Those who died along side Him were not tortured like he was. Their sides were not pierced. And according to Jesus' own words (today thou shalt be with me in Paradise), they did not survive for days either. Finally, there weren't captured then drug across the desert twice in bonds then beat and finally tortured.

Crucified not tortured.

Ghug - The Christian belief system actually does not believe in hell for eternity because Christ is not willing that any should perish. Additionally, Jesus paid the price for all of our sins and set everyone free. This is often described as him tearing.open the doors of hell and in Revelations, the Beast is cast into the lake of fire. It is where the Catholics get their concept of pergatory (although I admit that is supposition on my part).

semck - despite opinions to the contrary, I am eloquent when I wish to be, and I happen to have studied and know a good deal about the Bible and have quite a bit of personal writings in my stacks of stuff regarding scripture.

It's a good story, whether you believe it or not. The problem is very few people spend enough time to understand the basic premise of Christianity. I would dare say the vast majority of WebDip users can have a more involved discussion about the Elves involvement in the War of the Ring than they can about the basic principles of God's love and salvation, why He choose to do things the way He did, etc. Most people's religion of God goes something like this, "Yeah...God created the universe...uh...Bib Band, anyone...scientific proof...and too much suffering..doesn't make sense. Bullshit...you stupid if you believe that..." and they end their search for truth. Of course, most people go about an equal distance to understand why their own parents punish them and deny them things they want for their own good...it simply corrupt human nature.

ghug,

I probably wasn't sufficiently clear -- I did not mean to imply particularly that, as in the case of the bike riding, lesson-learning was the point of suffering (though it may be partially, and if you cannot imagine learning anything worth knowing from having a disease, then there must be much in literature with which you're unfamiliar. Not, of course, that that makes up for it in temporal terms).

The point, rather, was just that the argument is simply fallacious because it ignores that there might be goods that can only be achieved through allowing suffering, and which outweigh the suffering. The exact nature of these, as I attempted to make clear in my subsequent discussion of Job, etc., we cannot fully know. One thing that's certainly clear, though, is that your assertion that "[a] supposedly all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God could impart such a lesson to a child without any need for knee scraping" is false and absurd. We are creatures who are profoundly shaped by our past and our experiences, and to say that any state achievable through suffering could have been reached without it is so ridiculous that I feel bad even having to respond to it. If you really believe it, reflect for a moment on empathy.

"Collitis is not the fucking equivalent of getting your knee scraped."

Well, it's not, though compared to eternity, it's on the knee-scrape side of the scale. (That is but little comfort during the 70ish years for which it persists, admittedly, for 70 years of pain are, in the end, still a lot of seconds of pain).

In any case, that wasn't the point. The point was a logical one about the structure of Epicurus' argument, not a claimed direct analogy.

Draug - depends on the brand of Christianity. Some *do* believe in eternal damnation for those that refuse to believe. And Romans pretty much spells out why you have every chance to believe...but I won't go in to that in depth right now.

Krellin - Yeah, I didn't mean allnfo.Christianity denied eternal damnation to Hell. I meant it wasn't an absolute tenant of Christianity. The true absolutes can be found in the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed.

"The point, rather, was just that the argument is simply fallacious because it ignores that there might be goods that can only be achieved through allowing suffering,"

If a good can only be achieved through allowing suffering, than God is not omnipotent. That's the point.

You didn't make a point about the structure of Epicurus's argument. You didn't even touch Epicurus's argument except to make your silly "frat boy" attacks. You said there are long-term lessons to be had through gratuitous suffering but then walked that back as soon as soon as anybody concluded from that that you think the point of suffering is to teach lessons. Now it's "goods". Naturally, if anybody asks you to explain what those goods are, there is silence.

"was just that the argument is simply fallacious because it ignores that there might be goods that can only be achieved through allowing suffering, and which outweigh the suffering"

You don't know what a fallacy is. Your whole argument rests on a really big assumption for which there is not a single shred of evidence. Furthermore, it's a logical impossibility for there to be a "net positive" from allowing massive-scale gratuitous suffering to innocent people, since it implies predeterminism, which is incompatible with free will. But nevermind, virtually every characteristic of "god" is a mess of logical impossibilities and self-contradictions. There can be omniscience coexisting with free will. There can be no god which intervenes in the world which is simultaneously existing outside of time & space. There can be no immortal being which simultaneously dies and feels human pain.

"If a good can only be achieved through allowing suffering, than God is not omnipotent. That's the point. "

False. Nobody ever said that "omnipotent" meant the ability to do logically impossible things -- well, nobody except atheists trying to make a straw man of the Christian position (and arguably Rene Descartes). So if there is a good/happy state that logically entails having experienced pain at some point in the past, then God would have to allow the pain in order to effect that state, and that says nothing about His not being omnipotent.

"You don't know what a fallacy is."

Sure I do, and depending on an unstated, illicit assumption is one. Epicurius does. He assumes the nonexistence of any good, logically dependent on evil, the goodness of which outweighs the evil, and therefore, his conclusion of malice on the part of God in His second disjunction is unfounded.

And therefore fallacious.

Epicurus, that is.

"Nobody ever said that "omnipotent" meant the ability to do logically impossible things -"

Except that your god implements change (creation) and intervenes in the physical world while being outside time & space, which is a logical impossibility.

Logical impossibility is only the excuse you use when you can't find a suitable defense. You're perfectly willing to assert god's ability to transcend logical possibility in all other scenarios when it is convenient for you.

You assume the widespread existence of goods which are dependent on gratuitous suffering inflicted upon innocent people in order to absolve god of the charge of being malevolent. How is your argument not fallacious? You haven't provided a single example of a good which requires such suffering. Your best example is a knee scrape, which doesn't come close to meeting that standard.

Changing the natural order is a physical, not a logical, impossibility, putin. Unless you mean He can't do it because He's "outside of time." Good luck turning that into a rigorous logical argument.

"You're perfectly willing to assert god's ability to transcend logical possibility in all other scenarios when it is convenient for you. "

No, I don't think God has ever once transcended logical possibility. Probably you have in mind some instance where He transcends comprehensibility, which is a completely different matter.

"You assume the widespread existence of goods which are dependent on gratuitous suffering inflicted upon innocent people in order to absolve god of the charge of being malevolent. How is your argument not fallacious?"

What argument would that be? I believe in God, if that's what you mean, and that He's good, and I'm quite clear about the fact that that entails the existence of morally sufficient reasons for there to be pain and evil.

Epicurus was attempting a reductio ad absurdum, but ignores a possible explanation that avoids a contradiction. That is a fallacy and his argument fails. All he shows is that believing in a good God implies the belief in a morally sufficient reason for the evil in the world.

I'm not trying a reductio ad absurdum. So I'm a little confused what argument it is of mine that you're saying is fallacious.

"You haven't provided a single example of a good which requires such suffering."

I've avoided doing it, because it would be just that -- an example, and not the whole story. I've made it plain that I don't believe I can know at this time what the whole story is. That said, there are plenty of goods you can imagine coming from pain on an eternal scale: true appreciation for what is good, true appreciation for what love and sacrifice are, empathy, etc. Am I saying these things add up to being a sufficient good? Not necessarily. I don't know that. But they are goods, and they do mostly involve the existence of evil.

First, ignoring the fact that you just said that omnipotence doesn't mean omnipotence, this is in no way logically impossible. A good should be achievable by God without suffering. For example, teaching a child a lesson should be possible for an omnipotent being without forcing him to crash his bike and skin his knee. Furthermore, God supposedly created this world. Why did he do it in such a way as to make suffering the method of achieving good things?

Second, you're ignoring the point that Jamie's medical condition is in no way accomplishing any good for anyone.

Third, your argument that Epicurus' statement is at best weak and at worst fallacious itself. The fact that you accuse the statement on depending on a faulty assumption while at the same time believing in a God only because you believe there is a God is extremely foolish.

"ignoring the fact that you just said that omnipotence doesn't mean omnipotence"

Well, that's not how theologians define omnipotence. And typically the person making a statement with a word gets to say what he means by the word, within reason. But if you're insistent, and "omnipotent" to you entails being able to do the logically impossible, then by all means, I apologize -- by that definition, God is not omnipotent.

"For example, teaching a child a lesson should be possible for an omnipotent being without forcing him to crash his bike and skin his knee."

Why? Would the lesson really be taught? He could, I suppose, just implant the skill in the child's brain, but then, that might cause the child to take a very wrong view of how the world should work, and to become lazy. Typically, muscle memory and such involve trying something before you actually know how to do it, and trying something like bike riding before you know how to do it involves falling. Now, He could _no doubt_ hold the bike up miraculously when the child "fell." I think there's an argument to be made about whether the child would learn the lesson in that case, but the real point then is -- hey, it was an analogy, and it was the parent, not God, in the bike riding story. There are other things -- like learning empathy -- that are probably impossible without suffering. (They're also unnecessary without suffering, of course, but there's a definite argument to be made that things like love can be deeper in somebody who is capable of empathy).

"Furthermore, God supposedly created this world. Why did he do it in such a way as to make suffering the method of achieving good things?"

And that, you see, is exactly the kind of question where God tells Job, "You're past your depth." And clearly we are. We have no grasp on the space of possible created worlds. It's a great question, of course, and it's fun to discuss, but the point is, it remains unanswerable due to our ignorance, and absent being able to give it a definitive answer, Epicurus's argument fails. For it to succeed, we would need to know that there was a better world that did not have suffering. That is far beyond our ken.

"Second, you're ignoring the point that Jamie's medical condition is in no way accomplishing any good for anyone."

And you are begging a question.

"The fact that you accuse the statement on depending on a faulty assumption while at the same time believing in a God only because you believe there is a God is extremely foolish. "

I don't know what this means.

"Changing the natural order is a physical, not a logical, impossibility, putin. Unless you mean He can't do it because He's "outside of time." Good luck turning that into a rigorous logical argument."

No, it's a logical impossibility. In order to affect change something must exist at Time A and Time B. Time A being before the change and Time B after the change. Also, in order to affect change the Changer also must change otherwise nothing takes place.

Example: God creates a Rock.
God had to exist at Time when rock did not exist and when rock did exist.
Something within god, some kind of energy or magic or whatever, had to change so that there were two different phases - when rock did not exist and when rock did exist.

"And you are begging a question."

I fail to see how. Jamie asked why God would allow him to suffer. You claimed that God allows people to suffer for some greater good. I ask what good Jamie's suffering accomplishes, and you ignore my argument repeatedly.

"I don't know what this means."

I'm accusing your religion of being entirely founded on circular reasoning.

God existing at time A and B makes sense but notbthat God has to.change inbthe process. And a God who is also omnipresent (at all places and all.times) means he edists both before, during, and after the act of creation.

"Probably you have in mind some instance where He transcends comprehensibility, which is a completely different matter."

No actually I am not. I am not arguing about comprehensibility or physical impossibility. I'm talking about logical impossibility. How about actually addressing the argument rather than distorting it. Christians like to make themselves out to be great logicians when actually they're terrible at it.

"What argument would that be? I believe in God, if that's what you mean, and that He's good, and I'm quite clear about the fact that that entails the existence of morally sufficient reasons for there to be pain and evil.
"

I love it. You make this absurd bar for atheistic arguments, and all you have is "god exists and is good" and that's sufficient for you to assume that there is some greater good to the gratuitous suffering inflicted on the world. No evidence of what this "greater good" is required, evidently. But Epicurus is making fallacious assumptions? Hilarious.

"but ignores a possible explanation that avoids a contradiction."

There is no evidence for this 'possible explanation', as you yourself have aptly demonstrated by ducking the point over & over again. One would think if these 'greater goods' outweighed these horrible negatives there would be plenty of examples of such greater goods. You've provided none. Furthermore, this possible requires good & evil to be some kind of actuary-like accounting where the pluses and minuses are all added up and somehow the pluses outweigh the minuses. How is that even possible?

Anyway, how do small children dying in an earthquake in Haiti lead to some kind of good that is dependent on that suffering occurring? You have not explained "goods dependent on evil" in the slightest.

"So I'm a little confused what argument it is of mine that you're saying is fallacious."

Your argument is a tautology. Your argument is there are sufficient reasons for pain and evil because god exists and is good. But the whole problem is that pain & evil call into question whether god is either good or exists. Your belief in god absolves you of the burden of having to give reasons for your belief in god. Yours is a completely circular argument and a lazy one at that.

"But they are goods, and they do mostly involve the existence of evil."

That's just an assertion.

And I still say that we cannot know the answer to why there is suffering; the Universe is mute on the question. It is not something that human minds can reason out--they've been trying for thousands of years, to no satisfactory end. ALL that we can do is accept the reality of pain and suffering, submit to it when we are the victim, and seek to alleviate it however we and wherever we can.

As an aside, I feel this human response to our reality, this sense of outrage that we are adrift in this heartless, cold universe, the ubiquitous instinct that THIS IS NOT THE WAY IT SHOULD BE--that is the evidence for a higher reality. We look around us and we know that things are amiss. We inherently sense that the world is wrong (or fallen). That is our heartache for God.

In other words, the existence of evil does not call into question God's existence. The human recognition of evil, and our outrage at it, is the best evidence that there is a higher reality.

I am new to this forum, but have been a Christian for quite a while, and while I too have questions, I have found solace in some of my reading.
First off, let me acknowledge your pain. I have my own health issues (I am in my 60's and retired), but nothing like yours. Pain is NOT pleasant. Illness NEVER seems fair. But what is fair anyway?
Bad things CAN happen to people. I do not say to good people, as this would say that some are more deserving of a quality of life than are others. True, not all suffer as you are. But nobody is without sin. Sin requires sacrifice. Simple, but not at all simple to grasp.

Why did God not see this mess coming when he created this world?
I believe he did.
I believe he loves us, and wants good for us.
He can heal us. He has healed MANY people, and his healing is still going on today. How many of us have known someone who was diagnosed as dying, and one day goes to the doctors and they find him without the illness they diagnosed? Hospitals even in the USA welcome people coming to pray for the sick. Guess what? Some get better, some don't. I don't always understand this, but I surely know it is true.

Why does God allow illness and racial hatred and wars?
Because he gave us free will.
ONLY through free will can he find people who will love him. Of their own choice. Not after being forced, or coerced, which he is pefectly able to do.
But he yearns for love, and worship, and companionship.
The Bible is the story of his reaching out to us.
It is full of stories that deal with rebellion against Him, and the consequences.
It is also full of stories of how he treats those who Follow Him.
I am one who chooses to follow.
I am NOT one who knows everything, but I have found cause to Trust in Him, and to Love Him, and to Follow Him.

Are you right to be angry? Dunno. I surely understand it though. I have yelled at God a few times myself. What I do know is that only through God can you survive this world. ALL MEN WILL PASS AWAY. But those who believe will live again, and see His Glory. And the only way to survive is to give yourself away. To Him. ONLY through the grace given to us through the death of Jesus on the cross can we be saved from death.
Think about the crucifixion. Do you understand that the 40 lashes that Jesus received killed many all alone? The whip was not one strand. It was many, and they tipped to tear flesh. He was beaten, then lashed, and then crucified, and the crucifixation was the most painful way to die.
And yet God allowed His ONLY Son to die this way. And Jesus, knowing it was coming, prayed that "this cup be taken from me." But "Your will, not mine."
How else can God show us How Much He Cares?

Forgive me for being longwinded, but this is important. Crying out to God is the best thing you can do. Ask Him to prove Himself to you. He did to me.

"The human recognition of evil, and our outrage at it, is the best evidence that there is a higher reality."

Not really. It's a demonstration that there is random pain & suffering that has no reason or purpose, because there is no teleological reason or purpose to existence. The variation in whether one person lives a relatively healthy pain-free life vs another who does not isn't based on whether that person is good or evil, but rather their genetic code and environment, not to mention sociological status. All factors largely outside their control. In other words, life comes down to dumb luck and is horrendously unfair. Therefore we must do everything we can to make sure everyone has an equal shot at living a good life as possible, because "god" sure ain't gonna do it.

Dip - of course toucan're understand, because to understand creation would be to understand GOD HIMSELF. We are finite, therefore it is impossible to understand the infinte, anymore than a creature from a 2-dimensional world could understand a sphere. (I know - imperfect anology...) That is why belief at some point required faith. (ok 2-D man can "understand" sphere mathematically, but can never *experience* being a sphere, or living in a 3-D world. Thus, how far removed we are from an infinite God, and truly at a loss to understand or experience Him beyond whatever way He chooses to reveal Himself to us, as a sphere casts a shadow over the 2-D man. He can observe and over time realize the circular attribute of sphere but truly how much can he know? And God is that much (infinitely) removed from finite man.

But you can't escape this concept of "fair"! What does that mean? It means you hold reality to a higher standard. It means you comprehend that this existence is fundamentally lacking.

"And a God who is also omnipresent (at all places and all.times) means he edists both before, during, and after the act of creation."

You cannot exist outside of time while also affecting time via acts of change/creation.
You're either in time or you're not, you can't be both.
You're either changeless or you're not. You cannot be both.

"notbthat God has to.change inbthe process"

Then how does anything get created if god remains unchanged? How do we get from Point A before change to Point B after change? What occurs in the meantime to cause the change? If god "does" anything whatsoever then god is changed. To do something you have to be able to change, to go from lack of action to action, if nothing else.

"What does that mean? It means you hold reality to a higher standard. It means you comprehend that this existence is fundamentally lacking."

Based on socially constructed and perpetually evolving standards of behavior which have nothing to do with a "higher reality". The very fact that morality and standards of fairness have constantly changed is proof that "god" does not exist.

The details change. Not the basic human sense that there is a "fair" and an "unfair". Little children know this at a young age. Nor does the basic human outrage at our pain, death and suffering. These things transcend culture or social mores.

The fact we continue to watch something called "American football" demonstrates that human outrage at pain & suffering is only based on certain contexts. In others we find it entertaining. Furthermore there is a evolutionary need for cooperation which produces this kind of generalized thinking about fairness. Without cooperation humans would die out as a species.