Is jesus the messiah

[SnakeLord]

For the rest, I can answer this: only suffering that is experienced in God's presence has any meaning.

I fail to see where you get this from. And what is "merely" life or death? Do you not understand that to a non-believer, life and death is all there is, and as such the word "merely" has no place whatsoever.

Sometimes the meaning is punishment, sometimes it's a warning, sometimes it serves as a backdrop for displaying God's work (like the blind man in John 9). Things happen for different reasons, and it does not help us to group them all under a single "why?".

Here's the thing.. I didn't group anything under a single "why?" I simply asked C20 why he had neglected to include these things in his list. Whether it be a punishment, a warning or anything else, it should still be included in the list no, because if you truly want to see god, it would involve seeing every aspect of that god, not just that which you want to see. Fish swimming is all well and good, but it is meaningless without the cancer.

But tell me Jenyar, when a frog or a mouse gets a severe illness, is that also a warning or punishment from god to the mouse? Did the mouse perhaps sin? How does it differ between the human and the mouse? How could you say, (for instance), that bowel cancer is because of our sins and yet not give the same sentiment when regarding the mouse? Does that cancer not come from the same source? Is it simply bad luck for the mouse but sin for the human? How would you make such a distinction? Is the mouse also being punished or warned?

 

[c20H25N3o]

SnakeLord - Are you saying that all death is because of sin? A simple yes or no will suffice here.

response by c20 - Yes!

Snakelord - Oh how I wish you weren't a mental vagrant, that you would finally wake up from your delusional state and realise that invisible friends will not cure your problems.

response by c20 - I am in my right mind. I am a programmer who programmes in many languages. As for my invisible friends, just because I cannot see them, does no mean they do not exist, they speak to me on the wind.

Snakelord - Well here's the thing...

I don't want what 'was' his. He can keep it happily. And you dare call us non-religious people materialistic? Oh what a surprise that heaven is seen as a city of gold, and that you will inherit all of this.. Shocking really, but then I beg to ask how poor you really are in this life, that you dream of one where you'll be rich beyond your wildest dreams. I'm overjoyed with what I have in this life. I don't need another one to make up for this one, I don't need anything beyond what I have now, and I feel truly sorry for those that do.

response by c20 - As a city of Gold! It is a city of the purest gold but it is not a gold that you can earn. It is given freely.
As for my own material wealth, I tell you I am a programmer of many years and much experience. You can figure out what I have.


SnakeLord - As for repenting, I have no need to repent to him. When I smack a man down the road, I say sorry to the man, not the clouds.

How kind of you that you should say sorry to that man you smacked down! Bless you sweet lamb
And what of that man's father - how does he feel that you have smacked his son? Have you said sorry to that boy's father for what you have done to his son? You ought you know. Causing dissention and smacking people that are not your own flesh and blood is surely not a right way to be. What right did you have? How will that man forgive you given that you smacked him for no good reason?

cheers

c20

Again, I don't want to inherit anything. I'm happy enough as it is. Such a shame that life is that bad for you.

response by c20 - Wicked! More to go around for those sons who did run the race! Unlucky m8 but you only have yourself to blame. Your name will be forgotten. Who are you?

 

[SnakeLord]

response by c20 - Yes!

Does that include the mouse, the butterfly and the stick insect?

If the answer is yes: What sins would they have caused, and would they have the knowledge that they are actually sinning?

If the answer is no: Why do they die then? How do you differentiate an animal dying.. merely because, and a human dying for other reasons?

response by c20 - I am in my right mind. I am a programmer who programmes in many languages.

I fail to see a connection. What would you being a programmer have to do with whether you're in your right mind or not?

As for my invisible friends, just because I cannot see them, does no mean they do not exist, they speak to me on the wind.

The same can be said of everything, an as such this statement is inherently worthless to anything or anyone.

However, you're answering all your own questions: "I cannot see them". That's all there is to know on the matter. You can't see anything.

response by c20 - As a city of Gold! It is a city of the purest gold but it is not a gold that you can earn. It is given freely.

My point exactly. I said nothing about 'earning' anything, and the "freely" makes my point all the more apparent.

As for my own material wealth, I tell you I am a programmer of many years and much experience. You can figure out what I have

And you people dare call the non-religious materialistic. Where did this come from? What made you feel I wanted to know about your earthly material wealth?

When I said: "I'm overjoyed with what I have in this life. I don't need another one to make up for this one, I don't need anything beyond what I have now, and I feel truly sorry for those that do."

I was actually talking about my wife and daughter's love. Nothing more.

When I spoke of being "poor" in this life, I didn't mean materialisticly poor either.

The materialistic makes up for being poor with regards to life, to love, to care and friendship. Being in a position where you have none of this, the materalistic takes over, and as such you dream of a place full of gold that is given away freely. This just prevents you looking at the state of abject internal misery you actually live in.

How kind of you that you should say sorry to that man you smacked down! Bless you sweet lamb

Well, certainly better than just to apologise to the clouds, as if they'd give a shit. :bugeye:

And what of that man's father - how does he feel that you have smacked his son? Have you said sorry to that boy's father for what you have done to his son? You ought you know. Causing dissention and smacking people that are not your own flesh and blood is surely not a right way to be. What right did you have? How will that man forgive you given that you smacked him for no good reason?

I think you missed the point. This isn't a real occurence, but merely an example. However, you expanded my example by saying who further I should apologise to. Not once did you tell me to apologise to god or jesus, to repent to them for my sins. Instead you told me to apologise to more humans. You should be able to work out the answer for yourself from this point on.

To carry the example on I could state that there's always a reason, and so your "no good reason", statement is moot. Further to that, let's say the man's a christian in which case it is his duty to forgive me. Not only that but it is his duty to turn the other cheek so I can smack that one aswell.

response by c20 - Wicked! More to go around for those sons who did run the race! Unlucky m8 but you only have yourself to blame. Your name will be forgotten. Who are you?

A) We're not mates. Don't ever forget that.

B) I have never sought fame, and so my name being forgotten is inconsequential.

 

[c20H25N3o]

Does that include the mouse, the butterfly and the stick insect?

If the answer is yes: What sins would they have caused, and would they have the knowledge that they are actually sinning?

If the answer is no: Why do they die then? How do you differentiate an animal dying.. merely because, and a human dying for other reasons?



I fail to see a connection. What would you being a programmer have to do with whether you're in your right mind or not?



The same can be said of everything, an as such this statement is inherently worthless to anything or anyone.

However, you're answering all your own questions: "I cannot see them". That's all there is to know on the matter. You can't see anything.



My point exactly. I said nothing about 'earning' anything, and the "freely" makes my point all the more apparent.



And you people dare call the non-religious materialistic. Where did this come from? What made you feel I wanted to know about your earthly material wealth?

When I said: "I'm overjoyed with what I have in this life. I don't need another one to make up for this one, I don't need anything beyond what I have now, and I feel truly sorry for those that do."

I was actually talking about my wife and daughter's love. Nothing more.

When I spoke of being "poor" in this life, I didn't mean materialisticly poor either.

The materialistic makes up for being poor with regards to life, to love, to care and friendship. Being in a position where you have none of this, the materalistic takes over, and as such you dream of a place full of gold that is given away freely. This just prevents you looking at the state of abject internal misery you actually live in.



Well, certainly better than just to apologise to the clouds, as if they'd give a shit. :bugeye:



I think you missed the point. This isn't a real occurence, but merely an example. However, you expanded my example by saying who further I should apologise to. Not once did you tell me to apologise to god or jesus, to repent to them for my sins. Instead you told me to apologise to more humans. You should be able to work out the answer for yourself from this point on.

To carry the example on I could state that there's always a reason, and so your "no good reason", statement is moot. Further to that, let's say the man's a christian in which case it is his duty to forgive me. Not only that but it is his duty to turn the other cheek so I can smack that one aswell.



A) We're not mates. Don't ever forget that.

B) I have never sought fame, and so my name being forgotten is inconsequential.

Good. You will be happy to be on ignore from now on.

 

[SnakeLord]

Could you at least find it in your loving, forgiving christian heart to answer the questions?

 

[Jenyar]

I fail to see where you get this from. And what is "merely" life or death? Do you not understand that to a non-believer, life and death is all there is, and as such the word "merely" has no place whatsoever.

Good, I'm glad you understand what I meant with "qualifiers" having no place in your worldview. Things ("merely") are as they are.

Here's the thing.. I didn't group anything under a single "why?" I simply asked C20 why he had neglected to include these things in his list. Whether it be a punishment, a warning or anything else, it should still be included in the list no, because if you truly want to see god, it would involve seeing every aspect of that god, not just that which you want to see. Fish swimming is all well and good, but it is meaningless without the cancer.

The problem is that you might not see God in all of this, only what you already see: suffering, broken relationships, and death. In spite of people who experience God's love and hope.

But tell me Jenyar, when a frog or a mouse gets a severe illness, is that also a warning or punishment from god to the mouse? Did the mouse perhaps sin? How does it differ between the human and the mouse? How could you say, (for instance), that bowel cancer is because of our sins and yet not give the same sentiment when regarding the mouse? Does that cancer not come from the same source? Is it simply bad luck for the mouse but sin for the human? How would you make such a distinction? Is the mouse also being punished or warned?

