How can a god, that apparently loves everyone, allow this kind of thing to happen?

[Huggy Bear]

I guess we forgot that 2/3 of the angels fell, and that these demons (the word demon meaning "tormentor") are on the earth running amok because the original sin.

Provide evidence for angels. Provide evidence that 2/3 of them fell. provide evidence that they are tormentors. Provide evidence that they are on Earth. Provide evidence that original sin actually occurred. Provide evidence that that's why demons run amok.

Hint: The words of an ancient book of mythology aren't evidence.

Oh- and your video is bullshit. If you want to be that gullible, by all means go for it.

First of all I was talking to the OP who brought up God and my answer in in that context. whether or not god exists is another discussion. And as for the video, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

[DLJ]

Angels? Really?



I've only just joined and I'm beginning to think this is a satire / parody site.

Please advise.

[Bad Wolf]

I have to disagree. You're talking about god, and in the Christianity section. I think the Bible is fair (and generally necessary) to use.

Once you can prove that the bible is reliable and valid, then I will deem it acceptable to use in this discussion

---

I guess we forgot that 2/3 of the angels fell, and that these demons (the word demon meaning "tormentor") are on the earth running amok because the original sin.

Go troll somewhere else

[John V]

Which is it, John? Since you would compromise on this, it must mean you don't care about these lives either.

I don't think you understand the meaning of compromise.

You can't have it both ways. Either it's murder or it's not murder.

One murder is better than a million and one murders. Compromise.

What I think is that this decision is up to the family who faces such a terrible scenario. It's not up to you or me to make such a decision for them.

People are calling me a dick regarding what I think I would do with my own family.

And given that, I don't think making the decision to have such a child is evil, although I made a bet with myself after my last post that you would try to twist my words this way (and I win!). It's not up to me to judge what other intelligent people do with their own bodies.

You're of course welcome to this clarification, but my interpretation was not a twist of your words. They're there for all to see.

Many such children never get old enough to know what hope is. They're babies in terrible pain until they die. That's all they'll ever know of life- pain. You clearly think it's OK for abortion to happen under such a circumstance. Me, too. But it isn't up to either one of us.

No, I do not clearly think abortion is OK in such a circumstance. Again, that's a compromise position.

---

That's a terrible defense for an omnipotent god.

No one is saying that god should babysit, but why would a god who is responsible for the existence of everything allow little children that have done nothing to deserve it to suffer? If god allows it, it either must be necessary, or god is cruel. What necessity does such suffering provide?

The suffering of the baby affects a lot of other people as well. It could be necessary for them.

[StuW]

People are calling me a dick regarding what I think I would do with my own family.

Not people, just me.. whether they agree or not hasn't been determined.

[catfish]

Are you going to keep asking the same question again and again?

Are you going to answer it?

Again? No....
I'm going to sit back until you claim that I'm avoiding that question, then I will point you to the couple of posts above the one quoted.

You do realise this is all just an appeal to emotion anyways, right?

Not really no. I'm weighing the benefits and negatives of living in unbearable pain and suffering and dying when you are a toddler with non life. No pain or suffering. No emotion is necessary to evaluate two situations.

Are you aiming for the Hall of Shame?

[Zazzy]

First of all I was talking to the OP who brought up God and my answer in in that context. whether or not god exists is another discussion.

This is an open forum. You don't get to pick who responds to you. If you want a private conversation, do it by PM. Now how about that evidence, since the OP is probably also dying to see it.

And as for the video, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

I sure am, and I'm entitled to express it openly on this forum. Now how about that evidence?

[StuW]

Are you aiming for the Hall of Shame?

There's rumours they're going to rename it in his honour..

[Huggy Bear]

Go troll somewhere else

Or how about you stop asking questions about subjects in which you really don't want to know the answer.

[John V]

I'd say it was omitted because, as usual, your comparison is entirely invalid: in the latter case, the eternal suffering after the temporary sin is set up as some kind of justice, and inherently, a finite crime cannot entail infinite punishment by the very definition of what justice is intended to achieve. The reason we argue that is because your desperate need to turn an inherently unjust act into a just one is dishonest, and we feel it needs correcting.

You're spinning. The comparison is valid. If finite crimes aren't comparable to eternal punishment, then neither is finite suffering comparable to eternal happiness. Speaking of desperate needs, you're really showing such with this argument.

In the former case... there's simply no reason to inflict this kind of pain from birth. There's no purpose it could serve, no good it can accomplish, and so by the bounds of your theology there's no reason why your god should design such a thing into the world to begin with... and yet, there it is.

Suffering can serve a purpose and accomplish good in those touched by it. It affects more than the baby you know.

At least in the latter case you present some pretense as to why infinite suffering awaits; in the former, all you can do is shrug and seek to minimize the pain of individuals who are completely innocent and cannot possibly deserve the pain they're getting now.

Incorrect. I didn't shrug. The question just hadn't come up yet, and the answer is so obvious I'm amazed it did come up. Again, suffering in one person affects other people, too.

It's just callousness; these aren't human beings to you, because they don't serve to benefit your arguments, and so their suffering? Meaningless.

Oh yes, the people advocating life and hope are callous. The people saying to just abort it and move on are the caring ones.