God hates little black kids

I’ll have to wait for the outcome of the story before drawing a final conclusion, but so far it appears that when “the meek inherit the Earth”, they do so as fertilizer.
 
Igopogo said:
I’ll have to wait for the outcome of the story before drawing a final conclusion, but so far it appears that when “the meek inherit the Earth”, they do so as fertilizer.
Click to expand...

The meek always win.
 
Graham said:

God, the ultimate clansman :rolleyes:

Graham
Click to expand...

As pointed out by our mad arab, that's klansman.

And then you've got clansmen, and of course clanners for all you BT enthusiasts out there (Theodore kurita? You out there?). Makes for lovely phrases like: "Bloody stupid clanners. Fetch me my MadCat."

I should say, go does appear to hate whales, pigeons, and thylacaines with a passion. Poor, poor thylacaines.

I suppose the point of this is that, in view of how the world actually operates, it's hard to posit any anthopamorphic deity whose moral codes are in line with ours without serious apologetic workarounds. Since much of what offends skeptics is the unquestioning positation (?) of an anthropamorphic deity who not only works in line (theroretically, see psalms 137:9) but is the origin of our moral values. This seems ireconcilable with the actual state of the world.
 
I agree that a God who appears to heal someone, or give someone a parking space when they want to go shopping, and yet appears to not give a damn about the plight of millions is a screwed up concept. But we are responsible for our own actions; civil war and famine are not unrelated, for instance, and are partly consequences of human action.
 
Mr Clingford said:
I agree that a God who appears to heal someone, or give someone a parking space when they want to go shopping, and yet appears to not give a damn about the plight of millions is a screwed up concept. But we are responsible for our own actions; civil war and famine are not unrelated, for instance, and are partly consequences of human action.
Click to expand...

Who's this "we"?

A toddler can barely be held responsible for his or her own actions.

You are holding the starving (and the ones with AIDS, malaria, TB, machete wounds, etc, etc, etc) children of Africa responsible for the actions of their parents, extended family, community, local government, national government and the many and various various international government, corporations and associations that have or had at some point and influence over the development of their society.

Last week my four year old out a penny down the back of the TV and it blew a fuse or something. I didn't punish her because she didn't know any better.

Do you believe that it is right to punish entire generations of equally innocent children for misdeeds that, not only are they too innoccent to understand but which that had absolutely nothing to do with anyway?

Graham
 
Please, won't somebody think of the children!

Do you just wish to rant or make some serious points?

Who's this "You"?

No, I am not holding children responsible for what i mentioned - famine and war.

And of course I believe that it is right to punish entire generations of equally innocent children for misdeeds that, not only are they too innoccent to understand but which that had absolutely nothing to do with anyway!! Not
 
Mr Clingford said:
Please, won't somebody think of the children!

Do you just wish to rant or make some serious points?

Who's this "You"?

No, I am not holding children responsible for what i mentioned - famine and war.

And of course I believe that it is right to punish entire generations of equally innocent children for misdeeds that, not only are they too innoccent to understand but which that had absolutely nothing to do with anyway!! Not
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, what exactly was your point then?

But we are responsible for our own actions; civil war and famine are not unrelated, for instance, and are partly consequences of human action.
Click to expand...

Now you're saying you don't think "we" are responsible?

Graham
 
Now you're saying you don't think "we" are responsible?
Click to expand...
I stated that we have responsibility but that circumstances like the weather affet our actions.

To answer your question
Hey all you loving Christians - what does God have against black people? Hey all you "Allah loves wonderous variety" types - why doesn't he love black people?
Click to expand...
Nothing. He does
 
Mr Clingford said:
I stated that we have responsibility but that circumstances like the weather affet our actions.
Click to expand...

Again with the "we". Wo is this "we"? Is it the people actually responsible for the actions in questions or those suffering from their effects? The two are not always the same.

Basically, as far as the starving children of Africa are concerned, a civil war is as much an "Act of God" as a hurricane. They can no more hope to affect the course of one than the other.


To answer your question
Nothing. He does
Click to expand...

All available evidence would tend to suggest otherwise. Can you honestly deny this?

Do you have any basis for your statement other than blind faith?

Graham
 
Again with the "we". Wo is this "we"? Is it the people actually responsible for the actions in questions or those suffering from their effects? The two are not always the same.
Click to expand...
OK. I mean it in the general sense that humans (with the usual exceptions like young children etc) are responsible on the whole for their actions. Obviously a 3 year old is not responsible for famine.
All available evidence would tend to suggest otherwise. Can you honestly deny this?Do you have any basis for your statement other than blind faith?
Click to expand...
Hmm, evidence. It depends on your premises. If your definition of "God loves" means that nothing bad happens in the world then of course all available evidence is against that assertion. If you think that the inter-relation between God and the world is more complicated then that evidence is not so obvious.
My 'answers' of course were facetious, like your 'questions'. I myself think that humans are responsible for much more than many Christians believe. I am not sure what practical difference it makes to our lives that I believe that God exists and loves us. My statements are based on rational thought, my own experiences, my own 'prejudices'; it is faith but I would contest the extent of its blindness.
 
Mr Clingford said:
OK. I mean it in the general sense that humans (with the usual exceptions like young children etc) are responsible on the whole for their actions. Obviously a 3 year old is not responsible for famine.
Click to expand...

I grant you that every individual human being is responsible for his or her actions. It would apprear that we are in agreement on this point.

I will even extend that to allow that human beings are to an extent responsible for the actions of those they associate with (be they family members, friends, political parties or whatever).

Where we differ is in the idea that an individual human being is responsible for the actions of other human beings wtih whom he/she has no connection and over whom he/she has no influence.

Do you believe that they are? Clearly, people in the world are suffering as a result of actions not their own and actions they could have done nothing to prevent (in many cases events which took place long before they were born).

Do you believe that they deserve this suffering because other human beings are at least partially responsible for them?

Do you not agree that this seems, at the very least, monstrously unfair?

Hmm, evidence. It depends on your premises. If your definition of "God loves" means that nothing bad happens in the world then of course all available evidence is against that assertion. If you think that the inter-relation between God and the world is more complicated then that evidence is not so obvious.
Click to expand...

What evidence is there for any inter-relaction between your God and the world?

Regardless, no definition of "love" that I am familiar with includes allowing the object of that love to suffer terrible cruely and pain when said cruelty and pain is within the lover's power to remove.

You can, of course, respond to that with "ours not to reason why . . ." etc but you will have to forgive me if I consider it selfish of your God to put his divine plan ahead of the suffering of his children.


My 'answers' of course were facetious, like your 'questions'. I myself think that humans are responsible for much more than many Christians believe. I am not sure what practical difference it makes to our lives that I believe that God exists and loves us. My statements are based on rational thought, my own experiences, my own 'prejudices'; it is faith but I would contest the extent of its blindness.
Click to expand...

The questions are not facetious, unless you find the world's suffering humorous in some way.

The world is filled with suffering, much of it through absolutely no fault of the victims.

Anyone who posits the existence of an all-powerful god, must allow that said god has the power to remove that suffering and yet doesn't. They must therefore insist that he has some plan that necessitates this suffering or at least permits it to continue.

By worshipping that god, you are subscribing to a plan that you do not understand and cannot see then object of.

That sounds like blind faith to me. No?

Graham
 
Dancing David said:
I used to have friends who defined god as everything good in human natures, certainly not all powerful , eh?
Click to expand...

Hi David,

Why use the word "God" to describe that?

It is entirely contrary to the standard use and dictionary definition of the word.

Why noy use a different word, since it's something different that you're talking about. By co-opting an existing word you are promoting confusion, IMO.

Graham

PS _ it occurs to me that the phrase "football is my god" might be what you are intending by your use of the word, meaning - football is something that I worship a as though it were a god or, in your case, the "good" in humanity is something you worship as though it were a god.

Is that right? I still think it's misleading, if so, but I can understand the sentiment.
 
Where we differ is in the idea that an individual human being is responsible for the actions of other human beings wtih whom he/she has no connection and over whom he/she has no influence.
Click to expand...
But I had just written "Obviously a 3 year old is not responsible for famine" so why did you post the above?
The questions are not facetious, unless you find the world's suffering humorous in some way
Click to expand...
You did ask whether God was a clansman!
The world is filled with suffering, much of it through absolutely no fault of the victims
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree.
I need to check. The issue of suffering is, indeed, a major issue, perhaps the major issue contending the existence of God. Free will does, I think, go some way in providing a possible reason for lots of stuff happening
What evidence is there for any inter-relaction between your God and the world?
Click to expand...
None
Surely you are familiar with the old arguments of free will and don't need to rehash them?
 
Mr Clingford said:

But I had just written "Obviously a 3 year old is not responsible for famine" so why did you post the above?

You did ask whether God was a clansman!

I absolutely agree.
I need to check. The issue of suffering is, indeed, a major issue, perhaps the major issue contending the existence of God. Free will does, I think, go some way in providing a possible reason for lots of stuff happening
None
Surely you are familiar with the old arguments of free will and don't need to rehash them?
Click to expand...

I think you are missing my point . . .

The vast majority of the victims of world suffering are not authors of their own misfortune i.e. they can in no way be said to have caused or be responsible for or have any ability to prevent the misfortunes that are affecting them.

Their free will or lack thereof is therefore of absolutely no relevence to the question - it is, as they say, a red herring.

Graham
 
Mr Clingford said:





I absolutely agree.
I need to check. The issue of suffering is, indeed, a major issue, perhaps the major issue contending the existence of God. Free will does, I think, go some way in providing a possible reason for lots of stuff happening

None
Surely you are familiar with the old arguments of free will and don't need to rehash them?
Click to expand...

Greetings Mr Clingford.

I hope you are well and happy.
I ask with respect as to your or the Christian belief or view of free will may I ask you to respond with your beliefs/thoughts as to my post to T'ai Chi concerning this topic?

Which can be found just 19 post back.

I look forward to your thoughts.
Be well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom