Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-09-2013, 09:27 AM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(26-09-2013 09:23 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(25-09-2013 01:08 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  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.

Luke 16 is not "Jewish literature".
So now the King of Waffles is now complaining about wafflers.
How special.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein (That's a JOKE, ya idiot)
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 02:03 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(26-09-2013 09:27 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(26-09-2013 09:23 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  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.

Luke 16 is not "Jewish literature".
So now the King of Waffles is now complaining about wafflers.
How special.

You win the "takes us off thread topic and ducks reply from PJ in one thread award". Luke was Jewish--he was a doctor! Big Grin Seriously, the NT authors were Jewish. The Bible was written by Jewish people, HB, NT and Apocrypha alike. Let's go back to how people in the HB didn't "go anywhere" and then you say "Sheol means the grave or dead" and then we can look at the people who went there alive while the ground swallowed them in the Torah story. Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 02:12 PM (This post was last modified: 26-09-2013 11:00 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(26-09-2013 02:03 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(26-09-2013 09:27 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Luke 16 is not "Jewish literature".
So now the King of Waffles is now complaining about wafflers.
How special.

You win the "takes us off thread topic and ducks reply from PJ in one thread award". Luke was Jewish--he was a doctor! Big Grin Seriously, the NT authors were Jewish. The Bible was written by Jewish people, HB, NT and Apocrypha alike. Let's go back to how people in the HB didn't "go anywhere" and then you say "Sheol means the grave or dead" and then we can look at the people who went there alive while the ground swallowed them in the Torah story. Tongue

Prove it.
That might actually matter if someone named "Luke" actually wrote "Luke".
Of course we know that's not the case. Avery scholar knows that, Of course you don't.
Assertion is proof of nothing. Assertion by idiots is even less so. Ask any scholar of Hebrew Studies.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein (That's a JOKE, ya idiot)
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
26-09-2013, 02:50 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(26-09-2013 02:12 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(26-09-2013 02:03 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  You win the "takes us off thread topic and ducks reply from PJ in one thread award". Luke was Jewish--he was a doctor! Big Grin Seriously, the NT authors were Jewish. The Bible was written by Jewish people, HB, NT and Apocrypha alike. Let's go back to how people in the HB didn't "go anywhere" and then you say "Sheol means the grave or dead" and then we can look at the people who went there alive while the ground swallowed them in the Torah story. Tongue

Prove it.
Assertion is proof of nothing.
Assertion by idiots is even less so.
Ask any scholar of Hebrew Studies.

Sorry, this thread is about children and suffering, but it sounds like you're saying the NT authors weren't Jews? I thought Paul/Saul who authored 2/3 of the NT (supposedly) was a Rabbi and Pharisee...?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 04:03 PM
 
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(26-09-2013 09:23 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  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.

Since you can organize a conversation between me and you without myself being present, then I don't need to answer at all. You'll do it for me, like you do now.

So, how do you respond to my "waffling and parsing of testaments," that happened in your imagination?
Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 06:46 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(26-09-2013 02:50 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(26-09-2013 02:12 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Prove it.
Assertion is proof of nothing.
Assertion by idiots is even less so.
Ask any scholar of Hebrew Studies.

Sorry, this thread is about children and suffering, but it sounds like you're saying the NT authors weren't Jews? I thought Paul/Saul who authored 2/3 of the NT (supposedly) was a Rabbi and Pharisee...?

No need to be sorry. No one expected much. We knew you would fail again, to say anything coherent. Since we're still waiting (and waiting and waiting) for anything "astonishing" from Pamphlet Writer, I will point out while we wait, that NONE of the gospels were written by those whose names got slapped onto them LATER. Much later. Any Freshman in Babble 101 student knows that. Pleasy was apparently indoctrinated incorrectly. I suppose it's WAY to late to ask for his money back. Let me know when you plan on the "astonishing" thingy.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein (That's a JOKE, ya idiot)
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 09:48 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(26-09-2013 09:20 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(25-09-2013 01:12 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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.




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.

1. I already explained that in the very post you're quoting. Is your reading comprehension really that shit (don't answer, that was a rhetorical question)?

Quote: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.

The point being that our intuitions are built upon our evolved instincts, and are often frighteningly wrong. This is why I try to rely on reason, logic, and evidence over my 'gut feelings'. Because I am well aware at how often my 'gut feeling' and that of my fellow humans are wrong (your posts here are a prime example).

2. Once again, that joy is tied to something else that can be enjoyed and experienced outside of suffering. Short of true masochist (which could still just enjoy self inflicted pain, or your god could have not allowed that psychological possibility), there's no need for the suffering. You are right that the joy they experience is not because of their circumstances, but in spite of it. Where you fail is in imagining them getting to that joyous point and experiencing it without the prior suffering. If you take joy from the loss of your child, why? Is it really joy from the death of the child? Or is joy derived for reasons outside of the death, but as result of the death?

Couldn't any of those reasons for joy be reached without the suffering? In a universe with an all-powerful and benevolent god, then the answer is 'yes' by definition.

Say that a college fund is set up in the memory of a child, that can be good and be the cause of joy and other positive feelings; but the fund or trust (and the emotions derived and caused by it) didn't require the death and grieving to be accomplished. You could have set up the trust or fund just for it's own sake, or wanting to help others for it's own sake. No suffering required.

The joy you get from fondly remembering a lost love one? Well god could have made us immortal, so that it was a mute point; we simply would never have lost loved ones. He could have made us simply incapable of feeling that sense of loss. To abrogate our suffering from loss, he could have made our knowledge of there eternal destination and fate innate to us, so that we would know innately that we would be reunited with them. Instead we don't know, and the world is filled with thousands of conflicting religions all with differing claims to the afterlife, and our science has done nothing to suggest there is any mechanism for continuing on as our conscious selves after the end of our lives.

Once again, it is you who are the narrow minded one; you who show a supreme lack of imagination. You literally cannot fathom a universe in which we are anything other than what we currently are, and that is your major mental flaw. Every counter-point you attempt is easily subsumed with a modicum of imagination; and you would realize this if you were genuinely capable of it and interested in exploring the topic, instead of just dogmatically defending your a priori conclusions. But also once again, that would be too intellectually honest for you given your track record here.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
26-09-2013, 11:07 PM (This post was last modified: 26-09-2013 11:11 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
SexuallyPleasieBeJebusTrollJoke,
In the rare event of a resurrection lasting more than 4 hours, seek immediate medical help to avoid long-term injury. If you are older than age 65, or have severe cardio-vascular disease, consult your doctor before initiating treatment.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein (That's a JOKE, ya idiot)
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2013, 10:07 AM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(26-09-2013 04:03 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  
(26-09-2013 09:23 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  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.

Since you can organize a conversation between me and you without myself being present, then I don't need to answer at all. You'll do it for me, like you do now.

So, how do you respond to my "waffling and parsing of testaments," that happened in your imagination?

When you speak of the NT, written by ancient Jews, from "Jewish sources do not speak about a resurrection or Hell," etc. That's a gross distortion unless you correct it to "some Jewish sources" or "non-Messianic Jews believe", etc.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2013, 10:10 AM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(26-09-2013 09:48 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(26-09-2013 09:20 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  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.

1. I already explained that in the very post you're quoting. Is your reading comprehension really that shit (don't answer, that was a rhetorical question)?

Quote: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.

The point being that our intuitions are built upon our evolved instincts, and are often frighteningly wrong. This is why I try to rely on reason, logic, and evidence over my 'gut feelings'. Because I am well aware at how often my 'gut feeling' and that of my fellow humans are wrong (your posts here are a prime example).

2. Once again, that joy is tied to something else that can be enjoyed and experienced outside of suffering. Short of true masochist (which could still just enjoy self inflicted pain, or your god could have not allowed that psychological possibility), there's no need for the suffering. You are right that the joy they experience is not because of their circumstances, but in spite of it. Where you fail is in imagining them getting to that joyous point and experiencing it without the prior suffering. If you take joy from the loss of your child, why? Is it really joy from the death of the child? Or is joy derived for reasons outside of the death, but as result of the death?

Couldn't any of those reasons for joy be reached without the suffering? In a universe with an all-powerful and benevolent god, then the answer is 'yes' by definition.

Say that a college fund is set up in the memory of a child, that can be good and be the cause of joy and other positive feelings; but the fund or trust (and the emotions derived and caused by it) didn't require the death and grieving to be accomplished. You could have set up the trust or fund just for it's own sake, or wanting to help others for it's own sake. No suffering required.

The joy you get from fondly remembering a lost love one? Well god could have made us immortal, so that it was a mute point; we simply would never have lost loved ones. He could have made us simply incapable of feeling that sense of loss. To abrogate our suffering from loss, he could have made our knowledge of there eternal destination and fate innate to us, so that we would know innately that we would be reunited with them. Instead we don't know, and the world is filled with thousands of conflicting religions all with differing claims to the afterlife, and our science has done nothing to suggest there is any mechanism for continuing on as our conscious selves after the end of our lives.

Once again, it is you who are the narrow minded one; you who show a supreme lack of imagination. You literally cannot fathom a universe in which we are anything other than what we currently are, and that is your major mental flaw. Every counter-point you attempt is easily subsumed with a modicum of imagination; and you would realize this if you were genuinely capable of it and interested in exploring the topic, instead of just dogmatically defending your a priori conclusions. But also once again, that would be too intellectually honest for you given your track record here.

Actually, I can fathom your musings. "There is no Hell but there is a Heaven", that is, only pleasure or its absence, or a more Heavenly world than this one.

You're halfway to faith. "If god exists, he cares about suffering, and I can imagine (unlike John Lennon) there's a Heaven if no Hell."

Good work!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: