It is clear to me that you have no idea what God is all about. He did not cause this and no wherei in gthe bible does he promised you anything except salvation. The picture is a crime. I am guessing that the goverment of the country where the picture was taken is corrupt to the core. The US and uS churches has given billions to Africa to ease this type of suffer and the leader steal the money and we let them get away with it. To blame it on God is a cope out. The real question is what are we doing to help Answer that and we can begin a dialogue.
There are a few issues with your post. 1. If you can find a post where I state that church community/charity/mission work is worthless and without value I will give you a fresh cookie. Such a statement would be self-contradictory considering my participation in some Presbyterian Church project, including a trip to Joplin I had planned on participating in until I realized it conflicted with the Fire Fighter's Academy. 2. I have already stated and reiterated my argument on more than one occasion and all that seems to come from that effort are pathetic strawmen. I will explain again: My argument into two parts: 1. The argument out the silliness in believing in a personal theistic God when there is no evidence to suggest that such a thing exists, and many current world events and human sufferings dismiss that idea. People in first world countries find it easy to thank God for this silly thing or that silly thing, but how incredibly arrogant is it to believe that God listening to your prayers for a job while 26,000 people will starve to death today? What sort of God do people believe they are worshiping? 2. The predictable supposed "rebuttal" and amusing, ironic, and self-defeating. The question is who do such evils exist? The rebuttal is "why don't you do something about it?". That is not "why don't you pray harder?" "why don't you wish them away?" "why not ask God again?". The supposed rebuttal is "why don't you as a human being physically do something about it?". Such an argument rightfully removes the idea of a God from the equation. Church mission groups do not sit in a circle and pray for a water well to drill itself in Mexico. The group I participated with did not pray for the cemetery fence to fix itself. They are not praying for Jolpin to mend itself. They are getting up off their asses, raising funds, and doing something about it. They are using their minds to solve a problem. They are using their hands to solve a problem. Christians can accomplish this. Muslims can accomplish this to the same exact effect. Buddhists can accomplish this to the same exact effect. Atheists can accomplish this to the same exact effect. The supposed rebuttal is a humanist argument. It is not religious. It is humanist. If every prayer were an act, the world would be a better place. The world is not in God's hands. It is not fated by God. The world is in our hands. The world is fated by us. Plain and simple.
Your solution removes the need for a theist deity and places the responsibility on the shoulders of mankind and mankind alone. Kudos.
I couldn't care less where it came from. The image takes a piece of real scripture and demonstrates a contradictory current and real life situation. Is there something else that would make it more legitimate?
Ya if it didn't have the icanhazcheezburger tag on it. Totally ruins all credibility. Immediately. But their cats are funny.
All based exclusively on values and standards that you have chosen, then decided to judge God against. You have dictated that unless god values human comfort ahead of everything else and acts to grant that comfort to everyone, he "does not exist, it is incapable, incompetent, or malevolent." Would it be legitimate for a mouse to decide that since you choose not to provide it cheese whenever it is hungry, you are incapable, incompetent or malevolent? Rather than try to find out what God's value system may be and why he might hold back from helping these people, you simply declare him incapable or malevolent. It is very similar to a child considering his parents to be cruel when they prevent him from spoiling his dinner by eating candy right before dinner time. Have you considered the possibility that there is another value, other than that of feeding these needy people, that God considers to be more important and that would have to be violated if he were to step in and help these people?
I couldn't care less where it came from. The image takes a piece of real scripture and demonstrates a contradictory current and real life situation. Is there something else that would make it more legitimate? Would it make you feel better if I looked up the exact same verse and used the exact same image and made my own? That is just silly.
Oh, so there is something more important that human life? Really? That is the argument you are making? Do you see that? That is a Philosophical Minefield. Have fun crossing it.
The salvation of a human soul far exceeds the value of extending its life or its comfort. But that is just an example. I'm simply saying that, like the child is too shortsighted to realize that his parents are withholding the sweets to ensure that he is able to eat a nutritious meal, a limited human is often too shortsighted to understand the ramifications of God stepping in would be in a situation like you are describing. Consider this possibility: God steps in and magically provides food to all of the hungry people in the world. In some situations this makes them targets of the violent, so they then condemn God for making them targets and demand that he also protect them. When he provides that protection, they get cocky and arrogant, taunting and harassing everyone around them. Thus God's help ends up corrupting them. Others just accept the food, but then demand God provide them shelter as well. When he does, they demand clothing, entertainment, all of the other things that people desire. Since all they want is provided for them, they lose all ambition and end up corrupted as well. There are numerous ways that giving people their needs freely could work against them in the end. Can you be sure that if God provided the food these people need it wouldn't corrupt them and be more harmful to them in the end?
The arrogance here is simply astounding. It is easy to look at food and life as corrupting forces when you are not starving. Absolutely disgusting.
Like I said, you are making judgements based on your chosen value system, then holding others to those values. You have decided that a few years of not being hungry is more important than an infinite afterlife of endless torture. (For if we are assuming that the Christian God exists, we may also accept that the Christian heaven and hell also exist.) Jesus makes it very clear that the destination of the soul is far more important than anything temporal.
I know you don't care because you have shown to be a pretentious prick. "I don't care about this, I don't care about that". I get it, your narcissistic and have something to prove to yourself. But riddle me this. Your point of debate is that some god strickens the wicked. But how do we know those kids are starving or dying? The picture demonstrates a malnourished child. But what have people of the faith done to help these children and victims? What if they were better and prospering? Would this be the act absent of a gods favor? You can judge a god, but when you do so, you also insult their beliefs. A people who do a lot of good (Christians in this instance). This is behavior typical of narcissist.
The rules were changed. Only the soul that sins dies. No one is responsible for other people's sins. It's in the Bible. If Eve committed the original sin then she has to bite the bullet. It's no one else's problem.
Jesus claimed that if a believer asked for anything in his name in prayer that the believer would get it. So has Jesus ran out of food to help the starving? Matthew 21:22 (CJB) = "In other words, you will receive everything you ask for in prayer, no matter what it is, provided you have trust.
You are using a red herring by citing the source. The source is irrelevant if all of the information is correct. If the verse is correct, and if the real world scenario is correct, then whatever issues arise from the source are moot. Would you raise an issue if I posted a picture depicting E=MC^2 from the same source? Is that equation somehow less legitimate if it came from that website? No. Point? Splitting hairs? I have already said the argument is not against people of faith. I have said a text says one thing and the world demonstrates another. I am not going to explain it a fourth time, nor will I respond to the point again. Religious people doing X removes the need for a theistic God. Non religious people can accomplish the same feat. The point is moot. When I judge the notion that killing infidels in crowded markets I insult the Muslims literal beliefs. Do I care? Nope. My views on organized religion have been made clear, if someone does not want to be "insulted" then I suggest not clicking on the thread. There is a huge difference between adhering to a self-contradictory book and finding God on your own without being told what to think and how to feel.
Prove that omnipotence = the power to prevent bad things from occurring. Why so angry at a god you don't even believe in? Because you think your ex wanted to kill herself just so she could "be with Jesus"? Um nope, she obviously had way deeper issues which no amount of "religion" would have played any role in.
Omnipotence (from Latin: Omni Potens: "all power") is unlimited power http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence I suggest looking up the definition. Not quite, however I did enjoy the attempt at a psychiatric evaluation.
Wow! Such persuasive arguments of providing people with unearned goodies is absolutely corrupting! I am so convinced that we need to SAVE people I DEMAND we be putting in place a 100% tax on inheritance, so children of the financially well off are not DESTROYED by this corrupting influence!
