the so fallible Bible

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I do what I can.

Really? Do you eschew all non-necessary expenditures for yourself so that you can give to others? Do you give all excess time you have to others? Do you seriously think anyone believes this?

Just a serious question, John.

What could you be doing instead when you're posting on this forum?

[John V]

Just a serious question, John.

What could you be doing instead when you're posting on this forum?

If I'm posting at work, I could be working harder so I might make more money and give it to the poor (and I say that generally - if someone wants to give to research or programs that they believe would be more beneficial, that's included in "to the poor" for purposes of this thread).

If I'm posting at home, I could be volunteering somewhere, or working a second job to further help my fellow man.

Same with most people here. The difference is that I don't take the position that allowing suffering is monstrous. My opponents could simply admit that they don't really believe that either (as clearly indicated by their actions), but they want to cling to any possible charge against a god which they don't believe exists anyway. Go figure.

[xpastor]

I do what I can.

Really? Do you eschew all non-necessary expenditures for yourself so that you can give to others? Do you give all excess time you have to others? Do you seriously think anyone believes this?

In my post which touched off this long side-debate, I did not accuse John V of hypocrisy. I just alluded to the adherents of the prosperity gospel who have swallowed the idea that God wants them to be rich, which is obviously in opposition to JC's command to "sell all that you have and give it to the poor." On reflection, I would not even call the prosperity gospellers hypocrites. The dumb bastards probably don't even realize there are Bible passages which contradict the verses they have been fed, mainly from Proverbs, by some sleazy televangelist.

I used to take that command seriously although I could never completely fulfill it. I wish now I had not even tried. I now think Jesus' extreme demands to take no thought for your own well-being and happiness are psychologically unhealthy, not to mention financially unsound. If I had not given so much in the past, I would now have a more comfortable retirement than I do, and I could presently give more than the modest amount I do to relieve suffering.

I do not think John V is justified to call people hypocrites because they say they want to alleviate suffering but do not do the maximum which is theoretically possible for them. It would result in a mental breakdown and the inability to give more. So giving what you are comfortable with involves much the same logic as his earlier example about a banker being allowed to have some good clothes so that he can make money.

As for the responsibility of God, we must consider proportionality. If DT gave $1000 a year from his $40,000 income, that would be 2.5 per cent. Supposedly, John's God is infinitely powerful; if he devoted 2.5% of his infinite resources to eliminating suffering that would do the job.

No, if there were a God, he would be responsible. Bart D. Ehrman, the prominent New Testament scholar turned agnostic made the following comment in his book God's Problem: How the Bible fails to answer our most important question—why we suffer.

When I was growing up, my family always said grace before dinner. ... there came a time in my life when I found that I simply no longer could thank God for my food. And the irony is that it was because I came to realize (or, at least came to think) that if I was thanking God for providing me with my sustenance, and acknowledging that I was fed not because of my own good efforts but because of his gracious actions toward me, then by implication I was saying something about those who didn't have food. If I have food because God has given it to me, then don't others lack food because God has chosen not to give it to them? By saying grace, wasn't I in fact charging God with negligence or favoritism?

[Minimalist]

X-P you have learned a valuable lesson about our stable of theists. When confronted with a simple question such as:

My first question for them is which Bible do you mean?

They will do whatever they can to derail the thread into their customary pseudo-philosophical bible babble so as to avoid facing the reality of the question.

I wish the mods would start splitting these digressions off - they do this all the time at FRDB and it keeps the original threads on target while still giving the clowns plenty of opportunity to make fools of themselves.

Anyway, back to your point why is it that even the books they agree on have been edited by men at various times? Agreeing on the books is fine but there is ample evidence of the editing that has gone on. Why couldn't "god" get his story straight the first time?

[John V]

In my post which touched off this long side-debate, I did not accuse John V of hypocrisy. I just alluded to the adherents of the prosperity gospel who have swallowed the idea that God wants them to be rich, which is obviously in opposition to JC's command to "sell all that you have and give it to the poor." On reflection, I would not even call the prosperity gospellers hypocrites. The dumb bastards probably don't even realize there are Bible passages which contradict the verses they have been fed, mainly from Proverbs, by some sleazy televangelist.

I do not think John V is justified to call people hypocrites because they say they want to alleviate suffering but do not do the maximum which is theoretically possible for them.

If people think it's monstrous to allow suffering, yet they allow suffering themselves and don't consider themselves monstrous, that's hypocrisy. I don't charge people with hypocrisy if they don't make the monstrous or a similarly strong charge.

It would result in a mental breakdown and the inability to give more.

Giving money to the poor that would otherwise have been spent for booze, pot and video games would result in a mental breakdown? I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there, mmkay?

As for the responsibility of God, we must consider proportionality. If DT gave $1000 a year from his $40,000 income, that would be 2.5 per cent. Supposedly, John's God is infinitely powerful; if he devoted 2.5% of his infinite resources to eliminating suffering that would do the job.

If DT could give $2,000 a year by simply cutting some unnecessary pleasures, but he doesn't, he's selfishly allowing others to suffer.

No, if there were a God, he would be responsible. Bart D. Ehrman, the prominent New Testament scholar turned agnostic made the following comment in his book God's Problem: How the Bible fails to answer our most important question—why we suffer.

It answers that in Romans 9 and other places. Some people just don't like the answer.

---

X-P you have learned a valuable lesson about our stable of theists. When confronted with a simple question such as:

My first question for them is which Bible do you mean?

They will do whatever they can to derail the thread into their customary pseudo-philosophical bible babble so as to avoid facing the reality of the question.

I already answered that one Minnie.

[Doubting Thomas]

The thing which you ought to be ashamed of is thinking that it's not monstrous for a supposedly all-powerful and all-loving god to allow needless suffering when he supposedly has the power to eradicate all suffering world wide.

[John V]

The thing which you ought to be ashamed of is thinking that it's not monstrous for a supposedly all-powerful and all-loving god to allow needless suffering when he supposedly has the power to eradicate all suffering world wide.

I take it you're not speaking to me, as that bible doesn't claim that God is all-loving.

[Doubting Thomas]

Except for that "God is love" part.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

The thing which you ought to be ashamed of is thinking that it's not monstrous for a supposedly all-powerful and all-loving god to allow needless suffering when he supposedly has the power to eradicate all suffering world wide.

I take it you're not speaking to me, as that bible doesn't claim that God is all-loving.

1 John 4:16 - And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

But just not, all loving. So when it says 'god is love', as Thomas says above,what does it mean?

[Tonus]

I just alluded to the adherents of the prosperity gospel who have swallowed the idea that God wants them to be rich, which is obviously in opposition to JC's command to "sell all that you have and give it to the poor."

They can always turn to Luke, chapter 3, where John the Baptist explains that going halfsies with someone and keeping only your fair share is sufficient. Or chapter 19, where the wealthy Zacchaeus offers half of his possessions and a four-fold restitution if he happened to cheat anyone. Doing so was apparently enough for "salvation to come to [his] house."

Jesus also excused the purchase of a very costly jar of perfume which she poured on his head. "You'll always have the poor, but you won't always have me" he told his disciples. So sometimes it's okay to spend money on an ostentatious display instead of the poor.

But then... well... that young rich fellow really does get the sharp end of the spear. He had kept all of the "good things" that Jesus described, since he was a boy! Jesus does not dispute this, and in fact he "looked at him and loved him." But the rich guy lacked one thing... he wasn't dirt poor. "Sell everything, and follow me." This must have been a literal invitation to follow him, since it seems the young man had been a devoted follower up until then.

So whether or not we should help the poor or alleviate suffering is kind of dependent on what Jesus sees when he shakes his magic eight ball (no, that's not a sexual reference, you pig!!!).