Debate: If God exists, why does God allow so much suffering?

[godnotgod]

well... I believe that the lamb lying with the lion is a symbol of peace because I have heard it from modern day priesthood authorities.

You however, have an assumption. Outside of the LDS church there are a ton of other ways that this scripture could be interpreted. Quite often throughout the Bible to lay with someone meant to have sex with someone. This scripture could mean different animals having sex together. I once had a dog that ate grass and tried to have sex with my pig. Prophecy fullfilled! *sarcasim*
I know in the Catholic church each apostle had a certain animal that was used to represent them. For Catholics it could have something to do with that.

Yes, possible, but you and I, of course, are much smarter than that, now, aren't we? We KNOW what is meant by the passage, don't we? We KNOW that, as you stated quite simply, that 'peace' is what is meant, without question, because when you put the verses involved into context, as I have done for you several posts back, it is clear what is meant, isn't it?

But beyond your believing it to symbolize peace merely because you heard it from someone you consider to be authoritative, you also understand the meaning behind the symbol yourself, now, don't you? And you understand that peace means that there is no conflict or tension going on between the lion and the lamb. So you see, we don't have to 'assume' anything, do we? The passage is clear in its intent, as it is tied in to the larger context of a heaven on earth, as told in the scripture in question, isn't it?

 

[Nakosis]

until or if they get resurrected?
Do you not believe that because of Christ the resurrection will be a free gift to all, righteous and unrighteous, Prophet and non prophet?

I'm not a resurrection believer. I think resurrection is something the Persians added to the mix. Resurrection doesn't make a lot of sense. However I suppose the main thing is what you or I believe isn't going make it reality. So instead of implicitly trusting what I believe will occur I will accept what actually does occur.

Yes we are warned of false prophets but we are given a way to judge.

Sure, but I find little reason to trust the judgement of people I don't know. Certainly the absence of knowledge is not a good position from which to judge.

trusting one prophet over another?
If God tell you that you can trust this prophet, would you deem that prophet a trustworthy prophet?
That is all it is for me.

God's never told me which prophets I can and cannot trust. However some I've come to trust because what they say is supported by the Holy Spirit. However prophets remain human and fallible. Not every word utter by a prophet comes from the Holy Spirit. So what a prophet says cannot be accepted without question.

 

[godnotgod]

peace

I might add that the mere absence of conflict alone is not peace, nor is the mere interlude between wars real peace. Real peace is a very positive state of mind, a spiritually enlightened state of mind. One acts (or not-acts) from a very different premise than that of the ordinary man.

 

[holisms]

If you have faith in god then you can get everything but sometimes God take a test of your patience.

 

[waitasec]

well... I believe that the lamb lying with the lion is a symbol of peace because I have heard it from modern day priesthood authorities.

You however, have an assumption. Outside of the LDS church there are a ton of other ways that this scripture could be interpreted. Quite often throughout the Bible to lay with someone meant to have sex with someone. This scripture could mean different animals having sex together. I once had a dog that ate grass and tried to have sex with my pig. Prophecy fullfilled! *sarcasim*
I know in the Catholic church each apostle had a certain animal that was used to represent them. For Catholics it could have something to do with that.

looks like you're defensive...
are you? if so, why?

 

[waitasec]

Yes, possible, but you and I, of course, are much smarter than that, now, aren't we? We KNOW what is meant by the passage, don't we? We KNOW that, as you stated quite simply, that 'peace' is what is meant, without question, because when you put the verses involved into context, as I have done for you several posts back, it is clear what is meant, isn't it?

But beyond your believing it to symbolize peace merely because you heard it from someone you consider to be authoritative, you also understand the meaning behind the symbol yourself, now, don't you? And you understand that peace means that there is no conflict or tension going on between the lion and the lamb. So you see, we don't have to 'assume' anything, do we? The passage is clear in its intent, as it is tied in to the larger context of a heaven on earth, as told in the scripture in question, isn't it?

why state the obvious?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

looks like you're defensive...
are you? if so, why?

:sarcastic What made you come to that assumption?

 

[godnotgod]

why state the obvious?

Because it is not obvious to yaddoe. He wants to interject what he claims are other interpretations which in no way fit the scripture in its context. I simply want to establish, beyond doubt, what the meaning of the symbolism is, before going any further. Yaddoe wants to put up a fuss.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Because it is not obvious to yaddoe. He wants to interject what he claims are other interpretations which in no way fit the scripture in its context. I simply want to establish, beyond doubt, what the meaning of the symbolism is, before going any further. Yaddoe wants to put up a fuss.

Where does it come out and clearly state that the lion and the lamb laying together is symbolic of peace? Implications are assumptions.

 

[Pegg]

Because it is not obvious to yaddoe. He wants to interject what he claims are other interpretations which in no way fit the scripture in its context. I simply want to establish, beyond doubt, what the meaning of the symbolism is, before going any further. Yaddoe wants to put up a fuss.

there is a physical application and a spiritual application to the prophecy. Yaddoe is stating the physical application and he would be correct. The animals will be at peace in the paradise of God just as they were at peace in the garden of Eden.

And we dont have to assume the animals were at peace with each other, we know they were by reading the account of Noah. How could Noah have kept so many animals together without any difficulties? It would certainly appear that the animals on the ark were not attacking each other, nor were they attacking Noah, so they were at peace at that time.

 

[godnotgod]

Where does it come out and clearly state that the lion and the lamb laying together is symbolic of peace? Implications are assumptions.

It does'nt need to be explicit; implicit imagery is the message itself, and when placed in the context of the surrounding scripture, it is clear what the writer's intent was. The general idea is a time in the future (1000 years to be exact) that will be filled with peace.

 

[godnotgod]

there is a physical application and a spiritual application to the prophecy. Yaddoe is stating the physical application and he would be correct.

So you are saying that lion nature and lamb nature are somehow suspended, so that a lion is not really a lion, but is just the form of a lion, and a lamb is not really a lamb, but merely the form of a lamb? In other words, they are merely puppets of Jesus, who, in spite of the lion's ordinary tendency to eat the lamb, and the lamb's natural tendency to run from the lion, are now zombies?

The animals will be at peace in the paradise of God just as they were at peace in the garden of Eden.

So what did a lion eat in the Garden of Eden? Tofu? Yum!

And we dont have to assume the animals were at peace with each other, we know they were by reading the account of Noah. How could Noah have kept so many animals together without any difficulties? It would certainly appear that the animals on the ark were not attacking each other, nor were they attacking Noah, so they were at peace at that time.

No, they were not attacking each other on the Ark, perhaps because the Ark was actually The Good Ship Lollipop, and they were on their best behavior because Shirley Temple was onboard. Unless, of course, they were mere whimsical inventions wherein the lions only looked like lions, and the elephants only looked like elephants. Or maybe they were temporarily hypnotized by Jesus to not attack each other, but when they were finally released, the effect wore off and there was a general bloodbath? I think I saw something on YouTube where they think they've discovered evidence of such a bloodbath just down the road from Mt Ararat. hmmmm....interesting...

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

It does'nt need to be explicit; implicit imagery is the message itself, and when placed in the context of the surrounding scripture, it is clear what the writer's intent was. The general idea is a time in the future (1000 years to be exact) that will be filled with peace.

Really? How do you know that? Assumption! * I point my finger at you with my mouth sarcastically hanging open.*

 

[godnotgod]

Really? How do you know that?

Uh....by reading the scripture?

So are you saying, then, that the message of the scripture cannot be understood with complete clarity and understanding? That any interpretation is mere assumption? If that is the case, then Pegg, in her interpretations, is also making assumptions, no? In fact, YOU interpreted the symbolism with just one word yourself: 'peace'. What sort of assumption is that? Hmmmmm?

* I point my finger at you with my mouth sarcastically hanging open.*

....and I point mine at the moon, but instead of looking at the moon, you attack my finger.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Uh....by reading the scripture?

So are you saying, then, that the message of the scripture cannot be understood with complete clarity and understanding? That any interpretation is mere assumption? If that is the case, then Pegg, in her interpretations, is also making assumptions, no? In fact, YOU interpreted the symbolism with just one word yourself: 'peace'. What sort of assumption is that? Hmmmmm?





....and I point mine at the moon, but instead of looking at the moon, you attack my finger.

Yes, Pegg assumes ALOT

as for me I didn't interpret it, someone else with authority did.

 

[fishy]

Yes, Pegg assumes ALOT

as for me I didn't interpret it, someone else with authority did.

Don't you mean someone you assume has authority? Or someone to whom you ascribe authority?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Don't you mean someone you assume has authority? Or someone to whom you ascribe authority?

no, I don't assume he has authority, I know. If you want to know just ask and I'll give you some instructions on how to find out for yourself.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, Pegg assumes ALOT

as for me I didn't interpret it, someone else with authority did.

OK, so can you tell me how they interpret it, so we can just establish your bottom line, that's all, and if your bottom line is their bottom line, that is fine. Campeche?

 

[godnotgod]

Where does it come out and clearly state that the lion and the lamb laying together is symbolic of peace? Implications are assumptions.

Then YOU, yaddoe, are making assumptions, since YOU are the one who clearly and without question stated that the lion laying with the lamb symbolized peace. Perhaps you are confused, or just plain forgot. That's OK. We all need guidance at times. :slap:

 

[Pegg]

So you are saying that lion nature and lamb nature are somehow suspended, so that a lion is not really a lion, but is just the form of a lion, and a lamb is not really a lamb, but merely the form of a lamb? In other words, they are merely puppets of Jesus, who, in spite of the lion's ordinary tendency to eat the lamb, and the lamb's natural tendency to run from the lion, are now zombies?

i wouldnt put it the way you've put it, but i would say it will be the simple case of the lion changing its eating habits so as to not be a predator of the lamb.

So what did a lion eat in the Garden of Eden? Tofu? Yum!

the scritpures do say that that lion will 'eat straw just like the lamb does'