193 replies to this topic

[surrendersacrifice]

Many people lose faith in God when they see evil and natural disasters in the World. They feel that, if God is really present or really loves us, He will not allow evil. This feeling becomes even stronger, when they see children and innocent people suffer. However, it is not God, but our sins, that produce evils in the world. Sin results from selfishness and selfishness causes hurt to others. Even natural disasters, which some people erroneously refer to as “acts of God”, are result of our sins. Since we have dominion over the World (Genesis 1: 27-28), our acts of selfishness affect the balance in nature. So that when we sin by going against nature, the balance in nature is disturbed to produce natural disasters and diseases. Similarly, our evil acts directly affect others and cause them hurt. The hurt that evil produces affects everyone; including those who live holy lives. God allows evil, because, He has given us free will. He has given us free will so that we can exercise unconditional love. If we did not have free will, we will never be able to love others unconditionally, because, to love is a choice, and every choice needs a free will. God wants us to love (John 13:34), because, he wants us to have His peace and joy (John 15:11) for all eternity. Furthermore, compared to the peace and joy that God gives us in the eternal life our hurts in the present life are nothing.


God heals the broken hearted
We all have to go through pain and suffering, because we live in a world that has sin. God, however, brings us peace and joy by comforting us (Psalm 23, Is 57:18-21; Ps 94:19). He comforts us by being one with us in our pain and suffering. He did this by becoming one of us and freely accepting the worst form of pain and suffering. He gives us hope by overcoming pain, suffering and death through his resurrection. He gives redemptive value to pain and suffering by freeing us from sin by his own pain and suffering. He freed us from sin by completely emptying self on the cross on our behalf (Peter 2:24, 25). This helps us to accept pain and suffering in a quiet and humble manner. Our humility then opens our heart to accept God’s graces. This helps us to use our pain and suffering to overcome sin, build endurance, and become compassionate and forgiving people. God thus helps us by changing us from within. This enables us to find peace and joy by living His life.

[BroJon]

I think the question we need to ask is why do we allow evil?

[Mercia2]

Without a contrast their can be no experience. Without pain and sorrow we cannot know what love and joy is.

[mattquarterstein]

Here's a question to add to the question, in what way does God allow evil? God is mysterious, and I think some questions won't be answered until the resurrection.

[Fortigurn]

BroJon, on Oct 29 2009, 11:16 PM, said:

I think the question we need to ask is why do we allow evil?

Many people allow it because they enjoy inflicting it on others.

[Jeppo]

Fortigurn, on Mar 20 2010, 09:00 AM, said:

BroJon, on Oct 29 2009, 11:16 PM, said:

I think the question we need to ask is why do we allow evil?

Many people allow it because they enjoy inflicting it on others.

It's also allowed because people are trying to do what they believe is right and good.

[Fortigurn]

Jeppo, on Mar 20 2010, 05:19 PM, said:

Fortigurn, on Mar 20 2010, 09:00 AM, said:

BroJon, on Oct 29 2009, 11:16 PM, said:

I think the question we need to ask is why do we allow evil?

Many people allow it because they enjoy inflicting it on others.

It's also allowed because people are trying to do what they believe is right and good.

Um, not always no. A lot of things are done because they secure personal advantages, not because people are trying to do what the believe is right and good. Look at commerce. Nothing to do with 'right and good', everything to do with 'get as much as I can before other people get it'.

[Jeppo]

Fortigurn, on Mar 20 2010, 09:34 AM, said:

Jeppo, on Mar 20 2010, 05:19 PM, said:

Fortigurn, on Mar 20 2010, 09:00 AM, said:

BroJon, on Oct 29 2009, 11:16 PM, said:

I think the question we need to ask is why do we allow evil?

Many people allow it because they enjoy inflicting it on others.

It's also allowed because people are trying to do what they believe is right and good.

Um, not always no. A lot of things are done because they secure personal advantages, not because people are trying to do what the believe is right and good. Look at commerce. Nothing to do with 'right and good', everything to do with 'get as much as I can before other people get it'.

Yes, I don't disagree and I'm sure we could bat this one back and forth ad infinitum, but what is 'right & good' is in the eye of the beholder. Many people flinched when the US stormed into Vietnam, but it was seen as being the right and good thing to do at the time. Also securing a personal advantage might be seen as a good thing for others too. Not all relationships are win/lose. I'm sure you don't think commerce is evil per se, but it can certainly have bad consequences.

[Fortigurn]

Jeppo, on Mar 20 2010, 06:03 PM, said:

I'm sure you don't think commerce is evil per se, but it can certainly have bad consequences.

I don't think commerce on the industrial level is bad per se, but I know it frequently has bad consequences because it is legalized selfishness on a scale impossible for mere individuals. The whole idea of 'If it's legal, there's nothing wrong with it' is a tragic comment on humanity's moral immaturity.

[Pink Puff]

BroJon, on 29 October 2009 - 03:16 PM, said:

I think the question we need to ask is why do we allow evil?

I think the question we need to ask is why does God commit evil?

Sure there are lots of things that people do wrong, but there are also plenty of morally despicable acts committed by God himself in scripture.

Consider 2Sa 12, where God punishes David and Bathsheba's firstborn son for the sin they committed. What did that child do that was deserving of death? If nothing, how is God just in taking his life?

[janice]

Pink Puff, on 08 May 2010 - 04:31 PM, said:

BroJon, on 29 October 2009 - 03:16 PM, said:

I think the question we need to ask is why do we allow evil?

I think the question we need to ask is why does God commit evil?

Sure there are lots of things that people do wrong, but there are also plenty of morally despicable acts committed by God himself in scripture.

Consider 2Sa 12, where God punishes David and Bathsheba's firstborn son for the sin they committed. What did that child do that was deserving of death? If nothing, how is God just in taking his life?

So how old do you have to be before God is not "morally despicable" for taking your life? God didn't say he would kill the child. He said the child would die.
Do you pass judgement on Him for allowing high infant mortality rates around the world? If David's child had died without God telling him that the child would die would you be calling it God's fault?
Under the Law David and Bathsheba should have been put to death before the child had been born. God decreased three deaths to one.
It is horrible to think of the death of any child. But eventually that child would die as everyone dies. What sort of life would that child have had? The child of immorality growing up in a country as the child of a King who was meant to the leader of a nation worshipping God. Solomon had enough troubles ascending the throne, imagine the difficulties for that child and the civil war that would occur and the deaths of all those involved in such a war.
You don't know how healthy the child was when he was born. Think what a stressful pregnancy Bathsheba had! Death of a spouse, moving house, marriage plus probably whispering, conjecture and possible outright criticism and disrespect from the people plus conflict with other wives. We don't know whether the baby was healthy when born but it's not what you call an ideal pregnancy.
You can be pragmatic and count total number of lives multiplied by length of life or you can say bad things happen to good/innocent people or you can accept that God rules in the kingdoms of men.

[Mercia2]

Quote

Why does God allow evil?

Because without the opposite of duality there can be no experience.
Without sorrow there can be no joy. There is absolutely no alternative. As Christians we are expected to understand this and share Gods anguish. Only love in the world makes it all worth it. The moment the love of many grows cold and violence and mans evil thoughts prevail is the moment God will put an end to it all.

[Jeremy]

Pink Puff, on 08 May 2010 - 04:31 PM, said:

I think the question we need to ask is why does God commit evil?

Sure there are lots of things that people do wrong, but there are also plenty of morally despicable acts committed by God himself in scripture.

Consider 2Sa 12, where God punishes David and Bathsheba's firstborn son for the sin they committed. What did that child do that was deserving of death? If nothing, how is God just in taking his life?

The life of every living creature is in the hand of God to do with as He wills. He is not answerable to us, and it is not biblical to claim that God "owes" anything to any one of us. Life is not a right.

I believe there's a flaw in the view you have expressed, namely that you have confused evil (biblically understood) with morality. Evil (= bad things, calamity) happens, and God is at liberty to cause it and to avoid preventing it when it arises without His direct intervention. But that is not a moral issue; it is a fact. We can share some biblical evidence for this if you like.

[Mercia2]

Thisisme, on 08 May 2010 - 06:58 PM, said:

Whatever God does is just and right. Thats why we need to go before him with "fear and trembling". David understood this.

Depends if you are speaking in First Principles or not. God did make the temple collapse on the worshippers, but He did not intervene.

God certainly does not intervene in the natural order in an observable way, or His existance would be corporately proven and by extention man would lose his free-will and moral autonomy, We should learn from the evolutionary process, God formulates and begins a process in which the impression is given He does not intervene, natural selection appears random. But as God knows the end from the beginning, i.e the outcome, then the random appearance of evolution is just an illusion for us, whether random or not is irrelevant to the outcome.

Of course we know God does intervene, that is a role of the angels, but they can only intervene in a non observable way to preserve free will (unless we have surrendered our free will by ASKing for the Holy Spirit, Luke 11:13, and had the veil removed).

I do not know how much angels intervene in an unobservable way to save children from horrible deaths that we never know about? but I wish it could be more.

Suffering in the world, especially of children is a valid reason for agnosticism/atheism, the challenge for the agnostic is to ask the question, does God have an alterative? Is one possible? Does love outweigh pain and sorrow? For the moment it does God must put an end to this vale of tears and and that is exactly what He does.

Edited by Mercia2, 08 May 2010 - 09:10 PM.

[Mercia2]

Quote

However, it is not God, but our sins, that produce evils in the world.

No God has created evil. Isaiah plainly tells us. I have explained why.
Cancer in children is not caused by sin.

[Mercia2]

a 'violation of rules'?

[Mercia2]

Thisisme, on 08 May 2010 - 09:24 PM, said:

Mercia2, on 08 May 2010 - 09:01 PM, said:

Thisisme, on 08 May 2010 - 06:58 PM, said:

Whatever God does is just and right. Thats why we need to go before him with "fear and trembling". David understood this.

Depends if you are speaking in First Principles or not. God did make the temple collapse on the worshippers, but He did not intervene.

God certainly does not intervene in the natural order in an observable way, or His existance would be corporately proven and by extention man would lose his free-will and moral autonomy, We should learn from the evolutionary process, God formulates and begins a process in which the impression is given He does not intervene, natural selection appears random. But as God knows the end from the beginning, i.e the outcome, then the random appearance of evolution is just an illusion for us, whether random or not is irrelevant to the outcome.

Of course we know God does intervene, that is a role of the angels, but they can only intervene in a non observable way to preserve free will (unless we have surrendered our free will by ASKing for the Holy Spirit, Luke 11:13, and had the veil removed).

I do not know how much angels intervene in an unobservable way to save children from horrible deaths that we never know about? but I wish it could be more.

Suffering in the world, especially of children is a valid reason for agnosticism/atheism, the challenge for the agnostic is to ask the question, does God have an alterative? Is one possible? Does love outweigh pain and sorrow? For the moment it does God must put an end to this vale of tears and and that is exactly what He does.

I believe this a violation of the rules. And I disagree anyway.

So you don't believe God has made the evolutionary process atleast APPEAR to be the way we have been Created? and that mutation atleast APPEARS random? Whether you believe in evolution or not this is surely undeniable is it not?

[Pink Puff]

Thisisme, on 08 May 2010 - 06:58 PM, said:

Whatever God does is just and right. Thats why we need to go before him with "fear and trembling". David understood this.

If God's actions are by definition good, then saying "God is good" is no different from saying "God is God" and says nothing about his moral character whatsoever. He could be cruel, unjust, and hateful and under that definition we would have to call those attributes good.

Consider a fictional alternate reality where a fundamentally evil being such as the "Satan" character from mainstream Christian mythology was an omnipotent, omniscient being who created a universe much like ours, with people with free will and so forth. Would it be right or wrong for the inhabitants of that universe to worship their creator?

janice, on 08 May 2010 - 08:24 PM, said:

So how old do you have to be before God is not "morally despicable" for taking your life? God didn't say he would kill the child. He said the child would die.

It's not a question of "being a certain age", strictly speaking; however, someone who has not lived long enough to have the opportunity to make an informed decision of any kind definitely cannot be guilty of anything.

You're right, he didn't use those words, but he did kill the child, and it was for the reason that David and Batsheba had sinned, not because the child had done anything wrong.

2Sa 12:14 says "Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die."

In other words, the reason for the child's death is not that it would have died on its own of natural causes anyway, but rather because David had done something wrong.

2Sa 12:15 says "And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick."

Had it been that the child would have been sick regardless, God "striking"/afflicting the child would be ineffective.

janice, on 08 May 2010 - 08:24 PM, said:

You can be pragmatic and count total number of lives multiplied by length of life or you can say bad things happen to good/innocent people or you can accept that God rules in the kingdoms of men.

Just to be clear, my objection is not about the amount of life lived or number of lives or anything like that, my issue is more one of what it means for someone to be just. If the child did nothing deserving of death then it did not deserve death and it is unjust to kill it (and it is certainly not merciful).

Of course bad things happen to good people. But it's not only because of the poor choices of people (though sometimes it is), it is sometimes due to God's injustice; that was the purpose of the example I gave.

Accepting that God rules in the kingdoms of men is only an acknowledgement of his power, it says nothing about his justice, mercy, love, or lack of those qualities.

Jeremy, on 08 May 2010 - 08:34 PM, said:

The life of every living creature is in the hand of God to do with as He wills. He is not answerable to us, and it is not biblical to claim that God "owes" anything to any one of us. Life is not a right.

Maybe so but that doesn't mean that whatever he does can be considered just and merciful no matter what it is.

Jeremy, on 08 May 2010 - 08:34 PM, said:

I believe there's a flaw in the view you have expressed, namely that you have confused evil (biblically understood) with morality. Evil (= bad things, calamity) happens, and God is at liberty to cause it and to avoid preventing it when it arises without His direct intervention. But that is not a moral issue; it is a fact. We can share some biblical evidence for this if you like.

I'm well aware of the biblical evidence of God causing calamity. However, if he brings calamity on people who do not deserve it when he has the power to avoid doing so, that is by definition unjust.

[Jeremy]

Pink Puff, on 09 May 2010 - 04:21 PM, said:

Jeremy, on 08 May 2010 - 08:34 PM, said:

The life of every living creature is in the hand of God to do with as He wills. He is not answerable to us, and it is not biblical to claim that God "owes" anything to any one of us. Life is not a right.

Maybe so but that doesn't mean that whatever he does can be considered just and merciful no matter what it is.

Why doesn't it? If God is just by definition, how can what He does not be just? I appreciate this isn't something you accept, but what are the standards by which you believe justice should be measured? Genuine question.

Quote

Jeremy, on 08 May 2010 - 08:34 PM, said:

I believe there's a flaw in the view you have expressed, namely that you have confused evil (biblically understood) with morality. Evil (= bad things, calamity) happens, and God is at liberty to cause it and to avoid preventing it when it arises without His direct intervention. But that is not a moral issue; it is a fact. We can share some biblical evidence for this if you like.

I'm well aware of the biblical evidence of God causing calamity. However, if he brings calamity on people who do not deserve it when he has the power to avoid doing so, that is by definition unjust.

You're still making calamity a moral issue. So same question as above: what's your definition of what somebody deserves, please?

On what basis do you say God ought to prevent evil? Need to understand what makes you think this. Thanks.

[Mercia2]

Quote

If God's actions are by definition good, then saying "God is good" is no different from saying "God is God" and says nothing about his moral character whatsoever. He could be cruel, unjust, and hateful and under that definition we would have to call those attributes good.

Consider a fictional alternate reality where a fundamentally evil being such as the "Satan" character from mainstream Christian mythology was an omnipotent, omniscient being who created a universe much like ours, with people with free will and so forth. Would it be right or wrong for the inhabitants of that universe to worship their creator?

They already do:

"And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast" Rev 13:4

God showed me the fulfillment of those words at a papal mass in 1982. Hundreds of thousands in organised religion had come to adore, revere, worship the pope, but were worshipping Satan. This reached its peak during the papal mass, at this precise moment when the pope/Satan was holding in triumph Christs blood -

Some of what the Cathars believed is true. If Satan has been granted dominion of the material world, then he will also have been granted dominion of the LITERAL or external sense of the Bible, while our God can be found in the SPIRITUAL/metaphorical sense of the Old Testament and the teachings and example of Jesus. Thats the test. Its also a lesson in perception.

[Mercia2]

Quote

Had it been that the child would have been sick regardless, God "striking"/afflicting the child would be ineffective.

A moral or logical absurdity in the literal sense is intended to PROVOKE those of Christlike character to search for the spiritual meaning. For me the slaying of children represents the death of naive attributes. For example, it was not until the first born of Egypt were slain the Israelites were set free. Egypt represents the natural man, man is first born natural (an Egyptian) and must become spiritual (an Israelite), after slaying our first born nature. The 10 plagues are related to the 10 laws as well.

Edited by Mercia2, 09 May 2010 - 11:06 PM.

[Mercia2]

Mercia2, on 09 May 2010 - 10:39 PM, said:

Quote

If God's actions are by definition good, then saying "God is good" is no different from saying "God is God" and says nothing about his moral character whatsoever. He could be cruel, unjust, and hateful and under that definition we would have to call those attributes good.

Consider a fictional alternate reality where a fundamentally evil being such as the "Satan" character from mainstream Christian mythology was an omnipotent, omniscient being who created a universe much like ours, with people with free will and so forth. Would it be right or wrong for the inhabitants of that universe to worship their creator?

They already do:

"And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast" Rev 13:4

God showed me the fulfillment of those words at a papal mass in 1982. Hundreds of thousands in organised religion had come to adore, revere, worship the pope, but were worshipping Satan. This reached its peak during the papal mass, at this precise moment when the pope/Satan was holding in triumph Christs blood -

Some of what the Cathars believed is true. If Satan has been granted dominion of the material world, then he will also have been granted dominion of the LITERAL or external sense of the Bible, while our God can be found in the SPIRITUAL/metaphorical sense of the Old Testament and the teachings and example of Jesus. Thats the test. Its also a lesson in perception.

God showed me it was Satan holding that golden cup of Mystery Babylon in the air at that precise moment in that photograph above, yet in prophetic typology the Old Testament says this, "Babylon hath been a golden cup in the LORD's hand, that made all the earth drunken: the nations have drunken of her wine; therefore the nations are mad." Jer 51-4-7

[Pink Puff]

Thisisme, on 09 May 2010 - 06:56 PM, said:

Jesus is the only one who didn't "deserve it". The rest of us, without Christ do. God said, "I will have mercy on who I will have mercy". I can only feel sorry for the clay that questions the Potter.

If Jesus didn't deserve it then he shouldn't have gotten it.

Clay has no choice in the matter. We, however, have the ability to choose who we worship, if we worship anyone at all. When I look at God's character I see very little that inspires love, and quite a bit that inspires resentment. Thus I find it difficult to trust or worship him.

Jeremy, on 09 May 2010 - 08:39 PM, said:

Why doesn't it? If God is just by definition, how can what He does not be just? I appreciate this isn't something you accept, but what are the standards by which you believe justice should be measured? Genuine question.

Normally what people mean when they say "justice" is not "whatever God would probably do". Many people say they do but if a person were to do something even remotely resembling some of the acts God has carried out in scripture, even those people would agree that the person was a monster. Rather, we generally use the word "justice" to mean something along the lines of "people getting what they deserve, and not getting what they don't deserve". We can argue back and forth about the details and about how you measure who deserves what, but the important point to this particular debate is that certainly someone who has made no decisions of any kind, who has not done any deliberate acts whatsoever, does not deserve to be punished in any way (let alone execution), and certainly they cannot be held responsible for the actions of another.

Jeremy, on 09 May 2010 - 08:39 PM, said:

You're still making calamity a moral issue. So same question as above: what's your definition of what somebody deserves, please?

On what basis do you say God ought to prevent evil? Need to understand what makes you think this. Thanks.

Calamity would not be a moral issue if it were something that just happened on its own, that no one had any control over. If we're walking along in the park and suddenly a meteor comes down from the sky and hits me then I can't blame you or any other human for doing it or for not preventing it because no human has that kind of power. On the other hand, if I'm walking along in the park and some psychopathic driver comes careening off the street and runs me over, I can blame him (assuming it was deliberate) because he had control of the vehicle at the time and could have stopped the car. His failure to stop the car from running me over was not just a calamity, it was a moral issue.

God does have that kind of power over nature. If a meteor comes careening out of the sky headed for me, it is well within God's power to divert it somewhere else, or even cause it to cease to exist completely. Such calamities can only happen by either God's edict or permission, both of which make it a moral issue. If God fails to prevent calamity from befalling someone who does not deserve it, then God has committed an injustice.

As for the question of who deserves what, I will reiterate, we can debate all day about that but the only thing about it that is relevant to the point about David and Bathsheba and their firstborn son is that definitely, someone who has had no opportunity to make any decisions of any kind cannot be held accountable for making wrong decisions, and thus cannot deserve any kind of punishment.

Mercia2, on 09 May 2010 - 11:04 PM, said:

A moral or logical absurdity in the literal sense is intended to PROVOKE those of Christlike character to search for the spiritual meaning. For me the slaying of children represents the death of naive attributes. For example, it was not until the first born of Egypt were slain the Israelites were set free. Egypt represents the natural man, man is first born natural (an Egyptian) and must become spiritual (an Israelite), after slaying our first born nature. The 10 plagues are related to the 10 laws as well.

Yes, I get the metaphorical significance of the act. However, metaphorical significance alone, regardless of how compelling, does not make an otherwise unjust act into a just one.

[Mercia2]

Quote

When I look at God's character I see very little that inspires love, and quite a bit that inspires resentment.

If you don't understand how to read the OT, then judge Gods character by the words and example of Jesus. Re-read the gospel of John.

[Mercia2]

Ken Gilmore, on 20 March 2010 - 05:23 AM, said:

I've posted on the problem of suffering in an earlier post. As I said there, it's not the last word (I'd never be that presumptuous) but I strongly suspect the answer lies in extending the free-will defence into the natural world.

Pink Puff, I recommend reading Kens excellent article on the subject, above link.

Quote

In any afterlife by definition (this isn't a cheat, since we are arguing a contingency based on a Christian concept, so we need to factor in those terms) the environmental factors will be optimal. Likewise, those that are in this afterlife will have demonstrated a consistent desire to do good throughout their human life to the point where doing good becomes second nature. In this environment, it is not unreasonable that people who have laboured to do the right thing in their life will continue to do that even if they had the theoretical capacity to do good.

..and we know that is our test, our calling in this life.

Edited by Mercia2, 10 May 2010 - 12:55 AM.

[Mercia2]

I think the next sentiments that should be scrutinised are summed up by the lyrics and tone here - My link

What makes us want to live forever? Love or ego/self love/pride? In the song based on the film Highlander, the pain of watching those you love growing old and dying, the pain of losing all you love is too great. An eternity of that is what the song refers to, I could not bear it! But we hope for something very different. An escape from this vale of tears.

Edited by Mercia2, 10 May 2010 - 01:10 AM.

[Mercia2]

Quote

Um, not always no. A lot of things are done because they secure personal advantages, not because people are trying to do what the believe is right and good. Look at commerce. Nothing to do with 'right and good', everything to do with 'get as much as I can before other people get it'.

I thought in Kens childcare example that priority of funding childcare services from taxes even in a recession was ommited as a cause?

Quote

Over a ten-year period, the country in which this department operates is in recession, and fewer people choose to become social workers given the poor pay and low esteem in which they are held. The same recessionary environment means government funding drops and fewer social workers are employed. Those that remain are relatively inexperienced and overworked.

It is easy to see how an inexperienced worker overloaded with too many cases to adequately manage can make an error of judgement in not choosing to intervene in a case where an impoverished single mother of borderline-normal intelligence who is diabetic falls into a diabetic coma because she (1) did not really understand how to manage her diabetes and (2) came down with gastroenteritis, which combined with her poorly-managed diabetes pushed her into a diabetic coma. As a result of this, her young baby is neglected and dies. The question then is: who is responsible for the death of this child?

- The committee who drafted the protocol which allowed an experienced social worker scope in investigating cases
- The mother who simply had no concept of how to manage her diabetes
- The inexperienced social worker who had way too many cases because his department was grossly overworked and underfunded, and did not have the experience necessary to properly use the protocol

Put simply, no individual has directly chosen to do what a religious person would call evil

Edited by Mercia2, 10 May 2010 - 01:23 AM.

[Mercia2]

Thisisme, on 10 May 2010 - 03:38 AM, said:

Quote

Clay has no choice in the matter. We, however, have the ability to choose who we worship, if we worship anyone at all. When I look at God's character I see very little that inspires love, and quite a bit that inspires resentment. Thus I find it difficult to trust or worship him.

We really only have two choices. Choose life.

I would not chose life if God was a tyrant. Anyone doing likewise would be no different in moral calibre to those condemned at Nuremburg for just following orders.

We start of with the assumption God is better than us, more moral than us, more just than us, with fear and trembling of the literal sense of the Word, which is intended to provoke such a paradox and question (as that is part of the test), and then mature in our outlook as we move from the literal, natural interpretation of the Word to the spiritual, symbolic in which the deep things are revealed.

[Pink Puff]

Mercia2, on 10 May 2010 - 12:16 AM, said:

If you don't understand how to read the OT, then judge Gods character by the words and example of Jesus. Re-read the gospel of John.

I would be happy to re-read John's gospel sometime in the near future, but I'm not sure what it would add to this particular discussion...

Is there some special way to read the OT that's different from the way one would read the NT, or any other book for that matter? So far I've been running under the assumption that scripture (OT included) is historcially accurate. So when it says "person/entity X did action Y", that is a historical fact and person or entity X indeed performed action Y. Is this analysis in error? More specifically, if that analysis turns out to be in error in the general sense, is it in error for this particular chapter of Samuel?

I find it difficult to judge God's character by the actions of Jesus since they seem to behave so differently. But that is beside the point for the issue at hand since Jesus wasn't around for this event.

Mercia2, on 10 May 2010 - 12:52 AM, said:

Ken Gilmore, on 20 March 2010 - 05:23 AM, said:

I've posted on the problem of suffering in an earlier post. As I said there, it's not the last word (I'd never be that presumptuous) but I strongly suspect the answer lies in extending the free-will defence into the natural world.

Pink Puff, I recommend reading Kens excellent article on the subject, above link.

Thank you, that was indeed an excellent article. However, it only addressed the suffering/evil which arises as a result of human free will. It did not address God's deliberate acts of evil or injustice; the ones where he interferes in the way events are "naturally" unfolding and exerts his will in a way that is unjust.

Mercia2, on 10 May 2010 - 12:52 AM, said:

Quote

In any afterlife by definition (this isn't a cheat, since we are arguing a contingency based on a Christian concept, so we need to factor in those terms) the environmental factors will be optimal. Likewise, those that are in this afterlife will have demonstrated a consistent desire to do good throughout their human life to the point where doing good becomes second nature. In this environment, it is not unreasonable that people who have laboured to do the right thing in their life will continue to do that even if they had the theoretical capacity to do good.

..and we know that is our test, our calling in this life.

Sure, but he didn't need to create such a test. He could have created humans such that we have a nature that is just as inclined towards good as our current one is towards evil, and put us in an environment that permits good actions to always have good consequences, as is presented in the hypothetical "afterlife" above, from the beginning. This means the evil resulting from the current state of affairs is avoidable and contributes nothing to the "greater good" as it were, so it is not "good" to put us through it.

Mercia2, on 10 May 2010 - 08:30 AM, said:

I would not chose life if God was a tyrant. Anyone doing likewise would be no different in moral calibre to those condemned at Nuremburg for just following orders.

Quoted for truth. I agree wholeheartedly.

Mercia2, on 10 May 2010 - 08:30 AM, said:

We start of with the assumption God is better than us, more moral than us, more just than us, with fear and trembling of the literal sense of the Word, which is intended to provoke such a paradox and question (as that is part of the test), and then mature in our outlook as we move from the literal, natural interpretation of the Word to the spiritual, symbolic in which the deep things are revealed.

Two things:

First, "more moral than us", or "more just than us" isn't really saying much. I think we all agree humanity fails pretty hard when it comes to justice and morality. When I call God unjust, I'm speaking in absolute terms, not relative ones. That is to say, I'm not saying "we're more just than God", I'm simply saying "God is not just". Taking into account our finite and flawed natures, it is easy to understand why humans fail so hard at justice and morality. God, on the other hand, does not have such restrictions. Presumably you agree that he is not subject to some divine equivalent of "human nature" that compells him towards evil. Furthermore, he has little, if any, restrictions on his ability to affect the universe. Thus, he has no excuse; he can't claim flawed nature or weakness or inevitability. Any evil or unjust acts he commits are deliberate and avoidable and have the potential to affect the world on a scale much greater than anything a human could achieve. This is an especially important issue if he claims to serve as a moral example to the rest of us.

Second, why would we start with such an assumption? If we're discussing the issue of "is God just" and we say "well let's assume God is just", then we haven't learned anything. All we've done is created a useless syllogism of the form "Assume X. Therefore X." We could replace "God" in the above statements with absolutely anyone and it would hold just as well. We could just as easily say "Let's assume that I'm perfectly moral and just", and then under that assumption, claim that I am perfectly moral and just. We haven't actually learned anything about God's behaviour, or my behaviour, all we've done is make an assumption. Something similar happens when we define God's actions as being just. We could just as easily define any individual's actions as just, and all we've done is play with language. We haven't actually determined whether God, or the individual in question, has a character deserving of worship.

[Mercia2]

Quote

Furthermore, he has little, if any, restrictions on his ability to affect the universe. Thus, he has no excuse;

In a physical material world I cannot see any alternative to being motivated by physical and material impulses? It is all very well people saying God can do anything, but how can He motivate physical material beings if not by that animal nature? Atleast in first instance? Yet it is from those impulses (greed, desire, pride etc), unrestrained by morality or religion that comes all sin/evil, war etc.
That is the problem.

You could make that argument in the case of say earthquakes, although Ken has commented on the need for plate-tectonics etc and our responsibility should possibly be to abandon those areas? The main problem I have is with child suffering, say a child imprisoned and tortured for many days. That would not cause me to abandon my faith as I have personally had that proven to me, it may provoke me to enquire why God could not have sent an angel, although I will probably find He did, or that I just do not understand fully the problem, and Gods anguish in relation to the matter that will outweight mine.

Edited by Mercia2, 10 May 2010 - 01:03 PM.