Is the anti-theist argument from undeserved suffering circularish?

[Shaker]

God IS fiction.

Squirrelled away for future punishment 

[Roses]

God IS fiction


Let's have your proof then.

Where is your proof it exists in reality, not just in the mind of believers?.

[Gordon]

Too weird for me. I'm out of here.

Surely you jest, Vlad!

Weird is thinking you're redeemed because some Jewish guy was killed back in antiquity, and that this allegedly omni-thing that creates 'all things bright and beautiful', for which it gets praised by you guys, is presumably also responsible for bone cancer in children - but we don't want to mention that.

I think, my friend, that you need to look closer to home for weirdness. 

[SteveH]

But God could choose to heal suffering, or prevent further suffering. And the fact that humanity is 'fallen'...really? Trying to think of the French theologian's name who said that God does what he can in cases of suffering, but that doesn't really square with what the Bible says and smacks of making things up to suit.

All that aside though, however sarcastic, irritating, repetitive and rude non believers can be, they don't lie, distort and misrepresent. And they certainly don't label others as 'dark', with the implications that has when coming from a Christian. And there are posters on here who assert that beliefs such as my pantheism are because I've been 'led astray' by the 'deceiver'. Those statements aren't rude, they are bloody scary.

Who says God could choose to heal suffering? If God could, presumably God would. Anyway, you may think that theology is a oad of illogical cobblers, but saying that God creates suffering, as NS did more than once, is just wilfully ignorant.
I'm sorry you've had a load of bollocks from some Christians - sadly, too many are like that. You won't get anything like that from me re. your pantheism, as I'm close to that position myself. Some people talk of "panentheism", i.e. God being ineverything, rather than being everything. I'd go along with that.

[Nearly Sane]

Who says God could choose to heal suffering? If God could, presumably God would. Anyway, you may think that theology is a oad of illogical cobblers, but saying that God creates suffering, as NS did more than once, is just wilfully ignorant.
I'm sorry you've had a load of bollocks from some Christians - sadly, too many are like that. You won't get anything like that from me re. your pantheism, as I'm close to that position myself. Some people talk of "panentheism", i.e. God being ineverything, rather than being everything. I'd go along with that.

Nope, sorry, you seem to be confused. Just saying something is 'willfully ignorant ' isn't an argument. Have you got past Isaiah 45:7 yet?

[Shaker]

Who says God could choose to heal suffering? If God could, presumably God would.

Classical, bog-standard, common-or-garden theism. If you want to step outside that, great. We'll have a different kind of conversation. No problem.

Anyway, you may think that theology is a oad of illogical cobblers, but saying that God creates suffering, as NS did more than once, is just wilfully ignorant.

Except that the book - yours, not mine - says otherwise. Isaiah 45:7 - just as NS has already pointed out.

It isn't "wilfully ignorant"; it's in your manual.

[SteveH]

Here are some commentaries on that verse. I do not necessarily agree with any of them; I'm posting the link for information and interest.

[Nearly Sane]

Here are some commentaries on that verse. I do not necessarily agree with any of them; I'm posting the link for information and interest.

I would like to hear your thoughts! Leaving those aside, can we at least get some recognition that your suggestion that there is nothing in theology about the problem till recently is wrong?

[SteveH]

Where is your proof it exists in reality, not just in the mind of believers?.

Where is your proof that you exist in reality, not just in my nightmares?

[Roses]

Where is your proof that you exist in reality, not just in my nightmares?

Wow I am honoured that I am the stuff of your nightmares, I feel very important indeed.

You don't offer any proof for your utterances.

[Shaker]

Here are some commentaries on that verse. I do not necessarily agree with any of them; I'm posting the link for information and interest.

That's great and all but the idea of commentary on the supposed word of the creator of the universe itself - to me, somebody's subjective opinion on what is in its own right a subjective opinion - has always struck me as deeply peculiar. Why would the creator's message to humanity require so many conflicting and contradictory interpretations, instead of simply and plainly stating what that message is in such clear terms that it can be understood by one and all? I have no pretensions of being a great or even particularly good writer but I flatter myself that I can say something in a simple and direct manner sufficiently to be understood without commentary or entirely subjective interpretation; an ability seemingly lost on the Author of All That Is.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The exact words, no one. But the idea, you, see below quote. You love a god you think killed my friend of skin cancer. You think that is love. You abase yourself before what you think is a murdering thug. You love and worship pain

'As God has given man the freedom to fall if man wishes it. So he gives some freedom to the universe to organise itself without his intervention thus people fall of cliffs taking selfies, killed in tornadoes, or succumbing to disease.'

There is no stopping your amazing outbursts like 'You worship Leukemia' although I would question any one who has no trouble with God incarnated as Leukemia, then having trouble with God incarnated as Jesus.

All I am saying is that we are allowed freedom to do the wrong thing and the universe is given freedom to develop and arrange itself and that we have it available in ourselves to develop mastery over nature.

[Shaker]

All I am saying is that we are allowed freedom to do the wrong thing and the universe is given freedom to develop and arrange itself and that we have it available in ourselves to develop mastery over nature.

I am inclined not to place any trust in or give any credence to someone (or something) who allows the freedom to do "the wrong thing" as in Treblinka or the rape of children or a death (premature or not) from cancer. I wouldn't allow such "freedom". Would you? This calls to mind Dan Barker's quote about most people in most places most of the time being nicer than Jesus and better than God.

Freedom is a very good thing indeed, but the idea that we have mastery over nature is a delusion of the Sriram-ish variety. There is no such mastery and the desire for it - or the pursuit of it - is an arrant delusion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I am inclined not to place any trust in or give any credence to someone (or something) who allows the freedom to do "the wrong thing" as in Treblinka or the rape of children or a death (premature or not) from cancer. I wouldn't allow such "freedom". Would you? This calls to mind Dan Barker's quote about most people in most places most of the time being nicer than Jesus and better than God.
.

Letting the Nazi's off the hook are we?
Barker missing the obvious that it was people who did it.
Revise the Milgram experiment if you think people remain invariably nice in all circumstances.

[Shaker]

Barker missing the obvious that it was people who did it.

A statement of the bleeding obvious if ever there was one.

Of course people did it.

I think nothing but people did it.

The point is - you think God allowed it. I may think he over-eggs the pudding rhetorically at times (something of which I am myself undoubtedly guilty in the heat of the moment), but the death at 28 by skin cancer of NS's friend was also allowed by your God, if that God is of the tolerably classical sort. If it isn't, well, fine - as I said to Steve H yesterday, that's a different conversation.

Revise the Milgram experiment if you think people remain invariably nice in all circumstances.

I don't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A statement of the bleeding obvious if ever there was one.

Of course people did it.

I think nothing but people did it.

The point is - you think God allowed it. I don't.

You can probably then handle the contradiction between humanity being nice and yet capable of producing the Nazis and the atheists Stalin and Pol Pot.

Also I guess you put down your hatred of Nazis and God to your own self righteousness.


Yes I think God allowed man and man allowed the nazis. So much for Humanism.

[Shaker]

You can probably then handle the contradiction between humanity being nice

Who has said that? Not me. Who are you talking to?

Also I guess you put down your hatred of Nazis and God to your own self righteousness.

I put down my hatred of Nazis to being a tolerably decent bloke, not greatly enamoured of humankind it's true but willing to rub along with those who are different to me. And incidentally, you can't hate what doesn't exist.

Yes I think God allowed man and man allowed the nazis.

Then NS was right all along. You worship a sadistic monster. You can make the chain as long as you like, with as many intermediate links as you like, but if you believe that God is ultimately in charge of events on this planet (do you or don't you?), God allowed Treblinka.

So much for Humanism.

I wouldn't know. I'm not a humanist (or at any rate, not in most standard definitions of the term - other options are available), so I'm not sure who you're talking to.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I put down my hatred of Nazis to being a tolerably decent bloke,

Hatred of Nazis OK

Tolerably decent bloke? I hear there is a party for people who agree with that....The Old phone Box, Oadby Wednesday night...Bring a friend.

[Shaker]

Hatred of Nazis OK

Tolerably decent bloke? I hear there is a party for people who agree with that....The Old phone Box, Oadby Wednesday night...Bring a friend.

We're going to need a bigger boat.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then NS was right all along. You worship a sadistic monster. You can make the chain as long as you like, with as many intermediate links as you like, but if you believe that God is ultimately in charge of events on this planet (do you or don't you?)

I thought I said to you that God had given Mankind and the universe freedom. That shows you don't read the replies.


If God is responsible for mans evil then he is responsible for men's Good. That means you can no more be a decent bloke than you say the Nazis are responsible if God exists.


And yet you are trying to say that most people are good. Why would God do that? So if most people are good then that would be down to God.



But why would most people be nicer than God why would God do that....obviously to oppose his own bastardy and to ultimately raise a population of atheists......It all makes sense........ not.


I'm sorry Shaker I've taken your logic further than you dare to...and demonstrate it's short comings!!!!!


God creates man gives him the freedom to love or hate God or ignore him, provides a way back and restoration of a marvelous relationship with him forever. I see no Bastardy in that.

[Shaker]

I thought I said to you that God had given Mankind and the universe freedom.

Well, you asserted as much.

If God is responsible for mans evil then he is responsible for men's Good. That means you can no more be a decent bloke than you say the Nazis are responsible if God exists.

When the OED wants to refresh its definition of non sequitur, I'm sure they'll be a-calling.

And yet you are trying to say that most people are good.

No; the quote (from Dan Barker, though I agree with him) is that when compared to the alleged/supposed/so-called actions of God in the Bible, most people in most places at most times are better. Which is straightforwardly true. They are. You don't have to be E. M. Cioran or Pollyanna - to illustrate the opposing and extreme poles - here; a simple awareness of the world around you will do the job. (Though I do love Cioran, and on balance think he was right).

There have been some spectacularly evil, cruel and brutal people in history. They're the exception. None of them have attempted (or, as far as I know, even wanted) to wipe out all of humanity with the exception of one family on a DIY boat.

Of course, I fully concede that you are so literal that you are tone-deaf to the concept of evil fictional characters such as God, Iago and Sauron and so forth, but that's very much your problem, isn't it?

But why would most people be nicer than God why would God do that

Why does the God you purport to believe in do anything? So far it's either assertion or "dunno, guv". Not exactly edifying.

God creates man gives him the freedom to love or hate God or ignore him, provides a way back and restoration of a marvelous relationship with him forever. I see no Bastardy in that.

I see nothing nothing but bald assertion. Who'd have thought?

[jeremyp]

That'll be why it never happens

Abolition of slavery

[Dicky Underpants]

Here are some commentaries on that verse. I do not necessarily agree with any of them; I'm posting the link for information and interest.

Whatever the commentaries say, it's obvious that the theology of this part of Isaiah is completely different from that part of the Bible concerned with 'original sin' (with which Vlad is so preoccupied)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Whatever the commentaries say, it's obvious that the theology of this part of Isaiah is completely different from that part of the Bible concerned with 'original sin' (with which Vlad is so preoccuped)

Since I have nothing to do with this I don't know why I've been raised.
Original sin as a single un contextualised idea?
I can see how that could preoccupy someone who fails to contemplate God's plan of restoration through Jesus Christ.

[ippy]

Nope, sorry, you seem to be confused. Just saying something is 'willfully ignorant ' isn't an argument. Have you got past Isaiah 45:7 yet?

I'm not criticising anything in your post, it's just that from my point of view it's a case of referring to anything expounded from within the bible before establishing it's veracity as a whole, it's just not worth spending any time or effort discussing any of its content such as the part you have referred to.

Regards ippy.