Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-09-2013, 03:46 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(10-09-2013 01:48 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote: Somebody forgot to read the sign on the door.
It says "The Thinking Atheist",
Not "dumbshits are welcome".

Are you sure you’re not Chas, writing under an alias? Both of you share now this ineffable sense of humor.

It's not humor. It is my true wish that you fuck off. You have nothing remotely intelligent to say.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
10-09-2013, 06:47 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(10-09-2013 01:49 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(09-09-2013 03:01 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Citation needed. I'm curious, as I've never heard of any forced labour (ie of a non-slave) in ancient Roman law.

Going The Extra Mile, by Greg Williamson © 2007, 2009, http://www.shakinandshinin.org, Retrieved July 25, 2010

The verse is a reference to the practice of "impressment" which, among other things, allowed a Roman soldier to conscript a Jewish native to carry his equipment for one Roman mile (milion = 1,000 paces, about 1,611 yards or 1,473 metres) -- no easy task considering a Roman soldier's backpack could weigh upwards of 100 pounds (45.4 kg). Jesus' point was that his followers must relinquish their individual "rights" in order to advance God's kingdom through self-sacrifice.

Right he said this, and he also said when your "enemy strikes you on one cheek, give to him the other also." Yet when the soliders came to take Jesus, Peter (and presumably everyone) still had a sword. What's the sword for Peter? Chopping off ears? Right so Jesus was a hypocrite, saying one thing and doing another. Unless of course they needed it for protection against God's child-eating bears.

"Simon Peter then, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's slave, and cut off his right ear; and the slave's name was Malchus." I'm not even going to cite it since no one will read it. Blah blah blah blah, but Peter had free will. He was travelling with Jesus - and he never said - dude you got to lose that sword? But you go the extra mile, and offer the other cheek also, and a bunch of other shit that I say but you don't have to listen to. That's the problem with Myths - its so hard to make them internally consistent when many people are writing myths. Even when they all have Mark and Q. Biznatch.

Don't sell yourself short Judge, you're an incredible slouch.

Martin Luther was the "father" of two movements - The Reformation and Nazism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2013, 06:49 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Children must suffer because I find their tears to be delicious.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Tartarus Sauce's post
10-09-2013, 07:40 PM (This post was last modified: 10-09-2013 07:48 PM by Reltzik.)
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(10-09-2013 01:30 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I understand the metaphor. The issue is the Bible lists over 30 good, positive uses and reasons for suffering and atheists transform suffering into bitterness. Your metaphor, however, is moot, because you are making a subjective question of an objective reality. If I reversed the question to “Why does a loving omnipotent god allow pleasure? Why couldn’t god have made a world with no pleasures in it?” you’d say, “Because pleasure is good because it feels good [and suffering is bad because it feels bad…]” However, human altruism is based on doing what is ethically right despite one’s personal pleasures or feelings. So if an atheist’s positivist ethic insists on altruism despite feelings, why should god’s own altruism be based on human feelings?

Except not a single one of those uses or reasons you provided explains why the same ends could not be accomplished WITHOUT suffering by an omnipotent, omniscient being. And that means that the suffering remains unexplained, unless suffering itself is desired. Nor does reversing the question provide anything like the explanation which the original question is seeking. Leave aside right and wrong in the metaphor. Is beating her halfway to death rather than simply pulling her aside the act of a loving person?

(10-09-2013 01:30 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  So you are saying that you hold to an ethic of reciprocity, like many atheists do, and yet the idea of reciprocity for suffering inflicted [in Hell] and suffering endured [in Heaven] does not solve the issue you’ve raised?

That's not what "ethic of reciprocity" means.

(10-09-2013 01:30 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Then let’s take just out of the discussion and put free will back in. If people are free will agents, then a paedophile who uses their free will should be caused to suffer IMO. You seem to imply that an omnipotent and loving god would either 1) not allow paedophiles to suffer 2) not allow paedophiles to exist. Please explain how your omnipotent god would remove this type of suffering while not removing free will.

Substituting "free will" in suffers from exactly the same problem as "just". Could God not find a way of effortlessly removing the suffering, without violating free will? If so, He is not omnipotent and omniscient. Did he have such a means, but chose not to employ it? Then he is not loving.

I've already expressed my notions on the morality of punishment. The only value of punishment is as a tool to achieve some positive end, and even then it is possible (and undesirable) that the ill of the punishment itself comes to outweigh, equal, or even approach the ill being punished. If the same positive ends can be achieved without punishment, then forgoing punishment is the desirable alternative. If I were in charge of the justice system in society, I would no doubt be forced to utilize some measure of punishment for the greater good. But I would also be stuck with constraints of limited means, finite resources, tradeoffs, and limited imagination, which an omnipotent and omniscient god would not be constrained by. Better means would be at hand in that case, without resorting to punishment.

So, even if I could not imagine a way in which this could be done, to say that God would be similarly handicapped would be a slight against his omnipotence, omniscience, or both.

To your questions about pedophilia, Seth doubled his post count a month or three ago declaring that topic banned, so I'll discuss how god might have dealt with rapists instead, and you can extrapolate. (Readers with rape triggers might wish to skip the rest of this paragraph.) As mentioned before, me being unable to think of an option wouldn't indicate anything, but some approaches DO present themselves. Sexual arousal is not entirely a voluntary reaction, and thus can't be entirely categorized under free will. (Otherwise, there wouldn't be drugs for impotency and there wouldn't be the phrase "morning wood".) So in the crafting of the human species, it would have been possible, without violating free will, to make sexual arousal contingent on the combination of one's own consent, the partner's consent (perhaps as indicated by released pheromones, which could only be released by conscious choice, and even then through various neurological arrangements could not be released under duress), and sexual maturity (again, as confirmed by pheromones). This would eliminate most forms of rape. It would be within the means of an omnipotent god, and an omniscient god would have been aware of the possibility. This leaves the would-be rapist not only incapable of subjecting others to that horrific crime, but also innocent of the wrong-doing and not needing to be punished, even if I did subscribe to an eye-for-an-eye mentality. Yet the would-be rapist's free will would still be intact, or at least as much as our limited control over our physical sexual arousal gives us free will anyway. (It would also save pubescent boys from all sorts of involuntary embarrassment.)

(10-09-2013 01:30 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I have to disagree with both of your points. I don’t find present suffering an ambiguous way of understanding future suffering. I think offering a sip of Coca-Cola to someone who has never drunk soda is the most expedient way to show them what Coca-Cola tastes like. If you can think of a superior way to understand Coca-Cola without drinking it, I will agree with your first point.

As for explaining why there is suffering in Hell, we would need to agree to disagree as we both have heard Jesus died and rose to expiate sin and that biblically, Hell is a punishment for sin.

There's no logical connection between "I got my leg crushed under a rock and it hurts worse than anything I've ever experienced" and "I'll experience worse than this in the afterlife if I don't believe in Jesus and a bunch of other stuff." I think it's safe to say that, with less than a third of the world population being Christian, and considerably fewer before Europe went a-conquering and converting through duress, that the message of suffering as a warning of the Christian hell is pretty ambiguous indeed.

And yes, I'll agree that in the theology Hell is a punishment for sin. What I was asking is why a loving God would choose that system of punishment in the first place.

(10-09-2013 01:30 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I’ve elsewhere explained that the fragility of humans actually reduces our capacity for suffering, besides ensuring mortality [then the judgment of the soul]. And yes, God bears accessory responsibility for giving people free will. Again, I understand that you find a god would be incompetent because there must be
“some way to not suffer” however, your alternative would need to include the gift of free will. Again, Jesus Himself said “Everyone will suffer” and every person ever has had some measure of it.

But the capacity to harm others is not just free will. There's a physical element in it as well. What do our pain receptors respond to and what they don't. What can harm us and what can't, and which events require the instant and urgent alert of pain and which don't. God didn't (in the hypothetical) just equip us with free will. He also armed us with the physical capacity to throw punches hard enough to cause serious damage to one another. There is accessory responsibility to be borne in that, as well. And it is not required by free will, any more than our physical inability to fly to the moon without technological assistance is a violation of free will.

(10-09-2013 01:30 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I propose it’s not impossible to create people who don’t suffer, but it’s illogical to do so while still giving them free will. I’m glad I’m not a robot, and the Bible seems to explain that humans are now separating into those who choose Heaven and Hell of their free will. Further, it’s been my experience that children who suffer [as this thread is based upon] sharpens the discussion and draws people closer to god [or further in some cases].

I think I've illustrated several ways in which free will is not an obstacle to removing suffering. I doubt we'll come to an agreement on whether free will necessitates, or even strongly suggests, that suffering should exist.

(10-09-2013 01:30 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  For example, a child who dies in their youth and goes to Heaven, who misses growing up to be an axe murderer. True, they could die without suffering in their sleep… but I believe I understand the reasons why some do and some don’t.

You go on believing that, but you have yet to present a convincing argument in favor of those reasons. Arguments, yes, convincing, no.

(10-09-2013 01:30 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Where do we go from here? I’d love for you to provide an understanding for me of:

*Why suffering is wrong and pleasure is right so we can accuse god rightly

*How we’d understand pleasure without suffering or discomfort, how the elimination of one doesn’t cancel the other

*Why if you’re comfortable as a naturalist with suffering as natural, you still feel the obligation to point out the “error” with suffering to theists

*How you came to understand that altruism is “right” and say, genocide and inflicting suffering are “wrong”—from a naturalist’s perspective rather than philosophy would be great

Thank you.

I'll start with the simpler questions.

Pleasure can be understood in terms of its absence or gradations. We can have things that aren't outright pleasant but also aren't suffering. We can have things that are mildly pleasant and things that are greatly pleasant. We can have days that are very windy and days that are mildly breezy and days that are completely still but not days that have some sort of opposite of wind, yet we need no negative wind to understand wind. Why would you think we would need an opposite of pleasure to appreciate pleasure?

As for the "error", naturalism doesn't contain any assumptions that logically clash with the existence of suffering the way that believing in an omnipotent, omniscient, loving god does. It would be like detectives at a crime scene pondering how a victim was shot. One detective thinks he was shot through the window, the second notes that the window is intact and doesn't open and that the murderer had to have been in the room. The first demands to know why the lack of broken glass is an error for his theory, but not his partner's. The answer? Because one actually conflicts with the evidence, and the other does not.

As for why I'd point it out to theists? I'm not exactly handing out pamphlets to churchgoers as service lets out. In this thread, and the previous one, I'm pointing out the perceived error specifically because you asked for our opinions. More generally, when people volunteer some attempt at a logical argument or view of the world, in a forum such as this one, I will feel free to offer up my own counterargument or countervailing view of the world, if I am in dissent. This is simple intellectual engagement. Am I obliged to? Not at all. But I find it preferable to do so, and I see no bar against doing so. In other contexts, I will sometimes be pressed by a theist or a questioner on whether I believe, and why I don't believe, and I will sometimes provide answers to these questions at their request, which depending on how they describe the beliefs they're asking about may include the contradiction between an omnipotent, omniscient, loving god and the existence of suffering. This is again not an obligation, but again basic engagement and again something I am usually quite willing to do.

The rest of your questions seem to revolve, explicitly or implicitly, around questions of morality, and in this and previous posts you seem poised to segue into a conversation about objective versus subjective morality. My position on that matter is that objective morality, whether it exists or not, is of no use, but I am hesitant to present my reasoning. Originally I felt it would be a tangent and distract from the conversation at hand, but with that set aside I find myself hesitating for a different reason. Knocking aside your regular arguments in the spirit of a defensive apologetic, or discussing questions of at best ancillary importance to the faith (such as the problem of suffering), those are one thing. But to discuss my views on objective versus subjective morality would require significant examination of certain subjects which you and I have never touched on, and I am concerned that this examination would cut too deep for you. What little I know about your attitudes and life circumstances -- and that is not much, I will admit -- suggest to me that a deep examination of this sort would, if not totally ignored or brushed aside, cause you harm, in a way that the less critical subjects we've discussed to date have not. It has never to my recollection been my goal to deconvert you, and I suspect that your present situation is such that deconversion would cause you such misery and hardship as to be inadvisable. As these subjects may well lead you down that road, I'm inclined to defer discussing my reasons for rejecting models of objective morality.

Suffice it to say that I do not regard objective morality as useful in the context of guiding our actions, and further, that any desire we might have for an objective system of morality shall go unsatisfied. Argue all you want that it is needed or that it exists, but we can't realistically believe that it is at our disposal.

Therefore, we are left with subjective morality, and insofar as it is held on a societal rather than individual level, morality as a social construct. It is true that we cannot argue that subjective morality is right, in any absolute sense, in the same way we might argue that the law of gravitation is universal. But whatever its shortcomings, we're still stuck with subjective morality, because it's the only game in town and because simply taking our ball and going home -- that is, NOT making moral choices because we have only a subjective basis for doing so -- would itself be an attempt at morality.

But we can identify certain moral codes as useful, to the health of the society that adopts them, and to the practical and psychological benefit of most everyone within the society. At their root, deviating from these codes is, if not suicidal, at the very least self-destructive, because they harm ourselves and our place in the world. Deviating from these might benefit this or that individual, but the typical or "average" person in the society will see more harm than good from violations of these societal conventions, and so society at large will support them... which will often reduce or reverse the benefit to an individual in violating them. (This is the basic idea of the Veil of Uncertainty.) Genuinely believing the moral code (rather than simply adhering to it as a requirement of society) can be a driving force, but so can recognizing its positive value in terms of pure self interest, or in terms of empathy and sympathy, or simply seeking to avoid the consequences of violating them. The point isn't why each individual adopts the moral code; it is that society at large comes together on it as a point of agreement. In this category of moral we can place: general manners, the ethic of reciprocity, altruism and charity, prohibitions against widespread killing by individuals, hardships or benefits placed on individuals for elements beyond their control (such as birth status), and so forth.

But it isn't just a societal code. It is also a meme, and that speaks to a question of identity. The sort of decision we are prone to make, our habits and our attitudes and even our hobbies and mannerisms, these are what reveal and even define our character. Insofar as we propogate and defend a deeply-held belief of right and wrong, we propogate and defend a piece of ourselves.

This is one basis on which we can say that suffering is undesirable, that genocide is wrong and altruism is virtuous.

(Note that none of this argument actually requires naturalism, so much as it avoids dependency on the supernatural.)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Reltzik's post
10-09-2013, 10:29 PM (This post was last modified: 10-09-2013 10:34 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
I thought you'd have gained some intellectual integrity since my hiatus, but sadly, you've proven that hope false. Weeping

(10-09-2013 01:56 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote: The number of moons has fuck all to do with my point, and you know it. A being with unlimited power and who actually gave a fuck, would have done better than making this universe.

Gosh, but that sounds like—and don’t hold me to this—a subjective opinion. I’ve patiently responded to many requests that I comprehend how an omnipotent god would omit suffering. Perhaps you will respond to one of my many requests that you explain how he does that while allowing people free will to partake in evil?

It's not merely subjective, it's an evaluation of the premises. If an all powerful creator could create any universe, he could have created one with less suffering. All things identical, a universe with less suffering would be objectively better than this one. By it's very definition your god should be able to do this, but he didn't. You've pulled every excuse out of your ass to plead about how suffering is good and justified, and you have failed miserably. You refuse to acknowledge that the three simplest explanations to explain the discrepancy between our universe and your god concept is impotence, malevolence, or nonexistence. You are the one that is trying to hold on to your untenable (and unsubstantiated) position in the face of the universe.

(10-09-2013 01:56 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:That you can not, or refuse to get this, speaks only of your willful ignorance and abject lack of imagination. You've already shown before that you have this terrible habit of placing limits on your limitless god, because you can't seem to fathom what a limitless god would actually be capable of if it also cared.

You’ve got me there. I know nothing about a god who cares, who loves, who demonstrates agape or self-sacrifice. My god is Allah!

This would actually be the most truthful thing you've ever posted here if you meant it, but I understand sarcasm when I see it. In doing so, you reinforce my conjecture that you quite simply lack the imagination or the will to contemplate a universe without a god (a universe identical to this one), or a universe with an all powerful creator that also cared (a universe that we would expect to be vastly different).

(10-09-2013 01:56 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Regardless of whatever bullshit prerogative you are assuming for your god, if he is omnipotent, then by definition he has the power to accomplish the same goal but WITHOUT the suffering. Therein lies the problem, suffering DOES exist. So either your god lacks the power, lacks the empathy, doesn't exist, or you lack the mental capacity and honesty to fathom such a concept. You are as dense as a brick.

-the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship.

How about you try arguing that suffering is good? It seems every other sane person recognizes that suffering is bad, that is until you back a deluded god apologists into a corner and they start trying to defend the indefensible. Suffering is bad, and anything that could possibly be accomplished by imposing it purposefully or allowing it, could be accomplished some other suffering-free way by an omnipotent god; by his very definition he has to be able to do so. So once again, he either is not omnipotent, or he doesn't give a fuck.

I’ve given over a dozen examples of how suffering is good in this thread alone. Which of them did you disagree with specifically?

Near as I can tell, all of your excuses for suffering presuppose a god, and that his actions are good by definition. It's just Divine Command Theory all over again, and nobody here drinks that Kool-aid except for you. Suffering is NOT necessary, especially in a universe created by an all powerful creator. You lack the imagination to see how your god concept could have done things otherwise, the rest of us still have the mental capacity to realize that this could be improved upon, and indeed we would expect it to if things were created by an all powerful creator who cared. The important caveat there is the 'caring' bit. A all powerful creator might exist and have made this universe, but he would have to be indifferent to suffering to have made this universe, because suffering exists here in abundance.

(10-09-2013 01:56 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Bullshit, god could have made us so that we would enjoy such a universe. Try harder.

So for example, we’d eat only ice cream. Then how would we know how delicious it was? I’m waiting…

Telling me to try harder is not a logical or empirical refutation of “In a universe with no suffering, no pain, no discomfort, “pleasure” has no meaning and cannot be enjoyed”. Do you disagree?

Are you seriously trying to equate not eating ice-cream with suffering? Are you that fucking vapid? There is a vast difference between suffering and the absence of pleasure. Plus if your god had created us in an ice-cream only universe and also created us with a desire and need to eat only ice-cream, we could still derive pleasure from satiating our hunger pangs. Once again, no imagination on your part.

I don't have to give you an example. Like I said, your creator is all powerful by definition, so he would by definition be able to make us enjoy such a universe if he desired. Once again, complete lack of imagination and logic on your part. Also 'pleasure' is just the term we give to the feeling we get from a particular release of chemicals in our brains, a release that we have evolved to perceive as pleasurable. In a universe without suffering, would those chemicals still exist and be able to be released? I imagine that they could. So once again, please try harder; and by try harder, I mean stop being obtuse and intellectually dishonest in defense of your god concept.

(10-09-2013 01:56 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote: Freewill is impossible with an omniscient god anyways, as we're all just following our predetermined paths in god's plan. It can also be argued that we don't have freewill even now, considering that we don't actively control our own brain chemistry and we live in a deterministic universe. Freewill, or lack thereof, does not save your god concept.

Huh? How does knowing what you’ll do “make” you do something? I “knew” you wouldn’t respond to my questions from my last post, but I asked them anyway. However, it was up to you and not me to make you answer. Do you disagree?

If you truly knew what I was going to do, was I free to do otherwise? If yes, then you truly didn't know. If no, then I don't have your vaunted 'freewill'. You can't perfectly know the future without predetermination. There is also no reason to think 'freewill' exists as anything more than a concept (just like your god), given our advances in neuroscience. Do you have conscious control over the underlying chemical reactions happening between the neurons firing in your brain? No? Than how do you control your thoughts or consciousness? And if you don't control those, how can you have 'freewill'? Remember that positing a 'soul' or 'spirit' here without evidence is not a valid answer.

(10-09-2013 01:56 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Thank you for proving, once again, that you have a complete and utter lack of imagination. You 'possibilities' show only how terrible you are at making excuses for an omnipotent being that shouldn't need them if it really existed.

I think rather than “excuses” you are looking for the word “apologetics”. After all, god is hidden from you because you’ve sinned. I’d like to give you reasons to seek god, but it’s still ball in your court. If you want to argue fatalism and say god made you not look for him that’s your choice, but you and I know you are telling an untruth.

Nope, 'excuses' was the word. Apologetics is defending your predetermined assumption against all evidence to the contrary. It is the exact opposite of science, the exact opposite of how we determine if something is in fact true or not. You've always assumed your conclusion and have striven to justify it after the fact. No amount of evidence or argumentation will dissuade you because you already 'know' you have the answer. This is why you are intellectually dishonest, and always have been since you started posting here (and long before that I'd wager).

Apologetics are after the fact excuses for your assumed position. Because if you actually had evidence or facts, and they actually pointed to your god, you wouldn't need apologetics; it would already be science. Drinking Beverage

Please substantiate 'sin' with empirical verifiable peer-reviewed evidence outside of quoted scripture. What is it made out of? What does it weigh? How is it created? How is it moved or removed? How do you know I have it and you do not? How does it affect a person's mental capacity?

Good luck with that jackass...

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2013, 02:43 AM (This post was last modified: 11-09-2013 02:50 AM by ClydeLee.)
Re: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Obviously it adds up now.

Since according to PJ. Looking for helpmeet is loneliness... And loneliness to him is suffering. Adam was made in gods image.

Perhaps God suffers so humanity must suffer. Fits the rest if his bully M.O.

If its illogical to have people without suffering and free will what is the logic of heaven? There is either suffering or no free will there(all the sections on the Bible of blind praise for God sound free willless.) You still seem to not grasp the scope of omnipotent power and focus on what you feel is reasonable.

God is just lonely and made people to praise him, and that's written all over his manifesto.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2013, 02:00 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(10-09-2013 02:11 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(10-09-2013 02:08 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Adam suffered loneliness and incompleteness in the Garden. Eve was made. No Christians desire to revisit Eden, only, perhaps the Jehovah’s Witnesses cult. Smile

Since no one has seen the pleasures god has prepared in Heaven, nor can even imagine them, it is a heresy to say Eden is Heaven. I forgive your heresy. Smile

You certainly had me there, by the way. It took fully 0.4 seconds for me to counter your proposal by doing what I almost always do--ask myself if the Bible had more to say on the issue. Smile

Wrong. Why would Adam have to "suffer" anything BEFORE the "fall" ? No Christian theologian would buy that. Kind of puts the lie to all your salvation bunk. You just make up shit, and you are obviously incompetent at your job.

Huh? Maybe if you're a Calvinist theologian. Where does it say in Genesis (or anywhere else in the 66 books AND the apocrypha, etc.) there was no suffering or discomfort or loneliness in the Garden?

If you want to know what it does say, it says Adam brought death into the world, not suffering. It certainly doesn't say Adam didn't, for another example, laze about in the garden at his leisure... he named animals, fellowshipped with god, etc. Again, for your benefit, BB, I'll repeat what I wrote elsewhere yesterday, it is a heresy to equate the Adamic state or the Garden with Heaven. They are different.

[NEWS FLASH]: It doesn't even say there's no suffering in Heaven. It says "God will wipe away their tears... yet there will later be no sorrow..." - Revelation 19.

You're the one creating straw arguments by taking whatever you consider the classical Christian side and then assuming I'm guilty of their nonsense. Henceforward, are you going to push Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian ideas to me? Predestinarian or free will? Triune or Trinitarian?

I will always go to the Bible and I will always catch what the atheists put out of context. It's a "natural law" since the Devil tempted Jesus Himself and Adam and Eve with scriptures out of context.

The Bible is superior to the nonsense many Christians fetch from it and certainly your imploding worldview based on the fashions the emperor scholars with no clothes are "wearing" today. Good luck.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2013, 02:08 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Quote:No Jew thought they were going to either heaven or Eden.

I got it, BB. I heard you the 19th time. Anything new on the field for you today instead of these canards? I understand 100% that mainline scholars discredit the dozen authors of the NT who all were Jews and wrote Jews had an afterlife, and all Talmudic quotes we can find on the subject, and all apocrypha, and Daniel 12, Isaiah 66, Job, and my quotations from Exodus 3, etc.

You're right. Once we eliminate those 50 or so sources/authors/editors, we have well over a dozen Jewish sources who deny the afterlife--and of course, modern Judaism, which NEVER intended in ANY way to distance themselves from the Xian sources. Got it!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2013, 02:11 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(10-09-2013 02:19 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  Let me try with this, PJ.

"And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." (Rev. 21:4)

So, there will be no pain nor sorrow, therefore there will be no more sin. (As some apologists say, people in heaven will be able forever not to sin.) So, they will still have free will, but without an ability to sin. Why weren't we created that way initially?

You can respond as usual, that we must experience evil to know good, blah, blah... What about heaven? People will therefore need to retain their memory of this life in order to keep appreciating the bliss of heaven, but as we know, when we experience good things, we tend to forget about the bad ones (or worse, we become complacent). In an eternity of bliss (1,000,000+ years), we would forget about 70 years of sin on Earth. Would God need to remind us or what? But anyway, the only way for us to retain memory from this world in the next one would be if God replanted it in our brains, because very soon after death, the brain completely shuts down. So if he can intervene in such a way, why couldn't he have created us without an ability to sin? Both actions involve tampering with our minds. "Wiping away tears from our eyes" also does. So what's the difference?

As for suffering and death... About 1/5 of zygotes are never planted in the uterus, and die. If those are souls in the Christian sense, they are immediately spawned into the next life (probably in hell), so what's the purpose of that? What's the God's purpose of a child being born in some wasteland and dying from hunger before age 3? Who learns from that? Nobody. It's meaningless suffering, consistent with a naturalistic worldview, but not with a benevolent God.

Not to mention that you haven't yet provided a case for eternal hell. I sincerely hope that you won't run away from my topic about the second coming too.

You'll forgive me but I still will refuse to argue straw men, even unintentioned ones, like here where you insist I make an apologetic for "Xian" doctrines I don't ascribe to. I would counter like this:

I know I personally am on best behavior in the Lord's presence, or a pastor's conference, etc. So, my belief is we have free will to sin in Heaven (which is really the renewed universe) but God's presence allows us to be tempted to sin without doing so. In other words, if I was in Heaven now and saw god I'd fall down in worship and in His presence I won't want to sin.

So, the problem is solved. Free will + god's presence = right behavior. And he DID make you that way to begin. Adam in god's presence, and then god steps to the side and Boom!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2013, 02:13 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(11-09-2013 02:11 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  And he DID make you that way to begin.

Evidence or GTFO. Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: