Christianity?

( A further explanation of why Parents enabling kids to suffer for the good of them makes sense but god enabling ALL humans to suffer at least once doesn't)

I understand why parents would make their kids suffer for their own benefit. They make them eat vegetables because it's good for their body. They make them go to school to get an education. So how does God sitting back and not intervening in a baby being burned alive benefit the baby that it happened to? Because it gets to go to heaven? Well there are innocent babies that have died deaths that were much more not as cruel (to say at the least) so why did one baby have to be burned alive and the other simply die in its sleep? Espicily when, since they're babies, neither of them were capable of sin so how could one deserve a much more painful death than the other? Unless of course there's something to do with reincarnation, which would disproove christianity.
 
mulligan said:
( A further explanation of why Parents enabling kids to suffer for the good of them makes sense but god enabling ALL humans to suffer at least once doesn't)

I understand why parents would make their kids suffer for their own benefit. They make them eat vegetables because it's good for their body. They make them go to school to get an education. So how does God sitting back and not intervening in a baby being burned alive benefit the baby that it happened to? Because it gets to go to heaven? Well there are innocent babies that have died deaths that were much more not as cruel (to say at the least) so why did one baby have to be burned alive and the other simply die in its sleep? Espicily when, since they're babies, neither of them were capable of sin so how could one deserve a much more painful death than the other? Unless of course there's something to do with reincarnation, which would disproove christianity.
Click to expand...

It is your parents who are at fault in the first place. They are the ones who passed on the nonsense they themselves were indoctrinated as children. So, rather than starting from your parents position on religion, start from a neutral position of questioning the claims of reincarnation, heaven and other such fairy tales theists claim.
 
Suffering is part of life and it has a physical and emotional purpose. You need to specify if you mean emotional suffering, physical suffering or the combination.
 
Suffering is suffering. it hurts, it's undesireable. It really doesn't matter what form it comes in. I can see you arguing suffering has a purpose if none of the abrahamic religions were true (christianity, Islam, Judaism), but when you have the power to intervene in something without huge negative consequences to yourself, and you don't, then you're at least partially to blame for what happened. And God being what he's claimed to be, I can't see him having huge negative consequences for sparing an innocent baby from being burned alive. So therefore he shares the most responsibility for what happened. True it's the human's fault who did it to to the baby, but I'm sure that human didn't give itself it's own emotions. Someone had to be there to create that human and allow certain emotions/impulses/feelings/etc. and who else would it be, but God? it couldn't be the parents because although they physically create the human they don't neccessarily dictate how that human feels. They don't put a microchip in its head and control what it does. Once that human matures into an dult, the parents are very limited as to what that human does. and who's to say the parents could control that human from doing what it did to that baby? I know someone that actually DID have the power to intervene.....and didn't......and for that reason an innocent who couldn't even speak or comprehend what good or evil was, was charred into ashes. and if that person actually didn't have the power to intervene then it's not all powerful. So then it can be conquered. So then it's not God.

and (Q), I'm not trying to be mean, but I really don't even see the point of you saying what you said in your last post, where you quoted what I said.
 
Last edited:
No.

All suffering is not equal.

What is the purpose?

Scenario A:
Go w\out drinking water for a day or two and then put a big glass of ice cold water in front of you and drink.

Scenario B:
Drink water any time you want, just keep drinking whenever you feel like it.

Is there a difference?

Yes.
 
Myles said:
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... ?
Click to expand...
First of all, your unicorn metaphore is absurd. A more apt comparison might be UFO's. Or better yet, Santa Claus (see the top strip):
calvin_hobbes_pascals_wager_pascal_.jpg
 
Not to mention Mulligan that suffering offers a unique incite into life. For example if you suffer and willingly live amongst the poor you see how special these people are. Possibly things become even more real, unencumbered by material possessions but more in tune with what it means to be alive.
 
mulligan said:
and (Q), I'm not trying to be mean, but I really don't even see the point of you saying what you said in your last post, where you quoted what I said.
Click to expand...

Seems you were talking about your parents and coming to terms with Christianity, yes?

That is the reason why you're a Christian, because of your parents indoctrination from their parents and so on...

So, stop thinking in terms of a Christian if you want to deal with Christianity.
 
