Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[1robin]

Mormons don't debate very well. Especially when you're trying to make their (bad) Science Fiction Author Convicted Criminal Leader look bad.

I have noticed the desire to shut up the opposite number in any debate corresponds exactly with the indefensibility of the former person's position. Those who are correct love and seek open debate. Those who are not love the shadows and silence, but ambiguity will do if necessary. That is why most of the professional debates like this are Christian sponsored.

 

[McBell]

I have noticed the desire to shut up the opposite number in any debate corresponds exactly with the indefensibility of the former person's position. Those who are correct love and seek open debate. Those who are not love the shadows and silence, but ambiguity will do if necessary. That is why most of the professional debates like this are Christian sponsored.

:biglaugh:

 

[Draupadi]

What in my post even hinted at me being enraged, immature, etc........? I was actually laughing when I made that joke about a proxy. Don't take my comments out of context and invent stuff you dreamed up and apply it to me. Nothing you have said has had enough fact behind it to make anyone enraged. Give me a break. Do you have an actual argument at some point, or is it personal commentaries from here on out?

Just because I clapped for someone you cracked a joke at of my expense. That's not very respectful whether you are angry or not. If you need a good laugh please read jokes instead of putting down others. And "taking out of context" is very common defence of logic among theists. One of the reasons I have clapped was that I agreed with Didymus and even though some of the points he presented matched the ones I had presented before, he explained it way better. Apparently you don't like people possessing points of view differing your own.

 

[Katzpur]

What? Are you new to debate or something?

No, actually, this is my 24,461st post on this forum.

I have fought and know people who died to give me AND YOU the right to free speech.

Free speech does not give you the right to behave like a four-year-old who can't stop interupting his parents with comments that are completely irrelevant to their conversation. This isn't about free speech; it's about common courtesy to the OP.

If you can't handle inconvenient information your in the wrong place. You should move to Islamabad or Gaza.

As long as I had to deal with Muslims instead of Baptists, I can tell you it would be a significant improvement.

I'm actually going to take the time to address each of your questions. I'm just going to do so on the LDS DIR so that I don't have to listen to your idiotic lies in response. I offered to respond in a debate forum so that you and others like you could have your say. You didn't have time to do that. You do apparently have time, though, to continue to try to hijack this thread. You have not made one single solitary comment about Mormonism that pertains to the question "Why does my God allow children to die?"

 

[Nakosis]

Maybe the thread should have been titled...

"Why does God allow so many religions to exist, is he evil?"

 

[1robin]

Just because I clapped for someone you cracked a joke at of my expense. That's not very respectful whether you are angry or not. If you need a good laugh please read jokes instead of putting down others. And "taking out of context" is very common defence of logic among theists. One of the reasons I have clapped was that I agreed with Didymus and even though some of the points he presented matched the ones I had presented before, he explained it way better. Apparently you don't like people possessing points of view differing your own.

Oh brother, now you going to play the poor victim card. Nothing in my joke was derogatory. No one put you down in that post. There was no insult, no at your expense, nothing negative what so ever. Stop playing the victim and present an argument please. I have little use for personal banter in place of a debate.

 

[1robin]

No, actually, this is my 24,461st post on this forum.

How many of them contained an effort to get the other person to be quiet?

Free speech does not give you the right to behave like a four-year-old who can't stop interupting his parents with comments that are completely irrelevant to their conversation. This isn't about free speech; it's about common courtesy to the OP.

It most certainly does mean I can do that. Fortunately what I said has no parallel to that what so ever. Cut out the personal crap and make an argument or I can no longer justify responding.

As long as I had to deal with Muslims instead of Baptists, I can tell you it would be a significant improvement.

Is an argument coming at some point at all.

I'm actually going to take the time to address each of your questions. I'm just going to do so on the LDS DIR so that I don't have to listen to your idiotic lies in response. I offered to respond in a debate forum so that you and others like you could have your say. You didn't have time to do that. You do apparently have time, though, to continue to try to hijack this thread. You have not made one single solitary comment about Mormonism that pertains to the question "Why does my God allow children to die?"

Give me the link but I have limited time and seem to attract very long winded posters so I do not know if I can fit in another thread so I promise nothing at this point.

 

[Katzpur]

How many of them contained an effort to get the other person to be quiet?

Very, very few.

It most certainly does mean I can do that. Fortunately what I said has no parallel to that what so ever. Cut out the personal crap and make an argument or I can no longer justify responding.

So don't respond. Who cares?

Is an argument coming at some point at all.

An argument to which point?

Give me the link but I have limited time and seem to attract very long winded posters so I do not know if I can fit in another thread so I promise nothing at this point.

I'll give you nothing. You obviously have no desire to gain an accurate understanding of Mormonism. There are people on this forum who actually want to get their facts straight. My posts in the LDS DIR are for them.

Carry on with the lies.

 

[CG Didymus]

Maybe the thread should have been titled...

"Why does God allow so many religions to exist, is he evil?"

I don't know, but it kind of makes it seem like people invented God... in the image that suited them best. Was that evil of them?

 

[Nakosis]

I don't know, but it kind of makes it seem like people invented God... in the image that suited them best. Was that evil of them?

Good point. It seems wrong to me this concept that if there is a God then man has no responsibility for the evil in the world.

 

[Draupadi]

Oh brother, now you going to play the poor victim card. Nothing in my joke was derogatory. No one put you down in that post. There was no insult, no at your expense, nothing negative what so ever. Stop playing the victim and present an argument please. I have little use for personal banter in place of a debate.

If it wasn't derogatory then I take my words back and apologise. But stop asking me to present new points. I already did that previously. You can go out of topic by joking that I am speaking via proxy and I can't clap to praise Didymus' posts? And you say that's my fault? All posts in a thread can't fully stick to a topic, I hope your experience here says that. And maybe if you stop arguing with me then the debate can continue. You may have a wonderful experience with God and think whatever He is doing is right. I didn't even though I have asked in the most sincere and humble manner. I wonder why He differentiates? I think He is deaf, dumb, blind, insensitive, sadistic and powerless, or a better explanation that He doesn't exist. And I disagree with your justifications of God's doings.

 

[CG Didymus]

What God created was perfect according to the bible so I have no idea on what evidence you would indict him.

Yes, that is the gist of it. Christians say it was "perfect", then how did it all fall apart? There was a glitch in there somewhere, a virus or something. In trying to explain it a lot of Christians use verses and attribute them to a beautiful and "perfect" angel, Lucifer. He was "perfect" until a flaw was found in him? Then, he wasn't so perfect was he?

We are obviously not perfect. Even Christians know they aren't perfect, just forgiven. But allowing us to fall so he could lift us up? Let's go back, for a minute, to that parent analogy again. Let's say one out of ten kids that makes all the wrong choices realizes at the end that his parents were right. He's learned by experience. He knows the truth now at a level that someone that hadn't gone through it, and survived, could ever know. But, what about the other nine? Some died along the way and some remained doing all the wrong things. Never finding or realizing the truth.

Isn't that similar to what God has going on? So many of us are so totally turned off by the petty, stupid, archaic rules and morals of religion that we turn away from God. We look at the people around us, especially our parents. Since they aren't perfect, they're often horrible examples of what Holy, God-fearing people should be doing. They're living a lie. They're total and complete hypocrites. So a kid thinks, "If they don't believe in all thus Church stuff for their own lives, why should I? I'm going to go have some fun and do my own thing."

The parents of some of those kids force them to go to Church. What do they see at Church? They see liars, adulterers and people falling asleep and think, "This is dumb. I'm never coming back." You know, and it sounds like you might have been one of those, they actually make the best Christians, IMO. Because they did the "prodigal son" thing. They found out, the hard way, that the worldly things aren't that great. That there's no real lasting joy in it. So what do they do? They get down on their knees, and with a truly heart-felt prayer, ask for forgiveness. But what about the others? For every one that comes back and gets saved, how many died along the way without knowing God? And therefore, will spend eternity in hell?

I'm sure you've been their for a few people. You were there at the right time at the right place, when they were at the end of their rope. But how many died without having a real Christian be there for them? So if Christianity and God are true, there's just why too much, I guess you' could call it, collateral damage. Too many die in misery without be given that last chance.

But, for me, that's not the worst case scenario. It's the relatively good people, doing good things, serving who they think is God, but, according to "true" Christianity, they're not. They believe in a false religion or believe in the wrong Jesus. That's a big thing for me, because I was raised a Catholic. I never heard of such a thing as "personal salvation". What if I would have got some disease and died? Or, got killed in an accident? I didn't, but I know a lot of kids that did. My Grandmother had her rosary beads, and we all lit candles for her. We prayed to Jesus and to Mary. I wonder, was she saved? I know that her Jesus was definitely not the same Jesus that Protestants believe in.

But not only Catholics, what about Mormons, JW's, and people from non-Christian religion? What about them? They believe. They have, in their minds, good reasons to believe they have the truth, but according to Protestant Christianity, they don't. Protestants will say it doesn't matter how good they are. They are wrong and without hope. That's why the Christian concept of God is evil to me. You stand up for him, and I understand why. It's how you view the Bible. It is how you view what God says is the truth. We all know those verses. We all see how you arrived at your conclusions. But, as I always go back to, why don't the Jews see the Bible like you?

God is different. Satan is different. The Messiah is different. God is a trinity. Satan is the devil and Lucifer. And, the Messiah is God and is coming back a second time. Those are big differences. And after listening to them and reading for myself what they say, it makes sense. I see where they're coming from. By what they believe their Scriptures are saying, Christianity isn't the truth. And Jesus isn't their Messiah. I get it. I can see their point. They might be wrong but maybe not. IMO, Christians do take verses out of context to build their case. The "virgin birth" and "Lucifer" from Isaiah are prime examples.

But is that what's really important? Obviously calling each other names doesn't help. All though it is kind of fun, for a minute. Then we feel the pain we caused. How we hurt someone for believing different then we do. So right now, right here, I want to apologize for calling Protestants stupid idiots. Especially you, you're a smart guy who's been through the tough road to get to Jesus. Good job. And also to Sincerly, if you're reading this thread, I'm sorry. I may never agree with you guys. But also, I'll probably never become a Mormon or a Muslim, or anything else. Although, I do understand and have to learn to respect their decision to believe as they do. And in this way maybe I'll cut out a little bit of the evil that I've been promoting... and that is religious intolerance. Not for all the religions, just Christianity. Sorry.

 

[1robin]

I don't know, but it kind of makes it seem like people invented God... in the image that suited them best. Was that evil of them?

Sounds more like the necessity of God is so obvious and pressing that even those who do not know him invented false versions of him to make the world complete and sensible.

 

[1robin]

If it wasn't derogatory then I take my words back and apologise. But stop asking me to present new points. I already did that previously. You can go out of topic by joking that I am speaking via proxy and I can't clap to praise Didymus' posts? And you say that's my fault? All posts in a thread can't fully stick to a topic, I hope your experience here says that. And maybe if you stop arguing with me then the debate can continue. You may have a wonderful experience with God and think whatever He is doing is right. I didn't even though I have asked in the most sincere and humble manner. I wonder why He differentiates? I think He is deaf, dumb, blind, insensitive, sadistic and powerless, or a better explanation that He doesn't exist. And I disagree with your justifications of God's doings.

I use that joke all the time because I find it funny as you would see if you review my posts, so no offense was present or intended. If you have nothing new to offer then this discussion has ended but if you have something please post it.

 

[1robin]

Yes, that is the gist of it. Christians say it was "perfect", then how did it all fall apart? There was a glitch in there somewhere, a virus or something. In trying to explain it a lot of Christians use verses and attribute them to a beautiful and "perfect" angel, Lucifer. He was "perfect" until a flaw was found in him? Then, he wasn't so perfect was he?

We are obviously not perfect. Even Christians know they aren't perfect, just forgiven. But allowing us to fall so he could lift us up? Let's go back, for a minute, to that parent analogy again. Let's say one out of ten kids that makes all the wrong choices realizes at the end that his parents were right. He's learned by experience. He knows the truth now at a level that someone that hadn't gone through it, and survived, could ever know. But, what about the other nine? Some died along the way and some remained doing all the wrong things. Never finding or realizing the truth.

Isn't that similar to what God has going on? So many of us are so totally turned off by the petty, stupid, archaic rules and morals of religion that we turn away from God. We look at the people around us, especially our parents. Since they aren't perfect, they're often horrible examples of what Holy, God-fearing people should be doing. They're living a lie. They're total and complete hypocrites. So a kid thinks, "If they don't believe in all thus Church stuff for their own lives, why should I? I'm going to go have some fun and do my own thing."

The parents of some of those kids force them to go to Church. What do they see at Church? They see liars, adulterers and people falling asleep and think, "This is dumb. I'm never coming back." You know, and it sounds like you might have been one of those, they actually make the best Christians, IMO. Because they did the "prodigal son" thing. They found out, the hard way, that the worldly things aren't that great. That there's no real lasting joy in it. So what do they do? They get down on their knees, and with a truly heart-felt prayer, ask for forgiveness. But what about the others? For every one that comes back and gets saved, how many died along the way without knowing God? And therefore, will spend eternity in hell?

I'm sure you've been their for a few people. You were there at the right time at the right place, when they were at the end of their rope. But how many died without having a real Christian be there for them? So if Christianity and God are true, there's just why too much, I guess you' could call it, collateral damage. Too many die in misery without be given that last chance.

But, for me, that's not the worst case scenario. It's the relatively good people, doing good things, serving who they think is God, but, according to "true" Christianity, they're not. They believe in a false religion or believe in the wrong Jesus. That's a big thing for me, because I was raised a Catholic. I never heard of such a thing as "personal salvation". What if I would have got some disease and died? Or, got killed in an accident? I didn't, but I know a lot of kids that did. My Grandmother had her rosary beads, and we all lit candles for her. We prayed to Jesus and to Mary. I wonder, was she saved? I know that her Jesus was definitely not the same Jesus that Protestants believe in.

But not only Catholics, what about Mormons, JW's, and people from non-Christian religion? What about them? They believe. They have, in their minds, good reasons to believe they have the truth, but according to Protestant Christianity, they don't. Protestants will say it doesn't matter how good they are. They are wrong and without hope. That's why the Christian concept of God is evil to me. You stand up for him, and I understand why. It's how you view the Bible. It is how you view what God says is the truth. We all know those verses. We all see how you arrived at your conclusions. But, as I always go back to, why don't the Jews see the Bible like you?

God is different. Satan is different. The Messiah is different. God is a trinity. Satan is the devil and Lucifer. And, the Messiah is God and is coming back a second time. Those are big differences. And after listening to them and reading for myself what they say, it makes sense. I see where they're coming from. By what they believe their Scriptures are saying, Christianity isn't the truth. And Jesus isn't their Messiah. I get it. I can see their point. They might be wrong but maybe not. IMO, Christians do take verses out of context to build their case. The "virgin birth" and "Lucifer" from Isaiah are prime examples.

But is that what's really important? Obviously calling each other names doesn't help. All though it is kind of fun, for a minute. Then we feel the pain we caused. How we hurt someone for believing different then we do. So right now, right here, I want to apologize for calling Protestants stupid idiots. Especially you, you're a smart guy who's been through the tough road to get to Jesus. Good job. And also to Sincerly, if you're reading this thread, I'm sorry. I may never agree with you guys. But also, I'll probably never become a Mormon or a Muslim, or anything else. Although, I do understand and have to learn to respect their decision to believe as they do. And in this way maybe I'll cut out a little bit of the evil that I've been promoting... and that is religious intolerance. Not for all the religions, just Christianity. Sorry.

The virus is freewill ( if you consider that a glitch). How can you ever get freely given love without freedom, how do you get freedom without the potential for wrong choices?

The logic is flawless but I will admit one problem. The traditional interpretation is that the flaw occurred when Adam sinned but sin and death goes back long before that. That doe snot affect the logic but it does affect the interpretation so I have sought other interpretations like the one I recommended. Biblical theology is not without it's challenges but the aggregate IMO is more than enough to justify faith and then once faith is active you get confirmation so you look through the lens of certainty at things that without seem less certain. That is why nothing in Genesis really threatens my faith.

