Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-09-2013, 02:33 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(11-09-2013 03:08 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  
(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.

Oy vey. I do take double meanings of prophecy also, and I'd be lying if I didn't tell you I believe Israel VERY much mirrors the life of Christ. Hated without a cause, persecuted, etc. however as you wrote the servant begins in 52 as you wrote. Tell me how this is a country and not a person?

See, my servant will act wisely;
he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted.
14 Just as there were many who were appalled at him—
his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any human being
and his form marred beyond human likeness—
15 so he will sprinkle many nations,
and kings will shut their mouths because of him.
For what they were not told, they will see,
and what they have not heard, they will understand.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2013, 02:40 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(11-09-2013 03:40 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  Also, regarding this:

(11-09-2013 03:03 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  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.

Interesting, I was challenged on that point just yesterday in person. Jesus is God in a human body, a body He currently (and forever) resides in, so there is no such thing as an anthropomorphic fallacy in Christianity. Adam and Eve were made in god's image and so humans must resemble god more than other creatures, so there's no anthropomorphic fallacy in Judaism, either, just no graven images!

Of course, the other two problems you have still are:

1) Love is not mere chemical/biochemical reaction. If it is, I guess you can tell your next partner you're "done" when the magic wears off unless you feel like staying on to be altruistic. Altruism, of course, being a way in which people express LOVE in community.

2) You still have the fallacy (despite having a positivist ethic that applauds altruism, which includes communal living/interdependence) of thinking that the closer you are to perfect, the more self-sufficient you are. Maybe in the movies the man can go it alone, Mister Bond, but man is not meant to be alone, Adam needs his Eve, and the people I think are more evolved than you are the Ghandis, the Martin Luther Kings, the people who show their need for others and THE other.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2013, 02:43 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Quote: 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...
EK:
Free will does not include the power to forestall our death. That’s called “playing god”. Free will includes and is limited to the manner in which we make the journey. Free will must be modified by the other agents who have free will, god or man.

You cannot stop the Nazi from shooting you, eg, but you can choose whether he shoots you as a protestor or a fellow Nazi who is being purged.

Free will cannot stop YOU from dying. But it can, pardon the pun, “make” you decide how you will LIVE.

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
12-09-2013, 02:59 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(12-09-2013 02:28 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Here’s your real problem, by the way:

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

This is an unprovable assertion. Relevance?

(12-09-2013 02:28 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  *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

This is an unprovable assertion. Relevance?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2013, 03:02 PM
 
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(12-09-2013 02:33 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Oy vey. I do take double meanings of prophecy also, and I'd be lying if I didn't tell you I believe Israel VERY much mirrors the life of Christ. Hated without a cause, persecuted, etc. however as you wrote the servant begins in 52 as you wrote. Tell me how this is a country and not a person?

See, my servant will act wisely;
he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted.
14 Just as there were many who were appalled at him—
his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any human being
and his form marred beyond human likeness—
15 so he will sprinkle many nations,
and kings will shut their mouths because of him.
For what they were not told, they will see,
and what they have not heard, they will understand.

Where's the problem? "[D]isfigured beyond that of any human being" is a figure of speech, it doesn't imply that the servant is human.
As I've already pointed out, Isaiah always referred to Israel as "servant." The Messiah is never called "servant."

Look what Jeremiah says - God is addressing Israel here:

"All thy lovers have forgotten thee; they seek thee not; for I have wounded thee with the wound of an enemy, with the chastisement of a cruel one, for the multitude of thine iniquity; because thy sins were increased. [...] For I will restore health unto thee, and I will heal thee of thy wounds, saith the LORD; because they called thee an Outcast, saying, This is Zion, whom no man seeketh after." (Jer. 30:14, 17)

As for Isaiah 52:15, compare it with this:

"The nations shall see and be confounded at all their might: they shall lay their hand upon their mouth, their ears shall be deaf. They shall lick the dust like a serpent, they shall move out of their holes like worms of the earth: they shall be afraid of the LORD our God, and shall fear because of thee. Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy." (Micah 7:16-18)

Note the same phrases and figures of speech.
There is no reason to doubt that Isaiah is talking about the nation of Israel, which according to him, was forsaken and despised by its rivals (God's plan), until its revival, which would astonish Gentile nations and their leaders.
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Philosoraptor's post
12-09-2013, 03:05 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(12-09-2013 02:40 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Of course, the other two problems you have still are:

1) Love is not mere chemical/biochemical reaction. If it is, I guess you can tell your next partner you're "done" when the magic wears off unless you feel like staying on to be altruistic. Altruism, of course, being a way in which people express LOVE in community.

This is an unprovable assertion. Relevance?

(12-09-2013 02:40 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  2) You still have the fallacy (despite having a positivist ethic that applauds altruism, which includes communal living/interdependence) of thinking that the closer you are to perfect, the more self-sufficient you are. Maybe in the movies the man can go it alone, Mister Bond, but man is not meant to be alone, Adam needs his Eve, and the people I think are more evolved than you are the Ghandis, the Martin Luther Kings, the people who show their need for others and THE other.

This is an unprovable assertion. Relevance?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2013, 03:13 PM
 
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(12-09-2013 02:40 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  1) Love is not mere chemical/biochemical reaction. If it is, I guess you can tell your next partner you're "done" when the magic wears off unless you feel like staying on to be altruistic. Altruism, of course, being a way in which people express LOVE in community.

Isn't that what people do? They get bored with their partner, so they break up. If it's a mutual decision, then I don't see a problem.

There is a reason why a couple may stay together for life, yes - common memories, compatibility of personalities, a desire to have children and raise them, comfort of everyday life (for those who desire that), etc.
I certainly commend a monogamous lifestyle and would have no objections to finding what idealists call a "soulmate" someday.

(12-09-2013 02:40 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  2) You still have the fallacy (despite having a positivist ethic that applauds altruism, which includes communal living/interdependence) of thinking that the closer you are to perfect, the more self-sufficient you are. Maybe in the movies the man can go it alone, Mister Bond, but man is not meant to be alone, Adam needs his Eve, and the people I think are more evolved than you are the Ghandis, the Martin Luther Kings, the people who show their need for others and THE other.

Irrelevant. I wasn't saying that I want to be self-sufficient or that self-sufficient humans are more evolved or more perfect. I was saying that a perfect being, i.e. God, being omnipotent, can't have desires because they are a result of a non-equilibrium between what one has and what one wants. A perfect being could act on its omnipotence and eliminate its desires instantly, by itself.
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Philosoraptor's post
12-09-2013, 03:15 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(12-09-2013 02:28 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  God didn’t create suffering for its own sake, to answer your question.

Ah, but he did. You continue to step around the following issue:
An omnipotent being can accomplish its ends in any way it sees fit.

The choice to include suffering, therefore, is indeed a choice to include it for it's own sake. My question remains unanswered: 'Is that loving?'

(12-09-2013 02:28 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  The dead babies go to Heaven. You’re begging the question...

These two comments, side by side, are rather ironic.

(12-09-2013 02:28 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  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.

They're not hypothetical. Was that sarcasm?

Every disease and birth issue I've mentioned is real and documented, as are the statistics for child mortality. They're tragic, horrible events that happen every day, all over the world. Sorry if that's 'droning on' or irritating. If you're here to understand atheists, you'll need to stop turning a blind eye to the more difficult topics and issues we bring up. You'll need to explain how your loving god decided to include these in his design. You'll need to understand that I can't simply fit your god, as described by you, and these real world events, in the same box. Or, you can say 'I have no clue' and leave it unanswered. That, at least, would be honest.

(12-09-2013 02:28 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  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…

No I won't. Why would I tell you that? Ask ten atheists why they don't believe in gods, you will most likely get ten different answers as well. One major difference is that we are not all quoting the same source, a book that claims divine inspiration. As salvation is the essential element of your religion, and as you have been provided with a single written guidebook to achieve it, it logically raises suspicion when your religion's followers are unable to come to even a basic agreement on how that goal is achieved or what your god meant with his words.

(12-09-2013 02:28 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  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.

Ah, here's the God of the gaps. Why are we dreaming of eternal life when we know we'll die? I don't know, therefore god.

(12-09-2013 02:28 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  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.

So your omniscient and in total control of your child's universe? You created hell itself? Your comparison to god's abilities is not even close.

(12-09-2013 02:28 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  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…

When you claim a god, we ask questions. You shouldn't be surprised, because your description of god clashes with reality. If I create an animal, give it teeth and an appetite, set it loose in the woods and it bites somebody, am I not at least partially responsible for what happened? I made it, after all, down to it's very last atom. Step back further. I KNOW it's going to bite somebody. I still set it loose in the woods (because I love it, of course), it bites somebody, I punish it eternally, and make every animal that comes after it endure suffering.

(12-09-2013 02:28 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  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.

How, exactly, does one know to trust in the lord if one has never heard of the lord?

(12-09-2013 02:28 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  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

You just described heaven.

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
[+] 3 users Like guitar_nut's post
12-09-2013, 03:19 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(12-09-2013 03:13 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  I was saying that a perfect being, i.e. God, being omnipotent, can't have desires because they are a result of a non-equilibrium between what one has and what one wants. A perfect being could act on its omnipotence and eliminate its desires instantly, by itself.

Indeed. It is not that a perfect being does not have desires, per se; it is that a perfect being is necessarily omnipotent and thus reality being contrary to its will is impossible, even as a temporary aberration. It cannot occur with the given definitions.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2013, 04:10 PM (This post was last modified: 12-09-2013 04:21 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(12-09-2013 02:40 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Interesting, I was challenged on that point just yesterday in person. Jesus is God in a human body, a body He currently (and forever) resides in, so there is no such thing as an anthropomorphic fallacy in Christianity. Adam and Eve were made in god's image and so humans must resemble god more than other creatures, so there's no anthropomorphic fallacy in Judaism, either, just no graven images!

A stinking pile of nothing. A risen body in no way resembles a "human body" There is no such thing as a "risen human body" so your point is a meaningless assertion of nothing. It's known as "nonsense". I call it "crap". More of your drivel. You actually think that junk has some sort of intellectual value. It has none. You need a pay cut. It's worthless junk. Adam and Eve were mythical, and you have in no way, demonstrated their reality, so that' just more crap. Human bodies have never ever gone through walls. The risen Jebus was a Jewish "shade". Not a "human body". They did not recognize him, and they were afraid of him, until he (supposedly) left them. "They doubted, but the worshiped". That is no human body. Anyone who sees a human body , knows what they're looking at.

Many "graven images" have been found in Israeli archaeological sites, so that point is crap. Images of Yahweh, and his wife. More drivel.

Your ability to make up "apologetic" garbage to address any possible cognitive dissonance is epic. But it falls on it's ass, as obvious, every time.

You don't know what Yahweh looks like, so to state humans (which are essentially no different form any other great ape), is both a lie, and a distinction without a difference. You also have not a shred of evidence for any of it. More crap.

You seem to be full of that today, (per your usual). Tongue

BTW, I keep looking for that "astonishing". When were you planning on presenting it ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: