Sauron

No, it doesn't.

It doesn't imply that either.

Nonsense. You -- conveniently -- build those assumptions into your model, but there is nothing inherent in "allow" that requires them. God may "allow" for no other reason than because he is not omnipotent - that would shoot down both of your built-in assumptions here.

Yes, I know what christianity says. However, the model I presented is not answered by re-stating christianity's viewpoint. If God only "allows" evil, then why isn't the same true with good? God wants credit for good, but not for evil?

Is it christian context? Are you sure? The fact that he is questioning it denies that the christian context holds for both participants. He may accept the existence of a god, but may also be convinced that said god is indifferent.

Yes, I saw you claim that. Haven't seen the proof of that assertion, though -- will it be forthcoming anytime soon?

No, I think you responded by re-stating the christian position. Not quite the same as refuting his assumptions.

As for what standard - I would say that he is using the ordinary human sense of fairness to trump the christian position.

Sauron

Please do.
1. Adam? Who was he?
2. When did he live?
3. What experience or knowledge did he have?
4. And why are the descendants at fault?


The case is yours to make. You've invoked the binary middle and/or the excluded middle at least four times in the last two pages of postings. And you've invoked it as a way to explain discrepancies between the nature of God and the behavior we see.

Which is just a handwave; a flimsy I.O.U. that you want to shove into the poker game, because you don't have anything substantial to offer. If there was some life experience or knowledge that had to be gained or passed to human beings, then that knowledge could also be passed to them in a painless fashion.

You also seem to credit "God" with accidental by-products of bad events, as if it were some 'grand design'. By that argument, we should all go out and rape and pillage, because we're just carrying out God's will - he may have a good reason for allowing the suffering we bring to others.

I may certainly wish my left hand was as skillful as my right hand. But I'm not going to go out and hack my right hand off just to force myself to gain skill using the left hand. The "ultimately good benefit" isn't worth the pain I would have to go through to obtain the skill --- and there are several other ways to gain the same skill, without the blood and the pain.

Sauron

Johnny asked you for evidence, for proof. It goes without saying that he wanted reputable sources, not those with a vested interest in defending the prophecy.

Even if this were not a prophecy, we would not simply take the internal witness at face value, especially if the claims were fantastic -- as they are in this book. If this were a newly discovered work by Homer, we would check any internal claims against external evidences.

Humor me and point me to the post(s).

Sauron

Hell, death, etc.

1. Already read them.
2. Not out of context.

John A. Broussard

You have?

Please give me the good reason for destroying all of mankind (except for Gilgamesh and his family) the destruction included the newborn and the unborn.

Thank you for supplying the excluded middle.

John A. Broussard

Even our current administration admits that drowning is torture. God did it to all of mankind--except for Gilgamesh and family.

I take it you don't regard deliberate drowning as torture.

Is that correct?

John A. Broussard

I consider a god who orders its chosen people to kill all of a neighboring people, including children--but sparing the virgin girls for later raping by the soldiers--is viciously sadistic.

If that doesn't bother your moral sense, then I feel sorry for you.

Johnny Skeptic

I have never made such an assertion. My objection is the degree to which God allows the Devil to attack humans.

Since I am an agnostic, I do not promote naturalism, nor do I oppose it, so you will have to come up with another argument that applies to agnostics. Even under a naturalistic world view, compassion can still exist as the result of genetic programming.

So God is compassionate? Do you have any evidence that God is compassionate in tangible ways?

No one at this forum has ever stated that “no good can come from natural disasters.�

Now will you please tell me how in world I could communicate with such a person? The late Vincent Humbert lived in France. He was quadriplegic, blind and mute. He wanted to die, and he asked French president Chirac for an exemption to the French law that prohibits physician assisted suicide and euthanasia. Chirac refused to honor his request, and an unknown party compassionately killed Humbert at Humbert’s request. Did Humbert’s condition provide him any ancillary advantages? Obviously not. Did his condition provide the people in the world any ancillary advantages? Yes. It showed compassionate and rational minded people how much physician assisted suicide, and in some cases euthanasia, are needed. Did Humbert deserve to die? Yes.

What part is that?

So Christians should never ask God to protect them from harm and to heal them, right?

Your argument is patently absurd. In the NIV, Matthew 14:14 says "When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their sick." We need compassion in tangible ways today just as much as people did back then. Where is tangible evidence of God's power and compassion in tangible ways today? An unusual healing can happen to anyone, not just to Christians. In the world today, there is every indication that tangible good things and bad things are not distributed equitably to those in greatest need, and that they are distributed according to the laws of physics, not by divine intervention. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that 1) God used to be compassionate in noticeably tangible ways but is not interested in being compassionate in noticeably tangible ways today, or that 2) he never was compassionate in noticeably tangible ways, or that 3) he does not exist.

So, by the Bible’s own admission, God DOES care about human moral values. You want a comfortable eternal life, nothing more, and ultimately you couldn’t care less who provides it as long as it is available.

Might DOES NOT make right. Love, common decency transcend any self-proclaimed dictator of the universe.

According to logic, common sense, and reason. I am not aware of anyone who became a Christian because of Hurricane Katrina, but I am aware of plenty of people who gave up Christianity because of Hurricane Katrina. Is it your position that if the number of natural disasters that attacked humans doubled, Christianity would become more attractive to Christians and to non-Christians?

You don’t by any chance have some names and e-mail addresses of such people, do you?

Please specify what you mean regarding wild animals.

All of the assistance that has been provided and will be provided to the victims of hurricane Katrina cannot even come close to adequately compensating the victims for their losses. Some people who died were the sole income providers for their families. Many of the children whose parents were killed will not find adequate replacements for their parents. Many animals, both wild and domestic, suffered and/or died as a result of Hurricane Katrina.

Preventing hurricanes is much better than curing them, and so far, only God can do that, and so far, he has had no provable interest in doing so.

Following are excerpts from the Wikipedia article:

“Up until 1924, no one had questioned the authorship of the book of Ezekiel. For many, it seems clear that the book was written by one person, expressing one train of thought and style. However, in 1924 a theory was developed that 1,103 of the verses in Ezekiel were added at a later date.�

Johnny: If that theory it true, it obviously demolishes your arguments.

“Since then, the academic community has been split into a number of different camps over the authorship of the book. W. Zimmerli, who has a rather large following, proposes that Ezekiel's original message was influenced by a later school that added a deeper understanding to the prophecies. Other groups, like the one led by M. Greenberg, still tend to see the majority of the work of the book done by Ezekiel himself.�

“The majority of the work of the book� is not good enough regarding the specific example of Tyre prophecy.

“The Book of Ezekiel can be dated due to Ezekiel's recording of events based on the rule of King Jehoiachin (King of Jerusalem). Ezekiel's records makes it possible to accurately date his life and his time of prophecy due to these references to the reigns of kings.�

Johnny: The book of Ezekiel, including the Tyre prophecy, CANNOT be accurately dated based upon the the rule of King Jehoiakim. The most that can be accurately stated is that Ezekiel, or someone else, wrote during OR POSSIBLY AFTER the reign of King Jehoiakim. The historical claim that King Jehoiakim once ruled has nothing whatsoever to do with the Tyre prophecy. Most historians agree as to the approximate time that King Jehioakim ruled, but most historians DO NOT attempt to date the Tyre prophecy based upon the book of Ezekiel.

“Ezekiel was originally written in the 25 year period between 593 to 571 B.C.�

Johnny: But that does not exclude a reasonable possibility of later additions or revisions.

Where was that?

bfniii

the verse you cite implies that God knows good but isn't doing it because He allows suffering. my response addresses your assumption that He isn't doing good. how do you know there isn't an ultimate good in allowing temporary suffering here on earth?

i dodged nothing and i don't care what terms are used by whom. i'm asking anyone reading to show that God is unjust, evil, malicious, whatever; for allowing suffering.

curious. what would be accurate?

in what way?

first, are you referring to methodological or ontological naturalism? second, when referring to fate, i was referring to the causal chain of events, determinism. therefore, i wasn't referring to predestination.

i'm saying that neither altruism nor selfishness make sense to an adherent of ontological naturalism.

evolutionary strategies. good one. strategy implies that there is an evolutionary mind that is moving the chess pieces in an intelligent manner which has nothing to do with biological evolution.

bfniii

while i disagree with these semantics, it's unimportant. the point is that only God is going to be the ultimate downfall of tyre, not anyone else mentioned in that chapter or any other time of history. God's injunction is open-ended.