If God is loving, good and omnipotent, why is there so much evil, pain and suffering?

[Itinerant Lurker]

So, if cancer didn’t exist, you’d believe in God? How much "better" does the world have to be before you'd believe in God?

That wasn't what we were talking about, I was simply making the obvious point that children do not need to get cancer in order for love to exist. Ergo, children do not get cancer so that love, or a reciprocal relationship, or free will can exist. Ergo, the argument that god allows children to get cancer because of these reasons is vacuous.

This seems like it must be a very troubling point for anyone trying to defend the idea of a loving, good, and omnipotent god.

You say death and disease are built into the universe, but no one built them into the universe. If something is “built” don’t you need a “builder”?

I chose my wording within the hypothetical framework of Christianity being true. If we're exiting that framework then my wording would, obviously, no longer apply.

God isn’t abusing anyone. God doesn’t cause sin and the resulting suffering. And I’m certain if we asked the children in heaven right now if it was worth it, they’d say, “Yes!”. I know children suffering right now who want to live what’s left of their lives for God and who would tell you it’s worth it, and they’re not even in heaven yet!

If I have a cure for cancer, have the ability to dispense it to millions of suffering children, and do nothing am I good? Am I not abusing those children if I simply watch them suffer their agonies, often without even the ability to express their anguish, with complete indifference?

On your second point, is it really good and loving to needlessly abuse someone even if you can then bribe them with a reward good enough to make them rationalize their suffering? I would think that a loving, good god would provide the reward without the needless suffering simply because it was needless. Again, we call those who inflict needless suffering psychopaths, why does this suddenly change when that someone becomes all-powerful?

How about letting your child decide that for himself? Because that’s what it really comes down to. You admit you’re not willing—in other words, as God’s creature, you would have rather not been created at all than to experience such suffering.

Well, for one thing because I know better and tend to exercise quite a bit more foresight than my son who might think that it would be pretty cool to try to lasso his friends with a rattlesnake. There's no need to make learning about whether or not to pick up rattlesnakes pass or fail here. We can learn valuable lessons like this without incurring such drastic consequences. Again, this seems strikingly obvious.

Also strikingly obvious is that I'd rather have been created in a world with mitigated suffering (if indeed we actually need suffering at all) rather than the obviously useless and rampant suffering that exists in the world we actually find ourselves in.

First of all, restricting some evil doesn’t solve the problem of evil.

Yet it certainly makes the world better. As an aside, you seem to be missing the quite striking point that preventing some suffering, such as preventing kids getting cancer, doesn't require god to restrict evil at all.

I believe the design of the universe is optimal for the restriction of most evil, while still allowing free will.

Why do individuals require the free will to commit genocide? What would be lost if god simply intervened to prevent such acts, overtly or otherwise?

God has restricted the most evil He could (which means the most suffering He could) while still allowing free will. And this world is the result.

In order to support this assertion you need to explain why preventing children from getting cancer is a restriction of evil, or infringes upon free will. Certainly you can just assert it, which you have, but that doesn't lend your position any credibility.




Lurker

[LookingUp]

In order to support this assertion you need to explain why preventing children from getting cancer is a restriction of evil, or infringes upon free will. Certainly you can just assert it, which you have, but that doesn't lend your position any credibility.
Lurker

As I said, I believe that in the design of this world God restricted the most evil He could while still allowing free will. I believe it could be much worse, but God has restricted it. In any given situation, however, one might ask how free will is hindered if God intervened in the suffering of an innocent. I don’t believe He would be hindering free will. But I don’t believe God is like a genie or magician. Messiah Jesus is the revelation of God, and through his ministry, we can see how God works. Although there were times Jesus demonstrated His power with a word, most times Jesus had to touch an individual and pray for him in order to heal him. One time as a blind man’s sight began to return, he described that he saw something like trees walking around. Jesus continued His healing work, and then he was completely healed. Why the process? Why not just say the magic word and have the man healed in the blink of an eye? I think the book of Job gives insight to the reason. God is contending with the spiritual forces of darkness. It’s real and it’s formidable. When we pray, we partner with God in fighting these forces. I believe part of the reason we don’t see healing like we would want is because God can’t always heal due to the reality of what He and we are all dealing with. There’s a story in the Old Testament where an angel (Michael) was delayed in getting somewhere because he was busy fighting against these spiritual forces. There’s a spiritual battle going on and the reason we see innocents like children suffering is because that’s what happens when there’s a war going on.

