The problem of evil/suffering when it comes to children

[Angrboda]

The idea that abuse victims typically go on to become abusers is a myth.  So much for your answer.

 Do you have citation, or am I suppose to take your 'nuh-huh' as gospel?

I have three that says (for the last 27 years) that number of abuse victims who becomes abusers themselves is 1, in 3. Which according to these articles is a high number to which they all seek different ways to "stop the cycle of abuse."
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/parents-...id=8549642
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/24/scienc...edies.html
https://www.myptsd.com/c/threads/30-of-a...622/page-2

First of all, you're moving the goalposts. You implied, and I stated, that abused children typically go on to repeat the cycle. Now you're saying only one in three do. Your own studies back my point that they typically do not go on to repeat the abuse. My figures state that the overwhelming majority, 70%, do not repeat the abuse. Since this is in agreement with your sources, I'm not going to bother to type out the reference.

Seriously Drich: do you even read?

[Drich]

 Do you have citation, or am I suppose to take your 'nuh-huh' as gospel?

I have three that says (for the last 27 years) that number of abuse victims who becomes abusers themselves is 1, in 3. Which according to these articles is a high number to which they all seek different ways to "stop the cycle of abuse."
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/parents-...id=8549642
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/24/scienc...edies.html
https://www.myptsd.com/c/threads/30-of-a...622/page-2

First of all, you're moving the goalposts.  You implied, and I stated, that abused children typically go on to repeat the cycle.  Now you're saying only one in three do.  Your own studies back my point that they typically do not go on to repeat the abuse.  My figures state that the overwhelming majority, 70%, do not repeat the abuse.  Since this is in agreement with your sources, I'm not going to bother to type out the reference.

Seriously Drich: do you even read?

Do you even read? Here is what I said:

So let's say one of your two dimensional hero's saves this kid, now who will save this kids kid from him? or do you not get these types of anger issues are passed down? that the dad was a kid beaten the same way...

I spoke of one singular instance referring to one specific kid growing up and his dad repeating the cycle.

[Redbeard The Pink]

If a god can do something about a situation where an innocent child is being harmed but does nothing except watch, then that is not a god worth acknowledging.

Again two dimensional thinking.

How is being called back home to a God that loves you doing nothing?

You're a sick man, Drich. Fucking sick. If that's how Gaud calls people home, then fuck him.


Oh, and the reason "being called back home" is the same as doing nothing is that the result is the same as if nobody had been there to watch over him: he was beaten to death, and nobody saved him.


I know you're gonna say "God saved him by taking him to heaven," and to that I would say:

A. Prove it.

B. Fuck you.

[Old Baby]

If a god can do something about a situation where an innocent child is being harmed but does nothing except watch, then that is not a god worth acknowledging.

Again two dimensional thinking.

How is being called back home to a God that loves you doing nothing?

Because he allowed the child be abused and die from his injuries.  It's hard for me to believe that I once subscribed to this same twisted thought process.  You will rationalize anything to let God off the hook, even suggesting that allowing a child to be tortured is a justifiable and moral means to "call him home".  Why couldn't your omnipotent God have "called the child home" before he had to suffer the abuse?  You telling me that God can't do that, or just that he won't?

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Agreed, this would require him to be omnibenevolent, although I don't know if that's a doctrine. If so, then it would present another problem of conflict, because "God's benevolent love" is not unconditional - you have to be a believer, or do your penance!

Personally, I don't care what the Xtians have decided their god thinks of us - if he is in every way unlimited and perfect, then it has no prejudices anyway, and should be expected to prevent evil. If it's really that perfect, then it should not have to think at all. God would be an intergalactic and unlimited robot which responds when and where needed always, and without any of that petty and quibbling human nonsense such as favoritism or prejudice. I suppose this would be benevolence, which is not necessarily the same as love is in the point which I just argued above, but both are surely absent when you choose to allow evil.

What I was trying to do was point out the conflicts of actual Christian doctrines, and I don't know if "omnibenevolence" is among them. I don't recall seeing that in my Fundy school curricula, nor can I remember hearing it from any church pulpit. But those days are now ages past, so I suppose they could be teaching anything now.

While the bible does not say the word omnibenevolent, it is certainly taught that god is all good. Even when god does something we consider evil, the xitan argues that we just don't understand his ways and he is doing it for a greater good. He must be omnibenevolent in the eyes of the believer otherwise "faith" breaks down, because you can't blindly support him when there are doubts as to whether his actions are good or evil. I agree there are many things that contradict the idea that god is omnibenevolent, which is why I find the problem of evil a compelling argument.

It's plain to see that if every believer examined the doctrine which he believes the way we do, then there wouldn't be any believers. That this is preschool-level, not complex math at all is testament to the brain-muddling which has been going on with believers.

[Silver]

Again two dimensional thinking.

How is being called back home to a God that loves you doing nothing?

I suppose at this point it would be a compliment for me to refer to you as subhuman. After all, you have been so deeply drenched in the mind altering toxicities of religion that humanity is something you can no longer comprehend. God is nothing more than the creation of a twisted mind that abandoned reason, and religion is nothing more than those twisted minds continuing a truly disgusting tradition because it continues to be taught as something that can never truly grasp the meaning of good.

[Angrboda]

First of all, you're moving the goalposts.  You implied, and I stated, that abused children typically go on to repeat the cycle.  Now you're saying only one in three do.  Your own studies back my point that they typically do not go on to repeat the abuse.  My figures state that the overwhelming majority, 70%, do not repeat the abuse.  Since this is in agreement with your sources, I'm not going to bother to type out the reference.

Seriously Drich: do you even read?

Do you even read? Here is what I said:

So let's say one of your two dimensional hero's saves this kid, now who will save this kids kid from him? or do you not get these types of anger issues are passed down? that the dad was a kid beaten the same way...

I spoke of one singular instance referring to one specific kid growing up and his dad repeating the cycle.

(emphasis mine)

Backpedaling pettifoggery. Figures you'd try to lawyer your way out of this.

[Joods]

Again two dimensional thinking.

How is being called back home to a God that loves you doing nothing?

Is that your final answer? Let me ask you - If your child was the victim of an attack and ended up dying as a result, wouldn't you question why your god did nothing to prevent it?

If you answered no, then you really need to seek professional psychiatric help.

There is something to be said about people who preach to others about the perfections of a loving god, yet who also seem to let him off the hook when things go horribly wrong and an innocent person suffers. If that is your version of a loving god, something is terribly wrong with your mind.

Any god, who purports himself in a piece of unproven literature, as a loving, perfect, all-knowing and kind god, yet STILL allows for innocent people to suffer and/or die, is an asshole. If your god can't or won't come through for ALL people in their time of suffering - no matter what their troubles are - then he is either:
A) imaginary or;
B) not any sort of god people should be following and should be ashamed that he's let his people down and is a cunt.

And since he's yet to come down here and meet me face to face and answer some hard questions after I've offered to pay for lunch, then I'm going with choice A.

[Expired]

So god put serial killers, rapists, child molesters etc here for what purpose?

No, man made himself into these evil things through disobedience of God, we're paying the price for not obeying God and doing what we want.

I agree we should be all trying to make the world a better place because your god doesn't seem to be very proactive does he. What pisses me off with you people is how cheap you make life out to be, putting more value on death and the nonsense afterlife. If there is a god he obviously doesn't give two shits about anybody or anything.

God's being proactive by creating us for the purpose to help others, because of man's disobedience bad things will always be with us and there will always be a need for man to be proactive with God so the unfortunate can be helped.
By the way your use of  "you people," is degrading, why not use the word Christian instead. 
I guess you don't know that many of the leading hospitals are Christian based, Christian hospitals are some of the leading foundations in treating the sick and discovering new treatments for the sick. Seems to me you have a lot to learn about Christianity.

GC

It has nothing to do with mans disobedience, there are just some very bad very sick people on this earth, end of story.
God does nothing, with or without the myths people will always help the unfortunate it's human nature for the vast majority of people.   
,

[Pat Mustard]

All this talk of "two dimensional thinking" is reminding me of the final battle in Star Trek 2, except for one thing, dripshit is no Spock, for two reasons:

1) Spock never lied, every word out of dripshit's mouth is a lie
2) Spock was famously intelligent, dripshit is infamously stupid.