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

[1robin]

A lot of Muslims in India and Indonesia began mixing Islam and Hinduism to a greater or lesser extent. No actual title was given to it except for words such as heresy or infidel. In my eyes, you are a Muslim as long as you don't go outside of the Quran's fundamental teachings.

This sounds similar to Baha'i history. Every Baha'i I have debated has been very polite and respectful and at the same time being the most frustrating theology to debate I have ever encountered. They jam everyone else’s religion into one whole. This of course will not work as they are, so they warp and twist almost every verse in every faith and force them together. What this results in is an ugly compilation of religions than no longer bear much resemblance to their original doctrines. Is your faith associated with them in any way?

The things about Jinn is that the Quran does not always place them as being "spiritual beings". To much of an extent they are physical in some regards since they are made of smokeless flames which can be taken metaphorically or literally. Also by default a spiritual realm is a dimension unto itself. I know you do not think of it that way but Jannah(Heaven), Jahannam(Hell), and the spiritual or physical worlds under them are by definition a dimension or alternate realm of existence.

Actually I agree that there is a separate spiritual "dimension". I would not say that heaven and hell exists in it alone. The Bible describes heaven as a new physical earth but never the less it also points out a spiritual dimension little apprehended by humans currently.

The Quran makes no actual distinction between them. Heaven is described as physical yet outside of this reality which pretty much implies the scientific usage of the word dimension or 'world'. It all comes down to semantics really

Unfortunately it usually does. I can agree with almost all of this, semantics and all.

Yes Muslims believe in the flood but as a Quraniyun I do not believe in the end of days. The flood and such things as Sodom and Gomorrah do not break my belief that god has actually taken permanent dominion over mankind. When I say intervene I imply that god has permanently came down and taken dominion over this entire world. Such actions as floods which manifest the greatness of god do not mean god is constantly controlling our world to bring about peace or a change other then reuniting us back to him.

Sorry if I am leaving out details here, hard to describe my words in written form.

I was not implying that God "constantly" intervenes. I understood you to say that he in fact does not physically interact with us. I was attempting to show that some of what Muslims believe seems to contradict that. Don't worry about details. I debate mostly non-believers who resent the concept of God. Civility alone is enough. BTW you might be interested in this thread. I think the guy is making all this stuff up and it has drastic mathematical flaws but it is extremely sophisticated and detailed. Look for al-amiyr's cosmology models.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/138153-quraan-cosmological-model-delineation-origin-evolution-29.html#post3267368

 

[Hitchey]

Well let me ask you Atheists would you attempt to comfort these mothers with your precept that there is no God? No heaven and no hell? That their children are reduced to dust as they came? That the man who murdered them who took his life is also Dust and there is no justice for them either? Both parties cease to exist, one guilty, one innocent, both have the same fate in the end.

I have not yet found myself in such a situation so I am not quite sure how I would respond except to extend my deep regret for their loss. I am an atheist – a 7 on Dawkins' scale. I have two children, two siblings, and five nieces and nephews. It would bring me no comfort if someone, in my loss, were – in all sincerity – to offer me platitudes about God.

I suspect one must know the mourner, but I would not attempt to comfort an atheist with religious platitudes because it would be meaningless to them. I suspect, being deeply religious, you would speak of God to a mourning atheist? You would show no regard for their beliefs?

Your statement quoted above would seem to imply a belief that speaking of God at such a time would bring comfort to most anyone. I would argue this is false. You would be more likely to annoy or anger a mourning atheist with remarks about God's love.

I think you will find that most atheists are quite content with the knowledge that when they die they are gone forever. To date I have lost five close family members to the grim reaper, and two close friends. I had no need for God. I shed tears, I grieved, and I moved forward. I keep them in my memories and I pass those memories on to others.

Do not think that thoughts of God provides universal comfort to all. It does not.

 

[1robin]

I have not yet found myself in such a situation so I am not quite sure how I would respond except to extend my deep regret for their loss. I am an atheist – a 7 on Dawkins' scale. I have two children, two siblings, and five nieces and nephews. It would bring me no comfort if someone, in my loss, were – in all sincerity – to offer me platitudes about God.

I suspect one must know the mourner, but I would not attempt to comfort an atheist with religious platitudes because it would be meaningless to them. I suspect, being deeply religious, you would speak of God to a mourning atheist? You would show no regard for their beliefs?

Your statement quoted above would seem to imply a belief that speaking of God at such a time would bring comfort to most anyone. I would argue this is false. You would be more likely to annoy or anger a mourning atheist with remarks about God's love.

I think you will find that most atheists are quite content with the knowledge that when they die they are gone forever. To date I have lost five close family members to the grim reaper, and two close friends. I had no need for God. I shed tears, I grieved, and I moved forward. I keep them in my memories and I pass those memories on to others.

Do not think that thoughts of God provides universal comfort to all. It does not.

Forgive me for intruding but I think there is a very crucial point missed here. You are positing that an atheist who denies God would not draw comfort from God and the reality his existence comes with. I do not think this is the core of the matter. You are saying that that would not bring comfort because someone denies it exists. That is not to say that comfort is not justified given God. There is no argument that if true the idea that your child might be in heaven and that the killer will be punished does not add comfort. It is objectively satisfying. The problem is not with the provision; the problem is with the reception.

That is a little hard to explain so let me give a metaphor. If we found an asteroid that was not only going to kill us but was just the right size so that it would cause the longest and greatest suffering possible then that would be very depressing and miserable knowledge. Now let’s say I work at NASA and knew we had more than the capacity to destroy the asteroid. I would be very comforted by that knowledge. let's say you knew little about science or NASA and when I told you that the asteroid would be destroyed by NASA you refused to believe that was possible. You would remain miserable. In this case is the problem with the information (reality) or with your belief? Reality would have provided you with comfort if you had faith. You chose no faith and where you really go wrong is to suggest the fault lies with NASA not your lack of faith. I realize this is a confusing explanation but I thought it essential to the issue being discussed.

The issue all come down to the same thing in the end. God makes perfect sense out of morality, meaning, purpose, origin, destination etc..... Atheism does not.

The questions is always does God exist, however what his existance means seems clear to me.

 

[CG Didymus]

I suspect one must know the mourner, but I would not attempt to comfort an atheist with religious platitudes because it would be meaningless to them. I suspect, being deeply religious, you would speak of God to a mourning atheist? You would show no regard for their beliefs?

Your statement quoted above would seem to imply a belief that speaking of God at such a time would bring comfort to most anyone. I would argue this is false. You would be more likely to annoy or anger a mourning atheist with remarks about God's love.

Do not think that thoughts of God provides universal comfort to all. It does not.

Respect for others beliefs is important. A friend of my wife and I died of stomach cancer. She was in her early forties and had two young children. She was a Pureland Buddhist. None of us knew what they believed. We went to the ceremony and did our best to show respect for their beliefs. They appreciated it.
What would a Baptist do? a Calvinist? a Catholic? or any mainstream Christian denomination? Tell the children the "Christian" truth? that their mother wasn't going to some Pureland but was going to the Christian hell? I know some Christians believe their religion is the only correct truth and feel obligated to "share" it, but they do come off as being disrespectful of what other people believe.

 

[Sha'irullah]

That is just bizarre. Do you think that people only refrain from murdering, plundering, and pillaging because they are religious? Can you really not imagine any other reasons for refraining from that kind of behavior? I am not religious, and I can assure you that I feel no desire to murder, plunder, and pillage, although I will play the occasional video game. As for free will, I argue that you have not really thought much about the difference between free will and having a lot of different options to exercise free will with. If I lack wings, that doesn't mean that I lack the free will to soar around in the sky. I can only choose to do things that I can do. Christians pray all the time for God to intervene on their behalf to stop their suffering and the suffering of others. Let's not pretend they don't.


Why would being convinced God exists cause you not to care whether he existed? I am convinced that a lot of people I care for exist. And I'm not asking you to prove that God exists. We aren't discussing that question, although I will try to explain the perspective of people like myself, who believe that we live in a godless universe. You seem to have some mistaken impressions about that.


I'm truly puzzled by that remark. You spent some time trying to say that our free will would somehow be compromised if God were to reveal himself unambiguously to everyone on Earth, yet that would presumably be the situation for everyone who went to heaven. Why would his obvious presence on Earth make him like a dictator, but his obvious presence in the afterlife not? If your argument about free will makes any sense at all, then we would presumably lose free will the moment we entered heaven.

I can't explain this any better because I am at a loss of words. Religiousness does not refrain people from violence nor did I ever say that. So that statement you brought up is invalid since I did not indirectly or directly mention it.
If god revealed himself to us it would not cease free will. I never said that, I said if god stopped all suffering on this world then there would be no more free will. Part of the reason for suffering is free will itself and the ability we have to make choices. We are talking about God not a man but God. Knowing that God can do anything he desires what makes it so hard for him to remove free will from humanity? You keep comparing god to a human dictator while I said if he intervened to stopped the suffering on this world he would be an absolute dictator automatically.
Do you think god is just a guy in a suit yelling at the pulpit like Hitler? So being with god in Jannah is entirely different from god coming down on earth to stop human suffering.
Heaven is perfect and without suffering although I do admit I would have no clue as to how part of that is achieved considering humans are human and we have the most evil desires. Personally I think that once going to Jannah(heaven) the evils in our hearts are removed if that makes sense. So I would not call that a dictatorship in the slightest degree if everyone is in mutual agreement.

 

[Sha'irullah]

This sounds similar to Baha'i history. Every Baha'i I have debated has been very polite and respectful and at the same time being the most frustrating theology to debate I have ever encountered. They jam everyone else’s religion into one whole. This of course will not work as they are, so they warp and twist almost every verse in every faith and force them together. What this results in is an ugly compilation of religions than no longer bear much resemblance to their original doctrines. Is your faith associated with them in any way?

Bahai is accused of mixing Sufism (Mystical Islam) with elements of Zoroastrianism and other Persian religions. I personally can be compared to a Bahai to a limited extent. It is a Bahai doctrine to look as religions as a whole since they teach unity of religion, I myself believe in unity of god but not unity of religion.

Actually I agree that there is a separate spiritual "dimension". I would not say that heaven and hell exists in it alone. The Bible describes heaven as a new physical earth but never the less it also points out a spiritual dimension little apprehended by humans currently.

In the Quran Jannah(heaven) is described as being quite physical that you could call it a new earth almost. It is depicted as being away from this world of course but at the same time filled with similar pleasures of this world yet it is still perfect. So not much debate on Christian heaven and Islamic Jannah :angel2:

Unfortunately it usually does. I can agree with almost all of this, semantics and all.
Well when you are like me everything is filled with technicalities.

I was not implying that God "constantly" intervenes. I understood you to say that he in fact does not physically interact with us. I was attempting to show that some of what Muslims believe seems to contradict that. Don't worry about details. I debate mostly non-believers who resent the concept of God. Civility alone is enough. BTW you might be interested in this thread. I think the guy is making all this stuff up and it has drastic mathematical flaws but it is extremely sophisticated and detailed. Look for al-amiyr's cosmology models.
My mistake .
The Quran tends to be a bit more vivid in regards to cosmology and metaphysics but regardless of this one cannot grasp every detail until one know the canonical Arabic it was written in. I would gladly tackle this issue when I have a better understanding of it.

 

[Copernicus]

I can't explain this any better because I am at a loss of words. Religiousness does not refrain people from violence nor did I ever say that. So that statement you brought up is invalid since I did not indirectly or directly mention it.

You did seem to be saying that atheists had no basis for morality and that it came from God. I was simply disagreeing with that unsupported claim and pointing out an alternative source--the people who surround us during our journey to adulthood. In my experience, Christians, Jews, and Muslims are not any better behaved than atheists.

If god revealed himself to us it would not cease free will. I never said that, I said if god stopped all suffering on this world then there would be no more free will.

Sorry to contradict you so much, but I find this claim equally absurd. I understand free will in the religious sense to be the ability to disobey God. It does not depend in the slightest on whether or not one suffers.

...Part of the reason for suffering is free will itself and the ability we have to make choices...

I think you have already conceded that not all suffering is related to human behavior. Theoretically, God could intervene and prevent people from carrying out evil. Restraining violent or bad people from causing harm to others does not limit free will. The miscreant is still freely choosing to do something bad, even if we...or God...does not let him succeed. Do you believe that God must let people commit murder in order to know that they want to commit it?

...We are talking about God not a man but God. Knowing that God can do anything he desires what makes it so hard for him to remove free will from humanity?

That's a very good question. God is said to know the future--every act that anyone will ever commit. From God's perspective, none of us is free to deviate from what he knows will happen. Therefore, free will only exists from our perspective because we do not know what our future decisions will be. It is logically incompatible with omniscience. Presumably, if God can do anything, he can make only people that will end up in heaven, because they only choose to do good things. Why bother to create people that you know will go to hell? That is a bit like building a house with a big hole in the roof and complaining when the rain leaks in.

You keep comparing god to a human dictator while I said if he intervened to stopped the suffering on this world he would be an absolute dictator automatically.

I never compared God to a human dictator. You were the one who proposed the analogy. I just explained where your analogy went wrong. Dictators do not compromise free will. They just limit options by punishing those who disobey them. You cannot choose to disobey a dictator openly and fail to be punished. Come to think of it...:sarcastic

Do you think god is just a guy in a suit yelling at the pulpit like Hitler? So being with god in Jannah is entirely different from god coming down on earth to stop human suffering.

I do not see how you can possibly think that. Is there suffering in heaven? Does God permit disobedience there?

...Heaven is perfect and without suffering although I do admit I would have no clue as to how part of that is achieved considering humans are human and we have the most evil desires. Personally I think that once going to Jannah(heaven) the evils in our hearts are removed if that makes sense. So I would not call that a dictatorship in the slightest degree if everyone is in mutual agreement.

I would not either, and I agree completely with your reasoning here. What I don't get is why God would not just remove the evil from our hearts in the first place. That would save a lot of unnecessary suffering, wouldn't it?

 

[Brickjectivity]

This was a little confusing. Let me list why.
1. I shied away from it because it seemed like an appeal to sympathy and a little hard to determine. I realized that it would be true regardless, and so have adopted it even if it can be used as an "ooohhh look what he said" kind of thing. God is morality. His nature dictates what is morally correct. There for whatever he did is correct. I may not like it, I may resent it, I may hate him because of it. What I can't do is find a standard above him to declare his act wrong. For better or worse true is true.

The point I draw from what you are saying (among other things) is: The world is as we find it when we come to life. There is good and bad in it and also within ourselves, but overall we are alive. Only busy bees taste honey. What's the point in complaining when there are flowers to visit? Might as well bee-have.

2. This verse and your comments are a little off from each other. You said that we can determine if God is righteous. By what standard can God be judged? Is our perception of what is good sufficient to judge God?

I like Job's comments in Job 9 which express, very nicely, our complaints about this. Even if we could 'Talk' to God and make God answer, and even if we were right we couldn't win the argument. The dialogue ends in chapter 42:6 with Job saying "My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you. Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes." I think what this is saying is that the LORD is UN-knowable directly. You think you know something, but if you could see the reality you would realize instantly that you were completely wrong. I think humility is the point rather than actually answering the question of whether the LORD is moral. Still, I think the LORD is moral.

It makes a comparison between hearing and seeing. We hear, but the LORD sees. (It occurs to me this is possibly where Jesus gets "Blind guides" from in Mat 15:14. If I am your guide, then your guide is blind but if the LORD guides you then your guide can see.)

We may for example think that if he commanded no aid to be sent to Africa that he was evil. That would be our mistake...

Ok, but I think its a mistake to suggest that right is what it is because the LORD says thus & such. I think the nature of the LORD is supposed to be such that as Jews seek the LORD they grow closer to finding the right way. We could have numerous discussions about it, but its beyond the scope. I think it means Jews refine their understanding of the LORD constantly.

The verse has an important context. The context is God exists and has implanted a reflection of his morality in us. Abraham, I believe was saying that judging by the God given moral compass in him that he knew God would not destroy the righteous with the unrighteous. These verses where Moses, Abraham, etc... seem to plead with God to do X or Y are confusing so my understanding may not be perfect.

I think of it as a hologram broken into shards. You put all the shards together to see the original clearly, but also every shard also contains a less precise image of the entirety. Holograms are cool that way. The LORD makes human in its image, so each human being is important. The prohibition against murder is based on this principle if you go by Genesis 9::6.

Yes, the pleadings of Abraham and Moses and Jesus are all confusing, except that it is entirely impossible for a human to communicate with the LORD in the first place. Can you, a human, communicate with a bacterium? Only in its own language, and its pleadings would to you be 'Squirmings'. Not wanting any more attention from the LORD Job 7:17 wails ""What is mankind that you make so much of them, that you give them so much attention,"

Those are interesting verses and thankfully more clear than Genesis 28 but I am unsure what purpose you are using them for. Are you challenging my statement, augmenting it, or agreeing with it?

Oh I was agreeing with you and just adding some fuel for your fire.

• j
• Recently you repented and did what is right in my sight: Each of you proclaimed freedom to your own people. You even made a covenant before me in the house that bears my Name. (Jeremiah 34:15)
• "Because the patriarchs were jealous of Joseph, they sold him as a slave into Egypt. But God was with him and rescued him from all his troubles...." (Acts 7:9-10)
• If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. (Deuteronomy 23:15)
• They and their buyer are to count the time from the year they sold themselves up to the Year of Jubilee. The price for their release is to be based on the rate paid to a hired worker for that number of years. (Leviticus 25:50)

 

[Hitchey]

... A friend of my wife and I died of stomach cancer.... We went to the ceremony and did our best to show respect for their beliefs. They appreciated it.
What would a Baptist do? a Calvinist? a Catholic? or any mainstream Christian denomination? Tell the children the "Christian" truth? that their mother wasn't going to some Pureland but was going to the Christian hell? I know some Christians believe their religion is the only correct truth and feel obligated to "share" it, but they do come off as being disrespectful of what other people believe.

Yes, that would be cruel and thoughtless, and yet that is what many Christians would believe. I would hope they would keep it to themselves.

 

[Sha'irullah]

You did seem to be saying that atheists had no basis for morality and that it came from God. I was simply disagreeing with that unsupported claim and pointing out an alternative source--the people who surround us during our journey to adulthood. In my experience, Christians, Jews, and Muslims are not any better behaved than atheists.

I never said morality came from god and I quite clearly said it did not in almost all of my posts. I said very clearly the morals of an atheist will differ greatly then with the morals of a religious individual(especially if a fundamentalist). In all honesty morals do not exist and never will. The only true morals are the actions we take to keep peace amongst each other.

Sorry to contradict you so much, but I find this claim equally absurd. I understand free will in the religious sense to be the ability to disobey God. It does not depend in the slightest on whether or not one suffers.

Everybody has the free will to murder, rape, steal and lie to anybody they please. I have just proven your words invalid in every aspect. Free will is the ability to choice an action and go beyond making the choice and actually do it physically. That is free will and that is something leads to violence.

I think you have already conceded that not all suffering is related to human behavior. Theoretically, God could intervene and prevent people from carrying out evil. Restraining violent or bad people from causing harm to others does not limit free will. The miscreant is still freely choosing to do something bad, even if we...or God...does not let him succeed. Do you believe that God must let people commit murder in order to know that they want to commit it?

If god restrains people from performing an action then free will is limited. You have the ability to do something and god and his infinite power can make your body stop in its very tracks. Obviously your free will to do an action has been limited. Free will is the ability to actually do the things that you choose. You don't know the difference between choice and freewill obviously. Freewill is the ability to DO(verb) as you please. I can choose to do anything I desire in my head, but without freewill I cannot actually perform that action based upon my choice.

That's a very good question. God is said to know the future--every act that anyone will ever commit. From God's perspective, none of us is free to deviate from what he knows will happen. Therefore, free will only exists from our perspective because we do not know what our future decisions will be. It is logically incompatible with omniscience. Presumably, if God can do anything, he can make only people that will end up in heaven, because they only choose to do good things. Why bother to create people that you know will go to hell? That is a bit like building a house with a big hole in the roof and complaining when the rain leaks in.

God knows our future, but we don't. So how can we progress to do anything including know and learn about god? Also from what you are saying you keep making it sound as if I somehhow believe hell is eternal. I never said such a thing.

I never compared God to a human dictator. You were the one who proposed the analogy. I just explained where your analogy went wrong. Dictators do not compromise free will. They just limit options by punishing those who disobey them. You cannot choose to disobey a dictator openly and fail to be punished. Come to think of it...:sarcastic

You make god limited by the actions of a human dictator. When I say dictator I am implying he can be above any other dictator simply because he can control freewill. A dictator can limit a number of actions by his people but he cannot physically control them like puppets......unless he was telepathic but that is a whole other story

I have a strong feeling you are not reading my posts at all Copernicus because a lot of these ideas you claim I am saying are ideals I am openly against. Please read carefully to prevent confusion.

 

[WyattDerp]

Free will is also the ability to make that choice in the first place. As Schopenhauer said, man can do what he wants, but he can't will what he wants. Neuroscience confirms rather than denies this, it's already a fact that most of the stuff we think are decisions aren't, yet we live happily on; so nothing would be lost if God went "all the way" and simple made everyone want the right thing, as he supposedly does to the "rightly guided". We wouldn't notice or mind, we would only notice how the lush breeze in heaven does not at all feel like being tortured alive. The only one who could possibly notice a difference and therefore care would be God who doesn't get to play this game of his. So? How is that game worth more than absencse of suffering? Even the greatest palace, with suffering in it, is pure crap compared to, say, drawing a simple circle with no suffering in it. (So much for "write a better verse than this one"; rhyme and rhythm are for lamers ^^)

 

[Hitchey]

Forgive me for intruding...

Your comments are most welcome.

... but I think there is a very crucial point missed here. You are positing that an atheist who denies God would not draw comfort from God and the reality his existence comes with.

An atheist would not draw comfort from God; yes, that is my point. Nor would he recognize anything in the world as evidence of God, if that is what you mean. I think we are in agreement, thus far.

I do not think this is the core of the matter. You are saying that that would not bring comfort because someone denies it exists.

As an atheist I have no sense that the idea of God reflects anything that is real, and so the idea of God is not something I can take comfort in.

That is not to say that comfort is not justified given God.

I am not grasping your meaning. An atheist may not even think of God at such a time. Where is the comfort coming from in your understanding?
[/quote]

There is no argument that if true the idea that your child might be in heaven and that the killer will be punished does not add comfort.

The atheist will not think their child is in Heaven. In the mind of the atheist such a place does not exist. Nor, for most atheists, will the child have a consciousness that can survive the death of the body. There is no chance of any of this being true in the atheist's mind.

The atheist might wish his child's killer had suffered more, but he will not think such a retribution is any longer possible once the perpetrator is dead. He cannot gain comfort in the hope that it might be true when believes it is not.

It is objectively satisfying. The problem is not with the provision; the problem is with the reception.

That is a little hard to explain so let me give a metaphor. If we found an asteroid that was not only going to kill us but was just the right size so that it would cause the longest and greatest suffering possible then that would be very depressing and miserable knowledge. Now let’s say I work at NASA and knew we had more than the capacity to destroy the asteroid. I would be very comforted by that knowledge. let's say you knew little about science or NASA and when I told you that the asteroid would be destroyed by NASA you refused to believe that was possible. You would remain miserable. In this case is the problem with the information (reality) or with your belief? Reality would have provided you with comfort if you had faith. You chose no faith and where you really go wrong is to suggest the fault lies with NASA not your lack of faith. I realize this is a confusing explanation but I thought it essential to the issue being discussed.

The analogy was good in that it did help clarify your meaning.

You are saying that there would be relief for the suffering atheist if only he recognized that your beliefs about God actually represented reality. Unfortunately the atheist doesn't see it that way. He thinks your faith is misplaced. He probably won't think of God at all unless someone raises the matter with him – probably not an advisable thing to do. It won't make him feel better.

The issue all come down to the same thing in the end. God makes perfect sense out of morality, meaning, purpose, origin, destination etc..... Atheism does not.

As an atheist I believe you are mistaken on all counts.

The questions is always does God exist, however what his existance means seems clear to me.

Whether or not God exists is what it all boils down to, I agree. I would be happy to discuss any point that you feel lends credibility to your position.

Regards,
Hitchey

 

[Hitchey]

This sounds similar to Baha'i history. Every Baha'i I have debated has been very polite and respectful and at the same time being the most frustrating theology to debate I have ever encountered. They jam everyone else’s religion into one whole. This of course will not work as they are, so they warp and twist almost every verse in every faith and force them together. What this results in is an ugly compilation of religions than no longer bear much resemblance to their original doctrines.

Ah, religious syncretism: "Syncretism involves the merger and analogizing of several originally discrete traditions, especially in the theology and mythology of religion, thus asserting an underlying unity and allowing for an inclusive approach to other faiths." (Wikipedia: Syncretism)

 

[Hitchey]

... nothing would be lost if God went "all the way" and simple made everyone want the right thing, as he supposedly does to the "rightly guided". We wouldn't notice or mind....

Some year ago I read a passage in the Old Testament which declared that in the end this is what God would do. I wish I could recall where in the OT it is located. It seems the only fair thing, in my mind. If there is a God, and if he truly loves all his creation, this is what he should do. We could be made to choose the right path by default and we would all be the happier for it. The claim that God cannot do this because it would infringe on free will is simply a ploy to escape this perennial problem of evil.

 

[1robin]

Baha’i is accused of mixing Sufism (Mystical Islam) with elements of Zoroastrianism and other Persian religions. I personally can be compared to a Baha’i to a limited extent. It is a Baha’i doctrine to look as religions as a whole since they teach unity of religion, I myself believe in unity of god but not unity of religion.

I myself believe there is probably truth in every religion but all religions are not from God. In fact this is almost provable. Two mutually exclusive claims to absolute truth can't possibly both be true. The Bible says Jesus is the way the truth and the life and that NOONE proceeds to the father but through him, as well as saying Jesus is the only name by which men may be saved. Islam suggests some type of ambiguous (to me anyway) works and repentance formula for salvation. The Bible may be right, the Quran may be right, or both may be wrong. What can't possibly be true is that both are right. What Baha'i does that drives me nuts is to presuppose they are both true and then do whatever necessary to make it so. I believe that an all powerful benevolent God can and would communicate a single pure revelation, I find it inconceivable that he would hide pieces of truth in many mounds of mutually exclusive mountains of garbage.

In the Quran Jannah(heaven) is described as being quite physical that you could call it a new earth almost. It is depicted as being away from this world of course but at the same time filled with similar pleasures of this world yet it is still perfect. So not much debate on Christian heaven and Islamic Jannah

That is very similar to the Bible. No meaningful contention here. Do you have a simple and clear method of getting there? I know it is said even Muhammad did not know. I have always found that strange.
Unfortunately it usually does. I can agree with almost all of this, semantics and all.
Well when you are like me everything is filled with technicalities.

The Quran tends to be a bit more vivid in regards to cosmology and metaphysics but regardless of this one cannot grasp every detail until one know the canonical Arabic it was written in.

I would find this to be a liability and inconsistent with God's purpose. I would think he can communicate in a way that allows transmission and understanding in all languages. By the way do you agree the Quran is written in pure Arabic and is a perfect reflection of tablets in heaven?

 

[1robin]

Your comments are most welcome.

An atheist would not draw comfort from God; yes, that is my point. Nor would he recognize anything in the world as evidence of God, if that is what you mean. I think we are in agreement, thus far.
As an atheist I have no sense that the idea of God reflects anything that is real, and so the idea of God is not something I can take comfort in.
I am not grasping your meaning. An atheist may not even think of God at such a time. Where is the comfort coming from in your understanding?
The atheist will not think their child is in Heaven. In the mind of the atheist such a place does not exist. Nor, for most atheists, will the child have a consciousness that can survive the death of the body. There is no chance of any of this being true in the atheist's mind.
The atheist might wish his child's killer had suffered more, but he will not think such a retribution is any longer possible once the perpetrator is dead. He cannot gain comfort in the hope that it might be true when believes it is not.
The analogy was good in that it did help clarify your meaning.
You are saying that there would be relief for the suffering atheist if only he recognized that your beliefs about God actually represented reality. Unfortunately the atheist doesn't see it that way. He thinks your faith is misplaced. He probably won't think of God at all unless someone raises the matter with him – probably not an advisable thing to do. It won't make him feel better.
As an atheist I believe you are mistaken on all counts.
Whether or not God exists is what it all boils down to, I agree. I would be happy to discuss any point that you feel lends credibility to your position.
Regards,
Hitchey

Well you sure made a summary easy and you did seem to grasp what I was clumsily driving at. I wanted to illustrate the issue is with the validity of faith not with the provision of that faith if true. As with almost every other issue here in the last few days it is a matter of ontology versus epistemology.

I think you asked me for some evidence or argumentation for God existence. If so I need to first state it is only practical for me to post a very small fraction of the total. I make no claim that any line of evidence is proof nor even the sum total. I do maintain the evidence for God is more than enough to justify faith. It also vastly exceeds evidence for "allowed" theories in science like multiverses and dark matter. Since there is no obvious place to start from let's try the beginning. The current dominant theory in Cosmology is illustrated by the Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe. It of course having theological implications, is challenged but as of today it is by far the most accepted theory. It explains that our universe began to exist and is of course finite. Philosophy dictates that everything "that begins to exist" must have a sufficient cause. Nature and natural law is out because they did not exist prior to the universe and are causally impotent anyway. Philosophy dictates that only two candidates are possible given what we know. Abstract concepts and a disembodied mind. Abstract concepts are out because they are non-causal, which leaves only one candidate. This is well and good but it gets better. Philosophy also dictates that this cause must have certain characteristics. In this case non material, independent of time, and so on. They give an exact description of this cause and it is identical to what ignorant men gave 4000 years ago for God. If they were lying they would have not known what to invent so that it would fly today. Convergent confirmation is a very powerful type of argument.

Getting out of sequence, I wanted to add a very powerful one that if true I would think alone would settle everything. There are over 2000 prophecies in the Bible that are claimed to have been fulfilled in detail. I have defended a few of the most challenged and even I was astounded how accurate they are. Tyre’s destruction is amazing in detail. There is no parallel in human history. I keep meaning to become completely familiar with all of them but have not done so yet. Over 350 predict aspect of Christ’s life alone. However, there are two of many thousands of arguments so take your best shot.

 

[1robin]

Ah, religious syncretism: "Syncretism involves the merger and analogizing of several originally discrete traditions, especially in the theology and mythology of religion, thus asserting an underlying unity and allowing for an inclusive approach to other faiths." (Wikipedia: Syncretism)

Very nice. I have up to this time refered to it only as frustrating and a violation of philisophical law. I see it has an official title as well.

 

[1robin]

The point I draw from what you are saying (among other things) is: The world is as we find it when we come to life. There is good and bad in it and also within ourselves, but overall we are alive. Only busy bees taste honey. What's the point in complaining when there are flowers to visit? Might as well bee-have.

I guess that is an aspect of it. My opinion is that atheists use this as a gotcha sort of thing. If they can get me to say that whatever God does is morally correct that is an indictment of God. I get their point but find it true none the less. BTW I use morally correct instead of "good" because it is more accurate, causes less contention, and is simpler. I believe it is true and undeniable even if it is used as an argument.

I like Job's comments in Job 9 which express, very nicely, our complaints about this. Even if we could 'Talk' to God and make God answer, and even if we were right we couldn't win the argument. The dialogue ends in chapter 42:6 with Job saying "My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you. Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes." I think what this is saying is that the LORD is UN-knowable directly. You think you know something, but if you could see the reality you would realize instantly that you were completely wrong. I think humility is the point rather than actually answering the question of whether the LORD is moral. Still, I think the LORD is moral.

Yes, Job points out the futility of a fallible finite being questioning an infinite one. I am unsure if Job is literal or allegory, I think the jury is still out.

It makes a comparison between hearing and seeing. We hear, but the LORD sees. (It occurs to me this is possibly where Jesus gets "Blind guides" from in Mat 15:14. If I am your guide, then your guide is blind but if the LORD guides you then your guide can see.)

I always think that a being that knows the future and the consequences is infinitely more able to make correct determinations than our limited ability.

Ok, but I think its a mistake to suggest that right is what it is because the LORD says thus & such. I think the nature of the LORD is supposed to be such that as Jews seek the LORD they grow closer to finding the right way. We could have numerous discussions about it, but its beyond the scope. I think it means Jews refine their understanding of the LORD constantly.

Like I mentioned, I think correct (in reference to God's nature and purpose) is more accurate than "right". "Right" brings a lot of baggage with it.

I think of it as a hologram broken into shards. You put all the shards together to see the original clearly, but also every shard also contains a less precise image of the entirety. Holograms are cool that way. The LORD makes human in its image, so each human being is important. The prohibition against murder is based on this principle if you go by Genesis 9::6.

I agree and would add that Jesus was a sharper image of God's character than his rules about slavery that were forced by a practice we invented and he would have been required to violate free-will to end. When God must deal with us within the context of our fallibility many times he chose to tolerate things that were not what he wished existed.

Yes, the pleadings of Abraham and Moses and Jesus are all confusing, except that it is entirely impossible for a human to communicate with the LORD in the first place. Can you, a human, communicate with a bacterium? Only in its own language, and its pleadings would to you be 'Squirmings'. Not wanting any more attention from the LORD Job 7:17 wails ""What is mankind that you make so much of them, that you give them so much attention,"

True, but I meant that in more of a way that they seemed to be able to convince God to change direction by reasoning with him. That is as strange as an ant convincing Newton to change calculus. I would not include Christ within this context.

Oh I was agreeing with you and just adding some fuel for your fire.

Good because if you were challenging me I could not find anything to fault.

• Recently you repented and did what is right in my sight: Each of you proclaimed freedom to your own people. You even made a covenant before me in the house that bears my Name. (Jeremiah 34:15)
• "Because the patriarchs were jealous of Joseph, they sold him as a slave into Egypt. But God was with him and rescued him from all his troubles...." (Acts 7:9-10)
• If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. (Deuteronomy 23:15)
• They and their buyer are to count the time from the year they sold themselves up to the Year of Jubilee. The price for their release is to be based on the rate paid to a hired worker for that number of years. (Leviticus 25:50)

 

[1robin]

Yes, that would be cruel and thoughtless, and yet that is what many Christians would believe. I would hope they would keep it to themselves.

I am a Baptist and would have kept my big mouth shut. BTW it seems that the context is that of a women that was going to hell by Christian standards. How was that determination arrived at?

 

[1robin]

Free will is also the ability to make that choice in the first place. As Schopenhauer said, man can do what he wants, but he can't will what he wants. Neuroscience confirms rather than denies this, it's already a fact that most of the stuff we think are decisions aren't, yet we live happily on; so nothing would be lost if God went "all the way" and simple made everyone want the right thing, as he supposedly does to the "rightly guided". We wouldn't notice or mind, we would only notice how the lush breeze in heaven does not at all feel like being tortured alive. The only one who could possibly notice a difference and therefore care would be God who doesn't get to play this game of his. So? How is that game worth more than absencse of suffering? Even the greatest palace, with suffering in it, is pure crap compared to, say, drawing a simple circle with no suffering in it. (So much for "write a better verse than this one"; rhyme and rhythm are for lamers ^^)

I disagree with determinism for many reasons and studies have shown it to not be what is claimed. If God presented a situation or circumstances that always produced the "right" decision how is that not control? He gave us the ability to weigh the evidence and make competent decisions. How can that be resented? If you reject God you get exactly what you chose, No God.