Why god?

[thessalonian]

Do you deny that you did not make an effort to better understand evolution after being called out on it?

Categorically so. I did not do one web search. Did not pick up one book or ask one person a question. For crying out loud I said I have a geology degree. :-? Let me clue you in on what the entails. hint: fossil and fossil record in part.

 

[Novum]

Do you deny that you did not make an effort to better understand evolution after being called out on it?

Categorically so. I did not do one web search. Did not pick up one book or ask one person a question. For crying out loud I said I have a geology degree. :-?

Degrees mean little, if anything.

You have demonstrated ignorance on the subject of evolution, you have admitted that you refused to remedy this ignorance yourself, you have accused others of ignorance on other subjects, and you are therefore, by any reasonable standard, a hypocrite.

 

[thessalonian]

Whatever. God bless you Novum. May his grace soften your heart.

 

[Klee shay]

Hello Drew. :D

I am not sure I follow you here. I see no conceptual distinction between your "rejection" of the pink unicorn and Novum's "rejection" of God.

I haven't rejected the pink unicorn simply because I haven't tested it and I didn't know about it, until Novum pointed it out to me. Novum rejects God because as he has said in past discussions, he has tested God after hearing about God and has found him to be as irrelevant as the pink unicorn I'm now supposed to reject in the same manner.

But this is an irrelevant detail.

I can appreciate this analogy but bear in mind the invisible pink unicorn is a new concept to me. It hasn't been with mankind since creation; it hasn't formed our beliefs and it certainly hasn't been offered as a crucifixion for mankind.

Comparing the invisible pink unicorn to God is like comparing apples and oranges. I do understand why Novum used it and I can appreciate he is trying to illustrate his perspective better - for which I am grateful - but my refusal to accept the two comparisons as "like manner", is simply because they are vastly different concepts.

Consider the Easter Bunny. You presumably "reject" the Easter Bunny in exactly the same way that Novum rejects God. You are aware of the concept of the Easter Bunny and have come to conclude that s/he does not exist (I am going to assume you do not, in fact, believe in the Easter Bunny : ). Same deal with Novum.

Funny thing is I don't reject the Easter Bunny. I don't believe in it as a means to salvation but I accept is as a point of unity between believers and non-believers alike, that it represents new life. It's a symbol nothing more.

And yes, I can accept that Novum could perceive God as merely another symbol for mankind to believe in - but unlike the Easter Bunny and the invsible pink unicorn; God is more than a symbol. He is an authority. He has been with mankind since their creation and he has never left mankind, guiding them along the way.

It is generally because he is an authority however, that mankind rejects him. Those who reject the Easter Bunny or Invisible Pink Unicorn, know they are doing so according to their own free will - for which there is no authority to hold them accountable to that rejection.

Apples and oranges again.

But, in a strict "technical" sense, we cannot find fault with Novum's logic. Structurally, his rejection of God is similiar to your (and mine) rejection of the Easter Bunny.

As I said above, the Easter Bunny holds no authority over our salvation. I cannot find fault in Novum's rejection on the basis that God doesn't seem real to him, for mankind has been doing that for centuries. Martin Luther the German Monk, for example, rejected the God in the Roman Catholic Church he was indoctrinated in and sought to discover the real God contained in the scriptures. The real God to him at least.

Novum's rejection of the authority of God's existence entirely however, may result in something I don't want Novum to face at the end of his life.

Now, we may believe that God has factually revealed himself to Novum, and that he (Novum) is factually rejecting "something that he knows to be true". But we are then making judgements about the content of Novum's inner experiential world. That is fine, but only Novum has access to that information. We should not be presuming this state of affairs (where Novum is factually aware of the reality of the living God) as if it were somehow inarguable.

If the points I raise in this discussion seem to push into the "inarguable" zone, it's only because I respect Novum's intelligence. I know he won't settle for inarguable and will search to articulate himself more - and so will I. It's not to render Novums' experience mute, but merely to get at the heart of his experience by peeling back the superficial layers.

When I say superficial, I'm not saying that Novum is a superficial person at heart. On the contrary, I want to get beyond the superficial layers we all put up to muffle our understanding of God (yes, even I) to get at the heart of what we really think of Him. I am sharing my experience with God as much as Novum is. Though I thank you Drew for bringing to my attention that I could be coming across as stiffling Novum's perspective altogether.

I hope he understands where I am coming from. :D

But his "rejection of the living God that has made Himself known to Novum" is an item of speculation on our parts, informed by our belief that God has made himself known to Novum - not a matter of logical deduction or self-evident truth.

True, thank you for highlighting this point.

God bless. :D

 

[Klee shay]

That invisible pink unicorn is coming between us again, LOL. :wink:

I'm a creative minded person so I really don't have any hang-ups about pink unicorns, if they so choose to inhabit my kitchen. You make an interesting point about first believing in their existence however. Until you pointed it out to me, I had no reason to believe they were there. And this is the essential difference between the comparision of pink unicorns and God you have used a few times now.

It was through my ignorance which I didn't believe in their existence. You believe it is through your knowledge that God doesn't exist however.

I was in the midst of typing out a reply, but I'll instead save some time and direct you to Drew's response (well written, Drew!) with which I am in full agreement.

Yeah, Drew did a good job. :D

A broken spirit is when you lose the desire to care about anything in your life. Depression is the best symptom of a broken spirit I can think of.

My younger brother has been diagnosed with clinical depression, but I believe it is absolutely untrue to say that he has "lost the desire to care about anything in his life".

The important thing to remember when someone is diagnosed with clinical depression, is they are vulnerable to losing the ability to care. I've had depression in the past as well, but you wouldn't always know it. The truth is I cared a great deal about the things in my life, but I couldn't always sustain that when the depression ate away at my heart.

I was inevitably driven to the point where I tried to take my life with an overdose. That was when my vulnerablity really exposed itself. I thought I cared about my life and so did my whole family - I was always the peace maker, always ready to laugh and find the joy in life. On a low though, who was to know that my highs could swing in the opposite direction?

Depression is a signal that a person is vulnerable to losing their ability to care.

I think it's extraordinarily unlikely that every resource I have - my friends, my family, my coworkers, even myself - would spontaneously and simultaneously fail me.

Unlikely but not impossible. I hope your support network doesn't fail you either, but then I know it probably will have to in order to realise that God is the only one that will never leave your side. He is at your side now even if you don't see him - and even moreso when you feel completely alone.

This may not mean anything to you now, but I'm saying this so you can remember God if that "unlikely" situation ever becomes possible.

What is a "broken person", and what is the other half of the picture?

Now you're really getting me to think! :wink: A broken person is someone who has no inner strength left. Everything they have ever relied upon for their confidence fails them. They are stripped bare...realising how vulnerable and powerless they really are. From your experience, perhaps this is a completely foreign concept to you, but I can assure you this can happen to a Christian as much as a non-believer.

As for the other half of the picture of what God does to help a broken person, he not only sustains them when they need a crutch but he begins to mend them from the inside out. A therapist can only help a person as much as they are prepared to see inside themselves which needs to be fixed. God helps a person mend even when they can't see inside what is broken.

As an example, I'll give you a clock-maker. When a clock is broken, who do you think will do the best job of fixing it - the craftsman who made it from start to finish, or a generic clock-maker who knows how clocks work? Who will put the most love into fixing that clock and who will just get it working again? Who instinctively knows where the clock has failed and who has to go fishing around to find the thing which is broken?

Can you explain why it's not an ethical statment? You've got me curious about this one.

Because they have no ethical/normative force. Not all statements do. For example:

"It is raining outside."
"I have five dollars in my pocket."
"Gasoline powers the majority of the world's vehicles."
"I am male."

These statements are all true, but there's nothing ethical or normative about them.

Okay, on the same page now. :wink:

You mean the God which only exists to wear the condemnation of man?

What does this mean?

For those who do not believe in God; he appears only to take substance for the condemnation of man.

For example; "I don't believe in God but because I'm against the concept of hell, I'll argue against this God's ethics."

Isn't it amazing how mankind can sit in the judgement seat and condemn God, and yet if God were to do the same HE is being grossly unethical.

Replace "God" with "the Government", and I think you might better understand where I'm coming from. Our (lack of) comprehension should not preclude us from honest criticism.

How can it be "honest" criticism however if people aren't fully informed on what they're criticising? Criticism, I can accept but honest criticism is like saying a fool's paradise is the basis for understanding. :wink:

But I do get what you're saying - I'm not precluding it...just adding to it. I hope you understand where I'm coming from? :D

I'm not speaking of the existence of hell; for now, we'll assume that it does exist and is as described in the bible. What I'm saying is that, regardless of whether or not I am a Christian, I cannot see how that would affect my view of hell as an unethical system of punishment.

On what grounds is it unethical? I know you've given examples of judicial systems and suitable punishment to fit suitable crimes. And yet to say hell is unethical is to claim that humanity doesn't have to answer to any form of authority for crimes against humanity. Does Hitler deserve heaven?

There is a judicial system in place to ensure that those punished by mankind for their own purposes, will see heaven and those who reap benefits from the punishment of mankind will not see heaven. Jesus says what you did to the least of these - you did also to me. He is speaking about mankind and being the ultimate judge of those who have treated others unfairly. God rewards the joy in the suffering of others with hell.

We couldn't "see" atoms until we had electron microscopes. We couldn't "see" Pluto until we had telescopes. We couldn't "see" protons until we had tunneling electron microscopes. In all of these cases, we could speculate about their existence and draw some fairly accurate conclusions, all without physically "seeing" them.

An accurate assessment I will pay. Yet what don't we see along with what we do? It's an infinite line of not knowing against what we do. That line never ends on Earth. We will only ever see so much - blinded by the rest.

Simply because we have seen some things we previously didn't, doesn't mean we will see all there is to be seen.

Blind faith, to me, is associated with negative connotations.

Due to your personal religious experience with Judaism perhaps, or is it something else?

Even if I accept that he loves me, that doesn't seem to help me.

That you can see friend. :wink: Just because you cannot register the love now, does it mean he's stopped loving you in the background?

Does he also love stillborn babies, or those with severe physical birth defects, or those with severe mental birth defects? What about those which don't live past a week? A month? A year? Did he love those who were killed on 9/11, in the recent asian tsunami, in New Orleans?

Where do the innocent go after they die? To heaven. A God of love can deliver that to those born into sin who are innocent. So yes, a stillborn baby or one with physical birth defects is still God's to love. Why? Because he doesn't see an end to life but a continuation. Do you think he sees a child with a birth defect or does he see an innocent spirit about to journey into the perils of this life; who needs his love more than ever?

I am interested to know why you think God would stop loving humanity when they experience hardship? Would not his love be perfect in suffering and in death? God provides a remedy to death in this life; and that is eternal life without suffering any more...where tears are turned into joy. And what is the cost of this remedy? To trust that he loves you and that Jesus was his son who died on the cross to save mankind from damnation.

A gift with so much promise and yet some only see it as a cost too high.

Perhaps this is merely my personal interpretation however? I can accept I am flawed in my understanding as much as I can accept I can be righteous in my understanding. I hope you can accept the flawed testimony of one who strives to do what is right; without feeling like I am taking anything from you.

God bless. :D

 

[DivineNames]

On what grounds is it unethical? I know you've given examples of judicial systems and suitable punishment to fit suitable crimes. And yet to say hell is unethical is to claim that humanity doesn't have to answer to any form of authority for crimes against humanity. Does Hitler deserve heaven?

What you are saying here looks like an absurd misrepresentation. To claim that an eternal hell would be unethical, is not necessarily to say that it would be wrong for a Deity to hold people accountable for what they have done.

And with regard to Hitler, according to Christianity, if he had a sincere conversion and accepted Jesus as his saviour then he would go to heaven. But a non-Christian who devoted their life to helping the poor would be tortured for all eternity by the Christian God.

 

[Novum]

The important thing to remember when someone is diagnosed with clinical depression, is they are vulnerable to losing the ability to care. I've had depression in the past as well, but you wouldn't always know it. The truth is I cared a great deal about the things in my life, but I couldn't always sustain that when the depression ate away at my heart.

I was inevitably driven to the point where I tried to take my life with an overdose. That was when my vulnerablity really exposed itself. I thought I cared about my life and so did my whole family - I was always the peace maker, always ready to laugh and find the joy in life. On a low though, who was to know that my highs could swing in the opposite direction?

Depression is a signal that a person is vulnerable to losing their ability to care.

I understand what you're saying - and I'm sorry about your experience in this area - but I just can't broadly draw this conclusion, applying it to all people with depression, without evidence to support that claim.

