20 Apr 09
Originally posted by whodeyBut do you understand my argument? If I am unable to identify what I perceive to be God doing bad as genuinely good then how can I know that an example of God doing good is not in reality bad? When Jesus healed the sick, maybe in the bigger picture he was doing more harm than good.
So I assume that doing something "bad" would be like flooding the world or destroying Sodom. The question that needs to be asked is, why is he doing these things? When chrisitnas say you need to consider the bigger picture, they are saying that as "bad" as those things were, the target was wickedness. In effect, more good came from these events than bad. ...[text shortened]... ILL be stamped out one way or another. Hopefully in the process, some may be saved.
You simply cannot argue that God is good based on example, unless counter examples can be fully explained.
20 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadOf course, not everyone can agree about everything regarding what is "good" or "bad" and to be honest, who cares? It is up to God to identify such behavoir and if you have read the end of Revelation what is "bad" will be dealt with and done away with altogether. We are simply in the process of sorting it all out currently. Now in terms of how we fit into the picture, that is up to us. We can either get on board and by faith trust he is good or simply assume he does not know what is good or does not care to do what is good or distrust that a God is even there to monitor and ensure that justice is served and that "good" will prevail.
But do you understand my argument? If I am unable to identify what I perceive to be God doing bad as genuinely good then how can I know that an example of God doing good is not in reality bad? When Jesus healed the sick, maybe in the bigger picture he was doing more harm than good.
You simply cannot argue that God is good based on example, unless counter examples can be fully explained.
20 Apr 09
Originally posted by whodeySo you do agree with my basic argument? I am not sure if that was a yes.
Of course, not everyone can agree about everything regarding what is "good" or "bad" and to be honest, who cares? It is up to God to identify such behavoir and if you have read the end of Revelation what is "bad" will be dealt with and done away with altogether. We are simply in the process of sorting it all out currently. Now in terms of how we fit into t ...[text shortened]... is even there to monitor and ensure that justice is served and that "good" will prevail.
You seem to agree with me that we essentially must take it on faith (or not).
26 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead============================
But do you understand my argument? If I am unable to identify what I perceive to be God doing bad as genuinely good then how can I know that an example of God doing good is not in reality bad? When Jesus healed the sick, maybe in the bigger picture he was doing more harm than good.
You simply cannot argue that God is good based on example, unless counter examples can be fully explained.
When Jesus healed the sick, maybe in the bigger picture he was doing more harm than good.
===================================
I don't have this problem because it is plain to me that Jesus did not ALWAYS heal the sick.
I mean He healed many. But He did not set up a permenant station and do only that kind of work. And since His ascension, some He has healed and some He has given more grace to live through their sickness.
All in all, your suspicion is easily overcome by realizing the diversity of ways Christ worked with people in the Gospels.
02 May 09
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadMy comment may have not been clear. I take responsibility for that.
What do you mean by my "suspicion is easily overcome"? I don't understand your point.
I meant this:
You wrote "When Jesus healed the sick, maybe in the bigger picture he was doing more harm than good. "
I think Jesus would agree with you to an extent such was a possibility if not an actuality. The record of the New Testament persuades me that at times He prefered not to heal. Another action would be more helpful to the cause of good.
For example, in John chapter 3 it says that Jesus did not want to entrust Himself to people who followed Him only because of His signs.
"Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover,..many believed into His name wjem tjeu saw tje signs which He did. But Jesus did not entrust Himself to them, for He knew all men, ... for He Himself knew what was in man." (See John 2:23-25)
I assume that these "signs" include the many miraculous healings performed. From context of the previous chapter I probably couldn't make too strong a case of it.
However, Christ here, obviously must have thought that "signs" and wonders were the only things mankind needed. In some cases paying attention only to the signs He performed (ie. miraculous healings included) were detrimental to securing reliable followers.
Take for example also His delay in raising Lazarus from the dead. He did raise Lazarus. But ... he let him lie in the grave for four days first to the total dismay of his two sisters, Mary and Martha (chapter 11).
In another place He groaned and sighed that with some people, unless they saw signs and wonders they would not believe (John 4:48).
Shall we then surmise that only to do signs and wonders (ie. including miraculous healings) could be deemed as causing more harm than good?
If yes, then the Christ realized it and acted accordingly. Therefore He did not do more harm than good by healing, at least from His perspective.
That's about as clear as I can make it.
02 May 09
Originally posted by 667joe=============================
jThis is all BS. You don't know the will of god and the reason you don't is because there is no god to know the will of. See how simple it is! No inconsistantcies.
jThis is all BS. You don't know the will of god and the reason you don't is because there is no god to know the will of. See how simple it is! No inconsistantcies.
=================================
I see how simple it is to state something as fact which one does not know is fact.
Please cut to the chase, solve the whole problem quickly - publish your scientific formula proving without a shadow of doubt and with mathematical percision the non-existence of God.
Then will be done with the matter. Simple. Here's your chance to shine Joe.