Suffering and Evil

[Received]

I agree with most of what you described as the human condition here.

Personally, I don´t find anything appealing or comforting in the idea that a metaphysical superman intentionally created this condition for us (as opposed to it just being as it is). Quite the opposite.
Say, just like I can ´t seem to get to terms with a pain better when learning that someone has intentionally inflicted it upon me.

I don't think it's possible to create selves (which implies freedom, for the self essentially *is* freedom) without having sin as part of the deal. In any possible universe. And God creating selves that are free doesn't mean God is responsible for the botched freedom that these selves more or less choose, although I think he is responsible for the tendency of this self to be naturally inclined to sin given its lack of knowledge of how to get out of this condition; but presumably with providing religion and an afterlife, he's fulfilled that responsibility.

 

[digitalgoth]

Please know that I'm not condoning suffering or evil, nor am I even equating the two in this OP (I think they're extrinsically relatable but not intrinsically relatable). I'm not saying the suffering of children is good, or that natural disasters serve some sort of intrinsic function.

I don't see suffering as a bad thing. Suffering promotes change. Not suffering stagnates (as in, why ruin a good thing?).

Suffering is necessary, and therefore evil is a necessary thing, otherwise philosophically we aren't ever questioning or changing anything. When individuals or societies are happy and complacent nothing ever changes. Learning does not take place. Through adversity come growth, understanding, and self-awareness. If you never "test the metal" of yourself, you never will know what you are.

 

[quatona]

I don't think it's possible to create selves (which implies freedom, for the self essentially *is* freedom) without having sin as part of the deal.

Then this entire deal needs to be reconsidered. This entire deal of creating a physical world in order to prepare us for the spiritual world in which those problems that a physical world necessitates don´t even exist.

 

[Received]

Then this entire deal needs to be reconsidered. This entire deal of creating a physical world in order to prepare us for the spiritual world in which those problems that a physical world necessitates don´t even exist.

Tell me more. But so far it sounds like you're buying into the old Cartesian copout theology, where the soul is valued above the physical, and that even a self really is a soul that can exist without a body. I don't think the Bible really says that, at least not as clearly as our pastors would like. The self is actually a synthesis of the physical (body) and spiritual (soul).

 

[quatona]

Tell me more. But so far it sounds like you're buying into the old Cartesian copout theology, where the soul is valued above the physical, and that even a self really is a soul that can exist without a body. I don't think the Bible really says that, at least not as clearly as our pastors would like. The self is actually a synthesis of the physical (body) and spiritual (soul).

Well, obviously I am not buying into any theology. And my argument isn´t founded on the idea that the spiritual is valued higher than the physical. I am alluding to the theistic tenet that the spiritual created the physical, IOW that which is necessary is spiritual, and the physical is not necessary.
So let´s start exploring the field:
Does God have a self?`Did God have a self prior to creating the physical world?

 

[Received]

Well, obviously I am not buying into any theology. And my argument isn´t founded on the idea that the spiritual is valued higher than the physical. I am alluding to the theistic tenet that the spiritual created the physical, IOW that which is necessary is spiritual, and the physical is not necessary.
So let´s start exploring the field:
Does God have a self?`Did God have a self prior to creating the physical world?

Sure, although I would only call it a self is a metaphorical sense, given that only self we can understand is the self we have, and we're pretty hugely contradictory when it comes to thinking about this self to begin with. I should have said the human self is a synthesis...

 

[quatona]

Sure, although I would only call it a self is a metaphorical sense, given that only self we can understand is the self we have, and we're pretty hugely contradictory when it comes to thinking about this self to begin with. I should have said the human self is a synthesis...

This does not really address my idea that - even if creating selves would indeed be the best thing since sliced bread - creating the physical world (as a test run for a world in which these problems - that we alleged are exposed in order to learn to deal with them - don´t even exist) doesn´t make much sense.

 

[Received]

This does not really address my idea that - even if creating selves would indeed be the best thing since sliced bread - creating the physical world (as a test run for a world in which these problems - that we alleged are exposed in order to learn to deal with them - don´t even exist) doesn´t make much sense.

I think it does if you include that you can't be a human self without a physical world (bodies are just a part of the environment that are evolved to be attached to us as part of our selves). Only God is a thing without physical thingness. So I think your argument has real power only if you ask why God created anything at all. Now we're at Heidegger, and I'm scared and cold.

 

[quatona]

I think it does if you include that you can't be a human self without a physical world (bodies are just a part of the environment that are evolved to be attached to us as part of our selves).

Whence the urge to create human selves when he could have possibly created non-human selves?
I mean, you keep appealing to the status quo (things would be different if they were different) in response to my idea that there are better alternatives to the status quo.

Only God is a thing without physical thingness.

Just so I understand you better: Is that just another appeal to the status quo in the attempt to handwave away ideas as to how it could be better - or are you saying that God is incapable of creating beings without physical thingness?

So I think your argument has real power only if you ask why God created anything at all.

Yes, depending on the details of the theology you will propose here, I might at some point ask this very question. But let´s not rash things.

Now we're at Heidegger, and I'm scared and cold.

You may want to play some guitar, then.

 

[Received]

Whence the urge to create human selves when he could have possibly created non-human selves?
I mean, you keep appealing to the status quo (things would be different if they were different) in response to my idea that there are better alternatives to the status quo.

There is no such thing as a self other than God that doesn't include some degree of physicality. So it's either humans or God is all lonely.

Just so I understand you better: Is that just another appeal to the status quo in the attempt to handwave away ideas as to how it could be better - or are you saying that God is incapable of creating beings without physical thingness?

Probably the latter. Creation, for God, is by definition physical. I think.

Yes, depending on the details of the theology you will propose here, I might at some point ask this very question. But let´s not rash things.

You may want to play some guitar, then.

Yeah, I did just restring my precious Martin with some precious Martin SP mediums. Good call.

 

[quatona]

There is no such thing as a self other than God that doesn't include some degree of physicality.

Isn´t or can´t be?

So it's either humans or God is all lonely.

This almost sounds like God wanted to get rid of suffering from loneliness and therefore threw us in a world that would make us suffer on His behalf.
Maybe "alone" would be the better term?

Probably the latter. Creation, for God, is by definition physical. I think.

When you say stuff like that I am wondering whether these statements are sort of conclusions (from what?), or rather mere assumptions.
I´m also wondering which or whose definition of what you have in mind here.

Whatever - if working from this premise I guess I´ll have to ask the very question you anticipated.

Yeah, I did just restring my precious Martin with some precious Martin SP mediums. Good call.

Enjoy yourself.

 

[Received]

Isn´t or can´t be?

I'd say can't be.

This almost sounds like God wanted to get rid of suffering from loneliness and therefore threw us in a world that would make us suffer on His behalf.
Maybe "alone" would be the better term?

Yeah, probably. But it's better to say that we, through procreation, threw our children into a world that would make them exist and therefore suffer. Comparing nonexistence to an existence with bad stuff is an unfair comparison, given that it's nonexistence compared to existence.

When you say stuff like that I am wondering whether these statements are sort of conclusions (from what?), or rather mere assumptions.
I´m also wondering which or whose definition of what you have in mind here.

I don't really see the relevance of this, given that we're always talking about assumptions with metaphysical stuff given the unfalsifiability involved in its premises.

 

[quatona]

I'd say can't be.

Ok, noted.

Yeah, probably. But it's better to say that we, through procreation, threw our children into a world that would make them exist and therefore suffer.

Well, "we" didn´t. I didn´t, for this very reason.
But, of course, pointing to human contributions in the process doesn´t make God´s decision go away. This isn´t a matter of "it´s better to say" but of two entirely different issues.

Comparing nonexistence to an existence with bad stuff is an unfair comparison, given that it's nonexistence compared to existence.

Yes, comparing existence to non-existence is nonsense. That´s why I didn´t do it. I talked about creating something vs abstaining from creating it. After all, this was a decision God faced.

I don't really see the relevance of this, given that we're always talking about assumptions with metaphysical stuff given the unfalsifiability involved in its premises.

I understand and I agree.
May I remind you of this paragraph next time you talk about the criterium truth/Truth/TrUTH, in this context?

 

[Received]

Truth!

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Jesus said, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Truth is a person. Truth is God.

 

[quatona]

Jesus said, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Truth is a person. Truth is God.

"Can you tell me the way to the museum?" - "Jesus said, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Way is a person. Way is God."

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

"Can you tell me the way to the museum?" - "Jesus said, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Way is a person. Way is God."

The Way is a person, the Way is Jesus.

If you were to ask me for directions to God, i would point you to Jesus.

For directions to a museum, I would point you to Google Maps.

 

[Deidre32]

And if a non-Christian believes in God, but not in Jesus as being a pathway to God...what might you tell such a person?

This is the problem with religion. It divides. The Bible is just one book of many...teaching yet another 'version' of who or what a god might be. If you wish to believe in that version, that is anyone's choice. I once believed it. But, there are many 'versions' out there...if one is willing to explore them all...then, who is the wiser to know which 'religion' is the right one?

This in part is why I abandoned Christianty. It would seem to me that with so many options, so many cultures, and people with conflicting views of who or what a god might be...that perhaps, it's all just wishful thinking. We create or gravitate towards a god that we were raised to believe in, or we feel comfortable with.

Seems like an odd and confusing plan, if a god wants to make himself known to 'his creation.'

 

[Received]

The Way is a person, the Way is Jesus.

If you were to ask me for directions to God, i would point you to Jesus.

For directions to a museum, I would point you to Google Maps.

The Way is a person, but not anything like a person you would consider as a person. The Way is the Logos. Jesus is referring to himself not as a physical self but as the Logos, or that which upholds the universe (see Colossians 1). Which opens up the door to other religions and stuff. So I guess you're not for this interpretation.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

And if a non-Christian believes in God, but not in Jesus as being a pathway to God...what might you tell such a person?

Depends on the unique situation and circumstances.

This is the problem with religion. It divides. The Bible is just one book of many...teaching yet another 'version' of who or what a god might be. If you wish to believe in that version, that is anyone's choice. I once believed it. But, there are many 'versions' out there...if one is willing to explore them all...then, who is the wiser to know which 'religion' is the right one?

The one who follows the evidence where it leads, like a map. Clues are scattered throughout this world that point us to the Truth. A willingness to follow the clues wherever they lead is a requirement to reaching the destination.

Kinda like following the woman on Google Maps GPS. You have to be willing to follow her directions and turn left when she says turn left, right when right.

God would never force people into the car, chain them to the seat and hop in the driver seat and drive to the destination while they are over in the passenger seat straight raging and screaming and kicking.

God cannot do that.

He can sit in the passenger seat and say hey Deidre, turn here, or take this off-ramp. But to take the wheel and leave you no choice whatsoever and force you to your destination, that He will not do.

This in part is why I abandoned Christianty. It would seem to me that with so many options, so many cultures, and people with conflicting views of who or what a god might be...that perhaps, it's all just wishful thinking. We create or gravitate towards a god that we were raised to believe in, or we feel comfortable with.

Seems like an odd and confusing plan, if a god wants to make himself known to 'his creation.'

Nah not really, Christianity is the World's largest religion by far with over 2,000,000,000 adherents.

It is the most widespread and dispersed religion as well.

A comprehensive demographic study of more than 200 countries finds that there are 2.18 billion Christians of all ages around the world, representing nearly a third of the estimated 2010 global population of 6.9 billion. Christians are also geographically widespread – so far-flung, in fact, that no single continent or region can indisputably claim to be the center of global Christianity.

A century ago, this was not the case. In 1910, about two-thirds of the world’s Christians lived in Europe, where the bulk of Christians had been for a millennium, according to historical estimates by the Center for the Study of Global Christianity.2 Today, only about a quarter of all Christians live in Europe (26%). A plurality – more than a third – now are in the Americas (37%). About one in every four Christians lives in sub-Saharan Africa (24%), and about one-in-eight is found in Asia and the Pacific (13%).

Christianity has grown enormously in sub-Saharan Africa and the Asia-Pacific region, where there were relatively few Christians at the beginning of the 20th century. The share of the population that is Christian in sub-Saharan Africa climbed from 9% in 1910 to 63% in 2010, while in the Asia-Pacific region it rose from 3% to 7%. Christianity today – unlike a century ago – is truly a global faith. The Size and Distribution of the World’s Christian Population | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project

Now none of this demonstrates that Christianity is the One True Religion. What it does demonstrate is that people from all age groups, cultures, walks of life, and various distinct locations all claim to worship Christ as God incarnate, Saviour of the World.

Billions throughout the ages have found unity in the love of the body of Christ which transcends race, creed, and cultural practices.


P.S. all truth is by nature exclusivistic. It excludes that which is false.