Mother Teresa

[Jeff250]

I don't think I hear God commanding me to do things. I'm not in a good position to perform the test.

[Kilarin]

I don't think I hear God commanding me to do things. I'm not in a good position to perform the test.

Your test requires an non-believer control. Now you just need a willing miracle believer who thinks that miracles are testable.

The problem is, you are testing for an intelligent third party who, if they exist, may not be interested in cooperating. It make negative results of questionable use.

Like I said, good luck!

[Bet51987]

So, God felt he had to test one of his many wives??? So brutally shunning her for over 50 years??

Assuming Christianity to be true, then God's own son died under brutal torture crying out "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

So yes, it's entirely consistent with Christian doctrine.

In 2 Co 12:7-10 Paul says that he was given a "thorn in the flesh" (Some form of unspecified disability or problem). He prayed three times for this problem to be taken away. Paul had prayed for others and all kinds of miracles had happened, even the dead had been raised to life, but when he prayed for this one thing for himself, the answer was no. He also got a why, which is nice, because we often don't get the reason why, just the no. But in this case, Paul was told that the problem needed to remain to help him avoid being tempted by pride. Which makes perfect sense once you think about it. Paul was certainly in a position that would be likely to go to ones head.

Mother Teresa was in a fairly similar position. She was considered a saint by many even before she died. It would certainly be conceivable that God didn't speak to her directly for the same reason he left Paul with a "thorn in the flesh". I'm not saying that WAS the reason, just that it would be one possibility.

My point here is NOT to try and convince you that God exists. There is nothing here that would do that. It's just to make clear that Mother Teresa saying that she couldn't feel God's presence directly is not going to threaten any Christians faith. It's not inconsistent at all with our doctrine.

I always believed Jesus walked the Earth and said those very words "My God..... etc.". However, this is exactly what someone with a grandiose delusion would say. It would be like a man who is convinced he can fly and jumps off a building, and like Jesus, the sudden realization that hits you at the end must have been emotionally overwhelming. I understand why Jesus said those words.

I never got my mind off of Jobs old family and how God chose to allow Satan to kill them... for a test.

This world stinks. I'm with you. And, quite frankly, if I had been Job I'd be mad as hops about it. But then, so was Job. But we have a different perspective than God does. God is looking at things long term. Whether you die today, or in 60 years, is hardly a big issue if it's God's plan to have you live forever. On this side of time, we have a hard time seeing it that way. It's like little kids who think that if they don't get what they want in the next two minutes they'll DIE, trying to understand grownups who are explaining that waiting one day is no big deal.

I don't think so. The world stinks because its Godless. If you want to convince me that God exists then it can only be a God of terror. An entity who inflicts pain in every way imaginable and watches in delight as little girls get raped and murdered all the way down to mice and baby birds getting killed in an unspeakable way. Oh... I'm sure someone will utter the familiar biblical cop out... "Free will", but I always laugh at that.

Like it or not Kilarin, this is your God and there are plenty of documents attesting to his "torture tests" so tell me, how much proof do you need to see how ridiculous that kind of God would be.

(Edited out last paragraph)

Bettina

[roid]

i write it off now as a Patriarchal thing: "Women are objects and expendable". Job's rich now, he can buy all the women he wants. oooooh yeah

Job only had one wife, and she lived.
She only shows up in the story for one quick verse, and in that one she doesn't come out to favorably. You've got to wonder if it didn't go through Job's head: "Geesh God, you took my oxen, asses, sheep and camels, almost all of my servants, and all of my kids. BUT, you left me with my wife?"

It was right after that that he went into his big "There ain't no justice" speech.

woa, you're right that was extra canonical Jewish folklore. I don't know how i was ever exposed to that

[Kilarin]

If you want to convince me that God exists then it can only be a God of terror. An entity who inflicts pain in every way imaginable and watches in delight as little girls get raped and murdered all the way down to mice and baby birds getting killed in an unspeakable way. Oh... I'm sure someone will utter the familiar biblical cop out... "Free will", but I always laugh at that.

First, let me freely acknowledge that this IS a serious question. How to justify the existance of a supposedly benevolent God with an evil pain filled world is not a silly question.

BUT, I would like to point out that there is a big difference between saying that God allows evil, and in implying that he "watches in delight". As you've said, you've heard the arguments about free will. The Christian Doctrine is that God allows evil in this world, because if he crushed it by main force, it would eliminate our power of choice. Also, that if there is no God, then calling the world "evil" has no meaning and the bad things that we see wouldn't actually be "bad". There would certainly be no hope of eventual justice. Actually, it's a lot more complicated than that, but we've been through it so I won't bore you with the points again.

I DO think that if you ever raise children of your own it will give you some interesting insights into the issue.

[Jeff250]

Your test requires an non-believer control. Now you just need a willing miracle believer who thinks that miracles are testable.

Again, the results of this test aren't going to determine if miracles exist or anything of that sort. So it's not required that one believes that miracles are testable in that sense. It's just to test if there's a connection between people doing what they think God commands them to do and then something extraordinary happening. Barring any practical issues, like coming up with different ways of testing to see if something extraordinary actually happened, there's nothing implausible about such a test at the fundamental level. There either is a connection between people doing what they think God commands and extraordinary stuff happening or there is no such connection, and prudent testing can shed light on this.

If you don't think that we can test for extraordinary events that are the result of divine miracles, then how do you reconcile this belief with the one that intelligent design is a science?

Like it or not Kilarin, this is your God and there are plenty of documents attesting to his "torture tests" so tell me, how much proof do you need to see how ridiculous that kind of God would be.

I've wondered: how much evil would there have to be before the theists would be convinced that God isn't all-good? If the present amount of evil in the world isn't enough, is there any amount of evil that you would find convincing? Let's throw into the equation natural evils too, like hunger and tsunamis, which existed well before free will even came onto the scene.

Also, that if there is no God, then calling the world "evil" has no meaning and the bad things that we see wouldn't actually be "bad".

Kilarin, we obviously disagree about the nature of good and evil. But, correct me if I'm wrong, you believe the following: God is an authority on the good for no other reason than God just is an authority on the good. It's not for any reason, like that God is all-loving or that God is creator of the universe. He just is the authority. OK, as you know, I think that that's problematic, but that's not really what I want to address here, but rather this: How compelling is an argument like yours given to Bet above going to be to anyone who doesn't already accept your axiom, that God just is an authority? If you thought (and were able to convince others) that you can have ultimate ethical authority if and only if you are creator of the universe, then you might make an argument like this: A creator of the universe (a la God) must exist for there to be an authority on good or evil...

But this doesn't seem at all possible for you anymore. Now that you've relegated God's authority as "just being so" and something that we either accept or not, why should we think that God is necessary for good and evil to exist if we don't already accept your axiom, that God's authority is just so?

[Flabby Chick]

I mentioned early on in the thread that my Aunt and Uncle served next to her in India Donkey's years ago, anyway she came to visit again last week. Here's a piccie of us discussing this thread. (i'm the one on the right ) She said two things that may be of interest, one was that she'd never met anyone that exuded so much faith (and they were down and dirty together, warts n all). Also she read this thread and wondered why \"Faith\" seemed to be so complicated for everyone. She's here for another few weeks so i'll pick her brains as to what she meant.

[Bet51987]

Jeff250... No amount of evil will change the minds of those who firmly believe in a God because they have put aside their emotions and replaced it with whatever illogical reason they choose. {Free will is at the top of the list..right now). I can't do that.

Kilarin... Your right, it's all been said before but Jeff250 said it better than I ever could. But, please don't think that Good, Bad, Evil, etc, has no meaning in a Godless world. Your much smarter than that.

\"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.\" What a dad.

Bee

[Behemoth]

But the truth is, Good, Bad, Etc. IS meaningless if all i have to look forward to is being a good memory.

That makes me feel as if nothing i do has a real change on current reality in the end.

Even IF it changes the perception of many people for THEIR good, what did it benefit me?

[Sedwick]

But the truth is, Good, Bad, Etc. IS meaningless if all i have to look forward to is being a good memory.

Ditto that. If I KNEW there wasn't a God, I'd be the biggest freakin' hedonist you ever met. I'd do anything self-serving that I could get away with, squeezing all I could out of this only life, knowing there'd be no consequences after I left. It amuses me, atheists who still feel they have to do good--what's the point? Then again, maybe that drive to do good comes from Somewhere Else?

[Duper]

Nice post and Pic Flabby. She is right though about \"faith\" on this board.

uh.. what's the little car thingy?

[roid]

But the truth is, Good, Bad, Etc. IS meaningless if all i have to look forward to is being a good memory.

Ditto that. If I KNEW there wasn't a God, I'd be the biggest freakin' hedonist you ever met. I'd do anything self-serving that I could get away with, squeezing all I could out of this only life, knowing there'd be no consequences after I left. It amuses me, atheists who still feel they have to do good--what's the point? Then again, maybe that drive to do good comes from Somewhere Else?

yeah you think?

[Behemoth]

It obviously does not come from ourselves, Just take a look at the world news.

[roid]

Contrary to popular belief, when leaving your home or church - your chances of surviving an encounter with an atheist are quite high.

[Behemoth]

Contrary to popular belief, when leaving your home or church - your chances of surviving an encounter with an atheist are quite high.

I do not believe people are inherently good or bad.

These ideals are the pure definitions of what we consider comfortable and not comfortable.

[Jeff250]

Ditto that. If I KNEW there wasn't a God, I'd be the biggest freakin' hedonist you ever met. I'd do anything self-serving that I could get away with, squeezing all I could out of this only life, knowing there'd be no consequences after I left.

If you indulged your every desire, you'd be a rather terrible hedonist. Perhaps you should start by reading of the first philosophical hedonist.

Be ethical because it allows you to obtain the highest types of pleasures. Fearing the gods is not pleasurable at all. I wish more people were like Epicurus, the hedonist.

Philosophical hedonism focuses more on us doing ethical actions to obtain the highest types of pleasure, but virtue ethics, a slightly different approach, focuses on us doing them to obtain the quintessential well-lived life:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaimonism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alasdair_M ... tue_ethics

[TIGERassault]

Jeff250... No amount of evil will change the minds of those who firmly believe in a God because they have put aside their emotions and replaced it with whatever illogical reason they choose. {Free will is at the top of the list..right now). I can't do that.

Congratulations! You have just proven yourself to be completely and utterly ignorant! Congratulate yourself by staying as far away as you can from the E&C!

[Jeff250]

Also she read this thread and wondered why "Faith" seemed to be so complicated for everyone. She's here for another few weeks so i'll pick her brains as to what she meant.

She is right though about "faith" on this board.

Well, you can either go with the definition of faith that goes like Drakona's, i.e. "Faith is acknowledging and remembering," in which case, nobody does have a problem with it. Here, faith is just an intellectual virtue of believing in things when you have sufficient evidence to.

Or you can go with a definition like, "Faith allows you to believe in things without sufficient evidence," but then there's some explanation desired. Why should anyone believe anything without sufficient evidence, and why would that be a virtue? It seems like that believing in things without sufficient evidence would be a vice and that it would be quite reckless at that. How would you even decide which things-without-sufficient-evidence-to-believe-in to actually believe in?

It's important to know what we mean by "faith" when we're talking about it, especially if we're making categorical statements about it. The former definition nobody has a problem with, and the latter definition seems infeasible as a virtue, unless somebody has a good argument otherwise.

Jeff250... No amount of evil will change the minds of those who firmly believe in a God because they have put aside their emotions and replaced it with whatever illogical reason they choose. {Free will is at the top of the list..right now). I can't do that.

I think that you'd have a stronger argument if you appealed to intuition instead of emotion.

[Kilarin]

I've wondered: how much evil would there have to be before the theists would be convinced that God isn't all-good? If the present amount of evil in the world isn't enough, is there any amount of evil that you would find convincing?

No amount of evil will change the minds of those who firmly believe in a God because they have put aside their emotions and replaced it with whatever illogical reason they choose. {Free will is at the top of the list..right now).

Actually, Bettina has part of it right here. The fact that the world is full of evil is not a surprise to Christians. This is, as Jeff250 pointed out, by no means a new issue. While I'm certain the world could get even more evil, if the existence of evil disproved a Benevolent God, then surely the amount of rape, torture, war, starvation, pain, etc., in the world right now, or 2000 years ago, would have been sufficient.

Free Will isn't just "at the top of the list..right now", it's always been the Christian answer to why there is evil in the world. If God wishes to create creatures who can actually LOVE, then that love must be based on a choice. And if it's going to be a CHOICE, then it must be possible to make the opposite choice.

Let's throw into the equation natural evils too, like hunger and tsunamis, which existed well before free will even came onto the scene.

You'll get two opinions on this from Christians, but there isn't really a difference at the core. Those who interpret Genesis literally say that these evils didn't start until after man sinned. Those who interpret Genesis a bit more figuratively will point out that the first sin happened in Heaven with Lucifer. Either way, the pain and death in this world came from sin. From someone deliberately choosing to step out of Love.

If you don't think that we can test for extraordinary events that are the result of divine miracles, then how do you reconcile this belief with the one that intelligent design is a science?

My first statement on the subject was: "While you may be able to subject a particular miracle to scientific tests, I don't think you can test miracles in general scientifically.".
What I am skeptical about is the ability to test miracles that have not yet occurred. The problem here is that you are attempting to test the behavior of an intelligent agent who may or may not decide to cooperate with your test. SKEPTICAL. I'm not saying it's impossible, it's certainly not a point of doctrine. I just have grave doubts.

BUT, I have no problem at all with attempting to subject the results of a miracle to scientific analysis. There, we are attempting to test something that has, supposedly, already occurred. This is a MUCH more feasible project.

Intelligent Design is a matter of testing for something that has already supposedly occurred. And, Intelligent Design does not even require miracles. A miracle may or may not be the most logical explanation of the who and the how, but Intelligent Design itself can not answer that question.

But, correct me if I'm wrong, you believe the following: God is an authority on the good for no other reason than God just is an authority on the good. It's not for any reason, like that God is all-loving or that God is creator of the universe. He just is the authority

Not quite. I believe it is logically required that the prime mover is Good.
I think Thomas Aquinas said it best in his Summa Contra Gentiles. I highly recommend it. The critical sections are "That God is His own Goodness" and "That in God there can be no Evil", but they really rely upon the previous sections.

I think Jacques Maritain sums it up well:

...goodness, wisdom, power, is inseparable from God; and that each of the divine attributes, could we but view it adequately, would be found to involve all the rest. On the other hand, any given man, as Dr Smith, is not inseparable from his own learning except hypothetically, if his learning is to be at all, inasmuch as Dr Smith's learning has and can have no existence apart from Dr Smith. Formally speaking, the Doctor gives being to his own learning, so long as it lasts. But, besides that he might die and his learning with him -- whereas God and God's goodness cannot cease to be -- he might also forget all that he knows, and still remain Dr Smith. Nor does his learning involve his other attributes, his stature, for example, or his irascibility.

But you still need to go through the entire argument in sequence. I don't agree with Thomas Aquinas on all points, but he was a master of logic with some incredible insights.

How compelling is an argument like yours given to Bet above going to be to anyone who doesn't already accept your axiom, that God just is an authority?

It is the nature of axioms that if you don't accept them, you can not argue to them. But that wasn't my argument.

My argument has NEVER been that you must accept God as the authority behind morality, or especially that you had to accept my own reasons for believing God was an authority. My argument is that morality must be based on some sort of innate authority, or it doesn't exist at all.

Morality is all about "ought". And you can't logically get to an "ought". You can get to "This choice would be more likely to be successful", or "this choice would please ME more". But you can't achieve a moral "ought" behind that forcing you to make the choice, without assuming some authority who gives morality, well, authority.

If you DON'T accept the axiom that there is SOME authority behind morality, then morality is just a matter of opinion and you can in no way hold anyone else responsible for having a different opinion. You can punish a murderer because they annoy you, but you can't claim any kind of justification for your act, because justification requires some absolute standard to measure against.

She's here for another few weeks so i'll pick her brains as to what she meant.

Let us know what she says, looking forward to hearing it!

[TIGERassault]

Actually, on that topic, here's an amusing anecdote that'll make you think:

Does evil exist?

The university professor challenged his students with this question. Did God create everything that exists? A student bravely replied, \"Yes, he did!\"

\"God created everything? The professor asked.

\"Yes sir\", the student replied.

The professor answered, \"If God created everything, then God created evil since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are then God is evil\". The student became quiet before such an answer. The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.

Another student raised his hand and said, \"Can I ask you a question professor?\"

\"Of course\", replied the professor.

The student stood up and asked, \"Professor, does cold exist?\"

\"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?\" The students snickered at the young man's question.

The young man replied, \"In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat.\"

The student continued, \"Professor, does darkness exist?\"

The professor responded, \"Of course it does.\"

The student replied, \"Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present.\"

Finally the young man asked the professor, \"Sir, does evil exist?\"

Now uncertain, the professor responded, \"Of course as I have already said. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.\"

To this the student replied, \"Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love that exist just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.\"

The professor sat down.

[dissent]

Nice Tiger, but I like the Navy SEAL story here better.

[Jeff250]

You'll get two opinions on this from Christians, but there isn't really a difference at the core. Those who interpret Genesis literally say that these evils didn't start until after man sinned. Those who interpret Genesis a bit more figuratively will point out that the first sin happened in Heaven with Lucifer. Either way, the pain and death in this world came from sin. From someone deliberately choosing to step out of Love.

That doesn't really answer my question (or if it does, it's unclear to me). I asked how much evil in the world, if any, would convince you that God wasn't all-good or didn't exist. This question's end isn't really in anything other than satisfying my curiosity.

But you still need to go through the entire argument in sequence. I don't agree with Thomas Aquinas on all points, but he was a master of logic with some incredible insights.

Well, I'm probably not going to research your point for you. I'm sure it's capable of being summarized succinctly. (Arguments that cannot be summarized succinctly are fishy and suspect.)

My argument is that morality must be based on some sort of innate authority, or it doesn't exist at all.

This is the statement that I especially took issue with:

Also, that if there is no God, then calling the world "evil" has no meaning and the bad things that we see wouldn't actually be "bad". [emphasis added]

I guess you could say that you used the word "God" as a synonym for "innate authority on ethics," but that still seems quite sloppy, especially when e.g. a Kantian would appeal to the categorical imperative or a utilitarian would appeal to the greatest happiness principle as ultimate authorities on ethics.

[DCrazy]

Hrm... gotta love the rampant anti-intellectualism embedded in those \"anecdotes\". And that men orders of magnitude smarter than any of us here have debated these questions since the time of Plato, yet have not come to any definitive conclusion as to the nature of evil. But your smug stories sure seal the deal, don't they? You tell that East-coast liberal hippy professor who's boss!

[Kilarin]

That doesn't really answer my question (or if it does, it's unclear to me).

Sorry, I'll clarify. wWhile some Christians do stumble over this issue, in general, no amount of evil in the world should convince a Christian that God was evil. It is a point of Christian doctrine that the world is evil, and most churches interpret scripture as implying it's going to get worse.

This is the statement that I especially took issue with:
Kilarin:"Also, that if there is no God, then calling the world "evil" has no meaning and the bad things that we see wouldn't actually be "bad".

You are absolutely correct, sloppy phrasing on my part. Replace "God" with "innate Authority behind morality" and the sentence will more accurately reflect what I meant to say.

I'm sure it's capable of being summarized succinctly. (Arguments that cannot be summarized succinctly are fishy and suspect.)

It's difficult to summarize some of Euclid's geometric discoveries without going through all of the steps they are based upon. BUT, I'll see what I can do. No time tonight, but "I'll be back..."

[snoopy]

I asked how much evil in the world, if any, would convince you that God wasn't all-good or didn't exist.

I'll give my long, and my short answer here.

The short answer is that no amount of evil would change my (or any Christian who knows something of systematic theology) opinion about God.

The long answer is this:
1. To say that God is love is not synonymous with Him preventing people from experiencing pain. I'll spare you of weak analogies, but we see even in our common life how this could be true.

2. There are a lot more qualities to God then just Him being "love." One of the other things that God is is just. The Bible accounts a clear set of rules being set up for mankind through Adam and Eve, (do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) and clearly state what the consequence would be. (or you will die) The fact that God has not only delayed the dispensation of this punishment, but has also provided a means by which we can avoid this punishment seems to be a very loving thing. According to the rules set up by God, we're all a lot better off than what we justly deserve.

Now, I realize you take issue with what the Bible has to say about things, but the question is directed to one who doesn't claim such issues.

Furthermore, if you do take issue with what the Bible says, you can't justifiably bring God (or at least the God of the Bible) into the equation. It isn't proper to create a straw-man God according to your specifications to prove any points about the God of the Bible. (Not accusing anyone, just saying...)

(Arguments that cannot be summarized succinctly are fishy and suspect.)

Does that allow me to dismiss arguments because I blindly deem them too short to fully explore the topic? Let's play by the rules. Critique an argument by its merits or lack thereof, not by its length or complexity, please.


As for the question of morality- I agree with statements that a moral standard needs to have a innate authority, one that not only defines, but also exemplifies a system of right and wrong. I'd also argue that this authority needs to be consistent (it can't change over time) and it needs to be objective. (It needs to be rigorously defined.) Now, if this authority is not God, what could exist to fit the ticket? Please make suggestions!(I'm also expecting to have you take issue with the necessary attributes of this authority.)


As for testing miracles: God clearly will not allow Himself (meaning, His character) to be tested. Gideon asked for a test to confirm what God had promised him- but note this didn't test God's character in any way. So, you can set up all the scientific tests you want, but God will not perform for you. It's a matter of authority- we don't have the authority to judge is God is who He says He is or not, to think otherwise is sinful. (Doing so would place ourselves in a place of authority over God.) I know people will jump all over this, so I'll try my best to be clear: It is sinful to test God in the sense of setting ourselves up to decide if God is who He says He is. It is okay to test God in the sense of asking for confirmation about some sort of message, or in the sense of asking "why" about things, and in testing something that He has done, such as trying to prove that something was a miracle, or I.D. I would place testing miracles as discussed in this thread as the first case, thus making it not only something that I'd almost guarantee to fail, but also making it something sinful.


A quick note about faith: Let me remind us that we all have faith in all sorts of things. Furthermore, faith, when related to religion/worldviews, isn't a matter of having it or not, it's a matter of what you have it in. In this context, I'd define the concept of faith as the fervor or conviction with which you hold to your set of beliefs. If you are wishy washy about things (and don't actually act like you believe what you claim to), I'd say you have little faith, and if you are very firm in what you believe I'd say you have much faith. I'd say that in this view having faith is a good thing. Along those lines, it isn't valid to bash a definition along the lines of "Faith allows you to believe in things without sufficient evidence" as if it's something that Christians have but Athiests/Agnostics don't because none of us have absolutely conclusive concrete proof that our worldviews are correct. Be aware that the logic or lack thereof behind one's faith is a subjective thing, and the spectrum on this dimension is also present for all worldviews.

[Jeff250]

As for testing miracles: God clearly will not allow Himself (meaning, His character) to be tested. Gideon asked for a test to confirm what God had promised him- but note this didn't test God's character in any way. So, you can set up all the scientific tests you want, but God will not perform for you.

I think you're reading too much into this. This isn't about testing God or his character. It's not like God promised to do something miraculous every time somebody did what he told that person to do and we're now testing if he was being honest or something. It's not even like you have to think God exists for this to be an interesting experiment (as Kilarin pointed out these alternatives--God gene, ESP, etc.). However, it has been suggested that when certain people do what they think that God tells them to do, then something extraordinary happens. I think that bringing an atheist along when people go on these ventures is an interesting test.

The fact that God has not only delayed the dispensation of this punishment, but has also provided a means by which we can avoid this punishment seems to be a very loving thing.

You're right to suspect that I'd take issue with the justness of the original rules themselves. But rather than convince you that holding imperfect creatures to perfect standards enforced by capital punishment is unjust, I'm more curious about this: where is there room for God to be all-good if he can do anything other than immediately kill us all (or even immediately kill us all) and then this is considered the greatest thing ever? If no amount of evil in the world would convince you that God isn't all-good, then what does it mean for your God to be all-good to begin with?

Along those lines, it isn't valid to bash a definition along the lines of "Faith allows you to believe in things without sufficient evidence" as if it's something that Christians have but Athiests/Agnostics don't because none of us have absolutely conclusive concrete proof that our worldviews are correct.

Atheists and agnostics don't need to have that leap of faith. Sure, there are some atheists that require the kind of faith in their worldview that the Christians do. But this is hardly necessary. Claims like: 1) God exists, and 2) God does not exist, could be said to require the same type of faith. But a claim like, "I do not know for sure if God exists or not" requires none.

The Christians require that one believe whole-heartedly in their religion. But when it comes to things that an atheist or agnostic believes, they are only required to put as much stock in them as is proportional to the evidence. An atheist can be fairly confident that biological evolution occurred, somewhat confident that the big bang occurred, and so on. There's no leap of faith required here. Moreover, the atheist can suspend judgment all together on decisions like whether or not God exists. However, the Christian must believe whole-heartedly that his religion is true for him to be a Christian.

There's an important concept of suspending judgment (or only being so confident of a thing) that seems to be glossed over with a for-or-against-us type of attitude.

It occurred to me though that depending on your definition of atheist, you might only think of one as the "God does not exist" type, but then only consider what I said above with respect to agnostics. (People who do not believe in God but also do not affirm that God does not exist are often considered atheists though too.)

As for the question of morality- I agree with statements that a moral standard needs to have a innate authority, one that not only defines, but also exemplifies a system of right and wrong. I'd also argue that this authority needs to be consistent (it can't change over time) and it needs to be objective. (It needs to be rigorously defined.) Now, if this authority is not God, what could exist to fit the ticket? Please make suggestions!(I'm also expecting to have you take issue with the necessary attributes of this authority.)

Well, I guess my response is: Why should we think that any of that is necessary to begin with?

[snoopy]

I think you're reading too much into this.....

It could very well be. It would be an interesting experiment, but I'll stand by saying that it's not something that the scientific process can be applied to.

But rather than convince you that holding imperfect creatures to perfect standards enforced by capital punishment is unjust, I'm more curious about this: where is there room for God to be all-good if he can do anything other than immediately kill us all (or even immediately kill us all) and then this is considered the greatest thing ever? If no amount of evil in the world would convince you that God isn't all-good, then what does it mean for your God to be all-good to begin with?

I'll take issue with the statement that God held imperfect creatures to perfect standards- because I'd say that Adam and Eve where created perfectly, with no tendency toward sin, or "sin nature." They did, however, have the freedom do break the rules. (They had the ability, but not the tendancy toward it.)

As for room to be "all-good:" I'm not going to claim that God is "all-good" because I think that statement is too ambiguous. God is love. God is just. God is incapable of evil. God is also incapable of allowing evil to remain in His presence. There's a small problem with you're grammar there, but I think that you are saying that God could do anything He wants, and thus it shouldn't be anything special for Him to do something other than kill us all. That would be incorrect in that God cannot be unjust. Thus, since we broke the rules, He has to dispense justice. He can't do whatever He wants- the punishment of death must be justly served for the disobedience of the human race, because not doing so would violate another one of God's attributes.

Atheists and agnostics don't need to have that leap of faith.....Claims like: 1) God exists, and 2) God does not exist, could be said to require the same type of faith. But a claim like, "I do not know for sure if God exists or not" requires none.

I'm speaking of a higher level- the subconscious level that most people don't have logically worked out. Everyone lives by a certain set of parameters that they have a certain level of confidence in. Any statement about anything, any belief about anything carries a degree of faith with it. "I do not know for sure if God exists or not" carries with it a degree of faith- do you not know simply because you have not thought about it (little faith in the statement), or do you not know because you have extensively studied the matter and have become convinced that you cannot know? (much faith in the statement) The only way you can try to divorce yourself from faith is by trying to have no confidence in anything, even your lack of confidence. That, I think anyone would agree, is a bad thing- at that point you might as well forfeit your entire ability for higher thinking.

What I'm saying is that the suspense of judgement is in and of itself something that one has faith in. My point is that faith is a universal thing that people try to use against religions, and since they want to want to use it as such, they go out of their way to convince themselves that they are indeed faith-free. Faith itself isn't the problem, faith in a poor set of beliefs is the problem.

Well, I guess my response is: Why should we think that any of that is necessary to begin with?

Because without a standard, we have no way to dispense true justice. Without a standard, it's always a matter of the masses vs. the minorities, and people are punished for having different opinions, because that idea of absolute right and absolute wrong fade away.

[Jeff250]

I'll take issue with the statement that God held imperfect creatures to perfect standards- because I'd say that Adam and Eve where created perfectly, with no tendency toward sin, or "sin nature." They did, however, have the freedom do break the rules. (They had the ability, but not the tendancy toward it.)

To sidestep the discussion of whether or not they were "perfect" creatures, let's say this: creatures that would inevitably break a rule. I think that it's unjust to enforce capital punishment on somebody when they inevitably break a small rule. Nobody would ever argue otherwise unless they have an agenda.

As for room to be "all-good:" I'm not going to claim that God is "all-good" because I think that statement is too ambiguous. God is love. God is just. God is incapable of evil.

OK, then I'll reask the question again using a phrase that you're comfortable with: What does it mean to say that God is "incapable of evil" when he can do anything he wants to us other than immediately kill us (or even immediately kill us), to anyone, from newborns to the elderly, etc. and still not be evil? What would the evil god be doing to us?

Your God says, conquer this nation, because they should have been dead anyways. Allow these people to be raped and pillaged, because they should have been dead anyways. These people will starve to death, because they should have been dead anyways. They should be so lucky that they got what they had! Let's suppose that people did deserve the death penalty by being born, since somebody did something 6000 years ago. There's this implicit assumption here that any kind of life, no matter what kind, is always better than death, so everyone should feel lucky. But I'm not convinced that life on earth is always an advantageous exchange. Some people are born into situations that are so fucked up that saying that that is better than death is really ballsy. In any case, God's substitute for the death penalty can sometimes seem, at best, "cruel and unusual." Would we ever consider to, instead of executing a death penalty convict, torture him for the rest of his life, so that we can give him the "benefit" of living? That hardly seems beneficial. So why should we think that it works for real-life analogs?

The only way you can try to divorce yourself from faith is by trying to have no confidence in anything, even your lack of confidence. That, I think anyone would agree, is a bad thing- at that point you might as well forfeit your entire ability for higher thinking.

If you think that people have faith whenever they believe in anything, then you're using "faith" differently than people leveling criticisms against Christians use the word "faith." There's an important difference between somebody being somewhat confident of a theory that has moderate support for it and someone believing a theory whole-heartedly that has moderate support for it, regardless of whether you think either of these situations constitutes faith. You're trying to wash it all together and say it's all the same thing, but when people say that Christians have faith and atheists don't, they're really just saying that Christians make the mistake of putting whole-hearted support into a theory whose evidence shouldn't allow that, whereas an atheist might only assign his confidence in a theory in proportion to the evidence.

Because without a standard, we have no way to dispense true justice. Without a standard, it's always a matter of the masses vs. the minorities, and people are punished for having different opinions, because that idea of absolute right and absolute wrong fade away.