Did you not notice how I said I understand the point of suffering from a non-religious point of view? If no abrahamic religion is true then i see wh suffering happens. Better yet if no religion is true where there's a God and he has the ability to make his creation not suffer, but doesn't, then I understand suffering. my point is when there's an all ppwerful god what's the point of making his creation suffer to see something when he could simply use his power to make them see something? For example I can learn how horrible the great depression was by reading books about it and talking to those who experienced it. I don't have to go through a great depression to know what it was or how horrible it was. So why would God use suffering as a tool to teach when there are clearly other non-cruel ways to do so? That is, why would you hurt something you love when you really don't have to?
 
mulligan said:
Did you not notice how I said I understand the point of suffering from a non-religious point of view? If no abrahamic religion is true then i see wh suffering happens. Better yet if no religion is true where there's a God and he has the ability to make his creation not suffer, but doesn't, then I understand suffering. my point is when there's an all ppwerful god what's the point of making his creation suffer to see something when he could simply use his power to make them see something? For example I can learn how horrible the great depression was by reading books about it and talking to those who experienced it. I don't have to go through a great depression to know what it was or how horrible it was.
So why would God use suffering as a tool to teach when there are clearly other non-cruel ways to do so? That is, why would you hurt something you love when you really don't have to?
Click to expand...
he wouldnt,..
IF he was Loving,,

unecesary suffering only proves xian god doesnt exist or doesnt care.

and what about the nonsense about sacrificing His son to correct some SIN which He created Himself in the first place?

couldnt he create people With Free will and UNABLE to sin also.

its all bunch of stupid mythology that might have worked on the primitives back then,today peoples brains are evolved enough to see right thru that krap!

http://www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/vindicate.html
 
Mulligan,

What age bracket do you fall into:

12-18
18-30
30+

You are asking a question that leads me to believe 12-18. It is a common question for someone who is idealistic but uit is not an accurate representation of humanity.

Take a look at a segment of your OP:

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?
Click to expand...

You use the term intervene and ask does God love his creation but what you seem to be focusing on is suffering at the hands of other humans.

Haven't you heard of the term "free will"? it is integral to human existence.

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=free will

Do you believe in the notion of "equal and opposite"?

One day you work hard and the next day you go to the beach.

Pain and pleasure........:shrug:

I am not posting for or against the existence of an entity with the powers you outlined in your OP just that the line of reasoning you are alluding to is a dead end.
 
Suffering exists because choice exists, no god needed. The good news is we can choose not to suffer, but it has to be done on a global scale.

I see this as a better option then waiting for a God to do it for us, and hell its probably the freakin point.
 
Why does my age matter? What if I'm 10? 20? 30? 40? It really doesn't matter. More than likely, you're simply trying to undermine my argument by trying to say I'm either too young or too old and senile to understand something which leads me to believe that you're all out of a reasonable counter-argument to mine.

I realize that in the world there are opposites. As you said suffering and pleasure. I also realize that muchhof the suffering in this world is indeed man made. Well I have three points then:

1. Even if some evil is man made then God is still partially to blame. He has the ability to intervene. He has the ability to without severe negative consequences. Therefore he's somewhat responsible.

2. Not all evil is man made. What about tornados and volcano eruptions? You can't blame that on man no matter what your argument is because natural disasters happen on other planets where there are NO humans! So don't even try to tell me all evil is man made. What are you going to try to say next? That it's natures fault? Well here's the thing, unlike humans, nature (wind, water, fire, etc.) doesn't have free will! So how can you say somethings evil when it doesn't have free will, like humans? You try to blame suffering on the free will of humans when God gave it to us. When did humans ASK for free will? I'd take eternal happiness over suffering( or what you like to call,"free will") any day! Who wouldn't? What good is free will when it only damns you? So whether you like it or not, not all evil is man made. Even if Adam or Eve had asked for free will and knew they were going to suffer, I still know I never ASKED for free will. I'd much rather be a brain washed and happy than have free will and be able to damn myself.

3. What then about babies who die from natural disasters? Was that their parents fault when their parents honestly didn't think that natural disaster would happen?

So what's your sad excuse of an argument now that I've prooven that not all evil is man made and that innocents can suffer from something that wasn't an evil made by man?

The fact still remains that if God is real, that he sits in his paradise, in his kingdom, while humanity suffers, sometimes by things that they can't control. Seriously, saying God isn't responsible for suffering on Earth is like this situation:

There's a man of extreme power and stature. He has highly developed muscles and is more than capable of holding his own in a fist fight. He can control himself and if threatened would manage not to severely hurt someone. He's walking on a trail and sees a woman jogging and suddenly a man jumps out of the bushes and tackles her. He robs her and rapes her. The man does nothing. He doesn't don't stop the criminal who he's clearly more powerful than, he doesn't stop the woman from facing trauma for the rest of her life, he doesn't even call the police. When questioned for his lack of a response he says," :shrug:That man had free will and that evil was man made. I wanted her to know happiness."
 
Last edited:
EndLightEnd said:
Suffering exists because choice exists, no god needed.
Click to expand...

Yup, people choose cancer or earthquakes or wars, list is endless.

Humans are tremendously constrained by the societies/circumstances/classes/races etc. they live under. To speak about multitude of choices under these circumstances is to delude yourself.
 
You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe. (unknown)

It's pointless to argue with believers they have a need to believe, common sense be damned. Why people have tremendous need to believe is another question. I have the need to believe too, but I think that believing in man made Gods will certainly insult supreme entities, if they indeed exist.

It's common sense, that man made Gods are made in an image of man and are plain evil and morally disgusting. One needs to brainwash himself into zombie state to see good and love in the places where only evil exists.
 
dixonmassey said:
Yup, people choose cancer or earthquakes or wars, list is endless.
Click to expand...

Um yes we do choose wars. And youll find many cancer patients are very happy, because they choose not to suffer, they enjoy what little they have while they have it. And physical pain is NOT the same as suffering, we cannot choose pain, only how to deal with it.
 
EndLightEnd said:
Um yes we do choose wars. And youll find many cancer patients are very happy, because they choose not to suffer, they enjoy what little they have while they have it. And physical pain is NOT the same as suffering, we cannot choose pain, only how to deal with it.
Click to expand...

"We" don't choose wars. "We" doesn't exist as a collective selector of choices. Minuscule % of "elite" is involved in war decision making. After a decision is made, in the case of a serious war, drafting Motherland will knock on your door. And you'll have basically two options - to be shot/imprisoned as a deserter/dodger/traitor or take your chances on surviving battlefield. Essentially, those are two basic choices modern humans have a) to follow narrow set of options offered by the "system" (like infantry or navy, for example), b) to be crushed.

What about country to be attacked? I guess they should have behaved differently. However, in cases of wars of conquest&extermination, behavior o a weaker side simply doesn't matter. They are guilty by the fact of their existence.

In most of the cancer cases, pain is too great to enjoy that little what have left. Besides, observing your own disfiguring is painful in itself. To get a grasp, next time you'll get toothache, forget about dentists, go out and enjoy a beautiful sunset.

I didn't separate physical and emotional suffering. Frequently, emotional suffering forces people to infict phisical suffering/death upon themselves. And what's the main reason of emotional suffering? Yup, "nobody gives a dime" is reason number one. And ubiquitous indifference is not something coming from human rottenness. It's absolutely natural, that's how that omniloving thing organized life. To survive with minimum of "comfort" or just to survive, one got to be indifferent. Beast or man.
 
mulligan said:
If no abrahamic religion is true then i see wh suffering happens. So why would God use suffering as a tool to teach when there are clearly other non-cruel ways to do so?
Click to expand...

You've answered your own question. Nice work. :)
 
dixonmassey said:
"We" don't choose wars. "We" doesn't exist as a collective selector of choices. Minuscule % of "elite" is involved in war decision making. After a decision is made, in the case of a serious war, drafting Motherland will knock on your door. And you'll have basically two options - to be shot/imprisoned as a deserter/dodger/traitor or take your chances on surviving battlefield. Essentially, those are two basic choices modern humans have a) to follow narrow set of options offered by the "system" (like infantry or navy, for example), b) to be crushed.
Click to expand...

This is classic victim consciousness, assuming theres nothing WE (normal people) can do about it because the elite run everything! So lets just sit back and take it up the butt! What people dont realize is that normal people can change things but they have to be united (which of course we ARENT because of religious sects, extremists, etc...)

dixonmassey said:
What about country to be attacked? I guess they should have behaved differently. However, in cases of wars of conquest&extermination, behavior o a weaker side simply doesn't matter. They are guilty by the fact of their existence.
Click to expand...

Guilty by existence? What?
dixonmassey said:
In most of the cancer cases, pain is too great to enjoy that little what have left. Besides, observing your own disfiguring is painful in itself. To get a grasp, next time you'll get toothache, forget about dentists, go out and enjoy a beautiful sunset.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I know many cancer patients, one of my buddies infact just graduated with aerospace engineering degree. He had overcome cancer at a young age and he is as full as life now as he was then. You dont appreciate life until youve almost died it seems. Ive tried to learn from him.

dixonmassey said:
And what's the main reason of emotional suffering? Yup, "nobody gives a dime" is reason number one. And ubiquitous indifference is not something coming from human rottenness. It's absolutely natural, that's how that omniloving thing organized life. To survive with minimum of "comfort" or just to survive, one got to be indifferent. Beast or man.
Click to expand...

Well thats what SOME people are trying to change at least. Shifting from this "its all about me" paradigm to "its all about US" (the world). I suggest you randomly help someone today, im sure you will feel better afterwards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top