The problem of evil

[FireDragon76]

You are one step away from saying exactly that! To you, human beings are worth caring about because they retain the divine image

There is no dichotomy, part of being a human being is having the divine image. It cannot be taken away, it's intrinsic to being a human being. But it only makes sense in the context of divine revelation, I do stand by that. Sure, we can have sentimentalist feelings for our fellow human beings without faith in this revelation, but there is little or nothing absolute to ground that feeling upon, other than something like just accepting the discourse of power common to postmodernism.

I would hope even if I were not a Christian, I would care about my fellow human beings. But I find in the Christian faith at least the strength to amend my ways, however imperfectly.

Earlier I gave a caution about the forum rules, not to call anyone out specifically, but to warn. In other threads in particular I consider the rhetoric to have crossed the line into accusations of demonolatry on the part of atheists towards Christians, that we worship something hideous or evil as part and parcel of our faith. And I was concerned that the discussion was headed in that direction by the general tone.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

There is no dichotomy, part of being a human being is having the divine image. It cannot be taken away.

I would hope even if I were not a Christian, I would care about my fellow human beings. But I find in the Christian faith at least the strength to amend my ways, however imperfectly.

I would hope so too, but given what you've said so far, I doubt it.

Earlier I gave a caution about the forum rules, not to call anyone out specifically, but to warn. In other threads in particular I consider the rhetoric to have crossed the line into accusations of demonolatry on the part of atheists towards Christians, that we worship something hideous or evil as part and parcel of our faith. And I was concerned that the discussion was headed in that direction by the general tone.

In other words, you made a baseless accusation of bigotry, and now you can't back it up.

 

[FireDragon76]

OK, here is an example of bigotry. Eudaimonist said my explanation was an example of "someone trained in doublethink". He chose a phrase straight from Orwell. Orwell wrote a dystopian novel about a hellish society based on fear, power and control. Do you really think that is what we want? I certainly do not. That's not the desire of Christians, at least not the ones I maintain any fellowship with. It also conjures up images of brainwashing, a frequently accusation from New Atheists. It is bigotry and emotivism disguised as an anti-apologetic.

Words like "Doublethink" are not helpful in any discussion. They are propaganda and nothing more. We don't think of these things as doublethink, we think of it as paradox, the meaning of which has no meaning apart from a sacramental life in the Church. But that doesn't exactly mean such a statement is totally void of content. In the proper context it has a great deal of content.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

OK, here is an example of bigotry. Eudaimonist said my explanation was an example of "someone trained in doublethink". He chose a phrase straight from Orwell. Orwell wrote a dystopian novel about a hellish society based on fear, power and control. Do you really think that is what we want? I certainly do not. That's not the desire of Christians, at least not the ones I maintain any fellowship with. It also conjures up images of brainwashing, a frequently accusation from New Atheists. It is bigotry and emotivism disguised as an anti-apologetic.

I don't see anything "bigoted" about what he said. He was talking about what you said, which was entirely contradictory.

Words like "Doublethink" are not helpful in any discussion.

And doublethink isn't helpful on a philosophy forum either.

They are propaganda and nothing more. We don't think of these things as doublethink, we think of it as paradox,

You can think of it however you like; that doesn't mean contrary views are automatically bigoted.

But that doesn't exactly mean such a statement is totally void of content. In the proper context it has a great deal of content.

You contradicted yourself in the most plain and obvious way. Pointing that out is apparently on par with bigotry now.

 

[FireDragon76]

Now, I think Eudaimonist was responding to something Archaeopteryx said, in response to what I said about "the absence of God is the very presence of God in the world". I still think this is very true. God was there, hidden within the very absence I saw. It is not a statement of doublethink, but my own realization. I don't pretend it is easy to understand, and indeed probably impossible for someone who considers the idea of God iconsequential or absurd (I never have), and other Christians have realized similar things in the past. But this time the realization was my own, and I could claim it in its fullness. The very longing for God, for meaning, for understanding, is the presence of God.

 

[FireDragon76]

You contradicted yourself in the most plain and obvious way. Pointing that out is apparently on par with bigotry now.

It can be pointed out without choosing loaded words that are defamatory towards my faith and the faith of many others. Please keep in mind this website is owned by people that consider it a Christian ministry.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It can be pointed out without choosing loaded words that are defamatory towards my faith and the faith of many others. Please keep in mind this website is owned by people that consider it a Christian ministry.

Please keep in mind that this is (supposedly) a philosophy forum, meaning that your feelings of offence are irrelevant and can only be construed as whining. It's interesting though that you recognise your privileged position here: being a Christian, you are apparently allowed to claim offence and peddle baseless accusations of bigotry. On the other hand, I cannot express what offends me because, apparently, it offends you, and your view just happens to be the one that this forum was designed to protect. Again, it's worthwhile bearing in mind that this is a philosophy forum. If you want to be coddled, go to General Theology.

 

[SteveB28]

Please keep in mind that this is (supposedly) a philosophy forum, meaning that your feelings of offence are irrelevant and can only be construed as whining. It's interesting though that you recognise your privileged position here: being a Christian, you are apparently allowed to claim offence and peddle baseless accusations of bigotry. On the other hand, I cannot express what offends me because, apparently, it offends you, and your view just happens to be the one that this forum was designed to protect. Again, it's worthwhile bearing in mind that this is a philosophy forum. If you want to be coddled, go to General Theology.

Never stand between a man and his martyrdom!

Remember, despite representing an overwhelming majority of their population, they're being mercilessly persecuted!

 

[Eudaimonist]

OK, here is an example of bigotry. Eudaimonist said my explanation was an example of "someone trained in doublethink". He chose a phrase straight from Orwell.

You had blatantly contradicted yourself. I was commenting on what you had written, not making a comment on Christians in general. That's not bigotry.

How is your use of the word "monster" to refer to potentially billions of people not bigotry? Why do you get special privilege here?

It also conjures up images of brainwashing, a frequently accusation from New Atheists.

I said nothing about brainwashing. I don't think that brainwashing has anything to do with it.

We don't think of these things as doublethink, we think of it as paradox

*I* think of it as doublethink. You may think of it as "paradox" if you want.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

dp

 

[Dave Ellis]

Your view of human nature is presumptuous and naïve. There are monsters in this world. If not for God, I would be one of them. I can feel the allure of evil every day.

Are you saying you'd start doing evil acts if you didn't think a god existed?

 

[Dave Ellis]

What's resolved for me is that I now have a better understanding of how God is present in the world.

What is this understanding, and how did you reach it? What reason do you have to hold your views?

I still don't know exactly how God is going to set everything straight, but it isn't as big a problem for me as it was.

If you don't know, then isn't this still an unanswered question? How do you know god will set everything straight, and why would an omnibenevolent god allow things to get like this in the first place?

 

[Picky Picky]

It is once appointed man to die, and whenever that happens it happens. Rough punishment for original sin? I'd say so, especially in those cases. No fair or whatever, but many Christians just accept that the original sin was the reason for that. If one is an Atheist, they aren't gong to like it, but since they don't believe in God anyway, I suppose they'll have to come up with their own reasons why that happens. That or just say a God they don't even believe in is a meany for whatever reason...convince Christians of that? IDK?



Not necessarily only by sleight of hand, in that, as far as I know we didn't even eat animals before the original sin, and maybe there is nothing to verify this, and maybe there is but as far as I know animals didn't kill each other before the original sin. At the time it was a perfect word and when that changed to man must die, it would make perfect sense, then and only then did the animals that as far as I know weren't even really wild in the beginning...go into a wild state. All part of making things unpleasant for man (sweat of the brow and all) One indicator there was no wild animal state before sin could be that in the perfect world to come the lamb will lay with the lion, meaning it will go back to that perfect state so, makes some of those things I have no verification for somewhat plausible anyway.

But once again, an Atheist has no reason to believe any of that stuff, however, it should be easy to see how some Christians might draw that conclusion.

Why should one woman deciding to eat an apple result in pain for an antelope? Or to put it more cogently, why should any all-loving God decide that one woman eating an apple should result in pain for an antelope?

 

[Picky Picky]

Innocent suffering is part of the world we live in. What needs explaining is why we expect anything else. I believe because God has put that in our hearts. My frustration with evil and suffering is the very voice of God in my heart condemning sin, and the absence of God in this world is the very presence of God in this world. The ways that only God can be truly known in this world are through his Word and Sacraments, and the works of love that he works in our lives through us and with us. When I saw that was where God was, the issue was resolved for me and it was like scales falling off my eyes.

So that's why, it's no longer an issue for me. I would hope this thread stays on topic, or else the moderators can feel free to close it.

We expect something else because we are told God is all-loving.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Why should one woman deciding to eat an apple result in pain for an antelope? Or to put it more cogently, why should any all-loving God decide that one woman eating an apple should result in pain for an antelope?

My best guess would be same reason he required animal sacrifices for sin, as in others will suffer for our sins. And maybe that was just part of the bummer of losing paradise...part of the punishment of working by the sweat of our brows to survive..part of the making life harder physically and mentally in making us feel like crap for what was done.

If you feel that's not fair...evidently God thought the end justified the means and it was just that important to make the point to us. Many of us may think it's not fair, and all I can figure is those that don't (been there myself) just don't see the importance of it as God does. If you disagree, you'd have to take that up with him, and since realistically you may not get an answer, that's where the faith comes in and I anyway, even though I might not think it fair, just assume he did the best thing. Back to the realistic side, what choice do I really have? not accept he exists because I don't like what he does? The alternatives are few so I just choose to trust him. Seems the most logical of the choices, especially as opposed to complete annihilation or living in very uncomfortable place for eternity.

 

[Kenny'sID]

We expect something else because we are told God is all-loving.

He's as all loving as our Dads might have been when he felt terrible for having to punish us but did it anyway.

 

[ScottA]

We expect something else because we are told God is all-loving.

It is a difficult prospective to imagine from within the fish-bowl of our universe and life, but from without (and truth be known), God was indeed all-loving to contain everything objectionable within this current no-harm realm.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

He's as all loving as our Dads might have been when he felt terrible for having to punish us but did it anyway.

For something our brother did. Which our father could have prevented from happening in the first place.

Seems like the opposite of loving to me...

 

[Kenny'sID]

For something our brother did. Which our father could have prevented from happening in the first place.

Seems like the opposite of loving to me...

Prevent, how? Taking away free will? In the "dad" scenario above, he could have locked everyone in a closet or not had the children in the first place in order to prevent problems. Any other ideas on how to prevent?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Prevent, how? Taking away free will? In the "dad" scenario above, he could have locked everyone in a closet or not had the children in the first place in order to prevent problems. Any other ideas on how to prevent?

The argument that removing the ability to sin would negate free will is inconsistent with Christian theology. Here's why:

I assume you believe free will exists in heaven. Yet, there is no sin in heaven.

Therefore god can create a place without sin however has free will.

There is no reason why he could not have created that situation here on earth.

So yes, preventing sin was entirely within his control, and he chose not to do so. Therefore he bears the ultimate responsibility.