What If The Labour Party Got Rid Of...
Politics0 min ago
If God Only Gives You What He Knows You Can Handle...
40 Answers
...why do some people commit suicide? Can anyone who believes this explain, as surely it can't be true?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by misscherry. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Kidas, //As to worms that eat their way into a human eyeball, that, also is part of God's will for the world. Who (apart from the loving, benevolent God) is to say that the child will not discover great things through their blindness, or that the worm will reproduce and go on to do good into the future?//
God’s get out clause, courtesy of his faithful.
spathiphyllum, //God may not "allow" these bad things to happen. He may just not have the ability to stop them.//
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
Epicurus
God’s get out clause, courtesy of his faithful.
spathiphyllum, //God may not "allow" these bad things to happen. He may just not have the ability to stop them.//
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
Epicurus
-- answer removed --
Epicurus seems to fall down with his interpretation. A diety may recognise what humans claim to be evil, and be able to change things, but knowing the wider implications of doing so might be unwilling without a trace of malevolence.
A get out clause is surely an explanation one can't seem to dispute ? Besides it may be just misfortune that some things come out of that which was needed to create a working system. For example, volcanoes and earthquakes kill folk, but were vital in establishing a planet where life could emerge and thrive in the first place.
A get out clause is surely an explanation one can't seem to dispute ? Besides it may be just misfortune that some things come out of that which was needed to create a working system. For example, volcanoes and earthquakes kill folk, but were vital in establishing a planet where life could emerge and thrive in the first place.
Hi Naomi (17.05)
Not God's get-out clause. A get-out clause that permits believers to offer a semi-rational explanation, that a short period of suffering on Earth brings eternal rewards in Heaven.
Those who believe do, really, truly believe this balance.
Personally, I admire those whose Faith (whether that be Christianity, Islam, Buddhism or any other) drives them to bear tremendous hardships with equanimity, or to behave in altruistic ways rescuing others from peril whilst risking their own lives, or to offer help and support to the under-privileged and down-trodden.
Equally, of course, people of no faith do these things. It is my personal experience (which may well differ from others' experience) that people who hold a deep faith tend to be more ready to do these things than those who do not have such faith.
I should at this point make a distinction between who carry a deep, yet silent faith, and those who merely attend their religious building of choice and perform the rituals associated with their chosen religion.
Not God's get-out clause. A get-out clause that permits believers to offer a semi-rational explanation, that a short period of suffering on Earth brings eternal rewards in Heaven.
Those who believe do, really, truly believe this balance.
Personally, I admire those whose Faith (whether that be Christianity, Islam, Buddhism or any other) drives them to bear tremendous hardships with equanimity, or to behave in altruistic ways rescuing others from peril whilst risking their own lives, or to offer help and support to the under-privileged and down-trodden.
Equally, of course, people of no faith do these things. It is my personal experience (which may well differ from others' experience) that people who hold a deep faith tend to be more ready to do these things than those who do not have such faith.
I should at this point make a distinction between who carry a deep, yet silent faith, and those who merely attend their religious building of choice and perform the rituals associated with their chosen religion.
OG, //A diety may recognise what humans claim to be evil, and be able to change things, but knowing the wider implications of doing so might be unwilling without a trace of malevolence.//
We’re talking about an omnipotent God for whom, allegedly, nothing is impossible. Therefore there would be no wider implications - unless that God had decided otherwise.
We’re talking about an omnipotent God for whom, allegedly, nothing is impossible. Therefore there would be no wider implications - unless that God had decided otherwise.
Good afternoon, Kidas. //Not God's get-out clause. A get-out clause that permits believers to offer a semi-rational explanation…//
As I said, courtesy of his faithful.
// It is my personal experience (which may well differ from others' experience) that people who hold a deep faith tend to be more ready to do these things than those who do not have such faith.//
I think that’s a fallacy promoted by religion. We’re supposed to believe in its altruism, whereas in reality practically every major charitable organisation in the world is secular.
As I said, courtesy of his faithful.
// It is my personal experience (which may well differ from others' experience) that people who hold a deep faith tend to be more ready to do these things than those who do not have such faith.//
I think that’s a fallacy promoted by religion. We’re supposed to believe in its altruism, whereas in reality practically every major charitable organisation in the world is secular.
if you believe in an entity then maybe we were planted here by an alien race, its just a far fetched, ah but faith i hear, but that onlt comes from a book written by men for men, ha but god instructed them, mmm really, then he also instructed all the other faiths as well, but there wrong my god the correct one....yada yada.
Hi once more Naomi.
//I think that’s a fallacy promoted by religion. //
I said that this was my personal experience, and added that others' experience may be different.
If your experience is different, then I am very glad for you.
To be clear, I am a hardcore out-and-out atheist. I believe the weak anthropic principle, not the strong anthropic and if I have a concept of God, it certainly does not involve an old man in the sky who has human interests at heart.
if there is a God, then that entity is so far beyond my understanding that those human constructs known as 'words' cannot hope to express any aspect of an all-powerful, immanent entity that might exist across all time and all space.
Whether that entity exists or not, there is no possible combination of circumstances that I can imagine in which the outcomes of my life (or anyone else's) will be affected by my belief or otherwise in such an entity.
That is to say, I don't even hold with Pascal's wager.
Having said all that,I have been fortunate in my life to meet people who do have a deep, abiding faith and I find myself drawn to those people.
It's my personal experience. nothing more; nothing less. Feel free to ignore the ramblings of some random guy on the internet.
//I think that’s a fallacy promoted by religion. //
I said that this was my personal experience, and added that others' experience may be different.
If your experience is different, then I am very glad for you.
To be clear, I am a hardcore out-and-out atheist. I believe the weak anthropic principle, not the strong anthropic and if I have a concept of God, it certainly does not involve an old man in the sky who has human interests at heart.
if there is a God, then that entity is so far beyond my understanding that those human constructs known as 'words' cannot hope to express any aspect of an all-powerful, immanent entity that might exist across all time and all space.
Whether that entity exists or not, there is no possible combination of circumstances that I can imagine in which the outcomes of my life (or anyone else's) will be affected by my belief or otherwise in such an entity.
That is to say, I don't even hold with Pascal's wager.
Having said all that,I have been fortunate in my life to meet people who do have a deep, abiding faith and I find myself drawn to those people.
It's my personal experience. nothing more; nothing less. Feel free to ignore the ramblings of some random guy on the internet.
Interesting - but I can't help but return to my core belief - that a need for a deity is wired into the human DNA.
Ther moment a species is intelligent enough to think for itself, and outside itself, it is going to question why it is here, and who or what is controlling everything.
The rest is simply a matter of belief systems.
As I write there are remote tribes who still believe that the sun is a god, and looks after them, and I can't see why that as a belief system - offering the comfort of reasons for the unexplained - is any more or less viable than any other, Christianity included.
I do honestly feel that my life is happier for not having to strive to meet utterly unobtainable goals in terms of pleasing a cold and dispassionate entity which demands my obedience and is said to offer love - which it doesn't, and eternity - which no-one knows is true or not.
Ther moment a species is intelligent enough to think for itself, and outside itself, it is going to question why it is here, and who or what is controlling everything.
The rest is simply a matter of belief systems.
As I write there are remote tribes who still believe that the sun is a god, and looks after them, and I can't see why that as a belief system - offering the comfort of reasons for the unexplained - is any more or less viable than any other, Christianity included.
I do honestly feel that my life is happier for not having to strive to meet utterly unobtainable goals in terms of pleasing a cold and dispassionate entity which demands my obedience and is said to offer love - which it doesn't, and eternity - which no-one knows is true or not.
Hi andy
I agree with you. My take on that is that there is something in-built to the human psyche to believe in something outside oneself. I seem to remember there is a genetic component to belief:
https:/
To my mind, this tendency permits the development of prophets or priests who set themselves up to interpret the signs "sent to them" by the deity. People are only too willing to believe the prophet who appears to explain some of the mysteries that perplex them.
As the priest-class develops, they set up rituals, build places of gathering that eventually become places of worship.
The priest-class starts to realise it has political power, and the priest-class then becomes corrupted by their ability to manipulate people.
Eventually, the religion becomes more about the rituals and political power than it is about the 'true' beliefs that were established at the beginning of the process.
I think it was Karl Marx who said religion is the opium of the people. I interpret that as saying religion can be used to keep people quiet and under control.
Thus, powerful religions and political ambitions go hand-in-hand. We see it all the time: during the Inquisition; in the time of the Borgias in Venice; in the US today as well as with ISIS/Daesh.
In these and other cases the ancient message of the religion, founded on peace, love, forgiveness and tolerance is corrupted to become hatred, intolerance and death.
So there is a natural alliance between politically-ambitious priests and political leaders, that is often expressed through corrupted religious teachings. The devotees of these empty, corrupted priests are encouraged to act in ways that further the political ends of their politically-ambitious leaders.
I'm not saying this applies to all religions. Just that when the priest-class has a political agenda, and favours unquestioned doctrine over open debate, then we should be especially careful to challenge their message.
I agree with you. My take on that is that there is something in-built to the human psyche to believe in something outside oneself. I seem to remember there is a genetic component to belief:
https:/
To my mind, this tendency permits the development of prophets or priests who set themselves up to interpret the signs "sent to them" by the deity. People are only too willing to believe the prophet who appears to explain some of the mysteries that perplex them.
As the priest-class develops, they set up rituals, build places of gathering that eventually become places of worship.
The priest-class starts to realise it has political power, and the priest-class then becomes corrupted by their ability to manipulate people.
Eventually, the religion becomes more about the rituals and political power than it is about the 'true' beliefs that were established at the beginning of the process.
I think it was Karl Marx who said religion is the opium of the people. I interpret that as saying religion can be used to keep people quiet and under control.
Thus, powerful religions and political ambitions go hand-in-hand. We see it all the time: during the Inquisition; in the time of the Borgias in Venice; in the US today as well as with ISIS/Daesh.
In these and other cases the ancient message of the religion, founded on peace, love, forgiveness and tolerance is corrupted to become hatred, intolerance and death.
So there is a natural alliance between politically-ambitious priests and political leaders, that is often expressed through corrupted religious teachings. The devotees of these empty, corrupted priests are encouraged to act in ways that further the political ends of their politically-ambitious leaders.
I'm not saying this applies to all religions. Just that when the priest-class has a political agenda, and favours unquestioned doctrine over open debate, then we should be especially careful to challenge their message.
Theland //I believe in Jesus Christ and can point to the evidence.//
Let me guess the nature of your "evidence". The Bible.
Everything in the Bible is true because it is the word of God. God exists because it says so in the Bible. Everything in the Bible is true because it is the word of God. God exists because it says so in the Bible...........
Let me guess the nature of your "evidence". The Bible.
Everything in the Bible is true because it is the word of God. God exists because it says so in the Bible. Everything in the Bible is true because it is the word of God. God exists because it says so in the Bible...........
Theland - // I believe in Jesus Christ and can point to the evidence.
You point to the same and declare, "That is not evidence." So an impasse. //
Simply gainsaying something does not make it untrue, anymore than simply saying something does make it true.
I can say that there is a Tesco over the road, you can disagree.
My evidence is that I can see it, and so can anyone else within sight of it - that is evidence that is difficult do dismiss.
If you say to me that there is Tesco there, and I can't see it and can anyone else, but you say it is there because you read it in a book, then that is evidence that is easily refuted.
You can tell me you believe in Jesus Christ, but not show me any evidence. I can show you endless examples of why Jesus, as the son of a loving God, does not exist.
I await - along with Naomi - for your evidence, when you would like to offer it.
You point to the same and declare, "That is not evidence." So an impasse. //
Simply gainsaying something does not make it untrue, anymore than simply saying something does make it true.
I can say that there is a Tesco over the road, you can disagree.
My evidence is that I can see it, and so can anyone else within sight of it - that is evidence that is difficult do dismiss.
If you say to me that there is Tesco there, and I can't see it and can anyone else, but you say it is there because you read it in a book, then that is evidence that is easily refuted.
You can tell me you believe in Jesus Christ, but not show me any evidence. I can show you endless examples of why Jesus, as the son of a loving God, does not exist.
I await - along with Naomi - for your evidence, when you would like to offer it.
Latest Posts
Nothing Is Unbelievable Anymore.
News1 min ago
Have You Got Led Strip Lights?
Home & Garden11 mins ago
Uk Economy Is Headed For The Worst Of...
News13 mins ago
Crosswords27 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.