Why does it seem that God never intervenes in Human Suffering

[SkepticThinker]

No it doesn't, you would like for it to.



If it messes with you head it is because you have allowed it to. Christianity is based on Good healthy principles that only promote righteousness when lived as it should be.



No, you cannot blame Christianity for the actions of men. Those people do not need religion to perform their atrocities.



No, we are all naturally bigots



Not to my knowledge it hasn't



Where. On the contrary, it encourages scientific progress. You are using standard atheist rhetoric.



Not for me it doesn't



If shame is felt then it is felt for a reason. The reason is down to those who are doing wrong and knowing they are doing wrong.



No, they doi not exist to you because you cannot go the distance. It is all about blame with you.

Speak for yourself.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Evil doesn't exist because God is unable to prevent it, is not powerful enough to stop it, is not wise enough to know it exists, or is not loving enough to remove it. This basic argument that atheists like to present simply doesn't work when we consider the fact that evil is just a test.

Salaam,

One doesn't have to be an atheist to make these arguments. One can believe in and serve a God Who is not omnipotent (and therefore is unable to completely prevent or defeat evil).

Wassalaam

 

[Serenity7855]

What's all this then?

I don't know, however this remark from me was about the pentagon and the plane that crashed in a field. We saw two airplanes crash into the twin towers. I would think that the only people that didn't see it was the blind and partially sighted. There was bound to be body part there, we saw people falling from the buildings. Why would anyone think that I was talking about the Twin Towers when the whole world know that two airplanes smashed into them? Come on, you claim to have intelligence. So, as I said, 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.

I bet you thought to yourself, great, I have got him, he cannot get out of this one, but in your excitement you forgot to reason objectively, or even think.

 

[Serenity7855]

Speak for yourself.

You are above that, right? Only I know that is not true. The HIV causing AIDS incidence taught me that.

 

[Aquitaine]

Salaam,

One doesn't have to be an atheist to make these arguments. One can believe in and serve a God Who is not omnipotent (and therefore is unable to completely prevent or defeat evil).

Wassalaam

If God isn't either willing or powerful enough to stop evil then why worship him/her/it?

 

[Serenity7855]

Prove it.[/QUOTE]

I have no need to, atheists, like you, do a very good job of doing it themselves.

 

[Serenity7855]

If God isn't either willing or powerful enough to stop evil then why worship him/her/it?

Because He is our Father in Heaven.

 

[Aquitaine]

Because He is our Father in Heaven.

And?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

If God isn't either willing or powerful enough to stop evil then why worship him/her/it?

For me, it is about serving God. God created us with a purpose - to liberate the spirits that Satan trapped (and continues to trap) in the energetic-material universe. In striving to fulfil the purpose for which we were created - in liberating some of the spirits trapped in the energetic-material universe - we serve God, and in doing so, we find peace. Moreover, though God isn't omnipotent (nothing is) - and therefore is not powerful enough to completely prevent or defeat all evil - God is nevertheless the Most Powerful.

 

[Aquitaine]

For me, it is about serving God. God created us with a purpose - to liberate the spirits that Satan trapped (and continues to trap) in the energetic-material universe. In striving to fulfil the purpose for which we were created - in liberating some of the spirits trapped in the energetic-material universe - we serve God, and in doing so, we find peace. Moreover, though God isn't omnipotent (nothing is) - and therefore is not powerful enough to completely prevent or defeat all evil - God is nevertheless the Most Powerful.

So God is more powerful than Satan?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

I’m not sure exactly what you’re trying to say here, but it doesn’t sound accurate. Of course we all have choices to act in the ways we see fit, but we can’t make such decisions in absence of our genetic makeup which is what shapes who and what we are.

Genetics play a role in the regulation and sensitivity of our emotions. It’s one of the reasons people react differently to the same situation. It’s one of the reasons some people are more anxious than others. It’s one of the reasons some people suffer from severe depression and others don’t.

There is no single “gay gene” or “pedophilia gene” in the same way there is no “heterosexual gene.” We’ve been over the factors involved in these things many times before.

There are several genes associated with alcoholism and addiction that can contribute to a person’s risk of developing those behaviors; given the presence of certain environmental cues and stimuli that person is exposed to during the course of their lifetime. (The presence of such genes alone doesn’t guarantee that the person will become an alcohol or a drug addict.)

I don’t know who these sinister people are who want to find a pedophile gene so they can legalize child molestation. And I fail to see the logic in that argument.[/QUOTE]

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't know, however this remark from me was about the pentagon and the plane that crashed in a field. We saw two airplanes crash into the twin towers. I would think that the only people that didn't see it was the blind and partially sighted. There was bound to be body part there, we saw people falling from the buildings. Why would anyone think that I was talking about the Twin Towers when the whole world know that two airplanes smashed into them?

Come on, you claim to have intelligence. So, as I said, 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.

I bet you thought to yourself, great, I have got him, he cannot get out of this one, but in your excitement you forgot to reason objectively, or even think.

Well, we were talking about the towers, so it makes sense that I would think you were talking about the towers. You're right, I must be a moron.

Look through the links to find photos of airplane debris at the Pentagon.

What I'm thinking to myself is, is there any conspiracy theory that this person doesn't buy into?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are above that, right? Only I know that is not true. The HIV causing AIDS incidence taught me that.

If you're saying what I think you're saying then it's clear you don't know what bigotry is.

No, everyone is not naturally a bigot.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have no need to, atheists, like you, do a very good job of doing it themselves.

That's funny because I wrote a post on the subject of your assertion, and you deliberately ignored it.

I'd love for you to demonstrate that I have no morals. It should be interesting, given that you don't know me at all. Please go ahead. Right after (or before) you demonstrate that, "This world is in the worst degradation of moral and social values that we have ever seen" because of atheists. Maybe you could respond to that post I wrote about secularism.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

So God is more powerful than Satan?

God is the Ultimate Unity of all things, including Satan, the Lord of Disunity. Being the Lord of Disunity, Satan cannot but break away from God (creating the early universe in the process). So in this sense, God is More Powerful than Satan but still not powerful enough to prevent Satan from breaking away from God. Moreover, though the Most Knowledgeable, God is not omniscient, and Satan is a very powerful being, so God does not know where Satan is hiding.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not as long as 24 hours

Why do you assume I literally meant “24 hours?” If I tell you I was at work all day today, do you assume I meant I was at work for 24 hours?

I do not think it is odd because I know that it was brought down by a controlled series of explosions because I am familiar with the science that proves it. Oh, you should be shocked if you knew that other building of the same type of construction have been engulfed in fire for 24 hours and did not collapse. Building 7 fires were mere office fires and there was no structural damage sufficient enough to bring it down.

So what if other types of buildings that caught fire didn’t collapse? Every building is not subject to the exact same conditions as every other building. I can throw eggs at the same wall over and over and they won’t all break in the exact same way every time. I could hit the same pole in a different car every day and my car won’t be damaged in the exact same way every day.

If all three buildings were brought down by bombs, why did whomever was blowing them up wait 9 hours after blowing up the first two towers, to blow up tower 7?

I didn't, that was a quote with a link.

Ah I see. You weren’t trying to say it was just “grazed” then? What’s the pointing in quoting something if you weren’t trying to use it to assert what was being said in the quote?

Yes, things go wrong, after all, George Bush was voted in a second time after being complicit in the killing of over 3000 innocent people. But in this case it went wrong twice, once for each tower that was both built to withstand a multiple impact by commercial planes. It still does not count for the speed of the collapse and the sounds of explosions as it fell, but most importantly, the thermite that was found in the dust of the twin towers and building 7. Why would you find thermite, that is used by demolition engineers, in a place like that?

Apparently the fireproofing and fire-suppressing systems in the buildings were insufficient to withstand the massive fires the planes caused. Human beings aren’t perfect after all, and can’t always account for every single situation that may ever occur.

Neither would I, however, 1,700 Architects & Engineers is good for me. This nonprofit organization represents more than 1,700 architects, engineers, and other technical experts – including Lynn Margulis, National Medal of Science winner – who are calling for a new scientific investigation into the destruction of all three WTC skyscrapers on 9/11.

It sounds like you spend a lot of time counting scientists. Have you counted the number of scientists that don’t agree with your claims? Maybe you could share it with us, just for curiosity’s sake.

Yes, people believe the government that they voted for. The NIST report have white washed half a nation, however, 146 million still have their heads screwed on.

What do you mean and where did you get that number from?

As I have said, a couple of times now, but you insist on repeating yourself, so I have to put you right, I have never said that I believe the Twin Towers to be built perfectly just built to withstand a strike by multiple airplane.

I was pointing out to you how the analogy actually works because you claimed that it doesn’t.

So what if it was built for that purpose? It doesn’t guarantee that it will withstand a strike by multiple airliners. That’s the point.

People thought at the time that it was unsinkable, however, that was in 1912. We are far more intellectually advance 104 years later. The comparison is very a poor one. The building’s chief engineer, John Skilling, had actually designed the whole thing to survive multiple impacts of 707’s at 600 mph, planes not much smaller than 757’s.

We’ve had over a hundred years to scrutinize what happened to the Titanic so now we know, in hindsight what was wrong with it and what went wrong with it. The people who built it in 1912 could have (and probably did) make the very same argument you’re making here, and they would have been right, at the time. They were indeed more technologically advanced than most everyone who had come before then. Probably 100 years from now we’ll know a lot more details about what happened to the buildings on 9/11.

The major design flaw in the building of the Titanic was that the bulkheads didn’t reach the ceiling. Some of the known design flaws in the WTC was their lack of sufficient fireproofing and fire-suppression systems. I’m sure we’ll know even more in the future.

You either need to have everything explained to you or you do it to wind me up. I did not say that you insulted me. I said "I am not that stupid, though I am sure that you will seize the opportunity to insult me." I made that judgement based on passed insults, but obviously by saying it, before you came back with an insult, stopped you from insulting me.

You assumed I was going to insult you. If you took the time to read your own posts, you might see the irony in that assumption.

It leaves you backing the wrong horse and it leaves me continuing my support for the experts who have the truth about what happened on the 9th November 2001. It will all come out and you will kick yourself, along with millions of other blinker visions conformists will, however, by then another 911 will no doubt happen and you will think that there is smoke without fire when it comes to the authorities that govern us.

I’m not sure how this addresses my point.

What happened in on the 9th of November in 2001?

No, they are not dead, Seven of them are alive and well living a wonderful life. Why, because they were never there.

Oh, have you talked to them recently?

Because it has never happened before and the building’s chief engineer, John Skilling, had actually designed the whole thing to survive multiple impacts of 707’s at 600 mph, planes not much smaller than 757’s

The planes that hit the WTC were 767s.

Designing something in a certain way doesn’t guarantee that thing will behave in the exact way it was intended to.

The let me dismiss your starter and give you one back in the process. Larry Silverstein leases a nearly worthless dinosaur WTC building complex (worthless due to the asbestos the buildings were stuffed with and needed to be cleaned up, the cost of which may have rivaled the value of the buildings themselves) weeks before 9/11, makes sure it is over insured against terrorist acts and hires an Israeli security firm. From that moment on the coast is clear to let a team of demolition experts from the Israeli army led by Peer Segalovitz into the WTC buildings. These charges plus detonators had been prepared at the premises of the Urban Moving Systems company, a Mossad front. During the weeks before 9/11 these prepared charges were loaded into vans, driven into the basements of WTC Twin Towers next to the elevator shaft, unloaded into the elevator, and lifted onto the roof of the elevator through the opening in the elevator ceiling. Next the elevator moved from floor to floor while charges where being attached to the columns as displayed in this video from 0:22 onwards. The detonators of these charges were radiographic controlled and finally detonated from WTC7 on the day of 9/11.

We know this happened … how?

There seem to be a lot of people involved in this conspiracy theory. Not one single person has blabbed about it to anyone? Not one single person ever saw a single suspicious thing?

Just for starters, can you answer this dilema. Amatuer pilots navagating large airliners with pin point accuracy.

In the days after 9/11, numerous pilots and aviation experts commented on the elaborate maneuvers performed by the aircraft in the terrorist attacks, and the advanced skills that would have been necessary to navigate those aircraft into their targets. The men flying the planes must have been "highly skilled pilots" and "extremely knowledgeable and capable aviators," who were "probably military trained," these experts said.

And yet the four alleged hijackers who were supposedly flying the aircraft were amateur pilots, who had learned to fly in small propeller planes, and were described by their instructors as having had only "average" or even "very poor" piloting skills. But on their first attempt at flying jet aircraft, on September 11, 2001, these men were supposedly able to fly Boeing 757s and 767s at altitudes of tens of thousands of feet, without any assistance from air traffic control. Three of them were apparently able to successfully navigate their planes all the way to the intended targets, which they hit with pinpoint accuracy.

For such poor pilots to carry out such skilled flying would surely have been extremely unlikely, perhaps impossible. And yet this is what is claimed in the official account of 9/11.

http://shoestring911.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/911-hijackers-amateur-aviators-who.html[/QUOTE]

I’m not sure what kind of pinpoint accuracy it takes to hit a really tall building with a giant plane. Or to just “graze” one of the buildings, as stated in the link you provided.

The FBI in the US had been investigating the potential use of planes by terrorists for at least 10 years before the attacks on 9/11 but it didn’t occur to them that terrorists would hijack planes to carry out suicide missions. Sounds like another one of those human flaws where we fail to see every little thing that could possibly ever happen, though it seems obvious now.

 

[JustWondering]

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.

You didn't answer my question. How is it immoral if a human orders someone murdered, but it is perfectly moral for god to order someone murdered? I will not except answers that equate to "he's god so it's perfectly fine, just don't question it".

In the story, Job wished he had never been born because his suffering was so great, so you are wrong. He suffered greatly.

 

[JustWondering]

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.

A god that is not all-knowing would require things to be played out to see what happens. If your concept of god is not all-knowing than your beliefs are more rational than many other Christians.

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

I've heard this argument before and it is illogical. God brought Adam and Eve into the world. He purposely created beings capable of "sin". That's like someone handing a loaded gun to children and after one of them shots the other, the person who gave them the gun says "Not my fault! They pulled the trigger not me!".

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

If the universe was created by something and I ever meet the being/s that created our universe, I would thank it/them for my existence, overall all I've had a good life. However, if a creator exists there is NO evidence to suggest it has EVER interfered in human affairs. Which is fine by me, we should just be grateful to have what time we get on this earth. Which makes some theists IMO (ones looking forward to some afterlife reward) seem ungrateful for what they already have. Perhaps there is a creator, perhaps not. There are numerous mythologies besides Christianity that attempt to answer the big questions but in the end they are just myths created by men.

 

[JustWondering]

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.

Yes, religions that promote faith (aka mindless obedience) are harmful and dangerous. Jesus's teachings also promote mindless obedience and include an added carrot and stick gimmick that the old testament didn't have. Believe in Jesus and get a ticket to heaven, or don't and go get tortured in hell. The whole religion is designed to turn people into easily exploitable sheeple. Yes, before you ask, I can dig up scripture to prove this point as well.

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.

And no one knows if it does exist, so why mindlessly just except that it exists without evidence or even a rational argument to support it? Your argument for your god boils down to "hey, this ancient book says there's a god. There's no actual evidence for the existence of this god but let's just except it as all being true anyway.".

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

Your concept of god which is based on one of many ancient mythologies simply does not stand up to rational, logical scrutiny. You have yet to refute any of my arguments.

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.

Wrong, I am straight, not that it matters or is any of your business. Also, I did not choose to be straight, I just noticed one day that I was attracted to women. Specifically, Daisy Duke on the Dukes of Hazard. Are you one of those theists that actually believes homosexuals choose to be gay?

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.

The bible clearly states that men lying with men is an abomination and they should be killed. Why would a good god create men to be homosexuals when he doesn't like homosexuality so much that he wants homosexuals killed for being what he created them to be? I guess it makes as much sense as god creating beings capable of sin even though he really hates sin.

We love the sinner but hate the sin.

I love the delusional but hate the delusion.

 

[JustWondering]

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.

Then you cannot say god exists because you cannot prove he exists, it is just your opinion, now what?

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 made a rational argument and backed it with data. Data you obviously dismissed out of hand. You expect me to hear out your arguments with an open mind, yet don't offer the same in return. It's becoming obvious that this isn't a debate to you, just a way to proselytize.

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 have made my point abundantly clear but I guess I need to spell it out for you. You said earlier that your religion can give people hope and make them feel good, and even if it isn't true, what's the harm? The harm is that your religion has also been used to incite hatred, violence, and atrocities. By the authority of a being that hasn't even been shown to actually exist.

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

You except a world view that has a god (which hasn't been proven to exist), supernatural beings like angels (not proven to exist), world events like the flood, and plagues of Egypt (not proven to have ever happened), and talking snakes and burning bushes as truly existing. So if those things aren't fantasies, show evidence for their existence.