Why Don’t The Religious Ask Why?

[naomi24]

Pondering the posts here, Goodlife quotes from The Watchtower or his preferred version of the bible, Theland quotes from anything that agrees with his own views at any given time (even the much despised Billy Graham organisation if it suits the purpose), Khandro quotes philosophers and those he regards as men of wisdom… and so on… but not one of them ever appears to have an independent thought. They accept it all ‘religiously’ without ever asking ‘Why?’

Why, for example, if God is, as we’re led to believe, omniscient/omnipotent/omnipresent, did he err? Why, if he knew what the outcome would be, did he create man and then regret it? Why (as Idiosyncrasy claimed the other day).did God give Satan permission to rule the earth when that sort of rule wasn’t what God wanted at all? To me none of it makes sense - so it makes sense to ask ‘Why?’ ... doesn’t it?

Why don’t you?

[Spungle]

In answer to the original post' While independent thought is, of course, important, surely it is also important to take note of what others have observed, and quote them in our arguments? Surely you wouldn't take exception to someone quoting, say, a Nobel-prize-winning scientists, for example?

[allenlondon]

Theland spouts mostly rubbish.

“There you go again! Schoolmarm!
You always manage to bring it down to you, you, you.” (aimed at Naomi).

I said mostly.

[naomi24]

Spungle, From Theland at 03:31 Tue 06th Oct

//Why did God err?
You assumed He erred? Did He? I think not.//

And ^that even though we’re told God regretted his action.

You may read the rest of the posts from the religious here for yourself - most skirting the question - but then I’ve never heard anyone of religion concede that God had his failings (which clearly he did) - so that comes as no surprise.

I fail to see the correlation between the unsupported 'observations' of people of religion and the substantiated work of Nobel Prize-winning scientists.

Allen, I trust you feel better now.

[HansUrbancka]

Allen......you have said..."Theland spouts mostly rubbish".

I have yet to hear any sense at all from him. He has a habit of making statements and if you ask for proof he will reply along the lines of...
"Read the Bible the truth is there". or "I am not answering your stupid question, you are being childish." etc. Often very rude and offensive in his replies.

Hans.

[Spungle]

Thankyou Naomi- I'm a believer in God (not religious in the traditional sense), and I would agree that, in my view, God doesn't and has never failed. To attempt to understand "God" with our natural minds, or human logic, is never going to give satisfactory answers. I have read a lot of the answers on here, but am unsure which "question" is being skirted? You ask many questions in the original post, and as a very flawed human being, I wouldn't claim to have "all the answers"- I only know what I have learnt, and believe.

The point I was making about Nobel prize-winning scientists is that many of them make observations (some based on science, many not) which are worthy of quoting. Personally, I find quotations from others fascinating and invaluable when trying to gain knowledge of any subject. Even quotations from people (such as poets, authors etc) not based on reason, logic, or fact, are interesting and can give us valuable insights.

[naomi24]

Spungle, //I would agree that, in my view, God doesn't and has never failed… unsure which "question" is being skirted?.....//

You’ve done exactly the same as the others - ignored what’s there. We’re told quite clearly that God regretted creating man. Therefore it follows that when he made man he had no idea what would happen - so not omniscient - and when he subsequently saw the result, he regretted it. Why don’t you believe it?

//You ask many questions in the original post//

No - I asked one.

Nobel Prize-winning scientists aren't awarded the prize for speculating - and that’s all people of religion can ever do. Your analogy is severely flawed.

[Spungle]

"You’ve done exactly the same as the others - ignored what’s there."
Thankyou for your opinion of my views, Naomi- however, my view is that God, in repenting (or regretting, as you put it) that He made man is not in any way evidence of failure on the part of God. We're also told in the Bible that God repented that He made Saul King. The difference (I would understand) would be that God's repentance happens in spite of perfect foreknowledge, while most human repentance happens because we lack foreknowledge.

//You ask many questions in the original post//"No - I asked one." Really? I counted five.

As for your view about my "flawed analogy"; two points- firstly, as a human being, any points I make are likely to be flawed; as are yours. Secondly, I am not actually drawing any analogy; simply pointing out that quoting the words of others (whoever they be) are important, and help to illustrate our views, often in better ways than we can. The point I was making about Nobel prize-winning scientists is that many of them make observations (some based on science, many not) which are worthy of quoting. Personally, I find quotations from others fascinating and invaluable when trying to gain knowledge of any subject. On the subject of God, I am interested in the quotations of others, whether they agree with my view or not. (If this were not the case, I would provide you plenty of quotations by scientists about their views on the existence of God, none of which would prove or disprove His existence). Even quotations from people (such as poets, authors etc) not based on reason, logic, or fact, are interesting and can give us insights. That was my point.

[naomi24]

Spungle, //my view is that God, in repenting (or regretting, as you put it) that He made man is not in any way evidence of failure on the part of God….. God's repentance happens in spite of perfect foreknowledge//

He did something he regretted. Had he possessed perfect foreknowledge he wouldn’t have done something he would later regret. That’s simple logic.

// I counted five//

You counted examples. There is only one question.

//The point I was making about Nobel prize-winning scientists is that many of them make observations//

If anyone wins a Nobel Prize for observation that observation is supported by evidence. Religion is not supported by evidence.

[Theland]

''Religion,'' as you put it, has much to support it, but the evidence is dismissed without proper scrutiny.

[vulcan42]

\\ ''Religion,'' as you put it, has much to support it, but the evidence is dismissed without proper scrutiny.//
how can we dismiss something that you have never produced?

[naomi24]

Theland, Read this thread. I've scrutinised it. Why don't you?

[Spungle]

Hi Naomi, my belief is that God’s “repentance” is not an acknowledgement of any failure, as we view the term today. More God expressing grief and sorrow at the way man erred, rebelled and grew distant from God's original thoughts for mankind. God’s righteousness and judgment is complete and perfect. His plan does not change even though the course may be altered in order to accomplish the final result. In both instances when God “repented,” God’s purpose for man was fully revealed and judgment ensued. We are important to the Lord, and He expresses grief and anger when we sin, albeit in a manner appropriate to His own nature. Yet He is never incapacitated by such emotions, tomorrow never surprises Him, and His character never changes. God ordains all things (Eph. 1:11), whether or not they bring Him joy. Ultimately, He does this for His good purpose (Ps. 135:6). I trust this helps your understanding.

[Theland]

Naomi, you don't understand God, and have no intention of trying.
God erred? Oops! Made a mistake! (Oh maybe I'm not great after all!)

Silly! GOD created man with free will, to err as well as praise!
Did He foresee this? Of course!
But He does not satisfy your standards of reason and logic.
No, you and many other atheists!
Why bother?
Are you looking for something?
Are you so evil that you want to destroy the faith of others?
No chance!
Your reasoning is tied to a restrictive worldview, that puts blinkers on you.
The big picture is blind to you.

[naomi24]

Why would he do something he knew would go wrong?

[Theland]

He didn't. He gave us free will to decide for ourselves whether to live for Him or live for ourselves.
Our choice.
He gives us what we want.
If we want Him, we will spend eternity with Him.
If we reject Him, we won't, exactly what we wanted.

[naomi24]

Now we have a dilemma. According to Spungle God had perfect foreknowledge, and according to Theland God knew it would all go wrong… so the question remains ‘Why do it?’

Theland, //Are you so evil that you want to destroy the faith of others?//

You need to examine your thought processes. I’m accustomed to your insults but that really is a horrible thing to say.

Incidentally, chaps, can you please skip the preaching. That means absolutely nothing to me and adds nothing to the discussion.

[Theland]

Evil? I take that back
It was not meant to be an attack, simply a denial of others beliefs.
There is no difference between my views on Gods foreknowledge and Spungle.
Why did He do it?
To give us the free choice.

[naomi24]

Theland. //Why did He do it?
To give us the free choice.//

Nonsense. He did something he later regretted, That much is clear. To claim differently is to burden men with guilt for God’s mistakes - letting God off the hook completely - as always. Incidentally, we don’t have free choice. Choices that come with caveats aren’t free.

[Theland]

We do indeed have free choice.
That is the point of evangelism, to inform people of the choice they have.
Most people reject the message.
This is, I think, where it is important to encourage people to ask the big questions themselves.
How did the universe come into being?
How did life begin?
Is evolution true?
Asking those questions will inevitably raise questions about God.

[naomi24]

//We do indeed have free choice.//

‘Do as I say or else’ isn’t a free choice.