Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Suffering for the Sins of the World


TheRedneckProfessor

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I'm happy that, like me, you are adjusting your conduct for the good of this community, Duderonomy.

 

😀

 

I was hoping you'd be happy Walter! Your hoped for happiness was the impetus for me wanting to be a better community man.

 

😶

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey @TheRedneckProfessor

 

I can't stop thinking about this thread. This really brought out huge holes in the bible narrative of God. Maybe this should be pinned. 

 

I've been thinking about my walk in the faith. And I can remember one of the first things that troubled me was when I thought about my grandmothers life. Her first husband cheated on her and beat her. She has now out lived 4 out of 5 children. Two of those children have taken advantage of her their whole lives. One was my biological father unfortunately. He passed away several years ago. After a long meth binge. Anyway, as a result of all this. She has had nervous breakdowns. Been put under Inpatient psychiatric care. All while trying to be a faithful child of God. 

 

And I thought. Why in the world would God have let her go through all that? At the time I tried to brush it off as a testament of her faith. Being tried like Job and still being faithful and what not. 

 

But really an Omni God would have heard her faithful prayer. Softened her husband's heart toward her. Made her children God fearing children and treat their mother with respect. Made them all live long fruitful lives. Etc. Etc. 

 

Maybe that was one of the first fractures that made me really start thinking critically about my faith. 

 

I heard Dr. Bart Ehrman talking about his experience and how he lost faith. It wasn't because of all the various problems he was discovering with the Bible in his research. Nah it was for all the same reasons that have been discussed in this thread. 

 

How can the Christian God described in the bible. And who is preached about every service, allow these things to happen? 

 

The Christian God described in church wouldn't allow it. So God is either not what the Bible depicts. Or he doesn't exist. 

 

Best Regards,

 

Dark Bishop

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

  • Super Moderator

This was exactly the nagging question that ultimately destroyed my faith, too, @DarkBishop.  I was raised believing that god had a great and mighty plan for my life, a divine destiny.  But, every time I tried to follow that plan, I ended up getting my teeth kicked in.  It always started out so awesome, with prophecies, signs and wonders, and people coming to believe.  But every time, as soon as I really started to build my life up around god's plan, it would always fall apart; and I would watch the life I had built shatter into pieces around me.

 

The first several times it happened, I also chalked it up to god testing my faith.  I was Job, and Abraham, and Daniel... But it happened one time too many, two times too many, six times too many; and eventually I wasn't sure I should (or even could) trust god's plan anymore.  It always ended in disaster.  A loving god wouldn't keep putting me through that.  An omniscient god wouldn't need to keep testing my faith.  An omnipotent god ought to be able to carry out a plan that didn't fall apart in ruin and tribulation.

 

Then I got to thinking about all the other people god was supposed to have a plan for.  Right?  He's supposed to have a plan for everybody.  But what about women like your grandma, who suffer lives of violence and abuse?  What about the kids at Columbine that got gunned down?  What about all those people on 11 September?

 

But the thought that kept breaking my heart over and over was: what about all those little girls who get sold into sexual slavery?  Where's god's plan for them?  How is their suffering supposed to bring god any glory?  And what kind of god would use little kids being raped to bring himself glory?

 

I don't see any way around it; and not a single christian I've argued this point has ever been able to convincingly get around it either.  The god described in the bible is either evil, or he doesn't exist.  He simply cannot be what the christian religion and the bible say he is.

 

I'm glad this thread helped you out and I'll see what I can do about having it pinned for you 

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

On 10/1/2022 at 9:34 PM, DarkBishop said:

I heard Dr. Bart Ehrman talking about his experience and how he lost faith. It wasn't because of all the various problems he was discovering with the Bible in his research. Nah it was for all the same reasons that have been discussed in this thread. 

 

How can the Christian God described in the bible. And who is preached about every service, allow these things to happen? 

 

The Christian God described in church wouldn't allow it. So God is either not what the Bible depicts. Or he doesn't exist. 

 

Or the preachers have been lying about what the Bible depicts. Don't forget that one.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, duderonomy said:

 

Or the preachers have been lying about what the Bible depicts. Don't forget that one.

 

I try not to think about that possibility. But I can definitely see it. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to add give my thanks to the Redneck Prof too - both for staring up this thread and for agreeing to have it pinned.

 

As DB has pointed out, this thread has revealed fatal inconsistencies in the what the Bible says about god's nature, personality and motives.  For myself, if it were not for this thread causing me to reconsider what I was told to accept by faith, then I don't think I would have found those three 'killer' quotes about god restraining the fallen angels to prevent them from doing any further harm.

 

Specifically, verse 6 from the book of Jude, 2 Peter 2 : 4 and Revelation 20 : 1 - 3.

 

These confirm that god has the power, the foresight and the motivation to shield the vulnerable from harm.  But, instead of shielding the most vulnerable people ever created from harm (Adam and Eve) god left them at the mercy of the most wicked, powerful and cunning fallen angel of them all - Satan.

 

Aside from glossing this over by appealing to faith or to mystery, god's (in)action here is indefensible.

 

I would not have discovered, realized and then been appalled by the evil perpetrated by god if it had not been for this thread.  So, once again I would like to express my sincere thanks to the Redneck Prof for initiating things, to the Dark Bishop for his insights and to Edgarcito for having the courage to defend his position.

 

 

Walter.

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

4 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

These confirm that god has the power, the foresight and the motivation to shield the vulnerable from harm.  But, instead of shielding the most vulnerable people ever created from harm (Adam and Eve) god left them at the mercy of the most wicked, powerful and cunning fallen angel of them all - Satan.

 

Not to nitpick, but you didn't need the New Testament to confirm all of that. It's in the story of Adam and Eve itself in Genesis. 

 

I believe an argument could be made that your interpretation of the story, and thus your conclusion, is based on what you would do if you were Biblegod instead of what the Bible says Biblegod did. 

What if everything that happened (if it happened, etc.; but you know what I mean) according to Biblegod's will?

 

I guess my point is whether you believe the Bible is true or not, using "it's not fair!" or "I wouldn't do that!" as an apologetic seems a bit weak.

 

I'm just sayin' Walter.   I don't want to argue. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

Not to nitpick, but you didn't need the New Testament to confirm all of that. It's in the story of Adam and Eve itself in Genesis. 

 

I believe an argument could be made that your interpretation of the story, and thus your conclusion, is based on what you would do if you were Biblegod instead of what the Bible says Biblegod did. 

What if everything that happened (if it happened, etc.; but you know what I mean) according to Biblegod's will?

 

I guess my point is whether you believe the Bible is true or not, using "it's not fair!" or "I wouldn't do that!" as an apologetic seems a bit weak.

 

I'm just sayin' Walter.   I don't want to argue. 

 

 

 

Could you please show me where 'all of that' is in the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis, Duderonomy?

 

That way you could demonstrate that your understanding of my argument (all of that) is actually on target.

 

Or not.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
13 hours ago, duderonomy said:

I guess my point is whether you believe the Bible is true or not, using "it's not fair!" or "I wouldn't do that!" as an apologetic seems a bit weak.

That I would not allow a ten-year-old girl to be raped if there was anything I could do to prevent it, while god watches it happen hundreds of times per day and does nothing, is an argument you consider "weak"?  No.  You're simply wrong.  The fact that the majority of humanity has a higher moral standard than the god of the bible is pretty damning evidence that either god is not what the bible describes, or god does not exist.

 

Your underlying argument here seems to be that maybe god isn't what we imagine he is, or is not what we think he should be, with the further implication that we are projecting our own image onto god and judging him accordingly.  The problem with that line of reasoning is that we are not imagining what god is or should be; rather, we are taking god, as the bible describes him, at face value and contrasting that with the present reality of the world in which we live.  And the contrast between the god described in the bible (all-powerful, all-loving, ever-present help in time of trouble) and the reality of a 10-year-old sex slave is about as glaring an inconsistency as can be imagined.

 

To your query concerning everything happening according to god's will: it has been stated before but, apparently bears repeating.  If the rape of children is god's will, then god is evil.  If Eve being deceived was god's will, then god is evil.  If sin, suffering, death, and hell being unleashed upon the earth was god's will, then god is evil.  If everything that happens, happens according to god's will, then the evil that happens, happens because god wants it to happen.

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

Your underlying argument here seems to be that maybe god isn't what we imagine he is, or is not what we think he should be, with the further implication that we are projecting our own image onto god and judging him accordingly.  The problem with that line of reasoning is that we are not imagining what god is or should be; rather, we are taking god, as the bible describes him, at face value and contrasting that with the present reality of the world in which we live.  And the contrast between the god described in the bible (all-powerful, all-loving, ever-present help in time of trouble) and the reality of a 10-year-old sex slave is about as glaring an inconsistency as can be imagined.

 

The Professor is entirely correct and you seem to have forgotten my usual modus operandi, Duderonomy.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your underlying argument here seems to be that maybe god isn't what we imagine he is, or is not what we think he should be, with the further implication that we are projecting our own image onto god and judging him accordingly.  The problem with that line of reasoning is that we are not imagining what god is or should be; rather, we are taking god, as the bible describes him, at face value and contrasting that with the present reality of the world in which we live.  And the contrast between the god described in the bible (all-powerful, all-loving, ever-present help in time of trouble) and the reality of a 10-year-old sex slave is about as glaring an inconsistency as can be imagined.

 

...

 

Do you have a particular feeling about God allowing the 10 year old to be sold into sex slavery? Or is this just an exercise in logic where evidence disproves an assertion?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
3 hours ago, midniterider said:

Do you have a particular feeling about God allowing the 10 year old to be sold into sex slavery? Or is this just an exercise in logic where evidence disproves an assertion?

Answering strictly for myself, I would say both of these options are relevant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Could you please show me where 'all of that' is in the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis, Duderonomy?

 

That way you could demonstrate that your understanding of my argument (all of that) is actually on target.

 

Or not.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

Walter, 'all of that' refers to what you said in your post. I pointed out that you didn't need to go to the New Testament for your proofs when your point was already proven in the book of Genesis.

 

 

But what about the rest of my post?  I said, 

"I believe an argument could be made that your interpretation of the story, and thus your conclusion, is based on what you would do if you were Biblegod instead of what the Bible says Biblegod did. 

What if everything that happened (if it happened, etc.; but you know what I mean) according to Biblegod's will?

 

"I guess my point is whether you believe the Bible is true or not, using "it's not fair!" or "I wouldn't do that!" as an apologetic seems a bit weak.

 

"I'm just sayin' Walter.   I don't want to argue."

 

Seems you missed that part.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

That I would not allow a ten-year-old girl to be raped if there was anything I could do to prevent it, while god watches it happen hundreds of times per day and does nothing, is an argument you consider "weak"?  No.  You're simply wrong.  The fact that the majority of humanity has a higher moral standard than the god of the bible is pretty damning evidence that either god is not what the bible describes, or god does not exist.

 

Your underlying argument here seems to be that maybe god isn't what we imagine he is, or is not what we think he should be, with the further implication that we are projecting our own image onto god and judging him accordingly.  The problem with that line of reasoning is that we are not imagining what god is or should be; rather, we are taking god, as the bible describes him, at face value and contrasting that with the present reality of the world in which we live.  And the contrast between the god described in the bible (all-powerful, all-loving, ever-present help in time of trouble) and the reality of a 10-year-old sex slave is about as glaring an inconsistency as can be imagined.

 

To your query concerning everything happening according to god's will: it has been stated before but, apparently bears repeating.  If the rape of children is god's will, then god is evil.  If Eve being deceived was god's will, then god is evil.  If sin, suffering, death, and hell being unleashed upon the earth was god's will, then god is evil.  If everything that happens, happens according to god's will, then the evil that happens, happens because god wants it to happen.

 

I remember saying   "I guess my point is whether you believe the Bible is true or not, using "it's not fair!" or "I wouldn't do that!" as an apologetic seems a bit weak."

 

Thank you for proving my point Prof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
48 minutes ago, duderonomy said:

 

I remember saying   "I guess my point is whether you believe the Bible is true or not, using "it's not fair!" or "I wouldn't do that!" as an apologetic seems a bit weak."

 

Thank you for proving my point Prof.

But, you didn't actually make a point.  You made an assertion, which I countered.  The onus is now in you to support your assertion that humanity having a higher moral standard than god is an invalid argument.  Or, as you put it, "'I wouldn't do that' as an apologetic seems a bit weak." 

 

By all means, explain how you have arrived at this conclusion.  What logic brought you to make such an assertion?  You might also attempt to rebutt one or two of my counter-arguments while you're at it.  Or, at least, further clarify your own position. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

But, you didn't actually make a point.  You made an assertion, which I countered.  The onus is now in you to support your assertion that humanity having a higher moral standard than god is an invalid argument.  Or, as you put it, "'I wouldn't do that' as an apologetic seems a bit weak." 

 

By all means, explain how you have arrived at this conclusion.  What logic brought you to make such an assertion?  You might also attempt to rebutt one or two of my counter-arguments while you're at it.  Or, at least, further clarify your own position. 

 

I did make a point. I explained what I meant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

Walter, 'all of that' refers to what you said in your post. I pointed out that you didn't need to go to the New Testament for your proofs when your point was already proven in the book of Genesis.

 

Then prove it from what's in Genesis.

 

 

5 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

But what about the rest of my post?  I said, 

"I believe an argument could be made that your interpretation of the story, and thus your conclusion, is based on what you would do if you were Biblegod instead of what the Bible says Biblegod did. 

What if everything that happened (if it happened, etc.; but you know what I mean) according to Biblegod's will?

 

"I guess my point is whether you believe the Bible is true or not, using "it's not fair!" or "I wouldn't do that!" as an apologetic seems a bit weak.

 

"I'm just sayin' Walter.   I don't want to argue."

 

Seems you missed that part.

 

 

 

And it seems that you missed (i.e., forgot) that my usual modus operandi is to play Devil's Advocate.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_advocate

 

In common language, the phrase 'playing devil's advocate' describes a situation where someone, given a certain point of view, takes a position they do not necessarily agree with (or simply an alternative position from the accepted norm), for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further using valid reasoning that both disagrees with the subject at hand and proves their own point valid. 

 

So, my argument isn't the one you've attributed to me.

 

Instead I've been doing exactly what the Prof has told you.

 

I've been using what the bible says about god, not what I think about him.

 

 

Anyway, please make good on your claim by showing the 'proof' in Genesis.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
6 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

I did make a point. I explained what I meant.

And I explained why you're wrong, so here we are.  If in doing so, I somehow "proved" whatever point you think you made, then either your point was not very clearly defined, or you did not understand my rebuttal.  Either way you are now being called upon to defend your position. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/5/2022 at 10:02 PM, duderonomy said:

I remember saying   "I guess my point is whether you believe the Bible is true or not, using "it's not fair!" or "I wouldn't do that!" as an apologetic seems a bit weak."

 

Thank you for proving my point Prof.

 

Prof, I'm not sure which part of this you are having trouble with.  Have you tried scrolling up until you see what I said here in context?

 

Your umbrage at the strawmen raping the strawchildren in your post has no bearing on whether or not the Bible is true. That was my point. That's what I was trying to point out to Walter.

 

 

Maybe I should have said something like this instead?

 

 

 

  • duderonomyGrand Master
  • Regular Member
  • team_ex-xtiansunite.gif
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan
  • Interests:I have to put my interests here? Get to know me, will ya? I'm not just a piece of meat.
  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what? :Agnostic
  On 10/4/2022 at 4:07 PM, walterpthefirst said:

These confirm that god has the power, the foresight and the motivation to shield the vulnerable from harm.  But, instead of shielding the most vulnerable people ever created from harm (Adam and Eve) god left them at the mercy of the most wicked, powerful and cunning fallen angel of them all - Satan.

 

Not to nitpick, but you didn't need the New Testament to confirm all of that. It's in the story of Adam and Eve itself in Genesis. 

 

I believe an argument could be made that your interpretation of the story, and thus your conclusion, is based on what you would do if you were Biblegod instead of what the Bible says Biblegod did. 

What if everything that happened (if it happened, etc.; but you know what I mean) according to Biblegod's will?

 

I guess my point is whether you believe the Bible is true or not, using "it's not fair!" or "I wouldn't do that!" as an apologetic seems a bit weak.

 

I'm just sayin' Walter.   I don't want to argue. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
8 hours ago, duderonomy said:

Prof, I'm not sure which part of this you are having trouble with. 

Quite obviously the part where you claim an argument is weak without providing any support for the claim.  Perhaps you should say something like, "This argument is weak because..." and then finish that sentence, and the subsequent supporting sentences, in your own words.

 

Moreover, treating the bible as true is a point that both Walt and I have addressed multiple times during this thread.  If you failed to comprehend either the points we made, or our reasons for doing so, the mature approach would have been to ask questions toward clarification.  Instead, you have attempted to conceal your confusion behind condescension and sarcasm.  Such trolling is quite insecure and should be beneath you. 

 

But here we are...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
15 hours ago, duderonomy said:

Your umbrage at the strawmen raping the strawchildren in your post has no bearing on whether or not the Bible is true.

straw man

/ˌstrô ˈman/

noun

1.

an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

"her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"

2.

a person regarded as having no substance or integrity.

 

In order for child rape to be a strawman argument, it would need to somehow misrepresent the actual point of an argument.  However, in this thread, child rape is the actual  point of the argument, not a misrepresentation. No one, at any time, has tried to make any point regarding the bible being true or not true.  Not even Edgarcito has attempted to make such an point.  This point, and the actual strawman argument you are making of it, exists entirely in your own mind.

 

Rather, 23 pages have already been devoted to making the argument that god allowing children to suffer shows that either god is evil, or does not exist, or is not what the bible describes.  I'm not going to waste another 23 pages restating the argument for the sake of your poor comprehension skills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
15 hours ago, duderonomy said:

I'm just sayin' Walter.   I don't want to argue. 

It has been my experience that people who don't want to argue tend to... not argue.  In fact, a simple way to differentiate between people who don't want to argue and people who do, is to start an argument and then gauge their willingness to continue it.  You claimed you didn't want to argue; yet, here we are.

 

It has also been my experience that when a person says, "I don't want to argue..." quite often it is simply a means of softly demanding that said person's position be accepted unchallenged, without that person having to go to the trouble of supporting their position.  It is both disingenuous and intellectually lazy, in addition to being cowardly, to hold a position one is neither willing nor prepared to defend, and merely expecting others to accept it.  

 

I have asked you to defend your position.  You have countered with sarcastic patronization.  I have invited you to counter the argument I have made; you simply dismissed it as a strawman,  in a strawman argument of your own.

 

It's probably best you "don't want to argue."  You're not very good at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

     I would claim it leans more towards an appeal to emotion.

 

          mwc

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

Prof, I'm not sure which part of this you are having trouble with.  Have you tried scrolling up until you see what I said here in context?

 

Your umbrage at the strawmen raping the strawchildren in your post has no bearing on whether or not the Bible is true. That was my point. That's what I was trying to point out to Walter.

 

 

Maybe I should have said something like this instead?

 

 

 

  • duderonomyGrand Master
  • Regular Member
  • team_ex-xtiansunite.gif
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan
  • Interests:I have to put my interests here? Get to know me, will ya? I'm not just a piece of meat.
  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what? :Agnostic
  On 10/4/2022 at 4:07 PM, walterpthefirst said:

These confirm that god has the power, the foresight and the motivation to shield the vulnerable from harm.  But, instead of shielding the most vulnerable people ever created from harm (Adam and Eve) god left them at the mercy of the most wicked, powerful and cunning fallen angel of them all - Satan.

 

Not to nitpick, but you didn't need the New Testament to confirm all of that. It's in the story of Adam and Eve itself in Genesis. 

 

I believe an argument could be made that your interpretation of the story, and thus your conclusion, is based on what you would do if you were Biblegod instead of what the Bible says Biblegod did. 

What if everything that happened (if it happened, etc.; but you know what I mean) according to Biblegod's will?

 

I guess my point is whether you believe the Bible is true or not, using "it's not fair!" or "I wouldn't do that!" as an apologetic seems a bit weak.

 

I'm just sayin' Walter.   I don't want to argue. 

 

 

Duderonomy,

 

Repetition doesn't help here. 

 

You simply forgot that when I quote the bible I do so because I'm playing devil's advocate.  

 

Therefore, I'm not expressing MY point of view.

 

I'm saying what the bible says.

 

And as such your accusation that I'm saying "It's not fair!" or "I wouldn't do that!" doesn't apply.

 

The bible itself tells us that god shields his children from harm.

 

And that is why god's behaviour towards Adam and Eve in Eden was indefensible.

 

Do you get it now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.