Why does it seem that God never intervenes in Human Suffering

[SkepticThinker]

For the purpose of this argument it is, the cases where it may not apply are so negligibly small, or unimportant, as to be not worth considering, unless, of course, you use it dishonestly. It is an insignificance and to delve into trivialities of individual cases would be too time consuming and would not contribute anything to the debate.

War is something that has always been with us. I wouldn't say that deaths that result from war are negligibly small or unimportant.

 

[Serenity7855]

How do you define secularism?

How many definitions do you think there are. There is only one that can be used for the purpose of this debate. Secularism is a belief system that rejects religion, or the belief that religion should not be part of the affairs of the state or part of public education. The principles of separation of church and state and of keeping religion out of the public school system are an example of secularism. It is a a principle that no doubt you support, because you are not religious so nobody else should be, right? Why wouldn't anyone want to have wholesome and righteous principles in their schools and governments. What is the alternative.

What proof are you referring to that demonstrates that secularism results in totalitarianism?

You will only see that the proof is the truth when that is what you want to see. Do you not read the papers or watch the TV. Maybe you are selective as to what you watch so do not see the overwhelming evidence that is out there for everyone, with open eyes, to see.

Secularism is being used to obtain totalitarianism. I have shown you this many times on another thread. I have posted article and surveys on it. Why can't you see the wood for the trees. Religion has been removed from our governments and took with it accountability, morals and ethics. There is no longer a reason for honesty in Government, which is as corrupt as anything could be. We are governed by unscrupulous criminals who care little about people, which is why they mercilessly killed 3,000 people in the World Trade Centre and then blamed it on terrorism, in order to make the people of the US more malleable and persuadable to their suggestions, but aren't we better off now then we were 40 years ago? At least you have the Patriot Act now.

 

[Serenity7855]

War is something that has always been with us. I wouldn't say that deaths that result from war are negligibly small or unimportant.

War is the result of mans actions. It is not an area where I would have to consider whether or not it is wrong. It is wrong, and our innocent young men should not be put in harms way because some idiot needs a new supply of oil. Just because war has always been with us and fueled by the pride of men, does not make it right. It is wrong, regardless. However, you will disagree because you think we have to have disagreements, even heated ones at time, in order to make progress. How you have come to that conclusion is bewildering.

 

[SkepticThinker]

War is the result of mans actions. It is not an area where I would have to consider whether or not it is wrong. It is wrong, and our innocent young men should not be put in harms way because some idiot needs a new supply of oil. Just because war has always been with us and fueled by the pride of men, does not make it right. It is wrong, regardless. However, you will disagree because you think we have to have disagreements, even heated ones at time, in order to make progress. How you have come to that conclusion is bewildering.

That sounds like a contentious argument.

 

[Serenity7855]

- Anti balaka
- National Liberation Front of Tripura
- Nationalist Socialist Council of Nagaland
- Manmasi National Christian Army
- The Lord's Resistance Army
- Army of God
- ISIS / ISIL
- The Orange Volunteers
- Ku Klux Klan


Apparently terrorism can come in all shapes and sizes.

You really need to pay more attention to what I am writing. I said "Since when do we here of Abrahamic Terrorists?" I only hear about islamic terrorism, which was my point. I did not say that they do not exists I said when do we here of Abrahamic terrorists.

Not Christians
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, IPA /ˈaɪsᵻl/), often translated as Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and accordingly also commonly known as ISIS, is a Salafi jihadist militant group that follows an Islamic fundamentalist,Wahhabi doctrine of Sunni Islam.

 

[Serenity7855]

That sounds like a contentious argument.

No it doesn't. Even if it were, I made it clear that I contend on here but I am getting it under control. So, if it was contentious what point are you making?

Why are you so eager to prove me wrong on anything that you can find? Why don't you just debate the point honestly rather then dissect my post for inconsequential errors and mistakes. You do know that such actions are unethical, right?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You really need to pay more attention to what I am writing. I said "Since when do we here of Abrahamic Terrorists?" I only hear about islamic terrorism, which was my point. I did not say that they do not exists I said when do we here of Abrahamic terrorists.

Not Christians
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, IPA /ˈaɪsᵻl/), often translated as Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and accordingly also commonly known as ISIS, is a Salafi jihadist militant group that follows an Islamic fundamentalist,Wahhabi doctrine of Sunni Islam.

You've heard of them now, apparently.

Islam is an Abrahamic faith, by the way.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No it doesn't. Even if it were, I made it clear that I contend on here but I am getting it under control. So, if it was contentious what point are you making?

Why are you so eager to prove me wrong on anything that you can find? Why don't you just debate the point honestly rather then dissect my post for inconsequential errors and mistakes. You do know that such actions are unethical, right?

Yeah, it sure does.

I am debating the point honestly.

 

[SkepticThinker]

How many definitions do you think there are. There is only one that can be used for the purpose of this debate. Secularism is a belief system that rejects religion, or the belief that religion should not be part of the affairs of the state or part of public education. The principles of separation of church and state and of keeping religion out of the public school system are an example of secularism. It is a a principle that no doubt you support, because you are not religious so nobody else should be, right? Why wouldn't anyone want to have wholesome and righteous principles in their schools and governments. What is the alternative.

I was asking the person I was responding to what their definition of the word is. Often times on this forum, people use definitions according to their own understanding of words. I was asking for clarification.

Why should the state be involved in religious affairs? Which religion do we teach in the public school system? Who decides? Who says religious is wholesome and righteous? Which religion? Churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. are places people can go to obtain religious education. Why must we include it in public schools as well?

By the way, many religious people support separation of church and state for many valid reasons (most of which I agree with).

You will only see that the proof is the truth when that is what you want to see. Do you not read the papers or watch the TV. Maybe you are selective as to what you watch so do not see the overwhelming evidence that is out there for everyone, with open eyes, to see.

If that's the case, it should be rather easy to show me this proof.

Secularism is being used to obtain totalitarianism. I have shown you this many times on another thread. I have posted article and surveys on it. Why can't you see the wood for the trees. Religion has been removed from our governments and took with it accountability, morals and ethics. There is no longer a reason for honesty in Government, which is as corrupt as anything could be. We are governed by unscrupulous criminals who care little about people, which is why they mercilessly killed 3,000 people in the World Trade Centre and then blamed it on terrorism, in order to make the people of the US more malleable and persuadable to their suggestions, but aren't we better off now then we were 40 years ago? At least you have the Patriot Act now.

Had you not deleted the second part of my post, you'd probably have a better understanding of what I am talking about. Secularism results in greater religious diversity and freedom than theocracy does. I wouldn't say that Saudi Arabia is some great bastion of freedom, would you?

"They" mercilessly killed 3000 people in the name of religion. So please tell me again how righteous and wholesome religion is.

 

[Serenity7855]

By the way, many religious people support separation of church and state for many valid reasons (most of which I agree with).

I do not understand what point you are making, other than your beliefs are as wrong as theirs are. There is nothing wrong in using the principles contained within the Holy Bible in church and state. Much of it is there by default anyway. Like thou shalt not kill, and what should be there are things like "thou shalt not commit adultery." Why people like yourself want to keep good moral principle out of government and school baffles me.

 

[Serenity7855]

If that's the case, it should be rather easy to show me this proof.

I already have.

 

[Serenity7855]

Had you not deleted the second part of my post, you'd probably have a better understanding of what I am talking about. Secularism results in greater religious diversity and freedom than theocracy does. I wouldn't say that Saudi Arabia is some great bastion of freedom, would you?

"They" mercilessly killed 3000 people in the name of religion. So please tell me again how righteous and wholesome religion is.

Tell me how one of your senators knew about the attack on the WTC 24 hours before it happened and is on camera saying it. I saw it for the first time yesterday and that is what he said it. There is so much compelling evidence available, along with the expert opinions of the worlds best scientists who have come out and confirmed that your government wantonly killed 3000 of its own people just to get the Patriot Act passed. According to the polls conducted almost a half of the US public believe that it was an inside job, which is around 145 million people. There is hundreds of discrepancies surrounding the tragedy. One news reporter announce that building 7 had collapses whilst it was clearly to be seen behind her through the window. 3.5 Trillion dollars went missing, along with two truck loads of gold. Everything was reduced to dust except for the passport of one of the terrorists, that was found on the street.

 

[arthra]

I am not disagreeing with you, I am asking whom you define as messengers. For example, I am a messenger, as you are a messenger, however, we are not prophets, or also are messengers. Do you believe that there are prophets here on earth right now?

When I refer to Prophets I'm referring to the those mentioned in the Bible, the Qur'an and the Baha'i Writings. There are two types of Prophets... Independent Prophets and dependent Prophets:

http://www.bahai.org/library/authoritative-texts/abdul-baha/some-answered-questions/#f=f8-547

Independent Prophets are the source of laws and ordinances for the time.. The dependent Prophets are under Their shadow.

I acknowledge that there have been Prophets prior to those commonly known and in addition as well.

 

[Serenity7855]

Why should the state be involved in religious affairs? Which religion do we teach in the public school system? Who decides? Who says religious is wholesome and righteous? Which religion? Churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. are places people can go to obtain religious education. Why must we include it in public schools as well?

People who are fighting for the same righteous causes are usually capable of overcoming such trivial surmountable problems. Who says religious is wholesome and righteous? 2.2 billion Christians.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Yes, of course I do, however, I don't intentionally contend. I rarely contend in my private life. I used to allow myself to contend on here, but I am getting that under control. Where I have little to no control of contending is when debating the topic of children who are needlessly starving whilst some super rich billionaire sits in the Hot tub of his mansion sipping champagne with his friend, when just one multi-billionaire could eliminate hunger in our world and still have plenty to spare. That gets my goat so I avoid it.

How are you defining contention?

 

[JoStories]

Because you would have both said it only makes you both wrong. If you believe in God why do you blame Him for things that He had nothing to do with? Why did you encourage your Aunt into atheism.

I have never blamed God, nor did I encourage my aunt to do anything, given that I was a child and had no influence over her choices at the time. I don't believe in blaming God nor in assigning wrongdoing to a character developed by Milton and Dante. I'm sorry if you see it that way but if you would find a post where I said 'this is God's fault' perhaps we could discuss it.

Unlike your offensive remarks on Christianity, I am not going to critique your faith because everyone is entitles to believe whatever they want, and I so happen to agree with much of it, however, you say that "We are responsible for the journey we walk" yet you blame God for any stumbling blocks that we might come across.

I am not sure where you see offense when it was a discussion. Am I not entitled to my opinion of the issues? Yes, I find the idea of satan to be one of the most dangerous that Christianity has. This character is literally a scapegoat for any and all wrongdoing you do and you are freed of responsibility. And nowhere, once again, have I blamed God. Please find where I did blame God.

 

[JoStories]

Who is Frank? I do not see anyone who is posting here called Frank so how am I to defend myself against him.

StFrankenstein.

You once again insult me by calling me a liar. You have not consider any alternative, like, I had made a mistake in that statement or that you had misinterpreted it, you instantly assumed that I am a liar because of my views on homosexuality. Heterophobic. You cannot accuse anyone in a debate for lying without evidence to substantiate your claim.

You stated that : How is that rude? You speak like and atheists, your views are like and atheists and you are as awkward and angry as an atheists so to assume you are an atheist is perfectly acceptable. All you need is to correct me and I will no longer think you are an atheist. I will then know that you are into Satanism.


That is what I said was patently false. You stated he was into Satanism. And even if he were, why should that be a moniker of something terrible? Do you even know anything about that faith? Its about hedonism. Not human sacrifice and debauchery.

I can see now why you blamed God. You know very little about Christianity, which is demonstrated by your statement that Satan is a fictitious character. You are clearly out of your depth here, yet you try and depict this intellectual person that your words just do not back up. You always insult me and try to make me look like I am stupid when it is the very opposite that is true. Although you do admit it when you said "I will never understand" at the beginning of this post.

I always find myself defending myself against your false accusations, lack of understanding and poor social skills when ever you post to me. I can never debate anything that you say because it always says, You are right and I am wrong, plus I am stupid and a lessor human being as well. You never actually post anything that is debatable, it is always diatribe that I have to correct. Why then do you post to me. I would sooner you didn't, thus giving me more time to answer constructive criticism from people that I can learn from. Yes, I could ignore you, however, that would be impolite.

I wish there was an emoticon that had it shaking its head. I don't blame God. Please provide proof that there is such a character as 'satan'. Tangible scientific proof. You cannot. I have no issue with you believing in such a character. I have trouble with people teaching this to children but that is my issue, not yours. And then you proceed to delve into two paragraphs only meant to insult me. I do not a great deal about your faith. I wish you might be willing to discuss with me what I do know, but alas you are too vested in attack. I honestly don't see a lot of benefit of continuing this as you are clearly upset by anything I have to say. I wish you peace in your life. Namaste.

 

[JoStories]

What a horrific story Jo. I am so, so sorry to hear things like this, it is truly heartbreaking. I can't even begin to imagine the pain your aunt must live with every day of her life. My heart and my love goes out to you and your family.

Its ok Skeptic. We learned a great deal from that, which may seem cavalier but truthfully, my aunt learned that her husband was an idiot...he fell asleep smoking...and he was charged with child endangerment. She quit smoking that same day. Good thing, no? But ultimately, we all have stories such as this. But your caring and love never ceases to amaze me dear one. You are the best.

 

[Serenity7855]

You've heard of them now, apparently.

There is no apparent about it, they have been posted in a list

Islam is an Abrahamic faith, by the way.

Yes, I know, but why are you telling me that for.

 

[Serenity7855]

How are you defining contention?

Aggressive disagreement, Hostile Discord, Unnecessary impropriety and enmity. However, I have noticed, from posting here, that it is not always fueled by anger. It is the subtle but effective wind up. The trivial nit picking, the constant one liner dig at you persona, the amicable ways to call you a liar, and the offensive ridicule of your whole ethos and morality. It is the constant critiques that are unrelated to the subject matter. I do not envision Satan as a monstrous being, no, I see his as a welcoming character with a smile on his face and a hand stretched forward to shack yours. He was purported to be a handsome man called the Son of the Morning, friendly and charismatic but underneath that he is a odious creature who is more then willing to do you great harm and suffering. I do not see him as an aggressor but a manipulator of men. That is contention without the aggression but the effect is just as damaging, even more so. It is clandestine in nature. Sorry for being verbose but it is a question that needs to be fully explained.