I really appreciate your comments here. I am extremely sympathetic to honest disagreement but less so to determined preference based denial.

You can count on me to always give you the most honest and best response I know of and if requested, how reliable I think each claim is and why. I gain nothing if I win an argument yet no one learns anything. My primary goal is to provide answers to new Christians that have the same questions I did when I started to really get into the bible. I still have some of them left but entire volumes have been answered by others to mu satisfaction so that my spiritual faith no longer contradicts my formerly very flawed intellectual beliefs gained over 27 years of arrogance, assumption, and error.

You saying you intentionally targeted Christianity is very common. I noticed years ago that most of those that were very intolerant towards Christianity were far more tolerant towards any other faith or metaphysical system. It was as if any story would do as long as it was not that truth stuff. I'm generalizing from decades of debate both formal and informal not you personally.

Anyway enjoyed the honesty in this post, it is refreshing.

Sincerely, me

 

[SkepticThinker]

Heaven is the ultimate solution to everything. Feeding a person will not prevent them from dying so you have no hope to offer in the context of eternity. Atheism is such a narrow world view.

Feeding a person will prevent them from suffering and dying prematurely. It ensures better quality of life (the only life we know we get for sure). Far more so than telling them that one day they can possibly go to some paradise in the sky. Never mind the fact that you could be offering them false hope.

How is Christianity not a narrow world view?

I most certainly do have more of a idea but I do not have any certainty. I am not offering God in exclusion to food. My preacher used to always say feed their stomachs first then their souls. Certainly meet the immediate need then offer the remedy for eternity.

Unless I’m talking to a dead person right now, you don’t have any more idea than anyone else about what happens to us when we die.

I’m happy to hear you’re not offering god in exclusion to food though.

I find this one of the most irrational views atheists have. Every secular science show I see seems to think 2 things. 1. Life is allowed to come from anywhere in the universe except the one place it is known to exist. and 2. They get some kind of comfort from thinking the human race will continue. neither have the slightest hope of benefitting you. Even if a 1000 years from now we go to other planets you, me, and everyone will ultimately die. Where is the hope in that if there is there is. Every single thing ends and ends for eternity. Halleluiah I feel better now. Without God why would what humans do after you die have any relevance to you? I have always wanted to question a non-theist about these things.

1.What?

2.Sure it does. I know that even though I will be dead someday my children will live on. And my children’s children. I know that even if I’m dead, the human race will most likely continue to go on, learn and progress. I’m grateful that I get a chance to live, however briefly that may be, and experience this wonderful place we call home. What other humans do is relevant to me because I care about other humans. To me, that feels much more hopeful than your “god never promised justice in this world” bit.

You highlighted part of my words, and neglected to read the others I guess. So what you highlighted was used improperly and so your conclusion invalid.

I read it all and that’s what I came away with. I apologize if it was not what you intended to say.

At secularism seminars do they teach you how to neglect context. It must be systematically trained into you. My comments were in the context of eternity (which I believe was your complaint). Many of my statements were concerning eternity and the rest about temporal issues and history. I never said anything about how much you care.

Okay, here is what you said:

Thanks for making my day a little darker. God never ever ever ever promised justice in this world. He in fact stated over and over again why injustice will occur, it's source, commissioned his people to attempt to alleviate it where they can, did so himself as proof of it's eventual eradication in totality, and promised that in the end he would rectify all such tragedy. We are left with this child either way, but on your view justice is never served. Annihilating hope is the most illogical effort a human can make. As depressing as that picture is I can hope for eternal restoration and thousand of children like this are alleviated in this world by Christianity every year. You can only say "Oh well".

If your attempting to blame God as if he desires this type of thing then why in the world does he alleviate every occurrence of it eternally? Why does he not continue this misery he is so fond of forever instead of paying the highest price possible to enable it's eventual restitution? BTW it is only if God exists that the objective morality exists in order to conclude this is wrong or evil to begin with. The best you can say is you do not like it or it is bad according to your opinion.

What am I missing?

I most certainly do because unlike atheism my views are based on positive feedback. The negation of a possible truth is not arrived at by positive means but by negative means.

What? Again, unless you’re dead you don’t know any more about what happens after death than anyone else in the world does.

Again so narrow.

That’s all we know for sure. Sorry. I prefer to live this life to the fullest than sit around wishing for some other life which probably doesn’t exist.

We probably do more per person to alleviate problems in this world that atheists do and we add in eternity.

“Adding in” eternity doesn’t ensure its existence. I can “add in” magic invisible leprechauns but they don’t exist just because I felt like adding them into my version of reality.

Again, do I need to give you a list of secular aid organizations?

We win both ways. Christian conservatives are the most generous demographic on earth. That is not to say great numbers of atheists do not also help with needs but they only treat symptoms in most cases and never offer eternal hope. So we do at least as much as your side does and potentially offer an infinite amount more.

“My side” includes only myself. I already told you what I’m interested in.
I don’t “offer eternal hope” because I see no reason to believe humans are immortal. To me, I would be offering only false hope.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Fine since Christian have built some of the greatest public school systems in history. Look at Charlemagne or the US. Did you know many schools systems were created primarily to teach literacy so the bible could be read, and grew from that?

Great, then they should build a school in Africa and teach kids about sanitation and cleanliness so they can stop polluting their water.

I have never heard of any that made it mandatory, many do not even engage in theology at all. The red Cross for instance. I do think that many offer it but do not require it in connection with aid. However even if they did exactly what is so bad about that.

The Red Cross is an humanitarian organization rather than a Christian one.
It would be bad if people were withholding food from starving people until they accepted certain religious beliefs. If you want to help people, that’s great, but why should they have to have your religion foisted upon them in exchange for food?

Wrong. Please quit equating not having certainty with having no evidence .

I’m not wrong that you could be wrong and you could be offering false hope for an eternity that doesn’t actually exist.

I agree that is all we are certain of. So what? Does anyone who has ever lived live by the rule that only what is known is relevant? If that was true science would never have gone past go.

We should live our lives based on what we know about life. This may be all we get, and to me, that means making the most of it while we are here and taking care of each other to the best of our ability.

Maybe but if he exists their reality does include him whether they admit it or not.

Sure, but it doesn’t exist for everybody. And it probably isn’t actually reality.

So you give them condoms and we will give them morality. That however is not allowed, your side blurs morality until the problem and what causes it becomes an accepted norm which is not even discouraged anymore. Is it better to prevent stealing or to take from others to make up for it. You treat symptoms and try and alleviate costs, we try and solve the problems. I guess I must point out that I am speaking in sexual context and in generalities.

Again, “my side” is just me. I don’t represent anyone else. I don’t make a habit of “blurring morality.”

Sorry but I don’t see how spreading religion solves the problem of poverty. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

I got a better idea. Let's outlaw/discourage a practice, which has no basis in nature or logic that is practiced by 4% but produces 60% of aids cases and we will see which one reduces it the most. In the meantime quit asking/forcing people who do not practice it to pay for those who do. The majority of this country is not in favor of this. What happened to your secular standards based on what society wants. States vote it down and a single liberal secular judge says he does not care what the people want and allows it.

Well, since we’re talking about Africa here, and since the majority of HIV/AIDS cases in Africa occur in heterosexual females, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Not to mention the fact that it can be spread by absolutely anyone, regardless of sexual orientation.

I think polls show that a majority of Americans now support gay marriage but I’ve never said that human rights should be based on majority vote.

In the meantime, doctors and scientists will continue to look for treatments and cures (they’ve been making a lot of breakthroughs lately) and you can continue to dictate to people what they should be doing in their bedrooms.

I am trying very hard not to get to theological on you, but your pushing pretty hard. God laid out the path to prosperity, and ruin. While in this world it does not work out that way every single time it does do so in most. He is so emphatic about the road to reduce suffering he says "Just test me on this and see what happens" which is very rare biblically. Societies reject God or do not practice what he said to and misery is coming, sooner or later.

Gee, it’s a wonder that San Francisco is still standing.
Or Canada, Argentina, Belgium, Denmark, France, Iceland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the UK – all countries who have accepted gay marriage for many years now.

It is not coincidence that the nation founded on God is also the most successful in human history and that most of those that deny God suffer accordingly.

What nation are you talking about?

Ugandans don’t deny god. And yet they have suffered horribly.

It seems that there’s no rhyme or reason to it, contrary to what you claim. It almost seems as though this god you describe doesn’t actually exist.

Why is it always the western nations founded on Athens, Rome, and Jerusalem that bail other nations out so often instead of it being even over all. You may use geography but Indians were here for thousands of years and lived like poppers (BTW I am an Indian) Christians come here and in 200 years have the richest nation in history.

So it’s all about money?

Did god want the Christians to murder all the paupers?

Completely wrong. We have been acting on them for thousands of years and even with modern technological advances they are as bad as ever. What kind of data do you use anyway?

What? AIDS hasn’t been around for thousands of years.

I think the better question is what kind of data do you use, given that you seem to be saying that tithing and obedience to god makes poverty and AIDS disappear.

I emphatically disagree. The two sets of data are far to constant but this would become it own topic and I don't have time.
1. We massively over medicate children and have since the 50's.
2. We have (at least politically and institutionally) moved away from God since the 50's.

You can emphatically disagree all you want but the fact of the matter is, most medications you speak of didn’t exist until the 1950s or later. Obviously prescribing them prior to that time would be impossible. I have no idea how you think it’s related to secularism.

1.Everyone in the US is massively overmedicated. This can be due to some laziness on the part of both psychiatrists AND patients. As I said, I got into psychology rather than psychiatry because I’m interested in helping people get to the root of their problems rather than simply being medicated for life and only treating the symptoms. The problem is, that kind of thing takes time – time that many people would rather spend doing something else. I can’t tell you the number of people who have come to me just wanting a quick fix with drugs that I cannot prescribe them. All these “ask your doctor about Drug X commercials don’t help either. I don’t know what you think it has to do with secularism.

2.Really? How many atheists are there in the US? How many are there in Congress?

Now ask yourself how many Christians there are in the US and in Congress.

Now gimme a break.

 

[1robin]

Feeding a person will prevent them from suffering and dying prematurely. It ensures better quality of life (the only life we know we get for sure). Far more so than telling them that one day they can possibly go to some paradise in the sky. Never mind the fact that you could be offering them false hope.

When I state anything about not feeding a person or force anyone to chose between food and the gospel then this may be relevant. I have over and over given you examples where we feed them probably more than any other similar group ever has but we also offer eternal hope. There is no either or here and many would find the insinuation insulting, I however am too lazy to bother. What you responded to was in addition to the hundreds of tons we deliver personally and pay for ourselves. We also teach them how to grow food and how to read so that they can transfer knowledge about food growing advancement and other things. What exactly are you trying so hard to say here? Do you think I did not know what food was for?

How is Christianity not a narrow world view?

Because I have everything you believe in, plus. If God exists then my world view is infinite and your infinitely small. Atheism only removes potential truths it doe snot add any.

Unless I’m talking to a dead person right now, you don’t have any more idea than anyone else about what happens to us when we die.

Oh yes I do. I have met the first resurrected person in human history. If I am not lying that makes my world view infinitely more informed about eternity. Simply being born again validates far more truths than I can begin to enumerate.

I’m happy to hear you’re not offering god in exclusion to food though.

If anything Christians offer food, medicine, labor, water, technology, and education without proselytizing if anything is left out and always have.

1.What?

I do not see how to make that any clearer. Modern secular shows about the universe often as not posit life originating on asteroids, other planets, anywhere but the one place it is known to be. I always find that funny.

2.Sure it does. I know that even though I will be dead someday my children will live on. And my children’s children. I know that even if I’m dead, the human race will most likely continue to go on, learn and progress. I’m grateful that I get a chance to live, however briefly that may be, and experience this wonderful place we call home. What other humans do is relevant to me because I care about other humans. To me, that feels much more hopeful than your “god never promised justice in this world” bit.

I apologize for my insensitivity but your children and theirs and so on will die. Not one human being will escape this universe annihilation in heat death or judgment. The atheistic world ends without possible hope of escape what ever. Nor would any future escape provide any consolation to a pile of atoms rotting in the dust. That is the most empty source of hope I can imagine and I find it very bleak. However I also find it all there is without God so I guess you need something. Since you do not have the proper key to fit the lock you just shove anything in there.

I read it all and that’s what I came away with. I apologize if it was not what you intended to say.

Can't remember so lets forget about it.


Okay, here is what you said:

Thanks for making my day a little darker. God never ever ever ever promised justice in this world. He in fact stated over and over again why injustice will occur, it's source, commissioned his people to attempt to alleviate it where they can, did so himself as proof of it's eventual eradication in totality, and promised that in the end he would rectify all such tragedy. We are left with this child either way, but on your view justice is never served. Annihilating hope is the most illogical effort a human can make. As depressing as that picture is I can hope for eternal restoration and thousand of children like this are alleviated in this world by Christianity every year. You can only say "Oh well".

If your attempting to blame God as if he desires this type of thing then why in the world does he alleviate every occurrence of it eternally? Why does he not continue this misery he is so fond of forever instead of paying the highest price possible to enable it's eventual restitution? BTW it is only if God exists that the objective morality exists in order to conclude this is wrong or evil to begin with. The best you can say is you do not like it or it is bad according to your opinion.

What am I missing? [/quote] I highlighted where I mentioned our commission to provide worldly help above. You can't possibly not be aware of the sickness Christ healed, the hungry he fed, the blind he made see, the lame he made walk, the possessed he made clean, nor God's commands to Israel about leaving part of the grain unharvested to feed strangers and on and on. God in the flesh constantly took care of temporal needs, even raising the dead, for goodness sake what are you talking about?

What? Again, unless you’re dead you don’t know any more about what happens after death than anyone else in the world does.

I do possess additional evidence you do not, make of that what you will.

That’s all we know for sure. Sorry. I prefer to live this life to the fullest than sit around wishing for some other life which probably doesn’t exist.

You have no idea what your on about?

New International Version
The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.

“Adding in” eternity doesn’t ensure its existence. I can “add in” magic invisible leprechauns but they don’t exist just because I felt like adding them into my version of reality.

I did not add it in to do anything. I found it to be true, and on believing in it, found it to be added to me to my surprise. Your whole tirade assumes that it does not exist. In fact everything you say to me has preceding it this baseless assumption. Unlike you my world view has confirmation potentiality in it and hundreds of millions claims to have received it. You have no information one way or the other. As I said it is a narrow view.

Again, do I need to give you a list of secular aid organizations?

When I even hint they do not exist then feel free to.

“My side” includes only myself. I already told you what I’m interested in. I don’t “offer eternal hope” because I see no reason to believe humans are immortal. To me, I would be offering only false hope.

No it doe snot IMO. You subscribe to a very common world view that has in it principles that with a little experience can be predicted and counted on. So with mine as well. You and I are not unique in our general views.

 

[1robin]

Great, then they should build a school in Africa and teach kids about sanitation and cleanliness so they can stop polluting their water.

They already have built many of them.

The Red Cross is an humanitarian organization rather than a Christian one. It would be bad if people were withholding food from starving people until they accepted certain religious beliefs. If you want to help people, that’s great, but why should they have to have your religion foisted upon them in exchange for food?

henry Dunant first began what became the red cross. He was raised a Christian and even served in the YMCA. he formed it during the Napoleonic wars, it officially became the Red Cross during the civil war when Clara Barton formed the US division. She was a Christian.

Before her father died, Clara Barton was able to talk to him about the war effort. Her father convinced her that it was her duty as a Christian to help the soldiers. In the April following his death, Barton returned to Washington to gather medical supplies. Ladies' Aid societies helped in sending bandages, food, and clothing that would later be distributed during the Civil War.
Clara Barton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Later on they found the Christian label prevented them from helping because of political reasons and prejudice so they officially took on a non-religious label to gain access.

I’m not wrong that you could be wrong and you could be offering false hope for an eternity that doesn’t actually exist.

If I am wrong there is no loss, if you are there is infinite loss. Actually this might be more complex.

We should live our lives based on what we know about life. This may be all we get, and to me, that means making the most of it while we are here and taking care of each other to the best of our ability.

I do. I know I experienced Christ and all that entails and validates.

Sure, but it doesn’t exist for everybody. And it probably isn’t actually reality.

You do not have any event or a potential for one that would confirm or deny your view, mine includes that very thing. So you may not think knowing is possible but millions do. Again such a narrow view.

Again, “my side” is just me. I don’t represent anyone else. I don’t make a habit of “blurring morality.”

I will try.

Sorry but I don’t see how spreading religion solves the problem of poverty. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

Do you want a sermon based on principles you deny before hand? What good would that do? Just look at Israel when it was faithful and when it was not.

Well, since we’re talking about Africa here, and since the majority of HIV/AIDS cases in Africa occur in heterosexual females, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Not to mention the fact that it can be spread by absolutely anyone, regardless of sexual orientation.

I can only handle one nation at a time so I chose mine. Here 4% of us that are gay produce 60% of the aids cases, so unless you present reasons who aids virus germs act differently by continent I am going with my numbers. We were not talking about Africa. I switched tropics completely to a not starvation issue that is not so governed by geography.

I think polls show that a majority of Americans now support gay marriage but I’ve never said that human rights should be based on majority vote.

Then why has the majority of votes per state about gay marriage been against but still made law. Or at least the majority of the ones I hear about on the radio. If God and popular vote are out then what are laws based on who says yes to X and no to Y?

In the meantime, doctors and scientists will continue to look for treatments and cures (they’ve been making a lot of breakthroughs lately) and you can continue to dictate to people what they should be doing in their bedrooms.

I have never told a single person what to do in their bedroom. I debate concepts not people. I debate whether X is wrong I never condemn anyone for doing X myself because I am not perfect either. I believe we should condemn homosexuality, not apply sacred concepts like marriage to it, and not make others pay for it but not outlaw homosexuals as persons. This would take a while to sort out but that is a start.

Gee, it’s a wonder that San Francisco is still standing.
Or Canada, Argentina, Belgium, Denmark, France, Iceland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the UK – all countries who have accepted gay marriage for many years now.

Where did I say homosexuality would cause a black hole at any geographical area?

What nation are you talking about?

The Congo where else. For pity sake.

Ugandans don’t deny god. And yet they have suffered horribly.

How many don't? What degree of suffering? How many suffer what degree? This will be too complex for a post. However in general Christian western countries have been far more successful than Eastern pagan, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, etc.... nations. Who saved the world three times from compete totalitarianism? China, japan, Russia, who?

It seems that there’s no rhyme or reason to it, contrary to what you claim. It almost seems as though this god you describe doesn’t actually exist.

I will admit the stats are not what I would like but it depends on who you ask. I have heard over and over again entire lists of stats that Christians top but stats are so hard to use I shy away from them in general.

So it’s all about money?

It certainly is a big part of it. It takes money to get the food to Africa's starving kids. You going to hop it there? Ships run on fuel oil not dreams.

Did god want the Christians to murder all the paupers?

Thanks for the laugh. I have no idea what you talking about and I suspect neither do you. An Indian who came to the US said he could not believe that our poor had yards. You ever listen to D'Souza?

What? AIDS hasn’t been around for thousands of years.

I was talking about the general cost of immorality. We can't seem to stop it's cost no matter how much money we invest.

I think the better question is what kind of data do you use, given that you seem to be saying that tithing and obedience to god makes poverty and AIDS disappear.

I will prove it when you can quote it.

You can emphatically disagree all you want but the fact of the matter is, most medications you speak of didn’t exist until the 1950s or later. Obviously prescribing them prior to that time would be impossible. I have no idea how you think it’s related to secularism.

I tell you what I can give you at least partial credit here. I will have to think on this one a bit. Remind me of it if you wish.

1.Everyone in the US is massively overmedicated. This can be due to some laziness on the part of both psychiatrists AND patients. As I said, I got into psychology rather than psychiatry because I’m interested in helping people get to the root of their problems rather than simply being medicated for life and only treating the symptoms. The problem is, that kind of thing takes time – time that many people would rather spend doing something else. I can’t tell you the number of people who have come to me just wanting a quick fix with drugs that I cannot prescribe them. All these “ask your doctor about Drug X commercials don’t help either. I don’t know what you think it has to do with secularism.

I will defer my claim for a time to investigate a bit.

2.Really? How many atheists are there in the US? How many are there in Congress?

This is a bit misleading. In the US Christian has become similar to asking if a person is good. It's citizenry at least claims to be Christian so it is hard to get elected without a nod to it. Case in point Obama claim to be a Christian yet acts in every conceivable way counter to it. I do not believe he is secretly Muslim or any other fanciful tale. I think he is an opportunist and appoints judges and others just as phony as he is. Pile that on
top of our inherent backlash against corporate religion that our for fathers left England because of, plus the hippy revolution in the 60's and the secular political trend is perfectly obvious despite what it takes to pander to the masses. I would also include the watering down of Christianity it's self. Instead of Grahams and Washington's we get weak willed get along prosperity types like you see on TV so there is little push back. Pick something and lets get into it. everything requires a post of its own.

Now ask yourself how many Christians there are in the US and in Congress.

I would think quite a few less than in 1950 regardless of any sound bites I do not see the actions Paul described.

Now gimme a break.

Not bloody likely.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok lets stay on that tact then. God did the exact same thing only "to live" means something very different to him. Instead of 80 years in this world it means eternity with him.

If "to live" means something different to God and to us, then at least one of us is working from the wrong definition. Who's wrong - us or God?

In ordering Israel to wipe out the Canaanites (which is every atheist's favorite) he enabled far more people to live.

More than what? Not more than he could have saved. If God had chosen to just convince the Canaanites to be good, then nobody would have had to die at all.

BTW without God no human has any more value that any bug or pest, yet you murder them for sheer convenience (and I would imagine you would wipe out billions of them to save one child's life) without God this is speciesm and not moral at all. Far worse than racism or sexism. Only with God do our actions have justification and a foundation.

And, apparently, that foundation is based on the idea that human beings have no innate worth at all. Some foundation.

By what logic do you make that connection since it is God who would establish what is good in the first place and it would be true even if you and everyone else disagreed. What you should have said is you would not like a God that did X. You can't say he is any less perfect.

Of course, I'm operating from the assumption that this God has established that it's wrong to let children die. Do you agree that God has established this?

- if yes, then God's moral code condemns his own actions.
- if no, then you have no grounds to condemn human beings when they let children die.

Which is it?

No, in my view it does but without God it has little significance, which is why the most brutal genocidal maniacs in history always get rid of God first. If Stalin can get rid of God then we are only accidental biological anomalies, have no inherent value, and life has no sanctity, there is no more significance to a child dying that the calf that died for dinner without God.

With God, you mean. Remember what you just said?

it is God who would establish what is good in the first place

According to the worldview you're selling, there is no goodness except what God deigns to bestow.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Ceausescu, Kim Sung, etc........ subscribed to Darwinian social evolution where the strong dominating the weak is good, and Nietzsche where getting rid of God gets rid of traditional morality. Not everyone mentioned believed both but all acted consistently with both.

I'm not sure which wins out: the bigotry of this statement, its ignorance of history, or its ignorance of evolution. In any case, history has no shortage of genocidal maniacs and despots who were devout believers in God. Thinking that one is doing "God's work" often lets people ignore normal morality.

... which does speak to something interesting: it's strange how the suppose source of objective morality does such a poor job of letting people know what's moral and what's not.

That was no the intention of the question. So, granting God was perfectly moral but he killed you today, what would be your defense against that God?

I don't see the point of your question.

That is my point, you can't have freewill without the suffering it potentially could cause.

Baloney. There's no reasonable definition of "free will" that would make this statement true.

God makes it perfectly clear in verse after verse he wants us to chose right and not suffer the way we do because of rebellion. However he must and we must endure suffering because we disobey both personally and corporately. If your argument is that God is immoral and desires suffering how do you explain these verses?

They're logical contradictions. Regret is incompatible with a perfect God.

No they are not (as even countless secular philosophers admit readily). God can't make round squares, rocks so heavy he can't lift them, or worlds with freewill that have no potential for suffering. He cannot do logically impossible things.

There's no logical impossibility in reducing the amount of suffering in the world. People do it all the time. Why can't God?

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant.

It's relevant if you want to have a discussion with me.

In fact God is the highest possible source of an objective anything if he exists. If you deny that then get that word out of the dictionary as it has no meaning what so ever.

Here is the definition: Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true.

You're proposing that morality is a system of moral judgments that's just true according to God's subjective opinion. By the definition that you just gave, such a system would not be objective morality.

Now do you honestly think a secular dictionary included God as one of these persons without even delineating between them.

I've said it before: if God exists, he's just one more player in the game. Maybe a more powerful or wiser player than most, but still no more able to be the source of morality than a human king.

Even if you did out of desperation it would not matter because God's morality is still free of his opinion.

It's not desperation; it's logic.

God is morality he did not chose it. His moral commands are simply a reflection of his nature. He did not sit down one day and think what they should be, they never were anything but what they are and never will be different.

So then the source of morality is not God; the source of morality is whatever caused God's nature.

That is completely absurd. If I as a technician remove your heart I am guilty or murder if a doctor does so he is paid a lot of money because of his capability alone.

I think you're still missing my point. If a doctor removed a person's heart unnecessarily, he would be even more liable: he would be guilty of murder just as if you did it, but the fact that he was a doctor acting in his capacity as a doctor would make him guilty of malpractice as well.

There most certainly is if God creates a thing that requires it. God can't make a square without straight lines and 90 degree angles by definition and neither freewill without the ability to choose wrong.

Free will is nothing more than the ability to act on our desires; free will doesn't include the ability to create our desires. If the only desires that ever occur to us are good, then our actions will be good without ever violating free will.

Also, it's not as if we're free to actually carry out our desires as it is. God has apparently seen fit to limit our "free will" by denying us the ability to levitate or to make people we don't like spontaneously combust from the power of our thoughts; how would it violate free will by, say, making our skin tough enough to resist a knife? Where's the logical impossibility in making us stab-proof?

And you ignore the fact that a huge amount of suffering has nothing to do with free will at all. Take choking: a significant amount of suffering and death that people experience can be traced back to the fact that we use the same tube to eat as to breathe. Why does this have to be the way it is? And don't say "free will".

That is why you should not have used the analogy to begin with. If God has an inoculation it is salvation and I promise you it does not hurt, it might be the opposite of pain. It is the first experience of true peace and contentment you will ever have. God does not inoculate against temporal mistakes and physical pain because they have rolls and may be deserved and is not part of the grand plan.

What was?

Our imperfection: the fact that our abilities are limited excuses the fact that our well-intentioned actions have negative side effects. Only an imperfect being can cause harm while still acting morally.

For that you need a standard for perfection that transcends God. Good luck.

If you don't have one, you can't say that God is perfect. Do you?