Questions to God. (1 Viewer)

[The_Doc_Man]

Our limited human minds simply aren't capable of fully understanding it.

Then why the threat of condemnation for believing the evidence of our eyes? Should we not believe our senses as we test the world around us? If we cannot trust our senses, should we trust any other part of us? Because for faith, remember, there IS no evidence.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Then why the threat of condemnation for believing the evidence of our eyes? Should we not believe our senses as we test the world around us? If we cannot trust our senses, should we trust any other part of us? Because for faith, remember, there IS no evidence.

Just a guess, but maybe divine justice or truth might not conform to human reasoning.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Just a guess, but maybe divine justice or truth might not conform to human reasoning.

Obviously, but it all boils down to belief, and what I've seen doesn't help me with any divine beliefs.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Its simplicity is probably intentional, most people have average comprehension. It's likely a numbers game. He already knows that most intellectuals will reject the premise of faith and free will due to the lack of evidence, but they are not excluded from the promise.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Heck, even Jon and I have debated over the nature and meaning of "Free Will" from a purely scientific viewpoint.

 

[AccessBlaster]

What did we say in the 70's: "Keep the faith, baby" or was it "keep the baby, faith"

 

[Isaac]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Backwards.

He is able to prevent evil, but he is also willing to let humans choose whether to or to not submit to you and let or not let evil into the world.

In other words, we are Free ... Like we always claim we want to be.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

In other words, we are Free ... Like we always claim we want to be.

Which means he can't prevent evil. OR worse, CAN prevent evil - but doesn't.

 

[Isaac]

Then why the threat of condemnation for believing the evidence of our eyes? Should we not believe our senses as we test the world around us? If we cannot trust our senses, should we trust any other part of us? Because for faith, remember, there IS no evidence.

I think it's more like, the evidence is overwhelming, and it takes a pretty strong rebellious urge to try to ignore it.

 

[Isaac]

Which means he can't prevent evil. OR worse, CAN prevent evil - but doesn't.

Yep, He lets us choose evil.

 

[Isaac]

Arguing about whether or not God is ‘nice’ before deciding to obey him is like being in the jungle, staring down a 10-ton elephant, and saying, ‘Yes, but is he kind?’ Who cares? He’s real, and he’s large. Move.

I find it adorable when people say, ‘Well, even if God exists, I’m not sure I like him.’ As if their personal Yelp review of the Almighty is going to carry weight in a courtroom made of stars. Newsflash: if the most powerful being in the universe has a will, the question isn’t whether you like it — it’s whether you want to save your life.

If God exists and holds the universe together by sheer will, then debating his ethics before acknowledging his authority is like critiquing a king’s table manners while kneeling at the guillotine. First comes submission. Moral analysis is not the place to start, but could become a place you at least pass by while studying Him later - to truly understand, not to conquer.

 

[Mike Krailo]

Does anyone remember Paul Harvey on the radio? He did a bit about what the devil would do to destroy a generation of people. Here is the updated version to ring true with todays technology and apparently according to ChatGPT.

If I were the devil, I wouldn't come with violence. I would come with convenience. I'd give them everything they wanted and strip them of everything they needed. I'd make them feel connected, but completely alone, endlessly entertained, but quietly empty. I'd blur the lines between truth and opinion until nothing meant anything. I'd teach them to chase dopamine, not purpose. I'd teach them to worship self, but loath who they are. I wouldn't destroy them with war. I'd destroy them with apathy. I'd keep them distracted, numb, scrolling…always scrolling.

I'd dismantle the family by redefining it. I'd make fathers optional and mothers exhausted and children confused. I'd hand them a cell phone before they could speak in full sentences. And I'd watch their minds rot slowly, sweetly, silently.

 

[Isaac]

Thanks for posting that SPOT-ON description of unfortunately not just one person's bad dream, but the current American dream.

 

[Mike Krailo]

I still remember when Paul told that to his audience many years ago. It was very close to spot on back then too.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I still remember Paul Harvey's voice.

 

[Isaac]

we listened to his 'the rest of the story' around i believe it was lunchtime, on the Radio ... remember Radios

 

[AccessBlaster]

Aren't car manufacturers trying to do away with am radio.

 

[NauticalGent]

we listened to his 'the rest of the story' around i believe it was lunchtime

I came across a site years ago and was able to DL his complete Rest Of The Story program.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I think it's more like, the evidence is overwhelming, and it takes a pretty strong rebellious urge to try to ignore it.

That, or perhaps to those who read and ponder the Bible in some depth (which I did until about age 35), the evidence is ambiguous at best and underwhelming. I am not what you might call "rebellious" but there has to be some logic to the rules.

 

[GaP42]

Perhaps we need to take responsibility for our own actions and not pass them off to some make-believe diety(ies) - good or evil. It is just childish.
Carl Sagan response