God is the great spirit friend

[The Grand Nudger]

Would you prefer that it be removed from consideration? Wish granted, your god is now free to be a torturous douche and it is no longer a subject of ethics. Happy?

-thought not-

[Mystic]

Is there any level of suffering that you would deem so egregious that it could not be worth any gain? Because that is how I see certain types of suffering such as that of a child being abused.

I thought about this for a while now. The thing about suffering is that it's temporal, the thing about praiseworthiness (with perpetual identity) is that it's an everlasting thing. This alone may make praiseworthiness always more worthwhile then any suffering. If suffering was eternal like hell is in Christianity and Islam, then I would say, a system which brings eternal suffering is evil. However, if it brings temporal pain for everlasting praise, then I would say this seems like a worthwhile trade.

Aside from that, I think it's a little too poetic and not logical, to say that the abuse of a child outweighs all the praise gained by all humanity partially due to (potential) evil and suffering existing. That every level of praise gained through free-will, accumulate all that, and yet that's not worth the sacrifice.

[The Grand Nudger]

No it isn't. People praised warlords once, now their deeds are contemptible.

[jstrodel]

Would you prefer that it be removed from consideration? Wish granted, your god is now free to be a torturous douche and it is no longer a subject of ethics. Happy?

-thought not-

How about before anything is considered: what is suffering? who suffers the most? how do you know? How do you define it?

[Mystical]

JStrodel, you make my brain hurt sometimes. So.. how about this hypothetical?


Let's just take a walk into the forest and get lost shall we?

Oh NO! A she-bear!

2 Kings 2:23–24
23 He went up from there to Bethel, and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” 24 And he turned around, and when he saw them, che cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys.


Fuck god. Unless you dispute the claims of the bible.

[jstrodel]

This is from CARM, a ministry I do not always agree with, but this sounds like it makes sense. If 42 youth approached you, that would be a serious thing. They were not little children, that is a bad translation by the KJV.

2 Kings 2:23-24, “Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!” 24 When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number.”

Why would God allow two bears to kill 42 young lads simply for saying Elisha was bald? Let’s take a look. Elisha was traveling from Jericho to Bethel when a group of young men verbally accosted him. 42 is a large number of people, and they were probably an organized group who had gone out to challenge Elisha. Their mockery implied a malicious intent; especially when the culture of the time insisted on showing respect to their elders. Furthermore, the statement “go up you baldhead!” has cultural significance. First of all, “go up” is probably a reference to Elisha’s predecessor, Elijah, ascending to heaven (2 Kings 2:11). In other words, they are stating they want Elisha gone; and since Elijah had gone on to the “next world,” the implication is they wanted Elisha dead. Also, the epithet ‘baldhead’ was one of “contempt in the East, applied to a person even with a bushy head of hair.” 1 Lepers had to shave their heads, so such a statement could easily have been a deliberate and malicious insult, something dangerous in a mob that can quickly get out of hand.

Given the challenge of the youths, their intimidating number which could constitute a mob, their veiled threat, the contemptuous attitude, and the fact that Elisha was the prophet of God, the Lord allowed the youths to be destroyed.

[The Grand Nudger]

How about before anything is considered: what is suffering? who suffers the most? how do you know? How do you define it?

No need, it's been removed. When god does this or that it's not an issue of ethics. So I don't want to hear any more from you bout the "righteousness of god", or "gods morality" -or any other such related ridiculous shit-. The only thing of interest here isn't whether or not your imaginary god is an ethical being, but that your reaction to the notion that it may not be...... is to question any and everything else first - even the ethics of suffering.

[Faith No More]

I thought about this for a while now. The thing about suffering is that it's temporal, the thing about praiseworthiness (with perpetual identity) is that it's an everlasting thing. This alone may make praiseworthiness always more worthwhile then any suffering. If suffering was eternal like hell is in Christianity and Islam, then I would say, a system which brings eternal suffering is evil. However, if it brings temporal pain for everlasting praise, then I would say this seems like a worthwhile trade.

Aside from that, I think it's a little too poetic and not logical, to say that the abuse of a child outweighs all the praise gained by all humanity partially due to (potential) evil and suffering existing. That every level of praise gained through free-will, accumulate all that, and yet that's not worth the sacrifice.

Then your whole view on suffering is dependent upon a peaceful afterlife?

[Mystic]

Then your whole view on suffering is dependent upon a peaceful afterlife?

It seems it would be problematic to solve problem of evil, if praise was not everlasting or that suffering was continuous. It seems that way to me at least.

So the answer is yes.

[jstrodel]

Nobody answered the question "what is suffering" and "how do you separate which kinds of suffering are moral severe".