Questions that believers cannot answer

[Sheldon]

KWED said: ↑
Nope. That comes under "family planning".

Note: "Murder" is defined as "unlawful killing". As abortion under certain conditions is lawful, it cannot be "murder". Hope this helped.
I understand that your lack of rational argument necessitates ridiculous appeals to emotion, but you're only kidding yourself.

No, that would be you. Arguing about the meaning of lawful and unlawful to avoid the reality of killing the innocent by the millions.

Did you mean to provide a textbook example of the kind of irrational appeal to emotion he was describing? Addressing it accurately is hardly avoiding it, the emotive sophistry you keep using is what is avoiding addressing the reality of it.

 

[Sheldon]

there won't be any good plays or bad ones. no scores kept no celebrating achievement, no choices to be made, no skill to develop, no outcome to be determined.

No idea where you are going with this.

Down the slippery slope fallacy he's created, by the look of it.

 

[Sheldon]

Yes he did. He literally said he was I AM.

You literally have no evidence for anything he is claimed to have said.

 

[Sheldon]

No one but God has always existed. No matter what your cult tells you.

Oh brother, it can't be healthy for me to laugh that hard at my age. Time for this again then...

Cult
noun

1. a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object.

 

[Trailblazer]

You said you had emotional pain that caused you to consider taking your own life on several occasions. That is the definition of "mental health issues". With all due respect, accepting you have a problem is the first step in addressing the problem.

I said I have no mental health issues, I did not say that I never had any mental health issues.
I do not live in the past, I live in the present.

I recognized and addressed my emotional problems starting in 1983. The only reason my health insurance will even pay for counseling for me now is because my husband has serious health issues and I need to discuss how I am going to handle them with a counselor.

Religion will not address the cause of the problem. Like medication, it just addresses the symptoms. Counselling, therapy, etc are the only way to address the source. The fact that you say the issue is long-term and ongoing suggests that the Band Aid of religion keeps coming off.

Religion does not address mental-emotional problems, although it helps 'some people' cope with them. Medication also does not address the problems, it only masks the symptoms and drives the disease deeper.

That is a straw man, an assumption you made. I never used religion to deal with my issues. I went to counseling and 12 step programs and I saw a homeopath, all for many years back in the 1980s and 1990s, and back then I had absolutely NOTHING to do with the Baha'i Faith.

Since then all I have had is grief reactions from so many deaths of loved ones, but grief is a normal reaction to loss. It is not a mental-emotional problem. The grief and loss has been long-term and ongoing, but that is just how my life has been owing to life circumstances.

 

[Trailblazer]

Oh brother, it can't be healthy for me to laugh that hard at my age.

But laughter is good for you at any age, dontcha know, and we get lots of laughs on this forum.

 

[Trailblazer]

So you believe that homosexuality and unmarried couples are "evil".
Yikes!

That is another straw man because I never said that or even thought it....
Rape and murder are evil, sex is just sex.

Everyone has a right to make their own choices about how to have sex and with whom.
The Baha'i Faith has certain Laws but those Laws only apply to card-carrying Baha'is.

 

[Trailblazer]

But would it be fair to blame him for what he does do? And to criticise or condemn where appropriate?

If you can locate God on a GPS tracker and find out what He is doing you might know but otherwise you have no way to know what God is "doing" at any time.

And what if god speaks to someone and tells them to do something? Should we blame god then?

If you can prove that God spoke to someone and told them to do x or y, then maybe you can blame God for what they did.

 

[Trailblazer]

Given that they have existed for an infinite eternity, how did they keep themselves occupied?

I dunno, you will have to ask God, since they were with God all that time.

Myself, I would be really bored living for eternity unless I had something really interesting to do.

 

[Kenny]

No idea what you are trying to say there, but that "definition" does not correspond to any found in the dictionary. However, I am not entirely unfamiliar with the concept of apologists attempting to redefine words.

Er, yes. And you are doing it again now. You are simply ignoring the points and question I present, and just add more non sequiturs, straw men, red herrings, etc.

Show me one question of yours that I have not addressed.

The connection was clear. I even explained it again in simple terms. Your inability to grasp simple concepts id the problem here.

Another non sequitur.
My claim to a superior morality does not make me god. It merely means that my morality does not require me to defend the indiscriminate, deliberate slaughter of women and children. Any rational person would see that.
Also, your assumption that a superior morality can only come from god is question begging.

Which you brought up then claimed was irrelevant when I pointed out the flaw in your analogy.

As I explained already, collateral damage associated with legitimate military targets is a difficult issue. There are various methods by which to minimise any civilian casualties, which should always be utilised.
However, again to repeat myself, I am completely opposed to area bombing civilians with no military target or advantage.
How about you? (for the third time! )

Of course I am happy to defend that position.
Feel free to point out any flaw or inconsistency.
Remember my point was that not all killing in war is immoral, but the deliberate and unnecessary killing of women and children civilians for no military advantage is immoral.

As you seem to believe that it is possible to justify he deliberate and unnecessary killing of women and children civilians for no military advantage, please present your argument. (Again, this is about the third time I have asked you this with no response).

I asked if you are saying that we shouldn't worry about civilian casualties if there is a possible military advantage to be gained - or even if we are simply ordered to do it.
Is that your position? Yes or no?

So to address the two issues here, I will ask you, once again, to explain the "why".
1. Why was it necessary to deliberately target German civilian areas with the intention of causing massive civilian casualties with no military advantage.
2. Why was it necessary for the Israelites to slaughter every man, woman and child (apart from the young virgins, who the soldiers could keep for their enjoyment)?

Simply saying "oh, there must be a good reason" is not sufficient.

Oh dear. You obviously don't understand the concept of "cherry-picking" either.
You cherry-picked by selecting one verse, out of context, to claim that the Bible forbids or frowns on killing.
I was not cherry picking because I was merely pointing out that there are contradictory passages.
Simply put, You point to x and ignore/deny not-x. I accept that there is both x and not-x, and acknowledge the contradiction.

"Fulfil" does not mean "abolish" or even "abrogate". It means to achieve or carry out.

Oh, I understand that Christians today have abandoned much of what god commanded. However, there is no evidence that he wanted you to do that.

Have you managed to find the passage where Jesus says that people after him can ignore Mosaic Law yet?
(Hint: there isn't one)

Yes, I understand that you consider the indiscriminate and unnecessary slaughter of women and children to be acceptable under certain circumstances, but other than "Cuz god sed", you don't seem to have any sort of supporting argument.

Once again, you raised the issue of Allied area bombing atrocities during WW2. You used it as an analogy for seemingly immoral behaviour that was actually acceptable - because of god's similar actions.
Now you are struggling because you hadn't thought the argument through and the obvious flaws have been pointed out, you suddenly want to ignore it.

And the sad thing is that in all our exchanges so far, you have yet to condemn the indiscriminate and unnecessary slaughter of women and children, thus perfectly illustrating the dangerous effect such blind, dogmatic belief has on the unsophisticated thinker. We have seen the terrible consequences of this throughout history and even up to the present day.

#327

Your answers are too funny, twisted interpretations of what was said, filled with strawman points

And my definition (if you actually read it) stands... Have you really studied the Bible?

 

[Sheldon]

But laughter is good for you at any age, dontcha know, and we get lots of laughs on this forum.

Oh I agree, I was just being ironic. I laugh all the time, it's definitely for the best.

 

[Trailblazer]

Also, apparently there is a difference between empathy and compassion according to one article I just saw. (I just posted that article in our conversation). Compassion is something that can be cultivated, and is a better quality to have than empathy.

I will take a look at that article as soon as I have time.

 

[YoursTrue]

Perhaps that is true, but that does not mean Jesus is God.

Jesus is NOT God. Only God is God, and there is only One God.
The Jews and the Muslims and the Baha'is all know that.
It is only the Christians who believe in the false doctrine of the Church that made Jesus into God.

Note: Not ALL Christians believe that "Jesus is God" as defined by them, including the trinity doctrine.
As you aptly stated (as well as Jesus), that there is only one true God. Jesus knew what he was talking about, and some would like to twist that to ask, "Well, does that mean that Jesus is a false god?" Of course not! Jesus knew the one that sent him, the One that was above him, the only "true" God because the Bible speaks of those worshiping many gods. Yet all must be in subjection to Jesus now if they want the God over all, including Jesus who is in unity (one) with God, to hear them and for Jesus to answer their prayers. It can get a little deep.
Please note: Jesus declared, “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.” (Matt. 28:18)
Take care.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ah! In that case, I'm sorry. Can you understand that it 'sounded' like a claim (Jesus is NOT God), especially with the capitalization?

"Sounding" like something does not make it what it sounds like.

You should have looked at the conversation I was having with Wildswanderer, and then you would have known why I capitalized NOT (what led up to that post).

No, the answer is that you, not Wildswanderer, see yourself as the paragon of rationality in this forum. Maybe it'd time for you to ask yourself if your opinion of yourself in this respect is too high. This is up to you, of course.

"Paragon of rationality?" How do you know what I see myself as? No, I do not see myself that way. I only ever said that I consider myself rational. There are many other rational people on this forum.

Am I the only poster who thinks you are often illogical, Tb? Really? I think not.

You have said this repeatedly in the past and I have responded the same way...

Why would it MATTER who on this forum thinks I am illogical?
If you believe that because many or most people believe I am illogical that means I am illogical, then you are committing ad populum fallacy (see definition below).

Are you really assuming that you get along fine with everyone on this forum, Tb? But even if you did get along fine with every single person on this forum except me, have you considered the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad populum?

Yes, I do get along with everyone here....

Argumentum ad populum does not apply to anything I said because I have no proposition. I did not say that x is true just because many or most people believe it is true. That's Argumentum ad populum.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

All I can say is that this is not what I hear.

But that is what you do.
Fact: Wherever I go you find me and find some way criticize me.

Opinion: and in so doing you only stick out like a sore thumb and make yourself look bad to good people of this forum.

 

[KWED]

Yes, if He chooses to,
He can control what occurs, of course, and maneuver events to fulfill His purposes and promises

You said... "Please prove that fate and predestination are real things."
Here you have just admitted that they are.
QED

but that’s just like if we could see the future… it wouldn’t mean that we had any control over those events. Neither does He.

You are conflating two separate concepts here - infallible omniscience is different to conscious predestination.
Infallibly knowing what will happen makes that event inevitable. No other outcome is possible. The actual causal process is irrelevant.
Predestination is where god determines the future by making an event happen through conscious action.

Events unrelated to His purpose develop on their own.

But god knows exactly how they will develop, every single event, for all time. He is not simply observing events unfold, waiting to see what happens like the rest of us.

Pretty much. Calling God “an observer” is just about right.

But an observer who always knows exactly the outcome of every future event.
Basically like only watching films you have seen before.

But Why

doesn’t He step in all the time?

Indeed.
If god doesn't actually cause the cancer in a baby, and the devout parents pray to him to save their child from a slow, agonising death - why doesn't he intervene? Many religionists claim he has intervened in their lives for quite trivial reasons.

Because back in the Garden of Eden, in Genesis 3, accusations were made & issues were raised questioning God’s right to rule, that He was hiding something, and saying that man can make his own choices, that he doesn’t need to listen to God, or obey Him.

We learn in Revelation 12:9 that a spirit creature was actually controlling that Genesis serpent, using it as a ventriloquist would, to raise those issues. (I find it interesting that we find something in the *last* book, Revelation, that helps explain something in the *first* book.)

And millions of other spirit creatures (angels) were watching & hearing this. Unfortunately, A&E gave those issues life when they rebelled.

So what was Jehovah to do? He could have destroyed the rebels, and started again….but that wouldn’t have solved the issue. The wisest course was to allow the issues to resolve themselves….let mankind try this experiment in self-rule.

So every form of government has been tried, and mankind has divided themselves. To the point of even killing each other.

But Jehovah doesn’t overtly step in. (Maybe He has. Maybe He’s prevented nuclear war, or a “MAD” scenario.)
If Jehovah stepped in all the time, He’d be defeating, ie., working against, His side of issue, which is that ultimately Man can’t rule himself successfully; we need guidance from our Creator, who is all - wise. Always. (Or, wait….he’s …always…wise? Something like that. Hehe)

He’s also let the Earth and it’s huge systems continue on its own without His control of its processes. Man has to contend with these problems (like hurricanes, volcanoes, diseases, and Global Warming) on his own. Evolutionary mechanisms, also. (The Bible states that “all green vegetation” was good for food…. Not anymore!)

When you think about it, Jehovah God has been more patient than anyone….He’s had to observe a lot of hurtful things. Once the issues regarding humans are resolved, though, they will be settled forever. No more disruptive influences will be allowed.

But the Kingdom that we pray to “come”, and for God’s ‘Will to be done on Earth’ (Matthew 6:9-10), will soon exert its influence. (We’re in the Last Days — we’ve reached the point where humans can & have negatively impacted the entire planet & its atmosphere.) God will “bring to ruin those ruining the Earth”. — Revelation 11:18

And the bad things each of us have experienced in our 70-90 years of living, “will not be called to mind, neither will they come up into the heart.” — Isaiah 65:17.

IMO, from years of studying and researching the Bible with the help of JW’s.

Any questions, please ask.

@Trailblazer; just wanted you to be notified of this.

@nPeace , @tigger2 , @URAVIP2ME , @YoursTrue , @Eyes to See , please add anything you think is useful. Or please clarify something you think I wrote is unclear. As I’ve said, I’m not a very good writer.

Cool story bro.

 

[KWED]

No, that would be you. Arguing about the meaning of lawful and unlawful to avoid the reality of killing the innocent by the millions.

Explaining a legal definition that you are misusing is not an "appeal to emotion" fallacy. It is a simple statement of fact.
And once again, you perfectly illustrate your inability to present a cogent argument against early-stage termination with the consent of medical professionals, and your resort to appeals to emotion.

If you want an effective a and rational appeal to emotion, try their one...
If god doesn't want 10 year old rape victims to have an abortion, why does he allow them to be impregnated through rape in the first place?

 

[KWED]

That is another straw man because I never said that or even thought it....
Rape and murder are evil, sex is just sex.

That is the implication of your statement, not a straw man.
You said that evil is "acts committed by man because man does not adhere to God's Laws."
Bahaullah staid that homosexuality and sex outside marriage are against god's law.
Therefore, homosexuality and sex outside marriage are evil, by your own argument.

You need to carefully consider the implications of any claims you make, especially those religious platitudes repeated without thought.

The Baha'i Faith has certain Laws but those Laws only apply to card-carrying Baha'is.

Ok, so you only consider Bahai homosexuals and fornicators to be evil.

Also, surely god's law is universal. Otherwise it would mean that non-Bahais cannot sin and will therefore get any appropriate afterlife benefits. Or do only Bahais get to go to heaven?

 

[KWED]

If you can locate God on a GPS tracker and find out what He is doing you might know but otherwise you have no way to know what God is "doing" at any time.

Are you claiming that god does not, and has not done anything that affects humanity, either en masse or as individuals?

If you can prove that God spoke to someone and told them to do x or y, then maybe you can blame God for what they did.

But you have repeatedly admitted that you can't prove god exists, so you certainly can't prove that he spoke to anyone. You claim that it is belief that gives you certainty.
So therefore, if a person genuinely believes god spoke to them, do you blame god for their actions?

 

[KWED]

I dunno, you will have to ask God,

That is such a cop out - but a common one for apologists.
What do the people who have actually spoken to god say about it?

Myself, I would be really bored living for eternity unless I had something really interesting to do.

Even if you could do every really interesting thing ever devised, and do each one a trillion times, you would still have an infinite eternity left to fill. Anyone would go insane with boredom. Maybe that was the cause of their delusions?

 

[KWED]

#327

Huh?

Your answers are too funny, twisted interpretations of what was said, filled with strawman points

And yet, you are unable to support this claim. My arguments are rational and clearly laid out, with references where necessary. If you can't respond to my points, just have the courage to admit it.

And my definition (if you actually read it) stands...

You are going to have to explain how...
"correctly dividing the word of truth"
is a valid definition of "to study".

Have you really studied the Bible?

You mean "have I really divided the word of truth of the Bible"?
Nope, still none the wiser.

However, if you mean "have I read it, as well as other works providing historical and cultural context, with a view to understanding how and why it was written, and its subsequent effect on society", then yes. Have you?