How Does One Reconcile a Loving God? (a discussion)

Oy vey, CVeigh.

Given the chance of some repetition, the apodictical existential pantheist maintains that there's something we haven't yet figured out--probably owing to our tendency to personify--that fills in a lot of the presently mysterious detail. When we do we'll find that some will call it God and others won 't

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oy_vey

Edgar always answers as if No football player ever prayed for starving children in Africa, In fact Edgar assumes that you as selfish as he is and that you would never give, say, your extra earnings from winning a game to help feed those people.

Selfishness looks awfully close to what Edgar says and does.

Why is it when these wise people are disagreed with they turn the argument personal?

'...wise people...'!
The answer is that converts tend to be on a perceptual self validiction quest to rationalize their personal decision. I suggest he/she works on getting his chosen church to distribute some of its untold wealth to the poor it discourages from birth control . Personal accusations of uncaring would seem indicate displaced Freudian projection in this case !

Sorry to hear about your loss, C.

Is a problem irrelevant if it is to be fixed? or is one entitled to ask why the problem arose in the first place? The question of "how a loving God allows suffering" or "how could a loving God do x" causes a large percentage of people to question their own or others faith, so is an answer not pertinent?

That is why Edgar had a very relevant input.

With fervent fatuity : bêtise.

Yes, agreed on the 'temporary relief' point. Whether we believe in a loving God or not, the world is still the same place, and suffering remains, although it does not need to be all consuming.

Creator of all things. Yes, even 'IRONY'