If I wasn't sure about Jehovah's existence, I am now.

[Beleth]

The God described in the New Testament cannot possibly exist.

More children - children - were killed in that earthquake and tsunami than the entire population of the town I grew up in.

What kind of higher power lets that happen?

What kind of higher benevolent power lets water tear three-year-olds from their father's arms and drowns them?

Only one kind.
The kind that doesn't exist.

I don't see how anyone with either a heart or a brain can reconcile what happened over the last few days, and what is about to happen with the diseases that are going to ravage the area just as badly as the water did, with the concept of a powerful and loving God.

No. There is only one source of benevolence in the known universe and that is ourselves. Humanity. Only humanity and the civilization that happens when we work together can do anything to prevent the rest of the universe, including our own planet, from destroying all that is good.

We can destroy ourselves too, of course, but if there is any hope of us not being destroyed, it is entirely up to us to make it not happen. Not Jehovah. Not Allah. Not Krishna. Us. Falling to our knees and pleading for help from something that isn't there is worse than useless.

We are alone in this toxic gemstone of a universe and we better wake up to that fact right quick.

[Anathema]

Originally posted by Beleth
I don't see how anyone with either a heart or a brain can reconcile what happened over the last few days, and what is about to happen with the diseases that are going to ravage the area just as badly as the water did, with the concept of a powerful and loving God. Several Indian mystics are attributing the mess to God's "grief" over the state of human morality (particularly the rise of secularism in India). Supposedly, when God views humans acting so unrighteously, He "sighs", and His sighs are so powerful they cause massive destruction. See, He doesn't really mean to hurt anyone, He's just "upset".....poor omnipotent being. The message is clear: don't upset God, because his sighs make tsunamis. It's all so clear now...

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by Anathema
... The message is clear: don't upset God, because his sighs make tsunamis. It's all so clear now...

Better not let him eat any bean dip, then.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Beleth
No. There is only one source of benevolence in the known universe and that is ourselves. Humanity.
Humanity - and the attributes one recognises amongst it - is a product or effect of existence... and cannot be defined as "the source" of whatever attributes one associates with that humanity.
If there's such a thing as benevolence, humanity is not the source of it, but rather the vessel into which that benevolence has been poured, so to speak.
Humanity is not it's own creator.

[Calee]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Humanity - and the attributes one recognises amongst it - is a product or effect of existence... and cannot be defined as "the source" of whatever attributes one associates with that humanity.
If there's such a thing as benevolence, humanity is not the source of it, but rather the vessel into which that benevolence has been poured, so to speak.
Humanity is not it's own creator.

According to Rapture Ready, God did this to keep the children from becoming Muslims.

"maybe God has taken them before they were taught and influenced to serve/worship other gods/idols."

"I reconcile the death of the children as they are now with him, they won't be led to a false religion with false gods."


http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?t=180858

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Calee
According to Rapture Ready, God did this to keep the children from becoming Muslims.

"maybe God has taken them before they were taught and influenced to serve/worship other gods/idols."

"I reconcile the death of the children as they are now with him, they won't be led to a false religion with false gods."


http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?t=180858
Flippant, inconsistent rubbish. Not you, Calee; the RR morons.

Were the children baptised? If they weren't, they are in Hell just as surely as if they were raised Muslims. I do wish the RR cultists would become at least passingly familiar with the text they adhere to so strongly.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Humanity - and the attributes one recognises amongst it - is a product or effect of existence...
Go spew your crap in your own threads, lifegazer; I have no patience for you today.

[Anathema]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Humanity - and the attributes one recognises amongst it - is a product or effect of existence... and cannot be defined as "the source" of whatever attributes one associates with that humanity.
If there's such a thing as benevolence, humanity is not the source of it, but rather the vessel into which that benevolence has been poured, so to speak.
Humanity is not it's own creator. Translation:
"Please someone, challenge me on all the questions I beg. I don't know what to make of my life if I'm not 600 posts deep in a handwaving, navel-gazing thread where I'm relentlessly "persecuted". I need the affirmation of your rejection. Please, someone, kick the ball back to me. Please?"

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Beleth
"Humanity - and the attributes one recognises amongst it - is a product or effect of existence..."

Go spew your crap in your own threads, lifegazer; I have no patience for you today.
Tough. If you talk a load of crap, expect to be put right.
"Humanity is the only source of benevolence" is absolute garbage... and anybody with half-an-ounce of rational intelligence will recognise that humanity is the source of absolutely nothing pal.

Grow up.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Anathema
Translation:
"Please someone, challenge me on all the questions I beg. I don't know what to make of my life if I'm not 600 posts deep in a handwaving, navel-gazing thread where I'm relentlessly "persecuted". I need the affirmation of your rejection. Please, someone, kick the ball back to me. Please?"
I don't have to put up with low-life ranting nonsense about God and how humanity is the source of it's own attributes. If you actually have a mature response to my post, then make it. Otherwise, go and play with your X'mas toys.

[Anathema]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I don't have to put up with low-life ranting nonsense about God and how humanity is the source of it's own attributes. If you actually have a mature response to my post, then make it. Otherwise, go and play with your X'mas toys.

*see previous translation...

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Anathema
*see previous translation...
You don't give a rat's about sincere rational discussion, but don't presume to talk for everyone on this board. If you don't have anything to say regarding the issue of this thread, you have no need to be posting here.

[KelvinG]

According to the bible. God has a rich history of killing innocents.
So, this latest disaster might actually affirm God's existence.
Isn't this kind of stuff par for the course for him.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by KelvinG
According to the bible. God has a rich history of killing innocents.
So, this latest disaster might actually affirm God's existence.
Isn't this kind of stuff par for the course for him. Usually when I write I use the word "Yahweh" to refer to the God of the Old Testament and "Jehovah" to refer to the God of the New Testament.

Yahweh has a history of killing innocents, but He's usually not described as being benevolent. Well, maybe to the Jews. Jehovah is described as being benevolent, but He doesn't kill nearly as many innocents as Yahweh does.

The only entity that cares about what happens to humans is humanity itself.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Tough. If you talk a load of crap, expect to be put right.
"Humanity is the only source of benevolence" is absolute garbage... and anybody with half-an-ounce of rational intelligence will recognise that humanity is the source of absolutely nothing pal.

Grow up.
Welcome to slot #2 on my ignore list, lifegazer. Right after latinijral. Not even Carlos made that list.

Brainless, heartless, gutless drama queen....

[VicDaring]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Tough. If you talk a load of crap, expect to be put right.
"Humanity is the only source of benevolence" is absolute garbage... and anybody with half-an-ounce of rational intelligence will recognise that humanity is the source of absolutely nothing pal.

Grow up.

Humanity has, and can depend on, humanity. Nothing less and certainly nothing more.

Humanity has been bad to you maybe, if you're an insufferable a dork in real life as you are on the Internet, so no doubt you look to fairy tales for guidance and hope.



Sorry to derail your thread Beleth.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Beleth
Welcome to slot #2 on my ignore list, lifegazer. Right after latinijral. Not even Carlos made that list.

Brainless, heartless, gutless drama queen....
There should be a clause in the rules for suspending somebody who presents a thread and then reacts like a baby when somebody destroys the rational credibility of that thread.

Brainless?!
You haven't got the brains to realise that 'humanity' is an effect - a culmination of his attributes - not the source of them.

Heartless?!
I care more than you think pal. I'm on the breadline and have donated money that I cannot afford to give away. Have you?

Gutless?!
I endure hostility every time I make a post. I try, despite all the ill-effects upon my personal life, to make a difference. So don't accuse me of being gutless.
Being gutless, however, could be applied to a toe-rag such as yourself who - despite obviously being wrong in regards the statement I commented upon - just runs away whilst hurling abuse at his courteous responder.
You're a ******g disgrace to the integrity of this forum and to sincere skeptics everywhere. I don't give a rat's whether you can see this or not, since my aim is to educate those that can: not only in rational thought - but in courteous discussion.

Drama queen?
These are serious issues you are supposed to be discussing. If there's any drame here, the evidence - for all to see - is that you instigated it.

[Z]

No no no no no...

lifegazer, a jester is supposed to be funny, not offensive and childish! C'mon, go back to posting the funny stuff about infinite distances and quantum nonlocality!

:D

And to defend lifegazer (Oh my God, what am I doing?) humanity is the product of the attributes of humankind. Benevolence can likewise be observed in lower animals, albeit rarely and usually not without alterior motives.

As applied to humanity, however, Man is his own God. Only man can make man's life better or worse. Even you, jester, in your 'dream of reality', can't argue against that. God, when he dreams of being Man, can only affect Man through Man; as such, only Man can bestow benevolence upon Man. On the other hand, if God awakens and takes his own attributes unto himself, then Man ceases to exist, and all becomes irrelevant.

Happy holidays, LG!

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by VicDaring
""Humanity is the only source of benevolence" is absolute garbage..."

Humanity has, and can depend on, humanity. Nothing less and certainly nothing more.

Another one lacking the brains to realise that 'humanity' is NOT the source of whatever attributes are his make-up. Humanity is NOT the source of whatever benevolence may reside within him. To argue otherwise is either grosse stupidity or a lie.

Humanity has been bad to you maybe,

I've had bad experiences, yes. But humanity is not the actual source of 'badness' either. Changing the subject doesn't change the response.

if you're an insufferable a dork in real life as you are on the Internet,

Whatever. You'll have to try harder if you want to offend me though.

so no doubt you look to fairy tales for guidance and hope.

Name something that is real, other than God, and I will leave these forums. However - one slight catch - explain to these forums how you know that this 'thing' is real.
Everything is a fairy-tale.

Sorry to derail your thread Beleth.
He kinda derailed it himself, when he acted like a 6 year-old when somebody destroyed his chain of reasoning.

[Z]

Prove that God is real before you expect anyone to take that challenge.

Then disprove that anything else is real.

I suspect you'll have an awfully hard time doing so, lg. You've failed so far - can't imagine you doing any better now.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
lifegazer, a jester is supposed to be funny, not offensive and childish!

It appears that you - whilst trying to offend me here - are rather short-sighted. Read the thread again and see who instigated all the nonsense... as a means to evading a serious and courteous response.

And to defend lifegazer (Oh my God, what am I doing?) humanity is the product of the attributes of humankind.

Actually, humanity is the culmination of all of his attributes. Those attributes are the products/effects of another source.

Benevolence can likewise be observed in lower animals, albeit rarely and usually not without alterior motives.

Arguing where benevolence comes from is a whole different kettle of fish. However, what I can say with absolute certainty, is that it does not come from 'humanity'.

As applied to humanity, however, Man is his own God. Only man can make man's life better or worse.

Man has no absolute power/authority/will unless man is God. Anything emanating from mankind emanates from whatever is the source of mankind.
But I'm sure that nobody here - least of all you - wants to argue that God is the essence of [perceived] man.

Happy holidays, LG!
You too.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by VicDaring
Humanity has, and can depend on, humanity. Nothing less and certainly nothing more.

Humanity has been bad to you maybe, if you're an insufferable a dork in real life as you are on the Internet, so no doubt you look to fairy tales for guidance and hope.

Sorry to derail your thread Beleth. On the contrary, Vic. With your first sentence above, you show that you are one of the few people who have actually grasped what I'm saying.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Beleth
Originally posted by VicDaring
"Humanity has, and can depend on, humanity. Nothing less and certainly nothing more."

... you are one of the few people who have actually grasped what I'm saying. [/B]
Beleth aint listening to me, but the discussion is up for grabs to anyone willing to pursue it:

How can 'humanity' - who is an effect of existence - just look to 'humanity' for his absolute salvation?
Rather, how can 'humanity' - who is an effect of existence - proclaim that 'humanity' is the absolute-source of whatever thoughts/emotions (and consequently, actions) emanate through him?

My point is serious and clearly credible:- Unless man is what God Itself perceives himself to be, then the will and benevolence exhibited through man do not belong to whatever it is that we are. (emphasis fullstop).

[Dr Adequate]

Lifegazer : Your halfwitted, pretentious, meaningless deranged drivel has no place on this or any other serious thread. The very fact that you mistake it for meaningful discourse suggests either acute mental limitations --- or acute metal disturbance. Your first post on this thread:
Originally posted by lifegazer
Humanity - and the attributes one recognises amongst it - is a product or effect of existence... and cannot be defined as "the source" of whatever attributes one associates with that humanity.
If there's such a thing as benevolence, humanity is not the source of it, but rather the vessel into which that benevolence has been poured, so to speak.
Humanity is not it's own creator.
was just you gibble-gabbling out, for the thousandth time, the dogma --- but not, of course, the meaning of the dogma, for it has none --- of the nonsense religion you've invented. It has no place in this discussion, any more than a discussion of the doctrine of transubstantiation: and that at least is real theology, and not the meaningless wittering of a single self-adoring fanatic.

And that you should have the stupidity and arrogance to post
Originally posted by lifegazer
If you don't have anything to say regarding the issue of this thread, you have no need to be posting here.
does not, in fact, surprise me at all. Stupidity and arrogance is what your kind do best.

Deranged or drama queen, screaming mad or screaming for attention, I don't care. If you want to interpret the recent earthquake in the light of your senseless gibble, start your own thread, and treat it as your very own little padded cell.

Frankly, when you spew out this sort of rubbish about science, it's just funny. When you drag this cat's-breakfast of undefined words strung together at random combined with dogmatic, pontifical arrogance into a more serious discussion, it is as tasteless as it is pointless, and it no longer makes me laugh.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Lifegazer : Your halfwitted, pretentious, meaningless deranged drivel has no place on this or any other serious thread. The very fact that you mistake it for meaningful discourse suggests either acute mental limitations --- or acute metal disturbance.

Another nasty response... merely because I have an opposing reason to a belief held-dear by one of the members.

Your first post on this thread:

Humanity - and the attributes one recognises amongst it - is a product or effect of existence... and cannot be defined as "the source" of whatever attributes one associates with that humanity.
If there's such a thing as benevolence, humanity is not the source of it, but rather the vessel into which that benevolence has been poured, so to speak.
Humanity is not it's own creator.

was just you gibble-gabbling out, for the thousandth time, the dogma --- but not, of course, the meaning of the dogma, for it has none --- of the nonsense religion you've invented. It has no place in this discussion, any more than a discussion of the doctrine of transubstantiation: and that at least is real theology, and not the meaningless wittering of a single self-adoring fanatic.

You're very naive, Dr., thinking that ad-hominums and general negative-waffle constitute any kind of a rational-defence in regards anything of issue that I have posted. In other words, you're very stupid - albeit, very articulate in telling people they are wrong without having the intelligence to explain why.
Address what I said, or continue to make yourself look stupid. I don't care since I have resolved to root-out the wheat from the chaff, enabling good conversation between that chaff.

Deranged or drama queen, screaming mad or screaming for attention, I don't care. If you want to interpret the recent earthquake in the light of your senseless gibble, start your own thread, and treat it as your very own little padded cell.

Shut-up with the neanderthal responses and read my own courteous response to the OP. The OP said that there cannot be a God and that humanity is the source of it's own benevlonce. This, is clearly drivel. If, however, you want to argue that an effect can be the actual (absolute) source of it's own attributes, then be my guest. I have no qualms in destroying the small-town credibility of 'Dr Adequate'. In fact, I'm going to enjoy it.

Frankly, when you spew out this sort of rubbish about science, it's just funny.

Who mentioned 'science'?!

When you drag this cat's-breakfast of undefined words strung together at random combined with dogmatic, pontifical arrogance into a more serious discussion, it is as tasteless as it is pointless, and it no longer makes me laugh.
You're obviously deranged, since I don't come here to make anyone laugh. You seem to have this strange idea that the credibility of 'philosophy' is dependent upon how many mates you have or how funny that philosophy is.
... The saddest thing is, is that almost everyone here has the same benchmarks.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Humanity - and the attributes one recognises amongst it - is a product or effect of existence... and cannot be defined as "the source" of whatever attributes one associates with that humanity.
If there's such a thing as benevolence, humanity is not the source of it, but rather the vessel into which that benevolence has been poured, so to speak.
Humanity is not it's own creator.

Perhaps you should be putting "I believe" in front of all these statements. Your probably pissing people off because you come across as all knowing and the possesser of some truth you can only speculate about.
If this is what you believe, fine. But don't act like it's a proven fact.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by KelvinG
"Humanity - and the attributes one recognises amongst it - is a product or effect of existence... and cannot be defined as "the source" of whatever attributes one associates with that humanity.
If there's such a thing as benevolence, humanity is not the source of it, but rather the vessel into which that benevolence has been poured, so to speak.
Humanity is not it's own creator."

Perhaps you should be putting "I believe" in front of all these statements. Your probably pissing people off because you come across as all knowing and the possesser of some truth you can only speculate about.
If this is what you believe, fine. But don't act like it's a proven fact.
I don't give a rat's about pride. "The truth" doesn't care so neither do I.
This is a simple issue discussing why an end-product (humanity, in this case) cannot be the cause of one of the attributes which are a constitute-part of It.
Rationally, it's as obvious as 1 + 1 = 2, or suchlike. I have no need to use the word "belief" because I'm absolutely sure that I am right.
Now, if your issue is one of refusing to accept a rational truth here because of the possible consequences of making my head swell with pride, then say so. Otherwise, get serious and acknowledge that the "the truth" is infinitely-more important than the size of my head.
I'm deadly-serious about anything I say - and not one jot of it is for personal fame or fortune. Sincerely.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by lifegazer
...because I'm absolutely sure that I am right.


Then we have nothing to talk about.

Such a bold statement is a sign of stubborn arrogance, and ultimately ignorance.
I'm not saying this to be cruel or demean you. I just don't bother with your type. The "I know I'm right" type.

I'm perplexed why you are even on this board. If you have all the answers, what's the point?

[username]

Originally posted by Beleth
Usually when I write I use the word "Yahweh" to refer to the God of the Old Testament and "Jehovah" to refer to the God of the New Testament.

Yahweh has a history of killing innocents, but He's usually not described as being benevolent. Well, maybe to the Jews. Jehovah is described as being benevolent, but He doesn't kill nearly as many innocents as Yahweh does.



Just a minor nitpick here, but the god of the new testament, if you accept a pre millenial interpretation of the book of Revelation ( which is the most popular view these days) is the god who oversees the destruction of most of the planet's people. So many die that the rivers run red all over the planet. The sun is blackened from the smoke.

And once this happens Jesus, the NT god, comes and sends everyone remaining (since all the christians have been raptured) into eternal hell with the flame that never dies.

So, Jehovah will actually preside over exponentially more deaths and suffering than Yahweh even dreamed of.

This interim period where we can have premarital sex and not get struck down by lightning is called the age of grace.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by KelvinG
Such a bold statement is a sign of stubborn arrogance, and ultimately ignorance.

Absolutely-obvious conclusions in reference to simple questions, are not a sign of anything other than absolutely-obvious conclusions. If you think that an effect can be the absolute-cause of any attribute that it exhibits, then feel-free to argue the point. I

I'm not saying this to be cruel or demean you. I just don't bother with your type. The "I know I'm right" type.

... Which must mean that you've never accepted any reason in your life - including "1 + 1 = 2" type-logic.
That's your perogative. However, refusing to accept that an effect cannot be the absolute-cause of it's own attributes, means that you're either incapable of discussions such as this, or that you lack the sincerity to particpate in a meaningful manner.
I've explained why I'm right and I've explained why the size of my head isn't an issue here. Yet you continue to sprout the same nonsense. Therefore, unless you are capable of traversing your demons, I think that you'll find that I too will "no longer be bothering with your type.".
It works both ways mate.

I'm perplexed why you are even on this board. If you have all the answers, what's the point?
To change things. Why else?

Your problem is that you don't care about what is or what isn't rational. To you, the ego takes pride of place - even mine. If I was here arguing that 1 + 1 = 2, you'd still have the same attitude as long as you thought my intent was to argue the case for God.
You're a lost cause. But not everybody is, which is why I will continue to use 'you' - to highlight the nonsensity of your particular mindset.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Absolutely-obvious conclusions in reference to simple questions, are not a sign of anything other than absolutely-obvious conclusions. If you think that an effect can be the absolute-cause of any attribute that it exhibits, then feel-free to argue the point. I

... Which must mean that you've never accepted any reason in your life - including "1 + 1 = 2" type-logic.
That's your perogative. However, refusing to accept that an effect cannot be the absolute-cause of it's own attributes, means that you're either incapable of discussions such as this, or that you lack the sincerity to particpate in a meaningful manner.
I've explained why I'm right and I've explained why the size of my head isn't an issue here. Yet you continue to sprout the same nonsense. Therefore, unless you are capable of traversing your demons, I think that you'll find that I too will "no longer be bothering with your type.".
It works both ways mate.

To change things. Why else?

Your problem is that you don't care about what is or what isn't rational. To you, the ego takes pride of place - even mine. If I was here arguing that 1 + 1 = 2, you'd still have the same attitude as long as you thought my intent was to argue the case for God.
You're a lost cause. But not everybody is, which is why I will continue to use 'you' - to highlight the nonsensity of your particular mindset.


Blah, blah, blah, blah. More arrogant garbage based on your opinion, not absolute fact as you would have us believe.

It is perfectly within your right to be totally deluded about your own sense of rightness, and it's perfectly within my right to ignore your ramblings.

Buh bye.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by username
So, Jehovah will actually preside over exponentially more deaths and suffering than Yahweh even dreamed of.Not if we're all converted!

But yeah, I see your point. Perhaps I should have said "Jehovah is described as being benevolent, but He doesn't have a history of killing nearly as many innocents as Yahweh does."

[Z]

(yawn)

Mmmm... oh, has the Jester finished babbling yet?

No... seems he's still spewing phlegm.

lifegazer, when you can a) prove God exists or b) disprove that anything else exists, come back and chat. Until then... stop hijacking threads that may have some merit to them to spew your particular brand of religious zealotry.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Another nasty response... merely because I have an opposing reason to a belief held-dear by one of the members.
No, but because you've spewed out your usual spam which is unrelated to the subject under discussion. Please do not lie to me about my own opinions and motivations. It makes you look like such a stupid vulgar little liar. Go away.
You're very naive, Dr., thinking that ad-hominums and general negative-waffle constitute any kind of a rational-defence in regards anything of issue that I have posted. In other words, you're very stupid
O..kay, let's read that again slowly.

"ad-hominums and general negative-waffle"... "In other words, you're very stupid."
:dl:
Not just a liar, but also a hypocrite. Go away.
- albeit, very articulate in telling people they are wrong without having the intelligence to explain why.
I have not said that your posts were wrong, you stupid liar, I have said that they are meaningless gibberish. Go away.
Address what I said, or continue to make yourself look stupid. I don't care since I have resolved to root-out the wheat from the chaff, enabling good conversation between that chaff.
You are a liar. I have addressed what you have said. I have said that it is meaningless pretentious gibberish, where you juggle with words that you refuse to define. Go away.
Shut-up with the neanderthal responses and read my own courteous response to the OP. The OP said that there cannot be a God and that humanity is the source of it's own benevlonce. This, is clearly drivel.
Your "courteous response" to the OP is to dogmatically reject it as "clearly drivel"? Or was your "courteous response" your intial post of your usual stupid spam enunciated as dogma without argument, when in fact it has, not only no relevance to the OP, but also no meaning? Is this courtesy, or is it "look at me!" drama-queen posturing? Go away.
If, however, you want to argue that an effect can be the actual (absolute) source of it's own attributes, then be my guest. I have no qualms in destroying the small-town credibility of 'Dr Adequate'. In fact, I'm going to enjoy it.
But of course I do not wish to argue that "an effect can be the actual (absolute) source of it's own attributes". To attribute this statement to me is a stupid lie. The reason I do not wish to argue this is because "an effect can be the actual (absolute) source of it's own attributes" is meaningless nonsense of your own devising, to which you have not even attempted to attach any meaning, presumably because you can't, and unlike you, I do not argue in favour of meaningless propositions. This is pointless behaviour. Go away.
Who mentioned 'science'?!
You drone on about it in most of your halfwitted posts, and that's intermittently funny. You keep on spamming about science in thread after thread. You know this. To deny it is just one more lie. Here your gibble-gabble of I Can't Believe It's Not Philosophy! is not funny, it's just sick and pathetic. Go away.
You're obviously deranged, since I don't come here to make anyone laugh.
I did not say that this was your intention, and to imply I did is a lie... hey, we're getting used to it now. But making people laugh is, however, what you invariably achieve --- except in this one case, where your drivel is not funny, but grotesque and sick. Go away.
You seem to have this strange idea that the credibility of 'philosophy' is dependent upon how many mates you have or how funny that philosophy is.
... The saddest thing is, is that almost everyone here has the same benchmarks.
This is a strange series of lies. Who can you hope to fool? Who on earth could believe "that the credibility of 'philosophy' is dependent upon how many mates you have or how funny that philosophy is"? Even you, surely... no, maybe not... can see how easily this lie can be debunked, and how clearly you can be shown to be a liar. Whom do you hope to convince with this trash? Go away.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by KelvinG
Blah, blah, blah, blah. More arrogant garbage based on your opinion, not absolute fact as you would have us believe.

It is perfectly within your right to be totally deluded about your own sense of rightness, and it's perfectly within my right to ignore your ramblings.

Buh bye.
Perhaps you said it best, actually.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Beleth
The God described in the New Testament cannot possibly exist.

More children - children - were killed in that earthquake and tsunami than the entire population of the town I grew up in.

What kind of higher power lets that happen?

What kind of higher benevolent power lets water tear three-year-olds from their father's arms and drowns them?

Only one kind.
The kind that doesn't exist.

I don't see how anyone with either a heart or a brain can reconcile what happened over the last few days, and what is about to happen with the diseases that are going to ravage the area just as badly as the water did, with the concept of a powerful and loving God.

No. There is only one source of benevolence in the known universe and that is ourselves. Humanity. Only humanity and the civilization that happens when we work together can do anything to prevent the rest of the universe, including our own planet, from destroying all that is good.

We can destroy ourselves too, of course, but if there is any hope of us not being destroyed, it is entirely up to us to make it not happen. Not Jehovah. Not Allah. Not Krishna. Us. Falling to our knees and pleading for help from something that isn't there is worse than useless.

We are alone in this toxic gemstone of a universe and we better wake up to that fact right quick.

To come back to the begining of the thread :)

Some thoughts. . .

Humanity while there is moments of good things humanity does there is also moments of bad things done. The human race has those highs but seems to favor the lowest, easiest methods.

Does it mean theres no hope, there is always hope as long as people wish to strive for it but its hard. What motivation do people have to strive for their best?

Our envirionment is good and bad, storms and lulls. Drought and rain. Its minus 27 here tomorrow is that Gods punishment or just winter. The storm is just that a storm, just like the sun was there before it. If there was more warning then maybe so many would not have died. Just like tornados.

God did not promise to take away the things of this life, be they good or bad. He promised to be there and give us His strength for us to survive the bad and the good. He gave us each other to help us, if we would only go the distance for each other. He encourages us to do exactly that. God can be the glue that would hold humanity together if only we could put ourselves aside to see that.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Perhaps you said it best, actually.

Thanks.
I fear my patience wears thin quite quickly. I've responded to lifegazer maybe three times and those will be my last.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
To come back to the begining of the thread :)
I love you, Kitty Chan.
Some thoughts. . .

God can be the glue that would hold humanity together if only we could put ourselves aside to see that.
Cute thoughts, but... "God can be the glue that would hold humanity together"... couldn't he start by holding tectonic plates together? Compare 9/11 (caused by religious zeal, well done that divine glue) to the earthquake (an act of God, if there is a God who's in charge of the Universe). Which had higher casualties?

This question --- why an omnipotent God not only allows but causes evil --- is the one we come up against again and again. Now most of your post seems to be the commonly used argument that contrast is needed, good needs a background of bad, we need something to strive against, etc. But this will not be the case in Heaven, surely? I think the argument falls down there. Nothing bad will happen in Heaven, no-one will do wrong, and yet that is not considered a problem in theology. Why is a perfect Earth impossible on theological grounds but not a perfect Heaven? If the reason why we can do evil on Earth is "free will", does that mean we have no free will in Heaven? Or what does it mean?

And, finally, if it's all good --- including that earthquake that killed 100,000 people --- if it's all God's plan... if it's all good... then --- are you going to thank him for it in your prayers?

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
To come back to the begining of the thread :)And I appreciate it. Just because I am about to get all bitter on you doesn't mean I don't appreciate it.

Humanity while there is moments of good things humanity does there is also moments of bad things done. The human race has those highs but seems to favor the lowest, easiest methods.No doubt. We are capable of great, great malevolence, and there is no excuse for that.

Does it mean theres no hope, there is always hope as long as people wish to strive for it but its hard.Exactly. It is the striving, the will, of the people that makes benevolence. It's us against the universe and there's no cavalry coming over the hill.

What motivation do people have to strive for their best?My 4-year-old son and my spouse are the only motivations I need. I do everything for their approval and happiness and nothing for the approval or happiness of a higher power that lets so many children drown.

Drown. Drown. Have you ever considered what it would be like to drown? To be underwater for so long that you can't will yourself to not inhale a big deadly lungful of water? Is there a stupider, more frustrating, way to die? Tens of thousands of children just died that way a few days ago. If there is a higher power that could have stopped that from happening, there's no way it could be called benevolent.



Our envirionment is good and bad, storms and lulls. Drought and rain. Its minus 27 here tomorrow is that Gods punishment or just winter. The storm is just that a storm, just like the sun was there before it. If there was more warning then maybe so many would not have died. Just like tornados.Why would God be punishing you by making it 27 below? And where would the storm warning come from? From systems humans set up, through their own willpower.

God did not promise to take away the things of this life, be they good or bad. He promised to be there and give us His strength for us to survive the bad and the good.Where was He when all those children drowned? Where was His strength when the water ripped the child out of his father's arms?

He broke His promise and I am furious at Him.
The God described in the New Testament does not exist and I am furious at Him for not existing.

He gave us each other to help us, if we would only go the distance for each other. He encourages us to do exactly that. God can be the glue that would hold humanity together if only we could put ourselves aside to see that. We can hold ourselves together without His help. He is irrelevant, malevolent, and nonexistant, and distracts us from being able to hold ourselves together.

I'm not mad at you, Kitty. I want to make that abundantly clear. I'm mad at Jehovah.

[Loon]

Actually, the whole natural disaster thing doesn't put the lie to the existence of god. It only attacks the ominbenevolence or omnipotence of such an entity.

Of course, no monotheistic religion I know of allows for god to be anything less then entirely benevolent and supremely powerful...

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Loon

Of course, no monotheistic religion I know of allows for god to be anything less then entirely benevolent and supremely powerful...

Yes, but that doesn't stop apologists from making countless rationalizations on why "bad things happen to good people", inevitably giving God a free pass.

It's a huge hypocrisy. Place God upon a pedestal of perfection, of greatness and benevolence, but absolve him of all guilt when a disaster strikes.

Ah, but maybe the big guy was busy making a grilled cheese sandwich with the Virgin Mary on it.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Beleth

He broke His promise and I am furious at Him.
The God described in the New Testament does not exist and I am furious at Him for not existing.

We can hold ourselves together without His help. He is irrelevant, malevolent, and nonexistant, and distracts us from being able to hold ourselves together.

I'm not mad at you, Kitty. I want to make that abundantly clear. I'm mad at Jehovah. Yes, but how can you be so furious at that which you hold no belief? You're not making any sense here.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Loon
Actually, the whole natural disaster thing doesn't put the lie to the existence of god. It only attacks the ominbenevolence or omnipotence of such an entity.

Indeed. And if God is bad we should track him down and kill him or at least sentence him to life - he will wish he wasn't immortal. If on the other hand he is just inadequate we should probably retire him.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Loon
Actually, the whole natural disaster thing doesn't put the lie to the existence of god. It only attacks the ominbenevolence or omnipotence of such an entity.

Of course, no monotheistic religion I know of allows for god to be anything less then entirely benevolent and supremely powerful... What about Christianity? It doesn't say 'follow God and have a life of comfort and ease free from pain and inconvenience' but 'take up your cross and follow me' and 'take the difficult options that challenge you and make you grow as a person'.

Consider this. Mars has no magnetic field ... hence its atmosphere was stripped away by unshielded cosmic rays. So, no life ... except perhaps some bugs clustering around frost and underground.

It has no magnetic field (at least not now) because it does not have a rapidly rotating molten iron core, (although limited vulcanism and magma pockets may still exist).

Earth is geological active ... therefore there is life.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
'take the difficult options that challenge you and make you grow as a person'.

...when they don't kill you, of course (see 'tsunami').

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Consider this. Mars has no magnetic field ... hence its atmosphere was stripped away by unshielded cosmic rays. So, no life ... except perhaps some bugs clustering around frost and underground.

It has no magnetic field (at least not now) because it does not have a rapidly rotating molten iron core, (although limited vulcanism and magma pockets may still exist).

Earth is geological active ... therefore there is life.

Speaking of which (sorry, going off topic to an extent), did you hear that "scientists" (no names) are estimating that this disastrous earthquake has actually accelerated the Earth's rotation (by one second per day) and changed its wobble?

Made me think: have past such events sort of injected energy into our orbit and rotation and precession? An active core may make for a 'corrective system' to keep Earth from 1) losing its magnetic field which protects life from harmful/deadly solar radiaton 2) attaining an orbit that matches its rotation (like the Moon) so that we don't have perpetual sunlight and darkness 3) could explain ice ages and other dramatic climatic changes in the geologic record.

Just speculating, of course, but very interesting - in light of the carnage being witnessed around the Indian Ocean, with much respect.

Personally:

1. God is a figment of people's imaginations. Discussing it is like applying Middle Earth history from "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" to real history.

2. LG needs a rubber room and LOTS of medication. What an ******* to intrude on this discussion only to interject his crap-philosophy. LG, if you can PROVE and SHOW that 'benevolence' stems from a source other than humans, please continue. Otherwise, STFU!!!

3. It is hard to "grow as a person" when you've been drowned or mashed into human-pie by a deluge of metric-ton objects careening through a deluge at 40-60 MPH. There is no 'object lesson', even for the rest of us, when hundreds of thousands die needlessly (even avoidably with the proper protocols and alert systems).

Robert

P.S.: When I heard 150 dead, I knew they were joking. I estimated over 20,000, but this is beyond devastating. A simple warning system (well, somewhat elaborate) could have saved tens of thousands of lives. Rare, who cares. That was my initial point: boy-scout mantra - "Always be prepared." We, as a civilized species, always wait until the catastrophe happens before erecting aversion systems. Where is that 10 mile wide asteroid when you need it...

[Loon]

Originally posted by El Greco
Indeed. And if God is bad we should track him down and kill him or at least sentence him to life - he will wish he wasn't immortal. If on the other hand he is just inadequate we should probably retire him.

Of course, "not omnipotent" doesn't rule out "really, really, really, mind-bogglingly powerful, but not always able to catch every ball that's in the air."

And "not omnibenevolent" doesn't rule out "quite the nice guy, if not always able to help"

Etc. But again, no religion seems to say that, although Mr. Clingford makes the case that Xianity does.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by kuroyume0161
Speaking of which (sorry, going off topic to an extent), did you hear that "scientists" (no names) are estimating that this disastrous earthquake has actually accelerated the Earth's rotation (by one second per day) and changed its wobble?

Made me think: have past such events sort of injected energy into our orbit and rotation and precession? An active core may make for a 'corrective system' to keep Earth from 1) losing its magnetic field which protects life from harmful/deadly solar radiaton 2) attaining an orbit that matches its rotation (like the Moon) so that we don't have perpetual sunlight and darkness 3) could explain ice ages and other dramatic climatic changes in the geologic record. Hmm, interesting stuff; a whole second, wow!

Originally posted by kuroyume0161
3. It is hard to "grow as a person" when you've been drowned or mashed into human-pie by a deluge of metric-ton objects careening through a deluge at 40-60 MPH. There is no 'object lesson', even for the rest of us, when hundreds of thousands die needlessly (even avoidably with the proper protocols and alert systems). True, if one is dead then no more growth on earth; the Christian argument is that, of course, it is not all over when one dies and if one believes (as I do) that most, if not all, people will choose to relate to God after death then it is not the end. Events like this earthquake do challenge assumptions; at first glance it does not appear easy (but that makes it interesting) to reconcile ideas of a God who is interested in us individuals with the whole great cosmos and the fact that life can be nasty brutish and short - it might make one rethink one's priorities (like what am I going to do today with this holiday and how long should I hold a grudge against my girlfriend!?)

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Loon
Of course, "not omnipotent" doesn't rule out "really, really, really, mind-bogglingly powerful, but not always able to catch every ball that's in the air."

And "not omnibenevolent" doesn't rule out "quite the nice guy, if not always able to help"

Etc. But again, no religion seems to say that, although Mr. Clingford makes the case that Xianity does. Would you point out where and how I do what exactly.

[Nex]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but how can you be so furious at that which you hold no belief? You're not making any sense here.
Actually, it makes some sense if you take the time to understand what's actually being said.
The idea of an omniscent, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god is a pretty darn nice one, and has a lot of "warm n' fuzzy" thoughts and feelings associated with it. Upon finding out that this god does not exist, it's very easy to be angry at it simply for not existing. Essentially, being robbed of all those nice emotions.

Not totally sensical, true, but not totally nonsensical either.

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Hmm, interesting stuff; a whole second, wow!
Well, if it's true, that's an extra minute every 60 days, or an extra hour every year (roundabout). Won't take very long to completely render our current calendar useless. If it's true.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Loon
Of course, "not omnipotent" doesn't rule out "really, really, really, mind-bogglingly powerful, but not always able to catch every ball that's in the air."

And "not omnibenevolent" doesn't rule out "quite the nice guy, if not always able to help"

Etc. But again, no religion seems to say that, although Mr. Clingford makes the case that Xianity does.

You have to stop excusing him and make up your mind: Whose side are you on, mine or god's ? Be careful what you answer because you can be absolutely certain that I'm not anything near omnibenevolent.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Beleth
The God described in the New Testament cannot possibly exist.

More children - children - were killed in that earthquake and tsunami than the entire population of the town I grew up in.

What kind of higher power lets that happen?

What kind of higher benevolent power lets water tear three-year-olds from their father's arms and drowns them?

Only one kind.
The kind that doesn't exist.

I don't see how anyone with either a heart or a brain can reconcile what happened over the last few days, and what is about to happen with the diseases that are going to ravage the area just as badly as the water did, with the concept of a powerful and loving God.

No. There is only one source of benevolence in the known universe and that is ourselves. Humanity. Only humanity and the civilization that happens when we work together can do anything to prevent the rest of the universe, including our own planet, from destroying all that is good.

We can destroy ourselves too, of course, but if there is any hope of us not being destroyed, it is entirely up to us to make it not happen. Not Jehovah. Not Allah. Not Krishna. Us. Falling to our knees and pleading for help from something that isn't there is worse than useless.

We are alone in this toxic gemstone of a universe and we better wake up to that fact right quick.

Beleth you are a very polite and positive mind in this forum but you are angry. When you feel that you are ready to have a calm discussion about this issue let me know because I have a couple of points to discuss in your post. :)

[AtheistArchon]

2. LG needs a rubber room and LOTS of medication.

- True enough, but for the sanity of everyone with any sanity left: folks, please stop feeding the trolls. :D The only thing that dries them up is being ignored.

- On to the topic.

Beleth you are a very polite and positive mind in this forum but you are angry. When you feel that you are ready to have a calm discussion about this issue let me know because I have a couple of points to discuss in your post.

- That's angry? Wow, I'm a lot different when I'm angry. I think Bel was pretty much on the spot. Frustrated maybe, but not without cause.

- Catastrophies have befallen makind ever since we've existed, and thus far every one has had swarms of tribal myths applied to them in an effort to try to make some kind of sense out of them. "God is sighing because of rampant secularism"? If that's not the most blindingly obvious argument FOR secularism and science in a myth-soaked world, I dont know what is. (Sorry for the pun, I'm powerless to stop them.)

- The best thing about the whole thing is that, for the fundamentalists, the solution to the problem is "spiritual" in nature: pray more to my god! Appease the angry deity. Too much science pisses him off! And so they are doomed to suffer more at the hands of nature than they ordinarily would... it's either tragically ironic or pleasantly Darwinist, depending on your level of cynicism.

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by Nex
A whole second...
Well, if it's true, that's an extra minute every 60 days, or an extra hour every year (roundabout). Won't take very long to completely render our current calendar useless. If it's true.


More on the order of three microseconds/day, from what I last read.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Beleth
The God described in the New Testament cannot possibly exist.

More children - children - were killed in that earthquake and tsunami than the entire population of the town I grew up in.

What kind of higher power lets that happen?



Didn't you hear? They were all homosexuals worshipping their false gods! Our kind and loving Gawd delivered them from the grip of Satan and sent them straight to Hell. Amen.

[Loon]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Would you point out where and how I do what exactly.

I apologize if I misread your post. I'll have to go back and take a closer look. It's been a busy day. But at least the kitchen is clean again.

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by alfaniner
More on the order of three microseconds/day, from what I last read.

Do you have a source? I mentioned it with a 'grain of salt' because it was on the news (CNN) - so it had to be exaggerated. :)


True enough, but for the sanity of everyone with any sanity left: folks, please stop feeding the trolls. The only thing that dries them up is being ignored.


Agreed, but he started it - literally. :p
Anyway, after reading the entire exchange, I was understandably upset. No more feeding.

Robert

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
I love you, Kitty Chan.

Cute thoughts, but... "God can be the glue that would hold humanity together"... couldn't he start by holding tectonic plates together? Compare 9/11 (caused by religious zeal, well done that divine glue) to the earthquake (an act of God, if there is a God who's in charge of the Universe). Which had higher casualties?

Kitty in bold
Just trying to bring things about a bit :) I am not really trying to be cute (but Kitty is all about cute so how could I help it :D) I dont know what would happen if those plates were held together perhaps the world would implode? dont know.

9-11 is not about the Judeo Christian God of Abraham its about Allah, maybe he uses rubber cement? The earthquake is what this earth does, shifts around and causes these things. Some good some not so good.

This question --- why an omnipotent God not only allows but causes evil --- is the one we come up against again and again.

God allows the rain to fall on the good and the bad. As its what we have right now. When He created the world it was good. He did not create evil it came with the fall, the other one whom no one speaks about is the one corrupting the good things of creation.

Now most of your post seems to be the commonly used argument that contrast is needed, good needs a background of bad, we need something to strive against, etc.

But this will not be the case in Heaven, surely? I think the argument falls down there. Nothing bad will happen in Heaven, no-one will do wrong, and yet that is not considered a problem in theology. Why is a perfect Earth impossible on theological grounds but not a perfect Heaven? If the reason why we can do evil on Earth is "free will", does that mean we have no free will in Heaven? Or what does it mean?

Im sorry you got that impression, good does not need bad it would be better off without it. Its just the hand we are delt at this time as I already said.

No bad will happen in heaven as there will no longer be corrupting of good things. All things will be made new. A perfect earth is impossible because God is not in complete charge of earth. While He may ultimetely be in charge, there is that freewill which allows one to choose to follow anothers idea. That other guy that sits in the background snickering while God gets all the bad press. When its this other guy who is the corruptor of what God made good.

Dont forget freewill comes with responsibility, its not just to do as you want with no consequences. Those in heaven will have choosen through freewill what they want to do and will not be changing their minds.

And, finally, if it's all good --- including that earthquake that killed 100,000 people --- if it's all God's plan... if it's all good... then --- are you going to thank him for it in your prayers?

So like I said creation is good, not all is good. Too much food will give you a belly ache.

On the other topic about thanking God in all things good and bad. One has no problem thanking God for good things, when you thank God for bad things you in essence are giving that bad thing to God to worry about. When one does that you get outside of the problem and are able to see things more clearly. Maybe that is a better way of explaining it ? :)

[phildonnia]

Normally, I'm not about going around to other forums and getting banned, but I decided that a kamikaze mission on RR was called for in this case. For posterity, here's my post which I don't expect to last long:


Originally Posted by ScoobyDoo
...Maybe he took them before they could become indoctrinated with false religions so that they MAY spend eternity in the presence of God. ...


Yes, it's a good thing that God killed all the children before they could become Buddhists or (shudder) Muslims.

It takes a very special arrogance to think that you know the will of God, but if you find some kind of twisted comfort in mass death, then that's just more perverse inhumanity than I can keep quiet about.

This sentiment, and the others like it, disgust me. Those of you who share this opinion disgust me, and whatever god you think smiles upon you for thinking this way; that god disgusts me.

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by kuroyume0161
Do you have a source? I mentioned it with a 'grain of salt' because it was on the news (CNN) - so it had to be exaggerated. :)


Second paragraph.

CNN.com story (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/12/29/quake.wobble.reut/index.html)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Beleth

The God described in the New Testament cannot possibly exist.

More children - children - were killed in that earthquake and tsunami than the entire population of the town I grew up in.

What kind of higher power lets that happen?

What kind of higher benevolent power lets water tear three-year-olds from their father's arms and drowns them?

Only one kind.
The kind that doesn't exist. So what if an asteroid hit the planet and everybody died? Would this also be evidence of the "thoughtless" Universe that you're speaking about here? I mean why should anybody get upset outside of a Universe which doesn't care?

[Nex]

Originally posted by Iacchus
... I mean why should anybody get upset outside of a Universe which doesn't care?
I didn't know there was anybody outside of the Universe...



*ba-dum ching!*

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Nex
I didn't know there was anybody outside of the Universe...

That's what I used to believe too. Then came Iacchus.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Nex

I didn't know there was anybody outside of the Universe...

*ba-dum ching!* Well, what are we doing outside of it then (with our own notions) if it doesn't care? I mean how can a Universe be a Universe if it doesn't provide for everything? Certainly our thoughts and feelings must also be a part of it don't you think?

[Kitty Chan]

Beleth

I just thought Id try to get back to your question glad you appreciate it.

I know you’re not mad at me, in my opinion it’s perfectly correct to be mad, means your human. I think even mad at Jehovah God is alright, He has shoulders that can take it. He says He loves us so I take it to mean all sides of us.

You are correct the universe is a harsh place and it’s us against it. (Now some of your answer will be in my reply to Dr Adequate). It is the universe we have. It was not intended by God to be the way it is now. He does want it to be right and it will again one day. Creation was good it’s corrupted at this time. So, there is a calvary coming over the hill, it’s just hard to see when your up to your neck in trouble.

Motivation. Yes family is a good motivation for you but is my family a motivation for you? Are you concerned with our happiness as much or more than your own? God said to love our neighbour as ourselves. Unfortunately most people in this world are concerned for themselves and some not even their family. That’s what I meant by motivation, seeing each other as God sees us. As a whole we will never achieve this on our own, history has born this out.

Drowning. Yes I’ve considered what its like. I even experienced it when I was younger, I did survive but it was horrible. Kept me out of water for years. I mentioned the cold because there will be some who die because of it. This earth as you said is harsh.

Death and God preventing it. Well you have to ask what kind of God you want. If you want Him to swoop and save all those children certainly He could. Then He could save the ones from the cold. Then He could stop starvation. Then He could make all the days sunny and not let people sunburn. So what you are asking for is a performer. Someone who jumps through hoops to perform to standards. Where will it end, when will it be enough?

Did you notice when Jesus performed miracles He did not always cure. Sometimes He forgave sin instead. See He understands that sometimes the heart needs curing more than say blindness. We see the surface while He sees the inside. The inside is where we will develop that love for our neighbour.

Some in Jesus day were not satisfied with the miracles they wanted more and more and would not be happy no matter how many hoops Jesus jumped through. So what kind of a people does that make? People who want it all and do not want to do anything for it. They just want God to do it all. But ohh don’t ask them to do anything in return. They just belly up to the trough and eat., you know that’s human nature.

A God that only performs for you will not last. Eventually that god will want something in return once you are not self sufficient anymore. Then its what I did for you, now you do for me.

Whereas Jesus said you can do nothing other than say thank you for standing in for me. He asks nothing else, from that He hopes you will grow in love.

When a disaster happens, the best we can do is be there for one another and help bear each others grief. Or superman can take care of everything and we can sit like puffed balls and be useless.

The children drowning upsets God just as much as you. He has not broken His promise, He will set things straight. In the meantime He wants us to do what we can for each other.

Does this help you understand Gods nature? He doesn’t want this world this way. But He does not want us forced to see His way. He wants us to understand it and choose it. And one day justice will be done, the meek will inherit.

Or like I said to Dr. Adequate we can always choose the other guy who is a performer (of Hollywood proportions), but what is his price? I will tell you he was gleeful about the children as thats his nature.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by phildonnia
Normally, I'm not about going around to other forums and getting banned, but I decided that a kamikaze mission on RR was called for in this case. For posterity, here's my post which I don't expect to last long:
Yes, it's a good thing that God killed all the children before they could become Buddhists or (shudder) Muslims.
It takes a very special arrogance to think that you know the will of God, but if you find some kind of twisted comfort in mass death, then that's just more perverse inhumanity than I can keepquiet about.
This sentiment, and the others like it, disgust me. Those of you who share this opinion disgust me, and whatever god you think smiles upon you for thinking this way; that god disgusts me.

looks like Rodney responded to you :)

http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?t=180858&page=2&pp=25

[Beleth]

Just a quick shotgun blast of replies because I haven't had the kind of time to absorb and reply to posts in this thread like I did two days ago.

Cleopatra and AtheistArchon -
Yeah, that's what I sound like when I'm angry. If anything I get more oratorial when I'm angry. I appreciate the offer to talk, Cleo, and I will welcome it some day, but I am still too angry and frustrated to talk about it really rationally.

I have now donated more money to this disaster than I have donated to all other disasters combined. It is because of this benevolence-source realization that I have done so. If good is to come of this, it must come solely from my will and the wills of other humans.

Iacchus -
My words are coming more from my heart in this thread and less from my brain than they usually do. I am mad at an entity that does not exist because, despite my Deist proclamations on this board, I still clung to a little kernel of hope that Christianity was true. I now have physical, historical evidence that it is not, and so I guess I'm going through more of the stages of grief than I thought I would.

Bah, Nex put it better than I just did.

Kitty Chan -
Your reply to me deserves more attention than I have been able to give it so far, so it would be a disservice for me to respond to it at this time. I look forward to absorbing it and discussing it with you more soon, though.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Beleth

My words are coming more from my heart in this thread and less from my brain than they usually do. I am mad at an entity that does not exist because, despite my Deist proclamations on this board, I still clung to a little kernel of hope that Christianity was true. I now have physical, historical evidence that it is not, and so I guess I'm going through more of the stages of grief than I thought I would.

Bah, Nex put it better than I just did.


Happy New Year!

I belong to those that they don't believe that the founder of Christianity ( Jesus Christ) ever existed but I believe that the message that was carried to people on his behalf was right and it changed for good and for ever the perception of how we view human societies.

Christianity didn't introduce many new concebts in the History of Ideas , in fact it brought only one and it was this one that made the difference and it's this one concept that keeps me around Christianity.

Christianity introduced for the first time the idea of regret and forgiveness and if you think about it the realization that our actions might harm another human being and by regretting about them we can change our behavior for good was a really revolutionnary idea.

The God that was walking on the lakes, brought the dead back in life, turned water into wine, the God that claims that he loves us deeply no matter what doesn't exist BUT the ideas that were spread to his name, the idea that you must care for your neighbour, the idea that you must regret when you harm others and the idea that you should ask for forgiveness when you err inspired those who believed in those ideas to help the societies become better places and since societies are human and not divine constructions then only humans can make them better places.

I found it highly ironic that this disaster occured in the day of Christmas but then I took it as a sign that proves that only humans can help each other, another proof that life is really short and unpredictabe to waste it.

God doesn't exist but the message gives you the courage to cope with the realization that you are alone to survive but in order to survive in a different way than the animals you must discover in you the traits they attribute to this very non-existent God. The Greeks knew that each of us can be turned into a benevolent God but they were too selfish to conceive the idea of regret and forgiveness but once this idea was introduced none could claim that he doesn't know how to help and this is a comforting idea.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Beleth
... If good is to come of this, it must come solely from my will and the wills of other humans. This is an orthodox Christian view BTW, not to sit around waiting for God to act but for humans to do it ourselves
Originally posted by Beleth
... I am mad at an entity that does not exist because, despite my Deist proclamations on this board, I still clung to a little kernel of hope that Christianity was true. I now have physical, historical evidence that it is not, and so I guess I'm going through more of the stages of grief than I thought I would. I have felt a lot of anger too at God, or more accurately, at my conception of God. The Christian God, though, is not an omnibenevelont one, but, as Cleopatra states, is more interested in the state of our 'heart', who we are, than that we never suffer or die. Science teaches us about the interdependence of so much in this universe - if there were no volcanic activity and techtonic plates then we would not exist in the first place.

[UserGoogol]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Christianity didn't introduce many new concebts in the History of Ideas , in fact it brought only one and it was this one that made the difference and it's this one concept that keeps me around Christianity.

Christianity introduced for the first time the idea of regret and forgiveness and if you think about it the realization that our actions might harm another human being and by regretting about them we can change our behavior for good was a really revolutionnary idea.

Really? How do you figure?

[Mr Clingford]

Beleth, what are you angry about? That God let the earthquake happen in the first place or that so many people died, or solely that people died?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Drama queen?
These are serious issues you are supposed to be discussing. If there's any drame here, the evidence - for all to see - is that you instigated it.

It's the end of the world! someone came across a public profile that I posted to the internet that contains my last name! O woe is me! What a bad, evil, person, they must want to destroy my philosophy!

Anyway, you drama queen instincts about, like in your constant references to things getting worse. Perhaps you've never heard of the black death, the hundred year's war, looked up infant mortality rates, etc.

[Ipecac]

Beleth, your first post was dead on. You rock.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by phildonnia
Yes, it's a good thing that God killed all the children before they could become Buddhists or (shudder) Muslims.

It takes a very special arrogance to think that you know the will of God, but if you find some kind of twisted comfort in mass death, then that's just more perverse inhumanity than I can keep quiet about.

This sentiment, and the others like it, disgust me. Those of you who share this opinion disgust me, and whatever god you think smiles upon you for thinking this way; that god disgusts me.

Their responses to you were imbecilic.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Beleth, what are you angry about? That God let the earthquake happen in the first place or that so many people died, or solely that people died?

Which do you think would have saved more lives? Installing a warning system, or lots of prayer? If god was the one who allowed it to happen, then he did so by refusing to answer millions of prayers. The answer being of course, that it is part of his plan. Would he have also destroyed an early warning system with fire and brimstone so that his plan could be carried out with out the meddling of men?

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by RussDill
Which do you think would have saved more lives? Installing a warning system, or lots of prayer? That's easy, a warning system Originally posted by RussDill
If god was the one who allowed it to happen, then he did so by refusing to answer millions of prayers.Of course God fails to answer millions of prayers a day, but what prayers are you talking about? Originally posted by RussDill
The answer being of course, that it is part of his plan. Would he have also destroyed an early warning system with fire and brimstone so that his plan could be carried out with out the meddling of men? Seriously, I don't think it was part of God's plan, but was a consequence of the nature of the universe that God has created combined with the political/economic situations in those poor countries.

[Paul]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Seriously, I don't think it was part of God's plan, but was a consequence of the nature of the universe that God has created combined with the political/economic situations in those poor countries. So god has a plan, but created a universe so complex he can’t control it?

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Paul
So god has a plan, but created a universe so complex he can’t control it? More free, perhaps, than complex so not under his thumb

[Paul]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
God fails to answer millions of prayers a day, but what prayers are you talking about?How about: “god, who I have worshipped and fervently believed in all my life, please don’t kill 200,000 people just because our governments are more concerned with pressing current issues than rare natural occurrences.� Those prayers.

[Paul]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
More free, perhaps, than complex so not under his thumb So he has the power but refuses to use it?

[scribble]

Beleth -

While I think there were previous events that could have served as your wake-up call(*), I certainly can sympathetize with the way you feel now.

And I know it's not my place, but I'd like to apologize for the behaviour of certain idiots in this thread. You know who I mean -- and more importantly, they know too. Good job on ignoring it.

I thought what you had to say was far too precious to be stomped on by certain individuals.

That's why I never post my true feelings here anymore. Too many idiots who aren't worthy of so much as reading them, much less responding.

-Chris

(* The holocaust, for example)

[lifegazer]

This thread - and the ones like it - are absolute garbage. Why? Because the people participating in them are trying to justify their refusal in contemplating the reality of a God by apportioning the blame for mankind's woes upon that God. They're saying that if God exists, then he/she/it aint worth following anyway, because of the perpetual suffering he/she/it allows mankind to experience. Therefore, ***k he/she/it.
That about sums-up the neanderthal thoughts on this issue, here, and is indicative of the pathetic and unintelligent standards exhibited on this forum.
You're all so full of hate for 'God' whilst simultaneously claiming that such an entity does not exist.
... Strange how a non-existent entity can raise the blood-pressure of so many people.

The issue here is one of ignorance. Ignorance in the nature of what 'God' would be, if existent. Those of you that have read my own particular threads, would have seen me type that If God exists, then nothing else can.
... This view is entirely consistent with a rational contemplation of the existence of 'God', yet human emotion resists any kind of logic which attempts to usurp contempary opinion, because it threatens the status quo and hence stability of the individual's life.
This has been so apparent in this thread (and others like it) that it would be amusing if it wasn't so serious.

You cannot ~blame~ God for anything if 'God' does actually exist, since if that entity does exist, then NO OTHER ENTITY DOES.
Hence, if God now exists - and we contemplate this reality in regards the perception of "human" suffering (which, in regards the reality of 'God' would be an illusion - held by God - of suffering whilst perceiving itself to be human) - then it is pointless to blame God for the suffering of "others"... since only God exists, if that entity does exist.

You clowns need to raise your stakes. A majority of stupidity does not = truth.
I'm tired of you all and realise what a waste of my time this has been, but would hate to have any of you idiots think that if I leave this place, that I am leaving because of intellectual inadequacies on my part.
Quite the contrary.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
That's easy, a warning system


At what point did man's technological advancement surpass the power of prayer? Clearly, in biblical times, disease, illness, etc, all you could do was pray, so if prayer has any power at all, then it would be more powerful. But now, we have doctors, hospitals, modern medicine, etc.

So..When did man beat out prayer?


Of course God fails to answer millions of prayers a day, but what prayers are you talking about?


The ones where people wanted god to keep their family safe from harm.


Seriously, I don't think it was part of God's plan, but was a consequence of the nature of the universe that God has created combined with the political/economic situations in those poor countries.

So...plate techtonics was an unintended consequence of creation. Too bad god didn't realize what would happen, he could have created the world differently, what a horrible mistake god made.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
This thread - and the ones like it - are absolute garbage. Why? Because the people participating in them are trying to justify their refusal in contemplating the reality of a God by apportioning the blame for mankind's woes upon that God. They're saying that if God exists, then he/she/it aint worth following anyway, because of the perpetual suffering he/she/it allows mankind to experience. Therefore, ***k he/she/it.
That about sums-up the neanderthal thoughts on this issue, here, and is indicative of the pathetic and unintelligent standards exhibited on this forum.
You're all so full of hate for 'God' whilst simultaneously claiming that such an entity does not exist.
... Strange how a non-existent entity can raise the blood-pressure of so many people.


Your complete inability to put yourself into another persons mode of thought and reasoning is incredible. For just a few minutes, imagine you are someone who does not believe in an all powerful, benovalent, loving god, and reason from there...Let me know if you need help, k?

[Beleth]

Originally posted by scribble
Beleth -

While I think there were previous events that could have served as your wake-up call(*),

(* The holocaust, for example) Oh for sure. But there's something about this event - the nature-vs.-man aspect of it, or the percentage of children killed, or a combination of all of them - that was the straw that broke the camel's back.

I thought what you had to say was far too precious to be stomped on by certain individuals.Thanks.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
Your complete inability to put yourself into another persons mode of thought and reasoning is incredible. For just a few minutes, imagine you are someone who does not believe in an all powerful, benovalent, loving god, and reason from there...Let me know if you need help, k?
Don't give me that crap, Russ.
I was older than you before my philosophy even began to develop. Before then, I was of a similar mentality to you. I've never been religious. I was much too smart to believe in anything that couldn't explain itself. However, there came a point when I realised that science itself was dependent upon an absolute-belief: that the reality we perceive within ourselves also exists BEYOND ourselves and our perception of it.
... After this realisation, I became honest unto the truth. In other words, I questioned the ability of science to tell us anything about ~reality~.
... That marked the onset of my philosophy Russ. Anyone with a similar sincerity in regards "the truth" would not be looking for emotional reasons to discard the possibility of 'God'.
... Yet this thread - and others like it - are indicative of such emotional ignorance.

When it comes to the point that members are putting you on 'ignore' for courteous and rational responses to their emotional outbursts, then one knows that one is wasting their time. Hence my lack of response over the last few days. But I'm not leaving this place until I explain why it's as bad as a Christian-forum, as viewed by you guys.
If I can leave here knowing that several members of the anti-God society were out-of-order with their philosophies in regards the concept of 'God', then my time here will not have been worthless.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Don't give me that crap, Russ.
I was older than you before my philosophy even began to develop.


Ah, the old apeal to age must equal wisdom. If someone on this forum were older than you, would you question them less?


Before then, I was of a similar mentality to you. I've never been religious. I was much too smart to believe in anything that couldn't explain itself.


Then you have always been close minded, and you still remain that way.


However, there came a point when I realised that science itself was dependent upon an absolute-belief: that the reality we perceive within ourselves also exists BEYOND ourselves and our perception of it.


Can this strawman get anymore tired? Setting up the idea that science depends on some material world to exist exactly as materialists have said, knocking the idea down by stating there is no proof, and then claiming victory as if the only alternative of there being no proof, is that your ideas must be correct is getting really old.

*sigh* Science depends on us existing within a reality that follows some sort of cause and effect. Nothing more.

And again, you always ignore that my ego is seperate from your ego. Your ego exists outside the control of my ego.


... After this realisation, I became honest unto the truth. In other words, I questioned the ability of science to tell us anything about ~reality~.


So, instead, you assume your telivision works by magic (rather than science), made a bunch of stuff up, and led your crusade against the "establishment". (who, after all, are the ones that magically make a TV set "appear" to be working by your perceptions alone, after all, electrons being guided by fields exciting phosphorus atoms? popycock!)


... That marked the onset of my philosophy Russ. Anyone with a similar sincerity in regards "the truth" would not be looking for emotional reasons to discard the possibility of 'God'.


And, if you would have managed to perform the instructions I set out for you, you would have found that in fact, there are zero emotional reasons contained in the argument.


When it comes to the point that members are putting you on 'ignore' for courteous and rational responses to their emotional outbursts, then one knows that one is wasting their time.


People put you on ignore because you don't carry on rational discussions, you preach. Go find a street corner, people here aren't interested.


Hence my lack of response over the last few days. But I'm not leaving this place until I explain why it's as bad as a Christian-forum, as viewed by you guys.


Ah, more ad hominem. Thats what your logical, rational argument needs. That would definately provide absolute proof and vindication.


If I can leave here knowing that several members of the anti-God society


That's EAC to you buddy! :p

Anyway, there is no "anti-god"ness here, we just try to help people bring rationality to their lives, because we have found it helpful ourselves. There is a lot of disdain for the actions of those that let irrational beliefs rule not only their own lives, but other's lives.


were out-of-order with their philosophies in regards the concept of 'God', then my time here will not have been worthless.

No, you are a good teaching tool. I just watched some nature show where a leapord would catch a baby something or other, and release it for it's cubs to practice with.

BTW, thanks for not using colors (colours, sorry)

[Paul]

Originally posted by lifegazer
If I can leave here knowing that several members of the anti-God society were out-of-order with their philosophies in regards the concept of 'God', then my time here will not have been worthless. What a shame you wasted your time then. You can't even convince deists that you make any sense, how are you going to make any headway with atheists or anti-theists?
Hence, if God now exists - and we contemplate this reality in regards the perception of "human" suffering (which, in regards the reality of 'God' would be an illusion - held by God - of suffering whilst perceiving itself to be human) - then it is pointless to blame God for the suffering of "others"... since only God exists, if that entity does exist.A fine example of entirely meaningless drivel.
You clowns need to raise your stakes. A majority of stupidity does not = truth.It's a pity you don't take your own advice. It would also be nice if you didn't try to hijack this thread for your own ego stroking.
Anyone with a similar sincerity in regards "the truth" would not be looking for emotional reasons to discard the possibility of 'God'.You wouldn't know 'the truth' if it violated the principle of local realism.

[Correa Neto]

Dont feed the troll.

[El Greco]

But if you do, at least put some kind of sleeping pill in his food.

[Beleth]

Replies to lifegazer in this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50611), please.

[bluess]

Beleth:

Possibly off topic, but here goes...

Why is it that the death of thousands of children via the tsunami has effected us more than the death of tens of thousands of children from starvation across the globe? I think it has to do with a large number being slammed onto our awareness at once.

When I look at myself, I am saddened that the unpeaceful death (any death that involves violence, or terror and pain) of one person doesn't seem to effect me. I think we have internal governors which prevent us from feeling too much when we hear the news in dribs and drabs - otherwise we'd probably be weeping all over the place. However, the calamitous death of many due to an uncontrollable event overrides those governors.

I would think that careful consideration of the death or torture of one child would lead you to the same disgust with the conception of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being as the deaths from the tsunami.

Since I wasn't raised with that conception, I don't feel the anger you have expressed. Perhaps one source of your anger is the false promises given to you in the nursery - that God watches every sparrow and cares.

Rambling a bit, I know.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by bluess
Why is it that the death of thousands of children via the tsunami has effected us more than the death of tens of thousands of children from starvation across the globe? I think it has to do with a large number being slammed onto our awareness at once.That's very likely. For me personally, it has a lot to do with the fact that all those children died due to, as the insurance companies so aptly put it, an "act of God" and not an act of man. Ongoing starvation is an act of man. (Famines are not, but they're different.)

When I look at myself, I am saddened that the unpeaceful death (any death that involves violence, or terror and pain) of one person doesn't seem to effect me. I think we have internal governors which prevent us from feeling too much when we hear the news in dribs and drabs - otherwise we'd probably be weeping all over the place.Oh for sure. If every single person's pain and suffering affected us the way the pain and suffering a loved one's does, we wouldn't be able to move.

I would think that careful consideration of the death or torture of one child would lead you to the same disgust with the conception of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being as the deaths from the tsunami.Perhaps. But it didn't take "careful consideration" of the deaths from the tsunami to lead me to the conclusion I did; all it took was exposure to the news.

Perhaps one source of your anger is the false promises given to you in the nursery - that God watches every sparrow and cares.There's no perhaps about it - you have hit the nail on the head.

My conclusion stems from reason.
My anger stems from the dichotomy between my conclusion and my upbringing.

[bluess]

Originally posted by Beleth
My conclusion stems from reason.
My anger stems from the dichotomy between my conclusion and my upbringing.

Have you seen anyway to resolve your anger?

[Beleth]

Originally posted by bluess
Have you seen anyway to resolve your anger? None that are really palatable.

I can't go back and change my upbringing, and it's really hard to find the flaw in my reasoning.



PS Kitty Chan - I still owe you a response. I haven't forgotten.

[Beleth]

Okay, I've put this off for long enough.

I want to make this perfectly clear:
I am not mad at you, Kitty Chan.
What I am about to say is going to be very snippy and grumpy. None of that meanness is directed at you.

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Beleth

I just thought Id try to get back to your question glad you appreciate it.

I know you’re not mad at me, in my opinion it’s perfectly correct to be mad, means your human. I think even mad at Jehovah God is alright, He has shoulders that can take it. He says He loves us so I take it to mean all sides of us.He has shoulders that can take it.
This is an important concept in at least one of my counterarguments.

You are correct the universe is a harsh place and it’s us against it. (Now some of your answer will be in my reply to Dr Adequate). It is the universe we have. It was not intended by God to be the way it is now. He does want it to be right and it will again one day. Creation was good it’s corrupted at this time. So, there is a calvary coming over the hill, it’s just hard to see when your up to your neck in trouble.How can this universe possibly not be the way an omnipotent, omniscient God intended it to be? That just doesn't make any sense. If it got out of His Control then He's not omnipotent. If He didn't know it was going to be like this then He's not omniscient.

I can forgive (heh) any Creator either or both of these failings. But the description of God in the Bible isn't like this.

Motivation. Yes family is a good motivation for you but is my family a motivation for you? Are you concerned with our happiness as much or more than your own?Your family specifically? To be honest, no. It is not in my (or human, IMHO) nature to be that concerned over individual people or families. But when suffering happens on this scale, when six figures of children die because of a single natural event... that overloads my ability to shrug off another family's tragedy and I start to take it personally.

Drowning. Yes I’ve considered what its like. I even experienced it when I was younger, I did survive but it was horrible. Kept me out of water for years.Okay, I have to admit that I had a similar experience. (It was at a swimming lesson of all things. 35 years ago and I'm still somewhat aquaphobic.) I can't say that that hasn't tainted my reaction to this event.

Death and God preventing it. Well you have to ask what kind of God you want. If you want Him to swoop and save all those children certainly He could. Then He could save the ones from the cold. Then He could stop starvation. Then He could make all the days sunny and not let people sunburn. So what you are asking for is a performer. Someone who jumps through hoops to perform to standards. Where will it end, when will it be enough?An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God would not consider this "jumping through hoops". He could do this stuff in His sleep (to use an odd cliche here).

Did you notice when Jesus performed miracles He did not always cure. Sometimes He forgave sin instead. See He understands that sometimes the heart needs curing more than say blindness. We see the surface while He sees the inside. The inside is where we will develop that love for our neighbour.How did having the water rip his child from his arms help the heart of the father who was trying to save his child? What good came of that?

Some in Jesus day were not satisfied with the miracles they wanted more and more and would not be happy no matter how many hoops Jesus jumped through. So what kind of a people does that make? People who want it all and do not want to do anything for it. They just want God to do it all. But ohh don’t ask them to do anything in return. They just belly up to the trough and eat., you know that’s human nature.

A God that only performs for you will not last. Eventually that god will want something in return once you are not self sufficient anymore. Then its what I did for you, now you do for me.Why? God has shoulders that can take it. What could we possibly give Him that He needs, anyway?

Whereas Jesus said you can do nothing other than say thank you for standing in for me. He asks nothing else, from that He hopes you will grow in love.I can't thank a God who has let this much suffering happen.

When a disaster happens, the best we can do is be there for one another and help bear each others grief. Or superman can take care of everything and we can sit like puffed balls and be useless.Exactly! There is no Superman. It's up to us, and us alone. If God exists, He is not benevolent and He will not help us.

Does this help you understand Gods nature?Yes. It has helped me understand that His nature is not described by the New Testament.

Or like I said to Dr. Adequate we can always choose the other guy who is a performer (of Hollywood proportions), but what is his price? I will tell you he was gleeful about the children as thats his nature.And here's another point about this that I want to make clear. I hold every higher power who could have done something about this, but didn't, as responsible and as non-existent as I hold Jehovah.

[Beleth]

(Yeah yeah, three replies in a row for me, so sue me.)

Today I was given an incredible, unique opportunity to help with the disaster relief effort.

A consequence of the outpouring of human will to help the victims of this disaster is that the Internet-based infrastructure at the American Red Cross is getting overloaded.

The company I work for is working very closely with the American Red Cross to resolve this overload, and because it's what I'm good at, I have been tapped to help them with an upgrade to their e-mail infrastructure.

I am looking forward to this project with a zeal I have not felt in a long, long time.

[Cleopatra]

I hope you don't get disappointed again when you will realize that all humanitarian organizations are pawns of the western governments and the bad thing is that you won't be able to blame God for that.

[Beleth]

What I said here was more appropriate to a PM, so I have replaced it with this. I tried to delete it, but I couldn't.

[Riddick]

@OP: maybe God's way of population control?

Additionally, even if the tsunami didn't happen, you would find a plethora of ways of showing your disdain for God anyway.

If God exists, you have a hatred for him.

If God doesn't exist, and someone makes him up, you hate that idea of God.

Summed it up nicely for you?

[Beleth]

I was wondering when you would show up...

Originally posted by Riddick
@OP: maybe God's way of population control?Is that what you believe?

If God exists, you have a hatred for him.

If God doesn't exist, and someone makes him up, you hate that idea of God.

Summed it up nicely for you? No and somewhat. Regarding your first point, I have no hatred at all of an existing Creator who does not claim to be benevolent. Regarding your second, I'd add "and millions of people buy into that made-up idea". I don't hate the idea of Cthulhu, for instance, because it hasn't really affected the outcome of many lives.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Beleth
What I said here was more appropriate to a PM, so I have replaced it with this. I tried to delete it, but I couldn't.

Allow me to disagree with that statement please.
Some years ago my world collapsed when the police busted a whole network of kid prostitution that was using an institution of the Greek Church as a base and I found myself procecuting. I achieved the most severe penalty that has been recorded to the history of the greek judicial system.Note that until that moment I was offering my legal services for free to the Greek church and I am talking about many hours of work.

Even in those dark days though I believed that some humans could stand above themselves and therefore discover the God in them and this is the God I believe in.

Human pain has no end and this is a fact we must learn to live with.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Allow me to disagree with that statement please.This disagreement makes no sense in the context I meant what you were replying to, so let me try to clarify.
I posted something that was better left to a PM, then thought better of it, and tried to delete the post I made. I found that I couldn't, so I just edited the post and replaced the contents with the "What I said here..." sentences.

(After that, I decided that it didn't even make a good PM, so I didn't send it to you, which is why you didn't receive it.)

Some years ago my world collapsed when the police busted a whole network of kid prostitution that was using an institution of the Greek Church as a base and I found myself procecuting. I achieved the most severe penalty that has been recorded to the history of the greek judicial system.Note that until that moment I was offering my legal services for free to the Greek church and I am talking about many hours of work.

Even in those dark days though I believed that some humans could stand above themselves and therefore discover the God in them and this is the God I believe in.Let me, once again, try to clarify my point.

Man's inhumanity to man is unsurprising and thus not what I am on about. What I am on about is the universe's apathy to humanity, and how that simply doesn't jibe with the notion of a benevolent higher power as Jehovah is described in the New Testament.

You attribute the good in your co-workers as coming from the God within them. I no longer see any reason to believe that there is any God in any of us. The good that comes from people comes from people and their own will which guides them to do good things.

God couldn't care less about us.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Beleth


(After that, I decided that it didn't even make a good PM, so I didn't send it to you, which is why you didn't receive it.)

Ok I got it now I thought that you meant that maybe you shouldn't have posted your thoughts.

Man's inhumanity to man is unsurprising and thus not what I am on about.
But still God permits man to man attrocities and even in his own institutions!

What I am on about is the universe's apathy to humanity, and how that simply doesn't jibe with the notion of a benevolent higher power as Jehovah is described in the New Testament.
Humans are only a small part of the Universe and indeed they do not enjoy a special treatment. Why should they be more important than the animals? The God of the New Testament is a spiritual symbol the way His grace is.

You attribute the good in your co-workers as coming from the God within them. I no longer see any reason to believe that there is any God in any of us.
People attributed to the God of the NT identities that they could recognize in them or in other human beings. Kindness, forgiveness, sacrifice for the fellow human being etc., notions that are very easy to conceive but really difficult to follow in your everyday life since you need to get over yourself and who can in this jungle we all live in, very few people can. That's why I talked about the God in us and about "blessed human beings".

The good that comes from people comes from people and their own will which guides them to do good things.
Yes, this is how I believe that it is and on the other hand I don't think that I contradict myself every morning that I pass by a small chapel next to my office,I light a candle and I ask God not to let me be unjust and cruel to anybody during the day.

God couldn't care less about us. Oh " He" cares and but "He " feels equally useless in front of disasters as the ones we experience these days, the only thing "He" can do though is be present in the hearts of those who help the victims and inspire them not to quit the effort.

[Atlas]

Cleo,

I'm having a tough time getting a fix on your perspective.

You seem to be a deist with a rich interior experience of God who chooses to label and inform that experience with the symbols of and teachings of Christianity. At the same time you seem to reject the factfulness of Bible and to reject the father god of Jesus as the best description of the deity.

It occurs to me that you separate your interior experience of God from the notion that it derives from a particular brand of external deity. You prefer to enhance the light of God experience within you and find certain notions of Christianity enabling.

I'm probably not hitting the mark here but there is a perspective difference between the Christian who says God exists and I feel Him in my heart, and I feel God in my heart and I call myself Christian. The first is guided by the external truths of a religion, second would be guided more by an interior illumination that has little to do with the truth of the Bible - a Christian in name only?

Anyway, the interior experience or feeling of God is for me the complete knowable reality. If you get a moment I'd like you to set me straight on where you stand.

[Cleopatra]

Atlas I will reply to your question, I just need to find the appropriate time because I kind of need to be in the mood to respond to your post.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Beleth
Okay, I've put this off for long enough.

I want to make this perfectly clear:
I am not mad at you, Kitty Chan.
What I am about to say is going to be very snippy and grumpy. None of that meanness is directed at you.

Im good I got a puffy winter coat on :D

He has shoulders that can take it.
This is an important concept in at least one of my counterarguments.

How can this universe possibly not be the way an omnipotent, omniscient God intended it to be? That just doesn't make any sense. If it got out of His Control then He's not omnipotent. If He didn't know it was going to be like this then He's not omniscient.
I can forgive (heh) any Creator either or both of these failings. But the description of God in the Bible isn't like this.

Freewill. Gods letting us decide to do the right thing. I assure you He will in His time do just as you wish Him to do. That is set things straight. But for now Hes not forcing your hand. Cleo said He knows yes He knows and His heart crys with yours. Hes not happy but Hes not going back on His word for freewill to choose.

Your family specifically? To be honest, no. It is not in my (or human, IMHO) nature to be that concerned over individual people or families. But when suffering happens on this scale, when six figures of children die because of a single natural event... that overloads my ability to shrug off another family's tragedy and I start to take it personally.

God asks us to be more concerned for everyone over yourself, its also freewill and its tough. Suffering on a large scale has not been seen by us in North America we are somewhat catching up to the rest of the world.

Im covering some of this in other threads. In a nutshell when I watch how much they know about storms and they knew 2 hours at least but there was no early warning method my blood boils. Boils at the slack selfish govts that could have spend half the money they are spending now and installed a method of communication over there. Thats why I repeat that God said love your neighbour and bear one anothers burdens. If that had been listened to the storm warning would have been there.

Okay, I have to admit that I had a similar experience. (It was at a swimming lesson of all things. 35 years ago and I'm still somewhat aquaphobic.) I can't say that that hasn't tainted my reaction to this event.

Swimming lessons are evil :D

An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God would not consider this "jumping through hoops". He could do this stuff in His sleep (to use an odd cliche here).

Yes He could, but freewill again

How did having the water rip his child from his arms help the heart of the father who was trying to save his child? What good came of that?

None other than satan sowing sorrow. Like I said before God crys along with you. Think of it from His side He created those children. He said let the children come to me He has a fondness for them.

Something else to consider from Gods perspective the children are not dead but with Him. I dont say Hes happy about the circumstance but its what happened.

What you are doing is a good thing, if more of us did care and do something it would be a better place. This is what God asks of us but most think it too hard.

To sum up He does care, He asked us to care. Society could have done more but choose not to and He does share your pain and will set it straight better than superman. :)

[bluess]

Kittychan, your philosophy makes my head hurt.

So, your God loves you so much that he creates systems which generate cataclysmic events - which have nothing to do with your free will - and then cries with you because children die?

I'm beginning to believe that if you weren't brought up to believe a particular religion you can never wrap your head around it. Since I wasn't brought up in any particular doctrine, I find them all odd.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by bluess
Kittychan, your philosophy makes my head hurt.



You are catching a conversation in the middle go back in the thread and read what I said from the beggining because what you stated was not what I have been saying. Then if there is a specific question we can go from there.

These threads when they get long require a bit of back reading to get what everybodys talking about :)

[bluess]

Well, I've based my entry on various things you've said here and there on this board. I'm happy that you're willing to discuss your world view, and am sorry if I came off harsh (Friday morning and its a grey, sloppy day). However, I generally cannot follow your thoughts from Point A to Point C, let alone Point Z. As I said, I think it is because I was raised doctrine-free - so I can't buy into things where 'cause the (insert book of choice) says so' is a reason.

[Kitty Chan]

Hey bluess

I actually wasnt raised in any particular way my moms idea of religious education was to take my brothers to see The Robe and I saw Jesus Christ Superstar which was totally not helpful because I couldnt figure why the hippies left their friend playing Jesus to die in the desert.

But a rule of a little kindness for everyone based on biblical thoughts was taught.

I guess Im saying I wouldnt recognize a dogma or doctrine if it ran by. At this point I go with what the bible says because there is so many people with different ideas so I guess I just stay at the source. If I go away from that for opionions then I find at least 3 who agree on a aspect and go from there.

As for discuss I guess its in the instructions;

1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.

:)

[Beleth]

Kitty, your style of quoting makes it hard to quote you - but I will try.

I am in bold. Kitty is in italics.

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Originally posted by Beleth
How can this universe possibly not be the way an omnipotent, omniscient God intended it to be? That just doesn't make any sense. If it got out of His Control then He's not omnipotent. If He didn't know it was going to be like this then He's not omniscient.

Freewill. Gods letting us decide to do the right thing. I assure you He will in His time do just as you wish Him to do. That is set things straight. But for now Hes not forcing your hand. Cleo said He knows yes He knows and His heart crys with yours. Hes not happy but Hes not going back on His word for freewill to choose.But the free will argument simply doesn't apply when the enemy is nature. Jehovah lets men be as nasty to other men as they like, and I'm okay with that. But when He lets waves rip toddlers out of their fathers' arms, that has nothing to do with free will. I'm pretty sure the father really, really didn't want the wave to drown his son.

Your family specifically? To be honest, no. It is not in my (or human, IMHO) nature to be that concerned over individual people or families. But when suffering happens on this scale, when six figures of children die because of a single natural event... that overloads my ability to shrug off another family's tragedy and I start to take it personally.

God asks us to be more concerned for everyone over yourself, its also freewill and its tough.But that's not what we're talking about. We're not talking about where my own self-concern falls on the "things I'm concerned about" scale; we're talking about comparing where my concern for my own family falls in relation to my concern over your family. And again, free will is irrelevant when the enemy is a natural disaster.

Suffering on a large scale has not been seen by us in North America we are somewhat catching up to the rest of the world.That's because we (in North America) have the natural resources to combat suffering better than most of the rest of the world.

Im covering some of this in other threads. In a nutshell when I watch how much they know about storms and they knew 2 hours at least but there was no early warning method my blood boils. Boils at the slack selfish govts that could have spend half the money they are spending now and installed a method of communication over there.Why would there be an early warning method? Do you know when the last tsunami of this magnitude hit that area? Five hundred years ago. Blaming governments for not doing something against a threat that only hits once every five hundred years is unproductive.

When a magnitude 10 earthquake hits the New Madrid Fault in (IIRC) Missouri, will your blood boil that the "slack selfish government" let people build houses out of bricks over the last 200 years? There are some risks that just don't warrant a huge prevention infrastructure.

Thats why I repeat that God said love your neighbour and bear one anothers burdens. If that had been listened to the storm warning would have been there.And the Boy Scouts say "Be Prepared". I think that's a saying that is more relevant to this disaster.

An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God would not consider this "jumping through hoops". He could do this stuff in His sleep (to use an odd cliche here).

Yes He could, but freewill againYes, but inapplicable again.

How did having the water rip his child from his arms help the heart of the father who was trying to save his child? What good came of that?

None other than satan sowing sorrow. Like I said before God crys along with you. Think of it from His side He created those children. He said let the children come to me He has a fondness for them.For God so loved the children that He let 100,000 of them die at Satan's hands. This just makes absolutely no sense, no matter how much free will you inject into it.

Something else to consider from Gods perspective the children are not dead but with Him.1. It is highly unlikely that many, if any, of those children were baptized in a Christian manner. So they're not with Jehovah.
2. This is an argument whose conclusion is nothing short of infanticide. Children who die go to heaven, therefore it is in their best interest if we kill them all as soon as possible. I cannot believe that.

What you are doing is a good thing, if more of us did care and do something it would be a better place. This is what God asks of us but most think it too hard.I care more about these people half a world away from me now that I know Jehovah doesn't exist than I did before when I thought He did. What does that say about belief?

[billydkid]

It has dawned on me that there is a kind of mentality that requires there to be a reason for everything and that everything that happens is attributable to a behavior of lack of it. Often these people are religious, but sometimes not. I have a friend at work (and I have known others) who readily attributes any misfortune or any affliction to something someone did or did not do. He has a need to do it. I think this way of thinking is very common. Nothing "just happens". For example, this friend of mine attributes bad eyesight to lazy looking - being too lazy to focus. If you caught a cold you didn't take enough vitamin C. and on and on. I think it is the same mind set that requires people to find reason and blame and justification in natural disasters.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Beleth
Kitty, your style of quoting makes it hard to quote you - but I will try

But the free will argument simply doesn't apply when the enemy is nature. Jehovah lets men be as nasty to other men as they like, and I'm okay with that. But when He lets waves rip toddlers out of their fathers' arms, that has nothing to do with free will. I'm pretty sure the father really, really didn't want the wave to drown his son..
I thought the bold worked sorry bout that so how is this format?

You said the enemy is nature and its a corrupted nature. When God made everything it was good. Meaning there was no storms, sickness or death, it was good. Then the earth and everthing in it became corrupted by sin or evil and then the good coexisted with the bad. God said it was good and satan corrupted it with bad. This is why I said God is in the process of making it good again and He will.

So yes free will does apply because free will is the process to eliminate evil and when that is done God will then make the earth good again. Then everybody can get back to what we were supposed to be in the first place.

But that's not what we're talking about. We're not talking about where my own self-concern falls on the "things I'm concerned about" scale; we're talking about comparing where my concern for my own family falls in relation to my concern over your family.
When God said love your neiighbour as yourself that means equal, no scale. Just as a mother equally loves her children. Thats why I said its tough, and just as a child does not understand how their mom can love all the children equally we cannot understand how God loves us equally.

That's because we (in North America) have the natural resources to combat suffering better than most of the rest of the world.
When a magnitude 10 earthquake hits the New Madrid Fault in (IIRC) Missouri, will your blood boil that the "slack selfish government" let people build houses out of bricks over the last 200 years? There are some risks that just don't warrant a huge prevention infrastructure
And the Boy Scouts say "Be Prepared". I think that's a saying that is more relevant to this disaster..
Prevention infrastructure is certainly cheaper than the money pouring in now. They knew 2 hours ahead of time but did not have a system to notify them it was coming. Other countries do.

They were not on the list of countries to telephone to warn. That would be a start, right? The poor get hit because no one thinks of them ahead of time. Thats what makes me mad when some of this was a phone call away. Yea the boy scouts are right and if it sounds like a disagreement Im sorry but God said be concerned and no one was.

1. It is highly unlikely that many, if any, of those children were baptized in a Christian manner. So they're not with Jehovah.
2. This is an argument whose conclusion is nothing short of infanticide. Children who die go to heaven, therefore it is in their best interest if we kill them all as soon as possible. I cannot believe that.
It matters not that these children were baptized. (Actually baptized does not matter for anyone its not necessary for anything) Jesus said for the children to come to Him. The children are innocent. Gods Grace covers alot, they are with Him. What God says about children and the respect Jesus had for children does not add up to "its in their interest to kill them" thats simply not the case.

I care more about these people half a world away from me now that I know Jehovah doesn't exist than I did before when I thought He did. What does that say about belief?
It says nothing about belief but it says alot about emotions and how one understands their world.

You were not aware of these people before now, you did not know them. Now you see what they endured and you know more of them. You are simply loving your neighbour more than yourself, which is correct.

Of course your angry and sad this happened so you are helping out how you can, as are others. Its sad the powers that be could not have shared some simple technology with them and some of this would have been avoided.

If you want to place blame try at satans feet. he was the big brain who decided to corrupt everything because he was in love with his own image and figures everyone else should be too.

Like I said God understands your anger and I have to say again, He will set it straight and make it like it was meant to be. :)

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by billydkid
It has dawned on me that there is a kind of mentality that requires there to be a reason for everything and that everything that happens is attributable to a behavior of lack of it.

For every action there is a equal and opposite reaction?
Cause and effect?
Confused thinking that God causes everything. Created not necessarily caused.
Sometimes love of complaining :D
Quite often not wanting to accept any blame themselves so a defense begins.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
I thought the bold worked sorry bout that so how is this format?Much better. The problem with the previous way was that everything was inside the "quote" and "/quote" tags, and for some reason this BB ignores previously-quoted stuff in stuff you are quoting.

You said the enemy is nature and its a corrupted nature. When God made everything it was good. Meaning there was no storms, sickness or death, it was good. Then the earth and everthing in it became corrupted by sin or evil and then the good coexisted with the bad. God said it was good and satan corrupted it with bad. This is why I said God is in the process of making it good again and He will.It sounds like you are saying that nothing in the universe was harmful to people before the Fall. Or does this "goodness" apply to only the Earth and not the rest of the universe?

If Adam and Eve were exposed to the hard vacuum of space, would they have died? Or was space not a hard vacuum before the Fall?

So yes free will does apply because free will is the process to eliminate evilActually, free will is the ability to choose evil or good. If we didn't have free will, then all we could choose is... well, we couldn't choose anything.

And are you saying that nature has a choice? Does the Earth choose to have earthquakes? I don't think that's a particularly Biblical perspective.

I'm saying that it's not a free-will issue because nature doesn't choose to be deadly. The hard vacuum of space doesn't choose to asphyxiate all humans exposed to it; it just happens.

When God said love your neiighbour as yourself that means equal, no scale.Exactly. I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying.

The Bible says Jesus said "love your neighbor as yourself." He isn't reported to have said "love your neighbor as your family." So there's no Biblical justification why I can't value the lives of my family over the lives of my neighbors.

Prevention infrastructure is certainly cheaper than the money pouring in now. They knew 2 hours ahead of time but did not have a system to notify them it was coming. Other countries do.Again, I don't think my message is being understood.

They didn't have a warning system in place because the last time this happened was five hundred years ago. There's "being prepared" and there's "being paranoid". I am reminded of the classic Dilbert cartoon where the boss asks Dilbert to give him a list of all the unexpected problems he was expecting. How can you prepare for something you don't even think will happen?

It matters not that these children were baptized. (Actually baptized does not matter for anyone its not necessary for anything)Well, the Bible disagrees with you on that one, but let's not get into that.

Jesus said for the children to come to Him. The children are innocent. Gods Grace covers alot, they are with Him. What God says about children and the respect Jesus had for children does not add up to "its in their interest to kill them" thats simply not the case.All I can say is "yes, it is." If children automatically go to Heaven, then the best thing you can do to a child is to kill it before Satan corrupts it. I'd love to see the flaw in that argument but I don't see it.

Of course your angry and sad this happened so you are helping out how you can, as are others. Its sad the powers that be could not have shared some simple technology with them and some of this would have been avoided.Please stop blaming this on the rich countries of the world. You are blaming them for not expecting an unexpected problem.

If you want to place blame try at satans feet. he was the big brain who decided to corrupt everything because he was in love with his own image and figures everyone else should be too.I don't want to place blame. There is no blame to place. The universe is a not-intentionally hostile place for humans, and it is no one's "fault".

If I were to place blame, I would blame you, Kitty Chan, for not speaking up in defense of these poor people ahead of time and getting the governments of the world to put in a warning system. But that would be ridiculous, and that's why I am not blaming any one.

Like I said God understands your anger and I have to say again, He will set it straight and make it like it was meant to be. :) Well, He better hurry up, because His universe is pushing me away from Him.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Ok I got it now I thought that you meant that maybe you shouldn't have posted your thoughts.


But still God permits man to man attrocities and even in his own institutions!

Yes. This is the core of why God, if it exists, is actually immoral. It might be in the nature of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God to create lesser beings that are self-aware and independent. It does not follow that one heaves them into a universe where they can torture and kill each other. Grotesque, mind-shattering pain is one of the most idiotic inventions I can conceive of. I hereby judge Yaweh to be, and this is not rhetoric, a truly sick bastard.


Humans are only a small part of the Universe and indeed they do not enjoy a special treatment. Why should they be more important than the animals?

Grotesque, mind-shattering pain issue aside, for the most part animals do not deliberately torture each other. They do not enslave each other. They do not pick up weapons and tell each other how to build their houses, or you will be forced to give up effort (money). If they resist giving up effort, they do not encage other animals. If they resist being encaged, they do not kill the other animals. The most benevolent religious and socialist concepts are hellishly murderous when looked at that way, which is to say, realistically.

A lion who is going to kill another lion because that other lion created a den the first one didn't like? A gorilla who is going to kill another gorilla because his tree nest doesn't meet the first gorilla's requirements? ********, all of you.



People attributed to the God of the NT identities that they could recognize in them or in other human beings. Kindness, forgiveness, sacrifice for the fellow human being etc., notions that are very easy to conceive but really difficult to follow in your everyday life

Hold it right there. It is infinitely easy for God to assist human beings. Indeed, it is mathematically 0 sacrifice whatsoever.


Oh " He" cares and but "He " feels equally useless in front of disasters as the ones we experience these days, the only thing "He" can do though is be present in the hearts of those who help the victims and inspire them not to quit the effort.

Ummm, for him to feel "equally useless", he'd have to have a valid reason not to help. I do not recognize any valid reason in an omnipotent, good God. "Mysterious are the ways of God" is a philosophical, meaningless cop-out.

[kujina]

Hi
I'm new here this is my first post.
It reads like lifegazer's ideas are chemically influenced through supplementation.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by kujina
Hi
I'm new here this is my first post.
It reads like lifegazer's ideas are chemically influenced through supplementation. Hi Kujina and welcome to the forum. Lifegazer is a true believer. But what he believes is unique in the world. He is a Solipcist but it's not his own awareness it's God's. It's God that is having the experience of lifegazer and everything. Certain religions seem to say some similar things but if you mention that you'll be wrong. You'll be wrong no matter what you say to lifegazer because you don't know that you don't exist and are really God having the experience of kujina.

His delusion is not chemically induced. He has manufactured it himself using what he calls "logic." You'll have to see in action to appreciate it. He has started several threads - they often run long. It looks like he's taken a hiatus this week but it's likely you'll get a chance soon to pit you own clarity of thought against his. Trust me, you'll be the one resorting to drugs.

[kujina]

Originally posted by Atlas
Hi Kujina and welcome to the forum. Lifegazer is a true believer. But what he believes is unique in the world. He is a Solipcist but it's not his own awareness it's God's. It's God that is having the experience of lifegazer and everything. Certain religions seem to say some similar things but if you mention that you'll be wrong. You'll be wrong no matter what you say to lifegazer because you don't know that you don't exist and are really God having the experience of kujina.

His delusion is not chemically induced. He has manufactured it himself using what he calls "logic." You'll have to see in action to appreciate it. He has started several threads - they often run long. It looks like he's taken a hiatus this week but it's likely you'll get a chance soon to pit you own clarity of thought against his. Trust me, you'll be the one resorting to drugs.

Hi Atlas

Thanks for clearing that up ;)

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Beerina
...Grotesque, mind-shattering pain is one of the most idiotic inventions I can conceive of. From what I have read of people who can't feel pain, whether from birth or, say, from leprosy it is a real handicap - the ability to feel pain enables us to not damage ourselves too much. Here's one boy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4195437.stm)
One baby girl has seriously harmed her sight through scratching her eyes because she felt no pain to make her stop. Sufferers from leprosy have lost their very helpful digits at night when asleep when rats have eaten them. Pain serves a very useful survival function.

[KS_SKEPTIC]

Originally posted by Beleth
Usually when I write I use the word "Yahweh" to refer to the God of the Old Testament and "Jehovah" to refer to the God of the New Testament.

Yahweh has a history of killing innocents, but He's usually not described as being benevolent. Well, maybe to the Jews. Jehovah is described as being benevolent, but He doesn't kill nearly as many innocents as Yahweh does.

The only entity that cares about what happens to humans is humanity itself.

For the record:
The name "Jehovah" is a Christian mistake. It was forbidden to pronounce the name "YHWH" (Yahweh), and readers of the Hebrew scriptures were supposed to say "Adonai" in its place. "In written texts the vowels of Adonai were combined with the consonants YHWH to remind readers to pronounce Adonai instead of Yahweh. The incorrect hybrid, 'Jehovah,' arose from Christian misunderstanding in the late Middle Ages."(Harper's Bible Dictionary)
http://www.ffrf.org/index.php

[Beleth]

Originally posted by KS_SKEPTIC
For the record:
The name "Jehovah" is a Christian mistake. It was forbidden to pronounce the name "YHWH" (Yahweh), and readers of the Hebrew scriptures were supposed to say "Adonai" in its place. "In written texts the vowels of Adonai were combined with the consonants YHWH to remind readers to pronounce Adonai instead of Yahweh. The incorrect hybrid, 'Jehovah,' arose from Christian misunderstanding in the late Middle Ages."(Harper's Bible Dictionary)
http://www.ffrf.org/index.php Yep. That's exactly why I like using those two names the way I do. Yahweh is Hebrew. Jehovah is a purely Christian mutation.

[Riddick]

if its christian, its to be hated ;)

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Riddick
if its christian, its to be hated ;) Maybe just misunderstood. Lately I've been thinking back to childhood questions about Christianity.

The Good Shepard metaphor seems comforting today. But why would it be to sheepherders.

I am your master. You are my livestock. Live here and in this pen. Eat grass all your days. Move wrong and my dog will bite you. Then, at a time of my choosing, I will slaughter you and eat your flesh.

Did the idea of the Good Shepard precede the notion that men had souls? The metaphor is more tolerable if men die and stay in the grave uneaten. But if they have souls, which is like the flesh of god, why do we not think god feasts on them? The way He set up the world suggests the weak are preyed upon. He goes to great lengths to explain how much power He has compared to us.

Is the idea that God is love really the mentality of livestock? Well the farmer was good to me today and life here is making me fat. I can't wait to see what great things are in store for me, he really must love me.

Christianity holds the human mind in livestock mode. It fabricates the dream of eternal bliss or torment to mask the more simple reality. Souls are like chocolate drops to an expanding deity.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Riddick
if its christian, its to be hated ;) As ye sow, so shall ye reap.