I'd love to be able to say that my joy is always complete because God and I are so tight - but I can't. The fault, of course, lies with me (not God).
Sure there's some really challenging situations going on in my life right now, but sometimes that's life. I've just got attitude. Little things are bugging me that I'd normally overlook; and might I add that this is an especially precarious mental space to be in when you're a mom to two teen sons! So I've been biting my tongue to refrain from speaking, and praying that God would help me have an attitude adjustment.
I've been reading in James lately and this morning I was in the 5th chapter. Verses 7-12 speak directly about how to respond to tough situations - be patient and wait on God.
So I'm here thinking about what it means to wait on God.
I've heard Believers and their response to troubles, compared to pots on a stove. When you have a pot on the stove and bring it to a boil, what's in that pot comes to the surface. When God allows the heat to be turned up in my life via tough circumstances, what's really in my heart becomes apparent. Tough times produce a revelation of who I am.
Waiting on Him is an opportunity to recognize my abject need for Him. To come to grips with how totally hopeless it is to trust in my own abilities and resources. Waiting on God is a choice to put my confidence in His timing and help during the difficult times. The focus being on God and his character. Instead of my confidence being in my ability to handle all the difficult stuff going on right now, my confidence needs to be in God. God who I know has perfect timing and will work all things to my good.
On a practical note, perhaps Julie Andrews had a point in The Sound of Music when she sang about choosing to think on her favorite things when she was feeling low. I'm reminded today of two of my favorite things. One of my favorite things is a segment in The Silver Chair by CS Lewis, it's when the lights have been extinguished and they are in the darkness:
"Courage, friends," came Prince Rilian's voice. "Whether we live or die Aslan will be our good lord."
"That's right, sir," said Puddleglum's voice. "And you must always remember there's one good thing about being trapped down here: It'll save funeral expenses."
Another one of my favorite things is the song Blessed be Your Name. I'm especially fond of the way the Newsboys sing this particular song; it never ceases to encourage my spirit.What about you, how do you deal with tough situations in life? What have you found helps you to wait on God?
26 comments:
"The fault, of course, lies with me (not God)."
How can you be so sure of that? god supposedly is omni-everything. In general, I fail to see how an omni-max god could be held faultless for anything that happens in this universe. It would make more sense to think that god is at fault (at least partially) for everything that happens in this universe. More specifically, it takes two to have a relationship - which you claim to have with god, correct? - and god has the tools to correct the relationship no matter what. So, if the relationship is not full or complete, then god is not doing what he can to repair it. How would that not be his fault?
"God who I know has perfect timing and will work all things to my good."
What about the victims of the Haiti disaster? Did god work all things to their good?
i have these moments too. Our lives are designed by him, yet He gave us free will, to find our own path.
Sometimes I do think like GCT here, but..I always come back to the fact that I don't know everything and certainly less than HIM. ( I think too if I had listened to Him earlier I would not be in this position now).
We tend to pick and choose when we want to involve God in our choices or listen to guidence.
Some things are best left to the master planner. Am learning too that I must have patience for the solution to show itself whether directly or I be led to it by patient discovery.
BM
Waiting seems to always be the hardest part. But He knows what's best for us and that when He does answer, it is in His perfect time. But it's also for my best interest. Waiting makes me realize my weaknesses and my need to always depend on Him. God bless.
What about the victims of the Haiti disaster? Did god work all things to their good?
Since you have the benefit of an eternal view of history and knowledge of the future, perhaps you can explain how it will not?
I fail to see how an omni-max god could be held faultless for anything that happens in this universe
Does a parent help up their child everytime they fall down while that child is learning to walk? There comes a time when one must let the child strive on their own, regardless of the risk of falling, in order that they may gradually learn to walk.
If I skin my knee tomorrow, would that be God's fault? Or mine because I didnt properly tie my shoelace?
If the sun isnt bright and sunny tomorrow and I put in for that day off 2 weeks ago to go to the beach, can I get mad at God GCT?
Where does it end?
"Since you have the benefit of an eternal view of history and knowledge of the future, perhaps you can explain how it will not?"
I'm sure all the people who died and lost everything have it much better now. How callous of you.
"Does a parent help up their child everytime they fall down while that child is learning to walk?"
First of all, human parents are not omni-max. Second of all, did you just compare the death of people due to a natural disaster that god could have averted to a child falling down and skinning their knee? How callous of you.
"Where does it end?"
It's already been explained to you...it doesn't end. Everything that happens is fore-ordained by god if god is indeed omni-max. If you fall down because you didn't tie your shoelace, it's because you were set up to do so. It's the nature of having an omni-max deity.
If an earthquake happens and kills people (Haitians) it is because not only did god allow it, but he set up the universe to have earthquakes happen and to have that specific earthquake happen. To assert otherwise is to deny that god is omni-max. Sorry, but if god is omni-max, then the buck necessarily stops with him.
Thanks GCT, I was struggling with feeling irritated this morning. I'd received a call back from a woman I'd driven around an hour to meet for a job interview who never showed (when she called back in response to the message I'd left her, she claimed I'd gotten the date wrong. The truth was that I wrote it down as she and I were setting it up and she made a mistake. It irritates me that she didn't just own it & apologize). But you gave me a good laugh. I actually thought of you when I said that about the fault being mine; so it's too funny that you ran true to form and said that no, if God's all powerful, then He's at least part to blame.
It comes down to this big difference between us GCT - that I believe God is all powerful & all knowing and the Creator and that I must come to Him and respond to Him on His terms. You require that God prove Himself to your rational thinking and work in the world as you see fit.
By saying this, I by no means intend to make small of human suffering. I know that every single person who is reading this can think of tons of examples of horrific human suffering that has happened in history, that is currently happening, and that has even touched their own, or the life of someone they know & care about. In the face of this there is something within each of us that cries out in anguish - it's not right, it's not fair - I don't want it to be this way.
We live in a fallen world. When the first humans chose to disobey/sin, the garden of Eden was lost forever to us all. You may be thinking that since God is all knowing He knew that would happen so why did He set creation up in such a way that the first humans could sin and mess everything up - I can not answer that. There is much I do not understand. I have lots of questions too and I pray about them off and on to God. But at the end of the day, as I've mentioned to you before, I echo the words of Peter (John 6:66-69), that where else would I go? Jesus alone has the words that lead to eternal life, He alone is God.
I'm sure all the people who died and lost everything have it much better now. How callous of you
Hey, Einstein. Who in this conversation right now had family members killed in Haiti? Again, how do you know that in the eternal timeline of history that this won't turn out for the better in the end? How do you know?
First of all, human parents are not omni-max
I never said that they were Copernicus, but it is a situation in which
A. One party has MUCH greater knowledge of a wide variety of subjects than the other, and...
B. The parent could intervene and has direct control over whether the child falls and learns on their own or plays Mother Hen to the point that the child's ability to walk is delayed.
did you just compare the death of people due to a natural disaster that god could have averted to a child falling down and skinning their knee? How callous of you
No, I didnt, But you just did. I asked a seperate question which you refused to answer for reasons known only to you.
Everything that happens is fore-ordained by god if god is indeed omni-max.
Chapter? Verse? You really have fun attacking a strawgod, don't you? Since when did the fatalism that permeates many eastern religions become a major Christian tenet?
Everyone please take note that this is the 2nd attempt to have GCT answer a simple question..
"If I fall and skin my knee tomorrow, would that be God's fault, or mine because I didnt properly tie my shoelace?"
Tracy,
"It comes down to this big difference between us GCT - that I believe God is all powerful & all knowing and the Creator and that I must come to Him and respond to Him on His terms. You require that God prove Himself to your rational thinking and work in the world as you see fit."
