Why does a good God promote suffering?

[thebagman]

1. For fun?

2. Because he is not a good God?

3. To teach us a lesson.

4. Because he wants more believers?

5. Because of some plan we will never be able to understand?

6. To teach us a lesson.

7. Maybe Satan and God were somehow switched and all of Christianity is a big joke?

8. God is a businessman.

9. God wants attention.

10. He has nothing better to do.

11. ?

[blithe spirit]

God doesn't promote suffering but he does allow it. Our finite minds cannot comprehend the infinite massive webworking God has going in order to achieve his perfect plan for us. There are at least 100 reasons listed in the Bible. I'll mention a handful off the top of my head since that's all I have time for at the moment:

1. Some sufferings are natural consequences brought on by choices we make ourselves like smoking leading to cancer. This teaches us obedience.

2. God allows sufferings that aren't of our own doing like natural disasters to teach us patience as well as all those things listed here below:

3. To teach us self-control

4. To teach us kindness and love given and received

5. To show us God's faithfulness and God's love when miracles happen.

6. To show us that God is listening when our prayers are answered...but remember that the answer is sometimes "wait" or sometimes "no" if it's not the best for us.

7. Since life is all about giving and receiving love and caring for one another, then God allows us to suffer so that when we are face to face with someone who is experiencing the same type of suffering then we'll be able to empathize and we'll know what to say and how to help and how to understand.

8. To draw families into a closer relationship with one another.

9. To draw communities together as volunteers help others in many ways as teamwork.

10. To draw us into a closer relationship with God

11. To strengthen us so we'll develop courage and perserverance

12. To be an inspiration and an example to others

13. To prepare us for his kingdom just as a diamond in the rough is tumbled and polished until it sparkles and shines and is perfect.

14. To make it possible for us to experience blessings.

15. To soften our hearts and humble us enough to be able to open up to hearing and receiving all the God has for us.

[G L Wilson]

God is a S & M freak. He's drawn to suffering, he gets off on it.

[togre]

I consider our present suffering not worth comparing to the glory that will be revealed in us.

Romans 8:18


The following is the answer Scripture gives.

Fact: God created a world that was perfect--that is, without suffering and without any flaw.

Fact: Humans, when given freedom to remain perfect or to turn from God, turned from God.

Fact: This turning (Fall) changed each person and changed creation (the world). All now is marred. All now suffers and causes suffering.

Fact: All people who sin deserve eternal punishment in hell

Fact: Any suffering endured on earth, be it ever so great, is less than the suffering of hell.

Fact: God desires that people do not suffer hell. He went so far as to provide his Son as a Substitute with Jesus Christ willingly living and dieing to pay for our sins.

Fact: Because of this many, many people will rescued from hell and will dwell with God in heaven.

Fact: The joy of dwelling in heaven is greater than the suffering of living on earth.

Fact: In his desire that more people should trust his solution and be saved, God permits this world to continue, not because of the suffering that happens, but in spite of it.


Blithe Spirit makes some good points. God is able to make use of wickedness so that it serves good purpose. At the same time, suffering or even God himself cannot be comprehended apart from Jesus and his death on the cross.

[MarkBastable]

Interesting use of the word 'fact'.

[togre]

Interesting use of the word 'fact'.

Fair enough. I did preface it by saying this is the answer the Bible gives. The Bible is unapologetic in claiming to speak factually about truth and historic events.

[MarkBastable]

True.

On the subject of Romans 8:18, I'd say that Paul was a really talented sales guy in a start-up endeavour, but for that very reason it's worth looking askance at every thing he said.

[Panglossian]

11. Because He is dreaming. The universe is a vast dream in the mind of God. When He awakens - lights out Berty!*



*Disclaimer: this opinion is not necessarily true, it just pleases me at the moment.

[togre]

True.

On the subject of Romans 8:18, I'd say that Paul was a really talented sales guy in a start-up endeavour, but for that very reason it's worth looking askance at every thing he said.

Painting Paul as a 'sales guy' conflicts with many accounts of Scripture. He had been a rising star in the Pharisaic school of Judaism until he converted to Christianity (which he had previously opposed and persecuted). He refused to take monetary compensation while carrying out his missionary work, instead supported himself as a tent maker. He suffered all sorts of persecutions, arrests, imprisonments and beatings as he promoted Jesus as Savior. He was eventually executed for this.

My point? Rational people can disagree about whether Paul was/is right or not (I am strongly convinced he spoke the truth by the influence of God). But there exists no evidence that supports the position you appear to be taking--that Paul peddled something he didn't believe and therefore intentionally hyped it up shamelessly. Indeed, there is in fact evidence to the contrary implying that leaving aside the veracity of his claims, that Paul himself was convinced of them.

[MarkBastable]

My point? Rational people can disagree about whether Paul was/is right or not (I am strongly convinced he spoke the truth by the influence of God). But there exists no evidence that supports the position you appear to be taking--that Paul peddled something he didn't believe and therefore intentionally hyped it up shamelessly. Indeed, there is in fact evidence to the contrary implying that leaving aside the veracity of his claims, that Paul himself was convinced of them.

I didn't for an instant suggest he didn't believe it. On the contrary, I'm completely sure he did. Not all sales people are liars. But, equally, not everything they sell is worth buying.

[togre]

My apologies for assuming an inference you did not intend to make.

[V.Jayalakshmi]

Why assume God promoted sufferings?Instead it is we human beings, who promote suffering .

[MarkBastable]

Why assume God promoted sufferings?Instead it is we human beings, who promote suffering .

Yep, I don't know about you guys, but I know I go around promoting leukaemia and spina bifida all over the place, and I organise earthquakes whenever the opportunity happens by.

[Ecurb]

"As flies to wanton boys are we to the Gods." -- Gloucester; King Lear

[blithe spirit]

Why assume God promoted sufferings?Instead it is we human beings, who promote suffering.

Yep, I don't know about you guys, but I know I go around promoting leukaemia and spina bifida all over the place, and I organise earthquakes whenever the opportunity happens by.
Sometimes it's humans promoting the suffering such as choosing to smoke=cancer but the bottom line is that satan does the tempting and humans disobey God over and over even though we suffer the natural consequences of our actions, choosing satan over God. God says doing anything to excess is a sin.

Leukemia and Spina Bifida are not a creation of God's but God sometimes allows it for reasons listed above in posts #2 and #4 and/or millions of other possible reasons. You may ask, "Why does God allow a child to die so young?" God does not look at death as a bad thing for children because they are all headed for God's perfect Kingdom for eternity...forever in peace and harmony. And they won't miss their parents or siblings because there is no time there...it's as if we all step over that line at the same time. Death is only a bad thing for adults who have chosen to reject God...because hell for eternity is no fun.

[thebagman]

There is an photo exhibition at the State Library of NSW right now. Trust me, there is no God.

[G L Wilson]

God is a gimp.

[Ecurb]

There is an exhibition at the State Library of NSW right now. Trust me, there is no God.

Participating in this discussion in this way is a bit like participating in a discussion about why Lady MacBeth went insane by saying, "Trust me, there is no Lady MacBeth."

[MarkBastable]

And they won't miss their parents or siblings because there is no time there...it's as if we all step over that line at the same time.

Okay, I can't help it. Where did you get this idea? And I mean I'd like actual references cited, preferably where I can look them up.

While you're getting hold of the references, I have another question.


Leukemia and Spina Bifida are not a creation of God's...

Not very long ago, Christians would have burned you at the stake for suggesting that there was anything in creation that was not the work of God. However - I'm more interested in the logic than the heresy. If God didn't create Spina Bifida, who did?

[thebagman]

Participating in this discussion in this way is a bit like participating in a discussion about why Lady MacBeth went insane by saying, "Trust me, there is no Lady MacBeth."

No actually, it isn't.

My participation in this discussion would go something like this: why did Lady Macbeth go insane? Because there is no God.

I'm not trying to be a smartass (maybe I am). I went to the exhibition yesterday, I needed something to take my mind off things. The last time I went there it was on Gibran (I think it was him), I was expecting something pleasant and they have a whole bunch of pictures of dead people. Which was nice.

An otherwise attractive girl had her nose and ears cut off for running away from an abusive husband. A HIV and drug abusers final moments of life. A mass of bodies from and earthquake, bodies of people executed in mexico for stealing drugs.

If God has a great plan for all of us I would very much like to know what it is. Otherwise I'm not really sure I want to have any part of it. A plan that we as human beings will never be able to grasp by a deity that may or may not exist sounds like a long shot to me.

Thank you blithe spirit for your comments though, that was actually quite nice. Togre, you're an idiot. I've have managed to get all that is good about Christianity followed by all that is bad in one thread.

[Delta40]

the promotion of self-interest is a great cause of suffering. Humankind is not really a collective thinker and even where one society is of the same mind, it probably comes at great cost to another. Look at the sweat shops and third worlds who suffer at the hands of western self-interest. I really fail to see where God comes into it.

[Buh4Bee]

God does not promote suffering; humanity brings suffering upon itself by choices made. God is wondrous and we cannot claim to know.

[thebagman]

blithe spirit, loving death seems unnatural to me. Accepting death as an unchangeable part of our lives is much easier said than done. Not fearing death is another thing entirely. Death should be a bad thing for everybody because it is a bad thing.

A very large chunk of Christianity is based on what happens after death (kingdom of heaven, afterlife, eternal suffering etc.) and how we should live our lives in preparation for it. Fear of death is a major draw for all religions. If you take that away what does in this case Christianity have to offer? A sense of belonging and a loving (not always) community. Moral code?


Humankind is not really a collective thinker and even where one society is of the same mind

Yes and I've already covered this in another post, thank God we are not! The more people we get together the dumber we all seem to get. How about communism? Cults! And religion! Are we all doomed?


God does not promote suffering; humanity brings suffering upon itself by choices made. God is wondrous and we cannot claim to know.

All the more reason to ignore him.

There's a picture of a kid who was born with a condition that made her skull swell up to the size of a watermelon. I can't remember clearly but I think it was a consequence of her parents exposure to agent orange in Vietnam. That one kid has to suffer for the moron decisions made by politicians who have nothing to do with her. Oh wait, I suppose they do have something to do with her after all. Wicked sense of justice. And humor.

To punish one person for the sake of another is stupid because we are individuals first and a collective second (new word for me). At least, that's how I like to see it. Anyway I thought that was what Jesus was sent here to do. Didn't he die for our sins? Why are we still suffering?

[blithe spirit]

Delta, man causes some suffering by choosing sin over obedience to God. Gluttony and Greed are sins.

Okay, I can't help it. Where did you get this idea? And I mean I'd like actual references cited, preferably where I can look them up.
I hate to disappoint you but God gave me a wonderful mind to think for myself and my comment that there is no time in heaven is a result of my own logic...not google or wikipedia. If there was such a thing as time in heaven (or in God's kingdom) then heaven wouldn't be the perfect place of no suffering and pure bliss would it? Nor would there be eternal life because time would cause aging...there would be impatience, procrastination, deadlines to meet, all things having to do with the constraints of time.

Not very long ago, Christians would have burned you at the stake for suggesting that there was anything in creation that was not the work of God. However - I'm more interested in the logic than the heresy. If God didn't create Spina Bifida, who did?
Everything God created was perfect...sin then entered into the picture via satan (post#4). Remember though that God allows these types of suffering sometimes for reasons listed in post #2 and/or many reasons not listed here for lack of time and space. God is not limited to one reason...he can have many reasons for each step in his perfect plan.


There's a picture of a kid who was born with a condition that made her skull swell up to the size of a watermelon. I can't remember clearly but I think it was a consequence of her parents exposure to agent orange in Vietnam. That one kid has to suffer for the moron decisions made by politicians who have nothing to do with her....To punish one person for the sake of another is stupid because we are individuals first and a collective second (new word for me). At least, that's how I like to see it. Anyway I thought that was what Jesus was sent here to do. Didn't he die for our sins? Why are we still suffering?
God says in the Bible that "the sins of the fathers with be visited upon his children". You may not like that but it's the way it is due to natural consequences of man's sinful choices.

And, yes, Jesus died for our sins so that when we die we can be sinless and therefore worthy to enter into eternal life and not have to pay for our sins in hell (depending upon whether we believe or not). As long as we are in the world, however, there will be constant choices for us to make between good and evil and obeying god or not.


blithe spirit, loving death seems unnatural to me. Accepting death as an unchangeable part of our lives is much easier said than done. Not fearing death is another thing entirely. Death should be a bad thing for everybody because it is a bad thing....Fear of death is a major draw for all religions. If you take that away what does in this case Christianity have to offer?
There are two types of death. Physical death and spiritual death. One will experience spiritual death for eternity if headed for hell. But believers will experience everlasting life spiritually and will recieve new bodies according to the Bible. Have you ever read about near death experiences where they see and experience an indescribable beauty that they don't want to come back from?

[G L Wilson]

Delta, man causes some suffering by choosing sin over obedience to God. Gluttony and Greed are sins.

I hate to disappoint you but God gave me a wonderful mind to think for myself and my comment that there is no time in heaven is a result of my own logic...not google or wikipedia. If there was such a thing as time in heaven (or in God's kingdom) then heaven wouldn't be the perfect place of no suffering and pure bliss would it? Nor would there be eternal life because time would cause aging...there would be impatience, procrastination, deadlines to meet, all things having to do with the constraints of time.

Everything God created was perfect...sin then entered into the picture via satan (post#4). Remember though that God allows these types of suffering sometimes for reasons listed in post #2 and/or many reasons not listed here for lack of time and space. God is not limited to one reason...he can have many reasons for each step in his perfect plan.

As Mark Twain remarked, there is no laughter in heaven because there is no suffering in heaven.

[Des Essientes]

The argument from Evil admits of only two solutions. 1. Lebniz's one, satirized by Voltaire in Candide, that claims that God has put just enough suffering into the world to allow us to appreciate the good in it, which is obviously not true as there is far more suffering than that present here. 2. That of Lord Alfred North Whitehead who disavowed God's omnipotence and thereby excused him by saying He doesn't promote suffering and He would alliviate it, if He could, but He can't.

[thebagman]

Jesus has been around for two thousand years and mankind for much longer. What happens to all those people who came before him?

You know, it never occurred to me that He simply couldn't.

[G L Wilson]

The argument from Evil admits of only two solutions. 1. Lebniz's one, satirized by Voltaire in Candide, that claims that God has put just enough suffering into the world to allow us to appreciate the good in it, which is obviously not true as there is far more suffering than that present here. 2. That of Lord Alfred North Whitehead who disavowed God's omnipotence and thereby excused him by saying He doesn't promote suffering and He would alliviate it, if He could, but He can't.

Of course He could if he wanted to, he simply doesn't want to. God must like a joke.

[MarkBastable]

I hate to disappoint you but God gave me a wonderful mind to think for myself and my comment that there is no time in heaven is a result of my own logic...not google or wikipedia. If there was such a thing as time in heaven (or in God's kingdom) then heaven wouldn't be the perfect place of no suffering and pure bliss would it? Nor would there be eternal life because time would cause aging...there would be impatience, procrastination, deadlines to meet, all things having to do with the constraints of time.

Okay - this is your own vision of heaven. Fair enough. Though - yes - it's difficult to see how you can have everlasting life without time for it to last forever in, which is why you've said that there isn't any I suppose. The Bible, though, might disagree with you.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:16 (as any soccer fan knows)


Everything God created was perfect...sin then entered into the picture via satan (post#4). Remember though that God allows these types of suffering sometimes for reasons listed in post #2 and/or many reasons not listed here for lack of time and space. God is not limited to one reason...he can have many reasons for each step in his perfect plan.

But who created leukaemia? Who came up with the idea and invented the mechanisms by which it comes into being?

[G L Wilson]

But who created leukaemia? Who came up with the idea and invented the mechanisms by which it comes into being?

For everything, MarkBastable, there is a reason - that's the only plan that I can see around here.

[blithe spirit]

...God has put just enough suffering into the world to allow us to appreciate the good in it, which is obviously not true as there is far more suffering...disavowed God's omnipotence and thereby excused him by saying He doesn't promote suffering and He would alliviate it, if He could, but He can't.
Bagman, GLWilson, and DesEssientes, Yes, God can alleviate suffering if he wants but he allows it sometimes for many reasons (post#2 and #4). God didn't want to create a bunch of robots...so he gave us free will to choose good or evil. The first man chose evil. It's all about love. God wants us to love him because we choose to, not because we're made to....that's not love.

Regarding your last sentence: There isn't more evil than good in the world...you just aren't looking.


But who created leukaemia? Who came up with the idea and invented the mechanisms by which it comes into being.
Satan came up with the idea. Satan takes the good things God has created and turns them into something evil.


As Mark Twain remarked, there is no laughter in heaven because there is no suffering in heaven.
Mark Twain never said that. He said "there is no humor in heaven" but he never said why he made that claim and didn't mention suffering. Do you have a reference? Thank goodness he didn't say that because it makes no sense. What's so funny about suffering?

`

[MarkBastable]

Satan came up with the idea. Satan takes the good things God has created and turns them into something evil.
`

But did Satan introduce into the world the physiological and genetic mechanisms that cause leukaemia? Or did God introduce them, after the Fall?

And on my other point, are you saying that the Gospel of St John is mistaken that believers will be given everlasting life?

[blithe spirit]

But did Satan introduce into the world the physiological and genetic mechanisms that cause leukaemia? Or did God introduce them, after the Fall? And on my other point, are you saying that the Gospel of St John is mistaken that believers will be given everlasting life?
Your first question: I'm not the alpha and omega on this subject but I do know that God allowed evil via satan before the fall of Adam/man in order to give man an opportunity to exert his free will and choose between good and evil. Once Adam chose evil then evil remained and God continues to sometimes allow it for reasons mentioned in posts 2 and 4. I know I've said this many times in response to previous questions but it's the only answer there is.

Your second question: I never said the Gospel of John is mistaken...it isn't. Yes, believers will be given everlasting life. Is this question about when I said there is no time in heaven aka God's kingdom? Everlasting life is without time constraints so that only supports my theory

[G L Wilson]

Mark Twain never said that. He said "there is no humor in heaven" but he never said why he made that claim and didn't mention suffering. Do you have a reference? Thank goodness he didn't say that because it makes no sense. What's so funny about suffering?

He said it in not so many words but he did say it.

[blithe spirit]

He said it in not so many words but he did say it.
Reference please? If he said it then it should be easy to find. I found nothing and it makes no sense that Mark Twain would say that suffering would be funny.

[G L Wilson]

I'm not the alpha and omega on this subject but I do know that God allowed evil via satan before the fall of Adam/man in order to give man an opportunity to exert his free will and choose between good and evil. Once Adam chose evil then evil remained and God continues to sometimes allow it for reasons mentioned in posts 2 and 4. I know I've said this many times in response to previous questions but it's the only answer there is.

God has corrupted us for His own sick pleasure, yes, do you agree?


Reference please? If he said it then it should be easy to find. I found nothing and it makes no sense that Mark Twain would say that suffering would be funny.

"The secret source of humor is not joy but sorrow; there is no humor in Heaven." Mark Twain

[blithe spirit]

God has corrupted us for His own sick pleasure, yes, do you agree?
I repeat...God created us perfect with a free will to choose between good and evil. He didn't create robots because he wanted us to choose to love him and to obey him...without choice it's not love. It's all about love....love for God, God's love for us, our love for our neighbor, our love for the loveable as well as the unloveable, etc

[G L Wilson]

I repeat...God created us perfect with a free will to choose between good and evil. He didn't create robots because he wanted us to choose to love him and to obey him...without choice it's not love. It's all about love....love for God, God's love for us, our love for our neighbor, our love for the loveable as well as the unloveable, etc

But what is God? Is he not supposed to be all-seeing, all-powerful?

[usman.khawar]

I repeat...God created us perfect with a free will to choose between good and evil. He didn't create robots because he wanted us to choose to love him and to obey him...without choice it's not love.

hello everybody.. nice concept. we are not robots. yes. i sometime thought why human are better than other creations. angels, heaven, hell , sun earth planets etc are like robots , doing the duties without any hesitation. may be they recogonized God and have no will to deny his orders. May b God thought to create a creation which is not like a robot. who recogonize Him with mind without seeing Him. God created mind and human got it. no doubt mind differnetiate what is right n what is wrong.

if He exist than there could be a lot of reason for sufferings. some of its people already mentioned but i dont like to waist time to number the reasons. there is a lot of reasons. but

the main question is only one for me, whether God exist or not. all discussions come after solving this question. heaven, hell , angels , prophets, etc they exist if God exist. who solve this question with argument? if he exist whats the argument. a solid external one, not individual feelings. if He dont exist than whats the argument. a solid external one, not indvidual feelings.?
i believe in my liberty there is only one hidrance. that is Him. if He doesnt exist than i m liberal. but if He is , m not!! someone tried to solve my confusion/ struggle to find truth and gave argument nobody see Him, i replies no body see air. but i can feel air. no one see anti protons. but they works. i need a solid argument to reject God. !! or to accept Him!! . 2nd question i have but it comes after solving ist one!!

[MarkBastable]

Your first question: I'm not the alpha and omega on this subject but I do know that God allowed evil via satan before the fall of Adam/man in order to give man an opportunity to exert his free will and choose between good and evil. Once Adam chose evil then evil remained and God continues to sometimes allow it for reasons mentioned in posts 2 and 4. I know I've said this many times in response to previous questions but it's the only answer there is.

Which would suggest that, given God's allowance, Satan can create too. So the Universe is not God's exclusive creation. Satan can claim bits of it.


Everlasting life is without time constraints so that only supports my theory

Except that in order for something to last, it requires time in which to last. That's, actually, what 'lasting' is - the continuous existence in time.

[WyattGwyon]

Your first question: I'm not the alpha and omega on this subject but I do know that God allowed evil via satan before the fall of Adam/man in order to give man an opportunity to exert his free will and choose between good and evil. Once Adam chose evil then evil remained and God continues to sometimes allow it for reasons mentioned in posts 2 and 4. I know I've said this many times in response to previous questions but it's the only answer there is.

Your second question: I never said the Gospel of John is mistaken...it isn't. Yes, believers will be given everlasting life. Is this question about when I said there is no time in heaven aka God's kingdom? Everlasting life is without time constraints so that only supports my theory

Blithe,
Given that you seem to embrace more or less traditional Christian theology, I am assuming you accept the notion of an omnipotent and omniscient god, correct? You do realize, however, that the existence of such a god/creator is incompatible with the notion of free will, right? Such a god in creating sentient beings would not see them as free actors with unknown futures, but as completed series of actions from birth to death. It could not be otherwise, since such a god stands outside of time and all things past, present, and future are, to it, known and seen simultaneously. To such a god, creating Adam, for example, could only mean creating a disobedient, weak being destined to fall into sin. Your God's decision to create him is thus a decision to create his sin, guilt and disobedience, and it is to do so with full consciousness of all of the eternal suffering that must inevitably follow from it (follow from our perspective, that is; from such a god's perspective there is no following since all things are to it eternally present). That is what omniscience means! You can't have it both ways. If your god is an omniscient and omnipotent creator, it must be the intentional author of all evil. Where such a god exists, there is no free will. The only way out of this is to assume that this creator chose not to know the consequences of its actions at the moment of creation. I don't think your theology allows you this out, does it? Unfortunately, the Calvinists and Manichean dualists got the logic exactly right. Traditional Christianity rejects this airtight logic and chooses to blame the vicitms, IMO, in order to exploit their guilt for temporal gain. This is a base and crass form of evil.

[G L Wilson]

Which would suggest that, given God's allowance, Satan can create too. So the Universe is not God's exclusive creation. Satan can claim bits of it.



It doesn't. In order for something to last, it requires time in which to last. That's, actually, what 'lasting' is - the continuous existence in time.

The whole question of God is absurd and should be dropped. This is how I feel, does anyone feel the same way?

[MarkBastable]

The whole question of God is absurd and should be dropped. This is how I feel, does anyone feel the same way?

No - the idea here is not to say that people are wrong in their belief systems. It's to discover how their belief system works. It's not attrition. It's exploration.

Me, I rarely say in these dialogues that anyone's wrong. I press them to explain how they're right.

[dwdean]

No - the idea here is not to say that people are wrong in their belief systems. It's to discover how their belief system works. It's not attrition. It's exploration.

Me, I rarely say in these dialogues that anyone's wrong. I press them to explain how they're right.


quite admirable Mark...
i don't believe that these threads are started in an attempt to prove anything, but rather to share one's beliefs and learn...

that being said, lets add some of this knowledge to my thread http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1051577#post1051577 so that i can hear what you all have to offer.

[G L Wilson]

The Hindus have Shiva and the concept of One, therefore they have as much of a clue about God as we do. We cannot know God is all I am saying, and it is best to forget him altogether and do good when we can if we can because no-one else is going to do it if we don't. Only humanity can solve humanity's problems, there is nothing else to it, nothing.

[Ecurb]

As Mark Twain remarked, there is no laughter in heaven because there is no suffering in heaven.

For the same reason, there is no courage, fortitude, or honor in heaven. Perhaps God feels these are worthwhile virtues. It's clear that these virtues could not exist without suffering.

Has anyone here read "The Worm Orouboros" by E.R. Edison? It's one of the great pre-Tolkien fantay novels, and speaks directly to the question of whether life is really improved by eliminating suffering (the answer in the novel is "no".).

[G L Wilson]

Has anyone here read "The Worm Orouboros" by E.R. Edison? It's one of the great pre-Tolkien fantay novels, and speaks directly to the question of whether life is really improved by eliminating suffering (the answer in the novel is "no".).

News from nowhere.

[blithe spirit]

Except that in order for something to last, it requires time in which to last. That's, actually, what 'lasting' is - the continuous existence in time.
So you are saying that the clocks in heaven don't have numerals 1-12 but rather minus 0 through "everlasting"...haha...okay. I can hear God now, "Okay, St. Peter, you can't clock in and you can't clock out but keep your eye on this clock because you only have "forever" to finish your job of gatekeeper, entering names into the Book of Life as they enter through the pearly gates". Trust me on this one...there are no clocks in heaven.

[G L Wilson]

So you are saying that the clocks in heaven don't have numerals 1-12 but rather minus 0 through "everlasting"...haha...okay. I can hear God now, "Okay, St. Peter, you can't clock in and you can't clock out but keep your eye on this clock because you only have "forever" to finish your job of gatekeeper, entering names into the Book of Life as they enter through the pearly gates". Trust me on this one...there are no clocks in heaven.

There is light, I assume. But it casts no shadow, I assume.

[MarkBastable]

So you are saying that the clocks in heaven don't have numerals 1-12 but rather minus 0 through "everlasting"...haha...okay. I can hear God now, "Okay, St. Peter, you can't clock in and you can't clock out but keep your eye on this clock because you only have "forever" to finish your job of gatekeeper, entering names into the Book of Life as they enter through the pearly gates". Trust me on this one...there are no clocks in heaven.

I'm not saying that at all. I have no idea how heaven works. I'm asking you to explain your concept of it. But 'Trust me on this one...'? That's what your proposition comes down to?

Okay - forget that one. Have a shot at the other question.

Originally Posted by blithe spirit
God allowed evil via satan before the fall of Adam/man in order to give man an opportunity to exert his free will and choose between good and evil. Once Adam chose evil then evil remained and God continues to sometimes allow it for reasons mentioned in posts 2 and 4

Which would suggest that, given God's allowance, Satan can create too. So the Universe is not God's exclusive creation. Satan can claim bits of it.

[Buh4Bee]

[QUOTE=thebagman;1051388

I'm not trying to be a smartass (maybe I am). I went to the exhibition yesterday, I needed something to take my mind off things. The last time I went there it was on Gibran (I think it was him), I was expecting something pleasant and they have a whole bunch of pictures of dead people. Which was nice.

An otherwise attractive girl had her nose and ears cut off for running away from an abusive husband. A HIV and drug abusers final moments of life. A mass of bodies from and earthquake, bodies of people executed in mexico for stealing drugs.

If God has a great plan for all of us I would very much like to know what it is. Otherwise I'm not really sure I want to have any part of it. A plan that we as human beings will never be able to grasp by a deity that may or may not exist sounds like a long shot to me.

Thank you blithe spirit for your comments though, that was actually quite nice. Togre, you're an idiot. I've have managed to get all that is good about Christianity followed by all that is bad in one thread.[/QUOTE]

I actually understand where you are coming from. When you see such explicit and graphic images of suffering, it is hard to even conceive that there is a God. I am a believer, but I often lose faith. All the religious dogma and philosophy cannot explain this sort of thing. The Bible, church, and the notion that if you hang on long enough you will be rewarded. But how can you believe that a place of peace exists, when you see such a stark reality?

[blithe spirit]

"The secret source of humor is not joy but sorrow; there is no humor in Heaven." Mark Twain
Thank you. Weird. However, he must have been talking about sources for sick humor or at least comedians looking for sources for their material by making light of bad situations...but that doesn't mean there is no humor in heaven. Take for instance the simplest example: Take the joke, "Why did the chicken cross the road...to get to the other side". Okay, that used to be funny when we heard it the first time...but there's no source of sorrow involved.

[dwdean]

Originally Posted by blithe spirit
God allowed evil via satan before the fall of Adam/man in order to give man an opportunity to exert his free will and choose between good and evil. Once Adam chose evil then evil remained and God continues to sometimes allow it for reasons mentioned in posts 2 and 4

Which would suggest that, given God's allowance, Satan can create too. So the Universe is not God's exclusive creation. Satan can claim bits of it.

i would say that Satan is not given power to create, but rather to present choices. God allows freewill, He allowed a number of His angels to leave Him and follow Satan. This presentation of choice is not a creation of Satan's, but rather the usage of freewill. freewill still being created by God alone. does that make sense? i would consider the implications before intellectually granting Satan the power to create. it is a privilege which i strongly believe he does not hold. Satan is often called the prince, ruler, and even "god of this world" in Scripture. he is not without power, but i find no proof that he has ability to create. to create is to form something out of nothing. if satan has ever done this, i am unaware. possibly mistaken, but unaware.

[MarkBastable]

i would say that Satan is not given power to create, but rather to present choices. God allows freewill, He allowed a number of His angels to leave Him and follow Satan. This presentation of choice is not a creation of Satan's, but rather the usage of freewill. freewill still being created by God alone. does that make sense? i would consider the implications before intellectually granting Satan the power to create. it is a privilege which i strongly believe he does not hold. Satan is often called the prince, ruler, and even "god of this world" in Scripture. he is not without power, but i find no proof that he has ability to create. to create is to form something out of nothing. if satan has ever done this, i am unaware. possibly mistaken, but unaware.

So God must have created the mechanisms and the physiological predispositions that give us infantile leukaemia.

[dwdean]

So God must have created the mechanisms and the physiological predispositions that give us infantile leukaemia.

it sounds uncaring and callous, but i must say yes, i do believe that He did. if one holds that all was created by God, then from where else would those mechanisms and predispositions come? and IF they were in fact created by Satan, why would he not document this in some way?

that brings up a new idea. if Satan is the archnemesis of God, and God has the Bible as the history of His involvement with the world... does Satan have an inspired/written documentation of his works?

[blithe spirit]

God allowed evil via satan before the fall of Adam/man in order to give man an opportunity to exert his free will and choose between good and evil. Once Adam chose evil then evil remained and God continues to sometimes allow it for reasons mentioned in posts 2 and 4

Which would suggest that, given God's allowance, Satan can create too. So the Universe is not God's exclusive creation. Satan can claim bits of it.
Just because Man takes some fertilizer that God created and turns it into a bomb to kill innocent children does not make God the creator of evil and does not make man a partial creator of the universe. Same with Satan.
Edit: And just because God created healthy cells that satan used and then caused the action of attacking those cells does not make God the creator of leukemia

[blithe spirit]

...to create is to form something out of nothing. if satan has ever done this, i am unaware. possibly mistaken, but unaware.
Good point. He's the master of deception and manipulation of what's already been created as good.

[usman.khawar]

No one die who once created. death is like a syrup who transit one life from one place to another. each n everything in the universe and on earth is not bychance or by accident. if someone says like above God created human for his fun than he should think he was nothing before. we come from nothingness to existance. and ahead there is never ending story.
i saw, who beleive in oneness of God ,there are two extremist groups. one who claim everything is in the God hands, 2nd says everything is human's hand. if we consider ist one than there is a big question than what is the reason for reward and punishment. if everything God wrote already than why people go in hell or heaven. if we agree to 2nd group than no one can deny proud. and i beleive the main hindrance towards God is ur own proud. i learnt a beautful thing that reality exist in the middle, moderate and balanced way.

[WyattGwyon]

Just because Man takes some fertilizer that God created and turns it into a bomb to kill innocent children does not make God the creator of evil and does not make man a partial creator of the universe. Same with Satan.
Edit: And just because God created healthy cells that satan used and then caused the action of attacking those cells does not make God the creator of leukemia

Blithe,
If your god is omniscient and omnipotent then this does make it the creator of evil. At the bottom of page three of this thread I explained why this is so.


Good point. He's the master of deception and manipulation of what's already been created as good.

Your god, if it is omniscient, created Satan knowing with absolute certainty every deception and manipulation he would perpetrate. When he created Satan, he thus made the conscious choice that all of those deceptions and manipulations would come about. Your god knew it, he chose it, and clearly, your god is responsible for all of the consequences flowing from this fully conscious decision.

[prickly_pete]

Just because Man takes some fertilizer that God created and turns it into a bomb to kill innocent children does not make God the creator of evil and does not make man a partial creator of the universe. Same with Satan.
Edit: And just because God created healthy cells that satan used and then caused the action of attacking those cells does not make God the creator of leukemia

HOLY crap...

[MarkBastable]

Just because Man takes some fertilizer that God created and turns it into a bomb to kill innocent children does not make God the creator of evil and does not make man a partial creator of the universe. Same with Satan.
Edit: And just because God created healthy cells that satan used and then caused the action of attacking those cells does not make God the creator of leukemia

So - let's think this through - leukaemia is a bad thing made out of good things. How about leprosy? It's an entity in its own right - a bacterium. A creature like a butterfly or a peacock. Did God create that?

[cyberbob]

Yep. If God can see the future then he knew the Fall of Man would occur and would, in fact, know every single person who was destined to go to Hell.

This is only the beginning of the freaky extrapolations one gets by assuming an all-powerful, all-seeing God.

If God already knows who is going to heaven and who is going to hell, he'd be arbitrarily creating some people who would be destined for paradise and some who'd be destined for eternal suffering.

Furthermore, what's the point of creating children and then having them die right away, such as in the case of a miscarriage? In these cases the people do not get the opportunity to choose right over wrong or learn any lessons. God knew they'd be created and destroyed right away without a chance at life so why not prevent it? If they go to Hell that's bull**** because they never had a chance, and if they go to heaven that's bull**** because they got a free pass.

I could go on and on like this just with omniscience. Throw in omnipotence and one could devote their life to finding oddities in the concept of God.

[usman.khawar]

God is the creator, good and bad. if u think and reconsider, that if there is only bad everywhere than this earth cannot live for a single month only. i wrote month he he gave long time. and if there is only good everywhere!! than what? is there any growth of mind will be possible ? lets think again. like everything is good everywhere than what is the meaning to create mind? anyother reason to create human than ?
you people are playing with each other and passing time ? come on. lets solve the basic question. is there any God exist or not ? if not than whats the argement? not childish one like i prayed him to give me this or that He didnt give me so there is no God. my neihbors are very good people their son died , there is no God.
is there anyone we can see whose ist priority is to solve the basic question ist. to find the truth? who like scientist passed at least 12 years to find the biggest question ? who read all holy books without prejudice including Quran and life of prophets? and finally he said there is no God.

[usman.khawar]

Yep. If God can see the future then he knew the Fall of Man would occur and would, in fact, know every single person who was destined to go to Hell.

This is only the beginning of the freaky extrapolations one gets by assuming an all-powerful, all-seeing God.

If God already knows who is going to heaven and who is going to hell, he'd be arbitrarily creating some people who would be destined for paradise and some who'd be destined for eternal suffering.

Furthermore, what's the point of creating children and then having them die right away, such as in the case of a miscarriage? .

ist of all dear take a deep breath n relax. the bigest mistake is to finzalize things and close the door of the mind for further knowledge. the best mind i think is one who listen or read, make conclusion and than start considering again on the conclusions till his death.
i was a small n little teacher. in my classes there were many students. being a small, non perfect , having very low knowledge i can guess about who will pass the exam and who will not. than why not give the chance to Lord who created everything? Actually He gave the chance.

you are worried about the children of miscarriage but not about yours ? :)

[cyberbob]

ist of all dear take a deep breath n relax. the bigest mistake is to finzalize things and close the door of the mind for further knowledge. the best mind i think is one who listen or read, make conclusion and than start considering again on the conclusions till his death.
i was a small n little teacher. in my classes there were many students. being a small, non perfect , having very low knowledge i can guess about who will pass the exam and who will not. than why not give the chance to Lord who created everything? Actually He gave the chance.

you are worried about the children of miscarriage but not about yours ? :)

I'm not worried about anybody. I'm just giving one example of how God's psychic abilities don't fit in with the idea of free will.

And there's a difference between a "small n little" teacher who can guess which of his students will pass and fail a test and God KNOWING who will be saved and who won't due to his ability to SEE THE FUTURE.

You can't just fail students because you'd get fired. God has no one to answer to though. If he already knows who's going to sin and who won't, and sinning is the criteria by which we are judged, then our individual fates were sealed from the beginning of time (assuming God does not change his mind [why would he?]).

[dwdean]

Blithe,
If your god is omniscient and omnipotent then this does make it the creator of evil. At the bottom of page three of this thread I explained why this is so.



Your god, if it is omniscient, created Satan knowing with absolute certainty every deception and manipulation he would perpetrate. When he created Satan, he thus made the conscious choice that all of those deceptions and manipulations would come about. Your god knew it, he chose it, and clearly, your god is responsible for all of the consequences flowing from this fully conscious decision.

allowance of an action is not the same as causing an action.

[G L Wilson]

Satan does everything wrong, poor Satan.

[Panglossian]

Charles Fort, the paranormalist, had God down as a kind of Cosmic Joker. I like that idea. A UFO here, a bigfoot there, a flood here, a plague there. What a gas our creator is - ever tweaking the code.

[G L Wilson]

The Devil is a twerp apprentice to God in my book. He seeks fame for himself above all else, even sense.

[thebagman]

What about wars? Are we allowed to kill other human beings in the name of God? Are we allowed to fight in God's name?

Delta, you have no soul.

Isn't belief dangerous especially when you apply it to the whole human race when it is not backed up by proof?

[Buh4Bee]

What? Delta has no soul? She has more soul than most of us around here? What do you know of soul? Tell me I am wrong, Delta? LOL!

[thebagman]

Is your God a vengeful one?

[G L Wilson]

God is not vengeful, he is misunderstood.

[thebagman]

how is he misunderstood?

[WyattGwyon]

allowance of an action is not the same as causing an action.

Short answer: it is exactly the same if you knew the action would be performed when you created the being that ultimately performed it. In the case of an omniscient and omnipotent god, this is 100% of the time.

A longer answer with examples: The word "allowance" is meaningless in this context. For an omniscient and omnipotent god the creation of an entity can only mean the willing into existence of everything it will ever be and do, since this god at the moment of the entity's creation knows everything it will ever be and do. What would you say to a bomber who builds a bomb, sets its timer, places it in a subway station, stands by as 100 people are killed in its explosion and then claims he didn't cause the deaths but merely allowed them? This is the exact situation this god is in every time it creates a killer—because it always knows with utter certainty that it is about to create a killer and it always knows who will be killed as the result of creating it. There is no possibility of another outcome. It is a moral and factual certainty.

The obvious and only possible conclusion: An omnipotent and omniscient god is morally responsible for every action performed by any entity it creates.

[thebagman]

I just copied and pasted this from another site I found on google.


Christians frequently try to portray their god as a loving, benevolent god, but this ignores the long history of Christian theology which includes a great deal about their god being wrathful, vengeful, and downright violent. Christians have generally just accepted this on the assumption that it's wrong to "judge" their god — whatever it does must necessarily be moral, right?

Secular atheists are not so constrained and can more easily point out just how immoral or indecent such a god is. A more interesting issue, though, may be how belief in such an immoral god influences the morality of the believers. When grossly immoral and indecent behavior is accepted as a matter of course, or even as an example of just behavior, how can believers themselves uphold minimal standards of morality and decency in their own lives?

George writes about religious leaders who deliver positive portrayals of their god delivering vengeance to even innocent people:

What strikes me about what the Bishop says is his careless feeling for a person's life. I imagine that his constituents feel that on a face to face he is caring but I think it is obvious that he cares little for an innocent life taken away miles from some "moral crime" God is displeased about. (And how is it the God of the Bible cannot think Capitalism to be a most egregious sin but one in which his followers so delight?)

As a nonbeliever I find life to be infinitely precious no matter who it is who may have life and am offended if some god capriciously takes that innocent life for no other reason than a grudge. The Bishop defends the morally indefensible and becomes immoral himself.

I don't see how he can't see he turns his own religion completely upside down.

Perhaps there is something wrong with the cognitive organization of his religion.


If a religious believer thinks that it would be moral and unjust for their god to cause your death not for some "sin" of yours, but because of the "sins" of neighbors — or perhaps of people hundreds of miles away — would you be able to maintain the belief that this person is moral? Would you continue to trust this person very far? Would you entrust the safety of your children to them?

I don't think I could and I would in fact go a bit further: I'm not sure I would trust such a person never to feel justified in enforcing the will of their god on their own. If they think it's just and good for you as an innocent person to die, then of course it would be just and good for you to die if you aren't innocent. Once that inference is accepted, how much of a leap is it to for someone to think that they could be the instrument of their god's vengeance on sinners?

[G L Wilson]

how is he misunderstood?

How can he be understood?


The word "allowance" is meaningless in this context. For an omniscient and omnipotent god the creation of an entity can only mean the willing into existence of everything it will ever be and do, since this god at the moment of the entity's creation knows everything it will ever be and do. What would you say to a bomber who builds a bomb, sets its timer, places it in a subway station, stands by as 100 people are killed in its explosion and then claims he didn't cause the deaths but merely allowed them? This is the exact situation this god is in every time it creates a killer—because it always knows with utter certainty that it is about to create a killer and it always knows who will be killed as the result of creating it. There is no possibility of another outcome. It is a moral and factual certainty.

The obvious and only possible conclusion: An omnipotent and omniscient god is morally responsible for every action performed by any entity it creates.

Absolutely correct, except we cannot know God or his plan. Whatever God's plan is, it cannot be worth the suffering he causes.

[dwdean]

Short answer: it is exactly the same if you knew the action would be performed when you created the being that ultimately performed it. In the case of an omniscient and omnipotent god, this is 100% of the time.

A longer answer with examples: The word "allowance" is meaningless in this context. For an omniscient and omnipotent god the creation of an entity can only mean the willing into existence of everything it will ever be and do, since this god at the moment of the entity's creation knows everything it will ever be and do. What would you say to a bomber who builds a bomb, sets its timer, places it in a subway station, stands by as 100 people are killed in its explosion and then claims he didn't cause the deaths but merely allowed them? This is the exact situation this god is in every time it creates a killer—because it always knows with utter certainty that it is about to create a killer and it always knows who will be killed as the result of creating it. There is no possibility of another outcome. It is a moral and factual certainty.

The obvious and only possible conclusion: An omnipotent and omniscient god is morally responsible for every action performed by any entity it creates.

your analogy, while well thought out, lacks one element. the difference between the bomber's creation (bomb) and God's creation (mankind) is that a bomb cannot choose. mankind has freewill, does he not? God may know what man will choose to do, but He does not Himself choose to do those things.

this argument will inevitably return to Descarte's Meditation on First Philosophy.

[G L Wilson]

your analogy, while well thought out, lacks one element. the difference between the bomber's creation (bomb) and God's creation (mankind) is that a bomb cannot choose. mankind has freewill, does he not? God may know what man will choose to do, but He does not Himself choose to do those things.

this argument will inevitably return to Descarte's Meditation on First Philosophy.

Oh, yeah. "There has to be a God because I can't think of anything else." Terrific.

[dwdean]

Oh, yeah. "There has to be a God because I can't think of anything else." Terrific.

i didn't say it should end there, it most definitely should not. i just see that turn on the horizon.

[WyattGwyon]

your analogy, while well thought out, lacks one element. the difference between the bomber's creation (bomb) and God's creation (mankind) is that a bomb cannot choose. mankind has freewill, does he not?
If there is an omniscient and omnipotent god there is no free will. (I presented this argument in detail earlier in the thread. It is the last post on page 3). Even if this were the case we would still need to act as if there were free will, but that is another matter. From a god's eye perspective, the homicidal action of every killer is as inevitable and predictable as the explosion of the bomb. The only difference between the god's action in creating a killer and the bomber's action in creating the bomb is that the god is absolutely certain that someone will die by his action, whereas the bomber can't be sure.


God may know what man will choose to do, but He does not Himself choose to do those things.

Yes, he does! By willing the existence of the entity that does "those things" he is choosing with complete knowledge and intention that those things be done, and that they be done in a certain precise way and no other. It is a direct chain of causation.

[cyberbob]

your analogy, while well thought out, lacks one element. the difference between the bomber's creation (bomb) and God's creation (mankind) is that a bomb cannot choose. mankind has freewill, does he not? God may know what man will choose to do, but He does not Himself choose to do those things.

this argument will inevitably return to Descarte's Meditation on First Philosophy.

Free will is only an illusion if God already knows what is going to happen to us. It's like watching a movie, not liking it, then re-watching it and getting mad that it wasn't better the second time around.

Basically, if the future is concrete and knowable, then you cannot do whatever you want. You can only do what you will do. It's not really fair to punish someone for doing something that they had to do (because it was their destiny).

You could even take this further and say that since God is all-knowing and all-powerful he has complete knowledge and control over every aspect of all life. This pretty much reduces us to characters in God's story and our fates are utterly at his whim.

[dwdean]

if i look at an atlas while standing in california, and if find the most direct route to nc (i40e) does that mean that i will definitely take i40east? no, it means that i know it's an option.
God sees the possible outcomes of all our choices and how they affect the choices of others and how those choices affect the... you get it. that is different from dictating those choices.

think of it this way. you can reply to this thread or not. God knows what you will do and He also knows the domino affect of that choice. but does he cause that? no, you do. if you don't believe me, turn off your computer and don't reply. or keep it on and give your differing opinion. your choice. not mine, not God's, yours alone.

[G L Wilson]

Row, row, row your boat
Gently down the stream
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily,
Life is but a dream.

[usman.khawar]

I'm not worried about anybody. I'm just giving one example of how God's psychic abilities don't fit in with the idea of free will.

And there's a difference between a "small n little" teacher who can guess which of his students will pass and fail a test and God KNOWING who will be saved and who won't due to his ability to SEE THE FUTURE.

You can't just fail students because you'd get fired. God has no one to answer to though. If he already knows who's going to sin and who won't, and sinning is the criteria by which we are judged, then our individual fates were sealed from the beginning of time (assuming God does not change his mind [why would he?]).

example of misscariage proved God's pyschic abilities ? dont fit in with the idea of free will? lolzz who one can say where those children will go except God? may be go back to notingness. but who do this will be asked at judgment day. why they did this?.
i have many good reasons in favor for what u wanna to prove anyway. little bit i explained in previous posts as well.
2ndy you said i cant just fail student coz i'd get fired haha i was the principal as well. but point is that being a small teacher i could judge by efforts of students by the sincerity towards their exams. why not God predict ? whose guess can be more accurate than God? He is running all the universes, sun moon stars earth with a perfect guess. He is the creator of time n space. this time is finite, this space is finite according to Him as He told. human is still not able to reach or measure even the distances of a single universe. trillions and trillions light years!

my dear ? is there any system in the world who just give the reward or punishment without exam ? is their any university or college who just gave you degree or certificarte without exam. i was just telling that God knows the capablities of everyone. but He give the chance to choose.
in wider canvas He knows everything as well wht will you choose so He wrote everything. and people blame Him that He didnt give the chance and wrote all ready everything.

and as i also said about the other extreme who says everything has been given in human's hand is also wrong. my dear fellows! without pray human become proudier. those who are humble do pray. one just have to understand what is right and what is wrong. and than? intention for doing good and pray. intention creates actions. intention decided on which way one will go.
my dear may God give you the way! this discussion of destiny is very complicated. only those who are not serious to solve the ist basic question always ready to talk about the matter to hide their laziness. but if someone is really interested to talk like this ist of all have to find whether God exist or not. if He exist than He can do everything. He know everything. He should be the Lord of all universes and earths and skies.

[G L Wilson]

Trust in God is dishonest.

[Brock]

because hell for eternity is no fun.

You got that right. So.... why does God allow hell for eternity? Isn't this a set-up for suffering so to speak? Because he knows that x amount of people will end up in heaven right? Could he not just end the existence of sinful souls completely rather than have them suffer for eternity? Eternity is such an evil notion in itself. Doesn't he forgive? Or isn't he supposed to? I mean ETERNITY!!! That's the thing I don't understand. Isn't a hundred, a thousand, a million years enough? Or a trillion? No no no, it HAS to be eternity. Too harsh for my liking.. (with all respect).

[BienvenuJDC]

I just wanted to bring this answer forth again. It was well stated.


I consider our present suffering not worth comparing to the glory that will be revealed in us.

Romans 8:18


The following is the answer Scripture gives.

Fact: God created a world that was perfect--that is, without suffering and without any flaw.

Fact: Humans, when given freedom to remain perfect or to turn from God, turned from God.

Fact: This turning (Fall) changed each person and changed creation (the world). All now is marred. All now suffers and causes suffering.

Fact: All people who sin deserve eternal punishment in hell

Fact: Any suffering endured on earth, be it ever so great, is less than the suffering of hell.

Fact: God desires that people do not suffer hell. He went so far as to provide his Son as a Substitute with Jesus Christ willingly living and dieing to pay for our sins.

Fact: Because of this many, many people will rescued from hell and will dwell with God in heaven.

Fact: The joy of dwelling in heaven is greater than the suffering of living on earth.

Fact: In his desire that more people should trust his solution and be saved, God permits this world to continue, not because of the suffering that happens, but in spite of it.


Blithe Spirit makes some good points. God is able to make use of wickedness so that it serves good purpose. At the same time, suffering or even God himself cannot be comprehended apart from Jesus and his death on the cross.

[G L Wilson]

I don't want to make use of wickedness. I want to end wickedness, but then I'm not a monster.

[Panglossian]

Question for the Christians: Are all the deceased Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, Jains, etc now suffering in Hell?

[Delta40]

I hear at the gates of hell you're given an accordian instead of a harp. Now that would be tortuous!

[Paulclem]

Question for the Christians: Are all the deceased Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, Jains, etc now suffering in Hell?

The animals too?

[BienvenuJDC]

The animals too?

Actually, in respects to the animals, they do not have eternal souls. Once the flesh is dead, the creature returns to the dirt and is no more. However, in respects to mankind, as Christianity goes, it is believed that man (mankind) was created in the image of God with a soul (spirit) that lives on after the body dies. The concept of heaven is best explained as being in existence with God. God cannot be in union with that that has been corrupted by sin. It is against His nature and character. Therefore, He has provided a way that man can be free from his sin, and that is by the atonement of Christ. There are those who have not been corrupted by sin (i.e. children, and those who have not for various reasons come to the understanding of good and evil...mentally handicapped for instance). If one has obtained the cleansing from sin, then it is possible (not just possible, but assured) that he/she can be united with God (who is the source of spiritual life). I believe that the union with God after this physical life is done is heaven. I also believe that one who is not in that union will be completely separated from God, which is hell...a complete absence from God.

[Paulclem]

Thanks Bienvenu. I thought that was the case, but your answer has extended my understanding of Christian thought.

It's one of the problems I have with Christian concepts of creation, and the relationship of humans to animals to God etc. I appreciate that a Christian could see an animal as an expression of creation or God's work.

For myself, I don't see a lot of difference between animals and humans except in their various capacities for thought.

[MarkBastable]

Thanks Bienvenu. I thought that was the case, but your answer has extended my understanding of Christian thought.



To be fair, that's only one thread of Christian thought. There are others, including the Catholic notion of Original Sin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin), which suggests that all human beings are born corrupt. That one was dominant for the best part of two thousand years. It's still pretty widespread.


I rather like the idea that the Godless will be punished by being permitted to persist in their Godlessness. My concern is that such a construct is more likely Man's idea than God's, as God has not thus far demonstrated a talent for that kind of irony.

[Panglossian]

The concept of heaven is best explained as being in existence with God. God cannot be in union with that that has been corrupted by sin. It is against His nature and character. Therefore, He has provided a way that man can be free from his sin, and that is by the atonement of Christ.

What about the souls of all who died before Christ's sojourn to Earth 2,000 years ago?

[ChristopherAP]

God may be good and omni-benevolent, but in the bible he is also just and wise, you cannot exalt God to one attribute and say that is all he is, that is problematic theology. Since God has all possible knowledge he can let sin run its course he also has the power to turn a negative into a positive.

Panglossian- Yes, they will go to hell for rejecting God's offer. Sin has to be punished, but God loved the world so much that he sent his one and only son so that they might be saved, if those groups you say don't believe in Jesus then they won't be saved that is the reality. It is not all about religion or your beliefs, Jesus came not to start a new religion, but show the true reality, a relationship with the one true living God through him.

[thebagman]

I don't know. God sent his only son? That's a joke. So what, he was crucified and then he died and now he's in heaven but in the end Jesus is only one guy! He may be the big man's only son but he is still one guy. What about the suffering the rest of us endures? What about the suffering endured by those affected by religious war or conflict? And all those people who came before Jesus, they're all going to hell!? How is that fair?

"Oh oops, I forget about them," says God.

And what is original sin again? Wasn't that when Adam decided to eat an apple in the Garden of Eden or something? And now we have to suffer for all eternity unless we pass some sort of entrance examination? What exactly is sin? What is Adam eating an apple supposed to symbolize? Aren't apples supposed to be good for you?

Why doe's God choose to lump us into one big group when we are individuals who cannot be expected to take responsibility for the actions of others?

My original question everyone tried to ignore or didn't notice: What about wars? Are we allowed to kill other human beings in the name of God? Are we allowed to fight in God's name?

[Panglossian]

My original question everyone tried to ignore or didn't notice: What about wars? Are we allowed to kill other human beings in the name of God? Are we allowed to fight in God's name?

Absolutely no. Thou Shalt Not Kill. Straight from the horse's mouth.

[thebagman]

Then why do we do it? Almost all the time?

[Panglossian]

Panglossian- Yes, they will go to hell for rejecting God's offer. Sin has to be punished, but God loved the world so much that he sent his one and only son so that they might be saved, if those groups you say don't believe in Jesus then they won't be saved that is the reality. It is not all about religion or your beliefs, Jesus came not to start a new religion, but show the true reality, a relationship with the one true living God through him.

So let's take the ancient Indian religion of Jainism - a non-violent, pacifist religion - all the thousands and thousands of "Jains" who have died over the last 10,000 years are now suffering in Hell just so the so-called true God can prove a point. That's a bit unfair, isn't it? Not to mention diabolical.

[Panglossian]

Then why do we do it? Almost all the time?

I would say that Christians who fight wars in the name of God are fakes.

[MarkBastable]

I would say that Christians who fight wars in the name of God are fakes.

Given that the commandment doesn't say 'Thou shalt not kill in the name of God', but simply 'Thou shalt not kill', one could argue that Christians who fight in any war are fakes.

[dwdean]

Mark, this idea of "original sin." care to explain?
as i understand it, the catholic church holds that humans are born with sin because adam and eve sinned. we are therefore destined to hell unless we can be cleansed of all sin, including the separate, original sin. original sin is only forgiven if one is baptized by the catholic church. yes?

[dwdean]

another confusion about christians and killing.

Moses came down from the mt with the 10 big ones, one of which states "though shalt not kill."
God later told His people, those same people, to overtake certain lands. this was done by God's people killing... what?

[MarkBastable]

Incidentally, there's a story here (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1053778#post1053778)that touches on this subject.

[ChristopherAP]

Bagman- You obviously cannot deal with the situation so you rely on fallacious reasoning and appeals to emotion to satisfy your unfeasible position. Jesus is not just a man, he is also God, he is the third part of the triune god-head, he has two natures: human and divine when he went to the cross he took all our sin, so that we can believe in him to be saved. Suffering is a by-product of sin, that is the nature of mankind.


Panglossian- Unfair? Sin is sin, it must be punished we were all dead, but through christ we are alive. It is not our fault that they refuse to accept Jesus Christ, if they don't than they will go to hell. God is an infinitely just God, sin is an act of rebellion and it must be punished. I don't think you have a standard by which you can judge God. I think all philosophy and theology need to be looked at more, end of discussion.

[Panglossian]

Panglossian- Unfair? Sin is sin, it must be punished we were all dead, but through christ we are alive. It is not our fault that they refuse to accept Jesus Christ, if they don't than they will go to hell. God is an infinitely just God, sin is an act of rebellion and it must be punished. I don't think you have a standard by which you can judge God. I think all philosophy and theology need to be looked at more, end of discussion.

No it's not the end of the discussion. What about those millions of souls before Christ's earth visit? They couldn't refuse to accept Christ because they didn't know about Christ.

[togre]

No it's not the end of the discussion. What about those millions of souls before Christ's earth visit? They couldn't refuse to accept Christ because they didn't know about Christ.


There is no difference. Today we believe in a Savior who has come. Before, they trusted the promise of a Savior who was to come. The book of Hebrews holds up the faith of these "Old Testament believers" as an example for those of us who now live after Christ completed his work.

[Panglossian]

There is no difference. Today we believe in a Savior who has come. Before, they trusted the promise of a Savior who was to come. The book of Hebrews holds up the faith of these "Old Testament believers" as an example for those of us who now live after Christ completed his work.

By *they* you mean a very small percentage of the BC global population. Those who didn't or couldn't *know* were just left to go to hell (pardon the pun).

[MarkBastable]

By *they* you mean a very small percentage of the BC global population. Those who didn't or couldn't *know* were just left to go to hell (pardon the pun).

And, actually, it wouldn't matter if those who didn't or couldn't know were a tiny number. It wouldn't matter, in fact, if there were only a single individual. Because God, in order to be just, has to come up with a system of judgement that gives that one human being a fair shot at salvation, doesn't he?

[togre]

By *they* you mean a very small percentage of the BC global population. Those who didn't or couldn't *know* were just left to go to hell (pardon the pun).

Ah, but who's fault is that. At 2 points in history (post-Garden of Eden & post-Flood) knowledge of and belief in God were universal. Humans are the fault this knowledge is lost. We are horrified (and rightly so) when a pregnant mother does drugs since her child suffers from her actions. Ought we not be horrified when parents deprive their children of this vital information about God?

Furthermore, God has been active throughout history bringing his word to those who did not know it. Believers have always been expected to practice their faith and "give a reason for the hope they have" during the course of their daily life (What a tragedy when they don't!) God sent prophets and apostles to different nations directly in the Bible and sends them through the mission activity of his church for the last 2000 years. The very nation of Israel and the city of Jerusalem in the Old Testament was (among other things) to serve as a light on a hill by drawing the other nations to itself and to the Lord (again, the shame when they fell short. cf. the Minor Prophets for God's rebuke in this regard).





And, actually, it wouldn't matter if those who didn't or couldn't know were a tiny number. It wouldn't matter, in fact, if there were only a single individual. Because God, in order to be just, has to come up with a system of judgement that gives that one human being a fair shot at salvation, doesn't he?

Actually, salvation is not required at all by God's justice. If God were only fair, he would need to save anyone. Salvation belongs to his mercy and compassion. Shakespeare seems to have got this--Though justice be thy plea, consider this,That, in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation.

God's compassion worked out salvation in such a way that he remains just and merciful.

[MarkBastable]

Ah, but who's fault is that. At 2 points in history (post-Garden of Eden & post-Flood) knowledge of and belief in God were universal. Humans are the fault this knowledge is lost.

So, hang on - I'm born in rural China, in 1000BC, a long way from the Holy Land, with no chance of Moses happening by carrying tales of burning bushes and promised lands of milk and honey, and with absolutely no concept of the Old Testament Jehovah, nor any notion of an expected Messiah. And that's just tough, because I'm descended from Adam - of whom I've also never heard - and am therefore damned, and if I can't figure that out for myself and do something about it, that's my fault. Or possibly the fault of my long-dead ancestors, who, frankly, should have stuck closer to Mount Ararat rather than going forth and multiplying all over the Far East. Or, as it may be, New Zealand. Or Scotland. Or what would eventually become Hayes, Kansas.

[BienvenuJDC]

Ah, but who's fault is that. At 2 points in history (post-Garden of Eden & post-Flood) knowledge of and belief in God were universal. Humans are the fault this knowledge is lost.

So, hang on - I'm born in rural China, in 1000BC, a long way from the Holy Land, with no chance of Moses happening by carrying tales of burning bushes and promised lands of milk and honey, and with absolutely no concept of the Old Testament Jehovah, nor any notion of an expected Messiah. And that's just tough, because I'm descended from Adam - of whom I've also never heard - and am therefore damned, and if I can't figure that out for myself and do something about it, that's my fault. Or possibly the fault of my long-dead ancestors, who, frankly, should have stuck closer to Mount Ararat rather than going forth and multiplying all over the Far East. Or, as it may be, New Zealand. Or Scotland. Or what would eventually become Hayes, Kansas.

Incorrect....
According to Romans 2:14ff, "for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel."

Those who did not have the Law of Moses, but still acted in a righteous manner, were a law unto themselves.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Bagman- You obviously cannot deal with the situation so you rely on fallacious reasoning and appeals to emotion to satisfy your unfeasible position. Jesus is not just a man, he is also God, he is the third part of the triune god-head, he has two natures: human and divine when he went to the cross he took all our sin, so that we can believe in him to be saved. Suffering is a by-product of sin, that is the nature of mankind.


Panglossian- Unfair? Sin is sin, it must be punished we were all dead, but through christ we are alive. It is not our fault that they refuse to accept Jesus Christ, if they don't than they will go to hell. God is an infinitely just God, sin is an act of rebellion and it must be punished. I don't think you have a standard by which you can judge God. I think all philosophy and theology need to be looked at more, end of discussion.

What about those who never heard of Jesus, but otherwise lived sin free lives? Do they go to hell?

[BienvenuJDC]

What about those who never heard of Jesus, but otherwise lived sin free lives? Do they go to hell?

Who do you know that has lived a sin free life? There are those that do not know sin, I guess. If one is already free from sin, then they don't need saving from sin. It's really that simple.

[G L Wilson]

Incorrect....
According to Romans 2:14ff, "for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel."

Those who did not have the Law of Moses, but still acted in a righteous manner, were a law unto themselves.

I am with you on this, BienvenuJDC, there must be a real rejection of God for a person to go to hell. I will be going to hell if there is a God. To commit a wrong is to sin against God; for this you must ask forgiveness. I never will, because pride is my greatest sin.

[dwdean]

Those who did not have the Law of Moses, but still acted in a righteous manner, were a law unto themselves.

even in talking about bc times, this is dangerous.

[dwdean]

I am with you on this, BienvenuJDC, there must be a real rejection of God for a person to go to hell. I will be going to hell if there is a God. To commit a wrong is to sin against God; for this you must ask forgiveness. I never will, because pride is my greatest sin.

GL, ever read Paradise Lost?

[MarkBastable]

Incorrect....
According to Romans 2:14ff, "for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel."

Those who did not have the Law of Moses, but still acted in a righteous manner, were a law unto themselves.

Good - I'm glad it's incorrect. I'll pass that on to togre.

However, that's Paul speaking, whom you may think was talking on God's behalf, but whom I think was one of many Christian thinkers trying to formulate a rational interpretation of a rather inconsistent set of apparent injunctions.

If he's right, he's contradicting - or at least putting a pretty unexpected spin on - Jesus' statement that no one will enter the Kingdom of Heaven but through Himself.

But more importantly, from my point of view, he's giving a huge advantage to those who are 'a law unto themselves', who get into Heaven by essentially having been 'good people', without ever having committed to Christ. I mean - that's not fair. Under those circumstances, a lot of people would get in, had they not been labouring under the huge disadvantage of being born after 30BC and within the influence of the Christian church. That's a much easier route into Heaven.

[G L Wilson]

Good - I'm glad it's incorrect. I'll pass that on to togre.

However, that's Paul speaking, whom you may think was talking on God's behalf, but whom I think was just one of many Christian thinkers trying to formulate a rational interpretation of a rather inconsistent set of apparent injunctions.

