The problem of evil

[SkyWriting]

Personally, I can´t handle analogies that aren´t analogous in the crucial aspect.

Sure Sure

 

[SkyWriting]

If I had a child that was not yet capable of fending for himself or making informed decisions, then I am a negligent parent if I allow them to crawl out the front door and take off on their own.
Basically, in your example you're making god out to be a negligent parent, and blaming the kids for that fact.

Adam chose to walk away from the fellowship of God. The result being that
Man was kicked out of the Garden and not allowed back in.
We no longer live in the Garden of Eden. We live in the place where
people crucified God's only son. We have it pretty good considering
the choices we've made. Think of it from a parental point of view now.

 

[Locutus]

Normally, unbelievers, atheists change when they have a Near death experience and they experience life after death. Until then there is nothing we can do except to letting go their way sooner or later they will hit a wall. And then they will know even if it is mere seconds before they die. If not then the tunnel of darkness will wake them up.

dan

Likewise, I've seen a few believers at deathbeds experience a sudden realisation that death is probably permanent. Reality bites, when it arrives all at once.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Adam chose to walk away from the fellowship of God. The result being that
Man was kicked out of the Garden and not allowed back in.
We no longer live in the Garden of Eden. We live in the place where
people crucified God's only son. We have it pretty good considering
the choices we've made. Think of it from a parental point of view now.

My previous post still stands....

That's analogous to god being a negligent parent. In the story, Adam and Eve are still very naïve and don't understand much about the world. For example, they can't understand the difference between good and evil. That's akin to the maturity level of a very small child today.

So in essence, that's like punishing not only a small child to a life sentence of hard labour and potential torture for a minor mistake, the sentence also includes a possible sentence of eternal torture for all of the completely innocent future offspring of that child. That's heinously unjust. Any ethical system of justice would not include punishing people for a crime that they did not commit, yet that is what we find in gods perfect setup?

As for the crucifixion bit, I have two responses:

A) According to Christian mythology, god set the world up knowing what would happen, meaning he knew Jesus was going to have to be crucified even before Adam and Eve sinned. If not, then he is not omniscient. That is not only heinously immoral, however it is also not our fault. That's the way god set the world up.

B) Any god that would require torture and a human sacrifice to atone for sins, is a moral monster that is not worthy of worship.

 

[Locutus]

I agree it can appear as arrogance....and the gall is knowledge not belief. I have gone from the belief stage which is the Ego....to the knowledge stage. Mark ELLIS wrote an account of an Atheist NDE who actually went to hell. Needless to say he was a changed man when he came back. How I came across a writer by name of Mark Ellis is not a coincidence. He wrote about the NDE experience of Howard Storm.

dan

You don't have KNOWLEDGE, no one does.

 

[SkyWriting]

My previous post still stands....

That's analogous to god being a negligent parent. In the story, Adam and Eve are still very naïve and don't understand much about the world. For example, they can't understand the difference between good and evil. That's akin to the maturity level of a very small child today.

So in essence, that's like punishing not only a small child to a life sentence of hard labour and potential torture for a minor mistake, the sentence also includes a possible sentence of eternal torture for all of the completely innocent future offspring of that child. That's heinously unjust. Any ethical system of justice would not include punishing people for a crime that they did not commit, yet that is what we find in gods perfect setup?

As for the crucifixion bit, I have two responses:

A) According to Christian mythology, god set the world up knowing what would happen, meaning he knew Jesus was going to have to be crucified even before Adam and Eve sinned. If not, then he is not omniscient. That is not only heinously immoral, however it is also not our fault. That's the way god set the world up.

B) Any god that would require torture and a human sacrifice to atone for sins, is a moral monster that is not worthy of worship.

What a world you've created.

 

[Locutus]

Truth is from the Spirit of truth. If all men drink from that same well they will not err. The water that Christ said to the Samaritan women if she drunk is would never thirst again ....is the Spirit of God. Jesus sent us another comforter...The Holy Ghost,,,it testifies to the truth and also teaches. As in the Da Vinci professor demonstrates in the beginning of the movie how symbols over the centuries have been changed and mean sometimes the opposite in our time. Words are symbols also and Satan change their meaning. That is why interpretation by men no matter how smart they are will err. Their wisdom is of the world and God calls their wisdom foolishness. And they in turn call God's wisdom foolishness. Those of you who follow after the Jews for interpretation of the Scriptures are going to make their mistakes...and those of you who follow after the Greeks for interpretation of the scriptures are going to make the mistakes of the Greeks did. Those of us who choose to check with God for our truth will not be deceived in these last days, like those who follow the scriptures according to the wisdom of man. The Spirit of truth is what prevent the gates of hell to prevail against us. And any Church that has the Spirit of truth as it cornerstone will never fall prey to snares and deceptions of Satan.

dan

Yes of course ... you happen to have the most true truth. Everyone else is misinformed. You're amazing.

 

[Dave Ellis]

What a world you've created.

I didn't create the world.

However, you have also failed to point out where I'm wrong in my post. By all means, have at it.

 

[Loudmouth]

It seems you clipped the part where I noted that the definition I use is from the dictionary, i.e. common.

I already explained this. Just because clouds are mentioned in the Bible does not make clouds biblical.

Government funds? That sounds like a humorously uninformed and privileged American waving the magic wand to make the pain go away.

That looks like an attempt to ignore my argument.

Are you saying that a weak king is supposed to take food from Israelites who hate the Amalekites and give it to Amalekite children?

A moral king would.

So let's apply this modern viewpoint to a modern problem. "Don't kill children for what their parents and grandparents do." So, if a woman has sex and pregnancy results, the unborn child shouldn't be killed because of what the mother did. Right?

That isn't a child.

I don't define God's track record in that way.

That's the rub, isn't it?

All you have is a circular argument. You simply believe that no matter what God does it is moral. I don't know why you try to claim that you base it on a track record when there is nothing God could do that you would consider immoral. When we point out immoral acts in God's track record you claim they really aren't immoral because of God's track record. Do you see the problem here?

You've not established the credibility to speak for humanity.

And yet you feel qualified to speak for a God?

 

[Resha Caner]

I already explained this. Just because clouds are mentioned in the Bible does not make clouds biblical.

So you're claiming that even though the definition I use is listed as the #1 definition at dictionary.com, it's still illegitimate? I don't understand your antagonism on this issue. I understand how you interpreted my statement. I clarified my meaning - my meaning. Why can't you just say, "Oh, OK. So that's what you meant," and let's just move on. For some reason you have to paint me as a deceptive villain in every detail of everything I say.

If you really believe that, I'm not sure why you suffer discussions with me.

A moral king would.

Be aware I interpret this as, "I think a moral king should". Establishing any more than that is the whole point of this discussion. So, you think it is moral for a king who knows he will trigger civil war because he's too weak to control the anger leveled against the Amalekites should go ahead and do so? And in the end the Amalekite children would probably die anyway. So, the end result of your plan is a death toll that is higher. How does that eliminate the pain?

That isn't a child.

They feel pain.

Further, in your morality they share the same status with born children that they aren't moral agents. Why have the animals not come up in this discussion? Saul was to destroy all the animals as well, and they feel pain. Your system seems to lead to a situation where even life/death decisions can be made for what is not a moral agent.

If your willingness to kill animals and the unborn despite their pain is not based on the fact that you don't consider them "moral agents", then you need to explain. And why do you differentiate them from born children? There is one unbeliever at CF who advocates that it should be permissible to kill even born children until they reach the age of accountability.

All you have is a circular argument. You simply believe that no matter what God does it is moral. I don't know why you try to claim that you base it on a track record when there is nothing God could do that you would consider immoral. When we point out immoral acts in God's track record you claim they really aren't immoral because of God's track record. Do you see the problem here?

The problem is your apparent rush to dismiss my argument, which ends up in misrepresentations. I've repeatedly said that I don't do what you claim I do.

Had I been in Saul's shoes I would definitely have questioned God's command. And there is precedent for God entertaining such questions (Gen 18:22-33), even in Saul's lifetime (1 Samuel 8). God's command was the best option given the situation. You keep asking, "Couldn't God change the situation?" Don't you see? Saul never asked that question. Yes, God could have changed the situation.

I don't just accept the pain in my life. And if that pain is occurring because I'm trying to follow what I think God has commanded me to do, I definitely question it. Yet I can look back over my life and observe the track record. When I ignored God's commands and did what I wanted, the score is pretty poor. When I accepted God's command and moved forward despite the immediate pain, the score is pretty good. I've learned to accept that I can't foresee all the consequences - that no human can, and that we need God's guidance.

And yet you feel qualified to speak for a God?

No, I don't. When I speak with certainty, it is because of what I can support with citations. If I mention something God has said, I can point to the Bible. If I am speaking of history, I can cite my sources. If I am speaking of science, I can cite my sources. If I have none of that, I freely admit I am only speculating.

How do you do it?

 

[Loudmouth]

So you're claiming that even though the definition I use is listed as the #1 definition at dictionary.com, it's still illegitimate?

Clouds are in the Bible. Does that make clouds biblical?

You acted as if citing a common moral code found in multiple cultures and multiple religious texts is somehow supportive of the Bible simply because it is also found in the Bible. That is what is under contention.

Be aware I interpret this as, "I think a moral king should". Establishing any more than that is the whole point of this discussion. So, you think it is moral for a king who knows he will trigger civil war because he's too weak to control the anger leveled against the Amalekites should go ahead and do so? And in the end the Amalekite children would probably die anyway. So, the end result of your plan is a death toll that is higher. How does that eliminate the pain?

Sorry, but all you are doing is making stuff up. There is absolutely no reason why the Hebrew people could not have taken the Amalekite children into their homes. There is no reason why God couldn't have fed them with manna from heaven, just as he did for the Hebrew people all those years in the desert.

They feel pain.

Prove it.

Further, in your morality they share the same status with born children that they aren't moral agents.

That is conflation. Born children can feel pain. You have not shown that aborted children can.

Also, we can both agree that abortions are immoral for the purposes of this thread. People doing immoral things doesn't change the fact that morality exists. You keep acting as if people act immorally because they don't know what is moral. Can you explain this position?

Why have the animals not come up in this discussion? Saul was to destroy all the animals as well, and they feel pain. Your system seems to lead to a situation where even life/death decisions can be made for what is not a moral agent.

Cruelty towards animals is also a part of moral systems. This is again tied to empathy, logic, and reason. In fact, I have taken bioethics courses on this very subject. The overall argument in the field of bioethics is that as you get closer to humans on the tree of life you have species that experience pain with the same emotional distress that humans experience. For example, chimps experience pain in much the same way humans do, but mice do not experience pain in a manner that is human-like. There are different rules and regulations based on which species you use, and which stage of development you use. For example, there are many experiments you can't do with mice, but you can do those same types of experiments on zebrafish. If you are using zebrafish embryos that are less than 3 days old, you don't even have to submit a research plan for approval to your local review board.

The whole point is that we do consider pain in other species.

If your willingness to kill animals and the unborn despite their pain is not based on the fact that you don't consider them "moral agents", then you need to explain.

Can you show me where I made that argument?

There is one unbeliever at CF who advocates that it should be permissible to kill even born children until they reach the age of accountability.

There is one deity under discussion in this thread that had no problem killing children.

Had I been in Saul's shoes I would definitely have questioned God's command. And there is precedent for God entertaining such questions (Gen 18:22-33), even in Saul's lifetime (1 Samuel 8). God's command was the best option given the situation. You keep asking, "Couldn't God change the situation?" Don't you see? Saul never asked that question. Yes, God could have changed the situation.

Then why didn't God change the situation if it would have saved lives?

In fact, we can see just the opposite with the story of the Exodus. God heartened the heart of the pharaoh so that he would not free Moses' people. Even though God took the pharaoh's free will, he still punished the entire nation by killing their first born. If you think killing unborn children is immoral, how immoral is that?

I don't just accept the pain in my life. And if that pain is occurring because I'm trying to follow what I think God has commanded me to do, I definitely question it. Yet I can look back over my life and observe the track record. When I ignored God's commands and did what I wanted, the score is pretty poor. When I accepted God's command and moved forward despite the immediate pain, the score is pretty good. I've learned to accept that I can't foresee all the consequences - that no human can, and that we need God's guidance.

We have a track record of immoral acts for God that you are ignoring.

