About a deity full of love and compassion

[Autodidact]

i hope the link below answers your question:

Mercy and Wisdoms Behind the Disasters and the Calamities

Clicked on your link. Very odd:
(1) Illness is good by its conclusion. Well, obviously, if it's good by its conclusion, isn't it even better if it never starts?
(2) It's a test. Please explain how killing someone tests them, and how it is just or merciful that thousands were wiped off the earth today, while many millions of worthless or even evil schmucks enjoyed their breakfast.
(3) It demonstrates Allah's proficiency. Uh, O.K., Allah is the most self-centered, arrogant, narcissistic imaginable creature, who inflicts suffering on people deliberately so He can demonstrate how extremely cool He is if He deigns to relieve it. Or not.
(4) He's warning us about our mistakes. First, the warning doesn't do you much good if you're dead. Secondly, what is He warning us about, living in Japan? Or Thailand? Or Oklahoma? Or Haiti? Or...
(5) It brings people closer to Allah. Now that's just sick. If someone beats me, it's not psychologically healthy for me to run to that same person for comfort. In fact, that's the last person I should turn to for comfort.
(6) It gets you to heaven. If you suffer torment, and accept it placidly, you get to go to heaven after you die. That is, if you happen to be Muslim. If you're Japanese, you just suffer. Or, alternatively, die.
(7) Suffering is a form of worship. That is one sick religion you've got there.
(8) You get to rank as a martyr. If you're Muslim, that is. This is analogous to the rank of Lieutenant in the Captain Billy Adventure Club ranking system, and has about as much meaning or value to the Japanese mother now searching desperately for her children whose school was swept clean by a giant wave. How petty can you get?
(9) It helps you appreciate the good things. So the suffering of the Japanese mother is worth it, because it helps me appreciate my healthy, living kids more. Too bad for her.

If this is the best Muslim apologetics can do, it's pretty poor.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You know, that in various historical Spartan nations this would be a normal day to day reality.
interestingly such cultures are idolized by the modern film industry.
I have witnessed such cultures and people still in existence today.
it might sound strange to the ears of a modern man. but I have only admiration for them.
their children can and do survive everything. I am sure our Americans soldiers have seen such people by routine.

The ones that survived, anyhow.

A couple of my friends have a newborn baby in a neonatal ICU as we speak. He would never have been able to survive without help, and personally, I'm happy that he's being cared for.

 

[Skeptisch]

Depending on which data you're looking at, it's also the case that the "hypothesis" 'it cannot be said that there neither is nor isn't a God' fits.

We will never have evidence for something that does not exist, but shouldn’t we have some scientific evidence for something that, for most people, exists?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Depending on which data you're looking at, it's also the case that the "hypothesis" 'it cannot be said that there neither is nor isn't a God' fits.

Which data is that?

 

[Willamena]

We will never have evidence for something that does not exist, but shouldn’t we have some scientific evidence for something that, for most people, exists?

Depends on whether you want to define something scientifically or not*.


*or some other way
Edit: For instance, you could define this scientifically:

...but would that be your first choice?

 

[Skeptisch]

Depends on whether you want to define something scientifically or not*.*or some other way

"There is something dishonestly self-serving in the tactic of claiming that all religious beliefs are outside the domain of science. On the one hand, miracle stories and the promise of life after death are used to impress simple people, win converts, and swell congregations."

"It is precisely their scientific power that gives these stories their popular appeal. But at the same time it is considered below the belt to subject the same stories to the ordinary rigors of scientific criticism: these are religious matters and therefore outside the domain of science."

 

[Willamena]

"There is something dishonestly self-serving in the tactic of claiming that all religious beliefs are outside the domain of science. On the one hand, miracle stories and the promise of life after death are used to impress simple people, win converts, and swell congregations."

"It is precisely their scientific power that gives these stories their popular appeal. But at the same time it is considered below the belt to subject the same stories to the ordinary rigors of scientific criticism: these are religious matters and therefore outside the domain of science."

Hey (I'm honest when I'm self-servic... *ahem*).

I made no claim that any beliefs are beyond scientific scrutiny, any more than Van Gogh's 'Shoes' are beyond scientific scrutiny.

 

[AllanV]

Here are four verses, the key is rebellion.Man has a rebellious nature and even the planet is subjected. This is apparent in the predatory behavior of all biology. It is even in the oxidizing and decay, the rusting and rotting which is an effect that the earth is caught in.

Man has developed this into His nature and own biology losing an ability to be immortal. People in a certain hardness of heart with mental resolve fight it out mentally, verbally and physically. Predatory mental abilities force defense and this can be very subtle and in the personality as well as open conflict.

This rebellious mentality invents and strives and overall is driven by self interest. This will destroy the planet.

Isaiah 13:13 ( NIV )
Therefore I will make the heavens tremble; and the earth will shake from its place at the wrath of the LORD Almighty, in the day of his burning anger.


Isaiah 24:19-20 ( NIV )
The earth is broken up, the earth is split asunder, the earth is thoroughly shaken.
The earth reels like a drunkard, it sways like a hut in the wind; so heavy upon it is the guilt of its rebellion that it falls—never to rise again.


Isaiah 51:6 ( NIV )
Lift up your eyes to the heavens, look at the earth beneath; the heavens will vanish like smoke, the earth will wear out like a garment and its inhabitants die like flies. But my salvation will last forever, my righteousness will never fail.


Revelation 21:1 ( NIV )
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.


Isaiah 65:17 ( NIV )
"Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind."

Man's hard heart cannot understand or comprehend God's Love but that is His request. This would resolve self interest and all could have the right motive. Peoples personal identities would be unencumbered from all the "stuff" that is presented when they interact with others. All the dramas would dissipate.

God's Love is a Spiritual energy that needs to be taken up inside a person. It is done in changes within the mind. Individuals are meant to show the Love and compassion. This is all in man's ability but they refuse to take it up because they are stubborn, which is idolatry and they actively push buttons in each other and this is witchcraft. People make idols of their intellectual prowess and even opinions and have an ability to get into the subconscious of others.

Man is destroying the earth, but God manifests everything making all appear instantly, therefore it is His power that is unleashed.

Love is practical and God has given a good gift of all that is seen. It is man who does not want Love. Man prefers all the pushed button dramas and the self interest of all are enjoyed at the expense eventually of all envolved.

 

[PolyHedral]

Edit: For instance, you could define this scientifically:

...but would that be your first choice?

You don't want me to define that scientifically, because the definition is over 13,290 letters long, and would be thoroughly boring to read. However, you may like to know how I know the definition is that length, and it's quite simple: the data contained within that image file defines an image, which your computer can then display to you. However, in good Star Wars fashion, that wasn't the definition you're looking for. Peoples' reactions cannot be defined scientifically at the moment, because we don't have a good enough understanding of psychology. That doesn't mean we can't at some point in the far away future, though.

Also, I'm confused as to why there is confusion about the OP's point. D)

Most Abrahamic offshoots assume that there is a (almost) all-powerful God out there, and that He is loving. However, this immediately raises a contradiction.
If God considers death a bad thing, why does anyone die?
If God considers death a good thing (as someone earlier suggested), why is anyone still alive?

Quoting scripture does not actually answer either of those questions. In fact, quoting scripture that says "God will fix things soon!" only highlights this contradiction, because it acknowledges that God thinks there is something wrong.

 

[Autodidact]

Here are four verses, the key is rebellion.Man has a rebellious nature and even the planet is subjected. This is apparent in the predatory behavior of all biology. It is even in the oxidizing and decay, the rusting and rotting which is an effect that the earth is caught in.

Man has developed this into His nature and own biology losing an ability to be immortal. People in a certain hardness of heart with mental resolve fight it out mentally, verbally and physically. Predatory mental abilities force defense and this can be very subtle and in the personality as well as open conflict.

This rebellious mentality invents and strives and overall is driven by self interest. This will destroy the planet.

Isaiah 13:13 ( NIV )
Therefore I will make the heavens tremble; and the earth will shake from its place at the wrath of the LORD Almighty, in the day of his burning anger.


Isaiah 24:19-20 ( NIV )
The earth is broken up, the earth is split asunder, the earth is thoroughly shaken.
The earth reels like a drunkard, it sways like a hut in the wind; so heavy upon it is the guilt of its rebellion that it falls—never to rise again.


Isaiah 51:6 ( NIV )
Lift up your eyes to the heavens, look at the earth beneath; the heavens will vanish like smoke, the earth will wear out like a garment and its inhabitants die like flies. But my salvation will last forever, my righteousness will never fail.


Revelation 21:1 ( NIV )
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.


Isaiah 65:17 ( NIV )
"Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind."

Man's hard heart cannot understand or comprehend God's Love but that is His request. This would resolve self interest and all could have the right motive. Peoples personal identities would be unencumbered from all the "stuff" that is presented when they interact with others. All the dramas would dissipate.

God's Love is a Spiritual energy that needs to be taken up inside a person. It is done in changes within the mind. Individuals are meant to show the Love and compassion. This is all in man's ability but they refuse to take it up because they are stubborn, which is idolatry and they actively push buttons in each other and this is witchcraft. People make idols of their intellectual prowess and even opinions and have an ability to get into the subconscious of others.

Man is destroying the earth, but God manifests everything making all appear instantly, therefore it is His power that is unleashed.

Love is practical and God has given a good gift of all that is seen. It is man who does not want Love. Man prefers all the pushed button dramas and the self interest of all are enjoyed at the expense eventually of all envolved.

So I'm not following. Are you saying God punishes us for rejecting Him by inflicting earthquakes on us?

 

[Willamena]

You don't want me to define that scientifically, because the definition is over 13,290 letters long, and would be thoroughly boring to read. However, you may like to know how I know the definition is that length, and it's quite simple: the data contained within that image file defines an image, which your computer can then display to you.

Haha!

However, in good Star Wars fashion, that wasn't the definition you're looking for. Peoples' reactions cannot be defined scientifically at the moment, because we don't have a good enough understanding of psychology. That doesn't mean we can't at some point in the far away future, though.

But even if we do, would it change any the definition that stems* from impression? (Hint: Not one bit.)

*more appropriately, perhaps, "flows"

Also, I'm confused as to why there is confusion about the OP's point. D)

Most Abrahamic offshoots assume that there is a (almost) all-powerful God out there, and that He is loving. However, this immediately raises a contradiction.
If God considers death a bad thing, why does anyone die?
If God considers death a good thing (as someone earlier suggested), why is anyone still alive?

Quoting scripture does not actually answer either of those questions. In fact, quoting scripture that says "God will fix things soon!" only highlights this contradiction, because it acknowledges that God thinks there is something wrong.

Oh, there's far more things in the OP that confuse than just that.

Well... the God that loves is, in the patheistic view, the love that is in the world. The God that "lets people die" is, in the pantheistic view, the death that is in the world. The God that considers death "a bad thing" or "a good thing" is the morality that is in the world. God isn't removed from the picture, so much as the picture shifts to become God. All these things just are, naturally, so if a logical contradiction "is" then there must be something wrong with the premises, presumably with hidden premises.

1.) God is. (This is our basic assumption which relates to any conclusion we reach, so it's good.)
2.) God is loving. (This is debatable, as in the pantheistic view, God is the love that is.)
3.) Death is. (Acceptably true. Additionally, God is the death that is and the life that is.)
4.a) If God considers death a bad thing... (This translates into "If God considers God a bad thing..."), why does God not prevent death (logically, God cannot prevent God).
4.b) If God considers death a good thing... ("If God considers God a good thing..."), why does God not prevent life (again, logically, God cannot prevent God).

My lame attempt at logic.

 

[Random]

With the earthquake and tsunami in Japan in mind, how can anyone believe that s/he exists? What more evidence do we need before we start using a little critical thinking on the whole notion of a lovable God? Or maybe the Japanese people have not prayed enough, or maybe not to the right God?

God doesn't reject humanity, Humanity rejects God. Utterly.

Humanity's vain praise and worship of God is all in spite of God, not for God or because of God. The only God that is acceptable to mankind is the deistic one present in all arrangements of religion, the God that is so vague and remote and distant as not to be able to expose and challenge the congenital depravity and wantonness of Man. This deistic setup was codified by the Jews as a sort of 'business deal' and is called "the Covenant".

When Jesus showed up and claimed God was everywhere and with us at all times, and that God surrounds and penetrates each of us spiritually as a loving Father, the divine presence was felt in him and this being unbearable to the Jews and misunderstood by the Romans resulted in him being given a torturous and humiliating death on the cross.

And you talk about Earthquakes?

None of these problems exist for the one who has a sense of God-Consciousness. All that is, IS. When the ground shakes and all are brought to death before their time, the one who has God in his or her Heart knows that this is but part of the divine play of creation, and sad and bewildered though we all are by this tragedy and disaster, it must be accepted as much as all the Good in life is.

Had not Man rejected God in the first place, none of it would be happening.

 

[Beta]

That doesn't get rid of the problem; it just turns it on its head. If the truly charitable thing is to slaughter everyone, then why does God continue the "agony" of our lives?

After telling people for 6000 years to turn from their own ways I don't think God is hasty with his judgement/warning.
There have been many disasters down through time and how many have turned to him ? God does not want to slaughter anyone but want's all to come to repentance Acts 17v30; 2Pet.3v9. :yes:

 

[Penumbra]

The whole complexion of this discussion might change if death was seen as freeing a bird from its cage.

(ducks to avoid rotten tomatoes).

Just saying.

So killing men, women, and children in a tsunami frees them from a cage. People had their homes destroyed, and lost loved ones.

One should then question why cages exist in a world with a deity full of love and compassion.

Are you sure you are an atheist? :sarcastic

Yes.

What does atheism have to do with that part of the post?

 

[PolyHedral]

But even if we do, would it change any the definition that stems* from impression? (Hint: Not one bit.)

*more appropriately, perhaps, "flows"

But that's not a definition, mostly because it's ambiguous. Definitions don't flow from impressions; Impressions flow from the interaction of the painting and your own mind. (Both of which can be defined.)

Well... the God that loves is, in the patheistic view, the love that is in the world. The God that "lets people die" is, in the pantheistic view, the death that is in the world. The God that considers death "a bad thing" or "a good thing" is the morality that is in the world. God isn't removed from the picture, so much as the picture shifts to become God. All these things just are, naturally, so if a logical contradiction "is" then there must be something wrong with the premises, presumably with hidden premises.

1.) God is. (This is our basic assumption which relates to any conclusion we reach, so it's good.)
2.) God is loving. (This is debatable, as in the pantheistic view, God is the love that is.)
3.) Death is. (Acceptably true. Additionally, God is the death that is and the life that is.)
4.a) If God considers death a bad thing... (This translates into "If God considers God a bad thing..."), why does God not prevent death (logically, God cannot prevent God).
4.b) If God considers death a good thing... ("If God considers God a good thing..."), why does God not prevent life (again, logically, God cannot prevent God).

My lame attempt at logic.

Your logic's fine, but you're talking about a pantheistic God, which isn't really a seperate entity from the laws of nature. The OP is asking about the more anthropomorphic daddy-in-the-sky, which is quite separate from nature itself.

 

[Autodidact]

God doesn't reject humanity, Humanity rejects God. Utterly.

Humanity's vain praise and worship of God is all in spite of God, not for God or because of God. The only God that is acceptable to mankind is the deistic one present in all arrangements of religion, the God that is so vague and remote and distant as not to be able to expose and challenge the congenital depravity and wantonness of Man. This deistic setup was codified by the Jews as a sort of 'business deal' and is called "the Covenant".

Before you start spouting your anti-semitic lies, I would appreciate it if you would learn the first thing about Judaism.

When Jesus showed up and claimed God was everywhere and with us at all times, and that God surrounds and penetrates each of us spiritually as a loving Father, the divine presence was felt in him and this being unbearable to the Jews and misunderstood by the Romans resulted in him being given a torturous and humiliating death on the cross.

And yet oddly, it's the loving Christians who spent the following 20 centuries oppressing, torturing and slaughtering the supposedly hate-filled Jews. I wonder why that is?

And you talk about Earthquakes?

None of these problems exist for the one who has a sense of God-Consciousness. All that is, IS. When the ground shakes and all are brought to death before their time, the one who has God in his or her Heart knows that this is but part of the divine play of creation, and sad and bewildered though we all are by this tragedy and disaster, it must be accepted as much as all the Good in life is.

So I guess if your child gets swept out to sea tomorrow, that wouldn't bother you?

Had not Man rejected God in the first place, none of it would be happening.

Why not? How are these two things related? And how do you know?

 

[Penumbra]

Haha!


But even if we do, would it change any the definition that stems* from impression? (Hint: Not one bit.)

*more appropriately, perhaps, "flows"


Oh, there's far more things in the OP that confuse than just that.

Well... the God that loves is, in the patheistic view, the love that is in the world. The God that "lets people die" is, in the pantheistic view, the death that is in the world. The God that considers death "a bad thing" or "a good thing" is the morality that is in the world. God isn't removed from the picture, so much as the picture shifts to become God. All these things just are, naturally, so if a logical contradiction "is" then there must be something wrong with the premises, presumably with hidden premises.

1.) God is. (This is our basic assumption which relates to any conclusion we reach, so it's good.)
2.) God is loving. (This is debatable, as in the pantheistic view, God is the love that is.)
3.) Death is. (Acceptably true. Additionally, God is the death that is and the life that is.)
4.a) If God considers death a bad thing... (This translates into "If God considers God a bad thing..."), why does God not prevent death (logically, God cannot prevent God).
4.b) If God considers death a good thing... ("If God considers God a good thing..."), why does God not prevent life (again, logically, God cannot prevent God).

My lame attempt at logic.

Seems to be a poetic way of describing "no god".

Just the universe.

 

[Autodidact]

After telling people for 6000 years to turn from their own ways I don't think God is hasty with his judgement/warning.
There have been many disasters down through time and how many have turned to him ? God does not want to slaughter anyone but want's all to come to repentance Acts 17v30; 2Pet.3v9. :yes:

Then why does He do it so freely? Just can't help Himself?

 

[Breathe]

After telling people for 6000 years to turn from their own ways I don't think God is hasty with his judgement/warning.

...I thought one thousand years were like a day to God?


So that means he's waited six days?


...Yes, he is pretty hasty.

 

[Beta]

Then why does He do it so freely? Just can't help Himself?

God does not cause all this mayhem and destruction.
What is happening in the world is that God is 'withdrawing his protection big time'. He is 'allowing' bad things to happen on an ever-larger scale during this time of tribulation Mat.24v21 which is likely to get worse worldwide in different ways.
Most people don't believe we are at the end of an age of human rule when man will learn his dependancy on God we have hitherto despised. :help: