|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: :: the problem with god - 7/8/2008 3:02:35 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
Perhaps the Scripture means "suffer for the sake of me" or however you want to say it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: the problem with god - 7/25/2008 3:15:26 AM
|
|
|
cognitivemagic
Posts: 208
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
A nice thing to say, really. Much kinder than what you expect the atheist to say. No mention of eternal Hell, which I hate to assume but what exactly are your thoughts about the fate of a Muslim or an atheist in the next life? I'm aware of a certain lack of wiggle room where Christian doctrine is concerned. Why must the atheist take off the gloves with his dying friend, when you don’t need to? As far as I can tell, you’re either a Universalist or you’re being very hypocritical here.
I don't mention "eternal hell", precisely because I'm not that person's judge. And neither are you. I derive my approach from the bible:
"But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. For I know nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord. Therefore, judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each ones praise will come from God." (1Cor. 4:3-5)
God alone is judge, as the Creed says:
"And He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead, whose Kingdom shall have no end".
The "fate" of the muslim friend is in the hands of a merciful God.
But if we think of God as you think of Him, I suppose that no one would be in heaven.
Again, you ignored my question, in favor of this absurd red herring.
How do you derive justification for moral and meta-ethical statements from the mere states of physical reality? Why is chopping down a tree not morally equivalent to chopping down a human being, if both are just physical objects comprised of the same atomic "stuff"?
or
How does your ontology begin to provide an adequate account for the phenomena of consciousness, and all of the aspects of subjective experience?
I just finished reading the "meat" of Stewart Goetz and Charles Taliaferro's "Naturalism" (Eerdmans 2008), and highly recommend everyone interested in the connection between "consciousness" and the "existence of God" to check it out. It's not overly technical. Also, Victor Reppert's "C.S. Lewis' Dangerous Idea" and Richard Purtill's "Reason To Believe" (Purtill is out-of-print but can be obtained through Bookfinder.com) are excellent treatments of this approach.
I'm going to take a guess here:
You won't answer me at all...because you can't answer me. Instead, you will throw out these evasive red herrings and non-sequitors in order to make it seem that theists haven't thought as "deeply" as you about the upshot of their own world-view. Yet, ironically, your own thoughts about the meaning and implications of the atheistic world-view happen to be the shallowest of all.
It's exactly the case that my last post said:
Your atheism is merely parasitic. It can only exist by preying on theistic belief, while offering no real substantive reflection about atheology itself.
< Message edited by cognitivemagic -- 7/25/2008 3:27:07 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: the problem with god - 7/25/2008 9:49:29 AM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 532
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: facedown
seems this is a question many folks deal with both here and in our localities, so here's a thread on it.
i'm personally not over concerned with the question, or those asking the question - but maybe the reason it has to be asked, and the status-quo answers often cited.
the question is usually centered around "if god was good, then why is there suffering" - "why is there a hell" - "why do children die" - "why doesn't god show up and fix this mess" - "i can't worship a god who claims to be love and good and determines before hand to create something intentionally to be destroyed" - etc
the typical answer is normally along the lines of "god is love, and god is good, but god is also just" - "god must punish sin" - etc - however, i'm not certain that this response really answers the question.
what are your thoughts? how do you respond?
Most lawbreakers deny their own guilt and blame the judge just like most children deny their own guilt and blame their parents. So no human being is qualified to judge what God does since we humans are the defendants in God's courtroom. 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: the problem with god - 7/28/2008 10:05:30 AM
|
|
|
YahwehsAngel.Love
Posts: 12
Joined: 12/28/2006
Status: offline
|
This life that we live is nothing but a blink of an eye compared to eternity. Try reading The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel. =]
_____________________________
I am a hostage to my own humanity
Self detained and forced to live in this mess I’ve made
And all I’m asking is for You to do what You can with me
But I can’t ask You to give what You already gave
-Relient K
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: the problem with god - 7/30/2008 10:44:16 AM
|
|
|
abraxas
Posts: 198
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic
I don't mention "eternal hell", precisely because I'm not that person's judge. And neither are you. I derive my approach from the bible
That’s a great approach and I commend you for it. I’m happy to see a Christian who can concede that perhaps God will save Muslims, atheists, or other non-Christians.
quote:
But if we think of God as you think of Him, I suppose that no one would be in heaven.
What do you mean "as I think of Him?" In my own agnostic way I have a rough concept of a deistic-type God that I hold to, but that's not what you're referring to so what are you referring to?
quote:
Again, you ignored my question, in favor of this absurd red herring.
Well, I joined into this discussion on "the problems of God" when you suggested that the problem goes both ways. And now when I suggest that this problem goes both ways, it's an absurd red herring. Got it.
I would hope that even the hardest atheist would have enough sense to be spare his dying friend the brunt of his non-belief, just as I would hope that a Christian wouldn't start talking about eternal hell. When it comes to a dying person, I'd have to say the bets are off to some degree.
quote:
How do you derive justification for moral and meta-ethical statements from the mere states of physical reality? Why is chopping down a tree not morally equivalent to chopping down a human being, if both are just physical objects comprised of the same atomic "stuff"?
I think there are good answers to this, such as the obvious differences the different atomic configurations give rise to--trees (which I happen to love and respect) vs. us. We feel empathy, pain, love, self-autonomy, etc., pretty amazing for a configuration of atoms, extremely amazing really, but...? I already said I don't believe there to be an airtight justification for these kinds of challenges, why are you still asking me? If you've got an airtight justification for them I'd love to hear it.
quote:
How does your ontology begin to provide an adequate account for the phenomena of consciousness, and all of the aspects of subjective experience?
It doesn't. There's quite a bit of mystery in it. It's fascinating stuff. So?
Thanks for the reading suggestions.
quote:
I'm going to take a guess here:
You won't answer me at all...because you can't answer me. Instead, you will throw out these evasive red herrings and non-sequitors in order to make it seem that theists haven't thought as "deeply" as you about the upshot of their own world-view. Yet, ironically, your own thoughts about the meaning and implications of the atheistic world-view happen to be the shallowest of all.
Actually no, that's not it at all. I know, you want the implications of the atheistic world-view to be as dreary and morbid as they could possibly be, and you won't settle for anything less! I'll be honest, I struggle with absurdism in my life. I find ways to deal with it. But I'm just being honest, that nothing gives rise to these nihilistic thoughts more than the idea of so many people, going through life, sometimes so packed with hardships I can't even imagine, and then when this life is over they wind up suffering eternally in Hell.
I'm not saying that all Christians would agree with that picture, but I understand orthodox Christian doctrine well enough to know that it is what some people believe. Surely, cognitive magic, you'd rather cease to exist than suffer eternal conscious torment? Surely you'd rather anyone cease to exist than suffer eternal conscious torment?
quote:
It's exactly the case that my last post said:
Your atheism is merely parasitic. It can only exist by preying on theistic belief, while offering no real substantive reflection about atheology itself.
You're basing that on my participation on this website? Don't you wonder if perhaps you're not getting the complete abraxas? 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: the problem with god - 8/2/2008 3:56:35 PM
|
|
|
cognitivemagic
Posts: 208
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
Abraxas:
Your last post just confirmed the very things that I said. But let me show you:
I said:
quote:
How does your ontology begin to provide an adequate account for the phenomena of consciousness, and all of the aspects of subjective experience?
and
quote:
You won't answer me at all...because you can't answer me.
You said:
quote:
It doesn't. There's quite a bit of mystery in it. It's fascinating stuff. So?
and
quote:
I think there are good answers to this, such as the obvious differences the different atomic configurations give rise to--trees (which I happen to love and respect) vs. us. We feel empathy, pain, love, self-autonomy, etc., pretty amazing for a configuration of atoms, extremely amazing really, but...? I already said I don't believe there to be an airtight justification for these kinds of challenges, why are you still asking me? If you've got an airtight justification for them I'd love to hear it.
I said:
quote:
Your atheism is merely parasitic. It can only exist by preying on theistic belief, while offering no real substantive reflection about atheology itself.
And I also made these points:
quote:
When I ask myself, "why does that bother me so much?", as an atheist I could say, "well, that's just the way natural selection worked....to weed out my family, which was not deemed fit for biological survival" or "that's just the way that Einstein's 'god' has rolled the dice", and therefore it's foolish to be bothered by it at all.
Yet, that doesn't explain why I'm bothered. I could then say, "well, certain neural synapses are firing at such and such location in my physical brain, which then triggers nerve responses that are channeled through my spinal cord, ending finally in the over-production of stomach acid, causing an upset stomach...meanwhile, the serotonin levels in my brain are short circuited, leaving me cycling between states of major depression and moderate anxiety, etc.
That's the purely "biological" explanation for why I might be feeling a certain way; but that's not really what I'm asking at all. Rather, I'm asking why it is I should be bothered/upset in the first place.
The problem with atheism is it's inability to render "evil" as a "problem" at all; because if the entire universe just "is" (fact), where do you get the idea of superimposing the notion of "ought to be" (value) onto it? Or how can you pull (i.e. extrapolate) a non-physical notion (i.e. value) from the varied combinations of protons, neutrons and electrons? Or a strong/weak nuclear force? Or gravitational attraction? Or magnetic repulsion?
Not only did I anticipate your responses; you even outright acquiesce virtually all my points!!
Why don't you make your next post say "I don't have answers"; without all the red herrings and commentary to cover over that fact.
Do not demand of others what you yourself cannot provide. It's called the "golden rule". It's also called being "just".
It might also be called being "democratic".
But imagine if I treated you with this:
"If your skepticism gives your life meaning.....gives you a reason to live....provides some "values" to guide your way, then that's great. Everyone should have a purpose."
"If you want to have faith in skepticism...well, who am I to tell you what to believe? Just keep your "faith" private...the rest of us are more interested in facts, reasons and understanding."
"Skepticism is the opiate of the masses.....and a deep seated Oedipal neurosis that's rooted in the human desire to kill their heavenly "Father".
"A person who's a skeptic is either blind, stupid, insane or wicked....but I'd rather not think about that."
"Skepticism is not great....skeptics are not great"
"The skeptic delusion"
and so forth.
A steady dieting of passive aggressive and asinine propaganda will leave all soul's malnourished.
< Message edited by cognitivemagic -- 8/2/2008 4:04:48 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: the problem with god - 8/4/2008 10:50:31 PM
|
|
|
facedown
Posts: 993
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: the urban desert
Status: offline
|
musiciandad
you said "...an assumption that there is a standard of morality that god answers to. god is the source of morality. he's in charge of it, not the other way around..."
i asked, how does this make sense to you? to which you seemed to have some sort of hard time understanding the question, and replied again "...god is the source of goodness...."
so i'm wondering, how does that make sense? if someone claims to know what is "good" - then one is going to logically conclude that while god may not "answer to" some standard of morality, that the standard still exists - therefore, if something is out of whack, then.....
so, either a) this god changes his mind left and right, and no absolutes actually exist, or b) we're all puppets on a string.
txparent
to be honest, i'm not certain that the phrase "god allows suffering" is phrased very well in the first place. it seems to be asked, of course, because people suffer, and then question the status quo of a "good god", and a vareity of cliche's out there that the church often presents.
so, in reference to your number 1 - i'm not certain i agree at all. #2 - pain as inevitable, is far from the same as "god allows suffering". #3 - i'm not not certain that most 'logic' is actually "logical". #4 - maybe not; however, that doesn't take away the question. #5, maybe yes, maybe no.
hellohellohi
i think some of your post 27 resonates.
evry1needsgod
your answer begets some sort of logic - which concludes that the question has a logical answer. in other words how does a kid being shot and killed at a gas station store fit into the logical model of a "perfect and holy god" - if the answer elludes back to "mystery" - then the first part of the answer, which relied on logic, should never have been used in the first place.
and that's part, if not all, of the problem, with how folks answer these questions - it beings by demanding some sort of logic, which hasn't been well thought out by the one answering, and when pressured - oen resorts to "well, it's all god's plan" - or "our feeble minds just cant comprehend it" - or "it's a mystery"
galadriel2
i understand scripture to say that god is/has reconcilled all things unto himself in/through christ. how does your post 29 convey that?
in addition, by tying in "suffering" with "heaven and hell" - and "repenting" - are you not somehow suggesting (in a logical, albeit unwritten conclusion) that "repenting" will somehow get one to "heaven" and in turn will cease "suffering"? it seems, this sort of message is ages old, one that demanded more and more sacrifices to an angry god who always demanded more, and more, and more.
cognitivemagic
in speaking of the "fall" - is this spoken of as a "literal" event, or a "narrative" event? and i'm assuming you mean western/fundamentalist/evangelical/etc, not "Christian", as that (with the big c) isn't quite the case.
though i don't disagree with you, that while the problem of "evil" is one that must be wrestled with by both those who claim a faith in god, as well as those who do not.
abraxas
couldn't agree more with your final statement in post 32
_____________________________
-| those who say, don't know. those who know, don't say |-
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: the problem with god - 8/5/2008 12:33:23 AM
|
|
|
Fortydays
Posts: 23
Joined: 4/24/2008
Status: offline
|
FREE WILL......we have free will. With that, we have to deal with our own choices. Wrecking cars, eating bad that causes heath problems and so on.
But...some suffering that we come across isn't because of what we have chose to get ourselves into. IF God interviened everytime a Christian prayed for help, then everyone in the world would see this and choose God because of seeing his miracles and not from Choosing to seek him. Plus if everyone was getting healed from suffering, who would care what happened in life.....WE would all get healed and no one would suffer.
So suffering is a fact of life. It sucks and its not going to be taken away until the next age. God wants us all to make it to the Kingdom, but if he heals everyone and takes away all suffering, than the free will to choose him has now failed.
Does this make sense at all? I hope so. Im not very good at answer questions ....just asking them. NORmally that is.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: the problem with god - 8/5/2008 11:51:13 AM
|
|
|
abraxas
Posts: 198
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
I’m going to add my closing thoughts here in a discussion that has long run its course.
I went back and read through the thread, especially beginning with post 31, where I joined in, to see if I could get a better sense of things, and see why cog has turned into a frilled lizard.
Several times you’ve accused me of red herring arguments. Looking back at your post 31, “adducement” number three, you write, 3) What possible consolation could atheism give to the actual sufferer's in this world? What hope or comfort could the atheist give the terminally ill on their deathbed other than to rest on the "foundation of unyielding despair" (to borrow Bertrand Russell's famous phrase from his essay "A Free Man's Worship")?
As you’ve already conceded, the list of yours wasn’t exactly a “text-booky Aristotelian” response to the problem of evil; surely you understand that what item 3—and item 4--in fact were, were “arguments that may in themselves be valid, but do not address the issue in question.” I.e. red herrings.
What resulted in the next two pages of our exchange was a mixture of two topics: the questions of making meanings/value judgements, and the questions of “hope” or “value” found in different worldviews.
Something else I realized from looking back, and this one leaves me shaking my head, cog. You had said, “It's equally incumbent on the atheist/skeptic/agnostic to offer a "reason" for particular cases of suffering as well.”
To which I replied, “It isn't equally incumbent because they don't assert a sentient (moral) agent behind it all. That's the whole reason there is such thing as a "problem of evil", so it is not a double-edged sword.” (bold added)
I was confused by your reply: “In fact, the atheist does posit a sentient (moral) agent behind all the evil in the world: humans. I guess it would be just as valid to say that because "evil" exists, that mankind, by the same logic, must not exist either.”
And told you I didn’t catch what you mean. You accused me of not having an answer. Looking back, I see that you took “it all” to mean “all the evil”, instead of “all of life”. Really dude! Did that take you aback, someone suggesting that THERE IS NO SENTIENT AGENT BEHIND HUMAN ACTIONS?
Honestly I have never come across anyone who says that. Seriously, did you ask yourself, “Did he really just say that? Did I get that right?” Whew! Well, for the record I meant that atheists don’t assert a sentient agent behind LIFE, and… are you sure you understand the “problem of evil”? Because the proposition that there is a sentient being behind “it all”—an omnipotent, benevolent being, is really at the crux of the issue.
Can you believe that’s how this whole saga got underway?
Now, on this thread, I’ve said more than once that I don’t believe there is ANY air-tight justification for any belief- or value-system. This doesn’t mean that we cannot approach our reality, or make value judgements. We are not stuck in our tracks because we cannot PROVE that we aren’t just a brain in a vat being fed a virtual reality, or because we cannot PROVE objectively that it’s wrong to murder someone, or rape someone.
Much of your thrust has seemed to me based on the assumption that this is so—that in order to even define evil, or good, one must be able to justify it in a way that I personally do not believe is available to any human mind.
We are, however, far from useless. There are moral philosophies such as the categorical imperative, utilitarianism, the golden rule, religious precepts, etc. which are not air-tight but are effective. And just how much of our morality is emotional, or instinctive, as opposed to intellectual?
So when you ask, “What principle, extrapolated from the workings of the physical universe, can amount to justifying (in a non-question begging way) the idea of helping and saving others, if there is no God?”
You might see why I ask in return, “What principle, extrapolated from anywhere, can justify (in a non-question-begging way) anything?”
Now that we had been on this kick of seeking an air-tight justification, for some reason despite my admission that I didn’t believe there was one (and my invitation to you to present one), you thought to ask again, “How does your ontology begin to provide an adequate account for the phenomena of consciousness, and all of the aspects of subjective experience?”
This looks to me like more “brain in a vat” type questioning. Am I getting you wrong? Perhaps we should have been discussing whether someone needs to have an air-tight ontological answer before beginning to address moral questions? Believe me, I don’t think you or anyone has any answer (“in a non-question-begging way") to the fundamental ontological questions. Do you have a statement of faith? That’s fine. But if your statement of faith here trumps my agnosticism, or a hard atheist's hard atheism (and really that's who you are speaking to), then what you are arguing is a “belief in belief”, an emotional argument rather than a respectable case for “what actually is”.
Which would explain why you declare, “the bankruptcy of atheism makes some type of theism necessary, de re.”
In case anyone is still unsure, the "problem of evil" is not simply, "why is there suffering, and misery?" It is the problem of reconciling that fact with the idea of an omnipotent, loving God who has the power to prevent it but doesn't.
All answers--The Fall, Life is a test, free will, etc. are possible ways to reconcile it for some, but to think that someone who doesn't currently believe in God but is critically examining a "God-proposition" CAN'T even comment on the concept of evil unless he can objectively pinpoint evil/good is just ridiculous. Some good advice I heard recently: Do not demand of others what you yourself cannot provide.
As a thought experiment I recommend you show two videos to various people. One is a video of a tree being cut down; the other is a person being hacked up with a machete. Pay close attention to the differing reactions between the two videos! 
< Message edited by abraxas -- 8/5/2008 11:58:30 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: the problem with god - 8/16/2008 2:24:32 PM
|
|
|
Butterflytearz
Posts: 137
Joined: 7/6/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
the question is usually centered around "if god was good, then why is there suffering" - "why is there a hell" - "why do children die" - "why doesn't god show up and fix this mess" - "i can't worship a god who claims to be love and good and determines before hand to create something intentionally to be destroyed" - etc
This present life in the flesh is not our destiny or our home,, but rather a place to seek and find God,, to come to him for the kingdom of God is our home.
WE need God and He wants us to live as Jesus lives to be glorified and eternally with him.
_____________________________
Hebrews 4:11 Let us labor therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: the problem with god - 8/21/2008 3:29:40 AM
|
|
|
cognitivemagic
Posts: 208
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Something else I realized from looking back, and this one leaves me shaking my head, cog. You had said, “It's equally incumbent on the atheist/skeptic/agnostic to offer a "reason" for particular cases of suffering as well.”
To which I replied, “It isn't equally incumbent because they don't assert a sentient (moral) agent behind it all. That's the whole reason there is such thing as a "problem of evil", so it is not a double-edged sword.” (bold added)
From the standpoint of both Christianity and Atheism, each posits "human beings" as the cause of "evil"; both in terms of ontological origin and as being the existential victim.
It's absurd to speak of the volcano, the earthquake, the drought, the fires, the radioactive rays of the sun, etc., as being "evil". Something can only be said to be "evil" if, and only if, it can be considered morally blame or praise worthy. Only humans can be considered such. Therefore, humans must be the source of evil. And if that's true, my point in post #33 stands:
quote:
In fact, the atheist does posit a sentient (moral) agent behind all the evil in the world: humans.
I guess it would be just as valid to say that because "evil" exists, that mankind, by the same logic, must not exist either.
From my perspective, God is not the source of evil; therefore, it's moot to make God guilty of a crime He didn't commit.
Furthermore, I can only speculate that atheist notions of "evil" are merely psychological dispositions of distaste for "natural" events that they don't find subjectively appealing....evil is certainly not an object of scientific inquiry.
"Evil", if it is anything, is metaphysical. But if we are restricted to the merely "natural", whence does this idea come from? For when we point to particular instances of events, as good naturalists, we can only say that such and such occurred (i.e. a man was shot to death). But when we attach the word "evil" to the event "man was shot to death", we've left the "natural" world altogether for, what the atheist construes as, metaphysical fairy land.
So back to my point: atheism creates the worst of all possible epistemic and ontological worlds.
Reason: because atheism cannot ground a notion like "evil" in anything physical; "evil" is an idea, not a "thing". And because, from the atheist's perspective, all rational and moral thought is determined by the fixed and unalterable laws of physics and chemistry, "evil" then, as an idea, is simply the result of capricious human subjectivity....capricious because of the non-intentional nature of nature.
But let me give the reader's digest breakdown of my objection:
1) An atheist system of thought makes thought, itself, capricious and irrational.
2) For the atheist, naturalism has to be true....therefore metaphysical entities, like evil, are not at home in such a universe....in fact, evil is really non-existent. Scientists cannot and will not study "evil" as a proper subject of scientific inquiry because evil is not an object or thing.
Therefore, unless and until the atheist has some way to overcome these obstacles, I say that theism is the better choice.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: the problem with god - 8/21/2008 11:02:58 AM
|
|
|
abraxas
Posts: 198
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic
From the standpoint of both Christianity and Atheism, each posits "human beings" as the cause of "evil"; both in terms of ontological origin and as being the existential victim.
You know, you don't have to agree with the POE to understand it, but if you want to discuss it you really should understand it. The POE posits an all-powerful, all-knowing, and benevolent being. From http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/ --
quote:
If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
Evil exists.
If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
That this argument is valid is perhaps most easily seen by a reductio argument, in which one assumes that the conclusion — (7) — is false, and then shows that the denial of (7), along with premises (1) through (6), leads to a contradiction. Thus if, contrary to (7), God exists, it follows from (1) that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. This, together with (2), (3), and (4) then entails that God has the power to eliminate all evil, that God knows when evil exists, and that God has the desire to eliminate all evil. But when (5) is conjoined with the reductio assumption that God exists, it then follows via modus ponens from (6) that either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil. Thus we have a contradiction, and so premises (1) through (6) do validly imply (7).
quote:
It's absurd to speak of the volcano, the earthquake, the drought, the fires, the radioactive rays of the sun, etc., as being "evil".
A broader definition of 'evil' to include "Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction" is often used in the POE, and if you look into it you'll see that. Look at the link I posted above, or find your own. And look up evil, def. number 3 or 4 maybe. It falls under the scope of the kinds of terrible things that happen to people that the posited God would want to prevent.
quote:
Only humans can be considered such. Therefore, humans must be the source of evil. And if that's true, my point in post #33 stands:
quote:
In fact, the atheist does posit a sentient (moral) agent behind all the evil in the world: humans.
I guess it would be just as valid to say that because "evil" exists, that mankind, by the same logic, must not exist either.
Firstly, you don't understand the Problem of Evil, secondly, your point in #33 is pointless: You're saying we can start our argument: 1. If humans exist, then humans are omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. LOL!
quote:
From my perspective, God is not the source of evil; therefore, it's moot to make God guilty of a crime He didn't commit.
Whether he "committed" it or not is arguable but it is not the point of the POE. He's behind it all as the creator, and he controls it all as the omnipotent, and he's aware of it all as the all-knowing. Can He prevent it, and if so why doesn't He? For some, the problem is reconciled with an answer to this question, for others it isn't.
The rest of your post is worse than the first part. It reads like a broken record. You're confusing atheists with robots. Or Vulcans. I addressed all of that already.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: the problem with god - 8/22/2008 4:10:24 PM
|
|
|
Thessa
Posts: 167
Joined: 8/22/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: facedown
seems this is a question many folks deal with both here and in our localities, so here's a thread on it.
i'm personally not over concerned with the question, or those asking the question - but maybe the reason it has to be asked, and the status-quo answers often cited.
the question is usually centered around "if god was good, then why is there suffering" - "why is there a hell" - "why do children die" - "why doesn't god show up and fix this mess" - "i can't worship a god who claims to be love and good and determines before hand to create something intentionally to be destroyed" - etc
the typical answer is normally along the lines of "god is love, and god is good, but god is also just" - "god must punish sin" - etc - however, i'm not certain that this response really answers the question.
what are your thoughts? how do you respond?
I respond to that by saying that God is a loving God regardless of what happens in this world full of sin.
He gives a promise to us all. Those who want to listen to Him. The promise is that He never said there wouldnt be hard times, but He will stand by us when they happen.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: the problem with god - 8/24/2008 12:43:19 PM
|
|
|
TheBibleTRUTH
Posts: 80
Joined: 7/8/2008
Status: offline
|
Yo, I'm going to clear this up a little bit. Keep an open mind and ask God to teach the truth of his Word.
1. Hell - The concepts of hell that we have been taught are not very accurate. I'm going to copy and paste a part of another thread that I did on this topic:
------------------------
The Hebrew word Sheol simply means grave. The Greek word Hades also means grave. Gehenna means lake of fire (which is the closest thing to a hell we have). If you look at a scripture in revelation it makes more sense that those words simply mean grave.
Revelation 20:14
14) And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
This first word hell is Hades. The word for lake of fire is Gehenna. Sometimes Gehenna is translated hell. So if you change the translation you get;
14) "and death and hell were cast into hell......"
And that makes no sense. This sort of selective translation from translators makes understanding the Bible very confusing. If you translate it correctly you get;
Revelation 20:14
14) And death and the grave where cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
This makes much more sense as death will be abolished in third heaven and third Earth. The grave is not necessary since death will no longer exist. hell being cast into hell, pretty amusing.
So in the Bible, Sheol and Hades should always be translated as "grave." And most scholars will agree with this.
----------------------
Gehenna is a hell but it's not like what most people think. In the Bible, most of the time fire and brimstone is used in association with a purification. The lake of fire will not physically burn you because spirits can't be burned, and they can't die.
Revelations 20:10
10) And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire (Gehenna) and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
See as they are spirits they cannot die. This also includes people who are born again of the devil's seed. They also cannot be burned, so it's hard to describe it as a place of burning like everyone thinks it is, etc.
Also, if they are going to be tormented night and day for ever and ever, It doesn't make sense that they will have free reign to torment normal people who didn't go to heaven. In fact that would be quite pleasurable for him to do his evil over and over again for eternity. So no, there shouldn't be mass torment of people who didn't go to heaven.
Revelation 20:11-14
11) And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
12) And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13) And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell (Hades, grave) delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14) And death and hell (Hades, grave) were cast into the lake of fire (Gehenna). This is the second death.
Revelation 20:14 - talks about a second death where death will be abolished once and for all. It is my speculation based on how loving God is that people who do not get born again of either the good seed or the bad seed will get resurrected and then simply just die again a second time. That way there is no eternal torment for people who are carnal men. People with no spirit at all just turn into dust again and die forever. Because like I said, it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense for the devil to have free reign to torment people for ages and ages.
Instead, what does make sense is that any evil spirits get locked in this "lake of fire" and are tormented because they have all this evil power and cannot use it at all. Imagine if your absolute greatest passion and love in the world was to eat pizza. Every minute of every night and day you eat pizza. But then you are locked in a closet where there is no pizza at all for ever and ever. Imagine the mental and physical torment you would have. That is a silly example, but it's the same thing.
This is my speculation, though most people don't teach it that way. The least you can do though is change the words Sheol and Hades in your Bible to grave. Hell is a terrible translation for the word grave.
--------------------------
I can assure you that hell is very different from what we have been taught. The teaching of hell being such a tormenting place for everyone is just a fear tactic that people use to get people to join their churches. It's very wrong and a very bad way to get someone involved in Christianity.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: the problem with god - 8/24/2008 1:24:50 PM
|
|
|
TheBibleTRUTH
Posts: 80
Joined: 7/8/2008
Status: offline
|
2. Why is there suffering, death, negativity, why doesn't God do something, etc?.....
There are two very important concepts that you must first understand before you can really grasp this.
Most of the suffering and problems of life are due to two things:
I) Because of Adam's transgressions we have sin stained blood and are weak.
- We have very week and frail flesh and often cause problems for ourselves. If you fall asleep momentarily at the driving wheel only to find that we have almost no distance to slow down and we get into a fender bender. Or you put off studying to go to a party and fail a test. These are things we have control over in our lives, but because we aren't perfect we are prone to make mistakes and it causes our lives to be harder than God wants it to be. Some of the suffering in our lives is due to our own stupidity and weakness. We cannot do anything about this except believe that God loves us and has covered us with grace and forgiveness until we get to heaven.
II) The devil wishes to destroy, kill, hurt, etc...
Before I talk about this it is very important to understand WHO God really is.
Ephesians 2:4
4) But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
I John 4:7-8
7) Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
8) He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
Romans 8:38-39
38) For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
39) Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
The Bible is very clear that God is a god of love, mercy, grace, peace, etc. He is warm. In Psalms it says that he covers us from harm and is our fortress. We are protected and kept safe by God because he is our loving Dad. Suffering does not come from God at all. He loves us so much that he sent his ONLY son to save US.
Romans 8:32
32) He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
The intense suffering that Christ went through was to save US. It says that you could not recognize Christ as a man after he got beaten. How can a God that loves this much not care for us and cause us to suffer.
I John 1:5
5) This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
Suffering, pain, death, etc... DO NOT come from God at all. The Bible is very clear that God is love and he cares for us deeply. He has covered us with grace, love, peace, joy, abundance, and comfort. This is our God, this is our Father. He does not have a small bit of darkness in him. God is INCAPABLE of doing evil. He is all love, all light, and he is our Father and he wants us to understand him completely and truthfully. It's about time we take a stand on God's word and believe him to show us his true loving nature.
------------------
But BibleTRUTH, why is there still darkness? It doesn't make any sense!
Well, I don't normally do this so as to not glorify the devil's devices because we should focus on him as little as possible, but it has to be said. The Bible is VERY clear about who the author of darkness is.
Hebrews 2:14
14) Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
1 Peter 5:8
8) Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:
The devil is the author of death, darkness, and suffering. That is his device and power and he loves to seek people he may devour. And he has the power to make his evil known because Adam transfered authority over the World to him in Genesis.
II Corinthians 4:4
4) In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
The devil is the god of this world. He has control and authority to do things because of what Adam transfered control to him.
Matthew 4:7-11
7) Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
8) Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
9) And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
10) Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
11) Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.
Look and pay attention at verses 8-9. He showed him the kingdoms of the world, and offered to GIVE them to Christ. He must have ownership over the world if he was able to OFFER them to Christ. That sad truth is that his ability to enact his darkness was given to him by Adam, however, we have the ability to live above him.
James 4:7
7) Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.
This is also shown in Matthew 4, he resisted the devil's offer and he immediately left him. Through God we have the ability to triumph over our adversaries.
Romans 8:35-37
35) Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
36) As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
37) Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
NOTHING can separate us from God. We are called to be super conquerers through God and Christ.
-------------------
The Bible is very clear that God is the author of good, light, love, joy, pureness, peace, etc.. and that the god of this world is the author of death, darkness, sickness, etc... You must understand that evil does not come from God. He has no darkness and is not able to cause these things.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: the problem with god - 8/24/2008 1:35:44 PM
|
|
|
TheBibleTRUTH
Posts: 80
Joined: 7/8/2008
Status: offline
|
3. But BibleTRUTH, if that is true, why doesn't he come in and stop everything?
Well the truth is that he does! He has his hand on our lives and does not allow many things to come to pass. He does not suffer us to be tempted above what we are able and gives us the ability to live above darkness and circumstance through Christ. He has already claimed the victory through Christ. We are already saved and we will be in heaven. It's already a done deal and all we have to do is focus on God and loving him and his people.
Why doesn't he stop everything?
Well it's like you said, he is a just God. He has given us free will to love him and will not control us. If you aren't believing on him you aren't getting the full package. He also won't overstep the bounds of physics and life unless it is necessary. I don't know why this is, the only answer I can give you is that he's a just God. But to those who believe in him we have victory and the ability to live above the circumstances of the flesh and the five sense. The more you believe in God, the more he will work for you.
It says that we are super conquerers, well if we are conquerers then there has to be something to conquer. Being a Christian isn't a perfect utopia, it has it's share of things to conquer. The more we conquer the more we get rewarded in heaven.
Because of the World we live in, and the fact that the devil is the god of this world, we WILL suffer sometimes. But God is faithful and just to lift us above those circumstances and help us through everything if we believe in him.
God's love for us is very deep, intimate, and tender, and he will carry us through and comfort us in all situations.
--------------
I know this is long, but there was a lot to talk about in this thread. If there are still things you don't understand, or you disagree with me, feel free to post. But first, go to God as ask him to show you the truth of his word. I'm not doing this to receive any stars or brownie points and I don't want the praises of men. I'm not very intelligent and the only way I am able to work the word of God is with his help and him showing me stuff. Ask God to show you the truth and he will do it.
God bless you in the wonderful name of Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: the problem with god - 8/25/2008 2:13:02 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 86
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
"Try to exclude the possibility of suffering which the order of nature and the existence of free-wills involve, and you find that you have excluded life itself."
--CS Lewis - The Problem of Pain
simple huh
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: the problem with god - 8/26/2008 12:07:23 PM
|
|
|
abraxas
Posts: 198
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
"Try to exclude the possibility of suffering which the order of nature and the existence of free-wills involve, and you find that you have excluded life itself."
--CS Lewis - The Problem of Pain
simple huh
I think there is something to that, to a degree. There are certainly major examples like what has been going on in Darfur, or the Indian Ocean tsunami, but where does one draw the line?
Still, I wonder what Lewis thought about life before the fall, or life in Heaven. Is there suffering in those realms? Is there free will?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: the problem with god - 8/26/2008 12:18:07 PM
|
|
|
abraxas
Posts: 198
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
Hi theBibleTRUTH,
I have to admit when I first saw your handle I cringed slightly, because often the posters with such bold nicknames come across as a bit, um overzealous? However I don't get that from your comments at all! Though I don't agree with everything you write (I'm not Christian so I guess that's to be expected), I do appreciate reading thoughtful interpretations with a fresh take on things.
< Message edited by abraxas -- 8/26/2008 12:25:08 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: the problem with god - 8/26/2008 12:59:58 PM
|
|
|
rp1
Posts: 6
Joined: 8/26/2008
Status: offline
|
C. S. Lewis deals with this very issue in The Problem of Pain. I f | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
