What was god doing during the Rwandan genocide?

tim_holsters

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's rather off the point, but seems as you asked...

Thanks Fanny.

I believe that's the son of God but it will do for me .

philologos

0verblood wrote: »

It's wrong because if everybody killed everybody else there would be nobody left.

So we base our morality on principles of survival? - Are you sure that this is such a good basis? Our need to survive can be at the detriment of the survival of others. It also precludes self-sacrifice, such as in the case of Christ for all mankind.

ISAW

Jakkass wrote: »

So we base our morality on principles of survival? - Are you sure that this is such a good basis? Our need to survive can be at the detriment of the survival of others. It also precludes self-sacrifice, such as in the case of Christ for all mankind.

I thought Maslow would have a problem with that!

ISAW

0verblood wrote: »

It's wrong because if everybody killed everybody else there would be nobody left.

You realise the question you are answering basically is "why is genocide wrong?"

see where moral relativism leads?

philologos

0verblood wrote: »

It's wrong because if everybody killed everybody else there would be nobody left.

Another thought.

OK - So if Tom only kills about 10 people on a Sunday after lunch, this is sustainable. The world will still have people in it. Indeed, if 10 people were born into this community every week it would balance out?

This answer as a result is inadequate to explain why it is wrong.

Gingganggooley

0verblood wrote: »

Almost a million people were hacked to death in 100days. I was recently in Rwanda, it's a beautiful country, but the same question repeated itself to me over and over: What was a loving and caring god doing during this crisis? I am an atheist but this is not an attempt at trolling.

God has not forsaken this world but this world has rejected Him.

He will not be held accountable for His actions or inactivity. Although, even if He was, He alone would be found righteous.

The same cannot be said about us.

chainsaws

1. God exists.
2. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
3. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
4. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
5. An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
6. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
7. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.
8. Evil exists (logical contradiction).

Fanny Cradock

Thanks for copying and pasting from Wikipedia.

philologos

Indeed, it's an argument from the philosophy of religion. Commonly referred to as the "evidential" argument, or the "noseeum" argument. Basically, the world makes evident that God doesn't exist by the presence of evil.

The problems start at number 3. There is no reason why God couldn't allow us to do evil in the same way that a parent when watching their child do something for the first time wouldn't intervene all the way to give them a helping hand, but would allow them to do it for themselves. For example when a child is about to walk for the first time, the parent won't move their legs along for them just to ensure that they won't fall, as this wouldn't be the child walking.

In the same way as I would see it God realises that humanity has to make and learn from its own mistakes.

6 and 7 serve as a continuation of this fallacy.

If there is some reason, just some why God would potentially allow evil the entire argument crumbles. The presence of evil is not an adequate reason to dismiss God's existence.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

If it is wrong, is it universally wrong, or only subjectively wrong (It's OK for Tom, but not for me)?

Something can be considered absolutely wrong and still be a subjective opinion.

I think rape is absolutely wrong. No one anywhere should rape anyone. That is my subjective opinion, but it doesn't mean I have to respect someone else who says they disagree. If Tom thinks raping people is fine I don't have to say it is OK for Tom to rape people.

It is a straw man to imply that unless something is considered objectively wrong we cannot say it is absolutely wrong. That in itself is a moral position that has to be justified (eg it is immoral to not respect the different moral opinions of others)

ISAW

chainsaws wrote: »

1. Evil exists (logical contradiction).

Natural evil theodicy and the epicurian fallacy have been discussed elsewhere and are off topic.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055995896&page=5

and earlier in this thread:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68580169&postcount=10

Please don't cut and paste wikipedia when the argument you advanced appears not to have been researched or understood by you and is so open to demolition.

0verblood

So basically it's pointless to pray to god fro assistance?

optogirl

Seaneh wrote: »

To quote a Christian musician and Pastor, Lecrae Moore.

"Some people say that God ain't real 'cause they don't see how a good God can exist with all this evil in the world. If God is real then He should stop all this evil, 'cause He's all-powerful right? What is evil though man? It's anything that's against God. It's anything morally bad or wrong. It's murder, rape, stealing, lying, cheating. But if we want God to stop evil, do we want Him to stop it all or just a little bit of it? If He stops us from doing evil things, what about lying, or what about our evil thoughts? I mean, where do you stop, the murder level, the lying level, or the thinking level? If we want Him to stop evil, we gotta be consistent, we can't just pick and choose. That means you and I would be eliminated right? Because we think evil stuff. If that's true, we should be eliminated! But thanks be to God that Jesus stepped in to save us from our sin! Christ died for all evilness!"

Makes little or no sense man - thansk be to God that Jesus stepped in to save us from our sin???? Why do we still sin?

optogirl

Wicknight wrote: »

Weeping at the evil of man?

Then make better ones

Fanny Cradock

gbee wrote: »

It was obviously his will, he loves to make men think up creative ways to kill millions of people.

I guess he was disappointed with Hitler's flamboyant attempts so tried something far more basic and satisfying.

He is partial to blood sacrifices, so it's a win win situation. The victims get into his kingdom because they are victims the slaughters get into his kingdom because they offered a spectacular blood sacrifice.

Yellow card for you.

Fanny Cradock

0verblood wrote: »

So basically it's pointless to pray to god fro assistance?

You do realise that prayer is central to Judaism and Christianity? I wonder when typing your question did you not realise this.

Seaneh

optogirl wrote: »

Makes little or no sense man - thansk be to God that Jesus stepped in to save us from our sin???? Why do we still sin?

You do understand the basics of Christian theology don't you?

Fanny Cradock

optogirl wrote: »

Makes little or no sense man - thansk be to God that Jesus stepped in to save us from our sin???? Why do we still sin?

If it doesn't makes sense then perhaps that is due to your lack of understanding. In a talk entitled Why Does Jesus' Resurrection Matter? Considering Its Relevance for Today, Tom Wright gives a broad answer your question.

Part One
Part Two (Q & A)

optogirl

Seaneh wrote: »

You do understand the basics of Christian theology don't you?

No I don't - it seems to pick and choose whatever parts of the bible (which is a questionable resource in itself) it feels fits a particular argument and apply them to it's brand of god in whatever manner it pleases.

I don't understand space propulsion either but I don't really have to seeing as it has no bearing on my life.

The argument that Jesus saved us by dying on a cross has never sat well with me, even when I did believe. What use was that actually?

Fanny Cradock

optogirl wrote: »

No I don't - it seems to pick and choose whatever parts of the bible (which is a questionable resource in itself) it feels fits a particular argument and apply them to it's brand of god in whatever manner it pleases.

I don't understand space propulsion either but I don't really have to seeing as it has no bearing on my life.

The argument that Jesus saved us by dying on a cross has never sat well with me, even when I did believe. What use was that actually?

I wonder what exactly it was you believed when you admit that you didn't and still don't understand the central doctrine of Christianity? If you are interested in hearing a detailed answer to your question then perhaps the links previously provided will enlighten you.

lmaopml

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If it doesn't makes sense then perhaps that is due to your lack of understanding. In a talk entitled Why Does Jesus' Resurrection Matter? Considering Its Relevance for Today, Tom Wright gives a broad answer your question.

Part One
Part Two (Q & A)

I would highly recommend those talks too optogirl. They are most informative if you feel the need to comment and want to inform yourself first.

Actually, as a side note - it never fails to surprise me the lack of 'thought' that goes into rejecting ones faith sometimes...Like 'giving up Santa..' or something. It takes all of two seconds to identify someone who is arguing a total strawman sometimes - and the sad part is, that they themselves don't know it.

ISAW

0verblood wrote: »

So basically it's pointless to pray to god fro assistance?

so basically you are trolling or and you didn't actually read the answer given to your earlier?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68591036&postcount=16

ISAW

optogirl wrote: »

No I don't - it seems to pick and choose whatever parts of the bible (which is a questionable resource in itself) it feels fits a particular argument and apply them to it's brand of god in whatever manner it pleases.

I don't understand space propulsion either but I don't really have to seeing as it has no bearing on my life.

The argument that Jesus saved us by dying on a cross has never sat well with me, even when I did believe. What use was that actually?

please> woulf dyou go to a science forum and ask "is it really true that if you run fast enough you could fit a thirty foot ladder into a twenty foot garage?"

jobee

Seaneh wrote: »

To quote a Christian musician and Pastor, Lecrae Moore.

"Some people say that God ain't real 'cause they don't see how a good God can exist with all this evil in the world. If God is real then He should stop all this evil, 'cause He's all-powerful right? What is evil though man? It's anything that's against God. It's anything morally bad or wrong. It's murder, rape, stealing, lying, cheating. But if we want God to stop evil, do we want Him to stop it all or just a little bit of it? If He stops us from doing evil things, what about lying, or what about our evil thoughts? I mean, where do you stop, the murder level, the lying level, or the thinking level? If we want Him to stop evil, we gotta be consistent, we can't just pick and choose. That means you and I would be eliminated right? Because we think evil stuff. If that's true, we should be eliminated! But thanks be to God that Jesus stepped in to save us from our sin! Christ died for all evilness!
"

Im an atheist and am not trolling. JC wont save us from elimination. Eventually this planet will die. The next 'possible' habitable planet could in the Alpha Centura/Proxima star system, this is 73,000 'years' away at current speeds,146,000 years return journey. We humans cannot travel at
C- equals 'speed of light in a vacuum' and never will, we cannot take the G forces. Its a long way off but it will happen. Question, what 'caring' God
would leave us in that situation?

Fanny Cradock

jobee wrote: »

Im an atheist and am not trolling. JC wont save us from elimination. Eventually this planet will die. The next 'possible' habitable planet could in the Alpha Centura/Proxima star system, this is 73,000 'years' away at current speeds,146,000 years return journey. We humans cannot travel at
C- equals 'speed of light in a vacuum' and never will, we cannot take the G forces. Its a long way off but it will happen. Question, what 'caring' God
would leave us in that situation?

What is the point in signing off on a question when you have already rejected any possible answer Christians might give? In the face of any answer you have basically said, "Let me begin by saying that I a priori reject whatever it is you are about to say. So what is your answer?" - which amounts to nothing more than a silly and utterly pointless line of enquiry.

Yes, Earth will eventually die and later the all stars will consume their fuel and twinkle no more. And the universe will be cold and it will be dark and it will be lifeless and it will stay that way. It seems like an inescapable fate. But Christianity doesn't dwell on your question because we believe that God isn't going to leave us in "that situation". In other words, one doesn't have to be a believer to understand that these things aren't of concern to Christianity. That the Milky Way may eventually be devoured by Andromeda or that the universe is winding down to a heat-death whimper are no doubt fascinating and sobering observations. But of what relevance to Christianity are these outcomes?

I don't see that the problem of existence and eventual non-existence (finitude, in other words) lying at the feet of Christian beliefs. Rather, you are projecting your own bleak outlook onto Christianity and asking us to explain what it is all about. Perhaps you need to read up on the finer points of Christian eschatology.

That Man is the product of causes which had not prevision of the end they were achieving; are but the outcome of accidental collocation of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the age, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins -- all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand.

jobee

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What is the point in signing off on a question when you have already rejected any possible answer Christians might give? In the face of any answer you have basically said, "Let me begin by saying that I a priori reject whatever it is you are about to say. So what is your answer?" - which amounts to nothing more than a silly and utterly pointless line of enquiry.

Yes, Earth will eventually die and later the all stars will consume their fuel and twinkle no more. And the universe will be cold and it will be dark and it will be lifeless and it will stay that way. It seems like an inescapable fate. But Christianity doesn't dwell on your question because we believe that God isn't going to leave us in "that situation". In other words, one doesn't have to be a believer to understand that these things aren't of concern to Christianity. That the Milky Way may eventually be devoured by Andromeda or that the universe is winding down to a heat-death whimper are no doubt fascinating and sobering observations. But of what relevance to Christianity are these outcomes?

I don't see that the problem of existence and eventual non-existence (finitude, in other words) lying at the feet of Christian beliefs. Rather, you are projecting your own bleak outlook onto Christianity and asking us to explain what it is all about. Perhaps you need to read up on the finer points of Christian eschatology.

I am stating astro physical fact. What is the point of talking about
the 'eternal' spirit life of humans on this planet, when eventually it will not pruduce any life at all. I am not against Christianity, I dislike 'organised'
Christianity. It has so many sub divisions it became socially divisive.

What people do in the privacy of their homes is their business[within reason] and prayer and worship is within reason.

I repeat, I am not anti Christian. thank you for listening.

Fanny Cradock

jobee wrote: »

I am stating astro physical fact. What is the point of talking about
the 'eternal' spirit life of humans on this planet, when eventually it will not pruduce any life at all. I am not against Christianity, I dislike 'organised'
Christianity. It has so many sub divisions it became socially divisive.

What people do in the privacy of their homes is their business[within reason] and prayer and worship is within reason.

I repeat, I am not anti Christian. thank you for listening.

I'm not disagreeing with your astrophysical facts. I've not claimed in this thread that you are anti-Christian - though reading your "socially divisive" line and some of your other posts makes me wonder if you aren't just fooling yourself.

Are you actually bothered in hearing an answer to your question? Or are you going to keep on repeating variations of it? Because if we are talking about Christian eschatological beliefs then it doesn't matter if life on this planet is doomed. Christians have believed from the outset in the promise of a new heavens and a new earth - which is another way of saying creation restored and remade. Part of your difficulty is that you clearly don't understand what orthodox Christianity teaches.

jobee

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with your astrophysical facts. I've not claimed in this thread that you are anti-Christian - though reading your "socially divisive" line and some of your other posts makes me wonder if you aren't just fooling yourself.

Are you actually bothered in hearing an answer to your question? Or are you going to keep on repeating variations of it? Because if we are talking about Christian eschatological beliefs then it doesn't matter if life on this planet is doomed. Christians have believed from the outset in the promise of a new heavens and a new earth - which is another way of saying creation restored and remade. Part of your difficulty is that you clearly don't understand what orthodox Christianity teaches.

Where did they get this astonishing information from, what instruments did they use?

Fanny Cradock

jobee wrote: »

Where did they get this astonishing information from, what instuments did they use?

Good man, Jobee. I see you are here for an open, honest and respectful debate.

OK, so suppose I say that they received their belief through revelation - meaning that God imparted this knowledge through means unknown to me. To which you will probably reply, "That's not good enough because I don't believe in God". All of this is neither here nor there.

The question you have raised has by default already been answered long before we had any idea that Proxima Centauri existed. While the Jews thought that the universe had gone to hell in a hand basket they also believed that God had promised to do something about it - to put the world to rights. Likewise the early Christians believed the same thing only they thought that the death and resurrection of Jesus was the fulfilment of that promise. The early Christians say the resurrection as the inauguration of new creation - the moment in time and space when a broken world was put back on track. So your sneering question is as meaningless and disingenuous as it is off-topic and unwelcome.

Fanny Cradock

P.S. please stop posting the same post after it has been deleted. You are walking a fine line, Jobee.

jobee

[snip]

banned for a month for trolling. Next time will be permanent.
PDN

ISAW

jobee wrote: »

Im an atheist

I believe you

and am not trolling.

I don't believe that

JC wont save us from elimination.

that is your off topic unsupported opinion

Eventually this planet will die.

so you are a kook who believes in the Gaia hypothesis of a living planet? LOL

The next 'possible' habitable planet could in the Alpha Centura/Proxima star system,

A or B ? You are aware that system is binary and the implication for orbiting planets?
Don't you mean Proxima centuari?
And you are aware that other stars may come closer to is than it now is?

this is 73,000 'years' away at current speeds,

Of probes construsted in the 1970s for interplanetary solar System exploration. I figure we cout cut it down by a factor of 100 making it 1,000 years away. the sun will last for about 4,500 million more years by the way.

146,000 years return journey.

Why return? I thought the idea was getting there with the earth gone!

We humans cannot travel at
C- equals 'speed of light in a vacuum' and never will,

wrong we could travel at very near to c. But even at less than a half of one per cent of c we would reach Proxima Centauri in about 800 years.

we cannot take the G forces.

Wrong! We can take 7 or 8 G for short times but can sustain 1G throughour our entire lives. a continuous 1G would accelerate a body to near a per cent of c in about a month.
Do the maths.

Its a long way off but it will happen. Question, what 'caring' God
would leave us in that situation?

Ill circumvent all the nonsense and kook science! If you really meant to say"the fact that people die shows God does not care" well you have been shown why it doesn't! read the thread!

Fanny Cradock

In fairness to Jobee he isn't going to be around to answer for a while.

ISAW

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In fairness to Jobee he isn't going to be around to answer for a while.

So what?

If his arguments are valid someone can take them up. I wouldn't like anyone to get the impression he had a valid or sound position if he hadn't. Maybe nonsense sometimes should be exposed.

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

wrong we could travel at very near to c. But even at less than a half of one per cent of c we would reach Proxima Centauri in about 800 years.

<offtopic> Spacetime geometry is very strange at those speeds. If we were travelling at 99% the speed of light, we would actually reach Proxima Centauri in about 216 days</offtopic>