I not really sure what you mean with "not die before our time"? Do you mean that everyone ought to die peacefully in their sleep?
Because im not sure how you would tell the difference between it being the correct time or not?
The correct time is the time that was predestined for is to die. You could argue that an animal that got shot by a hunter was predestined to die at that time but since there was human interference that was human free will that caused the animal to die, and God did not interfere with human free will.
It would be great if everyone could die peacefully in their sleep but too many factors intervene, such as diseases and accidents, even murders, so that will never be the case.
Trailblazer said: Why are we always comparing the two? Of course it is not good for animals to be caged and slaughtered, but how does that justify hunting and killing?
Because if we want meat which we do apparently, otherwise there wouldn't be such a huge industry for it. Isn't it like saying asking, why it should matter if we get our meat from ecological farms (Not sure what it is called in english). But farms where the animals are treated better than just being stuck in cages. We ask this question because we care if the animals are treated better before we eat them. If we didn't care then just throw them all in a small cage. So when hunters shoot a few animals in comparison to how many cows and chickens are killed each year, it seems logical to ask, that if people are more than happy to go down the supermarket and buy meat, but then at the same time complain about the hunters that shoots a few animals, which have lived very good lives. That maybe people are being a bit hypocritical?
I do not see it that way because hunting and killing an animal in the wild is not going to prevent any other animals from being slaughtered. It might prevent that hunter from buying some meat at the supermarket, but that is a very small percentage of meat purchased and it will not affect overall supply and demand.
How do you know that the hunted animals lived very good lives? But even if they did, that is no justification for cutting their lives short. The point is that the main reason for hunting is not for meat to eat, it is for enjoyment, and I consider killing for enjoyment sick. How is that any different than someone who kills domestic animals for enjoyment, just because they can be licensed to hunt? A while ago there was a cat killer who went around killing feral cats on our city. It was in the news and everyone was aghast and there was a reward for capturing him.
Sure they do, but you know get the whole experience of what it means, because the part of killing and turning the animal into meat is not something that you face in the supermarket. So I don't think its an invalid point.
Why should we face that in the supermarket? People can do their own research on the internet if they want to know. This is a poor analogy, but do they show a woman what happens to the fetus before she gets an abortion?
That you don't believe or agree with what she is writing is fair enough. But to her it is simply not as you see it.
It is fair in the sense that she has a right to her own views and it is legal. But I have no respect for people like that. They are miles away from my value system. I worry when a raccoon does not have food and clean water to drink.
This was just her view, there are lots of other reasons why hunting might be needed. I just went to a trip to Sweden on our small house up there. And think we had to kill around 3000 killer snails around the house, they have no enemies and they eat everything they come by, like flowers and other snails etc. So what do you do, just leave them and constantly step in them? They are all over the place. So if we should follow your logic we ought to just let the snail go nuts and multiply like crazy and kill everything else there, because it's sad for the snails?
I understand about the snails but do wildlife like deer need to be killed in order to manage overpopulation that would threaten other animals or the ecosystem? The thing is that deer do not kill other animals, they are not predators.
Of course not, its a choice. And probably it would be a lot better if we only ate meat like once a month or every two week, it would do wonders for the climate. So I don't disagree with you on that.
It would also be better for overall health and it would provide more land for growing food so nobody in the world would have to go hungry.
Because that is the very point, when it comes to discussing the motive and morally of God that we are told to buy into. To ask questions about what people claim about God, and whether they make sense or not.
Atheists questions what people claim, because those things doesn't add up, which then leads to the questions whether the whole God thing is even true to begin with? What reason we should have to believe people's claim about God, if these things doesn't add up?
If they do not add up to you and other atheists, maybe you have unrealistic expectations. If something does not make sense to you maybe you should try to understand why God does/does not do what you expect.
That you personally can accept that God exist, and don't want to ask the questions that atheists does, that is totally up to you. But there is no logical reason to accept any of the explanations as being mere facts about what God could or couldn't have done, and just accept them. When it doesn't fit together. That is why atheists ask the questions they do and don't just accept whatever religious people claim.
I do ask a lot of these questions because I want to understand why things are the way they are but I believe that God knows more than I do because God is All-Knowing, so I do not question God, since I consider that illogical.
Because suffering in a general understanding, does not link to something being good. If a child came to you and said that they had been beaten and suffering for years, because of cruel parents. And then the parents came to you and said "We did it out of love", you would instantly call the police and get them arrested.
I do not know why you have to attribute the suffering to God, as God is not causing that suffering. God is not beating anyone.
So when God or religious people say that God is all loving, but then at the same time can't explain all the suffering in the world, that is a reasonable question to ask...
The suffering exists because of things in the world that cause suffering. God is not causing the suffering so that does not mean God is not all loving.
How is it possible for something to be all loving and still allow suffering?
A better question is: Why should an all loving God prevent suffering?
And to me, that is impossible. I haven't heard any good explanations of how this is possible, especially as I said earlier. That we can throw the other attributes in there as well. All powerful and all knowing. Fair enough if God made mistakes and that is why there is suffering, but he is also said to be infallible as you stated earlier. So it just doesn't add up in the head of an atheist.
People make mistakes and that is why there is suffering. Life on Earth is difficult and that is why there is suffering. God has nothing to do with it. It might not add up for you but I do not hear many atheists blaming God for suffering. That is not the reason most atheists do not believe in God, the reason is because they do not see any evidence for God.
Suffering in this life would make no sense and it would be cruel and unjust if God existed and this world was the only world we will ever live in. Suffering can only be understood if we believe that there is an afterlife and that the suffering in this life helps us prepare for the afterlife, building our character and making us more spiritual and drawing us closer to God., since we rely on God in times of suffering.
So what, what he wrote? Think about it, just because he wrote it doesn't mean that it is true or even convincing to other people? It might be for you, but now that I have heard of him, I don't buy it either.
So maybe the problem is not other people, but that the writings and teachings simply doesn't have the credibility that is required for a majority of people.
The evidence for Baha’u’llah is not only what He wrote. Again, here are the categories of evidence.
1. The Person of the Baha’u’llah (His qualities, human and divine)
2. The Revelation of Baha’u’llah (what He accomplished on His Mission on earth, I.e., the history related to the religion that was established as the result of His Mission)
3. The scriptures that He wrote or what was written on His behalf revealing His Words.
4. Prophecies that were fulfilled by His coming.
5. Predictions that He made that later came to pass.
Comeon Trailblazer
If he can create a Universe from nothing and give messages to messengers, he could probably find a way... again with all the limitations of this so called, all powerful God. It doesn't add up, it is just not logical or reasonable to do.
God could find a way IF He wanted to but God does not want to so He doesn’t, since an OMNIPOTENT God only does
what He wants to do, not what atheists like you want Him to do.
Like I saw your post on whether people fear God or not, and I think to recall that you said you were worried..(Correct me if im wrong, as I might misremember). But instantly that makes me wonder why you would feel that way, when you think God is all good... which would leave us into the discussion we currently have... so these things or questions often lead to similar discussions.
I fear God but not in the sense you think. It is reverence and respect for God rather than fear of what God might do to me. This is a big subject, fear of God.
