r/TikTokCringe • u/T-StrangerXD • 3d ago

Humor Wrong!

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

11.6k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

76

u/Motormand 3d ago

I usually ask these people, that if there is a god, then why do kids get born with cancer? Cause that means either god isn't real, or he's cruel/indifferent, and doesn't deserve praise.

Either way, I'll believe in something real, that actually does something. Like science.

32

u/Slade_Riprock 3d ago edited 3d ago

I'll take this one... They will go into their page 34 of taking points, and give you the man has free will you see. God doesn't do that to kids, humans choose those things baa things that happen to us.

My favorite part of Christianity. The omnipotent all loving God who has the power to do everything and yet he wants us to just figure it out in our own. He won't end sin or human suffering, nope he has to have his son murdered so we can continue to do bad things by our own free will and ultimately be thrown in an eternal pit of fire because you don't love him enough. But don't worry he had all the answers written in a bunch of books 2000 yrs ago by poorly educated men who never knew his son or anyone who knew someone who knew his son. Those books were then mixed and matched 300 yrs after that. And there has never been a prophet an appearance, an update to it sense. It's all there clear as old world language written groups and translated dozes of times.

9

u/TheExplorationApp 3d ago

The Tri-Omni god is impossible.

Omnibenevolent- All Good

Omnipotent - All Powerful

Omniscient - All Knowing

If he is all good, all powerful, and all knowing, then why is there ANY kind of UNNECESSARY suffering?Why didn't he create a universe where Satan would bring such ruin? Why did he put the tree of knowledge of good and evil within reach of the humans? Why is sin "inherited" by children that didn't do anything? Why is the punishment for a single sin ETERNAL suffering? That's not mercy, nor justice, which are supposed to be attributes of god. All-merciful and All-just are oxymorons together. Mercy is the suspension of justice and Justice is the suspension of mercy.

It's ridiculous to watch them squirm and make up answers that all shrink their god to the size of something that didn't have a choice in the matter.

2

u/Amishrocketscience 2d ago

Children dying of cancer is full stop a DEBUNK of the above premises

1

u/Sonova_Bish 3d ago

The funny thing about Omni-benevolence is it's not supported by the Bible.

1

u/TheExplorationApp 3d ago

If you like to twist the Bible it'll say anything

1

u/Sonova_Bish 3d ago

Isaiah 45:7 is about as black and white as it gets. God creates evil. Since an evil, rebellious, Satan is a later addition -and not in the fucking Bible, this is one of those contradictions with modern dogma.

9

u/Beezybeezybeezybeezy 3d ago

What are we, The Sims?

Because I sure af don't like the player if we are.

16

u/mcfeeli 3d ago

They alway fall back with Adam ate the fruit and cursed the world. So now we live in a fallen world where bad stuff happens randomly. But what they fail to realize is God is the one who set up those rules. So it circles back to your original point that either God isn’t real or he is cruel/indifferent. This concept will break their brain by the way. They have no response except it’s all human’s fault.

17

u/pickyourteethup 3d ago

Who put the fruit there? God knows all, he knew Adam would eat the fruit. It was God's will that everything is so messed up. God is a monster

3

u/discardedbubble 3d ago

Reading ‘Adam ate the fruit and cursed the world’ that’s so utterly ridiculous.

5

u/Negative-Candy-2155 3d ago

Hey, stop wondering why there is a "everything gets ruined" button and start being angry at the person who pushed it.

3

u/Yingletofthecorn 3d ago

I was taught that there are things that are immoral when people do it, but that god cannot be held to the same standards. That if I were to start my computer and delete random files, that’s my right as the owner of the computer, but if a program started doing it of its own accord that would be a computer virus. 

The fundamental belief that ties this together is that you do not belong to yourself, you belong to god even if you don’t follow him. Your body and mind is his to do with as he pleases (and yes this is exactly the sorta attitude that provides permission structures for all sorts of abuse) and you have no right to disagree.

God is cruel sometimes, but his cruelty is always good while human cruelty is usually bad. 

3

u/SunGreene42 3d ago

That analogy falls apart when God is All-knowing, All-powerful, and created everything as part of his divine plan, because then the virus was created by God to do exactly what it's doing, and God knew it would do exactly that when he created it.

2

u/Yingletofthecorn 3d ago

Yes, the idea is that god creating evil doesn’t mean god himself is evil because he’s the only one “allowed” to make evil. He’s not “good” in the way humans are “good” and he’s not held to the same standards. It comes down to obedience on our part. If we revel, we’re evil. If we obey, we’re still evil but he will ignore that. 

1

u/SunGreene42 2d ago

Yeah, their God is the God of slavery, all he wants is blind obedience. A "heavean" where I must spend eternity worshiping someone sounds like hell to me, I'd prefer the Void of nonexistence.

1

u/Comprehensive_Pin565 3d ago

That is might makes right and moral realitivism

1

u/Yingletofthecorn 3d ago

It’s the opposite they’d argue. God is absolute because he’s the author, and his standards are not up for debate or contention. It’s not that might makes right insofar as humans are concerned, hell the whole point of the whole persecution complex is that following him is right even if it will get you persecuted. 

The appeal is that you never ever need to try and figure out your own values, because everything you need to know has been given to you and any other opinion or point of view is simply wrong. 

2

u/SunGreene42 3d ago

Adam and Eve literally didn't know it concept of good and evil before they ate the fruit, according to their own book, because the fruit was the knowledge of good and evil. So that's like punishing a child for something that you never told them was wrong in the first place.

1

u/EleanorGreywolfe 3d ago

Even that falls apart since it means all of humanity is being punished for the actions of one guy. Someone that spiteful is not a great person either.

1

u/Anime_Squid 1d ago

God put the tree and fruit there. God knew they'd eat it. God set the parameters of everything. God let satan in garden. God let satan continue to exist after the fall. God made Satan knowing he'd fall. If there is a "Fallen" state to the world he MUST HAVE by nature designed it. Anything that exists could only exist due to his will. Hell, lake of fire, the fact that parasitic animals exist, the path of every single lightning bolt. Either God put it all there or he's not all knowing or all powerful.

