Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

AB,

They're not just "labelled" as bad - they are bad.

No, it's because they are logically false. Nothing more, nothing less.

You may think that even logically sound reasoning is "totally incapable" of discovering these things (even assuming for now that these questions are meaningful at all) but that gives you two problems:

1. Why then bother with logically false arguments to support your position?

2. Other than your personal assertions, what method would you propose instead to answer these questions?
 
Fine. Then finally propose a different method.

What begins in S ends in N and has PI in the middle?

................The above post I've quoted.

[Alan Burns]

Every?

That's not what you've said before.

What I have said before is that God will answer prayers in a way which gives us what we really need, rather than what we want, or what we think we need.

[Leonard James]

What I have said before is that God will answer prayers in a way which gives us what we really need, rather than what we want, or what we think we need.

So when somebody is suffering terribly in a terminal illness and prays to "God" to let the die, but they don't and the suffering continues, it is because he thinks they need to suffer?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

What I have said before is that God will answer prayers in a way which gives us what we really need, rather than what we want, or what we think we need.

You can say it say much as you wish - what though would be the difference between a god who gives only as much as the supplicant needs and no god at all? Who's to say what the difference is between not being given what you asked for and not god there to do the giving in any case?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You can say it say much as you wish - what though would be the difference between a god who gives only as much as the supplicant needs and no god at all? Who's to say what the difference is between not being given what you asked for and not god there to do the giving in any case?

Without God I would not be here to ask

[Alan Burns]

So when somebody is suffering terribly in a terminal illness and prays to "God" to let the die, but they don't and the suffering continues, it is because he thinks they need to suffer?

Nobody is immune from suffering in this life on earth.
Jesus Himself asked the Father for His cup of suffering to pass, but He submitted to the Father's will for the greater good of all mankind.

[BeRational]

Nobody is immune from suffering in this life on earth.
Jesus Himself asked the Father for His cup of suffering to pass, but He submitted to the Father's will for the greater good of all mankind.

Do you still claim you are open-minded?

I am but I do not think you are and I think I can prove it.

[Rhiannon]

Without God I would not be here to ask

You're thinking of Tim Berners-Lee.

[Shaker]

You're thinking of Tim Berners-Lee.

Ouch!

Also Mr and Mrs Burns senior.

[Shaker]

What I have said before is that God will answer prayers in a way which gives us what we really need, rather than what we want, or what we think we need.

What I've asked before, and what you've consistently failed to address, is how you can tell the difference betwen a maybe-might be-could be-sometimes God answering prayers in such a manner and no God at all and sheer random chance. If you can't tell the difference - and I would remind you that the silent, invisible and undetectable and the non-existent look very much alike - then your belief is unfalsifiable. It may well give you a major case of the warm and fuzzies (it clearly does), but it's worthless as a putative truth claim about reality because you've engineered it such that it's incapable of proof or disproof, and therefore says absolutely nothing other than you happen to believe it gratuitously, on absolutely no grounds whatever apart from emotional ones.

What is it that you think your friend Becky and her family need right now and why are they not getting it, Alan? I would stick my neck out and say that Becky did not need a brain tumour, repeated bouts of pneumonia, catastrophic brain damage and the misery of her family over many months; your God presumably thought otherwise. This seems blunt, I realise, but we're not on the prayer thread now and it seems to me that the hard and difficult questions are not being asked about things like this because the very second that they're allowed to penetrate consciousness they're immediately pushed out of sight and buried beneath another dollop of Jesus, as the aforementioned thread and its, to me, horrifyingly cringing, servile thank-you-for-not-fucking-up-my-life-even-more-than-you-already-have posts demonstrates.

[Shaker]

Nobody is immune from suffering in this life on earth.
Jesus Himself asked the Father for His cup of suffering to pass, but He submitted to the Father's will for the greater good of all mankind.

It's what I've dubbed the Incredible Shrinking God Syndrome again - a God deemed powerful enough by its believers to work miracles (creating a universe; resurrecting the dead) when said alleged miracles are pushed far enough back in history (2,000 years will do; 13.7 billion years is even better) to be beyond investigation, but when it comes to doing something identifiable now such as preventing suffering (preventing the Holocaust; preventing the Boxing Day 2004 tsunami; eradicating disease) its so-called powers suddenly evaporate in a puff of logic (copyright Douglas Adams). If it's a long, long time ago and safely out of reach it's Big God who can do practically anything; if it's right here and now and therefore potentially amenable to scrutiny, enquiry and investigation, it's suddenly can't-organise-a-party-in-a-distillery God whose only power seems to be in inducing his followers to serve up the usual warmed-over platitudes. A God who can magic a cosmos out of nothing and permeate every quark of it can prevent suffering; that this doesn't happen (and we get the inevitable trite bromides about God being "present" in suffering - well, gee, thanks, that helps no end) merely leads to the usual parade of desperate ad hoc excuses and rationalisations of the irrational.

I could just as easily say that my great x 10 grandfather was a miracle-working god-man who raised the dead and himself died and came back to life - it's certainly not something which can be disproven. Christians of course will reject the reality of my distant ancestor and his amazing works, but only on the purely arbitrary basis that they accept anything claimed, no matter how preposterous, if it has Jesus stamped on it while rejecting other equally preposterous claims that don't. We can take it as read that if the New Testament claimed that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a purple brontosaurus with lime green spots and playing a selection of Kenny Rogers hits on the kazoo, it would have been solemnly believed by Christians ever since. (And would certainly have led to the persecution, torture and murder by fire of those who thought that the spots were more of a pale turquoise colour). It's a form of the argument from authority fallacy, I guess; Jesus can do it just because because because, whereas my great x 10 grandpappy cain't because he ain't. C'est la foi.

[Leonard James]

Nobody is immune from suffering in this life on earth.

Of course not, but that is not the point. Why does your all-merciful "God" answer some prayers and relieve suffering (according to Christian claims) and ignore the prayers of others?

And please don't insult my intelligence by coming back with 'God knows best' or 'we cannot know God's mind', because that is just what you are claiming to do. You are claiming you know that "God" cures some sick people and not others. That is hypocritical of you, Alan.

Jesus Himself asked the Father for His cup of suffering to pass, but He submitted to the Father's will for the greater good of all mankind.

Because the poor guy had bought the story just like you have, and found his error too late. (if the crucifixion story is true, of course)

[Rhiannon]

I've often thought that Christianity does Jesus a disservice in giving him a happy ever after. He wasn't divine, but moreover there's a very strong likelihood that he didn't think so either. A flesh and blood man died a horrific death because he dared to stick his neck out and try to show his people a better way of living and he pissed off the wrong people. To me that makes him more interesting and more compelling; we've lost sight of that thanks to the layers of theological nail polish that have prettied him up over the years.

[Leonard James]

I've often thought that Christianity does Jesus a disservice in giving him a happy ever after. He wasn't divine, but moreover there's a very strong likelihood that he didn't think so either. A flesh and blood man died a horrific death because he dared to stick his neck out and try to show his people a better way of living and he pissed off the wrong people. To me that makes him more interesting and more compelling; we've lost sight of that thanks to the layers of theological nail polish that have prettied him up over the years.

Well, that's the problem with these antiquated scriptures. How much of them do we take as true? If he did actually refer to himself as the son of "God", then he thought he was divine.

[torridon]

I have been doing this for the last twelve months on this and other threads, but my experiences are falling on deaf ears.

Not so much deaf ears, as thinking minds, minds that value evidence and reason above personal anecdote. We all have our personal experience, and clearly not everyone's experience chimes with yours.

[Maeght]

Well, that's the problem with these antiquated scriptures. How much of them do we take as true? If he did actually refer to himself as the son of "God", then he thought he was divine.

Unless that phrase meant something very different than being a literal son - which I think is quite likely. Divinely blessed perhaps? I think that is a big questionregarding the Bible - what did the words and phrased used really mean in those times?

[Ricky Spanish]

I do not know how God answers prayers, but looking back on my life, and the lives of those I have prayed for, I can see wonderful answers to every prayer.

I bet you can also answer away all the shit responses that God gives as well. In fact, I could probably demonstrate a million more times the way that God refused to positively answer a prayer than it did give one.

[ekim]

Unless that phrase meant something very different than being a literal son - which I think is quite likely. Divinely blessed perhaps? I think that is a big questionregarding the Bible - what did the words and phrased used really mean in those times?

'Son of' is a Hebrew idiom, like 'daughter of', 'brother of', 'mother of'  e.g. son of joy means cheerful, son of the tongue means eloquent.  One of Jesus' disciples was labelled 'son of thunder' (boanerges) meaning impetuous.  Son of man probably means 'human' and 'son of God' 'divine'.  I believe there is a lack of adjectives in the Hebrew language.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Without God I would not be here to ask

That is an expression of your personal opinion on the matter, yes. Aside from the very bad arguments you've attempted here, can you think of any reason at all for the rest of us not to think that you're entirely mistaken in that opinion? 

[Leonard James]

Unless that phrase meant something very different than being a literal son - which I think is quite likely. Divinely blessed perhaps? I think that is a big questionregarding the Bible - what did the words and phrased used really mean in those times?

So we come back to the another question ... the "Holy Spirit". Surely the work of the "Holy Spirit" is to ensure that the scriptures are understood clearly by all people. What went wrong?

[Leonard James]

'Son of' is a Hebrew idiom, like 'daughter of', 'brother of', 'mother of'  e.g. son of joy means cheerful, son of the tongue means eloquent.  One of Jesus' disciples was labelled 'son of thunder' (boanerges) meaning impetuous.  Son of man probably means 'human' and 'son of God' 'divine'.  I believe there is a lack of adjectives in the Hebrew language.

See my previous post.

[Maeght]

So we come back to the another question ... the "Holy Spirit". Surely the work of the "Holy Spirit" is to ensure that the scriptures are understood clearly by all people. What went wrong?

There are many such questions.

[Alan Burns]

Alan as a Catholic maybe you should spend more time condemning the EVIL of that organisation, than on here trying to convert us.

We watched Philomena on the iPlayer last night, which highlights the evil nastiness of the Catholic Church!

There is plenty of evidence that the devil targets some members of the church - particularly the Catholic church.  But that is just part of the battle going on between good and evil in this world.

[torridon]

There is plenty of evidence that the devil targets some members of the church - particularly the Catholic church.  But that is just part of the battle going on between good and evil in this world.

Just another empty assumption with no possible justification.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So we come back to the another question ... the "Holy Spirit". Surely the work of the "Holy Spirit" is to ensure that the scriptures are understood clearly by all people. What went wrong?

Are we talking about your version of the Holy Spirit or the one held in scripture and experienced?
The Holy Spirit can be metaphorically kicked in the face...The Blasphemy against the spirit.
Where He isn't wanted He will withdraw.....so the answer to what went wrong is ''you mean what goes wrong? answer People. But don't take that as All people as I think you are want do do.