Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So? I believe it was katz that stated earlier that the rain falls on the just as well as the unjust. God never promised that we'd all be pain-free and never suffer. You've been told this numerous times and yet you continue to harp on this silly argument.
Ok...so what's the benefit of a relationship with the Christian God then? Are benefits exclusively granted after death (avoidance of hell and getting to heaven?)
The reason I keep bringing this up is simple. We frequently hear testimony of persons who claim that God healed their cancer, saved them (or their property) from a wildfire, protected them in a car accident, helped them survive a plane crash, etc. Those folks aren't so enthusiastic about Katzpur's quote. This thread is directed at those kinds of claims and not the folks who believe that God only gives rewards and punishments in an afterlife.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
professed Lutherans, that is. It's easy to tell who a Lutheran is, it's more difficult to define who is a Christian (at least in a court of law). In any event, they are now open to anyone. I have a life insurance policy with them myself.
Are they open to the general public or is some Christian affiliation required? I merely mentioned Thrivent as an example. At any rate I still think it would be interesting to see if Christians had fewer claims than the general public, regardless of which insurance companies were involved. Let's not split hairs here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
In any event, I think it might be interesting to see a statistical analysis of how religion affects health and life expectancy.
Lifestyle factors can come into play here. The stereotypical conservative Christian may be less of a risk-taker than a secular person ("don't drink, don't smoke"), and I wouldn't be surprised if the deeply religious actually lived longer because of that.
One way to control for lifestyle factors would be to look at accident and illness rates not related to lifestyle differences. Certain types of cancer come to mind, as well as common accidents doing yard and house maintenance.
Do you believe that Christians are better people than anyone else who is not a Christian? God did not promise heaven on earth here promised Heaven.
Humans are human and humans get disease, illness, have accidents, etc. simply because they are humans and cannot avoid it.
Excuses, excuses, excuses. If god is omniscient and omnipotent, then why does he allow believers to suffer? If he loved all people like he supposedly loves all people, why does he allow anybody to suffer? What's the purpose of allowing diseases at all?
Prayer is also something we do in order to build our relationship with God, and to glorify him. It is not just to get stuff.
How can you "build" a "relationship" with somebody who decided what would happen to you and yours before you were even born and isn't interested in even listening to your pleas for mercy except to stroke his own ego?
Excuses, excuses, excuses. If god is omniscient and omnipotent, then why does he allow believers to suffer? If he loved all people like he supposedly loves all people, why does he allow anybody to suffer? What's the purpose of allowing diseases at all?
As the old, but still true, argument goes: If he is unaware of our suffering, he's incompetent. If he does know, then he is evil, capricious, uncaring -- pick your adjective.
There is simply no excuse if indeed there was a kind and loving parental figure looking out for us. Any being with supposed unlimited power has no excuse. Why? Because omnipotent beings have infinite options -- and that means God could have worked out a way for his "plan" to work without the pain and suffering.
Yet, should this God exist, he chose to allow us to suffer. Chose. It's not an accident, it's not a "whoops, I hit the wrong button and now it's jammed on the 'pain and suffering' setting." No, God chose for people to suffer. If there is an omnipotent god out there, he is as guilty of torture as any human being who ever did such a wicked thing. Why pray to the same being who either inflicted suffering upon you directly or who inflicted it upon you indirectly by having the power to heal you but instead withholds the magic because, again, he chose?
Why should we ... and how can we love a being who hurts you?
However, I'm an agnostic-atheist so I don't believe in personal gods curing people. Praying is pointless since god is going to do what god is going to do. Whether I pray or not, HIS will shall be done. Not my will. Not my needs. His.
Which is the huge, HUGE danger with any religion that tells you to put God first.
How can you "build" a "relationship" with somebody who decided what would happen to you and yours before you were even born and isn't interested in even listening to your pleas for mercy except to stroke his own ego?
God is loving -- even when I was in rebellion to him, he died on my behalf. He has mercifully saved me.
Ok...so what's the benefit of a relationship with the Christian God then? Are benefits exclusively granted after death (avoidance of hell and getting to heaven?)
