Hell exists BECAUSE God loves us!

[PRmerger]

The proper way is to tell the child: “Yes, sweetie, it will hurt. But only a little and only for a second.” And then you hold that child in your arm, and redirect his attention to something else. But that is also too much to expect from that “loving” God.

And then ask the 5 year old if he understands, after your telling him, “Yes, sweetie, it will hurt” whether he thinks that the 4 needles jabbed into his thigh was necessary.

If he’s following the atheistic paradigm, he’s going to say, “No, it wasn’t! And you’re a big meanie and I hate you!”

That’s all I’m saying. The atheistic paradigm towards suffering is exactly like the reactionary, bratty 5 year old. They don’t get it.

 

[PRmerger]

Why would they? The p(name removed by moderator)rick is not bad enough to warrant it.

So where’s the peer-reviewed scientific studies that demonstrate the existence of this magical spray that makes injections painless?



Also, I’m waiting for the empirical evidence that demonstrates the correlation between pain-free injections and good nursing.

On the other hand, I am NOT astonished AT ALL that you keep regurgitating your irrelevant analogy, since you cannot say anything about the relevant REALITY. A little p(name removed by moderator)rick compared to being skinned alive… is there no limit to irrationality? (Quoting Einstein about the universe…)

Do you believe that the analogy of a Christmas tree to an earlobe is false because earlobes are sweaty and Christmas trees aren’t?

whatshouldwecallme.tumblr.com/post/31225884992/when-i-run-into-my-ex-on-the-street

 

[Trurl]

It is a sad and worthless position to offer the rape victim. But honest, nonetheless.

The sad part is that God did not prevent it, nor did he come and comfort the victim. THAT is sad.

Speaks volumes, doesn’t it?

Yes it does. About the truthful honesty of the atheist, as opposed to offering some snake-oil for the suffering by the theist, who has absolutely no proof for what he “sells”.

Yep, pretty much we couldn’t understand it. That’s a given. We’re turnips compared to the Infinite Omniscience.

No, it is not a “given”. You say that God is not smart enough to give an explanation? The “infinite omniscience” fails on such a simple question of “what is the good outcome of the Holocaust”? You sure have a low opinion about your God.

And then ask the 5 year old if he understands, after your telling him, “Yes, sweetie, it will hurt” whether he thinks that the 4 needles jabbed into his thigh was necessary.

I am not asking him idiotic questions. I am there to hug him - unlike God. And a p(name removed by moderator)rick is STILL not relevant compared to being raped, tortured and murdered.

Oh, and you seem to have overlooked my question. Just HOW did those BILLIONS of believers EXPERIENCE God, who cannot be experienced? You see, your non-response truly speaks volumes of your intellectual “honesty”, which does not deserve any applauding. If you do not plan to explain how to experience what cannot be experienced, then don’t bother answering. I am tired of your non-responses.

 

[PRmerger]

The sad part is that God did not prevent it, nor did he come and comfort the victim. THAT is sad.

Just like, from the 5 yr old’s POV, his daddy didn’t prevent him from being stabbed in the thigh 4 times.

The 5 yr old just doesn’t get it though, right?

 

[PRmerger]

You say that God is not smart enough to give an explanation?

Please re-read my posts. I have never maintained that God is not smart enough.

*Your *daddy was smart enough to understand why you needed to be immunized. But if he explained it to you, you would still say, “I hate you, Daddy! You’re a big meanie!”

It’s not the Daddy/God who’s dumb. It’s the 5yr old/atheist who is.
(At least, as it applies to this context of not understanding why Daddy is letting a bad thing happen to him.)

 

[PRmerger]

The “infinite omniscience” fails on such a simple question of “what is the good outcome of the Holocaust”?

As opposed to the atheistic answer to why the Holocaust happened, which is, “Umm…I dunno”?? That’s a superior paradigm in your opinion?

At any rate, if your daddy explained it all to you when you were screaming about having to get 4 shots, you wouldn’t have understood anyway.

That’s the point. God could explain it. You just don’t get it. Like the 5 yr old.

 

[Portofino]

Please re-read my posts. I have never maintained that God is not smart enough.

*Your *daddy was smart enough to understand why you needed to be immunized. But if he explained it to you, you would still say, “I hate you, Daddy! You’re a big meanie!”

