Go to page:

are angels really just... miserable?

poet Anonymous

johnrot said:
my dog is the happiest person i've ever met and i don't think he worries about angels.

might be somethin there in simplicity,contentness.



eat,drink,fuck......enjoy it


when is the last time you heard about a puppy killing over religious beliefs?


humans are greedy.......

need more even if it involves hurting someone else.....



Ahhhh... the things that go on inside a dog's head. Who knows what they are barking at in the corner when we see nothing?
Three of my neighbors' dogs run loose and toss over trash cans daily in my neighborhood, then attack a smaller pup in his own yard as the pup tries to eat his own meal. Is it greed?

Does the pup consider his gaurdian (owner) an "angel" for supplying the food?

Why do some dogs freak over unexplained noises in nature and others don't even bark when a bandit comes to his owner's house?

I have to go walk the dog. Bye.





Harpalycus
Twisted Dreamer
United Kingdom 1awards
Joined 3rd Nov 2014
Forum Posts: 130

To Magnetron.

So, in the interests of consistency, ‘douchebag’ is what you would call someone who claimed that God existed, under exactly the same circumstances?

As if my beliefs were the only ones that matter? (I am assuming that the implication was intentional). If I considered my beliefs were the only ones that mattered why would I be bothering to engage in debate at all?

Where is the forcing of beliefs? The arguments are being debated. People are free to disagree, ignore, argue or even be abusive, within certain limits. Since when is disagreeing with someone and giving reason for it, the forcing of belief? Consider what would have happened to anyone who, at the height of Christian hegemony in the Late Medieval Period, had stood up and said that God did not exist. Now that would have been a forcing of belief and no mistake.

Sorry. Volunteering information as an example to bolster up a debating point IS entering into debate.

So irrational beliefs are no less worthwhile than rational ones? Believing in leprechauns, unicorns and ten foot tall angelic beings from the third planet orbiting Zeta Reticuli is on a par with believing that the world is a sphere, that pure water boils at 100oC at normal atmospheric pressure or that milk jugs exist? Really?

Much as I would like to accommodate you, I am afraid that I cannot concur with your helpful suggestion. You are free to ignore me, argue with me or even to malign me, but not to shut me up.

To MadameLavender.

Even if one could ‘allow’ oneself not to love (as love is an emotion I would be interested to see how it could be suppressed, any more than one could make oneself love) would a TRUE believer do this? Would you? Would you allow yourself to lose the ability to love in order to doubt the existence of God?

If you would not, as I am sure is the case, then it is not an answer.

lepperochan
Craic-Dealer
Guardian of Shadows
Palestine 67awards
Joined 1st Apr 2011
Forum Posts: 14449

This is all well and good, once we're very clear that leprechauns are in-fact the one true god people.  

Magdalena
Spartalena
Tyrant of Words
Wales 62awards
Joined 21st Apr 2012
Forum Posts: 2993

lepperochan said:This is all well and good, once we're very clear that leprechauns are in-fact the one true god people.  

Here here.  I have a Lepperochan, I named him Eamonn.  :D

Magnetron
Fire of Insight
United States 6awards
Joined 20th July 2014
Forum Posts: 433

Harpalycus said:To Magnetron.

So, in the interests of consistency, ‘douchebag’ is what you would call someone who claimed that God existed, under exactly the same circumstances?

As if my beliefs were the only ones that matter? (I am assuming that the implication was intentional). If I considered my beliefs were the only ones that mattered why would I be bothering to engage in debate at all?

Where is the forcing of beliefs? The arguments are being debated. People are free to disagree, ignore, argue or even be abusive, within certain limits. Since when is disagreeing with someone and giving reason for it, the forcing of belief? Consider what would have happened to anyone who, at the height of Christian hegemony in the Late Medieval Period, had stood up and said that God did not exist. Now that would have been a forcing of belief and no mistake.

Sorry. Volunteering information as an example to bolster up a debating point IS entering into debate.

So irrational beliefs are no less worthwhile than rational ones? Believing in leprechauns, unicorns and ten foot tall angelic beings from the third planet orbiting Zeta Reticuli is on a par with believing that the world is a sphere, that pure water boils at 100oC at normal atmospheric pressure or that milk jugs exist? Really?

Much as I would like to accommodate you, I am afraid that I cannot concur with your helpful suggestion. You are free to ignore me, argue with me or even to malign me, but not to shut me up.


Good Lord.

I wasn't even talking about you.

* shakes head *

And trust me, I have no desire to shut you up.

You are doing a swell job of killing discussion all on your own.

Harpalycus
Twisted Dreamer
United Kingdom 1awards
Joined 3rd Nov 2014
Forum Posts: 130

'I say, STFU and be thankful for the insight rather than using the excuse that it is a public forum to deconstruct everyone's belief systems that you feel are irrational in construction, as if that makes those belief systems any less worthwhile.'

So, to whom exactly, was that addressed?

MadameLavender
Guardian of Shadows
United States 86awards
Joined 17th Feb 2013
Forum Posts: 5594

Harp:  It's a moot point;  I would never doubt the existence of God, based on having lived my life up to now and everything I've experienced, therefore I have no need to forfeit the ability to love.  There are those I don't particularly care for, at times, but I know that even if I have issue with someone, God still loves them, regardless.

I see from your profile, that you are a retired Chemistry teacher, hence why I brought that up earlier--did you ever look at science differently, as possibly going hand in hand with God?  Perhaps all these truths and provable theories we know, scientifically, are actually workings of God?  Maybe he's given us the ability to discover, solve and find all these things we do, and has a timetable for it all, for the knowledge to be released at it's appointed time in the big plan?  

Maybe everything doesn't need to have it's answer right now, but faith is the basis for hope that it will someday, and the hope that drives us on, to be able to see past the discouragements, and failures in the world, knowing that something better awaits down the road, and there are unseen forces working on our behalf.

Magnetron
Fire of Insight
United States 6awards
Joined 20th July 2014
Forum Posts: 433

Harpalycus said:So, to whom exactly, was that addressed?

Well, that part of what I said was obviously directly addressed to you. But, was it an attempt to discourage you from speaking your mind? LOL. No.

As a matter of fact, I encourage you start numerous topics with up front declarations of your desire to debate the value and validity of this and that belief system that supposedly stems from a fascination with human belief as you call it.

Go right ahead.

Harpalycus
Twisted Dreamer
United Kingdom 1awards
Joined 3rd Nov 2014
Forum Posts: 130

Oh dear, I do apologise. I must have totally misunderstood. So what does the acronym STFU mean then?

Harpalycus
Twisted Dreamer
United Kingdom 1awards
Joined 3rd Nov 2014
Forum Posts: 130

To MadameLavender

Which is exactly my point. That there is nothing that the person of faith sees as able to refute their beliefs. Whatever is argued, whatever evidence is adduced, they will continue to believe. They do not see any possible falsification of their belief.

That is not to say that things may not occur that could lead them to doubt, but a true believer can see no possibility of it beforehand.

However, if you consider the multiplicity of various and disparate religious beliefs, then it is obvious that, at the very least, the vast majority must be wrong. Out of the many thousands of gods that have been the object of faith only one, or a small number, could possibly exist. The chances of it being yours are, unfortunately, pretty small. Especially as you first have to determine that a god of any description exists.

As I think I said earlier, Science cannot pronounce on the existence of God, though it can pronounce on claims made about the actions of that God within our world, such as the Noachian Flood or creationism. So I have no problem with science and a god working in harmony. The problem is that there is simply no evidence for a God.

Of course if God is the creator then the scientific laws are created by God. But Ockham’s razor is a useful tool. If there is to be a brute fact then why not the world? The addition of a God explains nothing and requires explanation itself, in infinite regress.

Maybe God has given us a ‘timetable’, but why? One can always come up with ad hoc explanations. Perhaps God had a bad dream and we are it. For an explanation to be anything more than special pleading it must make sense. In the context of a suffering world, leaving us to suffer as we discover the truth about the world, when a good God could simply tell us, does not make sense.

Maybe everything doesn’t need to be answered right now. But one question that does, is why a good God permits suffering. Because that, above all, is the reason for so much atheism and agnosticism. I have come across no explanation that works. Surely it is not beyond an omnipotent God to provide an explanation for his creatures? So why no answer?

To be able to hope, to believe in a wonderful future and that there are supernatural forces guarding and guiding us is all very nice. Indeed, I will not surprise you by saying that I think that therein lies religion’s power. An old friend of mine, a retired vicar who is now effectively an atheist (hardly surprising - he was C of E) told me that he had come to realise that the reason most people believed was because of a fervent, and understandable wish, that they be reunited with their loved ones. I can relate to that. Sometimes I wish that I believed too.

MadameLavender
Guardian of Shadows
United States 86awards
Joined 17th Feb 2013
Forum Posts: 5594

^^Well, if a faith allows someone to view their life as better and more whole than it was, pre-belief, then that would be an arguement for why consider it false and want to turn away?  I agree there are things that cause doubt, but that is the work of the enemy, who purposefully tries to get us to give up on God.  It is also a period of testing, to build character, so that we may move on to the next phase of life that is in our destinies.  

As for proving the existence of God, I'm going with the fact that Jesus is the only "god" to have fulfilled 450 of the Messianic prophesies of the Old Testament prophets, predicting the first and (eventual) second comings of the Lord.   For me, that's proof enough.  

For God permitting suffering, I believe it goes back to what I said before:  we bring it on ourselves to an extent because of the choices we make in life, or by choices others have made, that affect us and are beyond our control.  I agree too, as you say that it's a basis for aetheism--why not give up when the times get rough and blame God for it?  It's easier than to fight through it, and work at it, and even continue to praise God even in the bad times.  It takes a lot of work, and frankly, some don't care, others are lazy, others aren't strong enough, etc., but with each hurdle you overcome by focusing on God through it, the stronger you get for next time.  I don't claim to be the perfect Christian soldier who can handle everything, but I have certainly earned a few stripes from the school of hard knocks, and looking back on it all, I feel a sense of accomplishment for having faced fears, overcome terrible things, and can deflect a lot of daggars and darts, now, at this point in my life.  

So for allowing suffering, there's a number of reasons, but it's all meant to draw us closer to God, rather than to turn away.

Harpalycus
Twisted Dreamer
United Kingdom 1awards
Joined 3rd Nov 2014
Forum Posts: 130

To MadameLavender

You make a fair point but should we be believing what we want to believe, rather than what is in accord with the evidence?

You blame doubt on the enemy, i.e. Satan, but you have not explained Satan’s position. If he was a perfect creation in a perfect environment then he could not make the wrong decision. If you think he could then I would be grateful for your argument as to how.
If he was an imperfect being in an imperfect environment then he could make the wrong decision, but then it would be God’s responsibility for making such a flawed creation.
Either way it does not make sense.
Ultimately God is the supreme creator so evil (and doubt) all go back to him. The buck really does stop at the top.

I am interested to know how you consider these prophecies? To be veridical a precognition needs to occur before the event described, to be written down or recorded before the event by appropriate witnesses and to have sufficient specific detail to make it extremely unlikely to be a chance guess. Now as the first written biblical texts are the fragmentary Second Century BCE Dead Sea Scrolls, the first and second are out of contention. The third is impossible to verify either. There is clear evidence that stories were made up to fit texts. For example the famous virgin birth text in Isaiah is not a prediction of the Messiah at all. Read it in context for yourself. Secondly, as you should know, the whole thing is based on a mistake. The original Hebrew refers to a young woman. This was mistranslated in the Septuagint as virgin. There is no prophetic evidence. Perhaps you would care to give me an example?
And how do you explain that the second coming, clearly predicted as due to occur within the lifetime of that generation, did NOT occur. Pretty damning.

With all due respect you are repeating what you said but have not considered the serious objections to it. We are still back to imperfect creatures in an imperfect creation, so of course we get it wrong. So who is responsible?
You still talk of life as some sort of vale of soul making, to use Hicks’ phrase. But God does not need to make us through suffering. He is omnipotent he could just make us as he wishes, in whatever form would be most pleasing to him and us. He does not need to test us through suffering. He is omniscient. He knows what we would do. We do not need to learn anything in the school of hard knocks. God could simply ‘tell’ us. These questions cannot be ignored. If a good God can create Heaven then why hasn’t he?
So none of these are ‘reasons’ for suffering as none need to be there. They are not necessary. A loving God could create heaven and there an end. If he is loving he would do so. Something is very wrong with the equation.

If they are meant to bring people closer to God then why do they turn so many away? Is God so incompetent?

Above all, do you believe in a Hell? If so, would you send anyone there?

vortexman
Dangerous Mind
United States 14awards
Joined 25th Jan 2013
Forum Posts: 1260

yeah I agree had seen my neighbors dog looking over at my apt.  No one was outside and he continued to bark and bark and bark.  There was no noises like police cars or an ambulance down the road.  He just kept looking down there very interested in barking at a house with no one in front.  Or up the street.  Never did act like that till that day.

MadameLavender
Guardian of Shadows
United States 86awards
Joined 17th Feb 2013
Forum Posts: 5594

Ok, as stated before, original perfect creation, but the creation was allowed choice and free will to choose whether or not to remain as such or to go its own way, hence Satan chose to fall away and become the enemy.  If Satan hated God enough to want to cut himself off from him, then don't you think he'd like to take down as many of us as possible before his time is up?  Misery loves company...

The second coming did indeed not occur yet, and is yet to happen.  "Generation" in human terms is approximately 40 years, but remember that God has a different timetable and is not subject to our "rules";  a year to God may be like 400 to us, for example.  Original Hebrew is subject to many differences in translation based on who's translating it, the version of the Bible, etc.  King James version is probably the most literal translation, in my opinion, and since I'm again at work as I write this, I am unable to browse and nitpick through every prophecy in there.

If God simply "told us" everything and "made us everything" then again, I say, what's the point of being human and having an opinion, or a choice, likes, wants, needs, etc.?  Might as well be just a bunch of mannequin robots, preprogrammed by God.  We were created to fellowship with God, and in otherwords, put simply, He wanted some friends and people to spend time with.  If all your friends were automatons, programmed with your thinking and beliefs, then how boring would that be?  You'd be spending time with a bunch of clones of yourself.

Coming closer to God?  When life blindsides you, do you turn to loved ones and friends for support and help, or isolate and push them away?  You get more insight, and probably some solutions that never occured to you, if you draw near to those you count as "loved",  hence, if God created us for "friends", then why not turn toward instead of away?

Yes, I believe in a Hell, and it is not my place to be the judge as to who should and shouldn't be there--that's God's job.  There are people that we all hear about that we think probably deserve to be there, but ultimately, we do not know absolutely everything about them or their lives, or how God may be working with them at the time, so again, we are not to judge.  God doesn't always like everything we do, but he never stops loving all of us, even people like Hitler and Saddam Hussein, Mussolini, and every other person who's done something objectionable on whatever scale.  Love the sinner, hate the sin... Look at David Berkowitz, Son of Sam killer from the 70's:  he committed some pretty evil killings, but now even though he's a lifer in jail, he's turned his life around and runs a nationwide prison ministry.  Sometimes God has to literally allow you to be put in jail, to set you free.

Viddax
Lord Viddax
Guardian of Shadows
United Kingdom 31awards
Joined 10th Oct 2009
Forum Posts: 6672

Thought I would raise these points again as it is my wont. They are directed at you Harp, but in turn do not necessarily have to respond to your reply as I am a Tyrant and will do as my will is wont to. If that if illogical or churlish or selfish, there is nothing you can do to stop it.

"I am fascinated by human belief, especially irrational belief."
- So trying to bring some rationality to the irrational? Just like getting blood from a stone.

"I am a rationalist. I have always tried to base my conclusions on the evidence and the rational arguments. I may fail, in fact I must fail, but I can do no other."
- No, not quite. As you require evidence to base your conclusions and experience is often the cornerstone of evidence, you are slightly more an empiricist than a rationalist, as although you employ rationalisation in the argument it is ultimately at the call of the evidential and experience based conclusion.

"Finally, I do find monotheistic faith a concern. Its history demonstrates an innate tendency to intolerance and suppression. I believe in maximal free speech and free thought so individuals are free to believe in any God and act accordingly, within the constraints of not impinging on the freedoms of others. But I will do what little I can to encourage the growth of ‘free thought’ and scepticism."
- Intolerance cannot be met with intolerance and suppression of the first intolerance. There is a less stated freedom in all people of belief and of thought: they are free to think and believe what they want, regardless of whether it is true or right. Scepticism although indeed an incredibly good position for an argument or idea, in the wider construct of society it is not always useful. In terms of motivation, scepticism is not always useful: in the event of an underdog situation scpeticism points towards the pointlessness of resistance, so saying that will not motivate a team to try to win as it is evidently against them. Merely doubting is also not good enough, a counter plan or idea that is more likely to work is incredibly useful and logical. When you cannot go across, you do not give up: you go around.

"So irrational beliefs are no less worthwhile than rational ones? Believing in leprechauns, unicorns and ten foot tall angelic beings from the third planet orbiting Zeta Reticuli is on a par with believing that the world is a sphere, that pure water boils at 100oC at normal atmospheric pressure or that milk jugs exist? Really?"
- Yes. The value of untruth is as useful as truth. The previous example of motivation is a point for this: to defy the odds and try. Though it is not a case of employing utter ignorance and forever forsaking truth and evidence. It a case to a lesser of greater idea of employing the will and being an active being, rather than a passive one: of thereby shaping reality. By shaping reality, I mean changing reality and the world (as in reality, space, time, planets, everything) to result in an outcome not necessarily the most likely.
The value of an untruth also has intrinsic truth to an individual or set of individuals, on par or greater than that of truth's value as being the truth. It is not merely a case about there being a single set of truths that have a set amount value and will not change ever. All knowledge is applicable. The truth about water boiling at 100oC at normal atmospheric pressure is not as much value to a crippled person, as the untruth that the wound/damage is not as bad as it looks and they will walk again (but not necessarily with their now detached flesh legs, but with prosthetic legs) as the untruth has a higher chance of resulting in th person defying death and or logic and striving to survive and walk, than the water boiling truth.


I like to show the holes in other people's logic and words when they make a repeated show of clinging to logic. I do not cling to logic, I have a friendly relationship with it: its not wlays needed around.



In other news, next time you see an angel make them smile and laugh and the next time you see someoe or something you like do the same and make them smile and laugh.

Go to page:
Go to: