• 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

OurCreed

There is no God but Allah
So god wants to be a hero but can't if there isn't evil to smite. So he creates evil so he can say he's just. That's like a fireman proving how he protects a community from fires by setting fires people suffer from to put out. Your argument suggests god is not good or merciful since he creates suffering when there is no need for it.

In my original comment, I said that evil doesn't exist in God's perspective. What God is doing is being Himself. He is a creator, so He will create by nature. He is merciful, so He by nature will exhibit His mercy in all things.

The reason hell is not forever is precisely because He is merciful. When human beings put themselves into destruction (just like here on earth in this world), God will remove them from it when He sees fit and bring them to a better place.
 
In my original comment, I said that evil doesn't exist in God's perspective. What God is doing is being Himself. He is a creator, so He will create by nature. He is merciful, so He by nature will exhibit His mercy in all things.

The reason hell is not forever is precisely because He is merciful. When human beings put themselves into destruction (just like here on earth in this world), God will remove them from it when He sees fit and bring them to a better place.

If he's worried about us being in a better place, why doesn't he just move everyone to a better place now and be done with it?
 

OurCreed

There is no God but Allah
If he's worried about us being in a better place, why doesn't he just move everyone to a better place now and be done with it?

For starters, we are here to find God. The Qur'an clearly says that if God wanted to, He can make everyone believe in Him and everyone can then be in heaven. But that's not the case here. We are given free will, to accept Him or reject Him. If there is no choice, then there cannot be real good. So your "better place" is out of the question.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
For starters, we are here to find God. The Qur'an clearly says that if God wanted to, He can make everyone believe in Him and everyone can then be in heaven. But that's not the case here. We are given free will, to accept Him or reject Him. If there is no choice, then there cannot be real good. So your "better place" is out of the question.

I agree with that our purpose is here is to be tested. But that's the reason that God would never violate the natural law of the rational universe, which definitely includes divine revelation--which is absolutely all hearsay anyway. It would disprove the pudding.
 
For starters, we are here to find God. The Qur'an clearly says that if God wanted to, He can make everyone believe in Him and everyone can then be in heaven. But that's not the case here. We are given free will, to accept Him or reject Him. If there is no choice, then there cannot be real good. So your "better place" is out of the question.

What's wrong with everyone being in heaven? Besides, how is choosing between going to heaven or going to hell even a real choice? What fool would choose to go to hell? How is it freewill if you give people only two choices and one of them is something no rational, sane person would choose. If god is good and merciful he would want everyone to go to heaven right? You have already said in another thread that in heaven people's freewill will be limited to only good choices/decisions. So freewill, in the end, doesn't seem to be a major factor in this anyway. So saying evil exists to test us doesn't really work. He should have just put everyone in heaven and save everyone a lot of unnecessary grief.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
I don't see any counter to my argument. God told satan to murder innocent people. So how is it moral when god orders someone murdered and it's immoral if Hitler does it? Please explain that one to me. Secondly, what righteous principle is being taught in the story of Job?

Job made it abundantly clear that he was not suffering because he knew that what ever God was doing had a righteous cause to it. You assume that these people suffered but they didn't. God does not intentionally cause suffering as that would make Him a sinner and no longer God. The book of Job is about much more than suffering or God’s justice. Job affirmed that God was still God - no matter what - and always worthy of our love, reverence and worship. That was the test on Job, and he passed it. He vindicated both himself and God by remaining faithful. Job proved it is possible for humans to love God unconditionally. You cannot accuse God of causing suffering if nobody is suffering. If you were honest you would now concede. Why not look at it with an open mind and sincere intent instead of with a critical eye that wants to desperately prove that the idea of God is a fallacy. You are clouding your own vision.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
If god knows everything than trials are unnecessary in the first place. So your god knowing a person is going to "pass the test" before it even takes place, makes them suffer through it anyway. That is inflicting suffering. Your belief system makes no sense.

Man sins because he is not perfect. Who made us imperfect? Do you really think our creator doesn't share any blame?

Who said that God knows everything. God is omniscient, that is to know all that "can be known" He cannot possibly know for a surety what our choices will be when we don't until we make them. My belief system is no sense to you as you failed it.

Adam and Eve were responsible for the fall from perfection to imperfection, and therefore introduced sin into the world.

No, I do not think your creator should be blamed for anything.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
I was a Christian and am now an atheist. I've lived life from both sides. Were you ever an atheist?

Yes, I was, however, I have never been a failed Christian

I am attacking your arguments. Instead of playing the victim why don't you defend your position with rational arguments?

I have been, you just don't recognise it.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
In summary to your retorts, there is ample historical evidence that shows beyond argument that religion has been used and continues to be used to justify all manner of violence and depravity.

Yes, men do some atrocious things in the name of God, that is for sure, however, it is not God doing them and the principles of Christianity do not support them either. So, you speak about the carnal nature of mankind which God cannot control. A bit of a moot point.

Religion is an excellent tool for this because the authority that is being invoked to justify their otherwise unjustifiable actions isn't present and able to protest, because it doesn't exist.

In your opinion it does not exist. You cannot possible know that it does not exist. All you are saying is that mankind can be unscrupulous at times.
If people didn't have invisible scape goats to blame their bigotry and hatred on they'd have to take responsibility for it themselves.

Well you blame God a lot on here. What does that make you?

If the religious right in America didn't have their god telling them to hate the LGBT community I wonder what excuse they'd use to justify their bigotry?
Right, you are gay. That is what caused you to fail as a Christian so you resent the whole of Christianity now. That explains the hostility and the reason why you are here. You are wrong, of course. God would never say such a thing as it would make Him a sinner. It is not the LGBT community that is condemned for what they do, it is the sin that is condemned. We love the sinner but hate the sin.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
My point was that worshipping your god is not necessary for success and happiness because your god doesn't exist.
So you are saying that my God is not necessary and then say that He doesn't exist. That sounds like a contradiction in terms. Besides, you cannot say that God does not exist because you cannot prove He doesn't exist. It is your opinion.

People can and do live happy, successful lives without your god and religion.

Do they? How do you know that? How do you define success. How do you define happiness. You are making ostentatious comments that you will have difficulty in substantiating again.

I understood exactly what you meant. You didn't understand my point which is that it can be dangerous living in a fantasy world just because it makes you happy.

You said that "By your logic, it would be mean to take a drug addicts drugs away from him and get him cleaned up." Well that is simply not true and if you have interpreted my words thus then you have erred in your interpretation and are misrepresenting me.

I do not live in a fantasy world. That is your opinion, which is wrong.

Personal attacks aren't going to win you a debate.

Then you should stop them henceforth.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
The bible says god sent the flood and god admits responsibility for it as well.

Genesis 8:21 The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures as I have done.

And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. All you will see here is that "god sent the flood" or what is actually says is that He brings a flood, you will not ask why. If you read that with a critical eye instead of a open mind then you will say that God is being a sinner. If that is what you think then all you see is a opportunity to discredit God and don't consider what God was doing. What God did is an act of righteousness to cleanse the earth of such overwhelming wickedness and debauchery. He did it to insure a better chance for His children to make it back by removing the intense evil. He did it for the sake of those who died in the flood by taking away their ability to sin further in the flesh and condemning themselves to be servants of Satan.. Everyone was happy with the outcome, and if you hadn't noticed, nobody blamed God or complained, therefore, no suffering was induced or even mentioned by these people. Nowhere does it say that anybody suffered or that God inflicted suffering upon them. You have interpreted it thus to feed your own disdain for God. You have assumed that God inflicted suffering even though the chapter does not mention that or even remotely insinuate it. How can you inflict suffering by your actions if nobody is actually suffering by your actions.And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: But not one mention of anybody suffering. If you are honest you will concede.

So now I've given two examples from the bible that clearly shows God inflicts suffering. If you are honest you will concede.

God removed the weeds in order to allow the flowers to blossom and for the production of good fruit. That is an act of righteous love for us. You have given me two examples and I have adequately refuted both of them.[/QUOTE]
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
So god wants to be a hero but can't if there isn't evil to smite. So he creates evil so he can say he's just. That's like a fireman proving how he protects a community from fires by setting fires people suffer from to put out. Your argument suggests god is not good or merciful since he creates suffering when there is no need for it.

You are making the fireman a straw man. That is a logical fallacy.

Men create their own suffering without any help from God.
 

serp777

Well-Known Member
I am not telling God what he can and cannot do. I am using objective reasoning to come to a reasonable conclusion. God is perfect. Everything about Him is perfect. If He were to inflict pane on someone, or even think about it, then that would be an immorality which would instantly make Him imperfect and no longer a God. It is basic deductive reasoning linked to a sound knowledge of scriptures..



Right, so now you say that God gives little children leukemia. It has nothing to do with it being hereditary or the result of a weakening gene pool. It is God's fault. Where on earth did you come up with such an illogical conclusion. So who does an atheist blame? Or is it just atheists who blame God, a deity that they do not believe exists. I cannot see a devout Christian blaming God, they usually have a little more intelligence than that.



No, people do not choose to go to hell it is their bad choices that sends them their. There is no evidence that Hell exists, however, by the same logic, there is no evidence that it does not exist either. Personally I do not think that it exists in the way that we think it does, again, concluded by basic deductive reasoning.

No, God could not obliterate anyone. It just takes a little lateral thought to ascertain that God is incapable of doing that as He is perfect. Even the very thought of it could not be permitted to enter Gods consciousness.

Perhaps if you post to me again you might think about being a little less hostile.

I am not telling God what he can and cannot do. I am using objective reasoning to come to a reasonable conclusion. God is perfect. Everything about Him is perfect. If He were to inflict pane on someone, or even think about it, then that would be an immorality which would instantly make Him imperfect and no longer a God. It is basic deductive reasoning linked to a sound knowledge of scriptures..

Where is your objective reasoning? You just said earlier that God can't make someone suffer, and I assume you'll say that God cannot do evil. Also how do you know God is perfect instead of maximally perfact?

If He were to inflict pane on someone, or even think about it, then that would be an immorality which would instantly make Him imperfect and no longer a God. It is basic deductive reasoning linked to a sound knowledge of scriptures
God is beyond morality. Everything he does is moral by definition according to the Christian faith. If he inflict pain then it is moral. Furthermore, God could be a perfect balance of good and bad. He's still eprfect then. That makes more sense and would explain more than this ridiculous assertion that God is perfectly good.

No, people do not choose to go to hell it is their bad choices that sends them their. There is no evidence that Hell exists, however, by the same logic, there is no evidence that it does not exist either. Personally I do not think that it exists in the way that we think it does, again, concluded by basic deductive reasoning.

Never mind that many people don't intend to do evil, but it happens anyways. Genetic and environmental factors lead people to do things that they really didn't have any choice over. This can be seen in statistics--if you grow up poor, you're more likely to commit a crime. Your birthplace and family wealth wasn't decided by you, but it makes you more likely to do evil; therefore, often times people don't make bad choices out of their own free will. The fact that God didn't create an equal playing field for everyone shows that is responsible for their bad choices.

There is no evidence that Hell exists, however, by the same logic, there is no evidence that it does not exist either.

This is the argument from ignorance. For example, there is no evidence that fairies exists, however, by the same logic, there is no evidence that fairies don't exist either.

Right, so now you say that God gives little children leukemia. It has nothing to do with it being hereditary or the result of a weakening gene pool. It is God's fault. Where on earth did you come up with such an illogical conclusion. So who does an atheist blame? Or is it just atheists who blame God, a deity that they do not believe exists. I cannot see a devout Christian blaming God, they usually have a little more intelligence than that.

Yes, God created the universe and intended children to have Luekemia as a result of creating the universe and knowing what was going to happen. He is directly responsible. That's like saying that if a terrorist sets off a bomb, he isn't responsible because it was the expansion of hot gases that caused the damage, not the terrorist directly. The terrorist knew what was going to happen and created the chain of events that lead to the explosion. Its like you think that you have to do something directly yourself in order to be responsible. That's the only illogical conclusion here. Furthermore atheists don't blame God; you're very confused. They claim that if God exists in this word, which is a hypothetical, and if the Christian scripture is accurate, then God must be responsible for evil and suffering. I think you should familiarize yourself with actual atheists positions rather than inaccurate strawmen.

But I mean its even more obvious. Did God create everything? If yes, then he is also responsible for everything he created, which includes evil, suffering, satan, and death. If no, then he's not really God. If you disagree that he's responsible then that's illogical.

I cannot see a devout Christian blaming God, they usually have a little more intelligence than that.
It has nothing to do with intelligence whatsoever. Also this is the argument from personal incredulity. It doesn't matter if you can or can't see it.

Perhaps if you post to me again you might think about being a little less hostile.
You're conflating criticism with hostility. But I do find your morality repugnant.
 

allright

Active Member
Yes its all God's fault.?

He sent his Son offering total forgiiveness and eternal life and happiness if they would just give up their sin and follow him

Their response "no thanks we prefer evil" and they killed him"

Clearly all God,s fault"
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Yes its all God's fault.?

And your evidence is?

He sent his Son offering total forgiiveness and eternal life and happiness if they would just give up their sin and follow him

It was Jesus who volunteered to be our Saviour and to take upon Himself the sins of the world. God did not send him he chose to go.

There is no such thing as total forgiveness all the time we are in the flesh. Jesus will alway have to bridge a gap between perfection and imperfection, hence, the atonement. A reconciliation between man and God that will allow us to live with God again and progress, that is, unless the gap is too wide in which case another place in the lessor kingdoms of God will be their destination.

Their response "no thanks we prefer evil" and they killed him"

You have just told us who was at fault, those who killed Him, so how do you conclude that God is clearly at fault when he wasn't even there.

Clearly all God,s fault"

As clear as muddy water.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Life is a test. Without ups and downs, without good and evil, then our purpose here is meaningless.

If you think there is no after life, then yes, you would be right into questioning God for why He created conscious creatures going through this suffering for no reason.

But if you believe there is an after life, then that answers the question. We humans are not created for this world! We are created for the next world, that is our home, not this place, earth. This is why everyone and everything dies. Nothing in this temporal universe lasts forever.
So you think that evil is a deliberate, purposeful creation of God?
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Where is your objective reasoning?

I don't think you would recognise it.

You just said earlier that God can't make someone suffer, and I assume you'll say that God cannot do evil. Also how do you know God is perfect instead of maximally perfact?

Because the scriptures tell me so and the Holy Ghost confirms it to me. If He were not perfect we wouldn't be here.

God is beyond morality. Everything he does is moral by definition according to the Christian faith. If he inflict pain then it is moral. Furthermore, God could be a perfect balance of good and bad. He's still eprfect then. That makes more sense and would explain more than this ridiculous assertion that God is perfectly good.

What do you care, you are an atheist. If God had accepted Satan's plan we would all be in hell right now. If I had been born without male genitalia I would be a girl, but I was, so I am a boy, and if God were to feel the smallest desire to sin His Godhood would cease immediately. "IF" is a big word that can incompass any scenario that you choice to attach it to. God is perfect and has a perfected body of flesh and bones and we are imperfect with an imperfect body of flesh and blood.

Never mind that many people don't intend to do evil, but it happens anyways.

Many people choose to do evil and when they do it is usually devastating.
Genetic and environmental factors lead people to do things that they really didn't have any choice over.

We all have choices to act in anyway we choose. Genetic have not been proven to cause changes in our emotions, The next thing you will say is that homosexuals have no choice in their sexuality, It is the result of a Gay Gene, that has not been found, because they are too busy looking for a pedophilia gene to excuse the behaviour of pedophiles in our society so that they can make that legal as well. I think that they want to find a alcoholics gene as well. When will the stop trying to excuse bad behaviour. That all has the traits of evil. It is deceptive, dishonest, perverted, ungodly, abominable, satanic and a mockery to God. To claim that you have no choice is a copout and an excuse to sin.

This can be seen in statistics--if you grow up poor, you're more likely to commit a crime. Your birthplace and family wealth wasn't decided by you, but it makes you more likely to do evil; therefore, often times people don't make bad choices out of their own free will. The fact that God didn't create an equal playing field for everyone shows that is responsible for their bad choices.

God created our world an placed mankind on it. He has not been back since Adam and Eve fell and immortalised the world. He didn't create a playing field, we did. On the judgement bar we will all be judged individually where everything pertaining to our mortal probation will be analysed in order for it to be a fair and just judgement. Our parents, siblings, lack of sibling, era, music we listened to, our peer group and on and on. But doing evil is a choice so we will all be made accountable for those choices, unless we draw upon the power of the atonement and repent then our robes will no longer be as scarlet but as white as snow and our sin will be remembered no more. I can't wait, it will be good to meet up with some of the atheists that I have crossed swords with on here, and elsewhere.

This is the argument from ignorance. For example, there is no evidence that fairies exists, however, by the same logic, there is no evidence that fairies don't exist either.
That is right, however, if you have to live a life that would enable you to see fairies, wouldn't you give it a go? I did and now I am a believer.

Yes, God created the universe and intended children to have Luekemia as a result of creating the universe and knowing what was going to happen.

God is Alpha and Omega, knowing the beginning from the end, what happens in between He has no control over, so He cannot know who will get Leukemia or who will lose their life in a car accident. All of those things are the result of the choices we make. The weakening of our gene pool, the poor driving of another human who is a poor driver as a result of one of the traits of his ancestors. Have you ever heard of the "Butterfly Effect"?

He is directly responsible. That's like saying that if a terrorist sets off a bomb, he isn't responsible because it was the expansion of hot gases that caused the damage, not the terrorist directly.

No, if you said that you would be ostracized for being so stupid. It is a weak analogy and an poor attempt to introduce a straw man. The initiation would be the finger that belonged to the terrorist and the choice that he has taken. Explosions are not intelligent, they do not think cognitively, they are inanimate objects under our control.

The terrorist knew what was going to happen and created the chain of events that lead to the explosion.

That is exactly right, you took the words right out of my mouth. As he knew then he is culpable. With out him playing his part the bomb would not have gone off. But we are not talking about bombs and terrorists, that is your straw man here. If that were true then why hasn't the tobacco industry been sued for causing the death of so many smokers who bought their own cigarettes and smoked them. After all, the tobacco barons knew what was going to happen and created the chain of events that lead to the cigarettes being made available at the stores that would eventually kill the smokers and passive smokers,.

Its like you think that you have to do something directly yourself in order to be responsible. That's the only illogical conclusion here.

You do. You are responsible for yourself and the choices you make as an individual. You do not have to watch pornography just because its there. You do not have to smoke and drink alcohol because you can. You cannot blame anyone for what you decide to do. I cannot believe that you think we can pass the buck blamelessly, although our society is becoming a "blame anyone you can" society. I guess you are just proof of that.

Furthermore atheists don't blame God; you're very confused. They claim that if God exists in this word, which is a hypothetical, and if the Christian scripture is accurate, then God must be responsible for evil and suffering. I think you should familiarize yourself with actual atheists positions rather than inaccurate strawmen.

I don't think that I do. I know what atheists who come on these forums intentions are. It is given away in their aggression and hostility. As for the straw man dig you made, The concept of the logical fallacy of the straw man is as simple as anyone can get to comprehend. You take my argument and replace it with your own argument, that is totally disconnected to your own, having different environmental factors and usually different characters so the comparison is flaw before you start. Then you destroy your argument that you have set up as the same as mine, thus thinking that at the same time you have destroyed mine. It is grossly dishonest and leads to a debate that cannot be argued honestly because of a straw man.

But I mean its even more obvious. Did God create everything? If yes, then he is also responsible for everything he created, which includes evil, suffering, satan, and death. If no, then he's not really God. If you disagree that he's responsible then that's illogical.

It depend on your definition of create. If you mean he created it ex nihilo then no, he cannot do that. Things which don’t exist can’'t be caused to ‘do’ anything, since they aren’t "there" to be influenced by a cause.” If you mean did he take the matter that was and organise our planet then yes He created our earth with existing element or energy. When He created it our planet was perfect and God dwelt on it's surface. But alas, Eve had other plans and the earth became corrupted and carnal. So, if you want to blame anyone for the evil on our planet then you have to Blame Adam and Eve, our first mortal parents. Good had nothing to do with it, it was the choice of mankind to eat the fruit thus what follows must be as a result of eating the fruit. But that is just blaming againg. We still have choices to act or not to act. We cannot blame others for what we choose. Your logic is bizzare.

It has nothing to do with intelligence whatsoever. Also this is the argument from personal incredulity. It doesn't matter if you can or can't see it.

Yes, we are all guilty of personal incredulity. at times but with black and white situations it is hard to be.

You're conflating criticism with hostility. But I do find your morality repugnant.

No, I am not. I know when I am being criticised and I know when someone is frustrated and angry. You came in like a bull in a china shop ready to knock anything that you didn't like down.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Why was there thermite in the dust of the Twin Towers and Building 7? Thermite is used by demolition engineers, many of which have said that all three building were brought down by controlled explosions. But that is another question that has been asked with no answer. Building 7 was not next door to the Twin Towers. The buildings that were next door, and took the brunt of the controlled collapse, did not collapse. They were not brought down because they did not contain information about the corruption they revelled in. The World Trade Center complex included buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6. Compared to Building 7, all of these buildings were severely damaged, first by falling rubble from the tower collapses, then by fires that burned for hours. Although these buildings were in critical condition, none of them collapsed. Building 7 was in fact behind the others.

wtc-building-7-map.jpg




So, rather then it being you who is wrong it is thousands of respected professional who are liars. How can you be duped into finding thermite in all three buildings dust. How do you make a whole airplane disappear, with passengers as well, without a spot of blood anywhere or a single body part. How do you make another airplane disappear into the ground showing absolutely no parts of the plane or the passengers. Not even a suitcase. How is it possible for four novice pilots to fly huge commercial airliners in these targets without any help? How is it possible for three buildings to collapse ate free fall speed, into it's own footprint, at free fall speed without using explosives to remove the resistance. You think you know what you are talking about, however, in reality, you don't. You think that thousands of professionals are either lying or have been duped, but in reality it is then who know what they are talking about.



The inner, supporting structure of the towers consisted of 47 interlocking box columns, heavy-duty 2″ thick steel beams sheathed in cement, bolted and welded together. The 9/11 Commission completely fails to describe this at all. It’s highly unbelievable that a jet made up of mostly aluminum alloy metals could have created the damage they say, especially since much of the energy was expended just punching through the outer steel surface.

But what about the presents of thermite in the dust of all three buildings. What about the peer reviewed published paper that confirms there was thermite in the dust. How do you intend to move a goal post to facilitate this huge thorn in the side of those who set up 911. Why was a substance used uniquely by demolition engineers found in the dust of the three buildings? The implications of the discovery of unspent aluminothermic explosives and matching residues in World Trade Center dust are staggering. There is no conceivable reason for there to have been tons of high explosives in the Towers except to demolish them, and demolition is blatantly incompatible with the official 9/11 narrative that the skyscrapers collapsed as a result of the jetliner impacts and fires.

The discovery of active thermitic materials adds to a vast body of evidence that the total destruction of the Towers were controlled demolitions, and to the subset of that evidence indicating the use of aluminothermic materials to implement those demolitions.

That discovery also undermines the oft-heard claim that no explosives residues were found, a claim that was never compelling, given the apparent lack of evidence that any official agency looked for evidence of explosive residues of any kind. Worse, the public record shows that NIST not only failed to look for such evidence, it repeatedly evaded requests by scientists and researchers to examine numerous facts indicating explosives and incendiaries .



I am not angry. I don't get angry. I have already proved you wrong by your singular interest being the malleability of the steel at certain temperatures, where I have shown a multiplicity of discrepancies that need to be addressed. To say I went wrong is to say that the 2,548 Architects and engineers got it wrong, that 220+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials got it wrong, that 250+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals all got it wrong, that 400+ Professors Question 9/11 got it wrong. that 300+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members all got it wrong, that 200+ Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professionals got it wrong and that 400+ Medical Professionals got it wrong, and that nearly half of the population of the USA all got it wrong and you, a civil engineer, got it right.

The government wants you to believe: That 19 men, divided into four groups, not armed with guns or explosives, but with mere simple box-cutters, were able to bypass security at three major airports, overwhelm the crew and passengers of four airplanes despite being greatly outnumbered, fly the planes with little or no piloting skills, easily defeating well structured long standing U.S. air defense systems, skillfully steering three of the mammoth jetliners unabated into their designated targets, crumbling the twin towers in a near free fall fashion into their own footprints in ten seconds or less, while also striking the Pentagon, the most secure structure within the most guarded airspace in the entire world, which wassomehow left undefended, even after declaring that America was already under attack over half an hour :)34 minutes), before it was hit by a plane that had its transponder off for :41 minutes! There was no intercept of that obvious hijack, nor either of the New York flights which had transponders off for :26 and :17 minutes respectively. The military tried to muster an air defense, but just couldn't get there in time.

Those searching for a more reasoned explanation suggest: That a rogue group of high ranking government individuals, with complete control and unfettered access to Federal aviation systems and U.S. military operations, either exploited an uncovered terrorist plot, or engineered a false flag operation of their own, to attack symbolic targets in the country, all of which held beneficial side gain to U.S. officials from either their substantial wealth resources, or else crucial incriminating records that needed to be destroyed, all conveniently contained within the targets, all the while initiating an environment of fear and panic that could be used to consolidate government power through the restriction of rights, while enabling an excuse for unprovoked wars that immediately benefit the military industrial complex, the corporate elite, and the PNAC (Project for a New American Century), the latter which penned a document in September of 2000 entitled"Rebuilding America's Defenses," which openly talked ofa new Pearl Harbor in order to facilitate its agenda.

While both plots may be hard to conceive, the fact of the matter is, the last one outlined is arguably much easier to achieve, due to the overwhelming number of PNAC members that were strategically positioned in key government seats of power. A neo-con mechanism was clearly enabled within the Bush-Cheney administration that possessed the ability to implement strategy and achieve the goals set forth by the PNAC. (See more on the PNAC's access to power further in this article.)

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
Absolutely no parts of the plane or passengers?

What's all this then?
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/aircraftpartsnyc911
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/911-Plane-Part-Moved-Ground-Zero-Mosque--205586781.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2315518/Plane-fragment-9-11-wedged-Manhattan-buildings.html
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
How do you measure being least or more religious. What question were asked in the poll. What was the size of the specimen sample. This world is in the worst degradation of moral and social values that we have ever seen, and the culprits are atheists with no moral values. They cannot have what we have because they cannot live a Christian lifestyle, so they don't want us to have it either. I don't believe such a study exists, but prove me wrong, for what good it will do.




It is not a competition, however, that doesn't surprise me, they are very nice people.

No, your "understanding" of my religion is not supported by reality. But you do not know what I know because you are hostile and offensive to the children of God.

And yet again you insult a people for their beliefs when you are an atheist who doesn't believe in anything. You are a marvellous ambassador for atheism.
Prove it.
 
Last edited:
Top