# Reading > Religious Texts >  Why does a good God promote suffering?

## thebagman

1. For fun?

2. Because he is not a good God?

3. To teach us a lesson.

4. Because he wants more believers?

5. Because of some plan we will never be able to understand?

6. To teach us a lesson.

7. Maybe Satan and God were somehow switched and all of Christianity is a big joke?

8. God is a businessman.

9. God wants attention.

10. He has nothing better to do.

11. ?

----------


## blithe spirit

God doesn't promote suffering but he does allow it. Our finite minds cannot comprehend the infinite massive webworking God has going in order to achieve his perfect plan for us. There are at least 100 reasons listed in the Bible. I'll mention a handful off the top of my head since that's all I have time for at the moment:

1. Some sufferings are natural consequences brought on by choices we make ourselves like smoking leading to cancer. This teaches us obedience.

2. God allows sufferings that aren't of our own doing like natural disasters to teach us patience as well as all those things listed here below:

3. To teach us self-control 

4. To teach us kindness and love given and received

5. To show us God's faithfulness and God's love when miracles happen.

6. To show us that God is listening when our prayers are answered...but remember that the answer is sometimes "wait" or sometimes "no" if it's not the best for us.

7. Since life is all about giving and receiving love and caring for one another, then God allows us to suffer so that when we are face to face with someone who is experiencing the same type of suffering then we'll be able to empathize and we'll know what to say and how to help and how to understand.

8. To draw families into a closer relationship with one another.

9. To draw communities together as volunteers help others in many ways as teamwork. 

10. To draw us into a closer relationship with God

11. To strengthen us so we'll develop courage and perserverance

12. To be an inspiration and an example to others

13. To prepare us for his kingdom just as a diamond in the rough is tumbled and polished until it sparkles and shines and is perfect.

14. To make it possible for us to experience blessings.

15. To soften our hearts and humble us enough to be able to open up to hearing and receiving all the God has for us.

----------


## G L Wilson

God is a S & M freak. He's drawn to suffering, he gets off on it.

----------


## togre

*I consider our present suffering not worth comparing to the glory that will be revealed in us. 

Romans 8:18*


The following is the answer Scripture gives.

*Fact:* God created a world that was perfect--that is, without suffering and without any flaw.

*Fact:* Humans, when given freedom to remain perfect or to turn from God, turned from God.

*Fact:* This turning (Fall) changed each person and changed creation (the world). All now is marred. All now suffers and causes suffering.

*Fact:* All people who sin deserve eternal punishment in hell

*Fact:* Any suffering endured on earth, be it ever so great, is less than the suffering of hell.

*Fact:* God desires that people do not suffer hell. He went so far as to provide his Son as a Substitute with Jesus Christ willingly living and dieing to pay for our sins.

*Fact:* Because of this many, many people will rescued from hell and will dwell with God in heaven.

*Fact:* The joy of dwelling in heaven is greater than the suffering of living on earth.

*Fact:* In his desire that more people should trust his solution and be saved, God permits this world to continue, not because of the suffering that happens, but in spite of it. 


Blithe Spirit makes some good points. God is able to make use of wickedness so that it serves good purpose. At the same time, suffering or even God himself cannot be comprehended apart from Jesus and his death on the cross.

----------


## MarkBastable

Interesting use of the word 'fact'.

----------


## togre

> Interesting use of the word 'fact'.


Fair enough. I did preface it by saying this is the answer the Bible gives. The Bible is unapologetic in claiming to speak factually about truth and historic events.

----------


## MarkBastable

True. 

On the subject of Romans 8:18, I'd say that Paul was a really talented sales guy in a start-up endeavour, but for that very reason it's worth looking askance at every thing he said.

----------


## Panglossian

11. Because He is dreaming. The universe is a vast dream in the mind of God. When He awakens - lights out Berty!*



*Disclaimer: this opinion is not necessarily true, it just pleases me at the moment.

----------


## togre

> True. 
> 
> On the subject of Romans 8:18, I'd say that Paul was a really talented sales guy in a start-up endeavour, but for that very reason it's worth looking askance at every thing he said.


Painting Paul as a 'sales guy' conflicts with many accounts of Scripture. He had been a rising star in the Pharisaic school of Judaism until he converted to Christianity (which he had previously opposed and persecuted). He refused to take monetary compensation while carrying out his missionary work, instead supported himself as a tent maker. He suffered all sorts of persecutions, arrests, imprisonments and beatings as he promoted Jesus as Savior. He was eventually executed for this. 

My point? Rational people can disagree about whether Paul was/is right or not (I am strongly convinced he spoke the truth by the influence of God). But there exists no evidence that supports the position you appear to be taking--that Paul peddled something he didn't believe and therefore intentionally hyped it up shamelessly. Indeed, there is in fact evidence to the contrary implying that leaving aside the veracity of his claims, that Paul himself was convinced of them.

----------


## MarkBastable

> My point? Rational people can disagree about whether Paul was/is right or not (I am strongly convinced he spoke the truth by the influence of God). But there exists no evidence that supports the position you appear to be taking--that Paul peddled something he didn't believe and therefore intentionally hyped it up shamelessly. Indeed, there is in fact evidence to the contrary implying that leaving aside the veracity of his claims, that Paul himself was convinced of them.


I didn't for an instant suggest he didn't believe it. On the contrary, I'm completely sure he did. Not all sales people are liars. But, equally, not everything they sell is worth buying.

----------


## togre

My apologies for assuming an inference you did not intend to make.

----------


## V.Jayalakshmi

Why assume God promoted sufferings?Instead it is we human beings, who promote suffering .

----------


## MarkBastable

> Why assume God promoted sufferings?Instead it is we human beings, who promote suffering .


Yep, I don't know about you guys, but I know I go around promoting leukaemia and spina bifida all over the place, and I organise earthquakes whenever the opportunity happens by.

----------


## Ecurb

"As flies to wanton boys are we to the Gods." -- Gloucester; King Lear

----------


## blithe spirit

> Why assume God promoted sufferings?Instead it is we human beings, who promote suffering.





> Yep, I don't know about you guys, but I know I go around promoting leukaemia and spina bifida all over the place, and I organise earthquakes whenever the opportunity happens by.


Sometimes it's humans promoting the suffering such as choosing to smoke=cancer but the bottom line is that satan does the tempting and humans disobey God over and over even though we suffer the natural consequences of our actions, choosing satan over God. God says doing anything to excess is a sin. 

Leukemia and Spina Bifida are not a creation of God's but God sometimes allows it for reasons listed above in posts #2 and #4 and/or millions of other possible reasons. You may ask, "Why does God allow a child to die so young?" God does not look at death as a bad thing for children because they are all headed for God's perfect Kingdom for eternity...forever in peace and harmony. And they won't miss their parents or siblings because there is no time there...it's as if we all step over that line at the same time. Death is only a bad thing for adults who have chosen to reject God...because hell for eternity is no fun.

----------


## thebagman

There is an photo exhibition at the State Library of NSW right now. Trust me, there is no God.

----------


## G L Wilson

God is a gimp.

----------


## Ecurb

> There is an exhibition at the State Library of NSW right now. Trust me, there is no God.


Participating in this discussion in this way is a bit like participating in a discussion about why Lady MacBeth went insane by saying, "Trust me, there is no Lady MacBeth."

----------


## MarkBastable

> And they won't miss their parents or siblings because there is no time there...it's as if we all step over that line at the same time.


Okay, I can't help it. Where did you get this idea? And I mean I'd like actual references cited, preferably where I can look them up.

While you're getting hold of the references, I have another question.




> Leukemia and Spina Bifida are not a creation of God's...


Not very long ago, Christians would have burned you at the stake for suggesting that there was anything in creation that was not the work of God. However - I'm more interested in the logic than the heresy. If God didn't create Spina Bifida, who did?

----------


## thebagman

> Participating in this discussion in this way is a bit like participating in a discussion about why Lady MacBeth went insane by saying, "Trust me, there is no Lady MacBeth."


No actually, it isn't. 

My participation in this discussion would go something like this: why did Lady Macbeth go insane? Because there is no God.

I'm not trying to be a smartass (maybe I am). I went to the exhibition yesterday, I needed something to take my mind off things. The last time I went there it was on Gibran (I think it was him), I was expecting something pleasant and they have a whole bunch of pictures of dead people. Which was nice. 

An otherwise attractive girl had her nose and ears cut off for running away from an abusive husband. A HIV and drug abusers final moments of life. A mass of bodies from and earthquake, bodies of people executed in mexico for stealing drugs. 

If God has a great plan for all of us I would very much like to know what it is. Otherwise I'm not really sure I want to have any part of it. A plan that we as human beings will never be able to grasp by a deity that may or may not exist sounds like a long shot to me. 

Thank you blithe spirit for your comments though, that was actually quite nice. Togre, you're an idiot. I've have managed to get all that is good about Christianity followed by all that is bad in one thread.

----------


## Delta40

the promotion of self-interest is a great cause of suffering. Humankind is not really a collective thinker and even where one society is of the same mind, it probably comes at great cost to another. Look at the sweat shops and third worlds who suffer at the hands of western self-interest. I really fail to see where God comes into it.

----------


## Buh4Bee

God does not promote suffering; humanity brings suffering upon itself by choices made. God is wondrous and we cannot claim to know.

----------


## thebagman

blithe spirit, loving death seems unnatural to me. Accepting death as an unchangeable part of our lives is much easier said than done. Not fearing death is another thing entirely. Death should be a bad thing for everybody because it is a bad thing. 

A very large chunk of Christianity is based on what happens after death (kingdom of heaven, afterlife, eternal suffering etc.) and how we should live our lives in preparation for it. Fear of death is a major draw for all religions. If you take that away what does in this case Christianity have to offer? A sense of belonging and a loving (not always) community. Moral code? 




> Humankind is not really a collective thinker and even where one society is of the same mind


Yes and I've already covered this in another post, thank God we are not! The more people we get together the dumber we all seem to get. How about communism? Cults! And religion! Are we all doomed?




> God does not promote suffering; humanity brings suffering upon itself by choices made. God is wondrous and we cannot claim to know.


All the more reason to ignore him.

There's a picture of a kid who was born with a condition that made her skull swell up to the size of a watermelon. I can't remember clearly but I think it was a consequence of her parents exposure to agent orange in Vietnam. That one kid has to suffer for the moron decisions made by politicians who have nothing to do with her. Oh wait, I suppose they do have something to do with her after all. Wicked sense of justice. And humor.

To punish one person for the sake of another is stupid because we are individuals first and a collective second (new word for me). At least, that's how I like to see it. Anyway I thought that was what Jesus was sent here to do. Didn't he die for our sins? Why are we still suffering?

----------


## blithe spirit

*Delta*, man causes some suffering by choosing sin over obedience to God. Gluttony and Greed are sins.



> Okay, I can't help it. Where did you get this idea? And I mean I'd like actual references cited, preferably where I can look them up.


I hate to disappoint you but God gave me a wonderful mind to think for myself and my comment that there is no time in heaven is a result of my own logic...not google or wikipedia. If there was such a thing as time in heaven (or in God's kingdom) then heaven wouldn't be the perfect place of no suffering and pure bliss would it? Nor would there be eternal life because time would cause aging...there would be impatience, procrastination, deadlines to meet, all things having to do with the constraints of time.



> Not very long ago, Christians would have burned you at the stake for suggesting that there was anything in creation that was not the work of God. However - I'm more interested in the logic than the heresy. If God didn't create Spina Bifida, who did?


Everything God created was perfect...sin then entered into the picture via satan (post#4). Remember though that God allows these types of suffering sometimes for reasons listed in post #2 and/or many reasons not listed here for lack of time and space. God is not limited to one reason...he can have many reasons for each step in his perfect plan.




> There's a picture of a kid who was born with a condition that made her skull swell up to the size of a watermelon. I can't remember clearly but I think it was a consequence of her parents exposure to agent orange in Vietnam. That one kid has to suffer for the moron decisions made by politicians who have nothing to do with her....To punish one person for the sake of another is stupid because we are individuals first and a collective second (new word for me). At least, that's how I like to see it. Anyway I thought that was what Jesus was sent here to do. Didn't he die for our sins? Why are we still suffering?


God says in the Bible that "the sins of the fathers with be visited upon his children". You may not like that but it's the way it is due to natural consequences of man's sinful choices.

And, yes, Jesus died for our sins so that when we die we can be sinless and therefore worthy to enter into eternal life and not have to pay for our sins in hell (depending upon whether we believe or not). As long as we are in the world, however, there will be constant choices for us to make between good and evil and obeying god or not.




> blithe spirit, loving death seems unnatural to me. Accepting death as an unchangeable part of our lives is much easier said than done. Not fearing death is another thing entirely. Death should be a bad thing for everybody because it is a bad thing....Fear of death is a major draw for all religions. If you take that away what does in this case Christianity have to offer?


There are two types of death. Physical death and spiritual death. One will experience spiritual death for eternity if headed for hell. But believers will experience everlasting life spiritually and will recieve new bodies according to the Bible. Have you ever read about near death experiences where they see and experience an indescribable beauty that they don't want to come back from?

----------


## G L Wilson

> *Delta*, man causes some suffering by choosing sin over obedience to God. Gluttony and Greed are sins.
> 
> I hate to disappoint you but God gave me a wonderful mind to think for myself and my comment that there is no time in heaven is a result of my own logic...not google or wikipedia. If there was such a thing as time in heaven (or in God's kingdom) then heaven wouldn't be the perfect place of no suffering and pure bliss would it? Nor would there be eternal life because time would cause aging...there would be impatience, procrastination, deadlines to meet, all things having to do with the constraints of time.
> 
> Everything God created was perfect...sin then entered into the picture via satan (post#4). Remember though that God allows these types of suffering sometimes for reasons listed in post #2 and/or many reasons not listed here for lack of time and space. God is not limited to one reason...he can have many reasons for each step in his perfect plan.


As Mark Twain remarked, there is no laughter in heaven because there is no suffering in heaven.

----------


## Des Essientes

The argument from Evil admits of only two solutions. 1. Lebniz's one, satirized by Voltaire in Candide, that claims that God has put just enough suffering into the world to allow us to appreciate the good in it, which is obviously not true as there is far more suffering than that present here. 2. That of Lord Alfred North Whitehead who disavowed God's omnipotence and thereby excused him by saying He doesn't promote suffering and He would alliviate it, if He could, but He can't.

----------


## thebagman

Jesus has been around for two thousand years and mankind for much longer. What happens to all those people who came before him?

You know, it never occurred to me that He simply couldn't.

----------


## G L Wilson

> The argument from Evil admits of only two solutions. 1. Lebniz's one, satirized by Voltaire in Candide, that claims that God has put just enough suffering into the world to allow us to appreciate the good in it, which is obviously not true as there is far more suffering than that present here. 2. That of Lord Alfred North Whitehead who disavowed God's omnipotence and thereby excused him by saying He doesn't promote suffering and He would alliviate it, if He could, but He can't.


Of course He could if he wanted to, he simply doesn't want to. God must like a joke.

----------


## MarkBastable

> I hate to disappoint you but God gave me a wonderful mind to think for myself and my comment that there is no time in heaven is a result of my own logic...not google or wikipedia. If there was such a thing as time in heaven (or in God's kingdom) then heaven wouldn't be the perfect place of no suffering and pure bliss would it? Nor would there be eternal life because time would cause aging...there would be impatience, procrastination, deadlines to meet, all things having to do with the constraints of time.


Okay - this is your own vision of heaven. Fair enough. Though - yes - it's difficult to see how you can have everlasting life without time for it to last forever in, which is why you've said that there isn't any I suppose. The Bible, though, might disagree with you.

_For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life._

*John 3:16* (as any soccer fan knows)




> Everything God created was perfect...sin then entered into the picture via satan (post#4). Remember though that God allows these types of suffering sometimes for reasons listed in post #2 and/or many reasons not listed here for lack of time and space. God is not limited to one reason...he can have many reasons for each step in his perfect plan.


But who _created_ leukaemia? Who came up with the idea and invented the mechanisms by which it comes into being?

----------


## G L Wilson

> But who _created_ leukaemia? Who came up with the idea and invented the mechanisms by which it comes into being?


For everything, MarkBastable, there is a reason - that's the only plan that I can see around here.

----------


## blithe spirit

> ...God has put just enough suffering into the world to allow us to appreciate the good in it, which is obviously not true as there is far more suffering...disavowed God's omnipotence and thereby excused him by saying He doesn't promote suffering and He would alliviate it, if He could, but He can't.


Bagman, GLWilson, and DesEssientes, Yes, God can alleviate suffering if he wants but he allows it sometimes for many reasons (post#2 and #4). God didn't want to create a bunch of robots...so he gave us free will to choose good or evil. The first man chose evil. It's all about love. God wants us to love him because we choose to, not because we're made to....that's not love. 

Regarding your last sentence: There isn't more evil than good in the world...you just aren't looking.




> But who created leukaemia? Who came up with the idea and invented the mechanisms by which it comes into being.


Satan came up with the idea. Satan takes the good things God has created and turns them into something evil.




> As Mark Twain remarked, there is no laughter in heaven because there is no suffering in heaven.


Mark Twain never said that. He said "there is no humor in heaven" but he never said why he made that claim and didn't mention suffering. Do you have a reference? Thank goodness he didn't say that because it makes no sense. What's so funny about suffering?

`

----------


## MarkBastable

> Satan came up with the idea. Satan takes the good things God has created and turns them into something evil.
> `


But did Satan introduce into the world the physiological and genetic mechanisms that cause leukaemia? Or did God introduce them, after the Fall?

And on my other point, are you saying that the Gospel of St John is mistaken that believers will be given everlasting life?

----------


## blithe spirit

> But did Satan introduce into the world the physiological and genetic mechanisms that cause leukaemia? Or did God introduce them, after the Fall? And on my other point, are you saying that the Gospel of St John is mistaken that believers will be given everlasting life?


Your first question: I'm not the alpha and omega on this subject but I do know that God allowed evil via satan before the fall of Adam/man in order to give man an opportunity to exert his free will and choose between good and evil. Once Adam chose evil then evil remained and God continues to sometimes allow it for reasons mentioned in posts 2 and 4. I know I've said this many times in response to previous questions but it's the only answer there is.

Your second question: I never said the Gospel of John is mistaken...it isn't. Yes, believers will be given everlasting life. Is this question about when I said there is no time in heaven aka God's kingdom? Everlasting life is without time constraints so that only supports my theory

----------


## G L Wilson

> Mark Twain never said that. He said "there is no humor in heaven" but he never said why he made that claim and didn't mention suffering. Do you have a reference? Thank goodness he didn't say that because it makes no sense. What's so funny about suffering?


He said it in not so many words but he did say it.

----------


## blithe spirit

> He said it in not so many words but he did say it.


Reference please? If he said it then it should be easy to find. I found nothing and it makes no sense that Mark Twain would say that suffering would be funny.

----------


## G L Wilson

> I'm not the alpha and omega on this subject but I do know that God allowed evil via satan before the fall of Adam/man in order to give man an opportunity to exert his free will and choose between good and evil. Once Adam chose evil then evil remained and God continues to sometimes allow it for reasons mentioned in posts 2 and 4. I know I've said this many times in response to previous questions but it's the only answer there is.


God has corrupted us for His own sick pleasure, yes, do you agree?




> Reference please? If he said it then it should be easy to find. I found nothing and it makes no sense that Mark Twain would say that suffering would be funny.


"The secret source of humor is not joy but sorrow; there is no humor in Heaven." Mark Twain

----------


## blithe spirit

> God has corrupted us for His own sick pleasure, yes, do you agree?


I repeat...God created us perfect with a free will to choose between good and evil. He didn't create robots because he wanted us to choose to love him and to obey him...without choice it's not love. It's all about love....love for God, God's love for us, our love for our neighbor, our love for the loveable as well as the unloveable, etc

----------


## G L Wilson

> I repeat...God created us perfect with a free will to choose between good and evil. He didn't create robots because he wanted us to choose to love him and to obey him...without choice it's not love. It's all about love....love for God, God's love for us, our love for our neighbor, our love for the loveable as well as the unloveable, etc


But what is God? Is he not supposed to be all-seeing, all-powerful?

----------


## usman.khawar

> I repeat...God created us perfect with a free will to choose between good and evil. He didn't create robots because he wanted us to choose to love him and to obey him...without choice it's not love.


hello everybody.. nice concept. we are not robots. yes. i sometime thought why human are better than other creations. angels, heaven, hell , sun earth planets etc are like robots , doing the duties without any hesitation. may be they recogonized God and have no will to deny his orders. May b God thought to create a creation which is not like a robot. who recogonize Him with mind without seeing Him. God created mind and human got it. no doubt mind differnetiate what is right n what is wrong.

if He exist than there could be a lot of reason for sufferings. some of its people already mentioned but i dont like to waist time to number the reasons. there is a lot of reasons. but

the main question is only one for me, whether God exist or not. all discussions come after solving this question. heaven, hell , angels , prophets, etc they exist if God exist. who solve this question with argument? if he exist whats the argument. a solid external one, not individual feelings. if He dont exist than whats the argument. a solid external one, not indvidual feelings.?
i believe in my liberty there is only one hidrance. that is Him. if He doesnt exist than i m liberal. but if He is , m not!! someone tried to solve my confusion/ struggle to find truth and gave argument nobody see Him, i replies no body see air. but i can feel air. no one see anti protons. but they works. i need a solid argument to reject God. !! or to accept Him!! . 2nd question i have but it comes after solving ist one!!

----------


## MarkBastable

> Your first question: I'm not the alpha and omega on this subject but I do know that God allowed evil via satan before the fall of Adam/man in order to give man an opportunity to exert his free will and choose between good and evil. Once Adam chose evil then evil remained and God continues to sometimes allow it for reasons mentioned in posts 2 and 4. I know I've said this many times in response to previous questions but it's the only answer there is.


Which would suggest that, given God's allowance, Satan can create too. So the Universe is not God's exclusive creation. Satan can claim bits of it.




> Everlasting life is without time constraints so that only supports my theory


 Except that in order for something to last, it requires time in which to last. That's, actually, what 'lasting' is - the continuous existence in time.

----------


## WyattGwyon

> Your first question: I'm not the alpha and omega on this subject but I do know that God allowed evil via satan before the fall of Adam/man in order to give man an opportunity to exert his free will and choose between good and evil. Once Adam chose evil then evil remained and God continues to sometimes allow it for reasons mentioned in posts 2 and 4. I know I've said this many times in response to previous questions but it's the only answer there is.
> 
> Your second question: I never said the Gospel of John is mistaken...it isn't. Yes, believers will be given everlasting life. Is this question about when I said there is no time in heaven aka God's kingdom? Everlasting life is without time constraints so that only supports my theory


Blithe,
Given that you seem to embrace more or less traditional Christian theology, I am assuming you accept the notion of an omnipotent and omniscient god, correct? You do realize, however, that the existence of such a god/creator is incompatible with the notion of free will, right? Such a god in creating sentient beings would not see them as free actors with unknown futures, but as completed series of actions from birth to death. It could not be otherwise, since such a god stands outside of time and all things past, present, and future are, to it, known and seen simultaneously. To such a god, creating Adam, for example, could only mean creating a disobedient, weak being destined to fall into sin. Your God's decision to create him is thus a decision to create his sin, guilt and disobedience, and it is to do so with full consciousness of all of the eternal suffering that must inevitably follow from it (follow from our perspective, that is; from such a god's perspective there is no following since all things are to it eternally present). That is what omniscience means! You can't have it both ways. If your god is an omniscient and omnipotent creator, it must be the intentional author of all evil. Where such a god exists, there is no free will. The only way out of this is to assume that this creator chose not to know the consequences of its actions at the moment of creation. I don't think your theology allows you this out, does it? Unfortunately, the Calvinists and Manichean dualists got the logic exactly right. Traditional Christianity rejects this airtight logic and chooses to blame the vicitms, IMO, in order to exploit their guilt for temporal gain. This is a base and crass form of evil.

----------


## G L Wilson

> Which would suggest that, given God's allowance, Satan can create too. So the Universe is not God's exclusive creation. Satan can claim bits of it.
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't. In order for something to last, it requires time in which to last. That's, actually, what 'lasting' is - the continuous existence in time.


The whole question of God is absurd and should be dropped. This is how I feel, does anyone feel the same way?

----------


## MarkBastable

> The whole question of God is absurd and should be dropped. This is how I feel, does anyone feel the same way?


No - the idea here is not to say that people are wrong in their belief systems. It's to discover how their belief system works. It's not attrition. It's exploration.

Me, I rarely say in these dialogues that anyone's wrong. I press them to explain how they're right.

----------


## dwdean

> No - the idea here is not to say that people are wrong in their belief systems. It's to discover how their belief system works. It's not attrition. It's exploration.
> 
> Me, I rarely say in these dialogues that anyone's wrong. I press them to explain how they're right.



quite admirable Mark...
i don't believe that these threads are started in an attempt to prove anything, but rather to share one's beliefs and learn...

that being said, lets add some of this knowledge to my thread http://www.online-literature.com/for...77#post1051577 so that i can hear what you all have to offer.

----------


## G L Wilson

The Hindus have Shiva and the concept of One, therefore they have as much of a clue about God as we do. We cannot know God is all I am saying, and it is best to forget him altogether and do good when we can if we can because no-one else is going to do it if we don't. Only humanity can solve humanity's problems, there is nothing else to it, nothing.

----------


## Ecurb

> As Mark Twain remarked, there is no laughter in heaven because there is no suffering in heaven.


For the same reason, there is no courage, fortitude, or honor in heaven. Perhaps God feels these are worthwhile virtues. It's clear that these virtues could not exist without suffering. 

Has anyone here read "The Worm Orouboros" by E.R. Edison? It's one of the great pre-Tolkien fantay novels, and speaks directly to the question of whether life is really improved by eliminating suffering (the answer in the novel is "no".).

----------


## G L Wilson

> Has anyone here read "The Worm Orouboros" by E.R. Edison? It's one of the great pre-Tolkien fantay novels, and speaks directly to the question of whether life is really improved by eliminating suffering (the answer in the novel is "no".).


News from nowhere.

----------


## blithe spirit

> Except that in order for something to last, it requires time in which to last. That's, actually, what 'lasting' is - the continuous existence in time.


So you are saying that the clocks in heaven don't have numerals 1-12 but rather minus 0 through "everlasting"...haha...okay. I can hear God now, "Okay, St. Peter, you can't clock in and you can't clock out but keep your eye on this clock because you only have "forever" to finish your job of gatekeeper, entering names into the Book of Life as they enter through the pearly gates". Trust me on this one...there are no clocks in heaven.

----------


## G L Wilson

> So you are saying that the clocks in heaven don't have numerals 1-12 but rather minus 0 through "everlasting"...haha...okay. I can hear God now, "Okay, St. Peter, you can't clock in and you can't clock out but keep your eye on this clock because you only have "forever" to finish your job of gatekeeper, entering names into the Book of Life as they enter through the pearly gates". Trust me on this one...there are no clocks in heaven.


There is light, I assume. But it casts no shadow, I assume.

----------


## MarkBastable

> So you are saying that the clocks in heaven don't have numerals 1-12 but rather minus 0 through "everlasting"...haha...okay. I can hear God now, "Okay, St. Peter, you can't clock in and you can't clock out but keep your eye on this clock because you only have "forever" to finish your job of gatekeeper, entering names into the Book of Life as they enter through the pearly gates". Trust me on this one...there are no clocks in heaven.


I'm not saying that at all. I have no idea how heaven works. I'm asking you to explain your concept of it. But 'Trust me on this one...'? That's what your proposition comes down to? 

Okay - forget that one. Have a shot at the other question.

Originally Posted by blithe spirit 
_God allowed evil via satan before the fall of Adam/man in order to give man an opportunity to exert his free will and choose between good and evil. Once Adam chose evil then evil remained and God continues to sometimes allow it for reasons mentioned in posts 2 and 4_ 

Which would suggest that, given God's allowance, Satan can create too. So the Universe is not God's exclusive creation. Satan can claim bits of it.

----------


## Buh4Bee

[QUOTE=thebagman;1051388

I'm not trying to be a smartass (maybe I am). I went to the exhibition yesterday, I needed something to take my mind off things. The last time I went there it was on Gibran (I think it was him), I was expecting something pleasant and they have a whole bunch of pictures of dead people. Which was nice. 

An otherwise attractive girl had her nose and ears cut off for running away from an abusive husband. A HIV and drug abusers final moments of life. A mass of bodies from and earthquake, bodies of people executed in mexico for stealing drugs. 

If God has a great plan for all of us I would very much like to know what it is. Otherwise I'm not really sure I want to have any part of it. A plan that we as human beings will never be able to grasp by a deity that may or may not exist sounds like a long shot to me. 

Thank you blithe spirit for your comments though, that was actually quite nice. Togre, you're an idiot. I've have managed to get all that is good about Christianity followed by all that is bad in one thread.[/QUOTE]

I actually understand where you are coming from. When you see such explicit and graphic images of suffering, it is hard to even conceive that there is a God. I am a believer, but I often lose faith. All the religious dogma and philosophy cannot explain this sort of thing. The Bible, church, and the notion that if you hang on long enough you will be rewarded. But how can you believe that a place of peace exists, when you see such a stark reality?

----------


## blithe spirit

> "The secret source of humor is not joy but sorrow; there is no humor in Heaven." Mark Twain


Thank you. Weird. However, he must have been talking about sources for sick humor or at least comedians looking for sources for their material by making light of bad situations...but that doesn't mean there is no humor in heaven. Take for instance the simplest example: Take the joke, "Why did the chicken cross the road...to get to the other side". Okay, that used to be funny when we heard it the first time...but there's no source of sorrow involved.

----------


## dwdean

> Originally Posted by blithe spirit 
> _God allowed evil via satan before the fall of Adam/man in order to give man an opportunity to exert his free will and choose between good and evil. Once Adam chose evil then evil remained and God continues to sometimes allow it for reasons mentioned in posts 2 and 4_ 
> 
> Which would suggest that, given God's allowance, Satan can create too. So the Universe is not God's exclusive creation. Satan can claim bits of it.


i would say that Satan is not given power to create, but rather to present choices. God allows freewill, He allowed a number of His angels to leave Him and follow Satan. This presentation of choice is not a creation of Satan's, but rather the usage of freewill. freewill still being created by God alone. does that make sense? i would consider the implications before intellectually granting Satan the power to create. it is a privilege which i strongly believe he does not hold. Satan is often called the prince, ruler, and even "god of this world" in Scripture. he is not without power, but i find no proof that he has ability to create. to create is to form something out of nothing. if satan has ever done this, i am unaware. possibly mistaken, but unaware.

----------


## MarkBastable

> i would say that Satan is not given power to create, but rather to present choices. God allows freewill, He allowed a number of His angels to leave Him and follow Satan. This presentation of choice is not a creation of Satan's, but rather the usage of freewill. freewill still being created by God alone. does that make sense? i would consider the implications before intellectually granting Satan the power to create. it is a privilege which i strongly believe he does not hold. Satan is often called the prince, ruler, and even "god of this world" in Scripture. he is not without power, but i find no proof that he has ability to create. to create is to form something out of nothing. if satan has ever done this, i am unaware. possibly mistaken, but unaware.


So God must have created the mechanisms and the physiological predispositions that give us infantile leukaemia.

----------


## dwdean

> So God must have created the mechanisms and the physiological predispositions that give us infantile leukaemia.


it sounds uncaring and callous, but i must say yes, i do believe that He did. if one holds that all was created by God, then from where else would those mechanisms and predispositions come? and IF they were in fact created by Satan, why would he not document this in some way?

that brings up a new idea. if Satan is the archnemesis of God, and God has the Bible as the history of His involvement with the world... does Satan have an inspired/written documentation of his works?

----------


## blithe spirit

> God allowed evil via satan before the fall of Adam/man in order to give man an opportunity to exert his free will and choose between good and evil. Once Adam chose evil then evil remained and God continues to sometimes allow it for reasons mentioned in posts 2 and 4





> Which would suggest that, given God's allowance, Satan can create too. So the Universe is not God's exclusive creation. Satan can claim bits of it.


Just because Man takes some fertilizer that God created and turns it into a bomb to kill innocent children does not make God the creator of evil and does not make man a partial creator of the universe. Same with Satan.
Edit: And just because God created healthy cells that satan used and then caused the action of attacking those cells does not make God the creator of leukemia

----------


## blithe spirit

> ...to create is to form something out of nothing. if satan has ever done this, i am unaware. possibly mistaken, but unaware.


Good point. He's the master of deception and manipulation of what's already been created as good.

----------


## usman.khawar

No one die who once created. death is like a syrup who transit one life from one place to another. each n everything in the universe and on earth is not bychance or by accident. if someone says like above God created human for his fun than he should think he was nothing before. we come from nothingness to existance. and ahead there is never ending story.
i saw, who beleive in oneness of God ,there are two extremist groups. one who claim everything is in the God hands, 2nd says everything is human's hand. if we consider ist one than there is a big question than what is the reason for reward and punishment. if everything God wrote already than why people go in hell or heaven. if we agree to 2nd group than no one can deny proud. and i beleive the main hindrance towards God is ur own proud. i learnt a beautful thing that reality exist in the middle, moderate and balanced way.

----------


## WyattGwyon

> Just because Man takes some fertilizer that God created and turns it into a bomb to kill innocent children does not make God the creator of evil and does not make man a partial creator of the universe. Same with Satan.
> Edit: And just because God created healthy cells that satan used and then caused the action of attacking those cells does not make God the creator of leukemia


Blithe,
If your god is omniscient and omnipotent then this does make it the creator of evil. At the bottom of page three of this thread I explained why this is so.




> Good point. He's the master of deception and manipulation of what's already been created as good.


Your god, if it is omniscient, created Satan knowing with absolute certainty every deception and manipulation he would perpetrate. When he created Satan, he thus made the conscious choice that all of those deceptions and manipulations would come about. Your god knew it, he chose it, and clearly, your god is responsible for all of the consequences flowing from this fully conscious decision.

----------


## prickly_pete

> Just because Man takes some fertilizer that God created and turns it into a bomb to kill innocent children does not make God the creator of evil and does not make man a partial creator of the universe. Same with Satan.
> Edit: And just because God created healthy cells that satan used and then caused the action of attacking those cells does not make God the creator of leukemia


HOLY crap...

----------


## MarkBastable

> Just because Man takes some fertilizer that God created and turns it into a bomb to kill innocent children does not make God the creator of evil and does not make man a partial creator of the universe. Same with Satan.
> Edit: And just because God created healthy cells that satan used and then caused the action of attacking those cells does not make God the creator of leukemia


So - let's think this through - leukaemia is a bad thing made out of good things. How about leprosy? It's an entity in its own right - a bacterium. A creature like a butterfly or a peacock. Did God create that?

----------


## cyberbob

Yep. If God can see the future then he knew the Fall of Man would occur and would, in fact, know every single person who was destined to go to Hell. 

This is only the beginning of the freaky extrapolations one gets by assuming an all-powerful, all-seeing God. 

If God already knows who is going to heaven and who is going to hell, he'd be arbitrarily creating some people who would be destined for paradise and some who'd be destined for eternal suffering. 

Furthermore, what's the point of creating children and then having them die right away, such as in the case of a miscarriage? In these cases the people do not get the opportunity to choose right over wrong or learn any lessons. God knew they'd be created and destroyed right away without a chance at life so why not prevent it? If they go to Hell that's bull**** because they never had a chance, and if they go to heaven that's bull**** because they got a free pass.

I could go on and on like this just with omniscience. Throw in omnipotence and one could devote their life to finding oddities in the concept of God.

----------


## usman.khawar

God is the creator, good and bad. if u think and reconsider, that if there is only bad everywhere than this earth cannot live for a single month only. i wrote month he he gave long time. and if there is only good everywhere!! than what? is there any growth of mind will be possible ? lets think again. like everything is good everywhere than what is the meaning to create mind? anyother reason to create human than ? 
you people are playing with each other and passing time ? come on. lets solve the basic question. is there any God exist or not ? if not than whats the argement? not childish one like i prayed him to give me this or that He didnt give me so there is no God. my neihbors are very good people their son died , there is no God. 
is there anyone we can see whose ist priority is to solve the basic question ist. to find the truth? who like scientist passed at least 12 years to find the biggest question ? who read all holy books without prejudice including Quran and life of prophets? and finally he said there is no God.

----------


## usman.khawar

> Yep. If God can see the future then he knew the Fall of Man would occur and would, in fact, know every single person who was destined to go to Hell. 
> 
> This is only the beginning of the freaky extrapolations one gets by assuming an all-powerful, all-seeing God. 
> 
> If God already knows who is going to heaven and who is going to hell, he'd be arbitrarily creating some people who would be destined for paradise and some who'd be destined for eternal suffering. 
> 
> Furthermore, what's the point of creating children and then having them die right away, such as in the case of a miscarriage? .


ist of all dear take a deep breath n relax. the bigest mistake is to finzalize things and close the door of the mind for further knowledge. the best mind i think is one who listen or read, make conclusion and than start considering again on the conclusions till his death.
i was a small n little teacher. in my classes there were many students. being a small, non perfect , having very low knowledge i can guess about who will pass the exam and who will not. than why not give the chance to Lord who created everything? Actually He gave the chance.

you are worried about the children of miscarriage but not about yours ?  :Smile:

----------


## cyberbob

> ist of all dear take a deep breath n relax. the bigest mistake is to finzalize things and close the door of the mind for further knowledge. the best mind i think is one who listen or read, make conclusion and than start considering again on the conclusions till his death.
> i was a small n little teacher. in my classes there were many students. being a small, non perfect , having very low knowledge i can guess about who will pass the exam and who will not. than why not give the chance to Lord who created everything? Actually He gave the chance.
> 
> you are worried about the children of miscarriage but not about yours ?


I'm not worried about anybody. I'm just giving one example of how God's psychic abilities don't fit in with the idea of free will. 

And there's a difference between a "small n little" teacher who can guess which of his students will pass and fail a test and God KNOWING who will be saved and who won't due to his ability to SEE THE FUTURE. 

You can't just fail students because you'd get fired. God has no one to answer to though. If he already knows who's going to sin and who won't, and sinning is the criteria by which we are judged, then our individual fates were sealed from the beginning of time (assuming God does not change his mind [why would he?]).

----------


## dwdean

> Blithe,
> If your god is omniscient and omnipotent then this does make it the creator of evil. At the bottom of page three of this thread I explained why this is so.
> 
> 
> 
> Your god, if it is omniscient, created Satan knowing with absolute certainty every deception and manipulation he would perpetrate. When he created Satan, he thus made the conscious choice that all of those deceptions and manipulations would come about. Your god knew it, he chose it, and clearly, your god is responsible for all of the consequences flowing from this fully conscious decision.


allowance of an action is not the same as causing an action.

----------


## G L Wilson

Satan does everything wrong, poor Satan.

----------


## Panglossian

Charles Fort, the paranormalist, had God down as a kind of Cosmic Joker. I like that idea. A UFO here, a bigfoot there, a flood here, a plague there. What a gas our creator is - ever tweaking the code.

----------


## G L Wilson

The Devil is a twerp apprentice to God in my book. He seeks fame for himself above all else, even sense.

----------


## thebagman

What about wars? Are we allowed to kill other human beings in the name of God? Are we allowed to fight in God's name?

Delta, you have no soul.

Isn't belief dangerous especially when you apply it to the whole human race when it is not backed up by proof?

----------


## Buh4Bee

What? Delta has no soul? She has more soul than most of us around here? What do you know of soul? Tell me I am wrong, Delta? LOL!

----------


## thebagman

Is your God a vengeful one?

----------


## G L Wilson

God is not vengeful, he is misunderstood.

----------


## thebagman

how is he misunderstood?

----------


## WyattGwyon

> allowance of an action is not the same as causing an action.


Short answer: it is exactly the same if you knew the action would be performed when you created the being that ultimately performed it. In the case of an omniscient and omnipotent god, this is 100% of the time.

A longer answer with examples: The word "allowance" is meaningless in this context. For an omniscient and omnipotent god the creation of an entity can only mean the willing into existence of everything it will ever be and do, since this god at the moment of the entity's creation knows everything it will ever be and do. What would you say to a bomber who builds a bomb, sets its timer, places it in a subway station, stands by as 100 people are killed in its explosion and then claims he didn't cause the deaths but merely allowed them? This is the exact situation this god is in every time it creates a killer—because it always knows with utter certainty that it is about to create a killer and it always knows who will be killed as the result of creating it. There is no possibility of another outcome. It is a moral and factual certainty. 

The obvious and only possible conclusion: An omnipotent and omniscient god is morally responsible for every action performed by any entity it creates.

----------


## thebagman

I just copied and pasted this from another site I found on google.




> Christians frequently try to portray their god as a loving, benevolent god, but this ignores the long history of Christian theology which includes a great deal about their god being wrathful, vengeful, and downright violent. Christians have generally just accepted this on the assumption that it's wrong to "judge" their god  whatever it does must necessarily be moral, right?
> 
> Secular atheists are not so constrained and can more easily point out just how immoral or indecent such a god is. A more interesting issue, though, may be how belief in such an immoral god influences the morality of the believers. When grossly immoral and indecent behavior is accepted as a matter of course, or even as an example of just behavior, how can believers themselves uphold minimal standards of morality and decency in their own lives?
> 
> George writes about religious leaders who deliver positive portrayals of their god delivering vengeance to even innocent people:
> 
> What strikes me about what the Bishop says is his careless feeling for a person's life. I imagine that his constituents feel that on a face to face he is caring but I think it is obvious that he cares little for an innocent life taken away miles from some "moral crime" God is displeased about. (And how is it the God of the Bible cannot think Capitalism to be a most egregious sin but one in which his followers so delight?)
> 
> As a nonbeliever I find life to be infinitely precious no matter who it is who may have life and am offended if some god capriciously takes that innocent life for no other reason than a grudge. The Bishop defends the morally indefensible and becomes immoral himself.
> ...

----------


## G L Wilson

> how is he misunderstood?


How can he be understood?




> The word "allowance" is meaningless in this context. For an omniscient and omnipotent god the creation of an entity can only mean the willing into existence of everything it will ever be and do, since this god at the moment of the entity's creation knows everything it will ever be and do. What would you say to a bomber who builds a bomb, sets its timer, places it in a subway station, stands by as 100 people are killed in its explosion and then claims he didn't cause the deaths but merely allowed them? This is the exact situation this god is in every time it creates a killerbecause it always knows with utter certainty that it is about to create a killer and it always knows who will be killed as the result of creating it. There is no possibility of another outcome. It is a moral and factual certainty. 
> 
> The obvious and only possible conclusion: An omnipotent and omniscient god is morally responsible for every action performed by any entity it creates.


Absolutely correct, except we cannot know God or his plan. Whatever God's plan is, it cannot be worth the suffering he causes.

----------


## dwdean

> Short answer: it is exactly the same if you knew the action would be performed when you created the being that ultimately performed it. In the case of an omniscient and omnipotent god, this is 100% of the time.
> 
> A longer answer with examples: The word "allowance" is meaningless in this context. For an omniscient and omnipotent god the creation of an entity can only mean the willing into existence of everything it will ever be and do, since this god at the moment of the entity's creation knows everything it will ever be and do. What would you say to a bomber who builds a bomb, sets its timer, places it in a subway station, stands by as 100 people are killed in its explosion and then claims he didn't cause the deaths but merely allowed them? This is the exact situation this god is in every time it creates a killerbecause it always knows with utter certainty that it is about to create a killer and it always knows who will be killed as the result of creating it. There is no possibility of another outcome. It is a moral and factual certainty. 
> 
> The obvious and only possible conclusion: An omnipotent and omniscient god is morally responsible for every action performed by any entity it creates.


your analogy, while well thought out, lacks one element. the difference between the bomber's creation (bomb) and God's creation (mankind) is that a bomb cannot choose. mankind has freewill, does he not? God may know what man will choose to do, but He does not Himself choose to do those things.

this argument will inevitably return to Descarte's Meditation on First Philosophy.

----------


## G L Wilson

> your analogy, while well thought out, lacks one element. the difference between the bomber's creation (bomb) and God's creation (mankind) is that a bomb cannot choose. mankind has freewill, does he not? God may know what man will choose to do, but He does not Himself choose to do those things.
> 
> this argument will inevitably return to Descarte's Meditation on First Philosophy.


Oh, yeah. "There has to be a God because I can't think of anything else." Terrific.

----------


## dwdean

> Oh, yeah. "There has to be a God because I can't think of anything else." Terrific.


i didn't say it should end there, it most definitely should not. i just see that turn on the horizon.

----------


## WyattGwyon

> your analogy, while well thought out, lacks one element. the difference between the bomber's creation (bomb) and God's creation (mankind) is that a bomb cannot choose. mankind has freewill, does he not?


If there is an omniscient and omnipotent god there is no free will. (I presented this argument in detail earlier in the thread. It is the last post on page 3). Even if this were the case we would still need to act as if there were free will, but that is another matter. From a god's eye perspective, the homicidal action of every killer is as inevitable and predictable as the explosion of the bomb. The only difference between the god's action in creating a killer and the bomber's action in creating the bomb is that the god is absolutely certain that someone will die by his action, whereas the bomber can't be sure.




> God may know what man will choose to do, but He does not Himself choose to do those things.


Yes, he does! By willing the existence of the entity that does "those things" he is choosing with complete knowledge and intention that those things be done, and that they be done in a certain precise way and no other. It is a direct chain of causation.

----------


## cyberbob

> your analogy, while well thought out, lacks one element. the difference between the bomber's creation (bomb) and God's creation (mankind) is that a bomb cannot choose. mankind has freewill, does he not? God may know what man will choose to do, but He does not Himself choose to do those things.
> 
> this argument will inevitably return to Descarte's Meditation on First Philosophy.


Free will is only an illusion if God already knows what is going to happen to us. It's like watching a movie, not liking it, then re-watching it and getting mad that it wasn't better the second time around. 

Basically, if the future is concrete and knowable, then you cannot do whatever you want. You can only do what you _will_ do. It's not really fair to punish someone for doing something that they had to do (because it was their destiny). 

You could even take this further and say that since God is all-knowing and all-powerful he has complete knowledge and control over every aspect of all life. This pretty much reduces us to characters in God's story and our fates are utterly at his whim.

----------


## dwdean

if i look at an atlas while standing in california, and if find the most direct route to nc (i40e) does that mean that i will definitely take i40east? no, it means that i know it's an option. 
God sees the possible outcomes of all our choices and how they affect the choices of others and how those choices affect the... you get it. that is different from dictating those choices. 

think of it this way. you can reply to this thread or not. God knows what you will do and He also knows the domino affect of that choice. but does he cause that? no, you do. if you don't believe me, turn off your computer and don't reply. or keep it on and give your differing opinion. your choice. not mine, not God's, yours alone.

----------


## G L Wilson

Row, row, row your boat
Gently down the stream
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily,
Life is but a dream.

----------


## usman.khawar

> I'm not worried about anybody. I'm just giving one example of how God's psychic abilities don't fit in with the idea of free will. 
> 
> And there's a difference between a "small n little" teacher who can guess which of his students will pass and fail a test and God KNOWING who will be saved and who won't due to his ability to SEE THE FUTURE. 
> 
> You can't just fail students because you'd get fired. God has no one to answer to though. If he already knows who's going to sin and who won't, and sinning is the criteria by which we are judged, then our individual fates were sealed from the beginning of time (assuming God does not change his mind [why would he?]).


example of misscariage proved God's pyschic abilities ? dont fit in with the idea of free will? lolzz who one can say where those children will go except God? may be go back to notingness. but who do this will be asked at judgment day. why they did this?.
i have many good reasons in favor for what u wanna to prove anyway. little bit i explained in previous posts as well.
2ndy you said i cant just fail student coz i'd get fired haha i was the principal as well. but point is that being a small teacher i could judge by efforts of students by the sincerity towards their exams. why not God predict ? whose guess can be more accurate than God? He is running all the universes, sun moon stars earth with a perfect guess. He is the creator of time n space. this time is finite, this space is finite according to Him as He told. human is still not able to reach or measure even the distances of a single universe. trillions and trillions light years! 

my dear ? is there any system in the world who just give the reward or punishment without exam ? is their any university or college who just gave you degree or certificarte without exam. i was just telling that God knows the capablities of everyone. but He give the chance to choose.
in wider canvas He knows everything as well wht will you choose so He wrote everything. and people blame Him that He didnt give the chance and wrote all ready everything. 

and as i also said about the other extreme who says everything has been given in human's hand is also wrong. my dear fellows! without pray human become proudier. those who are humble do pray. one just have to understand what is right and what is wrong. and than? intention for doing good and pray. intention creates actions. intention decided on which way one will go.
my dear may God give you the way! this discussion of destiny is very complicated. only those who are not serious to solve the ist basic question always ready to talk about the matter to hide their laziness. but if someone is really interested to talk like this ist of all have to find whether God exist or not. if He exist than He can do everything. He know everything. He should be the Lord of all universes and earths and skies.

----------


## G L Wilson

Trust in God is dishonest.

----------


## Brock

> because hell for eternity is no fun.


You got that right. So.... why does God allow hell for eternity? Isn't this a set-up for suffering so to speak? Because he knows that x amount of people will end up in heaven right? Could he not just end the existence of sinful souls completely rather than have them suffer for eternity? Eternity is such an evil notion in itself. Doesn't he forgive? Or isn't he supposed to? I mean ETERNITY!!! That's the thing I don't understand. Isn't a hundred, a thousand, a million years enough? Or a trillion? No no no, it HAS to be eternity. Too harsh for my liking.. (with all respect).

----------


## BienvenuJDC

I just wanted to bring this answer forth again. It was well stated.




> *I consider our present suffering not worth comparing to the glory that will be revealed in us. 
> 
> Romans 8:18*
> 
> 
> The following is the answer Scripture gives.
> 
> *Fact:* God created a world that was perfect--that is, without suffering and without any flaw.
> 
> ...

----------


## G L Wilson

I don't want to make use of wickedness. I want to end wickedness, but then I'm not a monster.

----------


## Panglossian

Question for the Christians: Are all the deceased Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, Jains, etc now suffering in Hell?

----------


## Delta40

I hear at the gates of hell you're given an accordian instead of a harp. Now that would be tortuous!

----------


## Paulclem

> Question for the Christians: Are all the deceased Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, Jains, etc now suffering in Hell?


The animals too?

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> The animals too?


Actually, in respects to the animals, they do not have eternal souls. Once the flesh is dead, the creature returns to the dirt and is no more. However, in respects to mankind, as Christianity goes, it is believed that man (mankind) was created in the image of God with a soul (spirit) that lives on after the body dies. The concept of heaven is best explained as being in existence with God. God cannot be in union with that that has been corrupted by sin. It is against His nature and character. Therefore, He has provided a way that man can be free from his sin, and that is by the atonement of Christ. There are those who have not been corrupted by sin (i.e. children, and those who have not for various reasons come to the understanding of good and evil...mentally handicapped for instance). If one has obtained the cleansing from sin, then it is possible (not just possible, but assured) that he/she can be united with God (who is the source of spiritual life). I believe that the union with God after this physical life is done is heaven. I also believe that one who is not in that union will be completely separated from God, which is hell...a complete absence from God.

----------


## Paulclem

Thanks Bienvenu. I thought that was the case, but your answer has extended my understanding of Christian thought. 

It's one of the problems I have with Christian concepts of creation, and the relationship of humans to animals to God etc. I appreciate that a Christian could see an animal as an expression of creation or God's work.

For myself, I don't see a lot of difference between animals and humans except in their various capacities for thought.

----------


## MarkBastable

> Thanks Bienvenu. I thought that was the case, but your answer has extended my understanding of Christian thought.


To be fair, that's only one thread of Christian thought. There are others, including the Catholic notion of Original Sin, which suggests that all human beings are _born_ corrupt. That one was dominant for the best part of two thousand years. It's still pretty widespread.


I rather like the idea that the Godless will be punished by being permitted to persist in their Godlessness. My concern is that such a construct is more likely Man's idea than God's, as God has not thus far demonstrated a talent for that kind of irony.

----------


## Panglossian

> The concept of heaven is best explained as being in existence with God. God cannot be in union with that that has been corrupted by sin. It is against His nature and character. Therefore, He has provided a way that man can be free from his sin, and that is by the atonement of Christ.


What about the souls of all who died before Christ's sojourn to Earth 2,000 years ago?

----------


## ChristopherAP

God may be good and omni-benevolent, but in the bible he is also just and wise, you cannot exalt God to one attribute and say that is all he is, that is problematic theology. Since God has all possible knowledge he can let sin run its course he also has the power to turn a negative into a positive.

Panglossian- Yes, they will go to hell for rejecting God's offer. Sin has to be punished, but God loved the world so much that he sent his one and only son so that they might be saved, if those groups you say don't believe in Jesus then they won't be saved that is the reality. It is not all about religion or your beliefs, Jesus came not to start a new religion, but show the true reality, a relationship with the one true living God through him.

----------


## thebagman

I don't know. God sent his only son? That's a joke. So what, he was crucified and then he died and now he's in heaven but in the end Jesus is only one guy! He may be the big man's only son but he is still one guy. What about the suffering the rest of us endures? What about the suffering endured by those affected by religious war or conflict? And all those people who came before Jesus, they're all going to hell!? How is that fair? 

"Oh oops, I forget about them," says God.

And what is original sin again? Wasn't that when Adam decided to eat an apple in the Garden of Eden or something? And now we have to suffer for all eternity unless we pass some sort of entrance examination? What exactly is sin? What is Adam eating an apple supposed to symbolize? Aren't apples supposed to be good for you?

Why doe's God choose to lump us into one big group when we are individuals who cannot be expected to take responsibility for the actions of others?

My original question everyone tried to ignore or didn't notice: What about wars? Are we allowed to kill other human beings in the name of God? Are we allowed to fight in God's name?

----------


## Panglossian

> My original question everyone tried to ignore or didn't notice: What about wars? Are we allowed to kill other human beings in the name of God? Are we allowed to fight in God's name?


Absolutely no. _Thou Shalt Not Kill_. Straight from the horse's mouth.

----------


## thebagman

Then why do we do it? Almost all the time?

----------


## Panglossian

> Panglossian- Yes, they will go to hell for rejecting God's offer. Sin has to be punished, but God loved the world so much that he sent his one and only son so that they might be saved, if those groups you say don't believe in Jesus then they won't be saved that is the reality. It is not all about religion or your beliefs, Jesus came not to start a new religion, but show the true reality, a relationship with the one true living God through him.


So let's take the ancient Indian religion of _Jainism_ - a non-violent, pacifist religion - all the thousands and thousands of "Jains" who have died over the last 10,000 years are now suffering in Hell just so the so-called _true_ God can prove a point. That's a bit unfair, isn't it? Not to mention diabolical.

----------


## Panglossian

> Then why do we do it? Almost all the time?


I would say that Christians who fight wars in the name of God are fakes.

----------


## MarkBastable

> I would say that Christians who fight wars in the name of God are fakes.


Given that the commandment doesn't say 'Thou shalt not kill in the name of God', but simply 'Thou shalt not kill', one could argue that Christians who fight in _any_ war are fakes.

----------


## dwdean

Mark, this idea of "original sin." care to explain?
as i understand it, the catholic church holds that humans are born with sin because adam and eve sinned. we are therefore destined to hell unless we can be cleansed of all sin, including the separate, original sin. original sin is only forgiven if one is baptized by the catholic church. yes?

----------


## dwdean

another confusion about christians and killing.

Moses came down from the mt with the 10 big ones, one of which states "though shalt not kill."
God later told His people, those same people, to overtake certain lands. this was done by God's people killing... what?

----------


## MarkBastable

Incidentally, there's a story here that touches on this subject.

----------


## ChristopherAP

Bagman- You obviously cannot deal with the situation so you rely on fallacious reasoning and appeals to emotion to satisfy your unfeasible position. Jesus is not just a man, he is also God, he is the third part of the triune god-head, he has two natures: human and divine when he went to the cross he took all our sin, so that we can believe in him to be saved. Suffering is a by-product of sin, that is the nature of mankind. 


Panglossian- Unfair? Sin is sin, it must be punished we were all dead, but through christ we are alive. It is not our fault that they refuse to accept Jesus Christ, if they don't than they will go to hell. God is an infinitely just God, sin is an act of rebellion and it must be punished. I don't think you have a standard by which you can judge God. I think all philosophy and theology need to be looked at more, end of discussion.

----------


## Panglossian

> Panglossian- Unfair? Sin is sin, it must be punished we were all dead, but through christ we are alive. It is not our fault that they refuse to accept Jesus Christ, if they don't than they will go to hell. God is an infinitely just God, sin is an act of rebellion and it must be punished. I don't think you have a standard by which you can judge God. I think all philosophy and theology need to be looked at more, end of discussion.


No it's not the end of the discussion. What about those millions of souls before Christ's earth visit? They couldn't refuse to accept Christ because they didn't know about Christ.

----------


## togre

> No it's not the end of the discussion. What about those millions of souls before Christ's earth visit? They couldn't refuse to accept Christ because they didn't know about Christ.



There is no difference. Today we believe in a Savior who has come. Before, they trusted the promise of a Savior who was to come. The book of Hebrews holds up the faith of these "Old Testament believers" as an example for those of us who now live after Christ completed his work.

----------


## Panglossian

> There is no difference. Today we believe in a Savior who has come. Before, they trusted the promise of a Savior who was to come. The book of Hebrews holds up the faith of these "Old Testament believers" as an example for those of us who now live after Christ completed his work.


By *they* you mean a very small percentage of the BC global population. Those who didn't or couldn't *know* were just left to go to hell (pardon the pun).

----------


## MarkBastable

> By *they* you mean a very small percentage of the BC global population. Those who didn't or couldn't *know* were just left to go to hell (pardon the pun).


And, actually, it wouldn't matter if those who didn't or couldn't know were a tiny number. It wouldn't matter, in fact, if there were only a single individual. Because God, in order to be just, has to come up with a system of judgement that gives that one human being a fair shot at salvation, doesn't he?

----------


## togre

> By *they* you mean a very small percentage of the BC global population. Those who didn't or couldn't *know* were just left to go to hell (pardon the pun).


 Ah, but who's fault is that. At 2 points in history (post-Garden of Eden & post-Flood) knowledge of and belief in God were universal. Humans are the fault this knowledge is lost. We are horrified (and rightly so) when a pregnant mother does drugs since her child suffers from her actions. Ought we not be horrified when parents deprive their children of this vital information about God?

Furthermore, God has been active throughout history bringing his word to those who did not know it. Believers have always been expected to practice their faith and "give a reason for the hope they have" during the course of their daily life (What a tragedy when they don't!) God sent prophets and apostles to different nations directly in the Bible and sends them through the mission activity of his church for the last 2000 years. The very nation of Israel and the city of Jerusalem in the Old Testament was (among other things) to serve as a light on a hill by drawing the other nations to itself and to the Lord (again, the shame when they fell short. cf. the Minor Prophets for God's rebuke in this regard).







> And, actually, it wouldn't matter if those who didn't or couldn't know were a tiny number. It wouldn't matter, in fact, if there were only a single individual. Because God, in order to be just, has to come up with a system of judgement that gives that one human being a fair shot at salvation, doesn't he?


Actually, salvation is not required at all by God's justice. If God were only fair, he would _need_ to save anyone. Salvation belongs to his mercy and compassion. Shakespeare seems to have got this--_Though justice be thy plea, consider this,That, in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation_.

God's compassion worked out salvation in such a way that he remains just _and_ merciful.

----------


## MarkBastable

_Ah, but who's fault is that. At 2 points in history (post-Garden of Eden & post-Flood) knowledge of and belief in God were universal. Humans are the fault this knowledge is lost._

So, hang on - I'm born in rural China, in 1000BC, a long way from the Holy Land, with no chance of Moses happening by carrying tales of burning bushes and promised lands of milk and honey, and with absolutely no concept of the Old Testament Jehovah, nor any notion of an expected Messiah. And that's just tough, because I'm descended from Adam - of whom I've also never heard - and am therefore damned, and if I can't figure that out for myself and do something about it, that's my fault. Or possibly the fault of my long-dead ancestors, who, frankly, should have stuck closer to Mount Ararat rather than going forth and multiplying all over the Far East. Or, as it may be, New Zealand. Or Scotland. Or what would eventually become Hayes, Kansas.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> _Ah, but who's fault is that. At 2 points in history (post-Garden of Eden & post-Flood) knowledge of and belief in God were universal. Humans are the fault this knowledge is lost._
> 
> So, hang on - I'm born in rural China, in 1000BC, a long way from the Holy Land, with no chance of Moses happening by carrying tales of burning bushes and promised lands of milk and honey, and with absolutely no concept of the Old Testament Jehovah, nor any notion of an expected Messiah. And that's just tough, because I'm descended from Adam - of whom I've also never heard - and am therefore damned, and if I can't figure that out for myself and do something about it, that's my fault. Or possibly the fault of my long-dead ancestors, who, frankly, should have stuck closer to Mount Ararat rather than going forth and multiplying all over the Far East. Or, as it may be, New Zealand. Or Scotland. Or what would eventually become Hayes, Kansas.


Incorrect....
According to Romans 2:14ff, "for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel."

Those who did not have the Law of Moses, but still acted in a righteous manner, were a law unto themselves.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> Bagman- You obviously cannot deal with the situation so you rely on fallacious reasoning and appeals to emotion to satisfy your unfeasible position. Jesus is not just a man, he is also God, he is the third part of the triune god-head, he has two natures: human and divine when he went to the cross he took all our sin, so that we can believe in him to be saved. Suffering is a by-product of sin, that is the nature of mankind. 
> 
> 
> Panglossian- Unfair? Sin is sin, it must be punished we were all dead, but through christ we are alive. It is not our fault that they refuse to accept Jesus Christ, if they don't than they will go to hell. God is an infinitely just God, sin is an act of rebellion and it must be punished. I don't think you have a standard by which you can judge God. I think all philosophy and theology need to be looked at more, end of discussion.


What about those who never heard of Jesus, but otherwise lived sin free lives? Do they go to hell?

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> What about those who never heard of Jesus, but otherwise lived sin free lives? Do they go to hell?


Who do you know that has lived a sin free life? There are those that do not know sin, I guess. If one is already free from sin, then they don't need saving from sin. It's really that simple.

----------


## G L Wilson

> Incorrect....
> According to Romans 2:14ff, "for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel."
> 
> Those who did not have the Law of Moses, but still acted in a righteous manner, were a law unto themselves.


I am with you on this, BienvenuJDC, there must be a real rejection of God for a person to go to hell. I will be going to hell if there is a God. To commit a wrong is to sin against God; for this you must ask forgiveness. I never will, because pride is my greatest sin.

----------


## dwdean

> Those who did not have the Law of Moses, but still acted in a righteous manner, were a law unto themselves.


even in talking about bc times, this is dangerous.

----------


## dwdean

> I am with you on this, BienvenuJDC, there must be a real rejection of God for a person to go to hell. I will be going to hell if there is a God. To commit a wrong is to sin against God; for this you must ask forgiveness. I never will, because pride is my greatest sin.


GL, ever read Paradise Lost?

----------


## MarkBastable

> Incorrect....
> According to Romans 2:14ff, "for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel."
> 
> Those who did not have the Law of Moses, but still acted in a righteous manner, were a law unto themselves.


Good - I'm glad it's incorrect. I'll pass that on to togre.

However, that's Paul speaking, whom you may think was talking on God's behalf, but whom I think was one of many Christian thinkers trying to formulate a rational interpretation of a rather inconsistent set of apparent injunctions.

If he's right, he's contradicting - or at least putting a pretty unexpected spin on - Jesus' statement that no one will enter the Kingdom of Heaven but through Himself. 

But more importantly, from my point of view, he's giving a huge advantage to those who are 'a law unto themselves', who get into Heaven by essentially having been 'good people', without ever having committed to Christ. I mean - that's not fair. Under those circumstances, a lot of people would get in, had they not been labouring under the huge disadvantage of being born after 30BC and within the influence of the Christian church. That's a _much_ easier route into Heaven.

----------


## G L Wilson

> Good - I'm glad it's incorrect. I'll pass that on to togre.
> 
> However, that's Paul speaking, whom you may think was talking on God's behalf, but whom I think was just one of many Christian thinkers trying to formulate a rational interpretation of a rather inconsistent set of apparent injunctions.
> 
> If he's right, he's contradicting - or at least putting a pretty unexpected spin on - Jesus' statement that no one will enter the Kingdom of Heaven but through Himself. 
> 
> But more importantly, from my point of view, he's giving a huge advantage to those who are 'a law unto themselves', who get into Heaven by essentially having been 'good people', without ever having committed to Christ. I mean - that's not fair. Under those circumstances, a lot of people would get in, had they not been labouring under the huge disadvantage of being born after 30BC and within the influence of the Christian church. That's a _much_ easier route into Heaven.


Plato is in Heaven, I bet. Can you imagine it - a fascist tea time for the soul?

----------


## libernaut

I once asked the same question, what about all the "souls" before christ. he said they were in something called "abraham's bossom" waiting for christ in after life so they could chose to accept him or not when he arrived. LMFAO! wtf? abrahams bossom? HA! Man they really thought this one through didn't they. Gotta love them christian "scholars" I mean. If you want to talk truth, especially academically you are pretty much gonna have to leave christianity out of it. It is essentially intellectual suicide to become a Christian. And that's a sin friends. And a non redeemable one too i suppose, suicide...

----------


## G L Wilson

What's suicide around here, libernaut, is to say that it is intellectual suicide to become a Christian. God help us if we should say anything against the Christians.

----------


## Bessie11

to teach us a lesson

----------


## G L Wilson

> to teach us a lesson


In case no-one knows this: I am an adult.

----------


## usman.khawar

> I don't know. God sent his only son? That's a joke. So what, he was crucified and then he died and now he's in heaven but in the end Jesus is only one guy! He may be the big man's only son but he is still one guy. What about the suffering the rest of us endures? What about the suffering endured by those affected by religious war or conflict? And all those people who came before Jesus, they're all going to hell!? How is that fair? 
> 
> "Oh oops, I forget about them," says God.
> 
> And what is original sin again? Wasn't that when Adam decided to eat an apple in the Garden of Eden or something? And now we have to suffer for all eternity unless we pass some sort of entrance examination? What exactly is sin? What is Adam eating an apple supposed to symbolize? Aren't apples supposed to be good for you?
> 
> Why doe's God choose to lump us into one big group when we are individuals who cannot be expected to take responsibility for the actions of others?
> 
> My original question everyone tried to ignore or didn't notice: What about wars? Are we allowed to kill other human beings in the name of God? Are we allowed to fight in God's name?


i think No. we are not allowed to kill other human beings in the name of God. but what if other try to impose war and you have to defend yourself and your country? than God says fight and kill. there are so many systems human invented. but all fails. no classes. no difference. every system fails. i concluded there should b a system which God made and want human to impose on earth.
Adam's error was just the reason to send us on earth. and in quran God says go on earth, and when adam ask apology God forgave him and said on earth there is some benifit for you as well. so if any one come to you and says the right things to do follow him. from adam to Muhammad Allah sent 124,ooo mesengers. code of conducts was different with every messenger. but the real objective was same. which is the biggest sin. that is to find and understand there is only One God. God of all universes and mankind, in chapter Luqman, God catogorizes the biggest sins. when Luqman teaches his son starting from verse no 13 you can see yourself

1. Alif*Lâm*Mîm. 

2. These are Verses of the Wise Book (the Qur'ân). 

3. A guide and a mercy for the Muhsinûn (good*doers) 

4. Those who perform As*Salât (Iqamat*as- Salât) and give Zakât(alms) and they have faith in the Hereafter with certainty(argument). 

5. Such are on guidance from their Lord, and such are the successful. 

6. And of mankind is he who purchases idle talks to mislead (men) from the Path of Allâh without knowledge, and takes it (the Path of Allâh, the Verses of the Qur'ân) by way of mockery. 
For such there will be a humiliating torment (in the Hell-fire). 

7. And when Our Verses are recited to such a one, he turns away in pride, as if he heard them not, as if there were deafness in his ear. So announce to him a painful torment. 
8. Verily, those who believe and do righteous good deeds, for them are Gardens of delight (Paradise). 

9. To abide therein. It is a Promise of Allâh in truth. And He is the All*Mighty, the All*Wise. 

10. He has created the heavens without any pillars, that you see 
and has set on the earth firm mountains, lest it should shake with you. 
And He has scattered therein moving (living) creatures of all kinds. 

And We send down water (rain) from the sky, and We cause (plants) of every goodly kind to grow therein. 

11. This is the creation of Allâh. 

So show Me that which those (whom you worship), besides Him have created. 

Nay, 

the Zâlimûn (those who do not believe in the Oneness of Allâh,polytheists etc) are in plain error. 


12. And indeed We bestowed upon Luqmân Al*Hikmah (wisdom) saying: 
"Give thanks to Allâh," and whoever gives thanks, he gives thanks for (the good of) his ownself. 
And whoever is unthankful, then verily, Allâh is All*Rich (Free of all wants), Worthy of all praise. 

13. And (remember) when Luqmân said to his son when he was advising him: 

"O my son! Join not in worship others with Allâh. 

Verily! Joining others in worship with Allâh is a great Zûlm (wrong.sin) indeed. 

14. And We have enjoined on man (to be dutiful and good) to his parents. 

His mother bore him in weakness and hardship upon weakness and hardship, and his weaning is in two years 

give thanks to Me and to your parents, unto Me is the final destination. 

15. But if they (both) strive with you to make you join in worship with Me others that of which you have no knowledge, then obey them not, but behave with them in the world kindly, and follow the path of him who turns to Me in repentance and in obedience. 

Then to Me will be your return, and I shall tell you what you used to do. 



16. "O my son! If it be (anything) equal to the weight of a grain of mustard seed, and though it be in a rock, or in the heavens or in the earth, Allâh will bring it forth. 

Verily, Allâh is Subtle (in bringing out that grain), Well*Aware (of its place). 



17. "O my son! Aqim*is*Salât (perform As*Salât), 
- enjoin (people) for Al*Ma'rûf (all that is good), and forbid (people) from Al*Munkar (i.e. disbelief in the Oneness of Allâh, polytheism of all kinds and all that is evil and bad), 

- and bear with patience whatever befall you. 

Verily! These are work of big courage.

18. - "And turn not your face away from men with pride, 

- nor walk in insolence through the earth. 

Verily, Allâh likes not each arrogant boaster. 

19. - "And be moderate (or show no insolence) in your walking, and lower your voice. 

Verily, the harshest of all voices is the voice (braying) of the donkey." 
20. See you not (O men) that Allâh has subjected for you whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth, and has completed and perfected His Graces upon you, (both) apparent and hidden?

...................

----------


## MarkBastable

As a sort of hint as to how one might approach a discussion like this, if the chap you're talking to doesn't believe in God, it's not terribly persuasive to quote God - and it's even less persuasive to cite what someone says God said.

Just trying to save you a lot of typing...




> i think No. we are not allowed to kill other human beings in the name of God. but what if other try to impose war and you have to defend yourself and your country? than God says fight and kill. there are so many systems human invented. but all fails. no classes. no difference. every system fails. i concluded there should b a system which God made and want human to impose on earth.
> Adam's error was just the reason to send us on earth. and in quran God says go on earth, and when adam ask apology God forgave him and said on earth there is some benifit for you as well. so if any one come to you and says the right things to do follow him. from adam to Muhammad Allah sent 124,ooo mesengers. code of conducts was different with every messenger. but the real objective was same. which is the biggest sin. that is to find and understand there is only One God. God of all universes and mankind, in chapter Luqman, God catogorizes the biggest sins. when Luqman teaches his son starting from verse no 3 you can see yourself
> 
> 1. Alif*Lâm*Mîm. 
> 
> 2. These are Verses of the Wise Book (the Qur'ân). 
> 
> 3. A guide and a mercy for the Muhsinûn (good*doers) 
> 
> ...

----------


## togre

> According to Romans 2:14ff, "for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel."
> 
> Those who did not have the Law of Moses, but still acted in a righteous manner, were a law unto themselves.



You need to keep reading. Paul's point is that the Jews having the Law of God in writing didn't place them in a special class. Both Jews and Gentiles (everyone not a Jew) need to be "good." But does that assume anyone achieves this goodness? Consider Paul in Romans chapter 3

_﻿9﻿ What shall we conclude then? Are we any better﻿﻿? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. ﻿10﻿ As it is written: 
There is no one righteous, not even one; 
﻿11﻿ there is no one who understands, 
no one who seeks God. 
﻿12﻿ All have turned away, 
they have together become worthless; 
there is no one who does good, 
not even one.﻿ 
﻿13﻿ Their throats are open graves; 
their tongues practice deceit.﻿ 
The poison of vipers is on their lips.﻿
﻿14﻿ Their mouths are full of cursing and 
bitterness.﻿
﻿15﻿ Their feet are swift to shed blood; 
﻿16﻿ ruin and misery mark their ways, 
﻿17﻿ and the way of peace they do not know.﻿
﻿18﻿ There is no fear of God before their 
eyes.﻿
﻿19﻿ Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. ﻿20﻿ Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin._ 


The purpose of God's Law, whether written in the Bible or found in the hearts of men, is never going to be a "How To Please God" guide or manual. It serves like a mirror. It doesn't matter how pretty I feel, when I look in the mirror I'm confronted by the truth--a zit. It doesn't matter how "good" I think I am, when I look in the Law (compare my actions and attitudes to what God expects) I see failure.

How is God pleased? How does anyone attain the goodness (righteousness) that God requires? It is given, not earned.

_﻿﻿21﻿ But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. ﻿22﻿ This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, ﻿23﻿ for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,  ﻿24﻿ and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. ﻿25﻿ God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,﻿a﻿ through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished ﻿26﻿ he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus._ 

Note also how clearly Paul excludes the possibility that anyone is good enough on their own. 

This is straying alot into What is sin? and What is good? and questions like that. I'm game for discussing these (as my time permits) but is this thread the best place?

----------


## G L Wilson

A vain god pleases vain people, why wouldn't he?

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> You need to keep reading.


I agree with you, but my point was that God will judge accordingly. He is able to judge the heart for those who never had a chance to know Christ....or the Law, whether due to location, circumstance, or era. No matter what He chooses to do, I am assured that He will judge righteously.

----------


## G L Wilson

> I agree with you, but my point was that God will judge accordingly. He is able to judge the heart for those who never had a chance to know Christ....or the Law, whether due to location, circumstance, or era. No matter what He chooses to do, I am assured that He will judge righteously.


I am not so assured.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> I am not so assured.


That doesn't surprise me.

----------


## usman.khawar

> As a sort of hint as to how one might approach a discussion like this, if the chap you're talking to doesn't believe in God, it's not terribly persuasive to quote God - and it's even less persuasive to cite what someone says God said.
> 
> Just trying to save you a lot of typing...


appreciated as you are trying to save time. yes i know the person who dont beleive in God i should not quote God. We see that this thread name is " why does a good God promote suffering" and also i answered for bagman.

now i m returning your good argument to you , like gonna try to save you a lot of time as here in this thread(Why a good God) there is no athiest expected. 
if any athiest like we can discuss in the thread " why i beleive in God" , well this thread name should be " why i beleive in God , why i dont beleive in God " 
i also invite you to read this once and discuss with me, and give your good arguments to improve my knowledge http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=63002

----------


## G L Wilson

> That doesn't surprise me.


What surprises me is that you are so assured.

----------


## Hand_Of_God

> Incorrect....
> According to Romans 2:14ff, "for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel."
> 
> Those who did not have the Law of Moses, but still acted in a righteous manner, were a law unto themselves.


That is true, but so there were no need for the sacrifice of Jesus...

----------


## MarkBastable

Very good point. If those who've never heard of God and his Son can be judged by their heart, then everyone can. So there was no need for Jesus to live, die and rise at all.

I hope Jesus doesn't hear about this. He'll be very miffed.

----------


## Ecurb

> Very good point. If those who've never heard of God and his Son can be judged by their heart, then everyone can. So there was no need for Jesus to live, die and rise at all.
> 
> I hope Jesus doesn't hear about this. He'll be very miffed.


Where were you when God hung the stars in the sky (as God might have said to Job)?

The notion that only through the Grace of Jesus' sacrifice can people be saved from their sins is (I'll fully grant) bizarre. Why should God create a world like that? But, then, why should God create a world where people die int he first place? 

In all fairy tales (and many myths), there are strange rules which have inexorable, unnatural and constant results. "Blow this horn, and the walls of a castle will fall." "Look back at your wife, and she will return to the land of the dead." Of course we puny humans don't understand WHY these rules exist. Where were we when God hung the stars in the sky? 

Still, if being able to go to heaven only through Jesus' sacrifice seems strange, going to heaven for ANY reason is even stranger and more miraculous. Why strain at a gnat? If heaven exists at all, why should we understand the rules about getting there? 

(Of course the Fundamentalists who think they know who is "saved" and who is not weren't there when God hung the stars from the sky, either. For who can know the Mind of God?)

----------


## MarkBastable

> Where were you when God hung the stars in the sky (as God might have said to Job)?
> 
> The notion that only through the Grace of Jesus' sacrifice can people be saved from their sins is (I'll fully grant) bizarre. Why should God create a world like that? But, then, why should God create a world where people die int he first place? 
> 
> In all fairy tales (and many myths), there are strange rules which have inexorable, unnatural and constant results. "Blow this horn, and the walls of a castle will fall." "Look back at your wife, and she will return to the land of the dead." Of course we puny humans don't understand WHY these rules exist. Where were we when God hung the stars in the sky? 
> 
> Still, if being able to go to heaven only through Jesus' sacrifice seems strange, going to heaven for ANY reason is even stranger and more miraculous. Why strain at a gnat? If heaven exists at all, why should we understand the rules about getting there? 
> 
> (Of course the Fundamentalists who think they know who is "saved" and who is not weren't there when God hung the stars from the sky, either. For who can know the Mind of God?)



..and that's exactly where believers end up when the logical going gets tough. "Who can know the mind of God?" "God's ineffableness is beyond human comprehension." "Hey - beats me, but I'm sure God knows what he's doing...."

Well, in order to take that position - which you're absolutely entitled to do - you have to have a preceding belief in the existence of God that enables you to lend him that kind of confidence.

Me, I find it impossible to believe in a Supreme Being who appears either not to have thought things through ("....oh, hang on - there was no need for the whole redeemed-by-the-blood-of-the-Lamb thing. I could've applied the 'law unto themselves' technique to everyone...") or who has created a system of justice that, although it applies to me, is impossible for me to understand, but I'm expected to just trust him that it's all fair and consistent. 

Neither of those deities - the woolly thinker or the capricious obscurist - has any business trying to run a Universe. In fact it's pretty difficult to see how he could.

----------


## PoeticPassions

> Neither of those deities - the woolly thinker or the capricious obscurist - has any business trying to run a Universe. In fact it's pretty difficult to see how he could.


Well, no leader has ever been perfect and none is ever really fit to run a country, a world, or the masses. 

If there is a God (which I highly doubt) he's just as fallible, vengeful, vain and irrational as the rest of us. After all, He invented us (or we invented him).

----------


## Ecurb

> Me, I find it impossible to believe in a Supreme Being who appears either not to have thought things through ("....oh, hang on - there was no need for the whole redeemed-by-the-blood-of-the-Lamb thing. I could've applied the 'law unto themselves' technique to everyone...") or who has created a system of justice that, although it applies to me, is impossible for me to understand, but I'm expected to just trust him that it's all fair and consistent. 
> 
> Neither of those deities - the woolly thinker or the capricious obscurist - has any business trying to run a Universe. In fact it's pretty difficult to see how he could.


This seems like a very self-centered view of the universe. The idea is: I wont believe in anything I cant understand -- as if we are God and can't create anything we don't understand. I suppose we could apply this to Relativity, or Chaos Theory, or any number of scientific or philosophical ideas which are also difficult to understand. The question, though, is not whether you can believe in something, but whether the internal logic of the system is inconsistent. When Hades made the condition that if Orpheus looked back, Euridyce would return to the land of the dead was he capricious, or a wooly thinker? Perhaps he was  but that doesnt ruin the story. 

If, of course, the key question about a story is whether we can believe in it, then we might examine every plot detail in terms of whether it adds credence to the story. Ill grant that many Christians DO frame the Christian myth in these terms. Nonetheless, it seems silly for non-believers to frame it in these terms. After all, many of us DONT believe in the Christian myth any more than we believe in the Euridyce story. Indeed, some of us (me, for example) see the historical truth of both stories as irrelevant. In order to grasp the story, some suspension of disbelief is required  just as it is when we read Anna Karennina. If every aspect of the story is contaminated by I find it impossible to believe we will never see any truths that ARE embedded in the story.

----------


## MarkBastable

> This seems like a very self-centered view of the universe. The idea is: I wont believe in anything I cant understand -- as if we are God and can't create anything we don't understand. I suppose we could apply this to Relativity, or Chaos Theory, or any number of scientific or philosophical ideas which are also difficult to understand. The question, though, is not whether you can believe in something, but whether the internal logic of the system is inconsistent. When Hades made the condition that if Orpheus looked back, Euridyce would return to the land of the dead was he capricious, or a wooly thinker? Perhaps he was  but that doesnt ruin the story. 
> 
> If, of course, the key question about a story is whether we can believe in it, then we might examine every plot detail in terms of whether it adds credence to the story. Ill grant that many Christians DO frame the Christian myth in these terms. Nonetheless, it seems silly for non-believers to frame it in these terms. After all, many of us DONT believe in the Christian myth any more than we believe in the Euridyce story. Indeed, some of us (me, for example) see the historical truth of both stories as irrelevant. In order to grasp the story, some suspension of disbelief is required  just as it is when we read Anna Karennina. If every aspect of the story is contaminated by I find it impossible to believe we will never see any truths that ARE embedded in the story.


Oh, I understand the _story_. If that's all God requires of me, I'm safe.

----------


## dwdean

> Well, no leader has ever been perfect and none is ever really fit to run a country, a world, or the masses. 
> 
> If there is a God (which I highly doubt) he's just as fallible, vengeful, vain and irrational as the rest of us. After all, He invented us (or we invented him).


i vehemently disagree.
my beliefs aside, God must be infallible to be God, right? if God is NOT infallible, then He is merely powerful. Castro was powerful, but is he God? the very nature of some "God" existing, is that the "God being" is superior to us, as we are humans. Gods, regardless of religious belief are omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. if lacking is perfect, the god-like qualities fade and that being becomes of one us.

----------


## MarkBastable

> Gods, regardless of religious belief are omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. if lacking is perfect, the god-like qualities fade and that being becomes of one us.


That's simply not true of - for instance - the Greek Gods, the Roman Gods, the Norse Gods, the Hindu Gods, the African pantheistic Gods, the Aboriginal Gods. In fact, pretty much every God except the Judaeo-Christian God has been other than omniscient (hence the intrigue and deceit), absolutely not omnipotent (because there are winners and losers in every encounter) and anything but omnipresent (because there's no story if everyone in it is everywhere all the time).

----------


## Ecurb

Obviously, the Norse Gods are doomed to lose their battle with the Giants at Ragnorok. So they are not omnipotent (far from it). It seems to me that the Jewish God was CALLED omnipotent to compare him with the (lesser) Gods of other cultures. I mean, Odin might be called "the all-knowing and all powerful Odin" at some point, even though it's clear from the story that this is hyperbole.

----------


## G L Wilson

Christians, Muslims and Jews will be a lovely bunch in Heaven. God is welcome to them.

----------


## Ecurb

> Oh, I understand the _story_. If that's all God requires of me, I'm safe.


Well, in that case you're one up on me, (and probably) the Pope, Thomas Acquinas, and Bishop Tutu. Most of us don't think we understand the story (at least not completely). Many of those who have studied it for a lifetime -- brilliant, dilligent men and great scholars -- don't claim to understand.

----------


## G L Wilson

> Well, in that case you're one up on me, (and probably) the Pope, Thomas Acquinas, and Bishop Tutu. Most of us don't think we understand the story (at least not completely). Many those who have studied it for a lifetime -- brilliant, dilligent men and great scholars -- don't claim to understand.


The Pope doesn't think that he is God's representative on earth or anything, does he? The Saint and Tutu also do a lot of talking for men without understanding, not to mention the lesser entities that infect Christendom with bombast and bluster. The story is that they get saved no matter what their atrocities against common humanity. It gives them a lot to talk about whereas otherwise they would be a complete blank.

----------


## Ecurb

> The Pope doesn't think that he is God's representative on earth or anything, does he? The Saint and Tutu also do a lot of talking for men without understanding, not to mention the lesser entities that infect Christendom with bombast and bluster. The story is that they get saved no matter what their atrocities against common humanity. It gives them a lot to talk about whereas otherwise they would be a complete blank.


No, the point was that if people who have actually studied the story don't understand what it means, how can MarkBastable. (Perhaps MarkBastable is a Treasure Seeker, and has worked as hard at understanding the Bible as the Bastable children did at restoring the fallen fortunes of the House of Bastable on Lewisham Road, in which case I apologize.)

----------


## G L Wilson

> No, the point was that if people who have actually studied the story don't understand what it means, how can MarkBastable. (Perhaps MarkBastable is a Treasure Seeker, and has worked as hard at understanding the Bible as the Bastable children did at restoring the fallen fortunes of the House of Bastable on Lewisham Road, in which case I apologize.)


What's hard to understand? Love doesn't get you into Heaven, righteousness does.

----------


## Ecurb

"There is none righteous, no, not one." -- Romans, 3:10.

(And, yes, the Bible is hard to understand. So is G L Wilson. So similar, and yet so distant.)

----------


## G L Wilson

> "There is none righteous, no, not one." -- Romans, 3:10.
> 
> (And, yes, the Bible is hard to understand. So is G L Wilson. So similar, and yet so distant.)


You come at me with Paul? Read on in Romans and see what there is to find. Nonetheless, Heaven is poorly populated. As Nietzsche said, "In Heaven, all the interesting people are missing." There will be a lot of good people down in hell, why should I be afraid to go there?

----------


## dwdean

> What's hard to understand? Love doesn't get you into Heaven, righteousness does.


i don;t believe that's the message of the Bible.

yes, righteousness is req'd.
no, we aren't righteous.
yes, Jesus was.
we get in, therefore, through Him. 
no, we still aren't righteous.


this would be considered the christian belief in a nutshell, yes?

----------


## G L Wilson

> i don;t believe that's the message of the Bible.
> 
> yes, righteousness is req'd.
> no, we aren't righteous.
> yes, Jesus was.
> we get in, therefore, through Him.
> no, we still aren't righteous.
> 
> 
> this would be considered the christian belief in a nutshell, yes?


No, the Christian belief is that we are made righteous through faith in Jesus Christ. There is no other way into Heaven. The Catholics are wrong; even if the texts contradict, where is the Good in error? Nowhere, I say.

----------


## dwdean

GL, "the Catholic's are wrong" was thrown in quite randomly in my opinion. care to explain how that relates? i agree with your statement, but perhaps for different reasons...

i believe that what you say concerning the christian belief is true, but it is held that we are considered righteous, seen righteous, by accepting Christ's sacrifice. that still doesn't make us righteous. correct?

----------


## G L Wilson

> GL, "the Catholic's are wrong" was thrown in quite randomly in my opinion. care to explain how that relates? i agree with your statement, but perhaps for different reasons...


Catholicism attains that salvation by good works is possible. The doctrine is either incorrect or not depending on your point of view.




> i believe that what you say concerning the christian belief is true, but it is held that we are considered righteous, seen righteous, by accepting Christ's sacrifice. that still doesn't make us righteous. correct?


I would say so but I am not sure.

----------


## MarkBastable

> No, the point was that if people who have actually studied the story don't understand what it means, how can MarkBastable. (Perhaps MarkBastable is a Treasure Seeker, and has worked as hard at understanding the Bible as the Bastable children did at restoring the fallen fortunes of the House of Bastable on Lewisham Road, in which case I apologize.)


We're obviously talking about different levels of understanding then. You're talking about some level that _no-one_ can understand - yes? So, we're back to my thing about believers citing the unknowable ineffableness of the mind of God.

And, as I say, if this question of God's judgement does encompass a level of understanding that's beyond us, then God has broken a very fundamental rule of natural justice, which is that the judged should be able to understand the system of justice by which they are being judged. They shouldn't have to simply take on trust that it's fair. 

If, on the other hand, you're saying that the very idea of God is beyond us all, then, again, I think God is being capricious. Having created children who are incapable of comprehending him, he has no one to blame but himself if they don't get it. If I were a bright orange god who smelled strongly of celery, it'd be pretty unsporting of me to create blind creatures with no noses, and then to blame them for not being able to find me.

----------


## Paulclem

:FRlol: 

...celery...

My creation's got no nose. 

Oh really? How does it smell? ...

----------


## Vonny

I was Catholic the first 7 years of my life. I went to church every Sunday. My father was Catholic, and my mother was Protestant, so it was confusing. My mother contradicted the Catholic teachings to us. Still, I went to church every Sunday. My father was a very violent person; he tortured us in various ways. I remember one day, my father told me that God watched me all the time, that He could always see me. I remember saying in amazement, "He sees me now? Right now?" My father said "yes." I never understood too much about God or the church or anything, but I understood that God was watching me.

So, as I got older, I wondered, "Why didn't God ever speak to me, a small child?" He spoke to Moses in a burning bush. So why wouldn't He speak to a child who was terrified and in pain? I can see if He had given my father free-will, then maybe He wouldn't want to step in and interfere, but why not just speak and explain to me that although my father was being allowed to do what he did, it wasn't right, and that we children didn't _deserve_ what we were getting, that God didn't approve, and that there would be a light on the other side for us. But we were just left in a very deep, very black hole.

God's love is supposed to be greater than any human love. I, as a human, couldn't stand by and just watch a child or animal suffer and do nothing, not even speak to him/her/it. So I don't know if there is some concept here that is so BIG I simply can't understand it. It's for sure that if there is a concept, I don't understand it. But I try to have an open mind about God, and just say that I don't know. I think whatever God is, we can never understand it with our human brains.

----------


## dwdean

[QUOTE=G L Wilson;1054852]Catholicism attains that salvation by good works is possible. The doctrine is either incorrect or not depending on your point of view.

[QUOTE]

is that really a belief held by all Catholics or only a select few? does it even make sense for one to be saved by good works? due to varying definitions of "good works," salvation would never be assured.

----------


## dwdean

> I was Catholic the first 7 years of my life. I went to church every Sunday. My father was Catholic, and my mother was Protestant, so it was confusing. My mother contradicted the Catholic teachings to us. Still, I went to church every Sunday.


did you pick one belief to follow or no?

----------


## Vonny

> did you pick one belief to follow or no?


Well, my father left us and we automatically defaulted to my mother's Protestant side. The Catholic part is definitely gone along with my father and godparents, all who vanished. 

I'm beginning to realize lately that I've never really chosen anything for myself. But I don't go to church anymore, mainly because churches give me anxiety. 

It's funny that Scripture still has an emotional pull on me, so I'm unable to call myself an Atheist.

----------


## dwdean

> Well, my father left us and we automatically defaulted to my mother's Protestant side. The Catholic part is definitely gone along with my father and godparents, all who vanished. 
> 
> I'm beginning to realize lately that I've never really chosen anything for myself. But I don't go to church anymore, mainly because churches give me anxiety. 
> 
> It's funny that Scripture still has an emotional pull on me, so I'm unable to call myself an Atheist.


have you ever explored catholicism for yourself?
i have recently begun to do so.
while i disagree with much of the doctrine, the aura/reverence and mysticism of the catholic church absolutely has it's pull on me...

----------


## Vonny

> have you ever explored catholicism for yourself?
> i have recently begun to do so.
> while i disagree with much of the doctrine, the aura/reverence and mysticism of the catholic church absolutely has it's pull on me...


It's funny you mention this because those qualities pull me, too. I absolutely hate the new-age crap that so many other churches have turned into. A young woman I know who goes to Catholic church said that if you look around at the congregation, just about every single head in there is gray. That appeals to me. I love the traditions. Another thing I love about Catholic church is Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve, and the old-fashioned Christmas carols! I _have_ still gone to Midnight Mass several times over the years with friends.

And then several years ago I was able to visit Mount Angel Abbey in Oregon. It was really beautiful, and listening to the monks sing Vespers was really nice, better than taking a tranquilizer! 

It's possible that I could get sucked back into Catholic church, but right now I don't have time! 

The only other problem is that I don't like their bible. I like the King James version.

----------


## dwdean

> It's funny you mention this because those qualities pull me, too. I absolutely hate the new-age crap that so many other churches have turned into. A young woman I know who goes to Catholic church said that if you look around at the congregation, just about every single head in there is gray. That appeals to me. I love the traditions. Another thing I love about Catholic church is Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve, and the old-fashioned Christmas carols! I _have_ still gone to Midnight Mass several times over the years with friends.
> 
> And then several years ago I was able to visit Mount Angel Abbey in Oregon. It was really beautiful, and listening to the monks sing Vespers was really nice, better than taking a tranquilizer! 
> 
> It's possible that I could get sucked back into Catholic church, but right now I don't have time! 
> 
> The only other problem is that I don't like their bible. I like the King James version.


in my opinion, protestant churches have become dangerously casual. i don't believe that one should be judged by what they wear or believe or give during church, but it could be said that those who practice the catholic faith may take it more seriously than their protestant counterparts. this may be due, in part, to their belief that salvation is not given, it is earned by works. there also seems to be unity of belief among catholics. the catechism gives pretty much a guideline for living. though protestants would hold that the Bible itself is their guideline, the differing translations provide discord amongst those in the same church family. while there are THOUSANDS of protestant denominations, catholicism only exhibits two (if i understand correctly). there must be a reason for this unity...

----------


## G L Wilson

"There must be a reason for this unity."

Sure, superstition.

----------


## MarkBastable

> while there are THOUSANDS of protestant denominations, catholicism only exhibits two (if i understand correctly). there must be a reason for this unity...


In the case of Roman Catholicism, the reason is the authority of the Vatican, exercised through the infallibility of the Pope. 

You seem to think that that's a Good Thing, and that the nonconformists' diverse interpretations of Christian precepts are a Bad Thing - which, of course, is a perfectly valid opinion. But there are those who would argue exactly the opposite.

However, stepping back a little and looking at Christianity overall, the differences between the (Roman) Catholic Church and other Christian demoninations are tiny, compared to the differences between all the monotheistic faiths. 

And the differences between the monotheistic faiths are pretty small compared to the differences between all of them and the multitheistic faiths. 

And the differences between all faiths are insignificant compared to the differences between faith and lack of it. 

And even the lack of it has no real defining characteristic except that - so there's a lot of difference there too.

So I don't think that, in terms of the practice of faith, the little differences between Roman Catholicism and other Christian sects really matter. However, one of the appeals of Catholicism (Roman or otherwise) is certainly the showbiz element - the ritual, the incense, the formality of process and symbolism. I guess that's as good a reason as any to choose that form of Christianity. 

My wife - who was brought up a Catholic - was told that eternal damnation awaits anyone who calls themselves a Christian but doesn't recognise the unquestioned authority of the Pope. Even now she isn't entirely sure that nonconformist marriage ceremonies really count, because there's not enough stained-glass and men-in-frocks about the place. My mother - who was brought up a strict non-conformist - was told that if she ever attended a Catholic Mass, she would go to hell, because it was the work of the devil. Even now, she's not completely at ease around crucifixes, which come under the broad heading of 'graven images'.

----------


## G L Wilson

If you take away the smoke and mirrors from Christianity, you are just left with a lot of mumbo jumbo.

----------


## MarkBastable

> If you take away the smoke and mirrors from Christianity, you are just left with a lot of mumbo jumbo.



I can't see that that kind of blasé, adolescent throwaway really advances the discussion at all. I mean, what would have been lost had you decided, having typed it, not to hit 'Send'?

----------


## dwdean

> My wife - who was brought up a Catholic - was told that eternal damnation awaits anyone who calls themselves a Christian but doesn't recognise the unquestioned authority of the Pope. Even now she isn't entirely sure that nonconformist marriage ceremonies really count, because there's not enough stained-glass and men-in-frocks about the place. My mother - who was brought up a strict non-conformist - was told that if she ever attended a Catholic Mass, she would go to hell, because it was the work of the devil. Even now, she's not completely at ease around crucifixes, which come under the broad heading of 'graven images'.


im not saying that one is wrong while the other is correct. catholicism has two denominations, protestant christianity exists in thousands. that is my point.

on the other hand, MarkBast, i was brought up similarly to your mother. i have attended a protestant church since birth. my mother, who was catholic for many years, swears that catholicism is simply wrong. i do believe that calling any human (the pope) infallible is ridiculous. i promise you, the guy makes mistakes. but then again the catholics would say that those who take the Bible alone as infallible truth are sadly mistaken. 
religion... its tricky.

----------


## G L Wilson

> I can't see that that kind of blasé, adolescent throwaway really advances the discussion at all. I mean, what would have been lost had you decided, having typed it, not to hit 'Send'?


Human beings suffer for no reason, no reason at all.

----------


## Delta40

> Human beings suffer for no reason, no reason at all.


so do animals and the environment. Are you thinking we're special or something?

----------


## MarkBastable

> I can't see that that kind of blasé, adolescent throwaway really advances the discussion at all. I mean, what would have been lost had you decided, having typed it, not to hit 'Send'?





> Human beings suffer for no reason, no reason at all.


I can't see that that kind of blasé, adolescent throwaway really advances the discussion at all. I mean, what would have been lost had you decided, having typed it, not to hit 'Send'?

----------


## G L Wilson

It is certainly not blase whatever it might be.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

It's very arrogant of people to insist that their speculations of a god's motivations are based on any type of logic whatsoever. If god/gods exist, we don't know him/her/them or their possible motivations and capabilities, and as of right now we have no way of gaining said knowledge. To pretend to know only assigns our own imagined motivations to the potential actions of deities, thus elevating ourselves to the supposed mental plane/s of deities. This line of speculation is purely egotistical, unless it's being used to illustrate how much sense "God" does not make, in which case: fantastic!

----------


## MarkBastable

> It's very arrogant of people to insist that their speculations of a god's motivations are based on any type of logic whatsoever. If god/gods exist, we don't know him/her/them or their possible motivations and capabilities, and as of right now we have no way of gaining said knowledge. To pretend to know only assigns our own imagined motivations to the potential actions of deities, thus elevating ourselves to the supposed mental plane/s of deities. This line of speculation is purely egotistical, unless it's being used to illustrate how much sense "God" does not make, in which case: fantastic!


That seems to suggest that human beings are not capable of knowing the mind of God.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> That seems to suggest that human beings are not capable of knowing the mind of God.


Definitely, Mark. To know the mind of a God, one would have to be a God. Now that's a nice fantasy. Maybe we're all gods and we're fleshing out this saga of what motivates the one mega god we've conjured. Or maybe we've all always been gods. Accidentally expanding the universe the way some people accidentally make babies. It's a fantastic mystery with endless possibilities. The possibilities don't begin and end at this one god of men. Doing a bunch of guesswork within the confines of this one story, this one idea, and passing judgments on other humans because we assume it's the will of THE god, well, pardon me for saying so, but that is ludicrous.

----------


## billl

Basically, if someone (or something) manages to acquire/develop power superior to our own, and then behaves in ways we find unjustifiable, we should just go ahead and worship them, because they must've created everything, even the world they were born into. Anyhow, I think that's the formula that the mystics take, before becoming Vichy-reality-based tools.

----------


## MarkBastable

> Definitely, Mark. To know the mind of a God, one would have to be a God.


Precisely. So the thrust of my argument isn't about whether or not human beings can understand the workings of God's mind. Let's agree we can't. 

The question is whether or not that's any way to run a universe - whether it's _fair_ to set up a cosmos in that way. And that matters - to me at least -because if he's created us in such a way that we are incapable of understanding him, it'd be capricious to judge us within the structure of that set-up. 

Hence this...




> Having created children who are incapable of comprehending him, he has no one to blame but himself if they don't get it. If I were a bright orange god who smelled strongly of celery, it'd be pretty unsporting of me to create blind creatures with no noses, and then to blame them for not being able to find me.


...which is the point I was hoping would be addressed by someone who does believe that that _is_ a fair way to run a universe.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> Precisely. So the thrust of my argument isn't about whether or not human beings can understand the workings of God's mind. Let's agree we can't. 
> 
> The question is whether or not that's any way to run a universe - whether it's _fair_ to set up a cosmos in that way. And that matters - to me at least -because if he's created us in such a way that we are incapable of understanding him, it'd be capricious to judge us within the structure of that set-up. 
> 
> Hence this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...which is the point I was hoping would be addressed by someone who does believe that that _is_ a fair way to run a universe.


Pretty cool, Mark. I somehow missed that comment before. Very smartly stated. Why do people worship this invisible, incoherent idea? If any of the gods envisioned by man are real, those gods either have severe mental problems, or zero ability to interact with our reality.

----------


## Paulclem

The Buddha's experience of Gods was that there are a number of them who live greatly extended lives-eons long- of divine comfort, but who are themselves subject to birth ageing sickness and death. The delusion the foremost of them has - referred to as Brahma, but this is pre-christian, (which raises interesting possibilities), is that they created the universe.

The idea that there is a God realm would seem to account for the different views of Gods that cultures have, and for the different sets of them - Norse, Greek, Hindu, the God vengeful of the Hebrews etc. 

The Buddha's claim also sugests that it is possible to know the minds of Gods and that they're not so Divine as they think but subject to Karma just the same as any being. From the Buddha's point of view then, as they too suffer, they need to be viewed with compassion.

----------


## G L Wilson

> The Buddha's experience of Gods was that there are a number of them who live greatly extended lives-eons long- of divine comfort, but who are themselves subject to birth ageing sickness and death. The delusion the foremost of them has - referred to as Brahma, but this is pre-christian, (which raises interesting possibilities), is that they created the universe.
> 
> The idea that there is a God realm would seem to account for the different views of Gods that cultures have, and for the different sets of them - Norse, Greek, Hindu, the God vengeful of the Hebrews etc. 
> 
> The Buddha's claim also sugests that it is possible to know the minds of Gods and that they're not so Divine as they think but subject to Karma just the same as any being. From the Buddha's point of view then, as they too suffer, they need to be viewed with compassion.


Norse and Greek gods are getting a lot of sympathy, not. Now for the rest of them.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> The Buddha's experience of Gods was that there are a number of them who live greatly extended lives-eons long- of divine comfort, but who are themselves subject to birth ageing sickness and death. The delusion the foremost of them has - referred to as Brahma, but this is pre-christian, (which raises interesting possibilities), is that they created the universe.
> 
> The idea that there is a God realm would seem to account for the different views of Gods that cultures have, and for the different sets of them - Norse, Greek, Hindu, the God vengeful of the Hebrews etc. 
> 
> The Buddha's claim also sugests that it is possible to know the minds of Gods and that they're not so Divine as they think but subject to Karma just the same as any being. From the Buddha's point of view then, as they too suffer, they need to be viewed with compassion.


This is very interesting. I so love stories of Buddha. Of course, they still do not offer hard evidence of a God realm, and the suggestion that the universe was created by beings at all is merely fanciful speculation. However, if we are speaking in hypotheticals, the points you raise imply to me that, as we may know the minds of gods, and as gods may be fallible, it stands to reason that everyone could aspire to be equal to (and even defeat) the existing gods. Another lovely fantasy. I could so take the Christian god in a fight. I'm pretty much a badass, is why. Seriously, I don't have any faith in guesswork, but fairy tales are sweet.  :Smile:

----------


## G L Wilson

If there are gods, it is right for us to tremble.

----------


## Paulclem

> This is very interesting. I so love stories of Buddha. Of course, they still do not offer hard evidence of a God realm, and the suggestion that the universe was created by beings at all is merely fanciful speculation. However, if we are speaking in hypotheticals, the points you raise imply to me that, as we may know the minds of gods, and as gods may be fallible, it stands to reason that everyone could aspire to be equal to (and even defeat) the existing gods. Another lovely fantasy. I could so take the Christian god in a fight. I'm pretty much a badass, is why. Seriously, I don't have any faith in guesswork, but fairy tales are sweet.


The Buddha's teachings suggest that anyone who follows the path could gain insight into the different realms. Lots of meditation, (of specific kinds) practice needed under the guidance of a Teacher though.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> If there are gods, it is right for us to tremble.


Nonsense.  :Smile:

----------


## G L Wilson

> Nonsense.


I put no trust in gods of any kind.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> I put no trust in gods of any kind.


Trust has nothing to do with it. Why "tremble"? What is the worst thing a god could do to you?

----------


## MarkBastable

> Trust has nothing to do with it. Why "tremble"? What is the worst thing a god could do to you?


Could revoke his internet access.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Trust has nothing to do with it. Why "tremble"? What is the worst thing a god could do to you?


If the "god" were the Creator of all things and the source of spiritual life, and if He were the only source of real love, He could allow you to separate yourself from Him, as it were. Through this action existence would become like hell. But that is only one school of thought. Everyone has to choose for themselves what to believe.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> Could revoke his internet access.


You should be a god, Mark.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> If the "god" were the Creator of all things and the source of spiritual life, and if He were the only source of real love, He could allow you to separate yourself from Him, as it were. Through this action existence would become like hell. But that is only one school of thought. Everyone has to choose for themselves what to believe.


A theory as sound as any. If this turns out to be the case, I still will not tremble before god. He never made himself clear. I'll just be thrilled to still exist, to not have gone out like a blown candle. If god wants me to fear him, I want to be separated from such a beast. I wouldn't care if I was cast into the most empty void. I would be content to have myself, and to go on. If he takes my "self" away, it will be no different a fate than I imagined.

These are romantic musings. Wildest dreams. 

We die. Consciousness goes. I have faith in right now, because this is within my realm of understanding.  :Smile:

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> A theory as sound as any. If this turns out to be the case, I still will not tremble before god. He never made himself clear. I'll just be thrilled to still exist, to not have gone out like a blown candle. If god wants me to fear him, I want to be separated from such a beast. I wouldn't care if I was cast into the most empty void. I would be content to have myself, and to go on. If he takes my "self" away, it will be no different a fate than I imagined.
> 
> These are romantic musings. Wildest dreams. 
> 
> We die. Consciousness goes. I have faith in right now, because this is within my realm of understanding.


How can you be so sure of that?

----------


## Varenne Rodin

I've seen brain death. I've seen the slow and the rapid deterioration of the human brain. I have knowledge of the way information travels through the central nervous system, and the way memories are stored. As portions of the brain die, and as neural connections clog and stick shut permanently, a person's "self" fractures and fades away. There is nothing left of the awareness that was there. I have never seen a vehicle for this awareness to pass into another realm. I have only seen this reality, so I can never assert that there is another.

My family died a long time ago. Like squashed insects, they were destroyed. I haven't heard from them since. Go figure!

Can I say there is no afterlife? No. All I can say for certain is that corpses decay, and new stuff eventually grows out of them. It's not as depressing to me as it is to those clinging to delusion. That being said, faith in guesswork can make some people happy. Unicorns and dragons made me happy when I was 4 and imagined they were real.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

Also, it doesn't matter what I feel sure of. Like I said, I'm contained in the present reality.

----------


## G L Wilson

> Also, it doesn't matter what I feel sure of. Like I said, I'm contained in the present reality.


I am trapped in it.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> I am trapped in it.


That awareness makes you special. This is the only kind of thinking that will lead to progress. Someday maybe death will be beaten. Maybe lifespans will be extended, or maybe we'll figure out how to upload individual minds into greater technology than human bodies. Maybe we'll improve space travel to a point where we find something we never imagined. These are fantasies, but much more viable to me than theistic musings. Someone has to pave the way. You're not alone, so don't despair. Your ideas, when shared, cause a chain reaction. That makes you important to me, to other people like us, and to future generations.

Besides, comedy is fun. There are beautiful things happening all the time. Chin up, sugarplum!

----------


## Buh4Bee

Be done with it already and stop torturing the rest of us please. When did Litnet become a group support system?

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> Be done with it already and stop torturing the rest of us please. When did Litnet become a group support system?


If I want to say something nice to someone, I will. I'm not burdened with the habits and norms of Litnet.

----------


## G L Wilson

> Be done with it already and stop torturing the rest of us please. When did Litnet become a group support system?


When did LitNet become a wilderness?

----------


## Buh4Bee

Don't worry sugar, I don't think anyone follows any norms on LitNet. Why let anything burden us?

----------


## G L Wilson

All I know is that if the humans don't group together around here, they will be eaten by the bears.

----------


## Red-Headed

> All I know is that if the humans don't group together around here, they will be eaten by the bears.


That's for sure.

----------


## ralfyman

We're not sure if He is a "good God" and we cannot prove scientifically that there is a God. Given that, the best we can say is that suffering exists for reasons that cannot always be controlled by human beings or that are prompted by the same.

----------


## G L Wilson

> We're not sure if He is a "good God" and we cannot prove scientifically that there is a God. Given that, the best we can say is that suffering exists for reasons that cannot always be controlled by human beings or that are prompted by the same.


The world is the Devil's, only we in it can oppose him.

----------


## cl154576

> The world is the Devil's, only we in it can oppose him.


It is wonderful how much time good people spend fighting off the devil. If they would only expend the same amount of energy loving their fellow men, the devil would die in his own tracks of ennui.
- Helen Keller

Just a random quote that came to mind.

----------


## G L Wilson

> It is wonderful how much time good people spend fighting off the devil. If they would only expend the same amount of energy loving their fellow men, the devil would die in his own tracks of ennui.
> - Helen Keller
> 
> Just a random quote that came to mind.


It is not always possible to love our fellow man, but it is possible to love ourselves always. That we must do.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> It is not always possible to love our fellow man, but it is possible to love ourselves always. That we must do.


It's not always possible for SOME to love another. But for others you cannot judge how far reaching their love is.

----------


## G L Wilson

> It's not always possible for SOME to love another. But for others you cannot judge how far reaching their love is.


Jesus doesn't love me, BienvenuJDC. I can't see his love as being all that far reaching.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Jesus doesn't love me, BienvenuJDC. I can't see his love as being all that far reaching.


First of all....stop with the Jesus bashing. I was speaking about people in general. There are many people who are loving and show it. Jesus was one of those, and I'd disagree with you. The Jesus that I've come to know, well, HE loves all people, which would include you as well.

----------


## Arrowni

Well, from a neutral standpoint, since suffering is not inherently evil, we should probably decrypt the meaning of pain in the natural world to understand the kind of values that a God would promote by promoting pain. For example, let's say that pain exists to lose individuality, then the goal of suffering would be to show us that individuality is not a consistent way of survival, that losing your own face and going through pain is actually cool. Let's say pain exists to keep you away from dangerous experiences, then you probably need to go towards dangerous experiences, you need to learn, risk yourself and understand the universe.

----------


## billl

> Well, from a neutral standpoint, since suffering is not inherently evil, we should probably decrypt the meaning of pain in the natural world to understand the kind of values that a God would promote by promoting pain. For example, let's say that pain exists to lose individuality, then the goal of suffering would be to show us that individuality is not a consistent way of survival, that losing your own face and going through pain is actually cool. Let's say pain exists to keep you away from dangerous experiences, then you probably need to go towards dangerous experiences, you need to learn, risk yourself and understand the universe.


Once you buy that, then rape seems like a favor. 2 + 2 = 5. Be careful when that sort of thinking starts to make sense to you. Especially when some'one' is after your individuality. And it can cause you pain.

----------


## Arrowni

> Once you buy that, then rape seems like a favor. 2 + 2 = 5. Be careful when that sort of thinking starts to make sense to you. Especially when some'one' is after your individuality. And it can cause you pain.


I'd argue the issue is not anything like 2 + 2 = 5, but then you'd probably believe I actually care about the reasoning I wrote.

----------


## G L Wilson

> Once you buy that, then rape seems like a favor. 2 + 2 = 5. Be careful when that sort of thinking starts to make sense to you. Especially when some'one' is after your individuality. And it can cause you pain.


billl, I read Arrowni's post again and it seemed logical to me on a second reading.

----------


## ralfyman

> The world is the Devil's, only we in it can oppose him.


About the devil, I give the same point in my previous message.

----------


## G L Wilson

I believe God is mad, not malevolent by habit.

----------


## stuntpickle

I find it a bit funny that so many half-clever atheists feel compelled to antagonize theists in a forum concerning religious texts.

As for the question at hand, you've got it all wrong. First, the original question from which your "moderation" is derived is: how can a good God exist with or have created a world brimming with evil? The fairly decisive answers to this question are called theodicies, of which my favorite is Keats's soul-making theodicy. But the most effective one has probably been the free will argument, which says that for humans to have freedom of choice they must be capable of doing evil. Earthquakes and disease, while unfortunate, are hardly 'evil,' which clearly implies intent. Theologians have been spanking atheists on this subject for years, so the atheists decided to moderate the question into one of suffering, which is a logical fallacy (begging the question) because it presupposes there is some fundamental incompatibility with goodness and suffering, a fairly vapid, modern notion. The original poster actually commits an additional instance of begging the question when he presupposes that God is directly "promoting" such suffering. If you expect a rational response, you must first pose a rational question. Therefore....

If you want someone to rationally answer your original question, you must first demonstrate how a "good God" and a world with "suffering" are necessarily incompatible. Second, you must demonstrate how God must necessarily be "promoting suffering." To save all the weekend atheists the trouble of more sophomoric incoherencies, let me just say that the New Atheists have largely failed in this task.

What I don't think most adherents of popular atheism understand is that, though there are quite a few atheist philosophers, there are very few concerned with explicitly arguing about the nature or existence of God, whereas there have been major religious and academic efforts to make the arguments in favor of God for centuries. Few academic atheists are concerned with refuting, say, the ontological argument for God, whereas nearly every theist is interested in defending it. The end result is that when a few crackpot popularizers of atheism emerge with a bunch of wacky non-arguments, they are neither prepared for nor even acquainted with the opposing literature, and because there isn't much serious academic literature that is explicitly atheist, they are generally uninformed about the topic period. This is why people like Hitchens get thoroughly eviscerated in debates by people like William Lane Craig and why people like Dawkins spend so much time avoiding people like Craig that even other atheists start calling them cowards. 

This relates to this post in that the poster is so obviously unacquainted with the subject that he poses a question that wouldn't pass muster in a high school debate class.

By the way, my favorite criticism of New Atheism came from Terry Eagleton, former Oxford professor. "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology."

----------


## G L Wilson

> I find it a bit funny that so many half-clever atheists feel compelled to antagonize theists in a forum concerning religious texts.
> 
> As for the question at hand, you've got it all wrong. First, the original question from which your "moderation" is derived is: how can a good God exist with or have created a world brimming with evil? The fairly decisive answers to this question are called theodicies, of which my favorite is Keats's soul-making theodicy. But the most effective one has probably been the free will argument, which says that for humans to have freedom of choice they must be capable of doing evil. Earthquakes and disease, while unfortunate, are hardly 'evil,' which clearly implies intent. Theologians have been spanking atheists on this subject for years, so the atheists decided to moderate the question into one of suffering, which is a logical fallacy (begging the question) because it presupposes there is some fundamental incompatibility with goodness and suffering, a fairly vapid, modern notion. The original poster actually commits an additional instance of begging the question when he presupposes that God is directly "promoting" such suffering. If you expect a rational response, you must first pose a rational question. Therefore....
> 
> If you want someone to rationally answer your original question, you must first demonstrate how a "good God" and a world with "suffering" are necessarily incompatible. Second, you must demonstrate how God must necessarily be "promoting suffering." To save all the weekend atheists the trouble of more sophomoric incoherencies, let me just say that the New Atheists have largely failed in this task.
> 
> What I don't think most adherents of popular atheism understand is that, though there are quite a few atheist philosophers, there are very few concerned with explicitly arguing about the nature or existence of God, whereas there have been major religious and academic efforts to make the arguments in favor of God for centuries. Few academic atheists are concerned with refuting, say, the ontological argument for God, whereas nearly every theist is interested in defending it. The end result is that when a few crackpot popularizers of atheism emerge with a bunch of wacky non-arguments, they are neither prepared for nor even acquainted with the opposing literature, and because there isn't much serious academic literature that is explicitly atheist, they are generally uninformed about the topic period. This is why people like Hitchens get thoroughly eviscerated in debates by people like William Lane Craig and why people like Dawkins spend so much time avoiding people like Craig that even other atheists start calling them cowards. 
> 
> This relates to this post in that the poster is so obviously unacquainted with the subject that he poses a question that wouldn't pass muster in a high school debate class.
> ...


For non-arguments, no-one can beat a religio. Heaven hates us so much that the bile fairly drips from it. As they say, jealousy is a curse.

----------


## Arrowni

It makes no sense to be an atheist and discuss about God, it would be more logical to be an antitheist or something like that, which frankly sounds kind of like just being a jerk.

----------


## cl154576

> It makes no sense to be an atheist and discuss about God, it would be more logical to be an antitheist or something like that, which frankly sounds kind of like just being a jerk.


As an atheist I see the Bible as a book that people decided to take more literally than other books. To my knowledge I am allowed to criticize characters in other books, even if other people like these characters. What is so wrong, then, about criticizing this character known as God?

----------


## Buh4Bee

NOTHING, and I am a believer.

----------


## YesNo

> I find it a bit funny that so many half-clever atheists feel compelled to antagonize theists in a forum concerning religious texts.


I think the reason that atheist vs theist exchanges keep popping up around here is because people find it entertaining to antagonize each other.




> how can a good God exist with or have created a world brimming with evil? The fairly decisive answers to this question are called theodicies, of which my favorite is Keats's soul-making theodicy. But the most effective one has probably been the *free will argument*, which says that for humans to have freedom of choice they must be capable of doing evil.


I think I agree. We might as well accept responsibility, collectively, for why things are messed up rather than waste our time blaming some deity for it. 




> Theologians have been spanking atheists on this subject for years, so the atheists decided to moderate the question into one of suffering, which is a logical fallacy (begging the question) because it presupposes there is some fundamental incompatibility with goodness and *suffering*, a fairly vapid, modern notion.


Suffering is a topic that interests me. Buddhists seem to have a desire to go beyond suffering. This, I think, is very different from the atheistic interest in removing suffering or maximizing pleasure.

What puzzles me about suffering is that we are the cause of so much of it for the people who live around us especially when we want to punish them for doing something that gets on our nerves. If we really want to stop suffering we should just stop letting things that those closest to us do get on our nerves.

But, on the other hand, suffering seems like a great learning tool. I'd hate to see it completely eliminated.




> This is why people like Hitchens get thoroughly eviscerated in debates by people like William Lane Craig and why people like Dawkins spend so much time avoiding people like Craig that even other atheists start calling them cowards.


I found a copy of William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith's _Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology_ in the library tonight as a result of your reference to Craig. I first became interested in the Big Bang when I learned from an atheist, of all people, that scientists not only believe that the universe had a beginning, but it had a beginning out of _nothing_, that is, out of no pre-existing space-time matter-energy stuff. 

I don't see how any atheist can find the thought of that tolerable.

----------


## G L Wilson

> I found a copy of William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith's _Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology_ in the library tonight as a result of your reference to Craig. I first became interested in the Big Bang when I learned from an atheist, of all people, that scientists not only believe that the universe had a beginning, but it had a beginning out of _nothing_, that is, out of no pre-existing space-time matter-energy stuff. 
> 
> I don't see how any atheist can find the thought of that tolerable.


I don't find the thought of that tolerable. I don't think about that.

----------


## YesNo

> I don't find the thought of that tolerable. I don't think about that.


Well, that's one way to handle what's intolerable: don't think about it.  :Smile:

----------


## G L Wilson

> Well, that's one way to handle what's intolerable: don't think about it.


We suffer for no reason.

----------


## Darcy88

> I find it a bit funny that so many half-clever atheists feel compelled to antagonize theists in a forum concerning religious texts.
> 
> As for the question at hand, you've got it all wrong. First, the original question from which your "moderation" is derived is: how can a good God exist with or have created a world brimming with evil? The fairly decisive answers to this question are called theodicies, of which my favorite is Keats's soul-making theodicy. But the most effective one has probably been the free will argument, which says that for humans to have freedom of choice they must be capable of doing evil. Earthquakes and disease, while unfortunate, are hardly 'evil,' which clearly implies intent. Theologians have been spanking atheists on this subject for years, so the atheists decided to moderate the question into one of suffering, which is a logical fallacy (begging the question) because it presupposes there is some fundamental incompatibility with goodness and suffering, a fairly vapid, modern notion. The original poster actually commits an additional instance of begging the question when he presupposes that God is directly "promoting" such suffering. If you expect a rational response, you must first pose a rational question. Therefore....
> 
> If you want someone to rationally answer your original question, you must first demonstrate how a "good God" and a world with "suffering" are necessarily incompatible. Second, you must demonstrate how God must necessarily be "promoting suffering." To save all the weekend atheists the trouble of more sophomoric incoherencies, let me just say that the New Atheists have largely failed in this task.
> 
> What I don't think most adherents of popular atheism understand is that, though there are quite a few atheist philosophers, there are very few concerned with explicitly arguing about the nature or existence of God, whereas there have been major religious and academic efforts to make the arguments in favor of God for centuries. Few academic atheists are concerned with refuting, say, the ontological argument for God, whereas nearly every theist is interested in defending it. The end result is that when a few crackpot popularizers of atheism emerge with a bunch of wacky non-arguments, they are neither prepared for nor even acquainted with the opposing literature, and because there isn't much serious academic literature that is explicitly atheist, they are generally uninformed about the topic period. This is why people like Hitchens get thoroughly eviscerated in debates by people like William Lane Craig and why people like Dawkins spend so much time avoiding people like Craig that even other atheists start calling them cowards. 
> 
> This relates to this post in that the poster is so obviously unacquainted with the subject that he poses a question that wouldn't pass muster in a high school debate class.
> ...


I agree with you that the New Atheists are largely ignorant about and prejudiced towards religion. But, that said, there simply are no robust, irrefutable arguments for God's existence. The ontological argument is weak and has been shown to be such by many thinkers, including Kant and Aquinas. Here's what Hume has to say about it:

_[T]here is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by any arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being, therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction. Consequently there is no being, whose existence is demonstrable._

Then there's the cosmological argument, which makes no sense to me, since if the universe needs a cause then why does God not also need a cause?

The weakest in my opinion is the so called "argument from design."

Perhaps the existence of suffering does not neccessarily disprove that there is a God, but it is indeed difficult to reconcile the death of a child with the existence of an infinitely good, infinitely powerful God, especially when said death is accidental and free will plays no part. And if you think of how many children, how many small innocent children have succumbed to famine and disease and natural disasters throughout the history of mankind, I'd say any God who set up such a state of affairs can only plead either impotence or indifference.

----------


## G L Wilson

If God existed, it would change nothing.

----------


## YesNo

> Then there's the cosmological argument, which makes no sense to me, since if the universe needs a cause then why does God not also need a cause?


I suspect if God were part of the universe (matter-energy within spacetime) then it would need a cause, but if it were not part of the universe then the idea of causality would not be meaningful since there wouldn't be any time, at least as we know it.

Just a guess.

I like to think that since the universe had a beginning it must be grounded in another dimension. One can call that God or whatever. Otherwise, one would have to say that the universe was created by Chance, which I would then call a God. But I think invoking Chance is even more absurd than acknowledging some grounding dimension. 

Since you quoted Hume, I doubt that he would have any higher confidence in Chance than I do. Here's a quote from Hume that G L Wilson told me about in a different thread: "...there be no such thing as Chance in the world...": http://18th.eserver.org/hume-enquiry.html#6 Of course Hume lived centuries ago. He didn't know about radioactivity or that the universe had an origin in the Big Bang.

----------


## Darcy88

> I suspect if God were part of the universe (matter-energy within spacetime) then it would need a cause, but if it were not part of the universe then the idea of causality would not be meaningful since there wouldn't be any time, at least as we know it.
> 
> Just a guess.
> 
> I like to think that since the universe had a beginning it must be grounded in another dimension. One can call that God or whatever. Otherwise, one would have to say that the universe was created by Chance, which I would then call a God. But I think invoking Chance is even more absurd than acknowledging some grounding dimension. 
> 
> Since you quoted Hume, I doubt that he would have any higher confidence in Chance than I do. Here's a quote from Hume that G L Wilson told me about in a different thread: "...there be no such thing as Chance in the world...": http://18th.eserver.org/hume-enquiry.html#6 Of course Hume lived centuries ago. He didn't know about radioactivity or that the universe had an origin in the Big Bang.


I don't think invoking chance is absurd. Why should it be? 

This discussion provoked me to do some digging. Here's something I found:



_Cosmologists Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok..... theorize that the cosmos was never compacted into a single point and did not spring forth in a violent instant. Instead, the universe as we know it is a small cross section of a much grander universe whose true magnitude is hidden in dimensions we cannot perceive. What we think of as the Big Bang, they contend, was the result of a collision between our three-dimensional world and another three-dimensional world less than the width of a proton away from ours—right next to us, and yet displaced in a way that renders it invisible. Moreover, they say the Big Bang is just the latest in a cycle of cosmic collisions stretching infinitely into the past and into the future. Each collision creates the universe anew. The 13.7-billion-year history of our cosmos is just a moment in this endless expanse of time._

Now if you would please excuse me..... I'll be spending the next several hours gathering the scattered pieces of my blown mind.

----------


## G L Wilson

There is no longer any good _a priori_.

----------


## YesNo

> I don't think invoking chance is absurd. Why should it be? 
> 
> This discussion provoked me to do some digging. Here's something I found:
> 
> 
> 
> _Cosmologists Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok..... theorize that the cosmos was never compacted into a single point and did not spring forth in a violent instant. Instead, the universe as we know it is a small cross section of a much grander universe whose true magnitude is hidden in dimensions we cannot perceive. What we think of as the Big Bang, they contend, was the result of a collision between our three-dimensional world and another three-dimensional world less than the width of a proton away from oursright next to us, and yet displaced in a way that renders it invisible. Moreover, they say the Big Bang is just the latest in a cycle of cosmic collisions stretching infinitely into the past and into the future. Each collision creates the universe anew. The 13.7-billion-year history of our cosmos is just a moment in this endless expanse of time._
> 
> Now if you would please excuse me..... I'll be spending the next several hours gathering the scattered pieces of my blown mind.


Interesting explanation of the big bang! 

I suspect there are other universes out there so why not have them collide? However, I wonder if entropy would wear this infinite machine down? If so, it would have worn down by now.

The idea of colliding universes does illustrate that the idea of the universe having a beginning is an intolerable idea. Either come up with a cause, collisions in this case, or acknowledge some other dimension from which a choice was made to create it.

----------


## joelavine

Whether or not one is a believer in a supreme being, and whether or not one is a Buddhist (a different thing entirely), either philosophically or religiously, one option is to strive to find enlightenment and thus escape suffering by embracing life as including pain. The beginning of this is understanding that pain and suffering are two very different things. If one is a believer, one can perhaps find that there is a God given grace in such an aspiration. 

Lest this seem Pollyannaish drivel, I don't believe it is necessarily something achievable, much less easily so. None of us is Buddha. But the idea is comforting. And perhaps, placed in a cosmology that allows for many earthly lives, it provides greater meaning and dimension.

----------


## G L Wilson

God suffers little in his little kingdom and is therefore not noble.

----------


## YesNo

> Whether or not one is a believer in a supreme being, and whether or not one is a Buddhist (a different thing entirely), either philosophically or religiously, one option is to strive to find enlightenment and thus escape suffering by embracing life as including pain. The beginning of this is understanding that *pain and suffering are two very different things*. If one is a believer, one can perhaps find that there is a God given grace in such an aspiration. 
> 
> Lest this seem Pollyannaish drivel, I don't believe it is necessarily something achievable, much less easily so. None of us is Buddha. But the idea is comforting. And perhaps, placed in a cosmology that allows for many earthly lives, it provides greater meaning and dimension.


If I understand the difference between pain and suffering, one can escape from suffering through enlightenment, but not pain. Right?

I do think we go through many earthly lives simply because others seem to have experienced this and reported on it, although I do not recall any of my own.

----------


## cl154576

Pain is inevitable, suffering is not. That's what I was told.

----------


## Paulclem

According to the Buddhist view, pain is a bodily response, and is part of gross suffering referred to in the 4 Noble Truths, of which the first is The Truth of Suffering. 

Suffering includes pain, but is more focused upon the existential suffering that we all experience through dissatisfaction, impermanence, not getting what we want, getting what we don't want, death etc. 

I have heard that upon realising a stable Emptiness, a practitioner is able to overcome bodily pain. This is a by-product though, as the aim is to strive for Enlightenment. Overcoming bodily pain is not an aim because there is pain relief in medicine etc.




> Whether or not one is a believer in a supreme being, and whether or not one is a Buddhist (a different thing entirely), either philosophically or religiously, one option is to strive to find enlightenment and thus escape suffering by embracing life as including pain. The beginning of this is understanding that pain and suffering are two very different things. If one is a believer, one can perhaps find that there is a God given grace in such an aspiration.


Are you suggesting that Buddhists believe in a creator God? In the Wheel of Life, there is a "God" realm, but no Creator God/ ultimate God. It is said that life and the universe are perpetual - never ending.

----------


## YesNo

> Are you suggesting that Buddhists believe in a creator God? In the Wheel of Life, there is a "God" realm, but no Creator God/ ultimate God. It is said that life and the universe are perpetual - never ending.


How do Buddhists view the Big Bang? That would be a beginning of the universe, I would assume.

----------


## G L Wilson

Buddhists and Christians are both indifferent to suffering and both equally useless.

----------


## Paulclem

> How do Buddhists view the Big Bang? That would be a beginning of the universe, I would assume.


I don't know of any specific reference to the Big Bang, just that life has been ongoing. for example it's said that beings have had countless lives. They refer to time in eons described as the amount of time it would take to wear down a 100 mile high lump of rock with one wipe of a piece of silk every 100 years.

The Buddha did say that it wasn't very productive to spend time investigating the distant past, and that a person should focus upon their current condition. he used the analogy of someone shot by an arrow where you wouldn't take time to find out where the arrow had come from, and who shot it before you had dealt with the wound.

----------


## Darcy88

Paulclem... I tried hard to track down the passage/sutra where that position is put forth, the arrow one. Thanks for bringing it up. I am really only that familiar with Zen Buddhism and it indeed does seem in Zen that such philosophical speculation is considered unimportant if not wholly irrelevant next to the urgent and absorbing task of attaining enlightenment.

----------


## Paulclem

> Buddhists and Christians are both indifferent to suffering and both equally useless.


 :Biggrin5: 

4 Noble Truths:

The truth of suffering
The causes of suffering
The cessation of suffering
The path to the cessation of suffering

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths

One man's useless is another man's useful.

Soundbites are a good way to communicate when you don't want much of a conversation.




> wwwww


I'm sorry - what does this mean?

----------


## Darcy88

> I'm sorry - what does this mean?


I wrote something and then decided it was a mistake. I took objection to G.L's characterization of the world's estimated 700 million Buddhists and 2 billion Christians as useless. Then I realized that it was pointless to engage him. I couldn't figure out how to delete my post and so I just wrote wwwww.

----------


## G L Wilson

> 4 Noble Truths:
> 
> The truth of suffering
> The causes of suffering
> The cessation of suffering
> The path to the cessation of suffering
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths
> 
> ...


The Buddhist is neither noble nor human. Buddha was a monster from palace to Nirvana, from the unawareness of suffering to the detachment of suffering from one's being. Such a rejection of the world shows neither care nor compassion, just a childish immaturity.

----------


## Paulclem

> The Buddhist is neither noble nor human. Buddha was a monster from palace to Nirvana, from the unawareness of suffering to the detachment of suffering from one's being. Such a rejection of the world shows neither care nor compassion, just a childish immaturity.


 :FRlol: 

... a childish immaturity... you're killing me. 

I take it you don't know the Buddha's story, or the meaning of attatchment.




> I wrote something and then decided it was a mistake. I took objection to G.L's characterization of the world's estimated 700 million Buddhists and 2 billion Christians as useless. Then I realized that it was pointless to engage him. I couldn't figure out how to delete my post and so I just wrote wwwww.


No worries - I thought it was a text comment that I was unaware of.  :Biggrin5:

----------


## G L Wilson

> ... a childish immaturity... you're killing me. 
> 
> I take it you don't know the Buddha's story, or the meaning of attatchment.


I do not speak from ignorance.

----------


## Paulclem

> I do not speak from ignorance.


So you should know that non-attachment is a state where the person who has achieved this is not attached in a negative way to people, places and objects. 

One of the problems sentient beings face is a counter productive attachment to stability in the face of impermanence. Non-attachment recognises this, and allows unclouded compassion to be expressed but with the realisation that nothing stays the same.

----------


## G L Wilson

> So you should know that non-attachment is a state where the person who has achieved this is not attached in a negative way to people, places and objects. 
> 
> One of the problems sentient beings face is a counter productive attachment to stability in the face of impermanence. Non-attachment recognises this, and allows unclouded compassion to be expressed but with the realisation that nothing stays the same.


Metaphysics! Now I laugh.

The face of Buddha is a death mask.

----------


## Paulclem

> Metaphysics! Now I laugh.


No it's an aim achieved through meditation. You're not demonstrating that youn know much about it.




> The face of Buddha is a death mask.


Why are you being offensive?

----------


## YesNo

> The Buddha did say that it wasn't very productive to spend time investigating the distant past, and that a person should focus upon their current condition. he used the analogy of someone shot by an arrow where you wouldn't take time to find out where the arrow had come from, and who shot it before you had dealt with the wound.


Yes, that makes sense. It probably doesn't matter from a current perspective on living one's life whether the universe had a beginning or not. It wouldn't change the practice.

----------


## G L Wilson

> No it's an aim achieved through meditation. You're not demonstrating that youn know much about it.


One can have either metaphysics or Enlightenment, one cannot have both.




> Why are you being offensive?


I am not being offensive. It's a fact, look at any statue of Buddha and tell me that it is not true what I said if you can.

----------


## Paulclem

> I am not being offensive. It's a fact, look at any statue of Buddha and tell me that it is not true what I said if you can.


I see what you mean -  :Biggrin5:  - though I disagree. It's supposed to represent meditative equipoise.

----------


## G L Wilson

> Yes, that makes sense. It probably doesn't matter from a current perspective on living one's life whether the universe had a beginning or not. It wouldn't change the practice.


If God existed, it would change nothing.

----------


## Paulclem

> One can have either metaphysics or Enlightenment, one cannot have both.


This is not true. from my understanding of the teachings.

In fact the two truths - which are about the realisation of Emptiness - talks of a realised being being able to view the ordinary world whilst contemplating Emptiness at the same time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine

----------


## cl154576

> I am not being offensive. It's a fact, look at any statue of Buddha and tell me that it is not true what I said if you can.


The fat Chinese Buddhas.

----------


## G L Wilson

> This is not true. from my understanding of the teachings.
> 
> In fact the two truths - which are about the realisation of Emptiness - talks of a realised being being able to view the ordinary world whilst contemplating Emptiness at the same time.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine


Interesting. I must confess my ignorance of this doctrine until now. Of two truths, both must be a lie. As Henry Ford said, "History is bunk." To me, natural philosophy has no rival and is the only truth.

----------


## Darcy88

> One can have either metaphysics or Enlightenment, one cannot have both.


What are you talking about? Realizing the impermanence of all things is the core if not the definition of Buddhist enlightenment.

----------


## G L Wilson

> What are you talking about? Realizing the impermanence of all things is the core if not the definition of Buddhist enlightenment.


The care of oneself is a universal truth and contradicts every metaphysics that pretends to universal knowledge.

----------


## Paulclem

> Interesting. I must confess my ignorance of this doctrine until now. Of two truths, both must be a lie. As Henry Ford said, "History is bunk." To me, natural philosophy has no rival and is the only truth.


No-one can tell you what to believe. It's up to you mate - or as The Buddha put it:

Be a lamp to yourself. (In an ancient Indian language)  :Biggrin5:

----------


## Darcy88

> The care of oneself is a universal truth and contradicts every metaphysics that pretends to universal knowledge.


Spoken like a true nihilist. No, no, no, no, no ad infinitum. The doctrine of impermanence makes a lot of sense. I'd suggest you contemplate it more intensively.

----------


## G L Wilson

> Spoken like a true nihilist. No, no, no, no, no ad infinitum. The doctrine of impermanence makes a lot of sense. I'd suggest you contemplate it more intensively.


One can be selfish for love, in fact it is the nature of man to be.

----------


## Paulclem

> One can be selfish for love, in fact it is the nature of man to be.


HH The Dalai Lama has an interesting take on selfishness. He says that to be really skillfully selfish, you should be kind to other beings as this generates good karma, and raises your status in the eyes of others as a kind person.

Underlying this idea is the Buddhist method that if you practce somethng enough, you will become it. So, you may start off as being genuinely selfish in what you do for others, but repetition will make you become really unselfish. 

My colleague was telling me about an experiement that was held with couples who were on the verge of divorce. As part of the experiment, they were told to be kind to their partner for a number of weeks. It was found that this had a generally positive effect upon the people and their relationships, even though they all knew the terms of the experiment, and thy found common ground again. (This is from my colleague - I can't find what he's referring to on the internet).

----------


## G L Wilson

> HH The Dalai Lama has an interesting take on selfishness. He says that to be really skillfully selfish, you should be kind to other beings as this generates good karma, and raises your status in the eyes of others as a kind person.
> 
> Underlying this idea is the Buddhist method that if you practce somethng enough, you will become it. So, you may start off as being genuinely selfish in what you do for others, but repetition will make you become really unselfish. 
> 
> My colleague was telling me about an experiement that was held with couples who were on the verge of divorce. As part of the experiment, they were told to be kind to their partner for a number of weeks. It was found that this had a generally positive effect upon the people and their relationships, even though they all knew the terms of the experiment, and thy found common ground again. (This is from my colleague - I can't find what he's referring to on the internet).


I believe in the power of positive thought but not in miracles.

----------


## Paulclem

It's all done through thought - powerful stuff.

----------


## G L Wilson

> It's all done through thought - powerful stuff.


Buddhist magic inflicts a con upon the innocent and should be held in the utmost contempt by the rational thinker like all the bogus claims of religion. In this respect, nothing is more bogus than rationalism.

----------


## Darcy88

> Buddhist magic inflicts a con upon the innocent and should be held in the utmost contempt by the rational thinker like all the bogus claims of religion.


You are out of your element. Buddhist meditation practices actually alter the functioning and the structure of the brain. Its not bogus. It increases activity in the left prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain associated with rational thought.

The four noble truths, the doctrine of the impermanence and conditionality of all things - what exactly do you take issue with here?

----------


## G L Wilson

> You are out of your element. Buddhist meditation practices actually alter the functioning and the structure of the brain. Its not bogus. It increases activity in the left prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain associated with rational thought.


Isn't this the exact opposite of what is intended by Buddhist meditation?




> The four noble truths, the doctrine of the impermanence and conditionality of all things - what exactly do you take issue with here?


Wholesale detachment from reality sounds a lot like psychosis to me.

----------


## Darcy88

> Wholesale detachment from reality sounds a lot like psychosis to me.


I suppose that depends on how one defines the word "reality." To me the essence of Buddhism is exactly what I set forth before - the doctrine of the impermanence and conditionality of all things, especially that of the self. What about that indicates a "wholesale detachment from reality?"

----------


## G L Wilson

> I suppose that depends on how one defines the word "reality." To me the essence of Buddhism is exactly what I set forth before - the doctrine of the impermanence and conditionality of all things, especially that of the self. What about that indicates a "wholesale detachment from reality?"


It is interesting that you should be interested in the self now. I thought that ego was a dirty word with Buddhists, why should humanity's impermanency concerned you? is my question to you.

----------


## Darcy88

> It is interesting that you should be interested in the self now. I thought that ego was a dirty word with Buddhists, why should humanity's impermanency concerned you? is my question to you.


Realizing that the self is an illusion, that its subject to the same impermanence and conditioning as the rest of reality, is the fundamental "aha" moment in all Buddhism.

I'm not even a Buddhist. I merely appreciate the sublime sense and elegance of the philosophy.

----------


## G L Wilson

> Realizing that the self is an illusion, that its subject to the same impermanence and conditioning as the rest of reality, is the fundamental "aha" moment in all Buddhism.
> 
> I'm not even a Buddhist. I merely appreciate the sublime sense and elegance of the philosophy.


In humanism, the self is the start of philosophy and not the end. The self-deception that goes into Buddhism is astounding to me.

----------


## Paulclem

> Wholesale detachment from reality sounds a lot like psychosis to me.


The phrase is non-attachment not detatchment. 

Non-attachment means to not be negatively influenced by things, people, places. It does not mean - as detatchment implies - cutting off from. 

This is often wrongly equated with acetics who are on retreat, as if it is a symptom of their detatchment from society. This is not the case. A person goes on retreat to solve their own problems in order to better understand and help those in the world. 

Understanding yourself helps you to understand others.




> It is interesting that you should be interested in the self now. I thought that ego was a dirty word with Buddhists, why should humanity's impermanency concerned you? is my question to you.


As Darcy says, it is about understanding the illusory nature of our projected self. Self delusion is like a common and unrecognsed madness. It leads to an overwhelming protection of the self - often without good cause - which leads to suffering and the development of bad karma. The worst case of defending some illusory self is the urge to war that often goes along withthe identfication of individuals wit a national identity. Lots of suffering and death result from it. 

why should humanity's impermanency concerned you?

The ultimate aim of Buddhists is to free themselves and others from suffering. 

Impermanence is often the cause of suffering - the greatest impermanence being the fragilityof the individual and death. Also humanity is a Buddhist's concern which is why compassion is developed.




> In humanism, the self is the start of philosophy and not the end. The self-deception that goes into Buddhism is astounding to me.


Please explain what you mean by self deception. The aim of many meditations is self awareness and precisely the opposite of what you describe. 

Buddhism has values similar to humanist values in that it promotes and has compassion for the suffering of humanty. It doesn't stop there though as it extends this compassion to all living beings. 

It goes much further in the sense of understanding the mid and providing the practitioner with methods for imrpoving their daily lives - through meditation reflection and practice. It identifies antidotes for negative human emotions like anger, greed etc and maps a way of overcoming negative traits and promoting positive ones.

----------


## cl154576

> The phrase is non-attachment not detatchment. 
> 
> Non-attachment means to not be negatively influenced by things, people, places. It does not mean - as detatchment implies - cutting off from.


I've heard about that a million times in therapy ... Letting go of your emotions; "do you want to be right, or do you want to be effective?" ... Acknowledging the emotions, letting go of them; trying to "regulate" emotions, to ease their intensity and make them "tolerable" ...

I believe we have emotions for a reason, other than that they serve some unconscious function. Without intense, _lasting_ anger, hatred, despair, &c., the great writing and music of the world would be nonexistent. If all these artists simply "let go" of their emotions, we would have nothing. Beauty lies in conflict.

I like Bach's description for one of his pieces: "Wir müssen durch viel Trübsal in das Reich Gottes eingehen." (We must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.)

----------


## G L Wilson

> Please explain what you mean by self deception. The aim of many meditations is self awareness and precisely the opposite of what you describe. 
> 
> Buddhism has values similar to humanist values in that it promotes and has compassion for the suffering of humanty. It doesn't stop there though as it extends this compassion to all living beings. 
> 
> It goes much further in the sense of understanding the mid and providing the practitioner with methods for imrpoving their daily lives - through meditation reflection and practice. It identifies antidotes for negative human emotions like anger, greed etc and maps a way of overcoming negative traits and promoting positive ones.


The mind always returns to the self, to violence. There is no escape from this fact of life, only rest in sacrifice.

----------


## Paulclem

> I've heard about that a million times in therapy ... Letting go of your emotions; "do you want to be right, or do you want to be effective?" ... Acknowledging the emotions, letting go of them; trying to "regulate" emotions, to ease their intensity and make them "tolerable" ...
> 
> I believe we have emotions for a reason, other than that they serve some unconscious function. Without intense, _lasting_ anger, hatred, despair, &c., the great writing and music of the world would be nonexistent. If all these artists simply "let go" of their emotions, we would have nothing. Beauty lies in conflict.
> 
> I like Bach's description for one of his pieces: "Wir müssen durch viel Trübsal in das Reich Gottes eingehen." (We must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.)


I didn't say letting go of emotions. In fact it's a case of reducing negative emotions like anger with a positive one like patience. There's no such phrase in Buddhism. You're right - we have emotions fr a reason, and lots of meditation practices concern developing compassion, appreciation for others etc etc. 

It's like the myth you hear of Buddhists saying empty your mind. I've never been instructed by a Teacher to empty my mind - which is impossible. Rather you work with your mind.




> The mind always returns to the self, to violence. There is no escape from this fact of life, only rest in sacrifice.


Nonsense.

----------


## G L Wilson

> Nonsense.


I am justified of my violent self by heroics.

----------


## Paulclem

> I am justified of my violent self by heroics.


Not sure... :Biggrin5:

----------


## G L Wilson

> Not sure...


Damn.

----------


## Thomas Novosel

In the Bible does god really do anything besides give advice and suggestions?
No, he just is a sentient onlooker, who is able to control certain things but overall leaves us to our own devices... Just as the creator of the Atom Bomb did not know what implications it would have in the future and how he could not control it... so does God after creating man is unable to alter our own decisions becuase we have free will...and as they are our decisions should he really be dued the blame for the reaction of said decisions? No... As for diseases, illnesses, and suffering across the world... some are natural disasters and some are due to the cruelty of another person.

And to MarkBastable,... promotion of Disease can occur through the void of action on your account aswell... by not becoming concerned and atleast learning prevention measures for yourself (skin cancer: don't go out in the sun at midday when the sun is at the highest and closest distance to you, relatively speaking of course, or at least stay in the shade, wear sunscreen...) becuase you have to realize what affects you is not just against yourself but against your children aswell. Diseases occur usually through ignorance of easily attainable prevention measures (aside from genetic conditions). Many things otherwise are preventable it is just that most people underestimate the weight there decisions make, that their influence can affect others, and will willingly sit around and say that they cannot do anything about it. But anyone can help the cuase of others,... spend 15 minutes and write a letter to your congressmen, or spend 5 min. researching prevention measures and tell your friends and family about them.

----------


## usman.khawar

> i think No. we are not allowed to kill other human beings in the name of God. but what if other try to impose war and you have to defend yourself and your country? than God says fight and kill. there are so many systems human invented. but all fails. no classes. no difference. every system fails. i concluded there should b a system which God made and want human to impose on earth.
> Adam's error was just the reason to send us on earth. and in quran God says go on earth, and when adam ask apology God forgave him and said on earth there is some benifit for you as well. so if any one come to you and says the right things to do follow him. from adam to Muhammad Allah sent 124,ooo mesengers. code of conducts was different with every messenger. but the real objective was same. that is there is no god but Allah, creating gods is the biggest sin. and the same objective that is to find and understand there is only One God. God of all universes and mankind, in chapter Luqman, God catogorizes the biggest sins. when Luqman teaches his son starting from verse no 13 you can see yourself
> 
> 1. Alif*Lâm*Mîm. 
> 
> 2. These are Verses of the Wise Book (the Qur'ân). 
> 
> 3. A guide and a mercy for the Muhsinûn (good*doers) 
> 
> ...


...Paul what if Man dont impose God's system on earth? nor understand His given systems?

----------


## Paulclem

> ...Paul what if Man dont impose God's system on earth? nor understand His given systems?


Putting aside the question of whether it is God's law or not, I think there's a political aspect to the qustion. This comes in with the interpretation and the extension of the law. 

In the past, what has been claimed as God's law has resulted in intransigence and cultural practices that don't seem to have any purpose but control. For example: there are different rules about women's clothing, depending upon where you are; there are different interpretations about whether homosexuals are acceptable or not; there are different interpretations of whether contraception is allowed; about which day is holy or for particular purposes; about what kinds of food are allowed. etc, etc. 

Quite aside from the existence of God is the question of how one can decide what God's law actally is. The religions concerned with the questions above - the different sects of Christians, Jews, and Muslims - will claim that their interpretation is God's law. 

The adoption of one precludes the other. We are now in the situation in the Christian church where rifts are appearing precisely because of this. The same has happened in other religions too. 

So there's a problem with which given system.

I also think there's a problem with the word "impose". How can belief be imposed upon anyone? I suppose that's why we have the secular law, because it is very unclear which law is God's, and what happens when some accept it and others don't.

----------


## Rores28

> Yep. If God can see the future then he knew the Fall of Man would occur and would, in fact, know every single person who was destined to go to Hell. 
> 
> This is only the beginning of the freaky extrapolations one gets by assuming an all-powerful, all-seeing God. 
> 
> If God already knows who is going to heaven and who is going to hell, he'd be arbitrarily creating some people who would be destined for paradise and some who'd be destined for eternal suffering. 
> 
> Furthermore, what's the point of creating children and then having them die right away, such as in the case of a miscarriage? In these cases the people do not get the opportunity to choose right over wrong or learn any lessons. God knew they'd be created and destroyed right away without a chance at life so why not prevent it? If they go to Hell that's bull**** because they never had a chance, and if they go to heaven that's bull**** because they got a free pass.
> 
> I could go on and on like this just with omniscience. Throw in omnipotence and one could devote their life to finding oddities in the concept of God.


I've never found these arguments particularly compelling. You're already accepting the premise that god is omnipotent therefore it can do anything. Anything that you perceive as pointless or immoral can all be part of a bigger divine plan. Even questions like "can god microwave a burrito so hot that even he can't eat it" become silly. If god is truly omnipotent then it can do anything, even superseding paradoxes like this. god is also seen as a divine authority, so no moral objection you have could be vindicated. At most you could only say you don't like god's morals.

----------


## Darcy88

I'm still very much an atheist, but the problem of evil is no longer an issue in my eyes. It used to be the one thing I could always aim at Christianity and be assured a clean devastating hit. But if God created a crystal palace utopia then life would suck. Without evil life would suck. Indeed, without suffering and without evil life would cease and there'd be nothing but waking death. Through suffering we learn and we strengthen ourselves. My parents didn't give me nice things growing up, there were spans of time covering multiple years where my life at home and in my head was a ghastly flaming hell. But I am glad for all that. As cliched as it sounds, it made me who I am. If God gave us everything on a silver platter we'd be a boring unadmirable species. Paradise Lost would suck bad if Eve hadn't taken a bite, if Lucifer hadn't picked a fight. A baby being born HIV positive is a hard thing to accept even with my attitude and I do not accept it. But overall, as far as this world as a whole goes, I absolve God of this charge that he ought to line every street with gold and wrap every surface in protective bubble-sheets and guarantee our every comfort and wish. Its ridiculous. Being born is setting out to sea and if that sea is without ripple, without wave or tumult.......what's the point?

----------


## FranzS

> You come at me with Paul? Read on in Romans and see what there is to find. Nonetheless, Heaven is poorly populated. As Nietzsche said, "In Heaven, all the interesting people are missing." There will be a lot of good people down in hell, why should I be afraid to go there?


The idea of hell is surely that you suffer torment. Having groovy people around you while you suffer torment wouldn't, I'd have thought, be much consolation. 

I don't know whether Heaven and Hell exist... If they do, I'm sure they're not like anybody imagines them. (I am pretty certain there is something more than the material world, but all we can ever get is hints and intimations. On balance I tend to the Hindu view that the material world is an illusion - "God's dream", as someone else here put it.)

----------


## FranzS

> I'm still very much an atheist, but the problem of evil is no longer an issue in my eyes. It used to be the one thing I could always aim at Christianity and be assured a clean devastating hit. But if God created a crystal palace utopia then life would suck. Without evil life would suck. Indeed, without suffering and without evil life would cease and there'd be nothing but waking death. Through suffering we learn and we strengthen ourselves. My parents didn't give me nice things growing up, there were spans of time covering multiple years where my life at home and in my head was a ghastly flaming hell. But I am glad for all that. As cliched as it sounds, it made me who I am. If God gave us everything on a silver platter we'd be a boring unadmirable species. Paradise Lost would suck bad if Eve hadn't taken a bite, if Lucifer hadn't picked a fight. A baby being born HIV positive is a hard thing to accept even with my attitude and I do not accept it. But overall, as far as this world as a whole goes, I absolve God of this charge that he ought to line every street with gold and wrap every surface in protective bubble-sheets and guarantee our every comfort and wish. Its ridiculous. Being born is setting out to sea and if that sea is without ripple, without wave or tumult.......what's the point?


Schopenhauer has some subtle ideas about religion... Basically, his argument is that man (well not just man, all life - "Will" to use S's term) took the option of abandoning timeless, desireless, uncontingent existence in order to acquire material form. Man/Will gains material consistency, a body to call his own - but he also gains an adversary in the form of an external world he can't control.

So by this argument, even things like natural disasters are just consequences of our having opted to live in a material, contingent world - well not "our" having opted for this, but the subconscious souls that we carry.

In a sense, the Devil can be interpreted as "the spirit of materialism" or "the architect of the world" - some argue that everything that is matter is the Devil's work. Hence earthquakes etc. can be blamed on the Devil rather than God. Where this leaves God's supposed omnipotence, I don't know... I kind of intuitively think of God as having agreed not to intercede (much) in the material world... and perhaps the suffering of humanity will seem, from the transcendent perspective, irrelevant - just as the second you awake from a nightmare, it's as though it happened to someone else.

----------


## Paulclem

The problem of evil posts that if there's a God the Creator, then why allow evil into the world in the first place. 

If God's not an omnipotent creator - then that would explain it. If God is an omnipotent creator, then there's the problem of why. There is speculation upon this, and you can see the argument that says it's to test humans, to provide them with challenges and to help them develop. That makes sense. What doesn't make sense is senseless suffering. How do people benefit from the cruelty of tsunami that destroys thousands of lives, or a holocaust and war that killed millions? 

In the theistic worldviews, you have one life to make the best of your circumstances. So where's the test or development in being born into grinding poverty and dying of starvation? There are things to be learned by such situations, but what would you think of a God that set up such a situation to teach you that? You do hear this argument - that these things are sent to try us, and God gives the greatest burdon to those with the broadest backs, but these are invariably uttered by people who live in comfortable circumstances and who know little of the extent of suffering in the world.

----------


## usman.khawar

Paul's point is very well answered and explained by darcy. "Being born is setting out to sea and if that sea is without ripple, without wave or tumult.......what's the point? " and also " if God created a crystal palace utopia then life would suck. Without evil life would suck. Indeed, without suffering and without evil life would cease" this is what i have already wrote. but these wordings are much better than mine which darcy used to interprete this view. What darcy if we replace the word suck with stuck ?

we cant say anything senseless without knowledge. i think i have shared a story or gave hint of that from quran about Moses and khizer. When Moses asked God in little pride that on earth is there anyone who have more knowledge then me? God suggested him to meet with khizer. he met him and asked him" whether i can walk with you to learn that knowlegde which u have" ? khizer replied you cant walk me coz u would nt hold patience! you are unable to make sense about the things which happens around me. Moses insisted. khizer said on one condition you can go with me that is you will not question me. Moses gave his words! They start their journey. They reached at river and aksed a poor professional boatman to drop them on the other side of the river, and sat in the boat. When they were leaving khizer made some holes in the new ship of poor boat man. Moses wondered and could not stop himself to make a question “why did u make holes in the only ship of poor boat man?” khizer taunt him that he was not supposed to make a question no matter how much senseless things happened. Moses was curious but revised his promise to continue his journey with khizer to learn what he got. They continued and reached at a place where some kids were playing. Khizer killed a child with no apparent reason. Moses now could not control himself and burst in wonder “why did u kill an innocent boy” this was totally sense less for Moses that boy was the only son of his parents. The same dialogue was spoken and moses said that give me last chance I’ll not ask question again and once more time they continued and reached at a village. Khizer asked some food from the dwellers but they refused to give strangers any compensation. Khizer now started to rebuild a wall of a plot which was about to fell. Moses helped him and when they finished, khizer step forward to leave the village. Moses was again surprised he caught the arm of khizer and asked why did not you ask for food again as wages? 

Khizer stopped and said to moses “you and me cannot walk together” and here khizer unveiled the secret of patience “how can u keep patience without knowledge” if u dont have knowlegde you cannot keep patience. 

Before leaving he also told him the reasons of his acts which were directly commanded and directed by God. On the otherside of the river there was a new cruel king who was snatching the new boats to make his naval fllet for deep waters so I made holes. That kid was the child of faithful couple, this kid would make trouble not only for himself but also would be caused to damage the faith of his parents. Now I killed him, his parents would keep patience that God does always good, in the reward God give them more children which would prove blessings for his parents. That kid would also be dwel in paradise for eternity. The last act, that plot belongs to a noble man who prayed while dying that o my lord, when my children reached at the age of maturity then the treasure which he buried under that wall would open to them. 

i have a verse in mind about it. La hola wla quwata illa billa, beautiful and mind opening verse to understand the intention system , suffering and blessings. which also clarify the point what devil's work is, how many basics powers in the universe etc.. will write soon..

----------


## Darcy88

> Schopenhauer has some subtle ideas about religion... Basically, his argument is that man (well not just man, all life - "Will" to use S's term) took the option of abandoning timeless, desireless, uncontingent existence in order to acquire material form. Man/Will gains material consistency, a body to call his own - but he also gains an adversary in the form of an external world he can't control.
> 
> So by this argument, even things like natural disasters are just consequences of our having opted to live in a material, contingent world - well not "our" having opted for this, but the subconscious souls that we carry.
> 
> In a sense, the Devil can be interpreted as "the spirit of materialism" or "the architect of the world" - some argue that everything that is matter is the Devil's work. Hence earthquakes etc. can be blamed on the Devil rather than God. Where this leaves God's supposed omnipotence, I don't know... I kind of intuitively think of God as having agreed not to intercede (much) in the material world... and perhaps the suffering of humanity will seem, from the transcendent perspective, irrelevant - just as the second you awake from a nightmare, it's as though it happened to someone else.


Damn, that's some insight you have into this matter. Everything you say makes a lot of sense. According to Christianity at creation God became material or brought materiality into existence, and with that began this contingency you speak of. Thus began differentiation and contrast and strife. To wish that all be good and calm is to wish for universal death, a receding of creation and cessation of the material. 

Please keep posting here. This post of yours is very well-written and informative, a joy.

----------


## Paulclem

> Paul's point is very well answered and explained by darcy. "Being born is setting out to sea and if that sea is without ripple, without wave or tumult.......what's the point? " and also " if God created a crystal palace utopia then life would suck. Without evil life would suck. Indeed, without suffering and without evil life would cease" this is what i have already wrote. but these wordings are much better than mine which darcy used to interprete this view. What darcy if we replace the word suck with stuck ?
> 
> we cant say anything senseless without knowledge. i think i have shared a story or gave hint of that from quran about Moses and khizer. When Moses asked God in little pride that on earth is there anyone who have more knowledge then me? God suggested him to meet with khizer. he met him and asked him" whether i can walk with you to learn that knowlegde which u have" ? khizer replied you cant walk me coz u would nt hold patience! you are unable to make sense about the things which happens around me. Moses insisted. khizer said on one condition you can go with me that is you will not question me. Moses gave his words! They start their journey. They reached at river and aksed a poor professional boatman to drop them on the other side of the river, and sat in the boat. When they were leaving khizer made some holes in the new ship of poor boat man. Moses wondered and could not stop himself to make a question why did u make holes in the only ship of poor boat man? khizer taunt him that he was not supposed to make a question no matter how much senseless things happened. Moses was curious but revised his promise to continue his journey with khizer to learn what he got. They continued and reached at a place where some kids were playing. Khizer killed a child with no apparent reason. Moses now could not control himself and burst in wonder why did u kill an innocent boy this was totally sense less for Moses that boy was the only son of his parents. The same dialogue was spoken and moses said that give me last chance Ill not ask question again and once more time they continued and reached at a village. Khizer asked some food from the dwellers but they refused to give strangers any compensation. Khizer now started to rebuild a wall of a plot which was about to fell. Moses helped him and when they finished, khizer step forward to leave the village. Moses was again surprised he caught the arm of khizer and asked why did not you ask for food again as wages? 
> 
> Khizer stopped and said to moses you and me cannot walk together and here khizer unveiled the secret of patience how can u keep patience without knowledge if u dont have knowlegde you cannot keep patience. 
> 
> Before leaving he also told him the reasons of his acts which were directly commanded and directed by God. On the otherside of the river there was a new cruel king who was snatching the new boats to make his naval fllet for deep waters so I made holes. That kid was the child of faithful couple, this kid would make trouble not only for himself but also would be caused to damage the faith of his parents. Now I killed him, his parents would keep patience that God does always good, in the reward God give them more children which would prove blessings for his parents. That kid would also be dwel in paradise for eternity. The last act, that plot belongs to a noble man who prayed while dying that o my lord, when my children reached at the age of maturity then the treasure which he buried under that wall would open to them. 
> 
> i have a verse in mind about it. La hola wla quwata illa billa, beautiful and mind opening verse to understand the intention system , suffering and blessings. which also clarify the point what devil's work is, how many basics powers in the universe etc.. will write soon..


I have a problem, Usman, with trying to discuss contrary ideas when you just post texts and stories from your tradition. Although I would discuss the issues with you, I don't want to critique what might be important texts to you and your tradition, as this seems disrespectful. 

The other thing is that I don't see texts and stories from your tradition as answering the question. It's asking me to adopt your viewpoint in a way that would give access to the significance of what you post. Obviously I can't do this. There lies the problem - stories told to believers are esily believed and given credence, but what do they mean to someone from a different tradition or religion?

----------


## Paulclem

> Schopenhauer has some subtle ideas about religion... Basically, his argument is that man (well not just man, all life - "Will" to use S's term) took the option of abandoning timeless, desireless, uncontingent existence in order to acquire material form. Man/Will gains material consistency, a body to call his own - but he also gains an adversary in the form of an external world he can't control.
> 
> So by this argument, even things like natural disasters are just consequences of our having opted to live in a material, contingent world - well not "our" having opted for this, but the subconscious souls that we carry.
> 
> In a sense, the Devil can be interpreted as "the spirit of materialism" or "the architect of the world" - some argue that everything that is matter is the Devil's work. Hence earthquakes etc. can be blamed on the Devil rather than God. Where this leaves God's supposed omnipotence, I don't know... I kind of intuitively think of God as having agreed not to intercede (much) in the material world... and perhaps the suffering of humanity will seem, from the transcendent perspective, irrelevant - just as the second you awake from a nightmare, it's as though it happened to someone else.


Has a theology or tradition developed from this, or is it the speculation of a theological philosopher that just represents his thoughts on the subject? As it stands, it just seems another story/ explanation/ speculation withoput anything to back it up.

----------


## FranzS

> Has a theology or tradition developed from this, or is it the speculation of a theological philosopher that just represents his thoughts on the subject? As it stands, it just seems another story/ explanation/ speculation withoput anything to back it up.


Schopenhauer's ideas are largely derived from the Hindu Upanishads and Buddhism. He had an interest in the occult and the paranormal, which influenced his belief that mind or spirit lay at the root of things. Anyone who takes a serious, and suitably detached, interest in these things will discover that they are real.

Interestingly, numerous scientists have been great admirers of Schopenhauer, including Einstein, Schroedinger and Pauli - all of them Nobel prize-winning physicists. His ideas support non-materialist interpretations of quantum mechanics.

----------


## Paulclem

> Schopenhauer's ideas are largely derived from the Hindu Upanishads and Buddhism. He had an interest in the occult and the paranormal, which influenced his belief that mind or spirit lay at the root of things. Anyone who takes a serious, and suitably detached, interest in these things will discover that they are real.
> 
> Interestingly, numerous scientists have been great admirers of Schopenhauer, including Einstein, Schroedinger and Pauli - all of them Nobel prize-winning physicists. His ideas support non-materialist interpretations of quantum mechanics.


The problem I have with this is that there are major differences between Hinduism and Buddhism, not to mention occult - pagan? - ideas. Buddhism/ mind Hinduism/ spirit/ soul ideas are difficult to reconcile, and how do the basic tenets of the religions - karma, reincarnation or rebirth, the wheel of life, caste - sit with his ideas? 

Is the support of influential scientists proof of his veracity? It might be that they were attracted to a non-theistic interpretation of the uniiverse and religion. What do you think?

----------


## FranzS

> The problem I have with this is that there are major differences between Hinduism and Buddhism, not to mention occult - pagan? - ideas. Buddhism/ mind Hinduism/ spirit/ soul ideas are difficult to reconcile, and how do the basic tenets of the religions - karma, reincarnation or rebirth, the wheel of life, caste - sit with his ideas?


I'm not an expert on Eastern religion so I can't really answer your question. Also, I haven't read Schopenhauer's works in full. "The World as Will and Representation" is 1000 pages long and I doubt I'll read it in full anytime soon. But if you know his basic ideas, I find you can dip into his works at any point and get the gist. He writes with wonderful clarity and common sense, avoiding jargon and always getting straight to the point. 

Schopenhauer actually described his philosophy as the true philosophy of the New Testament - he preached forgiveness, compassion and the interconnectedness of all life. (It's striking how at odds with his personality his philosophy is - as a man he was misanthropic, misogynistic and altogether rather unpleasant; his argument, I suppose, would have been that the nature of his soul was in conflict with his worldly ego.)

Broadly speaking, Schopenhauer believed that "the world is as we dream it". I'm not sure he explicitly espouses the idea of reincarnation... In a way that might not matter...

One thing I have come to understand is that belief is not just a passive state but that it affects reality. Anybody who has undergone hypnosis knows how profound the power of belief is. It's not to be treated lightly though: insight and insanity converge at a certain point. I think our material selves are not designed for full revelation of the immaterial essence of things: the body panics if the mind leaves it too far behind. To go "all the way" without losing your marbles requires exceptionally strong nerves, and you probably have to sacrifice something of your soul in the process.




> Is the support of influential scientists proof of his veracity? It might be that they were attracted to a non-theistic interpretation of the uniiverse and religion. What do you think?


Oh no, nobody can prove that Schopenhauer was right. He very often invokes intuition as justification for his ideas, which is part of why I like him. I dare say that his writing alone wouldn't convince me - but experience and other reading, I think, helps me to understand what he is getting at.

Those scientists were attracted to Schopenhauer because they were interested not just in the mathematics of science, but the ultimate nature of reality. Schroedinger, in particular, was a card-carrying mystic - but not a woolly one; he was also a great logical thinker. I highly recommend his essays "Mind and Matter" and "My View of the World": few of our fashionable materialist atheists seem to be aware that their heroes had such scientifically hereticial views, and I take great satisfaction in pointing it out to them. It always shuts them up  :Smile: 

Basically, belief creates the world. If you believe in the Catholic God, purgatory etc., that's what you'll get. If you believe in reincarnation, that's what you'll get. If you're a Buddhist, nirvana is the ultimate revelation.

At least, that's how I see it. Everything is belief, there is no immutable hard-and-fast reality. All form emerges out of the primeval soup of possibility.

----------


## FranzS

> Damn, that's some insight you have into this matter. Everything you say makes a lot of sense. According to Christianity at creation God became material or brought materiality into existence, and with that began this contingency you speak of. Thus began differentiation and contrast and strife. To wish that all be good and calm is to wish for universal death, a receding of creation and cessation of the material.


This is something all religions seem to share: the idea of a primordial Fall - also the idea that that the mission of humankind is to reattain the state of grace before that Fall, in which all was undifferentiated.

This state of grace is both a gift and a sacrifice. The fundamental condition of our material selves is desire. We enjoy desiring, and we enjoy the satisfaction of desire: these seem to be what being alive is all about, and we can't imagine a state without desire that would not be death.

Hinduism regards time as cyclical. So, it seems, did the ancient religions of the Egyptians and the Meso-Americans. And indeed astrology. The last sign of the zodiac is Pisces, which represents the final state of the soul: undifferentiated, where possibilities are constantly bubbling forth but never acquire solidity - until the cycle starts again in Aries, which represents pure will, pure individuality.

Time and again, from culture to culture, one finds the same ideas manifesting themselves, so that one starts to wonder whether there isn't some profound semi-hidden knowledge that resides in all of us about the real nature of things.




> Please keep posting here. This post of yours is very well-written and informative, a joy.


Shucks, thanks  :Smile: 

Rock on, Albert C, eh?

----------


## cafolini

> Damn, that's some insight you have into this matter. Everything you say makes a lot of sense. According to Christianity at creation God became material or brought materiality into existence, and with that began this contingency you speak of. Thus began differentiation and contrast and strife. To wish that all be good and calm is to wish for universal death, a receding of creation and cessation of the material. 
> 
> Please keep posting here. This post of yours is very well-written and informative, a joy.


Agree with Darcy about this one. 100%.

----------


## Paulclem

> I'm not an expert on Eastern religion so I can't really answer your question. Also, I haven't read Schopenhauer's works in full. "The World as Will and Representation" is 1000 pages long and I doubt I'll read it in full anytime soon. But if you know his basic ideas, I find you can dip into his works at any point and get the gist. He writes with wonderful clarity and common sense, avoiding jargon and always getting straight to the point. 
> 
> Schopenhauer actually described his philosophy as the true philosophy of the New Testament - he preached forgiveness, compassion and the interconnectedness of all life. (It's striking how at odds with his personality his philosophy is - as a man he was misanthropic, misogynistic and altogether rather unpleasant; his argument, I suppose, would have been that the nature of his soul was in conflict with his worldly ego.)
> 
> Broadly speaking, Schopenhauer believed that "the world is as we dream it". I'm not sure he explicitly espouses the idea of reincarnation... In a way that might not matter...
> 
> One thing I have come to understand is that belief is not just a passive state but that it affects reality. Anybody who has undergone hypnosis knows how profound the power of belief is. It's not to be treated lightly though: insight and insanity converge at a certain point. I think our material selves are not designed for full revelation of the immaterial essence of things: the body panics if the mind leaves it too far behind. To go "all the way" without losing your marbles requires exceptionally strong nerves, and you probably have to sacrifice something of your soul in the process.
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for that. I know little of Schopenhauer and your post was helpful. Perhaps I'll have a look sometime.

----------


## cafolini

Wilson. It was Twain who said that hell was populated with more interesting people. Nietzsche didn't.

----------


## usman.khawar

> I have a problem, Usman, with trying to discuss contrary ideas when you just post texts and stories from your tradition. Although I would discuss the issues with you, I don't want to critique what might be important texts to you and your tradition, as this seems disrespectful. 
> 
> The other thing is that I don't see texts and stories from your tradition as answering the question. It's asking me to adopt your viewpoint in a way that would give access to the significance of what you post. Obviously I can't do this. There lies the problem - stories told to believers are esily believed and given credence, but what do they mean to someone from a different tradition or religion?


they should solve the basic questions 1st. 

if u read story again, all its trying to give the answer of the thread's question. we human have limited intellect in some matters. the story tells that every act of God has some reasons behind. if our intellect is not reaching there due to lack of knowledge than what we can do ?

No matter from where the tradition/quote, story/wisdom come, if it has really wisdom i m ready to accept it. no matter from where it comes.  :Smile:

----------


## Paulclem

> they should solve the basic questions 1st. 
> 
> if u read story again, all its trying to give the answer of the thread's question. we human have limited intellect in some matters. the story tells that every act of God has some reasons behind. if our intellect is not reaching there due to lack of knowledge than what we can do ? no matter from where the tradition/quote, story/wisdom come, if it has really wisdom i m ready to accept it. no matter from where it comes.


There's a similar story in Buddhism where a beggar man dies, and they discover that the spot where he begs is over a hoard of treasure. This too comments upon a person's lack of wisdom. 

The stories are fine, but they are illustrations of thought, not the origins of the thought.

----------


## Patrick_Bateman

The Cathars and Bogomils of the Middle Ages believed in a mitigated dualism.

Basically that there is an Evil God and a Good God that are constantly in conflict with each other.

Other beliefs suggest evil exists because, following the Fall of Satan and his creation of an Underworld, God gave license to Satan to kind of purge humanity of evil souls by tempting people away from love of God and piety.

These ideas are far more reasonably that a sole deity who allows misery and privation.

However, if we are in fact being invited to proffer our own views, I do not believe in a Creator God but rather a God who is identical to the Universe. I believe the Universe is a sub-set of God and that the God does not intervene in humanity and its state, but instead the God oversees or regulates the perfection of nature and the workings of the Universe.

Humanity itself is responsible for evil and is also culpable for the perpetuation of evil and evil deeds. The God's responsibility is merely in supervising the workings of everything around us.

----------


## Paulclem

> The Cathars and Bogomils of the Middle Ages believed in a mitigated dualism.
> 
> Basically that there is an Evil God and a Good God that are constantly in conflict with each other.
> 
> Other beliefs suggest evil exists because, following the Fall of Satan and his creation of an Underworld, God gave license to Satan to kind of purge humanity of evil souls by tempting people away from love of God and piety.
> 
> These ideas are far more reasonably that a sole deity who allows misery and privation.
> 
> However, if we are in fact being invited to proffer our own views, I do not believe in a Creator God but rather a God who is identical to the Universe. I believe the Universe is a sub-set of God and that the God does not intervene in humanity and its state, but instead the God oversees or regulates the perfection of nature and the workings of the Universe.
> ...


This is ok as a theory, but it does not resonate with the conception of a creator God who is personal and involved in the world. I think that's the main focus of the question.

----------


## usman.khawar

Paul would u plz explain the difference between lllustration of thoughts and origin of thoughts? any example to explain as well. ? seems interesting..

----------


## Darcy88

> The Cathars and Bogomils of the Middle Ages believed in a mitigated dualism.
> 
> Basically that there is an Evil God and a Good God that are constantly in conflict with each other.
> 
> Other beliefs suggest evil exists because, following the Fall of Satan and his creation of an Underworld, God gave license to Satan to kind of purge humanity of evil souls by tempting people away from love of God and piety.
> 
> These ideas are far more reasonably that a sole deity who allows misery and privation.
> 
> However, if we are in fact being invited to proffer our own views, I do not believe in a Creator God but rather a God who is identical to the Universe. I believe the Universe is a sub-set of God and that the God does not intervene in humanity and its state, but instead the God oversees or regulates the perfection of nature and the workings of the Universe.
> ...


There's no reason to believe that the universe is in any way supervised or overseen. Why don't you just become a deist? It sounds like you are headed that way.

----------


## Pendragon

Allow me a few words here. We will not always understand the whys of life whether or not we believe in God. Take me, for example.

I became an ordained Non-denominational preacher at age 20. For the next 16 years I preached anywhere I could get a pulpit, traveling as much as 14 to 16 hours one way to preach. I also served as Assistant Pastor of a church, and service director. 

My reward seems to have be to have a complete emotional and mental breakdown that as of today has lasted over 17 years, 7 incarcerations in mental hospitals for up to a month at a time, dozen or so pills to take every day, totally unable to work, and the churches I served excommunicated me. Rough, isn't it?

I could choose to say God doesn't care and that I have been very poorly treated by a God I served faithfully, and turn my back. But you know, that will not cure my bipolar nor my depression. For good or ill, I'm stuck with something that can barely be controlled, let alone cured.

So this is what I choose for my legacy. I will never be perfect. People cast me out, not God. I want one thing to follow me when I pass from this life. 

I want it said that ol' Pendragon never gave up! When they threw me out, I preached anywhere I could. I witnessed all the same as if nothing happened. Indeed, I probably witness more because it happened. 

It isn't easy, and I often find myself asking why this happened. I'm not sure that I will ever understand. But I hold on. Easter to me is a promise that there is a better place than this. I'm 51, and definitely closer to death than birth. Why fold now? I'm going to hang on.

Whether or not you believe in God, or whatever you believe about whether or not He actually cares, allow my story to help you when times get rough, when diseases come that cannot be cured, when someone dies and you feel so alone.

"Having done all, to stand." Ephesians 6:3

God bless, one and all

Pendragon

----------


## Paulclem

> Paul would u plz explain the difference between lllustration of thoughts and origin of thoughts? any example to explain as well. ? seems interesting..


I mean that the stories represent an idea. In the story you gave, the implication is that one needs wisdom to be able to perceive the full picture, and it is easy to act on partial information to the detriment of the situation.

The implication, or thought, behind this is that it is difficult for humans to know the ways of God and the reasons why things are as they are. The further implication of this is that it is futile to question God from a position of ignorence.

I hope this explains what I meant.

----------


## Paulclem

> Allow me a few words here. We will not always understand the whys of life whether or not we believe in God. Take me, for example.
> 
> I became an ordained Non-denominational preacher at age 20. For the next 16 years I preached anywhere I could get a pulpit, traveling as much as 14 to 16 hours one way to preach. I also served as Assistant Pastor of a church, and service director. 
> 
> My reward seems to have be to have a complete emotional and mental breakdown that as of today has lasted over 17 years, 7 incarcerations in mental hospitals for up to a month at a time, dozen or so pills to take every day, totally unable to work, and the churches I served excommunicated me. Rough, isn't it?
> 
> I could choose to say God doesn't care and that I have been very poorly treated by a God I served faithfully, and turn my back. But you know, that will not cure my bipolar nor my depression. For good or ill, I'm stuck with something that can barely be controlled, let alone cured.
> 
> So this is what I choose for my legacy. I will never be perfect. People cast me out, not God. I want one thing to follow me when I pass from this life. 
> ...


That must have been difficult for you. It is a credit to you that you come over as very balanced.

----------


## KCurtis

> My reward seems to have be to have a complete emotional and mental breakdown that as of today has lasted over 17 years, 7 incarcerations in mental hospitals for up to a month at a time, dozen or so pills to take every day, totally unable to work, and the churches I served excommunicated me. Rough, isn't it?
> 
> I could choose to say God doesn't care and that I have been very poorly treated by a God I served faithfully, and turn my back. But you know, that will not cure my bipolar nor my depression. For good or ill, I'm stuck with something that can barely be controlled, let alone cured.
> 
> 
> Whether or not you believe in God, or whatever you believe about whether or not He actually cares, allow my story to help you when times get rough, when diseases come that cannot be cured, when someone dies and you feel so alone.
> 
> "Having done all, to stand." Ephesians 6:3
> 
> ...


I am sorry, Pendragon. I know it must be very hard-my son has been in a state psych hospital ( a very good one ) for a year and a half. Before that, he was in and out of hospitals a total of 12 times or so. He is 22, and severely affected with mental illness and cognitive delays. It is a nasty illness, and all we can do as parents is advocate for him, love and support him. It's exhausting for us and for him.

----------


## laidbackperson

> Allow me a few words here. We will not always understand the whys of life whether or not we believe in God. Take me, for example.
> 
> I became an ordained Non-denominational preacher at age 20. For the next 16 years I preached anywhere I could get a pulpit, traveling as much as 14 to 16 hours one way to preach. I also served as Assistant Pastor of a church, and service director. 
> 
> My reward seems to have be to have a complete emotional and mental breakdown that as of today has lasted over 17 years, 7 incarcerations in mental hospitals for up to a month at a time, dozen or so pills to take every day, totally unable to work, and the churches I served excommunicated me. Rough, isn't it?
> 
> I could choose to say God doesn't care and that I have been very poorly treated by a God I served faithfully, and turn my back. But you know, that will not cure my bipolar nor my depression. For good or ill, I'm stuck with something that can barely be controlled, let alone cured.
> 
> So this is what I choose for my legacy. I will never be perfect. People cast me out, not God. I want one thing to follow me when I pass from this life. 
> ...


Hello Pen
One of the most inspiring posts I have come across and, yes, you look very balanced in spite of all this.

I liked when you said- People outcast me, not God. 
But then in such cases, perhaps the best way is to have least expectations from people in general.
What excite and intrigues me is- why you stick with God after this?
My guesses are
In your tough times, in your often hopeless conditions, something good also kept turning up that helped you in having faith i.e. God also cares in his own way
Or	
Faith is something wired in your genes, an understanding that there has to be a God
Or 
Is it, living life, believing in a God and an afterlife, is a better way of living. 

OR
Is it something else.

It is said that God dont give us hardships/pain, more than our capacity to endure the load.
You have a great resilience.
But why bad things sometimes happen to good people, is not very clear to me. 
I guess we can not know the ways of God, as Usman.khawar has put forward through the story in his post 285 of this thread.

I also like the way you end your posts with, God Bless.

----------


## usman.khawar

> Hello Pen
> One of the most inspiring posts I have come across and, yes, you look very balanced in spite of all this.
> 
> I liked when you said- People outcast me, not God. 
> But then in such cases, perhaps the best way is to have least expectations from people in general.
> What excite and intrigues me is- why you stick with God after this?
> My guesses are
> In your tough times, in your often hopeless conditions, something good also kept turning up that helped you in having faith i.e. God also cares in his own way
> Or	
> ...


welcome back  :Smile: 

you are right.. but one thing is for sure, whatever His way whatever He does, does for good.. this is also a special knowledge.

----------


## Pendragon

> Hello Pen
> One of the most inspiring posts I have come across and, yes, you look very balanced in spite of all this.
> 
> I liked when you said- People outcast me, not God. 
> But then in such cases, perhaps the best way is to have least expectations from people in general.
> What excite and intrigues me is- why you stick with God after this?


Why do I stick by God after all of this? Simple. He still sticks by me. I know many would question this, but consider: How many in my shape will ultimately commit suicide? Yet knowing He is with me keeps me from that path. That is enough, but He also does more, helping me deal with my condition. God bless you, one and all!

----------


## FranzS

> Why do I stick by God after all of this? Simple. He still sticks by me. I know many would question this, but consider: How many in my shape will ultimately commit suicide? Yet knowing He is with me keeps me from that path. That is enough, but He also does more, helping me deal with my condition. God bless you, one and all!


I was moved by your post.

I'm not a churchgoer but I have a conception of God as something that _suffers with us_. I think we should strive for an understanding of God that is more subtle than man-with-beard-pulling-the-world's-strings.

The material world has its own rules and excludes God all it can; we are part of the material world and have no choice but to accept the material world's decision to exclude God. We might not individually have excluded Him, but we bear our share of the collective guilt merely by virtue of being physical beings.

I've not had your experiences, but I've had some bad mental health episodes myself, and they certainly can make one question what the nature of God is, if there is one.

----------


## usman.khawar

> I was moved by your post.
> 
> I'm not a churchgoer but I have a conception of God as something that _suffers with us_. I think we should strive for an understanding of God that is more subtle than man-with-beard-pulling-the-world's-strings.
> 
> The material world has its own rules and excludes God all it can; we are part of the material world and have no choice but to accept the material world's decision to exclude God. We might not individually have excluded Him, but we bear our share of the collective guilt merely by virtue of being physical beings.
> 
> I've not had your experiences, but I've had some bad mental health episodes myself, *and they certainly can make one question what the nature of God is, if there is one*.


i think to reach at ur mentioned question , one has to solve the basic question 1st, is there any God ?

----------


## Pendragon

> i think to reach at ur mentioned question , one has to solve the basic question 1st, is there any God ?


Heb.11

[1] Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

For the believer in God, God is very real, and no amount of nay-saying will make them doubt. Faith becomes the substance (something you can literally feel) and the evidence (proof) of the dreamed of and unseen God. That is my statement of belief.

For those who cannot see any proof of God, any empirical evidence, God doesn't exist because they simply cannot believe in something their mind tells them is impossible. For these people, many of whom I proudly call my friends, this would be their statement of belief.

I strongly suspect that even among believers, there are many concepts of who and what God actually is. Just as I am sure that there are many reasons among Atheists and Agnostics as to why they believe that God either doesn't or perhaps doesn't exist.

If something I say can show a person that God truly exists, I am glad. But don't hesitate to be my friend because we disagree. Mutual respect is the firm basis of any friendship.

God bless

Pen

----------


## blazeofglory

The question is hogwash for there is no reason why God should promote suffering, for we are said to be God's offspring and no sane parents want their children to suffer.

We are kind of biblical fools and in point of fact we totally and unquestionably subscribe to everything scribbled in the Bible, and mostly literally.

Suffering is unavoidable and yet there is no reason God should promote it and if God really a benefactor who wants his people to live happily not sorrowfully. Mortification or self annihilation is a sin or something savagery and any God that is driving people toward suffering is the Devil in the guise of God

----------


## usman.khawar

> Heb.11
> 
> [1] Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
> 
> For the believer in God, God is very real, and no amount of nay-saying will make them doubt. Faith becomes the substance (something you can literally feel) and the evidence (proof) of the dreamed of and unseen God. That is my statement of belief.
> 
> For those who cannot see any proof of God, any empirical evidence, God doesn't exist because they simply cannot believe in something their mind tells them is impossible. For these people, many of whom I proudly call my friends, this would be their statement of belief.
> 
> I strongly suspect that even among believers, there are many concepts of who and what God actually is. Just as I am sure that there are many reasons among Atheists and Agnostics as to why they believe that God either doesn't or perhaps doesn't exist.
> ...



Thanks for responding, peace be upon you... yes you right mutual respect is the firm basis of friendship. agreed  :Smile: 

i picked some points to discuss with u to move towards a point of agreed..

like as u refered "[1] Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

how you show if u preach that God exist? if the evidence of things not seen..unseen God and unseen evidences.. can u elobrate some objective arguments to make it sense.


2. as u said about ur beleif .. "For the believer in God, God is very real, and no amount of nay-saying will make them doubt. Faith becomes the substance (something you can literally feel) and the evidence (proof) of the dreamed of and unseen God. That is my statement of belief."

"For the believer in God, God is very real" you know, this is the point m agreed :Smile:  and erst of it you said is nothing but a beautiful single pearl of a necklace. 

so this statement needs more clarifications for those who will read this. like .. " For the beleiver in God, God is very real" there is no doubt this is absolutly true. but if one raise the question " what was the thing which made one beleiver ? 

then you said " (something you can literally feel) "... what i know that we human cant capture the creator with these apparent senses. we feel air , we taste something with tongue, we see with eyes, all we got 5 senses which have limitations. one who knows about it will confirm this. so what do u think a common person can feel unlimited God with these limited senses ? can u we limitize a unlimited thing ? or is there anyother sense we have to refine to feel God? 

what i know about empirical evidence. i always take it at stage 2. at stage one, there is always an argument and reason. almost everyone experiene empirical evidence atleast once in life but without having strong argument , time erase or something like put curtains on the memory and person forget the experience. you may be disagree on this so we'll discuss above..

God bless u too..

----------


## Pendragon

> Thanks for responding, peace be upon you... yes you right mutual respect is the firm basis of friendship. agreed 
> 
> i picked some points to discuss with u to move towards a point of agreed..
> 
> like as u referred "[1] Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
> 
> how you show if u preach that God exist? if the evidence of things not seen..unseen God and unseen evidences.. can u elaborate some objective arguments to make it sense.


There is little objective argument that persons who do not believe will accept. For sake of argument, let us suppose that the purely theoretical particles science believes in truly exist. Unseen, untouchable, but reactions of their effect on other things leads to belief that they must exist. I believe that when I see a wicked man make a complete change at the alter, that is the effect of God on his life. I believe when someone recovers from an illness that is one-hundred percent fatal after prayer, that is God at work. I believe when I feel a presence with me, encouraging me in my blackest hour of my mental illness that it is God there with me.

I don't believe God promotes suffering, but allows it to happen as a normal part of life. 





> 2. as u said about ur beleif .. "For the believer in God, God is very real, and no amount of nay-saying will make them doubt. Faith becomes the substance (something you can literally feel) and the evidence (proof) of the dreamed of and unseen God. That is my statement of belief."
> 
> "For the believer in God, God is very real" you know, this is the point m agreed and erst of it you said is nothing but a beautiful single pearl of a necklace. 
> 
> so this statement needs more clarifications for those who will read this. like .. " For the believer in God, God is very real" there is no doubt this is absolutely true. but if one raise the question " what was the thing which made one believer ?


Well, let's elaborate on that. I was raised in a very strict religious upbringing, not to put it bluntly, but my mom was a fanatic. I choose to reject church entirely. But there are things I have witnessed that no one else would believe, and I won't invite sarcastic responses by trying to explain. I didn't seek God, He sought me. I was saved at age 19 at the height of my drug taking, alcohol drinking, trouble making ways, and my wife to be was saved the same day. I started preaching at 22. 




> then you said " (something you can literally feel) "... what i know that we human cant capture the creator with these apparent senses. we feel air , we taste something with tongue, we see with eyes, all we got 5 senses which have limitations. one who knows about it will confirm this. so what do u think a common person can feel unlimited God with these limited senses ? can u we limit a unlimited thing ? or is there any other sense we have to refine to feel God?


Please do not take this wrong, but it is like trying to explain color to a blind person, or sound to someone who is deaf. It is a feeling of peace when you are so down you want to die, a feeling of belonging when you have been cast out of churches, a feeling of love for others when you have no reason to grant them the feeling. It will make a person forget such things as grudges, perceived sin in someone else, hatred for others and love unconditionally. When I feel that, I know it isn't me, for being human I would desire revenge, I would refuse to associate with people, my hate would only grow and turn to violence, as it once did. 




> what i know about empirical evidence. i always take it at stage 2. at stage one, there is always an argument and reason. almost everyone experiences empirical evidence at least once in life but without having strong argument , time erase or something like put curtains on the memory and person forget the experience. you may be disagree on this so we'll discuss above..
> 
> God bless u too..


I feel it is difficult to gain empirical evidence on anything. As a man told me once, and he was a mathematician, not a Christian, or any other religion, "We are certain that 2+2=4, but proving it mathematically could be a real problem." Perhaps that is the way with God existing or not existing. For me to prove that He does would be very difficult. I am reliably informed that it is pretty much impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, so there are problems there as well.

I agree to disagree with people and remain friends. Such arguments only lead to hard feelings. When someone tells me that they disbelieve or doubt in the presence of God, I would like to persuade them that He is real, but I will accept their belief, and accept them as a good friend.

Hopefully I haven't rambled too much in this. God bless

Pen

----------


## usman.khawar

> There is little objective argument that persons who do not believe will accept. For sake of argument, let us suppose that the purely theoretical particles science believes in truly exist. Unseen, untouchable, but reactions of their effect on other things leads to belief that they must exist. I believe that when I see a wicked man make a complete change at the alter, that is the effect of God on his life. I believe when someone recovers from an illness that is one-hundred percent fatal after prayer, that is God at work. I believe when I feel a presence with me, encouraging me in my blackest hour of my mental illness that it is God there with me. Pen


this is nice argument of particles. i also in reply tell an athiest the same reply when he argued against God that we can not see God then i said so what we also cannot see air, protons, electrons of electericity. but still with this answer we need some more senses to prove unseen God. like today we know with some sophisticated machines about the particles. with the sense of touching we know air . but we cannot feel God through these senses. Further u said "I believe that when I see a wicked man make a complete change at the alter," i have seen many people or if i left aside my experiences, generally speaking what if a noble person before dying make a complete change as wicked? many people do good all life and before dying they think that by doing good we didnt get anything but suffering and so they changed the path.. 
you said "I believe when someone recovers from an illness that is one-hundred percent fatal after prayer" this is also not a prove of existence coz many healthy people suddenly caught by death due to some heartattacks, or accidents etc.. precisely these are individual experiences which do not prove the existence of God. so my question is still there. how u show or prove unseen God with unseen reasons or whether there should be some external objective reason. ??







> I don't believe God promotes suffering, but allows it to happen as a normal part of life. 
> Pen



Hundred percent agreed..




> Please do not take this wrong, but it is like trying to explain color to a blind person, or sound to someone who is deaf. It is a feeling of peace when you are so down you want to die, a feeling of belonging when you have been cast out of churches, a feeling of love for others when you have no reason to grant them the feeling. It will make a person forget such things as grudges, perceived sin in someone else, hatred for others and love unconditionally. When I feel that, I know it isn't me, for being human I would desire revenge, I would refuse to associate with people, my hate would only grow and turn to violence, as it once did. 
> Pen


whatever u wrote is really apreciatable pen. but its personal feelings. we cant transfer our feelings to others no matter even if we say thousnds of words. my question was on ur statement, i m writing it again

you said* " For the believer in God, God is very real"* there is no doubt this is absolutely true. but if one raise the question "* what was the thing which made one believer ?* .. Further respected Pen , one can raise question on ur saying "it is like trying to explain color to a blind person, or sound to someone who is deaf". like God is not for all humans ?




> I feel it is difficult to gain empirical evidence on anything. As a man told me once, and he was a mathematician, not a Christian, or any other religion, "We are certain that 2+2=4, but proving it mathematically could be a real problem." Perhaps that is the way with God existing or not existing. For me to prove that He does would be very difficult. I am reliably informed that it is pretty much impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, so there are problems there as well.
> Pen


one who know maths, its not difficult. 
you are informed? you are infomred that it is pretty much impossible to prove that God exist? Pen did u really said that ? so is it mean that you never try to think about it or to prove it or to research from zero by yourself?

did u read the book i mentioned in the thread mysticism ? in which author proved the existence of the God with an externaly objective scientific reason. 




> I agree to disagree with people and remain friends. Such arguments only lead to hard feelings. When someone tells me that they disbelieve or doubt in the presence of God, I would like to persuade them that He is real, but I will accept their belief, and accept them as a good friend.
> Pen


in our conversation i dont think there is any hard feeling. when ur conversation is to learn more, about knowledge , then everyone try to set their feelings and emotions at a side. moreover my dear pen we have atleast one thing common for sure which is biggest one, that we both beleive in God. God of all universes. if i ask you how many God there are? i hope ur answer would be "One". isnt it? correct me if i m thinking wrong. 

God bless you

----------


## JamCrackers

Yes, the 'God' does/would make suffering. Honestly, pretty much everyone already knows this. This whole range of issues only exist in contrast. If everyone was super, no one would be. To love everyone is to love no one. All joy is no joy at all. The concept of a warm day or a sunny day requires cold rainy days. True story: one of the greatest enlightening moments of my life. While shopping, I turned a corner to come face to face with a deformed woman. Born deformed, her right eye was lower at about her cheek area. She did not wear a mask. When we met, I had never ever seen anything to tragic, so I hurriedly looked away. I did not look away fast enough not to see her pity. She pitied me and rightly so. Since then, when I hear beautiful women complain that they can't face life without makeup or breast implants, I think of that woman. Many would deny it in themselves, their ever so deep weakness for life. She was iron strength, unafraid and unashamed to face the world as it is. Strength only exists next to weakness, pleasure next to pain. I actively seek the STRENGTH of the deformed, the suffering, because they are more human than me, not less. Granted the full powers of God, I would not take away any of it. Without adversity, life would be utterly empty and meaningless. Adversity is the mother of all invention. All virtues are contrasts of vices. A detail that most people choose to blot out is that we are not running out of people. Our populations will continue to grow until we choke ourselves. If anything, we have too little suffering; too few appreciate life as it is. Without villains, BATMAN is just Bruce Wayne the playboy. Sheep need wolves and wolves need sheep. This is the circle of life and it is ALL good.

----------


## Eleanor62

God doesn't promote suffering but he does allow it.

----------


## Paulclem

Although I find the title of this thread unnecessarily provocative - perhaps that was the intention - it does point to an interesting and really unanswered question: what is God's relationship to a world in which suffering and evil occur, bad things happen to good people, and there is no clear explanation of why. Is this because it is a matter of faith, and therefore unexplainable to someone without such faith or belief, or is it that the matter is unclear to Christians?

----------


## Pendragon

> did u read the book i mentioned in the thread mysticism ? in which author proved the existence of the God with an externaly objective scientific reason. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God bless you


Yes this is proof to a person inclined to believe in God in the first place, but hardly an argument that a staunch atheist or agnostic would accept. 

Search back along my posts to where there was a thread going on Creation VS Evolution. I made quite a few valid scientific arguments about the extreme amount of coincidences required to make one creature the way it is, and then how large the number would be against everything happening by chance. Some accepted the argument, some very pointedly told me that any chance was better than belief that God even existed, let alone created the world. Bottom line: People who believe in God do not require proof, everything in the world from the sky above to the leg on the tiniest insect reflects the hand of God. To those who cannot accept the existence of God, if an angel appeared to them, nothing the angel could say or do would convince them. 

God bless

----------


## JamCrackers

I see the same issue across such a wide range of topics. Someone asked if they could be Christian and Buddhist, Hebrew Torah Creationism vs assorted evolution where no human groups currently evolve; that only happens to animals. I notice that people stop. Stop is the word for it. It is that whole point at the moon, then admire your finger not the moon. I never hear anyone say they will grow old - all humans die - so grow old and officially be THE old wise human. People lose concern about being human. People don't think to master lessons. A completed Christian or Buddhist would be neither. A person filled with love and goodness would not seek God. Why? Obviously, they never will stop to ask why. If you love, you won't stop if you knew God was not real. The NEED for God comes from lack of love. The need for a name comes from seeking social position. Like philosophy: people know about the philosophers who fought long and hard for FAME and a stage. They never consider the ones who don't want to talk to them. Always the conflict, the 'team sport', everyone is on a team. The internet atheist team, the whatever team. Just asking about God is a sign something is wrong. To me it sounds like someone saying, they have doubt in their team, in their religion, that told them to love their children. If you needed a reason to love your children, you are in a state of failure. If you need a reason to love your world, your dog, your fellow man, you are diseased. If I had another life, I would like to be mute, live in some wild place, and be a farmer. I would not need a team or a reason to grow my plants and raise my animals. I would do it because it was life, being alive, and making more life. The worst thing that happened to so many promising people was their idea that everyone was like them, so they had to make a team sport out of it. If only more people could lead and not follow. I struggle to understand why I would care if God was real. It would not change a single thing in my life. I don't ACT human. It is who I am. I will be that. While everyone else wants to have their team win, I just want to get away from everyone trapped in that mistake. I'd rather people were evil than acted good. At least their evil wouldn't be a lie.

----------


## Darcy88

Isn't indentation a beautiful thing?

----------


## usman.khawar

> Yes this is proof to a person inclined to believe in God in the first place, but hardly an argument that a staunch atheist or agnostic would accept. 
> 
> 
> God bless


can u please write that argument which u read.. its a single line argument ? 

besides that it seems u r intended to end our conversation. coz besides argument i asked some question from you like in which u said " i am informed that its hard to prove God etc ...


can u please write that argument which u read.. its a single line argument ?  :Smile: 

God bless u

----------


## Pendragon

> can u please write that argument which u read.. its a single line argument ? 
> 
> besides that it seems u r intended to end our conversation. coz besides argument i asked some question from you like in which u said " i am informed that its hard to prove God etc ...
> 
> 
> can u please write that argument which u read.. its a single line argument ? 
> 
> God bless u


The argument is, as I understand it, that there is a very obvious DESIGN to the way the universe is ordered, and that the concept of a design requires a designer, therefore God must exist.

An Atheist would argue that what seems to be intelligent design is merely evolution at work, so why would it be necessary for God to exist.
That is what a believer in God would call proof.

As to my statement, you misquote me. I said: "I am reliably informed that it is pretty much impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, so there are problems there as well." This has nothing to do with proving God exists, I state that it is hard to prove that ANYTHING does not or cannot exist. You can call something unlikely, but proving it to not exist is problematical. 

Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot for further details. 

God bless

Pen

----------


## Paulclem

> I see the same issue across such a wide range of topics. Someone asked if they could be Christian and Buddhist, Hebrew Torah Creationism vs assorted evolution where no human groups currently evolve; that only happens to animals. I notice that people stop. Stop is the word for it. It is that whole point at the moon, then admire your finger not the moon. I never hear anyone say they will grow old - all humans die - so grow old and officially be THE old wise human. People lose concern about being human. People don't think to master lessons. A completed Christian or Buddhist would be neither. A person filled with love and goodness would not seek God. Why? Obviously, they never will stop to ask why. If you love, you won't stop if you knew God was not real. The NEED for God comes from lack of love. The need for a name comes from seeking social position. Like philosophy: people know about the philosophers who fought long and hard for FAME and a stage. They never consider the ones who don't want to talk to them. Always the conflict, the 'team sport', everyone is on a team. The internet atheist team, the whatever team. Just asking about God is a sign something is wrong. To me it sounds like someone saying, they have doubt in their team, in their religion, that told them to love their children. If you needed a reason to love your children, you are in a state of failure. If you need a reason to love your world, your dog, your fellow man, you are diseased. If I had another life, I would like to be mute, live in some wild place, and be a farmer. I would not need a team or a reason to grow my plants and raise my animals. I would do it because it was life, being alive, and making more life. The worst thing that happened to so many promising people was their idea that everyone was like them, so they had to make a team sport out of it. If only more people could lead and not follow. I struggle to understand why I would care if God was real. It would not change a single thing in my life. I don't ACT human. It is who I am. I will be that. While everyone else wants to have their team win, I just want to get away from everyone trapped in that mistake. I'd rather people were evil than acted good. At least their evil wouldn't be a lie.


no human groups currently evolve; that only happens to animals.

I'm no scientist, but I don't think this is correct. Evolution takes millions of years, not the amount of time modern humans have been around. 

Change is taking place as well. We are bigger, faster and stronger these days, though this is no doubt due to environmental adaptation. As I said, I'm no scientist, and so I 'm not sure about the relationship of the two - but stop humans have not.

----------


## Paulclem

> People don't think to master lessons. A completed Christian or Buddhist would be neither. A person filled with love and goodness would not seek God. Why? Obviously, they never will stop to ask why. If you love, you won't stop if you knew God was not real. The NEED for God comes from lack of love.


Love and godness are unfortunately not things that arise in completion in humans. It takes development. 

I can't really speak for Christians, but a Buddhist needs to progress along the path to become a better person embodying love and compassion. The teachings form part of this. If such positive traits were a naturally occurring phenomena, then there would be no need for the teachings, but clearly, like every phase of history, love and compassion are all too often lacking in societies.

----------


## Paulclem

> If I had another life, I would like to be mute, live in some wild place, and be a farmer. I would not need a team or a reason to grow my plants and raise my animals. I would do it because it was life, being alive, and making more life.


This sounds very idealistic and unattainable. To be human is to socialise and engage with others. It is said that we can't survive without others, and from a merely practial/ medical sense it is very easy to see why, let alone the fulfillment of social and emotional needs.

----------


## FranzS

JamCrackers: are you a Satanist by any chance?

----------


## usman.khawar

> The argument is, as I understand it, that there is a very obvious DESIGN to the way the universe is ordered, and that the concept of a design requires a designer, therefore God must exist.
> 
> An Atheist would argue that what seems to be intelligent design is merely evolution at work, so why would it be necessary for God to exist.
> That is what a believer in God would call proof.
> 
> As to my statement, you misquote me. I said: "I am reliably informed that it is pretty much impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, so there are problems there as well." This has nothing to do with proving God exists, I state that it is hard to prove that ANYTHING does not or cannot exist. You can call something unlikely, but proving it to not exist is problematical. 
> 
> Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot for further details. 
> 
> ...


the arguement i posted , and the book explained, it, is not the same which u told me . simply u didnt read that or miss to read. 

further, if i talk about the argument which u mentioned.. is good, for athiest, what a beautiful evolution, billions of lives, so balanced so perfect system of earth and cosmos. whats a beautiful acciedent  :Smile:

----------


## Pendragon

I do not know why I get into these things, it so seldom ends well. Sorry if I offended you. I get one thing out of something and others get something else, which has equal ability to be right or wrong. I bow out now, God bless you.

sunt viae, et stulti non errent per eam.

----------


## JamCrackers

There is this ball of dirt that goes around a star. These apes are born on this ball of dirt. I am one of those apes. It is this day of this year in the internet age. My DNA has battled for countless generations to give rise to me. No other ape was born here that is more human than me. I am self aware. I see the world for what it is. Example: let's say you had the psychic power to influence gambling dice by 1%. The issue is that your effect is so small, that no one really cares. There is a chance an escaped zoo elephant will trample me or an airplane will fall out of the sky on me. It is unlikely, so I run the little nothing risks of life. If you were to cast a voodoo spell, a Jesus chant, beat a drum, point an evil finger, those all go in the trashcan of risks too small to care about. I don't care if spiritualism is real; it is too impotent to effect any real chance I need concern myself about. I don't believe the human apes change. Once the biology of puberty has set in, a human ape stays fixed in their general behavior. I could no more talk you into admitting you were wrong than I could talk you into shooting lasers from your eyes. It will never happen. Everything is because it must be. Cause and effect is not everything. It is about 90%+ though, so cause and effect makes the world go round. We were born, we will live, we will die. Some will be remembered and some forgotten. You had a life to live in this world. If you neglected real life for your religion or spiritualism, I find that morally identical to you saying you spend your life on World of Warcraft or Online Blackjack. Don't get so wrapped up in the social conformity of others apes on this ball of dirt. I am the one self aware. No such ape in a costume exists to answer my questions. I grew up.

----------


## Paulclem

> There is this ball of dirt that goes around a star. These apes are born on this ball of dirt. I am one of those apes. It is this day of this year in the internet age. My DNA has battled for countless generations to give rise to me. No other ape was born here that is more human than me. I am self aware. I see the world for what it is. Example: let's say you had the psychic power to influence gambling dice by 1%. The issue is that your effect is so small, that no one really cares. There is a chance an escaped zoo elephant will trample me or an airplane will fall out of the sky on me. It is unlikely, so I run the little nothing risks of life. If you were to cast a voodoo spell, a Jesus chant, beat a drum, point an evil finger, those all go in the trashcan of risks too small to care about. I don't care if spiritualism is real; it is too impotent to effect any real chance I need concern myself about. I don't believe the human apes change. Once the biology of puberty has set in, a human ape stays fixed in their general behavior. I could no more talk you into admitting you were wrong than I could talk you into shooting lasers from your eyes. It will never happen. Everything is because it must be. Cause and effect is not everything. It is about 90%+ though, so cause and effect makes the world go round. We were born, we will live, we will die. Some will be remembered and some forgotten. You had a life to live in this world. If you neglected real life for your religion or spiritualism, I find that morally identical to you saying you spend your life on World of Warcraft or Online Blackjack. Don't get so wrapped up in the social conformity of others apes on this ball of dirt. I am the one self aware. No such ape in a costume exists to answer my questions. I grew up.


Come back in ten years and have a look at this. See how much you've changed then.

----------


## Jair

> God doesn't promote suffering but he does allow it.


Destroying every firstborn in the land of Egypt on one night was just 'allowing' suffering to occur?

----------


## Whifflingpin

"What is God's relationship to a world in which suffering and evil occur, bad things happen to good people, and there is no clear explanation of why. Is this because it is a matter of faith, and therefore unexplainable to someone without such faith or belief, or is it that the matter is unclear to Christians?"

The causes of such a world may not be clear to Christians, but God's relationship with it is very clear. To Christians, God entered into that world and freely experienced its bad things inflicted on Himself, the only person who might truly be called "good." God's relationship with the world is, to Christians, that of a fellow sufferer. 

That is one bit that is clear. Working out why evil occurs in the first place, and how it affects God's omnipotence are fairly trivial considerations compared with the knowledge that God is inside creation, not a mere disinterested onlooker.

The other bit that is a certainty to Christians is that God is the victor over evil. Evil may have to be suffered, but God does not 'tolerate' it, He opposes it and it is goodness that is the foundation and fulfilment of the universe, not evil.

----------


## Paulclem

I think this is the best answer I've read on this topic Whiffling.

----------


## Pendragon

> the arguement i posted , and the book explained, it, is not the same which u told me . simply u didn't read that or miss to read. 
> 
> further, if i talk about the argument which u mentioned.. is good, for atheist, what a beautiful evolution, billions of lives, so balanced so perfect system of earth and cosmos. whats a beautiful accident


Your quote:

*O' My Lord! give us the knowledge of reality of the things. Amen. 
*

Which is, as I said, the universe being built on design, there must be a designer, to me, that is God, and that knowledge is reality.

The person who cannot accept the existence of a supreme being, their reality and knowledge dictates chance and evolution, to them, viable truth. 

Perhaps we should all cling to our own belief system, and if others disagree, let them, and let us live in peace.

Si quis autem ignorat, ignorabitur.

God bless you richly,

Pen

----------


## JamCrackers

The universe is not a design. The universe is a pattern. A pattern is a lot like a design in many ways. We could call it the hydrogen cycle. The simplest and most abundant element in the universe forms clouds, gravity, stars, planets, life, and it does it everywhere for a long time. If you went to whole new galaxy, which is way far away, you would find there what you had here, more hydrogen, stars, planets, and life. Does there have to be a designer? No. It is a mathematical formula, a fractal, this Fibonacci rotating electromagnetic pattern from small to big.

Most importantly however is two issues: 1) Creationism is called being Jewish. It is the Hebrew Rabbi Torah Creation Myth. 2) It has no moral implications. "What is the moral of this story?" It has none. The giant sad truth is, it really doesn't matter how life started on Earth. Maybe it was Panspermia. Maybe aliens put it here. It really doesn't matter. It won't change any decisions in our days. Their is no moral virtue to the Jewish Creation Myth because it contributes nothing. We are a science species now. Human will be a science species for the next 10-50 thousand years at least. Pick a better battle. Hydrogen built all this. I don't worship a hydrogen statue.

----------


## NikolaiI

Lots of thought provoking ideas here. I'll just multi quote a few messages and post my thoughts to them.




> If I had another life, I would like to be mute, live in some wild place, and be a farmer. I would not need a team or a reason to grow my plants and raise my animals. I would do it because it was life, being alive, and making more life.





> This sounds very idealistic and unattainable. To be human is to socialise and engage with others. It is said that we can't survive without others, and from a merely practial/ medical sense it is very easy to see why, let alone the fulfillment of social and emotional needs.


Which part, the being alone? It's actually very reminiscent of Thoreau, Alan Watts, and Milarepa to me. Thoreau as he lived alone; Alan Watts in reference to the spontaneity of it; and Milarepa as he said the absolute best thing you can do is live alone in a cave on a mountain where it always snows. Next best is to wander nomadically, unattached, and next to live on the outskirts in a hermitage hut (rough paraphrase).

Idealism and realism or practicality aren't opposites, they're actually rather meaningless at a certain point. 




> People don't think to master lessons. A completed Christian or Buddhist would be neither. A person filled with love and goodness would not seek God. Why? Obviously, they never will stop to ask why. If you love, you won't stop if you knew God was not real. The NEED for God comes from lack of love.


Paul as Buddhist disagrees but I as a Buddhist agree. Pointedly, Buddhist logic allows for two seemingly contradicting points to exist truly. (It both is and is not; it neither is nor is not.) Throughout Buddhism eeeverywhere and all kinds of other philosophical or spiritual writings it's understood: Once you get to a certain level, you're no longer trying, you're no longer seeking. It's one of the important building blocks of a sane view of life. . .




> Love and godness are unfortunately not things that arise in completion in humans. It takes development.
> 
> I can't really speak for Christians, but a Buddhist needs to progress along the path to become a better person embodying love and compassion. The teachings form part of this. If such positive traits were a naturally occurring phenomena, then there would be no need for the teachings, but clearly, like every phase of history, love and compassion are all too often lacking in societies.


Love and compassion are natural, and I believe every master (Buddhist or any) that I would respect at all would say the same. These are the natural qualities; after all, isn't it our basic nature? To say anything else is more natural is sacrilege (to say the opposite qualities are more natural). What is more natural than love? Love and kindness heal, love and kindness create, they are everything good and natural. They are absolutely natural, and they're the best that is in us. They're everything. 

Likewise - the enlightening Dharma is natural, the enlightened Buddha is natural, and the student is natural. I was listening to a Dharma talk of Thay, and I remember him saying - the Dharma is lovely in the beginning, in the middle, and in the end. In other words, in the very beginning of practice, the experience is beautiful. In the middle it is, and the end is as well. 

Pain occurs, but it is natural to learn to avoid it. Vivekananda said, the goal of life is happiness; the bright understand this quickly, the unintelligent, a little more slowly.

For the record, Buddhist teaching doesn't say that love and compassion are lacking; if you immerse yourself in Buddhism you will see absolutely countless cases where it's indicated the Buddha's teaching taught that every moment is complete, whole, lacking nothing, and that we are, as ourselves, complete, whole, and lacking nothing. The very core of Shakyamuni Buddha's enlightenment was that love and goodness _do_ arise in completion in humans, and they arise as soon as we awaken to our Buddha nature - our real nature, which is. . . if I may say so without avoiding circular logic or over-repetition, natural. 

The path is difficult for some, it is true, but its essence is not complicated: "Do good, do not do evil, and cultivate the mind." 

It is an infinite process, yes, and one of the keys involved is to return to step one; return to the here, and the now - observe. One of the most powerful methods is to become absorbed in the question, "Who am I?" When a thought occurs, "To whom is it occurring?" 

There are certain predicates to practice.. master Bassui, as well as Ramana Maharshi (not Buddhist...  :FRlol:   :Rofl: ) taught questioning as the way, taught this koan, "Who am I?"

----------


## Paulclem

> Which part, the being alone? It's actually very reminiscent of Thoreau, Alan Watts, and Milarepa to me. Thoreau as he lived alone; Alan Watts in reference to the spontaneity of it; and Milarepa as he said the absolute best thing you can do is live alone in a cave on a mountain where it always snows. Next best is to wander nomadically, unattached, and next to live on the outskirts in a hermitage hut (rough paraphrase).
> 
> Idealism and realism or practicality aren't opposites, they're actually rather meaningless at a certain point. 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul as Buddhist disagrees but I as a Buddhist agree. Pointedly, Buddhist logic allows for two seemingly contradicting points to exist truly. (It both is and is not; it neither is nor is not.) Throughout Buddhism eeeverywhere and all kinds of other philosophical or spiritual writings it's understood: Once you get to a certain level, you're no longer trying, you're no longer seeking. It's one of the important building blocks of a sane view of life. . .
> 
> 
> ...


I'd like to respond to this Nik. Shall we start a new thread rather than hijack this one?

----------


## Paulclem

> The universe is not a design. The universe is a pattern. A pattern is a lot like a design in many ways. We could call it the hydrogen cycle. The simplest and most abundant element in the universe forms clouds, gravity, stars, planets, life, and it does it everywhere for a long time. If you went to whole new galaxy, which is way far away, you would find there what you had here, more hydrogen, stars, planets, and life. Does there have to be a designer? No. It is a mathematical formula, a fractal, this Fibonacci rotating electromagnetic pattern from small to big.
> 
> Most importantly however is two issues: 1) Creationism is called being Jewish. It is the Hebrew Rabbi Torah Creation Myth. 2) It has no moral implications. "What is the moral of this story?" It has none. The giant sad truth is, it really doesn't matter how life started on Earth. Maybe it was Panspermia. Maybe aliens put it here. It really doesn't matter. It won't change any decisions in our days. Their is no moral virtue to the Jewish Creation Myth because it contributes nothing. We are a science species now. Human will be a science species for the next 10-50 thousand years at least. Pick a better battle. Hydrogen built all this. I don't worship a hydrogen statue.


This may be yours and many people's views, but you live in a world where a significant number of people think otherwise. it would be a mistake to think that their views don't matter considering that there are many millions of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and others. In that sense, whatever the truth of it, it does matter, and it matters to you and me too. 

In coming years, though science is in the ascendancy, there is absolutely no guarrantee in the long run that science won't decline. I can't see it, but then who would have predicted the decline of Christianity in the West 100 years ago? Whatever - the views of millions do matter and will continue to affect us.

----------


## ShadowsCool

> "What is God's relationship to a world in which suffering and evil occur, bad things happen to good people, and there is no clear explanation of why. Is this because it is a matter of faith, and therefore unexplainable to someone without such faith or belief, or is it that the matter is unclear to Christians?"
> 
> The causes of such a world may not be clear to Christians, but God's relationship with it is very clear. To Christians, God entered into that world and freely experienced its bad things inflicted on Himself, the only person who might truly be called "good." God's relationship with the world is, to Christians, that of a fellow sufferer. 
> 
> That is one bit that is clear. Working out why evil occurs in the first place, and how it affects God's omnipotence are fairly trivial considerations compared with the knowledge that God is inside creation, not a mere disinterested onlooker.
> 
> The other bit that is a certainty to Christians is that God is the victor over evil. Evil may have to be suffered, but God does not 'tolerate' it, He opposes it and it is goodness that is the foundation and fulfilment of the universe, not evil.


I agree totally

----------


## ShadowsCool

> Most importantly however is two issues: 1) Creationism is called being Jewish. It is the Hebrew Rabbi Torah Creation Myth. n statue.


I marvel at how certain you are that God is a myth. As if you've studied life and came to your own conclusions.

----------


## JamCrackers

Creationism doesn't exist anyway.
100% of the Creationists I ever met, were in a religion of 'Bible perfect Truth Judaism' and oh yeah, we sort of care about Jesus.
The creationist wants the bible to be true. The obvious problem is the Genesis is a fable. We know more than enough science to DARE! yes we dare the undarable, we disregard the rantings of the Hebrew witch doctor that the Earth is young.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Creationism doesn't exist anyway.
> 100% of the Creationists I ever met, were in a religion of 'Bible perfect Truth Judaism' and oh yeah, we sort of care about Jesus.
> The creationist wants the bible to be true. The obvious problem is the Genesis is a fable. We know more than enough science to DARE! yes we dare the undarable, we disregard the rantings of the Hebrew witch doctor that the Earth is young.


If you want to read a bunch of rantings that should be disregarded, just go back and read your posts.

----------


## NikolaiI

> I'd like to respond to this Nik. Shall we start a new thread rather than hijack this one?


Yes, sure. I've just started one.

----------


## Pendragon

> Creationism doesn't exist anyway.
> 100% of the Creationists I ever met, were in a religion of 'Bible perfect Truth Judaism' and oh yeah, we sort of care about Jesus.
> The creationist wants the bible to be true. The obvious problem is the Genesis is a fable. We know more than enough science to DARE! yes we dare the undarable, we disregard the rantings of the Hebrew witch doctor that the Earth is young.



What you mean is, there are scientists that you have faith in who are more than willing to paint God out of the equation. I personally know people who are certain that a supreme being, or beings, created the Earth and all that is therein. They come from many persuasions, not only Christian-Judaism. The point is sooner or later you have to accept everything on faith, having never witnessed it. Scientists discover new things everyday that the large majority of people will never see, touch, taste, hear, or feel, but which the majority will find perfectly plausible because, after all, it is science. Others accept things that they also will never see, touch, taste, hear, or feel, because they believe in a supreme being or beings, and after all, that is God. 

God bless

Pen

----------


## usman.khawar

Originally Posted by usman.khawar 
the arguement i posted , and the book explained, it, is not the same which u told me . simply u didn't read that or miss to read. 

further, if i talk about the argument which u mentioned.. is good, for atheist, what a beautiful evolution, billions of lives, so balanced so perfect system of earth and cosmos. whats a beautiful accident 



*Your quote:

O' My Lord! give us the knowledge of reality of the things. Amen. 


Which is, as I said, the universe being built on design, there must be a designer, to me, that is God, and that knowledge is reality.

The person who cannot accept the existence of a supreme being, their reality and knowledge dictates chance and evolution, to them, viable truth. 

Perhaps we should all cling to our own belief system, and if others disagree, let them, and let us live in peace.

Si quis autem ignorat, ignorabitur.

God bless you richly,

Pen* 

Thanks Pen for prays, God bless you too richly...

once again that is not the argument i m talking about. 

some people say in counter argument for this design argument , for instance in a forest there is no planing for trees, but out of it, it becomes automatically a design. so as it is, in this universe it becomes automatically a design so this is not enough or final proof of God's existence. in words of my teacher, very well explained this concept also in that book i m reffering to you, are as given below:

" it is important to note that all the proofs of God’s existence that have been provided by theologians so far have been abstract and particular. They lacked absolute authority, and the possibility of doubt always remained. For instance the cosmological argument states that God was the ‘first cause’ who created the cosmos. The opponents of this claim have argued that ‘Nature’ can be regarded as the Creator and if the design of the universe is attributed to God, it can equally be ascribed to a ‘chance event’. The ‘teleological argument’ points to the complex order and design of the universe as evidence of God. In response some have claimed that the matter of the universe has evolved over time and has become more refined and complex. If the theologians point to the orbits of the planets and stars to show the fine planning that must be behind all this, their opponents simply argue that this system arose from chaos and chance collisions and upheavals led to the natural order we see today"



you just pick this pray of Muhammad The Last messenger of God from the 1st page of the thread. the book which explained this argument ,everyothers misconceptions, starts from next pages of that thread. which 1st chapter is "humanity let down by the gatekeepers of the knoweldge" 

if u like to read that unbreakable scientific objective argument and which provides us absolute authourity in reason and argument in favor of God's existence, here is the link .. http://www.alamaat.com/TheArgument.php.. start from the 1st chapter.. 


*your quote "Perhaps we should all cling to our own belief system, and if others disagree, let them, and let us live in peace"* 

what if other person is saying rightly and have a better beleif system and better argument then what ? should we still cling to our own beleif system ? should not we think about the other's strong argument or just turn our back towards it as we never listen that? does prejudice stops a person or is it anything else ?

----------


## Pendragon

> what if other person is saying rightly and have a better beleif system and better argument then what ? should we still cling to our own beleif system ? should not we think about the other's strong argument or just turn our back towards it as we never listen that? does prejudice stops a person or is it anything else ?


That "better belief system" is a matter of opinion, with which I disagree. God bless

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> That "better belief system" is a matter of opinion, with which I disagree. God bless


Amen...

----------


## Pendragon

I do find it distasteful that when someone like myself is willing to allow others their own way of believing, attitude seems to disfavor that person. Some seem to have this view: "Shut up and I'll show you just where you're wrong." If I cannot agree with someone, if I have a different view, if I don't believe that they have a better answer, I still strive to be civil.

This quote was in my inbox today, from an old friend in California. We are close friends even while being of widely differing views on Christianity. I'll pass it along, as it is good advice.


*Thought for the day: Let go of your need to always be right. There are so many of us who cant stand the idea of being wrong  wanting to always be right  even at the risk of ending great relationships or causing a great deal of stress and pain, for us and for others, its just not worth it. Whenever you feel the urgent need to jump into a fight over who is right and who is wrong, ask yourself this question: Would I rather be right, or would I rather be kind?  Wayne Dyer.* 

God bless

Pen

----------


## Darcy88

Because heaven is the hereAFTER, not the here NOW. lol.

----------


## ShadowsCool

> *Thought for the day: Let go of your need to always be right. There are so many of us who cant stand the idea of being wrong  wanting to always be right  even at the risk of ending great relationships or causing a great deal of stress and pain, for us and for others, its just not worth it. Whenever you feel the urgent need to jump into a fight over who is right and who is wrong, ask yourself this question: Would I rather be right, or would I rather be kind?  Wayne Dyer.* 
> 
> God bless
> 
> Pen


For the most part, religions teach tolerance of others. At least I think they do. Except for nut jobs who take things to the extreme. However, when you get to the core of major religious belief's, they do tend to clash with one another. For instance, Christianity says to get along with your fellow man but have no indulgence with a non believer. Wipe your feet of them. I know other religions have similar sayings.

I don't think it's about being right or nice but following one's teachings. 

I was dating someone once who fell into the Jehovah's witness camp. They brainwashed her to the point of our relationship ending. Sad result of religious intolerance.

----------


## usman.khawar

> That "better belief system" is a matter of opinion, with which I disagree. God bless



i would chose to be kind hehe. well i think opinion is based on some facts. should be authentic ones to give better opinion. is there any criteria to judge or check about the best opinion among so many ?


God bless

----------


## Pendragon

> i would chose to be kind hehe. well i think opinion is based on some facts. should be authentic ones to give better opinion. is there any criteria to judge or check about the best opinion among so many ?
> 
> 
> God bless


My friend, I can conceive of no criteria about religious beliefs that would be unanimously agreed upon by any two people. Everyone believes that they are correct in what they believe, and seldom have I seen a change among the people that are truly convinced that they are in the right. An undecided person is easier to approach with an invitation to listen; a person firm in their belief will seldom waver.

*This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Farewell, my blessing season this in thee*

From _Hamlet_ by William Shakespeare

It is why I agree to disagree with people, and remain friends.

God bless

----------


## usman.khawar

> My friend, I can conceive of no criteria about religious beliefs that would be unanimously agreed upon by any two people. God bless



you are right. Mankind didnt work upon it. the only reason it seems to me that Mankind never took God in their 1st prioirty. 1st priority of intellectual curosity. otherwise there is a criteria i know. A very scientific and objective one. Already mentioned in the book which i shared.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> I do find it distasteful that when someone like myself is willing to allow others their own way of believing....


Yes, it is tiresome doing that. But I do thank people like you for allowing me to believe what I want to believe.  :Rolleyes5:

----------


## ShadowsCool

I no longer have anything to say about God in this section. It's a no-win situation. Besides, even the mods misunderstand and throw stones at ya.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> I no longer have anything to say about God in this section. It's a no-win situation. Besides, even the mods misunderstand and throw stones at ya.


Thrown stones from misunderstanding mods are not exclusive to the God crowd, trust me.

----------


## Charles Darnay

I'm surprised this thread has been going on as long as it has.....but.....

I saw this today ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2n7vSPwhSU ) - and it is cases like these that makes me both wonder "why, if God exists, does He let people like this thrive" and "this makes me want to have nothing to do with religion."

I am fully aware that cases like these are the minority in the grand scheme of things, but if I was part of a religious institution I would be embarrassed by association: not only because of the hatred but the sheer stupidity of the whole thing.

----------


## ShadowsCool

I think that guy is filled with hate. It's one thing to say privately that homosexuality is wrong, another thing to say I want them all dead. The guy is a whack job and not to be associated with any clear thinking religion.

----------


## Pendragon

They call what this guy is saying "extreme prejudice". Does he really think he could convert any person with same sex preference with this kind of attack? As he said, "God, have mercy!" It's for certain this man has none...

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> I'm surprised this thread has been going on as long as it has.....but.....
> 
> I saw this today ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2n7vSPwhSU ) - and it is cases like these that makes me both wonder "why, if God exists, does He let people like this thrive" and "this makes me want to have nothing to do with religion."
> 
> I am fully aware that cases like these are the minority in the grand scheme of things, but if I was part of a religious institution I would be embarrassed by association: not only because of the hatred but the sheer stupidity of the whole thing.


Well, he does have an ironclad plan . . . you know he's an idiot when he can't even say "against." And the crowd is even scarier, cheering and supporting him.

Still, I don't think even (a supposed) God can be held responsible for the idiocy of the world. Free will and all that. If I'd point to anything and say, "How can God let that go," it'd be kids with cancer, genetics disease, Michael Bay films, etc.

----------


## Paulclem

It's true that lots of suffering is caused by the minds of humans. Yet aren't humans made in God's image? Also, being benevolent and loving, why does God not intervene where these injustices occur.

Yet it's not the whole story. Many people suffer in situations where they have no control. What about virtuous people who live in difficult areas? What about natural disasters? If God is omnipotent, why isn't something done about it? Why do animals suffer so much? Why does social inequality continue? Why isn't God involved? If God made the world, why is evil so apparent?

----------


## RetsixArp

> Painting Paul as a 'sales guy' conflicts with many accounts of Scripture. He had been a rising star in the Pharisaic school of Judaism until he converted to Christianity (which he had previously opposed and persecuted). He refused to take monetary compensation while carrying out his missionary work, instead supported himself as a tent maker. ...


Yes, Paul does state that he was a Pharisee; yes, he does agonize in Scripture over his persecution of Christians.

I don't recall Scripture stating emphatically that he supported himself as a tent maker. He indeed states he is a tent maker, as was the Corinthian couple (I forget their names off-hand), which is why he lodged w/ them. We may assume he supported himself as a tent maker, but there is no account of him actually doing so. I'd reckon he'd no time for tents w/ all that traveling & evangelizing; in fact, I don't recall an occasion when there's a definitive statement of who was subsidizing his travels. Someone paid for all those sea excursions.

----------


## Monamy

Do not mix up God's Grand Plan with Evil. We humans are capable of doing Good and Bad things, and we're God's creation. So it will only be common that God is capable of both as well.

The whole world God created is perfect. And by perfect, I don't mean most ideal (though we, as His most favoured of His creation, can make it so,) but perfect as in whole and complete. Of course, that involves the Good and the Bad aspects of all matters. Someone was saying things like why God created natural disasters such as Tsunami, earthquakes and cancer in newly-born kids. But if I drop all those thing out, natural disasters, I mean, I can see no other mean for God to punish us in this life for something bad we have done. We as humans do not have the mind or the wisdom to comprehend and the Grand Plan that God has for all creation. Our little minds seem to (always) think that Death is the end of all creation. Well, it's not, but we tend to think it is because our limited measures in realizing things (in other words, Science) never reached that level yet. We still can't make heads from tails in most cases like the vast outer space or the reality behind ghost stories.

I don't know about other religions but we Muslims have a lot of stories in the holy Quran about how some incidents can appear very unfair and unjust in the human eye, but are actually 'effects' of other much earlier incidents. The story of the prophet Mosa (or Mozes in the bible) comes to mind, the one where he takes a trip and loses a whale to find a wise man who's much wiser than Mosa himself. The wise man does three things that appear to the prophet of God as harmful, unjust and completely wrong. But then discovers otherwise later before they part ways. Some could be familiar with this by recalling the word Karma (we Muslims call it Fate or God's well.)

Good or Bad, it has nothing to do with God. Our days living on Earth are but a lifetime test. We only get to see the results once our souls leave our bodies, so it will do us little good questioning it now.

Imagine a world with nothing Bad in it... you can't, can you?

You can fool yourself saying you 'can' but you can't. Human nature, some may call it. Look at the world now, look at Africa, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria and others. Look at Palestine's 60 years of killing and suffering. Forget Japan and America's natural disasters, those are tests laid upon us humans from God to see how we will react. But what about the rest of the things? Why is Bill Gates and few others are the richest (when speaking about money) people in the world while many others sleep with the fear of not getting enouph to eat tomorrow? Why are there people who strive and kill for power while all that others want is to live in peace? Aren't those tragedies human-made? Don't say God allowed them so God is Evil. Sure, God created all things but WE are the ones who allowed those things to happen. We can easily set a universal plan across all nations to coexit and share Earth's materials, oil and supplies. Like on human race... but why don't we do so? Human nature. God created us, yes, but then Humans were the only of his creations that accepted to bear the burden of the Mind. Thus, God bestowed Humans with a Mind while giving the rest of his creation Instinct. We can think for ourselves and change bad things to good to better... but we never do.

Why?

Is God really the Evil one in this picture? God created life on Earth, it's up to us to shape that Earth into Eden or Hell.

Those kids who are born with cancer aren't any different than the kids before them who had a silly flu but died also... because, back then, even flu was dangerous. Medicine evolves with Science, but so is illness. In fact, most of our recent illnesses are caused by yours trully. We have thought of million ways to create pollution. World war one and two, factories, car, nuclear studies, you name it. I don't have it for Science, but we're so irresponsible in this time and age, you have to admit it.

So is God evil?

No, God created all things, Good and Evil. A pefect complete world. It is us humans who promoted Evil ever so strongly. It is us who became so selfish and self-centred that we started to blame God for the Evil we created.

- These are my own thoughts about the subject.

----------


## Paulclem

But if I drop all those thing out, natural disasters, I mean, I can see no other mean for God to punish us in this life for something bad we have done.

How is the death of thousands of men women and children in the big Tsunami justified? What wrong doing needs such a punishment, and why does it include children, animals etc? Saying our small minds can't comprehend God's plan is unsatisfactory in my opinion. 

I also think the punishment idea is very wrong and leads to the conveniant adoption of attitudes apparently proven by God's wrath. It is far too easy to ascribe a conveniant cause for this punishment. For example, I saw a documentary shot after the Tsunami in Malaysia where the chap being interviewed ascribed the Tsunami to God's punishment for woment wearing western clothes. Ridiculous as this is, this young chap was adamant about this, and thus made himself a danger to anyone not conforming. 

Our days living on Earth are but a lifetime test.

How can a child be tested if they die in a natural disaster? 

Forget Japan and America's natural disasters, those are tests laid upon us humans from God to see how we will react.

How can a good God organise such a cruel test? 

So is God evil?

No, God created all things, Good and Evil. A pefect complete world.

If God created the world and humans in his image, why did he need to introduce evil? The sufferings of humans and animals throughout history have often been cased by the very beings created by God as you said. Saying his purposes are hidden makes no sense, and there have been few good explanations of it. 

I prefer the explanation that says this is not a perfect world and we are born, suffer and die within it because of the conditions we create for ourselves through Karma. This is played out over countless lives and explains why the innocent are often caught up in karma generated in the past by reincarnation. 

In this model there is no God to either blame or rely on, but the reliance has to come from yourself to improve the conditions for yourself and, more importantly, others.

----------


## Darcy88

I am a deist now. God created the world and just let the thing spin on its own.

----------


## Monamy

Paulclem, you're right in everything you have written if Life was all there is.

While me, I believe in the afterlife. I believe that Death isn't the end of the line, only a portal that our souls can pass through without our bodies. Thus, those we call dead aren't really dead.

Your whole arguement about my views on the subject seem to revolve around the death of children. I believe those children are also part of the Grand Plan set for humanity. If this one life was all there is to it, I think humanity has no purpose to exist.

I also think the punishment idea is very wrong and leads to the conveniant adoption of attitudes apparently proven by God's wrath

How else would we stop and think about our actions? God's wrath doesn't come without a valid explanation, it's there open our eyes on the world whenever we close them. Please, do not bring me examples of extremists and - pardon the use of the word - nutjobs. To put it generally, I believe that natural disasters are lessons sent to us by God, because I believe - again - that death isn't the end.

Saying his purposes are hidden makes no sense, and there have been few good explanations of it

It's called Belief, my friend. My personal thoughts about this world and what Life could mean led me to this belief. Of course, there are many good explanations for me to believe so.

And about how perfect this world is, you say it's not perfect. I'm with you on that point, it's not perfect... we humans ruined it. We made all the differences between one another, gathered the world's power and supplies to selected nations while others suffered the lack of it. We are this close to destroying the O-zone and get BBQed by the sunrays. It's not perfect, this world of ours, but it was created to be perfect. We were unjust, and are still unjust to this planet that hosted our lives for countless ages.

I didn't mean to start a discussion about the matter, I merely dropped my two cents. But since you replied, I only find it necessary to reply back. Thank you.

----------


## Whifflingpin

"And about how perfect this world is, you say it's not perfect. I'm with you on that point, it's not perfect... we humans ruined it."

In the light of what we now know about the age of the world, compared to the age of humanity, this view is simply not tenable. Humans are a mere blip in the history of the world. Maybe humans are important in God's eyes, or maybe, as has been said before, He is much more fond of beetles.

In any event, pain, disease and natural calamities have been around for millions of years before humans arrived and. no doubt, will continue for eons after the last human mutant provides a supper for cockroaches.

----------


## Freudian Monkey

> Do not mix up God's Grand Plan with Evil. We humans are capable of doing Good and Bad things, and we're God's creation. So it will only be common that God is capable of both as well.


Does not make too much sense to me. At least in Christian theology God is the ultimate paragon of goodness - the good itself, the very opposite of evil. The problem with original sin is to begin with that God cannot tolerate any sin (=evil) and that's why he had to become the sacrificial lamb himself in order for the jews to get into paradise - later a pharisees called Saul of Tarsus gave pagans the same privilege. I don't know how this whole sin thing works in Islam though - presumably in a quite similar fashion since the God is the same one.




> Forget Japan and America's natural disasters, those are tests laid upon us humans from God to see how we will react.


He sure must be having fun with his lab rats. Quite a trickster this Yahweh.

----------


## Paulclem

Your whole arguement about my views on the subject seem to revolve around the death of children. I believe those children are also part of the Grand Plan set for humanity. If this one life was all there is to it, I think humanity has no purpose to exist.

I use children as the most emotive example, but there are countless other tragedies occurring every day around the world. I would agree that this life is not all there is. I disagree as to the purpose - but that's a difference in worldview. 

How else would we stop and think about our actions? God's wrath doesn't come without a valid explanation, it's there open our eyes on the world whenever we close them.

I don't see the need for a God/ Creator God for this to be a necessity. Reflection upon your actions and lessons can be learned without reference to a God. I think the same goes for your valid explanation. 

Please, do not bring me examples of extremists and - pardon the use of the word - nutjobs.

I know this isn't a representation of Islam, and I didn't intend it to be so. I put it merely as an example of that view can develop if God's intentions are second guessed. No offence was intended. 

I didn't mean to start a discussion about the matter, I merely dropped my two cents. But since you replied, I only find it necessary to reply back. Thank you. 

Fine. I can appreciate that we come from different worldviews, and we wouldn't agree on details. I don't have a problem with that. I hope you had your 2 cents back.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Monamy

Whifflingpin, humans are indeed important. There's a reason why God favoured humans on most of his creation. When I said that line (or statement) I meant our current time and age. There are many things that can be fixed if we can just be like ants. We should be colonized and be one hand in dealing with our problems and situations like poverty, stopping war, support the needy, stop polution, that kind of thing. Thank you for participating.

Freudian Monkey, again, I could have sent the wrong image when I said God is capable of both. I didn't mean He can be Good and Evil, but in Islam, God is capable of anything. God can reward your goodbeing and can punish your wrongdoing. Bad things aren't always Evil, there's an Ayah in the holy book that translate to this: "You may hate something (to happen) but it's good for you; and you may like something (to happen) but it's bad for you." Remember the story about Mosa I shared in my first post? (I hope I didn't go off-topic.) Thank you for participating.

Dear LitNet friend Paulclem, you didn't offend me at all, I assure you. I too didn't mean it in that context. On the contrary, I was pleased with your reply. I agree, we're on two different parts of the world and so our universal points of view about things can vary widely. But that's what makes the issue all the more interesting.

LitNet is blessed with members such as you all. I like a light exchange of ideas and thoughts, and I very much enjoyed this one.

I hope you had your 2 cents back.  :Biggrin: 

lol I knew I used the 'two cents' idiom wrong somehow, I should avoid using things I don't fully understand :P Thank you all.

----------


## Freudian Monkey

> Freudian Monkey, again, I could have sent the wrong image when I said God is capable of both. I didn't mean He can be Good and Evil, but in Islam, God is capable of anything. God can reward your goodbeing and can punish your wrongdoing. Bad things aren't always Evil, there's an Ayah in the holy book that translate to this: "You may hate something (to happen) but it's good for you; and you may like something (to happen) but it's bad for you." Remember the story about Mosa I shared in my first post? (I hope I didn't go off-topic.) Thank you for participating.


But if the Islamic God is supposed to represent the Platonic ideals of everything good, beautiful and righteous (as the Christian God does), then he cannot be capable of doing everything - namely, he is unable to tolerate sin (=evil) or commit an evil act himself. If he could, he wouldn't be the embodiment of goodness anymore and the whole philosophical base of the religion would fall apart.

----------


## Monamy

> But if the Islamic God is supposed to represent the Platonic ideals of everything good, beautiful and righteous (as the Christian God does), then he cannot be capable of doing everything - namely, he is unable to tolerate sin (=evil) or commit an evil act himself. If he could, he wouldn't be the embodiment of goodness anymore and the whole philosophical base of the religion would fall apart.


I'm not trying to debate Islam or Christianity, but God is represented in his Holy book (at least in Quran, wouldn't know about the others) that He can do anything. I quote directly from the book these words which are repeated in many pages: إن الله على كل شيء قدير which translates exactly that He is capable of everything. God 'can' do anything and everything, the proof is the very existence of Satan and his challenge to God in misleading humanity towards Hell. Hell is yet another thing of God's vast creation, Hell is nothing but everlasting pain and torture, but that doesn't mean God likes pain and to torture.

Sorry if I can't explain it any better than that, language barriers irritate me sometimes.

----------


## YesNo

It seems that the existence of suffering is being used to try to disprove the existence of a good God. I don't think that's correct. More specifically, I don't think Monamy's religion, or most any other theistic religion, is in any way undermined by the existence of suffering. These religions provide a compassionate explanation for suffering assuming the universe is a good creation of a good God. 

The existence of suffering allows two important things to happen in the universe. First, it allows freedom for creatures to make mistakes. Second, it allows for change to occur. The first allows for evil and the second allows for evolution to occur. 

Although compassion would encourage one to reduce suffering, the existence of suffering itself is good. Without it there would be no freedom. Without it there would be no change.

The real problem of suffering is a challenge for the worldviews that do not think the universe is good. These worldviews in my limited experience are atheistic. They also view life as a blind accident that one must suffer stoically. Their ethics, to the extent they don't recommend discontinuing life itself in some way, is fixated on eliminating suffering which is an impossible task. They want to fix a universe they view as fundamentally flawed, which probably shouldn't have been created in the first place.

A nice presentation of this worldview is in the Lars von Trier movie _Melancholia_: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1527186/ In this movie the earth is swallowed up by some rogue planet called Melancholia that is about 4 times earth's diameter. All life is destroyed on earth when this occurs. The message is the following: _Life is itself evil. It was a random accident and because of that life only exists on earth. Melancholia is now removing life from the universe cleaning up the accident._

EDIT: So an answer to the question why does a good God allow suffering is because suffering allows us to have freedom, allows change to occur and motivates our compassion. An atheistic position that finds suffering a problem is challenged to find a way to make sense out of suffering without leading to an ethical conclusion like that expressed in _Melancholia_. If it ever reached such a negative conclusion all the atheistic ethics would have done was provide a contradiction of its own worldview.

----------


## Freudian Monkey

> I'm not trying to debate Islam or Christianity, but God is represented in his Holy book (at least in Quran, wouldn't know about the others) that He can do anything. I quote directly from the book these words which are repeated in many pages: إن الله على كل شيء قدير which translates exactly that He is capable of everything. God 'can' do anything and everything, the proof is the very existence of Satan and his challenge to God in misleading humanity towards Hell. Hell is yet another thing of God's vast creation, Hell is nothing but everlasting pain and torture, but that doesn't mean God likes pain and to torture.
> 
> Sorry if I can't explain it any better than that, language barriers irritate me sometimes.


I understand your point, don't worry about it. We use different types of arguments: yours are theological and mine philosophical. Thank you for your answer.

----------


## Darcy88

Wow, some great discussion going on here. The question of good and evil and suffering in relation to God will never be answered I don't think. You will always have believers and non-believers staring each other down from opposite sides of the philosophical fence. I myself am immensely conflicted on this issue. Right now I fancy myself a deist. I think God created everything and then just let creation go on ticking like a watch. I think He in fact can be blamed for suffering, but humans must bear much of the blame as well. Things like blame and good and evil all actually seem somewhat nonsensical to me. I suppose my thoughts on the matter have a somewhat Nietzschean flavour. Blaming God or blaming a person for evil seems to me to be as ridiculous as blaming a tree for being green. But we are human, imperfectly evolved/created things, and so we hate and blame and project upon nature things that really only exist in our own minds. We mythologize.

Anyway. Just my two cents on the matter.

----------


## cafolini

> Wow, some great discussion going on here. The question of good and evil and suffering in relation to God will never be answered I don't think. You will always have believers and non-believers staring each other down from opposite sides of the philosophical fence. I myself am immensely conflicted on this issue. Right now I fancy myself a deist. I think God created everything and then just let creation go on ticking like a watch. I think He in fact can be blamed for suffering, but humans must bear much of the blame as well. Things like blame and good and evil all actually seem somewhat nonsensical to me. I suppose my thoughts on the matter have a somewhat Nietzschean flavour. Blaming God or blaming a person for evil seems to me to be as ridiculous as blaming a tree for being green. But we are human, imperfectly evolved/created things, and so we hate and blame and project upon nature things that really only exist in our own minds. We mythologize.
> 
> Anyway. Just my two cents on the matter.


Many good points. And if we are going to speak about evil in the context of creation, we cannot assume that it is only our exclusive doing. Death is guaranteed 100%. We cannot hide our suffering in the postulation of an afterlife. At most, that must remain a belief and it is not the foundation of faith at which we cannot arrive so easily. "Nobody comes to the Father except through me."

----------


## Paulclem

> It seems that the existence of suffering is being used to try to disprove the existence of a good God. The existence of suffering allows two important things to happen in the universe. First, it allows freedom for creatures to make mistakes. Second, it allows for change to occur. The first allows for evil and the second allows for evolution to occur. 
> 
> Although compassion would encourage one to reduce suffering, the existence of suffering itself is good. Without it there would be no freedom. Without it there would be no change.
> 
> EDIT: So an answer to the question why does a good God allow suffering is because suffering allows us to have freedom, allows change to occur and motivates our compassion. An atheistic position that finds suffering a problem is challenged to find a way to make sense out of suffering without leading to an ethical conclusion like that expressed in _Melancholia_. If it ever reached such a negative conclusion all the atheistic ethics would have done was provide a contradiction of its own worldview.


It is the postulation of a good, personal, omnipotent God who created the universe. If everything comes from God, then how does this resonate with the good and omnipotent? I've heard the argument that life is meant to develop a person, the heaviest load is given to those with the broadest shoulders etc etc, but these are idealistic suggestions. You don't have to look far to find people destroyed by their load, and who are born into such circumstances where all they know is suffering and they have nom opportiunity to develop and improve themselves. It just doesn't make sense. 

So an answer to the question why does a good God allow suffering is because suffering allows us to have freedom

Who has the most freedom to think, write, reflect, generate ideas? Not the people with the most extreme suffering that's for sure. I think that statement comes from a place where we have the luxury of a little suffering. Would you be able to say that to a person who is a famine victim, or who has lost their family in a war, or suffered through natural disasters or any of the many sufferings that afflict humans?

----------


## cafolini

> It is the postulation of a good, personal, omnipotent God who created the universe. If everything comes from God, then how does this resonate with the good and omnipotent? I've heard the argument that life is meant to develop a person, the heaviest load is given to those with the broadest shoulders etc etc, but these are idealistic suggestions. You don't have to look far to find people destroyed by their load, and who are born into such circumstances where all they know is suffering and they have nom opportiunity to develop and improve themselves. It just doesn't make sense. 
> 
> So an answer to the question why does a good God allow suffering is because suffering allows us to have freedom
> 
> Who has the most freedom to think, write, reflect, generate ideas? Not the people with the most extreme suffering that's for sure. I think that statement comes from a place where we have the luxury of a little suffering. Would you be able to say that to a person who is a famine victim, or who has lost their family in a war, or suffered through natural disasters or any of the many sufferings that afflict humans?


I agree. The purpose of suffering, if it is to be viewed as a production of God, cannot be freedom. Freedom is a human aspiration that can only be achieved by men in a relative sense. Of course a God may be viewed as allowing suffering. That has little to do with producing freedom. If a God does not allow suffering, there would be no moral considerations. Men wouldn't have any ability to judge their actions.

----------


## Darcy88

In moments of despair I am a deist. In moments of happiness or evenness I am theologically quite Catholic. I am the latter about 80 percent of the time. I believe in purgatory. I don't care if there is no biblical basis for it. It makes a lot of sense to me. Dante is as much a theologian as Augustine to me.

----------


## cafolini

> In moments of despair I am a deist. In moments of happiness or evenness I am theologically quite Catholic. I am the latter about 80 percent of the time. I believe in purgatory. I don't care if there is no biblical basis for it. It makes a lot of sense to me. Dante is as much a theologian as Augustine to me.


Usually, Dante is not as funny as Agustine, but it suffices. Another one that babblesup serious jokes is Aquinas.

----------


## utopianchrist

Suffering is a means to cleanse the germs and the evil seed through of which our body is made. Even Christ chose suffering to cleanse the evil deeds of mankind. besides it remind us that there is a supreme force who is above us all, and thus leads us to live a disciplined life with respect for supreme being.

----------


## cafolini

> Suffering is a means to cleanse the germs and the evil seed through of which our body is made. Even Christ chose suffering to cleanse the evil deeds of mankind. besides it remind us that there is a supreme force who is above us all, and thus leads us to live a disciplined life with respect for supreme being.


I think in its better meaning, suffering is a means of paying for being stupid and refusing to learn what each day brings about 

Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid. ~ John Wayne 

Tomorrow hopes we have learned something from yesterday. ~ John Wayne 

Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday. ~ John Wayne

----------


## ZTay

From what I've learned from the Bible it's so that man might know his measure; and give due respect and reverence to God. Even in suffering we call God superfluous: how much more so might we in uninterrupted prosperity?

----------


## russellb

> Suffering is a means to cleanse the germs and the evil seed through of which our body is made. Even Christ chose suffering to cleanse the evil deeds of mankind. besides it remind us that there is a supreme force who is above us all, and thus leads us to live a disciplined life with respect for supreme being.


Suffering does not cleanse. That's a big romanticized mistake. Nietszche said famously, "What does not kill me makes me stronger." Actually, it can make you weaker. It would appear that God did not intend suffering. That is unless he intended Adam and Eve to disobey Him in Eden. In this sense suffering is a contingent fact of human life, not an essential one. Would we suggest that in its initial absence Adam and Eve were unable to respect God, having no basis to acquire a disciplined life, and that nor will this be possible in heaven when suffering is no more?

----------


## YesNo

> Suffering does not cleanse. That's a big romanticized mistake. Nietszche said famously, "What does not kill me makes me stronger." Actually, it can make you weaker. *It would appear that God did not intend suffering.*  That is unless he intended Adam and Eve to disobey Him in Eden. In this sense suffering is a contingent fact of human life, not an essential one. Would we suggest that in its initial absence Adam and Eve were unable to respect God, having no basis to acquire a disciplined life, and that nor will this be possible in heaven when suffering is no more?


How do you know that God did not intend suffering and that it is not a good thing? By "God" I mean that superhuman agent who created the universe which we know, from 21st century science, had a beginning 13.73 billion years ago.

Adam and Eve are characters from Genesis. One aspect of their behavior in these stories is that they had free will. They could disobey. They could make mistakes. The resulting suffering is a very useful way to help those who make mistakes to not repeat those mistakes in the future.

----------


## russellb

> How do you know that God did not intend suffering and that it is not a good thing? By "God" I mean that superhuman agent who created the universe which we know, from 21st century science, had a beginning 13.73 billion years ago.
> 
> Adam and Eve are characters from Genesis. One aspect of their behavior in these stories is that they had free will. They could disobey. They could make mistakes. The resulting suffering is a very useful way to help those who make mistakes to not repeat those mistakes in the future.


I do not know that God did not intend suffering, but life has taught me it's not a good thing. Ask someone with 'locked in' syndrome. Call me a naive utilitarian but I would have thought that the 'good' was located in happiness rather than suffering. This Nietszchean 'no pain no gain' thing is all very well but there is so much suffering that implies no gain... only pain. What's to be gained from chronic depression? And by the way what on earth has such a thing got to do with not repeating mistakes as you say. 

Well you know i was kind of assuming for the sake of theological discussion that Genesis can be taken seriously. I stand by what I say about suffering being contingent rather than essential. This is in fact premised on Adam and Eve having free will although nowhere in the bible is the term actually used. There is something of a paradox in the story of the fall. If Adam and Eve were created morally perfect... in the image of God... how would they have been capable of the sin of disobedience. Freewill or no. Its rather like saying God with His perfect nature is capable of sin which, of course, would be a heresy. 

The importance of the Genesis myth for Christians I think is that it accounts for the origin of evil (and therefore suffering) without, at least apparently, making God responsible for that evil. If God did actually intend and create evil (and therefore suffering) I would say that this is difficult to reconcile with the idea of a morally perfect God

----------


## cafolini

Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid. ~ John Wayne

----------


## russellb

[QUOTE=cafolini;1162079]Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid. ~ John Wayne[/QUOT

It depends what you mean by stupid i suppose. Someone who lacks common sense or good judgement may make life tougher on themselves. But then maybe a simple village idiot can have a simple village life. My experience of schooling in the United kingdom teaches me in fact that stupidity has great advantages. Being racist misogynist and homophobic can be wonderful ways of winning friends and influencing people. Stupidity is adaptive in an environment of stupid people. But then is adaption not an indicator of... intelligence? perhaps someone invented a word without creating a strict definition... which leaves me feeling stupid thinking about it. But if i didn't feel stupid i d be arrogant? Which would make me stupid. Right?

----------


## cafolini

Courage is being scared to death... and saddling up anyway. 
John Wayne 

Get off your butt and join the Marines! 
John Wayne 

Get off your horse and drink your milk. 
John Wayne 

I don't feel we did wrong in taking this great country away from them. There were great numbers of people who needed new land, and the Indians were selfishly trying to keep it for themselves. 
John Wayne 

If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?' 
John Wayne 

If you've got them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow. 
John Wayne 

Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid. 
John Wayne 

Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid. 
John Wayne 

Talk low, talk slow and don't say too much. 
John Wayne 

Tomorrow hopes we have learned something from yesterday. 
John Wayne

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

Answer to the OP: Because he's a dick.

----------


## russellb

> Courage is being scared to death... and saddling up anyway. 
> John Wayne 
> 
> Get off your butt and join the Marines! 
> John Wayne 
> 
> Get off your horse and drink your milk. 
> John Wayne 
> 
> ...


For someone who said, 'dont say too much,' he seems to have had a lot to say for himself. The 'life is hard' one may be a variation on the 'life is tough' one which you didn't need to repeat. I assume he wasn't a lily livered liberal 
going by what he said about the native Indians but then perhaps liberals don't make for great cowboys. I think what he says about courage is correct. With the absence of fear courage is redundant. Winning hearts and minds these days has probably got more to do with being telegenic but I can see how out on the wild frontier grabbing hold of someone's balls might have that effect. As for joining the army it's a tough school but then John Wayne was a tough talking tough guy. Unfortunately for my nephew, he was no John Wayne and he had to leave the army because he was being bullied. Still that's probably better than having his legs blown off in afghanistan, even if this might have meant he would appear in a 'help for heroes' film. Why isn't everything black and white? I think this is because otherwise if people were struggling in an argument they wouldn't be able to say 'everything isn't black and white you know.' I don't think i ve ever been on a horse but i seem to remember going on a donkey ride in spain once when i was a young boy. I hope it wasn't cruelly treated as one hears stories about. Finally John Wayne talks about learning. Well let me finish with some heartfelt, not such tough guy, wisdom

'learning how to love yourself is the greatest love of all' witney houston.

----------


## cafolini

Will have to see what happens. There might be enough time for that.

----------


## Dodo25

To all those who think a good God wouldn't create suffering, may I ask a follow-up question? 

Given that the ways in which we humans could intervene in nature are becoming more and more "god-like" with the growth of both knowledge and technology, shouldn't *we* (in the future, if feasible) try to do something against all the suffering in nature? 

Personally, I think we definitely should if such a thing ever becomes possible. Unfortunately maybe it won't. Anyway, the reason I'm asking is because I noticed that a lot of people seem to have inconsistent views about this. If the context is arguing against theists, they readily accept that suffering is bad. Yet if the concept becomes ethics, they invent excuses for why "nature is nature" and why intervention is bad. Or they say the suffering in nature doesn't matter. So what is it? 

Also interesting to not is that the Biblical paradise was free of suffering. So this question can be put to Christians as well. If there was a magic button that would change nature back into a paradise, without any serious side-effects, should we push it?

----------


## cafolini

Science could never go beyond what it precisely is made to fix. Hence every time it is applied, it would be out of the scope of many other things needed by other people.

On the other hand, many people in particular need will never have enough of the actual science necessary to solve their issues.

This doessn't mean that whatever of science could be used will not be used.

----------


## GreenLucky

I am always amazed by the number of people who believe in god.

----------


## cafolini

> I am always amazed by the number of people who believe in god.


I'm always amazed at the number of people who would like not to, but have no choice.

----------


## togre

> Also interesting to not is that the Biblical paradise was free of suffering. So this question can be put to Christians as well. If there was a magic button that would change nature back into a paradise, without any serious side-effects, should we push it?



I think this is a very good question. One which I won't exactly answer except to say...

1). Obviously there is no such "magic button." If there were a way to change nature (and I'd include human nature) back to its initial perfection, there would be no more important task, *ever* than to "push the button."


2). The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is God's way of "pushing the button," that is, addressing and restoring the loss of paradise. It cost so much to do. It begins with addressing humans with forgiveness and from there the consequences bleed into the natural world (promise of a new heavens and new earth) but that follows the Bible's description of the loss of paradise being focused on human's losing perfection with the natural world being collateral damage, so to speak.

As I have tried to say before, the only way to acknowledge evil as evil and still acknowledge God as good, is to see how he has addressed suffering and provided salvation. He has done so on a far more important level than merely preventing a car crash or cure a case of cancer. He has addressed the core issue and, through forgiveness in Jesus Christ, addressed it completely and with eternal ramifications.

----------


## YesNo

> I do not know that God did not intend suffering, but life has taught me it's not a good thing. Ask someone with 'locked in' syndrome. Call me a naive utilitarian but I would have thought that the 'good' was located in happiness rather than suffering. This Nietszchean 'no pain no gain' thing is all very well but there is so much suffering that implies no gain... only pain. What's to be gained from chronic depression? And by the way what on earth has such a thing got to do with not repeating mistakes as you say.


I see suffering partially as a feedback mechanism. If one is able, individual suffering should encourage the sufferer to make changes to remove the suffering. However, trying to eliminate the feedback mechanism itself doesn't make sense to me. The feedback mechanism itself is good. To be able to respond to a feedback mechanism implies the existence of freedom.

Suffering is also necessary for change to occur. 

The various theistic positions add particular details to this picture which ultimately affirm the universe as good, but the atheistic positions seem to me to add nothing positive. The universe itself is a problem for atheists that is unsolvable and suffering is central to that problem.

----------


## cafolini

> I see suffering partially as a feedback mechanism.  If one is able, individual suffering should encourage the sufferer to make changes to remove the suffering. However, trying to eliminate the feedback mechanism itself doesn't make sense to me. The feedback mechanism itself is good. To be able to respond to a feedback mechanism implies the existence of freedom.
> 
> Suffering is also necessary for change to occur. 
> 
> The various theistic positions add particular details to this picture which ultimately affirm the universe as good, but the atheistic positions seem to me to add nothing positive. The universe itself is a problem for atheists that is unsolvable and suffering is central to that problem.


We are coming to a close.

----------


## cafolini

> We are coming to a close.


I actually study quite a lot of science as I awaken interest according to myself. But I have no prescription for anyone else regarding that.

I only prescribe undefined religion for anyone else, which I cannot define, and am not interested in defining. It would be pointless, since the chances of being the same I'm using are scientifically nil. Have fun. Love you all. Forever.

----------


## Tor-Hershman

1. For fun?

2. Because he is not a good God?

3. To teach us a lesson.

4. Because he wants more believers?

5. Because of some plan we will never be able to understand?

6. To teach us a lesson.

7. Maybe Satan and God were somehow switched and all of Christianity is a big joke?
Whoa! this video would agree with that
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLGJXo8gshg

8. God is a businessman.

9. God wants attention.

10. He has nothing better to do.

11.

----------


## cacian

> I see suffering partially as a feedback mechanism. If one is able, individual suffering should encourage the sufferer to make changes to remove the suffering. However, trying to eliminate the feedback mechanism itself doesn't make sense to me. The feedback mechanism itself is good. To be able to respond to a feedback mechanism implies the existence of freedom.
> 
> Suffering is also necessary for change to occur. 
> 
> The various theistic positions add particular details to this picture which ultimately affirm the universe as good, but the atheistic positions seem to me to add nothing positive. The universe itself is a problem for atheists that is unsolvable and suffering is central to that problem.


Hi YesNo I have just noticed your new signature.
I have just been wondering whether we have been cunfunded to believe in a God that does anything naturally we must be certain he does or we would no be here deliberating about him.  :Wink:

----------


## cacian

> 1. For fun?
> 
> 2. Because he is not a good God?
> 
> 3. To teach us a lesson.
> 
> 4. Because he wants more believers?
> 
> 5. Because of some plan we will never be able to understand?
> ...


How does number 11 fits in with the rest?

----------


## cacian

> I am always amazed by the number of people who believe in god.


Hold on there is a difference between believing he exists and believing in his existence to do things.
Which are you talking about?

----------


## cacian

And back to the original post who said God promoted anything?
He is famous enough to want to promote anything.
Promotion is nouveau word by the nouveau rich and comes with ads and technology and means advertising to sell a product that would not stand a chance otherwise.
God creating people and planets is promotion enough.
What more is there to say?

----------


## Tor-Hershman

> How does number 11 fits in with the rest?


My wee parody fits

for it shows that The Bible/Jesus/God couldn't even, nor evenly nor odd nor oddly, manage to pass a high school biology course.

Stay on groovin' safari,
Tor

----------


## russellb

> And back to the original post who said God promoted anything?
> He is famous enough to want to promote anything.
> Promotion is nouveau word by the nouveau rich and comes with ads and technology and means advertising to sell a product that would not stand a chance otherwise.
> God creating people and planets is promotion enough.
> What more is there to say?


"The universe wants us to win." It's a great line i think, it's from the novel, 'Girlfriend in a coma' by Douglas Coupland. Is God cheering us on hoping his encouragement, his 'promotion' of our cause, will help us win promotion to the major league? (do you have promotion to the major league? i didn't want to sound english and say 'premier league') Suffering might be part of the basis for us coming top of the class, if i can mix my metaphors. That's the theology of an optimist. A God who punishes us for our sins to promote his desire for vengence may just be the theology of bad digestion. Is it even possible to have a 'rational' debate or is it all just a'prejudice of the heart' as Nietzsche might say?

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> My wee parody fits
> 
> for it shows that The Bible/Jesus/God couldn't even, nor evenly nor odd nor oddly, manage to pass a high school biology course.
> 
> Stay on groovin' safari,
> Tor


This just shows how easily someone who thinks they are smart can totally miss the most obvious.

 :Icon Bs:

----------


## ZTay

Cheers to Tor-Hershman who makes a high school Biology class the measure of all things.

----------


## cacian

> Cheers to Tor-Hershman who makes a high school Biology class the measure of all things.


Haha indeed if only we could measure things we'll be counting them with the tip of our fingers and hoping they would grow sideways and everyways.

----------


## YesNo

> Hi YesNo I have just noticed your new signature.
> I have just been wondering whether we have been cunfunded to believe in a God that does anything naturally we must be certain he does or we would no be here deliberating about him.


Thanks for noticing the signature, cacian. Since I was defending Harry Potter in another thread, I figured I better put a quote from Rowling in my signature, at least temporarily.

I love the way Rowling made Snape explain that being Confunded implies that such a person is certain of whatever they have to say. Usually we think being confused involves enough humility to have some doubts, but such people aren't as confused as their emotions make them think. Those most deeply confused do not even know they are confused and so have no doubts at all.

I don't have any specific religion to promote. I pick and choose from various religious practices whatever makes sense to me and ignore the rest. Regarding this thread the most basic issue is not whether God is good but whether the universe we live in is good. We don't have to believe the universe exists. We are confronted with it, as well as the suffering we experience by living in it, on a daily basis. 

A theist who believes in a good God, depending on the theology, will usually accept a good universe made by that God. For theists, this thread provides only a minor problem even when they have gone through personal tragedy which hurts them as much as anyone. It is atheists who are mainly challenged and that is why atheists present these challenges to theists. They are calls for help under the cover of hostility.

Some theists, including myself, believe that suffering is a way to provide us with a corrective feedback mechanism to our misunderstandings of what is most real. At a simple level, this correction works like this. We put our hands in the fire. We suffer. We stop putting our hands in the fire. At a deeper level, suffering reminds us of our deaths and the ultimate insignificance of going after fame or wealth or power. It tells us to find something better. The religious, spiritual or intuitive people of our various cultures have over thousands of years come up with suggestions, rituals and institutions that might help us to better spend our brief lives.

So suffering is a way to break a Confundus Charm we have cast on each other and find out what is most real, which I believe, since I do believe the universe is good, is staring us in the face.

----------


## Anton Hermes

> Some theists, including myself, believe that suffering is a way to provide us with a corrective feedback mechanism to our misunderstandings of what is most real. At a simple level, this correction works like this. We put our hands in the fire. We suffer. We stop putting our hands in the fire. At a deeper level, suffering reminds us of our deaths and the ultimate insignificance of going after fame or wealth or power. It tells us to find something better. The religious, spiritual or intuitive people of our various cultures have over thousands of years come up with suggestions, rituals and institutions that might help us to better spend our brief lives.
> 
> So suffering is a way to break a Confundus Charm we have cast on each other and find out what is most real, which I believe, since I do believe the universe is good, is staring us in the face.


This seems like an interesting way to look at the suffering we cause ourselves, but what about the suffering visited upon the innocent by birth defects, trypanosomes, or drone attacks? If the universe is good, what's the meaning of this suffering?

----------


## YesNo

> This seems like an interesting way to look at the suffering we cause ourselves, but what about the suffering visited upon the innocent by birth defects, trypanosomes, or drone attacks? *If the universe is good*, what's the meaning of this suffering?


That is the basic question. Is the universe good or not even when one cannot find a justification for suffering. If the universe is good, why do the innocent suffer? 

Here's the Wikipedia article on theodicy which is more in line with the original question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy Theodicy tries to justify whatever God the culture believes in, but further in the article is a discussion of cosmodicy. This focuses the problem on the source, the universe itself. The article even discusses "anthropodicy", but I think the idea of cosmodicy covers that.

However, I suspect the meaning of innocent suffering would be the same as the meaning of the suffering of the guilty. Suffering forces those who suffer as well as those watch their suffering to reject the shallow Gods of greed, power or fame and look elsewhere for something worthwhile to do with one's life no matter how short or how innocent that life might be.

Although I have my own ideas, I don't have any solution to publicly offer of what that worthwhile something might be. It wouldn't matter anyway to disclose that information. All that I can say is it makes more sense, since one is living in this universe, to say yes to it rather than no. Saying no leads to a dead end. Saying yes offers hope.

----------


## Ser Nevarc

> . . . 
> 
> However, I suspect the meaning of innocent suffering would be the same as the meaning of the suffering of the guilty. Suffering forces those who suffer as well as those watch their suffering to reject the shallow Gods of greed, power or fame and look elsewhere for something worthwhile to do with one's life no matter how short or how innocent that life might be.
> 
> Although I have my own ideas, I don't have any solution to publicly offer of what that worthwhile something might be. It wouldn't matter anyway to disclose that information. All that I can say is it makes more sense, since one is living in this universe, to say yes to it rather than no. Saying no leads to a dead end. Saying yes offers hope.


So you presume to know, then, how "on track" other beings besides yourself living in this universe are? You presume to know that it is a "dead end" to deny the goodness of a universe, one which has given no real evidence of any innate goodness whatsoever? 

How does it make more sense to "say yes" to what you describe? How does it make more sense to believe in an untruth, or at the least, a nonsensical hypothesis?

I hope people are getting sick of the arrogance of those who claim to know the order of the universe, and that there is a reason and a goal associated with the suffering of the innocent.

----------


## Umbreon

It makes sense for the God of classical theism to permit (not promote per se) suffering. If such a God wants us to believe that we need him, it makes sense to make us anything but self-sufficient and susceptible to pain and suffering. If we were invincible and life painless, we wouldn't feel as if we needed anything or anyone.

----------


## hellsapoppin

> This seems like an interesting way to look at the suffering we cause ourselves, but what about the suffering visited upon the innocent by birth defects, trypanosomes, or drone attacks? If the universe is good, what's the meaning of this suffering?



That's a question I have posed to some of the delusional apologists on this forum before but none seem to have any real answers. All they ever say is, the great god is ever so good that anyone who has suffered will soon realize how good the SOB really is. Dunno how that will benefit the aborted fetus but, somehow, people still cling on to their delusions.

----------


## Jassy Melson

To promote means to help, advance, aid. assist, or support. As far as suffering goes, I don't see God doing any of those things. I suppose that the originator of this thread meant that God aided in suffering existing. But I simply cannot see God helping to support suffering.

----------


## YesNo

> So you presume to know, then, how "on track" other beings besides yourself living in this universe are? You presume to know that it is a "dead end" to deny the goodness of a universe, one which has given no real evidence of any innate goodness whatsoever? 
> 
> How does it make more sense to "say yes" to what you describe? How does it make more sense to believe in an untruth, or at the least, a nonsensical hypothesis?
> 
> I hope people are getting sick of the arrogance of those who claim to know the order of the universe, and that there is a reason and a goal associated with the suffering of the innocent.


If it is not a dead end to deny the goodness of the universe, what is the alternative?

----------


## hellsapoppin

Isaiah 45:7

This "benevolent" god boasts of creating all evil.

----------


## Calidore

> Isaiah 45:7
> 
> This "benevolent" god boasts of creating all evil.


I suppose that depends on the translation and the reader's interpretation thereof. It reads to me more like an affirmation of all-encompassing power than simply a boast of creating evil. 

For reference, Isaiah 45:7 (NET Bible translation):

I am the one who forms light
and creates darkness;14 
the one who brings about peace
and creates calamity.15

Notes:

14tn On the surface v. 7a appears to describe God’s sovereign control over the cycle of day and night, but the following statement suggests that “light” and “darkness” symbolize “deliverance” and “judgment.” 

15sn This verses affirms that God is ultimately sovereign over his world, including mankind and nations. In accordance with his sovereign will, he can cause wars to cease and peace to predominate (as he was about to do for his exiled people through Cyrus), or he can bring disaster and judgment on nations (as he was about to do to Babylon through Cyrus).

----------


## Jassy Melson

Deleted by Jassy Melson

----------


## Jassy Melson

> That's a question I have posed to some of the delusional apologists on this forum before but none seem to have any real answers. All they ever say is, the great god is ever so good that anyone who has suffered will soon realize how good the SOB really is. Dunno how that will benefit the aborted fetus but, somehow, people still cling on to their delusions.


Hitler's quote shows that it's a maniac speaking; not God.

----------


## caddy_caddy

I don't know,actually there is too much suffering in life but I don't think He is sadistic. He is not happy for our suffering .
From my own experience, I've learnet not to judge any happening or event in the right moment . I've learnet to give it time . It's only with the passage of time that we can discover the right nature of things. When I review the chain of events in my previous life I discover that what seems to me at a very specific moment something so bad, too much suffering, unfairness or injustice, was the cause of sth good. In the chain " cause -effect " of our life, something bad, as suffering (cause)might have a good ( effect ).In this respect suffering might not always be sth bad. Suffering has to do a lot with creativity for instance. Great persons have suffered a great deal in their life. On the other hand , no one can deny that suffering might be so destructive. Here I remember one saying for ' Ibrahim Alzenedy :" Pain is the tool for anger or sublimation, and it's up to you to decide which one to choose"
Regards

----------


## Redzeppelin

Most attacks against God's goodness come in the form of this rather simplistic idea: "God is good, therefore nothing bad should ever happen to me or anybody else." That idea reveals a number of important things:
1. The individual speaking it has never really read the entire Bible, and if s/he did, s/he didn't understand it very well.
2. The individual speaking it doesn't understand that you can't "have it both ways" in this world. We can't all have free will and then have a God that steps in to thwart all attempts by others to freely use their will in harmful ways. 
3. If God isn't good, then He must be something else (which means "bad," "selfish," "malicious," "evil," etc). If this is so, and God is not good, then why would he suffer to allow anybody criticizing Him to continue to exist? If God is not good, then neither is he Just (since we would assume that justice and goodness go together) - and if God is not just, then what "law" of fairness requires Him to allow scoffers to attack and mock Him? Only a good God would allow those who misunderstand Him to malign Him and speak ill of Him. 

Interestingly enough, most who attack God fail to either realize, or acknowledge these realities.

----------


## cafolini

> Most attacks against God's goodness come in the form of this rather simplistic idea: "God is good, therefore nothing bad should ever happen to me or anybody else." That idea reveals a number of important things:
> 1. The individual speaking it has never really read the entire Bible, and if s/he did, s/he didn't understand it very well.
> 2. The individual speaking it doesn't understand that you can't "have it both ways" in this world. We can't all have free will and then have a God that steps in to thwart all attempts by others to freely use their will in harmful ways. 
> 3. If God isn't good, then He must be something else (which means "bad," "selfish," "malicious," "evil," etc). If this is so, and God is not good, then why would he suffer to allow anybody criticizing Him to continue to exist? If God is not good, then neither is he Just (since we would assume that justice and goodness go together) - and if God is not just, then what "law" of fairness requires Him to allow scoffers to attack and mock Him? Only a good God would allow those who misunderstand Him to malign Him and speak ill of Him. 
> 
> Interestingly enough, most who attack God fail to either realize, or acknowledge these realities.


You are making a moral judgement. It's simpler, much simpler than that. There are millions of fools for whom God provides, as they like it.

----------


## Redzeppelin

I'm hard-pressed to see how my statements are "moral judgments." Number 1 deals with the reality that any judgment upon God should be based upon our knowledge of Him. That knowledge comes from the Bible. Without reading that book and understanding it, any judgment made of God's goodness is merely uninformed opinion. If we're going to judge Him, we ought to know what we're told about Him. Number 2 deals with logic: you cannot have free will in a universe where evil behaviors are forbidden. That's pretty obvious on the face of it. We can't argue for free will and then criticize God when He isn't selective about who gets the freedom to choose his/her behaviors. Number 3 deals with logic as well. People like to say that God is evil, and yet an evil being has no need to be fair, just, or tolerant of those who attack Him, so if God is bad, why does He continue to allow those who malign Him to live? 

You're pretty quick to call people fools, but you didn't deal with any of my points in the least. You categorized them, said "it's simpler than that" (without bothering to explain yourself), and then denigrated believers. Is that all you've got in response?

----------


## Anton Hermes

This is a real problem faced by religious people who believe in a conventional, active God who rewards and punishes. The whole matter of theodicy is a significant part of Western religious philosophy. But there's no real solution. The Book of Job in effect admits that there's no rhyme or reason to the way God permits suffering; the only explanation Job receives from the Almighty is that it's presumptuous to even ask.

I see this as the dilemma of attributing moral meaning to events or natural phenomena. Does it trivialize people's suffering more when we assert that there's no grand reason for it, or when we dismiss it as being all part of the Almighty's inscrutable plan?

----------


## ralfyman

Try books like Hall's _God and Human Suffering_.

----------


## cafolini

> I'm hard-pressed to see how my statements are "moral judgments." Number 1 deals with the reality that any judgment upon God should be based upon our knowledge of Him. That knowledge comes from the Bible. Without reading that book and understanding it, any judgment made of God's goodness is merely uninformed opinion. If we're going to judge Him, we ought to know what we're told about Him. Number 2 deals with logic: you cannot have free will in a universe where evil behaviors are forbidden. That's pretty obvious on the face of it. We can't argue for free will and then criticize God when He isn't selective about who gets the freedom to choose his/her behaviors. Number 3 deals with logic as well. People like to say that God is evil, and yet an evil being has no need to be fair, just, or tolerant of those who attack Him, so if God is bad, why does He continue to allow those who malign Him to live? 
> 
> You're pretty quick to call people fools, but you didn't deal with any of my points in the least. You categorized them, said "it's simpler than that" (without bothering to explain yourself), and then denigrated believers. Is that all you've got in response?


The last thing I'd do is entangle with explaining to your foolisness. Your stuff is inconsequential.

----------


## Volya

If there is a benevolent god out there then why the hell does he allow something like this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti..._campaign=1490

The simple answer is that if there IS a god, he sure as heck isn't a nice one.

----------


## ennison

Anyone can snap. Having easy access to guns that have no purpose than killing people is the fault not of any god or God but of yourselves. Who are you all afraid of?

----------


## chrisiacovetti

As far as human actions go, it seems a little bit overzealous to immediately blame them all on God. Unless free will is cruel, (which it could be), God is neither cruel nor responsible for human actions.

Whether or not free will is, in itself, evil is another question. I'd be curious to hear thoughts on that.

Natural disasters and things like that are a whole lot harder to explain away from a theistic standpoint. But:

1. If there is some spiritual evil force that opposes God, it certainly could be that these are to blame for natural evils.

2. Many natural evils are caused by human actions (e.g. environmental carelessness can result in environmental disasters).

----------


## ralfyman

> The world is the Devil's, only we in it can oppose him.


It's the same argument, I'm afraid: we attribute the world, etc., to beings whose existence we cannot prove or disprove scientifically.

----------


## chasingthetruth

"O people! This world is an abode of absurdity, not an abode of straightness, and an abode of distress, not an abode of joy. Whoever knows it will not be jovial for affluence nor distressed for misery.

Verily, God created the world as an abode of affliction and the Hereafter is an abode of success. He made the affliction of this world a cause for the reward of the Hereafter, and the reward of the Hereafter a compensation for the affliction of this world. So He takes in order to give and He tries in order to reward.

This world passes very quickly and turns unexpectedly. Therefore, beware of the sweetness of its suckling for the bitterness of its weaning, and abandon its present joy because of its future distaste.

Do not strive to construct a home whose destruction God has decreed. And do not befriend it while God wanted you to stay away from it. That causes you to be exposed to His wrath, worthy of His punishment."

- Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him)

----------

