why God does the things he does,or doesn't do
what is it?
Doesn't necessarily mean it's a good answer, but at least one that makes SENSE
hmm...well perhaps there has to be a balance of light and darkness in the world because if we didn't we wouldn't appreciate the ones we love. We wouldn't value life. We would be very selfish and there would be more hatred, bigotry, bitterness, and the like if God didn't allow some things to happen in our lives. We also make our own choices and create what we do. For example if a murder decides he wants to take that route. It has nothing to do with God. He has chosen that himself. He is creating it, and responsible for it. God gave us the free will and so we choose whether we want to be a decent human being or monster. We can't blame it on God.
The answer is that you're looking at it from a human standpoint.
If your soul is eternal, then the "real you" is not the body you're living in right now. The real you is not the physical or emotional pain you feel. The real you exists outside this reality - so while you must live in the physical world, at present, you are not a product of the physical world. Because of that - you look at pain and death as something horrible. But God looks at the real you - and knows that what you value now - is really of no value at all.
Utter drivel. Everyone is the product if the physical world and imagining some utopia outside it is utter nonsense. This is how religion gets you to accept a lousy life without question.
Pain is something horrible although you can learn from it sometimes. Death can be horrible and - it is unavoidable. I know it makes you feel superior to preach some drivel, but - really - she obviously needs help dealing with reality, not some drivel that will help her not deal with reality.
Actually, I'm an atheist. But, that's a philosophical theory that tends to help people disengage from cult-thought and empower themselves instead.
Interesting. You think telling people that you know what god does is a valid psychological trick?
Never considered pretending to think I know what god wants would be any value. You don't think it is a little dishonest saying you know what god thinks when you don't actually believe in a god? Does it work?
Mark, if you look at my original post, you'll see that the first word, is "If..."
I'm sorry if you can't understand it - but your lack does not negate the fact that it offers some comfort.
Ah - so it doesn't "help people disengage from cult-thought and empower themselves instead." It offers comfort. Right. Still - my question stands . Did you not understand it? Should I rephrase it?
Your question is moot because you don't understand the hypothetical premise. Disengaging from cult-thought is always empowering and comforting.
I've read a number of your posts on this thread, and my opinion is that you're still a believer. There is too much anger in you for you not to be a believer. You're all full of yourself, telling people what not to believe, but as soon as anyone else offers something different, you attack. Basically, it appears that you've attacked numerous people here.
And you're wrong to do so because you simply don't have the answers. I've been around a lot of long-time atheists that would quickly dismiss your narcissistic ways.
You claim "god belief" always causes fights, yet it is YOU, not the believers here that is picking fights.
Your real struggle is in your head - you just haven't admitted that yet.
But you will. One day you will. And then, you'll quit picking fights you can't win.
Your use of ad hom attacks and level of emotion suggests to me that you are an atheist in denial.
Right. All me. Gotcha Mr Atheist. I am a narcissist. and you speaking for god means you are an atheist.
See me when you can tell the truth.
That's exactly what I mean. I didn't "speak for god," I offered an alternative designed to ease her emotional discomfort.
That's slightly different from you attacking everything that moves and announcing that you know the truth.
But - you did speak for god. In any case - you are the first atheist I have come across who thinks it is a good idea to propagate the god myth in this fashion. What made you come to the conclusion that using denial as a tool to ease emotional discomfort is a good tack? I mean - what you basically said is "don't worry about your pain because you don't understand how god sees it." Although you prefaced it all with an "If the soul is eternal," it certainly appeared that you know how god sees things and felt free to tell her how god sees things.
Surely accepting the pain is real and dealing with it is a more productive approach? Why not help her accept that the pain she feels is valid and suggest ways she could use to learn to deal with it? Why feed the god myth - which in this case - seems to be one of the psychological problems causing the pain in the first place? Is it simply because offering the god-myth placebo takes no effort and is easy to find? Is that the real reason religion is so pervasive, perhaps?
After all - she did ask for a "reasonable," answer.
I think you've got some different ideas going on there, Mark. When you advocate "accepting her pain," by extension, you're advocating her belief system. You offer her no answer - only condemnation, which is a poor substitute for help and compassion.
What you see as "reasonable" is far from where she is. So, you've offered nothing of substance.
I meet a person where they are - not where I want them to be.
You'd have to actually say something so ridiculous that a believer would think you were off of your rocker. But you just sounded like any other believer.
Of course, put us, spirit beings, in a world where we can be raped/molested, brutally murdered, heartbroken, mentally ill, etc, etc, and to what end? You better believe if I'm some
"spirit-being" that I'd like to f***** know without a shadow of a doubt (as everyone should) so that I could make better choices being fully aware of why I'm actually here from birth to death. lso, and more importantly, I would've never come to this planet willingly... SO from the get go, how could there have been free will? My choice would've been to stay in the spiritual realm rather than to come here and risk Hell because I wouldn't be fully "aware" of myself and of the true nature of things. That doesn't even make sense.
Do you know that you can't make an informed decision without being informed?
You ask the question because of doubt..
What do you doubt?
You doubt that all things happen for the good.
Your doubt cause unrest within your soul,
thus you do not see God as He is.
So to doubt ultimately that all is well, is to doubt God.
I don't doubt that God exists if that's what you mean.
What I am saying is that you doubt God, not by being unsure of his existence ,
But by being doubtful that goodness will ultimately prevail.
If you did believe that ultimate goodness will prevail, why worry about any thing at all?
Do you understand?
Because "goodness will prevail" isn't realistic for everyone. There are young girls/women, who were raped beaten and then killed or taken to the sex trade, and OD'ed. I'm sorry when did goodness prevail for them before they met their demise? Or the children with Tay-sachs disease who deteriorate rapidly from birth? Or the people with sickle cell who die while experiencing excruciating pain?
To generalize like that is to ignore individual suffering. THAT is one of the reasons why the world is so selfish.
God must allow all things to happen, He must allow natural disasters to kill people, He must allow the rapist to rape and the murderer to murder, He must allow non-believers to reject Him, just as He must allow the good in all people to emerge from these events. That is how God brings people together.
Presumably you then deny the supposed omnipotence of your god. After all, if he must do this or that then He is not omnipotent.
God is not being forced by us to do anything. God must do those things so that He can remain honest with Himself.
Did you think about this before you wrote it? SMH.
Probably more thought went into my post than yours. But, I am brain dead, so that could explain it.
Thanks for explaining your affliction. It makes perfect sense now.
No problem, could you please explain your affliction?
You wrote this: "Being omnipotent means that God is all knowing, but that doesn't mean He can predict the future, it just means He knows everything"
Do you see how your thinking lacks any depth or logic? You are basically saying that a thing can be [A] and [NOT A]....at the same time. How can your God know EVERYTHING, yet not be able to predict the future? Not only should your God be able to predict the future, but He should be able to do it with 100 percent accuracy....not just predicting the future but KNOWING the future. Explain this, then we can diagnose my affliction. Thanks
You may or may not have noticed that Deepes Mind already corrected me on that.
That still doesn't explain your affliction.
Do you see how your affliction causes you to say those things?
I can know everything about a particular subject and not be able to predict the future, precisely. I could indeed predict things based on what I know about it. Isn't that how science works?
If we know everything about electrodynamics, for example, can we not predict what will happen between an electric charge and a current?
Unfortunately....this kind of thinking lacks any depth, and shows, at best, a sub-elementary understanding of reason and common sense. Sorry.
Once again, this mysterious affliction of yours is causing you to say things that you can't substantiate. Making statements like that is only a projection of such an affliction.
I have proven that the comments that you have made completely contradicts logic. Just because you are desperate enough to still stand by them...well...that's not my affliction, and we know that...don't we?
Omnipotent does not mean all knowing. The term you are looking for is omniscient
So sorry, thanks for the correction. I realized that after looking up the definition.
Isn't the Big Guy omni-everything in any case? Why would he need to be honest with himself. He writes the rules. If he can wipe out all living things except one family on a boat, hell - he can do whatever he likes.
But for some reason he has no desire to intervene, and stop babies from getting cancer, or stop pedophile priest from raping children. Mysterious ways?
Probably we just don't understand or something.
There's nothing mysterious about it at all. What is truly mysterious is where you would draw the line between where God should intervene and shouldn't.
Let us know when you have that.
Who says God is wiping out anyone? Referring to some ancient myth doesn't show this is happening today, does it? Can you provide any story that shows God wiped out anyone in the past couple thousand years of history?
No - he seems strangely absent. Almost like he doesn't exist.
If I was omni-everything, I would know all possible futures and already be in all of them.
Aren't you then agreeing with me in that God is not intervening; ie. "strangely absent"?
If you could direct me to a definition of omnipotent or omniscient where it states that all possible futures must be known and must already be in all of them, I'd be happy to agree with you.
No - I am saying god doesn't exist. I said omni-everything. Which includes omni-present, does it not? In any case omniscient means knowing everything, including all possible futures.
On what do you base that claim?
Could you direct me to any Scriptures that state God is omni-everthing?
Not according to the definition:
1. having infinite knowledge or understanding
2. having very great or seemingly unlimited knowledge
According to the definition, there is nothing suggesting anything about possible futures.
Are you just making this stuff up as you go along, Mark?
So - you don't understand what "infinite," means? LAWL
Yes, it means exceedingly great, unlimited or unmeasurable, endless.
Again, what does that have to do with all possible futures? Please explain, because it sure looks like you're just making this stuff up.
I can have an exceedingly great, unlimited and endless understanding of something, but that does not suggest in any way all possible futures. Those are just your words.
With all due respect, my friend, you are making no sense whatsoever, and you have stepped into a lion's den, but you are oblivious to the glaring fact that your argument lack even a basic understanding of reason....cause and effect....knowledge....critical thought...etc.
You are not showing respect of any kind, you're merely blurting out what you're not capable of arguing. I haven't stepped into a lions den, I've stepped into a kindergarten playground if you're any witness to that. At least, others here are arguing points being made, you're not even doing that.
If you can show anything out of your diatribe to be an argument, feel free. Other than that, you're just wasting time.
Aww - surely "unlimited knowledge," includes everything - being as it is unlimited. Did you not understand what that means? I didn't mention understanding. How old are you? Are you old enough to go buy yourself a dictionary?
Yes, I do understand it, that is the point I've been making. It is knowledge that is unlimited, do you understand what knowledge means?
Knowledge: acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition.
I hope that helps you understand.
Dictionaries are online, did you not know that? Have you not even noticed that I've been providing definitions for you because it appears you've been making them up as we go along.
You seem to turn to personal insults when you can't hold an argument. Why is that?
I see you answered no questions. Unlimited knowledge. but not knowledge of possible future events. So - umm - limited knowledge. LOLOLOL
Now, you are lying because I did indeed answer your questions, however if you're referring to answering what are obviously personal insults, no, I will not stoop to your level of childishness.
Unlimited knowledge in no way suggests possible future events. It is you who must prove that, not me.
I have already provided the definitions for you, please use them, if you can, to prove that they do indeed suggest future events.
My mistake. I thought "unlimited" meant everything. LOLOLO Apparently not. Oh well. Everything, except some things. LAWL
Unlimited would mean everything, however future events are not part of everything, they have not occurred, there is no information or evidence of their existence. The only thing we can do is predict future events based on knowledge.
Gotcha. Everything except certain things. Knowledge of everything - except future events. Any other exclusions to everything?
You sure you are old enough to have an account here?
Well, it is obvious you're not here to discuss or understand anything, but wish to only act like a child and dish out personal insults.
I have nothing to learn from you. Other than the fact that "unlimited," has some limitations.
Since future events have never occurred and there is no evidence of them, they are not a limitation. They have nothing to do with knowledge because they are non-existent.
So far, you have not offered anything but childishness. I noticed in another thread you said you were honest. That couldn't be further from the truth.
And, you still haven't answered my questions even though I have answered yours.
Right. Unlimited knowledge, except of certain things. Gotcha. My mistake. Silly me. Has to be "evidence" LOLOLOLOLO
Blimey. No wonder you need to set up a new troll account.
Repeating yourself is not an argument. You still have not answered my questions, nor have you addressed any points I've made.
You even contradict yourself by saying "certain things", which I can only assume you mean future events, but since future events have not occurred and there is no evidence for their existence, they cannot by definition be "certain things".
Yes indeed, it is your mistake.
Right. I got it. Know everything, except future events. I understand. Omniscient but with limitations. Gotcha.
No, you don't understand. Things that don't exist are not limitations. Future events don't exist. This is a very simple thing to understand.
Right. Gotcha. Unlimited - except for certain future events. Omnipresent - except in certain places and, Omnipotent. Well - except for certain things.
Got it. No need to repeat it. God has limitations. Except it doesn't. Well - except when it does. LAWL
You are the troll here, by definition.
"In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
Except God gives people visions of the future. She He must know the future.
There isn't anything in Scriptures that states emphatically those visions are future events, but instead are events that God states He will produce at that time, such as the End of Days prophecies, for example.
So he knows exact how and when the world will end (including regimes and how long they last, battles and where they will occur), but is completely clueless about what will happen in between? Okay.
I don't think that's what the End of Days prophecies stipulate. God only says that's what will occur some time in the future. It's no different than saying at some time in the future, I will die. Even scientists have predicted the Sun will eventually engulf the Earth and we will all perish.
Sorry, I'm not aware of any specific regimes and battles and where they will occur. I know that Isaiah and Jeremiah prophesied the fall of Damascus, but there is nothing specific regarding any regimes, battles or time frames.
So then you must also not understand the meanings of endless and unmeasurable, ay?
1. having or seeming to have no end or limit.
1. too large, extensive, or extreme to measure.
So you're thinking in a box about a supposedly limitless and immeasurable being why?
So when He sent prophets visions of the future He was just pranking them?
Seriously, omniscient means omniscient -- knowing all things. Even if it didn't He would know every evil act happening right now and be able to stop it. So the point stands.
Perhaps, He was making predictions based on His knowledge, in the same way a scientist would make a prediction. We can see that many of the predictions made to prophets did not come to pass.
Yes, He would be able to stop it, which means He would have to intervene, which means He cannot remain honest with Himself if He did intervene. He also would then know every good act happening right now. The fact He knows these things does not preclude the fact He isn't intervening.
As I had asked someone else, I would like to ask you where the line is drawn in regards to how much God should or shouldn't intervene?
Not necessarily. Lessons learned sometimes are learned the hard way.
Have you noticed that it is actually you who is not answering questions, Mr. Pot.
You're thinking in a box, which is strange sense spiritual people are supposed to think more "outside of the box" than us "earthly-minded" creatures. What does "infinite mean?" IT means ongoing, without boundary, no? Then why would an omni-everything God be bound by time, or only knowing what is in this present time? If He is also infinite, then what this guy is saying is a logical conclusion to come to. If exact words aren't there in a definition, you can't make a logical inference?
First of all, Scriptures does not define God as "omni-everything", so that would be a false premise.
There is also nothing in Scriptures stating that God is not bound by time. If there is, please show it to me.
If words are not there and folks here are making stuff up as they go along and are not making logical inferences.
Oh, ok. So God isn't Omnipresent, Omniscient, and Omnipotent. Makes sense why he can't do much, then. Sounds even more like a human construct made of our own likeness. He might as well be Zeus and as anthropomorphic as the Greek/Roman gods. At least it was well known that they needed worship to survive. (It always tickles me how Christians say we were created to worship God, but then turn around to say that He doesn't need that worship. He sure went through a lot of trouble and took a lot of lives of people who weren't interested in doing what he wanted (according to the book).)
The only thing I can remember are a couple of verses which state "to God, a day is as a year or a year is as a day" or something like that. Which doesn't say he is or is not bound in time. Maybe he can manipulate time (?) I don't know ???
I do believe that time concerning prophesy would be consistent.
I also believe that there is only one place in the bible which makes any reference in comparing time in prophesy and time on earth as we know it. This would be in the book of Daniel 9th chapter.
1st C. & verse establishes when this message was given to Daniel. First year of Darius. (539 or 538 BC) From the time the commandment goes forth to to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple ... it shall be 62 weeks and they will kill the Messiah. If Jesus was the Messiah; it was 568 years before they killed the Messiah. SOoo it would seem that 62 weeks in prophesy is the same as 568 of our years. Which should mean that a week in prophesy is as approx 9 & 1/6 of our years. OR 42 months = approx 1645 of our years.
Ezzra 1 Cyrus states that God has charged (commanded) him to build mim a temple in Jerusalem.
Cyrus commanded that all which chose to be allowed to go to Jerusalem and build it with supplies which Cyrus commanded be given for that purpose.
I believe that this is one secret which the R.C.C. did not want anyone to figure out.
Being omnipotent means being able to immediately stop anything from happening. It means He must have a reason for not doing so.
I looked up the meaning of omnipotent and found this:
- having very great or unlimited authority or power.
I didn't see anything there that God must have a reason for not doing so. Could you please explain? Thanks.
Um, because He is omnipotent and so can stop people torturing other people, so why doesn't He? He is a by definition a bystander at every crime ever committed.
a) horrible things are good for us
b) He doesn't like us very much
c) higher purpose
d) mysterious ways?
For the third time....the answer is that God Is Imaginary. Why don't you apply this answer, critically and intelligently, to the question that you have asked? It's the perfect answer, yet you go on, mindlessly, hoping and searching for "answers" that don't exist. Do you even have the courage to THINK, or are you too afraid to actually think? If you are afraid to actually think, then stop asking questions that you obviously don't want to hear the real answers to.
I also believe, as some others here do, that we all have free will. What ever happens to you is your own doing. God has nothing to do with your decisions.
He/she/it has given us all free will to do whatever we think is best. God doesn't get involved in anything that we do. Situations and problems come to us and it's our choice to decide what to do about them. It's not God's choice. It's ours. We benefit spiritually, when we make the right ones...
What makes sense to me ! , ??
The way I understand what I read in the bible is this ...
"Creator" said let "US" make man in our image. Us means Us, no need for interpretation. A physical body which we inhabit while we are living in this new physical reality which has been created just for us.
We do this strictly for our pleasure. ,,,, Have you ever heard anyone say, "If I could be reincarnated I'd like to be an eagle or or a lion or a donkey etc etc". Well maybe that was possible but you chose to be human?
Are there any rules to follow? Yes, we "should" not do anything that takes the fun out of the experience.
We "should" not do anything that damages this body we inhabit and/or those of others.
We should not anything which hurts our spirit, (ego, self esteem, basically don't do anything that is going to take the smile off our face or that of another).
Unfortunately the human creature most always looks for loop holes that excuses behavior which makes us happy while making someone else unhappy.
If "creator" was going to intervene in these instances would he not be putting smiles on the faces which are sad while putting frowns on the faces which were happy before he intervened ?
WHAT makes any one person happy will most always make someone else unhappy.
SOooo where exactly is "creator" supposed to draw the line for intervening and NOT ?
EVEN THIS DECISION IS GOING TO MAKE SOMEBODY UNHAPPY.
I haven't read through the thread. Sorry if this has been answered. What does God do, and not do, that caused you to ask the question?
Because God is in all things and non things. There is nowhere where God is not.
Because he doesn't exist, only man. And, in the main, man is responsible for the horrible events one encounters in life. It's a way of shifting responsibility from man to myth, and then saying "god did it, and we should not question his ways" But that's just my opinion.
If one is to believe that a God created the universe for us, one also has to understand that he allowed or created pain and anguish as well as cancers, and human parasites such as the guinea worm. This seems to conflict with the notion that the God is a loving God.
God may have created the universe, and cancers and parasites evolved over time. They are just a result of biological changes in life forms.
As are we then, no God needed. If you accept that cancers and parasites evolved over time then you must accept we have as well, all without intention.
I most certainly agree with the facts and evidence of evolution, but there may have been an intention from the creation of universe for life to form and evolve as it would and as it has over time. I see no problem with this.
It is the same kind of indifference a scientist would show conducting an experiment with life forms.
As long as you understand that if your God created us to be as we are he also created all that can hurt us. You may find (as I did) that the universe makes much more sense without the concept of a God. We are no different than any other creature in terms of other animals and parasites feeding upon us. They evolved along side us, because of us, to feed on us. Just like any other animal.
I don't think that is the case considering the facts of evolution, that all that can hurt us is nothing more than the indifference our universe exhibits.
Perhaps, it does make more sense without God. I have not seen that proposed by anyone here or elsewhere, but I'm certainly willing to hear that.
Agreed. I recently watched the remake of "War of the Worlds" in which the premise that our immune systems have evolved and that our bodies have over the years been able to handle the germs and bacteria that ultimately wiped out the conquering aliens. A good argument in favor of evolution.
In the original movie version, the narrator invokes God as the reason for those bacteria and germs, which doesn't really make a lot of sense.
There is none, because God exists only in the minds of people.
The world just sucks. Sorry.
Not actually looking for a reasonable answer then? This is why god belief always causes a fight.
No, sorry, it's human behavior that "causes fights".
Anyway, his response had nothing to do with what I wrote. And neither does yours.
Yes it does. God doesn't exist, therefore he doesn't do anything. It is perfectly reasonable.
No wonder you Christians cause so many fights.
Don't you have small children or puppies to annoy somewhere?
What are you doing asking for reasonable answers if you are simply going to attack anyone that offers one? That is your problem. Try taking the word "reasonable," out.
lol...really? You couldn't be reasonable if your life depended on it.
You can't even think of original arguments. You sound like a broken record. You are BORING.
I am not making any arguments. You asked for a reasonable answer and I am giving you one. I don't know exactly why that makes you so angry, but I suspect this may be the root of the reason god belief causes so many fights. Why does my reasonable answer make you so angry?
Angry? Try bored.
If I was angry I would use my potty mouth banning words. You are safe from my wrath tonight.
Whoop de doo.
Did you even consider what I said or just reject it immediately without any thought whatsoever?
Seriously? When have you ever actually listened to something I have said?
Are you looking for "exciting" or "reasonable?" What does boring have to do with looking for a reasonable answer? You'll find that the reasonable answers tend to be the "boring" ones. Doesn't make the answer any less reasonable.
The only way there could be a God who allows what He does is if:
1) He's not actually equatable with "love," and or
2) He is more impersonal and an onlooker and likely unlike the way Western religions portray him, and more like The Universe being slightly intelligent, but without the anthropomorphic qualities you guys are used to giving Him.
That is reasonable. You may not like it. It may not strike your emotions and make you feel all warm and gooey. But it's reasonable.
Perhaps, someone could answer the question, What is the difference between a God that appears to be absent and a God that doesn't intervene in anything?
Maybe this should be a separate thread?
Well, fundamentally, according to some people, a God who doesn't intervene may as well be absent because there is no difference no matter the reason for the non interference.. Especially when speaking of a God that is presented as being omni-everything. Now that I got that out of the way...
IMO, the difference between a God that appears to be absent and a God that doesn't intervene is simple. A God that appears to be absent is one whose presensce cannot be felt at all or cannot be seen with any of the physical senses.
A God who doesn't intervene is a God who you know is there (whether by the physical senses or by feeling) but doesn't act in any manner regardless of the situation.
To secularize it, it's almost like the difference between you not being in a specific room and you being in a room but not saying or doing anything while there. In one instance you cannot see what's going on in that room. In the other, you can see everything but choose for whatever reason not to react in that room.
The biggest issue when dealing with God is that with God being omni everything (including present), it means he can see all of the suffering in the world and is choosing not to intervene. So the argument is that this is because either God isn't everywhere (most because he doesn't exist) or if he is he isn't worthy of worship because it's difficult to reconcile the idea of anyone having the power to end suffering but choosing not to.
Hope this answers your question
I think that's a contradiction. First, you say is absent because He "cannot be seen with any of the physical senses" and then say you know He is there "by the physical senses or by feeling"???
But, I am there physically, so I can't be absent, regardless if I do something or not.
To me, God can see the suffering in the world and the good in the world, but does not intervene because there is nowhere to draw a line as to when He should or shouldn't intervene. If He gave us the will to do what we want, then He can't intervene and remain honest with Himself. He is worthy of worship because He doesn't intervene and allows us to do as we choose. This is how the good is brought out in people when bad things happen.
We don't know if God is really there or not, it is a matter of faith and not in whether or not He intervenes or by some feeling or the physical senses.
I was telling you the difference between the two in general. I wasn't speaking directly about God himself. Sorry if you misunderstood what I was trying to say
You said the same thing for both, there is no difference between the physical senses and the physical senses. If there is, I would sure like to know.
You apparently missed a few words in the middle of what I was saying.
If I am right the question you ask it why God does the things he do.
May I ask you to list a few of the things you are talking about. Are they seen as good or bad.
God does not do everything that is done in the earth. He has the power to stop them from being done.but many times he allows them to go just the way they do. If you believe the Bible then go to the book of Job and you will see one reason.
Then read the book of acts and read about Pau'ls conversion and you will see another.
Then go back to Exodus then you will see how he deals with the Children of Israel when they rejected the perfect food He gave them when they murmured for meat.
Then go back to the book of Daniel and see how he dealt with Daniel and the 3 Hebrews boys
Then go back again to Genesis and see how he dealt with Abraham and Issac and Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah.
If you do not believe in God then it is hard to comprehend some of the things that are happening today.
You must understand that many of the most wicked things that happen to man were done by men who said that they were men of God. Yes they were men of God but which God. Jehovah God said thou shall have no other god before me. but many do .and so He has left men to their reprobate mind.
Some things happen as punishment for disobedience, some happens as warnings and lessons, some are the direct attack from Satan and demonic forces..
Why do does The things he does, many were not done by God. Some happen because he is Simple Just God.
To many this is a stupid answer but spiritual things are spiritually discern
There has to be a reasonable answer
Yes and that answer is 'this is all nonsense'.
This wiki article discusses omnipotence and omnipotent deities, nowhere does it say anything about future events. In fact, it says the word omnipotent does not appear in scriptures.
This article discusses omniscience and shows that a deity cannot be omniscient and know future events, that knowing future events is a circular argument and a problem of infinite regress that invalidates the premise of omniscience.
Love it. Limited omniscience. God is omniscient, except where it chooses not to be. LAWL!
I am thinking that invalidates the premise of a god actually - thanks for that one. It didn't know evolution would produce humans huh? Interesting.
More and more reasonable all the time........
Sorry, that you didn't understand the articles and must offer strawman arguments regarding evolution. I know evolution is a theory and a fact. What it has to do with this discussion is obviously something you had to toss in in order to appear intelligent. It didn't work.
If God did indeed know future events and provided visions and prophecies for us, those future events would have a lot of detail in them, precise dates and times, names and places, actions and motives, all of this should be available.
Significant events around the world that have occurred weren't prophesied. Hitler was not named in scriptures, nor was his intent on wiping out the Jews and causing the deaths of millions. The tsunami on Boxing Day 2004 was not prophesied, yet it wiped well over a hundred thousand people. What major event has been prophesied correctly in any detail?
Most if not all prophesies appear to resemble that which was based on current knowledge of the time rather than direct detailed explanations of future events.
Janesix, you bring up a good point, but the answer is really quite simple.
Everything that God is said to have done in the Bible was an act of love. This includes Noah's Flood. How can this be possible? How is murdering millions of people be an act of love?
The answer is in Genesis 1:26, where it says that God created man (us) in His image and likeness. But God is not Homo sapiens. So, that means that we are not inherently Homo sapiens, either. Genesis 2:7 says that man was created again, but this time from the dust of the ground. God's image is not dust. So, what's going on here? Dust is biblical jargon for physical matter. This is referring to the Homo sapiens body.
So, "man" has a dual nature -- immortal spirit wrapped in Homo sapiens flesh.
Genesis 6:3 emphasizes this fact by stating that God will not always strive with man because he is "also" flesh. In other words, when the rescue mission is over, the human bodies will be left behind to fend for themselves. This means the complete collapse of civilization. Why? Because, left to their lowest common denominator, humans are selfish bastards. Their egos are too big. You'll end up with victims versus perpetrators -- the wailing and gnashing talked about in the Bible.
Noah's Flood was an act of love, because God was trying to rescue His children -- the spiritual, non-physical immortal sources of creation, like Him.
But most people are so wrapped up in being a Homo sapiens hunk of flesh, they lose sight of their sleeping spiritual half. They ridicule it. And those with big egos don't like to receive ridicule, so they jump on the bandwagon and start to ridicule it, too.
But I have seen miracles. I have been outside of my physical body. I have remembered hundreds of prior lives. It's not easy. The distractions of this world are strong. That's why the rescue mission has taken so many thousands of years.
Contrary to the Fundamentalist's "literal" view of the Bible, Noah's Flood occurred closer to 27,970 BC. Adam (the first human tribe) came to Earth about 10,434,130 BC. These are dates from a new interpretation of the Bible -- one that also reveals the target of the Flood -- the real culprit that threatened the genetic integrity of Homo sapiens, and threatened the possible future existence of civilization.
Miracles are simple and reasonable
Science studies the products of creation and does a damn good job of it. Physical existence is built on principles of continuity -- space, time and the commensurability of natural effects, like gravity.
Religion, in its purest form of spirituality, is more concerned with the sources of creation and things of a decidedly discontinuous nature. Analogy: Spirituality is concerned with the programmer -- not the program. Creation seems to be discontinuous in nature, because it works outside of time and space. Religion is about re-learning the code. Awakening to the code and learning to write new code.
Peter did this for a moment, when he left all reasonableness and logic behind. Peter stepped out of his storm-tossed boat onto the unsettled Sea of Galilee to walk for a moment with his master. That was the code of Homo sapiens body allowing the driver (the immortal spirit, within) to reawaken and to take over the program once again. When doubt settle back into his mind, he promptly sank. And that's one good reason why "skepticism" is such an imperfect paradigm for science. Restraint and humility are far better, because they don't contain the potent bias of doubt.
See? Simple! And it only took me 60 years to understand all of this.
I see many speak against man because despite his personal ideology, which he himself admit is limited, Speak with compassion to his fellow man.
This is a quality that should be exemplified rather than criticized, for how else can love be demonstrated.
And love is the principal thing.
IF I believed in a God, the only reasonable answer for why it does or doesn't do things would have to be that the God was not a loving God. Not a God who cared about his creation. IF that God felt any sort of "love" towards it's creations, the world would not be what it is now.
God is beyond all limitations. He/She is beyond all human constructs and perceptions. He/She is the Ultimate Good and/or Benevolent One. He/She is beyond religion, beyond race, beyond gender. He/She is non-judgmental. As I see the problem isn't with God or the Universal Consciousness, it is humankind's respective interpretation and definition what God or Universal Consciousness IS and/or SHOULD BE!
How can something not all knowing and all powerful be considered a God?
"God : the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped"
"A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe"
by Claire Evans13 months ago
That's the typical Sam Harris argument. How does suffering negate God's existence? Maybe He's just watching. It doesn't mean He doesn't exist and for anyone to bring up suffering as proof of no God is...
by Alexander A. Villarasa2 years ago
Mahzarin Banaji, the Cabot Professor of Social Ethics, Dept. of Psychology at Harvard University forwarded his candidate for "the most deeply satisfying explanation" of human nature, the idea of...
by Amie Warren6 years ago
...would it destroy your life? So many people these days seem so dependent on God for everything, so wrapped up in letting him solve all their problems for them. It absolves them of so much responsibility for their own...
by Susan Reid5 years ago
Here's my example. My husband left this morning on a five-day fishing trip with his buddies. I honestly am happy for him going. But I was annoyed that he spent the last week packing, buying a new fishing rod, really...
by paarsurrey4 years ago
Atheism, Agnosticism and Skepticism are religions of doubt;is it normal to start doubting when there is no reasonable ground to doubt?
by Elayne5 years ago
I am a Christian, and this weekend holds much significance for me. We celebrate the most important event that has happened on this earth. Although this article may be controversial, I am grateful for my beliefs in the...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.