Jump to content

What is your justification for believing in a God?


Realitycheck
 Share

Recommended Posts

First you need to define what sin is. For example sexual attitude?

The quote is from the link.

 

"The views of religions and religious believers range widely, from holding the belief that sex and the flesh are negative, to the belief that sex is the highest expression of the divine. "

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_sexuality

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok i watched through part 2. This does not change my stance. btw, Even if i was managed to believe that God does not exist the values in the bible are still treasure and worth living by.

 

Oh yes, especially when god

There's quite a lot more, if you want a full list. I just thouht I'd share this tiny snippet for whatever it's worth. You know, for good strong moral background compacted in one big fluffy book that everyone's fighting over.

 

This list really does make it sound like an incredibly sound and good moral book, a book to live by. Grab your rocks, people, prepare for the next stoning, only don't do that on the Sabbath, and guard your pets.

 

But hey.. atheists are much worse. They're *blasphemous*!

 

~mooey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem of suffering is a problem of ignorance which we at some point lost our true knowledge of the Father because for taking pride in God's works. All actions are from God and such actions are necessary but with the knowledge of the Father we can evade from all suffering yet being embodied in the world doing necessary actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem of suffering is a problem of ignorance which we at some point lost our true knowledge of the Father because for taking pride in God's works. All actions are from God and such actions are necessary but with the knowledge of the Father we can evade from all suffering yet being embodied in the world doing necessary actions.

 

Not sure what you mean here, but the list above isn't just human actions, those are God's laws in the bible, and God commanding humans to do certain tasks. It seems quite evident which side God leans to in relation to what we deem "Moral" nowadays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what you mean here, but the list above isn't just human actions, those are God's laws in the bible, and God commanding humans to do certain tasks. It seems quite evident which side God leans to in relation to what we deem "Moral" nowadays.

 

According to the Gnostic interpretation even Gods are no special than humans, even they are in ignorance, the True supreme Godhead doesn't lean towards any side because he is the origin of both evil and good actions which we conventionally assign to such actions as humans, all actions are good and necessary.

 

The cause of our suffering is not due to our actions or others actions it is due to the ignorance of the supreme Godhead. The advice is to do our actions the way the supreme Godhead does, with a calm mind like the stoics, only the purpose of God is important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a fuller list (still missing a few key things I remember from my studies, but works well enough)

http://freethoughtna...-depravity.html

 

According to the Gnostic interpretation even Gods are no special than humans, even they are in ignorance, the True supreme Godhead doesn't lean towards any side because he is the origin of both evil and good actions which we conventionally assign to such actions as humans, all actions are good and necessary.

 

The cause of our suffering is not due to our actions or others actions it is due to the ignorance of the supreme Godhead. The advice is to do our actions the way the supreme Godhead does, with a calm mind like the stoics, only the purpose of God is important.

 

 

First, that is not what was claimed in the post I quoted.

 

Second, if God(s) is no more special than humans, then why worship or obey him/her/them? If it's just because they're more powerful, then the claim could be raised about obeying a bully in general (isn't that what 'more powerful but no less fallible' means? or judging from what the biblical God sends his/her people to do, they are pretty much the definition of a bully)

 

Third, I don't quite get how you go from god being good ("all actions are good and necessary") to the ignorance of God. If all god's actions are good and necessary, then famine and hunger is either good and necessary as well, or it is something God chooses not to stop.

 

Do you really want to tell me that the children who die of hunger and malnutrition in Africa die so because they are ignorant of god? And if that's the case, can you really call god "good" ? Those are children who are *ignorant* of God. Those aren't oh-so-evil atheist snobs who *reject* god, they don't even know of him or his "teachings" at all most often.

 

So if that's the case, this God lets innocent children die a horrific death just because they were born to a place that never heard of his teachings.

