• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

EADD Chaplaincy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ismene said:
But Arthur is a little furthur to the right than Attilla the Hun isn't he. He'd like to see all welfare stopped and everyone dependent on christian charity. Is it just coincidence his alleged "study" supports his political beliefs?
Click to expand...

Like I said, if it were that easy to make up facts, you are more than welcome to show me an atheist who has done this to prove your side of the argument. Gallup also confirm these findings:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/111013/Worldwide-Highly-Religious-More-Likely-Help-Others.aspx
 
Mr Smokes Blunts. said:
Erm, what about the fact that when they do give they give between 4 and 7x more? That isn't simple coercion.

I am not dodging any questions. My belief is that God is indeed all of these things, but he has given us the ability to solve all of the issues we have raised and we haven't. It's like the story with the people in the storm on a boat who pray to God. A rescue boat arrives, and they send them on saying "no thanks, we're waiting for God". There is enough food to feed the planet, there is enough medicine, there's enough of everything. If God wasn't loving these issues would be unsolvable.
Click to expand...

Those "facts" have the smell of bullshit to them.

If it's not coercion, what is it? Why do they give more? Is it because their churches ask them to? Is it because Mathew 9:24 says "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God"? Or are you implying that Christians are somehow better people?

So you believe that God lets innocents suffer unimaginable torments because we could be sorting things out ourselves?

Sort of like letting someone in a wheelchair get out and crawl up a flight of stairs rather than help them. Because hey, they could get up there if they really wanted to. Yes it would be 10,000 times the struggle than it would be if they were just helped, but fuck it. A little bit of suffering adds contrast to the good things in life?

Back to an older post, Why not help the starving child if he can?
 
Last edited:
hx_ said:
But the issue is an omnipotent and omniscient god would know (due to his "ALL" knowing/seeing) that all this suffering would happen when he "designed" the world. Being omniscient he would see that there could be suffering - if he was omnipotent he could stop this and if benevolent he would not allow it.

But he put the world in motion, was everywhere, is all knowing and all powerful; then by designing and starting the world, the definitions given to him clash with each other to the point of not making sense any more, or should we just take them as metaphors?
Click to expand...

But it's about striking a balance. If we had to automatically got all of these things, then life would be no life at all. We would have little or no freewill. We do however have the ability to, over time, fix all of these issues and become a better human race for it. God gave us the law, that if we all followed properly would result in the near perfect world you seek. The world has many horrible elements because of man and his freewill, and the only way to stop it completely would be to remove man's freewill.
 
hx_ said:
But the issue is an omnipotent and omniscient god would know (due to his "ALL" knowing/seeing) that all this suffering would happen when he "designed" the world. Being omniscient he would see that there could be suffering - if he was omnipotent he could stop this and if benevolent he would not allow it.

But he put the world in motion, was everywhere, is all knowing and all powerful; then by designing and starting the world, the definitions given to him clash with each other to the point of not making sense any more, or should we just take them as metaphors?
Click to expand...

i am no great student of Christian faith or theology however I've spent a bit of time discussing it with those who are.

My understanding of it is that in the allegory of adam & eve it explains He has given these humans that had come about (or he designed or what ever ) the ability of choice and concience, unlike animals and therefore that's why humans have souls and can go to heaven and stuff.

So all He can do, having provided the choice, is hope we don't stitch each other up and wreck the planet (thats where the devil comes in).

The straight & narrow path and all that.

I think interpreting the concept of God as in literally not intervening to help a starving child is showing just as much naivety & misunderstanding on the subect as thinking its necessary to believe the world was created in 7 days and evolution did not occur.

Its a massive massive subject and everything I've written is a obviously a big oversimplification :)
 
Furious George said:
Those "facts" have the smell of bullshit to them.

If it's not coercion, what is it? Why do they give more? Is it because their churches ask them to? Is it because Mathew 9:24 says "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God"? Or are you implying that Christians are somehow better people?

So you believe that God lets innocents suffer unimaginable torments because we could be sorting things out ourselves?

Sort of like letting someone in a wheelchair get out and crawl up a flight of stairs rather than help them. Because hey, they could get up there if they really wanted to. Yes it would be 10,000 times the struggle than it would be if they were just helped, but fuck it. A little bit of suffering adds contrast to the good things in life?
Click to expand...

I have posted several studies, books, and surveys, that all corroborate what i'm saying. You cannot simply write them off because you dislike them. If they are bullshit and you are right, please do post some conflicting evidence and I will happily look at it and change my view accordingly. Until then I won't walk around with blinkers on like some people who for some reason don't like the truth. I will see that when there is an emergency it is Christians who are the first on the ground and the last out, regardless of if that nation is Christian (look at Sudan, they weren't allowed to talk about Christianity to locals by law. They were also allowed one bible, and weren't allowed to hold services of any kind. The same was true in Pakistan recently too). I will see that most homeless shelters and soup kitchens in this country are Christian run, and Christian funded. I am not saying Christians are better people, but if they give more to charity because of Christianity and this is saving millions of lives then Christianity cannot be the evil thing many want to paint it. I regularly hear people go on about the Spanish Inquisition, which no right minded Christian will tell you was right, which killed an estimated 1300 people. But I don't hear them mention that it was Christians helping out in Africa before it was cool and Bono got on the case.

The whole point of Christianity - yes CHRISTianity; Is that Christians should seek to become as much like Jesus as possible. Jesus was fundamentally charitable and helping. Christians believe this makes God happier, not that they should or will get anything extra in the afterlife for it. Nor will they not go to heaven if they don't partake one iota in it. Have you ever actually been to a church before? I have been to hundreds of services and not once have I ever heard them say charity was mandatory, and that if you don't do it you will go to hell. They don't pass around a collection plate saying dig deep or satan's gonna get on your case.

With regard to the person in the wheel chair analogy. Perhaps the person who could help them up the stairs should just sit around and wait for God to do it, regardless of how simple and easy it would be for them to help?
 
^ If you believe God is omnipotent, omniscient and good, the starving child tale is relevant.

If you subscribe to the view that God put things in motion and then stepped away (this is the position of most scientists who still cling to their religion) then yes it misses the subtlety of their position. But this is just a deliberate blurring of the scripture to avoid the obvious intractable inconsistencies in the original.
 
Mr Smokes Blunts. said:
I have posted several studies, books, and surveys, that all corroborate what i'm saying. You cannot simply write them off because you dislike them. If they are bullshit and you are right, please do post some conflicting evidence and I will happily look at it and change my view accordingly. Until then I won't walk around with blinkers on like some people who for some reason don't like the truth. I will see that when there is an emergency it is Christians who are the first on the ground and the last out, regardless of if that nation is Christian (look at Sudan, they weren't allowed to talk about Christianity to locals by law. They were also allowed one bible, and weren't allowed to hold services of any kind. The same was true in Pakistan recently too). I will see that most homeless shelters and soup kitchens in this country are Christian run, and Christian funded. I am not saying Christians are better people, but if they give more to charity because of Christianity and this is saving millions of lives then Christianity cannot be the evil thing many want to paint it. I regularly hear people go on about the Spanish Inquisition, which no right minded Christian will tell you was right, which killed an estimated 1300 people. But I don't hear them mention that it was Christians helping out in Africa before it was cool and Bono got on the case.

The whole point of Christianity - yes CHRISTianity; Is that Christians should seek to become as much like Jesus as possible. Jesus was fundamentally charitable and helping. Christians believe this makes God happier, not that they should or will get anything extra in the afterlife for it. Nor will they not go to heaven if they don't partake one iota in it. Have you ever actually been to a church before? I have been to hundreds of services and not once have I ever heard them say charity was mandatory, and that if you don't do it you will go to hell. They don't pass around a collection plate saying dig deep or satan's gonna get on your case.

With regard to the person in the wheel chair analogy. Perhaps the person who could help them up the stairs should just sit around and wait for God to do it, regardless of how simple and easy it would be for them to help?
Click to expand...

I'm not painting Christianity as evil. Just built on contradictory notions that require believers to exercise doublethought.

If it is true that Christians give more to charity, so what? What does that have to do with the truth of their underlying philosophy?

Re: the wheelchair analogy; mankind is the dude in the wheelchair, God is the dude watching and not helping when it would be easy for him to do so.
 
Furious George said:
^ If you believe God is omnipotent, omniscient and good, the starving child tale is relevant.

If you subscribe to the view that God put things in motion and then stepped away (this is the position of most scientists who still cling to their religion) then yes it misses the subtlety of their position. But this is just a deliberate blurring of the scripture to avoid the obvious intractable inconsistencies in the original.
Click to expand...

Even if God did put things into motion and stepped away, he did so as an all powerful, all knowing, all loving being. He knew everything that would happen from when he pressed "Go". If we didn't have freewill we would be angels and this would be heaven, and that is the obvious difference between earth and heaven. Freewill, even if it goes against God's plan and God's wishes, must be upheld.
 
Mr Smokes Blunts. said:
Even if God did put things into motion and stepped away, he did so as an all powerful, all knowing, all loving being. He knew everything that would happen from when he pressed "Go". If we didn't have freewill we would be angels and this would be heaven, and that is the obvious difference between earth and heaven. Freewill, even if it goes against God's plan and God's wishes, must be upheld.
Click to expand...

How do you know that he is all loving? How do you know that he doesn't hate people?
 
badandwicked said:
How so? The world is rich enough in resources that no child needs to lie starving covered in flies. But those of faith would say no God Allah Buddah or Jah can make individuals *aka nations) give a shit, that's human choice.
Click to expand...

Because in the same way that God made a piece of relevant scripture flutter into YPDH's path, he could reach down and deliver a life saving supper of fish and loaves for our starving bretheren.
 
parttime crackhead said:
How do you know that he is all loving? How do you know that he doesn't hate people?
Click to expand...

In much the same vein you think the world would be better if he loved us, I think the world would be much worse without any possibility of things getting better if he hated us. Why would he create us if he hated us any way? He could just destroy us.
 
Mr Smokes Blunts. said:
Even if God did put things into motion and stepped away, he did so as an all powerful, all knowing, all loving being. He knew everything that would happen from when he pressed "Go". If we didn't have freewill we would be angels and this would be heaven, and that is the obvious difference between earth and heaven. Freewill, even if it goes against God's plan and God's wishes, must be upheld.
Click to expand...

So basically, i you want to make an omlette you've got to break some eggs? He knew that billions of innocents would suffer under his scheme/plan but went with it anyway? 7 days was bit of a rush and he couldn't fine tweek the rules? And knowing this, he planned to torture in hellfire for all eternity those that either didn't get to hear his "word" or didn't believe it when they did? That still sits ok with you. That's consistent with a loving God?

Ok so.
 
Mr Smokes Blunts. said:
In much the same vein you think the world would be better if he loved us, I think the world would be much worse without any possibility of things getting better if he hated us. Why would he create us if he hated us any way? He could just destroy us.
Click to expand...

QFT


If this were a world created by a God who hated us, it's a little bit nice.
 
Furious George said:
So basically, i you want to make an omlete you've got tro break some eggs? He knew that billions of innocents would suffer under his scheme/plan but wentr with it anyway? 7 days was bit of a rush and he couldn't fine tweek the rules? And knowing this he planned to torture in hellfire for all eternity those that either didn't get to hear his "word" or didn't believe it when they did? That sitll sits ok with you. That's consistent with a loving God?

Ok so.
Click to expand...

I don't know where the chip on your shoulder came from? I am not a creationist btw. He knew billions would suffer if he allowed us free will, yes. But the whole point is free will. If we assume God knows everything, then God probably knows that everything will be OK in the end.
 
Mr Smokes Blunts. said:
In much the same vein you think the world would be better if he loved us, I think the world would be much worse without any possibility of things getting better if he hated us. Why would he create us if he hated us any way? He could just destroy us.
Click to expand...

He might have grew to hate us over thousands of years.

How can you say "He could just destroy us" when you totally dismiss people saying "He could just help everyone".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top