Why is God so mean?

[anEvilAtheist]

EvilAtheist

*And any God that was able to create the Garden of Eden is able to create a world with less natural evil. *

This is the bottom line for you, isn’t it? Or is it?

In other words, if this question were answered to your satisfaction, would you still have a hundred other objections to this mean God?

And if you would, life would just always be you sitting in the judgment seat, instead of God. And there would be no end of God’s needing to account to you, but I guess no need at all for you to account to Him.

I do consider the problem of evil to be perhaps the biggest apparent contradiction with the Catholic conception of God. But there are certainly others. However, for me the reason that I am an atheist is based not on these contradictions, but on the lack of evidence. I am willing to believe in things that I don’t understand and that are unproven, but I am not willing to believe in things if I think the evidence points towards their non-existence. I do not think there is any good evidence for the Catholic God, or the God of any other religion. So as of now, I have not yet seen enough evidence for me to believe, even if every single apparent contradiction were resolved.

Your argument is not new. The mystery of evil is as old as the story of Job, an innocent man who suffered many evils to test his faith. He never wavered and trusted God to the end. Some people have their faith blown away with a cough.

I know it’s not a new argument. I just don’t think it’s ever been satisfactorily resolved. Even when I read top modern theologians, their answers seem incomplete.

Right now God is allowing you to be tested with the mystery of evil.

Can you pass the test?

Or maybe God’s testing me by having me explore Catholicism, instead of the true religion, whatever that may be. I know some atheists fall back to the lack of evidence line when they really just haven’t looked into the issue, but I sincerely believe that there is not any good evidence for the God of Catholicism.

 

[severntofall]

I think I understand what you’re saying. Let me give you an analogy that accurately reflects you position on the matter:

Imagine that the next time I met my friend Dan I ask him “Hey Dan, how’s your son 6 year old son Ben”?

He replies, "Not well…he has fallen into the pit I dug in my backyard and can’t get out. He’ll likely starve to death over the next 20 - 30 days”.

"Oh my gosh, " I reply “that’s horrible. Can’t you get him out”?

“Well yes…of course I could easily in fact, but here’s the deal: Two years ago, I warned him not to get near that pit, and here he goes, two years later and falls into it. He deserves his fate, and if I rescued him…which I easily could…he would not learn a lesson from this sad experience. Like I said, I warned him to stay away from that hole”.

“But…but…he’s just 6 years old…you’re his father. You can’t just let him starve to death in that hole”!

“Listen, I love Ben more than anything. I forgave him every time he got near the pit, but I told him that if he actually fell into then his fate would be irrevocable. I love him with my whole heart, but he was warned two years ago…he deserves his horrible fate. Of course, this saddens me greatly”.

“Well…why did you even build the pit in the first place”!!!

Dan replies “I needed a means to test his love for me. If Ben truly loved me he would not have fallen into the pit”.

“If you warned him, why did he get near the hole? I mean outside of the fact that he’s just a finite child with an extremely limited understanding of the world and of the consequences of his actions”.

“Well, he was trying to get the toys and candy that were tempting him to enter the pit”.

“TOYS AND CANDY! Why were there toys and candy in the pit”?

“Well, I let me neighbor Stan place them there, you know, to lure Ben into the pit. Stan also tells him that the pit is not really dangerous”.

“Why do you allow you neighbor to do that”!

“Why should I attempt to stop him, after all Ben has been warned to stay away from the pit”?

Ask yourself, what’s your opinion of Dan’s parenting skills? If Dan allows this to happen, does Dan truly love his son or does he hate him? Does the fact that Dan had forgiven Ben for all of his previous indiscretions somehow justify his allowing Ben to suffer and eventually die in the pit? How is Dan’s attitude any different from that of a God who would condemn his own creation to eternal hell. Can Dan really claim that this is not his fault? At least the son’s torment will be over in 20 -30 days; your god would mercifully allows us to suffer for an eternity if we anger him. Seriously, is there a really difference between the attitude of Dan and the attitude of your god?

Just an update of Ben’s situation: he has been granted a reprieve! Dan crucified his other son and thus was able to rescue Ben from the pit!

 

[jkiernan56]

Are you implying that agnostics and atheists are insane?

Depends on your definition of insanity. For me there is objective reality and truth.

Sanity is knowing and living in the real world according to objective reality and truth.
Insanity is living in a world of subjective relivatism where reality and truth is whatever a person thinks or wants it to be.

I would say Agnostics and Athiests have a defect of logic and reasoning in some shape or form. To acknowledge the existence of a defect of reason is not the same as postulating WHY it exists. Only God can judge WHY since He alone knows ALL things.

 

[Oreoracle]

Just an update of Ben’s situation: he has been granted a reprieve! Dan crucified his other son and thus was able to rescue Ben from the pit!

Classic.

 

[jkiernan56]

If the punishment infinitely exceeds the offense then yes. Listen, I like the idea of bad people getting what they deserve as much as the next guy, but even the worst person in the world deserves a reprieve at some point. Nobody deserves to be punished forever.

No he merely creates a realm where people are forced to continue hitting themselves eternally. Nobody in his right mind would choose eternal torture…nobody; thus anyone receiving hell is being punished for a decision that they didn’t know they were making. There is no persuasive argument for its existence and personally I’d be shocked to learn that it actually existed. Again, nobody who truly understood the situation would ever chose eternal pain over eternal happiness…at least no sane person would. Hell, if it exists, is where god punishes people for their ignorance.

God is not a moron or an evil bully as you seem to make Him out to be. If a person sends themselves to hell (notice that I didn’t say God sends them) - whatever that person does must be of such serious nature and sufficient offense that it warrants eternal separation from God if there is no personal contrition before death. It is not a place God sends them - but rather a place a person sends themself. Everyone will ultimately get what they want and what they choose. God does not send any one to hell. If a person loves Evil, they will reap the consequences. If a person loves Good, they too will reap their reward. Each person will harvest what they have planted. God is Good, Holy, and Just. All of creation will stand before Him and no one will be able to charge God with doing Evil and acting Unjust.

 

[severntofall]

Depends on your definition of insanity. For me there is objective reality and truth.

Sanity is knowing and living in the real world according to objective reality and truth.
Insanity is living in a world of subjective relivatism where reality and truth is whatever a person thinks or wants it to be.

I would say Agnostics and Athiests have a defect of logic and reasoning in some shape or form. To acknowledge the existence of a defect of reason is not the same as postulating WHY it exists. Only God can judge WHY since He alone knows ALL things.

Well if you define insanity as refusing to believe every tale you are ever told; or refusing to believe that an invisible being is keeping tabs of every action every human makes and can hear (and often be offended by) our thoughts, then yes we non-believers are quite mad. Truly the only manner to prove that one is sane is to profess a belief that a god was so enraged by the theft and consumption of a piece of his fruit that he could only recover from his rage by sacrificing himself on a roman cross to pay himself the debt owed to himself for this stolen fruit. That’s sanity in a nutshell. Proving that one is super sane requires a belief that a piece of bread can be turned into this god and is available for consumption to all the super sane. Of course the fact that this god bread is completely indistinguishable from non-god bread and the effects of it’s consumption is completely indistinguishable from non-god bread should not be viewed as evidence to the contrary (if you view it as such your crazy). Come to think of it, I’ll stick with insanity.

 

[preV2tradcath]

God is not a moron or an evil bully as you seem to make Him out to be. If a person sends themselves to hell (notice that I didn’t say God sends them) - whatever that person does must be of serious nature and sufficient offense that it warrants eternal separation from God if there is no personal contrition before death. It is not a place God sends them - but rather a place a person sends themself. Everyone will ultimately get what they want and what they choose. God does not send any one to hell. If a person loves Evil, they will reap the consequences. If a person loves Good, they too will reap their reward. Each person will harvest what they have planted.

Exactly right and just what I needed to be reminded of. Thank you.

 

[severntofall]

God is not a moron or an evil bully as you seem to make Him out to be. If a person sends themselves to hell (notice that I didn’t say God sends them) - whatever that person does must be of such serious nature and sufficient offense that it warrants eternal separation from God if there is no personal contrition before death. It is not a place God sends them - but rather a place a person sends themself. Everyone will ultimately get what they want and what they choose. God does not send any one to hell. If a person loves Evil, they will reap the consequences. If a person loves Good, they too will reap their reward. Each person will harvest what they have planted.

I see, so while god created the realm of torture and created the reality which results in sinners being cast into it…he has nothing to do with it.

 

[Oreoracle]

I think that deep down in your heart of hearts you know the day will come when you will not be so cocksure of anything as you sense your last breath overcoming you. :bigyikes:

Will you then be whistling a different tune?

Okay, let’s say you’re right. I’m standing before God facing my judgment after I’ve died. I’m begging him to not let me be damned and proclaiming that I love him, all the while soiling myself. Will any of this matter? He would know that I’m lying, as I cannot force myself to love, especially if the goal is to love a being that would otherwise damn me.

Seriously, Pascal’s Wager has been reasoned to be impractical. You can’t will yourself to love or believe. And perhaps you’ll be whistling a different tune if you feel that Allah is the true god while on your death bed.

 

[jkiernan56]

I see, so while god created the realm of torture and created the reality which results in sinners being cast into it…he has nothing to do with it.

You’ve been watching too many Hollywood movies. That’s not the real world according to my experience and understanding. I would strongly recommend you try reading “Theology for Beginners” by Frank Sheed. I also highly recommend “Mere Christianity” by CS Lewis.

 

[jkiernan56]

Well if you define insanity as refusing to believe every tale you are ever told; or refusing to believe that an invisible being is keeping tabs of every action every human makes and can hear (and often be offended by) our thoughts, then yes we non-believers are quite mad. Truly the only manner to prove that one is sane is to profess a belief that a god was so enraged by the theft and consumption of a piece of his fruit that he could only recover from his rage by sacrificing himself on a roman cross to pay himself the debt owed to himself for this stolen fruit. That’s sanity in a nutshell. Proving that one is super sane requires a belief that a piece of bread can be turned into this god and is available for consumption to all the super sane. Of course the fact that this god bread is completely indistinguishable from non-god bread and the effects of it’s consumption is completely indistinguishable from non-god bread should not be viewed as evidence to the contrary (if you view it as such your crazy). Come to think of it, I’ll stick with insanity.

Death knocked at my door when I was in my teenage years and I know I am blessed to still be alive. I have learned that when I don’t live in the real world, that my nose gets very bloody. Pain when it is working properly is an amazing warning system to alert us to danger and a great teacher to help us to live in the real world.

 

[severntofall]

Death has knocked at my door and I know I am blessed to still be alive. I have learned that when I don’t live in the real world, that my nose gets very bloody.

Of course, now it all makes sense to me.

 

[severntofall]

You’ve been watching too many Hollywood movies. That’s not the real world according to my experience and understanding. I would strongly recommend you try reading “Theology for Beginners” by Frank Sheed. I also highly recommend “Mere Christianity” by CS Lewis.

You’ve spent too much time dreaming of a fantasy realm of eternal light and happiness, I recommed you stop reading about imaginary fantasy worlds and read something of substance. I have a deal for you, you read “God is not Great” by Hitchens and I’ll read the CS Lewis book. I’ve read many book of Chrisitian appologestics and they only serve to further convince me of the foolishnes of my former beliefs. Serious, you read my book and I will read yours.Deal?

P.s the theology of hell has evolved radically over the centuries as chrisitans desperatly attempt to craft the theology into something that doesn’t make your god appear to be a monster.

 

[jkiernan56]

Of course, now it all makes sense to me.

I’m sure it does. The school of hard knocks is a painful way to learn - but a great teacher. Be careful and step lightly.

 

[jkiernan56]

You’ve spent too much time dreaming of a fantasy realm of eternal light and happiness, I recommed you stop reading about imaginary fantasy worlds and read something of substance. I have a deal for you, you read “God is not Great” by Hitchens and I’ll read the CS Lewis book. I’ve read many book of Chrisitian appologestics and they only serve to further convince me of the foolishnes of my former beliefs. Serious, you read my book and I will read yours.Deal?

LOL - Right.
Actually, everything I have written comes from a very personal experience of God’s love - not something I learned from reading books or listening to others

 

[Oreoracle]

Oh, while this is about quotes, Erma Bombeck on Catholic guilt, especially for Oreo and Charlie: “Guilt is such a wonderful gift–it never stops giving!”

I confess that I don’t know what “Catholic guilt” is, but I do have a hunch about the nature of secular/irreligious guilt (). I’m no psychologist, but guilt is said by psychotherapists to persist until the negative item is removed or corrected within the subject’s mind. I’d say that guilt does more to subtract than add–it compels one to backpedal and take a detour.

 

[jkiernan56]

I confess that I don’t know what “Catholic guilt” is, but I do have a hunch about the nature of secular/irreligious guilt (). I’m no psychologist, but guilt is said by psychotherapists to persist until the negative item is removed or corrected within the subject’s mind. I’d say that guilt does more to subtract than add–it compels one to backpedal and take a detour.

Actually there is such a thing as healthy guilt and unhealthy guilt.

PAIN when it is working properly is a very important warning system to alert us to when something is wrong such as putting your hand on a hot stove.

Healthy guilt can be a powerful and very useful warning system to alert and help a person take corrective action.

There is such a thing as unhealth Catholic guilt. For example, a person who has a case of “Scrupilosity” where everything they think and do they feel guilty about.

The way Catholic guilt is spoken of most often seems to have a negative connotation.
I want to stand up for healthy Catholic guilt that helps people stop doing things to hurt others or damage their relationship with God. That is a good thing.

 

[severntofall]

Actually there is such a thing as healthy guilt and unhealthy guilt.

PAIN when it is working properly is a very important warning system to alert us to when something is wrong such as putting your hand on a hot stove.

Healthy guilt can be a powerful and very useful warning system to alert and help a person take corrective action.

There is such a thing as unhealth Catholic guilt. For example, a person who has a case of “Scrupilosity” where everything they think and do they feel guilty about.

The way Catholic guilt is spoken of most often seems to have a negative connotation.
I want to stand up for healthy Catholic guilt that helps people stop doing things to hurt others or damage their relationship with God. That is a good thing.

I happen to agree that to a large degree guilt is good. If doing harm to others is upsetting then perhaps it will prevent further harmful actions.

 

[severntofall]

LOL - Right.
Actually, everything I have written comes from a very personal experience of God’s love - not something I learned from reading books or listening to others

I’d love to hear of these experiences, perhaps upon hearing them I’ll see the light. I’d be facinated to hear how these experiences are different from those of the muslims and Hindus that reinforce their personal beliefs.

p.s I was serious about the book thing. You read my book and I’ll read yours. Deal?

 

[Oreoracle]

Actually there is such a thing as healthy guilt and unhealthy guilt.

I’m not denying that guilt often leads to good results, I’m just saying that it does not “give” as Detales’ quote suggested (I’m still not sure what (s)he means.).

I do want to say that all you’re doing is labeling the results of guilt, not the nature of guilt. You’re saying that if guilt produces good results, it is healthy, and the opposite of course for unhealthy guilt. That doesn’t, however, mean that there exists two kinds of guilt, but merely that there exists two or more reactions to guilt.