America Lucky or Blessed?

[AZborn_CAbred]

the problem."

How many times must I say that I have NEVER failed to take responsibility for my own actions?

If you're anything like me, though, you'll accept responsibility easily enough -- if things go well.

But do you accept the consequences -- or do you blame God? -- when the result of your actions has failed to meet with your expectations?

That is my own biggest failing.

Nobody ever said that being a Christian was going to be easy...

 

[LeMask]

Well, any religious person who blames god for anything is having a serious issue.

God isnt bound to any moral code. He can kill as many innocent kittens he wants, nobody will blame him for that.

A human being can only blame himself. Religious or not. I dont see the point here...

I have a high tolerance to religion because I see it as a different way to be rational. Some think that it's completely irrational and stupid. But we are human after all, we are capable of being rational, but it doesnt make us rational beings.

 

[AZborn_CAbred]

Well, any religious person who blames god for anything is having a serious issue.

I disagree. Blaming God is part of grief, isn't it? How many times have we said or heard, "What was God thinking when He let that little child get hit and killed by a truck? How could God have allowed that to happen?"

Quite honestly, I think that when we blame God for what has gone wrong in our lives -- despite our most dilligent attempts to do our best -- it is all part of the grief that is inextricably linked to failure. Because how can something so fine and good as our BEST WORK end in failure? So yes: failure ---> grief ---> blame God ---> acceptance ---> try again.

God isnt bound to any moral code.

God is THE "moral code." God is the point of reference for everything correct, just, and good.

He can kill as many innocent kittens he wants, nobody will blame him for that.

Satan is responsible for the death of innocents; not God.

A human being can only blame himself. Religious or not. I dont see the point here...

You have honestly never tried to blame someone or something else for something that went awry in your life? Really? No grief? No failures? No loss of something precious?

I have a high tolerance to religion because I see it as a different way to be rational. Some think that it's completely irrational and stupid. But we are human after all, we are capable of being rational, but it doesnt make us rational beings.

I am often irrational. But it is never MY fault. I blame it on (a) the moon, or (b) hormones. :thumb:

 

[MontyB]

The truth being that both the concept of god and the book written to justify that fallacious concept, is a complete sham. In writing the book the writers, like lawyers have tried to cover all eventualities and in doing so have tied themselves in knots. This is bought about by the fact that they are writing about an imaginary thing, and because of that have no "truth" to follow.

"Following is the quote from hindu saint vivekanand hope you understand there's something of higher power than humans and that's within us:-

I am the thread that runs through all these pearls," and each pearl is a religion or even a sect thereof. Such are the different pearls, and God is the thread that runs through all of them; most people, however, are entirely unconscious of it.

All that is real in me is God; all that is real in God is I. The gulf between God and human beings is thus bridged. Thus we find how, by knowing God, we find the kingdom of heaven within us.

God is self-evident, impersonal, omniscient, the Knower and the Master of nature, the Lord of all. He is behind all worship and it is being done according to Him, whether we know it or not.

It is an interesting quote and I have little doubt that the world would be a far more tolerant place if all religions adopted the same principles but it does not prove the existence of a god.

The big issue in the atheist/religious argument is not in the principles of religion as they are adhered to by almost everyone regardless of belief, the argument is one step further back than that and it is simply whether "god" is a physical being or not.

For atheists it is impossible to believe in an omnipresent physical being that has total control but does not use it and even as I write the statement it just comes across as ludicrous that people could believe this however there are people that use the term god in the form of descriptor to cover aspects/complexities of the universe that man has not yet explained and to be honest I can not see a problem with that.

 

[senojekips]

For atheists it is impossible to believe in an omnipresent physical being that has total control but does not use it and even as I write the statement it just comes across as ludicrous that people could believe this however there are people that use the term god in the form of descriptor to cover aspects/complexities of the universe that man has not yet explained and to be honest I can not see a problem with that.

I could live with that explanation.

However, I still see it as laughable that anyone would worship that "descriptor" or allow others to use it as a means of controlling people through some primitive "fear of the unknown".

That's all religion (belief in a god) is. The modern manifestation of a primitive fear of the unknown and an attempt to control that fear or escape the unknown. The churches instil and reinforce this, so that they may prey on peoples insecurities in order to control them and make money.

All I can say to believers is,... "You can be completely assured that there's no way that you'll be getting out of this world alive, and you certainly will not be coming back for a second lick of the lolly"

 

[MontyB]

I could live with that explanation.

However, I still see it as laughable that anyone would worship that "descriptor" or allow others to use it as a means of controlling people through some primitive "fear of the unknown".

That's all religion (belief in a god) is. The modern manifestation of a primitive fear of the unknown and an attempt to control that fear or escape the unknown. The churches instil and reinforce this, so that they may prey on peoples insecurities in order to control them and make money.

All I can say to believers is,... "You can be completely assured that there's no way that you'll be getting out of this world alive, and you certainly will not be coming back for a second lick of the lolly"

I am not sure "descriptor" is the right word what I am looking for is more "spiritual" I think but in essence they do not believe in "God" as a physical being but more an overall set of principles that act as a guiding force, I would say similar in principle to Santa Claus where you have a fictional being encompassing all the good aspects of an event but I suspect that will upset someone.

 

[AZ_Infantry]

I could live with that explanation.

However, I still see it as laughable that anyone would worship that "descriptor" or allow others to use it as a means of controlling people through some primitive "fear of the unknown".

That's all religion (belief in a god) is. The modern manifestation of a primitive fear of the unknown and an attempt to control that fear or escape the unknown. The churches instil and reinforce this, so that they may prey on peoples insecurities in order to control them and make money.

All I can say to believers is,... "You can be completely assured that there's no way that you'll be getting out of this world alive, and you certainly will not be coming back for a second lick of the lolly"

I guess that's the way I was trying to explain my personal beliefs about God. He/she is just more eloquent in brevity than I.

Church is a farce, and you and I will never disagree on that, Seno. I detest--DETEST--all forms of organized religion - the vileness, the violence, the very judgmental bitterness and spite they bring into this world in their contemptuous proffering all that is "right and just" sickens me.

More wars have been started in the name of "God" than for any other reason. I do not worship that type of God.

I worship what is pure, what is holy, what is love and what is lovely. A beautiful spring day is God. The love of a fine woman even in our most undeserving moments is God. The man that takes the orphan under his wing and loves him is God.

Thinking of "God" as a man in the sky is just too limiting for my concept of all the goodness that is out there because of God. He's action, not words. He's dynamic.

If the, as you prefer to call it, "bobble" can teach us anything about God, it is only that it has nothing to teach us about God. If you want to know God, look inside yourself, not anywhere outside or encompassed inside tomes.

You can't take something you don't understand and try and understand it by putting it into a box.

If you're anything like me, though, you'll accept responsibility easily enough -- if things go well.

But do you accept the consequences -- or do you blame God? -- when the result of your actions has failed to meet with your expectations?

That is my own biggest failing.

Nobody ever said that being a Christian was going to be easy...

I accept responsibility when things go well and when they do not go well, despite my most sincere selflessness to offer a little goodness to this crappy planet and its crappy peoples.

My contention is thus: in order to worship a deity, one cannot live a dichotomy by offering praise for all the good things and refuse to hold that deity accountable for all the bad things. That is narrow minded, biased, hypocritical, and offensive.

As a father, I love my children. Thus, I allow them to make their own mistakes, learn their own consequences, and suffer through their poor decisions. I also praise them for doing what they know is right even when it is oh, so difficult to do so.

But if my kid ran out in front of a truck, I wouldn't stand by and do nothing, touting, "Well, bad things happen in this world."

You don't praise a father who loves his children enough to allow them to grow but also allows that growth to include getting killed by a truck if it could be prevented.

That is the church's version of God: pure love, worthy of all praise. But blameless when he does NOTHING to prevent bad things happening to innocents when he could.

That never has been and never will be my God.

 

[senojekips]

I guess that's the way I was trying to explain my personal beliefs about God. He/she is just more eloquent in brevity than I.

Church is a farce, and you and I will never disagree on that, Seno. I detest--DETEST--all forms of organized religion - the vileness, the violence, the very judgmental bitterness and spite they bring into this world in their contemptuous proffering all that is "right and just" sickens me.

More wars have been started in the name of "God" than for any other reason. I do not worship that type of God.

I worship what is pure, what is holy, what is love and what is lovely. A beautiful spring day is God. The love of a fine woman even in our most undeserving moments is God. The man that takes the orphan under his wing and loves him is God.

Thinking of "God" as a man in the sky is just too limiting for my concept of all the goodness that is out there because of God. He's action, not words. He's dynamic.

If the, as you prefer to call it, "bobble" can teach us anything about God, it is only that it has nothing to teach us about God. If you want to know God, look inside yourself, not anywhere outside or encompassed inside tomes.

You can't take something you don't understand and try and understand it by putting it into a box.

Your last assumption, is to me a perfect example of how believers always have it all "@rse a peak" to use a nautical expression. I don't attempt to put "god" in a box, and never have,... as you are well aware, I know that there is no god, so that would be an absolute impossibility for me. What I do put in a box, are those who profess to believe that there is a god. With the evidence available I see good reason to do that, the same as I would an adult who still believes in Santa Claus.

You still talk of god as an entity, and there is no entity,... there is nothing, nothing other than yourself,... and how you face your life. What you do in life, is as a result of your own actions and intentions, not some imaginary entity, god, allah, odin, amaterasu, call him what you will.

As for me, I'm not quite ready to be raised to the status of a god just yet,... maybe next week.

 

[AZ_Infantry]

Does it really, honestly matter if one professes their attempt at good works as "God" or as "Me?"

What matters is the action and the intent - not the label.

 

[AZborn_CAbred]

As a father, I love my children. Thus, I allow them to make their own mistakes, learn their own consequences, and suffer through their poor decisions. I also praise them for doing what they know is right even when it is oh, so difficult to do so.

But if my kid ran out in front of a truck, I wouldn't stand by and do nothing, touting, "Well, bad things happen in this world."

Soooo... I get it.

You want it both ways:

You want God to mind His own business when He gives you "free will" ... right?

Yet you want him to intervene when He sees a speeding truck on a path of destruction.

OK, then, riddle me this AZ_I: If God sees that YOU are on a path of destruction and have become your own "speeding, self-destructing train" -- say, making stupid choices, and opting for what you KNOW is bad for you -- do you want God to intervene then? Or is that a violation of your "free will"?

 

[AZ_Infantry]

Soooo... I get it.

You want it both ways:

You want God to mind His own business when He gives you "free will" ... right?

Yet you want him to intervene when He sees a speeding truck on a path of destruction.

OK, then, riddle me this AZ_I: If God sees that YOU are on a path of destruction and have become your own "speeding, self-destructing train" -- say, making stupid choices, and opting for what you KNOW is bad for you -- do you want God to intervene then? Or is that a violation of your "free will"?

No, you missed the point entirely. Where did I EVER state what I wanted God to do?

What I said is that praise is dependent not only on action, but on inaction. I cannot thank Him for the good things if I choose to ignore Him when the bad floats down the river with it.

If He is worthy of praise, then He is worthy of criticism. You cannot have one without the other anymore than you can have good without bad, safety without danger, color without monochrome, or do without didn't do. One exists because the other exists.

 

[AZborn_CAbred]

No, you missed the point entirely. Where did I EVER state what I wanted God to do?

What I said is that praise is dependent not only on action, but on inaction. I cannot thank Him for the good things if I choose to ignore Him when the bad floats down the river with it.

If He is worthy of praise, then He is worthy of criticism. You cannot have one without the other anymore than you can have good without bad, safety without danger, color without monochrome, or do without didn't do. One exists because the other exists.

Nice distractionary tactic: you didn't answer my "riddle."

But I'll bite.

If God is worthy of criticism -- does that not imply a sort of BLAME being cast upon him?

Blame = God didn't live up to your expectations.

He didn't live up to your expectations = you expected God to bring you a happiness that -- if you believe in free will -- you should have created for yourself.

 

[senojekips]

Does it really, honestly matter if one professes their attempt at good works as "God" or as "Me?"

What matters is the action and the intent - not the label.

Yes, it matters. I am definitely not god, nor Rod nor Bob. Neither am I, nor anyone else deserving of special praise and definitely not worthy of worship, for merely doing what is morally right. As I said earlier, "morality is it's own reward", it needs no god. There is no special prize at the end for those who endeavour to do that which is right, no heaven nor a free second trip around the lighthouse, similarly there is no hell.

These figments of the imagination are no more than man's feeble attempts to control others by playing on their irrational and baseless fears of the unknown.

 

[AZ_Infantry]

Nice distractionary tactic: you didn't answer my "riddle."

But I'll bite.

If God is worthy of criticism -- does that not imply a sort of BLAME being cast upon him?

Blame = God didn't live up to your expectations.

He didn't live up to your expectations = you expected God to bring you a happiness that -- if you believe in free will -- you should have created for yourself.

There was no "riddle" about it except through the lens of the illogical:

Blame is assigned where authority is manifest. Blame is something only someone with a certain power can be responsible to.

But you didn't address MY issue:

How is it right and just to not hold someone accountable ("blame" them) for bad things that you honor when things are great?

It's a double standard, a hypocritical one, and is found only in those who refuse to admit the God lets bad stuff happen and is still, somehow, "blame"less while still being worthy of praise for all the good things.

Yes, it matters. I am definitely not god, nor Rod nor Bob. Neither am I, nor anyone else deserving of special praise and definitely not worthy of worship, for merely doing what is morally right. As I said earlier, "morality is it's own reward", it needs no god. There is no special prize at the end for those who endeavour to do that which is right, no heaven nor a free second trip around the lighthouse, similarly there is no hell.

These figments of the imagination are no more than man's feeble attempts to control others by playing on their irrational and baseless fears of the unknown.

You're twisting my words. And tripping over your own.

The acts we do, by your very own admission earlier in this thread, countless times, should not be assigned to anything but ourselves.

Ergo, it doesn't matter in WHAT name we do those works. All that matters is that we DO them.

You can't have it both ways.

And, yes, you've said in every single post that "These figments of the imagination are no more than man's feeble attempts..."

Stop speaking like a child and repeating yourself a hundred times and start acting like an adult and addressing the point of the post, not what you wish to read into it.

If all you can do is parrot a single thought, then you're not bright enough to hold a discussion with me.



You two really need to work on your teamwork. Thus far you have fail on a stick mastered.

 

[AZborn_CAbred]

There was no "riddle" about it except through the lens of the illogical:

Blame is assigned where authority is manifest. Blame is something only someone with a certain power can be responsible to.

But you didn't address MY issue:

How is it right and just to not hold someone accountable ("blame" them) for bad things that you honor when things are great?

It's a double standard, a hypocritical one, and is found only in those who refuse to admit the God lets bad stuff happen and is still, somehow, "blame"less while still being worthy of praise for all the good things.

Bad stuff happens.

End of story.

I refuse to accept, however, that God is responsible for "bad stuff" -- simply because He didn't intervene to stop the truck from killing a kid.

Me -- I'll blame to the truck driver who let his vehicle get out of control.

And, sad to say, I'll also throw some blame as well upon the parent who didn't mind the child well enough to keep him out of harm's way.

Why must GOD take the blame? Why must He be "accountable"?

Is this massive BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico God's fault? It is a horrific tragedy. A catastrophe. But is it God's fault? Is HE accountable?

Pick your poison, AZ_I.

Now ask yourself: "Is God accountable for this tragedy? Or is some person's irresponsibility truly the cause?"

 

[senojekips]

You're twisting my words. And tripping over your own.

The acts we do, by your very own admission earlier in this thread, countless times, should not be assigned to anything but ourselves.

Ergo, it doesn't matter in WHAT name we do those works. All that matters is that we DO them.

You can't have it both ways.

I don't want it both ways, I don't believe in a god,.... you do.

Again an attempt to deliberately misconstrue what I have said. I said quite clearly that we don't need to do them in the name of anything,.....

---snip--- not some imaginary entity, god, allah, odin, amaterasu, call him what you will.

And, yes, you've said in every single post that "These figments of the imagination are no more than man's feeble attempts..."

Stop speaking like a child and repeating yourself a hundred times and start acting like an adult and addressing the point of the post, not what you wish to read into it.

If all you can do is parrot a single thought, then you're not bright enough to hold a discussion with me.

With children and those who reason like children, repetition and consistency is paramount as they are easily confused.

Your deliberate misunderstanding of the facts is seen in simple things like your attempt to tell me that "I put the belief in a god, in a box", when the whole argument revolves around the fact that I don't even believe in a god,.. period. At every turn you attempt to evade taking responsibility for the errors in your reasoning by blaming me for your own deliberate misunderstanding.

You two really need to work on your teamwork. Thus far you have fail on a stick mastered.

Que?... What exactly are you attempting to say here? Which two of what teamwork?

Bad stuff happens.

End of story.

I refuse to accept, however, that God is responsible for "bad stuff" -- simply because He didn't intervene to stop the truck from killing a kid.

Me -- I'll blame to the truck driver who let his vehicle get out of control.

So your god is not actually omnipotent, or is it that he just doesn't give a toss? Or maybe he is some sort of closet sadist?

The only thing here, that approaches "being beyond the reasoning of man" is the rather loopy logic believers use to arrive at these pearls of wisdom.

 

[AZ_Infantry]

Bad stuff happens.

End of story.

I refuse to accept, however, that God is responsible for "bad stuff" -- simply because He didn't intervene to stop the truck from killing a kid.

Me -- I'll blame to the truck driver who let his vehicle get out of control.

And, sad to say, I'll also throw some blame as well upon the parent who didn't mind the child well enough to keep him out of harm's way.

Why must GOD take the blame? Why must He be "accountable"?

Is this massive BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico God's fault? It is a horrific tragedy. A catastrophe. But is it God's fault? Is HE accountable?

Pick your poison, AZ_I.

Now ask yourself: "Is God accountable for this tragedy? Or is some person's irresponsibility truly the cause?"

To ask the same question with different words, is GOD to thank for a miracle, or the doctors who cured the sick man?

Pick your poison, AZ_CA

 

[MontyB]

So the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is science fiction?

No the exact opposite, it is such a well known and accepted principle that science fiction is now looking for ways to rectify it in their books and movies.

 

[AZborn_CAbred]

To ask the same question with different words, is GOD to thank for a miracle, or the doctors who cured the sick man?

Both.

The doctor -- with God-given talent, and care, and ability -- did the work of Lord on earth.

 

[AZ_Infantry]

Both.

The doctor -- with God-given talent, and care, and ability -- did the work of Lord on earth.

Then BOTH the truck driver and God are to blame. Until you are able to fathom that incredibly simplistic concept of equality and hold God accountable, don't lecture me of His attributes.