That's what I mean. You only see a flat surface - either God or not. You don't take people into account, or the lack or presence of meaning. You also didn't read what I said: the blind man in John 9 wasn't blind because of his own sin, or that of his parents. But through his blindness God's work could become visible. That's meaning; not reason.

It should be clear from the Bible that it isn't a causal relationship. It's not sin - death, sin - death. Paul says that we suffer from death because of sin - much like a person suffers burns because of fire. That doesn't mean fire is always accompanied with someone burning. "There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment."

The greatest lie anyone - Christian or non-Christian - can tell you, is that this person is suffering because of that sin. Jesus was sinless, and yet He still suffered. Suffering doesn't need reason or explanation, and sin is equally "unreasonable". Like anonymous2 once said: why would anyone choose hell if it exists? Saying sin leads to death is always true, but it's not always applicable.

 

[anonymous2]

God does not "kill the godless", evidently. That He put life and death before people is indisputable, but God does not need to give reasons for His actions, and it's simple arrogance to demand them. But it's also arrogant to reject his warnings or his love, taking your fate into your own hands. Ananias and Sapphira did something that was clearly recognizable as sin - they literally lied to and stole from God. When something happens that we don't understand, or that scares us, it's wise to look at the reasons, and try to avoid falling to the same fate. But somehow you are just content at pointing to God - like someone pointing to ground zero without bothering to find out where the bomb came from.

Amos 3
5 Does a bird fall into a trap on the ground
where no snare has been set?
Does a trap spring up from the earth
when there is nothing to catch?
6 When a trumpet sounds in a city,
do not the people tremble?
When disaster comes to a city,
has not the LORD caused it?

7 Surely the Sovereign LORD does nothing
without revealing his plan
to his servants the prophets.​

You ask rightly, "how can I love such a being?" How indeed! But you don't want to find out. You seem much more interested in resenting him. What is really your case against God? I know it's not that you think you're blameless before Him, or particularly worthy of His love. But if His love is available - if there is a way to restore your relationship with Him and be able to love Him - why not look for it? Are you afraid you'll find it, or that it would be "unreasonable" to love God? God's love for us is unreasonable, and that is all that makes experiencing it possible in this world.

We were born in exile, away from Him, without hope or reason to expect to find love - but He came looking for us there where we were stuck without Him, waiting for death to arrive at last. Don't blame food for hunger.

You want for me to explain "What is really [my] case against God?" When I was younger, I read the Bible and thought it was great. It was all great cause God did it. He was the sovereign and whatever he said went. If God did it, that automatically meant that it was good. That was pretty much my viewpoint from what I recall. I got older and read just how.. "immoral" the God of the Bible appears (Yes, this is my subjective judgement, and if the God of the Bible is a reality, then my subjective judgement is meaningless over his power). Sure, there were things in my life which also helped in turning that "love of God" into "hate". I got older and didn't just read the Bible as a book sent from above. I'm telling you when I was younger I read the story about Jesus to someone I knew and was crying about it, how beautiful it was, and/or how horrible it was that people had a perfect, loving Jesus put to death. That God so loved the world? Who WOULDN'T want to believe that? That Jesus was all good and love, etc. It's sad really; like I said, I got older. I told you before if I could go back in time and return to that mindset, in a way, I'd like to.

I'm telling you that the loss of my faith was the most traumatic thing in my life, or at least one of the most traumatic things in my life. I didn't completely lose it in one day. It was a gradual process. Religion was a source of conflict in my life. That's a big reason why I hate it, although I won't say I hate it totally. Who wants to think people you know might go to hell? I can't go back. How can I go back? I can't look at the Bible in that way anymore. What I used to love, I now hate.

As for the passage you quote, if taken literally, that means every disaster which happens to a city, God caused it, right? So I guess God took Osama's trainees by the nose and put them, with planes, in the twin towers? ALL disaster which comes to a city is from God? Are you sure you really want to espouse that view?

 

[SnakeLord]

Good, I'm glad you understand what I meant with "qualifiers" having no place in your worldview. Things ("merely") are as they are.

And if things 'merely are as they are', that would include both the good and the bad, no? But what's happened here is that C20 has tried to pile all the good things onto a specific being, while neglecting to include the opposite side.

How would you or C20 be in a position to claim that all the love and goodness is from god, whereas all the evil and badness isn't? Or indeed neglect to mention that the source of all that badness comes from the same place as all the goodness? god himself stated that he caused evil, and being the creator of all, it only stands to reason. My question once more was how C20 could state that all one needs do is look outside, when that includes everything - be it bad or good - but for some reason C20 neglected to mention that side of it, in preference of merely pointing out the good. These things come hand in hand, you can't just pick one you like the sound of and ignore that which you do not. It's along the same lines of someone shouting "god's love, grace" etc etc, without adding "god's anger, wrath, jealousy and vengeance". These things are all part of the same package, but for some reason your kind refuse to acknowledge the latter.

The problem is that you might not see God in all of this, only what you already see: suffering, broken relationships, and death. In spite of people who experience God's love and hope.

I don't know where this has come from. I see a lot more than suffering, broken relationships and death. I see love and beauty etc. What I have been trying to state, is that you cannot happily neglect to mention one while concentrating solely on the other.

Let's use a cigarette to highlight the case:

C20 comes into the thread and says: "A cigarette relaxes you. It relieves your stress, it is wonderful just after you've had a big meal and wonderful just after you have made love. I hereby declare that a cigarette is love".

My point is that the cigarette also causes cancer, causes harm to others, causes you to smell bad and for your fingers and teeth to be stained.

c20 neglects to mention this side of it, and you don't even acknowledge it, although I feel that's more to do with you not fully comprehending the purpose of my post.

I haven't said that the cigarette doesn't do those things that he claims, but have pointed out that there's a lot more to the cigarette than he is willing to show. As such, the conclusion can only be that his 'version' of the cigarette is extremely biased, and one sided. It doesn't show the cigarette as a whole, and is therefore misleading to those who know nothing about cigarettes.

That's what I mean. You only see a flat surface

Alas, your post here does not answer the questions I posed whatsoever. Not to mention that my point is to not see a flat surface which is all C20 presents in his post. He fails to mention the other side, and then does a runner the minute his claims are under question.

You also didn't read what I said: the blind man in John 9 wasn't blind because of his own sin, or that of his parents. But through his blindness God's work could become visible. That's meaning; not reason.

The man is blind because god made him that way. That is the reason. While I doubt god is cool enough to have found a better method with which to show his 'work', instead leaving some guy unable to see solely for the purpose of promoting his own gloriousness - it is this that needs to be seen and mentioned. You can't just say "god is love", without mentioning the poor old blind guy that suffers as a consequence to gods need to show how good he is.

And it is right there where we hit the problem, because you refuse to acknowledge the problem, instead trying to excuse it and justify it when you're in no position to do so. Of course, and here's the bigger problem: you only try to excuse and justify it when someone mentions it. Until that time, you'll happily say god is love without even mentioning the poor old blind guy. That's my whole point. I prefer a level of honesty whereby the blind guy is mentioned right at the start - alongside all the love and grace, as opposed to being completely ignored merely so one can preach "all-loving".

We're talking about one blind man here, and there are many others - who's reasons for being blind will differ - from being sinful and being punished, to being warned, to being a puppet for god to show off how much he works and so on. These are all things that you mentioned, and yet neglect to mention right at the offset.

"god is all-loving... but he can also punish you, making you blind, giving you cancer, killing you etc".

It all goes together.

Paul says that we suffer from death because of sin -

So answer my question: Does the same apply to the mouse?

Suffering doesn't need reason or explanation

But then the same would be true of love, happiness, etc. Here you are pretty much taking the stance that "it merely is as it is", but then on the other hand trying to lump all the good stuff on one sky guy. That is biased.

 

[water]

Which world view is really more bleak? The universe fading into oblivion, everyone living their lives for what they are and nothing more, or forced eternity, either worshipping/praising God, or an eternal torment for most of mankind? If we are talking about *preferrable* world views, I find the former perhaps infinitely better. Only a fiend could find any comfort in thinking most of mankind will go to an eternal torture pit.

And an omnipotent God could find a way to get rid of "sin", he wouldn't need to keep it on eternal human souls and torment them for eternity. That's why it makes little sense to me. So God doesn't need to love sin? Fine. Then why doesn't he destroy it? He can't? You gotta be kidding me. And if he can't, why not just remove it from humans and put it in a pile "over there"? You yourself admit that God removes "sin stain" from Christians, right? So he can do it. If he can do it, why doesn't he do it for everyone? It just does NOT make sense to me why a God would NEED to put people in an eternal torture pit.

That you hope for eternal life, great. Good for you. But if you actually thought about the reverse of what Christianity offers humans, you might think differently.

There are many people who reject Christianity because they think it's false, not because they're "wicked". Are those who already have religious traditions and reject Christianity "evil"? They could be wrong, but that doesn't make them evil for rejecting what they actually believe is wrong, does it?

And, if YOU were wrong about your religious beliefs, do you think it to be fair that a "just, loving" God would torture you for eternity for being wrong? If, for instance, Allah is God, do you think that it'd be just for you to be in an eternal hell because you were sincerely wrong in your faith?

Like I said, if YOU are happy believing you have eternal life, good. To me, the flip side is so incredibly unacceptable that I find it improbable that I could find happiness in thinking I have eternal life as a Christian.

You judge from resentment.
Here's some reference for you:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40982
***

If there is a god who created us, then as I've stated many times past, god dwells within all creation, with humanity being the greatest creation that we know of in our universe; therefore, humanity IS God; therefore, we need look no further than humanity to see God.

This is fallacious, I'll point out just the most obvious logical fallacy.

Is the same as saying:

"Humans have kidneys, therefore kidneys are humans."

Uh.

Secondly, "humanity being the greatest creation that we know of in our universe" is an evaluation statement, that is self-referential, and thus invalid:

If humans are humanity, and we are humans, then:

"humanity being the greatest creation that humanity knows of in our universe".

You've said as much as "This sentence is true because this sentence says so."
Phew.

 

[anonymous2]

You judge from resentment.
Here's some reference for you:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40982
***

I told C20 that if he's happy with his belief, good. I said if he considered the flip side of what Christianity offers, maybe he'd see it differently. If he is happy with his beliefs, fine. I'm not out to destroy his happiness. As for me, if I could find happiness in the Christian belief structure, I'd probably still be in it.

 

[Jenyar]

As for me, if I could find happiness in the Christian belief structure, I'd probably still be in it.

Did you find happiness outside it?

It seem you wanted religion to explain away why bad things happen. But it only told you that God was there. The logical conclusion isn't that love is the only force at work in the world, and maybe that was the source of your disillusionment. I also grew up with the Bible, and I never cried at how beautiful and blissful everything was - I didn't live in a dreamworld. Conflict was inside and outside it, but at least it gave me a way to address that conflict without being drowned by it, or letting it rob me of hope.

God gives life and He takes away, but He does not hate. He does not fly planes into buildings, but He is there when it happens. That is not immoral. What is immoral is war, and America is just as guilty as Bin Laden in that respect. It just doesn't help taking sides and playing the victim in our personal game of "who's more moral". Morality isn't seen in events, great or small, but in the way people act.

You have pit your morality against God and lost. Did your faith really depend that much on the world working out around you?

Amos doesn't speak about punishment - read it again. Nor does he talk about arbitrary events - God destroying a city just for the kicks. He is not espousing evil, but judgment over evil. That's his point: some things are preceded by other things. If one is present, so is the other. Immorality is present, but you are not its judge. And God is not the author of evil. God has already made his judgment clear through his prophets (of which Amos is one) - and you do not like that either.

The very things you hold God accountable for are the things He will not tolerate. You have rejected God for something He isn't. You have looked at the same things God saw and condemned, but you turn around and blame Him for that. People are not all-loving, and you have to come to terms with that. Your argument sounds like those of Job's friends: "curse God and die!" they said. "Your case is lost before God - who is He that He should answer to you?" But God said they spoke lies about Him. If you believe that God sanctions evil and immorality - it is not because you got it from the Bible.

The world does not spin around you and me. Our powerlessness does not make God unloving - it makes us dependent.

 

[Jenyar]

SnakeLord,

But then the same would be true of love, happiness, etc. Here you are pretty much taking the stance that "it merely is as it is", but then on the other hand trying to lump all the good stuff on one sky guy. That is biased.

Suffering is a given. Love isn't. That's not bias, it's the terrible truth.

Who healed the poor blind guy? Did he suffer when he regained his sight? I think it's you who only chooses to look at one side of the coin. Your side.

You are all implying God's love ends somewhere. Where might that be? It doesn't include evil, but do you want really it to?

 

[the preacher]

You are all implying God's love ends somewhere. Where might that be? It doesn't include evil, but do you want really it to?

oh but it does jenyar take a look at the thread "is god evil".

 

[SnakeLord]

Suffering is a given. Love isn't. That's not bias, it's the terrible truth.

I'm sorry but I would completely disagree with you. While you might not have had a very loving life in human terms, many of us have and you cannot make such a statement on behalf of all of us.

Who healed the poor blind guy?

Who blinded the poor blind guy?

Your question here is inconsequential. I have already said to look at both sides, which would include good and bad, but the best you can manage is to instantly dismiss suffering while focusing solely on love. You are the very problem I speak of.

Did he suffer when he regained his sight?

Sorry, I never met him. But I can say that the majority never regain their sight, instead being left in a position of permanent darkness, unable to see all that beauty some of you would claim was created by god. We're not just talking adults either, but children. Hell, even animals.

I don't see how or why you're trying to justify blindness. I guess you need to suffer from physical blindness to understand it. You already suffer from mental blindness, so it's only one more step. I guess it's not your choice though, it's upto god right?

