Why Must Children Suffer?
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-08-2013, 12:11 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer?
Quote:What your Bible describes as heaven (as much as it does describe it) certainly would be groupthink.

Since everyone is different, everyones Utopia would likewise be different. Unless we go back to groupthink.

We aren't trying to tell your God how things should be, we do not believe it exists. We will point out to the willingly obtuse the flaws in their arguements but unlike their magic man in the sky, they really do exists. Their beliefs also visit a lot of unnecessary misery on others.

Disagreeing with my assertion that others won't cause you pain and suffering in your utopia shows a masochistic impulse. Do you disagree?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2013, 12:13 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer?
Quote:Why would we start a Christian forum? That makes no sense.

We are open-minded - Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, whatever can join here and discuss their religious views.

But atheists are booted from from Christian forums as a matter of policy.

We are open-minded, they are not.

If those forums' policies include not using hate speech or cursing, it's a simple matter to explain how Atheists get booted from Christian forums. Rules are... rules.

Likewise I've asked dozens of times what hate speech does to bolster the arguments here with little effect. If you want to prove the Bible untrue, show yourself as an Atheist to behave with gentlemanly or ladylike decorum. No, the Bible indicates the lost rant, rave and disrespect Christians.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2013, 12:15 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer?
Quote:Double standard? Where did I express a double standard?

So no adulterers, what happened to confession/redemption? No liars, huh. Based on some of your posts here, I think you have disqualified yourself from heaven. Who draws up the rules in "your" heaven as to who gets in and who doesn't? What about slavery? Can a slaveowner be in heaven with you? What about rapists? Its not a commandment and there is precedent for acceptance for rape as long as you marry the victim? If I practiced FGM in Africa in "god's" name and was otherwise a good "christian" would I be in your heaven?

It sounds like you are parsing heavenly from hellish people by their behavior. Are you unaware that the standard for Heaven is to trust Christ for absolution of sin? Did you not know Paul was a murderer and David an adulterer? I appreciate the opportunity you've opened to again share the good news--"bad" people and even "really bad" people may still enter Heaven if they trust Christ before death.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2013, 12:17 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer?
Quote:Right. You, uh... you do know he wasn't serious, right? I think you'll find precisely nobody has said that sincerely. I'm also pretty sure that you're well aware of that.

That pretty much sums you up, really. Idiotic or disingenuous. And it's not an exclusive or.

I recognized the facetious nature of the post, yet it still describes the naturalist's worldview as exemplified by such standouts as Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Joseph Stalin and that Godwin fellow.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2013, 12:20 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer?
Quote:You're quite right that it's not a problem in a naturalist perspective. It's only a problem from a certain kind of theistic perspective, and would tend to either contradict that perspective or characterize the theist's deity as indifferent or actively cruel. That is why atheists can and do wield it against that particular perspective. It's a bit like an antibody in the atheist's immune system. Not at all a problem for the atheist, but quite effective against a certain breed of virus.

1. Agreed, as stated in my first post, a naturalist should never have a problem with suffering and pain, unless:

2. They tack it onto theology as exclusively a theist's issue, thereby promoting a double standard.

The difference is a Christian can see meaning to suffering in either perspective. Grandpa is ill and experiencing great pain before he dies:

If he's lost, he's getting a wake up call.

If he's a believer, he's looking forward to Heaven.

Other than the fact of the Holy Spirit comforting the one in pain, something I've seen many times, literally and figuratively easing pain, suffering can have meaning and be that simple. Does a child have to suffer to taste Hell, since they die and go to Heaven? I'm tempted to say no. But do the scriptures comment here?

"It's through many hardships that we must enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

Thanks for agreeing with me and for admitting that Atheists maintain a double standard in this area.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2013, 12:22 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer?
Quote:PJ, a few questions:
1. What are the conditions for entry into heaven?
2. What are the conditions one experiences having failed to gain entry into heaven?

1. Trust Christ, who suffered greatly, emphatically, unto the very death of part of the triune God, to pay for sin.

2. Not a medieval place of pitchforks and demons, but a place of abject darkness, loneliness and discomfort. Have you lingered in a sauna too long and longed for water and cool air? This is clearly part of the condition of the rich man in Hell in Luke 16.

Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2013, 12:34 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer?
Quote:Nice. You want to play semantics, huh? I said 'gift' so you've decided it's okay to assume life was 'given'. Let's look at the quote, then, since you like wordplay:

"It's not always a gift to be alive..."

Not always a gift. There it is, right there, in plain English. So tell me, PJ: what is life when it is not a gift? Because that's what I actually said.

"Magical thinking," (more like 'PJ projecting magical thinking') by the way, is compatible with atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. If I wanted to believe in a gift-giving mindless thing, I guess I could. It still would be less of a stretch than believing in the Jesus fable.

Wasn't your original statement, "It is a gift..." and not "not always a gift..."? Regardless, I apologize. Life is not a gift. It is meaningless as it should be for the naturalist.

Quote:What is the gospel, then? What is witnessing? If gratitude is a free will choice, what are you doing trying to influence that choice with your witnessing? You forget, AGAIN, that this forum has a thread search. You absolutely believe we should be grateful to god. You just accept that 'free will' means many of us won't.

Not at all. There are subtleties here and gray areas. For example, a young person who trusts in Christ at age eight, and is raped at age nine by a pastor. I'd expect her to live a life of anger and bitterness, and even to be a leading poster on a forum like this one. Then she would die and go to Heaven. No, free will is part of the puzzle, as it sovereignty of the divine and our life experience. I witness of my free will and you may trust Christ of your free will.

However, you should personally be grateful to God because I'm on this forum to help you. Smile (Don't go off on that last, please.)

Quote:Not a straw man. You do not get to dismiss one of the biggest problems your religion has. Sorry. Children are punished with early, miserable death because of something that happened before they were born? That's just? That's perfection? That's love?

That's psychopathic. And you WORSHIP it.

It's hardly one of the biggest issues Christianity faces. As I've stated elsewhere in this thread, one may respond maturely to the suffering of others or whine in a babyish fashion when dealing with the vagaries of life. Have you never met an Atheist parent who had a small child who died in their youth and still felt a sense of gratitude for having shared in their life? Did a child who died at six not experience joy for the previous five years at all? Did no one say, "They'll never have to experience other heartbreaks of adulthood, thank goodness..."?

This "issue" is little more than a stick wielded by Atheists against God believers of all sorts. All it does is underscore the problem that they find suffering and pain utterly meaningless and uncomfortable, and indeed are unfirm in their resolve.

A mature response might be, "Okay, pain and suffering do have meaning in my naturalist worldview as they are a part of the cycle of life and death. Also, it sounds like theists have some strong beliefs about the meaning of pain as well. Let's move on..."

But this whole, "If there was a God, I wouldn't worship Him, not because of the Bible issues I see, but because I'm intolerant of the way He runs life and death systems," is mind-bogglingly immature. Do you disagree?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2013, 12:42 PM (This post was last modified: 20-08-2013 01:01 PM by cjlr.)
RE: Why Must Children Suffer?
(20-08-2013 12:17 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I recognized the facetious nature of the post, yet it still describes the naturalist's worldview as exemplified by such standouts as Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Joseph Stalin and that Godwin fellow.

Messianic cult figures are the exact opposite of naturalism. Top-down dictated ideology based on enduring toil and torment with the promise of a future paradise. I wonder where they got the idea?

Stalinism repudiated Darwin, not that I'd expect you to know that, and as for Hitler, I guess it was a typo when the Nazis inscribed Gott Mitt Uns on everything?

Glib and self-assured illusions are so much more comfortable than reality. It's understandable you'd cling to them.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
20-08-2013, 12:49 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer?
(19-08-2013 01:42 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:I was speaking of free will IN heaven where it is also supposedly pain free. If you believe that is possible, then it should not be hard to imagine how such a god could create a pain-free Earth and still grant us our free will. Thus, children would not have to suffer at all in that case nor would anyone. Yet, here we are...

It's absurdly simple, actually, and the answer comes from meditation on the scriptures. It's not Heaven (utopia) if there are dissonant beings within. For example, the Bible states that one should not steal. Yet, some answer me here thoughtfully and others post hate and rhetoric in an attempt to steal my joy. Here I am, enjoying the gift that is being alive and the gift that is discourse on the things of God when someone tries to rain on my parade. Nor would Atheists achieve their utopia with theists telling them they're prideful and rebellious. "In Sparta, we have no opposing viewpoints!"

In other words, children have to go to Heaven because there are paedophiles and abusers here, who must be separated from them forever. Makes total sense if you think about it.
It's so nice to have a loving, benevolent God with the wisdom and compassion to separate children from evil in heaven, isn't it? Angel

Bullshit! If he was all that, he would separate them here on Earth too! Dodgy

Fox News: Praying Preying on ignorance since 1996.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2013, 01:28 PM (This post was last modified: 20-08-2013 01:35 PM by Skippy538.)
RE: Why Must Children Suffer?
PJ - OK I'm convinced that this is troll behavior. Whether the intent is to be a troll or not, there is no genuine attempt to learn here PJ.

You skip over the good points made and then cherry pick something, twist it, and then misuse it to make a point completely off the topic because you don't have a good answer for the question.

I reiterate, you jumped on the bandwagon to say that Catholic Child-Molesters are bad, and I pointed out that the Catholic church is just literally following your bible as written by Paul. To be clear, the verses (1 Corinthians 7:32 - 35) are:

"But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord."

To be clear, we need to secure "UNDISTRACTED DEVOTION TO THE LORD."

So the question remains - how can their be such widespread molestation by Priests in the Catholic Church when:

1. These people pray to your God for strength.
2. They are directly observing Paul's direction that is better for them to remain unmarried.
3. They are still molesting children.

So which is it, was God (through Paul) wrong that it is better for them to remain unmarried? Or was it that the Jesus and the Holy Spirit to whom they prayed for strength did not give them the strength to not molest children? If Paul was right, you would assume that the Holy Spirit would help them obey God's clear will not to molest children.

Either way, either God is wrong or he's not helping them with his spirit, which supposedly helps them do all kinds of signs and wonders, and presumably, NOT MOLEST CHILDREN.

Help me understand how this honest attempt to follow scripture went so wrong.

Now a human social scientist would say, well clearly if you remove men from all sexual relationships and then put them in close proximity in private situations with young boys, there will be a strong statistical correlation in the increase of sexual molestation. Similarly, when you put men in prison where they cannot have sex with women, there will be statistical increase of men who consider themselves heterosexual having homosexual sex in prison. There is no supernatural answer - no answer to prayer, no holy spirit "guiding their word and deed," no statistical correlation whatsoever. Conclusion? NO HOLY SPIRIT AND PAUL WAS WRONG. Just men doing men things.

Secondly, you take the bait on my sarcastic comment that "It IS survival of the fittest" and say that is the naturalist's worldview. You are really good at creating straw men, but horrible at identifying them. Your statement presupposes that morality is impossible if not derived from a pronouncement from God. Yet you conveniently ignore all morality that you create yourself. Do you believe in slavery? Do you believe in raping women and getting away with it without criminal punishment? Do you believe in Genocide in the name of God?

NO? Well why not? This are all clearly approved of in the Bible. From whence cometh your ethics then? Oh, of course, from the COMMUNITY in which you live and the ethics of YOUR DAY. A consensus of belief has developed around you, and you have internalized it as something from God. How convenient. My morality is much more in tune with the consensus of my day than with the bible and so is yours. The only difference is, I recognize it and you don't.

Last, in your posts you posit that people are being rude and unkind to you. This is a CLASSIC CHRISTIAN HIGH HORSE argument that atheists are arrogant, close-minded, rude to Christians, etc. I would refer you to many of the Christian web-sites I have visited where the call to action is that "atheists deserve death" and worse, and direct threats from people saying they will follow this call to action.

Further, you are being challenged directly and honestly about specific ideas - and you float around the periphery needling people instead of addressing the arguments, like the argument I just remade above that you conveniently ignored. So a post that starts as a genuine attempt to address and answer questions quickly devolves, because everyone can see that you are not making a genuine attempt to address what we perceive to be gaping faults in the christian claims, and instead you insert little emotional ditties like "It is finished." If you aren't going to make a good faith effort to engage the actual ideas, this is intellectual dishonesty and is probably the worst intellectual sin a person can make to a skeptic. If you continue in this vain, I would expect the harassment to get worse rather than better - and in my view it will be fully merited.

Why someone who comes onto a pro-atheism forum, starts threads and then makes idiomatic statements without support or logic is beyond me, except if my first assumption is true, you are just acting trollish because you get a kick out of pissing off atheists. If that's the case I have better things to do with my time. I'm 90% convinced..BUT..the reason I stayed this far is the other 10% chance that you are doing your best to figure out the religion of your parents and defend it, but have genuine questions about its veracity. If that is the case, I would strongly suggest engaging the issues directly and not superfluous arguments that revolve around who hurt who's feelings. My 2 cents.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Skippy538's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: