Moderator: Community Team
BigBallinStalin wrote:Suppose you know that if your friend enters the convenience store, in about 10 minutes, he'll be murdered by a robber.
All you have to do is say, "Hey, let's go to the other convenience store."
You then saved your friend's life. Pat yourself on the back.
Since God is allegedly omniscient, then he has the ability to prevent many unnecessary deaths. Yet, he doesn't intervene. He simply lets many people unnecessarily die.
Is this negligent?
What kind of dickhead lets someone die like that?
"Sorry, dude, but you know, I can't directly intervene cuz free will--except for all those times when I intervened about 2000 years ago."
Doesn't make any sense at all.
Funkyterrance wrote:Why are you presupposing in your argument that your friend's death is a bad thing in the grand scheme of things? It may not make sense from your perspective but I don't think anyone would argue that you are all knowing.
Haggis_McMutton wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:Why are you presupposing in your argument that your friend's death is a bad thing in the grand scheme of things? It may not make sense from your perspective but I don't think anyone would argue that you are all knowing.
I was going to preemptively summarize all the religious responses you will get to this intractable problem by saying "god works in mysterious, dickish ways". But FT already beat me too it.
Funkyterrance wrote:Suuure you were.
I would never cite such an overused cliche, especially since it's again taking the point of view of the human(a being which actually understands very little about the universe). Also, what makes my response religious, pray tell? You could at least try to hold your bias in just a teensy bit for the sake of being accurate.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Suppose you know that if your friend enters the convenience store, in about 10 minutes, he'll be murdered by a robber.
All you have to do is say, "Hey, let's go to the other convenience store."
You then saved your friend's life. Pat yourself on the back.
Since God is allegedly omniscient, then he has the ability to prevent many unnecessary deaths. Yet, he doesn't intervene. He simply lets many people unnecessarily die.
Is this negligent?
What kind of dickhead lets someone die like that?
"Sorry, dude, but you know, I can't directly intervene cuz free will--except for all those times when I intervened about 2000 years ago."
Doesn't make any sense at all.
Haggis_McMutton wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:Suuure you were.
I would never cite such an overused cliche, especially since it's again taking the point of view of the human(a being which actually understands very little about the universe). Also, what makes my response religious, pray tell? You could at least try to hold your bias in just a teensy bit for the sake of being accurate.
Yes, I was (it's kinda my catchprhrase) See: [1] and [2]
Your response is religious because it defends an omnipotent, omniscient being who lets this happen:
Is god unable to stop that kid from dying WITHOUT any further negative consequences ? Then he's not omnipotent.
Haggis_McMutton wrote:Your response is religious because it defends an omnipotent, omniscient being who lets this happen:
AAFitz wrote:Mostly I think most religious people dont give a flying f*ck about people starving and just use religion as a delusion to get through the day, and block out all the injustice in the world, so they can justify their ignoring of the suffering of millions of people, all while pretending to be pious and righteous spreading the word of some God, whose message, they have clearly missed, or ignored.
AAFitz wrote:Mostly I think most religious people dont give a flying f*ck about people starving and just use religion as a delusion to get through the day, and block out all the injustice in the world, so they can justify their ignoring of the suffering of millions of people, all while pretending to be pious and righteous spreading the word of some God, whose message, they have clearly missed, or ignored.
2dimes wrote:AAFitz wrote:Mostly I think most religious people dont give a flying f*ck about people starving and just use religion as a delusion to get through the day, and block out all the injustice in the world, so they can justify their ignoring of the suffering of millions of people, all while pretending to be pious and righteous spreading the word of some God, whose message, they have clearly missed, or ignored.
Most Christians (and I have no stats, just by observation of any I've interacted with on some level to the point of noticing.) either have on occasion or regularly give to one or more charitable organisations like the ones that use those type of images.
BigBallinStalin wrote:AAFitz wrote:Mostly I think most religious people dont give a flying f*ck about people starving and just use religion as a delusion to get through the day, and block out all the injustice in the world, so they can justify their ignoring of the suffering of millions of people, all while pretending to be pious and righteous spreading the word of some God, whose message, they have clearly missed, or ignored.
<steps outta dinosaur suit>
Are they really worthy of blame? Who are we to judge that their subjective valuation of profit and opportunity cost are incorrect?
It can be frustrating to hear uninformed voters (more or less) blindly clamoring for state intervention while demanding the opposition to resolve imagined and/or expected intricate problems about proposals in favor of the market. How can I compile centuries of knowledge and confine them into a few posts? How do I convince people to at least level the same standard of criticism against the government?
Many of us develop into these various belief systems or ideologies while hardly engaging in some serious introspection. Introspection, critical thinking, and searching for information is not costless, so why not seek the lowest priced substitute (e.g. God did it; need more regulation; etc.)?
AAFitz wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:AAFitz wrote:Mostly I think most religious people dont give a flying f*ck about people starving and just use religion as a delusion to get through the day, and block out all the injustice in the world, so they can justify their ignoring of the suffering of millions of people, all while pretending to be pious and righteous spreading the word of some God, whose message, they have clearly missed, or ignored.
<steps outta dinosaur suit>
Are they really worthy of blame? Who are we to judge that their subjective valuation of profit and opportunity cost are incorrect?
It can be frustrating to hear uninformed voters (more or less) blindly clamoring for state intervention while demanding the opposition to resolve imagined and/or expected intricate problems about proposals in favor of the market. How can I compile centuries of knowledge and confine them into a few posts? How do I convince people to at least level the same standard of criticism against the government?
Many of us develop into these various belief systems or ideologies while hardly engaging in some serious introspection. Introspection, critical thinking, and searching for information is not costless, so why not seek the lowest priced substitute (e.g. God did it; need more regulation; etc.)?
Im not blaming them. Im hardly suggesting I am any better. However, if one simply studies the Bible, and reads what it suggests we do in the face of human suffering and evil, there isnt really any way to interpret other than, Do not stand for this.
People instead assume its Gods will, and go on with their lives, when its very clear, that if the Bible was written by God, it was his will that such suffering was meant to be stopped. Theoretically, he sent his son to die so we would get the point even better, and its really straightforward, so on some level, except those doing everything they can, the blame absolutely rests with them, myself included.
And that's exactly why I said you completely missed the entire point of Christs teachings...because you think that is enough
Haggis_McMutton wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:Suuure you were.
I would never cite such an overused cliche, especially since it's again taking the point of view of the human(a being which actually understands very little about the universe). Also, what makes my response religious, pray tell? You could at least try to hold your bias in just a teensy bit for the sake of being accurate.
Yes, I was (it's kinda my catchprhrase) See: [1] and [2]
Your response is religious because it defends an omnipotent, omniscient being who lets this happen:
Is god unable to stop that kid from dying WITHOUT any further negative consequences ? Then he's not omnipotent.
BigBallinStalin wrote:AAFitz wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:AAFitz wrote:Mostly I think most religious people dont give a flying f*ck about people starving and just use religion as a delusion to get through the day, and block out all the injustice in the world, so they can justify their ignoring of the suffering of millions of people, all while pretending to be pious and righteous spreading the word of some God, whose message, they have clearly missed, or ignored.
<steps outta dinosaur suit>
Are they really worthy of blame? Who are we to judge that their subjective valuation of profit and opportunity cost are incorrect?
It can be frustrating to hear uninformed voters (more or less) blindly clamoring for state intervention while demanding the opposition to resolve imagined and/or expected intricate problems about proposals in favor of the market. How can I compile centuries of knowledge and confine them into a few posts? How do I convince people to at least level the same standard of criticism against the government?
Many of us develop into these various belief systems or ideologies while hardly engaging in some serious introspection. Introspection, critical thinking, and searching for information is not costless, so why not seek the lowest priced substitute (e.g. God did it; need more regulation; etc.)?
Im not blaming them. Im hardly suggesting I am any better. However, if one simply studies the Bible, and reads what it suggests we do in the face of human suffering and evil, there isnt really any way to interpret other than, Do not stand for this.
People instead assume its Gods will, and go on with their lives, when its very clear, that if the Bible was written by God, it was his will that such suffering was meant to be stopped. Theoretically, he sent his son to die so we would get the point even better, and its really straightforward, so on some level, except those doing everything they can, the blame absolutely rests with them, myself included.
Therefore, we must insist on free markets for the world. Thanks, AAFitz!
RE: underlined, really? Because St. Augustine (or Aquinas) had a different view. IIRC, slavery exists because the slaves committed some sin previously, so now they're paying for it. People living under brutal dictatorships also get what they deserve because sin.
The point is that the Bible has remained--more or less--unchanged, yet human interpretations of it have changed (to my knowledge in the modern era no one makes such arguments like Aquinas and Aug. have). So, it's not a simple matter of reading the Bible because the interpreted directives will differ. Our awareness of others and our desire to help them seems to have increased over the centuries, but the Bible plays a proximate role in this. Something else explains why humans shifted from Aquinas and Aug's way of thinking. Perhaps the Bible is not as relevant as we think it is.
thegreekdog wrote:Haggis_McMutton wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:Suuure you were.
I would never cite such an overused cliche, especially since it's again taking the point of view of the human(a being which actually understands very little about the universe). Also, what makes my response religious, pray tell? You could at least try to hold your bias in just a teensy bit for the sake of being accurate.
Yes, I was (it's kinda my catchprhrase) See: [1] and [2]
Your response is religious because it defends an omnipotent, omniscient being who lets this happen:
Is god unable to stop that kid from dying WITHOUT any further negative consequences ? Then he's not omnipotent.
What are you doing to make sure that the above does not happen? Do you hold God to a higher standard or something? Jerk.
AAFitz wrote:Are you saying you don't hold God to a higher standard to a person?
thegreekdog wrote:AAFitz wrote:Are you saying you don't hold God to a higher standard to a person?
Do you care what my answer is?
AAFitz wrote:thegreekdog wrote:AAFitz wrote:Are you saying you don't hold God to a higher standard to a person?
Do you care what my answer is?
Did you care what his was?
2dimes wrote:Weeee. Now we're getting some good discussion going.
Without evil, good doesn't exist. Balance.
That's the basis for one of my favorite religions. Taoism. I believe in our current state of being on this planet, everything works together to at least give the illusion of balance. Hot - cold, Water - wind, Black - white, Good - evil...
I think it also causes us to expect that things in the long run have to balance or they don't make sense to the way we view everything. There are way too many rational (in some cases simple) things for any single person to know well. Then add in complex things that have not been discovered or properly understood yet.
I basically by comparison of what exists know very very little.
thegreekdog wrote:AAFitz wrote:thegreekdog wrote:AAFitz wrote:Are you saying you don't hold God to a higher standard to a person?
Do you care what my answer is?
Did you care what his was?
I was making a joke, so no, I don't care what his answer was.
But do you care what my answer is? Is there anything I can say that will be of any value to you? I suspect the answer is no.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: jonesthecurl, mookiemcgee, pmac666