Wyz_sub10

This is an absolutely callous post.

For the record, let's review Jackalope's original comment:


Albert,

I have not edited your post and no PM is forthcoming, but to call someone with a crippling disease a "whiner" simply because his situation undermines your point is disgusting.

It is clear that Jackalope's position is based on comments already made in this thread, and it is equally clear that she is not blaming god or Christians or anyone. Rather, she is calling into question the logic that disease is acceptable because it allows good.

If you cannot formulate a response to the idea presented by Jackalope, then I suggest you keep your personal opinions of her to yourself.

Looking through the forums I moderate you can see that I refrain from involving myself at the personal level because you are all intelligent enough to stand up for yourselves.

But your comments here are embarrassing and they serve no purpose in advancing your argument, or anyone else's. Please refrain from such personal comments in the future.

Wyz_sub10,
EoG Moderator

keyser_soze

I stated we have a winner, because she recognized something that most don't. She recognized that those who claim suffering on the part of humanity, often aren't the ones doing the suffering! And your behaviour doesn't surprise me at all, I typically find that the people with the hardest hearts are the ones who proclaim the softest for their fellow man. But they rarely show it, and rarer still give more than lip service to the ideal.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Jackalope, Wyz, and Kyser,
First off, please accept my sorrow-ridden apology for my prior post. I was out of line.

Your “fucking insane” comment is what set me off. I actually agreed with your argument, just not your “fucking insane” summation.

My post was my ill-conceived attempt to shame you into refraining from such lowbrow language. I would have held my tongue, but for Kyser’s kudos. I felt that if you were to be rewarded for your post, I ought to be able to penalize you for it.

For the record, Catholic theology finds no dots to connect between the suffering of the innocent and the freedom of the many. Ergo, Steve must be Protestant. There’s no other explanation for his remark that brought forth your “fucking insane” critique thereof. For what it’s worth:

The entire Book of Job can be seen as God’s attempt to rid Jews of Steve’s mentality. Jews saw birth defects and illness in general as God’s retribution for our sins or even for the sins of our fathers. The Book of Job stands as eloquent testimony to the contrary.

Likewise, the alpha and the omega of Jesus Christ’s story can be seen as God’s attempt to rid Christians of Steve’s mentality. The scandal of His ill-legitimate birth and the scandal of His cross should have proved once and for all that there is no moral equivalency between bad things and bad people.

Bad things happen because the world is bad, not in order to provide a basis of freedom upon which good people may do good things. Indeed, suffering, death, and other defects do not even warrant the appellation “bad.” They are amoral events devoid of a moralistic schema.

Steve is right only insofar as he recognizes freedom as the necessary prerequisite of morality. He is wrong to associate the suffering of the innocent with some imagined prerequisite of freedom. Shamed, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Dr. Retard

Bear in mind that I'm addressing the "we" claims. I don't think you've defended the "we" claims, so I think we're talking at cross purposes.

Now, it's not obvious that sinning always leads to the suffering of innocents. Masturbation is a sin, I'm told, but no innocent folks suffer on account of my masturbating.

Perhaps you mean that, as a matter of historical fact, when Adam and Eve chose to sin, then this (somehow) caused the world to change in such a way as to guarantee the suffering of innocents. I'd want to know how that worked. Two people sin and this changes the world? Is this via some natural law? If so, didn't God set up this natural law? Do you mean something else? I don't get it.

Wyz_sub10

Albert,

Thank you for your apology to Jackalope (although I will, of course, leave it to her to accept), and thank you for clarifying your position with regard to the issue raised.

Specifically, I appreciate that you decided to post a public message of apology to Jackalope.

We can now resume the business of settling the issue of god's existence, once and for all.

Wyz_sub10,
EoG Moderator

Steven Carr

Pate has replied to my charges.

As expected, he has demonstrated the heartlessness and callousness demanded of Christian apologists for God's inaction.

He says it would have been wrong for God to stop the Holocaust.

And Pate claims that if children suffer and die young , it makes him
a better , more moral, person, and that is what really counts.

The man sickens my stomach.

winstonjen

I agree. I hope the other theists on the board can see that, but I find that unlikely. Do they decide a winner on those forums, or is it left to the spectators to decide for themselves?

Steven, did you get my PM? Was it helpful?

Steven Carr

Yes thank you.

winstonjen

Further evidence of Pate's lack of ability - his poor grammar skills - I know that grammar is a minor thing, but it is taken for granted that their grammar will be good during a debate.

Steven Carr

Pate is amazing!

He claims that God could not have stopped the Holocaust without unacceptable damage to our freedom, yet he thinks humans could have done so without damaging freedom. We can do more than God.

And he claims that atheists do not know why an infinite being like God does things, and there is a huge gap in knowledge, yet Pate spouts off continually about he knows why God does this and that, and he claims he knows what God wants him to do.