Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

God is guilty of suffering and death

AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 2:24:53 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
God is guilty of all suffering and death, (or at least a major accessory to it) which I will prove in this post. Some Christians say that God is not responsible for suffering since he has given us free will, and simply allows suffering to happen.

This is utter bull-sh*t, even if we assume the above were true.

For God to be guilty of all suffering, he must fall under the following rules:

1. He was the cause of death and suffering.
2. He had prior knowledge of the death and suffering he was to cause,
3. Had the intention to cause death and suffering [1]

As you can see, God fits perfectly into all three categories. At best, he can be likened to John Kramer, whom "doesn't really kill anybody"....but does put them in a situation where there death was highly likely, and thus the "free will" or "they should have had the intent to survive" defence quickly becomes utterly absurd.

In regards to the third point, what makes a person have the intention of killing someone?

Having a direct or crucial step into the cause of suffering and death should constitute as having the intention. This includes:

1. Luring people into situations which could cause death and suffering.

2. Constructing what is necessary to cause death and suffering.

3. Having prior knowledge that one's actions would cause suffering and death, and is therefore premeditated. [2] [3]

This all fits into God's persona, as he caused the universe, caused the existence of Adam, Eve, the snake (aka the devil) and basically everything, and he's omniscient, which means that he knew that the construction of these things would lead to suffering and death.

Thus, I rest my case. You may now decide for yourself.

[1] http://www.lrc.ky.gov...

[2] http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...

[3] http://criminal.findlaw.com...
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
DavidHenson
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 3:52:04 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 2:24:53 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
God is guilty of all suffering and death, (or at least a major accessory to it) which I will prove in this post. Some Christians say that God is not responsible for suffering since he has given us free will, and simply allows suffering to happen.

What would that have to do with suffering? Adam had free will but wasn't meant to suffer. He was warned of it, sure, but that wasn't the plan.

This is utter bull-sh*t, even if we assume the above were true.

I would agree that the above itself is bullsh!t, unless I'm missing something.

For God to be guilty of all suffering, he must fall under the following rules:

1. He was the cause of death and suffering.

Consider Isaiah 45:7. the KJV, which says God created evil. What does that mean? More modern translation read "calamity." From the Hebrew word ra, which can mean "Evil," "Bad," "Calamity," "Ungenerous," "Ugly," "Gloomy," depending upon the context. At Isaiah 45:7 the best word is calamity, as in calamity through justice. It's talking about the result of Adam's sin, and the great deluge.

Justice is very important to Jehovah, because, how could he be fair and honest as a judge if he sloughed off justice, if he were corrupt in any way. This is why it's important to recognize that the soul, according to the Bible, was the blood, or the life, of any breathing creature.

For example, if someone were discovered murdered outside of a town and no one knew who it was the town was guilty of what was called blood guilt. Since the life, or soul, was sacred to Jehovah, who created it, to spill someone's blood intentionally was a very serious crime, and that guilt remained until a bull was sacrificed and the blood of it spilled in recognition of God's sacred gift of life, and also, why they said "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life or soul for soul."

Adam murdered everyone who followed him. But Adam created this environment of sin, where God was rejected, his sovereignty questioned. So, like the children and grandchildren will suffer for the crime of a parent, not through justice or punishment directly, but as a result in their environment, so do we.

Since Adam had been created perfect without sin, who among sin has the blood to pay the price? No bull. Only Christ.

2. He had prior knowledge of the death and suffering he was to cause,

No.

3. Had the intention to cause death and suffering [1]

The word evil, in the KJV, as mentioned in Isaiah 45:7, calamity in more accurate Bibles, is used this way. Like a parent who warns their children not to play in the street or something bad (Hebrew ra) will happen. The Child does it anyway and is punished for it, which seems calamitous.

In regards to the third point, what makes a person have the intention of killing someone?

Having a direct or crucial step into the cause of suffering and death should constitute as having the intention. This includes:

1. Luring people into situations which could cause death and suffering.

2. Constructing what is necessary to cause death and suffering.

3. Having prior knowledge that one's actions would cause suffering and death, and is therefore premeditated. [2] [3]

What about corporal punishment?
"Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty." - Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune
12_13
Posts: 1,365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 8:27:53 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 2:24:53 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
God is guilty of all suffering and death

If so, he is also guilty of all life and everything good and so at the worst case, the outcome is +-0. However, when all evil is done by independent individuals without any force from God, the guilt is on the evil people who want to do all bad things freely.
Stronn
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 10:05:53 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
Consider a child who is suffering from an incurable disease. If God exists, then one of the following statements must logically be true.

1. He does not know the child is suffering.
2. He cannot take away the child's suffering.
3. He chooses not to take away the child's suffering.

So it appears that God is either not omniscient (1), not omnipotent (2), or not omnibenevolent (3). This is the problem of evil in a nutshell. Monotheistic religions have been struggling (ineffectively) to explain it for centuries.
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 3:50:37 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 3:52:04 AM, DavidHenson wrote:
At 3/13/2016 2:24:53 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
God is guilty of all suffering and death, (or at least a major accessory to it) which I will prove in this post. Some Christians say that God is not responsible for suffering since he has given us free will, and simply allows suffering to happen.

What would that have to do with suffering? Adam had free will but wasn't meant to suffer. He was warned of it, sure, but that wasn't the plan.

This is utter bull-sh*t, even if we assume the above were true.

I would agree that the above itself is bullsh!t, unless I'm missing something.

For God to be guilty of all suffering, he must fall under the following rules:

1. He was the cause of death and suffering.

Consider Isaiah 45:7. the KJV, which says God created evil. What does that mean? More modern translation read "calamity." From the Hebrew word ra, which can mean "Evil," "Bad," "Calamity," "Ungenerous," "Ugly," "Gloomy," depending upon the context. At Isaiah 45:7 the best word is calamity, as in calamity through justice. It's talking about the result of Adam's sin, and the great deluge.

Justice is very important to Jehovah, because, how could he be fair and honest as a judge if he sloughed off justice, if he were corrupt in any way. This is why it's important to recognize that the soul, according to the Bible, was the blood, or the life, of any breathing creature.

For example, if someone were discovered murdered outside of a town and no one knew who it was the town was guilty of what was called blood guilt. Since the life, or soul, was sacred to Jehovah, who created it, to spill someone's blood intentionally was a very serious crime, and that guilt remained until a bull was sacrificed and the blood of it spilled in recognition of God's sacred gift of life, and also, why they said "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life or soul for soul."

Adam murdered everyone who followed him. But Adam created this environment of sin, where God was rejected, his sovereignty questioned. So, like the children and grandchildren will suffer for the crime of a parent, not through justice or punishment directly, but as a result in their environment, so do we.

Since Adam had been created perfect without sin, who among sin has the blood to pay the price? No bull. Only Christ.

2. He had prior knowledge of the death and suffering he was to cause,

No.

3. Had the intention to cause death and suffering [1]

The word evil, in the KJV, as mentioned in Isaiah 45:7, calamity in more accurate Bibles, is used this way. Like a parent who warns their children not to play in the street or something bad (Hebrew ra) will happen. The Child does it anyway and is punished for it, which seems calamitous.

In regards to the third point, what makes a person have the intention of killing someone?

Having a direct or crucial step into the cause of suffering and death should constitute as having the intention. This includes:

1. Luring people into situations which could cause death and suffering.

2. Constructing what is necessary to cause death and suffering.

3. Having prior knowledge that one's actions would cause suffering and death, and is therefore premeditated. [2] [3]

What about corporal punishment?

That's like saying that someone who has children is responsible for all of their pain and suffering. Same argument applies. Do you have children? If so, you're guilty for all of their pain and suffering.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 4:04:40 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 10:05:53 AM, Stronn wrote:
Consider a child who is suffering from an incurable disease. If God exists, then one of the following statements must logically be true.

1. He does not know the child is suffering.

HE DOES KNOW.

2. He cannot take away the child's suffering.

OH, BUT HE CAN.

3. He chooses not to take away the child's suffering.

THERE ARE MANY EXAMPLES OF MIRACULOUS RECOVERIES THAT DOCTORS CAN'T EXPLAIN. YOU SEE, THERE IS THIS LITTLE SOMETHING CALLED PRAYER. GOD ALWAYS ANSWERS PRAYER. SOMETIMES THE ANSWER IS NO. WHEN HE GRANTS A PERSONS REQUEST, IT IS DONE FOR THE GLORY OF GOD. CHILDREN SUFFER BECAUSE OF SIN. IT'S SOMETHING THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED. SHOULD GOD NEGATE THE CURSE THAT WE HAVE EARNED? THE ANSWER IS THAT HE CAN'T. IT WOULD NOT BE JUST. YOU MIGHT AS WELL ASK HIM TO CURE DEATH. IT'S REALLY THAT SIMPLE.


So it appears that God is either not omniscient (1), not omnipotent (2), or not omnibenevolent (3). This is the problem of evil in a nutshell. Monotheistic religions have been struggling (ineffectively) to explain it for centuries.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 4:17:24 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
As can be seen in the text below, God"s Judgement is life "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it" no different than don"t walk out in front of a speeding bus. Or you shall die. The life that Adam and Eve was given requires instruction for the Lord God in order to continue to live the life they were given by God.

But the result we now suffer is the result of judgment other than God"s Judgement to live which results in death. Life requires instruction to live, or it dies. If it receives no instruction it dies, if it refuses instruction to live it dies. Adam and Eve received instruction and refused that instruction to follow and trust a lie.

Gen 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

God's Judgement is to live, and the result of man's judgement is to die. Hence the delusion that God gave freewill, there is not evidence in the text that He did. the text says He gave a life to the man and the instruction to keep that life the man was given. Because the life the man was given requires instruction to keep it.
DavidHenson
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 6:27:08 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 3:50:37 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
That's like saying that someone who has children is responsible for all of their pain and suffering. Same argument applies. Do you have children? If so, you're guilty for all of their pain and suffering.

If I committed some terrible crime and was punished for it, though my children wouldn't be punished directly for it they would suffer the consequences. Their lives and environment would be negatively effected by the results of my punishment, though they were not punished themselves.
"Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty." - Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune
Outplayz
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 9:41:43 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 2:24:53 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
God is guilty of all suffering and death, (or at least a major accessory to it) which I will prove in this post. Some Christians say that God is not responsible for suffering since he has given us free will, and simply allows suffering to happen.

This is utter bull-sh*t, even if we assume the above were true.

For God to be guilty of all suffering, he must fall under the following rules:

1. He was the cause of death and suffering.
2. He had prior knowledge of the death and suffering he was to cause,
3. Had the intention to cause death and suffering [1]

As you can see, God fits perfectly into all three categories. At best, he can be likened to John Kramer, whom "doesn't really kill anybody"....but does put them in a situation where there death was highly likely, and thus the "free will" or "they should have had the intent to survive" defence quickly becomes utterly absurd.

In regards to the third point, what makes a person have the intention of killing someone?

Having a direct or crucial step into the cause of suffering and death should constitute as having the intention. This includes:

1. Luring people into situations which could cause death and suffering.

2. Constructing what is necessary to cause death and suffering.

3. Having prior knowledge that one's actions would cause suffering and death, and is therefore premeditated. [2] [3]

This all fits into God's persona, as he caused the universe, caused the existence of Adam, Eve, the snake (aka the devil) and basically everything, and he's omniscient, which means that he knew that the construction of these things would lead to suffering and death.

Thus, I rest my case. You may now decide for yourself.


[1] http://www.lrc.ky.gov...

[2] http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...

[3] http://criminal.findlaw.com...

I agree with you that suffering and death came from the source god(s). So...? All three points you gave are valid. Except, i wouldn't saying luring, i think it is more a choice... Don't hold me to that strictly though, some may not have had choice, i.e some may have been born here, some may be earth's slave... but, whatever it may be, the source god doesn't care much about "evil" or "good" ... i wouldn't really see why any immortal would care about it, other than how involved they want to be in it.
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 5:42:14 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 4:17:24 PM, DPMartin wrote:
As can be seen in the text below, God"s Judgement is life "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it" no different than don"t walk out in front of a speeding bus. Or you shall die. The life that Adam and Eve was given requires instruction for the Lord God in order to continue to live the life they were given by God.

BS. God put the tree there, he put the snake/devil there, he put the doubt in Adam's heart, therefore he's responsible. This, coupled with the fact that he knew before he even created the earth that Adam was going to sin, yet decided to go ahead with it anyway. This clearly demonstrates that he guilty of causing it. Simple as that.

But the result we now suffer is the result of judgment other than God"s Judgement to live which results in death. Life requires instruction to live, or it dies. If it receives no instruction it dies, if it refuses instruction to live it dies. Adam and Eve received instruction and refused that instruction to follow and trust a lie.

Same as above.

Gen 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

God's Judgement is to live, and the result of man's judgement is to die. Hence the delusion that God gave freewill, there is not evidence in the text that He did. the text says He gave a life to the man and the instruction to keep that life the man was given. Because the life the man was given requires instruction to keep it.
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 5:44:49 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 9:41:43 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 3/13/2016 2:24:53 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
God is guilty of all suffering and death, (or at least a major accessory to it) which I will prove in this post. Some Christians say that God is not responsible for suffering since he has given us free will, and simply allows suffering to happen.

This is utter bull-sh*t, even if we assume the above were true.

For God to be guilty of all suffering, he must fall under the following rules:

1. He was the cause of death and suffering.
2. He had prior knowledge of the death and suffering he was to cause,
3. Had the intention to cause death and suffering [1]

As you can see, God fits perfectly into all three categories. At best, he can be likened to John Kramer, whom "doesn't really kill anybody"....but does put them in a situation where there death was highly likely, and thus the "free will" or "they should have had the intent to survive" defence quickly becomes utterly absurd.

In regards to the third point, what makes a person have the intention of killing someone?

Having a direct or crucial step into the cause of suffering and death should constitute as having the intention. This includes:

1. Luring people into situations which could cause death and suffering.

2. Constructing what is necessary to cause death and suffering.

3. Having prior knowledge that one's actions would cause suffering and death, and is therefore premeditated. [2] [3]

This all fits into God's persona, as he caused the universe, caused the existence of Adam, Eve, the snake (aka the devil) and basically everything, and he's omniscient, which means that he knew that the construction of these things would lead to suffering and death.

Thus, I rest my case. You may now decide for yourself.


[1] http://www.lrc.ky.gov...

[2] http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...

[3] http://criminal.findlaw.com...

I agree with you that suffering and death came from the source god(s). So...?

So, God's an a**hole.

All three points you gave are valid. Except, i wouldn't saying luring, i think it is more a choice...

Not at all, which as I stated earlier, Adam's fate was sealed before he was even created.

Don't hold me to that strictly though, some may not have had choice, i.e some may have been born here, some may be earth's slave... but, whatever it may be, the source god doesn't care much about "evil" or "good" ... i wouldn't really see why any immortal would care about it, other than how involved they want to be in it.

Wel I'm directing this to theism than deism.
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 5:50:38 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 3:50:37 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 3:52:04 AM, DavidHenson wrote:
At 3/13/2016 2:24:53 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
God is guilty of all suffering and death, (or at least a major accessory to it) which I will prove in this post. Some Christians say that God is not responsible for suffering since he has given us free will, and simply allows suffering to happen.

What would that have to do with suffering? Adam had free will but wasn't meant to suffer. He was warned of it, sure, but that wasn't the plan.

This is utter bull-sh*t, even if we assume the above were true.

I would agree that the above itself is bullsh!t, unless I'm missing something.

For God to be guilty of all suffering, he must fall under the following rules:

1. He was the cause of death and suffering.

Consider Isaiah 45:7. the KJV, which says God created evil. What does that mean? More modern translation read "calamity." From the Hebrew word ra, which can mean "Evil," "Bad," "Calamity," "Ungenerous," "Ugly," "Gloomy," depending upon the context. At Isaiah 45:7 the best word is calamity, as in calamity through justice. It's talking about the result of Adam's sin, and the great deluge.

Justice is very important to Jehovah, because, how could he be fair and honest as a judge if he sloughed off justice, if he were corrupt in any way. This is why it's important to recognize that the soul, according to the Bible, was the blood, or the life, of any breathing creature.

For example, if someone were discovered murdered outside of a town and no one knew who it was the town was guilty of what was called blood guilt. Since the life, or soul, was sacred to Jehovah, who created it, to spill someone's blood intentionally was a very serious crime, and that guilt remained until a bull was sacrificed and the blood of it spilled in recognition of God's sacred gift of life, and also, why they said "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life or soul for soul."

Adam murdered everyone who followed him. But Adam created this environment of sin, where God was rejected, his sovereignty questioned. So, like the children and grandchildren will suffer for the crime of a parent, not through justice or punishment directly, but as a result in their environment, so do we.

Since Adam had been created perfect without sin, who among sin has the blood to pay the price? No bull. Only Christ.

2. He had prior knowledge of the death and suffering he was to cause,

No.

3. Had the intention to cause death and suffering [1]

The word evil, in the KJV, as mentioned in Isaiah 45:7, calamity in more accurate Bibles, is used this way. Like a parent who warns their children not to play in the street or something bad (Hebrew ra) will happen. The Child does it anyway and is punished for it, which seems calamitous.

In regards to the third point, what makes a person have the intention of killing someone?

Having a direct or crucial step into the cause of suffering and death should constitute as having the intention. This includes:

1. Luring people into situations which could cause death and suffering.

2. Constructing what is necessary to cause death and suffering.

3. Having prior knowledge that one's actions would cause suffering and death, and is therefore premeditated. [2] [3]

What about corporal punishment?

That's like saying that someone who has children is responsible for all of their pain and suffering. Same argument applies. Do you have children? If so, you're guilty for all of their pain and suffering.

Incorrect. A parent doesn't know how life is going to treat their children. They are completely ignorant. They can only hope their children choose the right choice. They also (usually) don't create unnecessary issues just to test their children in a unloving manner, and they certainly don't try to cause problems for their children in a premeditated way.

God, on the other hand, created both Adam AND the problem, and knew that he was going to sin before he even created the him. As far as Adam is concerned, his (and subsequently our) fate was sealed before the earth was even created. That is malicious and calculating.
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 7:06:33 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/14/2016 5:50:38 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 3/13/2016 3:50:37 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 3:52:04 AM, DavidHenson wrote:
At 3/13/2016 2:24:53 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
God is guilty of all suffering and death, (or at least a major accessory to it) which I will prove in this post. Some Christians say that God is not responsible for suffering since he has given us free will, and simply allows suffering to happen.

What would that have to do with suffering? Adam had free will but wasn't meant to suffer. He was warned of it, sure, but that wasn't the plan.

This is utter bull-sh*t, even if we assume the above were true.

I would agree that the above itself is bullsh!t, unless I'm missing something.

For God to be guilty of all suffering, he must fall under the following rules:

1. He was the cause of death and suffering.

Consider Isaiah 45:7. the KJV, which says God created evil. What does that mean? More modern translation read "calamity." From the Hebrew word ra, which can mean "Evil," "Bad," "Calamity," "Ungenerous," "Ugly," "Gloomy," depending upon the context. At Isaiah 45:7 the best word is calamity, as in calamity through justice. It's talking about the result of Adam's sin, and the great deluge.

Justice is very important to Jehovah, because, how could he be fair and honest as a judge if he sloughed off justice, if he were corrupt in any way. This is why it's important to recognize that the soul, according to the Bible, was the blood, or the life, of any breathing creature.

For example, if someone were discovered murdered outside of a town and no one knew who it was the town was guilty of what was called blood guilt. Since the life, or soul, was sacred to Jehovah, who created it, to spill someone's blood intentionally was a very serious crime, and that guilt remained until a bull was sacrificed and the blood of it spilled in recognition of God's sacred gift of life, and also, why they said "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life or soul for soul."

Adam murdered everyone who followed him. But Adam created this environment of sin, where God was rejected, his sovereignty questioned. So, like the children and grandchildren will suffer for the crime of a parent, not through justice or punishment directly, but as a result in their environment, so do we.

Since Adam had been created perfect without sin, who among sin has the blood to pay the price? No bull. Only Christ.

2. He had prior knowledge of the death and suffering he was to cause,

No.

3. Had the intention to cause death and suffering [1]

The word evil, in the KJV, as mentioned in Isaiah 45:7, calamity in more accurate Bibles, is used this way. Like a parent who warns their children not to play in the street or something bad (Hebrew ra) will happen. The Child does it anyway and is punished for it, which seems calamitous.

In regards to the third point, what makes a person have the intention of killing someone?

Having a direct or crucial step into the cause of suffering and death should constitute as having the intention. This includes:

1. Luring people into situations which could cause death and suffering.

2. Constructing what is necessary to cause death and suffering.

3. Having prior knowledge that one's actions would cause suffering and death, and is therefore premeditated. [2] [3]

What about corporal punishment?

That's like saying that someone who has children is responsible for all of their pain and suffering. Same argument applies. Do you have children? If so, you're guilty for all of their pain and suffering.

Incorrect. A parent doesn't know how life is going to treat their children. They are completely ignorant. They can only hope their children choose the right choice. They also (usually) don't create unnecessary issues just to test their children in a unloving manner, and they certainly don't try to cause problems for their children in a premeditated way.

God, on the other hand, created both Adam AND the problem, and knew that he was going to sin before he even created the him. As far as Adam is concerned, his (and subsequently our) fate was sealed before the earth was even created. That is malicious and calculating.

Correct me, if I'm wrong, but you don't even believe in God. So why are you arguing the point? Me thinks thou doth protest too much. Perhaps you're making excuses for yourself? Why don't you just repent, and get it over with? It's very liberating, and it doesn't hurt one little bit.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
Stronn
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 7:34:18 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 4:04:40 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 10:05:53 AM, Stronn wrote:
Consider a child who is suffering from an incurable disease. If God exists, then one of the following statements must logically be true.

1. He does not know the child is suffering.

HE DOES KNOW.

2. He cannot take away the child's suffering.

OH, BUT HE CAN.

3. He chooses not to take away the child's suffering.

THERE ARE MANY EXAMPLES OF MIRACULOUS RECOVERIES THAT DOCTORS CAN'T EXPLAIN. YOU SEE, THERE IS THIS LITTLE SOMETHING CALLED PRAYER. GOD ALWAYS ANSWERS PRAYER. SOMETIMES THE ANSWER IS NO. WHEN HE GRANTS A PERSONS REQUEST, IT IS DONE FOR THE GLORY OF GOD. CHILDREN SUFFER BECAUSE OF SIN. IT'S SOMETHING THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED. SHOULD GOD NEGATE THE CURSE THAT WE HAVE EARNED? THE ANSWER IS THAT HE CAN'T. IT WOULD NOT BE JUST. YOU MIGHT AS WELL ASK HIM TO CURE DEATH. IT'S REALLY THAT SIMPLE.


Simple? It's incoherent. First you say that God sometimes does choose to end suffering. Then you say that God cannot end suffering because of sin (which would make him not omnipotent). Then you say it would not be just for God to end suffering, when you started off by saying that sometimes he does.



So it appears that God is either not omniscient (1), not omnipotent (2), or not omnibenevolent (3). This is the problem of evil in a nutshell. Monotheistic religions have been struggling (ineffectively) to explain it for centuries.
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 7:50:16 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/14/2016 7:34:18 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/13/2016 4:04:40 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 10:05:53 AM, Stronn wrote:
Consider a child who is suffering from an incurable disease. If God exists, then one of the following statements must logically be true.

1. He does not know the child is suffering.

HE DOES KNOW.

2. He cannot take away the child's suffering.

OH, BUT HE CAN.

3. He chooses not to take away the child's suffering.

THERE ARE MANY EXAMPLES OF MIRACULOUS RECOVERIES THAT DOCTORS CAN'T EXPLAIN. YOU SEE, THERE IS THIS LITTLE SOMETHING CALLED PRAYER. GOD ALWAYS ANSWERS PRAYER. SOMETIMES THE ANSWER IS NO. WHEN HE GRANTS A PERSONS REQUEST, IT IS DONE FOR THE GLORY OF GOD. CHILDREN SUFFER BECAUSE OF SIN. IT'S SOMETHING THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED. SHOULD GOD NEGATE THE CURSE THAT WE HAVE EARNED? THE ANSWER IS THAT HE CAN'T. IT WOULD NOT BE JUST. YOU MIGHT AS WELL ASK HIM TO CURE DEATH. IT'S REALLY THAT SIMPLE.


Simple? It's incoherent. First you say that God sometimes does choose to end suffering. Then you say that God cannot end suffering because of sin (which would make him not omnipotent). Then you say it would not be just for God to end suffering, when you started off by saying that sometimes he does.



So it appears that God is either not omniscient (1), not omnipotent (2), or not omnibenevolent (3). This is the problem of evil in a nutshell. Monotheistic religions have been struggling (ineffectively) to explain it for centuries.

I meant human suffering in general. The human condition remains, but God is faithful to those who follow and obey Him. Mankind, as a whole, is under the curse of God for our disobedience. But God can work in peoples lives to give them comfort. It's no different than a human giving money to the poor. The poor will always be with us, but we can help a small percentage of them. This is similar to what God does in the lives of believers. The Bible says (I'm paraphrasing here) that Christians who's hearts are right with God, who ask for anything, it will be granted. This assumes that it is according to Gods will. Sorry. No new Mercedes. But God gives His children what they need. Not what they want.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 9:41:18 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/14/2016 7:06:33 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/14/2016 5:50:38 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 3/13/2016 3:50:37 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 3:52:04 AM, DavidHenson wrote:
At 3/13/2016 2:24:53 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
God is guilty of all suffering and death, (or at least a major accessory to it) which I will prove in this post. Some Christians say that God is not responsible for suffering since he has given us free will, and simply allows suffering to happen.

What would that have to do with suffering? Adam had free will but wasn't meant to suffer. He was warned of it, sure, but that wasn't the plan.

This is utter bull-sh*t, even if we assume the above were true.

I would agree that the above itself is bullsh!t, unless I'm missing something.

For God to be guilty of all suffering, he must fall under the following rules:

1. He was the cause of death and suffering.

Consider Isaiah 45:7. the KJV, which says God created evil. What does that mean? More modern translation read "calamity." From the Hebrew word ra, which can mean "Evil," "Bad," "Calamity," "Ungenerous," "Ugly," "Gloomy," depending upon the context. At Isaiah 45:7 the best word is calamity, as in calamity through justice. It's talking about the result of Adam's sin, and the great deluge.

Justice is very important to Jehovah, because, how could he be fair and honest as a judge if he sloughed off justice, if he were corrupt in any way. This is why it's important to recognize that the soul, according to the Bible, was the blood, or the life, of any breathing creature.

For example, if someone were discovered murdered outside of a town and no one knew who it was the town was guilty of what was called blood guilt. Since the life, or soul, was sacred to Jehovah, who created it, to spill someone's blood intentionally was a very serious crime, and that guilt remained until a bull was sacrificed and the blood of it spilled in recognition of God's sacred gift of life, and also, why they said "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life or soul for soul."

Adam murdered everyone who followed him. But Adam created this environment of sin, where God was rejected, his sovereignty questioned. So, like the children and grandchildren will suffer for the crime of a parent, not through justice or punishment directly, but as a result in their environment, so do we.

Since Adam had been created perfect without sin, who among sin has the blood to pay the price? No bull. Only Christ.

2. He had prior knowledge of the death and suffering he was to cause,

No.

3. Had the intention to cause death and suffering [1]

The word evil, in the KJV, as mentioned in Isaiah 45:7, calamity in more accurate Bibles, is used this way. Like a parent who warns their children not to play in the street or something bad (Hebrew ra) will happen. The Child does it anyway and is punished for it, which seems calamitous.

In regards to the third point, what makes a person have the intention of killing someone?

Having a direct or crucial step into the cause of suffering and death should constitute as having the intention. This includes:

1. Luring people into situations which could cause death and suffering.

2. Constructing what is necessary to cause death and suffering.

3. Having prior knowledge that one's actions would cause suffering and death, and is therefore premeditated. [2] [3]

What about corporal punishment?

That's like saying that someone who has children is responsible for all of their pain and suffering. Same argument applies. Do you have children? If so, you're guilty for all of their pain and suffering.

Incorrect. A parent doesn't know how life is going to treat their children. They are completely ignorant. They can only hope their children choose the right choice. They also (usually) don't create unnecessary issues just to test their children in a unloving manner, and they certainly don't try to cause problems for their children in a premeditated way.

God, on the other hand, created both Adam AND the problem, and knew that he was going to sin before he even created the him. As far as Adam is concerned, his (and subsequently our) fate was sealed before the earth was even created. That is malicious and calculating.

Correct me, if I'm wrong, but you don't even believe in God. So why are you arguing the point?

Well, it really should be quite obvious, but allow me to spell it out for you: I'm taking the p*ss out of religion.

Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

Me no understand. You speak 400 year old semi-English.

Perhaps you're making excuses for yourself?

How the f*ck did you get to that conclusion?

Why don't you just repent, and get it over with? It's very liberating, and it doesn't hurt one little bit.

WTF?
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 4:57:46 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/14/2016 5:42:14 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 3/13/2016 4:17:24 PM, DPMartin wrote:
As can be seen in the text below, God"s Judgement is life "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it" no different than don"t walk out in front of a speeding bus. Or you shall die. The life that Adam and Eve was given requires instruction for the Lord God in order to continue to live the life they were given by God.

BS. God put the tree there, he put the snake/devil there, he put the doubt in Adam's heart, therefore he's responsible. This, coupled with the fact that he knew before he even created the earth that Adam was going to sin, yet decided to go ahead with it anyway. This clearly demonstrates that he guilty of causing it. Simple as that.

But the result we now suffer is the result of judgment other than God"s Judgement to live which results in death. Life requires instruction to live, or it dies. If it receives no instruction it dies, if it refuses instruction to live it dies. Adam and Eve received instruction and refused that instruction to follow and trust a lie.

Same as above.

Gen 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

God's Judgement is to live, and the result of man's judgement is to die. Hence the delusion that God gave freewill, there is not evidence in the text that He did. the text says He gave a life to the man and the instruction to keep that life the man was given. Because the life the man was given requires instruction to keep it.

Na, you don"t understand at all, God may be responsible for the life He has given Adam, but that same life was to be a son of God. (see Luke:3:38) hence having it"s responsibilities also. Your parent gives you a car, you are reasonable to your parents for the deeds done with it, no matter what the circumstance. Adam and Eve did not have to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. No one was pointing a gun to their heads. No matter the circumstance they still died of the life they had, and trusting God"s Judgment, given in His Commandment, is a requirement of the life they had, to live the life they had.
Outplayz
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 9:34:54 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/14/2016 5:44:49 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 3/13/2016 9:41:43 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 3/13/2016 2:24:53 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
God is guilty of all suffering and death, (or at least a major accessory to it) which I will prove in this post. Some Christians say that God is not responsible for suffering since he has given us free will, and simply allows suffering to happen.

This is utter bull-sh*t, even if we assume the above were true.

For God to be guilty of all suffering, he must fall under the following rules:

1. He was the cause of death and suffering.
2. He had prior knowledge of the death and suffering he was to cause,
3. Had the intention to cause death and suffering [1]

As you can see, God fits perfectly into all three categories. At best, he can be likened to John Kramer, whom "doesn't really kill anybody"....but does put them in a situation where there death was highly likely, and thus the "free will" or "they should have had the intent to survive" defence quickly becomes utterly absurd.

In regards to the third point, what makes a person have the intention of killing someone?

Having a direct or crucial step into the cause of suffering and death should constitute as having the intention. This includes:

1. Luring people into situations which could cause death and suffering.

2. Constructing what is necessary to cause death and suffering.

3. Having prior knowledge that one's actions would cause suffering and death, and is therefore premeditated. [2] [3]

This all fits into God's persona, as he caused the universe, caused the existence of Adam, Eve, the snake (aka the devil) and basically everything, and he's omniscient, which means that he knew that the construction of these things would lead to suffering and death.

Thus, I rest my case. You may now decide for yourself.


[1] http://www.lrc.ky.gov...

[2] http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...

[3] http://criminal.findlaw.com...

I agree with you that suffering and death came from the source god(s). So...?

So, God's an a**hole.

Yeah, but i always thought of a creative statistic, well... it isn't i statistic, but i wish someone would do a poll on it for i am curious to what the answer would be. I simply ask, "If you woke up in any moment realizing this "human experience" was all in your head 1) would you destroy it or 2) would you keep it going?" I predict more people would keep it going... as in, i don't think the darkness this life has is comparable with its good.

All three points you gave are valid. Except, i wouldn't saying luring, i think it is more a choice...

Not at all, which as I stated earlier, Adam's fate was sealed before he was even created.

Maybe i see this different bc i do have a more Deistic type of belief.

Don't hold me to that strictly though, some may not have had choice, i.e some may have been born here, some may be earth's slave... but, whatever it may be, the source god doesn't care much about "evil" or "good" ... i wouldn't really see why any immortal would care about it, other than how involved they want to be in it.

Wel I'm directing this to theism than deism.

I see. That makes sense then. I usually never know, and i always try to derail it from a Theistic point of view since i agree with most atheists about the major monotheistic religions being sketch and false.
Stronn
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 11:48:57 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/14/2016 7:50:16 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/14/2016 7:34:18 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/13/2016 4:04:40 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 10:05:53 AM, Stronn wrote:
Consider a child who is suffering from an incurable disease. If God exists, then one of the following statements must logically be true.

1. He does not know the child is suffering.

HE DOES KNOW.

2. He cannot take away the child's suffering.

OH, BUT HE CAN.

3. He chooses not to take away the child's suffering.

THERE ARE MANY EXAMPLES OF MIRACULOUS RECOVERIES THAT DOCTORS CAN'T EXPLAIN. YOU SEE, THERE IS THIS LITTLE SOMETHING CALLED PRAYER. GOD ALWAYS ANSWERS PRAYER. SOMETIMES THE ANSWER IS NO. WHEN HE GRANTS A PERSONS REQUEST, IT IS DONE FOR THE GLORY OF GOD. CHILDREN SUFFER BECAUSE OF SIN. IT'S SOMETHING THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED. SHOULD GOD NEGATE THE CURSE THAT WE HAVE EARNED? THE ANSWER IS THAT HE CAN'T. IT WOULD NOT BE JUST. YOU MIGHT AS WELL ASK HIM TO CURE DEATH. IT'S REALLY THAT SIMPLE.


Simple? It's incoherent. First you say that God sometimes does choose to end suffering. Then you say that God cannot end suffering because of sin (which would make him not omnipotent). Then you say it would not be just for God to end suffering, when you started off by saying that sometimes he does.



So it appears that God is either not omniscient (1), not omnipotent (2), or not omnibenevolent (3). This is the problem of evil in a nutshell. Monotheistic religions have been struggling (ineffectively) to explain it for centuries.

I meant human suffering in general. The human condition remains, but God is faithful to those who follow and obey Him. Mankind, as a whole, is under the curse of God for our disobedience. But God can work in peoples lives to give them comfort. It's no different than a human giving money to the poor. The poor will always be with us, but we can help a small percentage of them. This is similar to what God does in the lives of believers. The Bible says (I'm paraphrasing here) that Christians who's hearts are right with God, who ask for anything, it will be granted. This assumes that it is according to Gods will. Sorry. No new Mercedes. But God gives His children what they need. Not what they want.

And we are back to 3. God chooses not to take away the child's suffering. This is a major problem for omnibenevolence. You can argue, as many have done at great length, that it is somehow just and righteous for God to allow the child to keep suffering. But that is a hard sell. Many, like myself, don't buy it.
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 11:56:07 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/14/2016 11:48:57 PM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/14/2016 7:50:16 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/14/2016 7:34:18 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/13/2016 4:04:40 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 10:05:53 AM, Stronn wrote:
Consider a child who is suffering from an incurable disease. If God exists, then one of the following statements must logically be true.

1. He does not know the child is suffering.

HE DOES KNOW.

2. He cannot take away the child's suffering.

OH, BUT HE CAN.

3. He chooses not to take away the child's suffering.

THERE ARE MANY EXAMPLES OF MIRACULOUS RECOVERIES THAT DOCTORS CAN'T EXPLAIN. YOU SEE, THERE IS THIS LITTLE SOMETHING CALLED PRAYER. GOD ALWAYS ANSWERS PRAYER. SOMETIMES THE ANSWER IS NO. WHEN HE GRANTS A PERSONS REQUEST, IT IS DONE FOR THE GLORY OF GOD. CHILDREN SUFFER BECAUSE OF SIN. IT'S SOMETHING THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED. SHOULD GOD NEGATE THE CURSE THAT WE HAVE EARNED? THE ANSWER IS THAT HE CAN'T. IT WOULD NOT BE JUST. YOU MIGHT AS WELL ASK HIM TO CURE DEATH. IT'S REALLY THAT SIMPLE.


Simple? It's incoherent. First you say that God sometimes does choose to end suffering. Then you say that God cannot end suffering because of sin (which would make him not omnipotent). Then you say it would not be just for God to end suffering, when you started off by saying that sometimes he does.



So it appears that God is either not omniscient (1), not omnipotent (2), or not omnibenevolent (3). This is the problem of evil in a nutshell. Monotheistic religions have been struggling (ineffectively) to explain it for centuries.

I meant human suffering in general. The human condition remains, but God is faithful to those who follow and obey Him. Mankind, as a whole, is under the curse of God for our disobedience. But God can work in peoples lives to give them comfort. It's no different than a human giving money to the poor. The poor will always be with us, but we can help a small percentage of them. This is similar to what God does in the lives of believers. The Bible says (I'm paraphrasing here) that Christians who's hearts are right with God, who ask for anything, it will be granted. This assumes that it is according to Gods will. Sorry. No new Mercedes. But God gives His children what they need. Not what they want.

And we are back to 3. God chooses not to take away the child's suffering. This is a major problem for omnibenevolence. You can argue, as many have done at great length, that it is somehow just and righteous for God to allow the child to keep suffering. But that is a hard sell. Many, like myself, don't buy it.

So, in essence, you are arguing that God does not have the right to punish us for disobeying Him. Ever see a child argue that his parents shouldn't punish him for what he did? That's what you sound like, and your arguments are no more convincing than the child's. Also keep in mind that God sent His Son to die in our place. He paid the price for our sin. He didn't have to this. Besides, what's a brief period of suffering compared to eternity? This earthly existence is just a brief interlude, on the way to our final destination.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
Stronn
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 12:31:09 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/14/2016 11:56:07 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/14/2016 11:48:57 PM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/14/2016 7:50:16 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/14/2016 7:34:18 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/13/2016 4:04:40 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 10:05:53 AM, Stronn wrote:
Consider a child who is suffering from an incurable disease. If God exists, then one of the following statements must logically be true.

1. He does not know the child is suffering.

HE DOES KNOW.

2. He cannot take away the child's suffering.

OH, BUT HE CAN.

3. He chooses not to take away the child's suffering.

THERE ARE MANY EXAMPLES OF MIRACULOUS RECOVERIES THAT DOCTORS CAN'T EXPLAIN. YOU SEE, THERE IS THIS LITTLE SOMETHING CALLED PRAYER. GOD ALWAYS ANSWERS PRAYER. SOMETIMES THE ANSWER IS NO. WHEN HE GRANTS A PERSONS REQUEST, IT IS DONE FOR THE GLORY OF GOD. CHILDREN SUFFER BECAUSE OF SIN. IT'S SOMETHING THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED. SHOULD GOD NEGATE THE CURSE THAT WE HAVE EARNED? THE ANSWER IS THAT HE CAN'T. IT WOULD NOT BE JUST. YOU MIGHT AS WELL ASK HIM TO CURE DEATH. IT'S REALLY THAT SIMPLE.


Simple? It's incoherent. First you say that God sometimes does choose to end suffering. Then you say that God cannot end suffering because of sin (which would make him not omnipotent). Then you say it would not be just for God to end suffering, when you started off by saying that sometimes he does.



So it appears that God is either not omniscient (1), not omnipotent (2), or not omnibenevolent (3). This is the problem of evil in a nutshell. Monotheistic religions have been struggling (ineffectively) to explain it for centuries.

I meant human suffering in general. The human condition remains, but God is faithful to those who follow and obey Him. Mankind, as a whole, is under the curse of God for our disobedience. But God can work in peoples lives to give them comfort. It's no different than a human giving money to the poor. The poor will always be with us, but we can help a small percentage of them. This is similar to what God does in the lives of believers. The Bible says (I'm paraphrasing here) that Christians who's hearts are right with God, who ask for anything, it will be granted. This assumes that it is according to Gods will. Sorry. No new Mercedes. But God gives His children what they need. Not what they want.

And we are back to 3. God chooses not to take away the child's suffering. This is a major problem for omnibenevolence. You can argue, as many have done at great length, that it is somehow just and righteous for God to allow the child to keep suffering. But that is a hard sell. Many, like myself, don't buy it.

So, in essence, you are arguing that God does not have the right to punish us for disobeying Him.

No, that is not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that God allowing a child to suffer is at odds with God being omnibenevolent.

Ever see a child argue that his parents shouldn't punish him for what he did? That's what you sound like, and your arguments are no more convincing than the child's.

You don't get it. The child did nothing. He is being punished for the disobedience of a long dead ancestor.

Also keep in mind that God sent His Son to die in our place. He paid the price for our sin. He didn't have to this. Besides, what's a brief period of suffering compared to eternity? This earthly existence is just a brief interlude, on the way to our final destination.

There are at least two angles of absurdity here.

For one, if you say that our period of earthly suffering is insignificant compared to eternity, then by your own logic Jesus' sacrifice was not much of a sacrifice.

For another, it is an especially pernicious worldview. You are minimizing the suffering of your fellow humans.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,016
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 2:48:50 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 2:24:53 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
God is guilty of all suffering and death, (or at least a major accessory to it) which I will prove in this post. Some Christians say that God is not responsible for suffering since he has given us free will, and simply allows suffering to happen.

This is utter bull-sh*t, even if we assume the above were true.

For God to be guilty of all suffering, he must fall under the following rules:

1. He was the cause of death and suffering.
2. He had prior knowledge of the death and suffering he was to cause,
3. Had the intention to cause death and suffering [1]

As you can see, God fits perfectly into all three categories. At best, he can be likened to John Kramer, whom "doesn't really kill anybody"....but does put them in a situation where there death was highly likely, and thus the "free will" or "they should have had the intent to survive" defence quickly becomes utterly absurd.

In regards to the third point, what makes a person have the intention of killing someone?

Having a direct or crucial step into the cause of suffering and death should constitute as having the intention. This includes:

1. Luring people into situations which could cause death and suffering.

2. Constructing what is necessary to cause death and suffering.

3. Having prior knowledge that one's actions would cause suffering and death, and is therefore premeditated. [2] [3]

This all fits into God's persona, as he caused the universe, caused the existence of Adam, Eve, the snake (aka the devil) and basically everything, and he's omniscient, which means that he knew that the construction of these things would lead to suffering and death.

Thus, I rest my case. You may now decide for yourself.


[1] http://www.lrc.ky.gov...

[2] http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...

[3] http://criminal.findlaw.com...

Even if true, I don't your point
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 4:16:03 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/15/2016 2:48:50 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 3/13/2016 2:24:53 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
God is guilty of all suffering and death, (or at least a major accessory to it) which I will prove in this post. Some Christians say that God is not responsible for suffering since he has given us free will, and simply allows suffering to happen.

This is utter bull-sh*t, even if we assume the above were true.

For God to be guilty of all suffering, he must fall under the following rules:

1. He was the cause of death and suffering.
2. He had prior knowledge of the death and suffering he was to cause,
3. Had the intention to cause death and suffering [1]

As you can see, God fits perfectly into all three categories. At best, he can be likened to John Kramer, whom "doesn't really kill anybody"....but does put them in a situation where there death was highly likely, and thus the "free will" or "they should have had the intent to survive" defence quickly becomes utterly absurd.

In regards to the third point, what makes a person have the intention of killing someone?

Having a direct or crucial step into the cause of suffering and death should constitute as having the intention. This includes:

1. Luring people into situations which could cause death and suffering.

2. Constructing what is necessary to cause death and suffering.

3. Having prior knowledge that one's actions would cause suffering and death, and is therefore premeditated. [2] [3]

This all fits into God's persona, as he caused the universe, caused the existence of Adam, Eve, the snake (aka the devil) and basically everything, and he's omniscient, which means that he knew that the construction of these things would lead to suffering and death.

Thus, I rest my case. You may now decide for yourself.


[1] http://www.lrc.ky.gov...

[2] http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...

[3] http://criminal.findlaw.com...


Even if true, I don't your point

My point is that God is guilty of suffering and death...I literally said that at the beginning of my post....
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 4:17:06 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/14/2016 4:57:46 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 3/14/2016 5:42:14 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 3/13/2016 4:17:24 PM, DPMartin wrote:
As can be seen in the text below, God"s Judgement is life "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it" no different than don"t walk out in front of a speeding bus. Or you shall die. The life that Adam and Eve was given requires instruction for the Lord God in order to continue to live the life they were given by God.

BS. God put the tree there, he put the snake/devil there, he put the doubt in Adam's heart, therefore he's responsible. This, coupled with the fact that he knew before he even created the earth that Adam was going to sin, yet decided to go ahead with it anyway. This clearly demonstrates that he guilty of causing it. Simple as that.

But the result we now suffer is the result of judgment other than God"s Judgement to live which results in death. Life requires instruction to live, or it dies. If it receives no instruction it dies, if it refuses instruction to live it dies. Adam and Eve received instruction and refused that instruction to follow and trust a lie.

Same as above.

Gen 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

God's Judgement is to live, and the result of man's judgement is to die. Hence the delusion that God gave freewill, there is not evidence in the text that He did. the text says He gave a life to the man and the instruction to keep that life the man was given. Because the life the man was given requires instruction to keep it.

Na, you don"t understand at all, God may be responsible for the life He has given Adam, but that same life was to be a son of God. (see Luke:3:38) hence having it"s responsibilities also. Your parent gives you a car, you are reasonable to your parents for the deeds done with it, no matter what the circumstance. Adam and Eve did not have to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. No one was pointing a gun to their heads. No matter the circumstance they still died of the life they had, and trusting God"s Judgment, given in His Commandment, is a requirement of the life they had, to live the life they had.

Re-read my post until you get it.
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 4:22:27 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/14/2016 9:34:54 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 3/14/2016 5:44:49 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 3/13/2016 9:41:43 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 3/13/2016 2:24:53 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
God is guilty of all suffering and death, (or at least a major accessory to it) which I will prove in this post. Some Christians say that God is not responsible for suffering since he has given us free will, and simply allows suffering to happen.

This is utter bull-sh*t, even if we assume the above were true.

For God to be guilty of all suffering, he must fall under the following rules:

1. He was the cause of death and suffering.
2. He had prior knowledge of the death and suffering he was to cause,
3. Had the intention to cause death and suffering [1]

As you can see, God fits perfectly into all three categories. At best, he can be likened to John Kramer, whom "doesn't really kill anybody"....but does put them in a situation where there death was highly likely, and thus the "free will" or "they should have had the intent to survive" defence quickly becomes utterly absurd.

In regards to the third point, what makes a person have the intention of killing someone?

Having a direct or crucial step into the cause of suffering and death should constitute as having the intention. This includes:

1. Luring people into situations which could cause death and suffering.

2. Constructing what is necessary to cause death and suffering.

3. Having prior knowledge that one's actions would cause suffering and death, and is therefore premeditated. [2] [3]

This all fits into God's persona, as he caused the universe, caused the existence of Adam, Eve, the snake (aka the devil) and basically everything, and he's omniscient, which means that he knew that the construction of these things would lead to suffering and death.

Thus, I rest my case. You may now decide for yourself.


[1] http://www.lrc.ky.gov...

[2] http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...

[3] http://criminal.findlaw.com...

I agree with you that suffering and death came from the source god(s). So...?

So, God's an a**hole.

Yeah, but i always thought of a creative statistic, well... it isn't i statistic, but i wish someone would do a poll on it for i am curious to what the answer would be. I simply ask, "If you woke up in any moment realizing this "human experience" was all in your head 1) would you destroy it or 2) would you keep it going?" I predict more people would keep it going... as in, i don't think the darkness this life has is comparable with its good.

I don't understand how this is relevant...no offence...

All three points you gave are valid. Except, i wouldn't saying luring, i think it is more a choice...

Not at all, which as I stated earlier, Adam's fate was sealed before he was even created.

Maybe i see this different bc i do have a more Deistic type of belief.

So you don't believe the Genesis story?

Don't hold me to that strictly though, some may not have had choice, i.e some may have been born here, some may be earth's slave... but, whatever it may be, the source god doesn't care much about "evil" or "good" ... i wouldn't really see why any immortal would care about it, other than how involved they want to be in it.

Wel I'm directing this to theism than deism.

I see. That makes sense then. I usually never know, and i always try to derail it from a Theistic point of view since i agree with most atheists about the major monotheistic religions being sketch and false.

Well, if the argument is directed at religious beliefs (such as this one), then it is anti-theism, not deism.
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
Outplayz
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 4:42:22 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/15/2016 4:22:27 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 3/14/2016 9:34:54 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 3/14/2016 5:44:49 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:

Yeah, but i always thought of a creative statistic, well... it isn't i statistic, but i wish someone would do a poll on it for i am curious to what the answer would be. I simply ask, "If you woke up in any moment realizing this "human experience" was all in your head 1) would you destroy it or 2) would you keep it going?" I predict more people would keep it going... as in, i don't think the darkness this life has is comparable with its good.

I don't understand how this is relevant...no offence...

Non-taken. I was just trying to portray that people would keep this life, majority, even though there is suffering and death. Plus, i even think people suffering see the bright side of life and would answer to live. I never understood why people focus on this subject just to use it in arguments. If we know there is suffering, we could do something about it, and death, well ... maybe one day we can do something about that too. I just don't think it will ever be immortal... I find immortality without mortality to be a fallacy. Mortality would be the best way for an immortal to live experiences... so, death being a design to escape back to its immortality to prepare the next experience. At least that is the ontological conjecture i am following at this point.

All three points you gave are valid. Except, i wouldn't saying luring, i think it is more a choice...

Not at all, which as I stated earlier, Adam's fate was sealed before he was even created.

Maybe i see this different bc i do have a more Deistic type of belief.

So you don't believe the Genesis story?

I found it is a very creative metaphor to how i think a "god" would be born. I just don't define god the same as theists. Mine is more an immortal. I my conjecture i purpose that thought (sentience) evolved first mass-less and in an immortal type of setting. That is why i think everything and anything is possible due to thought creating as thought. So... i found the Genesis story to be a cool illustration. For instance, the first thing a new sentient thought would think is on the lines of what am i, or making dark to light... Can't speculate how it exactly happened, but i do believe it happened this way... I call it the source(s) (immortal sentience, intelligence, imagination, creation), that we all are.

Don't hold me to that strictly though, some may not have had choice, i.e some may have been born here, some may be earth's slave... but, whatever it may be, the source god doesn't care much about "evil" or "good" ... i wouldn't really see why any immortal would care about it, other than how involved they want to be in it.

Wel I'm directing this to theism than deism.

I see. That makes sense then. I usually never know, and i always try to derail it from a Theistic point of view since i agree with most atheists about the major monotheistic religions being sketch and false.

Well, if the argument is directed at religious beliefs (such as this one), then it is anti-theism, not deism.

Yes. I am against theism for the mere fact that it makes no sense. And, i told you my belief a little so you can see it isn't really deism either. By those definitions, i am saying we are all gods. However, the way i say it... we are all a source energy, accounts for capacity as well... Just like as we observe here. My belief's problem is that it is highly subjective... for the only person i am sure of is myself and other close people... I have no idea, for instance, how you define a human experience. You may be suffering or want death... but, in all cases, there is always rage quitting. Death is designed to take you from this reality. In essence, i believe those suffering aren't really suffering, but just living a reality that looks unpleasing to us. Like is said, if the suffering is that great, there is always the rage quit button... and i am not religious, so i advocate death if one is suffering to the point death would be viable.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,016
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 9:10:45 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/15/2016 4:16:03 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 2:48:50 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 3/13/2016 2:24:53 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
God is guilty of all suffering and death, (or at least a major accessory to it) which I will prove in this post. Some Christians say that God is not responsible for suffering since he has given us free will, and simply allows suffering to happen.

This is utter bull-sh*t, even if we assume the above were true.

For God to be guilty of all suffering, he must fall under the following rules:

1. He was the cause of death and suffering.
2. He had prior knowledge of the death and suffering he was to cause,
3. Had the intention to cause death and suffering [1]

As you can see, God fits perfectly into all three categories. At best, he can be likened to John Kramer, whom "doesn't really kill anybody"....but does put them in a situation where there death was highly likely, and thus the "free will" or "they should have had the intent to survive" defence quickly becomes utterly absurd.

In regards to the third point, what makes a person have the intention of killing someone?

Having a direct or crucial step into the cause of suffering and death should constitute as having the intention. This includes:

1. Luring people into situations which could cause death and suffering.

2. Constructing what is necessary to cause death and suffering.

3. Having prior knowledge that one's actions would cause suffering and death, and is therefore premeditated. [2] [3]

This all fits into God's persona, as he caused the universe, caused the existence of Adam, Eve, the snake (aka the devil) and basically everything, and he's omniscient, which means that he knew that the construction of these things would lead to suffering and death.

Thus, I rest my case. You may now decide for yourself.


[1] http://www.lrc.ky.gov...

[2] http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...

[3] http://criminal.findlaw.com...


Even if true, I don't your point

My point is that God is guilty of suffering and death...I literally said that at the beginning of my post....

Ok, but as the author of life, He has that right... unlike us.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 4:04:29 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/15/2016 9:10:45 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 4:16:03 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 2:48:50 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 3/13/2016 2:24:53 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
God is guilty of all suffering and death, (or at least a major accessory to it) which I will prove in this post. Some Christians say that God is not responsible for suffering since he has given us free will, and simply allows suffering to happen.

This is utter bull-sh*t, even if we assume the above were true.

For God to be guilty of all suffering, he must fall under the following rules:

1. He was the cause of death and suffering.
2. He had prior knowledge of the death and suffering he was to cause,
3. Had the intention to cause death and suffering [1]

As you can see, God fits perfectly into all three categories. At best, he can be likened to John Kramer, whom "doesn't really kill anybody"....but does put them in a situation where there death was highly likely, and thus the "free will" or "they should have had the intent to survive" defence quickly becomes utterly absurd.

In regards to the third point, what makes a person have the intention of killing someone?

Having a direct or crucial step into the cause of suffering and death should constitute as having the intention. This includes:

1. Luring people into situations which could cause death and suffering.

2. Constructing what is necessary to cause death and suffering.

3. Having prior knowledge that one's actions would cause suffering and death, and is therefore premeditated. [2] [3]

This all fits into God's persona, as he caused the universe, caused the existence of Adam, Eve, the snake (aka the devil) and basically everything, and he's omniscient, which means that he knew that the construction of these things would lead to suffering and death.

Thus, I rest my case. You may now decide for yourself.


[1] http://www.lrc.ky.gov...

[2] http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...

[3] http://criminal.findlaw.com...


Even if true, I don't your point

My point is that God is guilty of suffering and death...I literally said that at the beginning of my post....

Ok, but as the author of life, He has that right... unlike us.

Then he's a vindictive, controlling, tyranical bully.
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 4:07:17 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/15/2016 4:42:22 AM, Outplayz wrote:
At 3/15/2016 4:22:27 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 3/14/2016 9:34:54 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 3/14/2016 5:44:49 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:

Yeah, but i always thought of a creative statistic, well... it isn't i statistic, but i wish someone would do a poll on it for i am curious to what the answer would be. I simply ask, "If you woke up in any moment realizing this "human experience" was all in your head 1) would you destroy it or 2) would you keep it going?" I predict more people would keep it going... as in, i don't think the darkness this life has is comparable with its good.

I don't understand how this is relevant...no offence...

Non-taken. I was just trying to portray that people would keep this life, majority, even though there is suffering and death. Plus, i even think people suffering see the bright side of life and would answer to live. I never understood why people focus on this subject just to use it in arguments. If we know there is suffering, we could do something about it, and death, well ... maybe one day we can do something about that too. I just don't think it will ever be immortal... I find immortality without mortality to be a fallacy. Mortality would be the best way for an immortal to live experiences... so, death being a design to escape back to its immortality to prepare the next experience. At least that is the ontological conjecture i am following at this point.

All three points you gave are valid. Except, i wouldn't saying luring, i think it is more a choice...

Not at all, which as I stated earlier, Adam's fate was sealed before he was even created.

Maybe i see this different bc i do have a more Deistic type of belief.

So you don't believe the Genesis story?

I found it is a very creative metaphor to how i think a "god" would be born. I just don't define god the same as theists. Mine is more an immortal. I my conjecture i purpose that thought (sentience) evolved first mass-less and in an immortal type of setting. That is why i think everything and anything is possible due to thought creating as thought. So... i found the Genesis story to be a cool illustration. For instance, the first thing a new sentient thought would think is on the lines of what am i, or making dark to light... Can't speculate how it exactly happened, but i do believe it happened this way... I call it the source(s) (immortal sentience, intelligence, imagination, creation), that we all are.

Don't hold me to that strictly though, some may not have had choice, i.e some may have been born here, some may be earth's slave... but, whatever it may be, the source god doesn't care much about "evil" or "good" ... i wouldn't really see why any immortal would care about it, other than how involved they want to be in it.

Wel I'm directing this to theism than deism.

I see. That makes sense then. I usually never know, and i always try to derail it from a Theistic point of view since i agree with most atheists about the major monotheistic religions being sketch and false.

Well, if the argument is directed at religious beliefs (such as this one), then it is anti-theism, not deism.

Yes. I am against theism for the mere fact that it makes no sense. And, i told you my belief a little so you can see it isn't really deism either.

Deism and theism are mutually exclusive. Your clearly not an atheist, but do you believe God intervenes or has intervened with his creation or not? Do you believe any theistic points in the bible are true? If yes, your a theist. If no, your a deist.

By those definitions, i am saying we are all gods.

That makes no sense.

However, the way i say it... we are all a source energy, accounts for capacity as well... Just like as we observe here. My belief's problem is that it is highly subjective... for the only person i am sure of is myself and other close people... I have no idea, for instance, how you define a human experience. You may be suffering or want death... but, in all cases, there is always rage quitting. Death is designed to take you from this reality. In essence, i believe those suffering aren't really suffering, but just living a reality that looks unpleasing to us. Like is said, if the suffering is that great, there is always the rage quit button... and i am not religious, so i advocate death if one is suffering to the point death would be viable.

....well then....
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,016
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 4:47:41 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/15/2016 4:04:29 PM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 9:10:45 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 4:16:03 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 2:48:50 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 3/13/2016 2:24:53 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
God is guilty of all suffering and death, (or at least a major accessory to it) which I will prove in this post. Some Christians say that God is not responsible for suffering since he has given us free will, and simply allows suffering to happen.

This is utter bull-sh*t, even if we assume the above were true.

For God to be guilty of all suffering, he must fall under the following rules:

1. He was the cause of death and suffering.
2. He had prior knowledge of the death and suffering he was to cause,
3. Had the intention to cause death and suffering [1]

As you can see, God fits perfectly into all three categories. At best, he can be likened to John Kramer, whom "doesn't really kill anybody"....but does put them in a situation where there death was highly likely, and thus the "free will" or "they should have had the intent to survive" defence quickly becomes utterly absurd.

In regards to the third point, what makes a person have the intention of killing someone?

Having a direct or crucial step into the cause of suffering and death should constitute as having the intention. This includes:

1. Luring people into situations which could cause death and suffering.

2. Constructing what is necessary to cause death and suffering.

3. Having prior knowledge that one's actions would cause suffering and death, and is therefore premeditated. [2] [3]

This all fits into God's persona, as he caused the universe, caused the existence of Adam, Eve, the snake (aka the devil) and basically everything, and he's omniscient, which means that he knew that the construction of these things would lead to suffering and death.

Thus, I rest my case. You may now decide for yourself.


[1] http://www.lrc.ky.gov...

[2] http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...

[3] http://criminal.findlaw.com...


Even if true, I don't your point

My point is that God is guilty of suffering and death...I literally said that at the beginning of my post....

Ok, but as the author of life, He has that right... unlike us.

Then he's a vindictive, controlling, tyranical bully.

I don't see how us being mortal makes Him bad, especially if we'll be eternally happy in His presence. That doesn't follow.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax