How do you figure that he didn't suffer?

Simply because I dont believe he existed let alone suffere on a cross...does that answer your question joc?

I guess so. If you don't believe that...why are you so active in so many 'Christian' threads? Just curious.

To understand them more...pretty much like anyone else thats the same ...........and not all the threads are christian lol

I appreciate the apology and it is accepted. I look forward to this new approach.


If I recollect, this is the first time that in this thread where anyone has made an appeal to faith. I am quite surprised that no one has of yet. Very well. Let me try to address the issue of faith and why it does not function as an satisfactory answer to the dilemma I proposed in this thread.

So we understand each other, what do Christians mean when they say faith?

Clark H. Pinnock, in his book, "The Case for Faith" defines that faith "is not a presupposition that has to be accepted on authority or as a self-evident truth that needs no argument, it is a solid truth claim that can be tested and verified across a whole range of human experience. (Conclusion, page 1)

Since faith makes concrete, positive conclusions about the nature of the universe that can be verified and tested, I should be able to determine what is valid and what is not. And since faith can be verified, any truth claim, which necessarily requires that faith must be the answer, must necessarily be tested as well.

Therefore, since faith can and must be verified and should not be accepted on authority (the BIBLE) or assumed true a priori, we can test, or reason what beliefs are intelligible, and what is unintelligible we can discard.

Beliefs in an ALL-PKG GOD fail this test.

Meaning, faith is not an answer to this insurmountable contradiction that even GOD can not change the nature of the universe. This being the case, Jesus died and GOD is not ALL-PKG. Since GOD is not ALL-PKG, GOD is not a god.


Jesus is GOD. Jesus died for HIMSELF and not you or I. HE volunteered for it.

However, this brings a larger issue. Since JESUS is GOD and can CHOOSE, he could have easily have CHOSEN to change the nature of the universe, but no, instead HE CHOOSES to die for HIMSELF. And if HE can't CHOOSE, then HE is not ALL-PKG with unlimited will.


Someday, I will lay the Argument from Scale against god's existence on yah. However, this bit of speculation is not really relevant so I won't address it at this time.


No. I focus on what can be reasonably said about an ALL-PKG GOD. I've focused that the BIBLE says that Jesus had to die. I've focused on the definitions of what ALL-PKG means, and have looked at the state of the universe and have drawn some pretty self-evident conclusions. I am just unfettered by 200 centuries of dogma. And the only thing that is scandalous about it, is because it throws a wrench in the construct.


I've never argued about what GOD's reasons are. It is in fact, you Selari and IamSon that throw this at me. It is 100% irrelevant in the context of this thread what his reason may or may not be.

I don't care nor have I ever guessed at them. I am not a physic.


Then that GOD is sadistic. We live and die in pain. Suffering abounds in unimaginable amounts and in unimaginable ways for GOD to have a good chuckle.

I'll await your next post.

______________________

That's all I have time for now. Tomorrow morning I will answer IAMSON.

Suffering is a choice to Joc its a judgement one makes in regards to a experince..my sister was murdered i didn't suffer i grew becasue of the experince which has been the greatest contrribuitng factor to my profound awareness on forgiveness...

There are those that do not see the end of life or letting go of the physical vessel as suffering, my grandfather who died of cancer didn't see it as suffering of course we did but he assured us there was no suffering.. he opted out of treatment too....

now indeed if Jesus did exist as i am with BM and the historians of our day he didn't ...

Define benevolent.

Do you mean benevolent for you? Benevolent for humanity?

The universe may indeed be indifferent - to us. However, our hubris at believing we are the special creation of God/universe clouds our awareness that we may be simply playing a part in a very large drama.

That things happen [the sacrifice of Jesus be one 'thing'] does not preclude an all-PKG God. That God might be all-PKG does not mean He has to exercise that potency to suit our whims. If you are arguing that God cannot do things a certain way because it is what He wants then you are arguing for a mindless impulse of creation, a being trapped in its' own creation. How can an all-PKG being be trapped?

What are you...a talkshow Host?LMAO..and in tomorrows show, we will be talking to IAMS, and more questions will be answered - Stay tunned

Just messing lol

I only ask that you cite which ones and in which context so I know what we are talking about.


I asked you which ones you thought we're "considerate" responses. I only ask so that I know which ones you are talking about.


Ah, I see. I guess you did not read posts of mine where I agreed a number of times to certain points made (i.e. that Jesus died, GOD has a plan, etc), but now wish to only brand me as dismissive. Also, I do an extensive job in replying to posters, such as yourself, point per point. Accusing me of not reading posts is just another baseless accusation.

I had ask you to read post #1 because you stated that "...it's obvious you're not actually looking for an answer you're simply using the guise of asking a question to state your point."

Well it's not quite "obvious" to me, and it may not be quite "obvious" to others how that actually asking for clarification is obfuscation.

So, according to you and since you just stated that you already answered post #1, why do you continue to engage me? I mean since you answered it, I should be satisfied. Is this a correct statement?


01.
So no evidence then. Just more accusations. This is getting really tiring Son.

02.
I never stated that GOD doesn't have a purpose. Again, SON, could you please cite where I stated that GOD "doesn't have a purpose."

PURPOSE has nothing to do in the context of my argument. This is an exercise in analysis, results, and terminology.


Incorrect:


If I am not you, then who is you in your above statement? I don't read minds and I have no idea which posts and how my posts imply this. I am asking YOU SON for clarification. But, you refuse when I ask you nicely.


So you do believe in HEAVEN. I had also asked you to describe what HEAVEN is like. Can you please answers that part of the question. I only ask because I don't want to assume what HEAVEN is. I want to use your definition, as it will save you time in correcting me.


I had asked you for evidence that I believe that I can read GOD's mind. You have not given me evidence but accuse me through a shadowy implication in my thoughts, and refuse me once again that evidence when I ask nicely you that you do.

Again, I have never made an argument about "purpose." I have only evaluated results or terms. Please cite where I have made this "purpose" argument. Thanks.

One other matter. You state another unproven accusation which apparently proves that I mind read GOD and that this MIND READING is "in opposition of what is written in the Bible." Well, again, this is incorrect as I have done nothing BUT take the BIBLE at its word about what GOD is and have acknowledge that the BIBLE states a very clear plan with the coming TRIBULATION.


I will cite which statements by you are personal attacks.
Post #84:
"You're falling into a trap you have accused others of falling into here... reading minds...you have to assume you know the mind of God..."

Post #86:
"But it's obvious you're not actually looking for an answer you're simply using the guise of asking a question to state your point...it requires that you know, beyond all doubt...

Post #100:
"....because you are basically saying God doesn't have a purpose....simply because you are unable to see the purpose.... but your argument implies knowledge of God's purpose..."


Pointing out flaws in my thinking are not attacks. Deciding that you can think for me and conclude that I have another agenda is. It is also extremely annoying that you can not back up your accusations without evidence. Fact is, SON, I am open to the possiblity that I believe that I am reading GOD's mind, but the burden of proof is on you prove that is what in fact what I believe. You refuse me when I ask nicely that you show this is indeed the case. And I have been nothing but insistent to you that when you accuse me of MIND READING GOD that you cite which words I have keyboarded that accomplish this.

All I get is refusals from you for something that should be a breeze for anyone to illustrate, seeing as you stated that is is so "obvious" that I am.


The irony that you just stepped into will have me giggling through the day. Thanks Son.

This I have already done many many many times.

If you wish to use another definition, please provide one.

Please, re-read the definition. If you wish to use another definition, please provide one.

So it's my falsepride that causes the pain and suffering and death of the mouse at the jaws of my cat?

Also, we are the "special creation" (except not women - they are an afterthought so lonely Adam wouldn't be so bored) so if our awareness is clouded, it's really not our fault being the creatures of GOD.


Again, if you wish to use some other definition of what omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent is please provide them.


That's really an incredible observation there Leonardo! Tantalizing don't you think? Think about it for a bit.

LOL. I've always wanted my own talk show!

The only definition I could find on this thread is you stating omnibenevolent means 'all-good'. Good for whom? For us? For God? For everything? What is 'Good for everything'?

Your original premise, and the questions you pose, are so obtuse as to be virtually unanswerable. You seem to want to know the mind of God, so please explain how He thinks and perhaps we can begin to answer your questions.

In your own words



You have picked and chosen references and quotes to support your view without examining, or asking others to examine, the full context of the dialogue of the text. We are only thought of as this 'special creation' because a book states it. Well, a book also states Harry Potter is a wizard who can fly on a broomstick and that isn't necessarily true either.

So I reiterate my point here, as you seem to want to ignore it. Our hubris leads us to believe we are special, but there is no real indication that this is so. Assuming the all-PKG God exists, why should any book be definitive of Its' motivations and actions so why should we assume anything about It?

If you want to attack Christianity then please be plain about what you are doing. If you wish to attack the concept of an all-PKG being then please leave Christianity aside and make your argument exclusive of religion.

The definition of an ALL-PKG GOD is pretty clear. I've only relied my understand upon every day Oxford English understanding. You can look each word up if you so desired.

But I will do it for you:

Omnibenevolence is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "unlimited or infinite benevolence". Benevolence is the desire to do good to others; goodwill; charitableness: to be filled with benevolence toward one's fellow creatures.

Omnipotence (literally, "all power") is power with no limits or inexhaustible, in other words, unlimited power. Monotheistic religions generally attribute omnipotence only to God.

Omniscience is the capacity to know everything infinitely, or at least everything that can be known about a character including thoughts, feelings, life and the universe, etc. In monotheism, this ability is typically attributed to God.

I'll ask again, is there some other definition of each you wish to use?

Good questions. You ask for whom? Since GOD has the above listed attributes; since the BIBLE tells us that GOD created us; since GOD is unlimited in benevolence or goodness and infinite in compassion, and since suffering is very a part of the universe, one has to wonder if GOD doesn't have this infinite benevolence for the plight that we find ourselves in (much less his only begotten son Jesus that suffered and died on the cross,) then for whom does he have this unlimited and infinite compassion for? We' throw an Olympic swimmer in jail if he sat idly by and watched a child drown in a pool, however we give GOD a pass.

So no, I don't have an answer. Do you?


Not by me. I am unfettered by 200 centuries of Church doctrine and tradition. It's just that the dilemma that monotheists and Christians find themselves in can not resolve or harmonize the dilemma here between the belief in an ALL-PKG GOD, the fact that Jesus had to die, and that GOD as a sovereign ALL-PKG entity was powerless to change.



Oh wow...another personal attack and accusation that I want to read, or I think I seem to believe that I can read God's mind.

Can you prove that this is in fact what I believe about myself? Do you have evidence?


Yep. I picked the Bible. I picked Christian and monotheist beliefs about GOD and Jesus. I picked the actual dictionary definitions what Omnibenevolence, Omnipotence, and Omniscience means and I picked Dawkins self-evident observations about suffering in the universe. I can't see why you feel this is so scandalous?

The fact is, we (probably) share many of the same views of the universe and that there is pain and misery and death. It's that our conclusions are different.


I do not understand the last part of this statement. Can you please clarify for me?


Does not the Bible state we are special to God through his love?

Are not five sparrows sold for two cents? And yet not one of them is forgotten before God. Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear; you are of more value than many sparrows. (NAS, Luke 12:6-7)


I don't understand your analogy, unless you are trying to state that Bible is a likewise work of fiction?


And I will ask you again. How is my false pride cause the pain and suffering and death of the mouse at the jaws of my cat? How does my false pride cause the cancers and diseases that humans suffer? How does my false pride create any of the "evil" of the universe?

And again, I am not assuming anything. I've stated my case based upon the tautological definitions of what GOD is, and the self-evident nature of the universe. Nothing in this is scandalous.


Beliefs in an ALL-PKG GOD are held by monotheists and as I have stated at the opening of this thread "those cut from the Abrahamic cloth." To not discuss Christianity removes any of the context and would make any discussion pointless and incoherent for there would be no frame of reference or context.

And one last thing, you volunteered yourself to comment on this thread.

In reality, the bible is seen as fiction untill its proven to be true...in which case................it hasnt..and doubt it will be IMO

It seems the main hang-up here is in the "all-good" portion of the "PKG" identification, and maybe the scope is too large when looking at God to make it understandable at first. So let's look at a human condition.

When babies are born, they are attached through an umbilical cord to the placenta. Once baby and placenta are out of the womb, the placenta is a useless organ and will begin to decay. In order for the baby to avoid infection and death as the placenta decays, the umbilical cord must be cut. However, cutting the umbilical cord will cause pain and discomfort to the baby, not just at the moment of cutting but for some time after, until the cord falls off.

Is it good to cut the cord off despite the fact that it causes pain and discomfort to do so? Yes, it is, because not cutting it will result in the baby's death.

So, although the cutting off of the umbilical cord is painful and pain is bad, the actual overall result is to do the most good to the baby.

Additionally, from the baby's standpoint, all it knows is that someone has caused pain and pain is BAD, therefore whoever has done this is bad (obviouslly taking some license with a baby's cognitive skills here).

From our standpoint, in this plane of existence, with our limited senses and perspective, the pain and suffering we see around us MUST be bad, and there is NO WAY that a loving, all good being would allow this. But from the perspective of God, just like from the perspective of the adult cutting the umbilical cord, this short (when compared to eternity) span of time where we experience pain and suffering, will lead to a much greater good, so it is actually good too.

Thats funny IAMS...how would you know if the cutting of the cord is painful for the baby?

When I watched them cut beckys cord, there wasn't a peep out of her....if it were painful she would have let us know lol

So I ask you - how do you know for sure its painful??

EDIT - Its known that when a child is born and is so used to being inside a warm place within the womb, the sec it has come out of the womb, the cold air shocks the baby and therefore it cries....then after that, they cut the cord, the baby does cry over that LOL

I saw them cut my babies' cords, they both seem to realize something had happened. There probably aren't many nerves in the placenta, but they may feel a pull or something. I made the assumption of pain during the cutting of the cord because it also allowed me to use the idea of the way the event would look from the perspective of someone with a very limited viewpoint as compared to that of the adult doing the cutting. Not a perfect analogy, but I think it makes the points I was trying to make.

I want to take a second here and state why I think my argument here is just so scandalous, even though the premises themselves are not contentious. I think Christians, other monotheists, and me (only in the context of this argument) can agree that Jesus died, the suffering and death still exists, and that GOD is ALL-PKG. What is scandalous and shocking is that the conclusion does not follow the official narrative, and more to the point - the GOD that exists in people hearts & minds.

Permit me for a moment to "read minds."

Every believer has a construct in their mind of what God is like. For people like Pat Robertson and the late Farwell, HE hates gays and allows 911 to punish the sins of Americans. Likewise, terrorist Muslims do the will of GOD by killing innocents in a personal effort to redeem themselves and gain GODs favor for entry into Heaven. Or like Newt Gingrish who believes that Church and State are not separated (like the Orwellian named "Consitution Party" and theocrats like American Vision), to the very liberal Rev. Barry Lind of American's United for Separation of Church and State that you should render unto Caesar what is Ceasars due. These observations are pretty self-evident and even Christians freely admit that one must have "a personal relationship with Christ".

Simply, GOD is unique and as personal as there are as many as distinct and unique believers and it is in this uniqueness that is ruffled by this argument. Simply, it feels like a personal attack to them.

Let me state clearly that this is an unfortunate side-effect of this argument and as I read the responses I can't help to think of the pain this must cause the believer. For that, I truly apologize. Ironically, I do wish that GOD in accordance with HIS ALL-PKG being step-in to alleviate that pain for you. But he does not, can not, or will not. That's a blaring contradiction that must be called out.

However, beliefs require that we state our terms very clearly and investigate what the implications and contradictions are of those beliefs. Skepticism can only aid in a search and understanding of the truth and skepticism should be applied with equal amounts to the claims made.

In defense of myself, I believe this is what I am trying to do. Also, I have never used this as an attack against the believer, and even if I did, the state of one's mind does not refute any counter-points they make.

Sorry, but your last post seems to be an attempt to shift the feeling of being persecuted from yourself to the believers.

Unfortunately, that doesn't work because not all the ones who have questioned your posts are Christians or even theists. Additionally, as a Christian my feathers aren't ruffled by your contention that the evidence doesn't fit what we believe.

The only thing that has bothered me is your unwillingness to actually consider any point that challenges your stance. I'm not saying you haven't answered the posts, I'm saying that even in answering the posts you don't really seem to consider what is being said, but merely used what was said as a springboard to attempt to further your point, and when those posters whose posts you've used as mere springboards call you on it, you immediately call them attackers, so that you don't have to consider their points further.

Persecution isn't an argument. It is my genuine attempt to show empathy. Empathy is basic, hard-wired human emotion. I'm sorry that my attempt to at least offer a little understanding may, perhaps, ruffle your feathers. I could be definitly wrong in my understanding in how my argument may or may not upset people here, and if it I am, then I am open to correction.



However, some of the questions have been for further clarification, like Ambriel. So too state that all questions is a bit hyperbolic.

Furthermore, this thread states pretty clearly that I am referring to the Christian GOD in post #1 (as well as others of the Abrahamic tradition). THe deism of Joc, I am not addressing.

In a way IAMS it does (key words - in a way)

Watch...

Our Father, who art in heaven,

Hallowed be thy Name.

Thy kingdom come.

Thy will be done,

On earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our trespasses,

As we forgive those who trespass against us.

And lead us not into temptation,

But deliver us from evil.

For thine is the kingdom,

and the power,

and the glory,

for ever and ever.

It speaks mainly what Jesus was about - Forgiviness...how to be a good christian and not to allow yourself to be tempted by evil...follow the right path and you shall be in the glory of his kingdom for all eternity

so yes IAMS in a way it does define a christian

The last is cut from one of your last posts in response to Iams. You state categorically that this all-PKG God MUST do what you state He will. Why? Because you presume to know the mind and motivation of such a being?


This is not a personal attack, simply pointing out the folly of presuming such a thing.

Thank you for clarifying the 'all-benevolent' point. We cannot know what benevolence means to such a being as we do not have such knowledge and power as It would have. Is it benevolent to mercilessly slay a being if you have the power to restore life and circumstance to anything? Such a being is beyond benevolence or evil and, imo, to call It all-benevolent is to reduce It to something akin to ourselves.

Such a being can do whatever It wants. We cannot judge Its actions for we have not the perspective from which to do so.

As for my point about quote - or text - mining. I too can pick and choose quotes or exerpts from text to support the opposite of your view. That means nothing as it is the context in which the quote or text is used that gives meaning to the words.

Lastly, your false pride in thinking we are special in the eyes of some all-PKG God (and I wasn't suggesting it was just you) means nothing. You cause no evil* in doing this, as you do not influence the cat killing the mouse, your all-PKG God does. The folly of our pride is that the actions of this all-PKG God with respect to ourselves carry some special meaning, why should they? The God you speak of may treat us as any other thing in Its universe.

*Not evil, unless you consider the mouse doesn't want to be killed.

Sometimes when someone can put up a good debate and lay out a number of things that come to question christianity...if some can't find a way to answer, they will cry persecution...its the only way out......escapegoat!!

I've seen me ask some questions and post up my own ideas on how some things from the bible don't add up, and because some people can't answer me and can't find a way out of it, they have accused me of persecuting their faith...again escape goat lol

Because I honor what the definitions of what ALL-PKG mean, and yet, despite this alleged fact about GOD, we have suffering and death unbounded and that Jesus had to die. It is not my requirement, but the requirements that the definitions demand.

Doe that make any sense? For instance, we don't call dogs cats and cats dogs. Their very attributes define what they are and accordingly so too are the attributes of ALL-PKG do for GOD.


Again, please substantiate this is in fact what I am doing. IamSon has the same task. Perpahs you too can work together on this one.


Well, you are attacking me, but I'll let it go for a bit.

I am curious to know if when a Christian says they know GODS plan are they similarly guilty of this folly? Since GODs plan is a reflection of GOD's mind and attitude, if gives us an indication of what he thinks. If they are not guilty because they are Christian, then why am I? Is it because I am not a Christian? And I am guilty of this folly when I state that I agree with Christians that GOD does have a plan. I've stated the plan 2 or 3 times before and that is the Rapture. So I will ask you for the first time Leonardo, are the events to happen in Revelation the methodology of an ALL-PKG GOD by adding exponentially to the suffering and death of the universe?


That's not benevolence. Unless benevolence also includes murder. I don't think so. Being re-animated would not negate the suffering of old age or the bombing of innocent civilians in war. But where's the evidence that this has ever happened that some one has come back from the dead? There is none.


Let me get this straight, GOD is not Omni-benevolent? if this is the case, then you've just removed one of the three pillars that allegedly make GOD a God. Is this correct?


Which I agree and is why I question a being with unlimited power, wisdom, compassion, would sit idly by and watch his SON suffer and die. If this GOD had the power to create the universe, he has the power to recreate it. Facts and experience on the ground prove that this GOD is not what he is alleged to be.


Feel free to cite whoever you wish in support of your counter-argument. I can dig some up for you again if you like, like I did when I cited Pinnocks book "A Case for Faith" in a response to Selairi.

Furthermore, if you disagree with any of the context it is incumbent on you to argue otherwise. This you have not done and accusations that do not have evidence are baseless.


On this we agree. Jesus had no pride, correct, but he still died and suffered. However, it is not my belief that we are special in the eyes of GOD, it is the belief of Christians and others of the Abrahamic religion. I just take them at their word and see what that really means contrasted against the facts on the ground.

Also are you arguing again, that GOD does not love us?


That I would agree with then. If ALL-PKG GOD does, he is not omnibenevolent with unlimited compassion, goodness, or empathy. Therefore that pillar is removed and GOD collapses under the weight of its own incoherent definitions.


Would you agree that if GOD does it, then it is GOOD?

I've noticed this too. But I usually shrug it off and try to make my points even if the other person is being obstinate in this way. Thankfully, no one has done this yet on this thread.

Also, there are Christians that are physically oppressed and persecuted in the world today, so I do roll my eyes when they pull out this little fiat when they safe at home or at the office arguing with me. During the Crusades of Europe, those were Co-religionsits. (Christian vs. Christian.) However, these missionaries go out and get themselves in hot water for preaching the Gospel. That's abhorrent to me. I may not agree with the beliefs of Christians, but I respect the rights to worship as they see fit even if they come up to my door and pester me. It's actually worse for them however, because I will spend the time debating them before they leave and call me evil, ignorant, and a fool. Oh well.

many debates follow a predictable line...the point is to understand why you beleive what you believe to defend it, most threads are in defense of religion ... they are taught that all guidance comes from scripture period.... all .faiths are mutually incompatiable if they aren't then what is the point of a superior faith ?? many are persuaded by scriptural teachings to beleive in god, it seems the ones who start questioning come to VERY diffenrt conclusions ..this is how you are taught in relgion and it starts from the womb if possible this too is to ensure long time devotees. to defend the religion......

I see what you mean

In the roll playing thread, where I was the christian...I found myself making things up myself in some parts, to defend the bible....someone would have posted something skeptical about the bible, and I just made stuff up...then it got easy LOL...

It's like a hororscope..if you are always reading your star signs...and then one day you read what it says about your sign..and you dont like what it reads, you will make up what you like and make it look like some kind of translation that links to the reading of the daily hororscope lol....

IE - CANCER (my sign lol) - Today you are in connection with your ruling planet ....you will find you will have to work extra hard today, and loved ones will have some unexpected news that you might not like to hear.....love is linked to the letter L..

Translation (to suit me) - Aha..that must mean im going to be working some overtime at work...my mom may tell me something exciting like let my surprize party slip out unexpected and I might not want to hear it as I want to be surprised lol...and hmmmm the letter L = LEAVE..so hey thats it I must LEAVE gary LMAO...I threatened it last night..so its a SIGN to LEAVE YAY!!!

LOL exactly sis, or say that isn't true its really this whatever suits you......
I call it the lazy mans defense ..god did it no matter what it is, as you said it makes it easy then because this doesn't t have to be proven.... its used for those not accustomed to asking questions. god has his reasons, because its god, god can do what he wants, how do you know its god well i just know, why does god allow suffering , well its part of his plan even though we dont' know what it is its god so we "know he is doing the god thing whatever that is, or he spoke to me and told me this si the plan........... no matter what the question... its part and parcel of the construct as a kid brought up in it i learned well as you did i'm sure.....I used to remember more but its been so long and as you said its jsut make up anything its a free for all when its about faith....

I think it's interesting that despite how you keep going on about the omnibenevolence of God, that you skipped over this post.

i appreciate your analogys but this in no way condones sufering my freind or jsutifies it... you are too easy my freind...

Game set and match wouldnt ya say sis? LMAO...you are dead right on that one

too many times i have read where someone has posted up something harsh from the bible...and some christian has translated it watered it down to take from it what suits them....never fails

Is this addressed to me Son?

check the envelope lol


man that was sad LMAO im not good at the jokes


*exits*

Wow...I think I've just met someone that has humor worse than mine

LOL some of my jokes are like something you would pull out of a christmas craker lol...really sad...but hey its the way i tell em

I love comedy..humour is what makes a person pretty inside and out...<--i believe that cuz.......................my mommy told me so lol

Sorry, Sheri, I don't buy it.

Too easy for what?


Yes, it was.

What if she stuck it up on...ebay?? lol

Who knows? Maybe someone else will buy it! After all, they buy Dorito chips shaped like the Pope's hat for $300!!

Sorry, Son, but the your below post completely ignored every question I had asked. But I will still answer your restart here, althought the gals did a great job of it already.


Okay...


Seems only prudent.


Great analogy so far....


Let me get this straight, you acknowledge that there is pain in the universe however it is not a bad thing and we should not consider it a bad thing. By your Baby Analogy above, a poor innocent hapless creation of the universe, should suffer pain because by GODs perspective this is a good thing?

Meaning for GOD, suffering is good. And for us, we should be appreciative that we suffer?

That's a strange rationalization there SON. And this rationalization, once again, is proof that GOD is not omnibenevolent and all-good, because all you've done is try to qualify the existence of suffering, but you can not explain away that existence - in light of a universe created by an ALL-PKG GOD.

By the way, how can you worship a being that finds and allows children to suffer? What about abortion of a fetus? Christians tell me that at anytime you abort a fetus it causes them great pain, however, by your argument above, abortion is a good thing from GOD's perspective. (Even though HE as infinite power and infinite goodness to easily change that.) And why not? They get to please GOD by their suffering and death and then go straight to Heaven where GOD created a realm where there is no suffering or death.

You know, I have yet to play my Heaven card on this thread...

You seem to have ignored that whole portion of the analogy that said the pain and suffering of the baby was necessary to avoid infection and death. Likewise, the pain and suffering we experience in this life is necessary to bring about a situation of eternal goodness.

You're questioning the goodness of God based on a very narrow view of life, and it's understandable, if you have no personal relationship with God, then this IS all the life you will have. But that's by your choice, He wants you to have an eternal life, but you get to refuse that offer, and when you have that eternal viewpoint, although the pain and suffering is still just as immediate, and just as raw, you also have the perspective that this is NOT all there is to life, and viewed from the perspective of an eternity, the day, year, 10 years, 80 years, etc. of life here in this plane of existence is really quite small. Not unimportant, but also not all there is.

I was wondering when the liberal view of life would kick in. Man, through his actions has caused the conditions that lead to pain and suffering, God put man in a Garden, where he could do and have anything, except the fruit of ONE tree, and he chose to eat from that fruit, and thereby lost access to the beautiful life he had in the Garden. If you hit someone, can you take responsibility for that or do you justify it by saying, "You made me mad, you had it coming!" Life is not just about pain and suffering, it's also about accepting responsibility not looking to God simply to blame Him for our condition.

So, now you're asserting that God is pleased by the suffering and death of unborn children. I think you will find it hard to prove that, unless, again, you're reading God's mind. Killing a human is wrong, because it presumes a power that only the Creator of that life has a right to. The fact that these aborted children are enjoying eternity with their Creator does not assuage the guilt of those who presume to have God's authority over life.

You've tried several others and failed, give it a whirl.


Am I to understand from your latest responses that your thread really is mostly about questioning the omnibenevolence of God?

Just checking in here, I have to run to a funreal and then to they gym. I will get to the rest of your latest post tonight or sometime tomorrow morning...but this really grabbed me:

Hey Son, the whole f'n thread has been questioning the validity of this belief, as well as the other beliefs about GOD being all powerful and all knowing. (And among other things related its very tautology.) This just occured to you now? Oh my...

Hey Gacious, I'm just trying to ascertain that it actually seems that THIS among the qualities of God is the one you're concentrating on. It's sad that you have to resort to little digs and claims of attack like this all the time.

Sorry for your loss.

Sorry IAMS i dont see how that was an attack..he stated what the thread was about the entire time

I'm sorry, BM, but when you compile all the little condescending comments he (or is it she) has made, you start seeing the same clumsy attempt at subtle insults that GW thought she was so good at before she left.

Well ok but see you just took a lil jab at him...by saying he or she..when clearly his profile states MALE

son you seem to see this no matter who it is..SA gacious is a delightful human bieng interested in debate and rapping with folks .... We can all like each other regardless of what our POV....

So, he can joke, but I can't?

Interesting.

you are joking?? well that wasn't obvious... he is new here until he gets to know us and our humours we can sure be kind woudln't you agree????

son SAG is new until he gets to know us and our humours we can certainly be gracious ..wouldnt you agree???? it wasn't obvious that you were joking...

I havent seen either of you BOTH joking...heck I might of missed it LOL whoooossshhhhhhhhhhh!!!