Ceridwen018 said:
Maybe you should guess, No*s. In fact, what's keeping you from guessing?
I posted "For that question, I have to say "I don't know." At times He prevents something, and at times He doesn't. I think, in answer to the tsunami, we can clearly say He chose not to. Why? I can't say, nor do I guess." Now, that means that in general on what God is willing to do or not do, I won't guess. Now, on the tsunami, I provided a very concrete answer. Your "Obviously God chose to stop the tsunami" was already in my post as "I think, in answer to the tsunami, we can clearly say He chose not to." I think I did answer the question.
Ceridwen018 said:
This really hits at the heart of this thread. Obviously, god chose not to stop the tsunami...actually, I think it would be more accurate to state that god chose to cause the tsunami. That aside, many argue, (even you, with your parent/child analogy), that everything has a purpose, and just because we can't see the good in that purpose, doesn't mean that it won't reveal itself in time, and then we'll all understand and be happy. The difference between god and a human parent, however, is that a human parent often cannot choose how to teach their children different lessons, whereas god can...an all-powerful god, anyhow. If god were all-powerful, and all-good, he could have taught us whatever lessons we'll be learning from this tsunami, without killing thousands and ruining the lives of millions. The fact that he didn't do that, speaks against his all-goodness. Please realize that I'm just using the tsunami as a convenient example--i'm not in a state of, "boo-hoo, woe is me" that Scott suggested earlier.
I don't deny that God caused the tsunami. All things in nature must come from God. I simply don't guess the "why" of it. You may not be in a state of "boo-hoo," but you are still trying to circumvent my argument by simply extending it another realm. Why doesn't God just come down and teach us so that we can understand His decisions in all these matters? I think you already know the answer to that one. I don't know, and I don't guess. Maybe if He has a conversation with me sometime, I'll be able to ask Him.
Ceridwen018 said:
I have noticed from reading your posts, No*s, (and correct me if I've missed something), but you've never out and out condemned this riddle. You've simply stated that, "we cannot know god". To me, this means that you are willing to accept the idea that god is either not all good, or not all powerful...but for some reason you're choosing not to come out and say it.
I won't condemn the riddle, because I don't condemn questions. I can understand perfectly why someone without my beliefs would propose the riddle. I can also understand why my answers aren't the most satisfactory in the world.
I've often put it forward to Christians just to make them think about their faith. The doting-grandfather view of God is simply not what we see in Scripture, Church Tradition, or the world. One only needs to see a dead child to know that.
I'll cut to the chase on the "all good" or "all powerful." "Good" is a human concept. God uses it, when revealing Himself to us and, IMO, has ordained a good part of it in human order. It is a good analogy for some of what He does. It doesn't mean He is subject to it. It is an anthropomorphism, if you will. The same God that created "good things" also created "bad things." I tend to see Him as "good" on account of Christ, but that in no way means that He must be held to the same standards as a human or that I can understand His reasons for doing so.
Ceridwen018 said:
Another thing--I believe it is you who provided the argument that we cannot hold god to human standards. I disagree. Christians set their standards by the example that god supposedly provided in the bible. God is the one who told us what good and evil was. Why would he give us a definition of good, and then expect us to not worry about it when he violates his own definition?
We need "good" in order to be at harmony with society and ourselves. Second, I think He did it so that we could grow into harmony with Him. Both of these are based on Bible and Church, so I'm regurgitating there. Why this way instead of another? I don't know.
Why doesn't He obey His standards? I doubt that I have seen many "rulers" who are subject to the same rules as their subjects. Parents will forbid their children to do certain things, for whatever reason, and they will go ahead and do it themselves. Sometimes this is just, and sometimes it isn't. There is nothing wrong with a toddler whose parents hunt to be told by those same parents he can't play with the 40 gauge, or a parent who smokes to tell the child "You can't use these." We don't operate underneath the principle you cited, and we violate it in most any area where there are "ruler/ruled" areas. That, also, is a human standard, and it's one God has used.
God, in Christ, teaches us a lesson. That in no way means He is subject to the same rules. He came down, to show how to live, but He didn't relinquish His priviledges. I really don't think that last part of the argument is very strong.