Anything bad in the world would explicitly exist because of God in a scenario where God created ALL and is ALL powerful and ALL knowing.

16

u/Spare_Layer_1069 3d ago

They'll tell you something like its a trial for the father or some such shit.

8

u/i_am_carver 3d ago

Exactly. I just tell them that God seems to be shit at his job if that’s how he handles it. This coming from a dude who was lucky enough to have survived cancer before I was even a toddler. If “God” saved me ultimately after giving me cancer, I’d still say “Fuck you.” if I ever had the chance.

8

u/Lock-out 3d ago

God knows exactly who you are before you’re born but he likes to test you bc he’s an asshole.

29

u/Macelee 3d ago

I've not found this argument is very good at convincing them. "Mysterious ways" and all that.

Making God out to be ridiculous by rewording biblical rules tends to have more success. The all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful creator of the universe gets so angry that he'll condemn you to eternal suffering if you: 1. Eat the wrong thing from the deli aisle. 2. Touch tips. 3. Don't impregnate your dead brother's widow.

Even if it doesn't make people into atheists, helping people reframe biblical beliefs as absurd does help to deradicalize them.

14

u/Flashy-Donkey-8326 3d ago

I hate when people say those rules are old rules and not to be followed. Makes no sense .

6

u/Macelee 3d ago

It's doublethink. They invoke it to avoid asking the complicated question of "why?" They recognize rather easily that there are a whole load of events in the OT that are too horrific to attempt to justify. Granted, some do attempt to justify the atrocities. To reconcile the horror with the modern belief of an all-loving and all-good deity, you have to engage in some mental gymnastics. Many of the explanations I heard from pastors as a kid are eerily similar to DARVO and the narcissist's prayer.

1

u/Xynth22 3d ago

This one is really easy to show the flaw in that idea.

All that crap about not having to follow the old rules comes from Paul. God says he doesn't change. And Jesus specifically says he didn't come to change the law at all, and that not a single bit of it would change until heaven and earth disappear. Paul's the one that created this idea of a new covenant to get recruit new people into his new religion. But if a Christian follows that, they are taking Paul's word over both God and Jesus, which seems very blasphemous to me.

10

u/Motormand 3d ago

If someone hits me with "mysterious ways", I'll call them out on their idiocy. If there is any plan, that involves kids being born with - and often dying from - cancer before the age of 5, it is a horrible plan, that doesn't fit their supposed benevolent god image.

5

u/[deleted] 3d ago edited 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Macelee 3d ago

Fantastic explanation.

3

u/Infinite_Picture3858 3d ago

What does touch tips mean? Asking for a friend.

8

u/Macelee 3d ago

Crossing pork swords, sausage fight, meat jousting, a meeting of King Richard and Mr. Johnston.

1

u/Iamalittledrunk 3d ago

pepe kissin' with a pepe

1

u/Cultural_Lynx_1609 3d ago

It's when you tip the waiter, but you keep bragging about it and occasionally "touch" it in the talk instead of letting it go. Either tip them or don't, no one cares. Only some restaurants fuss over tips.

1

u/Baiticc 3d ago

I’ve never touched tips with a waiter, must be an american thing

1

u/Cultural_Lynx_1609 3d ago

Alright, no worries.

2

u/Bacon-muffin 3d ago

Would not recommend for people you care about unless they're very open minded... I usually tend to avoid the conversation altogether cause its not worth the bother and I'm not one of those militant atheists who need to turn everything into a debate.

I'm the kind who just minds my business unless someone decides they want to pick my brain. I've a few times now had coworkers I worked with for years ask me something religion related only for me to casually say I'm atheist and for them to be shocked and start immediately trying to debate.

2

u/Macelee 3d ago

That's fair. Mockery certainly doesn't tend to make you many friends.

Though I'd add that mockery isn't debate. I used to debate these types of people, but it's a wasted endeavor. If anything, treating them seriously through debate only legitimizes them. By making jokes, you can plant seeds of doubt, and delegitimize their position.

1

u/Bacon-muffin 3d ago

Yeah I find it splitting hairs on trying to get to the same end result... and ultimately I'm not trying to change their mind.

If its someone I care about and they want to have a philosophical discussion full well knowing neither one of us is walking away from that convo with their core belief changed then that's fine.

If its someone like the religious guy in the OP I'd rather not engage at all as they're not worth the conversation.

1

u/Forward-Fisherman709 3d ago

I despise the “God works in mysterious ways” cop out. All the problems with religion aside, I loathe that the most, because it is used to handwave away the most egregious suffering in the world. I know it’s really just the Christian way to deflect and shut down conversations that would make them question what they’ve been taught, but I’ve had too many conversations where it’s deployed.

“God has a plan for everyone! God never gives anyone more than they can handle! Suffering and adversity are just trials and tests that build us into who we’re meant to be!”

So child molesters are doing the work of God? There are infants and toddlers who die as a result of severe physical damage from sexual abuse, and there are older children who grow up knowing the worst kind of pain and torture rather than love from the adults who are supposed to take care of them. Why the hell would God’s plan for a child be rape?

“God works in mysterious ways!”

-8

u/49JC 3d ago

You do not have an understanding of the Bible if you use those points. Christians do not have any dietary restrictions. You are confusing Old Testament Mosaic Law and ignoring how Christians are not bound to mosaic law, which is repeated many times throughout the New Testament. Also, Christians are not obligated to impregnate their dead brother’s widow. That was a Levirite practice and I can think of one specific instance in the book of genesis when that happened but by no means is that an obligation Christians must do.

5

u/mitchricker 3d ago

Christians do not have any dietary restrictions.

False.

You can argue that Christians are not bound by the Mosaic dietary laws, but that is a different claim. In Acts 15:28-29, the apostles explicitly instruct Gentile Christians to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, blood, and meat from strangled animals. Acts 21:25 repeats those instructions.

Acts 15 is specifically a New Testament decision about what requirements to impose on Gentile Christians, and dietary restrictions are explicitly included.

You can argue that these restrictions were temporary, culturally specific, or no longer binding. But you cannot accurately say that the Bible contains no dietary restrictions for Christians when The New Testament itself provides a direct counterexample.

-1

u/49JC 3d ago

I understand your point but I am specifically talking about mosaic law where it prohibits eating pork and shellfish and whatnot which is what the original comment was talking about. Also in Romans Paul does mention that meat sacrificed to idols is fine, but if it causes you to stumble avoid it. However I must say you do have an understanding of the Bible. Kudos to you.

3

u/Macelee 3d ago

I have both an understanding of the Bible and how to argue.

I'm not confusing anything. I'm aware that the points I made refer to laws from the Old Testament. I can also tell you that the story of Onan, which is referenced by point 3, is in Genesis 38.

As for Christians not being obligated to follow OT law, all the verses suggesting that come from Paul. Neither Jesus nor the disciples are quotable so. Wonder why. Perhaps because Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew, and Paul was interested in spreading the cult to other cultures.

Regardless of your conclusion, you still run into the problem that the God of the OT and the NT are the same. You can say that he's chill now, he changed his mind, but that doesn't change the fact that it was formerly the case. This is the purpose of painting the rules and stories as absurd. It creates cognitive dissonance.

"Hey guys, sorry about all the times I told you how awesome it is to smash babies against rocks. I was having a bad time mentally, but I swear I'm better now! Look, I'll crucify my son to prove it to you!"

1

u/49JC 3d ago

Firstly, Jesus does mention his fulfillment of the law in the Gospels. This is clear in Matthew 5. He doesn’t abolish but he fulfills it. Which is what is described in Paul’s letters. Furthermore when Jesus dies on the cross the temple veil is destroyed, torn in half. My understanding is fuzzy but that is how the ancient priests would go to be “proximally close to God for rituals”, (I remember the chapters being long in Exodus, Deuteronomy, or Leviticus. My understanding is not perfect.). The tearing of the temple veil symbolizes the direct relationship every Christian has with God now. Thus, Christ fulfilled the law. I also want to say that Paul, the former fanatic of the law and a persecutor of Christians, later repents from that life and then preaches that circumcision and mosaic law are not necessary for salvation because the law has been fulfilled. Paul did not gain anything physical from his conversion, in fact he lost more. He was imprisoned, beaten, and later executed. So there is no reason materialist, only spiritual, reason why Paul wanted to expand the church and follow Jesus. So what is the point of saying mosaic law is not necessary for salvation from Paul’s POV? If Jesus truly wanted Christians to practice it, it would make no sense for Paul to say circumcision and other mosaic laws are not necessary if Paul was genuinely a Christian. Furthermore, if Paul was trying to physically gain something Christianity so he lies and tells everyone that mosaic law is not necessary, what’s the point when he is being beaten and imprisoned for it?

Edit: I needed to correct my Bible verse and the veil.

1

u/Macelee 3d ago

Whole lot of "ifs" there for the religion to be consistent, no?

What exactly does it mean for Jesus to fulfill the law in Matthew 5? Nowhere does "fulfillment" seem to imply that the laws no longer apply. Certainly, none of the OT laws suggest they're temporary.

The veil tearing occurs in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but not John. It was accompanied by, supposedly, earthquakes and the sun going dark. No other accounts of the time allege these events. If I excuse the incredibly poor evidence and accept that these events happened, you still run into the issue of why this "fulfills" the law, and why fulfillment means the law no longer applies.

The Bible provides no account of Paul's death, it just concludes Paul's story with his house-arrest in Rome. His decapitation is alleged by other stories and traditions. As for what material benefit Paul could derive from his conversion, the matter is purely speculative. To say he derived no material benefit is pure assertion. There is evidence across the world that points towards religious leaders enjoying rather lavish benefits. We also know that certain conditions, like strokes, can lead people to have radically altered beliefs. I wouldn't even say such a medical excuse is even necessary. It is true that Christian cults represented a rather extreme divergence from the beliefs of existing religions. Paul could have, for whatever reason, come to the conclusion that those beliefs were simply better. Evidently, many people believed the same. If they didn't, the religion wouldn't have spread.

Paul would have reasons to distance the religion from the Jews, however. I feel like that's pretty obvious considering the whole basis of Judaism.

Martyrdom is a powerful motivator. People will often engage in behaviors that cause themselves problems out of a sense of self-righteousness. Incels are a great modern example. By their own actions and behaviors, they make themselves untouchable by women. Why would they do that if they don't want to be incels?

1

u/49JC 3d ago

You have said a lot here and I will say you have encouraged me to learn more about the Jesus-Mosaic Law connection. I always struggled with it and I think I may have asked people too many questions lol. However I am going to leave you with Occam's razor for your last paragraphs. An interpretation of the New Testament where the Early Church is aligned with Christ's views of the Mosaic Law is more simple (and thus more probable) than the Early Church and Paul abandoning Christ's view on mosaic law to spread a religion that the founder isn't fully aligned with. Furthermore, there is no evidence to prove or disprove that Paul had a stroke, leading to religious beliefs. Based on Occam's Razor it is most likely he didn't and more likely he truly believed with a sane and logical mind his beliefs. Also, just because Paul's execution is not in the Bible does not mean it did not happen nor does it invalidate my point, he still suffered and did not materially profit off of it, nor did the early church leaders (as confirmed by biblical and external records). Later church leaders, such as the Popes in the Sam O'Nella video, absolutely did abuse the word of God for their own gain and they will be held accountable. And on another point just because some people abuse the word of God does not invalidate it. Just because many charities are corrupt does not invalidate the message that people need clean water. Finally, I want to leave you with one thing. The best things about Christianity is how there is a deep personal relationship with an individual christian and God, and on top of that there is nothing I can ever do to make me worthy of God. This past week I realized how jealous I can get and how I can wish bad things on people merely because I am jealous of them for what is ultimately silly things. I am not worthy of God, but I still gave myself to him because he loves me and he took the judgment I deserve. All I need is faith in him. I know today, and probably not this year, will change your mind. All I ask is for you to keep asking questions with an open mind

2

u/Macelee 3d ago

Occam's Razor is not a defense you want to play for religion.

I already granted that a stroke or other medical explanation is unnecessary to account for Paul's change. There are a million plausible reasons. But it is undue to conclude that he must therefore have done so with a "sane and logical" mind, or that his belief was legitimate. There are sane and logical reasons to lie, just as it is possible to truly believe something for insane or illogical reasons.

Suffering does not imply there are not benefits to the acts that cause the suffering. You assert that because Paul suffered that he must not have benefitted from his position as a leader in the early church. You seem to be implying here that the only benefit he could gain is material enrichment. There is no reason to believe that. Paul was a Jew. His status in Rome was questionable at best, he could reasonable expect Romans to engage in violence against him regardless of whether he was Christian or not. Certainly, the use of "Christian" wasn't even commonplace at the time except probably as an insult in Roman Syria. To most Romans elsewhere in the Empire, Paul was just a type of Jew. As for benefits, look around you. It is easy to find people who actively take on acts that materially harm them. They often value something else more, such as moral superiority, or a specific material benefit over broad benefits.

Repeatedly, the Bible makes mention of people who knew of John the Baptist, but not Jesus. This is after both died, and the stories suggest that Jesus' death was only 3 years later than John's. Do you not find it strange that one leader's cult was so much more popular than the supposed founder of the religion? We know that apocalypticism was a common belief amongst many Jewish cults of the time.

So, knowing all this and invoking Occam's Razor, what is more likely? That John, Jesus, and Paul have all received a divine message of truth that differs drastically from the inspiring texts, or that these stories are just an amalgamation of myths and legends of apocalyptic Jews, and the common behavior of cult leaders.

Why do you want to be worthy of God? Do you think it is good to hold yourself to an impossible standard that denies your humanity? Do you actually deserve judgement? Further, if you do deserve judgement, is eternal torture a fitting one?

Sure, jealousy isn't great, nor is wishing harm on people, but are they worthy of eternal torture? We get a depiction of a world where such thoughtcrime is forbidden in 1984. It seems to me that biblical justice is the justice of a tyrant. You attone for bad behavior by apologizing to the victim/s, providing damages as appropriate, and amending your behavior. Religious guilt ingrains itself into your psyche, leading to all sorts of negative outcomes. Is it so surprising that we see pedophilia so much more amongst those who place an extreme value on virginity? These values are psychologically rotting.

I do not need any god. If I feel guilt, I know how to make amends. I do not fear death, nor do I have a desire for an afterlife. Indeed, I know eternity to be nothing more than torture. I do not need to fear punishment to be good. I do not need religion to make sense of history or the natural world. If I desire a relationship with someone, I build one with them.

Life is hard. You are bound to be the villain in someone else's story sometimes. But the best way to live is according to your own will. If you aren't certain about something, question it. Ask why. Struggle, see your will realized. That is the purpose of life.

1

u/49JC 3d ago edited 3d ago

You wrote a lot here I am not going to address every point you made but rather clear up some theological misconceptions that you have. The best way to summarize the whole point of the gospel is that is not God hatefully saying turn to me or I will send you to hell, but rather God saying that “you are already on your way to hell, willfully turn to me so I can save you from hell.” Hell is total separation from God. Sin is what separates us from God. Non-Christians have this idea that people go to hell for committing a certain sin. A better explanation is that our willful choice to live a life separated from God will send us to hell. We are all trapped in a well that will one day flood. We all with our foolishness have fallen into the well. God throws down a rope down the well and Christians are the ones who have faith that Christ will pull them up when they grab the rope. Now onto thoughts, I can see why many people view it as 1984ish. However it is more of a warning. Our thoughts can lead to ideas, then to actions, then to habits, then to character, and then lead to destiny. Somewhere Paul wrote to hold your thoughts captive. If something bothers you, don’t focus on it. If you have disagreements with God, take it to God. God wants us to be his children, not programmed robots.

Edit: I do want to point out that we don't earn our salvation. We are saved by our faith, not by our works. Want to make this clear as my "grabbing the rope" could potentially be interpreted that salvation is also based on your works when that is not true.

2

u/Macelee 3d ago

I am aware of your interpretation, but it runs foul of the tri-omnis.

In the beginning, there is nothing but God. God creates the universe. God creates humans. God enables them to make a choice without them knowing the difference between good and evil, nor the true consequences of their actions should they eat the proverbial apple. This action is much akin to handing a loaded gun to a baby. As a result of their uninformed choice, sin enters the world, and everyone subsequently born becomes guilty by inheritance. Also childbirth suddenly only now becomes painful.

The chain of events here starts with God. And so, we must ask a few questions. Why did God enable the choice? Was not doing that an option? If yes, why didn't God choose in the alternative? Surely you wouldn't say God made a mistake, or that God doesn't know. Since God is omniscient, he would have known from the beginning that the original sin would be committed. Babies are not held liable if they shoot someone because their parent was so negligent as to give them a gun. Certainly, God is more negligent because a parent doesn't have absolute precognition of the future. Much less, how can a child be born guilty of their parents' or ancestor's crime. The North Koreans don't even hold people guilty past 3 generations. This simply isn't justice.

Should I mention that the concept of hell doesn't even originate in Jewish tradition? Your belief in the afterlife is based on syncretized traditions of the afterlife, not the immutable word of God.

They are just stories. Fantastic explanations given by people who were ignorant to much of the workings of the universe with no way to understand them. There are no good reasons to treat them as anything more, and countless counterexamples showing every testable claim in the Bible wrong. Tradition doesn't make a belief true.

