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
326 visitors
[deleted]
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.
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!"
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."
No, she didn't. She clearly explained herself. If you don't understand that, then I can't you.
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.
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.
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 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
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
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.
Perhaps a quadrupling down might be forthcoming?
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Who....ME think that ?
"Trolling" is such an " Escapism " type word....don't you think ?
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 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.
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?
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
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.