The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday (page 226)

cofty

A god of love can still choose HOW and WHEN to express that love

So when god isn't being loving what is he being? Is your god sometimes unloving?

Psacramento said:
"As some hard-line fundamenatlist would say, 'No one is innocent, so no one is above suffering'.
We may not like the argument, but it is a valid one."

Babies are innocent. Animals are innocent. The argument is not valid from any logical standpoint.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/222352/23/Theists-why-does-God-allow-suffering#.U_-OhF2t-o8

cofty

No one is innocent, so no one is above suffering - PSac

Will you tell her that her daughter deserved it or shall I?

PSacramento

Again, you are going back to emotion to refute a possible reason why God would allow suffering and emotion doesn't void the argument.

As much as I AGREE that it is an emotional issue.

The fundamentalist argument, of which I do NOT subscribe to, is that because none are innocent, non are above suffering.

It is not that a person DESERVES to suffer, it is that no person is more than any other so if one is not above suffering, then no one else either.

Emotional arguments against this are just that emotional.

See, you are trying to deny the argument is a valid one because you dont' agree with it, because it makes God look bad ( or because it downplays suffering)and IF God is a God of LOVE then His love should be so much that there would be no suffering at all BUT that suggest that God's love for HOW WE ARE NOW would be have to be greater then His love for how we WILL BE, what He wants Us to be and there is no evidence of that in the Bible.

defender of truth

Psacramento said:
"It may seem to you to be morally repugnant to allow the death of 250K people and I agree 100%, even the death of ONE person is one too many if it can be avoided BUT that doesn't have any bearing on whether there IS a reason for it happening."
Yet, you cannot think of one and your God has not provided one, or perhaps does not exist?

...
Psacramento said:
"Seems like we can't have one ( This type of life) without the other...Unless of course it has been proven...I don't follow that debate so I honestly don't know if it has."

So, you have no idea whether the life on this planet could exist without natural evil. Let's say that it could do. Why does God let people be tortured, beaten, or mentally abused and emotionally scarred to the point that they feel nothing, let alone positive qualities such as empathy and compassion for others? Good qualities can be gained by tending to a wounded child or animal and feeling the joy that it brings to help others.
There are so many circumstances that are in no way beneficial to people, not making them kinder or more empathetic, instead turning them hard and depressed, that I could not possibly list them.
You claim that 'to say all suffering serves no purpose is wrong'.
Let's turn that on its head..
To say that all suffering has a purpose is wrong. In fact, it's repulsive.

Psacramento also said: "I don't know why He didn't take away suffering..."
"All I know is that God does allow suffering and I do NOT know why."
Once again, even highly educated theists can't offer a defense. Not even one that convinces them.

PSacramento

Will you tell her that her daughter deserved it or shall I?

You mean to say, "Do you want me to tell teh mother that she is not above suffering liek everyone else, or should I"?

Because that is the root of the argument.

In terms of death, Suffering has to do with those that are left behind, the dead no longer suffer.

It is the survivors that have to live with suffering and pain and the loss.

defender of truth

"It is not that a person DESERVES to suffer, it is that no person is more than any other, so if one is not above suffering, then no one else [is] either."

For that argument to be logically valid, the one making it would then have to show that anyone deserves to suffer, including babies. (we'll leave the animals for now if you like..)
Otherwise they are just starting off from an unsupported assumption.

cofty

It is not that a person DESERVES to suffer, it is that no person is more than any other so if one is not above suffering, then no one else either.

Bullshit!

You said..

As some hard-line fundamenatlist would say, No one is innocent, so no one is above suffering" We may not like the argument, but it is a valid one. .

Tell me please in what way the dead infant was not innocent?

Oubliette

PSac: I asked at the very beginning IF "you" ( the non-beleiver) believe there is ANY possible answer to this question that would satisfy you.

No, I do not believe there is "ANY possible answer to this question that would satisfy" me. But let me explain why I answer so.

What I don't think you understand is this: One of the main REASONs why I am now a non-believer is BECAUSE--not just you, but--no one has ever been able to provide a satisfactory answer to this question.

The lack of answers that make sense, and the preponderance of absurd answers that insult my intelligence, convinced me to change my beliefs.

Oubliette

PSac: I openly admited I do NOT have an answer for this question that would satisfy an unbeliever

Forget "believer/unbeliever" labels. Can anyone provide an answer that simply makes sense?

PSac: All I know is that God does allow suffering and I do NOT know why.

If you don't know WHY God allows suffering, then why do you believe that he DOES?

The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday

Share this