• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A Challenge for those who believe in a loving God

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
A "general sense of feeling" is a far cry from "suffering tremendously", or "excruciating pain", or a "horrible ordeal".

Not for the sake of this discussion it isn't. The idea that the existence of this kind of suffering rules out the possibility of, "the existence of a loving, intervening deity" is the whole point of the OP.
Alright then, please tell me how the two points I made - that is, having a sense of feeling, and that feeling being enough to trigger a survival response from a living thing is not tantamount to pain. I argue that both are THE intrinsic mechanism for the respective beings experiencing them that triggers a battle for survival. Just because one comes with an internal negative feedback mechanism that we explicitly identify with (pain) doesn't negate the trauma of the experience for the other being.

Do you read many of the threads here?
Nice. So, can I take this to mean that YOU, personally feel it is "'okay' for a person suffering from congenital analgesia/CIP to be repeatedly stabbed, burrowed into, or eaten alive simply because they can't 'feel pain'?" Wait... is that a "I DIDN'T SAY THAT!" I see on the horizon. Hmmm... one wonders why you bothered to point out that other threads on this forum may contain grim and/or apathetic subject matter. Though it didn't take that wonder long to abate once I realized you were dodging the question.

Uh huh . . . ?
Even if you don't believe in God, by taking the alternate stance in this thread you were playing "Devil's Advocate" of a sort. Or, in this case "God's advocate." That's sort of a given. Especially since you, yourself pointed out above that the whole point of the OP was, let's see, how did you put it? "The idea that the existence of this kind of suffering rules out the possibility of, 'the existence of a loving, intervening deity' is the whole point of the OP". Yes, that was it, and you replying to this thread, and with a stance in detraction of the OP was you making excuses for God, playing defense-team for God... however you want to put it, YOU decided to post here, and post with what you posted. Go ahead and reply "uh huh...?" again... it made you seem so intelligent the first time. I can't wait to feel that rush of excitement at having been stumped by someone so obviously talented and profoundly adept again.

If you're only interested in hearing one perspective on this, maybe you should go read a blog and leave the debate forums for people who, you know, want to engage in a debate (?)
Was what I was doing not debating? Should I have put "I believe..." in front of all of my statements? Was I not merely attempting to counter your arguments/excuses/etc.? What was I doing then? Taking a side? Taking a side contrary to the one you wanted to take? Hmmm... sounds like one of the very prerequisites for a debate to me. Interesting...
 
Last edited:

Thief

Rogue Theologian
I am going to describe a scenario in the natural world that makes it extremely difficult for me to believe in the existence of a loving, intervening deity:

A certain species of wasp bores a hole into a caterpillar, and injects it with venom that paralyzes it, yet does not at all numb its sense of pain. The wasp then lays its eggs (up to 80 at a time) inside of the caterpillar, and they gradually hatch and mature, literally eating the caterpillar from the inside out all while it is suffering tremendously yet is powerless to do anything about it (remember it has been paralyzed). This process continues for days until the wasps eventually exit the caterpillar, leaving the caterpillar to live the remainder of its life paralyzed and in excruciating pain until it eventually starves to death after this horrible ordeal.

So, I ask you, how can you reconcile your belief in a benevolent deity with such a horrible natural phenomena? Only an monstrously evil sadist of a god would design a process like this. However, it makes sense if the world is guided by indifferent evolutionary processes. As the great Dawkins has said, nature is not cruel, just pitilessly indifferent.
and you think you are exempt?

who is sure the mind is altogether gone after the last breath?

I know what it is to be blind
I have known my limbs limp and unresponsive
and by other mishaps......got a good idea about that last hour pending

I cannot flee this flesh now......when I am in control
I have no certainty I can do so when I am dead

who says awareness fails completely?.....after the last breath
who is sure you cannot know where you are?.....in the grave

oh the mighty worm......
 
Last edited:

Etritonakin

Well-Known Member
This is less clear than the text I quoted.
What's your interpretation?
Did not read your other quote.
No interpretation -just the statement that those whose works were not of the sort that they should receive reward would also be saved "yet so as by fire".
Elsewhere it is stated that God is able to utterly destroy body and spirit in genehha -but that God is as a refiner's fire.

Various parts of scripture are not necessarily unclear, but are only parts of the whole of the matter -and so things can seem unclear.

Isaiah 28:
9Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.

10For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

11For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

12To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

13But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Did not read your other quote.
No interpretation -just the statement that those whose works were not of the sort that they should receive reward would also be saved "yet so as by fire".
Elsewhere it is stated that God is able to utterly destroy body and spirit in genehha -but that God is as a refiner's fire.

Various parts of scripture are not necessarily unclear, but are only parts of the whole of the matter -and so things can seem unclear.

Isaiah 28:
9Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.

10For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

11For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

12To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

13But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken
Is fire a metaphor for fixing someone, or is it about burning the reprobate?
(It appears that this poetic & slippery language could mean anything.)
 

Etritonakin

Well-Known Member
Is fire a metaphor for fixing someone, or is it about burning the reprobate?
(It appears that this poetic & slippery language could mean anything.)
Except for the saved part. You can take it to mean anything, but that's not the case.
If it doesn't happen, then it is meaningless anyway -but it will, and we should be doing good works, anyway.

Elswhere it says that since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead -every man in his own order.

I Cor 15:20But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
 

Etritonakin

Well-Known Member
I am going to describe a scenario in the natural world that makes it extremely difficult for me to believe in the existence of a loving, intervening deity:

A certain species of wasp bores a hole into a caterpillar, and injects it with venom that paralyzes it, yet does not at all numb its sense of pain. The wasp then lays its eggs (up to 80 at a time) inside of the caterpillar, and they gradually hatch and mature, literally eating the caterpillar from the inside out all while it is suffering tremendously yet is powerless to do anything about it (remember it has been paralyzed). This process continues for days until the wasps eventually exit the caterpillar, leaving the caterpillar to live the remainder of its life paralyzed and in excruciating pain until it eventually starves to death after this horrible ordeal.

So, I ask you, how can you reconcile your belief in a benevolent deity with such a horrible natural phenomena? Only an monstrously evil sadist of a god would design a process like this. However, it makes sense if the world is guided by indifferent evolutionary processes. As the great Dawkins has said, nature is not cruel, just pitilessly indifferent.

Consider it from the point of God's decisions.
God could create other beings -or not.
Those being could not ask to be created.
God could allow them to do anything they wanted -including destroying the creation and each other/themselves -or God could take responsibility for guiding them on the necessary -though often anywhere from unpleasant to horrifying -path toward perfection by experience.
Knowing absolutely that the permanent end result would be infinitely greater than the temporary process which allowed for it, he declared the end from the beginning, and will not cease until we are all perfected.

For most humans, that process involves no more than about 120 years of experience -plus whatever is necessary for those whose works were not good after death.

The goal was not to create happy earth beings with no choice or power -but to create billions of gods. The process is as efficient as it can be -and it will certainly be worthwhile.
 

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
I can see that you really have an open mind on this subject!

As an atheist asked me recently, do you feel better now that you have gotten this off your chest?! It is not as if anything at all I might say would change your mind. In that case, silence is golden.

(I think I could think of many other cases of lack of pity, so to say; I still believe in a loving God. Why do you think I do?)

Why do I think you believe in a "loving God" that simultaneously designs processes like this? No idea. That's why I asked you, and evidently you can't answer.
 

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
) (emphasis mine)

Where are you getting the pain and suffering parts from?

Insects Don't Feel Pain - KnowledgeNuts

Do insects feel pain?

This is just one of many examples. Even if insects don't feel pain, we could talk about how a wolf pack kills a deer, gradually tearing layer by layer of the deer's flesh away until it reaches the internal organs, and why a "benevolent" god "designed" this process to occur in nature.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Except for the saved part. You can take it to mean anything, but that's not the case.
Your meaning isn't clear.
Can it mean anything, or is it a veiled meaning for something specific?
If the latter, how would one know?.
If it doesn't happen, then it is meaningless anyway -but it will, and we should be doing good works, anyway.
Our doing good works or not is independent of a loving god (the subject of the thread).
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
This is just one of many examples. Even if insects don't feel pain, we could talk about how a wolf pack kills a deer, gradually tearing layer by layer of the deer's flesh away until it reaches the internal organs, and why a "benevolent" god "designed" this process to occur in nature.

Or childhood leukemia.

I've heard it said child good leukemia (and other horrible childhood disease's) are :-
A/ the fault of the mother who deliberately inflicts gods wrath on the child
B/ the fault of the innocent child for being evil in gods eye.

But never the fault of a designer who by the words of those same accusers, created all things.
 

Etritonakin

Well-Known Member
Your meaning isn't clear.
Can it mean anything, or is it a veiled meaning for something specific?
If the latter, how would one know?.

Our doing good works or not is independent of a loving god (the subject of the thread).
It is not veiled -it specifically says that those who do not do good works will also be saved -yet so as by fire. The exact experience may be in question, but that the fire purifies is not. It is also explained in a great many places in scripture.

It is not dependent (except that without a loving God there would be no us or our works -even our present evil works)... Good is good. Most of human suffering is due to our works -some willful -some in ignorance.
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
Alright then, please tell me how the two points I made - that is, having a sense of feeling, and that feeling being enough to trigger a survival response from a living thing is not tantamount to pain.

Sure: pain hurts. A reflexive survival response may not.

I argue that both are THE intrinsic mechanism for the respective beings experiencing them that triggers a battle for survival.

Which means absolutely nothing for the sake of this argument.

Just because one comes with an internal negative feedback mechanism that we explicitly identify with (pain) doesn't negate the trauma of the experience for the other being.

Of course it does.

Nice. So, can I take this to mean that YOU, personally feel it is "'okay' for a person suffering from congenital analgesia/CIP to be repeatedly stabbed, burrowed into, or eaten alive simply because they can't 'feel pain'?"

You can take it any way you that's conveinant for you. Or more to the point, there doesn't seem to be any way of stopping you from doing that so knock yourself out.

I'm not going to acknowledge the rest of your tantrum, sorry. I realize it isn't really me your mad at and if ranting at one of my posts helps you deal with whatever it is your dealing with, please feel free to continue. ;)

(Would rather see people lose it in here than read about it in the headlines)
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
This is just one of many examples. Even if insects don't feel pain, we could talk about how a wolf pack kills a deer, gradually tearing layer by layer of the deer's flesh away until it reaches the internal organs, and why a "benevolent" god "designed" this process to occur in nature.

OK, first off: "gradually"?
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Sure: pain hurts. A reflexive survival response may not... [more missing the point, assuming his views superior, etc., one of the gems being "Of course it does." full stop. Genius!]...(Would rather see people lose it in here than read about it in the headlines)
"Quagmire" - such an appropriate user handle. Well done choosing that one for yourself, I must say.
 
Last edited:

Nyingjé Tso

Tänpa Yungdrung zhab pä tän gyur jig
Vanakkam

So, I ask you, how can you reconcile your belief in a benevolent deity with such a horrible natural phenomena? Only an monstrously evil sadist of a god would design a process like this. However, it makes sense if the world is guided by indifferent evolutionary processes. As the great Dawkins has said, nature is not cruel, just pitilessly indifferent.

God is in the leaf the caterpillar eats, in the caterpillar itself that offers it's body and the wasp that use it, then in the larvae that consume. There is benevolence or malevolence in this: it just is. It is a process that is to be experienced and maintain a balance in nature.
Pain, pleasure, good or bad are different depending on a variety of things: species, individuals, purpose, morality...
Yet all those things are so variable, how can you settle for sure in such labels ?
Sex is good. Sex is pleasure. Yet in a specie of insects, the male pierce the body of the female, literally making holes in her to procreate. Sex is pain, then ? Pleasure ? Both ? Any ?
Pain is bad. Yet some people find pleasure in pain. What to think of the concept of pain, then ?

What about God? It is the same as all you can already see in nature: inside yet beyond those labels. God is benevolent, malevolent, and yet none of those. It includes all.

So we can observe, and learn: about that wasp, what can we learn from her method of procreation that can help us in something ? Maybe we can discover something new, scientifically, or just think and discuss about nature, ethics...
From potential, experiences arise.
This is what I find beautiful in this wasp and caterpillar thing.

Aum Namah Shivaya
 

Grandliseur

Well-Known Member
Why do I think you believe in a "loving God" that simultaneously designs processes like this? No idea. That's why I asked you, and evidently you can't answer.
When people post in the way you did, you are telling us what you believe strongly. You are not asking for reasons why we have a loving God, but telling us how you already have determined that we do not.

There is no reason for me to answer, or attempt to; it is not as if you are open to anything. All you want is ammunition to shoot us down. So, your statement "evidently you can't answer" is an attempt from you to claim superiority on a subject that isn't even open to discussion from your side.

If I had felt that there was a chance to explain and to have my ideas listened to, then I would have answered. I didn't feel that, and your goading me here doesn't do anything to me. I'm too old to accept the kicking around by others. If I don't like people's attitudes in their questions, I say so. And, I didn't like your manner of asking, it was too aggressive. It was an attack, not a question.

If, however, you have come down off your high and mighty pedestal and simply want to hear the reasons why, I'll be happy to inform you of how I see things. Just ping me.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
All that goes on in The Universe is empty of self.

There is no caterpillar 'self', or identity that suffers.

Self and identity are illusions.

There is only suffering itself.

When it is realized that this is the case, you will be free.

Everything you see, even the greatest suffering, is only maya, but you believe it to be real, part of the great cosmic Game of Hide and Seek in which the divine nature is playing itself as The World, in all its myriad forms; form devouring form.

It is you who is none other than That; than the divine nature itself playing this game, all the while in denial that you are doing so.

You think there is a wasp boring a hole in a caterpillar, but in reality, this is just an action of the entire Universe, form acting upon form. We confuse form with 'things', and say these things have an inherent self-nature, but are unable to locate such a self-nature. All such 'things' are empty of self-nature because they are interconnected and co-arise with all other 'things'. This is called The Law of Dependent Origination. The wasp and the caterpillar are one action, with the caterpillar offering itself up to the wasp.

A hard pill to swallow, but once understood, everything falls right into place.

Everything is perfect just as it is, warts and all.

Pierce the facade that is The World and you might see what's really going on.:D...or what you only think is going on.
 
Last edited:
Top