Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not sure what you're asking. The choices I suggested aren't based on either the God of the Old or the New Testament, but just on what it seemed to me would be God's options for dealing with the problem of evil.
I understand that, but in the Old Testament the perceptions of men where that God took the lives of those who were evil. As a matter of fact, if you totaled them up, he would have taken the lives of more, than the adversary which most believe is Satan or a fallen Angel? In the New Testament, mankind awaits judgment? But there's an age-old question: "Why does evil exist?" I do not believe, we need to taste the bitter to know what is sweet? However, it's probably a question for another thread? Personally, I have no doubt that every human being will come face to face with the lost and corrupted child - the Son of Perdition that once resided within them, either in this life or the next.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,939,436 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
Thinking-man's thread on the gang rape of a 70-year-old Catholic nun in India got me thinking. (As a matter of fact, I suspect I've given this more thought than "Thinking-man ever has.)
Here are a sampling of a few of the things he said...
My
I'll say one thing for this guy. He's persistent. He doesn't give up. A dozen different responders answer his question and all he can do is continue to ask it over and over and over and over again. So anyway, now I have a question for Thinking-man and anybody else who believes as he does.
How exactly is this God you don't believe exists supposed to handle the situation? He sees a gang of men approaching a 70-year-old nun and, obviously knowing their intentions, does one of the following things. Which of them makes the most sense to you?
1. He strikes them dead before then can do anything to hurt her.
2. He strikes them dead after they've committed their horrible crime.
3. He miraculously causes the nun to disappear.
4. He gives the nun supernatural powers so that she can fight them all off.
5. He allows the act to take place, but gives the nun amnesia so that she doesn't remember it at all.
6. He drops three or four police officers down from out of nowhere just before they act.
7. He momentarily touches their consciences and they decide to find another victim instead.
8. He does nothing to intervene but will hold these men accountable at Judgment Day.
(P.S. I was going to post a poll, but had problems doing so, so this will have to suffice.)
Did you intend your list to be definitive? There are a number of other choices that could be included.
My take on stuff like this is as follows: If God always intervened on our behalf, life would a utopia, right? But how would we know? Without pain, how would we know what pleasure was? Without sadness, how would we know happiness? Without death, how would we know life?
So without anything bad in our life, how would we know about what is good? If there is no opposite for comparison than we can never know what we have.
God has a plan for everything. Trying to make sense of something that is not understandable is for those with no faith. You have to have faith in the unknown, unseen and things that we don't understand. Those without faith have to place a value or have an exact answer for their questions.
The words from an old song, maybe Oak Ridge Boys, comes to mind:
Where the sun always shines,
there's a desert below.
It takes a little rain
To make the flowers grow.
It would seem to me that the obvious solution would be to give the men a conscious, not temporarily, but permanently.
But then, this quote from Epicurus is most apt in this case:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
This is called a straw man set of arguments containing a host of presumptions about what a God MUST be to qualify as God and what His goal for us SHOULD be. The truth of the matter is that we are to grow spiritually into a specific character (character, btw, is unique to consciousness or Spirit). Our job is to learn to be loving as our Father is. We start out as a mere seed (spiritual egg/sperm) in this "physical womb" we call reality. It is in this physical womb that we must develop and mature our embryo Spirit to maturity sufficient to be "born again" as Spirit upon our physical death. Everything that physically happens here is irrelevant . . . except for what it does to the development of our embryo Spirit. That is why we are to overcome and endure to the end. God is with us in Spirit and the Comforter abides with us to guide us to the truth about agape love that is "written in our hearts." Those who need a physically intervening God are simply in need of further spiritual maturation and development. We have been given Dominion down here by God's Sovereign Will so we may learn and mature. He will not renege on that. But He will comfort us.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,939,436 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
This is called a straw man set of arguments containing a host of presumptions about what a God MUST be to qualify as God and what His goal for us SHOULD be. The truth of the matter is that we are to grow spiritually into a specific character (character, btw, is unique to consciousness or Spirit). Our job is to learn to be loving as our Father is. We start out as a mere seed (spiritual egg/sperm) in this "physical womb" we call reality. It is in this physical womb that we must develop and mature our embryo Spirit to maturity sufficient to be "born again" as Spirit upon our physical death. Everything that physically happens here is irrelevant . . . except for what it does to the development of our embryo Spirit. That is why we are to overcome and endure to the end. God is with us in Spirit and the Comforter abides with us to guide us to the truth about agape love that is "written in our hearts." Those who need a physically intervening God are simply in need of further spiritual maturation and development. We have been given Dominion down here by God's Sovereign Will so we may learn and mature. He will not renege on that. But He will comfort us.
Your "Father" is not showing a whole bunch of love towards someone who worshipped him all her life, is he?
Epicurus questions are not strawman arguments, but show exactly what the problem is and having imaginary entities supposedly existing.
This is called a straw man set of arguments containing a host of presumptions about what a God MUST be to qualify as God and what His goal for us SHOULD be. The truth of the matter is that we are to grow spiritually into a specific character (character, btw, is unique to consciousness or Spirit). Our job is to learn to be loving as our Father is. We start out as a mere seed (spiritual egg/sperm) in this "physical womb" we call reality. It is in this physical womb that we must develop and mature our embryo Spirit to maturity sufficient to be "born again" as Spirit upon our physical death. Everything that physically happens here is irrelevant . . . except for what it does to the development of our embryo Spirit. That is why we are to overcome and endure to the end. God is with us in Spirit and the Comforter abides with us to guide us to the truth about agape love that is "written in our hearts." Those who need a physically intervening God are simply in need of further spiritual maturation and development. We have been given Dominion down here by God's Sovereign Will so we may learn and mature. He will not renege on that. But He will comfort us.
I'll bet the nun was keeping this is mind the entire time she was being assaulted and relishing the thought that her 'embryo spirit' was maturing.
It would seem to me that the obvious solution would be to give the men a conscious, not temporarily, but permanently.
So this is your other "obvious" solution? Give the men a conscience (I'm guessing "conscious" was a typo). What does that really mean to you? Does having a conscience mean never doing anything you know to be wrong? Does it mean being incapable of doing wrong? Or does it mean that the opportunity never presents itself to do wrong?
Quote:
But then, this quote from Epicurus is most apt in this case:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
For what it's worth, I think Epicurus' opinion on the subject is way, way over-rated -- primarily because it grossly oversimplifies the problem of good and evil.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
