The Passion of the Christ: please help me

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
  why [...]  why [...] why [...]why [...] screw it up

Why the need for all of these "Why???" queries anyway?  I though HE was, supposedly, omniscient, or something..?  Couldn't he just dispense with it?   Or maybe God isn't omnipotent after all.  Maybe HE needs our help?
 
 
 -----
 "Nobody in football should be called a genius. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein."
 -Joe Theismann

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by Taipei Personality:
   

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
  why [...]  why [...] why [...]why [...] screw it up

Why the need for all of these "Why???" queries anyway?  I though HE was, supposedly, omniscient, or something..?  Couldn't he just dispense with it?   Or maybe God isn't omnipotent after all.  Maybe HE needs our help?
 [/b]

blah blah blah. . .

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
  blah blah blah. . .

What?  Have you run out of great authors/philosophers to quote?

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by Taipei Personality:
   

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
  blah blah blah. . .

What?  Have you run out of great authors/philosophers to quote? [/b]

no, far from it.  but, what do you care anyway.  you admittedly ignore them.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
 no, far from it.  but, what do you care anyway.  you admittedly ignore them.

"Reality is that which when you stop believing in it does not go away."
 Philip K. Dick

[ggw]

Who said God had perfect foresight anyway?
 
 If you read Genesis, Each time he creates something new, it's followed by the line - " and He saw that it was good."
 
 Many have interpreted this to mean that He was kind of ad-libbing the whole creation gig.  If he knew exactly how everything would turn out, why would he have to judge it as "good" after the fact?

[Celeste]

Originally posted by j_lee:
  Enid tries to rebel  but is ultimately just an onscreen cliche of every too-cool-for-that art student.  If I want to experience that I can do it at any local university.

she should have shacked up with Steve Buscemi and lived happily ever after

[markie]

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
   why would he have to judge it as "good" after the fact?

Alternatively, you could argue that this is the sign of a proud God. He is God, of course whatever he does is going to be good, right?

[ggw]

Originally posted by Forumie Partie Markie:
 Alternatively, you could argue that this is the sign of a proud God. He is God, of course whatever he does is going to be good, right?

Not necessarily.
 
 Remember that whole Noah deal?  He had to erase the whole blackboard and start again.

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
  Who said God had perfect foresight anyway?
 
 If you read Genesis, Each time he creates something new, it's followed by the line - " and He saw that it was good."

Why didn't HE KNOW it was good?  Did he use HIS eyes to see it?  Does HE need sensory organs?
 
 ...doesn't sound like the actions of an omnipotent being to me.  Rather the opposite.

[markie]

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
 
 
 Remember that whole Noah deal?  He had to erase the whole blackboard and start again.

That is the one bible story I have most trouble with.
 
 For one it is not possible on many levels. Not genetically perfect, Lions would eat the antelope..... etc.
 
 But more importantly, it shows a bitter god who has control over events and this world. Neither do I see as being particularly appealing. If he had the kind of power to cause a worldwide flood surely he could temper down a couple of waves.
 
 So that sets up a conundrum, either he does not care, or he does not care enough anymore to do anything.

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

I thought you said "temper down a couple of WIVES" when I first read this.
 
 

Originally posted by Forumie Partie Markie:
   

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
 
 
 Remember that whole Noah deal?  He had to erase the whole blackboard and start again.

That is the one bible story I have most trouble with.
 
 For one it is not possible on many levels. Not genetically perfect, Lions would eat the antelope..... etc.
 
 But more importantly, it shows a bitter god who has control over events and this world. Neither do I see as being particularly appealing. If he had the kind of power to cause a worldwide flood surely he could temper down a couple of waves.
 
 So that sets up a conundrum, either he does not care, or he does not care enough anymore to do anything. [/b]

[Got Haggis?]

cliff notes:
 
 http://hosted.tribalwar.com/musashi/passion.html

[ggw]

Originally posted by Forumie Partie Markie:
 That is the one bible story I have most trouble with.
 
 For one it is not possible on many levels. Not genetically perfect, Lions would eat the antelope..... etc.
 
 But more importantly, it shows a bitter god who has control over events and this world. Neither do I see as being particularly appealing. If he had the kind of power to cause a worldwide flood surely he could temper down a couple of waves.
 
 So that sets up a conundrum, either he does not care, or he does not care enough anymore to do anything.

After the flood, he said he wouldn't do it again.
 
 The rest is a little too complex for a nightclub message board.  Try CS Lewis' "The Problem of Pain" for an answer to the "why do bad things happen if He is a loving God" question.
 
 
 

The Problem of Pain answers the universal question, "Why would an all-loving, all-knowing God allow people to experience pain and suffering?" Master Christian apologist C.S. Lewis asserts that pain is a problem because our finite, human minds selfishly believe that pain-free lives would prove that God loves us. In truth, by asking for this, we want God to love us less, not more than he does. "Love, in its own nature, demands the perfecting of the beloved; that the mere 'kindness' which tolerates anything except suffering in its object is, in that respect at the opposite pole from Love." In addressing "Divine Omnipotence," "Human Wickedness," "Human Pain," and "Heaven," Lewis succeeds in lifting the reader from his frame of reference by artfully capitulating these topics into a conversational tone, which makes his assertions easy to swallow and even easier to digest. Lewis is straightforward in aim as well as honest about his impediments, saying, "I am not arguing that pain is not painful. Pain hurts. I am only trying to show that the old Christian doctrine that being made perfect through suffering is not incredible. To prove it palatable is beyond my design." The mind is expanded, God is magnified, and the reader is reminded that he is not the center of the universe as Lewis carefully rolls through the dissertation that suffering is God's will in preparing the believer for heaven and for the full weight of glory that awaits him there. While many of us naively wish that God had designed a "less glorious and less arduous destiny" for his children, the fortune lies in Lewis's inclination to set us straight with his charming wit and pious mind.

[lionforce5]

Originally posted by Celeste:
   

Originally posted by j_lee:
  Enid tries to rebel  but is ultimately just an onscreen cliche of every too-cool-for-that art student.  If I want to experience that I can do it at any local university.

she should have shacked up with Steve Buscemi and lived happily ever after [/b]

That would've made it even worse.