Does God make mistakes?

[wynn]

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that.
Haven't you ever felt blissfull, even for a moment.
Listening to music, reading a book, talking to someone, seen beauty in nature....

Not really. Ever since I can remember, I have felt like I am two people. Even if one felt something like happy, there was the other one, which was detached from it all.
I was never really fully present in anything, or felt like my heart was in it. There was always this distance to everything that was happening or that I was experiencing.
I almost drowned once at sea, and I felt like it all didn't really have much to do with me, for crying out loud. One would think that breathing in sea water and struggling in the waves would be deeply personal and disturbing experience (it feels like breathing in fire) - but it wasn't for me.
I have cried at music concerts - and yet it all somehow had nothing to do with me.
This distance is what I find the most disturbing.


And secondly, those pleasures that you mention - they seem so small to me, they are nothing in comparison to the misery that I feel, they cannot outweigh it.

 

[jpappl]

Jan,

The raped baby doesn't care about what the scriptures say while it's being raped. ”

The babe doesn't care, period.

WTF are you kidding me.

The god is cruel and in control ?
The god does not have control ?
The god is inept, lol ? ”

None of the above.

Nonsense. If none of the above is the answer then you are an atheist.

God is in control of material nature.

ok

Material nature has its laws.

Which god is in control of, per above

As we are here, our bodies are under the control of material nature.

Which is being controlled by god.

So you are saying that god is in control.

 

[Lori_7]

i think that omniscient and omnipresent imply that time is not something that god is restrained by. as if everything were happening at once. so i suggest that god is not surprised by what takes place, but still could have an emotional reaction to it.

i really don't get a sense of emotionality from god the father though...only through christ who was human. i think of the father as a creator, a law maker, and a big hammer.

 

[Jan Ardena]

jpappl,

WTF are you kidding me.

What do babies care about?

Nonsense. If none of the above is the answer then you are an atheist.

You're an "atheist" if you don't believe in God.

So you are saying that god is in control.

yes.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

What do babies care about?

Not being hungry.
Not being thirsty.
Not being in pain.
Not being too hot/ cold.

 

[jpappl]

Jan,

What do babies care about?

A baby would most likely be in tremendous pain during such an event, and would certainly care about that.

Nonsense. If none of the above is the answer then you are an atheist. ”

You're an "atheist" if you don't believe in God.

Sure, so why did you state none of the above and then go on to state that god is in fact in control.

“ So you are saying that god is in control. ”

yes.

Then your god is a cruel sob or it is not omnipotent.

 

[Surreal Exposure]

Because an innocent soul gets raped their as a child or baby. If you were a social worker and you could place a child in one of six homes and you knew one of them had a father who was a rapist pedophile, I am guessing you would place the child elsewhere. God, being omniscient, should avoid the same placement, but God does not. So God is either making a mistake now or made one in the past that is still being unraveled. I think it is the latter.

It seems strange to me that you would consider the placement of a child into a home both solely the decision of God and also a mistake of his. Who's to say that the decision was not shared by both the parents and the child for that child to come to that home or family? Even if it was solely the decision of God to place the child in this environment, isn't it man's mistake to commit the pedophilia and not God's?

 

[Jan Ardena]

jpappl,

A baby would most likely be in tremendous pain during such an event, and would certainly care about that.

The baby would be aware of the pain, and most certainly distressed, but is it capable of caring?

Sure, so why did you state none of the above and then go on to state that god is in fact in control.

Because I didn't agree with your analasys, based on scriptures.

Then your god is a cruel sob or it is not omnipotent.

That doesn't make sense from a scriptoral POV.
What is your analasys based on?

jan.

 

[(Q)]

So you are saying that god is in control.

yes.

jan.

And, he fills his quota of starving and dead children in the tens of thousands daily.

God is in control, murdering.

 

[Dywyddyr]

The baby would be aware of the pain, and most certainly distressed, but is it capable of caring?

Yes.
What makes you "think" a baby isn't?

care (kâr)
n.
1. A burdened state of mind, as that arising from heavy responsibilities; worry.
2. Mental suffering; grief.
3. An object or source of worry, attention, or solicitude: the many cares of a working parent.
4. Caution in avoiding harm or danger: handled the crystal bowl with care.
5.
a. Close attention; painstaking application: painting the window frames and sashes with care.
b. Upkeep; maintenance: a product for the care of fine floors; hair care products.
6. Watchful oversight; charge or supervision: left the child in the care of a neighbor.
7. Attentive assistance or treatment to those in need: a hospital that provides emergency care.
v. cared, car·ing, cares
v.intr.
1. To be concerned or interested: Once inside, we didn't care whether it rained or not.
2. To provide needed assistance or watchful supervision: cared for the wounded; caring for an aged relative at home.
3. To object or mind: If no one cares, I'll smoke.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/CARE

 

[jpappl]

Jan,

A baby would most likely be in tremendous pain during such an event, and would certainly care about that. ”

The baby would be aware of the pain, and most certainly distressed, but is it capable of caring?

Yes, caring that it is in distress and pain.

Sure, so why did you state none of the above and then go on to state that god is in fact in control. ”

Because I didn't agree with your analasys, based on scriptures.

But in the end you agreed that god is in control. You just didn't like the cruel part, I see.

Well if God is in control than in some ways it is not cruel but at times is. So how can god justify letting a baby get raped ? In this sense it is incredibly cruel and wicked.

Then your god is a cruel sob or it is not omnipotent. ”

That doesn't make sense from a scriptoral POV.
What is your analasys based on?

The fact that it lets babies and children get raped.

Isn't it odd to you that babies getting raped doesn't line up with your scriptural POV ?

But does line up with a god that is not in control.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Signal,

"Volunteer" and "forced" are mutually exclusive, so I cannot answer your question.

I meant would you volunteer to be conditioned purely at the descretion of someone else?

Logically, the option to not exist is impossible, but it is something I find the least unappealing, given the other options.

What is this statement in relation to?

Sure, such noble goals. The top one being to cultivate detachment from the desire to ever be with God, right?

Not from a religious perspective.

And that when I would eventually ask the servant above me "When will I finally see God and have a relationship with Him, as is promised in the scriptures?", then some stuck-up city damsel, of course a proper devotee and Vaisnavi (woe is me if I thought that she could be anything less than that), would explain to me that I just am not good enough and that I should find my happiness in forever yearning for God, or she'd even explain to me how the relationship in absence is even better than a direct one and that I should cultivate that. And of course I would have to believe her that and act accordingly, for otherwise by disagreeing with her, I would be committing an offense against a Vaisnava, and off to hell with me!

I'm not quite sure how to respond to this.
Sounds like you have issues.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

jpappl,

That doesn't make sense from a scriptoral POV.
What is your analasys based on?

The fact that it lets babies and children get raped.

Do you understand the concept of karma, and reincarnation?

Isn't it odd to you that babies getting raped doesn't line up with your scriptural POV ?

It can be understood by the laws of nature as karma, and reincarnation.

But does line up with a god that is not in control.

God is in control, and because of that, nature works properly.

jan.

 

[lightgigantic]

And, he fills his quota of starving and dead children in the tens of thousands daily.

God is in control, murdering.

actually the whole material world is the arena of mortality ... however the important detail you are successful in evading is that death is not a quality of the soul (although it is arguably a necessary one to experience repeatedly for a soul disposed to pursuing one chapter of transient desire after another through the vehicle of a body)

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yes.
What makes you "think" a baby isn't?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/CARE

To be honest I don't think either way, maybe a baby can care.
I just can't imagine it that's all.

jan.

 

[jpappl]

Jan,

Do you understand the concept of karma, and reincarnation?

Yes

It can be understood by the laws of nature as karma, and reincarnation.

But as you already admitted, god is in control of the material world. Why do you want to shift the responsibility for the cruelty to nature. When god is in control.

But does line up with a god that is not in control. ”

God is in control, and because of that, nature works properly

You can't have it both ways. If god is in control then he allows babies to get raped. Correct ?

 

[Dywyddyr]

To be honest I don't think either way

That's more than apparent.

I just can't imagine it that's all.

So you're either arguing from incredulity/ ignorance or you somehow think babies aren't capable of cognition/ feelings/ reacting to stimuli.
Maybe you don't think of babies as human?
Hmm, I wonder where you stand on abortion... any time up until they're capable of asking for themselves not to be killed, perhaps?

 

[lightgigantic]

That's more than apparent.


So you're either arguing from incredulity/ ignorance or you somehow think babies aren't capable of cognition/ feelings/ reacting to stimuli.
Maybe you don't think of babies as human?
Hmm, I wonder where you stand on abortion... any time up until they're capable of asking for themselves not to be killed, perhaps?

I'm not sure you are up on how the issue came up.

Someone came up with babies don't care which scriptures one uses.
Jan replied that they don't care about rape either way.

IOW its not so much about stimuli but responding to articulated issues.

I mean what do you suppose is a babies slant on the gfc?
:shrug:

 

[jpappl]

LG

IOW its not so much about stimuli but responding to articulated issues.

I have a different view of the exchange.

When the baby is getting raped it doesn't matter what scriptures you use to try and justify the rape and to apologize for god's actions.

It's still getting raped, and per Jan god is in control.

At which point you know what you can do with the scriptures.

And of course the baby doesn't know or understand anything about scripture.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I'm not sure you are up on how the issue came up.

Then be sure.
I read the thread.

Someone came up with babies don't care which scriptures one uses.
Jan replied that they don't care about rape either way.
IOW its not so much about stimuli but responding to articulated issues.

Nope, Jan took it into the realms of stupidity with

The babe doesn't care, period.

I mean what do you suppose is a babies slant on the gfc?
:shrug:

Probably the same as mine. I have no interest in Gillingham OR football.