The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday
You have the Muhummad Ali shuffle going on with your ever changing goal posts
You have been "hoist by your own petard" In other words scrolling through this thread highlights your confusion and illusion in your "beliefs". I'm done communicating with you as it's off topic but I will stay on the thread.
My complaint is not that you claim your god will try to make it all better, its that you think the promise of paradise justifies his monstrous behaviour.
I never said "the promise of paradise justifies" anything.
According to you there is no attrocity that isn't justified by the opium of heaven.
Again, I never said that.
You said that.....The scriptures bring out many instances that say a christian will suffer
Romans 8:17 for instance. In that scripture it refers to an inheritance provided that we suffer together...whats the inheritance? Everlasting life in Gods Kingdom? Christ and the scriptures quite obviously give on the idea that suffering is or will be justified by the hope in the future.
we are not speaking of what all people justify suffering with but what suffering God allows to happen and why....
According to the Bible all humans suffer from sin and death yes? But a Christian or a Theist feels the end justifies the means because of the hope in everlasting life later.
i know that you did not say the words that cofty implied there...however he was demonstrating that Christians or theists generally feel that all the terrible tuings that happen and God allows is justified by the promise that God will make it all better later.
am i correct cofty?
I do trust Jesus and the reports about him though to many it may appear a foolish thing to do - Pelican
If his lack of care for the 250 000 victims of the Asian Tsunami doesn't give you pause to reflect on that trust, what would?
ETA - I think that might be my response to number 16
he was demonstrating that Christians or theists generally feel that all the terrible tuings that happen and God allows is justified by the promise that God will make it all better later. - DS211
Yes that is a theme that has appeared a number of times.
It strikes me as quite a childish response. It ignores the reality of human suffering with promises of "jam tomorrow".
Pelican, if no one on this thread is restricting your right to believe as you wish, then I am left wondering why you brought it up, why you defended everyone's right to believe.
It is reported that on the cross Jesus said, "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?"
These are not the words of a man fully trusting that the end justifies the means. No, these are the words of a man who is asking, WHY!
I do not believe Christ's terrible death on the cross is justified by his resurrection. I also do not believe that the death of those burned at the stake for their beliefs is justified by their resurrection or life in heaven.
Would it not simply be best to defeat death once and for all?
Because THAT is what God promised. (That... and that He would hear the prayers of those who a) do as He said at Isaiah 58 (which man does not do); and b, now) those who come to Him through His Son FIRST.)
He never promised to stop or intervene on all the things that cause phsical death (including movements of the earth that cause natural events that man calls disasters when life is taken, but without which events life on this planet would not be possible in the first place)... events that His Son forewarned WOULD happen... except to defeat death itself. His promise is that His Son will GIVE the water of life (eternal life) to all in Him, and that Son calls for ANYONE to come and take that gift... and His promise is to defeat DEATH itself.
That doesn't sound passive to me at all. Sounds pretty active. That is what He has done and is doing. Sounds like a helluva gift too, on top of being given life to begin with. Resurrection, eternal life and love and peace and joy and truth.
Sometimes during a debate a participant feels the need to declare their right to believe as they do. It should not though be interpreted as claiming their rights are being infringed.
He never promised to stop or intervene on all the things that cause phsical death
The question is why did he not intervene on 26th Dec 2004? In 22 pages you have yet to address the actual topic.
You are offering the "jam tomorrow" defense.
Also I have explained to you at least 4 times that earthquakes are not a necessary feature of plate tectonics. Plates are moving every second of every day and have been doing so for billions of years. The UK and the USA get further apart every year in more ways than one. Quakes big enough to kill people or cause a tsunami are relatively rare.