Jump to content

Precious In His Sight


Recommended Posts

Whether or not Adam and Eve really existed, in history, doesn't matter. What they and their story represent, however, is an urgent point, a truth as I see it: Something is amiss, and a cosmic struggle is underway.

Please excuse me for just jumping in here CC. I think these are some rather interesting comments. Please let me ask, what is amiss?

 

Honestly, Legion Regalis, I don't know. I can only speculate. That something is amiss I have no doubt, to wit:

 

1. 18,000 American will be killed in drinking driving accidents this year.

2. 40% of American kids in urban areas do not graduate from high school.

3. There is a war in Iraq, in the Sudan, in Somalia and in many other places.

4. Nearly half the adults in some African towns have AIDS.

5. Enron, Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, etc.

 

Something is amiss, but I don't know what that something is. Contemplating the heartaches and woes, however, makes me weary and heavy laden.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

 

 

 

We can be selfish creatures.

 

Maybe you are not, Dave, but I am and a lot of people I know are. Selfish does not mean bad. It means that our survival comes first. That's self-interest. Selfishness.

 

We do not easily lay down our lives for our friends. In fact, there's not one friend I would lay my life down for. My sister, yes. My nieces, yes. My nephew, yes. My partner, depends on my mood. :grin: My mother, no because she wouldn't want me to. Any others, I'm sad to say no.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, Legion Regalis, I don't know. I can only speculate. That something is amiss I have no doubt, to wit:

 

1. 18,000 American will be killed in drinking driving accidents this year.

2. 40% of American kids in urban areas do not graduate from high school.

3. There is a war in Iraq, in the Sudan, in Somalia and in many other places.

4. Nearly half the adults in some African towns have AIDS.

5. Enron, Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, etc.

 

Something is amiss, but I don't know what that something is. Contemplating the heartaches and woes, however, makes me weary and heavy laden.

 

It seems to me that there has always been death, faliure, and disease and these things are nestled right next to life, success, and health. I thought that's what is refered to as the human condition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can be selfish creatures.

Maybe you are not, Dave, but I am and a lot of people I know are. Selfish does not mean bad. It means that our survival comes first. That's self-interest. Selfishness.
That's a great twisting of words and makes for a great equivocation. I'm not falling for it. Just because I wish to survive does not make me a selfish person, nor does it make all humanity selfish. Again, the christian religion tries to make you believe that all of humanity is an imperfect creation of a perfect god and the ONLY WAY that anyone could be good is to worship that god and follow it's laws. They are wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Apostate

To: CurrentChristian

 

Kudos to your efforts to work find a vaccine. However, your efforts to rationalize the existence of infant AIDS and Christian doctine failed to convince me.

 

I'll allow that, under mainline Christian doctrine, the creation and promulgation of HIV or other diseases may not be pinned directly upon the Christian God.

 

However, this God is allegedly both all-powerful AND all-beneficent. Therefore he either had the power to stop these children from getting HIV and chose not to (thus falling into the same moral category of someone who sees a rescuable infant in the path of an oncoming train and choses to keep on walking), or he desperately wanted to avoid such suffering and needless death and could not do so. Such a God is either morally deranged or utterly impotent.

 

In either case, not an entity worthy of worship or even respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, Legion Regalis, I don't know. I can only speculate. That something is amiss I have no doubt, to wit:

 

1. 18,000 American will be killed in drinking driving accidents this year.

2. 40% of American kids in urban areas do not graduate from high school.

3. There is a war in Iraq, in the Sudan, in Somalia and in many other places.

4. Nearly half the adults in some African towns have AIDS.

5. Enron, Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, etc.

 

Something is amiss, but I don't know what that something is. Contemplating the heartaches and woes, however, makes me weary and heavy laden.

This message caught my eye. I'm not going to say that these aren't "bad" things. That they should be "fixed" somehow (I'm using quotes around the words since those words are debatable) but try seeing some of these things a slightly different way.

 

1. 18,000 people. That is tragic. Especially is you know and love that person. But out of roughly 300 million that's a really not too bad.

2. Okay, so 40% drop out. 60% make it all the way through.

3. Yep, lots of war. Again, this affects how much of the globe? Out of 6 billion people?

4. This is a tragedy that can be helped. I can't spin this too nicely unfortunately.

5. Enron sucked but really effected few people overall. The last three, well, come on. ;)

 

What I'm saying is that nearly everything you mentioned, even if you double the numbers, out of 6 billion people still barely scratches the surface. Overall the planet is full of people doing the best they can and it's not too bad. It's not some "evil" place waiting for "good" to come rescue it but it sure will be if you see it that way. There are places (lots of them) that need to be better. I'm not going to say that people don't have it bad (like the people in Africa). That would be naive. It would also be naive to not notice that good that all around. When you turn on the news you see one gun shooting and that seems to negate all the good that went on in that neighborhood for years, doesn't it? Suddenly, it's a "bad" neighborhood. That's naive. Those people didn't "go bad" but a "bad thing" happened. The people are still good. This is the world. It always has been and it always will be.

 

The xian mindset corrupts this and turns it inside out to use to its advantage. I know because I used to think this way. I'm still angry at injustice and all but I no longer see everything as bad waiting for good. That's not realistic. To think that only the people I know where the only ones that weren't "evil?" It had to go further than that. It had to be the people I knew were like everyone else for the most part (give or take) and that's not too bad when you think about it.

 

Anyhow, I'll get off my soapbox now. I didn't mean to preach at everyone but for some reason this touched a nerve with me today. I'll try to go back to digging up boring history/archaeology info now. :HaHa:

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you sure you just dont want to admit than there is nothing "great" going on and that we are just small human beings?

 

What if I reworded your question and asked you: Are you sure you just don't want to admit that there is something "great" going on and that we not just small human beings?

 

I bet your answer answer would be no. Likewise, my answer to your question is no.

 

Sorry, no convert here. :grin:

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest dot_is_cute

There was one of those hour long christian commercials on last night. It was entitled "Precious In His Sight." It was about children that have HIV and AIDS.

 

If this asinine god thought these kids were so precious, why did he give them HIV?

 

I couldn't watch more than two minutes of it before I got sick to my stomach.

 

"I love you - that is why I hurt you"

It never makes sense no matter how many times I hear it.

If God exists he's a w***er. (Is it OK to swear on these boards?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I love you - that is why I hurt you"

It never makes sense no matter how many times I hear it.

If God exists he's a w***er. (Is it OK to swear on these boards?)

I love their whine; "who are you to judge god?" If my morals are better than the gods then I am in a position to judge it. Does a moral god kill 42 children by having them torn apart by a "she bear" for calling an old man "baldy"? I also assume those 42 kids stood patiently in line awaiting their turn to be torn apart. Not one apologist here has explained why a loving god would create a disease knowing that many of its victims would be children.

 

 

I think in some places you can swear, and others you cannot. Why swear anyway? :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take Jonah, for example. He may have been a real person and the story in the writing by his name may be as real as the sun is. Or it may be just that, a story. Either way, it doesn't matter in terms of the lessons of Jonah: 1. God is more inclusive that we imagine (remember Jonah didn't want those evil Ninevahites saved); 2. God's will ultimately triumphs; and 3. We can be selfish creatures. These are the points.

-currentchristian in massachusetts

 

What about those writings/stories in Leviticus and Exodus that show that God is just as exclusive as we think he is?

 

What about 1Samuel 15: 1-3; what lessons of inclusiveness can you get out of that? Inclusion in genocide perhaps?

 

What about Jonah's violated free will? Heck, for that matter what about the Ninevites violated free will? And the Story has to be real for it to show anything about God's will triumphing. Otherwise it is just a story that has no more weight than a story of Zeus triumphing, or a story of Potter beating Voldemort.

 

And what particular will of God will triumph? What triumph is there in kicking ass when there is no contest? Or is there some danger that God might loose? It seems like God's will vs. Mans will would be something like the Packers vs the Head Start All-Stars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why swear anyway? :shrug:

 

I like it :grin:

But I understand that some people find it rude. That's why I asked.

Fuck no you can't swear here! :nono:

 

:lmao:

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Current Christian, as I read some of the discussion going on here a few things stood out. I think a few people pointed out that sometimes you may not hold to the same position as other Christians on various matters. Have you seen those commercials for Spiderman 3? Debating someone taking that tac reminds me a bit of that guy how temporarily turns part of himself to sand when he's punched or shot at. But by giving up the ground that you do, you actually give up more ground than you realize. I write this as someone who is now an atheist. If I were still a Christian, the critique I would offer would be partially the same, excepting of course that I would not believe it's all false anyway.

 

If the bible is going to serve as an authority at all, a revelation from God, then portions of it can't be arbitrarily dismissed. What grounds would you have for denying Adam and Eve are historical persons? Granted the Genesis story reads as if it could be symbolic or literal, but in the gospels Jesus refers to Adam as a historical individual, and so does Paul, repeatedly.

Also, you mention that every God gift is from God, and indicate that Aids isn't good therefore it's not from God, but in Isaiah doesn't it say that God also sends evil? Calamnity, storms, etc?

In revelation doesn't God send plague? In the old testament didn't he send pestilence. Further, the HIV viruses are living things. Only God can make life, right? If he's sovereign, even if he leaves some things to chance, he certainly maintains control over what life forms may or may not form, doesn't he?

When you allow Christianity to "bend" at every point you can't defend, you are well on your way to becoming a no longer "current Christian" but an "ex-Christian" because by bending you're acknowleding that at least "some of this stuff" is to rediculous to be true. But as I'm pointing out, you loose more when you let that stuff go than you realize. You descredit Paul and Jesus on their views of Adam. You tamper with the supposed real truths about the connection between a sovereign God and all kinds of suffering.

In fact, the Israelites wrestled painfully with questions about why God allowed terrible things to happen. Rather than wake up and realize that their God was no God at all, or come to the conclusion that he wasn't always good, they concluded that we must somehow be guilty and deserve it. In the long run this answer doesn't hold up, but it was their answer to the problem of evil and it's written into the Old Testament, serving the foundation for Paul (and later the church's) teaching on sin and atonement.

 

Overall, I think you know enough to not embrace certain things revealed in the bible, but may not be comfortable following such things to their logical conclusion. When you say, I can give on this, but that is still solid, you may not realize that by giving on "this" you're pulling the foundation out under that. Could Jesus have been wrong about Adam? If the bible's the word of God, can it be wrong about God sending pestilence? Could Paul have been wrong about the idea that all of mankind is lost because of the sin of one man? How can Paul's teaching concerning Christ as the 2nd Adam, and his points that as in one all die, so in one all are made alive, - how can those teachings stand up if Adam wasn't a real historical figure? But you see, it is pretty rediculous to believe Adam was actually a historical figure. And if you're truly educated, you probably know better than to deny that the diversity of life on this planet is adequately accounted for by evolutionary processes over billions of years. Further, you must know people who aren't Christians but aren't terribly evil as Paul described. Do you really think every non-believer out there has feet swift to shed blood as Paul says? Do you really believe they deserve to be tormented immeasurably throughout eternity? If not, then why the cross?

You see, it all stands or falls together a little more tightly than you may realize. And in the end, it's like a huge structure with no ground floor. There are beginners on the 3rd floor. People unsure about half of it on the mezzanines and balconies, and lofty theologians on the 434th floor and so on. But there's no floor anchoring it to reality. Yes there's a second floor. There are references in the bible to real places and people. There are supposed eyewitness claims to the resurrection. There's even Paul who claims to have seen Christ risen (note that even if there is any truth to his having some experience, it was a vision in the sky of some sort). But there's no first floor. No undeniable evidence that it's true. If Jesus, the man, existed historically at all, Jesus was most likely crucified then abandoned in an unmarked grave. Appeal to evidence for the resurrection? There's no way to be sure that anything in the resurrection accounts is grounded in history as they were written decades after. There may have been a common story that was altered slightly in various communities, accounting for the contradictions in the resurrection accounts. But it's possible that the story originated with early followers of Jesus, whom they believed to be the Messiah. You can make some arguments for why you think the more likely explanation is the resurrection. You can make the case that other explanations are less likely. But think of what you're saying. . . you're saying that a guy coming back from the grave is the "more likely explanation?" You have to willfully deny the human tendencies of people to follow religion blindly, invent and worship and deify Messiahs and Gods, and be willing to sacrifice there lives for their faith, (and this is true of people of many faiths, whether the issue is denying Christ or bombing an airport.) You can claim that at the very least the originators of the resurrection hoax would've denied it rather than die for it, but it's not an historically established fact that any did - regardless of what Fox's Book of Martyr's and apostolic church tradition maintains. Legends. That's all you can be sure of. Someone said he healed a child. But you don't know. Someone said he rose from the grave. But you don't know. You have to have faith. Put another way, you have to be more convinced of something than it's reasonable to be. And by taking that step of faith, - by believing the building has a first floor, (I guess it's just invisible maybe?), you are buying the whole building. It may be a calvinist building, it may be a catholic building, but you're buying it. That building regardless of the denomination maintains that all of mankind deserves hell - there's nothing good in us. Without Christ, we can do nothing. It maintains that God can commend people to slaughter babies and if they do so at God's command, that's a good thing. In fact, God was furious with King Saul in the Old Testament for not killing everyone and thing at one conquest. For this, he was rejected by God. Such a God doesn't exist. But if He did, he'd essentially be an enemy to humanity. His position, we are totally depraved, - he must take the perfect human and kill it on behalf of the rest. Then, if we'll sacrifice our freedom to think and obey and worship Him, he won't torment us forever in hell, though he still allows us to suffer a great deal in this life - if my sin debt is paid, why should I still suffer if suffering's the consequence of sin, - I'm supposed to be "not guilty" in Christ.

I'm sorry. I don't know the meaning of short posts.

I'll work on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the bible is going to serve as an authority at all, a revelation from God, then portions of it can't be arbitrarily dismissed. What grounds would you have for denying Adam and Eve are historical persons? Granted the Genesis story reads as if it could be symbolic or literal, but in the gospels Jesus refers to Adam as a historical individual, and so does Paul, repeatedly.

 

Hi Mike, Just got around to reading your fine posting. Let me answer a few things, to the extent that I or anyone else has answers!

 

We often quote fictional literacy characters: "Then Scarlet O'Hara said, 'As God is my witness, I'll never be hungry again.'" We quote Shakespeare's characters as "real" all the time. We know that these characters were not real. The fact that Paul referred to Adam does not mean that Paul belived he was a real, historical, person nor does it mean that Adam was; although it is quite likely that Paul did indeed never doubt that Adam and Eve were real people and that the story in Genesis about them are real stories. (My view is that there was an "Adam" in some sense that we likely don't understand and that the literary character, Adam of Genesis, is a way to understand the Adam that really was...but I'm speculating here. And, of course, Adam and Eve might very well have been literal persons, specially created by God just at the point that evolution had endowed humankind with the capacity to think. Or perhaps they were created as a jump-start to the process or....again speculation. And if I get to "heaven" and am introduced to Adam and Eve just as they are revealed in Genesis, that's great, too!)

 

CC in MA

 

 

Also, you mention that every God gift is from God, and indicate that Aids isn't good therefore it's not from God, but in Isaiah doesn't it say that God also sends evil? Calamnity, storms, etc?

In revelation doesn't God send plague? In the old testament didn't he send pestilence. Further, the HIV viruses are living things. Only God can make life, right? If he's sovereign, even if he leaves some things to chance, he certainly maintains control over what life forms may or may not form, doesn't he?

 

Great questions to which I have no definitive answer. Let me speculate. We don't actually know how much sway God allows Godself over our little insignificant pale blue dot. It seems to me that there are laws of nature that run their course without a divine hand holding the strings. Weather cycles come and go. Earthquakes happen. Viruses mutate. Planes fall from the sky. I personally don't believe that God is involved in these things. Others may, and that's fine. And if God is, that's fine by me, too. But I don't see it. I do know that I have some control over some of these things in regard to myself. If I were HIV-positive, I'd not have sexual relations with anyone without informing that person of my status and without employing all modern means to reduce the possibility of transmission.

 

-CC in MA

 

When you allow Christianity to "bend" at every point you can't defend, you are well on your way to becoming a no longer "current Christian" but an "ex-Christian" because by bending you're acknowleding that at least "some of this stuff" is to rediculous to be true. But as I'm pointing out, you loose more when you let that stuff go than you realize. You descredit Paul and Jesus on their views of Adam. You tamper with the supposed real truths about the connection between a sovereign God and all kinds of suffering.

 

There will come a day, I believe, in which all things will be known, fully known, clear, abundantly clear, obvious, for all to see. At that time, bending will not be necessary. As long as we see in a dirty mirror ("through a glass darkly") there remains room for bending. I do not bend on the essentials: death and resurrection of Jesus. Embracing these two truths makes me Christian. Believing that Lot's wife became a pillar of salt or not believing that Lot's wife became a pillar of salt has nothing to do with being Christian. Believing or not believing that Jonah was swallowed by a great fish does not make one Christian.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overall, I think you know enough to not embrace certain things revealed in the bible, but may not be comfortable following such things to their logical conclusion. When you say, I can give on this, but that is still solid, you may not realize that by giving on "this" you're pulling the foundation out under that. Could Jesus have been wrong about Adam? If the bible's the word of God, can it be wrong about God sending pestilence? Could Paul have been wrong about the idea that all of mankind is lost because of the sin of one man? How can Paul's teaching concerning Christ as the 2nd Adam, and his points that as in one all die, so in one all are made alive, - how can those teachings stand up if Adam wasn't a real historical figure? But you see, it is pretty rediculous to believe Adam was actually a historical figure. And if you're truly educated, you probably know better than to deny that the diversity of life on this planet is adequately accounted for by evolutionary processes over billions of years. Further, you must know people who aren't Christians but aren't terribly evil as Paul described. Do you really think every non-believer out there has feet swift to shed blood as Paul says? Do you really believe they deserve to be tormented immeasurably throughout eternity? If not, then why the cross?

 

Great questions. Too numerous to answer exhaustively.

 

There are irrelevant (minor) details and relevant (major) details. I have written about this before. It matters not to me how many women or which women encountered the tomb empty. It's a minor detail. That the tomb was empty is the major detail. (All four gospels agree on that significant point.)

 

I disagree that "it's pretty ridiculous to believe that Adam was actually a historical figure." He may have been. He may not have been. Either choice is acceptable, as I see it. Diversity of life, and common features of all life, support an evolutionary viewpoint. But evolution does not provide an answer for every question. I do not bow before Evolution or an icon of Charles Darwin.

 

The fact that we have a flawed nature, that something is amiss, is obvious to me. There is a great gulf between what we are and what we'd like to be. In my view, that great gulf was overcome by what many deem the foolishness of the cross. For me, the cross is the power of God for salvation and the empty tomb is the seal of the prophets.

 

Allow me to hasten to add that I write these things in answer to your questions, not as an evangelist seeking to bring anyone back to the fold. What people choose to believe or not believe is a matter of personal conscience and intellect. No one should believe something that violates their conscience or intellect.

 

-CC in MA

 

 

 

 

You see, it all stands or falls together a little more tightly than you may realize. And in the end, it's like a huge structure with no ground floor. There are beginners on the 3rd floor. People unsure about half of it on the mezzanines and balconies, and lofty theologians on the 434th floor and so on. But there's no floor anchoring it to reality. Yes there's a second floor. There are references in the bible to real places and people. There are supposed eyewitness claims to the resurrection. There's even Paul who claims to have seen Christ risen (note that even if there is any truth to his having some experience, it was a vision in the sky of some sort). But there's no first floor. No undeniable evidence that it's true. If Jesus, the man, existed historically at all, Jesus was most likely crucified then abandoned in an unmarked grave. Appeal to evidence for the resurrection? There's no way to be sure that anything in the resurrection accounts is grounded in history as they were written decades after. There may have been a common story that was altered slightly in various communities, accounting for the contradictions in the resurrection accounts. But it's possible that the story originated with early followers of Jesus, whom they believed to be the Messiah. You can make some arguments for why you think the more likely explanation is the resurrection. You can make the case that other explanations are less likely. But think of what you're saying. . . you're saying that a guy coming back from the grave is the "more likely explanation?" You have to willfully deny the human tendencies of people to follow religion blindly, invent and worship and deify Messiahs and Gods, and be willing to sacrifice there lives for their faith, (and this is true of people of many faiths, whether the issue is denying Christ or bombing an airport.) You can claim that at the very least the originators of the resurrection hoax would've denied it rather than die for it, but it's not an historically established fact that any did - regardless of what Fox's Book of Martyr's and apostolic church tradition maintains. Legends. That's all you can be sure of. Someone said he healed a child. But you don't know. Someone said he rose from the grave. But you don't know. You have to have faith. Put another way, you have to be more convinced of something than it's reasonable to be. And by taking that step of faith, - by believing the building has a first floor, (I guess it's just invisible maybe?), you are buying the whole building. It may be a calvinist building, it may be a catholic building, but you're buying it. That building regardless of the denomination maintains that all of mankind deserves hell - there's nothing good in us. Without Christ, we can do nothing. It maintains that God can commend people to slaughter babies and if they do so at God's command, that's a good thing. In fact, God was furious with King Saul in the Old Testament for not killing everyone and thing at one conquest. For this, he was rejected by God. Such a God doesn't exist. But if He did, he'd essentially be an enemy to humanity. His position, we are totally depraved, - he must take the perfect human and kill it on behalf of the rest. Then, if we'll sacrifice our freedom to think and obey and worship Him, he won't torment us forever in hell, though he still allows us to suffer a great deal in this life - if my sin debt is paid, why should I still suffer if suffering's the consequence of sin, - I'm supposed to be "not guilty" in Christ.

I'm sorry. I don't know the meaning of short posts.

I'll work on it.

 

Dear Mike, You are right: You don't know the meaning of short posts. :HaHa: But you write very well, you make clear and compelling points, and so I enjoyed reading every word. Truly.

 

We see things differently. I see the building constructed firmly on the apostles and prophets with Jesus as the cornerstone. It is constructed on the rock and all the birds of the air can flock to it and find refuge. (I absolutely respect your opposing viewpoint.)

 

I see that God is love and love is from God and love does not take into account wrongs suffered (per I Cor. 13) and, therefore, there is no hellfire torment. Hellfire torment is slander.

 

Life is confusing. There are so many vying for our thoughts, our lives, our money, our devotion. We should keep an open mind, embrace that which seems reasonable to our minds, hearts, souls, consciences, intellects and the tread very gently on this earth and even more gently among those with whom we disagree.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....There are irrelevant (minor) details and relevant (major) details.
Yes, salad bar christians have various excuses to dismiss parts of the bible they don't like or find inconvenient.
I have written about this before. It matters not to me how many women or which women encountered the tomb empty. It's a minor detail. That the tomb was empty is the major detail. (All four gospels agree on that significant point.)
Yet they miss one very significant point - the tomb never existed!
I see that God is love and love is from God and love does not take into account wrongs suffered....
Which brings us right back to the topic of this thread; a "loving' god, that is all powerful, and created everything in the Universe, allows something like HIV to infect innocent children. Any got that allows that is not worthy of my worship.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which brings us right back to the topic of this thread; a "loving' god, that is all powerful, and created everything in the Universe, allows something like HIV to infect innocent children. Any got that allows that is not worthy of my worship.

 

So what is God to do: Strike dead today every person who has HIV so that the virus stops spreading?

 

Should God also strike dead today everyone with herpes, syphilis, gonorrhea, cold sores, the flu, and the common cold so that no one gets these diseases ever again?

 

Should God stike dead today everyone who has ever or will ever consume alcohol prior to driving an automobile so as to eliminate highway fatalities?

 

Should God strike dead today every neglectful parent so that none of our children are neglected?

 

Who else would you have God strike dead today so as to rid the world of evil? Perhaps we need another flood?

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which brings us right back to the topic of this thread; a "loving' god, that is all powerful, and created everything in the Universe, allows something like HIV to infect innocent children. Any got that allows that is not worthy of my worship.
So what is God to do: Strike dead today every person who has HIV so that the virus stops spreading?
How about not creating HIV in the first place? Or, it could just eliminate the virus.
Should God also strike dead today everyone with herpes, syphilis, gonorrhea, cold sores, the flu, and the common cold so that no one gets these diseases ever again?
Or, if it "loves" everyone", as the myth claims, it could just eliminate those diseases, not the people.

 

How about we just strike the god dead and get on with life? Imagine....

 

Imagine there's no heaven

It's easy if you try

No hell below us

Above us only sky

Imagine all the people

Living for today...

 

Imagine there's no countries

It isn't hard to do

Nothing to kill or die for

And no religion too

Imagine all the people

Living life in peace...

 

You may say I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will be as one

 

Imagine no possessions

I wonder if you can

No need for greed or hunger

A brotherhood of man

Imagine all the people

Sharing all the world...

 

You may say I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will live as one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which brings us right back to the topic of this thread; a "loving' god, that is all powerful, and created everything in the Universe, allows something like HIV to infect innocent children. Any got that allows that is not worthy of my worship.
So what is God to do: Strike dead today every person who has HIV so that the virus stops spreading?
How about not creating HIV in the first place? Or, it could just eliminate the virus.
Should God also strike dead today everyone with herpes, syphilis, gonorrhea, cold sores, the flu, and the common cold so that no one gets these diseases ever again?
Or, if it "loves" everyone", as the myth claims, it could just eliminate those diseases, not the people.

 

How about we just strike the god dead and get on with life? Imagine....

 

Imagine there's no heaven

It's easy if you try

No hell below us

Above us only sky

Imagine all the people

Living for today...

 

Imagine there's no countries

It isn't hard to do

Nothing to kill or die for

And no religion too

Imagine all the people

Living life in peace...

 

You may say I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will be as one

 

Imagine no possessions

I wonder if you can

No need for greed or hunger

A brotherhood of man

Imagine all the people

Sharing all the world...

 

You may say I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will live as one

 

Dave, You have found something we both agree on totally: "Imagine" is a great song! Finally, we have agreed. Miracles do happen! :HaHa:

 

--CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave, You have found something we both agree on totally: "Imagine" is a great song! Finally, we have agreed. Miracles do happen! :
No, we do not agree. It's a nice song but you don't hear the words and use it only to avoid answering the rest of my posting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave, You have found something we both agree on totally: "Imagine" is a great song! Finally, we have agreed. Miracles do happen! :
No, we do not agree. It's a nice song but you don't hear the words and use it only to avoid answering the rest of my posting.

 

Another example, seems to me, of your demanding that others bow in your presense and declare, "You, oh mighty one, are great. I was blind and ignorant before you, light of lights, enlightened me." I don't see how anything else would make you stop harrassing me.

 

Well, I don't bow to my equals, so it won't be happening. But I ask you again to please stop stalking me on this forum.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another example, seems to me, of your demanding that others bow in your presense and declare, "You, oh mighty one, are great. I was blind and ignorant before you, light of lights, enlightened me." I don't see how anything else would make you stop harrassing me.

 

Well, I don't bow to my equals, so it won't be happening. But I ask you again to please stop stalking me on this forum.

As far as I know this is an open forum. Anyone can reply to any posting. It is not harassment in any way to respond to a post. The majority of my posts to you have been attacking your statements, not YOU. When you attack those of a different religion for praying leaves you open for anyone to point out the hypocrisy of that attack.

 

If you do not like what I have to say, instead of trying to censor or silence me, just go to your control panel and figure out how to put me in your ignore file.

 

Now, since your god, as claimed, created the Universe and everything in it; why did it create HIV? Why does it let innocent children get infected with HIV? Why does it not just eliminate HIV? That's only ONE disease out of thousands that kills innocent children. IF children were "precious in his sight" do childrens hospitals even exist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.