If God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and just, then why do ignorant kids suffer?

[whitehall]

The left is half right which means they are half wrong as usual. Imagine if we had a photo of a full term baby with it's head inside the birth canal silently screaming as a technician jammed a tool into the back of it's head and using a frankenstein monster machine sucked it's brain into a dirty pail full of brain tissue and it's head shrunk down to the size of a apple as it fell to the container full of other discarded babies? Why would God allow this desecration of human life? Free will motivated by agnostics who have no respect for human life.

 

[Avatar4321]

The left is half right which means they are half wrong as usual. Imagine if we had a photo of a full term baby with it's head inside the birth canal silently screaming as a technician jammed a tool into the back of it's head and using a frankenstein monster machine sucked it's brain into a dirty pail full of brain tissue and it's head shrunk down to the size of a apple as it fell to the container full of other discarded babies? Why would God allow this desecration of human life? Free will motivated by agnostics who have no respect for human life.

Is it really shocking that those who don't care enough to protect the unborn are blaming others (in this case God) for the suffering of the living?

 

[edthecynic]

Dear Ed: I have found this passage to be explained in two different ways:
1. First this kind of hate means to separate from. At some point, detaching completely, not depending on or living in the "material" world for "material gain or happiness." Not loving one another the CONDITIONAL kind of "human love" that depends on reciprocity or retribution: to only love who is good to you and to hate your enemy that is opposed. It means to separate from that kind of dependence and relations with people.
2. Secondly, in the process of reaching unconditional love that does not depend on material reward, there is a point where people feel spiritually like dying, like losing their lives and letting go of everything they thought, whether good or bad. Giving it all up and starting over. Only by letting go of the old ways, then the new ways replace them, that are spiritually driven and not of this world. This stage can become so intense it literally feels like anger and hatred, totally resentment and rejection, in every sense of the word "hate" can mean.

So whoever loses his life, on the material level of attachment,
finds it spiritually on a level that is transcendent.

This can either be (1) figuratively hating in terms of separating or letting go or renouncing the material world of expectations on conditions in relationships (2) or it can be LITERALLY hating your life, your whole world, totally killing off whatever you loved and held sacred;
so that "after this anger phase" you are filled instead with spiritual motivations and love of life that DOES NOT depend on other people for peace and spiritual satisfaction in life.

NOTE: This passage cannot be promoting to live in a state of hate for people forever as the goal. Otherwise it would contradict the two great commandments on which all the laws and prophets are based: (1) to LOVE God with all our heart mind and soul (2) to LOVE our neighbor as ourselves (and the third new commandment Jesus brought to fulfill the other two uniting love of God with love of man as one (3) to LOVE one another as Jesus loves us ie unconditionally as God does, not conditionally which causes suffering.

So in this context with the SPIRIT of the laws which is LOVE, the passage has to mean something in relation to that process or purpose of loving God and man. Or else it does not make any sense.

But the bible contradicts itself everywhere! That is how the brainwashed are tested. When the brainwashed can no longer see the obvious contradictions, then their brainwashing is complete.

Sticking with the God is love theme:

1 Corinthians 13:4)Love is long-suffering and kind. Love is not jealous, it does not brag, does not get puffed up,
5) does not behave indecently, does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked. It does not keep account of the injury.
6) It does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth.
7) It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Na 1:2 God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies.

Ex 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Ex 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

Ah yes, another Biblical scholar versed in the ancient Greek and Hebrew to such an extent as to pass himself off as an expert. Wait you're not. Sigh........

So basically you are saying no English translation of the bible is valid!
That's good to know.

 

[Ringel05]

But the bible contradicts itself everywhere! That is how the brainwashed are tested. When the brainwashed can no longer see the obvious contradictions, then their brainwashing is complete.

Sticking with the God is love theme:

1 Corinthians 13:4)Love is long-suffering and kind. Love is not jealous, it does not brag, does not get puffed up,
5) does not behave indecently, does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked. It does not keep account of the injury.
6) It does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth.
7) It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Na 1:2 God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies.

Ex 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Ex 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

Ah yes, another Biblical scholar versed in the ancient Greek and Hebrew to such an extent as to pass himself off as an expert. Wait you're not. Sigh........

So basically you are saying no English translation of the bible is valid!
That's good to know.

Yes and no.
Oh and one other thing, it entirely contextual.

 

[edthecynic]

Ah yes, another Biblical scholar versed in the ancient Greek and Hebrew to such an extent as to pass himself off as an expert. Wait you're not. Sigh........

So basically you are saying no English translation of the bible is valid!
That's good to know.

Yes and no.
Oh and one other thing, it entirely contextual.

So please fill in the context, Mr Bible Expert with the only accurate English translation of the bible.

 

[Ringel05]

So basically you are saying no English translation of the bible is valid!
That's good to know.

Yes and no.
Oh and one other thing, it entirely contextual.

So please fill in the context, Mr Bible Expert with the only accurate English translation of the bible.

Once again you're making assumptions but I recognized that failing with the post you made that I responded to so I expected your dismissive response.

Before you attempt to deny, attack and disenfranchise peoples belief systems don't you think you should at least do a thorough study of what you are attacking? No? I thought not.

I'll give you a hint to help you along just in case. The ancient Greek, in which the majority of the text was originally written has seven different and distinct ways of saying love, each one meaning something different. English only has one way to say the word love, hence the "confusion" so called "academics" like yourself suffer from. This is just the tip of the translation iceberg. As for the contextual reference each chapter and verse within each book is contextual in nature with the rest of the chapter's writings, even so called Christians make the mistake of taking passages out of context why would anyone think you would do any different, I mean come on, you have an agenda and can't let facts get in the way.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I ask how there can be suffering on Earth if there is an all-powerful, all-knowing, and just God. I am told that there is free will and that people must choose to believe in Jesus. If that is the case, then what becomes of children who suffer and die without having been given information about Jesus? More importantly, why would such a God allow innocent children to suffer in agony and pain such as this kid did?

Such a child does not have free will in the practical sense. He probably did not even get a chance to learn about Jesus. Luckily he survived.

That's the question that did it for me.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t-e_HUeuyw]YouTube - ‪REM Losing My Religion‬‏[/ame]
The 'God' described in The Bible can kiss my ass.

 

[edthecynic]

Yes and no.
Oh and one other thing, it entirely contextual.

So please fill in the context, Mr Bible Expert with the only accurate English translation of the bible.

Once again you're making assumptions but I recognized that failing with the post you made that I responded to so I expected your dismissive response.

Before you attempt to deny, attack and disenfranchise peoples belief systems don't you think you should at least do a thorough study of what you are attacking? No? I thought not.

I'll give you a hint to help you along just in case. The ancient Greek, in which the majority of the text was originally written has seven different and distinct ways of saying love, each one meaning something different. English only has one way to say the word love, hence the "confusion" so called "academics" like yourself suffer from. This is just the tip of the translation iceberg. As for the contextual reference each chapter and verse within each book is contextual in nature with the rest of the chapter's writings, even so called Christians make the mistake of taking passages out of context why would anyone think you would do any different, I mean come on, you have an agenda and can't let facts get in the way.

Gee, why am I not surprised you couldn't give any specific example of my using the wrong context?? All you could do was claim the context had to be wrong because it came from me, which is a whole lot of nothing.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I ask how there can be suffering on Earth if there is an all-powerful, all-knowing, and just God. I am told that there is free will and that people must choose to believe in Jesus. If that is the case, then what becomes of children who suffer and die without having been given information about Jesus? More importantly, why would such a God allow innocent children to suffer in agony and pain such as this kid did?

Such a child does not have free will in the practical sense. He probably did not even get a chance to learn about Jesus. Luckily he survived.

hmm

no, no personal responsibility from the parents is expeced. It's gods fault they aren't able to feed themselves properly.

Oh yeah, nice photoshop. buzzards don't get that close to people.

Who are you, and what have you done with Two Thumbs? You're not fooling anyone - TT had a heart.

 

[Ringel05]

So please fill in the context, Mr Bible Expert with the only accurate English translation of the bible.

Once again you're making assumptions but I recognized that failing with the post you made that I responded to so I expected your dismissive response.

Before you attempt to deny, attack and disenfranchise peoples belief systems don't you think you should at least do a thorough study of what you are attacking? No? I thought not.

I'll give you a hint to help you along just in case. The ancient Greek, in which the majority of the text was originally written has seven different and distinct ways of saying love, each one meaning something different. English only has one way to say the word love, hence the "confusion" so called "academics" like yourself suffer from. This is just the tip of the translation iceberg. As for the contextual reference each chapter and verse within each book is contextual in nature with the rest of the chapter's writings, even so called Christians make the mistake of taking passages out of context why would anyone think you would do any different, I mean come on, you have an agenda and can't let facts get in the way.

Gee, why am I not surprised you couldn't give any specific example of my using the wrong context?? All you could do was claim the context had to be wrong because it came from me, which is a whole lot of nothing.

Simply because it came from you??!!
You give yourself WAYYYYYY to much credit.
But given that, why am I not surprised you refuse to open your mind and take a clinical look for yourself, come on, I am dealing with a zealot here.

 

[edthecynic]

Once again you're making assumptions but I recognized that failing with the post you made that I responded to so I expected your dismissive response.

Before you attempt to deny, attack and disenfranchise peoples belief systems don't you think you should at least do a thorough study of what you are attacking? No? I thought not.

I'll give you a hint to help you along just in case. The ancient Greek, in which the majority of the text was originally written has seven different and distinct ways of saying love, each one meaning something different. English only has one way to say the word love, hence the "confusion" so called "academics" like yourself suffer from. This is just the tip of the translation iceberg. As for the contextual reference each chapter and verse within each book is contextual in nature with the rest of the chapter's writings, even so called Christians make the mistake of taking passages out of context why would anyone think you would do any different, I mean come on, you have an agenda and can't let facts get in the way.

Gee, why am I not surprised you couldn't give any specific example of my using the wrong context?? All you could do was claim the context had to be wrong because it came from me, which is a whole lot of nothing.

Simply because it came from you??!!
You give yourself WAYYYYYY to much credit.
But given that, why am I not surprised you refuse to open your mind and take a clinical look for yourself, come on, I am dealing with a zealot here.

You gave no context to "open my mind" to yet again. Obviously you can't!!!

 

[Ringel05]

Gee, why am I not surprised you couldn't give any specific example of my using the wrong context?? All you could do was claim the context had to be wrong because it came from me, which is a whole lot of nothing.

Simply because it came from you??!!
You give yourself WAYYYYYY to much credit.
But given that, why am I not surprised you refuse to open your mind and take a clinical look for yourself, come on, I am dealing with a zealot here.

You gave no context to "open my mind" to yet again. Obviously you can't!!!

You're goal is not understanding, that much is obvious hence your mind is closed to anything about this subject you disagree with. Not a very respectable clinical stance. Welcome to context 101..........

 

[edthecynic]

Simply because it came from you??!!
You give yourself WAYYYYYY to much credit.
But given that, why am I not surprised you refuse to open your mind and take a clinical look for yourself, come on, I am dealing with a zealot here.

You gave no context to "open my mind" to yet again. Obviously you can't!!!

You're goal is not understanding, that much is obvious hence your mind is closed to anything about this subject you disagree with. Not a very respectable clinical stance. Welcome to context 101..........

Again you give no context to understand!!! You've given nothing to even consider, let alone agree or disagree with. More like " Welcome to BULLSHIT 101.........."

 

[Ringel05]

You gave no context to "open my mind" to yet again. Obviously you can't!!!

You're goal is not understanding, that much is obvious hence your mind is closed to anything about this subject you disagree with. Not a very respectable clinical stance. Welcome to context 101..........

Again you give no context to understand!!! You've given nothing to even consider, let alone agree or disagree with. More like " Welcome to BULLSHIT 101.........."

Give me a valid reason to honestly debate with you, a zealot, so I don't appear as foolish as you you do and I'll be happy to but again you're intent has never been to debate, has it.
Once again if you really want to research the question then by all means, go ahead, don't rely on other to do it for you. If you intent remains unchanged then I can only reply to your dismissiveness in kind hence my appropriate replies.

 

[edthecynic]

You're goal is not understanding, that much is obvious hence your mind is closed to anything about this subject you disagree with. Not a very respectable clinical stance. Welcome to context 101..........

Again you give no context to understand!!! You've given nothing to even consider, let alone agree or disagree with. More like " Welcome to BULLSHIT 101.........."

Give me a valid reason to honestly debate with you, a zealot, so I don't appear as foolish as you you do and I'll be happy to but again you're intent has never been to debate, has it.
Once again if you really want to research the question then by all means, go ahead, don't rely on other to do it for you. If you intent remains unchanged then I can only reply to your dismissiveness in kind hence my appropriate replies.

I can't stop you from making an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have. I'd ask you what others I have relied on but you will dodge that just like you dodged the context you pretended I missed.

 

[Ringel05]

Again you give no context to understand!!! You've given nothing to even consider, let alone agree or disagree with. More like " Welcome to BULLSHIT 101.........."

Give me a valid reason to honestly debate with you, a zealot, so I don't appear as foolish as you you do and I'll be happy to but again you're intent has never been to debate, has it.
Once again if you really want to research the question then by all means, go ahead, don't rely on other to do it for you. If you intent remains unchanged then I can only reply to your dismissiveness in kind hence my appropriate replies.

I can't stop you from making an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have. I'd ask you what others I have relied on but you will dodge that just like you dodged the context you pretended I missed.

What other's you've relied on?? What the **** are you talking about? You never asked anything like that.

 

[Ringel05]

By the way, just out of curiosity I went back and looked. I answered your "questions" but apparently you did not like the answers. Oh well.

 

[edthecynic]

By the way, just out of curiosity I went back and looked. I answered your "questions" but apparently you did not like the answers. Oh well.

Bullshit!

 

[edthecynic]

Give me a valid reason to honestly debate with you, a zealot, so I don't appear as foolish as you you do and I'll be happy to but again you're intent has never been to debate, has it.
Once again if you really want to research the question then by all means, go ahead, don't rely on other to do it for you. If you intent remains unchanged then I can only reply to your dismissiveness in kind hence my appropriate replies.

I can't stop you from making an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have. I'd ask you what others I have relied on but you will dodge that just like you dodged the context you pretended I missed.

What other's you've relied on?? What the **** are you talking about? You never asked anything like that.

Down to the CON$ervative dumb act. Of course I never asked anything like that, YOU just made it up in YOUR last post!!! YOU are the one making the claim that you can't back up, just like your context claims.

 

[Ringel05]

By the way, just out of curiosity I went back and looked. I answered your "questions" but apparently you did not like the answers. Oh well.

Bullshit!

Whatever. But you really should try to use a different self descriptive word, that one's too obvious.