Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[McBell]

No, we are suggesting that the knowledge you claim about God is incorrect. We believe that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God would not act in the manner in which you describe.

You seem to be shocked that someone could claim knowledge about how God should be, yet, that is precisely what you and millions of other believers are doing. You claim that you know that God acts in such and such way, that he wants such and such things, that he commanded such and such actions, etc. If we are presumptuous to say how we believe God would act, if he did actually exist, how much more presumptuous are you to claim that you KNOW how God acts when you actually do believe he exists?

Every time I point out this blatant double standard, the post gets completely ignored...

 

[starlite]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif] Suffering was not part of God’s purpose for mankind. However, the first human couple rebelled against God’s rule, choosing their own standards of good and bad. They turned away from God and suffered the consequences. Today we are experiencing the effects of their bad choice. The Bible says: “When under trial, let no one say: ‘I am being tried by God.’ For with evil things God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone.” (James 1:13) Suffering can afflict even those who are favored by God. The Bible states: “The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” (John 12:31; 1 John 5:19) That “wicked one” is Satan the Devil. I think you'll agree that some crimes have been so horrific that many find it hard to attribute them to mere human origin. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]
You might ask.."Why did God allow Satan to rule the world after his rebellion?" Well, allowing time to pass for Satan to fully express his authority over the world has proved his failure as a ruler. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]
At 2 Timothy 3:1-5, we read: “In the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here.” Don't you see these traits in people?[/FONT]
▪ [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]lovers of themselves[/FONT]
▪ [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]lovers of money[/FONT]
▪ [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]disobedient to parents[/FONT]
▪ [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]disloyal[/FONT]
▪ [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]having no natural affection[/FONT]
▪ [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]without self-control[/FONT]
▪ [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]fierce[/FONT]
▪ [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God[/FONT]
▪ [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]
These conditions and attitudes show that God will soon act, for the Bible says: “When the wicked ones sprout as the vegetation and all the practicers of what is hurtful blossom forth, it is that they may be annihilated forever.”—Psalm 92:7[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]All scriptures are from NWT[/FONT]

 

[Copernicus]

Every time I point out this blatant double standard, the post gets completely ignored...

My experience, as well. Believers are in no better position than skeptics to know anything about what is in the mind of the being called God. Yet being in a position to say what is in God's mind is necessary in order to spread and maintain belief in God. Otherwise, they would have no basis for spreading or maintaining the belief.

 

[Lady B]

My experience, as well. Believers are in no better position than skeptics to know anything about what is in the mind of the being called God. Yet being in a position to say what is in God's mind is necessary in order to spread and maintain belief in God. Otherwise, they would have no basis for spreading or maintaining the belief.

Those who believe, have scriptures we believe to be the absolute words of God and therefore If he has said it, we can say he has said it, we are not presuming anything of God and have not said what is in God's mind but what is in his words to us. Who has said he knows God's mind? I am sure you cannot accuse me of this, nor have I seen anyone else propose they have this gift.for these reasons your posts regarding such would be ignored, noone is doing this.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

My experience, as well. Believers are in no better position than skeptics to know anything about what is in the mind of the being called God. Yet being in a position to say what is in God's mind is necessary in order to spread and maintain belief in God. Otherwise, they would have no basis for spreading or maintaining the belief.

The need for logical consistency is clearly not a prerequisite for belief in the supernatural.

 

[averageJOE]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]From my observation I've concluded that the earth has once again become filled with violence, just as it was in Noah’s day.[/FONT]

Violence has existed since Cain and Able....what I mean is that violence is once again at the point where God will intervene just as he did in Noah's time.

Yes thats right. Because according to the story using violence to solve violence worked so well the first time god tried that.

 

[LuisDantas]

Those who believe, have scriptures we believe to be the absolute words of God and therefore If he has said it, we can say he has said it, we are not presuming anything of God and have not said what is in God's mind but what is in his words to us. Who has said he knows God's mind? I am sure you cannot accuse me of this, nor have I seen anyone else propose they have this gift.for these reasons your posts regarding such would be ignored, noone is doing this.

Two questions, Lady B:

1. Do you think scripture alone is enough to deduce the desires of God? Or is some kind of interpretation necessary?

2. If scripture alone is enough, then how do you explain that Christianity is divided among so deeply and with little to show in the way of a consensus?

 

[McBell]

Those who believe, have scriptures we believe to be the absolute words of God and therefore If he has said it, we can say he has said it, we are not presuming anything of God and have not said what is in God's mind but what is in his words to us.

Wait... so now you are saying that you know not what is in gods mind or heart and are merely parroting what you think are gods words?

Who has said he knows God's mind? I am sure you cannot accuse me of this, nor have I seen anyone else propose they have this gift.for these reasons your posts regarding such would be ignored, noone is doing this.

Actually, I flat out accuse you of just that.
You who knows what does and and does not offend god.
Who knows what god finds disrespectful.
Who demands respect for your god from everyone...

 

[Copernicus]

Those who believe, have scriptures we believe to be the absolute words of God and therefore If he has said it, we can say he has said it, we are not presuming anything of God and have not said what is in God's mind but what is in his words to us. Who has said he knows God's mind? I am sure you cannot accuse me of this, nor have I seen anyone else propose they have this gift.for these reasons your posts regarding such would be ignored, noone is doing this.

Actually, you have contradicted yourself here, but this isn't the first time. To be fair, I do not believe you see it as a contradiction, but I think any objective observer would have to agree. Whether you receive the information from direct revelation or indirect revelation (i.e. scripture) is a matter of how you ground or justify your claim to know what is in the mind of God. You yourself have said that God created everything in order to glorify himself. That is telling us what was in his mind--what his motives were.

Here is my take on scripture: it is the cheapest sort of information to ground a belief system in. Why? There is a huge supply of it all over the Earth. There are very few religions that have no scripture at all. I assume that you reject vedic scriptures and Muslim scripture as sources of valid information about what God thinks. What you are really claiming here is that you believe your particular scripture supersedes all others, and you are in a position to make this judgment. I am just saying that you are in no better position to make that judgment than anyone else on the planet.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

No, we are suggesting that the knowledge you claim about God is incorrect. We believe that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God would not act in the manner in which you describe.

You seem to be shocked that someone could claim knowledge about how God should be, yet, that is precisely what you and millions of other believers are doing. You claim that you know that God acts in such and such way, that he wants such and such things, that he commanded such and such actions, etc. If we are presumptuous to say how we believe God would act, if he did actually exist, how much more presumptuous are you to claim that you KNOW how God acts when you actually do believe he exists?

Knowledge requires that whoever proclaims it be vetted properly--thus the scriptures in which God proclaims those who are His prophets who He has imparted His knowledge to....scriptures written by those same said prophets, or someone else who can testify that the prophet told the Truth, all of whom we could be sure would never lie, because people who lived 2000 years ago didn't lied and people weren't nearly as gullible back then either.

Paul got the messages about how Jesus wanted to change the Jewish sect that Jesus had started directly from Jesus himself, in visions, that no one else saw, and which some of his contemporaries questioned--especially the original apostles in Jerusalem, who had actually known Jesus.

Paul, the Dead Sea Scrolls "spouter of lies", and the beast of Revelation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I say that God does not ordain evil nor is He the author of it.

Hoever God may have been punishing at least one person in the trajedy for things that were done in a past life and the others were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I believe one of the comandments tells about how to lead a short life, honor your mother and father if you wish to live long; disobey this and die young in this life or the next.

If there are things in the universe that God is not responsible for, then he can't be considered the "prime mover" or ultimate creator. Does that create issues for your theology?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Those who believe, have scriptures we believe to be the absolute words of God and therefore If he has said it, we can say he has said it, we are not presuming anything of God and have not said what is in God's mind but what is in his words to us. Who has said he knows God's mind? I am sure you cannot accuse me of this, nor have I seen anyone else propose they have this gift.for these reasons your posts regarding such would be ignored, noone is doing this.

There are many scriptures out there that purport to give teachings from God, and many prophets who claim to speak for God. By choosing to accept some but reject others, you implicitly say "THIS book seems like it gives God's mind but THAT book doesn't." IOW, you have to bring your own assumptions about what God thinks to your decision to accept the Bible as God's word in the first place.

 

[Lady B]

Actually, you have contradicted yourself here, but this isn't the first time. To be fair, I do not believe you see it as a contradiction, but I think any objective observer would have to agree. Whether you receive the information from direct revelation or indirect revelation (i.e. scripture) is a matter of how you ground or justify your claim to know what is in the mind of God. You yourself have said that God created everything in order to glorify himself. That is telling us what was in his mind--what his motives were.

Here is my take on scripture: it is the cheapest sort of information to ground a belief system in. Why? There is a huge supply of it all over the Earth. There are very few religions that have no scripture at all. I assume that you reject vedic scriptures and Muslim scripture as sources of valid information about what God thinks. What you are really claiming here is that you believe your particular scripture supersedes all others, and you are in a position to make this judgment. I am just saying that you are in no better position to make that judgment than anyone else on the planet.

Again you accuse me of contradiction where there is none. I can speak for what is in my scriptures and what I believe is the words of God. God has said it is for his Glory, therefore that is not speculative.

"The God of the Bible declared: “Everyone who is called by My name, Whom I have created for My glory, I have formed him, yes, I have made him” Isaiah 43:7

Revelation 4:11: “You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; for you created all things, and by Your will they exist and were created”

I do not presume to know the mind of God and I have said many times over that I cannot speak for what God has not given answer.But what God has revealed in the scriptures, I believe are his words to that I can give testimony.His intent being his Will and his Glory are two of these scriptural evidences. I have said also it is arrogant to say we can know the mind of God and his purposes. What God has given us is his word and by this we can know some things about him and can attest to such things by his permission. Your statement that I am in no better position than an unbeliever is an unbelievers position only. I do believe the Bible to be the sole word of God given to men. All men. You can tell me you do not believe that and that is fine, then argue that in another thread.I am not attesting to what other peoples beliefs are here, We are arguing my precept in this thread, my beliefs and those likeminded, therefore I do have the right to argue from my own standpoint. I have not misspoken, all I have said comes from the scriptures and what is not written, I have said I do not know and cannot give answer.

 

[Lady B]

There are many scriptures out there that purport to give teachings from God, and many prophets who claim to speak for God. By choosing to accept some but reject others, you implicitly say "THIS book seems like it gives God's mind but THAT book doesn't." IOW, you have to bring your own assumptions about what God thinks to your decision to accept the Bible as God's word in the first place.

This argument would only be allowable had I not narrowed the field to my Beliefs in my precept. We are not discussing other religions at this time.

 

[McBell]

Again you accuse me of contradiction where there is none. I can speak for what is in my scriptures and what I believe is the words of God. God has said it is for his Glory, therefore that is not speculative.

"The God of the Bible declared: “Everyone who is called by My name, Whom I have created for My glory, I have formed him, yes, I have made him” Isaiah 43:7

Revelation 4:11: “You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; for you created all things, and by Your will they exist and were created”

I do not presume to know the mind of God and I have said many times over that I cannot speak for what God has not given answer.But what God has revealed in the scriptures, I believe are his words to that I can give testimony.His intent being his Will and his Glory are two of these scriptural evidences. I have said also it is arrogant to say we can know the mind of God and his purposes. What God has given us is his word and by this we can know some things about him and can attest to such things by his permission. Your statement that I am in no better position than an unbeliever is an unbelievers position only. I do believe the Bible to be the sole word of God given to men. All men. You can tell me you do not believe that and that is fine, then argue that in another thread.I am not attesting to what other peoples beliefs are here, We are arguing my precept in this thread, my beliefs and those likeminded, therefore I do have the right to argue from my own standpoint. I have not misspoken, all I have said comes from the scriptures and what is not written, I have said I do not know and cannot give answer.

Except that your whole belief system is speculation based (however loosely) on the scriptures...

 

[Lady B]

Except that your whole belief system is speculation based (however loosely) on the scriptures...

speculative to whom? you?

 

[McBell]

This argument would only be allowable had I not narrowed the field to my Beliefs in my precept. We are not discussing other religions at this time.

Only if you assume he is referring to scriptures other than the ones you claim.

I wonder, Do you by chance know that the word Bible means Books?

 

[McBell]

speculative to whom? you?

Everyone.
You merely choose denial in order to protect your belief box.

TULIP requires many assumptions from scripture that you have already denied allowing.


John 3:16 is a prime example of the mental gymnastics required to believe TULIP has any truth to it.
And if you are reduced to blatant dishonesty in order to hold onto your beliefs, your beliefs are not rooted in truth.

Please feel free to continue with the denial.
You are well versed in it.

 

[Lady B]

Only if you assume he is referring to scriptures other than the ones you claim.

I wonder, Do you by chance know that the word Bible means Books?

Yes, there are 66 books in the Bible, if you are insinuating the definition to mean books outside of the bible books, then please by all means give support to that.

 

[McBell]

Yes, there are 66 books in the Bible, if you are insinuating the definition to mean books outside of the bible books, then please by all means give support to that.

Are you of the mind of Bible Only?

You do know that Bible Only is not Biblical, right?