If he's right, he's contradicting - or at least putting a pretty unexpected spin on - Jesus' statement that no one will enter the Kingdom of Heaven but through Himself.

But more importantly, from my point of view, he's giving a huge advantage to those who are 'a law unto themselves', who get into Heaven by essentially having been 'good people', without ever having committed to Christ. I mean - that's not fair. Under those circumstances, a lot of people would get in, had they not been labouring under the huge disadvantage of being born after 30BC and within the influence of the Christian church. That's a much easier route into Heaven.

Plato is in Heaven, I bet. Can you imagine it - a fascist tea time for the soul?

[libernaut]

I once asked the same question, what about all the "souls" before christ. he said they were in something called "abraham's bossom" waiting for christ in after life so they could chose to accept him or not when he arrived. LMFAO! wtf? abrahams bossom? HA! Man they really thought this one through didn't they. Gotta love them christian "scholars" I mean. If you want to talk truth, especially academically you are pretty much gonna have to leave christianity out of it. It is essentially intellectual suicide to become a Christian. And that's a sin friends. And a non redeemable one too i suppose, suicide...

[G L Wilson]

What's suicide around here, libernaut, is to say that it is intellectual suicide to become a Christian. God help us if we should say anything against the Christians.

[Bessie11]

to teach us a lesson

[G L Wilson]

to teach us a lesson

In case no-one knows this: I am an adult.

[usman.khawar]

I don't know. God sent his only son? That's a joke. So what, he was crucified and then he died and now he's in heaven but in the end Jesus is only one guy! He may be the big man's only son but he is still one guy. What about the suffering the rest of us endures? What about the suffering endured by those affected by religious war or conflict? And all those people who came before Jesus, they're all going to hell!? How is that fair?

"Oh oops, I forget about them," says God.

And what is original sin again? Wasn't that when Adam decided to eat an apple in the Garden of Eden or something? And now we have to suffer for all eternity unless we pass some sort of entrance examination? What exactly is sin? What is Adam eating an apple supposed to symbolize? Aren't apples supposed to be good for you?

Why doe's God choose to lump us into one big group when we are individuals who cannot be expected to take responsibility for the actions of others?

My original question everyone tried to ignore or didn't notice: What about wars? Are we allowed to kill other human beings in the name of God? Are we allowed to fight in God's name?

i think No. we are not allowed to kill other human beings in the name of God. but what if other try to impose war and you have to defend yourself and your country? than God says fight and kill. there are so many systems human invented. but all fails. no classes. no difference. every system fails. i concluded there should b a system which God made and want human to impose on earth.
Adam's error was just the reason to send us on earth. and in quran God says go on earth, and when adam ask apology God forgave him and said on earth there is some benifit for you as well. so if any one come to you and says the right things to do follow him. from adam to Muhammad Allah sent 124,ooo mesengers. code of conducts was different with every messenger. but the real objective was same. which is the biggest sin. that is to find and understand there is only One God. God of all universes and mankind, in chapter Luqman, God catogorizes the biggest sins. when Luqman teaches his son starting from verse no 13 you can see yourself

1. Alif*Lâm*Mîm.

2. These are Verses of the Wise Book (the Qur'ân).

3. A guide and a mercy for the Muhsinûn (good*doers)

4. Those who perform As*Salât (Iqamat*as- Salât) and give Zakât(alms) and they have faith in the Hereafter with certainty(argument).

5. Such are on guidance from their Lord, and such are the successful.

6. And of mankind is he who purchases idle talks to mislead (men) from the Path of Allâh without knowledge, and takes it (the Path of Allâh, the Verses of the Qur'ân) by way of mockery.
For such there will be a humiliating torment (in the Hell-fire).

7. And when Our Verses are recited to such a one, he turns away in pride, as if he heard them not, as if there were deafness in his ear. So announce to him a painful torment.
8. Verily, those who believe and do righteous good deeds, for them are Gardens of delight (Paradise).

9. To abide therein. It is a Promise of Allâh in truth. And He is the All*Mighty, the All*Wise.

10. He has created the heavens without any pillars, that you see
and has set on the earth firm mountains, lest it should shake with you.
And He has scattered therein moving (living) creatures of all kinds.

And We send down water (rain) from the sky, and We cause (plants) of every goodly kind to grow therein.

11. This is the creation of Allâh.

So show Me that which those (whom you worship), besides Him have created.

Nay,

the Zâlimûn (those who do not believe in the Oneness of Allâh,polytheists etc) are in plain error.


12. And indeed We bestowed upon Luqmân Al*Hikmah (wisdom) saying:
"Give thanks to Allâh," and whoever gives thanks, he gives thanks for (the good of) his ownself.
And whoever is unthankful, then verily, Allâh is All*Rich (Free of all wants), Worthy of all praise.

13. And (remember) when Luqmân said to his son when he was advising him:

"O my son! Join not in worship others with Allâh.

Verily! Joining others in worship with Allâh is a great Zûlm (wrong.sin) indeed.

14. And We have enjoined on man (to be dutiful and good) to his parents.

His mother bore him in weakness and hardship upon weakness and hardship, and his weaning is in two years

give thanks to Me and to your parents, unto Me is the final destination.

15. But if they (both) strive with you to make you join in worship with Me others that of which you have no knowledge, then obey them not, but behave with them in the world kindly, and follow the path of him who turns to Me in repentance and in obedience.

Then to Me will be your return, and I shall tell you what you used to do.



16. "O my son! If it be (anything) equal to the weight of a grain of mustard seed, and though it be in a rock, or in the heavens or in the earth, Allâh will bring it forth.

Verily, Allâh is Subtle (in bringing out that grain), Well*Aware (of its place).



17. "O my son! Aqim*is*Salât (perform As*Salât),
- enjoin (people) for Al*Ma'rûf (all that is good), and forbid (people) from Al*Munkar (i.e. disbelief in the Oneness of Allâh, polytheism of all kinds and all that is evil and bad),

- and bear with patience whatever befall you.

Verily! These are work of big courage.

18. - "And turn not your face away from men with pride,

- nor walk in insolence through the earth.

Verily, Allâh likes not each arrogant boaster.

19. - "And be moderate (or show no insolence) in your walking, and lower your voice.

Verily, the harshest of all voices is the voice (braying) of the donkey."
20. See you not (O men) that Allâh has subjected for you whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth, and has completed and perfected His Graces upon you, (both) apparent and hidden?

...................

[MarkBastable]

As a sort of hint as to how one might approach a discussion like this, if the chap you're talking to doesn't believe in God, it's not terribly persuasive to quote God - and it's even less persuasive to cite what someone says God said.

Just trying to save you a lot of typing...


i think No. we are not allowed to kill other human beings in the name of God. but what if other try to impose war and you have to defend yourself and your country? than God says fight and kill. there are so many systems human invented. but all fails. no classes. no difference. every system fails. i concluded there should b a system which God made and want human to impose on earth.
Adam's error was just the reason to send us on earth. and in quran God says go on earth, and when adam ask apology God forgave him and said on earth there is some benifit for you as well. so if any one come to you and says the right things to do follow him. from adam to Muhammad Allah sent 124,ooo mesengers. code of conducts was different with every messenger. but the real objective was same. which is the biggest sin. that is to find and understand there is only One God. God of all universes and mankind, in chapter Luqman, God catogorizes the biggest sins. when Luqman teaches his son starting from verse no 3 you can see yourself

1. Alif*Lâm*Mîm.

2. These are Verses of the Wise Book (the Qur'ân).

3. A guide and a mercy for the Muhsinûn (good*doers)

4. Those who perform As*Salât (Iqamat*as- Salât) and give Zakât(alms) and they have faith in the Hereafter with certainty(argument).

5. Such are on guidance from their Lord, and such are the successful.

6. And of mankind is he who purchases idle talks to mislead (men) from the Path of Allâh without knowledge, and takes it (the Path of Allâh, the Verses of the Qur'ân) by way of mockery.
For such there will be a humiliating torment (in the Hell-fire).

7. And when Our Verses are recited to such a one, he turns away in pride, as if he heard them not, as if there were deafness in his ear. So announce to him a painful torment.
8. Verily, those who believe and do righteous good deeds, for them are Gardens of delight (Paradise).

9. To abide therein. It is a Promise of Allâh in truth. And He is the All*Mighty, the All*Wise.

10. He has created the heavens without any pillars, that you see
and has set on the earth firm mountains, lest it should shake with you.
And He has scattered therein moving (living) creatures of all kinds.

And We send down water (rain) from the sky, and We cause (plants) of every goodly kind to grow therein.

11. This is the creation of Allâh.

So show Me that which those (whom you worship), besides Him have created.

Nay,

the Zâlimûn (those who do not believe in the Oneness of Allâh,polytheists etc) are in plain error.


12. And indeed We bestowed upon Luqmân Al*Hikmah (wisdom) saying:
"Give thanks to Allâh," and whoever gives thanks, he gives thanks for (the good of) his ownself.
And whoever is unthankful, then verily, Allâh is All*Rich (Free of all wants), Worthy of all praise.

13. And (remember) when Luqmân said to his son when he was advising him:

"O my son! Join not in worship others with Allâh.

Verily! Joining others in worship with Allâh is a great Zûlm (wrong.sin) indeed.

14. And We have enjoined on man (to be dutiful and good) to his parents.

His mother bore him in weakness and hardship upon weakness and hardship, and his weaning is in two years

give thanks to Me and to your parents, unto Me is the final destination.

15. But if they (both) strive with you to make you join in worship with Me others that of which you have no knowledge, then obey them not, but behave with them in the world kindly, and follow the path of him who turns to Me in repentance and in obedience.

Then to Me will be your return, and I shall tell you what you used to do.



16. "O my son! If it be (anything) equal to the weight of a grain of mustard seed, and though it be in a rock, or in the heavens or in the earth, Allâh will bring it forth.

Verily, Allâh is Subtle (in bringing out that grain), Well*Aware (of its place).



17. "O my son! Aqim*is*Salât (perform As*Salât),
- enjoin (people) for Al*Ma'rûf (all that is good), and forbid (people) from Al*Munkar (i.e. disbelief in the Oneness of Allâh, polytheism of all kinds and all that is evil and bad),

- and bear with patience whatever befall you.

Verily! These are work of big courage.

18. - "And turn not your face away from men with pride,

- nor walk in insolence through the earth.

Verily, Allâh likes not each arrogant boaster.

19. - "And be moderate (or show no insolence) in your walking, and lower your voice.

Verily, the harshest of all voices is the voice (braying) of the donkey."
20. See you not (O men) that Allâh has subjected for you whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth, and has completed and perfected His Graces upon you, (both) apparent and hidden?

...................

[togre]

According to Romans 2:14ff, "for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel."

Those who did not have the Law of Moses, but still acted in a righteous manner, were a law unto themselves.


You need to keep reading. Paul's point is that the Jews having the Law of God in writing didn't place them in a special class. Both Jews and Gentiles (everyone not a Jew) need to be "good." But does that assume anyone achieves this goodness? Consider Paul in Romans chapter 3

9 What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10 As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”
13 “Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and
bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 ruin and misery mark their ways,
17 and the way of peace they do not know.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their
eyes.”
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.


The purpose of God's Law, whether written in the Bible or found in the hearts of men, is never going to be a "How To Please God" guide or manual. It serves like a mirror. It doesn't matter how pretty I feel, when I look in the mirror I'm confronted by the truth--a zit. It doesn't matter how "good" I think I am, when I look in the Law (compare my actions and attitudes to what God expects) I see failure.

How is God pleased? How does anyone attain the goodness (righteousness) that God requires? It is given, not earned.

21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,a through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Note also how clearly Paul excludes the possibility that anyone is good enough on their own.

This is straying alot into What is sin? and What is good? and questions like that. I'm game for discussing these (as my time permits) but is this thread the best place?

[G L Wilson]

A vain god pleases vain people, why wouldn't he?

[BienvenuJDC]

You need to keep reading.

I agree with you, but my point was that God will judge accordingly. He is able to judge the heart for those who never had a chance to know Christ....or the Law, whether due to location, circumstance, or era. No matter what He chooses to do, I am assured that He will judge righteously.

[G L Wilson]

I agree with you, but my point was that God will judge accordingly. He is able to judge the heart for those who never had a chance to know Christ....or the Law, whether due to location, circumstance, or era. No matter what He chooses to do, I am assured that He will judge righteously.

I am not so assured.

[BienvenuJDC]

I am not so assured.

That doesn't surprise me.

[usman.khawar]

As a sort of hint as to how one might approach a discussion like this, if the chap you're talking to doesn't believe in God, it's not terribly persuasive to quote God - and it's even less persuasive to cite what someone says God said.

Just trying to save you a lot of typing...

appreciated as you are trying to save time. yes i know the person who dont beleive in God i should not quote God. We see that this thread name is " why does a good God promote suffering" and also i answered for bagman.

now i m returning your good argument to you , like gonna try to save you a lot of time as here in this thread(Why a good God) there is no athiest expected.
if any athiest like we can discuss in the thread " why i beleive in God" , well this thread name should be " why i beleive in God , why i dont beleive in God "
i also invite you to read this once and discuss with me, and give your good arguments to improve my knowledge http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63002

[G L Wilson]

That doesn't surprise me.

What surprises me is that you are so assured.

[Hand_Of_God]

Incorrect....
According to Romans 2:14ff, "for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel."

Those who did not have the Law of Moses, but still acted in a righteous manner, were a law unto themselves.

That is true, but so there were no need for the sacrifice of Jesus...

[MarkBastable]

Very good point. If those who've never heard of God and his Son can be judged by their heart, then everyone can. So there was no need for Jesus to live, die and rise at all.

I hope Jesus doesn't hear about this. He'll be very miffed.

[Ecurb]

Very good point. If those who've never heard of God and his Son can be judged by their heart, then everyone can. So there was no need for Jesus to live, die and rise at all.

I hope Jesus doesn't hear about this. He'll be very miffed.

Where were you when God hung the stars in the sky (as God might have said to Job)?

The notion that only through the Grace of Jesus' sacrifice can people be saved from their sins is (I'll fully grant) bizarre. Why should God create a world like that? But, then, why should God create a world where people die int he first place?

In all fairy tales (and many myths), there are strange rules which have inexorable, unnatural and constant results. "Blow this horn, and the walls of a castle will fall." "Look back at your wife, and she will return to the land of the dead." Of course we puny humans don't understand WHY these rules exist. Where were we when God hung the stars in the sky?

Still, if being able to go to heaven only through Jesus' sacrifice seems strange, going to heaven for ANY reason is even stranger and more miraculous. Why strain at a gnat? If heaven exists at all, why should we understand the rules about getting there?

(Of course the Fundamentalists who think they know who is "saved" and who is not weren't there when God hung the stars from the sky, either. For who can know the Mind of God?)

[MarkBastable]

Where were you when God hung the stars in the sky (as God might have said to Job)?

The notion that only through the Grace of Jesus' sacrifice can people be saved from their sins is (I'll fully grant) bizarre. Why should God create a world like that? But, then, why should God create a world where people die int he first place?

In all fairy tales (and many myths), there are strange rules which have inexorable, unnatural and constant results. "Blow this horn, and the walls of a castle will fall." "Look back at your wife, and she will return to the land of the dead." Of course we puny humans don't understand WHY these rules exist. Where were we when God hung the stars in the sky?

Still, if being able to go to heaven only through Jesus' sacrifice seems strange, going to heaven for ANY reason is even stranger and more miraculous. Why strain at a gnat? If heaven exists at all, why should we understand the rules about getting there?

(Of course the Fundamentalists who think they know who is "saved" and who is not weren't there when God hung the stars from the sky, either. For who can know the Mind of God?)


..and that's exactly where believers end up when the logical going gets tough. "Who can know the mind of God?" "God's ineffableness is beyond human comprehension." "Hey - beats me, but I'm sure God knows what he's doing...."

Well, in order to take that position - which you're absolutely entitled to do - you have to have a preceding belief in the existence of God that enables you to lend him that kind of confidence.

Me, I find it impossible to believe in a Supreme Being who appears either not to have thought things through ("....oh, hang on - there was no need for the whole redeemed-by-the-blood-of-the-Lamb thing. I could've applied the 'law unto themselves' technique to everyone...") or who has created a system of justice that, although it applies to me, is impossible for me to understand, but I'm expected to just trust him that it's all fair and consistent.

