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

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I think you can make God personal, but you're not personal to God...at least not the way that we think. IT's the only explanation I can currently think for why things happen to people pretty much indiscriminately. I've lost friends and family who have loved God with all their hearts to cancer, gangs, and accidents. I've also seen people who don't love God go through the same thing. I've seen those who love God go through great moments of triumph, and I've seen those who don't experience great triumph. It appears to me that, it's simply that God does not discriminate amongst us or plays favorites. We only think God does.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is confusing but the one glaring problem is this. Where did this women get this right?

Is it your position that people don't have the right to bodily security?

Many of your points seem only to apply to conflicts between a mothers and a child's health.

If you think that, then you haven't been paying proper attention.

I do not contend with abortion in those circumstances. However in over 90% of the case it is a child's life verses a Mother's inconvenience for her own actions. Your arguments do not apply in that context.

They absolutely do. Try again.

Oh come on. Kidneys are not ever considered to be persons.

Wow - you completely missed my point:

A fetus uses the organs of the woman. As a society, we have decided one person can't violate the bodily security - such as by using their organs, blood, or even a hair off their head - without their consent... even if the other person will die as a result. Even if we were to assume that fetuses are people, the same principle that says that you shouldn't have to endure having your kidneys or blood taken without your consent also says that a pregnant woman shouldn't have to continue a pregnancy without her consent.

The actual relevant issues here are the value we place on human life as it exists in a person.

No, that's not relevant. The person whose life might be saved if we took a pint of your blood is most definitely a person too, but you still have the right to say "no". It's the exact same right that implies a pregnant woman should have the right to end her pregnancy.

BTW personhood has no line that can be drawn or should and I will prove this. Is there any argument that one second before whatever line they have simply invented that life was any less worthy of protection. They literally change that line over time and by state. There is no line that can be drawn and so the child by default always has protection under secular personhood or theologically as a soulish creature.

Exactly what's "theological" protection but your gut feeling?

BTW: even though, as I've already argued, this line is irrelevant (since we consistently place bodily security above the right to life), there is a very non-arbitrary line: birth.

At the moment of birth - actually, at the moment of changeover from fetal circulation to post-natal circulation - a whole host of changes happen. Before that point, neurological function is suppressed. After, it's not. Before, the fetus is not sentient or self-aware; that all starts after.

If I snipped it I guarantee you I did look at it.

For all the good it did you. If you had paid attention, you wouldn't still be making straw man arguments like this:

And if your side resolved the question by moral logic and responsibility instead of convenience a billion people would have lived instead of having been destroyed at the alter or preference. Your argument about ending all breeding because a small percentage of children die accidentally is too absurd to continue. If you wish to be flippant and ridiculous you will have to do so on your own.

Tell you what: since you can't seem to read it when I say it in plain text, I'll amp it up a bit:

Arguing that it's hypocritical for someone who believes the fetus is a person to try to have kids is not the same thing as arguing that nobody should breed.

I swear your argumentation is usually at least coherent, but you have really lost it here. I never stopped caring about the fetus even when it grows up. The only way this argument mighty have applicability is if an abortion killed the mother every time. I am choosing between a mothers convenience and a child's life so your argument is just as inapplicable as the miscarriage one.

You're unwilling to grant pregnant women a basic human right that we grant to everyone else: bodily security. What reason do you have for this if not lack of caring about the woman?

You have yet to show the slightest inconsistency exists.

Your failure to understand my arguments doesn't mean that they haven't been made.

 

[Lady B]

oooooooooooooooo, my thread is stil alive! have we gotten anywhere?:flirt:

 

[Ingledsva]

We can have link wars but I am not interested. Post one of the arguments (your best) from those sites and then we can debate it. I have already given one and you may contend with it. The Bible is by far the most textually accurate book of ancient history of any kind. Not what you would expect from a BS book. Good luck.

However, the words you are using - "textually accurate" and ".5% (theologian estimate0 to 5% scribal error (atheist estimate)" -

do not in any way imply that the book is true or correct in any fashion.

*

 

[CG Didymus]

oooooooooooooooo, my thread is stil alive! have we gotten anywhere?:flirt:

Hey Lady B, it's way off topic, but still interesting. I've really, really missed you.

 

[1robin]

However, the words you are using - "textually accurate" and ".5% (theologian estimate0 to 5% scribal error (atheist estimate)" -

do not in any way imply that the book is true or correct in any fashion.