No, that's not the case at all. The way you make it sound is as if I'm being a petulant child. The reality is that I'm dealing with your conception of god. Logically speaking, if god is omni-max, then there is no way around his being complicit in every single action that has taken place. Where you see fit to ignore his role, I hold him to his moral obligations, just as I would any other sentient being of an intelligence high enough to comprehend right vs. wrong.
If god is so far above us, as you claim, then he should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one. Random death from disaster and disease - he has the power to stop these things, but he doesn't. You or I would, I'm sure, and that's what makes us moral. That god sits idly by while people suffer and are tormented, by all manner of evils, whether natural or man-made, is not a position of moral superiority. You wouldn't sit there and watch a woman be raped, but god does. You wouldn't allow someone to be crushed by a building during an earthquake if you knew it would happen, but god does. You wouldn't create people that were just going to end up in hell if you knew ahead of time, but god does. What advanced knowledge or ways could possibly excuse such negligence? What advanced knowledge or ways could possibly excuse setting up a world that contains so much suffering - making god the cause of so much suffering? If any human acted in such a way or any other entity not named "god" you would rightly reject that entity as immoral, but you give god a free pass? Why do you feel that that makes sense?
JD,
"Hey, Einstein. Who in this conversation right now had family members killed in Haiti?"
What does that have to do with anything? If they aren't related to you, they don't matter? How callous of you. Or, are you going to claim that you had relations killed in Haiti? If so, I'm sorry for your loss...I wish your god were able or willing to stop such senseless suffering.
"Again, how do you know that in the eternal timeline of history that this won't turn out for the better in the end? How do you know?"
You are claiming that it does, so how do you know? The preponderance of evidence suggests that those people are dead and are not in paradise. Even if we look at your holy book, it says that most people end up in hell (camels and needles and all that). If that is true, then for those people, it certainly is not better to have died.
"I never said that they were..."
Then, analogy fail.
"No, I didnt, But you just did."
What is this, second grade. C'mon.
"Chapter? Verse? You really have fun attacking a strawgod, don't you?"
Um, it's the logical conclusion of an omni-max god. You do contend that your god is omni-max, do you not? If so, then free will is a myth, as necessitated by the logical necessity of the omni-max attribute.
An omni-max god would have known all eventualities before snapping his omni fingers and bringing the universe into existence. IOW, before the universe was formed, your every thought, emotion, deed, etc. was already written in stone as what would happen. Further, since god created the universe to happen in that specific way, he caused it to happen according to his design. Nothing can happen that isn't part of the omni-max god's intention. So, earthquakes that kill and cause suffering were made intentionally by your supposedly omni-benevolent god.
"Since when did the fatalism that permeates many eastern religions become a major Christian tenet?"
Actually, some Xians do believe in predestination. The rest are living in cognitive dissonance.
BTW, simply because you claim that you believe in free will doesn't mean that that's how the world does work or would work given the rest of your beliefs. If you truly believe in an omni-max god and free will, well then you believe in a contradiction. One or the other has to go.
"Everyone please take note that this is the 2nd attempt to have GCT answer a simple question.."
But I already answered you. It's in the last two paragraphs of my 10:42am response. Please actually read the response for comprehension before you start making accusations.
Now, I know that you'll simply continue to make accusations, so I'll say it again. Whether you tied your shoelace or not, god still has responsibility for everything that happens in this universe if god is indeed omni-max. That's my second attempt at giving you an answer to your question. Should I now crow to everyone about how you don't actually read my comments before you start telling me I'm wrong?
I have learned to let go, and let God.
god still has responsibility for everything that happens in this universe if god is indeed omni-max
If you fall down because you didn't tie your shoelace, it's because you were set up to do so. It's the nature of having an omni-max deity
Well, this is quite an interesting religion you subscribe to in that the diety spends his time plotting the minute details of me tripping over my shoelace.
So can I assume that any misfortune that falls into my life is directly attributable to the diety you describe?
What does that have to do with anything? If they aren't related to you, they don't matter? How callous of you
Please cite where I stated that non-family members affected by the quake do not count, only the ones I know, or admit that you are shamelessly grandstanding as if this were some game of "who can I pity more" between you and I.
This is what happens when arguments are poor or nonexistant. The utilization of the appeal to emotion fallacy is utilized. GCT is especially adept at using rape, statuatory children and torture as his retorts when the argument just isnt going his way which is more often than not.
From the above cited link.."many Ad Hominems will be very similar to Appeals to Emotion and, in some cases, both fallacies will be committed. As an example, a leader might attempt to invoke hatred of a person to inspire his followers to accept that they should reject her claims. The same attack could function as an Appeal to Emotion and a Personal Attack. In the first case, the attack would be aimed at making the followers feel very favorable about rejecting her claims. In the second case, the attack would be aimed at making the followers reject the person’s claims because of some perceived (or imagined) defect in her character."
Epic Fail.
Hi Tracy,
Thanks for your encouraging comment on my blog yesterday.
I like your analogy of the pots on the stove; I'd not thought of it that way before.
Reading over the comments here, I realize I'm way out of my depth among all these smart people. They wrestle with problems I don't have.
To me the big question is why God doesn't zap more people in more places more often.
I mean, who needs Haiti or New York anyhow? I get along fine without them.
I suppose He chooses some folks for mercy and some as cannon fodder. The real problem is why He shows mercy on anyone. Do some just deserve it?
JD,
"Well, this is quite an interesting religion you subscribe to in that the diety spends his time plotting the minute details of me tripping over my shoelace."
A) I don't subscribe to any religion - I'm an atheist.
B) I'm describing the religion that you subscribe to, or at least the logical conclusions of the beliefs you hold, even if you don't recognize what your beliefs entail.
C) Do you really think that your omni-max god can't know every single detail of your life and know it intimately without expending energy to do so? The confusion that you seem to have may stem from your inability to understand just what would be entailed by an omni-max god. An omni-max god can literally do anything, knows literally everything, and at no cost to itself.
"So can I assume that any misfortune that falls into my life is directly attributable to the diety you describe?"
I'm just describing the deity that you say you believe in and what logically entails from that belief. So, yeah. If you think your god is omni-max, then you should attribute everything to that god, including misfortunes.
"Please cite where I stated that non-family members affected by the quake do not count, only the ones I know, or admit that you are shamelessly grandstanding as if this were some game of "who can I pity more" between you and I."
It was more than implied when you said, "Who in this conversation right now had family members killed in Haiti?" You were either implying that I had no room to speak unless I had family members there or implying something else even more nefarious. This is nothing more than an attempt to bully me.
"This is what happens when arguments are poor or nonexistant."
Then I suggest you answer them instead of throwing out ad hominem against me.
"The utilization of the appeal to emotion fallacy is utilized. GCT is especially adept at using rape, statuatory children and torture as his retorts when the argument just isnt going his way which is more often than not."
This is fantasy on your part. Yes, I do use the very real phenomena of rape as a real world example, because if we are talking about evil, those are real instances of evil. Any valid model of an omni-benevolent god has to deal with these very real occurrences. And, your boasts of things not going my way are especially curious since you seem to be arguing over style instead of substance. If the substance of my posts are not correct, then I would suggest you point out where and back it up with logical argumentation. You can't, however, simply whinge that I'm talking about real world occurrences and say that it's unfair for me to do so.
"From the above cited link.."many Ad Hominems will be very similar to Appeals to Emotion and, in some cases, both fallacies will be committed. As an example, a leader might attempt to invoke hatred of a person to inspire his followers to accept that they should reject her claims. The same attack could function as an Appeal to Emotion and a Personal Attack. In the first case, the attack would be aimed at making the followers feel very favorable about rejecting her claims. In the second case, the attack would be aimed at making the followers reject the person’s claims because of some perceived (or imagined) defect in her character.""
JD, I suggest you hold up a mirror to yourself and see how closely this aligns with what you are doing. You are appealing to the others in this thread by personally attacking me and claiming that it refutes my arguments. That is ad hominem. Pointing out that rape exists and that you need to explain why an omni-benevolent deity allows rape is not ad hominem. This makes your claim of "epic fail" sound rather silly, don't you think?
I'm describing the religion that you subscribe to
Perhaps you can lead me through a chapter and verse presentation as to how the God of the Bible "set me up" to fall over my own shoelace?
I'm just describing the deity that you say you believe in and what logically entails from that belief. So, yeah. If you think your god is omni-max, then you should attribute everything to that god, including misfortunes
So the sloppy job I did in tying my own shoelaces does not play into this equation at all? Should God have momentarily suspended the law of gravity, even just temporarily, to prevent my fall and injuring my knee?
JD, I suggest you hold up a mirror to yourself and see how closely this aligns with what you are doing. You are appealing to the others in this thread by personally attacking me and claiming that it refutes my arguments
Really? Which of the following is verifiably incorrect?
A. That you use rape as an appeal to emotion?
B. That you still havent and cannot in any way provide an example from the above commentary where I said that non-family members or people I didnt know that were victims of the earthquake in Haiti 'don't count' and yet you still accuse me of calloussness and
thus commit the appeal to emotion fallacy again?
C. That use use term torture as an
appeal to emotion as well?
Pointing out that rape exists and that you need to explain why an omni-benevolent deity allows rape is not ad hominem. This makes your claim of "epic fail" sound rather silly, don't you think?
No, I don't. Further evidence of your psychotic appeal to emotion is the selection of 'rape' as an example as well as the forcible rape of children which earned you the distinction of being the first person to ever be thrown off of my blog. Congratulations BTW.
What is wrong with saying, 'evil exists' and leaving it at that? You cannot do that because you, in fetid swamp that passes for your mind, must attempt to put the person you are arguing with in the unenviable position of somehow arguing that they are 'pro-rape' or 'pro-child molestation' and this would appear to be your preference rather than discussing the existance of evil and the occurance of bad things to seemingly good people. Rape, child molestation and torture conjure up vivid images in the minds of readers and these serve as a substitute for anything resembling a coherent argument on your behalf.
So in order to dismiss the accusation of the appeal to emotion against you, simpy,
1) Show where I said victms of Hait's quake that I'm not related to or don't know personally "don't count", and
2) Invent a "Way Back Machine" and travel back in time and correct all of the entries that you've made in which you make the focus of the argument 'rape' 'child molestation' and 'torture' and then you just might qualify as something approaching the level of sub-human.
JD,
"Perhaps you can lead me through a chapter and verse presentation as to how the God of the Bible "set me up" to fall over my own shoelace?"
As I've said multiple times now, it's implicit in the idea of an omni-max god. If you'd like to discuss this further, I suggest that you actually deal with this point.
"So the sloppy job I did in tying my own shoelaces does not play into this equation at all?"
Not if your actions are determined, because you have no free will in order to control your actions at all. This is the necessary condition of having an omni-max deity.
"Should God have momentarily suspended the law of gravity, even just temporarily, to prevent my fall and injuring my knee?"
Yes, god should prevent you from injuring yourself if god is omni-max, because god has determined what will happen to you. Making you injure yourself is sadistic and cruel.
"Really? Which of the following is verifiably incorrect?"
First of all, you aren't dealing with what I wrote, and are conforming to what I said by trying to attack my person instead of my arguments. Additionally, this is a red herring attempt at misinterpreting what I actually said. Nevertheless:
"A. That you use rape as an appeal to emotion?"
I use rape as a real world example that needs to be explained. You have yet to do so.
"B. That you still havent and cannot in any way provide an example..."
Your comments were callous - I stand by that.
"C. That use use term torture as an appeal to emotion as well?"
This is what many Xians believe and use as a tool to try and scare people into belief. If you don't like it, then take it up with them.
