[ SECRET POST #2664 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2664 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 075 secrets from Secret Submission Post #381.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Go back to your church.

[(Anonymous)]

But it's the only answer. If a good person dies in a natural disaster 8no free will involved here), there are only two options:

-God can save that person but doesn't want to.
-God wants to save that person but can't do it.

If you have a third one, I'd love to read it.

[(Anonymous)]

God could save that person but has a good reason for not doing so.

That good reason would usually be either (A) saving that person would lead to some greater harm down the road - this is the Leibnitz best of all possible worlds explanation and not terribly plausible IMO - or (B) it is in some respect important that the world be left to the control of humans and that God not interfere too much with human existence.

[(Anonymous)]

A is interesting. But regarding B, what's the point of God then?

[(Anonymous)]

Regarding B, it means that maybe, just maybe, human beings do not as yet actually comprehend everything about the entire freaking universe, and are biased towards what applies to them personally at this moment in time because we are bound by a helluva lot of limitations.

[(Anonymous)]

NA

When the discussion goes in this direction, I always start wondering why such a being would give a fuck if people worshipped it. And if it doesn't care if people worship it, and you can't count on it doing you any favors even if you worship it, then what purpose does worshipping it serve? Or if it's so incomprehensible, why should we assume anyone has ever comprehended anything it wants?

[sarillia]

The idea that God is supposed to have a purpose is odd to me. In my mind, he just is.

What do you think the point of God is in either of the scenarios you proposed as the only possibilities?

[diet_poison]

This. How arrogant to assume that just because a thing doesn't have a perceived purpose to people means it cannot exist.

[(Anonymous)]

A) God, like any parent, can't save the day for their kids every time. If nothing bad ever happens to us then we will never grow as people and as a society.

B) God and Satan are playing on a galactic chess board with the world.

C)God created humans and then just say back to watch and see what his experiment can do.

[(Anonymous)]

Want to note that (B) is pretty much the Gnostic answer and (C) is the deist answer and that neither is really super consistent with what you would call mainstream Christian tradition.

Doesn't mean that they're wrong, just wanted to say that for reference

[(Anonymous)]

DA

A) definitely isn't mainstream Christian either, as my church preached this for years, and our leaders got no end of grief for it. Mainstream Christians believe God chooses who goes to heaven or hell, and only a certain number is going to heaven, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. Church leadership finally caved, some years back, and they started teaching no one has any free will. Though they have recently abandoned some of the hellfire stuff they picked up from the mainstream people, which is definitely a positive.

TL;DR: I actually agree with a lot of complaints atheists make about mainstream Christianity. I am not by any stretch of any imagination, human or otherwise, a "mainstream Christian" though.

[(Anonymous)]

D) The universe is so complex and humans are so comparatively small that in the grand scheme of things, bad things happening to us is the equivalent of accidentally scratching ourselves in the process of doing something amazing.

(Which doesn't mean humans are worthless, scale isn't a measure of worth.)

[(Anonymous)]

On the other hand, religions like Christianity specifically place humans as being, like, God's special creation, so...

The anthropocentrism of many mainstream religions is part of why I can't bother with them.

[lunabee34]

I have a hard time accepting the parent-child relationship as a metaphor for God's relationship with humanity. As a parent I know that letting your child make mistakes is important and have done so even though it's extremely difficult to do so but I would never allow my daughters to come to permanent harm to teach them a lesson. Other ways of conceiving of the divine work much better for me.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT

Large portions of both the Old and New Testaments agree with you, you know. Religion is what screws it all up. Religion, at least the "standard" Christian version of it, likes to preach there are TWO gods in the Bible, both at odds with one another; if you read the book for yourself, it actually says the opposite.

....Good luck saying that to a standard Christian, though. Would you like your stake in olive wood, or acacia?

[(Anonymous)]

That's exactly what I don't like about that metaphor, too.

[(Anonymous)]

It all depends on how you view "permanent harm," imo. If we go back to God after we die, our lives (and everything in it) must seem so small and limited. As humans, we could view something as major and catastrophic (and in our earthly eyes, it could absolutely be considered such), but if we step back and look at things from a heavenly perspective, what happens to the flesh might not be considered such a big deal.

I personally lean towards the omnipresent-but-not-necessarily-all-powerful interpretation myself (or, it might just limit itself, because honestly what's the point in creating humanity with free will if we get micromanaged all the time?). But I can see this side of the argument as well.

[beverlykatz]

Yeah, it doesn't quite work, because human parent-child relationships are (ideally) much more directly involved. The concept of God as our Heavenly Father really has him playing more of a grandfatherly role, observing and guiding from a distance without getting directly involved most of the time.

Honestly, summing up God in a single snappy metaphor is never going to work, and a lot of attempts to do so are what give people the kinds of skewed ideas about religion and divinity that are present in this thread.

[iceyred]

-God is not your personal genie and has reasons we don't understand.

[(Anonymous)]

If they were good don't they get to experience eternal bliss in paradise? Not such a bad deal.

[(Anonymous)]

Neither of those options would indicate that god doesn't exist. They would only indicate that god doesn't work the way Christians think.

[(Anonymous)]

+1

[(Anonymous)]

OK whenever I see this argument, I know those making it haven't thought it through. Do you know how many overpopulation dystopias have been written? Did you ever stop to consider WHY an overpopulated world where nobody dies, is actually a sucky place to be?

[(Anonymous)]

Third option: God doesn't directly interfere with people's lives, or does so very rarely.