₦airaland Forum

Your husband will find out sooner or later, even if you think he will not. Better to tell him.

Our Sun is a Star
Atoms are made in stars
Millions of years ago a star blew up
And blew our atoms out into space
They floated in space for millions of years and ended up on Earth
So you came from outer space
Do you want to see an alien
Look in a mirror

Both physically and morally wrong

I am with you here Logical

This is hilarious

Finally someone understands my point. Yes, that's what I meant.

I got the point and we must face reality too.

If they meet a woman who is flexible, understanding, yet firm and feminine, classy and sexy they don't want her and they mis-use her.
I disagree with you, I will keep her if I find someone like that. Still noone around like that.

All knower or not, what will it change. We still have free will, in the sense that we can decide if we do something or not do it.

Consider this, with the use of DDT, about 9 million children are saved from death every year in Uganda. The EU is threatening to stop all relations with Uganda until its withdrawal. That means about 9 million children will die next year. What you say about that. Refusing to use the minds and the knowledge He has given us also dishonors God

"Christianity-in-a-bubble": Keep your faith separate from the rest of your intellectual life. This approach is associated with neo-orthodox theologians such as Karl Barth who revolted against modernism by asserting (correctly) that the Gospel does not make sense unless you accept it as the whole package.

Unfortunately, neo-orthodoxy is often just anti-intellectualism with a college degree. You still end up with a compartmentalized mind, assuming that faith is not rationally explainable or justifiable. Thus your faith does not connect with anything outside it. This movement has had a strong effect on evangelical churches.

Remember that the term "leap of faith" comes from an existentialist philosopher (Kierkegaard), not the Bible; and "ya gotta believe" is the motto Peter Pan, not Jesus.

Through faith and reason. Faith without reason is blind.

Anti-intellectualism again

Specifically, his decision allows for goods that oppose evil, opening up possibilities for bravery, for compassion, and for mutual dependence, for example. These higher-order goods could not exist otherwise. A world without suffering would lack such goods as these, and would therefore be inferior.

At this moment I quote Emerson

War educates the senses, calls into action the will, perfects the physical constitution, brings men into such swift and close collision in critical moments that man measures man.

He made us in his image. Being made in the image of God separates human beings with certain abilities that no other creation has...such as the ability to love, to reason things out, to make plans and decisions. Man has the capacity to think, to feel and to make decisions, while the animal world functions only on instinct. Thus even if he knew, He let it be.

Adam and Eve, beginnings in Garden of Eden (Babylon, today Iraq), had every essential and beautiful pleasures to enjoy. This included eating from fruit of every tree, with exception of one. God had given them specific instruction not to eat of that specific tree. Tragically they disobeyed.

But why? Why did Adam and Eve disobey God?

Human pride and greed.
They wanted to be "gods" themselves.
They did not want to be under any type of control.

This was their error and the error of humanity ever since.

God has both man and female properties to me

A sect or a party is an elegant incognito devised to save a man from the vexation of thinking. Repose is alien to us I suppose

God offers to every mind its choice between truth and repose. Take which you please; you can never have both.

Evil is here for good, we have to live by that.

I think we already have the disease nfern "Christianity-in-a-bubble"

Hell is not the punishment for failing to accept Christ as Saviour. It is the punishment for sins you committed long before you heard of Christ.

The argument may succeed in casting some doubt on the supposition that a good God would eliminate all suffering; God's benevolence and his justice may exist in tension.

Perhaps a more robust approach to resolving the problem of natural evil is that which holds that it is necessary for the universe to contain some evil in order for it to contain some good. Good and evil, according to this position, are relative terms, like up and down or past and future; one cannot have one unless one has both. If this is correct, if it is impossible for one to exist without the other, then perhaps God was justified in creating a world containing evil because it was only by doing so that he could create a world containing good.

Even if the previous suggestion is resisted, a similar argument might be proposed, holding that evil is necessary in order for certain types of good to exist. Specifically, the existence of evil allows for goods that oppose evil, opening up possibilities for bravery, for compassion, and for mutual dependence, for example. These higher-order goods could not exist otherwise. A world without suffering would lack such goods as these, and would therefore be inferior.

What you think?

Yes, it seems that it is leading that way

God chose to create humankind free, and that evil is the result of our abuse of that freedom. Evil is not God’s fault; it is ours. This defence applies only to moral evil; natural evil does not result from the choices of free agents, and so cannot be justified in this way. Natural evil therefore poses a greater threat to belief in God than moral evil.

A generic response to the problem of evil question its fundamental assumptions. It denies that God is morally good, casting doubt on whether he would prevent evil if he were able to; the second denies that evil exists, casting doubt on whether there is a problem to solve at all.

The conditions for being a good God, though, have nothing to do with moral goodness, because God is the wrong kind of thing to be described as morally good. Moral goodness is to do with fulfilling one’s duties, acting in the way that one ought to act. God, though, has all authority over Creation; he has no duties; there is no way that he ought to act. To describe God either as morally good or as morally bad is therefore a mistake; God is an amoral being. God’s perfection, then, does not imply moral goodness, and so does not entail that he will prevent evil from occurring.

Calm down a bit nfern. It is not rules of God, just that a lot of persons misinterpret God's word. Seen a lot of that happening.

Sometimes we confuse things. It is agreed that God sees the heart, but that does not mean HE will forgive, as is said in Proverbs. That murderer or rapist can be saved but he cannot escape judgement still.

You are forgetting Proverbs
12:2 Good people obtain favor from the LORD, but he condemns those who devise wicked schemes.
17:15 Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent the LORD detests them both.

That's also true. He brings judgement for the sins we have made not because he is evil, but because HE IS JUST.

Perhaps he does not like that man is descended from a hairy quadruped, furnished with a tail and pointed ears, probably arboreal in its habits.

We can ask him if he uses ONE AND ONLY ONE book in his medical analysis