Suffering for the Sins of the World

[walterpthefirst]

Walter, 'all of that' refers to what you said in your post. I pointed out that you didn't need to go to the New Testament for your proofs when your point was already proven in the book of Genesis.

 

 

And I'm still waiting on you to make good on your claim by showing this 'proof' in Genesis.

 

Please do so.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

7 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

I guess my point is whether you believe the Bible is true or not, using "it's not fair!" or "I wouldn't do that!" as an apologetic seems a bit weak.

Dude,

 

I personally think your shitting on an excellent thread with a lot of thought provoking material concerning bible God's persona. I don't know if your just trolling and trying to get a rise out of Walter or RNP or what but your argument is weak. If you take everything the Bible says about God and what is preached in the churches. God is this magnificent, all powerful, ever present, loving father that when you pray a faithful prayer to, will flex his OmniGod muscles for his children. The only exception being that some will suffer for his names sake by being persecuted like christ. For their faith in him. Otherwise he is supposed to heal the sick, make the blind to see, the lame to walk and protect the innocent. Among other wonderful things up to and including, moving mountains.

 

The arguments outlined here have been children, (The innocent) suffering, being tortured, raped, starved, and killed with no apparent help from Bible God. They aren't being abducted and treated this way because they are Christians or because of their faith. Only because they are defenseless and easy prey for predators. 

 

Since you first said that the whole argument can be made just in the Adam and eve story. I've been trying to figure out how you came to that conclusion. Other than God creating everything in genesis 1-3, which I guess some could say is proof enough of God's power, he is a limited God. He doesn't know where they are when he walks in the Garden, he doesn't stop Satan from beguiling eve, he seems astonished that they ate of the fruit, and he has to take breaks every 7 days. In Genesis 1-3 his only power seems to be the power to create. His next show of power is to curse. When he curses man to work the land for food and sustenance and the woman with menstrual pain and pain during child birth. Then he kicks them out of the garden because he FEARS them becoming immortal like him. Non of that sounds like the Bible God that evolves over time through the rest of the Bible. So it would be nice if you would prove your point. I'm just not seeing it. 

 

I know I'm basically about to repeat myself here but let's put it a different way. 

 

I'm sure you've heard of profiling. The show criminal minds is based on profiling criminals using given information, statistics, cultural and familial traits, and many more criteria I imagine. But the point I'm making is that the Bible creates a profile for God through the scripture. The profile that we read in the Bible doesn't reflect what is seen in action. No one has based this argument on what is fair or what they would do. The whole argument is based on what a God like the God described in the bible would do given a certain circumstance. Lending to the thought that since he doesn't act as the Bible portrays he would act, in a given circumstance, that he is either not what is described or he doesn't exist. 

 

It seems like a pretty sound argument to me. 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

11 hours ago, mwc said:

     I would claim it leans more towards an appeal to emotion.

 

          mwc

 

The examples under discussion are emotionally charged, for sure.  To a certain extent, this is intentional; because the extremes of depravity contrast best with god's supposed goodness.  However, evil is, itself, both prevalent and ubiquitous.  It is something nearly everyone has experienced in some form or fashion, and, obviously, in varying degrees.  As such, it would be difficult to discuss evil without including a certain element of emotionalism (even if the emotional response is humor and light-heartedness, such as my response to the "evil" based horror movies).

 

The overall argument, though, boils down to a simple Boolean Expression (If A is..., and B is..., then C must be...).  If evil exists, and god exists, then god must not be what the bible describes.  This is based, as Walt pointed out, on the characteristics of god as he is described in the bible.  Such characteristics as goodness, loving-kindness, compassion and mercy are at odds with what we actually see in the reality of our world.  Omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence also cannot be true under the lens of the prevalence and ubiquity of evil.  The existence of evil reveals that either god does not exist, or that god is not what the bible descrubes him as.  In short, because evil exist, then the god of the bible cannot exist.

 

It's easy to mistake the example supporting the argument as the argument itself, especially when the example is so obviously evocative and provocative.  This is why I said that both options are relevant.

[walterpthefirst]

Prof, I'm not sure which part of this you are having trouble with.  Have you tried scrolling up until you see what I said here in context?

 

Your umbrage at the strawmen raping the strawchildren in your post has no bearing on whether or not the Bible is true. That was my point. That's what I was trying to point out to Walter.

 

 

 

Since my name was mentioned I'll address the point Duderonomy thinks he was making.  The playing of devil's advocate doesn't require that the book in question (the bible) be true or not.   That point is not relevant.  

 

All that is required is that the advocate (me) takes the position of the bible-believing Christian.  When I do this I show that god's failure to shield Adam and Eve from harm in Genesis contradicts what the Old and New testaments tell us about god's protective care of his beloved children.

 

The truth or falsehood of the bible really has no relevance to the playing of devil's advocate.  If I want to I can pick a work of fiction like War and Peace or The Hobbit and play devil's advocate with their contents.  

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[midniterider]

RNP: The problem with that line of reasoning is that we are not imagining what god is or should be; rather, we are taking god, as the bible describes him, at face value and contrasting that with the present reality of the world in which we live.  And the contrast between the god described in the bible (all-powerful, all-loving, ever-present help in time of trouble) and the reality of a 10-year-old sex slave is about as glaring an inconsistency as can be imagined.

 

...

 

One person cares about glaring inconsistencies of God's behavior in the bible. Another man does not.

 

A non-believer might acknowledge there's a problem of evil, while a Christian does not see God being evil, ever. Only good. No matter what.

 

Morality is relative, right? Or is it absolute in favor of the non-believer? 

 

 

 

 

 

[duderonomy]

8 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Since my name was mentioned I'll address the point Duderonomy thinks he was making.  The playing of devil's advocate doesn't require that the book in question (the bible) be true or not.   That point is not relevant.  

 

Walter,  how is you addressing the point you think I was making any different from you addressing the point you think the Bible is making?

 

[walterpthefirst]

5 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

Walter,  how is you addressing the point you think I was making any different from you addressing the point you think the Bible is making?

 

 

That's easily answered, Duderonomy.

 

But there's some outstanding business between us that needs addressing first.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Posted Thursday at 06:51 AM

  On 10/6/2022 at 1:30 AM, duderonomy said:

 

Walter, 'all of that' refers to what you said in your post. I pointed out that you didn't need to go to the New Testament for your proofs when your point was already proven in the book of Genesis.

 

Then prove it from what's in Genesis.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

DarkBishop and I are still waiting on your 'proof'.

 

Please show us.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

Then prove it from what's in Genesis.

Actually he is more limited than that.

 

Dude said on page 23.

 

"Not to nitpick, but you didn't need the New Testament to confirm all of that. It's in the story of Adam and Eve itself in Genesis"

 

He said it is proven only in the story of Adam and Eve. 

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

On 9/10/2022 at 10:28 AM, freshstart said:

It appears Ed questions whether "evil is a bad thing."  That is the mental gymnastics that a Christian has to do because, as RNP has so eloquently pointed out, God created evil.  And if Christians are going to worship and trust a God that created evil, well then there has to be a reason that evil is good.

 

On 9/10/2022 at 6:13 PM, Edgarcito said:

Let me give another example so that you might understand how "evil could be a good thing"

 

Every time I see stuff like this it reminds me of the verse:

 

     "Woe to those who call evil good"
     (Isaiah 5:20)

 

Just sayin' 

 

Carry on....

[Hierophant]

On 8/6/2022 at 9:44 AM, DarkBishop said:

 

Exactly! I've heard sermons about sins of omission before. Thats when you know your supposed to do something but you don't. It was a sermon to promote helping those in need. 

 

But if we take the scripture as a whole. The Bible repeatedly says that God cannot sin and there is no evil in him. 

 

And as you so eloquently pointed out in your post. If we apply the sins of omission concept to God himself he is far more Evil and sinful than his counterpart (The Devil). 

 

Its so obvious when you finally break the bonds of indoctrination. I'm so glad I was able to fully deconvert. 

 

Well said. This line of thinking was something I pondered while in the questioning phase.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

On 10/9/2022 at 6:50 AM, DarkBishop said:

 

I don't know if your just trolling and trying to get a rise out of Walter or RNP

 

 

BINGO!

[duderonomy]

13 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

Actually he is more limited than that.

 

Dude said on page 23.

 

"Not to nitpick, but you didn't need the New Testament to confirm all of that. It's in the story of Adam and Eve itself in Genesis"

 

He said it is proven only in the story of Adam and Eve. 

 

 

Excuse me? Where in what you quoted (or anywhere else) did I say it was 'proven only in the story of Adam and Eve'?

[midniterider]

edited...

 

Duderonomy, I think they are saying that if you use only the bible and not your own personal knowledge, that the A&E story itself does not talk about the power of God or the foresight and motivation of God to shield the vulnerable....

 

Not until these NT verses below....

 

Walter: Specifically, verse 6 from the book of Jude, 2 Peter 2 : 4 and Revelation 20 : 1 - 3.

 

Walter: These confirm that god has the power, the foresight and the motivation to shield the vulnerable from harm.  But, instead of shielding the most vulnerable people ever created from harm (Adam and Eve) god left them at the mercy of the most wicked, powerful and cunning fallen angel of them all - Satan.

 

..........

 

But I frankly am not on the intellectual plane required to enjoy or understand the hair splitting and debate over microscopic points of interest in this thread. So I could be wrong. 

 

 

 

 

 

[mwc]

On 10/9/2022 at 7:30 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

The examples under discussion are emotionally charged, for sure.  To a certain extent, this is intentional; because the extremes of depravity contrast best with god's supposed goodness.  However, evil is, itself, both prevalent and ubiquitous.  It is something nearly everyone has experienced in some form or fashion, and, obviously, in varying degrees.  As such, it would be difficult to discuss evil without including a certain element of emotionalism (even if the emotional response is humor and light-heartedness, such as my response to the "evil" based horror movies).

 

The overall argument, though, boils down to a simple Boolean Expression (If A is..., and B is..., then C must be...).  If evil exists, and god exists, then god must not be what the bible describes.  This is based, as Walt pointed out, on the characteristics of god as he is described in the bible.  Such characteristics as goodness, loving-kindness, compassion and mercy are at odds with what we actually see in the reality of our world.  Omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence also cannot be true under the lens of the prevalence and ubiquity of evil.  The existence of evil reveals that either god does not exist, or that god is not what the bible descrubes him as.  In short, because evil exist, then the god of the bible cannot exist.

 

It's easy to mistake the example supporting the argument as the argument itself, especially when the example is so obviously evocative and provocative.  This is why I said that both options are relevant.

     Okay, I've not really been bothering with this thread because it's a million pages long but I have checked-in with it now and again (I chimed in at least once).  Actually following any argument over this stretch is usually more trouble than it's worth.

 

     Now, as to your examples, the children and the appeal to emotion (since I really just thought that's more along the lines of what Duder had in mind when he said "strawman" and I've kind of felt it myself when I saw it repeated).  This is the same as saying something like "If you saw this kid being raped wouldn't you do something if you could?"  Of course.  I like to think so.  Most would or like to think they would.  That's the appeal to emotions.  It's a form of "Think of the children!" (or maybe the other way around?)

 

     Anyhow, I'm sure there's more but to find all the points in this whole thread and respond would take up more time than I care to commit.

 

          mwc

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 hours ago, mwc said:

     Okay, I've not really been bothering with this thread because it's a million pages long but I have checked-in with it now and again (I chimed in at least once).  Actually following any argument over this stretch is usually more trouble than it's worth.

 

     Now, as to your examples, the children and the appeal to emotion (since I really just thought that's more along the lines of what Duder had in mind when he said "strawman" and I've kind of felt it myself when I saw it repeated).  This is the same as saying something like "If you saw this kid being raped wouldn't you do something if you could?"  Of course.  I like to think so.  Most would or like to think they would.  That's the appeal to emotions.  It's a form of "Think of the children!" (or maybe the other way around?)

 

     Anyhow, I'm sure there's more but to find all the points in this whole thread and respond would take up more time than I care to commit.

 

          mwc

 

But we could substitute any example of evil and the argument would still work.  We could be discussing the Holocaust, or any other genocide in recent history (Rwanda, Cambodia, Rohingya and more).  We could discuss the rape camps in Bosnia throughout the 1990s.  We could discuss any of the famines that have occurred in recent history, from the Irish Potato famine to the Great Leap Forward in China.  The argument would not be affected at all by the insertion of different, presumably less "emotional," examples.  Of course, any time one discusses the suffering of innocents, there is going to be some element of emotion involved; and probably some children, too; but the overall argument here remains the same.

 

Because these things exist (insert example of evil here), then god cannot be what the bible describes him as.  Either the god of the bible is evil himself, or he does not exist; but he cannot be what the bible says he is.

[mwc]

9 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

But we could substitute any example of evil and the argument would still work.  We could be discussing the Holocaust, or any other genocide in recent history (Rwanda, Cambodia, Rohingya and more).  We could discuss the rape camps in Bosnia throughout the 1990s.  We could discuss any of the famines that have occurred in recent history, from the Irish Potato famine to the Great Leap Forward in China.  The argument would not be affected at all by the insertion of different, presumably less "emotional," examples.  Of course, any time one discusses the suffering of innocents, there is going to be some element of emotion involved; and probably some children, too; but the overall argument here remains the same.

 

Because these things exist (insert example of evil here), then god cannot be what the bible describes him as.  Either the god of the bible is evil himself, or he does not exist; but he cannot be what the bible says he is.

     So why did you choose to use the examples of these children and post their pictures if not to evoke an emotional response?  Could you not have simply given a simple description, examples of evil, as you did here?

 

     You literally, at one point say:

Quote

 

Look at her, Ed.  Look into her eyes.  Give her a name.  And then tell me how god planting that tree was anything other than unabated, unadulterated evil.

 

     How should I interpret this?  The only reason to perform these actions is to evoke an emotional response.  I should feel a certain way about this girl and then I should draw my conclusion about how this action in the garden was evil.

 

          mwc

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

47 minutes ago, mwc said:

     So why did you choose to use the examples of these children and post their pictures if not to evoke an emotional response?  Could you not have simply given a simple description, examples of evil, as you did here?

 

This was already explained:

 

On 10/9/2022 at 10:30 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

The examples under discussion are emotionally charged, for sure.  To a certain extent, this is intentional; because the extremes of depravity contrast best with god's supposed goodness.  However, evil is, itself, both prevalent and ubiquitous.  It is something nearly everyone has experienced in some form or fashion, and, obviously, in varying degrees.  As such, it would be difficult to discuss evil without including a certain element of emotionalism

 

49 minutes ago, mwc said:

How should I interpret this?  The only reason to perform these actions is to evoke an emotional response.  I should feel a certain way about this girl and then I should draw my conclusion about how this action in the garden was evil.

Is this the entire argument?  Or is it simply an example used to support the overall argument?  Of course this was meant to invoke an emotional response: and I have explained both the reasons for using emotionally charged examples and that the overall argument would not be affected by using different examples.  You should, therefore, interpret it as an example in support of the overall argument.  You are not being asked to draw a conclusion based on this one example.  You are being asked to look at the entire argument and draw a conclusion based on that.  

 

Irrespective of whatever example is used:  If evil exists, and god exists, then god cannot be what the bible describes.

[walterpthefirst]

8 hours ago, midniterider said:

edited...

 

Duderonomy, I think they are saying that if you use only the bible and not your own personal knowledge, that the A&E story itself does not talk about the power of God or the foresight and motivation of God to shield the vulnerable....

 

Not until these NT verses below....

 

Walter: Specifically, verse 6 from the book of Jude, 2 Peter 2 : 4 and Revelation 20 : 1 - 3.

 

Walter: These confirm that god has the power, the foresight and the motivation to shield the vulnerable from harm.  But, instead of shielding the most vulnerable people ever created from harm (Adam and Eve) god left them at the mercy of the most wicked, powerful and cunning fallen angel of them all - Satan.

 

..........

 

But I frankly am not on the intellectual plane required to enjoy or understand the hair splitting and debate over microscopic points of interest in this thread. So I could be wrong. 

 

 

No, it's ok midniterider.  You aren't wrong.

 

My argument in this thread isn't difficult to understand.  The hair-splitting has come from Duderonomy who hasn't understood it or won't accept it.  In a nutshell, here is my my argument.

 

The bible describes god as all-knowing, all-powerful and all-present.  It also says (many times) that he loves his children and his people and shields them from harm.  The bible also says that god not change, nor does he change his mind as men do.  Given these qualities why did god allow Satan to harm Adam and Eve in Eden?   When...

 

A )  God knew what Satan intended to do in advance.

 

and..

 

B )  God had the power to prevent harm coming to his vulnerable children by imprisoning Satan.

 

I cited three examples from the NT to show that god DID imprison certain fallen angels.  So, scripture itself confirms that when it suits him god WILL imprison the disobedient angels.  But apparently it didn't suit his purposes to shield Adam and Eve from sin and death.  This is a glaring problem for the Christian belief that god is only ever good and only ever does good. 

 

Duderonomy zeroed in on the fact that I'd only NT examples of god shielding his loved ones from harm.  But that is a cardinal error on his part.  There are many examples from the OT where god shields his people from harm.  Just off the the top of my head, here are some examples.

 

God shielded Noah, his sons and their families from harm and death by ordering the Ark to be built.

God shielded his people from the angel of death so that he Passed Over them and struck down only the Egyptians.

God shielded the twelve tribes from the Egyptian army by closing up the Red Sea.

God shielded Jerusalem from the Assyrian invaders by striking down Sennacherib's army.

God shielded Israel from the immorality of Baal by empowering Elijah to defeat them.

 

So my point and my argument stand, midniterider.  God had the power, the foresight and (supposedly) the loving compassion to shield Adam and Eve from harm.

 

So why didn't he do it? 

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

10 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

Excuse me? Where in what you quoted (or anywhere else) did I say it was 'proven only in the story of Adam and Eve'?

Dude,

 

That was a direct quote from your post on page 23 of this thread. Here I'll post a screen shot.

 

 

walter referenced scriptures in Jude, 2 peter, and revelations. To which you said that he didn't have to go into the new testament to confirm that. That it was all in the story of Adam and Eve itself. You even quoted the section from Walter's post directly after the scriptures he referenced. 

 

Your the one that said it. Not me. Are you back peddling now on your claim? Or were you mistaken? If that isn't what you meant. Maybe you should clarify the statement you made.

 

DB

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

No, it's ok midniterider.  You aren't wrong.

 

My argument in this thread isn't difficult to understand.  The hair-splitting has come from Duderonomy who hasn't understood it or won't accept it.  In a nutshell, here is my my argument.

 

The bible describes god as all-knowing, all-powerful and all-present.  It also says (many times) that he loves his children and his people and shields them from harm.  The bible also says that god not change, nor does he change his mind as men do.  Given these qualities why did god allow Satan to harm Adam and Eve in Eden?   When...

 

A )  God knew what Satan intended to do in advance.

 

and..

 

B )  God had the power to prevent harm coming to his vulnerable children by imprisoning Satan.

 

I cited three examples from the NT to show that god DID imprison certain fallen angels.  So, scripture itself confirms that when it suits him god WILL imprison the disobedient angels.  But apparently it didn't suit his purposes to shield Adam and Eve from sin and death.  This is a glaring problem for the Christian belief that god is only ever good and only ever does good. 

 

Duderonomy zeroed in on the fact that I'd only NT examples of god shielding his loved ones from harm.  But that is a cardinal error on his part.  There are many examples from the OT where god shields his people from harm.  Just off the the top of my head, here are some examples.

 

God shielded Noah, his sons and their families from harm and death by ordering the Ark to be built.

God shielded his people from the angel of death so that he Passed Over them and struck down only the Egyptians.

God shielded the twelve tribes from the Egyptian army by closing up the Red Sea.

God shielded Jerusalem from the Assyrian invaders by striking down Sennacherib's army.

God shielded Israel from the immorality of Baal by empowering Elijah to defeat them.

 

So my point and my argument stand, midniterider.  God had the power, the foresight and (supposedly) the loving compassion to shield Adam and Eve from harm.

 

So why didn't he do it? 

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

It's a great argument from our standpoint ... but it isn't very compelling to a Christian. The 10 year old sex slave point is the final nail in the coffin for God from our perspective, but Christians don't care. He's just mysterious. Mysterious and good, always.

 

And we're debating about control of someone's thinking... some here probably prefer that Christians not talk to themselves (God) but I guess I don't care that much. 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

10 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

It's a great argument from our standpoint ... but it isn't very compelling to a Christian. The 10 year old sex slave point is the final nail in the coffin for God from our perspective, but Christians don't care. He's just mysterious. Mysterious and good, always.

 

And we're debating about control of someone's thinking... some here probably prefer that Christians not talk to themselves (God) but I guess I don't care that much. 

 

 

I'm not sure I'd agree.  As I mentioned before, while I was still a christian, the 10-year-old sex slave was one of the very thoughts that began to turn my own thinking to the possibility that god isn't what I was led to believe. It was one of the predominant ideas that opened my mind to the potential that god might not be good always.  If it happened for me, it could happen for anyone.  And why wouldn't we want to help plant that seed for someone else, when we have all been through it ourselves to varying degrees?  I might describe it more along the lines of attempting to help open another person's mind to alternative possibilities, more so than trying to control their thinking.

[midniterider]

3 hours ago, mwc said:

     So why did you choose to use the examples of these children and post their pictures if not to evoke an emotional response?  Could you not have simply given a simple description, examples of evil, as you did here?

 

     You literally, at one point say:

     How should I interpret this?  The only reason to perform these actions is to evoke an emotional response.  I should feel a certain way about this girl and then I should draw my conclusion about how this action in the garden was evil.

 

          mwc

 

 

A picture's worth a thousand words, eh? 

 

To Ex-c: What is more powerful, logic or emotion? What does Christianity use to its advantage, logic or emotion?

[midniterider]

2 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I'm not sure I'd agree.  As I mentioned before, while I was still a christian, the 10-year-old sex slave was one of the very thoughts that began to turn my own thinking to the possibility that god isn't what I was led to believe. It was one of the predominant ideas that opened my mind to the potential that god might not be good always.  If it happened for me, it could happen for anyone.  And why wouldn't we want to help plant that seed for someone else, when we have all been through it ourselves to varying degrees?  I might describe it more along the lines of attempting to help open another person's mind to alternative possibilities, more so than trying to control their thinking.

 

We can disagree. It's ok. 

 

I was a 9-1-1 operator and have heard the screams and wailing from someone coming home to find their relative dangling from a rope. It's one of the worst kind of calls to take. Your mind conjures up a picture of it ... and then you have to talk to the person to gather the appropriate information and dispatch personnel. The veteran call taker still might need a moment to shake that nasty scene out of their head. (But yeah, so what.)

 

So I see this disturbing photo on this thread of a dangling little dead girl. My initial thought is, "this is kind of over the top", and it seems to have stuck in MWC's head ... but I decided we needed to shoot Ed down with it so I moved on and forgot about it. 

 

Is this about opening minds to alternative possibilities? Or more like being "scared straight?"  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scared_Straight!

[TABA]

54 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

It's a great argument from our standpoint ... but it isn't very compelling to a Christian. The 10 year old sex slave point is the final nail in the coffin for God from our perspective, but Christians don't care.

I agree with the Prof.  Christians who don’t care about arguments like this are not our target audience, which instead consists of people who have already started the deconversion process, and also christians who DO care and are open to considering objections to christian dogma.  

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

7 hours ago, mwc said:

     Okay, I've not really been bothering with this thread because it's a million pages long but I have checked-in with it now and again (I chimed in at least once).  Actually following any argument over this stretch is usually more trouble than it's worth.

 

     Now, as to your examples, the children and the appeal to emotion (since I really just thought that's more along the lines of what Duder had in mind when he said "strawman" and I've kind of felt it myself when I saw it repeated).  This is the same as saying something like "If you saw this kid being raped wouldn't you do something if you could?"  Of course.  I like to think so.  Most would or like to think they would.  That's the appeal to emotions.  It's a form of "Think of the children!" (or maybe the other way around?)

 

     Anyhow, I'm sure there's more but to find all the points in this whole thread and respond would take up more time than I care to commit.

 

          mwc

 

It's actually a really good thread. The back and forth between Ed, Walter, and the RNP brought out a lot of holes. It hasn't all been about child sex slavery. The first post was of a emaciated child eating off the floor. 

 

Somewhere in the thread I brought up my grandmother's life and how she was treated by her husband, her children, and all the tragedy she has had to endure. All while living a faithful life to her God. 

 

According to the Bible. God answers the prayers of the faithful. 

 

Matt 7:7-11

7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?

10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?

11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

 

John 14:12-14

12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

 

This argument can be made in many places in the Bible. Here again we find descriptions of what God will supposedly do for his children. Jesus in John here even says that he will answer prayers so that his father will be glorified. Anything that is asked with a faithful heart will be done. Not might be done. Not that he's gonna think about it and get back with ya later with an answer. No. He says it will be done so his father will be glorified. 

 

I can't see that any of my grandmother's most important prayers were answered in her life. She does tho. She praises God for getting her through all that she has been through. But what she cant realise is that according to the bibles description of God she should have never had to go through it in the first place. God didnt stop her husband from beating her and cheating on her. Not one of her children that made it to adulthood went to church. The one that is left now still treats her like crap. She had multiple mental breakdowns. But "praise God he's helped her through all of it". Its really sad to see it looking from the outside of faith now. God gets a pass on everything. It is such bullshit.

 

For all the millions of children that are sold into sex slavery, I'm sure there are millions of people praying for them to return. With very few that actually do. And if they do, they are probably so messed up mentally by the ordeal that they will never be able to live a normal life. 

 

What about the many children or even adults that are starving? Jesus made a little bit of bread and fish feed 5000 people. In John it says that Christians should be able to do greater things than even he did. Because he has gone to the father. Why aren't those missionaries in those countries able to feed whole communities the same way? 

 

Because the God described in the Bible either doesn't exist. Or God is not what the Bible describes. Either way. The God of the Bible is a false God if we hold that God up to his own standard. 

 

Deuteronomy 18

 

21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken?

22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

 

Matthew 7

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

 

In both of these verses a prophet is a false prophet if their prophecies do not come to fruition. So this criteria spans both the new and old testaments. If we apply the same principles to the promises of God that we read about in the bible then Jesus is either a false prophet, all the people in the old testament that boasted of God's favor toward his chosen people are false prophets, the apostles would also have to be false prophets, or the biblical God just doesn't exist. 

 

We can go to many, many, many scriptures all over the Bible and prove this point out. In many different scenarios. It doesn't have to be sex slavery. How about....... childhood cancer? It's the same thing. 

 

Acts 5

14 And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.)

15 Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them.

16 There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one.

 

The very shadow of peter was supposedly able to heal. Yet now there are over 1000 children expected to die of cancer this year in America. Where is their healing? I'm sure there are some faithful families amongst those numbers. 

 

One excuse I've heard for healing now is that the one asking isn't "faithful" enough. But that fails when you read that Jesus said it only takes a mustard seed of faith. 

 

Matt 17:20

20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

 

This is a big boast and very hard to make an apology for. Word for word. With a mustard seed of faith, nothing will be impossible to you. 

 

So it doesn't matter if its a little faith or a lot. Anyone praying over a child with cancer with even a mustard seed of faith should be able to heal them. If that were the case. We wouldn't need doctors. We would only need ministers in hospitals and no one would doubt that there was a God and that that God was the biblical God. But nothing the Bible boasts about its God really comes to fruition does it? 

 

DB