This is happening.
I dare anyone to say that this scenario is not.
So what's the point of pointing this subject out?
If a god is a supreme being, do you think that he would allow such thing?
Because if yes, then he is not god, and we should not worry about that being anymore.
And if there is, then why would he allow such thing to happen?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Perhaps we should also question why these things are not happening frequently.
@atheister, Point well taken, thanks for mentioning that. I've thought of that as well while writing the thread but I've also thought that that would be already implied because that's how I think believers would put it.
Well, if such a horrible thing happens it's not really God to blame. According to the christians God gave us free will, that's why these things happen, because we are doing it. If he controlled us, then what would be the point of the puppet show?
Thank you for the insight dtommy79. Because we are doing everything in our own volition, it's just us humans who are the cause of all things that happen in our lives whether it's good or bad and not god. Why would a supreme being set us loose if he knows that it's going to hurt us all in one way or another? And if this really is a puppet show and a god is a puppet master, do you think that means that he's really making everything that is happening either good or bad? Please share your thoughts.
I intended my last sentence as a rethorical question. I didn't say He makes us do anything. I meant he's aware of what we are doing, but we are doing things without any control.
Its amazing how people start to relate all the evils acts to god and saying that god is brutal,uncaring and all those stuff.
well I think its totally wrong with the human behavior , God just made us to have an good life and we peoples started to outlook for our own benefits and inturn made this world an total HELL..
Why? What's wrong with the possibility of thinking that us humans turning this world into a total hell is what god really wants in the first place assuming the there really is a god? You can either stay with your thinking into a stalemate and let it be like that or start to explore the opposite of what has been thought to you by your church ever since you're able to go to church and weigh for yourself which would be more convincing.
I'm not of any particular religious faith. However, I was raised a Christian in my younger years and from what I recall, God gave humans free will. I therefore think that to somehow hold God responsible (by suggesting or questioning why he'd allow rape) would be to absolve the perpetrator/s of their responsibility. The abusers are solely responsible for their actions and I think it's dangerous ground to question or suggest otherwise because then what do we say about other crimes - armed robbery, war, genocide?
(There's also the question of God. Which God? Or does it depend on the faith of the perpetrator? So do we blame Allah when it's a Muslim? And Buddha when it's a Buddhist? Buddha allowed it to happen? What if the crime doer is of no faith? What happens then? Who 'allows' the crime to happen? Or is that the only instance full responsibility reverts to the perpetrator?)
My thing is this...if there were a God, or a Jesus, why would he let really bad things happen, like kids getting cancer, both parents getting killed in a wreck and leaving kids behind, and so on?
That's what I have been saying too.
They are saying that if there is a god, then there must also be an anti-god.
It's like saying that there is a positive god and a negative god.
So positive gods are the ones the religious people believes in like the Christian god or the Muslim god.
Then the same people also created an anti god that would serve as an enemy of their god.
Assuming that that is true and the positive god or good god cannot protect his people that he cares for then what kind of god would that be? A weak god? Then clearly that is not a god if it is weak. So there really is no god at all.
Don't forget that we are responsible for most diseases, the way we live, the way we treat our environment etc. It is OUR choice to spend huge amount of money on wars, while we could spend that money on cancer research, for example.
I think this would depend on what your opinion of a God is or should be.
If you believe your God is benevolent then it would be hard to reconcile yourself with your initial statment, however this means that you do believe in not only a God but a benevolent one.
Plato argued that the Greek pantheon should not be taught in school, not because he did not believe in them but because he could not see any virtues in them that would benefit mankind. This by no means meant that he did not respect and honour the Gods, only that he realised that his Gods didn't really care about mankind.
Since i don't believe in god, the question of whether or not he would care about human kind is irrelevant to me.
However, I do not believe religion should be taught in schools as anything other than social examination or history, because aside from that it holds no lessons that would benefit children in the real world.
"only that he realised that his Gods didn't really care about mankind."
Now that's something new for me to think about.
Thank you for the insight, I appreciate it.
I don't really think that it will be hard for anyone to reconcile once they've found a solid argument for them to do so just as how I change to being a devoted Christian Roman Catholic to an atheist.
The real question is. If you were God and knew that your acts in creating 'free' (I won't go into the logical impossibility and anthropocentric arrogance of that idea, but for this example, I use it) humans who will do all of these horrible things, would you still allow the universe to start up? I find the idea quite self-serving. People say that God gave us free will, but he could've given us much higher levels of empathy, so that we felt incredible guilt at harming others, or made us more durable so that we were less easily abused and broken, but here we are, and people who hold a view that God exists will always find ways to justify why there is evil. I think if he created us, boy did he do an awful shoddy job. If I were all powerful, I'd have much happier human beings and wouldn't desire any logical trickery to try and make them worship me, I'd be quite content to see them grow. But that's just me.
I guess you'd make a great God :)
Your question is the same thing as going on the street of poor countries and finding a mad man with bushy hairs and unkept and assuming there is no Barber in that country. No. There are barbers but the mad man hasn't come to the barber for a cut. So is God. There is God but things happen to people when they don't realise they've God to save them of it.
God gave humans free will, according to the Bible. We do as we please, and not everything that we do is good. Sadly, some people do extremely bad things.
In order to understand this question you have to understand the meaning of the Bible. It doesn't work to ask what in our opinion a god would or wouldn't do because we are not gods and we can't answer that question from that perspective.
The entire meaning of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation can be summed up in one simple sentence. "The vindication of Jehovah God's name through the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus."
What does this have to do with the suffering that exists in the world? Everything.
God created man to live forever on earth without suffering of any kind. All he had to do was to respect his creator's sovereignty. The angels had been created in heaven long before man on earth, and they had gradually learned this important lesson themselves. The wise thing to do, they had learned, was to value the guidance and protection of their creator. This was wise, not in order to appease their creator's petty ego, as we imperfect mortals may interpret it, but on the contrary, it was wise for the angels themselves.
To sin means to miss the mark set by someone. In the Bible when an archer or a spear-man or thrower of stone would miss the target, whatever that target might be, the word sin is used. If your boss tells you to show up for work at 9:00 A.M. and you show up at 9:15 that is a sin against your boss.
Adam sinned in that he failed to live up to what was expected of him. He sinned. The tree of the knowledge of good and bad was a literal tree in the garden. It had no special properties, it was simply a beautiful fruit bearing tree. Some speculate pomegranate. That isn't important, the important thing is that it was given as a symbol to the first human couple that represented their creator's sovereignty. Though in a sense Adam was created perfect, it was much like a newborn baby is perfect. It has a great potential, but at the same time a great deal to learn. Adam and Eve were not ready to live forever without the guidance and protection of their creator like the angels were. They hadn't matured to that degree as of yet. This is why, on the seventh day, God rested. To give man time to fulfill their purpose of filling the earth and subduing it while learning that they would be wise to appreciate their creator's ways, intentions, will. Like the angels had.
What would happen if they didn't. Well, that's a good question. God had told Adam he would begin to die the day that he touched or ate of the fruit of the tree. So destruction would follow Adam's decision to reject his creator's guidance and protection. Why?! Was God such an egotistical monster?! It had nothing to do with God. The Earth had been given to man. If man rejected God then God was, in effect, powerless to do anything. What else could God do? Wave a staff and correct everything man decided to do? That wouldn't answer the question that Satan had put before them, namely; can man survive without their creator? Destroy the human couple and start again? That wouldn't address the question to which the angel turned rebellious had put before them, either. Watch them destroy themselves? He could do that, but he had already established a purpose for man which was good.
The solution, one of justice and fairness, was to step aside for a period and allow man to address the question, not only for man's benefit but also for the angels that were watching all of this unfold, who were also an important part of Jehovah God's creation. Countless in number.
God wouldn't allow man to destroy a good thing, but he would allow man to get to the conclusion that his creator had been truthful and that man would be wise in paying attention to their creator. For their own good, rather than his own.
In order to prepare for this there would be some things the creator, Jehovah, could do so as not to interfere but set things up for justice and fairness once the answer to the question of his sovereignty had been established.
1. Produce a nation of imperfect laws so the people of this nation can see their inability to adhere to such laws, and therefore see the need for a ransom to be paid on their behalf by someone who could pay it.
2. Produce that person of these people. A Messiah or Christ.
3. Wait for the right time to step in and prevent man from destroying themselves completely.
"1. Produce a nation of imperfect laws so the people of this nation can see their inability to adhere to such laws, and therefore see the need for a ransom to be paid on their behalf by someone who could pay it."
Non-sequitur alert! If the laws themselves are imperfect, why would that reveal any need for a ransom? It only reveals that the laws are flawed. You have a deity who sets a standard so high that no human in all of history could possibly attain it. Then this deity decides that it's reasonable to hold us accountable for our inability to do the impossible. But not to worry, there's this one way out of the silly conundrum. That strikes me as a bit like the firefighter who commits arson in order to save some people and come out a hero. A lot of people end up hurt needlessly.
The whole situation is an exercise in irrationality. It does nothing to establish sovereignty. Whoever decided to interpret it this way is just plain nuts.
Interesting theory and quite a bit of work you've put into it obviously...
However, I really do not agree that *that* is the point of bible. I'm in no way a believer, but I see many more useful points I could take out of the book.
Regarding sin as a transgression from *someone else's* rules seems to completely miss the point of Christ, who's main addition to the rules set forth by the Torah was to internalize them, and allow humans to make the most of their own free will in a dynamic world.
Either way, it's a horrible thing that happens in this world full of animals and anyone caught doing it should be killed on site, no trial, no jury, only death.
As a believer, definitely I do not think God would want something like that to happen. But since people are capable of doing things on their own or things that are not in accordance to the right teachings or will of God. That is the consequence of having free will and own mind.