Pain and Pleasure - Hedonism and a Christian Es...

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
No one chooses to answer my question but instead attacks utilitarianism. This thread is not about me defending utilitarianism; we can make another thread if you want to criticize it. What this thread is is me pointing out that the essay in question assumes utilitarianism is correct. As some Christians point to this essay as something they agree with, I am trying to emphasize that people are instinctively utilitarian.

The link that you provided goes to the columbine thread. How does this pertain to utilitarianism?

Originally posted by The Chess Express
The link that you provided goes to the columbine thread. How does this pertain to utilitarianism?

This was a mistake. I corrected it on the first page. Here again is the correct link:

http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=364&mode=&order=0&thold=0

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
This was a mistake. I corrected it on the first page. Here again is the correct link:

http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=364&mode=&order=0&thold=0 [/b]

I’m not too impressed with this essay. It seems to be mostly a compilation of current theories about why God allows suffering, and why all those theories are wrong.

Kushner is so right in saying that semantic shenanigans have not given us satisfying answers to the problem of human suffering.

It is impossible for him to accept doctrines which outrage his sense of justice, mercy, and benevolence; and since these are represented as the teachings of the Bible, he refuses to receive it as the Word of God.

From this summation one may assume that the authors have rejected Kushner’s theories and are of the opinion that the word of God provides the answers.

They don’t specify how, and I still don’t see the connection to utilitarianism.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
I’m not too impressed with this essay. It seems to be mostly a compilation of current theories about why God allows suffering, and why all those theories are wrong.

Kushner is so right in saying that semantic shenanigans have not given us satisfying answers to the problem of human suffering.

It is impossible for him to accept doctrines wh the answers.

They don’t specify how, and I still don’t see the connection to utilitarianism.

I suppose you aren't really the kind of person I am questioning. Checkbaitor was the one who posted it and he implied that he agreed with the author.

Utilitarianism is implied by this part of the essay for example:

"...Furthermore, my religious commitment to the supreme value of an individual life makes it hard for me to accept an answer that is not scandalized by an innocent person’s pain, that condones human pain because it supposedly contributes to an overall work of esthetic value. If a human artist or employer made children suffer so that something immensely impressive or valuable could come to pass, we would put him in prison. Why then should we excuse God for causing such undeserved pain, no matter how wonderful the ultimate result may be?"

This is a very valid point that should to be taken to heart.

While the words 'good' and 'evil' aren't mentioned, the idea that God can not be moral while hurting people for his plans, even if the ends are wonderful, is clearly present. If it is impossible for God to do something morally, then clearly the source or definition of morality is based not what God says or wants but rather on something else - pain in this case. In the author's estimation, if God chooses to hurt someone for some other personal goal of his, then humans should judge him as morally lacking.

This is the basic idea of utilitarianism - that pain and pleasure, or happiness and unhappiness, or whatever you want to call it, is the most intuitively correct way to define good and evil.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung

AThousandYoung: "This is the basic idea of utilitarianism - that pain and pleasure, or happiness and unhappiness, or whatever you want to call it, is the most intuitively correct way to define good and evil."

Is this basic idea of Utilitarianism in some way connected with, or does it refer to, the Natural Moral Law ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
[b]AThousandYoung: "This is the basic idea of utilitarianism - that pain and pleasure, or happiness and unhappiness, or whatever you want to call it, is the most intuitively correct way to define good and evil."

Is this basic idea of Utilitarianism in some way connected with, or does it refer to, the Natural Moral Law ?[/b]

I am not terribly familiar with Natural Moral Law ideas. I don't think they are connected.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I suppose you aren't really the kind of person I am questioning. Checkbaitor was the one who posted it and he implied that he agreed with the author.

Utilitarianism is implied by this part of the essay for example:

[b]"...Furthermore, my religious commitment to the supreme value of an individual life makes it hard for me to accept an answer t ...[text shortened]... s, or whatever you want to call it, is the most intuitively correct way to define good and evil.

I disagree with this. God is fair to all his children.

Deu 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without inequity, just and right is he.

One could argue that the idea of Jesus dying on the cross is utilitarian, an innocent person suffers for the greater good, but Jesus was sent to earth for that specific purpose. I don’t believe God causes innocents to suffer to paint a prettier picture.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
I disagree with this. God is fair to all his children.

Deu 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without inequity, just and right is he.

One could argue that the idea of Jesus dying on the cross is utilitarian, an innocent person suffers for the greater good, but Jesus was sent to earth fo ...[text shortened]... at specific purpose. I don’t believe God causes innocents to suffer to paint a prettier picture.

I disagree with this. God is fair to all his children.

You disagree with what exactly?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]I disagree with this. God is fair to all his children.

You disagree with what exactly?[/b]

This part of it.

Why then should we excuse God for causing such undeserved pain, no matter how wonderful the ultimate result may be?"

Personally, I don’t believe that God causes undeserved suffering.

...Furthermore, my religious commitment to the supreme value of an individual life makes it hard for me to accept an answer that is not scandalized by an innocent person’s pain, that condones human pain because it supposedly contributes to an overall work of esthetic value. If a human artist or employer made children suffer so that something immensely impressive or valuable could come to pass, we would put him in prison.

Does this not seem contradictory to you? First the author is saying that he can only accept an answer that is “scandalized by an innocent person’s pain”, then the author implies that this is not fair because we would throw a person in jail for that.

Makes it kinda hard to know where the author stands or what his point is.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
Personally, I don’t believe that God causes undeserved suffering.

Ok. Does he occasionally allow it to occur?

Originally posted by David C
Ok. Does he occasionally allow it to occur?

I would say he allows the consequences of our unforgiven misdeeds to catch up with us.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
I would say he allows the consequences of our unforgiving misdeeds to catch up with us.

Do natural disasters fall under the realm of god's omnipotent control? If so, did the victims of the 2004 tsunami event or Hurricane Katrina suffer these "consequences" he occasionally allows?

Originally posted by David C
Do natural disasters fall under the realm of god's omnipotent control? If so, did the victims of the 2004 tsunami event or Hurricane Katrina suffer these "consequences" he occasionally allows?

The idea of “karma” or “reap what you sow” makes more sense if one accepts the idea of past lives as well.

People are born into rich and powerful families or under extreme poverty based on the actions of their past lives. This may also explain diseases and natural disasters.

The Bible talks about this in several places. For some reason the church has rejected it and so now Christianity doesn’t quite make sense.

Edit: I believe that Christianity does make sense though if taught in the correct way.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
The Bible talks about this in several places. For some reason the church has rejected it and so now Christianity doesn’t quite make sense.

Edit: I believe that Christianity does make sense though if taught in the correct way.

Would you mind pointing out some of those passages? I don't seem to recall christianity adopting any sort of accountability to "previous lives" at any point...might just be my ignorance. If the church (to which church do you refer, btw? Roman Catholic?) has chosen to reject this doctrine, and it's clearly spelled out in the xtian bible, there seems to be a large incongruence there, no?

Originally posted by David C
Would you mind pointing out some of those passages? I don't seem to recall christianity adopting any sort of accountability to "previous lives" at any point...might just be my ignorance. If the church (to which church do you refer, btw? Roman Catholic?) has chosen to reject this doctrine, and it's clearly spelled out in the xtian bible, there seems to be a large incongruence there, no?

Would you mind pointing out some of those passages? I don't seem to recall Christianity adopting any sort of accountability to "previous lives" at any point...might just be my ignorance.

Reincarnation was a big part of Christianity before the Roman Catholic church edited the Bible and decided not to teach it. They wanted people to be so terrified of hell that they would dare not disobey the church.

There are still plenty of places that confirm it though.

If the church (to which church do you refer, btw? Roman Catholic?) has chosen to reject this doctrine, and it's clearly spelled out in the xtian bible, there seems to be a large incongruence there, no?

Not all Christian churches reject reincarnation, just the majority.

Gen 9:6 Whosoever sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.

Not every murderer gets murdered in this life. Some die peacefully in their sleep. In order for this verse to be true, it is necessary for them to be reborn again so that they may be murdered by man.

Matt 26:52 Then Jesus said unto them, Put up again thy sword into its place; for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

Here Jesus says the same thing.

Rev 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out:…

Here Jesus says that those who overcome the world and find God will not have to leave Heaven again to be reincarnated.

Rev 3:21: To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my father in his throne.

Here Jesus acknowledges that this is the way that he found God as well.

John 12:32 I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.

Here Jesus says that all men will eventually come to God. This message is repeated in many places.

Psalm 64:9 And all men shall fear, and shall declare the work of God; for they shall wisely consider of his doing.

Psalm 65:2 O thou that hearest prayer, unto thee shall all flesh come.

Rom. 14:11 It is written: `As surely as I live,' says the Lord, `every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.'

I Cor 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

1 Cor. 15:22-23 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn…

This is the law of karma.

Gal 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Jesus says the same thing.

Matt 7:1-2 JUDGE NOT, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Basically, we receive what we do whether it be good or bad. The scripture tells us that God is fair.

Deu 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without inequity, just and right is he.

Since God is fair, an eternal punishment is impossible based off of the few years that we are here on earth. This is not fair.

This also tells us that there has to be past lives because some of us are born under such horrendous conditions. This would not be fair either.

Psalm 106:1 PRAISE YE the Lord. O give thanks unto the Lord; for he is good: for his mercy endureth forever.

Psalm 16:9-11 Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope. For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou wilt show me the path of life: in thy presence is fullness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.

Psalm 139:7-10 Wither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art their: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art their. If I take the wings of the mourning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.

Lam 3:22 It is of the Lord's mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not.

Jer 29:11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the Lord; thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.

God doesn’t intend to loose anybody.

All these verses tell us that God’s great mercy never fails us.

John 3:17 For God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. (NKJ)

This is why God came to earth. To save the world.

Isa. 55:11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

Phil. 1:6 He will finish the work that He has begun.

God will do what God intends to do. There is only one possible end. Nothing can change this.