When Paul says that suffering builds character, he is talking about himself -- how do you imagine this argument applies to the people who died in the Holocaust?
This event is horrible, yes , but I said the sins are paid on the cross. Look at Jesus, Christians are not defined by their death but rather on how they lived. This savagery was caused by Atheism. It's ironic, is it not(can ethicly cleanse people because there is no god, but he were real it would be his fault)
Your initial argument seems to be that suffering builds character; but it is clear that there exist many instances of suffering, for which this is not the case, so your argument is incomplete, so the epicurean argument holds. Not sure how any of the things you mention here, even if taken to be true, would address this concern.
Well of course if you die no character can be built, but lessons can still be learned to others .my point is that God is good not because he don't prevent everything bad , but he offers a solution.
This whole argument is to assume that the "objective" good thing to do prevents bad things from happening. I gave an example that that is not necessarily the case . U see people's understanding the objective good is wrong, and that's why the Holocaust happened.they thought they were doing the right thing
@@Rozvorabut, if you want to say that god allows suffering so that other people (and not the ones suffering) might learn a lesson, then the passage from Romans is irrelevant -- in that, Paul is specifically talking about his own suffering, and that of his followers. At any rate, it is not clear what definition of good would allow such a degree of partiality (because, of course, if you can learn by my suffering, i can also learn from yours). Besides, one would have to ask why it would be impossible for god to inspire some lesson to people group A, without inflicting suffering on people group B.
When Paul says that suffering builds character, he is talking about himself -- how do you imagine this argument applies to the people who died in the Holocaust?
This event is horrible, yes , but I said the sins are paid on the cross. Look at Jesus, Christians are not defined by their death but rather on how they lived. This savagery was caused by Atheism. It's ironic, is it not(can ethicly cleanse people because there is no god, but he were real it would be his fault)
Your initial argument seems to be that suffering builds character; but it is clear that there exist many instances of suffering, for which this is not the case, so your argument is incomplete, so the epicurean argument holds. Not sure how any of the things you mention here, even if taken to be true, would address this concern.
Well of course if you die no character can be built, but lessons can still be learned to others .my point is that God is good not because he don't prevent everything bad , but he offers a solution.
This whole argument is to assume that the "objective" good thing to do prevents bad things from happening. I gave an example that that is not necessarily the case . U see people's understanding the objective good is wrong, and that's why the Holocaust happened.they thought they were doing the right thing
@@Rozvorabut, if you want to say that god allows suffering so that other people (and not the ones suffering) might learn a lesson, then the passage from Romans is irrelevant -- in that, Paul is specifically talking about his own suffering, and that of his followers. At any rate, it is not clear what definition of good would allow such a degree of partiality (because, of course, if you can learn by my suffering, i can also learn from yours). Besides, one would have to ask why it would be impossible for god to inspire some lesson to people group A, without inflicting suffering on people group B.