What Was God's Plan For 43 Poor People Who Died In Factory Fire In India ?

  
By:  john-russell  •  one month ago  •  327 comments

What Was God's Plan For 43 Poor People Who Died In Factory Fire In India ?
''Their only fault was they were poor,'' a man named Babar Ali, 32, told the AP. ''Why else would someone work and sleep in such a congested place?'' Mr. Ali, who used to work in the same building, called the workers' difficult lives ''a bigger tragedy than their death.''

43 people died when fire broke out in a crowded paper products factory in Delhi, India.  Most of the 43 were sleeping laborers. The blaze erupted at 5:30 a.m. 

According to the New York Times


The building in the Anaj Mandi neighborhood of northeastern New Delhi was packed with sleeping laborers when the fire broke out. Most of the victims were Muslim migrant workers from impoverished Bihar State in eastern India, The Associated Press reported. They earned as little as 150 rupees (about $2.10) per day making handbags, caps and other garments, it said.




Investigators blamed an electrical short-circuit for the fire, The A.P. reported. Safety standards are poorly enforced in India and are linked to many deaths.



Kishore Kumar, an official at Lok Nayak Hospital, where victims were taken, said most of the dead appeared to have suffocated as they slept. He said at least 20 other people were being treated for injuries.



''Their only fault was they were poor,'' a man named Babar Ali, 32, told the AP. ''Why else would someone work and sleep in such a congested place?'' Mr. Ali, who used to work in the same building, called the workers' difficult lives ''a bigger tragedy than their death.''





In Anaj Mandi, residents climbed to the roofs of their buildings to watch the tragedy unfold as rescuers struggled to evacuate the injured. It took firefighters nearly an hour to control the fire because only one vehicle could reach the building.

Their Only Fault Was They Were Poor': Fire Kills 43 in New Delhi.


================================================================

I think it was the very rich Kanye West who recently said something about being saved by Jesus Christ.



Kanye   West   Kanye   West , during his most recent Sunday service held in an Atlanta, Ga., megachurch, testified about how   Jesus   Christ saved him. Regular attendees at New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, where Dr. Jamal Harrison Bryant pastors, were treated Sunday morning to a 10-minute sermon by the hip-hop artist, FOX 5 reported.





believersportal.com/kanye-wests-born-again-testimony/




I guess my question is why did God (Jesus Christ ) save the millionaire Kanye West but did not give a better outcome to these 43 desperately poor people in India?



th?id=ON.03E4B929B0CEFB4801C771234326588





Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
 
 
JohnRussell
1  author  JohnRussell    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one month ago

Maybe God will answer you I f you ask Him---after all, why would us mere mortals know why God does everything God does?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1    one month ago

We have people who say God has a plan for everyone. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    one month ago

What's that got to do with asking God?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.3  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.2    one month ago

If you have nothing to say please say nothing. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.3    one month ago

The question isn't too hard, is it?

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.5  Gordy327  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    one month ago
We have people who say God has a plan for everyone. 

Yeah, but perhaps the victims didn't believe in the "correct" god. After all, some people also say there is only "one true god."

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    one month ago

It would be nice (healthy) if people stopped pretending that they know anything about an hypothesized sentient creator.  If would be better if people stopped accepting as true the divine claims of other mere human beings.  Especially ancient written claims that are demonstrably flawed.

To my knowledge, nobody knows anything about a sentient creator;  not even if such an entity exists.   No solid evidence for all of recorded history and the countless billions of historical individuals who sought to find this evidence.   The honest, humble approach is to admit this fact (to oneself) and then just try to do what seems to be good and avoid what seems to be bad.

It is possible that a sentient creator exists.   It is also possible that there is no sentient creator, or that it does not care about us.   If one observes reality, one might conclude that things operate as if there was no divine sentient director on the job.   From stories like this to horrific events such as the Holocaust or natural disasters such as tsunamis, infectious diseases, etc. there is plenty of evidence to suggest that either there is no director or the director is disinterested.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.7  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.6    one month ago
It is also possible that there is no sentient creator, or that it does not care about us.   If one observes reality, one might conclude that things operate as if there was no divine sentient director on the job.   From stories like this to horrific events such as the Holocaust or natural disasters such as tsunamis, infectious diseases, etc. there is plenty of evidence to suggest that either there is no director or the director is disinterested.

That reminds me of a George Carlin bit from years ago:

...but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the more you look around, the more you realize...something is F--KED UP. Something is WRONG here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is NOT good work. If this is the best god can do, I am NOT impressed. Results like these do not belong on the resume of a supreme being. This is the kind of shit you'd expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently run universe, this guy would have been out on his all-powerful-ass a long time ago. ----George Carlin, from "You Are All Diseased".

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.7    one month ago

George had no problem cutting through the nonsense.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.7    one month ago

Also, everything that anyone 'knows' about God comes from other mere human beings or from one's own imagination.   That simple fact alone should give one pause.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.10  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.6    one month ago

I don’t see any reason why that would matter it certainly doesn’t matter to me. What would be so fucking nice about it?

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1.10    one month ago

Let's start with Jehovahs Witnesses parents who refuse to allow blood transfusions for their children (even if it means their deaths) and work our way up to the countless Islamic terrorists who will happily kill themselves and as many infidels as possible for the glory and rewards that Allah will grant them as martyrs.

Use your imagination, the reasons are obvious and plentiful.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.12  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.11    one month ago

Yeah I figured you’d have to go off the reservation and change the subject in order to try to support your position.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.1.13  1stwarrior  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1.12    one month ago

Just a little request Freedom - please don't use that term (reservation) in that context - kinda brings out not good feelings, OK?

Thanks.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.14  Freedom Warrior  replied to  1stwarrior @1.1.13    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.15  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1.12    one month ago

You asked a question, got a direct answer and (not surprisingly) pretend otherwise.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.16  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.15    one month ago

You weren’t talking about what I asked you you were talking about something completely different you know it I know you’re not gonna fool me so give it up I should’ve known better there’s little chance of of getting a we’ll reasoned response from you.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.17  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1.16    one month ago

What a surprise, an entirely vague claim.    Nobody saw that one coming.    jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.18  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.17    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.19  Heartland American  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1.16    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.20  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.8    one month ago
George had no problem cutting through the nonsense.

And he was quite brilliant and funny at it too.

Also, everything that anyone 'knows' about God comes from other mere human beings or from one's own imagination.   That simple fact alone should give one pause.

Except some people really do think god talks to them and such. That should give one pause about one's mental state.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.21  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.5    one month ago
Yeah, but perhaps the victims didn't believe in the "correct" god. After all, some people also say there is only "one true god."

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.1.22  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.17    one month ago

Stevie Wonder could have seen that coming.

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
1.1.23  jungkonservativ111  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.6    one month ago

If you read the Bible, you will see God took life all the time. In certain scriptures he would command his servants to destroy certain cities and leave NO ONE alive(Deuteronomy 20:16). And when they didn't they were punished. People don't understand that death may be a part of  "God's plan". Never in the Bible does it say we all get to live peaceful lives to ripe old ages.

 
 
 
katrix
1.1.24  katrix  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @1.1.23    one month ago

Exactly - the God of the bible is a genocidal maniac. I find it impossible to understand how anyone could worship a being they describe as so evil.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.25  Gordy327  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @1.1.23    one month ago
If you read the Bible, you will see God took life all the time. In certain scriptures he would command his servants to destroy certain cities and leave NO ONE alive.  And when they didn't they were punished. 

That sounds pretty evil, vindictive, and petty for a supposedly "loving" god. And yet, some people want to give god a free pass on that and blame Satan, who hasn't anything remotely like what god has done.

 People don't understand that death may be a part of  "God's plan". Never in the Bible does it say we all get to live peaceful lives to ripe old ages. 

So god's plan involves children dying of cancer, disease, starvation, ect.? Not to mention innocent people suffering all over the world due to various maladies or circumstances? See my post 1.1.7 above. As far as "god's plan" goes, to quote Tony Stark (Avengers), "Not a great plan!"

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
1.1.26  jungkonservativ111  replied to  katrix @1.1.24    one month ago

As humans we war all the time. Some of the best inventions we use today have come from war. Maybe God understands necessity is the mother of invention and was pushing humans to the next stage of evolution. Who knows. Read the Bible and maybe you will understand his reasoning better

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.27  Tessylo  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @1.1.26    one month ago
'Some of the best inventions we use today have come from war.'

Such as?

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
1.1.29  jungkonservativ111  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.27    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.30  TᵢG  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @1.1.23    one month ago
If you read the Bible, you will see God took life all the time.   ...  People don't understand that death may be a part of  "God's plan". 

My post (the one to which you replied) dealt with the problem of believing as true that which is merely claimed (and not evidenced) by mere human beings.    

Your reply regarding God taking life seems to be related to the article itself and not to my comment.   

Nonetheless I can comment on what you wrote.    Sure, one can reconcile all the hate, misery, tragedy, etc. in the world as being God's plan.   That works in an extremely simplistic sense and only in the abstract.   Now, go to a children's cancer ward and watch a 4 year old child die of leukemia.   A child who is not even close to an age of reason who suffers and dies before even starting her life.  Then reconsider your hypothesis that this is part of the plan of a unique, perfect, omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent creator entity.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.1.31  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.27    one month ago

You're posting on one of them..............

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.32  TᵢG  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @1.1.26    one month ago
Read the Bible and maybe you will understand his reasoning better

Read the Bible and you will better understand the mindset of ancient men pretending to be God.

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
1.1.33  jungkonservativ111  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.30    one month ago

At least she got to have a life and wasn't aborted by some hateful atheist who called her just a clump of cells. Obviously that would be heartbreaking but maybe it would have an impact on someone in her hemisphere that has a bigger impact on the world. Maybe somebody sees her die and decides today is the day they are going to find a cure for this and saves millions more. Who knows. This is life. People live and die. All we can do is hope for the best but you can't blame every tragic situation on God and then abandon religion as if it is useless. If you understand why God created man it was so we could suffer through hardship to earn an eternal life with him in Heaven.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.34  TᵢG  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @1.1.33    one month ago
At least she got to have a life and wasn't aborted by some hateful atheist who called her just a clump of cells.

Oh yeah, four years of suffering and then death in a hospital.   Nice life.

As for the hateful atheist, you presume that abortions are only the choice of atheists.   That pretty much flies in the face of statistics.   The 900,000 abortions each year in the USA are predominantly from atheists?   Pew offers insight that suggests you are waaaaay off base:

800

Note that Christians comprise about 70%+ of the USA population.    Might want to rethink your views.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.35  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @1.1.26    one month ago

Out of curiosity, does the 111 in your name represent 1-11? I only ask because of some of the comments I've seen from you appear to heavily lean white nationalist, and "1-11" is the first hate symbol listed by the ADL on their website of white supremacist hate symbols.

"1-11 is a numeric symbol used by the Aryan Knights, an Idaho-based prison gang, to identify themselves. Substituting letters for numbers, 1 and 11 mean A and K, i.e., Aryan Knights."

https://www.adl.org/hate-symbols

As for reading the bible, most of us here have read it. Some of us like myself have read it cover to cover multiple times, and it's true, the God of the bible supposedly killed people all the time. Besides commanding his followers to wipe out surrounding nations and peoples, the Hebrew God murdered his own worshipers, he even opened up the earth and swallowed hundreds of those who weren't apparently obedient enough.

"And the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their households and all the people who belonged to Korah and all their goods. So they went down alive into the grave, along with all their belongings. The earth closed over them, and they all vanished from among the people of Israel. All the people around them fled when they heard their screams. “The earth will swallow us, too!” they cried. Then fire blazed forth from the LORD and burned up the 250 men who were offering incense. " Numbers 16:31-35

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.36  Tessylo  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @1.1.29    one month ago

'God help us....... jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif '

What the fuck is that supposed to mean? 

Easy question.  I asked you, not Tex.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.37  TᵢG  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @1.1.33    one month ago
If you understand why God created man it was so we could suffer through hardship to earn an eternal life with him in Heaven.

And that little bit of mental gymnastic was told to you by human beings.  (Unless you are the unique individual who demonstrably can communicate with God.)  One can believe that nonsense (with zero supporting evidence) or one might dismiss that as rationalizing the inexplicable.

Don't believe something without supporting evidence.   Just because human beings claim truth does not mean they hold truth.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.38  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.28    one month ago

I didn't ask you.

 
 
 
katrix
1.1.39  katrix  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @1.1.33    one month ago
If you understand why God created man it was so we could suffer through hardship to earn an eternal life with him in Heaven.

Why would you possibly worship something you believe created you simply so you could suffer and then worship it for eternity?

In the first place, that's pretty stupid thinking on the part of your god - surely there is a simpler and more humane way to ensure that it gets the adulation its ego apparently requires. And in the second place, it makes your god sound like an evil dick.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.40  Tessylo  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @1.1.33    one month ago

What the fuck does abortion have to do with this?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.41  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.38    one month ago

I know.

But you DID ask a question, so I decided to answer it. I know, you don't read links provided to you, but, hey, I took a shot anyways!

jrSmiley_7_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
1.1.42  jungkonservativ111  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.37    one month ago
Don't believe something without supporting evidence.   Just because human beings claim truth does not mean they hold truth.

Look I'm not a religious nut but I was raised in church and in private(Christian) schools. I know full well what Christians are taught and it makes sense to me not because of God, but because most of it is just common sense stuff that makes sense. The ten commandments are basically the foundation of law for most western countries. Religion has been far more helpful in helping people realize what is takes to be successful human beings. Most of the things God(or the men who wrote the Bible) commands you to do for "him", are really things that are good for humanity in general and the person who decides to live by it. Look at Europe before and after religion. No one can deny the positive effects it has had on humanity throughout history. "Read the Bible and you will better understand the mindset of ancient men pretending to be God." Yes I believe that, but I believe it is because of the Bible we progressed past that mindset. I believe humans have always had the same level of intelligence, it's more a matter of how much information and technology we started with. [deleted ,] when 200 years ago people were navigating the sea using the stars. I can't imagine a world before the Bible and it's teachings of how to be good people for God(ie yourself and other humans)

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
1.1.43  jungkonservativ111  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.35    one month ago
Out of curiosity, does the 111 in your name represent 1-11? I only ask because of some of the comments I've seen from you appear to heavily lean white nationalist, and "1-11" is the first hate symbol listed by the ADL on their website of white supremacist hate symbols. "1-11 is a numeric symbol used by the Aryan Knights, an Idaho-based prison gang, to identify themselves. Substituting letters for numbers, 1 and 11 mean A and K, i.e., Aryan Knights.

You are reading way too much into it. The 111 is random because the name by itself was taken. Dont be one of those people who turn every random thing into white nationalism.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.44  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @1.1.43    one month ago

I can help you change your name if you like. That would take care of the situation. 

 
 
 
katrix
1.1.45  katrix  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @1.1.42    one month ago
I can't imagine a world before the Bible and it's teachings of how to be good people for God(ie yourself and other humans)

The golden rule far predates the bible. And while religion did a lot to help people pull together in groups and set basic laws and such, it also led to people committing genocide - because it helped people pull together in groups which, human nature being what it is, instantly decided they were better than all the other groups and deserved their stuff.

The things God commands its followers to do in the bible are incredibly inhumane and immoral, in many instances.

Europe before and after religion - it's a much better place now that it's no longer a theocracy.

Oh, and the ten commandments are NOT the foundation of law for western countries. They're not actually even all that moral, if you think about it. The first three deal only with God's massive ego, and they don't prohibit things such as child abuse/molestation, rape, animal abuse, or many other things that we consider major crimes. The Golden Rule is far more moral IMO. Unless maybe if you're a masochist ... but then I think consent would come into play, so that's probably OK ;)

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.46  TᵢG  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @1.1.42    one month ago

That is all fine, but my focus is on your prior claim that all things good and bad are simply God's plan.   That is a common rationalization to explain away the glaringly obvious fact that our reality clashes with the claim of an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent, perfect sentient creator watching over things.

I know full well what Christians are taught and it makes sense to me not because of God, but because most of it is just common sense stuff that makes sense.

It makes sense to you that the unique, perfect, omniscient and omnipotent God created Adam and Eve knowing full well that they would disobey Him and then, when they did, he punishes them and all progeny?

It makes sense to you that God is routinely surprised and disappointed by what His creations do yet God knew (omniscient) what they would do?    And then, upon the surprise, this perfect entity decides to destroy everything He created (including innocent animals)?

( I could go on and on ... )

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
1.1.47  jungkonservativ111  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.46    one month ago

Well you can call it God's plan or you can just call it cruel nature. Different things work on different people. Maybe some people find solace in the idea that their child was part of a larger plan instead of life just stiffing them. I know it's not right but some people need a crutch to get past hard situations or things they can't handle themselves. Even our government sends people to AA knowing they are going to be taught about God and a higher power who helps you with things you can't handle yourself like addiction or tragedy or whatever. And why do people get mad at God anyways? I mean, Eve is the one who committed the original sin, and she got Adam to go along with it. Women have been manipulating since the start of time and now they have to give birth and we all have to live in hardship because of it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.48  TᵢG  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @1.1.47    one month ago
Well you can call it God's plan or you can just call it cruel nature.

You called it God's plan.   I am just using your language.

And why do people get mad at God anyways? 

Only believers get mad at God.

I mean, Eve is the one who committed the original sin, and she got Adam to go along with it. Women have been manipulating since the start of time and now they have to give birth and we all have to live in hardship because of it.

Who created Eve?   Did the creator know what Eve was going to do when He created her?    Who created Adam?   Did the creator know that Adam would go along with Eve?   

You are trying to ignore the omniscient and omnipotent attributes of God.   Those are poison pill attributes which cause the biblical God to be a contradiction.  The God defined by the Bible cannot possibly exist as defined because it is a contradiction.   That does not mean there is no God, it just means that God cannot possibly be what the Bible claims.

 
 
 
katrix
1.1.49  katrix  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @1.1.47    one month ago
Women have been manipulating since the start of time and now they have to give birth and we all have to live in hardship because of it.

What a misogynistic comment - and one good reason why religion sucks. You are using it to justify your disdain of half the human race. What a shitty thing to say.

And what happened to personal responsibility? Adam could have said no. Why don't you blame him?

And why do you worship a god that you think would punish millions of people for what one person did thousands of years ago? That's worshipping evil.

 
 
 
pat wilson
1.1.50  pat wilson  replied to  katrix @1.1.49    one month ago

Some like to live in an incellated world.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.51  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @1.1.43    one month ago
You are reading way too much into it.

Well, the names we choose can say a lot about a person.

You likely chose "Jung" as a play on words with no doubt some nod to Carl Jung's philosophy as well as implying "young" to match with "Konservativ" with a K which is often used by white nationalists and wannabe Nazi's since that's the German spelling for conservative.

"The Aryan unconscious has a greater potential than the Jewish unconscious. The Jew, who is something of a nomad, has never yet created a cultural form of his own and as far as we can see never will" - Carl Jung

And with the 111 to finish it, it pretty much explains what I see in most of your comments. In my opinion, your name is about as "random" as a NASA launch. You think you're hiding in plain sight, but you're as obvious as a pink elephant trying to hide behind a mail box.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.52  Tessylo  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @1.1.42    one month ago

I'm not the subject of this seed and I told you not to call me Tessy

That's reserved for people I like 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.53  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.51    one month ago

Sounds like you're spot on, as usual DP

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
1.1.54  jungkonservativ111  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.51    one month ago

Again reading too much into it. When I made this name I was just beginning to learn German as a hobby. I plan to visit in the next year or two as I have a friend who lives in Amsterdam I plan to see as well. I made the name in error actually. It should have been JungeKonservative111. Which would have meant Young Conservative. A name I chose because it seemed to be accepted knowledge on the site I first started on that conservatives were all old white males and that all younger people were liberal. I was making sure they knew they were wrong. That's it. I like the name and I don't plan to change it. It's kind of nostalgic for me now.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.55  Gordy327  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @1.1.33    one month ago
At least she got to have a life and wasn't aborted by some hateful atheist who called her just a clump of cells.

Your derogatory statement against atheists aside, do you really think only atheists have abortions? And yes, a blastocyst/embryo is essentially a clump of cells.

Maybe somebody sees her die and decides today is the day they are going to find a cure for this and saves millions more. Who knows.

And maybe Hitler would have found the cure for cancer had he lived? Speculation can be entertaining, but it doesn't really mean much.

This is life. People live and die. All we can do is hope for the best but you can't blame every tragic situation on God and then abandon religion as if it is useless.

If god gets praised for good things happening, then he also deserves blame for the bad things happening.

If you understand why God created man it was so we could suffer through hardship to earn an eternal life with him in Heaven.

What kind of sick, cruel deity does that? Not one worthy of any worship or praise, that's for sure.

Most of the things God(or the men who wrote the Bible) commands you to do for "him", are really things that are good for humanity in general and the person who decides to live by it.

Except for the whole persecution, genocide, crusades, inquisition, terrorism, ect. all done for god over the centuries.

Look at Europe before and after religion. No one can deny the positive effects it has had on humanity throughout history.

Seriously? You might want to rethink that statement.

 but some people need a crutch to get past hard situations or things they can't handle themselves. 

And religion is that crutch alright. As former Gov. Jessie Ventura once said: “Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people's business. I live by the golden rule: Treat others as you'd want them to treat you. The religious right wants to tell people how to live."

I mean, Eve is the one who committed the original sin, and she got Adam to go along with it. Women have been manipulating since the start of time and now they have to give birth and we all have to live in hardship because of it.

All while God knew what would happen and allowed it. Basically, god screwed up and he blames us mere mortals for his failings.

 
 
 
zuksam
1.1.56  zuksam  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1    one month ago

Gods plan is for us to live and die eventually. Can you imagine life if God saved everyone from accidental death ? Kids would be trying to jump the Grand Canyon with their BMX bikes because why not, if they don't make it God will save them. Nobody would die in car or motorcycle accidents anymore so why be careful, go ahead and play with fire a loving God would never allow you to get burned. Give me a break. Life is fragile and living is dangerous with the prospect of death looming at every turn and that's what makes life precious. I don't know why they ask questions like this if they don't believe anyway.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.57  Gordy327  replied to  zuksam @1.1.56    one month ago
Life is fragile and living is dangerous with the prospect of death looming at every turn and that's what makes life precious. 

And religion takes advantage of that, and peoples fears of death, by dangling the carrot of immortality with god if you believe in it and follow a particular religion.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.58  sandy-2021492  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @1.1.47    one month ago
Women have been manipulating since the start of time

Another misogynistic comment.

I think I see a pattern here.  Several, actually.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.59  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.58    one month ago

And twice voted up even.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.60  Texan1211  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @1.1.43    one month ago

Don't let the faux-offended make you change your name.

 
 
 
lib50
1.1.61  lib50  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.58    one month ago
Another misogynistic comment. I think I see a pattern here.  Several, actually.

Yes, he also believes in segregation.  Fortunately most of the young people are already far beyond the old boomers and coots who think backward, he is in the minority.  Probably went to Trump U or Liberty U.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.62  sandy-2021492  replied to  lib50 @1.1.61    one month ago
Yes, he also believes in segregation.

Yup, that's the other pattern to which I was referring.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.63  Tessylo  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @1.1.33    one month ago

When it comes to abortion, conservative women aren't a monolith

USA TODAY
Corrections and Clarifications: This story has been updated to reflect that polling firm PerryUndem works with clients that include Planned Parenthood and the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health.

Do conservative women have abortions? 

The answer is, obviously, yes. But it's not often we hear from them. 

Nearly one in four women in the USA  will have an abortion by age 45 , according to the American Journal of Public Health, and they don't all share the same values and political views. Cultural stigma can make it difficult for any woman to talk about her abortion, but the particular pressures facing conservative women mean that stigma often equals silence. 

"Republicans don't have fewer abortions than Democrats or liberals or anarchists or communists. It's that our political rhetoric paints people who have abortions as largely the same – poor women, young women, irresponsible women, women who hate children," said Amanda Reyes, president of the Yellowhammer Fund, which provides funding for women seeking access to any of Alabama's three abortion clinics. "It's gotten us to a point where we can't see the fact that we're all having abortions, and we're doing it for reasons we personally think matter – and that's all that matters. Pro-life women are having abortions, too."

74dd34dc-4c27-4d91-a7fc-3c6983a7fccd-AFP

If you just read the headlines, it would seem Democrats are on one side of the abortion debate and Republicans are on the other. But the issue is more complicated and less partisan than one might think. 

Polling shows about a third of Republicans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to the Pew Research Center, and more than half of Republican women support keeping Roe v. Wade, according to a  poll  in 2018 from the public opinion research firm PerryUndem, whose clients include Planned Parenthood and the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health. Nearly 90% of voters say they would support a friend or family member if they had an abortion. 

In 2019, four states enacted abortion bans after six weeks of pregnancy, and Alabama passed a law banning abortions except for when the mother's health is at risk. 

INTERACTIVE MAP: Where is abortion legal? Everywhere. But ...

"If you look at national polling, this isn't where the American public is, and it frankly isn't even where mainstream Republicans are," said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. "The harshness of it is pretty shocking."

Lawmakers expect the bans will lead to lawsuits that could push the Supreme Court to consider  overturning Roe v. Wade ,   which recognizes a woman’s constitutional right to abortion. 

ENDING ROE V. WADE: It wouldn't end abortion. This is what would happen next.

The bills have received vocal support from many conservative women.

039242e4-f629-43f7-9a64-54c82ec646f0-EPA

Alabama's near-total ban "stands as a powerful testament to Alabamians’ deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God," said Republican Gov. Kay Ivey, who signed the most restrictive abortion law in the nation this month.

ALABAMA BAN: Out of line with beliefs of most Americans

Other conservative women, even abortion opponents, find such laws draconian.

South Carolina state Rep. Nancy Mace is a Republican who is against abortion, but she said she was stunned by the lack of compassion her colleagues showed when they voted to pass a six-week "fetal heartbeat" abortion ban without including exceptions for rape and incest. She introduced an amendment to the bill, and in a pair of 10-minute floor speeches, she cited her personal experience as a rape victim. It was the first time in 25 years she had spoken publicly about her rape at 16, which she said was perpetrated by someone she believed was a friend. 

"I was gripping the podium so hard I thought I was going to pull it out of the floor," Mace said. "I was angry at the language my colleagues were using. They were saying rape was the fault of the woman. They called these women baby killers and murderers. That language is so degrading toward women, particularly victims of rape or incest. And I said to myself I'm not going to put up with that bull----. I was nearly yelling into the mic. I gave a very passionate speech to my colleagues, and that is what got the exception through."

Then she was chastised. 

State Rep. Josiah Magnuson put a card from Personhood South Carolina, an anti-abortion group, on Mace’s Statehouse desk that read, “It is a twisted logic that would kill the unborn child for the misdeed of the parent.”

"I don't see them being attacked for having the same position," Mace said. "The only difference is I'm a woman, and I'm a victim of rape. And you would think that that would be a legitimate voice in the discussion of abortion in South Carolina and across the U.S."

1093bb52-a590-4552-b461-213f75720981-AP_

Not only is it difficult for Republican women to speak about abortion, but it's also become nearly impossible for Republican female politicians to get elected unless they're unequivocally anti-abortion, Walsh said.

"It's become harder and harder for pro-choice Republican women or men to get elected, because in the primaries the most conservative voters are who show up," Walsh said.

In the Senate, there are two Republican women who support abortion rights: Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. In the House, there is none. 

Conservative politicians aren't the only ones who struggle with stigma.

Last year, Jenna King-Shepherd hosted a get-together at her home. It was intended as a coming out of sorts. There would be wine and cheese, but the conversation would be anything but light. King-Shepherd decided she would tell the 25 women she invited from her community of Guntersville, Alabama, how she had an abortion at 17. 

King-Shepherd hoped to persuade the women to vote no on Amendment 2, which would add language to Alabama's Constitution making it state policy to "recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life."

All the women RSVPed yes. On the day of the gathering, excuses trickled in. One woman said her husband didn't want her to attend. Another said that although she supported what King-Shepherd was doing, she couldn't risk people recognizing her car in the driveway. Of the 25 women who said they'd come, only two showed.

In November, Amendment 2 passed.

"I felt frustrated and defeated," she said. "It feels like an uphill battle that can never be won because you're dealing with culture, and how do you fix that? Because it's systemic. ... I just think it speaks to the stigma here. In the South, it's OK to support abortion, as long as people don't know."

King-Shepherd grew up in Guntersville, which she described as a town with a church on every corner. Her father is a Baptist preacher. Abortion was never discussed in her home. She was conservative, identified as a Republican and said she did all she could to fulfill her family's expectations of a good Southern girl.

6e97397a-c03d-47a9-9721-846ba0b433e9-jen

Right before she was set to leave for college at the University of Alabama, King-Shepherd learned she was pregnant. She knew she wouldn't have the baby. 

"It's really easy to think you believe something until it happens to you, and you really understand the gravity of the situation," she said. "It's easy to say you shouldn't have a choice until you're left without one."

King-Shepherd shared her story publicly for the first time with AL.com in January, and says that although she received supportive messages, she's also been harassed. A direct message on Facebook read, "Keeping your legs closed before college was an option." People told her parents they were "disturbed" by her choice. 

Laurie Bertram Roberts also had a conservative, religious upbringing. She was raised in a fundamentalist Baptist church, and when she got pregnant with twins at 16, abortion wasn't on the table. The only option, she said, was to marry the father. So she did.

Roberts had five more children (though she eventually split from her husband) and considered herself anti-abortion until the day she found herself in a Planned Parenthood clinic seeking an abortion. An ultrasound revealed her pregnancy was not viable, and she was told she would miscarry. 

"I realized then I'm not actually better or different," she said. "I was sitting in the waiting room with all of these women who were just as scared as me. None of us looked like we wanted to be there. Some looked ready to get it over with. Life brought us to be at this spot, on this day, and it wasn't a value judgment."

Roberts co-founded the Mississippi Reproductive Freedom Fund, an organization that helps fund abortion access in Mississippi, primarily serving low-income black women. Mississippi has one abortion clinic. 

Roberts said most of the women she takes calls from are religious. 

"We're always going to encounter some callers, it doesn't matter what we say, they are going to believe what they did is a sin – that they're murderers," Roberts said. She recalled a woman who "proceeded to tell me why her abortion was different than everybody else's. Folks who are entrenched in their anti-choice views think they are the exception to the rule. Their abortion is a good abortion, and once it's done, they'll go back to shaming other women."

Reyes and Roberts work closely together. Even though they run funds in different states, the dearth of abortion clinics in the South means getting women access often requires coordination. 

Both lamented how an issue they see as personal has become so politicized, preventing nuanced conversations about not only how complex abortion can be but also how practical it becomes under certain circumstances, regardless of political or cultural beliefs. 

"A lot of people I talk to have never considered or thought they would be the kind of person who would get an abortion," Reyes said. "We explain this is a choice that you're making for you – it's not a political choice."

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.64  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.62    one month ago
Yup, that's the other pattern to which I was referring.

It almost boggles the mind that such a mentality still exists in this day and age.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.1.65  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.6    one month ago

It would be even nice (even healthier) if people stopped denigrating those that do not share the same belief system. Just because some people refuse to take anything on faith, it is no reason to belittle those that do. Have a nice day.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.1.66  r.t..b...  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1.65    one month ago
It would be even nice (even healthier) if people stopped denigrating those that do not share the same belief system.

Hear, hear, Doc. If we could just keep any and all religion out of our political decision making, it would go a long way to helping us become more tolerant (even healthier).

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.67  sandy-2021492  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1.65    one month ago

Expressing disagreement with a belief system is not denigrating those who hold to that belief system.

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
1.1.68  jungkonservativ111  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.58    one month ago

OK I was having a little fun there.I like to stir the pot a little bit if you haven't noticed but it is an example of how we can find a reason to point a finger at anybody we want to blame for bad things happening. I wonder how much the person who started this seed believes in God or is a Christian. If not, it is incredibly disingenuous to try to make an argument that God would be blamed when you don't even believe in God. Seems like a way to politicize tragedy to harden people's feelings against something that you don't even believe in to begin with.

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
1.1.69  jungkonservativ111  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.63    one month ago

Geez Tessy relax. I wasn't making this debate about abortion I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of getting all heartbroken about a 4 year old dying but not giving a crap about a fetus being aborted. It's funny the things people choose to get all worked up about.

 
 
 
lady in black
1.1.70  lady in black  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @1.1.33    one month ago

Hate to break it to you but conservative christian women have abortions too you know, and conservative christian men make their mistresses have abortions too you know.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.1.71  r.t..b...  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.67    one month ago
Expressing disagreement with a belief system

For discussion sake and in total respect for your viewpoint, to what end does one express disagreement?  Everyone is allowed to believe as they choose and disagreements over such a personal issue do no service in the public square.

That being said, we must leave religion and religious dogma at the door in forming public policy. If not, it then becomes a Constitutional argument worthy of public debate. Until then, it is akin to arguing over your favorite sports team...no minds will ever be changed and the dialogue eventually devolves into personal attack. But just my observation, not having a team to root for.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.72  sandy-2021492  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @1.1.68    one month ago

Not buyin' what you're trying to sell.  You've established a pattern of behavior.  Not an especially attractive one.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.73  sandy-2021492  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1.71    one month ago

Of course everyone is allowed to believe as they choose.  Nobody has said otherwise.  And everybody is also allowed to express disagreement with those beliefs.

Unfortunately, there are some here who DO want religion to form public policy.  When some of us express disagreement, they play the persecution card.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.74  Gordy327  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @1.1.68    one month ago
If not, it is incredibly disingenuous to try to make an argument that God would be blamed when you don't even believe in God.

How so? What does belief have to do with anything? One can logically analyze god or the claims regarding god without a requirement of belief.

 I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of getting all heartbroken about a 4 year old dying but not giving a crap about a fetus being aborted.

It's safe to assume some women having abortions do give a crap about it. Clearly other people do too, even if it's none of their business. That's why the abortion debate continues. But the issue wasn't the emotions surrounding abortion, but rather the idea of "god's plan."

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.75  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.73    one month ago
Unfortunately, there are some here who DO want religion to form public policy. 

Well, some do think the US is a "Christian country" or that it was founded on the bible or "Christian principles." I think we know some here on NT who fits that bill.

When some of us express disagreement, they play the persecution card.

Screaming persecution seems to be the go-to move for them. It's like they can't stand having their beliefs or claims challenged.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.76  Tessylo  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @1.1.69    one month ago

Stop calling me Tessy.

It's Ms., Miss, or Ma'am to you.

I've told you multiple times, Tess or Tessy is reserved for those who I like.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.77  Tessylo  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @1.1.69    one month ago

You cannot say or do anything that would 'work me up.'

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.78  Tessylo  replied to  lady in black @1.1.70    one month ago
'Hate to break it to you but conservative christian women have abortions too you know, and conservative christian men make their mistresses have abortions too you know.'

Usually the ones who run on 'family values' and are for banning a woman's choice.  

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.1.79  Kathleen  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1.65    one month ago

Totally agree Ed, I feel the same way. 

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
1.1.80  jungkonservativ111  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.74    one month ago

That's why I also asked if he was a Christian. Again, if he was he wouldn't have framed this seed like this. If you were a Christian you would have faith, and believe in a power higher than yourself. I know there is no convincing you, because you are like me in that you don't need a crutch and you don't need to believe in a higher power because you are capable of dealing with life on your own logic. Good for you. I wish everyone was this way. But most people aren't. They need direction and a reason to be a productive member to the human race. That's what Christianity provides. The Bible and Christianity is almost like therapy to some people. Helps them cope with life situations or negative emotions and I have seen it help people so I guess I just really don't see the harm in it or the need to attack it. There are far more Christians going out on missions trips and working for charities than there are extremists who are "oppressing" people with their religious opinion. You choose not to see the good that religion has brought this world like altruism, philosophy, literature, art, music, science and all the other things that survived the dark ages thanks to religion. So go ahead and be petty and use science and a need for proof to tear down a system that has benefited humans for centuries. Just stinks that all these people attacking God and religion offer no support system for the people they are destroying it for.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.1.81  r.t..b...  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.73    one month ago
Unfortunately, there are some here who DO want religion to form public policy.  When some of us express disagreement, they play the persecution card.

The former being contrary to the freedoms they are guaranteed, and the latter being the most unavailing of arguments. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.82  Gordy327  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @1.1.80    one month ago
That's why I also asked if he was a Christian.

Again, that's irrelevant when logically analyzing god and religious claims. One just needs to be intellectually honest enough to do so.

The Bible and Christianity is almost like therapy to some people.

Or a drug.

Helps them cope with life situations or negative emotions and I have seen it help people so I guess I just really don't see the harm in it or the need to attack it. 

It's great if it helps people. But some people take it too far and try to push it onto others or subvert logic and critical thinking. We've seen that here too.

You choose not to see the good that religion has brought this world like altruism, philosophy, literature, art, music, science and all the other things that survived the dark ages thanks to religion.

I never said religion didn't do good or contribute to culture and society. But religion is also partly the reason why we had the Dark Ages too.

So go ahead and be petty and use science and a need for proof to tear down a system that has benefited humans for centuries.

Science and reason has also benefitted people and society as a whole. It's how we rose above the Dark Ages. No one is trying to tear down anyone's belief system. But if someone make disingenuous claims based on religion, like "evolution is a pseudoscience conspiracy" or something like that, then such a belief should be challenged with actual science and reasoning. Disingenuousness and spreading false or misinformation like that benefits no one. If anything, it only harms us.

Just stinks that all these people attacking God and religion offer no support system for the people they are destroying it for. 

It's not about attacking god or religion. Only challenging claims about god or religion, especially when they conflict with actual, verifiable science. If peoples "support system" is s weak that it or they cannot withstand a challenge, then they really need to reconsider their position or find a different "support system."

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.1.83  Kathleen  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @1.1.80    one month ago

I agree that when people use religion as comfort and to uplift them, they should not be criticized for it. It’s time to back off. Everyone has things in life that help them get through hard times. Let me put it this way, turning to religion is better then turning to alcohol, drugs and crime. So as long as it does not interfere with the state, I think that people that are not religious should just let it go...

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.1.84  igknorantzrulz  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1.71    one month ago
it is akin to arguing over your favorite sports team...no minds will ever be changed and the dialogue eventually devolves into personal attack. But just my observation, not having a team to root for.

Sounds more like politics to me.

If there is a god, why ? 

would be my only question always left answered with a mark of a questionable beast

of burden, known as a questionable beast of burden...Know ?

me either neither niether nun

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.85  sandy-2021492  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1.81    one month ago
The former being contrary to the freedoms they are guaranteed, and the latter being the most unavailing of arguments.

Hence my objections (and Gordy's, TiG's, etc.) ;)

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.1.86  igknorantzrulz  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.85    one month ago

Hence my objections (and Gordy's, TiG's, etc.)

I objected once, while drinking a two liter soda , cause i wanted more than a quart jester to bless my sneeze, and the other seven deadly sins, that dwarf, like my reality of late, as surreal is sureally happening to sir named not here, but i time to endear on an endeavoured DeTour of France an sense less, do things become when witnessing a world become undone as youtry to make the bed, but not to Lie in

a wrote this for a friend this mourning, sorry if a tad off topic, but if i don't post it, ill lose it, and everyone knows i've already

lost it

at the lost and found , where i found myself lost   at the lost  and found myself lost at the lost and found

this

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.1.87  igknorantzrulz  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.85    one month ago

Ijustgota    

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.88  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1.65    one month ago

There is a difference between challenging a belief and belittling a person.    It is up to you to recognize the difference.

You apparently have not noticed that my key objection is believing what other human beings simply claim without supporting evidence.   The Bible, for example, has zero evidence for divinity (indeed it is its own argument against its divinity) yet people treat it as if it were divine.   If it is in the Bible then it is true (varies from entirety to cherry-picked passages).    My argument is to apply critical thinking and to not simply accept as true what other mere human beings have claimed as truth (without providing supporting evidence ... much less proof).

When it comes to faith I routinely note that it is reasonable for someone to believe that there is a sentient creator as long as the individual also realizes that there is no evidence that this is true.   It is possible, but the belief is entirely speculative.   So believing in a sentient creator can be quite reasonable.   Where things go awry is when religions grab hold and expand this notion from the idea of 'a creator exists' into specific stories, attributes, intentions, plans, laws, emotions, etc. of the creator.    Every detail beyond 'creator exists' requires supporting evidence and none exists.    People believe all sorts of things about 'God' that are simply the product of the human imagination.   People believe these things simply because other human beings claim they are truth.   That is it, just claims.

Most of the time this is harmless, however a clear example of harm are the Islamic terrorists who kill themselves and as many infidels as they can because they believe that doing so will please Allah and they will be rewarded in Heaven as martyrs.    They got this nonsense from other human beings telling them this is truth.

A less harsh and closer to home example are Jehovah's Witnesses parents who refuse to allow a blood transfusion to themselves or their children because their religion tells them that this makes their souls unclean.   The consequences of this denial of medical treatment include death.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.1.89  igknorantzrulz  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1.86    one month ago
a wrote this for a friend this mourning, sorry if a tad off topic, but if i don't post it, ill lose it, and everyone knows i've already

but i cant paste it WTF

A Chameleon that is green with the envy 

of never being colorful enuff,

as seen in black and white are the pages torn from the yelling pages,

booked B 4 A 

being can be drawn artistically from a well, from the mock smock warn,

to ware a soul inn  a pear of shoes   sewn Ruby Red for the Cardinal Sin of illiteracy

as to sea the depths isn't in all weighs more than watts can B seen, as amplify from a word spelled amplified,

R the Denied,

But

That can't be, as the swarm warns of the brake that won't stop

One

From stoppingthe swarm as heads buzz ewes in shear attitudes that confront & elude the eluded, ore sew i've concluded from no conclusion

Can Ever Solve A Solution

.

Dissolution 

is an equivalent to an equation for that there is know

sign equal

to a post sequel

previously previewed B 4 it is time to spare

that witch hits home went,

N took his ball

room Ruby , addressed 

without slippers

on slippery slopes of U, and Isotopes not 

my ties.

type

oh sew negative R

those that cry tears torn in on tropical storms brewed from the entrance

, entered via storm doors without being screened for or from the sun of wons God when 

Angels flapped gums till they flew off with the wings, melted by fathers, during flight simulators 

simulAting fabricated shaved waxing, melted buy a son bought and brought forth from  t he Hells 

Angels do sing, as Icarus takes flight to ports occupied by only empty air, sucked from a broken

, cleaner         vacuuming up the glass ceiling broken buy pressure 

never

Got hired , as watt i herd desired

despite being fired...

from the cannon 

shooting grand

Fathered by the producer of a son

eclipsed by a daughter

Whose time has come to carry the water

boy,

as that young,   Boy

is the JOY that can drag N E Queen    over all she may have possibly  bin stored,

while drug, are the rope swung swings at the transparent enemy one can knot fight the tie, not suited too tight     rope walking   A   Frayed

as all have already a price paid

while returned due to a receipt never wanted received , as once attempted returned, was all i 

grieved

as

never good to be deceived,

know matter how many retr\\ieved, by the Golden one of

pyrite ,  wrongly fooled by

worth 

.

"tell me something, 

are you lost when you'v found your way?

I've been down there man,

so beware of what i say

,

fell no sorrow,

feel no hate,

feel nothing at all,

hold me babyyyy"

"don't lock the door now

i'm coming home for sure

Don't throw us out now,

and don't leave us alone

Tell me something

.

Are You Lost When You've Found your way....

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.1.90  igknorantzrulz  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.88    one month ago
There is a difference between challenging a belief and belittling a person.    It is up to you to recognize the difference.

I beg your pardon.

I can multitask on ok shun,

where as i be  a little , too up for challenging what i challenge, as in most everything

that i win or lose, except that challenge to an acceptance, that i can't

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.91  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.31    one month ago

Social media was a war time invention?

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.92  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.88    one month ago
There is a difference between challenging a belief and belittling a person.    It is up to you to recognize the difference.

Unfortunately, many theists do not see any difference. To them, a challenge is the same as belittling.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.93  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.91    one month ago

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.94  Tessylo  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.82    one month ago
'The Bible and Christianity is almost like therapy to some people.'

'Or a drug.'

Karl Marx  "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people". 

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
1.1.95  jungkonservativ111  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.94    one month ago

Nice Karl Marx quote comrade. How is Moscow these days. Here is a quote for you:

"[T]he fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional ' opium of the people '—cannot hear the music of the spheres ."

-Albert Einstein

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.1.96  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.91    one month ago
Social media was a war time invention?

Internet. jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.97  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.96    one month ago

Some don't get sarcasm so good.

Duh!

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.1.98  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.97    one month ago

 Beep, beep, beep, beep (that's your walk it back alarm). If it is sarcasm, note it as such. However your posting history proves that I am not sure you know what it is........or how and when it is appropriate.

 
 
 
Goodtime Charlie
1.1.99  Goodtime Charlie  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.77    one month ago
You cannot say or do anything that would 'work me up.'

Calling you Tessy has you bent all out shape LOL

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.100  Tessylo  replied to  Goodtime Charlie @1.1.99    one month ago

No it doesn't 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.101  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.98    one month ago

You don't have a clue about me.

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.1.102  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Kathleen @1.1.83    one month ago

Very well stated Kathleen!

 
 
 
DRHunk
1.1.103  DRHunk  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.96    one month ago

WTF? For my entire life  the internet was a invention for colleges to communicate research material between themselves better.  What war were we in circa 1980 for the internet to be created? and Social Media does not equal internet. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.104  Tessylo  replied to  DRHunk @1.1.103    one month ago

Thank you so much DRHunk for the truth of the matter.

So Mr. Know It All was wrong and chastised me

What dumbfuckery

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.1.105  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.104    one month ago

And you bought that? Dumbfuckery indeed. The good DR must be a young'n. Here's your fucking (I know how you love that word) proof. Now, which came first, the military or the college use

"The computer networking revolution began in the early 1960s and has led us to today s technology. The Internet was first invented for military purposes, and then expanded to the purpose of communication among scientists. The invention also came about in part by the increasing need for computers in the 1960s.

 
 
 
Krishna
1.1.106  Krishna  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @1.1.47    one month ago
Women have been manipulating since the start of time and now they have to give birth and we all have to live in hardship because of it.

Well, with all of the bigotry and hatred you express-- at least you're not sexist!

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.107  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.105    one month ago

DRHunk knows what he's talking about

You do not

I'll take his word over yours. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.108  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.105    one month ago

Technically you are correct that the seed technology of the Internet (the protocol TCP/IP and the hardware to implement same) started with ARPANET and this was part of the DoD.   But the Internet (as the word is defined today) is much more than that.   The Internet includes the concept of global access and the content sharing made possible by the world wide web.  That did not exist until the late 1980s thanks to Sir Tim Berners-Lee.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.1.109  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.107    one month ago
I'll take his word over yours.

Do so at your own peril. See 1.1.108. I'll take TiG and mine over the good DR.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.110  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.109    one month ago

My point was that you are both correct.   You are operating under slightly different definitions of the word 'Internet'.   The Internet (as we know it) necessarily is global.

 
 
 
DRHunk
1.1.111  DRHunk  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.105    one month ago

Swing and a miss: You said Social Media then followed up with internet.. Not Computer networking which can be done via direct link. The Internet on the other hand is a whole nother story.

The Internet was invented in 1973 by Vinton Gray Cerf Vinton Gray is an American Internet pioneer. He has been described as one of "the fathers of the Internet"

First commercial dial-up ISP. The first commercial ISP (Internet service provider) in the US, known as "The World," is introduced in 1989. The World was the first ISP to be used on what we now consider to be the Internet

 
 
 
DRHunk
1.1.112  DRHunk  replied to  DRHunk @1.1.111    one month ago

Further:

The Internet itself was created in 1969 at UCLA. There were previous experiments in wide-area networking, e.g., in 1965. 

DARPA

The computer networking revolution began in the early 1960s and has led us to today internet technology. The Internet was first invented by DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) for military purposes, and then expanded to the purpose of communication among scientists. In 1957, the launch of Sputnik had spurred the U.S to create a network for communications links between military and university computers that would not be disrupted by bombs or enemy spies.

So WAR did not spur the advent of networking or the internet it was the launch of Sputnick , i.e. another country having greater technological advances than we did. While it may have implications of war it was not the driver.

Thanks again for playing.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.1.113  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  DRHunk @1.1.111    one month ago
Swing and a miss: You said Social Media then followed up with internet..

I didn't say social media. Your gerfren did. She asked "social media?", I responded with internet. How in hell would she be on social media without the internet? 

And kudos for taking five days + to research your gotcha. But it isn't going to work. This isn't my first rodeo.

Oh, and I would be remiss if I didn't thank you for playing.

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.114  loki12  replied to  DRHunk @1.1.112    one month ago

Read what Jim wrote and try again.....Nevermind you purposely misstated what he said. Admit you were wrong and move on. 

Here is what Jim wrote: The Internet was first invented for military purposes, and then expanded to the purpose of communication among scientists

Here is what your link says: The Internet was first invented by DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) for military purposes, and then expanded to the purpose of communication among scientists.

And here is what you wrote in some desperate attempt to change the narrative. So WAR did not spur the advent of networking or the internet,

Who in the Fuck said it did, FFS if you fail the first three times then just change what you want to try to save face? And if you want to be specific, It was maintaining communications in the event of war. I.E. from your post again:  Protect it from Bombs

jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
DRHunk
1.1.115  DRHunk  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.113    one month ago

sorry man I have a life and a job, I don't get to spend all day hoping someone responds to a comment I made.

 
 
 
DRHunk
1.1.116  DRHunk  replied to  loki12 @1.1.114    one month ago
As humans we war all the time. Some of the best inventions we use today have come from war

My comments are in reference to the original statement that started this whole thing. 

The next comment was "Such as" 

Then a link was provided of war time inventions, then Jim said your posting on one of them, Tess asked for clarification if he meant Social media, and then Jim said no the Internet.

that then sparked my, lol the internet was not a war time invention....then low and behold the goal post changes to "military purpose"...

get a clue and actually read the thread before posting so you can keep up.

My points are still valid and true to the intent of the original conversation.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.117  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.109    one month ago

Do so at my own peril?

Wow, that's stupid.  

DRHunk and I see how you move the goal posts.  

Also, I don't take your word for ANYTHING.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.1.118  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  DRHunk @1.1.116    one month ago
that then sparked my, the internet was not a war time invention

Let's see. According to your post/links, it began in the early sixties. No cold war, no Viet Nam conflict during that period right? We were indeed in war time. Deal with it.

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.119  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.118    one month ago
'that then sparked my, the internet was not a war time invention'

'Let's see. According to your post/links, it began in the early sixties. No cold war, no Viet Nam conflict during that period right? We were indeed in war time. Deal with it.'

jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif

Incorrect, as usual.  

Sore loser.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.1.120  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.119    one month ago
Incorrect, as usual. 

Nope. Deny it at your own peril (hahaha). Hell you weren't even born in the early sixties................................

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.121  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.120    one month ago

jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
DRHunk
1.1.122  DRHunk  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.117    one month ago

"DRHunk and I see how you move the goal posts" ……..was this directed at me on accident or purpose.

Jim moved the goal post at 1.1.105 after my initial comment of the internet being used at universities. Not I.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
2  KDMichigan    one month ago
I guess my question is why did God (Jesus Christ ) save the millionaire Kanye West but did not give a better outcome to these 43 desperately poor people in India?

What does Kanye have to do with a fire in India?

What were their options to pray to? Buda or a Priest that promises to look after the children?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  KDMichigan @2    one month ago

Brilliant ! jrSmiley_30_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
katrix
2.2  katrix  replied to  KDMichigan @2    one month ago
What were their options to pray to?

Prayer is useless - all the prayer in the world wouldn't have kept these people alive.

Actions could have. Actions by humans - no gods necessary.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  katrix @2.2    one month ago
Prayer is useless 

And your proof for that is?

 
 
 
katrix
2.2.2  katrix  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.1    one month ago

There are actual studies that have proven that. There is absolutely no evidence that wishful thinking makes anything happen. There is, however, evidence to show that it does NOT have any effect.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-secular-life/201909/does-prayer-work

Prayer can provide self-comfort, just as meditation, yoga, and similar things can do. So it can be beneficial for people to pray even though it doesn't change anything. But it's absolutely useless when it comes to actual actions.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.3  Gordy327  replied to  katrix @2.2.2    one month ago
But it's absolutely useless when it comes to actual actions.

Typically, when we hear of prayers "being answered," we think of a tangible action being accomplished. Of course, no one has ever been able to prove that. They merely make claims of an action occurring or at best, try to make a correlation between prayer and some fortuitous event. Ultimately, it comes down to emotional comfort. That's the only real "effect," other than your stated physiological responses, that prayer has.

 
 
 
katrix
2.2.4  katrix  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.3    one month ago

Some people don't understand the backlash against "thoughts and prayers" - it's not that I have an issue if someone wants to pray. If it makes them feel better, why not? But in many cases, people pray instead of taking a tangible action to help a situation. What would they think if I told them I'd cast a spell for their loved one?

 
 
 
KDMichigan
2.2.5  KDMichigan  replied to  katrix @2.2    one month ago
Prayer is useless -

Not really. it gives people hope.

 no gods necessary.

Agree totally. I don't believe in "gods" or creators.

You're barking up the wrong tree if you think I'm going to defend God

 
 
 
katrix
2.2.6  katrix  replied to  KDMichigan @2.2.5    one month ago
Not really. it gives people hope.

Agreed. I was talking in terms of making tangible actions happen.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.7  Gordy327  replied to  katrix @2.2.4    one month ago
What would they think if I told them I'd cast a spell for their loved one?

"She's a witch! Burn her!" jrSmiley_4_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  katrix @2.2.2    one month ago
Prayer can provide self-comfort, just as meditation, yoga, and similar things can do. So it can be beneficial for people to pray even though it doesn't change anything. But it's absolutely useless when it comes to actual actions.

It is either useless (your words) or not.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. You claimed it is useless, and then post that it can be beneficial. Something beneficial would be considered by the vast majority of folks to be useful.

It simply can't be both.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.2.9  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.3    one month ago
Typically, when we hear of prayers "being answered," we think of a tangible action being accomplished

I believe i've been away from this sight unseen due to answered prayers of those who "think" they are right

or

i've been busy with some more important potentially life altering or ending circumstances for one who i attempt to guide, without a rutter, a flap, a steering wheel, or stick of joy to the world

but like Heaven right here on Earth, life sure is Hell,, or was it swell, same thing

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.10  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.8    one month ago
You seem to be contradicting yourself. You claimed it is useless, and then post that it can be beneficial.

Katrix was very clear in explaining that prayer is useful for personal comfort, but otherwise useless for anything tangible outside that.

It is either useless (your words) or not.

Her words (for further clarity): "I was talking in terms of making tangible actions happen."

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.11  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.10    one month ago

I quoted her words EXACTLY.

She contradicted herself.

Period.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.12  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.11    one month ago
She contradicted herself.

No, she didn't. She clearly explained herself. If you don't understand that, then I can't you.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.13  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.12    one month ago

She did. I gave you this once already, but I suppose you overlooked it.

here, AGAIN:

Prayer can provide self-comfort, just as meditation, yoga, and similar things can do. So it can be beneficial for people to pray even though it doesn't change anything. But it's absolutely useless when it comes to actual actions. 
It is either useless (your words) or not.
You seem to be contradicting yourself. You claimed it is useless, and then post that it can be beneficial. Something beneficial would be considered by the vast majority of folks to be useful.
It simply can't be both.

Denial of that fact is futile.

But go right ahead and defend what is plainly written for all to see!

LMMFAO!!

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.14  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.13    one month ago
She did. I gave you this once already, but I suppose you overlooked it.

You seem to overlook the parameters she established. So clearly you do not understand what she said or the context!

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.15  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.12    one month ago

Is this not despicable?   Cherry-picking from katrix' quote by leaving off 'when it comes to actual actions' so as to change the meaning of her words.

katrix @2.2.2 ☞ Prayer can provide self-comfort, just as meditation, yoga, and similar things can do. So it can be beneficial for people to pray even though it doesn't change anything. But it's absolutely useless when it comes to actual actions.

Intellectual dishonesty.   If one cannot make an honest argument it is best to remain silent.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.16  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.14    one month ago

I understood it perfectly. My statements still stand, and anyone can read what was written and draw their own conclusions.

She stated quite clearly that prayer was useless, and then went on to later say that it had some benefits. A logical, thinking person would call that contradictory. I am not interested in your opinion if you can't see what is plainly written.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.17  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.16    one month ago

You omitted the operative part of her comment: "... when it comes to actual actions".  That is intellectual dishonesty.   You owe katrix an apology.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.18  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.15    one month ago
Intellectual dishonesty.

At its finest.

Is this not despicable?   He is cherry-picking from katrix' quote by leaving off 'when it comes to actual actions'.

And then accuses others of "overlooking" or contradicting themselves, when he himself does just that. Such tactics is quite obvious for all to see. I see it, you see it, and I wager most anybody else here will see it too. I'd like to see Katrix weigh in on this too.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.19  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.18    one month ago

Blatant too and here he is doubling down on it.  jrSmiley_104_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.20  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.19    one month ago
Blatant too and here he is doubling down on it

Tell me about it. And I doubt he even gets it yet.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.2.21  igknorantzrulz  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.15    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.22  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.20    one month ago

I am sure he (and everyone else reading this) knows that he is ignoring part of katrix' quote to change her meaning.

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.2.23  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.17    one month ago
You omitted the operative part of her comment: " ... when it comes to actual actions ".  That is intellectual dishonesty. 

Was it REALLY  the most "Operative" ?

Or

Is that just really an "opinion" by a Friend ! jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

By the way....what IS "Intellectual" Dishonesty...or for that matter "Intellectual" Honesty mean .... and who is "Intellectual" enough to "USE" those words as the mean to an end on NT?

You ?

Gordy ?

jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.24  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.16    one month ago
I understood it perfectly. My statements still stand, and anyone can read what was written and draw their own conclusions.

You're free to be wrong and anyone else will see that too, including your omissions of what Katrix actually said.

She stated quite clearly that prayer was useless, and then went on to later say that it had some benefits. A logical, thinking person would call that contradictory.

Once again, you ignore what she actually said, her established parameters of what is said, and even omit certain parts of what she said. A logical, thinking person would not do that. They would examine the entirety and context of what is being said. TiG certainly understood it. Why can't you?

I am not interested in your opinion if you can't see what is plainly written.

I offered no opinion. Only fact. Which seems to be above your head.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.25  Texan1211  replied to  It Is ME @2.2.23    one month ago

Hell, it always comes down to really nothing more than "Prove God exists" for these two. 

They like to argue, citing the Bible they don't believe in and attributing characteristics of a God they don't believe in.

And always, always, you are simply too stupid to recognize that only they are right and are an illogical fool to believe in God without proof that THEY deem acceptable.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.2.26  igknorantzrulz  replied to  It Is ME @2.2.23    one month ago

is that just really an "opinion" by a Friend !

Actually, it is ME, whose opinion i can't respect, as i have poor insecurity, and can't trust ME to be honest about interpretations i wrongly write till rightly wrong, is Me, myself, and eye reamed a whole lot out of double speak in half the time i got paid in tie and a half the other, in a labor of love, as it's my third and final mester, to try to get throught to you and 

but Us both bean blind and led by a string, you still grab the cup, till it runnith over you like a speed bump for bowling shoes that you model in your spare time looking quite striking...know?

didn't think  so what   mot my turn for me

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.27  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.25    one month ago
Hell, it always comes down to really nothing more than "Prove God exists" for these two. 

Nice Strawman. Proof of god has nothing to do with this current line of discussion. 

They like to argue, citing the Bible they don't believe in and attributing characteristics of a God they don't believe in.

Challenging claims and notions regarding god or the bible, especially when there's logical inconsistencies, sis not arguing. It's pointing out flaws in what's presented or in the thinking of those who present it.

And always, always, you are simply too stupid to recognize that only they are right and are an illogical fool to believe in God without proof that THEY deem acceptable.

We don't ask for proof, although that would be nice. Proof is too high a standard. Simple objective, empirical evidence will suffice, which is the acceptable form of evidence/proof utilized by science or the scientific minded in general. Of course, no one actually ever produces any form of actual evidence. Only mere belief, which is evidence of nothing except what one believes.

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.2.28  It Is ME  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.25    one month ago
Hell, it always comes down to really nothing more than "Prove God exists" for these two.

They're (Their jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif ) "Flavored' go-too !

But....and I'm only speaking in "Layman" terms so You'll understand (I nor you are smart enough to know any different jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif )

....They're self proclaimed ….. "Intellectuals" ……  after all. jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

"I am old enough to remember when America’s colleges and universities seemed to be the most open-minded and intellectually rigorous institutions in our society. Today, something very much like the opposite is true: America’s colleges and universities have become, and have been for some decades, the most closed-minded and intellectually dishonest institutions in our society."

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.29  Texan1211  replied to  It Is ME @2.2.28    one month ago

The sickening condescension is maddening. That's why they are now on ignore.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.30  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.25    one month ago
Hell, it always comes down to really nothing more than "Prove God exists" for these two. 

The cliche line that you apply even when it has nothing to do with what is being discussed.

And always, always, you are simply too stupid to recognize that only they are right and are an illogical fool to believe in God without proof that THEY deem acceptable.

You just got busted on intellectual dishonesty and here you are trying to put up a smoke screen of victim-hood.

If your objective is to illustrate intellect then make an honest argument.   Intellectually dishonest claims (repeated even) followed by smoke screens is counterproductive to that end.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.31  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @2.2.23    one month ago
By the way....what IS "Intellectual" Dishonesty...or for that matter "Intellectual" Honesty mean .... and who is "Intellectual" enough to "USE" those words as the mean to an end on NT?

Here, TiG wrote an excellent article about it.

They're self proclaimed ….. "Intellectuals" ……  after all. 

Point out where we ever made such claims!

 
 
 
Veronica
2.2.32  Veronica  replied to  It Is ME @2.2.23    one month ago

I would say it wouldn't matter since leaving it off as Texan1211 did was to prove his/her point by misleading others as to what katrix actually was saying.  That is definitely being dishonest and definitely not the way to have a discussion.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.33  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.29    one month ago

Which works out perfectly.   Your comments will still be rebutted (where needed) and there will be no pointless smoke-screen responses.

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.2.34  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.30    one month ago
If your objective is to illustrate intellect then make an honest argument. 

Texan did…..You....as an "Intellectual"....didn't except it....as it didn't fit YOUR "Intellectual" thought process!

A "Great" Intellectual, doesn't speak down to someone !

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.2.35  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Veronica @2.2.32    one month ago

it's the only way he knows

discussions become disgustings, he seldom is capable of comprehending, as i've disgust with him B 4, as it was like only 3:37

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.36  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.29    one month ago
The sickening condescension is maddening. That's why they are now on ignore.

More like you can't refute a point when a challenge is made, or you continue to make the same mistake. So it's easier to run away and hide while playing a victim.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.2.37  igknorantzrulz  replied to  It Is ME @2.2.34    one month ago

A "Great" Intellectual, doesn't speak down to someone !

Is that what you're "speaking up" about ?

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.2.38  It Is ME  replied to  Veronica @2.2.32    one month ago
I would say it wouldn't matter since leaving it off as Texan1211 did was to prove his/her point by misleading others as to what katrix actually was saying.

Did Texan "Really" do that ?

Or

Was that your perception.....Opinion ?

 
 
 
Veronica
2.2.39  Veronica  replied to  katrix @2.2.4    one month ago
What would they think if I told them I'd cast a spell for their loved one?

As a person who uses spells to self soothe I can honestly say some people get freaked out by it.  Then they tell me I am just praying.  I don't argue, just let them think what they will.

As far as the "thoughts and prayers" issue, I will be honest and say to people "my thoughts are with you" and then I tell them if there is anything I can do to help them in any way to let me know.  When people say it to me I simply say thank you.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.2.40  It Is ME  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.2.37    one month ago
Is that what you're "speaking up" about ?

Was I too Loud ?

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.41  Gordy327  replied to  Veronica @2.2.32    one month ago
That is definitely being dishonest and definitely not the way to have a discussion.

Thank you Veronica. You see it, I see it, TiG sees it, and even ignorantz sees sit. Anyone else? 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.2.42  igknorantzrulz  replied to  It Is ME @2.2.38    one month ago
Did Texan "Really" do that ?

Hey i'm hungry too, so you don't mind if i meet you two, as you are both already out to lunch...

can you order me a stuffed mushroom appetizer ?

 
 
 
Veronica
2.2.43  Veronica  replied to  It Is ME @2.2.38    one month ago

That was my perception.  When you leave off part of a quote to make it look like someone stated something they didn't - it is being dishonest.  But your perception may be different.  If you believe misquoting someone to  prove your point is being honest then I have to wonder about your integrity.

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.2.44  It Is ME  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.2.42    one month ago
Hey i'm hungry too, so you don't mind if i meet you two

We could do a "Beer Summit" !

You may be fun to be with.jrSmiley_24_smiley_image.gif

I Know I'm a Blast. jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.2.45  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.41    one month ago

Thank you Veronica. You see it, I see it, TiG sees it, and even ignorantz sees sit. Anyone else? 

hey, what precisely do you approximately mean on average, when even "ignorantz" sees it, as 

i really don't see either of them seeing it. But, ignorance ruling so many of the flock, is like German Sheppards Pie, for out to lunch i go................

to meat them att the vegan restaurant , as out too   lunch they B

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.2.46  igknorantzrulz  replied to  It Is ME @2.2.44    one month ago

I Know I'm a Blast.

C       4

did i sink your battleship ? or your air Carrier air craftted HVAC unit with a missile on a demolitionmission accomplished, as U no i'm a big fan

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.47  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @2.2.32    one month ago

Here is what Katrix actually wrote:

Prayer is useless - all the prayer in the world wouldn't have kept these people alive.
Actions could have. Actions by humans - no gods necessary.

Now, you can choose to dispute that the words are there, but there they are anyways.

I wrote this in response:

And your proof for that is?
 

And the reply I recieved was this:

There are actual studies that have proven that. There is absolutely no evidence that wishful thinking makes anything happen. There is, however, evidence to show that it does NOT have any effect.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-secular-life/201909/does-prayer-work
Prayer can provide self-comfort, just as meditation, yoga, and similar things can do. So it can be beneficial for people to pray even though it doesn't change anything. But it's absolutely useless when it comes to actual actions.

I consider, (and suspect most honest people reading that exchange would agree) that to be contradictory. She stated that prayer was useless (I didn't make it up) and then goes on to claim that prayer can be beneficial (again, her very own words)

Now, to you, saying prayer is useless AND beneficial might seem quite logical, but I can't bring myself to swallow that as anything resembling the truth.

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.2.48  It Is ME  replied to  Veronica @2.2.43    one month ago
When you leave off part of a quote to make it look like someone stated something they didn't - it is being dishonest. 

There's a big amount of Dishonest folks on NT then, if that's what bothers you ! jrSmiley_36_smiley_image.gif

I didn't see an actual "As Quoted by" listed in Texans statement....did you ?

Is your "Perception" better than Texans "Perception" ?

 

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.49  Gordy327  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.2.45    one month ago
hey, what precisely do you approximately mean on average, when even "ignorantz" sees it, as 

You seem to recognize that Texan is not being intellectually honest. If I am mistaken on that assessment, then my apologies.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.2.50  igknorantzrulz  replied to  It Is ME @2.2.40    one month ago

Was I too Loud ?

i'm only aloud

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.2.51  It Is ME  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.2.46    one month ago
or your air Carrier air craftted HVAC unit

10 tons worth. jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.2.52  It Is ME  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.2.50    one month ago
i'm only aloud....

...….to ? jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

I'll wait. jrSmiley_32_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.2.53  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.49    one month ago

You seem to recognize that Texan is not being intellectually honest. If I am mistaken on that assessment, then my apologies.

You might find, i recognize  a tad more to be honest, as intellectually, i'm on occasion capabull shipping people right out of their minds, as i'm know Captain with a hung ToeNeil,

but i due recognize muskrat love on the Love boat/ship of Fools that America has set on a fire sale that catches all that blow US A way

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.54  Texan1211  replied to  It Is ME @2.2.48    one month ago

The problem is, I used her very own words, and now they don't like it.

What she said was contradictory--that prayer is useless, but beneficial.

Does that really make sense to anyone?

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.2.55  It Is ME  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.54    one month ago
hat she said was contradictory--that prayer is useless, but beneficial. Does that really make sense to anyone?

To "Layman" It Is Me….Not at all. jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

Let's do an "Intellectual" STUDY about this....shall we. jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.2.56  It Is ME  replied to  Veronica @2.2.32    one month ago

Nothing was "left off" !

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.2.57  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.31    one month ago
Here, TiG wrote an excellent article about it.

I know...and I was there (you should, as an intellectual, already have known that jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg ).....and you were "Dishonest" in your Reponses, as you came up with anything and everything you could muster up to ignore my question I kept asking.

Your go to was....."That's just "Loaded" …. and went off on some other "Intellectual" speaking thingy.

[deleted, meta]

[deleted, coc]

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.2.58  It Is ME  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.2.26    one month ago
as i have poor insecurity

Then "Buck Up" ! 

Life has always been hard. jrSmiley_54_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.59  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.47    one month ago

Tripling down on the intellectual dishonesty?

Katrix stated that prayer was useless to save the people.   She stated that their lives could only be saved by action, not by mere prayer.

In her next quote she notes that there are uses for prayer but, again, that prayer is useless when it comes to actions.

You cherry-pick only ‘prayer is useless’ and then spin her meaning.   A cheap, simplistic  tactic of intellectual dishonesty.

Worse, when caught, you just triple down on the dishonesty.  

jrSmiley_104_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.60  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @2.2.57    one month ago
I know...and I was there

Then why did you ask "what IS "Intellectual" Dishonesty...or for that matter "Intellectual" Honesty mean .... and who is "Intellectual" enough to "USE" those words as the mean to an end on NT?" 

Did you not understand what TiG was saying in his article?

(you should, as an intellectual, already have known that

I never claimed to be an intellectual. But thank you for the compliment.

and you were "Dishonest" in your Reponses,

Not even a little.

as you came up with anything and everything you could muster up to ignore my question I kept asking.

As I pointed out repeatedly, your question was loaded and off topic.

You also waited until I was bumped from the article, to "Eventually" make a "Dishonest" response you knew I couldn't respond back to. 

Now you're imagining things.

You're a "Dishonest intellectual"

Oh how droll, and comical at the same time.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.61  Texan1211  replied to  It Is ME @2.2.57    one month ago

A good coping mechanism is to expect nothing--absolutely nothing--and you can avoid any disappointment!

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.62  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.59    one month ago
Worse, when caught, you just triple down on the dishonesty.  

Perhaps a quadrupling down might be forthcoming? jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.2.63  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.60    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.2.64  It Is ME  replied to  It Is ME @2.2.57    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.65  Texan1211  replied to  It Is ME @2.2.64    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.2.66  It Is ME  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.65    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.67  Texan1211  replied to  It Is ME @2.2.66    one month ago

Yeah, my humorous comment TO YOU is now trolling?

Did you feel as though I was trolling you?

Gee, I am sooo sorry!

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.2.68  It Is ME  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.67    one month ago
Did you feel as though I was trolling you?

Who....ME think that ? jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

"Trolling" is such an " Escapism " type word....don't you think ? jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.69  Texan1211  replied to  It Is ME @2.2.68    one month ago

Seems to be the latest catch-all.

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.2.70  It Is ME  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.69    one month ago
Seems to be the latest catch-all.

Pretty Much....along with the "Ignore" the question thingy !

 
 
 
Veronica
2.2.71  Veronica  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.47    one month ago

As I stated that was my PERCEPTION of your quoting katrix partially instead of using the whole context of the discussion.  Your perception is different.  Doesn't make mine wrong - in fact as I said before using partials quotes to prove your point is dishonest IMO.  

 
 
 
Veronica
2.2.72  Veronica  replied to  It Is ME @2.2.48    one month ago

Yes, dishonesty does bother me & does nothing to further a discussion.  

My perception is at least based on his/her whole comments not parts of it, so yes mine is better when it comes to honest discussion.  As I said before when you misquote someone to prove your point (or leave out parts of the whole discussion) it is dishonest and does not further genuine discussion.  

We will have to disagree on this point.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.73  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @2.2.71    one month ago

I quoted her QUITE accurately--and you can look for yourself since you consider me intellectually dishonest. But I feel you won't bother to search for what was actually quoted, because you have made your mind up.

 
 
 
Veronica
2.2.74  Veronica  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.73    one month ago

Prayer can provide self-comfort, just as meditation, yoga, and similar things can do. So it can be beneficial for people to pray even though it doesn't change anything. But it's absolutely useless when it comes to actual actions.

I have read all of comments in the discussion & it appears you have left out this very important part.

And you are correct, my mind is made up.  When someone leaves out a part of the discussion that disproves what they are bitching about I find them to be DISHONEST.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.75  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @2.2.74    one month ago

her original statement was that prayer is useless. I called he rout on that. She responded with the bit about prayer being beneficial. 

How is something beneficial considered useless by thinking adults?

Or how could something useless be beneficial?

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.76  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.75    one month ago

Once again, and not surprisingly, you ignore the contexts in which Kat stated prayer was beneficial and when it's not, even after its been explained to you ad nauseum now. 

 
 
 
Veronica
2.2.77  Veronica  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.75    one month ago

Too many people have tried to explain it to you.  You choose not to grasp the meaning.  A fire hose is beneficial when you have a fire, it is useless if you are hungry.

 
 
 
Veronica
2.2.78  Veronica  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.76    one month ago

I doubt he/she will ever admit it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.79  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.73    one month ago

The problem is not the mechanical quoting, it is your interpretation of katrix' words.   You interpreted her words by cherry-picking.   You omitted parts that changed the entire meaning.   That is the intellectually dishonest act.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.80  TᵢG  replied to  Veronica @2.2.74    one month ago

I am convinced that none of us will ever get Texan to admit his dishonesty.   I do not think this could be more blatantly clear yet he continues to pretend as though he can talk his way out of this.   

jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Veronica
2.2.81  Veronica  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.80    one month ago

Me thinks you are correct. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.82  Gordy327  replied to  Veronica @2.2.78    one month ago
I doubt he/she will ever admit it.

Much less get it.

 You choose not to grasp the meaning.

I'm beginning to wonder if it really is a choice, or if he genuinely just doesn't understand?

Me thinks you are correct

Me knows he's correct! jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Krishna
2.2.83  Krishna  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.2.9    one month ago

but like Heaven right here on Earth, life sure is Hell,, or was it swell, same thing

Yep:

“The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven..”

―  John Milton,   Paradise Lost

 
 
 
Tacos!
3  Tacos!    one month ago
Mr. Ali, who used to work in the same building, called the workers' difficult lives ''a bigger tragedy than their death.''

There’s your answer.

 
 
 
Heartland American
4  Heartland American    one month ago

The fact is that we live in an imperfect sinful world.  The real question is why the misotheists blame God for natural or man made disasters brought on by the illegitimate prince of this world, Satan?  It is his greatest deception to get persons to blame God for his acts of evil.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @4    one month ago
The real question is why the misotheists blame God for natural or man made disasters brought on by the illegitimate prince of this world, Satan?  It is his greatest deception to get persons to blame God for his acts of evil.

Prove that Satan is to blame for anything! If you accuse someone of something, you should present evidence. While you're at it, present evidence of god/satan! So, where is your evidence? And if there is a god, then god certainly shares in the blame. Assuming your god is omnipotent and omniscient, then he knows what's going to happen and sits back and watches while it happens. That makes him complicit.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.2  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @4    one month ago
The real question is why the misotheists blame God for natural or man made disasters brought on by the illegitimate prince of this world, Satan?

Do you believe that God cannot stop Satan?    If God can stop Satan and chooses to not do so then whatever Satan does is allowed by God.     

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.2.1  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @4.2    one month ago
If God can stop Satan and chooses to not do so then whatever Satan does is allowed by God.     

Ergo, god is an accomplice to Satan's shenanigans. And if god cannot stop Satan, then god cannot be omnipotent. And I have yet to have a theist explain what Satan has done that is so bad, especially compared to the atrocities god has committed.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
4.2.2  Jack_TX  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.1    one month ago
Ergo, god is an accomplice to Satan's shenanigans.

No.  

Allows, yes.  "Accomplice"...nonsense.

 
 
 
katrix
4.2.3  katrix  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.1    one month ago
And I have yet to have a theist explain what Satan has done that is so bad, especially compared to the atrocities god has committed.

All Satan did was bruise God's massive ego. The only people he killed were as part of a bet with God, to prove that people would still worship God no matter what horrible things he did to them. Satan never commanded people to rape and enslave virgins, or commit genocide of entire tribes, as the bible says God did.

The biblical God, on the other hand, murdered millions upon millions of people and killed millions of animals as well.

Sounds to me like these folks are worshipping the more evil of their two gods.

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.2.4  Gordy327  replied to  Jack_TX @4.2.2    one month ago
Allows, yes.  "Accomplice"...nonsense.

Accomplice, yes! Or at the very least, complicit. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.2.5  Gordy327  replied to  katrix @4.2.3    one month ago
Satan never commanded people to rape and enslave virgins, or commit genocide of entire tribes, as the bible says God did.

And yet, some people are so mentally wrapped around god's finger, they'll make up any excuse or justification for god doing that, while passing blame to Satan. It's like bibilical Stockholm Syndrome.

 
 
 
katrix
4.2.6  katrix  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.5    one month ago

And to see people in this day and age still blame natural disasters on gods ... it is baffling.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.2.7  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @4.2.2    one month ago
Allows, yes.  "Accomplice"...nonsense.

Thing is, some people claim that everything that happens is God's plan.   (see @1.1.23 for a recent example)   That thinking suggests that Satan is doing exactly what God wants ... carrying out God's plan.  

This is one of many contradictions in religious thinking.   Either:

  1. Satan is doing what God intends (God's plan) or
  2. Satan is doing what God allows him to do or
  3. God cannot stop Satan.   

Option 3 contradicts omnipotence.    Option 1 effectively argues that God is a monster (all the bad -and there is a lot of horrific bad- in the universe is God's plan).    Option 2 seems to be the most logical, however it carries the fact that the buck stops with God.   If God allows Satan to do horrible things then this is a result of a choice God made.   God is ultimately in charge and responsible.


To me, given there is zero evidence of a sentient creator entity (much less the Abrahamic God) the most logical hypothesis is that there is no sentient entity directing what happens.   That explains why good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people.   Reality (or call it nature), per this hypothesis, is indifferent to the desires and needs of any particular life form.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
4.2.8  Jack_TX  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.4    one month ago
Accomplice, yes! Or at the very least, complicit. 

Idiotic.

This idea literally allows you to place blame on nearly anyone for nearly anything, and similarly absolve nearly anyone for nearly anything you don't want to blame.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.2.9  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @4.2.8    one month ago

You need to explain that.   

Note:  only God is held as perfect, omniscient and omnipotent.   Ordinary human beings have severe limitations.

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.2.10  Gordy327  replied to  Jack_TX @4.2.8    one month ago
Idiotic.

Nope. Simply logical.

This idea literally allows you to place blame on nearly anyone for nearly anything, and similarly absolve nearly anyone for nearly anything you don't want to blame.

I'm not talking about anyone. I'm talking about an omnipotent deity that has full knowledge of everything that's going to happen and with full power to intervene, or not. I'll place blame where it's due. Not make excuses to justify or absolve that blame. So, if god allows something to happen, he's complicit in it. If it's part of his "plan," then he's an accomplice to whatever other agency carries out that plan, and still carries the blame. It's rather funny and pathetic how some people want to praise god for anything good, but not blame him for anything bad. I guess some people want to have it both ways. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.2.11  Gordy327  replied to  katrix @4.2.6    one month ago
And to see people in this day and age still blame natural disasters on gods ... it is baffling.

It's gone beyond baffling to just plain delusionally stupid. Didn't Pat Robertson once claim hurricanes were sent by god because God was angry over gay marriage being allowed, or something like that?

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.12  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.10    one month ago

Why exactly do you wish to blame an entity you don't believe exists for anything at all in the world?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
4.2.13  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.7    one month ago
This is one of many contradictions in religious thinking.   Either:
  1. Satan is doing what God intends (God's plan) or
  2. Satan is doing what God allows him to do or
  3. God cannot stop Satan.   

Just pointing out the gargantuan difference between "what God intends" and "what God allows".  This concept is exceedingly well documented in multiple religious texts.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
4.2.14  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.9    one month ago
You need to explain that.    Note:  only God is held as perfect, omniscient and omnipotent.   Ordinary human beings have severe limitations.

The limitations are immaterial.  The definition of "complicit" is "helping to commit a crime or do wrong in some way".  

Failing to prevent something from happening does not make one "complicit". 

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.2.15  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @4.2.13    one month ago

Yes there is a major difference between intent and allows.   But the buck still stops with God.  That was my point.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.2.16  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @4.2.14    one month ago
The limitations are immaterial

Hardly.   God has total control.   An individual human being does not.

Failing to prevent something from happening does not make one "complicit". 

It does if we are talking about the single omnipotent, omniscient entity.    Nothing can stop this entity from doing whatever it wants (as long as what it wants is possible to do ... disregarding illogical things like making an entity greater than itself).    Since this entity holds all the cards, names the game and makes all the rules for the game, it is impossible for it to not be ultimately responsible for all good and all bad.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.2.17  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.1    one month ago

IMO, it was the substandard and unsafe working/living conditions that caused these deaths, not God nor Satan.  Man is responsible and the greed for cheap products.

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.2.18  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.12    one month ago
Why exactly do you wish to blame an entity you don't believe exists for anything at all in the world?

What I wish or believe is irrelevant. But many people believe in god and that god causes or allows things to happen in the world, good or bad. If that's the case, then god deserves as much the blame as he gets praise.

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.2.19  Gordy327  replied to  Jack_TX @4.2.13    one month ago
Just pointing out the gargantuan difference between "what God intends" and "what God allows".  This concept is exceedingly well documented in multiple religious texts.

If people believe or claim everything happens according to God's Plan or will, then there really is no difference. It comes down to god and what he wants.

The definition of "complicit" is "helping to commit a crime or do wrong in some way".  

That could include allowing the crime to happen.

Failing to prevent something from happening does not make one "complicit". 

It is when you set up the circumstances and ultimately know it's going to happen. After all, god set the stage long ago. So he's ultimately responsible for everything.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
4.2.20  Jack_TX  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.10    one month ago
Nope. Simply logical.

The fact that you mistake this for logic should embarrass you more than it appears to.

I'm not talking about anyone. I'm talking about an omnipotent deity that has full knowledge of everything that's going to happen and with full power to intervene, or not. I'll place blame where it's due. Not make excuses to justify or absolve that blame. So, if god allows something to happen, he's complicit in it.
com·plic·it  /kəmˈplisit/  adjective:
  1. involved with others in an illegal activity or wrongdoing.
  2. choosing to be involved in an illegal or questionable act, especially with others; having complicity.

English words have meanings.  You do not get to redefine English words because you want to talk about a certain person/entity, or simply because you don't know the words you really wanted to use.  

If it's part of his "plan," then he's an accomplice to whatever other agency carries out that plan, and still carries the blame.

Accomplice:  noun 

  1. one associated with another especially in wrongdoing
  2. a person who knowingly helps another in a crime or wrongdoing, often as a subordinate.

How....exactly....would God go about a "crime", when He is the one who defines good and evil?

 It's rather funny and pathetic how some people want to praise god for anything good, but not blame him for anything bad. I guess some people want to have it both ways. 

No more funny or pathetic than how some people want to blame God for everything bad but ignore him when anything good happens.  People attempt to project their own misguided ideas of morality on to God, and then somehow blame him when he refuses to comply.  

It's a very short slide from "God is complicit in the deaths of 43 people in a fire" to "God is an accomplice in my lung cancer after 40 years of 3 pack/day smoking."  

God is no more "complicit" in things you don't like than a judge is "complicit" in perjury because he allowed the person to speak in the courtroom.  He is no more an "accomplice" in things you don't like than the person who fails to ram a bank robber's getaway car.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
4.2.21  Jack_TX  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.11    one month ago
It's gone beyond baffling to just plain delusionally stupid. Didn't Pat Robertson once claim hurricanes were sent by god because God was angry over gay marriage being allowed, or something like that?

I think it was Fred Phelps, actually.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
4.2.22  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.16    one month ago
Hardly.   God has total control.   An individual human being does not.

None of which matters to the definition of "complicit" or "accomplice".

It does if we are talking about the single omnipotent, omniscient entity.

No.  It doesn't.  Will you next equate watching your 6 year old fall off their bicycle with shoving them on the ground?  

You knew it was going to happen. You could have prevented it.  But you chose to let them get on that bike so it's all your fault....  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
4.2.23  Jack_TX  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.19    one month ago
If people believe or claim everything happens according to God's Plan or will, then there really is no difference. It comes down to god and what he wants.

Why would you imagine God's will to be so highly detailed?   

I made a plan to take my family on a road trip this summer.  We started in Dallas, wound our way to Yellowstone and back.   

But I didn't plan every bathroom stop.   I didn't plan every restaurant, or even every hotel.  I didn't plan what we would buy shopping in Denver, or which trails we would traverse in the National Parks.  All of that was within my control, but I chose not to exercise that control.

So everything that happened on that trip was in accordance with my plan.  But lots of things happened that weren't specified.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.2.24  Gordy327  replied to  Jack_TX @4.2.20    one month ago
The fact that you mistake this for logic should embarrass you more than it appears to.

Your understanding of logic seems to be lacking.

How....exactly....would God go about a "crime", when He is the one who defines good and evil?

You seem to overlook the fact that god set everything up to happen as it has. It's also a logical contradiction that a supposedly "good" or benevolent god wants the good and allows or creates evil. God allowed things to happen against what he wanted. 

No more funny or pathetic than how some people want to blame God for everything bad but ignore him when anything good happens.  People attempt to project their own misguided ideas of morality on to God, and then somehow blame him when he refuses to comply. 

Or they illogically try to shift blame to Satan while giving god a free pass. But if god is to be praised for the good, then he also gets the blame for the bad. Some people apparently do not realize that or do not want to realize it because it conflicts with their own preconceived notions, beliefs, or desires.

It's a very short slide from "God is complicit in the deaths of 43 people in a fire" to "God is an accomplice in my lung cancer after 40 years of 3 pack/day smoking."  

If good happens because of god. Then so does the bad. There's no logical way around that.

God is no more "complicit" in things you don't like than a judge is "complicit" in perjury because he allowed the person to speak in the courtroom.  He is no more an "accomplice" in things you don't like than the person who fails to ram a bank robber's getaway car.  

He's the one who established a "plan" and set everything in motion to play out as it does from the very beginning. As TiG pointed out, the buck stops with god.

I think it was Fred Phelps, actually.

Same difference.

Why would you imagine God's will to be so highly detailed?   

Does god get what god wants?

So everything that happened on that trip was in accordance with my plan.  But lots of things happened that weren't specified. 

If god is omniscient, then by definition, he already knows every single thing, every little detail. Nothing gets by god, no matter how small or insignificant.

 
 
 
pat wilson
4.2.25  pat wilson  replied to  Jack_TX @4.2.23    one month ago
Why would you imagine God's will to be so highly detailed? 

Why would you imagine God's will at all ?

I don't think that's possible based on what most people believe God to be.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.2.26  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @4.2.22    one month ago
None of which matters to the definition of "complicit" or "accomplice".

I already explained why it matters:  

TiG @4.2.16It does if we are talking about the single omnipotent, omniscient entity.    Nothing can stop this entity from doing whatever it wants (as long as what it wants is possible to do ... disregarding illogical things like making an entity greater than itself).    Since this entity holds all the cards, names the game and makes all the rules for the game, it is impossible for it to not be ultimately responsible for all good and all bad.

Explain why I am wrong rather than simply declare same.

You knew it was going to happen. You could have prevented it.  But you chose to let them get on that bike so it's all your fault....  

Again you compare a mere human being with an omniscient, omnipotent, perfect entity.   The former does not know what will happen and does not have unlimited power and, importantly, is flawed.   The latter is perfect, knows everything that will happen and has full power to prevent it.

In short, nothing happens that God does not allow.  If God allows something to happen then it is the result of God's knowing choice.  (per the biblical definition of God)   

 
 
 
Jack_TX
4.2.27  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.26    one month ago
Explain why I am wrong rather than simply declare same.

You are wrong because you ignore the obvious distinction between what someone allows and what someone actively causes.  They are not the same thing, and God being omnipotent does not change that.

Again you compare a mere human being with an omniscient, omnipotent, perfect entity.

I compare people with knowledge and control of a situation to a being with knowledge and control of a situation. 

   The former does not know what will happen and does not have unlimited power and, importantly, is flawed.   The latter is perfect, knows everything that will happen and has full power to prevent it.

Your assertion rests upon God having the knowledge of what will happen combined with God having the power to prevent it happening.  Humans are frequently in such situations.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
4.2.28  Jack_TX  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.24    one month ago
God allowed things to happen against what he wanted.

Yes.  This does not make him an "accomplice", any more than you would be an accomplice in something you didn't want to happen but allowed.

Or they illogically try to shift blame to Satan while giving god a free pass.

I'll agree Satan's influence is frequently exaggerated.

But if god is to be praised for the good, then he also gets the blame for the bad.

For things He DOES, yes.  Not for things he allows.

If good happens because of god. Then so does the bad. There's no logical way around that.

That "logic" wholly depends on the highly childish worldview that every single thing that happens on earth is directly determined by God.  Nobody believes that.

It's like the hypothetical scientific illustration where all objects are perfect spheres and all motion happens in a vacuum. 

If god is omniscient, then by definition, he already knows every single thing, every little detail. Nothing gets by god, no matter how small or insignificant.

Sure.  But you ignore the idea that God doesn't care about huge amounts of it.  He knows how you take your coffee, what kind of whiskey I prefer, and which car I'm going to buy.  Why would anyone imagine he cares?  Your "logic" would lead you to conclude that if I make a shit decision about a car, God is somehow responsible because he allowed me to do it.  I cannot imagine how I should need to explain how ridiculous that is.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
4.2.29  Jack_TX  replied to  pat wilson @4.2.25    one month ago
Why would you imagine God's will at all ? I don't think that's possible based on what most people believe God to be.

It's kind of like the stock market.  Over time, you know which way it's going.  The shorter that time window, the more impossible it gets to predict.

Imagining God's will on the large scale isn't difficult at all, based on what Christians believe about who He is and his love for mankind.  Imagining it in real-time isn't always easy.

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.2.30  Gordy327  replied to  Jack_TX @4.2.29    one month ago
It's kind of like the stock market.  Over time, you know which way it's going.  The shorter that time window, the more impossible it gets to predict.

God supposedly already knows how things will go, from start to finish.

You are wrong because you ignore the obvious distinction between what someone allows and what someone actively causes.  They are not the same thing, and God being omnipotent does not change that.

And you ignore the fact (belief) that god is also omniscient and set everything in motion, already knowing how things will proceed and turn out. So he both caused it and allowed it.

Your assertion rests upon God having the knowledge of what will happen combined with God having the power to prevent it happening.  Humans are frequently in such situations.

If god is defined as being omnipotent and omniscient, as he so often is, then he has both the knowledge and power to alter situations.

Yes.  This does not make him an "accomplice", any more than you would be an accomplice in something you didn't want to happen but allowed.

Only if you ignore the notion of god being the first cause or originator of all things.

For things He DOES, yes.  Not for things he allows.

For a supposedly omnipotent, omniscient deity, that's kind of the same thing.

That "logic" wholly depends on the highly childish worldview that every single thing that happens on earth is directly determined by God.  Nobody believes that.

Really? I've had people tell me before, some even here on NT, that god controls everything that happens. Clearly some people do believe that.

Sure.  But you ignore the idea that God doesn't care about huge amounts of it.

And you base that assertion on what exactly? How can you possibly know what the grandest possible entity cares about or not?

Why would anyone imagine he cares?

If god doesn't care, then that makes him unworthy of worship.

Your "logic" would lead you to conclude that if I make a shit decision about a car, God is somehow responsible because he allowed me to do it.

God supposedly created you, knowing you would eventually make a poor decision about a car. So in effect, he did allow you to do it and is, at the very least, partly responsible. He created you and essentially set you up for failure.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.2.31  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @4.2.27    one month ago
You are wrong because you ignore the obvious distinction between what someone allows and what someone actively causes.  They are not the same thing, and God being omnipotent does not change that.

I am not talking about someone, I am talking about God who is defined as perfect, omniscient and omnipotent.   You are ignoring this important point.

An omniscient, omnipotent, perfect entity makes no mistakes, has perfect knowledge and has the power to set whatever (logically possible) course it wants to set.   So God could give Satan the power to cause natural disasters (for example) knowing full well what Satan would do.   Because God knew what Satan would do and allowed him to do it, God is ultimately responsible.   God, in this example, does not directly cause natural disaster but He knowingly allowed them to occur.   Accordingly he is ultimately responsible.  The buck stops with God.  

I compare people with knowledge and control of a situation to a being with knowledge and control of a situation. 

Oh come on Jack, comparing the capabilities of a mere human being with that of God is comparing apples with black holes.  

Your assertion rests upon God having the knowledge of what will happen combined with God having the power to prevent it happening.  Humans are frequently in such situations.

Your example was of a 6 year old falling off her bicycle.   As noted, comparing a flawed human being with a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent God is ridiculous but your analogy is flawed in other ways too.

You claim that the parent knew the 6 year old would fall off the bicycle and allowed it to occur (presumably by not taking the 6 year old off of the bicycle).   But then you say that allowing her on the bike is the same as shoving her on the ground.   No, that does not correlate at all with what I wrote.   The parent allowed the child to fall;  the parent did not shove the child to the ground.   I did not write that God allowing something to happen is the same as God directly initiating the action.    I wrote that God is ultimately responsible for the action.

In your scenario, the parent is responsible for the child falling off her bicycle because the parent knew (per you) that it would happen and allowed it to occur nonetheless.   Being responsible for an action is different from directly effecting an action.   But apparently you think the parent is not responsible for the child falling off her bike.

Try this:  put your dog in a room and do not let him eat for a day.   Then toss in his favorite treat.   Are you responsible for him gobbling it up?    You did not actually move his mouth to the food and force his mouth to chew so you did not directly act.   You did, however, knowingly allow a situation that will cause the dog to eat the treat.   But how could you not ultimately be responsible for your dog eating the treat?

Well God (per some religious views) created Satan with full knowledge of what Satan would do.   God then allowed Satan to act and Satan did exactly what God knew He would do.   Is God (perfect entity with perfect knowledge and all-powerful) not ultimately responsible for what Satan did?    

 
 
 
Jack_TX
4.2.32  Jack_TX  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.30    one month ago
God supposedly already knows how things will go, from start to finish.

The question was how a person understands God's will, not how He does.

And you ignore the fact (belief) that god is also omniscient and set everything in motion, already knowing how things will proceed and turn out. So he both caused it and allowed it.

Allowed, yes.  Caused, no.  It's really quite simple.  If I buy my son a skateboard, knowing full well he will fall off of it...am I somehow guilty of child abuse?  I have foreknowledge.  I choose to set the process in motion.  

If god is defined as being omnipotent and omniscient, as he so often is, then he has both the knowledge and power to alter situations

So are humans on a frequent basis.  Yet your "logic" does not extend to them.   Hmmmm.....

For a supposedly omnipotent, omniscient deity, that's kind of the same thing.

Nonsense.  Allowing your child to dress herself is not the same as choosing her mismatched shoes.

And you base that assertion on what exactly? How can you possibly know what the grandest possible entity cares about or not?

Thousands of years worth of writings, teachings and traditions.

If god doesn't care, then that makes him unworthy of worship.

OK....you're just trying to be ridiculous now.  

God supposedly created you, knowing you would eventually make a poor decision about a car. So in effect, he did allow you to do it and is, at the very least, partly responsible. He created you and essentially set you up for failure.

Allowed, yes.  Responsible...no.  God allows us to make our own decisions, because love can only exist if it is freely given.

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.2.33  Gordy327  replied to  Jack_TX @4.2.32    one month ago
The question was how a person understands God's will, not how He does.

One cannot understand the will of the grandest possible entity. Anyone who claims otherwise is deluding themselves. However, if everything goes according to god's will, as many theists believe, then everything that occurs is due to god. God set events in motion that go according to his will or plan or whatever. Therefore, god is ultimately responsible.

Allowed, yes.  Caused, no.  It's really quite simple.  If I buy my son a skateboard, knowing full well he will fall off of it...am I somehow guilty of child abuse?  I have foreknowledge.  I choose to set the process in motion.  

TiG already explained the allegory far better than I could. How about this: if you give your child a gun and he shoots himself or someone else, are you responsible?

So are humans on a frequent basis.  Yet your "logic" does not extend to them.   Hmmmm.....

Humans are omnipotent and omniscient? Hmmm, who knew?

Nonsense.  Allowing your child to dress herself is not the same as choosing her mismatched shoes.

Who gives your child the clothes to begin with?

Thousands of years worth of writings, teachings and traditions.

All written and performed by mere flawed humans, with their own interpretations, desires, biases, feelings, ect.. That alone should give one pause as to the veracity of any claim or assertion regarding god's thoughts, will, or desire.

OK....you're just trying to be ridiculous now.  

No, I'm being serious.

Allowed, yes.  Responsible...no.  God allows us to make our own decisions,

An omniscient god negates the ability to make our own decisions. We only have the illusion of making choices and decisions. But ultimately, our decisions is already known and established well in advance.

because love can only exist if it is freely given.

Love exists as a biochemical reaction in our brains. It's part of our emotional state, alone with all other emotions. But whether it's "given" or not is immaterial, as it's already known by god if it will be "given" or not, assuming god is omniscient.

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.2.34  Heartland American  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.7    one month ago

The apologists for Satan are out in force on this seed.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.2.35  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @4.2.34    one month ago

One would have to believe in Satan to be an apologist for same.    So which believers do you see on this article serving as Satan's apologists?

Also, you apparently do not understand the point I was making.   My point is that Satan is defined as being a creation of God and an underling.   God, in contrast, is defined as perfect, omniscient and omnipotent.   Thus Satan only can do what God allows him to do.

Do you think Satan can do something that God does not allow him to do?

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.2.36  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @4.2.34    one month ago
The apologists for Satan are out in force on this seed.  

Is that supposed to mean anything? Or is that what you call those who poke logical holes in your arguments? How about actually and logically  addressing the points made rather than making personal jabs!

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.2.37  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.36    one month ago

I think it was supposed to mean something, but clearly it was not a well conceived thought.

 
 
 
It Is ME
5  It Is ME    one month ago

I guess my question is why did God (Jesus Christ ) save the millionaire Kanye West but did not give a better outcome to these 43 desperately poor people in India?

Did "God" or "Jesus" say, they saved Kanye ? jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

"Investigators blamed an electrical short-circuit for the fire"

Sounds like just ANOTHER Human Error thingy. jrSmiley_89_smiley_image.gif  

 
 
 
It Is ME
5.1  It Is ME  replied to  It Is ME @5    one month ago

James 1:13 

"Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone."

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
6  Dean Moriarty    one month ago

I don’t know much about Hinduism but it probably has nothing to do with Jesus. 

 
 
 
Freefaller
6.1  Freefaller  replied to  Dean Moriarty @6    one month ago

Most of the victims were Muslim not Hindu.  This still means Jesus had nothing to do with it (as he is only a prophet to them) but god is still squarely in the sights.

 
 
 
Enoch
7  Enoch    one month ago

Dear Brother in Spirit and Good Friend John Russell: Great topic.

As ever, you have your thumb on the pulse of what really matters.

The problem of evil, and this would be an example of such is one of the most difficult of all challenges with which theologians and theological philosophers grapple.

Briefly, the sticking point appears to be formulated as follows.

G-d is all powerful.

G-d is all caring.

There is unnecessary evil in the world.

It causes suffering and harm.

Why does not G-d use His powers to eliminate evil from occurring?

Over my more than seven decades I have read and given a fair hearing to people on all sides of the fence on this one.

To date no one set of dance steps wins the Dancing with the Stars award, in my view.

The following are the best ways I have seen.

Not perfect but least worst of available options.

1. Tzimtzum (Contractions) Kabbalah (Zohar). G-d is perfect.

Why not make all in His creation perfect?

Because that would be redundant and pointless.

G-d doesn't do pointless.

Rather G-d contracts himself to allow for spaces of imperfection.

Free will is granted.

Revelation(s) provide guides for the use of free will to perfect (improve) things. 

When humans who have the intellectual capacity to choose between right and wrong elect, even at self sacrifice to do right, they and G-d share in the credit.

In the case of the incident in India, the choice to hold manufacturers to high worker safety standards, and to pay them a fair days wage for a fair days work is up to regulators and commerce and industry.

In this case both failed.

Wrong choice.

When our off spring were growing up, I could have done their home work for them. 

It would have turned out better, and been done faster.

They also would have learned nothing from my doing it.  

If they needed help, I was there for them.

It is better they figure things out for themselves.

That is where the potential for human growth and development reside.

This is a serious position.

However, it does not help when humans suffer from normal acts of nature, like natural disasters.

A good, not perfect theory.

2. "The best of all possible worlds". Read Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz, The Monadology.

Pay attention to the concept of "infinite regress".

Of all the ways this world could be, this is the best possible option.

If we can imagine a world that is better, how and why I am not convinced that this theory holds water. 

3. Does the world have to be free of evil for us to have sufficient reason to want to live G-d centered lives?

Let's review of our human family relationships for an insight.

As children, did we always act perfectly, and always fulfill the hopes, wishes and desires of our loving parents for us?

As parents, were we flawless in our parenting? 

Were there no times when as children and as parents that we let those we love down by our errors?

Is that sufficient reason to never relate to them or them to us again?

Are we looking in the wrong place for reason(s) to live with evil, and remain close to G-d in our lives (assuming we wish to exercise our option to do so)?

Mrs. E. and I have been together from more than half a century.

She had done far better at being my wife than I have at being her husband.

Ours is an imperfect yet rock solid marriage for life.

We work daily at making "us" stronger and closer than the day before.

We do this because we both know we are better off together than apart. 

We make this work, because we have a better life for the marriage's success.

Can the same be true for leading a G-d centered life?

For those of us (you and I are but two examples here) of those who opine that we elect to live our lives most fully abundantly, humanely, ethically etc.

We do so by having them be G-d centered.

We can live with the presence of evil without fully comprehending why it exists.

Our relationship with G-d is a strong motivator for us to do our part to make things better than they are.  

There is a famous story (parable) about a seminarian. 

As students of devotional texts and their application to addressing the problems and opportunities of life do, he or she prayed for understanding about why there is evil.

The Holy One, Blessed Be, could do something to prevent and rule it out for good and all.

Why has not G-d done something?

A Seraph (that type of angel who communicates for G-d to us) advised the student as follows.

The L-rd of Hosts wants you to know He daily does something about evil.

He sends people like you to address and prevail over it. 

Get busy!

My life has been focused, among other activities on serving G-d by trying my best to be there for those who need and want what I was given to apply for them on terms most meaningful to them. 

Not always, and quite frequently not because they deserve it.

Rather because they need and want it.

The best answer I can provide for this vexing problem is that we can sit around and jawbone about it.

The end result of that are a lot of theories from all sides which do nothing to advance the needs and goals of the human family.

For me and folks like me the best of all answers available isn't to be uncovered in doctrine or speculative philosophy.

Rather in service to humanity.

Stand up to evil as you would to any bully.

Do what you practically can to defeat, weaken and discourage it and its use for harm to others.

This is the best I can offer.

It is where I place the chips on the gaming table of life for me.

My bet is that there is no sure thing.

This is the best of all options I can find to deal with evil.

Don't speculate, subjegate.

Peace and Abundant Blessings to you and Yours John.

For a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

As well to all News Talkers who celebrate anything, most sincere wishes for a joyous and meaningful holiday(s) season.

Enoch. 

P.S. Due to time pressures on things I must do in the next few weeks, I will be unable to address any posts regarding what I contributed to John's Insightful seed and key question posed.

That said, unless John or the site mods have a problem with it, you are encouraged as news talkers to put your 2 cents in.

"Come, let us reason together". E.   

 

 
 
 
pat wilson
7.1  pat wilson  replied to  Enoch @7    one month ago

Lovely thoughts, Dear Enoch !

 
 
 
Enoch
7.1.1  Enoch  replied to  pat wilson @7.1    one month ago

Dear Friend Pat Wilson: Many thanks.

Every good wish to you and yours for the end of this year, and all of next.

It is a time of the year to celebrate, reflect, button up and re-start again.

To you and yours the very best in each and all these things and more.

P&AB.

Enoch. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
7.2  r.t..b...  replied to  Enoch @7    one month ago
"Come, let us reason together". E

An ideal starting point for any discussion on any topic. As always, your wisdom gives relevance to the base argument. Peace to you and yours as we collectively enter and personally celebrate the season of sharing, reflection, and giving thanks.

 
 
 
Enoch
7.2.1  Enoch  replied to  r.t..b... @7.2    one month ago

Dear Friend r.t..b...: Thanks you for the kind generous comment, and well wish.

To you and yours, from Mrs. E. and me a joyous and meaningful holiday season.

May you all finish this year well, and encounter an even better 2020.

P&AB.

Enoch.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
7.2.2  r.t..b...  replied to  Enoch @7.2.1    one month ago
and encounter an even better 2020.

With hopes of many prayers answered...

mrs. r.t..b...has been diagnosed with an aggressive form of breast cancer and has begun treatment with surgery and radiation therapy already scheduled. I also  learned last night of the passing of my old HS basketball coach, life mentor, and good friend. I am honored to have been asked to take part in his services and will attempt to give appropriate words to relay the lessons he passed on to me. I am grateful for family, friends, co-workers and even those unmet compatriots hereabouts that lift us up...you at the forefront, Enoch.

Not to derail the thread, but my time here will be few and far between in the coming weeks and months. If I can ask ask one thing, and this is not about me...it is for all of us... try to focus on the irreplaceable moments you share with your family, to put aside the petty, and to think outside oneself and give back some of our excess, financial or fraternal, to those not so blessed.

Peace.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
7.2.3  sandy-2021492  replied to  r.t..b... @7.2.2    one month ago
mrs. r.t..b...has been diagnosed with an aggressive form of breast cancer and has begun treatment with surgery and radiation therapy already scheduled.

I hope she has a quick and uneventful recovery.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
7.2.4  r.t..b...  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.3    one month ago

Thank you, Sandy. Enjoy the season with those most dear.

 
 
 
charger 383
7.2.5  charger 383  replied to  r.t..b... @7.2.4    one month ago

Successful treatment and strength to both   

 
 
 
r.t..b...
7.2.6  r.t..b...  replied to  charger 383 @7.2.5    one month ago

Appreciate the kind thoughts, charger.

And a long overdue thanks to you, A.Mac, S.P., the Fish, Sandy, and Perrie for moderating the venue. A difficult and tiresome task it must be, but 'tis a valuable outlet you provide. Holiday cheers all around.

 
 
 
Enoch
7.2.7  Enoch  replied to  r.t..b... @7.2.2    one month ago

Dear Friend r.t..b...: Not being here much applies to you and  me both.

I am in total agreement with you.

Focus on the big picture.

Don't sweat the small face.

Family and friends first.

Make and treasure the good times.

You have my private email.

If I am or am not in this site very much,  am here for you and yours 24/7.

Always reach out as needed and wanted.

I have your back. 

Peace and Abundant Blessings Always.

Enoch.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
7.2.8  igknorantzrulz  replied to  r.t..b... @7.2.2    one month ago

Very sorry to hear this r.t..b...

Heres to a speedy recovery, and, like me,

knock em dead at the funeral,

or, unlike me, as i know you will,

say the right things.

i know you can and will !

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.2.9  author  JohnRussell  replied to  r.t..b... @7.2.2    one month ago

Sorry to hear of your troubles rtb, best wishes for best outcome for your wife, and condolences on your coach

 
 
 
Kathleen
8  Kathleen    one month ago

I don’t know why bad things happen to many folks. I always thought it was bad timing and luck. Also other people can cause a lot of misery too. Either there is no such thing as a god, or god has nothing to do with what happens on earth.  That’s my take on it.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
8.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Kathleen @8    one month ago

Hi Kathleen. In a nutshell, here is my take. The Old Testament laid out the beginning. If you can relate, what a lot of our "friends" here fail to take into account is the fact that God created man and woman and gave them free will. He then laid out how we were to live through the teachings of Christ. It is that free will that is responsible for much of what we see today. I don't think He/She ever intended to control everything. Does He/She know what will come to pass? Seems some of the Biblical teachings point in that direction. We are our own worst enemies with that thought in mind. He/She possibly knew we would screw it up but, until it gets to the point of self destruction, there is no need to "step in". We have that gift of free will and some will prosper, and some will fail.

JMHO

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.1    one month ago
We have that gift of free will and some will prosper, and some will fail.

The flaw with that is an omnipotent, omniscient deity negates the possibility of free will.

 
 
 
Heartland American
8.1.2  Heartland American  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.1    one month ago

Except that He willed for us to have it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @8.1.2    one month ago

Free will means that we can make choices that dynamically determine the future.   This means that until you actually choose to put that piece of toast into the toaster, it is impossible to know that you would make that choice.   The future is not 'written' until the choices and actions are made.

Now if you can follow that you will realize that free will means that the future is unknowable and that an unknowable future is necessary for free will to exist.

Assuming you follow that, here is the critical insight:   If any entity is omniscient that means the future is knowable.  That is, the only way an entity can know the future is if it is knowable.    With me still?   

Note that I have not mentioned God once in this section.   This is basic logic based on the meaning of English words.


Finally, we can now attach this to the notion of an omniscient God.   If God is omniscient then the future must be knowable.   If the future is knowable then free will is impossible.

So if God gave human beings the gift of free will that means the future must be unknowable and thus God cannot be omniscient.

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.4  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @8.1.2    one month ago
Except that He willed for us to have it.

It is a logical contradiction for an omniscient deity to allow free will, when omniscience by its nature negates the possibility of free will.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.4    one month ago
It is a logical contradiction for an omniscient deity to allow free will, when omniscience by its nature negates the possibility of free will.

I suspect that is true for those who don't believe in God.

For millions of others, no problem at all.

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.5    one month ago

This is simple logic;  it actually has nothing to do with God.   It is all about free will vs. a knowable future.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.6    one month ago

I look at it this way:

There were times when I knew my grandkids would do something specific in advance of them doing it.

Now, does that mean they had no free will to NOT do what I knew they would do?

Of course not.

The very idea of free will and an omniscient God doesn't seem logical to you, but it does to millions.

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.7    one month ago
There were times when I knew my grandkids would do something specific in advance of them doing it.

Here is the critical part that you do not understand:

You could predict what your grandkids would most likely do (high probability).   But you did not actually know the future.    With me?

Your excellent predictions regarding your grandkids does not mean that the future is knowable.    Correct?

So a knowable future was not established.   Thus free will is possible (free will is possible unless the future is knowable).

I am confident you will not think this through, but the answer is right here in front of you if you were to honestly attempt to understand.

The very idea of free will and an omniscient God doesn't seem logical to you, but it does to millions.

That does not make it correct.    This is logic based on the meaning of the operative English words we are using.   You can actually determine the correctness if you think this through.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.8    one month ago
I am confident you will not think this through, but the answer is right here in front of you if you were to honestly attempt to understand.

You can stuff your condescension.

Please never address my or my posts again.

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.1.10  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.9    one month ago

That was predictable.   Always the same, when challenged you return victim prose.

Please never address my or my posts again.

You can always stop posting.

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.11  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.5    one month ago
I suspect that is true for those who don't believe in God. For millions of others, no problem at all.

It's irrelevant whether one believes or not. It's a matter of simple logic. Belief doesn't negate that.

The very idea of free will and an omniscient God doesn't seem logical to you, but it does to millions.

That doesn't automatically make it logical. Because it's not logical, plain and simple. More like millions simply reject or ignore logic in favor of their own beliefs or biases.

There were times when I knew my grandkids would do something specific in advance of them doing it. Now, does that mean they had no free will to NOT do what I knew they would do? Of course not

Did you know precisely what they would do with absolute certainty? Could they have done something different than what you expected? Even if there was a 99% chance they would do what you expect, there is still a chance they might not. But you are not god, whom supposedly has foreknowledge of events with absolute 100% certainty. That means god already knows exactly what they will do and there is nothing they can do to change that outcome. Therefore, they actually have no free will. It only appears they do.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.11    one month ago

The one thing you always seem to do is ascribe human qualities to God. Which is rather silly.

it is unfathomable to you that God is powerful enough to do things considered impossible and which can escape human understanding, and it seems to bother you to no end that others actually believe in God, which is why I suppose you delight in telling them how illogical they are.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.1.13  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.12    one month ago
it is unfathomable to you that God is powerful enough to do things considered impossible

You should have a conversation with Drakkonis on this.   He can explain to you the difference between being omnipotent and being able to do the impossible.   The difference, however, should be obvious from this example:

  • Amy:   God can do whatever He wishes because He is omnipotent.
  • Bob:    God cannot do what is logically impossible
  • Amy:   Yes He can, what you think is impossible is not impossible to God
  • Bob:    Can God make an entity that is more powerful than He?

The point is that God (per the Bible that is) can do anything that is logically possible.   God cannot accomplish a contradiction such as knowing what someone will do before they do it and giving them the free will to do whatever they want.    If God knows what you are going to do then that means the future is knowable.   If the future is knowable then free will is impossible.

If you have free will then it is logically impossible for any entity to know what you will do.   Free will means your choice is not knowable until you make it.

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.14  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.12    one month ago
The one thing you always seem to do is ascribe human qualities to God. Which is rather silly.

Going by the bible, god certainly has human qualities. Of course, this is likely due to the fact that biblical writers were human and probably imbued some of their qualities when establishing the god character. But what's really silly is defending or excusing the logically indefensible.

it is unfathomable to you that God is powerful enough to do things considered impossible and which can escape human understanding

I'm not talking about what is considered "impossible" by human standards. I'm talking about what is logically contradictory.

and it seems to bother you to no end that others actually believe in God, which is why I suppose you delight in telling them how illogical they are.  

Wrong again! I've stated many times now in other discussions that I do not care what other believe. And if they make a claim or verbalize a belief that is illogical, I will call it out as such. I'm not sure how you continue to not understand that.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.14    one month ago

SOSDD

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.16  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.15    one month ago

Can't address or refute the points made, so you simply dismiss them. Typical.

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
8.1.17  jungkonservativ111  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.11    one month ago

It's funny how everything has to be black and white with you. You know gravity is still only a theory, yet you believe in it. Know one knows WHY gravity exists, it just does and you are willing to accept that. Why?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
8.1.18  igknorantzrulz  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @8.1.17    one month ago
Why

cause i'm tired of floating around

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.19  Gordy327  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @8.1.17    one month ago
It's funny how everything has to be black and white with you.

Not at all. But to correspond with your vernacular, not everything is a shade of gray either. I consider what is being said and the logic used to support or refute it. 

You know gravity is still only a theory, yet you believe in it.

Why would I believe in gravity?

Know one knows WHY gravity exists, it just does and you are willing to accept that. Why?

Gravity is an observable, fundamental force of the universe, generated by objects of mass. Its effects can be observed and measured quantifiably. So I accept what science says about gravity and the evidence it presents which supports it. I don't need to "believe" it and belief should not be required. Belief is reserved for when there is no evidence.

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
8.1.20  jungkonservativ111  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.19    one month ago

But it still based off a phenomenon that cant be explained 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
8.1.21  sandy-2021492  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @8.1.17    one month ago
You know gravity is still only a theory

You are aware of the certainty implied in the word "theory" as used by scientists, yes?

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.22  Gordy327  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @8.1.20    one month ago
But it still based off a phenomenon that cant be explained 

How mass generates gravity cannot be fully explained-yet. Although, there are ideas. But we know gravity itself exists based on how we observe its effects on bodies of mass or even on space-time itself. Mathematics supports gravity, starting all the way back with Newton.

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
8.1.23  jungkonservativ111  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.22    one month ago

So if science cant explain it then i guess there is no way to prove God isnt responsible for it. Newton's law doesnt explain gravity it just predicts how it will behave. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.1.24  TᵢG  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @8.1.23    one month ago

Before one can prove that God is responsible for something one must prove God exists.

As it stands, science is still trying to make sense of gravity at the quantum level.   If it succeeds it will have a unified theory covering physics from the quantum level through the cosmological level.

But, until then, the absence of an explanation does not mean 'God did it'.  It simply means that we currently do not know.   

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.25  Gordy327  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @8.1.23    one month ago
So if science cant explain it then i guess there is no way to prove God isnt responsible for it.

There's no reason to assume god is responsible for it. Especially since there is no evidence or proof of any god/s. God isn't an explanation for anything. It's a failure to explain. Science will honestly say "we don't know," until new information is acquired. Those claiming "god did it" leave it at that, no evidence or explanation given. Utilizing god is just a baseless assumption and an intellectually lazy attempt to explain something.

Newton's law doesnt explain gravity it just predicts how it will behave. 

That prediction and the mathematics behind it quantifiably demonstrates gravity and its effect. Again, no belief needed.

 
 
 
Veronica
8.1.26  Veronica  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.12    one month ago
You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

Exodus 20.5

Sounds very much like a human quality.

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
8.1.27  jungkonservativ111  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.24    one month ago

Oh so we can blame God for things without proving his existence but we can't credit him for things?

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.1.28  TᵢG  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @8.1.27    one month ago

If one does not believe in God, the discussion of God is akin to analyzing a character in a book.   One can talk about Darth Vader in terms of good and bad without believing Vader exists.   Same with discussions of the biblical God by agnostic atheists.


That established, only a believer can blame or credit God.   Non-believers can at best blame or credit a fictional character (to them).    

Now, on this 'blame' notion.   I, for one, am not blaming God for what Satan does.   I am arguing that God is ultimately responsible for what Satan does.   That Satan's actions are indeed the result of God's knowing choices.   God, being defined as omniscient, would know even before He created Satan what Satan would do.   God still created Satan and the story unfolds exactly as God knew it would unfold.   God did not create Satan a different way (e.g. with lesser powers) to mitigate Satan; he knowingly created him.   He pushed the first domino and watched the entirely known causal chain play out.

So this is not blame, per se, but rather ultimate responsibility.    And as for credit, one can easily find ways to credit Jesus.   Yahweh, not so much.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
8.1.29  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @8.1.27    one month ago
Oh so we can blame God for things without proving his existence

Who is doing that?

I see some who point out that if God did exist, and further was the Hebrew God described in the bible, it would have a lot of explaining to do and could rightly be blamed for human suffering. But none of those you're debating have made such a claim.

"Know one knows WHY gravity exists, it just does and you are willing to accept that. Why?"

No, no one knows "why" gravity exists, if they knew that they would know why the universe exists and perhaps even what was responsible for it existing. But most sane persons accept that gravity does exist because we can see the effects of it and can measure it and rely on it unlike religious theories of some magical wizard they call "God" creating everything with the snap of his tentacles.

So no, atheists aren't "blaming" an imaginary being for anything. However, there are many followers of many different imaginary beings and they often take actions they believe are the will of their imagined deity which does effect those around them and thus those people can and should be blamed for those they hurt in the name of their fantasy being.

 
 
 
Veronica
8.1.30  Veronica  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @8.1.29    one month ago
However, there are many followers of many different imaginary beings and they often take actions they believe are the will of their imagined deity which does effect those around them and thus those people can and should be blamed for those they hurt in the name of their fantasy being.

Very well stated.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.31  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @8.1.26    one month ago

Expand your mind. It is entirely possible for God to possess some human qualities AND God qualities.

Some folks wish to limit God (or their perception of what He would be like if they were convinced He exists) to ONLY human qualities. Seems unreasonable for an Omniscient Being.

 
 
 
Veronica
8.1.32  Veronica  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.31    one month ago

Expand your mind.  Look past your god to all the gods and goddesses that are out there.  Embrace Mother Earth and Mother Nature - worship them for the life they give.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.33  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @8.1.32    one month ago

I am open to other ways of thinking about Gods. You have never, ever seen me write one derogatory comment about someone's religion or lack thereof. And you won't.

I sure wish everyone could say the same.

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.1.34  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.31    one month ago
Some folks wish to limit God (or their perception of what He would be like if they were convinced He exists) to ONLY human qualities. Seems unreasonable for an Omniscient Being.

Where do you find someone making such a claim?   

 
 
 
Veronica
8.1.35  Veronica  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.33    one month ago

But you assume I am closed minded when it comes to your god - you said so yourself.

 
 
 
The People's Fish
8.1.36  The People's Fish  replied to  Veronica @8.1.35    one month ago

In my religion the religion of the Indigenous tribes of Europe we often have to sacrifice a few to pay honor to Thor.

 
 
 
Veronica
8.1.37  Veronica  replied to  The People's Fish @8.1.36    one month ago

Interesting.

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.38  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.31    one month ago
It is entirely possible for God to possess some human qualities AND God qualities.

According to the bible, god seems to possess the less desirable human qualities.

Some folks wish to limit God (or their perception of what He would be like if they were convinced He exists) to ONLY human qualities. Seems unreasonable for an Omniscient Being.

And some seem to think they know god or know exactly what god thinks or wants. Unreasonable indeed.

I am open to other ways of thinking about Gods. 

Are you open to the possibility that other god/s might exist or be the "true" god/s, or that your god does not exist?

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.39  Gordy327  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @8.1.27    one month ago
Oh so we can blame God for things without proving his existence but we can't credit him for things?

You can blame god for both. I've even said that previously. But there are those that only acknowledge the good things from god, but give him a free pass or shift the blame when bad things happen. Of course, that's under the assumption there is a god. Otherwise, it's more of a character study. Either way, as TiG also pointed out, "the buck stops with god."

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.40  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @8.1.35    one month ago

I didn't say you were closed-minded. I merely wanted you to explore the possibilities of a God having both human AND God-qualities.

That is, if you consider that there IS a God or Gods.

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.1.41  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.40    one month ago

Almost anything is possible.   One can speculate endlessly but there is little to guide the speculation.   Thus, what would be the point of generating all sorts of possibilities and having no way to determine which, if any, are even remotely close to the truth?

 
 
 
Veronica
8.1.42  Veronica  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.40    one month ago

It is right there in black & white...  "expand your mind" .  That's what your wrote - therefore in my perception you stated I was closed minded.  It's great when people turn your words on you as you do it to others, isn't it?

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.1.43  TᵢG  replied to  Veronica @8.1.42    one month ago
... as you do it to others ...

Except in this case you are not ignoring key phrases to change the entire meaning of a post like he did with katrix.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.44  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @8.1.42    one month ago

I know what is there--I wrote it.

I am not responsible for your perceptions.

Take it however you choose!!

Cheers!

 
 
 
Veronica
8.1.45  Veronica  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.44    one month ago

Just as katrix is not responsible for your erroneous perceptions.

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.1.46  TᵢG  replied to  Veronica @8.1.45    one month ago

I am confident those erroneous perceptions were intentional.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.47  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @8.1.45    one month ago

jrSmiley_38_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
PJ
9  PJ    one month ago

God had no plan for these people who died because there is no god.  This is a worn out argument.  What there was were a bunch of dudes who got together and came up with this scheme for the purpose of controlling large masses of people.  Through the centuries this scheme has expanded to include more divine rules that control how people live their lives and who they vote for.  

religion is the worst thing that could have happened to society.  It has raped children and kept parents silent.  It has raped women and kept society silent.  It has elevated the worst of mankind for the purpose of power and greed.

in my opinion, religion is good for one group of people.  the old and dying.  it gives them purpose and hope.

There are some who have embraced the best of this religious scheme and are truly good people but there are very few compared to how many twist and misuse the concept and made up purpose of religion.

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
9.1  jungkonservativ111  replied to  PJ @9    one month ago

Yea, women and children would never be raped if not for religion. Good grief.......jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
PJ
9.1.1  PJ  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @9.1    one month ago

I'm sure they would be raped without religion but my point is that you wouldn't have a large influential organization defending and hiding rapists like the church does.  

The church has become nothing more than a pedophile organization that society has accepted and in many instances ignores.

Even though it has been exposed for raping and molesting children parents continue to march their children into these organizations and sacrifice them to clergy just so they can say they're going to heaven.  How ludicrous is that?  Offering your children up to be raped and molested for a place in a pew?

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
9.1.2  jungkonservativ111  replied to  PJ @9.1.1    one month ago

No maybe people would glorify it and make a sport out of it. Ever think of that? Look at what we have happening already. Ever hear of NAMBLA?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  PJ @9.1.1    one month ago

Are you equating the Catholic Church with all religions?

 
 
 
PJ
9.1.4  PJ  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.3    one month ago

All religions derive from one another.  The difference comes from the guy who decided he wanted more than one wife, or the guy who decided women needed to be covered from head to toe, or the guy who decided women needed to bow down to the man......actually that's all religions so scratch that example.  jrSmiley_68_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
The People's Fish
10  The People's Fish    one month ago

Did it occur to anyone that people from India are largely Hindu?  Their families likely except that they probably stepped on a bug sparking retribution from the mythical belief in reincarnation.

 
 
 
Freefaller
10.1  Freefaller  replied to  The People's Fish @10    one month ago

The workers were largely Muslim so Hindu beliefs have very little relevance.

 
 
 
The People's Fish
10.1.1  The People's Fish  replied to  Freefaller @10.1    one month ago

Oh so maybe they didn't throw enough gay people off a roof top then and Allah got upset with them.

 
 
 
Freefaller
10.1.2  Freefaller  replied to  The People's Fish @10.1.1    one month ago

You would have to prove Allah exists to say that.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

bbl-1
GregTx
Sean Treacy


23 visitors