Hypothetical Christian World

[BluhdoftheLamb]

And that bugs you? Good. It should bug you, that your morality comes from an external loci, one that is arbitrary, and depending on the whims of god, could change, at any moment.

These are actually very valid concerns! This is why it is important for a Christian to actually know God, and not just do the usual things even if they seem good. Knowing God, we realize He is not at all arbitrary, nor is He subject to whims. He's not subject to anything at all, actually

Not knowing these things, it would not be at all just to expect you to trust Him to such an extent. (At least that's my story, generally not being a trusting person)

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Like I said, big little word, that IF. You're fabricating an impossible scenario. Yes, I know the Bible avails itself of anthropomorphisms, but this is only due to God reaching down to our level, so we might have some way of understanding what He's really trying to get across to us.

In other words - no chance of your worry here!



If you know Jane the Bane, we have been having a lengthy conversation, the point of which is you doing the right thing all the time is no different from Abraham doing that, even when it was unknown and unexpected. She's saying the Church forbids such a thing, and I'm pointing out this is the essence of the Faith.

Also, your John Edwards title there is eschewed by those who I feel have a good grasp on Scripture. (Not familiar with Ravi Zecharias) Using myself as an example, I know when I first turned to the Lord in earnest, the most difficult part was getting rid of bad ideas. On the other hand, there is a huge wealth of seriously good books on every Spiritual topic imaginable, and one advantage of having a Spiritual Father is they can direct you to what is appropriate at the time. This is an advantage I don't have, btw

Here, let me show you what you've been missing then.

Ravi on Why is there Evil in the World? - YouTube

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

These are actually very valid concerns! This is why it is important for a Christian to actually know God, and not just do the usual things even if they seem good. Knowing God, we realize He is not at all arbitrary, nor is He subject to whims. He's not subject to anything at all, actually

Not knowing these things, it would not be at all just to expect you to trust Him to such an extent. (At least that's my story, generally not being a trusting person)

As much as you can know anything, I guess.

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

Theodicy excuses God's inaction by making him cruel, lame, or stupid, or by redefining morality to make it all work out. Let's see which you do.

E, none of the above. Don't see how morality enters into it. Generally, morality is our perception of right and wrong. Or did you have a different idea in mind by using that word?

Clearly, if any of us had ALL facts in hand, our ideas of right and wrong would change.

Ah, so you've gone for the 'redefine morality' approach: "Hey, it's not immoral that that little girl was raped - in fact, it was the best possible option!"

This is quite the stretch from what I actually said; the two bear no resemblance. (And what's with the preoccupation with child rape lately?)

Somehow I find it unpalatable to excuse the rape of children by saying, "Well, it's just not important enough".

How does this excuse his inaction, exactly?

That is only an assumption on your part.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

E, none of the above. Don't see how morality enters into it. Generally, morality is our perception of right and wrong. Or did you have a different idea in mind by using that word?

The charge is that evil exists, and that this is contradictory to the claim that there also exists an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent deity. Theodicies do one of four things: deny God's omniscience, deny God's omnipotence, deny God's omnibenevolence, or deny that evil exists.

This is quite the stretch from what I actually said; the two bear no resemblance.

I was pointing out the usefulness of a comment about fearing death on a discussion about the existence of suffering. Namely, that there is none.

(And what's with the preoccupation with child rape lately?)

It occurs in the world, therefore, it preoccupies me.

That is only an assumption on your part.

Children are still being raped, tsunamis and famine are still taking lives, and people are still being enslaved, so no, it is not an assumption - clearly no supernatural being is intervening to prevent these things, as they're still happening.

And if that's not the assumption you're referring to, you'll have to be more explicit; there's only so much mind-reading I can do in a day

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

The charge is that evil exists, and that this is contradictory to the claim that there also exists an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent deity. Theodicies do one of four things: deny God's omniscience, deny God's omnipotence, deny God's omnibenevolence, or deny that evil exists.

Yes, that would be a dilemma. God openly declares He is not omnibenevolent. He is a God of Justice, and no one being Judged perceives that as being a good thing. Omnipotence is also removed from the picture, seeing as God has limited His Power at least temporarily while we have some. the trick to this is He has not surrendered His ultimate sovereignty, which is a pretty neat trick.

Omniscience may be limited to that which is knowable. Omnipresence seems to be accurate.

I was pointing out the usefulness of a comment about fearing death on a discussion about the existence of suffering. Namely, that there is none.

Not fearing death and dealing with suffering effectively are intimately interconnected.

It occurs in the world, therefore, it preoccupies me.

As a logical statement, this is unpossible. You cannot possibly be preoccupied with everything that happens in the world. If you wanted to be preoccupied with child rape, you might invent webslingers like spiderman, or gadgets like batman, or ... something. Anyway if you're looking for God's hands in this world, take your gloves off.

Children are still being raped, tsunamis and famine are still taking lives, and people are still being enslaved, so no, it is not an assumption - clearly no supernatural being is intervening to prevent these things, as they're still happening.

Not being omniscient you can't possibly say God is not intervening. In fact one doesn't have to look very hard to find people in these situations testifying to God's saving power. But the bigger picture is out of our view. How is God actually intervening? Making all things new, a new heavens and a new earth. It may be some time yet before we see it unveiled. In the meantime there is indeed suffering, and none of us are immune. Perhaps as good a definition of serving satan as any is allowing our own suffering to tamper with our perception of God? If so, I'm as guilty of this as anyone. We all need His Mercy ...

 

[Elioenai26]

Including ethnicide.

Personally, I consider ethnicide, no matter who orders it, to be morally reprehensible.

Are you a moral relativist or a moral realist?

If morality is determined by one's cultural practices, then there is no law or standard which you can point to to say ethnicide is objectively wrong.

If morality is not determined by one's cultural practices or personal opinion, but rather, by an objective moral law, then your qualm with ethnicide is actually suggestive of your belief in God.

 

[JGG]

Yes, that would be a dilemma. God openly declares He is not omnibenevolent. He is a God of Justice, and no one being Judged perceives that as being a good thing.

And as a Christian you believe that you deserve eternal bliss with that judge, whereas the rest of us deserve eternal damnation. Have I got that right?

Omnipotence is also removed from the picture, seeing as God has limited His Power at least temporarily while we have some. the trick to this is He has not surrendered His ultimate sovereignty, which is a pretty neat trick.

What. God has "limited his power"? Why? How? How are you aware of this? What was his power before? What is it now? Under what conditions will he restore his power? If he has the ability to restore that power, is he not still all-powerful? Excuse my questions, but I have honestly never heard this before, and it literally sounds like something out of a comic book.

Omniscience may be limited to that which is knowable. Omnipresence seems to be accurate.

So what is bigger than this God? I mean, there is God, everything knowable to God, and what else? What is that else a part of? If you get my question...

Not being omniscient you can't possibly say God is not intervening.

My friend prayed to god to save his only daughter from a horrible, ravaging, painful cancer. God did not intervene.

 

[JGG]

Are you a moral relativist or a moral realist?

If morality is determined by one's cultural practices, then there is no law or standard which you can point to to say ethnicide is objectively wrong.

If morality is not determined by one's cultural practices or personal opinion, but rather, by an objective moral law, then your qualm with ethnicide is actually suggestive of your belief in God.

For the love of Bruce Dickenson, not this again.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I can't tell.

Everything you have been saying about human suffering suggests to me that you think that Christians are wrong for believing in a God who does not eradicate suffering from the world. But if you think Christians are wrong, then you must have a concept of what is "right". But if you have a concept of what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil, then you must believe in the existence of a moral law or standard which is the basis for how you determine what is good and what is evil, what is right and what is wrong. But if you believe in the existence of a moral law or standard and this law or standard is appealed to to condemn the actions of a person, even though that person is of the opinion that they are right, then you believe in a law or standard that is true for every person, regardless of their opinions, beliefs, or cultural practices. But if you believe in a law or standard that is true for every person regardless of their subjective opinion, then you believe in an objective moral law or standard. If you believe in an objective moral law or standard, then you believe in a moral law Giver who exists over and above those which are under said law. This law Giver is God, whom you deny in principle, but in reality, you live as if He exists.

We've already had a thread discussing this in which you acknowledge that one could maintain moral realism without subscribing to theism. In fact, you introduced a survey of philosophers that revealed moral realism was predominant even among atheist philosophers. In that thread, you also refused to answer a number of questions regarding your own willingness to participate in divinely ordained acts of cruelty, such as genocide.

And Bill Craig was right. Whatever God says is moral since He is the locus and paradigm of morality and the source of all that is good and just and right.

In the previous thread this kind of statement rendered your argument tautological.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes, that would be a dilemma. God openly declares He is not omnibenevolent. He is a God of Justice, and no one being Judged perceives that as being a good thing. Omnipotence is also removed from the picture, seeing as God has limited His Power at least temporarily while we have some. the trick to this is He has not surrendered His ultimate sovereignty, which is a pretty neat trick.

Not really: you now believe in a capricious and impotent deity.

Not fearing death and dealing with suffering effectively are intimately interconnected.

And yet, this is meaningless to those who are suffering.

As a logical statement, this is unpossible. You cannot possibly be preoccupied with everything that happens in the world.

I never said that I was.

If you wanted to be preoccupied with child rape, you might invent webslingers like spiderman, or gadgets like batman, or ... something. Anyway if you're looking for God's hands in this world, take your gloves off.

Does this apply to rapists, too? Or does God only get the credit from good deeds?

Not being omniscient you can't possibly say God is not intervening.

Of course I can: these things still happen, so clearly there is no supernatural being stepping in to stop them. If God has decided to limit his own power, then what good is he? If God is so capricious that he is willing to stand by and allow things like rape, then how is he worthy of worship?

In fact one doesn't have to look very hard to find people in these situations testifying to God's saving power. But the bigger picture is out of our view. How is God actually intervening? Making all things new, a new heavens and a new earth. It may be some time yet before we see it unveiled. In the meantime there is indeed suffering, and none of us are immune. Perhaps as good a definition of serving satan as any is allowing our own suffering to tamper with our perception of God? If so, I'm as guilty of this as anyone. We all need His Mercy ...

And he is dispensing none of it. You believe in a God who can't and won't intervene to alleviate suffering, and I don't believe God even exists. Whoever's right, the end result is the same: God isn't helping us.

 

[Elioenai26]

Not really: you now believe in a capricious and impotent deity.


And yet, this is meaningless to those who are suffering.


I never said that I was.


Does this apply to rapists, too? Or does God only get the credit from good deeds?


Of course I can: these things still happen, so clearly there is no supernatural being stepping in to stop them. If God has decided to limit his own power, then what good is he? If God is so capricious that he is willing to stand by and allow things like rape, then how is he worthy of worship?


And he is dispensing none of it. You believe in a God who can't and won't intervene to alleviate suffering, and I don't believe God even exists. Whoever's right, the end result is the same: God isn't helping us.

Christ has shown us that even during the worlds worst, we can have victory while suffering and through suffering.

God is so great that He can use even the evil that men perpetrate to accomplish His purposes.

This life is a training ground for the development of God like character. Not unlike the various military training grounds that exist in all the nations of the world. These training grounds have one central purpose in mind...to train people to be what they are naturally not. We naturally covet comfort, pleasure, ease and all that satisfies the flesh.

God is more concerned with our character than our comfort, our love than our laziness, our eagerness to serve than our desire for ease.

You keep talking about rape and suffering. How many rape victims have you spent time with, cried with, shared your time with? How many rapists have you visited in prison and shown love to?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Christ has shown us that even during the worlds worst, we can have victory while suffering and through suffering.

God is so great that He can use even the evil that men perpetrate to accomplish His purposes.

So your religion teaches that it's good that little girls get raped, because they develop character, which somehow excuses the whole thing. Gotcha.

This life is a training ground for the development of God like character. Not unlike the various military training grounds that exist in all the nations of the world. These training grounds have one central purpose in mind...to train people to be what they are naturally not. We naturally covet comfort, pleasure, ease and all that satisfies the flesh.

God is more concerned with our character than our comfort, our love than our laziness, our eagerness to serve than our desire for ease.

How lovely for him.

You keep talking about rape and suffering. How many rape victims have you spent time with, cried with, shared your time with? How many rapists have you visited in prison and shown love to?

None. Does that somehow excuse God's inaction? Does that somehow brush over the victims' suffering? No. Ultimately, Christianity teaches that there is a being that can, but won't, help these people - and you wonder why we don't drop on bended knee to such a fiend.

 

[KCfromNC]

A biomechanically sound lumbar spine designed for walking upright, for starters.

Not sure if I would design a single tube for air and food intake, either.

At least the designer eventually got eyes correct. The theological implications of her using them for squid rather than humans are pretty interesting, too.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Are you a moral relativist or a moral realist?

If morality is determined by one's cultural practices, then there is no law or standard which you can point to to say ethnicide is objectively wrong.

If morality is not determined by one's cultural practices or personal opinion, but rather, by an objective moral law, then your qualm with ethnicide is actually suggestive of your belief in God.

It's absurd to suggest society can't come up with objective moral standards. You've already stated you intuitively know what's right and wrong, no need to ascribe to an invisible sky being. As a society, we have decided it's wrong to kill others because they're of a different ethnicity. See, pretty simple.

 

[Elioenai26]

None.

You admittedly have not directly engaged in efforts to alleviate famine, nor have engaged in comforting a single rape victim.

This suggests to me that your continual complaints of suffering are born not out of an altruistic and compassionate concern for the suffering, but born out of your desire to portray God as having some sort of moral deficiency.

Despite this, the complaint is suggestive of an underlying assumption that you have that is a constituent of your view of reality.

You assume that it is wrong to not alleviate someone's suffering if they have the ability to do so.

But for you, this view immediately presents several problems. One is that it makes you a hypocrite because you yourself are guilty of the very same thing you accuse God of being guilty of which is not alleviating the suffering of people when you have the ability to do so. You have fed no starving people in famine stricken lands nor have you comforted and consoled the suffering victims of rape. You've said you are a physicist and I assume you make enough money to be able to do what you have yet to do.
Another problem with your complaint is that you are speaking as if God is actually guilty of doing something that should never be done I.e. failing to alleviate suffering when one is able to. Now, if you are a moral relativist then you must admit that these views of yours are nothing more than opinions. You must, if you are a moral relativist, never say that God is actually really wrong for anything He does because there is no real right or wrong that exists independently of the subjective views of persons, but that right and wrong are ultimately determined by one's cultural and personal practices. If you are a moral relativist then saying that God is wrong for not alleviating suffering when He is able to do so is like saying: "I think people that wear tennis shoes are wrong for doing so if they have the ability to wear dress shoes." Its just a matter if personal preference and taste. As such, your complaints really are your expressions of distaste and nothing more.

However, your persistence in repeating the same accusations of God being morally deficient suggest to me that you would have me believe that these views of yours are more than just your opinion or personal preferences. It suggests to me that you are trying to argue that God has failed in a moral duty that should be easily recognizable as being binding on a person to fulfill, regardless of their subjective views.

Is this your view?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

You believe in a God who can't and won't intervene to alleviate suffering, and I don't believe God even exists. Whoever's right, the end result is the same: God isn't helping us.

At the end of the day, after all the posturing and proclamations, this is the crux of it.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

However, your persistence in repeating the same accusations of God being morally deficient suggest to me that you would have me believe that these views of yours are more than just your opinion or personal preferences. It suggests to me that you are trying to argue that God has failed in a moral duty that should be easily recognizable as being binding on a person to fulfill, regardless of their subjective views.

Is this your view?

Yes, if your god exists, it's virtually indistinguishable from no god existing.

 

[Skavau]

You admittedly have not directly engaged in efforts to alleviate famine, nor have engaged in comforting a single rape victim.

So what?

This is irrelevant. People on this planet die needlessly and purely from the evil of other men but from the bad luck of being in the wrong place. Contracting a hard to cure or impossible to cure disease, being present in the wake of a tsunami, an earthquake, a volcanic eruption, tornado or even just a really bad winter storm. This is not character building. This is not suffering for a greater cause. This is pointless carnage and mass slaughter in the presence of a supernatural omniscient entity that could prevent it.

This suggests to me that your continual complaints of suffering are born not out of an altruistic and compassionate concern for the suffering, but born out of your desire to portray God as having some sort of moral deficiency.

With the God you suggest, this is not hard.

Despite this, the complaint is suggestive of an underlying assumption that you have that is a constituent of your view of reality.

You assume that it is wrong to not alleviate someone's suffering if they have the ability to do so.

Yes.

But for you, this view immediately presents several problems. One is that it makes you a hypocrite because you yourself are guilty of the very same thing you accuse God of being guilty of which is not alleviating the suffering of people when you have the ability to do so.

We all. We all might be moral creatures to some degree or another but we are also creatures of comfort and self-interest. That we can't or won't always intervene benevolently on every discovery of suffering does not mean that a God ought not.

You are inadvertently contrasting God's apathy to ours. This is not a good argument.

You have fed no starving people in famine stricken lands nor have you comforted and consoled the suffering victims of rape. You've said you are a physicist and I assume you make enough money to be able to do what you have yet to do.
Another problem with your complaint is that you are speaking as if God is actually guilty of doing something that should never be done I.e. failing to alleviate suffering when one is able to.

Only in your twisted pseudo-moral world-view does anyone dress up suffering as a necessary means to character building. You glorify carnage and sit smugly and proudly over the results.

Now, if you are a moral relativist then you must admit that these views of yours are nothing more than opinions. You must, if you are a moral relativist, never say that God is actually really wrong for anything He does because there is no real right or wrong that exists independently of the subjective views of persons, but that right and wrong are ultimately determined by one's cultural and personal practices.

A good job then that I think precisely no-one you're talking with here self describe as "moral relativists". I certainly don't. When forced into the meaningless "objective vs. subjective" issue insist that morality is subjective (that is to say contingent upon us as it is a human creation) but this is not the same as relativism.

If you are a moral relativist then saying that God is wrong for not alleviating suffering when He is able to do so is like saying: "I think people that wear tennis shoes are wrong for doing so if they have the ability to wear dress shoes." Its just a matter if personal preference and taste. As such, your complaints really are your expressions of distaste and nothing more.

It is not a surprise, given your complete lack of virtue of any form that you would project a non-theistic moral outlook as necessarily equivalent to personal tastes. It also says a lot about your outlook on culture as well.

I don't even consider musical tastes that frivolous.

However, your persistence in repeating the same accusations of God being morally deficient suggest to me that you would have me believe that these views of yours are more than just your opinion or personal preferences. It suggests to me that you are trying to argue that God has failed in a moral duty that should be easily recognizable as being binding on a person to fulfill, regardless of their subjective views.

Yes.

He has.

Is this your view?

It is mine.

 

[Carmella Prochaska]

It would be no different from the awful state it is in now. Corrupt and subject to decay.

For we know that all creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. (Romans 8:22)

And if God really did reveal Himself to certain men known as prophets, they would have known about the coming Messiah.

I see him, but not here and now. I perceive him, but far in the distant future. A star will rise from Jacob; a scepter will emerge from Israel. It will crush the foreheads of Moab’s people, cracking the skulls of the people of Sheth. (Numbers 24:17)