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'

The old man with a beard is as much a lie as Satan depicted with that awful and (let's be honest) slightly gay red number.

Neither of them properly address the reality of things. And unfortunately the old man with the beard, rather than humanize God, lends to the image of a distant and remote vision of God. This is because we have an image of an old (and slightly bored) king handing out edicts from a throne.

This is an unhelpful image, because it calls an image of someone who sends others and who risks others but not himself. In fact it calls to mind the exact issue that many atheists have with God. That he called Isaac to be killed. Even though Isaac was saved, the old man notion has another problem. "What does God need with a starship?" If you understand the reference, you know the problem with an aloof floating douchebag.
You see, in order for God to be loving, he necessarily must be one of us. Human (or as human as you can get while still being immortal). Rather than that "God" in Star Trek, a far more helpful image is the "man behind the curtain" in Wizard of Oz. Or since we used Star Trek, we have Picard, who is often godlike and aloof, but we see a movie where Picard meets Kirk. Kirk is authoritative enough to order Picard around ( awesomest scene ever, watching Picard meekly follow his orders) yet in every way very human. Chopping wood. Talking about his dog, and meeting a lover. Breaking eggs. He goes right into nearly every away mission and comes back because he's lucky.

So ditch that version of God. I want you to think of God as a number of forms. First, "the least of these."

Then, as the classical Jesus

Third, as a woman. Why? Because the Church message has been tainted by a sort of toxic masculinity. "God can't be female." Wrong, God can be anything She wants. Let's call her Kyria after Kyrie (The Lord).

Lastly, it is important to see God as a Beloved. Dearest. The person you married. I can't help you with this one.

Another common assumption is that God will necessarily devout. When God takes human form, He may have a wide number of different beliefs. God's forms are personas (except for one, Jesus) and thus God's form will have any number of traits. God is there to encounter us and guide us.