God and suffering

[Outrider]

Yes I think  most have invested in progress and enlightenment and taken it for granted and now we are I think down to having faith that its beliefs and goals will hold true.

Faith and belief, I fear, won't hold the standard - we need to be vigilant and keep working at it.  Recent political developments - the drive for strong-man authoritarian leaders, a rise in nationalism as some of the formerly poorer countries catch up - need to be spoken out against if we are to maintain what we've gained.

In terms of Mother Theresa either this old lady had her wires crossed...or you do.  I find that someone who can weep at the site of British people living in cardboard boxes in the middle of London is not someone who is as pro suffering as you seem to be suggesting.

And yet, despite the money her celebrity brought in, the mission(s) that she ran in Calcutta were poorly supplied, did not adequately train the caregivers, failed to segregate the terminal from those who could be saved... I don't doubt that, in her way, she cared but it has to stand alongside her works and words, which include the following:

The suffering of the poor is something very beautiful and the world is being very much helped by the nobility of this example of misery and suffering ... (it is) the most beautiful gift for a person that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ

.

O.

[Walter]

   




Why?
Why is my faith 'pathetic'?

not your faith , you.

sounds like the wistful longings of an unrequited love affair

[ekim]

Today, I concluded my walk by coming back through a church graveyard.  On many of the grave stones was written 'He fell asleep on ........ aged .....'.  Now that's enough to put you off Christianity, being buried after falling asleep.

[Anchorman]

Today, I concluded my walk by coming back through a church graveyard.  On many of the grave stones was written 'He fell asleep on ........ aged .....'.  Now that's enough to put you off Christianity, being buried after falling asleep.

   

Why?
'Fallen asleep' was a euphamism first used in the New TYestament.
If it was OK then, why not now?
Death, for me, is falling asleep in my bedroom, waking up in my Father's house.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Faith and belief, I fear, won't hold the standard - we need to be vigilant and keep working at it.  Recent political developments - the drive for strong-man authoritarian leaders, a rise in nationalism as some of the formerly poorer countries catch up - need to be spoken out against if we are to maintain what we've gained.

And yet, despite the money her celebrity brought in, the mission(s) that she ran in Calcutta were poorly supplied, did not adequately train the caregivers, failed to segregate the terminal from those who could be saved... I don't doubt that, in her way, she cared but it has to stand alongside her works and words, which include the following:
.

O.

Whether you like it or not belief in Progress and enlightenment and humanism is just that particularly in the face of when it becomes regress in a massive way or we pretend that inhumanity doesn't find other guises. I don't exclude myself from making the investment and then trusted that it would just get better but I've seen many pointers where that is not the case. If it's not a belief why did Pinker feel the need to rally the faithful and why did atheists feel the need to buy the rallying call.

As for Mother Theresa if you look at my post I did make allowance for her getting her wires crossed. Maybe she lost it at the end but she made the effort. She did gout there while frankly a lot of us didn't presumably because we were relying on Progress and enlightenment.

[Walter]

   

Why?
'Fallen asleep' was a euphamism first used in the New TYestament.
If it was OK then, why not now?
Death, for me, is falling asleep in my bedroom, waking up in my Father's house.

anchs
you seem pretty sure of things, how old will you be when you wake up ?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If it's not a belief why did Pinker feel the need to rally the faithful and why did atheists feel the need to buy the rallying call.

He didn't and they/we didn't. Correcting a perceptual bias isn't "rallying" anything, it's just correcting a perceptual bias.

[ippy]

Why?
Why is my faith 'pathetic'?

I've read many of your post Anchorman and you mostly come over to me as one of the sharper tools in the forum's general tool bag, I wouldn't say pathetic more sad to hear and and their's a couple of Douglas Addams quotes come to mind but I would prefer sad mainly because there's no evidence around that supports any of the magical, mystical or superstition based parts of this bible of yours, it's a big round zero, you must be aware of this, you're not stupid, so why?

ippy.

[jeremyp]

Why?
'Fallen asleep' was a euphamism first used in the New TYestament.
If it was OK then, why not now?

I don't like euphemisms for death at all. Why can't we just say "he died"?

Death, for me, is falling asleep in my bedroom, waking up in my Father's house.

There's no waking up from death. That's the point.

[Anchorman]

I don't like euphemisms for death at all. Why can't we just say "he died"? There's no waking up from death. That's the point.

'Sleepers' was part of what seems to have been the earliest recorded hymn, the first line of which is quoted in Scripture, hebce its' use "Wake up, o sleeper, and rise from the dead And Christ will shine on you!" (Eph 5:13)

[Walter]

'Sleepers' was part of what seems to have been the earliest recorded hymn, the first line of which is quoted in Scripture, hebce its' use "Wake up, o sleeper, and rise from the dead And Christ will shine on you!" (Eph 5:13)

anchs

well bugger me and there's me thinking we're all fucked !

[Walter]

'Sleepers' was part of what seems to have been the earliest recorded hymn, the first line of which is quoted in Scripture, hebce its' use "Wake up, o sleeper, and rise from the dead And Christ will shine on you!" (Eph 5:13)

anchs

tell you what mate , in the current situation , I wont bother god as long as you don't bother the NHS

[Walter]

AND GOD IS WEEPING WITH US

the sly nasty slimy serpent cunt


or the ABofC is fearing for his job (power)  No, the second line applies to him too.

[ekim]

Oh dear, I just knew I should have put a  after my post.

[ippy]

Why not title this thread 'Elves, Fairies and Suffering'?

When I think of the time all of these people spend moaning, groaning and wailing around whilst inside so many over elaborate old buildings, plus plenty of other time wasted discussing a subject that rather obviously to most people here in the UK and come to that most of northern Europe as well, where these these myths are mainly viewed as man made and as such really not worth spending so much serious time discussing, couldn't all of that time be better spent doing something far more useful, anything that's useful will do?

The old buildings subsidised by the only show in town at the time that had any disposable income are a credit to the craftsmen that built them and very little else.

ippy

[Enki]

Oh dear, I just knew I should have put a  after my post.

Don't worry, Ekim. I got it and thought that it was quite neat. 

[Outrider]

Whether you like it or not belief in Progress and enlightenment and humanism is just that particularly in the face of when it becomes regress in a massive way or we pretend that inhumanity doesn't find other guises.

You keep lumping humanism - a philosophy - with Enlightenment - an historic period, characterised by the rise in scientific and empirical thinking, at least in the Eurocentric world - and progress - a subjective measure.  Only one of those has any meaning when you describe a 'belief' or 'faith' in it.  The enlightenment happened, we have the documentary evidence, it does not require 'belief'.  Progress is entirely dependent upon how you measure it, but the typical measures of increased life expectancy, reduced infant mortality, reduced absolute poverty, improved healthcare, improved education, greater social mobility, greater personal independence all show a general trend towards 'progress' - it's not continual, it's not evenly distributed, it's not perfect, but it's there.

I don't exclude myself from making the investment and then trusted that it would just get better but I've seen many pointers where that is not the case.

If you've stopped trying to make it happen why are you surprised that it's not happening?

If it's not a belief why did Pinker feel the need to rally the faithful and why did atheists feel the need to buy the rallying call.

He didn't.  They didn't.

As for Mother Theresa if you look at my post I did make allowance for her getting her wires crossed. Maybe she lost it at the end but she made the effort. She did gout there while frankly a lot of us didn't presumably because we were relying on Progress and enlightenment.

She made some effort, yes, I don't know enough about her personal take on things to say whether she was knowingly involved in the way the missions were used as a cash-cow for the Catholic Church or if she saw it as a necessary cost of doing the work she could do; the effect, however, was to rake in cash for the Catholic Church ostensibly for the care of those she was ministering to, but very little of which went their way.  Her response to that, and not just near the end, was espouse the virtue of suffering.

O.

[Sassy]

Firstly, may I ask that this thread remains polite and sarcasm-free - probably a vain hope, but there's no harm in asking.

I googled to find some articles on the subject from Christians. I found plenty, but most were twee, patronising and excessively wordy. This one, though, is reasonably intelligent.
My two-penn'orth: maybe God can't end suffering. The idea of omnipotence, as developed in Christian theology, comes mainly from Greek philosophy - it doesn't have much support from the bible, which portrays God as the most powerful agent, but not necessarily all-powerful. In any case, even omnipotence has its limits. it doesn't include the ability to perform logical contradictions, and even an omnipotent God, having given humans free-will, can't also prevent them using that free-will.
Talking of which, maybe the whole of creation, not just us, has something akin to free-will: it may be that by creasting a physical universe separate from God's self, God is unable to have complete control over it, because it is separate from God.
OK, shoot me down in flames.

No need for shooting down in flames your article and idea never got off the ground. It is a well known fact that the bible tells us God is omnipresent and omniscient?  Nothing impossible for God hence her knows the end from the beginning and has told us so.  The difference is that God has power to change what he will. But man can make his decisions but the final outcome will be Gods. This time is for the number of Gentiles to be added and when the end comes all will be justice and man will have had his day but eternity like life is only something God can grant. Sometimes we all need to check the bible and recheck. Understanding the bible comes from studying it and realising who God really is in the great scheme of things.

[Sassy]

Very comforting, NOT!

Why do you suppose it should be comforting for you?  You do not know God and you do not believe so what comfort can you gain?

[Sassy]

Why would anyone believe that God said anything directly instead of realising that it was a human idea, I wonder.

And tomorrow if you should awake with your sight would that be the power of God or just co-incidence?
Jesus gave sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf and speech to the dumb. He raised the dead and healed the sick.
Could you do that if human without Gods power.  All the miracles God was given the glory for. Anyone can have a miracle if they believe.

[Sassy]

DEATH IS SLEEPS TWIN BROTHER!

The saying is used among's believers because the fact is that in death there is not knowledge of time passing as in life when you sleep at night.

Believers have only fallen asleep because their eternal life is assured.

When you die and though in your grave for many years here, you open your eyes to God and judgement immediately because you being dead or asleep know nothing of the time passing.
So we all arrive together except for some of the saints who will be judges and we all give an account.  Christ said: King James Bible
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.  Sometimes man sees and believes only what he wants to see.  Understanding comes from God.

[Outrider]

It is a well known fact that the bible tells us God is omnipresent and omniscient?

Sorry, is this a statement or a question?  To my understanding, there are passages that can be interpreted to support these ideas, especially in the Kings James translation, but it's far from clear that was the intent in the original languages.

Nothing impossible for God hence her knows the end from the beginning and has told us so. The difference is that God has power to change what he will.

This implies that all of reality is already spelt out, time is immutable, and in choosing this particular act of creation God has made all the decisions and we are merely automatons fulfilling the destiny God selected for us; therefore, any 'sins' are God's fault not ours, so why should we undergo any sort of punishment (or even lack of rewards) for doing what we had no choice but to do?

But man can make his decisions but the final outcome will be Gods.

Well, no - if God can see all of time and already know what's going to happen, man can't change that.  If man could, God would not be able to see it.

This time is for the number of Gentiles to be added and when the end comes all will be justice and man will have had his day but eternity like life is only something God can grant.

What does a god outside of time know about justice?  Justice is predicated on time, it's an impact after an event to somehow adjust a moral balance for an earlier action; that requires a concept of time, which a being outside of time would not have.

Sometimes we all need to check the bible and recheck.

Why do we need to refer to ancient myths when we have perfectly servicable modern works of greater nuance, subtlety and understanding?

Understanding the bible comes from studying it and realising who God really is in the great scheme of things.

And yet with all these people studying it for so long we still have hundreds of equally invalid interpretations, and at least three contested sequels...

O.

[Outrider]

And tomorrow if you should awake with your sight would that be the power of God or just co-incidence?

That would be the after-effects of millions of years of evolution.

Jesus gave sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf and speech to the dumb.  He raised the dead and healed the sick.

Jesus was alleged to have done this, according to the poetic translations of selected works of unreliable, vested interests, at varying periods after the alleged events.

Could you do that if human without Gods power.

Actually, yes, human medicine has done all of these (depending on your interpretation of 'dead'...)

All the miracles God was given the glory for. Anyone can have a miracle if they believe.

Anything can be a miracle, if you choose to believe rather than understand...

O.

[Roses]

DEATH IS SLEEPS TWIN BROTHER!

The saying is used among's believers because the fact is that in death there is not knowledge of time passing as in life when you sleep at night.

Believers have only fallen asleep because their eternal life is assured.

When you die and though in your grave for many years here, you open your eyes to God and judgement immediately because you being dead or asleep know nothing of the time passing.
So we all arrive together except for some of the saints who will be judges and we all give an account.  Christ said: King James Bible
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.  Sometimes man sees and believes only what he wants to see.  Understanding comes from God.

For which there is no evidence of its existence.

[Alan Burns]

What’s odd I think about the casuistry some try to explain away evil in a world under the fiefdom of an omnibenevolent god is that it all “works” the other way around too – ie, as a rationale for an evil god. Thus for the rationale for a benevolent god of, “ah, but without bad things we’d have no appreciation of how good the good things are – therefore bad things”, one might equally say to rationalise an evil god, “ah, but without good things we’d have no appreciation of how bad the bad things are – therefore good things”.

It all makes sense with no god at all of course as some good things happening and some bad things happening is just what you’d expect that way.

Ah well.

But what precisely is it that discerns what is good and what is bad in the materialistic scenario?
Can the properties of material elements discern such things?