A-Guest - your posting style is like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn95GI4ZQmI
Not quite as creepy, but still that creepy edge is really there
it used to for me, and now it doesn't.. i'm not sure how i was able to accept that argument now that i don't, but perhaps it was connected with my increasing compassion for people and their personal suffering as i've grown older.. now it seems like a sick excuse.
more like a bar-bet with satan and all of creation suffers.. i read paul's words and he has no rejoiner except to say in effect "sucks to be a vessel of wrath...glad i'm not one, but who are you to complain anyway, huh?
who's bigger, smarter and more powerful than you, you, you complaining vessel of wrath, you.
A-Guest - your posting style is like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn95GI4ZQmI
Not quite as creepy, but still that creepy edge is really there
it used to for me, and now it doesn't.. i'm not sure how i was able to accept that argument now that i don't, but perhaps it was connected with my increasing compassion for people and their personal suffering as i've grown older.. now it seems like a sick excuse.
more like a bar-bet with satan and all of creation suffers.. i read paul's words and he has no rejoiner except to say in effect "sucks to be a vessel of wrath...glad i'm not one, but who are you to complain anyway, huh?
who's bigger, smarter and more powerful than you, you, you complaining vessel of wrath, you.
Aguest
Your writing style is similar to people suffering from graphorrhea/graphomania.
i suppose both theists and atheists can answer this question, although if theists do, maybe they could explain why it is they believe god made creation and they are free to quote scripture if they choose.
for my own answer i believe he made it because he loved it and therefore made it exist, because it was therefore good (genesis 1:31 and god saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.
i'm especially interested though in the answer from the perspective without faith.
Because nothing is unstable
i'm not sure if this is a controversial subject or not, i suspect it is, the 1936-1945 nazi regime were the most evil b*****d's in the world and thankfully were destroyed, however the jehovah's witnesses having sufffered under their rule, then became even more evil not by destroying the person's physical life, but destroying their way to god, if a person leaves then they become dead to god, and this from a second rate publishing company!
please don't think i'm being flippant about all the suffering and death the nazi's caused, but as we are most of us spiritual people, surely the witnesses caused a catastrophy in the post 1945 era.. best regards,.
star tiger .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNuZfe1GQFc
Does tomorrow only belong to JW's?
do we have the right to judge god?.
this is an important question.
non-believers often become and remain non-believers because they judge that god is incomprehensible or malevolent, and therefore of dubious existence in the form believers claim.
Yes and you have no choice but to do so.
In the account with Abraham and the 3 aliens/angels as "Jehovah" we read...
Gen 18:23 - 25 : "..."Will you really sweep away the righteous with the wicked?...it is unthinkable of you... Is the Judge of all the earth not going to do what is right?"
Abraham judges the actions he believes "Jehovah" is planning on taking as "wicked".
Later we read at Jas. 2:23 of Abraham : "...he came to be called "Jehovah's friend."
Moses judged "Jehovah" in the wilderness when "Jehovah's" hot homicidal rage just about got the best of him at Ex. 32:10 when we read "So now let me be, that my anger may blaze against them and I may exterminate them, and let me make you into a great nation."
Moses had to counsel this crazed alien and inso doing "judged" him.
The parenthetical interpretations placed upon this scriptures are just so much Stockholm Syndrome gloss.
The bible describes some bizarre and immoral stuff and much of this at the direction of this alien.
it used to for me, and now it doesn't.. i'm not sure how i was able to accept that argument now that i don't, but perhaps it was connected with my increasing compassion for people and their personal suffering as i've grown older.. now it seems like a sick excuse.
more like a bar-bet with satan and all of creation suffers.. i read paul's words and he has no rejoiner except to say in effect "sucks to be a vessel of wrath...glad i'm not one, but who are you to complain anyway, huh?
who's bigger, smarter and more powerful than you, you, you complaining vessel of wrath, you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndhomycmaxq.
living without blind spots is better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndHOmYCMaXQ
Living without blind spots is better
it used to for me, and now it doesn't.. i'm not sure how i was able to accept that argument now that i don't, but perhaps it was connected with my increasing compassion for people and their personal suffering as i've grown older.. now it seems like a sick excuse.
more like a bar-bet with satan and all of creation suffers.. i read paul's words and he has no rejoiner except to say in effect "sucks to be a vessel of wrath...glad i'm not one, but who are you to complain anyway, huh?
who's bigger, smarter and more powerful than you, you, you complaining vessel of wrath, you.
SOG - exactly ... that's what's called gratuitous evil. evil that happens with no reason, point or purpose at all.
N. drew
"Why do people say that the people's bad choices that result in injustice are God's bad choices?"
Because he is the prime mover. Had he left the void alone, nothing would have happened.
If the complainers took the position that God has, would you all take away free will?
You would prevent all abuse, if you were god?
If someone were to be born that caused so much suffering that he should not have been born, would you prevent the mom and dad that made him from having the sex that made him?
Would you prevent the marriage in the first place if she was only 15?
What would you do to prevent the bitchy injustice?"
YES.
Faux free will isn't distinguishable from actual free will. The fact that you feel that you have free will isn't proof that you do, and in point of fact neurological experiments as done by various split-brain studies, and other timing-conscious-choice experiments have indicated that we weave together an illusion of free will and at the very best we have free-won't whose "won't" is perhaps two tenths of a second.
See :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet
Faux free will given in the garden as the narrative goes could have allowed the pair the imagined free will to conceive of evil and act on the same when in point of fact they never actually HAD the ability to act in any evil way. This one thing in this situation, whereas it would not necessarily have eliminated gratuitous suffering of other creatures, it would have done so for the original pair. The temptation would come and go and the pair could have congratulated themselves on their morality and restraint and lived on forever.
The only party who would "know" these didn't have free will but instead apparent, or faux free will would have been Jehovah. Humanity would have been happy and satisfied.
But no. According to the narrative it didn't go down that way.
Now suppose since we don't REALLY know we have free will, and yet we and all creation is being punished as it were through direct and indirect acts of evil, suppose we in point of fact DON'T have free will and yet Jehovah is playing it out in this matter?
Is that not evil?
Why would we, besides being victims of Stockholm Syndrome (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome) believe the narrative in which we HAVE free will when our current understanding is such that we have limited and illusory free will?
cyberguy - You are right and yet we choose anyway. Illusions are forced upon us whether these be illusions or not.
Sabastious - "What if he just wanted a friend? You're saying he should have stayed alone?"
Why not? Supposedly he has the ability to foreknow all things and we can easily see that if the point of experience of another is unaccounted for novelty, then what could be the point? Even if God has analogues of nerve impulses which can be stimulated by the existence of something other than self, then certainly all possible "neuronal" impulses would become so much background noise.
God can't tickle himself can he?
it used to for me, and now it doesn't.. i'm not sure how i was able to accept that argument now that i don't, but perhaps it was connected with my increasing compassion for people and their personal suffering as i've grown older.. now it seems like a sick excuse.
more like a bar-bet with satan and all of creation suffers.. i read paul's words and he has no rejoiner except to say in effect "sucks to be a vessel of wrath...glad i'm not one, but who are you to complain anyway, huh?
who's bigger, smarter and more powerful than you, you, you complaining vessel of wrath, you.
wolfman - good points...even if one accepts the premise of the U.S. argument, the S. has already intervened and interfered with the test countless times.
Who changed the languages? Oh right! So we'd be divided and have more problems. Sweet! Thanks for "not interfering".
Mary - spot on. Odd that your icon looks like my real sister named Mary.
N. drew - Jehovah never seemed to have any problems abusing people in the past. No wonder the balance of Christendom skips the OT.
it used to for me, and now it doesn't.. i'm not sure how i was able to accept that argument now that i don't, but perhaps it was connected with my increasing compassion for people and their personal suffering as i've grown older.. now it seems like a sick excuse.
more like a bar-bet with satan and all of creation suffers.. i read paul's words and he has no rejoiner except to say in effect "sucks to be a vessel of wrath...glad i'm not one, but who are you to complain anyway, huh?
who's bigger, smarter and more powerful than you, you, you complaining vessel of wrath, you.
Aguest. Do you realize that you didn't deal with the core question at all? You only reasserted the question as the answer.
"The issue... is the ACCUSATION made by "Satan"... and has to do with what WE will do, individually, when it "feels" like God has turned away from/against us (although He has not, but only allows US to answer the accusation FOR OURSELVES... rather than doing so FOR us)."
There are a host of problems with this.
1. You don't know if there is A god, or a multiplicity of gods, some principle of universal mind, or just your mind organizing your experience in such a way so that you can make sense of what may or may not be nonsense.
2. Even if there WAS A god, you only assert on the basis of some seriously questionable writings that there is no "turning away"
3. Your answer begs the question as to WHY it would even be necessary to "see how we react when we're seriously abused". We'd jail a parent who behaved in the manner that you easily accept.
BTW my response here is for me alone because I know you can't understand any of what I've just written.