Posted by Frosty (184.108.40.206) on May 31, 2004 at 07:38:11:
My comments on NE were intended as nothing but a sidebar to your suggestion that perhaps our "God" was motivated by some 'audience'. I was merely showing the weakness of that particular train of logic, in that a NE would have no 'peer', and therefore, not likely be motivated by vanity (there is no suggestion in the Hebrew that God's 'jealousy' is of the type you suggest). The remainder was merely a support for the NE concept itself, and wasn't meant to imply you had denied the possibility of NE.
Regarding your comment that this God "has a lot of explaining to do", it only supports my earlier contention that you have a false assumption this God owes you an explaination. Surely you see the difference between wanting an explaination, and being able to justify some notion you are 'due' one.
You said at the time you posted your 'questions' you wished to direct the discussion to your intended subject. You have your answers (albiet, they did not include any suggestion that we know the 'whys', and certainly no suggestion that an explaination would, or will be, forthcoming in this lifetime), but you still haven't revealed your intent. If it is merely to say, "Your God allows evil, hasn't told me why, and therefore, I don't like him", then that, in my opinion, is a position whereby you see yourself as more than you are.
If it is to see whether or not we can reconcile our belief in all-loving, beneficient God who allows evil, then fair enough, but from the comments you have made, I have a real hunch you won't be comfortable with our two primary premises: 1. There is a God, 2. You (we) are not Him.
Post a Followup