It’s not the Daddy/God who’s dumb. It’s the 5yr old/atheist who is.
(At least, as it applies to this context of not understanding why Daddy is letting a bad thing happen to him.)

That is a fair possibility, in principle. Of course, it radically questions our ability to understand the nature of our own experiences.

Following that logic, you could say:

*when the five-year-old says, “My Daddy loves me! My Daddy cares for me!” that you ought not to take his word for it. Perhaps he thinks Daddy loves him because Daddy gives him candy for breakfast and lets him drink beer. The 5-year-old is not a sufficient judge of whether Daddy is a good parent.

By this analogy, if we can say, “when God wills pain, he may still love us” then we can also say, “if God showers us with blessings and happiness --which we accept as proof of his existence and benevolence — he may still not love us, or still be a bad parent.”

It’s also true that this 5-year-old could be absolutely right in his interpretation of things. For example, there was a case of child abuse (the child died, actually, because of the abuse of the parent), and the child’s last words were reported to be, “I hate you, Daddy” (it was her stepfather, in fact). This was a three-year-old child, no less; a heart-rending story.

Most radical of all, though, one could say, “why take a 5-year-old child’s word about anything?” So, one could say, “great… the 5-year-old is telling me that God exists, or that God came down and told him that He exists. I’m not sure whether I should take a 5-year-old’s word for it” (that 5-year-old being the human race).

And one could say, “exactly – but why take the 5-year-old’s word for it that God doesn’t exist”

Ultimately, you may be saying, “the atheist is the 5-year-old and the believer is the adult or adolescent. That’s obvious.”

But that is precisely what the atheist may be saying, just in reverse.

 

[Peter_Plato]

That is a fair possibility, in principle. Of course, it radically questions our ability to understand the nature of our own experiences.

Following that logic, you could say:

*when the five-year-old says, “My Daddy loves me! My Daddy cares for me!” that you ought not to take his word for it. Perhaps he thinks Daddy loves him because Daddy gives him candy for breakfast and lets him drink beer. The 5-year-old is not a sufficient judge of whether Daddy is a good parent.

By this analogy, if we can say, “when God wills pain, he may still love us” then we can also say, “if God showers us with blessings and happiness --which we accept as proof of his existence and benevolence — he may still not love us, or still be a bad parent.”

It’s also true that this 5-year-old could be absolutely right in his interpretation of things. For example, there was a case of child abuse (the child died, actually, because of the abuse of the parent), and the child’s last words were reported to be, “I hate you, Daddy” (it was her stepfather, in fact). This was a three-year-old child, no less; a heart-rending story.

Most radical of all, though, one could say, “why take a 5-year-old child’s word about anything?” So, one could say, “great… the 5-year-old is telling me that God exists, or that God came down and told him that He exists. I’m not sure whether I should take a 5-year-old’s word for it” (that 5-year-old being the human race).

And one could say, “exactly – but why take the 5-year-old’s word for it that God doesn’t exist”

Ultimately, you may be saying, “the atheist is the 5-year-old and the believer is the adult or adolescent. That’s obvious.”

But that is precisely what the atheist may be saying, just in reverse.

Clearly, what the five year old is saying by "Daddy loves me!” has an attenuated meaning. S/he is not meaning it in the same way as an adult might. There are certain expectations involved in how and when the five year old applies the word. Also, certain expectations are present when the atheist says, “God has not shown love!” Expectations are also present when the believer says, “God loves me.”

Ultimately, the question can only be answered by God. His love for humankind must be linked to ultimate purpose, not merely to present circumstance. Soldiers in the midst of battle can only see a situation of danger, chaos and pain, not an optimal time to ponder whether their commander-in-chief cares for them. They would have to evaluate that based upon the total picture rather than the immediate qualia presented to them…

 

[PRmerger]

That is a fair possibility, in principle. Of course, it radically questions our ability to understand the nature of our own experiences.

Indeed, it does. It gives us a perspective from which to assess the nature of our own experiences.

Atheists say: this is all there is. I am getting stabbed with 4 needles and I can’t see any reason at all why this is necessary.

Believers say: my Daddy loves me. I know this hurts, and I don’t understand why I have to get shots, but I’m sure that my Daddy knows. So it’s all ok.

Following that logic, you could say:

*when the five-year-old says, “My Daddy loves me! My Daddy cares for me!” that you ought not to take his word for it. Perhaps he thinks Daddy loves him because Daddy gives him candy for breakfast and lets him drink beer. The 5-year-old is not a sufficient judge of whether Daddy is a good parent.

Yes. You are correct.

By this analogy, if we can say, “when God wills pain, he may still love us” then we can also say, “if God showers us with blessings and happiness --which we accept as proof of his existence and benevolence — he may still not love us, or still be a bad parent.”

Sure.

It’s also true that this 5-year-old could be absolutely right in his interpretation of things. For example, there was a case of child abuse (the child died, actually, because of the abuse of the parent), and the child’s last words were reported to be, “I hate you, Daddy” (it was her stepfather, in fact). This was a three-year-old child, no less; a heart-rending story.

Absolutely. Heart-rending, to be sure.

However, in the context of our discussion, is this 5 year old absolutely right in his interpretation of things? Is it true that his Daddy is a big meanie who doesn’t love him because he allowed (and may even have held him down!) 4 needles to be jabbed into his thigh? :nope:

Most radical of all, though, one could say, “why take a 5-year-old child’s word about anything?” So, one could say, “great… the 5-year-old is telling me that God exists, or that God came down and told him that He exists. I’m not sure whether I should take a 5-year-old’s word for it” (that 5-year-old being the human race).

Right. No one should take a 5yr old/human race’s “word for it.”

I don’t think any Catholic here has proposed that we take any human person’s “word for it.”

Fideism is rejected by Catholicism.

Rather, our mantra is *Fides quarens intellectum. *

And one could say, “exactly – but why take the 5-year-old’s word for it that God doesn’t exist”

Right. Why take his word?

Ultimately, you may be saying, “the atheist is the 5-year-old and the believer is the adult or adolescent. That’s obvious.”

But that is precisely what the atheist may be saying, just in reverse.

No. We are all 5 yr olds. (Although, that is being exceedingly generous.)

It’s just that there are 5 yr olds who are bratty and kick and scream and lash out at their Daddy for being a Big Meanie.

And there are 5 yr olds who, while not completely understanding why they need to get shots, get that their Daddy loves them and accept the pain.

 

[Trurl]

As opposed to the atheistic answer to why the Holocaust happened, which is, “Umm…I dunno”?? That’s a superior paradigm in your opinion?

Actually that is not the answer. It happened because those people who performed it believed the christian “teaching” that the Jews were the murderers of Jesus, and it was proper to exterminate them. (Not to mention that the Jews had a lot of money). What is the theist answer? “Ummm… we dunno”, but we trust God that it was the best possible solution for them Jews - after all whatever God does is the best solution for everyone involved!" How “superior”.

At any rate, if your daddy explained it all to you when you were screaming about having to get 4 shots, you wouldn’t have understood anyway.

Even if that would be the case - and it is not - at the very least Daddy is THERE and tries. Of course the simplified explanation is available: “Sweetie, you are ill. You feel bad. That little p(name removed by moderator)rick will help you.” And if you were a good dad, who did not lie to that kid, she WILL understand it.

That’s the point. God could explain it. You just don’t get it. Like the 5 yr old.

Except God never shows up. Never even tries to explain it. Also, your word, that “God could explain it” is rejected. There is NOTHING you say which is accepted. The reason follows below.

Let’s get back to reality. That poor little 5 years old girl was kidnapped and dragged away. The kidnapper tortured her and raped her. I am NOT going into graphic detail, you fill it in bring as graphic as you wish - but the reality is much worse. The poor little girl was raised christian, and she prays as fervently and as honestly, as only a child can. She begs God and Jesus to come an rescue her.

Naturally, nothing happens! Nothing!!! She is being raped and tortured over and over again. Eventually, and “mercifully” she dies in undescribable agony. Her poor parents never know about her fate. They keep praying that her fate would be revealed to them, so they could find closure, so they could bury her… but NO! it does not happen. They and their congregation keeps praying, ASKING and BEGGING God just to let the little girl’s resting place be revealed. No results.

And this is the “loving God” you worship. And you just cannot comprehend why those “evil” atheists do not accept anything you say. Since it is against the rules to use cruel (but truthful) words, they do not say them… but you can be assured, that they think them!

Addendum: So, how did those BILLIONS of believers EXPERIENCE God, who cannot be experienced? You have two choices here. Answer that question, or get the %^&$ out of this conversation. If you do not answer and keep on pushing your nonsense, the question will come up - every time. You will be exposed for the intellectually dishonest person you are.

 

[PRmerger]

Actually that is not the answer. It happened because those people who performed it believed the christian “teaching” that the Jews were the murderers of Jesus,

And now you tell this rape victim that you will make it up to her…how?

The Believer’s answer is: God will make it up to you, dear. There will be justice for those who are evil.

Now, your atheistic paradigm offers justice to this woman and her assailants…how?

You’re going to find all these guys and give them a piece of your mind? That’s how you’re going to make it up to her?

What is the theist answer? “Ummm… we dunno”, but we trust God that it was the best possible solution for them Jews - after all whatever God does is the best solution for everyone involved!" How “superior”.

No, the theistic answer is the above as stated.

 

[PRmerger]

Even if that would be the case - and it is not - at the very least Daddy is THERE and tries.

Yep. Our Daddy is here also.

Of course the simplified explanation is available: “Sweetie, you are ill. You feel bad. That little p(name removed by moderator)rick will help you.” And if you were a good dad, who did not lie to that kid, she WILL understand it.

Just curious, Trurl. How many 5 yr olds have you seen receive immunizations?

What you say is, frankly, the most uninformed thing I’ve read on this forum.

This is what they may look like at the first one.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

But this is what they look like after the 2nd one.

http://www.mnn.com/sites/default/files/shot.jpg

Even if the Daddy says, “Sweetie, this is going to protect you from getting sick.”

Of course the simplified explanation is available: “Sweetie, you are ill. You feel bad. That little p(name removed by moderator)rick will help you.” And if you were a good dad, who did not lie to that kid, she WILL understand it.

(Just so you know, Trurl, we don’t give immunizations when someone is ill. It doesn’t help them. Perhaps you are thinking about intramuscular antibiotics?)

 

[PRmerger]

Except God never shows up.

Ok. So now the atheistic objection is changing.

First it was: how could God allow suffering?

That objection has now been put to rest with the 5 yr old immunization analogy. We all see that sometimes a loving father has to allow a painful thing to happen to his child, and no amount of explanation will suffice for the child.

NOW the objection has transitioned to: but God is invisible.

Yes, God is invisible. No argument with you there.

He is also visible in his church.

So anytime that you want to know what God has revealed, you simply need to seek succor in the Catholic Church, Trurl.

 

[PRmerger]

Addendum: So, how did those BILLIONS of believers EXPERIENCE God, who cannot be experienced? You have two choices here. Answer that question, or get the %^&$ out of this conversation. If you do not answer and keep on pushing your nonsense, the question will come up - every time. You will be exposed for the intellectually dishonest person you are.

The same way you experienced your allegedly painless injection.

Incidentally, saying God cannot be experienced is begging the question, isn’t it? :coffeeread:

 

[PRmerger]

Actually that is not the answer. It happened because those people who performed it believed the christian “teaching” that the Jews were the murderers of Jesus, and it was proper to exterminate them.

There was no Christian teaching that it was proper to exterminate the Jews, Trurl.

That is another faith-based assumption you have made.

That there were Christians who believed that they were being good Christians by following Hitler, I have no doubt.

But that the Church taught that “it was proper to exterminate them”…that is another imaginary teaching you have conjured up.

 

[atheistgirl]

Even if that would be the case -** and it is not** - at the very least Daddy is THERE and tries. Of course the simplified explanation is available: “Sweetie, you are ill. You feel bad. That little p(name removed by moderator)rick will help you.” And if you were a good dad, who did not lie to that kid, she WILL understand it.

I mentioned earlier I found the equating of a seconds worth of discomfort, with suffering, to be, quite honestly, laughable.

I have to say, I now find the implication all kids scream and holler with pain and terror when they’re getting their shots, to be just as laughable.

http://www.mchc.net/images/baby getting vaccine.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_q3JGHjCRt...jEiUJVyew/s1600/iStock_000009314829Medium.JPG

http://health.state.tn.us/images/ImmunizationPic1-294.jpg





A combination of a good nurse, a good doctor, and good parents can turn what is nothing more than a second of discomfort, into pretty much a totally non event in the great scheme of things.

As you rightly note, the dad, or the mom, or the parents, are actually there.

That makes all the difference!

Sarah x

 

[Trurl]

The Believer’s answer is: God will make it up to you, dear. There will be justice for those who are evil.

Which is pure nonsense. The past injustcies cannot be “undone”. There is no “justice”. How do you deliver “justice” to rapist, according to the “eye for eye” concept of the Old Testament? Are you going to ^&*% him? (Yes… I used 4 letters, and it was not an accident).

Ok. So now the atheistic objection is changing.

It is NOT changing at all. Just for the fun of it, I was contemplating that the explanation would be actually too hard for us to understand (which is nonsense), and showed it that even in such a case the personal comfort of a “loving” God would be a good “substitute”. But that flew right over your head.

By the way, the alleged “infinite knowledge of God” is completely irrelevant, even if it were true. The explanation of an unknown has nothing to do with the knowledge of the “teacher”, and it has everything to do withe the comprehension of the student and the complexity of the problem. In this case the problem is very simple. There is a cause and an effect. We are more than well equipped to comprehend “A” causes “B”. But I am afraid you will not understand this either.

He is also visible in his church.

Sheer baloney. And that catholics can “experience” God by consuming the “eucharist”, which is both a bread, and not a bread, and by sipping some wine, which is both wine and not wine… and - of course - these blatant contradictions are redefined to become “mysteries”.

There was no Christian teaching that it was proper to exterminate the Jews, Trurl.

The church has emphasized for CENTURIES that the Jews murdered Jesus. That is as “official” as it can be. The Vatican has even expressed an apology for treating the Jews as they did… which is nice, but too little, too late.

 

[Trurl]

I mentioned earlier I found the equating of a seconds worth of discomfort, with suffering, to be, quite honestly, laughable.

I have to say, I now find the implication all kids scream and holler with pain and terror when they’re getting their shots, to be just as laughable.

http://www.mchc.net/images/baby getting vaccine.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_q3JGHjCRt...jEiUJVyew/s1600/iStock_000009314829Medium.JPG

http://health.state.tn.us/images/ImmunizationPic1-294.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/10/16/article-1220826-06D80250000005DC-536_468x286.jpg

http://www.who.int/influenza/vaccines/influenza-vaccine.jpg

A combination of a good nurse, a good doctor, and good parents can turn what is nothing more than a second of discomfort, into pretty much a totally non event in the great scheme of things.

As you rightly note, the dad, or the mom, or the parents, are actually there.

That makes all the difference!

Sarah x

Thank you, Sarah! So now we BOTH can waste time on explaining the obvious… I am getting close to bowing out. I am tempted to quote the old saying about trying to argue with the irrational ones. What the heck… here comes: “Do not try to argue with the ‘irrational’ people. They cannot understand what you say, and they will try to drag you down to their level of ‘irrationality’…”. Such a sad thing that we MUST use the word “irrational” as a substitute for what reality is… but expressing reality is frowned upon.

 

[PRmerger]

Thank you, Sarah! So now we BOTH can waste time on explaining the obvious… I am getting close to bowing out. I am tempted to quote the old saying about trying to argue with the irrational ones. What the heck… here comes: “Do not try to argue with the ‘irrational’ people. They cannot understand what you say, and they will try to drag you down to their level of ‘irrationality’…”. Such a sad thing that we MUST use the word “irrational” as a substitute for what reality is… but expressing reality is frowned upon.

Sure. Those pics are after the first injection.

Find ones after the 4th one. See what the 5 year old looks like.

Just sayin’…

 

[PRmerger]

The church has emphasized for CENTURIES that the Jews murdered Jesus. That is as “official” as it can be. The Vatican has even expressed an apology for treating the Jews as they did… which is nice, but too little, too late.

If you can proffer an official document that states, as you have claimed, that the Church proclaimed it was proper to exterminate the Jews, that would be great.

Otherwise, you are merely claiming (another!) faith-based assertion. Something that has no fact in empirical evidence.