Jump to content

The high price of gas can be largely traced to Joe Biden and Justin Trudeau


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Your comment seems to indicate you have read nothing about this subject.  Since this is an important subject, it would seem that someone who really want to know the truth, would make an effort to read some articles.  Since the world is a corrupt, evil place and children and all ages do suffer, one would think you would want to know the reason(s) why.  

This is one perspective:

"Why does God let children suffer?

Answered by Bible Q · 8 April 2012 · 0 Comments

Thank you for your question. The problem of suffering is perhaps one of the most difficult questions that a Christian has to face, as it cuts to the core of our understanding of God and His purpose. Whilst some skeptics use it as an argument for atheism, I do not think this argument has the power to undermine the strong arguments for God’s existence. It does, however, warn us against naive understandings of God.

Before I begin to attempt an answer to this question it is important to distinguish two separate ways one might approach this problem. One is the intellectual perspective, i.e. how is suffering consistent with the existence of a loving God? The other is the emotional response to some particular instance of suffering. This second perspective is not one I can answer here, indeed it would be patronising to do so. Whilst an intellectual understanding of suffering might help someone put their personal suffering in a larger philosophical context, it will not remove their suffering or restore someone they’ve lost. Here I will only attempt to give some reflections on the intellectual problem of suffering.

The focus on child suffering is significant. One might ask why there is any suffering, whether experienced by a child or by an adult. I suspect there are two reasons why people often focus on the suffering of children. Firstly, it does seem unfair that some live to eighty or ninety in relative comfort, whilst some children die very young. We might feel, if not okay, at least less bad about someone dying at eighty or ninety. But if a child dies there is so much that they haven’t yet experienced or enjoyed – this seems terribly unfair. Secondly, we generally regard children as innocents. Even childish naughtiness is dwarfed by all the awful things adults get up to. So again, it seems unjust that innocents should suffer. The focus on child suffering takes us to the very heart of the general problem of suffering. We might accept some suffering that does us good in the long run (like going to the dentist); we might accept suffering that befalls wicked people (like criminal punishment); we might accept some suffering, as long as it is balanced out by a lot more joy. But we find it hard to accept suffering that seems pointless and random. If a child dies in an accident or has some horrible disease, there seems no rhyme or reason to that. How can a loving God allow that?

The first thing to consider is that we do not know all the purposes of God. We cannot know them because His thoughts are not our thoughts, and His ways are not our ways. We cannot know therefore that any particular instance of suffering is pointless. It is important not to misunderstand this idea. If a child dies it is glib, patronising and even hurtful to say “well, God moves in mysterious ways”. And one might justly ask “what way justifies the death of this child?”. The point is not that we should just accept suffering and not ask questions, but we do need consider that just because something appears pointless to us now does not mean that it is pointless in the grand purpose of God.

The second thing to consider is in what way do we expect God to prevent child suffering, particularly if we are inclined to accept some adult suffering. If a falling rock hits an adult they will die. If a falling rock hits a child they will die. Do we expect children to be immune to accident and disease until, say, their 18th birthday? How could you arrange such a world, and make the laws of nature behave in such a strange way? Could gravity not act on loose rocks above children? Or would children somehow be so much stronger than adults that they could withstand falling rocks? I do not mean these remarks to be flippant. I am simply asking the question: Is it possible to conceive of a world where adults suffering but children do not?

Now you might say, “I accept that the laws of nature mean that falling rocks will kill anybody unfortunate enough to be in their path but God could still intervene if he wanted to”. This is true, but let us understand what this entails. If we think that God should intervene to prevent the deaths of children then we commit to the view that every time a rock falls it will fall to the ground, except when there is a child in the way. In these cases, God would intervene to move the rock. (God would also have to intervene in lots of other cases too). Let us consider the implications of that. Firstly, the laws of nature would no longer be active, at least not in any consistent way. The law of gravity, for instance, would be a universal natural law except when it entailed the death of a child then it would fail. But not just the law of gravity – all the laws of nature would have to bend to prevent child suffering. So science, which depends on the regularity of natural laws, would no longer work and everything mankind has discovered by science would not have been discovered. Also these crazy laws might have unintended consequences. An avalanche headed towards a single child would automatically be diverted into some other course, perhaps into an adult (or even a village full of adults). Similarly, human free will would have to be overridden when it entailed human suffering. I might think that I want to drive at speed, or to ignore safety warnings, or to pollute the planet with green house gases. However, I would automatically be prevented from doing these things because it would entail human suffering. Worse than this, if a butterfly flapping its wings can cause hurricanes on the other side of the world then all my actions, however minor, would have to be minutely controlled by God otherwise I might unintentionally contribute to child suffering. My point is that to prevent all child-suffering would require that the laws of nature no longer function and that human free-will should no longer be operative.

(Now, this does not mean that God can never intervene, simply that when God intervenes there will be consequences and so He cannot intervene all the time).

The final consequence of God intervening to prevent all child suffering would be that His existence would never be in doubt. If anyone said “I don’t believe in God” then all that would be required would be for me to put a child in danger and watch as the child is miraculously saved. Now if God wants to His existence to be less than obvious, that is, if He wants people to come to Him through faith and love not through compulsion, then He cannot act in this way. His interventions have to be less regular to allow people to deny His existence, if they choose to.

There is one last point. We have seen that if we want to preserve the laws of nature and free-will then child suffering cannot be universally prevented. But this is only true if suffering exists at all. So one might ask: Why did God create a world in which suffering exists? Why not create a safe world without falling rocks, or horrible diseases, or nasty people? But that world you are describing is the Kingdom of God and if the world were already like that there would be no need for the Kingdom of God to come. But the Kingdom hasn’t yet come and we are reminded by the suffering around us that we need the Kingdom, when there will be no suffering. That Kingdom cannot exist whilst there are still people who are intent on doing wicked things. The Bible says that God subjected the world to futility (Rom 8:20) whilst there is wickedness on the earth. But there will come a day when God will judge the wicked and create “a new heavens and a new earth” for the righteous."

Bible Q | Why does God let children suffer?

This apologetics tripe really satisfies you? It's like when a child asks how Santa comes down the chimney or what the tooth fairy does with teeth. It's just a shrug of the shoulders and mysterious ways. 

If you met on the street some torturer and murderer of children who wouldn't explain his motives you'd revile him and lock him up - or worse. Yet when "god" tortures and murders children with no explanation you launch into apologetics. He's really a loving god. He must have some mysterious reason for torturing and murdering children. And then you flip some switch in your brain that turns off reasoned thought to prevent it exploding from cognitive dissonance.

None of this is helping your argument. Rather, it highlights how terribly and profoundly empty the whole thing is. I appreciate that the idea that someone is in charge brings you comfort, but it's simply not a logically or intellectually viable concept. There's no evidence. There's no reason to believe and every reason to doubt. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

That's the most vile bullshit I've ever seen. Yes all those sinful, sinful babies, toddlers and children.They've really got it coming. 

He’s just going to keep making up nonsense fairy tales to explain everything. Why is the sky blue? Because Bible. Why are frogs green? Because Jesus. 
 

Then, he points us to people who pretend to be scientists, who throw out a lot of pseudo-scientific language to pretend that science is fake.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Your comment seems to indicate you have read nothing about this subject.  Since this is an important subject, it would seem that someone who really want to know the truth, would make an effort to read some articles.  Since the world is a corrupt, evil place and children and all ages do suffer, one would think you would want to know the reason(s) why.  

This is one perspective:

"Why does God let children suffer?

Answered by Bible Q · 8 April 2012 · 0 Comments

Thank you for your question. The problem of suffering is perhaps one of the most difficult questions that a Christian has to face, as it cuts to the core of our understanding of God and His purpose. Whilst some skeptics use it as an argument for atheism, I do not think this argument has the power to undermine the strong arguments for God’s existence. It does, however, warn us against naive understandings of God.

Before I begin to attempt an answer to this question it is important to distinguish two separate ways one might approach this problem. One is the intellectual perspective, i.e. how is suffering consistent with the existence of a loving God? The other is the emotional response to some particular instance of suffering. This second perspective is not one I can answer here, indeed it would be patronising to do so. Whilst an intellectual understanding of suffering might help someone put their personal suffering in a larger philosophical context, it will not remove their suffering or restore someone they’ve lost. Here I will only attempt to give some reflections on the intellectual problem of suffering.

The focus on child suffering is significant. One might ask why there is any suffering, whether experienced by a child or by an adult. I suspect there are two reasons why people often focus on the suffering of children. Firstly, it does seem unfair that some live to eighty or ninety in relative comfort, whilst some children die very young. We might feel, if not okay, at least less bad about someone dying at eighty or ninety. But if a child dies there is so much that they haven’t yet experienced or enjoyed – this seems terribly unfair. Secondly, we generally regard children as innocents. Even childish naughtiness is dwarfed by all the awful things adults get up to. So again, it seems unjust that innocents should suffer. The focus on child suffering takes us to the very heart of the general problem of suffering. We might accept some suffering that does us good in the long run (like going to the dentist); we might accept suffering that befalls wicked people (like criminal punishment); we might accept some suffering, as long as it is balanced out by a lot more joy. But we find it hard to accept suffering that seems pointless and random. If a child dies in an accident or has some horrible disease, there seems no rhyme or reason to that. How can a loving God allow that?

The first thing to consider is that we do not know all the purposes of God. We cannot know them because His thoughts are not our thoughts, and His ways are not our ways. We cannot know therefore that any particular instance of suffering is pointless. It is important not to misunderstand this idea. If a child dies it is glib, patronising and even hurtful to say “well, God moves in mysterious ways”. And one might justly ask “what way justifies the death of this child?”. The point is not that we should just accept suffering and not ask questions, but we do need consider that just because something appears pointless to us now does not mean that it is pointless in the grand purpose of God.

The second thing to consider is in what way do we expect God to prevent child suffering, particularly if we are inclined to accept some adult suffering. If a falling rock hits an adult they will die. If a falling rock hits a child they will die. Do we expect children to be immune to accident and disease until, say, their 18th birthday? How could you arrange such a world, and make the laws of nature behave in such a strange way? Could gravity not act on loose rocks above children? Or would children somehow be so much stronger than adults that they could withstand falling rocks? I do not mean these remarks to be flippant. I am simply asking the question: Is it possible to conceive of a world where adults suffering but children do not?

Now you might say, “I accept that the laws of nature mean that falling rocks will kill anybody unfortunate enough to be in their path but God could still intervene if he wanted to”. This is true, but let us understand what this entails. If we think that God should intervene to prevent the deaths of children then we commit to the view that every time a rock falls it will fall to the ground, except when there is a child in the way. In these cases, God would intervene to move the rock. (God would also have to intervene in lots of other cases too). Let us consider the implications of that. Firstly, the laws of nature would no longer be active, at least not in any consistent way. The law of gravity, for instance, would be a universal natural law except when it entailed the death of a child then it would fail. But not just the law of gravity – all the laws of nature would have to bend to prevent child suffering. So science, which depends on the regularity of natural laws, would no longer work and everything mankind has discovered by science would not have been discovered. Also these crazy laws might have unintended consequences. An avalanche headed towards a single child would automatically be diverted into some other course, perhaps into an adult (or even a village full of adults). Similarly, human free will would have to be overridden when it entailed human suffering. I might think that I want to drive at speed, or to ignore safety warnings, or to pollute the planet with green house gases. However, I would automatically be prevented from doing these things because it would entail human suffering. Worse than this, if a butterfly flapping its wings can cause hurricanes on the other side of the world then all my actions, however minor, would have to be minutely controlled by God otherwise I might unintentionally contribute to child suffering. My point is that to prevent all child-suffering would require that the laws of nature no longer function and that human free-will should no longer be operative.

(Now, this does not mean that God can never intervene, simply that when God intervenes there will be consequences and so He cannot intervene all the time).

The final consequence of God intervening to prevent all child suffering would be that His existence would never be in doubt. If anyone said “I don’t believe in God” then all that would be required would be for me to put a child in danger and watch as the child is miraculously saved. Now if God wants to His existence to be less than obvious, that is, if He wants people to come to Him through faith and love not through compulsion, then He cannot act in this way. His interventions have to be less regular to allow people to deny His existence, if they choose to.

There is one last point. We have seen that if we want to preserve the laws of nature and free-will then child suffering cannot be universally prevented. But this is only true if suffering exists at all. So one might ask: Why did God create a world in which suffering exists? Why not create a safe world without falling rocks, or horrible diseases, or nasty people? But that world you are describing is the Kingdom of God and if the world were already like that there would be no need for the Kingdom of God to come. But the Kingdom hasn’t yet come and we are reminded by the suffering around us that we need the Kingdom, when there will be no suffering. That Kingdom cannot exist whilst there are still people who are intent on doing wicked things. The Bible says that God subjected the world to futility (Rom 8:20) whilst there is wickedness on the earth. But there will come a day when God will judge the wicked and create “a new heavens and a new earth” for the righteous."

Bible Q | Why does God let children suffer?

Well, maybe God lets children suffer, but you know who don’t let children suffer? Scientists.  
 

And who created scientists? God!
 

