Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Harbal wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 6:18 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 6:04 pm
No, that's fine. That's a choice, too.

I just pointed out that there are neutral ways of investigating, should the day ever come when you regard the issue as serious. I'm not saying that day is today, or that it will necessarily ever come. But it might.
Okay, that sounds reasonable, but I would still rather not try it, just in case it works. :wink:
:lol: Yep, okay.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9559
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by Harbal »

Gary Childress wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 6:26 pm Harbal, sometimes it takes considerable distance to have enough hindsight to come to terms with mistakes and realize we weren't really as bad as we may have thought. It takes time. And patience. And sometimes a little mental house cleaning. You'll get there and you'll be back up and running full speed again. Feel free to drop me a PM if you ever feel a need for someone to talk to.
Thanks, Gary, I really appreciate that.

I never murdered anyone, or anything like that, but I haven't always treated people the way I should have, particularly those close to me. I think I'm doing better these days, but I can't change the past. So I have a few demons, as they say, but none I can't cope with.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Christianity

Post by Gary Childress »

Harbal wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 6:44 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 6:26 pm Harbal, sometimes it takes considerable distance to have enough hindsight to come to terms with mistakes and realize we weren't really as bad as we may have thought. It takes time. And patience. And sometimes a little mental house cleaning. You'll get there and you'll be back up and running full speed again. Feel free to drop me a PM if you ever feel a need for someone to talk to.
Thanks, Gary, I really appreciate that.

I never murdered anyone, or anything like that, but I haven't always treated people the way I should have, particularly those close to me. I think I'm doing better these days, but I can't change the past. So I have a few demons, as they say, but none I can't cope with.
You're welcome. Glad to have you participating in the forums again. :D
seeds
Posts: 2146
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by seeds »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 2:36 pm ...I also wish to suggest that dearest Iambiguous has clearly labeled me as 'bad' -- though he does not use that term. (He couldn't really given all his elaborate predications involving Dasein etc.) -- because I resolve to 'stand back' and view things from a removed angle. This is suspect and also intolerable to him and I propose that we can ask a number of questions as to why this is so. But that is a matter for another conversation.
The bolded part above represents a clear example of either your willingness to use deceitful tactics in your attempt to win arguments,...

...or...

...you simply do not understand the implications of your own words.

Because, how in the world can your following statements...
"...It is true that in the realm of ideas I do side with Renaud Camus..."
...and this...
"...I entertain the sort of ideas [Jonathan] Bowden talks about..."
...be construed as you "standing back" to view things...
"...from a removed angle..."
... :?:

Clearly, you are in no way "removed" from the ideology you are promoting on this forum.

As I stated to you long ago on this dusty trail we've been traveling, you can drop the ruse of presenting yourself as some kind of "impartial" seeker of knowledge.
_______
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Lacewing »

Gary Childress wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 5:55 pm Personally, I find discarding mental parasites to be much more alleviating. Gets right to the root of the problem.
You are saying some great stuff, Gary! It's a pleasure to read your statements about clarity and acceptance of self. I know there have been times when you're not feeling that way, and I've found it to be helpful for myself a few times to write a brief letter from my higher self to my less-than-higher self... as a reminder of what I know when I feel clearer and more expansive. From that higher state, we know how to talk to ourselves probably better than anyone.

And I agree, getting rid of mental parasites and noise are the best path to clarity... as opposed to layering on more stuff to 'fix' or fight those things. And if one wants to dance or wrestle with any of that, fine. But perhaps we can get better at remembering that state of greater clarity we can always return to.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Lacewing »

Gary Childress wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 6:58 pm
Harbal wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 6:44 pm Thanks, Gary, I really appreciate that.
You're welcome. Glad to have you participating in the forums again. :D
I'm glad he's here too. Harbal's wit and insights are invaluable on this forum. It's a counter-balance to the overly-serious, self-righteous extremism and blah, blah, blah... which is more entrenched than insightful.

Perhaps this forum is a bit like being at a party with a bunch of boastful drunks, when all you want to do is find the fun people who can return your gaze clearly and share inspired cosmic conversation without excessive ego-attachment.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Lacewing »

Harbal wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 4:08 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 3:39 pm AJ is probably too busy trying to "repress" you. Apparently, he thinks it's his duty to do so.
Well he isn't the only one with a duty. :wink:
Agreed! 8)
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9559
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by Harbal »

Lacewing wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 7:34 pm Agreed! 8)
While ever people like you and Gary, and one or two others here agree with me, I know I'm on solid ground. :wink:
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9559
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by Harbal »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 4:51 pm .



.
I knew Alexis Jacobi wasn't talking to me, and this proves it. :|
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by iambiguous »

Here is an interesting column from Ross Douthat at the New York Times. It examines many of the ways "in our own day and age" in which men and women explore the spiritual realm "experimentally". What he deems to be "rational" about it...but what he also suspects can be "dangerous" about it as well.

Then as a Christian himself, he reacts to it all as a Christian.

My own reaction to speculation of this sort is always the same: It's not what you believe "in your head" so much as what you can demonstrate [even to yourself] is in fact true. The part where many take that more or less blind leap of faith. Then the part where you seriously confront the fact that with so much at stake on both sides of the grave, why your God and not one of the many others. Then the role that dasein plays in your own profoundly existential sense of self here. And then [for me] the most important part of all: theodicy.


https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/01/opin ... ality.html

In this column I want to defend the rationality of this kind of spiritual experimentation and then to warn about its dangers. (The argument will get weirder as it goes.) But first let me give you three‌ examples of the experimental style I have in mind, from the general to the specific.

Start with the broad youthful impulse toward what you might call magical thinking, ranging from the vogue for astrology to the TikTok craze for “manifesting” desired outcomes in your life. In certain ways this is an extension of the self-help spiritualities that have been attached to American religion since forever, but right now the magical dimension is more explicit, the connection to old-time religion weak to nonexistent.

At the same time, it’s unclear to what extent any of this can be called belief. Instead there is a playacting dimension throughout, a range of attitudes from “This isn’t real but it’s fun” to “Maybe this isn’t real but it’s cool to play around with” to “This is actually real but who knows what it means.” Even some people who explicitly identify with witchcraft seem to have this ambiguity in their identification; they are participants in a culture of ritual and exploration, not believers in a specific set of claims.

A second example is the increasing fascination with psychedelics and hallucinogenic drugs, which takes secular and scientific forms but also has a strong spiritual dimension, with many participants who believe the drugs don’t just cause an experience within the mind but open the “doors of perception,” in Aldous Huxley’s phrase, to realities that are exist above and around us all the while.

This is clearly true of the emergent spiritual culture around DMT, an ingredient in the psychedelic brew known as ayahuasca that’s become a trip of choice for so-called psychonauts — explorers of the spiritual territory that its ingestion seems to open up. For many users DMT seems to offer an eerily shared experience: They report encountering similar landscapes and similar beings, as if they’re all either ‌‌connecting to the shared archetypes of some Jungian subconscious (which would be strange enough) or actually entering the same supernatural plane. And the latter belief yields spiritual experimentation in its purest form: People taking DMT this way aren’t practicing a religion so much as trying to discover religion’s supernatural grounding, and fashion a personal theology out of what they find and see.

Now a third example, very specific: Recently a statue appeared on a New York courthouse, occupying a plinth near famous lawgivers like Moses and Confucius. It’s a golden woman, or at least a female figure, with braided hair shaped like horns, roots or tendrils for arms and feet, rising upward from a lotus flower.

The figure’s sculptor, the Pakistani-American artist Shahzia Sikander, has emphasized her work’s political significance. The golden woman wears a version of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s lace collar, and she’s meant to symbolize female power in a historically male-dominated legal world and to protest Roe v. Wade’s reversal.

But the work is clearly an attempt at a religious icon as well, one forged in a blurring of spiritual traditions. It matches a similar statue by the same artist that bears the word “Havah,” evoking the Arabic and Hebrew name for Eve, and thereby making a feminist claim on the monotheistic tradition. But the imagery of the courthouse statue is also pantheistic, the roots and flower evoking nature-spirituality, “a magical hybrid plant-animal,” as one art critic puts it. And then finally its very hard not to see the braids-as-horns, the tendrils that look a bit tentacle-like, as an appropriation of Christian images of the demonic in a statue that stands against the politics of conservative Christianity.

But none of these interpretations are stable; much like people playing with magic or experimenting on the frontiers of consciousness, Sikander has devised a religious icon that lacks a settled religious meaning, that’s deliberately open to infusions from the viewer, that summons spiritual energy in a nonspecific way.

For the stringent materialist, everything I’ve just described is reasonable so long as its understood to be playacting, experience-hunting, artistic experimentation. Only when it becomes serious does it offend against rationality.

However, stringent materialism is itself a weird late-modern superstition, and the kind of experimentation I’m describing is actually far more rational than a life lived as though the universe is random and indifferent and human beings are gene-transmission machines with an illusion of self-consciousness.

Yes, plenty of New Age and “woo-woo” practices don’t make any sense or lead only unto pyramid schemes; there are traps for the credulous all over. But the basic pattern of human existence and experience, an ordered and mathematically beautiful cosmos that yields extraordinary secrets to human inquiry and supplies all kinds of wild spiritual experiences even in our allegedly disenchanted age (and even sometimes to professional skeptics), makes a general openness to metaphysical possibilities a fundamentally reasonable default. And this is especially true if you have no theological tradition, no religious upbringing to structure your encounter with the universe’s mysteries — if you’re starting fresh, as many people nowadays are.

But precisely because an attitude of spiritual experimentation is reasonable, it’s also important to emphasize something taught by almost every horror movie but nonetheless skated over in a lot of American spirituality: the importance of being really careful in your openness, and not just taking the beneficence of the metaphysical realm for granted.

If the material universe as we find it is beautiful but also naturally perilous, and shot through with sin and evil wherever human agency is at work, there is no reason to expect that any spiritual dimension would be different — no reason to think that being a “psychonaut” is any less perilous than being an astronaut, even if the danger takes a different form.

There is plenty of raw data to indicate the perils: Not every near-death experience is heavenly; some share of DMT users come back traumatized; the American Catholic Church reportedly fields an increasing number of exorcism inquiries even as its cultural influence otherwise declines. And there should also be a fundamental uncertainty around even initially positive experiences: Not all that glitters is gold, and the idea that certain forces are out to trick you or use you recurs across religious cultures (and in the semireligious culture around U.F.O. experience today).

Then his own spiritual path...

I’m writing as a Christian; my religion explicitly warns against magic, divination, summoning spirits and the like. (Atheist polemicists like to say that religious people are atheists about every god except their own, but this is not really the case; Christianity certainly takes for granted that there are powers in the world besides its triune God.) And it makes sense that in a culture where people are reacting against the Christian past there might be an instinct to ignore such prohibitions, to regard them as just another form of patriarchal chaunivism, white-male control.

But the presumption of danger in the supernatural realm is hardly confined to Christian tradition, and the presumption that pantheism or polytheism or any other alternative to Western monotheism automatically generates humane and kindly societies finds no confirmation in history whatsoever.

So from any religious perspective there’s reason to worry about a society where structures have broken down and a mass of people are going searching without maps, or playing around in half-belief, or deploying, against what remains of Christianity, symbols that invoke multiple spiritualities at once.

Some element of danger is unavoidable. The future of humanity depends on people opening doors to the transcendent, rather than sealing themselves into materialism and despair.

But when the door is open, be very, very careful about what you invite in.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5146
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

seeds wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 7:07 pm Because, how in the world can your following statements…

"...It is true that in the realm of ideas I do side with Renaud Camus..."

...and this...

"...I entertain the sort of ideas [Jonathan] Bowden talks about..."

...be construed as you "standing back" to view things...

"...from a removed angle..."

... :?:
Well, thank you for your inquiry. But let me make a few initial comments of a defensive sort before I answer. You find even the reference to 'considerable ideas' or the 'entertainment' of ideas as utterly unacceptable. I would suggest to you that you are a decent example of a man who has had installed in him, and who installs in his own self, a range of ideas that seem 'right' and 'good'. So, when you encounter the ideas of people like Camus or Bowden (and you encounter them extremely superficially) something rises up out of you. The Holy Spirit of indignation. A deeply felt conviction that what you are being presented with is 'wrong' 'retrograde' 'bad' and also 'evil'.

What I do, or try to do, is to locate the *constructs* which give form to these established assertions. But that too is intolerable.

So I find that you, Iambiguous and also to a certain extent Gary share a common, received platform. It is not one based on reasoned thought. It is based on something else. And I am trying to better understand what it is based on. I have begun to form the idea that it is based in a sort of deformed Protestantism in which the former strict moral precepts and admonitions have been replaced with a semi-religious sentiment in pro of 'social justice', 'egalitarianism' and also 'democracy'. I have recently described this as the ideology of Homo americanus. But I don't get much response except denial.

In Iambigous' case he simply cannot understand what will result by questioning or interrogating the causal pathway that has led to this common (and deeply American) contemporary stance and attitude that defines our common *outlook*. He must associate words with worlds (what is thought or conceived with what is brought into political and social manifestation) and, as a result, he can only imagine that anyone who does ask these questions or voice concerns (such as Camus or Bowden) is secretly in service to a clandestine Nazi revival movement.

His efforts, and your efforts, serve a function: to stop dead in its tracks any sort of free, open, thoughtful and detailed conversation on the 'causal chains' of events that have led to the present in America. And this is my primary area of interest. America, the post-Sixties, the postmodern destruction of reasoning capability, and the rise of a virulent and deformed Protestant religious attitude toward those things I mentioned.

On one hand you-plural don't quite no where to slot me -- you especially are confused by a coherent, logical exposition. How can views, contrarry to your own, which to you seem absolutely metaphysically pure and good, be contradicted? That idea alone involves unthinkable thought. It is surely the Devil's work!

You, Iambiguous, Gary and also Immanuel when he expresses political and social views have been forged in the same furnace. But I submit that you do not fully *see* what formed you. That is, you do not have enough self-consciousness. But this is really common. Very few people can go or will allow themselves to go through the processes of self-analysis to *see* how they have been informed. When I say this you-plural take it as supreme arrogance. As if you are really being talked down to. That also is very offensive to Americans. But you evidently have not read well enough your Tocqueville. You simply cannot *see* yourselves. And yet you certainly act with boldness and determination in the world.

If I describe my stance as taking place from a 'remove' or through 'standing back' it is because I have been doing this for about 15 years now. It began through certain readings which caused me to begin to examine my own predicates. Later other readings furthered that process. And then it became one of examining 'metaphysical presuppositions' (primarily when reading Basil Willey). When he said that we need a master metaphysician to be capable of seeing our own presuppositions and how entrenched they are, it all made sense.

When I say such things, of course, you-plural get offended and attach negative labels. But there is no sentiment attached to what I say (or what I am beginning to propose). There is no meanness or desire to harm. I simply want to be able to discuss ideas in a far-reaching way and to be able to *think freely*.

Jonathan Bowden helped me extremely (and still helps me) because he is a man who crossed over internal barriers and who shows what results from free thought. This does not mean that I *embrace his conclusions*. But for you-plural that is all it can mean. It must mean that! you will say. And you then thrust yourselves in with intensely moralized opinions in an effort to stop any contrary thinking from occurring. And you see that as being 'morally good'.

I do side with Renaud Camus insofar as I know that a multiculturalism project has a severely destructive side. And I know that those in favor of it come from specific ideological angles. But because I know that on an idea-plane he is 'right' I do not know how or even if those ideas should be acted on. But if I say that -- even that is intolerable to you-plural.

Personally, my view is that you-plural are extremely ideologically confused. You do not really have a sound ground for the pseudo-ideological sentiments that move so powerfully in you. They carry you like a strong current.

And my view is that it is currents such as these that predominantly move our present. Things semi-conscious, things felt, but not necessarily thought-through.

Now watch: all that I have said here will go uncommented in any substantial way.
Last edited by Alexis Jacobi on Sat Feb 04, 2023 9:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5146
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

iambiguous wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 9:18 pm Here is an interesting column from Ross Douthat at the New York Times.
I read it a few days back when it appeared.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5146
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Lacewing wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 7:33 pm Harbal's wit and insights are invaluable on this forum.
When Immanuel and Harbal were exchanging loving 🥰 tongues in such an elegant and refined manner, and though I admit to being slightly horrified, I also gained real appreciation for ole Harbal.

Invaluable to the forum? I think it better to attach a value rather than to say no value could be attached. When it comes to Harbal how could any of us ‘heave our hearts into our mouths’?
“All gold and silver rather turn to dirt, An 'tis no better reckoned but of these who worship dirty gods.”
Still, I wonder if his name is an unfortunate mutation of ‘hairball’ and thus to something a cat — (perhaps it is that mysterious pizza?) — might upchuck on the rug?
Perhaps this forum is a bit like being at a party with a bunch of boastful drunks, when all you want to do is find the fun people who can return your gaze clearly and share inspired cosmic conversation without excessive ego-attachment.
Well that’s what Seeds is here for!

Oh look! There he is coming over with a disposable cup of white wine and a nosh!

Seeds? — take it away brother!
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Belinda »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 9:27 pm
seeds wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 7:07 pm Because, how in the world can your following statements…

"...It is true that in the realm of ideas I do side with Renaud Camus..."

...and this...

"...I entertain the sort of ideas [Jonathan] Bowden talks about..."

...be construed as you "standing back" to view things...

"...from a removed angle..."

... :?:
Well, thank you for your inquiry. But let me make a few initial comments of a defensive sort before I answer. You find even the reference to 'considerable ideas' or the 'entertainment' of ideas as utterly unacceptable. I would suggest to you that you are a decent example of a man who has had installed in him, and who installs in his own self, a range of ideas that seem 'right' and 'good'. So, when you encounter the ideas of people like Camus or Bowden (and you encounter them extremely superficially) something rises up out of you. The Holy Spirit of indignation. A deeply felt conviction that what you are being presented with is 'wrong' 'retrograde' 'bad' and also 'evil'.

What I do, or try to do, is to locate the *constructs* which give form to these established assertions. But that too is intolerable.

So I find that you, Iambiguous and also to a certain extent Gary share a common, received platform. It is not one based on reasoned thought. It is based on something else. And I am trying to better understand what it is based on. I have begun to form the idea that it is based in a sort of deformed Protestantism in which the former strict moral precepts and admonitions have been replaced with a semi-religious sentiment in pro of 'social justice', 'egalitarianism' and also 'democracy'. I have recently described this as the ideology of Homo americanus. But I don't get much response except denial.

In Iambigous' case he simply cannot understand what will result by questioning or interrogating the causal pathway that has led to this common (and deeply American) contemporary stance and attitude that defines our common *outlook*. He must associate words with worlds (what is thought or conceived with what is brought into political and social manifestation) and, as a result, he can only imagine that anyone who does ask these questions or voice concerns (such as Camus or Bowden) is secretly in service to a clandestine Nazi revival movement.

His efforts, and your efforts, serve a function: to stop dead in its tracks any sort of free, open, thoughtful and detailed conversation on the 'causal chains' of events that have led to the present in America. And this is my primary area of interest. America, the post-Sixties, the postmodern destruction of reasoning capability, and the rise of a virulent and deformed Protestant religious attitude toward those things I mentioned.

On one hand you-plural don't quite no where to slot me -- you especially are confused by a coherent, logical exposition. How can views, contrarry to your own, which to you seem absolutely metaphysically pure and good, be contradicted? That idea alone involves unthinkable thought. It is surely the Devil's work!

You, Iambiguous, Gary and also Immanuel when he expresses political and social views have been forged in the same furnace. But I submit that you do not fully *see* what formed you. That is, you do not have enough self-consciousness. But this is really common. Very few people can go or will allow themselves to go through the processes of self-analysis to *see* how they have been informed. When I say this you-plural take it as supreme arrogance. As if you are really being talked down to. That also is very offensive to Americans. But you evidently have not read well enough your Tocqueville. You simply cannot *see* yourselves. And yet you certainly act with boldness and determination in the world.

If I describe my stance as taking place from a 'remove' or through 'standing back' it is because I have been doing this for about 15 years now. It began through certain readings which caused me to begin to examine my own predicates. Later other readings furthered that process. And then it became one of examining 'metaphysical presuppositions' (primarily when reading Basil Willey). When he said that we need a master metaphysician to be capable of seeing our own presuppositions and how entrenched they are, it all made sense.

When I say such things, of course, you-plural get offended and attach negative labels. But there is no sentiment attached to what I say (or what I am beginning to propose). There is no meanness or desire to harm. I simply want to be able to discuss ideas in a far-reaching way and to be able to *think freely*.

Jonathan Bowden helped me extremely (and still helps me) because he is a man who crossed over internal barriers and who shows what results from free thought. This does not mean that I *embrace his conclusions*. But for you-plural that is all it can mean. It must mean that! you will say. And you then thrust yourselves in with intensely moralized opinions in an effort to stop any contrary thinking from occurring. And you see that as being 'morally good'.

I do side with Renaud Camus insofar as I know that a multiculturalism project has a severely destructive side. And I know that those in favor of it come from specific ideological angles. But because I know that on an idea-plane he is 'right' I do not know how or even if those ideas should be acted on. But if I say that -- even that is intolerable to you-plural.

Personally, my view is that you-plural are extremely ideologically confused. You do not really have a sound ground for the pseudo-ideological sentiments that move so powerfully in you. They carry you like a strong current.

And my view is that it is currents such as these that predominantly move our present. Things semi-conscious, things felt, but not necessarily thought-through.

Now watch: all that I have said here will go uncommented in any substantial way.
When you say "multiculturalism" you mean inward-gazing tribal cultures. There are many cultures of freemasonry, cultures that overarch social classes, that don't inhibit common humanity.
reasonvemotion
Posts: 1813
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am

Re: Christianity

Post by reasonvemotion »

Philosophy grapples with the big questions of life just as christian theology does.
Questions that have been asked here on this Forum......why am I here?, What is the meaning of life?, what happens after death? Why is there evil?
Are philosophy and christianity compatible?
Compare philosophy vs. religion.
Which is the truth?
The Bible says the truth will set you free but, with so much confusion in the world how can you distinguish between truth and error?
Many ask Why does God let bad things happen? Why is there suffering in the world? How can God and suffering exist.

Life is unfair.

Perhaps this is the reason that many atheists can't find a reasonable explanation for how an 'all powerful God' could allow human suffering.

When someone believes in God when everything is falling apart when they have lost everything... that is faith.
Last edited by reasonvemotion on Sun Feb 05, 2023 1:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply