Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[Ingledsva]

Do you know how stupid that sounds?

If it was so stupid then why did you not answer the simple question. You claim to have rights based on genetic material. Prove it or resend the claim. It is your burden. It is not even applicable in this context but you said it and I was just curious how you back it up.

Common sense. All people have rights to their own body parts. You can't hack off someone's arm if you want to; and they CAN remove cancer, or fetus, if they want to.

Autonomy is NOT the definition of personhood. Even if it was defining personhood is NOT the grounds for moral judgment. That does not mean we do not do it, however it has no power whatever concerning abortion to make anything actually right. Do you have any experience with the moral issue in general as it is debated by scholars? You claims do not show this. You have confusion between morality and legality issues.

"The quality or condition of being an individual person."

I could care less if you are discussing your religious "moral" ideas. The law is the law.

I am discussing morality not law and they are not the same things. I have really not been using much theological argumentation. If you can (and you should if your honest) simply concede that morals do not exist as an absolute category of truth within secularism we can move past that and most of these posts. I do not care what is legal I care what is right. As a veteran I was trained to, as a Christian I am bound to.

Law is obviously included in this issue. As I have already said - both sides had their say and a compromise law was made. For YOU it is a moral issue - I do not believe such.

You are trying to argue LIVE HUMAN rights, against fetal blob/part of my body.

Apparently I did not get the memo that the new moral division between murder and permissibility is your definition for blob. This is trivial non-sense. You can't get out of the predicament by terminology or even legality.

LOL! That was a comment to your "argument" trying to compare slavery and the like, of AUTONOMUS humans, with a fetus.

The is pure bull, and your religious ideas speaking again.
Our problems are from cramming people into unnatural super cities, without enough space, food, work, etc, leading to trapped rat survival at all costs mentality.

I have posted the mountains of data several times and gave links to even larger mountains. Your opinion have no effect on them. I will get the post numbers if necessary.

Data saying society's problems are from sex outside marriage - is pure crock.
Northern European countries are dropping marriage at a very fast rate and finding no such problems.

And that of course is just another outrageously ridiculous religious idea stuck in your head.
Not believing in your invisible man - does not negate any of my rights.

According to the man who wrote the documents that gave us our rights you are wrong and what I said right. When you have the credentials to overturn what Thomas Jefferson and plenty more of our founders let me know

Let me repeat - "Not believing in your invisible man - does not negate any of my rights."

That is a fact.

What? You said self defense is justification to kill. I agree but that has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. Is the child packing an UZI in there or something. Unless you meant in the case where a mothers life is at risk. If so I agree but that leaves the other 90% of abortions used as a form of birth control.

That was a reply to your - do you have a right to kill!

As already stated I do not believe abortion is killing.

And that 90% of abortions used as birth control - IS ABSOLUTE BULL!

It is not only my standards that consider an unborn "fetus" a human being with the right to live. That was the determination of people on your side as well. That is their rule and law. You just do not get what I am saying. We have established by using your side's rules that birth is not the line that determines right to life. My argument is that any line drawn during pregnancy that separates rights to life and permissibility to kill are arbitrary and have no power what ever to distinguish between what they are required to distinguish. I will give several reasons to further indicate the line is arbitrary and has not the slightest relationship to morality. If you get nothing else please get this.

1. Their line varies by state. So even if an actual moral line existed (and it does not) only at best one could be right. The line between murder and ok can't be 6 months, 7 months, or 8 months. None are right but to be generous it is not possible that more than one would be.
2. The arbitrary line is changed without any moral reason for doing do. It gets changed to pander to a political base, because it brought to much pressure from some group, and it gets changed.
3. Wherever some politician draws the line is it rational or even sane to think that line minus one second is not murder but one second after was.


There are only two recourses here for your view.

1. You concede there are no moral objective truths and the law is all you base moral decisions on. That law is not equal to morality. I consider this a shame and points out the massive need for God but it is certainly possible and is rational and we can move along in this vein.
2. You can attempt to do what is not possible nor rational. Suggest actual moral truth exists and that legality defines it (which is just wrong) or confuse the issue by making assumptions, accusations about something I did, or equating rights with convenience or desire.

I hope you give the whole argument up as an impossibility but failing that #1 is the only honorable (however still maybe wrong) choice left, but so far you have been using the latter part of #2 and I am afraid you will continue to.

My side. LOL! My side is that until born and autonomous, I have the right to abort.

What do you not understand about what I said concerning both sides having their say, and a COMPROMISE being made?

My view humbly includes our ignorance concerning any line that separates murder from permissible killing within pregnancy. It draws no line because there is none or even there was we can't know what it is. We err for life. Your side errs for death and convenience. Our conclusion is moral and responsible. You side's is not. That is true even if God is not.

Again - abortion being immoral is your opinion. Mine is that any parts within ME are myself, to do with as I will, and such is not immoral. And an autonomous being has all the same rights I do.

My burden in a debate is to satisfy myself as to sufficiently demonstrating a point. With this in bold I have done so. My burden is not to convince someone who's motivation and foundation is preference. Facts and logic have no effect against desire. Anything further is extra as the case is rationally and obviously demonstrated by the above.

Continued below;

My foundation is not "preference" but my rights to full autonomy for self.

A fetus is not an autonomous being.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Your callous minimization of human suffering disgusts me.

Tell me what the acronym you modern kids have for laughing myself into epileptic fits is, I need it. You argue that we should be able to kill the almost 1 billion human lives through abortion we have plus how many billions more eventually (including all the suffering that causes in several forms), you defend that by making an argument that pregnancy is not worth the risk, then some how suggest the biggest supporter of self sacrifice on behalf of others there is, a veteran that defended the nation, that has argued for the preservation of those same lives your side destroyed, has argued for the reality of the concept most associated with love and goodness in all of human history, and the only one of the two of us that has any actual foundation for moral truth at all is the one of us in favor of human suffering and death. You just can't make this stuff up. Maybe next you can tell me how my atheism disgusts you.

I also agree with him.

You continue to confuse autonomous humans with fetuses.

And I might add we could turn the tables and say how funny it is that you hate abortion (in claiming they are human beings with rights,) but defend all the infant and child murder in the Bible.

*

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I do not know about nor defend what occurred in Jewish religious sites during modern times, that is why I said Church. I did not say all negative effects of evil are examples of what our parents did so that is out.

Tell me what the acronym you modern kids have for laughing myself into epileptic fits is, I need it. You argue that we should be able to kill the almost 1 billion human lives through abortion we have plus how many billions more eventually (including all the suffering that causes in several forms), you defend that by making an argument that pregnancy is not worth the risk, then some how suggest the biggest supporter of self sacrifice on behalf of others there is, a veteran that defended the nation, that has argued for the preservation of those same lives your side destroyed, has argued for the reality of the concept most associated with love and goodness in all of human history, and the only one of the two of us that has any actual foundation for moral truth at all is the one of us in favor of human suffering and death. You just can't make this stuff up. Maybe next you can tell me how my atheism disgusts you.


I just can't take you seriously at least for this post after that. Sorry.

I couldn't care less whether you take me seriously. You're the one who just finished arguing that suffering is good; this suggests that your judgement is not reliable.

 

[Ingledsva]

LOL! No they didn't. Obviously there are a whole lot of people that don't agree with you

Law can't define moral truth in any objective way. If it is subjective then your moral absolutes change over time and therefor are not absolute and therefore not true. Law is based on opinion and preference not moral truth. I do not care how many people say what law can't possibly create actual moral truth. It might reflect it if God exists but do not define it.

Obviously It is the fact that people are divided over this issue that brought law into it.

Again - and more red-herrings.
We are discussing abortion and fetuses, not the rights of past autonomous humans.

If a red herring it was yours. You brought up autonomy not me. Autonomy has no relationship to morality concerning fetuses and as such not something I would have ever brought up as binding on anything.

Autonomy is automatically a part of this conversation as only YOU are arguing it is a moral issue - and I am arguing it is not - it is an issue of my body - and an autonomous breathing, thinking, individual.

You keep trying to argue an abortion issue with red-herrings such as past events done to FULLY AUTONOMOUS BEINGS.

LOL! Having an opinion on the subject - that is different then yours - does not make us ignorant, selfish, or irresponsible.

If you could prove that was the motivation for my statement then do so. If not (and you can't) this was apparently the only response you could dream up. My description is logically derived from the facts as I listed them not from a difference of opinion. Opinion is not even the issue. My statements do not depend on opinion. But follow directly from the facts.

LOL! You used the words.

Again! The line is between people like you, and people like me. It will always exist.

Two people who claim two mutually exclusive truths can't possibly both be right. The debate is to illustrate that your side is the one that is wrong. Very few issues are resolvable this absolutely. This one is easy and flows from fact to fact. You can't possibly be right unless you simply throw conventional morality out the window and redefine it based on nothing beyond arbitrary convenience.

What is your point here? You have not proved my side wrong - or your side right!

And your "conventional morality" is obviously "your idea of morality" as there are obviously a lot of us out here that do not agree with you.

And again - the size bull - has exactly WHAT to do with equality in society?
Also, Women in combat have not caused men to get killed! Get a grip! Your religious patriarchy is showing. Women have been warriors for tens of thousands of years.

I made those statements based on experience as a soldier not as a Christian. You can't possibly know what you claim because I can know and do know you are wrong.

It is only your opinion.

One of the first women pilot's on my ship panicked when she did not get what she expected from the meatball (landing light) when landing on my Carrier and did not have the strength to recover (that model F-14 is not fly by wire). She actually flipped the plane upside down and ejected into the sea killing herself. The plane crashed into the back of the ship and killed men in the AMD shop on the fantail. I can give stories like this longer than you will read them just from personal experience and accounts from fellow soldiers. Size has nothing to do with it. It is a result of strength and the way men and women respond to stress.

How interesting - and how many hundreds of men did this per one woman that did?
I think we have all watched the shows, and read the news, showing men with these same errors, and the resultant crashes on ships, or in the sea.

I could also list the accounts of many women who got pregnant on my ship so as to get off the ship and back on dry land, the cost incurred with a whole new backlog on unnecessary sexual complaints and crimes, the cost of creating entire new facilities for the rights of people that do not exist. The basis for those rights is who screams the loudest not anything valid. However I wish to get back to abortion instead of this red herring you began with your remarks concerning equality.

More red herrings - very few women have done this - and we can bring up all the reason men have given to get off ships, or their going awol, or deserting, or how they suddenly got religion so they could claim religious objection, etc.

As to "unnecessary sexual complaints and crimes" - that is just BULL! Have you bothered to watch the news and congressional hearings lately - which have given us the child molestation and rape stats of our rather un-honorable military!

LOL - You are repeating.

Where do I get rights? - By being an autonomous being.

Exactly how does autonomy grant rights. Terms do not have rights to grant and neither does what that term describes. My Lord what a mess your sides thinking is.

LOL! I think if you consider how you get rights - you will understand this. Being autonomous grants rights.

Here is how your Jesus put it -

Neither there be Jews nor Greeks/Hellenists, nor is there slave nor freeborn, Nor is there male and female: for all are verily the other/same/one in Christ Iesous.

Which is exactly what I said. Only with God are humans equal. Evolution has never made anything equal. However that is not what that verse means. It means that in God's eyes race, gender, etc are no advantage in relating to him. That verse does not mean that women are just as good Navy Seals as men, nor does it mean that men display the unconditional love that Women do. Just simply our unequal roles in sex indicate he made us with different capacities.

You are misreading what I said. Go back and look at what I was answering.

Even in the writings of your Jesus we are all just autonomous human beings.

