ISIS and God

[ebia]

You've forgotten the question of the OP that you didn't address?

"the question" and "it" are referring back to the OP?

I specifically don't want the instructions in fairy tale, so that's a bad translation you've got going.

Not too hot on analogy either, then?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It's not a story for small children.
But your response reveals your presumption - that story as teaching is always at a small child level.

Nonsense. I accept that stories are a good way to impart lessons, even to adults. It's that this particular story does not answer the question you claim it does. And I think even a small child could tell you that.

You clearly haven't read the story without removing your blinkers.

I have read it more times than it is worth reading. It doesn't answer the question. In fact, it adds more questions: how can omniscient being feel regret? Why would a benevolent and omnipotent being choose such a destructive method for ridding the world of evil? Couldn't God foresee this situation arising, allowing him to act earlier to prevent it? And so on... The story makes God look incompetent and malevolent.

 

[variant]

Not too hot on analogy either, then?

I prefer my parables to at least specially address the content of the question they are supposed to address.

 

[ebia]

Nonsense. I accept that stories are a good way to impart lessons, even to adults. It's that this particular story does not answer the question you claim it does.

Clearly it does address exactly that question.
It presents exactly the scenario of ultimate evil, and runs the thought experiment "what if God just wiped it all out" through to its answering conclusion.

I have read it more times than it is worth reading. It doesn't answer the question. In fact, it adds more questions: how can omniscient being feel regret? Why would a benevolent and omnipotent being choose such a destructive method for ridding the world of evil? Couldn't God foresee this situation arising, allowing him to act earlier to prevent it?

Imposing all those questions is exactly NOT allowing the story to speak for itself, speaking to the topic it wants to address.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Clearly it does address exactly that question.

It addresses it poorly.

It presents exactly the scenario of ultimate evil, and runs the thought experiment "what if God just wiped it all out" through to its answering conclusion.

And in doing so it depicts an incompetent and malevolent deity who apparently knows no better way of addressing evil than by wanton destruction.

Imposing all those questions is exactly NOT allowing the story to speak for itself, speaking to the topic it wants to address.

Who is "imposing" such questions on the story? These questions naturally arise from the story itself.

 

[ebia]

It addresses it poorly

And in doing so it depicts an incompetent and malevolent deity who apparently knows no better way of addressing evil than by wanton destruction.

again imposing a different question on the text ("what is God like" or "how would God address this") rather than let the story answer its own question.

Who is "imposing" such questions on the story?

you are

 

[ebia]

I prefer my parables to at least specially address the content of the question they are supposed to address.

It's a perfectly good analogy to illustrate why its not appropriate to demand an answer in an inappropriate genre.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

again imposing a different question on the text ("what is God like" or "how would God address this") rather than let the story answer its own question.




you are

A different question? The question is, if I'm not mistaken, why doesn't God intervene to prevent evil in the world. You claim that the story of the Flood addresses this. Time to be specific: in what way does this story address that question?

 

[ebia]

A different question? The question is, if I'm not mistaken, why doesn't God intervene to prevent evil in the world. You claim that the story of the Flood addresses this. Time to be specific: in what way does this story address that question?

A story addresses it as a story. My assertion all along is that that needs to be left as a story, not translated into some less good medium. So long as people keep demanding the answer translated into a non-narrative form they aren't really accepting that stories themselves are good pedagogy, despite protestations like "Nonsense. I accept that stories are a good way to impart lessons, even to adults."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

A story addresses it as a story.

Obviously. But that's not the question I'm asking. I'm asking you to distill the answer the story gives to this question. What does it tell us?

My assertion all along is that that needs to be left as a story, not translated into some less good medium. So long as people keep demanding the answer translated into a non-narrative form they aren't really accepting that stories themselves are good pedagogy, despite protestations like "Nonsense. I accept that stories are a good way to impart lessons, even to adults."

Stories that have pedagogic value impart some sort of lesson. What is the lesson of this story? What's the message, in your view?

 

[ebia]

Obviously. But that's not the question I'm asking. I'm asking you to distill the answer the story gives to this question. What does it tell us?



Stories that have pedagogic value impart some sort of lesson.

Of course - thats a truism.

And the best stories teach a lesson that way precisely because story is the right way of teaching the lesson.

A demand to distill the lesson assumes that (a) the lesson is something independent of the pedagogy (b) that only happens to be taught via story and can equally or better be put in some other form.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Of course - thats a truism.

And the best stories teach a lesson that way precisely because story is the right way of teaching the lesson.

A demand to distill the lesson assumes that (a) the lesson is something independent of the pedagogy (b) that only happens to be taught via story and can equally or better be put in some other form.

You're obfuscating now. If the story is to have any pedagogic value, there must be some lesson it imparts. What's the lesson?

 

[ebia]

You're obfuscating now. If the story is to have any pedagogic value, there must be some lesson it imparts. What's the lesson?

"there must be a lesson"

and

"that lesson can be properly formulated as a propositional statement"

are not equivalent. If they were, we wouldn't need stories to teach the lesson.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

"there must be a lesson"

and

"that lesson can be properly formulated as a propositional statement"

are not equivalent. If they were, we wouldn't need stories to teach the lesson.

And the lesson is...?

 

[variant]

It's a perfectly good analogy to illustrate why its not appropriate to demand an answer in an inappropriate genre.

You're the one claiming the story contains an answer to the question not me.

 

[Colter]

Hello all,

It seems that every day we read of some new shocking brutality that ISIS has committed against one of their victims. If the reports are true, they engage in torture, murderous executions, the sexual slavery of women and children, and many other awful brutalities. My question, however, revolves around ISIS and an understanding of theology. Does the existence of a group like ISIS cause you to doubt/question God or does/did it even drive you to outright atheism? We could consider the following points:

1) Obviously, God has refused to intervene to stop ISIS
2) God created all the ISIS members (genetically speaking) and knew what they would do prior them even being born
3) And, of course, God could easily rescue the ISIS' victims of murder/sexual slavery and has not done so
4) When we come to Christian theology, Jesus Christ died on the cross for everyone (this would include ISIS members) and offers them forgiveness if they obey his commands - is this justified?

In short, what theological conclusions can you draw from the existence of a group like ISIS?

* The Pagan interpretation of Jesus dying as a sacrifice for sins wasn't the original gospel that Jesus preached to the Jews.

* People wait fir God to do something that man should be doing himself.

 

[Achilles6129]

Were the infants, children, and animals who drowned all "evil people"?

Well, the bottom line is that we just don't know. We only have a limited amount of knowledge while God does not. Obviously the Creator of the universe knows alot more than we do so he can make a correct decision regarding the choice to destroy the entire planet. We can't. I think you're forgetting that you're talking about the Creator of the universe here, not a human being.

I have read it more times than it is worth reading.

Just a small point: there's a difference between "reading" and "studying." Have you ever studied the Flood narrative, in detail?

It doesn't answer the question. In fact, it adds more questions: how can omniscient being feel regret?

That's a great theological question which I've started threads on before. Just FYI, God also repents he made Saul king over Israel in 1 Sam. 15. I think the reason is because God won't reward someone in the present for the way he knows they're going to be in the future. In other words, God will act toward someone in the present the way they are in the present. He doesn't punish people for future evils in the present.

If that's the case (and I believe it is), then an omniscient God could be sorry he ever made man, since he acts toward people in the present like they are in the present, not like how they'll be in the future. I think that answers the question.

Why would a benevolent and omnipotent being choose such a destructive method for ridding the world of evil?

God uses water both because of its purging powers and because it represents him and hence his judgment.

Couldn't God foresee this situation arising, allowing him to act earlier to prevent it?

See above. God's not going to reward people in the present for actions he knows they're going to commit in the future.

And so on... The story makes God look incompetent and malevolent.

Only if you give theology short shrift.

 

[ebia]

You're the one claiming the story contains an answer to the question not me.

That the story is an answer to the question.

 

[ebia]

And the lesson is...?

.... the story.

 

[variant]

That the story is an answer to the question.

I have noticed that you seem to claim that but...

It's a perfectly good analogy to illustrate why its not appropriate to demand an answer in an inappropriate genre.

All real learning is ambiguous.

You seem to be fine with answering questions by not answering them so we're done with this useless tap dance.