- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo is it that you can't see the problems with the answers put forward time and again?
Time, time and time again this answer has been put forward. It's kind of like the kids yelling from the back seat: "Are we there yet?" Only in this case, we've been there since before they started asking.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWell, excuse me for thinking that you are merely posturing here, per your normal rituals of non-contribution.
Time, time and time again this answer has been put forward. It's kind of like the kids yelling from the back seat: "Are we there yet?" Only in this case, we've been there since before they started asking.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI'll take that as a 'yes'. :-)
The answer herein put forward doesn't match the question. The answers put forward which have matched the question have resolved the question more than suffice.
Do let me know if you want to discuss in detail why the answers offered, such as the free will defense, are inadequate.
Originally posted by Lord SharkThe problem with the free will response is that it is only a partial answer. After all, there was an indeterminate amount of time in which man enjoyed his time on earth with God's complete blessing (love-rapport) while also maintaining his free will. Since the time of Christ's ascension, there have been billions of Christians enjoying life while also enjoying their free will. In the future perfected state, again--- free will at play.
I'll take that as a 'yes'. :-)
Do let me know if you want to discuss in detail why the answers offered, such as the free will defense, are inadequate.
That being said, free will is clearly not the issue.
While it is easy to get emotionally charged about the seemingly innocent infant or other defenseless subject who encounters the supposed hazards of life, this important question leaves far more important questions completely unanswered.
For instance, since we have assumed that it is God who allows these ravages to occur, we must by method also be assuming that God is responsible for the very existence which makes said ravages possible.
So let's take it another step. Such ravages are an affront to our sensibilities, notably justice, fairness and love. That leaves us as the mimics and Him as the template for such characteristics, which takes us another step toward the answer.
If, indeed, God is this template, then He must be all else that the Bible speaks of: holy, worthy of all glory and worship, end-all, be-all. There. That about puts us in a spot where we can now see things a tad more clear.
If such a God were given anything less than His absolute due, why would the offending creature be allowed to exist? Why in the name of all that is good does God allow man to occupy even a hint in His memory, let alone make him the temporary centerpiece of all creation's attention? That is the question that ought to be asked.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHsince we have assumed that it is God who allows these ravages to occur, we must by method also be assuming that God is responsible for the very existence which makes said ravages possible.
The problem with the free will response is that it is only a partial answer. After all, there was an indeterminate amount of time in which man enjoyed his time on earth with God's complete blessing (love-rapport) while also maintaining his free will. Since the time of Christ's ascension, there have been billions of Christians enjoying life while also enj orary centerpiece of all creation's attention? That is the question that ought to be asked.
I am not following you. What does it mean to say that agent X is "responsible for the very existence which makes" some thing Y possible? And anyway, I don't understand the point of this claim. It seems reasonable for you to go ahead and assume that we already grant you that God, provisionally assuming he exists, is broadly responsible for the very existence of stuff in the world (he is after all supposed to be the creator of the world).
Such ravages are an affront to our sensibilities, notably justice, fairness and love.
The ravage itself (e.g., the instance of some neonate suffering and dying) is surely unfortunate and may well affront some of our sensibilities. But it's really when you couple this event with the assumption that there exists some person who knew about the event; had the power to prevent it; indeed, knew that he could prevent the suffering; and yet failed to do so; that's when it really becomes an affront to our sensibilities regarding things like justice and fairness and love. You seem to be suggesting that the "ravages" themselves serve up the affront; but it's really what at least appears to be a failing on the part of this person that serves it up. I was hoping your argument would address this seeming or ostensible lack of propriety on the part of God.
That leaves us as the mimics and Him as the template for such characteristics, which takes us another step toward the answer.
Huh? You have simply imported this assumption on the basis of nothing that God is "the template" (I assume you mean that in the sense of a model and exemplar) when it comes to justice and fairness and love. This doesn't seem to follow from anything you have said up to this point in your argument. Whether or not God is being just or fair or loving when it comes to knowingly allowing these instances to obtain (or broadly providing for them) is basically one of the things at issue here in this debate. So, when you just import the bare assertion that God is somehow the great template of such characteristics, you seem to be doing nothing more than something like begging the question.
If, indeed, God is this template, then He must be all else that the Bible speaks of: holy, worthy of all glory and worship, end-all, be-all. There. That about puts us in a spot where we can now see things a tad more clear.
Like I said, if you just want to assume that God is the great moral template of justice and love and fairness, then I don't see how you are doing anything more than begging the question.
As far as I can tell, you have not really addressed the question at issue at all -- the question at issue being why does God allow such "ravages" to occur. You just seem to say in this post that God is "responsible for the very existence which makes said ravages possible" and then go on to state on the basis of nothing that God is the template for characteristics like justice and love, etc. I don't see how you are really addressing the question that prompted this thread. If someone asks why X does Y, the expected response would be something that addresses the reasons that guide X in doing Y. Your post doesn't seem to do anything like this. Am I missing something here?
God IS letting these things happen, but really, when you think if God exists, and you decide he does, then you also believe in heaven, correct? then why in the world would you believe that life on earth would be better than life in heaven? If heaven is supposed to be the best place out there, than why would you be mad for given a little kid a head-start.
And also, you are talking as if God hasn't done anything to fix it. That, to say it simply, and hopefully not too much disrespect to any of you, is kind of ignorant. The whole idea of a "Christian" as the forum starter dude started this question on is that Jesus Christ, the son of God, was sent down to save our lives. ---Not our lives on earth, mind you, but our souls.
To say that God hasn't done anything, or that he's LETTING bad things happen, is simply overlooking what matters. Christians believe that Heaven is eternal. it makes even the longest of ages for humans look like nothing.
You may ask, but why even have them die? why not have us all die? or why not have none of us die? I think it's because God allowed sin, which allowed suffering. Allowing sin, some may say, is an awful thing for a "loving god" to do, but for us to love him, which was his intention in creating us, we NEED to have the choice NOT to love him. Sin and suffering are a result of bad decisions.
In God's ideal world, before people decided to stray from Him, do you think there was sickness and death and cancer? no, i don't think there was.
I'm not sure if that answers your question or not, but there ya go.
Originally posted by LemonJelloThe question is, how can a loving God allow such things to occur. We are informed of God's nature in the Bible and nowhere else. While we can see the natural world certainly suggests a creator of some kind, and while our existence as personal entities certainly suggests a personal creator, it is not until man encounters the truths as found in the Bible that he finds the nature of God.
since we have assumed that it is God who allows these ravages to occur, we must by method also be assuming that God is responsible for the very existence which makes said ravages possible.
I am not following you. What does it mean to say that agent X is "responsible for the very existence which makes" some thing Y possible? And anyway, I don't un ...[text shortened]... Your post doesn't seem to do anything like this. Am I missing something here?[/b]
If God's nature wasn't an issue, there really wouldn't be a moral quagmire. It is only when we know--- or, at least, hear--- about God's characteristics do we ever begin to see any problem with the way things are. After all, if we had only been told that the god that created the world was a cruel and pointless SOB, such suffering on the part of anyone would really be par for course.
Again, the suffering of what we call innocent is nothing in comparison to the suffering of truth that occured as a result of man's decision to steal from God.
Whether or not God is being just or fair or loving when it comes to knowingly allowing these instances to obtain (or broadly providing for them) is basically one of the things at issue here in this debate.
I don't agree with your take on this one. I think the debate (or question) is more along the lines of how can God be seen as loving in light of these atrocities?
I see what you mean as far as not following X doing Y, but what I am trying to convey is that such a question is considering one inch of a 60' screen. In a small way, it would be akin to asking "how could a doctor--- who is sworn to help people--- so casually walk into a room and cut a man's chest open, causing blood loss and extreme pain?"
The simple answer is that there is more to the story than the question allows to be answered. I know, I know, it is a gross oversimplification when considering the essence of God and how said essence coalesces with His plan, but the general idea is there.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNot true. I like what C.S. Lewis said,
[b] We are informed of God's nature in the Bible and nowhere else.
"Everyone has heard people quarreling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kinds of things they say. They say things like this, "How would you like it if anyone did the same to you?" -- "That is my seat, I was there first" -- Why should you shove in first?" -- Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine" -- Come on, you promised". People say things like this every day, educated as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups. Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behavior does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behavior which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies, "To hell with your standard" Nearly always he tries to make out that whet he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does, there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off from keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play, or decent behavior, or moraiity, or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarreling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are, just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football. NOw this Law or Rule about Right and Wrongg used to be called the Law of Nature. Nowadays, when we talk of the "law of nature", we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. But when the older thinkers called the Law or Right and Wrong "the Law of Nature", they really meant the Law of Human Nature. The idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravitation and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had his law -- with this great difference, that a body could choose either to obey the Law of Humna Nature or disobey it."
So if we are creations of a God, then surely we are a reflection of God's nature just as what you create is a reflection of your nature.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe simple answer is that there is more to the story than the question allows to be answered.
The question is, how can a loving God allow such things to occur. We are informed of God's nature in the Bible and nowhere else. While we can see the natural world certainly suggests a creator of some kind, and while our existence as personal entities certainly suggests a personal creator, it is not until man encounters the truths as found in the Bible t ...[text shortened]... e of God and how said essence coalesces with His plan, but the general idea is there.
This is why I thought Kellyjay's answer was better. You have admitted that the free will defense is inadequate (since a partial answer doesn't suffice). I would go further and say it poses more problems than it solves. In any case, let's agree it isn't really the issue.
The issue is that if you believe in the christian god, then a reasonable conclusion is that The Problem of Evil and The Problem of Suffering are beyond your ability to solve. God's plan is beyond your understanding, and so arguments like:
1.) free will is required for a loving relationship
2.) God wants a loving relationship with us.
3) God gave us free will which allows the possibility of evil and suffering
will always appear absurd to non believers.
Originally posted by whodeyYou don't really disagree, actually.
Not true. I like what C.S. Lewis said,
"Everyone has heard people quarreling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kinds of things they say. They say things like this, "How would you like it if anyone did the same to you?" -- "Th ...[text shortened]... lection of God's nature just as what you create is a reflection of your nature.
Lewis' argument--- that we all have an inherent standard of some form of righteousness--- was merely to point out the fact that some things in life, i.e., morality, are transcendent.
In terms of knowing the particulars about God's righteousness and other aspects of His character, the Bible is our only reliable source.
Originally posted by Lord SharkThe issue is that if you believe in the christian god, then a reasonable conclusion is that The Problem of Evil and The Problem of Suffering are beyond your ability to solve. God's plan is beyond your understanding...
The simple answer is that there is more to the story than the question allows to be answered.
This is why I thought Kellyjay's answer was better. You have admitted that the free will defense is inadequate (since a partial answer doesn't suffice). I would go further and say it poses more problems than it solves. In any case, let's agree it isn't rea ...[text shortened]... allows the possibility of evil and suffering
will always appear absurd to non believers.[/b]
If I gave that impression, I certainly didn't mean to do so. PoE and PoS are probably the easiest ones to come to grips with, really... but only when one is armed with the truth about God's character, and not merely a projection of what we imagine Him to be like.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe simple answer is that there is more to the story than the question allows to be answered.
The question is, how can a loving God allow such things to occur. We are informed of God's nature in the Bible and nowhere else. While we can see the natural world certainly suggests a creator of some kind, and while our existence as personal entities certainly suggests a personal creator, it is not until man encounters the truths as found in the Bible t e of God and how said essence coalesces with His plan, but the general idea is there.
Huh? I'm pretty sure that doesn't really constitute an answer.
I am still sort of failing to understand how you have really addressed the opening question in any genuine way.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf I gave that impression, I certainly didn't mean to do so. PoE and PoS are probably the easiest ones to come to grips with, really...
[b]The issue is that if you believe in the christian god, then a reasonable conclusion is that The Problem of Evil and The Problem of Suffering are beyond your ability to solve. God's plan is beyond your understanding...
If I gave that impression, I certainly didn't mean to do so. PoE and PoS are probably the easiest ones to come to grips with, real ...[text shortened]... e truth about God's character, and not merely a projection of what we imagine Him to be like.[/b]
How come you haven't managed to do so on this thread then?
but only when one is armed with the truth about God's character, and not merely a projection of what we imagine Him to be like.
No I'm afraid I have seen arguments that attempt to use god's character to solve theological problems before, and they just don't work. Of course you might have a better argument, if so don't hesitate to deploy it. However so far the only difference between your position and Kellyjay's is that the latter has realised they don't know and has been honest enough to say so, whereas you seem to be labouring under the misconception that the standard apologists' platitudes are solutions.
Originally posted by Lord SharkAs stated, the questions are easily answered when armed with the truth about God's character. These threads aren't conducive for such a lesson--- but that doesn't mean I haven't tried in other posts. In fact, there exists a thread which I spent considerable time and effort in covering this very topic, but the results were yet another side-track.
[b]If I gave that impression, I certainly didn't mean to do so. PoE and PoS are probably the easiest ones to come to grips with, really...
How come you haven't managed to do so on this thread then?
but only when one is armed with the truth about God's character, and not merely a projection of what we imagine Him to be like.
No I'm afraid ...[text shortened]... under the misconception that the standard apologists' platitudes are solutions.[/b]
To fully understand God's character, one must study doctrine. To study doctrine, one must be a Christian without an outstanding negative account. Not being a Christian prohibits one from understanding anything other than the most basic concepts (as found in the gospel of Good News) about God. If what is easily understood there (in that message of Good News) is rejected, there isn't any hope of understanding any other aspect of God or what life is all about. Equally frustrated are both sides in the effort to understand the doctrines or share them when half of the equation has rejected the Christ.