Karma reasons for concrete message

Message

median



    Posts: 1812
  • Darwins +193/-15


How can He allow His believers to be tempted and go through trials and tribulation? 

Because I believe the rest of the story:

Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. (James 1:2-4, ESV)

Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him. Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. (James 1:12-14, ESV)

Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. (Romans 4:1-5, ESV)

I'll stop there.  It's a perspective/worldview issue that shows how diverse our opinions are.

I didn't ask you if "he allows his believers to be tempted". I asked you if you would ever allow your children to devoured by a lion and whether or not that would be called moral. Please go back and read my questions here because you didn't answer them. Were you avoiding them? The passages you are citing here have nothing to do with the subject. Allowing one or more of your children to be devoured by a lion has nothing to do with "trials" and "testing". This is just more of your starting with a conclusion (aka that the bible is the inspired 'inerrant word of God' and trying to work backwards).



"If your moral reasoning has been corrupted by "sin" then you have no reliable means for making that determination." That actually works both ways.

But, you do make a good point.  How can I, with a reasoning flawed by sin, make the determination that God is good?  It is because of my sin that I can recognize His goodness. 

You've just contradicted yourself. You've said I have a "good point" (and I take that to mean you agree that it is sound) but then attempt to disagree with my good point. Are you practicing cognitive dissonance? If your moral reasoning has been damaged by this alleged thing called "sin" then you have no reliable method for determining that this deity is moral/good. Merely CLAIMING (ad hoc) that it "works both ways" doesn't mean that it does. Notice that you just made a claim but didn't attempt to back it up with anything?

I'm wondering how much critical thinking you actually practiced during that time in which you claim you were a non-believer.

No, Christians don't give thanks to God that evil happens, we give thanks to God that one day He will exact justice for all evil done.  We thank God that ultimately He is in control, even if we can't quite make sense of it.

So it is true then that both you and I are morally superior to your alleged 'God'? This alleged deity stands back and watches while a child is mercilessly raped and murdered, for example, but we would step in immediately and stop it (doing something that your invisible magic friend will not do). In your theology a child being raped is within "God's divine and perfect plan", right? So then you must think there is some context by which it is moral for your God to do nothing at the moment when moral atrocities are taking place but at the same time think it moral for you or someone else to step in and stop it. And you cannot see the double standard here?

It seems that under your theology (aka - your theological pre-commitment) no argument or rational discourse could persuade you that your god conception is false. Why then should anyone engage you in discourse with you when you are participating in this kind of closed-mindedness? Do you even care whether or not your beliefs are true?

Ok, sorry for the poor analogy.  I guess parents don't put their children on the football field to get their necks broke or get fatal heatstroke either?

Are you actually trying to compare your "all-knowing" god concept with a non-all-knowing human being? If parents had a precise knowledge that a specific game or martial arts tournament was going to KILL their child, do you think they would be moral in deliberately putting them in there anyway? WOW. The lengths it seems you will go to save your assumed theology. How is it loving in any way shape or form for your alleged God to allow a lion in with his alleged 'children' to devour them?

Finally, are you willing to admit that because your moral reasoning has been impaired due to "sin" (according to your theology) that you then have no basis for determining that this invisible thing you claim to worship is actually good? Given that this thing you say you believe in can violate it's own commands, how can you make the judgment that it is moral and/or good? I am interested to see how you can have a coherent and/or meaningful definition of what is moral/good when you can have this kind of double standard.
Changed Change Reason Date
Anfauglir Some excellent questions - which, I see, he has ignored. January 02, 2014, 05:07:16 AM
Boots shining light on double-standards, for the +100 yo! January 01, 2014, 09:19:25 AM