A bizarre definition of morality from the guy who loves to tell us he's more moral than the God whom he supposedly doesn't believe exists

4thrite

Member
There is no such thing as a 'good reason' for an unlimited being to permit/cause harm because an unlimited being never, ever needs to do so

Anytime an unlimited being permits/causes harm it is, by definition, a needless harm and, as we have already established, it is immoral to consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon others
You do know, I hope, that all you say above is your belief about God, what you call "an unlimited being"? It is also your belief that anytime God permits suffering, it is needless.

Yours is a belief about God that is contrary to the belief that is espoused at Romans 8:20-22 wherein it acknowledges that it was God who subjected his human creation to futility and a groaning in pain together, but that he did so for a purpose namely, that his human creation will be set free from corruption and death and come to have the glorious freedom of the children of God. In other words, not needless.

The writer of those words revealed his attitude towards the suffering we experience when he wrote at Romans 8:19: the sufferings of the present time do not amount to anything in comparison with the glory that is going to be revealed. What is that glory? No more growing old and dying, no more sickness, no more war, no more hunger or want or greed or wickedness; a peaceable and clean planet where all families can live together in peace and harmony. For forever! His is the same attitude of all those who come to accept the certainty of the promise.

We are not indifferent to the suffering, we experience it ourselves as do others who we care deeply for. We also understand that there is a reason for it, it is not needless and that all those who have lived and suffered and died - and who want it - will experience a complete and thorough healing, they will be made whole and the memory of these days will fade away; they will not be called to mind.

But why did God choose this way? In short it was because of the nature of the rebellion in Eden; the rebellion was against the rightfulness of God's rule. God could have used his power to crush the rebellion but that would not have answered the challenge - are we better off listening to God or are we better off some other way. Allowing a period of time for those who do not want direction from God to demonstrate their ways will settle it however.

john
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
You do know, I hope, that all you say above is your belief about God, what you call "an unlimited being"? It is also your belief that anytime God permits suffering, it is needless.

Yours is a belief about God that is contrary to the belief that is espoused at Romans 8:20-22 wherein it acknowledges that it was God who subjected his human creation to futility and a groaning in pain together, but that he did so for a purpose namely, that his human creation will be set free from corruption and death and come to have the glorious freedom of the children of God. In other words, not needless.

The writer of those words revealed his attitude towards the suffering we experience when he wrote at Romans 8:19: the sufferings of the present time do not amount to anything in comparison with the glory that is going to be revealed. What is that glory? No more growing old and dying, no more sickness, no more war, no more hunger or want or greed or wickedness; a peaceable and clean planet where all families can live together in peace and harmony. For forever! His is the same attitude of all those who come to accept the certainty of the promise.

We are not indifferent to the suffering, we experience it ourselves as do others who we care deeply for. We also understand that there is a reason for it, it is not needless and that all those who have lived and suffered and died - and who want it - will experience a complete and thorough healing, they will be made whole and the memory of these days will fade away; they will not be called to mind.

But why did God choose this way? In short it was because of the nature of the rebellion in Eden; the rebellion was against the rightfulness of God's rule. God could have used his power to crush the rebellion but that would not have answered the challenge - are we better off listening to God or are we better off some other way. Allowing a period of time for those who do not want direction from God to demonstrate their ways will settle it however.

john

Let this lady give her input into the subject:

 

Furion

Well-known member
Why can't you face a proper examination of God...
Finally, an intelligent question.

I can, but first you must stop your lying and admit you only see men commiting evil, for starters. That men starve children. And you blaming God is a tacit admission of His existence.

Once you can think clearly, we can discuss further.

Otherwise, just keep trollin', pal.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
<snip>
Yours is a belief about God that is contrary to the belief that is espoused at Romans 8:20-22 wherein it acknowledges that it was God who subjected his human creation to futility and a groaning in pain together, but that he did so for a purpose namely, that his human creation will be set free from corruption and death and come to have the glorious freedom of the children of God. In other words, not needless.
<snip>
And you don't see a problem with the idea of God, as you say, subjecting humans to suffering in order to free them from suffering? A-theists are being completely reasonable when they reject such an absurd plan. Think for a minute...no human father would cause suffering and pain to his children in order to relieve their suffering and pain. Would you do that? If not, then why claim God did that exact thing?

Did you ever consider that Paul had another idea when he wrote the passage and you misunderstood his meaning?
 
Top