An Old Argument.... does it hold water? (page 84)

tec

Size, you said:

But that brings us back to the original question. Do we accept responsibility and do something ourselves? . . . or wait on an all-knowing, all-powerful, morally perfect God to do it?

We accept responsibility and do something ourselves. As stated throughout the thread.

Then you said that God IS waiting... is there a reason for it? That has been answered. Agree or disagree with the reasons provided, but it has been answered.

There appears to be a misunderstanding about this. I for one do not blame God for anything. I simply ask, if he exists, why does he choose inaction as a response?

Again, asked and answered. Agree or don't agree, it is totally up to you, and everyone else on here.

I for one do not believe that he has chosen inaction as a response. He has promised to protect all who belong to him (and that is what I would do if I had the power of God... protect those who belong to me/but not at the e X pense of those they love - because they would not want that - or others who belong to me but have not come to me... yet), by way of the Body of Christ, or by the deeds that show the law of love is written on their hearts. He will do so. The only reasons I can see for Him to wait are mercy for us and those who are asking for mercy (depending on what he would have to do to protect his own from those who would hurt them), and to NOT cause harm to even a single person who does love, who does belong to Him, but who might not yet have had the chance to come to Him. When there is not 'one' of those left, then I believe he will do as promised.

In the meantime, he can restore life to any who have lost theirs. He can comfort, strengthen, speak to and offer his spirit. How many who trust God and believe in Him do you hear blaming him for their ills? On the other hand, how many do you hear of who have taken solace in Him during trials and suffering?

He isn't doing nothing.

Does that in itself make it a false statement?

To the people you are talking to right now, yes.

It seems to me that the waiting on God option is a cop-out. It also absolves the individual from being held responsible by being "saved" . . . but at the expense of all who do not share that belief. It affords some comfort to the individual no doubt . . . but the real "expense" is the utter waste of resources, both physical and intellectual, which could be better employed.

So you're not actually talking to me with this?

Which means the great majority are putting time and resources into a falsehood, not to mention the intellectual cost of a life spent believing in a false premise . . . I think the wastefulness is self-evident.

The world is full of falsehoods and wastefulness, Size. Religion, politics, ecess of entertainment, keeping up with the Joneses, boozing, drugs, reaching for more and more money just for the sake of the power that comes with it... etc, etc.

My faith doesnt' cause me to waste time or resources. MY faith motivates me to act. To help. In small ways yes, and not nearly enough that I COULD be doing... but I do strive to build those up. As I gather more courage, I hope I can improve.

Peace,

Tammy

tec

I don't know why its bold. I can't seem to get rid of it, sorry.

sizemik

I understand were you are coming from Tammy . . . and have no issue with the fact that a general observation may not specifically apply to you personally. I have no doubt that many who profess a belief in god do much more for humanity in a practical sense than many non-believers. (watch that line get cut and quoted). But this is not all about personal justification for belief as I see AK Jeffs OP . . . it poses a moral conundrum which is quite simple really. And while the conundrum has indeed been responded to . . . I do not see any logical answer that resolves that moral conundrum.

tec

And while the conundrum has indeed been responded to . . . I do not see any logical answer that resolves that moral conundrum.

I understand where you're coming from as well, Size. I didn't always understand this, either... in fact not until recently. I trusted though, because I know God through His Son, so I look to Christ to see the nature of God. But this is one of the hardest questions. Not understanding the reason is one of the biggest reasons people either do not believe to begin with, imo, or turn away from believing in the end.

But I asked, and received.

You know I'm going to tell you that if you want to know why God seems not to be acting, then you should go to Him... through His Son, if the god you're asking is the Father of Christ... and ask Him for those answers. He is the one who knows.

Seek, knock, recieve.

Peace to you, and thank you for your honesty as always,

Tammy

still thinking

HELL NO!!

oOOPS...was that too many words sizemik?....oh no worries...not as many as the people making excuses for God.

Qcmbr

AGuest thank you for your expected response and continued avoidance of clear answers, I think you are the most successful troll I've ever seen.

SizeMilk - this would be great to be analysed by an external third party! What a great idea.

AK Jeff - Excellent analysis amid this rambling debate.

I really hope that those who have read this thread and are confused about a god belief have been helped to see why we must move away from fantasy and confront suffering as something that can be alleviated by technology and knowledge (check the admission of one slave to a concept who relies on godless medicine) , should be removed where possible (it is not a divine punishment for homosexuality or eating fruit ), must not be inflicted by mankind on each other ( war, shunning, mental or physical slavery, abuse, neglect and so on must be continually condemned and avoided ) and has no redemptive power ( butchering people on a cross does not pay off some supposed debt and having children painfully does not pay for some woman making independant choices .)

There is no morally defensible stand that makes sense in a logical, just, loving or rational way for suffering to exist now or in some hell in a god centric universe. Belief in invisible beings engenders a sense of helplessness ( 'I deserve punishment as an imperfect human' - 'I cannot do this without Christ' ), a false hope ( 'god will save his chosen ones ...in the future' - 'god will answer my prayers') , draws away resources from the common human good ( 'Have a free magazine ...' - 'god needs his tithe') ,encourages poor thinking and a necessary illogical, immaterial response to our physical material world ('Jesus is truth' - 'this life is a test' - 'god is responsible for all good but nothing bad') and is an incubator for those with perception problems, mental illness and charismatic types seeking to gain power and influence over converts by allowing them to promise an escape from suffering via magic and obedience to their worldview.

We all owe ourselves the right to clear, critical thinking and the privilege of evidence based knowledge. Only such a world will not crucify its mentally imbalanced but will provide counsel, care and medical help to those who converse with invisible friends. Only such a world will cease to inculcate our innocent children in the myths of unworthiness and god fear.

soft+gentle

shelby said

SA, who wonders whether dear Uber might not be headed for a padded room... given the "turn" his tone is taking here...

sizemik, your post above (no 3847) got me thinking and this is what I turned up

Problem of evil Main article: Plantinga's free will defense

In The Nature of Necessity, Plantinga presents his free will defense to the logical problem of evil. Plantinga's aim is to show that the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, wholly good God is not inconsistent with the existence of evil, as many philosophers have argued.

In a truncated form, Plantinga's argument is as follows: He argues that it is greater for a being to possess free will, as opposed to being non-free. And because a God cannot guarantee the benevolence of a truly free being without intervention or influence, thus removing free will, it follows that for a being to have true free will that they must be capable of moral evil else such a being would be only capable of moral good, which in itself is as Plantinga stated: "Entirely paradoxical". Plantinga goes on to argue that a world with free will is more valuable than a world without such, therefore God has reason to create a world which has the capability of evil. Thus because of this the existence of evil counts "neither against God's omnipotence nor against His goodness", rather it is an error by the creature in their exercise of such freedom. [ 26 ]

According to Chad Meister, professor of philosophy at Bethel College, most contemporary philosophers accept Plantinga's argument. [ 27 ] The problem of evil is now commonly framed in evidential form which does not involve the claim that God and evil are logically contradictory or inconsistent. [ 28 ] [ 29 ] However, some philosophers continue to defend the cogency of the logical problem of evil. [ 30 ]

N.drew

Hey sizemik, tell Mary, Joseph's wife, that God has done nothing. You would, wouldn't you?

People do actually hold on tight to sin. They have all kinds of reasons for doing so. Jah is standing by to burn up the sin in the everlasting fire. All this time passing is not God refraining from intervening, it is God giving us time (lots and lots of it) to let go of sin. You know, you love logic so much, the person holding on to the sin is the person getting the same destination as sin. So the question isn't "why does god do nothing?". The question is "what is sin?'. To find out what is sin and to let go of it is God intervening.

tec

Good 'turn-up', SoftnGentle. Simple, straightforward answer to the OP, showing another 'option' that no one should be able to dismiss out of hand.

undercover

your post above (no 3847) got me thinking, but that was beyond my capabilities so I turned to wikipedia for help and found an apologist to plagerize

Fixed that for ya...

An Old Argument.... does it hold water?

Share this