Why would a good God let some people be born into existences that are truly nothing but misery?

[realityrunt]

Didn't Lex Luther say

 

"God can not be good and all powerful at the same time"

 

That being perfectly good limits Gods power, and being all powerful stops God from being perfectly good.

 

If you alow me to to raise two vaild points.

 

Point 1: The account of Genesis does not say Adam & Eve sinned.

(Sin came through cain)

 

Point 2: The god of the bible says "They have become like us knowing good and evil"

(The god of this story was not a good god, it knew the difference between good and evil)

[bornagainathiest]

2 hours ago, end3 said:

Well let's go with this then.....and this is just a guess.  Given God Omni-everything, I suggest that he want to create a partner for himself, a friend.  So essentially, create a robot or create a free-will entity.  So I expect the Jesus mechanism is a way to bring humanity to partnership status. 

 

And how does this address Lyra's question in any way, End?

 

She didn't ask about salvation, but about God's motivation for ordaining some people to be born into existences that are truly nothing but misery.

[Guest end3]

27 minutes ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

And how does this address Lyra's question in any way, End?

 

She didn't ask about salvation, but about God's motivation for letting some people be born into existences that are truly nothing but misery.

You said she asked why God allows this plan?  Why we have to endure? No?

[bornagainathiest]

14 minutes ago, end3 said:

You said she asked why God allows this plan?  Why we have to endure? No?

 

No.

Even though Lyra's used the word, 'let' in her question, that's misleading.  God doesn't passively let these things happen.  Nor does he need to seek permission of anyone to let them happen, either.  He is the initiator of them.  He's eternal and unchanging.  He planned to do them before he created time and space.  Before Genesis 1 : 1.  These things are His will.  As that Romans quote tells us.

 

Romans 8:19-23 New International Version (NIV)

 

¹⁹ For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 

²⁰ For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 

²¹ that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

²² We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 

²³ Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 

 

 

Edit:

 

End, please note that I've changed my earlier post to read this.

 

"She didn't ask about salvation, but about God's motivation for ordaining some people to be born into existences that are truly nothing but misery."

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

May I raise a point of order to a point of order. This is going to devolve into  interpretation and doctrine...

But there is the case to be found in the bible of God saying both that the child is not responsible for the sin of its father, AND that the sins of the father shall be visited upon the children UNTO the forth generation! (At least 4 times it states this)

 

This is one of those biblical contradictions. Depending on the doctrine and how judgemental a person is depends on which of these they choose to believe that their God holds.

 

My church for instance believes the latter, and thus a child born out of wedlock is not able to come into the tabernacle (read church) of the congregation. So deeply held is this belief that the pastor holds that his adopted sister who was born from an affair is thus not a true child of god because of the sins of her biological parents. Its one of the things that really started making me question the church and my own morality as I found the concept so repulsive that a person could not go to heaven because their parents had sex in a manner other than dictated in the bible.

 

May I raise a point of order to a point of order to another point of order.

 

What you say is valid, LF.

Such a contradictory case is found within scripture.  But it sits within the overall scriptural context I've described earlier.  The context being that every human except Adam and Eve was cursed by God before they were born.  So, everyone is punished for the sins of just two people.  Punished with disease, deformity, decrepitude and death.  Everyone.  Since God already unjustly punishes every generation for the sins of two people, it's really no surprise that he'll happily punish four generations of the unborn for the sins of their ancestors.  

 

Now, when it comes to interpreting scripture and trying to understand how God decides to mete out punishment for sin, I would submit the following.

 

Method 1.  God punishes everyone for Adam and Eve's sin.

Method 2.  God punishes four generations for the sins of the father.

 

Since # 2 is clearly contradicted elsewhere in scripture but # 1 is not, we are safer theological and doctrinal ground by going with and working with # 1.  It's impossible to resolve the contradiction associated with # 2.  Therefore, we should go with # 1.  

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

[sdelsolray]

20 hours ago, end3 said:

Trust isn't always based on evidence.... go check the trust definition you parsimonious bastard...lol.  Betting you are a cheap lawyer as well...

 

Yet another "Hey look over there".  Still, as to trust, you spend much time promoting trust in others.  I suggest you spend time determining why others do not trust you, you will heal faster if you do so.

 

20 hours ago, end3 said:

...

go check the trust definition you parsimonious bastard...lol.  

...

 

Several definitions for that word exists.  It's a bit polluted, but not as much as the word "faith".

 

I'll attempt to remain parsimonious, or at least identify parsimony when it is present.  Please continue being sanctimonious, and others can identify your sanctimony when it is present.  You are not capable of that.

 

20 hours ago, end3 said:

...

Betting you are a cheap lawyer as well...

 

I haven't raised my $350 hourly rate for three years.

[bornagainathiest]

Posted just now

  19 hours ago, end3 said:

Trust isn't always based on evidence.... go check the trust definition you parsimonious bastard...lol.  Betting you are a cheap lawyer as well...

 

Yet another "Hey look over there".  You spend much time promoting trust in others, and you do so quite sanctimoniously.  I suggest you spend time determining why others do not trust you.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

sdelsolray,

 

Notice how today End says that trust isn't always based on evidence.  But nine days ago, in response to you, he wrote this...

 

Your assumptions only demonstrate what you believe.  I thought you already knew that.  Apparently not.

No.  I can look at behaviors, i.e. stealing, murder, etc. and measure consequences.  What I think we are witnessing, because of our relatively recent and improved ability to store and recall history as data, we are more able to discern how our behaviors/actions were affecting society.....the consequences of certain agendas proving whether they did or didn't hold water over time.  I think we may then assess the agenda or moral as true or untrue by the tendency of society to move away from, but then back to, that behavior....supporting life. 

 

Yep.  Nine days ago he wanted to look at behaviors (i.e., evidence) and measure the consequences accordingly.

But today he's calling into doubt what he said he'd do nine days ago.  So he seems to be flip-flopping between trusting and not trusting evidence.

 

 

[sdelsolray]

4 minutes ago, bornagainathiest said:

Posted just now

  19 hours ago, end3 said:

Trust isn't always based on evidence.... go check the trust definition you parsimonious bastard...lol.  Betting you are a cheap lawyer as well...

 

Yet another "Hey look over there".  You spend much time promoting trust in others, and you do so quite sanctimoniously.  I suggest you spend time determining why others do not trust you.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

sdelsolray,

 

Notice how today End says that trust isn't always based on evidence.  But nine days ago, in response to you, he wrote this...

 

Your assumptions only demonstrate what you believe.  I thought you already knew that.  Apparently not.

No.  I can look at behaviors, i.e. stealing, murder, etc. and measure consequences.  What I think we are witnessing, because of our relatively recent and improved ability to store and recall history as data, we are more able to discern how our behaviors/actions were affecting society.....the consequences of certain agendas proving whether they did or didn't hold water over time.  I think we may then assess the agenda or moral as true or untrue by the tendency of society to move away from, but then back to, that behavior....supporting life. 

 

Yep.  Nine days ago he wanted to look at behaviors (i.e., evidence) and measure the consequences accordingly.

But today he's calling into doubt what he said he'd do nine days ago.  So he seems to be flip-flopping between trusting and not trusting evidence.

 

 

 

Intellectual honesty and consistency is not End3's strong suit.   I don't think he's being intentionally devious, he just has a lazy mind.  Very lazy.  That, and he has a severe disability with communicating in writing.

[bornagainathiest]

Indeed, sdelsoray.

 

This Monday he replied to LogicalFallacy, saying that I'd be the first one to ask about proof.

 

But about a month ago, he assured me in another thread that he knew and understood that I don't ask for proofs, except in math and logic.

 

Posted October 27

  On 26/10/2017 at 10:04 PM, bornagainathiest said:

Posted 1 hour ago

  On 26/10/2017 at 7:16 AM, bornagainathiest said:

  12 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

"I'm not addicted to Christianity, but the book sure points time and time again to what we witness. "

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

 

If you had been born in Saudi Arabia End, you'd have written...

 

"I'm not addicted to Islam, but the Quran sure points time and time again to what we witness. "

 

 

 

Aware of your last three posts BAA.  Thanks,  these are just observations. 

.

.

.

You're aware of my last three posts... but you're unaware that only math uses proofs.

 

These are just your observations... but you've never observed any posts where we've explained to you that only math uses proofs.

 

Really?

 

 

I realize the math statement.  I realize certainty vs. proof.  Yes, I have observed your posts.  But there are more times than I can count that you say, lay out your evidence.  Truthfully, I was unaware of what anecdotal evidence was.  But yes, because we don't have high certainty in all areas that would transfer anecdotal observations to high certainty, then we are left with math perhaps or accepting that anecdotal observations are either very typical or atypical.  And yes, this doesn't mean they are true, but, when you put these observation together with science, I think it points to something there.   Conversely, I think it can also help us question the paths science is taking.  This reminds me our science fair discussion and the conversation asking about what can be tested.  My mind takes anecdotal observations and says "let's test that" vs. a more strict adherence.  And this is more how my mind works I think, than anything else.  Lol, only took how many years to figure this out...10?

 

 

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

4 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

 

 

I haven't raised my $350 hourly rate for three years.

right, a function of geography.  Your arrogance/ego is your confirmation.  Go do something pro bono....you're a true jackass.

[Guest end3]

4 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

 

Intellectual honesty and consistency is not End3's strong suit.   I don't think he's being intentionally devious, he just has a lazy mind.  Very lazy.  That, and he has a severe disability with communicating in writing.

You've heard of revelation, right?   Dad died two days ago.  Perspective changes.  I'm not lazy, You and others here have an undo emphasis on knowledge based on your lack of faith.  And you're not bright enough to understand that.  You're essentially stupid because you can't see....but it's ok,, your ego justifies....moron.  Truthfully, you're a fucking moron.  Catch a clue before you die....you're mostly dead already.

[Guest end3]

4 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

Indeed, sdelsoray.

 

This Monday he replied to LogicalFallacy, saying that I'd be the first one to ask about proof.

 

But about a month ago, he assured me in another thread that he knew and understood that I don't ask for proofs, except in math and logic.

 

Posted October 27

  On 26/10/2017 at 10:04 PM, bornagainathiest said:

Posted 1 hour ago

  On 26/10/2017 at 7:16 AM, bornagainathiest said:

  12 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

"I'm not addicted to Christianity, but the book sure points time and time again to what we witness. "

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

 

If you had been born in Saudi Arabia End, you'd have written...

 

"I'm not addicted to Islam, but the Quran sure points time and time again to what we witness. "

 

 

 

Aware of your last three posts BAA.  Thanks,  these are just observations. 

.

.

.

You're aware of my last three posts... but you're unaware that only math uses proofs.

 

These are just your observations... but you've never observed any posts where we've explained to you that only math uses proofs.

 

Really?

 

 

I realize the math statement.  I realize certainty vs. proof.  Yes, I have observed your posts.  But there are more times than I can count that you say, lay out your evidence.  Truthfully, I was unaware of what anecdotal evidence was.  But yes, because we don't have high certainty in all areas that would transfer anecdotal observations to high certainty, then we are left with math perhaps or accepting that anecdotal observations are either very typical or atypical.  And yes, this doesn't mean they are true, but, when you put these observation together with science, I think it points to something there.   Conversely, I think it can also help us question the paths science is taking.  This reminds me our science fair discussion and the conversation asking about what can be tested.  My mind takes anecdotal observations and says "let's test that" vs. a more strict adherence.  And this is more how my mind works I think, than anything else.  Lol, only took how many years to figure this out...10?

 

 

If you will notice dumbass, that's why I put proof in quotes a few posts back.  You had a fit.  Go see a therapist.

[bornagainathiest]

If your dad died two days ago End, then what the hell are you doing here, in the Den?

 

This is not a peaceful place for Christians.

 

Please, stop trying to work out your anger issues here and go grieve properly.

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

3 hours ago, end3 said:

You've heard of revelation, right?   Dad died two days ago. 

First, End, sorry to hear your dad died

 

But that doesn't justify the ad homs you launched against sdelsolray and BAA... in my experience, once a person is resorting to ad homs they've run out of decent arguments but don't wish to admit that so resort to name calling instead. Not saying that's you, but I have observed it. Obviously losing someone close to you is hard and affects you emotionally. I agree with BAA, being here with us is not the best place for a Christian just after losing someone.

 

I hope you can find some peace and comfort in this hard time.

 

LF 

 

 

[florduh]

Sorry for your loss, end3. Peace to you. 

[Vigile]

9 hours ago, end3 said:

You've heard of revelation, right?   Dad died two days ago.  Perspective changes.  I'm not lazy, You and others here have an undo emphasis on knowledge based on your lack of faith.  And you're not bright enough to understand that.  You're essentially stupid because you can't see....but it's ok,, your ego justifies....moron.  Truthfully, you're a fucking moron.  Catch a clue before you die....you're mostly dead already.

 

Really sorry man. 

[sdelsolray]

11 hours ago, end3 said:

You've heard of revelation, right?   Dad died two days ago. 

...

 

Sorry to hear about your father's passing.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

End3, if there's anything I can do for you, just holler.  Sorry for your loss.

[ExTeknon]

God is complicit in man's sin by creating man after having failed with the creation of angels.  Did not the omniscient God know that man would sin?  Especially after the disaster of the creation of angels, 1/3 of which rebelled? 

The whole logic is flawed, yet no Bibler will admit it.  SMH

[Aries256]

Isnt it sick and demented how a xtian thinks?

then again these are the people who treat people born gay like crap, even driving many of them to suicide. Then blame the suicide on their “sin” of being gay. Or as I directly heard, wishing more would commit suicide if they didnt accept gawwwwd *bible thump* and stop being gay. Born as who they are and crapped on for simply existing. Just like xtians when I was still a part of the cult would say, oh that disaster was because they didnt believe in gawwwwd *bible thump*, or didnt atone for their sins *bible thump*. Born with a horrible medical condition that causes a lifetime of pain and suffering? Oh its gawwwwd testing you or your parents, or you are maaade to suffer for the sinnnns of your parents as adam and eve committed! *bible thump*. Xtians in my mind from what Ive directly witnessed are truly awful, even worse are the money grubbing, demented preachers, priests, etc.