stiggy wiggy
Well-known member
No they didn't.
Obviously not. Why else would you continue to blabber against watching over people who suffer?
A bizarre definition of morality from the guy who loves to tell us he's more moral than the God whom he supposedly doesn't believe exists
- Thread starter stiggy wiggy
- Start date
No they didn't.
Obviously not. Why else would you continue to blabber against watching over people who suffer?
Lighthearted Atheist
Well-known member
stiggy wiggy
Well-known member
Then why do you think no one should WATCH suffering?
Lighthearted Atheist
Well-known member
Because I do not consider suffering to be a spectator sport. I think people should help the sufferi8ng.
It is not the watching. It is the watching with no offer of help that is repugnant.
stiggy wiggy
Well-known member
Idiotic. How can you help someone suffering if you can't WATCH to find out what the suffering entails?
Lighthearted Atheist
Well-known member
This has descended into the absurd. If you think I am arguing that watching things is wrong and we should all cover our eyes then you are either incapable of listening or are intentionally lying about my position because its easier to argue.
Either way I wish you luck with your 'watching' arguments.
"Never play chess with a pigeon. The pigeon just knocks all the pieces over. Then poops all over the board. Then struts around like it won.”
Whatsisface
Well-known member
On Carm? Incredible, It's absolutely shocking!!
stiggy wiggy
Well-known member
You obviously ARE. More than half of your tiresome posts are criticizing the God in Whom you don't believe for WATCHING people suffer.
With humanity opinion tends to be divided on that.
treeplanter
Well-known member
There may be some disagreement as to what constitutes 'conscious' and 'purposeful' and 'needless' and 'harm' - and there certainly are those who add onto this standard of basic human decency, but make no mistake about it - EVERY human being on earth {minus the true socio/psychopath} wholeheartedly agrees that it is immoral to consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon others!
Then as I said humanity is divided on that.
Also of course Every minus some means its not every.
Lighthearted Atheist
Well-known member
I criticize God for watching people suffer when he could help them. Itys not the watching. It is the lack of helping. I find it very hard to believe that you did not understand this - seems like you are just deflecting.
However I'll assume you are being genuine - let me restate without that tricky 'watching' idea.
Can you explain why God does nothing to feed the thousands of children who are slowly starving to death? Why does God allow men to rape women by the million and do nothing to stop it? Why did God drown every infant on the planet because he was mad at their parents?
stiggy wiggy
Well-known member
Maybe He's waiting on you. But you do nothing. You don't even WATCH.
Lighthearted Atheist
Well-known member
This is nonsensical. And 'maybe' is not an argument - its just guessing.
And watching has no elegance. You just keep hitting what you think is a sick burn or something. I dunno.
But if God is real and omnipotent then he is ignore my pleas for revelation. I'll let you know if that changes.
stiggy wiggy
Well-known member
Correct. I repeat: Maybe He's waiting on you. What are you doing about it?
Is that why you turn your back on suffering? Watching is not elegant enough for you?
4thrite
Member
They knew that disobeying God would lead to their deaths.
Eve must have known something about "good and bad" or else the serpent's statement that they would be like God in knowing good and bad would have been meaningless to her.
That is an opinion that is not supported by the narrative.
john
4thrite
Member
Eve must have had some concept of it or else the thought of being like God knowing good and bad would have been meaningless to her. That she could come to know good and bad like God was the crux of the serpents argument. If she did not have some idea of the concepts of good and bad, then that would have been in her response to the serpent.
john
4thrite
Member
We have already covered this point: it is not immoral to inflict suffering on another for a worthy purpose.
john
4thrite
Member
The wicked, from satan on down to his lowliest minion cannot do a wicked thing except that God has allowed them to exist. And God allows the wicked to exist for his purposes.
Take the example of Job, Jehovah allowed satan to do what he wanted with Job. He did not make satan mistreat Job, satan did so of his own nature and volition. Satan did what he did for his purposes - to turn Job away from Jehovah - and Jehovah allowed satan to act as he saw fit for his (Jehovah's) own purposes - to demonstrate that some people will remain faithful to Him no matter what.
In Eden, satan (the original serpent) did what he did to turn the human creation away from it's God and creator. So, he had his hopes. God allowed it to take place for his reasons. His reasons were the eventual freeing of mankind from the enslavement to corruption that satan had just enslaved mankind.
So satan did not subject mankind to corruption with the hope that they will one day be set free from corruption, his hope was eternal enslavement to corruption. Although he did, as you note above, subject humankind to enslavement to corruption. But over and above that, God allowed it to happen, allowed mankind to become enslaved to corruption for his purposes: the freeing of mankind from satanic corruption.
john
treeplanter
Well-known member
Wanting to know something that one does not already know is NOT the same thing as knowing that something
In plain English, thinking to one's self - "I'd like to know what God knows" doesn't suggest that one already has a concept of what God knows...