Christianity

[uwot]

I wonder if the irony in, "It is written in peer-reviewed scientific text. Therefore, it must be true", is also missed?

Age, who are you quoting?

[seeds]

I wonder if the irony in, "It is written in peer-reviewed scientific text. Therefore, it must be true", is also missed?

Age, who are you quoting?

No, uwot ...



...noooooooooooooooooo!
_______

[Immanuel Can]

With regard to your last two paragraphs that are crucial to a discussion of the problem of evil, we poor creatures
1. do the suffering

Would you rather not have free will or your "self," your own identity, if you could avoid suffering altogether?

whereas God does not suffer at all .

The crucifixion definitively proves otherwise.

...to give God a blank cheque...

Heh.

Who made man "God's banker"? Who made man God's judge? And what does God "owe" us? What "higher court" will you appeal to, in order to "get" what you think you are "owed" from God?

Meanwhile, He's given us life, freedom, choice, identity, truth, love and the offer of His salvation, which He paid for personally, in Jesus Christ His Son. He never "owed" us any of that, but He gave it anyway.

On our side, we gave Him back rebellion, hatred, bitterness, anger, pride, cruelty, ignorance, insults and contempt.

So who "owes" Whom what?

And when the court finally sits, what will the judgment be?

You yourself are weighing Him in the balance see your second and third paragraphs

No, no I'm not. I'm asking you on what basis you even raise the allegation? Since God has done so much for you, what does He now "owe" you?

Do you think God wants us to abandon reasoning?

No: He wants us to start using it. Good reasoning will tell you that you owe far more than you can ever claim.

Incarnated God is a flexible concept.

Not a bit of it. It's Jesus Christ.

[henry quirk]

Who told you to say that?

It is idolatry to claim we poor animals are like the Almighty. We aim to be like His incarnation or his prophets and that is the most we are capable of.

I'm a deist: all that means nuthin' to me.

A deist recognises humans are animals and a deist does not recognise an ongoing supernatural Being. A deist claims God made all this and then left it all to its own devices.

As with theism, deism has different strains.

In mine: man is not just an animal; God exists and has an interest in His Creation(s); His interventions are indirect (specifically by way of a man's conscience).

[uwot]

No, uwot ...

Thank you for your concern old buddy, it's just a bit of mischief.

[Belinda]

I'm a deist: all that means nuthin' to me.

A deist recognises humans are animals and a deist does not recognise an ongoing supernatural Being. A deist claims God made all this and then left it all to its own devices.

As with theism, deism has different strains.

In mine: man is not just an animal; God exists and has an interest in His Creation(s); His interventions are indirect (specifically by way of a man's conscience).

Well, maybe your source is better than mine. I was taught what I wrote.

[Belinda]

Would you rather not have free will or your "self," your own identity, if you could avoid suffering altogether?

The crucifixion definitively proves otherwise.


Heh.

Who made man "God's banker"? Who made man God's judge? And what does God "owe" us? What "higher court" will you appeal to, in order to "get" what you think you are "owed" from God?

Meanwhile, He's given us life, freedom, choice, identity, truth, love and the offer of His salvation, which He paid for personally, in Jesus Christ His Son. He never "owed" us any of that, but He gave it anyway.

On our side, we gave Him back rebellion, hatred, bitterness, anger, pride, cruelty, ignorance, insults and contempt.

So who "owes" Whom what?

And when the court finally sits, what will the judgment be?

You yourself are weighing Him in the balance see your second and third paragraphs

No, no I'm not. I'm asking you on what basis you even raise the allegation? Since God has done so much for you, what does He now "owe" you?

Do you think God wants us to abandon reasoning?

No: He wants us to start using it. Good reasoning will tell you that you owe far more than you can ever claim.

Incarnated God is a flexible concept.

Not a bit of it. It's Jesus Christ.

I have endured labour pains and to a specifiable extent they are worth suffering as they are productive pains that enhance life. I have a cracked rib at present and the tenderness is worth while as it warns me to avoid pushing on the fragile bit. Pain is sometimes life enhancing. But I challenge you to tell me what is life enhancing about the pain of cancer. Or the suffering of an African boy with harelip and cleft palate. Etc. etc.
I choose to avoid all suffering that does not enhance a life.
____________________

I have already endorsed the sacrifice that God made by incarnating with the maximum of pains and
sorrows.
___________________________________

So who "owes" Whom what?

you ask. I have had a particularly easy life so far. Many others have had lives of unremitting and severe suffering. You would do better to ask those others who owes whom what.
________________

Jesus Christ is a flexible concept. Christ is a myth. Myths can be read literally or figuratively.The hero of the myth, Jesus Christ, may be taken to be an historical person, or he may be taken to stand for the ephemeral glimpses we get of pure goodness especially when the goodness is manifested by the action of someone poor or oppressed.

[Sculptor]

don't I know it!

those who naively thought it was a legit up-lift: no

those who knew it was just a profit-makin' venture: yes

So though you know your country did evil you did nothing to stop it?
Did you vote for Bush?
Do you pay your taxes?

other than speakin' against it (and withholdin' tribute): what could I have done?

nope

not income, no; can't do anything about sales (except go black and gray, which I do, when I can)

-----

So though you know your country did evil you did nothing to stop it?

for the record: The State and certain corps did wrong, not the country

there is America, and there's The United States...they're not synonymous

Indicate good or evil... Just indicate G or E

Floyd
Chavin
Rittenburg
Travis McMichael, Gregory McMichael, William "Roddie" Bryan Jr.
Ahmaud Arbery
Islam
Communism
Socialism
Captialism
Nixon
Clinton
Vietnam war
Hiroshima & Nagasaki bombs

[henry quirk]

Floyd was murdered: an evil was done.
Chavin is a murderer: he's an evil doer.
Rittenburg: you mean Rittenhouse? He self-defended so committed no evil.
Travis McMichael, Gregory McMichael, William "Roddie" Bryan Jr.: murderers, evil doers.
Ahmaud Arbery: murdered, an evil was done.
Islam: evil.
Communism: evil.
Socialism: evil.
Captialism: neutral but too often made evil; Free Enterprise is never evil.
Nixon: evil doer.
Clinton: evil doer.
Vietnam war: collection of evil acts.
Hiroshima & Nagasaki bombs: could be evil; could be self-defense.

[henry quirk]

maybe your source is better than mine

Mebbe so.

[Immanuel Can]

I choose to avoid all suffering that does not enhance a life.

As do we all.

But what's the point of saying so? We have already only two options: a universe that does not have any pain in it, and one that does have pain in it. Pain is often a product of bad choices; but pain is also an evidence of choice itself.

What would you rather have: a universe with no pain and no choices, or a universe with some pain but real choices? That's the real question.

So who "owes" Whom what?

you ask. I have had a particularly easy life so far. Many others have had lives of unremitting and severe suffering. You would do better to ask those others who owes whom what.

No, I prefer to ask you. Because those individuals have their own roads to follow, and whether or not they have questions, they are surely questions that only they are qualified to ask.

You say your life has been "particularly easy." Perhaps, then, you should thank God, instead of looking for reasons to object to Him or complain about his dealings with others. That might be the more grateful, appropriate response, would it not?

[Age]

Age wrote:

If this were True, then WHY can 'religion' NOT 'reveal insights', to 'you', adult human beings?

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021
Unlike science analysis in religion obscures rather than enlightens.


owl of Minerva:

The above in my prior post answers your question. Little more can be added to that.

I am SURE you could add more, that is; if you KNEW how to.

Is predestination in religion; the idea of an elect or chosen an enlighten view? I would say not. Who elected founders of religious sects in Christianity to make pronouncements about anything. My answer: themselves. Did it come from insight or from rationalizing and wrong analysis? I would say: No, to insight and Yes to rationalizing and wrong analysis, or some motive not based on reality.

owl of Minerva: Both ways of knowing insight and analysis are valid, and should run parallel to each other.

Age:
'Run parallel to each other' is about the most insightful knowledge that you have revealed here, for 'us'.

owl of Minerva:
Thank you. Glad you agree. The only thing I would add is to leave rationalizing and analyzing to philosophy and science and in religion follow the dictum: “know thyself.”

'philosophy' NOR 'science' are NOT some 'things', which 'you', human beings, could "leave things to".

Look, 'you', human beings, do 'things', and 'you' put inappropriate or misnomer labels on those 'things', sometimes. As above.

Do 'you' 'KNOW Thy Self', yet?

Or, in other words, are 'you' able to answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?', accurately and properly?

[Age]

No, you've got your terms mixed up, B.

I don't know which "man" you mean, or why he "chooses that others suffer." I have no idea what "love" would have to do with that, and nothing you suggest reflects anything I suggested. So I'm kind of at a loss to figure out where to start here.

However, I think you're still hanging onto some Fatalistic idea. Or call it Deterministic, if you like. It's essentially the same.

Determinists are people who believe in ontic order .

No, they're not merely that. They aren't just people who believe in, say, natural laws or scientific priniciples, or whatever you mean by "ontic order." They're people who believe that some force predetermines all choices, so that human "freedom" is merely an appearance, and human beings are not themselves active contributors to cause-effect relations.

It's an absolute position. Any "choice," any genuine "human freedom," by existing falsifies Determinism. There can be no such things in the universe, according to their theory.

But nobody is saying anything about prediction when they become a Determinist. Most Determinists say that the material-causal factors involved are simply too complex for calculation. But you're right that in principle, if the calculation could be done, they think prediction would then be possible. Material cause and effect, they think, would ultimately account for every movement in the universe.

Either God can't intervene in His Plan or he can intervene in His Plan.

He can, obviously.

God's plan, and NOT "his" plan, IS to intervene. But only when the 'time' is Right. And, that is; WHEN 'you', human beings, have matured, or evolved, enough, which is when 'you' are READY, and WILLING, for intervention.

This WILL, and DOES, HAPPEN when 'you' are being Truly and Totally Honest, and seriously SEEK to change for the better, and NOT for selfish reasons.

The 'key' that unlocks the doors for ALL of 'you', human beings, to ALL the, Truly MEANINGFUL, answers in Life is just plain old-fashioned Honesty, Itself.

And, OBVIOUSLY, the reason NONE of 'you', here, have obtained this KNOWLEDGE YET is because ALL of 'you', so-called, adult, or mature, human beings, in the days when this is being written, are STILL being DISHONEST. As PROVED True throughout these writings here.

If He can't intervene in His Plan and is merciful then He is not all-powerful and that is why there is suffering.

He is powerful enough to prevent it, if preventing it would not also prevent us from being free individuals...which it would.

But this is NOT the only reason WHY God has NOT prevented 'you', adult human beings, from abusing children, "yourselves", and EVERY thing else.

You would ALREADY KNOW this if you were TOTALLY Honest about the Wrong and thus ABUSE you do to children, and seriously sought to change, for the better.

So it's not a question of "power" but rather of the coherence of the objection. One cannot have "predetermined free" individuals. There are no such entities, just as there are no square circles.

If He can intervene in His Plan and allows suffering then He is not merciful.

This also does not follow. All God has to do, in order to vindicate His dealings, is to have sufficient reason to allow some suffering in the world. If He has sufficient reason, then it's better for God to allow some suffering than for Him to prevent all of it.

OF COURSE God has a reason. Surely one would think that a "christian" would KNOW what that ACTUAL reason IS ALREADY. Especially considering the Fact that they CLAIM 'to KNOW God'.

Does God have such sufficient reason? Yes, I would say He does. The surpassing value of creating free individuals is plausibly worth the cost; that cost being that some of them will choose to do the wrong things, or to reject even God Himself, and will create suffering thereby.

1. When you say, "some of them will choose to do the wrong things", do you INCLUDE "yourself" here? Your Honest, once again, will be MUCH APPRECIATED.

2. Why did you use the 'even' word when you said and wrote; "or to reject 'even' God ..."? Did you say this with some underlying belief that it was somehow 'wrong' to reject God, Itself? Again, Honesty please. And, if you have some sort of thought that rejecting God, in the days and prior to when this is being written, is somehow 'wrong', then you could NOT be MORE Wrong, even if you WANTED TO BE.

3. Also noticed is that you wrote, directly after, "or to reject even God, "Himself", the words, "and will create suffering thereby". Are you here 'trying to' suggest that by just 'rejecting God, Itself', that 'this will somehow create suffering thereby'? Once more, Honest will be MUCH APPRECIATED. But if you are suggesting this, then were you have GAINED this Truly False, Wrong, AND Incorrect ASSUMPTION and/or BELIEF from just how some 'religions' are Truly MISGUIDED themselves.

By the way, there are MANY, MANY human beings who REJECT God, and completely, who are MORE God-like than MANY, MANY of 'you' "christians" ARE, and HAVE BEEN over the centuries.

To PROCLAIM that 'rejecting God will create suffering thereby' is HERESY to God, Itself.

But, OBVIOUSLY, if you were NOT even suggesting this, then this is of NO concern AT ALL, to 'you', "immanuel can".

But since some do not do that, and instead establish an eternal, free, individually-chosen relationship with God, then that very plausibly could have surpassing value.

LOL
LOL
LOL

If you are including ANY of 'you', so-called "adult human beings", in that "some do not do 'that' {Wrong] group, then you could NOT be MORE Wrong and Incorrect if you tried to be. And, NO one of 'you', human beings, are establishing an eternal, free, individually-chosen relationship with God, if, and when, 'you' have been INFORMED/THREATENED that; "If you REJECT GOD, then you WILL create suffering thereby", "If you do NOT do what we TELL you is right and good, or you do what we TELL you is wrong and bad, then you WILL go to eternal-Hell", or ANY of the other completely ABSURD and MISUNDERSTOOD concepts of what is ACTUALLY True, Right, AND Correct.

Now, for ANY of 'you', human beings to establish a Truly eternal, free, and individually-chosen relationship with God, all that is NEEDED is for that one to come to KNOW Thy Self, or just plain old God. When, and ONLY when, that occurs then EVERY one of 'you' WILL, and DO, completely and utterly VOLUNTARILY make the Right decision/s forevermore thereafter, ANYWAY.

[Age]

There was and still is NO complaint, AT ALL.

Then we're square:

We NEVER were NOT.

We just have DIFFERENT views, and that is ALL. And the REASON WHY we ALL do have DIFFERENT views, is completely UNDERSTANDABLE and REASONABLE.

For example, the REASON WHY you see or BELIEVE that God, Itself, is a person, when some "others" do NOT, is for the EXACT SAME REASON, which, AGAIN, is completely and utterly FULLY UNDERSTANDABLE and REASONABLE.

[Age]

God vs Evil

Free will is double-edged. A man chooses. We hope he'll choose right, but, truth is, sometimes he'll choose wrong.

God, bein' good, we want Him to obliterate wrong. God, bein' merciful, we want Him to alleviate the consequences of wrong.

He does neither.

Can He?

Yes.

Should He?

No.

Why?

In obliterating and alleviating He would steal man's choice.

AND, we do certainly NOT want "man's" choice taken away from them, like, for example, to own guns in order to "protect" "himself" by KILLING "other men", now do we "henry quirk"?

Self-direction and the possibility of self-responsibility: without them, man is rendered into event.

Love, and the choice it entails, ceases.

Like the "love" for example of one's so-called "property" and the "right" to protect that "property" by KILLING human beings if they touch that "stuff/property" for example?

Hatred, which is not always wrong, is nullified.

Yes, it is sometimes right to have "hatred" for and towards "other" human beings, because how else could a human being SHOOT ANOTHER human being DEAD just because they 'touched' some material thing, for example, correct "henry quirk"?

Man becomes machine and that is neither good or merciful.

Yes, so it is MUCH BETTER to HAVE and USE 'hate', otherwise 'you', men, will just becomes machines, is that not right "henry quirk"?

Although some can CLEARLY SEE a GREAT EXAMPLE here of when human beings, back in those olden days, used to use what were called "justifications", "rationalizations", or just plain old "excuses" for there OBVIOUSLY Wrong way of thinking, and behaving, but if we were to ask "henry quirk" about this, there would be absolutely NOTHING WRONG AT ALL with "HATRED", sometimes.