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.
You can assert whatever you want, but the evidence doesn't support your assertion. Claiming that God withholds nutrition from these children because he is more just than we can understand (in effect blaming the children) is not only illogical, but evil in itself.
You're really holding onto those starving children. I've explained it. You rejected it and that's fine. It's your opinion and you're entitled to it.
I'm entitled to mine as well, which is God is good.
By the way, I like the way you tried to project evil onto me now. Nice touch Mr. Objective.
You're really holding onto those starving children. I've explained it. You rejected it and that's fine. It's your opinion and you're entitled to it.
I'm entitled to mine as well, which is God is good.
Yes, I'm holding onto them, because they are as precious as any other human being in this world, and you seem to discount them because, for some reason, you believe your God has found their suffering as being "just", all the while praying for your God to "bless" you in some insignificant way. They represent the evil that is "faith in God", and you prefer that these pictures go away. I understand that.
Yes, I'm holding onto them, because they are as precious as any other human being in this world, and you seem to discount them because, for some reason, you believe your God has found their suffering as being "just", all the while praying for your God to "bless" you in some insignificant way. They represent the evil that is "faith in God", and you prefer that these pictures go away. I understand that.
Now your twisting words. I never said He found their suffering just. If you don't have enough to back up your assertions just say so. You don't have to be disingenuous and grasping at straws to try to make your point.
That's quite a flawed analogy. To make it valid, assuming that God is the parents in this analogy, the parents would be following along with additional food, but fail to provide it the starving youngster, even though the one eats the initial portion, and allows the starving youngster to die as a result.
Well, to be honest I don't think its wise to do anything but focus on aid in these suffering issues.
all that is happening is the burning of energy for what would then suggest a higher priority then the ongoing reality where man adds to what is in cause in the first, unproductive greedy self centered negotiating.
Its all about a means of exchange with man and his negotiations. Don't forget the believer is then in a predicament, in other words how can an answer be justified in reply to the need, why are you wasting your time and asset issue when you could be increasing the charitable end goal with help in some way?
And its a good question that needs an answer, once the immediate in need for the people is in order there will be lots of time to argue about how it ever happened in the first place, never mind communication, transportation science and progressive development being what it is.
There are many ways to attend to what will be achieved in the end goal including the imparting of value into our culture. People everywhere do what they can and its an individual responsibility re charity. Using it to argue about the reality of a god seems stretching it, all the desperate could say in over hearing is how dumb can these people be god.
Anyway there is no absolute and perfect just reward in this life re sunday school or civil understanding's.
There is no heaven on earth explained in the supernatural teachings.
We have enough here for everyone and not only that there is enough in every day generally speaking for the peace required in rationalizing. So using all these terrible extreme things has to do with all the earning.
Anything worth anything needs some foundation, earning is a big part of what theory evolution in every way is. Everything unfolds including virtue.
great amounts I know are given in aid to the starving people in a percentage of charitable revenue, there are also many many organizing efforts , its not like there is no hope, constructive hope is how things can change.
All of what you say here shows human intervention to fix the problem and in that regard I agree. If we never had colonisation and the introduction of the western ways, these folk may have faced higher mortality rates but the laws of nature would either have eliminated them or the fittest would have evolved to survive.
It is indeed a man made problem and only man will be able to address the issue. Should we simply ignore their plight and let nature take its course? I would say yes but that makes me seem like a non empathetic person. If we were not aware of their plight, would we even give a crap or be moved by their suffering? Probably not.
You see when a god is posited, then these issues make no sense and based on what we are taught this god was able to do and can do, we expect issues like this to be a non issue for him/it to resolve.
We have the idea he speaks everything into existence yet, assuming he is real, looking at this, it makes no sense that he/it does not intervene.
Behind the scenes, the affluent rape their resources and keep them ignorant and resource of cheap labour. A few of their own reap the benefits from their overlords in the west and it boils down to same crap different day (or century). Now man should have the ability to redress this yet the same ignoring god of these poor folk does not seem to intervene with the affluent living off the legacy of what their forefathers did. So whether you look at the haves or the have nots, this god of yours seem non committal either way.
We only have excuses we read that god causes it to reign on the just and the unjust alike, he cares for the lone sparrow so how much more should he care for us, money is the root of all evil, render unto Caesar that which he demands and so on.
We take this and hold up the mirror to this god of your and ask where are you and you folk plead context as if we are illiterate and cannot derive the conclusions that this god should deliver on promises apparently written in his word/manual. We need some decoder ring to interpret the real meaning. No other work of literature (yes that is all that the bible really is) demands this, none.
All we really are doing is holding god up to the standard he himself apparently set. It is in fact theists that make excuses why their god is unable to redress these things or deliver as promised.
Really, praying for god to fix Somalia seems very unselfish to me and should fall well within his will (were he real). Yet we hear all too often how gawd blessed "me" with a job against the odds, god saved my life while medical staff were actually doing the real work and that you were lucky enough to be born into a 1st world culture where hospitals are an accepted norm with highly trained practitioners.
It does make your god look utterly lame and only interested in Americans and their good fortune. What about, "God is no respector of persons", "He is not a man that he should lie"?
These are all from the book you read and all we atheists are doing is holding his feet to the fire to see if he exists of merely a figment of your imagination.
Is it perhaps that atheists hold the bar for god miracles a tad higher than theist do?
It is NOT good, but in your analogy as I modified it, the parents (God) have the power to prevent the "fatso" from eating all of the lunches anyway, but does nothing. Another argument AGAINST God being good.
It is NOT good, but in your analogy as I modified it, the parents (God) have the power to prevent the "fatso" from eating all of the lunches anyway, but does nothing. Another argument AGAINST God being good.
Sorry, you are now changing your very own story. You clearly had the parents following along with extra food each day, which absolutely assumes fatso was eating two lunchs every day.
So now you think there are no consequences for fatso if the parent walks them to school everyday making sure ?
All it does is get worse. Now the classmates are convinced the parents are no good, because there is no mechanism in your outcome by its circumstance, encouraging value in treating another favorably. A rule in life that no one species made up. Is instinctive behav being recommended, because that is all thats left for this new idea of good.Humanitarian issues are what they are, widely known mans responsibility.
All of what you say here shows human intervention to fix the problem and in that regard I agree. If we never had colonisation and the introduction of the western ways, these folk may have faced higher mortality rates but the laws of nature would either have eliminated them or the fittest would have evolved to survive.
It is indeed a man made problem and only man will be able to address the issue. Should we simply ignore their plight and let nature take its course? I would say yes but that makes me seem like a non empathetic person. If we were not aware of their plight, would we even give a crap or be moved by their suffering? Probably not.
You see when a god is posited, then these issues make no sense and based on what we are taught this god was able to do and can do, we expect issues like this to be a non issue for him/it to resolve.
We have the idea he speaks everything into existence yet, assuming he is real, looking at this, it makes no sense that he/it does not intervene.
Behind the scenes, the affluent rape their resources and keep them ignorant and resource of cheap labour. A few of their own reap the benefits from their overlords in the west and it boils down to same crap different day (or century). Now man should have the ability to redress this yet the same ignoring god of these poor folk does not seem to intervene with the affluent living off the legacy of what their forefathers did. So whether you look at the haves or the have nots, this god of yours seem non committal either way.
We only have excuses we read that god causes it to reign on the just and the unjust alike, he cares for the lone sparrow so how much more should he care for us, money is the root of all evil, render unto Caesar that which he demands and so on.
We take this and hold up the mirror to this god of your and ask where are you and you folk plead context as if we are illiterate and cannot derive the conclusions that this god should deliver on promises apparently written in his word/manual. We need some decoder ring to interpret the real meaning. No other work of literature (yes that is all that the bible really is) demands this, none.
All we really are doing is holding god up to the standard he himself apparently set. It is in fact theists that make excuses why their god is unable to redress these things or deliver as promised.
Really, praying for god to fix Somalia seems very unselfish to me and should fall well within his will (were he real). Yet we hear all too often how gawd blessed "me" with a job against the odds, god saved my life while medical staff were actually doing the real work and that you were lucky enough to be born into a 1st world culture where hospitals are an accepted norm with highly trained practitioners.
It does make your god look utterly lame and only interested in Americans and their good fortune. What about, "God is no respector of persons", "He is not a man that he should lie"?
These are all from the book you read and all we atheists are doing is holding his feet to the fire to see if he exists of merely a figment of your imagination.
Is it perhaps that atheists hold the bar for god miracles a tad higher than theist do?
Second paragraph this was noticed,
'If we were not aware of their plight, would we even give a crap or be moved by their suffering? Probably no
M..how could we be moved by something we don't know about ?
heres what I can say for now,
you guys want God to physically intervene in these issues which are absolutely in mans ability to change and improve the world. The observation suggests man needs help in order to reach his potential. Ok...we will devolve back to the animal and satisfy the potential. No complaints, God obviously has the power to implement the handy instinctive directive into the species satisfying the desired goal. When should it start, I have a few things to do. ( Plus I gotta go for now, no doubt. ( *and u guys are leg pullin for sure.
you guys want God to physically intervene in these issues which are absolutely in mans ability to change and improve the world. The observation suggests man needs help in order to reach his potential. Ok...we will devolve back to the animal and satisfy the potential. No complaints, God obviously has the power to implement the handy instinctive directive into the species satisfying the desired goal. When should it start, I have a few things to do. ( Plus I gotta go for now, no doubt. ( *and u guys are leg pullin for sure.
No we do not want god to do anything. We are merely pointing out this god is capable to intervene based on "...whatever you ask for in prayer, I shall do it" (paraphrasing). Somalia falls well within the bounds of whatever and is an unselfish request. It is not like we are asking him to turn water into whine (or is that wine ) but that would be cool to if you like wine.
When it is so often inferred men/women are the hands and feet of jesus, we must take action, it is a lame excuse for the imaginary god. We can accomplish all of this w/o a god label or pretending to do his "will"
Sorry, you are now changing your very own story. You clearly had the parents following along with extra food each day, which absolutely assumes fatso was eating two lunchs every day.
So now you think there are no consequences for fatso if the parent walks them to school everyday making sure ?
All it does is get worse. Now the classmates are convinced the parents are no good, because there is no mechanism in your outcome by its circumstance, encouraging value in treating another favorably. A rule in life that no one species made up. Is instinctive behav being recommended, because that is all thats left for this new idea of good.Humanitarian issues are what they are, widely known mans responsibility.
No. I didn't change the story. I simply pointed out that the parents (God) also have the power to prevent the food from being eaten by the one youngster and does nothing. So, in this analogy, the parents (God) are not only derelict in not stopping the food from being eaten, but are also "evil" in not providing what food they have to their starving child. Regardless of who ate the food, the punishment for the child who ate the food, or the reason for it, the starving child should be the first priority, should the parents exist.
In reality we know that no God is to blame for this situation, as much as there is no God available to alleviate their suffering. We, as humans, can do no more than our limited resources allow. For example, you nor I can fight the warlords who are responsible for preventing relief from making it to the starving children. We can't leave our homes and our responsibilities here to ensure that the food is delivered. However, if your God does exist, he certainly has the resources and the time to resolve this situation, but instead, according to Christian belief, he's only willing to help those who worship him, providing for their needs, i.e. a basketball pool win, a new car, and pain relief from a broken fingernail.
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.
) but that would be cool to if you like wine.
