Contemplating the Existence of God in the Face of Evil

[2PhiloVoid]

The youtube transcript doesn't say who is speaking, so I'm not certain what Karen Armstrong said aside from your paraphrase in post #11 ("[a God who] doesn't 'do' something about evil in the world is impotent and basically a waste of our time"). There are lots of possible reasons to attempt to interact with God. A punishment can be as persuasive as a reward. Or in the case of gravity, its affects are neither good nor evil but we must respect gravity. Also there is the possibility of rewards and punishments after death to motivate an interest in God.

Yeah, the the youtube transcription function isn't very user friendly.

I agree that an interest in God could be nudged by the recognition of possible punishments or rewards, but then we'd have to feel that God really "is there" and tangibly present in some way for there to be a cause for persuasion.

But in the case of the Problem of Evil, even as it was originally formulated, it usually provides the argument that Evil undeniably exists in our world, even horrendous evil, and because of this historical (or even daily) reality, we should forgo the idea that God exists or that He is good, etc. etc. I know that you're a bit different in this regard than is the typical hardened atheist, but this is the argument, and one that has been around for a long, long time. Personally, I believe there is suffering, and there is evil, particularly of the moral, even political kind. We can deny it, but to deny it is kind of like believing that I can walk outside naked on a sunny summer day, spend a couple hours out there galloping in the sun, and thinking, "Sunburn, Ha! I laugh at the idea of sunburns!" The reality is that if any of us did that (and many of us do), the reality will result in our suffering, despite our denying it's causal aspects.

And biblically speaking, I'm going to offer just a drop of a tiny notion that if evil does exist, particularly the kinds of evil Jesus/God spoke about, prophesied about, even warned us about, and if we can see that evil is present in political and social contexts as He said there would be, then this could be grounds for surmising that evil really does exist, and thereby God's comments are real, and God is real, even if not tangibly in front of us.

The Jews had a covenant where God promised to reward them and punish them collectively if they followed the Biblical laws. There was probably an increase in atheism among Jews prior to WW2, so the Holocaust could be seen as God's punishment of Jews collectively for allowing unobservant atheist Jews to fester among them. The conquest of Israel by the Assyrians and Judah by the Babylonians was justified in a similar way. (Of course I don't think God sanctioned the Holocaust as a punishment, but I also don't think God sanctioned the conquests by the Assyrians and Babylonians as a punishment.)

Well, one can't be too sure either way. On the flip side, it wouldn't be too much to say that if there is a pattern of anti-christ that has appeared in history, that Hitler at least fit the typology, even if he himself wasn't some Grand Anti-Christ.

In the case of Jesus there is a promise to clean up the mess when He returns from heaven. So that's not a problem either.

You're definitely more flexible in that regard then. I've heard and read many comments from atheists that with a promise of fulfillment or no promise of fulfillment, God failed. And they think that if God does exist, then He at least isn't good. Thus, the Problem of Evil raises its head for many people.

I don't think there is a problem of evil.

...you've never been the brunt of someone's else's discourteousness or oppressive outbursts?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, I would say that I came to the conclusion that the core problem was suffering, and not evil. That led me to Buddhism.

Ok. I'll accept that this is your present viewpoint. It solves the Problem of Evil for you by removing you to an alternative consciousness that reorients how you perceive and account for the world and its problems. This does a lot for you, but it doesn't do as much for those who see the presence of Evil in the world as a problem that needs more than "inaction" to cure.

 

[ananda]

Ok. I'll accept that this is your present viewpoint. It solves the Problem of Evil for you by removing you to an alternative consciousness that reorients how you perceive and account for the world and its problems. This does a lot for you, but it doesn't do as much for those who see the presence of Evil in the world as a problem that needs more than "inaction" to cure.

How do you define "evil"?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How do you define "evil"?

...for me, evil is that which intrudes into my world and breaks the illusion that I'm just dreaming and that it's all 'ok.' I realized this as a child and didn't need anyone to teach this to me.

It's also those real and felt causes of pain that wrack my mind and body, as well as of those associated with the cries which issue forth from my fellow human beings. And if this isn't a definition of evil--if it isn't one that we all can empathize with--then surely it is the beginning of such a definition.

It's also my recognition that many of the things that people suffer in their lives are not due to a moral fault of their own, but that of a perpetrator; and even if there are other things suffered due to our own carelessness or unethical complicity, we also we not always fully at fault for all of these in the suffering that transpired. This too, is a part of how I know what evil is.

And it is these things, or these processes of recognition, that I think typically catalyze our awareness of evil in the world, even if we can't 'name' the evil, and even if we haven't been taught this.

Of course, I'd be remiss to say that in my own life, religion has played a part, although later rather than earlier, in helping me to further refine and further recognize the presence of evil in the world.

This is the general process that I've experienced in my own life, and I surmise that, unless a person is a sociopath or psychopath, most people will share in at least some of the general intuitions I've shared above as to what evil "is."

Then religion (and ethics) comes in to give us more to think by way of collective input and contributes in turn to what we might do about evil.

 

[ananda]

...for me, evil is that which intrudes into my world and breaks the illusion that I'm just dreaming and that it's all 'ok.' I realized this as a child and didn't need anyone to teach this to me.

It's also those real and felt causes of pain that wrack my mind and body, as well as of those associated with the cries which issue forth from my fellow human beings. And if this isn't a definition of evil--if it isn't one that we all can empathize with--then surely it is the beginning of such a definition.

It's also my recognition that many of the things that people suffer in their lives are not due to a moral fault of their own, but that of a perpetrator; and even if there are other things suffered due to our own carelessness or unethical complicity, we also we not always fully at fault for all of these in the suffering that transpired. This too, is a part of how I know what evil is.

And it is these things, or these processes of recognition, that I think typically catalyze our awareness of evil in the world, even if we can't 'name' the evil, and even if we haven't been taught this.

Of course, I'd be remise to say that in my own life, religion has played a part, rather later than earlier, in helping me to further refine and further recognize the presence of evil in the world.

This is the general process that I've experienced in my own life, and I surmise that, unless a person is a sociopath or psychopath, most people will share in at least some of the general intuitions I've shared above as to what evil "is."

Then religion (and ethics) comes in to give us more to think by way of collective input and contributes in turn to what we might do about evil.

Thanks for sharing.

"Evil" can't just be things which break our illusions - many of those things are skillful, and lead to our growth into maturity.

Otherwise, what's left in your definition seems to agree with mine - that which involves pain & suffering.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thanks for sharing.

"Evil" can't just be things which break our illusions - many of those things are skillful, and lead to our growth into maturity.

Right, which is why I also had those additional statements to the first one ...

I wouldn't say that those who represent law and order are evil if they intrude. But, again, the context of my statements, collectively, is about those seemingly 'bad' and 'damaging' things that intrude into our lives and knock out the peace we might otherwise attempt to have. For a Christian such as myself, evil could be a tornado; it could also be Satanic influences which in someway impede or intrude into my life.

Otherwise, what's left in your definition seems to agree with mine - that which involves pain & suffering.

... I wouldn't be surprised. It's not as if everything the Buddha said was wrong.

 

[bling]

Everything is driven by man’s objective.

God doing or causing or allowing everything to happen that will help willing individuals fulfill their earthly objective. This “everything would include: Christ going to the cross, satan roaming the earth, tragedies of all kinds, hell and even sin to occur.

Evil is actually needed in the world to help some fulfill their earthly objective.

I see the messed up world as being the very best situation for willing humans to fulfill their earthly objective, so I see evidence for the existence of God in the evil which exist.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Everything is driven by man’s objective.

God doing or causing or allowing everything to happen that will help willing individuals fulfill their earthly objective. This “everything would include: Christ going to the cross, satan roaming the earth, tragedies of all kinds, hell and even sin to occur.

Evil is actually needed in the world to help some fulfill their earthly objective.

This sounds a bit like Christian philosopher, Richard Swinburne's position on the issue, part of which is shown in the OP video at minutes 31:45 - 33:30. However, Peter Atkins's brief but vitriolic response to Swinburne in the few seconds after Swinnburne speaks seems to imply that we Christians speak nonsense because when we say this kind of thing, it's usually those of us who do so from the comfort of our Lazy Boy recliners in our well-fed and airconditioned homes, not in the Killing Fields of massacres here and there.

I see the messed up world as being the very best situation for willing humans to fulfill their earthly objective, so I see evidence for the existence of God in the evil which exist.

I can agree with that, but do you have a specific example of something 'evil' that you believe illustrates the veracity of God's ideas in the Bible or of His actual presence in the World?

[Good comments, bling. Thanks! ]

 

[bling]

This sounds a bit like Christian philosopher, Richard Swinburne's position on the issue, part of which is shown in the OP video at minutes 31:45 - 33:30. However, Peter Atkins's brief but vitriolic response to Swinburne in the few seconds after Swinnburne speaks seems to imply that we Christians speak nonsense because when we say this kind of thing, it's usually those of us who do so from the comfort of our Lazy Boy recliners in our well-fed and airconditioned homes, not in the Killing Fields of massacres here and there.

First off: I agree with Peter Atkins's, but that does not make it any less true. I also have heard it from Christians going through severe persecution in Communist China where at the same time the unregistered Church is growing rapidly.

I can agree with that, but do you have a specific example of something 'evil' that you believe illustrates the veracity of God's ideas in the Bible or of His actual presence in the World?

[Good comments, bling. Thanks! ]

The greatest “evil” that ever happened was to Christ and yet we can all see the “benefit” which resulted.

I think the Communist Government in China and Korea is evil yet they seem to be helping the growth of Christianity in those countries. The Christians there are a great witness for me.

I also have experience working with fanatical Christians in prison, who put their lives on the line every day, yet were growing spiritually and in number rapidly. I learned a great deal from them, because they were spiritual giants compared to me while they were under the harshest conditions.

The Christians I know in who are in the most evil places seem to be growing the fastest, while those Christians in the easiest of situations seem to mostly be withering.

We all think we would be happiest in a Garden of Eden situation, but our greatest all human representatives showed us it was a lousy place to fulfill your earthly objective. Outside the Garden after sinning under hardship was a much better place.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

First off: I agree with Peter Atkins's, but that does not make it any less true. I also have heard it from Christians going through severe persecution in Communist China where at the same time the unregistered Church is growing rapidly.

Ok. That's an interesting, and practical, point I hadn't thought of before. What do you think accounts for the growth of Christianity when Christian people experience duress and other hardship at the hands of the governing powers? (To some extent, although maybe a lesser one, this would parallel what the Jews experienced under the Nazis).

The greatest “evil” that ever happened was to Christ and yet we can all see the “benefit” which resulted.

I think the Communist Government in China and Korea is evil yet they seem to be helping the growth of Christianity in those countries. The Christians there are a great witness for me.

I also have experience working with fanatical Christians in prison, who put their lives on the line every day, yet were growing spiritually and in number rapidly. I learned a great deal from them, because they were spiritual giants compared to me while they were under the harshest conditions.

That's another good example. Why do you think the prison environment brings growth of this kind? [I'm not sure it does myself, but since you have worked in among inmantes, I know you'll have a more 'insider' view on this.]

The Christians I know in who are in the most evil places seem to be growing the fastest, while those Christians in the easiest of situations seem to mostly be withering.

We all think we would be happiest in a Garden of Eden situation, but our greatest all human representatives showed us it was a lousy place to fulfill your earthly objective. Outside the Garden after sinning under hardship was a much better place.

I don't know that the Moses' account in Genesis is meant to infer that the Garden of Eden was a lousy place to live. You may have to explain what you mean by "earthly objective." Is this a human created objective, or a God-given one? I think this qualification will play into how we evaluate any aspects of evil that relate to the situation Adam and Eve were in.

 

[quatona]

As we all know, our world is beset by the periodic presence of moral and natural evil, some of it is of catastrophic significance, displacing cities, maiming bodies, and at times ending lives. Sometimes tragic events happen that are seemingly unexpected, like a massive tsunami, or surreptitious in nature like the bullets of a homicidal maniac. Whether we like it or not, at some point, all of us will in fact experience the evil of death, a biological phenomenon that has a 1:1 ratio—everyone experiences it.

Yet, in the midst of the various sufferings and other evil that humanity is subject to, Christians of all sorts hold out the hope that the God they worship through the person of Jesus Christ will some day make Good on all of His promises and bring the evils of the world to a final end, a state in which suffering and death are done away.

Obviously, Christians have had to defend the supposed legitimacy of their faith from those who, having not found that the Christian God can be exonerated from having apparently failed to eradicate evil immediately and sufficiently, carry an ongoing critique of the religion that promises so much for the future.

Today, Christian apologists continue to defend the ideas of the existence and the goodness of God, with various arguments and with various results. However, what is not often heard is that evil, or at least some aspects of the kinds of evils we find in the world may actually count, or should count, as evidence FOR God's existence and goodness, rather than against them. In fact, it might not be to much to say that the number 666 in the book of Revelation represents the kind of evil that, if recognized, can count toward the legitimacy of the Bible. And there may be other kinds of evil that also count towrd this as well.

I think the PoE isn´t an argument against biblegod´s existence, seeing biblegod´s self-characterisation in Isaiah 45:7: "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think the PoE isn´t an argument against biblegod´s existence, seeing biblegod´s self-characterisation in Isaiah 45:7: "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.".

As you many times do, you make a good point here. You see that evil doesn't by necessity have to count against God, and I see this, but many like Peter Atkins in the OP video who identify as "atheists" lean toward the contrary. But, I guess that's why you're a "seeker" rather than a merely contented atheist, quatona.

Now...about those 'disasters' spoken of in the verse you've quoted. Do you think that what Isaiah speaks about here is natural, or instead moral, in substance. In other words, what 'kind' of evil is it?

 

[bling]

Ok. That's an interesting, and practical, point I hadn't thought of before. What do you think accounts for the growth of Christianity when Christian people experience duress and other hardship at the hands of the governing powers? (To some extent, although maybe a lesser one, this would parallel what the Jews experienced under the Nazis).

It is hard to be a hypocrite in a church which is being severely persecuted, you are either committed or leave.

Severe persecution will eliminate the differences in the insignificant stuff separating a lot of denominations in the west and the truth will prevail.

I have for years now been involved with the underground Church in China (being in the USA, I cannot do much directly).

40 years ago Christianity was virtually wiped out in China, all full time ministers were sent to concentration camps never to be seen again, except for the government approved “churches” that were very restricted. All religious books were burned and outlawed. Today the Bible is fairly easily obtained for a few dollars at registered churches (the government has printed about 100 million Bibles and sees it as a positive moral influence). We all assumed there were no native Christians left in China. The news today is that there might be as many as 100 million Christians in the underground churches in China and it is growing fast.

These Chinese Christian have only the Bible, yet they all seem to be teaching the exact same doctrine. From what I heard the Government established their “creed” for them, by publicly listing out what Christians “could not teach”, which became the list for what they taught: Christ the son of God, crucified, buried three days and rose, communion, forgiveness of sin, baptism, heaven and hell. They all seem to practice: believer emersion baptism to show a commitment to Christ, count the cost is very much emphasized, sacrificially helping other, and training everyone to teach since they are limited in size to groups of 20 or so they have to keep splitting up as they grow (they do not just make converts, but make disciples. The highest position in the church is unpaid small home church leader, so there is no hierarchal system with sought after high paying jobs. They do sometimes have unpaid elders.

For years the Communist Government toned down their hard line opposition to Christianity to appease the international governments while they were economically growing, but with a down turn in their economy they have stepped up persecution and still wants to have some “control” over the underground Christian Church. They have acknowledged verbally that they cannot stop these Christian and in some ways are envious of their commitment and morals.

That's another good example. Why do you think the prison environment brings growth of this kind? [I'm not sure it does myself, but since you have worked in among inmantes, I know you'll have a more 'insider' view on this.]

My experience went like this:

I got thrown into (volunteered if needed) with the youth (13-21 age) prisoners program teaching Bible (one hour on Sunday morning to a group of 14 with three other Christians teaching groups of 14) and taught three groups of “Christians”. The first group is guys (going to school it is called) that start out their stay causing trouble getting thrown in the tank. Then they start increasingly attending the services, carrying their Bible, being nice, and say they are Christians. By the time the parole board meets they have this glowing report showing continued improvement tied to their increased spirituality and are released. These guys still carry weapons, are members of a gang, and every prisoner know they just “went to school” to get out. The second group were converted before they went to prison (grandma conversions), but watch raunchy TV, hung with a loss group, laugh at off colored jokes, are not always talking about Jesus and are not trying to convert others. Their first day in prison the snitches see this, the snitches talk to the Bulls that approach these “Christians” saying you are not a Christian (doing everything Christ would do) and make them a slave (often sexual) or at best gang member. They still come to Bible study on Sunday so they can tell Granny (who visits them Sunday afternoon) what they learned, but they are slaves (sometimes sexually) to some bull. The third group is fanatical, they stick close to each other, they: study, pray, witness to everyone, and avoid even a hint of insincerity that the snitches could see. They carry no weapons, but step between those that are being beaten especially in persecution. This group had grown over the last 3 years from just a couple of guys to now 42, but it came at a high price. Each convert had on the day he was baptized given up the protection of his gang membership, turned over his weapons along with all his possessions (the gang owns everything including them), they were beaten if not by the gang they left, then by other gangs looking for payback and then they were watch constantly looking for any sign the snitches might interpret as weakness (anything less than what Christ would do in the situation, would result in a beating and it could be to death). There is absolutely no privacy and these Christians never wanted to be found alone. They slept in barracks where at least one stayed awake all night praying over them so they could sleep without the fear of being smashed in the head in the middle of the night. These guys believed and counted on power from the Holy Spirit, I did not know existed. They come battered and bruised each week hungry for some real meaningful Christ like lesson that goes beyond their group study of 40+hours that week on the same subject, which I could not provide. They mostly helped me with my poor example of Christianity and lack of knowledge and lack of wisdom. They mentored me even though they were only Christian for a few months, but I was a poor disciple and could not keep up with them.

Maybe we do not see the Spirit working in us because we quench Him or are not in situations of really needing Him. Severe persecution brings out the Spirit in those who have the Spirit.

I don't know that the Moses' account in Genesis is meant to infer that the Garden of Eden was a lousy place to live. You may have to explain what you mean by "earthly objective." Is this a human created objective, or a God-given one? I think this qualification will play into how we evaluate any aspects of evil that relate to the situation Adam and Eve were in.

I did not say the Garden was “a lousy place to live”, but a lousy place to fulfill our earthly objective. The Garden is like heaven on earth so it would be wonderful in that respect.

Starting with God, God is Love (the epitome of Love), which means God is totally unselfish and is not doing stuff for His own sake, but is doing everything for the sake of man which is also God’s desire and might be referred to as His sake.

God would be doing or allowing everything to help humans who are just willing to fulfill their earthly objective.

Man’s objective is found in the God given Mission statement of: Loving God (and secondly Loving others) with all your heart, soul, mind and energy. In order to fulfill that mission man must first obtain Godly type Love which will make man like God Himself in that man will Love like God Loves.

What we can thank Adam and Eve for is showing us that what we might consider the ideal situation is a lousy situation for man to fulfill his earthly objective. Adam and Eve as our very best all human representatives did not fulfill the objective while sinless in the Garden and really could not. The situation after sinning outside the Garden did provide a way to fulfill the objective.

Again the objective is not to never ever sin, but to obtain Godly type Love is the first of man’s objective.

There are just something even an all-powerful Creator cannot do (there are things impossible to do), the big inability for us is create humans with instinctive Godly type Love, since Godly type Love is not instinctive. Godly type love has to be the result of a free will decision by the being, to make it the person’s Love apart from God. In other words: If the Love was in a human from the human’s creation it would be a robotic type love and not a Godly type Love. Also if God “forces” this Love on a person (Kind a like a shotgun wedding) it would not be “loving” on God’s part and the love forced on the person would not be Godly type love. This Love has to be the result of a free will moral choice with real alternatives (for humans those alternatives include the perceived pleasures of sin for a season.)


This Love is way beyond anything humans could develop, obtain, learn, earn, pay back or even deserve, so it must be the result of a gift that is accepted or rejected (a free will choice).



This “Love” is much more than just an emotional feeling; it is God Himself (God is Love). If you see this Love you see God.

All mature adults do stuff that hurts others (this is called sin) these transgressions weigh on them burden them to the point the individual seeks relief (at least early on before they allow their hearts to be hardened). Lots of “alternatives” can be tried for relief, but the only true relief comes from God with forgiveness (this forgiveness is pure charity [grace/mercy/Love]). The correct humble acceptance of this Forgiveness (Charity) automatically will result in Love (we are taught by Jesus and our own experience “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…”). Sin is thus made hugely significant, so there will be an unbelievable huge debt to be forgiven of and thus result in an unbelievable huge “Love” (Godly type Love).

That is an introduction

 

[cloudyday2]

Action is inherently "evil", because it results in and perpetuates suffering, to a greater or lesser degree

We (Buddhists) trace the issue in this manner: the root cause - ignorance > (causes) activity/action > consciousness > craving > clinging > rebirth > aging, death, suffering.

I've been thinking about your use of "action". In the Hindu lecture I watched, the professor discussed the Bhagavad Gita. As I recall the argument was that karma binds a person to redeath (Hindus used "redeath" rather than "rebirth" because it was a negative thing). Every action creates karma - even doing nothing is an action that creates karma. So how to escape redeath? The solution was "action without attachment to its fruits".

I don't quite understand the Hindu idea but it seems to differ slightly from the Buddhist idea (which I also don't understand LOL). Any thoughts?

 

[quatona]

As you many times do, you make a good point here. You see that evil doesn't by necessity have to count against God, and I see this, but many like Peter Atkins in the OP video who identify as "atheists" lean toward the contrary.

Well, it seems to me that the issue doesn´t originate with the atheists - rather it originates with the Christian theological idea that God is all-good.

Now...about those 'disasters' spoken of in the verse you've quoted. Do you think that what Isaiah speaks about here is natural, or instead moral, in substance. In other words, what 'kind' of evil is it?

What do I know?? I don´t speak ancient Hebrew nor Greek, but when I look at the various translations of this verse, I also get "good times", "calamities", "evil (!)", and even "preparing evil".
But, to be quite frank, the meaning seems to be quite universal, general and unqualified. "I create the positive and I create the negative", if you will. And, imo, it takes a lot of mental gymnastics in order to make it look like saying something else - driven by the will to have it support (or at least not clash with) your favourite theological idea of God.
If God is the creator of the universe, it is downright absurd to try to say "but this is not God´s product".
(Note also how e.g. the theological defense claims "darkness is just the absence of light" or "evil is just the absence of good" are rejected here before they have been made: All of this is created by God.)

Whether the distinction "natural vs. moral evil" is relevant here at all, hinges on whether you define God as omnisicent or not. If going with the first, I doubt that you can come up with a definition of "moral good" that is compatible with creating or preparing even only natural disasters, calamities, evil or bad times.

I think the idea "God is all good" is downright unsustainable, even though it is theologically popular, and this gets pretty obvious when I look at the inconsistencies it creates that are only thinly veiled by desperate theological ad hoc rationalizations. I think both you and I should welcome Christianity to let go off this idea: 1. It would actually give space to a consistent theology, and 2. you wouldn´t have to put up with the PoE as an argument against the existence of Christian-god anymore.

 

[ananda]

I've been thinking about your use of "action". In the Hindu lecture I watched, the professor discussed the Bhagavad Gita. As I recall the argument was that karma binds a person to redeath (Hindus used "redeath" rather than "rebirth" because it was a negative thing). Every action creates karma - even doing nothing is an action that creates karma. So how to escape redeath? The solution was "action without attachment to its fruits".

I don't quite understand the Hindu idea but it seems to differ slightly from the Buddhist idea (which I also don't understand LOL). Any thoughts?

In Buddhist thought, the only point in the paticca-samuppada/kammic cycle (ignorance > (causes) activity/action > consciousness > craving > clinging > rebirth > aging, death, suffering > ignorance ... etc.) where we possess power to interrupt the cycle is over our craving.

Consequently, we have the four noble truths, which analyzes and proposes a solution to the paticca-samuppada cycle: 1. (diagnosis) life is filled with suffering, 2. (cause) craving leads to re-becoming/life, which leads to suffering, 3. (prognosis) cessation of craving leads to the cessation of suffering, and 4. (prescription) the Eightfold Path leads to the cessation of craving.

(As a side note, this ability to interrupt the kammic cycle at the point of craving implies that both determinism & free-will is in play.)

 

[Moral Orel]

Swineburn gave one explanation about how goodness sometimes comes from having the ability to alleviate suffering. He didn't give examples, but I can imagine something of the sort that if there weren't people suffering of poverty, then others wouldn't have the opportunity to be generous and sharing. Which is true, but I compare it to Munchausen by Proxy. Creating a problem to have the opportunity to solve it. I've heard his sentiment repeated before, and I agree with the atheists and theists who called his views obscene.

 

[quatona]

Swineburn gave one explanation about how goodness sometimes comes from having the ability to alleviate suffering. He didn't give examples, but I can imagine something of the sort that if there weren't people suffering of poverty, then others wouldn't have the opportunity to be generous and sharing. Which is true, but I compare it to Munchausen by Proxy. Creating a problem to have the opportunity to solve it. I've heard his sentiment repeated before, and I agree with the atheists and theists who called his views obscene.

I do not agree fully with you here. While I agree that creating a problem in order to solve it and then praise the solution as though it were more than a solution to the created problem is somewhat obscene (and this is what some post theological post hoc and ad hoc rationalizations often do), it seems to me that conscious, aware life necessarily is change, and change comes with more or less pleasant states and sensations. On top of that, from my conscious, aware perspective this is exactly what I appreciate life for. The boredom of a constant state of unchanging contentness is an unbearable scenario, to me.
Creating problems in order to solve them and to create suffering in order to be able to enjoy the relief from it is what humans do all the time, and they do it for fun. Games, riddles, challenges, sports...
Thus, while suffering is of course not pleasant at the point where I encounter it, I have no reason to complain about being in the state of experiencing changes (which necessarily include suffering).
Thus, from where I stand, I´d neither have a ground for accusing an entity (assuming for a moment there existed such) that has created this opportunity for being alive, aware, conscious, experiencing, feeling,...
(Interestingly though, once you adopt this view, Heaven as the final solution doesn´t make any sense whatsoever anymore.)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Swineburn gave one explanation about how goodness sometimes comes from having the ability to alleviate suffering. He didn't give examples, but I can imagine something of the sort that if there weren't people suffering of poverty, then others wouldn't have the opportunity to be generous and sharing. Which is true, but I compare it to Munchausen by Proxy. Creating a problem to have the opportunity to solve it. I've heard his sentiment repeated before, and I agree with the atheists and theists who called his views obscene.

I can see your point, Nick, but only on a practical level. If we are going to assume that God is a Transcendent being, above and beyond the consideration of basic human practicality, and above even the constructs of Creation (i.e. our universe and everything in it), can you think of some ways in which the "Munchausen by Proxy" refutation may break down and Swinburne's arguments might gain some relevance?

By the way, thanks for taking the time to at least watch the Swinburne bit in the OP video.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It is hard to be a hypocrite in a church which is being severely persecuted, you are either committed or leave.

Severe persecution will eliminate the differences in the insignificant stuff separating a lot of denominations in the west and the truth will prevail.

I have for years now been involved with the underground Church in China (being in the USA, I cannot do much directly).

40 years ago Christianity was virtually wiped out in China, all full time ministers were sent to concentration camps never to be seen again, except for the government approved “churches” that were very restricted. All religious books were burned and outlawed. Today the Bible is fairly easily obtained for a few dollars at registered churches (the government has printed about 100 million Bibles and sees it as a positive moral influence). We all assumed there were no native Christians left in China. The news today is that there might be as many as 100 million Christians in the underground churches in China and it is growing fast.

These Chinese Christian have only the Bible, yet they all seem to be teaching the exact same doctrine. From what I heard the Government established their “creed” for them, by publicly listing out what Christians “could not teach”, which became the list for what they taught: Christ the son of God, crucified, buried three days and rose, communion, forgiveness of sin, baptism, heaven and hell. They all seem to practice: believer emersion baptism to show a commitment to Christ, count the cost is very much emphasized, sacrificially helping other, and training everyone to teach since they are limited in size to groups of 20 or so they have to keep splitting up as they grow (they do not just make converts, but make disciples. The highest position in the church is unpaid small home church leader, so there is no hierarchal system with sought after high paying jobs. They do sometimes have unpaid elders.

For years the Communist Government toned down their hard line opposition to Christianity to appease the international governments while they were economically growing, but with a down turn in their economy they have stepped up persecution and still wants to have some “control” over the underground Christian Church. They have acknowledged verbally that they cannot stop these Christian and in some ways are envious of their commitment and morals.

This is a great evaluation of the state of things in China, blinny. Just by laying this out for us, I think we see some evidence for the presence of the spirit of anti-christ, a 'kind' of political evil that through Christ we knew be coming into the world.

My experience went like this:

I got thrown into (volunteered if needed) with the youth (13-21 age) prisoners program teaching Bible (one hour on Sunday morning to a group of 14 with three other Christians teaching groups of 14) and taught three groups of “Christians”. The first group is guys (going to school it is called) that start out their stay causing trouble getting thrown in the tank. Then they start increasingly attending the services, carrying their Bible, being nice, and say they are Christians. By the time the parole board meets they have this glowing report showing continued improvement tied to their increased spirituality and are released. These guys still carry weapons, are members of a gang, and every prisoner know they just “went to school” to get out. The second group were converted before they went to prison (grandma conversions), but watch raunchy TV, hung with a loss group, laugh at off colored jokes, are not always talking about Jesus and are not trying to convert others. Their first day in prison the snitches see this, the snitches talk to the Bulls that approach these “Christians” saying you are not a Christian (doing everything Christ would do) and make them a slave (often sexual) or at best gang member. They still come to Bible study on Sunday so they can tell Granny (who visits them Sunday afternoon) what they learned, but they are slaves (sometimes sexually) to some bull. The third group is fanatical, they stick close to each other, they: study, pray, witness to everyone, and avoid even a hint of insincerity that the snitches could see. They carry no weapons, but step between those that are being beaten especially in persecution. This group had grown over the last 3 years from just a couple of guys to now 42, but it came at a high price. Each convert had on the day he was baptized given up the protection of his gang membership, turned over his weapons along with all his possessions (the gang owns everything including them), they were beaten if not by the gang they left, then by other gangs looking for payback and then they were watch constantly looking for any sign the snitches might interpret as weakness (anything less than what Christ would do in the situation, would result in a beating and it could be to death). There is absolutely no privacy and these Christians never wanted to be found alone. They slept in barracks where at least one stayed awake all night praying over them so they could sleep without the fear of being smashed in the head in the middle of the night. These guys believed and counted on power from the Holy Spirit, I did not know existed. They come battered and bruised each week hungry for some real meaningful Christ like lesson that goes beyond their group study of 40+hours that week on the same subject, which I could not provide. They mostly helped me with my poor example of Christianity and lack of knowledge and lack of wisdom. They mentored me even though they were only Christian for a few months, but I was a poor disciple and could not keep up with them.

Maybe we do not see the Spirit working in us because we quench Him or are not in situations of really needing Him. Severe persecution brings out the Spirit in those who have the Spirit.

That's an awesome, firsthand account, blinny! I didn't know you had those experiencing. Thanks for sharing this testimony.

I did not say the Garden was “a lousy place to live”, but a lousy place to fulfill our earthly objective. The Garden is like heaven on earth so it would be wonderful in that respect.

Starting with God, God is Love (the epitome of Love), which means God is totally unselfish and is not doing stuff for His own sake, but is doing everything for the sake of man which is also God’s desire and might be referred to as His sake.

God would be doing or allowing everything to help humans who are just willing to fulfill their earthly objective.

Man’s objective is found in the God given Mission statement of: Loving God (and secondly Loving others) with all your heart, soul, mind and energy. In order to fulfill that mission man must first obtain Godly type Love which will make man like God Himself in that man will Love like God Loves.

What we can thank Adam and Eve for is showing us that what we might consider the ideal situation is a lousy situation for man to fulfill his earthly objective. Adam and Eve as our very best all human representatives did not fulfill the objective while sinless in the Garden and really could not. The situation after sinning outside the Garden did provide a way to fulfill the objective.

Again the objective is not to never ever sin, but to obtain Godly type Love is the first of man’s objective.

There are just something even an all-powerful Creator cannot do (there are things impossible to do), the big inability for us is create humans with instinctive Godly type Love, since Godly type Love is not instinctive. Godly type love has to be the result of a free will decision by the being, to make it the person’s Love apart from God. In other words: If the Love was in a human from the human’s creation it would be a robotic type love and not a Godly type Love. Also if God “forces” this Love on a person (Kind a like a shotgun wedding) it would not be “loving” on God’s part and the love forced on the person would not be Godly type love. This Love has to be the result of a free will moral choice with real alternatives (for humans those alternatives include the perceived pleasures of sin for a season.)

This Love is way beyond anything humans could develop, obtain, learn, earn, pay back or even deserve, so it must be the result of a gift that is accepted or rejected (a free will choice).

This “Love” is much more than just an emotional feeling; it is God Himself (God is Love). If you see this Love you see God.

All mature adults do stuff that hurts others (this is called sin) these transgressions weigh on them burden them to the point the individual seeks relief (at least early on before they allow their hearts to be hardened). Lots of “alternatives” can be tried for relief, but the only true relief comes from God with forgiveness (this forgiveness is pure charity [grace/mercy/Love]). The correct humble acceptance of this Forgiveness (Charity) automatically will result in Love (we are taught by Jesus and our own experience “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…”). Sin is thus made hugely significant, so there will be an unbelievable huge debt to be forgiven of and thus result in an unbelievable huge “Love” (Godly type Love).

That is an introduction

...that is some introduction. Wow!