Mag,
I hope to find the time to repsond to each one of your replies to my last post. Time is tight right now. I will say, in my initial reading it does answer a lot of questions, and I think reveals why you may be having the doubts you are. Instead of beating around the bush I will just give you my two sense. I think two of your main problems are very common and are pride and ignorance. Now don't take that the wrong way, because I can honestly say the same thing about myself. If we are ignorant of the reasons, then yes, this can create problems such as frustration, doubt. Pride comes before a fall. When you make statements such as 'nothing you could say would change my mind.' Or, your just generally antagonistic. For example, when you ask a question and say, "how does your fairy tale god........" It's question begging, and tells me you have no real interest in getting an answer.
Let's look at some of the misconceptions.
No, but God is ultimately responsible for all of our existences. We are supposedly all Gods children so just as I will provide for any child I produce since I made that child and am responsible for it. God is responsible for each and every child on earth because all children are Gods children and as such he should provide for all of his children.
Mag, where does the Bible say we are all God's children? Hint, it doesn't.
Nothing personal but I've yet to see any argument as to why your opinion should be the case.
Let's suppose I held a gun to your head and forced you to do something against your will, would I be good? Or, let's say I had the ability to reprogram your brain to always do what I liked, and in turn your own will was erased. Would I be good?
should provide for children I create on the basis that they cannot do so themselves and I love them and am responsible for them.
I asked you why you SHOULD. So, what if you had children you didn't love? And if you did "love" them, account for what love is and why it should matter. And, the fact they can't do it themselves is really inconsequential to the question I am asking. Your answer assumes something about how we SHOULD treat the needy. I'm asking you to account for those assumptions.
Humans simply have the capacity to understand and empathize with the implications of starvation. Really from a theistic perspective I would think they should be happy to let them starve since that only means they get to be with God that much quicker. But it seems that there is something within us that seems to understand the finality of death and therefore we seek to prevent it and delay it as long as possible. Life is so precious to so many because we feel that this is all there is, so many of the most ardent believers do their best to delay it even though the next world and life is supposedly much better than this one. So while we should welcome death and an end to this mortal life gladly, are instincts betray us and we seek to live as long as possible because instinctualy we dont believe there is anything after this.
Yes, we know humans have the capacity. They also have the capacity to ignore, dismiss and even impose starvation on others. In fact most starvation in the world could be ended today,
if people exercised the capacity of compassion. You've already told us you are only really worried about the ones you father. But you've yet to answer why compassion is better? The fact that humans have capacity for it, doesn't answer why they should volitionally choose it. You see, you keep smuggling in objective morality to make your case. You keep assuming what is right and wrong, good and bad, yet you refuse to account for it.
Next, you say life is precious. You make a misstatement. You should say, life seems precious. If your new worldview is correct, you already said we (humanity) are nothing special.
I wouldnt say its evil to ignore, and if I did I retract that statement. I think its wrong to ignore suffering but I dont think its necessarily evil. In the same way that cheating on a test is wrong but its not evil to me. You shouldnt cheat on tests and you shouldnt ignore suffering that you can prevent but not doing so doesnt make you evil to me, but it does make you wrong.
We are just mincing words here. Let's get some clarity. When you say it is wrong to ignore suffering what do you mean? According to...? Again, I see you smuggling in objective morality. You keep saying you SHOULDN'T cheat. You SHOULDN'T do this, or that. Shouldn't according to what?
My argument is that if angels can exist in heaven without suffering and evil and God made angels, and suffering and evil will not be issues when we are in heaven, then it doesnt make sense to act like there are no conditions God could create where suffering and evil wont be issues. You are acting like suffering and evil are basic requirements of mere existence. You are acting like God could not have created intelligent, self-aware beings without evil and suffering being an issue, but then we will apparently be intelligent and self aware in heaven and evil and suffering wont be an issue. If God can make it not an issue in heaven, why cant he do it here on Earth? If God could make any world where suffering and evil are not issues then why would he make one where suffering and evil are issues?
So, you don't understand that Satan was an angel, and that others rebelled with him?
Much in the same way that a good parent tries hard to provide for and protect their children from unnecessary suffering (such as starving to death),
There you go again. You smuggle in good and provide, and you've yet to account for any of those having true merit in your worldview. That is what I mean by you have to presume God to deny Him. The words good, better, should all presume a standard. A standard that says this way is superior to another. I want to know, apart from the Christian God, how are you measuring such things?? If you can't answer these questions, then there is absolutely no point going forward.
Why does there need to be a God for me to be concerned? I would say Im concerned simply because I have the mental capacity to be concerned. Dogs arent concerned with starving children because they dont have the capacity to do so. It is simply a product of having higher thought processes.
There has to a be an objective moral standard outside yourself for "concern" or "love" or "should" or any of this to actually matter. Otherwise, it is all an accident of nature. Humans have no more intrinsic value than pond scum. And 'concern' is just and illusion of a material universe. A cosmic joke of which you are the butt end. You couldn't say that concern is better than indifference. But you don't. You keep telling us and God what we should do.
BTW, Dogs care for their children. However, it's very unlikely they have the same conscious capacity as humans.
I think your accusations here are flat out false. You are literally just making stuff up. There is not a single point or objection that you brought up that I did not address. Then when I asked you tough questions to support claims you made, you just decided you were through with the discussion.
Would that be wrong of Neo?
-“The Bible treated allegorically becomes putty in the hands of the exegete.” John Walvoord
"I'm not saying scientists don't overstate their results. They do. And it's understandable, too...If you spend years working toward a certain goal and make no progress, of course you are going to spin your results in a positive light." Ivellious
