Good vs. Evil

Joeman said:
It's common practice for Christians to harmonize things away with other versus if there is a verse they don't like. Hey, you don't need other versus to harmonize something away if you like the verse.
Click to expand...
Not so Joe. Christians take the Bible as a congruent whole: The Written Word of God. It is interpreted by them in that light. It's not what they like or don't like... it's what's necessary. Christians don't I2E... or shouldn't anyway. When we see the man must marry her and see her father has the right of refusal and can also infer that she has a choice of who to marry we then see the man must marry her if she and/or her family agrees to it. Here's some more harmony for you Joe: ever heard of Isaac and Rebekah?

Genesis 24
"[3] I want you to swear by the LORD, the God of heaven and the God of earth, that you will not get a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I am living,..."
"[5] The servant asked him, "What if the woman is unwilling to come back with me to this land?..."
"[8] If the woman is unwilling to come back with you, then you will be released from this oath of mine..."​
Any female interested in some real romance just click on the Genesis 24 link and have a read. ;) Danielle Steel[e] is nothing. ;)
If there is no way I can convince you regardless how much evidence there are, there is no point.
Click to expand...
Joe, you are so... starting to sound like an aevangelist. Culture is culture Joe, the Bible mirrors the culture of the time. It must be interpreted in the light of that time and the culture of our time. You say it as if the Bible imposed the cultural norms but in fact it merely reflects them.
Paul DOES say contradicting things to different people. In Galatians, he said the following the law or not is inconsequential. In Romans, he said the law should needs to be upheld.
Click to expand...
Should needs? Talk straight Joe, you're stuttering. I do my best to remember exact verses but I am not that much of a braniac. You speak of evidence... please present it clearly. Where exactly in these books does Paul say that (in what context)?
 
Anomalous said:
Evil is winning because of inactivity of god. But its not her fault.

the problem is people.

300,000 people died in sumatra Sunamee. Humans can build a warning system but god did not warn, even though she is more powerful. But thoes shameless theist never complained to god for her inactivity , so she thinks alls ok.
Click to expand...
OK I get to ask ask you a question now.

Why did Mother Nature, as an after thought apparently, insert time into her creation?

Give up? Or do you know the answer? Either way, Mother Nature inserted time in her creation so everything doesn't happen all at once.
Geistkiesel​
 
if we look at it from the buddhist point of view, good cannot exist without evil.
The only difference between good and evil is how the beholder see's it, rather like beauty.
an example would be that the second world war to some people (or the majority) hitler was evil. However to the nazis he was/is a hero, the embodyment of good. It is true that histroy is written by the victors, if we had lost the second world war we would be praising hitler for killing the jews as the history books teach us what the powers that be want them to.
(please don't take this wrong, somehow every time the nazis are mentioned the person who posts 1st is branded a faschist its just a really good, if somewhat extreme, example.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top