PS. In future when you drop these down, please start them with "FOR _______," so whomever it is for, can find the post while skimming the thread.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

However, the words you are using - "textually accurate" and ".5% (theologian estimate0 to 5% scribal error (atheist estimate)" -

do not in any way imply that the book is true or correct in any fashion.

No, alone they certainly do not. However if you research textual criticism a little you would quickly see that is where the discussion must start. You must first establish that the copy you have reliably represents the original. If you have not done that then everything else you do is meaningless. That is the starting point in all academic evaluations of historical text based claims. If you concede those numbers then we can move on but we can't until resolution is obtained on them.

I took Comparative Religions, and a separate course from the Catholic Church, and studied archaeology.

I translate the texts myself.

There is as I have pointed out many times - a lot of error - and what would appear to be purposeful changing of wording to support a newer church idea.

Purposeful - such as this below - to promote the idea of homosexuality being wrong -

Deut 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

Which actually says -

Deut 23:17 There shall be no Qadeshah of the daughters of Israel, nor Qadesh of the sons of Israel.

*

 

[1robin]

I also agree with him.

You continue to confuse autonomous humans with fetuses.

And I might add we could turn the tables and say how funny it is that you hate abortion (in claiming they are human beings with rights,) but defend all the infant and child murder in the Bible.

*

Of course you do. You guys need all the mutual support you can get. The one thing you have not produced however is even an attempt at justifying that statement which was far more propaganda than argumentation. I do not defend the children killed in the Bible I only explain the circumstances surrounding them. However if you added up all the people killed by God (Men, Women, Children) and added in all those killed by major Christian violent actions (even of all those that were simply claiming to be Christians like crusaders, inquisitions, witch trials, even adding in all military deaths from conquests, heck add on our wars with Islam for the heck of it, etc) multiply all those added together by ten and you sill would not approach the lives destroyed by your side by abortion alone over only the last decade. However it even gets worse. You for some unknown reason convict God (who created the life, knows where the lines between murder and homicide are, and can place those taken in heaven if he desires) but excuse humans who (have no idea where any line exists even if there was one, created nothing, and can't get anyone into heaven). Now which side was it again that is indifferent to suffering? I do not believe a more hypocritical claim than what you two have made can even theoretically be possible.

 

[McBell]

Of course you do. You guys need all the mutual support you can get. The one thing you have not produced however is even an attempt at justifying that statement which was far more propaganda than argumentation. I do not defend the children killed in the Bible I only explain the circumstances surrounding them. However if you added up all the people killed by God (Men, Women, Children) and added in all those killed by major Christian violent actions (even of all those that were simply claiming to be Christians like crusaders, inquisitions, witch trials, even adding in all military deaths from conquests, heck add on our wars with Islam for the heck of it, etc) multiply all those added together by ten and you sill would not approach the lives destroyed by your side by abortion alone over only the last decade. However it even gets worse. You for some unknown reason convict God (who created the life, knows where the lines between murder and homicide are, and can place those taken in heaven if he desires) but excuse humans who (have no idea where any line exists even if there was one, created nothing, and can't get anyone into heaven). Now which side was it again that is indifferent to suffering? I do not believe a more hypocritical claim than what you two have made can even theoretically be possible.

Please show your math.

 

[1robin]

Common sense. All people have rights to their own body parts. You can't hack off someone's arm if you want to; and they CAN remove cancer, or fetus, if they want to.

What conversation are we having? Moral, legal, common sense, opinion. The only two applicable ones are legal and moral. Since legality varies by time are you suggesting that whatever happens to be legal today or tomorrow is the standard? So you would have said the civil rights marchers were wrong? Hopefully we can leave something as arbitrary and varying as legality behind us in a theological forum. That leaves morality. What moral rights do you have at all? What is the objective foundation for those rights? What omniscient and omnipotent creature had those rights to disperse? Or is the legislation a politician who takes pictures of his private parts then sends them to others the basis of your moral truths? Whatever foundations you have or not should clearly have a list of rights and wrongs for your arm and a completely different and independent set for a fetus. What is true of an arm is not true of an individual life.

