Human Life and Sin

You do not suffer because God is amoral, if you suffer you are amoral. We suffer for the transgression of Adam, that’s karma. Prove me wrong, God is not impossible.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Pure drivel.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are not absolutely moral, your post proves it, which supports my idea that God is perfect, and man fell.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My friends kid suffered, in fact was most of his short life was based around hospital visits, cannulas, medicines, scans, spinal taps, chemo and finally death at the grand age of two.
His physical agony was only matched by the trauma of his family watching the science try and fail to save his life.
Your post really is an insult to thinking people.
An example of Hitchens claim, "Religion poisons everything."

 

This is an unsubstantiated hypothesis.

An alternate possibility, as James pointed out, is that God does not exist (and that, instead, you are being manipulated by a book, written by flawed self-serving people).

You have not made the case that any of your premises are true.

Also, no one (here) has said God is impossible. Mostly we say the evidence is unconvincing, and the onus is on you to present better.

 

God does not let you suffer. IMHO gnostics are amoral, and there is no way I believe the problem of evil. God hates us, that is why we suffer. God is not absent, you are being punished for the sins of man. All I am saying is God is not impossible.

 

Yes he does, please read my post

 

I am a thinking person, maybe you don’t want to talk negatively about my nature. Do you not stop to think dis-belief is the reason people suffer, and since you will it on yourself, God is not in your life.

 

No. You do not believe quite happily in 1000 gods

 

Is the disbelief in Thor the reason things may go wrong?

 

Do you not want Him to be in Heaven? Maybe God is this warrior who suffers PIOUSLY.

 

This is reading a lot like preaching.

kx offers his beliefs without defending them. He only responds by offering arguments that a priori assume his own beliefs are true, though he has not made the case for it.

This is not a discussion; it is a sermon.

 

All I say God is not impossible.

 

Yep. And no one has disagreed with you.

Lots of things are not impossible.

 

Hold on, now... ...you also said that the fall of man proves that God is perfect.

I submit that the "fall of man" supports the opposite contention - that God is imperfect at best.
Presuming that you're referring to YHWH, it seems to me that all available evidence points to him being something of a psychotic nincompoop.
Consider:
He creates a manner of super-beings (the angels) to serve him, and half of them promptly decide that "regime change" is the best course of action. Instead of just getting rid of the malcontents altogether, he lets them hang about to corrupt the prototypes of his next big project - the race of men - and then lets the failed prototypes become the model for all future examples of the type. When the failures multiply and themselves "go wrong", he periodically purges the system of most of 'em, but seems unable to admit that he's just plain goofed somewhere along the line and should just start over.
"Highlights" of his efforts to get these miserable monkeys to "see the light" include such beneficences as demanding some poor shmuck hack up his son, then going "chill, dude, I was just checking to make sure you were listening" at the last second, and gambling with the head of the failed insurgents - who is evidently allowed to meander about the world to see what mischief he can make - that his "best boy" won't give up the faith even if he's put through a series of torments he's evidently done nothing whatever to deserve. When the guy at long last wonders aloud what he's done to deserve all that suffering, he gets a stern talking to from His Nibs which essentially consists of "I'm GOD ALMIGHTY, dammit - what the Hell do you know about anything compared to me ?"
Loopier than a 3 dollar bill, I tells ya...


Then you said that we suffer because God hates us.

I'd opine that it isn't so much hate as the indifference one might show the lab animals one is subjecting to an almost certainly harmful experiment in the belief that some useful knowledge might be gained from it.
My pet theory is that God is trying to figure out a way to die.

 

Zero evidence for any gods existing, plenty evidence ancient men made them up.

 

"I am a thinking person" that just demonstrates how you have scared yourself into believing in a certain model of a god that's makes people suffer for not believing in that god.

 

Regional, varying "moral prescriptions" and "engaging in habits that have negative consequences" occasionally align, but not always. And being "born with _X_" and accidents like being in the wrong place at the wrong time certainly can't be conflated with misconduct.

Which is to say, we can't subsume "suffering" neatly and wholly under "being immoral" or equivalently "amoral" -- the causes of the former spill out across all sorts of other territory or categories.

Reaping ill effects includes making careless decisions, doing stupid and wasteful things because one's peers do them (substance abuse, random unprotected sex-acts, spending money on useless cigarettes, ball games, strip-clubs, etc instead of food), being gullible and overly idealistic in predatory areas of society, conforming to "crab-bucket" mentality slash culture, etc.

Again, in some places maybe an ethical rule or adage has been concocted for addressing a particular foolish human behavior or negligence or reactive impulse. But those social-contracts are contingent, relativistic concoctions that aren't universal, inclusive, and successful enough to cope with all sources of misery.
_

 

Surely you mean scientific evidence. What would be scientific evidence of a God?

How does one differentiate between evidence of a god, and evidence of highly advanced beings that are not "gods" but might appear to be by less advanced beings?