Originally posted by LemonJelloNow, despite the fact I am also ready to argue that the degree of suffering that exists is not necessitated by such goods as these even in such cases as these…
Again, all of the indirect suffering occuring (although I find it curious that you hone in only incidental suffering, and not the direct action of an agent, such as me or yourself. Since you're asking, why not ask why God doesn't stop me from making you suffer, or vice versa?) on the planet is a result of us choosing one system over another.
How i ...[text shortened]... just have to excuse me for taking these kinds of statements as mere posturing on your part.[/b]
If I didn’t know any better, it almost sounds as though you would be ready to argue that certain acts of free will ought to be restricted.
Well, if you think that I am displaying ignorance and arrogance by, say, thinking that the suffering of the neonate is unnecessary for the greater good; surely, then, you ought to be able to provide some reasons why I should instead think that such suffering is necessary.
Here we run into the meat of the problem. The issue continually harped upon is suffering, but what we should probably turn our attention to is ‘necessary.’ After all, in the greater scheme of things, is it really necessary that anyone experience happiness? Is even one instance of enjoyment necessary for the greater good? Couldn’t God have created an existence where no emotion, no pleasure took place, that all was simply static?
Originally posted by epiphinehasMy contention is that since we do not know the beginning from the end as God does (i.e., we are not omniscient), we cannot accurately judge what we see.
The problem of suffering shows that it is highly implausible that God exists, where 'God' is taken to be a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
Highly implausible? Can we reduce 'highly implausible' to a percentage? Would you say that the 'problem of suffering' gives God a 1.28% chance of existing? Perhaps something much l ...[text shortened]... The problem of suffering, therefore, has never been a slam dunk for me.[/b]
I was in agreement with everything you said, save this part. For God to give us a basic idea of how things work--- and no more--- would invariably lead to frustration. However, God has given us everything we need to know: about Him, about the world around us, about us, and about life. Those who reject the authority of the Bible (as well as those who mishandle the same) are victims of their own unhappiness.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHLet me describe my understanding of the purpose of most justice systems in effect today:
Since it is obviously not obvious to you, I can only shake my head in disbelief and wonder. Pray tell, what possible goal could any society have in their establishment of a code of acceptable conduct, if violations of the same are met with... no action whatsoever? What distinction is made between a lawkeeper and a lawbreaker? The fantasy world you attem ...[text shortened]... cal one wouldn't last beyond the slightest of trespasses (or, roughly, inside of five minutes).
1. To act as a deterrent against further crime. ie both the perpetrator and other observers are deterred from committing crime because of their knowledge of the consequences.
2. To physically prevent the perpetrator from committing further crime (imprisonment).
3. Revenge/spite.
I think most justice systems reflect these aims far better than your description which appears to be a black and white 'eye for an eye' system without any actual purpose other than a belief that 'thats the way it is'.
I also find 3. to be largely incompatible with love and compassion.
I also fail to see how 1. and 2. can apply to any situation external to a society.
There are also many situations where punishment does not serve 1. or 2. and thus should not be carried out - yet you seem to believe that it should.
3 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloWait -- your contention is that since we are not omniscient, we cannot make accurate judgments?
[b]Highly implausible?
Yes, highly implausible. When I say that some proposition is highly implausible I mean that the evidence weighs strongly against the proposition being true. I am not really interested in reducing our talk to specific percentages, but I am trying to say something about evidential clout. I bring up isolated examples here and od's moral dealings are mysterious and inexplicable and beyond our grasp.[/b]
We cannot make accurate judgments about God's ways in particular.
You're telling us in this thread that we are in no position to judge God; but you are committed to just the opposite when you claim that He is loving and good and just, etc.
What I'm saying is that it is possible - possible - that God may have reasons for allowing suffering to exist which we may not be capable of understanding.
For instance, the Bible certainly teaches that God has an unfulfilled purpose for the world he created, and contains many accounts of violence, suffering, and death where the Israelites are concerned, as a record of the unfolding of that purpose. It's fulfillment is always future, and often overshadowed by various trials and tribulations: "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away" (Rev. 21:4).
The God of the Bible intervenes where it is necessary to bring about the events which will guarantee the ultimate fulfillment of his purpose, and does not give any false hope that innocent and righteous people will not suffer along the way; in fact, the Bible quite often expresses the opposite. Until God's plan for this world comes to complete fruition there will indeed be suffering of every imaginable kind. But the underlying message seems to be, as the above quote from the book of Revelation implies: this evil world is temporary and is in the process of being overcome by God's goodness.
Allow me to explain further. According to the Bible, this world, because of sin, has been and is presently dominated by, Satan. However, Jesus Christ, who died and rose from the grave, is currently reconciling the world to God in Himself. This process of reconciliation is ongoing, and so, temporarily, there are two kingdoms in conflict: Satan's kingdom and God's kingdom. We see the demonstration of God's kingdom in the miraculous works of Christ and his disciples, as recorded in scripture. You might ask, "if God is all-powerful, why doesn't he just change everything in a blink of an eye?" Why? I don't know. Perhaps there is a reason we can't understand. God himself responds thusly: "My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways... For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:8-9).
The historical thrust of the Bible, though, points to the advent of Jesus Christ as the entire crux of the reason for allowing evil to reign, at least for a prescribed period of time. Without the events which led to the crucifixion of Christ, according to the Bible, the evils of this world could not have been overcome. The Bible declares that the advent of Christ was and is the only way of fulfilling God's plan of salvation. We might flatter ourselves and conceive of other simpler ways of doing things, but that only if we do not accept the authority of scripture. So, the intervening years, prior to the fulfillment of God's plan, are full of disaster, violence, suffering, and evil, yes, but God has promised to wipe away every tear and eventually right every wrong.
And so the world as it is revealed in the Bible includes the suffering of innocents, but it is a world still ultimately in the hands of a righteous, good, and holy God. This understanding of how God has chosen to interact with the world, as opposed to the generic theistic conception of triple-O God you are working with and your own personal conception of how triple-O God ought to conduct his business, at least allows for the baffling inconsistency apparent when innocent people suffer and die.
What it comes down to is whether or not we rely upon our own understanding and our own conception of how God ought to conduct his business, or whether we live by faith that God is good and has a plan and a purpose through all things, as revealed in scripture.
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasIt would be easier to have faith in the validity of God's plan if it wasn't so obvious that the plan is just wrong on so many levels:
[b]Wait -- your contention is that since we are not omniscient, we cannot make accurate judgments?
We cannot make accurate judgments about God's ways in particular.
You're telling us in this thread that we are in no position to judge God; but you are committed to just the opposite when you claim that He is loving and good and just, et d and has a plan and a purpose through all things, as revealed in scripture.[/b]
1) Why not only create heaven? No sin, no suffering, just people living in peace.
2) Way too much suffering is permitted, and it is extremely unlikely that it all serves a greater good.
3) God fails to save everyone. He creates a world where it is not obvious to everyone that he exists, thus ensuring that many will not be saved. He allows non-christian cultures to thrive, ensuring that many will be turned away from the correct faith.
4) Not content with the high level of suffering on earth, God creates hell so that many will suffer beyond their death, for all time.
Originally posted by SwissGambitI notice that your four points are each related in some kind of way to free will.
It would be easier to have faith in the validity of God's plan if it wasn't so obvious that the plan is just wrong on so many levels:
1) Why not only create heaven? No sin, no suffering, just people living in peace.
2) Way too much suffering is permitted, and it is extremely unlikely that it all serves a greater good.
3) God fails to save everyone. ...[text shortened]... uffering on earth, God creates hell so that many will suffer beyond their death, for all time.
God did not create sin itself, but God did create man with a free will. The capacity for free will which we possess, though, it is important to note, carries with it not only the possibility of disaster, but also great blessing. It is because I possess a free will that I am allowed to spontaneously jump in my car and drive out to the country and photograph a tornado, or decide whether or not I want ketchup on my hamburger, or whether or not I will risk my life to save a stranger from drowning, etc. The capacity for free will is absolutely essential to individuality, to self-expression, love, dedication, self-sacrifice, forgiveness, meaning creation, etc., as is the freedom to exercise that free will.
Personally, I am willing to accept the risk of having a free will, because I enjoy being an individual. I enjoy freedom. I want to have the capacity to spontaneously quit my job and spend a summer hiking naked across Europe. I like that other people besides myself are also free, and I appreciate the fact that my wife freely chose to commit herself to me in the same way I freely chose to commit myself to her. That's a beautiful thing. When I write a song, it is my choice whether a guitar solo stays, or what the lyrics will say, etc. I could go on. Free will has too many blessings to miss out on, even if that capacity for free will also carries with it the capacity for sin.
I admit that I could not make that choice myself, however. Only God could make that choice for us, I think. If he had made us automatons, of course we'd be pretty shallow. Perhaps that would be an understatement. We'd at least be unable to understand what we were missing out on. No thanks. (This reminds me of that movie, A.I., by the way.) Choosing to create beings with the capacity for free will is an infinitely bold choice only an infinitely responsible being could make. That probably doesn't make much sense, but I'm finding it hard to communicate such fleeting thoughts.
Anyway, I'm off to see Star Trek with The Wife. Hopefully we'll continue this later.
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasI see a few pitfalls in the free-will response to the problem of suffering.
I notice that your four points are each related in some kind of way to free will.
God did not create sin itself, but God did create man with a free will. The capacity for free will which we possess, though, it is important to note, carries with it not only the possibility of disaster, but also great blessing. It is because I possess a free will that
Anyway, I'm off to see Star Trek with The Wife. Hopefully we'll continue this later.
1) Not all suffering is due to free-will choices. Natural disasters and diseases both cause plenty of suffering and death independently of any human choice.
2) I think it is perfectly consistent to admit that people have free will, and yet they are not always successful in bringing about the object of their willings; for example, a man wishes to rob a bank, but he is shot by security and thus foiled. Similarly, God is capable of foiling the plans of the evildoer without taking his free-will.
3) Is it really true that free will necessarily carries the risk of chaos? Here's a thought experiment. Most people will never commit a murder in their lifetime. They are quite clear on the moral abhorrence of doing such a thing. Now imagine that there are people who are equally clear about the moral wrongness of other actions, like theft, rape, etc. We would not say that they lacked free will, but rather that they are enlightened enough not to do certain wrong things. So, why couldn't we all be created in a fashion where we have free will, yet are enlightened enough not to do wrong?
4) I have yet to find a Christian who thinks that a person loses their free will once they go to heaven. Most portray heaven as a place of paradise, where none sin and none suffer. So, if they have not lost their free will, this leads to the conclusion that it is possible to have the best of all worlds: free will with no suffering whatsoever.
Which begs the question: Why didn't God just start out by creating heaven, and only heaven? He could have filled it with only people who are enlightened enough not to sin. He could have avoided creating people who would reject him, thus removing hell from the equation. Since the people in heaven would all have free will, they would NOT be robots, and the free-will objection to the problem of suffering vanishes.
P.S. How was Star Trek? I'm still debating whether I can go with Sylar playing Spock. The thought of Spock telekinetically slicing open someone's head might prove distracting. 😛
Originally posted by epiphinehasIn what way are they related to free will?
I notice that your four points are each related in some kind of way to free will.
1) Are you claiming that there is no free will in heaven?
Are you also claiming that the purpose for the creation of the earth was free will?
2) The vast majority of suffering is due to natural causes which are practically unavoidable, though in some cases they could be avoided with third party choices (ie the rich might help someone in Africa but may choose not to, but do we really blame free will?)
3) The percentage of sinners/non-Christians is hardly a necessary result of free will choice is it?
4) How is the existence of hell a necessary outcome of free will choice? It seems that a) people can exercise their free will and still get to heaven - even after committing major sins. b) that going to hell is not a direct result of a free will choice, but apparently some arbitrary criteria set by God.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAll four ponts are very good. I never thought of free will in Heaven before. Interesting concept. Is it ot sort of a magical transformation that takes place after you reach the streets of Gold ? You no longer even consider doing wrong after Heaven is attained I guess would be the response, but what happened to Lucifer, and his rebellion against God ? Lucifer obviously was part of the Heaven gang at one time so what made him fall from grace ? I know the story is pride was the downfall of Satan, but how without free will did he decide to become the bad guy ?
In what way are they related to free will?
1) Are you claiming that there is no free will in heaven?
Are you also claiming that the purpose for the creation of the earth was free will?