No, I don't. When I speak with certainty, it is because of what I can support with citations. If I mention something God has said, I can point to the Bible. If I am speaking of history, I can cite my sources. If I am speaking of science, I can cite my sources. If I have none of that, I freely admit I am only speculating.

How do you do it?

Where in the Bible can we find the verses where God said that feeding the Amalekite children would just be too difficult?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Sorry, but all you are doing is making stuff up. There is absolutely no reason why the Hebrew people could not have taken the Amalekite children into their homes. There is no reason why God couldn't have fed them with manna from heaven, just as he did for the Hebrew people all those years in the desert.

It's easy to ignore a god's omnipotence when necessary to maintain a non-troubling position about how good or evil that god is...

 

[Loudmouth]

It's easy to ignore a god's omnipotence when necessary to maintain a non-troubling position about how good or evil that god is...

That is one of the lines from Epicurus' argument.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
Epicurus

 

[Dan Bert]

I can see it from you point of view. That is not my point of view ....the best point of view is that of God. I have spiritual evidence and so do you. You will not be able to deny the Spiritual side of you forever.

bert10

It's also arrogant to claim knowledge when you have no evidence to support your claim.

Writing an account of something is not evidence of anything, much less proof. How does he know the person in question actually went to hell? How does he know hell is even a real place?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I can see it from you point of view. That is not my point of view ....the best point of view is that of God. I have spiritual evidence and so do you. You will not be able to deny the Spiritual side of you forever.

bert10

* Raises Hand *

I don't have spiritual evidence of anything. That's why I'm an atheist...

 

[Loudmouth]

I can see it from you point of view. That is not my point of view ....the best point of view is that of God. I have spiritual evidence and so do you. You will not be able to deny the Spiritual side of you forever.

bert10

What is spiritual evidence, other than just bare assertions?

 

[Dan Bert]

They may have called themselves believers...but were not. Satan change the meaning of the word to today's meaning which means to have a set of beliefs and these never leave the belief stage.. which is not to prove anything....In heaven it means two things and they go together. TO BE and TO LIVE the teachings and the Commandments. Those that do it, prove it to themselves and receive Spiritual evidence of the truth which cannot be denied. And these they keep it even after death. Once Enlightened, for them to chose darkness over light it would be like If I told you under a noon day sun...that there is no sun. This is the sin that is not forgiven in this world or in the next. Which is tasting the things of the Spirit and to deny them afterwards.

Dan

Likewise, I've seen a few believers at deathbeds experience a sudden realisation that death is probably permanent. Reality bites, when it arrives all at once.

 

[Dan Bert]

That is how it is supposed to work. The world is designed to keep us asleep. Only those who have the thirst and the hunger for more than the animal state of living will be awakened to find as Star Trek calls it...the "Undiscovered Country." Those awakened do not live in the same world as those who are asleep. They know for example mankind cannot do anything against Global warming which God sent to the world. But it provides the governments of the world to add another tax and call it the carbon tax. Even if they were able to reduce the Carbon foot print of every nation. God would wake up a Volcano and send so much garbage in the air...It will make the work of mankind in vain. The Elect know the promises of God and will live the conditions of them so they can receive...God promised to heal the land of the people that return to him. The coming Tribulations is for removing those people that are become an obstacle to Spiritual common sense. As proof of what I say is true...... Nature is going to continue to work less and less with man. The blind think their scientists will save them. Their error is going to cost them their lives.

dan

* Raises Hand *

I don't have spiritual evidence of anything. That's why I'm an atheist...

 

[Dan Bert]

The Spirit of knowledge and the Spirit of understanding and the Spirit of wisdom are no respecter of person. They are there for everyone...who fulfill the condition to have their help. I have knowledge because, I ask, I seek and I knock for those things. Being a spiritual seeker has it benefits and drawbacks. The Drawbacks is that the game of life becomes less interesting in one sense.

dan

You don't have KNOWLEDGE, no one does.

 

[Loudmouth]

The Spirit of knowledge and the Spirit of understanding and the Spirit of wisdom are no respecter of person. They are there for everyone...who fulfill the condition to have their help. I have knowledge because, I ask, I seek and I knock for those things. Being a spiritual seeker has it benefits and drawbacks. The Drawbacks is that the game of life becomes less interesting in one sense.

dan

Again, those are just assertions. Where is the evidence?