Romans 16

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't think the Biblical god exists. However, if it did and could help people in need, but does nothing, or only when in the mood, there would be nothing good about it!

God has created a universe where evil and death is a possibility but evil and death are not ends for God but are for us.
The responsibility for 'keeping our brother'' is ours in the universe God has created. God Blaming is an abrogation of human responsibility. God promised a permanent home for humanity.
When humanity plots or let's people die they often do so believing death is the end. What does that tell you?

[Hope]

I don't think the Biblical god exists. However, if it did and could help people in need, but does nothing, or only when in the mood, there would be nothing good about it!

Wel, you're the one who says it doesn't do anything.  Evidence, please.  I'm afraid that giving examples of when said god allows humans to suffer as a result of their own stupidity, or as a result of natural disasters which will necessarily occur in a dynamic context won't wash.  Nor will examples that generalise from the specific.  After all, 2 people with the same condition may cope with it differently from a temperamental pov, and may have different support systems available, meaning that the condition is but one of a number of issues that need to be addressed.

[Hope]

Ehhhhhhhhh?

There are people in, for instance, Africa (Southern Sudan was a good example till a few years ago) who were having their food supplies hijacked or even stopped because they disagreed with the government in Khartoum.  Are you suggesting that  God was to blame for this?

[floo]

God has created a universe where evil and death is a possibility but evil and death are not ends for God but are for us.
The responsibility for 'keeping our brother'' is ours in the universe God has created. God Blaming is an abrogation of human responsibility. God promised a permanent home for humanity.
When humanity plots or let's people die they often do so believing death is the end. What does that tell you?

Excuses, excuses, excuses, always excuses for the less than good Biblical god. A human who had it in their power to help people in desperate circumstances, but did nothing, would be condemned, so why should god not be condemned too, if it exists?

[floo]

There are people in, for instance, Africa (Southern Sudan was a good example till a few years ago) who were having their food supplies hijacked or even stopped because they disagreed with the government in Khartoum.  Are you suggesting that  God was to blame for this?

Of course god is to blame for everything that is wrong in this world, if it exists and created human nature. It is supposed to be omnipotent so therefore it would have known exactly what suffering its creation would cause. But maybe that is how it gets its kicks!

[jeremyp]

I understand it was acceptable, sometimes normal practice, for religious writers to employ scribes.

Paul used to do it in his genuine letters. There's a difference in having a scribe write down your words and somebody else making something up and pretending that it was yours.

[jeremyp]

There are people in, for instance, Africa (Southern Sudan was a good example till a few years ago) who were having their food supplies hijacked or even stopped because they disagreed with the government in Khartoum.  Are you suggesting that  God was to blame for this?

Why would an atheist blame an action on a being that doesn't exist?

The problem here is that you claim there is a god and you claim it is the god of love, so it is for you to explain why it stands around letting things like the above happen. My explanation (and Floo's) is simple: God doesn't exist.

[floo]

Why would an atheist blame an action on a being that doesn't exist?

The problem here is that you claim there is a god and you claim it is the god of love, so it is for you to explain why it stands around letting things like the above happen. My explanation (and Floo's) is simple: God doesn't exist.

Now we await the excuses for god's inaction.

[Spud]

Excuses, excuses, excuses, always excuses for the less than good Biblical god. A human who had it in their power to help people in desperate circumstances, but did nothing, would be condemned, so why should god not be condemned too, if it exists?

We will all die, whether by natural or other causes.
It would be nice if God prevented us from dying in the first place, but he says that we have to, because it is the penalty for our rebellion against him. Please note that we rebelled first, so there is no use saying that he is evil and so we should rebel.
Preventing unnecessary suffering in this life is our responsibility, but he has taken steps to enable us to live after death, which meant he had to experience death himself, even though he wasn't under the death penalty. He does help people in this life, but only once did someone not see death (Enoch). Every time he helps someone it is to the end that they and others can come to faith, which is all that is needed to live after death. Maybe if you understand this then you won't hate him so much, whether or not you believe it.
Also, your use of the small 'g' is wrong. It should be used to distinguish physical objects of worship, such as the sun and the moon, or other people, or things that we idolize, from the creator of the physical world, who has a capital 'G'.

[Brownie]

Spud: Every time he helps someone it is to the end that they and others can come to faith, which is all that is needed to live after death.

I know that historically that has been the Christian position - and has often been grossly misused when you think how Christians barged into other countries with the agenda to convert at all costs and influence established cultures for which there was little respect.  However that was a long time ago.

The problem I have with what you say, Spud, is that not everyone has the gift of evangelism.  In fact, I would say very few have.  Zeal is not enough.

The other issue is that many people will not come to faith as we know it, evangelism or not, they just won't.   Not because of 'hardening of hearts', just that they cannot believe even if they want to.  I find it difficult to accept that God will abandon someone whom He has created just because they do not have faith.  Neither do I think that someone of a different faith is beyond the pale.

[floo]

We will all die, whether by natural or other causes.
It would be nice if God prevented us from dying in the first place, but he says that we have to, because it is the penalty for our rebellion against him. Please note that we rebelled first, so there is no use saying that he is evil and so we should rebel.
Preventing unnecessary suffering in this life is our responsibility, but he has taken steps to enable us to live after death, which meant he had to experience death himself, even though he wasn't under the death penalty. He does help people in this life, but only once did someone not see death (Enoch). Every time he helps someone it is to the end that they and others can come to faith, which is all that is needed to live after death. Maybe if you understand this then you won't hate him so much, whether or not you believe it.
Also, your use of the small 'g' is wrong. It should be used to distinguish physical objects of worship, such as the sun and the moon, or other people, or things that we idolize, from the creator of the physical world, who has a capital 'G'.

EXCUSES, EXCUSES EXCUSES! The Biblical deity, for which there is no evidence of its existence, only deserves a very small 'g' as it is so unpleasant.

[jjohnjil]

We will all die, whether by natural or other causes.
It would be nice if God prevented us from dying in the first place, but he says that we have to, because it is the penalty for our rebellion against him. Please note that we rebelled first, so there is no use saying that he is evil and so we should rebel.
Preventing unnecessary suffering in this life is our responsibility, but he has taken steps to enable us to live after death, which meant he had to experience death himself, even though he wasn't under the death penalty. He does help people in this life, but only once did someone not see death (Enoch). Every time he helps someone it is to the end that they and others can come to faith, which is all that is needed to live after death. Maybe if you understand this then you won't hate him so much, whether or not you believe it.
Also, your use of the small 'g' is wrong. It should be used to distinguish physical objects of worship, such as the sun and the moon, or other people, or things that we idolize, from the creator of the physical world, who has a capital 'G'.

What possible reason would God have for wanting people to believe in him, Spud?  An all knowing all powerful, creator of universes wouldn't give a fig whether a mere mortal believed in him!

Who do we know who ask people to believe them without showing any evidence for their claims ... dodgy politicians and conmen!

The early Church Fathers were clever "Unless you believe what we tell you, you'll die and spend all eternity in hell!"

God had no reason ... but the early Church had a very good reason.



 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

People starve because people let them or as deliberate policy.......or do you really believe it's God?

Ooh, we haven't had a false dichotomy fallacy here for a while. Good effort.

It's neither - unless that is you seriously think that causes like plant disease, insect infestation, tsunamis and any manner of other reasons for food shortages are actually "deliberate policy"?

The closest you could get to that I guess is the reckless dogma of the religious faiths that insist that uncontrolled birth rates are desirable, with the attendant pressure that puts on resources but that's another matter.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

God has created a universe where evil and death is a possibility but evil and death are not ends for God but are for us.
The responsibility for 'keeping our brother'' is ours in the universe God has created. God Blaming is an abrogation of human responsibility. God promised a permanent home for humanity.

Wow - it's a vanishingly rare as rocking horse doo-doos for you to tell us what you do think rather than just lie about he arguments that undo you, so well done for that.

Sadly the Janet & John ontology you map out wouldn't have looked out of place in a mediaeval children's primer but hey - it's a start I guess. 

All you have to do now is finally to demonstrate that supposed "God", to show that he created anything and to tell us what he had in mind for us when He did. Good luck with it though.   

When humanity plots or let's people die they often do so believing death is the end. What does that tell you?

That some people at least are more rational than others in the face of the total absence of evidence for the fantastical stories you assert here.

[Hope]

Sadly the Janet & John ontology you map out wouldn't have looked out of place in a mediaeval children's primer but hey - it's a start I guess. 

Sorry, bhs - and I'm sure that Vlad will be able and will want to speak for himself - but the patronising and contemptuous nature of this post simply hides the fact that you have nothing to bring to the table other than something equally improbable.

All you have to do now is finally to demonstrate that supposed "God", to show that he created anything and to tell us what he had in mind for us when He did. Good luck with it though.   

I think the last bit of that suggestion - the bit about 'what he had in mind for us' has been answered on a number of occasions on this board alone.  At least the answer - which is all about purpose and relationship - is more in line with the reality that each of us find ourselves in - living a purposeful life - whether that purpose is imposed or self-discovered.  Your alternative is devoid of purpose and any rational reason for our existence.

[Hope]

It's neither - unless that is you seriously think that causes like plant disease, insect infestation, tsunamis and any manner of other reasons for food shortages are actually "deliberate policy"?

bhs, as I pointed out in a previous post, the 'deliberate policy' occurs when a government or tribal grouping intentionally deny parts of their 'citizenry' access to everyday necessities, such as food, employment, education, etc. simply because they disagree with the attitudes and beliefs of those in power.

[Gordon]

I think the last bit of that suggestion - the bit about 'what he had in mind for us' has been answered on a number of occasions on this board alone.

No it hasn't: it has been asserted.

At least the answer - which is all about purpose and relationship - is more in line with the reality that each of us find ourselves in - living a purposeful life - whether that purpose is imposed or self-discovered.

What 'answer': this is just more assertion.

Your alternative is devoid of purpose and any rational reason for our existence.

Depends on what you mean by 'purpose' or 'rational reason', but given your penchant for fallacies I suspect your critique is devoid of the latter.

[Sebastian Toe]

bhs, as I pointed out in a previous post, the 'deliberate policy' occurs when a government or tribal grouping intentionally deny parts of their 'citizenry' access to everyday necessities, such as food, employment, education, etc. simply because they disagree with the attitudes and beliefs of those in power.

Then why doesn't your God ' send someone along' to ' guide ' them to the correct path?

[Spud]

Spud: Every time he helps someone it is to the end that they and others can come to faith, which is all that is needed to live after death.

I know that historically that has been the Christian position - and has often been grossly misused when you think how Christians barged into other countries with the agenda to convert at all costs and influence established cultures for which there was little respect.  However that was a long time ago.

The problem I have with what you say, Spud, is that not everyone has the gift of evangelism.  In fact, I would say very few have.  Zeal is not enough.

The other issue is that many people will not come to faith as we know it, evangelism or not, they just won't.   Not because of 'hardening of hearts', just that they cannot believe even if they want to.  I find it difficult to accept that God will abandon someone whom He has created just because they do not have faith.  Neither do I think that someone of a different faith is beyond the pale.

I'm not one of the few, that's for sure. But if we believe something, then it can't be impossible to find a way of expressing it so that it makes a bit of sense. And as Rico Tice says, who does have that gift-  if we really care about people then we should talk to them, whether we do it eloquently or not. Having gone through a bit of an 'evangelical' phase a long time back, I'm now more of a 'wait until asked' person, because I think people take as much notice of what we do as of what we say.

People who can't believe: well if it's all been explained properly and they still don't, I guess they will rely on good deeds. Trouble is, it's like a drop of ink in a bottle of pure water, making it undrinkable. One little sin pollutes the whole person and prevents us from entering heaven. I tend to go with the thought that everyone is capable of repentance, whether they hear the gospel or not. We just don't know whether someone may do so at some point in their life.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Sorry, bhs - and I'm sure that Vlad will be able and will want to speak for himself - but the patronising and contemptuous nature of this post simply hides the fact that you have nothing to bring to the table other than something equally improbable.

What do you think I've brought to the table that's "equally improbable" just by pointing out that there's no evidence whatever for Vlad's fantastical conjectures gussied up as facts?
   

I think the last bit of that suggestion - the bit about 'what he had in mind for us' has been answered on a number of occasions on this board alone.

An assertion is not an answer, at least not unless you also think that, say, "dragons fighting" is the answer to what causes the aurora borealis.

At least the answer - which is all about purpose and relationship - is more in line with the reality that each of us find ourselves in - living a purposeful life - whether that purpose is imposed or self-discovered.

I assume that this meant something in your head when you typed it, but insofar as I can unscramble it it's entirely possible to have a sense of purpose without invoking universe-creating deities to do so.

Your alternative is devoid of purpose and any rational reason for our existence.

A classic Hope straw man and an argumetum ad consequentiam to boot. Good effort. That you personally may happen to feel your life to be purposeless unless you conjure up a celestial panjandrum so as to feel it to be purposeful says nothing whatever to whether or not that panjandrum is real.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

bhs, as I pointed out in a previous post, the 'deliberate policy' occurs when a government or tribal grouping intentionally deny parts of their 'citizenry' access to everyday necessities, such as food, employment, education, etc. simply because they disagree with the attitudes and beliefs of those in power.

And as I pointed out in a previous post, while of course there can be examples of famines that are man-made, there are also examples of famines that are not. Whence then Vlad's frankly bizarre claim that starvation happens because of human wrongdoing or some such?

Where is his god when the victims have done nothing whatever to cause the famine, but natural phenomena have?

[Hope]

Hope,

And as I pointed out in a previous post, while of course there can be examples of famines that are man-made, there are also examples of famines that are not. Whence then Vlad's frankly bizarre claim that starvation happens because of human wrongdoing or some such?

Sadly, even in these more 'natural' famines, there is often a human agent at work in the background.  For instance there are parts of the world where, whilst there is no war at present, the practice of kidnapping young men to serve as child soldiers (think of the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda and Sudan in the 1990s) has left communities without the men to look after the land.  In some cases the young women were also taken to be used as 'recreational playthings'.  I don't think that Vlad is suggesting that all famines have a similar human cause, but many have this kind of hidden one.  Thinking of Africa, the current size of the Sahara Desert has a certain amount of hna influence to blame over the last few millennia.  Deforestation has occurred over a long period and this has allowed the soil to be lost and the sand to take over.

Where is his god when the victims have done nothing whatever to cause the famine, but natural phenomena have?

The earth is a dynamic entity and things like failure of monsoons, the eruption of volcanoes, earthquakes, etc, are all part of its natural cycle.  If you look at where the worst natural events occur, they are often on low-lying land (floods), poorly conditioned and husbanded land (famines), destruction of usable land - sometimes short-term (volcanic eruptions), etc.  'Ironically', all of these will happen, regardless of whether the earth is an accidental conglomeration of chemicals and space dust, or the creation of a loving God.

[floo]

(((((or the creation of a loving God))))) By that you mean a god that just loves human suffering!

[torridon]

The earth is a dynamic entity and things like failure of monsoons, the eruption of volcanoes, earthquakes, etc, are all part of its natural cycle.  If you look at where the worst natural events occur, they are often on low-lying land (floods), poorly conditioned and husbanded land (famines), destruction of usable land - sometimes short-term (volcanic eruptions), etc.  'Ironically', all of these will happen, regardless of whether the earth is an accidental conglomeration of chemicals and space dust, or the creation of a loving God.

The logic problem inherent in that is the notion of a loving God in heaven where there is no suffering who manufactures a place of suffering to put people into rather than heaven. Such a policy is not consistent with 'loving'.

[Gordon]

The earth is a dynamic entity and things like failure of monsoons, the eruption of volcanoes, earthquakes, etc, are all part of its natural cycle.  If you look at where the worst natural events occur, they are often on low-lying land (floods), poorly conditioned and husbanded land (famines), destruction of usable land - sometimes short-term (volcanic eruptions), etc.

What about tsunamis caused by undersea earthquakes? Surely these are circumstances (tectonic plate movements) where humanity isn't complicit.

'Ironically', all of these will happen, regardless of whether the earth is an accidental conglomeration of chemicals and space dust, or the creation of a loving God.

Then 'God' becomes a redundant explanation.