2) The vast majority of suffering is due to natural causes which are practically unavoidable, though in some cases they could be avoided with third party choices (ie the ...[text shortened]... is not a direct result of a free will choice, but apparently some arbitrary criteria set by God.
5 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambit1) Another example is Christ coming to earth and being a man of many sorrows and eventually being tortured to death. After all, he had no sin. In short, a world full of sin carries with it a world full of suffering. Sin and suffering do not acknowledge any bounds, rather, sin is purely destrucitive in nature to all who happen to be near by when it rears its ugly head. As participants in this world of sin, whether we be sinners or not, suffering will be sure to ensue. You know at one time the world was a paradise but that time is now over once sin entered the world.
I see a few pitfalls in the free-will response to the problem of suffering.
1) Not all suffering is due to free-will choices. Natural disasters and diseases both cause plenty of suffering and death independently of any human choice.
2) I think it is perfectly consistent to admit that people have free will, and yet they are not always successful in br he thought of Spock telekinetically slicing open someone's head might prove distracting. 😛
2) If God geve us what we deserve once we sinned, there would be no man standing. There would be no more human race. He had the oppurtunity to wipe them out with Adam, but chose instead to try and redeem what could be saved from it. I suppose one could render immediate penalties for sinning that are not as severe and deserving, but it would not be justice, rather, it would simply be a form of control. In effect, God would be like a task master with a whip. However, when man sins conflicts with his master plan to erradicate sin once and for all from creation, he has been known to intervene directly. That is, his plan for redemption via the cross and the capacity for all of humanity to accept/reject it.
3) When one talks of free will one is really talking about the concepts of love. After all, the scriptures say that God IS love. Without free will, there is no love, that is, two parties engaging in a loving relationship. Without free will love cannot exist. However, every loving relationship is tantamount to a mine field/chaos. Have you ever heard the song, "Love is a battlefield"?
4) I also agree that free will still abides with us in the next life. Case in point is the millineal reign after Christ returns. Even after things are set "right" again, sin and chaos break loose again for one last time after a 1000 year time span.
So what you propose is to allow us free will to choose or reject anything and everything EXCEPT our Maker. So tell me, where is a loving relationship possible with such a scenerio? After all, God is love. It is all he is and all he desires. If we do not have the choice to reject him, such a loving relationship with him is impossible.
Originally posted by whodeyWhat does sin have to do with suffering caused by natural disasters, diseases, etc.? Nothing in your point 1) seems to answer this.
1) Another example is Christ coming to earth and being a man of many sorrows and eventually being tortured to death. After all, he had no sin. In short, a world full of sin carries with it a world full of suffering. Sin and suffering do not acknowledge any bounds, rather, sin is purely destrucitive in nature to all who happen to be near by when it rears i ...[text shortened]... we do not have the choice to reject him, such a loving relationship with him is impossible.
To 2), the plan is flawed. Obviously, not everyone has become, or will become, a Christian. A good many people will not be redeemed. This is a completely unacceptable result for a compassionate god who can forsee all things.
3) No, free will is not synonymous with concepts of love. Not only is hatred a choice, but there are many free choices that have nothing to do with any emotion whatsoever.
4) But you believe that, at some point, there will be no more sin in heaven, yes? If so, imagine that God makes that t0 for creation. Where's the downside?
So what you propose is to allow us free will to choose or reject anything and everything EXCEPT our Maker.
No. I propose creating only people who are free to choose, yet will always choose morally correct actions.
2 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambit1) With the whole natural disaster debate, do you think Adam and Eve had any in the paridise garden? My guess is no and never would have. In fact, if you fead Genesis people lived a very, very long time even after the first fall. It was only until after the great flood that things seem to change environmentally. After the great flood, people did not live much past 100 years. Why? The Bible does not say but it is my guess it was to prevent people living so long which enabled them to become so desperatly wicked that God would feel the need to destroy the world once again. For example, could you imagine Hitler living 1000 years?
What does sin have to do with suffering caused by natural disasters, diseases, etc.? Nothing in your point 1) seems to answer this.
To 2), the plan is flawed. Obviously, not everyone has become, or will become, a Christian. A good many people will not be redeemed. This is a completely unacceptable result for a compassionate god who can forsee all thin se creating only people who are free to choose, yet will always choose morally correct actions.
2) Is it a comassionate God who allows suffering of any kind? I suppose any and all suffering would be forbidden in your created world. In short, only those who choose to walk in God's love would exist which would mean if you rejected it, you would never have existed. Sound good to you if that means you never existed?
3) How is free will not synonymous with the concepts of love? Give an example of a loving relationship between two parties that is devoid of free will. It is my contention that the study of God is really about the study of the concept of love. For example, love is not something that is tangible or measurable, yet it exists. Not only does it exist, it is the single greatest phenomenon in our lives and surpasses all else in importance.
4) It is my opinion that the goal is to irradicate ALL sin from creation and as this slowly plays out, this is the direction we are heading. As for only creating those who would choose him, is this possible and still be able to say we have free will? It seems to me that the fix is in with your scenerio. Of course, you and I can merely speculate if this be possible. Can one really have free will if we have no chance of exercising it in relation to the love of God?
2 edits
Originally posted by whodey1) The story isn't too specific, but I imagine that there weren't any natural disasters in Eden. There is also a verse later where God says he's tired of striving with man and limits his days to 120 years or so.
1) With the whole natural disaster debate, do you think Adam and Eve had any in the paridise garden? My guess is no and never would have. In fact, if you fead Genesis people lived a very, very long time even after the first fall. It was only until after the great flood that things seem to change environmentally. After the great flood, people did not live one really have free will if we have no chance of exercising it in relation to the love of God?
2) Well, if my ultimate destination is hell, then I'd say it's better not to exist. Wouldn't you? 😵
3) If free will is truly synonymous with love, then I ought to be able to replace one with the other in a sentence and convey roughly the same meaning, yes?
Free will allows Jeffrey Dahmer to kill people.
Love allows Jeffrey Dahmer to kill people.
4) The answer to the first question is YES. If you believe that people in heaven have free will, yet never sin, this is exactly what you are saying.
Question #2 is just a loaded question, like "have you stopped beating your wife?" Again, you affirm that free will is not lost in heaven. Thus, there is every chance of exercising it in relation to the love of God, or any other matter.
I like the phrase you chose - "the fix is in". Wait, isn't this "fix" God's ultimate goal? He wishes to discard those who cannot be enlightened, and have a paradise with those that can. The main difference between his plan and mine is that I cut out all the needless suffering!
2 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambit2) Well I guess that is the question. When a loving relationship goes south, was it worth it? Some say yes and some say no. Granted, if one were to be damned eternally as an end result, I guess it does make the question a bit easier to answer. 😛
1) The story isn't too specific, but I imagine that there weren't any natural disasters in Eden. There is also a verse later where God says he's tired of striving with man and limits his days to 120 years or so.
2) Well, if my ultimate destination is hell, then I'd say it's better not to exist. Wouldn't you? 😵
3) If free will is truly [i]synonymou difference between his plan and mine is that I cut out all the needless suffering!
3) Oddly enought, there is some truth in what you posted. After all, if God is love, as the scriptures say, he allowed those killings. In fact, any and all sins that occured in the world since the beginning of time were allowed by God to occur. Of course, God battles this sin even though he allows it.
4) What I am saying is that I believe that creation has been been or will be taught a lesson of sorts. What is that lesson? I think it has to do with walking by faith. Faith is what is needed to please God. The reason why is, if God be all knowing, at times what he tells us may not make much sense because our reasoning abilities are no match for his own. It is the only relationship possible in such a scenario....that is if there is a relationship. Faith also has an element of free will in it as well in addition to love. After all, to place ones faith in someone demands an element of free will and this is often accomplished because we love certain parties. Having said that, it is my belief that the lessons learned will have been not only the destructive result of our ability to deviate from the perfect will of God, but also it will teach us if we can walk in faith with God or, put a better way, choose to place our faith in him. Do we trust that he is benevalent and knows what is best for us and for the rest of creation?
I don't believe God wishes to discard anyone. AFter all, the scriptures say that it is his will that none should perish. My only retort is that if God be a loving God, he will attempt to end sin/suffering once and for all and that is exactly where we are headed. I think we both agree with this part but where we part ways is the need to allow sin to raise its ugly head in the first place. On this point I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
I don't mean to treat the whole eternal damnation issue lightly, but neither did God. After all, he sent his only Son to go through hell, literally, so that we might be saved.