I don't see anything contradictory about an ethical authority existing but nobody following it or an ethical authority existing but everyone forgetting about it or an ethical authority existing but there is no ultimate justice. This is why I say that God isn't the only possible ethical authority. Although a lot of ethical theories do provide for a lot of the criteria that you said that an ethical authority should have, you're probably right in that only a god could meet the qualifications that you set out.

[Bet51987]

...The short answer is that no amount of evil would change my (or any Christian who knows something of systematic theology) opinion about God.

Thanks for that statement. Its what I've always felt. I hope you continue answering Jeff.

Bee

[Kilarin]

We are in agreement on several points, BUT:

God clearly will not allow Himself (meaning, His character) to be tested.

I'm not going to jump all over you, but I will have to disagree with this one.

There is no guarantee that God will cooperate, but I see no philosophical OR biblical reason to exclude the possibility entirely. And CERTAINLY I would not extend this to say that we could never test or question God's character.

It is sinful to test God in the sense of setting ourselves up to decide if God is who He says He is.

Philosophically this would be very troublesome. For example, suppose I had been born in a household that worshiped the flying spaghetti monster, and had been told that it was sinful to question the character of the flying spaghetti monster. If I followed this precept, how would I EVER discover that the flying spaghetti monster was NOT really worthy of my worship? And if it isn't a virtue for someone who worships the flying spaghetti monster to believe without questioning, why would it be a virtue for a Christian to do exactly the same thing? This system makes the difference between salvation and damnation strictly based upon where you were born, because people who act with exactly the same faith and trust are damned or saved, NOT based upon their choice, or their actions, but strictly upon which religion was expounded to them first. And it's immediately obvious that this applies to all religions, not just the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I would like a Hindu to be willing to listen to my arguments for Christianity, and to honestly question whether the Gods he worships are worthy of that worship. To question their character and very existence. And if I expect a Hindu to do that for me, I should be willing to do exactly the same thing for him.

The truth is never afraid of inquiry.

Biblically, I have trouble with this as well.

Ps 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him

Note that the first part of this is "taste and see", clearly an invitation to TRY/TEST God, and THEN put your Trust in him after He has proven worthy.

1 Thess 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
doesn't seem to have any specific exclusion for God.

And we can't forget the example of Elijah on Mount Carmel.

1 Kings 18
And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Ba'al, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word. Then said Elijah unto the people, I, even I only, remain a prophet of the LORD; but Ba'al's prophets are four hundred and fifty men. Let them therefore give us two bullocks; and let them choose one bullock for themselves, and cut it in pieces, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under: and I will dress the other bullock, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under: and call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the LORD: and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God. And all the people answered and said, It is well spoken

This wasn't a case of asking God to clarify his intent. This was a case of testing to see if God was really who he said He was. Was he REALLY God. I don't see how you could question His character any more than that. And far from being a sin, God approved enough to send a miraculous answer.

There are other examples and more texts. Like I said, I am NOT trying to jump all over you here. We agree on many points, I just think that this is an important point and worth getting straight.

[snoopy]

Kilarin,

I think maybe we're on slightly different pages here, and I also think that maybe I could express my understanding of the issue more clearly, so I'll take a stab at it:

Deut. 6:16 says \"Do not test the LORD your God as you did at Massah.\"

What happened at Massah: (Ex. 17)

The people of Israel started grumbling, and questioning if God was with them. (when He had promised to be with them always) They didn't trust God to come through with His promise.


Now, for what I mean about not testing God:

I believe that the body of evidence out there concerning God, namely the Bible, other people who believe, and nature itself, and (primarily) a sense that we are born with, are sufficient enough that we have no need to demand additional evidence from God. This is universal for all people, no matter where/how/under what conditions they live. Thus no-one can claim immunity via ignorance or lack of knowledge.

Thus, we have no place to demand new evidence. Likewise, we have no place to stipulate upon which terms the evidence is given. To try to demand either of these acts to place a burden of proof on God that has already been fulfilled. I think I said this before, but in demanding further evidence we try to reverse roles- placing ourselves in a place of authority to decide if God was indeed being honest or not when He presented all of the existing evidence to us.

We are welcome to test the existing evidence all we want, with the expressed consequences coming from what we determine. (or even from \"not determining anything\" since the Bible indicates that there is no such thing as a middle, \"I don't know\" ground, and one claiming such ground has already chosen not to believe God.) If someone claims to not know about God (or to not have made up their minds about God), they have either have not really looked for an answer, and they have already made up their minds that they don't believe God. God won't cater to us demanding additional evidence because we don't like the evidence that we already have. Also consider that we all start at a state of \"not believing God,\" and some of us end up in a state of believing God. I'll also differentiate here between not knowing & investigating about practical details vs. the overall structure of \"God is right\" vs. \"God is wrong.\"

As for your examples, none of them exemplify an unbelieving person engineering a test for God to comply with, and Him coming through.

Kings 18:36: \"And it came to pass at the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that Eli'jah the prophet came near, and said, LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that thou art God in Israel, and that I am thy servant, and that I have done all these things at thy word.\"

God engineered this test, not Elijah. Again, the problem is when we place ourselves in a place of authority to judge if God is who He says He is.

Logic is a good tool, certainly, but as a Christian we should keep in mind that the Word of God is infallible, while the application of both His Word and the application of logic are both fallible things. (I'm not sure about logic itself... I'm not sure that I can segregate logic & the application thereof like I can the word of God.)

Jeff250:

You bring up a good point in that we would have inevitably broken the rule. To further open the can of worms: I believe that God predestined it to happen, yet we (mankind) are still responsible.

As far as the capital punishment part: the \"death\" part isn't the worst of it, the \"permanent separation from God\" part is the worst of it. Why is such a \"harsh\" punishment appropriate for such a \"benign\" crime? At the heart of the disobedience was a desire on Adam and Eve's part to become like Gods- indeed any sin is, in its worst sense, an attack upon God's sovereign authority. That attack is what makes all sin worthy of punishment by death, and an offense first against God and second against others.

The believe the biggest difference of opinion here is a question of responsibility. The Bible teaches both that God is sovereign, and the Man is responsible for His own sin and the consequences thereof. If you try to logically try to work out how both of these can coexist, you'll hit a brick wall. Likewise, if you try to practically demonstrate how these do not coexist in our lived out lives, you will again hit a brick wall.

God did instruct the nation of Israel to conquer nations, and the death of all of those people would be deemed justice, not evil, by my earlier stated criteria. (Here we can see Israel's killing of people as an extension of God's action, similarly to the way that we see U.S soldier's killing of people as an extension of the U.S. government's action.) How can I confidently say that any \"holy wars\" since the time of the bible where not God's will? Because with the coming of Christ the means of grace was extended to all people, and His teachings acted to redefine the way the law was applied.

That being said, God never instructed torture, rape, etc. to be done, thus the responsibility for any of those things falls on the person that did them, and the consequences for those acts are born by mankind.

As for natural disasters, famine, etc. Those things did not occur before the fall, and are consequences of the fall. While someone may not have done something specific to cause hurricane Katrina, if it had not been for the fall, it would not have happened.

If someone views life as worse than death they are certainly able to do something about it. Again, responsibility for whatever terrible state a person might end up with ultimately is mankind's.

Many Christians misuse the term faith, and use it as an excuse to disengage their brains. While I don't advocate questioning & testing God, I whole heartedly advocate questioning & testing whatever anyone says against what God says in the Bible. We'll set aside the question of what has better support, since that's the heart of the disagreement between all different beliefs, and is a subjective matter that we won't be able to resolve without one of us changing his beliefs.

[Lothar]

Sorry I've been away for so long... computer died, new computer runs D3 much better, so I've been in ur base stealing ur flag instead of responding to ur posts.

Just wanted to say... Jeff, anything you can do to gather more or better information is a good thing. Ride shotgun on someone's possible \"God told me... extraordinary thing\" experience? If such an opportunity is available, take it. But be careful not to use the possibility of such a test as an excuse to discard others' experience. Imperfect evidence is still useful, so long as you understand your error tolerances and account for them.

[Flabby Chick]

uh.. what's the little car thingy?

My four year old daughter wants to be a carpenter. Well, she does the designs and daddy does the work.

[Jeff250]

Snoopy, you seem to be saying something like this: It's all just. No matter what happens, it's just. Anything could happen to anyone, and, no matter how terrible it is, it would still be just. Nations murdering other nations: justice. Infants starving to death: justice. Natural disaster and disease: justice. No matter what happens, you've got a neat story that attempts to describe how it's still just.

But I don't think that any of that explanation is adequate. Real justice serves punishment proportional to the crime. It isn't sloppy. It doesn't justify such a large and diverse range of punishments all for the same offense.

Moreover, how we handle justice isn't an ethically neutral topic. For example, extending grace is either prudent or it isn't--it's either good or bad. (It's usually good when we do it, but we can certainly think of cases where it wouldn't be.) Christians largely view God extending grace as evidence that God is good, so I don't see why an all-good God shouldn't be extending more of it.

[Kilarin]

Sorry for the long post. I've been REALLY BUSY, and off on a camping trip. Trying to catch up.

Deut. 6:16 says "Do not test the LORD your God as you did at Massah."
The people of Israel started grumbling, and questioning if God was with them. (when He had promised to be with them always) They didn't trust God to come through with His promise.

These as two different kinds of testing. But I'm not certain the division I'm about to make will be considered as legitimate by you.

1: When someone has had plenty of evidence to believe in God, and then denies it, this is a failure of "faith", in the sense that has been defined previously here by several people. Not "blind faith" but constancy in belief when you have good reasons to believe. The example at Massah was clearly this kind of failure.

2: When someone has legitimate doubts and tries to "test God" to see if He really is what He says He is. I'm not certain you will consider this 2nd category legitimate because of your statement:

I believe that the body of evidence out there concerning God, namely the Bible, other people who believe, and nature itself, and (primarily) a sense that we are born with, are sufficient enough that we have no need to demand additional evidence from God. This is universal for all people, no matter where/how/under what conditions they live. Thus no-one can claim immunity via ignorance or lack of knowledge.

I agree that I think there is plenty of evidence out there. But I disagree that everyone has examined and fully understood all of that evidence.

For an example of my two different categories of "testing". Consider the story of Othello. Othello doubted his wife, even though he knew her. He knew he had good reasons to trust her. He CHOSE to believe the lies instead. This was a failure of faith in sense #1.

But suppose Othello had just met Desdemona when someone questioned her character. THEN he would have had every reason to TEST her. (not to smother her, mind you). But it certainly would have been logical for him to confront her with the accusation and to request proof of her constancy.

none of them exemplify an unbelieving person engineering a test for God to comply with, and Him coming through.

Woman at the well
John 4 And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did. So when the Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would tarry with them: and he abode there two days. And many more believed because of his own word; and said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.

Clearly these people doubted, the tested Christ for two days, and were now convinced that He was who He said He was.

Mat 11 Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, and said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another? Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and show John again those things which ye do hear and see: the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them. And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.

John had less excuse than most not to believe, and yet Christ answered him, along with a mild rebuke, but he DID answer him.

God is certainly not REQUIRED to answer us, but I see nothing in the Bible that says it is a SIN to ask when you have questions.

Logic is a good tool, certainly, but as a Christian we should keep in mind that the Word of God is infallible, while the application of both His Word and the application of logic are both fallible things. (I'm not sure about logic itself... I'm not sure that I can segregate logic & the application thereof like I can the word of God.)

How do we know that the Word of God IS the Word of God other than by Logic? Logic is the tool that God gave us to help understand him. Without it, we might as well be Buddhist or Hindu's because without logic, we are left with blind faith, and any religion could have just as much as a claim to blind faith as any other.

================================================================================

Ok an attempt to sum up the "God is His Own Goodness" argument from Summa Contra Gentiles of Aquinas. Not a GOOD attempt, for that, you really should read the entire argument leading up to this point. It's not that long. But, I'll do the best I can:

God is the "Prime Mover", the "first efficient cause". There is NOTHING outside of God. Not space, not time, nothing. God had no cause, rather he IS the cause of all other things.

God is not IN time. Anything within time would have to have a cause. So God is eternal and unchanging.

This also requires that God has no "Potential". That's going to sound confusing to most folks at first, we think of potential as a good thing. But Potential means something that can be developed. Something that might or might not be. God is eternal and unchanging, what He is, He IS. There is nothing to be developed, nothing that might or might not be.

All this leads us to the fact that God is his own Essence. Whatever God is, He essentially is. It couldn't have been otherwise, and it's not part of Him, it IS him. The fact that a certain person is loving, or angry, or sad can be separated from that person. They may be sad, but they are not sadness. They could have been happy and still be the same person. This is not true of God. When we say that God is Love, we don't mean that God is loving, and He might have been otherwise. We mean that He IS LOVE. It is inseparable from Him, because He can not be separated. His Love is essence, not attitude.

Nothing within the character of God is there by accident (chance). Anything that is there by chance has a cause that determined the chance. God has no cause. Again, everything that God is, He is logically HAS to be, nothing is chance or accident.

Given the above, we find that God is Universal Perfection. There can not be any "Defect" in God, because a defect would have to be a deviation from something that could have been better, and since God has no "Potential", nothing within Himself that could have been otherwise, and since nothing within Himself is there by chance, there is no way He could have been "Better".

Which leads us to: God is his own Goodness. God is good because He is perfect. His goodness is not goodness by chance, there is no chance within God, His goodness is goodness itself. Goodness is not something God attains to in order to match up with some outside standard, He IS Goodness, by essence. God is his own Goodness.

[snoopy]

These as two different kinds of testing. But I'm not certain the division I'm about to make will be considered as legitimate by you.

You are right. Here's the reason that I don't draw a distinction: In both cases, the person is in a state of unbelief. In case one, they have come to a point where they do believe God, and have turned away from that conclusion. You don't have any complaints with that one. In case two, the person has never gotten to the point where they believe God, are have always been in a state of unbelief.

I agree that there may be a theoretical difference that can be exemplified in different cases, in this case the end result, namely the person being in a state of sinfulness, is the same. Now, if you're already in a state of unbelief, as is the starting point of case #2, then an honest search for answers is a very good thing, because at very worst you will end up in the exact same spot, and at best you will realize the error in your state of unbelief.

In practical terms, once you have reached that point of conscious unbelief, you are sinning, in the literal sense (I say thus because all of our lives are wrought with an abundance of sin, so the idea of anyone, even a Christian, being accused of sinning should be a quite normal thing to us) and the best possible thing one can do is investigate what evidence we have to try to bring a resolution to the question.

I suppose the reason that people want to shy away from the idea of questioning God being sinful is because it seems to indicate that the best thing a person can do is to blindly say, do and (try to convince their hearts to) believe the things they are instructed to. The reason that I would say this isn't valid is because I see Christianity as a matter of the heart, and I don't think we can strong arm our hearts into believing what our minds may have blindly committed itself to. In short, the only way we can truly develop a belief in something is by knowing it with such intimacy that that our mind, logic, heart, and the rest of our essence all in unison fully buy into it.

I think this is why I'm trying to draw some sort of a line between a heart of unbelief, and what I would call a heart of inquisitiveness. A heart of unbelief enters the investigation with a belief that God is wrong, and sets out to prove itself right. A heart of inquisitiveness enters the investigation with a belief that God is right, and sets out to prove itself right. Investigation itself is a very good thing (and a morally neutral thing) the moral implications are drawn from the motives for which the investigation is being done.

God is certainly not REQUIRED to answer us, but I see nothing in the Bible that says it is a SIN to ask when you have questions.

Agreed. A stated above, the moral implication is introduced by the motives that are driving the questions.

How do we know that the Word of God IS the Word of God other than by Logic? Logic is the tool that God gave us to help understand him. Without it, we might as well be Buddhist or Hindu's because without logic, we are left with blind faith, and any religion could have just as much as a claim to blind faith as any other.

Again, I agree. I'll try to reword what I was trying to say: A Christian's doctrine should drive his philosophy, not vice versa. There are some things that the Bible simply doesn't fully explain. The temptation is to try to logically work out an explanation to "fill in the gaps." I don't think this is practicing good doctrine- there are simply some details that we aren't told, don't know, and don't need to know.

Snoopy, you seem to be saying something like this: It's all just. No matter what happens, it's just. Anything could happen to anyone, and, no matter how terrible it is, it would still be just. Nations murdering other nations: justice. Infants starving to death: justice. Natural disaster and disease: justice. No matter what happens, you've got a neat story that attempts to describe how it's still just.

Not exactly. There are sort of two separate things I'm trying to drive at:

1. Our human perspective of pain, suffering, etc. is skewed. We blow up physical pain into a big deal, and brush the importance of separation from God aside. In an attempt to exemplify this, and show how the state we're in is much better than true justice. I've state that true justice would be for the world to be destroyed, and for all of us to be permanently separated from God. From a spiritual standpoint, the opportunity for salvation (our current state) is infinitely better than this.

2. State that God is not to be held responsible for the sorry state of the world, we are.

Thus, all of the pain, suffering, and injustice in the world has nothing to do with God's justice (it's much better than His justice), and is solely our responsibility- we only have ourselves (in a macro sense) to blame of anything bad in the world.

[Bet51987]

Thus, all of the pain, suffering, and injustice in the world has nothing to do with God's justice (it's much better than His justice), and is solely our responsibility- we only have ourselves (in a macro sense) to blame of anything bad in the world.

Thats pretty much what a world would be like if God did not exist. There is no way I can resolve a world like this and some loving God no matter how smooth and slick your words are. Its totally illogical and without meaning.

Bettina

[Duper]

That's because you do not correctly understand God. or His
Word.

[Bet51987]

That's because you do not correctly understand God. or His
Word.

Duper, when I was little, I believed His words were His and I prayed to Him every single night because I believed all of it....every single bit. But, as I got older, I began having serious problems keeping my emotions in check and still do to this day. I can no longer "correctly understand" a God who "knows all, loves all" and does nothing to stop the little girl from being brutally murdered. I personally want to see evidence that God really exists so I can have something to hate but I can't even have that.

Snoopy claims that no amount of evil in this world will change his mind about God even when God predestined it to happen. I see him having a strong will and belief at the cost of emotion. However, Mother Teresa... "Where is God"?... didn't fare as well. She may have held on to her faith on the outside, but inside there was a huge problem with doubt and "correctly understanding" this God.

Emotion reveals truth.

Bee

[Kilarin]

Emotion reveals truth.

Not necessarily. For example, there are many people who are purely "Emotional" Christians. They don't believe based on evidence, or even experience, but only on emotion.

AND there are also purely "Emotional" Atheists. They are angry, or would find God inconvenient, but they haven't really come to the conclusion through logic or experience.

They can't BOTH be right, unless logic itself is invalid.