Don't try and say your omnimax god has a reason to allow suffering

[CarlinKnew]

So you do not know if god has actually made this claim about himself?

Seems that you are running rampart with an assumption, no?

No, I am addressing those who claim that god is all-loving.

And those who do consider suffering an act of love?

Those who claim that the infliction of unnecessary suffering is an act of love are insane, and I want nothing to do with such a psychopaths/sadomasochists. For them this argument is not relevant.

This is just plain out right false.

And your counterexample is...?

Are you going to answer my question or not?

No, you know what pain is.

Then it would be a good idea to actually start using some.

It would be a good idea to actually start grasping the logic being used here.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Would someone please define "All Loving" for me.

Have you seen the Pamela and Tommy Lee video? It's in there......

 

[McBell]

No, I am addressing those who claim that god is all-loving.

You are back pedaling.

YOU made the claim:

He makes the rule that "he is all-loving"
​

Then flat out admit that you have no idea if the claim was actually made by the one YOU claimed made it.

Those who claim that the infliction of unnecessary suffering is an act of love are insane, and I want nothing to do with such a psychopaths/sadomasochists. For them this argument is not relevant.

Which shows that your argument is far to subject to be the "proof" you want it to be.

And your counterexample is...?

Counter example?
The statement is just flat out false.
You are trying to claim that there is only one necessary way to do things.

No, you know what pain is.

More back pedaling.

It would be a good idea to actually start grasping the logic being used here.

What logic?

You are merely trying to claim that your opinions prove something outside of being your opinions.

 

[CarlinKnew]

You are back pedaling.

YOU made the claim:

He makes the rule that "he is all-loving"
​

Then flat out admit that you have no idea if the claim was actually made by the one YOU claimed made it.

This is completely irrelevant, and it has no bearing on the OP. When I said that I was addressing this post:

.....Although, I guess, if He really is to be considered omnimax, and He makes all the rules...Then if He says that the suffering isn't needless or evil, and that He IS all-loving, etc.....Well, those are the rules, aren't they?

Which shows that your argument is far to subject to be the "proof" you want it to be.

It is proof for anyone who isn't a psychopath/sadomasochist.

The statement is just flat out false.
You are trying to claim that there is only one necessary way to do things.

No, I'm not. Reading comprehension might be the issue here. If z is unnecessary, that doesn't mean y is necessary.

More back pedaling.

Playing dumb is not going to accomplish anything here. You know what pain is. You want an example, fine: I stubbed my toe.

 

[McBell]

I stubbed my toe.

and this is Gods fault how?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Chocolate ice creams tastes better than vanilla.

 

[CarlinKnew]

and this is Gods fault how?

He gave me the capacity to feel pain.

 

[McBell]

He gave me the capacity to feel pain.

Do you have any idea WHY humans feel pain?

 

[CarlinKnew]

Do you have any idea WHY humans feel pain?

You have to be joking. Of course I've already considered that organisms feel pain in order to aid in survival. The problem is that an all-loving, all-powerful god could create a world in which it's not necessary.

 

[McBell]

The problem is that an all-loving, all-powerful god could create a world in which it's not necessary.

So your argument is that because it COULD have been done a certain way, that is SHOULD have been done that way?

 

[CarlinKnew]

So your argument is that because it COULD have been done a certain way, that is SHOULD have been done that way?

If he's all-powerful, his creation could exist without suffering. If he's all-loving, his creation wouldn't exist with suffering.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

If he's all-powerful, his creation could exist without suffering. If he's all-loving, his creation wouldn't exist with suffering.

What you don't get is that this suffering is only bad for those that are not his Children. It is complete elation for those that are his Children.

I can see now, why it is so personal for you. I hope you become a child of God one day.

 

[McBell]

If he's all-powerful, his creation could exist without suffering. If he's all-loving, his creation wouldn't exist with suffering.

Are you going to answer the question?

You do realize that having to ask the same question multiple times before getting an answer is rather annoying.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Are you going to answer the question?

You do realize that having to ask the same question multiple times before getting an answer is rather annoying.

Sorry, I mistyped earlier. Post 289 should've read:
"The problem is that an all-loving, all-powerful god would create a world in which it's not necessary."

 

[McBell]

Sorry, I mistyped earlier. Post 289 should've read:
"The problem is that an all-loving, all-powerful god would create a world in which it's not necessary."

 

[CarlinKnew]

And it's true. If he's all-powerful, he could. If he's also all-loving, he would.

 

[Stellify]

What you don't get is that this suffering is only bad for those that are not his Children. It is complete elation for those that are his Children.

I can see now, why it is so personal for you. I hope you become a child of God one day.

I though we were all supposed to be His children.....created in His image and whatnot. It's just that some of us are "misguided". :sarcastic

 

[Perfect Circle]

Playing dumb is not going to accomplish anything here. You know what pain is. You want an example, fine: I stubbed my toe.

I think a better example for your argument would be one in which pain is inflicted for seemingly no good reason other than suffering. Stubbing your toe serves the purpose of teaching to you watch where you're walking. Being born with a horrible, chronic, terminal disease that you acquired through no fault of your own is another matter entirely.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I though we were all supposed to be His children.....created in His image and whatnot. It's just that some of us are "misguided". :sarcastic

Well, if that is how you feel to date from your studies of the bible, than who am I to judge?
After my studies I believe the bible is pretty clear, we are all made in His image, but that is different than saying we are all going to heaven.

 

[Perfect Circle]

I though we were all supposed to be His children.....created in His image and whatnot. It's just that some of us are "misguided". :sarcastic

Yep, I think so. Although it would be much easier if God just told us this stuff him self. I'm not sure why he decided to tell us through a select group of individuals who lived thousands of years ago. But hey, what are you gonna do...