bfniii

could you provide at least two verses that show all of the livestock being wiped out?

could you provide the verses in joshua that state all of the canaanites have been wiped out?

bfniii

but i never agreed that there are people who should be immune from suffering as you seemed to imply.

i asked if God should remove suffering from our experience.

excluded middle. God may have a good reason for allowing suffering. how do you know that God doesn't suffer with us each and every time we choose to disobey or each time He allows difficult circumstances to enter our lives?

the meaning of adverse is not clear. by adverse, i was referring to ancillary suffering here on earth (one person causing another person pain). jack was pointing out that God should make a world where God punishes only the offender and no one else. i had that in mind when i addressed adverse.

it seems that you are referring to different adverse consequences. in that case, removing suffering would interfere with our moral capabilities that He is using to move the human race in a particular direction. it would be illogical to do so.

bfniii

i'm not sure where this line of questioning is going because it seems off topic. i'm not really concerned with where life starts. i am trying to find out from you why you think God is unjust for allowing suffering and why we should be immune from it.

we've established that your definition of innocent people are those who have committed no infraction.

the first question is what kinds of infractions are we talking about? what about lying? kids lie all the time. are they still innocent or not? at what point does a person become not-innocent?

the second question is why should these "innocent" (babies, handicapped people, etc) people be spared from suffering?

bfniii

i feel the same way about yours. your scenario deprives us of a powerful and often life-changing experience and the ability for ancillary good to come from it. your scenario makes the baby's pain amount to nothing because there is no reason for it. it is just the product of a cold, impersonal universe. i find that immoral and illogical.

i would also like to add that you are making a case for a world that we can live in where there is no suffering. there is one. it's called heaven and the way to get there is unbelievably easy despite the fact that we have done nothing to deserve citizenship there.

John A. Broussard

I never claimed that god is unjust. Why do you keep claiming I've said things which I didn't say.

I'll try again.

If god can't prevent suffering, then he isn't all-powerful.

If god is all-powerful then he must be able to prevent suffering without causing other adverse effects. He must therefore thoroughly enjoy watching people suffer.

Please reread the above and tell me what's wrong with my thinking.

John A. Broussard

Excellent point.

Since heaven is such a nice place, and since we don't deserve to be there but some go there anyway, why does god deprive the rest of us of that opportunity to escape suffering.

The reason? He likes to watch us suffer. He especially likes to see innocent children die in agony.

John A. Broussard

Absolutely correct.

I prefer impersonal forces to a malicious, sadistic god who could have prevented that child's suffering, but didn't.

John A. Broussard

Another excellent point.

Sadists are known to enjoy their own suffering especially when they are torturing victims.

I hadn't thought about it before you mention it, but it makes sense for your god to torture himself as he inflicts agony on human beings in general and his own son in particular. (There I get confused, though, since god's son is also god, so he must be making himself suffer there too. Tough to keep track.)

John A. Broussard

The first question is ridiculous. Day-old babies lie?

The second is self-evident to anyone who isn't sadistic. According to your god, innocent people deserve to suffer since your god makes them suffer. Where's the problem? I happen to think that it's immoral for anyone to make innocent people suffer. You think it's perfectly okay for your god to make innocent people suffer. We differ!

Johnny Skeptic

So the more natural disasters, the more chance for ancillary good, right? If you became quadriplegic, blind, and mute, what ancillary good could come from that? You would have no way of communicating with anyone. Only a monstrous, non-compassionate, and barbaric God would have allowed Hurricane Katrina to go ashore on the Gulf Coast, or at any other populated area. Any human father who allowed such destruction to happen to his children would be prosecuted, sent to prison, and ostracized from society. Ancillary advantages which resulted from Hurricane Katrina were most certainly outweighed by the disadvantages. Regarding the recent tsunami in Asia, I read where a number of Christian pastors gave up Christianity as a result. I assume that some other Christian pastors and laymen gave up Christianity as a result of Hurricane Katrina.

What ancillary good comes from the suffering of animals, both wild and domestic?

When hurricane season starts next year, your attitude will be "Oh goody, here come some more opportunities for some ancillary advantages," right?