission and the possibility exists that you missed the point of my post.
Right now it is 9:30 pm in the UK and I am enjoying a superb bottle of Italian Tempranillo wine and time is on hold. I respect your take on life but alas I am unable to share your faith, or my wine with you.
May your God go with you - peace.
AGuest

So Paul, Peter, James are out?
If you are asking whether the letters attributed to them "scripture," then the answer is, no, they are not...
By prophets, do you mean ALL of them, includin the minor prophets?
My understanding is only the ones who were led by holy spirit and TOLD to write...
Are you also including the gospels?
The gospels are not "scripture". They are accounts according to the one to who wrote them (who is not necessarily even the one to whom it is attributed). Mark got his account from his father, Peter. Luke got his from those he interviewed. "Scripture"... is inspired. Meaning, the writer was "in spirit" when he received it. And what of the gospels (accounts) according to Thomas? Barnabas? Where are those in the Bible?
Oh, and peace to you, dear shelby!
The greatest of love and peace to you, too, dear NVL... and thank you!
I don't think you are lying
Thank you!
I just think that it makes it diffifcult to have an opposing view when you get daily updates and quote scripture freely and whenever someone else posts commonly accepted scripture, you kick it to the curb as not real.
I think that if you are going to go with/by "commonly accepted" [as] scripture, then, yes, you might have a problem. May I ask you... when discussing with the Pharisees, does the record show that my Lord agreed with what was "commonly accepted" as [Law] in HIS day (in the flesh)? Or did he "kick" some (much) of what they brought to him "to the curb?"
You are playing by a different set of rules.
I am. I am playing by Christ's rules... not man's. Sorry, but I cannot do it any other way. The "scribes and Pharisees" have not remained honest, loyal, or faithful. My Lord has.
Other people claim to commune in the same fashion you do and hear a different message. Who are we to believe?
Neither of us. You are to go and ask FOR YOURSELF... and let the HIM tell you who and what to believe. If we're telling you THAT... then we're telling you the TRUTH.
This isn't about wanting to learn or not, it's about what someone CAN do. I COULDN'T snowboard until I learned how. You can't change the meaning of "can't" into "haven't learned" or "lazy" to defend your argument.
LISTEN to what you are stating here, dear NVL. Hear YOURSELF: you COULDN'T... until YOU learned HOW. If you REFUSE to learn... or refuse to believe you CAN learn... then you never WILL learn. YOU will never learn. That doesn't mean that OTHERS who don't know how, now... or believe they can learn how... won't ever learn.
I apologize for not reading the entire scripture you quoted earlier. Let's just agree to stop using it, then.
Let's. But before we do, I want to ask YOU to consider something. One of the PROBLEMS is that, just like you did here... we, humans, MISS stuff. Stuff that is RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR EYES. Just like you missed this. Now, I know some wish you believe that the Bible copyists copies "just so" and didn't miss a single word, comma, inflection, tone, or meaning. But I PROMISE you... they did. It isn't just THAT, however. Some... PURPOSEFULLY CHANGED THINGS. TAMPERED. True, they will have to answer for that, but they DID it. Which is what Jeremiah PROPHESIED... and why my Lord SAID, "Woe, to you... SCRIBES." He didn't just address the priests and religious LEADERS, dear one. He also addressed the COPYISTS... and lumped them right in with those he called HYPOCRITES... because they were MISLEADING the sheep BY WHAT THEY WROTE that the Law supposedly "said."
But how are WE to know where they did so? There is only ONE way... dear one. One. THE Way. HE knows what it SHOULD say. And we can TOO, if we only ask him.
in the absence of any evidence, proof, we will just have to assume it didn't happen :)
Unfortunately, I don't agree. What I have come to understand is that faith is when we assume it DID/WILL... and then WAIT for the proof... the EVIDENT DEMONSTRATION OF [the] REALITY. I did not understand this before my Lord came to me. I have come to know that it IS true, however, since he did. So, I hear something from him, I put faith in it and share it... and THEN he gives me the "proof"... the "where it is written." With regard to spiritual matters, dear one, you don't get the reward FIRST - you do the WORK ("exercise" faith)... and THEN the reward ("proof") comes.
I never did say [you are the one stuck in WTBTS-thinking mode], my dear. I have repeatedly said that reality changes. Today it's not cold where I am, but when winter comes it will be. The reality today, however, is that it isn't. Reality will change, though. And it's not entirely honest to suggest that I am telling you or anyone else what "truth" is.
Physical reality, yes. And I do NOT dispute you... or anyone else... as to these things. But the physical universe really isn't the entire "reality," dear one. Truly, it isn't.
until the light gets brighter, until something new is learned, developed, invented, the word "can't" still means "can't". Until the light got brighter, I could not snowboard.
YOU couldn't. And it could be that YOU may NEVER learn how. But that does not mean that OTHERS will never learn how. Simply because the light isn't bright for YOU... doesn't mean it isn't for others.
Perhaps is the issue is you are defining "can not" as "not now and never will be able to do something". If so, that's not what it means.
Interesting. That's what I thought YOU mean it to mean: "Since you cannot prove to me [to my satisfaction] NOW that Christ speaks to you, you will NEVER be able to prove it. Since you can't prove it [to my satisfaction] NOW, it isn't true." I thought that's what you were saying. My apologies if I misunderstood...
there is plenty of eidence of the kind of math and science that man had available 3000 years ago
The kind sufficient to build pyramids and other structures... on which a LOT of modern-day math theorems are based...
and there is nothing to suggest that anyone ever had that kind of math and physics knowledge and plenty to suggest that he didn't. Sure it's possible something new might be discovered, but until then, we just have to go with what we got. Which always ends up getting us into some kind of "trouble"
Which always ends up getting us into some kind of "trouble" ("Oh, oops, "scientists" NOW say...")
I can't for the life of me understand why you think anyone ever said we know everthing. In fact, I said the opposite.
Then I should be free to share what I do, yes? Until you... or "science" can literally prove ME wrong. Right? And you are more than free to take it as "science fiction"... or whatever you wish to. Right? I think that about sums it up.
PEACE to you, dear one, truly!
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
notverylikely

Like, "Hmmmm... birds can fly... why can't I... I think I CAN fly... some how... some day... some way"???
Peace, Shelby. And not at ALL like that. That' been explained amply with examples many times. You keep beating your dead horse...
As is faith in [as yet proven] science...
And that's why it's not the same. Science involves tests, methodology, results that can be repeated, falsifiability. God requires "I want it to be true"
The physical universe... which, although vast... is still less that the "world" from which it came.
I thought you said everything came from the light was jesus, now it came from the world?

The Issue is Not that God WANTS Us to Suffer...

Share this