Er, no, it isn’t.
The guide (revelation in this case) was accepted as a symbolic explanation because the events did not occur on the way to the church’s triumph over Rome. In modern parlance, if one insists on being more literal with the book, that is the equivalent of Nixon finding out that his explanation was no longer operational.
Yes, and I did read your link, but if it was meant to apply to Rome, it has failed in it’s prophecy, there are many aspects which did not happen, even with symbolic interpretation.
[QUOTERT]
Er, no, it isn’t.
[/QUOTE]
Well it is confusing, if you say it’s not customary, I’ll let it drop, it’s a minor issue.
Oy oy oy! Of course it failed, and the church therefore accepted revelation in the bible as a symbolic book. Picking and chosing more than 2000 years later what interpretation is valid is not a credible thing to do.
That one got away from me, was thinking about my car, anyway the way I see it is that these things which were revealed to happen, in a symbolic sense, has either not happened, or have only partly happened, and as such the rest has to be to come.
I really take it as symbolic interpretation of things John of Patmos could not understand using terms he could.
Hardly. If you tried to actually implement your “all is fair” attitude, you could easily find yourself imprisoned for war crimes.
First, I’m not a lawyer, and would have trouble finding a cite for most laws. Second, of course we have no responsibillty towards a “mouse that you don’t even know”, because we are neither omniscient nor omnipotent; your analogy doesn’t work applied to something that has those qualities. Third, if you think that animal cruelty laws don’t apply to, say, a pet mouse I rather suuspect you are wrong. Fourth, it doesn’t matter since abusing helpless creature is immoral in the extreme, legal or not.
So God created humanity only to punish them. Well, that does square with the world in many respects, although I have trouble understanding why one would worship such a sadistic abomination, except for maybe the fact that he has the power to torment you for all time if you don’t bow down to him (quite the insecure diety). It seems to me that Satan is rather justified in rebelling against such a tyrant.
Theory proposed: war were made ‘nicer’ to make it easier for free societies to wage them. So instead of a few horrific wars (rape,pillage,razing, etc.), we get many many wars.
God lets the mouse run it’s own life. If the mouse breaks it’s leg in your back yard what obligation do you have to it?
I don’t know if is says why God created this area/space we exist in. God did say it was ‘good’ however. Which I could guess means a net good, though it may contain ‘bad’.
This in not the reason most Christians I know are Christians, so it’s ineffective. Also as pointed out in my first post in this thread, I have cited scripture that it is only the false prophet, Beast, Satan, and perhaps those who have willing accepted the mark of the beast to be tormented for eternity. The rest seem to go to a second death. after:
After which they seem to me to go into non-existence.
More on who may go where:
Again only the beast and the false prophet (and later Satan) are thrown in to the lake ‘alive’
Here we see the reference to ‘smoke’ that goes up forever and ever, but there is no mention of the great prostitute is in the lake of fire when Satan is case in (referenced in my first post). But again this does not say that the prostitute is cast in to that lake, is it only a assumption.
Satan’s reason for rebellion is made clear here, he wants to be God. Justified is a relative term when it comes to talking about Satan, but he is allowed to do so. God does permit rebellion, but there are consequences. In short if you want to run with the big dog you have to learn to piss in the tall grass.
It does appear like God want to accept those who accept Him, punish those who rebel against him, allow to die those who did not accept Him, as well as a unclear have chewed up and spit out for those who have not taken sides when a decision is needed to be made.
God lets the children run it’s own life. If the child is dying of a horrible disease you can cure with a flick of a finger what obligation do you have to flick that finger?
(This would be a more appropriate analogy. That analogy you keep repeating is grossly inadequate.)
**Why does God Permit… **
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK
Well, when the starving babies, gang rapes and genocides are pointed out Christians just say “God works in mysterious ways”. I guess it’s hopeless.
Yes it is hopeless to understand . We Christians can explain it in a myriad of ways but it is still a mystery for us.
<snip>
Is it only Christians who say, “God works in mysterious ways”, as stated by CarnalK?
Does the Bible say that? The only cite for that oft-misattributed phrase is in a 1779 hymn from William Cowper (1731-1800), “Lights Shining out of Darkness”, Olney Hymns, no. 35, Il. 19-20. and it actually says,
“God moves in a mysterious way
His wonders to perform
He plants his footsteps in the sea,
And rides upon the storm.”
Der Trihs:
a) Begging your pardon, but unless I misremember, you’re an atheist, yes? Would you currently jack off while a kid burns to death, or condone someone else doing so? If not, are there reasons why not that would pertain to what you consider to be right? (You need not detail or defend those reasons, I’m just asking if there are some). If you have such reasons, why would the existence of God / God manifesting God’s self as the kid and as you (and/or the other observer) throw that off? Would you not still
That was weird. No I didn’t hit “post” too soon, it just chopped off my post. Did the back button and the whole thing was there. Must’ve hit the wrong modifier key and entered some kind of invisible control character…let’s try this again… (::checks preview:: ) that’s better…
Der Trihs:
a) Begging your pardon, but unless I misremember, you’re an atheist, yes? Would you currently jack off while a kid burns to death, or condone someone else doing so? If not, are there reasons why not that would pertain to what you consider to be right? (You need not detail or defend those reasons, I’m just asking if there are some). If you have such reasons, why would the existence of God / God manifesting God’s self as the kid and as you (and/or the other observer) throw that off? Would you not still care, and intervene if you could, and be upset in a way that would work as a massive disincentive to masturbation even if all you could do it watch helplessly, God or no God? “God” is not “why I care” or “why I should care”. “God”, to me, is shorthand for a complex explanation and elaboration for why my caring, and my sense of “this is not as things should be” on seeing the burning child, are relevant and pertinent rather than being artifacts of the culture in which I was raised and its notions of “how things should be”. (i.e., the intellectual and spiritual equiv of a snappy comeback to “Oh, but if you were raised in a culture of hateful torture-practicing cruelty-valuing people, you’d be shocked if someone didn’t get aroused by seeing a child burn to death, and, furthermore, you’re in no position to say it’s ‘better’ to have the values you currently have than the values you’d have if you’d been so raised”)
b) The “Book of P” portion of Genesis has it that God created the world “and saw that it was good”; people, who see only their local portion of universe (local in both time and space), often do not look upon world and life and see it quite the same way. Hence religion — a way of backing off from the immediate-local and getting a broader perspective, to get past the often ugly and painful immediate realities and see how life and world are or can be good, and then perhaps get a clearer picture of what needs doing on the local immediate front to fix whatever needs fixing. I once turned to God out of concern for my species as a whole, seeking reassurance that, at least under ideal circumstances, we could live without coercion and violence as the underlying principles of our social order. God told me “Relax, don’t worry, if homo sap on Earth doesn’t reach such an arrangement that doesn’t mean such an arrangement will not be manifested elsewhere… there will be peace and voluntary cooperation of free individuals forming a society, if not homo sap then some other manifestation, if not on Earth then elsewhere”.
:eek:
c) I’d think none of this should be highly incompatible with a good atheist’s perspective on evolution and nature, the traits of the physical and social world, and matters of ethics and character. If you find them to be so, though, by all means elaborate. I would be horrified if my theistic perspective is somehow excusing some kind of uninvolved uncaring callousness in me, and that’s a horror I need to get hit with if it’s applicable.
Anduril the human-mouse analogy was to show the degree of separation between God and man.
Why should God fix things when we can fix them ourselves?
Anduril this may be a bit more to the statement you made. We are in a place where the ‘evil one’ controls. If he does actually control the whole world, it precludes God from control.
Ahh, so to use the same analogy:
A child is burning in front of you and the fire is being controlled by another child whom you can stop with a flick of a finger. Why not flick this finger? Let me guess. It’s a mystery?
But it is inadequate to show why it would be consistent for someone who doesn’t believe in God to not stop suffering among the feeble creatures. In our case, we simply can’t (or it would be too difficult and may have unforeseen consequences). With God, he can stop the suffering being both omnipotent and omniscient.
Except that we seem to always have had “many,many” wars, and if anything we have fewer, not more.
It’s called “being a decent person”. And God does not let the mouse run it’s own life, since he’s responsible for all it’s weaknesses and limitations. That’s like throwing someone off a cliff and claiming they chose to hit bottom.
No, and yes.
Because you said that the evils that are happening because they are “satisfying to God”. You seem to be saying that we are basically fake, God’s shadow puppets, and that the evil and misery of the world don’t matter because they are all God’s will.
And it’s the view of the people that matter, not God’s bizarre sociopathic view of what qualifies as “good”. We are the ones who are doing the suffering, after all. What you are saying is like claiming that a city seen from a great height is pretty, because from that height you don’t notice the corpses in the street from the plague that’s killed most of the population.
Sooo - you basically think God said “Humanity is screwed, and I don’t care, don’t worry be happy”, and you think this God is good ? That’s an amoral God at best, not a good one.
It seems rather designed to produce a distant, uncaring view of human suffering and evil. Basically, you seem to be saying “We are all insignificant insects, and the insects are just little extensions of a greater entity and not real in themselves anyway. Besides, no matter how bad things are, I’m sure that somewhere they are better, and that means the misery of this world doesn’t matter.”
And some poor Stone Age fellow was supposed to invent oncology and anesthetics, right there, right then ?
God is supposed to omnipotent, therefore nothing is precluded from God’s control.
Because of the rules of war. What if any superpower wouldn’t think twice about nuking the opponent on first strike. Do you think the US and China would get involved in Vietnam and Korea? Don’t you think Sadam wouldn’t beat a path to the door when the US said get out of Kuwait? The rules of war ensure wars. Total war is the greatest path to peace we humans have, what you want is inhumane. At least as far as my theory goes.
Well this is my interpretation, the great grandparents of that mouse told God to f’off and let them and their offspring live their own life. This symbolized by the fall of man.
Also represented in the parable of the lost son (aka the prodigal son) in Luke 11:15-32 (since this is long and well known I won’t post it).
The son in this case leaves the ‘estate’ of the father to find his own way. The father allows it, at which point there is no reason for the father to do anything for the son, and the son is outside the estate, and therefore outside the controlled area of the father.
Again my interpretation.
At the very least God does seem to have some limitations - perhaps there is a upper limit to power - like there is a upper limit to speed. Why does a omnipotent God need 6 days to create the world (using God’s time scale), why does He need a day of rest? Why does God loose control of of the world to the ‘evil one’ (cited above) only to regain in:
Sort of answered above, God is either unable (above answer to Der Trihs), or for some reason unwilling. The unwillingness may be because free will or another factor is the greater good, or may be that the mouse told God to f’ off.
Your second post also answered above.
A mystery, it is. Hurray!