Subject:
|
Re: Mercy? (Was Re: My Prayer on this National Day of Prayer)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 15 Sep 2001 04:01:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1063 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mark Sandlin writes:
> > In article <GJoA9E.IzC@lugnet.com>, "Bill Farkas" <wolfe65@msn.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > No cop-outs. The question is not, "How can you believe in God?", but, "How
> > > can you believe in man?!" God didn't do this, man did.
> >
> > Then how can anyone say that God has been merciful. Mercy implies
> > participation. If God isn't participating, then he couldn't have been
> > merciful.
>
> My point was that He never obligated Himself to intervene in every
> circumstance. But He is very active.
I thought he was supposed to be good, and love us all. I wouldn't let one of
my loved ones be hurt or killed if I could prevent it, and since God is
omnipotent, he CAN prevent such tragedies. So why does he not? I can only
think of two possible reasons: Either He does not exist or He does not care.
> As some have said, it could have been much worse. Two planes were prevented
> from hitting their targets. The Pentagon was hit in it's least populated
> spot. The WTC could have collapsed sooner. Those are not very consoling, I
> realize, but true none-the-less.
>
> Such actions prove the existence of evil,
Ah, but does it? What is evil? It is not a tangible object, but an idea, and
everyone has different views on it. So who is right? The terrorists certainly
didn't think they themselves were evil, in fact, they felt we Americans were
evil.
> Evil exists for a purpose.
No it doesn't. Evil is just a word cultures use to define what is unnaceptable
to them. By the same token, good is a word that defines what *is* acceptable.
I do want to note, however, that I am glad that most modern cultures view
targeting civilians as evil.
> > > I like how people
> > > expect God to intervene in self serving ways but they don't want Him to
> > > interfere with their "fun."
> >
> > What does that have to do with anything I've talked about? I thought the
> > discussion was about mercy?
>
> As you said, His mercy implies active intervention. I was asserting that if
> God was active to that extent some would accuse Him of being too
> controlling.
So what if they do? Some people accuse the Government of being too
controlling. Personally, I'd rather have more control than anarchy. Anyway,
he is omnipotent, he could just make us not think it was too controlling.
> After all, we can't just expect Him to intervene when it's convenient for us.
So you're saying we shouldn't inconvenience him? He is omnipotent, isn't he?
How would it be an inconvenience to help us by preventing tragedy?
> Enjoying His presence comes with certain expectations as well. We are to show
> our appreciation to Him by obeying Him - not whimsically or arbitrarily, but
> because we trust His love and believe that His ways are best.
How are we supposed to know what to obey? There are so many versions and
translations of the Bible (which was written by men anyway) that his original
messages have long been lost. And don't even get me started on the Pope and
priests...
Please let me know when God writes the definitive text so I'll know what to
obey.
> > > If God were to intervene in such ways, some
> > > would accuse Him of being too controlling. Bad men chose to do a bad thing.
> > > Some people enjoy doing bad things. God has never made a promise obligating
> > > Himself to intervene in such instances. He has given *us* freedom to • choose.
> > > This has nothing to do with His goodness. We tainted His perfect creation • by
> > > our sin. Your question is a cop-out, and is as old as the hills.
> >
> > My question is a cop-out of what? I'm not following you here.
>
> Your question is a reflection of an accusation. It implies that God does
> exist but not as He represents Himself to be, that He is unfair.
Being merciful to some but not others when they have no control over their
circumstances IS being unfair. For example, why did God allow Jane Doe's
husband to survive the WTC, but Joan Dee's husband didn't?
> Men have been levelling this accusation for millennia. It totally denies the
> human root of the problem.
What "human root of the problem"?
> > > Pain and suffering are man's fault not God's.
> >
> > I agree. And by the same token, the rescue efforts are man's mercy and
> > not God's.
>
> Why is it not the evidence that we have come from God, evidence of His
> essence within us?
Because other creatures can go out of their way to help others, too. Dogs
being the best example, but dolphins and apes can be included. They must then
have God's essence, as well, but my understanding was that only we are supposed
to have it. But again, it ultimately means that we are not responsible for our
good deeds, and that is something I strongly disagree with.
> > > > No we don't. I see PEOPLE coming together and helping.
> > >
> > > That's funny, I saw PEOPLE hijack and crash those planes. I also saw three
> > > plane loads of PEOPLE sit by and "allow" those planes to be hijacked and
> > > crashed (the fourth didn't).
> >
> > Yes, I agree completely. And God did nothing, therefore he is showing no
> > mercy, since he's not involved.
>
> Did nothing? Preventing two planes from hitting their targets is nothing? I
> don't know if the people on Capitol Hill would agree.
One plane was foiled by good city planning, if indeed it was supposed to crash
into the White House. The second was foiled by the brave passengers and crew
on board who refused to allow themselves be used as a weapon against their
fellow citizens.
> Every person who did not die in the tragedy is an act of mercy.
But many more *did* die, which was an act of cruelty. If you attribute the
mercy to God, how can you not attribute the cruelty to him as well?
> > > > > Let's be thankful for His mercy during such a tragedy.
> > > >
> > > > What mercy? Where is the mercy for:
> > > >
> > > > -All the victims of the crashes
> > >
> > > If the next life can be said to be better than this, there it is.
> >
> > Really? All the victims, or just the Christian ones? How do you know?
>
> This goes back to the definition of mercy. Think before you ask.
But under Christianity, only those who believe in Christian Doctrine will go to
Heaven. How can one call being denied entrance to Heaven merciful for any
victims of non-Christian faiths?
> > > > I fail to see any evidence of God's mercy. I only see evidence of people
> > > > whose lives have been destroyed and changed forever.
> > > >
> > > > I have the utmost respect for all those who have risen to help. But I
> > > > have no respect for a God who would allow this to happen.
> > >
> > > Have you intervened to prevent every foul deed you have witnessed or new • was
> > > happening?
> > >
> > > I didn't think so.
> > >
> > > So, you yourself "allow" things to transpire that you do nothing to stop?
> > > Hmmm. Why is that? Therein lies your answer.
> > >
> > > It's convenient and easy to blame God because then you won't have to face
> > > the deeper issues.
> >
> > I'm thoroughly confused by your last paragraph. It sounds kind of like
> > you're attacking my integrity because I don't agree with you. I met you
> > when you were out here in Seattle, and you seemed like a much nicer
> > person than that. I hope I'm misunderstood about your intent here.
>
> Not at all, no attacks. This is why I closed with "Respectfully" - hoping
> you wouldn't misconstrue my remarks. I apologize if I was careless. I happen
> to think I'm nice. :~) Thanx, by the way.
>
> I was referring to some of the deeper, tougher stuff mentioned above. We all
> allow evil deeds to transpire, sometimes at our own hands. Why? Questions
> for introspection only. No accusations.
I do my best to prevent deeds I feel are wrong when and where I can. I'm not
omnipotent or infallible, only human, so I can't do it everytime I wish I
could, and I make mistakes. God, hoever, is NOT human, nor is he supposed to
be fallible (looking at the human race as a whole has changed more than one
mind on that, though!). He should be held to a higher standard, and prevent
evil where and when he can. And since he is omnipotent, that would be
everywhere and everytime. ;)
Jeff
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
98 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
