Suffering for the Sins of the World

[Joshpantera]

On 8/7/2022 at 3:17 PM, Edgarcito said:

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....

 

So now do you see why your sentiment here should be directed towards the biblical god?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

On 8/7/2022 at 3:17 PM, 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....

 

 

 

On 8/7/2022 at 6:52 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

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

If you get a moment, @Edgarcito, I would appreciate your thoughts on this.  Why and how do my own shortcomings or limitations absolve god in any way for the responsibility he bears in caring for the situation that, according to the story, he created and controls?  

[Edgarcito]

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

If you get a moment, @Edgarcito, I would appreciate your thoughts on this.  Why and how do my own shortcomings or limitations absolve god in any way for the responsibility he bears in caring for the situation that, according to the story, he created and controls?  

Sounds trite, but maybe it has to do with our own abilities to see ourselves, our choices, our level of wisdom...our inability to be stronger or make different choices.  I'm certain in my life that I wasn't able to overcome my own shortcomings...just wasn't....and that had to come to a point where something broke.....which I think we perceive as "it's not my fault", and "why God, did you turn from my needs", when all along it was our/my inability to see or choose differently.  And as I get older, I'm just not as hard on myself to the point of self-forgiveness thankfully.  I just wasn't taught and just didn't know how valuable certain aspects of my life were that I didn't realize.  Again, it seems canned, but I'd rather have gone through the mess and know the value than continue as was and not.  Which I credit to God.  Although I could have certainly said screw off.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

14 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Sounds trite

Not really; it sounds more like an attempt to avoid the question.  In the context of this conversation, god is being accused of not taking care of his creation (in the form of the starving little boy).  You indicated that my inability to feed the boy myself somehow justified god's refusal to act.  While I am certainly proud of both of us for the strides we've made at becoming better men, it is this idea that my limitations should somehow absolve god that I'd like to hear more about.  I get that one of the hallmark traits of the christian religion is to blame oneself, or the people, or the church, or the victim; but it really fascinates me how a person can look at the situation, believing god is in control, and not realize that if god wants the credit, he should also be willing to accept the responsibility.  So, I can somewhat see that the misdirect of "you're not feeding the kid either" helps assuage the cognitive dissonance without really addressing the problem; but, is there not some point at which a person has to realize that maybe god just isn't all he's cracked up to be?  Does such a thought never cross your mind?

[Edgarcito]

6 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Not really; it sounds more like an attempt to avoid the question.  In the context of this conversation, god is being accused of not taking care of his creation (in the form of the starving little boy).  You indicated that my inability to feed the boy myself somehow justified god's refusal to act.  While I am certainly proud of both of us for the strides we've made at becoming better men, it is this idea that my limitations should somehow absolve god that I'd like to hear more about.  I get that one of the hallmark traits of the christian religion is to blame oneself, or the people, or the church, or the victim; but it really fascinates me how a person can look at the situation, believing god is in control, and not realize that if god wants the credit, he should also be willing to accept the responsibility.  So, I can somewhat see that the misdirect of "you're not feeding the kid either" helps assuage the cognitive dissonance without really addressing the problem; but, is there not some point at which a person has to realize that maybe god just isn't all he's cracked up to be?  Does such a thought never cross your mind?

Sorry, I was trying.  To address it in your terms, I simply see it as where we are on the dispensation timeline....post Christ, pre judgement.  Per the story, there was a time where God was with the people, parted the waters, manna, and gave them forgiveness for not understanding and rejecting Him.  Now I see it as largely a test of whether we acknowledge our shortcomings and work accordingly or keep rejecting and blame.  In other words, He already did.  If you had lived in those days, I expect you wouldn't have rejected as you do now.  Why do you not see this....or think differently.

[Edgarcito]

How is God not accepting the responsibility?  He created man.  Man is willing to starve a child?  God kills the entity that He created.  How is that not taking responsibility and doing so justly in giving humanity the chance to fix it.  Even calling the church, His body. 

 

Humanity even does that...prisons and death sentences.

[Edgarcito]

Just to state it another way, how is God not taking responsibility for his creation, humanity, after one, giving a law, the rules.  Then after the rules are rejected, by taking the shortcomings of his creation on himself and saying, I'll help you if you call, but otherwise you do it yourself and then we will settle the disparagement in the end.   

 

1) Creates humanity

2) Gives laws/rule

3) Takes responsibility for the unlawful via Christ

4) Says I will help you, my body, the church, through the Holy Spirit if you ask. But otherwise, YOU, the lawless, make an attempt on your own. (which I see largely as science being the new god) 

5) Judges His attempt vs. your attempt in the end.

 

I see us in number 4.

 

Thx

[TheRedneckProfessor]

It still seems to me that the little boy would prefer a decent meal.

[Edgarcito]

Just now, TheRedneckProfessor said:

It still seems to me that the little boy would prefer a decent meal.

Feed my sheep...

[TheRedneckProfessor]

It's all well and good that god wants to blame us for the sin he created us with, and for exercising the free will he gave us in a way that displeases him.  But, for practical purposes, where's the use of god "forgiving" the little boy, if god's just going to let him starve to death anyway?  And what is the use of jesus taking on the suffering of our sinfulness, if he's still going to allow children to suffer because of our sinfulness?  Seems like he didn't really do much of anything; but still wants us to feel guilty about it.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

Feed my sheep...

Exactly.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

11 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Feed my sheep...

First of all, the entire quote is "if you love me, feed my sheep."  I don't love jesus, and therefore, I'm off the hook for feeding his sheep.  By extension, this means that my limitations and inabilities do not justify god's refusal to look after his own.

 

Secondly, they are, in fact, his sheep; or, in this case, his little lambs.  And every single one of them that starves to death is the result of a deliberate decision on god's part to allow them to starve to death.  If he's going to get all the praise and glory for finding some lazy-ass soccer mom a parking spot at the mall, then he also needs to assume the guilt every time a ten-year-old girl gets sold into sexual slavery.  

 

Every tragedy that befalls an innocent child in this world is an indictment against god's deliberate and intentional refusal to act.  What good was his sacrifice if "sin" still causes so much suffering?

[Edgarcito]

16 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

It's all well and good that god wants to blame us for the sin he created us with, and for exercising the free will he gave us in a way that displeases him.  But, for practical purposes, where's the use of god "forgiving" the little boy, if god's just going to let him starve to death anyway?  And what is the use of jesus taking on the suffering of our sinfulness, if he's still going to allow children to suffer because of our sinfulness?  Seems like he didn't really do much of anything; but still wants us to feel guilty about it.

1 minute ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

First of all, the entire quote is "if you love me, feed my sheep."  I don't love jesus, and therefore, I'm off the hook for feeding his sheep.  By extension, this means that my limitations and inabilities do not justify god's refusal to look after his own.

 

Secondly, they are, in fact, his sheep; or, in this case, his little lambs.  And every single one of them that starves to death is the result of a deliberate decision on god's part to allow them to starve to death.  If he's going to get all the praise and glory for finding some lazy-ass soccer mom a parking spot at the mall, then he also needs to assume the guilt every time a ten-year-old girl gets sold into sexual slavery.  

 

Every tragedy that befalls an innocent child in this world is an indictment against god's deliberate and intentional refusal to act.  What good was his sacrifice if "sin" still causes so much suffering?

You're not part of his creation?  Again, I don't see how that disqualifies you from number four whether you feel like participating or not.  The Prof is in the idgaf group which we will see how he did in the end.  

 

Like I was saying in my first post that you dismissed.  Until you find the lesson, the lesson is not relevant.  Apparently you are just doubling down on anger as the best option.

 

In the interim, I'm going to go find the verse(s) the mention suffering leads somewhere....

 

I'm older than you and therefore win this argument, thx.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

53 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Sorry, I was trying.  To address it in your terms, I simply see it as where we are on the dispensation timeline....post Christ, pre judgement.  Per the story, there was a time where God was with the people, parted the waters, manna, and gave them forgiveness for not understanding and rejecting Him.  Now I see it as largely a test of whether we acknowledge our shortcomings and work accordingly or keep rejecting and blame.  In other words, He already did.  If you had lived in those days, I expect you wouldn't have rejected as you do now.  Why do you not see this....or think differently.

 

40 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

How is God not accepting the responsibility?  He created man.  Man is willing to starve a child?  God kills the entity that He created.  How is that not taking responsibility and doing so justly in giving humanity the chance to fix it.  Even calling the church, His body. 

 

Humanity even does that...prisons and death sentences.

Here you're still just trying to absolve god by blaming the shortcomings of humanity.  But that doesn't square with god's omnipotence nor his omnibenevolence.  Is he unable to feed the child because he can't find a person with enough compassion to act on his behalf?  If so, then people are more powerful than this allegedly "omnipotent" god.  Is he unwilling to feed the child because he's too pissed off about the sins of the world?  If so, then the kind-hearted humanist running the soup kitchen has more compassion and benevolence than this supposedly "all-loving" god.

 

If it's true that we are on our own, then we can (and already are) doing better than a god who literally does nothing of any demonstrable value or significance.  He can keep his sin and his judgement to himself.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

6 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I'm older than you and therefore win this argument, thx.

What I lack in age, I make up for in girth.  Your argument is invalid.

[Edgarcito]

2 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

What I lack in age, I make up for in girth.  Your argument is invalid.

LOL, I imagine you spending enough time with a dick in your hand to know...

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

LOL, I imagine you spending enough time with a dick in your hand to know...

Well, I'd rather my dick in my hand than to hand in my dick.

[Edgarcito]

21 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

Here you're still just trying to absolve god by blaming the shortcomings of humanity.  But that doesn't square with god's omnipotence nor his omnibenevolence.  Is he unable to feed the child because he can't find a person with enough compassion to act on his behalf?  If so, then people are more powerful than this allegedly "omnipotent" god.  Is he unwilling to feed the child because he's too pissed off about the sins of the world?  If so, then the kind-hearted humanist running the soup kitchen has more compassion and benevolence than this supposedly "all-loving" god.

 

If it's true that we are on our own, then we can (and already are) doing better than a god who literally does nothing of any demonstrable value or significance.  He can keep his sin and his judgement to himself.

Look, I will try and read this closely to discern your prospective.  I'm not seeing it obviously and it's causing strife in the discussion.  Let me consider it between some of my obligations, and I shall return.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

5 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Look, I will try and read this closely to discern your prospective.  I'm not seeing it obviously and it's causing strife in the discussion.  Let me consider it between some of my obligations, and I shall return.

Take your time...

[Edgarcito]

24 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

Here you're still just trying to absolve god by blaming the shortcomings of humanity.  But that doesn't square with god's omnipotence nor his omnibenevolence.  Is he unable to feed the child because he can't find a person with enough compassion to act on his behalf?  If so, then people are more powerful than this allegedly "omnipotent" god.  Is he unwilling to feed the child because he's too pissed off about the sins of the world?  If so, then the kind-hearted humanist running the soup kitchen has more compassion and benevolence than this supposedly "all-loving" god.

 

If it's true that we are on our own, then we can (and already are) doing better than a god who literally does nothing of any demonstrable value or significance.  He can keep his sin and his judgement to himself.

You're judging based on your perception of omnibenevolence.  How do you do that across the board and with immediate judgement.

 

I'm not sure I follow anyhow.....the entire point of number four was that you ARE on your own unless asking for extra help, the Holy Spirit.  Yes, you ARE on your own until judgement comes.  What did I miss in my earlier explanation.  

 

We could always go back to old discussions and speculate on why God created us with apparent free will, but I don't think that will  yield anything.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

19 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

the entire point of number four was that you ARE on your own unless asking for extra help, the Holy Spirit.

Sure, I am on my own and I'm fine with that.  But what about the little boy?  Do you not think that he's asked god for some food once or twice?  And yet he's still starving.

 

20 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

How do you do that across the board and with immediate judgement.

Because I know the definitions of the words "all" and "loving" and can use that information to extrapolate.

 

21 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

We could always go back to old discussions and speculate on why God created us with apparent free will, but I don't think that will  yield anything.

I'm pretty sure the thread you just started today will turn into another one such.  We'll just see where that one goes.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Another way to look at it, @Edgarcito, that might help you understand is this:  Is god in control?  Does god have a plan?  Did jesus teach us to pray, "thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven"?  If god is in control, then how can starving children be anybody else's fault/responsibility?  If god has a plan, then how can starving children be anybody else's fault/responsibility?  If god's will is being done on earth as it is in heaven, then how can starving children be anybody else's fault/responsibility?

[Edgarcito]

1 minute ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Another way to look at it, @Edgarcito, that might help you understand is this:  Is god in control?  Does god have a plan?  Did jesus teach us to pray, "thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven"?  If god is in control, then how can starving children be anybody else's fault/responsibility?  If god has a plan, then how can starving children be anybody else's fault/responsibility?  If god's will is being done on earth as it is in heaven, then how can starving children be anybody else's fault/responsibility?

That's the plan, the responsibility has been given to his creation, humanity, whether they believe or not until that time when the test is over.  You are in control as a non-believer.  I am in control as a believer.  It's our responsibility.  I theoretically have the help of the Holy Spirit to guide me where you dismiss the help.  I really don't know why you keep putting God in the subset "responsibility/ handle it" when the only part God now plays is the Holy Spirit within the believers or Him placing it randomly, in that subset.

 

Two children.  The father provides and teaches and gives his life for them both.  One believes in the father and his wisdom.  One does not.  The one that believes continues to receive help.  The other does not.  Both are tasked with the same task.  At some point, an inheritance is given to the child that was faithful to the father, a house that he built.  The other, the father judges the accomplishments and weighs inheritance.  

 

We are at the bolded stage.

 

To me the Bible is more a picture of the development, the lifetime of humanity.....very similar imo.  

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

To the little boy's plight.  I guess one group is asking for intervention and the other group isn't asking.  The boy stays hungry regardless.  Either the church feeds him or the non-believing group does.  It's still in their hands.  And yes, the child does not deserve the plight.  Nor the pet, nor the trafficked child...

 

The Bible admonishes the believer as well....faith without works is dead.....i.e. judged inheritance.

 

Reminds me of the magician on Frosty the Snowman saying he better get "busy busy busy" lol.

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

That's the plan, the responsibility has been given to his creation, humanity, whether they believe or not until that time when the test is over.  You are in control as a non-believer.  I am in control as a believer.  It's our responsibility.  I theoretically have the help of the Holy Spirit to guide me where you dismiss the help.  I really don't know why you keep putting God in the subset "responsibility/ handle it" when the only part God now plays is the Holy Spirit within the believers or Him placing it randomly, in that subset.

 

Two children.  The father provides and teaches and gives his life for them both.  One believes in the father and his wisdom.  One does not.  The one that believes continues to receive help.  The other does not.  Both are tasked with the same task.  At some point, an inheritance is given to the child that was faithful to the father, a house that he built.  The other, the father judges the accomplishments and weighs inheritance.  

 

We are at the bolded stage.

 

To me the Bible is more a picture of the development, the lifetime of humanity.....very similar imo.  

 

 

 

You keep missing the point, though.  The point being that the little boy is still suffering all this time while god plays his little mind-fuck games.  If this is god's plan, then obviously allowing the child to starve is part of it.  What are we do do with a god whose plan allows for children to starve?  What are we to do with a god whose plan is so flimsy that it can be thwarted by finite men?  What are we to do with god’s omnipotence if he can't even feed a child because neither Jew nor Gentile has the heart or the cash to see it done?