Polio used to put millions of children in wheelchairs and iron lung breathing machines.  Why didn’t God fix that?  ANSWER: God did fix it! God created scientists.  All we had to do was listen to them, and next thing you know… POOF! Polio is gone!  Covid killed a million Americans. Probably would have been half that if we’d all listened to the scientists that God created.  

Edited by Rebound
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Hodad said:

This apologetics tripe really satisfies you? It's like when a child asks how Santa comes down the chimney or what the tooth fairy does with teeth. It's just a shrug of the shoulders and mysterious ways. 

If you met on the street some torturer and murderer of children who wouldn't explain his motives you'd revile him and lock him up - or worse. Yet when "god" tortures and murders children with no explanation you launch into apologetics. He's really a loving god. He must have some mysterious reason for torturing and murdering children. And then you flip some switch in your brain that turns off reasoned thought to prevent it exploding from cognitive dissonance.

None of this is helping your argument. Rather, it highlights how terribly and profoundly empty the whole thing is. I appreciate that the idea that someone is in charge brings you comfort, but it's simply not a logically or intellectually viable concept. There's no evidence. There's no reason to believe and every reason to doubt. 

 

Is everything that goes against your idea really "tripe"?   If you had an inkling of who God is or what the Bible teaches about God you would know he does not do evil or condone evil.  God is perfection which you should have been taught in your seminary training.  That what the word holy means.  It means perfection and without sin.  That is what God is by nature.

 

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rebound said:

He’s just going to keep making up nonsense fairy tales to explain everything. Why is the sky blue? Because Bible. Why are frogs green? Because Jesus. 
 

Then, he points us to people who pretend to be scientists, who throw out a lot of pseudo-scientific language to pretend that science is fake.  

Yes, that's what will probably happen. I don't even have a problem with people believing in private, for themselves, as the Bible seems to encourage. But when people want to inject their private delusions into science, education and public policy they start causing real harm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Well, maybe God lets children suffer, but you know who don’t let children suffer? Scientists.  
 

And who created scientists? God!
 

Polio used to put millions of children in wheelchairs and iron lung breathing machines.  Why didn’t God fix that?  ANSWER: God did fix it! God created scientists.  All we had to do was listen to them, and next thing you know… POOF! Polio is gone!  Covid killed a million Americans. Probably would have been half that if we’d all listened to the scientists that God created.  

As I have already said, I agree with genuine science, but not pseudo science.   God does not "let children suffer".  That is a completely erroneous understanding of who God is as I explained.  God is perfection and does no evil.  It is Satan and man following Satan that does evil.  Satan is a real person or being and his fall is described in the Bible.   People in the world are either following Satan or following the God of the Bible.  There are only two choices.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

As I have already said, I agree with genuine science, but not pseudo science.   God does not "let children suffer".  That is a completely erroneous understanding of who God is as I explained.  God is perfection and does no evil.  It is Satan and man following Satan that does evil.  Satan is a real person or being and his fall is described in the Bible.   People in the world are either following Satan or following the God of the Bible.  There are only two choices.

So… when the world had Covid and 100,000’s were dying from it (real science; it really did kill those people)… and LOTS of people were spouting nonsense claiming that Covid didn’t exist and that the lifesaving vaccine was a poison… those were the voices of Satan, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

Is everything that goes against your idea really "tripe"?   If you had an inkling of who God is or what the Bible teaches about God you would know he does not do evil or condone evil.  God is perfection which you should have been taught in your seminary training.  That what the word holy means.  It means perfection and without sin.  That is what God is by nature.

"Why Is There Sin and Suffering? (biblestudy.org)

Yes, if I were gullible enough to accept your hand-waving nonsense non-explanations then I would be a believer. But I'm not. That's sort of the key difference. What you are saying doesn't have even a shred of reason to it. It's the "just because" explanation, which seems incredibly trivial when you talk about lifelong devotion to a being who tortures and murders children. You should probably demand a better answer than that.

And remember how a perfect being needed a do-over and a new set of rules for the New Testament? I mean sure, being perfect, he could have gotten it right the first time, but you know, he has mysterious ways. There must be a reason that totally makes super sense. Tee hee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Hodad said:

This apologetics tripe really satisfies you? It's like when a child asks how Santa comes down the chimney or what the tooth fairy does with teeth. It's just a shrug of the shoulders and mysterious ways. 

If you met on the street some torturer and murderer of children who wouldn't explain his motives you'd revile him and lock him up - or worse. Yet when "god" tortures and murders children with no explanation you launch into apologetics. He's really a loving god. He must have some mysterious reason for torturing and murdering children. And then you flip some switch in your brain that turns off reasoned thought to prevent it exploding from cognitive dissonance.

None of this is helping your argument. Rather, it highlights how terribly and profoundly empty the whole thing is. I appreciate that the idea that someone is in charge brings you comfort, but it's simply not a logically or intellectually viable concept. There's no evidence. There's no reason to believe and every reason to doubt. 

 

Why is there suffering in the world? – Bridge to the Bible

Perhaps you could do some studying.  There is lots to learn.  The universe and man were not created to be just a cosmic blob or accident.  There is a God who cares about mankind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hodad said:

Yes, if I were gullible enough to accept your hand-waving nonsense non-explanations then I would be a believer. But I'm not. That's sort of the key difference. What you are saying doesn't have even a shred of reason to it. It's the "just because" explanation, which seems incredibly trivial when you talk about lifelong devotion to a being who tortures and murders children. You should probably demand a better answer than that.

And remember how a perfect being needed a do-over and a new set of rules for the New Testament? I mean sure, being perfect, he could have gotten it right the first time, but you know, he has mysterious ways. There must be a reason that totally makes super sense. Tee hee.

According to your beliefs mankind is here by some kind of cosmic accident.  If you go by that thinking there is no purpose to life.  There is something terribly wrong with that belief.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, blackbird said:

As I have already said, I agree with genuine science, but not pseudo science.   God does not "let children suffer".  That is a completely erroneous understanding of who God is as I explained.  God is perfection and does no evil.  It is Satan and man following Satan that does evil.  Satan is a real person or being and his fall is described in the Bible.   People in the world are either following Satan or following the God of the Bible.  There are only two choices.

No, you ONLY agree with pseudo science, claims which cannot be validated or tested-- or worse, claims which have already been falsified. Creationism in it's standard form, or in the form of pseudo science like "intelligent design" is not scientific. I don't mean I dismiss it or disagree with it. I mean, in a totally literal sense, it is not science. Science seeks explanation through empirical testing and observation. Intelligent design is neither testable nor observable. It's just a semi-educated person shrugging their shoulders and saying. "If I can't explain something, then it's proof god did it." And then more intelligent and more educated people come along and explain it just fine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, blackbird said:

According to your beliefs mankind is here by some kind of cosmic accident.  If you go by that thinking there is no purpose to life.  There is something terribly wrong with that belief.  

I believe it's both richer and more rewarding to come to one's own purpose in life. 

The only people who need to imagine a heavenly father to assign purpose and meaning to their lives are those who think like children. Which, again, I'm okay with. If you need the crutch, by all means lean on it. Just don't use it as a bludgeon against the rest of us. The "truth" you imagine probably feels very real to you, especially after long exposure, but it's not truth for the rest of us, so don't force it's precepts upon us.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

That's the most vile bullshit I've ever seen. Yes all those sinful, sinful babies, toddlers and children.They've really got it coming. 

Well, it seems he is saying that suffering is due to the sinful actions of OTHERS. Evil parents, I guess.

Which still does not explain babies and children suffering with life threatening diseases such as cancer. 

God did an incompetent job of "designing" humans with such PAINFUL defects. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, robosmith said:

Well, it seems he is saying that suffering is due to the sinful actions of OTHERS. Evil parents, I guess.

Which still does not explain babies and children suffering with life threatening diseases such as cancer. 

God did an incompetent job of "designing" humans with such PAINFUL defects. 

Right. That has all the justice of "the whipping boy." Torture the innocent to punish the guilty by proxy. This is the plan of a just and noble and perfect being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

If you want to follow Satan, that is your choice but don't say nobody warned you.

Ooooh!

If we don’t agree with you, then we must be following Satan. Because you magically know exactly everything God thinks and says, so everybody else is a Satanist. You know who also says that? The f-ing Ayatollah of Iran. So did that shitbag bin Laden.  
 

You know who else did God’s will? Abraham. What would you call a man who murders his own son and says he did it because a voice inside his head ordered him to do it? 

Edited by Rebound
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Ooooh!

If we don’t agree with you, then we must be following Satan. Because you magically know exactly everything God thinks and says, so everybody else is a Satanist. You know who also says that? The f-ing Ayatollah of Iran. So did that shitbag bin Laden.  
 

You know who else did God’s will? Abraham. What would you call a man who murders his own son and says he did it because a voice inside his head ordered him to do it? 

Now days he would be called what he is: schizophrenic. AKA, insane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

Ooooh!

If we don’t agree with you, then we must be following Satan. Because you magically know exactly everything God thinks and says, so everybody else is a Satanist. You know who also says that? The f-ing Ayatollah of Iran. So did that shitbag bin Laden.  
 

You know who else did God’s will? Abraham. What would you call a man who murders his own son and says he did it because a voice inside his head ordered him to do it? 

 No I don't know everything God thinks.  I do however have the inspired Bible that has his words and thoughts in it.  Most people in the world are following Satan.  If one mocks God or his word, that puts him in the category of those who are following Satan.  But I realize it may not be productive to go down that road and may be my mistake to mention it even though it may be a fact.   I know non-believers and opponents of God will use anything possible to throw at a believer and try to smear him and discredit him, which is what you are doing.  That is why Satan is also called "the accuser of the brethern" in the Bible.  It would be more useful to discuss who God is and why one should believe in him and his word.  That would be useful and productive.

However here is a little information about Satan:

"In addition to being a tempter, Satan is also “the accuser of our brothers” (Revelation 12:10, ESV). He enjoys listing the many sins of believers, but the Lord Jesus, our Advocate, defeats the accusations because He has paid the price for our sins (1 John 2:1–2). Christians can be confident of their salvation because Jesus has done the work for us through His death and resurrection (Ephesians 2:8–9).

Satan is described as the “god of this age” (2 Corinthians 4:4) and has dominion over the world and its system (John 12:31; 1 John 5:19), but his authority will not last forever. During the tribulation, the devil will deceive the masses and raise up for himself the Antichrist, who will rule for seven years (Revelation 13:5–8). Since Satan has always wanted people to worship him as God, this will be a part of his deception as well, since many will worship Satan at that time (Revelation 13:4). He will also attempt to destroy the remnant of Israel but will not be successful (Revelation 12:13–16). At the end of the tribulation, Jesus will return, destroy the Antichrist and false prophet, and imprison Satan for 1,000 years (Revelation 19:19–20; 20:1–3). After that time, Satan will be released and will lead one last rebellion (Revelation 20:7–9); then Satan will finally be thrown into the lake of fire, forever to be tormented for his rebellion and works of evil (Revelation 20:10). The dominion of Satan over the world may seem unassailable, but the devil cannot withstand the power of our Savior and Lord, Jesus Christ.
 

FOR FURTHER STUDY

God’s Devil: The Incredible Story of How Satan’s Rebellion Serves God’s Purposes by Erwin Lutzer"

Who is Satan in the Bible? | GotQuestions.org

As for your comment about Abraham and his son, I don't think you understand that story.  You can easily find the explanation about that by doing a little search on Google or any search engine.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rebound said:

So… when the world had Covid and 100,000’s were dying from it (real science; it really did kill those people)… and LOTS of people were spouting nonsense claiming that Covid didn’t exist and that the lifesaving vaccine was a poison… those were the voices of Satan, right?

No, I am not an anti-vaxxer.  I am pro vaccination.  You picked the wrong topic to throw at me.  I am pro genuine science.  .  You don't know what I believe, but make wild assumptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

Ooooh!

If we don’t agree with you, then we must be following Satan. Because you magically know exactly everything God thinks and says, so everybody else is a Satanist. You know who also says that? The f-ing Ayatollah of Iran. So did that shitbag bin Laden.  
 

You know who else did God’s will? Abraham. What would you call a man who murders his own son and says he did it because a voice inside his head ordered him to do it? 

This website explains the story about Abraham and his son.  It would make more sense to actually read about this story and understand it and not just use a piece of it to throw out a false sound bite. 

"In faith, Abraham took his son Isaac and was ready to offer him up as a sacrifice, trusting that God could indeed raise him up again and fulfill His promises to Abraham to bless all nations through the Seed of Abraham and Isaac (cf. Genesis 22:18). And, in a figure, Abraham received his son back again alive from the dead.

So also Christ Jesus, who suffered and died the just punishment for the sins of the world, was raised up again on the third day. As the Bible tells us, Jesus Christ "was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification" (Romans 4:25). His resurrection is proof that God accepted His sacrifice as full payment for the sins of the world, and through faith in Jesus we are justified and counted righteous and acceptable in God's eyes. Because Jesus died for our sins, in our stead, and rose again, we who trust in Him have the assurance that our sins are paid for in full and forgiven and that we too will be raised up on the last day to life eternal!"

Why did God ask Abraham to sacrifice his son? (nwaonline.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,766
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    CouchPotato
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...