God Doesn't Prevent Terrible Things Because:

[Guest end3]

If something is nor measurable, or if something is not detectable, it either does not exist, or has no relevance to our existence.

Crazy talk brother.

[ConsiderTheSource]

End3... if you feel this is so easily dismissed, please demonstrated how easily you can refute it. 

[duderonomy]

 

 

I don't believe people are made to be slaves either, but the fact that there are people enslaved is real.

     So when it says that these people were called to be slaves and be an example akin to christ I'm supposed to read that as a sort of happenstance instead of someone being made to be a slave?  Because, as you know, slaves are taken into slavery as opposed to volunteering.  So the call here is surely different from being called to the priesthood.  But maybe these xians willingly became slaves to brutal masters to answer the call to act as examples to slaves who had no choice?  If that's the case then how brave of god to allow this.  To allow more slaves to be made just to make a point.

 

          mwc

 

you were the one that posted "made". We may certainly look the words up and see what the verses offer. I'm willing to see it differently.

 

 

YES!!  Let's look up words and verses and see what the Bible offers when we look up it's words and versus, shall we?  That would be in keeping with the OP, wouldn't it be?  

 

Plus, End3 might finally get out of his stanky frame of mind, and get the mind of Christ instead. 

[Fweethawt]

Nope. Ain't gonna happen, Dude.

[mwc]

you were the one that posted "made". We may certainly look the words up and see what the verses offer. I'm willing to see it differently.

 

 

     Why don't you tell me what I meant when I used the word "made" and why it matters given everything else I've written?

 

          mwc

[mymistake]

 

 

 

 

Plus, End3 might finally get out of his stanky frame of mind, and get the mind of Christ instead. 

 

 

 

End's stanky frame of mind  is   the mind of Christ.

 

 

Remember on Judgement Day that Christ is going to look the luke-warm Christians strait in the eye and tell them to depart.  Then Christ is going to lock them away and torture them for all eternity.  Because Christ is going to take any excuse he can get to torture another one.

[Guest end3]

 

you were the one that posted "made". We may certainly look the words up and see what the verses offer. I'm willing to see it differently.

 

     Why don't you tell me what I meant when I used the word "made" and why it matters given everything else I've written?

 

          mwc

 

Appears that "slaves" is very often translated "servants". Don't know that I ever saw "made" in there at all. Don't know why they used it in Ephesians and many other books it's "servants"....you? Please pick a verse if you would like.

[mwc]

 

 

you were the one that posted "made". We may certainly look the words up and see what the verses offer. I'm willing to see it differently.

 

     Why don't you tell me what I meant when I used the word "made" and why it matters given everything else I've written?

 

          mwc

 

Appears that "slaves" is very often translated "servants". Don't know that I ever saw "made" in there at all. Don't know why they used it in Ephesians and many other books it's "servants"....you? Please pick a verse if you would like.

 

     It seems that you did not understand what I said or you approved of what I said and moved on to other things.  I can't be certain although it seems to me that you're now trying to figure out why the verses say what they do as opposed to demonstrating that you understood what I said about those verses.

 

     Unless, hmmm, are you trying to find a way for the mandatory slaves to be voluntary servants?  That would be on you to try I suppose.  You might also look up "doulos" which is in 1 Peter 2:16 and gets translated "servant" even though it pretty much meant "slave" but the bible translators don't like it there because "servants of god" becomes "slaves of god" and that sounds as bad as it is.  Just like the word "oiketes" is a house slave most of the time, which like in American slavery, was the better place to be a slave if you had to be a slave (and if you were a slave you *had* to be a slave).  You'll find exceptions in various texts but these tend to be the rules.  And since these are the common usages, and I don't see any asterisks anywhere, I doubt we're seeing instructions to the minority cases you're searching for since the authors need to be understood by a simple reading of the material.  But you are more than welcome to show otherwise.

 

          mwc

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

you were the one that posted "made". We may certainly look the words up and see what the verses offer. I'm willing to see it differently.

 

     Why don't you tell me what I meant when I used the word "made" and why it matters given everything else I've written?

 

          mwc

 

Appears that "slaves" is very often translated "servants". Don't know that I ever saw "made" in there at all. Don't know why they used it in Ephesians and many other books it's "servants"....you? Please pick a verse if you would like.

 

     It seems that you did not understand what I said or you approved of what I said and moved on to other things.  I can't be certain although it seems to me that you're now trying to figure out why the verses say what they do as opposed to demonstrating that you understood what I said about those verses.

 

     Unless, hmmm, are you trying to find a way for the mandatory slaves to be voluntary servants?  That would be on you to try I suppose.  You might also look up "doulos" which is in 1 Peter 2:16 and gets translated "servant" even though it pretty much meant "slave" but the bible translators don't like it there because "servants of god" becomes "slaves of god" and that sounds as bad as it is.  Just like the word "oiketes" is a house slave most of the time, which like in American slavery, was the better place to be a slave if you had to be a slave (and if you were a slave you *had* to be a slave).  You'll find exceptions in various texts but these tend to be the rules.  And since these are the common usages, and I don't see any asterisks anywhere, I doubt we're seeing instructions to the minority cases you're searching for since the authors need to be understood by a simple reading of the material.  But you are more than welcome to show otherwise.

 

          mwc

 

No, quit trying to put motives where there are none. Without looking back, I'm remembering you used "made". Made implies to me that God forces people to be slaves.....thus vilifying God. Please demonstrate your point. I looked last night and there are about three different takes on "slaves". But I did not see anywhere where the implication was that God "made" slaves. But, I did not look up the word "slave" singular. So again, please make your point or move on.

[StJeffTheIncomprehensible]

 

 

you were the one that posted "made". We may certainly look the words up and see what the verses offer. I'm willing to see it differently.

 

     Why don't you tell me what I meant when I used the word "made" and why it matters given everything else I've written?

 

          mwc

 

Appears that "slaves" is very often translated "servants". Don't know that I ever saw "made" in there at all. Don't know why they used it in Ephesians and many other books it's "servants"....you? Please pick a verse if you would like.

 

 

Wow. Had to upvote this one. Are you really saying you don't understand mwc? Seems pretty clear to me. Here are some basic bible facts. Your pastor should be teaching you this, though I understand why she/he would rather you not know it.

 

1. The bible wasn't originally written in English. Various versions often use different English words to translate the same Greek word.

 

2. There is a word in Greek that means "hired servant." There is a word in Greek that is more accurately translated as "slave." That latter word is the one Paul most often uses, and always uses in the verses in question when he is commanding that servants (slaves) obey their masters, etc. Any bible concordance will show this to be the case.

 

3. If people, Christians, had been determined to obey the bible in all things, slavery would never have been ended. Why do I say this? (Let's stick with the NT for now, though the OT is also notorious for supporting slavery by god's own command.) Because Paul and Peter, supposedly speaking for god, would have slaves be content with their lot--because IT WAS GOD'S WILL FOR THEM!!!

 

Look it up. It's right there. Here are a few references to get you started: Ephesians 6:5-8 (paying special attention to the end of verse 6); Colossians 3:21-24; I Timothy 6: 1-3 (note that verse 3 makes it clear that this support of slavery is "according to godliness"); Titus 2:9-10; 1 Peter 2:18-21.

 

mwc is right. If slavery for some people is according to godliness and is in fact the will of god for them, you are evading the point by saying the word "made" isn't used. It amounts to the same thing, end. Really.

 

(You guys posted while I was writing and mwc said the same thing I said here, but I'm sending it in anyway so I didn't just waste 5 minutes of my morning!)

[disillusioned]

If something is not measurable, or if something is not detectable, it either does not exist, or has no relevance to our existence.

 

Not to derail this thread further, but I'm not sure I agree with this statement. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "measurable" and "detectable".

 

Take, for example, the number 2. It clearly exists as a concept. It is very useful and relevant to our existence. But I'm not sure that it is directly measurable or detectable.

 

Let's say you put two apples on a table and say "there, that's 2". I would respond by saying "No, those are apples". 2 is the thing that a pair of apples, a pair of chimpanzees, and a pair of shoes have in common. But can we actually measure or detect 2 empirically? Or is it just a concept we use to help us understand what we can measure and detect? I'm inclined to say the latter.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

you were the one that posted "made". We may certainly look the words up and see what the verses offer. I'm willing to see it differently.

 

     Why don't you tell me what I meant when I used the word "made" and why it matters given everything else I've written?

 

          mwc

 

Appears that "slaves" is very often translated "servants". Don't know that I ever saw "made" in there at all. Don't know why they used it in Ephesians and many other books it's "servants"....you? Please pick a verse if you would like.

 

 

Wow. Had to upvote this one. Are you really saying you don't understand mwc? Seems pretty clear to me. Here are some basic bible facts. Your pastor should be teaching you this, though I understand why she/he would rather you not know it.

 

1. The bible wasn't originally written in English. Various versions often use different English words to translate the same Greek word.

 

2. There is a word in Greek that means "hired servant." There is a word in Greek that is more accurately translated as "slave." That latter word is the one Paul most often uses, and always uses in the verses in question when he is commanding that servants (slaves) obey their masters, etc. Any bible concordance will show this to be the case.

 

3. If people, Christians, had been determined to obey the bible in all things, slavery would never have been ended. Why do I say this? (Let's stick with the NT for now, though the OT is also notorious for supporting slavery by god's own command.) Because Paul and Peter, supposedly speaking for god, would have slaves be content with their lot--because IT WAS GOD'S WILL FOR THEM!!!

 

Look it up. It's right there. Here are a few references to get you started: Ephesians 6:5-8 (paying special attention to the end of verse 6); Colossians 3:21-24; I Timothy 6: 1-3 (note that verse 3 makes it clear that this support of slavery is "according to godliness"); Titus 2:9-10; 1 Peter 2:18-21.

 

mwc is right. If slavery for some people is according to godliness and is in fact the will of god for them, you are evading the point by saying the word "made" isn't used. It amounts to the same thing, end. Really.

 

(You guys posted while I was writing and mwc said the same thing I said here, but I'm sending it in anyway so I didn't just waste 5 minutes of my morning!)

 

Ok, my bad....didn't read all of mwc's post....was in a hurry to get to work. Let me please slow down and do a little more looking.

 

Apologies you mwc....and thanks for the effort Jeff. I'll be back.

[mymistake]

 

No, quit trying to put motives where there are none. 

 

 

Oh come on.  You have an agenda in every single thread you crap on.  You always systematically move through in the same direction.  It's completely transparent.

 

Somebody brings up science that hurts the Christian myth and you respond with "well I don't think it is that cut an dried I believe that isn't what happened the science really points to Grace"

 

Somebody brings up bad events in the Bible and if they are a woman you attack them for being a woman, but if they are a man you get into translating words until it's nonsensical word salad.

 

It's like you are following a script.

 

But you have no motives.

 

[Guest end3]

 

If something is not measurable, or if something is not detectable, it either does not exist, or has no relevance to our existence.

 

Not to derail this thread further, but I'm not sure I agree with this statement. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "measurable" and "detectable".

 

Take, for example, the number 2. It clearly exists as a concept. It is very useful and relevant to our existence. But I'm not sure that it is directly measurable or detectable.

 

Let's say you put two apples on a table and say "there, that's 2". I would respond by saying "No, those are apples". 2 is the thing that a pair of apples, a pair of chimpanzees, and a pair of shoes have in common. But can we actually measure or detect 2 empirically? Or is it just a concept we use to help us understand what we can measure and detect? I'm inclined to say the latter.

 

Kind of my thoughts as well. Human constructs maybe.

[ConsiderTheSource]

disillusioned and end3, We are talking about things that exist... apples.... sub atomic particles... and...claimed by many, god.   We are not talking about and concepts and constructs.  If god is really a concept or a construct than I will concede there is such god in the minds of many folks.

 

So, I say, if something is not measurable, or detectable than it either does not exist or is not relevant to our lives.   If god is not measurable or detectable at worst he does not exist, at best, he is not relevant.  

 

End3 and others do not believe in god.  They really believe  in belief. 

 

And, personally for End3, believing in a supernatural unseen unmeasured and not detectable imaginary friend who has a history of mass murder and disingenuousness, is "crazy talk brother". 

[Thackerie]

 

 

No, quit trying to put motives where there are none. 

 

 

Oh come on.  You have an agenda in every single thread you crap on.  You always systematically move through in the same direction.  It's completely transparent.

 

Somebody brings up science that hurts the Christian myth and you respond with "well I don't think it is that cut an dried I believe that isn't what happened the science really points to Grace"

 

Somebody brings up bad events in the Bible and if they are a woman you attack them for being a woman, but if they are a man you get into translating words until it's nonsensical word salad.

 

It's like you are following a script.

 

But you have no motives.

 

 

 

+1000

 

I regret that I have but one up vote to give to this statement of truth.

[Guest end3]

disillusioned and end3, We are talking about things that exist... apples.... sub atomic particles... and...claimed by many, god.   We are not talking about and concepts and constructs.  If god is really a concept or a construct than I will concede there is such god in the minds of many folks.

 

So, I say, if something is not measurable, or detectable than it either does not exist or is not relevant to our lives.   If god is not measurable or detectable at worst he does not exist, at best, he is not relevant.  

 

End3 and others do not believe in god.  They really believe  in belief. 

 

And, personally for End3, believing in a supernatural unseen unmeasured and not detectable imaginary friend who has a history of mass murder and disingenuousness, is "crazy talk brother".

That clarifies...thanks. Belief in belief is an interesting idea. Would be interesting to understand how the mind decides certainty.

[disillusioned]

disillusioned and end3, We are talking about things that exist... apples.... sub atomic particles... and...claimed by many, god.   We are not talking about and concepts and constructs.  If god is really a concept or a construct than I will concede there is such god in the minds of many folks.

 

So, I say, if something is not measurable, or detectable than it either does not exist or is not relevant to our lives.   If god is not measurable or detectable at worst he does not exist, at best, he is not relevant.  

 

End3 and others do not believe in god.  They really believe  in belief. 

 

And, personally for End3, believing in a supernatural unseen unmeasured and not detectable imaginary friend who has a history of mass murder and disingenuousness, is "crazy talk brother". 

 

My issue is with the bolded disjunction. As I argued before, the number 2 is relevant to our lives. I would rephrase your statement as "if something is not measurable, detectable or useful then it either doesn't exist or is not relevant to our lives."

 

Some concepts are more useful than others. The concept of God isn't coherent, and also isn't useful. The claim that God exists as more than a concept is unsubstantiated, to say the least. So I think you and I are, more or less, in agreement about what is and what is not "crazy talk".

[Guest Furball]

Still waiting end3 for you to answer my questions. You said you would provide an explanation.................

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

If something is not measurable, or if something is not detectable, it either does not exist, or has no relevance to our existence.

 

Not to derail this thread further, but I'm not sure I agree with this statement. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "measurable" and "detectable".

 

Take, for example, the number 2. It clearly exists as a concept. It is very useful and relevant to our existence. But I'm not sure that it is directly measurable or detectable.

 

Let's say you put two apples on a table and say "there, that's 2". I would respond by saying "No, those are apples". 2 is the thing that a pair of apples, a pair of chimpanzees, and a pair of shoes have in common. But can we actually measure or detect 2 empirically? Or is it just a concept we use to help us understand what we can measure and detect? I'm inclined to say the latter.

 

Kind of my thoughts as well. Human constructs maybe.

 

 

The Higgs boson isn't directly measurable and isn't directly detectable.

(As I described here... http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/67310-how-do-you-cope-with-not-knowing/page-2#.VRbgG_msUuk ...in post # 30) 

 

Therefore, acceptance of it's existence and it's relevance to us is predicated on our acceptance of the methodology (science) that was used to find it and the groundrules governing that method.  Unless we accepted the validity of the method and the methodology, we're unlikely to accept that the Higgs either exists or is relevant to us.

 

Many people have a deep-seated problem with science, don't understand how it works and don't trust it's results  - so asking them to accept the existence of the Higgs is a waste of time.  They first need to understand how science works and what it's rules are before we can ask them to accept the existence of something that depends on them understanding how science works and what it rules are.

.

.

.

Q.   So is the Higgs real or not?

 

A.  

Those who make the effort to understand the scientific method and it's groundrules are generally happy to agree that the Higgs is real.  Those who don't/can't/won't make that effort usually say that it isn't.

[Guest Furball]

 

Remember BAA, according to end3, the people (innocent children) in the above pics told god to shove it, so they are learning in gods university of hard knocks. End3 cannot explain how a baby can tell god to shove it, but as long as were dwelling in the region of insanity and magical thinking, we'll just agree that the baby told god to shove it while in the womb. 

 

Oh, I see, CC.

 

So the sister I never knew must have told God to shove it while she was in the womb - causing to him to kill her her to be stillborn.

 

Is that right?

 

According to end3 yes.

[Guest Furball]

 

Remember BAA, according to end3, the people (innocent children) in the above pics told god to shove it, so they are learning in gods university of hard knocks. End3 cannot explain how a baby can tell god to shove it, but as long as were dwelling in the region of insanity and magical thinking, we'll just agree that the baby told god to shove it while in the womb.

CC...is this post real? Did Florduh just not explain my position far more eloquently than I, yet you want to hold me to explaining that these children suffer because we make choices contrary to God?

 

What choices did the children make that were contrary to god? If you say it is the parents choices that are contrary to god, then why not make the parents suffer, why the children instead? 

 

Which bring up the question....again.....<sighs>.......What did the CHILDREN do to deserve this????????? Not what WE did/do according to your logic, what did the unborn/newborn children do to deserve this?????

[Guest end3]

 

 

Remember BAA, according to end3, the people (innocent children) in the above pics told god to shove it, so they are learning in gods university of hard knocks. End3 cannot explain how a baby can tell god to shove it, but as long as were dwelling in the region of insanity and magical thinking, we'll just agree that the baby told god to shove it while in the womb.

CC...is this post real? Did Florduh just not explain my position far more eloquently than I, yet you want to hold me to explaining that these children suffer because we make choices contrary to God?

 

What choices did the children make that were contrary to god? If you say it is the parents choices that are contrary to god, then why not make the parents suffer, why the children instead? 

 

Which bring up the question....again.....<sighs>.......What did the CHILDREN do to deserve this????????? Not what WE did/do according to your logic, what did the unborn/newborn children do to deserve this?????

 

I did respond to this. MM said y'all understood the first time. Here goes again. The children likely did nothing to deserve this. Their suffering in my opinion, is a result of generations upon generations of not acting according to God. A child may suffer from the parents decisions for generations...literally. Now take two suffering children that have been influenced by bad decisions and have them mate and produce chillins. Now picture the outcome over 1000 years. Could we call this moral evolution? Yes, I think we might could.

[Guest end3]

So, End3, getting back to the whole "love thy neighbor" thing: if it really is true that we are meant to solve the evils of the world by taking care of those around us, then, I must again ask "What's the point of an all-powerful god?"  Seriously.  If "grace" and "relationships" are all we need, then what's the point of praying to god to heal your neighbor's malignant tumor?  What's the purpose of faith, if evil can be overcome by action?

 

Or, is everything subjective, including our love, actions, "grace" and "relationships"?

I'm guessing there would be no need for a god, no need for guidance, no need if there is no consequence for adhering to a god or any standard. No need for hope, faith, etc. I'm guessing life would be more brutal.

[Guest Furball]

 

 

 

Remember BAA, according to end3, the people (innocent children) in the above pics told god to shove it, so they are learning in gods university of hard knocks. End3 cannot explain how a baby can tell god to shove it, but as long as were dwelling in the region of insanity and magical thinking, we'll just agree that the baby told god to shove it while in the womb.

CC...is this post real? Did Florduh just not explain my position far more eloquently than I, yet you want to hold me to explaining that these children suffer because we make choices contrary to God?

 

What choices did the children make that were contrary to god? If you say it is the parents choices that are contrary to god, then why not make the parents suffer, why the children instead? 

 

Which bring up the question....again.....<sighs>.......What did the CHILDREN do to deserve this????????? Not what WE did/do according to your logic, what did the unborn/newborn children do to deserve this?????

 

I did respond to this. MM said y'all understood the first time. Here goes again. The children likely did nothing to deserve this. Their suffering in my opinion, is a result of generations upon generations of not acting according to God. A child may suffer from the parents decisions for generations...literally. Now take two suffering children that have been influenced by bad decisions and have them mate and produce chillins. Now picture the outcome over 1000 years. Could we call this moral evolution? Yes, I think we might could.

 

Let's try this again. WHY DO THE CHILDREN HAVE TO SUFFER FOR SOMEONE ELSE'S CRIMES?

 

According to your logic, if you rob a bank, the rest of us should have to go to jail and be punished with you. 

 

Horseshit.