One sentence that throws the problem of evil out of the window.

[Edwardo Piet]

I think it does matter what people think when we're discussing morality and the problem of evil.

If this is the best god can do then this is the best god can do.  Suffering exists in this world.  In that case, god may be willing, but he's just not capable.

If this isn't the best he could do, it;s still what he did.  Suffering exists in this world.  In that case, he's capable, but not willing.

If he's both willing and able...then at least some of this suffering wouldn't exist...and yet it does.

So basically either God is evil for allowing evil, or he's not truly God because his powers are very limited. That's my point.

These guys are telling us that they can't solve the PoE (completely predictable), but they're pretty sure god is giving out lollies so they don't need to think about it.

And the point is that no rewards make any of that any better.

[LadyForCamus]

That's not what I said, feel free to criticize MY views but that's not many people are doing, obviously there are different types of people within the christian belief, many people just look at the worst examples, like the vocal minority that are not representative of the moderate more general people of my belief and assigns their extreme beliefs as my own and asks me to defend them(???). It's happened to CL as well. If it was anybody else in my position they will respond with a "fuck you" to a strawman like that and if I did the exact same thing to someone else, as in look at the worst type of people of their "group" and equivocate them, then it would be trolling but it's fine if they do it to Christians(like myself), whatever, not cool though.

That is victimizing.
It's not me who wrote this:

pool the matey Wrote:
Always fun when others tell me what I believe in 🙄

In other words you're saying: "shut up with your criticism to me; my faith my thoughts my property".

In other words? You must mean, 'in completely different words,' lol. Pool is saying exactly what you just quoted him as saying, Atlas.  Don't assign beliefs to him that doesn't hold. He's simply asking not to be strawmanned.  It's a fair request.  If you disagree on a straw-man accusation then just say so, and present your evidence.  You're just piling straw on top of straw with this comment.

[Edwardo Piet]

Another example of why the ignore button doesn't work, lol.

[WinterHold]

That is victimizing.
It's not me who wrote this:


In other words you're saying: "shut up with your criticism to me; my faith my thoughts my property".

In other words?  You must mean, 'in completely different words,' lol.  Pool is saying exactly what you just quoted him as saying, Atlas.  Don't assign beliefs to him that doesn't hold. He's simply asking not to be strawmanned.  It's a fair request.  If you disagree on a straw-man accusation then just say so, and present your evidence.  You're just piling straw on top of straw with this comment.

Yes; in other words? You say it when a sentence or a statement carry an implicit meaning.

So somebody is a Catholic. So I tell them "you worship Jesus and condemn anybody saying otherwise to be in hell; just like your official clergy say". And I am pulling a strawman because of this?

I'm not piling straws. I'm calling Catholicism for being what it is; Islam for being what it is; and getting bashed for it; accepting that because it's a public debate forum, where I'm expecting to get my opinion criticized.
/
You don't have the right to touch my personal life, but whatever belief or faith I put here is subject to discussion and criticism.
That's not a strawman argument; LFC

[SaStrike]

Evil - Profound immorality and wickedness.

Your one sentence does not throw this problem out of the window at all. It's basically a plagiarized version of "just suck it up" but with added false promise of eternal bliss.

[Catholic_Lady]

Well, here's my answer. It's a disordered act that goes against Natural Law, and there are several reasons for that: 

1. God created sex to be a sacred act of mutual self giving love between husband and wife. Rape takes sex completely outside of that context on many severe levels. It completely defiles something which is meant to be sacred.  

2. Every person has inherent value and inherent human rights. By forcing yourself on someone for your own gratification you are reducing them down to an object to be used by you, and in doing so, disregarding them as human beings with inherent value. Simultaneously you are taking away their inherent rights by using force and/or no consent.   

3. Children are the most vulnerable and weakest among us, and we have a moral responsibility to protect those who are weaker. By doing the exact opposite we are not only neglecting our moral duties, we are completely violating them.

0. How do you know there is a "natural law" against rape when the concept of rape itself seems to exist only among humans in a civilized society?

1. Umm, so do you believe a wife cannot be raped by her husband within the bounds of marriage?

2. What are these "inherent human rights", and why should violating them concern me in any way if I am the perpetrator?

3. Again, leaving aside social consequences, why should the perpetrator be concerned about neglecting or violating these "moral duties"?

0. Natural law is actually specifically about human behavior.

1. Which is precisely why I specifically said "mutual, self giving love between husband and wife". AKA: not rape.

2. In this case, the right to not be raped.

3. If you're a psychopath who doesn't care about moral laws or other people, then I can't tell you why you should care other than having to face the consequences.

---

In other words?  You must mean, 'in completely different words,' lol.  Pool is saying exactly what you just quoted him as saying, Atlas.  Don't assign beliefs to him that doesn't hold. He's simply asking not to be strawmanned.  It's a fair request.  If you disagree on a straw-man accusation then just say so, and present your evidence.  You're just piling straw on top of straw with this comment.

Yes; in other words? You say it when a sentence or a statement carry an implicit meaning.

So somebody is a Catholic. So I tell them "you worship Jesus and condemn anybody saying otherwise to be in hell; just like your official clergy say". And I am pulling a strawman because of this?

I'm not piling straws. I'm calling Catholicism for being what it is; Islam for being what it is; and getting bashed for it; accepting that because it's a public debate forum, where I'm expecting to get my opinion criticized.
/
You don't have the right to touch my personal life, but whatever belief or faith I put here is subject to discussion and criticism.
That's not a strawman argument; LFC

My bold.

Our clergy doesn't say that Atlas. If you think otherwise, please provide the catechism paragraph that says so. Im not sure why you keep going on about this. You seem to really want us to believe youre going to Hell. Its kind of bizzarre.

I've always had respect for you as a forum member here, but honestly you're starting to lose some of that.

[WinterHold]

---

Yes; in other words? You say it when a sentence or a statement carry an implicit meaning.

So somebody is a Catholic. So I tell them "you worship Jesus and condemn anybody saying otherwise to be in hell; just like your official clergy say". And I am pulling a strawman because of this?

I'm not piling straws. I'm calling Catholicism for being what it is; Islam for being what it is; and getting bashed for it; accepting that because it's a public debate forum, where I'm expecting to get my opinion criticized.
/
You don't have the right to touch my personal life, but whatever belief or faith I put here is subject to discussion and criticism.
That's not a strawman argument; LFC

My bold.

Our clergy doesn't say that Atlas. If you think otherwise, please provide the catechism paragraph that says so. Im not sure why you keep going on about this. You seem to really want us to believe youre going to Hell. Its kind of bizzarre.

I've always had respect for you as a forum member here, but honestly you're starting to lose some of that.

I follow the evidence wherever it lies; CL. I took a decision long while ago to never ever go against an evidence when I find it; no matter whom I'm going to lose in the process, or what I will suffer from in that path.
I will be totally honest with you: that's what I know about Catholic faith, and that's what this link told me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_...atholicism


The link says that Catholic clergy "did" say that about hell.
You objected on my previous sources; so I brought other sources from Wikipedia.

Nothing is personal.

[Catholic_Lady]

---

My bold.

Our clergy doesn't say that Atlas. If you think otherwise, please provide the catechism paragraph that says so. Im not sure why you keep going on about this. You seem to really want us to believe youre going to Hell. Its kind of bizzarre.

I've always had respect for you as a forum member here, but honestly you're starting to lose some of that.

I follow the evidence wherever it lies; CL. I took a decision long while ago to never ever go against an evidence when I find it; no matter whom I'm going to lose in the process, or what I will suffer from in that path.
I will be totally honest with you: that's what I know about Catholic faith, and that's what this link told me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_...atholicism


The link says that Catholic clergy "did" say that about hell.
You objected on my previous sources; so I brought other sources from Wikipedia.

Nothing is personal.

And I specifically told you the only reliable source for what the Church teaches are Church documents themselves. You insist on using Wikipedia rather than looking up church documents which are all available online. All you have to do is Google "catechism".

But ok, I'll play along and use your Wikipedia:

Even still, i read it again and I'm not seeing where Wikipedia says Catholics believe non Christians go to Hell. Can you copy and paste please where it says that?

You're being dishonest.

[Aroura]

Regardless of who has it easier, the point is that some people have easier than others.

And how come infants and small children get into heaven free without a test? So some people just get handed the reward, then. Others have to work their whole lives bed for it and have a chance at not getting it. How is that fair?
Since you believe this life is but a short test, and heaven is eternal, why aren’t you and others like you sending all the children to heaven before they can grow up and possibly fail the test? Sure, you would be damning your own soul, but saving many more!

Is it because you secretly fear your whole line of reasoning might be wrong? Otherwise, why are you gambling with countless immortal souls?

I gave my belief about kid suffering:

I doubt that infants are tested. They don't have proper full minds in my perspective. Their deaths are a reminder for the living to be thankful for the life they have.
I believe God is that controlling.

I said it in a previous topic too about handicapped people; that their disability serves a purpose, and not just a waste of life, caused by a natural "error".

God can cause the death of kids. Humans don't have that right.

You totally didn't answer my question.  I'll ask one more time.

Main question: How is it fair that some people, like children, don't have to take the test to get eternal life, while others do? 

Also, does god not test everyone?  Why or Why not?  Also, does god tell you all of this personally, or are you just giving us your best guesses?  Be honest.
(I'm assuming you think children have souls and join god when they die, not that they are just props to give YOUR life more meaning, which is kinda what your answer sounds like).

Please try and address my questions, instead of wondering off topic.  Thanks.

[LadyForCamus]

Another example of why the ignore button doesn't work, lol.

Don't start, Hammy.

---

@Atlas

There is a difference between one's personal beliefs, and what their religious doctrine states. You can say, 'you aren't really following Catholicism then, if you don't believe what the doctrine and holy texts say, and that's a separate discussion. But you don't get to tell someone what they do or don't personally believe.