*

No, alone they certainly do not. However if you research textual criticism a little you would quickly see that is where the discussion must start. You must first establish that the copy you have reliably represents the original. If you have not done that then everything else you do is meaningless. That is the starting point in all academic evaluations of historical text based claims. If you concede those numbers then we can move on but we can't until resolution is obtained on them.

 

[1robin]

Do you know how stupid that sounds?

If it was so stupid then why did you not answer the simple question. You claim to have rights based on genetic material. Prove it or resend the claim. It is your burden. It is not even applicable in this context but you said it and I was just curious how you back it up.

We don't have another "autonomous person" in this conversation.

Autonomy is NOT the definition of personhood. Even if it was defining personhood is NOT the grounds for moral judgment. That does not mean we do not do it, however it has no power whatever concerning abortion to make anything actually right. Do you have any experience with the moral issue in general as it is debated by scholars? You claims do not show this. You have confusion between morality and legality issues.

I could care less if you are discussing your religious "moral" ideas. The law is the law.

I am discussing morality not law and they are not the same things. I have really not been using much theological argumentation. If you can (and you should if your honest) simply concede that morals do not exist as an absolute category of truth within secularism we can move past that and most of these posts. I do not care what is legal I care what is right. As a veteran I was trained to, as a Christian I am bound to.

You are trying to argue LIVE HUMAN rights, against fetal blob/part of my body.

Apparently I did not get the memo that the new moral division between murder and permissibility is your definition for blob. This is trivial non-sense. You can't get out of the predicament by terminology or even legality.

The is pure bull, and your religious ideas speaking again.
Our problems are from cramming people into unnatural super cities, without enough space, food, work, etc, leading to trapped rat survival at all costs mentality.

I have posted the mountains of data several times and gave links to even larger mountains. Your opinion have no effect on them. I will get the post numbers if necessary.

And that of course is just another outrageously ridiculous religious idea stuck in your head.
Not believing in your invisible man - does not negate any of my rights.

According to the man who wrote the documents that gave us our rights you are wrong and what I said right. When you have the credentials to overturn what Thomas Jefferson and plenty more of our founders let me know.

What exactly did you not understand about that last sentence?

What? You said self defense is justification to kill. I agree but that has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. Is the child packing an UZI in there or something. Unless you meant in the case where a mothers life is at risk. If so I agree but that leaves the other 90% of abortions used as a form of birth control.

And again you are trying to argue about a fetus by using LIVE HUMANS.
The "pressure" was obviously from BOTH sides leading to a reasonable compromise.

It is not only my standards that consider an unborn "fetus" a human being with the right to live. That was the determination of people on your side as well. That is their rule and law. You just do not get what I am saying. We have established by using your side's rules that birth is not the line that determines right to life. My argument is that any line drawn during pregnancy that separates rights to life and permissibility to kill are arbitrary and have no power what ever to distinguish between what they are required to distinguish. I will give several reasons to further indicate the line is arbitrary and has not the slightest relationship to morality. If you get nothing else please get this.

1. Their line varies by state. So even if an actual moral line existed (and it does not) only at best one could be right. The line between murder and ok can't be 6 months, 7 months, or 8 months. None are right but to be generous it is not possible that more than one would be.
2. The arbitrary line is changed without any moral reason for doing do. It gets changed to pander to a political base, because it brought to much pressure from some group, and it gets changed.
3. Wherever some politician draws the line is it rational or even sane to think that line minus one second is not murder but one second after was.


There are only two recourses here for your view.

1. You concede there are no moral objective truths and the law is all you base moral decisions on. That law is not equal to morality. I consider this a shame and points out the massive need for God but it is certainly possible and is rational and we can move along in this vein.
2. You can attempt to do what is not possible nor rational. Suggest actual moral truth exists and that legality defines it (which is just wrong) or confuse the issue by making assumptions, accusations about something I did, or equating rights with convenience or desire.

I hope you give the whole argument up as an impossibility but failing that #1 is the only honorable (however still maybe wrong) choice left, but so far you have been using the latter part of #2 and I am afraid you will continue to.

My view humbly includes our ignorance concerning any line that separates murder from permissible killing within pregnancy. It draws no line because there is none or even there was we can't know what it is. We err for life. Your side errs for death and convenience. Our conclusion is moral and responsible. You side's is not. That is true even if God is not.

My burden in a debate is to satisfy myself as to sufficiently demonstrating a point. With this in bold I have done so. My burden is not to convince someone who's motivation and foundation is preference. Facts and logic have no effect against desire. Anything further is extra as the case is rationally and obviously demonstrated by the above.

Continued below;

 

[1robin]

LOL! No they didn't. Obviously there are a whole lot of people that don't agree with you

Law can't define moral truth in any objective way. If it is subjective then your moral absolutes change over time and therefor are not absolute and therefore not true. Law is based on opinion and preference not moral truth. I do not care how many people say what law can't possibly create actual moral truth. It might reflect it if God exists but do not define it.

Again - and more red-herrings.
We are discussing abortion and fetuses, not the rights of past autonomous humans.

If a red herring it was yours. You brought up autonomy not me. Autonomy has no relationship to morality concerning fetuses and as such not something I would have ever brought up as binding on anything.

LOL! Having an opinion on the subject - that is different then yours - does not make us ignorant, selfish, or irresponsible.

If you could prove that was the motivation for my statement then do so. If not (and you can't) this was apparently the only response you could dream up. My description is logically derived from the facts as I listed them not from a difference of opinion. Opinion is not even the issue. My statements do not depend on opinion. But follow directly from the facts.

Again! The line is between people like you, and people like me. It will always exist.

Two people who claim two mutually exclusive truths can't possibly both be right. The debate is to illustrate that your side is the one that is wrong. Very few issues are resolvable this absolutely. This one is easy and flows from fact to fact. You can't possibly be right unless you simply throw conventional morality out the window and redefine it based on nothing beyond arbitrary convenience.

And again - the size bull - has exactly WHAT to do with equality in society?
Also, Women in combat have not caused men to get killed! Get a grip! Your religious patriarchy is showing. Women have been warriors for tens of thousands of years.

I made those statements based on experience as a soldier not as a Christian. You can't possibly know what you claim because I can know and do know you are wrong. One of the first women pilot's on my ship panicked when she did not get what she expected from the meatball (landing light) when landing on my Carrier and did not have the strength to recover (that model F-14 is not fly by wire). She actually flipped the plane upside down and ejected into the sea killing herself. The plane crashed into the back of the ship and killed men in the AMD shop on the fantail. I can give stories like this longer than you will read them just from personal experience and accounts from fellow soldiers. Size has nothing to do with it. It is a result of strength and the way men and women respond to stress. I could also list the accounts of many women who got pregnant on my ship so as to get off the ship and back on dry land, the cost incurred with a whole new backlog on unnecessary sexual complaints and crimes, the cost of creating entire new facilities for the rights of people that do not exist. The basis for those rights is who screams the loudest not anything valid. However I wish to get back to abortion instead of this red herring you began with your remarks concerning equality.

LOL - You are repeating.

Where do I get rights? - By being an autonomous being.

Exactly how does autonomy grant rights. Terms do not have rights to grant and neither does what that term describes. My Lord what a mess your sides thinking is.

Here is how your Jesus put it -

Neither there be Jews nor Greeks/Hellenists, nor is there slave nor freeborn, Nor is there male and female: for all are verily the other/same/one in Christ Iesous.
*

Which is exactly what I said. Only with God are humans equal. Evolution has never made anything equal. However that is not what that verse means. It means that in God's eyes race, gender, etc are no advantage in relating to him. That verse does not mean that women are just as good Navy Seals as men, nor does it mean that men display the unconditional love that Women do. Just simply our unequal roles in sex indicate he made us with different capacities.

 

[1robin]

Is it your position that people don't have the right to bodily security?

No, it is my position that without God whatever founds that right is arbitrary.

A fetus uses the organs of the woman. As a society, we have decided one person can't violate the bodily security - such as by using their organs, blood, or even a hair off their head - without their consent... even if the other person will die as a result. Even if we were to assume that fetuses are people, the same principle that says that you shouldn't have to endure having your kidneys or blood taken without your consent also says that a pregnant woman shouldn't have to continue a pregnancy without her consent.

Come on. A legal argument based on semantics and technicalities has little effect on a moral position. Even legally fetuses are not subject to the same legal definitions and laws that govern how one human is to treat another.

No, that's not relevant. The person whose life might be saved if we took a pint of your blood is most definitely a person too, but you still have the right to say "no". It's the exact same right that implies a pregnant woman should have the right to end her pregnancy.

What does someone who attempts to steal my blood have to do with a fetus. Get real.

Exactly what's "theological" protection but your gut feeling?

No, it is a real possibility and you and every one Earth (even the hardest hearted of atheist) acts as if there is a transcendent moral law even if they publically claim there is none. However that is a side note. I gave the lack of foundation in your views as well as the real foundation that would exist if my views are true. I see you did not resolve a single problem I gave you, nor show the slightest claim was wrong. Instead you attacked the only vulnerability possible. The uncertain proof of faith. That will not help the secular argument I made and it's moral bankruptcy.

BTW: even though, as I've already argued, this line is irrelevant (since we consistently place bodily security above the right to life), there is a very non-arbitrary line: birth.

I agree we have a right to live. Unlike you I have a sufficient foundation to claim that but I am discussing a line drawn that separates rights to life from permission to kill a fetus and the line is founded on nothing morally relevant and I even proved that.

At the moment of birth - actually, at the moment of changeover from fetal circulation to post-natal circulation - a whole host of changes happen. Before that point, neurological function is suppressed. After, it's not. Before, the fetus is not sentient or self-aware; that all starts after.

Even if I grant that all these biological claims are true you have not said anything relevant to morality so far. The fact the line is always changing and that it is drawn in different places based on what state your in proves they have no actual line and are just manufacturing one based on convenience not morality.

For all the good it did you. If you had paid attention, you wouldn't still be making straw man arguments like this:

So far your entire post here has been one huge straw man so your being hypocritical. Quit trying to survive by technicality and actually give me an absolute moral line in the sand that separates murder from moral permissibility.

Tell you what: since you can't seem to read it when I say it in plain text, I'll amp it up a bit:

Arguing that it's hypocritical for someone who believes the fetus is a person to try to have kids is not the same thing as arguing that nobody should breed.

No matter how you bold it, increase the font, or change it's color it has no meaningful affect on the core argument. This is only a commentary on one of the most terrible arguments in defense of abortion I have very heard. That argument is irrational and invalid and no additions to it or clarifications of it will make it effective.

You're unwilling to grant pregnant women a basic human right that we grant to everyone else: bodily security. What reason do you have for this if not lack of caring about the woman?

In the case that the women's life at risk I certainly grant her security. Wait just a minute are you claiming that pregnancy is a risk to a women and so she has a right to kill the human life her actions created? That is so ridiculous (and similar to the former argument along those lines) that I must make sure that is what you claim before I point out it's absurdity of logic. Do you know how well known this old liberal tactic is. It is embarrassing. If someone argues against killing innocent human life you create whatever is necessary to accuse the one arguing for life of moral failure. My Lord this is obvious and ridiculous. The terrible argumentation necessary to allow this will be countered as soon as you confirm your making it. Did you not have any pictures of a conservative pushing Grand ma off a Clift in an attempt to show that saving the entire nation by fiscal responsibility from bankruptcy by stopping liberals from buying votes by promising to give whoever is needed a check that will bounce, is actually bad?

Your failure to understand my arguments doesn't mean that they haven't been made.

Oh I agree argument were made. My point was they might as well not have been. Simply cut to the chase and give me sound moral foundations that produce the line between murder and moral permissibility and where it is for a fetus. It should be very easy if you are half as right as you think you are. Legal technicalities and classic liberal false moral high ground tactics do not have any role in that question or debate.

 

[1robin]

You know what, I'll give you a challenge. Since you think my claims are incorrect, how about you address them. In fact, address ALL of my claims that I've made against you, and then I'll be sure to address them myself.

Go ahead. Explain to me how the Bible is somehow the "most accurate" of all religious texts. Come now, I'm waiting. :yes::drool::beach:

I have wasted far more time on you than I can justify. I have no idea what your doing here but serious debate is not it. I leave to it.

 

[1robin]

I think you can make God personal, but you're not personal to God...at least not the way that we think. IT's the only explanation I can currently think for why things happen to people pretty much indiscriminately. I've lost friends and family who have loved God with all their hearts to cancer, gangs, and accidents. I've also seen people who don't love God go through the same thing. I've seen those who love God go through great moments of triumph, and I've seen those who don't experience great triumph. It appears to me that, it's simply that God does not discriminate amongst us or plays favorites. We only think God does.

I lost my Mother and the only Christian in our family to cancer. I like you, took the easy way out and blamed God. If he existed I hated him. However it was through that experience and another loss involving a Christian that I eventually came kicking and screaming to faith in God. The evidence is not the problem nor is it a reason to think only a deistic God could exist. It is the critical eye and hard heart that evidence is viewed through that causes that. Tragedy many times is the only thing strong enough to wake us up and get us to ask hard questions instead of who is going to be at the club tonight or when the new ipad is coming out. It is meant to be a slap in the face and hurt. Just as when our parents spanked us (back when that was normal) it was out of love and to get us to change our wayward minds about something for our own good. An obvious example is the fact Church attendance spiked during world wars and after 9/11. That is the intended role for suffering in this life but I am afraid you are using it for another purpose. I however do sympathize with the paradox.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I lost my Mother and the only Christian in our family to cancer. I like you, took the easy way out and blamed God. If he existed I hated him. However it was through that experience and another loss involving a Christian that I eventually came kicking and screaming to faith in God. The evidence is not the problem nor is it a reason to think only a deistic God could exist. It is the critical eye and hard heart that evidence is viewed through that causes that. Tragedy many times is the only thing strong enough to wake us up and get us to ask hard questions instead of who is going to be at the club tonight or when the new ipad is coming out. It is meant to be a slap in the face and hurt. Just as when our parents spanked us (back when that was normal) it was out of love and to get us to change our wayward minds about something for our own good. An obvious example is the fact Church attendance spiked during world wars and after 9/11. That is the intended role for suffering in this life but I am afraid you are using it for another purpose. I however do sympathize with the paradox.

Synagogue attendance went down during World War II. I'm sure it's comforting to the survivors that the Holocaust was merely a "spanking" done "out of love".

Your callous minimization of human suffering disgusts me.

Personally, I prefer to look at suffering as a negative thing that we can work to overcome.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I lost my Mother and the only Christian in our family to cancer. I like you, took the easy way out and blamed God. If he existed I hated him. However it was through that experience and another loss involving a Christian that I eventually came kicking and screaming to faith in God. The evidence is not the problem nor is it a reason to think only a deistic God could exist. It is the critical eye and hard heart that evidence is viewed through that causes that. Tragedy many times is the only thing strong enough to wake us up and get us to ask hard questions instead of who is going to be at the club tonight or when the new ipad is coming out. It is meant to be a slap in the face and hurt. Just as when our parents spanked us (back when that was normal) it was out of love and to get us to change our wayward minds about something for our own good. An obvious example is the fact Church attendance spiked during world wars and after 9/11. That is the intended role for suffering in this life but I am afraid you are using it for another purpose. I however do sympathize with the paradox.

I know many people who try to get closer to God from an Islamic perspective in difficult times. Do you think that's also "for their own good," or does your argument apply only to the concept of god you believe in (i.e., the Christian one)?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I lost my Mother and the only Christian in our family to cancer. I like you, took the easy way out and blamed God. If he existed I hated him. However it was through that experience and another loss involving a Christian that I eventually came kicking and screaming to faith in God. The evidence is not the problem nor is it a reason to think only a deistic God could exist. It is the critical eye and hard heart that evidence is viewed through that causes that. Tragedy many times is the only thing strong enough to wake us up and get us to ask hard questions instead of who is going to be at the club tonight or when the new ipad is coming out. It is meant to be a slap in the face and hurt. Just as when our parents spanked us (back when that was normal) it was out of love and to get us to change our wayward minds about something for our own good. An obvious example is the fact Church attendance spiked during world wars and after 9/11. That is the intended role for suffering in this life but I am afraid you are using it for another purpose. I however do sympathize with the paradox.

I said I hated God? No to me God is indiscriminate. The fact that good and bad happens to everyone to me shows that God lets things happen to everyone and that the process of making a better society is up to us. Just as people claim that a lot of harm done is from people then a lot of the harm can be fixed by people.

 

[CG Didymus]

I said I hated God? No to me God is indiscriminate. The fact that good and bad happens to everyone to me shows that God lets things happen to everyone and that the process of making a better society is up to us. Just as people claim that a lot of harm done is from people then a lot of the harm can be fixed by people.

Life seems so random doesn't it. This thread started after the shooting of the children at their school. Why did the shooter pick that room at that school? Did the Christian God is allow it to teach us a lesson? To show us his love for us? That's hard to believe. To get us to fear him? Then, is he a bully? Or, like I've asked before, is he just a placebo to comfort us when bad things happen?

 

[1robin]

Synagogue attendance went down during World War II. I'm sure it's comforting to the survivors that the Holocaust was merely a "spanking" done "out of love".

I do not know about nor defend what occurred in Jewish religious sites during modern times, that is why I said Church. I did not say all negative effects of evil are examples of what our parents did so that is out.

Your callous minimization of human suffering disgusts me.

Tell me what the acronym you modern kids have for laughing myself into epileptic fits is, I need it. You argue that we should be able to kill the almost 1 billion human lives through abortion we have plus how many billions more eventually (including all the suffering that causes in several forms), you defend that by making an argument that pregnancy is not worth the risk, then some how suggest the biggest supporter of self sacrifice on behalf of others there is, a veteran that defended the nation, that has argued for the preservation of those same lives your side destroyed, has argued for the reality of the concept most associated with love and goodness in all of human history, and the only one of the two of us that has any actual foundation for moral truth at all is the one of us in favor of human suffering and death. You just can't make this stuff up. Maybe next you can tell me how my atheism disgusts you.

Personally, I prefer to look at suffering as a negative thing that we can work to overcome.

I just can't take you seriously at least for this post after that. Sorry.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Life seems so random doesn't it. This thread started after the shooting of the children at their school. Why did the shooter pick that room at that school? Did the Christian God is allow it to teach us a lesson? To show us his love for us? That's hard to believe. To get us to fear him? Then, is he a bully? Or, like I've asked before, is he just a placebo to comfort us when bad things happen?

I think it's perception. As I said we make God personal to Us. The personal relationship God has with us, seems to be even throughout all of humanity. Some people have it good some people have it bad. Look at Paris Hilton, or any of the Saudi Princes that go around biting off womens' nipples. It's a strange strange world that just by looking at has no natural order...and why? Because people make choices.

I believe that God (no matter in what form you think of God or do not think of God), wants us to discover our paths to working together. I'm slightly optimistic about the world and humanity. As much as we mess up...we try...we try a lot...and I don't know I think that's good.

I see us as children to God, in the sense that if you have a kid and they bring you a drawing, even if it's terrible, not in the lines, the colors off, you still cherish it. You hold it dear to you, and seeing them try makes you happy. I know with my parents and a lot, even if I ended up selling drugs on the street...they'd be sad, they'd be hurt...but that would never stop their love for me...I think it's like that. We aren't expected to be perfect, we aren't expected to always succeed but we are expected to Try. So when things like that happen, I don't go "God wished it, God willed it, God Allowed it" I say "This is what people do, what can we do as a society to lessen these things from happening?"

 

[1robin]

I know many people who try to get closer to God from an Islamic perspective in difficult times. Do you think that's also "for their own good," or does your argument apply only to the concept of god you believe in (i.e., the Christian one)?

I think it is a rational reaction. Of course I do not believe their God exists so how much good it would be is minimal (nothing beyond a placebo effect). I am not discussing placebo effects that even my faith would have. For instance the greatest empire on Earth tried to eradicate my faith. Instead God converted that same empire and made it the ne protector of my faith. That is not cathartic effects. My theory would be true even if cathartic effects exist. Another example is I know and have debated many Muslims. So far out of more than a hundred only one claims to have experienced tangible forgiveness and to have experienced God. It is not even offered to every Muslim. My faith not only offers it to everyone but demands actually experiencing God (as I have and it is unmistakable) for every single Christian. The faith is based on proof for it's members not an intellectual consent to proposition as in Islam. I have little time or I would give a full heading off of where I am pretty sure you are trying to go, but this is enough to be representative.

 

[1robin]

I said I hated God? No to me God is indiscriminate. The fact that good and bad happens to everyone to me shows that God lets things happen to everyone and that the process of making a better society is up to us. Just as people claim that a lot of harm done is from people then a lot of the harm can be fixed by people.

My bad I did not mean to link specifically hate with you. I meant an excuse to reject faith only. I have to go but I will look at the rest tomorrow but I wanted to clear that up no matter what.

 

[Lady B]

Hey Lady B, it's way off topic, but still interesting. I've really, really missed you.

I missed you tooo, I was trying to fill myself in on the last 1000 posts and I just gave up lol now I am just browsing and wondering how we got so off track lol....its all good tho