Conquer Club

Have him lose all his possessions, all that he worked for, the wealth that he's using to alleviate the suffering of others. Have all this persons servants killed by raiders.

Let his family die by collapsing a roof on them.

Make him sick and let him know what the word 'agony' means.


Just because some guy came along and went "Hey, I bet I can make that person dislike you". Yeah sure, that would make everyone a better person.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:The OT-God was not all-loving.

To make someone suffer can be a way make them better.

But a better way is to make them better without the suffering, if it is in your power to do so... which it is... because he is omnipotent...

But at the end of it, Job was a better person, and had learned great Theological principles. Think of it as a training program. God is pushing Job to the limit, but at the end of it, he is better.

Napoleon Ier wrote:But at the end of it, Job was a better person, and had learned great Theological principles. Think of it as a training program. God is pushing Job to the limit, but at the end of it, he is better.

So if I caused to happen to you what happened to Job and you learned a valuable lesson from it it would be quite alright?

MeDeFe wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:But at the end of it, Job was a better person, and had learned great Theological principles. Think of it as a training program. God is pushing Job to the limit, but at the end of it, he is better.

So if I caused to happen to you what happened to Job and you learned a valuable lesson from it it would be quite alright?

I wouldn't have an issue with it happening, because it's within God's sovereign will, and he had to allow it, and ultimately it was good for me.

But for you, it would be sin, just like it was wrong for Satan to actually do it, because you and Satan aren't all knowing.

Napoleon Ier wrote:But at the end of it, Job was a better person, and had learned great Theological principles. Think of it as a training program. God is pushing Job to the limit, but at the end of it, he is better.

I have a child. I know that child will listen to my every word, and believe those words, because I am an all-powerful parent. I can do anything. I can simply tell him that he should never cross a road without looking because he could get run over and he will take that in and know it to be true. However, instead of doing that I push him out in front of a car, let him spend weeks in hospital with broken bones...

Guiscard wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:But at the end of it, Job was a better person, and had learned great Theological principles. Think of it as a training program. God is pushing Job to the limit, but at the end of it, he is better.

I have a child. I know that child will listen to my every word, and believe those words, because I am an all-powerful parent. I can do anything. I can simply tell him that he should never cross a road without looking because he could get run over and he will take that in and know it to be true. However, instead of doing that I push him out in front of a car, let him spend weeks in hospital with broken bones...

And then he learns a valuable lesson. You see, you're pushing him in front of the car because you love him.

Guiscard wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:But at the end of it, Job was a better person, and had learned great Theological principles. Think of it as a training program. God is pushing Job to the limit, but at the end of it, he is better.

I have a child. I know that child will listen to my every word, and believe those words, because I am an all-powerful parent. I can do anything. I can simply tell him that he should never cross a road without looking because he could get run over and he will take that in and know it to be true. However, instead of doing that I push him out in front of a car, let him spend weeks in hospital with broken bones...

EXCELLENT POINT!!!!

MeDeFe wrote:Have him lose all his possessions, all that he worked for, the wealth that he's using to alleviate the suffering of others. Have all this persons servants killed by raiders.

Let his family die by collapsing a roof on them.

Make him sick and let him know what the word 'agony' means.

Why would someone do that to someone that they love? It was an ego booster to show off to a punk angel.

Napoleon Ier wrote:But at the end of it, Job was a better person, and had learned great Theological principles. Think of it as a training program. God is pushing Job to the limit, but at the end of it, he is better.

You've got to be effing kidding me!! Guiscard just made a great comparison above, so I'll leave this one be.

Beastly wrote:
I do indeed believe in Miracles.....

I believe that God intercedes on our behalf. I don't know how it works, but most people that have miracles asked for them. Knowing that God wants them healed. God, doesn't want his love ones to Lack for any good thing. He wants us to relieve all! Death is for everyone!!!!!!

and...

MR. Nate wrote:For Peter and Job: You're focusing on a temporal perspective. If you take the eternal perspective, you realize that the 70? 100? years we get here on earth are infinitesimally small compared to eternity. So Christ followers are willing to go through horrible things without complaint as long as 1. God is glorified & 2. They get to be a part of that glory because they know that in the long term, it's better.

As for Christ dying for our sins, look at this way. The penalty for sin is infinite, which means as finite beings, we cannot pay it. (Thus, hell continues for eternity punishing finite beings for an unpayable debt), Instead, the infinite Christ suffered & died, so that all sin could be covered.

Do you think, for one second that those men didn't pray their hearts out for God to intercede before they were killed? Why didn't God save them from suffering in their last minutes and just come down and say "hey, romans, take a chill pill" Nope, he let them pray and die.

