Exactly.

I remember when Shahrad first appeared on this forum and I was excited by what I hoped was going to be an articulate and rational muslim.

How quickly I was disavowed of that notion.

This kind of reminds of the thread he made where he posted a picture of an elderly foreign and unattractive woman and a picture of an attractive, young western woman and then asked everyone to pick one for a mate... he then proceeded to judge anyone who picked the young woman while ignoring all factors that you might consider which one is more likely to; speak your language, have similar life experiences, be closer to your age, have similar cultural values, etc. Anyone who picked the attractive woman was wrong.

The above is further irrational nonsense. Maybe people like a woman's butt because of biological programming? Maybe we feel bad and don't want to give all our dollars to homeless people because we have families to feed? Perhaps many realize that there are better ways to help the homeless population then giving dollars to random people on the street? Perhaps people get angry because its a natural emotion that is appropriate when one has been wronged? Maybe someone is happy when they get a car not because they own a piece of metal but because they now have mobility they did not have before?

Even as pop culture greeting card morality its dreck and should be dismissed by anyone including religious people.

And of course nothing above even remotely hints at the existence or influence of satan.

Of course it does. The world is full of non-believers, which is exactly how Satan wants it, which proves that he exists and by extension, that Allah exists too.

Sorry, couldn't resist it but I agreed with the rest of your post.

I moved them back.

Sorry about that.

You can always start your own thread if you work up the nerve to actually state a position.

I'll wait......

I've already demonstrated, on multiple occasions, that your position is incorrect. It seems OrP agrees. So, unless someone else comes in here and also supports your position, I'm just going to assume you're either trolling or obtuse, and, in either event, not worth my time.

God, are you there?



I feel kinda bad about posting this image but I'm not emotional person but this has touched me deeply and kinda ties in with the op.

(sorry, I've been away for awhile, and future apologies for the same)

Just curious, but is the issue a question of "is God loving" or "is God allloving"?

If it's all-loving, then I understand how a single instance of a newborn with a facial tumor, or the existence of a parasite, can be an issue.

If it's simply loving, then at what point should one question the attribute of this supposed supreme being? What percentage of babies have to be born (or unborn) due to deformations/diseases, in order for us to question the lovingness of their supposed creator? What percentage of the animal kingdom has to destroy other animal life in order to survive, before we must question the lovingness?

Or are we simply attacking the all-lovingness of this supreme creator?

anything over zero percent. once again, it's absurd to me that someone would hold god to a lower standard than any fallible primate mother. the loving, all knowing, all powerful mother of all creation, that will sometimes kill you with a natural disaster.

"cynthia is a loving mother. she and her husband have an amazing fourteen children together, and she only drowned one in the bathtub!"

Apparently 295,000 people died due to natural disasters in 2010, which was the most in a single year since 1983. Divide 7 billion by this number, then further divide that by, let's say, an average lifespan of 70 years (way too high, ofc), and you end up with an 338:1 ratio. I acknowledge this is overly simplistic math, but I believe it is well within an order of magnitude.

That's quite a high definition of loving imo.

But you've still got a point. If a supreme being operated by your definition of love, the world would be a better place I suppose.

I was thinking just the opposite.

Johnny was sitting at the bar, when the keep asked 'What's got you down son?'. Johnny replied 'You know, I built that bridge over the river. Everyday, all the folks in town use that bride. But do they call me Johnny the Bridge Builder?

'Nope.'

'I built that gazebo in the town square with my own hands. Does anyone call me Johnny the Carpenter?'

'No....'

'But I f*ck one goat...'

Understood. But I was trying to fathom the difference between all-loving and simply loving. It appears that all-loving is 100%, whereas simply loving cannot be worse than 100%. So there is no difference?

Perhaps we should discuss the meaning of the term "love". As a believer, I prefer going with the description given in 1Cor13 (love is patient, love is kind, etc...).

I think a great attack on the Christian God would be something like:

1) God is love. (1John4:9)
2) Love always protects (1Cor13)
3) Some people died from natural disasters.
4) Therefore, God did not protect them (at least, in a physical sense).
5) Houston, we have a problem.

(sorry, I never took a logic/philosophy class)

I would enjoy hearing some proper responses to this line of reasoning. I've got some ideas of what some decent Sunday school answers would be, but maybe yall can provide me with something outside that standard fluff.

Is death by natural disaster the only criteria by which we might judge God un-loving?

How many people are suffering right now?

You demonstrated that you disagree with my position.

That's about it.

So the criteria for love is never to allow someone to suffer under any circumstances ?

I'm familiar with the argument that suffering allows us experience personal and spiritual growth, but that explanation notwithstanding I would argue that a loving God wouldn't let us suffer.

In any case, I was pointing out the death is not only far from the only way in which God might fail to be loving and that suffering is actually far more common. If no one else on the planet was suffering except the people who had lost a loved one to natural disasters, it would still outnumber the deaths from natural disasters by orders of magnitude.

So that would be a yes ?

In order to love you must never allow suffering under any circumstances ?

no, don't be silly.

for example, one time, my grandpa forgot to pick me up from school when i was a kid. despite that, i know that he loves me.

now, if my grandpa had watched my sister drown in a kiddy pool when he could have easily pulled her out, i would not believe he loves me despite anything else he ever said or did.

Define suffering.

With an increase in knowledge of (and by extension, power over) the natural world, Humanity has greatly decreased suffering. We have a long way to go, but I doubt anyone would disagree that someone living in a modern 1st world civilization physically suffers less than someone who lived in the middle ages. It's a fair prediction that we will see suffering further reduced as our knowledge advances. I'm generalizing here, but you get the point.

It seems to me you're leaving out a couple of characteristics commonly attributed to God...those being Omnipotence (primary) and Omni-benevolence (secondary). There is some debate as to whether or not God does posses the latter, but not much argument among mainstream Christianity as to the former. With all this power, why the need for extreme suffering?

Matthew 26:53
Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

tortured and had the power to stop it
says a million words bro

also god creates mans intellect and then man claims that man is the reason for the advancement

LOL

I didn't leave those two attributes out at all.

My point was that it's entirely possible for an omnipotent God to allow suffering for some greater purpose.

No one likes that rather basic conclusion though so they keep ignoring it.