LDS

Status
Not open for further replies.
rcronk said:
Perhaps God doesn't feed the hungry because He commanded us to do it. I believe He doesn't do for us what we can and should learn to do for ourselves (i.e. feed the hungry, etc.). I believe He wants us to learn and progress toward selflessness. Is that an acceptable alternative to the false dichotomy presented here?
Click to expand...

And in the meantime, innocent children like the one pictured above live short, miserable lives of unmitigated pain while your god sits aside and does nothing. Why you would worship a sick creature like that escapes me.
 
Empress said:
And in the meantime, innocent children like the one pictured above live short, miserable lives of unmitigated pain while your god sits aside and does nothing. Why you would worship a sick creature like that escapes me.
Click to expand...

Why don't you or I feed that child? I think you missed the entire point of my post. That child is starving because of selfishness and corruption of people. You and I can feed that child. So why don't we? Because we're selfish. I believe that our purpose here is to progress into better people and if God fed that child instead of us feeding the child, He'd be treating the symptom (hunger) instead of the cause (selfishness).
 
rcronk said:
Perhaps God doesn't feed the hungry because He commanded us to do it. I believe He doesn't do for us what we can and should learn to do for ourselves (i.e. feed the hungry, etc.). I believe He wants us to learn and progress toward selflessness. Is that an acceptable alternative to the false dichotomy presented here?
Click to expand...

You believe your gunderscored doesn't give a damn. OK good for you believing in a god who says "I could fix it, but starve and die, because I just don't care"
 
abaddon said:
You believe your gunderscored doesn't give a damn. OK good for you believing in a god who says "I could fix it, but starve and die, because I just don't care"
Click to expand...

I think you completely missed the point of my post as well.

I was hoping to have a logical conversation here but it seems at least two of you are frothing at the mouth with God anger to the point that you can't see straight. Please re-read my post and reply with logic as if you're trying to understand a different point of view.
 
rcronk said:
It doesn't take magical powers. It takes money, time, and effort.
Click to expand...
Yet despite millions of people's best efforts, children still starve.

I suppose God lets children die of cancer because we're suppose to find the cure ourselves. We're making progress on that one, but in the meantime children still suffer.

And God lets a quarter of a million die in a tsunami because we're supposed to work out how to control the geological forces of our planet ourselves. That one could take a while.
 
rcronk said:
Perhaps God doesn't feed the hungry because He commanded us to do it. I believe He doesn't do for us what we can and should learn to do for ourselves (i.e. feed the hungry, etc.). I believe He wants us to learn and progress toward selflessness. Is that an acceptable alternative to the false dichotomy presented here?
Click to expand...

Question: Is God omnipotent and omniscient? If not, why call Him God? If He is, He knows in excruciating detail exactly how much every single person will suffer, through hunger, disease and natural disaster, because of this bizarre and quixotic desire. And it also makes Him the ultimate utilitarian.

We don't kidnap healthy people to harvest their organs, even if it would save many lives. We'd be horrified at the thought of torturing billions of people to death to achieve our goals, no matter how awesome. But that's the choice God has apparently made. Which I suppose is easier to rationalise if you're not one of the ones who are being tortured.

There's also the question of how heaven works if being left to put up with it and do it for ourselves is better than just being protected and made better.
 
Last edited:
rcronk said:
I think you completely missed the point of my post as well.

I was hoping to have a logical conversation here but it seems at least two of you are frothing at the mouth with God anger to the point that you can't see straight. Please re-read my post and reply with logic as if you're trying to understand a different point of view.
Click to expand...

You have definitely missed the point of what is being said.

What you are calling "god anger" is actually disgust at the people who use god excuses. You might not be aware that atheists don't believe any gods exist because there has never been any evidence for their existence.
 
rcronk said:
It doesn't take magical powers. It takes money, time, and effort.
Click to expand...

Correct, magical powers don't exist. I donate all three as do millions of other people and it's never enough. Couldn't your god excuse snap its fingers and save all hungry children from suffering? Could it regrow an amputated limb?
 
rcronk said:
It doesn't take magical powers. It takes money, time, and effort.
Click to expand...

Why are so many megachurch pastors rolling in dough that they SHOULD be using to feed the hungry?

Following your line of thinking, the continued existence of starving and hungry people means the current church leaders are frauds in need of immediate replacement, con artists who deserve incarceration, not men of God deserving attention.

Any pastor with a $100,000 car should be fired, preferably from a cannon.
 
rcronk said:
I think you completely missed the point of my post as well.

I was hoping to have a logical conversation here but it seems at least two of you are frothing at the mouth with God anger to the point that you can't see straight. Please re-read my post and reply with logic as if you're trying to understand a different point of view.
Click to expand...

As RoboTimbo said, the anger is at people who make up a god fantasy and then expect others to not only believe it, but think such a god is good.

If you want logic, the problem is claiming that God is a perfected person, while also claiming that he does things which real people would find abhorrent to do.

One could argue that we're no more than mice to God, so the cruel things we do to mice, in order to gain knowledge or better the lives of humans, are similar to how God treats us, because our lives are less valuable to him, just as mice are less valuable to us than humans. Mice could pray all day to us to be allowed to live, and we'd still kill them off when they got in our homes and spoiled our food.

But that's not the LDS view of God. He's supposed to be loving, kind, care about us like a parent, and, in particular, he's supposed to be a perfected human, like we're aspiring to be.

The parallel to a parent letting his children fail, in order to learn lessons, falls apart, when the lessons are so brutal. Parents don't let their children starve to death or get cancer just to teach them a lesson.

It would require a massive personality change, for average humans to be able to watch their children endure that much suffering and not interfere--a personality change for the worse, not for the better. There's no logic in saying that a cruel, compassionless God, is a perfected human.
 
Pup said:
The parallel to a parent letting his children fail, in order to learn lessons, falls apart, when the lessons are so brutal. Parents don't let their children starve to death or get cancer just to teach them a lesson.

It would require a massive personality change, for average humans to be able to watch their children endure that much suffering and not interfere--a personality change for the worse, not for the better. There's no logic in saying that a cruel, compassionless God, is a perfected human.
Click to expand...

This means Rush Limbaugh is too kind to meet God's criteria, because his progeny is not neglected.

The most vile dictator who lifts even a hand to aid his own offspring is too soft-centered, too much of a milquetoast to be worthy of Godhood by LDS standards.
 
rcronk said:
Why don't you or I feed that child? I think you missed the entire point of my post. That child is starving because of selfishness and corruption of people. You and I can feed that child. So why don't we? Because we're selfish. I believe that our purpose here is to progress into better people and if God fed that child instead of us feeding the child, He'd be treating the symptom (hunger) instead of the cause (selfishness).
Click to expand...

No, I got what you were saying. However, you missed the point of my post, although the fault is probably mine.

What I was pointing out was that while your god waits for us mere mortals to get off our collective ass and takes care of little ones like the baby in the picture, he sits back and shakes his head and does nothing. Humans aren't perfect, nor do we have magical powers or magic wands to clean up all the world problems. So we have to muddle through the best we can. We've made great strides. In most 1st-world countries, slavery is opposed, women have rights, children have protections against abuse. This is a giant leap forward from the way things were when the Bible was written. So we're proceeding, though slowly. Too slowly for children like the one RandFan showed us.

Your god is omni-everything, yet does nothing and then you claim he judges us for not doing what he could do with zero effort. Why doesn't your god feed that child, when it becomes clear that we will not? Why allow an innocent to suffer needlessly when you have the power to stop it? I still don't understand why you see this creature as good, let alone loving. If your god existed, I would consider it my moral duty to oppose him in every way possible.
 
Empress said:
Your god is omni-everything, yet does nothing and then you claim he judges us for not doing what he could do with zero effort. Why doesn't your god feed that child, when it becomes clear that we will not? Why allow an innocent to suffer needlessly when you have the power to stop it? I still don't understand why you see this creature as good, let alone loving. If your god existed, I would consider it my moral duty to oppose him in every way possible.
Click to expand...

It's very simple. God is a God of absentee fathers.
 
Empress said:
No, I got what you were saying. However, you missed the point of my post, although the fault is probably mine.

What I was pointing out was that while your god waits for us mere mortals to get off our collective ass and takes care of little ones like the baby in the picture, he sits back and shakes his head and does nothing. Humans aren't perfect, nor do we have magical powers or magic wands to clean up all the world problems. So we have to muddle through the best we can. We've made great strides. In most 1st-world countries, slavery is opposed, women have rights, children have protections against abuse. This is a giant leap forward from the way things were when the Bible was written. So we're proceeding, though slowly. Too slowly for children like the one RandFan showed us.

Your god is omni-everything, yet does nothing and then you claim he judges us for not doing what he could do with zero effort. Why doesn't your god feed that child, when it becomes clear that we will not? Why allow an innocent to suffer needlessly when you have the power to stop it? I still don't understand why you see this creature as good, let alone loving. If your god existed, I would consider it my moral duty to oppose him in every way possible.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't that make him omni-omne?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom