• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Idiot's Tale

... which perhaps wraps up this diversion and lets us get back to the primary point.
The Bible supports the idea of cataclyms being used for punishment and for non-punishment, both. So the existence of a cataclysm is not enough, by itself, to know whether God is unhappy with some person or group.
 
AvalonXQ said:
... which perhaps wraps up this diversion and lets us get back to the primary point.
The Bible supports the idea of cataclyms being used for punishment and for non-punishment, both. So the existence of a cataclysm is not enough, by itself, to know whether God is unhappy with some person or group.
Click to expand...

So, God causes/sanctions/allows disasters to happen to everyone, even if he's not mad at them, yes?

Why? Doesn't god love us? Why would he want us to be killed in such a horrific way as drowning, or suffocating after being buried under rubble, or being crushed to death etc? Even if this was an acceptable punishment for people who have upset god, why wouldn't he spare those he wasn't unhappy with? Why would he allow children to be orphaned and then left to starve, or be killed by rioters or looters? Why is it acceptable for god to be neglectful, and yet if a parent is, it causes a massive scandal (No, I'm not saying neglectful parents aren't terrible)?

God is, for want of a better way of putting it, the father and mother of the whole world, and yet when he acts in the same way as an abusive parent, or a neglectful parent, why is this handwaved away as being acceptable? We're flawed people, we aren't perfect, so when one of us perpetuates such horrors, why is it condemned MORE than if god does it? Why is something that we all consider to be wrong, cruel and even evil a-ok for a perfect and loving god to do?

It makes no sense.
 
Yes, it is.

So what's the answer, because to me, that seems rather....unfortunate.

I don't understand why such a glaringly obvious logical problem doesn't make yo uthink twice about god. Why is it that you can have such a situation and yet still believe that god loves you and would do anything for you?

Would you take that crap from an abusive spouse? I highly doubt it, so why do you take it from a being for which, even if it does exist, which isn't certain, is even LESS loving and caring? It really does confuse me.
 
A question for AvalonXQ (or other Christians frankly)... if there is an apparent cruelty, wrongdoing, or contradiction in the bible... after due considerations of context, is the answer EVER that, having passed through human hands, part the writing is just plain wrong as to the actual word/will of God? Did none of the people involved in putting together the bible ever slip something of their own in, or make a mistake that was never corrected?
 
Last edited:
gnome said:
A question for AvalonXQ (or other Christians frankly)... if there is an apparent cruelty, wrongdoing, or contradiction in the bible... after due considerations of context, is the answer EVER that, having passed through human hands, part the writing is just plain wrong as to the actual word/will of God? Did none of the people involved in putting together the bible ever slip something of their own in, or make a mistake that was never corrected?
Click to expand...

I think to those Christians who are strongly committed to the idea that the Bible is the perfect and infallible word of God, the answer has got to be no.
 
AvalonXQ said:
I think to those Christians who are strongly committed to the idea that the Bible is the perfect and infallible word of God, the answer has got to be no.
Click to expand...

How about to you? I'd prefer not to debate a straw literalist.
 
gnome said:
How about to you? I'd prefer not to debate a straw literalist.
Click to expand...

I'm am inerrantist, yes. I accept the possibility of translation and transcription errors in copies but hold the original texts to be flawless.
 
Darat said:
Apart from when you disagree with what the text actually says....
Click to expand...

Apart from when someone tries to convince me the passage says something that it doesn't.
Newsflash: believing whatever the Bible says doesn't mean believing that it says whatever you argue it says.
 
AvalonXQ said:
Apart from when someone tries to convince me the passage says something that it doesn't.
Newsflash: believing whatever the Bible says doesn't mean believing that it says whatever you argue it says.
Click to expand...

Or, according to you, what the words mean.
 
AvalonXQ said:
... which perhaps wraps up this diversion and lets us get back to the primary point.
The Bible supports the idea of cataclyms being used for punishment and for non-punishment, both. So the existence of a cataclysm is not enough, by itself, to know whether God is unhappy with some person or group.
Click to expand...

You still have to provide proof of the existence of this god you believe in.Don't put the cart before the horse.
 
arthwollipot said:
I don't believe that the problem of evil has ever been a serious problem for christianity.
Click to expand...
Would you unpack this because I can find it to be a serious problem. God does not appear to have the avoidance of harm to life as his no. 1 priority. The only thing that makes any sense to me is that God is more interested in people's character and that there must be something beyond this life to make up for the unfairness that some people suffer (eg some awful genetic conditions).
 
Mr Clingford said:
Would you unpack this because I can find it to be a serious problem. God does not appear to have the avoidance of harm to life as his no. 1 priority. The only thing that makes any sense to me is that God is more interested in people's character and that there must be something beyond this life to make up for the unfairness that some people suffer (eg some awful genetic conditions).
Click to expand...
You've pretty much got it. No, avoidance of harm is not God's no.1 priority. The story of Job shows that God is just fine for harm to happen to people if it's done for a good reason. And yes, God allows evil because people have to be free to choose to be good people.

Quite straightforward, really.
 
AvalonXQ said:
I'm am inerrantist, yes. I accept the possibility of translation and transcription errors in copies but hold the original texts to be flawless.
Click to expand...

Late coming back to this... but weren't even the "original texts" transcriptions in the first place? What made them immune from error?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom