"So what's the official explanation for a benevolent God "allowing" little girls at a Christian Summer camp to get washed away? It would seem that #4 is very much in play."

The use of the phrase "what's the official explanation" along with "benevolent" and the use of quotations around allowing come across as sarcastic or mocking those with Christian beliefs.

My apologies if you are sincerely struggling spiritually right now. It would probably be best to talk to a pastor or priest about this rather than a message board.

Serotonin said:

---

"So what's the official explanation for a benevolent God "allowing" little girls at a Christian Summer camp to get washed away? It would seem that #4 is very much in play."

The use of the phrase "what's the official explanation" along with "benevolent" and the use of quotations around allowing come across as sarcastic or mocking those with Christian beliefs.

My apologies if you are sincerely struggling spiritually right now. It would probably be best to talk to a pastor or priest about this rather than a message board.

---

I am sorry if it came across that way...if anything I was frustrated and upset with God....which I am allowed to be. I did not mean to seem snarky. I would never mock anyone else's beliefs. Using the phrase "official explanation" was really more of me being frustrated that we are always left to ourselves to come up with reasons why God doesn't intervene in situations like this....I mean...innocent children at a Christian camp? Families camping and enjoying being with eachother on a holiday weekend? That is really hard to reconcile and deal with.

Edit: I would not classify myself as being in crisis or struggling right now so please don't anyone be concerned. I am just at a crossroads I think. Having prayed for many things over the years I have arrived at several conclusions. Either......1. I have not received any help or answered prayers....or 2. I have completely missed everything that I may have received. I have a difficult time believing either.

All good brother, we are all in this together.

Out of tragedy I believe we are called to come together in grief and prayer. "Out of the depths I cry to thee O Lord"

But any arguments I make now are meaningless words on a page from some random guy you don't even know. That's why I think it's much better to talk with a pastor or priest in person.

Incorrect. This is the exact time, regardless of your position on the original question. It's only when faced with an acute emotional and spiritual wound that these questions demand grappling with. I honestly do not see the hand of a benevolent and all powerful god in this. I do see an entirely natural phenomenon, the tragic loss of innocents, and the tremendous heroic and selfless efforts of common people. I am a Christian, raised in the faith from birth. I'm deeply familiar with many of the theological / apologetic arguments for why these tragedies happen. All of them sound reasonable and plausible until you are faced with a reality like this. I've prayed for clarity many times and it never gets better. I don't know what the answer is to the original post, but this is precisely the time to revisit it. This wasn't a school shooter, an act of war or unfortunate human error. It's very reasonable to conclude that our presuppositions about the nature of God and man could be incorrect. Maybe every good and perfect gift comes from above, but so did this flood. It's not an easy thing to face, but it's necessary in an honest quest for truth. Jacob wrestled with God. I guess I will too. The one thing I'm most confident of is that God, wherever he is now, isn't afraid of our questions or our doubts.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

northside_99 said:

---

Thoughtful reply.

The question of where did the body go is an interesting one, as there are no Jewish or Roman writings even after the fact that talk to the recovered body of Jesus which they would have been desperate to report and kill the movement.

Which if it was not recovered would mean either Resurrection or somehow destroyed by his disciples and yet kept in secret forever and for what, to dedicate your life and die and go to the grave with a secret for an elaborate rouse where no one involved ever broke ranks and talked?


Agree that most folks will bias towards what they want to believe. And the CEO analogy is interesting. Although one might argue that no other CEO with a specific policy has even come close to remaining for 2000 years and 31% of the company believes in after all that time. Especially if the policy wasnt even true to begin with.

I am not an expert on all the world religions, but almost all of the planet is either Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or Jewish and believe only one of those believes that God came to earth died and was resurrected.

Enjoy the 4th as well.

---

I don't know what happened to the body. I think we are trying to determine facts on a 2000 year old case based on decades old accounts, spotty historical evidence, and guesses. My 'concern' about Christianity is not necessarily that there is insufficient historical evidence about Jesus. . . . its that we have to rely on historical evidence to begin with.

I am concerned that your comments about no other CEO achieving 31% is setting a very low bar. Part of the reason I like the CEO analogy, is that you would expect that a CEO trying to implement a policy could directly send out an email to the whole company, set up company-wide ZOOM meetings and calls and tutorials on the new policy. You would expect the CEO to provide answer questions, provide clarifications, and provide updates to the policy as needed. Instead of sending one representative to a local office, you might expect the CEO to engage a team of hundreds of trained experts in the policy to simultaneously visit and teach the policy to different departments in different countries. Imagine if God had sent a son to every major civilization to teach the same message? If we have an all powerful God that wishes for everyone to know Him but cannot manage more than a third of people even believing He exists, then maybe He isn't all powerful or doesn't wish for everyone to know Him.

---

I pray you have a relationship with Jesus some day. Your position is flawed in more ways than I can articulate. Jesus didn't come to start a religion, he came to breakdown the barrier between us and God the Father created by our sin. Your entire premise uses a goal Jesus didn't have.

You have more faith in man-made things every day than it takes to believe what is written in the Bible. You choose not to believe and search for reasons not to believe.

Hey...so.. um said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

northside_99 said:

---

Thoughtful reply.

The question of where did the body go is an interesting one, as there are no Jewish or Roman writings even after the fact that talk to the recovered body of Jesus which they would have been desperate to report and kill the movement.

Which if it was not recovered would mean either Resurrection or somehow destroyed by his disciples and yet kept in secret forever and for what, to dedicate your life and die and go to the grave with a secret for an elaborate rouse where no one involved ever broke ranks and talked?


Agree that most folks will bias towards what they want to believe. And the CEO analogy is interesting. Although one might argue that no other CEO with a specific policy has even come close to remaining for 2000 years and 31% of the company believes in after all that time. Especially if the policy wasnt even true to begin with.

I am not an expert on all the world religions, but almost all of the planet is either Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or Jewish and believe only one of those believes that God came to earth died and was resurrected.

Enjoy the 4th as well.

---

I don't know what happened to the body. I think we are trying to determine facts on a 2000 year old case based on decades old accounts, spotty historical evidence, and guesses. My 'concern' about Christianity is not necessarily that there is insufficient historical evidence about Jesus. . . . its that we have to rely on historical evidence to begin with.

I am concerned that your comments about no other CEO achieving 31% is setting a very low bar. Part of the reason I like the CEO analogy, is that you would expect that a CEO trying to implement a policy could directly send out an email to the whole company, set up company-wide ZOOM meetings and calls and tutorials on the new policy. You would expect the CEO to provide answer questions, provide clarifications, and provide updates to the policy as needed. Instead of sending one representative to a local office, you might expect the CEO to engage a team of hundreds of trained experts in the policy to simultaneously visit and teach the policy to different departments in different countries. Imagine if God had sent a son to every major civilization to teach the same message? If we have an all powerful God that wishes for everyone to know Him but cannot manage more than a third of people even believing He exists, then maybe He isn't all powerful or doesn't wish for everyone to know Him.

---

I pray you have a relationship with Jesus some day. Your position is flawed in more ways than I can articulate. Jesus didn't come to start a religion, he came to breakdown the barrier between us and God the Father created by our sin. Your entire premise uses a goal Jesus didn't have.

You have more faith in man-made things every day than it takes to believe what is written in the Bible. You choose not to believe and search for reasons not to believe.

---

Nothing you just said changes the point that was made. There's nothing particularly logical or optimal about the Jesus narrative from the standpoint of human salvation or knowledge of God.

You restating the flawed premise doesn't make it less flawed. Jesus wasn't here to educate everyone, make everything really clear, or have the entire world embrace Him.

If he was here for those things maybe His time on earth would have looked more like what the previous poster stated.

His entire argument is a false premise. Therefore, he is just searching for a reason to not believe.

Hey...so.. um said:

---

You restating the flawed premise doesn't make it less flawed. Jesus wasn't here to educate everyone, make everything really clear, or have the entire world embrace Him.

If he was here for those things maybe His time on earth would have looked more like what the previous poster stated.

His entire argument is a false premise. Therefore, he is just searching for a reason to not believe.

---

So you're saying there's no obligation for people to believe in him for salvation? And that his ministry served no purpose? Otherwise, Kurt's point stands. Or are you taking a Calvinist approach that the elect were predestined to be saved anyway?

92Ag95 said:

---

Serotonin said:

---

"So what's the official explanation for a benevolent God "allowing" little girls at a Christian Summer camp to get washed away? It would seem that #4 is very much in play."

The use of the phrase "what's the official explanation" along with "benevolent" and the use of quotations around allowing come across as sarcastic or mocking those with Christian beliefs.

My apologies if you are sincerely struggling spiritually right now. It would probably be best to talk to a pastor or priest about this rather than a message board.

---

I am sorry if it came across that way...if anything I was frustrated and upset with God....which I am allowed to be. I did not mean to seem snarky. I would never mock anyone else's beliefs. Using the phrase "official explanation" was really more of me being frustrated that we are always left to ourselves to come up with reasons why God doesn't intervene in situations like this....I mean...innocent children at a Christian camp? Families camping and enjoying being with eachother on a holiday weekend? That is really hard to reconcile and deal with.

Edit: I would not classify myself as being in crisis or struggling right now so please don't anyone be concerned. I am just at a crossroads I think. Having prayed for many things over the years I have arrived at several conclusions. Either......1. I have not received any help or answered prayers....or 2. I have completely missed everything that I may have received. I have a difficult time believing either.

---

This is where I want to be sensitive, but don't always word things well. If any of this comes across as insulting/insensitive/rude, please know it's from poor wording and not ill intent:

This whole issue revolves around why are we here in the first place? I think most Americans (or 1st world in general), including most Christians, see the entire point of life as having a good, long life. But is it? What if one of those little children would have ended up riddled with addiction their whole adult life? Or had a severe genetic condition that doesn't pop up until later in life? We can think of 1000 different ways life can go horribly, horribly wrong and, to be frank, being taken at 9 years old might not be that bad depending on what you have ahead of you.

I know that comes across as a horrible thing to say, but society already agrees with the logic behind that statement. Society as a whole, including some Christians, think abortion is the kinder solution for babies with severe genetic defects. Or whose parents don't want a baby. "Do we really want to bring a child with severe genetic abnormalities into the world? To destine them with a life of pain? Do we really want babies being born to mothers who don't want them and won't love them?" Not speaking to you specifically, but generally speaking, many people believe this. It's the logic behind the increased acceptance of medically assisted suicide for mental health disorders.

It's only through the introduction of eternity that we can get outside of this "good life" trap. We can see that whether we live until we're 9 or 99, the goal was Heaven. Whether we lived a blessed life or a horrible one, the goal was Heaven. A child taken early may have missed out on a wonderful life, or a life full of pain. We don't know. But if Heaven awaits them, it can ease the sting those of us here on earth feel. If not...?

The real issue here is the problem of evil in general. Is being swept down a river worse than being left by your family in a nursing home for the last 5-10 years of your life? Getting cancer in your 30s and never seeing your kids grow up? Or having a beautiful family and wonderful life only to get Alzheimer's' and not be able to recognize any of it? The problem of evil, when held in the view there is an eternity with God, is only a temporary issue. Painful, but temporary. The problem of evil when held in an atheistic world view ultimately leads to nihilism: no inherent purpose to life. So we have to fill in that purpose with our idea of what a good life is, and any natural evil standing in the way of that can feel insurmountable.

92Ag95 said:

---

BrazosDog02 said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Not the time and place.

---

And when would you say IS a good time to help a fellow ag who is hurting and needs spiritual assistance? Good thing Jesus' disciples didn't say "dude, can you come back another time, this is inconvenient for me."

---

Times like these test our faith more than ever and force us to ask questions that we know deep down will not be answered satisfactorily. Questioning why things like this are allowed to happen is very much in line with questioning why we must believe without any proof. "Proof" always seems to be in the form of explanations which are made up after the fact to fit what we know or think we know. I can't even begin to imagine how mankind supposedly "benefits" in the long run from things like this being allowed to happen. Many would claim that God is crying right along side of us when these things happen. I really wish I could understand the "hands off" approach here.

Another thing....why would some people receive the benefit of knowing Jesus in the flesh while the rest of time and humanity does not. That hardly seems fair to me. Some people were able to witness things like water to wine at the wedding in Cana, others were able to see the resurrection of Lazarus. How were the remainder of their lives positively affected by this? The rest of us are supposed to just read historical accounts and believe? How is that fair? This sort of fits scenario 3.

---

I used to really struggle with this until I thought about how, despite witnessing all of those miracles, 11 out of 12 apostles abandoned Jesus at (or before) the cross. I doubt I'm any better than those guys. Hopefully I'd be John, but there is an 11 in 12 chance I wouldn't be.

Now to those who saw Him resurrected, we would say that those guys got a much better fighting chance than we did. And they needed it, because almost all of them ended up being murdered in horrible ways. To whom much is given, much is required. It makes me feel a little better about what ignorance I do have because there's less required of me.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Hey...so.. um said:

---

You restating the flawed premise doesn't make it less flawed. Jesus wasn't here to educate everyone, make everything really clear, or have the entire world embrace Him.

If he was here for those things maybe His time on earth would have looked more like what the previous poster stated.

His entire argument is a false premise. Therefore, he is just searching for a reason to not believe.

---

So you're saying there's no obligation for people to believe in him for salvation? And that his ministry served no purpose? Otherwise, Kurt's point stands. Or are you taking a Calvinist approach that the elect were predestined to be saved anyway?

---

Last post because you're not looking for a real conversation. I literally stated He was here to break down the barrier between us and God the Father created by our sin. That would speak to salvation. His ministry served that purpose. In the process, he also discipled people, healed people and connected with people. Kurt's entire premise is Jesus didn't do it the way Kurt would have. That is such flawed logic it is hard to even speak to.

92Ag95 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

1

For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened.

---

Agree on 1. Sometimes it is not in the way we think it should happen but God always works it out for good for those who love Him.

---

I feel like in scenario #4 though that people can always find something positive about an outcome and attribute it to devine intervention. One thing I've always thought about is why the requirement for "faith". It's like if I were buying a car from you and you were expected to hand it over and have "faith" that I would pay you....how convenient for me. What is the road block for us to have some form of validation? People will always point to good things as evidence of a higher power whether it's true or not. Why do we have to exist in this proof-less vacuum? So believing without seeing is somehow holier? We hear of great miracles but most, like Fatima, are all in the past. Why do we not hear of true miracles that can ONLY be attributed to a higher power under the highest scrutiny.....ie....why no modern day Lazarus? Seems like most documented miracles leave the door slightly ajar to be explained away. Imagine what a true modern day miracle that absolutely CANNOT be refuted would do for faith on a global scale.

---

Last one I'll respond to. Whether you believe in God or not, you have faith. Using your car example, this is exactly what happens, unless you pay for the car in cash. The standard car purchase is based on faith in the financial and governmental systems we have in place. The bank has "faith" you will pay the loan back. The loan they give is based on faith in the American financial system. The faith in the financial system is based on faith in the US government. Our faith in the US government is based on a 250 year track record, some analysts that suggest we are on or off the right track (which itself is choice to believe), scientists that say we'll continue to have access to resources we need, etc.

Now we can say faith in a car loan has a lot more data backing it than faith in God, but that would only depend on what data you're willing to use or exclude. If we only resort to hard, materialist driven data, car loan wins. If we resort to sociology and philosophy, God gets the upper hand

Sapper Redux said:

---

Hey...so.. um said:

---

You restating the flawed premise doesn't make it less flawed. Jesus wasn't here to educate everyone, make everything really clear, or have the entire world embrace Him.

If he was here for those things maybe His time on earth would have looked more like what the previous poster stated.

His entire argument is a false premise. Therefore, he is just searching for a reason to not believe.

---

So you're saying there's no obligation for people to believe in him for salvation? And that his ministry served no purpose? Otherwise, Kurt's point stands. Or are you taking a Calvinist approach that the elect were predestined to be saved anyway?

---

To be clear, there are a number of early church father who have suggested ways for non-Christians to be saved. It's the foundation of the doctrine of invincible ignorance. If, for some compelling reason, have never heard of or have rejected Christ to the point where it may not be your fault, leading to a semi-hopeful view of non-Christians, albeit one that isn't the norm. We'd say they still accept the truth Christ teaches the world, even if imperfectly.

With that in mind, Kurt's premise is flawed.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Kurt is pointing out a logical flaw in the Christian narrative and your response is to ignore it all and declare that because you believe Jesus is correct, the narrative must therefore be true. You're the only one here not interested in a conversation.

---

It is only a flawed if God the Father's purpose of sending Jesus to earth was to solely preach His message and make everyone agree and understand. I've clearly stated multiply times that was not the purpose. If Jesus so clearly communicated God's will to everyone in such a way that everyone believed He was the son of God and they didn't crucify Him, then we are never saved by His sacrifice. Leaving clear instructions and no doubt of who he was would have completely derailed His purpose. So he entire analogy doesn't work. I'm not ignoring his point, I'm telling you there is no point to be made.

This is a terrible analogy, but let's say someone makes a point that the manufacturers of MLB baseballs are dumb because they don't make the balls water proof. Someone who actually watches/plays baseball would be like yeah but they don't play in the rain so it really doesn't apply here. And the other person would be like but that is a flaw with baseballs.

Kurt has missed the purpose of Jesus coming to earth. So the entire scenario is built on a faulty purpose.

Maybe better for another thread, but won't start it if this doesn't spark any interest in you:

The way you summarize the God to man relationship:

* God exists
* God is all powerful
* God created mankind
* God desires a relationship with mankind
* God has revealed Himself to mankind so that we may know him.

If you will allow me to argue from a general sense of the Christian God, would this suffice as a starting point for you?

* God exists and created all things through His intellect and will
* Man has an intellect and a will that God "created in His image"
* God intended direct and proximal relationship with man until man pulled away. God still retains the desire for relationship with man despite this impairment.
* Proximal relationship has been severed, but relationship can continue through the intellect and will.
* As such, man can consider his own intellect and will as the method God chooses to reveal Himself, albeit subtlety in all but the rarest of cases
* Man's quest for purpose and understanding of life is a result of God communicating to man through his will and intellect (prevenient grace)

The Banned said:

---

Maybe better for another thread, but won't start it if this doesn't spark any interest in you:

The way you summarize the God to man relationship:

* God exists
* God is all powerful
* God created mankind
* God desires a relationship with mankind
* God has revealed Himself to mankind so that we may know him.

If you will allow me to argue from a general sense of the Christian God, would this suffice as a starting point for you?

* God exists and created all things through His intellect and will
* Man has an intellect and a will that God "created in His image"
* God intended direct and proximal relationship with man until man pulled away. God still retains the desire for relationship with man despite this impairment.
* Proximal relationship has been severed, but relationship can continue through the intellect and will.
* As such, man can consider his own intellect and will as the method God chooses to reveal Himself, albeit subtlety in all but the rarest of cases
* Man's quest for purpose and understanding of life is a result of God communicating to man through his will and intellect (prevenient grace)

---

For purpose of my arguments, I think that this starting point is fine. No objections.

The bolded point is the central idea that I'm questioning. The idea that God wishes for a relationship with us seems universal within Christianity. To an all powerful God, should it not be trivial to at least establish without shadow of a doubt to all humanity that he exists and desires such a relationship?

A suggestion that knowledge of God may not be readily apparent (if that is fair to pull from your post) because of the severed relationship resulting in man's sin, feels like victim blaming. Let me explain. . . . .None of us choose to be born. None of use choose where or when or under what conditions we would be born. None of us choose to eat the apple from the tree of knowledge. None of us choose to be born with original sin. Yet we are born into sin and with temptation toward sin written into our very DNA. And once we are born, we almost always adopt the religion closest at hand. Those that seek communication with the Christian God are those who have lived in circumstances that encouraged them to do so.

You have to imagine something like a Hindu person, born in India to a Hindu religious household and culture and society. In this case, without great access to Christian teachings or education or persons. And you have to image that this person is a good person, with a good heart, and an honest and sincere desire for spiritual truth and fulfillment. And then you have to imagine another good person born in the US to a devout Christian household and culture who is raised from birth with constant reinforcement of the truth of Christianity. That the good Indian man has approximately 99.6% chance of remaining separated from God and that the good American man has a far better chance of establishing that relationship with God is an odd thing to blame on an individual.

If you can accept that there are good people born, no fault of their own, into the 'wrong' religion and stuck in a cycle of cultural generational transmission of said 'wrong' religion. . . .then who has the power to break this cycle? Those stuck in this misguided cycle? Or the all powerful God? You can say that it is the job of all of mankind, or even specifically of Christians, to break this cycle by proselytizing their faith, but it doesn't change the outcome here. Our good Hindu friend misses the message because he was born in the wrong place or because other Christians in the world failed to reach him.

There is such a massive imbalance in power between the Christian God and humanity, that it becomes difficult for me to explain away the fact that the overwhelming majority of people to live have not even been aware of the Christian God by simply pointing the finger at humanity.

Its like taking a child and bringing them into the world into the most poverty stricken circumstances. Surrounding them with disease, violence, war, and hatred. Providing them no education or tools for improvement. And then blaming them for being poor. Its easy for you and me to say this child should figure out how to be less poor, we were born with trust funds and went to private schools and were loved and nurtured and taught.

Saying that God considers such circumstances in final judgement is fine, but it still does not alleviate the problem on Earth.

The idea of prevenient grace feels fair and merciful on the surface. But, its also feels like a tool for saying "Look, everyone is born with this quest for purpose and meaning and the tools and freewill to search it out. . . . that you didn't find it must be your fault." Again, easy for you to say. You've had the truth of Christianity pounded into your head since the moment of birth.

An alternative is that perhaps your bolded statement about God's intentions and desires might be true, but the details of said intentions and desires are beyond our comprehension. I think you touch on this in the point after the bolded one where you describe a God that chooses to only subtly reveal Himself. And so maybe there is a reason why God allows the vast majority of his children to grow up with basically zero chance of knowing him or seeking that relationship. And maybe there is a reason why our good Hindu friend does not qualify for that rare case of more direct intervention from God. But unless you know those reasons and unless you can explain to me the mind of God, then I think you have to go back to the bolded point and ask whether this premise stands on solid ground.

With all of the 'I don't knows' you hear from Christians about why God allows this or that, it seems we ought to step back and question our stated premises about what we assume God's intentions and desires are. Or we should be able to describe what would cause us to question the bolded premise. Or be honest that why we accept the bolded premise.

That was longer than I meant it to be, sorry.

Based on the way that you're responding leads me to believe you might have been raised in a reformed type church. You seem to have a very concrete "these people are saved and these people aren't despite not being in any way culpable, and there's nothing they can do about it". That sounds like double predestination to me, which I would reject outright. As would the early Church. If that was my view of God, I think I would have a very difficult time remaining Christian.

I would bring up here that there were very early church fathers (100s AD) that argued for universalism. This was eventually rejected by the church, but what was accepted was were the fathers who taught that it's possible that God saves people outside of the church in the non-standard way. What was also rejected was Augustine's flirtation with double predestination. It was not only not accepted, but rejected. Again, this is really, really early. I say that to show your concern isn't novel and it is compassionate. I am with you in your view. So that good Hindu man that is truly striving to be his best does have a chance. I can't tell you what percentage chance that is, since the church is silent on it, but I would personally think it's quite a bit higher than .4%. Idk.

We're dealing with the sense-reference dichotomy. You can have people who believe they are worshiping the creator, and in a sense they are. The problem is their reference is wrong (wrong view of who God is). But if these people are doing their best with what they have, there should be a strong sense of moral duty. That is where we would say prevenient grace comes in. God is talking to them. They are responding. They simply don't have a fully formed understanding of what's going on. So they are aware of the Christian God in a sense (as there is only one God) but don't have the framework to understand Him.

Now this does change once a person comes to understand who God is, but rejects that idea. For example, the apostle Thomas made it to India. Catholicism has been there since the 40s or 50s and never took off. How much of this is because people were unwilling to listen vs never had a chance vs societal pressures, etc? Idk. I can't know. So I can't take a stance on how culpable the people of India were or are for keeping their polytheism. That's a God alone thing.

The important thing to note is that it's not somebody's Hindu-ness or Jewish-ness or Muslim-ness that saves them. It's not the person who is good out of the personal desire to be good. It's being in right relation to the conscience that God is infusing them with, and it has to be acknowledged that it's coming from an external source. So I would say that 100% of humanity has a chance, but the closer you are to the original Christian faith, the better your chances are. That's a crude way of saying it, but I don't have the time to flesh it out. And this is supported in a way by the OT, where we see non-Jews having faith in the one God. They are rarely written about, but these people did exist. What percentage of people? No idea. But it's clearly greater than 0

At the end of the day, all of these people will be saved through the sacrifice Jesus made. They will come into perfect relation with Him because He is the only way to Heaven. He helped them get there, even if they did not know it at the time. He came to fulfill the law by showing us how to live the law AND explaining the true intention behind the law. And yes, He did die for our sins. THAT was His mission, and the church He established is to help the world understand this, even if they can't knock on 100% of doors

It's also important to remember that even those that received direct revelation from God weren't a lock for true belief. Solomon turned to idol worship. Noah screwed up almost immediately after getting off the boat. Moses wasn't allowed to enter the promised land. Judas. There's a bunch of them. They had no ignorance or excuses. We do, so maybe that's a blessing in a way. Again, I'm not God, but sometimes I wonder if there isn't mercy reserved for all of those former Christians that were taught that He intentionally damns people to Hell. Will He say "Yah, that's not on you bud" in the end? Idk. I can't know. But I'd like to think so.

I don't ave time to respond to this entire post right now, but you keep saying a good person this and a good person that. None of us are good people. We all fall short. Falling less short than another doesn't make one better than another.

So any argument about people being good or moral is irrelevant because such people do not exist.

2. Some form of deity exists but we don't understand what/who it is.

I think our versions of a deity reflect the times they're created in. Most religions I know of use a historic text to explain their teachings. At the time they came about, they were revolutionary and changed the world they were in. But for some reason, each of these divinely inspired texts become stale because no new revelations are made to amend the text. For some reason, these divinely inspired texts stop gaining input from the deity.

Hey...so.. um said:

---

I don't ave time to respond to this entire post right now, but you keep saying a good person this and a good person that. None of us are good people. We all fall short. Falling less short than another doesn't make one better than another.

So any argument about people being good or moral is irrelevant because such people do not exist.

---

Why do you say that no one is good?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Hey...so.. um said:

---

I don't ave time to respond to this entire post right now, but you keep saying a good person this and a good person that. None of us are good people. We all fall short. Falling less short than another doesn't make one better than another.

So any argument about people being good or moral is irrelevant because such people do not exist.

---

Why do you say that no one is good?

---

It is the doctrine of total depravity which I do not agree with. Adhered to by Calvinists and Armenians.
It is not adhered to by the Orthodox or Catholics.

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Hey...so.. um said:

---

I don't ave time to respond to this entire post right now, but you keep saying a good person this and a good person that. None of us are good people. We all fall short. Falling less short than another doesn't make one better than another.

So any argument about people being good or moral is irrelevant because such people do not exist.

---

Why do you say that no one is good?

---

It is the doctrine of total depravity which I do not agree with. Adhered to by Calvinists and Armenians.
It is not adhered to by the Orthodox or Catholics.

---

Understood. It wasn't my intention specifically to make the discussion about the merits of the belief in some version of the fallen nature of man.

I'm just trying to find a way to engage with Hey so um. I feel there is an unnecessary level of pedantry to his dismissal of my argument because I referred some people as 'good'.

dermdoc said:

---

Now with the death of my great niece from the floods, I have a peace because I KNOW something good will come out of this.

---

I will say first that I firmly believe that examples, like yours, of faith in the face of tragedy have brought forth good fruit and inspired others to deeper faith.

But I am nonetheless very reluctant to embrace the point of view that there is any balance in the scales of good and evil in the world, or more to the point, that even if there was that I could feel justified in accepting any good that might come to me if it came at the cost of another's suffering. As Dostoevsky had Ivan Karamazov say in "Rebellion", if that is divine justice it is not God that I cannot accept, but I most respectfully return to him the ticket.

Now, Dostoevsky had John 12;24 written on his grave, so it would appear that he did not want to embrace his character's argument.

I wonder if he could have maintained that belief in the face of the horrors that the next century turned out to hold; it seems incomprehensible to view for example the Holocaust as in any way a part of a divine plan from God, and bordering on blasphemous to say that God in some way answered the prayers of his children as a million of them went to the gas chambers at Auschwitz, whether that answer came in this world or the next.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Hey...so.. um said:

---

I don't ave time to respond to this entire post right now, but you keep saying a good person this and a good person that. None of us are good people. We all fall short. Falling less short than another doesn't make one better than another.

So any argument about people being good or moral is irrelevant because such people do not exist.

---

Why do you say that no one is good?

---

It is the doctrine of total depravity which I do not agree with. Adhered to by Calvinists and Armenians.
It is not adhered to by the Orthodox or Catholics.

---

Understood. It wasn't my intention specifically to make the discussion about the merits of the belief in some version of the fallen nature of man.

I'm just trying to find a way to engage with Hey so um. I feel there is an unnecessary level of pedantry to his dismissal of my argument because I referred some people as 'good'.

---

None of us merit heaven on our own account. Therefore, none of us are good enough for heaven. This is what I mean when I say no one is good. People can do good things, but as the bible shows, even the best of us mess up every once in a while. That is why we need Jesus. Even Peter denied Jesus 3 times.

What I'm saying is that when your argument includes "well they were good people", I think that is flawed. Good by human standards, maybe. Good by God's standard. Nope they fell short and deserve hell like the rest of us.

I'm not meaning to be completely dismissive of your posts, but most of them are founded on something I don't believe to be true so my responses may come across that way. I appreciate your logical and deliberate way of looking at Christianity, I used to be the same until I gave my life to Jesus.

Hey...so.. um said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Hey...so.. um said:

---

I don't ave time to respond to this entire post right now, but you keep saying a good person this and a good person that. None of us are good people. We all fall short. Falling less short than another doesn't make one better than another.

So any argument about people being good or moral is irrelevant because such people do not exist.

---

Why do you say that no one is good?

---

It is the doctrine of total depravity which I do not agree with. Adhered to by Calvinists and Armenians.
It is not adhered to by the Orthodox or Catholics.

---

Understood. It wasn't my intention specifically to make the discussion about the merits of the belief in some version of the fallen nature of man.

I'm just trying to find a way to engage with Hey so um. I feel there is an unnecessary level of pedantry to his dismissal of my argument because I referred some people as 'good'.

---

None of us merit heaven on our own account. Therefore, none of us are good enough for heaven. This is what I mean when I say no one is good. People can do good things, but as the bible shows, even the best of us mess up every once in a while. That is why we need Jesus. Even Peter denied Jesus 3 times.

What I'm saying is that when your argument includes "well they were good people", I think that is flawed. Good by human standards, maybe. Good by God's standard. Nope they fell short and deserve hell like the rest of us.

I'm not meaning to be completely dismissive of your posts, but most of them are founded on something I don't believe to be true so my responses may come across that way. I appreciate your logical and deliberate way of looking at Christianity, I used to be the same until I gave my life to Jesus.

---

I really like that. I am not a Calvinist or Armenian or whatever. I am a Christian who desperately needed a Savior.

And for me, if I focus on Jesus, I am good. Scripture is great but Jesus is the key.

I think the vast majority of people who try to find a relationship with God do so successfully. That being said, I truly empathize with what I've heard Alex O'Connor describe as the "non-resistant non-believer."

The people who honestly try to seek God but still struggle to find belief.

My guess, and this is just from my own experience and perspective, is there is something inside your own Ego that is really holding you back. You are conditioning belief on your own terms instead of His, and I just don't think that's ever going to work.

It seems to be quite consistent across all that we know about belief that quite a bit of face planting humility is in order. I think this can be a very big road block for highly intelligent people in particular.

dermdoc said:

---

Hey...so.. um said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Hey...so.. um said:

---

I don't ave time to respond to this entire post right now, but you keep saying a good person this and a good person that. None of us are good people. We all fall short. Falling less short than another doesn't make one better than another.

So any argument about people being good or moral is irrelevant because such people do not exist.

---

Why do you say that no one is good?

---

It is the doctrine of total depravity which I do not agree with. Adhered to by Calvinists and Armenians.
It is not adhered to by the Orthodox or Catholics.

---

Understood. It wasn't my intention specifically to make the discussion about the merits of the belief in some version of the fallen nature of man.

I'm just trying to find a way to engage with Hey so um. I feel there is an unnecessary level of pedantry to his dismissal of my argument because I referred some people as 'good'.

---

None of us merit heaven on our own account. Therefore, none of us are good enough for heaven. This is what I mean when I say no one is good. People can do good things, but as the bible shows, even the best of us mess up every once in a while. That is why we need Jesus. Even Peter denied Jesus 3 times.

What I'm saying is that when your argument includes "well they were good people", I think that is flawed. Good by human standards, maybe. Good by God's standard. Nope they fell short and deserve hell like the rest of us.

I'm not meaning to be completely dismissive of your posts, but most of them are founded on something I don't believe to be true so my responses may come across that way. I appreciate your logical and deliberate way of looking at Christianity, I used to be the same until I gave my life to Jesus.

---

I really like that. I am not a Calvinist or Armenian or whatever. I am a Christian who desperately needed a Savior.

And for me, if I focus on Jesus, I am good. Scripture is great but Jesus is the key.

---

Neither am I. In fact, I'm not sure I could define either of those. I'm the same way Derm, when I focus on Jesus I am good because He is good. When I take my eyes off of Him, I drown just like Peter.

Side note: still praying for you and your family Derm.

Thanks. Raised in a loving Christian family and have know the Lord since I was born basically. I was kind of shocked when I was told I was either an Armenian or Calvinist. I just said I was a Christian who loved the Lord.

And I know I can't define either one of them. God is much bigger than that.

Thank you. When I use 'good' in previous posts in reference to a person, it is not my intention to mean that they are perfect, morally flawless, or God-like. All men are flawed. A good man is a relative description. I appreciate you pointing out the potential issue with my use of 'good', but this feels like a very small leap for one to make toward understanding the purpose of my post.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

I think the vast majority of people who try to find a relationship with God do so successfully. That being said, I truly empathize with what I've heard Alex O'Connor describe as the "non-resistant non-believer."

The people who honestly try to seek God but still struggle to find belief.

My guess, and this is just from my own experience and perspective, is there is something inside your own Ego that is really holding you back. You are conditioning belief on your own terms instead of His, and I just don't think that's ever going to work.

It seems to be quite consistent across all that we know about belief that quite a bit of face planting humility is in order. I think this can be a very big road block for highly intelligent people in particular.

---

In my opinion, the humble position is to understand that a lot of people are sincere and intelligent and yet reach different conclusions than you, and to consider the possibility that you could be wrong. The humble position is not to assume that anyone who does not find your truths must be saddled with self imposed truth roadblocks.