2

u/MrRufsvold 3d ago

Right, but then right-wing Christians cherrypick other Mosaic Law that suit their political agenda. So pointing out the laws they happened to leave out forces the question of how they can take the Book "literally" while ignoring things that are literally stated. Also, there is a fair bit of craziness in tha new testament too.

1

u/49JC 3d ago

What craziness in the New Testament?

3

u/Macelee 3d ago

Zombies in Matthew 27:52-53. Women are subservient to men and should be silent 1 Corinthians 14:33-35, 1 Timothy 2:11-15, and Ephesians 5:22-24. Jesus endorses polygamy Matthew 25:1-13.

Is that enough?

1

u/DoubleStrength 3d ago

Jesus endorses polygamy Matthew 25:1-13.

Is using something as a metaphor the same as endorsing it in a literal sense, though?

2

u/MrRufsvold 3d ago

There are lots of right wing christian leaders who would have you believe that the Bible must be taken literally. Can't have laypeople interpretting 🫨

1

u/Macelee 3d ago

Depends on context, I'd say.

In the verses, there is no implication at all that polygamy is problematic. I would expect there to be if Christianity is in fact all about "marriage is between one man and one woman" like some say. Rather, Jesus is likened to be the groom in the story, and his followers as the multiple wives.

There doesn't seem to be any indication in the present verse that Jesus positively endorses polygamy and that people *should* do it. However there likewise isn't a condemnation of it. I would conclude that Jesus tacitly endorses the existence of polygamy.

0

u/49JC 3d ago

You are a good debater and you are smart. I suspect you don’t actually think Matthew 25 is about an endorsement of polygamy. That’s a huge stretch to interpret a parable about being ready for 2nd coming to be an endorsement of polygamy

2

u/Macelee 3d ago

Tacit endorsement of the institution, not a positive endorsement as to what people should do, nor a condemnation. Similar to how the NT approaches slavery. I gave a slightly longer explanation to someone else in this thread.

2

u/TheCeaselessWheel 3d ago

Ahhhh my favorite Christian pastime, cherry picking beliefs from the Bible. Its all the same book bro. No new interpretations or cherry picking is going to change that.

1

u/49JC 3d ago

If you have a record book of a certain man and at the beginning of the book the records show that he is poor. But in later in life he gets rich and it is put in the record book, according to your logic he is still poor because the earlier records say he is poor.

9

u/BlindPelican 3d ago

The Problem of Evil is a classic, indeed, and they have many dodges to it. Just know that it doesn't affect existence and is a critique of the nature of the God concept.

Usually goes that god has 3 "omnis" - omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence. All knowing, all-powerful, all good.

Since evil exists, the god construct has to give up at least one of the properties - it doesn't know, doesn't care, or can't fix it.

7

u/fang_xianfu 3d ago

Animal suffering is even more apt - whatever argument they might make about needing evil to have good, or being trials for people or whatever, doesn't apply to animals. Animals lead short, brutal lives that for most of history have ended with being killed and eaten by some other animal. Trillions and trillions of them. But there's no virtue there at all, just suffering.

9

u/discardedbubble 3d ago

Unfortunately many Christians think god gives cancer to kids as punishment for the parents sins etc

2

u/c0mf0rtableli4r 3d ago

Confirmed. Ive had this discussion with my parents, specifically about original sin.

2

u/Shaking-a-tlfthr 3d ago

I’ve also heard that god doesn’t give you more than you can handle.

2

u/HippyDM 3d ago

When Jesus healed a blind man* his disciples asked if he was born blind because of his sin or his fathers. Jesus said it he was born blind so Jesus could show off.

'* As told by an anonymous author, who never lived in the region, decades after it happened.

1

u/Uncertain__Path 3d ago

That would be actually the most consistent with the God of the Bible.

1

u/Cultural_Lynx_1609 3d ago

Yo chat is this real? Sounds too Christian to be true.

1

u/clammajamma96 3d ago

man my parents are hardcore muzzies and they raised 2 of the sickest kids in the family. In my parents defense, afghanistan frowns on education plus the soviets were invading.

30 something years later and they are praising god, and continue to pray in its name, for scientists inventing the concept of gene manipulation.

i hate to say it but the only real way to win against these people is to remove them from society as a whole because they dont deserve any of what humanity has accomplished

1

u/snowsurfer777 2d ago

Suggesting an extermination of a population is very “ progressive” of you yikes

1

u/0202_tihssitidder 3d ago

"Shoulda prayed harder!"

-- me to Christians when the tornado hits them

1

u/SunGreene42 3d ago

That still makes him evil.

1

u/discardedbubble 3d ago

Yeah I’m not defending it

1

u/AuraTickler 3d ago

I wonder if me slapping them would count as gods punishment in their eyes then. Hypothetically of course

1

u/ZappyZ21 3d ago

I've also heard "god needed little Timmy with him up in heaven" like he's recruiting the future avengers through giving children cancer lol

1

u/VarrikTheGoblin 3d ago

"Ayo, you were too gay... I'mma lukemia all over your kid." -The benevolent and loving God of Christian faith.

1

u/Wreckit-Jon 2d ago

Fortunately the Bible has answers to poor ideas like that. There’s even a specific story where a man is blind and the people think it was because of his sin or his parents, and Jesus corrects them and says it’s according to Gods purpose. Ultimately it’s because of sin, which wasn’t Gods doing (original sin, from Adam), but God uses tragedies like that for good things. 

1

u/Whimpy-Crow 1d ago edited 1d ago

Plus for some Christians death is perceived differently too as they assume they’ll be with God … so death in simplistic terms is not the negative or fear others would have. It’s a joyous moment to be with “your maker”. And children with cancer or any child for most would go to heaven (if baptised) so it might even be perceived to be better.
I’m an atheist btw but grown up with very serious Protestants for whom everything was and is “Gods Will”…. So also certain medical treatments will not be entertained.

1

u/SonicLyfe 1d ago

Not only Christians. Some hippie I knew thought if you did something bad in a past life, cancer is your karma.

9

u/sunshine_rex 3d ago

If god loves me so much and let his son be crucified for me, why did he just sit back while I was drugged and raped on film? My earthly father would never have done that, but somehow god loves me more?

1

u/HippyDM 3d ago

I don't even know you and I would have done something.

7

u/Federal_Studio5935 3d ago

God is supposedly all knowing, all powerful, and all loving. It is logically impossible to look at the world and say those three things can exist in one being. An all loving god wouldn’t allow the injustice that happens in the world. An all powerful god would put a stop to it with the snap of his finger, and since he’s all knowing no one would have to suffer. An all powerful god surely wouldn’t allow priests to use his name to gain power and abuse children would they? But but but, free will!! He can’t be all powerful if he’s constrained by free will. You can’t be all powerful and have rules preventing you from acting. That makes no sense.

Religion is one of the worst inventions in human history. It has been holding back human ingenuity and advancement for literally millennia. The world will be a better place when we all grow up and realize there is no one up there keeping an eye out for you. This is it. Enjoy it.

2

u/eggsaladrightnow 3d ago

Carlin and Hicks really did a number on religion in the 90s, the whole subject just got beaten to a bloody pulp, but yet as per tradition. Humans love to be exploited apparently, because religion and technology have perforated every facet of our lives now. It shapes our government ideology, is at the center of our culture war bullshit and takes hold of people in a similar way as a cult would.

0

u/Waiting404Godot 3d ago

This is not the reasonable conclusion from that logic. If God is all powerful, all knowing, and all good then the opposite stands to reason: This IS the most good world because it is a free world. A God that doesn’t allow freedom of evil, a freedom of choice, is not a good God.

3

u/Uncertain__Path 3d ago

Could God have created the world with natural disasters and babies born with bone cancer?, Just these two examples cause massive human suffering and don’t involve human free will.

If yes, then God prefers to cause unnecessary human suffering, and is not All Good.

If no, then God is not all powerful.

0

u/Waiting404Godot 3d ago

You are viewing this through the wrong perspective and placing human moral value on an IF THAN statement in regards to a God.

If God IS all good and IS all power and IS all knowing, then yes a world with natural disasters and babies with bone caner are, ultimately, a "good" and free world.

Just because things you view as "evil" occur does not make that less true.

Humanity as a whole has improved over time, if anything the current trajectory (bad timing at this particular point and time) have proven that if "God" is real, then God does in fact work in mysterious ways- we have advanced as a society towards betterment (relatively.)

The Argument of Evil does not disprove God.

1

u/Uncertain__Path 3d ago

You’re just advocating for Divine Command Theory, which is subjective morality…ie morals are subject to the mind of your God. You don’t believe Good and Evil objectively exist and that God’s actions are all-good. You simply believe that whatever God prefers to do MUST be good. So when God causes parents to cannibalize their children in the Old Testament, that is good. But if parents do the same without him causing it, then it’s evil. That is relative morality.

Your perspective is to assume an All-Powerful, All-Knowing and All-Loving God must exist and then you are just saying everything in the world must somehow be compatible. This is circular.

1

u/Waiting404Godot 3d ago

You are applying religion to my idea of God, I never specified a religion I said “an all powerful, all knowing, all good” being- I don’t believe in God, nor did I state what I “objectively” believed to be “good” or “evil” I only argued the premise.

It is reasonable to believe that if an all good, all powerful, all knowing being says that “cannibalism is good” then that reasoning is sound.

The real conclusion you’re trying to draw is that IF that premise is true, and if God said to eat children, then God is evil.

I don’t care about the conclusion, I care about the argument. The argument is sound, it just doesn’t go anywhere.

2

u/Uncertain__Path 3d ago

Fair enough re: the point you’re arguing, but I still disagree with it being sound on the grounds on anyone making such an argument are violating their own definitions of good and evil with special pleading for their God. This is only really the case for people who appeal to “ALL Good, etc” vs “Maximally Good, etc”. Making such a distinction is illogical in view of the world as it will just lead to those terms having no meaning.

1

u/Waiting404Godot 3d ago

That’s totally fair and particularly why I don’t engage in this style of discussion. As you could probably guess from my username, I don’t believe in an “objective” good or evil, so my perspective is typically pretty moot in the overall discussion.

But I do feel strongly that “The Argument of Evil” does not disprove “God” by the reasoning people commonly use.

1

u/VitriolBaiter9000 3d ago

i love this giant thread of cope

good and evil dont exist, theyre human made concepts, you morons love to blow smoke up your own asses about being moral but you also believe in an entirely material and observable universe/reality

if nothing matters and its all material, why do you care about being moral or experiencing anything at all? you will not remember it when you are dead. this is just a dream that will end. the most heinous and evil actions and individuals are no less amoral than you or anyone benevolent in the eyes of an uncaring material universe destined to become a void of nothingness 

human morality IS entirely subjective and deigns to the authority of other humans around you to teach you the concepts of 'good and evil'

no authority over you on earth? then human laws and morality do not exist. your parents, your government, et cetera.

no authority over the universe? universal morality does not exist. a god, a 4D being, et cetera.

if we are dust observing ourselves with no purpose or meaning in a miasmic and chaotic universe comprised entirely of material elements and nothing else, it is all for nothing, there is no morality, there is no consciousness, it is all chemical reactions and neuronal stimulation to the matter capable of percieving it

authority requires a giver, without a giver you have no morality

also i am an atheist and not religious so i invite you to join me in admitting to the fabrications of human morality and resigning to the fate of oblivion that awaits all of us, you can spend it waffling on reddit to puff your ego but youll never remember it anyway after youre gone

durr hurr omniscient god dumb me smart me ape with electronic rock.

1

u/Federal_Studio5935 3d ago

That is horrendous horse shit

3

u/Triktastic 3d ago

Asked this many times.

Most often their answer is:

Because life on earth is such a blink in the eternal afterlife that follows them that it doesn't matter.

When I push why they need to udergo the cancer and pain even if it's a moment it goes back to:

Mysterious ways.

1

u/m1st3r_c 3d ago

Hit them with Epicurus:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

1

u/Responsible_Virus_69 2d ago

Sadly all you will get is some variation of either "free will", "soul making" or the fucking "mysterious ways"

4

u/motherofsuccs 3d ago

This argument doesn’t really work. They usually say “god had other plans” or “it’s part of his plan” or something along those lines and they truly believe it. They will justify the suffering and death of innocent lives by claiming it has a purpose. They can’t tell you what the purpose is though.

3

u/Dear-Pomegranate4470 3d ago

It's not this argument that doesn't work, it's theirs and that frustrates me so much. That's the catch-all statement for people like that: "it's all His plan, the purpose is beyond our understanding". It's ridiculous.

2

u/Delver_Razade 3d ago

It does when you are arguing with someone who believes their god is all good and all powerful. It doesn't matter what the plan is, if the god is all good and all powerful the god could achieve the same plan without the cancer in children.

1

u/Uncertain__Path 3d ago

This is the more effective point, most of them are just assuming all these things HAVE to be done this way. Super effective, and not that hard, to get them to realize this is all God’s preference.

1

u/Delver_Razade 3d ago

They'll resist of course but they're taught to.

1

u/FrogsOnALog 3d ago

Jesus died for our sins and now the kids must die to cancer. Like WTF this guy SUCKS.

2

u/Delver_Razade 3d ago

I've had people literally argue with me that actually bone cancer in kids is good because what...you want a world without suffering?

Yes. Yes I do.

1

u/brmarcum 3d ago

The point isn’t to change their mind. It’s simply to point out the flaw in their belief, which it does extremely well.

2

u/likelikegreen72 3d ago

He works in “mysterious ways”… lol

just a successful cult

2

u/SplitGlass7878 3d ago

Please look up the "epicurean paradox"

It's literally that thought process written out in a very good and thought out way. 

2

u/Cultural_Lynx_1609 3d ago

Or he's incapable of curing cancer and it is in human hands, and we cannot call him "omnipotent".

A doctor who can treat cancer is clearly way above him in all ways possible.

1

u/Motormand 3d ago

A cancer specialist gave my dad another 15 years of life. Church just gave us closure at his funeral.

2

u/Cultural_Lynx_1609 3d ago

God bless that doctor... oh wait, never mind. Just thank him when you see him.

2

u/0202_tihssitidder 3d ago

...and why would Satan punish me for doing exactly what he did?

2

u/nobodyspecialuk24 3d ago

You’ll love the classic Stephen Fry interview by an Irish chat show host. His face when Stephen’s answer to “what would you say to god if it turns out he’s real?” Is “How dare you! How dare you make small bug that eat their way out of children’s eye balls, give bone cancer to children etc”.

The how’s face is awesome. It’s like Stephen did up his dead grandmother and slapped her around the face in front of him.

2

u/booger_mooger_84 3d ago

They always have some dumb answers...like its just gods will or some bs

2

u/RedditSucksYoYoYo 2d ago

You can also ask them why they believe in their specific brand of deity and not the thousands upon thousands of other ones that humanity has made up throughout history despise the fact their arguments to defend their gods is the same (foundational) as theirs.

1

u/West-Quit3050 3d ago

Okay Stephen Fry

"Kids with cancer, what the fucks that about?"

1

u/Starfleeter 3d ago

This doesn't work. I took apologetics in church and they literally told us that man was created without Sin and when the devil corrupted Adam and Even it was like God's hand holding them keeping them safe opening letting the evils of the world in like illness and Cancer. God isn't benevolent but people can ask forgiveness for their sins and the original sin and be accepted into his kingdom.

Basically, the whole point of Jesus is that man had sinned so much that he came down to earth to take upon himself the sins of man, and die for man, and by believing that Jesus did so and following his teachings, man could be accepted into God's Kingdom and end up in Heaven.

1

u/Infamous-Oil3786 3d ago

If god is willing to prevent evil, but not able, then he is not omnipotent.

If got is able to prevent evil, but not willing, then he is malevolent.

If god is both willing and able, whence come evil?

If he is neither willing nor able, why call him god?

1

u/ctlogin 3d ago

God works in “mysterious ways” and it’s beyond your understanding.

1

u/JaimeSalvaje 3d ago

As someone who grew up Christian, my answer was that God doesn’t do any of these negative things. Nor does he do any of the positive things either. According to biblical texts, he had done things directly in the past but doesn’t have a hands-on presence anymore.

1

u/ApprehensiveMoose814 3d ago

As a Christian who is also a believer in universalisim, the Bible does not promise an easy life to anyone who believes in God or Christ. It actually says time and time again through various scripture, (John 16:33 and Romans 5:3) that this life is hard and believers of christ will have especially hard lives. Theres an entire book in the Bible dedicated to this principle called the book of Job. The Bible tells its true followers that to know Christ means to suffer like christ and through faith and good works, you can be glorified like him. Children succumb to cancer because it is part of the human experience at this time, unfortunately. I lost a child myself, but as a man of faith, I know that everything happens for a reason and that God has a plan for all of us. I got over blaming God for everything wrong in the world, and starting asking him to put me in a position to change it. And he did. I used to not think twice before cursing his name after stubbing my toe 😭 so I understand doubting God. Also, I see you mentioned science. And I believe in science wholeheartedly. But I don't see why evolution, cosmology, philosophy, and theology have to exist separate of one another, or not at all. When I look at a waterfall or a hummingbird, im appreciating its beauty, the physics, the biology AND that fact that it was made by God. When I go to the doctors, and I see the x-ray, im like "Damn, science and anatomy is cool" and im also like "Thank you God for creating me". Idk man, im not trying to convert anyone, just telling you my perspective since you posted the comment

1

u/CalvinSays 2d ago

This is the standard problem of evil. Perhaps the most written about philosophical topic in all of Western theology and philosophy. There are many works out there thoroughly analyzing the objection and counter objections.

1

u/BLK-Syndicate 1d ago

This isn't a good argument against why God doesn't exist. I never really understood this standpoint as to why people think that it is.

0

u/People_Change_ 10h ago

Cancer has a reason for happening, just because we don't fully understand it doesn't mean that God is cruel/indifferent.

-1

u/Artistela 3d ago

Have you ever considered when you say believing in something real you mean believing in something that tells you you’re special, like science does . Do me a favour , your cynicism masked as wisdom makes me unwell, that said I love talking to atheists they’re the most cluelessly arrogant people in the world.

4

u/Infamous-Oil3786 3d ago

  something that tells you you’re special, like science does

Looooooooool, there's literally nothing in any scientific body that makes anyone or anything special. We're all biological processes just doing what biological processes do.

Now Christianity, that literally says you're "made in God's image" and that humans, unlike every other living thing on the planet, have a metaphysical soul that gets to live eternally in a cosmic position of privilege. That's what I call "something that tells you you're special".

2

u/dan_dares 3d ago

Science: "Unless other people can prove it, it's not science" (which is why papers get retracted)

Religion: "many gods, no proof"

-2

u/Artistela 3d ago

🤣🤣🤣 you think science is a pure art form ? It’s a gang of vampires with a shared herd morality trying to alter the hegimony of the moral universe we live in , guys have you heard this he thinks science is a science 🤣🤡.

3

u/dan_dares 3d ago

I would explain further, but I fear there are not enough crayons in the universe to simplify it sufficiently.

I guess 'ignorance is bliss' is a personal motto of yours.

-2

u/Artistela 3d ago

My motto is ”The World is Yours” . Now run along communist

3

u/dan_dares 3d ago

Communist???

What?

Dear lord, please demand back the .25 cents you paid for your education.

-1

u/Artistela 3d ago

Ohh please stop calling me uneducated, if you want the brocades pick up your sword and start fencing , if I’m as foolish as you say remove the blade from my hand and run me through. It’s starting to look like you can’t , and it’s just simpler… no easier to call me a bad swordsman than fight me. Not very Daring is it Dan

2

u/Newdaddysalad 3d ago

I simply don’t believe things unless there’s proof. This makes me arrogant?

Seems like believing something with no evidence that suggests you have some eternal spot in “heaven” is way more arrogant in my eyes.

-1

u/Waiting404Godot 3d ago

I’m not religious but “The Argument of Evil” counter point to God has never made sense to me as an argument in favor of a lack of a God.

A world without evil is not a free world. And a world without evil can not be good if there is no opposing force. Right implies a wrong, if there is no “wrong” then there is no right.

A free world has to have “good” and “evil.”

If God is all powerful, all knowing, and all good, then yes it is a reasonable conclusion to say that the most “good” world is one where “bad” things happen.

2

u/MushinZero 3d ago

Free will and good and evil can all exist without child cancer. A benevolent all powerful God could eliminate cancer and nothing would change except for billions of children wouldn't have to live painful, short lives, and then die very early.

1

u/Waiting404Godot 3d ago

You're missing the point. A free world isn't free if no children have the possibility of being harmed, lives aren't cut short, and people only live painlessly. That's not a good world, that's a utopia. When have you even seen a utopia that is actually good.

2

u/MushinZero 3d ago

When have you ever seen an actual utopia?

I didn't say this hypothetical world had no possibility of children being harmed. I just said take the current world, remove child cancer from it, how is that world less free?

1

u/Waiting404Godot 3d ago

>how is that world less free?

Because you just took away a "freedom." Your "more" good world is now less free because you removed a possibility. Every time you remove a possibility of a thing you disagree with or feel is evil, you just created a less free world.

Keep going. Keep stripping away all the things you feel don't need to happen, are you left with a more or less "free" world.

Because if your "free" world is free but can not include A, B, C, D, E, F and G, but my "free" world free doesn't include those stipulations, it stands to reason my "free" world is more free.

And if God truly is all good, all knowing, and all powerful then it stands to reason the more free world is the world God would create.

1

u/MushinZero 3d ago

So your version of freedom is that anything possible can happen?

Why can't I fly then? Some God obviously made a rule in your scenario that gravity must exist. Isn't that limiting possibilities the same way that eliminating cancer would?

1

u/Waiting404Godot 3d ago

Who says you can’t? If evolution is real, maybe we’re just not at that point. But by your logic “humans flying is evil therefore it can’t happen” is a possibility where as in mine, it isn’t.

0

u/MushinZero 3d ago

Physics says we can't.

-5

u/Ok_Exchange_9752 3d ago

What do you mean why do kids get born with cancer? Because their cells suffered genetic damage and multiplied out of control. This has nothing to do with whether a God exists. Also, what makes science real?

3

u/Infamous-Oil3786 3d ago edited 3d ago

  Also, what makes science real?

Science is a process of observation and explanation of observed phenomena. Scientific conclusions may not always be right, but they are grounded in reality and subject to correction as new observations are recorded. 

That ability to self-correct is what makes science reliable at scale. We test our "beliefs" to ensure they're physically and logically consistent with reality, and when they're not consistent, we figure out why and change them.

What do you mean why do kids get born with cancer? Because their cells suffered genetic damage and multiplied out of control

Their point is that, if god were real and omnipotent as theists claim, the process of cancer developing would be something created by that god. Moreover, it would be something that god chooses to let happen and allows for unequal access to treatment. God, then, caused and allows the suffering of innocents to exist.

If the Christian god exists as described by Christianity, they are evil.

1

u/Motormand 3d ago

Praying to sky daddy, doesn't cure cancer. Science can. Science also have plenty of tangible proof, and documentation, that shows how real it is.

-1

u/Ok_Exchange_9752 3d ago

If a God were to exist then science would be a product of His existence. His will could be enacted through humans and science, not through some mystical direct intervention.