Atheodicy: What does the Bible and Dylan have to say?

[stiggy wiggy]

The CARM atheist's favorite way to virtue signal, to show that HE is more compassionate than the God he doesn't believe exists, is to go on and on about kids who die of cancer. Never mind the atheist's inability when pressed, to determine just what deaths he WOULD allow this God whom he doesn't believe exists to allow, he just insists that kids are off limits. What does the Bible say about it?

"Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints."

And who is more saintly than a child?

Sure, you say. Maybe a child IS welcome with open arms to heavenly glory where all tears are wiped away. But what about the parents who are left grieving and may have to possibly wait years before seeing their loved one? Well, that old Christian troubadour Bob Dylan might shed a little light on that question:

"Strange how people who suffer together
Have stronger connections than people who
Are most content."

I know that has proved to be the case with my wife and I and our two boys when cancer took her to glory.

 

[Dizerner]

I don't think it's really easy to see why God allows evil.

But the important point is, a humble mind would allow the possibility for a reason.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

What about children who reject God? They die a long, scary death, perhaps lasting years, they burn in a lake of fire for eternity.

Dang, no wonder you hate the God you don't believe exists.

Is the sight of that precious to God?

Why does God find the death of a child so precious? If a man or woman said they found the sight of a child dying to be precious, we would think he or she is a sadistic psychopath.

How many psychopaths do you know who can create a child and resurrect him or her to glory?

 

[Eightcrackers]

I don't think it's really easy to see why God allows evil.

But the important point is, a humble mind would allow the possibility for a reason.

My question is, why does he get the benefit of the doubt from you, when a human acting in the same way would be condemned?

 

[Dizerner]

My question is, why does he get the benefit of the doubt from you, when a human acting in the same way would be condemned?

Because God and a humans are qualitatively different in their fundamental value and importance.

Putting human beings in the place of God is trying to make a source out of a derivative.

We call it idolatry, putting something in God's unique place of value.

No human being anywhere is a source of all that exists, and the parent analogy fails completely.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

My question is, why does he get the benefit of the doubt from you, when a human acting in the same way would be condemned?

No human can create a child from scratch and resurrect him or her to glory.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Because God and a humans are qualitatively different in their fundamental value and importance.

Different in what way?

No human being anywhere is a source of all that exists, and the parent analogy fails completely.

Why does "the source of all existence" have the moral right to do literally anything he wants?

In a god-less universe, your parents are the source of your existence - would you cede them that same moral right over you?

 

[The Pixie]

Dang, no wonder you hate the God you don't believe exists.

I do not hate him. This is the reason I reject Christianity - it is not coherent.

When we get into these discussions you get backed into make claims that are farcical. On the other thread, your position is that God lets kids die of cancer because of the joy it brings. Now here you are saying the sight of a child dying of cancer is precious to God; that is, presumably, that God enjoys it when a child dies of cancer.

When Christianity is reduced to nonsense claims like that, it is pretty much disproving itself.

How many psychopaths do you know who can create a child and resurrect him or her to glory?

None. Are you saying that if God can do that, then he is not a psychopath? That is is okay for him to let a child die of cancer and then throw the kid's soul into a lake of fire as punishment for rejecting God?

Is it basically might is right? Are you saying God is all-powerful so when he tortures it is morally right, or is there more to it than that?

You did not answer my earlier question. Is the sight of a child dying of cancer, and then burning in a lake of fire precious to God?

 

[Furion]

My question is, why does he get the benefit of the doubt from you, when a human acting in the same way would be condemned?

You want people to believe you and dizerner, give you the benefit of doubt.

Interesting.

I don't condemn you, and I'll listen to your rants. I'll probably laugh, but I'll listen.

What were your complaints again?

 

[The Pixie]

Because God and a humans are qualitatively different in their fundamental value and importance.

Putting human beings in the place of God is trying to make a source out of a derivative.

We call it idolatry, putting something in God's unique place of value.

No human being anywhere is a source of all that exists, and the parent analogy fails completely.

Are you saying that would be morally right if God chose to torture children? Or is God under same morals as the rest of us?

 

[stiggy wiggy]

On the other thread, your position is that God lets kids die of cancer because of the joy it brings.

It can, yes. I gave a personal example of how an adult getting cancer did just that.

Now here you are saying the sight of a child dying of cancer is precious to God; that is, presumably, that God enjoys it when a child dies of cancer.

He enjoys welcoming them into their eternal home. So do the angels.

When Christianity is reduced to nonsense claims like that, it is pretty much disproving itself.

Itt's the very antithesis of nonsense. Dwelling with Jesus Christ in our heavenly abode will be sublime glory.

None. Are you saying that if God can do that, then he is not a psychopath?

Correct. But I would change that "if" to "since."

That is is okay for him to let a child die of cancer and then throw the kid's soul into a lake of fire as punishment for rejecting God?

Prove children get thrown into a lake of fire.

Is it basically might is right? Are you saying God is all-powerful so when he tortures ...........

When would that be? Provide scripture. I would not suggest you copy Matthew 25 again, unless you want me to rip you yet another new one.

You did not answer my earlier question. Is the sight of a child dying of cancer, and then burning in a lake of fire precious to God?

No, neither is your lying about Him.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

The issue is not about whether cancer can bring joy. The issue is whether God lets children die of cancer because of the joy it brings.

Wrong. That's YOUR "issue." I don't have one. I'm just pointing out that in my case that due to cancer, joy was brought into my household. Do you disagree with the Bob Dylan quote?

And does that make it okay to allow the child to die of cancer?

Everything God does or allows is okay with me.

What about non-Christian children? He throws them into a lake of fire for eternity (Mat 25:41-46).

Prove it.

The fact that you think the sight of a child dying of cancer is precious to God is "the very antithesis of nonsense" is, to be frank, pretty disturbing.

So you are disturbed. So what? Your snowflakiness does not alter God's joy in welcoming a child to glory.

If you can forget about the billions he is torturing.

Prove He's torturing even one.

But the Bible certainly says that (Mat 25:41-46).

Mod Edit

 

[Howie]

My question is, why does he get the benefit of the doubt from you, when a human acting in the same way would be condemned?

"How many humans do you know who can create a child and resurrect him or her to glory?"

 

[Howie]

Different in what way?

Why does "the source of all existence" have the moral right to do literally anything he wants?

In a god-less universe, your parents are the source of your existence - would you cede them that same moral right over you?

We're not a godless universe. Read the scripture ... "In the beginning, God ..."

 

[mikeT]

My question is, why does he get the benefit of the doubt from you, when a human acting in the same way would be condemned?

Because God and a humans are qualitatively different in their fundamental value and importance.

Putting human beings in the place of God is trying to make a source out of a derivative.

We call it idolatry, putting something in God's unique place of value.

No human being anywhere is a source of all that exists, and the parent analogy fails completely.

I don't think this adequately answers the question. It IS an answer, yes, but it produces a new question:

Why should the fact that humans are not God explain why the same moral standards can/should not apply to both?

 

[Electric Skeptic]

I don't think it's really easy to see why God allows evil.

But the important point is, a humble mind would allow the possibility for a reason.

Not when there can be no rational reason.

 

[5wize]

I don't think it's really easy to see why God allows evil.

True.

But the important point is, a humble mind would allow the possibility for a reason.

Why isn't it just as important in light of the above to consider that the answer is that God does not exist? Makes more sense doesn't it?