Another good question would be to ask about what or who is the 'Moral Law Giver'. Does it neccasarrily have to mean a divine person in heaven that gave it? Can there be some being out there that produces laws like this coming from its own thoughts? Is that being or force just personal? Can it be impersonal in a way?
The idea of an all powerful God conflicts with the idea of a devil, and certainly one with the same power as God Herself. You either burn in hell or you don't.Apparently the devil doesn't. Or the devil is as powerful as God, then there is more than one God..and good one and a bad one. In order for there to be a bad one She must be as all powerful as God herself. So I'm very confused. Maybe someone can help me out.
Satan(the devil) WILL burn in hell. The hell was originally prepared for the devil and his angels (demons). Since man sinned, we all deserve to die and go to hell but God loved us so much that he died in our place on the cross as full payment of our sins. Not only did he just die, he died in what is probably the most painful ways to die in all of human history. Read up about roman crucifixion.
@alansnedeker ...Jesus was raised from the dead three days later and conquered both death and sin. The reason Jesus's death was sufficient for all of mankind is because he is eternal in nature, and he lived a completely sinless life. Not one time did he sin, yet he paid a debt he didn't owe. That's love man.
We will understand everything and follow his way 100% because it is right. If u dont believe in God because someone dies a horrible death, then so be it. Who ever wants to hear let them hear.
This guy just danced around the question with shiny sentences. People die because theres a devil. God doesnt want anyone to die but Satan is evil and men have a choice to follow satan or follow God. If God intervened every time someone was going to get hurt or die, then we would all be robots. Forced to do someone elses will, Gods will. God gives us a choice, and with that choice we can choose to be good or evil. When the LATTER RAIN falls we will have the Father in us and we will understand.
I see Ravi as spouting overly simplistic theories. 20,000 children die every day from malnutrition and disease. Deaths that have nothing to do with evil, goodness, or free will. Ravi claims: if there is evil, there must be good, if there is good there must be a moral law to differentiate the two. If there is a moral law there most be a moral law Giver. No! Mankind needs only experience to judge fair and not. Ravi sounds good enough to applaud, as long as you don't think about what he said.
I see Ravi as spouting overly simplistic theories. 20,000 children die every day from malnutrition and disease. Deaths that have nothing to do with evil, goodness, or free will. Ravi's claims if there is evil, there must be good, if there is good there must be a moral law to differentiate the two. If there is a moral law...there most be a moral law Giver. No mankind needs only experience on to judge fair and not. Ravi sounds good enough to applaud, as long as you don't think about what he said.
@alansnedeker "Deaths that having nothing to do with evil" WRONG. Completely wrong. We live in a fallen world. Ever since Adam and Eve sinned, our world is getting worse by the day. Death, disease, famine, natural disasters, depression, suicide, etc. are all the result of a sinful world.
There is enough food/resources in the world for everyone but there are greedy people our there that want it all for themselves. Greed is evil. The Bible teaches us the love of money is the root of all evil.
OMW! I laughed so hard when he gave that answer, how can he have the nerve to keep spouting that stuff after it's been widely debunked. I thought he'd at least try and improve his arguments but no, his style is reminiscent of William Lane Craig and that's not the camp you want to associate with when trying to be taken seriously. But what am I saying, no one really takes this guy seriously...........do they? :(
@mrthegamer15 hahaha tell ur bitch ass jealous mutha gay ass god aka baphomet aka the devil read the end of the bible. The devil will perish with his followers. We will see who has the last laugh
The man assumed suffering only comes from bad outcomes while Ravi showed that accomplished people were suffering despite their good fortune. "...Going to the cross is a revelation...that sin by nature is destructive...Pain is the symptomatic expression of what is broken on the inside...If the physical symptoms tell us that pain is a symptom of something that's wrong I think we need to accept it that pain in the inner man is a symptom that something is wrong between us and God."
what sort of new concept of pain are you proposing to go hand in hand with this god, to be its means of reporting a connection error? Because currently emotional and physical pain are the only two I understand and they dont have a connection with the supernatural, only our minds and bodies.
A degree of pain and suffering is needed. Nobody is denying that. Challenges drive us to be better, stronger. BUT, the crux of the issue is in the excess. There is much pain and suffering of which no good comes, of which the sacrifice is total and the benefits are null. Somewhere, this very moment, a baby is dying in agony. If God exists, and this is our reality, then it is time to weep like never before. If God doesn't exist, however, then such tragedies are easily explainable.
Some suffering we bring upon ourselves, some is due to acts of evil by others and some are called "Acts of God." God not only gave us the laws of nature but the freedom to choose between right and wrong. I wouldn't expect God to suspend his laws of nature or ask him to take away our free will.
@TH3B3A57 so there is startling evidence for christianity? which means, for example that 1 billion Hindus in India are wrong, and there is your christian "God" who is OK with letting all of them go to hell. LOL man you are getting more and more ridiculous.
This is how crusades start...you know that?
Thats the difference between religion and science. In science there is an objective way in which all can agree. Religion is subjective and no one can agree !
@nevertheless123 Argument? No. I don't believe it was. What matters is the truth. Yes, there is great evidence for Christianity. Who said He was "Okay" with letting people go to hell? If you loved your children, would you like to see them suffer? God is perfect and Just. He offered us Grace on the Cross. More and more ridiculous? Yeah, this "Argument" IS getting ridiculous. You dismiss arguments without even understanding or looking into it. I love you. I hope you search for the truth.
@TH3B3A57 Yes this is not an argument. One person dogmatically believes in something with absolute faith and is willing to say there is "evidence" for that !!
There is no evidence for any damn religion. There is only evidence for religion causing stagnation. For example it took hundreds of years for the catholic church to accept that the earth is not the center of the universe.
If you really see the evidence you will not preach christianity but will keep it to yourself.
Morality isn't an argument for god's existence, saying that you cannot have an absolute moral standard without an absolute provider means nothing. Ethical sentences don't express propositions, but emotional attitudes. Saying "abortion is wrong" is just saying "boo to abortion", saying "abortion is right" is just saying "hurrah to abortion". There is no truth in morality, only emotions.
@joel230182 It is not universally true no, as some people would condone it (e.g. Joseph Fritzl) However, I disagree with it, and supposedly you do too, and all that means is we are saying boo to it
@searchtheoracles The golden rule is true to who? Christians don't treat is true, buddhists do, who is right and which option is truth? It sounds a lot more reasonable in my mind that morality is just a complex organisms way of defining what they detest and what they adore/condone - hence why different societies have different laws. Morality is a subjective way of saying boo or hurrah to something
@slipknotbmth Ah ha however a objective shared sense of reality is needed. Here is an analogy to this, a student writes a paper on how all morality is subjective and makes a detailed and concise arguments. He hands it in to the professor who gives it 0. The student says wtf why have you given me 0. The professor replies oh the paper was ok but I didn't like the folder it came in. The student retorts but you are supposed to mark it on the paper not the work. The proffesors argues if
@Colton8646 In regards to your analogy, it is ridiculous. The marking of a test paper is based on empirical or reasoned knowledge, not morality. Your allegory bears no resemblance to morality whatsoever, and it seems trite and pedantic. Please come back with a better one next time.
@slipknotbmth Lol you have missed the point there is a shared consensus that is objective among students and teachers that the teacher will mark the work based on the essay rather than the folder. If all morals are subjective then there is nothing wrong with the teacher marking based on the folder. Also lets not go onto morals otherwise I could bring up Mao Zedong who killed 50 million people Stalin who killed 15million and Pol Pott who also killed huge numbers all these people.
@Colton8646 But your analogy still doesn't work my friend.. It makes no point other than that the student is unhappy at having his paper marked in the way it has been marked. You have made no claim to truth. As for atheist mass murderers, this is simply ridiculous. Stalin, Pott and Zedong didn't do what they did because they were atheist, their religious standing had nothing to do with their actions. On the contrary, women are stoned to death and circumcised every day in the direct
@slipknotbmth Lol how are you not realising it is because of a value consensus between the student and the teacher that he will mark based on the paper. It is because of objective morals and value consensuses that people go out and work hard instead of being welfare parasites.
@slipknotbmth Stalin made priests drink molten lead on grounds of them believing in a God. Also it was because of religion and the re opening of the churches in 1941 that the Russian troops were inspired to defeat Germany at Stalingrad and Khursk the two battles that really decided WW2 this meant that they could then advance into Germany and stop the holocaust before it claimed any more lives.
@Colton8646 name of religion. No-one can commit an evil act in the name of atheism, because atheism is merely an absence of belief in a god, you simply can't get from "there is no god" to murdering millions of people, and the fact that you're blocking me shows how closed minded you really are. I'm not trying to prove or disprove religion, that is impossible, I'm merely presenting my ideas in a reasoned debate, don't you think you're being a bit childish?
@Colton8646 We use the majority of society's opinions to judge right or wrong, just because you deem the consequences of this undesirable doesn't make it false. Their is no logical reason why subjective morality cannot work, only consequential ones. That is why morality cannot be used to prove god's existence, it is based on consequence and what we deem as 'good', it has nothing to do with truth. And morals have been subjective throughout history in countless civilizations..
@Colton8646 Part 2: What makes you think morality is a modern invention? People have always had a sense of right and wrong, long before organised religion or omnipotent beings became commonplace. Right and wrong is innate in the majority of human beings, and we use these people's OPINIONS on which to base our judgements. Plus, the morality of religion is very questionable (christianity believes in stoning homosexuals, muslims believe in stoning raped women) and has led to countless
@Colton8646 Slip claims morality is subjective, funny, that itself an objective or absolute moral statement. If it is universally true that morality is subjective there is still one moral absolute, that being "we ought to treat morality subjectively" That's an impossible position as it presupposes an objective moral truth to deny objective moral truths. You did a good job tearing their absurdity down. I think slip should ask, is "morality is subjective" an absolute moral statement?
@ZekarPhoto Well said. When you think that Subjective morals in practice would destroy any attempts at society at gathering knowledge and at progressing in anyway. Its truly a concept which belongs better in theory. And even in theory as you have proved it doesn't work as it contradicts itself.
@Colton8646 Please could you clarify how subjective morals in practice would "destroy any attempts at society at gathering knowledge and at progressing in any way"? I find this incredulous, seeing as how the morality we have today is subjective.. yet civilization and technology are advancing at an exponential rate. It works better than absolute morality in religion, such as the old testament teaching of stoning homosexuals, in that it adapts to the needs of ever-changing societies.
@slipknotbmth If all morals are subjective how do you have any clear morals. How can you condemn the Nazi's if all morals are wrong. Also you make the assumption that it is just Theists defending objective morality if you have read much of Richard Dawkins he clearly believes that morality is not subjective.
@Colton8646 We can condemn groups such as the Nazi's for two main reasons, firstly they committed actions which to most people on earth would seem abhorrent and unjust - they violated the innate sense of not doing to others what you wouldn't want done to yourself. Secondly, because most people on earth see nothing wrong with Jews, it seems unwarranted that they should be treated in this way, they are innocent. And I'm not assuming that at all, I'm merely generalizing for the
@slipknotbmth "Not do to other what you wouldn't do to your self". Equals objective moral statement. Secondly throughout the world at the time of the holocaust there was a deep Anti Semtism found in every culture from America with its black listing of Jews to Europe and Arab nations. This was another shared value of consensus.
@Colton8646 purpose of this debate, as most theists are absolutists and most atheists are not. Please leave this analogy alone, it doesn't work. In a society, we have set laws and ways of doing things, as they would have in a classroom, in different societies people have different laws and ways of doing things, as do different classrooms, therefore marking the folder not the essay is out of place in that particular classroom.
@slipknotbmth "Dawkins warns us that while we must be careful of the right we must also be able to counteract the Left wing moral subjectivists who undermine modern society be declaring it no more moral than hideous societies such as the Aztecs". Source The Selfish Genius which is a commentary upon Dawkins by a fellow Atheist.
@ZekarPhoto Once again, I would disagree with the statement that "morality is subjective" is an absolute moral statement. It is an absolute statement, in the same way as stating that "all widows are women" is an absolute statement, commonly known as a tautology. The statement "morality is subjective" makes no claim to the rightness or wrongness of actions, therefore cannot be considered a moral absolute.
@slipknotbmth Unfortunately morality is not an "is" so your comparison is fallacious. Morality is an "ought". By definition the meaning of morality is what we "ought" to do in accordance with standards of conduct! If you use the word morality you presuppose an ought. Or in other words you say "What we ought to do is subjective". You cannot divorce ought from morality to suit your needs. My argument stands.
One cannot expect to understand pain and suffering in a few short sentences. Ravi Zacharias spends 10 minutes explaining something that surpasses human comprehension. He is not trying to dodge and weave but give guidance on a subject that no human mind will ever fully comprehend. There is no short answer to the problem of pain and suffering. It is a question that takes a lifetime to begin to answer. The most important things in life are almost never easily understood. Keep digging for Truth.
The fact that so many people cannot understand the answer Ravi gave is interesting. It does not indicate that his answer wasn't clear, or that he didn't know what to say. He was not trying to "dodge and weave". We are just used to short simple answers, and this question required a complicated and full answer. Our society is so dumbed down that we no longer understand complicated speach and thought. His answer was very well put, and his point well made.
For the people that don't seem to understand his answer to the question: He's saying that God allows suffering as a way to know what is wrong and lean on Him in order to make what is wrong right.
Ravi is a great speaker and a good philosopher but If you want a straight forward answer and were not satisfied with this one look up William lain craig
What an absolute crap! It seems like he is reciting all possible words from the dictionary and giving some stupid anecdotes. Why can't he answer the question directly and straightforward??
@crawhonda Apparently you do not know what my words "we do not know" or "I think" mean. He did not answer the question. He has not died and come back to reveal where he was, therefore, he does not know.
This man is ranting - he is not answering the question because he does not know the answer. Noone does. Life is simply evolving - to where we do not know. I think we are refining our souls lifetime by lifetime & eventually we wil rise to the ultimate energy of one-ness with the highest vibration (light) source of the universe. That is it, period.
@hollywoody5000 You say no one does, then you proceed to give an answer...evidently you mean, no one, but you. You may not like his answer, but he did answer the question. Now answering the question doesn't FIX the problem. But certainly his answer is satisfactory for billions of people in the world...were you looking for a yes/no answer?
There are no originals. But, most literary experts accept Homer's Iliad-less copies and centuries more removed. By the way when 25,000 very early copies virtually exactly (meaning any scientist today would love to have such statistical accuracy with such small margin of error) the same, i would expect a few copies to differ.
2 videos. The first addresses evidence used to support Darwin: "Icons of Evolution". The second describes the complexities of life: "Unlocking the mysteries of life". Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down..." Jesus said, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
So seeing all the questioning about whether God exists or not, he gave a logistic answer from a philosophical point of view: that if we believe in a moral law then there must be a moral law giver (I'm not too sure how it went but you know what I mean.) Now about proving that God exists, we are raising another question, what is considered proof that God exists? Because we all have different views on that. For some people the proof might've been a miracle they saw, or a near death experience.
Some of the comments being made by those who are "unbelievers" sound as if they are relying on their facts and intelligence and science and what they can "see". The only problem with that is one day we all will have to deal with the facts, intelligence, science and sight of death and unfortunately for the 'unbelievers' this is where all that they trust in fails them because for them there is no answer to this ultimate question...but believers have a promise not a formula!
@tjc0915 ' Some of the comments being made by those who are "unbelievers" sound as if they are relying on their facts and intelligence and science and what they can "see" '
Hahahaha, as opposed to the 'believers' who don't use "facts" and "intelligence" and "science" and what they CANT "see"? I don't mean any offence, but do you know how idiotic that comment sounds?
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 it only sounds idiotic to those who don't believe frankie. I do understand your point of view. The bible says the the "Word of God is foolishness to those who don't believe..." .
@Frankie Faith Is not based on science or anything.....Its believing what you dont see......Jesus christ loves you and there is nothing you can do about it.The Love of christ has changed millions of lives and mine.For the unbeliever ,It sounds awkward ,delusional or whatever,But before you judge dont you think you need to give the bible a fair share and at least have a glance at what it has to offer? I dont know much,but I have faith...and this faith has carried me through...thats my take.
@alsafeereqpt I have given the bible a chance already, I used to be a Christian, and i have read it many times since losing my faith. "Faith" is essentially nothing more than a euphemism for gullibility. What would you think if a jury found an accused murderer and rapist innocent, even though all the evidence pointed to his guilt, because they had "faith" he didn't do it? There would be a public outcry and massive controversy! It is exactly the same with having "faith"...
@alsafeereqpt ... in the bible and Jesus. Not only is there a huge amount of scientific evidence to the contrary of what happens in the bible (eg: Genesis - Everything was created 6000 years ago in 7 days, there was a global flood etc) whiel there is also a complete lack of evidence for many of its assertions (That jesus was the son of God and performed miracles, there isn't even conclusive historical evidence that he exists). To believe in the bible is to be...
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 there is actually plenty of corroborated evidence which supports the existence of Jesus. Historical facts written by Josephus the jewish historian, Tacticus, and Pliny the Younger all secular sources have indicated the vast amounts of Christians in the faith of Jesus who performed miracles, claimed to be the Son of God, died on the cross under Pilate, resurrected and ascended into heaven. You are simply not looking for evidence for denying evidence of the fact of Jesus life.
@hatementality Well, firstly a large proportion of historians and scholars believe the passage which you are undoubtedly referring to in the Testimonium Flavian (the work by the historian Josephus you mentioned) is inauthentic due to a number of reasons (research them if you want to find out more). Not only that but Josephus only lived decades after Christ was alleged to have lived so even if it was authentic, he would have only heard stories passed on from previous generations. That...
@hatementality ... is not proof that Jesus was the son of God, performed miracles or was resurrected, or conclusively that he even existed. All it would have proven if it is authentic (which it probably isn't) is that the myth of Christ dates back to at least a few decades into the first century. Now onto Tacitus' work in the annals of which there is a lot to be criticised as a source verifying the accuracy of the bible...
@hatementality ... Most of the criticism of the passage in Annals surrounds what the passage proves. There is no scholarly consensus on the issue. The passage is accepted by some religious scholars as evidence for Jesus' existence, whereas others dismiss it as Tacitus simply repeating the story as Christians told it. He gives no reason to scholars to actually believe that he investigated and sourced independently Jesus' crusifiction and that it is much more likely he was just...
@hatementality ... repeating the stories being spread by Christians at the time. It also lacks a lot of key information such as the darkness during the day and earthquakes following quickly after the crucifixion and the resurrection. There are a number of other problems as well which I will let you research if you want to find out more. But in conclusion, if we accept the Anaals as evidence for Christ,it only implies there was a Jew named Jesus who founded a religious movement....
@hatementality ... and that he was ordered executed by a Roman prefect named Pilate.It CANNOT be used as evidence that the man had magic powers, that the Biblical account is factual, that the Bible is a reliable historical source and what Christians believe today about the bible is true. I confess I know little about Pliny the Younger's work concerning Christianity but the little research I have done in order to respond to your assertions indicates that he made no mention...
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 In the case of the Testimonium Flavianum written by Josephus, there are some interpolations added by Christians however, this does not mean all of what Josephus said about Jesus was absolutely fraudulent. There were phrases he used in this text that Christians would not use when writing about Jesus. Such as “about this time there lived Jesus, a wise man.” A believer in Christ would not portray Him as merely “a wise man”. The Christians added: “if indeed one ought to call him
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 a man”. Scholars have thoroughly studied this excerpt on Jesus and concluded that because of Josephus’ accurate accounts of the Jewish War which have been confirmed by archaeological excavations, his statement that Jesus existed is accurate. As for Tacitus, he indicates that Christ suffered the extreme penalty under Pilate which was well known in society as being crucified. The fact that such a movement called “Christianity” by the evidence of Jesus being crucified must be
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 be explained. These writings were written down less than a century after Jesus’ crucifixion. The scriptures of course were written down from AD 50-100.Whereas in comparison the scriptures AND biographies of Buddha and Muhammad were written longer than one century after the deaths of these two “religion starters”. Pliny the Younger did mention Christians he had arrested and affirmed that these Christians believed in Jesus as God and they abstained themselves from theft
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 robbery and adultery etc. As for the darkness and earthquake that occurred at the crucifixion indicated in the Gospels, there are in fact secular historical writings that affirm this by Phlegon and Thallus; both historians born in the first century. Phlegon indicated that in 33 AD there was the greatest eclipse at noon and there was a “great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea”. The assertion of the eclipse was actually a logical excuse for the
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 supernatural darkness which occurred on earth which was later confirmed as impossible since at the time, the moon was full and would be diametrically opposite the sun. The writings of Phlegon actually present that this darkness did happen nonetheless. The only two other explanations one can come up with due to the uprising and expansion of Christianity is through sociological or psychological reasons which are very weak.
@hatementality I'm not going to bother arguing about the authenticity of these texts because each of our rebuttals will probably take up at least a whole page of comments which will be impractical. Even if I were to grant you that the passage was completely genuine, which it is very likely it is not (check out the ironchariots website for more information on this), all it proves is that there was a man named Jesus Christ who founded the Christian religious movement and was executed...
@hatementality ... on orders of Pilate. Josephus talks about 'miracles' performed by other "prophets" but makes no attribution of any miracles or supernatural goings on to Christ. It does not prove that he was the son of God or that he had magical powers. That is the only thing I'm interested in. Someone had to found the religious movement that was to become Christianity today, we might as well call him Jesus. What I am interested in is evidence for who he apparently said he was...
@hatementality ... eg. the son of God. The same goes for the writings of Tacitus. Confirmation of execution and/or crucifixion has no bearing on the likelihood of the claim that he was the son of God. So what if Pliny the Younger affirmed the beliefs of Christians he arrested? How can that be considered as evidence that Jesus, if he existed, was the son of God? We know that Christians still believe that today, how does that make these supernatural claims any more likely? ...
@hatementality Ok, I've done a little research on Thallus and i remain unconvinced, seeing as scholars actually seem to know next to nothing about him, not even when he was born. There is simply too much to discuss about the work of Thallus right now, I would prefer if we could discuss Thallus and Phlegon seperately from the works of the others you mentioned.
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 Thallus' writtings has been lost or corrupted however a man named Julius Africanus a non-ecclesiastical historian was given the opportunity to study in the library of Emperor Alexander Severus (Rome) and studied Thallus' books. He stated in one of his chronological texts: "Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun". Thallus was a witness and a skeptic to this darkness and tried to explain this supernatural act in
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 practical terms. This was proven illogical by Africanus who explained why it couldn’t have been an eclipse at that date and time. If the sources I am giving you are not authentic or genuine, there needs to be an explanation for the rapid growth of Christianity in the first century. Why were the authors of the canonical scriptures and the followers of Christ willing to die for what they believed in? The gospels we now have are proven to be 99.5% accurate and preserved.
@hatementality I have done some more and at least we agree there was no eclipse then :). Africanus claims that the darkness affected the whole world (not sure how he can make such a claim but it seems you are placing a lot of faith in this one single historian), but if this were true then how come it is not mentioned in the works of at least 90 or so per-cent of other historians from the time from that part of the world and elsewhere?
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 The fact that the historian Thallus explained the darkness as an eclipse concludes that he was a skeptic and needed to come up with an explanation for this darkness. Why would this historian try to cover this supernatural act with it being an eclipse. Clearly this is a secular statement which is then proved to be supernatural since an eclipse would not work on the day of the passover.
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 When Africanus explains darkness over all the earth, my reasonable hypothesis is that when this darkness took place, it was about noon time and the sun grew dark. This is logically possible to state that if the sun lost its effect of light on one part of theearth without the moon blocking it, the sun would probably not shine anywhere else on the earth.
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 As for the reason why other historians did not mention this darkness, you can come up with many hypothesis' such as these historians were focused on political matters or facts they can fully and thoroughly explain to make their statement valid for historical use.
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 When I bring up our translations of the Gospels accuracy in comparison with the original 24,000 manuscripts found, I am talking about how its preserved not "contradictions". Name one contradiction at a time and I'll do my best to research and come up with an explanation :)
@hatementality I'm sorry but it is FAR too much to expect this huge, technically impossible event to have happened at this time if it is only mentioned by one or two historians out of thousands. If such an event had taken place there would have been mention of it elsewhere but there clearly wasn't? That was a very, very weak hypothesis I'm afraid. It doesn't explain anything. There were thousands of other historians around the world and not ONE of them mentioned it....
@hatementality .. Are you saying ALL of them were too focused on political matters just to make one little mentioned of the Sun going dark for 3 hours? If they wanted facts, the single most obvious fact would have been that the Sun went dark for 3 hours, historians have never been under any obligation to explain everything they write, ever. It's too much to presume they would just make no mention of something like that JUST because they couldn't explain why it was happening...
@hatementality ... This would have caused a lot of panic and religious gatherings for protection everywhere... and yet somehow nothing is said of it. I smell a rat.
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 The percentage is refering to the 25000 copies matching each other word for word, not the historical content. Although, they dont do that either.
@hatementality ... of Christ himself and that he only discussed oppression and torture of Christians and that he was born decades after Christ died, correct me if I'm wrong.
@Frankie.....this is what our bible says.......'O taste and see that the lord is good'.....How can you say that Mcdonalds isnt tasty unless you try it? ;) Im just a kid so I cant give you all the sophisticated reply...so yeah...... !!! :) Jesus loves you dude.
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 Ugh. Such a tired argument. And easily one of the biggest theological cop outs ever. Easily refuted as well. I'm happy. I believe in a god. Trust in a god. His hand begat the big bang, which begat matter, the building blocks for life and life itself. Energy, neutrinos, protons, electrons, dark matter, bosons and gravity. Which all inevitably lead to the complex inner workings of the human being and all things that walk, swim and breathe. I love my life. He made it possible.
@soSUBURBIA Eh? I didn't make an argument, I just asked you to prove your claim. But that's beside the point.
Firstly, you being happy in your 'belief' is not proof. Niether is the fact that you believe or trust in a God. Since the rest of your claims after "Trust in a God" can only be made logically if the existence of God has already been established( and you havn't established his existence with any form of valid proof) you have not refuted atheism. Try again.
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 Jesus Christ are straight up plagiarizing Dawkins? No thought of your own? My belief in the existence of a God is mine. I don't need you to believe it. Nor do I need to answer to you. My belief in a God exist OUTSIDE of whether or not you believe. People like you always have the questions. But not the answers. You demand answers. I can't live your life for you. Find your own answers. The universe began with the singularity. Logically, God set off the explosion.
@soSUBURBIA You are just trying to distract from the issue at hand. This is how a debate works: You make an argument and then you answer questions from those scrutinizing your argument. Besides, if no one wanted answers, then how would we get them?
I any case, people like you always assert you have the answers when you really have no evidence. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I've yet to hear a direct satisfactory response from Ravi on these questions he's asked. I actually find his red herring anecdotes, which are often no more than an empty appeal to emotion, irritating and gutless rhetoric..... In a real debate when his responses were rationally examined, and required justification, he would look a fool!
I like the fact that he starts with the experiential nature of the question of suffering but he lost me when he said the stuff about the moral law. I can follow the argument but it seems to me to have gone far away from the question being asked which was about whether the world looks like there is a benevolent God who is omnipotent (and to me it doesn't). If we're having to strain ourselves so much to prove this doesn't that tell us something?
This huge argumentational curve is needed to pull the question into a comfortable realm where he can exercise his choreographed rethorical trickery.
From my observation in this comment section, 60% of the people fall for it blindly, 20% are somewhat suspicious because his whole argument doesn't really fly and the remaining 20% can smell the stench of deception immediately and raise the BS flag.
Would you cry about the 60% or be happy about the other 40?
@sooperfukker You seem pretty angry about this. I don't know the guy so I couldn't tell you about his motives but there is a difference between being wrong or mistaken & deliberately trying to decieve people. Is there anything in particular that makes you think this he's doing this?
@gextvedde Nah, I'm not mad, just heavily annoyed, because some debaters out there don't have an honest approach to the topics they're debating about. This dishonesty is a waste of time for everyone. And of course there is a difference between deliberate deception and mere ignorance.
The safest sign to spot an intellectual fraud is the use of certain rethorical devices in order to manipulate a line of argumentation, ending in a result he couldn't have gotten with an honest approach.
@sooperfukker I'd agree that he certainly uses a large dose if rhetoric which hides the fatc that he's gone way off topic but it's easy to do this by mistake. As a person who engages in debates he should certainly know better. I suppose I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he read Schopenhauers "the Art of Always Being Right" and thought it was the way to do things...
@gextvedde Oh I'm sure he has trained that a lot but I think I can safely say what he trained for: Enter "Ravi Zacharias" in Google and the 1st hit will show you this:
"Welcome to Ravi Zacharias International Ministries"
*ding*ding*ding* From that point on, I know what this guy is after: The moneys.
There are a few honest christian apologists out there, like John Lennox or Francis Collins. They don't need cheap tricks to make their points, listening to them is a good thing to do.
@gextvedde In one of my older posts I described in short terms how he cheats his way from human ideas of good/bad, how these ideas constitute a "moral law", which -by its semantics- begs the question for a "lawgiver".
Such things don't happen by accident, they're the result of a goal-oriented, backward construction.
The bad thing is: His dishonesty reflects back on his own position towards the original notion (god), making it even more noncredible; a shame.
@sooperfukker i agree, it scares me too. i don't think people listen to what he's actually saying, if they did they would realize if summarizes to: pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
@sooperfukker Then you sir aren't listening. Get the wax out of your egotistical ears and listen. He answered the question in several different ways. I didn't find it difficult whatsoever to comprehend what he said.
@sooperfukker Glady :) When Ravi Zacharis talks about suffering and Why God allows suffering to happen is because in a world without suffering.... we see no need for Him, God can not give people goodness without himself being there because you can't have goodness without God Because he is the embodiment of Goodness. Suffering is a symptom of a much greater *disease* which would be our desire to be satisfied. :)
To me, this sounds like god was doing a "9/11 inside job" to justify his existence in the first place and then offer his "solution" to people, which of course, comes at a certain "price".
Then again,I'm not even sure if your post wasn't a troll post..but who cares?
@sooperfukker Apparently you didn't watch the first part... where evil is the going against of God's nature/law... Man has choosen to be evil and from that Evil God can still bring and has brought good....
"How can a good god allow suffering" and you/him come up with some wish wash about "man has chosen to be evil" ... that's not even remotely an answer to the question.
@sooperfukker God allows suffering to happen is because in a world without suffering.... we see no need for Him, God can not give people goodness without himself being there because you can't have goodness without God... lol i'm surprised i qouted myself
@sooperfukker .... in order for him to eliminate suffering... he'd have to eliminate free will.... and that wouldn't be loving... remember suffering is a symptom of us acting evil.
The same 2 words for you (as for my long answer to Jeffinator22) : Non Sequitur.
There is no logical connection between these points.
I already caught Zacharias in a lie, performing rethorical trickery when building a bridge between "right and wrong" , "moral law" and a "lawgiver", this one is no different.
As I've shown in my reply to Jeffinator22, suffering doesn't require evil or "wrong in society".
The greatest disasters in human history came from external sources. Take volcano outbursts, take any storm flood or tsunami, killing tens or hundreds of thousands or imagine an asteroid crashing into our beloved planet, wiping out entire civilisations... noone to blame.
The other part is laughable.
Ask parents about a child's "free will" when putting its hands near a power plug. The parents will immediately eliminate the child's free will EXACTLY BECAUSE they love it.
@sooperfukker "The greatest disasters in human history came from external sources..volcano outbursts, take any storm flood or tsunami,.... ..... No-one to blame?" really? Then you should be not on here dealing with petty religious people. you should be blaming nature and finding ways to deal with it. You shouldn't be blaming religion then if you believe it to be a man-made concept... you should focusing on the natural world.
@StarRonKid You "blame" nature? You can't be serious, the history of mankind is a history of struggling against nature's blind forces, us trying to establish a safe living against powers that are beyond anyone's control. Nature isn't good or evil, it's completely indifferent.
That doesn't keep people from doing bad things, bit by bit, killing others one-by-one or even in mass killings. And even if you could rightfully say that some humans are bad, nature certainly isn't.
Another good question would be to ask about what or who is the 'Moral Law Giver'. Does it neccasarrily have to mean a divine person in heaven that gave it? Can there be some being out there that produces laws like this coming from its own thoughts? Is that being or force just personal? Can it be impersonal in a way?
What God is or could be is worth looking into.
risingsonseven 19 hours ago
4:35-5:02 he pretty much destroyed humanist right there,lol
PopR1ne 1 day ago
Nice speech. But question not answered.
logickid 1 day ago
The idea of an all powerful God conflicts with the idea of a devil, and certainly one with the same power as God Herself. You either burn in hell or you don't.Apparently the devil doesn't. Or the devil is as powerful as God, then there is more than one God..and good one and a bad one. In order for there to be a bad one She must be as all powerful as God herself. So I'm very confused. Maybe someone can help me out.
alansnedeker 1 day ago
@alansnedeker Please search the scriptures.
Satan(the devil) WILL burn in hell. The hell was originally prepared for the devil and his angels (demons). Since man sinned, we all deserve to die and go to hell but God loved us so much that he died in our place on the cross as full payment of our sins. Not only did he just die, he died in what is probably the most painful ways to die in all of human history. Read up about roman crucifixion.
therealrobvandam 1 day ago
@alansnedeker ...Jesus was raised from the dead three days later and conquered both death and sin. The reason Jesus's death was sufficient for all of mankind is because he is eternal in nature, and he lived a completely sinless life. Not one time did he sin, yet he paid a debt he didn't owe. That's love man.
therealrobvandam 1 day ago
Ravi isn't known for tiptoeing and he didn't do it here.
ScreeminMeeme 1 day ago
@ScreeminMeeme Doesnt matter if hes not known for that buddy, hes doing it now... I see it plain as day and im a christian.
jcorklin 1 day ago
he didn't even address the question. he merely tip toed around it
mwaha010 1 day ago
We will understand everything and follow his way 100% because it is right. If u dont believe in God because someone dies a horrible death, then so be it. Who ever wants to hear let them hear.
jcorklin 2 days ago
This guy just danced around the question with shiny sentences. People die because theres a devil. God doesnt want anyone to die but Satan is evil and men have a choice to follow satan or follow God. If God intervened every time someone was going to get hurt or die, then we would all be robots. Forced to do someone elses will, Gods will. God gives us a choice, and with that choice we can choose to be good or evil. When the LATTER RAIN falls we will have the Father in us and we will understand.
jcorklin 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I see Ravi as spouting overly simplistic theories. 20,000 children die every day from malnutrition and disease. Deaths that have nothing to do with evil, goodness, or free will. Ravi claims: if there is evil, there must be good, if there is good there must be a moral law to differentiate the two. If there is a moral law there most be a moral law Giver. No! Mankind needs only experience to judge fair and not. Ravi sounds good enough to applaud, as long as you don't think about what he said.
alansnedeker 2 days ago
I see Ravi as spouting overly simplistic theories. 20,000 children die every day from malnutrition and disease. Deaths that have nothing to do with evil, goodness, or free will. Ravi's claims if there is evil, there must be good, if there is good there must be a moral law to differentiate the two. If there is a moral law...there most be a moral law Giver. No mankind needs only experience on to judge fair and not. Ravi sounds good enough to applaud, as long as you don't think about what he said.
alansnedeker 2 days ago
@alansnedeker "Deaths that having nothing to do with evil" WRONG. Completely wrong. We live in a fallen world. Ever since Adam and Eve sinned, our world is getting worse by the day. Death, disease, famine, natural disasters, depression, suicide, etc. are all the result of a sinful world.
There is enough food/resources in the world for everyone but there are greedy people our there that want it all for themselves. Greed is evil. The Bible teaches us the love of money is the root of all evil.
therealrobvandam 1 day ago
OMW! I laughed so hard when he gave that answer, how can he have the nerve to keep spouting that stuff after it's been widely debunked. I thought he'd at least try and improve his arguments but no, his style is reminiscent of William Lane Craig and that's not the camp you want to associate with when trying to be taken seriously. But what am I saying, no one really takes this guy seriously...........do they? :(
Hemmersfield1 2 days ago
Tony says hi /watch?v=cTzvaXWiZDE&feature=player_embedded#!
Schoening91 2 days ago
@mrthegamer15 hahaha tell ur bitch ass jealous mutha gay ass god aka baphomet aka the devil read the end of the bible. The devil will perish with his followers. We will see who has the last laugh
superstankydanky808 2 days ago
Mrthegamer
superstankydanky808 2 days ago
HAIL IN THE GLORIOUS NAME OF SATAN FOR HE IS OUR LORD AND MASTER AND IS MORE POWERFUL THAN YOUR YAHWEH!!!!!! CONVERT TO SATANISM OR BE DESTROYED!!!!!
MrThegamer15 2 days ago
what an awful argument.
AHughman08 3 days ago
He really didn't directly address the question.
ndjarnag 1 week ago 2
@ndjarnag
The man assumed suffering only comes from bad outcomes while Ravi showed that accomplished people were suffering despite their good fortune. "...Going to the cross is a revelation...that sin by nature is destructive...Pain is the symptomatic expression of what is broken on the inside...If the physical symptoms tell us that pain is a symptom of something that's wrong I think we need to accept it that pain in the inner man is a symptom that something is wrong between us and God."
soulwake85 5 days ago 2
what sort of new concept of pain are you proposing to go hand in hand with this god, to be its means of reporting a connection error? Because currently emotional and physical pain are the only two I understand and they dont have a connection with the supernatural, only our minds and bodies.
Hemmersfield1 2 days ago
lol representing God even in how we dress ..love this
MsLas24 1 week ago
A degree of pain and suffering is needed. Nobody is denying that. Challenges drive us to be better, stronger. BUT, the crux of the issue is in the excess. There is much pain and suffering of which no good comes, of which the sacrifice is total and the benefits are null. Somewhere, this very moment, a baby is dying in agony. If God exists, and this is our reality, then it is time to weep like never before. If God doesn't exist, however, then such tragedies are easily explainable.
DarkMatter2525 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some suffering we bring upon ourselves, some is due to acts of evil by others and some are called "Acts of God." God not only gave us the laws of nature but the freedom to choose between right and wrong. I wouldn't expect God to suspend his laws of nature or ask him to take away our free will.
dyad2r1 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Avatar - Smells Like A Freak Show
I Need Something To Sedate Me
But I Cant Afford The High
Give Me Something
To Help Me Escape
Smells Like A Freak Show
God In A Casket
Gone For Eternities
We've Got No Rules,
No Rules, No Rules
K1B4HeHe 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
K1B4HeHe 2 weeks ago
@TH3B3A57 so there is startling evidence for christianity? which means, for example that 1 billion Hindus in India are wrong, and there is your christian "God" who is OK with letting all of them go to hell. LOL man you are getting more and more ridiculous.
This is how crusades start...you know that?
Thats the difference between religion and science. In science there is an objective way in which all can agree. Religion is subjective and no one can agree !
I am done arguing with you I think.
nevertheless123 2 weeks ago
@nevertheless123 Argument? No. I don't believe it was. What matters is the truth. Yes, there is great evidence for Christianity. Who said He was "Okay" with letting people go to hell? If you loved your children, would you like to see them suffer? God is perfect and Just. He offered us Grace on the Cross. More and more ridiculous? Yeah, this "Argument" IS getting ridiculous. You dismiss arguments without even understanding or looking into it. I love you. I hope you search for the truth.
TH3B3A57 2 weeks ago
@TH3B3A57 Yes this is not an argument. One person dogmatically believes in something with absolute faith and is willing to say there is "evidence" for that !!
There is no evidence for any damn religion. There is only evidence for religion causing stagnation. For example it took hundreds of years for the catholic church to accept that the earth is not the center of the universe.
If you really see the evidence you will not preach christianity but will keep it to yourself.
I love you too !! cheers
nevertheless123 2 weeks ago
Morality isn't an argument for god's existence, saying that you cannot have an absolute moral standard without an absolute provider means nothing. Ethical sentences don't express propositions, but emotional attitudes. Saying "abortion is wrong" is just saying "boo to abortion", saying "abortion is right" is just saying "hurrah to abortion". There is no truth in morality, only emotions.
slipknotbmth 2 weeks ago
@slipknotbmth So... it is not true that torturing children is evil?
joel230182 2 weeks ago
@joel230182 It is not universally true no, as some people would condone it (e.g. Joseph Fritzl) However, I disagree with it, and supposedly you do too, and all that means is we are saying boo to it
slipknotbmth 2 weeks ago
@slipknotbmth the golden rule is true
searchtheoracles 2 weeks ago
@searchtheoracles The golden rule is true to who? Christians don't treat is true, buddhists do, who is right and which option is truth? It sounds a lot more reasonable in my mind that morality is just a complex organisms way of defining what they detest and what they adore/condone - hence why different societies have different laws. Morality is a subjective way of saying boo or hurrah to something
slipknotbmth 2 weeks ago
@slipknotbmth Ah ha however a objective shared sense of reality is needed. Here is an analogy to this, a student writes a paper on how all morality is subjective and makes a detailed and concise arguments. He hands it in to the professor who gives it 0. The student says wtf why have you given me 0. The professor replies oh the paper was ok but I didn't like the folder it came in. The student retorts but you are supposed to mark it on the paper not the work. The proffesors argues if
Colton8646 1 week ago
@Colton8646 In regards to your analogy, it is ridiculous. The marking of a test paper is based on empirical or reasoned knowledge, not morality. Your allegory bears no resemblance to morality whatsoever, and it seems trite and pedantic. Please come back with a better one next time.
slipknotbmth 1 week ago
@slipknotbmth Lol you have missed the point there is a shared consensus that is objective among students and teachers that the teacher will mark the work based on the essay rather than the folder. If all morals are subjective then there is nothing wrong with the teacher marking based on the folder. Also lets not go onto morals otherwise I could bring up Mao Zedong who killed 50 million people Stalin who killed 15million and Pol Pott who also killed huge numbers all these people.
Colton8646 1 week ago
@Colton8646 But your analogy still doesn't work my friend.. It makes no point other than that the student is unhappy at having his paper marked in the way it has been marked. You have made no claim to truth. As for atheist mass murderers, this is simply ridiculous. Stalin, Pott and Zedong didn't do what they did because they were atheist, their religious standing had nothing to do with their actions. On the contrary, women are stoned to death and circumcised every day in the direct
slipknotbmth 1 week ago
@slipknotbmth Lol how are you not realising it is because of a value consensus between the student and the teacher that he will mark based on the paper. It is because of objective morals and value consensuses that people go out and work hard instead of being welfare parasites.
Colton8646 1 week ago
@slipknotbmth Stalin made priests drink molten lead on grounds of them believing in a God. Also it was because of religion and the re opening of the churches in 1941 that the Russian troops were inspired to defeat Germany at Stalingrad and Khursk the two battles that really decided WW2 this meant that they could then advance into Germany and stop the holocaust before it claimed any more lives.
Colton8646 1 week ago
@Colton8646 name of religion. No-one can commit an evil act in the name of atheism, because atheism is merely an absence of belief in a god, you simply can't get from "there is no god" to murdering millions of people, and the fact that you're blocking me shows how closed minded you really are. I'm not trying to prove or disprove religion, that is impossible, I'm merely presenting my ideas in a reasoned debate, don't you think you're being a bit childish?
slipknotbmth 1 week ago
@slipknotbmth were atheists. I am blocking you now as I have won the argument and all your basees belong to us.
Colton8646 1 week ago
@slipknotbmth all values are subjective how can you say what I did was wrong. If all morals were subjective nothing would work.
TLDR: Subjective morals don't work.
Colton8646 1 week ago
@Colton8646 We use the majority of society's opinions to judge right or wrong, just because you deem the consequences of this undesirable doesn't make it false. Their is no logical reason why subjective morality cannot work, only consequential ones. That is why morality cannot be used to prove god's existence, it is based on consequence and what we deem as 'good', it has nothing to do with truth. And morals have been subjective throughout history in countless civilizations..
slipknotbmth 1 week ago
@Colton8646 Part 2: What makes you think morality is a modern invention? People have always had a sense of right and wrong, long before organised religion or omnipotent beings became commonplace. Right and wrong is innate in the majority of human beings, and we use these people's OPINIONS on which to base our judgements. Plus, the morality of religion is very questionable (christianity believes in stoning homosexuals, muslims believe in stoning raped women) and has led to countless
slipknotbmth 1 week ago
@Colton8646 Part 3: atrocities
slipknotbmth 1 week ago
@Colton8646 Slip claims morality is subjective, funny, that itself an objective or absolute moral statement. If it is universally true that morality is subjective there is still one moral absolute, that being "we ought to treat morality subjectively" That's an impossible position as it presupposes an objective moral truth to deny objective moral truths. You did a good job tearing their absurdity down. I think slip should ask, is "morality is subjective" an absolute moral statement?
ZekarPhoto 1 week ago
@ZekarPhoto Well said. When you think that Subjective morals in practice would destroy any attempts at society at gathering knowledge and at progressing in anyway. Its truly a concept which belongs better in theory. And even in theory as you have proved it doesn't work as it contradicts itself.
Colton8646 1 week ago
@Colton8646 Please could you clarify how subjective morals in practice would "destroy any attempts at society at gathering knowledge and at progressing in any way"? I find this incredulous, seeing as how the morality we have today is subjective.. yet civilization and technology are advancing at an exponential rate. It works better than absolute morality in religion, such as the old testament teaching of stoning homosexuals, in that it adapts to the needs of ever-changing societies.
slipknotbmth 1 week ago
@slipknotbmth If all morals are subjective how do you have any clear morals. How can you condemn the Nazi's if all morals are wrong. Also you make the assumption that it is just Theists defending objective morality if you have read much of Richard Dawkins he clearly believes that morality is not subjective.
Colton8646 1 week ago
@Colton8646 We can condemn groups such as the Nazi's for two main reasons, firstly they committed actions which to most people on earth would seem abhorrent and unjust - they violated the innate sense of not doing to others what you wouldn't want done to yourself. Secondly, because most people on earth see nothing wrong with Jews, it seems unwarranted that they should be treated in this way, they are innocent. And I'm not assuming that at all, I'm merely generalizing for the
slipknotbmth 1 week ago
@slipknotbmth "Not do to other what you wouldn't do to your self". Equals objective moral statement. Secondly throughout the world at the time of the holocaust there was a deep Anti Semtism found in every culture from America with its black listing of Jews to Europe and Arab nations. This was another shared value of consensus.
Colton8646 1 week ago
@Colton8646 purpose of this debate, as most theists are absolutists and most atheists are not. Please leave this analogy alone, it doesn't work. In a society, we have set laws and ways of doing things, as they would have in a classroom, in different societies people have different laws and ways of doing things, as do different classrooms, therefore marking the folder not the essay is out of place in that particular classroom.
slipknotbmth 1 week ago
@slipknotbmth "Dawkins warns us that while we must be careful of the right we must also be able to counteract the Left wing moral subjectivists who undermine modern society be declaring it no more moral than hideous societies such as the Aztecs". Source The Selfish Genius which is a commentary upon Dawkins by a fellow Atheist.
Colton8646 1 week ago
@ZekarPhoto Once again, I would disagree with the statement that "morality is subjective" is an absolute moral statement. It is an absolute statement, in the same way as stating that "all widows are women" is an absolute statement, commonly known as a tautology. The statement "morality is subjective" makes no claim to the rightness or wrongness of actions, therefore cannot be considered a moral absolute.
slipknotbmth 1 week ago
@slipknotbmth Unfortunately morality is not an "is" so your comparison is fallacious. Morality is an "ought". By definition the meaning of morality is what we "ought" to do in accordance with standards of conduct! If you use the word morality you presuppose an ought. Or in other words you say "What we ought to do is subjective". You cannot divorce ought from morality to suit your needs. My argument stands.
ZekarPhoto 1 week ago
so his answer to the question the guy posed ...about why god is not responsible for all the evil in society is:
if you have faith you dont care.
In other words he never answered his question !!
nevertheless123 2 weeks ago
@nevertheless123 I have faith, and I carre about evil. I pray (as often as I remember) for those who suffer.
PlanetZelka 2 weeks ago
Formidable, can you upload the whole conference. Thank you a gem.
aldousjove 3 weeks ago
One cannot expect to understand pain and suffering in a few short sentences. Ravi Zacharias spends 10 minutes explaining something that surpasses human comprehension. He is not trying to dodge and weave but give guidance on a subject that no human mind will ever fully comprehend. There is no short answer to the problem of pain and suffering. It is a question that takes a lifetime to begin to answer. The most important things in life are almost never easily understood. Keep digging for Truth.
minephilim 3 weeks ago 2
Ravi is a blessing from God! He speaks the truth of the Gospel!
PardonPaige11 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
he did not answer the question. ar-all
jspecaspec23 3 weeks ago
The fact that so many people cannot understand the answer Ravi gave is interesting. It does not indicate that his answer wasn't clear, or that he didn't know what to say. He was not trying to "dodge and weave". We are just used to short simple answers, and this question required a complicated and full answer. Our society is so dumbed down that we no longer understand complicated speach and thought. His answer was very well put, and his point well made.
flinnerazackanatea 3 weeks ago
@flinnerazackanatea I agree. I think his answer was pretty straight forward. He gave a beautiful thought-provoking response that brought me to tears.
Yrhp8268 3 weeks ago
Ravi telling it like it is yet again.
MrBrendaneoin22 3 weeks ago
For the people that don't seem to understand his answer to the question: He's saying that God allows suffering as a way to know what is wrong and lean on Him in order to make what is wrong right.
SmithCo1000 3 weeks ago
Ravi is a great speaker and a good philosopher but If you want a straight forward answer and were not satisfied with this one look up William lain craig
jwmarco21 4 weeks ago
What an absolute crap! It seems like he is reciting all possible words from the dictionary and giving some stupid anecdotes. Why can't he answer the question directly and straightforward??
vamsee96 4 weeks ago
@crawhonda Apparently you do not know what my words "we do not know" or "I think" mean. He did not answer the question. He has not died and come back to reveal where he was, therefore, he does not know.
hollywoody5000 1 month ago
This man is ranting - he is not answering the question because he does not know the answer. Noone does. Life is simply evolving - to where we do not know. I think we are refining our souls lifetime by lifetime & eventually we wil rise to the ultimate energy of one-ness with the highest vibration (light) source of the universe. That is it, period.
hollywoody5000 1 month ago
@hollywoody5000 You say no one does, then you proceed to give an answer...evidently you mean, no one, but you. You may not like his answer, but he did answer the question. Now answering the question doesn't FIX the problem. But certainly his answer is satisfactory for billions of people in the world...were you looking for a yes/no answer?
crawhonda 1 month ago
@hollywoody5000 Haha...what are you talking about man? Good luck convincing yourself of that.
polycarp256 1 month ago
Comment removed
scottspaulding 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God: "Let me in to your life to save you"
Me: "Save me from what?"
God: "From what I will do to you if you don't let me in"
Christian philosophy... it's brilliant!
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 month ago
Comment removed
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 month ago
There are no originals. But, most literary experts accept Homer's Iliad-less copies and centuries more removed. By the way when 25,000 very early copies virtually exactly (meaning any scientist today would love to have such statistical accuracy with such small margin of error) the same, i would expect a few copies to differ.
randyrocket 1 month ago
yea! you called me a retard! you are a big smart person. Be proud and see how far that gets you. Hooray!
slappylippy 1 month ago
Magnificent, Can you post the whole conference. Thank you
aldousjove 1 month ago
Comment removed
ivanisavich 1 month ago
This doesn't explain random suffering though. Like a hurricane wiping out thousands of villages...
pwnn00bsandblowd00ds 1 month ago
@pwnn00bsandblowd00ds my apologies, thousands of people in a village
pwnn00bsandblowd00ds 1 month ago
Comment removed
ivanisavich 1 month ago
@ivanisavich You saved me 5 minutes. ;-) Wish I read this comment 5 minutes ago!
mjt532 1 month ago
2 videos. The first addresses evidence used to support Darwin: "Icons of Evolution". The second describes the complexities of life: "Unlocking the mysteries of life". Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down..." Jesus said, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
midlothianfire47 1 month ago
So seeing all the questioning about whether God exists or not, he gave a logistic answer from a philosophical point of view: that if we believe in a moral law then there must be a moral law giver (I'm not too sure how it went but you know what I mean.) Now about proving that God exists, we are raising another question, what is considered proof that God exists? Because we all have different views on that. For some people the proof might've been a miracle they saw, or a near death experience.
dancefreakxoxo 1 month ago
Some of the comments being made by those who are "unbelievers" sound as if they are relying on their facts and intelligence and science and what they can "see". The only problem with that is one day we all will have to deal with the facts, intelligence, science and sight of death and unfortunately for the 'unbelievers' this is where all that they trust in fails them because for them there is no answer to this ultimate question...but believers have a promise not a formula!
tjc0915 2 months ago 2
@tjc0915 shun the nonbelievers! shuuuuunnnnnnnnn!!!!!
benopolly 1 month ago
@tjc0915 ' Some of the comments being made by those who are "unbelievers" sound as if they are relying on their facts and intelligence and science and what they can "see" '
Hahahaha, as opposed to the 'believers' who don't use "facts" and "intelligence" and "science" and what they CANT "see"? I don't mean any offence, but do you know how idiotic that comment sounds?
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 month ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 it only sounds idiotic to those who don't believe frankie. I do understand your point of view. The bible says the the "Word of God is foolishness to those who don't believe..." .
fletchdrebon 1 month ago
Comment removed
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 month ago
@Frankie Faith Is not based on science or anything.....Its believing what you dont see......Jesus christ loves you and there is nothing you can do about it.The Love of christ has changed millions of lives and mine.For the unbeliever ,It sounds awkward ,delusional or whatever,But before you judge dont you think you need to give the bible a fair share and at least have a glance at what it has to offer? I dont know much,but I have faith...and this faith has carried me through...thats my take.
alsafeereqpt 1 month ago
@alsafeereqpt I have given the bible a chance already, I used to be a Christian, and i have read it many times since losing my faith. "Faith" is essentially nothing more than a euphemism for gullibility. What would you think if a jury found an accused murderer and rapist innocent, even though all the evidence pointed to his guilt, because they had "faith" he didn't do it? There would be a public outcry and massive controversy! It is exactly the same with having "faith"...
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 month ago
@alsafeereqpt ... in the bible and Jesus. Not only is there a huge amount of scientific evidence to the contrary of what happens in the bible (eg: Genesis - Everything was created 6000 years ago in 7 days, there was a global flood etc) whiel there is also a complete lack of evidence for many of its assertions (That jesus was the son of God and performed miracles, there isn't even conclusive historical evidence that he exists). To believe in the bible is to be...
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 month ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 there is actually plenty of corroborated evidence which supports the existence of Jesus. Historical facts written by Josephus the jewish historian, Tacticus, and Pliny the Younger all secular sources have indicated the vast amounts of Christians in the faith of Jesus who performed miracles, claimed to be the Son of God, died on the cross under Pilate, resurrected and ascended into heaven. You are simply not looking for evidence for denying evidence of the fact of Jesus life.
hatementality 1 month ago
@hatementality Well, firstly a large proportion of historians and scholars believe the passage which you are undoubtedly referring to in the Testimonium Flavian (the work by the historian Josephus you mentioned) is inauthentic due to a number of reasons (research them if you want to find out more). Not only that but Josephus only lived decades after Christ was alleged to have lived so even if it was authentic, he would have only heard stories passed on from previous generations. That...
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 month ago
@hatementality ... is not proof that Jesus was the son of God, performed miracles or was resurrected, or conclusively that he even existed. All it would have proven if it is authentic (which it probably isn't) is that the myth of Christ dates back to at least a few decades into the first century. Now onto Tacitus' work in the annals of which there is a lot to be criticised as a source verifying the accuracy of the bible...
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 month ago
@hatementality ... Most of the criticism of the passage in Annals surrounds what the passage proves. There is no scholarly consensus on the issue. The passage is accepted by some religious scholars as evidence for Jesus' existence, whereas others dismiss it as Tacitus simply repeating the story as Christians told it. He gives no reason to scholars to actually believe that he investigated and sourced independently Jesus' crusifiction and that it is much more likely he was just...
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 month ago
@hatementality ... repeating the stories being spread by Christians at the time. It also lacks a lot of key information such as the darkness during the day and earthquakes following quickly after the crucifixion and the resurrection. There are a number of other problems as well which I will let you research if you want to find out more. But in conclusion, if we accept the Anaals as evidence for Christ,it only implies there was a Jew named Jesus who founded a religious movement....
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 month ago
@hatementality ... and that he was ordered executed by a Roman prefect named Pilate.It CANNOT be used as evidence that the man had magic powers, that the Biblical account is factual, that the Bible is a reliable historical source and what Christians believe today about the bible is true. I confess I know little about Pliny the Younger's work concerning Christianity but the little research I have done in order to respond to your assertions indicates that he made no mention...
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 month ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 In the case of the Testimonium Flavianum written by Josephus, there are some interpolations added by Christians however, this does not mean all of what Josephus said about Jesus was absolutely fraudulent. There were phrases he used in this text that Christians would not use when writing about Jesus. Such as “about this time there lived Jesus, a wise man.” A believer in Christ would not portray Him as merely “a wise man”. The Christians added: “if indeed one ought to call him
hatementality 1 month ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 a man”. Scholars have thoroughly studied this excerpt on Jesus and concluded that because of Josephus’ accurate accounts of the Jewish War which have been confirmed by archaeological excavations, his statement that Jesus existed is accurate. As for Tacitus, he indicates that Christ suffered the extreme penalty under Pilate which was well known in society as being crucified. The fact that such a movement called “Christianity” by the evidence of Jesus being crucified must be
hatementality 1 month ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 be explained. These writings were written down less than a century after Jesus’ crucifixion. The scriptures of course were written down from AD 50-100.Whereas in comparison the scriptures AND biographies of Buddha and Muhammad were written longer than one century after the deaths of these two “religion starters”. Pliny the Younger did mention Christians he had arrested and affirmed that these Christians believed in Jesus as God and they abstained themselves from theft
hatementality 1 month ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 robbery and adultery etc. As for the darkness and earthquake that occurred at the crucifixion indicated in the Gospels, there are in fact secular historical writings that affirm this by Phlegon and Thallus; both historians born in the first century. Phlegon indicated that in 33 AD there was the greatest eclipse at noon and there was a “great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea”. The assertion of the eclipse was actually a logical excuse for the
hatementality 1 month ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 supernatural darkness which occurred on earth which was later confirmed as impossible since at the time, the moon was full and would be diametrically opposite the sun. The writings of Phlegon actually present that this darkness did happen nonetheless. The only two other explanations one can come up with due to the uprising and expansion of Christianity is through sociological or psychological reasons which are very weak.
hatementality 1 month ago
@hatementality I'm not going to bother arguing about the authenticity of these texts because each of our rebuttals will probably take up at least a whole page of comments which will be impractical. Even if I were to grant you that the passage was completely genuine, which it is very likely it is not (check out the ironchariots website for more information on this), all it proves is that there was a man named Jesus Christ who founded the Christian religious movement and was executed...
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 month ago
@hatementality ... on orders of Pilate. Josephus talks about 'miracles' performed by other "prophets" but makes no attribution of any miracles or supernatural goings on to Christ. It does not prove that he was the son of God or that he had magical powers. That is the only thing I'm interested in. Someone had to found the religious movement that was to become Christianity today, we might as well call him Jesus. What I am interested in is evidence for who he apparently said he was...
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 month ago
@hatementality ... eg. the son of God. The same goes for the writings of Tacitus. Confirmation of execution and/or crucifixion has no bearing on the likelihood of the claim that he was the son of God. So what if Pliny the Younger affirmed the beliefs of Christians he arrested? How can that be considered as evidence that Jesus, if he existed, was the son of God? We know that Christians still believe that today, how does that make these supernatural claims any more likely? ...
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 month ago
@hatementality Ok, I've done a little research on Thallus and i remain unconvinced, seeing as scholars actually seem to know next to nothing about him, not even when he was born. There is simply too much to discuss about the work of Thallus right now, I would prefer if we could discuss Thallus and Phlegon seperately from the works of the others you mentioned.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 month ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 Thallus' writtings has been lost or corrupted however a man named Julius Africanus a non-ecclesiastical historian was given the opportunity to study in the library of Emperor Alexander Severus (Rome) and studied Thallus' books. He stated in one of his chronological texts: "Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun". Thallus was a witness and a skeptic to this darkness and tried to explain this supernatural act in
hatementality 1 month ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 practical terms. This was proven illogical by Africanus who explained why it couldn’t have been an eclipse at that date and time. If the sources I am giving you are not authentic or genuine, there needs to be an explanation for the rapid growth of Christianity in the first century. Why were the authors of the canonical scriptures and the followers of Christ willing to die for what they believed in? The gospels we now have are proven to be 99.5% accurate and preserved.
hatementality 1 month ago
@hatementality I have done some more and at least we agree there was no eclipse then :). Africanus claims that the darkness affected the whole world (not sure how he can make such a claim but it seems you are placing a lot of faith in this one single historian), but if this were true then how come it is not mentioned in the works of at least 90 or so per-cent of other historians from the time from that part of the world and elsewhere?
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 month ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 The fact that the historian Thallus explained the darkness as an eclipse concludes that he was a skeptic and needed to come up with an explanation for this darkness. Why would this historian try to cover this supernatural act with it being an eclipse. Clearly this is a secular statement which is then proved to be supernatural since an eclipse would not work on the day of the passover.
hatementality 1 month ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 When Africanus explains darkness over all the earth, my reasonable hypothesis is that when this darkness took place, it was about noon time and the sun grew dark. This is logically possible to state that if the sun lost its effect of light on one part of theearth without the moon blocking it, the sun would probably not shine anywhere else on the earth.
hatementality 1 month ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 As for the reason why other historians did not mention this darkness, you can come up with many hypothesis' such as these historians were focused on political matters or facts they can fully and thoroughly explain to make their statement valid for historical use.
hatementality 1 month ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 When I bring up our translations of the Gospels accuracy in comparison with the original 24,000 manuscripts found, I am talking about how its preserved not "contradictions". Name one contradiction at a time and I'll do my best to research and come up with an explanation :)
hatementality 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hatementality I'm sorry but it is FAR too much to expect this huge, technically impossible event to have happened at this time if it is only mentioned by one or two historians out of thousands. If such an event had taken place there would have been mention of it elsewhere but there clearly wasn't? That was a very, very weak hypothesis I'm afraid. It doesn't explain anything. There were thousands of other historians around the world and not ONE of them mentioned it....
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hatementality .. Are you saying ALL of them were too focused on political matters just to make one little mentioned of the Sun going dark for 3 hours? If they wanted facts, the single most obvious fact would have been that the Sun went dark for 3 hours, historians have never been under any obligation to explain everything they write, ever. It's too much to presume they would just make no mention of something like that JUST because they couldn't explain why it was happening...
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hatementality ... This would have caused a lot of panic and religious gatherings for protection everywhere... and yet somehow nothing is said of it. I smell a rat.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hatementality There ARE no original copies of the Gospels, there are early ones, but there are no originals.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 month ago
@hatementality How can the Gospels be 99.5% accurate when they contradict each other so often?
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 month ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 The percentage is refering to the 25000 copies matching each other word for word, not the historical content. Although, they dont do that either.
polycarp256 1 month ago
@hatementality ... of Christ himself and that he only discussed oppression and torture of Christians and that he was born decades after Christ died, correct me if I'm wrong.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 month ago
@Frankie.....this is what our bible says.......'O taste and see that the lord is good'.....How can you say that Mcdonalds isnt tasty unless you try it? ;) Im just a kid so I cant give you all the sophisticated reply...so yeah...... !!! :) Jesus loves you dude.
alsafeereqpt 1 month ago
God gives love and happiness. Never hear anyone ask why he gives us those.
soSUBURBIA 2 months ago
@soSUBURBIA prove that he gives love and happines please.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 2 months ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 Ugh. Such a tired argument. And easily one of the biggest theological cop outs ever. Easily refuted as well. I'm happy. I believe in a god. Trust in a god. His hand begat the big bang, which begat matter, the building blocks for life and life itself. Energy, neutrinos, protons, electrons, dark matter, bosons and gravity. Which all inevitably lead to the complex inner workings of the human being and all things that walk, swim and breathe. I love my life. He made it possible.
soSUBURBIA 2 months ago
@soSUBURBIA Eh? I didn't make an argument, I just asked you to prove your claim. But that's beside the point.
Firstly, you being happy in your 'belief' is not proof. Niether is the fact that you believe or trust in a God. Since the rest of your claims after "Trust in a God" can only be made logically if the existence of God has already been established( and you havn't established his existence with any form of valid proof) you have not refuted atheism. Try again.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 2 months ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 Jesus Christ are straight up plagiarizing Dawkins? No thought of your own? My belief in the existence of a God is mine. I don't need you to believe it. Nor do I need to answer to you. My belief in a God exist OUTSIDE of whether or not you believe. People like you always have the questions. But not the answers. You demand answers. I can't live your life for you. Find your own answers. The universe began with the singularity. Logically, God set off the explosion.
soSUBURBIA 2 months ago
@soSUBURBIA You are just trying to distract from the issue at hand. This is how a debate works: You make an argument and then you answer questions from those scrutinizing your argument. Besides, if no one wanted answers, then how would we get them?
I any case, people like you always assert you have the answers when you really have no evidence. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 2 months ago
and that's India even a soo pityful man on the street wished u to be blessed by god - and thats benevolence
hatsoff ravi
hellobal100 2 months ago
He is always Just brilliant
hellobal100 2 months ago
Wow.
arnoldgamboaph 2 months ago
Brilliant.
UnrealHelix 2 months ago
I've yet to hear a direct satisfactory response from Ravi on these questions he's asked. I actually find his red herring anecdotes, which are often no more than an empty appeal to emotion, irritating and gutless rhetoric..... In a real debate when his responses were rationally examined, and required justification, he would look a fool!
Tobytrim 3 months ago
I like the fact that he starts with the experiential nature of the question of suffering but he lost me when he said the stuff about the moral law. I can follow the argument but it seems to me to have gone far away from the question being asked which was about whether the world looks like there is a benevolent God who is omnipotent (and to me it doesn't). If we're having to strain ourselves so much to prove this doesn't that tell us something?
gextvedde 3 months ago
@gextvedde
This huge argumentational curve is needed to pull the question into a comfortable realm where he can exercise his choreographed rethorical trickery.
From my observation in this comment section, 60% of the people fall for it blindly, 20% are somewhat suspicious because his whole argument doesn't really fly and the remaining 20% can smell the stench of deception immediately and raise the BS flag.
Would you cry about the 60% or be happy about the other 40?
sooperfukker 3 months ago
@sooperfukker You seem pretty angry about this. I don't know the guy so I couldn't tell you about his motives but there is a difference between being wrong or mistaken & deliberately trying to decieve people. Is there anything in particular that makes you think this he's doing this?
gextvedde 3 months ago
@gextvedde Nah, I'm not mad, just heavily annoyed, because some debaters out there don't have an honest approach to the topics they're debating about. This dishonesty is a waste of time for everyone. And of course there is a difference between deliberate deception and mere ignorance.
The safest sign to spot an intellectual fraud is the use of certain rethorical devices in order to manipulate a line of argumentation, ending in a result he couldn't have gotten with an honest approach.
sooperfukker 3 months ago
@sooperfukker I'd agree that he certainly uses a large dose if rhetoric which hides the fatc that he's gone way off topic but it's easy to do this by mistake. As a person who engages in debates he should certainly know better. I suppose I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he read Schopenhauers "the Art of Always Being Right" and thought it was the way to do things...
gextvedde 3 months ago
@gextvedde Oh I'm sure he has trained that a lot but I think I can safely say what he trained for: Enter "Ravi Zacharias" in Google and the 1st hit will show you this:
"Welcome to Ravi Zacharias International Ministries"
*ding*ding*ding* From that point on, I know what this guy is after: The moneys.
There are a few honest christian apologists out there, like John Lennox or Francis Collins. They don't need cheap tricks to make their points, listening to them is a good thing to do.
sooperfukker 3 months ago
@gextvedde In one of my older posts I described in short terms how he cheats his way from human ideas of good/bad, how these ideas constitute a "moral law", which -by its semantics- begs the question for a "lawgiver".
Such things don't happen by accident, they're the result of a goal-oriented, backward construction.
The bad thing is: His dishonesty reflects back on his own position towards the original notion (god), making it even more noncredible; a shame.
sooperfukker 3 months ago
What a terrible answer to the question. He doesn't even address the real issue brought up by the person asking the question.
PyonBoy 3 months ago
@PyonBoy I tried asking other people to sum up his 10minute blabbering. What I get are equally nonsensical answers.
That makes me really wonder what kind of delusional state these people must be in.
sooperfukker 3 months ago
how could moral absolutism not exist without a GOD?
invincibletruth1776 3 months ago
Ravi Zacharias : A rethorical con man.
None of this manipulative talk actually made any sense - not to mention answering the question in any way.
And yet, you look at the comments here to find people praising him.
That worries me deeply.
sooperfukker 3 months ago
@sooperfukker i agree, it scares me too. i don't think people listen to what he's actually saying, if they did they would realize if summarizes to: pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
castelgandalf 3 months ago
@sooperfukker Then you sir aren't listening. Get the wax out of your egotistical ears and listen. He answered the question in several different ways. I didn't find it difficult whatsoever to comprehend what he said.
gmee123 3 months ago
@gmee123 Really? Then you shouldn't have ANY problems summing up his argumentation in a few sentences.. go for it, I am waiting.
sooperfukker 3 months ago
@sooperfukker Glady :) When Ravi Zacharis talks about suffering and Why God allows suffering to happen is because in a world without suffering.... we see no need for Him, God can not give people goodness without himself being there because you can't have goodness without God Because he is the embodiment of Goodness. Suffering is a symptom of a much greater *disease* which would be our desire to be satisfied. :)
StarRonKid 3 months ago
@StarRonKid [...] And that makes sense to you ?
To me, this sounds like god was doing a "9/11 inside job" to justify his existence in the first place and then offer his "solution" to people, which of course, comes at a certain "price".
Then again,I'm not even sure if your post wasn't a troll post..but who cares?
That man in the video is talking smack anyway.
sooperfukker 3 months ago
@sooperfukker Apparently you didn't watch the first part... where evil is the going against of God's nature/law... Man has choosen to be evil and from that Evil God can still bring and has brought good....
StarRonKid 3 months ago
@StarRonKid That wasn't the question, was it?
"How can a good god allow suffering" and you/him come up with some wish wash about "man has chosen to be evil" ... that's not even remotely an answer to the question.
sooperfukker 3 months ago
@sooperfukker God allows suffering to happen is because in a world without suffering.... we see no need for Him, God can not give people goodness without himself being there because you can't have goodness without God... lol i'm surprised i qouted myself
StarRonKid 3 months ago
@StarRonKid And it makes as little sense as before:
All I can see is a "god" that refuses to eliminate suffering because his ego would get butthurt if noone praised him enough anymore.
That is your god ? What a jealous and selfish motherfucker.
sooperfukker 3 months ago
@sooperfukker .... in order for him to eliminate suffering... he'd have to eliminate free will.... and that wouldn't be loving... remember suffering is a symptom of us acting evil.
StarRonKid 3 months ago
@StarRonKid [1]
The same 2 words for you (as for my long answer to Jeffinator22) : Non Sequitur.
There is no logical connection between these points.
I already caught Zacharias in a lie, performing rethorical trickery when building a bridge between "right and wrong" , "moral law" and a "lawgiver", this one is no different.
As I've shown in my reply to Jeffinator22, suffering doesn't require evil or "wrong in society".
[cont]
sooperfukker 3 months ago
@StarRonKid [2]
The greatest disasters in human history came from external sources. Take volcano outbursts, take any storm flood or tsunami, killing tens or hundreds of thousands or imagine an asteroid crashing into our beloved planet, wiping out entire civilisations... noone to blame.
The other part is laughable.
Ask parents about a child's "free will" when putting its hands near a power plug. The parents will immediately eliminate the child's free will EXACTLY BECAUSE they love it.
sooperfukker 3 months ago
@sooperfukker "The greatest disasters in human history came from external sources..volcano outbursts, take any storm flood or tsunami,.... ..... No-one to blame?" really? Then you should be not on here dealing with petty religious people. you should be blaming nature and finding ways to deal with it. You shouldn't be blaming religion then if you believe it to be a man-made concept... you should focusing on the natural world.
StarRonKid 3 months ago
@StarRonKid You "blame" nature? You can't be serious, the history of mankind is a history of struggling against nature's blind forces, us trying to establish a safe living against powers that are beyond anyone's control. Nature isn't good or evil, it's completely indifferent.
That doesn't keep people from doing bad things, bit by bit, killing others one-by-one or even in mass killings. And even if you could rightfully say that some humans are bad, nature certainly isn't.
sooperfukker 3 months ago