And excuse me, but what the hell do you know about “simple” matters when it comes to Christian sects? Here are the “simple” matters every Christian sect has figured out.

1.) Christ came to earth and preached His good news.
2.) The Romans didn’t like that so they killed him.
3.) On the third day He rose again.
4.) He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.
5.) In the meantime we have to hang on and deal with all the people who think we’re idiots.

The “simple matters” that we can’t agree about are things like Transubstantiation and Faith and Good Works relating to salvation, which are actually extremely complicated matters that often not only have to do with history and Scripture, but also with Philosophy and Metaphysics. Forgive me, but if you have to work for a living then you might not have all day to sit around wondering whether or not the wafer is the body of Christ or not, so we cut corners and call it common sense. But these are far from “simple matters” so please don’t smart ass us.

In fact we all might ask them, because it’s our nation’s greed, fueled by all of our personal greed and desire for war and goods that lead countries to break down to the point where those children die in abject poverty in the first place. The earth has enough food for us. There are resources available. We are the ones who refuse to help one another because of our own perverse greed.

“At least 16,000 a day die. What do you imagine is a good god’s purpose in allowing them to be born at all? Most of them will not go to heaven”

Why do you assume they won’t go to Heaven? I most certainly never said this. You act as if my conception of God and Christianity is some narrow straightjacket, but you’re the one setting up those parameters, not me. Personally I think God takes upbringing and personal suffering into account when it comes to salvation, so in terms of their ultimate-reality fate I think those children will be just fine.

“It’s an interesting idea that non-existence is better than existence, but I’m not sure you’ll find a lot of agreement among living human beings. Most of us enjoy life enough that we want to continue doing it.”

No kidding, my statement is just a general question we have. Given that we’re just going to die, what is the point of living in the first place? Especially with all the suffering mixed in. But you can’t deny that if you didn’t exist you couldn’t suffer and wouldn’t be conscious of not existing, which is preferable to existence, but it’s too late now.

Your conclusion is actually what interests me here, you seem to borrow a page from the book of that whiney unemployed loser Christopher Hitchens. You assume that because the universe isn’t absolutely totally convenient for humans to inhabit, it means there is no God. You think that because bad things happen to us, there must be no God. Why do you make this assumption? Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps the Almighty has some grander plan which humans are a part of, but by no means the most important part of? Have you ever considered that though God loves us, that does not mean God is going to come running to our rescue every time we manage to blow something? No, you haven’t, you assume that because life can be unfair, it means there can’t be a good and loving God. Let the suffering go Anne, because none of it matters in the long run.

I love people who interpret the Bible according to “common sense”. Thousands of Christian sects that can’t agree on simple matters should demonstrate the emptiness of that premise. If you ain’t got the book, you ain’t got nothin’

At least 16,000 a day die. What do you imagine is a good god’s purpose in allowing them to be born at all? Most of them will not go to heaven.

It’s an interesting idea that non-existence is better than existence, but I’m not sure you’ll find a lot of agreement among living human beings. Most of us enjoy life enough that we want to continue doing it.

Your conclusion that god somehow has a reason for allowing suffering is a classic Christian response to the problem of evil. I could never satisfactorily imagine that an omnipotent loving god had some purpose in mind that could BEST or ONLY be satisfied by allowing millions of children to die of starvation every year. Surely an omnipotent god could communicate a little more effectively with us dumb humans if there’s a message in there.

I do not believe we should ever be happy to go to war.

Amen to that. I myself never quite understood how Christianity and its adherents (like myself!) became stereotyped as so bellicose and incendiary. I always say that I would defend myself and my loved ones, but never go to war unless they’re literally knocking at my door (that could be my libertarianism speaking as well, though).

Yes, yes indeed. Very thoughtful post.

Euclid supposedly said the following: “The laws of nature are nothing but the mathematical thoughts of God.” I think this could definitely be interpreted to encompass the laws of morality.

“Similarly, maybe if people couldn’t make a conscious choice about whether to love God or act righteously, our decisions would inevitably be worthless to God, and worthless for God, worthless for whatever purpose we are intended for.”

and …

“If God didn’t set these rules, then that means God isn’t the ultimate high authority anymore, there are rules even he must abide by. However, I think both of the explanations miss the point. I think the point is that God is the rules, God is all those good values and good things …”

Well said.