Pope Benedict stumped by Japanese girl's question about suffering - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Waals Vander;29383631]what if japan is nothing compared to the earthquake god saved africa from[/QUOTE] Well since hes all powerful he should be doing both. Also if there was supposed to be an earth quake that big and it was magically stopped I think we would see some strange change in plate tectonics.

im just trying to say, and this sort of contradicts what i said about free will, but if you dont believe in that maybe youll believe that everything has a meaning -- sure people dying seems horrible, but down the line it has a greater meaning that perhaps we wont even see. and, this sounds awful, but i dont think death is that big of a deal to god. the afterlife is the real deal.

I don't really see what relevance free will has to natural disaster. God in all of his omnipotence could have made a world with free will and without earthquakes. Personally I don't believe in objective benevolence so the whole problem of evil doesn't bare any relevance to my metaphysical beliefs. But then, neither does the idea of omnibenevolence. [editline]23rd April 2011[/editline] God could have created a universe without plate tectonics. boom. disasters averted.

[QUOTE=Robbobin;29383808]I don't really see what relevance free will has to natural disaster. God in all of his omnipotence could have made a world with free will and without earthquakes. Personally I don't believe in objective benevolence so the whole problem of evil doesn't bare any relevance to my metaphysical beliefs. But then, neither does the idea of omnibenevolence.[/QUOTE] you use a lot of big words. if there wasnt evil how would we know what good is?

[QUOTE=Waals Vander;29383834]you use a lot of big words. if there wasnt evil how would we know what good is?[/QUOTE] we don't.

[img]http://s2.subirimagenes.com/fotos/6098815americanstupidity.jpg[/img]

reading the article i have to admit the pope does a good job answering these questions

[QUOTE=Waals Vander;29383834]you use a lot of big words. if there wasnt evil how would we know what good is?[/QUOTE] the lesser of two evils is still an evil. and I'm fairly certain a omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and perfect being could easily educate people on what good is in the absence of evil. suffering doesn't justify shit if you're all powerful and perfect nor does the existence of an afterlife justify the suffering of the innocent. an omnipotent and perfect being does not require suffering to offer salvation.

[QUOTE=Robbobin;29383808]I don't really see what relevance free will has to natural disaster. God in all of his omnipotence could have made a world with free will and without earthquakes. Personally I don't believe in objective benevolence so the whole problem of evil doesn't bare any relevance to my metaphysical beliefs. But then, neither does the idea of omnibenevolence. [editline]23rd April 2011[/editline] God could have created a universe without plate tectonics. boom. disasters averted.[/QUOTE] I think the point is, that if god is actually omnipotent then free will can't exist, as god will know the future. So if god is omnipotent, then it chose to torture these people. If free will exists, then god isn't omnipotent.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;29384501]the lesser of two evils is still an evil. and I'm fairly certain a omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and perfect being could easily educate people on what good is in the absence of evil. suffering doesn't justify shit if you're all powerful and perfect nor does the existence of an afterlife justify the suffering of the innocent. an omnipotent and perfect being does not require suffering to offer salvation.[/QUOTE] thats very true, however, salvation comes from loving god freely -- love is the basis of christianity. if someone was forced to love god, it wouldnt really be worth much to god... if there was an absence of evil there would be no point in earth because a place where there is no evil is heaven. if you dont want to live in the presence of suffering and evil anymore, then you should follow jesus and go to heaven so for the rest of eternity you may live in an absence of evil and pain. i cannot give a solid reason why god created earth and mankind, you will just have to accept that he did it out of loneliness and boredom. [editline]23rd April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Gaza Pen Pal;29384917]I think the point is, that if god is actually omnipotent then free will can't exist, as god will know the future. So if god is omnipotent, then it chose to torture these people. If free will exists, then god isn't omnipotent.[/QUOTE] not necessarily true. god knows your future, but you can change it. see above.

[QUOTE=Waals Vander;29384990]thats very true, however, salvation comes from loving god freely -- love is the basis of christianity. if someone was forced to love god, it wouldnt really be worth much to god... if there was an absence of evil there would be no point in earth because a place where there is no evil is heaven. if you dont want to live in the presence of suffering and evil anymore, then you should follow jesus and go to heaven so for the rest of eternity you may live in an absence of evil and pain. i cannot give a solid reason why god created earth and mankind, you will just have to accept that he did it out of loneliness and boredom. [editline]23rd April 2011[/editline] not necessarily true. god knows your future, but you can change it. see above.[/QUOTE] The question you then need to be asking is why does God need that love? There are multiple stages in a kid's life where he/she may resent his/her parents, and yet the parents don't then stop caring about them, or stop helping them. The love is unconditional. If God was perfect, then I imagine as a prerequisite of such, he'd need to love unconditionally, and if he does that, then there can't be a hell. It also follows that he would find it unacceptable for us to suffer, to stand back and watch. Another question you need to ask is even if there is evil in Earth, does that really give it a point? From the looks of it, it doesn't, it's a sort of stepping stone into the afterlife, where the actions you commit in a universe which is essentially skewed in favour of evil, one of suffering and inequality where the righteous are often unfortunate, and the corrupt prosper, filter you into some sort of meaningless grouping. It doesn't seem to serve a purpose.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;29385086]The question you then need to be asking is why does God need that love? There are multiple stages in a kid's life where he/she may resent his/her parents, and yet the parents don't then stop caring about them, or stop helping them. The love is unconditional. If God was perfect, then I imagine as a prerequisite of such, he'd need to love unconditionally, and if he does that, then there can't be a hell. It also follows that he would find it unacceptable for us to suffer, to stand back and watch. Another question you need to ask is even if there is evil in Earth, does that really give it a point? From the looks of it, it doesn't, it's a sort of stepping stone into the afterlife, where the actions you commit in a universe which is essentially skewed in favour of evil, one of suffering and inequality where the righteous are often unfortunate, and the corrupt prosper. It doesn't seem to serve a purpose.[/QUOTE] i dont believe that god does need love. i believe he created man out of boredom. certainly its something he desires, but could survive without. i still believe that evil is one of the necessities in fully understanding good and achieving "free-will" i also believe that the good prosper in the end, whether thats the overcoming of evil or getting into heaven etc. however your question of loving unconditionally and there still being a hell is interesting. ive often wondered how many christians can believe the only path to heaven is through jesus and yet those who have never heard of jesus are forced into hell. i have simply chosen to believe that god is an understanding god and does not so easily condemn the nonbelievers.

[QUOTE=Waals Vander;29385192]i dont believe that god does need love. i believe he created man out of boredom. certainly its something he desires, but could survive without. i still believe that evil is one of the necessities in fully understanding good and achieving "free-will" i also believe that the good prosper in the end, whether thats the overcoming of evil or getting into heaven etc. however your question of loving unconditionally and there still being a hell is interesting. ive often wondered how many christians can believe the only path to heaven is through jesus and yet those who have never heard of jesus are forced into hell. i have simply chosen to believe that god is an understanding god and does not so easily condemn the nonbelievers.[/QUOTE] It's honestly the most conflicting areas of Christian belief. On the one hand you have people who believe that if you are good, you will be saved. On the other, you have people that believe you have to accept Jesus as the Son of God etc to be saved. And on a third hand, you have people who believe that you will be saved no matter what. It all depends on the type of God you want, and most Christians aren't sure of what that is. I've always taken Dostoyevsky's approach from 'the brothers karamazov'. Certainly worth a look into. Boiled down to basics, its essentially that it would have been better for the universe to have never been created, than for one child to suffer. It's also one of the reasons the pope in the news article had to answer with "We don't know". Child suffering doesn't gel well with Christian belief at all.

[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;29385479]The idea that god does shun all non believers to hell is preposterous. Think of the American Indians. In the year 50 or so, they would never have heard of Jesus. But by Cristian logic, they are going to hell. Thus proving either the christian god is either malevolent, doesn't exist, or is not what they believe.[/QUOTE] Actually I think in some Christian belief, those who were never given a chance to accept God or learn about Christianity, go into Limbo.

[QUOTE=joes33431;29383135]people who say that jesus was not a real person are just plain retarded. people who say that jesus was not a zombie, and did not become anyone's "savior"; they'd be true in saying so. for fucks sake they found his death record theres been several documentaries fuck[/QUOTE] It's not a certain thing, one could say that the death record was falsified, it's not like it's hard to do anyway.

[QUOTE=Waals Vander;29383238]im sort of surprised by the pope's answer. my guess is he isn't exactly a believer in god-given free will. now by free will i mean this: god knows your path but just because he knows you and how you behave. if you were to change your behavior, gods view of your future might change. the reason that people suffer in this world is because [B]god gave us free will[/B]. would any of you really want god to intervene with your life? then one of the purposes of jesus would be diminished -- [B]that one must love god freely and not be forced.[/B][/QUOTE] I've said it before and I will say it again: "Worship and love me or burn for eternity" isn't free will and is most definitely forced love.

Jesus probably existed, and was probably just a super chill guy. By the time events were recorded though, they were probably exaggerated.

[QUOTE=Variant;29385733]I've said it before and I will say it again: "Worship and love me or burn for eternity" isn't free will and is most definitely forced love.[/QUOTE] okay but man can still choose whether or not to worship god, they just have to suffer the consequences. were discussing being physically forced, not indirectly.

