Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Simple questions

Expand Messages
  • Darren Smith
    Message 1 of 36 , Feb 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      <I can't see why a believer would take discomfort in accepting that
      God created polio, cancer, AIDS, dysentery, etc.>

      Funny, most christians (esp AoG) would say its all the devil. Of
      course if then you want to have the last word you could say "who made
      the devil"??

      Mr Wayman lover on Crackpots tried to tell me I have a God who MADE
      EVIL. I said if there was supposed to be "no sin or evil" before Adam
      and Eve ate the fruit how come Lucifer became Satan (to tempt Eve
      before the so called time of sin or evil) and why did God plant a tree
      which fruit could be used to cause SIN?? The ONLY thing any christian
      can do at that stage is speculate but yes GOD created everything and
      evil, sin and everything bad down to pests came out of that CREATION.

      Seems to me to be what the bible says anyway. If you asked 100
      christians "who made evil" I'm sure you'll get a different answer
      everytime. Seems to be closely related to the disease question.

      BTW I think it comes from the problem that "IF" God created EVIL they
      MUST BY logic believe in an EVIL GOD, thats why they defend it with
      nashing teeth.

      Darren

      --- In Escape_from_the_Fellowship@yahoogroups.com, "Horace the
      Hormone" <perrybarile@...> wrote:
      >
      > Today the pastor's wife of the local AoG made the mistake of trying
      to convert the owner
      > of Loki's Potting Shed.
      >
      > Not that she knows about my online identity and not that I knew that
      she was the pastor's
      > wife. If I'd known that, I wouldn't have bothered. The pastor's wife
      is most the most
      > belligerent member of a congregation. Poor woman. If only she knew
      who she was
      > debating with.
      >
      > Cut to the end of the story... I was officially proclaimed to be an
      evil person and very sick.
      > I was also banned from entering any AoG premises from this day forth.
      >
      > And I told her to "eff you". Which she deserved. Calling someone
      evil and sick is not very
      > nice.
      >
      > The thing that constantly amazes me is how a lot of Christians get
      so offended and
      > defensive when you press them with questions they don't want to
      answer. I could see that
      > she was taking everything I said as a personal attack on her faith.
      >
      > That's the problem. There are some simple questions that you can ask
      Christians, but
      > they'll take those questions as a personal attack.
      >
      > For instance, once I got her to state that only God can create, she
      then refused to answer
      > the question of who created disease? I can't see the problem. I
      easily accepted her claim
      > that science is responsible for a lot of bad things, but she took
      the suggestion that God
      > created disease as an insult. In fact, she accused me of playing
      mind games. She's right. I
      > was. I was making her think outside of her little box.
      >
      > I can't see why a believer would take discomfort in accepting that
      God created polio,
      > cancer, AIDS, dysentery, etc.
      >
      > Meh. An episode of Stargate that I haven't seen is about to start.
      That's more interesting
      > than discussing the weakness of Christian faith.
      >
    • potkonyak
      My posts kept disappearing since last night. Found out it was due to my recent change of email address. So, here it is, for the third time... [Thesis #1.
      Message 36 of 36 , Feb 5, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        My posts kept disappearing since last night. Found out it was due to
        my recent change of email address. So, here it is, for the third
        time...

        [Thesis #1. Love Requires Freedom. By definition love among
        contingent beings must be freely chosen.]

        So far, so good...

        [Thesis #2. Freedom Implies Risk. The freedom to choose or reject
        love constitutes a risk for God. Creatures may make choices that
        oppose his will for their lives and the lives of others... If this
        thesis is accepted as plausible, it explains why God can't be held
        responsible for what his created agents, human or angelic, end up
        doing.]

        Well... I have a problem with this one. There is a principle
        accepted throughout the business, governments and the law which is
        called "non-delegable duty (of care)". In other words, someone who
        has an authority is responsible for the consequences of his/her/its
        decisions, acts or failures to act within that authority. That
        person can delegate the authority BUT the responsibility still
        remains with him/her/it. The above thesis tell us that God is not
        aware of that principle. He just abdicated His authority and dumped
        the associated responsibilities onto others. When you look at the
        suffering of an individual in the hands of other people, in the hands
        of the "natural" and man-made disasters and, look at this!, in
        the "hands" of the micro-organisms, the thesis tells us that God
        simply washed His hands of that and that it is the individual's
        fault. That is mentality of Wayman Mitchell and his lesser lords.
        Or is it the fault of the micro-organisms? Or the one who caused
        those natural disasters?

        If we extend that thesis to the inhabitants of the Noah's ark we must
        conclude that God must have intervened and restrained the free will
        of those animals on board. If he did not, we would have to accept
        that Noah was in command of a super technology by being able to keep
        tons of fresh meat and vegetarian food refrigerated so he could feed
        the meat-eating beasts and grass eating animals not only while on the
        ark but also for many moons after they got off the ark while they
        were waiting for the plants to re-grow and the animals breed in large
        enough numbers so they can provide food for those meat-eating ones.

        So, if God indeed did intervene by over-riding the free will of the
        animals in order to "save the world" He must be capable and willing
        to over-ride the free will of the micro-organisms in order to protect
        people from suffering. He also could and would over-ride the free
        will of individuals in order to protect them from harming each
        other. He could do that to the devil and his angels also. If He
        simply doesn't want to do that, why did He do it to the animals that
        came and remained at Noah's ark?

        On the other hand, if we take it that God did not over-ride the free
        will of the animals on the Noah's ark, Noah had to do some rather
        extensive chasing in order to catch those animals. In fact, in the
        process, he must have discovered Australia, Americas, Antarctica
        etc... I only wonder how did he handle those families of dinosaurs
        and how did he travel to the distant parts of the earth – as a side
        issue.

        [Thesis #5. Power to Influence is Irrevocable. Genuine freedom must
        be irrevocable....
        Thesis #6. Power to Influence is Finite. God's creatures are
        finite. Although their freedom cannot be revoked, it can be thought
        of as "probational."]

        These two theses are in contradiction. Probational means one that
        can be revoked. That is one problem. The other problem is that
        there is no such power that is not revocable. Anyone who delegates
        authority is not only responsible for the use of that authority but
        also can revoke it if it is abused. So, if the devil abuses the
        power given to him, God can revoke it in order to protect the others
        or else, take the responsibility for the suffering of those affected
        by the delegated power. Thesis 5 is an insult to God. He knows
        better than that.

        [The theme of God striving to establish his sovereign will (his
        Kingdom) on earth over and against forces that oppose him is more
        prevalent in the New Testament. In keeping with the apocalyptic
        climate of the time, there are more references to angels at war with
        God, demons that torment people, and the powerful being who leads
        this rebellion against the Creator. His name, of course, is Satan.]

        What I believe that took place in the time of the New Testament is
        that the church leaders became a little bit more sophisticated in
        their marketing strategies so they borrowed the notion of hell from
        the Greek mythology. In order to give it credence they ascribe their
        new discovery to Jesus by writing as if He said those things.

        [Jesus tied up the strong man so that he (and later, his Church)
        could pillage his kingdom. In the context of Jesus' ministry, the
        kingdom of God is a warfare concept.]

        There is hardly any evidence that "Jesus tied up the strong man" and
        even less that the church is "pillaging" devil's kingdom. On the
        contrary, the church is "pillaging" God's kingdom, the people who are
        looking for God.


        shalom
        george
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.