1. An arm has no potential to enclose it's own individual soul of infinite value.
2. An arm is never protected under rights to life legislation.

You know what I did not need to type any of this because your own side creates laws and moral legislation that grants rights to fetuses that they do not grant to arms. That point is concluded.

"The quality or condition of being an individual person."

I asked no question that this was an answer for. I assume it was answering a question I did not ask about what defines a right to life. If so why is that the determining factor and how do you know it is?

Law is obviously included in this issue. As I have already said - both sides had their say and a compromise law was made. For YOU it is a moral issue - I do not believe such.

The law in this case is based on moral assumptions. Since laws hopefully are based on moral foundations and not the other way around that makes morality and not law the more effectual. However if all you are doing is making a legal justification then I have no need to argue. You have proven my original case.

1. Your morality is at best tied to an ever changing and arbitrary legality and not actual moral truth.
2. I also imagine that would instantly change as soon as that evolving or devolving legality makes what you wish to do illegal in this case.
3. You simply include rights that are convenient and deny rights (that could be denied to others on the exact same grounds) to others.
4. You do not have the slightest idea if abortion is right but do not care as long as it is legal.

Since this is exactly what I have been saying from the start no further elaboration is necessary. I will only tackle the rest if you can show it necessary.

 

[1robin]

I couldn't care less whether you take me seriously. You're the one who just finished arguing that suffering is good; this suggests that your judgement is not reliable.

Is see you not caring and raise you a not caring whether you care.



I said that suffering can be used for good not that it was in it's self good. You know the exact same way it produces good in many instances as well all concede without God as well. That is unless we are in a debate concerning God then everything conceded is withheld and everything withheld is instantly withdraw. Only my God will put an end to all suffering. In your view if we are lucky suffering just goes on until we either destroy ourselves or everything dies a meaningless heat death. Again who's views are consistent with suffering again?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Of course you do. You guys need all the mutual support you can get. The one thing you have not produced however is even an attempt at justifying that statement which was far more propaganda than argumentation. I do not defend the children killed in the Bible I only explain the circumstances surrounding them. However if you added up all the people killed by God (Men, Women, Children) and added in all those killed by major Christian violent actions (even of all those that were simply claiming to be Christians like crusaders, inquisitions, witch trials, even adding in all military deaths from conquests, heck add on our wars with Islam for the heck of it, etc) multiply all those added together by ten and you sill would not approach the lives destroyed by your side by abortion alone over only the last decade. However it even gets worse. You for some unknown reason convict God (who created the life, knows where the lines between murder and homicide are, and can place those taken in heaven if he desires) but excuse humans who (have no idea where any line exists even if there was one, created nothing, and can't get anyone into heaven). Now which side was it again that is indifferent to suffering? I do not believe a more hypocritical claim than what you two have made can even theoretically be possible.

Wait a minute ... how do we know you're not just claiming to be Christian and all those crusaders, inquisitors, witch trialists, etc. were the real Christians?

 

[1robin]

I took Comparative Religions, and a separate course from the Catholic Church, and studied archaeology.

I translate the texts myself.

There is as I have pointed out many times - a lot of error - and what would appear to be purposeful changing of wording to support a newer church idea.

Purposeful - such as this below - to promote the idea of homosexuality being wrong -

Deut 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

Which actually says -

Deut 23:17 There shall be no Qadeshah of the daughters of Israel, nor Qadesh of the sons of Israel.

*

I have hear an argument that should end this debate as well as the one I gave for abortion. That has nothing however to do with whether you will let it end the debate.

Bart Ehrman Phd

1. He is far more educated than both of us put together concerning biblical error.
2. He is probably the most famous current author of book criticizing the Bible.
3. In his words at most there is 5% meaningful scribal error in the Bible (actually he might have been meaning only the NT but either way it works).
4. In his words none of the errors are contained in core doctrine.

I have a transcript from his and DR Whites debate but I will not give you those statements in a vacuum. If you want a link I am going to give you to their debate. I want you to see how much trouble White had to go to back Ehrman in a corner so tight that he had no choice but to admit the above. I have defended supposed Bible errors for years and have found very few and all are well known. All major Bible version record the errors in footnotes and many give the explanations about them. The dead sea scrolls alone were enough to show the Bible's preservation far (and I mean far) out shines every other work in ancient history. That was your sides great chance. A text 1000 years older than the oldest in existence should have been full of errors if they existed. Yet what did it show almost 100% accuracy. Isaiah (the most theological and messianic by far) existed in three copies with about 99.95% accuracy. Too bad huh. So if you want to argue with yoru own sides most prolific modern scholar or textual comparisons you can make at home or with online dead sea scroll sites have at it. Don't throw Ehrman quotes at me. I know very well what he has said depending on what day he is asked, which is why I like debate formats not book selling rallies. You do realize that textual error (which is what I brought up, not historical error) is easily checked? Historical accuracy is just as reliable but quite a bit harder to prove.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I said that suffering can be used for good not that it was in it's self good.

Not so fast. There are only two options available to you (edit: provided we're assuming that God exists):

- all suffering is good.

- some suffering is bad, but God allows it anyhow.

So which is it?

 

[1robin]

Not so fast. There are only two options available to you (edit: provided we're assuming that God exists):

- all suffering is good.

- some suffering is bad, but God allows it anyhow.

So which is it?

I am not sure I allow that I am bounded by those two options but since all other arguments here have been concluded and out of curiosity I will pick number 2. Your mistake in your reply will have the initials of O and F. I just want to see if I can predict the failure in your argumentation before hand. Remember O and F. Let it roll 9/10ths.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not sure I allow that I am bounded by those two options

Of course you're not. There are other options:

- God would stop suffering if he could, but he can't. IOW, he's not omnipotent.

- God doesn't exist at all.

but since all other arguments here have been concluded and out of curiosity I will pick number 2.

... which brings us back to the original question of the thread: why does God allow suffering?

Remember that we're talking about the suffering that's bad - i.e. it's not outweighed by good somehow.

Why would a good god allow something bad?

If God is the source of everything, how did all this bad stuff flow from God?

 

[Ingledsva]

I also agree with him.

You continue to confuse autonomous humans with fetuses.

And I might add we could turn the tables and say how funny it is that you hate abortion (in claiming they are human beings with rights,) but defend all the infant and child murder in the Bible.

Of course you do. You guys need all the mutual support you can get. The one thing you have not produced however is even an attempt at justifying that statement which was far more propaganda than argumentation. I do not defend the children killed in the Bible I only explain the circumstances surrounding them. However if you added up all the people killed by God (Men, Women, Children) and added in all those killed by major Christian violent actions (even of all those that were simply claiming to be Christians like crusaders, inquisitions, witch trials, even adding in all military deaths from conquests, heck add on our wars with Islam for the heck of it, etc) multiply all those added together by ten and you sill would not approach the lives destroyed by your side by abortion alone over only the last decade. However it even gets worse. You for some unknown reason convict God (who created the life, knows where the lines between murder and homicide are, and can place those taken in heaven if he desires) but excuse humans who (have no idea where any line exists even if there was one, created nothing, and can't get anyone into heaven). Now which side was it again that is indifferent to suffering? I do not believe a more hypocritical claim than what you two have made can even theoretically be possible.

As I said, you defend the stories of your God's skitso murder of children.

*

 

[McBell]

Of course you do. You guys need all the mutual support you can get. The one thing you have not produced however is even an attempt at justifying that statement which was far more propaganda than argumentation. I do not defend the children killed in the Bible I only explain the circumstances surrounding them. However if you added up all the people killed by God (Men, Women, Children) and added in all those killed by major Christian violent actions (even of all those that were simply claiming to be Christians like crusaders, inquisitions, witch trials, even adding in all military deaths from conquests, heck add on our wars with Islam for the heck of it, etc) multiply all those added together by ten and you sill would not approach the lives destroyed by your side by abortion alone over only the last decade. However it even gets worse. You for some unknown reason convict God (who created the life, knows where the lines between murder and homicide are, and can place those taken in heaven if he desires) but excuse humans who (have no idea where any line exists even if there was one, created nothing, and can't get anyone into heaven). Now which side was it again that is indifferent to suffering? I do not believe a more hypocritical claim than what you two have made can even theoretically be possible.

Please show your math.

Still waiting on your math.

 

[Ingledsva]

Actually every single argument that claims the presence of Evil is incompatible with a benevolent and all powerful God is a false optimization fallacy and based in ignorance. The presence of Evil is in no way contradictory to a good God.

However, the stories that say out of anger, or for revenge, or just because he wanted to prove something, YHVH killed innocents for the supposed crimes of others - would make that God an evil monster.

We are even told in the First born of Egypt story - that YHVH purposely hardened Pharaoh's heart so he wouldn't let the Hebrew go - then YHVH murders the first born because Pharaoh did not let them go (because YHVH wouldn't let him!)

An Evil God that Christians jump through hoops to defend.

.

 

[1robin]

Of course you're not. There are other options:

- God would stop suffering if he could, but he can't. IOW, he's not omnipotent.

- God doesn't exist at all.

Those are two options all right but I have already answered your question. If you did not care what I answered why did you ask. Let me add the 5th and far more likely option. Suffering exists as the natural result of our rebellion and while being bad it's self serves a good function by providing a ready reminder of the cost of that rebellion and other uses.

... which brings us back to the original question of the thread: why does God allow suffering?

Because God allows freewill. Freewill allows for wrong choices. Wrong choices allow for bad results and a general loss of intent that natural law was given in.

Remember that we're talking about the suffering that's bad - i.e. it's not outweighed by good somehow.

You must first show that suffering is incompatible with God. It is bad but has a function. That function leads to good.

Why would a good god allow something bad?

It's the same question as you have asked 5 different ways.

If God is the source of everything, how did all this bad stuff flow from God?

Because God is a God of justice. Wrongs must have costs. Do you prefer you view where costs have no justification and the whole mess ends in annihilation and nothing really had any actual meaning or purpose?

 

[1robin]

As I said, you defend the stories of your God's skitso murder of children.

*

I see you ignored the 98% of my statements because you have no reply and picked the one you thought you did have one to but had to butcher it to allow a response. On this planet explaining what happened is not a defense of what happened. Though what happened is far more defensible that the other 80% of my claims that concerned your side.

 

[1robin]

However, the stories that say out of anger, or for revenge, or just because he wanted to prove something, YHVH killed innocents for the supposed crimes of others - would make that God an evil monster.

We are even told in the First born of Egypt story - that YHVH purposely hardened Pharaoh's heart so he wouldn't let the Hebrew go - then YHVH murders the first born because Pharaoh did not let them go (because YHVH wouldn't let him!)

That was long after pharaoh had thrown away any chance to comply. The influence the faith of the Hebrews born in that crucible proves God was right. It was also to provide retribution for the loss of Israel's sons years earlier. That is his right under divine sovereignty and unlike in your views those same children went to heaven instead of having their Unbelieving parents make them unfit for heaven over their lives. We have dead kids either way. With God they are in heaven and with your view they are annihilated for no reason yet it is that God that you call evil and that annihilating your apparently prefer. It might be said your sides very label should be annihilation because what is not annihilated in moral insanity while live ends up that way anyway eventually.

An Evil God that Christians jump through hoops to defend.

A good God atheists jump through hoops to call evil even though his inclusion is only a net gain. We are all dead either way. Only with my God are wrongs ever righted, justice ever provided, and Heaven ever granted. Your views are still a captive of death after a lifetime of meaningless and purposeless suffering.