The third side of the abortion debate. The 'fetuses' that can now speak.

[Bathos Logos]

For example...?

We've already been discussing one such contradiction - the simultaneous beliefs that God is all powerful, wants human babies to live, wants to stay hidden from the world, could literally remain hidden and yet still save premature babies from death, and does not save premature babies from death. Believe all of those things, and you are in contradiction with your self.

So, you are saying believers should doubt.

If they are at all honest about what it is possible to literally know, with surety, then yes.

Perhaps you have no idea why that is foolish.

No, I have no idea why that would be foolish.

Let me explain.
Please pay attention. I would not want to repeat.

(Hebrews 11:1-3) 1 Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen. 2 For by means of it, the men of ancient times had witness borne to them. 3 By faith we perceive that the systems of things were put in order by God’s word, so that what is seen has come into existence from things that are not visible.

If you do not understand that, let me know.
So. one who possesses faith has evidence and is thus assured of what the evidence demonstrates, though not seen.
*** it-1 p. 804 Faith ***
“Assured expectation” translates the Greek word hy·poʹsta·sis. This term is common in ancient papyrus business documents. It conveys the idea of something that underlies visible conditions and guarantees a future possession. In view of this, Moulton and Milligan suggest the rendering: “Faith is the title deed of things hoped for.” (Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, 1963, p. 660) The Greek word eʹleg·khos, rendered “evident demonstration,” conveys the idea of bringing forth evidence that demonstrates something, particularly something contrary to what appears to be the case. Thereby this evidence makes clear what has not been discerned before and so refutes what has only appeared to be the case. “The evident demonstration,” or evidence for conviction, is so positive or powerful that faith is said to be it.
Faith is, therefore, the basis for hope and the evidence for conviction concerning unseen realities.

I still don't have any idea why it is foolish to hold that people should maintain some amount of doubt about these things. I even realize the possibility that the reality I inhabit isn't the "true reality" - as in, that it could be a simulation, or I could be living the long dream sequence of some other being. Not that I believe either of those things to be even remotely "true" - all I am saying is that I even continually scrutinize the reality I am presented with, in order to make sure that it maintains consistency. Ever-ready to become skeptical of what I am being presented with if the need arises. To not maintain such small articles of "doubt" is foolish in my opinion. It makes one closed to possibilities. You accept a particular narrative, and you let that be "reality" for you... sometimes without question. That's dangerous, and will very often see you finding yourself in the wrong when the assumptions you are holding onto so fervently end up crumbling around you.

With that in mind, here is an illustration.
You hold athe title deed to property given you by your beloved dad (I don't know if your dad was beloved to you, but if not, let's pretend your dad was a trusted father and friend).
I come to you and say, "Why don't you question whether your dad did really give you that, and if you are really the owner of that property?
What would you do?
I know what most people would do.

Spoiler

You are asking the one who has a title deed of the things invisible to doubt. Seriously?

You don't think correctly at all about these sorts of ideas. Not at all. This exact thing you are setting forth as an example has literally happened time and time again in the past. Why else do you think people started recording things on written documents and storing them in mutually safe places like town halls, or community libraries? Why would they do that if it were "so obvious" who the deed(s) belonged to. So obvious that you could just laugh like a fool when anyone questioned you? You need to rethink on this subject. You are not at all even close to reality with this. Evidence ended up being required more often tan not... and so people made sure they created such evidence - the paper trails. You don't have this for God. In fact, you making this analogy, and thinking that there needn't be any evidence basically demonstrates that you have none, and think that's just fine.

Here is something you might understand
Dark Matter - a component of the universe whose presence is discerned from its gravitational attraction rather than its luminosity.
Dark Matter’s existence was first inferred by Swiss American astronomer Fritz Zwicky... The reality of this missing mass remained in question for decades, until the 1970s when American astronomers Vera Rubin and W. Kent Ford confirmed its existence by the observation of a similar phenomenon...
Continue reading if you like.

Though the reality may not be seen, the evidence can demonstrate that reality, and can be discerned or inferred.
Faith, however is based on solid evidence. There is no doubt, as is the case of Dark Matter and Gravity.
The Bible says that he that doubts is like the one, carried here and there by every wind.

Once again, you're not thinking about this fully or clearly. You even state yourself that the existence of whatever is causing the observed effects actually causes those effects. Last I read, there was still some question as to what "it" is. As in, the effects are being seen, but no one has actually defined or found what exactly "dark matter" is. This is that hold-out of doubt I was talking about. And you have demonstrated its use very handily with this example. The scientists put a placeholder name of "dark matter" on this thing that is causing these observable effects. They don't know what it is, and are open to any changes that confirm or deny anything they currently hold as information on it. This isn't how your "faith" works at all. You aren't looking for, and you will not accept any new information.

You encountered unbelievers whom give an appearance as believers... but are not.

Since you like calling up logical fallicies so much, how about this one: "No True Scotsman". Give me a break.

You really should read the Bible carefully. That's all there. There are many people who say they are, but are not.

I have read it. It is not impressive in the least.

If you seriously believe that, you must not like Biblical archaeology or science very much.

Nope. Too many assumptions put in play, and not enough awaiting observation and evidence to lead to the conclusions. The conclusions are already drawn, and people are only interested in looking for the pieces that fit the chosen narrative.

Seems you are not in favor of academia and history either.

It has its uses, surely - but it is not 100% trustworthy and never will be. You know what is 100% trustworthy, however? Something like a manual on how to wire up electrical connections and components. One can write down facts about how the world around them will most definitely react when certain things are put in place or done according to a specific standard. It's reliable, reproducible, and can most certainly be infallible. History is not like this. Academia can be... but history? Not even close.

“These are not books, lumps of lifeless paper, but minds alive on the shelves. From each of them goes out its own voice... and just as the touch of a button on our set will fill the room with music, so by taking down one of these volumes and opening it, one can call into range the voice of a man far distant in time and space, and hear him speaking to us, mind to mind, heart to heart.”
― Gilbert Highet, The Immortal Profession

“Books are not lumps of lifeless paper, but minds alive on shelves!” ― Gilbert Highet

So how do you compare a work of fiction to a history book? Which one contains true and accurate information? Do pro-"Manifest Destiny" articles from America's written accounts of the past measure up to anti-"Manifest Destiny" articles? Or do they even measure up to neutral articles of recorded history that just attempt to relay the facts? Whose "facts" do we trust when there are differences? Were certain Native American tribe chiefs horrible, murderous war-bringers? Was it "all their fault" in the accounts that put it forth as such? Or do we believe the writings that tell that the bringers of war were actually the new settlers to America? Which one? And how do we know which is more accurate?

Perhaps you don't even think anything like this should be history then?
The Nabonidus Chronicle is an ancient Babylonian text, part of a larger series of Babylonian Chronicles inscribed in cuneiform script on clay tablets. It deals primarily with the reign of Nabonidus, the last king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, covers the conquest of Babylon by the Persian king Cyrus the Great, and ends with the start of the reign of Cyrus's son Cambyses, spanning a period from 556 BC to some time after 539 BC. It provides a rare contemporary account of Cyrus's rise to power and is the main source of information on this period; Amélie Kuhrt describes it as "the most reliable and sober [ancient] account of the fall of Babylon."

Which documents are more reliable... or are there none?

There may be some that are considered more reliable - but you literally cannot witness the past to corroborate the stories. And therein lies one key - comparing multiple sources of these types of accounts and seeing what "facts" stick. You think historians don't rely on that method of verification? You'd be crazy to say that they don't. And therein lies one of the biggest problems with "theism". Everyone who has an account about what exists "out there" with respect to deities or godly administration has a different story to tell. So many differences! Do you think a historian would be completely confident in a piece of history he writes down when he received 10 or more different stories as to what actually happened? Do you? Please be honest.

I'll like to suggest you think about these facts the next time you are tempted to make such claims as the one you just made.

Your thinking is basically broken on many multiple levels, and I am easily and succinctly demonstrating this to you. I don't need to listen to you. You don't know what you are doing.

 

[Bathos Logos]

After all that, it will be my pleasure to correct you.
I do question things. It might surprise you that many scientists believe in a creator / designer, because they question things. You may be surprised to know that Atheists have come to believe in a creator, through questioning things.
In fact, questioning things is what lead to the conclusion that there is a creator.

One scientist describes the faith required to not believe in a creator, like believing that one can put a book with blank pages on a desk; some ink; and a pen, and in time they would find the book filled with writings of Shakespeare.

Biologists Baffled

Spoiler: Excerpt

The “National Geographic” journal states that scientists “have created not only amino acids, but most of the other important basic molecules of life.” Yet, their knowledge is limited. Says the magazine: “Much to their frustration, however, biologists can still only speculate on how these simple organic molecules emerged through the eons as proteins and genes. More baffling still is how these proteins and genes got together in the first self-replicating cell. The odds against the right molecules being in the right place at the right time are staggering. Yet, as science measures it, so is the time scale on which nature works. Indeed, what seems an impossible occurrence at any one moment would, given untold eons, become a certainty.”

According to this argument, if you gave a group of chimpanzees pieces of metal, wire and the like and put the animals together long enough, they could build a jumbo jet airplane, complete with numbered reclining seats and all the necessary equipment. Obviously, the chimpanzees would never succeed, even if they had “untold eons” to complete the task. And, of course, the molecules of life are far more complex than any aircraft. Their marvelous design testifies clearly that supreme intelligence has been responsible for them.

I don't mean to quote mine, but merely emphasize why it takes more than faith, to not believe in a creator.
There was more, but I don't have access now. Pc problems.

Spoiler

“Mathematics is not something that you find lying around in your back yard. It’s produced by the human mind. Yet if we ask where mathematics works best, it is in areas like particle physics and astrophysics, areas of fundamental science that are very, very far removed from everyday affairs. ...It suggests to me that consciousness and our ability to do mathematics are no mere accident, no trivial detail, no insignificant by-product of evolution.”

Spoiler

- Are We Alone?; Paul Davies​

Mathematics and Creation
◆ One of the strong evidences pointing to intelligent creation of the material universe is that a knowledge of higher mathematics is necessary to achieve an understanding of it. Chance action by blind forces is not the creator of mathematical order and laws. Remarking on the role of mathematics in nature, P. A. M. Dirac states in Scientific American of May 1963: “It seems to be one of the fundamental features of nature that fundamental physical laws are described in terms of a mathematical theory of great beauty and power, needing quite a high standard of mathematics for one to understand it. You may wonder: Why is nature constructed along these lines? One can only answer that our present knowledge seems to show that nature is so constructed. We simply have to accept it. One could perhaps describe the situation by saying that God is a mathematician of a very high order, and he used very advanced mathematics in constructing the universe. Our feeble attempts at mathematics enable us to understand a bit of the universe, and as we proceed to develop higher and higher mathematics we can hope to understand the universe better."

“The existence of an orderly, coherent universe containing stable, organized, complex structures requires laws and conditions of a very special kind. ...
Taken together, they provide impressive evidence that life as we know it depends very sensitively on the form of the laws of physics, and on some seemingly fortuitous accidents in the actual values that nature has chosen for various particle masses, force strengths, and so on. ...Suffice it to say that, if we could play God, and select values for these quantities at whim by twiddling a set of knobs, we would find that almost all knob settings would render the universe uninhabitable. In some cases it seems as if the different knobs have to be fine-tuned to enormous precision if the universe is to be such that life will flourish. ... The fact that even slight changes to the way things are might render the universe unobservable is surely a fact of deep significance.”
- The Mind of God; Paul Davies​

One would need to give me evidence that designed objects do not require a designer, none has been shown, andbut from the experience of humans, we know that design requires a designer.
If you take this apart...

and don't reassemble it using an intelligence - whether real or artificial, it will be useless.
The human body, as just one example - has more 'components', 'working parts', 'connections', and is vastly more intricate than any human design.
I see no evidence that blind undirected processes produced the brain with an intelligent mind, and all its intricate features and connections to the body it drives.
That's never seen in reality.

I can discern an intelligence behind the creation I see around me... including the leg of a horse. All parts work together based on specific instructions, towards a goal.
Romans 1:20; Hebrews 3:4

But none of what you posted literally indicates that there is a designer, or what this designer is. You're doing nothing more than comparing things we know for sure had a designer (because we humans literally witnessed other humans design and craft them) and things that we don't know the origins of. That's what you are doing. The most one can say is "I don't know how life came to be". Or, at least, that's the honest thing to say. but you don't say that, do you? You do much more than that. You say "I know how life came to be. It had a designer, and it had a creator, and that creator is the God of Abraham". Right? Please show me where in your post that the specific "God of Abraham" is indicated in the evidence you have brought forth. Please. And after all that talk of how "Faith is the belief in things unseen" - you should be ashamed of yourself. Truly.

If you think my discerning this is without evidence, you will need to demonstrate that.

I just demonstrated, easily, that you are inferring whatever you want to from the evidence you have posted. How else could you possibly come to the result of believing in the "God of Abraham" specifically, as the designer you so earnestly want to posit? How? Please show me where that makes any sense within the evidence you posted? Which, again, doesn't even serve as evidence of what you want to think it does - which I am also sure you have been told many, many multiple times. But you are obstinate, and won't listen to reason, obviously. You have nothing of worth in any of this stuff you are posting. It is all presumption and foolishness.

 

[Bathos Logos]

Please do not start twisting my words.
I hate lies, and those who repeatedly ... about what I did say, gets on my "bad side", and I stop speaking to them.
So if you want an honest discussion, don't twist my words and then say I said that. Okay?

I apologize. I literally did not see or pick up on the "to the atheists" bit, and thought you were having some kind of Freudian slip or something.

Well now.
I said...
If scientists went that route, nothing today existed... until they discovered it.
Are you thinking this through. Seeing the flaws in your argument yet?

You said..
And then, of course, what are the implications if God does not exist? What are the things we expect to see?
So, in other words, if scientists suggested 'What would we expect to see if gravity does not exist? We expect to see what we see today. Therefore, gravity does not exist."
In a case like that, gravity did not exist.. until they discovered it.
Pay attention... please. Or are you having trouble keeping up.

This makes absolutely no sense as you have written it. Maybe rephrase something?

If scientists literally said "What would we expect to see if gravity does not exist?" and then concluded "We expect to see what we see today. Therefore, gravity does not exist." then they would be demonstrably deluded. The thing we call gravity (the force that pulls matter toward other congregations of matter) does demonstrably exist. I don't know what you are getting at here. Gravity (or again, what ended up being called "gravity" always existed... and any scientist worth his salt would realize this. It isn't like anyone put a name to "gravity" and then suddenly it existed. Not even close. Those who discovered what the phenomenon was about realized it existed before they had anything to say about it. It is craziness to assume otherwise. You're only doing so because you are working on some agenda. Please stop... it is entirely dishonest.

Speaking of discovering. They discovered many times over, that what the Bible said was true. When they were sating there is no evidence for it.
That counts as evidence

Who is "they"? And what part of The Bible are we talking about here? The whole thing? This is just strange. maybe you're being brief because of your computer problems, but you are not saying anything worthwhile here.


See @Hockeycowboy's post. Maybe he would be happy to answer you.
I don't mind taking the break, since my pc is giving some trouble.


Nothing is overpowering God. That's impossible.


You read my post, so you can't be pretending you don't understand that you created the assumptions.
I'll repeat.
You started with an assumption, which you conclude must be right, and then you build your case on that assumption, thus you have already create a formula to go in your favor... based on faulty or incorrect assumptions.
Does that help?


No need to repeat myself. You'll just repeat the same ... um... thing.


I have to leave this until later. Don't have the time to carefully read it.[/QUOTE]Still no answers to my simple questions. This is why I find it so confounding and frustrating talking with theists. Zero answers to even the simplest of questions. You pick and choose what questions you respond to, based (from what I can tell) on how difficult it will be to answer without implicating yourself in contradictory thinking or even outright lies). Meanwhile, any question you ask me I am more than willing to answer. I have no hang-ups and I am not trying to protect the delicate sensibilities of any "God". it is plain as day that there are some questions you just refuse to answer. It is a waste even talking to you... or has been thus far. Honestly.

 

[nPeace]

Opinion based on observation of reality where God does not appear to be present, and literally cannot be demonstrated to be.

A lot of things cannot be demonstrated to be, but you believe and accept them, right?
For example, you cannot demonstrate the earth's formation as proposed by scientists, nor its moon, but you accept and believe those ideas... Am I correct?

And we can pretty much guaranteed that your opinions of God are not, at all, based on such observation of reality, because, again, you have no more evidence that can be shared with anyone else than the words you speak or the words that someone else wrote.

Well, with that view, apply that equally to the scientists' words. I don't agree that we can pretty much guaranteed what you claim.

That is objective fact. Unless it isn't... and you have such evidence that breaks from mere words. So how about it? Do you have such evidence?

Yup. I do.
You'll have to either wait until that becomes our only focus, and I don't have to respond to lengthy posts, or you can meet me on another thread, which I'll link to you.
I feel bad enough that we have derailed this thread already.

I wish you could understand that you are not really saying anything here. Just metaphors for something you only hope will "work" for your intended mark. And in my experience, I am far more well-adjusted, content/happy, grateful for life and accepting of all types of people (not necessarily their ideas, mind you, but ideas are not people) than any believer I have ever met in my life. And this is based on the words they, themselves, have spoken to me that relay that they turned to their faith because there were facets of life that they found too difficult to accept without "help". So many stories... and so many of them indicating a fundamental inability to cope - with death, with poverty, with their own previous inability to stop "sinning". And even the way they frame their arguments to me, or how they frame the ways in which Christianity "can help" - it all indicates a fundamental inability to cope with various aspects of life without pretending that "help is on the way". Even yours here, telling me that I could reach some fantastical "peace" or "righteousness" - all the while assuming that I can't, or haven't achieved this myself. Assuming that I have some faults that I believe need "fixing". Meanwhile, my disposition offers me endless coping, as far as I have experienced thus far. I am sure there is a limit, but I haven't found it yet.

I totally understand.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Then we are all speaking fetuses. Shall we post a set of video's of anecdotal stories of those who wish they were never born?

What about all the lost potential fetuses due to eggs that never fertilized and/or implanted properly?

I see no value added to the discussion with these videos.

Life is an exercise in chance
If any one of our pairs of forebears had not met , been infertile or died before having children, then perhaps the world would be different to day.

They say that everyone is connected to everyone else in only 7 steps. It is hard to believe, but if true it is not surprising that things can change so fast.

An extra birth or two, or a couple of abortions, could have the same effect as a few street killings on the long term fortunes of entire communities.

Fortunate we will never know.
we live with the effects of what has happened, not what might have happened.

If Hitler's or Stalin's mother had had an abortion, what would the world be like today.
It might have been better or it could have been worse, we shall never know.
God clearly does not mico manage these things.

 

[nPeace]

These two statements are somewhat contradictory. You can't know that "what I want" goes against God's laws.

Why not?

If acting in one's self-interest at any moment is "against God's laws" then all believers should literally be dead from inaction. Can't eat until all the hungry are fed. Can't drink until all the thirsty are given drink. That literally doesn't work. And so, you can't know that anyone literally wants to act "against God's laws", and to assume that you do know means that you must have some specific laws in mind that someone is actively breaking. So, how about it? Which of God's laws am I actively breaking because I literally want to? Lay it on me.

For one thing, acknowledging and listening to him, and following through with obeying.
That pretty much covers everything.

I can't believe you can say this and even add a smiley emoji to it as if it were "so obvious". What about all of the instructions given by gods that are not your God? How are people getting along in those countries? Are they all just sinners, treating all their neighbors poorly? My point being that you statements here assume that there is only one way to come to a point of treating your fellow human beings well - and that is demonstrably not true. You don't have a monopoly on "the way" to be a descent human being.

You are forgetting something.
I mentioned it earlier.
All people's religions stem from religions with elements from the original.
So all will have traces of good... provided they did not deliberately lop off every element associated with the original.

That's why, as I said, Atheists will have some good values due to their connection to people prior to them, with some of those values, rooted in the original worship.

Yes, and? Looking at society I don't see a single one where murder (as an example) is actively or even tacitly allowed.

Right. Thanks to the past, and God's laws which were adopted culturally.

We're all just murderers and thieves just waiting for the opportunity when "God's not looking", right?

Nope. I didn't say that. Nope.

What a way to consider your neighbors.

Do Atheists twists people's words to stroke their ego? That's sad.

Wasn't it you just talking about God's laws concerning treatment of your neighbors?

That was me.

You think God would like it that you consider everyone evil until proven good?

No. Maybe stop trying to look for opportunity to attack the poster, and that will prevent you misrepresenting and twisting their words.
Do Atheists do that to feel superior in their position - to try to exalt their "morality"?

Doesn't sound too fair, nice, kind or loving to me.

Me neither. I don't know why you cooked it up.
Oh wait. I just made mention of a reason.

Not at all. And you wonder why some people can't take your faith seriously.

I don't wonder that. I know why people don't take religion seriously.
One reason is that false religion is not a force for good.

I also know - and you are demonstrating it here - that people make excuses not to take any faith seriously, by trying to pin the fault of some, on all, so that they can claim all are the same.
Thanks for demonstrating how you do it.

So, you claim to love your enemy, when you can't even admit that your neighbor isn't a terrible person because of "human nature"?

Did I say my neighbor is a terrible person? I have to smile at Atheists.
Some remind me of Satan, who slandered God, and tried by that tactic, to make himself look good.
His pride made him feel so important, that he tried to pull down another's character, in order to feed his pride.
Are you taking a good look at yourself?

I ask them if they remember me, find out what their current issue is, and if it is dire enough, show them that I am the better person than they ever will be by helping them - specifically in order to get them to contemplate their horrid behavior in the past and perhaps recant/change for the better. And if their situation isn't dire enough? I remind them who I am to them, wish them luck, and walk on.

Great! You've done this before?

Does my above stated reaction make me inhuman, then, do you think?

Not at all.

I even have examples of how I have done exactly as I described above, if you care to hear them.

You did? Cool.
You seem eager to share. Does this have anything to do with what I said above?
Don't worry about it. You probably wouldn't know.
Go ahead if you want.

Point being - I don't need your faith, your beliefs, your stories, in order to be what I believe makes a good person. And I seriously feel that no one does.

I agree. There are many good people, who don't even know God.
Was I talking about good people? I don't recall doing so.
Maybe you can point out which post I did.

 

[nPeace]

Oh boy... why do I have to explain things like this?

It gives clarity, and helps with better communication.

I originally stated that I assume you believe God to be all-powerful, and apologized, in advance, if that was NOT the case and I assumed incorrectly.
You then replied that I was incorrect and that you do believe that God is all powerful - which is exactly what I assumed in the first place.

See what I mean?
Not sure if you have problems seing well, or remembering. In any case, this is what I said...
This you haven't assumed incorrectly.
I do acknowledge that God is all-powerful.

I was on a forum once, and I got the impression a user couldn't read the normal font, so I used large fonts. Would you like me to change the font size, to #5 when responding to you? I don't think that would be a problem.

And now here we are, you still thinking you are somehow "in the right" on this, when it was your misunderstanding in the first place, and all my points were 100% relevant and on point the entire time.

So, now, seeing the mistake is on your end, should I dismiss the rest of this post, and you start over, with the correction in your understanding?
I think that's better, because I don't want to respond to something with a wrong basis.

 

[Bathos Logos]

A lot of things cannot be demonstrated to be, but you believe and accept them, right?
For example, you cannot demonstrate the earth's formation as proposed by scientists, nor its moon, but you accept and believe those ideas... Am I correct?

Unfortunately, for the examples you have chosen, we literally can see the processes at work that would see a large-scale orbiting body of probably just about any kind coming to rest as a sphere of variable make-up. Gravitational pull toward the center of the mass, combined with hundreds of thousands of impacts to the surface by space-faring debris, combined with (in the case of Earth) earthquakes, combined with volcanic eruption (again, Earth), combined with weathering due to moving water or ice (again, Earth), will all see a large body of mass becoming more and more spherical to match the constant force of gravity at work on it. So yes, I accept the scientific explanations, but they happen to match observable reality. The predictive model in this case would match what we see and continue to see happen to other bodies throughout the known universe. I am not sure why you think these processes haven't been demonstrated, or why you think that the ultimate outcome of these processes would be expected to be anything else.

Well, with that view, apply that equally to the scientists' words. I don't agree that we can pretty much guaranteed what you claim.

In the end, I advocate that one react to what they observe. To act upon what one has not observed is a strange idea. And no, "wind" does not count here as something "not observed" - its effects are observed, and looking close enough one can literally discern what is moving and causing other things to move. And no "love" doesn't work here either - because we can observe that others do or do not behave as if they display what we consider "love" toward ourselves. We do this all the time. You don't make a lasting friend with someone who doesn't reciprocate. And how do you detect that they are reciprocating? Why, through social and physical and emotional cues, of course - all real and discernable things.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don’t think you grasped what I wrote. We all either benefit or suffer from the choices our parents make.

God’s control was challenged, and millions of angels were watching this rebellion unfold. A&E should have chosen to be loyal… they knew the penalty. Instead, they chose independence & became imperfect before having kids. As their offspring, we suffer from imperfection as a result.

How God handled it, is handling it, is wise: stay out of it & let humans rule themselves. That was the main issue raised. Just read Genesis 3:1-6; can you see that?

Each of us only live 70 to 90, or 100 years. So the pain we may go through, is short really, in the grand scheme of things. For some w/ physical ailments - cancer, etc. - it’s considerably shorter.

But then, what happens? We die, but that’s only ‘RIP’ing until the promised Resurrection comes. Acts of the Apostles 24:15

What will life - on Earth - be like, at that time, under God’s Kingdom rule (Matthew 6:9-10, “Let Your will, be done on Earth”)?…
*Wicked people will be history. Psalms 37:10-11

*No more sickness. Isaiah 33:24

*Endless life. Romans 6:23 ; Revelation 21:3-4

*No more hunger. Psalms 72:16

*War will be gone. Psalms 46:9

This is all part of the “good news of the Kingdom” that Jesus spoke of. Matthew 24:14

Take care.

So you think that human beings are responsible for the "sins" of those who came before them. So if my father is a criminal, then so I am. Even if I haven't committed any crimes.
And this was all set up by a loving and just God? Doesn't sound like it to me since it's neither loving nor just, by any definition I'm aware of. In fact, it sounds downright immoral.

 

[nPeace]

So, you don't believe that God aborts the babies, fine.

God has nothing to do with babies aborting.

However, based on everything you have said, you must believe that God allows babies to die in situations that He could otherwise help, right?

God allows everything in this world... from corruption in government; robbery of the poor; exploitation of children; and yes, death of babies.

Does God have the power to end it?

Of course he does. He has options too. He could...

1. Kill everybody.
2. Provide a way that no babies would ever die prematurely... or at all, and all corrupt people, violent people, robbers, rapists, etc. will not be.

Which option do you prefer? I'm wth #2. That's the one God selected.

That's more what I was getting at. That you must feel that God has legitimate and even "good" reasons to let those babies die. Is that right, or no?

That's right.

But He decides not to prevent it, correct?

Not exactly. He allows it, for a time.
That's different to not preventing it.
He could have preventing it by taking this action - Not allow Adam and Eve to have children. So Adam and Eve would die childless, and none of us would be here. No suffering. No human race.
Well the animals would be happy, and the earth would breath better.

God allowed it, so that mankind would live, even though, through hardship and suffering, becase God's purpose is to have an earthly family that would enjoy everlasting peace on the earth he gave them... where all suffering will be gone forever, and the former things will not be called to mind.

I am becoming more and more convinced that you're just trying to redirect the conversation here. Let's reframe it all as "God does not lift a finger to help babies who die from premature birth". Now, what avenues of investigation do we have open to us in order to be able to discern when such a baby dies for valid and good reasons? How or what can we investigate in order to know that God made the correct and good decision not to involve Himself? That's what I was getting at. Please answer that question.

God has preserved his word - a written record of his dealings with mankind; what he is doing, and what he will do.
We can use his word, and our observations, to determine what God is doing.
To give one example. Prophecy in the Bible is a good indication of God's activity.
What we observe in the past, and present, along with future prophecies, helps us have a good guage of the future

Just more dodging from you here. Please read through this list of questions and try to understand why they are relevant:

I can understand why you would think I am dodging.
It's not that. I like to apply Matthew 7:6. So I am not hasty in providing certain information, until I can see some sort of reasonableness, and a willingness to listen.
Can I take your questions over to another thread. I don't want to further swamp this thread with another topic. My apologies to @Twilight Hue for my off-topic posts.

So do I have your permission to quote what you say here, in another thread?
Thanks for your questions, by the way.... and your persistence.

 

[nPeace]

@Bathos Logos You'll have to give me some time to respond to your posts. There are not short, and I don't want to leave out anything. However, I don't have the time to address all of it at one time.
We need a break at times. Later.

 

[Bathos Logos]

Why not?

Because you don't know "what I want" in the first place. Who do you think you are anyway? Uri Geller?

For one thing, acknowledging and listening to him, and following through with obeying.
That pretty much covers everything.

Why would I do this before I have a verified demonstration of His existence? Do you follow all of the laws and rules of Jainism or Zoroastrianism or Scientology "just in case"? No? Then why would you expect anyone else to do so either. Give me a demonstration that it makes any difference that I do these things, and maybe I'll have a look. Until then... no thanks. It is unnecessary.

You are forgetting something.
I mentioned it earlier.
All people's religions stem from religions with elements from the original.
So all will have traces of good... provided they did not deliberately lop off every element associated with the original.

Really? How about Scientology then? And which are we citing here as "the original"? Does everyone agree on which is "the original"?

That's why, as I said, Atheists will have some good values due to their connection to people prior to them, with some of those values, rooted in the original worship.

You've got a huge glaring hole in this. If we were all just murderers and thieves before religion, then how did any humans even survive that time? How? We have cave men, who didn't necessarily have any particular religion - or even if they did, definitely didn't have one that you would be willing to consider the "root" of your beliefs today. How did they survive? Why did they ever treat one another well enough to get along? And if you believe that we evolved from the apes (which you should, based on the overwhelming evidence for common descent found in the form of endogenous retroviruses) then why don't all the apes kill one another off? What's stopping them? Your ideas don't hold water. There is so much that demonstrably cuts against the grain of them.

Nope. I didn't say that. Nope.

Okay then, please correct me! Why do you just stop at "Nope." like that answers for everything? This is exactly what I am talking about that makes theists look like very poor actors. Not people willing to have a discussion in good faith, actually addressing points. You tell me then - without God, what happens? Without Gods laws, what are we? And if the answer isn't that we destroy ourselves then you have a big problem on your hands! Because here you sit wanting to claim that God and religion are the only paths to anyone treating anyone else well! So, if we are able to treat one another well without religious ideas, what then? What happens to what keep claiming about the "roots" of good behavior? Man - I tell ya... there is so further down to dwell on these topics than you apparently have... it's nuts.

Do Atheists twists people's words to stroke their ego? That's sad.

Wow. No correction forthcoming I see. So tell me - how do you view your neighbors? What do you think of them if they don't believe as you do? What are they doing wrong? You have already said that you believe atheists are purposefully denying God so that they can break some of the rules. You have literally said that. Correct me. I dare you. We all know you won't... because what you actually think of your neighbors is probably either really as deplorable as I have stated, or you are super duper unwilling to admit that they can actually be good, upstanding people without your God's rules. Or something else... if you are willing to tell me. Again... you are winning no points for theism with me here. The reputation of theists is just falling further and further down the pole with this kind of behavior.

No. Maybe stop trying to look for opportunity to attack the poster, and that will prevent you misrepresenting and twisting their words.
Do Atheists do that to feel superior in their position - to try to exalt their "morality"?

Again here, your lack of correction is noted.

Me neither. I don't know why you cooked it up.
Oh wait. I just made mention of a reason.

Again here, your lack of correction is noted.

I don't wonder that. I know why people don't take religion seriously.

Good! Maybe you can fix it.

One reason is that false religion is not a force for good.

More "No True Scotsman" here I see. Remember who brought the whole rigmarole of "Logical Fallicies" into the discussion. I certainly wouldn't have. I prefer to use my own words.

I also know - and you are demonstrating it here - that people make excuses not to take any faith seriously, by trying to pin the fault of some, on all, so that they can claim all are the same.
Thanks for demonstrating how you do it.

What I am doing is asking you a ton of tough questions, and you either aren't answering, or give completely nonsensical answers that do not satisfy the situation in the slightest. And yes, because you aren't providing any actual answers or rebuttals to a lot of the questions and points I raise, I am then bound to make some assumptions to try and fill in the gaps you are leaving. And believe me... there are a ton of them. You never answered my question about whether or not God wants to save babies from premature death. You never answered my question about how we can know that God not saving babies from premature birth is good and just in each case that they do not survive. You've made statements that hint that there are reasons... but you never actually gave any.

Did I say my neighbor is a terrible person? I have to smile at Atheists.

Again, please feel free to provide the actual information of how you view your neighbors. I was simply inferring from your earlier words what you must think of them based on how you kept saying that everyone is a sinner, and all fall short of some ideal, and hinting very strongly that if they aren't doing what you're doing then they are doing something wrong, and possibly against the laws of God, which I feel I am safe to assume you believe to be a form of evil! Don't you see?! You not providing me corrections on these ideas forces me to make assumptions as to why you aren't providing information. And in this case, because you are a theist, I am going to assume that your thoughts are among the very worst as being the reason you don't want to share them! Here I am... literally asking you for clarification on your position. Can you give it to me? I honestly doubt you can.

Some remind me of Satan, who slandered God, and tried by that tactic, to make himself look good.

And here we go. Do you consider me one of your "neighbors" after a fashion? You just compared me to Satan. Do you see what I am saying? The delusion that theists must necessarily be bound under is just astounding. Do you, or do you not feel that it is nice, just, loving, or fair to compare your neighbors to Satan? And do so in a conversation with them? Again I will ask - in order for you to be able to do this, what is it you think of your neighbors? Correct me.

His pride made him feel so important, that he tried to pull down another's character, in order to feed his pride.Are you taking a good look at yourself?

Always. Do you know what would make me feel good? If certain people could just admit that all this theology crap is just their opinion. That they can't literally know this stuff, and that their evidence is incredibly poor and cannot adequately be shared or represented to any and all people who they are interested in convincing. That would make me happy. Otherwise, the only thing you insisting that you do know these things, while continually dodging points made, not saying your full complement of thoughts on certain matters, and providing horrid garbage as justification for your beliefs... all any of that does is make me lose faith in humanity as a whole. And you think that is making me "feel important"? Please. This is just so ridiculous. You chastise me for putting words in your mouth... and yet are willing to compare me to Satan and tell me that I am "feeding my pride". Pot calling the kettle black. Now who needs to "look at themselves"?

Great! You've done this before?

You mean try to get haughty people like you to realize that what they are doing is all wrong? Yes... yes I have done this before.

Not at all.

Then what is with your insistence that "human nature" is all about punching people in the face and killing them when they upset you? You want some quotes that have you literally saying that almost word for word? I can get them. This is just blowing my mind how little you practice introspection.

You did? Cool.
You seem eager to share. Does this have anything to do with what I said above?
Don't worry about it. You probably wouldn't know.
Go ahead if you want.

"Eager to share" - here you are, pinning egotism on me again. I know you'll deny it. That's your M.O. But I am going to point it out anyway so that you can think on it.

But briefly, I will give you one such anecdote. A man I met on the street while out walking for exercise started trying to give me a sermon, and in the end, he ended up calling me "vile". after I told him the reasons I didn't believe. I could tell then that he was likely homeless, as he carried a large backpack and was dressed in what looked like some of everything he owned even though it was warm out. My suspicions were confirmed when I talked about him with some locals. I saw him the evening of Thanksgiving, some months later, sitting on a bench downtown. He was alone, and listening to his phone. His backpack at his side again. I headed home, made a plate of Thanksgiving leftovers and took it out to him. He didn't remember me, but he was thankful for the food.

I agree. There are many good people, who don't even know God.
Was I talking about good people? I don't recall doing so.
Maybe you can point out which post I did.

You were assuming people were bad, and very consistently using language that indicated that going against God's laws does this to people, or is the very reason they are bad - because they want to be. Do you not remember saying any of this? And so, when people don't know God, or even actively reject the idea of God, I assumed you felt them to be "bad". And indeed, you have hinted that the very basis for morality and all of the good that anyone has ever been taught, lies with a belief in God. So, those without such belief... what do you think of them? Again... instead of just saying what I told you and saying "that's not what I think" tell me what you think? Why do so many theists tend not to do this? I believe it to be for the reasons I have already given - fear of reprisals over their very terrible views of others... but again, feel free to correct me!

 

[Bathos Logos]

It gives clarity, and helps with better communication.


See what I mean?
Not sure if you have problems seing well, or remembering. In any case, this is what I said...
This you haven't assumed incorrectly.
I do acknowledge that God is all-powerful.

I was on a forum once, and I got the impression a user couldn't read the normal font, so I used large fonts. Would you like me to change the font size, to #5 when responding to you? I don't think that would be a problem.

Got it... the double negative got me. Perhaps I was reading too fast. A lot to get through.

So, now, seeing the mistake is on your end, should I dismiss the rest of this post, and you start over, with the correction in your understanding?
I think that's better, because I don't want to respond to something with a wrong basis.

I don't see that being necessary - it has extremely little to do with anything else that was said. Again, I assumed you believed that God was all powerful, and I have been posting under those assumptions all along.

 

[Bathos Logos]

God has nothing to do with babies aborting.

Now I feel the need to ask - what about what I said made you feel the need to reiterate the exact same point I was literally conceding to?

God allows everything in this world... from corruption in government; robbery of the poor; exploitation of children; and yes, death of babies.

What a nice guy.

Of course he does. He has options too. He could...

1. Kill everybody.
2. Provide a way that no babies would ever die prematurely... or at all, and all corrupt people, violent people, robbers, rapists, etc. will not be.

Which option do you prefer? I'm wth #2. That's the one God selected.

And so how does #2 happen then? Do we have to wait until we're in heaven or something? And there, then no babies will be dying, no violent people, no robbers, no rapists? I thought this world was "perfect" as-is? Didn't God create it, and basically create it this way? He created humans also, and we're part of "the world" as a whole. So He created it all, knowing it would be this way, perhaps? But heaven is different? So... which one is more "perfect"? If they are different, then how can both be perfected? And if Earth isn't perfected, and God created, but wants it to be better, but isn't willing to actually do anything to make it better... well... you should see the problem I have with this line of thinking.

That's right.

Then tell me... what are those "good and just" reasons? And if we can't know those reasons, then how can we know that they are "good and just"?

Not exactly. He allows it, for a time.
That's different to not preventing it.
He could have preventing it by taking this action - Not allow Adam and Eve to have children. So Adam and Eve would die childless, and none of us would be here. No suffering. No human race.
Well the animals would be happy, and the earth would breath better.

But what He ultimately did (or allowed) was "better"? Better for whom? For God? For humans? And if not for either of those, then what is even going on?

God allowed it, so that mankind would live, even though, through hardship and suffering, becase God's purpose is to have an earthly family that would enjoy everlasting peace on the earth he gave them... where all suffering will be gone forever, and the former things will not be called to mind.

So, this later state of the Earth is "better", right? It is closer to being perfected? So what God created is not perfect, correct? He created an inferior product, right off the bat? Isn't that accurate? But He wants it to be perfected, right? But He isn't willing to act to ensure that happens, right? Or, He just acts in secret? But if He is willing to act in secret, and He could secretly save all of the premature dying babies if He wanted to... well... that gets us right back to square one.

God has preserved his word - a written record of his dealings with mankind; what he is doing, and what he will do.
We can use his word, and our observations, to determine what God is doing.
To give one example. Prophecy in the Bible is a good indication of God's activity.
What we observe in the past, and present, along with future prophecies, helps us have a good guage of the future

So, we can discern why He lets the prematurely born babies die? And here I mean specifically. Specirfically why so that we can understand how it is "good and just" that they die. That's what I mean. Not some vague notion that "He has a plan". That's not going to do it. I want specific evidence that demonstrates how those babies dying prematurely when you have stated God could save them is "Good and just". Short of that, I see absolutely no reason to simply accept that it is "good and just". No reason.

I can understand why you would think I am dodging.
It's not that. I like to apply Matthew 7:6. So I am not hasty in providing certain information, until I can see some sort of reasonableness, and a willingness to listen.

Please do not mistake my continually trying to point out the flaws I see in what you are saying with an "unwillingness to listen". If I literally see flaws (which I do - great, big glaring ones) then I am bound by my principles to bring them to your attention.

Can I take your questions over to another thread. I don't want to further swamp this thread with another topic. My apologies to @Twilight Hue for my off-topic posts.

So do I have your permission to quote what you say here, in another thread?

Thanks for your questions, by the way.... and your persistence.

Do as you will... I have no qualms with it at all. I think the rules here against using other people's words are ridiculous in the first place. If it was said, it was said.

 

[Bathos Logos]

I don’t think you grasped what I wrote. We all either benefit or suffer from the choices our parents make.

God’s control was challenged, and millions of angels were watching this rebellion unfold. A&E should have chosen to be loyal… they knew the penalty. Instead, they chose independence & became imperfect before having kids. As their offspring, we suffer from imperfection as a result.

How God handled it, is handling it, is wise: stay out of it & let humans rule themselves. That was the main issue raised. Just read Genesis 3:1-6; can you see that?

Each of us only live 70 to 90, or 100 years. So the pain we may go through, is short really, in the grand scheme of things. For some w/ physical ailments - cancer, etc. - it’s considerably shorter.

But then, what happens? We die, but that’s only ‘RIP’ing until the promised Resurrection comes. Acts of the Apostles 24:15

What will life - on Earth - be like, at that time, under God’s Kingdom rule (Matthew 6:9-10, “Let Your will, be done on Earth”)?…
*Wicked people will be history. Psalms 37:10-11

*No more sickness. Isaiah 33:24

*Endless life. Romans 6:23 ; Revelation 21:3-4

*No more hunger. Psalms 72:16

*War will be gone. Psalms 46:9

This is all part of the “good news of the Kingdom” that Jesus spoke of. Matthew 24:14

Take care.

I feel it pertinent to get your take on a hypothetical situation - but one that is not so outlandish, and may very well have literally been played out here on Earth by some believer in the past.

Adam and Eve eat the fruit, gain knowledge of good and evil and ensues "The Fall"
They are evicted from the perfect life and conditions of The Garden
We're here, in modern times, and one of us, as humans, grows with an understanding an acceptance of all this, and calls out to God to ask if they, personally, can be allowed back into the Garden, as they wish to rejoin God there and live peacefully and in its perfection.

What does God reply?

And therein lies the whole problem. Even if God is only allowing humanity to "live on their own" as Adam and Eve apparently chose - does an individual who is not Adam nor Eve, who did not personally consume the fruit, deserve to be forced to "live on their own" also if that is not as God had originally intended? This is, most certainly, tacit punishment of these later progeny of Adam and Eve for the disobeyance committed only by Adam/Eve. None of us even get the option to live in The Garden. That is God having condemned us to life here, in a place that He obviously understands is inferior and more dangerous, based on the choices made by our parents - or even worse, choices made by a pair of people so far back that you can't even count the number of generations that have passed between the act and the punishment on one hand.

It would be like your parents getting exiled to the base of an active volcano by those who live in a lush jungle. They give birth to you there, near the volcano, and let's say they both die some day. You learn of the jungle, and then ask the people if you can join them living there. They flat-out tell you "No, you're a volcano dweller, your parents birthed you there, and you can never return to the jungle". This is a common theme or plot point of stories - the person who is given a station and told that they cannot strive to make their way to something better, because they are no better. We don't accept it for the purposes of that story, and yet when god is the one doing the exiling, no one bats an eye. We understand, intrinsically, with the telling of those stories, that the people who did the exiling, and deny the return of the exiled certainly do not "love" the people they are exiling. Right? I mean, this is all very obvious. But as soon as it is "God" in the equation, then He is given a free pass to do whatever He wishes, and no perceived detriment (or even just lack of love) to anyone should even be discussed, right?

 

[Bathos Logos]

it was not my intent to make it sound negative, but it’s true….
I quoted some Scripture to prove just the opposite: He is not controlling this world, right now.

But again, is secretly saving some babies from premature births "controlling the world" in your estimation?

He will, once the issue of sovereignty is settled. Right now, events are left to the outcome of the choices / decisions people make.

So, right now, we humans have sovereign reign over the Earth then? God's what then? Taking a break?

As it usually is, births are fine. Premature birth many times is caused by people abusing their bodies. (Not all the time, I know.) And they “reap what they sow”.

The figures I posted earlier to @nPeace specifically demonstrate that the types of premature birthing deaths that are on the rise are those that are medically indicated - meaning that the physicians in play recognize a condition that they conclude requires an attempt to extract the baby prematurely. This can be because the baby is growing in the wrong place within the mother's body, or faces some other danger due to the conditions under which it is developing inside the mother's body. These end up being like accidental abortions, now that I am thinking of it. An attempt to save the baby by removing it from the mother's body early that results in the baby's death. At any rate... the spontaneous type of premature birth that one would expect from the mother abusing herself so badly that the body is confused and starts the process early has been on the decline year over year in modern times. These facts make your comments here a non-starter. It is you literally hoping that people are being punished for bad behavior by nature, so that you can excuse God from any responsibility. Which you wouldn't have to do, but hey - you believe in Him, and want to say he has a problem with abortions... so here we are.

But the promised Resurrection will right all those wrongs that caused death.

So, these are "wrongs"? That would indicate that there is some forethought going into this, right? Some party who is ultimately responsible? I mean... we don't blame the earthquake for committing a "wrong", right? Is this more reference to the wrongs of the parents being righted? As in... all the intents and actions of these parents of the dying babies are the "wrongs" that are going to be righted?

“A” baby? Just one?

What is this with theists taking things 100% literally... I have already stated that God could literally save all babies from premature death and do so secretly, without anyone knowing He was involved. And suddenly I am talking about just one baby? No... all of them... that is, if He cares about babies. Based on what we see and experience in reality, that's a pretty big "if". And yet, again, God is so, so downtrodden about abortions, right?

Wouldn’t that be prejudiced? So He saves all babies. And where would the line be drawn, after that? Saving people from wicked regimes, like the Nazi’s? Or Pol Pot? Or Idi Amin?

Whatever can be done in secret to preserve His (apparently) precious anonymity. Why not?

No, Jehovah - and His son Jesus - have both completely stayed out of human affairs… intervening would simply give His human enemies, fodder to say, “See, things aren’t that bad!”
Actually, for many, life is still enjoyable in many aspects..

But if we knew them to be responsible for how good life was, why wouldn't we be grateful, and thanking them? Do you think children literally always rebuke their parents for giving them a good life? That isn't how it goes from my experience. My kids are super duper grateful, and I know it. My daughter just recently tried to move out, and it didn't work out for her because her roommate was a demonstrably horrible person who got jealous that people at their mutual workplace very much more liked talking with my daughter than herself, and even the girl's own pets hung around my daughter more because she entirely neglected them. She's been doing more around our house since she moved back, constantly stops into the room we happen to be in to talk to us, thanks us for everything we give her, etc. She didn't use us giving her room a board and even picking up the tab for her cell phone, etc. as "fodder to say"... not in the slightest. Why do theists give people so little credit?

But intervening would just prolong the issue of sovereignty….the proof that man can’t rule himself successfully. We’re about at that juncture. Men are “destroying the earth.” Revelation 11:18

Doomsday predictions then? That's where this is going, right? Good luck being right.

And do you think I literally wished for my daughter to fail when she moved out? To not be able to make it on her own? That's basically what you are saying God is doing.... waiting for us to fail. How miserable an outlook on life seriously. Even from God's perspective in that scenario. Screw him, man. What a butthead.

As I said before, all of us have either benefitted or suffered from the decisions our parents made - even before our birth.

And that's the way it should be. Right?

And regarding what’s moral… God can read hearts. We don’t have that ability.

Correct... and that is a problem when it comes to trying to establish whether or not God's heart is in the right place when He (supposedly) acts and commits what we humans should rightly consider atrocities against our own kind. Very tough indeed. To the point that we literally can't know the reasons, whether or not they are just or good, etc. We just have to take God's word for it, right? That's a very precarious position to put oneself in, honestly. I couldn't do it. I refuse to do it.

Looking at the state of the world even back in the Apostle John’s day suffering under Roman abuse, and aware of the actions of Yahweh / Jehovah in Scripture, where He killed quite a few pagan peoples.. yet John said what at 1 John 4:8? “God is love.” Why could he say that? Because he knew Jehovah’s promise of a Resurrection, when all people will be given an opportunity to live again, and learn the truth about God & Jesus. All sources of obfuscation will be removed!

But until then, all the pain and destruction and failure is all fine and dandy, right? I'd have a hard time not intervening if I saw my kids struggling, some of them were literally crying out to me for help, and I knew all I had to do was step in and could easily handle some of their strife. That would be really, really weird of me to do to just stand idly by and watch. Even weirder if I just stood there and yet had tears running down my cheeks. That would be super duper creepy and disgusting to watch.

Jehovah does give help at times to those seeking him in faith. Hebrews 11:6. (He never gave anybody a million $ I don’t think. Hehe.)

Uhh... what about this:

No, Jehovah - and His son Jesus - have both completely stayed out of human affairs

Consistency, man. Get some!

I can’t control what others were taught to believe; there’s a million different teachings out there! But we should expect a lot of differing and confusing beliefs, if 1 John 5:19 - “the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one” - is accurate. Also Revelation 12:9. The facts seem to bear this out.

So you've got the right interpretation of all this stuff and a lot of others don't, right? Even though they say they do, right? I mean... they say they do, just like you, and they then turn to scripture to back themselves up, just like you. How is one supposed to tell the difference between what is a correct interpretation and what isn't? When the scriptures are being used for purposes that match to God's will and when they aren't? You theists always state that it is "so easy" and cite "facts" - but it isn't like that at all from what I have seen. That's just wishful thinking.

We have it… He’s given us His Word, which tells us how to live a successful life.

Okay, so next time I beat my slave to within an inch of his life, and he survives a couple of days, I will be sure to give my thanks to the judge for being so practical as to let me off scot-free so that I can remain so successful. Just pointing out that The Bible contains some pretty trashy stuff. It is a hen pick of the most arduous and difficult kind to get the valuable nuggets out of there. "So and so begat so and so, who lived this long and begat so and so..." - can't really even relay effectively how much that stuff has enriched my life. i mean, the word "zero" doesn't even come close.

As I said: There’s no “consistency” because Christendom has no unity; beliefs are all over the spectrum! They’ve taught many lies, one of the biggest being Hellfire…what a God-dishonoring tenet!
And many others. Again, 1 John 5:19. C.f. 2 Corinthians 4:4

But again, you've got it right, right? And you'd probably say something like "go read for yourself!" - but if I did, and came to different conclusions than yours, then you would lump me in with all of the Christendom that is lacking unity, right? But then, who do we go to in order to correct thinking when such discrepancies arise? God Himself? No... no... He's staying out of it (or is He?). Maybe another believer with more credentials? But aren't they just another believer, possibly also prone to coming to their own conclusions? Yep. Well dang. If only this were like something more real... like a textbook for how to make certain chemical reactions happen or something. Where you can know, for certain, that the things involved will react according to those indicated in the instructions set forth. But its nothing like that. It's more like reading a story, and then getting from it what you, personally, will get from it. A lot like that. And yet some people are apparently "doing it wrong" according to you.

Me either, until I began an intense scrutiny of the Scriptures with JW’s.
Once I learned about those issues raised in the G of E, and what the Scripturs really said about the Resurrection, I began to better understand God’s actions.

I think I am more having trouble with God's inaction in the face of trouble, and assurances from anyone and everyone that He could literally intercede and fix things if He chose... and again, He could do so in secret in a great many cases. But He does not. Or at least, if He does, then He is being very, very choosy about when He does. I have talked to some JWs before. I didn't find their words or beliefs very convincing.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I feel it pertinent to get your take on a hypothetical situation - but one that is not so outlandish, and may very well have literally been played out here on Earth by some believer in the past.

Adam and Eve eat the fruit, gain knowledge of good and evil and ensues "The Fall"
They are evicted from the perfect life and conditions of The Garden
We're here, in modern times, and one of us, as humans, grows with an understanding an acceptance of all this, and calls out to God to ask if they, personally, can be allowed back into the Garden, as they wish to rejoin God there and live peacefully and in its perfection.

What does God reply?

And therein lies the whole problem. Even if God is only allowing humanity to "live on their own" as Adam and Eve apparently chose - does an individual who is not Adam nor Eve, who did not personally consume the fruit, deserve to be forced to "live on their own" also if that is not as God had originally intended? This is, most certainly, tacit punishment of these later progeny of Adam and Eve for the disobeyance committed only by Adam/Eve. None of us even get the option to live in The Garden. That is God having condemned us to life here, in a place that He obviously understands is inferior and more dangerous, based on the choices made by our parents - or even worse, choices made by a pair of people so far back that you can't even count the number of generations that have passed between the act and the punishment on one hand.

It would be like your parents getting exiled to the base of an active volcano by those who live in a lush jungle. They give birth to you there, near the volcano, and let's say they both die some day. You learn of the jungle, and then ask the people if you can join them living there. They flat-out tell you "No, you're a volcano dweller, your parents birthed you there, and you can never return to the jungle". This is a common theme or plot point of stories - the person who is given a station and told that they cannot strive to make their way to something better, because they are no better. We don't accept it for the purposes of that story, and yet when god is the one doing the exiling, no one bats an eye. We understand, intrinsically, with the telling of those stories, that the people who did the exiling, and deny the return of the exiled certainly do not "love" the people they are exiling. Right? I mean, this is all very obvious. But as soon as it is "God" in the equation, then He is given a free pass to do whatever He wishes, and no perceived detriment (or even just lack of love) to anyone should even be discussed, right?

Admittedly I didn’t read all of this, because immediately I saw an answer.
Good questions, BTW.

Getting “back in the Garden” is what Jesus’ sacrifice provides for mankind.
Perfection was lost, ie., through Adam’s rebellion he became imperfect and lost his ability to pass on perfection to his offspring.

Since Jehovah God is holy, Adam alienated himself from Him. And by extension us, since we too are now imperfect and alienated….through no fault of our own.

And that’s where Jesus’ sacrifice comes in. Through Adam perfect life was lost, resulting in sin, death, and alienation. Through Jesus (who was sent by God) giving his perfect human life - “a life for life” - that exactly matched what was lost, God received the value of that sacrifice, and apply it to those want to obey Jehovah.

Perfection will always hinge on obedience.

It would be like your parents getting exiled to the base of an active volcano

I wouldn’t equate life, for the majority of mankind anyway, as living at the “base of a volcano.”
Jehovah knew it would be tough — for some, very hard. I think a lot about life for the American African slaves (through man’s choice of domination): they had it rough, but even they were able to enjoy some good things. Like each other… they seemed to form strong relationships among themselves!
But their harsh treatment did reduce their lifespan.

And that’s another aspect of this….

Death is likened many times in the Bible to “sleep”. The dead are “RIP”ing, experiencing no more pain, or awareness of anything, for that matter.

But the Resurrection, through Jesus (John 5:28-29), will bring the dead to life again. And the evil events they experienced in the past, will be forgotten. Isaiah 65:17.
God’s care, at that time, will be like a ‘tent covering mankind.’ Revelation 21:3-4

Really, whatever lifespan we have in this System, is nothing compared with the everlasting life obedient mankind will gain! Romans 6:23

Take care.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

But again, is secretly saving some babies from premature births "controlling the world" in your estimation?

Save “some” babies?
Now think about what you’re saying…
Maybe He does. Maybe more babies would be dead, if God hadn’t stepped in.
Personally I don’t think so…. That would be prejudiced, for saving some while ignoring others would be seen as prejudicial.

Knowing what death is, as I explained in my previous post, I’m happy letting God’s purposes play out.
Because once this human experiment of rebellion - this issue of sovereignty - is settled, it will be settled forever.

 

[Bathos Logos]

Since Jehovah God is holy, Adam alienated himself from Him. And by extension us, since we too are now imperfect and alienated….through no fault of our own.

This is precisely what seems unfair to me. And just because "God is God" is not a good enough reason for me to just trust that God has the best of intentions in leaving us all in a poorer situation. That's a "my house, my rules" sort of edict, and I don't accept those. There is no rationality used to craft that excuse, and so it is inferior to any actual explanatory reason by an infinite degree in my estimation.

And, all that said, I don't even mind the poorer situation, mind you. I think life is great... so to heck with God... don't need him. He can keep His garden and shove it wherever the sun doesn't shine in His holy-light-mass or whatever He is comprised of.

I wouldn’t equate life, for the majority of mankind anyway, as living at the “base of a volcano.”

My point was just to have there be an obviously "poorer" situation and an obviously "better" situation. And if you admit that you didn't read my entire post, then you probably missed one of the most important points, which is that in all stories where one person is given a "station" from which they are not allowed to rise up and out of (as in, are told they cannot be a part of the "better place" experienced by others) this invokes in the vast majority of readers that those in the better place are being unfair to the person who is forced to live in the poorer place if the justification is nothing more than "Well, your parents were born in the worse place, so that is where you belong". We intrinsically tend to understand that this is not cool behavior by those doing the exiling or refusing admittance. It is a common theme used in a great many stories, and nobody sides with the people who are found to be denying admittance to those honestly seeking to better their situation. And yet, when God does this, it is supposedly all fine and dandy.

But the Resurrection, through Jesus (John 5:28-29), will bring the dead to life again. And the evil events they experienced in the past, will be forgotten. Isaiah 65:17.

What gets remembered then? All the good stuff? Who gets to decide what is evil and what isn't? As in - what gets remembered and what doesn't? I tend to think of some of the most character-building things in life being the tougher situations. Situations where someone might deem some amount of "evil" was going on even. For example kids being bullied in school who vow never to do that to anyone else. Seems like this sort of process could scrub a lot of personality from people. And when the dead come back to life, what age will they be? Will those who died old be old? Better to have died young! Seems a bit unfair, in the end. Do they even get asked if they would like to return to life? Seems like there should be some kind of choice.

God’s care, at that time, will be like a ‘tent covering mankind.’ Revelation 21:3-4

So, admittedly then, what we're getting right now is pretty shoddy, right? I mean... if in the future, God is actually going to cover us with protection, then what we're getting right now is next to nothing. So... why is it that people are all the time talking about how God is so great? What's He doing? Not being a tent, that's for sure.

 

[Bathos Logos]

Save “some” babies?

Again being literal. No wonder theists have a hard time not taking The Bible literally - at least when it suits their preconceived notions. When it doesn't, then they tend to claim that a dose of interpretation is in order. When I said "some babies" I was referring to all the babies who die from premature birth - all the ones I have been talking about all along. I mean literally all along. Those are not “all babies“ that die, right? So “some babies” is an accurate description of all the babies that die when prematurely birthed.

Now think about what you’re saying…
Maybe He does. Maybe more babies would be dead, if God hadn’t stepped in.
Personally I don’t think so…. That would be prejudiced, for saving some while ignoring others would be seen as prejudicial.

Yes, agreed, it would be picking and choosing, which would not be just or fair.

Knowing what death is, as I explained in my previous post, I’m happy letting God’s purposes play out.

I don't understand how you can be so sure about this though. I will always be forced to reserve doubt given the poor state of the evidence for an afterlife. Especially that conforms to the one you specifically believe in.

Because once this human experiment of rebellion - this issue of sovereignty - is settled, it will be settled forever.

That's a weird idea also. What is with the temporary state of things then being changed into something else permanently? I mean, permanence is just so much longer than any given length of time - no matter how huge. Permanence is infinitely longer than any finite amount of time. Which means this little blip that anyone thinks is "so important" simply isn't. So God even fretting over these things doesn't make any sense. Why make a judgment call at all? Why worry about people obeying or not? if you're just going to fix things at some point and do so forever (as in, for an eternal time thereafter) then why even do the little, tiny poopoo dance of making humans jump through some hoops and try to placate your whims? It's just plain weird.