patman

It is all related, ETB. You ask why doesn't God fix things, I say he will. You ask what's wrong with a world with less natural evil, I say evil isn't natural AND one day earth will be cleansed of evil. You ask why we should suffer for Adam's sin, I say we suffer as not because of Adam, but because of sin's presence, he happened to be the welcoming party to sin.

I hope I do not have to go in a lot more explanation as to why it would be dangerous as to have immortal sinners who can never suffer populating the earth, especially when there are immortal saints resisting sin on the same planet.

I am not needed to answer every scenario you present, and I don't really want to. You can use you own imagination to visualize a world of your "what if" or "why not" ideas and see the problems a loving-just-good God would have being himself and with the world itself that would be worst. Just stick to the principals I have presented as a guide for the answer (love does not trap nor force possession of the objects of love nor force the objects of love to love back neither the lover nor other objects. Love hopes for the best.) Most importantly, the Bible presents the characteristics of God way better than I can in one post, it trumps me, really look to it to answer your scenarios.

I hope that clears things up better
-Pat

John A. Broussard

So all of the innocent toddlers who die in agony from dysentery (one every three seconds by recent count) are in misery because of sin's presence. God can't do anything about it except to gloat over the suffering and then welcome the little beggars into Limbo.

Yup. God will fix things--eventually--after a passle of eartquakes, typhoons, tornados, avian flue, malaria, drought, floods and all those other happy events that god can't do anything about in the meantime.

Yours is indeed a strange view of an all-loving god, patman.

John A. Broussard

Yup. The bible is where we have those splendid descriptions of your all-loving god telling the Israelites to slaughter all neighboring peoples (except for virgin babies to be saved for later raping by the soldiers).

The bible definitely clears things up better.

patman

I haven't been quick to reply here lately because I am growing tired of the insults general scoffing of my posts. I guess you expect me to be sorry about my views and are so closed minded to your own views that I must be dumb no matter what.

A lot of christians have been considered closed minded, I dare anyone here to say that and not say it of themselves too.

Due to the idea that I am not respected at all and am generally getting nowhere(but because of the lack of respect above all), I must say goodbye to all here, as I shall not return.

It is sad to me that I am the one leaving when I have shown a great deal of respect towards you, yet I am the one run off. Surly the all knowing moderator would care and put an end to your disrespectful posts and protect my freedom to speak, but I guess that means there is no moderator, eh? Because, surly if we had good moderators they would change things in this thread for the good. I guess that they just don't exist at all.

I hope you notice how dumb it sounds when I use the same logic you use against God against this site's moderators (who are obviously hard at work as this very thread proves because it is a split at the hands of the moderators) to disprove their existence. That's my closing argument.

I also hope you all learned more about the God of the Bible and would be interested enough to seek after him. That may be a pipe dream from the vibes I get just from all of you. But here's hoping anyway.

See you on the flip side.
-Pat:wave:

EnterTheBowser

Well, that was very unChristian of us all, wasn't it? I have one thing I want to add; it seems like the following is a central argument made by patman:
1- If it is right to solve n problems, it is right to solve n+1 problems
2- It is not right to solve all problems
3- It is right to solve one problem
4- Therefore it is right to solve all problems
5- Therefore 1&2 and 3 are contradictory
6- Therefore it is not right to solve 1 problem

Now, I think the biggest problem is justifying 1. I'm not sure it patman tried to justify it or not, but more importantly, the above argument is not a valid argument. 6 does not follow from 5. What follows from 5 is actually:

1 and 2 entail ~3
3 entails ~(1 and 2)

For the moment, we can admit that 2 is true; so we get

3 entails ~1

Anyways, the point is that this situation is exactly the sort of counterexample to the principle embodied in 1. If we know that it's not right to solve all problems, and it seems exceedingly certain that it is right to solve a single problem, then we can conclude that there's some line between these two extremes. And this is counter to the idea that if it's a good idea to do a certain amount, it's right to do a little more. It seems clear that there are benefits to solving some problems, but as more problems are solved, certain harms begin to appear, and eventually these outweigh the benefits of solving more problems. And at that point, we ought to stop solving them.

John A. Broussard

Do you have any idea what patman was talking about in his farewell address?

What do the mods have to do with the statement:

"Due to the idea that I am not respected at all and am generally getting nowhere(but because of the lack of respect above all), I must say goodbye to all here, as I shall not return."

???

Apparently we hurt his/her feelings and he/she is being banned as a result.

Very puzzling.

EnterTheBowser

I rather got the impression that he was leaving of his own free will; not that his exit was compelled.

Barefoot Bree

There's no bannination going on; I can't even think of a single MCR thread about Patman. He is definitely leaving of his own free will.

I think this is a case of what Puck was talking about in her ICR thread, here. We kept complaining about the brand of coffee, we ungrateful wretches, us!