DescentBB

Foil wrote: Personally, I ask the questions because I want to know God, and I think it's futile to try to emulate Christ without an understanding of God's nature on a deeper level than "just do what I do, don't ask why".

I ask God "why" all the time, but out of curiosity, not accusation. I also do so knowing that I may not get an answer. (I'll go into the first half of your question later..at work and have to respond quick)

And I concur with your statement. The 23rd Psalm is an excellent example. But responding when it seems God says "because" is ok in that He is Perfect and is for those who love Him. It's a matter of trust. Just like when we tell our kids "because" sometime when the matter is too complex to explain or there just isn't the time. (aside from the times when I was too lazy or impatient ) When god is Not, thankfully.

Duper wrote:Bet. God would do nothing because we CAN NOT apart from Him. THAT is what the Whole of Salvation is about. (it's really just that simple)

Salvation is the deliverance from evil and there is no train above my head but since I don't believe in God you don't have to answer my question.

I'm just curious so I'll see if anyone else will answer.

Again, In the thousands of years following this one there is a high probability that wars, famine, killings and all forms of human injustice will be eradicated for the reasons I already gave. So, what would a God do?

If He does nothing, like Duper said, then for countless milenia it will be a world without first hand knowledge of evil. Wouldn't this be boring to a God?

To quote Aggressor Prime..

...by wanting no evil to exist, or really no possibility of evil, you also want nothingness, the worst evil. Ironic, isn’t it?

Waiting for my date...check back later.

Bee

Personally I think it's just that he has a warped sense of humor and wants you to learn to think.

Bet, let me put it this way. Your question holds no merit. It has no basis. It's a question, sure; but it's one that has no real answer.

And if you don't believe in God, why do you want to know?

I think it's an interesting thought experiment. Imagine living in the Star Trek universe. We now have the Weather Modification Network to dissipate dangerous weather phenomena on Earth, and we now have cures to almost all diseases. Natural evils are now largely a thing of the past. Currency has been abolished, and, moreover, has become undesired. Crime is nonexistent.

When Bet asks whether God would intervene and introduce more evils for our ultimate betterment in such a society, I see this as asking the following: Would living in this Star Trek society be a utopia or a dystopia? And if it's a utopia, why wouldn't God have given us this to start out with?

I think that one response is that this is a utopia but that this sort of social evolution may be what God had aimed for. Even long after any one individual remembers the evils of the past, these memories may still be ingrained in our social memory. Consider U.S. slavery: No living individual remembers slavery, but we still have a social memory of it, and it seems hard to imagine how we could ever make the mistake of state-sanctioned slavery again. To answer the question of why God didn't give us this utopia to start out with, there is some sort of virtue of knowing evil, even if it is only a social memory of it. Learning from our ancestors' mistakes is a good as learning these mistakes firsthand.

I don't think that this is what Drakona has in mind though. She seems to be arguing that you need immediate evil in order for virtue to be possible.

I reject this idea. Virtue requires difficulties, not evils. Evils are difficulties, but difficulties needn't be evil. For example, there is virtue in masterfully playing a game of chess. There is virtue in writing a highly efficient computer algorithm. There is virtue in playing a musical instrument. There is virtue in learning how to juggle. Overcoming difficulty and mastering a craft is exercising virtue, no evil required. Drakona, I assert that there still would be virtues without the big evils that we experience today. I think that we would be left with some of the best virtues too!

I also reject that there would be no heroes without evil. Einstein is a hero. It isn't for combating evil. It is for overcoming difficulty. It is for becoming a master of his craft, physics, and for discovering relativity. Would living in a world without so much evil have taken a single thing away from Einstein's accomplishments? Of course not! Difficulty has many faces, but evil is only one of them.

There is still so much cool stuff left for humans to accomplish, both as individuals and as a species, even when evil has been taken out of the picture. As individuals, we can learn crafts, such as how to play chess or how to play a musical instrument. As a species, we could learn about our universe and colonize the universe. This is the good stuff! We could live very virtuous and fulfilling lives without cancer, tsunamis, ALS, wars, child hunger, etc. How insulting to think otherwise!

Duper wrote:Bet, let me put it this way. Your question holds no merit. It has no basis. It's a question, sure; but it's one that has no real answer.

One time I attended a funeral service for a man that was brutally murdered and the level of emotion (not me this time) was very high because he was young and well liked by everyone. My priest, who also knew him, was very upset during the prayer service and as he was finishing he pointed to the body and said "This is not part of God's plan!... I don't know what this is!. Only God knows!.. That was the first time I ever heard him say that but it felt good that he said he didn't know.

Unfortunately you don't get off that easy. The high probability of future success gives this merit.

And if you don't believe in God, why do you want to know?

I don't believe in quantum entanglement at huge distances or that the universe was the beginning of everything either. I just like poking holes in things I strongly believe to be untrue.


Jeff250.. Your post was very interesting and I agree with almost all of it except remembering the past evil world. It's one thing to read it but another to live it. At school, we were shown videos of horrendous car crashes as part of driving safe. They even placed a smashed up car on display in front of the school every June so you could see up close that the driver and passenger didn't survive. I know other schools do this too and yet you still hear about teenagers hitting trees during graduation.

I know you mentioned Drakona's argument but she is only one of several people that post here who are highly knowledgeable in scripture... The written word. So, if they are wrong then who is right?

Either the bible God would still inject evil as long as the earth is here, or the bible of year 57493 will be modified to fit the times. The scripture experts should be able to tell me.

Bee

Jeff250 wrote:...[Drakona] seems to be arguing that you need immediate evil in order for virtue to be possible.

I reject this idea. Virtue requires difficulties, not evils. Evils are difficulties, but difficulties needn't be evil. For example, there is virtue in masterfully playing a game of chess. There is virtue in writing a highly efficient computer algorithm. There is virtue in playing a musical instrument. There is virtue in learning how to juggle. Overcoming difficulty and mastering a craft is exercising virtue, no evil required. Drakona, I assert that there still would be virtues without the big evils that we experience today. I think that we would be left with some of the best virtues too!

I believe there is a difference between true virtue and the mastery of a skill/craft. True virtue is characterized by its direct ability to overcome evil (i.e. charity over greed). Skillfulness becomes virtue through its capacity to overcome evil; the chess master forges an ability for logic and strategy that could be applied to other problems. The computer algorithm may solve a problem, one that currently causes great suffering and despair. The musician may create a work that inspires others to directly alleviate suffering caused by an evil, or to take up the craft themselves instead of occupying their time with evil, destructive activities that would have spread more suffering and despair. Suffering and despair that, among other things, leads us to question God's existence and love, and pushes us away from God. Without the capacity to overcome evil, skill is mere vanity.

Jeff250 wrote:I also reject that there would be no heroes without evil. Einstein is a hero. It isn't for combating evil. It is for overcoming difficulty. It is for becoming a master of his craft, physics, and for discovering relativity. Would living in a world without so much evil have taken a single thing away from Einstein's accomplishments? Of course not! Difficulty has many faces, but evil is only one of them.

Heroes are celebrated for their demonstrated ability to overcome difficulties that cause suffering and despair, the goals of evil. Heroes give us hope through their accomplishments. Einstein chose to become a learned man, overcoming ignorance (sloth), and inspiring others to do the same, in hope of accomplishing feats like his. He also forwarded his more enlighted thoughts, encouraging others to adopt a more hopeful outlook on life, and think more about the impacts of their desires and actions.

Skills and accomplishments may make the world a better, more exciting place to live, but what evils they overcome indicate whether or not they are truly "virtues".

.. and there is no train above my head..

what does that mean? I've never heard it before.

Salvation is the abolishment of our Sin. Our reconciliation with God the Father. Not from evil.

Duper wrote:

.. and there is no train above my head..

what does that mean? I've never heard it before.

You said it here. Maybe you were tired.

.... My best friend then use to constantly ask me things like "Hey Biff, what would you do if you looked up and there was a train 5 inches from your face about to drop on your head?" gee Doug.. I dunno DIE??!??. Three or four times a day. o.0 So I really don't enjoy engaging in the hypothetical.

Bettina

Sedwick wrote:I believe there is a difference between true virtue and the mastery of a skill/craft. True virtue is characterized by its direct ability to overcome evil (i.e. charity over greed). Skillfulness becomes virtue through its capacity to overcome evil; the chess master forges an ability for logic and strategy that could be applied to other problems. The computer algorithm may solve a problem, one that currently causes great suffering and despair. The musician may create a work that inspires others to directly alleviate suffering caused by an evil, or to take up the craft themselves instead of occupying their time with evil, destructive activities that would have spread more suffering and despair. Suffering and despair that, among other things, leads us to question God's existence and love, and pushes us away from God. Without the capacity to overcome evil, skill is mere vanity.

Perhaps you wouldn't have normally considered something like "playing chess well" as being a virtue. But what I mean by virtue is something that would just as easily fulfill the role of the "true virtues" (as you call them) in human life if most of the big evils we experience today disappeared, things that would allow just as much depth of person and development of character, even if cancer and ALS did not exist. And as I argued in my post, overcoming difficulty, not necessarily evil, seems to have this quality.

As you say, mastering chess may enhance one's ability to solve other problems some day, perhaps problems of evil, but this is not what makes chess fulfilling. Even in a world without cancer and ALS, chess would still be just as fun!

It's not enough to show that overcoming difficulty gives you skills to overcome evil. You have to show that overcoming difficulty is fulfilling because it gives you skills to overcome evil. And I just don't see this at the moment. Or show that removing cancer and ALS from the world would somehow take something important away from human life, something that couldn't be replaced with something else. But I don't see this at the moment either.

Just my 2 cents on this one…

God allows evil, because God does not micro manage the human race.

Ok back to the discussion…

Some better initial planning would have gone a long ways.

I can't believe I just thought of this.

Why is nothingness evil?

Srsly, wouldn't no evil and no good be better than a lot of evil and a lot of good? Or a lot of evil and a tiny bit of good, as it were? Or even a tiny bit of evil and a lot of good?

My dad used to have a saying: \"Saying that it's okay to have just a little evil is like saying,'Oh, there's poo in my brownie... it's okay, there's only a little bit.'\" Now, while he was an ultraconservative nightmare and highly biased and unwilling to make concessions and whatever the phrase I wanted to say but forgot was, he had a point. Would you eat a brownie if you knew a little turd were baked into it? I know I wouldn't. So, to tie this to my initial question, wouldn't it be better to have no brownie, rather than a brownie with shet in it? If you really don't like evil, which presumably everyone's different gods don't, then the obvious answer is yes. No brownie at all, or find a way to remove that turd without leaving any trace of it in the brownie. The sooner, the better. In the meantime, I'm content to play it safe and refuse to believe the brownie or the turd exist.

Here is the face of Evil being played by God himself... He has many faces.

God

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:Here is the face of Evil being played by God himself... He has many faces.

God

Bee

Argh... Men like that make me feel like taking justice into my own hands (not that I would, but I'd feel like it if I saw him in person).

-----------

Bet,

You can only attribute that evil to God if you subscribe to the idea that He created the evil for some purpose.

Yes, some of the Christians here believe that way (the "evil as a necessary opposite to good" perspective often held by Calvinists and others who believe in determinism/predestination). However, that's not a ubiquitous view.

For example, because of my perspective on God's nature and free will, I can't believe at all that God created or is the source of the evil in that man. Personally, I couldn't worship a deity responsible for that kind of hideous thing.

From what I see of God's nature (as seen in scripture, but most vividly in the character of Christ), He not only loves people... He hates evil, which includes what was perpetrated by that sicko.

-----------

So... I'm sure you're asking the question, then: Why doesn't God just step in and remove all the evil?

The "pat Christian answer" says something about it being a boring or uninspiring world without evil, but I don't see God as valuing evil over boredom; it just doesn't fit.

I personally think it has much more to do with the value God places on free will... but it's still something I struggle to understand, because the vastness of evil in this world is just overwhelming sometimes. I don't claim to have all the answers; so I'll often agree with your priest, "I don't know...". I can only hope that someday in eternity I'll have the chance to take a few thousand years and talk it out with Him.

I'll start by saying that I'm trying to speak from a theological standpoint. The bible doesn't give us a nice, clean philosophy with all of the ends tied. Any honest theologian will end up saying "I don't know" a significant amount of the time when you get into mechanics.

Foil wrote:You can only attribute that evil to God if you subscribe to the idea that He created the evil for some purpose.

There's an assumption laid into this that I'll point out and question. The assumption is that having control over something equates to responsibility for it. In human life that translates to "you're responsible for the effects of your decisions." I'm not sure that there is a clean way to term it in the context of God, since I don't see Him ever making decisions, per se. The Bible is pretty clear that God isn't responsible for sin. So, while He may have predestined evil to happen, He's not responsible and/or accountable for it, we are. How exactly does that work? I'm not sure. I'll give it a little bit of flesh later.

Foil wrote:Yes, some of the Christians here believe that way (the "evil as a necessary opposite to good" perspective often held by Calvinists and others who believe in determinism/predestination). However, that's not a ubiquitous view.

I think trying to answer the question of "why" automatically takes you into the extra-biblical realm. There are two places where God's answer to "why" in a related context is given:

The book of Job, where Job gets pwned, and then spends most of the book asking "why did this happen to me" of God & his friends trying to give him (bad) answers. At the end of the book God shows up, asks him if he has authority to question God, and leaves him with no answer. ("where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth"...."Will you even put me in the wrong? Will you condemn me that you may be in the right? Have you an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?")

In Romans, Paul addresses predestination, and asks "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" - essentially "why is man responsible for their own sin, if God predestines it, and we can't resist it" - the answer is "But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?"

So, the Bible's answer to us asking "Why does evil happen, and why are we held responsible for our sin?" is "Who are you to question God? Who are you to pretend to hold God accountable?"

For example, because of my perspective on God's nature and free will, I can't believe at all that God created or is the source of the evil in that man. Personally, I couldn't worship a deity responsible for that kind of hideous thing.

There's the confusion between predestined to and responsible for again.

