Friends getting religious
- Thread starter Mickmeister
- Start date
i don't know. I guess you should know better why you are on facebook.
Once this tactic has been employed, I typically refrain from continuing as it generally leads to a downward spiral that doesn't ever end.
However, against my better judgement I shall give it an attempt. To do this we need to go back a bit. Originally you said:
"Because Pain is Bad? Suffering is Evil? Me, I think of it as a necessary part of living"
I asked if it would be absent in our second life in heaven. You contended that 'we', (whoever that applies to), don't know. I countered that there are many christians that do know - or at least state that the bible is telling the truth when it says there wont be.
As a result of your 'not knowing' I looked at both alternatives, (yes there will be suffering/no there wont be suffering).
If suffering and pain is absent from heaven then we can conclude that it is bad and evil because if it were in fact good and holy then it would undoubtedly feature in the realm of goodness and holiness.
If suffering and pain is a part of heaven then I would question the value in either choice. Worship god, don't worship god - either decision leads to the same outcome, (suffering).
I would contend that given the latter, pain and suffering would be absent from heaven which takes us back to the former.
You don't have to agree with either - that should not prevent discussion of such issues. If you don't want to discuss such issues that's also fine - although somewhat strange to me given that this is a place for discussion of such issues.
Kindly note that I didn't ask you to explain my position, I asked you some questions in order to hear your thoughts and ideas concerning the subject. Again, not 'knowing' is fine but should not prevent one from examining the issues.
You stated that pain and suffering is necessary. Would you care to explain why you think it's necessary? Do you think that it will be necessary in life II? If pain and suffering is a factor of our fall into imperfection and was absent in a life of perfection - and perfection is where we should have remained, on what basis would you say that pain and suffering is necessary?
Do you think that we fell into imperfection or we were created imperfect? Do you perhaps espouse that pain and suffering is perfection?
Please, share your thoughts.
Not really relevant, since we're primarily talking about a cause of unnecessary suffering. But I'm sure that you'll agree that prolonging individual mortality is benevolent is many (not all) cases.
If you had the means and opportunity to effect a cure for a child suffering from cancer, it would clearly be benevolent to do so.
Logical, perhaps. But benevolent?
Do you think that extended, painful deaths are a benevolent method of population decimation?
Thats only if you're able to actually cure the child. Why is it "unnecessary"? What would you term a necessary suffering?
Are they painful and extended in themselves or because we apply cures that are painful and extended? I know of two people who died of cancer. One chose the treatment option [two major brain surgeries, involving screws to set the bone plate] and lost her hair, her appetite and slowly, her life. The other one chose no treatment and died in her sleep.
They are painful and extended in themselves - not quite as extended, naturally.SAM said:
Try, for example, pontine tumors in children - gratuitous cruelty, if under the control of any entity with knowledge of events.
There is no such thing as a "logical consequence of the metabolic process".SAM said:
Last edited:
Right, just like I said.
If I am able to cure a child of cancer, and yet do not... how could I say that I am benevolent?
It is unnecessary because it serves no purpose. An example of necessary (or at least useful) suffering is the pain you feel when you touch a hot surface.
I don't know, but I was under the impression that at least some cancers are not pleasant at all, with or without treatment.
What type and stage cancer did those people have?
But you don't believe in God, so how can you believe in his ability to create or cure?
Yes I did, I have no problem with a God who allows things to progress logically.
Only because we have different notions of what God should be doing perhaps.
So you would not choose it.
You imagine its necessary for your child to survive. Why do you think so?
What purpose does life serve?
They both had brain tumors.
There is. If there is growth, there can be stunted growth or unregulated growth. Note that once dead, nothing grows.
Its not obfuscation. I'm always puzzled by how fairy tale the atheist view of God is. For some reason they seem to think God is another name for Santa Claus.
Sam, you're twisting away from simple questions like a ninja.
You can't even bring yourself to say that a pain-free instant cure for a child suffering from cancer would be a good act.
The God we're talking about is what you described - omnipotent, benevolent, and logical. But what benevolence? What is benevolence that disdains individuals in need?
You can't even bring yourself to say that a pain-free instant cure for a child suffering from cancer would be a good act.
The God we're talking about is what you described - omnipotent, benevolent, and logical. But what benevolence? What is benevolence that disdains individuals in need?
It would? Why?
Thats a rather simplistic view of life. You'll have a tough time practising medicine.
mankind creates and cures; see nostradamus for a perfect example
Who's god? Which god? Shiva?
Seems mother nature has been 'progressing' just as darwin shared and confirmed the 'tree of life' mentioned in the old theologies.
(most are not aware, that darwin drew the first 'good' comprehensible frame to understanding the 'tree of life' in which all come from ONE, if you go back far enough; could that ONE be your GOD? )
seems every second in nature, that 'doing' is naturally a part of how existence works; haven't really noticed any magic. How about you?
Seems god's duty is the same as any can experience from mother nature.
common sense.
breathing is autonomous
procreation
instinct
and you (just by inquiring to understand)
ALL LIVING SPECIES; have that same INTENT!
it is based on the law of nature; not the ingorance of what people believe.
to continue (see instinct)
it is natural across the board
Do you disagree?
It's obviously not a complete view on life, Sam. And I notice you're still obfuscating. Can you answer even one question?
Yeah, if there was no survival of the fittest, we'd all still be in a primordial ooze.
Obviously not. I first have to envision God as an irrational clueless romantic with a magic wand.
who needs god when you have facebook.
What does "benevolent" mean, Sam?
It means not being attached to primordial ooze for sentimental reasons.
I would hate for my parents to be so benevolent that they destroy my life, for instance.