|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is God good? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Sure, because God is righteous and He does no evil and we don't have to know all His reasons. Not according to the Bible:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
That's "evil" in the sense of calamity which God brings as judgment, that is not "evil" in the sense of sin which scripture says God cannot commit. Its not evil its evil Its just another one of the numerous examples of the Bible contradicting itself. And this whole thing is quite funny, let me analogize it: Let's say I am the Grand Rulemaker and I cannot be wrong. I decree that nobody shall wear a red hat. Next, I put this on:
If you were a believer like you are, then your arguments would be that either that is not a hat, or it is not red... for as the Grand Rulemaker who cannot be wrong, I have decreed that nobody shall wear a red hat. So, that can't possibly be a red hat that I'm wearing. Meanwhile, everyone else can see that it is, in fact, a red hat and you are just making stuff up to maintain your preconceived beliefs. It makes you look quite silly to point at a red hat and claim that it is either not red or not a hat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Check that passage in other translations. Many of them have "calamity" there. That's what the word means in that context. What was that you were saying before about the King James Version being the best (which is what I quoted from)? But oh, if it shows you being wrong, well then, piss on it this time! You're hilarious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
OK? If you want to come off as someone who has no honesty with themselves or other people and will say anything they have to in order to maintain the beliefs they've already decided they must adhere to... yeah, if that's okay then its OK.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It irritated the Roman Catholics no end. They've been trying to get rid of it ever since. sigh I grew up through 12 years of Catholic education and we used the King James Version of the Bible that whole time. Seems to be an odd way of trying to get rid of it. But, you know, facts don't really matter when you've already made your mind up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
There are always evil people trying to undermine the true faith and often getting away with it.
No, no, no. What they're going for is calamity. The greek word that's underlying their true thoughts is better rooted in calamity. You see, there's reasons to believe that the Protestants have this huge conspiracy going where they're tricking the underminers into thinking their calamity is actually evil. It because of their secret underground leader (read: Satan)who hates that evil is being sidelined to calamity. There's actually Protestants who have admitted that they're secretly working for Satan to trick people into thinking that calamity is really plain old evil. I have some sources for that, I'll have to dig them up later. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Things are a lot more convoluted than you have any idea. You will also now find the RC claiming that they had a hand in the King James translation. Ha ha ha. They'll take any position necessary if it will confuse things. The Protestants think that aliens flew into the writer's fingertips and used their little spaceships to control the fingers of the authors so that everything would appear to be more complicated than it has to be. Once the Protestant Pope enables all his mind-contolling software, everyone will be so blinded by the complexity that they'll just have to run straight for the churches to make sense of everything. Then Jesus will come riding in on the Adam and Eve's pet velociraptor and it'll garble up all the dirty Catlickers and the Protestants will win the greatest Truth or Dare contest in the enitre Universe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Commentaries are not the Bible. So much for Sola Scriptura, no?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
No, I just like people and therefore wish that no harm should come to them.
Okay. But there was a man like Adolf Hitler. And he just as strongly felt that he like to do harm to 6 million Jews. So you see you have your preference and he had his. Its left kind of arbitrary. It is left as a matter of personal preference. One like vanilla icecream and another likes chocolate. Ok, and which one do you prefer? Would you like no harm to come to people or would you like 6 million of them to be killed? Any sane person should easily and immediately be able to come to the same preference as 99.99% of the population. So, we can use the nearly universal preference to come to a conclusion that one of those things is better than the other. Once we get some sort of consensus, then we can assigning things as either good or bad. Then, we can quite comfortably say that killing 6 million people is a bad thing and whishing that no harm come to anyone is a good thing. Its really not that difficult if your position doesn't require insisting that these conclusion are impossible without God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
And yet Protestants are not of one mind on these subjects. So what is the doctrine of "THE Church" concerning these subjects? How do we tell the teachings of the Spirit from the fabrications of men? By whether or not Faith believes in them. You're just gonna have to ask her and let her tell you what's what.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Man needs some leading progressively to the concept of grace in the Savior Christ. Maybe you man that mean needs some leading to accept God's grace. Grace would be meaningless if you needed enlightenment to obtain it. I don't follow this. "Grace would be meaningless if you needed enightenment to obtain it." Why? Because that's what Grave means. You don't deserve it but you get it anyways. If you had to deserve it to get it then it isn't Grace. A common description of Grace is "unmerited".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Maybe the "common" description of "grace" is inadequate to all the ways in which it is used in the Bible. No doubt. There's so much different stuff going on in there that you can practically make it say anything.
In the Bible grace is not only something over man it is something working within man. "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit" (Phil. 4:23) The "unmerited favor" of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit is inadequate here and in many other places to a fuller understanding of "grace." The KJV has it like this:
quote: And that's the very last line of the book. Its like a salutation. Its not really worth basing the definition of a word on. You can take passages out of the Bible to pretty much support whatever you want:
quote: In the Old Testament its something that is found in the eyes of the Lord. (Gen 6:8)\ So, whatever, it depends on what you're talking about. its not clear what you meant by this:
Man needs some leading progressively to the concept of grace in the Savior Christ. But Ringo's response was correct. You don't need to "earn" God's grace.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
What kind of existence do you think can be had in a state where God's forgiveness is rejected, His presence is disdained, His care is not wanted, His blessings are not needed, His holiness is insulted, His authority rejected, His glory profaned ? Torment is an apt word to discribe the existence of the sinner who wants nothing but himself and his unforgiven transgressions against God and man. Why? Does it hurt his widdle feelings, or something?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Are you sure it isn't you whose feelings are hurt ? Maybe your ego's feelings are hurt at the thought that a sinner could really lose in the end, and not totally get away with it all. Man is offended at the very thought of eternal punishment. Speak for yourself. My ego and feelings are not hurt. And my question remains:
quote: Why is eternal torment the right punishment for dissing God?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024