If god is everything, doesn't that make him evil as well as good?

[bojangle]

I don't know what that means. It seems like most people on this forum are trying to be the smartest guys in the room...

[BienvenuJDC]

''The God to the intellectuals can be whoever they want him to be. It's just students being silly.''

The same is true for the churches. After all, no institution in history has killed more people in the name of the Bible than the churches.

Seems like you're saying that it is not a religion of peace....huh?

[hellsapoppin]

''It seems like most people on this forum are trying to be the smartest guys in the room... ''

True.


''it is not a religion of peace....huh?''

The signature I use may give you a hint. ;)

[Abir]

Religion is juste the manner bywhich people think it's the cause to believe in god , however the real belif is in heart and not anywhere.

[mazHur]

Religion is juste the manner bywhich people think it's the cause to believe in god , however the real belif is in heart and not anywhere.

Mind is clever and treacherous
sees everything with compound eyes
views pros and cons, risks and gains.
Heart, on the other, is naive, innocent
like a poor blind dolphin in the river
it views risks as gains.
Let mind be the guide of your heart
so it may not go astray
but sometimes, yes, sometimes,
It is advisable to let the heart free!

Heart is Faith
Mind is doubt..

[frenchchick825]

The only God I know is the one brought up in the Bible.
LONG LIVE THE CHURCH!

Just terribly curious; what makes Christian beliefs any more true than those of other religions? Had you been born in India you would most likely believe fervently in Hinduism

Organized religion can be a beautiful thing, but it has proven time and time again that can destroy just as easily as it heals and unites.
And another aspect of God that I fail to understand, the Christian one at least. How can he damn people to eternal hellfire as punishment for their sins?
Fear and God should not be used in the same sentence.

[mazHur]

Just terribly curious; what makes Christian beliefs any more true than those of other religions? Had you been born in India you would most likely believe fervently in Hinduism

Organized religion can be a beautiful thing, but it has proven time and time again that can destroy just as easily as it heals and unites.
And another aspect of God that I fail to understand, the Christian one at least. How can he damn people to eternal hellfire as punishment for their sins?
Fear and God should not be used in the same sentence.


God created everything in pairs...it is said and observed. Why then he shouldn't be loving and fearful at the same time??
Ever heard about the wrath of God???

Yeah, it is not only the Christian God that rules the world! All roads lead to Rome!:)

[YesNo]

Just terribly curious; what makes Christian beliefs any more true than those of other religions? Had you been born in India you would most likely believe fervently in Hinduism

Organized religion can be a beautiful thing, but it has proven time and time again that can destroy just as easily as it heals and unites.
And another aspect of God that I fail to understand, the Christian one at least. How can he damn people to eternal hellfire as punishment for their sins?
Fear and God should not be used in the same sentence.

I'm curious about this as well since I was born in a predominately Christian culture. It is sort of in my face.

In reading about Hell, specifically Mary Boyce's books on Zoroastrianism, it looks as if Zarathustra came up with the idea first. He also had a last judgment to punish evil in a molten flow of metal, which reminds me too closely of the punishment in Revelation for these two ideas to be unrelated.

Personally, I don't think Christian beliefs are any more true than other religions. You are not required to think so either, to my knowledge, although when ideas are in your face, it is hard to ignore them.

[Cunninglinguist]

''Calamity is not the same as 'evil'. Calamity can be the destructive results of a storm.''

We've gone over this before so rather than discuss it further, here's a quote from blueletterbible for the Hebrew word ''ra'' or ''rah'':


Bienvenu makes a point, and a good one. His is the whole idea behind felix culpa, or “the good fall,” which is a rather prevailing interpretation of Satan's fall and cannot be dismissed.


The same is true for the churches. After all, no institution in history has killed more people in the name of the Bible than the churches.

Not true in the least. If I stick strictly to how many people the christian church has directly killed it is so few as to be trivial. Indirectly speaking, i.e. religious war, it is still trumped by ww2, the Mongolian conquest, the Chinese Revolution, ww1, etc. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_ toll And even thought religious aspects existed in some of these wars, they were certainly not, for the most part, the sole motivating force.

[hellsapoppin]

The modern day has a better way of recording life and death records. Past eras did not have census bureaus in order to ascertain how died from Mongol horde invasions or Crusader attacks on peaceful Muslims.

[mazHur]

The modern day has a better way of recording life and death records. Past eras did not have census bureaus in order to ascertain how died from Mongol horde invasions or Crusader attacks on peaceful Muslims.


You forgot to mention the Huns!!

Stats my not be recorded in the event of a WAR....the Mongol invasion and the Crusades were wars...and I think during a war all arrangement to keep record of the dead or alive gets upset as people are more worried to save their lives. They only guess the the number of dead from the number of remaining alive!

It's astonishing that still there is NO accurate record or data about population in some countries....which clearly reflects on planning but who cares?? Pakistan is such a country where I live....where all figures are sketchy and mostly guess work!! Pity If there is a war and people die one can only ascertain their true number through guess work!

On the contrary situation in developed country is different where every person is registered, but not so in some places:)

[chrissy613]

Proverbs 16:4
The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

Hopefully that Proverb provides a little insight :)

[sports24x]

no..i don't think so..

[Dark Passenger]

Agnostic until proven otherwise.

I've always thought of God--if there is one--to be similar to a referee. He's a watcher, a hands-off kinda guy. He judges the battle of your two halves, and he can ring that bell whenever he wants.

[naphelge]

If god is in everything and everyone, does that not make him as much an evil malevolent as a divine benevolent?
Hawthorne asks a similarly thought provoking question near the end of his novel "The Scarlet Letter" that goes something like: doesn't it take just as much passion and devotion to be evil as it does to be good?, when summing up thoughts about Hester's evil husband (his name slips my memory atm).

In fact, I cam to see Hester's husband in the story, after reading that quote, as the darker side of god (although I am not a religious person and do not in fact believe in any sort of personified ultimate source of creation as what many call God) or rather nature that must deal with the darker issues or sides of life.

It is only through this darker character in the story that Dimmesdale can find his peace. Kind of like necessary tough love, with which he would have remained a lost soul, dying an emptier death than what he did. So evil, or what many people perceive to be the evil in the story is in fact interestingly Dimmesdale's salvation.

Of course without evil, goodness fails to exist. Evil defines what is good as much as good defines what is evil, both necessary for the other's existence (in one's perception of course, which differs from person to person, society to society, and culture to culture).

cheers,
nap

[lobanw]

There was a time when there was no "devil" and people view God as both holy and righteous and punishing as well. God is said to be ALL good but we truly do not know the extent of his powers or ways and we probably never will. A lot of people a presumptive and assume that they know how God works but no one will really know that so you just have to trust in what you know and how you feel.

[G L Wilson]

"God is a little more than everything." e. e. cummings

[iankropp]

well duh!

Doesnt every one think that?? Well not evil but then God not exactly good either. God is God. Not Good or evil as we understand it, its soooo much more complicated. My 6 year old sister asked me somthing similar this morning what is this the day of religious questions?;)

Anyway my point is as Muslim that is pretty much what I belive for us god has 99 names and some of them are a bit contradictry until you put it in this context like The Giver, The Taker, The Merciful, The Strict, The Forgiving, The Unforgiving, The aparnt, The hidden, The first The Last , just to mention a few that are translateable, I can off the top of my ead only think of a handful that dont have oposites, The Iternal, The One, The all-Knowing, and a few like that.


:D
I totally agree! I believe the problem arises when people stick to over simplifying things. Any being that controls the entire universe is obviously so immense and so complex that we could never have any way to completely comprehend he/she. We humans are so adversely simplistic that the question of "why would God create people such as Hitler" is believed to disprove the existence God.

[G L Wilson]

I totally agree! I believe the problem arises when people stick to over simplifying things. Any being that controls the entire universe is obviously so immense and so complex that we could never have any way to completely comprehend he/she. We humans are so adversely simplistic that the question of "why would God create people such as Hitler" is believed to disprove the existence God.

Why, may I ask, has God created you?

[prickly_pete]

Why do 90% of analogies in life involve Hitler, Nazis, or Nazism? I for one would like to know.

[G L Wilson]

It might be that God is not so much evil as mad.

[mazHur]

Why do 90% of analogies in life involve Hitler, Nazis, or Nazism? I for one would like to know.

Donovan Collection:
Analysis of Hitler's Personality

Special Collections Donovan Analysis of Hitler's Personality
Dr. Henry A. Murray
Analysis of the Personality of Adolph Hitler:
With Predictions of His Future Behavior and Suggestions
for Dealing with Him Now and After Germany's Surrender
Introduction
Analysis of the Personality of Adolph Hitler

In 1943, the Allied forces wanted to understand Hitler's psychological makeup in order to predict, to the extent possible, his behavior as the Allies continued their prosecution of the war and to anticipate his response to Germany's defeat. The Allies were also seeking to understand the German national psyche to gain an understanding of how to convert them into a "peace-loving nation." This report was written for the OSS by Dr. Henry A. Murray, pre-war Director of the Harvard Psychological Clinic. Dr. Murray obviously was forced by circumstances to psychoanalyze his subject from a distance. He gathered information from a variety of second-hand sources, such as Hitler's genealogy; school and military records; public reports of events in print and on film; OSS information; Hitler's own writings; Hitler biographies; and "Hitler the Man - Notes for a Case History," an article written by W.H.D. Vernon under Dr. Murray's supervision. From these resources and his "needs theory" of personality, Dr. Murray created a psychological profile that correctly predicted the Nazi leader's suicide in the face of Germany's defeat.

With the benefit of hindsight and more than 60 years of scientific advances, one can appreciate this analysis of Hitler's personality and also catch a glimpse into an early application of personality psychology by one of the discipline's founders. Dr. Murray's Explorations in Personality (NY: Oxford Press, 1938) established personality psychology as a behavioral science. Murray explored a theory of personality in which the interplay of 20 psychogenic needs of varying strength produced distinct personality types. Murray pegged Hitler's personality as "counteractive narcism," a type that is stimulated by real or imagined insult or injury. According to Dr. Murray, the characteristics of this personality type include: holding grudges, low tolerance for criticism, excessive demands for attention, inability to express gratitude, a tendency to belittle, bully, and blame others, desire for revenge, persistence in the face of defeat, extreme self-will, self-trust, inability to take a joke, and compulsive criminality. Dr. Murray concluded that Hitler had these characteristics (and others) to an extreme degree and lacked the offsetting qualities that round out a balanced personality.

The language of needs theory may seem unfamiliar to today's readers since personality theory moved on to new terminology and theories. However, Dr. Murray's writing style and descriptive language make this report as intelligible to the lay reader of today as to the World War II era psychologist.

Cornell Law Library is pleased to share this report, part of our Donovan Nuremberg Trials Collection, in its original format.

Sources: AdolfHitler.ws: Historical Archives, NoBeliefs.com (Freethinkers), and Kimmo Nummela's Life Of Führer In Pictures.
StatCounter - Free Web Tracker and Counter
blog stats

[G L Wilson]

Okay, Hitler was a little like God, what does that prove? Either God is good or evil or mad, that's all there's to it.

[Serena03]

Yes, this would explain why the problem of evil still exists because the problem of God still exists. Although God is merely a figure head for all this, removal of the head does not entirely eliminate the body.

[BienvenuJDC]

Okay, Hitler was a little like God, what does that prove? Either God is good or evil or mad, that's all there's to it.

Yeah....just like Walt Disney

[G L Wilson]

Yeah....just like Walt Disney

Walt Disney was neither good nor evil nor mad, he was indifferent.

[mazHur]

God seems to be a ''mixture of opposites'' as is Man!! Virtue cannot be thought to exist without Evil.

Reason and Passion

By Kahlil Gibran
(1883 - 1931)



And the priestess spoke again and said: Speak to us of Reason and Passion.
And he answered, saying:
Your soul is oftentimes a battlefield, upon which your reason and your judgment wage war against your passion and your appetite.
Would that I could be the peacemaker in your soul, that I might turn the discord and the rivalry of your elements into oneness and melody.
But how shall I, unless you yourselves be also the peacemakers, nay, the lovers of all your elements?

Your reason and your passion are the rudder and the sails of your seafaring soul.
If either your sails or your rudder be broken, you can but toss and drift, or else be held at a standstill in mid-seas.
For reason, ruling alone, is a force confining; and passion, unattended, is a flame that burns to its own destruction.
Therefore let your soul exalt your reason to the height of passion, that it may sing;
And let it direct your passion with reason, that your passion may live through its own daily resurrection, and like the phoenix rise above its own ashes.

I would have you consider your judgment and your appetite even as you would two loved guests in your house.
Surely you would not honour one guest above the other; for he who is more mindful of one loses the love and the faith of both.

Among the hills, when you sit in the cool shade of the white poplars, sharing the peace and serenity of distant fields and meadows -- then let your heart say in silence, "God rests in reason."
And when the storm comes, and the mighty wind shakes the forest, and thunder and lightning proclaim the majesty of the sky, -- then let your heart say in awe, "God moves in passion."
And since you are a breath in God's sphere, and a leaf in God's forest, you too should rest in reason and move in passion.

[Arrowni]

For the sake of the argument, which stems from purely theological reasoning -we're talking about God after all-, it's nonesense to impose God the concepts of good or evil; good or evil would be defined from God and not the opposite. That doesn't solve anything though.

[The Idiot]

God seems to be a ''mixture of opposites'' as is Man!! Virtue cannot be thought to exist without Evil.

...

Doesn't this idea display an a priori assumption about the nature of God?

While typically eastern concepts of God may be consistent with this idea, in the West there is a long tradition that views Evil not as an independent force contrasting with Good, but rather as existing only as a corruption of what is Good.

[G L Wilson]

For the sake of the argument, which stems from purely theological reasoning -we're talking about God after all-, it's nonesense to impose God the concepts of good or evil; good or evil would be defined from God and not the opposite. That doesn't solve anything though.

If God is beyond good and evil, where is he then? Nowhere, cloud cuckoo land!

[mazHur]

Doesn't this idea display an a priori assumption about the nature of God?

While typically eastern concepts of God may be consistent with this idea, in the West there is a long tradition that views Evil not as an independent force contrasting with Good, but rather as existing only as a corruption of what is Good.

Eastern outlook in this matter differs from religion to religion, even from sect to sect.

Yes, as absence of light means Darkness, lack of Evil means Good or vice versa.

God seems to have created all and everything in Pairs, such as light and darkness, good and bad, light and heavy, curse and blessing, low and high, peace and terror, etc etc. Viewing any of these traits in isolation will tend to confuse the divine nature of God.....which human mind is not capable of comprehending at all!

It is said that those who do not believe in God or the Creator are typically confused people who are not even capable of knowing themselves, lest God!!

[mazHur]

If God is beyond good and evil, where is he then? Nowhere, cloud cuckoo land!

In the East, it is said that the Only way to find God is to die first (perhaps for His sake!!!!

[G L Wilson]

In the East, it is said that the Only way to find God is to die first (perhaps for His sake!!!!

Oh, that's okay then because I don't plan on dying.

[Arrowni]

If God is beyond good and evil, where is he then? Nowhere, cloud cuckoo land!


God is the sempiternal axiomatic argument, you cannot really ever argue in a logical fashion by questioning your own axioms. Obviously God -if there's any- cannot be argued.

[mazHur]

Oh, that's okay then because I don't plan on dying.

Death is a visitor
which comes to All
without notice
without schedule
like it or Not!

[G L Wilson]

Death is a visitor
which comes to All
without notice
without schedule
like it or Not!

To fear not pain is to love.


God is the sempiternal axiomatic argument, you cannot really ever argue in a logical fashion by questioning your own axioms. Obviously God -if there's any- cannot be argued.

Of course He can be argued, what is to stop me, you?!

[Arrowni]

Of course He can be argued, what is to stop me, you?!


Language itself. Axioms are a predefined need for speech to exist, what we call logic is only a sort of language, so you cannot actually argue using God IF He happens to exist.

You can argue something that you think is God, but that doesn't make it God. Whenever any faith talks about God, they're not really discussing any actual divinity, because either 1) it doesn't exist or 2) it's not taking its place as an axiomatic form for all the creation, ergo the thing they are discussing isn't God.

This leaves you with the option of devoting your speech to false gods 100% of the time.

[G L Wilson]

Language itself. Axioms are a predefined need for speech to exist, what we call logic is only a sort of language, so you cannot actually argue using God IF He happens to exist.

You can argue something that you think is God, but that doesn't make it God. Whenever any faith talks about God, they're not really discussing any actual divinity, because either 1) it doesn't exist or 2) it's not taking its place as an axiomatic form for all the creation, ergo the thing they are discussing isn't God.

This leaves you with the option of devoting your speech to false gods 100% of the time.

The true believer doesn't believe that his god is false, he believes all other gods are false.

[Arrowni]

Well, you can always justify that by another of the limitations of language, which is the negative language paradox in which by saying no, you're seem to make things bigger instead of shrinking them. The definition is actually a form of exclusion, so talking about God more or less limits what God is, instead of actually helping their case, any people talking about God -again, assuming Its a real concept-, would be minimizing the divinity.

Arguing God holds its water when you discuss against God, if you're actually trying to defend divinity you're better off not using explicit language.

[ZTay]

St Augustine struggled over this. He came to the conclusion that there is only good and what perceive as bad is really good corrupted; and it is sin that acts as the corrupting agent.

I think personally that we are pained by evil not because evil is so powerful, but because because good is so powerful that seeing it corrupted damages us tremendously, even if only on sub conscious level.

[G L Wilson]

St Augustine struggled over this. He came to the conclusion that there is only good and what perceive as bad is really good corrupted; and it is sin that acts as the corrupting agent.

I think personally that we are pained by evil not because evil is so powerful, but because because good is so powerful that seeing it corrupted damages us tremendously, even if only on sub conscious level.

I have no belief in sin, only a belief in wrongdoing.


Well, you can always justify that by another of the limitations of language, which is the negative language paradox in which by saying no, you're seem to make things bigger instead of shrinking them. The definition is actually a form of exclusion, so talking about God more or less limits what God is, instead of actually helping their case, any people talking about God -again, assuming Its a real concept-, would be minimizing the divinity.

Arguing God holds its water when you discuss against God, if you're actually trying to defend divinity you're better off not using explicit language.

I see what you are saying, Arrowni, but how does one minimalise God in the eyes of a believer? As far as I'm concerned, it can't be done.

[ZTay]

Don't get hung up on nomenclature Mr Wilson. Wrong doing has a degenerative effect. Take your finest china and use it as a hammer, or your hammer as a spoon. Suddenly they are ruined, all because of wrong doing. And when that wrong doing is upon the soul or body, it is called sin.

[mazHur]

Don't get hung up on nomenclature Mr Wilson. Wrong doing has a degenerative effect. Take your finest china and use it as a hammer, or your hammer as a spoon. Suddenly they are ruined, all because of wrong doing. And when that wrong doing is upon the soul or body, it is called sin.

so true!!

[G L Wilson]

so true!!

I may wish to use a person as a means to my own ends, would that be a sin or wrongdoing? It seems very hard to believe that it would be sinful as the abuse would not be willingly made against my body or soul.

[ZTay]

Abusing, and I assume it's abusive as you admit wrong doing, another person is in violation to what is natural in the soul. What is natural in the soul is all that is good.

[ShoutGrace]

Who speaks authoritatively on what is natural to the soul? Also, how do you distinguish between "natural to the soul" and simple desire?

Also, what about people who find it comforting and right to inflict grave harm on others? Is there some interpersonal principle at work here? I personally think that a statement like "What is natural to the soul is all that is good" is more than a little simplistic.

[ZTay]

You are right, it is simplistic; but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Insofar as the soul proceeds from God, and God is all good, the soul is all good. And there is a God insofar as there is an orderly universe created within some kind of system. And that God is good insofar as the universe is orderly. And that God is the highest good insofar as God is the source of all good, the first good. So, the soul proceeds from the highest good.

Now, how can it be considered good to inflict grave harm on another soul? Injuring what is good, can never be good.

And who can speak authoritatively on the soul? Any man owning a soul... That is, any man who owns his soul.

[G L Wilson]

You are right, it is simplistic; but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Insofar as the soul proceeds from God, and God is all good, the soul is all good. And there is a God insofar as there is an orderly universe created within some kind of system. And that God is good insofar as the universe is orderly. And that God is the highest good insofar as God is the source of all good, the first good. So, the soul proceeds from the highest good.

Now, how can it be considered good to inflict grave harm on another soul? Injuring what is good, can never be good.

And who can speak authoritatively on the soul? Any man owning a soul... That is, any man who owns his soul.

For a man to own a soul, he must have a will. As it is impossible to own both, the soul must go.

[ZTay]

A man can will to own his soul the same as a man can will to tell it to go.

[G L Wilson]

A man can will to own his soul the same as a man can will to tell it to go.

Will is the soul of man.

[ZTay]

I think the soul runs deeper than what we actively will. I think we are unexposed to the greater part of our soul, our potential and our true nature. This is why we must will to understand our soul, and through knowledge of it, take ownership.

[G L Wilson]

I think the soul runs deeper than what we actively will. I think we are unexposed to the greater part of our soul, our potential and our true nature. This is why we must will to understand our soul, and through knowledge of it, take ownership.

You can't will to know something that you don't have.

[ZTay]

No, you can't. But you do have a soul. Or at least, essence and pre-disposition. Call it what you will.

[G L Wilson]

No, you can't. But you do have a soul. Or at least, essence and pre-disposition. Call it what you will.

I have nothing that I have not willed.

[Arrowni]

I see what you are saying, Arrowni, but how does one minimalise God in the eyes of a believer? As far as I'm concerned, it can't be done.

To be honest, I can imagine many functions in the conception of God that would indicate minimalization, both conscient and unconscious, but I cannot say there is one way that will happen for everyone, such thing is built in the messure of subjectivity. Many people with conceive divinity as a lived experience, in face of which speech has not any real power, the word of those who practice scepticism are dismissed without consideration, as they're treated simply as mere words.

In the internal logic of the discussion about faith it makes sense, and in the general balance of things, at least it works as an admission of the limits of argumentation and abstractions to make life choices. But I think the speech of faith is intrinsically an impaired speech, not necessarily in a negative connotation, but words themselves are not capable of leading to truth, because reality is only admitted by revelation.

Anyhow, the conception of divinity for the believer isn't a consistent concept which last through time, it's actually a notion that shifts with the experience and knowledge of the believer; in the same way that theology incorporates new realities in their view of the words despite the fact they never move the core realities of their practice.

[G L Wilson]

To be honest, I can imagine many functions in the conception of God that would indicate minimalization, both conscient and unconscious, but I cannot say there is one way that will happen for everyone, such thing is built in the messure of subjectivity. Many people with conceive divinity as a lived experience, in face of which speech has not any real power, the word of those who practice scepticism are dismissed without consideration, as they're treated simply as mere words.

In the internal logic of the discussion about faith it makes sense, and in the general balance of things, at least it works as an admission of the limits of argumentation and abstractions to make life choices. But I think the speech of faith is intrinsically an impaired speech, not necessarily in a negative connotation, but words themselves are not capable of leading to truth, because reality is only admitted by revelation.

Anyhow, the conception of divinity for the believer isn't a consistent concept which last through time, it's actually a notion that shifts with the experience and knowledge of the believer; in the same way that theology incorporates new realities in their view of the words despite the fact they never move the core realities of their practice.

The last bastion of faith is arrogance; and the last guard, ignorance.

[mazHur]

The last bastion of faith is arrogance; and the last guard, ignorance.

Wow! That makes a great quote!!

[Arrowni]

The last bastion of faith is arrogance; and the last guard, ignorance.

You could argue that modern scientificism works in the same argumentative basis that faith does, except it's aggressive and dismisses any kind of knowledge that cannot be put in speech. Which is to say, arrogance and ignorance are the basis for any human conviction, as soon as it pretends objectivity.

[ZTay]

Faith's first worldly step is compassionate, while faithlessness is moved by disgust and contempt.

[mazHur]

, arrogance and ignorance are the basis for any human conviction, as soon as it pretends objectivity.

I like this line!!:)

[G L Wilson]

Man can reach for the stars but he will never reach heaven.

[mazHur]

Man can reach for the stars but he will never reach heaven.

Heaven is more dearer than stars and only meant for the faithful dear!

[Arrowni]

Man can reach for the stars but he will never reach heaven.


You can probably find that in the bible :D

[G L Wilson]

You can probably find that in the bible :D

Not likely.

[mazHur]

Not likely.

then, is it mere fantasizing??

Blaming God, is it fair??? Sufi quotes...
''The creation is a mirror of Divine Qualities (sifat) and nothing can contain God except the heart of the faithful. Thus God manifests in the heart according to the capacity and ways the inner heart within the breasts of man perceives the Divine.''

''Human vision is myopic and hence his opinions based on the events of very small scale often lead to lose hope, to become ungrateful. This is because the grand mercy of the Most Merciful sometime is concealed within the trials and tribulations and it is the right of the Creator to test and try Her creation.''

[G L Wilson]

Blaming God, is it fair???'

Him I will hate with all my heart if he does exist.

[mazHur]

Him I will hate with all my heart if he does exist.

Ironically, I can note you hate Him or Her without even knowing whether He/She exists or not??

[G L Wilson]

Ironically, I can note you hate Him or Her without even knowing whether He/She exists or not??

I think that He is better off dead, His life would be unbearable if He were alive. And if it wasn't, I'd make it so.

[prickly_pete]

and it is the right of the Creator to test and try Her creation.''

Pretty easy to say that from your computer screen in your upper middle class home. I wonder if people in the Congo feel the same way.

[mazHur]

I think that He is better off dead, His life would be unbearable if He were alive. And if it wasn't, I'd make it so.

unfortunately you sound too bitter without any reason. In fact in your inimical frustration towards the One you don't even know you are getting more and more flustered and losing your mind. And that's not expected of a sober, serious debater, is it??

[BienvenuJDC]

Him I will hate with all my heart if he does exist.

That is making a lot of sense...now can you explain why you hate God?

[G L Wilson]

That is making a lot of sense...now can you explain why you hate God?

Because he is a do-nothing, lousy bum.

[mazHur]

Because he is a do-nothing, lousy bum.

Hey! See how kind he is to you, you call Him names yet he's soo tolerant about you BECAUSE HE is God!!

Someone hath rightly said, " It Takes strength to be gentle and kind." Check out for it at Maceys!!

[Scheherazade]

~

W a r n i n g

Please show respect towards those whose views differ from yours.

If you find yourselves unable to do so, please do not hesitate to ignore these discussions.

~

[G L Wilson]

Hey, I know that you guys love Him but I don't see him as all that lovable myself.

To me, he's a bastard.
To you, he's Lord.

What more can be said?

[mazHur]

To me, he's a bastard.
To you, he's Lord.




OMG!! What an insult to bastards!!

[Scheherazade]

~

Unless everyone is showing respect towards others' beliefs,

the discussions especially in this section of the Forum will not be longlasting.

~