Suffering for the Good of the World

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

Here's one fellas. This popped up on my feed on Facebook from a group called "Jesus Daily". God (according to the bible) could end this little girl's suffering and prove that he has power and that he exists. Yet she suffers on. I wonder what good she can learn from her suffering or how her suffering is helping the world?

 

DB

 

https://fb.watch/kyy1AvQuLf/?mibextid=CDWPTG

 

 

[TABA]

Mark 11:22-24
And Jesus answered saying to them, “Have faith in God. Truly I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says is going to happen, it will be granted him. Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they will be granted you.

- “Even though we’re “Jesus Daily” we know this is bullshit, so please pony up some money so science can do its thing and ease her suffering.  But Praise Jesus!”

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

 

4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

 

5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.    Isaiah 53

 

It's because this little girl obviously despises jesus that god chooses to let her suffer, in his mercy, and for his glory... because he's mysterious and shit.

 

[walterpthefirst]

10 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

 

4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

 

5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.    Isaiah 53

 

It's because this little girl obviously despises jesus that god chooses to let her suffer, in his mercy, and for his glory... because he's mysterious and shit.

 

 

And with his stripes we are healed?

 

What of?  Sin, of course. 

 

Which is a disease caused by god in the first place.

 

If a doctor sees that people are drinking from a water source that he knows is contaminated with dysentery-causing bacteria and does nothing to warn them of it, that doctor would rightly be held responsible for their illness and deaths.

 

He had the knowledge and opportunity to prevent them becoming sick, but failed in his duty of care as a healer.

 

But if the doctor himself contaminated the otherwise safe water source with bacteria to cause people to become sick and die, what then?  He wasn't just being negligent or careless, he was being downright evil.

 

And what if the same doctor waited many years before cleaning up the water source and making it safe again?  Is he being honest and true with the people when he accepts their thanks and praise for saving them from suffering?

 

If a person were to do this they would be reviled and despised as a monumental trickster, conman and sadist.  But when god does it, that's ok.

 

Really?

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

And with his stripes we are healed?

 

What of?  Sin, of course. 

I have to disagree.  He was wounded for our transgressions; and bruised for our iniquities.  The wounds and bruises jesus incurred were meant to deal with our "sin," leaving the stripes responsible for healing in other areas of our lives, such as physical, mental, or emotional. 

 

But your overall point still stands.  god is, at best, guilty of allowing "sin" to enter the world through his own indifference; at worst, he's guilty of planning the whole thing and even conspiring with Satan to make it happen.  So, gross negligence or malice aforethought... and people actually trust him, and even thank him for doing it.

 

[TABA]

44 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

god is, at best, guilty of allowing "sin" to enter the world through his own indifference; at worst, he's guilty of planning the whole thing and even conspiring with Satan to make it happen.  So, gross negligence or malice aforethought... and people actually trust him, and even thank him for doing it.

Seems a lot like Stockholm Syndrome

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
 

 

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I have to disagree.  He was wounded for our transgressions; and bruised for our iniquities.  The wounds and bruises jesus incurred were meant to deal with our "sin," leaving the stripes responsible for healing in other areas of our lives, such as physical, mental, or emotional. 

 

But your overall point still stands.  god is, at best, guilty of allowing "sin" to enter the world through his own indifference; at worst, he's guilty of planning the whole thing and even conspiring with Satan to make it happen.  So, gross negligence or malice aforethought... and people actually trust him, and even thank him for doing it.

 

 

I wish Edgarcito would respond to this, Prof.

 

He admitted that the care of his innocent children was HIS responsibility and not theirs.  He also admitted that if he saw a rattler endangering them he'd kill it, rather than let it harm them.  So that was HIS responsibility too. Which means that Ed is morally superior to the god he trusts and thanks.

 

The god who was responsible for the care of his innocent children in Eden and the same god who also knew, with 20/20 foresight, that Satan was about to harm them.

 

Perhaps Edgarcito can explain why its his responsibility to care for and protect his innocent children in his garden but it wasn't god's responsibility to care for and protect his innocent children in Eden?

 

Why, with the benefits of all-knowledge, all-power and perfect foresight did god not do as Edgarcito himself would have done?

 

Why were Adam and Eve responsible for their own safety when Edgarcito's children aren't?

 

Why is it that a fallen, flawed and fallible Texan behaves more morally than a perfect, faultless and infallible god?

 

And why does Ed put his trust in a god who is clearly his moral inferior?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

What say you, @Edgarcito?

[Edgarcito]

On 5/16/2023 at 5:37 AM, TABA said:

Mark 11:22-24
And Jesus answered saying to them, “Have faith in God. Truly I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says is going to happen, it will be granted him. Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they will be granted you.

- “Even though we’re “Jesus Daily” we know this is bullshit, so please pony up some money so science can do its thing and ease her suffering.  But Praise Jesus!”

 

 

Just a thought....how do we know these things won't be ultimately granted..

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Just a thought....how do we know these things won't be ultimately granted..

 

People die every day without receiving the promises of God. He is of course given an excuse on every occurrence. Not his will, or he has a greater purpose, etc etc. My grandmothers life is one of the reason outside of my own experiences that I began to question Bible God. My sperm donor and his sister bot took advantage of her. Lied to her. Bought drugs with their money and begged her for money to get groceries with, leaving her without at times  They've treated her like a dog. Mentally abused her. She's been in the mental hospital a few times from nervous breakdowns. One child died as an infant, another in a car wreck in 1978 at the age of 12, my sperm donor died about 8 years ago after complications from methamphetamine abuse and sepsis. A couple of years after that the only child she had left that treated her with respect died of a massive heart attack. And now she is left with a POS daughter that still takes advantage of her and curses her. 

 

All the while she praises the Lord for bringing her through all of that. Not even realizing that her whole life is an example of Gods failed promises to his people. Non of her children were saved. Both her husband's cheated on her. There is no question to what caused her mental instability. She had more placed on her than she could bare and was hospitalized for it. Now she is just an 85 year old woman with a life full of bad memories. To say the least its depressing having a conversation with her because although she loves the lord and praises him and thanks him for basically nothing. She has almost nothing good and joyful to talk about. Other than God.

 

Her life has been as bad as Jobs and I doubt that much will make up for it at the ripe old age of 85. Atleast he got back twice what he had before when God stopped letting the devil torture him. 

 

You can't tell me that if bible God exists he didn't fail my grandmother. That's not a God I care to be affiliated with anymore even if he were real. He's to much of an asshole. 

 

DB

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Just a thought....how do we know these things won't be ultimately granted..

Do you have any reason* to think they will?

 

 

 

 

*Note that I specifically used the word reason, which implies a thought process based on objectivity and logic (the use of reason).  This should not be confused with faith, which is based on belief without the use of reason. 

[Edgarcito]

3 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Do you have any reason* to think they will?

 

 

 

 

*Note that I specifically used the word reason, which implies a thought process based on objectivity and logic (the use of reason).  This should not be confused with faith, which is based on belief without the use of reason. 

Nothing we can adequately explain....even Lord know we've tried....lol.

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Just a thought....how do we know these things won't be ultimately granted..

Here again, though, Ed, your argument is centered on the premise that god has a "greater good."  As has already been shown, though, he cannot accomplish his "greater good" without violating the free will of those who suffer.

 

Now, here's a thought for you: ultimately, god's plan is to bring manifest glory to himself, is it not?  What kind of god allows children to suffer for his own glory?  What kind of person worships a god who would inflict suffering for the sake of his own ego?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

Nothing we can adequately explain....even Lord know we've tried....lol.

 

Then there's your answer.  We have no reason to think these things will ultimately be granted.  If there were reason to think so, we'd be able to adequately explain it.  That is how we know they will not be.

 

Logic works, dude.

[Edgarcito]

1 minute ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Then there's your answer.  We have no reason to think these things will ultimately be granted.  If there were reason to think so, we'd be able to adequately explain it.  That is how we know they will not be.

 

Logic works, dude.

No, I don't think that's right.  Jesus is the exact example of suffering and resurrection....

[TheRedneckProfessor]

7 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

No, I don't think that's right.  Jesus is the exact example of suffering and resurrection....

Which you believe based on faith, not reason.  

[Edgarcito]

13 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Which you believe based on faith, not reason.  

Right....."nothing we can adequately explain".  

 

Kind of interesting thinking though....Jesus, a manifestation, "fully man, fully God", that he relinquished his "fully man" autonomy on what he knew as God...

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Right....."nothing we can adequately explain".  

 

Kind of interesting thinking though....Jesus, a manifestation, "fully man, fully God", that he relinquished his "fully man" autonomy on what he knew as God...

You're still conflating faith with reason, Ed.  You asked "how do we know..."  But knowledge requires an adequate explanation (i.e. the use of reason),  which, by your own admission, cannot be provided in this case.  In the absence of reason, you are appealing to faith as a means of knowing; but faith is the antithesis of knowledge.  Faith is acceptance without knowledge.  Therefore, faith cannot provide an adequate explanation of how we can know. 

 

This is where learning how to effectively employ Occam's Razor would greatly benefit you.  You cannot explain one inexplicable by appealing to another, even greater, inexplicable.  But that is precisely what you are doing here.  You are appealing to a mythological hero, who cannot be demonstrated to have existed, having wonderous god-level powers, which cannot be demonstrated to exist, to explain genuine, real-world, demonstrable suffering. 

 

It simply does not work.  Because, while it may explain the suffering part of the equation, now you have added several new levels to the equation that require explanation.  Explaining the existence of jesus is only the beginning.  The trinity also needs an explanation; and how could jesus be fully man and fully god.  This raises even further questions: how could he be fully man, but not born into sin?  How could he experience death if he was fully god?

 

Rather than offer an adequate explanation, you have further confounded the issue.  Faith is not the answer here, Ed.  Nor is an appeal to mythology. 

 

We have no reason to think these things will ultimately be granted; and you cannot provide us with one.  This is the crux of the matter; and the answer to your original question. 

[walterpthefirst]

11 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Here again, though, Ed, your argument is centered on the premise that god has a "greater good."  As has already been shown, though, he cannot accomplish his "greater good" without violating the free will of those who suffer.

 

Now, here's a thought for you: ultimately, god's plan is to bring manifest glory to himself, is it not?  What kind of god allows children to suffer for his own glory?  What kind of person worships a god who would inflict suffering for the sake of his own ego?

 

If its ok with you Prof I'd like to modify what you've written slightly and pose it as a question to Edgarcito.

 

 

Ed, do you believe that god does evil to bring about a "greater good"?

 

Here the word evil means inflicting suffering where no suffering was present.

 

Like the plagues that he inflicted on the Israelites, his chosen people.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

9 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

If its ok with you Prof I'd like to modify what you've written slightly and pose it as a question to Edgarcito.

 

 

Ed, do you believe that god does evil to bring about a "greater good"?

 

Here the word evil means inflicting suffering where no suffering was present.

 

Like the plagues that he inflicted on the Israelites, his chosen people.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

He allowed suffering to be inflicted on Job with no "lesson" to be learned for Job. Job just kept believing in God just as he had before. Which he was rewarded for. The "lesson" was more for the devil i guess. I think the writer of the book of Job had no idea what the psychological toll would have been for someone who was afflicted as Job was afflicted. No matter how many children he had after this event, none of them would have been able to make up for those he lost. There is a very big disconnect there. But it falls in line with similar stories from other mythologies where the Gods toyed with humans without remorse for the suffering they had to endure. 

 

If there is a lesson to be learned for us from the book of Job it is to remain faithful no matter how much affliction even God puts on you. You'll be rewarded in the end. Opens the door for some great sermons on suffering and the reward of heaven. But this story goes against the popular Christian thought that God is a God of love. No loving God would have entertained the devil in this manner. He would have protected Job because he ready knew Jobs heart and that he would remain faithful

 

Just another contradiction to add to the infinite list of other contradictions. 

 

DB

[TheRedneckProfessor]

15 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

If its ok with you Prof I'd like to modify what you've written slightly and pose it as a question to Edgarcito.

 

 

Ed, do you believe that god does evil to bring about a "greater good"?

 

Here the word evil means inflicting suffering where no suffering was present.

 

Like the plagues that he inflicted on the Israelites, his chosen people.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

I doubt @Edgarcito will answer you, Walt.  But I think we could all find instances in scripture where god intentionally inflicts suffering upon the innocent to achieve some "greater good."  Killing the first born children in Egypt immediately comes to mind.  Those children, and most of their parents, had nothing to do with the sociopolitical structure of their society, let alone anything related to slavery or the Israelites.  god just decided to kill them in order to force the Pharoah (whose heart god had intentionally hardened) to release some strangers whom they had nothing to do with.

 

If Ed does decide to man up and address the issue with you, this is one unmistakable, indisputable example of god's deliberate cruelty in executing his "plan."  Ed'll have to answer for it; and so should his god.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

26 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Ed'll have to answer for it; and so should his god.

I understand your point RNP but it didn't actually happen, if it had however, yes his God should answer for it. Along with ordering infants to be dashed against stones and letting sin enter Into the hearts of man to begin with. 

 

DB

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, DarkBishop said:

I understand your point RNP but it didn't actually happen, if it had however, yes his God should answer for it. Along with ordering infants to be dashed against stones and letting sin enter Into the hearts of man to begin with. 

 

DB

You're right.  It didn't actually happen; but scripture says it happened.  And how often has scripture been used to justify things that did actually happen?  Things like slavery, the Holocaust, the Inquisition, and a multitude of other atrocities committed in the name of this supposedly omnibenevolent god?  If jesus ever did exist, an afternoon hanging out on a cross was too good a death for him.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

10 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Things like slavery, the Holocaust, the Inquisition, and a multitude of other atrocities committed in the name of this supposedly omnibenevolent god?  If jesus ever did exist, an afternoon hanging out on a cross was too good a death for him.

Damn RNP   thats rough. If Jesus did exist he probably would never have thought the movement he started would have been an excuse to exterminate whole populations of people. Its all those people who came after him that used it from positions of power that did that.

 

I'm on the fence on whether or not he existed. It seems like this all started with the writings of Paul and Peter as well. It isn't outside the realm of possibility that they were just the "Joseph Smith" movement of their time. It seems Peter wanted to make Christianity more for the Jewish people while obviously at some point Paul decided to include the gentiles and throw out deeply held Jewish beliefs. Maybe they started the movement together and Paul later had a falling out with Peter when he decided to include gentiles in the plan. 

 

And it could also be true that there was a self proclaimed prophet named Jesus that they followed and based the movement on. 

 

Either way, they were the ones that kept the ball rolling. It really would be interesting to know what the world would be like now if they had never existed. Jesus would probably have been lost to the past as just another failed unnamed prophet. 

 

I tend to think the scriptures like I mentioned, where the isrealites were ordered to dash the infants of their enemies against stones were probably true. As these tribal nomads moved into the land of Canaan to form what later became isreal they had to fight those other tribes. I doubt they would have been inclined to nourish and support the orphaned children left behind. So they killed them and proclaimed God's will just as later events were justified in Jesus name. 

 

It is kinda sick and disgusting that most of the world still worships some form of this violent, evil, and abusive God made up by these ancient people. 

 

DB

[walterpthefirst]

18 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I doubt @Edgarcito will answer you, Walt.  But I think we could all find instances in scripture where god intentionally inflicts suffering upon the innocent to achieve some "greater good."  Killing the first born children in Egypt immediately comes to mind.  Those children, and most of their parents, had nothing to do with the sociopolitical structure of their society, let alone anything related to slavery or the Israelites.  god just decided to kill them in order to force the Pharoah (whose heart god had intentionally hardened) to release some strangers whom they had nothing to do with.

 

If Ed does decide to man up and address the issue with you, this is one unmistakable, indisputable example of god's deliberate cruelty in executing his "plan."  Ed'll have to answer for it; and so should his god.

 

Prof,

 

One Christian apologetic argument I've heard to explain why god causes suffering is based on passages like this one.

 

Hebrews 12 : 4 - 11

 

4 In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. 

5 And have you completely forgotten this word of encouragement that addresses you as a father addresses his son? It says,

“My son, do not make light of the Lord’s discipline,
    and do not lose heart when he rebukes you,
6 because the Lord disciplines the one he loves,
    and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son.”

7 Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their father? 

8 If you are not disciplined—and everyone undergoes discipline—then you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all.

 9 Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of spirits and live! 

10 They disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share in his holiness. 

11 No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.

 

Now that sounds reasonable, but when you dig deeper, is it really so loving?  

 

Taking the example of the plague that god inflicted upon Israel in 1 Chronicles 21, did seventy thousand men really have to die so that god could discipline King David?  And let's not forget their wives, children and wider families, who would also have suffered the loss of their husbands, fathers, brothers and uncles.  Just for god to discipline one man?  Doesn't that sound a little excessive?  Or even cruel?  Evil perhaps?

 

Perhaps Edgarcito would like to explain how this kind of heavenly 'discipline' is a loving thing?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.