Additionally, it should be pointed out that appeals to emotion are not automatically logically fallacious, nor are they automatically ad hominem. An ad hominem appeal to emotion would be along the lines of saying, "He's a dirty atheist and we shouldn't listen to atheists since they are immoral people that don't care about (insert crime)." I understand that you don't understand logical fallacies, but please try to learn instead of simply attacking.
"Further evidence of your psychotic appeal to emotion is the selection of 'rape' as an example as well as the forcible rape of children which earned you the distinction of being the first person to ever be thrown off of my blog."
I fail to understand why you characterize this as "psychotic appeal." Do you deny that rape happens? Do you deny that it's a horrible thing? Do you deny that god allows it to happen?
As for being banned from your blog, I consider it just as irrational as your conduct here. You're simply lobbing personal attacks at me and misinterpreting everything I say, which directly led to your blow-up at your own blog where you consistently asked me to defend things I never said and then banned me for not playing along. Your behavior is irrational and emotional, which is ironic since you seem to project those emotions on to everyone else.
"What is wrong with saying, 'evil exists' and leaving it at that?"
The problem is that it is contradictory with the idea of an omni-benevolent god - an idea that you are endorsing. If you want to present a logically coherent theology, then you must explain these problems. Throwing your hands up and claiming that evil simply exists and that god is omni-benevolent is not a compelling or logically acceptable theological argument.
"You cannot do that because you, in fetid swamp that passes for your mind, must attempt to put the person you are arguing with in the unenviable position of somehow arguing that they are 'pro-rape' or 'pro-child molestation' and this would appear to be your preference rather than discussing the existance of evil and the occurance of bad things to seemingly good people."
Never once did I say that anyone here (including you) is pro-rape or pro-child molestation. That you continue to think that is completely your own imagination and smacks of potential paranoid delusion. If you can't deal with the actual arguments, then I suggest you resign yourself from the discussion and let other people deal with the actual issues.
Further, I'm the one who is trying to discuss the existence of evil and why bad things happen to good people. You are the one that's claiming that I'm not being fair (which is putting it mildly considering the invective coming my way).
"Rape, child molestation and torture conjure up vivid images in the minds of readers and these serve as a substitute for anything resembling a coherent argument on your behalf."
I've already presented a coherent argument, one that you seem allergic to addressing, which is why you go on and on about style instead of substance.
"1) Show where I said victms of Hait's quake that I'm not related to or don't know personally "don't count", and"
I already stated that this was implied by what you wrote. It's probably not what you actually meant, but then I'm wondering why you even wrote what you did, except maybe to try and sidetrack the discussion so that you wouldn't have to defend your arguments. You do that quite often.
"2) Invent a "Way Back Machine" and travel back in time and correct all of the entries that you've made in which you make the focus of the argument 'rape' 'child molestation' and 'torture' and then you just might qualify as something approaching the level of sub-human."
This, plainly, puzzles me. I'm railing against child molestation, rape, etc. and that makes me subhuman? I'm asking why your god would allow such things to happen, and that makes me subhuman? You sit there and call me all sorts of evil things, refuse to answer my questions or address my points instead opting to lob personal attacks, and that makes me subhuman?
I have to say that I think your behavior is quite bizarre. I think you have some deep issues with fear/hatred towards those who do not think as you do and it is causing you to lash out against me. Please actually address my arguments and leave the hatred and bile behind. Why do you hate me so?
GCT,
In my entry from 1:17 I asked you to "Please cite where I stated that non-family members affected by the quake do not count, only the ones I know". You have not done so. In fact, if you comb through this thread, you will see that I asked you this at least three times and your replies are as follows.
"It was more than implied when you said, "Who in this conversation right now had family members killed in Haiti?" You were either implying that I had no room to speak unless I had family members there or implying something else even more nefarious. This is nothing more than an attempt to bully me."
"I already stated that this was implied by what you wrote. It's probably not what you actually meant, but then I'm wondering why you even wrote what you did, except maybe to try and sidetrack the discussion so that you wouldn't have to defend your arguments"
We are going to take this very slowly and concentrate on one issue at a time here. Please show how my stating that I lost family members in the earthquake in Haiti in any way implies...
That in reference to other earthquake victimes, "If they aren't related to" me, then "they don't matter". Would you please explain why you said this and how you arrived at your conclusion re: my alleged "callousness"?
In the event that you cannot respond to these questions with anything resembling an actual answer , then I will request that you retract your statement and admit that you are wrong and were in fact lying about my "calloussness" and made it all up.
We're just going to concentrate on your intellectual dishonesty in this area before addressing any others.
John - It's interesting that you mention that you're surprised God is as merciful as He is. A few posts back I wrote about what the Bible says about women being pastors; I wrote in response to some questions from my 15yr old son about why aren't there more female pastors. GCT talked about how misogynist Christianity is and I found it interesting because my 15yr old son just said - who are we, the created, to question the Creator?
JD,
"We are going to take this very slowly and concentrate on one issue at a time here. Please show how my stating that I lost family members in the earthquake in Haiti in any way implies..."
Again, I'm sorry if you lost family members there. If you would take a deep breath and relax, you might notice that I allowed for this and also discussed this possibility. Again, I'm sorry for your loss and I wish that you believed in a god that was as sorry or sorry enough to not cause earthquakes to begin with and cause you the stress that you are obviously feeling from this.
"That in reference to other earthquake victimes, "If they aren't related to" me, then "they don't matter". Would you please explain why you said this and how you arrived at your conclusion re: my alleged "callousness"?"
Your initial statement could be taken a number of different ways, which I started to discuss. I think in your rush to denounce me that you missed that. Had you been arguing that I could not speak on this unless I had lost family members (which was a potential interpretation of what you wrote) then that would be incredibly callous and would prompt me to say what I said about people not mattering.
As it is, I still find your initial statements to be rather callous considering the full spectrum of what you believe - that most people will end up in hell. Your statement that it's probably for the best amounts to claiming that it's better for those people to be dead and in hell. This is completely beyond the pale IMO, and maybe I wasn't vehement enough when I simply called it callous. For your loved ones, if you believe in heaven and that they are there, then it may be better, as I've stated numerous times before (that Xians should long for death so that they can be in heaven). But, for the rest of the people that died and don't go to heaven, or for those that are now suffering, it's wrong of you to blithely claim that it's for the best for them.
"In the event that you cannot respond to these questions with anything resembling an actual answer , then I will request that you retract your statement and admit that you are wrong and were in fact lying about my "calloussness" and made it all up."
I predict that you will not accept a single thing I've just said and will lash out me again, but you have your answers. In fact, I've been more than willing to answer you (as just about always) even in the face of your hatred, bile, and unwillingness to answer anything from me or debate any of the points I've brought up. I would chalk it up to you being distraught over family members, but this happens all too often with you.
"We're just going to concentrate on your intellectual dishonesty in this area before addressing any others."
You have a lot of nerve to speak of my intellectual honesty sir. You have been nothing in this discussion except rude, abusive, dismissing, aggressive, condescending, and completely unable to defend your positions, instead relying on ad hominem and personal attacks, while at the same time lobbing accusations at me for what you are doing and attacking my integrity. Anyone who reads back through here will note that I have not been dishonest, intellectually or otherwise, and I would ask that you defend your accusations against me.
Tracy,
"GCT talked about how misogynist Christianity is and I found it interesting because my 15yr old son just said - who are we, the created, to question the Creator?"
My first thought is that we are sentient, thinking, rational beings, which gives us the license and ability to question the creator. Might does not make right, and the creator does not have the moral right to abuse us as he pleases.
My second thought is that simply because god says that misogyny is OK doesn't make it so. Again, what I see happening is a defense of the indefensible by simply claiming that god is right no matter what (which is begging the question to boot).
Anyone who reads back through here will note that I have not been dishonest, intellectually or otherwise
Yes you have. On multiple levels, but let's just concentrate on the issue at hand. In you latest entry you basically stated.
a."Your initial statement could be taken a number of different ways, which I started to discuss. I think in your rush to denounce me that you missed that. Had you been arguing that I could not speak on this unless I had lost family members (which was a potential interpretation of what you wrote) then that would be incredibly callous and would prompt me to say what I said about people not mattering"
You still havent provided a single concrete explanation of how you got from me stating that I lost family members in the earthquake in Haiti, to how this would indicate that in reference to other earthquake victims there that, "they don't matter" (your words).
At one point of your above statement you seem to engage in speculation saying "Had you been arguing that I could not speak on this unless I had lost family members (which was a potential interpretation of what you wrote) then that would be incredibly callous and would prompt me to say what I said about people not mattering" yet you do not back up this speculation of yours with any other relevant quotations by be that would support your speculation that this is what I meant. To reiterate, you provide no proof whatsoever that this is what I meant, only speculation on your part.
b."As it is, I still find your initial statements to be rather callous considering the full spectrum of what you believe - that most people will end up in hell"
Again you change the subject when you still havent explained how you got from "I lost family members in the earthquake" to the monumental leap of "concerning other quake victims not known to me or related, "they don't matter"".
Again, take your time and explain how you arrived at the conclusion that I don't think that others matter (apart from family members) and how you arrived at that particular conclusion.
ACK.....I think I tippy toed into something way out of my league...
....but just wanted to let you know that I totally am in the same place with you...and I it is causing me to seek Him even more for answers.
Praying with you!
For me, I have found this scripture to be true:
"Seek first the Kingdom of God, and all these things shall be added unto you."
I have found this scripture to be not only true, but invaluable!
"You still havent provided a single concrete explanation of how you got from me stating that I lost family members in the earthquake in Haiti, to how this would indicate that in reference to other earthquake victims there that, "they don't matter" (your words)."
You never actually stated that you lost family members in Haiti. You simply asked who has. I'm not a mind reader, and as I pointed out there were multiple possible interpretations. So, you can quit trying to indict me on something you never said. I can hardly be held responsible for not providing a "concrete explanation" of how I got to a conclusion based on something you never said.
"At one point of your above statement you seem to engage in speculation..."
I was listing the possibilities. Even if it is not what you meant, it was a live possibility, since you had not clarified your position. There's nothing wrong with what I did, even if you are trying your best to indict me on it.
"Again you change the subject..."
Sorry that I tried to get back onto the original topic instead of the rabbit holes that you desperately try to go down in order to avoid facing up to the objections that I've raised. If you can't defend god without red herrings, then you may want to rethink your position.
You never actually stated that you lost family members in Haiti. You simply asked who has. I'm not a mind reader
GCT, since I was specifically addressing you, what else could it have possibly have meant?
So, you can quit trying to indict me on something you never said
I'm sorry GCT but did you state the words.."If they aren't related to you, they don't matter? How callous of you"?
I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that this wasnt an "appeal to emotion" fallacy you were committing so let's set that aside for a moment.
For what other reason could you conclude that, in my mind, people not related to me "don't matter" and how did you leap the chasm from pointing out that I lost family mmbers to other victims besides them really don't matter?
"GCT, since I was specifically addressing you, what else could it have possibly have meant?"
Already pointed it out to you.
"I'm sorry GCT but did you state the words.."If they aren't related to you, they don't matter? How callous of you"?"
Let me repeat, "...on something you never said." Look, if you won't read what was written, even when you take the time to quote it, how can I take you seriously? You claim that my honesty is in question when you pull this stunt?
"For what other reason could you conclude that, in my mind, people not related to me "don't matter" and how did you leap the chasm from pointing out that I lost family mmbers to other victims besides them really don't matter?"
By your callous words. I'm sure you cared about your family members, but your own words seem to display a callousness to the rest of the people in Haiti. And, I've already pointed out which statements those were. Claiming that you obviously can't be callous because you lost family members in the earthquake would be an inappropriate appeal to emotion. Et tu brute?
Post a Comment