[Itinerant Lurker]

But the fact remains that because you don't see things in a spiritual sense, you don't understand exactly what is going on in the bible when they're talking about hell and punishment and death. Let me enlighten you, and please take this seriously: Sin leads to death, but sin is based on righteous judgement, which means we are judged not only on what we've done and said, but our intent as relating to those words and actions. Sin, being merely an absence of God, has punishment attached to it that isn't necessarily a punishment from God, but rather a set rule as if it were a law of physics. God laid down this perfect moral standard by which we are judged.

Baloney. When I was a Christian I understood quite easily that hell was a place of real, eternal torment just as countless theologians throughout the history of Christianity have understood the bible to describe hell as a place of real, eternal torment by virtue of the fact that the bible actually does describe hell as a place of real, eternal torment.

How is sin "an absence of God"? That would make any action I, being a non-believer without god, sinful would it not? This doesn't make any actual sense at all. Regardless of this vacuous verbiage, being sent to hell is still a punishment from god any way you slice it. . .unless we're no longer talking about an all powerful god.

Also, since death is an inevitable consequence of life the only logical conclusion of taking your assertion that death is inevitably associated with sin is that we were created sinful.

Haven't you ever wondered why psychiatrists and scientists can't point to a single spot in the brain, and say, "Ah-hah, there's where our cognitive consciousness is"? Because we don't think with our brains, we have a soul which is attached to it and uses it like a computer. Life is spiritual in nature. It defies logic and reason, living where it shouldn't be possible.

Of course we think with our brains, haven't you ever wondered why people's thinking changes as their brains develop and why people's personalities can change so drastically due to brain damage? We can certainly point to something as say "Ah-hah, there's where our cognitive consciousness is", it's called the brain. When you damage it, we loose certain faculties of cognition and consciousness and when you kill it cognition and consciousness cease.

You see, I can prove that the brain is not entirely in control of your body, but rather a soul residing within that fleshy husk which will eventually die and rot. In brain surgery, a patient is often times awake during the procedure. When the brain is directly manipulated to perform a function, it is not directly associated with intent. When a brain surgeon accidentally made a person's arm twitch, the patient quickly replied "I felt my arm move, but I didn't want it to move."

Modern neuroscience easily accounts for this by our understanding that certain parts of the brain are responsible for certain functions. This isn't evidence of anything other than how our brains can be artificially manipulated.

Actually a few scholars have proven that (at the very least), Matthew was written in the "Eyewitness Period". The sample they used was a collection of a burnt papyrus scrips, usually referred to as the "Jesus Papyrus" (Papyrus 64), which have the writings of Matthew as being verified.

I’m vaguely familiar with Peter Theide’s work, but from what I know “proved” is a rather strong and unwarranted adjective. Even if these fragments are correctly dated to the first century, we are still left with second-hand accounts written decades after the events they purportedly describe.

Not to mention that the writings of Ezekiel were way before the events God told him to write about ever happened, have been proven to be from the same time period that Ezekiel lived in. Ezekiel wrote about the impending fall of Tyre, and how it would be thrown into the ocean, which really did happen as recorded in the bible as prophecy AND secular historical records after-the-fact, and ya know, all the physical evidence in the Mediterranean Sea.

Um. . .Ezekiel claimed that Nebuchadnezzar would take Tyre,

7 For thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will bring against Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, and with horsemen and a host of many soldiers. 8 He will kill with the sword your daughters on the mainland. He will set up a siege wall against you and throw up a mound against you, and raise a roof of shields against you. 9 He will direct the shock of his battering rams against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers. 10 His horses will be so many that their dust will cover you. Your walls will shake at the noise of the horsemen and wagons and chariots, when he enters your gates as men enter a city that has been breached. 11 With the hoofs of his horses he will trample all your streets. He will kill your people with the sword, and your mighty pillars will fall to the ground. 12 They will plunder your riches and loot your merchandise. They will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses. Your stones and timber and soil they will cast into the midst of the waters. 13 And I will stop the music of your songs, and the sound of your lyres shall be heard no more. 14 I will make you a bare rock. You shall be a place for the spreading of nets. You shall never be rebuilt, for I am the LORD; I have spoken, declares the Lord GOD. (ESV)

And that didn’t actually happen. Nebuchadnezzar failed to take the city after a thirteen year siege, came to a negotiated settlement, and went home. Tyre kept right on having pleasant houses and playing their lyres for centuries before being conquered, and when they were the city was rebuilt. In fact, it's still there.

It shouldn't bother you if you don't think it even exists. I just find it odd that you take the time and effort to post on a Christian message board your emphatic denial of God, and yet take none of the blame for it? If you really didn't care, you wouldn't be here.

Well, of course I care about this issue. After all, if there is a god that seems like it would be something I should know about.




Lurker

[LookingUp]

Baloney. When I was a Christian I understood quite easily that hell was a place of real, eternal torment just as countless theologians throughout the history of Christianity have understood the bible to describe hell as a place of real, eternal torment by virtue of the fact that the bible actually does describe hell as a place of real, eternal torment.

What do you have to say about post #38?

[Ceegen]

Baloney. When I was a Christian I understood quite easily that hell was a place of real, eternal torment just as countless theologians throughout the history of Christianity have understood the bible to describe hell as a place of real, eternal torment by virtue of the fact that the bible actually does describe hell as a place of real, eternal torment.

How is sin "an absence of God"? That would make any action I, being a non-believer without god, sinful would it not? This doesn't make any actual sense at all. Regardless of this vacuous verbiage, being sent to hell is still a punishment from god any way you slice it. . .unless we're no longer talking about an all powerful god.

Also, since death is an inevitable consequence of life the only logical conclusion of taking your assertion that death is inevitably associated with sin is that we were created sinful.

Yes, any action that you take, being a non-believer without God, is sinful in nature. You ever watch "American Ganster"? What does "Bumpy" do to keep the neighborhood pacified with his evil and criminal nature? Hand out turkeys.

Simply put, good deeds do not prove a good person. It is by our intent, our free will, that we are judged. When we use our free will without benefit of including God or even thinking about Him, it is more than likely going to be something evil and sinful, no matter how small and insignificant it may seem. Because we are born with free will, yes, we are sinful by nature. This is what God was talking about (in part) when He said that we are ALL sinners.

Of course we think with our brains, haven't you ever wondered why people's thinking changes as their brains develop and why people's personalities can change so drastically due to brain damage? We can certainly point to something as say "Ah-hah, there's where our cognitive consciousness is", it's called the brain. When you damage it, we loose certain faculties of cognition and consciousness and when you kill it cognition and consciousness cease.

If cognition and consciousness cease upon death, then why have many clinically brain-dead patients come back to life, having memories, or knowing exactly what the doctor and nurses are saying after they have clinically died and while still in the operating room? Clinically dead, not just assumed dead, but actually dead as determined by a doctor. There are pleanty of amazing stories out there that can not be refuted, at all. It is a miracle, and to me is proof of a soul.

Modern neuroscience easily accounts for this by our understanding that certain parts of the brain are responsible for certain functions. This isn't evidence of anything other than how our brains can be artificially manipulated.

Brains can be artificially manipulated, but it still doesn't change the intent of the person. A person can feel fear from strong electro-magnetic fields that change the electrical activity in the brain, but that doesn't mean the person WANTS to be scared. Understand?

I’m vaguely familiar with Peter Theide’s work, but from what I know “proved” is a rather strong and unwarranted adjective. Even if these fragments are correctly dated to the first century, we are still left with second-hand accounts written decades after the events they purportedly describe.

I think he did a great job with presenting his findings. He's conclusively, as far as I am concerning, proved that the writings were done within a few years of Jesus' death.

Um. . .Ezekiel claimed that Nebuchadnezzar would take Tyre,

Really? Watch.

7 For thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will bring against Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, and with horsemen and a host of many soldiers. 8 He will kill with the sword your daughters on the mainland. He will set up a siege wall against you and throw up a mound against you, and raise a roof of shields against you. 9 He will direct the shock of his battering rams against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers. 10 His horses will be so many that their dust will cover you. Your walls will shake at the noise of the horsemen and wagons and chariots, when he enters your gates as men enter a city that has been breached. 11 With the hoofs of his horses he will trample all your streets. He will kill your people with the sword, and your mighty pillars will fall to the ground.

Notice that in all these verses, God is saying to us about Nebuchadnezzar, that HE (meaning Nebuchadnezzar) is going to do all these things. Up untill...

12 They will plunder your riches and loot your merchandise. They will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses. Your stones and timber and soil they will cast into the midst of the waters. 13 And I will stop the music of your songs, and the sound of your lyres shall be heard no more. 14 I will make you a bare rock. You shall be a place for the spreading of nets. You shall never be rebuilt, for I am the LORD; I have spoken, declares the Lord GOD. (ESV)

This change to "They will" is a clear indicator that Nebuchadnezzar would not be the one to do this. It isn't a continuation of events, but a break, a pause in prose. Why do you think God had Ezekiel write it down exactly as stated? Because even Ezekiel didn't know what would happen. Ezekiel is just a vessel, a prophet, but still a human. He doesn't know what God is going to do, or not do, except what we know is going to happen based on what God Himself tells us. But even then, until prophecy is close to happening, it remains mostly unclear, hence the change in personage of "He" meaning Nebuchadnezzar, to, "They" meaning some future event of unknown personage.

And that didn’t actually happen. Nebuchadnezzar failed to take the city after a thirteen year siege, came to a negotiated settlement, and went home. Tyre kept right on having pleasant houses and playing their lyres for centuries before being conquered, and when they were the city was rebuilt. In fact, it's still there.

The fact that modern-day Tyre is there, doesn't change the fact that Alexander the Great took the old city and used it as a causeway to get to the island. The old city was scraped up and thrown into the ocean, confirming prophecy. So different people rebuilt it? The original inhabitants aren't there.

But, the prophecy isn't just about a coastal city, it's about Satan and the inhabitants of the city of Tyre which caused sin to happen, and in doing so cause judgement to happen. Hence, the prophecy of its destruction. You can still see the ruins of Rome or any other city in the world, but the city of Tyre is the only city destroyed by war, and then thrown into the sea! How is it that this is not proof enough for you?

This is why events that happen according to prophecy are a "shadow of things to come" and why prophecy is so important to understand that they're "types" of things that will happen again and again. For example, when the tower of babel was built, God stopped short of destroying them and instead "confounded their language". Why? They were only building a tower, so why was it so important for God to keep them from finishing a mere "tower"? (It was more than likely a Ziggarut, but I'm sticking with "tower" for the mere appearance of everyone knowing what I'm talking about when I say "Tower of Babel" and not "Ziggurat of Babel").

Because of their INTENT in building the tower, is why God "confounded the language". God doesn't hate towers, he hates it when we try to find our own methods of salvation and imortality. And, it is not that he really "hates" it, it's that God is holy and perfect and can't have things that aren't holy and perfect (as He made them) in His presence. We're building our own proverbial tower, even in this day and age, to try and find answers and live forever without benefit of God. Is it any wonder then, that the world is supposed to come to the end of an age, and that at the end of this age God will judge the whole world?

Well, of course I care about this issue. After all, if there is a god that seems like it would be something I should know about.

"They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate." - Titus 1:16 (KJV)

If you had it in the first place, you wouldn't have left it. The reality is, you never had the truth because Satan works his lies, even among the churches of today. This isn't your fault, and God is willing to forgive, but only if you let Him.

Not understanding what God wants, or not understanding something in the bible that God says, shouldn't cause you to lose your faith. Neither should any thing that is evil or wrong, shake your faith in God. Don't be a reed shaken in the wind. Don't bend under pressure.

Just because you can't explain something, doesn't mean it isn't true, it just means you can't explain it. Maybe this is because you don't understand what is being talked about, again, going back to that whole "Spirituality" thing which the bible is ALL ABOUT. The entire bible is about spiritual things! I don't understand how you can be so blind as to not see this fact, and then go and say that "hell is a literal place"? It makes no sense what-so-ever.

What did Jesus say about being converted as a little child? That with the understanding of a child, we will learn the ways of God, and be able to explain them. Plus...

"And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."

Until you're able to trust what God says over what Satan says, you will never be converted. I don't trust what just any church tells me. No, I go and "test every spirit" like I am told to. "Every spirit" includes you and I, and not just supernatural beings who are in spiritual bodies. No, we have spirits too, and you must judge what man says according to what God says, not the other way around.

Just because some people say that God said hell is a literal place, does that make it true? An actual place, underneath the earth, that is all fiery and brimstone with demons waiting to torment you day and night, for all time, eternally and in physical pain?

[Itinerant Lurker]

You misunderstand the metaphors, but Satan is a real entity, an enemy. He is your enemy just as much as mine. He doesn't care about you, and lies to get people to turn away from God, just to hurt God. Satan knows what is right and wrong, and chooses to do wrong, leading many to their spiritual deaths.

Okay, so then god did build in death and suffering into the universe.

If Christianity has all the characteristics of all other man-made religions, why is it the only one that isn't based on salvation through good deeds, but merely by belief in Jesus as being our direct mediator to God which assures our salvation?

I have no idea, nor do I see why this would be evidence for the truth of it. After all, there are some unique doctrines in all world religions - this doesn't lend anything to their credibility.

If God came in the flesh, and told you how not to die and stay on the correct path, would you believe Him?

[/quote]

Probably.




Lurker

[Itinerant Lurker]

Yes, any action that you take, being a non-believer without God, is sinful in nature.

Simply put, good deeds do not prove a good person. It is by our intent, our free will, that we are judged. When we use our free will without benefit of including God or even thinking about Him, it is more than likely going to be something evil and sinful, no matter how small and insignificant it may seem. Because we are born with free will, yes, we are sinful by nature. This is what God was talking about (in part) when He said that we are ALL sinners.

None of that makes any kind of sense. If we are judged by our intent then it shouldn't matter if I believe in god or not - if I intend to do good then that intent is what matters. . .unless you're saying that non-believers cannot intend to do good. In which case I'd have to conclude that your position has become so divorced from reality so as to make this discussion hopelessly doomed.

If cognition and consciousness cease upon death, then why have many clinically brain-dead patients come back to life, having memories, or knowing exactly what the doctor and nurses are saying after they have clinically died and while still in the operating room? Clinically dead, not just assumed dead, but actually dead as determined by a doctor. There are pleanty of amazing stories out there that can not be refuted, at all. It is a miracle, and to me is proof of a soul.

There are natural explanations for most such phenomena. Curiously, all such experiences occur only for people with intact brains - you do not get these experiences from people with severely damaged/destroyed brains. I find this coincidence rather suspicious.

Brains can be artificially manipulated, but it still doesn't change the intent of the person.

Of course not, because intent and motor control are processed in different parts of the brain. This is neuroscience, not supernatural soul software.

I think he did a great job with presenting his findings. He's conclusively, as far as I am concerning, proved that the writings were done within a few years of Jesus' death.

I think your confirmation bias is leading you astray here.

Notice that in all these verses, God is saying to us about Nebuchadnezzar, that HE (meaning Nebuchadnezzar) is going to do all these things. Up untill...

This change to "They will" is a clear indicator that Nebuchadnezzar would not be the one to do this. It isn't a continuation of events, but a break, a pause in prose.

You can't be serious. I'm sorry, but this is simply ad hoc desperation at it's finest. The text indicates nothing of the sort.

The fact that modern-day Tyre is there, doesn't change the fact that Alexander the Great took the old city and used it as a causeway to get to the island. The old city was scraped up and thrown into the ocean, confirming prophecy. So different people rebuilt it? The original inhabitants aren't there.

Again, how can you say any of this with a straight face? Ezekiel specifically names Nebuchadnezzar as the one who will do this and he isn't, there is no mention of Alexander the Great at all except in the imaginations of those trying to explain an obviously erroneous prophecy that was obviously written during, or immediately prior to, Nebuchadnezzar's failed siege. Nor is your point about the original inhabitants remotely relevant, the original inhabitants of every city on the face of the earth are also not there anymore. So what?

The prophecy is wrong, it said Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the city - he didn't. It said Tyre would never be rebuilt - it has been, many times.

You can still see the ruins of Rome or any other city in the world, but the city of Tyre is the only city destroyed by war, and then thrown into the sea! How is it that this is not proof enough for you?

Maybe because it isn't actually true? What on earth makes you think Tyre was the only city destroyed by war which had some of it's rubble thrown into the sea?

For example, when the tower of babel was built, God stopped short of destroying them and instead "confounded their language". Why? They were only building a tower, so why was it so important for God to keep them from finishing a mere "tower"? (It was more than likely a Ziggarut, but I'm sticking with "tower" for the mere appearance of everyone knowing what I'm talking about when I say "Tower of Babel" and not "Ziggurat of Babel").

I don't see how referencing more things that don't appear to be true helps your argument.

If you had it in the first place, you wouldn't have left it. The reality is, you never had the truth because Satan works his lies, even among the churches of today. This isn't your fault, and God is willing to forgive, but only if you let Him.

That's a mighty fine no true scotsman fallacy you have there. I can't prove my sincerity, but I do assert it.

Just because you can't explain something, doesn't mean it isn't true, it just means you can't explain it. Maybe this is because you don't understand what is being talked about, again, going back to that whole "Spirituality" thing which the bible is ALL ABOUT. The entire bible is about spiritual things! I don't understand how you can be so blind as to not see this fact, and then go and say that "hell is a literal place"? It makes no sense what-so-ever.

The vast, vast majority of Christian theologians have shared this view with me - I guess none of them were real Christians either, that's why they didn't get how those subtle pronoun shifts actually referred to other conquerors arriving centuries later and thought that when the bible describes hell as a literal place of real, eternal suffering it actually meant it.

All I have is the text. What on earth is it good for if I have to grant that it has all these hidden meanings which directly contradict what it actually says that are only understandable by those who already accept it?




Lurker

[Ceegen]

None of that makes any kind of sense. If we are judged by our intent then it shouldn't matter if I believe in god or not - if I intend to do good then that intent is what matters. . .unless you're saying that non-believers cannot intend to do good. In which case I'd have to conclude that your position has become so divorced from reality so as to make this discussion hopelessly doomed.

I'll ignore that last sentence if you will please refrain making scathing comments about my perception of reality in future dialogue. You are, after all, on a Christian forum. You're going to see some "crazy" ideas! Get used to it lol.

Anyway, To The Point: People without God can intend to do good, but the end result is not always good because it does not include your intent to be pleasing to God and God alone with regard to your actions. This is why it is commonly said that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

There are natural explanations for most such phenomena. Curiously, all such experiences occur only for people with intact brains - you do not get these experiences from people with severely damaged/destroyed brains. I find this coincidence rather suspicious.

A computer doesn't function at full capacity if you remove a few resistors, causing frequent crashing and such. What is your point?

Of course not, because intent and motor control are processed in different parts of the brain. This is neuroscience, not supernatural soul software.

Well, that is just a theory, but one well worth pursuing. But to say that cognitive function is merely the sum of all the parts, is to ignore the problem of "the whole is the sum of its parts". That is, that what part has the most control over the rest? Do motor functions dictate health?

This also presents the problem of why stress can effect health to the point of physical death? And I don't mean stress like working long hours, but from grief and loneliness, emotions of the sort. What part of the brain is so powerful that it can kill itself merely by thought? You see, this is a much greater problem than you think, by only seeing with your eyes.

I think your confirmation bias is leading you astray here.

Maybe, but my faith isn't based on physical evidence. It would just be icing on the cake, if true. I just so happen to believe the bible anyway, so it wouldn't be a surprise if it were. See what I mean, though?

You can't be serious. I'm sorry, but this is simply ad hoc desperation at it's finest. The text indicates nothing of the sort.

Then why, when the text breaks from "He" to "They" did the prophecy related directly to those verses, apply only to Alexander the Great? Nebuchadnezzar did what the "He" part said he would, and then Alexander completed the sections of prophecy that are attributed with the "They" part? Surely this is not just coincidence?

Again, how can you say any of this with a straight face? Ezekiel specifically names Nebuchadnezzar as the one who will do this and he isn't, there is no mention of Alexander the Great at all except in the imaginations of those trying to explain an obviously erroneous prophecy that was obviously written during, or immediately prior to, Nebuchadnezzar's failed siege.

Nebuchadnezzar busted them up pretty good. Failed or no, they had to move to the island because of the siege, and that says a lot. But because the city was later used as a causeway to get to the island, basically every standing building and the dirt it rests on, was used as construction material. It's still all there, and no one is inhabiting that ever again.

Maybe because it isn't actually true? What on earth makes you think Tyre was the only city destroyed by war which had some of it's rubble thrown into the sea?

Some? How about the entire thing? You know how many cubic yards of material it would take to make that causeway? Not to mention, it's been strewn about the sea floor from the years of being left desolate. This wasn't just "some rubble" or part of a beach-head battleground. The entire city, in the Mediterranean Sea! Gone!

I don't see how referencing more things that don't appear to be true helps your argument.

Well that's a problem with your eyes, not mine.

That's a mighty fine no true scotsman fallacy you have there. I can't prove my sincerity, but I do assert it.

If what the bible says about Satan is true, that Jesus said Satan is a real entity, then that means a lot when it comes to how that relates while we're here on earth, seeing that Satan is the prince of *this* world. Organized religion is merely a system of control, something that was created by man to explain the bible, when the bible clearly explains itself. It's why the more I read it, the more I understand of it. I see it through the eyes of the writers, through all the thousands of years it was written over, and understand what the message is.

Anyone can do it, you don't need to go to college to study the bible and get a license to minister. This idea that we must somehow be confirmed in secular knowledge to preach the word of God, is a faulty one. None-the-less, we are told to be as wise as serpents, but as harmless as doves. I know what secular science and history says, but I don't agree with every thing that it concludes.

The vast, vast majority of Christian theologians have shared this view with me - I guess none of them were real Christians either, that's why they didn't get how those subtle pronoun shifts actually referred to other conquerors arriving centuries later and thought that when the bible describes hell as a literal place of real, eternal suffering it actually meant it.

A lie quickly spreads when there is a lack of truth. Left to our own imaginations, we now teach something that wasn't being taught in the "early church". Why is that?

All I have is the text. What on earth is it good for if I have to grant that it has all these hidden meanings which directly contradict what it actually says that are only understandable by those who already accept it?

Only God can reveal scripture.

In Matthew 13:35 we have "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world." - Speaking of Jesus.

If Jesus is God, then we must assume that God who is the same today and forever, was also speaking to us via His prophets throughout all the ages in parables. We are the masses, so He is speaking to us in parables within the bible. A story within a story, and a message of spiritual truth. Why do you think there are so many parallels to places and people and numbers in the bible? Like Joseph, who came out of Egypt, to save his family - Jesus who left Egypt with his earthly parents, came back to save His family?

There has to be more to it than just what is actually written, because taking it literal without seeing the parables attached to it, voids the spiritual message of the bible. You have to see it with more than just your eyes.

[awestruckchild]

Itinerant Lurker,
I want to ask you a question, but I do not want to offend you, so I hope I don't.
You joined this forum in 2008 and have been coming in here all this time and I am wondering what the draw is for you to keep coming in here. I am just curious. No offense meant.

[LookingUp]

What do you have to say about post #38?

IL, still wondering what you thought of post #38? Thanks.

[Yaaqov ben Yisrael]

God is the Creator of all; even evil. He sets evil before humanity; yet He demands righteousness from us.

Yaaqov ben Yisrael

[LookingUp]

God is the Creator of all; even evil. He sets evil before humanity; yet He demands righteousness from us.

Yaaqov ben Yisrael

Do you submit to a God who creates evil (i.e. whose acts wickedly)?

[Yaaqov ben Yisrael]

God is the creator, and is ultimately in control; everyone submits to him, willingly or not. God created evil, and He uses evil, as a temptation for the righteous (deut. 13); as a means of testing loyalty (job); and evev as a punishment for rebellion against His authority ( as in the case of Sodom). He controls all; and even the evil spirits are from Him ( as in the case of Saul ben Kish).

Yaaqov ben Yisrael

[LookingUp]

God is the creator, and is ultimately in control; everyone submits to him, willingly or not. God created evil, and He uses evil, as a temptation for the righteous (deut. 13); as a means of testing loyalty (job); and evev as a punishment for rebellion against His authority ( as in the case of Sodom). He controls all; and even the evil spirits are from Him ( as in the case of Saul ben Kish).

Yaaqov ben Yisrael

Well...this response sounds A LOT different than creating evil.

[Itinerant Lurker]

I'll ignore that last sentence if you will please refrain making scathing comments about my perception of reality in future dialogue. You are, after all, on a Christian forum. You're going to see some "crazy" ideas! Get used to it lol.

I can't promise to overlook obvious errors.

Anyway, To The Point: People without God can intend to do good, but the end result is not always good because it does not include your intent to be pleasing to God and God alone with regard to your actions. This is why it is commonly said that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

So, in your view of morality, a non-believer feeding a poor child is doing evil whereas a believer killing an Amalekite child is doing good? I have to say I don't think I want any part of that kind of thinking. That's just downright horrible.

A computer doesn't function at full capacity if you remove a few resistors, causing frequent crashing and such. What is your point?

Can you walk me through how, in your view, someone with severe autism is analogous to a computer with a few resistors removed?

Well, that is just a theory,

No.

But to say that cognitive function is merely the sum of all the parts, is to ignore the problem of "the whole is the sum of its parts". That is, that what part has the most control over the rest? Do motor functions dictate health?

That's not a problem.

This also presents the problem of why stress can effect health to the point of physical death? And I don't mean stress like working long hours, but from grief and loneliness, emotions of the sort. What part of the brain is so powerful that it can kill itself merely by thought? You see, this is a much greater problem than you think, by only seeing with your eyes.

Not really, as none of this points towards a spiritual soul controlling our brains like hardware.

Then why, when the text breaks from "He" to "They"

Obviously the "he" refers to Nebuchadnezzar whilst "they" refers to his armies.

But because the city was later used as a causeway to get to the island, basically every standing building and the dirt it rests on, was used as construction material. It's still all there, and no one is inhabiting that ever again.

Tyre is the settlement on the island, it's still there. Ushu was the settlement on the mainland, which has since been absorbed into the city of Tyre, it is also still there.

Some? How about the entire thing?

I'm sorry, but repeating this error isn't going to change just how utterly wrong it is.

You have to see it with more than just your eyes.

My eyes are all I have with which to see.




Lurker