Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-09-2013, 02:58 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(11-09-2013 02:26 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  
(11-09-2013 02:00 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  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.

Does that mean the "Devil" wrote the Gospels?

Because, you know...

- Immanuel from the prophecy to Ahaz (Isa. 7:14) as Jesus,
- military leader who would defeat and conquer Assyria (Micah 5:2) as Jesus,
- Israel (Hosea 11:1) as Jesus,
- Rachel weeping for the Israelites taken into captivity (Jer. 31:15) connected to Herod's fictional massacre of children,
- a non-existent prophecy of Jesus being a "Nazarene" (Matt. 2:23),
- the suffering servant (Israel) as Jesus (Isa. 53)
- the passover lamb (Ex. 12:46) as Jesus,

should be put in textbooks as the definition of "quote mining." Drinking Beverage

I get your point. I hear you. Let's just start with Isaiah 53. Israel has suffered, been hated. When was Israel:

*With a rich man in his death?

*Died and risen again to count his descendants?

*Marred more than any single man?

*Caused the healing of Israel with a stripe and rod (if the prophecy is about Israel, it says "Israel healed and saved Israel")

Etc.

I do this for a lifestyle. I have little problem refuting rabbinical reinterpretations of god's Messianic truth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2013, 03:00 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(11-09-2013 02:43 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  
(11-09-2013 02:17 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  My two children were doomed to die from the moment I created them. If you have kids, they are doomed to die the moment they are conceived. Now tell me you and I are hateful and cruel for having kids. Go on, tell me…

Unlike God, you didn't create them with the property of dying. That's the difference. Are you being ignorant or purpose, or does it come to you naturally?

Yo, Raptor:

I FOREKNEW my children would die, which is what EK and others were insisting in god's view was the same as removing free will. If a car hits the kids, god and I BOTH foreknew they would die.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2013, 03:01 PM
 
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(11-09-2013 02:55 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote: God is just lonely and made people to praise him, and that's written all over his manifesto.

Clyde, let’s swim in that pool for a moment. Praising god is showing love for god. Same as single people are lonely and hook up, even marry—and then they bear love and often, children, and multiply… love.

What’s the problem? I think you do understand this part of the Bible!

But God is defined as a perfect being, and perfect beings don't have needs as human beings do... As I've already said, actions stem from desires, and desires stem from a non-equilibrium between what we have and what we want. Such a non-equilibrium implies imperfection. There's no reason why a God would want to do (i.e. create) anything, let alone want something from humans... God needing people to "show him love" is blatant antropomorphism.
Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2013, 03:01 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(11-09-2013 02:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(11-09-2013 02:43 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  Unlike God, you didn't create them with the property of dying. That's the difference. Are you being ignorant or purpose, or does it come to you naturally?

Not a post of his goes by, but that I ask myself that very question.

Can't we all just "get along"? I mean, willful ignorance of evidence is exactly what both sides, atheist and Christian, accuse each other of. It's so petty, why not stop it--and spend more of your time demolishing my ignorant responses instead of merely stating my ignorance?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2013, 03:03 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(11-09-2013 03:01 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  
(11-09-2013 02:55 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Clyde, let’s swim in that pool for a moment. Praising god is showing love for god. Same as single people are lonely and hook up, even marry—and then they bear love and often, children, and multiply… love.

What’s the problem? I think you do understand this part of the Bible!

But God is defined as a perfect being, and perfect beings don't have needs as human beings do... As I've already said, actions stem from desires, and desires stem from a non-equilibrium between what we have and what we want. Such a non-equilibrium implies imperfection. There's no reason why a God would want to do (i.e. create) anything, let alone want something from humans... God needing people to "show him love" is blatant antropomorphism.

Huh? I must have missed that in my Philosophy 101 that perfect beings need not LOVE (which includes for me, passion, orgasm, childbearing and child raising, mutual dependence/interdependence, altruism, heroism, etc.). That's as close as I've ever heard to insanity, actually!

Where did you come to the conclusion that higher beings and indeed, perfect beings don't need the love of other beings?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2013, 03:07 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(11-09-2013 02:17 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Huh? You have two problems with that last. 1) If miscarried babies of wicked parents go to Heaven, etc. there are dual purposes preserving the child and shock and awe on the parents. 2) You are yet to demonstrate why your cultural norms are “right”. In other cultures the first born children were sacrificed and that was seen as “right” so when you dig on the biblical god for doing such how are you not guilty of presentism?

Because your god is timeless. An omnipotent god does not change its mind or have second thoughts. There is no "presentism" in your god's morality, if you believe in a god.

I don't need to demonstrate why my cultural norms are right. They could indeed be very wrong. What I'm asking, over, and over, and over again is if you consider your god loving for creating suffering for the sake of suffering. An omnipotent god could have created this exact world without suffering, keeping all joy and happiness intact. The fact that you cannot imagine this does not change what an omnipotent being is capable of. The fact that you keep changing the focus of my question will not deter me from asking it again, and again, and again.

Lets consider my moral compass to be completely askew. All my morality is wrong, but I'm looking to improve it. I heard your god is loving. Then I heard that he created a universe with some pointless suffering included in its design. Please, help me recalibrate my moral compass according to your god's morality. I'm not concerned about the wicked parents, rapists, pedophiles, etc. that you keep redirecting your focus towards. I'm concerned about the hundreds of thousands of miscarriages, terminally ill and pain-inflicted children who die each year. Explain to me where the love is, because I cannot see it.

(11-09-2013 02:17 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Huh? You asked for an alternative to an omnipotent god eliminating earthly suffering, which is what Heaven is… it’s such a logical next step that men have dreamed of such without the Bible, right? Or do atheists not believe in possible future utopia’s WITHOUT a god?

No. I asked if an omnipotent god who created suffering for the point of suffering would be considered loving. Heaven does not eliminate needless suffering. According to your doctrine, heaven follows needless suffering (that is, for those who suffer, for the suffering is greatly imbalanced) and only if you correctly interpret the vague and unclear instructions presented in the bible. Ask ten different Christians how to get in, receive ten different answers.

Is it really surprising that a conscious life form, aware of its own mortality, would dream of living beyond its short life span?

(11-09-2013 02:17 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  My two children were doomed to die from the moment I created them. If you have kids, they are doomed to die the moment they are conceived. Now tell me you and I are hateful and cruel for having kids. Go on, tell me…

Here's another great example of you creating a situation that's easier to handle. Your god knows who will go to hell, and how they will suffer. You're trying to relate that to childbirth.

Are you omnipotent?
Do you know every detail of your child's future, down to their moment of death?
Will you send your child to eternal torment if they do not learn the proper lessons during their lives?
Would you do all these things and then call yourself loving as your child burned in hell, as you knew he/she would?

You have created a dishonest analogy. I don't think that's an accident. You're trying to slip these through the BS filter.

(11-09-2013 02:17 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  But they do because scratch even a polytheist and you’ll find a monotheist. Native Americans had a great spirit who creates all. Hindus have a Krishna above all. God is so NOT incompetent he allows truth in otherwise false religions.

And without any biblical guidance (which seems to be a requirement in your religion). Without that biblical guidance, how did they know to ask Jesus to let them into heaven? How did know your gods commandments? What is the point of the bible if the path to heaven requires no knowledge of your god or his sacrifice? What happened to all those Native Americans who lived here before your time, worshiping and living without the word of Jesus?

God is incredibly incompetent for an all powerful being. I've seen mere mortals gain a worldwide audience on YouTube in a week. 2000 years later, your god is still trying to spread the word. Sheesh.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like guitar_nut's post
11-09-2013, 03:08 PM
 
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(11-09-2013 02:58 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I get your point. I hear you. Let's just start with Isaiah 53. Israel has suffered, been hated. When was Israel:

*With a rich man in his death?

*Died and risen again to count his descendants?

*Marred more than any single man?

*Caused the healing of Israel with a stripe and rod (if the prophecy is about Israel, it says "Israel healed and saved Israel")

Etc.

I do this for a lifestyle. I have little problem refuting rabbinical reinterpretations of god's Messianic truth.

Christian prophecy-mongers will try to twist anything from the Old Testament into a prophecy about Jesus. This includes taking hold of ambiguity, but also less honest methods like deliberate mistranslation of Hebrew words.

Isaiah 53 is a servant song – the fourth servant song in Isaiah, to be precise. Who is this servant? It is Israel (Isa. 41:8, 44:1, 21, 45:4, 49:3) – Israel as a nation. This servant song continues the narrative of Isaiah 52, which speaks about how the people of Israel were taken into captivity (52:5). However, it promises that God would redeem Jerusalem and demonstrate his power to all nations (52:9-10). Then, in 52:13, the author replaces „my people“ with its contextual synonym, „servant,“ and here starts the narrative that continues into chapter 53, which then switches to the point of view of the Gentile kings (53:1). Then they speak about how Israel was a despised, rejected nation, and how it suffered for the inequities of the entire world, but that God would reward his servant with posterity, longevity, and greatness among nations (53:10-12). Chapter 54 continues the narrative by describing the joys Israel would experience after the aforementioned events, and concludes with: „No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.“ (54:17)

There are several more arguments in support of this interpretation:

- The „arm of the Lord“ from Isa. 53:1 is always used in the context of redeeming the Jewish people from oppression of other nations (Isa. 52:10, 63:12; Deut. 4:34).

- A phrase similar to „despised and rejected of men“ from Isa. 53:3 is used several chapters later, in Isa. 60:15, „[w]hereas thou has been forsaken and hated, so that no man went through thee,“ in the context of Israel as a nation (60:12). The same theme occurs in Psalm 44:12-14.

- Jeremiah 50:6-7 claims that Gentile nations devoured Israel and refused to accept responsibility, blaming it all on their sins against God. This is why in Isa. 53:4 those nations now say that „we did esteem him [...] smitten of God.“

- In Isa. 53:5, Gentile nations realize that Israel suffered because of their actions, not its own. Note: „he was wounded from our transgressions, he was bruised from our iniquities.“ Also, the Hebrew word chalal in this verse was translated as „wounded“ in the King James version of the Bible, yet in the more recent translations, the word „pierced“ occurs, obviously alluding to the crucifixion. Somebody, apparently, desperately wants Isaiah 53 to be about Jesus.

- „[H]e was cut off out of the land of the living“ from Isa. 53:8 is symbolic, also used in Ezekiel 37:11, where the house of Israel are symbolized by bones and are „cut off for our parts.“

- Isa. 53:10 says that the servant „shall see his seed.“ Since Jesus did not have children, Christian apologists claim that the verse is referring to spiritual „seed,“ i.e. followers. Yet there is no evidence that „seed“ (zera) is ever given such a meaning in the Old Testament. Followers of God are described by the plural form of „son“ (ben), as seen in Deuteronomy 14:1.


TL;DR version:
All things considered, we see that all the motives used in Isaiah 53 strongly suggest that the suffering servant is the people of Israel collectively. There would be no sense in introducing a prophecy about a person who would be born 700 years later amidst a discourse about the Jewish people and their fate. Therefore, I conclude that Isaiah 53 is not referring to Jesus.
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Philosoraptor's post
11-09-2013, 03:40 PM
 
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Also, regarding this:

(11-09-2013 03:03 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(11-09-2013 03:01 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  But God is defined as a perfect being, and perfect beings don't have needs as human beings do... As I've already said, actions stem from desires, and desires stem from a non-equilibrium between what we have and what we want. Such a non-equilibrium implies imperfection. There's no reason why a God would want to do (i.e. create) anything, let alone want something from humans... God needing people to "show him love" is blatant antropomorphism.

Huh? I must have missed that in my Philosophy 101 that perfect beings need not LOVE (which includes for me, passion, orgasm, childbearing and child raising, mutual dependence/interdependence, altruism, heroism, etc.). That's as close as I've ever heard to insanity, actually!

Where did you come to the conclusion that higher beings and indeed, perfect beings don't need the love of other beings?

God, being immaterial, wouldn't have a brain which could produce chemicals whose reactions we describe as "love."
He wouldn't have evolved, so he wouldn't have developed (inter)dependence as a survival mechanism.
He wouldn't have organs that produce testosterone, so he wouldn't need orgasm.

The anthropomorphic fallacies you're committing would be like stating that humans, since we invented computers, sometimes need a good disk defragmentation in our lives.

My objection meant that perfect beings are self-sufficient, and it still stands. Your response, on the other hand, is incoherent bullshit, like most of them so far.
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Philosoraptor's post
11-09-2013, 08:40 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(11-09-2013 03:00 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(11-09-2013 02:43 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  Unlike God, you didn't create them with the property of dying. That's the difference. Are you being ignorant or purpose, or does it come to you naturally?

Yo, Raptor:

I FOREKNEW my children would die, which is what EK and others were insisting in god's view was the same as removing free will. If a car hits the kids, god and I BOTH foreknew they would die.

No, you don't foreknow exactly when, were, and how your children will die. Knowing your children will eventually die as a matter of their physiology is not the same and knowing that one will get hit by a 2006 blue Ford Focus traveling at 37mph going south on 7th Avenue in Pittsburgh PA on December 15'th 2031 at 9:15am EST on a cloudy day. An omniscient god would by definition know the later, not just the former. If your god knows the later will happen, how much freewill does your child have if they cannot avoid that fate?

Not only do you have no imagination, you're a terrible liar and a strawman wrestler... Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2013, 02:28 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Quote: Because your god is timeless. An omnipotent god does not change its mind or have second thoughts. There is no "presentism" in your god's morality, if you believe in a god.

I don't need to demonstrate why my cultural norms are right. They could indeed be very wrong. What I'm asking, over, and over, and over again is if you consider your god loving for creating suffering for the sake of suffering. An omnipotent god could have created this exact world without suffering, keeping all joy and happiness intact. The fact that you cannot imagine this does not change what an omnipotent being is capable of. The fact that you keep changing the focus of my question will not deter me from asking it again, and again, and again.

Lets consider my moral compass to be completely askew. All my morality is wrong, but I'm looking to improve it. I heard your god is loving. Then I heard that he created a universe with some pointless suffering included in its design. Please, help me recalibrate my moral compass according to your god's morality. I'm not concerned about the wicked parents, rapists, pedophiles, etc. that you keep redirecting your focus towards. I'm concerned about the hundreds of thousands of miscarriages, terminally ill and pain-inflicted children who die each year. Explain to me where the love is, because I cannot see it.

G Nut:

God didn’t create suffering for its own sake, to answer your question.

I’ve given you plausible alternatives as to IF there is a god and IF there is a Heaven where the exact prescription you’re making exists (no suffering, levels of pleasure that vary) you’re set.

You’re of course omitting that we’ve all suffered but can never remember how strong the suffering was (feel the pain again) after it passes, showing it was transient regardless. Dead babies don’t suffer. You’d have a point if the babies suffered forever, the way morally culpable adults who sin willfully suffer in Hell. The dead babies go to Heaven. You’re begging the question when you say “There is no Heaven!”

As to “where the love is” know for certain that miscarried babies, eg, have people who love and loved them. I mean, it’s getting a tad obnoxious, no offense, to hear you drone on about hypotheticals. My wife and I miscarried a child. We’re not pissed at god, and our baby is in Heaven and never had to suffer fools, either.

Quote: No. I asked if an omnipotent god who created suffering for the point of suffering would be considered loving. Heaven does not eliminate needless suffering. According to your doctrine, heaven follows needless suffering (that is, for those who suffer, for the suffering is greatly imbalanced) and only if you correctly interpret the vague and unclear instructions presented in the bible. Ask ten different Christians how to get in, receive ten different answers.

That’s also begging the question. Just because nine Christians interpret incorrectly doesn’t invalidate the tenth correct interpretation. In a minute, you’ll tell me all atheists agree on everything, too…

Quote:Is it really surprising that a conscious life form, aware of its own mortality, would dream of living beyond its short life span?

Yes, it is, if you get out of your box. If we’ve evolved so that for billions of years us and our antecedents ALL had short life spans, what the heck are we dreaming for? No, it’s the god in us that prompts.

Quote: Here's another great example of you creating a situation that's easier to handle. Your god knows who will go to hell, and how they will suffer. You're trying to relate that to childbirth.

Are you omnipotent?
Do you know every detail of your child's future, down to their moment of death?
Will you send your child to eternal torment if they do not learn the proper lessons during their lives?
Would you do all these things and then call yourself loving as your child burned in hell, as you knew he/she would?

You have created a dishonest analogy. I don't think that's an accident. You're trying to slip these through the BS filter.

That’s inaccurate, since I’m an accessory to the god who consigns my adult child to hell for having the child—something Christians parents consider, believe me, when a child goes awry.

It’s amazing how atheists want to make god an accessory (or the direct agent) of every injustice, but want to give little responsibility to man. Of course, it’s not really, since this pushes hell off somewhere else…

Quote: And without any biblical guidance (which seems to be a requirement in your religion). Without that biblical guidance, how did they know to ask Jesus to let them into heaven? How did know your gods commandments? What is the point of the bible if the path to heaven requires no knowledge of your god or his sacrifice? What happened to all those Native Americans who lived here before your time, worshiping and living without the word of Jesus?

God is incredibly incompetent for an all powerful being. I've seen mere mortals gain a worldwide audience on YouTube in a week. 2000 years later, your god is still trying to spread the word. Sheesh.

Huh? The same way the OT people got into Heaven who didn’t know the name Jesus until the angel spoke it to Mary. “Those who trust in the Lord will be saved.” Both testaments.

Here’s your real problem, by the way:

*In a world where there is only constant, level pleasure, there is boredom

*In a world where there is only pleasure and absence of pleasure, and no suffering, atheists will arise to call the absence of pleasure… suffering… so they can blame god for something
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: