Suffering (Splinter from Satanism thread)

Loving parents don't "LET" their child touch the flame, but that DOESN'T mean that they won't. Just like God didn't "LET" them eat of the one tree they were told not to, but they did.
 
Seriously?

You two would let a child get 3rd degree burns to teach them a lesson? I'm sure that scar would be a great reminder throughout life!

Guess I'm reading the wrong parenting books.

Let's try this again...You tell your child many times to look both ways before they cross the street. One time, he forgets and steps into the street in the path of an oncoming car. Do you pull him back safely, pull him back partway letting the car nick his leg or let the car hit him to teach him a lesson?

Proverbs 13
24 He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him
Click to expand...

This verse is about discipline, not about the topic we're discussing.
 
Last edited:
Shyfroggy said:
Loving parents don't "LET" their child touch the flame, but that DOESN'T mean that they won't. Just like God didn't "LET" them eat of the one tree they were told not to, but they did.
Click to expand...

Well according to the loving parents in the above posts, they do.

How did God not know they would eat of the tree? If God is omniscient, he knew they would even before he created the universe, no?

He set the universe in motion knowing FULL WELL that the serpent (how the heck did he get in the garden in the first place) would deceive Eve and cause pain and misery for Man. How is that an example of an omnimax being? God not only let his child touch the flame, he set his child in front of the fire and watched him burn his hand.
 
I was going to post a reply here... but if the best arguments you can come up with are putting words in people's mouths they did not say and attacking someone's parenting skills by presenting an impossible hypothetical situation, then there's no point in continuing.
 
Hmm...I must say that DV does have a good point though. I had these questions myself just a few months ago, but i came up with this theory that MIGHT sound reasonable, even though I have no evidence to back it up (ha! as if evidence here has really helped at all! jk.)

"It's Story Time With Azzie the Awesome!"

In one legend of the Three Kingdom period in China (roughly 170-220 CE) Cao Cao, at the time just a random local warlord, raised an army against Lu Bu, a general feared above all others of the time (in this form of the story, he is called the "god of battle"). Cao Cao purposely set up the battle formations so that his army would LOSE initially, concealing from them the fact that he set up traitors in Lu Bu's ranks. During this battle against the dreaded Lu Bu, his soldiers and generals fought to the very last; so long as they had a single breath in them they would keep fighting. Those that did not do so were killed or captured. Yet just before the remnants of Cao Cao's army were finished, the traitors in Lu Bu's army turned on Lu Bu while Cao Cao's reinforcements came to save the day. The dreaded Lu Bu was defeated that day, and Cao Cao became a permanent power in China until his death. Cao Cao's generals asked why Cao Cao sacrificed so many soldiers to win this one battle. The answer was simple: Training. Cao Cao wanted to test his followers' loyalty and strength, and they proved strong. They learned the taste of defeat, yet defeated the undefeatable. In the end, they unified China and brought peace to the land, despite the fact that countless other legends show Cao Cao as a tyrant.

I feel Christians have a duty to fulfill in heaven; and God is testing his followers. The suffering and sin we face on earth is like the enemy soldiers of Lu Bu; Satan is like Lu Bu himself. yet in this battle we humans seem to be losing, we know we will prevail in the end and defeat the Fallen Archangel. I have a feeling this is for a greater purpose in heaven; nowhere in the Bible does it say what we will do once we're there. I feel we have an unknown purpose in which our suffering and seeing sacrifices on Earth will prove invaluable. Otherwise, why is God bothering to deal with Satan at all?

Thanks for reading if u did...that was kinda long. Again, this is just a theory I have. I have no solid evidence, and no human analogy can fit with God, but I feel this theory does fit into my mind better than any other explanation I've heard.
 
Last edited:
Seriously?
You two would let a child get 3rd degree burns to teach them a lesson? I'm sure that scar would be a great reminder throughout life!
Guess I'm reading the wrong parenting books.

Well if you seriously think a child would move towards something that begins to cause them pain and continue, then that is incredible. Through my own experience of working with children, when something starts to hurt they stop. Now that doesn't mean they don't feel more or less pain, it just means they learn not to go farther because it hurt them enough to cause them to stop. But I guess if you had a child who had no feeling at all yeah they might get third degree burns, but not too many children are like that.

Life is about a series of tests that we must pass to move forward. If you teach a child not to touch a flame, then ultimately you are testing him to see what he will do when you turn away. And of course if he chooses to touch that flame then he chooses to deal with those consequences of that pain. Just as we tell children not to do things, so God did the same. They were told not to eat from one tree, and they chose to do so - so they get to deal with the consequences. God isn't the one that told them go eat from the tree, in fact he told them the exact opposite, and he even warned them. But they chose not to listen. Now you can tell anybody anything a number of times, and give them all kinds of warnings, what more can one do?

Ok now you are going to say, well an omnimax God would make it so that there was no "bad tree." Well how would God expect us to learn anything if there was no pain in our life? How would he expect us to learn anything if we didn't have consequences for our actions. Ever heard the phrase, He's placed this pain in my life for a reason?
 
Your points are valid, but they are based on a world with pain.

I am suggesting that an omnimax being could create a world without pain, with free will, where one can learn lessons without suffering. Note that I am not asking for a PERFECT world, simply one without pain and suffering.

I believe that it is possible without falling into a logical conundrum.

What you are saying is that God created this world KNOWING Man would suffer and that was his intention, or training method, all along. Correct?

If so, then how can God be omnibenevolent. Maybe I'm just mistaken in assuming omnibenevolence is a trait of your God. If so, please correct me.

For the record, I define Omnibenevolence as the property of being perfectly good; perfectly just, all-loving, fully merciful, etc.

Lessons do not have to be learned through pain and misery!
 
Last edited:
God can be omnibenevolent because he offers us REDEMPTION. He gives us a second, third, fourth, fifth.... chance to right our wrongs. We as pitiful human children will either learn or we wont. I take serious offense to the fact that you would question my parenting skills. Until you have a child for yourself and know the unending amount of love that you will feel for that child, you have no leg to stand on in this conversation. When you have a child and learn what it is to be a parent that must love and teach there children the ways of this world, then you might just get a glimpse of what God has gone thru since the beginning of our time.
 
Arkanjel said:
God can be omnibenevolent because he offers us REDEMPTION. He gives us a second, third, fourth, fifth.... chance to right our wrongs. We as pitiful human children will either learn or we wont. I take serious offense to the fact that you would question my parenting skills. Until you have a child for yourself and know the unending amount of love that you will feel for that child, you have no leg to stand on in this conversation. When you have a child and learn what it is to be a parent that must love and teach there children the ways of this world, then you might just get a glimpse of what God has gone thru since the beginning of our time.
Click to expand...

Please see my definition of OMNIbenevolence. What you have described, giving Man redemption AFTER he has suffered, is not omnibenevolence.

I have two children, so yes, I do understand. What I mentioned was a hypothetical situation. Unless you are a heartless, cruel human being, I seriously doubt you would stand in front of the stove, hands your pockets and watch as your child placed their hand into the flame and then say, See? I told you it was hot. Are you SERIOUSLY telling us that you would do that? If that is the case, then yes, I do have a serious problem with your parenting skills. By letting your child touch the flame, you would be considered negligent, failure to exercise the care that a prudent person usually exercises.

An omnimax parent would always be able to pull that hand out of the flame and would ALWAYS do so because they love their child.
 
[toj.cc]WildBillKickoff said:
I was going to post a reply here... but if the best arguments you can come up with are putting words in people's mouths they did not say and attacking someone's parenting skills by presenting an impossible hypothetical situation, then there's no point in continuing.
Click to expand...

What words did I put in someone's mouth?

And yes, I question any parenting "skill" that depends on a child being injured.

How is it an IMPOSSIBLE situation? It's something parents face all the time.
 
Well I think you are the one who should check your definition.

"For the record, I define Omnibenevolence as the property of being perfectly good; perfectly just, all-loving, fully merciful, etc."

How can you have mercy on someone who has done no wrong.

The webster definition of mercy:

1 a : compassion or forbearance shown especially to an offender or to one subject to one's power; also : lenient or compassionate treatment <begged for mercy> b : imprisonment rather than death imposed as penalty for first-degree murder
2 a : a blessing that is an act of divine favor or compassion b : a fortunate circumstance <it was a mercy they found her before she froze>
3 : compassionate treatment of those in distress <works of mercy among the poor>

"giving Man redemption AFTER he has suffered"

Why would man need redemption if he had done no wrong? Im afraid your definition is a contridiction.

And as for being an "omnimax parent" we are human. God can be whatever he wants to be His ways are just.
 
Maybe you need to define JUST for me as well. I thought just meant acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good. How is it MORALLY GOOD to set Man up for a fall?

This is my point Arkanjel, why is there a need for redemption? Why did God create us, intending for us to fall, purposefully putting us in a world full of pain and misery?
 
Your starting to sound like one of our..*snicker*...great leaders who asked what the definition of "IS" is.

Im not going to try and explain why God did things the way he did. I dont know enough about Him to fully be of service, Ive told you what I know and Im done.
 
Arkanjel said:
Your starting to sound like one of our..*snicker*...great leaders who asked what the definition of "IS" is.

Im not going to try and explain why God did things the way he did. I dont know enough about Him to fully be of service, Ive told you what I know and Im done.
Click to expand...

Now that comparasin was uncalled for! :)

Just because we don't fully understand God doesn't mean we can't, or shouldn't, TRY.

I find it hard to understand why someone, not just you, would put their physical and eternal life, in the hands of something/someone they don't fully understand.
 
Why did God create us, intending for us to fall, purposefully putting us in a world full of pain and misery?

Maybe so we would turn to him???
 
No not at all.
We talk to Him in time of Joy and times of sorrow too.
It is our free will to turn to him.
Believe in miracles?
 
Sorry, but that's not what you said in your previous post.

You said that God wants us to suffer pain and misery so that we will turn to him.

Is that true or not?

Miracles don't have anything to do with with the topic at hand.
 
Can an imperfect being decide what is perfect? Can an ant imagine what a human is thinking? Certainly not. Consider the dynamic of the difference between what we are, and what we are discussing.

I realize my post back there (and this one) is somewhat sticking out like a sore thumb and is horribly long (for these things i apologize), but I think my theory can answer your question to some degree, DV.
 
I don't think anyone is deciding perfection.

I think extrapolation is a more correct term. Why shouldn't man extrapolate perfection?

What do I mean by extrapolation?

If I, as a being of limited intellect, can imagine a world of perfection, with free will and all that good stuff, shouldn't it stand to reason that an omnimax being could also imagine it?

There are way too many glitches in Genesis for me to believe that God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top