With suffering and hell, how can God be thought of as fair or kind.

[A Vestigial Mote]

Non-critical skepticism is a boon to anyone wanting to learn "the truth." (John 8:31,32)

So something like "Believe! Unless the person telling you is not telling the truth, and then ignore." So how does one tell the difference? Consultation on the matter with God? Being a non-believer, being unable to hold God's existence as a truth, I see this as an introspective act of employing "common sense."

I was recently at a 2 church services, back to back where the female speaker in one sermon spoke of praying for guidance, and listening to God, and then the next week told of a harrowing ordeal concerning upheaval of the family and moving into possibly unsafe conditions that she, herself, put her family through because the "Voice of God" was urging her in the matter. She ended up feeling some time later that this was, instead, "The Devil" trying to send her wayward from her true path, so she abandoned the notion and felt oh so much better. It left me wondering: How does one tell the difference if the "voice" of either can be so compelling? And therefore left me stronger in my convictions to stay out of all of it. Dangerous business from the outset, listening to voices, if you ask me.

 

[Kolibri]

Dangerous business from the outset, listening to voices, if you ask me.

I so agree with that statement!

My own personal belief is that since the Bible is complete, God's talking to humans via spirit voices is at an end for this era. I back up that belief by reading 1 Corinthians 13:8-10. Because of this, any spirit voice I encounter (which I have not) I would find myself on high alert to dig dig dig into the scriptures to make sure what was said was in absolute harmony with what is written. 1 Corinthians 13:13 has the current foundation and it does not include the special gifts of the spirit given the 1st Century Christians.

"Now, however, these three remain: faith, hope, love; but the greatest of these is love."
- 1 Corinthians 13:13

So how does one tell the difference? Consultation on the matter with God?

"Now [the Jews from Be-roe'a] were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they ...[were] carefully examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so."
- Acts 17:11

When it comes to matters of credence verse faith, those from Beroea did more than believe or disbelieve. They consulted what God had already revealed earlier to check for harmony.

Your personal issue is a bit more basic as at this point as you don't even have convincing evidence that the written word actually came from God. His very existence is in question. That is why I suggested something like testing the practicality of the Bible's wisdom. By living the advice for a bit you can build faith. It is as the stanzas of one of the psalms of David says:

Taste and see that Jehovah is good;
Happy is the man who takes refuge in him.
- Psalm 34:8

Another thing that helps build faith in the existence of God is looking at the complexity of the creation. How often engineers study animal life to learn better ways of doing things. If human designers must copy, who designed what they copied? That is the argument found in the book of Hebrews.

"Or course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God."
- Hebrews 3:4

We cannot ignore prayer as, if God is a real person, then he has the potential to respond. But there are rules for prayer, and as you become aware of them, it is expected that you comply. One rule often missed is that Jesus instructed us to pray to his Father, not to him. (Mt 6:9) and yet we should make mention of Jesus' name in our prayers as the one who directed us to the Father. (John 14:13,14). Yes, only to the Father, but only through Jesus.

Since we can not expect to hear voices, and should be leery of them anyway, there are other ways God can speak to us. But if I list the ways now this post will get excessively long. Suffice to say that I have experienced encouragement that has been timely from the Bible directly, from fellow Christians who were moved to say what I needed to hear based off the scriptures, from listening to talks and discussions at Christian gatherings, and having my prayers answered in ways that were personally stunning.

 

[Desert Snake]

Didn't he/she/it zap Sodom and Gommorah? Was that fair? Is everyone reading the same book that I am?

 

[Starjade]

This all only "works" or makes sense under the assumption that God exists. I do not feel that I can make that assumption.

Just because a seed is sowed that does not mean the gardener will sit around watching that seed when other things need to be done. It is a presumption of you all to think that the Living God is sitting around watching all things on this Planet. The Universe is a big place and life does exist outside this Planet. It is a fact that everything on this Planet will die and they carry those memories with them. It will be taken from them as they leave and that is how things are getting known. This is why you can never hide from your sins. You will be downloaded. Just like a memory stick.

 

[Blastcat]

Just because a seed is sowed that does not mean the gardener will sit around watching that seed when other things need to be done.

True. This is true of human gardeners. And it is only possibly true of any proposed entity for which you have no evidence. This makes your position very improbable, due to the factor of probability being multiplied by two. One possibility that has not evidence is supporting another possibility with no evidence. That's a VERY low probability. I would say that the probability of your speculations being TRUE is almost vanishingly small.

It is a presumption of you all to think that the Living God is sitting around watching all things on this Planet.

While it may not be a presumption, it's certainly would be a proposition with almost zero probability of being true. However, the hidden assumption underlying that absent gardener idea, that the Living God even EXISTS in any way, also has an almost zero probability of being true. And then of course, the opposite claim , that a god created the universe and split.. also has an almost zero probability of being true.

So, although you present a fine example of speculation, we should not expect that one side or the other of your conception need be taken as in any way probable. We can be almost certain that none of this god stuff is probable. And if you pile on characteristics, that this god creates, dictates, thinks, feels, does anything.. is anything .. you only worsen the probability of the god being true.

I really wish people would say that their ideas are mere speculation , and not present their thoughts as .. likely probable when they aren't.

I hope you agree that something that is POSSIBLY true never entails that it is PROBABLY true.

The Universe is a big place and life does exist outside this Planet.

I haven't heard the spectacular news that life has been discovered outside of our planet yet. But, yes, the universe is a very big place and it's LIKELY that we find life somewhere else than on earth. It's just that.. we haven't yet. But correct me if I'm wrong about this.. I don't want to be wrong about what would be the biggest news story in recent history.

[/QUOTE] It is a fact that everything on this Planet will die and they carry those memories with them. [/QUOTE]

What do you mean, "carry those memories with them".. Do you mean that dead organisms continue to have memories? Again, this would be headline news. You seem to have a fantastic news source.

It will be taken from them as they leave and that is how things are getting known.

Maybe you will think I'm picking on your.. but what on EARTH does that mean?

This is why you can never hide from your sins. You will be downloaded. Just like a memory stick.

THIS IS WHY?.. what was the "this" you are referring to, and what does it have to do with the absent gardener god you were arguing for? You lost me there.. Starjade...I see no connection to sins with anything you wrote earlier. Is that a mistake on your part?

And you have some evidence or news that we know that our memories survive our dead brains? And this will be.. downloaded to some memory stick?... Is this a favorite fantasy of yours? Because it just seems so irrelevant to anything you started with.

Absent Gardener God.. memory stick, memory after death, downloads, sins, hiding from sins.. hmmm I don't see any LINK between your first part and the next.. You went .. dreamy there for a bit, right?

 

[Deidre]

One of the reasons I departed from Abrahamic religions, (I was a Christian since childhood until 4 years ago, and also explored Islam) is that if a god should exist, why does he seem so human like in how he treats his 'creation?' Humans love conditionally...and treat people with contempt and punishment, when they betray other humans. If an almighty and all powerful God should exist, why is he so small minded when it comes to dealing with human failings? Shouldn't a god such as that, transcend such pettiness and petulant behaviors?

If a god should exist, he/it is most likely is nothing similar to the gods that have been conjured up, with all of their absurd fury, and pettiness.

 

[Blastcat]

One of the reasons I departed from Abrahamic religions, (I was a Christian since childhood until 4 years ago, and also explored Islam) is that if a god should exist, why does he seem so human like in how he treats his 'creation?' Humans love conditionally...and treat people with contempt and punishment, when they betray other humans. If an almighty and all powerful God should exist, why is he so small minded when it comes to dealing with human failings? Shouldn't a god such as that, transcend such pettiness and petulant behaviors?

If a god should exist, he/it is most likely is nothing similar to the gods that have been conjured up, with all of their absurd fury, and pettiness.

Hi, Deidre.. interesting take on the problem of evil. It's a toughie for sure.
What I would add, a bit off topic, is that if a PERFECT god exists.. then why would it have any thoughts or desires or emotions or any characteristics that would AFFECT it's perfection.

It seems to me that I keep hearing from the Christians that god CAN'T lie, Can't hate, Can't stop us from freely choosing to love him and so on.. god CAN'T do the logically impossible.. Cant' be known, can't be this can't be that.

this god who is perfect can't do a whole LOT of things.. some perfection. I think the whole notion of a perfect god who gets ANGRY.. is self-refuting. And boy oh boy does this theist god ever get ANGRY... and jealous and tricky and UNKNOWABLE to some, and not to others.. la la la... maybe this, maybe that. Everyone disagrees and everyone agrees, I've heard it all.

Just logically, from a human perspective, and an adult one, the proposed characteristics of the Abrahamic kind of god are insanely contradictory. AND YET... so many BELIEVE with flying hands and faces in ecstasy.

A lot of them claim to love the concept of their god more than their actual lovers in real life. More even, apparently, than their children.

I find that so shocking.. but reality doesn't give a hoot about my emotional state.

 

[Kolibri]

Who defines "perfect"? It is so easy for humans to dictate what is "perfect" as if they are the one's with the final authority.

Then who says God does not hate? Does he have reasons for being distant? Is he always distant?

Jehovah examines the righteous one as well as the wicked one;
His very being hates anyone who loves violence.
- Psalm 11:5 (NWT w/footnote.)

Though Jehovah is high, he takes note of the humble,
But the haughty he knows only from a distance.
- Psalm 138:6

"For the eyes of Jehovah are roving about though all the earth to show his strength (or "support.") in behalf of those whose heart is complete toward (or "completely devoted to.") him." - 2 Chronicles 16:9a

Nothing has been 'normal' since Adam and Eve chose a life of complete independence for themselves and their offspring. We should not expect things to get back to normal on our own timetable.
Still the time for normalcy is soon to be here again. And as Jehovah has promised:

"Distress will not arise a second time."
- Nahum 1:9c

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Just because a seed is sowed that does not mean the gardener will sit around watching that seed when other things need to be done. It is a presumption of you all to think that the Living God is sitting around watching all things on this Planet. The Universe is a big place and life does exist outside this Planet. It is a fact that everything on this Planet will die and they carry those memories with them. It will be taken from them as they leave and that is how things are getting known. This is why you can never hide from your sins. You will be downloaded. Just like a memory stick.

Sorry... I'm completely lost. How was I assuming that God has nothing better to do than hang around Earth 24-7? I don't ever remember saying that, and the post you quoted had nothing at all to do with that. I don't even feel the need to respond to your comment, honestly. I have no idea where you're coming from.

 

[Blastcat]

Who defines "perfect"? It is so easy for humans to dictate what is "perfect" as if they are the one's with the final authority.

I don't know if it's "dictating" as much as being confused about how words work. We can only understand what we can. We have concepts, such as "perfection" and we try our best to make that work for us. We don't know what something "perfect" might actually look like, or if anything at all "perfect" can actually exist. But the concept does exist. The term is a useful pointer for us to talk around. But we actually do not know.. what perfection is or IF it is.... there are a lot of words like that. Humans are so clever. But just because we have a word for something , does not mean it points to something actually real. That's a WHOLE other question.

So, I agree that nobody on earth is the authority on "perfection"... all we can do is speculate and try to understand ourselves. That's a task and a half, right there.

Then who says God does not hate? Does he have reasons for being distant? Is he always distant?

Well, who says God does anything? We can never forget that we have no evidence for any kind of god at all. What we DO have evidence for is the BELIEF in gods of all kinds. It always amazes me that some kind of perfect god is so anthropomorphized that he has HUMAN characteristics like emotions. There's absolute no justification , other than from old texts, that any god would have any human characteristic. Tales are tales. What I have from ancient holy texts are tales. Gods, demons, and their human characteristics are tales found in all manner of ancient documents. I don't see the reason to take any of them as factual or true.

I'd be very interested how you can.

Nothing has been 'normal' since Adam and Eve chose a life of complete independence for themselves and their offspring. We should not expect things to get back to normal on our own timetable.
Still the time for normalcy is soon to be here again. And as Jehovah has promised:

What I see happening here is your interpretation of some translation of any number of possible interpretations of what was most probably orally transmitted traditional tales that are completely lost to us.

That you would possibly claim that this is the "truth" is astounding to me. Of course, it's your OPINION about the story of Adam and Eve that you are explaining here, and that is based on a translation of poetic and allegorical interpretations.

I hope you agree that the Bible was first written in some different language than the English translation you are referring to . Maybe you have the belief that God dictated each and every word verbatim, but we have absolutely no way of verifying that. What we DO know about books, is that humans write them. What we DON'T know about these texts is who wrote them or why or what possible ACTUAL meaning they wanted to convey. So much of it is poetic, allegorical, mythical, and filled with magic that it simply BEGS to be interpreted, and as we know, is interpreted in any number of Christian points of view. But as we know from the study of literary criticism, as long as it is INTERNALLY consistent, any interpretation at all is as valid as the next.

So, your interpretation, if internally consistent. might be perfectly valid. But we don't have to make the mistake of taking the Biblical accounts as all literally true. The factual truth of the texts is an entirely different question, and we have no justification in assuming that they are representative of the truth. I don't happen to think that the literal truth was the point of the Genesis stories, but that is just another possible interpretation a person can make.

Hope you consider and reply. I'm very interested in how people form their beliefs.

 

[Kolibri]

I do not have a lot of time right now @Blastcat , but I want you to know I have read your post and enjoyed much of it.

Briefly, I am very aware that the Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek. Both Hebrew and the Greek were very well suited to translate from, but as with all translations, a literal word for word can distort the meaning almost as much as a very loose translation, I personally use most commonly the New World Translation (2013 Revision) in English as English is the only language I am very fluent in and is the language of my early childhood.

As to how certain can we be that the Bible is very translatable with the original intent in tact. I direct you to this appendix article. - A3 How the Bible Came to Us — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

If I have a bit of time later today I will return to your post and see what else I can reply to that be conversant and not preachy.

Good Day for now,
~ Kolibri

 

[NulliuSINverba]

A great barrier to anyone exercising faith is that they cannot accept a good God would allow so much suffering on earth.

Does the barrier you've mentioned rank above or below the great barrier of It Has Not Been Demonstrated That God or Gods Even Exist?

The following allegory tries to demonstrate the need for trials and suffering.

“I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.” ~ J.R.R. Tolkien

A marriage is arranged between you and the most adorable girl, one who is kind and delightful beyond all measure. But she is forced to be your bride, she is given no choice in the matter. Similarly, in a second scenario, this same girl by chance finds you along the path of life and instead of being obliged to be your bride, instead falls in love with you and desires you for herself. She makes many efforts to please you and willfully suffers for you, fails often but seeks forgiveness.

If the allegory is being consistently applied, when do I get to sentence her to eternal torment when she fails? And how often am I allowed to remind her that she's a worthless wretch who truly doesn't deserve my love in the first place?

Additionally, wouldn't your allegory be more realistic if this kind, adorable, delightful girl were expected to love me and worship me without any definitive proof that I exist?

Which of these two would give you the greater joy?

Neither. The first is bogus because she's being forced to marry me. The second is false for two reasons:

1.) No human is kind and delightful beyond all measure.
2.) You've indicated that I somehow know what she's actually feeling towards me. My omnipotence trumps her free will.

In reality, the best I could hope for is that she meant what she said when she said "I love you."

Perhaps when God said He created us in His own image that is partially what He was referring to?

Can you demonstrate that God even has free will? He cannot even choose to do evil, correct? So while humans can certainly opt to do evil, it is apparent from Christian theology that God has some severe limitations when it comes to his freedom of choice.

He, too, prefers one who chooses to love Him and sacrifice for Him and take risks, as opposed to creating a being incapable of making free will choices to want to love Him.

Actually, it appears that God delights in getting people to believe in him and love him based on paltry-to-nonexistent evidence. So he doesn't want his believers to make a well-informed decision to love him ... he seems to prefer blind faith.

As given in Scripture, Our Lord says man is higher than the angels for this very reason of free will.

So angels don't have free will? Does it follow that the rebellion of Satan (who was an angel, yes?) was not the result of his free will? Did God simply program him to rebel?

Our earthly trials merit these greater virtues and are more pleasing to God.

Pardon me for saying so, but this sort of feeble rationalization has all the appeal of a wagon load of manure.

Life is a trial, a test, a means to an end.

Yet humanity already failed the initial Eden-Level Trial, no? So everything since that Epic Fail has been just so much confirmation of the initial test results, correct?

There is no honor if it requires no effort and no faith on our part.

So the beliefs of all the people in the Bible who were obliged to experience firsthand manifestations of God/Jesus are somehow dishonorable?

If that were the case, God may as well have just bypassed humanity and earth and made us all like angels incapable of sinning but also no valor in our beings.

If God made humanity capable of sinning, why should he have been surprised when humanity sinned? The creations behaved as designed, no?

It's as if God designed a coin with heads and tails, flipped the coin ... and then got eternally pissed off when it proceeded to land on heads and tails.

God allows suffering and evil to bring out a greater good in us.

