Divine Inspiration or Divine Dictation?

[dps]

Never understood attacks on the trinity, as anyone with any knowledge of anatomy would recognize that it is possible for three things to compose one organism.  Is Grumbler 1 Grumbler or is he billions of different, unrelated cells who just happen to be working together?

Never understood the concept of the trinity in the context of supposedly monotheistic religions.  How many gods are there?  if just one, did that god come to earth?  if so, how could said god "suffer" in any but the most trivial ways?

You analogy of me as jesus doesn't work.  There is only one me, and I am not part of a trinity.

Try this one.  When Van Halen canned David Lee Roth and replaced him with Sammy Hagar, they explained that there were 3 David Lee Roths--their old buddy Dave who they were in a band with;  David Lee Roth, the singer/songwriter; and Diamond Dave, the flashy, entertaining, but hard to get along with frontman.  Over time, Diamond Dave was around more and more, the other 2 less and less, and they finally got tired of dealing with him.

If David Lee Roth can be 3 persons in one, don't you think an almighty God can be 3 persons in one also?

[crazy canuck]

No, the point is a good explanation is not possible and there being no good explanation how such a thing can exist I choose not to delude myself.

Except that not everything is down to logic.

The whole point of my inquiry in this thread is to find a rationale explanation for the identified problem.  Saying there is none simply confirms my view.

[crazy canuck]

Name me one religious war, or any war, that was fought because the comfort religion gave people was threatened.   Religion has been a great device for getting the populace behind a war but it isnt the reason for the war.

All you had to do was convince people that either their religion itself was threatened or something important to their religion was threatened and they would fight.  In that sense all of them were supposedly fought for this reason.

I see where we are getting crossed up.  You are talking about getting the population in support of a war once the leaders decide it is needed.   

[Valmy]

I see where we are getting crossed up.  You are talking about getting the population in support of a war once the leaders decide it is needed.   

The leaders may not be totally immune to having purely religious reasons for doing certain policies either because they honestly regard a certain group or country as a threat to their faith.  However, just because of the way human politics work, eventually (if not instantaneously or simultaneously) this will become just another tool of statecraft.

[crazy canuck]

I see where we are getting crossed up.  You are talking about getting the population in support of a war once the leaders decide it is needed.   

The leaders may not be totally immune to having purely religious reasons for doing certain policies either because they honestly regard a certain group or country as a threat to their faith.  However, just because of the way human politics work, eventually (if not instantaneously or simultaneously) this will become just another tool of statecraft.

Agreed

[garbon]

The whole point of my inquiry in this thread is to find a rationale explanation for the identified problem.  Saying there is none simply confirms my view.

What's next, the rational basis for love?

[crazy canuck]

What's next, the rational basis for love?

You think there is not a rationale explanation for that?

[Barrister]

It makes sense to me that God's will could be beyond human understanding.

Yes that is one of the frequent answers that makes no sense.   A God, which if the NT is to be believed is all loving, creates a world in which evil exists with no apparent explanation.  Sorry not buying.

The "answer" that always makes sense to me is that God created humans in His own image, which included free will.  God could create a world where all is goodness and light, but it would not be a world with free will.  Free will inevitably means the ability to choose evil, and thus lead to suffering.

This doesn't work as well for natural disasters of course.

[crazy canuck]

This doesn't work as well for natural disasters of course.

You have already identified one of the obvious problems with that theory.  It also doesnt explain why a loving all powerful God does not intervene to save innocents from those who excercise free will.  Your best argument is that God wont save you from yourself but why wont he save others from you?  Oh sorry I didnt stop x from killing x million people.  I thought I would let free will play itself out. 

It also does not explain why a loving all powerful God does not intevene in other disasters that are not natural and do not involve free will.  Oh, sorry I didnt save that little girl from the store roof falling on her.  I thought I would teach the architect a lesson in better building materials.

I also does not explain why there is desease and sickness.  Whats God's view and that "not my department."  How does a loving all powerful God let all this happen.  Seems to me the best answer is he doesnt because he doesnt exist.

Put anyother way if God exists he is either not all loving or he is not all powerful because he/she/it cant be both all allow such suffering in the world 

[vinraith]

Epicurus pretty much resolved the incoherence of the "omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God" thing about 2300 years ago, why are we still arguing about it?

[Neil]

Epicurus pretty much resolved the incoherence of the "omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God" thing about 2300 years ago, why are we still arguing about it?

Because Epicurus was defeated by a whole bunch of religious loons.  His insights have been overridden by more recent thinkers, like Falwell, Baker and Coulter.

[Berkut]

Yes that is one of the frequent answers that makes no sense.   A God, which if the NT is to be believed is all loving, creates a world in which evil exists with no apparent explanation.  Sorry not buying.

Perhaps "suffering" and "evil" are part of "love."

Then you are torturing the word into meaninglessness.

He is clearly abusing the meaning.

[The Larch]

I recommend http://www.thebricktestament.com/ to anyone interested in the Bible. It has plenty of downright bizarre stories, not just form the OT but from the NT as well, narrated in a quite funny way. In Lego.

For instance, here's a zany Jesus story:

http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_life_of_jesus/jesus_curses_a_tree/mk11_12-13.html

[Iormlund]

The Bible is best understood when drunk.  Or stoned.

He said Jehova!

[crazy canuck]

He is clearly abusing the meaning.

I actually had you in mind as I wrote those words.