NationStates Jolt Archive

A lot of people say "Why did X desereve to die/suffer horribley etc" and then go on to use that idea as an arguement against God. But read this and see why the idea of "Deserved suffering" is a logical problem.

A problem with getting what you "Desereve" . Deservedness presupposes
some metaphysically 'real' ethical structure of the universe, and only the kind that can be associated with the absolutes of a God who can 'build' natural consequences (e.g. landslides) into ethical actions. All other systems have a 'human contractual' character--hardly something physical laws of plate tectonics should be expected to honor!!! Picking an ethic and agreeing on it, or 'actualizing it' (whatever THAT means!) by sincerity, will, etc. hardly is going to affect global weather patterns that produce hurricanes or tornadoes. So if you are going to argue that we only get what we deserve, then you need a God to judge what you do/dont deserve. Any human judging it would not be sufficent. So you cant rearly use this arguement against him. If a human looked at a situation and said "X did not desereve to suffer in Y way" then their perspective is obviously flawed compared to God's perspective.

Not necessarily. You're forgetting about another concept (relatively new in history), called Justice.

Justice serves the society, not anything metaphysical at all.

Ence, if you are agnostic or atheist, you will claim that no one diserves to die. So?

OR COME TO PARADISE BEACH INSTEAD, UNLESS YOU'RE A SPY!?!?!?!? (http://s3.invisionfree.com/Paradise_Beach/index.php?)
Both of you-- Stop it!
We're all aware that other forums/sites exist. Stick to context and avoid the spam.

What the hell is it with the spam recently?

Anyway, you are basically saying that absolute morals can only come from God. This is not necessarily true. It is possible that certain things are just "Right" Without any supernatural being having to tell them that.

Also, why does God get to descide who deserves what, and people can't?

you mean there are times when, as a christian, you see someone suffering some random horror (as opposed to the death penalty for example) and you say "he deserved that fate"?

you mean there are times when, as a christian, you see someone suffering some random horror (as opposed to the death penalty for example) and you say "he deserved that fate"?
It's more a topic in regard to the people who say, "Those people didn't deserve to die in the tsunami, so that proves there is no God."

Also, why does God get to descide who deserves what, and people can't?
Obvious by "His" book, he's a fascist.

That's why.

A lot of people say "Why did X desereve to die/suffer horribley etc" and then go on to use that idea as an arguement against God. But read this and see why the idea of "Deserved suffering" is a logical problem.

A problem with getting what you "Desereve" . Deservedness presupposes
some metaphysically 'real' ethical structure of the universe, and only the kind that can be associated with the absolutes of a God who can 'build' natural consequences (e.g. landslides) into ethical actions. All other systems have a 'human contractual' character--hardly something physical laws of plate tectonics should be expected to honor!!! Picking an ethic and agreeing on it, or 'actualizing it' (whatever THAT means!) by sincerity, will, etc. hardly is going to affect global weather patterns that produce hurricanes or tornadoes. So if you are going to argue that we only get what we deserve, then you need a God to judge what you do/dont deserve. Any human judging it would not be sufficent. So you cant rearly use this arguement against him. If a human looked at a situation and said "X did not desereve to suffer in Y way" then their perspective is obviously flawed compared to God's perspective.

God like you said judges people but in the Christen belief every bad thing occured due to the fruit which satan tried give the fruit to eve who accepted it. God only judges our after life

The fruit only gave us knowledge of good and evil, it did not cast us out of the garden and force us to till the soil. God did that, because if we lived forever and knew good and evil, we would be too much like him. Kinda like when your kid grows up and starts maturing you kick him out of the house and yell "Now you have to go live on your own! You made me mad by growing up! I'm never letting you in here again!"

Really, that no one deserves horrible fates is more or less what atheists and agnostics are arguing, is it not? If God exists, why did he make the Tsunami? Or is it more likely that nothing "Made" the Tsunami, it just happened?

There is a story with Elijah.
Now, Elijah and a Rabbi were staying at a poor man's house.
The poor man gave them the best hospitality he had, yet the next day his only cow died.
Elijah left with the rabbi and stayed the next night at a very rich miser's house.
The miser fed them hardly anything and made them sleep in his barn.
The next morning Elijah paid for a wall in the miser's barn to be fixed.
In response to that the rabbi asked: 'Why did you pay for the fixing of that wall when he did nothing to deserve it, yet you did not help the poor man over the death of his cow?'
Elijah told him: 'There was a chest of gold in the wall of the rich man, but because of his inhospitality he lost it. Because of the kindness and hospitality of the poor man, the cow was taken instead of his wife who was to be taken that night.'

The moral is:
'Do not question the authority of God. Things happen for unknown reasons.'

Ence, if you are agnostic or atheist, you will claim that no one diserves to die. So?
Actually I'm an atheist, and I think, in the immortal words of Clint Eastwood, "deserve's got nothing to do with it". Sometimes you have to kill to achieve a greater purpose, like securing the safety of your people.

Ok, so what is agnosticism for you?
In the middle ages it meant that you believed that Christ was more divine than he was human.
Has it changed? :confused:

Ok, so what is agnosticism for you?
In the middle ages it meant that you believed that Christ was more divine than he was human.
Has it changed? :confused:
*puts on shades, his future is so damn bright*

*puts on shades, his future is so damn bright*
:cool:
You are weird

Bump!

:cool:
You are weird
Best. Compliment. Ever.

A lot of people say "Why did X desereve to die/suffer horribley etc" and then go on to use that idea as an arguement against God. But read this and see why the idea of "Deserved suffering" is a logical problem.

A problem with getting what you "Desereve" . Deservedness presupposes
some metaphysically 'real' ethical structure of the universe, and only the kind that can be associated with the absolutes of a God who can 'build' natural consequences (e.g. landslides) into ethical actions. All other systems have a 'human contractual' character--hardly something physical laws of plate tectonics should be expected to honor!!! Picking an ethic and agreeing on it, or 'actualizing it' (whatever THAT means!) by sincerity, will, etc. hardly is going to affect global weather patterns that produce hurricanes or tornadoes. So if you are going to argue that we only get what we deserve, then you need a God to judge what you do/dont deserve. Any human judging it would not be sufficent. So you cant rearly use this arguement against him. If a human looked at a situation and said "X did not desereve to suffer in Y way" then their perspective is obviously flawed compared to God's perspective.

Once again you completely ignore and denounce others' religous beliefs. There are many who believe in Karmic justice, but do not believe in any specific type of deity.

Once again you completely ignore and denounce others' religous beliefs. There are many who believe in Karmic justice, but do not believe in any specific type of deity.
Words of wisdom.
(He's talkin' 'bout me!!!!) :p

I dont think I'm getting exactly what Neo is trying to express. Maybe it's because I'm tired and stressed out and my brain pan has a leak in it. But I'm going to throw my 2 cents in on "Deserved suffering" anyway.

I was raised to believe that we thank God for everything we have....even our suffering. Somehow, we are made better by our suffering. Theres a supposed purpose, whether it is teaching others a lesson of what to do and not to do, or the belief that it brings us closer to God by staying faithful to him- not only in times of happiness and bliss, but when trials and temptations find us. That, if we endure this life on earth, we will receive our reward in heaven. I said this is what I was raised to believe.....

My problem with that is this: what kind of purpose is served when innocent children suffer? I didnt say innocent people because someone will argue "Well whos to say who is innocent ..blah blah...". I think we all agree that children are innocent...pure, simple, loving little beings. So how does the rape and molestation of a 5 year old serve a purpose? Child abuse? What about a child who is starving and who only gets a small piece of bread every 3 days? Hospitals are full of children dying of cancer.....too sick to hold their own heads up, wondering "why am I having to suffer like this....I'm only 6?" Then the church people visit them and sing the song "Jesus loves me". Little ones to him belong??

Thats my beef with "God". I dont understand it, I dont embrace it and I sure as hell dont thank him for it. I think all the suffering should be saved for grown ups. Maybe we deserve to be punished for certain things......children do NOT.

not only in times of happiness and bliss, but when trials and tribulations find us.
You do realize that a "tribulation" is a good thing, right?

You do realize that a "tribulation" is a good thing, right?


No apparantly the 'Wrong word fairy" just put that in there without me knowing... Thanks for catching that before I looked stupid in front of more than just you.


Is it Friday yet?

Is it Friday yet?
:p For you? It's whatever day you'd like.

:p For you? It's whatever day you'd like.

aww..... :) How you doing darlin'?

*chants* FRIDAY FRIDAY FRIDAY!

aww..... :) How you doing darlin'?
Pretty damn good. Got a 2-day old Vaio with all the works. :D

What Neo was showing is that without the concept of God, or something, to give morality and meaning to the universe, what is is right. No one deserves anything, good or bad. When I say that something is needed to give morality, humans doing it on our own through philosophy is not enough. There must be somehting outside of us and greater than us to do the job. If not, then what we end up calling morality will just be a social convention, which we can change at our whims.

I dont think I'm getting exactly what Neo is trying to express. Maybe it's because I'm tired and stressed out and my brain pan has a leak in it. But I'm going to throw my 2 cents in on "Deserved suffering" anyway.

I was raised to believe that we thank God for everything we have....even our suffering. Somehow, we are made better by our suffering. Theres a supposed purpose, whether it is teaching others a lesson of what to do and not to do, or the belief that it brings us closer to God by staying faithful to him- not only in times of happiness and bliss, but when trials and temptations find us. That, if we endure this life on earth, we will receive our reward in heaven. I said this is what I was raised to believe.....

My problem with that is this: what kind of purpose is served when innocent children suffer? I didnt say innocent people because someone will argue "Well whos to say who is innocent ..blah blah...". I think we all agree that children are innocent...pure, simple, loving little beings. So how does the rape and molestation of a 5 year old serve a purpose? Child abuse? What about a child who is starving and who only gets a small piece of bread every 3 days? Hospitals are full of children dying of cancer.....too sick to hold their own heads up, wondering "why am I having to suffer like this....I'm only 6?" Then the church people visit them and sing the song "Jesus loves me". Little ones to him belong??

Thats my beef with "God". I dont understand it, I dont embrace it and I sure as hell dont thank him for it. I think all the suffering should be saved for grown ups. Maybe we deserve to be punished for certain things......children do NOT.

I think that what you're seeing in a lot of cases is where someone exercises free will, and someone (including children) suffers because of it. While I think that it's wrong, the only ultimate solution to the problem is to remove free will, and I don't think any one in his right mind would advocate that. We can't blame God when it's other people doing it.

The other instances you mention are when people suffer because we live in a cruel world, and things happen to people almost at random. This is unlikely to change any time soon. As it is written, "The rain falls on the just and the unjust." By the same token, good things happen to people on a nearly random basis as well. Would you like to stop that happening too?

Refusing to believe in God because of the existance of evil in this world is a cop out, if you ask me.

There must be somehting outside of us and greater than us to do the job. If not, then what we end up calling morality will just be a social convention, which we can change at our whims.
How is it not this, anyway?

Once again you completely ignore and denounce others' religous beliefs. There are many who believe in Karmic justice, but do not believe in any specific type of deity.

I am refering to those who say "X suffering happens, therefore there is no God"

What Neo was showing is that without the concept of God, or something, to give morality and meaning to the universe, what is is right. No one deserves anything, good or bad. When I say that something is needed to give morality, humans doing it on our own through philosophy is not enough. There must be somehting outside of us and greater than us to do the job. If not, then what we end up calling morality will just be a social convention, which we can change at our whims.



I think that what you're seeing in a lot of cases is where someone exercises free will, and someone (including children) suffers because of it. While I think that it's wrong, the only ultimate solution to the problem is to remove free will, and I don't think any one in his right mind would advocate that. We can't blame God when it's other people doing it.

The other instances you mention are when people suffer because we live in a cruel world, and things happen to people almost at random. This is unlikely to change any time soon. As it is written, "The rain falls on the just and the unjust." By the same token, good things happen to people on a nearly random basis as well. Would you like to stop that happening too?

Refusing to believe in God because of the existance of evil in this world is a cop out, if you ask me.

First of all, I didnt say I didnt believe in God. I said I dont understand why children have to suffer and why he "allows" it. I'm expressing a conflict I have with my current belief system. Sure there is evil in the world....does that mean I have to accept it and thank him for cancer ridden children while I'm thanking him for the food I'm about to receive? NO......and I wont. He may not be the one inflicting the actual pain upon the children , but I dont see child rapists being struck down in the act either. Perhaps I am trying to assign blame for these needless events of suffering children must go through. Why ? It serves no purpose. Its not going to make me love God any more or strengthen my faith by watching the evening news and hearing about a 5 year old getting raped and then murdered.

And....no I wouldnt like to see good things stop happening to people. :rolleyes:

As far as free will goes, if you are talking about the fact that God gives us free will and the option of doing right instead of wrong, thats still no excuse for just letting these unspeakable acts against children go on. Isnt he supposed to be a merciful God? What exactly soothes your spirit when you hear about the events I described? Let me know so I can just sit back and say ''eh....those are horrible things, but oh well -it will all work out in the end."

I dont think I'm getting exactly what Neo is trying to express. Maybe it's because I'm tired and stressed out and my brain pan has a leak in it. But I'm going to throw my 2 cents in on "Deserved suffering" anyway.

I was raised to believe that we thank God for everything we have....even our suffering. Somehow, we are made better by our suffering. Theres a supposed purpose, whether it is teaching others a lesson of what to do and not to do, or the belief that it brings us closer to God by staying faithful to him- not only in times of happiness and bliss, but when trials and temptations find us. That, if we endure this life on earth, we will receive our reward in heaven. I said this is what I was raised to believe.....

My problem with that is this: what kind of purpose is served when innocent children suffer? I didnt say innocent people because someone will argue "Well whos to say who is innocent ..blah blah...". I think we all agree that children are innocent...pure, simple, loving little beings. So how does the rape and molestation of a 5 year old serve a purpose? Child abuse? What about a child who is starving and who only gets a small piece of bread every 3 days? Hospitals are full of children dying of cancer.....too sick to hold their own heads up, wondering "why am I having to suffer like this....I'm only 6?" Then the church people visit them and sing the song "Jesus loves me". Little ones to him belong??

Thats my beef with "God". I dont understand it, I dont embrace it and I sure as hell dont thank him for it. I think all the suffering should be saved for grown ups. Maybe we deserve to be punished for certain things......children do NOT.

Excellent post.

Excellent post.


Thanks Gravy.....that, coming from you, on a religion thread.......is the ultimate compliment.

What Neo was showing is that without the concept of God, or something, to give morality and meaning to the universe, what is is right. No one deserves anything, good or bad. When I say that something is needed to give morality, humans doing it on our own through philosophy is not enough. There must be somehting outside of us and greater than us to do the job. If not, then what we end up calling morality will just be a social convention, which we can change at our whims.


I don't need a 'greater being' to give my life or universe meaning.

Why are humans insufficient to define human morality?

I mean - I am inclined to agree with you... I do not accept the morality of many people I know, but, at the same time - why should it take a 'greater power' to decide what is 'good'?

That sounds to me, like people making excuses - assigning responsibility for difficult choices to some other shadowy figure... so THEY don't have to think the issue through, so THEY don't have to question what they believe, so THEY can absolve themselves of any guilt.


I think that what you're seeing in a lot of cases is where someone exercises free will, and someone (including children) suffers because of it. While I think that it's wrong, the only ultimate solution to the problem is to remove free will, and I don't think any one in his right mind would advocate that. We can't blame God when it's other people doing it.


A casual glance through scripture clearly illustrates the repeated intervention of god in mortal affairs, the deliberate interference in 'free will'.

I don't think Peechland is blaming god for the sins of man. I believe, she is saying that this 'interventionist god' who 'loves his creations' CANNOT sit back and let such suffering occur, in such volume, and still be both 'interventionist' and 'loving'.

Either 'he' doesn't care to stop such evil, or 'he' can't.


The other instances you mention are when people suffer because we live in a cruel world, and things happen to people almost at random. This is unlikely to change any time soon. As it is written, "The rain falls on the just and the unjust." By the same token, good things happen to people on a nearly random basis as well. Would you like to stop that happening too?


How do you explain 'random', in the same context as the 'omnipotent' god? If 'god' is all-powerful and omnipresent, then NOTHING can happen unless 'he' so wills it. Nothing can happen contrary to an omnipotent, omnipresent deity's wish.

Thus - either 'god' allows the bad and good to happen, indiscriminately - or 'god' has no ability to interfere.


Refusing to believe in God because of the existance of evil in this world is a cop out, if you ask me.

Fortunately, I don't believe that your opinion was requested - nor is it apparently even justified in THIS context, since I see no mention of 'not believing' in 'god'.

As an Atheist, I don't believe in 'God', but that is not 'because' of evil in the world. Although 'evil in the world' is a pretty good evidence to support my view.

I dont think I'm getting exactly what Neo is trying to express. Maybe it's because I'm tired and stressed out and my brain pan has a leak in it. But I'm going to throw my 2 cents in on "Deserved suffering" anyway.

I was raised to believe that we thank God for everything we have....even our suffering. Somehow, we are made better by our suffering. Theres a supposed purpose, whether it is teaching others a lesson of what to do and not to do, or the belief that it brings us closer to God by staying faithful to him- not only in times of happiness and bliss, but when trials and temptations find us. That, if we endure this life on earth, we will receive our reward in heaven. I said this is what I was raised to believe.....

My problem with that is this: what kind of purpose is served when innocent children suffer? I didnt say innocent people because someone will argue "Well whos to say who is innocent ..blah blah...". I think we all agree that children are innocent...pure, simple, loving little beings. So how does the rape and molestation of a 5 year old serve a purpose? Child abuse? What about a child who is starving and who only gets a small piece of bread every 3 days? Hospitals are full of children dying of cancer.....too sick to hold their own heads up, wondering "why am I having to suffer like this....I'm only 6?" Then the church people visit them and sing the song "Jesus loves me". Little ones to him belong??

Thats my beef with "God". I dont understand it, I dont embrace it and I sure as hell dont thank him for it. I think all the suffering should be saved for grown ups. Maybe we deserve to be punished for certain things......children do NOT.
The suffering any human goes through, regardless of their "innocence", serves them. The "lesson" of suffering is to learn to overcome it, to rise above it through attitude and philosophy. It is a spiritual lesson.

The purpose of suffering is to allow us to change. Suffering is one of the conditions that helps us shape our soul; what shape it eventually takes is up to us. We can let hardship dominate us, bring us down, crush us beneath its heel and drive us into the ground, or we can let our inherent spirit lift us above the hardship. The suffering a person goes through in a lifetime has nothing to do with their innocence or guilt. One person's suffering, though, can be a lesson for us all.

My problem with that is this: what kind of purpose is served when innocent children suffer? I didnt say innocent people because someone will argue "Well whos to say who is innocent ..blah blah...". I think we all agree that children are innocent...pure, simple, loving little beings. So how does the rape and molestation of a 5 year old serve a purpose? Child abuse? What about a child who is starving and who only gets a small piece of bread every 3 days? Hospitals are full of children dying of cancer.....too sick to hold their own heads up, wondering "why am I having to suffer like this....I'm only 6?" Then the church people visit them and sing the song "Jesus loves me". Little ones to him belong??

1) "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Romans 3: 22-24. No one is innocent save for one. And he suffered far more than most

2) I am not trying to explain away suffering with what I posted. I was trying to point out to those who claim the existance of suffering and the existance of God as mutulally exclusive that for their arguements to work (IE that in this life we should only get what we "Deserve") we need a God to judge it and make it work.

The suffering any human goes through, regardless of their "innocence", serves them. The "lesson" of suffering is to learn to overcome it, to rise above it through attitude and philosophy. It is a spiritual lesson.

The purpose of suffering is to allow us to change. Suffering is one of the conditions that helps us shape our soul; what shape it eventually takes is up to us. We can let hardship dominate us, bring us down, crush us beneath its heel and drive us into the ground, or we can let our inherent spirit lift us above the hardship. The suffering a person goes through in a lifetime has nothing to do with their innocence or guilt. One person's suffering, though, can be a lesson for us all.

hmm...I agree with some of that. I've attended the School of Hard Knocks myself. I credit the strength I have today to most of my adversities. We can choose to allow it make us or break us, so to speak. But I think you may have missed the point of my post. I specified children and their suffering. Not just "humans". What shape does the soul of a 5 year old rape victim take btw? Do they look back when they are 20, and say "boy, i sure am thankful my moms loser boyfriend raped and sodomized me when i was 5.....now everyone can learn a lesson through my suffering and the world will be a better place." A child doesnt possess the coping skills needed to process that kind of suffering into something positive.
I'm 30, and if I were raped, after I dealt with it in whatever way that might be, sure....I quite possibly could take that experience and let it be a source of strength and label it a victory for my soul. A victory because I might feel stronger now, knowing I didnt let that event break me.
I dont think young children should be used to teach the world a lesson and I certainly dont think that their suffering boosts their spirituality in the least....or anyone elses for that matter. If we are talking about it in a Christian context, then I absolutely disagree. Arent the children taught to love God and Jesus, and that he will protect them and love them and bless them? Do you think maybe a 5 year old who is in the process of being beaten or raped is looking up to heaven and asking "where are you God? what is happening and why?" I cant even begin to imagine what kind of horror the children who fall victim to such crimes must think and feel.
My opinion is simple: children should not have to suffer things like rape, physical abuse, starvation, painful diseases.... Period.

1) "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Romans 3: 22-24. No one is innocent save for one. And he suffered far more than most

2) I am not trying to explain away suffering with what I posted. I was trying to point out to those who claim the existance of suffering and the existance of God as mutulally exclusive that for their arguements to work (IE that in this life we should only get what we "Deserve") we need a God to judge it and make it work.


Thats fine Neo, and I may have focused my opinions on that of children simply because I feel so strongly about their well being. I think I stayed on topic, just brought up a part of suffering/god that I dont understand or agree with.

Thats fine Neo, and I may have focused my opinions on that of children simply because I feel so strongly about their well being. I think I stayed on topic, just brought up a part of suffering/god that I dont understand or agree with.

I agree with you. Childrens sufferings is awful. But it in itself is not a disproving of God. Thats what angers me. People who use suffering as a way of disproving God. Its not.

I agree with you. Childrens sufferings is awful. But it in itself is not a disproving of God. Thats what angers me. People who use suffering as a way of disproving God. Its not.

Right....it in itself doesnt disprove him. I guess I just question him about some things.

A lot of people say "Why did X desereve to die/suffer horribley etc" and then go on to use that idea as an arguement against God. But read this and see why the idea of "Deserved suffering" is a logical problem.

A problem with getting what you "Desereve" . Deservedness presupposes
some metaphysically 'real' ethical structure of the universe, and only the kind that can be associated with the absolutes of a God who can 'build' natural consequences (e.g. landslides) into ethical actions. All other systems have a 'human contractual' character--hardly something physical laws of plate tectonics should be expected to honor!!! Picking an ethic and agreeing on it, or 'actualizing it' (whatever THAT means!) by sincerity, will, etc. hardly is going to affect global weather patterns that produce hurricanes or tornadoes. So if you are going to argue that we only get what we deserve, then you need a God to judge what you do/dont deserve. Any human judging it would not be sufficent. So you cant rearly use this arguement against him. If a human looked at a situation and said "X did not desereve to suffer in Y way" then their perspective is obviously flawed compared to God's perspective.
I don't understand this. Deservedness in this case is related to the concept that the universe owes us something because we exist --it owes us our life. We deserve this life we have been thrust into; this is egotism. It stems from the ego of the human mind/heart/soul, but it does not necessarily presuppose a God.

Certainly some people might be presupposing a moral structure to the universe, though. But it's not necessary.

So seeing someone else lose their life in a perceivedly "unfair" manner is an extension of that egotism, an odd version of empathy. The universe owes them life, too. Good is that which is beneficial to life or the quality of life. Living is good; dying is bad.

From what I have seen, the people who say, "Why did X deserve to die? How could an all-loving God let this happen, dot, dot, dot, there must be no God," are attempting to use the religion's rationale against it by showing the fallacy inherent in the premises. This doesn't have anything to do with presupposing God, just allowing for the variable to exist in order to formulate an argument of logic. They have no expectation that the universe should behave ethically; it's all an intellectual exercise.

Maybe I misunderstood?

The suffering any human goes through, regardless of their "innocence", serves them. The "lesson" of suffering is to learn to overcome it, to rise above it through attitude and philosophy. It is a spiritual lesson.

The purpose of suffering is to allow us to change. Suffering is one of the conditions that helps us shape our soul; what shape it eventually takes is up to us. We can let hardship dominate us, bring us down, crush us beneath its heel and drive us into the ground, or we can let our inherent spirit lift us above the hardship. The suffering a person goes through in a lifetime has nothing to do with their innocence or guilt. One person's suffering, though, can be a lesson for us all.
so what does an 18-month-old baby learn from being shaken so severely that he suffers permanent brain damage and will remain in a vegitative state until somebody has enough mercy to unhook him from life support? what does a three year old learn from being thrown down the stairs by his abusive parent, breaking his neck and dying after lingering in a coma for a week?

i ask because these are two cases i personally have encountered volunteering at a hospital, and i find myself unable to figure out what possible lesson these children could have learned from their experiences.

The suffering any human goes through, regardless of their "innocence", serves them. The "lesson" of suffering is to learn to overcome it, to rise above it through attitude and philosophy. It is a spiritual lesson.

The purpose of suffering is to allow us to change. Suffering is one of the conditions that helps us shape our soul; what shape it eventually takes is up to us. We can let hardship dominate us, bring us down, crush us beneath its heel and drive us into the ground, or we can let our inherent spirit lift us above the hardship. The suffering a person goes through in a lifetime has nothing to do with their innocence or guilt. One person's suffering, though, can be a lesson for us all.

Yes. Like James Bulgar.

A small child... 5 maybe?

Two other children, a few years older, kidnapped him, beat him almost to death, pushed batteries into his anus, and left him to die in front of an inter-city train.

I really hope James Bulgar learned whatever lesson it was, that a benevolent god was so generously allowing him to be taught.

1) "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Romans 3: 22-24. No one is innocent save for one. And he suffered far more than most


One assumes you mean Jesus... although how that can be the case, in the context of "suffered far more than most", I'm not sure.

Being executed, with the sure knowledge that you are immortal, and will 'recover' in a couple of days, doesn't seem like that much of a punishment to me.

1) "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Romans 3: 22-24. No one is innocent save for one. And he suffered far more than most

actually he didnt

he died in 3 hours when most crucifiction took days. he had a really good week then a bit of humiliation, some scourging, and a nasty but relatively quick death.

the romans crucified many thousands of men over the years. 99% of them suffered more

the child dying of cancer suffers more

a diabetic suffers more

it goes on and on.

One assumes you mean Jesus... although how that can be the case, int he context of "suffered far more than most", I'm not sure.

Being executed, with the sure knowledge that you are immortal, and will 'recover' in a couple of days, doesn't seem like that much of a punishment to me.
nor does it seem fair to conclude that Jesus' brief trip through Hell could possibly compare to an eternity of Hell. it seems to me that, of all the people who have ever lived, Jesus actually suffered the LEAST in his lifetime; he had the fullest understanding of God that any human has possessed, he was guaranteed an eternity in paradise, he got to use magic powers, and all he had to do was spend his relatively short lifetime being nice to other people (something i try to do for no particular reason). also, if Heaven is defined as "maximum closeness with God" and Hell is defined as "permanent seclusion from God," a theory several Christians have presented to me, then Jesus essentially had heaven on Earth for at least half of his Earthly life!

I specified children and their suffering. Not just "humans". What shape does the soul of a 5 year old rape victim take btw? Do they look back when they are 20, and say "boy, i sure am thankful my moms loser boyfriend raped and sodomized me when i was 5.....now everyone can learn a lesson through my suffering and the world will be a better place." A child doesnt possess the coping skills needed to process that kind of suffering into something positive.
I certainly hope they don't look back on a rape as a good thing; that would be insanity. Glossing over something is not overcoming, and it has nothing to do with rose-coloured glasses. The attitude I spoke of was not an atittude towards the incident, but towards themselves, their life and how they choose to live it. It's a "move-forward" thing.

I'm 30, and if I were raped, after I dealt with it in whatever way that might be, sure....I quite possibly could take that experience and let it be a source of strength and label it a victory for my soul. A victory because I might feel stronger now, knowing I didnt let that event break me.
I dont think young children should be used to teach the world a lesson and I certainly dont think that their suffering boosts their spirituality in the least....or anyone elses for that matter. If we are talking about it in a Christian context, then I absolutely disagree. Arent the children taught to love God and Jesus, and that he will protect them and love them and bless them? Do you think maybe a 5 year old who is in the process of being beaten or raped is looking up to heaven and asking "where are you God? what is happening and why?" I cant even begin to imagine what kind of horror the children who fall victim to such crimes must think and feel.
My opinion is simple: children should not have to suffer things like rape, physical abuse, starvation, painful diseases.... Period.
Young children being "used" to teach the world a lesson implies a believe in the existence of a God who manipulates humans. That's not a position I was speaking from. I personally don't believe that is what the Christian God is about, from what I've read and heard about him. I understand you were raised with different ideas; however, I can only look at Christianity as an outsider.

Let's say a young child is abused, and this can be "used" for a lesson on suffering. The teacher in this scenario who gives the lesson is a metaphor, like the "school of hard knocks". The lesson taken by students is what is real.

I understand wanting to protect and shelter children, really I do. But they are as much vulnerable to experiencing hardship as any of us.

I certainly hope they don't look back on a rape as a good thing; that would be insanity. Glossing over something is not overcoming, and it has nothing to do with rose-coloured glasses. The attitude I spoke of was not an atittude towards the incident, but towards themselves, their life and how they choose to live it. It's a "move-forward" thing.


Young children being "used" to teach the world a lesson implies a believe in the existence of a God who manipulates humans. That's not a position I was speaking from. I personally don't believe that is what the Christian God is about, from what I've read and heard about him. I understand you were raised with different ideas; however, I can only look at Christianity as an outsider.

Let's say a young child is abused, and this can be "used" for a lesson on suffering. The teacher in this scenario who gives the lesson is a metaphor, like the "school of hard knocks". The lesson taken by students is what is real.

.

Anyone who puts that on their lesson plan isnt much of a teacher I say.

Yes. Like James Bulgar.

A small child... 5 maybe?

Two other children, a few years older, kidnapped him, beat him almost to death, pushed batteries into his anus, and left him to die in front of an inter-city train.

I really hope James Bulgar learned whatever lesson it was, that a benevolent god was so generously allowing him to be taught.
I don't know about James, but I certainly have.

so what does an 18-month-old baby learn from being shaken so severely that he suffers permanent brain damage and will remain in a vegitative state until somebody has enough mercy to unhook him from life support? what does a three year old learn from being thrown down the stairs by his abusive parent, breaking his neck and dying after lingering in a coma for a week?

i ask because these are two cases i personally have encountered volunteering at a hospital, and i find myself unable to figure out what possible lesson these children could have learned from their experiences.
It seems you learned a very important lesson from it.

I don't know about James, but I certainly have.

What lesson did you learn, then?

James Bulgar died in agony, after hours of abuse. What was the lesson that a loving god was teaching you?

And, why couldn't an omnipotent god just 'magic' that lesson into your head, rather than allowing small children to be mutilated and murdered, to service your edificiation?

Yes. Like James Bulgar.

A small child... 5 maybe?

Two other children, a few years older, kidnapped him, beat him almost to death, pushed batteries into his anus, and left him to die in front of an inter-city train.

I really hope James Bulgar learned whatever lesson it was, that a benevolent god was so generously allowing him to be taught.

so youre going to hate god because he didnt make us into robots? because he has set up a world where true evil exists and we can do nothing to stop it?

i guess thats your right, but it seems very useless to me. i dont believe that "god has a plan for each of us" but he created the world in a specific way for reasons we arent privy to. it doesnt mean he hated that little boy and wanted him to suffer, it means that in the world he set up, horrible things happen because of free will. the alternative is a true predestination where we are gods puppets and are saved or damned in accordance with whatever game he is playing that day.

as for the tsunami and other natural disasters, EVERYONE DIES. there are no exceptions. its not really worse to die as one of 200,000 than it is to die alone in your bed. sooner or later death comes to us all.

no one knows when they will die. some die young, too young. some bad people live a long and happy life. life is fragile and any of us can "break" at any time. its knowing this that makes life precious to us. no one gets a guarantee, not even the most innocent of babies.

What lesson did you learn, then?

James Bulgar died in agony, after hours of abuse. What was the lesson that a loving god was teaching you?

And, why couldn't an omnipotent god just 'magic' that lesson into your head, rather than allowing small children to be mutilated and murdered, to service your edificiation?
One of sympathy.

Belief in the Christian idea of God is not necessary to support an understanding of the lessons learned from the suffering of humans. It is an adequate metaphor for it, though.

I don't believe in magic (not that kind, anyway).

Anyone who puts that on their lesson plan isnt much of a teacher I say.
It's not like we have a choice.

It seems you learned a very important lesson from it.
what lesson would that be? and why should those children have had to suffer to teach it to me? could not an omnipotent God have taught me in such a way that small children would not have to suffer?

It's not like we have a choice.


So please tell me what it is that comforts you or allows you to accept the fact the children do face these unspeakable acts? I'm serious...I asked robo and he didnt answer me. I dont know HOW to get past the anger I have in regards to this.

I don't know about James, but I certainly have.
so you learned something just from hearing that story...which means that if Grave had just made up that story (which, sadly, is not the case) then you would have "learned" the exact same thing. thus, the lesson you learn from James' violent and painful death is exactly the same lesson you could learn from a fictional account of such a death. so why did James need to die? why couldn't God just have circulated some stories about such horrors, rather than forcing a little boy to suffer through them?

I am refering to those who say "X suffering happens, therefore there is no God"
But there are some that would argue that it does not disprove God, merely disproves his supposed omnibenevolence.

so you learned something just from hearing that story...which means that if Grave had just made up that story (which, sadly, is not the case) then you would have "learned" the exact same thing. thus, the lesson you learn from James' violent and painful death is exactly the same lesson you could learn from a fictional account of such a death. so why did James need to die? why couldn't God just have circulated some stories about such horrors, rather than forcing a little boy to suffer through them?

Yes....what she said.

But there are some that would argue that it does not disprove God, merely disproves his supposed omnibenevolence.

It doesnt do that either.

as for the tsunami and other natural disasters, EVERYONE DIES. there are no exceptions. its not really worse to die as one of 200,000 than it is to die alone in your bed. sooner or later death comes to us all.

you aren't seriously trying to say that the horrible deaths and suffering of those hit by the tsunami are something we should write off because "everybody dies," are you? do you understand how horrendous that disaster was? do you know how many people are going to die slowly of disease, exposure, and starvation, even now? do you honestly think that such deaths can be compared to the relatively peaceful end that most Americans can expect for their lives? do you think that suffering is somehow excusable simply because our lives are finite?

by your logic, we should NEVER try to alleviate suffering. i mean, everybody dies, right? and since God won't bother to prevent suffering because everybody dies in the end, why should we try to prevent it?


no one knows when they will die. some die young, too young. some bad people live a long and happy life. life is fragile and any of us can "break" at any time. its knowing this that makes life precious to us. no one gets a guarantee, not even the most innocent of babies.
you have stated fact. now please resolve that fact with the concept of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. please include an explanation that covers non-human-caused suffering; "free will" doesn't explain away the suffering from the disaster of Pompei, for instance.

So please tell me what it is that comforts you or allows you to accept the fact the children do face these unspeakable acts? I'm serious...I asked robo and he didnt answer me. I dont know HOW to get past the anger I have in regards to this.
We all face the same world. From the moment we are born until we die we are all vulnerable, we are all innocent and we are all helpless. That never changes. It's our human weakness side. We balance it with strengths: with curiosity and character, with people to lean on, with learning, with fun and games, with love and laughter, with dreams and explorations and humanity... but it never goes away. I would and do rage against those who commit unspeakables, too, because they remind me how vulnerable I am.

I cannot say where "my comforting" comes from except that it comes from within. That is where I identify god as being, as a part of the heart and soul in each of us.

so you learned something just from hearing that story...which means that if Grave had just made up that story (which, sadly, is not the case) then you would have "learned" the exact same thing. thus, the lesson you learn from James' violent and painful death is exactly the same lesson you could learn from a fictional account of such a death. so why did James need to die? why couldn't God just have circulated some stories about such horrors, rather than forcing a little boy to suffer through them?

Exactly.

I think Bottle pretty much nailed it there.

so you learned something just from hearing that story...which means that if Grave had just made up that story (which, sadly, is not the case) then you would have "learned" the exact same thing. thus, the lesson you learn from James' violent and painful death is exactly the same lesson you could learn from a fictional account of such a death. so why did James need to die? why couldn't God just have circulated some stories about such horrors, rather than forcing a little boy to suffer through them?
I'm sorry; I am not going to defend "God" nor "his" actions. I pointed out that lessons can be had, regardless of a teacher. I'm done. I cannot support the idea of a god who interferes in humanity, or even one who has a human-like consciousness.

I'm sorry; I am not going to defend "God" nor "his" actions. I pointed out that lessons can be had, regardless of a teacher. I'm done. I cannot support the idea of a god who interferes in humanity, or even one who has a human-like consciousness.
are you going to answer my point?

i'm not asking you to "support the idea of a God who interferes in humanity," or one who "has human-like consciousness," i'm just asking you to explain how your views are logically consistent. i agree that lessons can be had, regardless of the teacher, all i am asking is why you would worship a "teacher" who permits the needless suffering of children despite his ability to prevent it.

you aren't being asked to defend God or his actions, only to defend the assertions you have made about him and his actions. remember, i'm agnostic: i don't believe your God exists, so it would be silly of me to demand that you defend Him :).

I'm sorry; I am not going to defend "God" nor "his" actions. I pointed out that lessons can be had, regardless of a teacher. I'm done. I cannot support the idea of a god who interferes in humanity, or even one who has a human-like consciousness.


I have a problem with a god who can turn water into wine but not stop some bastard from hurting a child.

I have a problem with a god who can turn water into wine but not stop some bastard from hurting a child.

Exactly.

Damn, between Peechland and Bottle, the girls are on a roll, here...

I might be forced into an early retitrement...

I have a problem with a god who can turn water into wine but not stop some bastard from hurting a child.
i don't, i simply have a problem with a God who is INCLINED to turn water into wine but not to stop some bastard from hurting a child, even though He is able to do both.

are you going to answer my point?

i'm not asking you to "support the idea of a God who interferes in humanity," or one who "has human-like consciousness," i'm just asking you to explain how your views are logically consistent. i agree that lessons can be had, regardless of the teacher, all i am asking is why you would worship a "teacher" who permits the needless suffering of children despite his ability to prevent it. you aren't being asked to defend God or his actions, only to defend the assertions you have made about him and his actions.
See, assigning god the ability to prevent needless suffering is the same as asking me to support the idea of a God who interferes in our lives and in the physical world. I made no assertations that god had any such ability.

I have a problem with a god who can turn water into wine but not stop some bastard from hurting a child.
Turning water into wine is a metaphor for finding deeper, richer meaning.

EDIT: ...and probably a few other things, too, but I'm not well versed in Christian mythology.

Turning water into wine is a metaphor for finding deeper, richer meaning.

EDIT: ...and probably a few other things, too, but I'm not well versed in Christian mythology.


I see you know what a metaphor is, have you a clue what sarcasm is?

See, assigning god the ability to prevent needless suffering is the same as asking me to support the idea of a God who interferes in our lives and in the physical world. I made no assertations that god had any such ability.
hmm, perhaps some basic issues need to be clarified:

do you believe in God?
do you believe God is omnipotent?
do you believe God is omnibenevolent (all-good)?

I see you know what a metaphor is, have you a clue what sarcasm is?
:-)

I know what sardonism is, too.

I have a problem with a god who can turn water into wine but not stop some bastard from hurting a child.

Lets take your logic its logical conclusion shall we. God interfeares to stop all of what you consider are humanities worst offences. Fine. But then a lower level of offence becomes humanities worst offence and so the outcry against that would become so high that God intervienes and so on and so forth. So the problems with your logic are as follows

1) God interfearing in our world to stop offences would ultimately lead to a world where it was impossible for anyone to commit any kind of offence becuase they were physicaly unable to. Hence violating free will

2) The idea that God should stop all offences suggests there should be no concquences for sin.

3) The idea that God does not use the ablilty and that therefore he does not have it is flawed

:-)

I know what sardonism is, too.

You mean sardonicism? So I'm cynical......



and I dont mean to attack everything you say......I just cant understand your lack of compassion on the issue. You seem so accepting of it and "oh well".

I get riled up about the suffering of children.....and animals. I should stay away from that baby seal thread.

hmm, perhaps some basic issues need to be clarified:

do you believe in God?
do you believe God is omnipotent?
do you believe God is omnibenevolent (all-good)?
I am not a Christian. Does that answer it? Yes, no, and no. I do believe in god; I believe I felt it twice in my life. I also felt PMS only twice in my life ..horrible, horrible emotion that was. I'm grateful I don't have to feel it every period.

Lets take your logic its logical conclusion shall we. God interfeares to stop all of what you consider are humanities worst offences. Fine. But then a lower level of offence becomes humanities worst offence and so the outcry against that would become so high that God intervienes and so on and so forth. So the problems with your logic are as follows

1) God interfearing in our world to stop offences would ultimately lead to a world where it was impossible for anyone to commit any kind of offence becuase they were physicaly unable to. Hence violating free will

2) The idea that God should stop all offences suggests there should be no concquences for sin.

3) The idea that God does not use the ablilty and that therefore he does not have it is flawedi highly doubt that God would be bound by the slippery slope falacy, particularly since even our puny human logic doesn't abide by it :).

I am not a Christian. Does that answer it? Yes, no, and no. I do believe in god; I believe I felt it twice in my life. I also felt PMS only twice in my life ..horrible, horrible emotion that was. I'm grateful I don't have to feel it every period.
well, in that case we will need a whole lot more information to continue discussing your views :). at any rate, if you do not believe in an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God (as i specified earlier) then my points are not relavent to your views.

You mean sardonicism? So I'm cynical......
Darn. I knew I should have looked that one up in the dictionary.

and I dont mean to attack everything you say......I just cant understand your lack of compassion on the issue. You seem so accepting of it and "oh well".

I get riled up about the suffering of children.....and animals. I should stay away from that baby seal thread.
Not a problem. I often try to defend the religious side because it's not as hard for me to understand as the atheist side. I am not impassionate about the matter; I adopt that voice quite deliberately to discuss things rationally.

I know what you mean about the baby seal thread. I really thought I could handle the abortion discussion, but it warped my mind to see both sides saying repulsive things.

i highly doubt that God would be bound by the slippery slope falacy, particularly since even our puny human logic doesn't abide by it :).

Well then somehow disprove it. If God stoped all genocidal nationalistic maniacs at first we would all be grateful. But eventually the same level of outrage would be directed at serial killers, child abusers and murderes (individuals) and so God would stop that. But then robbers, rapeists and burglers would be the worst and so we would appel to God to stop that. Eventually though petty criminals and thugish youths would be and so on and so on. Exactly what is wrong with my arguement. Its human nature to be outraged at what is considered the worst possible thing.

Lets take your logic its logical conclusion shall we. God interfeares to stop all of what you consider are humanities worst offences.

Might as well stop you there, Neo.

You realise that Thou Shalt not Murder is often portrayed as being one of God's commandents, yes?

So, why are people allowed to murder?

That is a GOD law, not a mortal law (if you believe the scripture).

So - all 'god' has to do is enforce the 'god' laws.

Thus, 'god' law is preserved, and the sick wrongness of certain individuals is not allowed to flourish. I'd think that a win-win scenario.

Lets take your logic its logical conclusion shall we. God interfeares to stop all of what you consider are humanities worst offences. Fine. But then a lower level of offence becomes humanities worst offence and so the outcry against that would become so high that God intervienes and so on and so forth. So the problems with your logic are as follows

1) God interfearing in our world to stop offences would ultimately lead to a world where it was impossible for anyone to commit any kind of offence becuase they were physicaly unable to. Hence violating free will

2) The idea that God should stop all offences suggests there should be no concquences for sin.

3) The idea that God does not use the ablilty and that therefore he does not have it is flawed

No, the problem with "my logic" is that it makes him look uncaring and indifferent to the needless suffering of children.

Supposedly, he interferes in our world all the time. Isnt that what some claim as "answered prayers"? When someone prays for a sick person to get well...he gets the credit. He healed them. I know people who will tell me that the reason I'm alive today and survived my teenage years is because they prayed for me. And I was saved by Gods intervention.

So either he can or he cant.... he will or he wont. Does it depend on his mood?

Well then somehow disprove it. If God stoped all genocidal nationalistic maniacs at first we would all be grateful. But eventually the same level of outrage would be directed at serial killers, child abusers and murderes (individuals) and so God would stop that.

well, right there you have a problem. we aren't arguing that God should stop murdering and extreme evils just because we are bitching about it, but rather that he should stop it because it is Bad, and an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God is not consistent with that Badness.

But then robbers, rapeists and burglers would be the worst and so we would appel to God to stop that. Eventually though petty criminals and thugish youths would be and so on and so on. Exactly what is wrong with my arguement. Its human nature to be outraged at what is considered the worst possible thing.
yes, if God were truly omnibenevolent and omnipotent then the only things that could occur would be Good things. if people steal or rape or murder, and there is such a God, then those things must BY DEFINITION be Good things. thus we must either conclude that there is no such God or that all things that occur are Good things. and if they are Good things, then why should we punish people for theft or rape or murder? God has ruled that the theft and rape and murder are Good, by virtue of allowing them to occur, so who are we to question His will?

also, it is an inherent falacy to claim that free will requires the ability to do evil. indeed, i think that only a miniscule portion of the decisions i make have anything to do with Good or Evil; most of my decisions have to do with what clothing to wear, how much ketchup to put on my burger, when to call my mom, and which team to root for. my Self, the person i am as an individual, is not defined by any Good versus Evil choices on my part, but rather by the millions of tiny, neutral decisions i have made over the course of my lifetime.

Well then somehow disprove it. If God stoped all genocidal nationalistic maniacs at first we would all be grateful. But eventually the same level of outrage would be directed at serial killers, child abusers and murderes (individuals) and so God would stop that. But then robbers, rapeists and burglers would be the worst and so we would appel to God to stop that. Eventually though petty criminals and thugish youths would be and so on and so on. Exactly what is wrong with my arguement. Its human nature to be outraged at what is considered the worst possible thing.

And, eventually - there would be no crime in our society... how is that a bad thing?

Might as well stop you there, Neo.

You realise that Thou Shalt not Murder is often portrayed as being one of God's commandents, yes?

So, why are people allowed to murder?

That is a GOD law, not a mortal law (if you believe the scripture).

So - all 'god' has to do is enforce the 'god' laws.

Thus, 'god' law is preserved, and the sick wrongness of certain individuals is not allowed to flourish. I'd think that a win-win scenario.
an excellent point: on Earth, we pass laws forbidding people to do certain things, and we not only punish offenders but also try to prevent those acts from being committed in the first place. the only reason we are unsuccessful is because we are finite and limited in our capabilities. since God is neither of those, why does He not take greater care in enforcing His laws, or in preventing people from breaking them in the first place? why make them in the first place, if He doesn't intend to enforce them?

And, eventually - there would be no crime in our society... how is that a bad thing?
wait, let me predict the future:

Neo is going to tell you that we wouldn't have free will if God stopped all crime. how many people can see the obvious flaw in that "logic"?

No, the problem with "my logic" is that it makes him look uncaring and indifferent to the needless suffering of children.

Supposedly, he interferes in our world all the time. Isnt that what some claim as "answered prayers"? When someone prays for a sick person to get well...he gets the credit. He healed them. I know people who will tell me that the reason I'm alive today and survived my teenage years is because they prayed for me. And I was saved by Gods intervention.

So either he can or he cant.... he will or he wont. Does it depend on his mood?

No - this is the beauty of organised religions.

If something bad happens, it is obviously because humans are bad, and we did bad things.

If something good happens, it is obviously because of the kindness of a benevolent god.

It's a matter of taking ALL of the credit, and NONE of the blame.

wait, let me predict the future:

Neo is going to tell you that we wouldn't have free will if God stopped all crime. how many people can see the obvious flaw in that "logic"?

Well, one flaw would be that I don't have free-will, if I end up dead in a dumpster...

No - this is the beauty of organised religions.

If something bad happens, it is obviously because humans are bad, and we did bad things.

If something good happens, it is obviously because of the kindness of a benevolent god.

It's a matter of taking ALL of the credit, and NONE of the blame.
here's what i don't get:

the people who refuse to blame God for the Asian tsunami are the same people who credit Him with their basketball team making it to the playoffs.

Well, one flaw would be that I don't have free-will, if I end up dead in a dumpster...
lol, that too.

i was refering, though, to the fact that free will does not require there to be evil; if evil did not exist, then free will would not have to encompass the ability to choose evil.

to put it another way, i currently do not have the freedom to choose to ride a red unicorn to school in the morning. this is because, among other things, red unicorns do not exist. i cannot choose to use my Super Powerful Leprechaun-powered Death Ray to destroy the Earth, because it does not exist (yet). however, even though i don't have the freedom to choose these things, Neo would still say that i have free will.

so why can't God make evil as non-existent as red unicorns and Leprechaun-powered Death Rays?

here's what i don't get:

the people who refuse to blame God for the Asian tsunami are the same people who credit Him with their basketball team making it to the playoffs.

I guess 'god' just REALLY LIKES basketball...

Neo is going to tell you that we wouldn't have free will if God stopped all crime. how many people can see the obvious flaw in that "logic"?
I cannot see a flaw.

Free will is the ability to choose, most specifically in this instance the ability to choose right from wrong. If there is no crime, there is no "wrong", and if there are no "wrong" actions there is nothing to choose.

lol, that too.

i was refering, though, to the fact that free will does not require there to be evil; if evil did not exist, then free will would not have to encompass the ability to choose evil.

to put it another way, i currently do not have the freedom to choose to ride a red unicorn to school in the morning. this is because, among other things, red unicorns do not exist. i cannot choose to use my Super Powerful Leprechaun-powered Death Ray to destroy the Earth, because it does not exist (yet). however, even though i don't have the freedom to choose these things, Neo would still say that i have free will.

so why can't God make evil as non-existent as red unicorns and Leprechaun-powered Death Rays?

I really want a Red Unicorn, now.... what do you mean they don't exist!!!

I really want a Red Unicorn, now.... what do you mean they don't exist!!!
red unicorns? you crazy bastard, what is this silliness? why can't you just be happy with pink ones like the rest of us?

Darn. I knew I should have looked that one up in the dictionary.


Not a problem. I often try to defend the religious side because it's not as hard for me to understand as the atheist side. I am not impassionate about the matter; I adopt that voice quite deliberately to discuss things rationally.




Bet you think I'm an Atheist right? Nope....Raised in Baptist and Church of God faiths. I'm just not as much a "sheep" as some are. I tend to wander away from the flock. I see things that I dont understand or struggle with regarding many contradictory claims and stories....and I ask "why?" Maybe I'm expecting God to just fix certain things. I'm sure he disapproves of me as much as I do him right now.

Maybe I'm a closet Atheist?

i was refering, though, to the fact that free will does not require there to be evil; if evil did not exist, then free will would not have to encompass the ability to choose evil.

to put it another way, i currently do not have the freedom to choose to ride a red unicorn to school in the morning. this is because, among other things, red unicorns do not exist. i cannot choose to use my Super Powerful Leprechaun-powered Death Ray to destroy the Earth, because it does not exist (yet). however, even though i don't have the freedom to choose these things, Neo would still say that i have free will.

so why can't God make evil as non-existent as red unicorns and Leprechaun-powered Death Rays?
The real question you want to be asking is, why do they cling to the idea of an omnipotent God who performs "magic", when simply surrending that premise would poke holes in all your arguments.

Bet you think I'm an Atheist right? Nope....Raised in Baptist and Church of God faiths. I'm just not as much a "sheep" as some are. I tend to wander away from the flock. I see things that I dont understand or struggle with regarding many contradictory claims and stories....and I ask "why?" Maybe I'm expecting God to just fix certain things. I'm sure he disapproves of me as much as I do him right now.

Maybe I'm a closet Atheist?
never forget about the wonder that is agnosticism! i am a firm believer in a humble awareness of one's own limitations :).

The real question you want to be asking is, why do they cling to the idea of an omnipotent God who performs "magic", when simply surrending that premise would poke holes in all your arguments.
EXACTLY! :)

Ok, so what is agnosticism for you?
In the middle ages it meant that you believed that Christ was more divine than he was human.
Has it changed? :confused:
....


what?

agnostic means that you don't know whether there is a god or not. one who is agnostic would not say that christ is more divine that human. furthremore, agnosticism as a word is a fairly recent invention.. it certainly doesn't date back to the middle ages.

never forget about the wonder that is agnosticism! i am a firm believer in a humble awareness of one's own limitations :).


we should go out for coffee and pick each others brains. :)

....


what?

agnostic means that you don't know whether there is a god or not. one who is agnostic would not say that christ is more divine that human. furthremore, agnosticism as a word is a fairly recent invention.. it certainly doesn't date back to the middle ages.
did he, perhaps, mean "a Gnostic"? a Gnostic is very different from an agnostic, so there could be some confusion there.

Bet you think I'm an Atheist right? Nope....Raised in Baptist and Church of God faiths. I'm just not as much a "sheep" as some are. I tend to wander away from the flock. I see things that I dont understand or struggle with regarding many contradictory claims and stories....and I ask "why?" Maybe I'm expecting God to just fix certain things. I'm sure he disapproves of me as much as I do him right now.
You might benefit from exploring the scriptures from a mythological standpoint, where elements of the stories can be addressed in symbolism.

But I want you to know something, this is sincere, I want you to know, when it comes to believing in God, I really tried. I really, really tried. I tried to believe that there is a God, who created each of us in His own image and likeness, loves us very much, and keeps a close eye on things. I really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the more you look around, the more you realize, something is fucked up.

Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the résumé of a Supreme Being. This is the kind of shit you'd expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently-run universe, this guy would've been out on his all-powerful ass a long time ago. And by the way, I say "this guy", because I firmly believe, looking at these results, that if there is a God, it has to be a man.

No woman could or would ever &!#$ things up like this. So, if there is a God, I think most reasonable people might agree that he's at least incompetent, and maybe, just maybe, doesn't give a shit. Doesn't give a shit, which I admire in a person, and which would explain a lot of these bad results.

now, as for the "this bad thing happened, there can't be a god" thing. well, for one thing, if you're saying that absolute morality only exists along side a god and that we can't tell what's good or bad if one doesn't exist, well one must start by supposing that there is a god that cares deeply for us, loves us, wants us to do well et c. then when bad things happen, if you think "wow, now this is fucked" and you're supposing the existence of the absolute morality provided by this god already... then you must change one of your assumptions (unless you're going to assume that say, everyone who gets cancer in some way deserved it... 'cause hey, that would be interesting to explain, my bf had cancer when he was 6 months old... i don't know what an infant who can't even talk could have done wrong to deserve a cancerous tumour on his leg...) and eventually, you realise that it's much simpler to assume that either this god doesn't care or is unwilling to do anything to change life on this earth or this god does not exist and all these terrible things that happen happen on their own naturally. the tsunami was just an underwater earthquake, the kind this planet has had thousands of times over in its geological history. it just so happened that it created a wave that happened to hit shore and cause massive devastation on human habitats. it was relatively random (the timing at least, the placement along a fault line increased the probability of such an event occuring there) and the people who live in the devastated areas were no more deserving of getting killed or left homeless and starving than anyone of us. by sheer coincidence, they were born in that area at that time and by sheer coincidence this horrible thing happened to them. it didn't happen because a god punished them. it happened to them because their ancestors migrated to such an area of the world and no one in their family line left the area. it's unlucky, unfortunate, tragic, but it's no one's fault, it's not proof nor disproof of a deity.

and i will cease my rambling now.

did he, perhaps, mean "a Gnostic"? a Gnostic is very different from an agnostic, so there could be some confusion there.
if he meant gnostic, then he got them backwards... they considered jesus human, not divine and some argue that the gnostics considered him not to have existed in the first place, that they were, similar to the mirhras cult, privy to the information that it was indeed a myth...

but they at least considered jesus human, which is why they were so harshly persecuted after the council of nicea, when a vote was taken on the subject of jesus' divinity.

you aren't seriously trying to say that the horrible deaths and suffering of those hit by the tsunami are something we should write off because "everybody dies," are you? do you understand how horrendous that disaster was? do you know how many people are going to die slowly of disease, exposure, and starvation, even now? do you honestly think that such deaths can be compared to the relatively peaceful end that most Americans can expect for their lives? do you think that suffering is somehow excusable simply because our lives are finite?
yes i am. "write off" is meaningless. its done. nothing can change it. we rush to help the living not the dead.


by your logic, we should NEVER try to alleviate suffering. i mean, everybody dies, right? and since God won't bother to prevent suffering because everybody dies in the end, why should we try to prevent it?
we are not god. we are free to help or not. god is not going to intervene. its up to US. and of course god commands us to do so.

you have stated fact. now please resolve that fact with the concept of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. please include an explanation that covers non-human-caused suffering; "free will" doesn't explain away the suffering from the disaster of Pompei, for instance.
it seems rather obvious that god does not concern himself with human suffering. his benevolence comes in helping us to deal with our suffering and in what he offers us after we die. he wont "cheat" for us but he will get us through and he will offer us eternal life if we want it.

you know everyone in pompei would still be dead. why bring THAT up? that death certainly doesnt compare to dying of bone cancer. we all die and there just arent that many good ways to go.

you (all) are reacting like children who are mad that mommy wont buy them candy. god loves you he'll give you eternal life in heaven. he will ease your suffering. he wont change the world for you.

yes i am. "write off" is meaningless. its done. nothing can change it. we rush to help the living not the dead.


we are not god. we are free to help or not. god is not going to intervene. its up to US. and of course god commands us to do so.

it seems rather obvious that god does not concern himself with human suffering. his benevolence comes in helping us to deal with our suffering and in what he offers us after we die. he wont "cheat" for us but he will get us through and he will offer us eternal life if we want it.

you know everyone in pompei would still be dead. why bring THAT up? that death certainly doesnt compare to dying of bone cancer. we all die and there just arent that many good ways to go.

you (all) are reacting like children who are mad that mommy wont buy them candy. god loves you he'll give you eternal life in heaven. he will ease your suffering. he wont change the world for you.


i dunno....i think mommy not buying us candy isnt quite the same as mommy just standing by while the neighbor beats and rapes us.

well, right there you have a problem. we aren't arguing that God should stop murdering and extreme evils just because we are bitching about it, but rather that he should stop it because it is Bad, and an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God is not consistent with that Badness.


You exclude the consequences of sin from all your logic.

"There is no action without consequence" The Marovingian.


yes, if God were truly omnibenevolent and omnipotent then the only things that could occur would be Good things. if people steal or rape or murder, and there is such a God, then those things must BY DEFINITION be Good things. thus we must either conclude that there is no such God or that all things that occur are Good things. and if they are Good things, then why should we punish people for theft or rape or murder? God has ruled that the theft and rape and murder are Good, by virtue of allowing them to occur, so who are we to question His will?


1) This would mean mind control over those commiting said acts, breaching free will. God treated us with a great deal of respect in giving us free will. We can chose to do whatever we want with it but we have to suffer concequences (Good and bad) from what we do with it

2) As I have said before, God all loving does not mean God all protecting. The consequences of sin must be taken into account.


also, it is an inherent falacy to claim that free will requires the ability to do evil. indeed, i think that only a miniscule portion of the decisions i make have anything to do with Good or Evil; most of my decisions have to do with what clothing to wear, how much ketchup to put on my burger, when to call my mom, and which team to root for. my Self, the person i am as an individual, is not defined by any Good versus Evil choices on my part, but rather by the millions of tiny, neutral decisions i have made over the course of my lifetime.

Free will is to do anything you want to do and can do within practical reason. In other words all that you have the ability to do. There are of course consequences to the full use of free will but this does not detract from free will itself. While I agree most decisions you make will have very little to do with good or evil, would you want to have your conscience removed, and be preprogrammed to do only good with no understanding of how to do otherwise. I certianly wouldnt. I would like to think I can do good without being forced to, that I am sensable enough to chose to do it. Being forced to is just being patronised by another name.

1) This would mean mind control over those commiting said acts, breaching free will.

Not at all, Neo.

The bible clearly shows examples of 'god' simply killing those who sin.

So - why use mind control? Why not just use his omniscience to see who the bad people are, and strike them all down?

Either he chooses not too (so much for a loving 'god'), or he simply can't (so much for an omnipotent 'god').

Either he chooses not too (so much for a loving 'god'), or he simply can't (so much for an omnipotent 'god').

Ever considered that he loves them enough not to kill them? And that he loves the people but only hates what they do?

Ever considered that he loves them enough not to kill them? And that he loves the people but only hates what they do?

No, Neo - Atheist remember.

You can wish whatever personality you desire for your 'god', but it doesn't make a dab of difference to me... and neither does it gel with the 'god' so clearly illustrated in the Bible.

Why does 'god' give a penalty of death, if he is averse to killing?

Or is it easier for him, if he gets someone else to commit the murders for him?

yes i am. "write off" is meaningless. its done. nothing can change it. we rush to help the living not the dead.


we are not god. we are free to help or not. god is not going to intervene. its up to US. and of course god commands us to do so.

it seems rather obvious that god does not concern himself with human suffering. his benevolence comes in helping us to deal with our suffering and in what he offers us after we die. he wont "cheat" for us but he will get us through and he will offer us eternal life if we want it.

you know everyone in pompei would still be dead. why bring THAT up? that death certainly doesnt compare to dying of bone cancer. we all die and there just arent that many good ways to go.

you (all) are reacting like children who are mad that mommy wont buy them candy. god loves you he'll give you eternal life in heaven. he will ease your suffering. he wont change the world for you.okay, i just posted a lengthy response to this, but i got some nutty error message from the forum and lost the post. i know there are several people on this thread who pretty much think along the same lines as me, so will anybody take one for the team and respond to this for me? i sure as hell am not going to type my whole post again...

if he meant gnostic, then he got them backwards... they considered jesus human, not divine and some argue that the gnostics considered him not to have existed in the first place, that they were, similar to the mirhras cult, privy to the information that it was indeed a myth...
I think you're using the word "myth" in the wrong context, there. In this context, acknowledging the myth of the Christ does not imply that they did not believe the man, Jesus, existed.

However, Wikipedia supports that idea that Gnostics believed Christ was a divine spirit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostics), as are we all. The idea is that "...a divine spark is imprisoned within the material body and that the material body is in itself an obstacle, deliberately created by an evil lesser god (the demiurge) for this purpose, that prevents man from seeing his divine origin. Humanity is in essence asleep." Asleep to its true nature.

1) This would mean mind control over those commiting said acts, breaching free will. God treated us with a great deal of respect in giving us free will. We can chose to do whatever we want with it but we have to suffer concequences (Good and bad) from what we do with it

no, it wouldn't.

REPOST:

"free will does not require there to be evil; if evil did not exist, then free will would not have to encompass the ability to choose evil.

to put it another way, i currently do not have the freedom to choose to ride a red unicorn to school in the morning. this is because, among other things, red unicorns do not exist. i cannot choose to use my Super Powerful Leprechaun-powered Death Ray to destroy the Earth, because it does not exist (yet). however, even though i don't have the freedom to choose these things, Neo would still say that i have free will.

so why can't God make evil as non-existent as red unicorns and Leprechaun-powered Death Rays?"


2) As I have said before, God all loving does not mean God all protecting. The consequences of sin must be taken into account.

i already took that into account. what sin was committed by a child who is killed by a tornado?


Free will is to do anything you want to do and can do within practical reason. In other words all that you have the ability to do. There are of course consequences to the full use of free will but this does not detract from free will itself. While I agree most decisions you make will have very little to do with good or evil, would you want to have your conscience removed, and be preprogrammed to do only good with no understanding of how to do otherwise. I certianly wouldnt. I would like to think I can do good without being forced to, that I am sensable enough to chose to do it. Being forced to is just being patronised by another name.
you don't seem to understand: i only NEED a conscience because it is possible for me to do evil, but i could certainly HAVE a conscience even if there were no evil. if evil did not exist there would be no purpose for a conscience, but i still could have one...to put it another way, your "moral compass" would always be pointing to "good."

and, as i already established, the existence of evil is not necessary for free will, any more than the existence of red unicorns is.

Will is the power to determine one's actions. Free will is doing this in the context of a choice between alternatives; in other words, it is "a power of acting or of not acting, according to the determination of the will." By exercising free will, we determine the outcome of events, which is intregrally connected to concepts of good and bad. Events are not determined by our actions alone; dispite our best efforts, forces and circumstances intervene to affect the outcome of events. However, we generally can steer events towards a "good" or favourable outcome. Every action we perform has the potential of an outcome more favourable than others. What happens if there are no "bad" outcomes, dispite any effort of our will? With no "bad" outcomes, there is nothing to steer towards; no outcome that is more or less favourable than any other. There is no reason, then, to determine any actions, to exercise the power of will. We would become will-less, and morality is effectively done away with.

"free will does not require there to be evil; if evil did not exist, then free will would not have to encompass the ability to choose evil.

to put it another way, i currently do not have the freedom to choose to ride a red unicorn to school in the morning. this is because, among other things, red unicorns do not exist. i cannot choose to use my Super Powerful Leprechaun-powered Death Ray to destroy the Earth, because it does not exist (yet). however, even though i don't have the freedom to choose these things, Neo would still say that i have free will.

so why can't God make evil as non-existent as red unicorns and Leprechaun-powered Death Rays?"

You obviously do not understand what evil is. Evil is not an "object" or a "thing" in the way that you seem to think in this logic. It is an action. Its not physically impossible, its a choice and a movement of thought and action. The reason you cant have your said strange things is that they are physically impossible (at present) and so you cant chose to have them. Nautrally free will is restricted by what is and isnt physically possible. Free will does not limit thought. Evil is thought first, action second


i already took that into account. what sin was committed by a child who is killed by a tornado?


You still dont understand. All have sinned, every single one. Therefore all will die. Just because that child died in what seems a particulaly horrific event does not mean that he/she died any worse/better than anyone else. And dont give me any of this "They desereved longer" idea because the idea of someone's desereved life expenctency is merely a mathamatical and social construct. Theologicaly no one deserves to live any longer than anyone else.

You obviously do not understand what evil is. Evil is not an "object" or a "thing" in the way that you seem to think in this logic. It is an action. Its not physically impossible, its a choice and a movement of thought and action. The reason you cant have your said strange things is that they are physically impossible (at present) and so you cant chose to have them. Nautrally free will is restricted by what is and isnt physically possible. Free will does not limit thought. Evil is thought first, action second

thought is physical...thought is chemical and electrical events in physical structures of the brain.


You still dont understand. All have sinned, every single one. Therefore all will die.
what sin has been committed by a newborn baby?


Just because that child died in what seems a particulaly horrific event does not mean that he/she died any worse/better than anyone else.

if you don't believe that some deaths are better or worse than others, i would invite you to come volunteer with me at the hospital.


And dont give me any of this "They desereved longer" idea because the idea of someone's desereved life expenctency is merely a mathamatical and social construct.

mathematical? do tell.

i certainly wasn't claiming that anybody "deserves" any certain type of life, since one would have to believe in an objective arbiter of justice to believe in that...you know, an all-powerful and all-Just being with the ability and inclination to mete out propper fates...but that sort of thing would be silly.


Theologicaly no one deserves to live any longer than anyone else.
"theologically"? i'm sure that's not the word you meant, since many theologies argue precisely the opposite of what you claim.

The idea of "Deserved suffering" is a logical falacy without a God.

Well I don't really believe in "deserved suffering" as anything more than an opinion, so I guess I can continue being an atheist.

*BAM!*
*reloads for next "debate"*

Nautrally free will is restricted by what is and isnt physically possible. Free will does not limit thought. Evil is thought first, action second
thought is physical...thought is chemical and electrical events in physical structures of the brain.
He means thought as it is subjectively experienced. Whatever physical presence it has, the images/ideas/concepts perceived from the subjective perspective do not have physical substance, any more than your imaginary red unicorns do. "Evil" is an intention, which is a concept. Its only reality is as an abstract.