flamingjimmy Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 (edited) Interesting that you seem to accept the existence of Evil. I do not, other than as a subjective construct that only exists in as much as the language to describe it exists. That's why I adapted the saying with one specific example instead of using the word evil. It's kind of like a metaphor, I might use a word like evil the same way I might occasionally refer to my 'soul' or make reference to the 'will of the gods'. Doesn't mean I believe those things actually exist as a thing, just a quick and colourful way of getting across what I mean. ---------- Post added 22-11-2015 at 01:57 ---------- I think a loving god could be cruel. A loving man could push a child to its death, if it saved a train carrying 300 children from plunging into a ravine. Like a loving god could make a whole load of children get parasites in their eyes, if it means a few other people make 'miraculous' recoveries from illnesses they might have recovered from in a bit of time anyway, or he could make Jesus' face appear on a piece of toast? ---------- Post added 22-11-2015 at 02:02 ---------- There is a third option. Have you ever considered that perhaps God loves the parasites as much as he loves humans?If he loves them both and is omnipotent then he could have them both live without harming the other one and making children go blind. Nope the two options still apply as I see it. Edited November 22, 2015 by flamingjimmy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 If he loves them both and is omnipotent then he could have them both live without harming the other one and making children go blind. Just out of interest, do you believe it's possible to live a life free of any suffering? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 Just out of interest, do you believe it's possible to live a life free of any suffering? Not in this world. But an omnipotent being would have no problem setting up such a situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingdom Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 So you are saying that the religious do not get aids,ebola etc.Kingdom, you are in denial,the gods aren't picky who gets infected,old,young black ,white,gay, straight,religious and atheist.So common sense should tell you that gods are not the loving beings the religious makes them out to be. No I am saying that people who apply the bibles guidance are far less likely to catch Aids by applying the bibles moral code and its guidance to abstain from blood . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apelike Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 No I am saying that people who apply the bibles guidance are far less likely to catch Aids by applying the bibles moral code and its guidance to abstain from blood . The Bible does not contain any moral code and the guidance about abstaining from blood was about consuming it by mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katie Event Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 No I am saying that people who apply the bibles guidance are far less likely to catch Aids by applying the bibles moral code and its guidance to abstain from blood . Did you intend to imply that your God doesn't care if His believers catch airborne diseases? Or diseases carried by insects? Or inherit genetic diseases? Why would an omnipotent being give advice on how to reduce the opportunity for a disease which He hadn't yet created to infect a person, without offering advice on how to avoid illnesses which He had created? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted November 22, 2015 Author Share Posted November 22, 2015 No I am saying that people who apply the bibles guidance are far less likely to catch Aids by applying the bibles moral code and its guidance to abstain from blood . Always best to be safe on that front. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3027599/Jehovah-s-Witness-baby-die-refuses-blood-transfusion-seven-months-pregnant-cancer-80-chance-surviving-treatment.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/7734480/Teenage-Jehovahs-Witness-refuses-blood-transfusion-and-dies.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingdom Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 Sometimes a bucket with a hole in it will never fill up No matter how much water you pour in. Many women die in child birth with blood transfusions Its not as black and white as many are led to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katie Event Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 Sometimes a bucket with a hole in it will never fill up No matter how much water you pour in. Many women die in child birth with blood transfusions Its not as black and white as many are led to believe. A bucket with a hole that is the entire diameter of the bucket is a short pipe. It is evidently possible to fill an entire pipe with water, otherwise taps would not work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted November 22, 2015 Author Share Posted November 22, 2015 Sometimes a bucket with a hole in it will never fill up No matter how much water you pour in. Many women die in child birth with blood transfusions Its not as black and white as many are led to believe. It really doesn't help when the patient refuses the blood transfusion in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts