20 May 09
Originally posted by whodey2) OK, so if God agrees, then why did he knowingly create the hell-bound in the first place?
2) Well I guess that is the question. When a loving relationship goes south, was it worth it? Some say yes and some say no. Granted, if one were to be damned eternally as an end result, I guess it does make the question a bit easier to answer. 😛
3) Oddly enought, there is some truth in what you posted. After all, if God is love, as the scriptures sa ...[text shortened]... od. After all, he sent his only Son to go through hell, literally, so that we might be saved.
3) This is bizarro-love at its finest: sitting idly by while atrocity after preventable atrocity is committed. Not sure how God is 'battling' these sins; he certainly could 'fight' more vigorously.
4) If the stories in the bible actually happened, then I would not classify God as benevolent. Quite the opposite; in the OT, he was killing thousands over the mistakes of a few, or one person. In the NT, he devised a plan to make them suffer beyond the grave.
If God did not wish to discard anyone, he would not send them to hell.
Yes, if God is loving, he should attempt to end sin and suffering [or better yet, never allow it in the first place]. But does he really attempt to do this? No, he uses hell for the punishment of the 'unsaved' - he ensures that suffering will continue for all time! If that doesn't prove that God is not loving, I don't know what will.
20 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasWe cannot make accurate judgments about God's ways in particular.
Wait -- your contention is that since we are not omniscient, we cannot make accurate judgments?
We cannot make accurate judgments about God's ways in particular.
You're telling us in this thread that we are in no position to judge God; but you are committed to just the opposite when you claim that He is loving and good and just, et d and has a plan and a purpose through all things, as revealed in scripture.
Again, I find this all very problematic for you. Later in this same post, you claim that God is "righteous, good, and holy". What is it to say that some agent is righteous and good, but to advance a judgment about their "ways" (about their abiding dispositional traits of character that are action-guiding with respect to how they meet others and the world in their dealings)? Again, this claim of yours would really seem problematic for many of your core theistic commitments. I really don't think you can have this both ways: if it were the case that God's ways are mysterious and totally resistant toward your coming to any accurate judgments about them, then it would just follow naturally that you are mistaken when you advance judgment claims about him (such as that he is characteristically righteous or good in his dealings) -- since these claims would fail to be accurate. Am I missing something here?
What I'm saying is that it is possible - possible - that God may have reasons for allowing suffering to exist which we may not be capable of understanding.
Sure, I concede that it is possible. But I'm looking for plausibility, not mere possibility. If you can provide reasons that show it is plausible that, say, the suffering of the neonate is merely ostensibly unnecessary, then that would be terrific. If you just want to claim that it is broadly possible, then why should I find this claim of yours all that interesting?
So, the intervening years, prior to the fulfillment of God's plan, are full of disaster, violence, suffering, and evil, yes, but God has promised to wipe away every tear and eventually right every wrong.
But what does it mean to say that one eventually rights a wrong? And, assuming one can eventually right a wrong, how does that show that suffering along the way was logically necessary for fulfillment of one's plan? Let's say that God will send the neonate on to a much better place or something. First, that doesn't change the fact that the neonate suffered. Second, how would this mean that the neonate's suffering was not unnecessary? God could have simply achieved the same end without the suffering, right? What I am basically asking is, what about this process of "eventually righting the wrong" justifies the allowed suffering?
At the end of the day, your response to the problem of suffering seems to be that God has adequate reason to allow such instances of suffering (no matter how seemingly needless they appear to us); and that the adequate reason God has is somehow not accessible to us. Why should I take this seriously? Sure, it's broadly possible that God sees some obscure connection we cannot see under which, ultimately, these instances of suffering are all necessary for securing the greater good. But it seems outrageously implausible when you consider all the instances of seemingly needless suffering. Bottom line, you can always make the claim that there is some hidden reason we cannot see that justifies the suffering. I can concede that this is broadly possible, but why should I think that it is plausible?
And, further, we may as well inquire why God hides such reasons from us when it means that our ignorance on the matter will lead to a lot of additional distress. It's a double whammy if ignorance surrounding the suffering leads to more suffering. If God simply made these adequate reasons available, then we would understand that such instances of suffering are necessary for the greater good, and this would dissolve additional distress borne from ignorance.
20 May 09
2 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasI'm not sure why you think SwissGambit's four points all take free will as a material issue. Regardless, SwissGambit already put forth excellent points for why appeals to free will don't meet the problem of suffering, including:
I notice that your four points are each related in some kind of way to free will.
God did not create sin itself, but God did create man with a free will. The capacity for free will which we possess, though, it is important to note, carries with it not only the possibility of disaster, but also great blessing. It is because I possess a free will that
Anyway, I'm off to see Star Trek with The Wife. Hopefully we'll continue this later.
(1) A lot of instances of suffering have nothing genuine to do with free will, like my example of the neonate.
(2) People want to say that suffering is a necessary consequence of free will, which is in turn a good of principal importance (in and of itself or because it is necessary for, say, loving relationships). However, this doesn't mean that existence of free will necessitates the amount of suffering that exists. For one, say I were to prevent someone from attacking my wife. That doesn't mean I have robbed this person of his free will. That just means that I prevented him from being successful in the pursuit of that which he freely wills. For two, God could have simply provided his creation with more beneficent characters, such that less suffering naturally results from their autonomous actions. Everyone has a character (consortium of action-guiding dispositions) that is ultimately not of their own determining, so what's the problem with such a scenario?
20 May 09
Originally posted by LemonJelloYour example also highlights another flaw in the old 'free will is good and necessitates suffering' argument. If it is so important to preserve the robbers free will then should you not ask what Jesus would do and turn a blind eye and let him kill your wife. After all the robbers free will is clearly more important than your wifes life or God would step in and stop the robber.
For one, say I were to prevent someone from attacking my wife. That doesn't mean I have robbed this person of his free will.
I am essentially saying that any instance of us trying to relieve suffering is futile as our lack of the 'big picture' means we have no idea whether we are doing good or not, and the fact that God (who has the big picture) is not stepping in to relieve the suffering indicates that doing so would be bad (though of course he could be counting on us stepping in, but then there is a free will issue).
20 May 09
6 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambit2) This is from your perspecitve, not God's. I think you will find, and would have to be the case if he exists, that your own perspective on things is much different than that of God's or my own. For example, from God's perspective all sin is worthy of death as where if you ask a sinner like you or myself our response would probalby be only for certain heinous crimes.
2) OK, so if God agrees, then why did he knowingly create the hell-bound in the first place?
3) This is [b]bizarro-love at its finest: sitting idly by while atrocity after preventable atrocity is committed. Not sure how God is 'battling' these sins; he certainly could 'fight' more vigorously.
4) If the stories in the bible actually happened, th inue for all time! If that doesn't prove that God is not loving, I don't know what will.[/b]
3) I don't think the Bible paints the picture of God sitting idly by as the wicked do thier thing. In fact, such stories as Soddom and the Great flood contradict that notion. I think that God allows sin to occur to a point but he will only tolerate so much of it. Now if he did not tolerate any of it, we would all be in the same boat as those in Sodom who met their early demise. Then when God does fight back, you hear all the crys that he is unfair and unrighteous for killing off certain segments of society. You know, it seems to be a no win scenario.
4) In the account of God destroying Sodom, I believe Abraham pleaded on the behalf of the people who lived there. The response was that if only one "righteous" soul lived there he would spare them. I guess you missed that peice of Biblical trivia. Of course, you may ask about the children. I suppose that is the only aspect of the situation that I can sympathize with. I suppose he could have killed off all the adults and left a city of orphans. All I can say is, that is God's business, not mine because I took no part in it and am in no position to judge him. OF course, you are free to judge him if you like, but like myself you are in no position to do so....that is if he exists. But to be fair, God only targeted the "wicked" setting aside the whole child/infant debate.
As far as sin and suffering, there is no question but that it exists. I supose the only question is to what degree? That is why I have no problem believing in hell. The real question is, why does it exist in the first place. As I have said, I think I am on the right road in understanding this, but as of yet don't have all the answers. I think the key to the mystery is free will and it is something that I don't have all the specs on to give an accurate determination. For example, you say it possible to preserve free will but prohibit people from exercising it via sin as where I disagree. Really, who is to say but God?
To sum up, I have faith in God that he is and will be a righteous judge in such matters. The only question really is if you have faith in him. After all, you have no power in the outcome nor do I except over our own fate....if he exists, that is. 😉
20 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWho said Christ would turn a blind eye to the robbers? In fact, did he do so with the money changers?
Your example also highlights another flaw in the old 'free will is good and necessitates suffering' argument. If it is so important to preserve the robbers free will then should you not ask what Jesus would do and turn a blind eye and let him kill your wife. After all the robbers free will is clearly more important than your wifes life or God would step i ough of course he could be counting on us stepping in, but then there is a free will issue).
I think you can read to far into his apparent passive nature that on more than one occasion, was absent.
As for your assertion that God is absent in suffering, why then are there outreaches in his name? Why did Christ command us to reach out to them? Why did God intervene at cetain times directly to relieve suffering such as the Israelites being freed from bondage?
I think the real question is, why does God not work by our standards or time table?
20 May 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadThere is a vast difference between both the concepts and functions of justice as it applied by man and God. For instance, in the justice systems of man (as you correctly noted), there is nothing but punishment in mind. The purpose of that punishment is varied (again, as you noted), yet it retains at least an element of its original source, i.e., it resembles some aspect of God's justice.
Let me describe my understanding of the purpose of most justice systems in effect today:
1. To act as a deterrent against further crime. ie both the perpetrator and other observers are deterred from committing crime because of their knowledge of the consequences.
2. To physically prevent the perpetrator from committing further crime (imprisonment).
3. ...[text shortened]... serve 1. or 2. and thus should not be carried out - yet you seem to believe that it should.
The difference, however, is glaring. In God's perfect justice, while unrighteousness is rejected and condemned, righteousness is accepted and blessed. The best of man's systems can--- at best--- do nothing more than condemn.
Another distinction is the purpose of such justice. As you stated, man's system is meant to address the wrong committed against society, with no particular judgment assigned for the value of that society. They could be cannibals, or they could be Illuminati. The system assumes society inviolable, regardless of even admitted vulgarity.
Similarily, God's system of justice is based upon His absolute righteousness. The difference, however, is that this assumption is based upon a reality moored in Him and by Him--- He determines reality, in other words.
So when it is said, "God is good," this is the good as defined by Him. Man may not agree with that definition, may have his own definition. Such conflict with the One who made reality will always lead to problems in understanding.
Man's point of contact with God is justice, not love.
21 May 09
Originally posted by whodey2) So which is it? Do you stand by your statement that death is only a just punishment for 'heinous' crimes, or do you affirm that God is just in punishing ANY sin by death? You can't both be right.
2) This is from your perspecitve, not God's. I think you will find, and would have to be the case if he exists, that your own perspective on things is much different than that of God's or my own. For example, from God's perspective all sin is worthy of death as where if you ask a sinner like you or myself our response would probalby be only for certain hei ...[text shortened]... power in the outcome nor do I except over our own fate....if he exists, that is. 😉
3) Yes, all the other, lesser punishments don't seem to hold OT God's interest. He gets off on killing people, preferably in large numbers. And my heart goes out to the big guy for taking such a bad PR hit for wiping out all the infants and very young children who lived in Sodom, who had never done any evil or even aged to the point where they could know what evil was. [So much for only targeting the wicked.]
Understandable after that debacle that he would err on the side of caution and let guys like Dahmer run unchecked for so long. After all, it seems very hard for him to distinguishing the innocent from the guilty while meting out punishment.
4) Didn't Lot count as a righteous man who lived in Sodom? There's your one man.
Why not arrange for the adoption of the orphans of Sodom, or have Abraham build them an orphanage until suitable parents could be found?
As for judging God - you worship him and affirm all his actions as perfectly righteous, yes? You have judged him, just as I have. The only difference is the verdict.
For example, you say it possible to preserve free will but prohibit people from exercising it via sin as where I disagree. Really, who is to say but God?
Would that God's followers would heed this warning and not so readily claim that there is going to be a heaven full of people who all have free will and never sin nor suffer.
23 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambit2) Of course, we all die so we all pay the ultimate penalty for sin whether it be today, tomorrow, or in a 100 years. What you are asking really is, what is the best way to go and how soon?
2) So which is it? Do you stand by your statement that death is only a just punishment for 'heinous' crimes, or do you affirm that God is just in punishing ANY sin by death? You can't both be right.
3) Yes, all the other, lesser punishments don't seem to hold OT God's interest. He gets off on killing people, preferably in large numbers. And my heart g is going to be a heaven full of people who all have free will and never sin nor suffer.
3) Saying that God desire to kill us all would be to say that God desried us to sin and then suffer as a result. It completly negates the free will argument I have already made. As I have saId, we can agree to disagree that what has occured needed to occur in order for free will to exist. As for why children suffer, you could also point to parents who are abusive. Why should they be made to suffer for the sins of their parents? Unfortunatly, parents have a certain degree of responsibility for the welfare of their children regardless as to whether or not it is "fair" or not. Thus when they act wickedly, the children are more likely to suffer collatoral damage as a result. Again, this goes back to the arguement as to why God should either prevent them from sinning in the first place or immediatly giving judging them and condenming them as soon as they sin.
4) LOL. Too bad he left, eh?
As for judging God, as I have said I do not attempt to validate his actions, rather, I only trust that he is benevolent and righteous. I simply do not have the intellectual capacity to know all the facts in terms of judging him or not. All I can do is sit back and try and peice the puzzle together from my finite perspective. Then again, I suppose that is all you are doing as well, eh? So I guess it simply comes down to having faith once again, no?
23 May 09
Originally posted by LemonJelloAgain, I find this all very problematic for you . . . if it were the case that God's ways are mysterious and totally resistant toward your coming to any accurate judgments about them, then it would just follow naturally that you are mistaken when you advance judgment claims about him (such as that he is characteristically righteous or good in his dealings) -- since these claims would fail to be accurate. Am I missing something here?
[b]We cannot make accurate judgments about God's ways in particular.
Again, I find this all very problematic for you. Later in this same post, you claim that God is "righteous, good, and holy". What is it to say that some agent is righteous and good, but to advance a judgment about their "ways" (about their abiding dispositional traits of ...[text shortened]... reater good, and this would dissolve additional distress borne from ignorance.[/b]
Yes, I think you are missing something. For God to be good, holy and just, it is not necessary that his acts (or lack of action) be comprehensible to us, esp. in light of the fact that our minds are of comparably limited scope and duration. The reason God's essential ineffability is not problematic for me or anyone else of like faith is because our knowledge of God is based on revelation, not observation. In fact, to trust that God is good and sovereign even in the face of present injustice, is at the heart of what Christianity is, at least in practice. The most faithful person in this respect who ever lived, Jesus Christ, exemplifies this kind of trust in the goodness, sovereignty and purpose of God, even in the midst of calamity. That Christ's faith in God's goodness was vindicated, in that he was raised from the dead, is the revelation upon which our entire faith rests. Is it really any wonder, then, that the apparent disconnect between the present state of things and the goodness of a sovereign God does not prove problematic for the Christian?
If you just want to claim that it is broadly possible, then why should I find this claim of yours all that interesting?
My intention is not to prove my claim, but to cast doubt upon your claim that God's existence is implausible because innocents suffer. Your logic may be sound, but the truth value of your propositions describing how an omnisicient and omnipotent God ought to behave cannot, in reality, be accurately established, and therefore any conclusions derived from your propositions cannot be accurately established. Any talk of plausibility or implausibilty, then, is premature at best.
Bottom line, you can always make the claim that there is some hidden reason we cannot see that justifies the suffering. I can concede that this is broadly possible, but why should I think that it is plausible?
It becomes plausible after you read the Synoptic Gospels as a historical account of real events. If you question the reliability of the NT documents or their authors, it helps too to investigate the evidence for yourself.
23 May 09
Originally posted by LemonJelloFor two, God could have simply provided his creation with more beneficent characters, such that less suffering naturally results from their autonomous actions.
I'm not sure why you think SwissGambit's four points all take free will as a material issue. Regardless, SwissGambit already put forth excellent points for why appeals to free will don't meet the problem of suffering, including:
(1) A lot of instances of suffering have nothing genuine to do with free will, like my example of the neonate.
(2) Peop ...[text shortened]... at is ultimately not of their own determining, so what's the problem with such a scenario?
It is unclear how you would do such a thing. In the Garden, there was but one forbidden action, rendering the situation pretty much pass/fail. I fail to see how degrees could have been established in such a proposition.
Everyone has a character (consortium of action-guiding dispositions) that is ultimately not of their own determining, so what's the problem with such a scenario?
Absolutely not. We personally decide our own thoughts and actions, as well as our motivations in life. Predilections notwithstanding, we choose--- regardless of external influences.
Also, you and others who are contending that suffering is a litmus test which disproves either God's goodness or existence have yet to address why God allows any happiness--- assuming His existence, of course. If this "test" hangs on even one instance of needless suffering, then it should equally hang on even one instance of needless joy.
23 May 09
5 edits
I've skimmed some of this, but so far as I can tell there is at least one situation that has yet to be dealt with in a straightforward manner by any of the Christians. They seem to dance around it.
If God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, such a God would create a universe where there is no possibility of suffering. I haven't seen anyone give a rational explanation how a God that has all three of these characteristics wouldn't create such a universe. Now if God was lacking in anyone of these characteristics, then a universe that has suffering might make sense.
The idea that suffering is required for freewill just doesn't hold water. You still be free to choose a mate, create music, choose a field of study, etc.
If you believe that God is lacking in one or more of the three characteristics, which ones and why?
24 May 09
5 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasFor God to be good, holy and just, it is not necessary that his acts (or lack of action) be comprehensible to us, esp. in light of the fact that our minds are of comparably limited scope and duration.
Again, I find this all very problematic for you . . . if it were the case that God's ways are mysterious and totally resistant toward your coming to any accurate judgments about them, then it would just follow naturally that you are mistaken when you advance judgment claims about him (such as that he is characteristically righteous or good in his deal f the NT documents or their authors, it helps too to investigate the evidence for yourself.
This I would probably grant you, but this doesn't have anything to do with my charge. My charge was about the internal inconsistency of your stance. One one hand, you claim that we cannot come to accurate judgments about God; on the other hand, you want to hold that you are reporting something accurate when you judge God to be characteristically righteous or good, etc.
The reason God's essential ineffability is not problematic for me or anyone else of like faith is because our knowledge of God is based on revelation, not observation.
I didn't claim anything about ineffability being problematic for you: again, my charge was per above. I think perhaps you should revise your original claim, which was that we cannot come to accurate judgments about God -- since, presumably, you will want to hold that when it comes to your judging that he is righteous and good (regardless of whether it is based on revelation or observation or whatever), such judgments enjoy accuracy.
My intention is not to prove my claim, but to cast doubt upon your claim that God's existence is implausible because innocents suffer.
My claim is that there exists a lot of unnecessary suffering in the world, and in light of this it is highly implausible that 'God' exists. I fail to see how you have cast any doubt on this claim. What you have done is simply point out that it is broadly possible that I am mistaken because it is broadly possible that there are good reasons (not available to us, mind you) that prove me wrong. I mean, how does that cast any genuine doubt on my claim? I am not claiming anything like it is logically impossible for God to exist, given all the suffering that exists. I am saying it is highly implausible given our evidence; and this doesn't preclude mere possibilities that I am mistaken. Further, if casting doubt on my claim is your intention, then your response is somewhat ironic: your claiming that the real reasons are hidden to us or somehow beyond our comprehension, if anything, only reinforces that the proposition 'God exists' is not credible on the basis of the evidence at our disposal.
Suppose one were to evaluate the evidence at his disposal and make the claim that it is highly implausible that it is not the case that it is raining outside. You could always say that, well, it sure seems to be raining outside, but it is broadly possible that he is mistaken because his senses may be playing tricks on him, or because it is possible there are reasons beyond our comprehension that demonstrate he is wrong. How does something like this cast any genuine doubt on his claim? This is more or less what you have done in this discussion. I made the claim that it is highly implausible that such a 'God' exists; and you basically responded that it is broadly possible that I am mistaken because it's possible there are reasons beyond our comprehension that justify the suffering. Again, I'm not interested in these sort of throw-away considerations of mere possibility, and my stance anyway already accommodates mere possibilities that I am wrong. Rather, I am interested in counter arguments that actually bring some plausibility to the table.
Your logic may be sound, but the truth value of your propositions describing how an omnisicient and omnipotent God ought to behave cannot, in reality, be accurately established, and therefore any conclusions derived from your propositions cannot be accurately established. Any talk of plausibility or implausibilty, then, is premature at best.
Excuse me if I don't take this seriously. If you claim that we cannot accurately establish that an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being would, say, prevent suffering of the neonate; then present some reasons why I should take this seriously. Again, if you're just going to claim that it is broadly possible that there are reasons beyond our comprehension that justify the suffering, then this is duly noted. But so what? It's also broadly possible that you are mistaken when you judge it to be raining outside. After all, it's possible that your eyes are playing tricks on you or that there are reasons beyond our comprehension that show you are wrong. So, because this is a mere possibility (for instance, it's certainly possible in just the sense that it does not logically contradict the evidence we have), that means we cannot "accurately establish" the proposition that it is raining outside? That's nonsense. Likewise, it's nonsense for you to say that the mere possibility that there exist reasons beyond our comprehension that would prove me wrong somehow shows either (1) it is doubtful I am right in claiming that it is highly implausible that the suffering of the neonate is necessary for the bringing about of greater good or (2) that we are incapable of accurately establishing such things.
It seems like you are just being very selectively skeptical because the evidence in this particular instance bears in a countervailing manner on a proposition you hold dear. If this is not the case, then why don't you employ this type of skepticism consistently?
It becomes plausible after you read the Synoptic Gospels as a historical account of real events.
I don't think so -- after all, I have read them. (I read them without presupposition about their reliability. If, on the other hand, you're asking me to read them while presupposing that they are veracious, you are wasting your time, since I am not interested in merely question-begging efforts).