Does might make right?

Originally posted by whodey
Unfortunatly, not much is devulged in regards to the wickedness of the men and women of Noah's day, other than to convey the fact that their minds were fixed upon wickedness continually.

Exactly. Given that, I'm not sure what you hope to gain from your questions to twhitehead. More specific info is needed before they can be answered.

Originally posted by whodey
The men of Sodom, however, are better understood. It was soon after the stangers that entered the city to visit Lot were followed to Lots house by the men of Sodom in order to gang rape them that the judgement against Sodom was renedered by God.

Gen 18
13 Then the LORD said to Abraham, "Why did Sarah laugh and say, 'Will I really have a child, now that I am old?' 14 Is anything too hard for the LORD ?

32 Then [Abraham] said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?"
He answered, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy [Sodom]."
33 When the LORD had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

It's puzzling that Abraham stops at 10. I vote for "1". 1 innocent person killed is one too many.

And, though he's able to get old women pregnant, God can't control his bloodlust. This is the thing that is "too hard" for him: to look down and render judgment on each individual according to his transgressions, rather than wiping out whole cities.

Originally posted by whodey
What I am attempting to do is ascertain how God has gone awry by offering a better alternative. Is this not a fair enough question? For example, if you were God and the people of Noah's day were becoming increasingly wicked to the point of be continually wicked and something needed to be done to correct such wickedness, what would you do about it?

Lets see. First you say we have free will and suffering is a result of that. Now you are saying that free will may cause us to make the 'wrong' choice and that God needs to do something about it. So their will wasn't that free after all.
As I said, I would we merely speculating if I said what I would do if I was God, but if my child starts to exhibit bad behavior I try to correct it, I do not kill him. If I was a omnipotent as you claim your God is then I would not fail to correct it as your God appears to have done in Noahs time. In fact I would never have let it get that far.
You should also ask why do people become 'wicked'? Is it a flaw in their design? A problem of environment? Just bad luck? A necessary outcome of free will?

Originally posted by whodey
I will answer this by asking you a question. Should God be invited to intervene in this scenerio or should God simply run to the aid of the child without being summonsed?

How does the child even know enough about God so summon him? Are you saying that it is everybody elses job to go around looking for sick children and summoning God to help them? Sounds like your God has a bit of an ego problem. It hardly fits your description of a loving God if he just sits back and refuses to help unless someone begs him to. If you see a sick child dying in the street do you stand near by saying 'I don't here it asking for help'? As I said, your God fits the description of a monster rather well.

Another important point is that I don't see any sign that God does help people even when he is summoned. People are dying every day praying as hard as they can. There is no observable difference between the amount of suffering experienced by Christians than any other group of people. Of course Christians then change their whole tune when confronted with that fact and say that God likes to 'test' their faith. As I said - a monster.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Lets see. First you say we have free will and suffering is a result of that. Now you are saying that free will may cause us to make the 'wrong' choice and that God needs to do something about it. So their will wasn't that free after all.
As I said, I would we merely speculating if I said what I would do if I was God, but if my child starts to exhibit bad in their design? A problem of environment? Just bad luck? A necessary outcome of free will?

Don't get me wrong, God does and has attempted to correct behavoir through other men such as prophets he has sent to us and teachings he has given to us. However, it is a far cry from cramming it down our throats. For example, when Isael sinned against God, God's response was not to let them be destroyed, rather, he sent them prophet upon prophet to warn them and admonish them. However, when these warnings continue to go unheeded what is one to do?

Originally posted by whodey
Don't get me wrong, God does and has attempted to correct behavoir through other men such as prophets he has sent to us and teachings he has given to us. However, it is a far cry from cramming it down our throats. For example, when Isael sinned against God, God's response was not to let them be destroyed, rather, he sent them prophet upon prophet to warn them and admonish them. However, when these warnings continue to go unheeded what is one to do?

Your God is clearly not as omnipotent as you claim. The prophet strategy clearly isn't working. Its rather childish though to simply give up and drown the lot of them.
If God is truly omnipotent and has a message for us then why not make it clear that the message is from him and make the message clearly understandable. He seems to be obsessed with trying to obfusticate the message and only let those with secret decoder rings know the true meaning. Why not just say it in a nice loud voice or write it in large letters of fire across the sky? Even in the old Testament he had a very reclusive habit of only talking to individuals in private and then expecting everyone to believe them.
Next you are either going to blame the devil or explain how knowledge of the facts interferes with free will.

Originally posted by twhitehead
How does the child even know enough about God so summon him? Are you saying that it is everybody elses job to go around looking for sick children and summoning God to help them? Sounds like your God has a bit of an ego problem. It hardly fits your description of a loving God if he just sits back and refuses to help unless someone begs him to. If you see a ronted with that fact and say that God likes to 'test' their faith. As I said - a monster.

Well would you help the child if you had first been told to get lost? I mean, would you force yourself upon them?

The Bible says that God's people perish for a lack of knowledge. Why is that? Why do we need such knowledge? Why can't God just do everything for us? Then again, why can't he just live our lives for us?

God requires faith or someone to agree that he should interceed for us. Thus he has ALWAYS needed such men to work through to bring about his will such as Noah and Abraham etc.

I will conceede that God does not always answer our prayers concerning such matters as not answering a prayer from someone who is dying. The question then becomes, why? I don't think the answer is as simplistic as we would like and I will not pretend to have all the answers, however, I think I have some insights on the matter. For starters, I think that many people find that an unanswered prayer is unacceptable. In fact, the greater the suffering they experience the greater the expectation is for God to act the way in which we would expect him to act. However, what we often loose sight of is that our prayers to God are a petition, not a command. After all, if our prayers are a command, we would then assume the role of God, no? Another thing to consider, if God responded to every prayer to heal and restore, who then would die? I mean, there has to be an end game because by God's law we all must die eventually in order to leave this world. Yet another pessibility is that God has a purpose or may work through certain "sufferings". For example, Christ was once approached concerning Lazarus who was suffering and dying and he was asked to come help him. Did he jump up immediatly and run to his aid? Does he stop Lazarus from dying thus quenching his suffering and subsequent greiving and suffering of those who loved him? No. Christ had a mission which involved letting Lazarus suffer and then die. It does not mean that God caused such suffering, rather, it is simply a result of man's decision thousands of years prior to allow sin and suffering into the world. In effect, such suffering becomes a natural progression, not a direct intervention by God to inflict suffering. Having said that, God can work through such suffering despite this fact as he did with his friend Lazarus who we all know finally came to see him well after he had died. In fact, Lazarus had been dead for three days before Christ finally came and Christ knew that he had died. He then raised Lazarus from the dead thus inforcing the notion that Christ and Christ alone is the ressurection and the life of us all. That was why God refrained from answering the prayers of those who loved him to spare his life and heal him.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Your God is clearly not as omnipotent as you claim. The prophet strategy clearly isn't working. Its rather childish though to simply give up and drown the lot of them.
If God is truly omnipotent and has a message for us then why not make it clear that the message is from him and make the message clearly understandable. He seems to be obsessed with trying ...[text shortened]... ither going to blame the devil or explain how knowledge of the facts interferes with free will.

I think the message is plain enough. Repent!! Ok, a little slower now, R-E-P-E-N-T. Ok, still no good? How's about a definition then?

Repent: To feel regret for what one has done or failed to do. To feel contrition for ones sins and to abjure sinful ways.

So here we see that all is needed is a little light to expose such sinfulness thus enters the prophet. But wait, the people may not respond favorably to having their sinful ways exposed. What's up with that?

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son to condemn the world but that the world through him might be saved. He that believes on him is not condemned, but he that believes not is condemned already because he has not beilieved in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnaion, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that does evil hates the light, neither comes to the light, lest their deeds should be reproved. But he that does truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."

So here we see that men flee from the light because they do not want to be reproved. After all, who likes to be told their wrong? Have you ever been wrong? It seems to me that you then have two options concerning such wrongdoing. You can receive such reproof as a condemnation or a conviction. If you recieve it as a condemnation then you will be condemned. However, if you recieve such correction in terms of being convicted, then you will seek to admitt wrong doing and then seek change. It is a little thing called humility that is needed as well as a desire for the truth. No amount of coersion can force someone to desire truth, rather, it all comes down to what you love or value the most. Do you love the light or the darkness? That is the question.

Originally posted by whodey
Well would you help the child if you had first been told to get lost? I mean, would you force yourself upon them?

Yes I would. If you wouldn't then you do not love your children.

The Bible says that God's people perish for a lack of knowledge. Why is that? Why do we need such knowledge? Why can't God just do everything for us? Then again, why can't he just live our lives for us?
Now you a Christian are asking me and atheist what God is up to? I never thought I would see the day.

God requires faith or someone to agree that he should interceed for us. Thus he has ALWAYS needed such men to work through to bring about his will such as Noah and Abraham etc.
I already stated that and was asking why. Simply stating it again as fact doesn't answer anything but rather makes it look like you don't know the answer.

I will conceede that God does not always answer our prayers concerning such matters as not answering a prayer from someone who is dying.
In fact statistically, he answers as many prayers as he helps without being asked or we would see a statistically significant difference between the health or life spans of Christians and other people.

Another thing to consider, if God responded to every prayer to heal and restore, who then would die?
So suffering is actually a means of population control? You get weirder every time you post. It still doesn't explain why he can't go with a painless death instead of all the needless suffering.

That was why God refrained from answering the prayers of those who loved him to spare his life and heal him.
Again your God shows his inability to achieve certain goals without at best 'allowing' suffering. Some omnipotent God that is!
Do you also let children suffer a bit so that you can use them as an example in next weeks sermon? Is not like you gave them the disease or anything you are just withholding the medicine a bit in order to make the point clearer and save a few souls!

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes I would. If you wouldn't then you do not love your children.

[b]The Bible says that God's people perish for a lack of knowledge. Why is that? Why do we need such knowledge? Why can't God just do everything for us? Then again, why can't he just live our lives for us?
Now you a Christian are asking me and atheist what God is up to? I never ithholding the medicine a bit in order to make the point clearer and save a few souls![/b]

I guess what I am getting at is that God's creation has a lesson to learn which is sin is bad. Simple enough no? How does one go about showing that sin is bad? By talking about it? That did'nt seem to work. Why not show creation the effects of sin such as suffering that we have today? So in your scenerio we should have sin minus the suffering. I think the loving thing to do is to allow suffering so that one is shown the errors of their ways.

BTW where are you getting your info from in terms of statistically proving tha prayer is useless? Are these statistics based upon the the faith of Christ, of his disciples, his followers, Hitler, who are these people? Did you even know that Christ once was UNABLE to do miracles for those of his home town because of their unbelief? I have seen other studies which suggest that those of faith live longer lives and are healthier in general. Do you accept these as well?

Originally posted by twhitehead
[b]Yes I would. If you wouldn't then you do not love your children.

What about when your children reach an age of accountability? When will you allow them to go their own way?

Originally posted by whodey
I guess what I am getting at is that God's creation has a lesson to learn which is sin is bad. Simple enough no? How does one go about showing that sin is bad? By talking about it? That did'nt seem to work. Why not show creation the effects of sin such as suffering that we have today? So in your scenerio we should have sin minus the suffering. I think the loving thing to do is to allow suffering so that one is shown the errors of their ways.

Make up your mind. Is suffering a direct consequence of sin or a punishment devised by God as a deterrent? You appear to be claiming both. I still think an omnipotent God would be able to avoid the suffering especially for those innocent children.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Make up your mind. Is suffering a direct consequence of sin or a punishment devised by God as a deterrent? You appear to be claiming both. I still think an omnipotent God would be able to avoid the suffering especially for those innocent children.

I am saying that suffering is a direct result of sin and therefore it should naturally be a deterrent. The fear of God is said to begin by realizing this fact. Biblically speaking the fear of God is to hate sin and it is the beginning of ALL wisdom. Is it a fear of God himself? No, rather, it is a fear of being without his direction and wisdom and love.

As far as your proposition that children should be immune from suffering, are you suggesting that sin should occur in a vaccum when we know that this is not the case? It is akin to saying that God should only allow drunk drivers to die in car accidents or become injured in accidents they cause. The only way not to be effected by the drunken driver is to physically prevent him from getting drunk and/or driving or to completly remove such a person from society. The only other option, I suppose, is to physically prevent all others from being on the road or sidewalk, or nearby home when they are driving drunk.

Originally posted by whodey
What am I talking about? I am attempting to convey that the will of God is paramount in avoiding suffering. If God is a God of love, what he wills for us is what is best for us and what we need. Therefore departing from such a perfect will should generate less than desirable consequences than what God's perfect will is for us. For example, the tree of kno ...[text shortened]... reated them fairly? If this is your position then why not just clone yourself and have at it?

And again, what are you talking about? What's any of this got to do with the suffering of the neonate I described earlier?

Even if we thought God was justified in allowing heinous forms of suffering to be visited upon moral agents who "reject" Him, this doesn't explain why He allows such suffering to be brought upon moral patients who are not even capable of rejecting Him. For the last time, at no time during its short life is this neonate a moral agent. So, you need to explain how God is justified in His treatment of moral patients who are not even capable of being "independent" in the ways you describe. Further, your God is omnipotent, remember? There are any number of ways He could avoid this suffering without "violating" any free will; without exerting His control over the actions of any moral agents; in short, without tampering in any way with this "independence" the human race has collectively chosen, according to you.

Originally posted by LemonJello
And again, what are you talking about? What's any of this got to do with the suffering of the neonate I described earlier?

Even if we thought God was justified in allowing heinous forms of suffering to be visited upon moral agents who "reject" Him, this doesn't explain why He allows such suffering to be brought upon moral patients who are not even cap ...[text shortened]... way with this "independence" the human race has collectively chosen, according to you.

I covered this in the previous post.