Baker wrote:It's a nice deflection to turn the debate into what the questioner is doing to help those whose prayers apparently go answered. That still does not address the question of how one can seriously believe that god gives a rat's ass about lost car keys, but doesn't directly aid the starving child.
Isn't the better answer that god is a non-interventionist? That we are left as human beings to solve our problems?
Thanks - I'm glad someone was able to address the topic.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Baker wrote:It's a nice deflection to turn the debate into what the questioner is doing to help those whose prayers apparently go answered.
The questioner is attempting to dismiss with a wave of a hand centuries of turmoil over this question. As if we don't struggle with this condition also. The questioner is simply and simplicisticly saying: suffering exists, therefor there is no God. This sounds thoughtful and profound, but it is neither.
We contend there is a god. We've offered solutions or tactics to address this. The questioner offers nothing but pablum. So we ask: what would you have him/it/she do that would satisfy you? That's a fair question.
I can't afford it right now - I have to go into debt just to pay tithing. And unfortunately, tithing isn't helping any starving kids.
Come to my church and tithe. I am positive your tithes will do what you ask.
I'd love to, but it's not an option right now. Even though I believe in God as much as I do the tooth fairy, it'd be nice to at least belong to a religion whose commitment to the poor was above the level of a cynical PR campaign.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Baker wrote:It's a nice deflection to turn the debate into what the questioner is doing to help those whose prayers apparently go answered.
The questioner is attempting to dismiss with a wave of a hand centuries of turmoil over this question. As if we don't struggle with this condition also. The questioner is simply and simplicisticly saying: suffering exists, therefor there is no God. This sounds thoughtful and profound, but it is neither.
We contend there is a god. We've offered solutions or tactics to address this. The questioner offers nothing but pablum. So we ask: what would you have him/it/she do that would satisfy you? That's a fair question.
Manna from heaven would be nice. But ANYTHING would be a nice change from the status quo, which is complete silence and complete inaction from the heavens.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
I have to say, the visual in the OP is a very important one. We often get so hung up on ourselves and our little lives we tend to assume we have some sort of importance.
As a believer, as one who wishes to faithfully follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and one who desires to rely on Him to save, I think it wise to not think my life holds any particular importance. I'm no more important/loved/useful than any soul on this planet. In the end, I realize I have to place tons of hope and faith in Christ and salvation. I have to assume that people who suffer greatly, particularly those who suffer pains unfathomable to me and those who suffer seemingly unnecessarily will be blessed beyond measure in eternity. They will receive far more. The greatness of their salvation will exceeds it all. We will all be humbled at that time.
I don't understand it, of course, but I can hope. At least I have that. There will be something greater.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Why is that child starving? Could it be because the politics of the leaders of his country, who choose to create war rather than feed their children? Because the war lords would rather take the money intended to feed their people and buy guns and ammunition to kill them? Because they're more concerned with power and riches than with caring for the land and the people?
Don't blame that child's condition on God. Blame it on the wickedness of the people who should be caring for him and choose instead to use him to get more money from warm-hearted souls which then finances their war.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
harmony wrote:Why is that child starving? Could it be because the politics of the leaders of his country, who choose to create war rather than feed their children? Because the war lords would rather take the money intended to feed their people and buy guns and ammunition to kill them? Because they're more concerned with power and riches than with caring for the land and the people?
Don't blame that child's condition on God. Blame it on the wickedness of the people who should be caring for him and choose instead to use him to get more money from warm-hearted souls which then finances their war.
If god were real, god could help the child. In fact, due to political conditions, god would be the only person really suited to the task. But instead god is busy helping football players score touchdowns.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Buffalo wrote:If god were real, god could help the child. In fact, due to political conditions, god would be the only person really suited to the task. But instead god is busy helping football players score touchdowns.
How do you know it's God that's helping the football players? You assume.
It's the leaders' responsibility to care for the children. Just because you think God should interfere in every aspect of life doesn't mean that's the way it works.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Buffalo wrote:If god were real, god could help the child. In fact, due to political conditions, god would be the only person really suited to the task. But instead god is busy helping football players score touchdowns.
How do you know it's God that's helping the football players? You assume.
It's the leaders' responsibility to care for the children. Just because you think God should interfere in every aspect of life doesn't mean that's the way it works.
Agreed - God isn't helping anyone.
Quick question though - what do the children gain by having a God who steps aside and does nothing? The Old Testament paints god as highly interventionist. What happened to that guy? Was he replaced?
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.