See: "tiresome" & "platitude."

Another saint explained God also allows the suffering of the innocents to atone for the souls of great sinners. It will only be revealed how it all worked together in the hereafter. We are called upon to carry our cross and share in the sufferings Jesus bore for us.

Does that mean that Jesus' sacrifice didn't square the ledger entirely? We're still obliged to trudge along and suffer despite his crucifixion?

Sorry. That doesn't compute. Unless you're arguing that Jesus only died to redeem 99.99999999999999999999% of our sins.

...

I would address the rest of your post, but I've already reached my limit for bad rationalizations and theological spin for the day. Perhaps the rest can wait until tomorrow?

 

[thau]

The quote reeks of generalization and stereotyping to me. And it almost hints at non-believers being "gullible" or something - which is... well it's just backward, in my opinion - from what I have seen and witnessed and experienced. In fact ALL I have seen, witnessed and experienced with respect to my dealings with those of "high religious caliber". I mean - consider this - when someone of your faith tells you something happened according to your faith (i.e. someone was healed in some miraculous way, or they were spoken to by God and told some truth or another, or they were visited by angels), you are basically obligated to believe them - which means you'll believe just about anything. You HAVE to. Otherwise you're calling them a liar, and possibly denouncing something that possibly occurred within your God's purview. It's sort of entrapping, in my opinion. The person could very well be lying - thinking the lie is for the "greater good" because it strengthens others' faith and furthers "the kingdom". And yet you just have to smile, nod your head, and give them the benefit of the doubt, regardless how ludicrous the claim. And, in fact, this very "obligation" you have is exactly what the wolves in sheep's clothing of congregations have counted on countless times throughout history to get a person to do what they want (e.g. give money freely and "joyfully", or go to war and be slaughtered for the "glory" of the cause).

A non-believer, however, is free to weigh everything he encounters with the evidence to which it is tied. And I'm not saying that everyone weighs things in appropriately at all times. Many people do have wrong notions or "beliefs" about different things. Such as believing that money will buy them happiness, or that next material object they crave is what is going to get them out of the rut they are in, etc. But those same issues plague even believers. So where does that net us all out? I ask you.

First of all, your assumptions above as to how a believer may respond to another believer’s claims is fanciful supposition. It is basically false in most cases. Suffice it to say, there have been literally tens of thousands of claims of faithful Catholics claiming to have been in contact with a heavenly vision, apparition, dream, voice, etc. Rome has investigated only a fraction of those, but of the maybe thousand they have investigated over the years they have only deemed around 6 or 7 apparitions as “worthy of belief.” Fatima and Lourdes being the most famous. Of the multiple thousands of inexplicable healings that almost assuredly have occurred at Lourdes, France (and no doubt in my mind because of faith, prayer and the granting of the Lord) the Catholic Church has only deemed 67 of them as divine healings since 1858. And all of those 67 “miraculous” healings are subject to a secular board of independent medical professionals and scientists who put them under far more scrutiny than any other body you might assemble.

The point here is that, no, we do not eagerly accept the witness of other believers, nor do we feel this an important measure to give evidence to the truth, nor does the Church even care to seek such phenomena. At times, they are under a measure of obligation to do so, such as at Medjugore where they are want to rule on it. They have been delaying such a ruling for 30 years now.


Here was what I meant by my embracing of Chesterton’s words ---- “when the world stops believing in God they then do not believe in nothing, they will believe in anything.” It is in reference to specific events or claims or presentations of empirical evidence. I will only give a couple of illustrations.

Beginning in 1973, the wooden statue of the Virgin Mary in a convent in Akita, Japan has wept human tears or human blood on 101 occasions before a host of eye witnesses including medical experts and even on Japanese TV. It is extremely well documented and testified to. The first nun to have both witnessed the lacrimations and also reported the voice of the Mother of God speaking to her was cured of what was then described as an incurable deafness. So what do the skeptics say? They say it was a trick by the nuns. Or they say everybody is lying. Or they say it was bacon grease and heat that caused the tears or some other cockamamie suggestion. So that is what Chesterton is referring to --- when a person who very much does not want to accept God exists is exposed to the evidence, they refuse to accept the evidence and provide the flimsiest of rebuttals that speak volumes. It speaks agenda, not a truthful opinion or a scientific one.

Again, in 1968 over 250,000 Egyptians claim to see the Virgin Mary walking and floating on top of a Coptic Christian cathedral in Zeitoun, a suburb of Egypt. This occurred on more than 20 nights that summer. The NY Times twice reported on this phenomenon in May and August of 1968. I have the articles. The apparitions of Mary always happened after midnight and were accompanied by 12 dove-like birds flying at dizzying speeds. Also present were inexplicable great lights and plumes of colorful smoke. Even those (and there were a number of them) who were not granted the privilege by God to see the Virgin did see the birds, smoke and lights. Egyptian officials and anyone else never could explain the origin of the lights or smoke or type of birds. So what do the skeptics say? Not much. Except mass hallucination and maybe I have to revisit Joe Nickell’s skeptic website to see what other lame “explanation” he proffers? But again, it is a case of “they then do not believe in nothing, they will believe in anything.”

That is what I meant by that quote, it was not meant to imply that there are not very sincere and learned men who cannot get themselves to accept the reality of God based on very honest research. I know they exist and I believe them when they say they may want to believe but cannot.

 

[Blastcat]

The point here is that, No, we do not eagerly accept the witness of other believers, nor do we feel this an important measure to give evidence to the truth, nor does the Church even care to seek such phenonmena. At times, they are under a measure of obligation to do so, such as at Medjugore where they are want to rule on it. They have been delaying such a ruling for 30 years now.

We are not impressed by any Church's ruling on the veracity of a miracle. Sorry, but their HUGE bias in FAVOR of miracles happening has been noted. That's a complete FAILURE of critical thinking. We can completely ignore their rulings for that one reason.

They are very PROUD of their huge bias. FAIL... immediate fail.

Here was what I meant by my embracing of Chesterton’s words ---- “when the world stops believing in God they then do not believe in nothing, they will believe in anything.” It is in reference to specific events or claims or presentations of empirical evidence. I will only give a couple of illustrations.

Chesterton has an opinion. Wow. I am an atheist, I stopped believing in God. I am also a critical thinker. I don't just believe in anything. Chesterton could not be more wrong about atheists. It's a low kind of thinking to ascribe gullibility to your opponent. That's all he is saying. Chesterton is saying that atheists are FOOLS.....

Psalm 14:1
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

Only a FOOL will believe in anything, the way Chesterton imagines that atheists MUST. Well, I for one MUST NOT.

Beginning in 1973, the wooden statue of the Virgin Mary in a convent in Akita, Japan has wept human tears or human blood on 101 occasions

No, what actually happened was that this MIGHT HAVE BEEN CLAIMED. You haven't yet proved that this weird event happened and that it WAS blood, and so on. You just believe anything , don't you? The ATHEIST or the SKEPTIC or the CRITICAL THINKER doesn't believe just any claim. I don't have to believe just anything, as Chesterton says. BUT it does seem more likely that some theists believe anything.

Again, in 1968 over 250,000 Egyptians claim to see the Virgin Mary walking and floating on top of a Coptic Christian cathedral in Zeitoun, a suburb of Egypt.[/QUOTE] T

Well, at least you used the word CLAIMED... that's a start. Now, you might NOT believe in just anything. Good for you. People claim all kinds of things. So?

Oh, and JUST because some lame *** makes a stupid website does NOT make him a genius, NOR does it confirm your claimed events. There are cranks on the internet. So?

That is what I meant by that quote, it was not meant to imply that there are not very sincere and learned men who cannot get themselves to accept the reality of God based on very honest research. I know they exist and I believe them when they say they may want to believe but cannot.

I cannot GET myself to believe due to insufficient evidence. And your logic is atrocious. You start with a premise, and then you use the WORST kind of non sequitur to serve as your link to your conclusion.

The Egypt Mary argument in a nutshell....

1. People claim to see Mary
2. A guy on the internet makes ridiculous attempts at refuting the event.. THEREFORE
3. Those people saw Mary.

Number 1 and number 3 are fine by themselves.
BUT number 2? .. You just have to be kidding. 2 and 3 have NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH EACH OTHER.
Number 2 is a COMPLETE non sequitur.

If you want to make a case, make a better one. This case just doesn't work the way you think it does.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

A great barrier to anyone exercising faith is that they cannot accept a good God would allow so much suffering on earth. And by remaining in dissent they often refuse to consider all that has been manifested in history which cries out the God of Abraham is God. To many, these troubling affairs must first be satisfied or explained before they draw any nearer.

The following allegory tries to demonstrate the need for trials and suffering. A marriage is arranged between you and the most adorable girl, one who is kind and delightful beyond all measure. But she is forced to be your bride, she is given no choice in the matter. Similarly, in a second scenario, this same girl by chance finds you along the path of life and instead of being obliged to be your bride, instead falls in love with you and desires you for herself. She makes many efforts to please you and willfully suffers for you, fails often but seeks forgiveness. Which of these two would give you the greater joy? Perhaps when God said He created us in His own image that is partially what He was referring to? He, too, prefers one who chooses to love Him and sacrifice for Him and take risks, as opposed to creating a being incapable of making free will choices to want to love Him. As given in Scripture, Our Lord says man is higher than the angels for this very reason of free will. Our earthly trials merit these greater virtues and are more pleasing to God.

Life is a trial, a test, a means to an end. There is no honor if it requires no effort and no faith on our part. If that were the case, God may as well have just bypassed humanity and earth and made us all like angels incapable of sinning but also no valor in our beings. God allows suffering and evil to bring out a greater good in us. Another saint explained God also allows the suffering of the innocents to atone for the souls of great sinners. It will only be revealed how it all worked together in the hereafter. We are called upon to carry our cross and share in the sufferings Jesus bore for us.

Sirach 2:1-6
My son, when you come to serve the Lord, prepare yourself for trials. Be sincere of heart and steadfast, undisturbed in time of adversity. Cling to him, forsake Him not, thus your future will be great. Accept whatever befalls you, in crushing misfortune be patient; For in fire gold is tested, and worthy men in the crucible of humiliation.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Why must there be a hell, I submit, surpasses all mysteries of life, death and eternity. It seems apparent that answer is not for man to know this side of the grave and is as God so intended. Has not enough been revealed to us in order to know God exists, what He asks of us, and what He promises to those willing to accept it and try to live by the gospel? What right does one have to demand the answers to all of their questions before they accept all else which has been revealed? Is that not the great sin of the pride of man? Is this not where our faith is truly tested? “My ways are not your ways, sayeth the Lord.”

C.S. Lewis imagined what hell might be like in his intriguing novel “The Great Divorce.” A fantasy account of souls in heaven and in hell conversing with one another. In two of the final three chapters of this book Lewis suggests an explanation for hell, (my crude paraphrase) that being that nothing defiled can enter the kingdom of heaven (also declared in the Book of Revelation 21:27). God is pure holiness and heaven is immaculate and therefore cannot contain even the slightest defilement of even one single sin. (cue: a need for purgatory as well) So if those who rejected God cannot let go of their bad ways or selfish thoughts (as Lewis suggests is the condition of a soul in hell), then the heavens are compelled to repel the very idea that such a soul or condition could ever be allowed to defile the immaculate purity of God's kingdom. Such a man has rejected God so utterly on earth he cannot let go of his defiance or objection to God’s justice --- and God cannot allow that unrepentant soul’s present state to defile the pure holiness of heaven. The soul in hell says God’s punishments are unjust and demands some level of mercy because God created him, but even his demands are part of his unholiness. He expects God to change before he does. We are at an impasse.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Perhaps no one can say why there has to be an eternal hell for some souls, but I do have a question for those who may reject God for that reason. I am wondering now. But I believe God loves you enough where perhaps if you are not happy with the idea of being given the gift of eternal life because the possibility of hell also exists, then maybe you can appeal in a prayer? Ask God if at the moment you pass from this world, might he just turn you into a rock instead? Pure oblivion, no pain, no consciousness, no nothing. In that way you will not risk any suffering in hell -- which you never asked for, by the way, when He created you. Ok, that’s true. However, in so doing, neither will you ever be given the opportunity to know heaven or see your loved ones again or have any consciousness. That would have to be the bargain.

I am curious to know if this disturbance to the idea of hell is a primary reason many choose to not to think about God very much or do much about it? Perhaps understandable to a degree, but why would anyone still not be fascinated, if not obsessed, with what life and death is all about and what may lie ahead? The evidence can be found in so many places, in so many ways about this God which so many want to believe in yet keep at a safe distance just the same. The evidence for Jesus, Mary, the saints, the miracles, heaven, hell, purgatory, and redemption all can be known. I submit Christianity has given far more to this world than all of its failures combined. God can only work with sinners so is it fair to point only to the failures of this faith and ignore its virtues when judging the message and works?

God’s promise to the world is that heaven awaits those who seek Him, yet if you choose to be filled with pride and live this life only for yourself, its pleasures and its comforts --- and in so doing ignore His calling, even His existence, then perhaps an awful fate is possible? It is a risk, granted, but is it unfair? Would one prefer to be turned into a rock instead? Maybe God will honor your free will and grant such a way out? But who would choose anything so dour and final as that when there is so much to hope for and be grateful for? Nothing unfair or unloving about it in the least.

“God reveals His covenant to those who fear Him.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I'd agree with that in general- in the larger perspective, heaven could not exist, could not have meaning without this proving ground on Earth and all it's trials

 

[thau]

Does the barrier you've mentioned rank above or below the great barrier of It Has Not Been Demonstrated That God or Gods Even Exist?

I would address the rest of your post, but I've already reached my limit for bad rationalizations and theological spin for the day. Perhaps the rest can wait until tomorrow?

*Me: A great barrier to anyone exercising faith is that they cannot accept a good God would allow so much suffering on earth.*

>>Does the barrier you've mentioned rank above or below the great barrier of It Has Not Been Demonstrated That God or Gods Even Exist? <<

The more often you pretext everything with that question the younger I keep imagining you.


*Me: The following allegory tries to demonstrate the need for trials and suffering.*

>>“I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.” ~ J.R.R. Tolkien>>

And I cordially disagree with you and him. Allegories are often the most effective way to make a reader or listener comprehend the point one is trying to make. Simple as that. Interesting that you are referencing the devout Catholic author for your defense.


*Me: A marriage is arranged between you and the most adorable girl, one who is kind and delightful beyond all measure. But she is forced to be your bride, she is given no choice in the matter. Similarly, in a second scenario, this same girl by chance finds you along the path of life and instead of being obliged to be your bride, instead falls in love with you and desires you for herself. She makes many efforts to please you and willfully suffers for you, fails often but seeks forgiveness.*

>>If the allegory is being consistently applied, when do I get to sentence her to eternal torment when she fails? And how often am I allowed to remind her that she's a worthless wretch who truly doesn't deserve my love in the first place?<<

Two answers from you so far, both off topic. Before we get to “eternal torment” you clearly must dismiss a thousand facts and manifestations flying across your face. And why do you do this? That I cannot answer but I will suggest two possible reasons: 1) because you want to have your fun on earth and not be held accountable later. You want to pretend you had no good reason to think this “God” even existed. Or, 2) To your way of thinking, your best defense by far to challenge such a God exists is to keep reminding people he will send some of us to hell to be tortured forever and ever. So when you have nothing better to offer you fall back on “old reliable” and hide behind that one idea sure to scare everyone. Very disappointing nulliasinverba. Branch out.


*Me: Which of these two would give you the greater joy?*

>>Neither. The first is bogus because she's being forced to marry me. The second is false for two reasons: 1.) No human is kind and delightful beyond all measure. 2.) You've indicated that I somehow know what she's actually feeling towards me. My omnipotence trumps her free will. In reality, the best I could hope for is that she meant what she said when she said "I love you."<<

First of all, I am presenting this as though you are a human, not God. Just because this was an arranged marriage does not negate the possibility two can fall in love. Happens all the time. So what if no human is kind and delightful beyond all measure, the fact remains one who comes close to that level of goodness is going to be of the greatest joy for the receiver. Finally, you are botching this whole example – and on purpose I presume.


*Me: Perhaps when God said He created us in His own image that is partially what He was referring to?*

>>Can you demonstrate that God even has free will? He cannot even choose to do evil, correct? So while humans can certainly opt to do evil, it is apparent from Christian theology that God has some severe limitations when it comes to his freedom of choice.<<

Here you are digging far deep into the psyche or being of God as though that will create some new barrier for you to resists His existence. Let it go, ok? There are hundreds of examples or reasons far more apparent to show God exists which you blithely keep stepping over. We need not add to them with this far less accessible ponderances or mysteries.


*Me: He, too, prefers one who chooses to love Him and sacrifice for Him and take risks, as opposed to creating a being incapable of making free will choices to want to love Him.*

>>Actually, it appears that God delights in getting people to believe in him and love him based on paltry-to-nonexistent evidence. So he doesn't want his believers to make a well-informed decision to love him ... he seems to prefer blind faith.<<

Such a pity that is all you are able to grasp. We see so much more than you. We appreciate so much more than you. We fully understand our mission here on earth and why. You, on the other hand, have such a desire to pretend it is all a total mystery and these fool Christians are relying on stories told to them with no basis of truth, an absolute blind faith on some entity that has not provided the slightest reason for his existence. So wrong, so sad, nulliasinverba.


*Me: As given in Scripture, Our Lord says man is higher than the angels for this very reason of free will.*

>>So angels don't have free will? Does it follow that the rebellion of Satan (who was an angel, yes?) was not the result of his free will? Did God simply program him to rebel?<<

No, it does not follow. But what does follow is that a person so intent on trying to disprove God’s existence will make the smallest mystery or ostensible contradiction to be this silver bullet. Like here. We have every reason to assume that the fall of Satan and a third of the angels happened eons, ages, or even dimensions before mankind ever came into existence. In other words, it may very well have been a different “world” then. So if the Word tells us angels cannot sin and are made to love and praise God, that it good enough to accept. We need not try to understand the great mystery how this Satan episode came about and kind of runs counter to what we are now being told about angels. Not a big deal to work out.


*Me: Our earthly trials merit these greater virtues and are more pleasing to God.*

>>Pardon me for saying so, but this sort of feeble rationalization has all the appeal of a wagon load of manure.<<

You're pardoned of course, it’s all well and good. Now if you will pardon me for saying so, but some of your “reasoning” does not impress me much. It strikes me as one who has made up his mind what he wants and anything that throws a wrench in his plans he is either going to fight it with sometimes asinine explanations, or he is going to pretend it is not important or real.


*Me: Life is a trial, a test, a means to an end.*

>>Yet humanity already failed the initial Eden-Level Trial, no? So everything since that Epic Fail has been just so much confirmation of the initial test results, correct?<<

Silly you. One error does not fail a man for life. However, the grades you should worry most about is not all your mainline subjects, but first and foremost – Effort, and then secondly --- Conduct. That is what God cares of mostly. Remember how our dads used to smack us if we did bad in either of those two particular grades?


*Me: If that were the case, God may as well have just bypassed humanity and earth and made us all like angels incapable of sinning but also no valor in our beings.*

>>If God made humanity capable of sinning, why should he have been surprised when humanity sinned? The creations behaved as designed, no?<<

He is not surprised. I gave you my reason in the allegory above why God may have created humankind with all its weaknesses intact. You just keep wanting to tell God he is some kind of fool and you know better how this should have been handled.


*Me: Another saint explained God also allows the suffering of the innocents to atone for the souls of great sinners. It will only be revealed how it all worked together in the hereafter. We are called upon to carry our cross and share in the sufferings Jesus bore for us.*

>>Does that mean that Jesus' sacrifice didn't square the ledger entirely? We're still obliged to trudge along and suffer despite his crucifixion? <<

Yes, it does, if that is how you prefer to frame it. Or to put it in another crude way --- “Saved from hell is not the same as being granted immediate entrance into the kingdom with all our selfish dirty ways still present.” You spend way too much time trying to dethrone God than to accept that which is so clear and so wonderfully granted to us. If only you would not be so filled with pride. (IMO)

 

[NulliuSINverba]

*Me: A great barrier to anyone exercising faith is that they cannot accept a good God would allow so much suffering on earth.*

>>Does the barrier you've mentioned rank above or below the great barrier of It Has Not Been Demonstrated That God or Gods Even Exist? <<

The more often you pretext everything with that question the younger I keep imagining you.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

...

"Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." ~ Matthew 18:3

*Me: The following allegory tries to demonstrate the need for trials and suffering.*

>>“I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.” ~ J.R.R. Tolkien>>

And I cordially disagree with you and him. Allegories are often the most effective way to make a reader or listener comprehend the point one is trying to make. Simple as that. Interesting that you are referencing the devout Catholic author for your defense.

Yes. If even a devout Catholic can (in a politely roundabout way) regard allegories with suspicion, should it surprise anyone when a godless heathen does so?

*Me: A marriage is arranged between you and the most adorable girl, one who is kind and delightful beyond all measure. But she is forced to be your bride, she is given no choice in the matter. Similarly, in a second scenario, this same girl by chance finds you along the path of life and instead of being obliged to be your bride, instead falls in love with you and desires you for herself. She makes many efforts to please you and willfully suffers for you, fails often but seeks forgiveness.*

>>If the allegory is being consistently applied, when do I get to sentence her to eternal torment when she fails? And how often am I allowed to remind her that she's a worthless wretch who truly doesn't deserve my love in the first place?<<

Two answers from you so far, both off topic. Before we get to “eternal torment” you clearly must dismiss a thousand facts and manifestations flying across your face.

Such as?

And why do you do this? That I cannot answer but I will suggest two possible reasons: 1) because you want to have your fun on earth and not be held accountable later.

Q. - As long as a person repents and accepts Jesus/God, there's practically no "fun on earth" that'd disqualify them from eternal bliss, correct?

If that's true, please explain how the Christian notion of accountability isn't just a huge fiction.

You want to pretend you had no good reason to think this “God” even existed.

It isn't pretend. There is no good reason to think any god(s) ever existed. And in fact, I'm fairly certain that you'd agree with me that this applies to practically all of them, correct?

Or, 2) To your way of thinking, your best defense by far to challenge such a God exists is to keep reminding people he will send some of us to hell to be tortured forever and ever. So when you have nothing better to offer you fall back on “old reliable” and hide behind that one idea sure to scare everyone. Very disappointing nulliasinverba. Branch out.

That last bit is incoherent. Are you arguing that I'm advocating that the idea of an eternal hell is evidence that God doesn't exist? Please recast that last section if you'd like a response.

*Me: Which of these two would give you the greater joy?*

>>Neither. The first is bogus because she's being forced to marry me. The second is false for two reasons: 1.) No human is kind and delightful beyond all measure. 2.) You've indicated that I somehow know what she's actually feeling towards me. My omnipotence trumps her free will. In reality, the best I could hope for is that she meant what she said when she said "I love you."<<

First of all, I am presenting this as though you are a human, not God.

Yes ... but at its heart, isn't your allegory entirely concerned with explaining away God's motivations?

Just because this was an arranged marriage does not negate the possibility two can fall in love. Happens all the time.

So just because the scriptures say that God will do X, Y, or Z doesn't negate the possibility that he'll never actually do X, Y, or Z? Does that happen all the time?

So what if no human is kind and delightful beyond all measure

It would appear to be an intrinsic part of the allegory. If the arranged marriage included a bride that was a complete shrew and ugly as the day is long, would the allegory still be workable?

the fact remains one who comes close to that level of goodness is going to be of the greatest joy for the receiver.

I think your epistemology here is suspect.

Finally, you are botching this whole example – and on purpose I presume.

I'm not botching anything. In this scenario, botching would appear to be the sole province of the one proffering the allegory, wouldn't it?

*Me: Perhaps when God said He created us in His own image that is partially what He was referring to?*

>>Can you demonstrate that God even has free will? He cannot even choose to do evil, correct? So while humans can certainly opt to do evil, it is apparent from Christian theology that God has some severe limitations when it comes to his freedom of choice.<<

Here you are digging far deep into the psyche or being of God as though that will create some new barrier for you to resists His existence. Let it go, ok? There are hundreds of examples or reasons far more apparent to show God exists which you blithely keep stepping over. We need not add to them with this far less accessible ponderances or mysteries.

Translation: Drink the Kool-Aid. You won't feel a thing. Trust me.

The problem here is that the complex rationalizations and explanations that theists offer up to support their beliefs are positively fractal in their inherent intricacy. It's like they hope that if they can successfully explain away some trifling detail that no one will notice that the bigger picture is still suspect.

*Me: He, too, prefers one who chooses to love Him and sacrifice for Him and take risks, as opposed to creating a being incapable of making free will choices to want to love Him.*

>>Actually, it appears that God delights in getting people to believe in him and love him based on paltry-to-nonexistent evidence. So he doesn't want his believers to make a well-informed decision to love him ... he seems to prefer blind faith.<<

Such a pity that is all you are able to grasp. We see so much more than you. We appreciate so much more than you. We fully understand our mission here on earth and why. You, on the other hand, have such a desire to pretend it is all a total mystery and these fool Christians are relying on stories told to them with no basis of truth, an absolute blind faith on some entity that has not provided the slightest reason for his existence. So wrong, so sad, nulliasinverba.

It's duly noted that in lieu of a reasoned argument (or sound evidence) you've opted for a display of pity.

*Me: As given in Scripture, Our Lord says man is higher than the angels for this very reason of free will.*

>>So angels don't have free will? Does it follow that the rebellion of Satan (who was an angel, yes?) was not the result of his free will? Did God simply program him to rebel?<<

No, it does not follow.

You neglected to answer the question.

But what does follow is that a person so intent on trying to disprove God’s existence will make the smallest mystery or ostensible contradiction to be this silver bullet. Like here. We have every reason to assume that the fall of Satan and a third of the angels happened eons, ages, or even dimensions before mankind ever came into existence. In other words, it may very well have been a different “world” then. So if the Word tells us angels cannot sin and are made to love and praise God, that it good enough to accept.

So Satan isn't evil, correct?

We need not try to understand the great mystery how this Satan episode came about and kind of runs counter to what we are now being told about angels.

Why not? It would appear that the role of Satan is crucial to the entire Christian mythology.

*Me: Our earthly trials merit these greater virtues and are more pleasing to God.*

>>Pardon me for saying so, but this sort of feeble rationalization has all the appeal of a wagon load of manure.<<

You're pardoned of course, it’s all well and good. Now if you will pardon me for saying so, but some of your “reasoning” does not impress me much. It strikes me as one who has made up his mind what he wants and anything that throws a wrench in his plans he is either going to fight it with sometimes asinine explanations, or he is going to pretend it is not important or real.

While I certainly think that the first two are quite applicable to you, weren't you just now insisting that understanding all of this wasn't a big deal?

*Me: Life is a trial, a test, a means to an end.*

>>Yet humanity already failed the initial Eden-Level Trial, no? So everything since that Epic Fail has been just so much confirmation of the initial test results, correct?<<

Silly you. One error does not fail a man for life.

The Bible says otherwise:

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" ~ Romans 5:12

Silly Bible.

*Me: If that were the case, God may as well have just bypassed humanity and earth and made us all like angels incapable of sinning but also no valor in our beings.*

>>If God made humanity capable of sinning, why should he have been surprised when humanity sinned? The creations behaved as designed, no?<<

He is not surprised. I gave you my reason in the allegory above why God may have created humankind with all its weaknesses intact. You just keep wanting to tell God he is some kind of fool and you know better how this should have been handled.

Does it require omnipotence to know that if one wants to create a system that works, one doesn't design it to not work?

*Me: Another saint explained God also allows the suffering of the innocents to atone for the souls of great sinners. It will only be revealed how it all worked together in the hereafter. We are called upon to carry our cross and share in the sufferings Jesus bore for us.*

>>Does that mean that Jesus' sacrifice didn't square the ledger entirely? We're still obliged to trudge along and suffer despite his crucifixion? <<

Yes, it does, if that is how you prefer to frame it.

I didn't frame it that way. You did.

...

Wow. I think we're done.