Why does God Permit....

Great Debates
121

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
I’b be curious to know what you think the concept of purgatory is? (I am not insisting that anyone accept that RC teaching, but I do find that many people who reject it do not even understand it.)
[/QUOTE]

I understand purgatory to be a temporary condition of punishment for sins you have been forgiven.

I reject it first on the practical issue that a temporary punishment is irrelevant to an eternity of Salvation. Be it minutes or eons, they are just a flash from the perspective of eternity.

Then I have a problem with a benevolent God wanting to punish someone for a sin He already forgave.

Also, there is no scriptural support for Purgatory. Certainly not from the mouth of Jesus. Indeed, I believe the parable of the labourers to be strong support for the contrary.

I believe Purgatory to be the creation of pious minds struggling with the notion of sharing equally a salvation with people they consider less deserving.

Still, in my analogy of the cookie jar, you could take the hesitation to seek forgiveness as a purgatory (in that you suffer for forgivable sins before Salvation) and the decision not to seek it as Hell, if you really needed to have a purgatory.

122

Actually, God’s punishment was never the prime focus of the idea of Purgatory. As expressed in earlier times, it was more akin to restitution and the acceptance of responsibility for one’s actions or sins. As expressed currently, it is generally expressed as the healing pain of a person who recognizes that he or she is not (yet) worthy to be in God’s presence–again, the acceptance of responsibility for one’s actions. Clearly, this is in conflict with any theology that views God’s forgiveness as the final word on the matter, of course.

There is a bit of a circular argument, there. Some of the ideas that led to a concept of Purgatory are found in the (murky) passage of Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15. However, much of it was derived from the concept that it was worthwhile to pray for those who have died, as noted in 2 Maccabees 12:39-45. It is true that some groups reject 2 Maccabees as not scriptural, but we find a bit of circular argumentation when we note that Martin Luther rejected that book as scripture because it made reference to praying for the dead. (I am aware that the issue of the Apocrypha is more complex than that, but his other arguments were pretty convenient to his theology.)
For that matter, Pauline “justification” is not found in any statement of Jesus (without bending Luke 18:14 into a pretzel), so the “mouth of Jesus” is hardly some solid litmus test for all Christian belief.

I’m not going to get into a knock down drag out battle over whether the RCC and Orthodox have a better claim than the Protestants, but I think that if one wishes to oppose any theology, one should oppose what is actually expressed and not a misunderstanding of it.

123

ok, I just dusted my Catechism and found the entry for purgatory (1030-1032). It doesn’t mention punishment at all (a good thing) but a “final purification”. The entry looks basically like an apology for the concept and minimizes it to the point where it looks like they just want it to be forgotten. It also openly admits the flimsiness of scriptural support for it. The summary of the section simply doesn’t mention it at all.

Purgatory is a historical relic of an outdated cosmology based on a very medieval and hierarchical view of Heaven. As it survives today, it is an attempt to impose a mechanism into what the Catechism itself sees as beyond all understanding and description.

I would be willing to bet that there are very few heavyweight Catholic theologians who would launch themselves in defense of Purgatory. It is still there in deference to tradition.

124

You are welcome to disagree with the position of the RCC. I just prefer that you disagree with its actual position rather than with a position that it does not even hold.

I’m pretty sure that you are mistaken regarding the position of theologians regarding Purgatory and I think you have put some spin on your views, here, but at least you are addressing the actual statements of the church and not some invented position.

125

[QUOTE=Sapo]

I don’t know that counting the dimensions of God makes more sense than arguing the colour of his beard. God is supernatural and not bound by our universe. As for Jesus, I have no idea how that happened. All I know is that Jesus (the flesh and blood dude) carried out the Will of God. More than that would be speculation (not that there is anything wrong with that)
[/QUOTE]

The last part first. ‘More then that would be speculation’, which in my experience, when man speculates about God, man is usually wrong, but we do it anyway, so…

So lets say that we live in 2d, instead of 3d, God exists in 3d. We to Him live on a flat surface, lets say a piece of paper. God can see everyone at a glance, though we ourselves can only see our closest other humans. God can ‘enact’ power anywhere in inexplicable ways, just by polking his pen into our paper, which to us creates this mystical void.

Now if God must become truly man, he would lose that broad view, and the ability to interact in that 3rd dimension, or else He would not be man.

Again that’s just speculation.

Amen

(and yes I was not referring to you personally)

I don’t expect any consolation in such a state, humans could be together, but unable to communicate with each other, or even perceive each other, but if they can I would wag that would make it worse, not better. My take on it is demons will be there also, being fallen angels their place is higher then man, and can make things worse for man.

Ok, I relate man’s fall to where we exist, outside the kingdom of God. Just like a rat who is born on a sinking ship that will never reach shore. The king of the land nation has absolutely no responsibility for the life of this rat, the ship captain, in this age of animal rights, may, but is unable to do anything because he is incapable. The rat will live out it’s life under it’s environment, and eventually drown. By accepting the land king as lord that land king will send out a helicopter rescue squad that will revive the rat and take it to the kingdom of the land nation.

To you is evil a ‘lack of good’, like dark is not anything in itself, but a lack of light. or cold is really nothing, but a lack of heat. (Heat and light are the real things, cold and dark is scientifically just a lack of the former).

126

[QUOTE=Sapo]
coursework schmoursework :slight_smile:
that too is passing. Salvation is eternal.
[/quote]
Ah, maybe so, but right at this moment in time life seems pretty damn relevant. So i’ll stick with the coursework, I think. :wink:

No worries.

So why do we need to grow up at all? I posit a universe in which we are all killed, let’s say, ten seconds after birth (clearly there’s problems here regarding conception, but let’s wave a wand and say “God sorts it out”). Our ten-second lives are just as reasonable as the 100 year old’s life - pretty much no time for any suffering to take place. That seems like a more benevolent solution.

You’re correct.

So someone in full acceptance of God would feel no pain? I, as an athiest, will experience harsher suffering in my life because I accept God less than you do?

Suffering is being forced into a situation you do not like. Pain can be suffering, if we don’t like it. Heat can be suffering, if we don’t like it. Sweetness is less likely to, but i’m sure there’s some amount of chocolate you could eat that would eventually make you unhappy about eating more.

God created everything, thus everything is good. But, no, wait, there’s some evil in the hearts of man. Who created man? Why, it’s God! God created the evil in our hearts, as he created everything else about us. He may support free will over that - and that’s fine - but that doesn’t people can pretend he’s not responsible for it.

God created the Earth, and thus has responsibility for at least a part of it, free will or no.

Wrong, he created us, who create suffering. If you want to be perfectly accurate, you could say that God created the conditions for suffering to take place in. He allows suffering to happen; without him, there would be no suffering. O

Must we? That choice is taken out of our hands?

And again, as an athiest, I suffer more than you. Yay me!

Since you’ve posted such a (what I would consider, anyway) “This is how the universe works, it’s certain, accept it” post, I shall do the same. Your God, who has created a system with inherent suffering, is an evil god. Your God who has created a system in which those who worship him suffer less than those who do not is a pompous god.

You know, I was going to end this with “Or, not. Because your God doesn’t exist, and never has”, just to try and copy your style of that last post of accepting one’s own views as gospel. And I looked at it for a bit. And i’ve decided that no, I won’t sink to that level.

So yes; perhaps you are right. I see no signs of it - and I believe that it is logically impossible - but your God might exist. If he does, I hope I have the wisdom to accept him. If not, I hope you have the wisdom to not. Either way, we’re both after the truth, so let’s focus on that.

127

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
So lets say that we live in 2d, instead of 3d, God exists in 3d. We to Him live on a flat surface, lets say a piece of paper. God can see everyone at a glance, though we ourselves can only see our closest other humans. God can ‘enact’ power anywhere in inexplicable ways, just by polking his pen into our paper, which to us creates this mystical void.

Now if God must become truly man, he would lose that broad view, and the ability to interact in that 3rd dimension, or else He would not be man.

[/QUOTE]

Yes, but that drawn Jesus would be drawn by the 3D Jesus who is still seeing the whole thing, wouldn’t it?. So yes, the 2D Jesus would be limited in that it cannot do 3D effects but it still acts in full awareness of the 3D world. The flattening of Jesus is more to our convenience than a limitation on it.

(and yes to all the rest of your post)

128

Revenant, I don’t mean my post to be verbum Dei. Best I can shoot for is internal consistency. The OP question is how can a benevolent God permit evil. I believe that it is not inconsistent that a benevolent God allows evil and I am trying to present a cosmology where a benevolent God and evil can coexist. The cosmology I offer is not kosher to any religion I know (although I do not believe it is irreconciliable with mainstream Christianity) and I don’t expect anyone to accept it but as long as it holds water then it is just as good as any other that does. Since I am the one defending the possibility of suffering under a benevolent God, I believe the argument should spin around my comology and I just wanted to make sure we all understood the basic premises are hanging our arguments on.

So, to the particulars:

God did not put evil in our hearts. He just gave us freedom to choose it. The fact that He created a universe where evil is allowed doesn’t make Him the source of evil. That freedom to be evil is fundamental for us to be moral. Without room in the universe for evil and our ability to choose it, we would be no different from rocks or plants. Without room for evil there is no point to our existence. Without God there would be no suffering because without Him there would be no us.

With suffering being an existencial condition, an atheist should have a much easier time handling it than a theist. There are no why’s and no what-for’s to answer. You just accept your pain as a consequence of the circumstances and carry on.

Please notice that “my” God has need for worship. Like rain that falls on the just and the unjust alike, He gives freely and all you have to do is either take the present or carry on without. Your choice, no trick questions.

As for why live life at all, why not die at birth without suffering or why not live entirely metaphysical lives, I do not know. How is physical life important to our inmortal selves? a mystery to me. I am inclined to think that our physical lives are a true reflection of our inmortal lives. That our inmortal selves have agreed to living this life of suffering. That in fullness of awareness, we have chosen to live the lives we live. But that is really out on a limb, even for me.

129

[QUOTE=Sapo]
Revenant, I don’t mean my post to be verbum Dei. Best I can shoot for is internal consistency. The OP question is how can a benevolent God permit evil. I believe that it is not inconsistent that a benevolent God allows evil and I am trying to present a cosmology where a benevolent God and evil can coexist. The cosmology I offer is not kosher to any religion I know (although I do not believe it is irreconciliable with mainstream Christianity) and I don’t expect anyone to accept it but as long as it holds water then it is just as good as any other that does. Since I am the one defending the possibility of suffering under a benevolent God, I believe the argument should spin around my comology and I just wanted to make sure we all understood the basic premises are hanging our arguments on.
[/quote]
That’s fair enough. It’s just annoying in that I try hard during these kind of debates to make sure i’m not discounting a religion, merely saying why I don’t think it exists. So when I talk to religious people (or athiests, in fact) who speak as if their view is certainly the way the universe works, it seems somewhat impolite.

Yes, it does. Why wouldn’t it? If I build a machine that creates oranges, that machine is the source of oranges, and I am the source of the machine. If I retain full control over the machine (and, as God is proposed to do, continuallly making the universe exist) then I am the source of oranges.

Except for the whole walking around thing, feeling emotions, creating a society, etc etc. I respect your point that the choice to do evil is important, but you can’t reduce us without it that much.

So what of those people who cannot chose evil? Is there no point to their existence?

We keep coming around on this point. Why can’t we just be born and live for ten seconds before we die, at which point God whisks us up to him and gives us the choice?

Well, as an athiest, I have to say there could easily be suffering without God. It only follows like that if you believe those two things about him.

Er, no. Athiests don’t just “deny” God and then get on with it. We think, too. We question our beliefs, too. There are certainly why’s and what-for’s to answer. And since we accept God less than a theist, we undergo more suffering.

I’m afraid that it is a trick question, in that I don’t see that it exists. Maybe after death. Not now.

Why does your God need worship? Was that meant to be a “doesn’t”?

Yes, it is. And this is what I don’t understand about faith. There are parts you guess at, and there are parts you feel you know. But then you have things like this, where you yourself admit that you’ve got no clue at all as to what’s going on - it all seems contradictory and strange, but you still believe. How on earth do you know the stuff that you are certain of is right? I just don’t get this kind of thing at all.

130

[QUOTE=Sapo]
Yes, but that drawn Jesus would be drawn by the 3D Jesus who is still seeing the whole thing, wouldn’t it?. So yes, the 2D Jesus would be limited in that it cannot do 3D effects but it still acts in full awareness of the 3D world. The flattening of Jesus is more to our convenience than a limitation on it.
[/QUOTE]

Perhaps, but why did Jesus have to draw himself into our 2d existence? Why not the Father? It seems like the whole thing was the Father’s idea:

[QUOTE=Luke 22:42]

(Jesus) saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
[/QUOTE]

Just because He is aware of the 3d (or multi-D) world, doesn’t mean he can perceive it while He was made man. The temptation of Satan in the desert seemed to indicate that Jesus is protected by angels while He was made man , one can assume that the angels can act in that 3d (or multi-D) realm - but a big problem with that, that would be taking the word of Satan. (Or from your POV, the view of the absents of God)

Either way the multi-dimension view of God is something that works for me, but as I stated above, once on makes theories about God, one usually has to rethink them as they learn more.

131

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

Yes, it does. Why wouldn’t it? If I build a machine that creates oranges, that machine is the source of oranges, and I am the source of the machine. If I retain full control over the machine (and, as God is proposed to do, continuallly making the universe exist) then I am the source of oranges.

[/QUOTE]

Are gun manufacturers responsible for the deaths of those killed with their guns? Would you be responsible for someone being pelted to death with oranges? God gives us the ability to choose, He is not responsible for the choices we make.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

Except for the whole walking around thing, feeling emotions, creating a society, etc etc. I respect your point that the choice to do evil is important, but you can’t reduce us without it that much.

[/QUOTE]

Chimps, dolphins and ants walk around, feel and create societies. Are they moral? Humans have a special place in creation under most theistic belief sets. That special place stems from the fact that they are moral beings. Co-participants of creation. Without an existential, transcendental ability to be moral, our morality is just a natural process different in degree but not in substance to other animals.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

So what of those people who cannot chose evil? Is there no point to their existence? We keep coming around on this point. Why can’t we just be born and live for ten seconds before we die, at which point God whisks us up to him and gives us the choice?

[/QUOTE]

The silly, obvious answer is that if we died at ten seconds then there would be no next generation (!).

But yes, Why be born at all? Why not make our choice for Salvation from our metaphysical existence? I don’t know. For some reason it is important. Otherwise it wouldn’t happen. We live, we suffer, therefore, it is necessary.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

Well, as an athiest, I have to say there could easily be suffering without God. It only follows like that if you believe those two things about him.

[/QUOTE]

Can there be real existential suffering for purely natural beings? It is true that animals feel pain but do they suffer? If your life starts at birth and ends at death, can you really ponder the implications of it? If at death you just cease to exist, do the conditions of that death really matter?

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

Er, no. Athiests don’t just “deny” God and then get on with it. We think, too. We question our beliefs, too. There are certainly why’s and what-for’s to answer. And since we accept God less than a theist, we undergo more suffering.

[/QUOTE]

How do you suffer more?

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

I’m afraid that it is a trick question, in that I don’t see that it exists. Maybe after death. Not now.

[/QUOTE]

Well, yeah. When it matters, you will see it. When your time comes to make the choice, you will make the choice will all cards on the table. That you went through life without seeing it is something that doesn’t diminish you in any way. God loves you just the same and will give you the same opportunity to embrace Salvation. It will all hinge on your personal choice made in full awareness.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

Why does your God need worship? Was that meant to be a “doesn’t”?

[/QUOTE]

:smack: yes, that was meant to be a “doesn’t”, of course.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

Yes, it is. And this is what I don’t understand about faith. There are parts you guess at, and there are parts you feel you know. But then you have things like this, where you yourself admit that you’ve got no clue at all as to what’s going on - it all seems contradictory and strange, but you still believe. How on earth do you know the stuff that you are certain of is right? I just don’t get this kind of thing at all.
[/QUOTE]

That God exists is something I feel in a way as certain and unexplainable as I know that my wife loves me. It is not what she does to prove it, I just know it.

What I think of God is more of an intellectual process. As with all intellectual processes, I stumble in some parts and struggle to understand the parts that are not self-evident. Just as a consequence of this discussion with you, my thoughts about God have evolved and they will continue to evolve for as long as I can be bothered to give it some thought.

Reaching final, true conclusions is something beyond my human abililities. Truth will remain as unattainable as the long term goals athletes set for themselves. In due time God will give me understanding.

132

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Perhaps, but why did Jesus have to draw himself into our 2d existence? Why not the Father? It seems like the whole thing was the Father’s idea:
[/QUOTE]

Sure, why not?. No difference. I kinda prefer it if it is Jesus in charge of his own life, but there is no reason why it couldn’t be the Father.

[QUOTE=kanicbird]

Just because He is aware of the 3d (or multi-D) world, doesn’t mean he can perceive it while He was made man. The temptation of Satan in the desert seemed to indicate that Jesus is protected by angels while He was made man , one can assume that the angels can act in that 3d (or multi-D) realm - but a big problem with that, that would be taking the word of Satan. (Or from your POV, the view of the absents of God)

[/QUOTE]

Ok, you lost me here. It is late and I am tired. I will revisit this in the morning but if you see this before then, some help would be welcome.

133

[QUOTE=Sapo]
Ok, you lost me here. It is late and I am tired. I will revisit this in the morning but if you see this before then, some help would be welcome.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTEMatthew 4:6]

and (Satan) saith unto him, If thou art the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and, On their hands they shall bear thee up, Lest haply thou dash thy foot against a stone.
[/QUOTE]

Which cross references Psalms 91:11. Here is seems like if Jesus took the challenge of Satan, his ‘protection’ would not come from Him being God, but by angels given to duty of protecting Jesus. It would seem that Jesus as man/God has lost some of His ‘God powers’ when He became man, which makes sense, because if He is to become man, He should do it all the way.

Taking this back to the dimension aspect, Jesus, being fully man would have no way in himself to access these other dimensions, well without violating the will of the Father IMHO, which is not going to happen. He would have to depend on the help of the other 2 faces of God and His servants for such ‘powers’ and revelations (used in the generic sense here).

134

[QUOTE=Sapo]
Are gun manufacturers responsible for the deaths of those killed with their guns? Would you be responsible for someone being pelted to death with oranges? God gives us the ability to choose, He is not responsible for the choices we make.
[/quote]
No, gun manufacturers or orange growers aren’t responsible, but that’s because they don’t introduce the ability to kill, merely one way of doing it. If I want to kill someone, and I can’t buy a gun, there are other methods I could use. But if the only way to kill someone was by using a gun, and someone sold one to me, yes, i’d consider them partially responsible. They’ve provided the means for me to be able to kill someone. Just as God provides the means for us to kill.

In what way? You’re assuming an objective morality again. If I can rephrase your question to “Do these animals have a capacity to understand morality?” I would say possibly for chimps, I don’t know enough about dolphins to say, and unlikely for ants. Humans

I agree.

Let’s wave the God wand and say he makes it so, to avoid complication. :wink:

That seems to be arguing from your actual position. You shouldn’t start with the idea that God exists and then argue on top of that.

I would say some animals do suffer, yes.

Can you ponder the implications of it? Well, I kinda resent the implication that under my worldview we’re all foolish creatures who can’t begin to even think about philosophy, but yes, I’d say we can do so. If you cease to exist at death, yes, the conditions of that death matter. I do not believe in any gods, but I have my own morality. I care about people, and things. I am an emotional being; I fear death, and my ceasing to exist. From a logical point, that’s stupid; if I cease to exist, I won’t be there to be scared. But I ponder these things, and I see no reason why a world with no God would be unable to.

You said that suffering stems from a non-acceptance of God. Athiests do not believe god exists; in some cases, they may even deny the possibility altogether (that’s not me, by the way). Thus, they are less accepting of God than a theist, and so suffer more. By this logic, an athiest suffers most, then theists of other faiths, and finally adherents of the “true” religion, who suffer least for their acceptance of God.

My point was that during life I cannot choose to accept God. During life, that choice isn’t open to me. I can’t do it any more than I can choose to fly. It’s just not within my power. After death, maybe. But not now.

No worries. If it’s any consolation, I don’t think an omnimax God has any need for worship either. :wink:

But she does do things to prove it. I’m sorry to use this argument, and I really mean no offense, but if she for some reason acted as if she didn’t love you, if she walked out with all her things and divorced you and so on, would you still be as sure she loved you? God isn’t like that, because in the end belief in God does seem to just depend on believing in your “heart” that God exists, despite evidence that that isn’t so. I have nothing against that, of course, only against your idea that knowing something is so is enough to say it is so.

But it’s all from the starting point of “God exists”. You’re looking at the world through skewed eyes; you should be taking a more impartial approach, at least in terms of your intellectual process.

If your understanding can never get to 100%, how do you know what you think you do is right? You know that God is all-loving, but you can’t know that for certain. You know that God is omnipotent, but again, your understanding is lacking, so he could easily not be. Note that i’m not arguing he doesn’t exist, here, just that your understanding of his true existence is flawed.

135

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Which cross references Psalms 91:11. Here is seems like if Jesus took the challenge of Satan, his ‘protection’ would not come from Him being God, but by angels given to duty of protecting Jesus. It would seem that Jesus as man/God has lost some of His ‘God powers’ when He became man, which makes sense, because if He is to become man, He should do it all the way.

Taking this back to the dimension aspect, Jesus, being fully man would have no way in himself to access these other dimensions, well without violating the will of the Father IMHO, which is not going to happen. He would have to depend on the help of the other 2 faces of God and His servants for such ‘powers’ and revelations (used in the generic sense here).
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I see no objection to it. Our 2D Jesus would have limitations. He is after all, a human body living by human standards. Again, what I find important about Jesus is that he acted the Will of God. The mechanisms for that happening are not particularly relevant to my belief in him. Actually, in my cosmology where we have all created a deterministic universe where we play out our moral choices (i.e. Judgement doesn’t happen after mortal life), it is perfectly valid for Jesus to be all God and all human at the same time. The man Jesus is simply God’s move in our Universe

136

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
No, gun manufacturers or orange growers aren’t responsible, but that’s because they don’t introduce the ability to kill, merely one way of doing it. If I want to kill someone, and I can’t buy a gun, there are other methods I could use. But if the only way to kill someone was by using a gun, and someone sold one to me, yes, i’d consider them partially responsible. They’ve provided the means for me to be able to kill someone. Just as God provides the means for us to kill.
[/QUOTE]

Well, gun manufacturers don’t provide you with a way to kill, they provide you with a way to put a projectile in motion. You choose to use it to kill, you could just as easily use it only for target practice, hunting, self-defense or any other legal use that is no murdering your fellow men.

Think of a car for a better example. You can drive a car down the sidewalk and run over a hundred people but that is not what the car was built to do. The car manufacturer is not responsible for those deaths.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

In what way? You’re assuming an objective morality again. If I can rephrase your question to “Do these animals have a capacity to understand morality?” I would say possibly for chimps, I don’t know enough about dolphins to say, and unlikely for ants.

…

I would say some animals do suffer, yes.

Can you ponder the implications of it? Well, I kinda resent the implication that under my worldview we’re all foolish creatures who can’t begin to even think about philosophy, but yes, I’d say we can do so. If you cease to exist at death, yes, the conditions of that death matter. I do not believe in any gods, but I have my own morality. I care about people, and things. I am an emotional being; I fear death, and my ceasing to exist. From a logical point, that’s stupid; if I cease to exist, I won’t be there to be scared. But I ponder these things, and I see no reason why a world with no God would be unable to.
[/QUOTE]

I know this is an unpopular view but in what way are your feelings, sufferings and morals different from those of animals? Your thought processes can be more complex than theirs but they are fundamentally the same.

If you (humanely) amputate a dog’s leg, the dog is aware of its loss but carries on as best as it can without that leg. Humans do the exact same. In the face of all suffering, they carry on the best they can. Even if they are overwhelmed and go mental, they continue to live. And if they decide to end their own lives, they are capable of carrying it out. Suffering is not a show stopper, it is just part of life.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

You said that suffering stems from a non-acceptance of God. Athiests do not believe god exists; in some cases, they may even deny the possibility altogether (that’s not me, by the way). Thus, they are less accepting of God than a theist, and so suffer more. By this logic, an athiest suffers most, then theists of other faiths, and finally adherents of the “true” religion, who suffer least for their acceptance of God.
[/QUOTE]

How can you suffer the non-acceptance of something that doesn’t exist? A theist suffers because he cannot accept that his pain comes from God’s love. An atheist has no such problem. For him, suffering comes as part of the package deal of life and that’s that.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

My point was that during life I cannot choose to accept God. During life, that choice isn’t open to me. I can’t do it any more than I can choose to fly. It’s just not within my power. After death, maybe. But not now.
[/QUOTE]

Yes. That’s fine. In Judgement you will see God and chose to accept Him or not. In life, your ignorance of God is not a burden on you.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

But she does do things to prove it. I’m sorry to use this argument, and I really mean no offense, but if she for some reason acted as if she didn’t love you, if she walked out with all her things and divorced you and so on, would you still be as sure she loved you? God isn’t like that, because in the end belief in God does seem to just depend on believing in your “heart” that God exists, despite evidence that that isn’t so. I have nothing against that, of course, only against your idea that knowing something is so is enough to say it is so.
[/QUOTE]

Her leaving and divorcing me would be irrefutable proof that she does NOT love me and therefore I would need no faith to believe she loves me. In absence of such, I believe. Even if faced with facts I cannot understand. If she fails an appointment, burns my birthday cake, makes a crazy financial decision without consulting me or whatever, I will struggle to reconcile that with my belief that she loves me until I can make it fit or get a satisfactory explanation of why that fault happened. That explanation will not be proof that she loves me, just make the fault not be proof of her not loving me.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

But it’s all from the starting point of “God exists”. You’re looking at the world through skewed eyes; you should be taking a more impartial approach, at least in terms of your intellectual process.

If your understanding can never get to 100%, how do you know what you think you do is right? You know that God is all-loving, but you can’t know that for certain. You know that God is omnipotent, but again, your understanding is lacking, so he could easily not be. Note that i’m not arguing he doesn’t exist, here, just that your understanding of his true existence is flawed.
[/QUOTE]

We all start from some set of core beliefs. Call them axioms or dogma they are just as unprovable. Based on those and my observations of the world, I come up with theories and try to make sense of it all.

Think of gravitation. We don’t have a watertight mechanism for how it works at its most basic level but we have a very good understanding of its effects and use them for everything from walking to playing ball to sending objects to space. Not only that, but even with its gaps, our understanding of it is good enough to pin very sophisticated theories around it. Not knowing the bottom of it is no impediment to thinking about it. Our empirical knowledge of it is sufficient base to build thought around it.

My only addition to what you believe is that God exists (“God is”, really). Something I take from personal experience and am as prepared to defend and justify as you are prepared to defend and justify that two parallel lines meet in infinity (exactly). Everything else I believe about God other than His existence is a product of my thought processes. Imperfect and flawed but correct to the best of my abilities and open to refinement as all other theories.