• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why does it seem that God never intervenes in Human Suffering

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
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.

You made it very clear that you agreed with her reasoning on who was responsible for the deaths of her children when you wrote the following.

After it, she left all faiths and died an atheist, seeing no reasons whatsoever for worshipping a deity who would inflict horrors of this nature on anyone and I did not blame her.


You are saying that God inflicted this horror upon your Aunt, which is commensurate with blaming Him for what happened. You then encourage her to leave her faith by agreeing with her that God is responsible for her loss.

I am not sure where you see offense when it was a discussion.

Isn't that a bit like burying your head in the sand?
I would ask you to bring your head out of the sand and see the light of day.

Both of these remarks are contentious and completely unnecessary and the rest of the post is a misrepresentation of my beliefs.

Am I not entitled to my opinion of the issues?

Absolutely you are. I would never attempt to curtail that.

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.

No, Satan is not a scapegoat, we are responsible for our own actions and must stand accountable for them. If we allow Satan to tempt us into sin then we made the choice regardless as to the method he used to insnare us with. Satan is a necessary character in our mortal probation. He represents all that is in opposition to righteousness. Without him there could not be any trails of our faith as there would not be and opposite to what is right so we could never be tempted to do wrong. Satan is a fundamental need for us to go through the refiners fire. Christianity does not, cannot work without him.


And nowhere, once again, have I blamed God. Please find where I did blame God.

I have shown you this above. You agreed with your Aunts belief that it was God who allowed this to happen by saying that "and I did not blame her."
 
Last edited:

The_Fisher_King

Trying to bring myself ever closer to Allah
Premium Member
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.

No need for the apology! This is important, not least because, as with so many words, people bring their own understandings and use them in different ways. From what you say above, contention is for you always aggressive, hostile, improper and unnecessary (though not perhaps always overtly so). However, standard dictionary definitions define contention more as an assertion of a position or an argument or a striving or struggling to surmount a difficulty or to achieve something. So one can contend something in a 'good' way or a 'bad' way. I see nothing necessarily demonic about contention in these senses. Moreover, anger is not necessarily bad. It depends on whom that anger is directed at, and how that anger is used.

I do agree with you that Satan is the instigator of much of the 'bad' contention, and that Satan comes in many forms, often beguiling. However, you seem to be equating Satan with Lucifer, and if you are, there we must part company. Whilst Satan is most certainly God's Enemy and, if we serve God, should also be ours, Lucifer is not. Lucifer is in fact another of God's servants.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
StFrankenstein.

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.

His profile says that he is into Satanism, the worship of Satan, typically involving a travesty of Christian symbols and practices, such as placing a cross upside down. Satanism rings bells for me as I know that Satan exists or that an evil force exists, either way, I want no part of it.

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.

You appear to have answered your own question.

Please provide proof that there is "no" such character as 'satan'. Tangible scientific proof. You cannot.

Yes I can, however, I am just not qualified in that particular discipline of philosophy. What I can say is that you cannot have a right without a wrong. There has to be opposition in all thing, like matter and anti matter, up must have a down to define it, good must have a bad in order to show it as good and not bad.

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.

I am more resilient in teaching my grandchildren that Satan exists then I am in teaching that God exists, because he is an immediate threat to them whilst they are in their youth.

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.

Here are those two paragraphs that you refer to.

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.

They are not intended to insult you, they are intended to show you that you are offending me and that I don't want you to do that.
[/QUOTE]
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
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.
If hadn’t broken up and deleted parts of my post, you’d probably find it easier to follow along.

I’m trying to point out that secularism doesn’t equate to atheism. That’s why I pointed out that religious diversity and freedom tends to thrive in a secular environment, whereas it tends to stagnate in a theocratic and/or authoritarian environments. I used the US as an example because as far as I know, it is pretty much the only country that spells out its secularism in its Constitution.

What’s wrong with ruling a country based on the principles of an ancient holy book?

First of all, it tends to result in loss of religious freedom and diversity, as already mentioned. Have we forgotten how things went when the Catholic Church ruled over Europe for centuries? Have you not noticed that people living in countries that are more theocratic in nature tend to have less freedom?

Secondly, how do we determine whose holy book or religion is the one we go with? Why assume the Bible? Why not the Qu’ran? Why not the Bhagavad Gita? And if we assume the Bible, which particular sect of Christianity do we go with? You must realize that public schools are made up of children from all different cultures and religions. Why is it “right” to push one particular brand of religion on all of them, when many of them don’t even follow the religion to begin with? And what happens when they decide to instill the principles of the Qu’ran instead of the Bible? How would you feel about that? You must see the problem here.

Thirdly, the problem with these ancient holy books, specifically the Bible, is that it contains a whole lot of stuff that is not considered good moral principle these days, like slavery and stoning people as punishment for pretty much any “crime” including adultery and homosexuality. I don’t know of any country in the developed world that punishes its citizens for adultery; such things tend to take place under theocratic governments.

Finally, the reason I point out that many religious people agree with the idea of church and state is because they also realize that freedom of religion doesn’t come from governments forcing one particular religion on its citizens, and they don’t want the government instructing their children on religious matters. They realize how such a thing can get out of hand the second the government begins dictating a religion to you that you do not want to follow. You can’t always assume the religion you personally like the best will be the one that rules the day.

Years ago, I read about some parents in school district that were upset that a child was not allowed to hand out Bibles (or some kind of Christian religious material, I can’t remember what exactly). So they petitioned to have the by-laws changed so that it would be allowed. What they didn’t realize in doing that, was that they had opened a whole can of worms. Because another parent who was opposed to this idea decided to send some kind of satanic material in for their child to hand out. Well, the first group of parents were outraged at this. They wanted it banned immediately. Never did they seem to realize that they were the ones who had opened the door to that, in their own selfish desire to push THEIR religion in schools.

I’m not averse to keep good moral principle in government and public education. I just don’t happen to think that the Bible is the best place to find good moral principle and I don’t think a religion (i.e. something based on faith in unseen things) should be forced on people. We can have laws forbidding people from murder without the Bible. We can have laws against rape and child abuse, in spite of what the Bible has to say about it (funny how they were left out the commandments for some reason). And we do. I hope you don’t think people didn’t know it was wrong to murder other people before the Bible was written.

I’m not sure what it’s like in the UK, but in Canada and the US, parents can opt to send their children to religious schools instead of putting them in the public education system, if they’re so upset about the lack of religious teaching in public schools.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
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.

I live in Canada.

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.

I do not believe that the US government was involved in any conspiracy to kill 3,000 of its own citizens. But if that’s what you have to tell yourself in order to deny the religious component of the attack, then go I ahead I guess.



None of this has anything to do with what I said.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
People who are fighting for the same righteous causes are usually capable of overcoming such trivial surmountable problems. .
Apparently not because there are still hundreds, if not thousands of different religious beliefs in the world today. Christianity alone has thousands of different sects.

Who says religious is wholesome and righteous? 2.2 billion Christians
How about the other 4.9 billion people?
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
No need for the apology! This is important, not least because, as with so many words, people bring their own understandings and use them in different ways. From what you say above, contention is for you always aggressive, hostile, improper and unnecessary (though not perhaps always overtly so). However, standard dictionary definitions define contention more as an assertion of a position or an argument or a striving or struggling to surmount a difficulty or to achieve something. So one can contend something in a 'good' way or a 'bad' way. I see nothing necessarily demonic about contention in these senses. Moreover, anger is not necessarily bad. It depends on whom that anger is directed at, and how that anger is used.

I am afraid that that I have to disagree. When I hear or read the word contention it conjures up aggressive confrontation. What you appear to be referring to here is normal courteous debate, which can be intense or amiable but should never be contentious or confrontational. What I refer to when I use the word contention is a heated discussion that is aggressive. What you refer to is cordial debate without aggression. Contention is always negative, it is never positive because as soon as it is then it ceases to be contention and becomes something else.

1. Con·ten·tion
(kən-tĕn′shən)
n.
1. The act or an instance of striving in controversy or debate. See Synonyms at conflict.
2. A striving to win in competition; rivalry: The teams met in fierce contention for first place.
3. An assertion put forward in argument: It is my contention that they are lying.


2. con·ten·tion
noun
1.
a struggling together in opposition; strife.
2.
a striving in rivalry; competition; contest.
3.
strife in debate; dispute; controversy.
4.
a point contended for or affirmed in controversy.


3. contention
kənˈtɛnʃ(ə)n/
noun
  1. 1.
    heated disagreement.
    "the captured territory was the main area of contention between the two countries"
    synonyms: disagreement, dispute, disputation, argument, variance;
    discord, hostility, conflict, friction, acrimony, enmity, strife,dissension, disharmony, quarrelling, feuding
    "there were a number of points of contention between the Crown and Parliament"
I have taken a look at three different online dictionaries, as shown above, and found that the general consensus seems to be that contention is a hostile act of verbal aggression between two or more individuals. Now that does not make you wrong as it is possible that I picked the only three dictionaries that say that, however, what it does is to show that there are at least two perceptions of what contention means and a possibility for both to be correct.

I do agree with you that Satan is the instigator of much of the 'bad' contention, and that Satan comes in many forms, often beguiling. However, you seem to be equating Satan with Lucifer, and if you are, there we must part company. Whilst Satan is most certainly God's Enemy and, if we serve God, should also be ours, Lucifer is not. Lucifer is in fact another of God's servants.

I am afraid that I have to disagree with you on this one as well, not because I know Satan personally or that your description is unrealistic but because it is not what is written in scripture or how I have been indoctrinated. According to the Bible and Wikipedia both Satan and Lucifer are the same being. Now that has always been my understanding as well, but that does not mean that I am write. It means that is how I have interpreted it to be. What is your opinion

I have alway seen Satan as a cool looking person who is welcoming and hospitable with a smile on his face and a glint in his eyes. You would feel comfortable and secure in his presents and instantly trust in him. He was called the Son of the Morning, the Lightbearer, The Morning Star. I have always known him as Satan, Beelzebub, the Devil or that Old Serpent. I rarely use Lucifer when referring to him, nonetheless, I have always taken it to be that both him and Satan are the same being. As you can see in the following exerts from Wikipedia and the Bible Dictionary and taken from Holy Scriptures, the have also come to the same conclusion, however, I do not mind being proven wrong by sound evidence.

From Scriptures
Isaiah 14:12
12" How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!

Revelation 2:28
And I will give him the morning star.


LUCIFER
The name means the Shining One or Lightbearer. He is also known as the Son of the Morning. Lucifer was a spirit son of Heavenly Father and led the rebellion in the premortal life. The name Lucifer appears only once in the Bible

25 And this we saw also, and bear record, that an angel of God who was in authority in the presence of God, who rebelled against the Only Begotten Son whom the Father loved and who was in the bosom of the Father, was thrust down from the presence of God and the Son,

26 And was called Perdition, for the heavens wept over him—he was Lucifer, a son of the morning.

27 And we beheld, and lo, he is fallen! is fallen, even a son of the morning!

28 And while we were yet in the Spirit, the Lord commanded us that we should write the vision; for we beheld Satan, that old serpent, even the devil, who rebelled against God, and sought to take the kingdom of our God and his Christ—


Satan
Satan, also called the adversary or the devil, is the enemy of all righteousness and of those who seek to follow God. He is a spirit son of God who was once an angel “in authority in the presence of God” Isaiah 14:12. But in the premortal Council in Heaven, Lucifer, as Satan was then called, rebelled against God. Since that time, he has sought to destroy the children of God on the earth and to make them miserable.

Satan is a figure appearing in the texts of the Abrahamic religions who brings evil and temptation, and is known as the deceiver who leads humanity astray. Some religious groups teach that he originated as an angel, or something of the like, who used to possess great piety and beauty, but fell because of hubris, seducing humanity into the ways of sin, and has power in the fallen world. In the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, Satan is primarily an accuser and adversary, a decidedly malevolent entity, also called the devil, who possesses demonic qualities.


Lucifer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lucifer is the King James Version rendering of the Hebrew word in Isaiah 14:12. This word, transliterated hêlêl or heylel, occurs once in the Hebrew Bible and according to the KJV-based Strong's Concordance means "shining one, light-bearer". The Septuagint renders in Greek as a name, literally "bringer of dawn", for the morning star. The word Lucifer is taken from the Latin Vulgate, which translates as lucifer, meaning "the morning star, the planet Venus", or, as an adjective, "light-bringing"
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
I do not believe that the US government was involved in any conspiracy to kill 3,000 of its own citizens. But if that’s what you have to tell yourself in order to deny the religious component of the attack, then go I ahead I guess.

I do not have to tell myself anything, I rely on the words of the experts and they say that it was an inside job. The fact that you pooh pooh something so devastating and blatantly obvious, they didn't even cover it up that well, just speaks volumes.

None of this has anything to do with what I said.

You said: "They" mercilessly killed 3000 people in the name of religion. So please tell me again how righteous and wholesome religion is." Which referred to 9/11 and the obvious involvement of the US Government.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
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.
Yes, I get it. I don't think it's cavalier to see that good things can come out of tragedy. Those are the things that help us go on and keep us from giving up on life.

My father was a sweet, kind man and I loved him to death, but he had a terrible drinking problem. He would sit up all night drinking and smoking and falling asleep in his chair. My mother tells me that she used to sit up watching him all night long, putting out his cigarettes when he fell asleep to make sure he didn't burn the house down with her babies in it. I shudder to think how close my mother could have come to living out the scenario your aunt had to live through and how close I could have come to being one of those children. She did end up taking us and leaving him before anything terrible happened but it could have easily gone the other way.

I admire the kind of person you are Jo.Don't ever change! The world needs more people like you.:heartpulse::hugehug:
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
There is no apparent about it, they have been posted in a list
So now you know they exist.

Yes, I know, but why are you telling me that for.
Because you said this:

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.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
No need for the apology! This is important, not least because, as with so many words, people bring their own understandings and use them in different ways. From what you say above, contention is for you always aggressive, hostile, improper and unnecessary (though not perhaps always overtly so). However, standard dictionary definitions define contention more as an assertion of a position or an argument or a striving or struggling to surmount a difficulty or to achieve something. So one can contend something in a 'good' way or a 'bad' way. I see nothing necessarily demonic about contention in these senses. Moreover, anger is not necessarily bad. It depends on whom that anger is directed at, and how that anger is used.
:thumbsup:

I do agree with you that Satan is the instigator of much of the 'bad' contention, and that Satan comes in many forms, often beguiling. However, you seem to be equating Satan with Lucifer, and if you are, there we must part company. Whilst Satan is most certainly God's Enemy and, if we serve God, should also be ours, Lucifer is not. Lucifer is in fact another of God's servants.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I do not have to tell myself anything, I rely on the words of the experts and they say that it was an inside job. The fact that you pooh pooh something so devastating and blatantly obvious, they didn't even cover it up that well, just speaks volumes.
I'm not interested in talking about this conspiracy theory. Sorry, I don't think there is any conspiracy there.

You said: "They" mercilessly killed 3000 people in the name of religion. So please tell me again how righteous and wholesome religion is." Which referred to 9/11 and the obvious involvement of the US Government.
It referred to the people mentioned in the sentence directly preceding it.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
How about the other 4.9 billion people?

Your figure are wrong. The reflect on the population in 2013. As of March 2016 , it was estimated at 7.4 billion. There are just 1.1 billion Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist combined. That means that there is less then a billion atheists and that 6.3 billion are religious. Puts it into perspective, doesn't it?

Top 10 Religion Adherents percents
1. Christianity 2.2 billion 31.50%
2. Islam 1.6 billion 22.32%
3. Secular[a]/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist >1.1 billion 15.35%
4. Hinduism 1 billion 13.95%
5. Chinese traditional religion[c] 394 million 5.50%
6. Buddhism 376 million 5.25%
7. Ethnic religions excluding some in separate categories 300 million 4.19%
8. African traditional religions 100 million 1.40%
9. Sikhism 23 million 0.32%
10. Spiritism 15 million 0.21%​
 
Last edited:

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Your figure are wrong. The reflect on the population in 2013. As of March 2016 , it was estimated at 7.4 billion. There are just 1.1 billion Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist combined. That means that there is less then a billion atheists and that 6.3 billion are religious. Puts it into perspective, doesn't it?

Top 10 Religion Adherents percents
1. Christianity 2.2 billion 31.50%
2. Islam 1.6 billion 22.32%
3. Secular[a]/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist >1.1 billion 15.35%
4. Hinduism 1 billion 13.95%
5. Chinese traditional religion[c] 394 million 5.50%
6. Buddhism 376 million 5.25%
7. Ethnic religions excluding some in separate categories 300 million 4.19%
8. African traditional religions 100 million 1.40%
9. Sikhism 23 million 0.32%
10. Spiritism 15 million 0.21%​
I'm not referring to atheists. I'm referring to people who don't practice Christianity.
According to your numbers I am wrong. There are actually 5.2 billion people who don't practice Christianity rather than 4.9 billion.


You had said this:
"Who says religious is wholesome and righteous? 2.2 billion Christians"
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
You said you have in post #271.
Nope, I surely did not. I said:

You Said
1. What proof are you referring to that demonstrates that secularism results in totalitarianism?​

2. To which I said
"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."

3. To which you said

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

4. And I said

I already have. referring to 1. above.​

But aside from this, I have also posted article and survey on the effects of secularism on another thread as well. These indiscretions are really tiring
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
I'm not referring to atheists. I'm referring to people who don't practice Christianity.
According to your numbers I am wrong. There are actually 5.2 billion people who don't practice Christianity rather than 4.9 billion.


You had said this:
"Who says religious is wholesome and righteous? 2.2 billion Christians"

Your point?
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
I'm not interested in talking about this conspiracy theory. Sorry, I don't think there is any conspiracy there.

Oddly selective?

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” — Edmund Burke

History will continue to repeat itself until we do something to stop it. There is a line in the movie The Seven Samurai that seems appropriate: “You have to protect others to protect yourself.” By taking action to prevent another 9/11, another Afghanistan, another Iraq, and another Libya, the lives that you will be helping to save might just include your own.

This was written by an empathetic individual, did you recognise the empathy.
 
Top