MR. Nate wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:But at the end of it, Job was a better person, and had learned great Theological principles. Think of it as a training program. God is pushing Job to the limit, but at the end of it, he is better.

So if I caused to happen to you what happened to Job and you learned a valuable lesson from it it would be quite alright?

I wouldn't have an issue with it happening, because it's within God's sovereign will, and he had to allow it, and ultimately it was good for me.

But for you, it would be sin, just like it was wrong for Satan to actually do it, because you and Satan aren't all knowing.

Free will and an all-knowing god are mutually exclusive. But we already had that discussion and will probably never agree.

But omniscience aside, what you're essentially saying is that it's ok for god to do anything he wants because he's god and what god does is automatically good. Remains but one question, is it good because god wants it or does god want it because it's good? Seems trivial, but it isn't, not by a long way.
If good things are good because god wants them we are stuck with an arbitrary definition of what's good, if god changes his mind the concepts of good and bad can become completely reversed.
And if god wants good things because they are good, well, in that case they are good independently of him and we might as well keep going, give god a friendly wave as we pass and go straight to the real deal.

bspride (pp. 37) wrote:
4. Accepting jesus is faith and god places faith above all. Also how can a loving family member send someone to jail? its in their own good so he does it.

Faith is above all?

I think 1 Corinthians 13 would disagree with that. It's always been about love: God is love, for God so loved the world, etc., right?

What I have difficulty with is this notion that good people have to suffer because of love. It's somewhat easier justifying the argument for adults, but what about children?

Take, for instance, Baby Grace (and the thousands of other abused, neglected, and murdered children out there). How can the god of love say with a straight face 'suffer not the children to come unto me' and yet allow Baby Grace to be beaten with belts, thrown against walls, and have her head held under water?

Where's the love in that?

Where was this god of love during the Holocaust? How could his supposedly chosen representative on earth-the-pope stand by and say little while millions died?

Where is this god of love today? If, in Jesus' time healing the sick and raising the dead were signs of god's love, what are those signs here and now?

If you're wondering where I stand, in parlance JFs would understand I'd be a doubting Thomas. A seriously doubting one, at that.

With respect to the OP, I share some of your concerns about Christianity. What I've appreciated about this thread is that, for the most part, the postings have remained civil and well-thought out.

I'll keep reading.

MR. Nate wrote:Well, if we're counting, there's a couple billion who would count Him as Lord, but I won't appeal to the masses.

And millions voted for Bush...twice.

MeDeFe wrote:Free will and an all-knowing god are mutually exclusive. But we already had that discussion and will probably never agree.

I agree that we'll probably never agree, does that count?

MeDeFe wrote:But omniscience aside, what you're essentially saying is that it's ok for god to do anything he wants because he's god and what god does is automatically good. Remains but one question, is it good because god wants it or does god want it because it's good? Seems trivial, but it isn't, not by a long way.
If good things are good because god wants them we are stuck with an arbitrary definition of what's good, if god changes his mind the concepts of good and bad can become completely reversed.
And if god wants good things because they are good, well, in that case they are good independently of him and we might as well keep going, give god a friendly wave as we pass and go straight to the real deal.

I think I've answered this before too, but I don't mind saying it again. What is good is good because it is consistent with the character of God. God cannot arbitrarily change, he is always the same, and his character is the definition of good. So yes, it's ok for God to do whatever he wants because a. His character is always infinitely good and b. He will always act consistently with His character. We occasionally question if or when we question his goodness, but we must remember that we don't know nearly as much as He does, including the final outcome.

MR. Nate wrote:I think I've answered this before too, but I don't mind saying it again. What is good is good because it is consistent with the character of God. God cannot arbitrarily change, he is always the same, and his character is the definition of good. So yes, it's ok for God to do whatever he wants because a. His character is always infinitely good and b. He will always act consistently with His character. We occasionally question if or when we question his goodness, but we must remember that we don't know nearly as much as He does, including the final outcome.

So basically Good is what god does.

You're arguing in a circle Nate, so good is consistent with the character of god, fine, but then you can't say that his character is good in the second step. It's like defining A by saying that A is B, and then go on to define B by saying that B is A.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:The OT-God was not all-loving.

To make someone suffer can be a way make them better.

Ack! Not this again!

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:The OT-God was not all-loving.

To make someone suffer can be a way make them better.

Especially when they are a pillar of salt.

frogger4 wrote:Just a joke, evolution is just a theory just like how gravity is just a theory.

Aren't scientists constantly trying to come up with alternate theories of gravity though? I remember reading one in which gravity isn't a pulling force at all, rather its a pushing force from everything else... (is it wrong to respond to such an old post?)

bloknayrb wrote:

frogger4 wrote:Just a joke, evolution is just a theory just like how gravity is just a theory.

Aren't scientists constantly trying to come up with alternate theories of gravity though? I remember reading one in which gravity isn't a pulling force at all, rather its a pushing force from everything else... (is it wrong to respond to such an old post?)

Well the physics are sound but the question remains: Why is gravity the weakest of the four forces of the universe? One theory I've heard is that gravity works with all parallel universes at the same time. Sounds weird.

unriggable wrote:

bloknayrb wrote:

frogger4 wrote:Just a joke, evolution is just a theory just like how gravity is just a theory.

Aren't scientists constantly trying to come up with alternate theories of gravity though? I remember reading one in which gravity isn't a pulling force at all, rather its a pushing force from everything else... (is it wrong to respond to such an old post?)

Well the physics are sound but the question remains: Why is gravity the weakest of the four forces of the universe? One theory I've heard is that gravity works with all parallel universes at the same time. Sounds weird.

Sounds very weird... I've also wondered that, just without any real scientific knowledge to base myself on... I have some reading to do.

bloknayrb wrote:

unriggable wrote:

bloknayrb wrote:

frogger4 wrote:Just a joke, evolution is just a theory just like how gravity is just a theory.

Aren't scientists constantly trying to come up with alternate theories of gravity though? I remember reading one in which gravity isn't a pulling force at all, rather its a pushing force from everything else... (is it wrong to respond to such an old post?)

Well the physics are sound but the question remains: Why is gravity the weakest of the four forces of the universe? One theory I've heard is that gravity works with all parallel universes at the same time. Sounds weird.

Sounds very weird... I've also wondered that, just without any real scientific knowledge to base myself on... I have some reading to do.

Doubt there are any books on the subject yet, its a relatively new penomenon.

MR. Nate wrote:

Heimdall wrote:

Mr_Adams wrote: If you would like to give some sort of proof that God was created by the human mind, and not the other way around, please do so, other wise give some "Intelleegent" input

I can't prove it without a doubt, but the law of probabilty sure indicates that he was created by the human mind.

First off, every civilization/religion has it's own version of a god or multiple gods. The romans, greeks and vikings had multiple gods, each having a specific function. Why would their gods be any less real then your christian god?

The truth is that humans are very imaginative and also have a profound desire to explain everything around them, including their own existence. That's where god came from.

You could also say that behind ever myth there is a kernel of truth, so instead of a bunch of divergent cultures simultaneously making up the same idea, they all knew something originally, and the truth became diluted over time. That seems to be more probably with the evidence we have from the human race.

First off, it's far from simultaneous. Egypt invented their gods way before Allah was created for instance. However, it's very likely that ideas where transferred from one old religion to a new one. Not sure what you are referring too in regards that humans "knew something originally", if this was in fact the case, this would mean that Christianity would be far from the truth, since being so different from older religions (and therefore less diluted).

MR. Nate wrote:

Heimdall wrote:As far as Jesus is concerned, if he really existed, chances are he was some really bright and charismatic guy who was able to create a following like David Koresh, Jim Jones, Rael, Mahomet, to name a few. History is full of these guys that thing they are the all mighty's son and/or messenger. Christianity was a cult that later became a religion due to the size of its following.

I'm going to guess in the liar/lunatic/Lord question, you're leaning toward lunatic?

Yes, that would be the most probable and logical explanation.

maybe we can get an expert on this subject in here... I'll see if C.J. likes Risk

We were talking about the probability of God existing, not which religion has the best claim. I was simply pointing out that it's more probable that God exists in some form if all these cultures around the word have some piece of him in their culture.

If you'd like to discuss the reasons that Christianity is true, we can do that, but I need specific things to refute, not broad sweeping allegations.

MR. Nate wrote:We were talking about the probability of God existing, not which religion has the best claim. I was simply pointing out that it's more probable that God exists in some form if all these cultures around the word have some piece of him in their culture.

Because he exist in the human mind does not make it so. Many cultures do not have god(s).

MR. Nate wrote:We were talking about the probability of God existing, not which religion has the best claim. I was simply pointing out that it's more probable that God exists in some form if all these cultures around the word have some piece of him in their culture.

Well, there is another possibility as to why the majority of mankind conceives of some concept of a god:
Mysterious phenomenon of a strange and awe-inspiring nature (to a limited species with even more limited knowledge of the world around them) would have to have been pulled off by a being of immense power and mystery. Ipso facto: God.