My question first please and then I will answer yours?
THANK GOD for the earthquake
- Thread starter sifreak21
- Start date
My question first please and then I will answer yours?
No, but we can tackle it that way.
So, why do humans have emotions?
(And I am not sure feeling sad = feeling bad. I'd say feeling angry = feeling bad. But sad is just sad.)
He could have prevented the deaths of his "most favored" creations. If he is angry with us for not believing in him, then fuck him, let him prove his existence. The personification of nature in the form of a God is obviously asinine, which is my point. Abrahamic religions contain internal contradictions. This is the problem of evil.
A God that just doesn't care is still possible.
A God that just doesn't care is still possible.
It's that those in an earthquake die at roughly the same time in the same place.
Only natural disasters and things as nuclear bombs are capable of bringing about this kind of demise (many people killed at same time, same place).
If God kills those who are bad, then it is understandable that He would kill this or that person in the bathtub or send a plague to wipe out a prison.
But the population killed in an earthquake is large and versatile (unlike, say, a prison population) - so how can they all be bad (thus deserving to be killed)?
I think you mean that Christian's response.
Bells
Staff member
Its only the atheists perspective that says there is no greater value
So it would be less of a tragedy if it happened over a matter of hours or months or decades (I just calculated that in a normal day of japan, about 3000 people die everyday).
there's another three options
O best among the Bharatas, four kinds of pious men begin to render devotional service unto Me—the distressed, the desirer of wealth, the inquisitive, and he who is searching for knowledge of the Absolute.
Because your values don't encompass the breadth of your existence.
Much like you might consider a person addicted to smoking unfortunate (on account of debilitating their existence) despite them having an apparently positive sense of self
the reason I asked is because the parts you edited out specifically answer your questions
hence its an important detail about where one seeks it out ... or what one thinks is capable of supporting and providing such happiness
(BTW its not only humans trying to eek out an existence of permanent settlement in this world)
I'm not sure I understand why you think being saved from an abortion at the thirteenth hour suddenly renders any spiritual pursuits one might have the fortune to pursue later in life null and void.
Even to cut back to Gianna Jensen, she has come forth with some pretty sharp realizations drawn from her christian understanding
Last edited:
We have to look into the nature of human bonding if we are to understand why we feel loss, and how all this reflects in our thoughts about God (and what he does or doesn't do).
Before we can rightfully accuse God that he is evil or uncaring, we have to have an understanding of why we bond and why we feel loss when those bonds break.
Agreed?
Neither do I; but sad is just sad for me.
So if god favours you, you don't die?
I guess getting us to acknowledge our dependent nature is a good place to start
actually its asinine to place eternal values on temporary objects.
The result is more predictable than placing a dozen funnel web spiders in your mouth and stapling your lips together
Or a living entity that is stubborn
Does he care about the millions of animals slaughtered everysingle day, or the torture they endure up untill their slaughter?
jan.
If God favors people in general, then he doesn't let nature kill them en masse, yes. Unless he is angry with them for some reason. But that doesn't absolve him from killing innocent babies and Christians.
What is he stubborn about? You may postulate a God that fits the data, but it cannot be the God that popular religion describes.
What is he stubborn about? You may postulate a God that fits the data, but it cannot be the God that popular religion describes.
so its due to it being a singular mass event that literally stops everyone in their tracks that makes it more dramatic than say heart disease, which works its magic over several decades?
So is it a kind of ethnic\demographic identification?
IOW if you can identify a colour or creed in a mortality rate, its someone god has a grudge against?
I am not sure how dying makes one bad, since death is about relocation.
Generally of course one is attached to one's environment, whether one is a pig in stool or a stock exchange speculator in smog, so whatever attachment one has for environment at the point of death is reinvested again at the point of birth
read it again.
I just did
3000 people dying a day in japan under normal circumstances isn't en masse or done at the hands of nature?
You still haven't given a good explanation why a person who dies is bad, much less how being favored by god means that one shouldn't die.
Popular religion describes God as what?
Someone who makes your material body keep on keeping on if he favors you?
I don't think so ....
If in this link, a muslim said that, the thread would be 50 pages of blabla and propaganda by now, anyway, why is this in the relegion section? it should be in the free thought, or world event, as a news, or in free thought, as few people opinion, again, opinion, and not christanity, so, why is this thread here?
Due to free will, many causes of death are individual, but causes due to natural disasters are still under God's control.
Apparently so.
(E.g. Capitalism has killed more people than communism; it just takes capitalism a bit longer, so it doesn't seem so outrageous.)
It would appear so, yes. (Not my own opinion, mind you, I am trying to get the point some atheists are making.)
If the killed seem to have little or nothing in common, or if what they do have in common seems superficial, then the killer is seen as unjust, insane.
No, the argument is that one gets killed because one was bad.
(Hence it seems utterly unjust that infants get killed too, since there is the conviction that infants are innocent.)
So god controls the earthquakes and stuff but he is still working on a few prototypes to control soap in bath tubs and the like?
[QUOTE=Signal;2711370]We have to look into the nature of human bonding if we are to understand why we feel loss, and how all this reflects in our thoughts about God (and what he does or doesn't do).
Before we can rightfully accuse God that he is evil or uncaring, we have to have an understanding of why we bond and why we feel loss when those bonds break.Agreed?
Believers and non believers feel the same emotions (which are located in the limbic region of brain) so God only comes into play for believers who try to cope w/ losses or use God to explain natures effect on humankind.
Only ignorant people accuse God because they failed miserably at science and/or life.
You keep talking about bonding, again we bond because humans have emotions. w/o emotions we do not bond. Are you really saying God is w/o emotion and totally objective and we as humans cannot understand why ?
Before we can rightfully accuse God that he is evil or uncaring, we have to have an understanding of why we bond and why we feel loss when those bonds break.Agreed?
Believers and non believers feel the same emotions (which are located in the limbic region of brain)
so God only comes into play for believers who try to cope w/ losses or use God to explain natures effect on humankind.Only ignorant people accuse God because they failed miserably at science and/or life.
You keep talking about bonding, again we bond because humans have emotions. w/o emotions we do not bond. Are you really saying God is w/o emotion and totally objective and we as humans cannot understand why ?
Last edited: