bfniii

as i have said, the question is not how much suffering, because suffering is relative to the individual. the question is whether or not it exists. obviously, we agree it does. now the issue becomes whether or not it is justified.

nor mine. however, when i put some thought into the questions i have, i come to the conclusion that the questions are about less than critical issues, but interesting nonetheless.

christianity maintains that the most critical questions are answered in the bible.

i have already outlined two problems with this request.

i have already outlined two problems with this idea.

how long was He supposed to "wait"?

when do you think He's supposed to return?

what good would that do? like i said, how do you know they weren't the recipients of intercessory prayer?

how would you quantify this statement that they are better off physically and why is it important?

no i'm saying that if there truly is an omniscient God, then He is by definition consistent, while we are not.

i can't say that i agree with this methodology. consistency is an ideal, one that God happens to possess. it's not so much how it relates to God as much as what it is.

if we're talking about a divine archetype, then any inconsistency is the product of our limited understanding.

what gives you the idea that God is inconsistent?

and what are we to make of the fact that everyone's understanding differs?

i want no suffering at all. however, i realize that every time i have suffered, i have learned an indispensible lesson. i certainly don't want that, but it has been most beneficial and i think life would be much less interesting without it.

i am interested to know the specific passages you feel are misused.

i disagree. there would be plenty of people who would totally dismiss the appearance and plenty of people who would ridicule the appearance. i once saw a magician make a mountain disappear, but i know it's magic. i think the same could be said of your example.

Job is a good start.

personal, private is one good example.

this is a cowardly cop-out. if you can't make your case, why are you here? by denying the biblical account, you are implicitly affirming a differing account. since that's the case (despite what sauron mistakenly thinks), let's hear your support.

there are plenty of books that claim creation is too coincidental to be the product of natural forces.

personal experience. prove them wrong.

here are some different perspectives:

canon

canon

canon

personal experience

if God exists, He is good because He is the archetype of what we understand to be good, not because He is powerful.

anyone has the right, it's just that whenever that right is exercised, the result is subjective. the point is what you consider to be fair isn't universally accepted nor is it necessarily accurate.

why is this a good start? what is it preventing? what if there are ecological reasons why natural disasters should necessarily occur?

there is no way to quantify suffering because what suffering is to you is different to someone else. either it exists 100% or it does not. there is no amount.

what do you say to all the people who believe you can have this? what do you say to those same people who claim God has been looking to meet with you?

any scenario you can supply as an example of an appearance can be either dismissed or vitiated.

give me a reason to doubt what christianity maintains.

God by ontological definition is omniscient. if you claim He might not be, we're not talking about the same God

we're all going to die. it's a question of when. the issue now becomes why you think the people who died of the (insert tragedy here) should not have died at that time.

could you elaborate on why this outcome is more desirable?

thus making the condition irrelevant. if good and bad can result, how is that any different than the condition of a "normal" person?

neither do i. but i bet their life is much simpler and they have much less stress. i guess that might be an advantage.

this statement does not represent the following of the idea to it's conclusion. if everyone is that way, are they sick or non-productive? no, the goalposts have been moved.

what i mean is that it seems to me that God could have avoided incorporating this into existence without causing adverse effects on life. however, i have already outlined some good that results from it, so i could be mistaken.

Because it's a flawed idea. No amount of finite works warrants an infinite result.

i don't have to be God to know that the equation that you refer to is unbalanced making the request faulty.

i am via personal experience.

a need that is met. what else do you require?

personal experience.

we do know what the answers are. i just provided them.

the first problem with this response is that you are defending your position by attacking another which is a fallacy. either your position has merit or it does not regardless of any other position. it's a sign of weakness to succumb to such a methodology.

the second problem is that you may need to review the ontological evidence of God's existence.

actually, i have. i can repeat the two if you like.

according to the ontological argument, if God does exist, He has the highest moral standard.

no assumption is made. it's implicit.

yes He did.

according to christianity, they will. what evidence do you have to believe otherwise?

there are two flaws with your response:

1. this God that you mention isn't the God of christianity, but some God that doesn't meet the highest realization of the ontological argument.
2. christians are indeed expected to live a life of good works. therefore, they would meet your criteria anyway. the good works aren't necessary to merit eternal favor. but the NT is clear that a christian is to give their entire life in service to humanity.

bfniii

there's no false impression. they know what they need to know.

what makes those events false starts?

what tortures?

what fun would that be?

why do we love our pets?

bfniii

i have already pointed out there isn't "as much suffering". there just is suffering.

how do you know He can't?

are you referring to the bible?

already done.

i asked you this question in response to your request that you shouldn't be held accountible for choosing rejection of God because He doesn't "make a personal appearance".

bfniii

i have said several times already that He has done what you require. what else do you require?

it most certainly is if you're the one claiming God allows too much of it. i made that statement to clear up your misconception that there are differing amounts of suffering, which there are not.

He doesn't quantify suffering, He allows it.

perhaps you don't realize this passage is not relevant to the discussion

yeah, but photoshop is pretty handy

first, why is that necessary? second, i have already pointed out the fallacy in such a request. third, there would still be people who would posit natural explanations for such an occurrence thus making the appearance skeptical.

answered in the bible

neither.

what makes you think otherwise?

bfniii

really? where was that?

perhaps your frustration originates from the fact that you don't comprehend the rebuttals. if you think you do, let's hear your objection to them instead of these nebulous, unsubstantial retorts.

bfniii

not that "all" was suggested.

what makes you say that?

what makes you believe this did happen?

what evidence is there against it?

bfniii

not quite. the point is made in response to the statement that no good can come from suffering.

bfniii

is there some point to citing a flawed analogy?

bfniii

i feel confident i have already responded thoroughly to each one of these points. you can find my response in my previous posts. if you find i have omitted any, please let me know.

Random Evil Guy

1.why is it flawed?

2.because he nailed you already in his first post, but, as most christians, you just keep making up excuses and all of your answers are vague at best and completely irrelevant at worst...

edit:
in addition, you answer most questions with another question. not only is that rude, but extremely inane as well.


btw, i have a few quastions for you.

-it is obvious you interpret the 'tyre prophecy' somewhot figuratively. do you consider all of the bible to be interpreted figuratively or is some meant to be taken literally? if the latter, who decides which is which? can anyone decides for themselves? if so, what's the point of organized religion in the first place? what's the point of christianity if anyone can decide for themselves what is real and what are just methaphorical...