21 Aug 08
Originally posted by 667joeWhy would you use the word perfect to describe something if you are
The answer to the question is pure and simple. THERE IS NO GOD and some little children suffer because this is not a perfect world.
correct about there being no god as having some standard to reach?
It would simply be what it is nothing more if there were no purpose,
or grand meaning behind everything and words like perfect, good, or
bad would be useless.
Kelly
21 Aug 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou do not get suffering without sin, and sin causes suffering.
[b]There is no God does not touch that question, there is sin is the
answer to the question …
That wasn’t the question that was implicitly being ask here! The question was not why would a “god” allow “SIN”. The question was why would a “god” allow “SUFFERING” in circumstances where it could not possibly be testing anybodies “faith“. There ex ...[text shortened]... with that of another:
The word “sin” does not have the same meaning as the word “suffering”.[/b]
Kelly
21 Aug 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterHe could but than that would be his choice not ours wouldn't it?
Why can’t a kind and all-powerful god simply make everybody inevitably CHOOSE to be kind because it is in their nature to be kind and so they WANT to be kind?
So what if their nature makes them unable to choose otherwise -that’s a good thing. Just imagine what a wonderful world we would live in if everybody was bent on helping everybody: no more pove ...[text shortened]... per grown up human beings not robots who have escaped from huxley's brave new world.
Kelly
21 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayYou'd have to depend on this idea of the sin being given from parent to child then since children who have definitely done nothing other than be born have suffered greatly and I find it hard too believe they have actually committed any actual sins.
You do not get suffering without sin
The validity of the claim that sin causes suffering is also suspect at best. Of course it depends on what you really define sin as being.
21 Aug 08
3 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay…You do not get suffering without sin…
You do not get suffering without sin, and sin causes suffering.
Kelly
As PsychoPawn has indicated; some people suffer in this world that clearly couldn’t have committed “sin” (such as new-born babies etc).
Also, what about the suffering that natural disasters cause such as volcanoes erupting etc -I mean, how would that be caused by our “sins”?
…and sin causes suffering..…
Maybe usually but also maybe not necessarily depending on exactly what you mean by “sin”: For example, if you regard a homosexual act between two consenting adults as a “sin” then providing neither adult has AIDS etc then it would be possible for them to do this and for it not to ever cause them or anyone else to suffer.
Also, “sin” is not the only thing that can cause suffering -but, Of course, just exactly as PsychoPawn said, it depends on what you really define "sin" as being.
26 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton[/b]I'm in complete agreement, new borns, preborns, any ole born do not
[b]…You do not get suffering without sin…
As PsychoPawn has indicated; some people suffer in this world that clearly couldn’t have committed “sin” (such as new-born babies etc).
Also, what about the suffering that natural disasters cause such as volcanoes erupting etc -I mean, how would that be caused by our “sins”?
…and sin causes ...[text shortened]... course, just exactly as PsychoPawn said, it depends on what you really define "sin" as being.
jump out there and sin. Yet, they suffer, some do not make it to being
born they are ended before birth, some right after birth suffer due to
the choices their parents made on drug use, and so on, even if we
go on to the babies a few months old they suffer due to actions that
others are making around them, or as a result of the actions of some
made long before they were born. Once children start growing up they
do start to show a selfishness about them, it is our nature. Some
of the suffering is a result of actions that we didn't do directly or had
a direct part in, like food or water supplies being tainted, or some
other thing our side of our countrol too.
Kelly
26 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton[/b]I regard sex outside of marriage sin, if all sex were limited to that
[b]…You do not get suffering without sin…
As PsychoPawn has indicated; some people suffer in this world that clearly couldn’t have committed “sin” (such as new-born babies etc).
Also, what about the suffering that natural disasters cause such as volcanoes erupting etc -I mean, how would that be caused by our “sins”?
…and sin causes ...[text shortened]... course, just exactly as PsychoPawn said, it depends on what you really define "sin" as being.
and marriage was limited to one man and one woman STD would
go away from the planet in a generation, but that isn't going to happen
in the short term as people want, what they want, when they want it.
Kelly
26 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJaySo does that mean you believe that sex outside of marriage is a sin simply because it spreads sexually transmitted disease (STD)? If so, then do you think that a person that has sex outside of marriage but does so with such precautions that it is even less likely for him/her to get STD than the average faithfully married, would he/she still be “sinning” and, if so, why?
I regard sex outside of marriage sin, if all sex were limited to that
and marriage was limited to one man and one woman STD would
go away from the planet in a generation, but that isn't going to happen
in the short term as people want, what they want, when they want it.
Kelly[/b]
26 Aug 08
Originally posted by KellyJayI agree partially that if all sex were limited to marriage then STDs would probably go away. I don't agree that it being restricted to being between a man and a woman is even relevant though.
I regard sex outside of marriage sin, if all sex were limited to that
and marriage was limited to one man and one woman STD would
go away from the planet in a generation, but that isn't going to happen
in the short term as people want, what they want, when they want it.
Kelly[/b]
The problem is, it's not the lack of sinning that causes the lack of STDs.
If people were monogamous, but not married, then according to your definition they would still be sinning and hence STDs should still flourish since they would still be sinning even though they would only be having sex with one partner ever.
In this case, the spread of STDs would be halted because people would be having safer sex, but they would still be sinning.
30 Aug 08
Originally posted by KellyJaySo it is SIN that creates terrible diseases in children? That's a new one.
There is no God does not touch that question, there is sin is the
answer to the question if you just want a high level answer that does
not really address why, but give some simple reason for it.
Kelly
And yes we can tell what is right and what is wrong without ever having to refer to the so-called wisdom of your butcher god. You worship the god of death. You should worship your own mind and try to actually develop it to the best of your ability and the work of real scientists who are gradually working out what makes the mind tick and how to make it better.
A better mind is the answer to your butcher god.
30 Aug 08
Originally posted by KellyJaySo a child who has a mind unfolding like a flower and still under construction, a lot of advanced pieces not there, starts to exhibit selfishness and that is the beginning of sin? You and your so-called religious buddies are the sick ones who would tell a child they are born into sin, that being a child with a not fully developed brain they are sinning is the most despicable act a so-called religious person could ever do. Nice job, ruining the mind of a babe to bend them to your sick religion.
I'm in complete agreement, new borns, preborns, any ole born do not
jump out there and sin. Yet, they suffer, some do not make it to being
born they are ended before birth, some right after birth suffer due to
the choices their parents made on drug use, and so on, even if we
go on to the babies a few months old they suffer due to actions that
other ...[text shortened]... ood or water supplies being tainted, or some
other thing our side of our countrol too.
Kelly[/b]