“This is the best that we can do for those who have died: We can live in such a way that they can feel they are continuing to live in us, more mindfully, more profoundly, more beautifully, tasting every minute of life available to us, for them," Hanh said
Affectionately called Thay, Thich Nhat Hahn is a great man. Without him, we may never have had an anti-Vietnam movement. He is the rare religious leader who says, you can practice my rituals or not, it doesn’t make you a better person. He knows there is value in meditation and mindfulness, but makes no claim about it being the only right way. If all religion was like that, we’d have a lot fewer problems. We could just work together and clean the mess and move on.
I mean let's say there were two men. One was loving to some of his children, but allowed others to suffer horribly even though he could easily do something about it (let's say he's rich and mitigating the suffering was only a matter of purchasing the right medication). Then there's another man who loves all his children, and whenever one is suffering, he does whatever it takes to alleviate the suffering. Which of these two men would you choose to befriend?The problem is your analogy doesn't describe God and what he is doing. A better analogy is a being who creates men and women with a will of their own and puts them in a temporary setting where they can act according to their will. They begin stealing, lying and killing each other. Their creator reaches out to them and gives them a way to live in peace and prosperity. Some accept his offer while others curse at him and reject him. Those who accept his offer he makes his children. Those who reject him and choose instead to continue to live contrary to his purpose for them, he destroys. They are of no use to him and were never his children. Those who are now his children he brings into his eternal home where there is no pain or suffering and they will inherit all that he owns. Having lived among evil and experiencing its consequences, the children of God will never look back.
So, to refine CuthbertJ’s analogy, the first father offers help when his kids are suffering, but he requires that they accept it an particular way. LilySmith only says “gives them a way" and “contrary to his purpose" so I can’t know exactly what she means, other than what I’ve read in the Bible, which argues about faith and works, but anyway… So, let’s assume the rich guy requires that his children actively campaign for Democratic politicians. If they do that, then get sick, he helps them. If they don’t, let ‘em suffer.
Apparently, he even believes in some sort of euthanasia. I guess that’s what Lily means by “destroy".
"God kills people to remind other people how lucky they are to be alive and therefore should worship God." Is that not the point of your story?No. The point is this life has always been temporary for everyone. No one lives forever on this earth. Christianity has never taught that our hope is in making this world a Utopia so we can stop suffering and dying. Christianity seeks to explain why we suffer and die, and gives a hope for better things to come. Atheists like Sam Harris will take the opportunity of a natural disaster and proclaim that no God exists and there is no more to life. Christians will continue to trust God even through the difficult times knowing that life has an ultimate purpose beyond death and suffering.
Atheists like Sam Harris will take the opportunity of a natural disaster and proclaim that no God exists and there is no more to life. Christians will continue to trust God even through the difficult times knowing that life has an ultimate purpose beyond death and suffering.I know you disagree with Sam Harris, but do you disagree with this guy too? “These kind of questions about God being in control and there simultaneously being suffering are the kind of things that keep seminarians up at night," institute CEO Robert P. Jones said in 2011. “They’re thorny theological issues."
I mean let's say there were two men. One was loving to some of his children, but allowed others to suffer horribly even though he could easily do something about it (let's say he's rich and mitigating the suffering was only a matter of purchasing the right medication). Then there's another man who loves all his children, and whenever one is suffering, he does whatever it takes to alleviate the suffering. Which of these two men would you choose to befriend?The problem is your analogy doesn't describe God and what he is doing. A better analogy is a being who creates men and women with a will of their own and puts them in a temporary setting where they can act according to their will. They begin stealing, lying and killing each other. Their creator reaches out to them and gives them a way to live in peace and prosperity. Some accept his offer while others curse at him and reject him. Those who accept his offer he makes his children. Those who reject him and choose instead to continue to live contrary to his purpose for them, he destroys. They are of no use to him and were never his children. Those who are now his children he brings into his eternal home where there is no pain or suffering and they will inherit all that he owns. Having lived among evil and experiencing its consequences, the children of God will never look back.No, the problem is you never answer my questions, but wriggle out of them by redefining them. JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION! Which of those two men would you befriend?
No, the problem is you never answer my questions, but wriggle out of them by redefining them. JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION! Which of those two men would you befriend?Your question as written does not represent anything I believe about God or his will for mankind and the world. Therefore, there's no reason for me to answer it. Straw man Fallacy--A straw man argument is a rhetorical device that is meant to easily prove that one’s position or argument is superior to an opposing argument. However, the straw man argument is regarded as a logical fallacy, because at its core, the person using the device misrepresents the other person's argument.
I know you disagree with Sam Harris, but do you disagree with this guy too? “These kind of questions about God being in control and there simultaneously being suffering are the kind of things that keep seminarians up at night," institute CEO Robert P. Jones said in 2011. “They’re thorny theological issues."No, I don't disagree with Mr. Jones, but he said something very different from Sam Harris, who used a weak version of David Hume's question about God and evil. "“Either God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like this, or he doesn’t care to, or he doesn’t exist. God is either impotent, evil or imaginary," Harris said after Japan’s tsunami. “Take your pick, and choose wisely." Mr. Harris doesn't give all the options. As a Jew, he uses the view of some Jews after the Holocaust--"God is dead. If there were a God, he would surely have prevented the Holocaust. Since God did not prevent it, then God as traditionally understood either does not exist or has changed in some way. For some this means that God has abandoned them, while for others it means God never did exist. Jews must be in the world for themselves. This may mean a turn to atheism or perhaps a turn to some more like pantheism." The Christian view, however, has the promise that God is with us in suffering and death, and though we all go through it, we will triumph over death in Christ. Jesus said, "In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world." Christians have the trust that God will restore all things.
No, I don't disagree with Mr. Jones, but he said something very different from Sam Harris, who used a weak version of David Hume's question about God and evil. "“Either God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like this, or he doesn’t care to, or he doesn’t exist. God is either impotent, evil or imaginary," Harris said after Japan’s tsunami. “Take your pick, and choose wisely."If you're just going to answer the questions you want, rewriting them as you go, then you should start a blog. This is a discussion forum. You don't have to answer everything, but some participation would be nice.
No, the problem is you never answer my questions, but wriggle out of them by redefining them. JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION! Which of those two men would you befriend?Your question as written does not represent anything I believe about God or his will for mankind and the world. Therefore, there's no reason for me to answer it. Straw man Fallacy--A straw man argument is a rhetorical device that is meant to easily prove that one’s position or argument is superior to an opposing argument. However, the straw man argument is regarded as a logical fallacy, because at its core, the person using the device misrepresents the other person's argument.Again with the sidestepping. Just answer the question. Forget it, I'll answer it for you. You'd pick the 2nd guy, the nice guy who always takes care of his kids and doesn't come up with excuses or "reasons unknowable" to not help them. My point is, folks like you can get away with your beliefs because there are no consequences here and now. You just put off the consequences til after death, which is the same as not having consequences. Same with the "jumping off the bridge" question I asked on another thread. When it comes down to acting on your beliefs, you don't. You only believe what you do because there are no real consequences to you personally, other than feeling good about yourself, which is pretty selfish. This is also why I actually admire in a certain way those nutjobs who play with deadly snakes as part of their religion. There are direct consequences to their actions in terms of personal well-being AND they still believe, nutty as those beliefs are. Folks like you just pretend.