[QUOTE=Waals Vander;29386330]okay but man can still choose whether or not to worship god, they just have to suffer the consequences. were discussing being physically forced, not indirectly.[/QUOTE] punishing someone for not believing in you is just horrible and If I put a gun to your head and told you to do something you would call that force.

Stuff like this is why I'm a Deist.

[QUOTE=Waals Vander;29386330]okay but man can still choose whether or not to worship god, they just have to suffer the consequences. were discussing being physically forced, not indirectly.[/QUOTE] They may be choices, but they aren't your choices. You are pushed into the one that sounds the least harmful, which would be the most obvious one to choose. You are given an ultimatum, not free will.

[QUOTE=BenJammin';29377510]But jesus wasn't a real person[/QUOTE] Either way, so far things suggest someone got crucified for saying he knows God and he wants everyone to be all loving, or so. You can get killed for less than that. So it's not like we are any better off without Jesus.

Jesus. Was. A real. Person. And why would romans, people who were specifically atheist, falsify Jesus's death record? That's like saying that the state of Hawaii faked the birth certificate of Barack Obama somehow knowing that he would grow up to be the president of the United States. Not only that, but why would people make up the existence of Jesus? The development of Christianity was certainly within the time period Jesus has been said to live. For those reasons, it's logically impossible to think that people would have actually believed in the religion had the man never been seen in the public eye. You guys talk of Christianity like it's some recent development, like a whole bunch of crazy asses got together in some evil conspiracy to write hundreds of pages of events that never happened, people that never lived, and accounts which were entirely made up. As if Christianity had only been invented by con artists a few centuries ago for whatever stupid reason you can make up. The fact is, you people try to make consistent arguments against Christianity in particular, and fail to do so because of an utter lack of knowledge on the subject. I'd gladly write you a giant post about what the Christian theology is in a handbasket, if it's so insurmountably difficult to wrap your head around through the use of any sort of source other than the word of mouth. Absolutely ludicrous is what that sort of thinking is. waiting for a thousand boxes

Is the pope's first name Eggs?

[QUOTE=joes33431;29392423]Not only that, but why would people make up the existence of Jesus? The development of Christianity was certainly within the time period Jesus has been said to live. For those reasons, it's logically impossible to think that people would have actually believed in the religion had the man never been seen in the public eye.[/QUOTE] There are a few theories one being that he was based on older prophets that did practically the same things he did before he did. There are some who believe that it could even be based on old egyptian religions because they also had many uncanny similarities to jesus way before he was said to have existed.

[QUOTE=Waals Vander;29386330]okay but man can still choose whether or not to worship god, they just have to suffer the consequences. were discussing being physically forced, not indirectly.[/QUOTE] Coercion is still forcing people to do something. [editline]23rd April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=joes33431;29392423]Jesus. Was. A real. Person. And why would romans, people who were specifically atheist, falsify Jesus's death record? That's like saying that the state of Hawaii faked the birth certificate of Barack Obama somehow knowing that he would grow up to be the president of the United States. Not only that, but why would people make up the existence of Jesus? The development of Christianity was certainly within the time period Jesus has been said to live. For those reasons, it's logically impossible to think that people would have actually believed in the religion had the man never been seen in the public eye. You guys talk of Christianity like it's some recent development, like a whole bunch of crazy asses got together in some evil conspiracy to write hundreds of pages of events that never happened, people that never lived, and accounts which were entirely made up. As if Christianity had only been invented by con artists a few centuries ago for whatever stupid reason you can make up. The fact is, you people try to make consistent arguments against Christianity in particular, and fail to do so because of an utter lack of knowledge on the subject. I'd gladly write you a giant post about what the Christian theology is in a handbasket, if it's so insurmountably difficult to wrap your head around through the use of any sort of source other than the word of mouth. Absolutely ludicrous is what that sort of thinking is. waiting for a thousand boxes[/QUOTE] There's 4 known historians that record Jesus in the area. 3 of them mention him in passing and give him no relevance and don't even give him the name "Jesus Christ". 1 of them is a falsified account by a christian historian. The roman death record? Okay, news to me, does it say "Jesus of Nazerath" or anything like that or is it a different name. Even if Jesus was real, the events of the bible did not happen. The holy power jesus is said to have never existed. You'd think that would be recorded outside of the holy book a religion is founded on if it was true. If Jesus existed, then he was just a man of complete and total normalcy who a religion was founded on years after his death. Also, every single account of him is at least 80 years post mortem so, unless there's people who saw Jesus 80 years afterwards, and just fudged the date, jesus's existence is of little relevance. And don't even start acting like the bible is based on literal truths or anything that stupid.

The existence of a historical Jesus isn't seriously debated by ancient historians anymore, HumanAbyss. In conjunction with the gospels and the few "big names" of Christ sources, e.g. Tacitus, Suetonius, osephus (although he's disputed), the Pauline letters (which aren't disputed for their historicity, fyi), it is already mostly established from direct/indirect references to a Christ figure of that time, and plentifold references to early Christians, that a Jesus of Nazareth did exist. What's infinitely questioned is whether he was in fact the Son of God - and we can't resolve that. Interesting that you criticise the hearsay nature of the sources. This is an argument put forward by many anti-historical-Christ proponents - that because most sources are indirect and years old, they are hearsay, and are thus completely unreliable. However, that is incorrect; these people are judging sources by modern history's terms, which differ from ancient history (which this is). Given time difference AND the development of human civilisation/s, modern history sources are a lot more "concrete", so to speak - e.g., official documents, paintings, eye-witness accounts recorded, etc, all that we consider evidence today. However, in ancient times, history much depended upon oral tradition - with few other ways to recount the past, save the most educated and literate, common people passed the past down through the ages through story. Thus, "hearsay" evidences in ancient history are considered more reliable than by modern standards. Pauline letters were wrote 40-60 years later. You're wrong about the Gospels, too. Of the canonical Gospels, a good part of them is considered to be generally reliable, and they are considered good sources of information about Jesus' life. What ISN'T considered accurate is the divine elements - namely, the nativity, crucifixion and resurrection. tl;dr By academic consensus, historical Jesus was real, despite what the loud anti-Christian element may say.

Books without concrete evidence, if any, backing them up. Come back and talk about how Jesus was real when you have scientifically objective evidence that there was some dude called Jesus of Nazareth who performed cool shit, and then maybe we'll be convinced. Also did you know that not far from where Jesus was doing his thing and getting shafted by the Romans that there was another miracle worker, that actually rivalled Jesus in many ways, just because of his location he didn't get as much attention, pretty sure he claimed to be the son of god too. I'll try and find references for that later, I'm in work just now. TL;DR This is a pointless and stupid arguement that will never be won because all the christians will use those little get out of jail free clauses in their religious texts conveniently placed for just such an occassion. Also Hearsay will never be reliable, in fact the more it is used the less reliable it gets, ever played chinese whispers? yeah it's a bit like that but on a massive scale.

[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;29393793]The existence of a historical Jesus isn't seriously debated by ancient historians anymore, HumanAbyss. In conjunction with the gospels and the few "big names" of Christ sources, e.g. Tacitus, Suetonius, osephus (although he's disputed), the Pauline letters (which aren't disputed for their historicity, fyi), it is already mostly established from direct/indirect references to a Christ figure of that time, and plentifold references to early Christians, that a Jesus of Nazareth did exist. What's infinitely questioned is whether he was in fact the Son of God - and we can't resolve that. Interesting that you criticise the hearsay nature of the sources. This is an argument put forward by many anti-historical-Christ proponents - that because most sources are indirect and years old, they are hearsay, and are thus completely unreliable. However, that is incorrect; these people are judging sources by modern history's terms, which differ from ancient history (which this is). Given time difference AND the development of human civilisation/s, modern history sources are a lot more "concrete", so to speak - e.g., official documents, paintings, eye-witness accounts recorded, etc, all that we consider evidence today. However, in ancient times, history much depended upon oral tradition - with few other ways to recount the past, save the most educated and literate, common people passed the past down through the ages through story. Thus, "hearsay" evidences in ancient history are considered more reliable than by modern standards. Pauline letters were wrote 40-60 years later. You're wrong about the Gospels, too. Of the canonical Gospels, a good part of them is considered to be generally reliable, and they are considered good sources of information about Jesus' life. What ISN'T considered accurate is the divine elements - namely, the nativity, crucifixion and resurrection. tl;dr By academic consensus, historical Jesus was real, despite what the loud anti-Christian element may say.[/QUOTE] So the events of the bible are true? Uhm, no. They may be historically accurate in some senses, but they are not anywhere near a truthful retelling of any events of the time(Hey, earth isn't 6000 years old, it's not that accurate). And you're still saying hearsay is reliable, which, even by ancient standards, it isn't. It's far more accurate and reliable than hearsay histories today, but if you honestly believe an oral retelling of an already embellished story is a form of truth, then I've no desire to talk about it. And his historical existence really is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, Jesus's divinity was still a 100% myth. I'm still struggling to believe you said hearsay from a different age counts as truth, you can't possibly believe that a game of 2000 year old chinese whispers results in you having a fact to stand on

[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;29393793]tl;dr By academic consensus, historical Jesus was real, despite what the loud anti-Christian element may say.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm[/url]