When over a million people died in a period of 100 days where was god ? Why didn't he protect them ?
When over a million people died in a period of 100 days where was god ? Why didn't he protect them ?
I HAVE 2 QUESTIONS FOR THE CHRISTIANS IN THIS FORUM .
1.WHO CAUSES NATURAL DISASTERS LIKE EARTHQUAKES AND HURRICANES?DEFINITELY THEY NOT RESULTS OF MAN"S FREE WILL! GOD OR THE DEVIL?IF ITS THE DEVIL THEN GOD CREATED A WORLD THAT HE IS DEFINITELY NOT IN CONTROL OF! DATS QUITE AMUSIN !IF ITS GOD THEN THERES A CONTRADICTION,CUZ PPLE SAY GOD IS GOOD ALL THE TIME, AND I DONT C ANYTIN GOOD IN DESTRUCTION AND DEATHS AND UTTER DEVASTATION DAT BEFALL THE HUMAN RACE AS A RESULT OF THESE.AND IF U SAY ITS AN ACT OF NATURE THEN UR IN THE SAME PHILOSOPHY AS THE PPLE YOU LABEL ""ATHEISTS "" IN THIS FORUM.
2.AND HOW COME WE AFRICANS THAT R MORE RELIGIOUS R FAR BEHIND IN DEVELOPMENT AND RESPECT FOR THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE THAN THE SO CALLED MATERIALISTIC DEVELOPED NATIONS WHO VALUE HUMAN LIFE AND DO EVERYTIN POSSIBLE TO MAKE LIFE CONFORTABLE WHILE OUR GREEDY WICKED RULERS DONT GIVE A Bleep ABOUT YOU AND I LOOT OPPRESS N PERPETUATE THEMSELVES IN OFFICE WHILE CLAIMING TO BE BELIEVERS IN GOD AS CHRISTIANS OR MUSLIMS?HOW COME THERE"!S MORE POVERTY AND WICKEDNESS HERE YET WE HAVE MORE CHURCHES AND MOSQUES IN NIGERIA /AFRICA THAN ABROAD?
RELIGION IS THE OPIUM OF THE PEOPLE THAT MADE THIS SUFFERIG BEARABLE.-KARL MARX
The Almighty God, the Omniscient God, the Omnipotent God, the Omnipresent and Sovereign uncreated Creator, created this cosmos and is in full control of its affairs. All the peddlers of erroneous doctrine some which says that there is no God, others opine that after creating the world, he abandoned the world to run on its own steam. But we know that He is fully in charge of all things. Because folks may not be able to fathom Him as a result of their sinful, carnal and finite minds, they then fall prey to lots of misconceptions, misrepresentations and misunderstanding about His part during the calamities that befall mankind, i.e. the Rwandan Genocide.
Scriptures and experience tell us that trials and suffering can come from three sources -
[li]Our disobedience to the commandment of God (i.e. as a result of sin), [/li]
[li]Permission by God without any iniquity on the part of man (Job’s experience)[/li]
[li]As a result of satanic oppression (John 10:10).[/li]
It is, however, surprising that of all these causes of calamities, it is the one by Satan that is the easiest to handle. This is only if we make use of the provision that Jesus gave us on the cross and to daily examine ourselves if Christ is still in us.
"Behold, the LORD's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither His ear heavy, that it cannot hear: But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that He will not hear." -- Isaiah 59:1-2
Good read. You appear sensible to me. I must have been reading you wrongly then, Deep Sight. I also have a german copy of the bible in my library, and it ONLY serves the purpose of enabling me decipher the gothic script and also of improving my german. NevertheLESS it is in your believe in the existence of a god (your being a theist) that I hold you in error. It's up to you BTW. NAturally there doesn't necessarily have to be a "oneness of infinity" (lol). It can all be in your contemplation of the utmost, more like Spinoza's God, and as well be in your head. How big is that BTW (lol)?
Perhaps you've been religious at a time?
How would you then answer the question "Where was your "oneness of infinity" during the Rwandan genocide"?
^^^ The Bible is a useful book of truth, and alonmg with numerous other spiritual works, i retain a copy in my personal library.
It is however riddled with errors, contradictions, mistranslations, misinterpretations, and outright insertions or deletions.
Not to speak of the unfathomable dogma of redemption by the official execution of a Jwish Carpenter.
In general terms however, the Bible is a very good read; and posesses many deep spiritual insights.
The right question is:
"Where was I during the Rwandan Genocide?"
"Where was mankind during the Rwandan Genocide?"
It lies withing the power of each individual to do something that contributes to the prevention of such Genocides.
It lies within power of mankind to prevent such genocides.
What has God got to do with this? Hasn't He already given mankind the ability to live peacefully? What you do with your abilities is your business.
Of course, I'll admit every theist is not irrational. Spinoza for one thought well, Nevertheless, it's important that you understand that all theists while trying to rationalize their beliefs cannot find a common ground, or end up losing them all together. Attempting to rationally explain these details usually tear the honest ones among them apart, since for every explanation you find there'll always be holes. Spinoza is a very good example here.
But the christians, who happen to be theists too, state their conculsions or beliefs with all certainty. Then they hold up their holy book and then make pronouncements as if they know all truths. This is where their irrationality come to the fore. Are you one of these?
If you are, then I can argue that you suffer from a neurological disorder and probably succeed in proving this. This will make you sorta irrational in thinking, wont it?
I believe Krayola has already shown the absurdity of this.
If you do not have any information on a subject, you cannot make a statement as to its truth or falsehood. You can only state that you do not know, or cannot verify.
It is absurd to declare something false because it cannot be verified.
As an example: Look at this statement - "I am a sexual-masochist deep in my heart."
Tell me if you are able to state if this is true or false. You CANNOT. And yes - it cannot be verified, no?
The best answer you can give to that statement is this - "I don't know!"
Second Example - "There are 15 black holes in the universe closest to our own universe."
We don't know ANYTHING outside our universe. We do not know if there are other universes AND WE BLOODY HELL CANNOT VERIFY!
Now - can you state that the above statement is false? That's right - you CANNOT. Because you simply do not know.
So it's clear - you cannot call a statement false because its unverifiable. An unverifiable statement is an unverifiable statement. Period.
My conclusion is that I don't know. Based on my own examination of the evidence, I do not believe in heaven nor hell. But because I have not seen anything that conclusively tells me that they do not exist, I can not honestly say that they do not exist. . . Other people can look at the same evidence and draw different conclusions. . It's all about the individual and what registers to him/her as valid.
My position is that stuff should not be dismissed as false because of its absurdity. Call them absurd, and even ridiculous. . .but not false. Dismiss only when you know 100% for sure.
I think we need to try to get around these labels because they distort reality.
What field of study or enquiry do u know where there is universal agreement. . .even among the most credible of professionals.
If I explain something to you and you explain it to your friend who then explains it to his friend. . .Would my explanation and the one of the friend at the end of the chain be in full agreement? even if it was just irrelevant gossip?
Most people create meanings themselves. The info may be coming from elsewhere, but the meaning is created, for the most part, by the recipient. . There is no such thing as Christianity, there are Christianities. Always has been that way. There is no such thing as Islam, there are Islams. Always has been that way (since the death of the prophet).
Scientists have differing opinions on almost everything and they will all sit and give u very valid arguments defending their positions. So this lack of agreement amongst groups does not do much to hurt the credibility of all the groups. Some paleontologists believe all homo-sapien came out of Africa. . .some believe they may have evolved separately into the same species but in different locations. They are all sincere professionals, using the same evidence, but approaching it differently. The disagreements do not render the evidence useless. It's all about interpretation.
In Archaeology u'd be surprised to know that arcaheological discoveries only complicate things. Reason is that anything can be interpreted anyway, depending on ur presuppositions. And when u read the reports you will discover that people with totally different and even contradictory reports, make very thorough and convincing arguments. Does that mean the sites they dug up and studied are products of their imagination?
The fact that there are different expressions of any religion does NOTHING to discredit the validity of a belief system. NOTHING. That occurs in pretty much every field of study.
oh so you agree that all other religions are "man made". but your god is the "almighty one". How do you know this?
All gods including your own is false. You have to prove otherwise for anyone to take you seriously. If you can dismiss other gods, it should be easy for you to dismiss the "almighty one too".
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so," -- Mark Twain
What I initially said was that the truth does not require belief at all. Even those that accepted the truth of the geocentric model did not require any belief for that postulation. Why because it could be "verified" even though their verification was wrong. They could point to how they came to that conclusion and that does not require any belief at all. When you make an assertion and refuse to provide any credible evidence for your assertion at all then that assertion can not be said to be true. Jesus is the son of god that is presently sitting on the right hand of god is a claim that no body has ever provided any evidence for at all. There is no credible evidence to support this claim as far as I am concerned since it was others that said jesus said it. That statement requires belief.
This statement can be verified no?
Sure an atheist is a one who believes that there is no god because no body has provided any credible evidence for the existence of god. So the atheist disbelieves because absence of evidence is evidence of absence. By the way, what is existence and how does a god exist?
it has to be defined as such for one good reason. In spite of all their glorification of empiricism, an atheist still has to believe that there is no God because he cannot prove the same.
frankly for a doubter, agnostism is a sensible position to hold. you say youre not sure. youre waiting for further proof or so. but an atheists position is down right silly, and yet arrogant in the stupidity. he says he know for certains that there is no god, yet he cannot prove it. at the end of the day, he still has to resort to belief. pleeease!
So what point are you making with you owning a dog? That can be easily verified. The claim of god cannot! You also said I "could dismiss it due to a lack of evidence" isnt that what i am doing by dismissing religion? Until there is evidence of god there is no reason to believe in a god. If I follow your reasoning, then I should just believe every god just in case i am wrong right?
On what grounds will u say it is a false statement. U could dismiss it due to a lack of evidence, but to call it false without proof is misguided in my opinion.
I own a dog. Is that false?
I don't. But I'm dismissing you because you make very little sense. Read your posts. , that is overwhelming evidence.
BTW what is my religion?
The fact that the internet is full of scam artists means that there is no credible info online. . . . abi?
I can say its a false statement until someone (maybe you) provides evidence that it is true. Until then its false. If you claim you are a chicken, show me evidence by laying some eggs.
I am sure you readily dismiss other religions except yours. The fact that there are thousands of religions today tell us its all a scam. Its a way to control people.
One more thing. The writings about Jesus were written generations after jesus died. The writers were not even alive when jesus lived. So all this nonsense about jesus is just as credible as santa claus.
And why are we even talking about jesus? what about the other gods out there? what about the gods of your ancestors? I just dont understand this. Why worship the god of foreigners/salve traders? They are all the same. The only difference with Christianity is that they came up with a better story line that ours. They made up stories with miracles etc. And they also wrote a book.
aletheia, your argument makes no sense at all. For something to be true, it has to be verifiable now and not in the future. There is no proof of any god. So until you show me proof, I cannot take you seriously. god is a myth that requires belief. How can you say "Jesus Christ is the Son of God is a true statement" ? Did you meet Jesus? or someone just told you and you believed it. believing this requires faith because it cannot be verified in any way.
It can verified even in that era all you need to do is to present a space telescope and show it to them and they will verify it. Where is your evidence to verify that Jesus is the son of god that is presently sitting on the right hand of god or that mohammed is the last prophet of Allah that ascended into heaven on a white horse? For your statement to be true at that time you will first of all have to explain what mars is and give them enough details about it before they can conclude if its true or false.
You are just shifting your god into the realm of the unknown so that you can rationalize the hypothesis. 1000 AD People did not even know that there were planets orbiting the sun. In fact people do not even know what exactly the sun is because some of them were worshiping it at that time. Now we have people claiming that jesus christ who is the son of god is presently sitting at the right hand of god and jesus christ is god himself, such a statement requires belief because it can NEVER be verified.
Jesus christ is the son of god that is presently sitting on the right hand side of god is not a true statement because it can not be verified. It is only a claim. By the way the "truth" of your statement applies only to those that first of all have to accept the claim. It doesn't apply to those they do not accept it. Toneyb said that men can never give birth to children, That is a universal truth and it does not require belief and accepted world wide, The claim that jesus is the son of god is "true" only to the culture that buys into the claim and not true for another culture that does not buy into it. It is subjective. The truth is accepted universally. A car that runs on petrol can not travel 100km on an empty tank, that is a universal truth and does not require belief, Jesus is the son of god is a cultural/ regional belief.
Mars has two moons and it does not require belief, back in AD 1000 if you make such a claim like mars has two moons you will first of all have to provide evidence to the people before they can believe or disbelief. saying that Jesus is the son of god that is sitting on the right hand of god without providing any evidence for the claim says it is not true? How do you know that for sure? Did god tell you personally that he has a son sitting on his right hand? Did the people that make the claim that jesus is the son of god presently sitting on the right hand of god provide any evidence to you? How do you know that jesus is the son of god? Did jesus personally tell you that himself or do you accept it because others said it? How do you know that the people that made that claim are not lying since jesus never wrote that he is the son of god and passed it unto others to read? Everything that jesus alleged said came from the writings of others how do you know that they were not lying? How do you know if jesus truly said he is the son of god since all what he supposedly said came from the writings of others? So how do you know that they are not lying considering the fact that they wrote decades after he died?
This is not for me but let me come in here and say that The truth that Mohammed is the last Prophet of Allah does not require your belief.
Jesus Christ is the Son of God is a true statement which certainly is not verifiable by the means at the disposal of the empiricist. That it requires belief doesn't render it untrue. That you disbelieve doesn't make it untrue, just as disbelief in 1000 AD doesn't alter the truth of the statement "Mars has two moons."
You said: "So I agree the truth does not require belief."
Juxtapose this: The truth that Jesus Christ is the Son of God does not require your belief.
Here is what is written in the bible.
"Isa 40:11 He tends his flock like a shepherd: He gathers the lambs in his arms and carries them close to his heart; he gently leads those that have young."
Where was he to carry the innocent Ruwandans that were hiding in the churches and calling unto his name for protection during the genocide? Is it not written in the bible that the god of the bible will tend to his flock(those that believe in him) like a shepherd? Other parts of the bible say that he will guide and protect his own. So where was he to protect the innocent people that were killed in the churches who very busy calling unto him for protection?
Enough of your god works in mysterious ways that people can not understand because your bible says that there is a part of the this god called the holy spirit that resides in those that believe an its function is to teach and explain things to believers.
Let me come in here, I agree very well with mazaje that the truth does not require belief. he once gave an example on another thread and I am going to use it here again.
Let me just parapharse what he said.
A car that runs on pertrol can not be travel 100 km on an empty tank. That is a true statement that does not require belief. A man can not give birth to a baby, that also is a true statement that does not require belief. There are other planets in the solar system that is a true statement and it also does not require belief.
Jesus christ is the son of god who is presently sitting on the right hand of god is a statement that requires belief.
Mohammed is the last prophet of Allah who once divided the moon into two is a statement that requires belief. The devil resides in the oceans is a statement that requires belief, there are Jinns inside the Ka'aba is a statement that requires belief.
The spirit of sango is watching over his believers is a statement that requires belief.
So I agree the truth does not require belief.
facts are known not believed because doubt is inherent in every belief." What do you define as: 1. fact 2. belief. This discussion would be unproductive if we are not sure about the meaning of the words the other is using. Granted in all religions most are conditioned [/i]to accept their particular religion but that does not rule out the existence of God(s). As for your assertion about man's vast base of scientific knowledge; the question I would like to ask you is this: Is there a limit, a boundary to what that science can reveal? Moreover, has it occurred to you that that same science is [i]based upon some philosophical propositions (I will try to address that on the thread you asked me to open).
I am acquainted with the basic premises of other religions.