Rock Beyond Belief

[Balloon guy 158]

And just to clarify the Christian levels of compassion:HereWe OWN compassion.

[Spademan 94]

I have a plan for my kids, go to school do right become republicans...you know, succeed in life.They have the freedom to reject that and face the consequences.

Annnnd of course you ignore the important objections.If you had a plan for your kids go to go school, NOT BE RAPED and MURDERED or SWEPT AWAY TO DROWN IN A FUCKING HURRICANE, and had the ability to make sure of it, they wouldn't be RAPED, MURDERED or SWEPT AWAY TO DROWN IN A HURRICANE. They do not have the freedom to reject being RAPED, MURDERED or SWEPT IN A HURRICANE. So, again, your god fails where even you would succeed. Almost like he doesn't exist. (caps locks added to highlight the good stuff that BG wouldn't allow to happen to his children, that his purported god does allow to happen to his kids)

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

1. Either they disagree with their god concept that torturing and burning people, people who lead good and compassionate lives, for all eternity is the right thing to do, in which case they shouldn't follow him. 2. They, as has been mentioned here, think they "can't know the mind of god" and just "have faith" that whatever the fuck he does is a-ok. In which case they should feel zero compassion toward people being tortured or burned, here on in the afterlife, because "lolwhoknows? Only god that's who".

You are approaching this from the perspective of a wholly rational, logical being. But if you've already decided that Christians are not rational, logical beings, then why apply that perspective to them?Anyway, regarding #2, even if you take someone who simply has faith that whatever happens is for a greater unknown good, that does not mean they don't feel sympathetic to whoever is taking the brunt of it. It doesn't even mean that they won't try to prevent it from happening. That's where my disconnect is coming from. Not knowing the reason doesn't mean you just shrug your shoulders at everything; you still have to live your life the way that you think is best. If you're a Christian, that means something like loving your neighbor as yourself.It's obviously taking me too long to figure out my thoughts; I'm always several posts behind...

Someone who claims that God's actions are always justified, someone who actually believes in a God that sends people to hell for simply not accepting Jesus, would feel no compassion or sympathy toward a good person being tortured and burned for all eternity by their god. To give an example, if I see a four year old girl trip and fall into a man on the street. The man punches the girl in the face and breaks her nose. I would feel outrage at the man, sympathy for the girl.If I see a 35 year old man pull a knife out and start stabbing a woman in the neck, and that woman's husband punches the assailant in the face, breaking his nose, I would feel no outrage at the husband or sympathy for the assailant. His "punishment" of the assailant was justified. If the believer feels that gods actions are justified, whence then compassion?

In these examples, you know the reason for the punch. If you didn't know why either one got punched, wouldn't you feel compassion for both?If you think "well, he probably deserved it" without actually knowing then you wouldn't feel compassion and that would be like the people saying Japan deserved it, which we all agree is stupid.Edit: Oh, wait, I see what you're saying, hold on...The idea isn't that the tragedy that befalls someone is specifically justified to them. As an example, if you had to kill one person to save a thousand, the action might be justified, but it wouldn't result in any less compassion to the one.

[Spademan 94]

Not knowing the reason doesn't mean you just shrug your shoulders at everything; you still have to live your life the way that you think is best.

We're kind of getting lost in a bunch of different points in each response to each other, let's try to parse out your main issue, which, correct me if I'm wrong is pretty much the quoted portion.I don't know where "just shrug your shoulders" comes from. That's exactly the opposite to what a "critical thinker" does. Sure, he's willing to say "I don't know" when he hasn't found evidence to support a claim (what, exactly, happened before the big bang... or even, is the big bang theory exactly the way it went down?), sure, he's not willing to just add in whateverthefuck magical belief to explain something. But they don't just shrug their shoulders. For evidence of this, look around at every single thing we know that is related to the natural world. Every advance in medicine, technology, our understanding of how the universe operates... all of it has been filtered down, observed, tested and improved by empirical testing, the scientific method and critical thought. None of these things have ended up being "god did it". Nor have any of the advances come by way of magic. None of it.So, when you say "live your life the way you think is best"... well, that's kind of the point we're arguing, isn't it. We are arguing that magical thinking is divisive by it's very nature, "you're going to hell, no you are, my gawd is the real god", belief in belief, faith, is standing in the way of people living the best way they can. In the US we are falling way behind on science and math. You know, those two major things that are responsible for the greatest advancements in the human animal. Part of this is due to magical fucking thinking.

If you're a Christian, that means something like loving your neighbor as yourself.

Really? Of all the absurd nonsense in the bible, of all the stupid shit an assload of Christan's do and say in relation to science, them believing that these "neighbors" are going to hell for all eternity (if their neighbor is Ghandi rather than BG, that is), out of all of that bullshit, this is what you conclude Christian's are all about?Apologetics.*edited for misquote*

[Spademan 94]

Edit: Oh, wait, I see what you're saying, hold on...The idea isn't that the tragedy that befalls someone is specifically justified to them. As an example, if you had to kill one person to save a thousand, the action might be justified, but it wouldn't result in any less compassion to the one.

Was posting before this edit.Ok, again, we run into the problem that one must assume that good being people tortured and burned for all eternity is (wow, I mean, it just fails so hard as I type it...) somehow for a "greater good". This still runs into the problem: I can rape 100 babies, if god allows the babies to be raped, there must be a greater good.It leads to any action being ultimately good. There is no way around this. It leads to an absolutely meaningless definition of "good". It, by necessity, means we can make no claims about what is good or bad.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

We're kind of getting lost in a bunch of different points in each response to each other, let's try to parse out your main issue, which, correct me if I'm wrong is pretty much the quoted portion.

NO. Maybe? My main issue is believing that everything happens for a reason will necessarily make you less compassionate to those struck by tragedy.

So, when you say "live your life the way you think is best"... well, that's kind of the point we're arguing, isn't it. We are arguing that magical thinking is divisive by it's very nature, "you're going to hell, no you are, my gawd is the real god", belief in belief, faith, is standing in the way of people living the best way they can.

What I mean by that is that when you see something happen, you respond to it in the manner that you think is appropriate, even if you think it's happening for a reason. You respond because you don't know what that reason is, so maybe it's happening specifically for you to respond. I'm saying that "God's plan" is wholly irrelevant to a Christian's actions.

Really? Of all the absurd nonsense in the bible, of all the stupid shit an assload of Christan's do and say in relation to science, them believing that these "neighbors" are going to hell for all eternity (if their neighbor is Ghandi rather than BG, that is), out of all of that bullshit, this is what you conclude Christian's are all about?

I was trying to summarize how a Christian is taught to live, not what they think about hell. Is this wrong?

This still runs into the problem: I can rape 100 babies, if god allows the babies to be raped, there must be a greater good.

And I still think Christians and atheists alike would feel bad for the babies and try to help them.

[Spademan 94]

NO. Maybe?

Heh.Ok, look, if your main issue is that Christians would help the baby at a similar rate as Muslims, Buddhist or people who aren't superstitious, then yes. I absolutely agree. If we want to look at that issue in a vacuum, you're absolutely right. If you want to try to broaden that to "Christians being on even moral ground with any other group", you'll be heading off of the reservation. At least in terms of those who take the cannon literally, and those who believe in a hell for people who don't accept Jesus.Because the god they worship is barbaric and disgusting, and they put themselves into his barbarism if they accept him in context of what we consider "moral" as a society. Or, they claim that we can't know what morality is, only god can, leading them off into a meaningless amoral wonderland. And it is irrelevant if someone can't follow their beliefs to their logical conclusion. It does not absolve them from holding reprehensible "beliefs".

[SweetDee 0]

So you dont want me mixing in what you would do if confronted with the opportunity to prevent your child from being raped?Because obviously you would stop the rape. And you don't want this becuase we can't compare our actions to a hypothetical god's actions? And just becuase you would stop the rape and god doesnt stop rape doesnt mean that god is necessarily evil?Am I following you? If I am, I would say, well, yeah, you can say that. If we assume god, and all that comes with it, then we can't question anything that happens, or if he allows it or doesnt allow it, because he is god and god is always right. But I dont assume that, because there is no evidence to support the existence of such a god. I judge the actions of a supposed god the only way I can, through the eyes of human being who understands that there are certain truths about the human condition. Some pain is good and necessary (vaccine shots) and some pain is never good, and never necessary (rape) and if presented with the opportunity to stop a rape, I would. So i then turn to this supposed god, who by definition can stop all rapes, but doesnt, and I say that supposed god must be evil, or not real. Probalby not real.

