Answer to the OP: Because he's a dick.
Answer to the OP: Because he's a dick.
For someone who said, 'dont say too much,' he seems to have had a lot to say for himself. The 'life is hard' one may be a variation on the 'life is tough' one which you didn't need to repeat. I assume he wasn't a lily livered liberalOriginally Posted by cafolini
going by what he said about the native Indians but then perhaps liberals don't make for great cowboys. I think what he says about courage is correct. With the absence of fear courage is redundant. Winning hearts and minds these days has probably got more to do with being telegenic but I can see how out on the wild frontier grabbing hold of someone's balls might have that effect. As for joining the army it's a tough school but then John Wayne was a tough talking tough guy. Unfortunately for my nephew, he was no John Wayne and he had to leave the army because he was being bullied. Still that's probably better than having his legs blown off in afghanistan, even if this might have meant he would appear in a 'help for heroes' film. Why isn't everything black and white? I think this is because otherwise if people were struggling in an argument they wouldn't be able to say 'everything isn't black and white you know.' I don't think i ve ever been on a horse but i seem to remember going on a donkey ride in spain once when i was a young boy. I hope it wasn't cruelly treated as one hears stories about. Finally John Wayne talks about learning. Well let me finish with some heartfelt, not such tough guy, wisdom
'learning how to love yourself is the greatest love of all' witney houston.
Will have to see what happens. There might be enough time for that.
To all those who think a good God wouldn't create suffering, may I ask a follow-up question?
Given that the ways in which we humans could intervene in nature are becoming more and more "god-like" with the growth of both knowledge and technology, shouldn't *we* (in the future, if feasible) try to do something against all the suffering in nature?
Personally, I think we definitely should if such a thing ever becomes possible. Unfortunately maybe it won't. Anyway, the reason I'm asking is because I noticed that a lot of people seem to have inconsistent views about this. If the context is arguing against theists, they readily accept that suffering is bad. Yet if the concept becomes ethics, they invent excuses for why "nature is nature" and why intervention is bad. Or they say the suffering in nature doesn't matter. So what is it?
Also interesting to not is that the Biblical paradise was free of suffering. So this question can be put to Christians as well. If there was a magic button that would change nature back into a paradise, without any serious side-effects, should we push it?
Last edited by Dodo25; 08-16-2012 at 03:27 AM.
Please consider *cost-effectiveness* when donating to charities in order to do the most good: http://givewell.org/
Science could never go beyond what it precisely is made to fix. Hence every time it is applied, it would be out of the scope of many other things needed by other people.
On the other hand, many people in particular need will never have enough of the actual science necessary to solve their issues.
This doessn't mean that whatever of science could be used will not be used.
I am always amazed by the number of people who believe in god.
I'm always amazed at the number of people who would like not to, but have no choice.
I think this is a very good question. One which I won't exactly answer except to say...
1). Obviously there is no such "magic button." If there were a way to change nature (and I'd include human nature) back to its initial perfection, there would be no more important task, ever than to "push the button."
2). The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is God's way of "pushing the button," that is, addressing and restoring the loss of paradise. It cost so much to do. It begins with addressing humans with forgiveness and from there the consequences bleed into the natural world (promise of a new heavens and new earth) but that follows the Bible's description of the loss of paradise being focused on human's losing perfection with the natural world being collateral damage, so to speak.
As I have tried to say before, the only way to acknowledge evil as evil and still acknowledge God as good, is to see how he has addressed suffering and provided salvation. He has done so on a far more important level than merely preventing a car crash or cure a case of cancer. He has addressed the core issue and, through forgiveness in Jesus Christ, addressed it completely and with eternal ramifications.
I see suffering partially as a feedback mechanism. If one is able, individual suffering should encourage the sufferer to make changes to remove the suffering. However, trying to eliminate the feedback mechanism itself doesn't make sense to me. The feedback mechanism itself is good. To be able to respond to a feedback mechanism implies the existence of freedom.
Suffering is also necessary for change to occur.
The various theistic positions add particular details to this picture which ultimately affirm the universe as good, but the atheistic positions seem to me to add nothing positive. The universe itself is a problem for atheists that is unsolvable and suffering is central to that problem.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
We are coming to a close.
I actually study quite a lot of science as I awaken interest according to myself. But I have no prescription for anyone else regarding that.
I only prescribe undefined religion for anyone else, which I cannot define, and am not interested in defining. It would be pointless, since the chances of being the same I'm using are scientifically nil. Have fun. Love you all. Forever.
1. For fun?
2. Because he is not a good God?
3. To teach us a lesson.
4. Because he wants more believers?
5. Because of some plan we will never be able to understand?
6. To teach us a lesson.
7. Maybe Satan and God were somehow switched and all of Christianity is a big joke?
Whoa! this video would agree with that
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLGJXo8gshg
8. God is a businessman.
9. God wants attention.
10. He has nothing better to do.
11.
Hi YesNo I have just noticed your new signature.
I have just been wondering whether we have been cunfunded to believe in a God that does anything naturally we must be certain he does or we would no be here deliberating about him.
Last edited by cacian; 10-01-2012 at 04:13 PM.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
How does number 11 fits in with the rest?1. For fun?
2. Because he is not a good God?
3. To teach us a lesson.
4. Because he wants more believers?
5. Because of some plan we will never be able to understand?
6. To teach us a lesson.
7. Maybe Satan and God were somehow switched and all of Christianity is a big joke?
Whoa! this video would agree with that
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLGJXo8gshg
8. God is a businessman.
9. God wants attention.
10. He has nothing better to do.
11.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
Hold on there is a difference between believing he exists and believing in his existence to do things.
Which are you talking about?
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote