The problem of evil

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Why would you need to kill an animal, to teach someone a lesson?

Good question. Well, first it is important to mention that there were many different kinds of sacrifices for various reasons. The specific sacrifice that is in question is called a "sin offering". The point of a "sin offering" was not about "punishing animal for the crime of the guilty." It was to teach the guilty about the consequence of their actions. When people sin, innocent people are hurt.

It goes back to the fall of man. When Adam and Eve sinned, God provided them with fur clothes to cover their shame. The animals that were killed to make the clothes were the first animals who were sacrificed as a sin offering. These animals were not killed as punishment for the crimes of the guilty. Their killing necessary to cover shame and thus was a direct consequence of their sin.

When a sin offering is made, it teaches the offender that there are consequences to your actions. One of these consequences is that innocent people suffer because of it. Like a victim of vehicular homicide is not intentionally being punished for the crimes of a drunk driver. The drunk driver was foolish and innocent people suffered as a result.

So, how many lives were affected for the better because of "sin offerings"? I don't know, but I do believe that the lessons learned are not to be overlooked.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I guess that sounded good to you at the time you posted it anyway...lol.

Just pointing out the absurdity of arguing that something horrible is fine if God does it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yep, Like ones loving dad punishing them is all about revenge.

No; more like your loving dad killing your son's pet because you slighted him.

... if you want an excuse for your hatred of God, that's as good as any I suppose.

Lol - I don't believe in God; I occasionally point out the absurdities I see in arguments about God.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...When a sin offering is made, it teaches the offender that there are consequences to your actions. One of these consequences is that innocent people suffer because of it.

So the innocent must suffer to demonstrate that if you do wrong the innocent will be made to suffer ?!

 

[ToddNotTodd]

And again with the taunts. Some would have caught on the the point of my answer...guess it's all about selective understanding when one has agenda.

Let me try that, your avoidance of the question I asked along with that comment is really all *I* need to know.

Ah, thought yours was rhetorical. So let me answer:

For the hypothetical, it doesn't matter if you think those kind of commands are "OT stuff", unless you believe that your god could not give commands now. I've talked to lots of Christians that seem to think that the god the believe in is giving them commands to do all sorts of things.

I'll make the question simpler. Do you believe that might makes right in all cases, or just with your god?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

So the innocent must suffer to demonstrate that if you do wrong the innocent will be made to suffer ?!

Because an all wise, omnipotent god couldn't come up with a better teaching method than making people suffer for things they didn't do.

 

[bhsmte]

Good question. Well, first it is important to mention that there were many different kinds of sacrifices for various reasons. The specific sacrifice that is in question is called a "sin offering". The point of a "sin offering" was not about "punishing animal for the crime of the guilty." It was to teach the guilty about the consequence of their actions. When people sin, innocent people are hurt.

It goes back to the fall of man. When Adam and Eve sinned, God provided them with fur clothes to cover their shame. The animals that were killed to make the clothes were the first animals who were sacrificed as a sin offering. These animals were not killed as punishment for the crimes of the guilty. Their killing necessary to cover shame and thus was a direct consequence of their sin.

When a sin offering is made, it teaches the offender that there are consequences to your actions. One of these consequences is that innocent people suffer because of it. Like a victim of vehicular homicide is not intentionally being punished for the crimes of a drunk driver. The drunk driver was foolish and innocent people suffered as a result.

So, how many lives were affected for the better because of "sin offerings"? I don't know, but I do believe that the lessons learned are not to be overlooked.

I dont buy it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Because an all wise, omnipotent god couldn't come up with a better teaching method than making people suffer for things they didn't do.

It does seem disturbingly contrary to a reasonable sense of fairness... It's just the kind of thing that evil tyrants with personality cults do - I'm thinking North Korea here; if you offend, your entire family, near relations, and friends are punished - typically with hard labour for life.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

So the innocent must suffer to demonstrate that if you do wrong the innocent will be made to suffer ?!

The innocent suffers regardless. Better an animal than another human being in my opinion. The key lesson is do not sin or else innocent will suffer.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The innocent suffers regardless.

So if the innocent suffer regardless, there's nothing wrong with making them suffer more?

Better an animal than another human being in my opinion.

Don't forget this was originally about the suffering of innocent people.

The key lesson is do not sin or else innocent will suffer.

A deterrent that tends to diminish with propensity to sin; it wouldn't bother sociopaths at all. A lesson in illogicality or irrationality.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The innocent suffers regardless. Better an animal than another human being in my opinion. The key lesson is do not sin or else innocent will suffer.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I'm imagining your god pounding a fist into an open palm while saying "You better be good, or the kid gets it".

