I'll let your zerglings have their day here. What you wrote is in bold, everything else my response.
I see no virtue in proselytising
please tell the forum what experience you have of proselytising? (you mean in addition to the religious nonsense you are imposing upon me both now and elsewhere on these forums? like the many hours of my life wasted fending off the pound-shop wares of Christians and the frequent reminder both directly and indirectly through the media (and on occasions personally) that we infidels shall be cleansed in the merciless fires of Allah's wrath?) Indeed if you had witnessed how bible truth is helping others to mitigate suffering you would not have uttered such a statement so thoroughly devoid of reason. (Yes I would...it wasn't devoid of reason, your Bible "truth"(?) does little more than can be acheived via non-religious means...I'll stop here before I get carried away.) There are Arabs and Israelis who have transcended years of hatred and violence. (yeah what is all the fighting in aid of again?) There were Tutsi and Hutu who shielded each other from genocide, there are prostitutes, without hope being given a release, drug addicts over coming addiction, family's strewn apart by alcoholism being sewn back together. (Please explain further...be sure to differentiate between the parts where you tell them there exists a god who loves them, etc... and fill their heads full of meaningless scripture, and the parts where you give them tangible assistence, such as actionable advice on how to seek new employment/ dwellings, food or money to buy food, etc...) Indeed, it is of no surprise that you see no virtue in proselyting, for you know absolutely nothing of it, nor of its effects, which is self evident from your rather, well, ill conceived objection. The Bible is a very powerful tool for overcoming all sorts of suffering, but you wouldn't know that. (feel free to enlighten me and go easy on the verses)
Your god is doing nothing.
Again another piece of nonsense, for the only reason that we are stepping forth as emissaries to help persons, is because of our God. (actually I'd like to hope you do it because you're a nice person and not simply to curry favour with a God who may or may not exist) You are obviously unaware that it was God who inspired the scriptures that we utilise to help persons overcome suffering (you are obviously unaware this is a hypothesis which needs to be demonstrated valid...It is my position in lieu of compelling evidence to the contrary, your Bible is human inspired. Nothing more.), who gave the ordinances and instructions to help the adherent, that it was God who through his will, sent an example for us to imitate of which the world was not worthy of and of which he himself stated,'i do nothing of my own initiative, but just as the father has willed', Indeed by your denial of the divine element you can no more put the pieces of the jigsaw together so at to see the constituent parts and make a whole as if the pieces were round and ill fitting. (I fail to see how Bible (written by humans (yet to be proven inspired by god)), even if it is the very word of God, is anymore *doing something* than me saying "keep it up lads...good work!" is me helping a stroke victim as the ambulance crew (arranged for by someone else acting under the assumption I'd want them to do it) rush the poor sod to a hospital)
Again you're pushing the responsibility for faults of a collection of people onto all people
what are you talking about? the illustration was used for you once and all to realise that humans are responsible for their own actions. technology is a great thing, it can be used in the field of medical science to alleviate much suffering, but it can also be abused and made into weapons of warfare, as was illustrated, what this has got to do with the senseless and unfounded proposition that i 'push the responsibility for faults onto all people', is nothing more than a denial of fact, weapons kill, humans are responsible. (no Robbie Carrole...*some* humans are responsible. In particular I divorse myself of any responsibility whatsoever for the production of uzis, nuclear bombs, weaponised anthrax, tanks, etc...)
No, this is not true. The Amish who got shot to death on October 2, 2006 received no such protection.
Sorry what has being shot got to do with someone who is hungry? (nothing I suppose...but I was responding to your assertion that "...God promises to look after those who are practising righteousness" ) Was he in someone's field and got shot while gleaning for food? (some people do I'd wager) was he shot because he was starving? what are you talking about for the two biblical references were given with respect to food. (please explain in more details how 2 Corinthians 4:7-9 talks about food) The references that i gave were neither biased for we did not author the article, whether you disagree is neither here nor there, for we are interested in ascertaining truth and promulgating facts, not dicing with mere opinions (because your belief that the Bible is truth is not an opinion??? where is your proof, that what the Bible claims is "truth"(?)), and those unfounded at that. The fact of the matter is, Biblical principles have helped countless thousands face ultimate tests to their faith and their integrity (ultimate tests of faith are good???), even in the face of death. Persecutors were astounded, yes utterly astounded at the calm and bravery with which persons who faced death in the Nazi concentration camps conducted themselves (explain more please so I can respond accurately), you may wish to contrast that with those without hope and devoid of reason. (their painful deaths (which your god didn't prevent) still occured)
The Bible has nothing to do with me looking both ways before I cross and does nothing to help, say, little children who get run over by an excessive speeder on a school road
Bumf, the Bible has everything to do with it. Why is the excessive speeder speeding? because he has ignored the laws of traffic regulation, in direct opposition to the Bibles ordinances that he should obey the secular authorities in this matter. (please give me the verses (with supplementary justification) which specifically state or imply that *drivers* should obey the rules about *driving*) Had he done so death could have been avoided (not if he was reading the Bible whilst driving). Secondly, it is understood that Children should not play between parked cars (it is understood by us, not necessarily by the 5 year old kids (with varying degrees of perception/intellectual faculty) who will do as kids do), therefore a wise parent shall take precautions to inculcate in their children respect for the sanctity of life as per the Bible instructs them to do. Thus in this specific case the dangers of traffic shall be highlighted. Still failing to see how two trajectories (one at say, 55mph, the other at 2 mph) *which intersect* don't result in a nasty collision given at least one has read the Bible.
how does your Bible stop those who care to start the warfare/torturing/massacring?
It does not claim to stop those who perpetrate these things, therefore is this not what is termed a 'straw man', argument, in effect arguing against values which we ourselves do not indeed hold? (no Robbie, you gave a p!ss poor explanation for how the Bible brings an end to suffering in the following excerpt "It stops persons being massacred in wars because we do not engage in warfare...[Bible babble]" and so I recast the question slightly) It does state that ultimately God shall remove those who are cruel and unjust. (but not right now eh?) Never the less, if you do not engage in warfare are you more or less likely to be killed in war? (civilians that get bombed/shot/massacred etc... are asking for it then, ok 😕 ) If you do not engage in anti government activity (wait...don't you claim all (non-theocratic) governments are bad??? 😕), criminality or anything else that may lead to your incarceration and torture are you more or less likely to suffer under it? (are you still concentrating *only* on those who "walk into the lion's den" voluntarily, so to speak?) If you do not build your house upon the San Andreas fault are you more or less likely to suffer earthquakes? (This is silly!...by the way, did earthquakes never occur prior to the *discovery of* or attribution of faultlines to earthquakes?) I do not deny that innocents are killed, indeed the Bible makes this quite plain,
(Ecclesiastes 9:11) I returned to see under the sun that the swift do not have the race, nor the mighty ones the battle, nor do the wise also have the food, nor do the understanding ones also have the riches, nor do even those having knowledge have the favor; because time and unforeseen occurrence befall them all.
quite plain??? 😕
however right now persons are being taught to give up warfare (perhaps you would like to read of former soldiers, even former enemies who are now brothers to each other), to overcome national and cultural barriers, to embrace all as brothers and sisters, all because of the will of our God. This fact Agerg you cannot deny (oh yes I can...that is, until you justify it your claim.), the Bible is practical (explain what you mean by "practical" )[b] in helping persons overcome suffering and those practices associated with it, for it aims at the very core of what motivates a person, their inner personality and it is beautiful in our eyes for doing so. Please tell me what weapons you can form against love? You make yourself my enemy, i still love you? Indeed what greater motivational force is there than ...
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI do usually...but as the thread title suggests; I am merely responding (as a courtesy) to the evasive counter questions posed by Robbie such that his full attention may be bent towards a question I am interested in another thread. He knows the one.
Since when did we become editors, for cripe's sake? Learn how to post in a way that actually promotes the conversation, or just forget it, will ya?
He posts a lot and even a post dinner re-edit fest on my part to make it palatable for yourself would still leave an uncomfortably long post.
Thanks for your advice though 🙂
Originally posted by Agergit has been answered to my satisfaction, it is not my fault you have ignored the divine element. 🙂
I do usually...but as the thread title suggests; I am merely responding (as a courtesy) to the evasive counter questions posed by Robbie such that his full attention may be bent towards a question I am interested in another thread. He knows the one.
He posts a lot and even a post dinner re-edit fest on my part to make it palatable for yourself would still leave an uncomfortably long post.
Thanks for your advice though 🙂
Originally posted by Badwatersure but he has provided no plausible explanations as to why he continues to assert that following Biblical principles does nor mitigate suffering. ?His references are based upon nothing but the element of chance, as if God should miraculously cause a cessation of gravity every time a piano falls from a building heading for someone's cranium. Does it not strike you at very least as unreasonable? perhaps even childish to assert that in failing to do so he has remained inert?
He has not ignored the divine element, Robbie - he's just not addressing it from your perspective.
Originally posted by robbie carrobiesure but he has provided no plausible explanations as to why he continues to assert that following Biblical principles does nor mitigate suffering.?
sure but he has provided no plausible explanations as to why he continues to assert that following Biblical principles does nor mitigate suffering. ?His references are based upon nothing but the element of chance, as if God should miraculously cause a cessation of gravity every time a piano falls from a building heading for someone's cranium. Does ...[text shortened]... unreasonable? perhaps even childish to assert that in failing to do so he has remained inert?
Are you talking about adopting codes of practice which make one a more effective/nicer/etc... member of society? (no need for God) (If that can be done through the words of an ancient human named Jesus (I argue not in anway divine, or son of God) then so be it) Or are you saying suffering is mitigated by believing God? and all the nonsense attached to this notion?
His references are based upon nothing but the element of chance, as if God should miraculously cause a cessation of gravity every time a piano falls from a building heading for someone's cranium. Does it not strike you at very least as unreasonable? perhaps even childish to assert that in failing to do so he has remained inert?
You're attacking a strawman here Robbie.
Originally posted by Agergno Agergs, with all due respect, i am not. Look at the references you gave, an Amish man in his field, wrong place, wrong time, an unforeseen chance occurrence, nothing more, was God inert because he refused to suspend natural laws when the bullet was fired, please explain.
[b]sure but he has provided no plausible explanations as to why he continues to assert that following Biblical principles does nor mitigate suffering.?
Are you talking about adopting codes of practice which make one a more effective/nicer/etc... member of society? (no need for God) (If that can be done through the words of an ancient human named Jesus (I that in failing to do so he has remained inert?[/b]
You're attacking a strawman here Robbie.[/b]
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut that particular point was made in reference to, and I quote:
no Agergs, with all due respect, i am not. look at the references you gave, an Amish man in his field, wrong place, wrong time, unforeseen chance occurrence nothing more, was God inert because he refused to suspend natural laws when the bullet was fired, please explain.
"It stops persons from starving because God promises to look after those who are practising righteousness"
The first part indeed talks about starvation but the latter part is a universal claim that God will never fail to look after those who practice righteousness. That such people will not starve may be considered a corollary. That amish students won't be massacred in schools also follows from that claim.
Originally posted by AgergNo that is not the case, it is you who are now attributing values which we do not hold and had no intention of professing. Righteousness indeed may even lead to persecution, as it did in the Nazi concentration camps, those persons being incarcerated and killed because they would not compromise their righteous stance. The reference to the Psalms, in which David quotes his own experience merely states that he has seen no one righteous entirely left looking for bread, which i think you shall agree is something quite different from what you are claiming. For example, you have stated that in the case of alcoholics God should again suspend every natural law and make the alcohol fowl tasting to alcoholics, by failing to do so, he has remained inert. Is this now not the case?
But that particular point was made in reference to, and I quote:
"It stops persons from starving because God promises to look after those who are practising righteousness"
The first part indeed talks about starvation but the latter part is a universal claim that God will never fail to look after those who practice righteousness. That such people will not ...[text shortened]... a corollary. That amish students won't be massacred in schools also follows from that claim.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieo that is not the case, it is you who are now attributing values which we do not hold and had no intention of professing. Righteousness indeed may even lead to persecution, as it did in the Nazi concentration camps, those persons being incarcerated and killed because they would not compromise their righteous stance. The reference to the Psalms, in which David quotes his own experience merely states that he has seen no one righteous entirely left looking for bread, which i think you shall agree is something quite different from what you are claiming.
No that is not the case, it is you who are now attributing values which we do not hold and had no intention of professing. Righteousness indeed may even lead to persecution, as it did in the Nazi concentration camps, those persons being incarcerated and killed because they would not compromise their righteous stance. The reference to the Psalms, in ...[text shortened]... wl tasting to alcoholics, by failing to do so, he has remained inert. Is this now not the case?
Then given (I'd hope you'll assume) there exists at least one person who practices/practised righteousness who is unsuccessful in finding bread, then that passage was just some hazy metaphor for the yet to be justified assertion that god is all loving and merciful/etc... and is an inaccurate rebuttal of:
"and how does spreading the word of Jesus stop people from starving/being massacred/being run over/...?"
For example, you have stated that in the case of alcoholics God should again suspend every natural law and make the alcohol fowl tasting to alcoholics, by failing to do so, he has remained inert. Is this now not the case?
You're talking about when I said:
]"I see...so teaching Biblical principles (even to those who are aware of them or believe in a different god) stops people from remaining alcholics/drug abusers/... and that's why your god does nothing? (like, say, magically but still harmfully making alcohol taste unbearably offensive to those hooked on the stuff). I'll assume Christians never do such things then"
in response to
"you can mitigate suffering through education, can you not? through the dissemination and promulgation of Biblical principles for example. Persons are being freed from enslavement to all sorts of painful practices. Alcoholism, prostitution, drug abuse, criminality, nationalism and warfare and even western ills, materialism and its emptiness, self gratification and hedonism. Are you willing to deny that this is the case? I will try to answer as best and as honestly as i can, but my time is limited "
which was itself meant to be a *full* riposte to
"Oh really?...ok, what *can* we do? and how will this decrease the amount of suffering in the world? (such that your god is justified in doing nothing whilst innocents die all manner of horrific deaths etc...)"
Which, so we fully understand the context was a continuation of the following dialogue:
You mention a collection of people/ organisations X that perpetuate grief/injustice/etc... and I agree with you, they exist. (as my last two posts suggest) But you seem adverse to addressing the notion that there exist also a collection of people/organisations Y (who aren't in X) that get screwed over by those in X.
I'm going to adopt a different approach, and let you take me on a wonderful journey as you answer:
What is the series of steps if we assume such a Y exists (and be sure I'll challenge you if you suppose one might not), that people in Y ahould take in order to bring about the nirvana promised by you and others? in particular...how do they deal with X?
nothing, for it cannot be done on a human basis, this is the point i am trying to make, the problems are superhuman and the agency needs to be superhuman. This is why i am a theist and why i advocate theocracy.
Then if we humans can do nothing...why does your god prolong the suffering by it's inaction? :]
i did not state that we can do nothing, i merely stated that the outcome shall ultimately be determined by God in the case of those who oppose his will.
It was tongue in cheek, and merely an allusion to the fact that your god always fails to do *something* which cannot be otherwise be attributed to the actions of others or regarded as tangible.
Originally posted by Agergyes yes, after wading through the details i am left traumatised by your statements as if I am in a an early Jean Concteau 1930s surrealistic movie in which faces appear on fireplaces and hands reach out from the walls offering me candlight, therefore to get at the very essence of your objections, i needed to simply try to filter and condense what it is you are saying, which, and do correct me if i am wrong, that God is inert because he does not suspend natural laws and intervene when persons are suffering. Is it not the case? References were given, in which persons, either through circumstance or chance, in some way suffered, and God, being all powerful (omniscient is the rather large and obtrusive word, i do not hold that he is omnipresent), by not intervening by suspending natural laws in said chance occurrences is inert. Is this or is this not the case Mr Agergs?
]o that is not the case, it is you who are now attributing values which we do not hold and had no intention of professing. Righteousness indeed may even lead to persecution, as it did in the Nazi concentration camps, those persons being incarcerated and killed because they would not compromise their righteous stance. The reference to the Psalms, in which D ot be otherwise be attributed to the actions of others or regarded as tangible.[/b]