Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-09-2013, 10:27 PM (This post was last modified: 25-09-2013 11:06 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(24-09-2013 11:51 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote: Suffering is pointless and meaningless IN A UNIVERSE WITH A BENEVOLENT ALL-POWERFUL CREATOR that could accomplish any possible positive aspect of suffering WITHOUT SUFFERING. The possible 'benefits' of suffering are fucking MUTE in a scenario with an all-powerful creator that could accomplish the same goal any other way without the suffering; thus the suffering would be needless and arbitrary by definition. God fucking dammit, you have to be dumber than the ground you walk on, or purposely obtuse. Once again (for the umpteenth time), you lack the rudimentary imagination to contemplate the possibility of your limitless god not needing to create suffering; a benevolent god would by definition not create needless suffering, and an all-powerful god would by definition always have the power to do things without causing suffering. You claim your god has the will and the power, yet you don't see those traits to their logical conclusion; that being a universe very much unlike the one we exist in.

But since we DO live in a universe with suffering, I am force to conclude by the rules of logic, that an all-powerful benevolent creator does not exist. Because given those attributes, that creator would NOT have created THIS universe. Now how about you leave the forum, enroll in a community college course in Logic, and come back after you've actually learned something?

Interesting. You are lecturing me on logic, yet you have:

“could accomplish any possible positive aspect of suffering WITHOUT SUFFERING”

How about:

“could accomplish any possible positive aspect of truth WITHOUT TRUTH”

Or

“could accomplish any possible positive aspect of love WITHOUT LOVE”

And I think you’ll see what I mean.

For the sake of brevity, I'll stick to your last point as it's the laziest and most egregiously offensive.


You've given examples in defense of suffering and how it's good, but the suffering itself never is. You merely like to take some of the positive things that can come from suffering and attempt to blanket over all suffering. The problem with your justification is that anything positive that can be accomplished with suffering, can be accomplished without it by an all-powerful being by definition.

Also, your analogies are all terrible. I've posited that suffering is bad, a negative, and that anything good (positive) about it can be accomplished without the suffering (negative) aspects. You do not need suffering to accomplish anything, and an all-powerful being would not need to use suffering in this way, and a compassionate one would not.


Better analogies would be...

"could accomplish any possible positive aspect of truth WITHOUT FALSEHOOD"

Truth is good, and truth does good things. However sometimes we must lie to do good. But an all-powerful being would never have to lie to do good. He could have made us incapable of lying, of even contemplating the thought of lying, or lying with the intent to do harm; and all-powerful being would by definition be able to do these things. An all-powerful being would not need to resort to lies and obfuscation to do good, and a benevolent and caring one would not.


"could accomplish any possible positive aspect of love WITHOUT HATE"

Love is good, and love does good things. However sometimes love leads to other negative emotions like jealousy, betrayal, or even hatred. But an all-powerful being would never need to trigger those feelings in expressing it's love or creating a universe with love. He could make his love inborn and innate in everyone so that we all knew he loved us, an all-powerful being could do this, and a benevolent and caring one would.



This is why you FAIL at logic. Weeping

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
25-09-2013, 12:47 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(24-09-2013 02:04 PM)Elesjei Wrote:  
(24-09-2013 11:37 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Huh? Which theists told you that? Suffering has 1) causes 2) results 3) purposes. A child is not only more than property, people are children of god who create beauty, art, love and more children.

You, in another thread. But you didn't say it to me, I just read it. Also Egor, theword, and Mark Dreher. And many Christians and Muslims I have seen on TV and the internet making excuses for God. I guess because it was a while ago it doesn't apply since you have proven to be anything but consistent.

We can't hold God to a different standard than anyone else. There is no reason to. If God causes pain and suffering (and not through humans, I mean through the diseases and natural disasters he designed, and pointlessly, ie. a toddler dying of AIDS) he is a malevolent god. If he were a human, we would throw him in prison for his crimes. But because it's God, every bit of suffering is permissible. It's always "God works in mysterious ways" even when there is no way a toddler dying of AIDS is of benefit to the kid or anyone else. Or "Who are we to judge God?", which is a really stupid thing to say after a toddler's painful, pointless death.

Assuming we were created by God, we were given intelligence, empathy, and morality that tells us that what he is responsible for is the most terrible crime spree in the history of the universe, but we are supposed to turn a blind eye to it because he's our daddy and he knows what he's doing. Thinking we are incapable of understanding someone's motives doesn't mean we can't be harsh judges of their actions.

And oh yes,

1) Causes: a disease from God's perfect world.
2) Results: pain and sorrow.
3) Purpose: who gives a shit; an innocent kid died.

There are several things wrong in your post that show you actually aren't reading this thread:

*Your presumption of "innocence" for a child shows a compassion belied by evolution, and implies that adults are not innocent, and therefore culpable for their moral crimes.

*God was punished for his moral accountability as creator and etc. when he suffered on the cross--Jesus took his just punishment upon himself, however, it would be logical to state that we who commit crimes by free will are also guilty--and if you say "No, it's all his fault because he made us and we have no free will," you are also implying that you shouldn't go to heaven either because you didn't do anything right or good of your free will.

*I have been consistent although I try not to beat a horse to death here. After a while of fruitlessly justifying "genocide" in the scriptures I said god committed genocide so we could move on per 1) and 2) above which no atheist has yet replied to here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2013, 12:50 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(24-09-2013 05:40 PM)Skippy538 Wrote:  
Quote:PleaseJesus Wrote:
In that sense, yes. God chose to create someone knowing they will pick not just “heaven or hell” but one or the other. Yes. And? Not a problem if Hell is a reasonable punishment or Heaven a reasonable reward.

What is a reasonable punishment for non-belief? What is a reasonable reward for a belief?

Most other literalist christian believers seem to take a darkly contrasting view about hell:

See http://www.icr.org/article/486/

Most of the new testament, where the idea of hell was created, similarly seems to have a starkly contrasting view to what you are proposing:

Revelation 19:20: "And the beast[5] was taken, and with him the false prophet[6] that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone."
Revelation 20:10 "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."
Revelation 20:14-15 "Then Death and Hades[7] were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire."[NKJV]
Revelation 21:8 "But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."[8]

It would have been a lot easier for me to have been a Christian if I could have ignored the scriptures I didn't like and just follow the ones I did to create my own "custom" theology. I guess I had the bad luck of studying ACTUAL christian theology in college....

"Tormented" with what? With pitchforks held by demons with tails (medieval pictures) or by regret and sorrow (biblical)?

Hell is not infinite but eternal. The man in Luke 16 is thirsty and in discomfort but carries on a conversation with Abraham. He isn't screaming and moaning and shouting but speaking.

The language you quoted in Revelation describes punishment for Antichrist, who will kill more than Hitler and Stalin combined despite his knowledge of the true god. We need to be careful with the knowledge we do have.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2013, 12:53 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(24-09-2013 10:27 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(24-09-2013 11:51 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Interesting. You are lecturing me on logic, yet you have:

“could accomplish any possible positive aspect of suffering WITHOUT SUFFERING”

How about:

“could accomplish any possible positive aspect of truth WITHOUT TRUTH”

Or

“could accomplish any possible positive aspect of love WITHOUT LOVE”

And I think you’ll see what I mean.

For the sake of brevity, I'll stick to your last point as it's the laziest and most egregiously offensive.


You've given examples in defense of suffering and how it's good, but the suffering itself never is. You merely like to take some of the positive things that can come from suffering and attempt to blanket over all suffering. The problem with your justification is that anything positive that can be accomplished with suffering, can be accomplished without it by an all-powerful being by definition.

Also, your analogies are all terrible. I've posited that suffering is bad, a negative, and that anything good (positive) about it can be accomplished without the suffering (negative) aspects. You do not need suffering to accomplish anything, and an all-powerful being would not need to use suffering in this way, and a compassionate one would not.


Better analogies would be...

"could accomplish any possible positive aspect of truth WITHOUT FALSEHOOD"

Truth is good, and truth does good things. However sometimes we must lie to do good. But an all-powerful being would never have to lie to do good. He could have made us incapable of lying, of even contemplating the thought of lying, or lying with the intent to do harm; and all-powerful being would by definition be able to do these things. An all-powerful being would not need to resort to lies and obfuscation to do good, and a benevolent and caring one would not.


"could accomplish any possible positive aspect of love WITHOUT HATE"

Love is good, and love does good things. However sometimes love leads to other negative emotions like jealousy, betrayal, or even hatred. But an all-powerful being would never need to trigger those feelings in expressing it's love or creating a universe with love. He could make his love inborn and innate in everyone so that we all knew he loved us, an all-powerful being could do this, and a benevolent and caring one would.



This is why you FAIL at logic. Weeping

Suffering is a feeling, which is why I've asked you (with no response) whether you think some truth may be felt. I've known people to feel joy during what you would call suffering, and feelings may be mastered.

You used "suffering... suffering" so you're altering your work, not mine, with your wordsmithing now.

And no, we can have joy without suffering, but the joy IN suffering is a unique experience not to be replicated or redacted.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2013, 01:01 PM (This post was last modified: 25-09-2013 03:32 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(25-09-2013 12:50 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Hell is not infinite but eternal. The man in Luke 16 is thirsty and in discomfort but carries on a conversation with Abraham. He isn't screaming and moaning and shouting but speaking.

Sheol, (the real Biblical place of the Hebrews after death) is not hell. Why do you keep lying ? Do you have a broken record playing ? If ANYTHING is "authentic", at all about your Babble, you cannot just change things, because you NEED to square it with your Presuppositional Fundamentalism. You argue all sorts of nonsense based on Old Testament concepts, yet you reject THIS authentic one. Why is that ? Why are you so inconsistent ? What gives YOU the right to change, willy-nilly, what we, and every scholar KNOWS, are historical facts ?

And that's only part of your problem.

If hell is "eternal", then the spiritual realm, (including heaven) REQUIRES time. It's a "temporal" idea.
(Now I know this is hard, and over your head, Pleasy, but just try...)
Time only exists only as space-time. These dimensions only exist, as far as we know in THIS universe. They are a product of the laws of this universe. Any deity which REQUIRES time to exist, could not have created it. The very word "existence" without time is meaningless. Now that is real difficult for people like you, Pleasy, but please stop talking about spiritual realms with temporal references. You just make Pleasy look even MORE illogical than you already did. Tongue
I do realize you just memorized all your bs, and it's on rote speed-dial, and you just spout your memorized retorted bs back, like you were indoctrinated, but maybe you should at least try to learn to actually think a little, before you spout Babble-talk.

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
25-09-2013, 01:08 PM
 
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(25-09-2013 12:50 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Hell is not infinite but eternal. The man in Luke 16 is thirsty and in discomfort but carries on a conversation with Abraham. He isn't screaming and moaning and shouting but speaking.

Luke 16 is about Sheol, not hell. We've been through this before. Dodgy

Some intellectual honesty would be appreciated, PJ.
Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2013, 01:12 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(25-09-2013 12:53 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Suffering is a feeling, which is why I've asked you (with no response) whether you think some truth may be felt. I've known people to feel joy during what you would call suffering, and feelings may be mastered.

You used "suffering... suffering" so you're altering your work, not mine, with your wordsmithing now.

And no, we can have joy without suffering, but the joy IN suffering is a unique experience not to be replicated or redacted.



Suffering
noun
1. the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship.

Truth
noun
1. the quality or state of being true.

Suffering is a feeling, truth is not. You can feel that you are right, that you have the truth, but feeling it does not make it any more truthful. Believing in your heart of hearts that the Earth is flat won't magically change the shape of our planet.



(24-09-2013 11:07 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Suffering is pointless and meaningless IN A UNIVERSE WITH A BENEVOLENT ALL-POWERFUL CREATOR that could accomplish any possible positive aspect of suffering WITHOUT SUFFERING. The possible 'benefits' of suffering are fucking MUTE in a scenario with an all-powerful creator that could accomplish the same goal any other way without the suffering; thus the suffering would be needless and arbitrary by definition.

Unless you'd like to quote me saying something else somewhere else, I'm going to call bullshit on your 'wordsmithing' accusation and chalk it up to your disingenuous nature or your complete lack of reading comprehension. Neither would surprise me at this point.

Joy in suffering? I'm sorry, but learning to enjoy (for example) the burning sensation in your muscles you get from exercising is NO EXCUSE for allowing a universe full of death, famine, starvation, racism, hatred, bigotry, and rape. We could have been made so as to get the endorphin high without the accompanying acidic burn. We could have been made with impervious and tireless bodies that never needed exercise to stay in optimal shape. The same positive aspects could be extracted and experienced separately without the negative aspects, provided we lived in a universe created by an all-powerful and benevolent creator.

Once again, supreme lack of imagination on your part. Seriously, you must have been a supremely depressing and joyless child.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
26-09-2013, 09:20 AM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(25-09-2013 01:12 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(25-09-2013 12:53 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Suffering is a feeling, which is why I've asked you (with no response) whether you think some truth may be felt. I've known people to feel joy during what you would call suffering, and feelings may be mastered.

You used "suffering... suffering" so you're altering your work, not mine, with your wordsmithing now.

And no, we can have joy without suffering, but the joy IN suffering is a unique experience not to be replicated or redacted.



Suffering
noun
1. the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship.

Truth
noun
1. the quality or state of being true.

Suffering is a feeling, truth is not. You can feel that you are right, that you have the truth, but feeling it does not make it any more truthful. Believing in your heart of hearts that the Earth is flat won't magically change the shape of our planet.



(24-09-2013 11:07 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Suffering is pointless and meaningless IN A UNIVERSE WITH A BENEVOLENT ALL-POWERFUL CREATOR that could accomplish any possible positive aspect of suffering WITHOUT SUFFERING. The possible 'benefits' of suffering are fucking MUTE in a scenario with an all-powerful creator that could accomplish the same goal any other way without the suffering; thus the suffering would be needless and arbitrary by definition.

Unless you'd like to quote me saying something else somewhere else, I'm going to call bullshit on your 'wordsmithing' accusation and chalk it up to your disingenuous nature or your complete lack of reading comprehension. Neither would surprise me at this point.

Joy in suffering? I'm sorry, but learning to enjoy (for example) the burning sensation in your muscles you get from exercising is NO EXCUSE for allowing a universe full of death, famine, starvation, racism, hatred, bigotry, and rape. We could have been made so as to get the endorphin high without the accompanying acidic burn. We could have been made with impervious and tireless bodies that never needed exercise to stay in optimal shape. The same positive aspects could be extracted and experienced separately without the negative aspects, provided we lived in a universe created by an all-powerful and benevolent creator.

Once again, supreme lack of imagination on your part. Seriously, you must have been a supremely depressing and joyless child.

I see. So 1) You do not feel truth, you have no gut instincts for it or feelings that accompany or pre-define correct intuition. Many people would say of you that makes you a poor judge of truth. 2) I'm not talking about muscle burn. I'm talking about people who experience joy despite circumstances, people who experience even joy after a child is lost, etc. I think you're being a little narrow-minded here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 09:23 AM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(25-09-2013 01:08 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  
(25-09-2013 12:50 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Hell is not infinite but eternal. The man in Luke 16 is thirsty and in discomfort but carries on a conversation with Abraham. He isn't screaming and moaning and shouting but speaking.

Luke 16 is about Sheol, not hell. We've been through this before. Dodgy

Some intellectual honesty would be appreciated, PJ.

If Luke 16 is Sheol, then you should amend your statements about Jewish literature and their lack of defining discomfort in the after life. Of course, you'll waffle and parse the testaments, I think.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 09:24 AM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(25-09-2013 01:01 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(25-09-2013 12:50 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Hell is not infinite but eternal. The man in Luke 16 is thirsty and in discomfort but carries on a conversation with Abraham. He isn't screaming and moaning and shouting but speaking.

Sheol, (the real Biblical place of the Hebrews after death) is not hell. Why do you keep lying ? Do you have a broken record playing ? If ANYTHING is "authentic", at all about your Babble, you cannot just change things, because you NEED to square it with your Presuppositional Fundamentalism. You argue all sorts of nonsense based on Old Testament concepts, yet you reject THIS authentic one. Why is that ? Why are you so inconsistent ? What gives YOU the right to change, willy-nilly, what we, and every scholar KNOWS, are historical facts ?

And that's only part of your problem.

If hell is "eternal", then the spiritual realm, (including heaven) REQUIRES time. It's a "temporal" idea.
(Now I know this is hard, and over your head, Pleasy, but just try...)
Time only exists only as space-time. These dimensions only exist, as far as we know in THIS universe. They are a product of the laws of this universe. Any deity which REQUIRES time to exist, could not have created it. The very word "existence" without time is meaningless. Now that is real difficult for people like you, Pleasy, but please stop talking about spiritual realms with temporal references. You just make Pleasy look even MORE illogical than you already did. Tongue
I do realize you just memorized all your bs, and it's on rote speed-dial, and you just spout your memorized retorted bs back, like you were indoctrinated, but maybe you should at least try to learn to actually think a little, before you spout Babble-talk.

If there is a new universe without linear time, then you can never leave, and you will be there forever--eternally. I think it's rather you don't get what a lack of time while being in a location implies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: