The blinding power of fear

[Pahansiri]

If we hear of a father who knows his young child will be taken, raped, tortured and killed yet does nothing but stand by and watch and in addition allows in the killer handing him the keys and telling him have it, we rightly cheer when he is rightly convicted in court.

But many will say when you make that father “god” that theses same actions are acts of an all powerful loving being. He knows best and it was best for her and a loving thing they demand.

Fear is a powerful tool.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
If we hear of a father who knows his young child will be taken, raped, tortured and killed yet does nothing but stand by and watch and in addition allows in the killer handing him the keys and telling him have it, we rightly cheer when he is rightly convicted in court.

But many will say when you make that father “god” that theses same actions are acts of an all powerful loving being. He knows best and it was best for her and a loving thing they demand.

Fear is a powerful tool. All we are is dust in the wind dude!

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Iacchus
All we are is dust in the wind dude!


Ahh, but isn't it comforting to know we are loved, as we are blown hither and thither...

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Iacchus
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Pahansiri
If we hear of a father who knows his young child will be taken, raped, tortured and killed yet does nothing but stand by and watch and in addition allows in the killer handing him the keys and telling him have it, we rightly cheer when he is rightly convicted in court.

But many will say when you make that father “god” that theses same actions are acts of an all powerful loving being. He knows best and it was best for her and a loving thing they demand.

Fear is a powerful tool.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All we are is dust in the wind dude!
I'm not going to be very happy if today is Reply to Posts with Irrelevant Classic Rock Song Titles Day and no-one told me!

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
All we are is dust in the wind dude!
What I would give for a logical, respectful, honest and intelligent conversation/ interaction or response from you. Sad I believe you are an intelligent person, but you fail to even try to show it.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Pahansiri

What I would give for a logical, respectful, honest and intelligent conversation/ interaction or response from you. Sad I believe you are an intelligent person, but you fail to even try to show it. And yet why do you "expect" me to answer that which you cannot possibly answer for yourself? Do you think that's the only reason why I'm here?

And indeed, it seems like the more questions I answer the more questions you ask?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And indeed, it seems like the more questions I answer the more questions you ask?
Thats not a question...

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Thats not a question... Is it not possible to wonder while at the same time make a statement? Yes, in that case it is. Indeed, I could very well be shaking my head (in wonderment) at the same time.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet why do you "expect" me to answer that which you cannot possibly answer for yourself? Do you think that's the only reason why I'm here?

And indeed, it seems like the more questions I answer the more questions you ask?

My friend you have yet to answer any questions.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
If we hear of a father who knows his young child will be taken, raped, tortured and killed yet does nothing but stand by and watch and in addition allows in the killer handing him the keys and telling him have it, we rightly cheer when he is rightly convicted in court.

But many will say when you make that father “god” that theses same actions are acts of an all powerful loving being. He knows best and it was best for her and a loving thing they demand.

Fear is a powerful tool.

Yes, it sure is. What you described above was one of the very type of things that caused me to rethink my belief system. I knew, that as a parent, if I had foreknowledge of my little girl being molested, raped, or killed, I would prevent it from happening.

"God" is supposed to have this foreknowledge....omiscience, but he lets tons of little girls and boys get raped and murdered every day all over the world. How could I believe such a god as this existed? "A loving parent" is how the christian church presents god...his love is supposed to be perfect!!! "He loves us more than we love our own children"....I heard that so many times. I bought it for awhile...but then it just did not add up..it did not play out at all.

[Riddick]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Ahh, but isn't it comforting to know we are loved, as we are blown hither and thither...
you pompous a$$. it will be god delivering your proctology exam in the end, and i imagine he has a VERY big finger, if you know what i mean.

[Zero]

Religion is based on fear and self-loathing...it is rather disturbing to me to see otherwise intelligent people justify the barbaric attitudes of 4000 year old genocidal lunatics, by quoting mythology.

Some people, and some cultures, grow out of such foolishness. I think the greatest fear of all is the fear of having to be an adult, which religions and their believers stuggle against with all their might. They would rather believe in contradictions, lies, and outright nonsense, rather than accept their place at the grown-up table, and all the responsibilities that implies.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Iacchus
All we are is dust in the wind dude!

Dude!!!

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Diogenes



Ahh, but isn't it comforting to know we are loved, as we are blown hither and thither...

Sadly, I haven't been blown lately. :(

Hither and tither that is! :D

[Max560]

Originally posted by Riddick

you pompous a$$. it will be god delivering your proctology exam in the end, and i imagine he has a VERY big finger, if you know what i mean.

Funny... I thought it was aliens that were into anal probes.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Ruby


Yes, it sure is. What you described above was one of the very type of things that caused me to rethink my belief system. I knew, that as a parent, if I had foreknowledge of my little girl being molested, raped, or killed, I would prevent it from happening.

"God" is supposed to have this foreknowledge....omiscience, but he lets tons of little girls and boys get raped and murdered every day all over the world. How could I believe such a god as this existed? "A loving parent" is how the christian church presents god...his love is supposed to be perfect!!! "He loves us more than we love our own children"....I heard that so many times. I bought it for awhile...but then it just did not add up..it did not play out at all.


Hello my sweet friend.

What is perfect could be nothing but perfect and what is to be unconditional could have no conditions..

I hope all is well fro all there

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Ruby


Yes, it sure is. What you described above was one of the very type of things that caused me to rethink my belief system. I knew, that as a parent, if I had foreknowledge of my little girl being molested, raped, or killed, I would prevent it from happening.

"God" is supposed to have this foreknowledge....omiscience, but he lets tons of little girls and boys get raped and murdered every day all over the world. How could I believe such a god as this existed? "A loving parent" is how the christian church presents god...his love is supposed to be perfect!!! "He loves us more than we love our own children"....I heard that so many times. I bought it for awhile...but then it just did not add up..it did not play out at all.

Hi Ruby,

You are the marshmallow lady right?

I kinda feel sorry for you in a way. You don't seem to understand love, the big kind that falls on the butts of little children.

When stuff like that happens - it's supposed to be a lesson. You sound like you were put in the slow kids row.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Atlas


Hi Ruby,

You are the marshmallow lady right?

I kinda feel sorry for you in a way. You don't seem to understand love, the big kind that falls on the butts of little children.

When stuff like that happens - it's supposed to be a lesson. You sound like you were put in the slow kids row.

That is an incredibly rude and presumptuous and arrogant statement.

When stuff like that happens - it's supposed to be a lesson. You sound like you were put in the slow kids row.

When a child is kidnapped, raped, tortured and killed, what was the “lesson” they learned?

When an earth quake kills 1000 people what was the lesson they learned?

When your child becomes ill with an very grave illness that will make them to suffer for 2 years before the die a painful death, what was they lesson they learn?

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Pahansiri


That is an incredibly rude and presumptuous and arrogant statement.



Apologies! Apologies!

I don't use those smiley faces which may have shown that I too am offended by a loving deity's cruel disregard his worshippers.

When writing, my tongue was firmly in my cheek!

[TruthSeeker]

Originally posted by Riddick

you pompous a$$. it will be god delivering your proctology exam in the end, and i imagine he has a VERY big finger, if you know what i mean.


Riddick,

You worship a hate-filled god it seems. How do you reconcile all this hatred with god's love?

Why does a loving god allow bad things to happen to innocent people?

Atlas,
Your post did not feel tongue in cheek. Ruby deserves much better. She is an amazing woman. I shall take you at your word that you did not intend to insult her.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by TruthSeeker

Atlas,
Your post did not feel tongue in cheek. Ruby deserves much better. She is an amazing woman. I shall take you at your word that you did not intend to insult her.

Ok, that's two of you. I have obviously transgressed and will followup privately with Ruby.

For the rest of you who were offended by my comment please know I did not intend to offend. I regret my ill chosen words and that they came under your eyes.

To say it will not happen again is something I cannot know, but that will be the direction of my endeavor.

[Jim Lennox]

If we hear of a father who knows his young child will be taken, raped, tortured and killed yet does nothing but stand by and watch and in addition allows in the killer handing him the keys and telling him have it, we rightly cheer when he is rightly convicted in court.

In fact the bible could be said to encourage such behaviour when Lot says "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes" (Gen 19:8) and later (Peter 2:8) Lot is called a "righteous man".

Mix ignorance in with the fear and bad-a-bing you got yourself a religion which people are willing to do anything for.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Atlas


Apologies! Apologies!

I don't use those smiley faces which may have shown that I too am offended by a loving deity's cruel disregard his worshippers.

When writing, my tongue was firmly in my cheek!

I am sorry if I misread your intent that may be the case I will again read the post. My point was it seemed you were judging Rudy, I am sorry if I was wrong.

Sorry if I was rude.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Pahansiri


I am sorry if I misread your intent that may be the case I will again read the post. My point was it seemed you were judging Rudy, I am sorry if I was wrong.

Sorry if I was rude.

All you were guilty of was defending a good friend from a perceived troll.

I have an overblown appreciation of my own sense of humor. This is not the first time I've gone for a laugh and missed. Usually I do not miss so badly.

Thanks for letting me off the hook. When I reread my own post I was obviously out of line.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Atlas


All you were guilty of was defending a good friend from a perceived troll.

I have an overblown appreciation of my own sense of humor. This is not the first time I've gone for a laugh and missed. Usually I do not miss so badly.

Thanks for letting me off the hook. When I reread my own post I was obviously out of line. :clap: I have much respect.

So many times we fight tooth and nail refusing to say we were wrong or made a mistake or may not have known something..

Iacchus and lifegazer please take note.;)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
:clap: I have much respect.

So many times we fight tooth and nail refusing to say we were wrong or made a mistake or may not have known something..

Iacchus and lifegazer please take note.;)
I accept your apparent concession.

[Dorian Gray]

you pompous a$$. it will be god delivering your proctology exam in the end, and i imagine he has a VERY big finger, if you know what i mean.
If you had only written one of the books of the Bible, O fount of wisdom.
You are saying that God punishes people by sticking his oversized finger into their rectums? That is just more proof that God is a myth. Also that you are a sick ********. I mean, of all the images of God that can exist, and the one you imagine is a proctological punisher. Nice.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I accept your apparent concession.

More evidence you could look at a tree and convince yourself it was a car.

be well my friend.

[Christian]

Pahansiri wrote:
If we hear of a father who knows his young child will be taken, raped, tortured and killed yet does nothing but stand by and watch and in addition allows in the killer handing him the keys and telling him have it, we rightly cheer when he is rightly convicted in court.

But many will say when you make that father “god” that theses same actions are acts of an all powerful loving being. He knows best and it was best for her and a loving thing they demand.

Fear is a powerful tool.

I've read this several times and can't seem to connect the dots. Can you rephrase (I undertand your point is that fear is powerful tool, but I'm not sure that is your real point)

Ruby wrote:
Yes, it sure is. What you described above was one of the very type of things that caused me to rethink my belief system. I knew, that as a parent, if I had foreknowledge of my little girl being molested, raped, or killed, I would prevent it from happening.

"God" is supposed to have this foreknowledge....omiscience, but he lets tons of little girls and boys get raped and murdered every day all over the world. How could I believe such a god as this existed? "A loving parent" is how the christian church presents god...his love is supposed to be perfect!!! "He loves us more than we love our own children"....I heard that so many times. I bought it for awhile...but then it just did not add up..it did not play out at all.

You are entitle to your opinion, of course. But, in this specific instance, you are showing a poor understanding of the Christian dogma.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Christian
Pahansiri wrote:
If we hear of a father who knows his young child will be taken, raped, tortured and killed yet does nothing but stand by and watch and in addition allows in the killer handing him the keys and telling him have it, we rightly cheer when he is rightly convicted in court.

But many will say when you make that father “god” that theses same actions are acts of an all powerful loving being. He knows best and it was best for her and a loving thing they demand.

Fear is a powerful tool.

I've read this several times and can't seem to connect the dots. Can you rephrase (I undertand your point is that fear is powerful tool, but I'm not sure that is your real point)

Ruby wrote:
Yes, it sure is. What you described above was one of the very type of things that caused me to rethink my belief system. I knew, that as a parent, if I had foreknowledge of my little girl being molested, raped, or killed, I would prevent it from happening.

"God" is supposed to have this foreknowledge....omiscience, but he lets tons of little girls and boys get raped and murdered every day all over the world. How could I believe such a god as this existed? "A loving parent" is how the christian church presents god...his love is supposed to be perfect!!! "He loves us more than we love our own children"....I heard that so many times. I bought it for awhile...but then it just did not add up..it did not play out at all.

You are entitle to your opinion, of course. But, in this specific instance, you are showing a poor understanding of the Christian dogma.

Greetings Christian my friend. Is it truly you do not understand it, all others seem to understand it in the form it seems very clear.
Is it you just do now wish to ?

[Christian]

Pahansiri wrote:
Greetings Christian my friend. Is it truly you do not understand it, all others seem to understand it in the form it seems very clear.


If I'm forced to make an educated guess, then I would say that you are saying religion controls people through fear.

But, I don't see how your example shows this.

Is it you just do now wish to ?

Not at all or less, I would not ask.

If you want to discuss why God allows or has structured a system where bad thing happens, I believe that is a different subject from power by fear.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Zero
Religion is based on fear and self-loathing...it is rather disturbing to me to see otherwise intelligent people justify the barbaric attitudes of 4000 year old genocidal lunatics, by quoting mythology.

Some people, and some cultures, grow out of such foolishness. I think the greatest fear of all is the fear of having to be an adult, which religions and their believers stuggle against with all their might. They would rather believe in contradictions, lies, and outright nonsense, rather than accept their place at the grown-up table, and all the responsibilities that implies.

Can you imagine a religion with the germans as god's chosen people?

And thus god spoketh unto them, thall shalst slay the jew, the homosexuals, the gypsies, and all those that are evil in mine sight.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Pahansiri

If we hear of a father who knows his young child will be taken, raped, tortured and killed yet does nothing but stand by and watch and in addition allows in the killer handing him the keys and telling him have it, we rightly cheer when he is rightly convicted in court.

But many will say when you make that father “god” that theses same actions are acts of an all powerful loving being. He knows best and it was best for her and a loving thing they demand.

Fear is a powerful tool. Do you realize that "you" wouldn't be able to make this comparison, and that "you" wouldn't even exist, if God didn't allow for the existence of all things?

Indeed without "duality," and the difference in potentials, there would be no tension, and hence no vibration, by which the Universe should "oscillate" and set itself in motion? And what does that spell? ... but non-existence.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you realize that "you" wouldn't be able to make this comparison, and that "you" wouldn't even exist, if God didn't allow for the existence of all things?

Indeed without "duality,"




Greetinmgs my friend. I hope all is well.

Again you have managed a meaningless, illogical and irrelevant post.

Meaningless, illogical

As for this statement Do you realize that "you" wouldn't be able to make this comparison, and that "you" wouldn't even exist, if God didn't allow for the existence of all things?

To be true or carry any weight you need first prove God and elevate it to more then just conjecture.


I respect you believe it but to demand an unproven belief is a base of fact for what IS fact is illogical.

I refer you again to these words by Brooks "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." -- David Brooks ...



Irrelevant as this has nothing to do with the topic of the thread and is but another dance around conducting a logical and meaningful exchange of ideas.

Also of course you still have not answered the following

Indeed without "duality," and the difference in potentials, there would be no tension, and hence no vibration, by which the Universe should "oscillate" and set itself in motion? And what does that spell? ... but non-existence.

"duality," is an illusion. Would you please try for me this experiment?

Go outside and start traveling “west” until you get to the absolute furthermost westerly on the earth. Call me when you get there.

Then start traveling “up” until you get to the absolute furthermost “top” on the earth. Call me when you get there.

Then start traveling “down” until you get to the absolute furthermost “top” on the earth. Call me when you get there.


Then start traveling “true left” until you get to the absolute furthermost “true left” on the earth. Call me when you get there.


Go out into space and travel “up” or “done” east, west, north or south seek out the top of the universe and or the bottom. Find the starting point and the ending point of the universe.

;)

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Christian
Pahansiri wrote:
Greetings Christian my friend. Is it truly you do not understand it, all others seem to understand it in the form it seems very clear.


If I'm forced to make an educated guess, then I would say that you are saying religion controls people through fear.

But, I don't see how your example shows this.

Is it you just do now wish to ?

Not at all or less, I would not ask.

If you want to discuss why God allows or has structured a system where bad thing happens, I believe that is a different subject from power by fear.

Greetings my friend I hope the twins and all there are well and happy.


If I'm forced to make an educated guess, then I would say that you are saying religion controls people through fear.

I do not seek to or can force anyone to do, think, feel or believe anything.


In my opinion you knew from first reading what I was saying but I can not read the thoughts of anyone so could not say for sure.


But, I don't see how your example shows this.


Again In my opinion you do but please then allow me to break it down in this way to help you grasp what I am saying.

Before I do allow me so say your statement is not fully accurate i.e. then I would say that you are saying religion controls people through fear.

I do not believe all religions do this it is most greatly found in God based religions and history clearly shows this to be the case.

I do NOT believe ALL people believe what they do because of fear, as I simply can NOT know all people or what they think.

My point here is that people because fear of a God will except behavior by this God they would not except from anything non-God.

I wrote:

Pahansiri wrote:
If we hear of a father who knows his young child will be taken, raped, tortured and killed yet does nothing but stand by and watch and in addition allows in the killer handing him the keys and telling him have it, we rightly cheer when he is rightly convicted in court.

But many will say when you make that father “god” that theses same actions are acts of an all powerful loving being. He knows best and it was best for her and a loving thing they demand.


Now I assume you as a good and loving being and new father of twins would find the behavior of the father I described as simply wrong and you would see him as acting in an un-loving hate filled, careless “evil” way. Not a good father in any way and not one you would seek to be. Clearly this being has little love and for sure not unconditional love.

Just as a father that kills his children, or allows them to have painful illnesses he could have stopped being he created them. A good father would knowing allow his child to be killed, raped or suffer in any such form and would rather have himself suffer then his child.

A good father seeks to keep his child from harm and would not allow a killer to kill his child and rob her freedom and rights and life simply because the killer wanted to.

A good father would not allow one child to suffer unimaginable things knowing little to no happiness and another far less living a mostly happy life.

I believe we would agree here, am I right?


My point is if you find the above human father bad do not you see it as ironic you would seek to defend that same actions in a perfect being like a God?

What is perfect is just that, think how you would be if you were a perfect father would you expect a God to be less?

I believe for many beings not all fear of punishment or questioning a God blinds them. I am just a simple being doing my best and my kids need to question me if my actions are harmful.




If you want to discuss why God allows or has structured a system where bad thing happens, I believe that is a different subject from power by fear.



I would be happy to and respect you believe as you do and hope we can share a respectful conversation.

[Christian]

Pahansiri wrote:
I do not seek to or can force anyone to do, think, feel or believe anything.

It's just an expression.

My point here is that people because fear of a God will except behavior by this God they would not except from anything non-God.

Of course. This is totally logical and consistent. Yes, there is behavior I will accept from God that I will not accept from anything non-God. Totally correct.

Now I assume you as a good and loving being and new father of twins would find the behavior of the father I described as simply wrong and you would see him as acting in an un-loving hate filled, careless “evil” way. Not a good father in any way and not one you would seek to be. Clearly this being has little love and for sure not unconditional love.

Just as a father that kills his children, or allows them to have painful illnesses he could have stopped being he created them. A good father would knowing allow his child to be killed, raped or suffer in any such form and would rather have himself suffer then his child.

A good father seeks to keep his child from harm and would not allow a killer to kill his child and rob her freedom and rights and life simply because the killer wanted to.

A good father would not allow one child to suffer unimaginable things knowing little to no happiness and another far less living a mostly happy life.

I believe we would agree here, am I right?

Absolutely.

My point is if you find the above human father bad do not you see it as ironic you would seek to defend that same actions in a perfect being like a God?

No, I would not find it ironic.

What is perfect is just that, think how you would be if you were a perfect father would you expect a God to be less?

You have created a false analogy, by comparing humans to God.

I would be happy to and respect you believe as you do and hope we can share a respectful conversation.

Me too. :)

[Bottle or the Gun]

Cartoon by Revilo, kind of says it all.

Revilo (http://www.revilocartoons.com/)

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Christian
Pahansiri wrote:
I do not seek to or can force anyone to do, think, feel or believe anything.

It's just an expression.

My point here is that people because fear of a God will except behavior by this God they would not except from anything non-God.

Of course. This is totally logical and consistent. Yes, there is behavior I will accept from God that I will not accept from anything non-God. Totally correct.

Now I assume you as a good and loving being and new father of twins would find the behavior of the father I described as simply wrong and you would see him as acting in an un-loving hate filled, careless “evil” way. Not a good father in any way and not one you would seek to be. Clearly this being has little love and for sure not unconditional love.

Just as a father that kills his children, or allows them to have painful illnesses he could have stopped being he created them. A good father would knowing allow his child to be killed, raped or suffer in any such form and would rather have himself suffer then his child.

A good father seeks to keep his child from harm and would not allow a killer to kill his child and rob her freedom and rights and life simply because the killer wanted to.

A good father would not allow one child to suffer unimaginable things knowing little to no happiness and another far less living a mostly happy life.

I believe we would agree here, am I right?

Absolutely.

My point is if you find the above human father bad do not you see it as ironic you would seek to defend that same actions in a perfect being like a God?

No, I would not find it ironic.

What is perfect is just that, think how you would be if you were a perfect father would you expect a God to be less?

You have created a false analogy, by comparing humans to God.

I would be happy to and respect you believe as you do and hope we can share a respectful conversation.

Me too. :)



Greetings.

Of course. This is totally logical and consistent. Yes, there is behavior I will accept from God that I will not accept from anything non-God. Totally correct.

I respect your belief but why? If you seek to be God like, more like God which you see as perfect.


If to kill a child is wrong for humans why is it right for God?


Absolutely.

I knew you would. But why do you find the same such actions by a God are good and right when you find them wrong for a human?

I wrote My point is if you find the above human father bad do not you see it as ironic you would seek to defend that same actions in a perfect being like a God?

No, I would not find it ironic.

I respect that but please allow me to ask why?

I wrote What is perfect is just that, think how you would be if you were a perfect father would you expect a God to be less?


You have created a false analogy, by comparing humans to God.

Why?

God is a belief, an unproven belief and one I respect but not a proven fact. How can I have created a false analogy, by comparing humans to God when only humans are a proven fact.

You believe God is perfect and desire to be like him but then also say in fact you do not want to be like him.

We both agree the human father I pointed out is not perfect and doing evil and a very bad father not at all how you want to be.

You believe God is perfect and want to be more God like yet God is as to many holy books just like that human father I demonstrated.

Again, you said You have created a false analogy, by comparing humans to God.

Being God is a belief and not a proven no one clear model to use and you being Christian I have used the Christian model using for back ground the Bible.


My analogy is correct I believe and based on the bible.



Be well.

:)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Pahansiri

Greetinmgs my friend. I hope all is well.

Again you have managed a meaningless, illogical and irrelevant post.

Meaningless, illogical

As for this statement

To be true or carry any weight you need first prove God and elevate it to more then just conjecture.Yes I suppose you would now wouldn't you? ;)


"duality," is an illusion. Would you please try for me this experiment?

Go outside and start traveling “west” until you get to the absolute furthermost westerly on the earth. Call me when you get there.Well on the one hand you have what's "right," and on the other you have what's "left." ;)

Get it?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes I suppose you would now wouldn't you? ;)


Well on the one hand you have what's "right," and on the other you have what's "left." ;)

Get it?

My friend Iacchus spins and dances and make no attempt to prove what he says or support his statements.


You make this too easy for us.

No proof of god and does not understand he can point to a true left or right, up or down east or west up or down, top or bottom.

:rub: like taking candy from a baby

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Pahansiri

My friend Iacchus spins and dances and make no attempt to prove what he says or support his statements.The truth is like a fine wine, you don't gulp it down all at once. Meaning I'm not promoting that you get drunk on your own insolence.


You make this too easy for us.

No proof of god and does not understand he can point to a true left or right, up or down east or west up or down, top or bottom.

:rub: like taking candy from a baby Yes, a polarization also exists between top and bottom. By the way, the difference bewteen right and left, are also like the difference between right and wrong, in case you didn't get it above.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The truth is like a fine wine, you don't gulp it down all at once. Meaning I'm not promoting that you get drunk on your own insolence.


Yes, a polarization also exists between top and bottom. By the way, the difference bewteen right and left, are also like the difference between right and wrong, in case you didn't get it above.

Iacchus spins and dances and make no attempt to prove what he says or support his statements.


You make this too easy for us.

No proof of god and does not understand he can point to a true left or right, up or down east or west up or down, top or bottom.




Originally posted by Iacchus [/i]
[B]The truth is like a fine wine, you don't gulp it down all at once. Meaning I'm not promoting that you get drunk on your own insolence.

Iacchus spins and dances and make no attempt to prove what he says or support his statements.

He calls me rude for asking him to support his statements of “fact” he calls me rude because he will not give me the same respect I give him by answering all questions he asks. My friend I am not rude for asking you to support your telling us we are wrong and lost, you are for saying it and not proving it.


Yes, a polarization also exists between top and bottom.


Not at all my friend. What people live on the “top} of the earth and what live on the bottom?


Where is the north or up? where you point when you point over your head or where people on the opposite side of the earth from you?

Where is up when in space? Is that true up/north?




By the way, the difference bewteen right and left, are also like the difference between right and wrong, in case you didn't get it above.


Have you yet walked all the way west, reached the most western point on the earth west?

Now will I be walking true left if I stand with my back to my house and walk left or facing my house and walking left?

[Atlas]

Pahansiri,

If you ever get the time and have the inclination I'd like to know what you think of my thoughts on the origen of God.

God: Real or Imagined - A Titan says No (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=35088)

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Atlas
Pahansiri,

If you ever get the time and have the inclination I'd like to know what you think of my thoughts on the origen of God.

God: Real or Imagined - A Titan says No (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=35088)

Cool Atlas I will go read it thank you for asking me what I think.

God: Real or Imagined for me personally.

I believe such can be possible and I respect people who hold such a belief dear I respect their right but not the forcing of beliefs on another regardless what the beliefs are.

I or Buddhism looks at it this way.

First and foremost it is irrelevant and in and of itself true or not true will change anything. If today proof came there as a god or 10 or 10000000 of them 24000 people would still starve to death, people would suffer and die from both natural disasters and illnesses. People would still harm each other. There would still be suffering.

I must and only I must change myself, my actions and mind no one or thing has that power over me.

If I seek to do what is good and right not causing suffering to myself or other living things for any other reason then it is good and right it is not moral.

If done to please a god ( or what ever it may be) or from fear of such or seeking reward it is not moral.

The 2nd way and less important is it does not seem logical or have supporting evidence. I believe all things can be through an open mind and seeking eyes ( mind) proven or explained with natural causes and conditions.

I believe we must over come the illusion there is an “us and them” stop seeing each other as “others” because they may not look, sound, thing, believe etc as “I” do. All ways can be traced back to this, cravings.

just what believe.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
If we hear of a father who knows his young child will be taken, raped, tortured and killed yet does nothing but stand by and watch and in addition allows in the killer handing him the keys and telling him have it, we rightly cheer when he is rightly convicted in court.

But many will say when you make that father “god” that theses same actions are acts of an all powerful loving being. He knows best and it was best for her and a loving thing they demand.

Fear is a powerful tool.

Jesus had a similar complaint on the Cross.

The key here, I think, is the eternity of the soul, and the resurrection of the body. Without those I would agree completely with your sentiment/s.

All powerful, I think, includes the choice when and when not to exercise power. You could fault God for not creating 1 trillion different universes every second. And if he did, then you could fault him for not creating 10 trillion universes every second.

I don't know what any of this has to do with fear.

If God were to intervene continually whenever something goes wrong (you picked some extreme and horrific examples, but all examples could be extended, broken arms, papercuts, etc.) what of free will then? Would people no longer attempt to rape other people? Or, would they try to rape someone and wait for the inevitable intervention? Or, would the idea of rape never come to a person? The concept of a watchful and continually intervening God seems more problematic to me.

You (I take it?) base (at least partly?) your non-belief in God on the absurdity of the theistic claim of an all-loving God. You see atrocities and wonder how a theoretically all-loving God could allow them to occur. The Christian answer is fundamentally that he (God that is) allowed an atrocity to occur to himself. All atrocities are vitally important, can not be forgotten, and with the eternal life of the soul, will be rectified. If death was permanent and absolute, I would share your sentiments Panhasiri.

-Elliot

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by elliotfc


Jesus had a similar complaint on the Cross.

The key here, I think, is the eternity of the soul, and the resurrection of the body. Without those I would agree completely with your sentiment/s.

All powerful, I think, includes the choice when and when not to exercise power. You could fault God for not creating 1 trillion different universes every second. And if he did, then you could fault him for not creating 10 trillion universes every second.

I don't know what any of this has to do with fear.

If God were to intervene continually whenever something goes wrong (you picked some extreme and horrific examples, but all examples could be extended, broken arms, papercuts, etc.) what of free will then? Would people no longer attempt to rape other people? Or, would they try to rape someone and wait for the inevitable intervention? Or, would the idea of rape never come to a person? The concept of a watchful and continually intervening God seems more problematic to me.

You (I take it?) base (at least partly?) your non-belief in God on the absurdity of the theistic claim of an all-loving God. You see atrocities and wonder how a theoretically all-loving God could allow them to occur. The Christian answer is fundamentally that he (God that is) allowed an atrocity to occur to himself. All atrocities are vitally important, can not be forgotten, and with the eternal life of the soul, will be rectified. If death was permanent and absolute, I would share your sentiments Panhasiri.

-Elliot

Greetings -Elliot


May I ask before we together look at this you go back and address my last post to you the one I also PM’ed you.


Thank you and I hope your weekend wasa good one.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Ruby


Yes, it sure is. What you described above was one of the very type of things that caused me to rethink my belief system. I knew, that as a parent, if I had foreknowledge of my little girl being molested, raped, or killed, I would prevent it from happening.

"God" is supposed to have this foreknowledge....omiscience, but he lets tons of little girls and boys get raped and murdered every day all over the world. How could I believe such a god as this existed? "A loving parent" is how the christian church presents god...his love is supposed to be perfect!!! "He loves us more than we love our own children"....I heard that so many times. I bought it for awhile...but then it just did not add up..it did not play out at all.

Ruby, God as parent has a greater perspective and plan than us as human parents. God has decided that all creative beings (who necessarily will make imperfect choices) must be allowed to exercise their free will, even if it hurts others. For a moment, let us discard the most abominable examples. How about teasing overweight people, or cutting in line? Those are bad things as well. Where should God draw the line? Are we making a line in this discussion?

If you have free will, you have faulty decisions by imperfect creatures. That is an inescapable and necessary corrollary. You would dispose of the most faulty of decisions. Does this mean you are content with the little mean things that happen?

Would we dispose of free will entirely, is that the wish?

Human parents have the responsibility to raise their children and protect them. Of course they would stop all things if they could, that is their duty. I'm sure a parent would halt other kids from teasing their child if he had a speech impediment. But why stop at parents? All of humanity has the right to stop all wrong, be it little or immense. If I saw a girl being sexually assaulted, forget about if I were a relative, I would stop it! This is humanity acting as humanity should.

Let me state this explicitly. If God were to intervene whenever anything bad happens, or only the worst happens, so much for human kindness and humans standing up for what is right. Why should I stop a murder from taking place? That is God's responsibility.

I respect all of your opinions so much so that I must insist that you are not thinking this through as far as you should be. You would have the world and the universe operate in your way, and would make God subservient to your will. You create your own impossible situation. God must be omnipotent, and God must operate as I say he should. You've created the perfect way to continue in non-belief, and fail to see the absurdity you have constructed.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Pahansiri


Greetings -Elliot


May I ask before we together look at this you go back and address my last post to you the one I also PM’ed you.


Thank you and I hope your weekend wasa good one.

Hi Panhasiri. I will look for what you are talking about tomorrow, unforunately I can only hit and run on this forum, and just look at what is on of the hit parade.

I don't know what PM means.

I get these forum e-mails in what is admittedly a non-personal e-mail address, I click on the link, and I can never figure out what I should respond and in what order. Woe, woe, woe.

My students had a recital on Saturday, and it was absolutely terrific, I have the greatest kids (some adults too), thanks for asking!

-Elliot

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
I must and only I must change myself, my actions and mind no one or thing has that power over me.

If I seek to do what is good and right not causing suffering to myself or other living things for any other reason then it is good and right it is not moral.

If done to please a god ( or what ever it may be) or from fear of such or seeking reward it is not moral.


I think we are very close in this.

By the way, Buddhism once gave me a liberating perspective, alien to my Christian upbringing.

The notion of a people for whom 'Original Sin' had no meaning. For those people no 'Savior' was required.

It was a shakeup on my worldview... A fundamental idea I had to reckon with. One of many...

[Christian]

Pahansiri wrote:
I respect your belief but why? If you seek to be God like, more like God which you see as perfect.

I want to be like God in his qualities, his essence, not His powers.

If to kill a child is wrong for humans why is it right for God?

Because God can grant eternal life of bliss to those He kills, humans do not possess that power.

Let me construct a correct analogy that goes to the heart of your argument.

Is it wrong to cause pain? The answer is not obvious at all. It depends on two things, who is inflicting the pain and why.

If I have dislocated my shoulder, and someone comes to me to try to fix it. This person will cause me great pain. I will not allow him to cause me pain, unless I know this person has the power to fix it. (a Dr. for example.)

The same is with God.

I knew you would. But why do you find the same such actions by a God are good and right when you find them wrong for a human?

Because He has powers beyong any human.

Why

You ask why it is a false analogy? Ok, because you are comparing human actions with God actions.

Let me give another false analogy similar to the one you give.

[warning, false analogy begins]

You wouldn't cut your child open to extirpate a tumor, why would you let a Dr. do it. [false analogy ends]


God is a belief, an unproven belief and one I respect but not a proven fact. How can I have created a false analogy, by comparing humans to God when only humans are a proven fact.

Because it isn't a requirement of false analogies to be things that are real (or proven real) I can construct false analogies from imaginary things as well.

And you now have introduced another discussion: Does God exist.


This is not what you presented. You presented a scenario where you assume God exist and claim it is logically inconsistent to believe in such a God and believe in morality.

I disagree. I believe that to believe in such a God is logically consistent with morality.

And I hope you can see that I don't have to prove God exists to prove it is logically consistent to believe in such a God. Two different things my friend.

My analogy is correct I believe and based on the bible.

No, it is a false analogy as it would be a false analogy to compare a heart surgeon with a layman on the street.

A heart surgeon can cut a person open and destroy flesh and cause immense pain, all this to heal.

A layman that did such thing (cut a person open and destroy flesh) would be committing a serious crime.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Atlas


Apologies! Apologies!

I don't use those smiley faces which may have shown that I too am offended by a loving deity's cruel disregard his worshippers.

When writing, my tongue was firmly in my cheek!

While I did not appreciate (or understand) your sense of humor, I certainly forgive you.;) :)

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Christian

Ruby wrote:
[b]Yes, it sure is. What you described above was one of the very type of things that caused me to rethink my belief system. I knew, that as a parent, if I had foreknowledge of my little girl being molested, raped, or killed, I would prevent it from happening.

"God" is supposed to have this foreknowledge....omiscience, but he lets tons of little girls and boys get raped and murdered every day all over the world. How could I believe such a god as this existed? "A loving parent" is how the christian church presents god...his love is supposed to be perfect!!! "He loves us more than we love our own children"....I heard that so many times. I bought it for awhile...but then it just did not add up..it did not play out at all.

You are entitle to your opinion, of course. But, in this specific instance, you are showing a poor understanding of the Christian dogma.

I lived with Christian dogma for about 13 years.......most of that was as a Charismatic Christian. I used to debate.....apologetics......on a Christian forum that I ran........so I know Christian dogma very well!!!

[Gestahl]

Originally posted by elliotfc

Ruby, God as parent has a greater perspective and plan than us as human parents. God has decided that all creative beings (who necessarily will make imperfect choices) must be allowed to exercise their free will, even if it hurts others. For a moment, let us discard the most abominable examples. How about teasing overweight people, or cutting in line? Those are bad things as well. Where should God draw the line? Are we making a line in this discussion?

If you have free will, you have faulty decisions by imperfect creatures. That is an inescapable and necessary corrollary. You would dispose of the most faulty of decisions. Does this mean you are content with the little mean things that happen?

Would we dispose of free will entirely, is that the wish?



Let me draw an analogy here. You have an Army captain (God) and his batallion of privates. (If you have ever been in the army your CO can seem like God). The Army captain of course cannot *make* the privates do anything (I will agree right now that free will exists), so he motivates them by fear and physical punishment, through which they learn to become effective soldiers (at least at boot camp). However, he also has the restraint to not let things get out of hand and harm to come to these people. He can do this because he has almost complete control of the environment. God has no such restraint, and actively controls the environment to the detriment of his creations. If you had two dogs that fought constantly, you would separate them right? *sigh*

Arguing that "we don't know God's plan" is bullsh!t. If we are created in God's image, then God is a thinking, rational, emotional creature. God's plan, at least on a global scale, should be rational, etc. I see no such evidence. Either you have a God that does not intercede *ever*, and your God is dead and useless here, or your God intercedes at his choosing, in which case I have seen no improvement to the world to this effect beyond what we did of our own choosing. Benevolent God indeed.


Human parents have the responsibility to raise their children and protect them. Of course they would stop all things if they could, that is their duty. I'm sure a parent would halt other kids from teasing their child if he had a speech impediment. But why stop at parents? All of humanity has the right to stop all wrong, be it little or immense. If I saw a girl being sexually assaulted, forget about if I were a relative, I would stop it! This is humanity acting as humanity should.


I agree that we should do what we can. However we cannot stop earthquakes, volcanoes, meteors, genetic disease, cancer, and spontaneous human combustion. Added to the fact that many things are morally ambiguous, even among similar thinkers. I agree lets stop passing the buck to God and his "divine plan" for our own damn faults.

As another thought, why would God, if he loved his creatures so much, make them out of the equivalent of spit a bailing wire, and put them in the equivalent of a room lined with shards of glass? I agree that most of the time, we push other people and ourselves into the glass, but why are the shards there?


Let me state this explicitly. If God were to intervene whenever anything bad happens, or only the worst happens, so much for human kindness and humans standing up for what is right. Why should I stop a murder from taking place? That is God's responsibility.

I respect all of your opinions so much so that I must insist that you are not thinking this through as far as you should be. You would have the world and the universe operate in your way, and would make God subservient to your will. You create your own impossible situation. God must be omnipotent, and God must operate as I say he should. You've created the perfect way to continue in non-belief, and fail to see the absurdity you have constructed.

-Elliot [/B]

All I can say is that if there is a God, and as he proclaims he wants you to know Him, I am not too sure I want to.

[Christian]

Ruby wrote:
lived with Christian dogma for about 13 years.......most of that was as a Charismatic Christian. I used to debate.....apologetics......on a Christian forum that I ran........so I know Christian dogma very well!!!

Well, I think you don't. Furthermore, I don't think you stopped being a Christian for intellectual reasons.

From your posts, I see very little intellectual reasoning and a lot of emotional elements.

The refutation for the "the suffering in world" by non-believers is very basic and straight forward. That you come out and say this is one of the reasons you had to rethink your belief system is intellectual lazyness or a cop-out answer.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by elliotfc


Jesus had a similar complaint on the Cross.

The key here, I think, is the eternity of the soul, and the resurrection of the body. Without those I would agree completely with your sentiment/s.

All powerful, I think, includes the choice when and when not to exercise power. You could fault God for not creating 1 trillion different universes every second. And if he did, then you could fault him for not creating 10 trillion universes every second.

I don't know what any of this has to do with fear.

If God were to intervene continually whenever something goes wrong (you picked some extreme and horrific examples, but all examples could be extended, broken arms, papercuts, etc.) what of free will then? Would people no longer attempt to rape other people? Or, would they try to rape someone and wait for the inevitable intervention? Or, would the idea of rape never come to a person? The concept of a watchful and continually intervening God seems more problematic to me.

You (I take it?) base (at least partly?) your non-belief in God on the absurdity of the theistic claim of an all-loving God. You see atrocities and wonder how a theoretically all-loving God could allow them to occur. The Christian answer is fundamentally that he (God that is) allowed an atrocity to occur to himself. All atrocities are vitally important, can not be forgotten, and with the eternal life of the soul, will be rectified. If death was permanent and absolute, I would share your sentiments Panhasiri.

-Elliot


Jesus had a similar complaint on the Cross.

I respect your belief as to that.


The key here, I think, is the eternity of the soul, and the resurrection of the body. Without those I would agree completely with your sentiment/s.

As a belief that would be ok but if you say such is fact it is not as you need first prove “soul” and “resurrection of the body.” Etc.

Just a very quick note “as to resurrection of the body” the body is not “self” as it is completely comprised of non self elaments and other life forms which are completely comprised of non –self elaments.

After the death of the body these elements break down ( decay) and reenter the system and are again found in other forms. There simply is no v this is simple fact.

All powerful, I think, includes the choice when and when not to exercise power.

This is not addressing my point in any fashion. Do you as a father ( if one or not yet) choose when to save a child from a rapist and when not? Get food for one child and one not? Etc?


You could fault God for not creating 1 trillion different universes every second.

Why? That is not a logical or relevant statement.




Again Why? That is not a logical or relevant statement. This has nothing to do with what I have said.

[quote]I don't know what any of this has to do with fear.

Please read my posts to Christian


If God were to intervene continually whenever something goes wrong (you picked some extreme and horrific examples, but all examples could be extended, broken arms, papercuts, etc.) what of free will then?


My sweet friend you will not answer my questions but just keep asking me questions and dancing around.

I will ask you again and hope you will be honest and show me the respect I have shown you.

When a killer exercises his free will by kidnapping, torturing , raping and killing your daughter, what of her free will to not have this happen and live a happy life? What of the parents friends and family.

Does your God value more the free will of one killer then the free will of the girl her family and friends?

PLEASE answer.



You (I take it?) base (at least partly?) your non-belief in God on the absurdity of the theistic claim of an all-loving God.

My friend rather then read into what you believe I am thinking or me personally just answer my questions as I have done yours and that way we will have a logical conversation.

I am Buddhist my friend and do not my belief on God on anything, I do not belief in a God or Gods but respect you do.

I do not believe that it would be absurdity to believe an all powerful all knowing perfect being would be anything all loving. Do you?


You see atrocities and wonder how a theoretically all-loving God could allow them to occur.


My friend as you see your not conducting an honest conversation has lead you to make misstatements and misunderstand what it is I believe.


The Christian answer is fundamentally that he (God that is) allowed an atrocity to occur to himself. All atrocities are vitally important,

How is it important to the little girl being raped, tortured and killed? Are you saying she and her family need be happy about this event?

Should people with terminal painful illness be happy? People being tortured need jump for joy. People watching a tidal wave about to hit need cheer?


can not be forgotten, and with the eternal life of the soul, will be rectified.


You would need to prove “eternal life of the soul “ and after that, that great suffering will be “rectified”.

If death was permanent and absolute, I would share your sentiments Panhasiri.

The death of the one called Pahansiri will be permanent as will your death end the person known as you.

I respect your beliefs but if you make these statements as statement of fact you will need to prove them as fact.


Be well

[Pahansiri]

Greetings Christian

I wrote Pahansiri wrote:
I respect your belief but why? If you seek to be God like, more like God which you see as perfect.

I want to be like God in his qualities, his essence, not His powers.

That was my point my friend as you can see from my words I said nothing about you wanting Gods power???

But as I said and you agree you want to have the qualities, his essence and I pointed out as to the Bible the father I used in my post the human father does have the same qualities, his essence as your God. That is my point in the human father you find evil and do not want to be like him, yet insert God you say it is Ok to be like that and you want to be like him.

Because God can grant eternal life of bliss to those He kills, humans do not possess that power.


That is your belief not based in fact. It is no comfort to someone who does not believe as you do. What we do know for fact is she was killed and her free will was over looked and the killers was not as to your belief. You are avoiding this point. Why is evil free will of more concern then good free will. It is not free will if only one side has it.

As to god being to kill and grant life again that is only if you fit his requirements, if he floods an island full of children who are of a belief not pleasing him, oh well?


Let me construct a correct analogy that goes to the heart of your argument.

My friend you mean the correct analogy as to your personal needs. My analogy is fully correct.



Is it wrong to cause pain? The answer is not obvious at all. It depends on two things, who is inflicting the pain and why.

Again you avoid the topic here, “free will”.

If a rapist kidnaps your child ,rapes, tortures and kills her because he wants to through exercise of his free will what of the free will of the girl and her family?


If I have dislocated my shoulder, and someone comes to me to try to fix it. This person will cause me great pain. I will not allow him to cause me pain, unless I know this person has the power to fix it. (a Dr. for example.)

Completely irrelevant.

Through your free will you ask this DR to help you and through his free will he does.

The same is with God.


Really? My friend are you saying the little girl asked to get rapped, tortured and killed?

People killed by disease wanted it? People killed my natural disaster wanted it so God was just giving them what they wanted?

I knew you would. But why do you find the same such actions by a God are good and right when you find them wrong for a human?

I logical and not related to topic al all.


In your belief your God knows before the little girl is born that she will be taken, raped, tortured, killed, he would know of her suffering and of her parents and family. But your response will be the killer had free will.

Your God stood by and allowed this to happen.

What if you and your wife go to the movies and leave the girls with a grand parent, rapist comes to the door and tells the grand parent I want to take and kill the girls. He tells the grand parent if you say no I will not do it. But the grand parent lets him in and watches as they are tortured and killed.

When you get home will you simply say,”oh well you are a grand parent and know best anyway it was the killers free will and there is nothing we could do”???

I know you better then that.

Because He has powers beyong any human.

A belief and irrelevant. Because you believe he has powers he can kill and allow the innocent to be killed and you demand it is free will.


You ask why it is a false analogy? Ok, because you are comparing human actions with God actions.

1- a known ( humans) to a unknown ( God)
2- You find the evil actionsof the human evil but the same actions good in a god.



Let me give another false analogy similar to the one you give.

[warning, false analogy begins]

Sarcasm noted..lol


You wouldn't cut your child open to extirpate a tumor, why would you let a Dr. do it. [false analogy ends]


Purely illogical and unrelated.


I would not allow the child to get a tumor if I had complete control over it I would not also stand by and watch the child die even though I could help her ( that is what your God does).




Because it isn't a requirement of false analogies to be things that are real (or proven real) I can construct false analogies from imaginary things as well.

It is not a false analogy as I have demonstrated. You say the human father is evil ( a known being) yet say God is good for doing the very same thing ( an unknown being).

You condemn action from human and praise same action from a God.



And you now have introduced another discussion: Does God exist.

I respect you believe that and will wait for the supporting facts.



This is not what you presented. You presented a scenario where you assume God exist and claim it is logically inconsistent to believe in such a God and believe in morality.

I have never well not in many years assumed god exists, I do not.

I said clearly that if one does your see it’s evil as good and humans as bad.


I disagree. I believe that to believe in such a God is logically consistent with morality.

The father I used in the analogy is the God of the bible.


And I hope you can see that I don't have to prove God exists to prove it is logically consistent to believe in such a God. Two different things my friend.

I do not ask you or anyone to or not believe in a god or anything. As I have always said if one demands a truth it is for them to prove it.

I respect you and your beliefs and if a god exist or not has nothing to do with this thread.

The thread is concerning things you would say are wrong in a human you say are good in a God, that is illogical.


No, it is a false analogy as it would be a false analogy to compare a heart surgeon with a layman on the street.

Not at all. Greatly so as in your analogy the layman on the street would be a far better heart surgeon then the heart surgeon.

A heart surgeon can cut a person open and destroy flesh and cause immense pain, all this to heal.

And your God will give life to a little girl knowing a killer he made would kill and allowed the free will of the killer out weigh the free will fo the girl, her parents, family and friends.

She is just dead, the rape and murder did not help her or her family of friends, she is just dead and in a very painful and sad way. Just dead not better. Bad analogy on your part.


Be well my friend.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Christian
Ruby wrote:
lived with Christian dogma for about 13 years.......most of that was as a Charismatic Christian. I used to debate.....apologetics......on a Christian forum that I ran........so I know Christian dogma very well!!!

Well, I think you don't. Furthermore, I don't think you stopped being a Christian for intellectual reasons.

From your posts, I see very little intellectual reasoning and a lot of emotional elements.

The refutation for the "the suffering in world" by non-believers is very basic and straight forward. That you come out and say this is one of the reasons you had to rethink your belief system is intellectual lazyness or a cop-out answer.

Very rude and Self righteous. My great friend you would be angry if this was said to you.

I do not believe that is who you really are my friend Christian. This post was rude to her.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Ruby, God as parent has a greater perspective and plan than us as human parents. God has decided that all creative beings (who necessarily will make imperfect choices) must be allowed to exercise their free will, even if it hurts others. For a moment, let us discard the most abominable examples. How about teasing overweight people, or cutting in line? Those are bad things as well. Where should God draw the line? Are we making a line in this discussion?

Hi,

If we are using scripture as our guide on this, I don't recall any scriptures about not making fun of overweight people or not cutting in line. There are scriptures against murder, rape, incest. There are scriptures that speak of "God" as being our "Father".

There are many things that are morally wrong, but the bible never mentions them. These are the things that church denominations disagree on all the time....and people within a denomination disagree on and make accusations to each other about. There's also the things that are not morally wrong, and if mentioned in the bible are not said to wrong , but some churches have made them morally wrong...such as Watching TV, wearing make-up, drinking wine etc.

Anyhow, so, there might be many Christians who might not have a problem with cutting in line....and those, unfortunately, who might not have a problem with teasing someone overweight.....although, I think they'd be forgetting the love passage in 1st Corinthians 13. But there's not too many Christians who would think murder, rape, or incest ok..unless they were the perpetrator.

If you have free will, you have faulty decisions by imperfect creatures. That is an inescapable and necessary corrollary. You would dispose of the most faulty of decisions. Does this mean you are content with the little mean things that happen?

I don't care for the little mean things in life....but they are nothing compared to murder and rape...especially where children are concerned.

Would we dispose of free will entirely, is that the wish?

I, personally, love living with a free will. I did not have one as a Christian. One was not given to me by church Dogma. I think of myself now free of God and Christianity.

Human parents have the responsibility to raise their children and protect them. Of course they would stop all things if they could, that is their duty. I'm sure a parent would halt other kids from teasing their child if he had a speech impediment. But why stop at parents? All of humanity has the right to stop all wrong, be it little or immense. If I saw a girl being sexually assaulted, forget about if I were a relative, I would stop it! This is humanity acting as humanity should.

I think you have just described the reason that I am a Secular humanist!:) I was taught, as a Christian, to pray and seek God, put him first, go to him in prayer, and expect an answer and expect healing etc, etc. None of that worked. God did nothing that the bible promised or that the Christian church promised. I looked to myself to do something concerning illnesses that I had lives with for years............and I am finally getting well!!!

Let me state this explicitly. If God were to intervene whenever anything bad happens, or only the worst happens, so much for human kindness and humans standing up for what is right. Why should I stop a murder from taking place? That is God's responsibility.

The thing is, you, or anyone else, is not always present when a murder or rape happens...in fact, most happen where no one sees. "God" did not give us the power to be omniscient. The bible teaches prayer, and that God protects us. If a Parent/Grandparent/relative/friend prays all the time for the safety and protection of a child, and that child ends up raped and/or murdered.......then God did not do a good job! What sort of a "God" would choose not to answer that prayer with a "Yes'?

I respect all of your opinions so much so that I must insist that you are not thinking this through as far as you should be. You would have the world and the universe operate in your way, and would make God subservient to your will. You create your own impossible situation. God must be omnipotent, and God must operate as I say he should. You've created the perfect way to continue in non-belief, and fail to see the absurdity you have constructed.

-Elliot

You respect my opinions and yet think I have constructed absurdity? So, you respect my absurdity?:)

Sorry, just being silly!!

The ending point is, I don't believe "God" is omnipotent...as I don't believe he exists. It does not make sense for him to exist and be omnipotent and not answer prayer and not protect people and children from the evil "sins" he has supposedly penned in the bible as wrong. If this is a creation of mine to stay in unbelief, and I am failing to see the absurdity of it, it is odd that it has freed me from so much in life that I am doing things now that I could never do before. I can't even begin to put it all down here.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Christian
Ruby wrote:
lived with Christian dogma for about 13 years.......most of that was as a Charismatic Christian. I used to debate.....apologetics......on a Christian forum that I ran........so I know Christian dogma very well!!!

Well, I think you don't. Furthermore, I don't think you stopped being a Christian for intellectual reasons.

From your posts, I see very little intellectual reasoning and a lot of emotional elements.

The refutation for the "the suffering in world" by non-believers is very basic and straight forward. That you come out and say this is one of the reasons you had to rethink your belief system is intellectual lazyness or a cop-out answer.

Thanks for your kind words and very astute conclusion about my post. (major sarcasm!)

Why are you already resorting to insults with me?

I really don't care if you choose not to believe me, I know what the truth is, but it was intellectual reasons that began my ascent, into unbelief as a Christian....but these things were seeds..little doubts.....but along the way, a lot of emotional things happened too. When I left the church it was for a combination of emotional and intellectual reasons. I don't think I have ever denied that the church hurt me emotionally.

My departure from church began a big search and study to grasp all the logic, reason, science, and other proof that exists to disprove Christianity.......most of this happened on here....actually, I came on here when I was still a Christian.

Granted, I am not a great intellectual like most on this forum.....but most do not throw it in my face as you have just done. That just seems like typical Christian ego to me!! Thanks for the reminder!

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Pahansiri


Very rude and Self righteous. My great friend you would be angry if this was said to you.

I do not believe that is who you really are my friend Christian. This post was rude to her.

Thanks for coming to my defense. I think I need to take a break from JREF. I've read two slams against me today.....and another post, a few days ago, that cross examined my wording in a post that was very bothersome, and make me feel like an idiot. One kind person, in this thread, did apologize and that was very nice of them and totally forgiven.....but still, words can sort of hang with you a bit. I've been wrestling so much lately with my own limitations intellectually speaking and I guess I feel a bit touchy about it.

It's not always easy coming on here and finding it hard to understand some of the things that are discussed and debated. I have fibromyaligia and this effects the brain as well as body. My thinking skills are not what they used to be. I cannot articulate as well as I once could. I realy don't like to talk about that.

It has so impacted and changed my life being on here. But I am no good for debates.....especially when people keep making sarcastic comments about my intelligence or rather my lack of it.

:(

[Christian]

Pahansiri

You are all over the place. I'm going to try to respond. I'm finding your style of writing difficult to understand.

Pahansiri wrote:
But as I said and you agree you want to have the qualities, his essence and I pointed out as to the Bible the father I used in my post the human father does have the same qualities, his essence as your God. That is my point in the human father you find evil and do not want to be like him, yet insert God you say it is Ok to be like that and you want to be like him.

Yes, what is not okay for one entity can be ok for another. Let me try again.

Is it bad to kill children? In many cases, it is not.


That is your belief not based in fact. It is no comfort to someone who does not believe as you do.

It's not meant as comfort for those you do not believe. Those who do not believe have no comfort whatsoever. They live in random or deterministic universe that impersonal and amoral.

What we do know for fact is she was killed and her free will was over looked and the killers was not as to your belief. You are avoiding this point. Why is evil free will of more concern then good free will. It is not free will if only one side has it.

Now, you are introducing a new element to this conversation. Free will. Fine, I challenge to show me evidence of your free will. All the evidence points to the idea that you do not have free will.

As to god being to kill and grant life again that is only if you fit his requirements, if he floods an island full of children who are of a belief not pleasing him, oh well?

This is not true. I believe that all children that die go to heaven. You, believe that children that die turn to dust.

My friend you mean the correct analogy as to your personal needs. My analogy is fully correct.

No, it is not.

False Analogy Definition:
In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to
be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so
also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two
objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether
they both have property P.

Examples:
(i) Employees are like nails. Just as nails must be hit in the
head in order to make them work, so must employees.
(ii) Government is like business, so just as business must be
sensitive primarily to the bottom line, so also must
government. (But the objectives of government and business
are completely different, so probably they will have to meet
different criteria.)

Proof:
Identify the two objects or events being compared and the
property which both are said to possess. Show that the two
objects are different in a way which will affect whether they
both have that property.

I have attempted to show you why it is a false analogy. You don't seem to get it.

Again you avoid the topic here, “free will”.

If the topic is free will. I have missed it. But, we can talk about free will if you like.

If a rapist kidnaps your child ,rapes, tortures and kills her because he wants to through exercise of his free will what of the free will of the girl and her family?

But the rapist does not have free will. Neither the girl or the family.

In your belief your God knows before the little girl is born that she will be taken, raped, tortured, killed, he would know of her suffering and of her parents and family. But your response will be the killer had free will.

Your God stood by and allowed this to happen.

Yes, God allowed this to happen.

What if you and your wife go to the movies and leave the girls with a grand parent, rapist comes to the door and tells the grand parent I want to take and kill the girls. He tells the grand parent if you say no I will not do it. But the grand parent lets him in and watches as they are tortured and killed.

False analogy again. The grand parent does not have the power to bring my child to life again.

When you get home will you simply say,”oh well you are a grand parent and know best anyway it was the killers free will and there is nothing we could do”???

If instead of the grand parent it would have been God, and God shows me the positive ripple effects of my daughter dying and the reward of eternal life, then I would say, I accept it.

Because you believe he has powers he can kill and allow the innocent to be killed and you demand it is free will.

I have a very different conception of free will than you do.

1- a known ( humans) to a unknown ( God)
2- You find the evil actionsof the human evil but the same actions good in a god.

Yes, correct. I find that killing by a civilian is evil but from a soldier good. (fill in the details there)

I would not allow the child to get a tumor if I had complete control over it I would not also stand by and watch the child die even though I could help her ( that is what your God does).

Ok, how do you know what a tumor is? How do you know something is good? If you don't allow anything bad to happen, how do you know good things are happening?

You see, imperfection are necesarily required for perfections to exist.


It is not a false analogy as I have demonstrated. You say the human father is evil ( a known being) yet say God is good for doing the very same thing ( an unknown being).

Exactly. Read and reread the false analogy quote.

You condemn action from human and praise same action from a God.

Exactly.

I have never well not in many years assumed god exists, I do not.

No, you missunderstand. When you present your argument you are assuming the concept of God.

The thread is concerning things you would say are wrong in a human you say are good in a God, that is illogical.

Not illogical at all. Things can be good in one entity and bad in another. It is relative with respect to the entity.

Ruby wrote:
Why are you already resorting to insults with me?

Please don't play the victim. I have been factual about my observations to you. If you find this insulting, it is the nature of a forum where debate is common.

I stand by my assertion as factual. You are suggesting name-calling and such. Far from it.

I really don't care if you choose not to believe me, I know what the truth is, but it was intellectual reasons that began my descent, into unbelief as a Christian....but these things were seeds..little doubts.....but along the way, a lot of emotional things happened too. When I left the church it was for a combination of emotional and intellectual reasons. I don't think I have ever denied that the church hurt me emotionally.

Well, I'm flat out saying you haven't done it for intellectual reasons. If you are in this new path of rationality and truth. Then you should be objective and prove me wrong.

My departure from church began a big search and study to grasp all the logic, reason, science, and other proof that exists to disprove Christianity.......most of this happened on here....actually, I came on here when I was still a Christian.

I have read many of your posts and in them you show very little intellectual work regarding logic, reason, science and other. This is a fact that I'm pointing out to you.

I have a personal interest in disputing your "conversion" because you are an example that the leap from Christian to atheism is not intellectual. And when you write about Christians, you put them down. I once had to call you on a particularly offensive comment.

If I say you are not being intellectual honest in this matter, instead of playing the victim, you should analize that. You should ponder it. It is your duty now that you are not bound by church dogma.

Now, in this arena, you must refute arguments on their merit, because in this arena anyone can question your beliefs. I question your beliefs. I want to know why you believe you have free will (as you have stated in this thread)

Granted, I am not a great intellectual like most on this forum.....but most do not throw it in my face as you have just done.[/]

Again, you play the victim. If I say you are being intellectually lazy on this subject, accept it or refute it. It is an objective observation. Please don't translate that to mean you are less able intellectually.

You are in this new arena, the arena where you have to show your intellectual work. How you have come to conclusion and why. I have seen very little of this. Even now.

You are not neutral, you speak tons of bad thing about Christians. It is my right and duty to chanllenge your reasoning, your arguments.

[b]That just seems like typical Christian ego to me!! Thanks for the reminder!

And in this particular instance you show exactly what I'm talking about.

[Pahansiri]

Greetings Christian.

You are all over the place. I'm going to try to respond. I'm finding your style of writing difficult to understand.

While I do write in too fast at times and as I am thinking I believe the problem is I answer every point and question ask of me, you do not and perhaps that is what is throwing you off.

Just my opinion but it seem often you seek to indicate it is others fault you will not answer, do not understand or will not, or the reason you will not answer is the question if bad etc. It seems it is always someone else’s fault. Funny you give others so much power over you.

Is it bad to kill children? In many cases, it is not.

WOW that statement speaks for itself. May I assume if it is the child of another it is OK but if it was your twins it would be bad and evil?

May I ask as a Christian you are anti abortion are you not?

It's not meant as comfort for those you do not believe. Those who do not believe have no comfort whatsoever.

Really, you know all beings that do not believe as you do and you know their lives? Can you name all of them for me and addresses and proof?

I do not believe as you do and I have great comfort.

They live in random or deterministic universe that impersonal and amoral.

Can you prove this?

Let me see you believe your God makes them not believe in him, gets mad they do not believe in them makes them “amoral” yet gets angry that are “amoral”.

Can you prove I am “ amoral” also prove all beings who do not believe as you do are “amoral”. Facts please.

Now, you are introducing a new element to this conversation. Free will.


Not at all. Please what is written I have said over and over MOST Christians believe in a great and all powerful free will. When something is done i.e. the father who allows his child to be raped, tortured and killed or the person who did it. MOST Christians say it was his free will and God could not stop it due to free will. I point out what of the free will of the girl, her parents, family and friends not to have this done.

Does only evil free will carry any weight with God.

Now you believe the Rapist was just doing what God programmed him to, yet you get mad at the rapist ( the computer) but not at God ( the programmer). Same fear different twist.


Fine, I challenge to show me evidence of your free will. All the evidence points to the idea that you do not have free will.

What evidence? You are always making statements of fact but never showing the facts, show the All the evidence
My free will allows me to not believe as you do unless you can prove God is making me not believe in him????

I look forward to this proof.


This is not true. I believe that all children that die go to heaven. You, believe that children that die turn to dust.

Really? Show where I said that. Again you make statements of fact but never back it up with facts. Using my post show me where I said or believe that. Remember I am Buddhist please do learn about what you say you know.


All peoples bodies after death will as you say “turn to dust” simple fact. I do not believe “I” am my body, again simple fact.

Now on the “false analogy “ dance.

Rather then address the point you dance and dance.

My analogy an earthly father who does great things of evil. And a “heavenly” father who does the same acts of evil.

i.e. the right analogy, proof of such your very own post


You posted Proof:
Identify the two objects or events being compared and the
property which both are said to possess. Show that the two
objects are different in a way which will affect whether they
both have that property.

My analogy again:

My analogy an earthly father who does great things of evil. And a “heavenly” father who does the same acts of evil.

You say the same actions performed by a human ( a known fact) and your God ( a belief) are different one good and one bad.

Illogical and fear based.

You say well God can make you alive again as if it were fact and relevant. Lets look at this.

Do you believe that it is OK to have sex with 2 whores’ who are sisters that you are not married to and bear children with them and not care for the children?

If a human father did this I assume you would say they were “amoral”

YET. When god did the same thing you say it is not amoral?

Ezekiel 23
1 The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying,
2 Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother:
3 And they committed whoredoms in Egypt; they committed whoredoms in their youth: there were their breasts pressed, and there they bruised the teats of their virginity.
4 And the names of them were Aholah the elder, and Aholibah her sister: and they were mine, and they bare sons and daughters. Thus were their names; Samaria is Aholah, and Jerusalem Aholibah.
5 And Aholah played the harlot when she was mine; and she doted on her lovers, on the Assyrians her neighbours,


Now what does being able to make people come to life again have to do with this?



I am sure if a human father told his son it was OK to kidnap a woman and have sex with her and then just dump here later you would say he was a bad father.

YET your hevenaly father did just that:

Deuteronomy

If you see a pretty woman among the captives and would like her for a wife, then just bring her home and "go in unto her." Later, if you decide you don't like her, you can "let her go." 21:11-14

That seems to be hypocrisy in my opinion.

I have attempted to show you why it is a false analogy. You don't seem to get it.

Because you are wrong as I demonstrated.


But the rapist does not have free will. Neither the girl or the family.

Clearly unlike others you are not getting the point or simply do not wish to say you do.

As I have said over and over the 99.9999% of Christians who say evil is due to free will and God can not stop that rapist due to his free will ignore that the free will of the Child and family was ignored.

You believe we are robots and God programmed the rapist to kill her. But you believe it is just a fun game God plays to amuse himself.

Yes, God allowed this to happen.

yes I understand you believe that and respect your rights. I believe is such as true calling this being a loving God is silly.


False analogy again. The grand parent does not have the power to bring my child to life again.

Again you fail to answer a simple question and dance around it. Not being very honest.

If instead of the grand parent it would have been God, and God shows me the positive ripple effects of my daughter dying and the reward of eternal life, then I would say, I accept it.

Sad that your God makes you suffer to get a reward. Sad you use your child to get a reward. But you just said you would “accept it” but you believe you have no free will so no thought of your own you can not accept it or anything you are a robot.


I have a very different conception of free will than you do

But have not said what it was just indicated you do not believe there is any form and I am lost for believing there is. Even though you believe God made me believe it.


Yes, correct. I find that killing by a civilian is evil but from a soldier good. (fill in the details there)

I must assume the details would be it is OK as long as it is “ your side doing the killing and not the dying”

Ok, how do you know what a tumor is?

Acquiring knowledge I can demonstrate the steps as proof, this demonstrates free will and thought. You believe God made me believe it, so prove it.



How do you know something is good?

See above.


If you don't allow anything bad to happen, how do you know good things are happening?


This is the same meaningless statement as “ what if we all looked alike it would be boring” that is illogical as if we all looked alike it would be reality and we would find looking not alike strange.

I assume you are saying if the twins get a tumor would be happy for this gift from god? I think not but I may be wrong.


You see, imperfection are necesarily required for perfections to exist.

Not at all and simply illogical. If there were no tumors there would simply be no tumors.


Funny you say your God can do anything but just said he can not do everything.. Think man, think.

No, you missunderstand. When you present your argument you are assuming the concept of God.

Wrong again and in 2 ways.

1- I do not assume or believe any god or gods exist.
2- And I use the Christian model of God from your bible for this thread.

I know you have your own model you demand is the real one but the 30,000 other sects of the belief I believe all disagree with you but they are all wrong, right?

Not illogical at all. Things can be good in one entity and bad in another. It is relative with respect to the entity.
If fear of the other entity blinds you.

Be well my friend.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Zero
Religion is based on fear and self-loathing...it is rather disturbing to me to see otherwise intelligent people justify the barbaric attitudes of 4000 year old genocidal lunatics, by quoting mythology.

Some people, and some cultures, grow out of such foolishness. I think the greatest fear of all is the fear of having to be an adult, which religions and their believers stuggle against with all their might. They would rather believe in contradictions, lies, and outright nonsense, rather than accept their place at the grown-up table, and all the responsibilities that implies.

Your response? Vitriol and spite. You know people's hearts, eh? You know what motivates and drives me, eh? And from where do you get this supernatural insight?

As a grown-up you dispense insults and condescension. Nice one. I don't have any insults for you in return, except to let you know how amusing and childish your posts are. That's it. Your heart and drives and motivations and feelings are yours.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Pahansiri



Hello my sweet friend.

What is perfect could be nothing but perfect and what is to be unconditional could have no conditions..

I hope all is well fro all there

As long as you have the definitions right of course.

Unconditional? Well, depending on your own personal conditions. Panhasiri, you continually apply your conditions to the behavior of a God who may or may not exist. How can he be unconditional in your mind when you can not allow the possibility?

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Atlas


Hi Ruby,

You are the marshmallow lady right?

I kinda feel sorry for you in a way. You don't seem to understand love, the big kind that falls on the butts of little children.

When stuff like that happens - it's supposed to be a lesson. You sound like you were put in the slow kids row.

What's the matter with you? A person shares their personal feelings and you insult them?

Be wary, a peson can take your post and use it as evidence of the heartlessness of the skeptical position, just as many here take snippets from Christian forums for their own personal ammunition. Show a modicum of respect and decency, persons as yourself make this forum unpalatable and discouraging.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Jim Lennox


In fact the bible could be said to encourage such behaviour when Lot says "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes" (Gen 19:8) and later (Peter 2:8) Lot is called a "righteous man".

Mix ignorance in with the fear and bad-a-bing you got yourself a religion which people are willing to do anything for.

If you take selective quotes from the Bible, the Bible encourages just about any behavior, good and bad.

-Elliot

[Zero]

Originally posted by elliotfc


If you take selective quotes from the Bible, the Bible encourages just about any behavior, good and bad.

-Elliot That makes it pretty useless, don't you think?

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Atlas


All you were guilty of was defending a good friend from a perceived troll.

I have an overblown appreciation of my own sense of humor. This is not the first time I've gone for a laugh and missed. Usually I do not miss so badly.

Thanks for letting me off the hook. When I reread my own post I was obviously out of line.

Sorry, I didn't pick up your humor, didn't see any smiley faces or relatives, my bad.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Christian
If I'm forced to make an educated guess, then I would say that you are saying religion controls people through fear.



Is this the implicit assumptiont that rules this forum? Can an alternate position be held, or is this the dogma, that religion controls people by fear?

The best I can do is say that in my case, my religion does not control me by fear. Perhaps there are converts here you state that they, personally, were controlled by religion through fear.

It is likely (from your perspectives?) that you see religion, and you decide that you could only follow the religion you observe if you were afraid of what they proclaim to be hell, or what not. And all I can say is that is too bad you have to focus on the negative.

There was a three year period of my life when I was not a Christian. When I returned to Christianity it had nothing to do with fear. Take me at my word on this one; if not, please do not read or respond to anything I write again.

-Elliot

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by elliotfc


If you take selective quotes from the Bible, the Bible encourages just about any behavior, good and bad.

-Elliot

Sad a god would encourage bad behavior then become angry about you doing it.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by elliotfc



There was a three year period of my life when I was not a Christian. When I returned to Christianity it had nothing to do with fear. Take me at my word on this one; if not, please do not read or respond to anything I write again.

-Elliot

My friend please read what I say. I did not say " all Christians" or all anyone as I can not know "all" Christians. May I ask why do you not Answer my post and questions as I have done for you? Seems rude to me.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Christian
If I'm forced to make an educated guess, then I would say that you are saying religion controls people through fear.


Another thing. I do not commit rape or murder. Is that because I am afraid of the punishments of doing so? I do not drive through red lights. Is that because I am afraid of hurting myself or someone else?

Any action that is done and can be supposed to be done out of fear. Does that make it so? Is it possible to be motivated by something other than fear? Yes it is. And that goes for relgion as well.

If the theory is that to embrace religion you must be driven by fear, that is wishful thinking I think. That may be what you want to think of believers. Do you base this on...let me guess...people you've talked to. Yes, some people are relgious out of fear. And what percentage? And what percentage do you base that on?

Here's one for you, and take this tongue and cheek.. All atheists are atheists out of fear. They are afraid because they can not prove what so many other believe. They are afraid because the actions of their lives do not correspond to the standards of the religions, so they discard the standards completely for their own personal satisfaction. Prove I'm right, prove I'm wrong. This is all silliness. When we start supposing the motivations of others, we are merely displaying our own insufficiencies. Displacing our misery on others.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by RussDill


Can you imagine a religion with the germans as god's chosen people?

And thus god spoketh unto them, thall shalst slay the jew, the homosexuals, the gypsies, and all those that are evil in mine sight.

Wishful thinking Russ? No such quotation exists, except for your own personal provision. You've co-opted biblical language in Pythonesque cheekiness, language spoken in times where babies were sacrificed to idols, temples were places of prostitution, life spans were short, nations existed solely to fight wars, and people took their gods more seriously than today. It was competition like you could not believe. We've progressed past that, thankfully. At least most of us.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

---grrr

[Ruby]

Dang, I hate it when I say I'm taking a break and then I read a post like this and feel compelled to reply!!!!

Originally posted by Christian
Ruby wrote:
Why are you already resorting to insults with me?

Please don't play the victim. I have been factual about my observations to you. If you find this insulting, it is the nature of a forum where debate is common.

First you insult me, and now you are turning it around to put the blame back on me by accusing me of playing the "victim". Nice work!

That keeps your conscious free of having hurt my feelings. Very clever indeed.

I stand by my assertion as factual. You are suggesting name-calling and such. Far from it.

I don't think I'm off my head.....at least one person backed me up on this.

To me, what you have said, sounds like a total put down on my intelligence when it comes to my posts on here. I find it harsh.

Some people have the ability to be harsh and be absolutely blind to it. I find it fascinating to meet someone like that. The only other person I recall who was like that on here was Dark Cobra/Lord Kenneth.....but admittedly, he was even worse towards me.

I really don't care if you choose not to believe me, I know what the truth is, but it was intellectual reasons that began my ascent, into unbelief as a Christian....but these things were seeds..little doubts.....but along the way, a lot of emotional things happened too. When I left the church it was for a combination of emotional and intellectual reasons. I don't think I have ever denied that the church hurt me emotionally.

Well, I'm flat out saying you haven't done it for intellectual reasons. If you are in this new path of rationality and truth. Then you should be objective and prove me wrong.

For the most part, I don't feel that I owe you anything. Call it a cop-out or whatever you want. It is a fact that I have some cognitive problems.....due to an illness......and I am not as good at debates and being as intellectually sharp minded as I used to be in the past. It is also a fact, that, on the whole, I am not as intelligent as most of the people on JREF. Sometimes, this is daunting to me.....to come on here and read posts and have to sit and think hard to understand what is being said.

My departure from church began a big search and study to grasp all the logic, reason, science, and other proof that exists to disprove Christianity.......most of this happened on here....actually, I came on here when I was still a Christian.

I have read many of your posts and in them you show very little intellectual work regarding logic, reason, science and other. This is a fact that I'm pointing out to you.

Yes, this is a fact. I avoid most deep discussions on science and philosophical reasoning. It is way over my head. That does not mean there are not intellectual reasons why I left Christianity. It just means that the level of intelligence these discussions reach is over my head. It also means that I have hard time communicating what is in my brain.

Now, if I could persuade my husband to come on here.......he is much more an intellectual than I am. In fact, he is way way above me in intelligence being an engineering geek type.....but he could explain very well what it was that we struggled with intellectually as christians, and what led us away from Christianity. Anyhow, he is way too busy to do that.

I have a personal interest in disputing your "conversion" because you are an example that the leap from Christian to atheism is not intellectual.

I only de-converted from Christianity last year. I don't exactly recall the month this happened in, but I think it was around August. I became an "agnostic" as soon as I left Christianity as I did not know any other label to use at the time, and I had a lot to sort out, and a lot to study.

I have never called myself an Atheist. Just recently, in this thread, I did make a comment about not believing God exists, I think.........but that's the first time I've said such a thing. I've been a Deist and a Secular Humanist for a few months now. I'm not so sure I believe there is a God, period, anymore......some days, I think there has to have been a creator, and other days I think no way, so I can't keep saying I'm a Deist. I am a Secular Humanist......and this is something that was actually drawing me away from Christianity, but I did not know it had a name.....and it took months before I discovered all about it. I have not explored that belief system to it's fullest, but it's already been life changing.

I don't consider myself an Atheist. I don't know a thing about being an atheist or the atheist defense. So, you have chosen the wrong subject to use as an example of a Christian making the leap from Christianty to Atheism not being an intellectual one.

And when you write about Christians, you put them down. I once had to call you on a particularly offensive comment.

LOL. Are referring to this thread? http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23317&perpage=20&pagenumber=1

I started that thread and had made this statement in it Ruby wrote:
I AM SO F%%KING sick of fundamental Christians!!!!!

You replied Do you have the same level of tolerance for atheists?

To which I replied Sorry to offend you. I should have rephrased that statement to say "I am so F&&king sick of most fundamental Christians!!".

I realize that there are some nice fundamental Christians out there, but I feel sure that most of them would give me a bashing for the things I am believing in....or not believing in.

Most atheist's I have met online have been kind and understanding. I feel at home on JREF. Do you think if I posted on a fundamentalist Christian forum that I would get the same treatment? Not likely!! I'd be accused of being used of the devil or being possessed or deluded by the "dark side". I'd have scripture after scripture shoved down my throat and I'd be warned that I was on the highway to hell.

I am not willing to open myself up to more "spiritual"/emotional abuse.

Do you realize that I was still a Christian when I made all those statements? I had been deeply wounded by my church...my Pastor and some friends................the Pastor betrayed my husband's trust. It was all a mess. It caused about a third of the church to leave. I was very hurt. I was venting on here....a safe place to do so................except not safe from you....since you are throwing it back at me.

I really don't make a habit of slamming Christians. I do admit to losing my temper at times and getting upset at those Christians who are cruel and legalistic....but I have some friends and relatives who are Christians and I love them dearly and respect them as they respect and love me too.

Besides, if I am hurt or upset by a Christian, I have every right to come on here and vent about it.


If I say you are not being intellectual honest in this matter, instead of playing the victim, you should analize that. You should ponder it. It is your duty now that you are not bound by church dogma.

Whatever you say. I don't feel duty bound to you. But just to let you know, I have pondered so much in the past six months. I have dicussed so much with my husband and we have both done lots of research. I am very tired right now.

Now, in this arena, you must refute arguments on their merit, because in this arena anyone can question your beliefs. I question your beliefs. I want to know why you believe you have free will (as you have stated in this thread)

Because as a Christian, I had rules to live by based on bible interpretations according to what denomination I was in, church authority to answer to, criticism and expectations to follow me, condemnation to carry and live under, facades and appearances to keep up, never being able to take or give credit to yourself or others without including "God", or totally exluding yourself and/or others and giving it all to "God". I never felt that I had Freewill under these conditions. Now, with all that gone, I do.

Granted, I am not a great intellectual like most on this forum.....but most do not throw it in my face as you have just done.
Again, you play the victim. If I say you are being intellectually lazy on this subject, accept it or refute it. It is an objective observation. Please don't translate that to mean you are less able intellectually.

In a sense, I am intellectually lazy. You will call this a cop-out or playing the victim.......but I am very tired now due to fibromyalgia. It's a painful illness that also effects cognitve abilties. I haven't got what it takes to debate things on a highly intellectual level. It seems nuts to debate whether or not I am intellectually lazy or not anyway......and not what this thread is about.

You are in this new arena, the arena where you have to show your intellectual work. How you have come to conclusion and why. I have seen very little of this. Even now.

You are not my God, or my King or my Judge. I do not have to show you anything. This thread has not been about showing one's intellectual work. The topic is "The Blinding Power of Fear". The first post was not over my head....so I posted as I have been caught up in fear myself. Why do you have to turn this into some great big intellectual debate with me that has nothing to do with the thread topic, but all to do with me. Go pick on someone you own size!!:(

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Pahansiri

I do NOT believe ALL people believe what they do because of fear, as I simply can NOT know all people or what they think.

This is good. It is possible (more than possible in fact) for a theist to make the proclamation that all atheists are atheists out of fear. He would believe that statement, and find millions of people to agree. This statement would be held as an article of faith. If you believe that religious types believe out of fear, that would likewise be an article of faith.

My point here is that people because fear of a God will except behavior by this God they would not except from anything non-God.

This is important, and I will give the Christian perspective, which deals with this head-on.

One of the many (heh) ultimate realities for Christians is that God became a human being, was suffered, and died. Jesus, on the cross, had feelings of despair et al. When we suffer, or see others suffer, we Christians have the consolation that God to suffered, and did not make himself immune to suffering when he chose to become incarnate.

With this knowledge, we know that God understands not only our sufferings, but out hatred/fear/disgust with suffering. However, like I've said over and over, suffering is a necessary corrollary when other non-perfect creators exist. The most important thing is that the situation be rectified, and the Christian dogma is that the death and resurrection of Jesus recitifies the situation. Not by making suffering go away, and not by making suffering irrelevant, but by transforming suffering into good. In this way evil is conquered by taking its greatest weapon and transforming it into the greatest good.

Just as a father that kills his children, or allows them to have painful illnesses he could have stopped being he created them. A good father would knowing allow his child to be killed, raped or suffer in any such form and would rather have himself suffer then his child.

God allows basically his children to do anything. In this way he is nothing like an earthly and temporal parent. If he were to eliminate suffering, he would also have to eliminate free will. Here the analogy, Panhasiri, completely breaks down. Earthly parents do not create free will, can not eliminate or destroy free will. Earthly parents bring life into existence with the knowledge that it will die. The perspective of God is much greater. God, who has saw fit to create non-perfect creators, accepts the reality of those creatures suffering, and then gives them the means to understand and have their suffering made into the greatest of goods. Again, and I've said this before, if I only believed in temporal existence, I would share your sentiments completely. Since I believe in the eternity of the soul, it's like you are only giving a part of an argument, an argument that has been answered in the person of Jesus and an argument that has been transformed into our salvation if we so desire it. Even in this, the greatest of goods, humans will still have the ability to embrace or reject.

A good father seeks to keep his child from harm and would not allow a killer to kill his child and rob her freedom and rights and life simply because the killer wanted to.

A good father would not allow one child to suffer unimaginable things knowing little to no happiness and another far less living a mostly happy life.

I believe we would agree here, am I right?

Yes, and I think Christian would also agree.

My point is if you find the above human father bad do not you see it as ironic you would seek to defend that same actions in a perfect being like a God?

No, because God created free will and I didn't create free will. Since suffering is connected to free will, you can't be done with one without being done with the other.

-Elliot]

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Pahansiri

respect your belief but why? If you seek to be God like, more like God which you see as perfect.


If to kill a child is wrong for humans why is it right for God?

I seek to be like Jesus. Jesus, on earth, did not prevent every rape from occurring, every murder from occurring, or raise all dead people to life. Why wouldn't Jesus, God in flesh, do these things? Because these problems of existence are serious, so serious that they must be undone through the greatest good, not undone through eliminating free will or playing the omnipotent policeman/woman. Is the police the necessary branch of goodness in a utopia? No, in a utopia there is no police. So God, and his Kingdom, is the perfect utopia. Why should that God be the policemen you require?

God emptied himself into the form of one of us to suffer. I am sorry if you believe that God kills children, OT anecdotes or not. We kill enough children on our own, let's face that and stop blaming God for the sufferings of the world.

I knew you would. But why do you find the same such actions by a God are good and right when you find them wrong for a human?

Because God choose not to be an omnipresent policeman. Parenting can be taken to an extreme Panhasiri. What if a parent steals the answers to a test and gives them to his son or daughter? What if a parent bribes an official so his child's team can win a game? Parents have limits on what they should and should not do. God has designed the universe to operate as it will. This is not an analogous situation in completeness. All analogies break down. God is like a Father in many ways, and in some ways he is not. When an analogy breaks down I don't give up on the whole ball of wax. All analogies break down, does that mean we should not believe in anything?

-Elliot

[Pahansiri]

Greetings elliotfc..


This is good.

You say this as to my statement Originally posted by Pahansiri

I do NOT believe ALL people believe what they do because of fear, as I simply can NOT know all people or what they think.

Then you go on to say the following..???



It is possible (more than possible in fact) for a theist to make the proclamation that all atheists are atheists out of fear. He would believe that statement, and find millions of people to agree.


No, while some theist will and do make the proclamation that an “all atheists are atheists out of fear.” It will be illogical and baseless for 2 main reasons.

1- They of course can not know all atheist, what they think, feel or believe. By such as to a Christian belief this would be a sin as a lie and the bearing of false witness.

2- It is illogical. What would be the fear that would make one an atheist? PLEASE do answer this.

Are you saying they would use the rational ( which people hwy tried to use on me) that I really do believe in God and I am afraid of him that is why I am an atheist. This is of course illogical and that is being kind. If I really did believe in a God and was afraid of him I would be kissing his butt so as not to get him angry.. People at times just do not think, and make such wild statements greatly so out of fear.


This statement would be held as an article of faith.

And be baseless and based in fear.


If you believe that religious types believe out of fear, that would likewise be an article of faith.

You have again sinned, telling lie and bearing false witness you have posted my very words to prove it.

I never said all religious people do anything. As I said I can not know all. What I said clearly is people who hate the human father and rapist for their actions yet applaud God for the same actions do so out of fear.


I do forgive you.

This is important, and I will give the Christian perspective, which deals with this head-on.

One of the many (heh) ultimate realities

Allow me to stop for a minute, it is not an ultimate reality it is a belief not ultimate reality as Buddhist believe in rebirth and believe it is a reality but until it is proven would be a fool to demand it is an ultimate reality.






for Christians is that God became a human being, was suffered, and died. Jesus, on the cross, had feelings of despair et al. When we suffer, or see others suffer, we Christians have the consolation that God to suffered, and did not make himself immune to suffering when he chose to become incarnate.


This has nothing to do with my point. Do you believe ( knowing full well you will not answer) that the little girl while being raped, tortured and killed took comfort in believing what you said? Or her family or parents or friends?


What if she as 75 % of the worlds pop who are not Christians?

You belive what you do and that I respect but your statement has nothing to do with what I said.



With this knowledge,

belief and irrelevant to non Christians.

we know

Believe

that God understands not only our sufferings, but out hatred/fear/disgust with suffering.


And has allowed and caused it as I have pointed out. Also and you continue to ignore that if a human father did this you would find him evil but God you say it is a loving thing, the power of fear.


However, like I've said over and over, suffering is a necessary corrollary when other non-perfect creators exist.

A nice dance rather then address the point. Prove what you say?

Back to the point you demand that God must allow the killer to do what he did due to free will but ignore that the free will of the girl, her parents and family not to have this happen to her was ignored.

So I must assume you believe God values evil free will over good free will.


The most important thing is that the situation be rectified, and the Christian dogma is that the death and resurrection of Jesus recitifies the situation.

How does this using reality and fact rectify her suffering and death and that of the family?






Not by making suffering go away, and not by making suffering irrelevant, but by transforming suffering into good.

Knowing you will not answer I still ask.


1- What good did the girl get from this?
2- What good did the parents get from this
3- What do did all the family and friends get from this?

Seems you believe Jesus came to suffer for “us” but also needs to make everyone do so. The 24000 that starve to death today will get great comfort from this.

In this way evil is conquered by taking its greatest weapon and transforming it into the greatest good.

yes evil really lost on this one that little girl showed old evil as she was being raped, tortured and killed. That ended evil right there.

OH no, that is right it will happen again today over and over in many ways nothing was changer or over come, please think about what you are saying.

God allows basically his children to do anything.


except from him allowing people to harm them and rob their free will or safety from his natural disasters.


In this way he is nothing like an earthly and temporal parent.

As I have pointed out and agree with you, he would be far more evil then any ever.



If he were to eliminate suffering, he would also have to eliminate free will.


My friend, he did eliminate free will it. The free will of the girl, her parents and family was over ridden by the free will of one man.

Please open your mind.


Here the analogy, Panhasiri, completely breaks down. Earthly parents do not create free will, can not eliminate or destroy free will.

1- Prove God
2- Prove God creates anything including free will






Earthly parents bring life into existence with the knowledge that it will die.


Absolutely.

BUT good parents do not knowing allow their child to be harmed, they do not knowing facilitate it.

Your god does. Earthly parents are superior.

The perspective of God is much greater.

Proof please how you know this?


God, who has saw fit to create non-perfect creators,

1- Proof please how you know this?
2-It as I have pointed out and you ignore is his fault he created evil and can not be abgry that something he made knowing would be bad is.

This is like the baker who uses all chocolate ingredients to make a cake knowing full well it will be a chocolate cake becomes angry at the cake after it is done and is chocolate and not vanilla.It is not the cakes fault it is his.

Remember you said God did not create evil I using your Bible proved the Bible and “God says he did”.

Example Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.


accepts the reality of those creatures suffering,

How nice of him, he makes us to suffer and excepts it that is big of him.



and then gives them the means to understand and have their suffering made into the greatest of goods.

What greater good will the suffering of the little girl bring? Did such acts end, no been going on as long as humans have lived. Not a great plan. Still hunger, disease I could list hundreds of things. How many will God make suffer rather then just fix what he did wrong?

Would you beat your child to teach your other children not to spill milk?



Again, and I've said this before, if I only believed in temporal existence, I would share your sentiments completely.

I also do not believe in one birth etc but that is irrelevant to what is known and to what someone who does not believe as you do thinks.



Since I believe in the eternity of the soul,

I respect you believe that it is irrelevant to this and would again ask you to prove soul but you will not.



it's like you are only giving a part of an argument,

This is an old ploy you seek to say I am wrong because you will not answer.


an argument that has been answered in the person of Jesus and an argument that has been transformed into our salvation if we so desire it. Even in this, the greatest of goods, humans will still have the ability to embrace or reject.

Wrong that is simply a belief and nothing more. You again bear false witness and lie about me but I forgive you again.



No, because God created free will and I didn't create free will.

prove it.

And that is irrelevant. You simply ignore as if I did not even say it that the free will of the child and family was over ridden by one mans free will.


I believe you are a good man but here you are being very dishonest.


Since suffering is connected to free will, you can't be done with one without being done with the other.

I fully agree and that is not the point and you know that.


The fact is the Christian belief of free will is illogical and self defeating.

Be well.

[Pahansiri]

I wrote
If to kill a child is wrong for humans why is it right for God?

I seek to be like Jesus. Jesus, on earth, did not prevent every rape from occurring, every murder from occurring, or raise all dead people to life.


And? I find it sad that he was so uncaring he did not if he had the power, I would have. I would have put all on the same playing field and made it so ones free will does not destroy another’s.

Perhaps someone as flawed as me should be God. My love is truly unconditional.

Why wouldn't Jesus, God in flesh, do these things? Because these problems of existence are serious,

and he created them all and allowed them then becomes angry when they do, that is foolish.


so serious that they must be undone through the greatest good, not undone through eliminating free will or playing the omnipotent policeman/woman.


I wonder when a child gets raped, tortured and killed will you simply tell the parents to be happy for it was for the greater good? If it is your child will you jump for joy thanking God for doing this?


I have pointed out over and over and over he did eliminate free will in the child, parents, friends and family all for the free will of one man.


Fear blinds you.



Is the police the necessary branch of goodness in a utopia? No, in a utopia there is no police. So God, and his Kingdom, is the perfect utopia. Why should that God be the policemen you require?


A non issue as it is a belief and has no supporting facts in reality, irrelevant.

God emptied himself into the form of one of us to suffer.


Irrelevant. If that were true that was his choice as I have pointed out it was not the choice of the little girl, or the people starving to death today, or people killed in floods, earth quakes, wars I could go on for hours.


I am sorry if you believe that God kills children,


I do not, you do. I do not believe in Gods.

OT anecdotes or not. We kill enough children on our own, let's face that and stop blaming God for the sufferings of the world.

there we go you say humans killing is bad ( it is) yet God killing is good.. sad.

Also you believe ALL things come through God. The Bible clearly says that God says NOTHING happens if not through him.

Example Exodus 4:11 The LORD said to him, "Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or
makes him blind? Is it not I, the LORD?

The God of the Bible made all evil
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.-Isaiah 45:7

John 1:3 says 'ALL things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. ' ..

Lamentations 3:37 Who can speak and have it happen if the Lord has not decreed it? Is it not from the mouth oh the most high that good and evil come?'

Job 9:22 It is all the same; that is why I say, `He destroys both the blameless and the wicked.' When a scourge brings sudden death, he mocks the despair of the innocent.


God makes people lie and believe lies

1 Kings 22:23 The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.

II Thess. 2:11; For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie

And god hardens the hearts of whole populations, and then has them killed for it Exodus 9:12, Exodus 9:34, Exodus 10:1,




I wrote I knew you would. But why do you find the same such actions by a God are good and right when you find them wrong for a human?

Because God choose not to be an omnipresent policeman.

Proof?

But you believe he has chosen to allow the evil free will of one to destroy the good free will of the many.


Parenting can be taken to an extreme Panhasiri. What if a parent steals the answers to a test and gives them to his son or daughter?

My sweet friend please think before you write such things.


What does your saying a parent does something wrong for a child have to do with what I said?

How do you say a parent who knows a child will be kidnapped, raped, tortured and killed yet does nothing to stop it and even sets it up is Parenting can be taken to an extreme?


Come one.


What if a parent bribes an official so his child's team can win a game?

Do you know the difference between right and wrong?

You are using these silly bad parenting acts to protecting your child from being rapped and killed. HELLO.


Parents have limits on what they should and should not do.


YES.

A parent should NOT teach a child to cheat or steal.

A parent SHOULD NOT allow a man to kidnap, rape, torture and kill his child..

My friend are you reading this?



God is like a Father in many ways, and in some ways he is not.


Sad.

When an analogy breaks down I don't give up on the whole ball of wax. All analogies break down, does that mean we should not believe in anything?

You are not all powerful. An all powerful being could not create anything that was not perfect or he is not perfect.

THINK.


Be well my good friend.

[Christian]

Pahansiri wrote:
Just my opinion but it seem often you seek to indicate it is others fault you will not answer, do not understand or will not, or the reason you will not answer is the question if bad etc. It seems it is always someone else’s fault. Funny you give others so much power over you.

Ok, you are creating a mess. So I'm going to have to call you on what I think is inappropriate. And I will continue with the discussion as long as needed.

Please point out where I often blame others for not answering their questions. Your observation is false.

WOW that statement speaks for itself. May I assume if it is the child of another it is OK but if it was your twins it would be bad and evil?

Ok, you seem not to know about the common debate equitate. So, here is the rule. DON'T BRING IN FAMILY MEMBERS OF YOUR OPPONENT (yes, I'm an opponent in the strict sense of someone you hold an opposite view in a debate) TO MAKE YOUR POINTS.

So from now on, my twins are out of bounds for debating purposes.

Now to the response:

I said:
Is it bad to kill children? In many cases, it is not.

Let me give you several case where it has been good to kill children.

1. There was a time (and many countries where medical advances are not yet present) when Dr. has to decide who would live, the mother or the child. Most times, it was decided the mother should live and the child die.

2. There is anthropological evidence that one necessary strategy for women in tribes was to kill their offspring when he/she was born with deformities. The survival of many nomad tribes depended on the members being healthy and able.

3. At war time in ancient times and up until recently, the only way to ensure survival was to attack the opponent indiscriminately. (no surgical strikes with smart bombs available) So, children as casualities of war was a necessary step in the war. To defeat Hitler, the US. had to bomb German territory (many German Children died.)

May I ask as a Christian you are anti abortion are you not?

I will state my positions on every issue because you are missinterpreting me in this thread all over the place.

I am morally against abortion. I also believe it is a woman's right to act immorally in this respect.

It's not meant as comfort for those you do not believe. Those who do not believe have no comfort whatsoever.

Really, you know all beings that do not believe as you do and you know their lives? Can you name all of them for me and addresses and proof?

Fine, let me clarify my response. Those who do not believe in an afterlife have no comfort whatsoever about the afterlife.

I do not believe as you do and I have great comfort.

If you don't believe in an afterlife, what comfort can you have of it? As a matter of simple definition, what feeling or sentiment can anyone have of something they believe not to exist. Now, that would be illogical.

They live in random or deterministic universe that impersonal and amoral.

Can you prove this?

Sure, the universe can only be two things, either deterministic or random. If you want me to discuss this we can. But I'm hoping you already know this. (what determinism is and what QM is)

Let me see you believe your God makes them not believe in him, gets mad they do not believe in them makes them “amoral” yet gets angry that are “amoral”.

Can you prove I am “ amoral” also prove all beings who do not believe as you do are “amoral”. Facts please.

Ok, fine. When I say the universe is amoral y mean the laws that govern the universe are amoral. Humans make moral choices but the universe make no such distinctions. (I know, you can interpret that because you are part of the universe I said you were immoral too. That's not what is meant by the expression. We don't think of the laws of physics being moral or immoral, they are amoral.)

Not at all. Please what is written I have said over and over MOST Christians believe in a great and all powerful free will.

Christians do not believe in free will as you do. We do believe in free will, but it is a different concept.

When something is done i.e. the father who allows his child to be raped, tortured and killed or the person who did it. MOST Christians say it was his free will and God could not stop it due to free will.

This is not true. You are missrepresenting the Christian position.

Now you believe the Rapist was just doing what God programmed him to, yet you get mad at the rapist ( the computer) but not at God ( the programmer). Same fear different twist.

I can get mad at the rapist because it is natural for me to get angry. But I still believe that the rapist was predestined to rape.

What evidence? You are always making statements of fact but never showing the facts, show the All the evidence

I am ALWAYS making statements of fact but never showing facts? Show me always please.

My free will allows me to not believe as you do unless you can prove God is making me not believe in him????

Absolutely. Your free will allows you not to believe I agree 100%.
This is the only free will you have that counts.

This is not true. I believe that all children that die go to heaven. You, believe that children that die turn to dust.

Really? Show where I said that. Again you make statements of fact but never back it up with facts. Using my post show me where I said or believe that. Remember I am Buddhist please do learn about what you say you know.

OK.


Rather then address the point you dance and dance.

Absolutely not true. This thread shows it.

My analogy an earthly father who does great things of evil. And a “heavenly” father who does the same acts of evil.

Yes, exactly. Now READ CAREFULLY:

[quote]Identify the two objects (an earthly father and heavenly fatheror events being compared and the property which both are said to possess. Show that the two objects are different (an earthly father has no supernatural powers to grant eternal life of bliss in a way which will affect whether they both have that property.( it is very bad for a person who cannot grant eternal life to kill someone, not so with someone who can)

You say the same actions performed by a human ( a known fact) and your God ( a belief) are different one good and one bad.

Illogical and fear based.

Show me why it is illogical? I will construct another one with the same assumption and using your words.

You say the same actions (killing a dear in the off season) performed by a human and a lion (an animal) are different one good and one bad.

Totally logical.

I'm not going to comment on the biblical scripture you cite. This thing is long enough and we have plenty to chew on. If you like when we finish with this discussion, I can comment on any biblical passage you want.

As I have said over and over the 99.9999% of Christians who say evil is due to free will and God can not stop that rapist due to his free will ignore that the free will of the Child and family was ignored.

You are missrepresenting the position. This is not correct.

You believe we are robots and God programmed the rapist to kill her. But you believe it is just a fun game God plays to amuse himself.

Absolutely not. I believe in free will. You are missrepresenting my position. Read this thread and you will see my position.

The most hideous thing about religion (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35085&perpage=40&pagenumber=1)

But have not said what it was just indicated you do not believe there is any form and I am lost for believing there is. Even though you believe God made me believe it.

If you read the thread you will see my position. Christians believe in free will, the free will to choose to accept Christ or not.

Aside for that, free will is an illusion. You have none.

This is the same meaningless statement as “ what if we all looked alike it would be boring” that is illogical as if we all looked alike it would be reality and we would find looking not alike strange.

No, I'm not saying that at all.

Please answer my question. How would you know you are going left? How do you know something is straight?

And again, how do you know something is perfect?

Answer the questions, don't avoid them.

You see, imperfection are necesarily required for perfections to exist.

Not at all and simply illogical. If there were no tumors there would simply be no tumors.

Don't just say it is illogical. Show me proof that the statement is illogical.

This is the statement:
Imperfection are necesarily required for perfections to exist.

Show how this statement is illogical.

The "if there where no tumors, there would be no tumor, is meanless repetition. Like, if there is no love, there is no love. If there is no moon, there is no moon. It is a meaningless statement.

And just because you say something is illogical, does not make it so.

Funny you say your God can do anything but just said he can not do everything.. Think man, think.

Yes, think man, think. God has to be logically possible. God can do anything that is logically possible. Omnipotence does not mean that God can do anything, including illogical things.

God is omnipotent and he can't do everything:

Examples:

1. He can't be and not be at the exact same time
2. He can't create a rock he cannot carry.
3. He can't lie and tell the truth about exactly the same fact.

See, everything in the universe must be logically consistent to exist.

No, you missunderstand. When you present your argument you are assuming the concept of God.


You say I'm wrong
And then you say:

1- I do not assume or believe any god or gods exist.
2- And I use the Christian model of God from your bible for this thread.

Pahansiri, pay attention.

elliotfc wrote:
Is this the implicit assumptiont that rules this forum? Can an alternate position be held, or is this the dogma, that religion controls people by fear?

Please be careful. I DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THIS POSITION.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Gestahl


Let me draw an analogy here. You have an Army captain (God) and his batallion of privates. (If you have ever been in the army your CO can seem like God). The Army captain of course cannot *make* the privates do anything (I will agree right now that free will exists), so he motivates them by fear and physical punishment, through which they learn to become effective soldiers (at least at boot camp). However, he also has the restraint to not let things get out of hand and harm to come to these people. He can do this because he has almost complete control of the environment. God has no such restraint, and actively controls the environment to the detriment of his creations. If you had two dogs that fought constantly, you would separate them right? *sigh*

So is the expectation that God should be a policeman who stops all bad things from happening? In such a world a human being would have no responsibilities. I don't know if, as you say, God actively controls the environment. The creations have a life that extends past the temporal life.

The Army captain desires that his controls be limited, rare, and temporary. His is not an eternal commission. In addition, a human being would sign up to be under the command of the Army captain. People complain about 1984, Ashcroft, et al, and then express the expectation that God control and limit all evil that takes place on earth.

Arguing that "we don't know God's plan" is bullsh!t. If we are created in God's image, then God is a thinking, rational, emotional creature. God's plan, at least on a global scale, should be rational, etc. I see no such evidence. Either you have a God that does not intercede *ever*, and your God is dead and useless here, or your God intercedes at his choosing, in which case I have seen no improvement to the world to this effect beyond what we did of our own choosing. Benevolent God indeed.

I agree to some extent. With the reality of Jesus, I can't say I don't know God's plan, or at least I wouldn't use that phrase. It is, I think, part of God's plan that rational creatures understand how separation, or a state of war, with God leads to suffering. With the existence of Jesus, Christians do not believe that God does not intercede ever. Jesus is an improvement to the human condition; you don't see that because you don't believe in an existence beyond the temporal.

I agree that we should do what we can. However we cannot stop earthquakes, volcanoes, meteors, genetic disease, cancer, and spontaneous human combustion. Added to the fact that many things are morally ambiguous, even among similar thinkers. I agree lets stop passing the buck to God and his "divine plan" for our own damn faults.

Right. Or, you can say that we can not stop death. We can, however, conquer death, through the Cross.

I don't believe in passing the buck to God, and am not a malcontent about the general human condition.

As another thought, why would God, if he loved his creatures so much, make them out of the equivalent of spit a bailing wire, and put them in the equivalent of a room lined with shards of glass? I agree that most of the time, we push other people and ourselves into the glass, but why are the shards there?

If you mean the precariousness of the physical world, the Christian dogma is that the fall of man/angels is linked to an accompanying fall of physical creation.

Without shards of glass, in a world where there are no pitfalls or dangers, is it possible that creatures can surmise that no salvation is necessary? That the physical world is sufficient and no reconciliation with God necessary? The alternative that you offer, a safe and smooth planet Earth, would result I think in humanity that believes temporal life is heavenly.

All I can say is that if there is a God, and as he proclaims he wants you to know Him, I am not too sure I want to.

I of course respect your opinion even if I find it unfortunate, and God will never force you to know him, and you will have the opportunity to have this heartfelt position for all of eternity if that is your desire.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Christian
Ruby wrote:
lived with Christian dogma for about 13 years.......most of that was as a Charismatic Christian. I used to debate.....apologetics......on a Christian forum that I ran........so I know Christian dogma very well!!!

Well, I think you don't. Furthermore, I don't think you stopped being a Christian for intellectual reasons.

From your posts, I see very little intellectual reasoning and a lot of emotional elements.

The refutation for the "the suffering in world" by non-believers is very basic and straight forward. That you come out and say this is one of the reasons you had to rethink your belief system is intellectual lazyness or a cop-out answer.

You are being a bit unfair here Christian. A human being can know dogma quite well and still reject it, there are examples of that all over the place.

From the content of tenor of Ruby's posts I too get the sense that there are more than intellectual problems that she has, but there is no reason to castigate that as some horrible fact. Emotions are also important.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Pahansiri

As a belief that would be ok but if you say such is fact it is not as you need first prove “soul” and “resurrection of the body.” Etc.

Exactly, and this is where our discussion will break down.

If I may expound...

I don't come here to make blanket proclamations and then go into elaborate proofs. Rather, I (I think) 95% of the time respond to posts by atheists of theological nature.

So, when you make statements about God, it is as if we are assuming God exists, or, holding that possiblity as a serious reality. So I engage the statements as a theist with beliefs. I make statements in contrary to those already made, and if the response is first you need to prove soul, or resurrection of the body, why not just say first you need to prove God? All of these discussions will break down at that simple point.

In other words, if you create a theological argument, but always have in your back pocket "first you need to prove soul, God, resurrection", it's like a sham of an argument. Say that at the get-go, and I won't even bother.

Just a very quick note “as to resurrection of the body” the body is not “self” as it is completely comprised of non self elaments and other life forms which are completely comprised of non –self elaments.

Yet the body maintains it's own form, and any reasonable human being would respect the form of all human beings. I am a self-organizing principle that follows a blueprint of design. That fact is myself, even if it is created by non-self elements.

After the death of the body these elements break down ( decay) and reenter the system and are again found in other forms. There simply is no v this is simple fact.

Yes I agree. The concept of the resurrection of the body is only exemplified through the Gospel accounts of the resurrected Jesus which are quite literally shady at best.

This is not addressing my point in any fashion. Do you as a father ( if one or not yet) choose when to save a child from a rapist and when not? Get food for one child and one not? Etc?

If in the position, of course. In that case it would be an accidental position. I don't have God's ability to be everywhere at once. If I were to ever see a child being raped, I would do something about it, it would hardly be a choice in my mind. This is being proactive; the alternative then is to wait for God to intervene? A universe of God the Father stopping all evil means that humans would have no conception of evil or the opportunity to stop evil themselves.

[quote[And if he did, then you could fault him for not creating 10 trillion universes every second.


Again Why? That is not a logical or relevant statement. This has nothing to do with what I have said.[/QUOTE]

It can, at let me explain.

You mention rape, murder, et al. Why stop there? If those things (in a minority report fashion? other way?) simply did not happen due to divine interventions, would humanity cry about cancer and adultery? And if those things were stricken from the record, how about senescence and broken arms? And remove those things, what of death and problems of self-esteem? And if existence if pure happiness and no suffering, what of God's ability to create other entities who can experince such a life, why stop at what we have? Why not have 10000000 trillion beings who can live the idyllic life? Why not 1000000 times that number?

In other words, where do you stop? You've picked cardinal examples. Would you be content if those cardinal examples were handled by God in the way you would have them be handled?

When a killer exercises his free will by kidnapping, torturing , raping and killing your daughter, what of her free will to not have this happen and live a happy life? What of the parents friends and family.

Does your God value more the free will of one killer then the free will of the girl her family and friends?

PLEASE answer.

The free will of individuals can not override the free will of individuals. In our existence, unfortunately, might makes right. A girl can plead with her tormentor that her free will is being overwhelmed by that of the tormentor. But that may not make the slightest of difference.

We have the free will to DESIRE anything we want. I have the free will to desire that no one would ever harm me. However, I do not have the power to enable that, or make that a reality.

So her free will is intact, yet she is a limited being with power that sadly does not measure up to the evil men of the world.

As for the parents, family, and friends, such abuse of their daughter should elicit outrage, grief, et al.

My God, or God, respects the free will of all his creatures so much that he allows atrocities. He also values the outrage and grief of the victims so much that he sent his son to do for this outrage and this grief. All evil men will have to not only answer for their crimes, but understand them and experience them. Without eternal life and divine justice, again, I would agree with your sentiments Panhasiri.

I have answered your questions; I can't force you to like the answers.

I do not believe that it would be absurdity to believe an all powerful all knowing perfect being would be anything all loving. Do you?

No, but I think we have different understandings of the concepts. All powerful, does that mean that if God is not continually doing everything that humans would want him to do, he is not all powerful? If a strong man can lift 1000 pounds but never lifts a port-a-potty over his head, does that mean he is not strong? Part of God's power includes not exercising the power that he has, or, could continually exercise. I have answered your question, and if you don't like my answer (I suspect you won't) I can only say I understand that, since I don't like your answers either. We are looking at this from two different perspectives. I am not entirely frustrated however as I appreciate the opportunity to exchange ideas on this matter.

My friend as you see your not conducting an honest conversation has lead you to make misstatements and misunderstand what it is I believe.

I'm sorry you think that way, is this post any better than those that have preceded?

How is it important to the little girl being raped, tortured and killed? Are you saying she and her family need be happy about this event?

No. They should be outraged. Thankfullly the little girl has a redeemer and her life will be remade.

Should people with terminal painful illness be happy? People being tortured need jump for joy. People watching a tidal wave about to hit need cheer?

I don't know about should, and happiness is all relative. No one should be content in sufferring, although there are some personalities that are happy in sufferring I suppose. We should not relish in sufferring. I would say that, ideally, a human should strive to be content in all situations, whatever may come (and I think you would agree with me on this point? maybe?) I don't believe people being tortured should jump for joy, that is absurd.

You would need to prove “eternal life of the soul “ and after that, that great suffering will be “rectified”.

Right. I accept that as a matter of faith, as do many others. Does that make it right? I don't need to prove eternal life of the soul. If the soul is eternal, my ability to prove that or not prove that means little if not nothing.

The death of the one called Pahansiri will be permanent as will your death end the person known as you.

I respect your beliefs but if you make these statements as statement of fact you will need to prove them as fact.

Your statement that your death will be permanent is also a belief.

-Elliot

[Tricky]

Originally posted by elliotfc
So is the expectation that God should be a policeman who stops all bad things from happening? In such a world a human being would have no responsibilities
It is spiritual people who somehow think God should be a policeman. They expect Him to punish evil-doers and do what is right for the world. Religious skeptics merely point out that if He is supposed to be doing that, He is doing a very poor job. Either that or his value system is so different from ours that it would be rational to regard him as a capricious tyrant.

Originally posted by elliotfc
The Army captain desires that his controls be limited, rare, and temporary. His is not an eternal commission. In addition, a human being would sign up to be under the command of the Army captain. People complain about 1984, Ashcroft, et al, and then express the expectation that God control and limit all evil that takes place on earth.
No, just pointing out the self-contradiction of those who think that God has any effect on evil whatsoever. They see good and say, "Aha! Look what God did." They see evil and say "God didn't do that." Humans, like Ashcroft, are expected to be accountable for the good and evil that they do, but God has carte blanche.

Originally posted by elliotfc
I agree to some extent. With the reality of Jesus, I can't say I don't know God's plan, or at least I wouldn't use that phrase. It is, I think, part of God's plan that rational creatures understand how separation, or a state of war, with God leads to suffering.
Here is another place where the inconsistancy resides. You believe that you know part of God's plan, yet you freely admit when something happens that conflicts with that part you believe to know, that you don't know God's plan. It strikes me as tremendously egotistical to claim to even know a fraction of God's plan, much less try to tell others what it is.

Originally posted by elliotfc
With the existence of Jesus, Christians do not believe that God does not intercede ever. Jesus is an improvement to the human condition; you don't see that because you don't believe in an existence beyond the temporal.
But the intercessions are pretty much random in their occurrance, happening to people of all religions and beliefs. I see no reason to suppose that these are intercessions at all, but merely the luck of the draw.

And it doesn't make any difference if you believe in an existence beyond the temporal if you do not have evidence as to what that existence is. There are lots of speculative ideas, but no general agreement. In the absence of evidence, how do you decide which one is right?

Originally posted by elliotfc
Right. Or, you can say that we can not stop death. We can, however, conquer death, through the Cross.
What is this need to "conquer death". Why is death such a horrible thing? Perhaps death, full and complete, with no afterlife, is God's plan. Is it only fear that makes you demand otherwise?

Originally posted by elliotfc
I don't believe in passing the buck to God, and am not a malcontent about the general human condition.
Then you should also not believe in giving God credit for good things about the human condition. Don't you agree that's fair?
Originally posted by elliotfc

If you mean the precariousness of the physical world, the Christian dogma is that the fall of man/angels is linked to an accompanying fall of physical creation.

Without shards of glass, in a world where there are no pitfalls or dangers, is it possible that creatures can surmise that no salvation is necessary? That the physical world is sufficient and no reconciliation with God necessary? The alternative that you offer, a safe and smooth planet Earth, would result I think in humanity that believes temporal life is heavenly.
And that would be bad...why?

Originally posted by elliotfc

I of course respect your opinion even if I find it unfortunate, and God will never force you to know him, and you will have the opportunity to have this heartfelt position for all of eternity if that is your desire.
But you admit that you do not know him, or that at best you know only a tiny part of him. Perhaps the parts of him you don't know are not very pretty.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Ruby


Hi,

If we are using scripture as our guide on this, I don't recall any scriptures about not making fun of overweight people or not cutting in line. There are scriptures against murder, rape, incest. There are scriptures that speak of "God" as being our "Father".

Hey Ruby.

Right, and I'm not sure if it has ever crossed my mind in this thread to use scripture as a guide. There are prohibitions against murder/rape/incest because God does not stop them whenever they would occur. The expectation is that a human being would not perform these acts, and when they are performed, humanity would do something about it. They are evil, and they are within humanity's power.

God the Father wants us to learn, understand, and approach him knowing that humanity needs salvation that humanity can not win on its own. Humanity, on its own, murders, rapes, et al. We hate each other and we hate God. That is reality, and this should lead us to want something else. This need for reconciliation to the Father is made obvious by these egregious things, but does not merely depend on the egregious things.

There are many things that are morally wrong, but the bible never mentions them.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. I am not, I guess, what would popularly be called a Bible Christian or a fundamentalist Christian. I merely believe in the fundamentals of Christianity. :)

Anyhow, so, there might be many Christians who might not have a problem with cutting in line....and those, unfortunately, who might not have a problem with teasing someone overweight.....although, I think they'd be forgetting the love passage in 1st Corinthians 13. But there's not too many Christians who would think murder, rape, or incest ok..unless they were the perpetrator.

But that's just it. There are sociopaths, so full of narcissism, who are Gods to themselves. Our society enables such people through horrible parenting, a culture that worships sexuality, etc. Murder is and should be pinned on the murdererer, with the understanding that all of humanity is also responsible for evil. There's a Manic Street Preachers song called "Of Walking Abortion" that expresses this feeling quite powerfully. When a rape/murder happens, my first thought isn't "Well I could never do such a thing" but "What kind of world do we live in?". Anger is mixed with the desire for a better world. My faith tells me that Jesus is the only who can transform this world. I practice my faith, and I pray that all may desire to be reconciled to Jesus.

I don't care for the little mean things in life....but they are nothing compared to murder and rape...especially where children are concerned.

OK, I got you completely. So, just so I can understand you, if murder/rape/addafewmorethings did not happen, you would be more at ease with Christian dogma?

The suffering of children is the greatest proof against the existence of God, I think one of the Karamazov boys said that, right? We should be rightly outraged at the suffering of children, and there is for the Christian, consolation in the fact that God sent his own child to suffer as well.

I, personally, love living with a free will. I did not have one as a Christian. One was not given to me by church Dogma. I think of myself now free of God and Christianity.

What Christian church were you a member of? It's horrible to be a member of a church where they do not allow you to exercise free will. I'm sorry about that, it's unfortunate you weren't in a different Christian church.

I think you have just described the reason that I am a Secular humanist!:) I was taught, as a Christian, to pray and seek God, put him first, go to him in prayer, and expect an answer and expect healing etc, etc. None of that worked.

Right, this is very sad. I was taught, as a Christian, to petition God, but never to expect the answers and results from God that I desired. It isn't so much minimal expectations, but open-mindedness, and gratitude for what I had been given. That was my Christian upbringing.

God did nothing that the bible promised or that the Christian church promised. I looked to myself to do something concerning illnesses that I had lives with for years............and I am finally getting well!!!

This is excellent. Just as an aside Ruby, and please use this as a thought exercise, if you were to die and meet God, how would you react? Alternatively, if something cataclysmic were to happen to you, how would you react?

In my personal perspective, anything that happens to me, goes well/poorly for me, etc., does not change the big picture. I have many things going for me, and have much to be thankful to God about. If it all came crashing down around me, it is my hope that, as so many people I have met, this would not change my overall perspective and faith. If I die ridden with STDs and hated by almost everyone, but still have my faith, I would be content.

The thing is, you, or anyone else, is not always present when a murder or rape happens...in fact, most happen where no one sees. "God" did not give us the power to be omniscient. The bible teaches prayer, and that God protects us.

It isn't a bodyguard service obviously. It's more a spiritual protection. I understand these biblical statements differently from you.

If a Parent/Grandparent/relative/friend prays all the time for the safety and protection of a child, and that child ends up raped and/or murdered.......then God did not do a good job! What sort of a "God" would choose not to answer that prayer with a "Yes'?

A God who doesn't exercise control over free will. A God who would allow his own son to be tortured and executed. A God who wants humanity to know that they occupy a disordered world.

You respect my opinions and yet think I have constructed absurdity? So, you respect my absurdity?:)

Sorry, just being silly!!

No, I do respect your absurdity! It is heartfelt and not mean-spirited. I reckon you may suspect me absurd as well, and I hope you respect me in turn.

I've got enough sense to know that most of you think I'm "not even there dude" as Bart Simpson would say. As long as we can be respectful and decent to each other, maybe we can understand each other better.

The ending point is, I don't believe "God" is omnipotent...as I don't believe he exists. It does not make sense for him to exist and be omnipotent and not answer prayer and not protect people and children from the evil "sins" he has supposedly penned in the bible as wrong.


It makes sense to me because I think he did answer these prayers, but not in the way we would have them be answered!

His way of answering these heartfelt prayers is the person of Jesus, and the redemption that can be had in Jesus. Is humanity content with this answer?

If this is a creation of mine to stay in unbelief, and I am failing to see the absurdity of it, it is odd that it has freed me from so much in life that I am doing things now that I could never do before. I can't even begin to put it all down here.

In this life. Depends on your perspective.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Christian, could you state your definition/conception of free will? Thanks.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Zero
That makes it pretty useless, don't you think?

If you use the Bible as a this is right/this is wrong book, yes. I read the Bible as a story of God and people, and how people charactized and thought of God at different points in time until the life of Jesus.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Pahansiri


Sad a god would encourage bad behavior then become angry about you doing it.

Encourage and allow are not the same words.

I don't believe that the Old Testament is the direct word of God.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Pahansiri


My friend please read what I say. I did not say " all Christians" or all anyone as I can not know "all" Christians. May I ask why do you not Answer my post and questions as I have done for you? Seems rude to me.

You mentioned fear as the title of this thread.

I have answered your questions, I suspect you don't like the answers.

Why mention fear? Is it merely a supposition?

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
No, while some theist will and do make the proclamation that an “all atheists are atheists out of fear.” It will be illogical and baseless for 2 main reasons.

1- They of course can not know all atheist, what they think, feel or believe. By such as to a Christian belief this would be a sin as a lie and the bearing of false witness.

2- It is illogical. What would be the fear that would make one an atheist? PLEASE do answer this.

Hi Pahansiri. Please call me Elliot if you would by the way, thanks!

The title of this thread is the blinding power of fear. I took that to mean that religion blinds its adherents with fear. How should I take the title of this thread?

I certainly agree with you that anytime a person makes a statement that a belief is linked to fear, they are being illogical/baseless! I made an analogy (admittedly) to touch a nerve. Many persons here state that religion operates by fear. I could very easily state that atheism operates by fear. Both statements, in my opinion, should be rejected!

I don't believe that atheism is driven by fear. My point (and I did say tongue in cheek!) was to show how offensive such an intimation is. Walking in another persons shoes. That you reacted in such a way, I hope, will help you understand that a theist would also be offended when you would relate theism/religion with fear.

You have again sinned, telling lie and bearing false witness you have posted my very words to prove it.

You have taken this very personally when I said tongue in cheek in the original post. I am sorry for that, I was trying to demonstrate a point by making you see it from the alternative perspective. Is this less than mature of me? Up to you to decide. As long as we both agree that linking fear to a belief system is out of order, I am content.

I never said all religious people do anything. As I said I can not know all. What I said clearly is people who hate the human father and rapist for their actions yet applaud God for the same actions do so out of fear.

???

You are relating a human father who rapes with a God who doesn't rape? You lost me here.

This has nothing to do with my point. Do you believe ( knowing full well you will not answer) that the little girl while being raped, tortured and killed took comfort in believing what you said? Or her family or parents or friends?

Pahansiri, your tone is quite bizarre. I'm sorry I don't have the time to follow this thread.

When experiencing brutality, I don't think words make a lot of difference. The little girl may die in despair, or with the word Jesus on her lips. I don't know. God understands what goes on in our minds and hearts when things are going well and when our lives collapse around us. As for the families, I can only give anecdotal evidence. I've attended probably around 500 funerals (I've been a church organist for years) and I've heard things from family members so I would never underestimate the response of family members to a horrible tragedy. Are you saying that family members can not take comfort in theology in the face of tragedy?

This stuff about "knowing full well that you will not answer" sounds on the surface childish. I don't have 6 hours a day to follow this thread. I have just answered, so please dispense with the childish asides, I'm saying that good-naturedly as it just reads so bizarre when you say such things.

And has allowed and caused it as I have pointed out. Also and you continue to ignore that if a human father did this you would find him evil but God you say it is a loving thing, the power of fear.

Human father did.

God allow.

Two different things. You think they are the same. Fear has nothing to do with to me.

Back to the point you demand that God must allow the killer to do what he did due to free will but ignore that the free will of the girl, her parents and family not to have this happen to her was ignored.

False analogy. God allows the killer to do and think. God allows the girl to do and think. The difference? Might makes right. No petition or cry to God is ignored. God hears all, and there will be justice, though not on our own personal timetable.

So I must assume you believe God values evil free will over good free will.

No, because your analogy was false. And I don't think values has anything to do with it. He allows free will, and all actions that have occurred will be rectified and addressed according to his eternal judgment and plan.

I'm out of time, and will return to this message tomorrow. Pahansiri I enjoy engaging in these discussions. This is stimulating and it is good to exchange ideas. If humans can't agree on everything, it is good that we can try to understand each other.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Regarding the innocent girl/guilty rapist, and their free wills, it is hard to answer that question when it is such a fundamentally disordered question.

Free will is limited by potency. I may have the desire to blow up Tokyo, but I lack the potency to do so. The rapist has the desire to do something, and the power to do it, so he does. The girl has the desire for something, but lacks the power to stop it, so she can't.

God respects not just free will, but power as well. On the cross, Jesus respected the power of his tortureres and murderers. The essential Christian understanding of all this is that this free will, AND this power, will be judged and all humanity must answer for their free will and their power. Redemption is not going to happen in the temporal existence, that is the Christian belief.

Thus, the Christian shares the outrage, but has an alternate understanding. The key to that understanding is what is popularly called the afterlife. That is where I am coming from. If you say "the prove the afterlife", then you possibly admit that I have a credible response which, however, can not be proven. I don't claim anything more than that.

Free wills come into conflict continually, yet it is power that decides. God respects both, and wants us to see how this interaction is completely hopeless, and how we need reconciliation through Jesus to find the justice and order that we rightfully desire (even if we continually act in conflict with this sensible desire).

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Pahansiri

Knowing you will not answer I still ask.


1- What good did the girl get from this?
2- What good did the parents get from this
3- What do did all the family and friends get from this?

Seems you believe Jesus came to suffer for “us” but also needs to make everyone do so. The 24000 that starve to death today will get great comfort from this.

If God does not understand sufferring, how can we, as people who suffer, feel connected to God?

Since Jesus suffered, the suffering of every human being matters and can be transformed.

The girl, in sufferring, dies in communion with Jesus who also died a horrible death.

The parents/family/friends can find consolation in this.

Of course free will operates here. Parents/family/friends can, if they are familiar with Christian theology, reject it, and find no consolation in it.

At the moment of tragedy the reality of the death and resurrection of Jesus is most relevant. All persons, even the absolute innocent (Jesus) and the most innocent (children) can be destroyed by hateful human beings. Yet the hateful human beings can not exercise eternal triumph in their hateful actions.

yes evil really lost on this one that little girl showed old evil as she was being raped, tortured and killed. That ended evil right there.

Your sarcasm aside, the claim is not that evil was defeated at that moment. It is a momentary triumph for evil, perpetrated in contempt of good.

-Elliot

[Pahansiri]

Ok, you are creating a mess. So I'm going to have to call you on what I think is inappropriate. And I will continue with the discussion as long as needed.

Please point out where I often blame others for not answering their questions. Your observation is false.

I will point them out in this response as we go, I have pointed out already the one from the last post saying it was my question/analogy that was flawed, that is dispelled.

As you see I respond to all things asked of me and all points I make a statement I support it, I ask you to do the same I get no response.


I wrote WOW that statement speaks for itself. May I assume if it is the child of another it is OK but if it was your twins it would be bad and evil?

You responded

Ok, you seem not to know about the common debate equitate. So, here is the rule. DON'T BRING IN FAMILY MEMBERS OF YOUR OPPONENT (yes, I'm an opponent in the strict sense of someone you hold an opposite view in a debate) TO MAKE YOUR POINTS.

1- May I see this rule?
2- I said nothing derogatory about your girls in fact only good things. You seek to use them as an excuse not to answer a simple question, a fine example of the above point.


You find it OK to say there are good times to kill children I say May I assume if it is the child of another it is OK but if it was your twins it would be bad and evil?

You are just being a coward and using your children to avoid answering. There was nothing wrong with my question and this childish way to avoid answering speaks volume to what the answer is.

It is clear you find suffering and death or other children OK and said Is it bad to kill children? In many cases, it is not.


You my friend are acting as a hypocrite.

Please allow me to post what you said to Ruby Please don't play the victim. I have been factual about my observations to you. If you find this insulting, it is the nature of a forum where debate is common.

Hypocrisy.

By the way you did not say anything factual about her it was all opinion and not supported by any facts.

So from now on, my twins are out of bounds for debating purposes.

But other peoples children who you say is OK to kill are OK? Hypocrisy.



Let me give you several case where it has been good to kill children.

As long as it is not your twins.



1. There was a time (and many countries where medical advances are not yet present) when Dr. has to decide who would live, the mother or the child. Most times, it was decided the mother should live and the child die.

Funny below you say I am morally against abortion.

So you are I am morally against abortion but you say Is it bad to kill children? In many cases, it is not.


So what is it? It is OK to kill other peoples kids as long but you find it morally wrong?

You say many things and much contradicts what you said just before. Hypocrisy.

2. There is anthropological evidence that one necessary strategy for women in tribes was to kill their offspring when he/she was born with deformities. The survival of many nomad tribes depended on the members being healthy and able.

VS you saying

I am morally against abortion.


3. At war time in ancient times and up until recently, the only way to ensure survival was to attack the opponent indiscriminately. (no surgical strikes with smart bombs available) So, children as casualities of war was a necessary step in the war. To defeat Hitler, the US. had to bomb German territory (many German Children died.)


As long as they were not your Children, not your home. If someone bomb you it is an atrocity if you do it, it is a good thing. Hypocrisy.

Your child atrocity others “necessary step in the war”.. Hypocrisy.



So, these 3 that were easily dismissed are the totality of your “MANY good reasons to kill children?




I said May I ask as a Christian you are anti abortion are you not?


You said and lied I will state my positions on every issue because you are missinterpreting me in this thread all over the place.

I did NOT say you were against or for abortion I ask this question I said May I ask as a Christian you are anti abortion are you not?


You see you are misinterpreting me again, Hypocrisy.


What may I ask is the parameters of “all over the place” and may I see all the examples in my words.. I know I know you will not answer.


Fine, let me clarify my response. Those who do not believe in an afterlife have no comfort whatsoever about the afterlife.

Well you almost admitted you were wrong.

But again you are wrong,
1- You can not know all people who do not believe in an after life.
2- I believe they may all have a comfort about the after life, to them there is none and they are find with it. How can they have discomfort about something they do not believe exist???



If you don't believe in an afterlife, what comfort can you have of it? As a matter of simple definition, what feeling or sentiment can anyone have of something they believe not to exist. Now, that would be illogical.

Bingo, what discomfort can they have, they are not worried at all it is irrelevant.

Please remember this was your statement Those who do not believe have no comfort whatsoever.

You see they have the comfort of knowing ( believing) it is not an issue.




Sure, the universe can only be two things, either deterministic or random. If you want me to discuss this we can. But I'm hoping you already know this. (what determinism is and what QM is)

Define deterministic and random as to your position.



Ok, fine. When I say the universe is amoral y mean the laws that govern the universe are amoral.


But you believe in god and would not God be the law governing it? Are you saying God is amoral?

I would say the laws that govern the universe are neither Amoral or moral they are simply laws not having thought or goals, cravings or desires. Just laws.



Humans make moral choices but the universe make no such distinctions. (I know, you can interpret that because you are part of the universe I said you were immoral too. That's not what is meant by the expression. We don't think of the laws of physics being moral or immoral, they are amoral.)


this may be just a definition and miscommunication issue. “amoral” can be defined as means unethical, dishonorable, unscrupulous, immoral. If you mean it is without morals either way .ie. just laws not thinking unable to form opinion or judge or discriminate I would as you see agree.


Christians do not believe in free will as you do. We do believe in free will, but it is a different concept.

Please explain
1- How I believe in it . I am hoping you have read what I have said as I believe in a form of free will but not all powerful as I have explained in my example.
2- Tell me how you see free will.

I being born raised and schooled as Christian know the belief very well. My whole point here covers this and is a reason behind the thread.

You can not say God has to allow the rapist/killer to do these horrible things to her because he can not interfere with his free will. But you ignore the free will of the girl not to have this done, her parents, family and friends.

I have made this point over and over and you ignore it. I asked over and over does your God value more the evil free will of one man over the free will of many?

What of my free will not to ever be ill?

Who asks to be retarded, born without legs or arms, blind? Who asks to be in an earth quake, flood etc. Get a rare disease.

What of their free will not to have any of this to happen.


I wrote When something is done i.e. the father who allows his child to be raped, tortured and killed or the person who did it. MOST Christians say it was his free will and God could not stop it due to free will.

You respond This is not true. You are missrepresenting the Christian position.

Again you make a statement and do not follow it up with any facts you just say it and move on. This is meaningless.

Prove I have or stop misrepresenting me and the hypocrisy.


I can get mad at the rapist because it is natural for me to get angry. But I still believe that the rapist was predestined to rape.


Wait, wait wait Later on you say Absolutely not. I believe in free will. You are missrepresenting my position. Read this thread and you will see my position.

So what is it, predestine or free will? Did he do it from free will or from being made to do it?

You can not have it both ways.

I am ALWAYS making statements of fact but never showing facts? Show me always please.

first I apologize for saying “always “ I seek never to do that and am wrong for that. That being said here come the examples.

1- This is not true. You are missrepresenting the Christian position.
2- Christians do not believe in free will as you do. We do believe in free will, but it is a different concept.
3- Is it bad to kill children? In many cases, it is not. ( the post you posted this you did not offer any supporting beliefs until pushed)

I could post many more if you really like.

WOW the hypocrisy meter is going crazy

You wrote Fine, I challenge to show me evidence of your free will. All the evidence points to the idea that you do not have free will.

I said My free will allows me to not believe as you do unless you can prove God is making me not believe in him????

Now you said


Absolutely. Your free will allows you not to believe I agree 100%.
This is the only free will you have that counts.



So what is it?

Is it you saying

1-Fine, I challenge to show me evidence of your free will. All the evidence points to the idea that you do not have free will.

and this found later in this post
Aside for that, free will is an illusion. You have none.

and this

I can get mad at the rapist because it is natural for me to get angry. But I still believe that the rapist was predestined to rape.



OR VS you saying

Absolutely not. I believe in free will. You are missrepresenting my position. Read this thread and you will see my position.

and

Absolutely. Your free will allows you not to believe I agree 100%.
This is the only free will you have that counts.

You keep accusing me of misrepresenting you but you are all over the board here.


DO you know what you believe?



This next exchange is interesting and shows your confusion or attempt to deceive.


I said After the death of the body these elements break down ( decay) and reenter the system and are again found in other forms. There simply is no v this is simple fact.

In response to you saying


This is not true. I believe that all children that die go to heaven. You, believe that children that die turn to dust.

A side note no you only believe Christian children go to heaven or children who except Christ.


But anyway How have I contradicted myself? What I said is fact and it is what I always said.

I asked you to prove once a dead body decomposes it again reforms in heaven As the same body what do I get? This dance. Poor.

[guite] Yes, exactly. Now READ CAREFULLY:

Identify the two objects (an earthly father and heavenly fatheror events being compared and the property which both are said to possess. [/quote]

That I have done, they are both to possess love and do the right thing.

Show that the two objects are different (an earthly father has no supernatural powers to grant eternal life of bliss in a way which will affect whether they both have that property.( it is very bad for a person who cannot grant eternal life to kill someone, not so with someone who can)

For the last time.

Of course prove god and these powers.

That aside being you refuse to look at the facts as I have given them over and over lets look at them this way.

You are saying your God can do evil things to humans because he will just remake them in heaven.
So the torture and suffering he inflicts is just a sick game like kicking the cat but buying it a play toy later to make up for it.
BUT, you see you believe that only people who except him which he would know before their birth if the will or not, will go to heaven.


So your position again falls on it’s face as today 75% of the words pop will not except him. So why be cruel to them as they will not be making the trip. This being is a poor father.

Let me ask you as to your “analogy” :

Would you beat your girls and say it is OK because you will buy them ice cream later?

WOW you become even more dishonest.

I DID NOT say this You say the same actions (killing a dear in the off season) performed by a human and a lion (an animal) are different one good and one bad.

I'm not going to comment on the biblical scripture you cite. This thing is long enough and we have plenty to chew on. If you like when we finish with this discussion, I can comment on any biblical passage you want.

Your dancing is great. You see again rather then address what was said you dance around and blame something else for your inability to answer hoping it is forgotten about. Then you say I will respond if you want after saying you will not respond..

Sad.

I said
As I have said over and over the 99.9999% of Christians who say evil is due to free will and God can not stop that rapist due to his free will ignore that the free will of the Child and family was ignored.


You said You are missrepresenting the position. This is not correct.

First I have to help you here a bit as to spelling you have spelled “missrepresenting” wrong every time it is misrepresenting, perhaps it is your knowing you are being dishonest that makes you spell it wrong.

My position and statement are fact. I have asked you over and over the same question and you ignore it. In your model of free will ( well when you say you do believe in it) ignores the free will of the girl and her family and only defends the will of the killer.



This is too easy

Absolutely not. I believe in free will. You are missrepresenting my position. Read this thread and you will see my position.

VS


You wrote Fine, I challenge to show me evidence of your free will. All the evidence points to the idea that you do not have free will.

Aside for that, free will is an illusion. You have none.


I forgive you for lying about me and bearing false witness.






If you read the thread you will see my position. Christians believe in free will, the free will to choose to accept Christ or not.

Aside for that, free will is an illusion. You have none.

The song that comes to mind is Willie go round in circles



So you are not controlling your actions with your thoughts, your fingers are typing what they want and not what you make them..LOL


No, I'm not saying that at all.

Please answer my question. How would you know you are going left? How do you know something is straight?

And again, how do you know something is perfect?

Answer the questions, don't avoid them.

The smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

1- I answer all questions asked of me, you do not.
2- Show me where you asked these questions.. To lie is a sin you know?

But being the honest person I will your NEW questions.


. How would you know you are going left?

Read my other post there is no true left but there is a perceived left. If I am facing my house and walk to house 16 I am traveling to my left.



How do you know something is straight?

When looking at a circle I know it is not a straight line.



And again, how do you know something is perfect?

What is perfect?






You said You see, imperfection are necesarily required for perfections to exist.


I responded

Not at all and simply illogical. If there were no tumors there would simply be no tumors.


You are saying there must be a tumors, or retardation for the working brain to exist.. Hello illogical

Yes, think man, think. God has to be logically possible. God can do anything that is logically possible. Omnipotence does not mean that God can do anything, including illogical things.


LOL to prove god exists you point to god and say se he exist because he can do these things..LOL

You can NOT say God can do anything until you first prove God.. HELLO..

Lets look at it this way.

Talking pumpkins exist because talking pumpkins can talk or they would not be talking pumpkins.



You say I'm wrong
And then you say:


To my saying quote:1- I do not assume or believe any god or gods exist.
3- And I use the Christian model of God from your bible for this thread.


Try to keep up, slow down and read.

I said that in response to you saying

No, you missunderstand. When you present your argument you are assuming the concept of God.

You see You said I assume God. I do not assume God. I used as a model for this topic your beliefs not mind.

Pahansiri, pay attention.

Oh the smell of hypocrisy.




Be well my friend I am leaving shortly for 7 days talk to soon I hope everyone there is well.

[Christian]

Elliot wrote:
You are being a bit unfair here Christian. A human being can know dogma quite well and still reject it, there are examples of that all over the place.

I'm sure this is true. Ruby has not demonstrated to know dogma that well. Maybe she does know, she just has not shown that to be the case.

From the content of tenor of Ruby's posts I too get the sense that there are more than intellectual problems that she has, but there is no reason to castigate that as some horrible fact. Emotions are also important.

I'm not castigating her. I'm flat out confronting her. She finds it fit to talk down about Christians constantly, I find it fit to question her.

Christian, could you state your definition/conception of free will? Thanks.

The ability to think whatever one wants about anything one can.

Pahansiri

Man, you are really something else. You call me a coward, a hypocrite, dishonest. That's ok. This is a just a forum, you are allowed to do that. :D :D

And I'm beginning to wonder if you are able to actually carry on a rational debate.

I'm convinced you think you poke holes at others arguments and that you are being logical in your argumentation. You are not. (and the ad hom don't help)

Now, about the twin comments. I'm not sure if you are aware of what you are doing or not. I'm not going to explain it to you, you are going to have to figure it out for yourself.

Instead of going comment by comment, I'm going to consolidate the mayor points.

1. I have tried to explain in different ways why it is a false analogy. You don't accept it, fine. It still is.

2. When I say there is no free will, I'm assuming the materialist/atheist position. I'm talking the position like, if there is no god, then free will is nullified. The only way free will is possible is if God exists. I already covered this in another thread. (the most hideous thing about religion) So, I'm not contradicting myself.

Sorry for the repost from my comments on that thread:
Ok, materialism holds that matter and only matter exists and nothing else. So, the universe is only compossed of matter (please, when I say matter, I include energy, and all the forces that come with matter e.g. gravity)

Once we accept this, then we arrive at the mechanistic part of materialism. Matter behaves some way.

How does it behave? This is the realm of physics. (I know you know all this, but with my explanation, you will know where I'm coming from)

One way to go is with determinism. In a strict interpretation of causation it holds that every state of affairs is determined by the situation preceding it and constitutes a link in an unalterable chain of events. In physics, the universe is conceived as a self-perpetuating mechanism driven by an endless sequence of cause and effect.

From this perspective, it follows logically that knowing the laws of physics and the speed and position of every particle in the universe, one would be able to predict its entire future.

The other position (QM) is that the universe is indeterminate. QM postulate that there is no way of knowing both the position and momentum of a particle with perfect accuracy (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle).

Basically, either the universe is determinate or it is not.

For free will to be exist, there must be determination. If not, then free will becomes un-falsifiable. How do you prove you have free will if you can’t assert that you where responsible for the effect. (cause and effect).

For a MA, when something becomes un-falsifiable, then it must be dropped as knowledge, information, valid concept, etc.

If the universe is indeterminate, then, how do you show you the effect was caused by your determination. By definition, it was not.

Now, obviously humans do not have free will to choose a course of action. This is scientifically evident. What we do have is freedom to think as we like. Now, if there is no afterlife, this ability to think as we like (freedom of thought) is meaningless, irrelevant. So, from the Materialist/Atheist perspective, in essence, it must be concluded that free will does not exist.

Now, as a Christian, I can conclude I have no free will on earth, but (and HERE THE MAJOR DISTINCTION) my freedom of thought gives me the ability to choose heaven or hell) These thought will have an impact on a universe (a place) where the current laws of physics do not apply. The current laws of physics the govern this universe tell me that for this universe, free will is non-existent.)

I believe in free will.

So, all good or bad that happens on earth is God's will and secondary to His greater plan. It is not who we were that matter. What matters is what choice we made.

This is why Christians believe that it is only by the grace of God that we are not rapists, murderers, serial killers. Any fortune we possess is only by His grace.

3. About morality:

You don't seem to grasp a very simple concept about morality. Although the principles that govern morality are absolute, specific moral rules are relative.

The most common example is killing. Killing someone just for fun is bad (murder), killing someone in selfdefense is good (justifiable homicide). So, killing is not necesarily wrong, it depends on the situation. I really can't see why this would not be evident to you. All the examples I have represented show why moral rules are relative rules.

A side note on amorality. Amorality by definition means without morals. In contrast to immoral, that is against morality.

Gravity, for example, is amoral.

Ok, let's take it from here. And see what happens.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Pahansiri

Seems you believe Jesus came to suffer for “us” but also needs to make everyone do so. The 24000 that starve to death today will get great comfort from this.

But I don't believe that Jesus makes people suffer. The people that starve today should be mourned, and we should do what we can to fight starvation.

Jesus did suffer for us. Our suffering is not merely a statistic or something to be forgotten. It is important, should be remembered, and will be rectified. This is the Christian doctrine.

yes evil really lost on this one that little girl showed old evil as she was being raped, tortured and killed. That ended evil right there.

OH no, that is right it will happen again today over and over in many ways nothing was changer or over come, please think about what you are saying.

Evil is allowed to reign on planet Earth, another Christian dogma. We must recognize evil and fight evil, but the defeat of evil can not be achieved by human action.

As I have pointed out and agree with you, he would be far more evil then any ever.

So your standard (I am surmising here) is that if an all-knowing God exists, and knows that evil takes place, this God must be evil to allow evil to happen. And over and over I have responded that the occurrence of evil is a corrollary to free will, which is imperfect in non-perfect creatures. We are at an impasse, and I understand why. Our expectations of a God (who exists for the point of this discussion) completely differ. You expect this God to eliminate all suffering (or only the worst suffering, if degree even matters), whil my expectation is that God will handle suffering in the way he sees best. I accept his solution through Jesus. Jesus makes suffering real, more real than if God as intergalactic policeman would halt suffering before it can happen.

I think I have taken all that I can from this discussion, and am resigned to the apparent situation that you are frustrated with my inability to address the questions you offer to your liking. I understand where you are coming from, and realize that I am coming from a different place. This does not make either of us bad people of course. You live in New York, I live on Long Island, maybe our paths will cross one day, we'll shake hands and have a beer. I do not think there is anything illogical or despicable about your position Panhasiri. You hate evil and that is the most important thing; the reality of the universe is out of our control, and we struggle to understand the reality of the universe while fighting for what we believe.

My friend, he did eliminate free will it. The free will of the girl, her parents and family was over ridden by the free will of one man.

Please open your mind.

Free will does not equal real life occurrence, that is why I think the situation as you describe it is absurd. Free wills do come into conflict, and the stronger PERSON wins, not the stronger will. Our will can not become manifest in physical reality. Our wills can not control other peoples wills, though they can control other peoples situation (rape et al). You can destroy a human being of course, and destroy their temporal free will, yet their soul with still live on and the free will of the soul as well. These are temporary triumphs of evil that do not shatter my entire worldview, although I find them contemptible and would fight them to the best of my limited ability.

1- Prove God
2- Prove God creates anything including free will

I would not respond to these if they were forum titles. I entered a topic of theological discussion. If your position is "whatever you say is fine, now go ahead and prove God" it is as if you a safety net position. You didn't have to say the above 2 statements, and you would not have said them if you received answers you desired. Rather, the answers you desired did not make you content, so you bring out the above two points.

I am happy to share my theological faith, as I am happy to read about your faith and the faith of all here. You imagine God existing by engaging in theology out of one corner of your mouth, while the other side asks the other to prove the existence of God. Now we have completely and entirely departed from the theological musings you yourself submitted. I would not have bothered engaging you if, right after the theological musings you yourself submitted, you offered "prove God" or "prove God/free will".

1- Proof please how you know this?
2-It as I have pointed out and you ignore is his fault he created evil and can not be abgry that something he made knowing would be bad is.

My personal suppositions of God are based on Jesus. Jesus, the son of God, was offered as a sacrifice. If the son of God is not immune to suffering, and not entitled to divine intervention, who is? Satan put Jesus to the test. Satan asked Jesus to do things and await God's intervention. Jesus denied these tempatations, for submitting to them would give authority to the tempter Satan. The situation of the fall of man predates rape, murder, et al. The situation would be rectified in God's way, and the way is Jesus. God didn't create evil, I'm sorry you believe that. He created imperfect creators who necessarily have the ability to make imperfect choices (evil). My anger is my own, many things make me angry, so please don't suppose that I don't get angry about inhumane actions like rape/murder. What I don't do is blame those on God, and I see no reason why I should. I value my free will, despite the obvious collateral damage, and I believe in eternal life and resurrection of the body.

This is like the baker who uses all chocolate ingredients to make a cake knowing full well it will be a chocolate cake becomes angry at the cake after it is done and is chocolate and not vanilla.It is not the cakes fault it is his.

Except cakes can not make creative decisions, while people can. A person can make an infinite number of decisions, while a cake can't make any decisions.

Remember you said God did not create evil I using your Bible proved the Bible and “God says he did”.

Example Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

I like the Old Testament, but I never use it in these discussions, and typically don't put any stock into times when it is used in these discussions. Is the Bible mine? I own a copy and I think it's the most important book in existence.

How nice of him, he makes us to suffer and excepts it that is big of him.

He makes us to embrace him, suffering is the result of the rejection of God. No created creature will experience an eternity of suffering unless that is what the creature desires. Temporary suffering and eternal suffering really aren't the same to me.

What greater good will the suffering of the little girl bring? Did such acts end, no been going on as long as humans have lived. Not a great plan. Still hunger, disease I could list hundreds of things. How many will God make suffer rather then just fix what he did wrong?

Well you are using it to defend your point of view. That's one thing.

Second, death allows humanity to examine the reality of the human condition.

Third, suffering can bring families together, individuals closer to God, change individuals related to the situation in any number of ways. It opens possibilities for reconciliation that may or may not occur.

Fourth, it keeps humanity vigilant. We are not lazy types waiting for God the policeman to stop all violence and evil. Rather, we are motivated to have standards of behavior and morality and fight for them.

Fifth, we remember and grieve for departed loved ones. We stay connected to them in this way, and long for a reunion. Christians call this the Communion of Saints. We are all in this together, we are not entities who are selfish and only care for ourselves. I cry at funerals more often than I should, considering how many I attend on a yearly basis. They are all special to me, they are never routine.

You say "fix what he did wrong". Can you explain that? Do you mean God should eliminate free will? Or, that God should limit free will? I don't think that his creation of faulty creators is wrong, particularly since I value my existence as a faulty creator.

Your questions are valid though and essential, and you will present them to God one day and God will give you superior answers if you would accept them. You can also reject them.

Would you beat your child to teach your other children not to spill milk?

No. Does God beat children? Did Jesus ever beat a child?

I respect you believe that it is irrelevant to this and would again ask you to prove soul but you will not.

If only I could! I can not prove soul anymore than another could prove abiogenesis or another could prove true love.

Wrong that is simply a belief and nothing more. You again bear false witness and lie about me but I forgive you again.

This has devolved into childish quotations. I do the best I can to respond to what you say, and sometimes make a few suppositions based on those. You enjoy using biblical language (bear false witness) against me, and see fit to use the Bible as ammunition. Notably you never quote the sayings of Jesus against me, and I am content with that. I am not trying to lie about you anymore than you. You intimate that I do not care about things, that I ignore your questions, and I could label that as "lying" but that is silliness. We are engaged in an imperfect discussion and I am content with that. I know you would never intentionally be mean-spirited to me, please think likewise of me. If not you are an uncharitable person; I suspect that you are an extremely charitable person. But I am flummoxed by your tendency to state the "bear false witness" line.

And that is irrelevant. You simply ignore as if I did not even say it that the free will of the child and family was over ridden by one mans free will.

Not overridden. If a man rapes a young girl, the young girl's free will is intact. Her will is different from what she is able to do. Will does not equal action! Why do you confuse the two?

I believe you are a good man but here you are being very dishonest.

I am being entirely honest when I say I have never encountered a person in a discussion who gives backhanded compliments as much as you.

The fact is the Christian belief of free will is illogical and self defeating.

I believe it is entirely logical, and how am I defeating myself? Reality exists, we explain it in two different ways.

You say it is illogical, I say it is logical. We can find people to enlist on our sides. Why are you right, and logical, and I am not? I think you are logical but have a different perspective and appreciation and standard than I.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Pahansiri the tenor of this discussion is going extremely out of tune to my trained ears. Christian mentioned "ad hom", and I think he might be overstating it, but it's getting there.

I would like to offer one, and only one more, response in this thread. As a favor, could you formulate for me a concise message that I could respond to? It can include questions that you would have me answer, questions about my perspective, or what you think I am completely wrong about.

I will respond to that message, then read your replies, but will not offer a response. I think this has gone as far as it can given the personalities involved. I hope we can at least understand each other. Personally, I am tired of your backhanded compliments and "false witness" stuff and "dancing" stuff. That is high-school lincoln-douglas debate manuevering. I am trying to understand you and be understood, what's with the nonsense?

In any case, you have my request, and will have my gratitude as well if you allow me a final opportunity to address your questions. To be honest, I feel I have already answered them, and when you say I haven't answered them, it is because I felt the question was out of order, and attempted to indicate that by way of the responses that you discard as, well, we know the stock phrases you use.

Of course I am a Christian. If you ask me to prove things I will only be incredibly less successful than the Christians before me who attempted to prove the same things (and I am sure you are familiar with them). I am being honest about my perspective, so please take me at who I am and what I believe. Since we have different perspectives we can't possibly come to agreement on these matters. Again, just understand me if possible as I try to understand you. Thank you.

-Elliot

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Christian
Elliot wrote:
[b]From the content of tenor of Ruby's posts I too get the sense that there are more than intellectual problems that she has, but there is no reason to castigate that as some horrible fact. Emotions are also important.

I'm not castigating her. I'm flat out confronting her. She finds it fit to talk down about Christians constantly, I find it fit to question her.

If you find that I "talk down about Christians constantly" and you want to question me on it, why not start a whole new topic on it? If you read my last response to you in this thread, I did address some of that....at least, the part where you had said you called me out one time when I spoken against Christians.....which turned out be something I had said while I was still a Christian!

Why is it such a big deal to you if I have spoken in anger at times about Christians either as a Christian or when I stopped being one? Wait, don't answer that....it's not the topic of this thread. It's not like I have made a name for myself on JREF for slamming Christians! LOL!! I think most people see me as a push over.....as well as a simpleton, perhaps!

Perhaps I should wait for you to respond to my last post to you. Not that you have to respond......what's the point anyway? You will just give me more doses of your harsh tongue......and leave me lick my wounds again.

:(

[Christian]

Elliot wrote:
Christian mentioned "ad hom", and I think he might be overstating it, but it's getting there.

Ad hom is just a term used in here to point out a logical fallacy:

Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem)
Definition:
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the
person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked.
Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to
gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be
attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.

There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
(1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion,
the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
(2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an
assertion the author points to the relationship between the
person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
(3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the
person notes that a person does not practise what he
preaches.

Pahansiri is guilty of the three forms. :D :D :D

Ruby

You might not believe this, but I have great respect for you. When I say respect, I mean that I wont treat you as nothing but my equal.

I have no reservations in pointing out things to you and I will not treat you as a victim or someone who needs special consideration.

You are an able person.

Having said that. I will start a thread, it will be called, A Conversation with Ruby. I hope you join me there. (It's going to be awfully silly to start a thread with that name and you not around on it. :) :) )

On a side note, you don't need anybody defending you here. You can defend yourself here.

Ruby wrote:
If you find that I "talk down about Christians constantly" and you want to question me on it, why not start a whole new topic on it?

Ok.

Why is it such a big deal to you if I have spoken in anger at times about Christians either as a Christian or when I stopped being one? Wait, don't answer that....it's not the topic of this thread.

Ok.

It's not like I have made a name for myself on JREF for slamming Christians! LOL!! I think most people see me as a push over.....as well as a simpleton, perhaps!

I don't know how people see you here, I only know how I see you.

Perhaps I should wait for you to respond to my last post to you. Not that you have to respond......what's the point anyway?

I do respond. I think there is a lot to be gain from our exchange.

You will just give me more doses of your harsh tongue......and leave me lick my wounds again.

As I said, you are my equal, don't behave like you are not. Yes, sometimes honesty and respect for others seems harsh. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Please confirm you will join me on that thread.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Hey Ruby.
Right, and I'm not sure if it has ever crossed my mind in this thread to use scripture as a guide. There are prohibitions against murder/rape/incest because God does not stop them whenever they would occur. The expectation is that a human being would not perform these acts, and when they are performed, humanity would do something about it. They are evil, and they are within humanity's power.

First, let me say thank you for your kind tone with me.........also for not condescending to me or slaming me in some way. It is obvious that I came out of a different type of bible teaching than you have. I was taught that prayer could move mountains...just as scripture says...and that we should pray for and expect miracles. Intercession was supposed to be very powerful.

We could change an entire town through intercessory prayer........of course, this never happened.....but we never let the fact the had not happened stop us from continuing to pray. Murder, rape and incest etc., were also well within the power of prayer to prevent. To pray "a hedge of protection" around your family was very powerful and was supposed to work, no doubts involved.

We realized that not all evil could be quenched over night by our prayers...........but perhaps a lot of it could in time. I don't think we ever held out for all evil being stamped until "Jesus came back".

God the Father wants us to learn, understand, and approach him knowing that humanity needs salvation that humanity can not win on its own. Humanity, on its own, murders, rapes, et al. We hate each other and we hate God. That is reality, and this should lead us to want something else. This need for reconciliation to the Father is made obvious by these egregious things, but does not merely depend on the egregious things.

Yes, I was taught that too.....that without God, we hate each other, God, and humanity is rampant with evil. That was one of many things that planted seeds of doubt in me because I met very moral, honest, and good non-Christians.....people who were doing something for humanity. I saw Christians being arrested for sexual abuse of congregants, also those arrested for murder, rape, and all sorts or crimes. I heard evil, gossip, and hurtful things spoken from all sorts of Christians from every denomination.....and it destroyed the whole concept of Christianity being some great moral standard whereby proving that without God, life would become Hell. I was seeing Hell in Christinaity...and not just in my denomination.




I wholeheartedly agree with you. I am not, I guess, what would popularly be called a Bible Christian or a fundamentalist Christian. I merely believe in the fundamentals of Christianity. :)

Well, that's interesting. Do you attend a church? What is the denomination?



But that's just it. There are sociopaths, so full of narcissism, who are Gods to themselves. Our society enables such people through horrible parenting, a culture that worships sexuality, etc. Murder is and should be pinned on the murdererer, with the understanding that all of humanity is also responsible for evil. There's a Manic Street Preachers song called "Of Walking Abortion" that expresses this feeling quite powerfully. When a rape/murder happens, my first thought isn't "Well I could never do such a thing" but "What kind of world do we live in?". Anger is mixed with the desire for a better world. My faith tells me that Jesus is the only who can transform this world. I practice my faith, and I pray that all may desire to be reconciled to Jesus.

Yes, I used to do that do...pray that type of prayer. It never worked. However, I understand the need and passion you feel to pray this....and I know that it is helpful to you inside. I totally respect this...even if I cannot accept it or share in it.

If Jesus is the only one who can tranfrom this world, then why does he not do it? (I can almost hear christian cringing because this is a simpleton question...very basic)



OK, I got you completely. So, just so I can understand you, if murder/rape/addafewmorethings did not happen, you would be more at ease with Christian dogma?

No. There's too much else that is messed up and needs to be fixed. Things like, bible contradictions, lack of historical evidences, science having disproven things in the bible...especially from Genesis, lack of evidence that Jesus even existed.......I can't think of anything else...but I know there's more.

The suffering of children is the greatest proof against the existence of God, I think one of the Karamazov boys said that, right? We should be rightly outraged at the suffering of children, and there is for the Christian, consolation in the fact that God sent his own child to suffer as well.

The story of Jesus has no proof. And if it true.......it was God in flesh....and he did not die on the cross as a child, he was man. Plus, he got to rise from the dead and come back happily. Children die horribly never to return to us.



What Christian church were you a member of? It's horrible to be a member of a church where they do not allow you to exercise free will. I'm sorry about that, it's unfortunate you weren't in a different Christian church.

For most of my Christian years, I was mostly a member of non-denominational churches. That is, Charismatic churches!! Yep, speaking in tongues, dancing, being "slain in the spirit" etc.

My very first Christian experience was spent in a 1st United Pentecostal Church.....they are very legalistic..lots of rules....a whole formula for salvation.....you can read about it on their site.. http://www.upci.org/doctrine/#The%20Gift%20of%20the%20Holy%20Ghost

It was not easy to leave the UPC, but I was depressed and had to get out. I wrote a letter to the Pastor's wife, and then I left. The Pastor's wife wrote back to me saying I was "deceived in my heart". I was terrified that I was doomed to hell....even though I had left. It took some time before I stopped thinking that. I was four years in that before getting out and going to non-denom Charistimatic churches.

I spent four years in the 1st United Pencostal church, and then about nine in charismatic churches....with about six months spent in a baptist church and about three or four months spent in an Episcopal church in between switching from one charismatic church to another.

One of the main Non denomination churches I attended that was legalistic and messed me and my hubby about was a church called Church on The Rock.... http://www.cotr.cc/index.php that is the actual church i attended on that website, it is the biggest non-denom charismatic church in this area. I was there about four years, and my hubby was there five years. That is the church we met in. To read their website, it might sound rather good.....but believe me, it is full of legalism. I feel I will totally derail this thread this go into it...but honestly that church really left me with so much fear.

After we left that church, very wounded, we went to another charistmatic church that was not legalistic. The Pastor was great and a breath of fresh air. After a few years of being there, our Pastor suddenly went through an abrupt change. He decided to do everything different... decided he had done everything wrong. His new plan was full of legalism. He also did something to betray my husband's trust and hurt us. So, we left.

However, before we left......before our Pastor had come up with all these changes, we were already having so many doubts and questions about things in scripture that did not add up and did not really work. We always left services disagreeing with what was preached and finding contradictions or just things that were not true or did not add up.


Please forgive me..but I must stop here. I have a dentist appt. coming up soon...yuck..will reply to rest of post later!!

PS. I don't have time to clean up spelling and grammar and spelling so excuse any mistakes!!

:)

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Christian
Please confirm you will join me on that thread.

Don't have time to respond to anything else...but wanted to confirm to you that I'd join you in that thread.....for now I'm off to the dentist!

[Starrman]

The refutation for the "the suffering in world" by non-believers is very basic and straight forward. That you come out and say this is one of the reasons you had to rethink your belief system is intellectual lazyness or a cop-out answer.

What is intellectually lazy is to plug god into gaps of knowledge rather than admit to ignorance. Suffering is explainable by the randomness and voilence inherent in nature and in man.

There is no need to explain the motivations of god when there is nothing to indicate him being there in the first place. God is a gremlin.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Starrman


What is intellectually lazy is to plug god into gaps of knowledge rather than admit to ignorance. Suffering is explainable by the randomness and voilence inherent in nature and in man.

There is no need to explain the motivations of god when there is nothing to indicate him being there in the first place. God is a gremlin.

You've plugged randomness into the same void.

To me, everything indicates design.

But I like your use of the phrase "inherent in nature and in man". That's the problem.

-Elliot

[Christian]

Starman wrote:
What is intellectually lazy is to plug god into gaps of knowledge rather than admit to ignorance.

So, anyone that believes in God is intellectually lazy about that subject? If they really thought about it, they would clearly see there is no god. Is that it?

Oh, well, I guess all the scientists that are deists are simply intellectually lazy about the subject of god.

Or maybe you don't have the evidence to back up that claim.

[elliotfc]

Hi Ruby, it's a delight to talk to you, you sound like a real all-star.

Originally posted by Ruby

Yes, I was taught that too.....that without God, we hate each other, God, and humanity is rampant with evil. That was one of many things that planted seeds of doubt in me because I met very moral, honest, and good non-Christians.....people who were doing something for humanity. I saw Christians being arrested for sexual abuse of congregants, also those arrested for murder, rape, and all sorts or crimes. I heard evil, gossip, and hurtful things spoken from all sorts of Christians from every denomination.....and it destroyed the whole concept of Christianity being some great moral standard whereby proving that without God, life would become Hell. I was seeing Hell in Christinaity...and not just in my denomination.

God created us so we have the capacity to be the best people even if we, on earth, reject God. In fact, Christians, who claim to embrace God, reject God every time they sin. To me it is not an either/or, from either perspective. In other words, bad Christians do not damn faith in God anymore than good non-Christians. We are all God's children, no matter what we believe, and we are all sinners, no matter what we believe.

I don't know if Christianity is, essentially, a moral standard, although it could certainly serve as one (even if the adherents completely disregard what they claim to believe). There were moral standards before Christiantiy, after Christianity, and they're all essentially the same. It is very observant of you to see Hell in your own denomination, as Hell is the rejection of God, and people who talk the talk can reject God with the worst of them.

When I say that life apart from God is Hell, I mean that in finality, and with all cards on the table. On Earth there is doubt, even Jesus had doubt. When we encounter God to be judged, there can be no more doubt. Then the little hells of earthly existence will speak for us, to us, and against us. The little hells we have experience should make clear that the war against God must come to an absolute end. At this point, a rejection of God will be Hell, not on Earth, but in solitary oblivion.

Ruby I am a Roman Catholic. I had what can be called an idyllic Christian upbringing. I was an altar boy and loved it. Never had a priest do anything remotely weird or untoward to me. I have the privilege of coming from a mixed ethnic lineage, so I attended Catholic Korean and Catholic Polish masses, as well as Latin and now Spanish masses at my church. My religion was a source of family unity and my memories of church are outstanding. I've attended Catholic schools and loved them, and when I moved from Buffalo (I used to go to Canisius High School) I was depressed for years. In spite of all this happiness, I still managed to reject Christianity for years.

I don't think any of this is knee-jerk. A person can have a great Christian upbringing and go either way, while another can have a horrible Christian ubringing and go either way. At the crux of the matter is how strong an individuals faith is, what they understand IN THEIR OWN MIND about theology, and if they truly trust in God's way, regardless of the world's way or the temporal results.

Yes, I used to do that do...pray that type of prayer. It never worked. However, I understand the need and passion you feel to pray this....and I know that it is helpful to you inside. I totally respect this...even if I cannot accept it or share in it.

Currently I am studying anthropology, and I've come to a greater perspective about this prayer business. As you describe it, is no different from having ritualistic orgies for a terrific rainfall and harvest. Prayer, if conditional, is MY WILL BE DONE as opposed to THY WILL BE DONE. We apporoach God with our petitions, and trust in God's providence. I have faith in God, regardless what will ever happen to me. I don't put God to the test. I don't demand that God do what I say or I will no longer believe in him.

To give you a bit of background on myself...if I were to go back 10 years, at that time I was fond of telling people about the minimal expectations that I possessed about God. I had just returned to Christianity after struggling, intellectually, with these matters for years. As an 18 year old I petitioned God for nothing, as in my mind that would be setting myself up for wishes not being granted. I did pray in my own unique way but they were never prayers of petition. A part of that might have been fear, but I am certain that most of it was the belief that my desires and wishes were not worthy to be heard; God had more important things to worry about.

It's 10 years later now and I continue my rapid repel from that position. Now I think expectations of God should be high, but tempered. Expectations should be made in faith, not in arrogance. I can not expect God, who has provided his son for me, to alter his plan of salvation. The plan is for me and I am grateful. Yet the cries and petitions speak for the injustice of this existence, and this injustice can not be forgotten for then what good is salvation. Without suffering there is no salvation, and suffering is the necessary result of rebellious free wills. It all makes intellectual sense to me (probably not you). However I get more and more emotional with each passing year. I get angry at God all the time, and God is willing to tolerate anger. Heck, he probably expects anger! Teresa of Avila said to God "if this is how you treat your friends, no wonder you have so few". I am a malcontent about the state of the world, yet perfectly content about the vehicle of my salvation. I get all charged up about this stuff; I wear my heart on my sleeve.

If Jesus is the only one who can tranfrom this world, then why does he not do it? (I can almost hear christian cringing because this is a simpleton question...very basic)

There is nothing basic about salvation. Jesus has given hope to the world, and that hope is part of the transformation. The transformation continues all the time. As a Christian I continually transform myself as I sin (go away from God) and repent (go towards God). The world will eventually be transformed, we do not know the time.

No. There's too much else that is messed up and needs to be fixed. Things like, bible contradictions, lack of historical evidences, science having disproven things in the bible...especially from Genesis, lack of evidence that Jesus even existed.......I can't think of anything else...but I know there's more.

I am grateful that I was not raised to believe that the Bible is devoid of contradictions, perfect, the direct word of God, etc.

As for Jesus, I am content that he existed. There can never be enough evidence to prove the existence of any historical figure from two thousand years ago. I am content with the gospels and the writings of the 1st/2nd century church. I am aware that not all people will be content with that. It is proof for some, and not enough proof for others.

The story of Jesus has no proof. And if it true.......it was God in flesh....and he did not die on the cross as a child, he was man. Plus, he got to rise from the dead and come back happily. Children die horribly never to return to us.

My parents are fond of saying that we will always be their kids. :)

The story of Jesus exists in written form, is written with authority by persons who claimed to speak to eyewitnesses. That is enough for me. Many non-Christians believe that Jesus existed, and for good reason.

Jesus rose from the dead in the way that we all will eventually rise from the dead. His resurrection was different from that of Lazarus. He could walk through walls, etc. Our resurrected bodies will be similar. This will happen eventually. It is the faith of Christians that we will be reunited with loved ones.

It was not easy to leave the UPC, but I was depressed and had to get out. I wrote a letter to the Pastor's wife, and then I left. The Pastor's wife wrote back to me saying I was "deceived in my heart". I was terrified that I was doomed to hell....even though I had left. It took some time before I stopped thinking that. I was four years in that before getting out and going to non-denom Charistimatic churches.

This makes me very angry. This is as bad as child abuse or any form of psychological torture.

And now an appoitment with the dentist. I've never had a cavity in 28 years. I chalk that up to the glory and benevolence of God! That's a bit of a joke there. God knows I've had other toothal issues.

-Elliot

[Starrman]

So, anyone that believes in God is intellectually lazy about that subject? If they really thought about it, they would clearly see there is no god. Is that it?

Not what I said at all, dude. Are you twelve? I said it is lazy to plug a magical being into gaps in knowledge. Not all believers in god do that.

Greeks believed a god made lightning because they didn't know how it worked. If you just accept an unknown as a magical act then you may never know the truth.

Oh, well, I guess all the scientists that are deists are simply intellectually lazy about the subject of god.

What the hell does that have to do with anything. Why are you pouting about this?

[Starrman]

Elliot:
You've plugged randomness into the same void.

Touche! But randomness is an observable phenomena - for every event of good fortune I can find one of horrible fortune. Hurricanes, earthquakes and floods occur and within those disasters are people who are lucky to survive and people who were not so lucky. Everyday people are killed in ways that seemingly defy the odds and everyday people survive things that the odds say they shouldn't . I don't think you would disagree that the world has the observable quality of being random, which is why saying random is not the same as saying god. God is not observable within this world (in my opinion, of course).

Christian:

Sorry for snapping at you a few short minutes ago. I am really interested in your answer to the question of why god allows suffering. More specifically, do you believe that god does not have the power to stop suffering in a specific case, or does he choose not to. Or do you believe that the reward in the afterlife is sufficient to justify any level of suffering on earth.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Starrman
Elliot:


Touche! But randomness is an observable phenomena - for every event of good fortune I can find one of horrible fortune. Hurricanes, earthquakes and floods occur and within those disasters are people who are lucky to survive and people who were not so lucky. Everyday people are killed in ways that seemingly defy the odds and everyday people survive things that the odds say they shouldn't . I don't think you would disagree that the world has the observable quality of being random, which is why saying random is not the same as saying god. God is not observable within this world (in my opinion, of course).

Well...

Yes, you're onto something. "Disordered" forces rule on Earth, and not God. As a Christian that is certainly my belief.

But I still see a universe that works pretty darn well. There may be blind watchmakers out there, and if so, I'll bet you at one time they could see pretty darn well.

-Elliot

[Ipecac]

No one answered Tricky's excellent post above.

Why the heck couldn't God, a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent being, provide humans with a place to live where they wouldn't be brutalized by disease, the environment, and each other, while still allowing them free will? You might not be able to imagine such a place, but surely God could.

This argument that suffering exists due to free will is absurd since God could certainly have given us free will and no suffering.

[Starrman]

But I still see a universe that works pretty darn well. There may be blind watchmakers out there, and if so, I'll bet you at one time they could see pretty darn well.

Tell that to the dinosaurs. The well-designed universe wiped them off the planet with an asteroid. What about the folks that die from a burst appendix? Why did the design include an organ that serves no purpose other than to occasionally kill someone?

The question is, do we perceive design becuase it was designed, or because we like to find design to make that which is random and scary neat and orderly?

[Christian]

Starrman wrote:
Not what I said at all, dude. Are you twelve? I said it is lazy to plug a magical being into gaps in knowledge. Not all believers in god do that

Ok, I buy that.

Christian:

Sorry for snapping at you a few short minutes ago. I am really interested in your answer to the question of why god allows suffering. More specifically, do you believe that god does not have the power to stop suffering in a specific case, or does he choose not to. Or do you believe that the reward in the afterlife is sufficient to justify any level of suffering on earth.

That's ok, I missunderstood your response.

I think God designed the universe as we see it now. He created ripples, anomalies. It is the only logical way to perceive anything.

God has the power to keep perfection, stillness. But that is not His plan.

Now, why design suffering? It is the only way to appreciate bliss.

This next part is very important. What is the proportion of things that go wrong (suffering) vrs. the things that go right?

When an earthquake kills people, people point to it and say, why does God allow that? But they don't think of all the seconds of every day all over the world where earthquakes don't happen. God is there too.

For every one bad thing that happens billions of good things happen.

The Japanese introduced the quality standard of parts of defect per million. God's quality of defects is parts per billions.

And we need those defects to have knowledge of perfection.

[Christian]

Ipecac wrote:
No one answered Tricky's excellent post above.

Why the heck couldn't God, a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent being, provide humans with a place to live where they wouldn't be brutalized by disease, the environment, and each other, while still allowing them free will? You might not be able to imagine such a place, but surely God could.

This argument that suffering exists due to free will is absurd since God could certainly have given us free will and no suffering.

I agree.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Christian
Ipecac wrote:
No one answered Tricky's excellent post above.

Why the heck couldn't God, a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent being, provide humans with a place to live where they wouldn't be brutalized by disease, the environment, and each other, while still allowing them free will? You might not be able to imagine such a place, but surely God could.

This argument that suffering exists due to free will is absurd since God could certainly have given us free will and no suffering.

I agree.

Okay.

So, your position seems to be that little girls get tortured and killed, thousands die being crushed in earthquakes or starve to death in the rubble, people get horrible diseases and live in pain for years, so that we can appreciate bliss?

That seems even more trivial than the free will answer. I am plenty able to appreciate bliss without suffering pain. One is not necessary to experience the other.

[elliotfc]

SPOON!

Originally posted by Tricky

It is spiritual people who somehow think God should be a policeman. They expect Him to punish evil-doers and do what is right for the world. Religious skeptics merely point out that if He is supposed to be doing that, He is doing a very poor job. Either that or his value system is so different from ours that it would be rational to regard him as a capricious tyrant.

I think timeliness is expected with police (public enemy, 911 is a joke). In my opinion/experience, spiritual people think of God as more of a judge than a cop. Policemen don't really punish people, they are more of an arm of the whole judicial deal. I agree that if the standard is God should be a policeman, he doesn't measure up to the standard.

Tyrants typically tend to be very active in their tyranny. I believe you are trying to establish God as a passive tyrant who doesn't care if evil people wreak havoc in his creation to the detriment of innocent people. I've been trying to defend the Christian notion that he does care, and through his son Jesus does understand this complaint. It is an excellent complaint, and will be addressed, but not at the time(s) we would have it be addressed. If this sounds horrible, what is the alternative? The abolition of free will? Would that be less horrible to you?

No, just pointing out the self-contradiction of those who think that God has any effect on evil whatsoever. They see good and say, "Aha! Look what God did." They see evil and say "God didn't do that." Humans, like Ashcroft, are expected to be accountable for the good and evil that they do, but God has carte blanche.

Right. God is the source of creative goodness, and when his creation acts as Jesus/God would, we are following the example and enacting God's will. I don't typically say "look what God did" for that implies that I have no free will and that God controls me when I do something good. My notion is more along the lines of not crediting good action to myself; i.e., not basking in the wonderfulness of my own personal goodness. For the greater glory of God, that's the credo I would subscribe to over "look what God did".

Here is another place where the inconsistancy resides. You believe that you know part of God's plan, yet you freely admit when something happens that conflicts with that part you believe to know, that you don't know God's plan. It strikes me as tremendously egotistical to claim to even know a fraction of God's plan, much less try to tell others what it is.

As a believer in Jesus I have to know part of God's plan. Since Jesus is my salvation, how could I not say I don't know part of God's plan? I don't have the explanations or proofs to satisfy 7 billion people. When I say I don't know all of God's plan, I am being perfectly honest.

I am not teling others what the totality of the plan is, just part of it. To submit a belief system to another person is not inherently egotistical, it's just inherently human I thin. I freely admit that I may have a few details wrong, maybe even more than a few. All humans do the best they can, belief systems are continually tinkered, and no one (in my opinion) will be cast into Hell because they don't get God's plan during their temporal life.

But the intercessions are pretty much random in their occurrance, happening to people of all religions and beliefs. I see no reason to suppose that these are intercessions at all, but merely the luck of the draw.

I don't believe God can act randomly. Jesus performed some miracles. He didn't cure everybody. Was it just luck of the draw for the people who stumbled in front of him? God knows the faith of everyone of us and understands our spiritual situations.

And it doesn't make any difference if you believe in an existence beyond the temporal if you do not have evidence as to what that existence is. There are lots of speculative ideas, but no general agreement. In the absence of evidence, how do you decide which one is right?

Gotta use your head and your heart. If you are not convinced, I don't hold that against you and I don't believe God will hold that against you either.

I can only tell you where I am coming from of course. I get intellectual satisfaction from my beliefs; I can't expect everyone to be similarly satisfied.

What is this need to "conquer death". Why is death such a horrible thing? Perhaps death, full and complete, with no afterlife, is God's plan. Is it only fear that makes you demand otherwise?

Death is the opposite of life, which is a gift from God. That is why it must be conquered. Death is a horrible thing because it is the result of the rejection of God. I don't believe death full and complete is part of God's plan. All I can say is that fear has nothing to do with that, but you can have your own opinion about me I guess.

That belief is hardly a demand since I merely subscribe to the Gospels, which I didn't write. Waving the fear stick around, in my opinion, does no good. I could wave the fear stick around at another person only to incur their anger and wrath. What's the point? Take me at my word, or don't.

Then you should also not believe in giving God credit for good things about the human condition. Don't you agree that's fair?

Because God created humans. When we turn away from God that is a choice, freely made. When we act according to the way God would have us act that is fulfilling God's plan.

But you admit that you do not know him, or that at best you know only a tiny part of him. Perhaps the parts of him you don't know are not very pretty.

As a Christian I believe that God incarnate was Jesus. I *feel* as if I know Jesus very well. It's difficult to articulate that feeling. Every year I feel closer and closer to the *person* of Jesus. I think this was the intention, part of the point, of Jesus. I feel like I know quite a bit about God through the person of Jesus.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Starrman


Tell that to the dinosaurs. The well-designed universe wiped them off the planet with an asteroid. What about the folks that die from a burst appendix? Why did the design include an organ that serves no purpose other than to occasionally kill someone?

The question is, do we perceive design becuase it was designed, or because we like to find design to make that which is random and scary neat and orderly?

The well-designed universe was corrupted by a spiritual fall, by either the angels/humans (theologies vary on that point).

I think it is obvious that the universe was designed, and that something isn't working as it should. What's so scary about randomness? If it's all randomness in the end, I don't see anything to be scared about. Nothing matters if it's all randomness. Or everything matters. Or something in between. Whatever. No biggie.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Christian
Ipecac wrote:
No one answered Tricky's excellent post above.

Why the heck couldn't God, a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent being, provide humans with a place to live where they wouldn't be brutalized by disease, the environment, and each other, while still allowing them free will? You might not be able to imagine such a place, but surely God could.

This argument that suffering exists due to free will is absurd since God could certainly have given us free will and no suffering.

I agree.

Free will is the ability to make a choice that is imperfect.

An imperfect choice must result in suffering.

No suffering means no imperfect choices.

No imperfect choices means the lack of the ability to make an imperfect choice.

The lack of the ability to make an imperfect choice means no free will.

-Elliot

[Tricky]

Originally posted by elliotfc
SPOON!
You have spoken the holy word and are admitted to the inner circle, brother!:D

Originally posted by elliotfc
I think timeliness is expected with police (public enemy, 911 is a joke). In my opinion/experience, spiritual people think of God as more of a judge than a cop. Policemen don't really punish people, they are more of an arm of the whole judicial deal. I agree that if the standard is God should be a policeman, he doesn't measure up to the standard.
Of course I personally do not expect anything from God, but I am trying to convey some of the ways God is seen by my spiritual friends.

Perhaps you see God as more of a judge than a policeman, and certainly many others see him in the judge role as well, but it cannot be denied that many people think God and Jesus intercede to make certain things happen. That is a policeman's role, not a judge's. Judges wait for the cases to be brought before them. They do not intercede until after the fact. But thank you for the frank admission.

Originally posted by elliotfc
Tyrants typically tend to be very active in their tyranny. I believe you are trying to establish God as a passive tyrant who doesn't care if evil people wreak havoc in his creation to the detriment of innocent people. I've been trying to defend the Christian notion that he does care, and through his son Jesus does understand this complaint. It is an excellent complaint, and will be addressed, but not at the time(s) we would have it be addressed. If this sounds horrible, what is the alternative? The abolition of free will? Would that be less horrible to you?
Perhaps tyrant was a bit strong choice of words. I believe that "capricious" is the operative description. Maybe he is good, but he's only occasionally good and very sporadic and illogical in his intercessions.

If I were to improve on God's system, (as many understand it), I would have punishments occur in real time, not in some hypothetical afterlife. That way you could still have free will, but you would be "strongly encouraged" to use it right. I think everyone wants this. Look at two thirds of the movies out there today with the climactic scene involving justice for the bad guys. Sometimes, it is even supernatural justice. We all crave that.

I crave it too, but I have learned not to expect it. The only real justice we will ever be sure of comes from human efforts. Post-life justice, be it heaven, hell or karma, is, IMHO, just wishful thinking. I think people wish for it so hard that they invent (or subscribe to) illogical belief systems in the desperate pursuit of fulfilling the need for justice (as they see it.) However, I will not argue that the quest for justice is anything but a good thing. I just want it to happen where I can see it.

Originally posted by elliotfc

Right. God is the source of creative goodness, and when his creation acts as Jesus/God would, we are following the example and enacting God's will. I don't typically say "look what God did" for that implies that I have no free will and that God controls me when I do something good. My notion is more along the lines of not crediting good action to myself; i.e., not basking in the wonderfulness of my own personal goodness. For the greater glory of God, that's the credo I would subscribe to over "look what God did".
That is a good way to look at it, but it still infers that you wouldn't have done good (or as good) had God not inspired you by His wonderful example. My contention is that the not-so-good stuff you do is also inspired by God's example because he can be petty, capricious and unresponsive to the sufferings of others. When you behave this way, you are also emulating God. As a humanist, I try to think only of the good I do for people, not of glorifying some non-participant. But I still like your style.

Originally posted by elliotfc
As a believer in Jesus I have to know part of God's plan. Since Jesus is my salvation, how could I not say I don't know part of God's plan? I don't have the explanations or proofs to satisfy 7 billion people. When I say I don't know all of God's plan, I am being perfectly honest.
And as a member of BOTT (Brotherhood Of The Tick) you are entitled to know some of our plan. (Fight evil!)

Yes, it would be nice to think that the Big Boss and his CEO are letting you in on their vision. It would also be nice to think they are going to promote you (in the next life) for your hard work. Unfortunately, you have less than a handshake deal on this. But as they say, a verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's printed on. ;)

But yes, it is true that if you are to be a Christian, you must believe that, else why be a Christian? I do not care for organizations that tell me what I must believe, regardless of how good their intentions.

Originally posted by elliotfc
I am not teling others what the totality of the plan is, just part of it. To submit a belief system to another person is not inherently egotistical, it's just inherently human I thin. I freely admit that I may have a few details wrong, maybe even more than a few
I can agree with this. As a parallel, I can expound on environmental causes even though I am not always correct in the science of them (Heck. Nobody is!). But that does not mean that a belief in protecting the environment is wrong. It just means I have to brush up on the details.

Originally posted by elliotfc
All humans do the best they can, belief systems are continually tinkered, and no one (in my opinion) will be cast into Hell because they don't get God's plan during their temporal life.
I'm glad you see it that way. Would that more Christians were less anxious to see non-believers cruelly punished.

Originally posted by elliotfc
I don't believe God can act randomly. Jesus performed some miracles. He didn't cure everybody. Was it just luck of the draw for the people who stumbled in front of him? God knows the faith of everyone of us and understands our spiritual situations.
If it isn't random, then it certainly appears that way. In my mind there's no effective difference between a random system and a non-random but unknowable system. If nothing I do (in a spiritual sense) affects the outcome of a situation, then it is pointless to try spiritual solutions. Yes, I know, "God helps those who help themselves", but I see no difference in the outcome of situations involving those who help themselves in the name of God and those who help themselves without invoking God's name. I wish it were otherwise, but evidence and logic compels me to acknowledge this reality.

Originally posted by elliotfc
Gotta use your head and your heart. If you are not convinced, I don't hold that against you and I don't believe God will hold that against you either.
I've found (much to my dismay) that the heart (in the metaphorical sense) is an imperfect device for analysis. It commonly lets its judgment be clouded by its wishes. Heads are less susceptible to this flaw. But I like your conception of a God that does not mind if people use the brains He gave them.

Originally posted by elliotfc
I can only tell you where I am coming from of course. I get intellectual satisfaction from my beliefs; I can't expect everyone to be similarly satisfied.
And I respect that. I forgot who said it first, "Blessed is he who expects no thanks, for he shall not be disappointed."

Originally posted by elliotfc
Death is the opposite of life, which is a gift from God. That is why it must be conquered. Death is a horrible thing because it is the result of the rejection of God. I don't believe death full and complete is part of God's plan. All I can say is that fear has nothing to do with that, but you can have your own opinion about me I guess.
I regard death as a necessary part of life, neither better nor worse than any other part. Perhaps my genes and my memes will continue to influence people after I'm gone, but I totally expect my consciousness to be gone. And I'm okay with that. Sure I'd like to survive after death, but again, evidence compels me to believe otherwise.

And yes. I do have my own opinion about you. :clap:


Originally posted by elliotfc
That belief is hardly a demand since I merely subscribe to the Gospels, which I didn't write. Waving the fear stick around, in my opinion, does no good. I could wave the fear stick around at another person only to incur their anger and wrath. What's the point? Take me at my word, or don't.
Perhaps demand was not the correct word. I didn not mean to imply that you were telling others what to do. What I meant is that you demand of your own belief system to include an afterlife. (Sort of like you might "demand" cruise control in any car you would buy. ;))

And, no offense, I don't take your word for it. Or the Gospels'.

Originally posted by elliotfc
Because God created humans. When we turn away from God that is a choice, freely made. When we act according to the way God would have us act that is fulfilling God's plan.
So you believe, but I think that if God's plan includes doing good for humans, then He shouldn't care how it happens or who gives him glory for it. I cannot conceive that God would have such an ego. A Satanist who does good should be just as blesséd in his eyes.

Originally posted by elliotfc
As a Christian I believe that God incarnate was Jesus. I *feel* as if I know Jesus very well. It's difficult to articulate that feeling. Every year I feel closer and closer to the *person* of Jesus. I think this was the intention, part of the point, of Jesus. I feel like I know quite a bit about God through the person of Jesus.

So do millions of others. Yet, what each one *feels* is different. That suggests to me that this is just *feelings*.

http://images.animfactory.com/animations/people_m_z/singer/rockstar_singing_passionately_md_clr.gif Nothing more than *feelings*...

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Free will is the ability to make a choice that is imperfect.

An imperfect choice must result in suffering.

No suffering means no imperfect choices.

No imperfect choices means the lack of the ability to make an imperfect choice.

The lack of the ability to make an imperfect choice means no free will.

-Elliot

Um, no. Can't agree with any of these except the fourth one. What makes you think any of these are true?

[Christian]

Ipecac wrote:
So, your position seems to be that little girls get tortured and killed, thousands die being crushed in earthquakes or starve to death in the rubble, people get horrible diseases and live in pain for years, so that we can appreciate bliss?

Bliss in all of it's forms. Triumph over adversity, feeling good about doing right, conquering evil, etc.

What's important for God is the human heart (translation to modern times, his state of mind).

The stage is set, the play has already been written and it's already in progress. We decide how this play will affect our heart.

Viktor Frankl wrote the book:
Man's Search for Meaning (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671023373/qid=1076604127//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-8644021-8565628?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

In it, he describes his experiences in a Nazi concentration camp.

The gist of the book is that humans can be more free (even in these types of horrible situations) by the will of the mind. He claimed he had more freedom than his captors.

That seems even more trivial than the free will answer. I am plenty able to appreciate bliss without suffering pain. One is not necessary to experience the other.

Oh, really. Don't you think it is a sad life to never accomplish anything?

If you answer you have accomplished many things in your life, then you must have struggled, felt pain, suffered. How else would an accomplishment be an accomplishment?

The implications of what I say are not trivial, they are what matters most.

Elliot wrote:
Free will is the ability to make a choice that is imperfect.

An imperfect choice must result in suffering.

No suffering means no imperfect choices.

No imperfect choices means the lack of the ability to make an imperfect choice.

The lack of the ability to make an imperfect choice means no free will.

I'll just mention why the first is wrong. Then you can see what the problems are with the rest.

If the first one is true, then God does not have free will.

And why would making imperfect choices be a requirement of free will?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by elliotfc


............... I feel like I know quite a bit about God through the person of Jesus.

-Elliot


Could you maybe tell us a little bit of what you know about God?

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Christian
Bliss in all of it's forms. Triumph over adversity, feeling good about doing right, conquering evil, etc.

What's important for God is the human heart (translation to modern times, his state of mind).

The stage is set, the play has already been written and it's already in progress. We decide how this play will affect our heart.

Viktor Frankl wrote the book:
Man's Search for Meaning (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671023373/qid=1076604127//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-8644021-8565628?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

In it, he describes his experiences in a Nazi concentration camp.

The gist of the book is that humans can be more free (even in these types of horrible situations) by the will of the mind. He claimed he had more freedom than his captors.

That seems even more trivial than the free will answer. I am plenty able to appreciate bliss without suffering pain. One is not necessary to experience the other.

Oh, really. Don't you think it is a sad life to never accomplish anything?

If you answer you have accomplished many things in your life, then you must have struggled, felt pain, suffered. How else would an accomplishment be an accomplishment?

The implications of what I say are not trivial, they are what matters most.
[/B]

I think I would be perfectly happy living in a less imperfect world making choices like which restaurant to patronize, which movie to see, which career to pursue, which people do I want as friends. In short, living a normal life but free of crime, disease, natural disasters and other horrors.

Surely God could design a life filled with accomplishments and free will but without all the bad stuff. Or can't God do that? Is that beyond God's power?

As far as Victor Frankl goes, I'm certain that he would rather have given up a little of that "freedom" in exchange for not being in a concentration camp.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by elliotfc
I've been trying to defend the Christian notion that he does care, and through his son Jesus does understand this complaint. It is an excellent complaint, and will be addressed, but not at the time(s) we would have it be addressed. If this sounds horrible, what is the alternative? The abolition of free will? Would that be less horrible to you?

. . .

As a Christian I believe that God incarnate was Jesus. I *feel* as if I know Jesus very well. It's difficult to articulate that feeling. Every year I feel closer and closer to the *person* of Jesus. I think this was the intention, part of the point, of Jesus. I feel like I know quite a bit about God through the person of Jesus.

-Elliot

Why is the abolition of free will the only alternative? Surely an all-powerful being could have designed a universe where people have free will while not having crime, disease, poverty, natural disasters and all the bad stuff.

As far as the whole cross thing, Christians are pretty inconsistent about it. They say that Christ died and suffered for our sins and that he's god incarnate. Well, if he's God, then why should I be remotely impressed that he suffered for a few hours? You are quick to dismiss years of human suffering as transient, so why shouldn't I view Christ's suffering on the cross (and subsequent "resurrection") as no big deal?

And what was different afterwards? People apparently aren't free of "sin". According to believers, things are worse than they've ever been. We still have to jump through hoops to be saved. So just what the heck was Christ supposed to have done for us? Didn't God save the faithful before Christ?

And finally, if God wanted to save all mankind, he did a pathetic job of it. He appeared only in an isolated area for a very short period of time. Since the printing press hadn't been invented, travel was dangerous, slow and difficult, and there was no global communications network, he had to have known that it would take about 1900 years for the word to spread to all corners of the globe. I guess it was tough luck on the millions and millions of people who didn't live in the middle east.

The only way any of the above makes sense is if it's considered in its historic context as a religion that sprang up not from a divine being but from a local tribe of superstitious and primitive people. Considered in that light, all of the inconsistencies, ugliness, and confusion in Christianity make sense.

[Christian]

Ipecac wrote:
I think I would be perfectly happy living in a less imperfect world making choices like which restaurant to patronize, which movie to see, which career to pursue, which people do I want as friends.

But, I'm sorry IHMO, this would be a terribly boring life. It would be a life without merit and you.

I see. And the people who made the movie possible for you to see, and the ones that built the restaurant, and the career you want to persue, do all this things need effort, struggle, pain and suffering?

If having a Ph.D. in any field were a matter of preference alone, don't you think we all would be. And if you took away the all the struggle away from this process, wouldn't you take away the most satisfiying joy.

Have you ever accomplished anything great? I'm sure you have. That is the greatest source of satisfaction to humans. And if it involves service to others and making their lives better, the joy is supreme.

Surely God could design a life filled with accomplishments and free will but without all the bad stuff. Or can't God do that? Is that beyond God's power?

It is. Can God create a coin that only has one side? Can He create up without down? God has to a logical consistent concept. There can't be a God that IS and NOT at the same time.

Accomplishment requires struggle, suffering and pain. There is just no way around that as there is no way around triangles having three sides.

As far as Victor Frankl goes, I'm certain that he would rather have given up a little of that "freedom" in exchange for not being in a concentration camp.

You are missing the point.

[Dancing David]

Wow, this thread has taken many a strange turn!

Victor Frankl, I enjoyed the book as sad as it was, it is about life , if it is the one I think that it is.

The message I got was that life was precious, especialy in the scene where he smokes the cigarette in the chimeny in the riot prior to liberation.

What I come away from all this thinking is the following , god is superflous, and I mean that in the best sense. I am someone who feels that there are experieneces that link humankind to the experienece of god. And that for some people they can be a useful experience. And so I am someone who understands the benefit of the notions of god. Although that blood soaked sinai dust devil is little too crabby for my style. When I was a Xian I was definitly a gnostic without knowing it, I knew that the god of the old testament was not the god of jesus.

But if you really stop and think about evil , evil like the Holocaust. There is no way to rationalize it, there is no way to say that it is needful or that it has a purpose. As someone who has been through a little pain in my life, and who has worked alot in the the field of human suffering, there is pain already in normal human life. Ultimate evil is not needed for there to be good.

Seriously , I come to this conclusion very carefully and with great time and consideration. Lets me repeat, there is no need for ultimate evil, there is enough suffering and loss in the course of everyday life to give one an appreciation of the good in life.

Why evil? Really stop for a moment and just calm yourself before you think about it.
Why evil?
Why was I raped when I was six, why did I almost die when I was sixteen?

The answer if you are brave enough to face it is this: there is no pattern, there is no design, there is no meaning to live other than living it.

Every other answer is a rationalization based upon a prior wish or belief. It is much easier to se that if there is a god, then they did not design the universe. Much could be done to not have suffering if there was a design. You can have the pain and suffering of normal loss with out the need for evil. There is no design to the way organic life arose in our part of the universe. It is the result of random occurance, no design.

Having been raped as a child does not make me appreciate life any more than if i hadn't and in fact it makes it a whole lot harder. The fact that a friend of mine died when I was seventeen had a much greater impact on me than being raped or abused. That is where i learned the value of life. the meaning of life is totaly different. There is no inherent meaning to life other than the living ofit. there is taking care of myself and taking care of others, that is the only good in the world. All meaning that life has is to be found in living. That is the message of the incarnation of diety. God can manifest only through the pitiful organic creations provided by random chance. There is no after life, there is no soul. The only meaning to live is in living.

the solution to the puzzle is that there is no god, except as we make them up.

There is no need for evil!

Any one who really stops and thinks about human suffering will realize this. There is no purpose to evil, there is no design for evil, there is no meaning in there being eveil.

What we percieve of as evil is merely a result of the suffering inherent in the random, chaotic world.

If there is a god, they are one sick bastard. Evil is a side bar, it is not needed, it serves no purpose.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Christian
Ipecac wrote:
I think I would be perfectly happy living in a less imperfect world making choices like which restaurant to patronize, which movie to see, which career to pursue, which people do I want as friends.


But, I'm sorry IHMO, this would be a terribly boring life. It would be a life without merit and you.

I see. And the people who made the movie possible for you to see, and the ones that built the restaurant, and the career you want to persue, do all this things need effort, struggle, pain and suffering?

Surely God could design a life filled with accomplishments and free will but without all the bad stuff. Or can't God do that? Is that beyond God's power?

It is. Can God create a coin that only has one side? Can He create up without down? God has to a logical consistent concept. There can't be a God that IS and NOT at the same time.

Accomplishment requires struggle, suffering and pain. There is just no way around that as there is no way around triangles having three sides.
[/B]

Sorry, not buying the requirement of suffering. All of the things you've listed could be accomplished without crime, disease and natural disasters. Choice does NOT require suffering. You don't need crime to exist to make a movie. Same with disease or natural disaster. You're tying together something that doesn't need to be tied together.

So you don't believe in an omnipotent God? That certainly sets you apart from 99%+ of other Christians. God is by definition, not a logically consistent concept. So I'm not sure why you believe in him.

[Christian]

Ipecac wrote:
Sorry, not buying the requirement of suffering. All of the things you've listed could be accomplished without crime, disease and natural disasters. Choice does NOT require suffering. You don't need crime to exist to make a movie. Same with disease or natural disaster. You're tying together something that doesn't need to be tied together.

That's ok. we will just have to agree on disagreement.

So you don't believe in an omnipotent God? That certainly sets you apart from 99%+ of other Christians. God is by definition, not a logically consistent concept. So I'm not sure why you believe in him.

Wait. I do believe in an omnipotent God. It's just that your definition of omnipotence includes illogical constructions.

Omnipotence does not mean God can do anything. There must be logical restrictions.

God cannot create a rock He cannot carry.
God cannot exist and not exist at the same time.
God cannot make 2+2=5
God cannot know the answer to the division by 0 (I mean the exact number, it is all numbers)

And finally, God cannot create a coin with only one side. Accomplishment requires effort by definition.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Christian
Wait. I do believe in an omnipotent God. It's just that your definition of omnipotence includes illogical constructions.

Omnipotence does not mean God can do anything. There must be logical restrictions.

God cannot create a rock He cannot carry.
God cannot exist and not exist at the same time.
God cannot make 2+2=5
God cannot know the answer to the division by 0 (I mean the exact number, it is all numbers)

And finally, God cannot create a coin with only one side. Accomplishment requires effort by definition.

Doesn't the word omnipotent by definition mean he can do anything? It means unlimited or absolute power. How can you set logical restrictions on a being who exists outside of the known universe?

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Christian
Accomplishment requires effort by definition.

Yes. But effort does not equal suffering. You can have effort in a world without suffering.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Christian
Elliot wrote:
Free will is the ability to make a choice that is imperfect.

An imperfect choice must result in suffering.

No suffering means no imperfect choices.

No imperfect choices means the lack of the ability to make an imperfect choice.

The lack of the ability to make an imperfect choice means no free will.

I'll just mention why the first is wrong. Then you can see what the problems are with the rest.

If the first one is true, then God does not have free will.

And why would making imperfect choices be a requirement of free will?

Hi Christian.

God doesn't have free will, he has perfect will. I don't believe that God has free will as we do. Of course the will of the created must be different from the will of the ultimate creator.

Free will means the will is yours, and not God's. Of course it is possible that all entities with free will could completely subscribe to God's will and we would have no imperfect chioces; however, the reality is that there are imperfect choices. So I did mispeak only because of the reality of the situation. It is/was theoretically possible that there would be no imperfect choices even with free will, but with the possibility of imperfect choice, many/most entities have gone that route.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Diogenes



Could you maybe tell us a little bit of what you know about God?

Hmmm. It's more like I know about Jesus I think. The more I think about the whole Jesus, the more sense it makes. It's like a positive feedback loop or something. I'm always open to hear something/anything that will cause me to get out of the loop.

If the Jesus thing is all a scam, a contrived myth and all that, they sure did a hell of a job. It's just the perfect solution for all of my questions, so I am increasingly content with my faith in Jesus. Without Jesus I think my faith in God would be radically different. I suspect I would still be a theist, but an agitated theist. God did want us to know about himself, so he became incarnate lord, and that works for me. Brilliant move on his part. Alternately, if it's a scam, hats off to the scammers. They whipped up the best idea ever. If I've fallen for a scam, no biggie, cuz in that case it doesn't matter.

It's gone beyond intellectual satisfaction, although I still have that too. I am not really here to debate or to convert. I find this stuff challenging to me, on a personal level, and I don't think it hurts to offer my perspective to yalls.

I don't have any personal revelations from God, just a feeling of resonance and contentment, which is enough. That's wrapped up in a continuing desire to think, explore, and ponder.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Ipecac


Doesn't the word omnipotent by definition mean he can do anything? It means unlimited or absolute power. How can you set logical restrictions on a being who exists outside of the known universe?

Can God do what is logically impossible? Can God make 3 + 7 = 159?

The dictionary definition of omnipotent does not include a reference to God. I have no problem saying that God does not submit to the dictionary definition of God, particularly since dictionaries don't consider that possibility.

When I say God is omnipotent, he is omnipotent as he is, not as some dictionary says he is. God is Father as he is, not as an earthly father is. I won't set dictionary restrictions or human conceptual restrictions on God.

-Elliot

[Ruby]

Sorry to take so long to reply. I've been quite busy.....and will be busy again today...but have a bit of time right now.

Originally posted by elliotfc
Right, this is very sad. I was taught, as a Christian, to petition God, but never to expect the answers and results from God that I desired. It isn't so much minimal expectations, but open-mindedness, and gratitude for what I had been given. That was my Christian upbringing.

I was always taught to expect an answer, but I was also taught sometimes "God" might not answer in the way you desire. This actually caused a lot of fear in those of us single Christians who were praying for, and waiting on "God" to "bring" us a mate. Some of my friends, especially my best friend, lived in fear that "God" would force her to marry a man she did not find attractive! You sort of have to laugh...even though it's sad too. I believed that "God" would not "make" you marry someone you did not like or find attractive. I had heard too many testimonies from married couples in our church to buy that.


Everything in my whole church experience was about "more power", "more money", and "more of "God". And the only way to get more power, more money, and more of God, was to have more "moves of the Holy Spirit" i.e. more people dancing, clapping, falling out, speaking in tongues, prophesying and running about. All this is supposed to produce miracles, which is usually accepted in the form of healings......which are questionable and I never witnessed anything dramatic, people being saved, church membership going up. The end result is a feeling of "power" of having "more of God" and best of all.....more money coming in!!! Still, it's never enough. Pretty soon, they'll be seeking for more again.

These moves of the Holy Spirit could only be brought about by a jamming "Praise and Worship" team....more of a rock band really. At Church on the Rock, we had two superb electric guitarist....(one of the guitarists had gorgeous long hair too), a very good bass guitarist, a great drummer, a keyboardist, and pianist, trumpets, flutes, trombones etc . A fantastic back-up singing group...mostly female...........and a man who was the lead singer and cheerleader.

We could not have a female to lead. Most Charismatic churches......and maybe most churches, period....I don't know for sure, believe that women must not lead men in any way, shape, or form, in a church setting. The women can only teach other women. So, they did have a big women's ministry run by the Pastor's wife, but they won't even give the women titles like "Pastor" or "Co-Pastor", so the Pastor's wife could not even hold that title even though she lead the women's group....and did so much more within the church.

Naturally, husband's were heads of the household, and wives had to submit..blah, blah, blah.

There was lots of gratitude too...............but still, everything was more, more , more.

This is excellent. Just as an aside Ruby, and please use this as a thought exercise, if you were to die and meet God, how would you react? Alternatively, if something cataclysmic were to happen to you, how would you react?

Naturally, I can't recall what I said for you to comment "This is excellent". Oh well. thanks.

I haven't got a clue how to answer your question about what I'd do if I died and met "God". I'm still trying to figure out if I beleive a god exists or not.

As for something cataclysmic.....I'm not sure anyone can predict how they will react. I've suffered with much in my life........I've been through a lot of hell. Fibromyalgia has taken a lot out of me, and before the new meds and treatment I am on now, I was pretty much an invalid....but Fibro is not terminal.............although some sufferers take their lives, unfortunately.

Anyhow, cataclysmic is a very strong word. It suggests the death of a loved one or worse...if there can be a worse. I did lose my dad three years ago.....that was very very hard on me. But perhaps you mean even worse.

I don't know if this is what you are getting at......but I can tell you that if something terrible happened, it would not cause me to turn back to christianity or "God".

In my personal perspective, anything that happens to me, goes well/poorly for me, etc., does not change the big picture. I have many things going for me, and have much to be thankful to God about. If it all came crashing down around me, it is my hope that, as so many people I have met, this would not change my overall perspective and faith. If I die ridden with STDs and hated by almost everyone, but still have my faith, I would be content.

I can understand this. I used to feel the same way at one time. I stood my ground when my world was crumbling with Post partum depression. I stood my ground for over two years of that awful depression. It took two years out of my life. Anyhow, my faith would have remained despite the emotional abuse that happened if it had not been for my mind being opened to facts, logic, reason, and bible contradictions, etc. I now feel that my faith was a prison.........................and even if that is due to my Christian experience being legalistic for the most part, I cannot accept even the more liberal minded Christian belief system...but I can respect it and those who believe in it.

I can respect any Christian who respects me and treats me fair. But yes, I get angry at certain Christians. One of these days I'll learn to control that.


It isn't a bodyguard service obviously. It's more a spiritual protection. I understand these biblical statements differently from you.

And I've forgotten what they were!



A God who doesn't exercise control over free will. A God who would allow his own son to be tortured and executed. A God who wants humanity to know that they occupy a disordered world.

"God" might not exercise control, but the church sure does! "Jesus" wasn't a literal son..............I was taught he was "God" in flesh......that "God" hung on the cross. It was all so confusing!!!



No, I do respect your absurdity! It is heartfelt and not mean-spirited. I reckon you may suspect me absurd as well, and I hope you respect me in turn.

Well, thanks. I guess we all have our absurdities.


I can't respond to your closing statements as I don't recall what they were in regard to....sorry.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by elliotfc

If the Jesus thing is all a scam, a contrived myth and all that, they sure did a hell of a job. It's just the perfect solution for all of my questions, so I am increasingly content with my faith in Jesus. Without Jesus I think my faith in God would be radically different. I suspect I would still be a theist, but an agitated theist. God did want us to know about himself, so he became incarnate lord, and that works for me. Brilliant move on his part. Alternately, if it's a scam, hats off to the scammers. They whipped up the best idea ever. If I've fallen for a scam, no biggie, cuz in that case it doesn't matter.

-Elliot

Actually, they did a horrible job. They institutionalized and provided justification for jihad, hatred, intolerance, inquisition, distrust in science, and a host of other ills the world continues to suffer.

If God wanted us to know himself and became incarnate lord in order to do so, he is an incompetent idiot. He didn't appear to more than 99.9%+ of the people who existed at the time. And word of his existence bypassed millions, possibly billions, of people over the next 1900 years. If advertising was his intent, he failed miserably.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Hi Ruby, it's a delight to talk to you, you sound like a real all-star.

Well that is so sweet to say!!:D I am quiet and shy person in real life. I don't feel like a star.


Ruby I am a Roman Catholic. I had what can be called an idyllic Christian upbringing. I was an altar boy and loved it. Never had a priest do anything remotely weird or untoward to me. I have the privilege of coming from a mixed ethnic lineage, so I attended Catholic Korean and Catholic Polish masses, as well as Latin and now Spanish masses at my church. My religion was a source of family unity and my memories of church are outstanding. I've attended Catholic schools and loved them, and when I moved from Buffalo (I used to go to Canisius High School) I was depressed for years. In spite of all this happiness, I still managed to reject Christianity for years.

I don't think any of this is knee-jerk. A person can have a great Christian upbringing and go either way, while another can have a horrible Christian ubringing and go either way. At the crux of the matter is how strong an individuals faith is, what they understand IN THEIR OWN MIND about theology, and if they truly trust in God's way, regardless of the world's way or the temporal results.

Thanks for sharing your story. I was not raised a Christian. I was sort of agnostic. Do you know that the UPC teaches that the Catholic church is evil...the "Whore of Babylon"? That was one of the first things I learned in the UPC , to despise the Catholic church! Then at Church on the Rock, they had Chick tracts about Catholics burning in Hell. It was very disturbing to me. It wasn't until we left COTR that I came to a different understanding and accepted Catholics as true saved Christians as well.

It must have been interesting for you to experience mass in different ethnic Catholic churches.


Currently I am studying anthropology, and I've come to a greater perspective about this prayer business. As you describe it, is no different from having ritualistic orgies for a terrific rainfall and harvest. Prayer, if conditional, is MY WILL BE DONE as opposed to THY WILL BE DONE. We apporoach God with our petitions, and trust in God's providence. I have faith in God, regardless what will ever happen to me. I don't put God to the test. I don't demand that God do what I say or I will no longer believe in him.

No, I never made demands either. I did not dare!

To give you a bit of background on myself...if I were to go back 10 years, at that time I was fond of telling people about the minimal expectations that I possessed about God. I had just returned to Christianity after struggling, intellectually, with these matters for years. As an 18 year old I petitioned God for nothing, as in my mind that would be setting myself up for wishes not being granted. I did pray in my own unique way but they were never prayers of petition. A part of that might have been fear, but I am certain that most of it was the belief that my desires and wishes were not worthy to be heard; God had more important things to worry about.

It's 10 years later now and I continue my rapid repel from that position. Now I think expectations of God should be high, but tempered. Expectations should be made in faith, not in arrogance. I can not expect God, who has provided his son for me, to alter his plan of salvation. The plan is for me and I am grateful. Yet the cries and petitions speak for the injustice of this existence, and this injustice can not be forgotten for then what good is salvation. Without suffering there is no salvation, and suffering is the necessary result of rebellious free wills. It all makes intellectual sense to me (probably not you).

No, not anymore.

However I get more and more emotional with each passing year. I get angry at God all the time, and God is willing to tolerate anger. Heck, he probably expects anger! Teresa of Avila said to God "if this is how you treat your friends, no wonder you have so few". I am a malcontent about the state of the world, yet perfectly content about the vehicle of my salvation. I get all charged up about this stuff; I wear my heart on my sleeve.

Ah, I am a lot like that at times.


I am grateful that I was not raised to believe that the Bible is devoid of contradictions, perfect, the direct word of God, etc.

Yes, you are fortunate. Would you believe that I used to debate Catholic Christian....years ago...when I was Charismatic Christian who believed Catholics were wrong in their doctrine? One of the things I debated on was "sola scriptura". I was adamant about scripture being totally infallible. LOL!!! My mind was sharp back in those days......before the fibro got really bad. I had an easier time debating.

As for Jesus, I am content that he existed. There can never be enough evidence to prove the existence of any historical figure from two thousand years ago. I am content with the gospels and the writings of the 1st/2nd century church. I am aware that not all people will be content with that. It is proof for some, and not enough proof for others.

I understand. I have no cause or desire to debate this issue. Plus, I don't have the strength!:(


My parents are fond of saying that we will always be their kids. :)
The story of Jesus exists in written form, is written with authority by persons who claimed to speak to eyewitnesses. That is enough for me. Many non-Christians believe that Jesus existed, and for good reason.
Jesus rose from the dead in the way that we all will eventually rise from the dead. His resurrection was different from that of Lazarus. He could walk through walls, etc. Our resurrected bodies will be similar. This will happen eventually. It is the faith of Christians that we will be reunited with loved ones.

I don't share this faith. The facts are not enough for me.


This makes me very angry. This is as bad as child abuse or any form of psychological torture.

I think you must be talking about my experiences with church abuse. What makes this whole thing even worse is that my husband grew up in an isolated "Christian" cult community. It left him, his mom, and one of his four younger brothers with deep scars.

And now an appoitment with the dentist. I've never had a cavity in 28 years. I chalk that up to the glory and benevolence of God! That's a bit of a joke there. God knows I've had other toothal issues.

I had a cleaning. I have not had a cavity in 16 years....so that's not bad considering I've had two children since then.:D

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Ipecac


Actually, they did a horrible job. They institutionalized and provided justification for jihad, hatred, intolerance, inquisition, distrust in science, and a host of other ills the world continues to suffer.

If God wanted us to know himself and became incarnate lord in order to do so, he is an incompetent idiot. He didn't appear to more than 99.9%+ of the people who existed at the time. And word of his existence bypassed millions, possibly billions, of people over the next 1900 years. If advertising was his intent, he failed miserably.

The world has always sufferred from ills though. Distrust in science? Isn't that skepticism? Distrust everything. I don't know what jihad has to do with Jesus. People have done evil with the Gospels in their hand, but that's not what I was talking about. Scientists commit evil scientifically but I don't blame science.

He didn't appear to people who existed before the time of Jesus either. The point wasn't to appear to everyone. Advertising is up to us. Salvation can be had by anyone, even if they've never heard of Jesus and never will.

-Elliot

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by elliotfc


The world has always sufferred from ills though.
The first noble truth. :)
Distrust in science? Isn't that skepticism? Distrust everything.
Another teachingt of the buddha. :)
I don't know what jihad has to do with Jesus.
I totaly agree , it is the church that is the beast of the antichrist. The political evolution of the church ensured the political nature of the church. Jesus is not at all responsible for what the 'proto-orthodox' christians did to the church. It really is against what little of his teaching we have.
People have done evil with the Gospels in their hand, but that's not what I was talking about.
Amen brudder! There are many gospel to choose from too, like Economics and Social Darwinsim, the Rise of Capitalism.
Scientists commit evil scientifically but I don't blame science.
There are scientists who do take what they do very seriously, even though they teach atomic physics and chemical engineering. Many do question the politics of science which is why the teach it universaly.


He didn't appear to people who existed before the time of Jesus either. The point wasn't to appear to everyone. Advertising is up to us. Salvation can be had by anyone, even if they've never heard of Jesus and never will.

-Elliot

I am in agreement with almost everything you say, I have wondered if there are not multiple paths to salvation?

There are some who say that Mary Magdelne was the 'one that Jesus reavealed the truth to". So why if the message wasn't for everyone did they control and edit the message so heavily towards the masculine. She was the one chosen student of Jesus above all others and probably his wife, she heard the one truth that he did not share with the other disciples.
:)
And gosh the church just choses to leave her out.

I think that all cultures have thier paths to the same salvation and source of inspiration. The buddha is a very historical figure, you can tour all the sites that the buddha preached at. You can touch the enlightenment of the buddha at the tree he sat under.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Dancing David
totaly agree , it is the church that is the beast of the antichrist. The political evolution of the church ensured the political nature of the church. Jesus is not at all responsible for what the 'proto-orthodox' christians did to the church. It really is against what little of his teaching we have.

...

There are some who say that Mary Magdelne was the 'one that Jesus reavealed the truth to". So why if the message wasn't for everyone did they control and edit the message so heavily towards the masculine. She was the one chosen student of Jesus above all others and probably his wife, she heard the one truth that he did not share with the other disciples.


Let's get this straight. You believe that an omnipotent, omniscient God came down to earth to save all humans. He gave his perfect message, intending that it show the way to salvation. Then the humans to whom he gave the message screwed it up. Thus any atrocities done in the name of and justified by the bible aren't his fault?

Say you go to the doctor. She has to prescribe a life-saving medicine for you. But rather than call the pharmacy herself, she tells her 5 year old son what to say and let's him call it in. And when you don't get the right medicine and you die, that's not the doctor's fault?

ALMIGHTY GOD wanted to impart his word to man but couldn't get the job done. Since he's omniscient, he obviously knew that mankind would screw up the message. And yet he still went through with it.

What kind of incompotent doofus do you worship? I mean, seriously.

[Dancing David]

Me?
I am a christian has been, done that, been there, now the doofus I adore is usualy female.

I never did nbelieve that it was jesus that taught the resurrection or any of the silly stuff. I thought that my response to Elliot was very clear and addressing the parts of his post that remind me of the days before I deconverted.

I never said god was omnipotent, and I certainly believe that the church that jesus established really messed up the message.

But I myself am an animist, pagan , buddhist nihilist.

So ask a straight question Ipecac and I will give you s traight answer that means nothing, I think I may have mis-stated my intention in the post.

I believe that i did ask Elliot why he thought that only Jesus had the path to salvation.

Party on dude!

PS You must have missed this in my prior post:

What I come away from all this thinking is the following , god is superflous

[Ipecac]

Fair enough. :)

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Ipecac


Let's get this straight. You believe that an omnipotent, omniscient God came down to earth to save all humans.

God emptied himself into a human being, but yeah, that's basically it.

He gave his perfect message, intending that it show the way to salvation.

I don't know if it is a perfect message; rather, it is the sufficient and available message. I don't know if a message can be perfect. But for all intents and purposes (since God wrote it) I don't have a problem calling it perfect. The message treats the disease, and is sufficient to cure the disease. Does that make it the perfect message, or a perfect message? Why not.

Then the humans to whom he gave the message screwed it up.

Sort of. Humans screw up the gifts and talents God gives us. Humans screw up the free will God gave us. I think the message is relatively intact, but is misrepresented and not put into practice. I don't think that is the same as screwing up the message. In other words, I'm separating the message from the application of the message.

Thus any atrocities done in the name of and justified by the bible aren't his fault?

No. I don't think the Bible is the direct word of God, that's first. Second, I don't think you can blame the person who created the wheel for all the automobile accidents that have ever occurred. Nor do I think you can blame Karl Marx for all of the dead Soviets from the 20th century.

Say you go to the doctor. She has to prescribe a life-saving medicine for you. But rather than call the pharmacy herself, she tells her 5 year old son what to say and let's him call it in. And when you don't get the right medicine and you die, that's not the doctor's fault?

In that case it would be the doctor's fault. The doctor has the legal responsibility to not act in that way.

The difference is that God has given us intellects, hearts, souls, and the ability to detect beauty and have faith in things. Doctors don't give us similar things. See, there are so many different kinds of knowledge. The knowledge that there is 5 singles and 1 twenty in my wallet, the knowledge that ice melts in the sun, the knowledge that my dog loves me, the knowledge that Caesar ruled Rome. This knowledge, about salvation, is only partially dependent upon how other people deliver the message. People also have critical minds and the desire for truth and beauty. God wants us to use the gifts to discover him. Since we are all in this together, we should help each other as well.

As this thread proves, we can look at the same things and come up with different impressions. That is not the fault of God.

Also, the medicine that God offers won't be forced down our throats by God, and it is not limited to the temporal existence. You can get the medicine after you die.

ALMIGHTY GOD wanted to impart his word to man but couldn't get the job done. Since he's omniscient, he obviously knew that mankind would screw up the message. And yet he still went through with it.

The Word became Flesh. So he did in fact get the job done. The Bible is not the same as the Word. In my opinion, other Christians (if not the majority of Christians) would disagree with me.

Humans will screw things up because we have fallen natures and we continually find false Gods to serve instead of the true God.

He went through with it out of love. Yes, he loves us even though we screw things up.

What kind of incompotent doofus do you worship? I mean, seriously.

Two ways of looking at it all. Seriously. Heck, an infinite number of ways of looking at it all. Do the best you can, be honest and sincere, and you'll be fine. Even if we disagree at the moment.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I believe that i did ask Elliot why he thought that only Jesus had the path to salvation.


I believe that humanity needs a perfect sacrifice to transform our fallen natures and reconcile us to God. Jesus is the only (in my opinion) viable person to fill this role.

It isn't that Jesus had anything. He is the path to salvation.

I diverge from most/some Christians in that I don't think you need to get this fact in the temporal lifespan. The fact had to happen (Jesus in fact becoming a human being and dying) but that doesn't mean the fact has to be appreciated in a limited lifespan.

-Elliot

[MLynn]

I've been following this dialogue, the original question about fear. Ruby, your personal story touched me - being scre**d over by church "authorities" really burns me up.

Elliotfc, I find your posts very interesting. You seem to think about your faith very deeply.

My own story is well, I'm a misfit Jesus freak, I don't fit in anywhere, my heart is usually broken because "saints in authority" think they know dogma but have no love for people and try to convince/control with fear. Others label me and it's so damn hard (sorry I'm rambling). I am secure in myself as a person on a journey through life. I decided long ago to not live in fear and to seek knowledge. Knowledge is power, but also I am compelled to love people and let them be themselves.

Although I was not raped, I was molested when I was 11 and never told my parents, I felt guilty that I had done something wrong, when actually I was innocent and others (a gang) had done the evil to me. God did not intervene in that situation, but He didn't do the evil to me, the boys did. I have never been the same, but I will not live in fear.

Ruby, I would defend you to the death. Betrayal of any kind affects us for a very long time. I'm in your corner.

[elliotfc]

Hey there MLynn.

It was asked earlier by someone if I thought Jesus was the only path? Something like that.

I think that every path is unique. A Christian believes that at the end of every path you'll encounter Jesus. In other words, all paths lead to Jesus. Even the most evil paths.

That doesn't mean you should go for the most evil path. In fact, an evil path with Jesus at the end...the person on that path won't like what he sees and it could get ugly.

Anyhow, as a Christian I would diagree with fellow Christians who say that Jesus is the only path. The saying is that he is the Way and the Truth and the Life, and I buy that, but there are other ways too and they can lead to the Father as well. They have to, all people have to have it out with God in the end.

-Elliot

[EternalUniverse]

Originally posted by elliotfc


Ruby, God as parent has a greater perspective and plan than us as human parents. God has decided that all creative beings (who necessarily will make imperfect choices) must be allowed to exercise their free will, even if it hurts others. For a moment, let us discard the most abominable examples. How about teasing overweight people, or cutting in line? Those are bad things as well. Where should God draw the line? Are we making a line in this discussion?

If you have free will, you have faulty decisions by imperfect creatures. That is an inescapable and necessary corrollary. You would dispose of the most faulty of decisions. Does this mean you are content with the little mean things that happen?

Would we dispose of free will entirely, is that the wish?

Human parents have the responsibility to raise their children and protect them. Of course they would stop all things if they could, that is their duty. I'm sure a parent would halt other kids from teasing their child if he had a speech impediment. But why stop at parents? All of humanity has the right to stop all wrong, be it little or immense. If I saw a girl being sexually assaulted, forget about if I were a relative, I would stop it! This is humanity acting as humanity should.

Let me state this explicitly. If God were to intervene whenever anything bad happens, or only the worst happens, so much for human kindness and humans standing up for what is right. Why should I stop a murder from taking place? That is God's responsibility.

I respect all of your opinions so much so that I must insist that you are not thinking this through as far as you should be. You would have the world and the universe operate in your way, and would make God subservient to your will. You create your own impossible situation. God must be omnipotent, and God must operate as I say he should. You've created the perfect way to continue in non-belief, and fail to see the absurdity you have constructed.

-Elliot

Elliot, the aspect of the problem of evil that needs to be addressed is the existence of natural evil. These are accidents that no one has any control over, like earthquakes, where innocents are killed. How can an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God allow this? Free will doesn't address that issue. The main reply (i.e. from Liebniz) I've seen is one that involves faith. If God is the all-powerful creator, then this world is the best of all possible worlds (since He is perfect). We can't really begin to imagine perfectly what is in His mind for us. Hence, we must have faith in Him. If that is the answer, then there's not much to be said beyond faith.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

What makes you think that an event, just because it is unpleasant/undesirable/bad for human beings, is 'evil'?

While I am greatly sympathetic towards secularism, I have little tolerance for humanism. Believing that your own preferences are cosmic standards goes beyond arrogance and presumption into epic idiocy. So a bunch of kids die in a mudslide - what makes that event 'evil'? It's just the consequence of physical law, which is far beyond the ability of 'good' and 'evil' to change.

Ironically, that seems to be what the actual message of the good ol' Genesis story is. Adam and Eve "fell" not because eating the fruit gave them knowledge, but because they were deluded into thinking that their judgments defined the nature of the world.

Wisdom consists primarily of the realization that just because man measures all things does not make man the measure of all things.

[hawkins_anderson]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
But many will say when you make that father “god” that theses same actions are acts of an all powerful loving being. He knows best and it was best for her and a loving thing they demand.

Fear is a powerful tool.

That is not an act of God for if it were then we cannot use the term "fear" in this scenario. The term "obedience" must be used. Those are not the acts of "an all powerful loving being." They are the acts of the evil found only in men and they are acts of evil created by mankind. If a father stands there and does not fight for his child, he is selfish. He must overcome his own issues and self-absorbed notions in order to learn how to love his daughter in a new way where he is able to help her. Fear is a tool that can be controled only by the individual feeling such a sensation of emotion. If that same individual chooses to allow someone else to dictate one's actions or non-actions as the case may be here, then yes "Fear is a powerful tool" but only if the person feeling it allows it to be. This is why we have such things as the "Good Samaritan Law" because the evil here in this scenario is man made and not God centered. I don't know if God exists, but what I do know is that if there were a God, he/she/it would have us look at the bad situation and see what lessons we could learn from it in order to learn how to proceed about things should they rise again and to appreciate the lives we are given for such things are precious and fleeting in moment.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
What makes you think that an event, just because it is unpleasant/undesirable/bad for human beings, is 'evil'?



I get confused between threads sometimes, but for me evil is the deliberate force of pain upon someone, so a cat eating a mouse is not evil because the cat is not choosing to scare the mouse, it is choosing to eat the Mouse.

In africa when they just amputate the limbs of epople in an area to terrorise them, that is evil.

Suffering is not evil in and of itself, but the imposition of suffering generaly crosses the bar. (I exclude things like forcing your kids to do homework. Choking or scalding your child when they don't do homework would be evil.)

[Wrath of the Swarm]

So you would suggest that there is no "natural evil", yes? There's only human evil?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
So you would suggest that there is no "natural evil", yes? There's only human evil?

Considering that evil is label we apply to a certain category of observed behaviors, any definition of evil is a value judgement of a human being.

It is probably 'natural' for some people to torture other people, I call it evil. So there is natural and unnatural evil, it is human word label. with no specific referent.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

How can we determine whether it is "natural" for some people to inflict pain?

And you're not answering the question. Are you suggesting that 'evil' exists in the intentions of one who causes pain, or in the perceptions of those that experience it?

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by EternalUniverse


Elliot, the aspect of the problem of evil that needs to be addressed is the existence of natural evil. These are accidents that no one has any control over, like earthquakes, where innocents are killed. How can an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God allow this? Free will doesn't address that issue. The main reply (i.e. from Liebniz) I've seen is one that involves faith. If God is the all-powerful creator, then this world is the best of all possible worlds (since He is perfect). We can't really begin to imagine perfectly what is in His mind for us. Hence, we must have faith in Him. If that is the answer, then there's not much to be said beyond faith.

Christian theology holds that what you call natural evil is related to the fall of either the angels, man, or any of God's created creators. Material/natural creation is tied to the creatures to which it was created for.

He allows this because all choices have necessary repercussions. Free will, if it does not leads to sufferring when a bad choice is made, doesn't mean much. It only means that God can be rejected and nothing will go wrong, but that is out of order according to Christian theology.

I agree with the part about having to have faith in God.

-Elliot

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
How can we determine whether it is "natural" for some people to inflict pain?

And you're not answering the question. Are you suggesting that 'evil' exists in the intentions of one who causes pain, or in the perceptions of those that experience it?

I did answer it, evil is a label applied by humans to certain behaviors.


There is nothing that could act as a referent to 'evil' the way i can point to something and say 'dog' or 'red dog'. So it is in the category of solely conceptual referent.

And there is nothing that is evil in and of itself, it is always a label applied by humans to certain conditions. It will always be a label, like all human words and thoughts. they are not real, they are a symbolic set of signals that only have meaning in communication.

The creatures reffered to as 'dogs' exist, but a dog does not. The only thing that exists is something that we apply to the label to.

There is no evil except in the interpretation of a human, I interpret evil to be the deliberate act of causing another to suffer, solely to make them suffer. Like torturing someone to extract information, it is evil because the goal is not to get information, it is to make the victim suffer.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

So you deny the existence of natural evil, then.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
So you deny the existence of natural evil, then.

I am not sure, can you give me the parameters of your definition. But probably not.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
How can we determine whether it is "natural" for some people to inflict pain?

I don't know that determination is possible but surely it seems natural. Every time there is a war the goal, often stated explicitly, is to inflict pain on the enemy.

Also children in their egocentric play often inflict pain on one another often enough that one has to assume it is natural for, at least the uneducated, to inflict pain.

The recipient of the pain or the guardian will often ascribe evil to the intention.

'Natural evil'; tornados, earthquakes, car accidents in which loved ones are killed or maimed also elicit, as Dancing David alluded to, a label of evil. It often comes from the question directed on high of 'Why me' usually accompanied by feelings of distress, anguish and torment.

Feelings of torment from God, Satan, or the kid next door are dealt with by labeling the external perceived source as evil.

Don't you agree Swarm?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

I would agree that most people use the word 'evil' to describe things that cause them distress. Notably, however, that's not the way Dancing David is using the term. He uses the label only for intelligent entities that view causing pain as a desirable goal.

So he doesn't believe that evil exists in the natural world. Death, destruction, and suffering that are not the direct and intended results of artifice aren't evil in his mind.

[EternalUniverse]

Originally posted by elliotfc


Christian theology holds that what you call natural evil is related to the fall of either the angels, man, or any of God's created creators. Material/natural creation is tied to the creatures to which it was created for.

He allows this because all choices have necessary repercussions. Free will, if it does not leads to sufferring when a bad choice is made, doesn't mean much. It only means that God can be rejected and nothing will go wrong, but that is out of order according to Christian theology.

I agree with the part about having to have faith in God.

-Elliot

What does this have to do with natural evil that I mentioned in my last post? Natural evil occurs when innocents die because of accidents like earthquakes and floods. Free will isn't an issue here.

http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/evil.htm

[Wrath of the Swarm]

But the belief is that such events would somehow be impossible if humanity had not freely chosen to sin.

It's not a position that makes a lot of sense, but it is what's believed by many.

[EternalUniverse]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
But the belief is that such events would somehow be impossible if humanity had not freely chosen to sin.

It's not a position that makes a lot of sense, but it is what's believed by many.

I only see that defense working if you take a literal interpretation of the Bible (i.e. believe in a literal interpretation of the original sin). So I see at least 2 solutions:

a) The power of God is not absolute (i.e. He is not omnipotent and/or omniscient and/or omnibenevolent).

b) Have faith (a la Kierkegaard).

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Yes. The first technically involves abandoning traditional Christianity, and so it's not perceived as a solution by most. The second is... well, not a solution at all, but it makes people feel better.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by EternalUniverse


What does this have to do with natural evil that I mentioned in my last post? Natural evil occurs when innocents die because of accidents like earthquakes and floods. Free will isn't an issue here.

http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/evil.htm

It was the issue. Original sin. This is elementary Christian theology (not that I expect you to believe elementary Christian theology of course). The free will of others corrupted the universe. We have to deal with the free will of people, or whatever beings, before us (the ramifacations of that free will).

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by EternalUniverse


I only see that defense working if you take a literal interpretation of the Bible (i.e. believe in a literal interpretation of the original sin). So I see at least 2 solutions:

a) The power of God is not absolute (i.e. He is not omnipotent and/or omniscient and/or omnibenevolent).

b) Have faith (a la Kierkegaard).

If God creates creative beings, who can make imperfect choices, it follows that those choices will have negative effects. To eliminate those negative effects (a priori?) is to make an imperfect choice have no negative repercussions, and that doesn't sit right with God, apparently.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Yes. The first technically involves abandoning traditional Christianity, and so it's not perceived as a solution by most. The second is... well, not a solution at all, but it makes people feel better.

Creating a binary doesn't exclude other answers, but whatever makes you feel better.

-Elliot

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Or, God could simply have created beings that would choose perfectly, thus not making any mistakes.

Claiming that the imperfections were somehow inadvertent contradicts the claim that God is omnipotent and omniscient.

Claiming that the imperfections were desired is self-contradictory. God must have desired the "mistakes" and their consequences, no?

Sometimes life really is dualistic. Learn to cope.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
I would agree that most people use the word 'evil' to describe things that cause them distress. Notably, however, that's not the way Dancing David is using the term. He uses the label only for intelligent entities that view causing pain as a desirable goal.

So he doesn't believe that evil exists in the natural world. Death, destruction, and suffering that are not the direct and intended results of artifice aren't evil in his mind.

I agree, I use the term to denote that which is pain inflicted upon another.

I am sorry I just can't see an earthquake as evil, it is a very painful thing that can cause devestation, but why would it be evil?

Just like my friends who died from cancer ( sigh :( ) , was the cancer evil? It was certainly painful, but I don't see it as evil.


Now Fred Phelps, he is most likely evil



EEEEEEEVIIIILLL- Mermanid Man

[EternalUniverse]

Originally posted by elliotfc


It was the issue. Original sin. This is elementary Christian theology (not that I expect you to believe elementary Christian theology of course). The free will of others corrupted the universe. We have to deal with the free will of people, or whatever beings, before us (the ramifacations of that free will).

-Elliot

Did you read the link provided ( [url]http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/evil.htm[/url) )? The issue is whether or not the existence of natural evil is reconcilable with a God defined by Christians. Citing the Bible is merely begging the question.

[EternalUniverse]

Originally posted by EternalUniverse


Did you read the link provided ( [url]http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/evil.htm[/url) )? The issue is whether or not the existence of natural evil is reconcilable with a God defined by Christians. Citing the Bible is merely begging the question.

I will have to clarify what I mean here. The question is whether or not a defense against the problem of natural evil (assuming the Christian definition of God) can exist that doesn't assume the literal truth of the Bible/God. People can attempt an answer using free-will (somehow), but to cite a passage in the Bible and assuming it is true doesn't help since it is the existence of the Christian God that is in doubt.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by EternalUniverse


Did you read the link provided ( [url]http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/evil.htm[/url) )? The issue is whether or not the existence of natural evil is reconcilable with a God defined by Christians. Citing the Bible is merely begging the question.

I didn't cite the Bible!!!

!!!

Natural evil is a result of creatures who rejected God. That is Christian theology, not the Bible.

-Elliot

[EternalUniverse]

Originally posted by elliotfc


I didn't cite the Bible!!!

!!!

Natural evil is a result of creatures who rejected God. That is Christian theology, not the Bible.

-Elliot

"Christian theology" is based on the Bible, is it not? You referred to a concept used in the Bible (the Original Sin) as a premise to support your contention that natural evil is reconcilable with a Christian God. But because this premise is one that is in contention (i.e. the literal interpretation of the Bible is in question), it is best used as an explanation to people who already have faith in the belief. However, it doesn't serve to convince anyone who wants to understand logically/rationally the issue at hand.

Put another way, you want to describe a situation where a Christian God can be compatible with natural evil without already assuming a literal interpretation of Christianity (i.e. talk about things like the Original Sin being true), because that would be begging the question over the existence of (a Christian) God. This is basically what the problem of evil is trying to refute.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Natural evil is a result of creatures who rejected God. That is Christian theology, not the Bible.

-Elliot

Yeah, and it's on the same level of reality as "The sound of thunder is God bowling."