Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You do appear to speak for this hypothetical god. Did you not say that this god hates religion?
Yet another issue with using the bible as "evidence": aside from the circular reasoning, everyone can point the finger at each other and claim their interpretation is the correct one. Cherry pick, move goalposts, argue from ignorance, look for Scotsman, confirm their biases ... claim "semantics". I've tried to speak with you and not tear you down, rather I've tried to speak to you respectfully and even on your level of referring to scripture once, which is something I tend to avoid for a variety of reasons.
I'm sorry for the mishap. I'm not aggravated. Nor was I when I posted that. My intentions were to point out how this is not a discussion, and some chose not to try and hear what is presented, and by what methods are being used. I have done this in the past, and it tends to bring out the more intellectual crowed. I do apologize.
I do apologize. In my haste to go to wI answered you quite idiotically now that I reread my post.
I have made a post on this.
If he did know then he can't have "fallen asleep," as in the parable. He could have acted to prevent it.
Hey good on you, it is good to repent and do right. But this still leaves the problem unresolved though, that you seem to be saying that Christianity is not a religion. But the definition of a religion does describe Christianity. People are right to tell you that you are misusing that word. But I also know what you are describing, I think you need to object to more specific aspects of the religious activity. However, I did also ask you to suggest what word you would rather use to describe Christianity that "religion" when "religion" is the correct word to use in that specific context. An example might be "donations to religions are exempt from tax" - I wonder if you would like to offer a different version of that expression. Alternatively you might rather rephrase the expression you made in the first place, that rather than saying God is against all religion, He is against something more specific and descriptive. FYI, it is said well by the prophet Isaiah:
You seem to be implying something but not wanting to say it. I insist, please go ahead and say it, otherwise I could guess wrong and make an assumption that isn't right. To answer this question too, I would need to know the person's reason for not intervening, because intention is a key factor in determining whether someone's action is right or wrong.
Do you suggest that every child that would not honor God would be stillborn or something? I don't know how you think that satisfies the requirement for evidence of guilt. And I am sure you are not thinking properly about the way wheat would respond if God was to take away the weeds. I am pretty sure that you are just making up an alternative reality. So if you are serious, please go ahead and describe how you think it would be possible.
But the enemy would have only waited for another opportunity. That would not have solved the problem. I said this previously, which maybe you didn't read as being so important as it was intended to be:
I do not recall asking that.
No, I would have quoted his actual words. It would be intellectually dishonest to misrepresent someone else's postion.
Could you possibly be projecting here?
How are are either of us able to know 'full well' what LostMarbels intended to say? Can you read minds?
Dear Mr Mian Reeder, you are quick the play the victim card. It may be that of these two people in this exchange you are commenting on, one individual is a n00b with some questions, and the other considers himself infallible and to have two-way relationship with an all-powerful, all-knowing deity riding shotgun in his life. The latter individual comes in here swinging, but fails to come up with more than unevidenced, unfalsifiable, and untestable religious rhetoric. When called out on this unevidenced, unfalsifiable, and untestable religious rhetoric, you jump to his defence, making this personal, implying that he is the injured party. Did I miss anything?
Not really.
Suppose that the person tells you that they refuse to intervene out of respect for the assailant's "free will." Is that a good reason?
The wheat wouldn't need to respond in any way to the absence of the weeds because the wheat would have grown in their absence from the very beginning.
The enemy would be waiting forever then.
Rest easy? Why would he need to "rest" at all? You keep talking about God as though he were a human being. Humans are concerned about damaging the wheat while removing weeds; humans are concerned by risk and worry whether they can rest easy. An omnipotent and omniscient being need not share any of these concerns.
One does not need to have an alternative argument to expose the flaws in others' arguments.
Sarcasm is only one tool with which to critique other's ideas.
I am not here to make a case. I am here to see if you have one.
That would be inappropriate for this venue.
The burden is on you to demonstrate that your god is real.
Sarcasm must carefully and sparingly applied, or it may backfire on you.
Certainly not, IMO.
Yup. This is an alternative reality. How about when you apply that same question to the real situation? You know, where weeds and wheat are married and some are mothers, fathers, daughters, sons, friends etc.
What kind of life would that be for God, if He was always watching out for enemies?
Don't you like to rest?
What if He wants to though? What if He genuinely cares about the wheat? You can make up an image of God that isn't consistent with the way He presents Himself, but you are not then discussing God in any real sense.
I don't mean this disrespectfully whatsoever, however I could see why you may take it that way. But as I said, I don't mean it to be disrespectful.
What would you say about the character of someone who offered this as their reason for not intervening?
As I said earlier, there would be no weeds from the beginning.
Are you suggesting that it would be onerous for him? Why? He is omnipotent; nothing can exhaust his limitless resources.
Yes. But I'm not omnipotent. If I were, why would I need to rest?
You are talking about God as if he had the same limitations as human beings.
This might help you, but it is up to you of course.
Do you speak for all atheists? I prefer to be ignostic on this topic. The burden of defining whatever they claim to believe in should be left to the religionist.
Since none of the religionists I have met have been able to demonstrate that their "god" exists in reality, I tentatively conclude that their god is a character in a book.
At a base level, I would say that an atheist would think that a "god" should be able to be shown to exist... hence their disbelief. Not in all cases, of course.
What would that be?
I don't know, TBH. I am curious now, what do you say of those who watch predators hunt their prey without intervening? Like those photographers for the Nature Channel? (BTW, I should remind you sooner than later to consider this is a strawman, because God does call us to judgement for our actions).
I told you, that is an alternative reality. It's ok if you don't want to think about the real world, just I think you should not go thinking that you have a case to blame God before you have really thought it through.
You are making an assumption though that He doesn't enjoy resting. It is clear in scriptural descriptions that He does.
It is relaxing, rejuvenating, gives you a chance to enjoy life without needing to concentrate on daily demands. Don't you know how good it is to rest?
I am only picturing Him as a person. Limitations are a different topic.