I think it's you who only chooses to look at one side of the coin. Your side.

Nonsene, I have already concurred to all the good stuff, and have never had a problem that the good does exist. You on the other hand are dismissing any form of suffering coming from the same source instantly and out of hand without cause to do so.

god says "I create evil", and in saying, you shouldn't be shouting 'love' from the rooftops without appreciating the negative side that goes hand in hand with that. Enough with the "does being blind hurt", enough with the sweeping of all that's bad under the carpet without so much as a mention. Start looking at things as a whole.

You are all implying God's love ends somewhere.

Sure, and you're in a position to deny such a thing? god's love is so vast, and yet eventually due to the sin the faulty mankind were doing, god simply had enough and annihilated every living thing on the planet save for a select few. He didn't just condemn man for their crimes, but animals, flowers, trees, and bacteria.

Love always stops somewhere.

Where might that be?

The same place where anger, vengeance, and wrath start.

It doesn't include evil, but do you want really it to?

What doesn't include evil?

[Edit] Oh, and perhaps you can answer the question this time..

Is it the same for the mouse?

 

[anonymous2]

Did you find happiness outside it?

In a way, yes, before I started posting here and being reminded of why I left Christianity in the first place.

It seem you wanted religion to explain away why bad things happen. But it only told you that God was there. The logical conclusion isn't that love is the only force at work in the world, and maybe that was the source of your disillusionment. I also grew up with the Bible, and I never cried at how beautiful and blissful everything was - I didn't live in a dreamworld. Conflict was inside and outside it, but at least it gave me a way to address that conflict without being drowned by it, or letting it rob me of hope.

Did I say I cried at how beautiful and blissful everything was? I said I cried over the story of Jesus, and I mean his crucifixion/death/resurrection. This is YOUR hope of glory, isn't it? It should be of upmost importance to a Christian, shouldn't it? I was reading it to someone I knew at the time. You can't really blame me for crying, that was actually an emotion Jesus supposedly showed. And didn't people in Acts weep over Paul leaving them? People crying/weeping IS in the Bible, sorry.

God gives life and He takes away, but He does not hate. He does not fly planes into buildings, but He is there when it happens. That is not immoral. What is immoral is war, and America is just as guilty as Bin Laden in that respect. It just doesn't help taking sides and playing the victim in our personal game of "who's more moral". Morality isn't seen in events, great or small, but in the way people act.

I didn't say America wasn't guilty. But does that mean I'm guilty because I live in the USA? Are you guilty for everything the South African government does MERELY because you're a citizen? Should we flog you for South Africa's past of Apartheid? Or should I be flogged for the USA's slavery in the 1800's and before? Or should I go live out on a deserted island somewhere so I won't be held accountable for what the government I live under does? But you know who wasn't guilty? Those children which were killed when those planes flew in the twin towers. And you know who wasn't guilty? Those children who have been killed in Iraq by American bombing, etc. Punish who deserves to be punished if you are going to punish and are a "loving" God. A world wide flood destroying children and those in the womb is not something I'd consider "loving". You can say this is "Satan dictating to God", but please be reasonable.

You have pit your morality against God and lost. Did your faith really depend that much on the world working out around you?

I can't apologize for wanting things to make sense to me. Any religion can dominate someone's mind if you simply say "God's thoughts are higher than ours". You can't name me a single thing which can't be justified by that rationale, can you?

The very things you hold God accountable for are the things He will not tolerate. You have rejected God for something He isn't. You have looked at the same things God saw and condemned, but you turn around and blame Him for that. People are not all-loving, and you have to come to terms with that. Your argument sounds like those of Job's friends: "curse God and die!" they said. "Your case is lost before God - who is He that He should answer to you?" But God said they spoke lies about Him. If you believe that God sanctions evil and immorality - it is not because you got it from the Bible.

The world does not spin around you and me. Our powerlessness does not make God unloving - it makes us dependent.

Of course, the Bible is not going to say "Here now, for everyone to see, God is evil, and immoral". Of course not. That doesn't change what MY mind sees though when I read the Bible. A God who operates at times on whim and unnecessary destruction. That's the God I see in the Bible.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

RosaMagika: This is fallacious, I'll point out just the most obvious logical fallacy.

Is the same as saying: "Humans have kidneys, therefore kidneys are humans."

Uh.

Secondly, "humanity being the greatest creation that we know of in our universe" is an evaluation statement, that is self-referential, and thus invalid:

If humans are humanity, and we are humans, then: "humanity being the greatest creation that humanity knows of in our universe".

You've said as much as "This sentence is true because this sentence says so."

Phew.
*************
M*W: You are one f**king simpleton with the IQ of an amoeba.

 

[Jenyar]

I'm sorry but I would completely disagree with you. While you might not have had a very loving life in human terms, many of us have and you cannot make such a statement on behalf of all of us.

It's an observation that's easy to corroborate. I did not say there was only suffering in the world (although there might have been, if God and the devil were evil). But since love is something that requires action, the absence of action - and people willing to act on it - leaves only loneliness. It's possible to bear many things if you're not alone.

The default of experience certainly isn't love and compassion. Why do you think otherwise?

Who blinded the poor blind guy?

Your question here is inconsequential. I have already said to look at both sides, which would include good and bad, but the best you can manage is to instantly dismiss suffering while focusing solely on love. You are the very problem I speak of.

But you don't differentate between good and bad. Is being blind good or bad? You seem to say bad:

Sorry, I never met him. But I can say that the majority never regain their sight, instead being left in a position of permanent darkness, unable to see all that beauty some of you would claim was created by god. We're not just talking adults either, but children. Hell, even animals.

I don't see how or why you're trying to justify blindness. I guess you need to suffer from physical blindness to understand it. You already suffer from mental blindness, so it's only one more step. I guess it's not your choice though, it's upto god right?

I'm not trying to justify anything. I say it's there, and it's not "good" or "bad" per se. A blind man of 72 is an organizer and sound technician at a local church, an inspiration to people. And ever heard of Helen Keller?

If people were automatically defeated by the obstacles in the world, then we should all give up at birth. In fact, women would not even give birth.

Did Jesus tell the blind, sick and cripple to accept their lot because they somehow "deserved" it? Because God "made them that way"? No. He showed love and compassion - and restored health, hope and meaning.

Either there is something wrong with the world, or there isn't. I see all these terrible things and I come to the conclusion that yes, there is something wrong. But not that it is hopeless, or that we are somehow fighting against God himself.

Nonsene, I have already concurred to all the good stuff, and have never had a problem that the good does exist. You on the other hand are dismissing any form of suffering coming from the same source instantly and out of hand without cause to do so.

god says "I create evil", and in saying, you shouldn't be shouting 'love' from the rooftops without appreciating the negative side that goes hand in hand with that. Enough with the "does being blind hurt", enough with the sweeping of all that's bad under the carpet without so much as a mention. Start looking at things as a whole.

The whole does not exclude humanity and how we treat the life God gave us. The whole is not "God" - I'm not a pantheist and neither are you. God separates good and evil. You rely on one text alone: Isaiah 45:7. But ra' here is contrasted not with 'good', but with shalom: "peace," "well-being," "welfare," "prosperity," "safety," "health". Evil is not an entity that can exist autonomously. It can't be there if someone does not embody it - put it in motion. God can bring disaster, but then it is a warning:

Amos 4:6 "I gave you empty stomachs in every city
and lack of bread in every town,
yet you have not returned to me,"
declares the LORD.​

If these things were final punishments they would not lead to God, but away from Him. I might have shown you this before, but here it is again:

Luke 13:2-
Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them -- do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."​

God doesn't cause disasters everytime someone sins. But disasters are signs of judgment. They should make us think about our lives, and what we take for granted.

Sure, and you're in a position to deny such a thing? god's love is so vast, and yet eventually due to the sin the faulty mankind were doing, god simply had enough and annihilated every living thing on the planet save for a select few. He didn't just condemn man for their crimes, but animals, flowers, trees, and bacteria.

Love always stops somewhere.

Uh. Flowers, trees and bacteria weren't condemned. Where did the dove get an olive branch? Why were there animals on the ark at all? How did Noah brew wine without bacteria? Sin lead to destruction, but God saved practically everything. If he didn't, you wouldn't have been here to complain. God's love didn't stop, or it would have stopped there.

The same place where anger, vengeance, and wrath start.

A person can love as well as be angry. A judge can be fair and good and someone might still end up in prison. The difference is that love is always still available to us. God's anger never outweighs his mercy. You should have picked up at least that from the Bible.

What doesn't include evil?

God's love doesn't include evil. He does not love evil, in other words.

[Edit] Oh, and perhaps you can answer the question this time..

Is it the same for the mouse?

I did answer it. I said it's not a causal relationship between sin and death. Death is an affliction. Much like the flood, the results affect more than only the person involved. It spills over an affects everything. Sin is not the only reason for death. We have natural laws as well - the same principles that allow life also allow death. But natural laws do not determine our lives with God. I can't speak for mice, but I do know that sin kills our chances with God.

 

[c20H25N3o]

It is easy to blame God. I have done it myself. There are very few woman when in the midst of labour who do not look at her husband with some kind of accusation.
That poor husband, he stands there accused looking on at the wife he loves, nothing he can do, except hold her hand and suffer her nails in his flesh as the child is born. Then they both smile as they hear tiny cries. The father cries as the baby is placed on the mothers stomach and the baby stops crying and suckles contentedly.
Who can blame the woman, who can blame the man, nobody can!

 

[mis-t-highs]

and your point being c20.
wheres the conparison.
and who blames a fantasy friend, thats just stupid.
a woman does not look at her husband/lover accusingly, it is I'm in pain please help or when will it be over kind of look.

you must have a lot of hate in you, you seem to see it everywhere.

 

[Jenyar]

In a way, yes, before I started posting here and being reminded of why I left Christianity in the first place.

Because it doesn't let you get too comfortable with your conclusions?

Did I say I cried at how beautiful and blissful everything was? I said I cried over the story of Jesus, and I mean his crucifixion/death/resurrection. This is YOUR hope of glory, isn't it? It should be of upmost importance to a Christian, shouldn't it? I was reading it to someone I knew at the time. You can't really blame me for crying, that was actually an emotion Jesus supposedly showed. And didn't people in Acts weep over Paul leaving them? People crying/weeping IS in the Bible, sorry.

I didn't saying there was anything wrong with crying, but it doesn't determine anything. You were trying to show me how emotionally involved you were - how it touched your heart - with the implication that it's just a beautiful story that's supposed to play with your emotions and not address your reason. My answer was that maybe that was why you had to leave it behind. Such an approach can't last long against the realities we have to face. You had illusions about the nature of God's involvement, and they were shattered. With that, your image of who God is was also shattered, and your faith.

I didn't say America wasn't guilty. But does that mean I'm guilty because I live in the USA? Are you guilty for everything the South African government does MERELY because you're a citizen? Should we flog you for South Africa's past of Apartheid? Or should I be flogged for the USA's slavery in the 1800's and before? Or should I go live out on a deserted island somewhere so I won't be held accountable for what the government I live under does? But you know who wasn't guilty? Those children which were killed when those planes flew in the twin towers. And you know who wasn't guilty? Those children who have been killed in Iraq by American bombing, etc. Punish who deserves to be punished if you are going to punish and are a "loving" God. A world wide flood destroying children and those in the womb is not something I'd consider "loving". You can say this is "Satan dictating to God", but please be reasonable.

You have illusions about punishment that must also be shattered, I'm afraid. The world we live in, the world outside Eden, wasn't punishment - it was the consequence of sin. The "punishment" was a mercy: that we would be able to make a living, that pain and suffering would not have to determine our lives, even while it affects us. I can quote Luke 13 to you as well: "Those children who died in the twin towers, were they worse sinners than the rest of us? I tell you, no! But if you don't repent, you too will perish". It's not a sword hanging over our heads - it's a building toppling in on us because of sin: terrorism, hatred, selfishness. And we're caught inside it, whithout hope of saving ourselves - because we are exposed to these things. And what is love and compassion if it doesn't expose you to people? Make you vulnerable? God's love was inside those buildings and around them, being flayed and crucified. Thousands suffered because of the injustice and hatred of a few people. Will those terrorists only be punished for one death each, maybe a hundred, will the body count be spread evenly among them, and then they can go to heaven afterwards?

We can be paralyzed with fear because we expect punishment, or we can accept salvation and give our lives for love, be acceptible sacrifices instead of victims. Because we're dying either way.

I can't apologize for wanting things to make sense to me. Any religion can dominate someone's mind if you simply say "God's thoughts are higher than ours". You can't name me a single thing which can't be justified by that rationale, can you?

No, because I abhor that kind of justification. It only leads to illusion and hopelessness. But only love makes sense. Sin: violence, hatred, all these things are senseless - you will have heard them described this way often enough. Ever heard CNN proclaim, "in another act of senseless love..."? The Bible doesn't explain the origin of sin. It starts out with the effects of sin, and describes how it ruins relationships, especially our relationship with God. If you let sin or its effects come between you and God, you have handed it its victory.

Of course, the Bible is not going to say "Here now, for everyone to see, God is evil, and immoral". Of course not. That doesn't change what MY mind sees though when I read the Bible. A God who operates at times on whim and unnecessary destruction. That's the God I see in the Bible.

Do you think the authors of the Bible were sitting there wide-eyed at what they were writing? Or were they unconsciously serving an immoral God who condemns immorality? That means in the first place that they were writing objectively about something real and independent of their minds, they were not inventing something that served their purposes, or in the second place that you have read them wrong.

Punishment requires a clear link to behaviour to be effective, and you always find that in the Bible. If it seems God acts on a whim, you have taken someone else's punishment and created a rule out of it that you think applies generally even today. It is still part of that strange religion you had as a child.