As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be -- world without God

I just saw the following on a Facebook page dedicated to remembering the victims of the recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan:

"From Texas: my prayers are with y'all in Japan. There is a spiritual law that says that out of every trajedy comes something beautiful. As difficult as that is to think of right now, the people and country of Japan will be stronger from this disaster. I am praying for all the hurting people. Lord, stop the spread of radiation now!"

If God needs to put people through this sort of devastation and torment to prove a point, then He is one helluva sick bastard.

Would it be insensitive, apathetic, callous or accurate to say...

'He works in mysterious ways.'

spacemariner26 wrote:

Would it be insensitive, apathetic, callous or accurate to say...

'He works in mysterious ways.'

Well I'd personally discount the 'accurate' approach, obviously.

Though even then, by saying so, I fall into the trap. Apologists from Eusebius and Thomas Aquinas through to a guy I met at a political party function a month ago try to justify their faith through reason,which is ultimately a futile exercise. If it's faith, then it's faith. By definition reason doesn't come into it.

My unbelief stems from the fact that reason overpowers faith. Quite easily, too. Allah the Merciful and Compassionate is either the biggest blatant fecking hypocrite out there, or he doesn't exist and is the creation of man's imagination (vide Voltaire).

I can understand your position.

However, Descartes applied his sublime mathematical 'reasoning' to finally deduce two absolutes - one that he has capacity for thought and the other that God exists.

Also...what about Intelligent Design theory? That is a 'reasonable' theory?

z = z² + c
god = duality + infinity
Math proves God with this equation.

I was going to respond to this but then i realized you two had taken it to some dumb level of name dropping and latinspeak or whatever in some lame attempt to one up each other and look intelligent in your own minds. So nevermind.

Doesn't matter Heartssss. I was winning the argument anyway.

Huh? Name dropping? Trying to look intelligent? One-upmanship??

First of all I didn't even realise there was an argument!


Secondly...what did you expect? Something like this:

'Now Nashi..don't y'all mess with the Lord's name now ya hear...that's very bad and you are a bad man for saying it'

(PS: if we are talking about name-dropping: Eusebius, Thomas Aquinas, Allah the Merciful and Compassionate and Voltaire!!)

She may have understood that.

spacemariner26 wrote:

Something like this:

'Now Nashi..don't y'all mess with the Lord's name now ya hear...that's very bad and you are a bad man for saying it'

Oh that is what you meant.

cmill_0909 wrote:

She may have understood that.

Nope

Damn it Heartssss, I'm curious.

What were you going to post before you got annoyed with 'Name-dropping and latin-speak'?

I was going to say "Dubito ergo cogito; cogito ergo sum"- Descarte

The only latin I have ever needed to know, and the only phrase that ever made any sense. All philosophers are whacked, like all generalizations are false.

But ya'll just continue with the gobbledygook. Us dummies ( and by us dummies, I mean just me, cmill, don't go all charlie sheen on me) will just read and scratch my lil ol head.

Oh, and I think its silly for people to debate if there is a God or not. Waste of time.

So...in essence....all you wanted to do was name drop and quote some Latin...lol?

Anyway...I think it's reasonable to debate the existence of God. Nashi made a good point...a point often made...how can a God allow certain things to happen? He either exists and is extremely cruel, apathetic, vain and hypocritical. Or...he doesn't exist. Since the world is divided, it seems, between those who shrug off Faith as superstitious mumbo jumbo, and those who have Faith, I think it's a valid debate.

Belonging as I do...to the superstitious camp...I quite enjoy having my Faith tested by reasonable questions. I had no real answer to Nashi's original post, so I answered with a cliche to start with. A cliche for a cliche -- because as Nashi knows that particular line of debate, and the answer I gave, is a well worn path.

But...that doesn't make it any less valid as a point for debate - especially in our time. Don't you find it odd...that even in these modern times, when we have evidence to prove that the very foundations of our belief systems are insecure, that many people who should know better still cling onto the concept of a God? Why?

Yes

I'm "winning" with my tiger blood and adonis dna...don't be jealous...LOSER.

LOL....

You are a high priest warlock banging 7 gramme rocks....cos that's how you roll!!!

I just have a hard time deciding which God to worship...
Should it be the Old Testament God? Because that dude is just scary and will basically fuck your world up for pretty much nothing. How about the New Testament God? This God says "well I would prefer you to do it this way, but what the hell just believe in my son, the one I let you kill, and it is all good."

So, given the history of the Old Testamant God... It isn't hard to believe he would allow natural disasters to ruin the lives of people he supposedly loves. Plus, The New Testamant God is all about getting people to believe that Jesus can save them, what better time than when they are left with nothing! Praise be to Jesus for ALL things! Right?

sigh ..
this for sure is not topic where i want say something .Starting from the title and ending with the comments .