Quote: john lucas 101 @ January 14 2010, 3:10 PM GMTWe'll scrape our own mould off, thank you very much.
Where's the fun in that John, eh? WHERE'S THE FUN????
Celebs you've met that are smug b*stards Page 9
Quote: Nogget @ January 14 2010, 2:15 PM GMTI think that either God's omnipotence is over-rated, in that He couldn't prevent even his own followers from being killed, in which case He's not very god-like, or He greatly disapproves of Christianity, or He is simply a very nasty piece of work.
This is a subject that fascinates me.
As far as I'm aware (And this is all hypothetical but I'd understand some people reasoning this way) if you allow for a good and omnipotent God and an evil counterpart who isn't omnipotent, the answer could possibly be:
If God is omnipotent and could prevent all disasters, miraculously saving everybody from disaster would be a rather big clue that God exists. Miraculously saving all the Christians, or all the jews or muslims, would also be an unmissable clue. In that world, it'd no longer be a matter of faith, but fact. Freewill and so man's ability to choose either good or evil would no longer exist. You'd believe because you had no other option but to believe. So even if an omnipotent God could click his fingers (metaphorically) and sweep evil away, it won't happen because freewill and the ability for man to decide his own fate will end.
This is even more evident when we look at disasters and evils that are man-made. For God to prevent these he would have to interfere with a man's right to choose, for good or evil. Say God did intervene. Those men, despite being evil enough for God to intervene in their lives, would then no longer be responsible for their evil because it was never committed - which is a paradox. Not only that, but at what scale would it be allowable then for God to intervene? Would he intervene over mass murders like Hitler, serial killers like Sutcliffe, one murder, a beating, cheating on a partner, lying, swearing, thinking bad things about your neighbour?
In this hypothetical, for it to remain a fair fight between two unevenly matched combatants, God must remain silent and stand back even when something perpetrated by evil is attributed to him. Not because he is impotent but because the very act of contesting it would end our right to believe what we want to believe. In this hypothetical system, each man remains fully responsible for his choices. His fate remains his own. And, in the end, evil can't turn around and say that a man only believed in God because God gave him special protection and a favoured life.
I think if this scenario was actually operating, the ultimate kick-in-the-face for evil is knowing that some men persist in believing in a good and omnipotent God despite everything that life throws at them.
Been a long time since I've thought about this area so a bit rusty.
Quote: IT David @ January 14 2010, 12:54 AM GMTI am a man of the world enough to understand I am being accussed of being a hoax.
Ignore them, David.
Deirdre, that's my wife, and I always enjoy your posts.
So what can he do then, Slag. What does he spend his time doing?
What's the point of him? 
IT David or God?
Both of us try to make the world a better place. I am not saying I do anything particularly heroic but I simply follow Gods words in everyday life and would like to think I lead by example.
What denomination are you David?
This has been the subject of some discussion between Dawn and I. We attend a C of E church and if you had asked me that question about six months ago I would have said Protestant, however, Dawn says my beliefs probably make, in essence, a Pentecostal.
Religion!? The biggest con ever played on the most amount of people for the longest time.
I used to think like that bud, however, your view will change with time. I can assure you of that.
Quote: Marc P @ January 13 2010, 2:27 PM GMTYou don't start cooking the pasta with a bit better attitude IT David and you may well find yourself in the same boat, having to eat an early lunch or not!
Quote: bigfella @ January 13 2010, 7:50 PM GMT3 times?
Quote: SlagA @ January 14 2010, 3:31 PM GMTThis is a subject that fascinates me.
As far as I'm aware (And this is all hypothetical but I'd understand some people reasoning this way) if you allow for a good and omnipotent God and an evil counterpart who isn't omnipotent, the answer could possibly be:
If God is omnipotent and could prevent all disasters, miraculously saving everybody from disaster would be a rather big clue that God exists. Miraculously saving all the Christians, or all the jews or muslims, would also be an unmissable clue. In that world, it'd no longer be a matter of faith, but fact. Freewill and so man's ability to choose either good or evil would no longer exist. You'd believe because you had no other option but to believe. So even if an omnipotent God could click his fingers (metaphorically) and sweep evil away, it won't happen because freewill and the ability for man to decide his own fate will end.
This is even more evident when we look at disasters and evils that are man-made. For God to prevent these he would have to interfere with a man's right to choose, for good or evil. Say God did intervene. Those men, despite being evil enough for God to intervene in their lives, would then no longer be responsible for their evil because it was never committed - which is a paradox. Not only that, but at what scale would it be allowable then for God to intervene? Would he intervene over mass murders like Hitler, serial killers like Sutcliffe, one murder, a beating, cheating on a partner, lying, swearing, thinking bad things about your neighbour?
You missed out a whole category of horribleness: people being eaten by tigers.
Do tigers have free will? Could God stop people being eaten by tigers, but chooses not to? Is being eaten by tigers god's way of punishing sinners?
And for "tigers", you can read AIDS, ebola, influenza, smallpox, etc etc etc. Anybody who thinks we're at the top of the food chain is deluding themselves.
This thread seems to have lost its way?