Further questions
Two thought /outrage provoking questions for today:
- If there was a 'god', who was omnipotent and could control all things, why would this 'god' only ever have one son? Why not send other offspring, since by many religions' stances we do not seem to be getting the message?
- If there is such a thing as 'hell', where 'god' sends us to be punished, why does 'god' need to punish us with such maladies as disease and natural disasters while we are alive? And why punish people who follow the word of 'god' as laid out in the bible (the fact that 'god' didn't actually write the bible notwithstanding)?
posted by J.L. at 11:39 pm
2 Comments:
Unfortunately I am at work and would like to have more time to think about this but here goes....
1. The whole trilogy thing never made any sense to me. The fact that God chose a son and not a daughter is a reflection of the patriachical origins of Christianity. The evolution of religion would be a fantastic topic of study.
2. As Nick Cave sings, 'I don't believe in an interventionist God'. This is the only thing that makes sense to me, together with trying to lose the notion of a caring, paternal figure. The Christian concept of a loving God is surely wishful thinking?
People tend to overlook the fact that God didn't write the bible. Good point well made.
Hey, Chocolate Monkey,
Good to hear from you again. This sort of follows from a dialogue I've been having with Willy (who seems to be a really nice guy) at The Second Guess. I've very arrogantly been trying to 'convert' him and his readers to atheism. I think I'm making some headway. My base premise is that events have no inherent meaning: The only meaning is that which we assign to them.
You can go all sorts of interesting places from there.
Post a Comment
<< Home