Jump to content

Suffering for the Sins of the World


TheRedneckProfessor

Recommended Posts

  • Super Moderator

The child in the photo below, apologists would have us believe, suffers as a direct result of sin having entered this fallen world through the disobedience of Adam and Eve.  Obviously this child, no more than four, or possibly six, years old, could not have possibly committed a sin so heinous that he should be left to such a forlorn fate.  Therefore, free will has to be directly linked to the boy's destitution, in that, because of sin, humanity continues to make choices and decisions that result in children such as this starving, alone and abandoned, in the gutters of the nations.  So, we are told, it is our sin--yours, mine, and the world's--for which this boy has been made a sacrifice.

 

But, it recently occurred to me that jesus supposedly took the sins of the world upon himself.  That he suffered our sins so that we would not have to.  If this is true, then how can sin, even collective sins, be the reason this little boy goes hungry?  Was the suffering of jesus not enough to satisfy god's anger, that he would need children to die wretched, cold, and alone?  Was jesus' sacrifice enough to atone for the eternal consequence of sin; but not the temporary effects of sinfulness upon the lives of innocents?  If christ's death was meant to alleviate the suffering of sin, by him taking upon himself the suffering of sin, how can the idea of christ's suffering for sin be reconciled with the idea that horrific atrocities happen to children as a result of sin?  

 

I admit I am still working this thought out; but it seems to me that there seems to be a big contradiction here.  And it occurs to me, in preemptive answer to the "free will" argument that is sure to ensue should an apologist actually show up, that every time god refuses to intervene in order to prevent evil, he is making a deliberate choice himself.  He is exercising his own "free will".  Every child who starves to death, alone and abandoned, is a deliberate choice made by god.  Every 10-year-old girl who gets raped is a choice god made.  Who could worship such an evil beast?

 

Hungry-child.png

  • Thanks 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

The child in the photo below, apologists would have us believe, suffers as a direct result of sin having entered this fallen world through the disobedience of Adam and Eve.  Obviously this child, no more than four, or possibly six, years old, could not have possibly committed a sin so heinous that he should be left to such a forlorn fate.  Therefore, free will has to be directly linked to the boy's destitution, in that, because of sin, humanity continues to make choices and decisions that result in children such as this starving, alone and abandoned, in the gutters of the nations.  So, we are told, it is our sin--yours, mine, and the world's--for which this boy has been made a sacrifice.

 

But, it recently occurred to me that jesus supposedly took the sins of the world upon himself.  That he suffered our sins so that we would not have to.  If this is true, then how can sin, even collective sins, be the reason this little boy goes hungry?  Was the suffering of jesus not enough to satisfy god's anger, that he would need children to die wretched, cold, and alone?  Was jesus' sacrifice enough to atone for the eternal consequence of sin; but not the temporary effects of sinfulness upon the lives of innocents?  If christ's death was meant to alleviate the suffering of sin, by him taking upon himself the suffering of sin, how can the idea of christ's suffering for sin be reconciled with the idea that horrific atrocities happen to children as a result of sin?  

 

I admit I am still working this thought out; but it seems to me that there is a big contradiction between the claim that christ died for our sin and the claim that innocent children have to suffer because of our sin.

 

Hungry-child.png

 

Your arguments are all very logical but understood by nearly all members here.  IMO your argument rings loudest for lurkers and those in doubt. I would never discuss such things because believing in God and Jesus for me, is like believing in Santa Clause and the Ester Bunny. Granted, polls have shown that about half the scientists in the US and of the world as a whole are religious or spiritual, which IMO only shows how unbelievably ridiculous most people's thinking is in the 21st century. 

 

One of the only good ideas that communism has ever had IMO was getting rid of religion. But they were too stupid to realize that it can't successfully be done and maintained by mandate. It has to be done by logical arguments like yours :)

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Damn, @pantheory.  I wasn't looking for a pat on the back; but I'm glad I found one anyway.  😀

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Ever since Judaism emerged in the millennium BCE, it wrestled with the suffering of the innocent.  At first the idea that the innocent suffered was denied: a just god wouldn’t allow this, so it must be a punishment for disobeying god.  Or at least for one’s parents’ disobedience, in the case of a suffering child.  
 

As the centuries went by, it got harder and harder to maintain a connection between disobedience as cause and suffering as effect.  That’s when the idea arose that an evil being - Satan - had the power to cause evil, against the will of a benevolent god.  But this was at odds with an all-powerful god: why would such a deity allow all the suffering?  
 

The best they could come up with (and this thinking developed in the couple of centuries before christianity) was that god had set a strict limit on how long Satan could run riot: not long at all, and it was fast coming to an end.  It seems that the original Jesus figure and his followers thought he was the herald of the end of Satan’s power and the start of god’s kingdom on earth, bringing an end to all suffering.  When his ministry ended in death, and when he failed to return to bring utopia back to earth, the story had to change.  You can see the story changing in the books of the New Testament that were written later.  The coming of god’s kingdom is pushed off into the future, and in some versions it’s pushed beyond the grave.   
 

I have to think that the thinkers who came up with the concept of an imminent end to suffering would have been appalled to see it all continue for so many centuries.  But the power of denial is so strong - and the unwillingness to abandon discredited concepts so strong - that even today so many people are convinced that the end to the suffering of the innocent is going to happen any day now!  In which case, I own a bridge in New York that you may be interested in acquiring to your advantage…

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, TABA said:

Ever since Judaism emerged in the millennium BCE, it wrestled with the suffering of the innocent.  At first the idea that the innocent suffered was denied: a just god wouldn’t allow this, so it must be a punishment for disobeying god.  Or at least for one’s parents’ disobedience, in the case of a suffering child.  
 

As the centuries went by, it got harder and harder to maintain a connection between disobedience as cause and suffering as effect.  That’s when the idea arose that an evil being - Satan - had the power to cause evil, against the will of a benevolent god.  But this was at odds with an all-powerful god: why would such a deity allow all the suffering?  
 

The best they could come up with (and this thinking developed in the couple of centuries before christianity) was that god had set a strict limit on how long Satan could run riot: not long at all, and it was fast coming to an end.  It seems that the original Jesus figure and his followers thought he was the herald of the end of Satan’s power and the start of god’s kingdom on earth, bringing an end to all suffering.  When his ministry ended in death, and when he failed to return to bring utopia back to earth, the story had to change.  You can see the story changing in the books of the New Testament that were written later.  The coming of god’s kingdom is pushed off into the future, and in some versions it’s pushed beyond the grave.   
 

I have to think that the thinkers who came up with the concept of an imminent end to suffering would have been appalled to see it all continue for so many centuries.  But the power of denial is so strong - and the unwillingness to abandon discredited concepts so strong - that even today so many people are convinced that the end to the suffering of the innocent is going to happen any day now!  In which case, I own a bridge in New York that you may be interested in acquiring to your advantage…

 

I'm also thinking ha ha, funny of your posting if it weren't so true :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

The child in the photo below, apologists would have us believe, suffers as a direct result of sin having entered this fallen world through the disobedience of Adam and Eve.  Obviously this child, no more than four, or possibly six, years old, could not have possibly committed a sin so heinous that he should be left to such a forlorn fate.  Therefore, free will has to be directly linked to the boy's destitution, in that, because of sin, humanity continues to make choices and decisions that result in children such as this starving, alone and abandoned, in the gutters of the nations.  So, we are told, it is our sin--yours, mine, and the world's--for which this boy has been made a sacrifice.

 

But, it recently occurred to me that jesus supposedly took the sins of the world upon himself.  That he suffered our sins so that we would not have to.  If this is true, then how can sin, even collective sins, be the reason this little boy goes hungry?  Was the suffering of jesus not enough to satisfy god's anger, that he would need children to die wretched, cold, and alone?  Was jesus' sacrifice enough to atone for the eternal consequence of sin; but not the temporary effects of sinfulness upon the lives of innocents?  If christ's death was meant to alleviate the suffering of sin, by him taking upon himself the suffering of sin, how can the idea of christ's suffering for sin be reconciled with the idea that horrific atrocities happen to children as a result of sin?  

 

I admit I am still working this thought out; but it seems to me that there seems to be a big contradiction here.  And it occurs to me, in preemptive answer to the "free will" argument that is sure to ensue should an apologist actually show up, that every time god refuses to intervene in order to prevent evil, he is making a deliberate choice himself.  He is exercising his own "free will".  Every child who starves to death, alone and abandoned, is a deliberate choice made by god.  Every 10-year-old girl who gets raped is a choice god made.  Who could worship such an evil beast?

 

Hungry-child.png

 

That is deep. 

 

Would you mind if I shared your post with my uncle? We love to discuss issues like this when we are able to speak from time to time. 

 

It blows my mind how when your sucked in believing, this is so easy to dismiss. I mean its repeated week, after week, after week  "God's great and GLORIOUS UnIMAGINABLE power. Yet he let's all of this go on every day. Millions if not billions of people suffering every single day......... yet.......... it still goes on. And every sunday...... ppl praise his name for basically nothing. 

 

I mean if God actually was like the God the Bible portrays this wouldn't happen. 

 

The quick and easy excuse I always hear is, "God's ways are not our ways, He has a greater purpose that we just don't understand." 

 

Yeah......   well..... the most logical answer really is........ that the biblical God doesn't exist. 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
5 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

Would you mind if I shared your post with my uncle?

By all means.

 

5 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

The quick and easy excuse I always hear is, "God's ways are not our ways, He has a greater purpose that we just don't understand."

There's nothing mysterious about being able to prevent suffering but not being willing to. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

There's nothing mysterious about being able to prevent suffering but not being willing to. 

 

Exactly! I've heard sermons about sins of omission before. Thats when you know your supposed to do something but you don't. It was a sermon to promote helping those in need. 

 

But if we take the scripture as a whole. The Bible repeatedly says that God cannot sin and there is no evil in him. 

 

And as you so eloquently pointed out in your post. If we apply the sins of omission concept to God himself he is far more Evil and sinful than his counterpart (The Devil). 

 

Its so obvious when you finally break the bonds of indoctrination. I'm so glad I was able to fully deconvert. 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Delving into the free will aspect of this thread Prof, what about Adam and Eve's free will?

 

If it really was god's intention to allow them a completely free choice of their own making in Eden, why did he allow Satan to influence their choice?

 

They might not have disobeyed god if their purity and innocence hadn't been contaminated by that fallen angel.

 

And god did stop other fallen angels from bringing sin and suffering into the world by confining them.

 

2 Peter 2 : 4  For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment;

 

 

So why didn't god confine Satan like this and allow Adam and Eve to make a truly free choice in Eden?

 

He knew beforehand what Satan was going to do and he didn't lack the power to confine him.

 

So what gives?

 

?

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/5/2022 at 9:52 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

The child in the photo below, apologists would have us believe, suffers as a direct result of sin having entered this fallen world through the disobedience of Adam and Eve.  Obviously this child, no more than four, or possibly six, years old, could not have possibly committed a sin so heinous that he should be left to such a forlorn fate.  Therefore, free will has to be directly linked to the boy's destitution, in that, because of sin, humanity continues to make choices and decisions that result in children such as this starving, alone and abandoned, in the gutters of the nations.  So, we are told, it is our sin--yours, mine, and the world's--for which this boy has been made a sacrifice.

 

But, it recently occurred to me that jesus supposedly took the sins of the world upon himself.  That he suffered our sins so that we would not have to.  If this is true, then how can sin, even collective sins, be the reason this little boy goes hungry?  Was the suffering of jesus not enough to satisfy god's anger, that he would need children to die wretched, cold, and alone?  Was jesus' sacrifice enough to atone for the eternal consequence of sin; but not the temporary effects of sinfulness upon the lives of innocents?  If christ's death was meant to alleviate the suffering of sin, by him taking upon himself the suffering of sin, how can the idea of christ's suffering for sin be reconciled with the idea that horrific atrocities happen to children as a result of sin?  

 

I admit I am still working this thought out; but it seems to me that there seems to be a big contradiction here.  And it occurs to me, in preemptive answer to the "free will" argument that is sure to ensue should an apologist actually show up, that every time god refuses to intervene in order to prevent evil, he is making a deliberate choice himself.  He is exercising his own "free will".  Every child who starves to death, alone and abandoned, is a deliberate choice made by god.  Every 10-year-old girl who gets raped is a choice god made.  Who could worship such an evil beast?

 

Hungry-child.png

You went to church, right?  You read the story, and gathered some level of dispensation, and where we might be on the timeline?  Faith and works as a result of what we believe, not what will be?  The believers are the body?  Did you miss that lesson?  Damn J.  Why do you keep posting this shit and bitch about it on the interwebs rather than laboring in the garden to feed this child on so many levels.....  You don't deserve any damn pat on the back.  Do something that's going to change humanity and then you might have a place to stand....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Delving into the free will aspect of this thread Prof, what about Adam and Eve's free will?

 

If it really was god's intention to allow them a completely free choice of their own making in Eden, why did he allow Satan to influence their choice?

 

They might not have disobeyed god if their purity and innocence hadn't been contaminated by that fallen angel.

 

And god did stop other fallen angels from bringing sin and suffering into the world by confining them.

 

2 Peter 2 : 4  For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment;

 

 

So why didn't god confine Satan like this and allow Adam and Eve to make a truly free choice in Eden?

 

He knew beforehand what Satan was going to do and he didn't lack the power to confine him.

 

So what gives?

 

?

 

 

 

 

You know the correct answer to your query Walter, so why ask such a rhetorical question?  As you know I'm sure, that moat of the Bible, if not all of it, is entirely BS, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

You know the correct answer to your query Walter, so why ask the question. As you know I'm sure, that moat of the Bible, if not all of it, is entirely BS, right?

 

Ah, but that's where there's considerable disagreement, Pantheory.

 

The correct answer according to the logic of what the bible actually says is not the correct answer according to faith.

 

According to the logic of what the bible actually says, god should have prevented Satan from influencing Adam and Eve's free choice in Eden.  Which god foreknew would harm them and harm the entire world.  Human parents can and do lay down their own lives to prevent their children from suffering harm.  Even human parents, who cannot foresee the future, would still try to pre-empt harm befalling their children if it was within their power to do so.  

 

However, according to faith Adam and Eve got what they deserved and this is how god showed his love for them.  According to faith no fault or blame can be laid at god's door because his actions towards them were perfectly good, just and loving.  According to faith we are blind and deluded to think that human parents who act to save their children from harm are more loving than a god who didn't.

 

So, why do I ask the question?

 

I ask it so that we can see what kind of correct answer a 'faithful' person would give.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Ah, but that's where there's considerable disagreement, Pantheory.

 

The correct answer according to the logic of what the bible actually says is not the correct answer according to faith.

 

According to the logic of what the bible actually says, god should have prevented Satan from influencing Adam and Eve's free choice in Eden.  Which god foreknew would harm them and harm the entire world.  Human parents can and do lay down their own lives to prevent their children from suffering harm.  Even human parents, who cannot foresee the future, would still try to pre-empt harm befalling their children if it was within their power to do so.  

 

However, according to faith Adam and Eve got what they deserved and this is how god showed his love for them.  According to faith no fault or blame can be laid at god's door because his actions towards them were perfectly good, just and loving.  According to faith we are blind and deluded to think that human parents who act to save their children from harm are more loving than a god who didn't.

 

So, why do I ask the question?

 

I ask it so that we can see what kind of correct answer a 'faithful' person would give.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

OK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

You went to church, right?  You read the story, and gathered some level of dispensation, and where we might be on the timeline?  Faith and works as a result of what we believe, not what will be?  The believers are the body?  Did you miss that lesson?  Damn J.  Why do you keep posting this shit and bitch about it on the interwebs rather than laboring in the garden to feed this child on so many levels.....  You don't deserve any damn pat on the back.  Do something that's going to change humanity and then you might have a place to stand....

 

 

What do my shortcomings have to do with god having the ability to prevent evil but deliberately refusing to do so?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

...According to the logic of what the bible actually says, god should have prevented Satan from influencing Adam and Eve's free choice in Eden.  Which god foreknew would harm them and harm the entire world.  ....

 

And did so by laying out that spiel about how wondrous and magical was the forbidden knowledge and awareness to be had by eating of the forbidden fruit..

 

Thereby leaving the female alone with her feminine nature to be tempted by the things she craves most as a female... mystery and excitement.

 

To use yet a different metaphor, God smelled the gas and lit the match then walked away to watch what would happen next.

Either incredibly stupid or insanely devious.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Why do you keep posting this shit and bitch about it on the interwebs rather than laboring in the garden to feed this child on so many levels.....  You don't deserve any damn pat on the back.  Do something that's going to change humanity and then you might have a place to stand..

Yikes. Looks like someone has a touched nerve.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

....  Do something that's going to change humanity and then you might have a place to stand....

 

 

Trouble is, there's an almost infinite quantity of suffering.

 

God could have created us as beings fed on pure electro-magnetic energy from the sun.

But instead, we're frail creatures dependent on complex electro-chemical reactions with the need to consume plant and animal materials for sustenance. Ever try to raise your own food? The need to do so demands that we enact laws to enforce ownership of property.

 

If God had wanted to have us live in harmony He could have created us with far less need.

If for instance we needed only 1/1000th the calories, and we could feed perhaps once per week?

Rather than as it is, the need to eat almost constantly just to be well and not drop dead.

The world would be a very different place, for the better.

 

What if we had no need for shelter or clothing?

There would be far less conflict in the world because we would not be so dependent on ownership of a finite quantity of land and use-able real-estate.

 

According to your bible, God intentionally built conflict, need and strife into the fabric of our human existence.

Then He stood back to see the pain unfold.

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In chapter 10 of the gospel of Luke Jesus sent out seventy two of his followers.  When they returned, this is what they said.

 

17 The seventy-two returned with joy and said, “Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name.”

18 He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. 

19 I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you.

 

This is significant.

If god saw Satan fall from heaven to earth (where the garden of Eden was located) why didn't he act THEN and bind Satan in chains of darkness?  That way his children would have been safe from harm.

 

But no. 

God waited thousands of years before incarnating himself as a carpenter's son and giving his followers authority over harmful demons.

 

And by then it was w-a-a-a-y too late.

Death and disease and sin came into the world the instant Adam and Eve acted upon Satan's temptation.

 

So, why didn't god protect them from harm?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

If the Bible gave us an answer for all of the above, would anyone here believe it?  You wouldn't have to like it, but would you believe it?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, duderonomy said:

If the Bible gave us an answer for all of the above, would anyone here believe it?  You wouldn't have to like it, but would you believe it?

 

 

 

Many Christians believe that the bible has given us the answers for all of the above.

 

But they might also believe that all of us atheists, agnostics and Ex-Christians here are too wicked to believe that it has.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
7 hours ago, duderonomy said:

If the Bible gave us an answer for all of the above, would anyone here believe it?  You wouldn't have to like it, but would you believe it?

 

 

If it was a legitimate answer that actually worked, it would not require belief.  So, no.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Moreover, if the bible presented an answer that would only work based on whether it was believed or not (like it already does), then I'd tell the bible to go fuck itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Many Christians believe that the bible has given us the answers for all of the above.

 

But they might also believe that all of us atheists, agnostics and Ex-Christians here are too wicked to believe that it has.

 

 

 

 

Yes, they might believe this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

If it was a legitimate answer that actually worked, it would not require belief.  So, no.

 

How exactly does an answer work? Who determines the legitimacy of an answer to a question?

 

Why would someone believe that belief is required to believe that belief is required?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
On 8/20/2022 at 10:40 PM, duderonomy said:

If the Bible gave us an answer for all of the above, would anyone here believe it?  You wouldn't have to like it, but would you believe it?

 

 

 

6 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

How exactly does an answer work? Who determines the legitimacy of an answer to a question?

 

Why would someone believe that belief is required to believe that belief is required?

How, who, and why did you have in mind when you asked the question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.