An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips

[Glaswegian]

The Haitian earthquake death toll has been estimated at around 200,000 human beings. It is difficult to take that figure in, to grasp it in any meaningful way, for the mind naturally baulks at the horror and devastation which it implies. But that mind-numbing figure, appalling as it is, is only part of the catastrophe. On top of the staggering loss of life is yet more pain and suffering which will have to be borne by the survivors of the Haitian earthquake for many years to come - pain and suffering in the form of physical injury, psychological trauma, consuming grief, loss of home and property, loss of livelihood and, what is most unbearable of all perhaps, deep despair at the sheer senselessness of it all.

The Haitian catastrophe is only one amongst innumerable others which regularly afflict humankind. Time and time again, earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, tornadoes, tsunamis, floods, famines, droughts and plagues inter alia have wreaked death and destruction on our species since it first appeared on the earth. And so it is with every other species as well. They too are subject to the most horrendous forms of death and suffering as part of their existence. For example, at this very moment in every part of the globe millions and millions of creatures are tearing each other to pieces and devouring each other alive. And this horrible carnage goes on relentlessly, occurring at every moment of every day.

Unquestionably, misery, pain and death fill this world on a scale which is simply unimaginable. What I am interested to know is how Christians and other monotheists account for this state of affairs? How do they reconcile it with their belief in a merciful and loving God who cares about his creation?

[hoppy]

You don't think the sins of mankind go unpunished, do you?:wah:

[Lon]

Well----I'm not a Christian, but as Forrest Gump would say "S--t Happens"

[Glaswegian]

hoppy;1292528 wrote: You don't think the sins of mankind go unpunished, do you?:wah:
What is it that amuses you, hoppy? The deaths of 200,000 men, women and children for their 'sins'? Or the fatuousness of your statement?

[Ahso!]

Its an introspective question that most likely won't get much of a response because most Christians aren't introspective about their religious beliefs. Christianity, like all religions serves as a method of group survival, not a philosophy of love and peace. That part is rhetorical, though they'd deny that.

[Oscar Namechange]

Glaswegian;1292564 wrote: What is it that amuses you, hoppy? The deaths of 200,000 men, women and children for their 'sins'? Or the fatuousness of your statement? The earth has been here for billions of years, Man and beast has not. Prior to evolution of man and beast, there was no gods, and no religion. Do you think the earthquakes did not occur before evolution? Or the Tsumani's? Or The Volcano's didn't erupt?

Only when man evolved enough to think for him self, did he begin to believe. the Ancient Egyptians are the perfect example of how Land gods were once worshiped and not some beardy guy on a cross.

Animals are far slower In the evolution process there-fore still maintain the food chain. Maybe In another billion years, the leopard will have worked out that he can get a ready made meal of Gazelle down at the Mini-Mart.

[Glaswegian]

oscar;1292567 wrote: Do you think the earthquakes did not occur before evolution? Or the Tsumani's? Or The Volcano's didn't erupt?
No: I do not think this, oscar.

[Oscar Namechange]

Glaswegian;1292570 wrote: No: I do not think this, oscar.
Care to elaborate?

[Glaswegian]

Ahso!;1292565 wrote: Christians aren't introspective about their religious beliefs.
Interesting. Could you expand on this, Ahso!?

[Glaswegian]

oscar;1292572 wrote: Care to elaborate?
Certainly, oscar. I think that before the human species appeared on the earth there were earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes. What gave you the impression that I thought otherwise?

[Oscar Namechange]

Glaswegian;1292575 wrote: Certainly, oscar. I think that before the human species appeared on the earth there were earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes. What gave you the impression that I thought otherwise?
I just got the over-all Impression that you thought the deaths of natural disasters should weigh heavy on the minds of the religious.

I am not at all religious myself but the disasters that occur do affect me and I feel for the loss of life.

I look at It this way:..... If there were no suffering In the world, man would have wiped each other out to extinction Centuries ago. We have to suffer loss and cruel loss with that to even begin to learn such emotions as empathy, sympathy, Patience and understanding. Without those we are no more than cold killing machines. If the suffering stops, the learning of emotions stop.

[Glaswegian]

Lon;1292557 wrote: Well----I'm not a Christian, but as Forrest Gump would say "S--t Happens"
Forrest Glib

[hoppy]

Glaswegian;1292564 wrote: What is it that amuses you, hoppy? The deaths of 200,000 men, women and children for their 'sins'? Or the fatuousness of your statement?


Some of you nonbeliever types is what amuses me. Every time there's a disaster somewhere you people crawl out of your hidey-holes screaming "Where is your God, to let this happen to all those innocent people". The victims are always "Innocent". I know, you didn't use that term yet but I figure it will crop up somewhere.

When good things happen I seldom hear anyone saying "That must be God's work". You remind me of our liberal democrats here in the USA. To them, everything bad is Bush's fault. To non believers, everything bad is God's doing. That's why I laugh at you.:yh_rotfl

[Glaswegian]

hoppy;1292592 wrote: Every time there's a disaster somewhere you people crawl out of your hidey-holes screaming "Where is your God, to let this happen to all those innocent people". The victims are always "Innocent". I know, you didn't use that term yet but I figure it will crop up somewhere.
There were many children and babies who died of suffocation under the rubble of collapsed buildings in Haiti, hoppy. Are you saying that their slow, agonising death was a punishment for the guilt of having 'sinned'?

[hoppy]

Glaswegian;1292614 wrote: There were many children and babies who died of suffocation under the rubble of collapsed buildings in Haiti, hoppy. Are you saying that their slow, agonising death was a punishment for the guilt of having 'sinned'?


You obviously do not believe in God, so why did you even bring Him up in connection with this tragedy? To non believers, God don't exist so He can't be responsible for Haiti nor anything else. Yet, you all continue to infere catastrophies and evil happenings have to do with God somehow.

The devil does evil and bad, yet he gets off scott free with you guys.

Your answer lies in the Bible. Read it, again and again.

Also, one must take karma into account.

[Ahso!]

hoppy;1292623 wrote: You obviously do not believe in God, so why did you even bring Him up in connection with this tragedy? To non believers, God don't exist so He can't be responsible for Haiti nor anything else. Yet, you all continue to infere catastrophies and evil happenings have to do with God somehow.

The devil does evil and bad, yet he gets off scott free with you guys.

Your answer lies in the Bible. Read it, again and again.

Also, one must take karma into account.You'd have a good argument if your interpretation of the OP was correct, Hoppy. The question is posed with the intention of encouraging believers to ask critical questions regarding their faith or belief.

Take it on as posed, Hoppy, and make an argument for it. You're intelligent!

[Glaswegian]

hoppy;1292623 wrote: You obviously do not believe in God, so why did you even bring Him up in connection with this tragedy?
Tragedy? Why are you using this word, hoppy? According to you, 200,000 men, women and children died in Haiti as punishment for their 'sins'. Therefore, for you this was justice. Not tragedy.

The reason I brought God up in connection with the Haitian catastrophe is because Christians and other monotheists believe in the existence of a God who is all-powerful, all-knowing and perfectly good. If such a God exists then why did he allow the Haitian catastrophe (and countless others) to happen when he could so easily have prevented it?

hoppy wrote: To non believers, God don't exist so He can't be responsible for Haiti nor anything else. Yet, you all continue to infere catastrophies and evil happenings have to do with God somehow.


You're right. God doesn't exist for non-believers. That's why I put the question concerning God's failure to prevent the occurrence of catastrophes like the one in Haiti to Christians and other monotheists, and not to atheists. In the eyes of the latter, the question is redundant.

hoppy wrote: The devil does evil and bad, yet he gets off scott free with you guys.


Do you believe that the Devil exists?

hoppy wrote: Your answer lies in the Bible.
Whereabouts?

hoppy wrote: Also, one must take karma into account.
In what way?

[hoppy]

Glaswegian;1292645 wrote: Tragedy? Why are you using this word, hoppy? According to you, 200,000 men, women and children died in Haiti as punishment for their 'sins'. Therefore, for you this was justice. Not tragedy.

The reason I brought God up in connection with the Haitian catastrophe is because Christians and other monotheists believe in the existence of a God who is all-powerful, all-knowing and perfectly good. If such a God exists then why did he allow the Haitian catastrophe (and countless others) to happen when he could so easily have prevented it?



You're right. God doesn't exist for non-believers. That's why I put the question concerning God's failure to prevent the occurrence of catastrophes like the one in Haiti to Christians and other monotheists, and not to atheists. In the eyes of the latter, the question is redundant.



Do you believe that the Devil exists?



Whereabouts?



In what way?


Interesting article.

Why Does God Allow Disasters? > The Good News : March/April 2005

[Ahso!]

Glaswegian;1292573 wrote: Interesting. Could you expand on this, Ahso!?I see grouping and therefore religion as a social adaptation for survival purposes. Unconscious as it may be, which in my mind adds credibility to the idea.

Everything regarding at least Christianity (thats all I can speak on) is external. In fact, according to the bible, one does not become complete until "original" sin and individuality is flushed away through being "born again" and baptism with the Holy Spirit of God. Christians are taught to look within themselves only after that process occurs, though not to themselves but to God's spirit (but they still don't), even so, they are to listen to God's instructors here on earth.

If Christianity was authentic what we would see is no Christians at tea party gatherings or political conventions and about doing other busy work. Instead, if Christians were actually baptized with the Holy Spirit of their God, we'd not see them as they would be in constant prayer because thats all the Holy Spirit wants to do - be in communion with the Father (according to the bible).

But they are not really hypocrites as much as they are unconsciously behaving as one would expect from a Darwinian perspective.

[Ahso!]

Glaswegian;1292570 wrote: No: I do not think this, oscar.Nor do I!:) The definition of evolution put forth is inaccurate, however unfortunately common.

[Glaswegian]

Ahso!;1292650 wrote: I see grouping and therefore religion as a social adaptation for survival purposes.
What do you mean by this, Ahso!? Are you saying that religion functions to promote social cohesion within a group and, in consequence of this, increases the group's survival vis-a-vis other groups?

[Ahso!]

Glaswegian;1292753 wrote: What do you mean by this, Ahso!? Are you saying that religion functions to promote social cohesion within a group and, in consequence of this, increases the group's survival vis-a-vis other groups?Yes!

[Glaswegian]

oscar;1292577 wrote: We have to suffer loss and cruel loss with that to even begin to learn such emotions as empathy, sympathy, Patience and understanding...If the suffering stops, the learning of emotions stop.
What you are saying here, oscar, is that it was necessary for 200,000 Haitians to suffer horrendous deaths in order to facilitate our emotional development, and that we need to be regularly dosed with suffering on this scale to keep our emotional development ongoing. What a monstrous and revolting idea! As a method for cultivating the emotions it is sadistic beyond belief.

[Glaswegian]

Glaswegian;1292753 wrote: Are you saying that religion functions to promote social cohesion within a group and, in consequence of this, increases the group's survival vis-a-vis other groups?
Ahso! wrote: Yes!
I'm sure you are right that religion functions to promote group cohesion. But this function is double-edged, isn't it? For it also tends to produce an 'Us and Them' outlook in the minds of different groups of believers. This is why religion, as well as promoting group cohesion, has engendered some of the worst inter-group conflicts in history. Think of the ocean of blood that was spilled by Christians and Muslims during the Crusades.

[Ahso!]

Glaswegian;1292848 wrote: I'm sure you are right that religion functions to promote group cohesion. But this function is double-edged, isn't it? For it also tends to produce an 'Us and Them' outlook in the minds of different groups of believers. This is why religion, as well as promoting group cohesion, has engendered some of the worst inter-group conflicts in history. Think of the ocean of blood that was spilled by Christians and Muslims during the Crusades.I agree! Its double edged indeed, but that doesn't change the fact that it is what it is. Evolution is cold and warm.

The question is whether we can take this knowledge and increase our chances of better humanity. I think we can and whats going on at EvoS is worth following.

The idea is to create grouping without the doctrine and dogma of religion. A few of us have been discussing this subject here.

[Oscar Namechange]

Glaswegian;1292790 wrote: What you are saying here, oscar, is that it was necessary for 200,000 Haitians to suffer horrendous deaths in order to facilitate our emotional development, and that we need to be regularly dosed with suffering on this scale to keep our emotional development ongoing. What a monstrous and revolting idea! As a method for cultivating the emotions it is sadistic beyond belief.
Disasters of this kind bring people of all Nations together In a United empathetic state. If history had no such disasters, we would have no cause to learn or show empathy or any other emotion. It Is a perfectly reasonable way to look at things and Infact this was what was explained to me as a young child at my religious classes.

Hoe many people ignore lung cancer until their own loved one dies of It? Suddenly, they are raising money for cancer rsearch where as before they never gave It a thought.

How many women will only give to charities of Mis-carried babies when after they lose a baby themselves?

How many people suddenly want to help drug addicts when they have come clean themselves?

I could go on however, that's the truth of It. We live In a selfish world and that selfishness Is born of genetics and evolution... Nothing to do with God.

[Glaswegian]

oscar;1292859 wrote: If history had no such disasters, we would have no cause to learn or show empathy or any other emotion. It Is a perfectly reasonable way to look at things
Perfectly reasonable? Let me ask you something, oscar. What would you think of a father who starved one of his children to death in order to develop a moral sense in the child's brothers and sisters? What would you think if the father drowned the child, or crushed it to death, or caused it to die of thirst, or infected it with malaria, or dysentery, or aids to achieve this end? Are these methods of instruction acceptable to you? Would you say that they are the best possible way to learn the child's brothers and sisters to be compassionate and good? Would you not instead be absolutely outraged by the sheer callousness and cruelty of the father who employed them? If so, then multiply your feeling of outrage by the power of millions and direct it towards the 'Heavenly Father' worshipped by Christians and other monotheists for He is guilty of infinitely worse than the earthly one.

oscar wrote: We live In a selfish world and that selfishness Is born of genetics and evolution... Nothing to do with God.
We live in a world where altruism is also evident. But that too has nothing to do with God.

[Ahso!]

You're saying empathy cannot occur without disaster or pain? Do I have that right, Oscar?

[Glaswegian]

Ahso!;1292650 wrote: Everything regarding at least Christianity (thats all I can speak on) is external.
If I understand you correctly, Ahso!, you regard Christianity as the outcome of processes which are external to individuals - e.g., evolution, culture, socialization. These processes certainly have to be taken into account in any attempt to make sense of Christianity (and Religion in general). But I think it is also necessary to look at how Christianity is shaped and informed by processes which are internal to individuals - e.g., emotions, feelings, sentiments, needs, wishes, yearnings - many of which are infantile in nature.

[Ahso!]

Glaswegian;1293007 wrote: If I understand you correctly, Ahso!, you regard Christianity as the outcome of processes which are external to individuals - e.g., evolution, culture, socialization. Not as you've described it. What I'm saying is the workings of Christianity are external, not internal. There is nothing found within the individual. God and all the values associated are given to the Christian from outside. The person is not encouraged to explore the self. The believer is told they were born evil and need God to be injected into their inner being to be whole. Glaswegian;1293007 wrote: These processes certainly have to be taken into account in any attempt to make sense of Christianity (and Religion in general). But I think it is also necessary to look at how Christianity is shaped and informed by processes which are internal to individuals - e.g., emotions, feelings, sentiments, needs, wishes, yearnings - many of which are infantile in nature.As I said earlier, people are completely unaware they are driven by evolutionary forces because evolution is not understood. Everything you mention are actually redundancies. Its all emotion. Emotion does indeed seem to me to be the mechanism by which people are driven to grouping.

What is the first thing most young couples do after having their first child? Shop for religion! Why?

[Glaswegian]

Ahso!;1293010 wrote: What I'm saying is the workings of Christianity are external, not internal. There is nothing found within the individual.
Nothing? What about the guilt the Christian experiences as a 'sinner'? What about his terror of death and longing for immortality? What about his conceit that he is in direct communication with The Creator Of The Universe? Surely these things can be found going on inside the Christian? The Christian, as you describe him Ahso!, is a vacuum.

Ahso! wrote: God and all the values associated are given to the Christian from outside.
I agree. And you will recall that earlier I identified two processes external to the Christian through which this occurs: namely, culture and socialization. However, mere exposure to the Christian religion is not sufficient for it to take root in an individual. For this to happen a further process is required (viz. internalization). Christian indoctrination is an extremely insidious affair and I'll come back to it later.

Ahso! wrote: people are completely unaware they are driven by evolutionary forces because evolution is not understood.
I think you have lost sight of people as agents within the vast, impersonal workings of evolution.

Ahso! wrote: What is the first thing most young couples do after having their first child? Shop for religion! Why?
I don't know. Tell me.

[Ahso!]

Glaswegian;1293022 wrote: Nothing? What about the guilt the Christian experiences as a 'sinner'? What about his terror of death and longing for immortality? What about his conceit that he is in direct communication with The Creator Of The Universe? Surely these things can be found going on inside the Christian? The Christian, as you describe him Ahso!, is a vacuum.i was speaking from the Christian perspective.

I do think a distinction needs to be made between the old and new testaments. Those are two opposite God personalities.

The perks Christians get as in knowing God personally and immortality are in exchange for the sacrifices made for the good of the group.



Glaswegian;1293022 wrote: I agree. And you will recall that earlier I identified two processes external to the Christian through which this occurs: namely, culture and socialization. However, mere exposure to the Christian religion is not sufficient for it to take root in an individual. For this to happen a further process is required (viz. internalization). Christian indoctrination is an extremely insidious affair and I'll come back to it later. After posting my reply to you last evening, I reread your post and realized I may had answered from a perspective other than you were seeking. If I'd done that, I apologize. i agree with some of what you've said here. I'll post a new reply.



Glaswegian;1293022 wrote: I think you have lost sight of people as agents within the vast, impersonal workings of evolution.I'm not sure what you mean here. Everything we think do and say is influenced by evolution, its what we are, how we came to be and what is going on inside you and me every minute of the day. Its the process of natural selection how cancer cells spread for instance.



Glaswegian;1293022 wrote: I don't know. Tell me.IMO Its frightening out there all alone.

[Ahso!]

Glaswegian;1293007 wrote: If I understand you correctly, Ahso!, you regard Christianity as the outcome of processes which are external to individuals - e.g., evolution, culture, socialization. These processes certainly have to be taken into account in any attempt to make sense of Christianity (and Religion in general). But I think it is also necessary to look at how Christianity is shaped and informed by processes which are internal to individuals - e.g., emotions, feelings, sentiments, needs, wishes, yearnings - many of which are infantile in nature.I see your point, and I think it is very reasonable.

[Glaswegian]

Glaswegian;1293022 wrote: mere exposure to the Christian religion is not sufficient for it to take root in an individual. For this to happen a further process is required (viz. internalization). Christian indoctrination is an extremely insidious affair and I'll come back to it later.
In order for the Christian religion to take root in an individual he must assent to it inwardly. This is what I meant above by internalization. However, given the fact that the Christian religion and its associated beliefs are absurd and without any basis in reality, this process encounters difficulty in the case of individuals who are intellectually honest and in whom critical thinking is strong. For them, the Christian religion is too outlandish and preposterous to be taken seriously, and their minds naturally revolt at it.

On the other hand, Christian indoctrination achieves its greatest success in the case of children. This is because in children the rational and critical faculties are still at a rudimentary stage of development, and therefore their power to resist indoctrination at the hands of Christians is almost non-existent. Shrewd exponents of the Christian religion have long known this. Hence the old Jesuit maxim - 'Give me the child for seven years and I will give you the man.'

Christian indoctrination is most insidious when it is applied to children for it penetrates deeply into their vulnerable and receptive minds. This is why many individuals who have been subjected to this process experience great difficulty and distress in later life trying to free themselves of their religion. Indeed, so entrenched has the Christian religion become in some of them that they can only leave it behind kicking and screaming.

[Glaswegian]

Glaswegian;1293022 wrote: I think you have lost sight of people as agents within the vast, impersonal workings of evolution.
Ahso! wrote: I'm not sure what you mean here.
What I mean is that people have the power of agency, the power to choose how they will act in any given situation, and that this is how they experience themselves from the 'inside', as possessing this power. Admittedly, this experience might be entirely illusory. But nevertheless this is how we experience ourselves in relation to the world.

[Ahso!]

I appreciate your command of language. Its a pleasure to read what you write.

I understand your view on the subject of religion.

Homophobic people make the same argument as you're putting forward.

They say: children are impressionable and therefore should not be parented by or even exposed to gay people and the associated relationships, otherwise they will be gay too.

We now know gay people are born gay. Exposing young non-gay children to gays and the associated relationships will not make a person gay. It may, at some point, most likely later on in years, provide the person permission to experiment with relationships with members of the same sex, however, if the person is not gay, they have the ability to walk out of that at their choosing. The desire for a relationship remains though because that is natural. people who have been raised by gay people or have loved ones whom are gay will find it impossible to turn against gays in general.

What religious people understand as do politicians, sales people and even myself because I am a parent, is people in general are storytellers and consumers of stories. We tell our children stories in order to assist them in understanding the world in which they find themselves in or just simply to make them laugh. Using stories to cause laughter in children does not mean they will be sarcastic though. They will develop a sense of who, what, where, when and how to express that side of themselves.

It is amazing to watch as a person grows from a child through adolescence and into adulthood. The changes that occur are spectacular. We know now that when we are young most of our non sensory brain portion is mostly where emotion comes from and then slowly develops the cognitive part and completes its growth sometime in the mid twenties. The wonder of that is brain function shifts and while experiences and learning remain, certain things stay in childhood and others move on to adulthood.

To assume that whatever was learned as a child cannot be challenged by the individual in all cases (except where brain development has not followed for whatever reason) is at best unfair.

A few weeks ago I attended the baptism of my nieces baby. none of adults involved go to church as far as I know. I'm certain my sister, brother-in-law and niece had only attended church at some holidays, and even that was rare. So here we are doing this thing because this young couple has not bothered, due to not being interested enough or perhaps not having the time, or whatever reason challenged their religious beliefs (if we want to even call them that), and find it most convenient to practice the traditions they understand and feel safe by doing the essentials. That is what it actually is in the vast majority of cases for people and religion.

Many people just don't want to be bothered with actually understanding the guts of this issue, and do, out of respect for people in their past whom they've loved, what they do.

Cooking and eating is another good example. the evidence is becoming rather clear being overweight is not learned, its genetic and even evolutionary. Many people who have been raised in households in which they were taught to eat healthy become overweight and the reverse is also true.

[Glaswegian]

Ahso! wrote: Homophobic people make the same argument as you're putting forward.
Let's focus on Christian homophobes here for they are a particularly repellent variety, aren't they? (I saw a documentary a couple of years ago about an American Christian fundamentalist family, every one of whom was a rabid homophobe. This psychotic Christian clan took great pleasure in attending the funerals of American soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq and screaming abuse at the mourners. The soldier was killed, the clan clamoured, as a punishment for America's 'sin' of showing tolerance towards gay people.)

To return to your statement, Ahso!:

Ahso! wrote: Homophobic people make the same argument as you're putting forward.
I take it you mean that Christian homophobes argue, as I do, that people are free to choose how they will act? Yes: they certainly do argue this. But their reason for making this argument is very different from mine. When Christian homophobes argue that people - in this instance, gay people - are free in their actions they emphasise 'free to sin'. According to Christian ideology, 'sinful' acts or lifestyles must be freely chosen to be deserving of punishment. Therefore, it is necessary for Christian homophobes to view gay people as having chosen their sexual orientation freely in order to feel justified in condemning, punishing and desiring the latter's eternal damnation. Clearly, if the Christian homophobe viewed gay people as having no freedom of choice in their sexual orientation then he would be forced to deny himself an ugly pleasure.

[Glaswegian]

Ahso!;1293116 wrote: A few weeks ago I attended the baptism of my nieces baby. none of adults involved go to church as far as I know. I'm certain my sister, brother-in-law and niece had only attended church at some holidays, and even that was rare. So here we are doing this thing because this young couple has not bothered, due to not being interested enough or perhaps not having the time, or whatever reason challenged their religious beliefs (if we want to even call them that), and find it most convenient to practice the traditions they understand and feel safe by doing the essentials. That is what it actually is in the vast majority of cases for people and religion.

Many people just don't want to be bothered with actually understanding the guts of this issue, and do, out of respect for people in their past whom they've loved, what they do.
Yes. Many people simply go through the motions of 'believing' their religion. It's a sad state of affairs when people remain within their religion out of force of habit or because they feel the need to conform to the expectations of others. Richard Dawkins draws attention to this in his book The God Delusion. He writes:

'I am sure that there are lots of people out there who have been brought up in some religion or other, are unhappy in it, don't believe it, or are worried about the evils that are done in its name; people who feel vague yearnings to leave their parents' religion and wish they could, but just don't realize that leaving is an option.'

I think that what Dawkins says is more true of Americans than Europeans. In your country people seem to be under a great deal more pressure to be seen to be religious than people over here.

[Glaswegian]

hoppy;1292528 wrote: You don't think the sins of mankind go unpunished, do you?:wah:
Unfortunately, the crass and asinine view expressed by hoppy here is shared by other Christians as well. For example, the entrepreneur Christian evangelist, Pat Robertson, maintained that the Haitian earthquake was Divine punishment inflicted on the Haitian people by God for their having made a pact with the Devil to help them overthrow the rule of their colonial French masters a couple of centuries ago.

But it is not only natural horrors like earthquakes which Robertson and his ilk view as forms of Divine retribution. This is also the case with horrors engineered by humans. For example, the World Trade Center massacre carried out by the al-Qaeda hijackers was described by another entrepreneur Christian evangelist, the late Jerry Falwell, as an expression of God's wrath against 'the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians...and the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union]...and all those who try to secularise America.'

According to the perverse logic which underlies this obscene Christian understanding of the horrors and calamities which afflict the human race the following massacre carried out by American soldiers during the Vietnam War at My Lai village in 1968 must also be seen as Divine punishment for sin:

'Early in the morning the soldiers were landed in the village by helicopter. Many were firing as they spread out, killing both people and animals. There was no sign of the Vietcong battalion and no shot was fired at Charlie Company all day, but they carried on. They burnt down every house. They raped women and girls and then killed them. They stabbed some women in the vagina and disemboweled others, or cut off their hands or scalps. Pregnant women had their stomachs slashed open and were left to die. There were gang rapes and killings by shooting or with bayonets. There were mass executions. Dozens of people at a time, including old men, women and children, were machine-gunned in a ditch. In four hours nearly 500 villagers were killed.' From Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century by J. Glover (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999, p.58)

If Christians like Robertson, Falwell and hoppy are correct then the American soldiers who perpetrated this atrocity were utterly blameless. They were simply instruments of justice used by God to channel his wrath on the 16th of March 1968 at My Lai.

[hoppy]

So, finish the story. What happened to each soldier later in life? How did their lives go? How did they die, if they are dead?

When I was a wee lad, I was told by my dad to stay off a newly paved street that had a steep section of hill on it. When you are a kid, your dad is God. One day some friends and I took our bikes down that hill anyway. I crashed. They picked gravel and cinders out of my butt and legs for some time. You might say I got instant punishment. Usually though, man doesn't know which wrong he is being punished for.

[Glaswegian]

hoppy;1320567 wrote: So, finish the story. What happened to each soldier later in life? How did their lives go? How did they die, if they are dead?
I don't know. Do you?

hoppy wrote: When I was a wee lad, I was told by my dad to stay off a newly paved street that had a steep section of hill on it. When you are a kid, your dad is God. One day some friends and I took our bikes down that hill anyway. I crashed. They picked gravel and cinders out of my butt and legs for some time. You might say I got instant punishment.
From whom?

hoppy wrote: Usually though, man doesn't know which wrong he is being punished for.
This is a very interesting statement, hoppy. If you don't mind, I'd like to give it some thought before I respond to it. See you in a while.

[Glaswegian]

hoppy wrote: Usually though, man doesn't know which wrong he is being punished for.
If human beings don't know which wrong they are being punished for then what is the point of punishing them?

I think it will be useful here to consider what justifies punishment in the eyes of most people.

In your society and mine, hoppy, there is a set of laws which designate certain forms of behaviour as 'criminal'. Failure to obey these laws results in punishment meted out by the criminal-justice system. Why? Because one of the most important aims of punishment is to act as a deterrent.

But in order for punishment to work as a deterrent an association must be formed in the mind of an individual between a criminal act and the punishment which it incurs. And this association is broadly achieved in two ways: 1. Through the criminal directly experiencing punishment himself; 2. Through the criminal serving as an example to others who experience his punishment in a vicarious or second hand way.

Now, if the God whom Christians believe in punishes 'sinners' in such a fashion that they don't know what wrong it is they are being punished for then a primary aim of punishment is negated. How are sinners to make the connection between their sin and the Divine punishment which it incurs? Punishment administered in this way can only appear as arbitrary and whimsical to those who receive it. As far as they are concerned, they might as well be rats in a maze receiving electric shocks at random. Such punishment has no deterrent value whatsoever: it is in effect nothing more than pointless cruelty, and any being who dishes it out - be they God or man - is sadistic and morally obscene.

There is another feature of punishment which all civilized human beings agree upon and demand: namely, it must be proportionate to the crime committed. This being so, hoppy, let me ask you this:

When American soldiers were slashing the stomachs of pregnant women at My Lai, what sin did the babes in their wombs commit that was so deserving of this kind of justice meted out by God?

[hoppy]

Didn't God punish people for the sins of their fathers? And when God flooded the earth, were there not probably children caught in the flood?

God works in mysterious ways.

[Glaswegian]

hoppy;1320639 wrote: Didn't God punish people for the sins of their fathers?
According to your religion's 'holy book' He did (and still does apparently). Do you think that punishing people for the sins of their fathers is morally justified?



hoppy wrote: And when God flooded the earth, were there not probably children caught in the flood?
Once again, according to your religion's 'holy book' God must have drowned many, many children when He flooded the earth. Do you think that this mass drowning of children was the act of a loving and merciful God?

~o0o~


Let me provide you with an article written in The Times newspaper by Richard Dawkins which bears strongly on the matter we are discussing, hoppy. It may surprise you to know that in this article Dawkins pays Christians of your variety a compliment. Here is the article:

HEAR THE RUMBLE OF CHRISTIAN HYPOCRISY

The evangelist who says the Haiti earthquake is retribution for sin is at least true to his religion

by

Richard Dawkins


'We know what caused the catastrophe in Haiti. It was the bumping and grinding of the Caribbean Plate rubbing up against the North American Plate: a force of nature, sin-free and indifferent to sin, unpremeditated, unmotivated, supremely unconcerned with human affairs or human misery.

The religious mind, however, hubristically appropriates the blind happenings of physics for petty moralistic purposes. As with the Indonesian tsunami, which was blamed on loose sexual morals in tourist nightclubs; as with Hurricane Katrina, which was attributed to divine revenge on the entire city of New Orleans for organising a gay rally; and as with other disasters going back to the famous Lisbon earthquake and beyond, so Haiti’s tragedy must be payback for human “sin.

The Rev Pat Robertson, infamous American televangelist, sees the hand of God in the earthquake, wreaking terrible retribution for a 1791 pact that the Haitians made with the Devil, to help to rid them of their French masters. 1791? Ah, but don’t forget “I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.

Needless to say, milder-mannered faith-heads fell over themselves to disown Robertson, just as they disowned those other pastors, evangelists, missionaries and mullahs at the time of the earlier disasters.

What hypocrisy. Loathsome as Robertson’s views undoubtedly are, he is the Christian who stands squarely in the Christian tradition. The agonised theodiceans who see suffering as an intractable “mystery, or who see God in the help, money and goodwill that is now flooding into Haiti, or (most nauseating of all) who claim to see God “suffering on the cross in the ruins of Port-au-Prince, those faux-anguished hypocrites are denying the centrepiece of their own theology. It is the obnoxious Pat Robertson who is the true Christian here.

Where was God in Noah’s flood? He was systematically drowning the entire world, animal as well as human, as punishment for “sin. Where was God when Sodom and Gomorrah were consumed with fire and brimstone? He was deliberately barbecuing the citizenry, lock, stock and barrel, as punishment for “sin.

“Oh but that’s the Old Testament. No one believes those stories literally any more. The New Testament is all about love. Dear modern, enlightened, theologically sophisticated, gentle Christian, you cannot be serious. Your entire religion is founded on an obsession with “sin, with punishment and with atonement. Where do you find the effrontery to condemn Pat Robertson, you who have signed up to the odious doctrine that the central purpose of Jesus’s incarnation was to have himself tortured as a scapegoat for the “sins of all mankind, past, present and future, beginning with the “sin of Adam, who (as any modern theologian well knows) never even existed?

Yes, I know you hate the word “scapegoat (with good reason, because it is a barbaric idea) but what other word would you use? The only respect in which “scapegoat falls short as a perfect epitome of Christian theology is that the Christian atonement is even more unpleasant. The goat of Jewish tradition was merely driven into the wilderness with its cargo of symbolic sin. Jesus was supposedly tortured and executed to atone for sins that, any rational person might protest, he had it in his power simply to forgive, without the agony. Among all the ideas ever to occur to a nasty human mind (Paul’s of course), the Christian “atonement would win a prize for pointless futility as well as moral depravity.

Even without the stark heartlessness of Pat Robertson, tragedies like Haiti are meat and drink to the theological mind. To quote the president of one theological seminary, writing in the On Faith blog of the Washington Post: “The earthquake in Haiti, like every other earthly disaster, reminds us that creation groans under the weight of sin and the judgment of God. This is true for every cell in our bodies, even as it is for the crust of the earth at every point on the globe.

You nice, middle-of-the-road theologians and clergymen, be-frocked and bleating in your pulpits, you disclaim Pat Robertson's suggestion that the Haitians are paying for a pact with the Devil. But you worship a god-man who — as you tell your congregations, even if you don’t believe it yourself — “cast out devils. You even believe (or you don’t disabuse your flock when they believe) that Jesus cured a madman by causing the “devils in him to fly into a herd of pigs and stampede them over a cliff. Charming story, well calculated to uplift and inspire the Sunday School and the Infant Bible Class.

Robertson may spout evil nonsense, but he is a mere amateur at that game. Just read your own New Testament. Pat Robertson is true to it. But you?

Educated apologist, how dare you weep Christian tears, when your entire theology is one long celebration of suffering: suffering as payback for “sin — or suffering as “atonement for it? You may weep for Haiti where Pat Robertson does not, but at least, in his hick, sub-Palinesque ignorance, he holds up an honest mirror to the ugliness of Christian theology. You are nothing but a whited sepulchre.' From The Times, 29th January 2010

[hoppy]

Re: An old question on 200,000 dead's lips

Originally Posted by hoppy

Didn't God punish people for the sins of their fathers?

According to your religion's 'holy book' He did (and still does apparently). Do you think that punishing people for the sins of their fathers is morally justified?



Originally Posted by hoppy

And when God flooded the earth, were there not probably children caught in the flood?

Once again, according to your religion's 'holy book' God must have drowned many, many children when He flooded the earth. Do you think that this mass drowning of children was the act of a loving and merciful God?

Try to imagine yourself as God. You punished, then forgave your people countless times. You let them become great nations when they obeyed. But countless times they returned your genorosity by doing evil. You gave them the ten commandments to help guide them. You gave them the Bible for further reference. And they STILL spit in your face by not believing and asking "where is God" when bad things happen to them.

Were I God, I would blow the world apart and start over. But wait, His people are destroying the world and themselves. HE is merely letting them. Maybe HE has had enough of them.

[Glaswegian]

hoppy;1320667 wrote: Try to imagine yourself as God. You punished, then forgave your people countless times. You let them become great nations when they obeyed. But countless times they returned your genorosity by doing evil. You gave them the ten commandments to help guide them. You gave them the Bible for further reference. And they STILL spit in your face by not believing and asking "where is God" when bad things happen to them.

Were I God, I would blow the world apart and start over. But wait, His people are destroying the world and themselves. HE is merely letting them. Maybe HE has had enough of them.
You've said a number of interesting things in your post. So I must ask you again to bear with me while I respond to them. In the meantime let me put this question to you:

Why does this God of yours need to be believed in? Why is it so important for Him? Does He hold His own existence in such doubt that it needs to be affirmed by millions upon millions of believers every moment of every day?

[hoppy]

Glaswegian;1320672 wrote: You've said a number of interesting things in your post. So I must ask you again to bear with me while I respond to them. In the meantime let me put this question to you:

Why does this God of yours need to be believed in? Why is it so important for Him? Does He hold His own existence in such doubt that it needs to be affirmed by millions upon millions of believers every moment of every day?


Why does a child's father insist on being believed in and obeyed? Same thing. Because a child's father knows the end results of the mistakes made by people. A good father wants to save his child from harm.

[Glaswegian]

hoppy;1320687 wrote: Why does a child's father insist on being believed in and obeyed? Same thing.
But does a child's father starve the child to death for not believing in him and disobeying him?

What would you think of a father who actually did this to his child? What would you do to a father who made his child die slowly and agonisingly of starvation because it didn't believe in him and obey him? If I found myself in the same room as that man I don't think I could stop myself causing him extreme damage.

And that is only one child. In the case of your God, we are talking of countless millions of children who have died horrible deaths from starvation across millennia. And what did your God do while this scene of horror and suffering unfolded before His 'eternal gaze'? Absolutely nothing.

According to one of the wilder tales in your 'holy book', God miraculously fed five thousand people with a few loaves of bread and fishes. So why doesn't He feed the starving people on this planet? For an omnipotent Being who allegedly created the entire cosmos with its billions of stars and galaxies that must be a ridiculously easy task to perform - here, on this speck of dust called 'Earth'.

In this world a child dies of starvation every five seconds. So, by the time you finish reading this post, hoppy, around a dozen children will have died in this way. If your God exists then it is well within His power to intervene and prevent these horrific deaths. But He never does. This is why I think your (imaginary) God is beneath contempt. And that goes for anyone abject and stupid enough to worship Him.

[Clodhopper]

And that goes for anyone abject and stupid enough to worship Him.


Think you've gone too far here mate. While I agree with the thrust of your criticisms in many ways, I know devout Christians and, whether they are correct in their beliefs or not, I could not describe their lives as "abject" or "stupid". They are trying to live lives they feel God would approve of, as described by Jesus. They are not rolling-eyed fanatics. They do not stand in self-righteous condemnation of others. They are admirable people by their actions.

chuckle. Every time I see one of those fundamentalist hypocritical preachers, whether Christian or Muslim (or any other religion), telling everyone else how to live in poverty, chastity and obedience while adding to their collections of fast cars and mistresses, I really hope there is a God. 'Cos if there is, I reckon he'd have a particularly hot place in Hell for those who pervert His Word...

[hoppy]

Glaswegian;1320721 wrote: But does a child's father starve the child to death for not believing in him and disobeying him?

What would you think of a father who actually did this to his child? What would you do to a father who made his child die slowly and agonisingly of starvation because it didn't believe in him and obey him? If I found myself in the same room as that man I don't think I could stop myself causing him extreme damage.

And that is only one child. In the case of your God, we are talking of countless millions of children who have died horrible deaths from starvation across millennia. And what did your God do while this scene of horror and suffering unfolded before His 'eternal gaze'? Absolutely nothing.

According to one of the wilder tales in your 'holy book', God miraculously fed five thousand people with a few loaves of bread and fishes. So why doesn't He feed the starving people on this planet? For an omnipotent Being who allegedly created the entire cosmos with its billions of stars and galaxies that must be a ridiculously easy task to perform - here, on this speck of dust called 'Earth'.

In this world a child dies of starvation every five seconds. So, by the time you finish reading this post, hoppy, around a dozen children will have died in this way. If your God exists then it is well within His power to intervene and prevent these horrific deaths. But He never does. This is why I think your (imaginary) God is beneath contempt. And that goes for anyone abject and stupid enough to worship Him.


Seems like we are back to being punished for the sins of our fathers. Or maybe God is just fed up with people not believing in Him or obeying His rules and is just letting man have his way. If that's the case, then all those children that are starving is our doing. Maybe YOU are helping kill all those children and will pay for it.