Christianity?

[mulligan]

Hello everyone. I just wanted to post this thought. I went to PSR for years, was confirmed, the whole 9 yards, as catholic, but none the less I have respect for other demoninations of christianity as well as just about every religion, but I'm really finding christianity really contradicting. Here's why:

According to christianity, God loves his creation correct? So that would mean humans too, wouldn't it? Well when you love something you'll do anything in your power to make it happy, won't you? Well isn't it fair to say that God has the power to intervene in acts on earth? Hasn't he before? That being said why would you allow your creation, who you love infinitely, to sufer at all? Some may say, well so that your creation may know suffering and appreciate joy. Well since you ARE God coudn't you instill in them what suffering is without making them actually experience it? Even then that is clearly not the case as far as what is happening on earth. Every human suffers more than once in its life. No, I don't have statistical evidence to proove it, but I think it can be assumed. That being said, if God is good and loves his creation then why allow it to suffer in some make-shift world, rather than experience complete joy in the original kingdom that was created; FYI, Heaven. How is it love when you ALLOW that which you claim to love, suffer? and of course if there's something I'm missing here and God does exist then I would surely accept him as my master, but for now if people ask me my religion I simply say I don't know what to believe. I'm not saying christianity isn't the true religion, because maybe it is, but I simply don't know. There are just too many contradictory points for me to be so devoted to it. My next point is, once again if you love your creation so much then why do you allow some of it to be completely ignorant of your presence. I assure you there is some human on earth who has NEVER heard of christianity. Wouldn't you want your creation to know who you are so that it may follow you?

 

[draqon]

suffering is learning, without suffering we don't learn

 

[Myles]

suffering is learning, without suffering we don't learn[/QUOTE

That is just not so. Positive re-inforcement works better.

 

[mulligan]

Yea, but it's God we're talking about. He could put into our minds what we need to know without suffering. He has the power to, it's ridiculous to say he doesn't. So if you had the power to wouldn't you make it to where something/someone you loved could learn whatever without first suffering? and besides that I learn new things at school everyday without suffering, so i just don't see how that's an excuse.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

According to Christianity, God loves his creation correct? So that would mean humans too, wouldn't it? Well when you love something you'll do anything in your power to make it happy, won't you? Well isn't it fair to say that God has the power to intervene in acts on earth? Hasn't he before? That being said why would you allow your creation, who you love infinitely, to suffer at all?

Christians and Muslims--and several other religions--get around this by cheating. They claim that there is an unobservable, untestable, unverifiable supernatural universe larger than the one we actually live in. When the organic matter that comprises the sum total of us dies--or so the fairytale goes--an unobservable, untestable, unverifiable supernatural component of each of us called the "soul" continues to live. That "afterlife" goes on eternally, and the particular afterlife we experience will be a reward or a punishment for the way we lived on earth. That afterlife is infinite, so in comparison to it, the "mere" century or less that we live on earth is absolutely nothing, and the "brief" suffering we endure here is trivial. Moreover, the suffering is important because it builds character. The nasty, angry, petulant, imperious know-it-all god these people believe in would be arrested for child abuse if he walked down the street of any major American city.

My next point is, once again if you love your creation so much then why do you allow some of it to be completely ignorant of your presence? I assure you there is some human on earth who has never heard of Christianity. Wouldn't you want your creation to know who you are so that it may follow you?

Again, they find a clever way to weasel around this. This god only reveals himself directly to certain people (the various cults of Abrahamism disagree to the point of bloodshed over who that is: Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, etc.), and it becomes that person's job to enlighten everyone in his community. Once that work is complete, it becomes the job of everyone in that community to enlighten the rest of us. This is all part of the nasty, angry, petulant, imperious know-it-all god's plan, you see. If his chosen people take this job seriously and convert a lot of "heathen" or "infidels" to the one true religion, their "souls" have a much greater chance of going to "heaven" after their bodies die. Again, they disagree to the point of bloodshed over which is the one true religion. And the Jews don't play this game since their cult of Abrahamism is not evangelical; for some reason they never got the commandment from their god that they had to convert their neighbors. It's strictly a Christian-Muslim game to try to win each other over and stamp out the other's religion--and pick up the Jews at the same time.

Suffering is learning, without suffering we don't learn

Suffering is also punishment, when you believe in a nasty, angry, petulant, imperious know-it-all god. The Jews don't believe in heaven and hell the way the other Abrahamic cults do; they believe that when they die their bodies just lie there and some day in the distant future--like maybe billions of years from now--their god will finally come down and reanimate the corpses. They believe that they are punished during their mortal lifetime for their sins, and also for the sins of their ancestors. Thus their god will continue to harrass them with slavery, destruction of their temple, occupation of their land, diaspora, antisemitism, second-class citizenship, holocausts, and colonial superpowers giving them somebody else's homeland to fight over, because their ancestors broke their covenant with him and they have to find a way to fix it.

The Christians believe that their god took an anger management class two thousand years ago and in atonement sent the First Hippie to earth preaching love, tolerance and forgiveness--at least to other Christians. Light-skinned Christians. Light-skinned male Christians. Light-skinned, male... oh never mind, the whole thing is just disgusting.

 

[mulligan]

Well I underrstand the whole concept of what you get is determined on what you do as you live, but if you love your creation then why test them and allow them to damn themselves? How is that beneficial? Why would you test those you love when you already kknow the answer? What good is free will if it will only allow you to damn yourself? It just doesn't make sense if God actually love you, for him to test you and allow you to completely screw yourself over.

 

[draqon]

Well I underrstand the whole concept of what you get is determined on what you do as you live, but if you love your creation then why test them and allow them to damn themselves? How is that beneficial? Why would you test those you love when you already kknow the answer? What good is free will if it will only allow you to damn yourself? It just doesn't make sense if God actually love you, for him to test you and allow you to completely screw yourself over.

You have to understand what true love means...true love is not granting every wish the creation has...true love is letting the free will of the creation to chose the right path based on their own decisions guided by faith of God.

Suffering is a lesson...punishment is a lesson...life is a lesson, some learn and master life...some are afraid and have no faith in God/themselves.

It is our free-will that is the reason to our own pleasures and sufferings...if God were to give us pleasure only...we would not have free-will, we would not be able to choose "the Adam's apple".

 

[madanthonywayne]

Yea, but it's God we're talking about. He could put into our minds what we need to know without suffering. He has the power to, it's ridiculous to say he doesn't. So if you had the power to wouldn't you make it to where something/someone you loved could learn whatever without first suffering? and besides that I learn new things at school everyday without suffering, so i just don't see how that's an excuse.

Would you rather be a robot that's always happy, or a living, breating human who can experihence pleasure and pain? You can't have free will while at the same time eliminate all suffering.

If you believe in God, especially the Christian God, you refer to him as the father. When you were a child, did your parents ever do anything that seemed designed to make you suffer needlessly yet, in retrospect, you now see was for your own good?

Would you consider a parent who lets their child eat whatever they want (candy), go to school only when they want to (never), and never asks them to do any chores to be a good parent or a bad one?

From the child's perspective, making him go to school, eat vegetables, and do chores is increasing his suffering. Yet from our broader perspective as adults, we know it's for the best.

Isn't it possible that what seems like incomprehensible cruelty from our perspective, is actually for the best from God's?

 

[Myles]

Well I underrstand the whole concept of what you get is determined on what you do as you live, but if you love your creation then why test them and allow them to damn themselves? How is that beneficial? Why would you test those you love when you already kknow the answer? What good is free will if it will only allow you to damn yourself? It just doesn't make sense if God actually love you, for him to test you and allow you to completely screw yourself over.

If you have read some of the foregoing ,you should realize by now that it is all nonsense.

 

[Myles]

Would you rather be a robot that's always happy, or a living, breating human who can experihence pleasure and pain? You can't have free will while at the same time eliminate all suffering.

If you believe in God, especially the Christian God, you refer to him as the father. When you were a child, did your parents ever do anything that seemed designed to make you suffer needlessly yet, in retrospect, you now see was for your own good?

Would you consider a parent who lets their child eat whatever they want (candy), go to school only when they want to (never), and never asks them to do any chores to be a good parent or a bad one?

From the child's perspective, making him go to school, eat vegetables, and do chores is increasing his suffering. Yet from our broader perspective as adults, we know it's for the best.

Isn't it possible that what seems like incomprehensible cruelty from our perspective, is actually for the best from God's?

What a silly, irrelevant argument you put forward. By your own token, people who go to heaven will become robots because they will be eternally happy.

I suspect you have been contaminated by Leibniz's " Best of All Possible Worlds". The cure ? Read Voltaire's "Candide".

 

[madanthonywayne]

What a silly, irrelevant argument you put forward. By your own token, people who go to heaven will become robots because they will be eternally happy.

I'm cognizant of the implications regarding heaven, but I was speaking of this world, not the next. I lack the data/experience to speak on mattters having to do with the afterlife. But I can't imagine any form or level of existance in which humans (if they were still fully human) would always be happy.

 

[Myles]

I'm cognizant of the implications regarding heaven, but I was speaking of this world, not the next. I lack the data/experience to speak on mattters having to do with the afterlife. But I can't imagine any form or level of existance in which humans (if they were still fully human) would always be happy.[/QU


I take your point but the question is really why a putative loving god could not have arranged things on earth as he is said to have done in heaven. IOW why inflict suffering, much of it on the innocent? What does someone suffering from a terminal illness learn about happiness other than the pain of its absence ? And what about those African babies dying of aids ? What do they know of happiness ?

The question which needs to be answered is why god, for those who believe in him, made suffering a prelude to happiness in heaven, not to mention the pains of hell that some believe in.

 

[madanthonywayne]

I take your point but the question is really why a putative loving god could not have arranged things on earth as he is said to have done in heaven. IOW why inflict suffering, much of it on the innocent? What does someone suffering from a terminal illness learn about happiness other than the pain of its absence ? And what about those African babies dying of aids ? What do they know of happiness ?

The question which needs to be answered is why god, for those who believe in him, made suffering a prelude to happiness in heaven, not to mention the pains of hell that some believe in.

I can only assume that in order for mankind to have the freewill necesary to mature as moral beings, God has to give up a certain levei of control.

Alternatively, perhaps disease and sickness serve some greater purpose.

I guess both of these explanations assume God, by choice or necesity, operates under certain constraints. That, as a practical matter, he is not really omnipotent. Or, perhaps, he simply chooses not to be.

 

[dixonmassey]

You can't have free will while at the same time eliminate all suffering.

You can't have free will while worshiping omniscient God, that's for sure. There is plenty of space for free will without suffering. But, for all practical purposes, you will never prove that you are not a robot. You can't be 100% sure that you are not a robot, no matter your faith coordinates. It's just beyond your abilities to ascertain.

 

[Myles]

I can only assume that in order for mankind to have the freewill necesary to mature as moral beings, God has to give up a certain levei of control.

Alternatively, perhaps disease and sickness serve some greater purpose.

I guess both of these explanations assume God, by choice or necesity, operates under certain constraints. That, as a practical matter, he is not really omnipotent. Or, perhaps, he simply chooses not to be.

Or perhaps no such entity exists. The lack of objective evidence supports this view and makes your assumptions unnecessary.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Or perhaps no such entity exists. The lack of objective evidence supports this view and makes your assumptions unnecessary.

You can go that way, but I've always found Pascal's Wager pretty convincing.

If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).​

It's really the only argument on either side of the debate that makes sense.

 

[James R]

madanthonywayne:

Would you rather be a robot that's always happy, or a living, breating human who can experihence pleasure and pain? You can't have free will while at the same time eliminate all suffering.

But a lot of suffering has nothing to do with the exercise of human free will. People are constantly being killed in earthquakes and other natural disasters, or suffer greatly from such. They can hardly be held responsible for those - they have nothing to do with human free will. It seems we must put down such occurrences to the acts of a malicious and uncaring god.

If you believe in God, especially the Christian God, you refer to him as the father. When you were a child, did your parents ever do anything that seemed designed to make you suffer needlessly yet, in retrospect, you now see was for your own good?

You don't teach somebody a lesson by creating a worm that bores through his eyeball, or by wiping out his entire family in an earthquake. Certainly, he can have done nothing to deserve such ill treatment.

Isn't it possible that what seems like incomprehensible cruelty from our perspective, is actually for the best from God's?

What good do you see in an earthquake that wipes out 100,000 people? Explain.

 

[Myles]

You can go that way, but I've always found Pascal's Wager pretty convincing.

If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).​

It's really the only argument on either side of the debate that makes sense.

When I first read Pascal's Pensees. I regarded him as a moral coward; I still do.

Maybe we should all behave as if unicorns existed; we have nothing to lose and who knows... ?

 

[dixonmassey]

Pascal wager may help one to secure eternal life IF you'll guess the right kind of God/denomination to worship. There are thousands of those. For some weird reasons all the Gods humans created throughout ages are pissed off by people worshiping wrong kind of Gods much more than by nonbelievers. For example, You shall have no other gods before Me . You see nothing is said about nonbelief. It's obvious that nonbelief in the eyes of Gods is a lesser crime than wrong kind of worship. What are your chances to guess the right kind of God (not speaking of denomination) to wager upon? You see, Pascal wager demands nonbelief as the safest bet.

 

[mulligan]

first of all, I don't even want to here God compared to the teachings of our parents. Parents have an excuse to allow us to make mistakes so we'll learn because sometimes they have no other way for us to learn. God has no excuse. He has the power to make his creation know something without actually having to suffer. How was Adam able to walk, breathe, etc.? Because God willed him to. There are no stories that say," Oh well Adam first had to suffer before he learned to walk." No, there's nothing like that. But people are now asking if I'd rather be a happy robot in heaven. Here's your answer: Every single one of you are already robots because you can only do what god made you able to. Every thought that crosses your mind, every feeling, everything was enabled by him. If you're trying to say he didn't enable something, then you're saying that humans can manipulate god's will. So now he's not all-powerful, which means now he can be conquered by humans. Which means now christianity is disprooven. So I don't want to hear out of anyone hear that humans can manipulate god's will. The second answer to the questio of would I rather be a happy robot in heaven: Here's the thing, ssnce you're already a robot you're programmed to say whatever herre on earth, whther it be yes or no. So you're already a robot, now would you rather be a robot that can be only happy? or would you rather be able to suffer? If you WANT to suffer then you're an idiot. That completely ccntradicts laws of nature. What motivates living things? Happiness OR the ability to live. Neither of which can be acheieved through suffering. and next people may try to say that happiness is achieved through suffering. Well you're forgetting how powerful god is and that he could make you happy without suffering.

So if you don't want to be a happy robot in heaven you need to realize:

You're already a robot

So now you need to pick between suffering/happiness or happiness alone. Which once again you're an idiot if you'dd pick suffering/happiness over pure happiness.