Why does God not stop the evil?

[Tinker Grey]

I'm Richard, the lion hearted. Try a little respect for that which is holy.

Dude, you ain't holy.

 

[seeking Christ]

Dude, you ain't holy.

Again with the deliberate twisting of what is stated? And the added dig on top of it? How could you expect civil discourse from such nonsense?

You know very well what is holy that is under discussion here. Don't play dumb.

 

[seeking Christ]

No, it is not. It is the theme of this thread, about a god that watches. And does nothing.

And I have repeatedly shown what you insist on missing. You can lead a horse to water ...

No, it is an opportunity to demonstrate your knowledge of scripture.

My reply to that will be to quote AV: I;s barn ignant, I's dies ignant. (With apologies for surely not getting it quite right, and yes of course the irony is intentional don't be foolish)

Red herring. I am only asking about what you think is permissible.

So, what do you think? Did Dahlmer'shis actions as a serial killer preclude him from entering this theoretical heaven?

What I think is permissable? I'm sorry but I fail to see any relevance. Do you accuse me of having friends in low places, crawl spaces, and flower vases? Do you accuse me of being an accomplice to it? "Permissable" is a concept that applies there, and no I have no temptation to do any such thing. Not even when idiots online intentionally rattle my cage for no good reason.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I'm Richard, the lion hearted. Try a little respect for that which is holy.

Dude, you ain't holy.

Again with the deliberate twisting of what is stated? And the added dig on top of it? How could you expect civil discourse from such nonsense?

You know very well what is holy that is under discussion here. Don't play dumb.

Don't blame others for your failure to communicate.

 

[seeking Christ]

Don't blame others for your failure to communicate.

Well go ahead and play dumb and ignore context both then; suit yourself.

 

[Tinker Grey]

"I'm Richard, the lion hearted." was the context.

Wondering if you were an old poster come back is not a failure to respect to the topic.

I should the consistent rudeness apparent in your posts is lack of respect to the topic.

 

[seeking Christ]

"I'm Richard, the lion hearted." was the context.

Wondering if you were an old poster come back is not a failure to respect to the topic.

There was a whole lot more context than what you acknowledge here. As I said, ignore the context and play dumb. If that really suits you, I'll adjust.

I addressed your query, as I have done with the others making it. The repetitiveness of it (which you have not been a part of) can not in any way be twisted into respect.

I will own the fact that the sequence of my own words could conceivably convey to someone that I was attempting to command respect for myself as holy, but there is NO WAY anyone with your background could ever do that in sincerity. You know better. You also know that holy concepts have been mocked here, and ridiculed, and I'm sick of it and not willing to co-operate with it.

Therefore in context, you should be able to understand something so simple without needing a 300 page dissertation on it.

 

[Dave Ellis]

If that were true in your case, why would you attempt to broach the subject of Christ's Passion in this thread?

Let me refer you to the point you just responded to...

"We are here to question the religion and get answers from the Christians as to how certain things in the Bible that simply don't add up to us can be justified"

We have many questions about Christ's passion. Does that answer your question?

And why when I point out to you that it couldn't possibly have been a human sacrifice,

You "pointing out" that is wasn't a human sacrifice isn't the same as backing up your assertion. Simply going "nuh-uh" isn't addressing our argument.

do you create the strawman of saying I just disposed the major tenets of the Christian faith and list out a bunch of things I most certainly did not say?

If you are referring to my assertion that you were accepting of our argument, that's my new way of dealing with you when you refuse to address the questions or arguments presented to you.

In short, if we posit an argument to you, and you either refuse or are unable to address it, from now on I am going to consider than an implicit concession of the argument.

And then when I snip out your post and specifically label the strawman for you why do you deny it?

Because it wasn't a strawman? I already explained why it wasn't.

No, I will not engage foolishness like that. If you're not smarter than that there's no use trying to communicate, but I'm certain you know better: just add sincerity.

Sounds good to me! Try it sometime, w/o all the added garbage.

The problem is, you regard any challenge or questioning of your beliefs as foolishness or garbage and dismiss it as such without a response.

And I should point out again, this stance is in direct contradiction to 1 Peter 3:15.... However, it's not really out of character for you to cherry pick verses you like and disregard the ones you don't like or feel uncomfortable with.

It is a demonstration of aspects of it you do not know. (Or rather, pretend not to know. I'm quite sure you see the problem on your end, and why that should indeed make me unwilling to give you precious things until you straighten out and fly right)

And what is the appropriate way to learn about something you don't know? The answer is to ask questions about it.

However, when we present with those questions, you refuse to answer.

Come down off your high horse, son. The holier than thou attitude is growing old.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You're good at barging in to the middle of a thread and asking things that have been repeated, making no attempt to brush up on the context. This is not acting in good faith, and the need to see what the discussion has been should make you realize that trying to bring up other issues that are incredibly complex themselves (like Christ's Passion for example) doesn't help anything.

Your form of questioning would work just fine in the sub-forum Exploring Christianity, except you'd still need to leave out all the nonsense.

So in other words, since you can't answer my question, you concede it is genocide?

No need to obfuscate and dodge the question because you can't think of an answer. You can just come out and say it.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I'm Richard, the lion hearted. Try a little respect for that which is holy.

You're also apparently schizophrenic...

 

[Elioenai26]

A better description would be that the earth is roughly spherical, but sure, we can say round.

Thank you. I shall refer to it as spherical from here on out. I also want you to know that I am concerned right now only with what YOUR views and opinions are, not those of anyone else. If you would like, just pretend you and I are sitting in a coffee shop in Canada, and we are discussing these things one on one.

However, again, my opinion that the earth is round is irrelevant to the fact that it is. It is demonstrable that the earth is round with evidence completely independent of opinion.

Excellent! I have a question now for you:

You say on one hand that it is your opinion that the earth is spherical. You then say that this opinion is true because the earth is actually spherical, in other words, the shape of the earth is an objective fact and that your opinion agrees with this objective fact.

Are we in agreement up to this point?

 

[Dave Ellis]

FINALLY some relevance! Any person that is honest here will admit this is at least part of their underlying concern, and the rest of it has been periferal at best. Now what I want to know is where are all these supposed Christians
that are "fully in favor if genocide?" I've never met one, not a one, and I bet I've interacted closely with more Christians than most of you have even MET, combined.

Some of you here like to poke fun at conspiracy theorists, well - look in the mirror!? Yet I won't mock you for this weakness (nor am I *ahem* vituperative) but will meet sincerity with sincerity. If you can't bring that much, don't expect much in return.

If you want an example of Christian genocide over the last 20 years, there are two examples that spring to mind right off the bat:

1. The war in Yugoslavia in which the Catholic Croats and Christian Orthodox Serbs carried out a genocide on the Muslim Bosnians, in which the leaders were later charged and convicted of genocide in the international criminal court.

2. The Lords Resistance Army is still undergoing a genocide of non-believers in central africa with the stated goal of establishing a state based on the law of the 10 commandments and Christian Fundamentalism. The international criminal court has arrest warrants out for various leaders of the LRA.

That's not to mention the approval many totalitarian dictatorships received from various churches throughout the last century.

Lastly, many of the Christians in this very thread are making excuses for the genocide described within the Bible.... which is implied approval of those actions as well.

Should I provide more examples?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Thank you. I shall refer to it as spherical from here on out. I also want you to know that I am concerned right now only with what YOUR views and opinions are, not those of anyone else. If you would like, just pretend you and I are sitting in a coffee shop in Canada, and we are discussing these things one on one.



Excellent! I have a question now for you:

You say on one hand that it is your opinion that the earth is spherical. You then say that this opinion is true because the earth is actually spherical, in other words, the shape of the earth is an objective fact and that your opinion agrees with this objective fact.

Are we in agreement up to this point?

Sure, my subjective opinion is in line with objective fact in this case.

 

[Elioenai26]

Sure, my subjective opinion is in line with objective fact in this case.

Excellent!

Making good progress here good progress.

So before we go any further, take a look at the sentences below, and tell me if it would be something you would say. All of them express the same proposition but are worded differently.

"It is my view that the earth is spherical."
"It is my opinion that the earth is spherical."
"I believe that the earth is spherical."
"It is my subjective opinion that the earth is spherical."

Are we in agreement that these sentences mean the same thing and that they would be something you would say was true?

 

[quatona]

Excellent!

Making good progress here good progress.

So before we go any further, take a look at the sentences below, and tell me if it would be something you would say. All of them express the same proposition but are worded differently.

"It is my view that the earth is spherical."
"It is my opinion that the earth is spherical."
"I believe that the earth is spherical."
"It is my subjective opinion that the earth is spherical."

Are we in agreement that these sentences mean the same thing and that they would be something you would say was true?

Insofar as they all are statements about my subjective convictions they are true:
"Yes, it´s true that it is my view..."
"Yes, it´s true that it is my opinion..."
"Yes, it´s true that I believe..."
"Yes, it´s true than my subjective opinion is that...".

 

[Elioenai26]

Insofar as they all are statements about my subjective convictions they are true:
"Yes, it´s true that it is my view..."
"Yes, it´s true that it is my opinion..."
"Yes, it´s true that I believe..."
"Yes, it´s true than my subjective opinion is that...".

No, that is not what I am asking. I know its his subjective conviction. That is self-evident. He is the subject in the sentence. You leave out the most important part of the sentence. The truth bearing proposition is: "the earth is spherical."

I did not ask him to tell me, yes it is true that my view is ....., I asked him if it was true that the sentences all expressed the same PROPOSITION. What you wrote above are not the propositions in the sentence. This misunderstanding may be due to the fact that English is not your primary language.

 

[quatona]

No, that is not what I am asking. I know its his subjective conviction. That is self-evident.

Let´s sink that in for a moment: The existence of subjective morality is self-evident.
This is your case for relative/subjective morality ( http://www.christianforums.com/t7716030/#post62182304 ).

He is the subject in the sentence.

No, his beliefs/opinions/ideas are the subject in the three of the sentences.
In any case, the truth of his opinions are not the subject of the sentences.

You leave out the most important part of the sentence. The truth bearing proposition is: "the earth is spherical."

No. The truth bearing supposition of a statement is the principal clause. If the principle clause signifies the subordinate clause as a subjective opinion the subordinate clause is undoubtedly not the truth bearing proposition of the sentence.

I did not ask him to tell me, yes it is true that my view is ....., I asked him if it was true that the sentences all expressed the same PROPOSITION.

The proposition is the main clause which clearly signifies the subordinate clause as a subjective opinion. And, yes, the all expressed the same proposition, namely a statement about his subjective opinion.

What you wrote above are not the propositions in the sentence.

Yes, it is.

This misunderstanding may be due to the fact that English is not your primary language.

While English indeed is not my first language, I am quite well versed in the rules of basic grammar (which aren´t that different in different indo-german languages), and the reason for the "misunderstanding" is
more likely due to the fact that you are not.
If the proposition of the subordinate clause would be the proposition the main clause could as well be omitted which would lead to four identical sentences "...is spherical".
For some reason you found it important to form four different sentences that only differ in the main clause (with the difference being differing wordings for signifying the subordinate clause as a subjective opinion). Now you ask me to ignore this main clause.

 

[Elioenai26]

For some reason you found it important to form four different sentences that only differ in the main clause (with the difference being differing wordings for signifying the subordinate clause as a subjective opinion). Now you ask me to ignore this main clause.

I have not asked you do ignore anything. You are not Dave Ellis, so please refrain from interrupting.

If you want something to think about, think about the following:

1. If God does not exist, then the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks were not objectively wrong.

2. The 9/11 Terrorist Attacks were objectively wrong

3. Therefore, God exists.

Meditate on that for a while.

 

[quatona]

1. If God does not exist, then the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks were not objectively wrong.

2. The 9/11 Terrorist Attacks were objectively wrong

3. Therefore, God exists.

Meditate on that for a while.

Changing the subject once again by ignoring the very point you yourself brought up and ignoring my response?

Besides, this is just a variation on the syllogism for the discussion of which you had created an entire thread for, and to which you had your responses:
Premises 1 and 2 are unsupported.

 

[Elioenai26]

Changing the subject once again by ignoring the very point you yourself brought up and ignoring my response?

Besides, this is just a variation on the syllogism for the discussion of which you had created an entire thread for, and to which you had your responses:
Premises 1 and 2 are unsupported.

I gather you are saying premise 2 is not true?