Apr 26, 2012 -- 4:10PM, JCarlin wrote:

Apr 26, 2012 -- 3:25PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Apr 26, 2012 -- 3:20PM, JCarlin wrote:

Apr 26, 2012 -- 1:24PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

The point is, we might not be able to see the ultimate end of all the bad, terrible things in the world. The answer to "how could God allow that to happen?" in many instances might be... "Well, I don't know."

If God "allowed that to happen" there are but three choices, God is a sadist, God is incompetent, or God does not exist.  An assumption that there is an end that justifies atrocity is just not on the table. 

The evil in the world both large and small is a powerful argument that God does not exist.  Any other answers imply a God that is unworthy of worship. 

Apr 26, 2012 -- 3:25PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

False dilemma.

There are other possibilites.

Please enumerate a few.

Apr 26, 2012 -- 3:25PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

In other words, it assumes the world would have to be "perfect" -- according to how any of us might define that or wish it to be, in order for God to exist, or at not be a bumbler or a monster.

It would seem that a perfect, omnipotent God could at least make a decent world.  Although I don't understand why a perfect world is unreasonable to expect of a perfect God.  The promise of many religions is that God will provide a perfect eternity,  if God can do that why screw around with an imperfect world? 

Logically it follows that an imperfect world implies no God and no perfect eternity, so the intelligent species on the planet have to do their best to improve what we have while we are alive in the hope that those who will follow will at least have a better world to work with.

What makes you think we were not created to always strive toward -- if not perfection -- that at least a constantly rising standard of good?

Because that's exactly what I think. Some things, we might not ever change. Others... well, why limit ourselves? Why is "can't" even in our vocabulary?

Also, why do you assume a "perfect" eternity? What's that? Sitting around on a cloud, with essentially nothing to do? Why do you make such assumptions? You sound as if you've been hanging around Church too much. 

What about a continuing and never ending process of growth, trial and error, challenges to face, knowledge to gain, goals to strive for? What if "salvation" is a journey and a striving, rather than a static event, or a binary pass/fail. What if, ultimately, no soul is beyond redemption?

Because, again, that's exactly what I think.

Apr 26, 2012 -- 4:17PM, wohali wrote:

Mytmouse:

"Growth is not possible without barriers and trials."

Horsehocky.

I agree it is horsehocky. Those who believe life requires struggles, don't have any or many. Or they like to cause them for others.   IMHO

Apr 26, 2012 -- 4:18PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

What makes you think we were not created to always strive toward -- if not perfection -- that at least a constantly rising standard of good?

Other than the "created to" part, I would use "evolved to", it describes reality pretty well.  No God needed or indicated. 

Apr 26, 2012 -- 3:51PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Apr 26, 2012 -- 3:39PM, Sparky_Spotty wrote:

Apr 26, 2012 -- 3:25PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Apr 26, 2012 -- 3:20PM, JCarlin wrote:

Apr 26, 2012 -- 1:24PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

The point is, we might not be able to see the ultimate end of all the bad, terrible things in the world. The answer to "how could God allow that to happen?" in many instances might be... "Well, I don't know."

If God "allowed that to happen" there are but three choices, God is a sadist, God is incompetent, or God does not exist.  An assumption that there is an end that justifies atrocity is just not on the table. 

The evil in the world both large and small is a powerful argument that God does not exist.  Any other answers imply a God that is unworthy of worship. 

False delimma.

There are other possibilites. 

That's a weak, and ultimately irrational argument. 

In general principle, it reminds me of a small child thinking his parents are "mean" because when they take him into the store, they won't let him have everything he points at and wants. 

In other words, it assumes the world would have to be "perfect" -- according to how any of us might define that or wish it to be, in order for God to exist, or at not be a bumbler or a monster.

Pure nonsense. 

I'm eager to hear an explanation of how a 2 year old first child of young parents contracting cancer, suffering and dying servers a greater good.

I'm eager to hear why that kind of suffering is "necessary".

Are you looking for neatly-packaged answers?

You're not going to get them. Nor is there any good reason you should expect them.

Translation: it sounds like utter nonsense, but God exists and is loving, so,  it must be a good thing.  Circular reasoning.

Real compassion can't exist without real tragedy and grief.

But if there were no tragedy and grief, we wouldn't need compassion. 

Growth is not possible without barriers and trials.

Says who?

Will such tragedy inspire people to do small, but important things, like come to the comfort of the parents? Or also to great things -- like curing cancer?

It would be a whole lot better if the tragedy didn't happen in the first place.

Go ahead and ask that mother if the death of her child was 'worth it' for her emotional growth.

Or will we continue to turn away in apathy from the suffering of others? Will we continue to live, and think as if the world ends at our doorstep? Or will we learn to become "we" -- in the truest sense -- instead of "me and mine" or "us and them."

So some must suffer and die so that the remainder become better people?

Why.  Why doesn't god just make them better to start with. Any what about the person that suffered and died, how does he benefit? Oh he doesn't because he is DEAD.

Will the loss of one child perhaps cause the parents to appreciate their others all that more? What about other parents, will the tragedy not serve to make them more appreciative?

see above. Ask those parents if they'd rather have their child back instead.

Besides, is the child truly lost forever? 

Awaiting ANY evidence that he is not.

Does life here need to be "fair" in order to serve its greater purposes? Is there really a set time limit in which any soul in particular needs to accomplish its purpose here? What if we are just visitors here, and some have a shorter stay than others, but we all meet again?

This list, could go on forever.

Indeed, it probably does. 

Awaiting ANY evidence for the above wishful apologetic thingking,

Apr 26, 2012 -- 4:20PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

I don't get physically fit by sitting around on my arse. Why should spriritual/intellectual fitness be any different?

I get physically fit by planned and well executed exercise.  Spiritual/intellectual fitness is acquired by planned and well executed spiritual/intellectual exercise.  I learned neither from God or some little vuvuzela in the fancy dress in an over decorated balcony.