Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think ppl are giving you the explanation their God gave them in their holy book, which they trust and have faith in. I don't think they're making stuff up on their own. They trust in God's plan.

Then lets see the actual scripture from said holy book rather than ad libbing.

Scripture! there's another problem. Not only do people rely on different scripture, but even when reading the same scripture, people interpret it differently.

Then there's the question of where did the scripture come from. As we learn more about scripture, we know that it was written by people with different agendas at different times in history. It's what people are saying about God; not what God is saying.

Anonymous wrote:I think ppl are giving you the explanation their God gave them in their holy book, which they trust and have faith in. I don't think they're making stuff up on their own. They trust in God's plan.

Then lets see the actual scripture from said holy book rather than ad libbing.

Anonymous wrote:I am not that pp, but that posters view is the common view among people of faith. PP does not know. She trusts. That trust is based on faith. If you are an atheist, you would not agree or understand, which is why you keep questioning people about their trust in God. You are trying to rely on logic. Faith is built on trust. They just don't mix here.

But people seem to know different things about God -- not at all consistent. It don't sound like faith and trust -- sounds more like hope and imagination. Like God is a character in play that individual people are writing.

Sure there is religious dogma that spells out what God is, but there is not just one dogma, so it seems like there is not one God. Plus, even within the same religion, people can have their own image of God. How can you trust or believe in something that is so changeable?

As for why they offer you explanations, the op asked about Ebola. So pp's are answering according to what their faith says. Thats not an indication of weak faith.

I think ppl are giving you the explanation their God gave them in their holy book, which they trust and have faith in. I don't think they're making stuff up on their own. They trust in God's plan.

Anonymous wrote:I am not that pp, but that posters view is the common view among people of faith. PP does not know. She trusts. That trust is based on faith. If you are an atheist, you would not agree or understand, which is why you keep questioning people about their trust in God. You are trying to rely on logic. Faith is built on trust. They just don't mix here.

Then why do they give any type of explanation. If it was merely trust, that's all they need to say. The very act of them trying to give an explanation indicates they do not blindly trust.

I am not that pp, but that posters view is the common view among people of faith. PP does not know. She trusts. That trust is based on faith. If you are an atheist, you would not agree or understand, which is why you keep questioning people about their trust in God. You are trying to rely on logic. Faith is built on trust. They just don't mix here.

Anonymous wrote:I think part of the problem is that the more traditional churches have a very myopic, human view of "God". I think God is literally everything. I see God in you, in me, in nature....literally in everything. God just is. He is the loving Source of all. The creative consciousness which we are all a part of.

In this universes, light cannot exist without darkness. Pain cannot exist without pleasure. You cannot know love without knowing hatred. You cannot feel compassion without having felt hurt. Health cannot exist without illness. There is no joy without sorrow. Evil cannot exist without good.

God doesn't want us to be hurt or sad or sick. God is just being God. We cannot learn to love, to show compassion, to grow spiritually without experiencing discomfort. We live in a dualistic, balanced universe. Our very purpose for being is to learn to be more like God so that we become even more a part of that God Consciousness.

Sounds like a cop-out. God can't help himself -- that's just the way he is. How would you know that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that God must be all flowers and gum drops is a very childish one. At least to me. How else can people be tested if not through trial and tribulations? Challenges in life sometimes mold us to become stronger individuals with better character. This is the purpose of life. To learn about ourselves and about love.

I agree with this. I've never understood the concept of a completely benevolent and merciful God. Not saying that I'm an atheist, but I agree it's infantile to believe in a totally "good" God. It makes much more sense that God has a dangerous, tumultuous, aggressive side - particularly if you believe in a God that is omnipotent and omniscient. The "Devil" has always seemed like a concept that's an excuse - for not wanting to accept that God that had a "bad" side (which God has to have, to create a Devil in the first place), or maybe misplacing human responsibility.

I also agree with the first PP, but in a slightly different way. I've never understood the argument that God should have created legions of robots. By robots, I mean perfect people who always do His bidding by behaving perfectly in their perfect lives.

Trials and tribulations are what make us human. Failures, trials, and learning from these are what cause us to grow as human beings. I don't agree with the PP who said that you can grow as a person by reading books; I think people learn mostly by experience, at least for non-academic things like behavior and character. Maybe some day we'll reach the point where we implant "character" chips in toddlers' brains, but I personally think that would make us less human.

FWIW, I think the devil takes the form of our own bad impulses, not some guy with horns and a pitchfork. Also, the hypothetical dead baby other posters keep talking about is, in the Christian version, now in a better place where suffering has ended.

(For the PP above, God didn't "create" the devil in the traditional telling, at least the Paradise Lost-type version. The devil was a fallen angel who used his free will to try to seize some of God's power for himself.)

Either God knowingly created the Devil, or isn't omniscient/all-knowing. God cannot be both.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that God must be all flowers and gum drops is a very childish one. At least to me. How else can people be tested if not through trial and tribulations? Challenges in life sometimes mold us to become stronger individuals with better character. This is the purpose of life. To learn about ourselves and about love.

I agree with this. I've never understood the concept of a completely benevolent and merciful God. Not saying that I'm an atheist, but I agree it's infantile to believe in a totally "good" God. It makes much more sense that God has a dangerous, tumultuous, aggressive side - particularly if you believe in a God that is omnipotent and omniscient. The "Devil" has always seemed like a concept that's an excuse - for not wanting to accept that God that had a "bad" side (which God has to have, to create a Devil in the first place), or maybe misplacing human responsibility.

This begs the question then of how does God decide who to test? Why does he test some more harshly than others? And how does he test those without the mental capacity to be tested?

I trust that God trusts according to what each person can handle.

I think part of the problem is that the more traditional churches have a very myopic, human view of "God". I think God is literally everything. I see God in you, in me, in nature....literally in everything. God just is. He is the loving Source of all. The creative consciousness which we are all a part of.

In this universes, light cannot exist without darkness. Pain cannot exist without pleasure. You cannot know love without knowing hatred. You cannot feel compassion without having felt hurt. Health cannot exist without illness. There is no joy without sorrow. Evil cannot exist without good.

God doesn't want us to be hurt or sad or sick. God is just being God. We cannot learn to love, to show compassion, to grow spiritually without experiencing discomfort. We live in a dualistic, balanced universe. Our very purpose for being is to learn to be more like God so that we become even more a part of that God Consciousness.

I may be wrong, in which case believers may correct me and say that God has a different purpose with all of life's challenges.

Sounds like the same person agreeing with themselves, lol

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that God must be all flowers and gum drops is a very childish one. At least to me. How else can people be tested if not through trial and tribulations? Challenges in life sometimes mold us to become stronger individuals with better character. This is the purpose of life. To learn about ourselves and about love.

I agree with this. I've never understood the concept of a completely benevolent and merciful God. Not saying that I'm an atheist, but I agree it's infantile to believe in a totally "good" God. It makes much more sense that God has a dangerous, tumultuous, aggressive side - particularly if you believe in a God that is omnipotent and omniscient. The "Devil" has always seemed like a concept that's an excuse - for not wanting to accept that God that had a "bad" side (which God has to have, to create a Devil in the first place), or maybe misplacing human responsibility.

I also agree with the first PP, but in a slightly different way. I've never understood the argument that God should have created legions of robots. By robots, I mean perfect people who always do His bidding by behaving perfectly in their perfect lives.

Trials and tribulations are what make us human. Failures, trials, and learning from these are what cause us to grow as human beings. I don't agree with the PP who said that you can grow as a person by reading books; I think people learn mostly by experience, at least for non-academic things like behavior and character. Maybe some day we'll reach the point where we implant "character" chips in toddlers' brains, but I personally think that would make us less human.

FWIW, I think the devil takes the form of our own bad impulses, not some guy with horns and a pitchfork. Also, the hypothetical dead baby other posters keep talking about is, in the Christian version, now in a better place where suffering has ended.

(For the PP above, God didn't "create" the devil in the traditional telling, at least the Paradise Lost-type version. The devil was a fallen angel who used his free will to try to seize some of God's power for himself.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that God must be all flowers and gum drops is a very childish one. At least to me. How else can people be tested if not through trial and tribulations? Challenges in life sometimes mold us to become stronger individuals with better character. This is the purpose of life. To learn about ourselves and about love.

I agree with this. I've never understood the concept of a completely benevolent and merciful God. Not saying that I'm an atheist, but I agree it's infantile to believe in a totally "good" God. It makes much more sense that God has a dangerous, tumultuous, aggressive side - particularly if you believe in a God that is omnipotent and omniscient. The "Devil" has always seemed like a concept that's an excuse - for not wanting to accept that God that had a "bad" side (which God has to have, to create a Devil in the first place), or maybe misplacing human responsibility.

This begs the question then of how does God decide who to test? Why does he test some more harshly than others? And how does he test those without the mental capacity to be tested?