Would you stop the baby from being raped if you knew that it would cost the lives of 10,000 others? Your own personal interference would set off a chain reaction that would kill 10,000 others. How about 2? 1? What would be acceptable consequences of your actions in stopping the rape? What if a gun was to your head, do you try and interfere and have your head blown off or do you close your eyes and realize that one day that baby is going to need you, and being dead is not an option?I agree with you that evil is evil, and it's a scary thing to think that even for a person of God, God might not necessarily intercede on there behalf in stopping harm coming there way. The problem with your argument is it's limited to your understanding of the future and it's possibilities which is not even finite at best. You have no idea, I have no idea. I guess my point is it's possible that a level of knowledge exists that not only would the baby rape be acceptable it would be preferable. Evil things can be a catalyst for good, I suppose that the argument can be made that all evil is a catalyst for good in that evil is supposed to eventually end the world, righteous people get to chill in heaven when that happens, good wins, yay. Incidentally, occasionally this site has some interesting conversation, I wish I had more time to post. And, I still owe Spademan a hookup with my wife.

[Spademan 94]

Also, I want to point out, I realize that you're taking issue with particular statements made in the thread concerning the morality of Christians. That's fine, and I have no problem seeing someone challenge a particular claim they might find fallacious or misleading.However, I want to reiterate that none of this has to do with the validity of religion. Even if I were to take a BG claim, for example that Christianity owns compassion, or a claim that Christians conduct themselves with overwhelmingly superior moral standing... which I obviously do not accept, but even if I did accept those claims on face value it would have absolutely no bearing on the reality or validity of Christianity.

[Roll the Bones 74]

You yourself use other parts of the Bible to build on the character of God in Job, so I am allowed to as well. If Job was our only book in the Bible I would be hard pressed to explain it as well.Is no good reason what it says? Or your paraphrase? Because we know about your paraphrases...Are you free? How is your life different than mine? The rain falls on the just and the unjust. We can cite a couple of examples of bad people prospering and good people suffering, are we not both stuck with trying to find an explanation?I approach it with the notion that God has a purpose for all mankind. You want the examples to define God. Not an unreasonable method, but flawed when you state that you are able to understand the Mind of God.I think the opposite, the story conveys the sense that God has complete authority to conduct Himself as He sees fit. I also see elsewhere that God is a Gracious and Benevolent God, but one that is also to be respected and held in awe.As I've said, using the book of Job as your only source, yea, you are probably more right than me, but Job isn't our only source, it is one of many.Now be honest...did you read about what the atheist think about Job before you read it? Or after?

You yourself use other parts of the Bible to build on the character of God in Job, so I am allowed to as well. If Job was our only book in the Bible I would be hard pressed to explain it as well.

Fair enough, but you reached back to say that God told Abraham he would rlue the entire earth. Somehow you infered that Satan was trying to rule God's earth. I simply asked where it said that? If we are going to start simply infering things we want in the bible it's all pretty pointless. I mean if all the things that happen aren't central to the story then what's the point? How are we to infer anything? It's saying, oh yeah God did say that, but that's not what he meant and he wasn't smart enough to make his point clear. Really?

Is no good reason what it says? Or your paraphrase? Because we know about your paraphrases...

God speaking- Job 2:3 You incited me against [Job] to ruin him without reason

Are you free? How is your life different than mine? The rain falls on the just and the unjust. We can cite a couple of examples of bad people prospering and good people suffering, are we not both stuck with trying to find an explanation?I approach it with the notion that God has a purpose for all mankind. You want the examples to define God. Not an unreasonable method, but flawed when you state that you are able to understand the Mind of God.

Obviosuly I was being petulant and inflammatory with the last comment, because I'm free in the sense that I can lay around in my underwear on Sunday morning guilt free while you can't. But you always throw this comment out there, that I am trying to understand the mind of God, well, yes, shouldn't everyone? If you believe, shouldn't you be trying to understand his message? The difference is that you presume to know it, but when I point out how mind numblingly stupid it is then you pull out that card, the circular logic card. Obviously I am fairly certain there is no ultimate creator. I am positive the Christian God is a myth though. The bible is evidence of just that.got too busy tofinish this.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

That's fine, and I have no problem seeing someone challenge a particular claim they might find fallacious or misleading.However, I want to reiterate that none of this has to do with the validity of religion.

Fair enough.Here's a picture of vb's dog crossed with a deer:

[Spademan 94]

Who knows? Maybe people should go around raping all the babies to death? This might lead to a much greater good, for all we know!

Your point has been made and addressed a number of times already. You realize what you've said can be equated to this? This is not hyperbole. I'm not creating a straw man. I'm not making fun of you (well, maybe I am). You're fixed post is a logical statement according to your claim.

Incidentally, occasionally this site has some interesting conversation, I wish I had more time to post. And, I still owe Spademan a hookup with my wife.

pics.

[SweetDee 0]

Your point has been made and addressed a number of times already. You realize what you've said can be equated to this? This is not hyperbole. I'm not creating a straw man. I'm not making fun of you (well, maybe I am). You're fixed post is a logical statement according to your claim. pics.

Whats the alternative? That God strike dead the person as soon as he approaches a baby with ill will? Okay, fine. Let's allow for that- anyone approaching a baby with ill will inside them will be struck dead, according to the God that makes sense to some of you. Except, God equates all sin the same, in that all sin will take you to hell. So, why stop at that? Why not strike dead the people who tell a lie? See, the problem (as I see it) is that before we knew it no one would have any freedom of choice, one could only do x or die. (Actually, biblically that's already the case but that's more about the spirit than the flesh.) So, my point is this- a baby raper doesn't just one day rape babies. It's a slow build, not a switch. That slow build is also just life, where one can make all kinds of choices good and bad. It would be quite the seriously weird world if people just dropped dead for no apparent reason. How many more deaths would take place on a daily basis, even if you just narrowed it down to, say, "I decree that if anything you do will harm another in any way you will die before you do it." I personally would think that would be a much crazier world than the one where the occasional baby gets raped. Here is a different thought process I was running through my head- what kind of horrible thing would you be willing to endure if you knew beforehand that it was that thing that would show you the one true god? What would you be okay with your kids enduring so you could harvest that same information?And, no pics, lol. I had some on a swingers site for a bit and she was not a happy camper. Were more about just meeting people naturally and if things happen they happen.

[vbnautilus 48]

Fair enough.Here's a picture of vb's dog crossed with a deer:

I see all dog.

[SuitedAces21 2,723]

Whats the alternative? That God strike dead the person as soon as he approaches a baby with ill will? Okay, fine. Let's allow for that- anyone approaching a baby with ill will inside them will be struck dead, according to the God that makes sense to some of you. Except, God equates all sin the same, in that all sin will take you to hell. So, why stop at that? Why not strike dead the people who tell a lie? See, the problem (as I see it) is that before we knew it no one would have any freedom of choice, one could only do x or die. (Actually, biblically that's already the case but that's more about the spirit than the flesh.) So, my point is this- a baby raper doesn't just one day rape babies. It's a slow build, not a switch. That slow build is also just life, where one can make all kinds of choices good and bad. It would be quite the seriously weird world if people just dropped dead for no apparent reason. How many more deaths would take place on a daily basis, even if you just narrowed it down to, say, "I decree that if anything you do will harm another in any way you will die before you do it." I personally would think that would be a much crazier world than the one where the occasional baby gets raped.

do you see, skel jell, why belief in "god's plan" is a dangerous thing?if i must answer the questions posed: i will say that god, if he is the god we think of, all knowing, all powerful, doesnt need to kill people to stop them. he could anyhting he wanted. he could have made human beings better people, who didnt rape and murder. the world could be a "paradise" where man lived in harmony and blah blah blah. and so, if he could have and didnt, i'm forced to conclude that he doesnt care what happens to us, or cant stop it. or doesnt exist. boom.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

I see all dog.

How about now?

[brvheart 1,755]

I'm enjoying this thread quite a bit.

[brvheart 1,755]

We're not talking about skinned knees and vaccine shots here. We're talking death, and baby rape. Would you stop your child from being raped if you could? I think yes. To not do so would be pure evil.

From God's perspective this is "definitely" not necessarily true. Humans can't possibly see the end result, like in JJJ's "this is going to hurt me more than you" example, so stopping it would be necessary. God can see the final result and it might lead to a conclusion that never would have happened without the terrible thing happening. Also, as every here forgets, according to the Bible, God didn't create the world to behave this way. These issues are the result of sin. That is what Franklin Graham is saying and that is what BG has been saying.

[vbnautilus 48]

Also, as every here forgets, according to the Bible, God didn't create the world to behave this way. These issues are the result of sin. That is what Franklin Graham is saying and that is what BG has been saying.

Are you saying that tsunamis are the result of sin? But more importantly, you're forgetting his omniscience. He knows, given the initial conditions, exactly what will happen if he creates this particular world. Therefore he either1. wants it to be that way2. cannot change it Can't be 2 since he's omnipotent, right?He can't both set things up to happen exactly as they do and also not want it to go that way. Makes no sense given that he can set things up to go any way he wants.

[BaseJester 1]

From God's perspective this is "definitely" not necessarily true. Humans can't possibly see the end result, like in JJJ's "this is going to hurt me more than you" example, so stopping it would be necessary. God can see the final result and it might lead to a conclusion that never would have happened without the terrible thing happening. Also, as every here forgets, according to the Bible, God didn't create the world to behave this way. These issues are the result of sin. That is what Franklin Graham is saying and that is what BG has been saying.

Eve eats the apple God placed in the garden: Outside of God's control. Could not have been prevented. Tsunami hits Japan: Clearly part of an elaborate plan for the ultimate good of people.Why?

[brvheart 1,755]

Are you saying that tsunamis are the result of sin? But more importantly, you're forgetting his omniscience. He knows, given the initial conditions, exactly what will happen if he creates this particular world. Therefore he either1. wants it to be that way2. cannot change it Can't be 2 since he's omnipotent, right?He can't both set things up to happen exactly as they do and also not want it to go that way. Makes no sense given that he can set things up to go any way he wants.

Just because he knows what will happen if he sets it up a certain way, doesn't mean that he wanted it to happen. It would be pretty easy for any parent on this board to come up with an analogy on how this could happen with our kids. I have my house set up a certain way, I know for a fact my kids will break the rules, I don't want them to break the rules, but I also don't want to handcuff them to the radiator. This doesn't mean that the only solution is me not having kids to begin with.If I was God, I know that I would get a lot more pleasure out of people following me, if those people had the ability to not choose to follow me.If you were God, which way would make you happier? A world where no one sins or ever stops following you, because you set it up so that it wouldn't be possible OR the opposite?

[brvheart 1,755]

Eve eats the apple God placed in the garden: Outside of God's control. Could not have been prevented. Tsunami hits Japan: Clearly part of an elaborate plan for the ultimate good of people.Why?

I'm not saying that the Tsunami was good. I'm saying we don't know, but God might know.

[BaseJester 1]

I'm not saying that the Tsunami was good. I'm saying we don't know, but God might know.

Do you know for a fact that the fruit thing was bad?

[SweetDee 0]

do you see, skel jell, why belief in "god's plan" is a dangerous thing?if i must answer the questions posed: i will say that god, if he is the god we think of, all knowing, all powerful, doesnt need to kill people to stop them. he could anyhting he wanted. he could have made human beings better people, who didnt rape and murder. the world could be a "paradise" where man lived in harmony and blah blah blah. and so, if he could have and didnt, i'm forced to conclude that he doesnt care what happens to us, or cant stop it. or doesnt exist. boom.

I see what you are saying, I just think that it's worth mentioning that, according to the story, initially that's was how we started. What we see is the result of bad choices, not the doing of God, according to the story. My personal guess is that God had no desire to create a being that could not think for itself and had no will of it's own. If that was the goal than just make giant Lego people.

[SweetDee 0]

Eve eats the apple God placed in the garden: Outside of God's control. Could not have been prevented. Tsunami hits Japan: Clearly part of an elaborate plan for the ultimate good of people.Why?

Actually, I think it's more the result of people taking the chance of living near the coast in places known for big ass tsunamis, but that's just me. I mean, you reap what you sew.