> One of the most prominent examples of such irrationality is the majority of
> the world's conception of a deity. I saw an indian girl on the news whose
> parents had been killed by the earthquakes over there and she said that she
> prays of God that her brother is alright. She obviously could not imagine
> that the earthquakes themselves occurred by God's hand. Only good things

> like the survival of her brother could she attribute to God, not the terror
> of the earthquakes themselves - they were the work of nature. Nature is
> nature and God cannot control nature... unless he wants to. So there are
> three separate forces at work in the world - nature, man, and God. A classic
> trinity that echoes 'civilisation' to the very end. What an illogical
> paradigm is this, for if people reasoned it to conclusion they would find
> that God must choose inaction and hence choose the suffering of people
> because, in his omniscience, he must know the consequences of his choice
> whether that be one of action or inaction. Nevertheless, the paradigm
> continues because it encapsulates the quintessence of the civilised ethos -
> that nature was made by God for man and man was made to rule it. If the good
> suffer then it is at the stoic hands of nature or the evil hands of man; if
> the bad suffer then it is at the hands of God.

yeah, that basically comes down to the paradox

1 god is omnipowerfu and omniscient
3 god loves us
4 we suffer.

Xtians feebly try to refute this with something along the lines of god giving us free will to do as we choose which includes doing thinsg that hurt us.

but first, that doesn't explain mosquitos, disease, starvation, etc.

and it doesn't explain hell either. choosing not to believe "jesus died for me and if i dont believe that then ill go to hell", and choosing to go to hell, are two different things. there's no valid reason, based in love, to make not going to hell dependent on believing some arbitrary dogma (even if it is true. but why would it be true? what does it mean for jesus to die "for" us? if there is some kind of transfer of blame or vengeance (ie. what we 'deserve' to have happen to us) then in what form does this blame exist, and why can't got just dissipate it without transferring to jesus, and if he loves us so much to give his son to pardon us then who is the one blaming us for our sins and wanting to inflict harm because of them? or if such pain is just the natural reaction to our sins then god could have just thwarted the natural reactions instead of thwarting them and then creating new ones to inflict upon jesus).
if god needs us to accept his gift then he could just show us what we need to accept directly without having to believe it just because other people tell us. they say, oh, but you have to have FAITH. well there's no valid reason/necessity for that either. faith is belief without reason, and is arbitrary. It is no less virtuous to have faith in UFO's or reincarnation, and why would it be necessary anyway. why would god favor those who don't reason? after all, he created us to reason. if he loves everyone then he loves those who reason (ie. dont have faith) and if he's omnipowerful then he can save those who reason.

as to the matter of suffering being the result of personal free-will choices, allow me to just elaborate a little on the paradox.

1 god is omniscient, and knows everything that hurts us or will/could hurt us
2 god is omnipowerful, and can change any factor at all at whim, even if it violates logic as we know it. after all, they always say god is beyond any logic, or human logic (particularly whenever they lose a debate).
3 god loves us (everyone one of us unconditionally) because we are his creations.
4 we suffer.

So therefore it is within god's power to allow us to both A) have free will to do or believe as we choose, and B) experience unending infinite bliss and all the benefits of suffering without having to do the actual suffering. To say anything otherwise, based on whatever logic, is to doubt god's power.

maybe one could argue that he loves us AND wants us to suffer because he blames us for not having faith or sinning or whatever, but it makes no sense for god to blame us for anything when we are doing what it is in our nature to do and god created our nature. and also because he knew each of our exact fates when he created us, being omniscient (an arguable but collateral point). actually it makes no sense to blame anyone anyway. whatever someone does is either a) 100% predetermined from before they were even born, or b) influenced partially by absolute random chance, the only logical alternative to determinism. that is not to say that free will doesn't exist, but that you can't blame someone for what they choose to do with their free will; for how their identity developes. (actually, blame is valid as a delegation of responsibility which is valid exactly inasmuch as one has the ability to curb their future behaviour, and no more, but that's another subject.)
and completely besides that point, there is no philosophical justification for vengeance (such as, wanting to send someone to hell). it comes down to a sanguine human desire. (vengeance is a dish best served cold.) it is basically the will to inflict suffering, because suffering has already been inflicted - as if it cancels out, as if two wrongs make a right, well, suffering, like anything else, only adds up. of course, there is the schadenfreude aspect of it - that is, that the one executing the vengeace gains a perverse joy from the act, or at best, gains closure. but to admit that as justification would be to say that any act harming another for personal pleasure or psychological comfort is justified - the particular link between the second act and its recipient's initial act (ie the fact that it is vengeance) not withstanding as justification because as i have shown one does not cancel out the other. (which, by the way, is why "when there is crime in a society, there is no justice.")

Yet our god is a vengeful god, complete with wrath and everything.

and besides, you don't take out vengeance on people you love infinitely and unconditionally. and constantly.

I know you weren't asking for a full dissertation on why the basic tenets of christianity are invalid, but what started as a relevant and simple reaction to your comments evolved into something a little more comprehensive, which i plan to put on the 'net eventually. :)

one last point, to those who have a problem with my saying that god 'sends' people to go to hell (as opposed to 'allowing' it to happen): they are effectively the same thing because he has absolute power by virtue of his supposed omniscience (even to the point of transcending all logic) to prevent them from going to hell if he wants to.

If he did not want it to happen (or, more accurately, if he wanted it to not happen, which he should if he loves us (and if you argue with that then you weren't listening)), he would NOT allow it.