Talk about Human Depravity … for Goodness Sake!

[2PhiloVoid]

While this OP won't be short, it will have a sharp point.

As we all know from the daily news, or if you've just been lucky (or unlucky) enough to watch an episode of some Crime Drama, such as Criminal Minds, or have unfortunately endured a life full of dangerous people (I hope not!), we've had to face either directly or indirectly various depraved actions and mindsets dwelling in the minds of other people.

And my essential questions in this are: On behalf of the claims of Biblical Truth, the Gospel and the general purposes of Christian Apologetics, to what extent and how deeply should we explore, probe, record or discuss the either horrible public deeds or “things done in secret” by various people, perhaps even by our own selves? What good does it do to ponder the depths of human evil and sin and can doing so help to bring a person to Christ?

To answer these questions, let's just concentrate on horrible issues brought up in the video, or in the Bible, or in a favorite (horrible) movie or t.v. show.

So, just to kick things off for this HORROR-ible genre in Christian Apologetics, I'll leave you with a song that expresses some great visual Halloween vibes from Josh Garrels. Enjoy the Silent Darkness of Existential despair .… no longer ???

CAUTION: For those who are of a sensitive nature or who understandably have triggers of their own that are brought on by past negative experiences in life, then please be advised that you may just want to decide not to join in with the discussion in this thread or to watch the video song. Just for your own sake, please don't. Thank you.

[Edit: I've added an additional video that reflects another angle to ponder over down in post #78 for those who would like some additional prompting for serious thought, but the "caution" above applies as well.]

Now for the rest of us who are still intrepid and brave enough to ponder further … here you go.

Oh! And Happy Halloween month to everyone!:

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Just today I saw this:

The Internet Is Overrun With Images of Child Sexual Abuse. What Went Wrong?

Apparently child rape and torture is rife and growing, with the Internet being the prime venue - where people vie with each other to post torture and rape of children and babies.

This is utterly abhorrent. There is no more clear fact to me, that certain behaviour is just plain wrong. If it is; if torturing a child is worse than playing with them; then a standard must exist to measure both against. Sure, this is axiomatic, but still. If there really is something objectively better than something else, this argues a Standard of morality, which argues an Idea of Good - if you take that as Platonic, or Nominalist, doesn't matter - it is an existent set of relations. But the world is not set around what is 'bad' in my experience, but the reverse. Most people aren't selfish psychopaths, even if the Internet as a collective Id to humanity, does dredge up a lot of such evil.

What I do see, is that child abuse is rife, and a growing problem. If I look back, I see Relativism rising in the last 200 or so, years. The Internet is often credited as a cause of a rise of Atheism too, by Atheists, along with a moral relativism. Hundreds of years ago, if a child died or was rumoured to have, they rioted - think of things like the Blood Libel, or Little Hugh. Nowadays, we see so much effort expended on sea-turtles and plastic straws, while live child torture readily occurs and the political will to tackle it is lacking. I can not see a clearer juxtaposition of the creeping Relativism than that.

The thing is, we are innately moral. Tests in infants have consistently shown as much. I have appended an example, one of many. So, how have we come so far? How has humanity strayed so far toward evil? Why is there no overarching outrage? This is bad enough, that I would argue the abuse of children facilitated and encouraged in the dark recesses of the Internet, probably outweigh the advantages of the Internet in toto. Maybe the moral thing to do would be to just switch it all off... But of course, that is impractical and would never happen, which is a relativistic decision itself perhaps.

If there is a correlation to draw here, then though it is not a proven assertion, the Relativism stemming from the late 19th century has gone on - steeped in blood from Holocaust to Holodomor to Internet child torture. It is a cultural shift that Dostoeyevsky prophesied, toward the Self. We are dealing with many Stavrogins here, after all. The devils unleashed by the loosening of the moral girdle has swept the generations thereafter.

If anything argues that man is totally depraved, it is the doctrines of the Selfish Genes and game-theory appeal to motive for seeming Altruistic action. But this is not intuitive to man, as even its adherents would agree. In fact, we need to teach it. As CS Lewis noted, we create Men without Chests and teach them to laugh at honour; and are then horrified when traitors appear in our midst.

So we can contemplate the evils men do, but men don't come to them lightly. The Nazis took years to start gassing Jews, and great evil needs to be surreptitiously approached. Child torture needed years of normalising inappropriate contentography before it would be possible for such a large subculture to thrive, for instance. This is why the moral impulse needs to be redirected, why instead of hunting paedophile sadists in ernest, we seem more concerned with drowning polar bears. We all know these actions are wrong, even if you would try and argue a relative standard of morality on some cultural grounds. There really is a moral sense innate to mankind; and like it or not, that has historically and culturally, been coupled to the idea of God. You can try and appeal it away to evolution, or culture, or what have you - all of those would just be ex post facto rationalisation. Evil really does exist, yet does not have its own existence per se - no one does evil for evil, but a presumed 'good' of an ultimate goal or a feeling they are chasing - in essence, it shadows what is Good. Which argues the Good really exists; which is a classical way of describing God.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Just today I saw this:

The Internet Is Overrun With Images of Child Sexual Abuse. What Went Wrong?

Apparently child rape and torture is rife and growing, with the Internet being the prime venue - where people vie with each other to post torture and rape of children and babies.

This is utterly abhorrent. There is no more clear fact to me, that certain behaviour is just plain wrong. If it is; if torturing a child is worse than playing with them; then a standard must exist to measure both against. Sure, this is axiomatic, but still. If there really is something objectively better than something else, this argues a Standard of morality, which argues an Idea of Good - if you take that as Platonic, or Nominalist, doesn't matter - it is an existent set of relations. But the world is not set around what is 'bad' in my experience, but the reverse. Most people aren't selfish psychopaths, even if the Internet as a collective Id to humanity, does dredge up a lot of such evil.

What I do see, is that child abuse is rife, and a growing problem. If I look back, I see Relativism rising in the last 200 or so, years. The Internet is often credited as a cause of a rise of Atheism too, by Atheists, along with a moral relativism. Hundreds of years ago, if a child died or was rumoured to have, they rioted - think of things like the Blood Libel, or Little Hugh. Nowadays, we see so much effort expended on sea-turtles and plastic straws, while live child torture readily occurs and the political will to tackle it is lacking. I can not see a clearer juxtaposition of the creeping Relativism than that.

The thing is, we are innately moral. Tests in infants have consistently shown as much. I have appended an example, one of many. So, how have we come so far? How has humanity strayed so far toward evil? Why is there no overarching outrage? This is bad enough, that I would argue the abuse of children facilitated and encouraged in the dark recesses of the Internet, probably outweigh the advantages of the Internet in toto. Maybe the moral thing to do would be to just switch it all off... But of course, that is impractical and would never happen, which is a relativistic decision itself perhaps.

If there is a correlation to draw here, then though it is not a proven assertion, the Relativism stemming from the late 19th century has gone on - steeped in blood from Holocaust to Holodomor to Internet child torture. It is a cultural shift that Dostoeyevsky prophesied, toward the Self. We are dealing with many Stavrogins here, after all. The devils unleashed by the loosening of the moral girdle has swept the generations thereafter.

If anything argues that man is totally depraved, it is the doctrines of the Selfish Genes and game-theory appeal to motive for seeming Altruistic action. But this is not intuitive to man, as even its adherents would agree. In fact, we need to teach it. As CS Lewis noted, we create Men without Chests and teach them to laugh at honour; and are then horrified when traitors appear in our midst.

So we can contemplate the evils men do, but men don't come to them lightly. The Nazis took years to start gassing Jews, and great evil needs to be surreptitiously approached. Child torture needed years of normalising inappropriate contentography before it would be possible for such a large subculture to thrive, for instance. This is why the moral impulse needs to be redirected, why instead of hunting paedophile sadists in ernest, we seem more concerned with drowning polar bears. We all know these actions are wrong, even if you would try and argue a relative standard of morality on some cultural grounds. There really is a moral sense innate to mankind; and like it or not, that has historically and culturally, been coupled to the idea of God. You can try and appeal it away to evolution, or culture, or what have you - all of those would just be ex post facto rationalisation. Evil really does exist, yet does not have its own existence per se - no one does evil for evil, but a presumed 'good' of an ultimate goal or a feeling they are chasing - in essence, it shadows what is Good. Which argues the Good really exists; which is a classical way of describing God.

Thanks to Quid, we've had a first glimpse of one of the many horrors our world has apparently, in its supposed wisdom, seen fit to commodify.

The subject matter of the abuse of children, of whatever kind, is tragic and truly one of the lowest levels of evil and human depravity which exists in this world. Yet it exists, and according to the article Quid has provided, it is “rife and growing.”

Personally, I would think that if a person was involved with such a thing, they'd immediately come to their senses and run from the sin involved and seek both Christ at the foot of the Cross and also some deep-seated psychological counseling. Of course, the other aspect that can be 'horrible' in all of this is the fact that some folks decide not to repent, ignore grace, ignore Christ, and proceed to not only approve of such depravity but also produce and promote it. And where there is no repentance, then there can indeed be more horrible things that result: such as the Judgment of God upon those individuals, or even upon entire nations.

Quid, thank you for providing this article. It wouldn't have been my first choice of topics, but since I want this thread to be open for the discussion of how several various forms of human depravity can be “talked about” for the benefit of the reader to consider, to reconsider, and to either then produce in us a sense of need to repent if such sins apply [...such as has happened in the Church at Large], OR AT THE LEAST, as part of the Great Commission of the Church to harbor some sense of Christian Activism in confronting and working against the outcomes of not only personal sin, but commercial and institutional sin(s).

I appreciate how the author of this article drew from C.S. Lewis and Dostoeyevsky to get his point across. However, while I certainly agree that child-abuse of this magnitude is horrible on its own account and should be a topic that all by itself should smack us into awareness to look to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, I'm not sure I quite agree with the author's insinuation that our concerns about the destruction of our World Environment--even if it's "just" sea-turtles, polar bears, and plastic straws-- shouldn't be also seen as an issue of horror which we might treat with much more concern than we do. Just say'n! Feel free to add your own comment, if you wish.

So, Quid, in your estimation (and it may be that I agree with you), are you thinking that the presence of human depravity should serve as evidence of the Gospel Truth, even if in part? And this should somehow propel attention toward Christ? Couldn't it also serve as a wake up call to the Church to get its house in Order, for all of us to get our hearts in order? Or is the genre of "talk about horror-ible" things not conducive this this endeavor, particular 'in' the Church?

Anyway, thanks for that gentle push over the precipice and into the dark abyss of human depravity that we all must consider actively, seriously and without ongoing passivity, especially as Christians.

I'm wondering how the atheists will respond to all of this? Or are they more concerned about the polar ice-caps melting?

Peace.

 

[jayem]

I'm wondering how the atheists will respond to all of this? Or are they more concerned about the polar ice-caps melting?

Why does God allow such crimes to be committed?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why does God allow such crimes to be committed?

God allowed it so that when a forum thread focuses specifically on looking at whether or not "talking about" the BOTTOM SIDE of the Ontological coin regarding Evil is useful in Apologetics... ornery atheists can then show up and ask a question about the TOP SIDE. I mean, how horror-ible is that? It could wreck the entire thread!!!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why does God allow such crimes to be committed?

Another answer might be: because when Humpty-Dumpty falls, then God actually can put him back to together again. Of course, the upshot of this for us (as I like to say) is that God is only going to do this on His own schedule. In the meantime, we have to make detours around Humpty-Dumpty and put up yellow tape to keep the crowds away as we, however carefully, rummage around the remains for clues as to what happened and why.

