Board index › Coping in life › Parents' Discussion

Some Mothers Chosen By God

Page 4 of 8 [ 127 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

11 Dec 2008, 12:28 pm

drowbot0181 wrote:
slowmutant wrote:
Why do parents abuse their children? Or, differently put, why are some children born to abusive parents? It's a lottery. It's a crapshoot. Sometimes the only discernable WHY behind any of it is simply rotten luck. Bad luck.

Why did Christropher Reeve suffer that spinal cord injury?

Rotten luck.

I was born to loving parents and a good home, but I could just as easily been born to hateful parents in a crummy home. I played the lotto, as we all do. I was extremely fortunate to have been born to educated, employed parents in a rich 1st World country-- Canada. If I had been born in Africa or India or South America, my odds would have been much lower.


You just took the long way around to agree with me and refute the original story.

BTW, I am almost 30, have 3 kids, a house in the suburbs, and a good job with a multi-national corporation. And thus far all of the paychecks I have earned from the aforementioned company have had income taxes taken from them. Perhaps you should rethink some of your assumptions about other things...


My apologies. I regret the error.



drowbot0181
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Dec 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 700
Location: Oklahoma

11 Dec 2008, 12:30 pm

slowmutant wrote:
drowbot0181 wrote:
slowmutant wrote:
Why do parents abuse their children? Or, differently put, why are some children born to abusive parents? It's a lottery. It's a crapshoot. Sometimes the only discernable WHY behind any of it is simply rotten luck. Bad luck.

Why did Christropher Reeve suffer that spinal cord injury?

Rotten luck.

I was born to loving parents and a good home, but I could just as easily been born to hateful parents in a crummy home. I played the lotto, as we all do. I was extremely fortunate to have been born to educated, employed parents in a rich 1st World country-- Canada. If I had been born in Africa or India or South America, my odds would have been much lower.


You just took the long way around to agree with me and refute the original story.

BTW, I am almost 30, have 3 kids, a house in the suburbs, and a good job with a multi-national corporation. And thus far all of the paychecks I have earned from the aforementioned company have had income taxes taken from them. Perhaps you should rethink some of your assumptions about other things...


My apologies. I regret the error.


Thank you.



art4autism
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2008
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 31
Location: Florida

11 Dec 2008, 12:44 pm

LOl , well atleast people are calming down. I didnt realize this blog was a debate forum. I shall stay on my toes now. By the way. They just found Caylee Anthony's body here in Florida. Very sad day.


_________________
http://www.cafepress.com/KimDeanArt

http://www.kimdean.com

"For success in science and art, a dash of autism is essential" ?Hans Asperger"


ImMelody
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jun 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 788
Location: DFW, TX

11 Dec 2008, 1:55 pm

Okay.. I'm coming in at the end of the debate, and so as such, my comments may be seen as a beating a dead horse or trying to re-stir up trouble. So I am opening with this disclaimer that this is not my intent. I just feel compelled to comment.

First, for art4autism, I think there is no reason to worry about staying on your toes. Just keep in mind that many Aspies that may or may not be parents will read things and draw their own conclusions. Sometimes they don't realize they've crossed into an NT world as they just click on "New Posts since last time visited."

Next, drowbot, I hope you don't mind me interjecting on the Science == God thing. To me, God, who I do believe, but cannot confirm as existing, is Science. To me, God is also Art. He is expressions of both. I also believe that God is a being, but not in any way that I can imagine.

When I say God is Science, I mean that all the unexplainable at this time (not the why's but the how's) will one day be uncovered. To me though, there must be a "master architect" not to explain the why, but the how. How did the universe become out of nothing? I believe the master Architect made it so. I do not assume there was a why in my search of Science.

When I say God is Art, I mean all expressions, emotions, and feelings are of God. Passion and warmth, and nature are all forms of Art. They are the answer to how as well. Nature is a thing of beauty; space is a thing of awe. Science explains the formation, Art explains the form.

When I say God is a Being, I mean that all explanations of Why are because there was thought. I have problems myself disconnecting thought from a being. So as such, I believe the thought comes from a Being, in my personal faith, God. Only He knows all the Whys of the universe. Religions tell us some of the Whys if we chose to believe in them. But I whole-heartedly believe that only a superior intellectual being could have crafted with such logic and such feeling as we get from our world and our universe.


_________________
For parents with an Autism Spectrum Disorder: www.asparenting.com


drowbot0181
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Dec 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 700
Location: Oklahoma

11 Dec 2008, 2:16 pm

ImMelody wrote:
Okay.. I'm coming in at the end of the debate, and so as such, my comments may be seen as a beating a dead horse or trying to re-stir up trouble. So I am opening with this disclaimer that this is not my intent. I just feel compelled to comment.

First, for art4autism, I think there is no reason to worry about staying on your toes. Just keep in mind that many Aspies that may or may not be parents will read things and draw their own conclusions. Sometimes they don't realize they've crossed into an NT world as they just click on "New Posts since last time visited."

Next, drowbot, I hope you don't mind me interjecting on the Science == God thing. To me, God, who I do believe, but cannot confirm as existing, is Science. To me, God is also Art. He is expressions of both. I also believe that God is a being, but not in any way that I can imagine.

When I say God is Science, I mean that all the unexplainable at this time (not the why's but the how's) will one day be uncovered. To me though, there must be a "master architect" not to explain the why, but the how. How did the universe become out of nothing? I believe the master Architect made it so. I do not assume there was a why in my search of Science.

When I say God is Art, I mean all expressions, emotions, and feelings are of God. Passion and warmth, and nature are all forms of Art. They are the answer to how as well. Nature is a thing of beauty; space is a thing of awe. Science explains the formation, Art explains the form.

When I say God is a Being, I mean that all explanations of Why are because there was thought. I have problems myself disconnecting thought from a being. So as such, I believe the thought comes from a Being, in my personal faith, God. Only He knows all the Whys of the universe. Religions tell us some of the Whys if we chose to believe in them. But I whole-heartedly believe that only a superior intellectual being could have crafted with such logic and such feeling as we get from our world and our universe.


You are also giving God attributes you have no basis for and therefore presuming special knowledge. But it doesn't really matter because I think it has been established that the God=Science camp are just changing the accepted definition of science to fit what they want. Can't really offer a counterpoint if we can't even establish a common meaning for the word. It's the exact same thing that Creationists/IDer's do. So again, all I can really say is that by your logic, God is a ham sandwich.



ImMelody
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jun 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 788
Location: DFW, TX

11 Dec 2008, 2:21 pm

drowbot0181 wrote:
You are also giving God attributes you have no basis for and therefore presuming special knowledge. But it doesn't really matter because I think it has been established that the God=Science camp are just changing the accepted definition of science to fit what they want. Can't really offer a counterpoint if we can't even establish a common meaning for the word. It's the exact same thing that Creationists/IDer's do. So again, all I can really say is that by your logic, God is a ham sandwich.


Actually, I think you have it backwards. You assume that Science = God. I am asserting that God is Science in that, Science is only a portion of God. So really God > Science if you're looking at Him in a whole and want accuracy in mathematical signs. And there is some God in a ham sandwich, but that does not mean the whole ham sandwich is all of God. Parts to a whole, my dear, parts to a whole. And let's not forget that God is omnipresent. ;)


_________________
For parents with an Autism Spectrum Disorder: www.asparenting.com


drowbot0181
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Dec 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 700
Location: Oklahoma

11 Dec 2008, 2:31 pm

ImMelody wrote:
drowbot0181 wrote:
You are also giving God attributes you have no basis for and therefore presuming special knowledge. But it doesn't really matter because I think it has been established that the God=Science camp are just changing the accepted definition of science to fit what they want. Can't really offer a counterpoint if we can't even establish a common meaning for the word. It's the exact same thing that Creationists/IDer's do. So again, all I can really say is that by your logic, God is a ham sandwich.


Actually, I think you have it backwards. You assume that Science = God. I am asserting that God is Science in that, Science is only a portion of God. So really God > Science if you're looking at Him in a whole and want accuracy in mathematical signs. And there is some God in a ham sandwich, but that does not mean the whole ham sandwich is all of God. Parts to a whole, my dear, parts to a whole. And let's not forget that God is omnipresent. ;)


I don't have it backwards.
Are you saying that you believe God created the scientific method and somehow "revealed" it to humans? I just don't understand how you are defining "science." I know it is not the accepted definition. It still seems to me that you are anthropomorphising what is nothing more than a set of rules and procedures.
And, once again (and this is why I don't have it backwards) you are applying attributes that you have no basis for by saying he is omnipresent. Why do you think this? And if he is omnipresent, he must be impotent in his power to affect the world, otherwise there would be no suffering. And if that is the case, he is irrelavent. If, however, you believe that he is omnipotent as well as omnipresent, then he simply chooses not to intervene and he is therefore malevolent...and would have a lot to answer for, were he to present himself.
And in respone to your first post, the universe did not come from nothing.



Mage
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,054

11 Dec 2008, 2:36 pm

This thread needs to be moved to the politics/religion/philosophy forum. This bickering has no place in the parenting forum.



drowbot0181
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Dec 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 700
Location: Oklahoma

11 Dec 2008, 2:41 pm

Mage wrote:
This thread needs to be moved to the politics/religion/philosophy forum. This bickering has no place in the parenting forum.


How would this be classified as bickering? Aside from the crude and ignorant insults directed at me by slowmutant, which were apologized for, there is no bickering. And the post, in my opinion, should be classified by the intent of the original poster. The majority of forum threads divert from their original intent and to constantly reclassify them would be a waste of time.



ImMelody
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jun 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 788
Location: DFW, TX

11 Dec 2008, 2:51 pm

drowbot0181 wrote:
I don't have it backwards.
Are you saying that you believe God created the scientific method and somehow "revealed" it to humans? I just don't understand how you are defining "science." I know it is not the accepted definition. It still seems to me that you are anthropomorphising what is nothing more than a set of rules and procedures.
And, once again (and this is why I don't have it backwards) you are applying attributes that you have no basis for by saying he is omnipresent. Why do you think this? And if he is omnipresent, he must be impotent in his power to affect the world, otherwise there would be no suffering. And if that is the case, he is irrelavent. If, however, you believe that he is omnipotent as well as omnipresent, then he simply chooses not to intervene and he is therefore malevolent...and would have a lot to answer for, were he to present himself.
And in respone to your first post, the universe did not come from nothing.


Oh. I see, you think Science is simply the study of the physical world.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science wrote:
2 a: a department of systematzed knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge


I say God is Science. I say He can be studied or learned like systematized knowledge. I say He can be studied through His creation. Just as one can study art and know a portion about the artist who created it.

Now, the question as to how I come to think he's omnipresent, this is where faith comes into play. Just as you have faith that there is no God. My beliefs from my prescribed religion, yes, Christianity, state clearly in their text that God is omnipresent and omnipotent. Why does He not intervene? Because if He intervened, it would mean we don't have free will. I believe that is why you have the freedom to not believe in a higher being. Don't you love that freedom?


_________________
For parents with an Autism Spectrum Disorder: www.asparenting.com


drowbot0181
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Dec 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 700
Location: Oklahoma

11 Dec 2008, 3:10 pm

ImMelody wrote:

Oh. I see, you think Science is simply the study of the physical world.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science wrote:
2 a: a department of systematzed knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge


I say God is Science. I say He can be studied or learned like systematized knowledge. I say He can be studied through His creation. Just as one can study art and know a portion about the artist who created it.

Now, the question as to how I come to think he's omnipresent, this is where faith comes into play. Just as you have faith that there is no God. My beliefs from my prescribed religion, yes, Christianity, state clearly in their text that God is omnipresent and omnipotent. Why does He not intervene? Because if He intervened, it would mean we don't have free will. I believe that is why you have the freedom to not believe in a higher being. Don't you love that freedom?


I don't have faith that there is no God. I don't believe in gods because there is no evidence to support it. The default position for belief in any claim, prior to evidence being presented, is non-belief. Do you believe in fairies? Or unicorns? And you assume that non-belief in the claim "God exists" is the same as belief in the claim "God doesn't exist". This is wrong. These are two separate claims, each requiring evidence. Non-belief in one does not equal belief in the other. That's a fundamental part of logic. I do not believe God exists because there is no evidence of it.
Furthermore, intervention by God in human affairs would not violate free will (I actually don't believe there is such a thing). God (from this point forward I am talking about the Christian God) could have redirected hurricane Katrina, and this would not violate free will. He chooses to allow misery and suffering in the world when he has the power to stop it, and therefore, he is by definition malevolent. And this applies to the original post as well. The story ignores the fact that disabled children are born into abusive families all the time. God could change this, without violating free will, and he chooses not too.
And besides, *why* couldn't he violate free will? If he created the universe and set up the rules, why can't he change them? If he can't, then he is not omnipotent, and subject to punishment for his crimes.



drowbot0181
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Dec 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 700
Location: Oklahoma

11 Dec 2008, 3:12 pm

Oh, and that definition of science seems flawed and suspiciously biased to me because it lists theology as a science right at the beginning. Theology is not a science. It is the study of man-made religions.



art4autism
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2008
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 31
Location: Florida

11 Dec 2008, 3:14 pm

I go based on education, faith, intuition and hope on what I believe. I know I may be wrong or not have all the answers. It must be wonderful to think your right about everything. I wish I knew everything so proudly. IMO God or the higher power is Science and that ham sandwich you speak of. And if we could know everything we would be God.


_________________
http://www.cafepress.com/KimDeanArt

http://www.kimdean.com

"For success in science and art, a dash of autism is essential" ?Hans Asperger"


drowbot0181
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Dec 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 700
Location: Oklahoma

11 Dec 2008, 3:18 pm

art4autism wrote:
I go based on education, faith, intuition and hope on what I believe. I know I may be wrong or not have all the answers. It must be wonderful to think your right about everything. I wish I knew everything so proudly. IMO God or the higher power is Science and that ham sandwich you speak of. And if we could know everything we would be God.


Contrary to what you may think about people with A.S., some of us can recognize sarcasm. I am not personally insulting anybody so I would appreciate it if you would stop doing so to me.
I never said I know everything or that I am always right. In fact, I said "what is so wrong with 'I don't know?'" Saying "God did it" instead of "I just don't know" is assuming you know everything.



ImMelody
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jun 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 788
Location: DFW, TX

11 Dec 2008, 3:31 pm

drowbot0181 wrote:
I don't have faith that there is no God. I don't believe in gods because there is no evidence to support it. The default position for belief in any claim, prior to evidence being presented, is non-belief. Do you believe in fairies? Or unicorns? And you assume that non-belief in the claim "God exists" is the same as belief in the claim "God doesn't exist". This is wrong. These are two separate claims, each requiring evidence. Non-belief in one does not equal belief in the other. That's a fundamental part of logic. I do not believe God exists because there is no evidence of it.
Furthermore, intervention by God in human affairs would not violate free will (I actually don't believe there is such a thing). God (from this point forward I am talking about the Christian God) could have redirected hurricane Katrina, and this would not violate free will. He chooses to allow misery and suffering in the world when he has the power to stop it, and therefore, he is by definition malevolent. And this applies to the original post as well. The story ignores the fact that disabled children are born into abusive families all the time. God could change this, without violating free will, and he chooses not too.
And besides, *why* couldn't he violate free will? If he created the universe and set up the rules, why can't he change them? If he can't, then he is not omnipotent, and subject to punishment for his crimes.


You are right, and I apologize, you did not say you don't believe God doesn't exist. You still have some faith that there is nothing past what you can see. It is faith whether or not you want to characterize it as such. It's that same faith that made people believe the Sun revolved around the Earth, because they couldn't see that the Earth revolved around the Sun.

As for free will and natural disasters, you probably know as well as I do that atmospheric conditions create natural disasters. These are the laws of nature that were constructed with the universe. While, yes, I believe my God can change these, we do not know the impact of Him changing them would be. If He stops Katrina, and the tsunami, and an earthquake, what changes does that make to climate of Earth? the geology? Why make something just to destroy it to prove you exist? Wouldn't that be just as, if not more evil?

Giving us no control over our lives, that doesn't speak of kindness or justice. Nor does giving us control mean he is malevolent. Yes, atrocities happen, but that does not mean we should have our choice to do the right thing taken away from us. That to me seems more evil.


_________________
For parents with an Autism Spectrum Disorder: www.asparenting.com


garyww
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2008
Age: 77
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,395
Location: Napa, California

11 Dec 2008, 3:44 pm

There is no such thing as an accident and believing that the universe is probablity or chaos is like saying you can't exist since there has to be some organization of things in order for us to be an entity otherwise you'd be bits of disorganized atoms.


_________________
I am one of those people who your mother used to warn you about.