Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

What was god doing during the Rwandan genocide?

2

Comments

  • #32
    0verblood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 455 ✭✭0verblood


    I think God doesnt intervene because he made us all perfect and views us as perfect and cannot see the bad, he only sees the good.

    He only sees the good? I could kill 29 people and rape 60 babies and get away with it as he cannot see the evil that I'm doing?


  • #33
    bnt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,179 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    bluecatmorgana wrote: »
    I think God doesnt intervene because he made us all perfect and views us as perfect and cannot see the bad, he only sees the good.

    Pain and suffering are human conditions created by humans.
    So what happened to that omniscient, infallible god who sees everything and never makes mistakes? The one with the plan? Are you channeling Terry Eagleton? :rolleyes:

    You are the type of what the age is searching for, and what it is afraid it has found. I am so glad that you have never done anything, never carved a statue, or painted a picture, or produced anything outside of yourself! Life has been your art. You have set yourself to music. Your days are your sonnets.

    ―Oscar Wilde predicting Social Media, in The Picture of Dorian Gray



  • #34
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    bnt wrote: »
    So what happened to that omniscient, infallible god who sees everything and never makes mistakes? The one with the plan? Are you channeling Terry Eagleton? :rolleyes:

    The poster isn't a Christian, so it doesn't automatically follow that (s)he believes God has such qualities.


  • #35
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    0verblood wrote: »
    By the way if you don't want your god to be a glorified puppet, why do you pray to him? Do you pray to him in the conventional way ie "oh god please help me pass this interview tomorrow" etc etc. I'm not sure if that's how Irish people pray, just guessing from the movies! But in Africa they definitely ask god for everything and anything.

    Sometimes he can and does say no. I'm glad He has said no to some of my prayers. God will fulfil our prayers if they are in accordance with His will and if they are for His purposes.

    This is why in the Lord's Prayer we say "Thy will be done on earth as is in heaven". We recognise that our will is subservient to God's. God knows better as to what is best, therefore we have to let Him determine.

    I wouldn't dare to say that I am God's puppet master as this is blasphemy. In comparison to God, I am absolutely nothing.


  • #36
    tim_holsters
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,466 ✭✭✭tim_holsters


    Seaneh wrote: »
    It makes perfect sense.
    You are basically asking why did God allow something so evil to happen. But in reality evil is just what happens when people turn away from God. It's what happens when you don't follow Gods two greatest commandments to humanity

    “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22)

    If humanity followed the "Great Commandments" as they are known then stuff like what happened in Rwanda in 1994 and Yugoslavia between 1991 and 1995 would never happen.

    You are asking why does God allow evil, why doesn't he eliminate evil, but if he was to eliminate all evil he would have to eliminate humanity because we (humans) have evil thoughts, all of us do. Whether they be things we as humans consider evil thoughts or not is neither here nor there, in Gods eyes it is sin and all sin is evil and all evil is equally offensive to God.

    It seems like it's the other way around to me.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    ^^ It depends where you think evil comes from. If there is absolute good and evil, there is very little option other than that they are from God. If they are relative, they are so subject to change that good and evil become worthless. Which is it?


  • #38
    tim_holsters
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,466 ✭✭✭tim_holsters


    Jakkass wrote: »
    ^^ It depends where you think evil comes from. If there is absolute good and evil, there is very little option other than that they are from God. If they are relative, they are so subject to change that good and evil become worthless. Which is it?

    You should check out the Homo sapiens option.


  • #39
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    tim_holsters wrote: »
    You should check out the Homo sapiens option.

    So you think absolute good and evil come from man? Like really?


  • #40
    tim_holsters
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,466 ✭✭✭tim_holsters


    PDN wrote: »
    So you think absolute good and evil come from man? Like really?

    Absolute good and evil. Good and evil without the absolute, whatever you like.

    You know better? Fair enough.

    Where do they come from?


  • #41
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Relative morality is useless for dealing with moral / ethical disputes. Tom's morality may involve field shooting humans as a Sunday lunch activity, yet I am to regard his morality as perfectly valid in comparison to mine? Or is field shooting humans absolutely wrong?
    If it is, why it is absolutely wrong? Why can't field shooting humans "be right for Tom", but not for me, why can't I just agree to disagree, whatever floats Tom's boat right?


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    tim_holsters
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,466 ✭✭✭tim_holsters


    Jakkass you have me confused mate.

    It's certainly my own belief that field shooting of humans is wrong.


  • #43
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I used an obvious example, for obvious reasons.

    If field shooting of humans is wrong, why it is wrong?
    If it is wrong, is it universally wrong, or only subjectively wrong (It's OK for Tom, but not for me)?
    If it is absolutely wrong, why it is absolutely wrong?


  • #44
    tim_holsters
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,466 ✭✭✭tim_holsters


    My point regarding the concept of good and evil and it's provenance is since there isn't the slightest evidence that God exists but there is ample evidence that we do therefore the said concepts must originate with us.

    I can't say more than that.


  • #45
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Of course there is evidence that God exists - you either haven't encountered it or dismiss it out of hand.


  • #46
    0verblood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 455 ✭✭0verblood


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I used an obvious example, for obvious reasons.

    If field shooting of humans is wrong, why it is wrong?
    If it is wrong, is it universally wrong, or only subjectively wrong (It's OK for Tom, but not for me)?
    If it is absolutely wrong, why it is absolutely wrong?

    It's wrong because if everybody killed everybody else there would be nobody left.


  • #47
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    0verblood wrote: »
    It's wrong because if everybody killed everybody else there would be nobody left.

    To expand,
    The gene-pool needs diversity. Species that kill off their own kind find them selves extinct quite quickly.


  • #48
    tim_holsters
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,466 ✭✭✭tim_holsters


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Of course there is evidence that God exists - you either haven't encountered it or dismiss it out of hand.

    Come on now you could at least provide a pic.


  • #49
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    0verblood wrote: »
    It's wrong because if everybody killed everybody else there would be nobody left.
    So? How do you know that is a bad thing? Some earth-worshippers might disagree. On what basis could you say they are wrong?
    ________________________________________________________________
    Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.


  • #50
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    tim_holsters wrote: »
    Come on now you could at least provide a pic.

    It's rather off the point, but seems as you asked...

    buddy_christ-3.jpg


  • #51
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    0verblood wrote: »
    It's wrong because if everybody killed everybody else there would be nobody left.

    But we aren't talking about the self-determined extinction of our entire species.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    So? How do you know that is a bad thing? Some earth-worshippers might disagree. On what basis could you say they are wrong?
    That is a fair point. People like Peter Singer would argue that giving special privilege to humans over against any other species is nothing more than speciesism.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    tim_holsters
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,466 ✭✭✭tim_holsters


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    It's rather off the point, but seems as you asked...

    buddy_christ-3.jpg

    Thanks Fanny.

    I believe that's the son of God but it will do for me :).


  • #53
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    0verblood wrote: »
    It's wrong because if everybody killed everybody else there would be nobody left.

    So we base our morality on principles of survival? - Are you sure that this is such a good basis? Our need to survive can be at the detriment of the survival of others. It also precludes self-sacrifice, such as in the case of Christ for all mankind.


  • #54
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Jakkass wrote: »
    So we base our morality on principles of survival? - Are you sure that this is such a good basis? Our need to survive can be at the detriment of the survival of others. It also precludes self-sacrifice, such as in the case of Christ for all mankind.

    I thought Maslow would have a problem with that!


  • #55
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    0verblood wrote: »
    It's wrong because if everybody killed everybody else there would be nobody left.

    You realise the question you are answering basically is "why is genocide wrong?"

    see where moral relativism leads?


  • #56
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    0verblood wrote: »
    It's wrong because if everybody killed everybody else there would be nobody left.
    Another thought.

    OK - So if Tom only kills about 10 people on a Sunday after lunch, this is sustainable. The world will still have people in it. Indeed, if 10 people were born into this community every week it would balance out?

    This answer as a result is inadequate to explain why it is wrong.


  • #57
    Gingganggooley
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 192 ✭✭Gingganggooley


    0verblood wrote: »
    Almost a million people were hacked to death in 100days. I was recently in Rwanda, it's a beautiful country, but the same question repeated itself to me over and over: What was a loving and caring god doing during this crisis? I am an atheist but this is not an attempt at trolling.

    God has not forsaken this world but this world has rejected Him.

    He will not be held accountable for His actions or inactivity. Although, even if He was, He alone would be found righteous.

    The same cannot be said about us.


  • #58
    chainsaws
    Closed Accounts Posts: 103 ✭✭chainsaws


    1. God exists.
    2. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
    3. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
    4. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
    5. An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
    6. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
    7. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.
    8. Evil exists (logical contradiction).


  • #59
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Thanks for copying and pasting from Wikipedia.


  • #60
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Indeed, it's an argument from the philosophy of religion. Commonly referred to as the "evidential" argument, or the "noseeum" argument. Basically, the world makes evident that God doesn't exist by the presence of evil.

    The problems start at number 3. There is no reason why God couldn't allow us to do evil in the same way that a parent when watching their child do something for the first time wouldn't intervene all the way to give them a helping hand, but would allow them to do it for themselves. For example when a child is about to walk for the first time, the parent won't move their legs along for them just to ensure that they won't fall, as this wouldn't be the child walking.

    In the same way as I would see it God realises that humanity has to make and learn from its own mistakes.

    6 and 7 serve as a continuation of this fallacy.

    If there is some reason, just some why God would potentially allow evil the entire argument crumbles. The presence of evil is not an adequate reason to dismiss God's existence.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    If it is wrong, is it universally wrong, or only subjectively wrong (It's OK for Tom, but not for me)?

    Something can be considered absolutely wrong and still be a subjective opinion.

    I think rape is absolutely wrong. No one anywhere should rape anyone. That is my subjective opinion, but it doesn't mean I have to respect someone else who says they disagree. If Tom thinks raping people is fine I don't have to say it is OK for Tom to rape people.

    It is a straw man to imply that unless something is considered objectively wrong we cannot say it is absolutely wrong. That in itself is a moral position that has to be justified (eg it is immoral to not respect the different moral opinions of others)


Advertisement