bfniii

there hasn't been one person in this thread who has shown that God allowing evil makes Him malicious or sadistic. furthermore, you shouldn't have any compassion for someone else's suffering under the naturalism worldview. if it's impersonal, what do you care? in fact, you wouldn't even understand compassion. it was that person's fate to die that way and it is illogical to care one way or the other.

bfniii

sigh. this is another strawman. you haven't shown that God is "torturing" people.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to bfniii: I am still waiting for you to tell us where Wikipedia accurately dates the Tyre prophecy, and by what means any prophecy can be accurately dated.

As I said in my previous post, I would like for Christians to try to reasonably prove that Jesus healed people and that he fed 5,000 people with a few loaves of bread and a few fish.

Sauron

"Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."

Besides, is anyone on this thread saying "evil" or "malicious"?

Wrong.

Also quite wrong.

Predestination has nothing to do with naturalism or compassion. Your comprehension of naturalism is, apparently, zero.

But on the bright side, you did manage to get four strawmen squeezed into one single post. I think that must be some kind of record.

bfniii

but you didn't answer the question. at what point does a person become not-innocent?

He doesn't make, He allows. there's a big difference.

you still haven't defined innoncent nor have you shown why they, or anyone, should be immune from suffering. you just keep repeating your original statement.

bfniii

not exactly. people can do good things at any time. i'm responding to the assumption that no good can come from natural disasters.

ask a quadriplegic, blind, and mute person. i'm sure they will be able to give you some examples.

you say this but conveniently omit the most important part, why?

completely not analogous. we're not discussing human jurisprudence. we're discussing the morality of an alleged creator of the universe. such a being would not be bound by flawed and vagarious human laws.

according to whom?

and i personally know some people who became christians after katrina. what's your point?

same as with people.

nope. i'll be packing my bags if one comes my way. but i will be ready to assist those affected just as i did after katrina.

bfniii

this is excluded middle as i have said. you are omitting the option that God has a good reason for allowing suffering, that there is purpose in it. i have even provided some of them.

it's only a contradiction if you exclude options.

Sauron

Since you're the one with the doctrinal pivot point here, seems like you ought to have an answer ready for that.

Of course, if a person doesn't believe in original sin -- or even sin, for that matter -- then the question is irrelevant.

1. In what way?

2. Since God wants credit for all the good things, doesn't it work the same way for good things as bad? He doesn't make good; he merely allows it?

You are confused.
From his standpoint, suffering isn't a problem. It's part of life. Needs no explanation.

He is trying to assume your frame of reference - even though he disagrees with it. His statement is that -- using your frame of reference -- the standpoint of a religion that posits a just God, etc. the question of innocent suffering *is* a problem.

Sauron

Care to demonstrate that this was a choice on anyone's part?

Is it?

From the looks of it, you are hiding behind a term of logic that you are somewhat misusing - especially given the binary nature of your God.

bfniii

not at all. i was pointing out that you are not completely representing the issue.

the point is, there are ignorant people on both sides of the table.

not at all. your statement implied exactly what i pointed out.

another assumption. non-christians are not the only people who contribute to progress.

what "facts" of medical research obviate christianity?

you listed several things but failed to show how they are "higher". higher than what?

the only dodge is that you don't respond to my point that your statement assumes that only non-christians are immune from ignorance and superstition.

are you just throwing around terms? "they produce nothing of value" and "the interference [by them]" is precisely what i responded to; that christians or their ideas produce nothing of value.

meaningless in what way? i am trying to get you to specifiy whether you are criticizing "the church" or christianity.

is this your way of not responding? there was a question. do you not have an answer?

at least show how it's not hurling the elephant. the statement "Were we to envision the growth path of society on any number of measures: GDP per capita, longevity; extent of health care, housing, etc. then the cumulative drag of superstition becomes immense." culls together several generalities and assumes that christianity is an adverse affect on them.

i'm asking you to define the term in regards to the specific subject. you apparently have some tacit standard.

in what way are they wrong? what is your standard for "right"? and the unanswered question - what does suffering mean?

again, show how God could not possibly have a good reason for allowing suffering.

according to you. what standard are you using?

i'm trying to paraphrase back to you so there is no misunderstanding. it's a common tactic in customer service.

not when it's necessary

i'm not following you here. sorry.

i was referring to answers being "practiced".

this is not a dodge. you made the statement that christianity was forced on people. my response pointed out that this is not true in every case. do you have a meaningful response?

in what way?

so you don't have a response. that's all you had to say.

no, i mean you oversimplified the issue.

you have no response. that's all you had to say.

which evidence(s) do you have a problem with specifically?

more non-response.

well, you've reverted back to the old rlogan. can the rlogan of post #340 come out to play?

no, the idea of God being omnipotent is directly related to what knowledge He possesses which has nothing to do with any competing religions.

in what way?