Questions for the pixelated poster who knows he'd be a more moral god than the One in Whom I believe, at least with regard to one and only one subject

The Pixie

Well-known member
So where is your evidence for your claim?
The evidence is that preventing suffering is morally superior to allowing it. If God is perfectly good, then all he does is morally superior.

What do you know of heaven? Where is your evidence?
This is what Christians tell me. See the post from stiggy above.

Are you claiming I am wrong? Of course not! As usual you argue by insinuation. I will ask you again:

Do you believe there is suffering in heaven? Do you believe there is death in heaven?

Every time you duck those questions you provide more evidence that you are wrong, and that you know you are wrong, but - as usual - your pride is too great for you to admit.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
So where is your evidence for your claim?

What do you know of heaven? Where is your evidence?

Hey pal you make claims, support them.

You keep blabbering about what Christianity and God teach, I figure you can support what you claim. Will you?

Will there be any sin or sorrow in heaven?
No! ...
The first change from their earthly life believers in heaven will experience is that God will wipe away every tear from their eyes (cf. Rev. 7:17, Isa. 25:8). ...
What it declares is the absence of anything to be sorry about—no sadness, no disappointment, no pain. There will be no tears of misfortune, tears over lost love, tears of remorse, tears of regret, tears over the death of loved ones, or tears for any other reason.
We know there is no sadness in Heaven: God "will wipe away every tear from their eyes" (Rev. 7:17).
 

Furion

Well-known member
The evidence is that preventing suffering is morally superior to allowing it.

Do you have any sort of proof for that?
Does a mass murderer need his suffering prevented?

This is what Christians tell me.

Are you claiming I am wrong?

So you are saying is what other christians tell you, every christian must defend.

Sorry, doesn't work that way. Prove it yourself, show your work.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
No. And .......? Speak up this time. There is no suffering in heaven, unless it includes vicarious suffering on behalf of people like you as we ponder your plight in hell.
I did not reply last time because there was nothing contentious in your post. Assuming it exists, of course there is no suffering there.

I am arguing with Furion who takes issue with that. He seems to be bac-pedalling now, but when I said there was no suffering in heaven, he claiming I was inventing Christian beliefs.

So thanks for supporting me, stiggy.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Do you have any sort of proof for that?
Do you think it is wrong? Do you have the courage of your convictions, Furion? Can you actually state what your position is here?

Is preventing suffering morally superior to allowing it?

If you are happy to go on record saying it is not, or that you do not know, or whatever your position is, I would be happy to discuss further - perhaps on another thread. But I have a suspicion this is just something you have thrown out to try to trip me up without you actually thinking it through.

Does a mass murderer need his suffering prevented?
I think mass murderers cause much more suffering than they suffer themselves, so the morally right thing to do is to stop the mass murderer. I appreciate they are cases where we have a choice between two options and both involve suffering. Sometimes life is complicated.

But this is about choosing to prevent suffering or just allowing it. Do you choose to prevent childhood cancer, or choose to allow it? Which is morally superior?

If you want to go on record saying you cannot decide, we can discuss further. To me, it seems pretty clear cut.

So you are saying is what other christians tell you, every christian must defend.
Are you saying there is suffering in heaven? Again, my suspicion is that this is just something you have throw out to try to trip me up, rather than because you actually believe it.

Is there suffering in heaven?

If you are prepared to go on record, state your position, and we can discuss. If you are not prepared to do that, I will again assume you agree with me.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
I did not reply last time because there was nothing contentious in your post. Assuming it exists, of course there is no suffering there.

I am arguing with Furion who takes issue with that.

And yet he didn't, as we see from your failure to provide a quote from him claiming people in heaven suffer.

He seems to be bac-pedalling now,

You use that term a lot. If you are going to be so trite as to repeat cliched buzz words all the time, even though you can't back them up, at least learn how to spell them correctly. It's "back-pedaling." One k, only one l.

So thanks for supporting me, stiggy.

I ain't your jock strap.
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
Is preventing suffering morally superior to allowing it?

This entirely depends on what your value system is.

The value system you present is obviously more sophisticated than just "all suffering is bad no matter what" if you feel some suffering is more important than others.
 

Furion

Well-known member
Do you think it is wrong?

The subject is you and your claims.i see you refuse to support them.

I can't "trip you up", I'm trying to see if you can coherently support your positions in scripture. You can flail about other things, I don't care.

I think mass murderers cause much more suffering than they suffer themselves, so the morally right thing to do is to stop the mass murderer.

So you don't care about all people's suffering, just the people you feel are deserving?

Your the guy trying to play God ya know.

In case you don't realize, you think you can do better than God. So be a big boy and answer questions. Else you should quit the whole atheist idea that you can do better than God, you can't even deal with a creatures questions.

If you had any sense and believed what you are actually saying, you'd quit asking childish questions like this:

Is there suffering in heaven?
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
This entirely depends on what your value system is.

The value system you present is obviously more sophisticated than just "all suffering is bad no matter what" if you feel some suffering is more important than others.
Can you give an example to illustrate?

To be clear, I am not talking about reducing suffering in one instance but increasing in another. Clearly that is more complex. What I am talking about is one or more individuals suffering, and you have the simple choice of simply stopping that suffering or allowing it to continue.

In what value system and what moral situation would it not be more moral to prevent the suffering?
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
The subject is you and your claims.i see you refuse to support them.
Because I think they are obviously true, and I think you actually agree that they are true, and that is why you refuse to state your position.

So you don't care about all people's suffering, just the people you feel are deserving?
Hmm, that sounds more like God, who send to hell those who are not deserving, and sends to heaven those who are.

Your the guy trying to play God ya know.
Do you really equate a discussion on morality with playing God?

In case you don't realize, you think you can do better than God.
Right. I would not torture billons in hell for rejecting me, for one thing.

So be a big boy and answer questions. Else you should quit the whole atheist idea that you can do better than God, you can't even deal with a creatures questions.
You demand that I answer your questions, and yet refuse to answer mine. Christian hypocrisy one again.

If you had any sense and believed what you are actually saying, you'd quit asking childish questions like this:
If you had the courage of your convictions, you would answer the question and we could move on.

The fact that you refuse to answer just supports my believe that actually you agree with much of what I say and your purpose here is just to jerk me around.

Here are those questions again:

Is preventing suffering morally superior to allowing it?

Is there suffering in heaven?
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
Can you give an example to illustrate?

To be clear, I am not talking about reducing suffering in one instance but increasing in another. Clearly that is more complex. What I am talking about is one or more individuals suffering, and you have the simple choice of simply stopping that suffering or allowing it to continue.

In what value system and what moral situation would it not be more moral to prevent the suffering?

Suffering is the crucible in which moral character and interpersonal bonds are formed. That's just the way it is. And that crucible operates in the milieu of TIME. Moral character cannot be instantaneously zapped into people. That's not the way it works. Now that's your cue to say, "Yeah, but if I were God, I'd make it work that way." If so, tell us how.
 

Furion

Well-known member
Because I think they are obviously true, and I think you actually agree that they are true, and that is why you refuse to state your position.


Hmm, that sounds more like God, who send to hell those who are not deserving, and sends to heaven those who are.


Do you really equate a discussion on morality with playing God?


Right. I would not torture billons in hell for rejecting me, for one thing.


You demand that I answer your questions, and yet refuse to answer mine. Christian hypocrisy one again.


If you had the courage of your convictions, you would answer the question and we could move on.

The fact that you refuse to answer just supports my believe that actually you agree with much of what I say and your purpose here is just to jerk me around.

Here are those questions again:

Is preventing suffering morally superior to allowing it?

Is there suffering in heaven?

This is an exercise in the development of claim support and you are failing.

Clearly your claims are merely sophistry of mendacity.

That you are too cowardly to admit you are superior to God in your view, I feel no compulsion to explore your views further since you have no actual basis for your beliefs.

Yours appears to be complaints about what you heard second hand from a stranga, not persuasive. Do your own homework, atheist.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Suffering is the crucible in which moral character and interpersonal bonds are formed. That's just the way it is. And that crucible operates in the milieu of TIME. Moral character cannot be instantaneously zapped into people. That's not the way it works. Now that's your cue to say, "Yeah, but if I were God, I'd make it work that way." If so, tell us how.
So God is not so all-powerful after all and cannot make us with a better moral character from the start? He is limited in his power if he cannot instantly zap moral character into us. He does write his laws in our hearts apparently, so he can zap some sort of moral character into us, just not that well it seems.

And why did so few kids have cancer if children getting cancer makes us so great?

No. And ............?
Yes, you know that and I know that. However, Furoin seems to kind of want to dispute it without actually saying there is suffering in heaven.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
This is an exercise in the development of claim support and you are failing.
No it is not. It is an exercise in how you are jerking me around. It is clear you do not disagree with me about heaven or about whether preventing suffering is morally superior to allowing it, given you refuse to state your position on either, and yet you still are demanding I prove both are so. I am not playing that game.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
So God is not so all-powerful after all and cannot make us with a better moral character from the start?

He can no more, for example, cultivate the time infused characteristic of patience nor the grounded-in-past-time feature of sweet memories WITHOUT His subjects passing through time, I say no more than He can make 1+1=3. He allows us to have a history, a history of free will drama. He apparently has no interest in creating your shallow cosmos of instantaneous robotic zapping. We love our children as we watch them GROW. So does He. If our kids were presented to us, fully grown with perfect dispositions, would we love them on anywhere near the level we do with our history of comforting them with band-aids for skinned knees and sweet talks on the advantages of overcoming diversity? You are a very shallow atheist, Pixie.

And why did so few kids have cancer if children getting cancer makes us so great?

Look around. We all have different stories. You, however, prefer Stepford wives, husbands and children. Yuck.
 
Top