Where's God?

[Ed1wolf]

Didn't work for Judas though. Also, Aaron wasn't told to spare people showing remorse, but to go and kill each his brother, neighbor and friend.

I appreciate your working hard on making your God look better. Kudos to you.

There is no evidence that anyone else showed remorse.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Yep, casting demons is easy.

Ok provide an example when you cast out a demon.

bv: Of course spiritual death to life is also a piece of cake.

Ok give me the name of the person you brought from spiritual death to spiritual life.

bv; I can "help" with any sins. But notice, God's help still requires people to take medicine and attend counseling. So, yes, I help the same way. If things fail, just like with God, please don't doubt my abilities. Chalk it up to a part of a grander plan.

No, actually most cases of where God brings people from spiritual death to spiritual life there is no medicine or counseling. And that is the most difficult thing to do in the universe. And God never fails in that task.

 

[Ed1wolf]

If the patients need pain to get spiritual growth, why are the doctors trying to reduce the pain?

Because that is what good doctors do, they have no idea the person needs spiritually. Only God does.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Because that is what good doctors do, they have no idea the person needs spiritually. Only God does.

Good doctors help because that is what they are supposed to do?

No, good doctors help because they want to help. They see people suffer and they want the pain to stop. They know it is better if the person can get well and lead a productive life.

But you claim God wants these people to suffer. Except when I mention what you say, then you say he doesn't want them to suffer. Except when I mention that You say that. Then You say God knows it is best for them if they suffer. Except when I mention that You say that, etc. You just keep changing positions.

Your words say doctors do it because it is their duty. It might not actually be good for the person to get better. But you have doctors do their duty because it is their duty.

I think the humanist sense of doing good is better than what I read in your words. We do good because it helps. We do good because we see suffering and we want it to end.

But you see suffering, and need an explanation for how there can be both suffering and God. So you come up with the idea that suffering has a good purpose. But even though you say suffering has a purpose, you see doctors who do not want the suffering. So you come up with this explanation for why doctors help and God does not. Doctors do what they are supposed to do, even if God actually prefers the patient to suffer.

I like my view of morality better.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Because that is what good doctors do, they have no idea the person needs spiritually. Only God does.

You spoke this in response to my question, "If the patients need pain to get spiritual growth, why are the doctors trying to reduce the pain?"

You and I live in two very different worlds.

The world I live in is inherently hostile to humans, a world in which only the fittest survive. But humans have found a way to thrive in this world. By helping each other out, we have built a society with fulfilling lives far above what any one of us could have achieved on our own.

The doctors pictured in the OP are part of this world. They know the world has many unfortunate things, such as the coronavirus that attacked the patient shown in the OP. But they know that they have skills that can increase the odds of people returning to a productive life. So they work, knowing that they are often accomplishing real good. And they know that we will gladly help them, supporting their salary and helping them in many other ways.

In my world, we do good because the world is often hostile, and we have the ability to do real good to help each other.

In your world, there is an all-powerful, loving God who is ultimately giving us what is best for our spiritual needs. And so you see the man suffering with COVID-19, and you have no choice but to say this must in some way be best for his spiritual needs. And yet you still agree with the medical staff doing their jobs to prevent the suffering from expanding. Why? Because it is their job. It might not be what God wants for the patient, but it is there job. They do their job.

Your world makes no sense to me now. It used to make sense to me. I had been taught in church to see every person that touches my life as one that was placed there by God to build my character. The man who cheats me out of my income and the man who risks his life to save me would be equally doing what God knew I needed to build my character. So if both were building my character, what does it really matter what people do to me, or what I do to others? And yet I was told it matters, for I was told God would reward those who do good. So I did good for the rewards I expected, not because I thought it made a difference.

That world no longer makes sense to me. My world does.

 

[Ed1wolf]

And these slaves, who requested that they be made slaves - it was alright to punish them brutally?

No, both the master and the slave are still under lex talonis. The punishment must fit the offense. So they cannot do any permanent physical damage or they face lex talonis.

ia: And to keep their children to be slaves as well? And to hold their families hostage in order to make them renounce their end-of-term freedom and be slaves for life?

The husband knew what he was getting into when he took a wife from among the masters slaves. Actually this helps keep the family together in hard economic times. People only sold themselves into slavery during hard times. So if he leaves prematurely they will be on hard times. In addition, it will discourage him from leaving his wife thereby keeping the family together. And depending on how many years from the year of jubilee, it may not be for life. He can also escape with his family to a sanctuary city and cannot be sent back to the master.

ia: These are all things you can find in the Bible. That was all okay, was it? Perfectly humane treatment?

Yes, for the bronze age it was far ahead of its time. Remember they didnt have welfare back then.

ia: As for Exodus 21:16, "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death," I think you're reading quite a lot into that. Since it seems to contradict the verses that say that you can take slaves, the obvious interpretation would be that it is a crime to kidnap the wrong type of people and take them as slaves. It is quite unwarranted for you to interpret that as saying that it is a crime for any person to kidnap and enslave any other person.

No, there is no evidence for that and it is in conformity with many other teachings such as the Golden Rule and the teaching in Genesis 1:27.

 

[Ed1wolf]

You’re gay, aren’t you?

You're a thief aren't you? (If you are against theft).

 

[Ed1wolf]

And what do you base that interpretation on?

Leviticus 25:9-10. All means all.

ia: Let me quote the Reverend Dr. Richard Furman, 1838, in his Communication to the Governor of South California.
"In the Old Testament, the Isrealites were directed to purchase their bond-men and bond-maids of the Heathen nations; except they were of the Canaanites, for these were to be destroyed. And it is declared, that the persons purchased were to be their "bond-men forever;" and an "inheritance for them and their children." They were not to go out free in the year of jubilee, as the Hebrews, who had been purchased, were: the line being clearly drawn between them.*[See Leviticus XXV. 44, 45, 46, &c.] In example, they are presented to our view as existing in the families of the Hebrews as servants, or slaves, born in the house, or bought with money: so that the children born of slaves are here considered slaves as well as their parents."

Looking at Leviticus 24:45-6, it seems he's got the right of it.

44 And as for thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, whom thou shalt have; of the nations that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they have begotten in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46 And ye shall make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession; of them shall ye take your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel ye shall not rule, one over another, with rigor.

I'm sure it would be nice if the Bible said that they didn't take slaves, they took servants, who wanted to be such voluntarily, and they were to be well treated, and set free after a certain while. But unfortunately, slavery in the Bible is much closer to the slavery of pre-Civil War USA - and the preachers of the time knew it perfectly well.

First, there is no such state as South California. Second, he ignores all the verses I cited where strangers and foreigners are to be treated equal to the hebrews.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

No, both the master and the slave are still under lex talonis. The punishment must fit the offense. So they cannot do any permanent physical damage or they face lex talonis.

Wrong. The rule says that the master cannot inflict severe, disabling damage upon a slave, such as the taking of an eye. Within those extremely broad limits, the master is free to punish the slave as much as he likes.

The husband knew what he was getting into when he took a wife from among the masters slaves.

This is an extremely cold-hearted attitude to take, but seeing your attitude to gay people ("Fine for them to get married, just not to the people they love,") I'm not surprised.

Actually this helps keep the family together in hard economic times. People only sold themselves into slavery during hard times.

Irrelevant. What if the slave wants to be free, and his family also wants to be free? The master would then be able to use this law to keep the slave forever.

So if he leaves prematurely they will be on hard times.

Again: what if they want to be free?

In addition, it will discourage him from leaving his wife thereby keeping the family together. And depending on how many years from the year of jubilee, it may not be for life. He can also escape with his family to a sanctuary city and cannot be sent back to the master.

Do you have any idea how heartless this policy sounds?
"Well, so you can't be free unless you leave your wife and family behind. At least it won't break up the family. And remember, it's just another five or seven years to go. Except the law says that the slave will belong to his master forever in this case, doesn't it? Ah well. Perhaps the slave can escape? And his wife and children too, of course. If they're not willing to try, perhaps they don't really want to be free at all."

Yes, for the bronze age it was far ahead of its time. Remember they didn't have welfare back then.

This is an appalling way to look at it. Perhaps the slave should be grateful he was allowed a wife and child at all?

No, there is no evidence for that and it is in conformity with many other teachings such as the Golden Rule and the teaching in Genesis 1:27.

You're the one ignoring what the Bible says. It says you can take slaves. Taking slaves is fine. For you therefore to say that it is a crime is simply incorrect.

First, there is no such state as South California. Second, he ignores all the verses I cited where strangers and foreigners are to be treated equal to the hebrews.

Perhaps there was a "South California" in 1838? As for the verses you cited, please see my response above. It's all very well and good to say that strangers and foreigners are to be treated well, but when the Bible also says that Israelites are to take slaves from the neighbouring nations, it becomes quite clear that the verse you cited means "unless you enslave them first."

I'm just going on what the Bible says and means, Ed. It's you who's inventing new interpretations for it.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed:Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders

ia: You've answered the wrong question. I didn't ask if there was evidence that homosexuals had from a statistically greater risk of mental health problems. I asked for evidence that engaging in homosexual behaviour was bad for you.

There appears to be a causal link especially the physical health problems.
↑

ed: I am not saying making it illegal, it should just be discouraged like we do smoking and becoming an alcoholic or addicted to gambling.

ia: Why? Where is your evidence that homosexual relationships are bad for you and so should be discouraged? If that's what you're talking about.
Apart, of course, from religious reasons, which are of no concern to society.

See above. There are many other studies besides that one. In addition, gay couples have higher domestic abuse rates.
↑

ed: Also, I would not bar them from marriage. They are free to get in a real biological marriage. Not the 21st century made up institution called "gay marriage."

ia: Yuck. What a horrible thing to say.
"Of course you can marry! Just not the person you love."

You can still "marry". Just not be recognized by the government. No big deal. There are many things that people enjoy doing that are not recognized by the government.

ia: A classic argument against interracial marriage too, by the way.

Maybe but it makes no sense as an argument against interracial marriage, because skin color and behavior are two totally different unrelated things.
↑

 

[HitchSlap]

You're a thief aren't you? (If you are against theft).

Keep telling yourself this.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

There appears to be a causal link especially the physical health problems.

See above. There are many other studies besides that one. In addition, gay couples have higher domestic abuse rates.

Tell you what. Let's accept that you're right about this, that reliable studies show that gay people have higher rates of physical and mental health problems. I think that the position is, at the very least, a great deal more complicated than that, but let's leave that debate for another time.
Well then, so what? Why on earth should that stop them from marrying? Is it your position that people with mental and/or physical disabilities should not be allowed to marry?

You can still "marry". Just not be recognized by the government. No big deal. There are many things that people enjoy doing that are not recognized by the government.

It's a big deal to straight couples, so it's a big deal to gay couples.

Maybe but it makes no sense as an argument against interracial marriage, because skin color and behavior are two totally different unrelated things.

The similarity is that anti-interracialists argue that people should be free to marry (just people of their own race) just like you are arguing that gay people should be free to marry (just people of the opposite gender).
In both cases, you are arguing that they should not be able to marry the person they love. And, just like them, you have no grounds for saying so.

 

[BigV]

There is no evidence that anyone else showed remorse.

Matt. 27:3 When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders.

 

[Ed1wolf]

↑ed: They are not making that determination, as long as it is a real biological marriage with the societies needed characteristics for survival.

ia: Again: what right has the government to say to two people who love each other, "You cannot get married because your needs to not serve the state?" Sounds like a totalitarian fantasy.

Love and sex are not the same thing. You are free to love anyone you want, but since sexual behavior can produce contagious diseases it becomes the governments concern.
↑

ed: And of course, two people of the same sex are perfectly free to have some kind of commitment ceremony and call it anything they want, but the government would not recognize it.

ia: Not up to you, I'm afraid. In fact, gay marriage is recognised in more and more places all over the world. You can refuse to call it that if you wish, but that does not change anything.

Well hopefully just as more and more people are changing their views on legal abortion as the science gets out, so the same will happen with homosexual behavior and return to biologically based marriage.
↑

ed: In biology even a mating pair of a male and a female that does not produce children is still considered a single reproductive unit. Which is what marriage has always been based on.

ia: Marriage has always been based on the science of biology? Nonsense.
Nor has marriage always been based on the ability to have children, which is what I think you meant.

For successful societies that has always been the foundation of marriage.
↑

ed: No, such "marriages" have already occurred in other countries. And they are pushing to legalize polygamy in the US. The slope has arrived. It is not justice when real marriages are rendered meaningless.

ia: I'm sorry you think heterosexual marriage is rendered meaningless because other people can get married too. Also, polygamy is fine by me, so long as all parties are consenting adults. There are, of course, historical problems with polygamy, largely due to some parties not being consenting, and I can certainly see that there is a greater risk of disagreements and unhappiness; but in principle, there's nothing wrong with it.

How do you know there is nothing wrong with it? And why cant you marry your daughter if you abstain from sex or are sterilized? Or your son? Or your dog if you dont have sex with it? Or whatever?
↑

ed: On what basis is consent required? Who made that rule up? And who made the rule of only two people and why?

ia: Because if consent isn't given, then it's not real marriage. If one party is unwilling, then no agreement between them can be binding. It's simple.

Who made up that rule? That is just your subjective opinion. How do you know that is not a real marriage? There have been many arranged marriages that were conducted without consent that turned into very happy and long marriages. Who are you to condemn them?
↑

ed: No, not circular logic, it has never existed and therefore still does not.

ia: Says you. In fact, plenty of governments (including the US government) say that gay marriage is real marriage, and it's what they think that counts.

Real marriage is based on biology and the nature of humans. Why are all humans anatomically heterosexual? What they think may count legally but it doesn't count as an objective reality. Nazi law said that jews were subhuman, but that doesnt mean that they really were. Laws of governments cannot create reality.
↑

ed: Just believing something exists does not mean it actually does. Just because you believe that a married bachelor exists, does not mean he does.

ia: Because a bachelor is an unmarried man. An unmarried married man is a logical contradiction. On the other hand, two men being married or two women being married is perfectly reasonable and, thankfully, happening.

No, marriage has had the same meaning just as long as the word bachelor. So calling gay marriage a marriage is an oxymoron.
↑

ed; See my post to Clizby above where I boil it down to three verses.

ia: Is this what you mean? My responses in red.

ed; No, the Mosaic law says that strangers and foreigners are to be treated just like a hebrew and not oppressed.

Unless they're slaves.
Read Exodus 21:16, you cannot go into another nation and kidnap them for slavery.
It says you shall be put to death for stealing a man.

Obviously this means "unless you were capturing slaves in the approved manner.

No, there is no evidence for that interpretation.

ed: And read Leviticus 19:33-34 and Exodus 22:21-24.

ia: Seriously? Obviously these verses did not apply to captured slaves because they weren't citizens in good standing.

There are no captured slaves except in war. I dont deny that POWs can be involuntary slaves, just like the US Constitution allows.

ed: So plainly in context of the verses I have provided Leviticus 25:44-46 is better understood to say "you may buy male and females who voluntarily request enslavement from the nations that are around you..." "you may also buy voluntary slaves from among the strangers who sojourn with and their clans around you."
ia: Except that it says you shall buy them and keep them forever.

ed: And the word "forever" is hebrew hyperbole, because actually all slaves are freed in the year of Jublilee so in fact it is not forever.

ia: This only applies to Hebrew slaves. And even they can be kept for life under special circumstances.

If it is early in the 50 year Jubilee period then yes it would be for life. Hebrew slaves could be freed every 6 years, but ALL the inhabitants of the land were given liberty in the year of Jubilee to quote the actual verse.
↑

ed: Yes, they could beat them but as seen in my post above slaves were under the same laws as the free hebrews. So any permanent damage by the beating was covered under the eye for eye law. IOW, punishment equivalent to the crime done either by the slave or the master.

ia: All it meant was that you couldn't cause permanent disfigurement. Nothing to stop you from cutting a slave's back to ribbons every day if you chose.

Yes and cutting a slaves back to ribbons produces permanent scars so that was forbidden.
↑

ed: Of course you are free to believe that. Christians believe in freedom of conscience unlike atheist founded nations.

ia: So kind of you. You won't allow gay people to marry the ones they love, but you will allow me to disagree with you. By the way, there are no atheist founded nations. Atheist means nothing more than "is not a theist".

Most communist nations were founded by atheists.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Love and sex are not the same thing. You are free to love anyone you want, but since sexual behavior can produce contagious diseases it becomes the governments concern.

So what? Are you therefore proposing that any straight married couple should have their marriage dissolved if they contract a sexual disease? If they are likely to do so, based on their past history? That people who have sexually transmitted diseases should be unable to get married?

Well hopefully just as more and more people are changing their views on legal abortion as the science gets out, so the same will happen with homosexual behavior and return to biologically based marriage.

Hopefully not. Also, what science is this that shows that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry?

For successful societies that has always been the foundation of marriage.

First: of course it hasn't.
Second: so what? Marriage has undergone many changes over the course of history. Your "we can't do it because we've never done it before" argument is invalid. And your implication that men marrying women - and not men marrying men or women marrying women - is beneficial to society is entirely unfounded.

How do you know there is nothing wrong with it? And why cant you marry your daughter if you abstain from sex or are sterilized? Or your son? Or your dog if you don't have sex with it? Or whatever?

How do I know there's nothing wrong with polygamy? Well, apart from the reservations I have about its in practice, I can't see anything wrong with it. There may well, of course, be things that I am unaware of which would show polygamy to be wrong. So what?
As for your other questions - why can't a man marry his sister, or son, or dog, or whatever - well, turn the question around, and you'll find that exactly the same questions might be asked by people who wanted to outlaw straight marriages: "Where does it stop?"if a man can marry a woman, why can't he marry his sister, or son, or dog? The answer is, of course, that we are not talking about dogs or plants or computers. We are talking about two people in love, and how there is no reason from banning them from getting married.

Who made up that rule? That is just your subjective opinion. How do you know that is not a real marriage? There have been many arranged marriages that were conducted without consent that turned into very happy and long marriages. Who are you to condemn them?

I'm sorry - are you saying to me that if two people get married without one of them consenting, it's a real marriage? You mean, one party can be forced to marry, and you're okay with that? Ugh. Yes, there are such things as arranged marriages. No, they are not necessarily the same thing as forced marriages. I am not insulting people who did have forced marriages and managed to find happiness in any way when I say that forcing a person to marry is an immoral act, any more than the fact that a person may fall in love with their rapist means that rape is okay. Can I point out that your reasoning is not only flawed, but frequently morally reprehensible?
Also, here: Marriage Requirements Basics: Consent, Age, and Capacity - FindLaw
"Before a marital union is recognized by a state, there must be consent or agreement between the parties of the union to be married. For consent to exist, both parties must agree to the marriage and there must be no mistake as to the nature of the union; no force must be used upon either party to enter into the union."

Real marriage is based on biology and the nature of humans. Why are all humans anatomically heterosexual? What they think may count legally but it doesn't count as an objective reality. Nazi law said that jews were subhuman, but that doesnt mean that they really were. Laws of governments cannot create reality.

Okay. So shall we annul the marriages of any man and woman who wed but then don't have children within, say, five years? Or by the time they are no longer fertile? Or after they've stopped having sex regularly? Shall we ban infertile people from getting married at all? Perhaps we should require that every married couple produces at least three healthy babies (you know, in case one or two of them die accidentally).

No, marriage has had the same meaning just as long as the word bachelor. So calling gay marriage a marriage is an oxymoron.

Well, let's accept that they've both had their meanings for the same length of time. So what? A married bachelor is impossible because the two words are mutually exclusive. If, for some reason, we were to change the meaning of the word "bachelor" from "man who is not and has never been married" to, say, "man who has never been married before now" then a married bachelor would be quite possible (simply a man in his first marriage). And now that we've changed the definition of marriage from "the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman as partners in a personal relationship" to what it currently is ("the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship") we find that it's not only possible but rather anticlimactically simple.

No, there is no evidence for that interpretation.

Of course there is. It's the obvious interpretation of the Bible saying "you shall take slaves from the lands around you" and "kidnapping or man-stealing is a crime."

There are no captured slaves except in war. I don't deny that POWs can be involuntary slaves, just like the US Constitution allows.

Of course there are captured slaves outside of war. How do you think the black slaves were taken to America?

If it is early in the 50 year Jubilee period then yes it would be for life. Hebrew slaves could be freed every 6 years, but ALL the inhabitants of the land were given liberty in the year of Jubilee to quote the actual verse.

Except the other verses say that slaves shall belong to the master for life.

Yes and cutting a slaves back to ribbons produces permanent scars so that was forbidden.

It actually just says "if he loses an eye". So you want to take that as meaning "any mark upon his body"? Proof, please.

Most communist nations were founded by atheists.

True, because most communists were atheists. So what? Did they declare their new states in the name of atheism or Communism? Communism? Right, then, the fact that they were atheists is irrelevant. Being an atheist says just as much about you as being a theist: it has nothing to do with your morality. An atheist could be an anarchist, a communist or a humanist. A theist could worship God, Allah or Satan. You'll find that humanists have a very active conscience and believe in freedom of speech very strongly - and there were not a few nontheists involved in the creation of the USA. The Founding Fathers were motivated by humanist ideals. Which is why they very deliberately did not establish the USA as a Christian nation.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

There are no captured slaves except in war. I dont deny that POWs can be involuntary slaves, just like the US Constitution allows.

The Bible allows for buying of slaves that are not POW's. Lev. 25 says they can buy slaves from the nations around them. That is not a POW.

Lev 25: 44-46 ESV

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.

If it is early in the 50 year Jubilee period then yes it would be for life. Hebrew slaves could be freed every 6 years, but ALL the inhabitants of the land were given liberty in the year of Jubilee to quote the actual verse.

Then quote the verse. It does not say all slaves are freed in the year of Jubilee, only Hebrew slaves as I showed in my original post. Read Lev 25 again.
↑

Yes and cutting a slaves back to ribbons produces permanent scars so that was forbidden.

Is beating someone moral as long as they don't leave a permanent scar?
↑

Most communist nations were founded by atheists.

Atheism is only a non belief in a god or gods. There is not any further worldview that goes with it. Atheists can be communist, humanist, capitalists, anarchists, conservatives or liberal etc. Communist nations were not operated by humanist concepts.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

You can still "marry". Just not be recognized by the government. No big deal. There are many things that people enjoy doing that are not recognized by the government.

Yet it is a big deal. Being recognized by the government has advantages that they would be denied without a good reason. This is discrimination and the Supreme Court said was not allowed by any state.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Good doctors help because that is what they are supposed to do?

No, good doctors help because they want to help. They see people suffer and they want the pain to stop. They know it is better if the person can get well and lead a productive life.

But you claim God wants these people to suffer. Except when I mention what you say, then you say he doesn't want them to suffer. Except when I mention that You say that. Then You say God knows it is best for them if they suffer. Except when I mention that You say that, etc. You just keep changing positions.

Your words say doctors do it because it is their duty. It might not actually be good for the person to get better. But you have doctors do their duty because it is their duty.

I think the humanist sense of doing good is better than what I read in your words. We do good because it helps. We do good because we see suffering and we want it to end.

But you see suffering, and need an explanation for how there can be both suffering and God. So you come up with the idea that suffering has a good purpose. But even though you say suffering has a purpose, you see doctors who do not want the suffering. So you come up with this explanation for why doctors help and God does not. Doctors do what they are supposed to do, even if God actually prefers the patient to suffer.

I like my view of morality better.

He does not prefer the patient to suffer, but sometimes it is necessary for him to suffer to grow spiritually if he is a Christian, if he is not a Christian his suffering may be God giving him a wake up call to repent. Why is that so hard to understand? Humanists dont have a real rational foundation for morality. Humanist morality is just based on an irrational sentimentality for the naked ape homo sapiens.

 

[doubtingmerle]

He does not prefer the patient to suffer, but sometimes it is necessary for him to suffer to grow spiritually if he is a Christian, if he is not a Christian his suffering may be God giving him a wake up call to repent.

Ok, so your God could react in one of two ways. He can either want him to suffer, which you say will promote spiritual growth, or he can want him to stop suffering and lose the associated spiritual growth. Are there times when your God wants people to suffer with the spiritual growth, instead of being healed without the growth? Yes or no, please.

Why is that so hard to understand?

What is hard to understand is that you refuse to answer the question and keep pretending you have.

Humanists dont have a real rational foundation for morality. Humanist morality is just based on an irrational sentimentality for the naked ape homo sapiens.

Of course we have a rational reason for morality. We help each other because it helps them and us. I wrote in detail explaining that. Did you read it?

But you cannot give a good reason why people should help heal a person when it might actually be better for the person to suffer. All you can do is say to do good because it is your duty.

 

[Ed1wolf]

You spoke this in response to my question, "If the patients need pain to get spiritual growth, why are the doctors trying to reduce the pain?"

You and I live in two very different worlds.

The world I live in is inherently hostile to humans, a world in which only the fittest survive. But humans have found a way to thrive in this world. By helping each other out, we have built a society with fulfilling lives far above what any one of us could have achieved on our own.

The doctors pictured in the OP are part of this world. They know the world has many unfortunate things, such as the coronavirus that attacked the patient shown in the OP. But they know that they have skills that can increase the odds of people returning to a productive life. So they work, knowing that they are often accomplishing real good. And they know that we will gladly help them, supporting their salary and helping them in many other ways.

In my world, we do good because the world is often hostile, and we have the ability to do real good to help each other.

In your world, there is an all-powerful, loving God who is ultimately giving us what is best for our spiritual needs. And so you see the man suffering with COVID-19, and you have no choice but to say this must in some way be best for his spiritual needs. And yet you still agree with the medical staff doing their jobs to prevent the suffering from expanding. Why? Because it is their job. It might not be what God wants for the patient, but it is there job. They do their job.

Your world makes no sense to me now. It used to make sense to me. I had been taught in church to see every person that touches my life as one that was placed there by God to build my character. The man who cheats me out of my income and the man who risks his life to save me would be equally doing what God knew I needed to build my character. So if both were building my character, what does it really matter what people do to me, or what I do to others? And yet I was told it matters, for I was told God would reward those who do good. So I did good for the rewards I expected, not because I thought it made a difference.

That world no longer makes sense to me. My world does.

The mature and true Christian does good out of love for God and man, not rewards. Sounds like you were not under sound Biblical teaching.