Unlikely but not impossible. I hope your support network doesn't fail you either, but then I know it probably will have to in order to realise that God is the only one that will never leave your side. He is at your side now even if you don't see him - and even moreso when you feel completely alone.

This may not mean anything to you now, but I'm saying this so you can remember God if that "unlikely" situation ever becomes possible.

Then I suppose it will be a very interesting day if and when it does happen. ;)

Now you're really getting me to think! :wink: A broken person is someone who has no inner strength left. Everything they have ever relied upon for their confidence fails them. They are stripped bare...realising how vulnerable and powerless they really are. From your experience, perhaps this is a completely foreign concept to you, but I can assure you this can happen to a Christian as much as a non-believer.

As for the other half of the picture of what God does to help a broken person, he not only sustains them when they need a crutch but he begins to mend them from the inside out. A therapist can only help a person as much as they are prepared to see inside themselves which needs to be fixed. God helps a person mend even when they can't see inside what is broken.

As an example, I'll give you a clock-maker. When a clock is broken, who do you think will do the best job of fixing it - the craftsman who made it from start to finish, or a generic clock-maker who knows how clocks work? Who will put the most love into fixing that clock and who will just get it working again? Who instinctively knows where the clock has failed and who has to go fishing around to find the thing which is broken?

Fair enough. ;)

You mean the God which only exists to wear the condemnation of man?

What does this mean?

For those who do not believe in God; he appears only to take substance for the condemnation of man.

For example; "I don't believe in God but because I'm against the concept of hell, I'll argue against this God's ethics."

But think back to our analysis of Huckleberry Finn. Does he "appear" when we analyze him - either positively or negatively? You can be in favor of destruction of the Mississippi River or against it, but none of this should preclude us from having a discussion on the topic. In my case, I cannot see how the concept of hell can be viewed as anything but unethical and unjust. The existence of god is irrelevant to our discussion of hell.

How can it be "honest" criticism however if people aren't fully informed on what they're criticising? Criticism, I can accept but honest criticism is like saying a fool's paradise is the basis for understanding. :wink:

But I do get what you're saying - I'm not precluding it...just adding to it. I hope you understand where I'm coming from? :D

If God is as described in the bible, then we will, by definition, never be able to understand him. However, we can observe what are said to be his actions - his sentencing of people to eternal life in heaven or hell, for example - and we have, some would say, a fairly good understanding who goes where based on what is written in the bible. I would say, then, that we have an excellent starting point for discussion - and criticism - on the subject.

On what grounds is it unethical? I know you've given examples of judicial systems and suitable punishment to fit suitable crimes.

Those judicial systems are exactly why it's unjust. Here on earth, we offer rewards - and give punishments - based on the relevant virtue or crime. Given that we exist for a definitively finite amount of time - 80 or 90 years for must of us - then an infinite reward or infinite punishment is, by definition, unjust because we are incapable of doing anything to deserve either. We are finite beings.

And yet to say hell is unethical is to claim that humanity doesn't have to answer to any form of authority for crimes against humanity.

No, you misunderstand. I stated that eternal punishment in hell is unjust. Again, we are finite creatures, incapable of infinite virtue or crime. An infinite reward or punishment is therefore unjust.

Does Hitler deserve heaven?

No, Hitler does not deserve eternal life in heaven, nor does he deserve eternal torture in hell. Pick a number for each life that he's killed - 1 year, 100 years, 10000 years, whatever - and then torture him for that number multiplied by the number of people he has killed. At the end of it all, just destroy him.

He committed a finite crime because he is a finite being. Infinite punishment is, by definition, unjust and unethical.

There is a judicial system in place to ensure that those punished by mankind for their own purposes, will see heaven and those who reap benefits from the punishment of mankind will not see heaven. Jesus says what you did to the least of these - you did also to me. He is speaking about mankind and being the ultimate judge of those who have treated others unfairly. God rewards the joy in the suffering of others with hell.

If I'm understanding you correctly, heaven and hell must exist in order to remedy any injustices committed here on earth?

An accurate assessment I will pay. Yet what don't we see along with what we do? It's an infinite line of not knowing against what we do. That line never ends on Earth. We will only ever see so much - blinded by the rest.

Correct. And by our nature and limitations, we would be wrong to expect otherwise.

Blind faith, to me, is associated with negative connotations.

Due to your personal religious experience with Judaism perhaps, or is it something else?

When I was Jewish, blind faith was expected of me. Throughout 6 years of hebrew school and a Bar Mitzvah, no one - not a single teacher - told us why we should believe in god. We sat through hour after hour after hour of prayer, discussion, and reflection, but it was accepted as a given that we went along with it. I was very young at the time, but I recall asking some questions about god that got me in trouble with my teachers. In the end, I could not find it in myself to ask anyone for a reason to believe in god.

Blind faith, in general, is the acceptance of a given claim without any evidence to back it up. We are all guilty of this practice for some beliefs - more for some of us than others - but I myself try to limit this number. I am a skeptic, and given that the opposite of being skeptical is being gullible, I have found it in my best interest to always seek evidence for claims before believing. Whether it be with a used car salesman's claim or that of my boss, it is usually in my best interest to look for support before belief.

That you can see friend. :wink: Just because you cannot register the love now, does it mean he's stopped loving you in the background?

We could say the same of the IPU. No help there. ;)

Where do the innocent go after they die? To heaven. A God of love can deliver that to those born into sin who are innocent. So yes, a stillborn baby or one with physical birth defects is still God's to love. Why? Because he doesn't see an end to life but a continuation. Do you think he sees a child with a birth defect or does he see an innocent spirit about to journey into the perils of this life; who needs his love more than ever?

I am interested to know why you think God would stop loving humanity when they experience hardship? Would not his love be perfect in suffering and in death? God provides a remedy to death in this life; and that is eternal life without suffering any more...where tears are turned into joy. And what is the cost of this remedy? To trust that he loves you and that Jesus was his son who died on the cross to save mankind from damnation.

I am not stating that he has "stopped loving" anyone. I am saying that, in the absolute dregs of humanity - the starvation in Africa, the tsunami in Asia, the repression in Nazi Germany, the genocide in Darfur - it is very difficult to see where the "love" was in the first place. If I were god, I would have done better. This did not need to happen to these people.

 

[Novum]

If I may jump into your conversation with Drew... ;)

I can appreciate this analogy but bear in mind the invisible pink unicorn is a new concept to me. It hasn't been with mankind since creation; it hasn't formed our beliefs and it certainly hasn't been offered as a crucifixion for mankind.

Comparing the invisible pink unicorn to God is like comparing apples and oranges. I do understand why Novum used it and I can appreciate he is trying to illustrate his perspective better - for which I am grateful - but my refusal to accept the two comparisons as "like manner", is simply because they are vastly different concepts.

But, Klee shay, the IPU is like god - for me. They do have certain differences, of course (one has a religion after it ;)), but they are similar in all the ways that are required for this thought experiment.

That you would deny the existence of the IPU - plus Zeus, Hera, Vishnu, and Thor, among others - is confirming evidence for me that denying the existence of the christian god is both rational and reasonable.

 

[Klee shay]

On what grounds is it unethical? I know you've given examples of judicial systems and suitable punishment to fit suitable crimes. And yet to say hell is unethical is to claim that humanity doesn't have to answer to any form of authority for crimes against humanity. Does Hitler deserve heaven?

What you are saying here looks like an absurd misrepresentation. To claim that an eternal hell would be unethical, is not necessarily to say that it would be wrong for a Deity to hold people accountable for what they have done.

And with regard to Hitler, according to Christianity, if he had a sincere conversion and accepted Jesus as his saviour then he would go to heaven. But a non-Christian who devoted their life to helping the poor would be tortured for all eternity by the Christian God.

What do you want me to say to you Divinenames? You are right?

The word has been spoken and the Word has been delivered so that God can be understood. A refusal to listen to his Word and a continuation of misrepresentation of God's love will not reap seeds of eternal life. That is the truth I must represent to you whether you agree with it or not.

I have no authority to speak for God where he has not spoken before, therefore I cannot aruge the pro's and con's of hell with my limited knowledge. I've tried but I obviously have no authority. Hell simply is; and because I do not wish to see anyone go there, I proclaim the gift of life God offers to escape it.

 

[Drew]

On the topic of hell.....

I (and other Christians - some who contribute to these forums) have come to believe that the Scriptures in fact do not teach the existence of an eternal hell - the wages of sin is death, not eternal suffering.

 

[DivineNames]

What do you want me to say to you Divinenames? You are right?

Well, I would like you to tell me something along the lines that the "word of God" is definitely right, that you are definitely right, that hell certainly exists and that there can't be any problem with it. And don't worry about providing reasonable argument, of course you shouldn't trouble yourself with something so trivial as that.

The word has been spoken and the Word has been delivered so that God can be understood. A refusal to listen to his Word and a continuation of misrepresentation of God's love will not reap seeds of eternal life. That is the truth I must represent to you whether you agree with it or not.

I have no authority to speak for God where he has not spoken before, therefore I cannot aruge the pro's and con's of hell with my limited knowledge. I've tried but I obviously have no authority. Hell simply is; and because I do not wish to see anyone go there, I proclaim the gift of life God offers to escape it.

Thank you. Just what I was looking for.

 

[Novum]

On the topic of hell.....

I (and other Christians - some who contribute to these forums) have come to believe that the Scriptures in fact do not teach the existence of an eternal hell - the wages of sin is death, not eternal suffering.

I personally find this to be much more appealing, rational, and just than the view of hell as eternal. Though, to be fair, it is but one interpretation among many.

 

[Drew]

On the topic of hell.....

I (and other Christians - some who contribute to these forums) have come to believe that the Scriptures in fact do not teach the existence of an eternal hell - the wages of sin is death, not eternal suffering.

I personally find this to be much more appealing, rational, and just than the view of hell as eternal. Though, to be fair, it is but one interpretation among many.

While this is true, i suspect that you may agree with the following rather cynical position that I have about Christians and the Scriptures: the overhwhelming majority of Christians do precious little real study of the Bible and instead fall into "default" positions whose origins are not well understood.

I would claim that the Biblical case against an eternal hell is really quite strong and compelling - its just that few bother to challenge the conventional wisdom. If you have the time and / or inclination, please consider reading a few of the threads on "hell / annihilation" that can be found a few pages back in the Apologetics and Theology thread and judge for yourself. I suspect that you might be surprised at how compelling the "non eternal hell" case actually is.

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

I am not stating that he has "stopped loving" anyone. I am saying that, in the absolute dregs of humanity - the starvation in Africa, the tsunami in Asia, the repression in Nazi Germany, the genocide in Darfur - it is very difficult to see where the "love" was in the first place. If I were god, I would have done better. This did not need to happen to these people.

Not necessarily a valid arguement. So, I shall tell a story (please, dont take this as an affront to your intelligence)

A man went to get his hair cut. He and the barber talked of many things and invariably came to the topic of God. The barber said that he didnt believe in God. When asked why, he said that all you had to do was to look outside and see all the suffering. The man paid for his haircut, walked outside, saw a scraggly and gnarled-haired man, turned to the barber and said "I dont believe in barbers." The barber laughed and said that he had just given him a haircut. The man said to the barber "Well, if barbers really existed then we wouldnt have men that looked like this," pointing to the old man. The barber replied, "Thats ridiculous. How can I give him a haircut if he never asked?"

Of course, this may be off topic, cause things seem to be going the way of hell.

 

[Novum]

The barber replied, "Thats ridiculous. How can I give him a haircut if he never asked?"

Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting your analogy...but you're saying that these millions and millions of people are suffering because they never asked your god for help?

And how is my argument not valid?

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

Well, that is a possibility Novum. Neither of us can speak for millions. I would also venture to say that we see things temporaly, the here and now. A superior being may be able to see a little further, and note that this life is not really a big deal. If heaven is real, then there is no suffering in the hereafter. If you have read the beatitudes, then you see how God views them. Says they are blessed, they'll get their rewards. The next story is a story of a rich man and a poor man, they both die, and the poor man gets peace whereas the rich man that never helped him... doesnt.

And the I would have done better arguement may not even apply, because should God exist, you dont see all the factors currently. You dont know the reasoning. So you cant be able to say if you would have done better or not.

 

[Novum]

Well, that is a possibility Novum. Neither of us can speak for millions. I would also venture to say that we see things temporaly, the here and now. A superior being may be able to see a little further, and note that this life is not really a big deal. If heaven is real, then there is no suffering in the hereafter.

That is irrelevant. We are, of course, not in heaven right now. We perceive suffering right now. It is irrelevant how small or short or tiny this life is, because it is the only one we know. An all-powerful, all-good god would recognize that and minimize or eliminate the suffering we perceive. He, if he exists, has not done so.

And the I would have done better arguement may not even apply, because should God exist, you dont see all the factors currently. You dont know the reasoning. So you cant be able to say if you would have done better or not.

If I were god, I would be omnipotent. That means that I could have arranged all the factors in such a way that these millions and millions of people would not be starving, or dying, or being tortured, or all of these. There is no excuse for suffering, rape, murder, starvation, or anything else. Your god is doing a poor job.

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

this could be rather circular...

just because we percieve something now does not mean that it necessarily matters. thats an american immediate gratification ideal. God isnt american. and who is to say that the suffering wouldnt be so much worse? You allow the creatures to have free will, and thats exactly what they will get. Man is not fit to govern himself, and yet he is allowed to try. We could solve world hunger in a short period of time, and yet we dont. Thats not on God, thats on us. The pride of man, nationalism, a collective self love.

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

Hey Novum, I found this homily a deacon I know wrote. Thought I would post it for you.

One summer, while studying in Omaha Nebraska for a program for priestly formation, I found myself sitting on a bench reading a book for one of my classes. Not five minutes later, a 17-year old girl from the cheerleading camp walked over and sat down next to me. She asked me what I was reading and based on that inquired whether I was Christian. I told her I was and actually that I was studying for the priesthood. She then asked me a question:

“Can you give me any reason to believe in God?â€Â

I was obviously taken aback and quite unsure what it was she was looking for. So we began having a little discussion. She told me she was a Christian, so I asked her if she believed in Jesus. She said she believed that a man named Jesus did indeed walk the earth, but was not sure that it was actually God. I asked her a few more questions, one of which was quite simply where she came from. She, being quite intelligent simply said, “I know what your doing, if I can’t give an answer then I have no reason not to believe.â€Â

So, we continued a little more with the conversation, until there was a point where the conversation changed because she had told me quite strongly that she wanted to believe in God, and I could see it on her face, a longing and a desperation. So I asked her a simple question: “did you ever ask for the faith to believe?†She paused and was clearly in deep thought, then said: “no one has ever asked me that before.†She then said but isn’t that a bit circular. I simply responded: “What do you have to lose?†She thanked me, shook my hand, and told me that maybe she will see me in the afterlife.

So often we want proof, we want to know why we believe what we believe and want God to tell us, because otherwise it feels as though we’re looking for something or someone that we are not sure even exists. Such was this young girl’s approach. She wanted proof, evidence; she wanted to see the Lord. Yet, I guarantee that if God were to appear tomorrow, to her or even to us not all of us would be ready to believe. In fact, even when Jesus was right there in the midst of everyone, they still would not believe. It was only with faith that they came to believe.

That is why, above and beyond anything else, we are people of faith. A faith we constantly profess in our prayer, our beliefs, and in the creed itself, because it takes faith to believe that prayer has an impact on our lives, that God exists, and even that bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ.

Thomas doubted, and refused to believe until he saw and touched the hands and side of Jesus, but Jesus responded by telling him and us that the ones who are truly blessed are those who have not seen and have believed. Those who have seen with the eyes of faith.

In fact, our second reading tells us that: “the victory that conquers the world is our faith.†Jesus told us that with faith the size of a mustard seed we could move mountains, heal the sick, even raise the dead. To believe in the impossible, knowing that all things are possible with God.

And yet we mustn’t forget that it is a gift, freely given, if only we ask.

That young girl was desperately trying to believe on her own, without asking God for help in her unbelief.

Today then, let us not be unbelieving but believe, asking to be able to see what is unseen with the eyes of faith. Knowing that in doing so we can confidently say without touching His hands and His side, “MyLord and My God.â€Â

So, yeah... I liked it when I read it and thought it was appropriate for your OP.

 

[Novum]

this could be rather circular...

just because we percieve something now does not mean that it necessarily matters. thats an american immediate gratification ideal. God isnt american. and who is to say that the suffering wouldnt be so much worse?

So we should be thankful that more people aren't suffering? I find that to be rather twisted and disturbed thinking.

We could solve world hunger in a short period of time, and yet we dont. Thats not on God, thats on us. The pride of man, nationalism, a collective self love.

It should be fairly clear to you that humans are, as of yet, unable or unwilling to solve world hunger. For that reason alone, it should be on your god. I maintain that he's doing a poor job.