I love god

Julie Lea

Dato: 4/6 2012 11:57 | Indlæg redigeret den: 4/6 2012 12:34

Et forsigtigt pip:

Måske ville I komme videre, hvis I diskuterede konsekvenserne af hinandens holdninger, i stedet for at diskutere med stråmænd: Jeg synes lidt Earthling bliver brugt som syndebuk for alverdens ondskab med religiøst fortegn.

Hvad blev der af "jeg respekterer din holdning, men jeg er uenig med dig"

Med hensyn til problemstillingen AIDS/kondomer kunne I for eksempel spørge om, hvordan hun mere konkret havde forestillet sig troskab og ikke prævention kunne forebygge sygdommen.

Og så påpege, hvor I var uenige med hendes teori - uden at hænge hende ud for at være en del af en verdensomspændende, menneskefjendsk bevægelse;)

I får jo aldrig overbevist hende om, at hun tager fejl, og skal holde op med at tro på det store, flyvende spaghettimonster alligevel...

Earthling

Dato: 4/6 2012 12:35 | Indlæg redigeret den: 4/6 2012 16:13

I understand Epicurus comment, and the logic behind it. It hangs on the presumption that God is not helping if he doesn´t match one´s own criteria of how he should help...

Regarding



I actually agree with much of what Epicurus is saying about the Greeks and their gods.

Epicurus practised religion. If he did so while not believing in any kind of god(s), he was a hyprocrite

He spoke out against the fact the Greeks attributed misfortune to their gods. I agree. This is not a Gospel message. The message of Jesus Christ is that evil deeds and their consequences originate in the human heart (as in mind, character).

Neither is fear the message of Jesus Christ. His first words are usually, "It is I. Be not afraid..." So here again, I agree with Epicurus. I think any Christian who uses fear as a tool is not worthy of the name...

Regarding "myths", and "silly, childish superstition", Epicurus is clearly talking about the Greek gods and Greek religious practise. Be honest enough to admit that neither of us is in a position to know what Epicurus would have made of Jesus Christ. Some Greeks became Christians, even at great personal cost; others ridiculed the idea of God becoming Man and the idea of the Resurrection. Things don´t change much, I guess

It is well possible to know about the nature of the universe and believe in Jesus Christ. One does not negate the other, particularly if one believes that the God revealed in Jesus Christ is the origin and sustainer of the Universe.

Regarding the matter of God caring for and helping others, I think He has given us the tools we need. The main problem lies in the way we chose to use them...



If you want to suggest that I´m pathological, that´s your choice. Sounds like you might be projecting again!

John

Dato: 4/6 2012 17:36

You keep switching the subject.

The debate is not whether people do enough to make the world better. Most undoubtedly don't. Some try really hard, though. But we cannot be everywhere and do everything. Sometimes all we can do is hand out leaflets, put up posters, and the like.
Not so with an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creature. It would not have such an excuse.

It could solve all the world's problems with the snap of a finger.

But there IS suffering. So such a creature cannot exist.

Checkmate. Game over. Face it. Admit it. Move on.

dgj

Dato: 4/6 2012 19:25

I've noticed that the debate has become humorous. I'll join in!

Now what if an omnipotent "being" or omnipotent "beings" have a so called 'prime directive'? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Directive

Checkmate refuted. Bam.

Earthling

Dato: 5/6 2012 00:47 | Indlæg redigeret den: 5/6 2012 12:02

Excuse me for being stupid (comes with the territory!!! ), but I thought the topic was the Epicurus quotation. Everything I´ve said relates to that and on putting it into its correct context. I really can´t imagine why you see that as changing the subject... yet another straw man I guess

Ah, yes, suffering...


Sounds more like a definition of heaven! We´re still on planet Earth, as far as I know

If I remember correctly, you believe in evolution... as I do (for the record!)
You believe in freedom (liberation from oppression)... as I do.
You believe in free will within certain perimeters... as I do.
You believe in free thinking... as I do.
You believe in goodness... as I do.
You believe in love... as I do.

I find what Catholic evolutionary biologist, Kenneth Millers says very helpful with regard to evolution, freedom, free will, free thinking, goodness, love and the question of suffering.

He underlines the fact that evolution is a mechanism and argues that in order to fashion material beings with an independent physical existence, any Creator (ie. God) would have had to produce an independent material universe in which our evolution over time was a contingent possibility. He argues that in biological terms, evolution is the only way a Creator could have made us the creatures we are - free beings in a world of moral choices.

According to him, there are common links between Evolution and Christianity in that both realize that the hardship of life is an integral whole of creation: hardship and joy go together. In his own words, the alternative would mean living like puppets in a superficial world without evil and pain, but also without true freedom and love. Personally, I´d rather suffer some than be a puppet

An extract from the final chapter of "Finding Darwin´s God"
http://www.findingdarwinsgod.com/excerpt/index.html

Finding Darwin´s God - Kenneth Miller
http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0060930497?tag=vglnk-c9-20

So, in keeping with the original humour of the thread!!!



In your own words

John

Dato: 5/6 2012 17:32 | Indlæg redigeret den: 5/6 2012 19:40




Then he's not omnipotent!

I can't believe you! Round and round it goes. You're not adding anything new. Epicurus foresaw this. He has your number. Your god is no different from any other mythological creature. The logic of the argument is inescapable. Are you really too dumb to see? Or just too desperate?

First of all: How dare you. You are not suffering from a hot virus. You don't have children that are. You know nothing of suffering. It's so cheap and superficial, not to mention barking mad, to idealize the suffering of all those people as "freedom", whose agony is so great, that they break their backs and teeth from straining their muscles so. People don't have a cure for those viruses, so we hold no blame for that. God has a cure. Shit - he created the goddamn virus! The blame could not possible be more His.

Second: God can't interfere without taking away our freedom / free will?! First of all you are imposing yet another limitation on Yahwe. Keep this up and he'll be completely incompetent and useless.

Third: It's blasphemy and you are contradicting the bible: “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” -Matthew 19:26

Fourth: Who cares what Kenneth Miller says? Does his degree in evolutionary biology give him an expertise in gods and omnipotence? No, he comments on that not as an evolutionary biologist, but as a superstitious idiot - one with a poor imagination, at that.

Fifth: Are you saying that it is impossible to help someone or save someone's life without turning them into a zombie for life? I have personally saved animals and people from death and harm. They didn't turn into zombies. If your god can't even do that, he's inferior to even humans. - "Why call him God?"

Sixth: Listen to what you are saying. Someone is calling for help. They are stuck in a hole, under a rock, in quicksand, whatever, and they want to get out. They are stuck and they want to be free. YOU are saying that if one sets them free, one is taking away their freedom. And that if one leaves them trapped, one is setting them free. How crazy and illogical can you get? Is there no depth to which you won't sink?

Seventh: If it IS true that one cannot help others without thereby committing the worst crime possible (the taking aways of their freedom / free will) - then not only shouldn't Yahwe help anyone, but neither should we. Another great moral point from catholicism...

[Edit:]
And Eighth: If god can't help people without taking away their freeedom / free will, then either 1) all the miracle stories of the bible, Lourdes, and so on are false, or 2) god is already helping people here and there with no ill after-effects, or 3) god is ALREADY turning people into zombies by taking away their free will. Obviously, no matter what, you lose again.

You have succeded only at compressing an unbelievable lot of craziness, irrationality and outright stupidity into a very small amount of text.
Total fail.

longevitynow

Dato: 5/6 2012 19:02 | Indlæg redigeret den: 5/6 2012 19:07

checkmate!!!

John
Du får ikke andet end frustration ud af at diskutere med religiøse tosser. De er ikke modtagelige for fornuft. De vil hellere forsøge at flytte et bjerg med deres tro end de vil gå uden om det.

John

Dato: 5/6 2012 19:27

*suk*
Jeg ved det, men jeg lider af intellektuelt rengøringsvanvid - hvis jeg møder folk med rodede hoveder kan jeg ikke lade være med at begynde at prøve at rydde op i det...

longevitynow

Dato: 5/6 2012 19:35 | Indlæg redigeret den: 5/6 2012 19:53

John
Fornuft er desværre ikke noget vi kan skabe. Vi kan højst håbe på at fjerne noget af den kognitive dissonans som mange lider af.

Gud skabte universet men da universet = alt hvad der eksisterer så må gud være = ingenting men hvordan kan noget være = ingenting og stadig eksistere? Og hvordan kan ingenting skabe alting?

Earthling

Dato: 5/6 2012 20:24 | Indlæg redigeret den: 5/6 2012 23:28

Thanks for the entertainment, John. Your comment had me laughing out loud - and then grinning to myself for a long time afterwards! It´s good that it comes under "Humour". I can´t seriously believe that you really believe I mean the things I say the way you say I mean them (hope that´s not too much for you!). I have obviously seriously over-estimated your intelligence! And you have obviously seriously under-estimated mine! Still it´s good you came back with your silliness. That way, I can address it later when I have some time

Oh, and I see you have your sidekick, longevitynow, with you too. How nice! A case of the blind leading the blind, I say

John

Dato: 5/6 2012 20:26 | Indlæg redigeret den: 5/6 2012 20:27

Dén er tricky.
Som Thomas Jefferson sagde "To speak of immaterial things is to speak of nothings."
Dette tror religiøse mennesker selvfølgeligt ikke på. Det tror på, og længes efter, en anden verden, som netop er immateriel, og bort fra denne, materielle verden.
Men netop fordi der ikke er andet end denne materielle verden er det at Nietzsche kalder kristne for "nihilister" - de vil intetheden - og ser kristendom som det mest negative der overhovedet findes.
Men dette er på sin vis dårlig sprogbrug, så lad os nu ikke gøre emnet mere forvirrende end det allerede er.

longevitynow

Dato: 5/6 2012 21:00

John
Så vi har faktisk brugt en masse tid på at skrive om ingenting. Sikke et tidsspilde

John

Dato: 5/6 2012 21:06 | Indlæg redigeret den: 5/6 2012 21:14

Nu er det ikke ingenting vi bruger tid på, men de mennesker der tilbeder det.

longevitynow

Dato: 5/6 2012 21:49 | Indlæg redigeret den: 5/6 2012 21:56

Stupid design



Skridtet er en forlystelsespark bygget midt i en kloak. Sikke en intelligent designer!

GreenEnergy

Dato: 5/6 2012 22:54 | Indlæg redigeret den: 5/6 2012 22:59

sådan
http://www.dr.dk/panda/

longevitynow

Dato: 6/6 2012 00:07 | Indlæg redigeret den: 8/6 2012 18:40

Der er en Suzie i hver by

longevitynow

Dato: 8/6 2012 19:05 | Indlæg redigeret den: 8/6 2012 19:05




"I know that if I didn't have God's judgment to fear I would have killed many many times."

Måske religion alligevel er godt for noget.

Easy

Dato: 8/6 2012 20:42

Haleluja --- fuck --- :-)

Earthling

Dato: 8/6 2012 21:03 | Indlæg redigeret den: 10/6 2012 15:47


John, If you know a better way by which God could have made us free beings in a world of moral choices, I m´sure we´d all love to hear it!


I have said all I am going to say in my comments of 2/6 2012, 17:44 and 4/6 2012, 12:35 in this regard. If you want to live under the delusion that you know how Epicurus would have responded to Jesus Christ, even though he died more than 200 years before his coming into this world, and more than 2,200 years before your birth, go ahead by all means.

Meanwhile, I will recommend this article to Epicurus!
"The Resurrection" - Alister McGrath (former atheist)
http://www.bethinking.org/resources/the-resurrection.htm




First of all, how dare you?! Are YOU suffering from a hot virus? Do YOU have children?! To say, I know nothing of suffering is just plain silly and dishonest, and you must know it.

I don´t idolize suffering, and nowhere do I equate suffering and freedom. I see that suffering is often (not always) the outcome of the misuse of freedom somewhere along the line. Neither do I apportion blame to anyone, lest of all for things which are genuinely beyond their control or not their fault, so all this is irrelevant to the conversation.

I do not believe God is the cause of evil. He does seem to allow it. I have no explanation for that. I even question it. However, given that he seems to allow it, I believe he can bring good out of it, something beyond our imaginings. I believe God has the bigger picture, the whole tapestry so to speak. Ultimately the final answer and the final responsibility is his. Because of my “superstition”, I do have the hope of getting an answer – unlike you, it seems

Through personal experience, and through working with and caring for others who are suffering. I have noticed that people experiencing physical suffering often fare much better than those suffering emotionally or spiritually. I have seen people suffering physically, yet they are full of peace, love and a sense of meaning. I have met a lot of people who are physically well, but suffering great emotional and spiritual pain: the hidden anguish of feeling fearful, unwanted and unloved. Their hearts are not free... I consider that the worst suffering of all.

Regarding blame, you can apportion some of it to God, if you like! Personally, I find a great deal of the suffering in our world can be attributed directly to human beings one way or another: violence, war, abuse, torture, poverty, injustice, greed, dishonesty, slander, abdication of responsibility, etc. I see that as the misuse of human freedom.



Again, nowhere do I say that God can´t interfere. To say that would be imposing a limitation on him. God can “interfere”. In fact, I believe he is in the picture all the time. That is not the problem. The problem arises when people are either rendered incapable of or refuse to recognize his “interference”. I think we all reject or co-operate with God, either knowingly or unknowingly. The atheist, too, has the ability to hear the “echo of God´s voice” in the depths of his being through his conscience, his capacity for empathy, reason and the desire for good.


This is hilarious! You, an atheist, lecturing me on blasphemy! Go back and read your own posts and threads, then come and lecture me Anyway, I did not say that God cannot do the impossible. That would be blasphemy. All I´m saying is that people can refuse God´s grace (gift), even when he intervenes directly in their lives... Christ on the Cross at Calvary is the best example of this.


This is silly. Does Richard Dawkin´s degree in evolutionary biology give him an expertise in gods and omnipotence? Might it not be said that Richard Dawkins suffers from poor imagination?! Anyone who has read “Finding Darwin´s God”, will know that Kenneth Miller is better informed from a philosophical and theological point of view than Richard Dawkins. He is also a believer. Therein lie his qualifications, I think. You are free to disagree.


This is also silly. Being helped will never turn anyone into a zombie, nor do I suggest that. Refusing to recognize that one needs help may do so, metaphorically and spiritually speaking....

Congratulations for having personally saved animals and people from death and harm. I have also done the same. It is good to see that we have something in common In fact, I see the will to help others and save them from harm as a sign that you are basically a person of goodwill (unless you are doing it purely for selfish motives!) - despite current evidence to the contrary!!! I also take it as a sign of God´s presence in your life, even if you deny it


Again, nowhere do I say that if one frees someone, one is taking away their freedom, or that if one leaves them trapped, one is setting them free. I think that if we have the capacity to help someone, we have an obligation to do so unless we know of a good reason not to. There is no reason not to extend this argument towards God as well, especially if one believes that he has the full picture. Being freed need not necessarily happen in the way we envisage. In fact, sometimes coming to a place of freedom may involve reaching the bottom of the pit... Any sober alcoholic will confirm this. From, a Christian point of view, God actually interfered in a major way in the Incarnation (God-made-Man) when he got into the pit beside us and started pulling us out.



Your swipe at the Catholic faith shows how little you know about it We believe faith without works is useless. We believe the “acts of mercy” (feed the hungry, etc) are a mandate from God. We also believe we are sent to heal the broken-hearted, give sight to the blind, set captives free, etc., physically, emotionally and spiritually, and according to our talents and ability, even to the point of loving our enemy and laying down our lives. We also believe God can work through us, giving us the strength, the light and the love to reach out to and help others. Finally, we believe that Christ comes to us in the suffering, the poor and the weak. Again, we can welcome him and alleviate his suffering just as Simon the Cyrenean, Veronica and the weeping women did for Christ as he travelled the path to Golgotha or we can be part of the hate-filled mob crucifying him. The choice is ours to make. Therein lies the act of free will... The fact that some, even many, Catholics might fail in this regard, and possibly fail dismally, does not relieve them of the obligation to their suffering brothers and sisters. Adn the fact that they do fail is no reason to scape-goat others who may be doing their best... I am sure you know this.




Interesting that you bring up Lourdes Like I said earlier (see point 2) I believe, God can “interfere”. That is not the problem. The problem arises when people are either rendered incapable or refuse to recognize his “interference”. Many people are told about the Incarnation/Resurrection, and miracles, including those alleged to have taken place in Lourdes. They may also have encountered God in their lives via another person/event or received a personal sign from him which is recognizable only to them. Yet, they dismiss miracles and signs as “coincidences”, “myths”, “superstition”, “lies”, “irrationality”, “fantasy”, “madness”.

Lourdes: http://www.lourdes-france.org/index.php?goto_centre=ru&contexte=en&id=405

Where hearts are open to God, he can help them without ill effect. Note, I said when their hearts are OPEN. How many times are we told that Jesus could not work miracles amongst his own people because of their lack of faith... People, whose hearts are open are not wilfully putting obstacles in his path or rejecting him, so they may be presumed to be co-operating, even implicitly.

It is in refusing God that we may gradually turn into zombies (life without soul; surviving rather than living) so what you say here is also silly, especially for those who take the words of Jesus seriously when he says that he came so that all might have life, and have it to the full!




DITTO!!! You have succeeded only in compressing an unbelievable lot of craziness, irrationality and outright stupidity into a very small amount of text. I can´t seriously believe that you really believe I meant the things I said the way you said I meant them! I almost suspect you of doing it deliberately – with what agenda, God alone knows!

dgj

Dato: 8/6 2012 21:06

Earthling:
Kudos.