emeraldgirl

Although one wonders why God, who created all animals with a spoken word, would need to have Noah go to miraculous lengths to spare all the necessary animals.

Butero, I really appreciate your kind tone and all the thoughts you have put into answering me. This is true. And in the practical sense, I do see it like this. We all have a lifespan. My daughter's was just extremely short. By the way westerners count life, she lived to be zero. Nothing minutes old. It's the concept of intentional purpose that I don't think I believe anymore. If God set the biological facts of conception in motion, there is no need for explaination as to why my daughter lived to be nothing minutes old. In fact, a lot of horrors make more sense that way: the baby born addicted to crack, the child of a rape, children born to unfit parents, the child conceived thought scientific means that God didn't design (IMO). If conception and life are just the biological effect of the way God designed it to be, there is no need to explain why God allows these horrors while he supposedly rescues others. Because this life is all that I know about. I hope there is a wonderful heaven where at least my daughter is and maybe I will be, too, but I have no reason to believe it beyond just plain hope that it is so. I cannot know my daughter is happy; I can only know that her body is in the tiniest casket you ever saw, with a big marble rock above it to tell the world that she was real. What point is there in a life that never extends beyond the womb? Even if there is a heaven - it's not like God needed her to inhabit a body for 9 months so she could get to heaven, right? From the perspective of a mother, we suppose having children means raising them. I doubt anyone who is not deranged sets out to have children with no expectation of raising them into adulthood. What I'm saying is no one of sound mind goes, "Well and if they die young, so much the better; they'll be in heaven." (I remember seeing a woman interviewed on TV once, who had smothered her infant. This was her continual fantasy, saying to herself, "I should free this child to be raised by Jesus, instead of with me.") I mean I understand from an idealistic way, saying, "Well, it's a comfort to think she's in a better place." But it still comes back to the same question, if you presuppose that God has intentional reasons for every child's conception. Thank you...but it's not that simple. It's not "God failed me and therefore I turn my back on him." It's been seeing that the things I believed don't hold water and so it seems healthier to believe in things that make sense. The beliefs that go with the Christian faith did complicate my grieving a lot. It is simpler - even if it sounds more cynical - just to say biology sometimes fails and that is what happened. It has nothing to do with God or his plans or his intentions or mercies or punishments. It just is. I don't see it as he chose to visit me. I think that Divine Love (or whatever) is available to all people, and that is why people of many different faiths (or no particular faith) have claimed to have accessed it. When I have experienced this, I was aiming for it; I was aiming for a communion with "God" - not necessarily within the mental framework of Christianity, just the "energy" of Goodness and Love. (This happened to me a few different times; it wasn't one time.) I don't believe that God turned his back on creation after he created it, but that he set many things in motion and the rest is up to us. It is up to us if we want to connect to the Divine. Blessings to you, Butero. One of my Resolutions is to spend less time in this sort of venue, so that's why I'm tapering off, but your post deserved the courtesy of response and if you have more to ask, I will try to respond soon.

Butero, this just goes back to the same thing in the Pain and Suffering thread. God does not accidently break his word or (proverbially) screw up dinner one night, because he is perfect. The parent-protecting-child analogy does not work because in all such instances, the analogy is about something minor. If you had the ability to protect your child, say, from them conceiving a child you knew would die, wouldn't you? Would you intentionally lead them into a path that you know will bring them harm? This is why I can't make sense of what happened to me. I believed that God specifically and intentionally led me to want another child and asked me to trust that he would work it for good. But did he specifically and intentionally lead me to want another child so he could show me that he can take them back if he wants? That is why it doesn't make sense. It wasn't "oh, what I want, what I want...", it was, "what does God want?" And so I believed, from a lot of interesting "coincidences", that what he wanted was for me to be open to having more children. And so I was. I couldn't have been more obedient to what I believe God wanted. So, then, I guess I was wrong. Or I was right about what God wanted, but he wanted me to go where he led so he could persecute me? It's one of the two. So, rather, I was wrong. Also, re: God is worthy of praise because of who he is, not because of what he can do for us. What other judgement can we make about who God is than to see the effect of believing in him in our lives? How else do we know "who" anybody is? If we can't draw conclusions about what God is by what we see is the effect in our lives, then what are we worshiping, except an idealized figment of our imagination? When things work out as you had prayed, do you say, "Praise God!"? Why would you say that, unless you believe that God is worthy of praise because he does wonderful things? If God is worthy of praise, no matter how the practicalities of life go, why do you pray prayers of petition?

Dave, your post was great, as usual, and provoked a lot of thought for me. I don't really get saying God is worthy to be praised when he has caused or allowed affliction. I think you're saying that as you say it/pray it, it becomes more real to you, even if your life stinks in practical terms. I don't know...it still seems incongruent to me. Here's what I'm thinking: There doesn't seem to be a lot of agreement as to what role practical matters have in the faith. In this thread, there are some who have said practical things are better as a Christian; they are healthier, wealthier, more at peace, etc. Others say practical matters have no part in the faith - the point is eternity. Floatingsaxe suggests it is better for the obedient. That begs the question why do obedient people sometimes have terrible practical circumstances; why do the disobedient sometimes have great practical circumstances? Consider the Bible: practical matters are spoken of. "Do not worry about what you will wear or what you will eat...for your heavenly Father knows that you need them." "What father, if his child asks him for a fish, will give him a snake? If he asks for bread will give him a stone?" "For my God shall supply all your needs according to his riches in glory." If practical matters are not part of the deal, only eternity, then why do people pray for practical concerns? Really - this has been my question for a long time. If you get worse on top of bad when you have been praying and obedient, why or how would you say God is "faithful"? What is he being faithful about if praying to Him and obeying Him is bringing you worse on top of bad? Lastly - and this is more of a P.S. - obviously, lots of practical matters are under our own control and are a result of our own decisions. If you smoke, you are more likely to get lung cancer than if you don't smoke. If you choose your spouse well, your life will be better in many practical ways; if you choose your spouse poorly, you will have more practical troubles. So, naturally, some practical matters would be better just from having a Christian life-style, compared with a hedonistic life-style. My question is more about things that are outside of our control.

And, it seems you missed *this* portion: Dave, perhaps I should add tangible to practical. What you said: Is not knowable, so it still doesn't weigh that heavily compared with the life I have to live on earth. How do you "love God" or feel that he is all you want or need if it doesn't bear out in tangible ways in your life? Then, truster, I would ask you the "Yes my life is better" part of my question: What if all of that collapsed? Would you still say God is faithful? If so, why? Josh, your answer is remarkably transparent...thanks for that.

No, that's not my next question. But that would be a good point, and probably one I would eventually ask. My next question would go like this: If you answered "Yes" - in the practical sense, your life is better, does your faith then have a dependency on that being true? If you would answer *that* as "No", or if you answered "No" in the first place - your life is not better in practical terms, then why would you say "God is faithful"? I have never been able to relate to "though he slay me, still I will follow him" or things along that line. Despite all the idealized concepts of "unconditional love", we do tend to love those whom we trust. Why do we trust someone? Because our experience tells us that the person usually doesn't harm us and/or actively tries to make things better for us. If a person harms you, or doesn't protect you from harm they would be able to prevent, it is normal to withdrawl trust from that person. So, for me, this applies to God, too. If my experience told me that God protects me from harm and brings good things my way, of course it would be simple to say I praise Him. But if my experience tells me no such thing, how could I love God or be devoted to Him? Why...HOW can a person say that God is faithful in the rubbish of life? Like, Dave...you said: He is all we ever wanted, needed, or desired. What does that even mean to you if it doesn't have relevance to practical matters?

I know there are no promises of a life better in practical ways. How the question is answered by most lays the groundwork for my next question. So, I'm waiting for enough answers to then ask my next question.

This is a practical question. If you have been a non-Christian for part of your mature life and a Christian for part of it, is your life better in physical ways? Is it worse in physical ways? Please include how long you were a non-Christian and how long you've been a Christian. Explain your answer. Thanks.

Thanks!

I'm sorry about that...you were right I was too quick to disregard what you wrote. It may make it more valid. I don't know; I don't want to study it. I don't believe the Bible, so even if it makes it more clear, it won't change my whole view of the Bible. The prophecies I did already take the time to fact-check and plow through were so disappointing in most cases. So... possibly I have nothing worthwhile to add and should not have involved myself in this thread to begin with. P.S. I read your profile. Very inspiring!

I'm sorry I misquoted this. I was annoyed that someone trying to speak authoritatively on fulfilled prophecy would spell Alexander the Great and Greece like this. This was the point I was making. The verses which you are quoting are a metaphoric riddle. It could be interpreted to mean a lot of different things, depending on what someone wants to see in it. Which would be against the criteria that you yourself quoted as criteria by which to judge a prophecy. On the face of it, no one without a great deal of knowledge of history could even draw these conclusions in the first place. I didn't read it as thoroughly as I could have. You are right about that. The "fulfilled prophecy" argument is one of the bigger disappointments for me. When I first started reading about them, I was excited to see what they would say. So, when I saw what all these supposed many prophecies really were, it was a big let-down. No. And not deeply. I just know that in Isaiah it says that the Messiah will be called "Immanuel" which means "God with us". But in the NT, the angel tells Joseph to name him "Jesus", because he will save his people from their sins. I have read many of them. Prophecy, IME, is one of the more tedious things to debate about. I'm not willing to spend hours fact-checking and finding Bible quotes. I already spent many hours doing that when I was considering it for my own beliefs. In my PP, I was trying to show you that by the criteria you quoted, there are problems right away, with just a few that I can list off the top of my head, and the one you put up in your post. The Bible does not name Alexander the Great, nor does it name Mede-Persia. All these metaphors about rams and horns make for a very weak prophecy and totally baffling reading. (That's why I've always hated Ezekiel and Revelations, but I digress.) *I* couldn't possibly self-verify a prophecy like the Daniel 8 one you quoted. The only way I might be able to "prove" it is to read what some scholar thinks it means and decide his argument sounds good.

Did you read your own criteria for what makes a legitimate prophecy? Like this part: And this is where you want to start?

Leonard, I find your post incredibly wrong-headed! In the first place, I have been a teenage girl and I *HIGHLY DOUBT* that any teenage girl longs to be pregnant so they can have a baby shower and someone will feel their belly! My sister got pregnant when we were teens and, if anything, it made me all the more definate that I would not create that situation for myself. I *HIGHLY DOUBT* the other girls who got pregnant did so on purpose so someone would give them cute maternity tops! Secondly, I don't believe in making an example of rejection out of someone to try and deter the actions of others who may be watching. Thirdly, while the bio dad may be able to "take a powder", I don't "feel sorry" for unwed mothers. Unless it was a rape or something, she also made a choice. Because pregnancy happens in our bodies, we have all the more responsibility for careful consideration of whom and under what circumstances we allow that possibility. Fourth, you are assuming we have to create public rejection to discourage *certain* sins. Should we not invite gluttons to a party because we are supporting their sin? I have never seen someone suggest that we should reject gossips and refuse to talk to them, so others won't get the idea that they should sin, too.

Call it whatever you want, then. You started the thread. You asked what The Process and others object to. But there really are no answers to my objections; if there were, I would have no objections.