I'll ask again... What about the Torah, the Talmud, the Qur'an, the Tao Te Ching, the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, the Book of Mormon, or any of the myriad pagan and tribal writings about god throughout history?

They all claim, more or less, the same as the Bible does -- to relay God's word or the explanation of God from very learned, spiritual people who were fit to explain God's word.

Why is yours "relevant" and the rest are not?

Have you read any of the works above, or have you dismissed them as nonsense in the same way you are content to dismiss Richard Dawkins as a bad scientist without ever opening any of his books?...

No contradiction here? God's motives that you read about in the Bible don't apply to today's tragedies but on the same token the Bible is the most relevant book around.

You apply the Bible's intended context as well.... In every instance that God has killed a lot of people, it was a result of people not being right with God. Why are today's tragedies so different? If there was one instance where God killed off a lot of people as a result of being good people then you would have a point here.

I'll answer after you go back to my earlier question that you skipped. Though it really is a trite question and one you should be able to anticipate my answer to.

I never said Dawkins was a bad scientist. In fact some of his ideas that I have encountered in the literature (not his books) seem sound enough.

Reading comprehension ftw.

Right, no contradiction. Reconciling God's motives with today's healines is not the Bible's purpose.

I don't know. Maybe they're not. The Bible simply does not address that question as far as I can tell.

God's motives as explained in the Bible are not relevant today? That's a new one.

You don't consult the Bible about today's tragedies because it doesn't give you an answer palatable with modern times. You do however consult the Bible about everything else aside from its reasoning for tragedies... thats kinda silly.

Okay.

I think this is the question you're referring to:

I left that alone because, frankly, it's your problem, not mine. As soon as you say "Why would God do x", you've left the realm of reason (until you satisfactorily prove that there is a god in the first place).

But I'll try to help you answer your question anyway -- If there was an omniscient god who gave us free will, then he rendered himself less than omnipotent, since he cannot interfere with our free will or he would have failed to really give us free will, and obviously an omniscient and omnipotent being cannot fail to do something that he tries to do.

Ask this one instead -- "Can god change his mind?". If he can, then he is not omniscient. If he cannot, then he is not omnipotent.

God cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent.

Yes, you did. You made an analogy intending to show that Pat Robertson's understanding of "Biblical Christianity" was no better than Richard Dawkin's understanding of "actual science".

If you'd like to back off of that statement, go right ahead, but stop saying you didn't say it. You realize it's still right there on the internet, right?

Now, please answer my question as you said you would:

Why is your book "the most relevant" out of all of the thousands and thousands of pages of text throughout human history that claim to explain the nature of god, his intentions, and so on? All of these religious works claim to explain god, and yet they all say very different things about god.

Why is yours "the most relevant"?

Why is yours correct and the others (that you've probably never opened) are incorrect?

No, the Bible does not explain today's headlines because that is not its purpose.

So?

God voluntarily gave up the exercise of some of His power in order to endow His creation with free will. No problem there.

Wrong.

It would still be there if it ever was, but it wasn't so it ain't.

If there was "proof" available that the Bible was the most relevant, we (probably) wouldn't be having this discussion. That sort of goes without saying. The truths of the Bible are understood to have been made accessible on the basis of faith.

I have several personal reasons, arrived at over time, as to why I believe the Bible is true, though I can't make a scientific case for it.

So god is not omnipotent anymore?

You seriously don't think that is a problem?

That seems to be a semantic question I would have to think about before answering.

Of course it's not a problem.

God has voluntarily bound Himself within covenantal relationships on more than one occasion. That is how He chooses to relate to His creation.

so concerto, do you believe that humans will have free will in heaven?

OP didn't assume anything. He simply asked why god caused or allowed it to happen.

If you made an attempt to answer the question, you failed. Feel free to try again.

It explains God's motives and his motives for tragedies are something you choose to ignore because they aren't palatable to modern times.

How is it semantic? If god lost some of his power, even if he gave it up voluntarily, then he became something less than omnipotent.

In fact, the Latin "omni" means universally, so if you're omni-potent, you're all powerful, all the time. So is it even possible for an "omnipotent" being to choose to give up some of his power without negating that he was ever omnipotent at all?...

Are you suggesting that having eternal heavenly bliss or hellish suffering doled out buy a being that is less than all-powerful is "not a problem"? Nor is it a problem that an allegedly omniscient being wouldn't have seen this conundrum that he created for himself coming?

No disrespect intended, but this statement is about as meaningful to me as an ancient Greek telling me that Athena really did spring from Zeus's head fully grown wearing a coat of armor.

We can talk in terms of logic instead.

Is that more likely then "he will not intervene with the laws of physics he created except perhaps in the most extraordinary circumstances"?

I beg to differ, first and foremost Voodoo is a religion. It is the dominant religion of Haiti.

The destruction of Haiti was caused by the evil that prevails in that country.

Second of all Catholics are not Christians, they are not born again Christians.

They have a bible, the Catholic bible which has been adapted and changed to reflect Catholic viewpoints.

Just because someone waves a bible and says that they are Christian DOES NOT mean they are Christian, even if the whole world thinks that they are.....which they ARE NOT.

Many people do eventually become Christians who were once Catholics when they actually begin to read the bible and be taught the bible accurately.

The big thing for them to let go of is the traditions of the Church.

Haiti being dominate in Voodoo opens itself up to great affliction and poverty legally in a spiritual sense. The devil has rights over those whom he tricks into beliving in false doctrines and he has no mercy whatsoever.

God will at times intervene to protect someone who will in the future become a believer or who is a believer already, a Christian born again believer, thats called the Grace of God.

In no way do I think that what happened in Haiti is good, evil is never good, no matter who it happens to....

So what does the first part mean? IOW, why is the word 'science' in there, rather than one of the two alternatives I suggested?

Brainwashing 101

this is a fascinating question... i demand a thread be created for it!

Yes they will but under a few conditions, meaning that all the possibility of any kind of evil is done away with. How is this done? I do not know, ask God, He knows what He is doing.

The other thing though is that in order to become a Christian you have to confess Jesus Christ as your lord, your boss. So in doing so you are saying willingly that you will follow Jesus Christs directions, who follows Gods directions, so to that extent you have no freewill in the third heaven and earth.

No one is truly FREE, you are always a slave to someone. Either the devil or God, you just get to choose which one you want to be under.

But following God is not a burden at all, because He is not the Evil tyrant that most people teach about Him, He is Light and in Him is no darkness at all, He is Love also, He is the source of all Love because His nature is Love.

God is love.......

What happened in Haiti has nothing to do with the true God at all........

--- Puts gun to his head, yells loudly, pulls the trigger, snap.....


....it wasn't loaded


****

nah guys god is just doin his thing, showin the love to the haitians. they probably deserved it from not believing that the universe is surrounded by water

Right from the beginning, the Bible points out that Things Are Not Going According to Plan, and suffering is the result.

God creates universe. God gives man free will. Mankind uses free will to release suffering into the world. Mankind pays the consequences while God tries to mop up the mess without having to nuke the whole thing and start from scratch.

Not saying I believe it, but that's how the story goes. It's pretty common knowledge/obvious information.

I will say that if you want to believe:

1. God exists
2. God wants to give mankind genuine free will

then well, the rest of the above paragraph isn't really that hard to swallow in comparison.

Then we have to ask ourselves why an omni3 character values Free Will so much...even more than the elimination of suffering! What is it about our particular capacity to exercise free will (remember, our will isn't THAT free...we can't fly, etc.) that God holds so important?

It is a question of point of view. Assuming there is a God, the people are not gone, they are with Him. They have not been murdered, they have been taken home. Its the ones who have survived that are suffering.

Again, I cannot prove any of this is true. I am just saying that assuming the existence of God, death is not murder.

I was speculating. I do not know how to assign relative probabilities to the scenarios.