Anything Goes Week 4

[@laynie1650]

No arguments, just prayers for Jeykll & Hyde. Prayers for a softened heart, an open mind & someone to love him unconditionally.

[@arbedev4240]

Another good sermon 👍

[@jasonhenn7345]

It's not illogical but rather supremely so, that love requires free will, one can't deny, one cant make another love them, but one can make one say they do. So God allows limited free will, the freedom to choose God's guidance, his will to guide us into the best, or to reject it, both have consequences. The cost of such is that because of pride, most, most often choose to reject that offer of love. Yet they complain vehemently, because they get what they choose. To think that God dosent love us, and want what's best for us, is to not know the gospels about Jesus. So the cost of love is free will, the cost of free will is that most will reject God, and turn to the darkness and do evil. The cost to eliminate evil from occurring is to remove free will, which also causes those whom reject Gods love to protest and complain, as per the biblical teaching is sop. My thought is that God is so patient and gracious, in spite of all who rebel against him, he still chooses love thru freedom of choice.

[@Kvothe3]

Mark says a few times that God is just so far beyond us that we don't have access to his reasons and that we should just rest in the mystery... Fair enough I guess. We have no access to God's reasons, there could be a million morally sufficient reasons that he allows suffering. But we have no idea so maybe there are a million morally abhorrent reasons God allows suffering. But since we don't know, let's just be agnostic about it, resting in the mystery does not mean just give God the benefit of the doubt based on faith. We don't solve mysteries by appealing to bigger mysteries, let's not pretend we did Mark. Edit to add: this same problem applies to the idea that God is possibly withholding 99% of evil. Maybe he is, or maybe he is restraining 99% of all possible goodness and flourishing. We have money of knowing for ourselves what the actual state of affairs is. Logically possible, but equivalent to an infinite number of other logically possible answers, isn't a great response to the problem of suffering Mark.

[@Kvothe3]

What a great speaker...wrong, possibly disingenuous but talented (he has worked very hard to develop his skill and it shows).

[@daxvanderwal]

If you truly think he's wrong, and you're living by the Spirit then gently restore him (Galatians 6:1) in the biblical way Jesus calls to (Matthew 18:15). You can go to the village website right now and send him an email, and I guarantee he'll read it. #BodyofChristStrong

[@Kvothe3]

Mark says a few times that the Bible does say where evil and suffering come from. But of course it does, we know that God created literally everything... Isiah 45:7 says god created suffering, he is the source of all good and all bad. I wonder why Mark, who obviously knows this theologically decided to leave it out of his talk. Maybe he cares more about converting people than telling them the truth?

[@Kvothe3]

Summary of the Job story: God brings up Job to entice Satan into a bet. Of course he knows ahead of time that Satan will accept and knows every detail of the story to follow and the outcome. Not only does he know all this, he is sovereign over the universe and will cause it to unfold exactly according to his will. So then he has a bet with Satan...why you ask? Not to see if he will win (he knows he will), not to show love for Job, nope he sets this all in motion to make a point to Satan for his own glory. A point that needs to be made why you might wonder? Was it worth killing all those kids so that God could win a bet that was never in doubt, to prove a point to a creature (Satan) that he created and who'd only authority is borrowed from God himself according to God's will? Good thing it's only a helpful story and not a historical account of the deeds of an actual god. Yikes!

[@darlenemcintyre9998]

Um....our generation did go to war. Desert Storm, Afghanistan, and we along with our allies we did win that war. But I know what your trying to say.

[@Kvothe3]

So many strawmen in this video. Atheists argue for the logical problem of evil...and what do you know that's invalid! Agreed, but I wonder why he didn't mention any of the stronger forms of the challenge. Maybe he cares more about getting people to church than he does about fairly representing the criticisms of his beliefs and being intellectually honest?

[@Kvothe3]

Mark argues that God's original plan was not to have any suffering or evil. But God instantiated this universe knowing ahead of time what would happen, he set things up for his glory knowing how it all would go. Imagine a parent who needs to feel heroic. They leave their sugar craving 3 year old alone with a bowl of sugar cereal. But they pour a poison into it as well and they tell that 3 year old not to eat the cereal. Then they leave and watch from another room. The kid resists for awhile but then gives in and eats the cereal which tastes great and they finish the whole bowl. At which point the parent rushed in and administers the antidote and demands that everyone praise them for being such a heroic parent. Good job God, you set Adam and Eve up to fail, knowing they would and somehow evil is thier fault. Nice try.

[@Kvothe3]

Mark pretends he has an answer for the problem of free will..he doesn't. Either your choices are constrained by reasons or you make them for no reasons. In both cases you have no free will so the free will theodocy is a non starter and Mark should stop trying it. But maybe he cares more about having a great sound bite, a quick punchy line, than he does about being honest with us about what he can actually demonstrate?

[@michaelo2535]

...So which church did you plant?

[@Kvothe3]

@@michaelo2535 Relevance?

[@joeman01]

Point 2 said there’s no easy answer ... what gave you the impression that he pretends to give a clear answer?

[@Kvothe3]

@@joeman01 He is saying he has no clear definitive answer to the problem of suffering. But he floats the free will defense as a possible answer. My objection is that it is not a possible answer because it depends on libertarian free will, which is philosophically problematic. It's nice that he admits he doesn't have an answer for suffering, but its odd that he just assumes there must be a good one even if he doesn't know what it is. How does he rule out a malevolent God, or an indifferent God, or no god at all? He seems to just be arguing that because God has to be real and the Biblee has to be true,therefore there must be a good, morally sufficient reason for suffering. This is a great response for keeping people who already believe happy, it makes them feel confident that they are in the right. For the rest of us, however, it is just an assertion of faith without evidence.