RJS

I would use the term analagous, not comparable. Think about it from the 3-year olds perspective and the parent's too.

RJS

Of course He knew about it - he obviously didn't intervene, and as I said, I don't question His actions.

On the other questions, I said the obvious unadulterated black and white differences between Love and Hate, Right and Wrong, Good and Evil, strengthen my Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Im saying it is possible at some point - but I am not saying it was right for the rapists. Do a google search for Todd Beamer and see what his wife is saying about the loss of her husband.

David Gould

Luvluv,

It is not relevant that earthquakes et cetera benefit mankind. You see, this God of yours could have created a world where the soil was always nutrient rich. God therefore created the necessity for earthquakes. Thus, he is morally accountable for the suffering they cause.

It really bugs me that Christians cannot see this.

I am going to shout now so you can put your fingers over your eyes if you like:


GOD SET UP THE SYSTEM: HE IS THUS RESPONSIBLE!


Thank you for listening.

RJS

Hey, I'm 2-2 on predicting the atheist response. You folks are easier to figure out than the believers.

doc58

St. Robert,
You asked about grace so I will talk about it.
Classically grace is defined as unmerited favor. A gift given by God based on nothing inherently good or bad about the individual or anything else about the person.
In other words grace is bestowed randomly. God draws straws to decide to whom he will give grace.
If you are not picked you are heck out of luck.
Romans says God chose Jacob and rejected Esau before they were born.
It is no different from you deciding to have 2 children and deciding before they were born to love one and love the other one less.
So, what about the doctrine of grace? One of the most digusting religious inventions man has ever created. Right up there with hell.

Hobbs

Then, what's the problem? Isn't it good for justice to be done? Wouldn't it be horribly dishonorable for me to let someone else take the rap for something I did wrong?

Suppose you committed some crime, thinking you could get away with it. But you are caught, convicted, and sentenced to spending the next ten years being tortured for your crime (let's also suppose, though it may be a bit difficult, that such a penalty could actually be considered just). Now, suppose your mother, who loves you and who is completely innocent of your crime, offers to take the penalty for you.

Could you possibly in good conscience accept her offer? How could you live with yourself if you did? How could you possibly enjoy your ten years of freedom knowing that your freedom was purchased at the cost of an innocent person being tortured for your crime?

If Christians can accept someone else being tortured for their own crimes, they are fundamentally dishonorable people.

The other possibility is that, if I find myself in hell, I will be there unjustly. If God would put people in hell unjustly, then he does not deserve to be worshipped. It would then be far more honorable to refuse to worship God.

So, if I wind up in hell (and, having absolutely no real evidence that it even exists I fully expect that I will not, so this is purely hypothetical), then either I deserve it or I do not deserve it. Either way is fine with me: I'd rather maintain my moral integrity and be punished for it than to be rewarded for being dishonorable. To be punished is external, it is to have something bad done to me. To sacrifice my moral integrity is to be bad.

But I don't think Christians are typically all that concerned with such things as their own moral integrity (other people's moral integrity, sure, but rarely their own).

Wizardry

Knowing why your analogy is flawed does not defeat the counter-argument.

You know, the whole point of innoculations is that we try to avoid as much suffering as possible. Unfortunately for us, technological constraints prevent us from making it completely pain-free. If we could, we would eradicate diseases altogether, but we don’t have that power. So we do what we can, because we care.

Furthermore, this isn’t even an accurate analogy. What exactly is the suffering on earth supposed to prevent? It doesn’t help us avoid hell. Being horribly tortured doesn’t improve your chances of getting into heaven. If you are on the wrong side of the ideological fence, your pain is actually magnified to an infinite degree. If vaccination didn’t avoid disease in suffering, but actually intensified suffering frequently, would we still use them? Absolutely not.

Might not Jesus, as a sadistic bastard, also be a liar? How do you know?

Why not? What would it take for you to reevaluate the morality of God’s actions or inactions? Mass murder isn’t enough. Would anything convince you?

I really don’t see how that is possible.

[edited for rephrase]

Peace out.

[ May 16, 2002: Message edited by: Wizardry ]</p>

MrDarwin

David, you left out one key part: God (so Christians say) set up the system, and being omniscient, knew in advance each and every evil thing that would happen, in the minutest detail. The inescapable conclusion is that God wants us to suffer, because an omniscient God knew it would happen, and an omnipotent God could easily have arranged otherwise.

Now, if we knew that there was some purpose to this suffering--that some good would inevitably come of it (like a vaccination preventing a serious disease)--we might feel a wee bit better about it. But (again according to the Christians) for many--perhaps most--humans, the end result of this suffering is going to be... eternal suffering. And again, it will be that way because God wanted it to be that way.

The Christian god wants millions or billions of souls to suffer eternally. And this is supposed to be a benevolent deity? Tell me, how could I possibly distinguish this creature from a malevolent one?

David Gould

If you can predict the argument, what's the answer to it?

David Gould

I agree. It is impossible to distinguish the christian god from an evil deity. In fact, the whole religion makes a lot more sense if he is evil.

The trick the christians try to pull is simply by saying that God is good by definition. And the human definition of good is therefore flawed.