Tired of the religious right putting down science

[Toxic]

You're the one who said it. If you're going to say that some amount of suffering is too much, you have to have a standard by which you can judge whether something is right or wrong. Where does a standard like that come from? Not the Higgs Boson.

Just from being a caring human being.

 

[Toxic]

Exactly. He really should stop borrowing from our worldview to point to the "evil" or suffering in the world to argue against us. We're all just masses of bosons smashing around together in the universe without rhyme or reason after-all. Suffering is all in our minds. Why is he so appalled at it when it means nothing?

It really shows the inconsistency in the secular worldview IMO.

It doesn't mean nothing. Pain is very real, temporary or not.

 

[Toxic]

The pain and suffering is temporal. This world will not last forever.

No planet lasts forever. That's why mankind will need to explore the universe and find a new home, or face extinction when our solar system shits the bed.

 

[matt0611]

No planet lasts forever. That's why mankind will need to explore the universe and find a new home, or face extinction when our solar system shits the bed.

The universe won't last forever either. When I say "this world", I don't just mean "this planet".

 

[matt0611]

It doesn't mean nothing. Pain is very real, temporary or not.

Focus on the long run. We'll all just return to the dust of the earth. Heck, if the pain is too much for anyone they're free to off themselves, there are plenty of painless ways to do it. Their lives don't mean anything in the grand scale of the universe anyway.

 

[jmdrake]

That doesn't explain Heaven. Again, it's just one of those things that get's interpreted because the authors aren't around to explain it. This can also be interpreted as people physically coming back to life and living forever on earth. That would be a more literal view.

Who said that's a contradiction? The scripture I pointed you to in Isaiah which you ignored (speaking of "cherry picking") talks about a "new heaven" and a "new earth". In the new testament John said he saw the Holy City "coming down out of heaven".

 

[matt0611]

Who said that's a contradiction? The scripture I pointed you to in Isaiah which you ignored (speaking of "cherry picking") talks about a "new heaven" and a "new earth". In the new testament John said he saw the Holy City "coming down out of heaven".

Also, from Daniel 7:

“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."

 

[erowe1]

Just from being a caring human being.

Without a standard, I don't think "caring" means anything. Is there a standard by which the amount of suffering that exists can be judged "too much," or not? If there is, then is this standard something greater than yourself, or is it merely your own personal preference? If it's your own personal preference, then what contribution does that make to a discussion like what's going on in this thread? When you said there was too much suffering, you were ostensibly making a point about theological deductions that could be drawn about the fact of there being too much suffering, not just expressing a personal preference.

And why specify "human being" now? Aren't you the one who earlier in the discussion made a point of insisting that human beings were merely one of the many varieties of animal?

 

[jmdrake]

If there is a loving god who intervenes and shapes history a certain way, I'm sure he could have allowed the state of Israel to be created without sitting back as six million Jews were slaughtered. And for that matter, he could have stepped in when the Romans were burning their lands and killing them as well.

Sure. But God is not the only player in the universe. There's also Satan. And God at times leads us to the effect of our own choices. It's clear from the writings of Josephus, himself a Jew, that Jerusalem could have been spared if the leaders had listened to reason. But again, read through Job. Satan went to God's council to accuse God of bribing people to worship Him. God allowed Satan to tempt Job in the most dreadful ways. True or analogy it explains a character of God that is not, IMO, sadistic. And again this comes down to the effect of freewill. Let's say you had a child that was totally screwing up and rebelling against you. You decided to practice "tough love" and let that child leave. There were times you could intervene, but you didn't because if you did the child wouldn't learn the lesson. Maybe at times you intervened anyway. Would that make you sadistic because you intervened sometimes and not others? Say if you had grandchildren and sometimes you intervened and sometimes you didn't. Are you now sadistic?

But you're cherry picking. It's almost as if God is playing some kind of butterfly effect game with us, like we're some form of amusement for him. "I'll help these people, and shit on those people. I'll allow this scenario and see what kind of wacky stuff comes of it." It's sadistic.

I'm not cherry picking. This part of this thread started with you asking for examples of God's interventions. I gave them to you. Rather than saying "thank you for answering my question", you've decided to reject truth when offered. Why didn't you just say from the beginning "Don't bother giving me any examples of God intervening because I will choose not to believe them anyway?" That would have been more honest.

If God wanted us to believe in Heaven, the existence of it would be clear. There is no description in the Old Testament to support what people think it is today.

I gave you a description of heaven from the old testament book of Isaiah. You didn't even address it.

 

[jmdrake]

Also, from Daniel 7:

“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."

Thanks. Yes there are many parallels between Daniel and Revelation.

 

[Toxic]

The universe won't last forever either. When I say "this world", I don't just mean "this planet".

This planet is all we know of this world.

 

[Toxic]

Focus on the long run. We'll all just return to the dust of the earth. Heck, if the pain is too much for anyone they're free to off themselves, there are plenty of painless ways to do it. Their lives don't mean anything in the grand scale of the universe anyway.

They don't have to mean anything in the grand scale of the universe. They just need do do what they want with their lives.

 

[Toxic]

Who said that's a contradiction? The scripture I pointed you to in Isaiah which you ignored (speaking of "cherry picking") talks about a "new heaven" and a "new earth". In the new testament John said he saw the Holy City "coming down out of heaven".

And?

 

[jmdrake]

And?

And what? You asked for a description of heaven in the old testament and multiple people have given it to you. The old testament view of heaven being established on earth is consistent with the new testament view of the Holy City coming down to earth. I think you're just being obtuse.

 

[Toxic]

Without a standard, I don't think "caring" means anything. Is there a standard by which the amount of suffering that exists can be judged "too much," or not? If there is, then is this standard something greater than yourself, or is it merely your own personal preference? If it's your own personal preference, then what contribution does that make to a discussion like what's going on in this thread? When you said there was too much suffering, you were ostensibly making a point about theological deductions that could be drawn about the fact of there being too much suffering, not just expressing a personal preference.

And why specify "human being" now? Aren't you the one who earlier in the discussion made a point of insisting that human beings were merely one of the many varieties of animal?

Absolutely. And when other species of animal suffer, that's too much as well in my opinion. But I do accept that pain and suffering are parts of nature and we just have to deal with it. And this is also why I believe there is no loving god who intervenes to stop the pain.

 

[Toxic]

And what? You asked for a description of heaven in the old testament and multiple people have given it to you. The old testament view of heaven being established on earth is consistent with the new testament view of the Holy City coming down to earth. I think you're just being obtuse.

And you guys continue to prove that all these things are matters of interpretation, not facts.

 

[matt0611]

They don't have to mean anything in the grand scale of the universe. They just need do do what they want with their lives.

Yeah, but sometimes stuff just happens, the atoms and bosons bounce around in a certain way. The holocaust, communism, plagues and disease, entire cities destroyed etc

I don't understand why you're so appalled at it all though. Everyone's going back to the dust anyway.

 

[matt0611]

And you guys continue to prove that all these things are matters of interpretation, not facts.

Even facts you have to interpret.

 

[Toxic]

Sure. But God is not the only player in the universe. There's also Satan. And God at times leads us to the effect of our own choices. It's clear from the writings of Josephus, himself a Jew, that Jerusalem could have been spared if the leaders had listened to reason. But again, read through Job. Satan went to God's council to accuse God of bribing people to worship Him. God allowed Satan to tempt Job in the most dreadful ways. True or analogy it explains a character of God that is not, IMO, sadistic. And again this comes down to the effect of freewill. Let's say you had a child that was totally screwing up and rebelling against you. You decided to practice "tough love" and let that child leave. There were times you could intervene, but you didn't because if you did the child wouldn't learn the lesson. Maybe at times you intervened anyway. Would that make you sadistic because you intervened sometimes and not others? Say if you had grandchildren and sometimes you intervened and sometimes you didn't. Are you now sadistic?

It's sadistic if you have the power to easily help, but instead, sit back and watch. God's supposed power over what happens on earth is similar to standing over a baby being eaten by ants. You can easily put a stop to this by picking the baby up. Or you could let the baby lay there and get devoured. There's no life lesson the baby needs to learn here. It just needs to be lifted off the damn ground.

I'm not cherry picking. This part of this thread started with you asking for examples of God's interventions. I gave them to you. Rather than saying "thank you for answering my question", you've decided to reject truth when offered. Why didn't you just say from the beginning "Don't bother giving me any examples of God intervening because I will choose not to believe them anyway?" That would have been more honest.

Because in a debate, both sides present their cases and both sides are free to disagree.

I gave you a description of heaven from the old testament book of Isaiah. You didn't even address it.

I've addressed everything by explaining that they're all INTERPRETATIONS. Until you can prove them not to be, this cycle will never end.

 

[Toxic]

Even facts you have to interpret.

If you hold up a brick and then let it go, it falls to the ground. How many ways can you interpret that?