 

You know what? If that's the case, I'd rather *not* follow this god, whether or not he or she exists. I find that deplorable for any entity, let alone one that supposedly has the power to change it in a flick of a finger. If God doesn't have that power, then why worship him, and if he does, by all means, why the hell worship him at all if eh chooses not to stop the suffering.

 

Either way, this is a big problem.

 

 

 

That said, what I replied to was the claim taht even if God doesn't exist, the bible itself is a good moral book. The list above shows commandments and actions made *IN* this book that are so beyond immoral, we could probably use them as a base definition of it. It shows that the original claim in the post I answered to is ridiculous, which was the point.

 

Go over the rest of the list, especially the part about rape and God's (mis)treatment of it. Fascinating reading.

 

 

No matter how powerful god is, if he is immoral, then the moral thing is not to follow the teaching. Isn't it more moral to *not* follow immoral rules?

 

 

And people say seculars are immoral just because they don't follow the book? Really, now.

 

~mooey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Second, if God(s) is no more special than humans, then why worship or obey him/her/them? If it's just because they're more powerful, then the claim could be raised about obeying a bully in general (isn't that what 'more powerful but no less fallible' means? or judging from what the biblical God sends his/her people to do, they are pretty much the definition of a bully)

 

I said Gods or his Aeons are no special than humans because even they are part of his creation and even they are subjected to the forces of nature but the supreme Godhead is not a slave of nature, he is the master of nature, you suffer as long as you're a slave of nature, the moment you realize the one who is bullying and the one who is being subjected to bullying is God himself then what's the point of suffering. The supreme Godhead exists and he is the one who is stimulating one's body to butcher others and the same supreme Godhead is the one who exists in other bodies and makes them being subjected to butchering, the world is his play.

 

The beauty now is that you don't have to suffer such butchering, you're suffering because you're in bondage, you're in ignorance, God is not responsible for you're bondage, you yourself are. God has indeed created a world were we can have an existence with zero suffering but such an existence is impossible without the perfect knowledge of God. So if you don't want suffering you need to abide by his words.

 

Do you know what ignorance is? We all think that it is we who are doing our actions and we take pride in our actions but that's not what the truth is it is the God who is responsible for all actions. This was the real fall of man.

 

Third, I don't quite get how you go from god being good ("all actions are good and necessary") to the ignorance of God. If all god's actions are good and necessary, then famine and hunger is either good and necessary as well, or it is something God chooses not to stop.

 

Do you really want to tell me that the children who die of hunger and malnutrition in Africa die so because they are ignorant of god? And if that's the case, can you really call god "good" ? Those are children who are *ignorant* of God.

 

Yes famine is necessary, its the destruction of old things which makes way for new entities, that's his plan and the way how he works.

 

Yes God is responsible for the death of innocent children but he is not responsible for their suffering. Suffering is due to bondage and ignorance, with the perfect knowledge of God you can born as an innocent child and yet have complete awareness of him and his works while being embodied as a child.

 

Those aren't oh-so-evil atheist snobs who *reject* god, they don't even know of him or his "teachings" at all most often.

 

Now again all actions are from God so it is God himself who is rejecting himself through the means of atheists, he doesn't see atheists as evil. God is good.

 

So if that's the case, this God lets innocent children die a horrific death just because they were born to a place that never heard of his teachings.

 

If you weren't in bondage and ignorance you need not have to born again with ignorance and have a horrific death again, God only cares for his purpose and for his good works.

 

You know what? If that's the case, I'd rather *not* follow this god, whether or not he or she exists. I find that deplorable for any entity, let alone one that supposedly has the power to change it in a flick of a finger. If God doesn't have that power, then why worship him, and if he does, by all means, why the hell worship him at all if eh chooses not to stop the suffering.

 

To stop that suffering you need to worship him in the first place because you need that perfect knowledge from him to have freedom from your bondage, so don't blame him for not stopping the suffering, you're the one who is hindering his efforts to evading suffering from this world by not worshiping him.

 

 

That said, what I replied to was the claim taht even if God doesn't exist, the bible itself is a good moral book. The list above shows commandments and actions made *IN* this book that are so beyond immoral, we could probably use them as a base definition of it. It shows that the original claim in the post I answered to is ridiculous, which was the point.

 

Go over the rest of the list, especially the part about rape and God's (mis)treatment of it. Fascinating reading.

 

 

No matter how powerful god is, if he is immoral, then the moral thing is not to follow the teaching. Isn't it more moral to *not* follow immoral rules?

 

~mooey

 

 

If he doesn't exist then lets burn the Bible and concentrate on creating health camps for children in Africa. What use are his words if he himself doesn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If he doesn't exist then lets burn the Bible and concentrate on creating health camps for children in Africa. What use are his words if he himself doesn't exist.

 

Wow that's a leap.

 

How 'bout "If he doesn't exist, let's concentrate on learning from the past while improving the future" ?

 

The idea that the words might not be 100% accurate, correct and deserve our worship doesn't mean it's completely useless. We can learn about the cultural environment of the time. Is literature worth "burning" just because you do't want to worship the writer?

 

Also, we should create health camps in Africa regardless, don't you think?

 

To stop that suffering you need to worship him in the first place because you need that perfect knowledge from him to have freedom from your bondage, so don't blame him for not stopping the suffering, you're the one who is hindering his efforts to evading suffering from this world by not worshiping him.

 

 

The children who are dying don't know about the judeochristian god at all, so how can they worship something they don't know about?

 

And if this is about *me* not worshipping god, then I don't find it particularly moral to have a god punish helpless innocent children because of someone else's mistake.

 

Either way, God doesn't strike me as a very moral being.

 

~mooey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow that's a leap.

 

How 'bout "If he doesn't exist, let's concentrate on learning from the past while improving the future" ?

 

The idea that the words might not be 100% accurate, correct and deserve our worship doesn't mean it's completely useless. We can learn about the cultural environment of the time. Is literature worth "burning" just because you do't want to worship the writer?

 

 

I'm not sure the rest of the people are going to give up their faith even after showing that he doesn't exist and such things shouldn't be tolerated. I might have said it too literally.

 

Also, we should create health camps in Africa regardless, don't you think?

 

That's right, but their suffering has got nothing to do with the reasoning for the non-existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and a morally perfect God. I stand by that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The beauty now is that you don't have to suffer such butchering, you're suffering because you're in bondage, you're in ignorance, God is not responsible for you're bondage, you yourself are. God has indeed created a world were we can have an existence with zero suffering but such an existence is impossible without the perfect knowledge of God. So if you don't want suffering you need to abide by his words.

There are believers out there in the famine-filled areas that are suffering. So it's not just about being out of bondage, is it?

 

Do you know what ignorance is? We all think that it is we who are doing our actions and we take pride in our actions but that's not what the truth is it is the God who is responsible for all actions. This was the real fall of man.

You can't talk about the "truth of god" being the bible, and blame them for not following the rules that are in the bible with people who don't know about the bible.

 

 

Yes famine is necessary, its the destruction of old things which makes way for new entities, that's his plan and the way how he works.

Let me get this straight: Young innocent children are dying horribly from hunger, famine, and disease, and that's "a destruction of old things which makes way for new entities" ? And you expect me to consider this moral? You expect me to consider this a GOOD thing? You expect me to consider this god that not only allows for this, but *can* stop it and *doesn't* a moral being?

 

Under which definition of "Moral" would this be close to being moral?

 

Yes God is responsible for the death of innocent children but he is not responsible for their suffering. Suffering is due to bondage and ignorance, with the perfect knowledge of God you can born as an innocent child and yet have complete awareness of him and his works while being embodied as a child.

How not? They're dying because there's not enough food. They're dying from disease that is directly related to the area they live in. It's related to *nature*. "Oh horrific science" is what tries to save them with medicine, God has nothing to do with the cure.

 

God could have turned the ground fertile.

God could have prevented malaria-type mosquitos from permeating those areas and exposing children to horrible disease that kills them.

 

I don't expect God to prevent the dying explicitly (though he *can* so we could argue why not, but let's move on) -- I expect God to at least make the lives of these INNOCENT children who don't KNOW about his "message" just a little bit less horrible.

 

He can.

There's no reason why he shouldn't.

 

Well, no reson other than (a) he can't or (b) he doesn't want to.

First option means he's not omnipotent. Second means he's not benevolent. Which is it?

 

Either option means, to me, that I have no reason to follow him, let alone worship him.

 

Now again all actions are from God so it is God himself who is rejecting himself through the means of atheists, he doesn't see atheists as evil. God is good.

I don't know what you mean here, it doesn't make much sense. I might be misunderstanding your meaning.

 

As to the last part though, you should read my list of quotes from the bible again and tell me God is good. Those aren't quotes from Hitchens (noes!) those are quotes directly from the written text of the bible, promoting abuse of raped women, killing children and others.

 

You want to go over the text in the bible? Go over it all. Don't pick and choose. Along side the "give the other cheek", there's "kill an insubordinate child" and "kill a raped woman if no one heard her".

 

I really don't know what definition of morality you're using, but these don't seem to fit any of the ones western society uses.

 

 

If you weren't in bondage and ignorance you need not have to born again with ignorance and have a horrific death again, God only cares for his purpose and for his good works.

I see, so the children who die in horrific deaths are really atheists in previous lives.

 

Ahha.

 

 

Sorry, this makes no sense to me.

 

I'm not sure the rest of the people are going to give up their faith even after showing that he doesn't exist and such things shouldn't be tolerated. I might have said it too literally.

How can I give up something I never had?

 

Hell, forget ME. The children in Africa. They never HEARD of Jesus, or the Bible, or God, or Israelites, or the ten commandments.

 

They gave up nothing. They never had it. They suffer regardless.

 

That's right, but their suffering has got nothing to do with the reasoning for the non-existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and a morally perfect God. I stand by that.

 

I didn't say he doesn't exist, I said his conduct, if he *does* exist, is immoral.

There's no proof god exists, but if we go by the bible, then the god the bible describes is not a good or moral being by any stretch of the word.

 

Don't confuse claims. I answered the "god is moral" claim by showing the text that shows god as being anything but. Whether that god exists or not is a separate issue.

 

~mooey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are believers out there in the famine-filled areas that are suffering. So it's not just about being out of bondage, is it?

 

Even believers are in bondage and are suffering, its not blind faith which evades suffering, its the perfect knowledge of God that evades suffering and such knowledge has to come from God himself and Gnostics believe that he is preparing us to have that knowledge.

 

I wouldn't pray God to stop his good works just because I only want to taste honey. It is his world and these are his bodies and he has every right to use them the way he wants.

 

You can't talk about the "truth of god" being the bible, and blame them for not following the rules that are in the bible with people who don't know about the bible.

 

The whole of humanity is to be blamed for not seeing whether divinity exists in us or not.

 

Let me get this straight: Young innocent children are dying horribly from hunger, famine, and disease, and that's "a destruction of old things which makes way for new entities" ? And you expect me to consider this moral? You expect me to consider this a GOOD thing? You expect me to consider this god that not only allows for this, but *can* stop it and *doesn't* a moral being?

 

Under which definition of "Moral" would this be close to being moral?

 

I am not going by the conventional view of good and evil as viewed by humans or the society. I am going by God's terms and the way he works. For God, good, evil and sin as such doesn't exists.

 

http://www.gnosis.org/valentinus.htm

 

 

Read the part of Psycho-Cosmogony and the Pneumatic Equation from that link, that's my view.

 

How not? They're dying because there's not enough food. They're dying from disease that is directly related to the area they live in. It's related to *nature*. "Oh horrific science" is what tries to save them with medicine, God has nothing to do with the cure.

 

God could have turned the ground fertile.

God could have prevented malaria-type mosquitos from permeating those areas and exposing children to horrible disease that kills them.

 

I don't expect God to prevent the dying explicitly (though he *can* so we could argue why not, but let's move on) -- I expect God to at least make the lives of these INNOCENT children who don't KNOW about his "message" just a little bit less horrible.

 

He can.

There's no reason why he shouldn't.

 

Well, no reson other than (a) he can't or (b) he doesn't want to.

First option means he's not omnipotent. Second means he's not benevolent. Which is it?

 

Either option means, to me, that I have no reason to follow him, let alone worship him.

 

Its Neither, he neither wants to stop it nor he wants innocent children to suffer from his works, that's why he has a perfect world with his perfect knowledge out there. We has humans should try to look for that perfect knowledge and not just sit around and curse God for his good works.

 

I don't know what you mean here, it doesn't make much sense. I might be misunderstanding your meaning.

 

As to the last part though, you should read my list of quotes from the bible again and tell me God is good. Those aren't quotes from Hitchens (noes!) those are quotes directly from the written text of the bible, promoting abuse of raped women, killing children and others.

 

You want to go over the text in the bible? Go over it all. Don't pick and choose. Along side the "give the other cheek", there's "kill an insubordinate child" and "kill a raped woman if no one heard her".

 

I really don't know what definition of morality you're using, but these don't seem to fit any of the ones western society uses.

 

Gnostics were some kind of psychologists, they believe that the pleroma of God exists in each and every thing which includes humans, animals and gods, so divinity exists in each one of us and it is the supreme Godhead himself who is the doer of all actions, including that of humans and Gods.

 

I see, so the children who die in horrific deaths are really atheists in previous lives.

 

Ahha.

 

 

Sorry, this makes no sense to me.

 

No they weren't atheists, they were men who abided in his truth but at some point lost his knowledge and were drawn to ignorance and bondage. The problem of ignorance is something which starts with the fall of Sophia in the pleroma of God himself. Therefore the problem of evil is a problem of ignorance through which we lost the perfect knowledge of God. Its not that God created an imperfect world or was morally imperfect.

 

 

How can I give up something I never had?

 

I was talking about blind believers who have blind faith.

 

 

Hell, forget ME. The children in Africa. They never HEARD of Jesus, or the Bible, or God, or Israelites, or the ten commandments.

 

They gave up nothing. They never had it. They suffer regardless.

 

I think I have addressed it already.

 

I didn't say he doesn't exist, I said his conduct, if he *does* exist, is immoral.

There's no proof god exists, but if we go by the bible, then the god the bible describes is not a good or moral being by any stretch of the word.

 

Don't confuse claims. I answered the "god is moral" claim by showing the text that shows god as being anything but. Whether that god exists or not is a separate issue.

 

~mooey

 

God is morally perfect and if you say that he isn't then it indirectly implies that you're saying he is nothing or he doesn't exist or not worthy of worship at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are repeatedly ignoring the point about the children suffering and dying. Your answers revert to "general" suffering.

 

If you don't mind, I want you to answer the SPECIFIC topic of the children who are dying in much pain and suffering just because they were not born to a place that "knows" of this awesomely-moral God. We're talking about children here, and babies. Address this specifically and stop evading the point by talking generalities.

 

It's all good and well to say "there's suffering" and "god is good regardless" while evading teh fact that 5 year old children are suffering and dying under his nose.

 

Second, I have put forth a list of events, rules and regulations taken out of the BIBLE that describe god. Either you claim that these are not, in fact, immoral, in which case we have an argument about what morality IS, or you claim that these are not true, in which case the bible is infallible, or you claim that --- what, really? I don't want to fall into false dichotomy, but you have to stop evading the point.

 

Explain those two points, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are repeatedly ignoring the point about the children suffering and dying. Your answers revert to "general" suffering.

 

If you don't mind, I want you to answer the SPECIFIC topic of the children who are dying in much pain and suffering just because they were not born to a place that "knows" of this awesomely-moral God. We're talking about children here, and babies. Address this specifically and stop evading the point by talking generalities.

 

It's all good and well to say "there's suffering" and "god is good regardless" while evading teh fact that 5 year old children are suffering and dying under his nose.

 

What's special about little children or babies? You're seeing things from a naturalistic perspective but I am seeing things from the perspective of a metaphysical soul, however it is a fact that we both have to agree that they are suffering, yes they are.

 

The reason they are suffering is not because God is immoral for he allows such acts, God is just doing his works, they are suffering because of ignorance and bondage and why did they fall into ignorance and moved away from light to darkness because they took pride in God's works. God made everything and everyone with fullness and with perfection. The things for doing bad and evil things both exist in the pleroma itself but the soul has to remain calm on such actions always. So its not that they're in bondage for doing evil things, one's actions doesn't determine bondage or freedom because the origin of all actions is from God himself, they're in bondage because they took pride in God's actions.

 

Second, I have put forth a list of events, rules and regulations taken out of the BIBLE that describe god. Either you claim that these are not, in fact, immoral, in which case we have an argument about what morality IS, or you claim that these are not true, in which case the bible is infallible, or you claim that --- what, really? I don't want to fall into false dichotomy, but you have to stop evading the point.

 

Explain those two points, please.

 

My fundamental premise is that God is responsible for all actions and that we don't have free will while we are in bondage and hence I have to defend such immoral acts which you have listed out in your previous posts. I'm claiming that those aren't immoral acts, definitely not in God's terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's special about little children or babies? You're seeing things from a naturalistic perspective but I am seeing things from the perspective of a metaphysical soul, however it is a fact that we both have to agree that they are suffering, yes they are.

It makes it more personal and brings about a rather horrible picture, instead of pushing away the image for the sake of remaining "impartial" and "cold". There's a difference saying that people are dying for a reason and then seeing a 5-year old baby dies in horrible pain from malaria and hunger and saying that the child died for a reason.

 

To be quite honest, I wanted to make sure you realise the implications of what you're saying.

 

Also, children, unlike adults, are innocent. What did a 5-year old child ever do to deserve this punishment?

 

God *can* change this if he is omnipotent. Yet he doesn't.

 

You seem to claim that God doesn't change this so that the world will learn some lesson, but this does NOT make things any better morally.

 

Here's a question for you: If I had two children, and I would be starving one of them to death, over a prolonged period of time, so they suffer greatly, just so that the other one watches his brother die horrifically and learn to obey me -- would I be moral? More so, if I would have done that but didn't tell the other kid that I do it for him to learn to obey, or would not have given the other child the message I want to deliver -- would he even learn anything?

 

Are you seriously claiming this behavior is moral?

 

The reason they are suffering is not because God is immoral for he allows such acts, God is just doing his works, they are suffering because of ignorance and bondage and why did they fall into ignorance and moved away from light to darkness because they took pride in God's works. God made everything and everyone with fullness and with perfection. The things for doing bad and evil things both exist in the pleroma itself but the soul has to remain calm on such actions always. So its not that they're in bondage for doing evil things, one's actions doesn't determine bondage or freedom because the origin of all actions is from God himself, they're in bondage because they took pride in God's actions.

 

immortal, look, this is simple. God has the power to stop this action, and he doesn't. What does it make him, if not evil? At the very least, it makes him not-all-that-good.

 

If you were telling me that the sufferers were people who did crimes against God, I would still call it immoral, but at least I'd "understand", in some level, why this is considered "necessary" to some people. But we're talking about children who did nothing wrong, whose parents have no *knowledge* of God.

 

He's not even being fair enough to give them te *chance* to accept him. He just lets them suffer.

 

How is this moral?

 

If I walk in the street and I see a bully kicking a kid and I do nothing about it -- am I being moral? wouldn't you tell me that the moral thing would be to interfere?

 

and yet this case is even worse, because God has both the power to interfere and the authority to interfere, unlike me in the street. So in this case it would be more similar to having a cop walking down the street, seeing a bully beat a little kid, and do nothing.

 

Is this moral? If it is, immortal, I'd rather not be that type of moral.

 

My fundamental premise is that God is responsible for all actions and that we don't have free will while we are in bondage and hence I have to defend such immoral acts which you have listed out in your previous posts. I'm claiming that those aren't immoral acts, definitely not in God's terms.

 

I understand your fundamental premise. What I'm saying is that it doesn't follow the scriptures and what's going on in reality. You have to give something up here -- eitehr you give up the definition of morality and admit that it's different for God (eh), or you admit God is immoral, or you admit God is not all-powerful, or you admit god is all powerful but not all good.

 

If these are not immoral acts in god's terms, then I have to say, immortal, I don't care if God exists or not, I'd rather *not* follow an evil god. We're not talking about going to bed and not waking up here, we're talking about the equivalent of torture for several months until death comes. If this is God's idea of morality, I want to have nothing to do with it.

 

I consider *that* moral.

 

Something's gotta give. He cannot be all of the above judging from the text in the scripture and the terrible suffering of little innocent children that happens around the globe.

 

~mooey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes it more personal and brings about a rather horrible picture, instead of pushing away the image for the sake of remaining "impartial" and "cold". There's a difference saying that people are dying for a reason and then seeing a 5-year old baby dies in horrible pain from malaria and hunger and saying that the child died for a reason.

 

To be quite honest, I wanted to make sure you realise the implications of what you're saying.

 

Also, children, unlike adults, are innocent. What did a 5-year old child ever do to deserve this punishment?

 

God *can* change this if he is omnipotent. Yet he doesn't.

 

You seem to claim that God doesn't change this so that the world will learn some lesson, but this does NOT make things any better morally.

 

Here's a question for you: If I had two children, and I would be starving one of them to death, over a prolonged period of time, so they suffer greatly, just so that the other one watches his brother die horrifically and learn to obey me -- would I be moral? More so, if I would have done that but didn't tell the other kid that I do it for him to learn to obey, or would not have given the other child the message I want to deliver -- would he even learn anything?

 

Are you seriously claiming this behavior is moral?

 

On one end it is God who brings famine, drought, food shortage and other natural calamities and on the other end it is the same God who gives us perfect knowledge and prepares us to evade all suffering. God is doing his works but he is not responsible for the suffering of little children. They themselves are.

 

Jacob's trouble times was as necessary and important as was his glory in Egypt. If I was the other brother who had a horrific death due to starvation I would die with a calm mind bearing huge pain and knowing that it is God's work and it makes no difference if you just preach the Gospel of truth to their parents or to the children because both who is aware of the Gospel of truth and who is not aware of the Gospel of truth are in bondage and both are suffering with immense pain. The problem is not something which is specific to only African tribes or places in Ghana, its a problem of the world. We as a whole are ignorant of God and his perfect knowledge.

 

You say that God could have showered heavy rains where there are no water or change the genotype of mosquitoes causing malaria but such changes and interventions gives only a temporary solution to the larger problem in hand. So every time there are hurricanes, tornadoes and massive earthquakes should God intervene and save innocent people, Does it evade all our suffering once for all? No, what God is trying to achieve is that God is allowing these natural disasters which are necessary for the stability of the world and he is also trying to give his perfect knowledge through which we can evade all suffering. If God exists he is very optimistic that he is going to produce men on earth such that his necessary works are carried out and yet the people do not under go any form of suffering what so ever through his perfect knowledge.

 

Now tell me isn't God omni-benevolent?

 

immortal, look, this is simple. God has the power to stop this action, and he doesn't. What does it make him, if not evil? At the very least, it makes him not-all-that-good.

 

If you were telling me that the sufferers were people who did crimes against God, I would still call it immoral, but at least I'd "understand", in some level, why this is considered "necessary" to some people. But we're talking about children who did nothing wrong, whose parents have no *knowledge* of God.

 

He's not even being fair enough to give them te *chance* to accept him. He just lets them suffer.

 

How is this moral?

 

If I walk in the street and I see a bully kicking a kid and I do nothing about it -- am I being moral? wouldn't you tell me that the moral thing would be to interfere?

 

and yet this case is even worse, because God has both the power to interfere and the authority to interfere, unlike me in the street. So in this case it would be more similar to having a cop walking down the street, seeing a bully beat a little kid, and do nothing.

 

Is this moral? If it is, immortal, I'd rather not be that type of moral.

 

He is interfering where it is very much necessary, not in the ever-changing objective world which cannot be fixed but in the human psyche through which we cannot have any suffering at all even though the world around us is going crazy.

 

I understand your fundamental premise. What I'm saying is that it doesn't follow the scriptures and what's going on in reality. You have to give something up here -- eitehr you give up the definition of morality and admit that it's different for God (eh), or you admit God is immoral, or you admit God is not all-powerful, or you admit god is all powerful but not all good.

 

If these are not immoral acts in god's terms, then I have to say, immortal, I don't care if God exists or not, I'd rather *not* follow an evil god. We're not talking about going to bed and not waking up here, we're talking about the equivalent of torture for several months until death comes. If this is God's idea of morality, I want to have nothing to do with it.

 

I consider *that* moral.

 

Something's gotta give. He cannot be all of the above judging from the text in the scripture and the terrible suffering of little innocent children that happens around the globe.

 

~mooey

 

God's idea of morality is achieving moral perfection i.e transcending both good and evil and the reason why being omnipotent not making us morally perfect is because we aren't prepared enough to have that perfect knowledge which will again be a temporary solution if he gives it now to all of them. Being perfect means you have freedom and free will and a misuse of such knowledge will have bizarre consequences on the whole cosmos. God indeed wants to give us such knowledge but he is preparing us.

 

There is nothing that's gotta give. May be the morality of good and evil.

Edited by immortal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On one end it is God who brings famine, drought, food shortage and other natural calamities and on the other end it is the same God who gives us perfect knowledge and prepares us to evade all suffering. God is doing his works but he is not responsible for the suffering of little children. They themselves are.

WOW!!! This is the same god that allegedly loves us? The one that people worship? It is sad to think that anyone could worship such a malevolent deity that would bring famine, drought, food shortage and other natural calamities to its children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WOW!!! This is the same god that allegedly loves us? The one that people worship? It is sad to think that anyone could worship such a malevolent deity that would bring famine, drought, food shortage and other natural calamities to its children.

 

Those are the good works of God for he knows that such calamities are necessary and important for the stability of the world and it is his same good work through which he sends religious missionaries and medicines to care for the suffering of his children. He loves them and wants to give his perfect knowledge even though they didn't abide in his words. In what way he is malevolent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those are the good works of God for he knows that such calamities are necessary and important for the stability of the world and it is his same good work through which he sends religious missionaries and medicines to care for the suffering of his children. He loves them and wants to give his perfect knowledge even though they didn't abide in his words. In what way he is malevolent.

 

Like what? What are the good works of god?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Examples, immortal, examples.

 

I gave you examples of where God's being a real evil schmuck. Give us counter EXAMPLES of where he's an amazing awesome wonderous wonderfulness.

 

Examples.

 

Like the times when he sends his Aeons (Jesus Christ) to give his real Gnosis to us through which we can evade all suffering and have a sinless existence, he is quite awesome at such times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.