If There was a Cosmic Pain meter...

by cofty 106 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  nancy drew

  I can see why humans have come to the conclusion that were being punished for something or tested because this horrible world we live in makes no sense. We find out early that we're sitting under a guillotine and we're supposed to enjoy ourselves as we wait for it to drop. we're taught that there's a god who loves us but deep inside it doesn't feel right it doesn't look that way. i don't know what's going on here but whatever it is i don't like it.

  i've tried out alot of things but now at 62 as I get older i thought I would find the answers but all I have are questions. So here's to the cosmic pain meter
• 

  cofty

  I have a high level of tolerance of physical pain but that is only one aspect of suffering.

  Despair, loneliness, loss and hopelessness are arguably harder to endure.
• 

  cofty

  we're taught that there's a god who loves us but deep inside it doesn't feel right it doesn't look that way.

  I think that is an instinct we should trust.

  How would the world without a god look any different from this one?
• 

  tec

  And the answer then is the same one now: that's not what's wrong with us. Suffering is the symptom of a much more profound disease. The more profound disease does not have the sort of quick fix that, say, turning stones into bread can achieve.

  hi tec, your answers are encouraging.

  Thank you, Kassad. If one looks to and puts faith and trust in Christ, then even without knowing all the answers, one can see that he did not control their pain level -other than to ease it and offer comfort (both physical when faith was present to allow such; and also emotional), and He did not look passively on.

  This is the truth. Because Christ shows us God.

  This is the only One we have to look at, to answer Cofty's question.

  I am still stunned by Tammy's response -" If we did our end, God might well act as to the rest." This thread was worth it just to witness that. There is no excuse too preposterous for some of god's apologists.

  You may be stunned if you like, but it also goes back up to what Sulla said. As long as we continue to cause the suffering (and you admit that it is the despair and such that is far worse than the physical), then ending the physical (as in from natural disasters) does nothing to end suffering.

  Until the inside of the cup is clean, the outside will always be unclean. (as in, until we change from within... law (of love, mercy, forgivness) written on hearts... what we do will continue to reflect other than these, and suffering that we cause will continue)

  Christ spoke about changing what is within, because that is where change begins. From there, all else flows... because we act upon what is within us.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  Knowsnothing

  Spoiled children? A person who get raped and cry for god to save her while it is going on is a spoiled child? dude... that is so messed up.

  I'm not saying rape is a good thing. You sure like to twist things up, build up a lot of strawmans...

  Spoiled children in that we want to be masters of ourselves, yet complain to God to solve our problems.

  I dont really think you are being honest with me, but if you are, i feel sorry for you. I can simply tell you i do not believe in god and can very easily make the moral distinction between hitler and (for instance) a nurse.

  Let's not squirm at the implications, bohm. In a world in which we make the rules, in which morality is subjective, what makes Hitler 'right or wrong'? Let it be noted that I do not endorse his brutality, slaughter, and crimes perpetrated on humanity. I'll post a youtube vid. that will go to the heart of the issue in a bit.

  Yah, and we would get a silly book which claimed it was okay to stone people and glorified genocide.. crazy shit.. And people might walk around

  and tell each other why the crazy shit was actually moral, but it wouldnt be, because what is good or not does not have to do with what someone

  wrote in a book.

  It has everything to do with what people opine, unfortunately. Well, if you wish to entertain the discussion a bit, let's get into it.

  So anyways, here is a debate with Sam Harris and William Lane Craig on Objective Morality. The debate starts at 4:50, and William is up first.

  He makes a good point. Objective morality is independent of human opinion. Good is always good. Bad is always bad. He says, "to say that the Holocaust is objectively evil, is to say that it was evil, even though the Nazis who carried it out, thought that it was good. And it would still have been evil, even if the Nazis had won WWII, and succeeded in brainwashing or exterminating everyone who disagreed with them, so that everybody thought that the Holocaust was good."

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8wUOUmM1OA
• 

  bohm

  KN: " Spoiled children in that we want to be masters of ourselves, yet complain to God to solve our problems."

  So yes or no, the women getting raped and crying for mercy is "complaining to got to solve [her] problems"? It might not be what you intend, but its the implication. and its one of the most awfull instances of victim-blaming i have ever read.

  I notice you are now turning this into a high-brow debate if i can prove there is such a thing as objective morality without god, and if i cant, apparently that makes it perfectly fine for god to ignore (for instance) a rape.

  Well, its off-topic as far as this thread go, feel free to open another thread and lay out how god ground morality outside of oppinion (oh sorry, should that be human oppinion to make sure the argument actually work?), but for now i will simply notice that even supposing i cannot (perhaps because i am a retard) figure out a basis for morality without god, it would still not be morally acceptable for god to ignore the pleas of rape victims.
• 

  Knowsnothing

  Hmm... Rape is awful indeed, and yet I can think of many other equivalent sufferings, perhaps worse. The point is this, how much autonomy should humans have?

  Allow me to rebutt with this. To some, porn is morally wrong. Say you like to watch porn, (if you are a male, I will assume you have watched it at some point in time). Should God interfere in your watching of porn, effectively prohibiting you and every individual on earth from such a practice?

  Freedom comes at a price, bohm.
• 

  bohm

  KN: R ape is awful indeed (...) The point is this, how much autonomy should humans have?

  Great! so lets simply ask that question: "Should humans have the freedom to rape other humans?". Is that really a question worth thinking over for 1 second? Is that your argument?

  KN: Allow me to rebutt with this. To some, porn is morally wrong. Say you like to watch porn, (if you are a male, I will assume you have watched it at some point in time). Should God interfere in your watching of porn, effectively prohibiting you and every individual on earth from such a practice?

  Okay, so simply putting things into context:

  • Should I prohibit KnowsNothing from watching porn?
  • Should I take the baby out from the overheating car?

  Cant you see there is all the difference in the world to those two questions? I simply dont get why you think the statement you made would even make an argument, God can (as can we) deside for himself what to prevent and what to allow, obviously no matter what god think about your or my porn habbits he (and we!) have a moral obligation to prevent a baby from dying in an overheating car. its a non-argument.
• 

  Knowsnothing

  "Should humans have the freedom to rape other humans?"

  No. They also shouldn't have the freedom to murder, talk injuriously about others, lie, steal, or anything else that is bad.

  That would mean, then, that God would've placed a just and righteous government. We would now be subject to him. Would you agree that to end such a world, it would have to be subject to God?

  have a moral obligation to prevent a baby from dying in an overheating car.

  Why? Where does this obligation come from?

  its a non-argument.

  Says you.
• 

  bohm

  okay knowsnothing, but if you agree humans should not have the freedom to rape other humans then there is no reason to bring up the question of autonomy to begin with. you are not putting a coherent argument together, you are simply asking questions and then asking more questions and at no point actually getting close to answering the fundamental problem.

  That would mean, then, that God would've placed a just and righteous government. We would now be subject to him. Would you agree that to end such a world, it would have to be subject to God?

  asking questions, changing subject. god can clearly prevent evils --for instance the baby in the overheated car from dying-- without putting up a heavenly government.

  have a moral obligation to prevent a baby from dying in an overheating car.

  Why? Where does this obligation come from?

  more changing the subject, either we have such an obligation or we do not, we can then discuss where it come from in another post; my argument does not rest on any particular origin. So do we have a moral obligation yes or no?