You cannot have it both ways

That was nice Dennis. Thank you.

 

But you're actually talking about two different things.

See, you are conflating the value in being saved from addiction, violence, lust, depression, anxiety, etc. with the value of present happiness, as if the only reason being saved matters is because of your current state of happiness.

This type of "dual thinking" doesn't conflict with Christianity, but is very inherent in it.

 

First of all, if God is an interventionist deity, have you actually studied a correlation between where natural disasters strike and where "god's soldiers" are?

Second, I find it strange how you equate somebody addicted to drugs and somebody who merely does not believe what you believe as in the SAME state of despair of being slaves to sin.

Finally, there is a quote in the movie 'Batman vs. Superman': If God is all powerful, he is not all loving. And if God is all loving, then he is not all powerful.

We can have a long dragged out discussion over the issue of suffering, but at the end of the day I think I know better than God when I declare that animal suffering or children being molested is inexcusable for God to either directly make happen, or stand by and do nothing to stop it.

 

Never said the god of the Bible is an interventionist deity.

Didn't say that. A priest who rapes a boy won't likely feel any despair until he is caught. Mao -the butcher of China - didn't feel any despair. etc.

Not relevant. This describes the god of Greek philosophy.

You obviously didn't even bother to read the first chapter of Genesis to find out why the Biblical god made humans.

You'd rather have a god like Stalin or Winnie the Pooh?

 

A huge fan of Black Elk is here on the forum....
@Bob from Delaware .... you might really like his books some of which have been translated into Arabic and Hebrew already.....


God's Peace Plan for the Holy Land, Hebrew and Arabic.

 

How do you define humans in your statement? = "You obviously didn't even bother to read the first chapter of Genesis to find out why the Biblical god made humans."

 

It's defined in the chapter.

 

I'll go over this in more detail for you. When one says interventionist, it implies 2 things:

1. That the interventionist is involved with something which is not the interventionist's business.
2. That the interventionist believes that the interventionist has to get involved in the business of certain others.

So, I'm not going to say what is or is not the god of the Bible's business. Nor does the Bible say that God will always intervene if something or anything occurs. If you read the first chapter of Genesis and the reason for the creation of humans, it will be clear that intervening is usually against God's interest.

Generally, but not always, the god of the Bible will announce ahead of time if he is going to intervene - usually through a prophet. I don't recall a single time the god of the Bible intervened without announcing it ahead of time. So claiming a flood, fire, drought, war, or whatever was caused by God after or during an event is not Biblical.

Maybe you should read the first chapter and find out why humans were create first, before arguing semantics. Demonstrate that you're literate and can read with comprehension. Or don't.

 

Ever read Tao of Pooh?

Those are both very bold claims that I doubt are often true.

 

So, you agree that in biblical language, only Jews are humans. That idea is also expressed in the Jewish Babylonian Talmud.

Since you are so literate and can read with comprehension can you cite one biblical passage that refers to Gentiles as men instead of as animals or beasts?

 

Don't see how it's bold. Mao never repented nor bemoaned his plight. If you have any evidence that he was in despair, please tell me.

As for Roman Imperial Priests, I don't know of a single one who turned himself in because he was in despair. But if you have any proof otherwise, do tell.

Otherwise, stating my obviously true statements or false without proof is kinda childish.

 

red herring.

One bridge at a time. I need to make sure you're willing to read at a 9th grade level and not simply here to troll. Read the first chapter of Genesis. Why were humans created? If you need to, the New Living Translation and the latest New International Versions are easy to read.

(Now mind you. I'm not insulting you. I'm sure you can read at a college level. But whether you're willing to or not is another question.)

 

He was not a mustache twirling pure evil villain that set out to destroy the Chinese people. He pushed an ideology and plan he thought would make the country greater and it failed. I see no reason to think he didn't feel bad about the suffering of his people. You made a big claim abd I don't think it can be proved. It certainly isn't obviously true.

You don't have to turn yourself in to feel despair. There are many ways in which they could feel despair over such a thing, including the possibility of feeling despair but not personal guilt. Again, you made a big claim, and demand i prove it wrong? That's not how making claims is supposed to work.

Asserting something to be "obviously true" that isn't is what is childish.

 

The Bible is about which ethnic group?

 

Yes, he was.

No, he definitely only cared about himself.

He felt so bad, he offered the U.S. a million female sex slaves and had a few hundred himself. Something about women causing too many problems in his country. Mao did what was best for Mao.

Sure point about the humanity in that selfish mustache twirling pure evil villain. Go ahead. You haven't provided anything, yet.

It definitely and obviously is true. I've previded evidence. Have you provided evidence besides:

Naive statements about how everyone is good? Got more naive statements?

Trying to see the good in everyone I see. "Feeling despair but not personal guilt." What sort of mental gymnastics would a priest have to go throught to convince himself that banging the altar boy wasn't his fault and/or wasn't wrong. Perhaps the same mental gymnastics needed to convince oneself that the priests were feeling despair but not personal guilt.

You've entered the ludicrous zone in the attempt to save your statements.

 

If you want an answer to your question, answer mine.

 

No, he wasn't. That's ridiculous.

Methinks you don't grasp how twisted some can be. There are some who have outright murdered their own children thinking it was the right thing to do, or that they were possessed and needed to be destroyed, or even that God himself demanded it of them, none of which are hard to see even in the bible itself. Despair at what they did but no personal guilt, because "God told them to".

 

Genesis 1:26-30 is just a story to illustrate the First Commandment, Exodus 34:11-16.

 

This is simply expanding on your own rabbit hole. You obviously won't spend the time to read. And if you won't take the time to read what I have to say, I'm wasting my time continuing to post to you.

 

So you're saying murdering tens of millions of people is a good thing?

So you believe Mao thought he was getting messages from God?

You believe that a hundred priests thought they had a special revelation from God to bang the altar boy?

 

No. Neither is implimenting policies that make so many starve to death.

No.

No.

You have now officially moved from broad unsupported claims to strawmen.

 

Nope. These were your actual arguments. However, now that you've withdrawn them, my conclusion that Mao and the priests who bang altar don't feel despair is completely unchallenged.

Unless you'd actually like to post some evidence.

 

You made broad sweeping statements without any backing. I called it out. You then asked me if I thought x or y as if those are the only alternatives to your broad sweeping statements with no backing.

I am not the one who made the broad sweeping statements with no evidence.

This reminds me of theists who demand atheists/agnostics prove there is no God, thinking that otherwise there must be their particular one.

 

They were backed. You just didn't bother to read the backing.

You most certainly are.

You have now used 3 posts to defend a unrepentant mass-murderer and at least a hundred pedophiles. Do you really consider this the best use of your time?