I’m betting you’ve never drowned your daughter in a flood, beat her and told her it was for her own good (really beat her - not just spanked her) or infected her with a disease, If you ever have done any of those things, I’d be willing to say you didn’t love her.
Since you haven’t, I’d be willing to say that your love is of a higher quality than God’s.
I still see lot of problems here. An all-loving god wouldn’t exact any punishment. Or if the punishment causes no suffering to the heavenly “child” then how is it effective? And god still doesn’t care about us earthly entities.
Same problem. If the heavenly gamer truly loved us avatars, he wouldn’t put us at risk in any game that would cause suffering, no matter how temporary or erasable. And if god cared about us avatars he wouldn’t let his children toy with us. If he loved us, he would create games where the avatars never suffered.
That’s not entirely the case. An all-loving *and omnipotent * god wouldn’t exact any punishment.
Good point. I should have included that.
The questions most asked of me was 1)Why does God allow evil to happen to innocent people? 2)Why did He choose to suffer? The answer to question 1 is as I stated just look at a cross. The biggest evil to innocence was done Diocide, yet out of it came eternal salvation for mankind. Jesus was the lamb sacrificed for the sins of the world. The answer to question 2 is that’s the way God chose to do it. Example: Someone asked Jesus "How do I get to heaven? Jesus answered “Give all you have away and follow me.” The man walked away silently. Was that very difficult for the man to do? Meaning heaven must be earned, yet this man already found his God in wealth. There are other questions like why doesn’t God visit a childrens cancer ward? My answer to this is how long is life anyway? As I’ve mentioned on previous posts their cancer might be their cross to bear. Why are all people different, big, small, fat, thin why not are we all alike? Why don!t we all die at the same time?
I never said that the heavenly “child” wouldn’t remember the discomfort of earthly life. And I do hope you’re not advancing the case that punishing a child means you love them, or their avatar, less.
As for the ‘omnipotent’ angle; why not ask why God doesn’t merely create fully-formed clones of himself, fully mature? A possible answer is that it might be more beneficial to the child to experience the process of growing up, and creating a being with the memory of false punishments and other maturing experiences is no better than having them experience them directly.
Okay, I admit I didn’t address this seriously before. So: one could seriously make the argument that the game avatar does not truly exist; it’s merely a limited aspect of a larger being that is itself not suffering. If you ask an actor to act sad (or write a show where the actor acts sad) are you truly making anyone sad, if both the actor and observers enjoy the experience?
But what about human suffering? What is your solution to the classic problem of evil? Does god choose to cause human suffering too?
:dubious:
That doesn’t answer the question. First of all, why is the murder of Jesus the greatest evil ever? Why is it more evil than the Holocaust? And why was it necessary to crucify him for mankind to be saved? Why not a less painful method? Or why not make it so we’re all saved to begin with? Why is salvation necessary at all? And all that beside, why do we have to suffer just because Jesus did?
That’s a total non-answer. “Why did you do this?” “Because.” It’s the sort of thing I’d expect to hear from a five year old.
What the hell does this have to do with anything in this thread?
No, the question is “Why is there cancer in the first place?”
That’s not an answer. That’s a non-sequitor.
That’s also not an answer. Why is it thier cross to bear? What has a five year old kid done that makes him deserve leukemia? What benefit is a five year old going to get in the hereafter from dying a long, lingering death from leukemia that the ninety year old who dies in his sleep does not get?
Why do you keep typing exclamation points where you should be putting apostrophes?
That doesn’t answer the question.
Are you suggesting that all suffering is done for the sins of the world? I doubt that’s what you meant, so you’re going to have to come up with an actual reason for suffering other than in that case. Also, (if we are to assume what happened is true) Jesus chose to be sacrificed. We do not get the chance to choose our suffering, and we certainly aren’t told what it’s for.
Incompatible with the concept of a benevolent, omnipotent god.
We have to suffer in order to be allowed into heaven? Again, imcompatible with an all-loving, all-powerful god.
You’re right! So I would be quite within my rights to break your leg (note; i’m not actually threatening this). After all, how long is life anyway?
There’s a big difference between our individual differences and our individual forms of suffering. Us all being different is perfectly compatible with the idea of God. Us suffering is not.
If that’s the case, why worship God? We’d just be worshipping ourselves, and I thought God was down on masturbation.
Not at all. But a god that could achieve his goals without punishment but doesn’t is not all-loving. The parent analogy falls down because parents aren’t all-powerful.
Again, if god was all-powerful, he could achieve the more beneficial results, or any desired results, without causing suffering.
If you ask an actor to play a character that is sad, the actor is creating a sad character. That character is sad. If all you are aware of is being the character, then you are sad. Having the actor or an audience enjoy your sadness doesn’t help much.
Supposing that God has deemed it to be evil to created limited creatures, and so he is creating beings that are (or will be) omniscient. This will require them to have knowledge of the experience of first-hand suffering. Also, they would be able to tell the difference between knowledge that had been created into them, and knowledge that they had acquired through first-hand expertience, and such they would not be equivalent knowlege. Thus, creating such an omnipotent being would require them to experience first-hand all forms of atrocity. Therefore, to minimize the extent of the suffering, this world was created where the being(s) could be educated in the first-hand knowledge of suffering, without allowing the suffering to leak out and effect anybody. (You may presume the numerous people on earth to all be other neophyte gods, to all be simultaneous incarnations of the one neophyte god, to be artificial, imaginary simalcrums without actual existence, or any combination of the three, as satisfies you best.)
If the creation of an omnipotent being (a good thing) requires the limited and self-contained application of educational suffering, then the existence of a limited world containing suffering does not imply that the non-maximal arrangement of happiness is occurring. (Note also that as time is self-contained in the universe, it is possible that out entire world was created and ‘experienced’ instantanously, imparting the knowledge required without pain of any non-zero duration, and that we’re only ‘experiencing’ it in real time becuase the perception of time is part of the universe.)
And don’t say ‘an omnipotent god could experience suffering without experiencing suffering’ or I’ll whack you with this immovable rock here.
I dispute that fictional characters are actual, or that the ‘experiences’ of non-existent-never-existed things matter in any real sense. And, if the ‘negative’ experience have no inherent negative consequences, and cause only an increase in happiness, how can they be considered bad? There are no negatives in the equation.
(You may presume for the sake of argument that there will be no ‘imitation’; those who watch Hamlet will not proceed to kill either of their parents or otherwise actualize the imaginary suffering in ‘real’ (heavenly) life.)
You still haven’t answered why this was necessary. In any case, an all-merciful god wouldn’t answer evil with greater evil. Is he getting back at us for Jesus dying? Sounds like your God is a monster - which would explain a lot of he existed.
It’s very concerning that the idea of a loving and powerful god is incompatible with the universe - but an evil god isn’t. 
An omnipotent god could create beings with that equivalent knowledge without resorting to first-hand experience.
I duck your (quite movable) rock by saying that an omniscient god has all the knowledge of suffering without experiencing suffering.
Then in your avatar example you are saying that we earth-bound entities are not actual and our earthly ‘experiences’ don’t matter in any real sense. In that case you won’t mind in the least being poked with a pointed stick, dingoes eating your baby, and having your garden gnome stolen.
That’s a dark thought that’s crossed my mind too over the years.
Oh. Kay. Must be St. Paul was wrong then. He considered it a gift of God’s grace, received in faith, not earned by anything we do.
I would ask; Why do animals suffer? They never sinned.
I think things happen “be Cause” they do. As I understand the Bible’s quote of Jesus( In John) he did not consider himself God any more than any other person.
IF Jesus was all God and all man it would have to be that God and humans are the same.
Monavis
Since we are looking at this from a human angle, tell me how love and it’s many intricacies equates with heavenly bliss. It hasn’t in my experience, but that doesn’t mean it’s not the greatest thing in the universe.
And the Christian God is not all-loving. I kept hearing that saying ‘God is Love’ all these years, and I always believed it was candy-coating his personality.
Spreading the mutation to other cells is not really relevant in cancer.
Cancer is caused by a series of mutations in a cell line that makes them divide more, and overrides the different security checks.