Does might make right?

Originally posted by wolftune
But history is written by the victors.[/b]

You got that right! 😉

Originally posted by whodey
No. What I am saying is that man chose to go his own way and God then stepped aside, so to speak. Man was then allowed to then find his own way in the world via his initiating such a desire to do things apart from God. Man then suffered because he rejected the God who would have continued to protect him and sustain him in a paridise-like enviornment. Desp eternal suffering for those that may choose to escape such eternal suffering via the cross.

Suffering is merely a result of sin that has entered the world and effects both the guilty and "innocent".

Let me get this straight. Here's an example of suffering: a baby is born with an intestinal obstruction; no operations can be done to save her; she experiences excruciating pain, dehydration and infection; and over the course of several days she withers and dies. So, according to you, this suffering is the result of sin? What does that even mean, exactly? This baby doesn't have any "desire to do things apart from God". This baby doesn't even have a concept of God. So God has provided for this suffering; allows this suffering; and yet this suffering is completely unnecessary for His plans regarding humanity. So your God is callous at best. Why should we think He is loving when He demonstrates at least a cold indifference to suffering within His sphere of direct influence?

I don't understand how "eternal suffering" works. You'll have to explain it to me. There are many ways to use 'eternal', but it's clear here that you are casting it in diametric opposition to the temporal. But, any thing that is 'eternal' in this sense (as in atemporal, existing outside of temporal relations) is changeless. How can a changeless entity suffer? How can a changeless entity do anything for that matter? I have no idea what your "eternal suffering" could possibly be. My idea of suffering would be holding averse psychological states or to have things go badly from one's own perspective. Don't these processes take time? (EDIT: Or did you just mean 'temporal' as in worldly? Why should I think suffering here in this world is not morally relevant?)

So either God enjoys watching other people suffer as well as suffering himself or God simply allows suffering to continue so as not to destroy all sin from the world all at once.

False dichotomy. Why would God have to "destroy all sin from the world" in order to alleviate or avoid the suffering I described above? He's purportedly omnipotent, and there are all sorts of logically possible ways to accomplish this.

Originally posted by whodey
What does it mean to say that God is love? Well, I guess it would depend upon what one calls love and most people appear to be clueless about love. Biblically speaking love is caring about another and looking after their best interests instead of simply focusing on your own interests. LOve is also relational in nature. One must be free to exhibit love as ...[text shortened]... If there be a God how could such a complicated being not appear to be contradictory at times?

Well lets see, God does champion love because it is good in his sight.

Are there reasons why God champions love? What are they? Why is it good in his sight?

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Well lets see, God does champion love because it is good in his sight.

Are there reasons why God champions love? What are they? Why is it good in his sight?[/b]

1) "God is love".

2) Love is an emotion and is not conscious.

3) Love cannot "champion" anything including itself.

4) Christianity makes no sense.

QED

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Suffering is merely a result of sin that has entered the world and effects both the guilty and "innocent".

Let me get this straight. Here's an example of suffering: a baby is born with an intestinal obstruction; no operations can be done to save her; she experiences excruciating pain, dehydration and infection; and over the course of several da demonstrates at least a cold indifference to suffering within His sphere of direct influence?

As hard as it may be to understand that is exactly what I am telling you. The child is suffering because of sin. Notice I did not say that the child is suffering from a sin the child comitted necessarily. The child is simply born into a fallen race in which we are prone to sickness, suffering, and death. It will come, it is simply a quesiton of how and when. Your objection here seems to be that the child is to young to die. She should be allowed to have more of a full life before suffering such a fate. She shoud at least be allowed to sin before actually "deserving" to die. Why would God allow her to suffer if the child did nothing to "deserve" her fate? The option here is then to either blame God or sin. Did God not warn mankind that to sin means that you will die? In reality, it is by God's grace that Adam and Eve were allowed to live immediatly after they sinned and thus continue to have offsrping in order to keep the human race from becoming extinct. With such a perspective, one should then thank God for every second they have to live in addition to the prospect of being allowed to live eternally.

This brings me to your next question about suffering eternally. The child that you gave in your example is "innocent". Therefore, if she suffers and dies she will live eternally. She simply seems to have inherited some "defect" from the parent from which she now suffers. As I said before, children will suffer as a result of their parents whether it be something they inherit genetically, or learning bad behavoir from them etc. It may not be fair, but it is simply the way it is. Sin is as destructive as a bomb going off in a crowded mall. It cares little in terms of whether those effected are "deserving".

Is it preferable to suffer temperally or eternally? Granted, neither is preferable, however, as I said before it is unavoidable due to the emergence of sin in the world. I think you will agree that we all suffer to some degree. Since our lives are temperal, I refer to suffering temperally as suffering while in this temperal world. Therefore, our eternal fate is the question at hand. What suffering may we encounter once we leave this world of hurt and step into eternity. Is it possible to return to the paridise lost that Adam and Eve forsook? I say it is once we leave this temperal world. The child you mentioned I believe will arrive at such a place.

I do not mean to minimize the suffering of the child and the parent in the example you mentioned. I am simply trying to take the emotion out of the example and attempt to look at things as they are verses what we want them to be. In fact, God also cares about such temperal suffering. In fact, in Isaiah it is said that Christ was wounded for our transgression and by his stripes we are healed. Therefore, it is possible to stand in faith regarding the above mentioned problem with the child by standing in faith that by the stripes of Christ the child may be healed. This leads us into a entirely different line of questioning in terms of who God decides to heal and who is not healed. I still struggle, as I think most Christians do, in terms of understanding such issues. I have seen miraculous healing for those I love as well as seeing loved ones meet their demise such as the example you gave with the child. I think it to be a complicated issue, however, one must stand in faith reagardless. It is what we are commanded to do. Let God sort out the rest. It reminds me of Shadrack, Meshak, and Obendigo in Daniel who were about to be thrown into a furnace for not worshiping the idols of Nebeccanezar. They told the king that God would deliver them, but IF NOT, they would rather die standing in faith than not standing in faith by transgressing against God's mandate not to worship other gods. In short, all we can do is stand in faith and let God sort out the rest.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Well lets see, God does champion love because it is good in his sight.

Are there reasons why God champions love? What are they? Why is it good in his sight?[/b]

I think the reasons are obvious. If not, can you think of why love should not be championed? Give me an example in which love is not a moral stance.

Originally posted by whodey
With such a perspective, one should then thank God for every second they have to live in addition to the prospect of being allowed to live eternally.

Effectively the same as thanking a hangman for every second that he delays pulling the lever.

The God you pray to and thank is either not as omnipotent as you claim or does not wish to relieve the suffering. Why do theists so often try to insist that God is 'loving', 'just', 'forgiving' etc when he doesn't even come close to fitting the commonly used definitions of those words. In fact you start by making that claim and then jump through hoops trying to prove it by redefining the words to fit the monster that is your God as demonstrated in this thread in which you basically claim that as God is infinite any word he chooses to attribute to himself becomes true once nobody is left around to dispute it.

Many creationists (like you) blame all suffering on the sin of our ancestors all the way back to Adam and Eve. I wonder how non-creationists explain it as they don't have that scapegoat. I've heard various 'explanations' often including the claim that free will necessarily entails suffering but none of them really provide an adequate explanation for the suffering of innocent babies.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Effectively the same as thanking a hangman for every second that he delays pulling the lever.

The God you pray to and thank is either not as omnipotent as you claim or does not wish to relieve the suffering. Why do theists so often try to insist that God is 'loving', 'just', 'forgiving' etc when he doesn't even come close to fitting the commonly used d of them really provide an adequate explanation for the suffering of innocent babies.

So if you were God how would you go about things? For example, would I have free will? Perhaps you would not even create humans. If not, what would you create and why? Would your creation simply be a source of amusement to you or would you enjoy interacting with them etc? What say you?

Originally posted by whodey
So if you were God how would you go about things? For example, would I have free will? Perhaps you would not even create humans. If not, what would you create and why? Would your creation simply be a source of amusement to you or would you enjoy interacting with them etc? What say you?

I am not God so I cant honestly answer the question. But I do think that I would not allow the current suffering.

Originally posted by whodey
I think the reasons are obvious. If not, can you think of why love should not be championed? Give me an example in which love is not a moral stance.

Oh, so there are "obvious" universal reasons why rational agents should cultivate love? Love is not good merely because the mightiest agent says so. This is what you're saying, right? So what's with all the "might makes right" crap, then? If the mightiest agent thought love is wrong, you should think he is mistaken because there are "obvious" reasons to suggest otherwise. This is all I was getting at. The notion that what is right is determined merely by whatever the mightiest agent thinks renders morality arbitrary. But, of course, that's a ridiculous implication.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not God so I cant honestly answer the question. But I do think that I would not allow the current suffering.

Oh, come now. You called God a monster the last I checked. Assuming he exists that is. So now you are backing down and saying that your are not qualified to answer my questions? I assume that if one were to stand in judgement over God one would at least have the qualifications for doing so.

I don't think anyone enjoys suffering including God himself. After all, it says that it is God's will that none should perish. So the question becomes, why does the will of the God of the Bible sometimes not come to pass if he is omnipotent and wishes that none should perish yet some still do? Really the only answer is that he wills to relinquish part of his control via free will even if that free will comes into direct conflict with his own. Really this is the only way to go about giving true free will to God's creation and it opens a large can of worms when it happens as we can see today. Either that or God would exude such control over us so that his will is NEVER circumvented. I would think such a God would be more monster-like than one in which chooses to relinquish part of his control over us.

So if God is loving then it would stand to reason that what he wills for us is what is best for us. Yet we then want to go our own way and ignore his will for our lives but then wonder why we suffer when we do go our own way. Do you see the irony at all?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Oh, so there are "obvious" universal reasons why rational agents should cultivate love? Love is not good merely because the mightiest agent says so. This is what you're saying, right? So what's with all the "might makes right" crap, then? If the mightiest agent thought love is wrong, you should think he is mistaken because there are "obvious" reasons ...[text shortened]... nt thinks renders morality arbitrary. But, of course, that's a ridiculous implication.

Well if the mightest agent, which is God, thought that love was wrong then that would be the correct moral stance. Now before you have a conniption let me explain. One that creates does so regarding their needs, desires, intellegence level etc. So if God were not a God of love, his creation, which would be us, would reflect this fact. Therefore, we would not crave loving relationships as we do nor would we see walking in love with their fellow man as the moral way in which to live. If such a God existed, we would, therefore, not crave to defend our free will. In fact, we might crave to be controlled or worse.

Originally posted by whodey
As hard as it may be to understand that is exactly what I am telling you. The child is suffering because of sin. Notice I did not say that the child is suffering from a sin the child comitted necessarily. The child is simply born into a fallen race in which we are prone to sickness, suffering, and death. It will come, it is simply a quesiton of how and wh ...[text shortened]... ther gods. In short, all we can do is stand in faith and let God sort out the rest.

Your objection here seems to be that the child is to young to die.

My objection is that this sort of unnecessary suffering is not compatible with your claim that God is all loving. If one knows he can easily prevent or alleviate the needless suffering of another and yet fails to do so; then that demonstrates a lack of compassion on his part.

Anyway, at the end of the day, you just fall back on your stance that God is always right but you lack the ability to understand why. So, basically, you admittedly fail to understand what it is you're talking about. I'm not too concerned with this God talk anyhow. I guess what I find truly ugly is your final prescription, which is basically to embrace the notion of permanence (this illusion is a big part of the problem to begin with) and then stick your head in the sand. Anyway, thanks for the discussion.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
4) Christianity makes no sense.

You'll need a secret decoder ring to bring it into proper light. Check Cracker Jack boxes.

Originally posted by whodey
Well if the mightest agent, which is God, thought that love was wrong then that would be the correct moral stance. Now before you have a conniption let me explain. One that creates does so regarding their needs, desires, intellegence level etc. So if God were not a God of love, his creation, which would be us, would reflect this fact. Therefore, we would ...[text shortened]... herefore, not crave to defend our free will. In fact, we might crave to be controlled or worse.

😵