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

[SheikhHorusFromTheSky]

No reason other than it just irks me when the percentages do not add up to 100%

Are you sure? Because last time I checked, 85 + 10 + 5 = 100.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

How little you know...

You must like knowing good and bad then.

There is no objective standard of good and evil. That's the greatest realization I've come to. All I know is me and how I perceive the world around me.

Satan caused this sick world. I guess too when your family member is dying from cancer thanks to your god--it will please you.

I don't believe in Satan/Lucifer as a literal being. Just a symbolic metaphor to learn from; much like Aesop's Fables. I am my own "god"; last I checked, I don't give people cancer...

The true God(Jehovah) made mortals to live forever at a young age in perfect health, satan got them to rebel by lying to Eve. God only wanted for us is to know good.

Of course... That's why the all-knowing, smartest being of all time decided the best place to put the one knowledge he didn't want his creation to have inside of some fruit that grew on a conspicuously placed tree... Because that makes perfect sense. You can't seriously believe that story's true... If you do take the Garden of Eden story literally, and also believe god is all-powerful and omniscient, then you would have to agree that God knew they were going to eat the fruit and rebel against him. You can't go against the wishes of somebody that knows and controls everything. Either God wanted "evil" to exist, or he isn't as powerful or smart as you say he is.

Its almost done---Gods kingdom is mankinds only remaining hope. Gods son Jesus is the appointed king of that kingdom.

Whatever you say... I'm doing just fine without Jesus.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't believe in Satan/Lucifer as a literal being. Just a symbolic metaphor to learn from; much like Aesop's Fables. I am my own "god"; last I checked, I don't give people cancer...

Spoken like a true follower of the Left Hand Path. You may not call it that yourself, but a rose by any other name is just as sweet.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I don't know, man. Why? Is there is lesson about the other 5% from the Nation of Gods and Earths?

The 5% realize that the "paradise" promoted by the 10% and their "pie in the sky" promises of salvation in the afterlife is attainable in the here and now if one but applies their will enough to take it. We are only guaranteed one life and spending it in subjugation out of hope for a heaven afterwards is truly a waste. Once you realize you need nothing but your own will to motivate you, there's no limit to what you can achieve.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Spoken like a true follower of the Left Hand Path. You may not call it that yourself, but a rose by any other name is just as sweet.

I follow the LHP in an archaic sense; I don't practice ritual magick, but am a firm believer in the power of Self.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I follow the LHP in an archaic sense; I don't practice ritual magick, but am a firm believer in the power of Self.

That's all you need! Magick is not a requirement.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

it is not god that allows children to die
but man
for man having reason by his own admission is above all other animals
and were there a god
he would take notice of any man placing the needs of all others before that of his own
and would at any attempt of such a man to save a child
intervene and no child would have died
why children die is easy
because their parents/elders are evil and in the end place their personal needs above those of all others
strangers first
and that of their children last
hense god is good for having allowed us to exist to be tested by him
men are total failures for their selfishness
love you
i am nothing0

What about when children die of terminal illness? Is that the fault of humans, too?

Why does this god feel the need to "test" us? What's the point? Going by "his" track record, perhaps we should be the ones testing "him"!

 

[SheikhHorusFromTheSky]

The 5% realize that the "paradise" promoted by the 10% and their "pie in the sky" promises of salvation in the afterlife is attainable in the here and now if one but applies their will enough to take it. We are only guaranteed one life and spending it in subjugation out of hope for a heaven afterwards is truly a waste. Once you realize you need nothing but your own will to motivate you, there's no limit to what you can achieve.

That one dude was speaking of some other 5% because he thought that 85, 10, and 5 did not equal to 100. Just clearing the misconception.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

That one dude was speaking of some other 5% because he thought that 85, 10, and 5 did not equal to 100. Just clearing the misconception.

He asked about the other 5 because you only mentioned the 85 and the 10 in your post. You really only left him with 95 lol

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

all evil that exist in this world is the fault of man
for were it we did not exist
then so too
evil would vanish
we are married to it
a man that can prove he is sane
can prevent any child to get ill
all death would cease
love would rule
men would spent the sum total of existance to provide for others
and by reciprocity
all would be set upon mountains of wealt
of spiritual wealth
and of physical wealth
all new children would come into the world as genius
needing none instruction
but having novation in their hands and go forth among those that came before them
and create new things the minds of the elders have not imagined
and those same elders would
say to each other
surely we did right to conceive these children
and those children
would say unto their parents with a single voice
by the presence of our actions
we honor thee
love you
i am nothing0

What? You don't make any sense, either. I didn't realize this was poetry hour.

 

[SheikhHorusFromTheSky]

What? You don't make any sense, either. I didn't realize this was poetry hour.

Hey, what happened to that one person who pretended to be Black? Didn't she came on this thread?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Hey, what happened to that one person who pretended to be Black? Didn't she came on this thread?

Mod deleted all the posts.

 

[SheikhHorusFromTheSky]

Mod deleted all the posts.

I see. I knew that the person who pretended to be Black was a troll.

 

[McBell]

Are you sure? Because last time I checked, 85 + 10 + 5 = 100.

Yes, 10+85+5=100
However, you left out the 5:

Yes, unfortunately that has happened. For me though, they do contain some esoteric truth; it's just that the elite 10% always conceal it from the 85% (just recalling what I learned studying up on the Nation of Gods and Earths). Always turn on that dark light, my friend. It'll open up the Pineal Gland!

 

[1robin]

What? You don't make any sense, either. I didn't realize this was poetry hour.

Unofficial shortest (and arrogant-est) poem in history.

Me, Whee!

Muhammad Ali

 

[johnhanks]

The commonality of a claim is powerless to make it mirror actual truth. Even if everyone on Earth thought Hitler was right that would not make it true. However as a Christian I have the foundation to claim he was not right. As a atheist you can't as Dawkin's so honestly admitted.

It never takes a moral absolutist long to clutch Hitler to his bosom: one would think that providing a comfortingly solid base for the condemnation of others was morality's main function.

You also state God's are invented to justify morals. First you must prove that then you must tell my why it effects what I said.

No, I'm saying that the underpinning of a culture's moral code is one of religion's functions - it has many.

Since you agree that without God there is no actual right or wrong then as that is what I said what are you contending?

1. With God morals are both factual and moral.
2. Without God morality is opinion and amoral.

Morality (in the sense of a shared drive to categorise behaviour on scales of rightness or wrongness) is as much a part of the way human brains work as language acquisition. What moral code a society operates at any one time is a matter of circumstance and consensus.

Keep in mind I am making ontological points, not epistemological ones.

And keep in mind I am basing my remarks on empirical observation. Morality is an observable, functional, evolved component of human culture; it is in no more need of derivation from philosophic first principles than are opposable thumbs.

I'm aware that this reply is some ten days late (due to v. pleasant family break in Austria); you may or may not feel the exchange is still worth picking up.

 

[1robin]

It never takes a moral absolutist long to clutch Hitler to his bosom: one would think that providing a comfortingly solid base for the condemnation of others was morality's main function.

This is incoherent. Can you restate? According to Hitler evolution justified his maniacal race superiority crap. He was also shunned by the Catholic church and turned on them with a vengeance. Moral absolutism is not monopolized by theology. However it only has an actual basis there. It is merely assumed by others.

No, I'm saying that the underpinning of a culture's moral code is one of religion's functions - it has many.

I am talking about moral truth not moral social theory. Murder is only actually wrong given a transcendent objective standard. I do not care what people say about it.

Morality (in the sense of a shared drive to categorise behaviour on scales of rightness or wrongness) is as much a part of the way human brains work as language acquisition. What moral code a society operates at any one time is a matter of circumstance and consensus.

That has nothing to do with actual moral truth. You are discussing epistemological issues in a ontological context. I am not discussing apprehension but foundations.

And keep in mind I am basing my remarks on empirical observation. Morality is an observable, functional, evolved component of human culture; it is in no more need of derivation from philosophic first principles than are opposable thumbs.

It is not relevant to my argument how the effects of morality are perceived. I have no interest in how we arrived at the statement Murder is immoral or wrong. I am talking about how that could be true. On what basis.

I'm aware that this reply is some ten days late (due to v. pleasant family break in Austria); you may or may not feel the exchange is still worth picking up.

Morality is one of the easiest issues to resolve IMO. That has nothing however to do with getting someone to whom resolution is inconvenient to agree but still easy to argue. Prove killing every form of life on Earth is actually wrong without a transcendent standard like God and you will get what I am saying.

 

[adi2d]

I see your morals come from God Himself. So maybe you could answer the OP and tell us why children have to suffer and die.
My morality wouldn't allow me to do nothing if I had the knowledge and the ability to stop a child suffering. It is my feeling that I would be an accessory if I didn't do what I could to stop it

Remember,I'm not talking about someone dieing of aids or a junkie with a needle in his arm. I'm talking about a child suffering and dieing

 

[johnhanks]

This is incoherent. Can you restate?

I was pointing out the knee-jerk eagerness of moral absolutists to wheel out Hitler and the Nazis and say "See? Either you agree with me or you can't call these monsters wrong". Of much greater interest to discussion of the nature of morality is how Hitler persuaded huge numbers of his countrymen that what he advocated was right.

I am talking about moral truth not moral social theory. Murder is only actually wrong given a transcendent objective standard. I do not care what people say about it.

It isn't a case of what people say about it, but what they say constitutes murder. Until a couple of generations ago, a Frenchman who killed his unfaithful wife and her lover was guilty not of murder but a crime passionnel, punishable by a couple of years in jail. Like it or not, murder is a matter of definition.

That has nothing to do with actual moral truth. You are discussing epistemological issues in a ontological context. I am not discussing apprehension but foundations.

As am I, but we are not likely to find common ground. I am looking for foundations empirically, in how we observe morality functioning in society. Morality is out there, as an evolved and functioning component of human brains; it needs ontological grounding only if you wish to pursue the seductive fiction that there exists an absolute moral standard. I accept morality for what it is; you are straining hard to fashion it into what you wish it to be.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

transcendent objective standard

I would point out that provided you are making an appeal to a 'transcendent' cognitive entity which formulates said rules, this would be a 'transcendent' subjective standard, as it would merely be the subjective standard devised by the cognitive function of a 'transcendent' entity and as such would still not be objective.