Why does it seem that God never intervenes in Human Suffering

[Serenity7855]

I was referring to Christianity as a whole.

That is not what you said.

Rhetoric and avoidance.

Exposing you for being a hypocrite is rhetoric and avoidance. What am I avoiding

Im ending the conversation right here.

You say you have evidence but will not show it.

That either means you are a liar or you do not want it to be debunked.

It has nothing to do with a fear of it being debunked because it cannot be debunked to me. I do not intentionally tell lies either. It couldn't be that you are given to mercilessly ridiculing Christianity and therefore whatever I tell you would also be ridicules, therefore, I would prefer not to give you ammunition to fire at me.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

That is not what you said.

And some Christians worship Mary.

Does that make it a part of the religion?

Yes it was.

Exposing you for being a hypocrite is rhetoric and avoidance. What am I avoiding

Answering the question.

It has nothing to do with a fear of it being debunked because it cannot be debunked to me. I do not intentionally tell lies either. It couldn't be that you are given to mercilessly ridiculing Christianity and therefore whatever I tell you would also be ridicules, therefore, I would prefer not to give you ammunition to fire at me.

If that was true you would not have responded to me at all.

Whats the real reason?

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Unless you are playing around with the possibility that he exist in order to answer the question

For example, I love books. One book I like is Neverending Story. I know Sabastian does not exist; however, in order to think about "what if he came and visit me" I'd have to play around or imagine his existence first before even thinking that.

Imagining something manifesting in real life is different than examining their motivations.

That's not to say i did not wish the Never Ending Story existed. I wanted to have a Falcor and i had a crush on the child like empress (i was a child at the time so its not creepy).

If there is no idea of who Sabastian is or even an idea, how can I play around with the idea of him existing?

Yes you cannot discuss anything about anything unless the idea of that thing exists. But that does not mean you have to pretend it exists.

For example we only know of Socrates from the writings of Plato and Xenophon. We cannot be sure that he was a real person or a plot device used by those two guys to get concepts across.

However, i do not have to believe that he actually existed to use the Socratic Method.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Imagining something manifesting in real life is different than examining their motivations.

That's not to say i did not wish the Never Ending Story existed. I wanted to have a Falcor and i had a crush on the child like empress (i was a child at the time so its not creepy).

For example we only know of Socrates from the writings of Plato and Xenophon. We cannot be sure that he was rule or a plot device used by those two guys to get concepts across.

However, i do not have to believe that he actually existed to use the Socratic Method.

Can you examine tell me Falcor's motives beyond what the book, movie, and fans tell you about him? If you can, what are those motives based on? They cant be yours. They cant be the movie,book,fans.

With Sacrates you talk about his teachings and methods. Maybe his existence but not to where you feel "he can get angry at you" and not in a sense that "he will throw you into hell".

There is no internal connection between Sacrates and the scholar. If there were, it could be their passion.

I understand if they said, "Sacrates "would" probably get mad if someone forget how he contribute to society."

This is odd: "Sacrates will get mad if we dont recognize how he contribute to society."

Maybe some people are actually "mad at" socrates for not making a more sturdy foundation of the medical field.

Which is odd,

Thats like getting mad at my teddy bear because he didnt come with a benni baby tag that said his name and favorite personality quote about him.

Better example. Thats like getting mad at my childhood invisible friend for yelling at me. Drop Dead Fred?

You can talk "about" god, yeah. Once he starts to get like "why would god let bad things happen"

Then I think,

Why would falcor drop atrayu? Well, I know why but you (the OP) are asking as if this action in a book is part of reality: youre making it real and personal that now "falcors mishap because of the weather" somehow affected us.

You are making the fantasy exist first gradually in order for it to come true so you can ask questions about it in a manner that affects us in reality rather than imagining what could and would happen if this or that happened.

We are not sabastion reading a book and god saying "Call my name!" Here. Are we?

 

[blue taylor]

Many or most of us here were raised in a Christian culture too.

I am one of the few defenders of Christianity against the haters on this forum. I understand for a lot of people, their thinking is Christianity versus Atheism and between those two I think Christianity is closer to the truth and the more beneficial position. However I do argue for a non-exclusivist understanding of Christianity based on the loving example of Jesus than on much of the dogma which I think is man-made and has served its time.

That loving example of Jesus is called Jesusism.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Can you examine tell me Falcor's motives beyond what the book, movie, and fans tell you about him? If you can, what are those motives based on? They cant be yours. They cant be the movie,book,fans.

With Sacrates you talk about his teachings and methods. Maybe his existence but not to where you feel "he can get angry at you" and not in a sense that "he will throw you into hell".

There is no internal connection between Sacrates and the scholar. If there were, it could be their passion.

I understand if they said, "Sacrates "would" probably get mad if someone forget how he contribute to society."

This is odd: "Sacrates will get mad if we dont recognize how he contribute to society."

Maybe some people are actually "mad at" socrates for not making a more sturdy foundation of the medical field.

Which is odd,

Thats like getting mad at my teddy bear because he didnt come with a benni baby tag that said his name and favorite personality quote about him.

Better example. Thats like getting mad at my childhood invisible friend for yelling at me. Drop Dead Fred?

You can talk "about" god, yeah. Once he starts to get like "why would god let bad things happen"

Then I think,

Why would falcor drop atrayu? Well, I know why but you (the OP) are asking as if this action in a book is part of reality: youre making it real and personal that now "falcors mishap because of the weather" somehow affected us.

You are making the fantasy exist first gradually in order for it to come true so you can ask questions about it in a manner that affects us in reality rather than imagining what could and would happen if this or that happened.

We are not sabastion reading a book and god saying "Call my name!" Here. Are we?

I can definitely examine the motivations of a character without pretending it exists. I can separate people and their ideas in my head.

Perhaps not everyone can.

Getting back to the original source of this particular argument.

He/She/It was saying that if you can examine somethings motivations you have to pretend it exists, therefore every who questions god actually does believe in god. Even if i did have to pretend something exists to examine it's motivations, that does not mean this is a persistent belief.

This kind of smug, arrogant presuppositionalism makes me want to vomit blood.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I can definitely examine the motivations of a character without pretending it exists. I can separate people and their ideas in my head.

Perhaps not everyone can.

Getting back to the original source of this particular argument.

He/She/It was saying that if you can examine somethings motivations you have to pretend it exists, therefore every who questions god actually does believe in god. Even if i did have to pretend something exists to examine it's motivations, that does not mean this is a persistent belief.

This kind of smug, arrogant presuppositionalism makes me want to vomit blood.

It has to exist in some way (some say as an idea, conscious,entity,spirit,whatever) to formulate an idea of what one talks about. That doesnt mean it poofs into existence physically. It means that if I am talking about how "god is angry at Me", unless I am lying or making up a story, I attached a personal feeling relating to this idea of god. It must exist to talk about it.

Once I do that, then it goes beyond just questions. I am literally entertaining the existence of god because of how he is affecting me.

That personal emotion gives the impression that we arent talking "about" god as if we are talking about, I dont know, math. No. We are talking about god as if he is a Real entity that affected you in some way. Unless you are dellusional, Id have to assume that this idea of god you have is real.

(Basic therapy technique. The therapist doesnt tell the client he is dellusional. He uses the "language of the client" or keeping the existence of whatever the client claims in order to talk about and help the client with X)

If someone said "I believe god doesnt exist. Why "would" god be angry at someone that doesnt believe in him?" That Would is showing he is entertaining an idea he needs to exist in order to ask the question. Like math. "What if"

Now if he said, "Why Is god angry at people who dont believe?" When he disbelieves in god.

That gets me confused. The first one you have an idea and you questioned the validity and motive of it. That makes sense like questioning a math problem.

The latter (which is on RF often) you question a non existent idea as if it is real. Depending on the conversation, the emotions involved makes me further think its not the former, talking "about" something from Alice in Wonderland to what I did last summer. It became personal. It becomes real. Once you make your statement/making it real and talk about it, Im thinking "is he really an atheist?" Other people and I get confused and think the person may be searching for god or looking for a religion.

Anyway. On RF, when many nonbelievers talk about god, they talk about him with an attached emotion. Once they have that imagine of an "angry god" then they can talk about it.

The other side talks about god. However, they cant literally think god is or could be angry. It says it in sacred text, but its not real. However, in order to talk "about" it you need to know the claims.

My point is: a lot of nonbelievers on RF who are ex christian or muslim talk about god like the former. Im not the only one scratching my head.

I can name four or five people who talk about him by the latter. Maybe because they are talking about god objectively without emotions attached.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

It has to exist in some way (some say as an idea, conscious,entity,spirit,whatever) to formulate an idea of what one talks about. That doesnt mean it poofs into existence physically. It means that if I am talking about how "god is angry at Me", unless I am lying or making up a story, I attached a personal feeling relating to this idea of god. It must exist to talk about it.

I can name four or five people who talk about him by the latter. Maybe because they are talking about god objectively without emotions attached.

When i ask the question "why would god do this" i do not believe that god exists. I know that you or someone else believes that he/she/it exists and that is all i need to support a discussion on the topic.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

When i ask the question "why would god do this" i do not believe that god exists. I know that you or someone else believes that he/she/it exists and that is all i need to support a discussion on the topic.

I dont believe god exists as an entity, abrahamic. Im purely pantheist.

If I were to think why he would cause suffering, Id say he does not. If he is perfect and all good that leaves us to be left in sin and distroy everything. If god is life, than the personified life are just the consequences of the actions people did in the old testament.

As for today and sickness etc, I dont feel the abrahamic god would have anything to do with a persons suffering and another person murdering. Abrahamic faiths seperate god from creation to where a murderer is the fault of the individual but a childs life cured from cancer a blessing from god.

Now if we said why would god "allow" suffering, that I dont know. If he were life, suffering exist because it does. No one allows it. Its in our hands how we see and live. If an entity demands our worship, which he does no matter who says he doesnt, it is the nature of god, being god/creator to want children to respect him. Its logical but immoral.

Maybe youre asking why is it moral for god to allow suffering? Going by scripture/bible he didnt allow. When adam and eve were in the garden, he said for them not to touch the tree "for they (not he) didnt want the humans to be perfect like them, knowing good from evil"

So, basically, he doesnt allow it. He just set us up for the fall. I think maybe youre asking why doesnt he intervene?

If you are looking for a christian answer, he does through jesus. I dont know about Judaism and Muslim.

Thats all I can think of entertaining the idea if god existed what would be the case based on christian scripture. If you asked me outside what I read and influenced by, if you asked me about god himself without the claims and descriptions, I have no clue. Unless god actually exists, like any other thing, like science, I cant give an intellegent answer about the motive of something nonexistent.

Can you imagine scientists studying air like mimes?

 

[Desert Snake]

I dont believe god exists as an entity, abrahamic. Im purely pantheist.

If I were to think why he would cause suffering, Id say he does not. If he is perfect and all good that leaves us to be left in sin and distroy everything. If god is life, than the personified life are just the consequences of the actions people did in the old testament.

As for today and sickness etc, I dont feel the abrahamic god would have anything to do with a persons suffering and another person murdering. Abrahamic faiths seperate god from creation to where a murderer is the fault of the individual but a childs life cured from cancer a blessing from god.

Now if we said why would god "allow" suffering, that I dont know. If he were life, suffering exist because it does. No one allows it. Its in our hands how we see and live. If an entity demands our worship, which he does no matter who says he doesnt, it is the nature of god, being god/creator to want children to respect him. Its logical but immoral.

Maybe youre asking why is it moral for god to allow suffering? Going by scripture/bible he didnt allow. When adam and eve were in the garden, he said for them not to touch the tree "for they (not he) didnt want the humans to be perfect like them, knowing good from evil"

So, basically, he doesnt allow it. He just set us up for the fall. I think maybe youre asking why doesnt he intervene?

If you are looking for a christian answer, he does through jesus. I dont know about Judaism and Muslim.

Thats all I can think of entertaining the idea if god existed what would be the case based on christian scripture. If you asked me outside what I read and influenced by, if you asked me about god himself without the claims and descriptions, I have no clue. Unless god actually exists, like any other thing, like science, I cant give an intellegent answer about the motive of something nonexistent.

Can you imagine scientists studying air like mimes?

What do you mean by your a ''pantheist''?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What do you mean by your a ''pantheist''?

I believe god, for lack of better words, is everything and everyone. Rather than an entity or spirit.

Edit: Im curious. Why do you ask?

 

[The Neo Nerd]

I dont believe god exists as an entity, abrahamic. Im purely pantheist.

If I were to think why he would cause suffering, Id say he does not. If he is perfect and all good that leaves us to be left in sin and distroy everything. If god is life, than the personified life are just the consequences of the actions people did in the old testament.

As for today and sickness etc, I dont feel the abrahamic god would have anything to do with a persons suffering and another person murdering. Abrahamic faiths seperate god from creation to where a murderer is the fault of the individual but a childs life cured from cancer a blessing from god.

Now if we said why would god "allow" suffering, that I dont know. If he were life, suffering exist because it does. No one allows it. Its in our hands how we see and live. If an entity demands our worship, which he does no matter who says he doesnt, it is the nature of god, being god/creator to want children to respect him. Its logical but immoral.

Maybe youre asking why is it moral for god to allow suffering? Going by scripture/bible he didnt allow. When adam and eve were in the garden, he said for them not to touch the tree "for they (not he) didnt want the humans to be perfect like them, knowing good from evil"

So, basically, he doesnt allow it. He just set us up for the fall. I think maybe youre asking why doesnt he intervene?

If you are looking for a christian answer, he does through jesus. I dont know about Judaism and Muslim.

Thats all I can think of entertaining the idea if god existed what would be the case based on christian scripture. If you asked me outside what I read and influenced by, if you asked me about god himself without the claims and descriptions, I have no clue. Unless god actually exists, like any other thing, like science, I cant give an intellegent answer about the motive of something nonexistent.

Can you imagine scientists studying air like mimes?

Thanks for the reply.

But this is a discussion that i am not interested in having.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Thanks for the reply.

But this is a discussion that i am not interested in having.

um okayee. scratching my head

 

[Serenity7855]

And why did Got teach us things, like your above mentioned lesson to happiness, if we could not possibly remember it?
God, or you, or both, seem a bit confused, I am afraid.

What ever knowledge we had in the pre-existence was not required during our mortal probation. The idea behind the amnesia is to be able to walk in faith. Wordsworth put it rather more romantically then I.

Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:
The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting,
And cometh from afar:
Not in entire forgetfulness,
And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God, who is our home:
William Wordsworth. 1770–1850

What we are being taught is the here and now. We are in the classroom of life, we can gain knowledge and wisdom here, that will help us during our time on earth, and beyond, to learn and grow, or we can ignore the teacher and create hurdles and stumbling blocks for ourselves. As for being confused, I have never seen anything more clearly than I see the Plan of Salvation. Every aspect of it, I have tried so very hard to discredit to find a flaw, a fault, a dead end, or just something that it cannot logically explain. Despite my ardent efforts, I never have.

By the way, when you say "One thing that makes this life so hard sometimes is that we’re out of God’s physical presence", are you talking about you or the general population?

I am not talking about you or the general population. I am talking about me and every Christian who has been converted by the Holy Ghost. You do not believe in God.

I don't think my life is harder because of God lack of physical presence. Or at least not harder than the kid's who lost Santa physical presence in his life when he grew up.

That is because you have never witnessed what your life would be like should God play a part in it. You may think you are happy now, but until you have Christ in your life true happiness is an illusion.

Many children are traumatised at the realisation that Santa (an anagram of Satan) does not exist. The man who stole Christmas has a name that is an anagram of "Satan". How coincidental that Satan would love to take away the true meaning of Christmas and "Santa" has done exactly that.

 

[Desert Snake]

I believe god, for lack of better words, is everything and everyone. Rather than an entity or spirit.

...

Edit: Im curious. Why do you ask?

it gives context as to what you mean, when you write 'god', or deity, or such.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

um okayee. scratching my head

You changed topic.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You changed topic.

From the OP?

 

[Serenity7855]

I believe god, for lack of better words, is everything and everyone. Rather than an entity or spirit.

He just may very well be just that, and we may be a part of Him, especially so if God and energy are synonymous.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

He just may very well be just that, and we may be a part of Him, especially so if God and energy are synonymous.

It's an unorthodox way of seeing things, and I guess that could work.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

...



it gives context as to what you mean, when you write 'god', or deity, or such.

Yeah. I'm around a god-language environment. I could use consciousness, but that reminds me of sci-fi. Energy reminds me of physics. After awhile, one has to sit back and just let "god" be. Settle and just say everything is Life. We like to personify things to identify with them, so that's an influence.