Suffering for the Sins of the World

[TheRedneckProfessor]

9 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Dude, you’re sick.  Go get help.

Yes, Ed, I am sick. 

 

I am sick of hearing about how raping children is "good."

 

I am sick of hearing about how sex trafficking and slavery are all just part of god's "loving" plan.

 

I am sick of hearing people justify, condone, and defend what happened to Rosa Maria.

 

I am sick of people blaming Rosa Maria for what happened to her; and appealing to free will to justify god's refusal to prevent it.

 

I am sick of hearing people claim that Rosa Maria's tragic life was just some kind of test or lesson that god was using to make his people "pure" and "holy."

 

I am sick of this idea that a "loving" and "just" god deliberately chooses to allow atrocity to befall innocent children just so that a select few of you can feel better about yourselves. 

 

I am sick of the pretense that jesus suffered as we have suffered; but now we only ever hear vague promises about how "someday" he will take our suffering away and make things right.

 

These things make me sick, Ed.  Because I have morals and integrity.  Because I have compassion and a sense of justice and fairness.  Because I have empathy and the heart of a loving father.

 

These things should sicken you as well, Ed.  Why don't they?

[freshstart]

10 hours ago, Weezer said:

Hasn't this conversation run its course?  Why not talk about why God would let Satan torture Job to prove a point?  That is something god suposedly did on purpose.  No question about it.  

I think you may be right. There's a few times where Ed has admitted he doesn't have the "magical answers." The implication is that he does not have the answers to explain why humanity is more compassionate and just than the god that was invented for Christians to worship. Like a lot of Christians, he is perfectly fine with all the horrific things for which his mythical god is responsible. It does not create any cognitive dissonance because he has faith that all the reasons that his god is/was a mass-murderer and torturer of humanity will come to light one day.

 

But interestingly, he has made a few comments that would lead one to believe that "modern feminism" rankles him (as it does with a lot of Christians).  Funny how modern feminism, abortion, homosexuality and other topics involving human rights inspire rage among some Christians. But these same people have zero incredulity when it comes to processing how their god mass murdered all of humanity, instructed others to murder, and continues to allow heinous acts against  people as part of a "perfect plan."

 

The christian god considers all to be born guilty and deserving of eternal punishment until proven innocent through faith/belief. While our justice system (and most of humanity) considers all people to be born innocent, deserving of no punishment until such time as they are able to understand right from wrong and only until they commit some crime worthy of punishment. Being born is not, in and of itself, a crime - unless you are the Christian God.

 

If these diametrically opposed attitudes towards humanity do not create questions, doubts, and inspire further investigation as to why people are more compassionate than the worshipped Christian God, and if one chooses instead to shrug it all off, then essentially we probably need to recognize that no matter how many examples we provide, some Christians are just not capable of seeing what we see. Perhaps the brainwashing is just too deep, or the cognitive dissonance is too painful, or there is an inability to be compassionate or a host of other reasons why they cannot or will not explore this thorny issue.

 

Ultimately what many Christians (like Ed) conclude is:

Yep god allows (and directly caused) terrible things to happen, but there is a "good reason" for that. They try to explain a few of the "good reasons"  (like being born into sin, humans making the "wrong choices" in beliefs, etc), all of which are "crimes" completely inconsistent with God's punishment.  To them "Gods ways our not our ways" and it makes sense that eternal torture is justified for even the most decent folks who don't believe, while a serial killer who repents and allows Jesus into his heart, is off the hook. To the Christians for whom this all makes sense, we may be beating our heads against a wall trying to show them how it doesn't. IMHO, the only reason the conversation may be worthwhile continuing is for those Christians who come lurking and are capable of seeing a different point of view.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

10 hours ago, Weezer said:

Hasn't this conversation run its course?  Why not talk about why God would let Satan torture Job to prove a point?  That is something god suposedly did on purpose.  No question about it.  

I was actually waiting to see if Ed would suggest that these children being raped may be going through something like Job. Sounds like something a Christian would say about it. 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

9 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

I am sick of the pretense that jesus suffered as we have suffered; but now we only ever hear vague promises about how "someday" he will take our suffering away and make things right.

 

Jesus did not suffer as Rosa Maria suffered. I remember in church. Crying tears of sorrow thinking about all Jesus went through, just because I was a sinner and he loved me so much. He took my punishment so I could be free. But he wasn't tested like Rosa.

 

Rosa suffered far more than Jesus. And I wonder how many people like I was, sat in church today and shed those same tears thinking about Jesus, and at the same time see a story like this with indifference? 

 

Or if they do give it some thought throw it right back out the window with:

 

"Oh, I'll pray for them"

"I'll pray that God rescues them"

 

If Jesus had suffered like Rosa, King Herods men would have found him at the temple as a child, then they would have raped him repeatedly, then beaten him, then mocked him, then nailed him to a cross. When he was a fucking child. Beside all the other millions of children that it had happened to already. 

 

Millions of children and it is just getting worse.

 

Your God is fucking powerless because he doesn't fucking exist. This is what we need to be worried about in politics instead of worrying about abortion, or what two consenting adults of the same sex do, or any other trivial bullshit that Christians think are important for our politicians to focus on. 

 

According to the Bible, Jesus had to suffer, be in all points tempted as us, and without sin to be a worthy lamb for the sacrifice of sin. 

 

Yet he was not in all points tempted

 

He suffered, but he didn't suffer like Rosa.

 

He was mocked, but he wasn't mocked like Rosa.

 

He was humiliated, but not like Rosa.

 

Jesus is not worthy of Rosa.

 

Rosa deserves more than to go to heaven and live with a God that couldn't stop her from suffering the way she did. 

 

Go ahead Ed or any other true believer reading. Say it with me: 

 

"Rosa deserved Better"

 

Best Regard,

Dark Bishop

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

23 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I allowed the crossing of paths, but it was the rooster's fault.

 

So Satan is one of God's farm animals now?

 

The question was about a rattler that you absolutely know could kill your daughter was in the garden. Would you let your daughter get anywhere near a rattler. Not your pet rooster. 

 

Thats not a fair comparison.

 

But look at what you did with the rooster. How much more would you do to stop and even prevent a snake from coming near your daughter?

 

DB

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, freshstart said:

Ultimately what many Christians (like Ed) conclude is:

Yep god allows (and directly caused) terrible things to happen, but there is a "good reason" for that. They try to explain a few of the "good reasons"  (like being born into sin, humans making the "wrong choices" in beliefs, etc), all of which are "crimes" completely inconsistent with God's punishment.  To them "Gods ways our not our ways" and it makes sense that eternal torture is justified for even the most decent folks who don't believe, while a serial killer who repents and allows Jesus into his heart, is off the hook. To the Christians for whom this all makes sense, we may be beating our heads against a wall trying to show them how it doesn't. IMHO, the only reason the conversation may be worthwhile continuing is for those Christians who come lurking and are capable of seeing a different point of view.

No, I believe that God's conditions in his presence are absolute and that the timing and story outside of our ability to comprehend justify faith rather than declaring a conclusion.  I believe it's the right stance and try to do as well as possible given the conditions and abilities.  

 

I don't condone evil within our comprehension but do leave room for reasoning outside of our comprehension.

 

What y'all do here is demand that both are congruent and declare God evil.  And simultaneously spout science and facts as an example, but when new scientific discoveries are made, we accept this as acceptable if you use science, but unacceptable if you use religion.

 

In many instances science uses faith to move forward despite Walter's pleadings.  

 

I'm actually tired of arguing at the moment.  The Prof's post of that child is very near my toleration level for participation.

 

To the feminism:  It's humor ma'am.

 

Thanks for your participation. <sarcasm>

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

12 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

 

So Satan is one of God's farm animals now?

 

The question was about a rattler that you absolutely know could kill your daughter was in the garden. Would you let your daughter get anywhere near a rattler. Not your pet rooster. 

 

Thats not a fair comparison.

 

But look at what you did with the rooster. How much more would you do to stop and even prevent a snake from coming near your daughter?

 

DB

I responded to that already.  You missed it.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

I responded to that already.  You missed it.

My bad. Been trying to keep up but this thread has gone fast a couple times. 

[Edgarcito]

@freshstartto be fair, I think you would have to take Jesus, God as a human, to adequately represent God's position as we see it/ identify.  God in the OT is imo the picture, the story we don't comprehend.  One was a law covenant, absolute.  And now a Grace covenant due to our inability to comprehend the first and the ramifications.

 

I believe I understand your position, I just don't agree with it.  That's ok.  I personally haven't been to an organized service in years due to the fundamental and evangelical stage that represents.  

 

Maybe the Prof could put his frustration to "good works" aimed specifically at child trafficking.  <more sarcasm because I'm an ass at heart>.

 

 

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

@freshstartto be fair, I think you would have to take Jesus, God as a human, to adequately represent God's position as we see it/ identify.  God in the OT is imo the picture, the story we don't comprehend.  One was a law covenant, absolute.  And now a Grace covenant due to our inability to comprehend the first and the ramifications.

 

I believe I understand your position, I just don't agree with it.  That's ok.  I personally haven't been to an organized service in years due to the fundamental and evangelical stage that represents.  

 

Maybe the Prof could put his frustration to "good works" aimed specifically at child trafficking.  <more sarcasm because I'm an ass at heart>.

 

 

 

"...because I'm an ass at heart,"

 

I think not Sir, I think you are a very good person and a good advocate for Christianity based upon the Bible. But I also think that I am a very good person but a compete atheist, based upon science -- and also a good exemplary advocate for atheism. I have been a compete atheist for more than 60 years.   I am simply another animal, a member of the great ape family with a very high-norm percentage of Neanderthal genes, And I have plenty of evidence concerning my own animal behavior and that of other humans--- whether Christians of not. 

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, DarkBishop said:

 

So Satan is one of God's farm animals now?

 

He was a snake before....now he's a cock.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

The Prof's post of that child is very near my toleration level for participation.

If having the real world ramifications of your beliefs pointed out to you is something you find intolerable, perhaps it's time to reevaluate your beliefs.  Perhaps your beliefs really are the problem, and not the pointing out. 

 

You will argue that I could have found a less graphic, less shocking way of doing the pointing out.  I would counter that I tried the kinder, gentler approach for 16 pages to no avail.

 

No, Ed.  It's not Rosa Maria's story you find intolerable. 

[Edgarcito]

3 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

"...because I'm an ass at heart,"

 

I think not Sir, I think you are a very good person and a good advocate for Christianity based upon the Bible. But I also think that I am a very good person but a compete atheist, based upon science -- and also a good advocate for atheism.  I am simply another animal, a member of the great ape family, And I have plenty of evidence concerning this assertion, and my own animal behavior

+1

[Edgarcito]

Just now, TheRedneckProfessor said:

If having the real world ramifications of your beliefs pointed out to you is something you find intolerable, perhaps it's time to reevaluate your beliefs.  Perhaps your beliefs really are the problem, and not the pointing out. 

 

You will argue that I could have found a less graphic, less shocking way of doing the pointing out.  I would counter that I tried the kinder, gentler approach for 16 pages to no avail.

 

No, Ed.  It's not Rosa Maria's story you find intolerable. 

Then go do something about it rather than blame my beliefs or somehow define how we derive belief and THEN tell me why I'm wrong.....or that you know the limits of comprehension.  You are extremely inconsistent in your approach.  And the louder you yell, or more persistent you post, or the more obnoxious the post, doesn't change that.

[freshstart]

44 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I don't condone evil within our comprehension but do leave room for reasoning outside of our comprehension.

 

And here is where we are all in agreement about what you (and many Christians) believe:

You believe within your limited ability to understand (because afterall, you aren't god) that evil = evil.

But you allow room outside your "limits of comprehension" that there is a "good reason" to allow evil to happen, therefore, translating to "evil = good" (according to the god you worship). 

Why do you get angry at others because they they refuse to acknowledge that there may be a good reason for evil? No one is denying there are limits to human comprehension. What we refuse to believe is that there is a good reason for terrible shit to happen. Even the horrific examples cited here don't sway you to admit that under no fucking circumstances should god ever allow that shit to happen as part of his plan. Instead, you keep saying (essentially) for us to open our minds to the possibility that there is a good reason bad things happen, even if no one can explain why (on behalf of god who cannot or will not explain it himself).

And you leave open this possibility (good reasons for evil) because of how you interpret what the bible says, even though there is no good evidence to believe anything the bible says is true, anymore than we should believe the Greek mythology stories to be literally true.

This Christian mentality (evil happens as part of a good and godly plan), is what has allowed Christianity to be a religion of cruelty from the inquisitions of the middle ages, to the salem witch hunts, to the defense of slavery, to the persecution of homosexuals, to the forced conversion of indigenous peoples, etc etc).

[TheRedneckProfessor]

25 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Then go do something about it rather than blame my beliefs or somehow define how we derive belief and THEN tell me why I'm wrong.....or that you know the limits of comprehension.  You are extremely inconsistent in your approach.  And the louder you yell, or more persistent you post, or the more obnoxious the post, doesn't change that.

Ed, I don't need to have complete comprehension, or be able to define how beliefs are derived, or even be overly consistent in my approach, in order for me to know that, as DB very eloquently stated, "Rosa deserved Better."

 

Hell, Ed, even you deserve something better than what your god has stuck you with: trying to defend shitty beliefs, based on myths scribbled down by frightened goat-herders and cobbled together by men with a vested interest in social and political agendas which are no longer relevant, with nothing more at your disposal than unfounded assertions, ad hominems, misdirections, and cop-out excuses, in front of your loser friends who just make fun of you and reject your god.  Don't you think you deserve better than that, Ed?  I think you do; but what do I know?  I'm inconsistent, obnoxious,  and persistently yelling.

[Edgarcito]

29 minutes ago, freshstart said:

And here is where we are all in agreement about what you (and many Christians) believe:

You believe within your limited ability to understand (because afterall, you aren't god) that evil = evil.

But you allow room outside your "limits of comprehension" that there is a "good reason" to allow evil to happen, therefore, translating to "evil = good" (according to the god you worship). 

Why do you get angry at others because they they refuse to acknowledge that there may be a good reason for evil? No one is denying there are limits to human comprehension. What we refuse to believe is that there is a good reason for terrible shit to happen. Even the horrific examples cited here don't sway you to admit that under no fucking circumstances should god ever allow that shit to happen as part of his plan. Instead, you keep saying (essentially) for us to open our minds to the possibility that there is a good reason bad things happen, even if no one can explain why (on behalf of god who cannot or will not explain it himself).

And you leave open this possibility (good reasons for evil) because of how you interpret what the bible says, even though there is no good evidence to believe anything the bible says is true, anymore than we should believe the Greek mythology stories to be literally true.

This Christian mentality (evil happens as part of a good and godly plan), is what has allowed Christianity to be a religion of cruelty from the inquisitions of the middle ages, to the salem witch hunts, to the defense of slavery, to the persecution of homosexuals, to the forced conversion of indigenous peoples, etc etc).

Our current system of justice doesn't follow what you just said.  We bring in all the evidence we can....ALL THE EVIDENCE we can bring in, and then have a jury system of multiple minds, multiple perceptions, and an supposed non bias judge, before making a decision of "evil" or not.  

[midniterider]

14 hours ago, Weezer said:

Hasn't this conversation run its course?  Why not talk about why God would let Satan torture Job to prove a point?  That is something god suposedly did on purpose.  No question about it.  

 

Prediction: Ed will give God a pass for behaving like a dick towards Job. 

[☆ Merlingoth ☆]

3 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

Jesus did not suffer as Rosa Maria suffered.

 

^^^^^^ This is an important takeway of this thread.

God, omniscient, can never know what it is like to be not-God, omniscient. God—in any form—cannot truly understand human suffering or, generally, the human condition. The statement “Jesus suffered as we have suffered” is not really true: Jesus, though alleged to be “God in human form”, still could not understand the full extent of the human condition including “suffering” in its various forms: Jesus could never think about life and death and the human experience in terms of being not-Jesus, the son of God, an immortal being. God could not, by extension of that same logic, truly understand or “know” what it means to be a mortal human by observing Job’s suffering, Jesus’ suffering, or anyone else’s.

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

No, I believe that God's conditions in his presence are absolute and that the timing and story outside of our ability to comprehend justify faith rather than declaring a conclusion.  I believe it's the right stance and try to do as well as possible given the conditions and abilities.  

 

 

But you've already shown us that you do have the ability to comprehend what the right thing to do is when it comes to protecting your daughter from the rattlesnake.

 

You said that you'd kill it immediately.

 

So, you can recognize what the right thing to do is by looking inside yourself.

 

There's nothing incomprehensible about that, Edgarcito.

 

Any loving and caring father would do exactly the same as you would to protect their child from harm.

 

What you can't comprehend about god isn't his conditions, his absolute whatevers and other such crap.

 

You can't comprehend how a god who behaves so differently from you towards his child can be a god of love.

 

You know what love is and you don't see god showing it towards his children in Eden.

 

You can't comprehend why he didn't protect them from harm.

 

The fact that you'd kill that rattlesnake proves it.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I don't condone evil within our comprehension but do leave room for reasoning outside of our comprehension.

What y'all do here is demand that both are congruent and declare God evil. 

 

 

 

There's nothing wrong with your powers of comprehension, Edgarcito.

 

You recognize that letting a rattlesnake harm your daughter would be an evil act.

 

Otherwise you wouldn't have said that you'd kill before it hurt her.

 

You comprehend good and evil when you see them and you comprehend love when you see it.

 

There's nothing about god letting Eve be harmed that you don't comprehend in the same way.

 

But to excuse god for allowing Eve to be harmed you have claim that you don't comprehend evil when you see it.

 

And yet you do.

 

Otherwise you wouldn't have said that you'd kill the rattlesnake threatening you daughter.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Then go do something about it rather than blame my beliefs or somehow define how we derive belief and THEN tell me why I'm wrong.....or that you know the limits of comprehension.  You are extremely inconsistent in your approach.  And the louder you yell, or more persistent you post, or the more obnoxious the post, doesn't change that.

 

You would have done something about it in your garden by killing that rattlesnake.

 

You would have prevented harm and evil from even happening to your child.

 

And you are just one man with a shotgun.

 

 

So how is it that your all-powerful god didn't do what you would do, for his child?

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Our current system of justice doesn't follow what you just said.  We bring in all the evidence we can....ALL THE EVIDENCE we can bring in, and then have a jury system of multiple minds, multiple perceptions, and an supposed non bias judge, before making a decision of "evil" or not.  

 

And yet you can judge letting your daughter be bitten by a rattler to be 'evil'?

 

No need for bringing evidence, juries, multiple whatevers and judges.

 

You recognize evil when you see and you'd act to stop it, Ed.

 

BANG!  The snake is dead!

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Our current system of justice doesn't follow what you just said.  We bring in all the evidence we can....ALL THE EVIDENCE we can bring in, and then have a jury system of multiple minds, multiple perceptions, and an supposed non bias judge, before making a decision of "evil" or not.  

Well, Ed, you've been presenting the "evidence" for god before the jury of Ex-christian for over a decade now; and we're all still pretty much convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that if he existed, he'd be guilty as hell.

 

But every time we have a trial, it drags on for 17 pages and then you get pissed because we're ready to pass judgment on god based on the evidence we have instead of waiting around until some glad morning when you can finally present us with all the things you claim we don't currently comprehend.  

 

Quit wasting the court's time, or I'll hold you in contempt and sentence you to a month of foot washing detail with @florduh.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

28 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

But every time we have a trial, it drags on for 17 pages and then you get pissed because we're ready to pass judgment on god based on the evidence we have instead of waiting around until some glad morning when you can finally present us with all the things you claim we don't currently comprehend.  

And this is exactly where we are in the current trial.  I'm sitting here saying, "Okay, based on the evidence I have in front of me right now--starving children, Adam and Eve, Epicurus, Edgarcito's Rooster, and Rosa Maria--I'm convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that god is evil and therefore I have no choice but to render a verdict of 'guilty'."

 

And you're all pissed at the verdict and want to whine about me not comprehending everything, as if there's some other evidence out there you just ain't got around to presenting yet.  Hell, son, if the defense doesn't sufficiently prove its case, the defendant ain't got nobody to blame but himself and the crooked-ass lawyer that defended him.

 

Your god is evil and guilty as hell, beyond a reasonable doubt, without speculation.