winstonjen

Yes, it shows the double standards and hypocrisy of the Christian religion. The adherents damage their own cause more than any heathens could ever do. Surely NOW he can see his own inconsistency. Or is it only inconsistent to him when an atheist points it out.

Jackalope

Apology accepted.

The language I used expressed my complete and utter disgust with a commonly-espoused idea that suffering is neccessary and for the greater good. Even though the people doing the suffering were never asked, and in fact the argument is only ever used by those who are not doing the suffering.

Quite, so I fail to see why you took offense.

However, catholicism does espouse the idea that suffering is somehow holy or takes one closer to God. That's also an idea that I find repugnant, especially since it is claimed that this god is loving and good. See, I had the same catechism classes you did, I just never fully believed what they were attempting to instill. In fact, I kept getting in trouble for asking the questions that the nuns and priests couldn't answer. And once again, the people making statements about suffering aren't the ones actually suffering. It's a really nasty lie they tell us to keep us quiet.

Oh, bad choice. Job is one of the sections of the bible that convinced me that this so-called "god" was neither loving or benevolent. God and Satan decide to take a bet on someone's life? How much less loving can one possibly get? The book of Job mostly teaches us that God is arbitrary in his punishments.

Again, it's a story of someone getting punished for no good reason. Tell me again that your god is a loving god. I don't quite believe it from the sections of the bible that you're chosing.

Again, who supposedly made this world? And who supposedly is all-powerful? If the world is bad, it's because "god" has made it so. Or, you can pick doors number 2 and 3 and come to the conclusions that either "god" doesn't care about this world in the least or that perhaps "god" doesn't even exist.

Let me quote you from Summa Theologica:

Reply to Objection 2. Both original and actual sin are removed by the same cause that removes these defects, according to the Apostle (Rm. 8:11): "He . . . shall quicken . . . your mortal bodies, because of His Spirit that dwelleth in you": but each is done according to the order of Divine wisdom, at a fitting time. Because it is right that we should first of all be conformed to Christ's sufferings, before attaining to the immortality and impassibility of glory, which was begun in Him, and by Him acquired for us. Hence it behooves that our bodies should remain, for a time, subject to suffering, in order that we may merit the impassibility of glory, in conformity with Christ.
Emphasis mine.

From Whether death and other bodily defects are the result of sin? taken from the the online version of Summa Theologica at The Catholica Encyclopedia

I'll state again, that the people who come up with these ideas are very seldom the ones doing much suffering.

A second quote:
(2) Another characteristic of holiness according to the Christian ideal is love of suffering; not as though pleasure were evil in itself, but because suffering is the great means by which our love of God is intensified and purified. All those who have attained a high degree of holiness have learnt to rejoice in suffering, because by it their love to God was freed from every element of self-seeking, and their lives conformed to that of their Master. Those who have not grasped this principle may call themselves by the name of Christian, but they have not understood the meaning of the Cross.

From the entry on Sanctity
Again, I would consider this line of argument a nasty sort of lie told to those of us who suffer in an attempt to keep us quiet. Suffering is not good for the soul. It can be an insidious poison.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Jackalope,
You are all over the map on this one. But what a map it is! How refreshing to have you quote St. Thomas to me! That is really rich.

Sorry to say, I agree with every word of everything you wrote. Like I say, you are all over the map. Your anger is not something that can be agreed to or disagreed with, it just is. As such, I can only identify with it (as Jobar and Diana will attest!), as I am an angry old man. It's my main character flaw. But that is neither here nor there, nor the point.

The point is not even a point, but more like a singularity, i.e., a point of non-existence. What I mean to say is that in spite of your many words, none of them constitute an argument. Can you not see what I do not see? Do you not know that complaints are not conclusions? Can you detect the difference between anger and an argument?

I hope you don't think I'm toying with you or trying to be difficult -- especially since we started off on the wrong foot. I really have no animosity towards you and am appreciative of you accepting my apology. So please, try to make an argument and I will try to refute it.

Suffering is a metaphysical necessity. This has you pissed off to the point that you deny that fact and the religions and the people that assert that fact. But you being pissed off does not an argument make. I await your argument almost as eagerly as I awaited your acceptance of my apology. -- Cheers, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Jackalope

Albert, from what I've seen of your postings here on II, I suspect you actually want a formal debate. That's not the normal format for these discussion forums. If you want a formal debate, talk to Dr.Rick who moderates those. However, I won't be engaging you, as I haven't the time or energy to waste on what I consider theological nonsense.

To wit, my points are:

Christians claim that the god of the bible exists, that he is all-powerful, all-good, and all-loving. Against that claim I would set:

Original Sin.
The Book of Job.
The Neccessity of Suffering.
The whole bizarre crucifixion-as-blood-atonement idea.

Original Sin
The world is bad today because of the sins of Adam and Eve. Ignoring the whole creation-story problem, keep in mind that god is omniscient. So he would have known that Adam and Eve would sin, yet he put the Tree in plain sight and reach. He's also omnipotent, which means he could easily have arranged things so that there was no occasion for sin. Or even better, prevented Satan from entering the garden. So, because he placed two innocents in a situation that today could only be described as a "set up," all the rest of humanity must suffer. These do not sound like the actions of a loving, all-powerful god to me. Either god isn't nearly as powerful as is claimed, he's very stupid, he's a frank sadist, or possibly, the whole thing is a myth made up by bronze-age goat herders.

The Book of Job
God and Satan take a bet as to how much misery it will take before Job curses God. Again, this is not the action of a loving god, but more like the actions of a sadistic control freak. Lesson learned from the story: God can punish anyone, anytime, for no reason at all.

The Neccessity of Suffering
Here, we have you and others claiming that suffering is a metaphysical neccessity. However, there's no evidence presented. The whole unsupported premise is based first and foremost on the idea that there is a god, and worse, that's he's the god described in the bible. If one doesn't buy that idea, then the idea that suffering is neccessary begins to seem a bit suspicious.

More than a little suspicious, when one factors in that the people making the argument are seldom the ones suffering. One begins to suspect the argument is actually used as a method of social control, rather than being a true requirement for life here in this universe. God is supposedly all-powerful. By that admission, he does not need to do anything. There is no rule that says he must make people suffer. After all, if he's all-powerful, why make a world where evil and suffering exist at all? And before you start in with the glib "it's the result of orignal sin" argument, see my entry above on that. An all-powerful being needn't have made a situation that could go wrong so badly. An all-knowing being would've known it was a stupid idea in the first place. And an all-loving being wouldn't have made suffering a requirement for salvation. Suffering of anyone.

Yes, the world is imperfect. Which puts a great deal of strain on the idea that an omnimax god created anything at all. Or that such a being even exists.


Crucifixion As Blood Atonement
Again, we have here the idea that someone must suffer for the rest of us to get saved. From a set of faults that were designed into us, or at the very least, not designed out of us. Which again argues for a very inept designer, a sadist, or perhaps a set of bronze-age goat herders making up stories. This particular issue has been argued so many times here on II, that I'm not going to touch on it more than that.

Conclusions
The idea that God must allow suffering in the world is, to put it succinctly, a load of bullshit. If an omnimax god existed, the world as it currently exists would not need starvation, wars, child abuse, rape, children born with disabling, disfiguring, or fatal conditions, or any of the other evils currently in the world. To put the blame off god and onto satan simply further weakens the case for an omnimax god who is also all-loving.

winstonjen

Right on, Jackalope! :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Will you marry me? Pretty please?

On-topic, if suffering is so necessary, why did Jesus get to stop suffering? Shouldn't god punish himself in hell for all eternity in order to lead by example?

Jackalope

Sorry, already married. And my male harem is full up right now.

Hahah. This is the type of question that used to get me in so much trouble in indoctrinatio--er, I mean catechism class.

Why shouldn't "God" suffer for eternity? After all, this whole buggered up mess of a world is the result of his inept design.

winstonjen

Awww...so I can't be a bondage slave? WAAAAHHHH!



Perhaps it's their indignity coming into effect because they project their own aspirations of domincation and bloodlust onto their fictitious deity, so any attack on the 'god' is an attack on them.

I agree. The only way the Biblical god could avoid sending himself to hell is to consider himself above the law.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Jackqlope,
For someone who says she doesn’t have “the time or energy to waste on what I consider theological nonsense” you sure wrote a long and detailed post.

You expended over 700 words disproving your lack of time or energy. You are a piece of work. You demonstrate once again that you are beyond demonstrations.

You wish to ventilate. Go ahead, rail at the fictitious god of your uninspired imagination and uninformed knowledge base. Be that coyote on a bluff beneath the moon.

I tried to engage you around my campfire, throwing you some bones, but you’ve turned up your nose, preferring the hunting grounds of your rodent-infested bluffs. I can be of no assistance to you. Goodnight, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Jackalope

A formal debate requires considerably more thought than i expended on that last post. You accused me of complaining rather than putting forth arguments, so I put forth my arguments. However, I'm not going to go much farther than that. I could start mining all the catholic church's documents if I wanted to really whomp on your assertions. However, that takes time. Most of the subjects you're putting arguments into have been discussed over and over here on II before. I feel no need to go into them again, when others have already extensively argued their cases. Browse the archives before you attempt to trot out your new and different apologetics. You may find they're not new to us here at all.

keyser_soze

You ARE the woman! Too bad you're already married. Well, it wouldn't matter anyway since I am too. But still, you are much woman. A brain, and independence in the same person. Albert, it is far better to look at the style of someone's writing, than to judge someone on it's content. You might just find that the person on the other end is a little quicker than you give credit for. Hence your attack of what seemed to be a shallow argument coming full around to finding out that the emotional outburst was not the full account of her. She is not all about the map, she is dead on with her attack. We all see her goal, and her point. I'm afraid you missed it.