Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

If God is all powerful, then why can’t he stop evil from happening? That would mean he’s not all powerful. If God refuses to prevent evil, then he can not be all good. So can a Christian explain how God is all powerful and good in this case?
Quora.com ^ | 9/3/2023, | Daniel1212

Posted on 09/03/2023 10:10:00 AM PDT by daniel1212

Certainly that logical fallacy, a superficial ignorant parroted polemic (such as invokes everything from the Flood to AIDS as a moral argument against God), can be answered.

There simply is no contradiction btwn God being omnipotent (and omniscient) and all good (from whom all good has come, as the creator of an exceedingly vast, systematicity ordered universe, exquisitely fine-tuned for our physical life), and the allowance of evil,

For unless you want a world in which mankind is like a cloud or a robot, then allowing evil is a necessary good if:

Man is to be a being with the ability to make moral choices;

And if such choices are to have effects/consequences, for both good and evil,

And which consequences can affect others as well as self, directly or indirectly.

But which God can make to ultimately work out for what is Good, in the light of all that can be known.

Which includes just punishment for eternal beings which manifest they wanted the opposite of God, (John 3:19–21) though only being punished according to what they could and did choose to do, (Deuteronomy 24:16; Luke 10:1- 15; Revelation 20:12; cf. 2 Corinthians 8:12) while making all to work out to the benefit of those who honestly choose Him over sin, seeking and finding the mercy of God in the Lord Christ. (Roman 8:28)

Consider some alternatives. God could have,

1. made us (and angels) with no moral standard or sense or deprived us from the moral ability to respond to or choose good [morally insensible, even as with clouds].

2. granted us free moral agency, but never have given us anything to choose between [negation of moral choices, and no devil or God].

3. left man only with recourse to finite competing sources as his ultimate object of spiritual affection and allegiance and source of security, and supreme judge of what is good [atheism and atheistic governments].

4. called man to make the Creator their ultimate object of spiritual affection and allegiance and source of security as being what is right and what is best for man, versus finite created beings or things being one's "god," and provided moral revelation and influences. Yet always have moved us to do good, and never have allowed us to choose evil (even if as by making believing in God and choosing good so utterly compelling — like God appearing daily and always doing miracles on demand, and preventing any seeming evidence to the contrary - so that no man could attempt to make excuses for not believing in Him [effective negation of any freedom to choose]).

5. allowed created beings a negative alternative to faithfulness to the creator, and the ability to choose evil, but immediately reversed any effects and not penalized such [negation of consequences to choices].

6. allowed us to do bad, but restricted us to a place where it would harm no one but ourselves [isolated consequences to choices].

7. allowed us to choose between good and evil, and to affect others by it, but not ultimately reward or punish us accordingly [negation of judicial and eternal consequences, positive or negative].

8. given us the ability to choose, and alternatives to chose between, and to face and overcome evil or be overcome by it, with the ability to effect others and things by our choices, and to exercise some reward or punishment in this life for morality, and ultimately reward or punishment all accordingly [pure justice].

9. restrained evil to some degree, while making the evil that man does to work out for what is Good, with justice yet with mercy, and grace, towards those who want good, and who thus the One who is supremely Good.

10. in accordance with 8, the Creator could have chose to manifest Himself in the flesh, and by Him to provide man a means of escaping the ultimate retribution of Divine justice, and instead receive unmerited eternal favor, at God's own expense and credit, appropriated by a repentant obedient faith, in addition to the loss or gaining of certain rewards based on one's quality of work as a child of God. And eternally punish, to varying degrees relative to iniquity and accountability, those whose response to God's revelation manifested they want evil, [justice maintained while mercy and grace given].

But man, as an exceedingly finite being who is but a speck in this universe,

and in the sea of humanity,

and whose existence on earth occupies an infinitesimal amount of time,

and who is very ignorant of what all the effects of his choices have been and will be, in time and eternity,

and quite impotent to make them all work out as he/she wants, not only in one’s own life but in others,

and for this life, as well as eternity,

is in no position to sit in judgment upon an omniscient and omnipotent being and giver of life,

who alone knows what all the effects will be of even our most seemingly insignificant actions or inactions,

not only in this life but for eternity.

And can make all work out for what is Good, for what is just, as well as showing mercy and grace.

And which the God of the Bible has often manifestly done already, and promises to do for those who choose the ultimate Good, the living and true God, (Romans 8:28) by His grace, thanks be to God.

This the choices of an omniscient omnipotent Being cannot be judged as being evil or good by extremely finite and relatively ignorant man. Not that - in my ignorance myself - I have/do not too often protested His dealing with me as I subjectively imagined Him, though objectively blessed, and I am being blessed right now listening to,

uplifting spiritual worship: Oden Fong and Friends: Lord of All Creation. Glory to God


TOPICS: Education; Health/Medicine; Religion; Science
KEYWORDS: agnosticism; antitheists; atheism; becausehehatesyou; hatefulgod; theodicy; whichgod
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 561-572 next last
To: daniel1212

All powerful - all good and all knowing...


421 posted on 09/04/2023 8:48:06 PM PDT by GOPJ (Hunter Biden’s pet name for his father on his cellphone? It was “Pedo Peter”. -- Jim Hoft )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek

I think I’ll cede the point, now that I looked again at my post #185. I now see my question might be interpreted as an accusation, which I don’t want to do.

I only hope people will consider their ways.


422 posted on 09/04/2023 10:28:55 PM PDT by reasonisfaith (What are the personal implications if the Resurrection of Christ is a true event in history?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Turning your question around about "extraordinary evidence"... [...] So the old designation of "peer reviewed" doesn't quite have the old sheen that it used to [...] "the plural of anecdotes is not data" does NOT mean that anecdotes *must* be false [...]

I understand what you are saying, in your wordy way. You are, in effect, stating the obvious (implying that I didn't already know or give sufficient consideration to these matters?) But the "net-net" (as the late-great Kevin Samuels was wont to say) of your posting is to simply demean the value of evidence / the Scientific Method, itself.

In your initial posting up above in which you questioned the meaning of my tag-line, you began by quibbling about the meaning of "extraordinary" - as though there could be much misunderstanding about that amongst us educated FReepers. You never validated the basic premise: That, as a claim becomes more and more "outrageous" (i.e., in contradiction to commonsense, lived experience, accepted wisdom, etc.), the supporting evidence had better become increasingly firm.

You never acknowledged that!

OF COURSE, misuse can occur amongst researchers, who are only human. But the basic premise is nonetheless true, right?

If you are unable to acknowledge that, then I must cast doubts upon your acting here in Good Faith. Or perhaps you are merely laboring under the Fallacy of the Demand for Perfection.

Regards,

423 posted on 09/05/2023 1:59:52 AM PDT by alexander_busek (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 416 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Just a reminder.

“Without the aid of trained emotions the intellect is powerless against the animal organism… In battle it is not syllogisms that will keep the reluctant nerves and muscles to their post in the third hour of bombardment. The crudest sentimentalism (such as Gaius and Titius would wince at) about a flag or a country or a regiment will be of more use. We were told it all long ago by Plato. As the king governs by his executive, so Reason in man must rule the mere appetites by means of the ‘spirited element.’ The head rules the belly through the chest.” — C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

Always with the side-stepping with you!

Whenever I formulate a concise claim (e.g., "a friend would use every rhetorical tool at his disposal to help another friend; he would marshal the most-compelling evidence available; he would emblazon his Truth across the heavens, if he had the power!"), you never directly address it, but rather launch into a literary digression. Not at all off topic, but not concise, and not in direct answer to my queries. I would prefer that you respond to my questions with a Yes or a No, and with a minimum of quibbling.

QUESTION: Would you or would you not wish to provide the most-compelling evidence at your disposal in order to convince a loved one of some important truth?

If not: WHY not?

Would formulating important truths in as clear a manner as possible somehow degrade your friend's Free Will?!

Regards,

424 posted on 09/05/2023 2:11:23 AM PDT by alexander_busek (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
"Without the aid of trained emotions the intellect is powerless against the animal organism… In battle it is not syllogisms that will keep the reluctant nerves and muscles to their post in the third hour of bombardment. [...]"

I'll remember those wise words the next time I find myself in a foxhole on a battlefield.

But to quote them here and now, in this austere drawing room environment, where we are attempting to calmly discuss certain differences of opinion and determine truth is... disingenuous, a deflection.

The excellent quote does NOT deny the value of the intellect (and, by extension, intellectual inquiry based upon Logic, hard evidence, etc.) - it merely distracts from it.

Can you now finally accept my tag-line?

Regards,

425 posted on 09/05/2023 2:19:17 AM PDT by alexander_busek (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek

People are not rational creatures (on the whole).
People are creatures who rationalize.

There’s a difference between dispassionately identifying the a course of action, and actually *doing* it.

And dry logic doesn’t always get the job done.

Which is why there are so many smokers and motorized-scooter fatties anymore.


426 posted on 09/05/2023 2:55:23 AM PDT by grey_whiskers ( The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek
I understand what you are saying, in your wordy way. You are, in effect, stating the obvious (implying that I didn't already know or give sufficient consideration to these matters?) But the "net-net" (as the late-great Kevin Samuels was wont to say) of your posting is to simply demean the value of evidence / the Scientific Method, itself.

No it's not. It's to point out that the scientific model isn't followed anymore.

And in its place has come p-value cherry picking, fraud, deliberately poorly crafted studies funded and published to support pre-determined conclusions, and propaganda.

In your initial posting up above in which you questioned the meaning of my tag-line, you began by quibbling about the meaning of "extraordinary" - as though there could be much misunderstanding about that amongst us educated FReepers.

That goes back to the typo over savoir vs connaître .

Savoir is the fact, data knowledge. Connaître is familiarity, or knowing a place or person; for the present uses, God.

The success of physical models has led to the unwarranted philosophical belief that there is no God; that gods were only ignorant attempts to and account for mysterious natural phenomena; and that all of existence can be accounted for by reductionism within a worldview of a closed universe of only mathematically coherent and consistent physical causes.

You never validated the basic premise: That, as a claim becomes more and more "outrageous" (i.e., in contradiction to commonsense, lived experience, accepted wisdom, etc.), the supporting evidence had better become increasingly firm.

That's because that approach only works (with application to Occams' riding lawn mower) to minimize Type 1 category errors. It leaves you wide open to Type 2 Category errors.

The fracture point (returning to French verbs) is that the materialist skeptic says, "Prove to me to my satisfaction that God exists (and which 'god' anyway?), based on observation of natural phenomena, subject to methodological constraints on hat data is admissible and how it was gathered, to include everything down to chain of custody." In doing so, the atheist likes to project smugness rays at people in that "well, miracles are impossible, because ECREE" and they are secure in their knowledge that they can always hand wave a superior materialistic explanation for what is set before them, than any putative, known-in-advance-to-be-inferior, outmoded "religious" reason. And, if anything sufficiently out of the ordinary shows up, it can be handwaved away by "it violates the laws of nature; it *must* be false; and besides, the anecdotes underlying it can be dismissed as myth, legend, hysteria, fanaticism, wishful thinking, and besides, "not controlled conditions so we don't know it even happened in the first place."

The theists (and more specifically, the Jews and Christians, who have academic traditions, as opposed to say Muslims who account for everything by Inshallah, or the Eastern religions who approach things in an entirely different way (we *were* a dream, say the Hindus), have an entirely different set of questions. Insofar as they hold to the rationality of God, they are all for systematic study (originally to get to know God better, then for application and improved lifestyle, which has now degenerated into grifting and money grubbing), but they are also interested in *who* God is, and how he acts. And Christianity and Judaism both are originally concerned in how God acts in the world, interfering, as it were, in the realm of men (Abraham leaving his home at the direction of God, the Jews and the Passover and the plagues and death of the firstborn of Egypt; Christians with Jesus saying "If you do not believe me because of what I say, at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves" and of course the Resurrection.

But there is one other point. Yes, a literary reference. This is from Chesterton's Orthodoxy:

The question of whether miracles ever occur is a question of common sense and of ordinary historical imagination: not of any final physical experiment. One may here surely dismiss that quite brainless piece of pedantry which talks about the need for "scientific conditions" in connection with alleged spiritual phenomena. If we are asking whether a dead soul can communicate with a living it is ludicrous to insist that it shall be under conditions in which no two living souls in their senses would seriously communicate with each other. The fact that ghosts prefer darkness no more disproves the existence of ghosts than the fact that lovers prefer darkness disproves the existence of love. If you choose to say, "I will believe that Miss Brown called her fiance a periwinkle or, any other endearing term, if she will repeat the word before seventeen psychologists," then I shall reply, "Very well, if those are your conditions, you will never get the truth, for she certainly will not say it."

Recall the passage from Scripture about Jesus: "And he could do no mighty works there because of their unbelief." Miracles are not regular; by definition. One cannot compel them by setting up the initial conditions in a reproducible state, as the materialist has taught himself to do by dealing with the physical world. First, it is asserted that we are dealing with a sentient being: one who has "Free Will"; and if He says "you have to Trust Me first" then holding your breath until you turn blue won't do a thing, no matter how much you want to complain about irreproducibility.

Which goes back to the other point, about the skeptic being secure in the knowledge that "if it violates the laws of nature, it MUST be false." Never mind the obvious, that correlation is not causation, and that the Laws of Nature are generalizations based on observation under controlled conditions; science (properly performed) is still dependent on the data (the famous Feynman quote, "If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's WRONG"). But step back and look at it (for the sake of argument) from God's point of view, as it were. If God, or a prophet, were to declare "Behold my power! The Sun will rise in the East tomorrow!" -- people would either yawn, or laugh. Because the Sun always rises in the East "anyway": the skeptic uses the regularity as a proof God is not necessary to explain; the believer says it is evidence of how He created and sustains the world (which shades into metaphysics / theology). So what is God supposed to do? The only way to get our attention, is to do something which CAN'T be explained by ordinary means.

The skeptic would reply, "Well, there you go. That proves it's in bad faith, God should just do it out in the open, fairly." But the reason there is a mismatch there, is that God does not exist merely for the sake of satisfying the intellectual curiosity of a subset of highly-trained, run-into-a-ditch natural philosophers, for the sake of scoring dorm-room debating points. He has other plans and purposes. Which common sense ought to tell you is fairly obvious, since He is, well, you know, *GOD*. Secondly, the skeptic adds, how do you distinguish between WHICH gods? There are many miraculous accounts. if you accept one, you have to accept them all. ("So there!"). But this isn't true. That line of thought comes as a result of the skeptic having been trained in the rudiments of experimentation, the requirement of neutrality, and the assumption of equal a priori probabilities. And such is necessary, if one wants to make sure to conduct experiments as accurately as possible, without one's personal hunches affecting how the experiment is measured.

It never occurs to the skeptic, that choosing between true and false gods is not merely a lab experiment, with the requisite white coat and notebook. Still less that there is any guarantee, implicit or explicit, that all supernatural forces are equal, or equally to be trusted: that is a habit of thought brought in by dealing exclusively with natural phenomena which are impersonal. Most of the underlying assumptions from SCIENCE™! go out the window when transitioning from the physical sciences ("natural philosophy") to Theology. Not because (as is fondly imagined) because religion is too weak and incompetent to hold up under rigorous scrutiny; rather, because the tools of the scientist are too coarse-grained, and inapt, for dealing with subjects that have will, intention, and power; and are not only free from the "requirement" that they act the same way every time from initial conditions -- but they aren't even required to tell you if they're playing in your experiment at all.

427 posted on 09/05/2023 3:51:53 AM PDT by grey_whiskers ( The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek
Would formulating important truths in as clear a manner as possible somehow degrade your friend's Free Will?!

It's not that it denigrates the Free Will; it's that it's not enough to necessarily overcome either bad habits, physiological addiction, insecurity, or sheer cussedness.

428 posted on 09/05/2023 3:53:15 AM PDT by grey_whiskers ( The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: VideoDoctor
2 Timothy 3 nkjv
 
1 But know this, that in the last days [a]perilous times will come: 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 unloving, [b]unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! 6 For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, 7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith; 9 but they will progress no further, for their folly will be manifest to all, as theirs also was.
 
 
10 But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance, 11 persecutions, afflictions, which happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra—what persecutions I endured. And out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
 
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for [c]instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

429 posted on 09/05/2023 5:05:33 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek
Would that God would be so kind!

I can tell that the Christian god is not to your liking.

Is there ANY that you would accept as being the correct one? (or 2 or 3...)

430 posted on 09/05/2023 5:09:20 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

Possibly; but it appears more an itch that cannot be scratched.

NOTHING seems to satisfy, and frustration seems to be growing.

Not finding an answer by their own effort; they demand those who HAVE found an Answer to give them a foolproof method of doing so.

Thomas Edison on the electric light bulb:

“I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.”


431 posted on 09/05/2023 5:17:12 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers; alexander_busek
Because if God existed, then He would fix things. He would not tolerate Injustice.

Don't worry.

HE's going to.

432 posted on 09/05/2023 5:19:23 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith
I now see my question might be interpreted as an accusation,

Not to worry, because it would only be one of many in this thread.

433 posted on 09/05/2023 5:21:59 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek
...you began by quibbling about the meaning of "extraordinary" ...

GW did this TOO?

434 posted on 09/05/2023 5:23:04 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek
Or perhaps you are merely laboring under the Fallacy of the Demand for Perfection.

Quite possible.

Others seem to be as well.

435 posted on 09/05/2023 5:23:59 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

You ARE kinda wordy!


436 posted on 09/05/2023 5:25:20 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek; grey_whiskers
If I were arguing with a friend, trying to convince him to give up smoking cigarettes, I would not hold back; rather, I would provide him with the most compelling logic and forensic-level evidence I could. I would not be troubled by the possibility that I was depriving him of his "Free Will" by delivering to him the most-convincing arguments I could! (How could supplying him with the unvarnished "Truth" somehow deprive him of his faculties / Free Will?!) Would that God would be so kind!

Actually to be analogous you need to be bringing the person to want to believe in you, as in a covenanted relationship rather then not doing a particular things due to the motive of of self-preservation compelled by evidence he may not want. While appeal to the latter motive can initially have its place, even them the call is to believe as to enter into a relationship that will result in more than simply not doing something harmful to self.

And unless there is a deeper change in the heart of your hypothetical smoker, then he will likely go back to smoking despite the most compelling logic and forensic-level evidence against it, which he can even resent, and you for presenting it.

As said, the Bible shows that belief in God in the light of compelling evidence did not translate into willingly obedient faith, and your boot-camp world of instant punishment for every wrong choice as the means of solving the problem of evil would not either. Even old Pharoah was compelled to finally relent and heed Moses, but he quickly went back to his old ways when more space was given him.

A man like Dawkins can admit that there it is unlikely that evidence could convince him that there is a god, postulating he likely could explain such away, and the implicit faith of atheists, that of the universe will one day be found explainable by purely natural laws, goes alone with this, typically excluding a Creator even as a hypothesis. As does their wholesale rejection of changes in peoples heart and lives - from innumerable hymns to profound documentaries - as at least testifying to the supernatural.

Meanwhile, plenty more have a belief in God but which is not that of a relational life. But as history past and present shows, multitudes of conversions of spiritually seeking souls find enough evidence needed for persuasion in this spiritual realm, which extends beyond what the surgeon general says.

And as in marriage, a truly meaningful choice is one that is chosen above stiff competition. Truth in this realm is like a veiled women, not a cheap bare all, but with enough revelation to elicit further investigation of heart, and warranting, yet only those who enter into covenant will receive the fullest revelation. (Psalms 25:14; Exodus 33:18; John 14:21; Revelation 22:4)

With that I will leave you, this having taken enough precious time and energy with my stiff old fingers. And in which you have been unable to sustain a compelling moral argument against the God of the Bible without degrading him as one who is not omniscient and omnipotent, and who thus acts in the light of all that can be known. And your alternatives to what God could have done in the light of the problem of evil, that of a world in which mankind is like a cloud or a robot (OP option #1), or world of instant punishment for every wrong choice (akin to option #4) simply warrants some expansion to one my non-viable alternatives to what God could have.

May God grant you “repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” (2 Timothy 2:25)

437 posted on 09/05/2023 7:00:47 AM PDT by daniel1212 (As a damned+destitute sinner turn 2 the Lord Jesus who saves souls on His acct + b baptized 2 obey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

These are more complex topics than appear at first blush.

Try explaining Fermi’s Golden Rule in 25 words or less, without assuming prior knowledge of general physical concepts or atomic theory...


438 posted on 09/05/2023 7:47:34 AM PDT by grey_whiskers ( The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 436 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

The double irony here is that God *is* perfect.

It is the world which is fallen and imperfect.

Somehow atheists never count the crucifixion/Resurrection as having anything to do with fixing it; usually on the grounds of insufficiency or irrelevancy.

But that’s begging the question of what is really broken. The artist as is their won’t, focuses their attention on contemporary society (and the occasional natural disaster).

The Christians point out that the spiritual — separation from God — predated these others, and is more severe.


439 posted on 09/05/2023 8:06:31 AM PDT by grey_whiskers ( The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 435 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers; Elsie
Trying to explain God to a person who doesn't want to understand isn't possible, regardless of how eloquently and intricately the case is made.

And even if a person wants to understand the case for God, God--being the embodiment of Love--must be perceived with the heart, not the head.

440 posted on 09/05/2023 8:08:27 AM PDT by RoosterRedux (A person who seeks the truth with a strong bias will never find it. He will only confirm his bias.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 561-572 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson