That’s it. See post 285, the benevolence of God is an item of faith, just like his existence.
You just said that God is incomprehensible. What knowledge can you have of It?
That’s gibberish. I can lift 100kg over my head. You can lift 150kg over your head. You aren’t stronger than me, you’re just operating with different goals at different scales. Utter nonsense.
So suffering isn’t important because you’ll feel better later? I’m sure the next person who’s burning to death in an overturned car will take that as a great solace.
Matt 16:28 There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.
Matt 10:23 When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
Matt 24:34 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
Mark 13:30 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
Luke 21:32 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
I ran an RPG where Jesus said that because Barabbas was in the audience, and after he got released by Pilate he got cursed to be the Wandering Jew. So the generation never passed away because Barabbas was immortal.
Since this thread is about random stuff that’s made up, I thought this was on topic.
Correct. You and Der Trihs may be coming in late, so sorry if you didn’t catch that.
The attributes are contradictory, yes.
But if you believe in a God and the soul, surely there must be a spiritual world.
Yeah, good point. Tough one. I was leaning hard on the capacity for suffering idea, the amount of suffering is harder to explain beyond just “we can’t understand God”. Hmmm…
I guess I’ll have to go back to plan B: People that suffer deserve to, they are evil in ways that they have chosen freely, but that we cannot perceive with limited human spiritual awareness.
It must be necessary, or God is cruel and certainly not benevolent. One of the stipulations was “God is benevolent”, so I’d have to either claim that it’s necessary or abandon that stipulation.
I think the “greater good” argument has some merit.
I’m working with what I have, here.
I’ve seen that one before.
Fair point.
Yes, somewhat blind, but it’s the only way I see to reconcile suffering with a benevolent God.
Just going by the Bible, here.
If God only needs the capacity of suffering and actual suffering > 0, then we’d just have to make sure some suffering exists, which would be the case no matter what we do.
Or, going with Plan B: We can’t deliberately increase suffering, because God makes sure the right people suffer, and we might screw it up.
Heh, good one.
I think a return is a reasonable interpretation.
I can only use what I have. If I stipulate that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God whose nature is imperfectly captured in the Bible (post 339), it’s going to take some hoop-jumping. No way around that.
By simply looking around at the world we live in. The sheer randomness of events that surround us suggest there’s no ‘plan’ either benevolent or malevolent – things just are.
Sure, our minds are built to look for patterns, but when you can’t logically find any, “God’s mysterious ways” is hardly an answer but rather a faith-based cop-out. Perfectly fine saying “I don’t know (why).”
So in short, I don’t know and neither do you.
That just means that God can’t be fully understood. If you accept the Bible as an imperfect reflection of God’s nature, you can gain some imperfect knowledge.
C’mon, now, that’s not the most apt of analogies.
You push a little girl out of the way of a truck. I steal money to finance the development of a wheat strain that nearly eliminates world hunger. Which one of us is benevolent? Both? Why?
Right. After all, you get a max of 120 years with this body, and an eternity in the afterlife.
Well, that’s difficult to answer…imperfect human rendering of Jesus’ words in the Bible? That’s all I’ve got.
– italics mine.
This why “debates” between faith and logic are frankly, impossible – I mean, surely you can provide a cite for this, right? 
Agreed, but then you’d have to abandon the stipulations I mentioned. Few are willing to do so.
I’m leaving work and will be away from the internet for a while. I’m a stickler for replying, though. My premise (that the belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God whose nature is imperfectly captured in the Bible can weather criticism based on human suffering, as the root ideas can only be attacked directly) has been weakened badly, so I learned something. Thanks for your input, all, and have a pleasant evening.
At this point the wise editor would dump the manuscript in the round file, tell the author/authors that youhaveaVERYimportantappointmentelsethankyouSOmuchgoodbye!, and give the author/authors names to the security guard at the front desk to be put on the “Do Not Admit EVAR!” list.
It’s certainly what Christains have thought for close to 2000 years - its very debatable if that is what the original 12 thought - they did not include the Gospel of Thomas in the original canon for a ‘reason’ after all.
At some point, its fair to say that this interpretation is flat out wrong however.
Well, “Christians” by and large take the bible as God’s word - and if so, they have a hard time reconciling the parts they don’t like - I take them at thier word - if they think God ‘authored’ it thru the use of his ‘holy spirit’ but man keeps ‘messing it up’ - it really doesn’t seem to be much use at all.
[QUOTE=Human Action]
I guess I’ll have to go back to plan B: People that suffer deserve to, they are evil in ways that they have chosen freely, but that we cannot perceive with limited human spiritual awareness. .
[/QUOTE]
I would have a hard time telling the child with leukemia or any other number of diseases that they “deserve it” - If I did, I would certainly deserve the ass kicking I got in return. Its one thing to try and sell this shit to adults that might have the capacity to understand that concept - its another to accept that God decides Children deserve this punishment.
Mathew 25:40 - “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
While in context they are talking about aiding and giving comfort to people, the corollary is just as applicable - if you do evil to the least, you did it to the king - whats that say about ‘God’ ???
Plan b requires a bigger sadist of a God than plan a.
They stole that from me. 
This goes to my point, that debating the trappings or doctrine of this or that religion is less effective than debating core assumption of the existence of a deity.
Agreed.
Based on the citations from earlier, yes, you’d have to conclude that the interpretation was wrong.
That’s really the only way to reconcile some of the contradictions in the Bible. You’d just have to stipulate that the essential truths were transmitted accurately.
Yeah, Plan B is a tough sell, and it requires that God uses criteria to judge us that we ourselves are ignorant of, which is also problematic.
Reconciling aspects of the world with a benevolent omnipotent God is pretty difficult, as it turns out. Maybe pchaos can return and make a run at it, I gave it my best shot.
Guys, I’m still a newbie and I know that I’ve also stepped on some toes. Also, my thoughts are sometimes a jumbled mess so I’ve appreciated your input. I also have appreciated the times you guys have told me I’m full of it. It helps to clear my mind.
All I’ve got to say is the writers of the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit, but unfortunately they were human also. Their very perception of God’s nature changed over time. Remember why the Romans were so upset over Jesus’ preaching. What do you mean there’s only one God. How about Aphrodite, Mercury etc.
Just think only in the last 500 years or so did science become so important that we had an “enlightenment” in Europe. Who knows, another 100 years from now we may think that the internet is another dimension of reality and God was related to AAPL. I’m being facetious here, but the point being, I’m still on a spiritual quest. I would go further and say that even if you don’t believe in God but enjoy discussing and debating these matters, that you are also on a spiritual quest.
I think you are misdefining “spiritual quest” the same way you misdefine “logical” and “rational”, and will ignore this line of inquiry until you start consulting a dictionary before posting.
Speaking of dictionaries, you’ve seemed to be confused in past posts about atheists hating God and somesuch, so could you please give us your definition of “atheist”? Thank you.
Aye - but there’s the rub - what are the “essential” truths? While some of the concepts might make for a fine philosophy (aka “the golden rule”), If the work on whole cannot be trusted to be accurate, how would one determine what an “essential” truth from it is?, whether or not it is from “God” or just some man’s “idea” ?