God is evil if He has miracles and does not use them.

It is symbolically a start. Communion is where His will becomes our will and His thoughts inspire our thoughts. Communion is admittedly about Doing and not simply Being...that much I'll give you. Communion is a common union between His presence and ourselves.But you never answered my question.What is the difference between offering someone food and force feeding everyone so as not to exclude anyone?

Our topic is degenerating into mindless chatter. I swear...you two! Lets return to the roots of this topic, shall we?G.I.A.asserts that "the judge should always be questioned."Logically we can assume that this is true given that we created beings have a brain...free will...and the ability to apply such questioning.Additionally, we have moved beyond God having miracles to us having responsibility.Is it evident that we have concluded that God, if God exists works through human free will and responsibility?That our conclusion as to the goodness or evil intent of God is subjective?A cup of coffee given to my 91 year old Mother will always gain me a heartfelt "thank you".A cup of coffee bought at a price and given to a shivering homeless person may or may not elicit a "thank you" but I feel internally that it is of greater value in the grand scheme of things---after all, Mom can have coffee whenever she wishes whereas the cold homeless person depends upon the generosity of society at some level to answer their prayer/plea/need.Ringo may rightly argue that humans are evil if they have the means to help someone and do not actualize the opportunity.Perhaps a broad question:Are humans evil if they do not feed every hungry soul they encounter?(and which they are capable at that moment of feeding)Is God evil if He does not solve every problem which He is capable of solving?Edited by Phat, : added jabberwocky

Lets get back to the idea that God if God exists has a basic responsibility to do all He can for humanity...that is, if he truly cares.Humanity itself, it can be argued, is often biased, self serving, and shirking our responsibility to each other...that is if an absolute standard can be established.

In my mind, you two (Stile & Ringo) simply like to try and frame an argument and let that framework be the "winner".Not that I don't respect both of you....your only flaw is that you somehow can't understand nor experience God in any way shape or form. Critics would say that both of you assume there to be no God and that human wisdom is the ultimate authority. You just have issues as to which humans wisdom gets the final say. Allow me to try and reframe this topic according to its initial premise.1) God exists.
2) Human wisdom exists and is allowed to judge God.
3) Often, what ends up apparently happening is that human wisdom individually attempts to define and perfect its collective self. In my mind, this will never be resolved unless a consensus is reached.I personally believe that human wisdom can never judge God, nor are we ever capable of doing so. Some arguments have been made that have humans judging the "god character" in the Bible...but such arguments never allow for the belief or idea that God is superior to man and never in need of correction...nor judgement. Thus, the only conceivable reason I could see for God allowing humans to judge Him would be for the benefit of humans...rather than the correction of God. (God sets Himself up as a hypothetical judge needing to be judged, in other words) Can you imagine God communing(communicating) with humanity in any way shape or form? If so, what is Gods role in the communion? What is our role? Is the gas company analogous to God? Do people get to decide whether or not God is treating them well? In the basic analysis, are the people for or against God? Do they value each others wisdom more(higher) than Gods? Can they even conceive of what Gods wisdom is? Can anyone?(even speculatively) Is the judgement limited to the people themselves? Is our only choice voting either for our own system or that of other humans? Is God not in any way involved in the reasoning process? In other words, no one man gets to decide everything, right? I suppose this would hypothetically include Jesus...or am I wrong? In other words, the solution is rarely if ever absolute(or at least in your mind it shouldn't be.) If I recall correctly, you would even be willing to defend satan against God in court. I suppose that a jury trial would be the fairest. If so, would the opinion of a jury composed of a multitude of people carry more weight than the decisions of a Creator of all things seen and unseen? Apparently Stile champions the rights of the individual. Thus if even one individual was hurt(according to their own feelings) they should be recognized as a victim. Are you saying that each individual carries equal weight in a judgement process against God?(hypothetically)