What is god's role in the Philippine disaster? What is god's role in helping the victimsFirst, to ask if god had a role you have to assume an all knowing and loving god exists. Since nothing was done, I think that puts an end to any such assumption. But believers do make that assumption and I wondered how they reconciled it to a disaster such as that in the Phillipines. They claim their god exists and is all powerful and all good, yet such disasters show a serious contradiction in their claims. I felt I was asking a rational question given their beliefs. Sometimes you have to ask a question with the assumption that their beliefs are correct to get an answer to a logical quesion. If they can't answer logically their beliefs are suspect. Lois
What is god's role in the Philippine disaster? What is god's role in helping the victimsFirst, to ask if god had a role you have to assume an all knowing and loving god exists. Since nothing was done, I think that puts an end to any such assumption. But believers do make that assumption and I wondered how they reconciled it to a disaster such as that in the Phillipines. They claim their god exists and is all powerful and all good, yet such disasters show a serious contradiction in their claims. I felt I was asking a rational question given their beliefs. Sometimes you have to ask a question with the assumption that their beliefs are correct to get an answer to a logical quesion. If they can't answer logically their beliefs are suspect. LoisThat's actually kind of an easy one though Lois. I believe they'd respond with their usual catchall, endall "we cannot know gods reasons, but he has one". And that was the point of my question to LilySmith. When you have that catchall/endall then there really are no consequences to believing something.
What is god's role in the Philippine disaster? What is god's role in helping the victimsFirst, to ask if god had a role you have to assume an all knowing and loving god exists. Since nothing was done, I think that puts an end to any such assumption. But believers do make that assumption and I wondered how they reconciled it to a disaster such as that in the Phillipines. They claim their god exists and is all powerful and all good, yet such disasters show a serious contradiction in their claims. I felt I was asking a rational question given their beliefs. Sometimes you have to ask a question with the assumption that their beliefs are correct to get an answer to a logical quesion. If they can't answer logically their beliefs are suspect. LoisThat's actually kind of an easy one though Lois. I believe they'd respond with their usual catchall, endall "we cannot know gods reasons, but he has one". And that was the point of my question to LilySmith. When you have that catchall/endall then there really are no consequences to believing something. You're right. In my opinion anyone who takes Lilysmith's position that a god is destroying lives to bring people to him is taking a disgusting. immoral, by any standard, and sadistic position. It's as ugly an explanation as anyone could devise and it explains the Christian religion for what it is: rotten to the core. LL
Even worse is Lily’s opinion about those of us who care about ethics. Emphasis added.
In my view of God, He is the creator of all life and has determined when, where and how long each life exists on this earth. Everyone dies. That's not slaughter nor is it evil, it is by design. What is evil is a created man who thinks he knows better than God and can judge his Creator. I believe that's called arrogance--an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions.Sigh. Once again, evidence that you cannot have a rational discussion with an ideologue.
Even worse is Lily's opinion about those of us who care about ethics. Emphasis added.Yes, amazingly circular. The most atrocious being, one who has created millions of gruesome deaths, can't be questioned, because any such questioning is arrogance, simply because that being created those atrocious acts. Because he created everything, no one thing he does can be questioned or judged. Everything must have a reason, therefore, everything does have a reason, and asking what the reason is or saying it is unreasonable, is arrogance. We can't know all of God (until later sometime), so who are we to judge? I don't see how this leads to anything but paralysis when it comes to figuring out what you do with yourself on a daily basis. Besides read the Bible and pray.In my view of God, He is the creator of all life and has determined when, where and how long each life exists on this earth. Everyone dies. That's not slaughter nor is it evil, it is by design. What is evil is a created man who thinks he knows better than God and can judge his Creator. I believe that's called arrogance--an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions.Sigh. Once again, evidence that you cannot have a rational discussion with an ideologue.
No one with an ounce of humanity and the power to make life eternal would make death inevitable for every living being. Imagining such a state of affairs is inanity, or maybe insanity but not humanity. I haven’t been here for awhile but now see that Lily is still here. It’s quite amazing, she can’t imagine she is persuading anyone. Then again, someone who can wrap herself so tightly in a fantasy cocoon probably can imagine anything to be true. It’s not bad enough that she constructs a fantasy and insists on calling it truth; the content of the fantasy is horrid.
Every time I hear a justification of God reminding us of something good by destroying something I cannot help drawing the comparison of a husband who beats his wife to death to remind other wives how lucky they are to be alive?Really? That comparison makes absolutely no sense. Then you haven't read your bible.
OK people , let’s quit the silliness. The only Gods that exist are the ones we ourselves create. They don’t cause storms etc. natural causes do. As always when these natural disasters affect humans and other species it is up to us to repair the damages or not.