What Was God's Plan For 43 Poor People Who Died In Factory Fire In India ?
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/
Tags
Who is online
440 visitors
[deleted]
Maybe God will answer you I f you ask Him---after all, why would us mere mortals know why God does everything God does?
We have people who say God has a plan for everyone.
What's that got to do with asking God?
If you have nothing to say please say nothing.
The question isn't too hard, is it?
Yeah, but perhaps the victims didn't believe in the "correct" god. After all, some people also say there is only "one true god."
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.
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".
George had no problem cutting through the nonsense.
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.
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.
Just a little request Freedom - please don't use that term (reservation) in that context - kinda brings out not good feelings, OK?
Thanks.
You asked a question, got a direct answer and (not surprisingly) pretend otherwise.
What a surprise, an entirely vague claim. Nobody saw that one coming.
[deleted]
And he was quite brilliant and funny at it too.
Except some people really do think god talks to them and such. That should give one pause about one's mental state.
Stevie Wonder could have seen that coming.
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.
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.
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.
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!"
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
Such as?
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/inventions-and-innovations-wwii.html
https://wonderfulengineering.com/10-inventions-that-were-created-due-to-world-war-i
[deleted]
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.
You're posting on one of them..............
Read the Bible and you will better understand the mindset of ancient men pretending to be God.
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.
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:
Note that Christians comprise about 70%+ of the USA population. Might want to rethink your views.
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."
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
'God help us.......
'
What the fuck is that supposed to mean?
Easy question. I asked you, not Tex.
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.
I didn't ask you.
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.
What the fuck does abortion have to do with this?
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!
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)
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.
I can help you change your name if you like. That would take care of the situation.
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
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.
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 ... )
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.
You called it God's plan. I am just using your language.
Only believers get mad at God.
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.
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.
Some like to live in an incellated world.
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.
I'm not the subject of this seed and I told you not to call me Tessy
That's reserved for people I like
Sounds like you're spot on, as usual DP
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.
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.
And maybe Hitler would have found the cure for cancer had he lived? Speculation can be entertaining, but it doesn't really mean much.
If god gets praised for good things happening, then he also deserves blame for the bad things happening.
What kind of sick, cruel deity does that? Not one worthy of any worship or praise, that's for sure.
Except for the whole persecution, genocide, crusades, inquisition, terrorism, ect. all done for god over the centuries.
Seriously? You might want to rethink that statement.
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."
All while God knew what would happen and allowed it. Basically, god screwed up and he blames us mere mortals for his failings.
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.
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.
Another misogynistic comment.
I think I see a pattern here. Several, actually.
And twice voted up even.
Don't let the faux-offended make you change your name.
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.
Yup, that's the other pattern to which I was referring.
When it comes to abortion, conservative women aren't a monolith
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."
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.
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.
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.
"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."
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.
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."
It almost boggles the mind that such a mentality still exists in this day and age.
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.
Expressing disagreement with a belief system is not denigrating those who hold to that belief system.
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.
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.
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.
Not buyin' what you're trying to sell. You've established a pattern of behavior. Not an especially attractive one.
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.
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.
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."
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.
Screaming persecution seems to be the go-to move for them. It's like they can't stand having their beliefs or claims challenged.
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.
You cannot say or do anything that would 'work me up.'
Usually the ones who run on 'family values' and are for banning a woman's choice.
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.
Again, that's irrelevant when logically analyzing god and religious claims. One just needs to be intellectually honest enough to do so.
Or a drug.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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
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
Ijustgota
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.
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....
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
Social media was a war time invention?
Unfortunately, many theists do not see any difference. To them, a challenge is the same as belittling.
'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".
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
Internet.
Some don't get sarcasm so good.
Duh!
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.
No it doesn't
You don't have a clue about me.
[deleted]
Very well stated Kathleen!
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.
Thank you so much DRHunk for the truth of the matter.
So Mr. Know It All was wrong and chastised me
What dumbfuckery
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.
Well, with all of the bigotry and hatred you express-- at least you're not sexist!
DRHunk knows what he's talking about
You do not
I'll take his word over yours.
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.
Do so at your own peril. See 1.1.108. I'll take TiG and mine over the good DR.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
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]
'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.'
Incorrect, as usual.
Sore loser.
Nope. Deny it at your own peril (hahaha). Hell you weren't even born in the early sixties................................
"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.
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?
Brilliant !
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.
And your proof for that is?
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.
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.
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.
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?
Not really. it gives people hope.
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
Agreed. I was talking in terms of making tangible actions happen.
"She's a witch! Burn her!"
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.
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
Katrix was very clear in explaining that prayer is useful for personal comfort, but otherwise useless for anything tangible outside that.
Her words (for further clarity): "I was talking in terms of making tangible actions happen."
I quoted her words EXACTLY.
She contradicted herself.
Period.
No, she didn't. She clearly explained herself. If you don't understand that, then I can't you.
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!!
You seem to overlook the parameters she established. So clearly you do not understand what she said or the context!
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.
Intellectual dishonesty. If one cannot make an honest argument it is best to remain silent.
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.
You omitted the operative part of her comment: "... when it comes to actual actions". That is intellectual dishonesty. You owe katrix an apology.
At its finest.
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.
Blatant too and here he is doubling down on it.
Tell me about it. And I doubt he even gets it yet.
I am sure he (and everyone else reading this) knows that he is ignoring part of katrix' quote to change her meaning.
Was it REALLY the most "Operative" ?
Or
Is that just really an "opinion" by a Friend !
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 ?
You're free to be wrong and anyone else will see that too, including your omissions of what Katrix actually said.
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 offered no opinion. Only fact. Which seems to be above your head.
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.
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
Nice Strawman. Proof of god has nothing to do with this current line of discussion.
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.
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.
They're (Their
) "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
)
....They're self proclaimed ….. "Intellectuals" …… after all.
"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."
The sickening condescension is maddening. That's why they are now on ignore.
The cliche line that you apply even when it has nothing to do with what is being discussed.
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.
Here, TiG wrote an excellent article about it.
Point out where we ever made such claims!
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.
Which works out perfectly. Your comments will still be rebutted (where needed) and there will be no pointless smoke-screen responses.
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 !
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
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.
Is that what you're "speaking up" about ?
Did Texan "Really" do that ?
Or
Was that your perception.....Opinion ?
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.
Was I too Loud ?
Thank you Veronica. You see it, I see it, TiG sees it, and even ignorantz sees sit. Anyone else?
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 ?
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.
We could do a "Beer Summit" !
You may be fun to be with.
I Know I'm a Blast.
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
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
Here is what Katrix actually wrote:
Now, you can choose to dispute that the words are there, but there they are anyways.
I wrote this in response:
And the reply I recieved was this:
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.
There's a big amount of Dishonest folks on NT then, if that's what bothers you !
I didn't see an actual "As Quoted by" listed in Texans statement....did you ?
Is your "Perception" better than Texans "Perception" ?
You seem to recognize that Texan is not being intellectually honest. If I am mistaken on that assessment, then my apologies.
i'm only aloud
10 tons worth.
...….to ?
I'll wait.
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
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?
To "Layman" It Is Me….Not at all.
Let's do an "Intellectual" STUDY about this....shall we.
Nothing was "left off" !
I know...and I was there (you should, as an intellectual, already have known that
).....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]
Then "Buck Up" !
Life has always been hard.
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.
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?
I never claimed to be an intellectual. But thank you for the compliment.
Not even a little.
As I pointed out repeatedly, your question was loaded and off topic.
Now you're imagining things.
Oh how droll, and comical at the same time.
A good coping mechanism is to expect nothing--absolutely nothing--and you can avoid any disappointment!
Perhaps a quadrupling down might be forthcoming?
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Yeah, my humorous comment TO YOU is now trolling?
Did you feel as though I was trolling you?
Gee, I am sooo sorry!
Who....ME think that ?
"Trolling" is such an " Escapism " type word....don't you think ?
Seems to be the latest catch-all.
Pretty Much....along with the "Ignore" the question thingy !
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I doubt he/she will ever admit it.
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.
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.
Me thinks you are correct.
Much less get it.
I'm beginning to wonder if it really is a choice, or if he genuinely just doesn't understand?
Me knows he's correct!
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
There’s your answer.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No.
Allows, yes. "Accomplice"...nonsense.
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.
Accomplice, yes! Or at the very least, complicit.
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.
And to see people in this day and age still blame natural disasters on gods ... it is baffling.
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:
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.
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.
You need to explain that.
Note: only God is held as perfect, omniscient and omnipotent. Ordinary human beings have severe limitations.
Nope. Simply logical.
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.
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?
Why exactly do you wish to blame an entity you don't believe exists for anything at all in the world?
Just pointing out the gargantuan difference between "what God intends" and "what God allows". This concept is exceedingly well documented in multiple religious texts.
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".
Yes there is a major difference between intent and allows. But the buck still stops with God. That was my point.
Hardly. God has total control. An individual human being does not.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That could include allowing the crime to happen.
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.
The fact that you mistake this for logic should embarrass you more than it appears to.
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.
Accomplice: noun
How....exactly....would God go about a "crime", when He is the one who defines good and evil?
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.
I think it was Fred Phelps, actually.
None of which matters to the definition of "complicit" or "accomplice".
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....
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.
Your understanding of logic seems to be lacking.
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.
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.
If good happens because of god. Then so does the bad. There's no logical way around that.
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.
Same difference.
Does god get what god wants?
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.
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.
I already explained why it matters:
Explain why I am wrong rather than simply declare same.
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)
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 compare people with knowledge and control of a situation to a being with knowledge and control of a situation.
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.
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.
I'll agree Satan's influence is frequently exaggerated.
For things He DOES, yes. Not for things he allows.
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.
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.
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.
God supposedly already knows how things will go, from start to finish.
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.
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.
Only if you ignore the notion of god being the first cause or originator of all things.
For a supposedly omnipotent, omniscient deity, that's kind of the same thing.
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.
And you base that assertion on what exactly? How can you possibly know what the grandest possible entity cares about or not?
If god doesn't care, then that makes him unworthy of worship.
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.
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.
Oh come on Jack, comparing the capabilities of a mere human being with that of God is comparing apples with black holes.
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?
The question was how a person understands God's will, not how He does.
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.
So are humans on a frequent basis. Yet your "logic" does not extend to them. Hmmmm.....
Nonsense. Allowing your child to dress herself is not the same as choosing her mismatched shoes.
Thousands of years worth of writings, teachings and traditions.
OK....you're just trying to be ridiculous now.
Allowed, yes. Responsible...no. God allows us to make our own decisions, because love can only exist if it is freely given.
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.
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?
Humans are omnipotent and omniscient? Hmmm, who knew?
Who gives your child the clothes to begin with?
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.
No, I'm being serious.
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.
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.
The apologists for Satan are out in force on this seed.
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?
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!
I think it was supposed to mean something, but clearly it was not a well conceived thought.
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 ?
"Investigators blamed an electrical short-circuit for the fire"
Sounds like just ANOTHER Human Error thingy.
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."
I don’t know much about Hinduism but it probably has nothing to do with Jesus.
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.
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.
Lovely thoughts, Dear Enoch !
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.
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.
Yea, women and children would never be raped if not for religion. Good grief.......
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?
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
Are you equating the Catholic Church with all religions?
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.