John A. Broussard

Unfortunately, some even sicker ones read it.

Here in the U.S. there's a bumper sticker that reads, "God I don't mind. It's his fan club I can't stand."

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

No, I don't mean the voices they heard (though it's not clear Abraham heard an audible voice), but the intervention afterwards. There are wild rams, we need not say Abraham stole it, nor is it even likely that a ram would get caught by its horns in a thicket, especially just there, and just then.

You are apparently criticizing me for holding that suffering is admirable, but I did not say that. Please check more specifically what I said here...

The implication is quite clear, that if God controls the rain and hail, and hail causes damage, and suffering and pain and hurt on earth, to people, then (though what you asked could be misconstrued, I do not believe God has a harmful purpose in bringing pain), yes, I believe God indeed causes events that are painful to people:

Exodus 4:11 The Lord said to him, "Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the Lord?"

And he bears that pain as well, so this may well be noble, not sick...

Matthew 25:35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me...

Regards,
Lee

Biff the unclean

This thread is about the Joshua challenge. In Joshua an entire population is hacked to bits at God’s orders without intervention. Intervention stopping terrible things from happening is not a mandatory part of a God story.

It was an agrarian economy that was based primarily on sheep herding. All the sheep were spoken for.
The guy is willing to slit his son’s throat and you are worried about stealing a ram? It’s the son, by the way, he conceived by screwing his own sister (Gen 20:12 And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.) He had already driven one of his sons into the desert to die (Gen 21:14 And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba. 21:15 And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs.)
How does this guy get ranked as Godly and Deanna Laney not? She didn’t marry her half brother.

I have no problem understanding what you write
For instance only a few lines on you write “And he bears that pain as well, so this may well be noble, not sick...�

John A. Broussard

You have a truly amazing knack for avoiding answering the question. Want to try again?

The question was, "Do you really, honestly believe that god sends hailstones down to hurt people?"

A simple yes or no will suffice.

The answer you gave was a yes to the question "I believe God indeed causes events that are painful to people"

If you don't see the difference between the two questions, I'll be happy to explain.

Thank you.

Gamut

What is this concept of "bearing pain?"

Do you think the woman who killed her five children several years ago bears a great deal of pain from this event? I would say so. Would you then call this action noble?

In my mind the idea of "bearing pain" is irrelevant. We all bear our own pain in this life, and no matter how much we empathise with someone, we will never just what it feels like to get hacked to death, until such time as we are being hacked to death ourselves.

I'd be quite pissed if god wanted me hacked to death, and just because I thought he might "bear the pain" I would not consider the action noble.

Would YOU consider the action noble if you thought god were "bearing the pain" as your children were hacked to death in front of you at his own command?

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

That's simply not true, though, the sun stopped in the sky, we are told, and hailstones put to death many Canaanite soldiers, and yet apparently spared the Israelites.

Not to die, though, and again, God intervened (an angel showed her a well, since we are taking this account on its own terms), and thus we have reason to believe he really heard from God, as described in this account.

Yes, I think that may well be part of why Sarah was barren until she was past childbearing years.

Yes, and bearing pain on behalf of others can admirable, is this not true? I am not saying that suffering in and of itself is admirable.

When your question is phrased like this, then there is an implication that makes both a yes (which makes me sign up for a cruel motive) and a no answer (which makes God not omnipotent) to not be my position, in either case, which is why I rephrased it.

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

But she didn't bear someone else's pain, though, her pain is her own, and experiencing pain as a result of wrongdoing is certainly not noble.

We have a description of an incident similar to this, actually.

Jeremiah 31:15-17 This is what the Lord says: "A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because her children are no more." This is what the Lord says: "Restrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears, for your work will be rewarded," declares the Lord. "They will return from the land of the enemy. So there is hope for your future," declares the Lord. "Your children will return to their own land."

If this does them no harm, if this, even this, does them good, then I would be grieving, but also understanding.

Job 1:20-21 At this, Job got up and tore his robe and shaved his head. Then he fell to the ground in worship and said: "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I will depart. The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord."

Regards,
Lee

John A. Broussard

Since you're not going to answer my question about your beliefs re hailstones, I guess I'll have to settle for the above as proof you feel god can punish people with hailstones.

That's very much the way the gods punished the Greeks by using the plague to strike down their soldiers during the siege of Troy.

I take it you believe that your god is every bit as effective in using natural phenomena to punish delinquents as were the Greek gods.

Make that a question.

Thanks.

Gamut

You didn't answer the question at all.

The question is:
There you are, watching your daughters being raped and prodded, watching your sons agonizing in pain as they are chopped up. Your wife is being killed in front of you. And now they are coming towards you. Also remember people don't just fall down dead like the movies, it takes awhile for the body to finally give up.

Are you thinking; "Now this is a noble action?"

As an aside, if God is omnipotent and omnipresent, doesn't he bear all the pain in the world at all times? How then is this genocide more noble than the Rwandan genocide? Are you saying God somehow felt this pain differently?

badger3k

Lee, from your Tyre thread and others I knew you could ignore evidence and equivicate, but this thread....

I know you get bombarded, and I also know you ignore questions you don't want to answer, but I'll toss this one in to the stew for your (and others) consideration.

The intervention in Texas was that her kids couldn't get away. That the cops or a neighbor didn't show up on her doorstep while she was in the act. God must have wanted her to do it, since He didn't allow anyone to interrupt her. Sounds like Divine Providence to me.

By your reasoning of Abraham, if I wanted to kill your family, believing that your God spoke to me, when would it be safe to assume that it wasn't God? Right before I killed the first one? Right after? What if God wanted 9/10ths of your relatives to die. Should I keep going until 90% are dead, then a sign will show up telling me to stop? What if it didn't - would it be safe to assume that God wants everyone dead? Why not - even you seem to admit that in Joshua God ordered the deaths of thousands, so why is it a problem now?

(note that since Lee thinks that God talks to him, he can't even use the old "God doesn't talk to people anymore" defense that I have heard)

If not, why not? Unless you have actual proof that the woman in Texas did not hear God - that is, verifiable evidence, not supposition (ie - no "I think", no "could, should, perhaps, maybe - none of that, please, we want unvarnished truth), then how can you honestly say that one is real and the other isn't?

Biff the unclean

It would only be like "Have you stopped beating your wife" if you were, in fact, beating your wife.
The only reason you have a choice between a cruel motive and a pip squeak God is that they are the only options if your God exists in the reality we inhabit. It's not a trick, it's logic.