Once again, this is really the best we can expect from a god that's supposed to be all powerful and all "good"?

 

[Kenny'sID]

For the hypothetical, it doesn't matter if you think those kind of commands are "OT stuff", unless you believe that your god could not give commands now.

It matters in that at the very least he doesn't do it anymore, his point was made and he's moved on to a better way....let it go. Surely you can find other reasons to hate God?...something more interesting than this worn out God sin.

I'll make the question simpler.

No need, you have my answer, accept it or try to taunt me to answer anyway...whatever.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I'm imagining your god pounding a fist into an open palm while saying "You better be good, or the kid gets it".

Once again, this is really the best we can expect from a god that's supposed to be all powerful and all "good"?

You fail to grasp the concept of "consequences for your actions and decisions". The whole "or the kids gets it" would not be a punishment from God but rather the kids suffering as a consequence for your actions. If you cheated on your spouse and you wound up getting a divorce because of it. Your child's suffering is a direct result of your actions. The child is not being punished by God because of your actions.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[ToddNotTodd]

It matters in that at the very least he doesn't do it anymore, his point was made and he's moved on to a better way....let it go.

A better way? As in, your god had a bad system and then changed it? So you don't believe that your god is perfect and unchanging? That would seem to be a minority view.

Surely you can find other reasons to hate God?...something more interesting than this worn out God sin.

Surely you can understand that you can't hate things you don't believe in, right? And the fact that there's no good solution to the Euthyphro Dilemma is a good indication that it's not "worn out".

No need, you have my answer, accept it or try to taunt me to answer anyway...whatever.

Your inability to actually answer questions may make having meaningful conversations in the Philosophy section difficult.

Perhaps at some point the cognitive dissonance you seeming suffer from will cause you to challenge your beliefs.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You fail to grasp the concept of "consequences for your actions and decisions". The whole "or the kids gets it" would not be a punishment from God but rather the kids suffering as a consequence for your actions. If you cheated on your spouse and you wound up getting a divorce because of it. Your child's suffering is a direct result of your actions. The child is not being punished by God because of your actions.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

The point is any definition of "good" that makes any sense to me would preclude punishing someone for the actions of another. I'm guessing that you feel the same way in every other situation that doesn't include your god, correct? If someone rapes a man's daughter, would you be fine with a judge sentencing the rapists daughter to be raped?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

A better way? As in, your god had a bad system and then changed it? So you don't believe that your god is perfect and unchanging? That would seem to be a minority view.

The system changed because of Jesus Christ not because God made a mistake. But I am sure you know all about that. Don't you?

Surely you can understand that you can't hate things you don't believe in, right? And the fact that there's no good solution to the Euthyphro Dilemma is a good indication that it's not "worn out".

I have answered the question about the Euthyphro Dilemma at least three times now on three different threads. You and many other atheists simply want to reject every answer you get because yourself and many other atheist here do not want and are not looking for answers. So that leads me to ask, "Why are you on a Christian forum to begin with?"

Your inability to actually answer questions may make having meaningful conversations in the Philosophy section difficult.

Once again, many answers have been given. But we both know that is not why you are really here....isn't it? [emoji4]

Perhaps at some point the cognitive dissonance you seeming suffer from will cause you to challenge your beliefs.

Well now, finally we get to the truth! You really are not hear at all to get answers and learn anything. You are just here to make Christians "challenge their beliefs". You must be some sort of atheist activist aren't you. You probably think that religion is a virus to mankind and needs to be destroyed by attacking their faith. You know, it is because "religion is the cause of so many problems in this world"...am I correct? Wars are fought over it. Social progress such as same sex marriage and woman's right to have abortions are halted because of religious fanatics....right? So go right on ahead. Try to make the world a better place by attempting to destroy religion. Just remember, you are on a "Christian Forum". You are a guest in Christian home.

Have you ever been on the forum "the thinking atheist"? If not, you should probably go there. That way you can attack God all you want and have plenty of people to pat you on the back at tell you what a good boy you are. I'd bet that make you feel special. Well, I have spent more time on TTA than I have on this forum and let me tell you something. I actually have a positive reputation! Because I recognize that as a Christian, I am a guest in an atheist home. I don't go there to convert or troll. I go there to learn. How would you feel about someone kicking down your door and tell you how ridiculous your beliefs are?


Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Kenny'sID]

A better way? As in, your god had a bad system and then changed it? So you don't believe that your god is perfect and unchanging? That would seem to be a minority view.

Yes a better way, just as Christ was a better way. Has nothing to do with him being perfect or unchanging, and has everything to do with him making a point to the imperfect and changing man. As I said, selective understanding according to your agenda.

Surely you can understand that you can't hate things you don't believe in, right? And the fact that there's no good solution to the Euthyphro Dilemma is a good indication that it's not "worn out".

You know he's there...there's no other good explanation as to why you would come here to show your hate for him.

Your inability to actually answer questions may make having meaningful conversations in the Philosophy section difficult.

Perhaps at some point the cognitive dissonance you seeming suffer from will cause you to challenge your beliefs.

More taunts, funny how you keep doing the same thing yet expect a different result. I am curious though, you push for an answer so hard, I have to wonder what do you think you have accomplished exactly by my not answering? what does that prove to you...in detail?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The system changed because of Jesus Christ not because God made a mistake. But I am sure you know all about that. Don't you?

He's the one that mentioned a "better way". Which indicates that there was a "worse way" that changed. This brings up two points. One, why wasn't the "better way" implemented immediately? I mean, that would have saved the suffering of individuals for things that someone else did. That's what a good god would do, given the alternative.

Two, doesn't this fundamental change in the rules indicated a change in your god? One system, with its accompanying effects, was fine for a while, then your god decided to implement a different system, with different effects. The fact that your god was seemingly ok with the effects of the first system and then wasn't indicates a change to me.

I have answered the question about the Euthyphro Dilemma at least three times now on three different threads. You and many other atheists simply want to reject every answer you get because yourself and many other atheist here do not want and are not looking for answers. So that leads me to ask, "Why are you on a Christian forum to begin with?"

To find out why Christian believe the things they do. As a part of that, the question of evil pops up, as it's one of the main reasons I've seen Christians deconvert. The fact that Christians can remain Christians despite the dilemma, which I've not seen an actual coherent response to from anyone on these boards, is fascinating to me. The attempts at an answer seem to rely on twisting definition past the breaking point, or ignoring the problem all together.

Once again, many answers have been given. But we both know that is not why you are really here....isn't it? [emoji4]

You would expect that in the Philosophy section of the site theists would be able to converse about... Philosophy. The fact that for the most part I see fallacy after fallacy from theists, or outright evasion shows me that the reason theists are here is simply to proselytize. Which if memory serves is against the principles behind the Philosophy section.

Well now, finally we get to the truth! You really are not hear at all to get answers and learn anything. You are just here to make Christians "challenge their beliefs". You must be some sort of atheist activist aren't you. You probably think that religion is a virus to mankind and needs to be destroyed by attacking their faith. You know, it is because "religion is the cause of so many problems in this world"...am I correct? Wars are fought over it. Social progress such as same sex marriage and woman's right to have abortions are halted because of religious fanatics....right? So go right on ahead. Try to make the world a better place by attempting to destroy religion. Just remember, you are on a "Christian Forum". You are a guest in Christian home.

Have you ever been on the forum "the thinking atheist"? If not, you should probably go there. That way you can attack God all you want and have plenty of people to pat you on the back at tell you what a good boy you are. I'd bet that make you feel special. Well, I have spent more time on TTA than I have on this forum and let me tell you something. I actually have a positive reputation! Because I recognize that as a Christian, I am a guest in an atheist home. I don't go there to convert or troll. I go there to learn. How would you feel about someone kicking down your door and tell you how ridiculous your beliefs are?

All beliefs should be challenged if you're a lover of truth. I certainly am, and I'm open to changing any of my beliefs if evidence shows they are incorrect.

Is that not the case for you?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Yes a better way, just as Christ was a better way. Has nothing to do with him being perfect or unchanging, and has everything to do with him making a point to the imperfect and changing man. As I said, selective understanding according to your agenda.

My "agenda" involves finding out what you really believe. So why would an omniscient, omnipotent god start out with a "worse way" of doing anything? Why not start with the "better way"? Seems like a change in god's character to me. And actually, there were and are Christian apologists that contend that God is not "unchanging". So it's not unheard of to believe this.

You know he's there...there's no other good explanation as to why you would come here to show your hate for him.

Despite the failed mindreading attempts, which are intellectually dishonest by the way, I don't believe in any gods.

More taunts, funny how you keep doing the same thing yet expect a different result. I am curious though, you push for an answer so hard, I have to wonder what do you think you have accomplished exactly by my not answering? what does that prove to you...in detail?

When someone refuses to answer a question in a way that doesn't skirt the issue, as politicians often do, it seems as though the person is reluctant to answer the question because of how the answer sounds, either to others or to themselves. If that's the case then I tend to assume that deep down they realize the problems with their beliefs, and are reluctant to face them. But I suppose the unwillingness to answer could just come from an antagonistic attitude at an "intruder" here questioning what you believe...

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

He's the one that mentioned a "better way". Which indicates that there was a "worse way" that changed. This brings up two points. One, why wasn't the "better way" implemented immediately? I mean, that would have saved the suffering of individuals for things that someone else did. That's what a good god would do, given the alternative.

Two, doesn't this fundamental change in the rules indicated a change in your god? One system, with its accompanying effects, was fine for a while, then your god decided to implement a different system, with different effects. The fact that your god was seemingly ok with the effects of the first system and then wasn't indicates a change to me.

I admit, my friend could have chosen better words to articulate his message. However, just to clarify, their was no "better way" or "worse way". It is simply God's way. And this way was the way He chose in order to clear the path for His plan for the Messiah and redemption of mankind.

To find out why Christian believe the things they do. As a part of that, the question of evil pops up, as it's one of the main reasons I've seen Christians deconvert. The fact that Christians can remain Christians despite the dilemma, which I've not seen an actual coherent response to from anyone on these boards, is fascinating to me. The attempts at an answer seem to rely on twisting definition past the breaking point, or ignoring the problem all together.

So why is it when a Christian " tells you why they believe the things they do", that doesn't seem to be enough for you? If you are asking someone why they believe something, that is not up for debate or arguement because you cannot prove that that individual does or does not have that belief for the reason they explained.

As for the "Dilemma". Here is a copy/paste from my notes once again:

Plato's famous question concerning the nature of goodness asks whether a thing is good because God says it is good, or does God say it's good because it is good. This is known as Euthyphro's Dilemma (named after the character Euthyphro in Plato's 'socratic dialogue' on the subject of goodness).

The problem this question raises for the Christian is two-fold. First, if a thing is good simply because God says it is, then it seems that God could say anything was good and it would be. This might include things that we instinctively know to be evil, like rape or murder. But we don't want a morality based on God's arbitrary declarations, so it seems this choice is a poor one for the believer. However, if God is simply reporting a thing's goodness, then He is no longer the standard for goodness and seems to be at the mercy of some outside standard. But we don't want there to be a standard above God that He must bow to, so this response does not seem attractive, either. Hence the dilemma.

There is, however, a third option. As Christians we should affirm both God's sovereignty and His non-derived goodness. Thus, we don't want a standard that is arbitrary nor one that exists outside or above God. Fortunately, God is both supremely sovereign and good. Therefore, God's nature itself can serve as the standard of goodness, and God can base His declarations of goodness on Himself. God's nature is unchangeable and wholly good; thus, His will is not arbitrary, and His declarations are always true. This solves both issues.

How is God the standard of goodness? Because He is the creator. A thing's goodness is determined by its purpose. A dull knife is not a good knife because the purpose of a knife is to cut. Sharpness is bad for a shoe, however, for a good shoe is one that is comfortable and supportive to a foot. God, as creator, is the determiner of all purposes of His creation. What He makes is made purposefully, and anything that stands in the way of that purpose is bad. Rape is evil because that is not what sex is made to be. Murder is evil because it is not the purpose of humans to arbitrarily decide when people should die. (Note that this does not necessarily vilify all human-caused deaths, such as capital punishment or war. If God has stated guidelines for these actions, then it is no longer arbitrary human will being carried out.)

In conclusion, a thing is good to the degree that it fulfills its purposes. Because God is the creator of all things, according to His own good nature, He is therefore both the standard and declarer of goodness.

You would expect that in the Philosophy section of the site theists would be able to converse about... Philosophy. The fact that for the most part I see fallacy after fallacy from theists, or outright evasion shows me that the reason theists are here is simply to proselytize. Which if memory serves is against the principles behind the Philosophy section.

Unfortunately, the OP is not a philosophical question. It is an effort to attack Christians and their beliefs. I could very well have asked, "Why would anyone choose to be an atheist and risk going to hell?". If I posted that question in TTA in their philosophy section, what reaction would you expect me to get?

All beliefs should be challenged if you're a lover of truth. I certainly am, and I'm open to changing any of my beliefs if evidence shows they are incorrect.

Is that not the case for you?

OK, I would like you to answer this question honestly. If you saw a man who claimed to be "God incarnate" and this man performed a miracle in front of your very eyes (caused a cripple to walk for example), would you believe in God then? Or would you instead think it was a hoax or a trick and find any other rational explanation?