 

[jayem]

God allowed it so that when a forum thread focuses specifically on looking at whether or not "talking about" the BOTTOM SIDE of the Ontological coin regarding Evil is useful in Apologetics... ornery atheists can then show up and ask a question about the TOP SIDE. I mean, how horror-ible is that? It could wreck the entire thread!!!

When you asked how an atheist would respond, you should have known what that response would be.

Let's keep it simple: Did God know such crimes would occur before they happened?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

When you asked how an atheist would respond, you should have known what that response would be.

I actually did anticipate this particular strategic maneuver by some random atheist. I just didn't think it'd be the first kitten out of the litter box.

Let's keep it simple: Did God know such crimes would occur before they happened?

Ok. As I'm sure others around here will tell you, I don't put a high value on "simple," but here goes my answer to a simple question: Yes!

There. Satisfied?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Thanks to Quid, we've had a first glimpse of one of the many horrors our world has apparently, in its supposed wisdom, seen fit to commodify.

The subject matter of the abuse of children, of whatever kind, is tragic and truly one of the lowest levels of evil and human depravity which exists in this world. Yet it exists, and according to the article Quid has provided, it is “rife and growing.”

Personally, I would think that if a person was involved with such a thing, they'd immediately come to their senses and run from the sin involved and seek both Christ at the foot of the Cross and also some deep-seated psychological counseling. Of course, the other aspect that can be 'horrible' in all of this is the fact that some folks decide not to repent, ignore grace, ignore Christ, and proceed to not only approve of such depravity but also produce and promote it. And where there is no repentance, then there can indeed be more horrible things that result: such as the Judgment of God upon those individuals, or even upon entire nations.

Quid, thank you for providing this article. It wouldn't have been my first choice of topics, but since I want this thread to be open for the discussion of how several various forms of human depravity can be “talked about” for the benefit of the reader to consider, to reconsider, and to either then produce in us a sense of need to repent if such sins apply [...such as has happened in the Church at Large], OR AT THE LEAST, as part of the Great Commission of the Church to harbor some sense of Christian Activism in confronting and working against the outcomes of not only personal sin, but commercial and institutional sin(s).

I appreciate how the author of this article drew from C.S. Lewis and Dostoeyevsky to get his point across. However, while I certainly agree that child-abuse of this magnitude is horrible on its own account and should be a topic that all by itself should smack us into awareness to look to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, I'm not sure I quite agree with the author's insinuation that our concerns about the destruction of our World Environment--even if it's "just" sea-turtles, polar bears, and plastic straws-- shouldn't be also seen as an issue of horror which we might treat with much more concern than we do. Just say'n! Feel free to add your own comment, if you wish.

So, Quid, in your estimation (and it may be that I agree with you), are you thinking that the presence of human depravity should serve as evidence of the Gospel Truth, even if in part? And this should somehow propel attention toward Christ? Couldn't it also serve as a wake up call to the Church to get its house in Order, for all of us to get our hearts in order? Or is the genre of "talk about horror-ible" things not conducive this this endeavor, particular 'in' the Church?

Anyway, thanks for that gentle push over the precipice and into the dark abyss of human depravity that we all must consider actively, seriously and without ongoing passivity, especially as Christians.

I'm wondering how the atheists will respond to all of this? Or are they more concerned about the polar ice-caps melting?

Peace.

I think this more illustrates the utter depravity of man without God. I agree that such abhorrence should lead to someone realising the magnitude of their sins and repent, but that is the scary thing of relativistic thinking, that they don't. This shows the depths humans can plumb, and personally, I don't think an eternity of suffering unjustified as punishment.

The Church should act - as Churches were the primary driving force behind Abolition of slavery, ending workhouses, or Temperance. They are unfortunately weak structures today, with much of their teeth pulled. So it rests upon Christians as individuals, since our collective institution can't do much anymore. Here though, we are somewhat complicit, in that the factors that allow this to proceed - the lack of political will, a lax attitude to inappropriate contentography, etc. are unlikely to change. Most will read of these acts, be shocked, then go about their day. I fail to see how that is acceptable. This needs action, as you say. We should all be bowing in shame, in dust and sackcloth, that our inaction allows such evil to take place. It is our Sin as well, which Dostoeyevsky catches so nicely when he speaks of how all are responsible for Sin, in the persons of Fathers Zosima or Tikhon.

It is my contention that the existence of depravity illustrates the existence of Good - as a shadow has to be cast by something - which does support the Gospel's veridicality. Further, it demonstrates that man cannot exist on his own, that shorn thereof, this is how far and fast we fall. It shows the inherit need for Repentance, not only of individuals, but society in general. Without realising how black we are, we fail to realise the magnitude of Christ's sacrifice. We keep thinking we are good chaps, excusing our moral inaction; it is only once the innocent are beaten and tortured, that we realise our own deep failure - Yes, I am partial to Scapegoat Atonement. When innocent children, that belong to the Kingdom of God and must not be hindered, are so destroyed - functionally, we as Christians might as well be in the crowd baying for our Redeemer's blood. This shows why the world needs Christ.

Anyway, the plastic straws and polar bear sneer was my own view. The world goes on about climate change, while ignoring these far more egregious abuses. As if Churchill debated the economic prospects of Rhodesia instead of facing the Nazis; or ancient Rome the change in weights and measures while Hannibal was at the gates. People can worry about climate change if they wish, but it pails into insignificance before the systematic rape and torture of babies and toddlers while we twiddle our thumbs. That I even have to make this point, shows how far we've fallen.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

When you asked how an atheist would respond, you should have known what that response would be.

Let's keep it simple: Did God know such crimes would occur before they happened?

When my son tries to write, will I know he will fail initially? Does this mean I must stop him doing so? When he first climbs on his bike, do I know he will likely fall off and hurt himself a couple of times?

People have free will. God knows their actions, but they themselves are also His children. Compelle Intrare can be a powerful way to repentence, such as with the prodigal son, or figures like Bendigo or the slaver that wrote Amazing Grace. When sunk into utter depravity, when the last ounce of humanity fails, people can be compelled to reach to God. No one wants to admit our failure, but that is how you sincerely trust God. In a greater sense, we cannot determine the end-result of actions, so the risks of free will seem to be justified to God. Besides, it behooves the rest of us to act in the light of our moral sense, so we should never be allowing such depravity to occur in the first place, or allow conditions or cultures in which they may. We were given the tools to intervene, the sense to know when facing a particularly egregious example. The problem is really not why God allows it, but why do we?

 

[jayem]

When my son tries to write, will I know he will fail initially? Does this mean I must stop him doing so? When he first climbs on his bike, do I know he will likely fall off and hurt himself a couple of times?

But suppose you know he'll ride his bike into a crowd of his schoolmates because he get a perverse pleasure in hurting people. Why would you give him a bike in the first place? Why would you allow him to do it time and after time, and to make videos of his injured victims? Would a responsible parent allow a child's desire to act out his psychopathic impulses override the desire of other children to be safe, happy, and free from harm?

The problem is really not why God allows it, but why do we?

But it's a fair question, isn't it? As I asked above, why would God let a pedophile act according to his free will, which negates the free will of his innocent victim?

BTW, this assumes there is free will. Though that's another discussion.

 

[jayem]

I actually did anticipate this particular strategic maneuver by some random atheist. I just didn't think it'd be the first kitten out of the litter box.

Ok. As I'm sure others around here will tell you, I don't put a high value on "simple," but here goes my answer to a simple question: Yes!

There. Satisfied?

Yes. And I appreciate your straightforward answer. Do you believe God is sovereign?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

But suppose you know he'll ride his bike into a crowd of his schoolmates because he get a perverse pleasure in hurting people. Why would you give him a bike in the first place? Why would you allow him to do it time and after time, and to make videos of his injured victims? Would a responsible parent allow a child's desire to act out his psychopathic impulses override the desire of other children to be safe, happy, and free from harm?

But suppose by denying him a bike ride, he seeks other outlets for his psychopathic tendencies and ends up shooting up a school? Or maybe he would do so, but in so doing see the error of his ways? Or the other children would be more safety conscious, or learn to appreciate life more... Reductio ad absurdam works both ways, it isn't much of an argument here.

But it's a fair question, isn't it? As I asked above, why would God let a pedophile act according to his free will, which negates the free will of his innocent victim?

How does it negate his victim's free will? Free will is a response to what occurs to you, what actions to take, not carte blanche to decide the events of your life. Again though, we don't know the ultimate consequences, for good or ill.

BTW, this assumes there is free will. Though that's another discussion.

You have to in practice. If you hold to determinism, then your reasoning for it is determined as well, thus not reasoned. It is self-refuting, so all kinds of silly tricks need to be done to excuse it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes. And I appreciate your straightforward answer. Do you believe God is sovereign?

I might believe that, but see the following:

I don't mean to bluster at you, Jayem, like I do some folks around here, so I'll TRY really hard not to. But, let me stop you here for at least a moment from continuing on with the Socratic questioning, because I think there are limits to this whole interlocution process, especially when it comes to various inherent issues of theology and philosophy as they pertain and are embedded within any Christian's attempt to provide a Theodicy.

One of those "limits" is that for this to remain a discussion, it shouldn't break down into a unilateral flow where the Christian passively receives questions [especially ad infinitum in one sudden burst] and/or is led by the chain by his skeptical inquirer. No, bi-lateral discussion has to be present and I will hope that you'll remain open to not only [attempted] answers from me but questions that I'll have for you as well.

Another "limit" in this kind of discussion, particularly as we are already going slightly askew of the focus I'd like to have for this thread, is that no question is ever asked in a social or physical 'void,' meaning that questions are also Speech-Acts that are subject to scrutiny themselves and do not get a free pass as acts of human communication. In other words, they shouldn't just get to be asked on a whim and be considered legitimate inquiries into the possible nuances of reality; no, they are tethered to their own ontologies that are embedded within the mind and life of each inquirer who dares to ask. This is no less the case when we are "talking about" God's place in the presence of human depravity and how this may affect how we believe or what we feel we can believe.

A third "limit" is that both interlocutors have to agree to at least attempt to be honest in a way that the other person can deem to be and count as "honesty." Without that, these theological discussions quickly turn into subjective charades parading about as objective inquisitions. And I'd like to avoid that, if possible.

So, with the above in mind, may I now ask you a question beyond this question?

 

[jayem]

But suppose by denying him a bike ride, he seeks other outlets for his psychopathic tendencies and ends up shooting up a school? Or maybe he would do so, but in so doing see the error of his ways? Or the other children would be more safety conscious, or learn to appreciate life more... Reductio ad absurdam works both ways, it isn't much of an argument here.

Shouldn't a conscientious parent do whatever he could to prevent a child he knows is anti-social from harming others in any way?

How does it negate his victim's free will? Free will is a response to what occurs to you, what actions to take, not carte blanche to decide the events of your life. Again though, we don't know the ultimate consequences, for good or ill.

You don't think that being in effect imprisoned, and used as a sex slave, is a negation of one's ability to make free will choices? I'm sure that anyone, even a child, would choose to escape from such a tormentor.

 

[jayem]

I might believe that, but see the following:

I don't mean to bluster at you, Jayem, like I do some folks around here, so I'll TRY really hard not to. But, let me stop you here for at least a moment from continuing on with the Socratic questioning, because I think there are limits to this whole interlocution process, especially when it comes to various inherent issues of theology and philosophy as they pertain and are embedded within any Christian's attempt to provide a Theodicy.

One of those "limits" is that for this to remain a discussion, it shouldn't break down into a unilateral flow where the Christian passively receives questions [especially ad infinitum in one sudden burst] and/or is led by the chain by his skeptical inquirer. No, bi-lateral discussion has to be present and I will hope that you'll remain open to not only [attempted] answers from me but questions that I'll have for you as well.

Another "limit" in this kind of discussion, particularly as we are already going slightly askew of the focus I'd like to have for this thread, is that no question is ever asked in a social or physical 'void,' meaning that questions are also Speech-Acts that are subject to scrutiny themselves and do not get a free pass as acts of human communication. In other words, they shouldn't just get to be asked on a whim and be considered legitimate inquiries into the possible nuances of reality; no, they are tethered to their own ontologies that are embedded within the mind and life of each inquirer who dares to ask. This is no less the case when we are "talking about" God's place in the presence of human depravity and how this may affect how we believe or what we feel we can believe.

A third "limit" is that both interlocutors have to agree to at least attempt to be honest in a way that the other person can deem to be and count as "honesty." Without that, these theological discussions quickly turn into subjective charades parading about as objective inquisitions. And I'd like to avoid that, if possible.

So, with the above in mind, may I now ask you a question beyond this question?

You undoubtedly know that I'm bringing up the age-old debate about whether our lives are determined by our own choices, or whether God has decided them.

And of course you can ask a question. Though I have some business today and probably won't be be back online until later this evening.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You undoubtedly know that I'm bringing up the age-old debate about whether our lives are determined by our own choices, or whether God has decided them.

Oh. It's good you said that, because silly me, I thought you were about to lay it on the line that God is at fault for the state of our sinful world, and I would have then thought: Oh, here we go! But fortunately, that's not the road you're on. I see that now. You just want to know if God has decided our fates, to which I'd say, in good non-Calvinistic fashion, no, at least not In Toto.

And of course you can ask a question. Though I have some business today and probably won't be be back online until later this evening.

Alright. I'll ask my question--a compound question, really-- and then you can get back to me when it's convenient. And here's my question:

When you asked your question above, "Did God know such crimes would occur before they happened?," did you have in mind a comprehensive definition of this 'God' to which you were referring to and from whence did you build it in order to use it in a question on this side of history and this side of Jesus' first Advent?​

 

[jayem]

When you asked your question above, "Did God know such crimes would occur before they happened?," did you have in mind a comprehensive definition of this 'God' to which you were referring to and from whence did you build it in order to use it in a question on this side of history and this side of Jesus' first Advent?

I'll go by what the Bible says. As you must know, there are some differences in the OT and NT God. The OT God, aside from being a single entity-- has distinctly human traits. He's jealous, he gets angry, and can be vengeful. He's the stern father figure who punishes disobedience. The text in Exodus describes him toying with Pharaoh by hardening his heart against releasing the Hebrews. Apparently so that more plagues would be imposed on Egypt, thereby demonstrating God's power. The NT God is more about love. IIRC, in John, God is described as being Light. And now God becomes 3 entities. The 2nd entity lived on earth as Rabbi Yeshua to provide forgiveness and redemption. And the 3rd is the Holy Spirit who's role is not so clearly defined. But the general Judeo-Christian concept of God is a "multi-omni" deity. The supernatural higher power who is omniscient, omnipotent, omni-benevolent, omnipresent, and the ultimate universal sovereign. That last characteristic is my focus. Here are several of numerous Bible verses attesting to God's sovereignty:

That people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the Lord, and there is no other. I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the Lord, who does all these things. Isaiah 45:6-7

The Lord of hosts has sworn: “As I have planned, so shall it be, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand, Isaiah 14:24

For the Lord of hosts has purposed, and who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back? Isaiah 14:27

Which he will display at the proper time—he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 1 Timothy 6:15

Whatever the Lord pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps. Psalm 135:6

I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” Rev. 1:8

The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble. Proverbs 16:4

Notice that last passage from Proverbs, which says that God has even created the wicked. But my point is that if God is truly sovereign, then nothing can happen that's not in accord with his divine will. So if God allows pedophiles to sexually molest and brutalize children, then that must be part of his grand universal plan. It's just simple logic. I don't expect you to agree. But I hope I'm making myself clear.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Thanks to Quid, we've had a first glimpse of one of the many horrors our world has apparently, in its supposed wisdom, seen fit to commodify.

The subject matter of the abuse of children, of whatever kind, is tragic and truly one of the lowest levels of evil and human depravity which exists in this world. Yet it exists, and according to the article Quid has provided, it is “rife and growing.”

Personally, I would think that if a person was involved with such a thing, they'd immediately come to their senses and run from the sin involved and seek both Christ at the foot of the Cross and also some deep-seated psychological counseling. Of course, the other aspect that can be 'horrible' in all of this is the fact that some folks decide not to repent, ignore grace, ignore Christ, and proceed to not only approve of such depravity but also produce and promote it. And where there is no repentance, then there can indeed be more horrible things that result: such as the Judgment of God upon those individuals, or even upon entire nations.

Quid, thank you for providing this article. It wouldn't have been my first choice of topics, but since I want this thread to be open for the discussion of how several various forms of human depravity can be “talked about” for the benefit of the reader to consider, to reconsider, and to either then produce in us a sense of need to repent if such sins apply [...such as has happened in the Church at Large], OR AT THE LEAST, as part of the Great Commission of the Church to harbor some sense of Christian Activism in confronting and working against the outcomes of not only personal sin, but commercial and institutional sin(s).

I appreciate how the author of this article drew from C.S. Lewis and Dostoeyevsky to get his point across. However, while I certainly agree that child-abuse of this magnitude is horrible on its own account and should be a topic that all by itself should smack us into awareness to look to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, I'm not sure I quite agree with the author's insinuation that our concerns about the destruction of our World Environment--even if it's "just" sea-turtles, polar bears, and plastic straws-- shouldn't be also seen as an issue of horror which we might treat with much more concern than we do. Just say'n! Feel free to add your own comment, if you wish.

So, Quid, in your estimation (and it may be that I agree with you), are you thinking that the presence of human depravity should serve as evidence of the Gospel Truth, even if in part? And this should somehow propel attention toward Christ? Couldn't it also serve as a wake up call to the Church to get its house in Order, for all of us to get our hearts in order? Or is the genre of "talk about horror-ible" things not conducive this this endeavor, particular 'in' the Church?

Anyway, thanks for that gentle push over the precipice and into the dark abyss of human depravity that we all must consider actively, seriously and without ongoing passivity, especially as Christians.

I'm wondering how the atheists will respond to all of this? Or are they more concerned about the polar ice-caps melting?

Peace.

Well, the church ranks pretty high up there on the list in terms of torturing children. Raping them over the course of years, trading them around like baseball cards, telling them that they will go to hell if they tell anyone. Just to name a couple things that have been going on the last two millennia.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Well, the church ranks pretty high up there on the list in terms of torturing children. Raping them over the course of years, trading them around like baseball cards, telling them that they will go to hell if they tell anyone. Just to name a couple things that have been going on the last two millennia.

Well, actually Churches are no worse than secular organisations. Studies have shown the primary factor is the Institutional nature of the organisation, on whether or not child abuse occurs therein. Religious institutions are marginally better, though the long term psychologic impact of the abuse of religion might be worse.

Thing is, it is not for 'millenia' we are dealing with here: The Internet-driven torture and abuse of children to produce imagery is a new phenomenon, that has been increasing markedly each year, with limited to no response in general from people. Historically, child abuse was treated almost hysterically by society. Child abuse is an old problem true, but one that has been exponentially exploding in our own times. By sheer volumes in a short time span, the Catholic Church scandal is seriously outclassed.