From what I see of God's nature (as seen in scripture, but most vividly in the character of Christ), He not only loves people... He hates evil, which includes what was perpetrated by that sicko.

I agree that He hates sin, and can't abide having it in His presence. At the same time, He has full control & knowledge, ahead of time, of all of the events of the earth. How do those fit, I'm not sure.

So... I'm sure you're asking the question, then: Why doesn't God just step in and remove all the evil?

The "pat Christian answer" says something about it being a boring or uninspiring world without evil, but I don't see God as valuing evil over boredom; it just doesn't fit.

I personally think it has much more to do with the value God places on free will... but it's still something I struggle to understand, because the vastness of evil in this world is just overwhelming sometimes. I don't claim to have all the answers; so I'll often agree with your priest, "I don't know...". I can only hope that someday in eternity I'll have the chance to take a few thousand years and talk it out with Him.

Again, I don't think we have a formal answer, except that it isn't our place to try to make God answer to us about it. I think it's presumptuous of us (Christians) to try to sweep God's sovereignty under the rug and make up answers of why God allows evil to happen. Simply put, we don't know, and the only reason we'd need to know is so that we could pass judgement on God, which He refuses to allow us to do. If you can trust God, then you don't need to know. If you don't trust God, then why would you believe His answer if He gave you one?

snoopy wrote:If you can trust God, then you don't need to know. If you don't trust God, then why would you believe His answer if He gave you one?

Bingo!

snoopy wrote:

Foil wrote:You can only attribute that evil to God if you subscribe to the idea that He created the evil for some purpose.

There's an assumption laid into this that I'll point out and question. The assumption is that having control over something equates to responsibility for it.

I believe that's a valid assumption to make in this context. The term "accountable" might be a bit better, so I'm going to use it here.

Otherwise, per the examples you gave from Job and Romans (btw, I agree with your interpretations there about mankind not being in a position to question God), we end up with the conclusion that since God can't be held accountable for evil, man must be held accountable for it despite the fact that man had no choice in the matter (if you hold to determinism/predestination).

Snoopy wrote:I think trying to answer the question of "why" automatically takes you into the extra-biblical realm. There are two places where God's answer to "why" in a related context is given:
[Job, Romans references]

So, the Bible's answer to us asking "Why does evil happen, and why are we held responsible for our sin?" is "Who are you to question God? Who are you to pretend to hold God accountable?"

Agreed.

However, as I've said before in this thread, I think that answer is valid... but it's used far too often as a cop-out.

Sure, sometimes the answer "Because I said so, and I know what's best" has to be enough. But I would argue that there are also times when we need the deeper answers to the "why" questions in order to grow.

Snoopy wrote:If you can trust God, then you don't need to know. If you don't trust God, then why would you believe His answer if He gave you one?

That's exactly what I consider one of the "pat Christian answers": "Don't ask, just trust".

Let's see if I can explain it this way: I believe there are two different types of questions-directed-to-God here.

A. In the Job and Romans references you mentioned, the questioning of God is one with an accusatory tone, "How could you, God?!". In that case, I completely agree with you and Duper and others here who say that type of accusatory question is out of place because we aren't qualified to make that kind of accusation.

B. However, the questions I am asking and talking about are quite different. I'm referring to learning questions, where one asks God, "God, why did you allow this? I want to know, I want to see what it is about your character, so I can know you and be like you.". It's also true here that we often can't understand the reasons, and it boils down to trust again. But the question is still valid, and I don't believe God looks down on someone who is honestly asking.

-----------------

[Edit: If the answer is always "Don't ask, just trust", then what do you do with things like Lamentations and some of the Psalms, where the writers are clearly asking "Why, God, why? This hurts!". Or better yet, what about Christ on the cross, asking "Why have you forsaken me?".

If we shouldn't even ask those questions, what do you do with those examples?]

Foil wrote:... Or better yet, what about Christ on the cross, asking "Why have you forsaken me?".

He was quoting scripture in the fulfillment of prophecy.

snoopy wrote:....So, the Bible's answer to us asking "Why does evil happen, and why are we held responsible for our sin?" is "Who are you to question God? Who are you to pretend to hold God accountable?"

... I don't think we have a formal answer, except that it isn't our place to try to make God answer to us about it. I think it's presumptuous of us (Christians) to try to sweep God's sovereignty under the rug and make up answers of why God allows evil to happen. Simply put, we don't know, and the only reason we'd need to know is so that we could pass judgement on God, which He refuses to allow us to do. If you can trust God, then you don't need to know. If you don't trust God, then why would you believe His answer if He gave you one?

I'm supposed to be His daughter in want of knowledge. So tell me, how does one ever get to “know” God by remaining absolutely silent. If I was playing with my 5 year old brother and my father took him into the basement, tortured him to death, then told me not to question his motive, I would have called the police the first chance I got because no explanation would cut it for me.

...For example, because of my perspective on God's nature and free will, I can't believe at all that God created or is the source of the evil in that man. Personally, I couldn't worship a deity responsible for that kind of hideous thing.

Which is why I don't...and the God you are describing is the old testament God. An arrogant supernatural being who in no way could EVER be compared to Jesus Christ.

Duper wrote:

Foil wrote:... Or better yet, what about Christ on the cross, asking "Why have you forsaken me?".

He was quoting scripture in the fulfillment of prophecy.

Well, I haven't heard that one before.

Bee

really bet? Its a direct quote from the Psalms of David when he was in the wilderness running from Saul.

Psalm 22

Now David ... he was always asking why.

I'm fine with asking like Reptivia in \"Fiddler on the Roof\", but asking out of anger to blame is not appropriate; not to your parents and not to God. The anger that comes from pain is difficult to control. But, like any other time of weakness, we see that what comes out of us is what's really inside.

So was Jesus really blaming God? heh. no. The whole \"why\" question is about questioning God's sovereignty.

Duper wrote:really bet? Its a direct quote from the Psalms of David when he was in the wilderness running from Saul.

Yeah I forgot about the Psalm. However, He spoke those words out of utter desperation...not to fulfill a prophecy of the times.

Bee

Duper wrote:really bet? Its a direct quote from the Psalms of David when he was in the wilderness running from Saul.

Psalm 22

I've always found it strange how Christians seem to have such a sloppy concept of what a prophecy is. Just because you say the same thing that someone else once said does not mean that you've fulfilled any prophecy. If I say, "One small step for man...", then am I fulfilling a prophecy that Neil Armstrong made? Of course not. At best, it's a historical allusion. At worst, it's plagiarism. But there's no fulfillment of any prophecies. But now for some reason, whenever Jesus in the second half of the book does/says something that was also done/said by someone in the first half of the book, it's a fulfillment of a "prophecy." At best, it's historical allusion.

At a bare minimum, a prophecy has to purport to say something about what will happen in the future. And a good prophecy will be detailed, saying who will be involved, when it will go down, and other details.

That was most enlightening Jeff.

Foil wrote:Otherwise, per the examples you gave from Job and Romans (btw, I agree with your interpretations there about mankind not being in a position to question God), we end up with the conclusion that since God can't be held accountable for evil, man must be held accountable for it despite the fact that man had no choice in the matter (if you hold to determinism/predestination).

I'd claim that everything is predestined to happen, yet at the same time man is responsible for his/her own sin, even though it was predestined. I also believe that that's a fully just thing. How does that work? I'm not sure. All I can say is that I've never felt like I was forced into sinning by God.... when I sin I know I shouldn't, I want to do it, and I choose to do it. I don't know that I can go any further than that. Logic says that those two should be mutually exclusive, but experience says they don't have to be in practice.

Foil wrote:Sure, sometimes the answer "Because I said so, and I know what's best" has to be enough. But I would argue that there are also times when we need the deeper answers to the "why" questions in order to grow.

I think we're on basically the same page, I'm just trying to be technically correct. Yes, it's ok to ask "why" out of pain & frustration. I think it's also normal to be angry at God for a little bit while working through anger and frustration. I also think that we should never demand an answer. To tell you the truth, I wouldn't even expect an answer. God knows how to give you comfort, and you don't necessarily need everything to be explained to you to be comforted. Your example of Jesus saying "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" is good & valid. Note that it was essentially a rhetorical question- Jesus wasn't questioning God, His nature, and His ways. Jesus was expressing His pain & suffering on a human level. My point is that only God is judge, and He won't be judged by us. Really the literal words used are immaterial, the attitude is what matters. We're not asked to suspend our critical facilities, yet at the same time, we're not allowed to cherry pick what's said in the Bible.

Foil wrote:That's exactly what I consider one of the "pat Christian answers": "Don't ask, just trust".

Let's see if I can explain it this way: I believe there are two different types of questions-directed-to-God here.

A. In the Job and Romans references you mentioned, the questioning of God is one with an accusatory tone, "How could you, God?!". In that case, I completely agree with you and Duper and others here who say that type of accusatory question is out of place because we aren't qualified to make that kind of accusation.

B. However, the questions I am asking and talking about are quite different. I'm referring to learning questions, where one asks God, "God, why did you allow this? I want to know, I want to see what it is about your character, so I can know you and be like you.". It's also true here that we often can't understand the reasons, and it boils down to trust again. But the question is still valid, and I don't believe God looks down on someone who is honestly asking.

Yeah. I think we're on the same page. I also don't like the "don't ask, just trust" statement. I also think that the proper christian response is not to read a bunch of random stuff, or try to logic it out, or talk a bunch more people. I think the proper christian response is to go to the Bible. What we should be verifying is the teaching that our church leaders are giving us- we should always be going back to the Bible and making sure that what people tell us, via word of mouth, nooks, or what have you, matches up with what the Bible tells you.

If you don't believe, then the starting point of really being able to critique & shoot down christianity is to be able to take down the Bible. If you think that it's dumb/naive/etc. of christians that they put so much stock in the Bible, then I guess that's your prerogative.

Thank you for the clarifications, Snoopy and Duper.

Sounds like despite our disagreements about predestination, I'm with you guys on the issue of \"questioning God\" (namely that it's wrong when it comes out of an accusatory and/or demanding attitude or questions His character, but otherwise it can be a learning experience and a valid way of expressing our grief and emotions).

Bet51987 wrote:

Duper wrote:really bet? Its a direct quote from the Psalms of David when he was in the wilderness running from Saul.

Yeah I forgot about the Psalm. However, He spoke those words out of utter desperation...not to fulfill a prophecy of the times.

Bee

I brought this up way back in November in your own Mother T thread. My original post is below.

Herculosis wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:When Jesus spoke those words it was out of pure hopelessness. An emotional revealing of what He felt inside as he was dying. And, like I said before, it is no different than the person who jumps out a window thinking he can fly. He has the same emotional truth just before he hits the ground.

I can understand how, after just hearing what he said, someone would reach this kind of conclusion.

However, consider this. Jesus was a rabbi, and knew (OT) scripture inside and out. The words he spoke were a quote, coming directly from Psalm 22. He wasn't speaking out of hopelessness at all. What he WAS doing was fulfilling a prophecy. Please read the WHOLE Psalm to see what I mean.

Herc

Once again, you really have to READ the WHOLE Psalm. It's pretty clear that it IS a prophecy including specific details of the crucifixion itself. And again, Jesus was a Rabbi. In that culture, all Jewish children learned and memorized Scripture. Only the best of the best in that regard EVER made it to the level needed to receive that title.

In the midst of a horrible death, with his followers looking on in dispair, Jesus said these words to remind them of the prophecy, that what was happening HAD to happen in order to fulfull God's plan.

Herculosis wrote:It's pretty clear that it IS a prophecy including specific details of the crucifixion itself.

Perhaps then you can clear this up for the uninitiated. Does Hebrew lack a future tense? Do they lack a word for "prophecy"? It seems as though that a Hebrew writer, if he intended to write a prophecy, would have more than enough tools to communicate that that was what he was actually doing. Since this writer clearly ignored all of the obvious avenues, i.e. writing in future tense, calling it a prophecy, etc., surely you must have some reason for thinking that it is "pretty clear" that it is a prophecy. Mind filling us in?

He's saying so because of the content of the passage. There are a number of elements of Psalm 22 that point to details in the crucifixion. (A quick search can point out some specifics; it's not a rigorous proof of prophecy in a scientific sense, of course... but from a theological perspective it's extremely important.)

------------

However, with that said, I cannot agree with Herculosis' implication that Christ was only quoting scripture, and not feeling any of the pain or helplessness associated with that kind of death.

First, something I consider an important aspect of Christian belief is that the nature of God (as seen best in the character of Christ) is often emotional. As we see in many many places, especially Psalms and Lamentations and the and even some of the messages to the churches in Revelation, God is anything but emotionless; He loves and grieves and rejoices, etc.!

Second, the Psalm he was quoting was one of desperate pain from a first-person perspective! Herc, since you believe that Psalm 22 is prophetic about Christ's death (as do I), then you can't ignore the emotion it indicates for the one enduring it.

Third, implying that the crucifixion was painless or emotionless takes away from it's meaning. Per a couple of other passages, we believe that in the crucifixion, Christ bore the sorrows and sin of the entire world. That's anything but painless or emotionless.

------------

Jeff250, I think I should also mention that when Christians talk about \"prophecy\", it's not always in terms of \"fore-telling\" some future event.

In fact, in the vast majority of the passages by biblical prophets fits the definition of \"prophecy\" as \"forth-telling\" (i.e. speaking to the people).

I absolutely do NOT mean to argue that Christ did not suffer great pain and turmoil, both physical and emotional. On the contrary, I believe that the suffering involved was beyond my ability to imagine. But, all of that was an essential part of the payment that was being made.

What I WAS arguing against was the earlier statement that \"he spoke those words out of utter desparation\", and the implication (from this and the other thread I mentioned) that He realized at the last minute that His whole belief system was a sham. The fact that he chose exactly those words that (he KNEW) were the beginning of the Psalm that described the event in such detail can't really be a coincidence.

I don't think he WANTED to be there, and even accepting his lot, I don't believe he wanted it to be as hard and as horrible and as long-lasting as it was. In that regard, the words were certainly fitting, and perhaps even help to explain why the Psalm itself starts with them.

I also reject the notion that a prophecy needs to be written as a prediction of the future. It might not even be known to BE a prophecy by the one who wrote it down, and may NEVER be understood until the event or situation comes to pass. Unlike predictions of people like Nostradamus, however, this one was not so vague as to easily be interpreted to apply later.

Foil wrote:In fact, in the vast majority of the passages by biblical prophets fits the definition of "prophecy" as "forth-telling" (i.e. speaking to the people).

This puts things into a better perspective. But if it is not a slight of hand to call this "forth-telling" a "prophecy," then it still is a slight of hand to say that it is a fulfilled prophecy. Fore-tellings can be either fulfilled or unfulfilled, but forth-tellings do not have this quality.

Herculosis wrote:I also reject the notion that a prophecy needs to be written as a prediction of the future. It might not even be known to BE a prophecy by the one who wrote it down, and may NEVER be understood until the event or situation comes to pass. Unlike predictions of people like Nostradamus, however, this one was not so vague as to easily be interpreted to apply later.

What lends significance to a prophecy is not just that they can be fulfilled but that they can be unfulfilled. I don't want to belabor on semantics, since clearly Christians have a much more liberal definition of what things can be called a prophecy. You can call whatever you want a prophecy in your religion. But what makes prophecies cool is that they can be unfulfilled. And the ones that can be unfulfilled but are fulfilled are even cooler. The other kinds aren't really all that interesting, or, if they are, for other reasons. So even if you do call this sort of thing a prophecy, it does not have the coolness of what most people would consider a prophecy.

That's not to say that there is no significance to stating something in the past tense and then also having that thing also happen in the future. It's certainly better than nothing. But it's not clear how much better.

Herculosis wrote:...What I WAS arguing against was the earlier statement that "he spoke those words out of utter desparation", and the implication (from this and the other thread I mentioned) that He realized at the last minute that His whole belief system was a sham. The fact that he chose exactly those words that (he KNEW) were the beginning of the Psalm that described the event in such detail can't really be a coincidence.

I would like to clarify a little because I can still say it without directly stating that Jesus began to believe it was a sham.

I still feel that as Jesus was suffering on that cross there was a point where He began to feel the darkness. The same darkness that Mother Teresa felt for most of her adult life, and in her case, grew darker in her later life. Because Jesus didn't have time to dwell on it long, the darkness of despair never had a chance to progress into doubt. Mother Teresa did have time, and the darkness she felt had already manifested into the realm of serious doubt of the existence of God.

As the darkness Jesus felt grew deeper, and since since He already knew the Psalms as part of his early learning, He recalled and used that particular phrase as a desperate call for help...not because of some prophecy. "My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me". There are many "interpretations" of the word "forsaken" and I've seen different visions of what those words meant but I only believe the literal one. He really thought that God would intervene but as time went on He felt the abandonment. He didn't live long enough to doubt.

As much as I admire and still pay homage to Jesus Christ, I have no belief that He was the son of any supernatural God. Why? Because, though delusional, I do believe He thought He was trying to save me. How can you not love someone like that.

Bee

Per obligation (but fair warning, I'll likely disappear for another two weeks henceforth) . . .

Foil wrote:Honestly, there are a couple of things that trouble me about that particular explanation. I understand it was just a 'quick synopsis', but it's an argument I'm familiar with, so I'm curious how you and/or Lothar would address the following:

For clarification, I'm not sure Lothar's views on the topic are exactly identical to mine . . . so I'm only speaking for myself.

Foil wrote: A. Is your premise that good has its 'necessary opposite' derived from something about God's nature?

I'm not sure I totally understand the question, but I take it to mean, Do I think something about God's nature means evil necessarily has to exist? No, I don't think that. I don't think that any more than I think something about God's nature means bullfrogs necessarily have to exist. But he chose to create it (or allow it or will it to exist or what have you--I choose the stronger wording to avoid squeamishness), for reasons that are consistent with his nature, and demonstrations of it.

Basically, some types of good can come from evil, or even necessitate evil, and some are the a particular type of good that God freely wanted to create.

Foil wrote:If so, then is God still intrinsically good, or does His goodness necessitate evil (and what does that imply)?
If not, then what is it about good that 'needs' evil to be valuable, and why would God create a universe where that was the case? (After all, we believe God could have created the universe any way he wanted.)

Well, I hold pretty strongly to the idea that whether you're good or evil has a lot more to do with why you do things than what exactly you do. I believe the same deed--the same identical deed!--can be good or evil depending on why you do it.

A quick example (that's sneakily relevant to the topic): When I was running a Dungeons & Dragons campaign, I put a very dark villian named Kelzun into it. Creepy lady; destroyed villages in nasty creative ways, tortured kids, that kind of thing (it's a somewhat adult campaign). Now, if I put her in the campaign to revel in what she did because I secretly liked it, that would be evil. If I put her in to give the PCs an opponent worthy of their hatred and to see her defeated, that would be good. Note that in both cases I've created evil in my own little playground of a world. But whether it's evil or not . . . all depends on why I'm doing it and what I hope to get out of it. Ultimately my reasons define what the deed says about me.

So . . . if something about God's nature necessitates evil, is God still intrinsically good? I don't agree that God's nature necessitates the existence of evil, but I do think the existence of evil is a result of his nature--a contingency he chose to exercise. Is God still intrinsically good? Yeah. Absolutely. Oversimplifying, I think God would only be evil if he created evil because he liked it for its own sake. Otherwise, it's like me and Kelzun. I made something I hate, in order to overcome and destroy it. It only represents me if you view it in that larger context.


"What is it about good that 'needs' evil to be valuable?" I really don't get this question, so I'll just say that I don't think good needs evil to be valuable at all. Good can exist without evil. Good can exist without the possibility of evil. Good is valuable without the possibility of evil.

"Why would God create a universe where evil was necessary for good?" Because it's the kind of good he wanted to create.

Foil wrote: B. You seem to have a two-fold premise, that "it's about what we become", and "it's about the journey".
What it is about either of those two that necessitates evil? (I.e. Why would God create us as beings who cannot become our full potential without experiencing evil during the journey?)

Well, to be clear, I didn't say "it's about the journey". I don't mean that the overall purpose is the journey. What I said is, "The world is not the destination. It is the journey." What I mean is that this universe is not the end product; heaven/the church is the end product. This universe is the scaffolding, if you will; the journey that makes us what we'll be in the end. You can't say, "Why did God create this world? It could have had way more good and way less evil." Well, he created it in order to create the next world. You're measuring the wrong thing.

What is it about those that necessitates evil? Dealing with evil makes us who we are. Overcoming it in ourselves, overcoming it in the world, mourning over its consequences grants us a strength of character and a maturity in righteousness, for starters. I would say dealing with evil makes us the people God wants us to be.

"Why would God create us as beings who cannot come to our full potential without experiencing evil?" Because . . . that's the sort of beings he wanted to create? I don't know. Tolkein seems to think that had we not sinned in Eden, we would have become more mature, more wise, and altogeter greater than we are--angelic. He may be right. It's beyond my wisdom. I think we have our own unique story and strength as redeemed people, and that--at some very deep level--God wanted to love and redeem sinners as well as nurture angels. It is an expression of who he is, to have the breadth of character to do both.

Foil wrote:C. I'll jump on an earlier question, because I think it's a valid one... How would you respond to Jeff250's question above (something like, "Assuming evil is necessary for some greater purpose, why would God create so much evil?")?

Hah! From a technical perspective, I'd view that as a bit of a beard fallacy--just because we can't find the edges of something doesn't mean it isn't a clear concept or doesn't exist. No matter how much or how little evil there is in the world, of course it would be possible to make it with a little more or a little less. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with picking a broad region and letting the chips fall where they may. To go back to the RPG analogy, if I want to run a 'gritty' campaign, there's going to be a certain amount of pain and suffering in the world. Could I accomplish the atmosphere without any individual instance of evil? Sure I could. So does the fact that I haven't carefully included the bare minimum for the tone I want indicate that I'm including evil for its own sake, for some other reason? Not at all. I'm in the business of telling a story, and I'll include what I think serves the story best; God's in the business of creating a world. The evil is there for a purpose, and needs to be muscular.

Practically, I see no evidence that God is in the business of trying to minimize pain and suffering, though it is abundantly obvious that he mourns it.

Though the other side of that is that God does restrict evil. We don't see what he restricts, except in miraculous cases where he clearly shows mercy. But by and large, we don't see what doesn't happen.

But there's an emotional side to that question, too. It's not really a philosophical game of "there's a little too much evil here." It's an evidential observation that there's a lot too much evil.

To that, I have only to say that evil makes good strong, and strong evil makes good stronger. That's an abstraction, and it's abstraction that is so unhealthy on this topic. Really horrid disease makes us devote our lives to medical research. Really horrid governments make for brave revolutionaries. Really horrid offenses make our love and forgiveness in spite of them that much more astonishing.

And, too, I think free will does enter into it. Not in the sense that people do evil so God's not responsible--because he is, and he takes it upon himself to make everything right in the end--but in the sense that God has to let us act freely so that he can judge us justly. You can't fairly condemn Hitler for what he would have done and become if you assassinate him before it all happens. He isn't that person yet--he has neither committed the deeds nor become the person that committing them makes you into.

That might not be very satisfying, either, but it is what I think. Evil's there--in part--for us to overcome it. I mean, we won't in the end, but we'll overcome a lot of it in the mean time. That there's a lot of it speaks well of us. It's a grand challenge. God didn't put us in the nursery, he put us in the jungle. Don't hesitate; fight hard.

Foil wrote:D. Regarding your "Show me a virtue, and I'll show you an evil" challenge, what about love? (I believe my newborn son loves Michelle and I in a certain way, but I don't see a need for any evil in order to make that kind of love a virtue.)

Ah--you say it yourself--that kind of love. Yeah, that kind of innocent love is possible without any sort of evil. I mean, there is some, and it's kind of endearing that kids, in their innocence, love you in spite of your faults, but that's not really the essence of it.

Ah, but my challenge wasn't, "show me a virtue and I'll name an evil without which it can't exist", it was, "Show me a virtue, and I'll show you an evil without which it's all milk and water."

Back when I was taking Philosophy 101, we talked about the problem of evil (of course). My prof was an atheist, and my TA was a Christian (not that they said . . . but you could tell . . .), and so section often turned into a refute-the-lecture session. All in good philosophy, of course. Anyway, my TA said that we might be able to defeat the problem of evil if we could come up with a virtue for which evil was logically necessary. We brainstormed a bit, and I came up with "forgiveness". Hard to argue with that.

Years of internet debate went by, and I'm much smarter now than I was then. My TA had observed that some virtues logically necessarily require evil, and I think he was right. (And I think it's sufficient, from a technical perspective, to consider this universe one big exercise in forgiveness. Ah, but God's plans are so much deeper than that . . .). But the second or third zillion time I'd done the problem of evil on the internet, it occurred to me. It's not that some virtues require evil. It's that practically all of them do.

That's a practical observation, mind you, not a logical claim. Some wonderful things are possible in a world without evil, I'll grant you. But take a lot of your virtues--just take them as you encounter them in the wild--and you'll find that they take their strongest form when growing next to--and in reaction to--evil.

My original example--the case that originally persuaded me--was the advance of theology. Theology totally wouldn't be where it is today if it weren't for heresy. You can trace many, many of our beloved doctrines, the canonization of scripture, etc., to a heresy that had to be rejected. Or if you prefer a secular example, take our ideals of freedom in the United States. That could have been articulated at any point during human history, but it took tyranny to make us do it. The western world wouldn't be the place it is today were it not for the blood-soaked European soil of the past. We don't bother to articulate truth until we have to reject falsehood--particularly evil. You certainly wouldn't get the fire and passion of the founders in an academic setting. It took the memory of oppression.

Love. That one's too easy.

Which is greater--the love you show an infant who can do no wrong, or the love you show an infant who hasn't let you sleep more than four hours consecutively this week? Or the love you show a misbehaving toddler in discipline, or a really misbehaving teenager in allowing freedom to err? I speak of things I haven't experienced, but it seems to me that parents' love is forged by their children's sins, not by their righteousness. I have experienced it in marriage: the times I'm in love with my husband and all is going well are joyous, and I don't mean to devalue that. But the times that demand sacrifice, forgiveness, the times that are difficult . . . that's when we grow. That's when love is both shown and forged. That's what makes the good times great.

Jeff250 wrote:E. I believe I'm correct to surmise that you think that being in this world is all about character building. But would you say that this is an ideal world for character building? My concern: If the aim of this world is to produce people with better characters, it seems like we still could imagine better worlds, even for this aim.

Errr. . . well, sorta. I would say the goal of this world is to produce the church. In part. It's a complicated world, and I suspect it serves several purposes, but that's the main one I would name. Producing changed people through building character is one part of that.

It seems like we could still imagine better worlds? Heh. You're on your own there, buddy. I'll openly admit I'm on grounds of speculation even saying why I think God created the world. I wouldn't claim to have enumerated the purposes it serves. For the ones I do think I know, this world is a whole lot better than I would have dreamed up. You think you can do better, that's between you and God; you winning that argument is not a bet I'd take.

It's not one I have to, anyway, philosophically speaking. It's not my job, technically speaking, in defeating the argument from evil to provide you a complete explanation of all of the evil on the world. It's only to show that there are plausible reasons for God to have created it--that is, that being good doesn't totally preclude creating evil. That's it. I only have to show the argument doesn't work; I don't have to provide you a full explanation of the nature of reality. (That's the evolutionists' gig . . . I kid, I kid ).

Jeff250 wrote:F. How would we know if God sinned?

We couldn't. God is so utterly beyond us in power and wisdom, that we are helpless before him. He could have created this whole universe as a practical joke and plan to send us all to hell, and we'd be helpless, and--if he wanted--we'd have absolutely no way to detect it.

I make absolutely no claim to be able to prove--and especially not to be able to prove evidentially--that God has never sinned.

The only evidence I have for this is that he says he has not. From what I know of his character evidenced by history, this is a believable claim--he is righteous on a whole different level than I can conceive of. It's a believable claim, and he is credeble enough to make a claim that fantastic. That is all I have, and all I can have.

Jeff250 wrote:If God knowingly withholds food from a child starving to death, we can claim that he did this for character-building purposes, so this is good. But if God does the opposite and gives food to the starving child, then we can claim that he was helping those in need, so this is good. Would there be an action here that is "best," that God would be obligated to do over the other?

No, I don't think there is. To geek out mathematically, given the set of all possible actions under the order of goodness, I see no reason that the set has to have a maximal member, or even be well-ordered. By which I mean, I don't think there's necessarily a best thing to do, or that you can even always compare actions and say one is better than another.

Sometimes goodness is restrictive--sometimes it means you can't do something, or that you have to do something. But sometimes it's creative. God didn't have to create the church, but he did, and it was good. It's not a question of could he have done better or worse with the time or effort; it's a question of what he wanted to do.

I think when we speak in terms of 'good', we're being too abstract and we can tend to delude ourselves. God can allow suffering to build character, to spur compassion, to allow freedom, or even just to let the course of the world procede naturally. Those are all good things, and by his action, he can bring them about. Or he can alleviate it to bring comfort, to show mercy, to show love, or just to interact with the world. Those are good, too. In fact, I think Biblically, he shows a pattern, not of consistently exercising a compromise solution, but of sometimes strongly doing one thing, and sometimes strongly doing another. When he mourns over Israel's sin, it's not a question of, "Well, they're evil and I need to punish them to serve justice, but I also love them . . . so let's go 50/50." No, in Hosea he agonizes over whether to do one or the other--whole-heartedly.

It's not a question of scoring a 9.8 or a 10.0 on the good-o-meter, but a question of serving those things he holds dear and of creating the things he wants to create. He is perfect in motive, and flawless in righteousness, but by that I don't mean that an optimal solution exists in every situation and he has exercised it. I mean he is utterly without evil motive or intent, that his deeds bring about only the best for the people and things he loves.

Jeff250 wrote:And why can't humans be held to this watered down goodness where not feeding starving children is the right thing to do? We could all be saints! As they say, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

If humans had created the world, could freely declare its purpose and design it to serve that purpose, and were going to judge it in the end, and were willing to shoulder the task of righting all injustice that occured during the course of history . . . then we could do whatever we wanted.

That's not our position in the world. We can't see all ends, and God can. We aren't powerful enough to reign in any destruction evil we allow we might cause; God is. We aren't responsible for how every life in the world is conducted, and how it ends. God is.

-----

It occurs to me, on the re-read, that I may have missed the point of your question. It now seems to me that you're asking, "How could we make any judgements about God's character? I mean, couldn't you justify anything he did?"

Strictly speaking, yeah, I could. Then again, I could equally easily justify the entire world as an exercise in evil. Or a dream. Yay, philosophy.

Judging God's character is not a philosophical question. It's a practical, historical question. In those circumstances where God has interacted with history--where we see what he's done, where his motives are explained or self-evident, he evidences an unfailing, grand righteousness. We ask him questions, he answers wisely; we offend him, he redeems us; we bring nothing, he showers us with gifts. There is no reason to suspect him of evil, and every reason to be awed by his goodness. The historical record is ample ground for justified faith that he is righteous when we cannot fully examine his motives, too.

Herc, Foil, I have to say that although you are entitled to your own opinions, living with a preacher and a devout Independent Baptist as a father has taught me much about the Bible, and concerning the "prophecies"... well, let's just say the Bible is a book, written by man, and is completely open to interpretation. None of the original authors are alive today, or we might be able to settle these questions by simply asking them. They were human, and by extrapolation fallible as well. The Bible (my dad used a KJV, by the way) is just a book, and books are only as credible as their authors. Also, it was translated multiple times to and from several different languages - I find it hard to believe that nothing of great import was lost throughout the years. You can believe what you want, but in the end all you have are coincidences, personal beliefs and a tattered old manuscript written almost two thousand years ago.

OT a bit, but I've noticed that "believers" (I don't want to leave out anyone ) have the amazing ability to rationalise just about anything they believe, say or do. Again, you're entitled to believe what you want, but you have no hard evidence. If you're honest, you'll admit that and say that you believe because it's all you can do (and all you want to do).

Drakona wrote:A quick example (that's sneakily relevant to the topic): When I was running a Dungeons & Dragons campaign, I put a very dark villian named Kelzun into it. Creepy lady; destroyed villages in nasty creative ways, tortured kids, that kind of thing (it's a somewhat adult campaign). Now, if I put her in the campaign to revel in what she did because I secretly liked it, that would be evil. If I put her in to give the PCs an opponent worthy of their hatred and to see her defeated, that would be good. Note that in both cases I've created evil in my own little playground of a world. But whether it's evil or not . . . all depends on why I'm doing it and what I hope to get out of it. Ultimately my reasons define what the deed says about me.

So . . . if something about God's nature necessitates evil, is God still intrinsically good? I don't agree that God's nature necessitates the existence of evil, but I do think the existence of evil is a result of his nature--a contingency he chose to exercise. Is God still intrinsically good? Yeah. Absolutely. Oversimplifying, I think God would only be evil if he created evil because he liked it for its own sake. Otherwise, it's like me and Kelzun. I made something I hate, in order to overcome and destroy it. It only represents me if you view it in that larger context.

So God basically created an opponent for himself? One that couldn't possibly win? The whole purpose of winning is the possibility of losing. Just like everything else, winning wouldn't exist without losing... and just because someone else loses doesn't invalidate this statement or its intentions. Personally, I think people have a "Chuck Norris" complex when it comes to God. =/

Drakona wrote:Which is greater--the love you show an infant who can do no wrong, or the love you show an infant who hasn't let you sleep more than four hours consecutively this week? Or the love you show a misbehaving toddler in discipline, or a really misbehaving teenager in allowing freedom to err? I speak of things I haven't experienced, but it seems to me that parents' love is forged by their children's sins, not by their righteousness. I have experienced it in marriage: the times I'm in love with my husband and all is going well are joyous, and I don't mean to devalue that. But the times that demand sacrifice, forgiveness, the times that are difficult . . . that's when we grow. That's when love is both shown and forged. That's what makes the good times great.

Drakona, the parents' love isn't so much forged by the sins as it is strengthened by them. It's the same concept as anything else: the harder you have to work for it, the more satisfying the result. THAT's what makes the good times great, is the fact that they don't always occur. If they did, they wouldn't be nearly as special because they'd be commonplace, ordinary, and dare I say possibly even... unimportant?

Drakona wrote:I think when we speak in terms of 'good', we're being too abstract and we can tend to delude ourselves. God can allow suffering to build character, to spur compassion, to allow freedom, or even just to let the course of the world procede naturally. Those are all good things, and by his action, he can bring them about. Or he can alleviate it to bring comfort, to show mercy, to show love, or just to interact with the world. Those are good, too. In fact, I think Biblically, he shows a pattern, not of consistently exercising a compromise solution, but of sometimes strongly doing one thing, and sometimes strongly doing another. When he mourns over Israel's sin, it's not a question of, "Well, they're evil and I need to punish them to serve justice, but I also love them . . . so let's go 50/50." No, in Hosea he agonizes over whether to do one or the other--whole-heartedly.

God is a just god, according to your Bible. Sin cannot go unpunished, and as a result, he cannot let anyone go with a warning, as it were. However, the Bible also says that God sent his son to die for our sins, so that we might be saved and live and reign with him in Heaven one day. Pardon my cynicism, but that has got to be the biggest and worst loophole I have ever seen. Just because his son dies and somehow mystically spends an eternity in hell over the span of three days, everyone that gets saved is equally mystically expunged from "God's blacklist" and forgiven for every single sin they have committed, are committing, or will commit? And not only this, but they get to go to Heaven when people like me are burning in hell for all eternity. He's a loving god, alright. Don't even start on how "God doesn't send anyone to hell", because he might as well. It's not like he gives them a real choice.

God wrote:"Believe that I am God, repent and accept My Son into your heart, or you will be cast into the eternal flames of the abyss for all eternity!"

Not that he actually wrote that, word for word, but it's pretty close. Sorry, but I see him as nothing more than a sham, a scapegoat and a coward. Pardon my words, as I've said worse. You're entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. =/

Actually, Md, I think Baptists wrote that. Go back and really read the Bible.

Duper wrote:Actually, Md, I think Baptists wrote that. Go back and really read the Bible.

Did. Verses follow:

Acts 2:21
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

1 Peter 4:18
And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?

Matthew 23:33
Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Revelation 20:15
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.


Yes, I realise they aren't from the same passages, but they ARE in context. Again, as follows:

Acts 2:21 - God will save us. (From what?)

1 Peter 4:18 - If even the "good" people are barely worthy of heaven, then what of the wicked people? (They go to Hell, presumably.)

Mathew 23:33 - Of course. They ARE going to Hell. (Told you.)

Revelation 20:15 - If you're not saved, into the fiery cauldron you go. ( =P )

All verses King James Version.

Good…Evil…both sides of the same coin. We live in a dualistic universe, can’t have one without the other.

I know that’s been said before in this thread, just wanted to reiterate.

Perhaps more of a concern for Christianity's doctrine in relation to the problem of evil than the problem of evil per se:

There is an understanding that heaven will be better than life on this planet. However, heaven seems to be closer to what people would traditionally think of as paradise--a place without pain, disaster, and evil. But, according to your argument, wouldn't this preclude the possibility of most virtue in heaven? Wouldn't your arguments concerning why this world is better than the traditional conception of paradise work equally well in arguing that this world is better than heaven?

Drakona wrote:It seems like we could still imagine better worlds? Heh. You're on your own there, buddy. I'll openly admit I'm on grounds of speculation even saying why I think God created the world. I wouldn't claim to have enumerated the purposes it serves.

But I don't see understanding the purpose of this world as relevant. We already have an intuitive understanding of what goodness is. Of course, I understand that the purpose of this world is going to largely determine what goodness is to the theist. But suppose that God's purpose for this world was his comedic entertainment. Then something would be good insofar as it amuses God. This may then trivially solve the problem of evil, but it hardly does in any meaningful way. People don't praise God for being good in the fulfilling-whatever-plan-God-has sense. It is neither important nor remarkable for God to be good in the fulfilling-whatever-plan-God-has sense. People praise God for being good according to the intuitive understanding, i.e. for relieving pain, being loving, etc. So even if the purpose of this world was to amuse God, showing that God is all-good in our intuitive sense is really what's important for the conception of God. This is the kind of good that the theist has to rescue in the problem of evil. So I am skeptical as to what insight understanding what kind of purposes God has for this world could really give us here.

To put this another way, I resist any attempt to just define away the problem of evil, i.e. the purpose of the world is X, Y, and Z, so goodness is *really* fulfilling X, Y, and Z, so according to the new definition of good, this world is a great place! I think that we all have a fairly decent understanding of what goodness is. This is the sort of goodness that is really important to the concept of God insofar as it makes God being all-good something that is actually noteworthy. So a solution to the problem of evil must ultimately appeal to our intuitive understanding of goodness in some way.

Drakona wrote:It occurs to me, on the re-read, that I may have missed the point of your question. It now seems to me that you're asking, "How could we make any judgements about God's character? I mean, couldn't you justify anything he did?"

Strictly speaking, yeah, I could. Then again, I could equally easily justify the entire world as an exercise in evil. Or a dream. Yay, philosophy.

Judging God's character is not a philosophical question. It's a practical, historical question.

Indeed. But my concern is that your argument could work equally well in justifying worlds that really weren't all so good. For example, in another world, where there really was just too much suffering, someone could still argue that it allows for even more character-building, and it would be unclear how to defeat this. Of course, this doesn't invalidate your argument, but it does add skepticism as to whether or not God really is all-good, since it would be unclear for us to really tell according to your view.

Drakona wrote:If humans had created the world, could freely declare its purpose and design it to serve that purpose, and were going to judge it in the end, and were willing to shoulder the task of righting all injustice that occured during the course of history . . . then we could do whatever we wanted.

But what difference does any of that actually make? I guess if we put a bunch of impressive-sounding things into a list, it is probable that at least one of them will be relevant! But I am skeptical that any of them are.

God creating the world doesn't give him any more ethical leeway than what he would ordinarily have insofar as he is just as responsible for helping us and not harming us than if he just bumped into us in the street! Perhaps it will take a few more decades of AI research before we will realize--creating sentient life does not give us any right to do what we want with them. Rather the opposite--it solely gives us additional responsibility. In any case, if this is your argument, then why have the rest of your argument? If God having created the world allows him to get away with extra stuff while still retaining "all-good status," then that seems to solve the problem of evil right there.

Regarding righting injustices, I'm not sure if I understand what you mean here. We use language as though we can right wrongs, but, at best, it seems like all we can do is compensate them. If I viciously assaulted someone, how much money can I give the person that I assaulted in order to undo having ever assaulted them? No matter how much money I give, it seems as though I am still guilty of assault! So it seems to me that the challenge of the theist is still to show that God has never done anything wrong to begin with. If God has done something wrong, it's nice that he would compensate for it, but he would still seem to lose his "all-good status" for doing the same things. But I have a feeling that you have something else in mind here.

Jeff... I just want to tell you that I had to read your post several times because it was that good. There is enormous truth there. You too MD.

Bettina

Md, We've gone around on this in 2 other threads. You've set your mind on your views and you are the one that lives with them. *shrug*

Bottom line for me is that I Love Christ. It's not a list of you shall and shall not's. And that's it. For you it's just a hassle. I don't debate my relationship with my wife with anyone nor will I debate my relationship with God. Others can do that, I won't I'm not good at it. That's who I am now. That might change. It probably will. Until then, I state truth and leave it at that. I expound and explain myself until I see it isn't doing any good. My place as a Christian is not to change people or convert them. I am to be an example and share the good news of Jesus Christ.

You seem to know where you stand and I wish you well with it and I hope someday you forgive your Dad.