The reason I keep bringing this up is simple. We frequently hear testimony of persons who claim that God healed their cancer, saved them (or their property) from a wildfire, protected them in a car accident, helped them survive a plane crash, etc. Those folks aren't so enthusiastic about Katzpur's quote. This thread is directed at those kinds of claims and not the folks who believe that God only gives rewards and punishments in an afterlife.
God saved me when I was in rebellion to him. I will be in heaven with him someday. When I'm in pain I can pray to him and talk to him and know that he cares, and that ultimately, my suffering is not pointless. The atheist can't do do that. All evil is pointless in an atheistic worldview.
Quote:
Are they open to the general public or is some Christian affiliation required? I merely mentioned Thrivent as an example. At any rate I still think it would be interesting to see if Christians had fewer claims than the general public, regardless of which insurance companies were involved. Let's not split hairs here.
My understanding is that it's open to the general public. When I initially signed up, my wife was my "sponsor" as she was raised Lutheran and they still considered her to be a Lutheran. I believe it has changed since then, though. I suppose if you wanted to you could call Thrivent and find out.
Quote:
Lifestyle factors can come into play here. The stereotypical conservative Christian may be less of a risk-taker than a secular person ("don't drink, don't smoke"), and I wouldn't be surprised if the deeply religious actually lived longer because of that.
One way to control for lifestyle factors would be to look at accident and illness rates not related to lifestyle differences. Certain types of cancer come to mind, as well as common accidents doing yard and house maintenance.
That's actually what I was thinking about in regards to the questions in regards to certain cities and religious populations, like SLC. I don't believe it would hold up in court though, if a company were to say that they were charging less for one religion over another.
Suffering is pointless or it's purposeful ... and if you could demonstrate that it's both purposeful and necessary I might even change my beliefs.
How would you do that in real world terms? You would have to substantiate your claims that god exists, cares, and that human suffering is somehow necessary and that despite his complete and utter lack of limitations or restrictions, he somehow HAD to structure reality this way.
Or you could simply conclude that stuff happens, some of it hurts, the end.
I prefer simplicity. I have far less angst accepting the reality of an indifferent universe than I do pretending some deity deeply cares and wishes it could help, yet can't.
Suffering is pointless or it's purposeful ... and if you could demonstrate that it's both purposeful and necessary I might even change my beliefs.
How would you do that in real world terms? You would have to substantiate your claims that god exists, cares, and that human suffering is somehow necessary and that despite his complete and utter lack of limitations or restrictions, he somehow HAD to structure reality this way.
Or you could simply conclude that stuff happens, some of it hurts, the end.
I prefer simplicity. I have far less angst accepting the reality of an indifferent universe than I do pretending some deity deeply cares and wishes it could help, yet can't.
I have argued for the existence of God...but honestly, I have no reason to believe you'd even have an open mind.
The fact is...we know that a creator exists because the universe exists. This creator has revealed himself to us. We can either choose to believe that such a creator is powerless to control evil, or he isn't.
The fact is...we know that a creator exists because the universe exists. This creator has revealed himself to us. We can either choose to believe that such a creator is powerless to control evil, or he isn't.
The fallacy of the cosmological argument has already been established. Why does the universe need a creator but a creator doesn't? And why do you think a creator has revealed himself to us? Just because the bible claims so?
Why haven't you considered the Quran? Or Allah? The case for the existence of Allah is no worse than the case for the existence of the Christian God.
I suggest that if you were born in Saudi Arabia, you would "know" that Allah was the creator.
We can either choose to believe that such a creator is powerless to control evil, or he isn't.
I see no reason to believe any creator who might exist (1) cares and (2) extends itself accordingly. I don't "choose" to (dis)believe anything. My beliefs issue from what I know, and what I have experienced, and on my best use of logic and reason to evaluate available evidence.
Besides, I doubt you literally mean what you're saying here, since you're suggesting that we can just pick our beliefs. Perhaps what you meant to say is "The Bible says our creator is in control of things, and I choose to believe whatever the Bible says, and also by implication I choose to believe that I have arrived at the one true interpretation of what the Bible says in regard to any particular thing".
We unbelievers like to say that belief is not a choice, although that is only a true statement when you are open to all evidence or lack of evidence and willing to follow that where it leads rather than were you want it to go or some book says it has to go.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
