Are you religious?

[StickyEnd]

...
Please address my point: Why does God get the credit and not the blame?

Probably because of the way we learn things. There are several ways but religion is normally taught as dogma at an early age before critical thinking develops.

If you accept "God is a loving God" and have an emotional atachment to the idea, it is diificult to ascribe bad stuff to God. Damned easy to uncritically give credit too.

[ScouseD]

...
Please address my point: Why does God get the credit and not the blame?

Probably because of the way we learn things. There are several ways but religion is normally taught as dogma at an early age before critical thinking develops.

I agree, and in some senses it was more of a rhetorical question. Damn rationalist, you

[StickyEnd]

...
Please address my point: Why does God get the credit and not the blame?

Probably because of the way we learn things. There are several ways but religion is normally taught as dogma at an early age before critical thinking develops.

I agree, and in some senses it was more of a rhetorical question. Damn rationalist, you

Sorry.

[GUNGA]

I note that my point still goes unanswered.

You quoted the Bible as evidence, although I have to admit the relevance was lost on me:

Luk 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

In that case you may also be interested in another Biblical quote:

Leviticus 19:19: "Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee."

In other words, polyester is right out. Have you ever worn polyester?

Please address my point: Why does God get the credit and not the blame?

That's your opinion a large number of people use the ills of the world as proof that there is no God. My own father, for example, after his experiences as a POW in WWII decided no God existed. So, no, it's just your point of view that in some way God gets 'credit' believe me he doesn't not always from Christians either.

[BoomShackerLacker]

A young executive business woman works late in the city and at 11pm walks to the pith-stained multi-storey car park and calls the lift in order to reach the 12th floor. No other people around at this time. Her car is the last one.

The lift arrives and door opens and three blinged up hoodies carrying a few cans each stand there but don’t get out. They look violent, angry and restless.

What does the woman do?

(To add: she doesn’t know the hoodies. This isn’t a trick question. Intelligent answers please.)

Glower at them, walk into the lift muttering to herself, pick out her mobile phone, dial some number and yell "I've just got the blood test back. AIDS YOU M*****F******, LYING, WHORING B**T**D. I WILL F****** KILL YOU IF YOU ARE STILL IN MY F****** HOUSE WHEN I GET BACK!!!!". Mutter some more, pretend to notice the hoodies for the first time, glare at them and growl "What the F*** are you looking at?", ….�

The question wasn’t a cue to rehearse Actions On ‘hoodies in lift’! Typical! Narrowly missed spraying my laptop there too.

The ‘woman in the lift’ question was in response to BA’s ‘certainty’ of no ‘supernatural’ based on ‘rationality’. Good to see there was absolutely no consensus; such is social science. My question being why do we give over our ‘view of reality’ only on the basis of ‘rationalism’ alone. Which is the general tenet of some key protagonists.

My best guess is the woman steps into the lift once eye contact is made, instinctively. Our humanity prefers ‘trust’ and ‘relationship’ ahead of ‘cold rationality’ as we ‘see’ other qualities and factors as we’re not fundamentally only ‘rational beings’ but are naturally ‘spirit’ as well as ‘physical’.

Doesn’t mean she won’t die horribly, and the rational may ensure some survive; but as a human species, the inexorable march of the rational-efficiency view of reality means we’re steadily shutting down our ‘spiritual’ self and then our view of reality narrows as we’re only using FM-signal and not Digital as well. We only see the reality we’re tuned to. And we’re made poorer as humans as a result.

(Just need each of you to select five female colleagues to advance this hypothesis.)

[GUNGA]

A young executive business woman works late in the city and at 11pm walks to the pith-stained multi-storey car park and calls the lift in order to reach the 12th floor. No other people around at this time. Her car is the last one.

The lift arrives and door opens and three blinged up hoodies carrying a few cans each stand there but don’t get out. They look violent, angry and restless.

What does the woman do?

(To add: she doesn’t know the hoodies. This isn’t a trick question. Intelligent answers please.)

BoomSL see the excessively fantasist thread on "violating bitches". There are no boundaries to this, I know Ive tested them and was accused of being a wimp.

Glower at them, walk into the lift muttering to herself, pick out her mobile phone, dial some number and yell "I've just got the blood test back. AIDS YOU M*****F******, LYING, WHORING B**T**D. I WILL F****** KILL YOU IF YOU ARE STILL IN MY F****** HOUSE WHEN I GET BACK!!!!". Mutter some more, pretend to notice the hoodies for the first time, glare at them and growl "What the F*** are you looking at?", ….�

The question wasn’t a cue to rehearse Actions On ‘hoodies in lift’! Typical! Narrowly missed spraying my laptop there too.

The ‘woman in the lift’ question was in response to BA’s ‘certainty’ of no ‘supernatural’ based on ‘rationality’. Good to see there was absolutely no consensus; such is social science. My question being why do we give over our ‘view of reality’ only on the basis of ‘rationalism’ alone. Which is the general tenet of some key protagonists.

My best guess is the woman steps into the lift once eye contact is made, instinctively. Our humanity prefers ‘trust’ and ‘relationship’ ahead of ‘cold rationality’ as we ‘see’ other qualities and factors as we’re not fundamentally only ‘rational beings’ but are naturally ‘spirit’ as well as ‘physical’.

Doesn’t mean she won’t die horribly, and the rational may ensure some survive; but as a human species, the inexorable march of the rational-efficiency view of reality means we’re steadily shutting down our ‘spiritual’ self and then our view of reality narrows as we’re only using FM-signal and not Digital as well. We only see the reality we’re tuned to. And we’re made poorer as humans as a result.

(Just need each of you to select five female colleagues to advance this hypothesis.)

[Excognito]

Or it could be the hand of God that intervened to make the hoodies so angry - what a b'stard. If he did exist I'd want nothing to do with him.

Yeah! I feel like that about the Universe. I don't want to have anything to do with a Universe that lets such horrible things happen. So I'm not going to believe in it!! Hah!


... damn! it's still here

Why is that when people are rescued they credit divine intervention (especially if that rescue is down to the blood sweat and tears of a human kind (was Kimber the name of that idiot in Iraq?)) but do not blame divine intervention for putting them in the predicament in the first place

a. Not all people "credit" divine intervention.
b. Some people do "blame" divine intervention.

[StickyEnd]

Or it could be the hand of God that intervened to make the hoodies so angry - what a b'stard. If he did exist I'd want nothing to do with him.

Yeah! I feel like that about the Universe. I don't want to have anything to do with a Universe that lets such horrible things happen. So I'm not going to believe in it!! Hah!


... damn! it's still here
...

The problem with that comparison is that there is no large organisation telling you that the Universe loves you and has a plan for you.

[Excognito]

Or it could be the hand of God that intervened to make the hoodies so angry - what a b'stard. If he did exist I'd want nothing to do with him.

Yeah! I feel like that about the Universe. I don't want to have anything to do with a Universe that lets such horrible things happen. So I'm not going to believe in it!! Hah!
... damn! it's still here
...

The problem with that comparison is that there is no large organisation telling you that the Universe loves you and has a plan for you.

I do not see it as a problem in respect of BA's statement. If an interventionist God did exist and intervened in a manner that BA disapproved of, then BA would have nothing to do with Him. The existence or otherwise of any organizations telling you about such a God is irrelevant.

Ask Dwarf about Odin.

[jumpinjarhead]

I believe there is evil in the world because people abused their free will, not because God wanted to hurt us. God decided to give free will to us because this is the only way we can experience and give love. Logically, without free will, we could never love, because in order to love we must have the choice not to love. It is clear from the beginning that God created man to be his willing companions.

If one can accept the idea of free will, it logically follows that there must also be the possibility of moral evil. Put another way, once God chose to create human beings with free will, then it was up to them, rather than to God, as to whether there was sin or not. It would make no logical sense to have a world where there’s real choice while at the same time no possibility of choosing evil.

When Adam and Eve exercised their free will to disobey God, this opened the door for moral evil--choosing to be hateful, abusive, and selfish, resulting in suffering to ourselves and others.

Again, people make this decision. People starve in some parts of the world, but the problem isn’t a shortage of food. The problem is that corrupt governments (a group of individuals) don’t care enough to feed the hungry. This involves the exercise of free will individually and collectively to cause evil.

Natural evil consists of earthquakes, tornadoes, droughts, and other disasters of nature that cause human suffering. Paul said, “We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time� (Rom. 8:22). I believe that when human beings (beginning with Adam and Eve) in effect told God to shove off, he partially honored our request. Nature was adversely affected. Genetic breakdown, disease, pain, and death became part of the human experience.

Even though suffering isn’t good, God can use it to accomplish good. God certainly would have been justified in scrapping the world once we abused our free will by rebelling against Him and harming each other. Nevertheless God is also merciful, using the pain of this world to bring about beneficial results for us.

For example, God can use suffering to pull people toward salvation in Christ. “For God can use sorrow in our lives to help us turn away from sin and seek salvation,� Paul said. “We will never regret that kind of sorrow� (2 Cor. 7:10). C. S. Lewis observed, “God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains. It is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world.� God can also use suffering to sharpen our character and help us become more like Christ.

Just as in some military training we say “No pain, no gain,� in the same way God may allow a certain amount of suffering in our lives if He knows, in His omniscience, that the result will be the development of a more godly character. In addition, God may use pain to discipline us.