ChatterBank3 mins ago
A Benevolent God
202 Answers
Having taken heed of some of the arguments in support of their benevolent god and Kromovacorum's posting on another thread, what are your suggestions for this benevolent god's mightiest works?
Here is mine:-
The boxing day tsunami
Here is mine:-
The boxing day tsunami
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jomifl. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Jim, I’ve no objection whatsoever to people rejecting my conclusions, but engaging with those who reject them instantly without knowledge or, at the very least, a little investigation, is simply a waste of time and effort. I told you, I’ve learnt my lesson.
Mrs.Lulu, there are several verses that mention ‘the sons of God’, but this one says that they married human females and had children with them. Genesis 6:2.
//how did they all come up writing the same things about Jesus.//
They didn’t all write the same things about Jesus. For example, only two of the Gospels mention the virgin birth – and you’d need to be smarter than Sherlock Holmes to work out what really happened at Easter! Historically (if you can call it historically, since there’s no verifiable evidence that Jesus ever existed), the date of Jesus birth is an enormous bone of contention. Matthew tells us that he was born in the time of Herod the Great, who died in 4BC; however, Luke tells us that he was born at the time of the Census of Quirinius, which took place in 6AD – so unless Mary was pregnant for about 10 years, we can take neither account as ‘gospel’. There is much, much, more, but suffice to say the New Testament is vastly contradictory and the texts, which were written long after Jesus lived, have been altered literally hundreds of times to suit the purposes (both political and otherwise) of the early church.
For what it’s worth, I think Jesus existed – but I don’t think he was the son of anyone other than Joseph and Mary. If he were, there would have been no point in Luke and Matthew giving us a rundown of Joseph’s family tree (incidentally the trees differ) – and so the logical conclusion is that the two writers included those in order to illustrate that ancient prophecy had been fulfilled and that Jesus was descended from the House of David. Had God been his father, of course, that couldn’t apply. I actually think it’s possible that he was the rightful king of the Jews, and although there are no official records, I do believe he was crucified by the Romans, who saw him as a troublemaker, but with the help of his rich and influential friends, survived.
By the way, I don’t think anyone creates souls. If they exist, they are an accumulation of energy over a lifetime.
Sorry, I’ve prattled on, but I adore the subject – it’s like a giant jigsaw. However, we’re in great danger of hi-jacking Jom’s thread, so I’ll leave it at that. :o)
Mrs.Lulu, there are several verses that mention ‘the sons of God’, but this one says that they married human females and had children with them. Genesis 6:2.
//how did they all come up writing the same things about Jesus.//
They didn’t all write the same things about Jesus. For example, only two of the Gospels mention the virgin birth – and you’d need to be smarter than Sherlock Holmes to work out what really happened at Easter! Historically (if you can call it historically, since there’s no verifiable evidence that Jesus ever existed), the date of Jesus birth is an enormous bone of contention. Matthew tells us that he was born in the time of Herod the Great, who died in 4BC; however, Luke tells us that he was born at the time of the Census of Quirinius, which took place in 6AD – so unless Mary was pregnant for about 10 years, we can take neither account as ‘gospel’. There is much, much, more, but suffice to say the New Testament is vastly contradictory and the texts, which were written long after Jesus lived, have been altered literally hundreds of times to suit the purposes (both political and otherwise) of the early church.
For what it’s worth, I think Jesus existed – but I don’t think he was the son of anyone other than Joseph and Mary. If he were, there would have been no point in Luke and Matthew giving us a rundown of Joseph’s family tree (incidentally the trees differ) – and so the logical conclusion is that the two writers included those in order to illustrate that ancient prophecy had been fulfilled and that Jesus was descended from the House of David. Had God been his father, of course, that couldn’t apply. I actually think it’s possible that he was the rightful king of the Jews, and although there are no official records, I do believe he was crucified by the Romans, who saw him as a troublemaker, but with the help of his rich and influential friends, survived.
By the way, I don’t think anyone creates souls. If they exist, they are an accumulation of energy over a lifetime.
Sorry, I’ve prattled on, but I adore the subject – it’s like a giant jigsaw. However, we’re in great danger of hi-jacking Jom’s thread, so I’ll leave it at that. :o)
That's just presumptuous on your -- I have more than enough knowledge and experience of my own to be able to come to opinions about certain topics very quickly. It so happens that aliens visiting earth is one of them, for example -- but when it comes to Bible study I don't do nearly enough to reject things that quickly.
Ludwig, it certainly doesn’t – and Mibs - in an effort to get the thread back on track, here’s a list of natural disasters. I haven’t counted the number of victims – but it’s ….. a lot.
http://
Thanks Mibs, don't worry about sticking to the question, the charm of AB is that theads can go anywhere. To be honest I just started this thread because the others in this section were getting a bit tired. Just got back from a concert so was a tad surprised at the number of posts.
Some of god's detail work is quite impressive, it is quite amazing how he can design a micro-organism that can destroy some of his own most sophisticated designs so efficiently, I suppose he knows what he is doing.
I prefer the really impressive works, the flooding of the mediteranean basin must have been impressive and the lava outpourings in the Deccan traps and Siberia must have killed a fair few. Santorini where a civilisation was wiped out is up there with the best, what would we do without our loving god's amusing diversions?
Some of god's detail work is quite impressive, it is quite amazing how he can design a micro-organism that can destroy some of his own most sophisticated designs so efficiently, I suppose he knows what he is doing.
I prefer the really impressive works, the flooding of the mediteranean basin must have been impressive and the lava outpourings in the Deccan traps and Siberia must have killed a fair few. Santorini where a civilisation was wiped out is up there with the best, what would we do without our loving god's amusing diversions?
Last year I was watching The Life of Birds by David Attenborough and, oddly, it felt as if my eyes were opened. Or something like that. Possibly at the bit where a mother Moor-hen pecks her youngest chick half to death if there isn't enough food to go round -- and then it starves the rest of the way. And so on, until there are only three or four in a breed of nine originally.
Anyway, it occurs to me that the biggest problem of evil isn't so much that there is evil in the world, but that there was evil before we got here. I do think that if you allow that we are somehow special, and that God values us above all else, then Evil is just about explainable as a consequence of our sin -- the "perfect world", with no suffering, being destroyed by our disobedience --though I don't like it much.
That "defence" of Christianity disappears, though, as soon as you have suffering and "evil" in the world before Humans ever arrived so that they could sin originally. And we know that animals did suffer, and die, before we got here. So the point is that because animals suffered prior to our existence the world was never "perfect" -- and humans could not be responsible for sin, and the entire house of cards comes tumbling down. That's how I see it.
Anyway, it occurs to me that the biggest problem of evil isn't so much that there is evil in the world, but that there was evil before we got here. I do think that if you allow that we are somehow special, and that God values us above all else, then Evil is just about explainable as a consequence of our sin -- the "perfect world", with no suffering, being destroyed by our disobedience --though I don't like it much.
That "defence" of Christianity disappears, though, as soon as you have suffering and "evil" in the world before Humans ever arrived so that they could sin originally. And we know that animals did suffer, and die, before we got here. So the point is that because animals suffered prior to our existence the world was never "perfect" -- and humans could not be responsible for sin, and the entire house of cards comes tumbling down. That's how I see it.
Animals may not be capable of Evil in the traditional sense, but the world prior to the the arrival of Man was "perfect" -- that is (surely), no suffering. The fact that animals did suffer prior to Man's arrival shows that this is not true. Or, perhaps, that the world is only 6,000 years old. But anyway, that was the clincher for me.
-- answer removed --
//don't forget that those 'lesser' creatures don't have souls //
Whether or not animals possess a soul is debateable. Perhaps man’s arrogance in assuming he’s particularly special leads him to choose to believe they don’t. The ‘Holy Book’ appears to suggest otherwise.
//Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth? Ecclesiastes 3:21//
//"...that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts [animals]; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they all have one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above the beast... all go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again." (Eccle.3:19-20)//
… but ‘heaven’ forbid we should cherry-pick the bible. ;o)
There is another disaster we haven’t mentioned, although since God deliberately orchestrated it, it can’t be deemed ‘natural’. Noah’s flood. Estimates suggest around 7 billion human beings would have died together with practically all animal life on earth - so it would take a ‘natural’ disaster of some proportion to surpass that.
Just one example of an allegedly perfect God’s glaring imperfection. He created it all and was satisfied – and then he wasn’t. So much for omniscience. What a fake!
Whether or not animals possess a soul is debateable. Perhaps man’s arrogance in assuming he’s particularly special leads him to choose to believe they don’t. The ‘Holy Book’ appears to suggest otherwise.
//Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth? Ecclesiastes 3:21//
//"...that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts [animals]; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they all have one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above the beast... all go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again." (Eccle.3:19-20)//
… but ‘heaven’ forbid we should cherry-pick the bible. ;o)
There is another disaster we haven’t mentioned, although since God deliberately orchestrated it, it can’t be deemed ‘natural’. Noah’s flood. Estimates suggest around 7 billion human beings would have died together with practically all animal life on earth - so it would take a ‘natural’ disaster of some proportion to surpass that.
Just one example of an allegedly perfect God’s glaring imperfection. He created it all and was satisfied – and then he wasn’t. So much for omniscience. What a fake!
Latest Posts
Technology4 mins ago
News11 mins ago
Am I Right To Be Feeling This Way?
Family Life18 mins ago
