Avoiding questions

[Rhizomorph13]

Not artificially inflated. Market forces operating as they are meant to; people want pearls so prices are what they are regardless of how disgusting you can make the process sound.

Just sayin'

Also, how prideful to speak of ones own words as pearls.

[Minimalist]

In truth some of you seem incapiable of asking revelant questions.

Produce evidence for your fucking fairy tales or STFU. You are getting tiresome.

[thesummerqueen]

Not artificially inflated. Market forces operating as they are meant to; people want pearls so prices are what they are regardless of how disgusting you can make the process sound.

Just sayin'

Also, how prideful to speak of ones own words as pearls.

Perhaps I was merely trying to comment on the preposterous nature of assigning such value to them - on the other hand, he's still quoting from a collection of stories from a desert people who wouldn't have seen pearls that often, so I'm pretty sure the value system is still skewed.

That said, I quite like pearls. They're grown, rather than compressed carbon. Diamonds might be a girl's best friend, but there's nothing like seducing your man wearing only candlelight and strands of pearls.

[Kirbmarc]

it is because You have based your question on an incorrect belief about God.

Incorrect according to your personal interpretation, Drich . Every Christian has his (or her) own interpretation of what or who God is, and almost all of them clash with each other.

You don't have more evidence for your hypothesis than people who claim that the god of the Bible is the sum of everything good.

[Gambit]

I don't have a belief that your God exists, so therefore cannot hate him. Speaking personally, I only entertain you in debate that assumes your god exists in order to illustrate how far you're willing to go to defend such an abhorrent idea of an entity. A while ago I still had hopes that you'd someday display a semblance of humanity, however, I have since found that I was naive to think so. I learn quickly, Drich, and you have given me a better contextual understanding of how some Christians interpret the bible. The thing is, though, I'm still not buying any of it. Sorry, but I'm just never going to be that gullible.

[Napoléon]

Would you like another dose of condescension with that helping of patronisation Drich?

[Rhizomorph13]

Aww Summer,

I'd give you a pearl necklace any day.

[thesummerqueen]

ROFL

Right after dancing, eh?

[Anomalocaris]

Basically The whole "Don't throw your pearls of wisdom before swine." Command Christ issued.

That's why we wouldn't never speak of human progress to your precious "christ", much less to you.

[Darkstar]

That said I also do understand where many of you who think this, come from. In that You have a set view of Christianity, and let say for instance you believe in the omni benevolance of God.

You also have a set view of Christianity. Just because you believe it does not automatically make your interpretation better.

---

You believe this to be an intrinsic value of God, which allows you to ask a question like: "If God is all loving then why/how does he send the ones He love to Hell?"

This question can not be answered as stated. Not because we just can't answer because you have found some unanswerable paradox. it is because You have based your question on an incorrect belief about God. I do acknoweledge and understand that a major portion of Christianity may very well agree with you because a old man in a tall white hat said so. But truth be known (biblically speaking) There is nothing in the bible that says God has the quality you have formed a question around. Therefore the question is not valid and can not be answered as stated. The best any of can do is try and redefine your understanding of God to match what the bible actually says. But it seems some of you have built arguements around hating God in a very specific way, and seem afraid to address God as the bible describes Him. so you hang on to what amounts to a Sunday school understanding of God. Then complain that 'we' are afraid to answer your questions Which is not the case at all.

---

So wait...most Christians disagree with you, but you are still right? So I'm guessing that this is invalid too, then?

The acknowledgement of God's omnibenevolence is an essential foundation in traditional Christianity; this can be seen in Scriptures such as Psalms 18:30: "As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the Lord is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him," and Ps.19:7: "The law of the Lord is good, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple." This understanding is evident in the following statement by the First Vatican Council[original research?]:


The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God, Creator and Lord of Heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every perfection. Since He is one, singular, completely simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, He must be declared to be in reality and in essence, distinct from the world, supremely happy in Himself and from Himself, and inexpressibly loftier than anything besides Himself which either exists or can be imagined.[3]

The philosophical justification stems from God's aseity: the non-contingent, independent and self-sustained mode of existence that theologians ascribe to God. For if He was not morally perfect, that is, if God was merely a great being but nevertheless of finite benevolence, then his existence would involve an element of contingency, because one could always conceive of a being of greater benevolence.[4]

Theologians in the Wesleyan Christian tradition (see Thomas Jay Oord) argue that omnibenevolence is God's primary attribute. As such, God's other attributes should be understood in light of omnibenevolence.

To be honest, I agree with you that god is not omni-benevolent. But I do not think that this is for the same reason you do. Even if the bible had explicitly called god omni-benevolent, that would be contrary to all other evidence.

In truth some of you seem incapiable of asking revelant questions. You build these straw men and demand that we account for the god you or your favorite 'hate God website' has created, and when confronted with your incorrect understanding of God. some of you say, it is the one who is trying to give you a more accurate understanding of God who is avoiding the question.

Hmmm, no. Avoiding the question is avoiding the question. Responding to the original question with "god is not omni-benevolent, and nowhere does it say he was" is not really dodging anything. Sometimes, you may be accused of dodging a question when, although you technically respond to it, you miss the whole point.

Here is an example: God sends people to infinite torture for finite crimes. Therefore god is unjust. Your answer...will most likely be unsatisfactory. And I'm going to pre-empt the "you send yourselves" with this:

---

---

The bit on hell starts around 6:00, but the whole video is pretty good and fairly relevent.
This one is more relevent to the hell aspect.

---

---

You don't need to watch them if you don't want to.