Neither of those deities - the woolly thinker or the capricious obscurist - has any business trying to run a Universe. In fact it's pretty difficult to see how he could.

[PoeticPassions]

Neither of those deities - the woolly thinker or the capricious obscurist - has any business trying to run a Universe. In fact it's pretty difficult to see how he could.

Well, no leader has ever been perfect and none is ever really fit to run a country, a world, or the masses.

If there is a God (which I highly doubt) he's just as fallible, vengeful, vain and irrational as the rest of us. After all, He invented us (or we invented him).

[Ecurb]

Me, I find it impossible to believe in a Supreme Being who appears either not to have thought things through ("....oh, hang on - there was no need for the whole redeemed-by-the-blood-of-the-Lamb thing. I could've applied the 'law unto themselves' technique to everyone...") or who has created a system of justice that, although it applies to me, is impossible for me to understand, but I'm expected to just trust him that it's all fair and consistent.

Neither of those deities - the woolly thinker or the capricious obscurist - has any business trying to run a Universe. In fact it's pretty difficult to see how he could.

This seems like a very self-centered view of the universe. The idea is: I won’t “believe in” anything I can’t understand -- as if we are God and can't create anything we don't understand. I suppose we could apply this to Relativity, or Chaos Theory, or any number of scientific or philosophical ideas which are also difficult to understand. The question, though, is not whether you can “believe in” something, but whether the internal logic of the system is inconsistent. When Hades made the condition that if Orpheus looked back, Euridyce would return to the land of the dead was he capricious, or a wooly thinker? Perhaps he was – but that doesn’t ruin the story.

If, of course, the key question about a story is whether we can “believe in” it, then we might examine every plot detail in terms of whether it adds credence to the story. I’ll grant that many Christians DO frame the Christian myth in these terms. Nonetheless, it seems silly for non-believers to frame it in these terms. After all, many of us DON’T “believe in” the Christian myth any more than we “believe in” the Euridyce story. Indeed, some of us (me, for example) see the historical “truth” of both stories as irrelevant. In order to grasp the story, some suspension of disbelief is required – just as it is when we read Anna Karennina. If every aspect of the story is contaminated by “I find it impossible to believe…” we will never see any truths that ARE embedded in the story.

[MarkBastable]

This seems like a very self-centered view of the universe. The idea is: I won’t “believe in” anything I can’t understand -- as if we are God and can't create anything we don't understand. I suppose we could apply this to Relativity, or Chaos Theory, or any number of scientific or philosophical ideas which are also difficult to understand. The question, though, is not whether you can “believe in” something, but whether the internal logic of the system is inconsistent. When Hades made the condition that if Orpheus looked back, Euridyce would return to the land of the dead was he capricious, or a wooly thinker? Perhaps he was – but that doesn’t ruin the story.

If, of course, the key question about a story is whether we can “believe in” it, then we might examine every plot detail in terms of whether it adds credence to the story. I’ll grant that many Christians DO frame the Christian myth in these terms. Nonetheless, it seems silly for non-believers to frame it in these terms. After all, many of us DON’T “believe in” the Christian myth any more than we “believe in” the Euridyce story. Indeed, some of us (me, for example) see the historical “truth” of both stories as irrelevant. In order to grasp the story, some suspension of disbelief is required – just as it is when we read Anna Karennina. If every aspect of the story is contaminated by “I find it impossible to believe…” we will never see any truths that ARE embedded in the story.

Oh, I understand the story. If that's all God requires of me, I'm safe.

[dwdean]

Well, no leader has ever been perfect and none is ever really fit to run a country, a world, or the masses.

If there is a God (which I highly doubt) he's just as fallible, vengeful, vain and irrational as the rest of us. After all, He invented us (or we invented him).

i vehemently disagree.
my beliefs aside, God must be infallible to be God, right? if God is NOT infallible, then He is merely powerful. Castro was powerful, but is he God? the very nature of some "God" existing, is that the "God being" is superior to us, as we are humans. Gods, regardless of religious belief are omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. if lacking is perfect, the god-like qualities fade and that being becomes of one us.

[MarkBastable]

Gods, regardless of religious belief are omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. if lacking is perfect, the god-like qualities fade and that being becomes of one us.

That's simply not true of - for instance - the Greek Gods, the Roman Gods, the Norse Gods, the Hindu Gods, the African pantheistic Gods, the Aboriginal Gods. In fact, pretty much every God except the Judaeo-Christian God has been other than omniscient (hence the intrigue and deceit), absolutely not omnipotent (because there are winners and losers in every encounter) and anything but omnipresent (because there's no story if everyone in it is everywhere all the time).

[Ecurb]

Obviously, the Norse Gods are doomed to lose their battle with the Giants at Ragnorok. So they are not omnipotent (far from it). It seems to me that the Jewish God was CALLED omnipotent to compare him with the (lesser) Gods of other cultures. I mean, Odin might be called "the all-knowing and all powerful Odin" at some point, even though it's clear from the story that this is hyperbole.

[G L Wilson]

Christians, Muslims and Jews will be a lovely bunch in Heaven. God is welcome to them.

[Ecurb]

Oh, I understand the story. If that's all God requires of me, I'm safe.

Well, in that case you're one up on me, (and probably) the Pope, Thomas Acquinas, and Bishop Tutu. Most of us don't think we understand the story (at least not completely). Many of those who have studied it for a lifetime -- brilliant, dilligent men and great scholars -- don't claim to understand.

[G L Wilson]

Well, in that case you're one up on me, (and probably) the Pope, Thomas Acquinas, and Bishop Tutu. Most of us don't think we understand the story (at least not completely). Many those who have studied it for a lifetime -- brilliant, dilligent men and great scholars -- don't claim to understand.

The Pope doesn't think that he is God's representative on earth or anything, does he? The Saint and Tutu also do a lot of talking for men without understanding, not to mention the lesser entities that infect Christendom with bombast and bluster. The story is that they get saved no matter what their atrocities against common humanity. It gives them a lot to talk about whereas otherwise they would be a complete blank.

[Ecurb]

The Pope doesn't think that he is God's representative on earth or anything, does he? The Saint and Tutu also do a lot of talking for men without understanding, not to mention the lesser entities that infect Christendom with bombast and bluster. The story is that they get saved no matter what their atrocities against common humanity. It gives them a lot to talk about whereas otherwise they would be a complete blank.

No, the point was that if people who have actually studied the story don't understand what it means, how can MarkBastable. (Perhaps MarkBastable is a Treasure Seeker, and has worked as hard at understanding the Bible as the Bastable children did at restoring the fallen fortunes of the House of Bastable on Lewisham Road, in which case I apologize.)

[G L Wilson]

No, the point was that if people who have actually studied the story don't understand what it means, how can MarkBastable. (Perhaps MarkBastable is a Treasure Seeker, and has worked as hard at understanding the Bible as the Bastable children did at restoring the fallen fortunes of the House of Bastable on Lewisham Road, in which case I apologize.)

What's hard to understand? Love doesn't get you into Heaven, righteousness does.

[Ecurb]

"There is none righteous, no, not one." -- Romans, 3:10.

(And, yes, the Bible is hard to understand. So is G L Wilson. So similar, and yet so distant.)

[G L Wilson]

"There is none righteous, no, not one." -- Romans, 3:10.

(And, yes, the Bible is hard to understand. So is G L Wilson. So similar, and yet so distant.)

You come at me with Paul? Read on in Romans and see what there is to find. Nonetheless, Heaven is poorly populated. As Nietzsche said, "In Heaven, all the interesting people are missing." There will be a lot of good people down in hell, why should I be afraid to go there?

[dwdean]

What's hard to understand? Love doesn't get you into Heaven, righteousness does.

i don;t believe that's the message of the Bible.

yes, righteousness is req'd.
no, we aren't righteous.
yes, Jesus was.
we get in, therefore, through Him.
no, we still aren't righteous.


this would be considered the christian belief in a nutshell, yes?

[G L Wilson]

i don;t believe that's the message of the Bible.

yes, righteousness is req'd.
no, we aren't righteous.
yes, Jesus was.
we get in, therefore, through Him.
no, we still aren't righteous.


this would be considered the christian belief in a nutshell, yes?

No, the Christian belief is that we are made righteous through faith in Jesus Christ. There is no other way into Heaven. The Catholics are wrong; even if the texts contradict, where is the Good in error? Nowhere, I say.

[dwdean]

GL, "the Catholic's are wrong" was thrown in quite randomly in my opinion. care to explain how that relates? i agree with your statement, but perhaps for different reasons...

i believe that what you say concerning the christian belief is true, but it is held that we are considered righteous, seen righteous, by accepting Christ's sacrifice. that still doesn't make us righteous. correct?

[G L Wilson]

GL, "the Catholic's are wrong" was thrown in quite randomly in my opinion. care to explain how that relates? i agree with your statement, but perhaps for different reasons...

Catholicism attains that salvation by good works is possible. The doctrine is either incorrect or not depending on your point of view.


i believe that what you say concerning the christian belief is true, but it is held that we are considered righteous, seen righteous, by accepting Christ's sacrifice. that still doesn't make us righteous. correct?

I would say so but I am not sure.

[MarkBastable]

No, the point was that if people who have actually studied the story don't understand what it means, how can MarkBastable. (Perhaps MarkBastable is a Treasure Seeker, and has worked as hard at understanding the Bible as the Bastable children did at restoring the fallen fortunes of the House of Bastable on Lewisham Road, in which case I apologize.)

We're obviously talking about different levels of understanding then. You're talking about some level that no-one can understand - yes? So, we're back to my thing about believers citing the unknowable ineffableness of the mind of God.

And, as I say, if this question of God's judgement does encompass a level of understanding that's beyond us, then God has broken a very fundamental rule of natural justice, which is that the judged should be able to understand the system of justice by which they are being judged. They shouldn't have to simply take on trust that it's fair.

If, on the other hand, you're saying that the very idea of God is beyond us all, then, again, I think God is being capricious. Having created children who are incapable of comprehending him, he has no one to blame but himself if they don't get it. If I were a bright orange god who smelled strongly of celery, it'd be pretty unsporting of me to create blind creatures with no noses, and then to blame them for not being able to find me.

[Paulclem]

:lol:

...celery...

My creation's got no nose.

Oh really? How does it smell? ...

[Vonny]

I was Catholic the first 7 years of my life. I went to church every Sunday. My father was Catholic, and my mother was Protestant, so it was confusing. My mother contradicted the Catholic teachings to us. Still, I went to church every Sunday. My father was a very violent person; he tortured us in various ways. I remember one day, my father told me that God watched me all the time, that He could always see me. I remember saying in amazement, "He sees me now? Right now?" My father said "yes." I never understood too much about God or the church or anything, but I understood that God was watching me.

So, as I got older, I wondered, "Why didn't God ever speak to me, a small child?" He spoke to Moses in a burning bush. So why wouldn't He speak to a child who was terrified and in pain? I can see if He had given my father free-will, then maybe He wouldn't want to step in and interfere, but why not just speak and explain to me that although my father was being allowed to do what he did, it wasn't right, and that we children didn't deserve what we were getting, that God didn't approve, and that there would be a light on the other side for us. But we were just left in a very deep, very black hole.

God's love is supposed to be greater than any human love. I, as a human, couldn't stand by and just watch a child or animal suffer and do nothing, not even speak to him/her/it. So I don't know if there is some concept here that is so BIG I simply can't understand it. It's for sure that if there is a concept, I don't understand it. But I try to have an open mind about God, and just say that I don't know. I think whatever God is, we can never understand it with our human brains.

[dwdean]

[QUOTE=G L Wilson;1054852]Catholicism attains that salvation by good works is possible. The doctrine is either incorrect or not depending on your point of view.

[QUOTE]

is that really a belief held by all Catholics or only a select few? does it even make sense for one to be saved by good works? due to varying definitions of "good works," salvation would never be assured.

[dwdean]

I was Catholic the first 7 years of my life. I went to church every Sunday. My father was Catholic, and my mother was Protestant, so it was confusing. My mother contradicted the Catholic teachings to us. Still, I went to church every Sunday.

did you pick one belief to follow or no?

[Vonny]

did you pick one belief to follow or no?

Well, my father left us and we automatically defaulted to my mother's Protestant side. The Catholic part is definitely gone along with my father and godparents, all who vanished.

I'm beginning to realize lately that I've never really chosen anything for myself. But I don't go to church anymore, mainly because churches give me anxiety.

It's funny that Scripture still has an emotional pull on me, so I'm unable to call myself an Atheist.

[dwdean]

Well, my father left us and we automatically defaulted to my mother's Protestant side. The Catholic part is definitely gone along with my father and godparents, all who vanished.

I'm beginning to realize lately that I've never really chosen anything for myself. But I don't go to church anymore, mainly because churches give me anxiety.

It's funny that Scripture still has an emotional pull on me, so I'm unable to call myself an Atheist.

have you ever explored catholicism for yourself?
i have recently begun to do so.
while i disagree with much of the doctrine, the aura/reverence and mysticism of the catholic church absolutely has it's pull on me...

[Vonny]

have you ever explored catholicism for yourself?
i have recently begun to do so.
while i disagree with much of the doctrine, the aura/reverence and mysticism of the catholic church absolutely has it's pull on me...

It's funny you mention this because those qualities pull me, too. I absolutely hate the new-age crap that so many other churches have turned into. A young woman I know who goes to Catholic church said that if you look around at the congregation, just about every single head in there is gray. That appeals to me. I love the traditions. Another thing I love about Catholic church is Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve, and the old-fashioned Christmas carols! I have still gone to Midnight Mass several times over the years with friends.

And then several years ago I was able to visit Mount Angel Abbey in Oregon. It was really beautiful, and listening to the monks sing Vespers was really nice, better than taking a tranquilizer!

It's possible that I could get sucked back into Catholic church, but right now I don't have time!

The only other problem is that I don't like their bible. I like the King James version.

[dwdean]

It's funny you mention this because those qualities pull me, too. I absolutely hate the new-age crap that so many other churches have turned into. A young woman I know who goes to Catholic church said that if you look around at the congregation, just about every single head in there is gray. That appeals to me. I love the traditions. Another thing I love about Catholic church is Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve, and the old-fashioned Christmas carols! I have still gone to Midnight Mass several times over the years with friends.

And then several years ago I was able to visit Mount Angel Abbey in Oregon. It was really beautiful, and listening to the monks sing Vespers was really nice, better than taking a tranquilizer!

It's possible that I could get sucked back into Catholic church, but right now I don't have time!

The only other problem is that I don't like their bible. I like the King James version.

in my opinion, protestant churches have become dangerously casual. i don't believe that one should be judged by what they wear or believe or give during church, but it could be said that those who practice the catholic faith may take it more seriously than their protestant counterparts. this may be due, in part, to their belief that salvation is not given, it is earned by works. there also seems to be unity of belief among catholics. the catechism gives pretty much a guideline for living. though protestants would hold that the Bible itself is their guideline, the differing translations provide discord amongst those in the same church family. while there are THOUSANDS of protestant denominations, catholicism only exhibits two (if i understand correctly). there must be a reason for this unity...

[G L Wilson]

"There must be a reason for this unity."

Sure, superstition.

[MarkBastable]

while there are THOUSANDS of protestant denominations, catholicism only exhibits two (if i understand correctly). there must be a reason for this unity...

In the case of Roman Catholicism, the reason is the authority of the Vatican, exercised through the infallibility of the Pope.

You seem to think that that's a Good Thing, and that the nonconformists' diverse interpretations of Christian precepts are a Bad Thing - which, of course, is a perfectly valid opinion. But there are those who would argue exactly the opposite.

However, stepping back a little and looking at Christianity overall, the differences between the (Roman) Catholic Church and other Christian demoninations are tiny, compared to the differences between all the monotheistic faiths.

And the differences between the monotheistic faiths are pretty small compared to the differences between all of them and the multitheistic faiths.

And the differences between all faiths are insignificant compared to the differences between faith and lack of it.

And even the lack of it has no real defining characteristic except that - so there's a lot of difference there too.

So I don't think that, in terms of the practice of faith, the little differences between Roman Catholicism and other Christian sects really matter. However, one of the appeals of Catholicism (Roman or otherwise) is certainly the showbiz element - the ritual, the incense, the formality of process and symbolism. I guess that's as good a reason as any to choose that form of Christianity.

My wife - who was brought up a Catholic - was told that eternal damnation awaits anyone who calls themselves a Christian but doesn't recognise the unquestioned authority of the Pope. Even now she isn't entirely sure that nonconformist marriage ceremonies really count, because there's not enough stained-glass and men-in-frocks about the place. My mother - who was brought up a strict non-conformist - was told that if she ever attended a Catholic Mass, she would go to hell, because it was the work of the devil. Even now, she's not completely at ease around crucifixes, which come under the broad heading of 'graven images'.

[G L Wilson]

If you take away the smoke and mirrors from Christianity, you are just left with a lot of mumbo jumbo.

[MarkBastable]

If you take away the smoke and mirrors from Christianity, you are just left with a lot of mumbo jumbo.


I can't see that that kind of blasé, adolescent throwaway really advances the discussion at all. I mean, what would have been lost had you decided, having typed it, not to hit 'Send'?

[dwdean]

My wife - who was brought up a Catholic - was told that eternal damnation awaits anyone who calls themselves a Christian but doesn't recognise the unquestioned authority of the Pope. Even now she isn't entirely sure that nonconformist marriage ceremonies really count, because there's not enough stained-glass and men-in-frocks about the place. My mother - who was brought up a strict non-conformist - was told that if she ever attended a Catholic Mass, she would go to hell, because it was the work of the devil. Even now, she's not completely at ease around crucifixes, which come under the broad heading of 'graven images'.

im not saying that one is wrong while the other is correct. catholicism has two denominations, protestant christianity exists in thousands. that is my point.

on the other hand, MarkBast, i was brought up similarly to your mother. i have attended a protestant church since birth. my mother, who was catholic for many years, swears that catholicism is simply wrong. i do believe that calling any human (the pope) infallible is ridiculous. i promise you, the guy makes mistakes. but then again the catholics would say that those who take the Bible alone as infallible truth are sadly mistaken.
religion... its tricky.

[G L Wilson]

I can't see that that kind of blasé, adolescent throwaway really advances the discussion at all. I mean, what would have been lost had you decided, having typed it, not to hit 'Send'?

Human beings suffer for no reason, no reason at all.

[Delta40]

Human beings suffer for no reason, no reason at all.

so do animals and the environment. Are you thinking we're special or something?

[MarkBastable]

I can't see that that kind of blasé, adolescent throwaway really advances the discussion at all. I mean, what would have been lost had you decided, having typed it, not to hit 'Send'?


Human beings suffer for no reason, no reason at all.

I can't see that that kind of blasé, adolescent throwaway really advances the discussion at all. I mean, what would have been lost had you decided, having typed it, not to hit 'Send'?

[G L Wilson]

It is certainly not blase whatever it might be.

[Varenne Rodin]

It's very arrogant of people to insist that their speculations of a god's motivations are based on any type of logic whatsoever. If god/gods exist, we don't know him/her/them or their possible motivations and capabilities, and as of right now we have no way of gaining said knowledge. To pretend to know only assigns our own imagined motivations to the potential actions of deities, thus elevating ourselves to the supposed mental plane/s of deities. This line of speculation is purely egotistical, unless it's being used to illustrate how much sense "God" does not make, in which case: fantastic!

[MarkBastable]

It's very arrogant of people to insist that their speculations of a god's motivations are based on any type of logic whatsoever. If god/gods exist, we don't know him/her/them or their possible motivations and capabilities, and as of right now we have no way of gaining said knowledge. To pretend to know only assigns our own imagined motivations to the potential actions of deities, thus elevating ourselves to the supposed mental plane/s of deities. This line of speculation is purely egotistical, unless it's being used to illustrate how much sense "God" does not make, in which case: fantastic!

That seems to suggest that human beings are not capable of knowing the mind of God.

[Varenne Rodin]

That seems to suggest that human beings are not capable of knowing the mind of God.

Definitely, Mark. To know the mind of a God, one would have to be a God. Now that's a nice fantasy. Maybe we're all gods and we're fleshing out this saga of what motivates the one mega god we've conjured. Or maybe we've all always been gods. Accidentally expanding the universe the way some people accidentally make babies. It's a fantastic mystery with endless possibilities. The possibilities don't begin and end at this one god of men. Doing a bunch of guesswork within the confines of this one story, this one idea, and passing judgments on other humans because we assume it's the will of THE god, well, pardon me for saying so, but that is ludicrous.

[billl]

Basically, if someone (or something) manages to acquire/develop power superior to our own, and then behaves in ways we find unjustifiable, we should just go ahead and worship them, because they must've created everything, even the world they were born into. Anyhow, I think that's the formula that the mystics take, before becoming Vichy-reality-based tools.

[MarkBastable]

Definitely, Mark. To know the mind of a God, one would have to be a God.

Precisely. So the thrust of my argument isn't about whether or not human beings can understand the workings of God's mind. Let's agree we can't.

The question is whether or not that's any way to run a universe - whether it's fair to set up a cosmos in that way. And that matters - to me at least -because if he's created us in such a way that we are incapable of understanding him, it'd be capricious to judge us within the structure of that set-up.

Hence this...


Having created children who are incapable of comprehending him, he has no one to blame but himself if they don't get it. If I were a bright orange god who smelled strongly of celery, it'd be pretty unsporting of me to create blind creatures with no noses, and then to blame them for not being able to find me.

...which is the point I was hoping would be addressed by someone who does believe that that is a fair way to run a universe.

[Varenne Rodin]

Precisely. So the thrust of my argument isn't about whether or not human beings can understand the workings of God's mind. Let's agree we can't.

The question is whether or not that's any way to run a universe - whether it's fair to set up a cosmos in that way. And that matters - to me at least -because if he's created us in such a way that we are incapable of understanding him, it'd be capricious to judge us within the structure of that set-up.

Hence this...



...which is the point I was hoping would be addressed by someone who does believe that that is a fair way to run a universe.

Pretty cool, Mark. I somehow missed that comment before. Very smartly stated. Why do people worship this invisible, incoherent idea? If any of the gods envisioned by man are real, those gods either have severe mental problems, or zero ability to interact with our reality.

[Paulclem]

The Buddha's experience of Gods was that there are a number of them who live greatly extended lives-eons long- of divine comfort, but who are themselves subject to birth ageing sickness and death. The delusion the foremost of them has - referred to as Brahma, but this is pre-christian, (which raises interesting possibilities), is that they created the universe.

The idea that there is a God realm would seem to account for the different views of Gods that cultures have, and for the different sets of them - Norse, Greek, Hindu, the God vengeful of the Hebrews etc.

The Buddha's claim also sugests that it is possible to know the minds of Gods and that they're not so Divine as they think but subject to Karma just the same as any being. From the Buddha's point of view then, as they too suffer, they need to be viewed with compassion.

[G L Wilson]

The Buddha's experience of Gods was that there are a number of them who live greatly extended lives-eons long- of divine comfort, but who are themselves subject to birth ageing sickness and death. The delusion the foremost of them has - referred to as Brahma, but this is pre-christian, (which raises interesting possibilities), is that they created the universe.

The idea that there is a God realm would seem to account for the different views of Gods that cultures have, and for the different sets of them - Norse, Greek, Hindu, the God vengeful of the Hebrews etc.

The Buddha's claim also sugests that it is possible to know the minds of Gods and that they're not so Divine as they think but subject to Karma just the same as any being. From the Buddha's point of view then, as they too suffer, they need to be viewed with compassion.

Norse and Greek gods are getting a lot of sympathy, not. Now for the rest of them.

[Varenne Rodin]

The Buddha's experience of Gods was that there are a number of them who live greatly extended lives-eons long- of divine comfort, but who are themselves subject to birth ageing sickness and death. The delusion the foremost of them has - referred to as Brahma, but this is pre-christian, (which raises interesting possibilities), is that they created the universe.

The idea that there is a God realm would seem to account for the different views of Gods that cultures have, and for the different sets of them - Norse, Greek, Hindu, the God vengeful of the Hebrews etc.

The Buddha's claim also sugests that it is possible to know the minds of Gods and that they're not so Divine as they think but subject to Karma just the same as any being. From the Buddha's point of view then, as they too suffer, they need to be viewed with compassion.

This is very interesting. I so love stories of Buddha. Of course, they still do not offer hard evidence of a God realm, and the suggestion that the universe was created by beings at all is merely fanciful speculation. However, if we are speaking in hypotheticals, the points you raise imply to me that, as we may know the minds of gods, and as gods may be fallible, it stands to reason that everyone could aspire to be equal to (and even defeat) the existing gods. Another lovely fantasy. I could so take the Christian god in a fight. I'm pretty much a badass, is why. Seriously, I don't have any faith in guesswork, but fairy tales are sweet. :)

[G L Wilson]

If there are gods, it is right for us to tremble.

[Paulclem]

This is very interesting. I so love stories of Buddha. Of course, they still do not offer hard evidence of a God realm, and the suggestion that the universe was created by beings at all is merely fanciful speculation. However, if we are speaking in hypotheticals, the points you raise imply to me that, as we may know the minds of gods, and as gods may be fallible, it stands to reason that everyone could aspire to be equal to (and even defeat) the existing gods. Another lovely fantasy. I could so take the Christian god in a fight. I'm pretty much a badass, is why. Seriously, I don't have any faith in guesswork, but fairy tales are sweet. :)

The Buddha's teachings suggest that anyone who follows the path could gain insight into the different realms. Lots of meditation, (of specific kinds) practice needed under the guidance of a Teacher though.

[Varenne Rodin]

If there are gods, it is right for us to tremble.

Nonsense. :)

[G L Wilson]

Nonsense. :)

I put no trust in gods of any kind.

[Varenne Rodin]

I put no trust in gods of any kind.

Trust has nothing to do with it. Why "tremble"? What is the worst thing a god could do to you?

[MarkBastable]

Trust has nothing to do with it. Why "tremble"? What is the worst thing a god could do to you?

Could revoke his internet access.

[BienvenuJDC]

Trust has nothing to do with it. Why "tremble"? What is the worst thing a god could do to you?

If the "god" were the Creator of all things and the source of spiritual life, and if He were the only source of real love, He could allow you to separate yourself from Him, as it were. Through this action existence would become like hell. But that is only one school of thought. Everyone has to choose for themselves what to believe.

[Varenne Rodin]

Could revoke his internet access.

You should be a god, Mark.

[Varenne Rodin]

If the "god" were the Creator of all things and the source of spiritual life, and if He were the only source of real love, He could allow you to separate yourself from Him, as it were. Through this action existence would become like hell. But that is only one school of thought. Everyone has to choose for themselves what to believe.

A theory as sound as any. If this turns out to be the case, I still will not tremble before god. He never made himself clear. I'll just be thrilled to still exist, to not have gone out like a blown candle. If god wants me to fear him, I want to be separated from such a beast. I wouldn't care if I was cast into the most empty void. I would be content to have myself, and to go on. If he takes my "self" away, it will be no different a fate than I imagined.

These are romantic musings. Wildest dreams.

We die. Consciousness goes. I have faith in right now, because this is within my realm of understanding. :)

[BienvenuJDC]

A theory as sound as any. If this turns out to be the case, I still will not tremble before god. He never made himself clear. I'll just be thrilled to still exist, to not have gone out like a blown candle. If god wants me to fear him, I want to be separated from such a beast. I wouldn't care if I was cast into the most empty void. I would be content to have myself, and to go on. If he takes my "self" away, it will be no different a fate than I imagined.

These are romantic musings. Wildest dreams.

We die. Consciousness goes. I have faith in right now, because this is within my realm of understanding. :)

How can you be so sure of that?

[Varenne Rodin]

I've seen brain death. I've seen the slow and the rapid deterioration of the human brain. I have knowledge of the way information travels through the central nervous system, and the way memories are stored. As portions of the brain die, and as neural connections clog and stick shut permanently, a person's "self" fractures and fades away. There is nothing left of the awareness that was there. I have never seen a vehicle for this awareness to pass into another realm. I have only seen this reality, so I can never assert that there is another.

My family died a long time ago. Like squashed insects, they were destroyed. I haven't heard from them since. Go figure!

Can I say there is no afterlife? No. All I can say for certain is that corpses decay, and new stuff eventually grows out of them. It's not as depressing to me as it is to those clinging to delusion. That being said, faith in guesswork can make some people happy. Unicorns and dragons made me happy when I was 4 and imagined they were real.

[Varenne Rodin]

Also, it doesn't matter what I feel sure of. Like I said, I'm contained in the present reality.

[G L Wilson]

Also, it doesn't matter what I feel sure of. Like I said, I'm contained in the present reality.

I am trapped in it.

[Varenne Rodin]

I am trapped in it.

That awareness makes you special. This is the only kind of thinking that will lead to progress. Someday maybe death will be beaten. Maybe lifespans will be extended, or maybe we'll figure out how to upload individual minds into greater technology than human bodies. Maybe we'll improve space travel to a point where we find something we never imagined. These are fantasies, but much more viable to me than theistic musings. Someone has to pave the way. You're not alone, so don't despair. Your ideas, when shared, cause a chain reaction. That makes you important to me, to other people like us, and to future generations.

Besides, comedy is fun. There are beautiful things happening all the time. Chin up, sugarplum!

[Buh4Bee]

Be done with it already and stop torturing the rest of us please. When did Litnet become a group support system?

[Varenne Rodin]

Be done with it already and stop torturing the rest of us please. When did Litnet become a group support system?

If I want to say something nice to someone, I will. I'm not burdened with the habits and norms of Litnet.

[G L Wilson]

Be done with it already and stop torturing the rest of us please. When did Litnet become a group support system?

When did LitNet become a wilderness?

[Buh4Bee]

Don't worry sugar, I don't think anyone follows any norms on LitNet. Why let anything burden us?

[G L Wilson]

All I know is that if the humans don't group together around here, they will be eaten by the bears.

[Red-Headed]

All I know is that if the humans don't group together around here, they will be eaten by the bears.

That's for sure.

[ralfyman]

We're not sure if He is a "good God" and we cannot prove scientifically that there is a God. Given that, the best we can say is that suffering exists for reasons that cannot always be controlled by human beings or that are prompted by the same.

[G L Wilson]

We're not sure if He is a "good God" and we cannot prove scientifically that there is a God. Given that, the best we can say is that suffering exists for reasons that cannot always be controlled by human beings or that are prompted by the same.

The world is the Devil's, only we in it can oppose him.

[cl154576]

The world is the Devil's, only we in it can oppose him.

It is wonderful how much time good people spend fighting off the devil. If they would only expend the same amount of energy loving their fellow men, the devil would die in his own tracks of ennui.
- Helen Keller

Just a random quote that came to mind.

[G L Wilson]

It is wonderful how much time good people spend fighting off the devil. If they would only expend the same amount of energy loving their fellow men, the devil would die in his own tracks of ennui.
- Helen Keller

Just a random quote that came to mind.

It is not always possible to love our fellow man, but it is possible to love ourselves always. That we must do.

[BienvenuJDC]

It is not always possible to love our fellow man, but it is possible to love ourselves always. That we must do.

It's not always possible for SOME to love another. But for others you cannot judge how far reaching their love is.

[G L Wilson]

It's not always possible for SOME to love another. But for others you cannot judge how far reaching their love is.

Jesus doesn't love me, BienvenuJDC. I can't see his love as being all that far reaching.

[BienvenuJDC]

Jesus doesn't love me, BienvenuJDC. I can't see his love as being all that far reaching.

First of all....stop with the Jesus bashing. I was speaking about people in general. There are many people who are loving and show it. Jesus was one of those, and I'd disagree with you. The Jesus that I've come to know, well, HE loves all people, which would include you as well.

[Arrowni]

Well, from a neutral standpoint, since suffering is not inherently evil, we should probably decrypt the meaning of pain in the natural world to understand the kind of values that a God would promote by promoting pain. For example, let's say that pain exists to lose individuality, then the goal of suffering would be to show us that individuality is not a consistent way of survival, that losing your own face and going through pain is actually cool. Let's say pain exists to keep you away from dangerous experiences, then you probably need to go towards dangerous experiences, you need to learn, risk yourself and understand the universe.

[billl]

Well, from a neutral standpoint, since suffering is not inherently evil, we should probably decrypt the meaning of pain in the natural world to understand the kind of values that a God would promote by promoting pain. For example, let's say that pain exists to lose individuality, then the goal of suffering would be to show us that individuality is not a consistent way of survival, that losing your own face and going through pain is actually cool. Let's say pain exists to keep you away from dangerous experiences, then you probably need to go towards dangerous experiences, you need to learn, risk yourself and understand the universe.

Once you buy that, then rape seems like a favor. 2 + 2 = 5. Be careful when that sort of thinking starts to make sense to you. Especially when some'one' is after your individuality. And it can cause you pain.

[Arrowni]

Once you buy that, then rape seems like a favor. 2 + 2 = 5. Be careful when that sort of thinking starts to make sense to you. Especially when some'one' is after your individuality. And it can cause you pain.

I'd argue the issue is not anything like 2 + 2 = 5, but then you'd probably believe I actually care about the reasoning I wrote.

[G L Wilson]

Once you buy that, then rape seems like a favor. 2 + 2 = 5. Be careful when that sort of thinking starts to make sense to you. Especially when some'one' is after your individuality. And it can cause you pain.

billl, I read Arrowni's post again and it seemed logical to me on a second reading.

[ralfyman]

The world is the Devil's, only we in it can oppose him.

About the devil, I give the same point in my previous message.

[G L Wilson]

I believe God is mad, not malevolent by habit.

[stuntpickle]

I find it a bit funny that so many half-clever atheists feel compelled to antagonize theists in a forum concerning religious texts.

As for the question at hand, you've got it all wrong. First, the original question from which your "moderation" is derived is: how can a good God exist with or have created a world brimming with evil? The fairly decisive answers to this question are called theodicies, of which my favorite is Keats's soul-making theodicy. But the most effective one has probably been the free will argument, which says that for humans to have freedom of choice they must be capable of doing evil. Earthquakes and disease, while unfortunate, are hardly 'evil,' which clearly implies intent. Theologians have been spanking atheists on this subject for years, so the atheists decided to moderate the question into one of suffering, which is a logical fallacy (begging the question) because it presupposes there is some fundamental incompatibility with goodness and suffering, a fairly vapid, modern notion. The original poster actually commits an additional instance of begging the question when he presupposes that God is directly "promoting" such suffering. If you expect a rational response, you must first pose a rational question. Therefore....

If you want someone to rationally answer your original question, you must first demonstrate how a "good God" and a world with "suffering" are necessarily incompatible. Second, you must demonstrate how God must necessarily be "promoting suffering." To save all the weekend atheists the trouble of more sophomoric incoherencies, let me just say that the New Atheists have largely failed in this task.

What I don't think most adherents of popular atheism understand is that, though there are quite a few atheist philosophers, there are very few concerned with explicitly arguing about the nature or existence of God, whereas there have been major religious and academic efforts to make the arguments in favor of God for centuries. Few academic atheists are concerned with refuting, say, the ontological argument for God, whereas nearly every theist is interested in defending it. The end result is that when a few crackpot popularizers of atheism emerge with a bunch of wacky non-arguments, they are neither prepared for nor even acquainted with the opposing literature, and because there isn't much serious academic literature that is explicitly atheist, they are generally uninformed about the topic period. This is why people like Hitchens get thoroughly eviscerated in debates by people like William Lane Craig and why people like Dawkins spend so much time avoiding people like Craig that even other atheists start calling them cowards.

This relates to this post in that the poster is so obviously unacquainted with the subject that he poses a question that wouldn't pass muster in a high school debate class.

By the way, my favorite criticism of New Atheism came from Terry Eagleton, former Oxford professor. "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology."

[G L Wilson]

I find it a bit funny that so many half-clever atheists feel compelled to antagonize theists in a forum concerning religious texts.

As for the question at hand, you've got it all wrong. First, the original question from which your "moderation" is derived is: how can a good God exist with or have created a world brimming with evil? The fairly decisive answers to this question are called theodicies, of which my favorite is Keats's soul-making theodicy. But the most effective one has probably been the free will argument, which says that for humans to have freedom of choice they must be capable of doing evil. Earthquakes and disease, while unfortunate, are hardly 'evil,' which clearly implies intent. Theologians have been spanking atheists on this subject for years, so the atheists decided to moderate the question into one of suffering, which is a logical fallacy (begging the question) because it presupposes there is some fundamental incompatibility with goodness and suffering, a fairly vapid, modern notion. The original poster actually commits an additional instance of begging the question when he presupposes that God is directly "promoting" such suffering. If you expect a rational response, you must first pose a rational question. Therefore....

If you want someone to rationally answer your original question, you must first demonstrate how a "good God" and a world with "suffering" are necessarily incompatible. Second, you must demonstrate how God must necessarily be "promoting suffering." To save all the weekend atheists the trouble of more sophomoric incoherencies, let me just say that the New Atheists have largely failed in this task.

What I don't think most adherents of popular atheism understand is that, though there are quite a few atheist philosophers, there are very few concerned with explicitly arguing about the nature or existence of God, whereas there have been major religious and academic efforts to make the arguments in favor of God for centuries. Few academic atheists are concerned with refuting, say, the ontological argument for God, whereas nearly every theist is interested in defending it. The end result is that when a few crackpot popularizers of atheism emerge with a bunch of wacky non-arguments, they are neither prepared for nor even acquainted with the opposing literature, and because there isn't much serious academic literature that is explicitly atheist, they are generally uninformed about the topic period. This is why people like Hitchens get thoroughly eviscerated in debates by people like William Lane Craig and why people like Dawkins spend so much time avoiding people like Craig that even other atheists start calling them cowards.

This relates to this post in that the poster is so obviously unacquainted with the subject that he poses a question that wouldn't pass muster in a high school debate class.

By the way, my favorite criticism of New Atheism came from Terry Eagleton, former Oxford professor. "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology."

For non-arguments, no-one can beat a religio. Heaven hates us so much that the bile fairly drips from it. As they say, jealousy is a curse.

[Arrowni]

It makes no sense to be an atheist and discuss about God, it would be more logical to be an antitheist or something like that, which frankly sounds kind of like just being a jerk.

[cl154576]

It makes no sense to be an atheist and discuss about God, it would be more logical to be an antitheist or something like that, which frankly sounds kind of like just being a jerk.

As an atheist I see the Bible as a book that people decided to take more literally than other books. To my knowledge I am allowed to criticize characters in other books, even if other people like these characters. What is so wrong, then, about criticizing this character known as God?

[Buh4Bee]

NOTHING, and I am a believer.

[YesNo]

I find it a bit funny that so many half-clever atheists feel compelled to antagonize theists in a forum concerning religious texts.

I think the reason that atheist vs theist exchanges keep popping up around here is because people find it entertaining to antagonize each other.



how can a good God exist with or have created a world brimming with evil? The fairly decisive answers to this question are called theodicies, of which my favorite is Keats's soul-making theodicy. But the most effective one has probably been the free will argument, which says that for humans to have freedom of choice they must be capable of doing evil.

I think I agree. We might as well accept responsibility, collectively, for why things are messed up rather than waste our time blaming some deity for it.


Theologians have been spanking atheists on this subject for years, so the atheists decided to moderate the question into one of suffering, which is a logical fallacy (begging the question) because it presupposes there is some fundamental incompatibility with goodness and suffering, a fairly vapid, modern notion.

Suffering is a topic that interests me. Buddhists seem to have a desire to go beyond suffering. This, I think, is very different from the atheistic interest in removing suffering or maximizing pleasure.

What puzzles me about suffering is that we are the cause of so much of it for the people who live around us especially when we want to punish them for doing something that gets on our nerves. If we really want to stop suffering we should just stop letting things that those closest to us do get on our nerves.

But, on the other hand, suffering seems like a great learning tool. I'd hate to see it completely eliminated.


This is why people like Hitchens get thoroughly eviscerated in debates by people like William Lane Craig and why people like Dawkins spend so much time avoiding people like Craig that even other atheists start calling them cowards.

I found a copy of William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith's Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology in the library tonight as a result of your reference to Craig. I first became interested in the Big Bang when I learned from an atheist, of all people, that scientists not only believe that the universe had a beginning, but it had a beginning out of nothing, that is, out of no pre-existing space-time matter-energy stuff.

I don't see how any atheist can find the thought of that tolerable.

[G L Wilson]

I found a copy of William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith's Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology in the library tonight as a result of your reference to Craig. I first became interested in the Big Bang when I learned from an atheist, of all people, that scientists not only believe that the universe had a beginning, but it had a beginning out of nothing, that is, out of no pre-existing space-time matter-energy stuff.

I don't see how any atheist can find the thought of that tolerable.

I don't find the thought of that tolerable. I don't think about that.

[YesNo]

I don't find the thought of that tolerable. I don't think about that.
Well, that's one way to handle what's intolerable: don't think about it. :)

[G L Wilson]

Well, that's one way to handle what's intolerable: don't think about it. :)

We suffer for no reason.

[Darcy88]

I find it a bit funny that so many half-clever atheists feel compelled to antagonize theists in a forum concerning religious texts.

As for the question at hand, you've got it all wrong. First, the original question from which your "moderation" is derived is: how can a good God exist with or have created a world brimming with evil? The fairly decisive answers to this question are called theodicies, of which my favorite is Keats's soul-making theodicy. But the most effective one has probably been the free will argument, which says that for humans to have freedom of choice they must be capable of doing evil. Earthquakes and disease, while unfortunate, are hardly 'evil,' which clearly implies intent. Theologians have been spanking atheists on this subject for years, so the atheists decided to moderate the question into one of suffering, which is a logical fallacy (begging the question) because it presupposes there is some fundamental incompatibility with goodness and suffering, a fairly vapid, modern notion. The original poster actually commits an additional instance of begging the question when he presupposes that God is directly "promoting" such suffering. If you expect a rational response, you must first pose a rational question. Therefore....

If you want someone to rationally answer your original question, you must first demonstrate how a "good God" and a world with "suffering" are necessarily incompatible. Second, you must demonstrate how God must necessarily be "promoting suffering." To save all the weekend atheists the trouble of more sophomoric incoherencies, let me just say that the New Atheists have largely failed in this task.

What I don't think most adherents of popular atheism understand is that, though there are quite a few atheist philosophers, there are very few concerned with explicitly arguing about the nature or existence of God, whereas there have been major religious and academic efforts to make the arguments in favor of God for centuries. Few academic atheists are concerned with refuting, say, the ontological argument for God, whereas nearly every theist is interested in defending it. The end result is that when a few crackpot popularizers of atheism emerge with a bunch of wacky non-arguments, they are neither prepared for nor even acquainted with the opposing literature, and because there isn't much serious academic literature that is explicitly atheist, they are generally uninformed about the topic period. This is why people like Hitchens get thoroughly eviscerated in debates by people like William Lane Craig and why people like Dawkins spend so much time avoiding people like Craig that even other atheists start calling them cowards.

This relates to this post in that the poster is so obviously unacquainted with the subject that he poses a question that wouldn't pass muster in a high school debate class.

By the way, my favorite criticism of New Atheism came from Terry Eagleton, former Oxford professor. "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology."

I agree with you that the New Atheists are largely ignorant about and prejudiced towards religion. But, that said, there simply are no robust, irrefutable arguments for God's existence. The ontological argument is weak and has been shown to be such by many thinkers, including Kant and Aquinas. Here's what Hume has to say about it:

[T]here is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by any arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being, therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction. Consequently there is no being, whose existence is demonstrable.

Then there's the cosmological argument, which makes no sense to me, since if the universe needs a cause then why does God not also need a cause?

The weakest in my opinion is the so called "argument from design."

Perhaps the existence of suffering does not neccessarily disprove that there is a God, but it is indeed difficult to reconcile the death of a child with the existence of an infinitely good, infinitely powerful God, especially when said death is accidental and free will plays no part. And if you think of how many children, how many small innocent children have succumbed to famine and disease and natural disasters throughout the history of mankind, I'd say any God who set up such a state of affairs can only plead either impotence or indifference.

[G L Wilson]

If God existed, it would change nothing.

[YesNo]

Then there's the cosmological argument, which makes no sense to me, since if the universe needs a cause then why does God not also need a cause?

I suspect if God were part of the universe (matter-energy within spacetime) then it would need a cause, but if it were not part of the universe then the idea of causality would not be meaningful since there wouldn't be any time, at least as we know it.

Just a guess.

I like to think that since the universe had a beginning it must be grounded in another dimension. One can call that God or whatever. Otherwise, one would have to say that the universe was created by Chance, which I would then call a God. But I think invoking Chance is even more absurd than acknowledging some grounding dimension.

Since you quoted Hume, I doubt that he would have any higher confidence in Chance than I do. Here's a quote from Hume that G L Wilson told me about in a different thread: "...there be no such thing as Chance in the world...": http://18th.eserver.org/hume-enquiry.html#6 Of course Hume lived centuries ago. He didn't know about radioactivity or that the universe had an origin in the Big Bang.

[Darcy88]

I suspect if God were part of the universe (matter-energy within spacetime) then it would need a cause, but if it were not part of the universe then the idea of causality would not be meaningful since there wouldn't be any time, at least as we know it.

Just a guess.

I like to think that since the universe had a beginning it must be grounded in another dimension. One can call that God or whatever. Otherwise, one would have to say that the universe was created by Chance, which I would then call a God. But I think invoking Chance is even more absurd than acknowledging some grounding dimension.

Since you quoted Hume, I doubt that he would have any higher confidence in Chance than I do. Here's a quote from Hume that G L Wilson told me about in a different thread: "...there be no such thing as Chance in the world...": http://18th.eserver.org/hume-enquiry.html#6 Of course Hume lived centuries ago. He didn't know about radioactivity or that the universe had an origin in the Big Bang.

I don't think invoking chance is absurd. Why should it be?

This discussion provoked me to do some digging. Here's something I found:



Cosmologists Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok..... theorize that the cosmos was never compacted into a single point and did not spring forth in a violent instant. Instead, the universe as we know it is a small cross section of a much grander universe whose true magnitude is hidden in dimensions we cannot perceive. What we think of as the Big Bang, they contend, was the result of a collision between our three-dimensional world and another three-dimensional world less than the width of a proton away from ours—right next to us, and yet displaced in a way that renders it invisible. Moreover, they say the Big Bang is just the latest in a cycle of cosmic collisions stretching infinitely into the past and into the future. Each collision creates the universe anew. The 13.7-billion-year history of our cosmos is just a moment in this endless expanse of time.

Now if you would please excuse me..... I'll be spending the next several hours gathering the scattered pieces of my blown mind.

[G L Wilson]

There is no longer any good a priori.

[YesNo]

I don't think invoking chance is absurd. Why should it be?

This discussion provoked me to do some digging. Here's something I found:



Cosmologists Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok..... theorize that the cosmos was never compacted into a single point and did not spring forth in a violent instant. Instead, the universe as we know it is a small cross section of a much grander universe whose true magnitude is hidden in dimensions we cannot perceive. What we think of as the Big Bang, they contend, was the result of a collision between our three-dimensional world and another three-dimensional world less than the width of a proton away from ours—right next to us, and yet displaced in a way that renders it invisible. Moreover, they say the Big Bang is just the latest in a cycle of cosmic collisions stretching infinitely into the past and into the future. Each collision creates the universe anew. The 13.7-billion-year history of our cosmos is just a moment in this endless expanse of time.

Now if you would please excuse me..... I'll be spending the next several hours gathering the scattered pieces of my blown mind.
Interesting explanation of the big bang!

I suspect there are other universes out there so why not have them collide? However, I wonder if entropy would wear this infinite machine down? If so, it would have worn down by now.

The idea of colliding universes does illustrate that the idea of the universe having a beginning is an intolerable idea. Either come up with a cause, collisions in this case, or acknowledge some other dimension from which a choice was made to create it.

[joelavine]

Whether or not one is a believer in a supreme being, and whether or not one is a Buddhist (a different thing entirely), either philosophically or religiously, one option is to strive to find enlightenment and thus escape suffering by embracing life as including pain. The beginning of this is understanding that pain and suffering are two very different things. If one is a believer, one can perhaps find that there is a God given grace in such an aspiration.

Lest this seem Pollyannaish drivel, I don't believe it is necessarily something achievable, much less easily so. None of us is Buddha. But the idea is comforting. And perhaps, placed in a cosmology that allows for many earthly lives, it provides greater meaning and dimension.

[G L Wilson]

God suffers little in his little kingdom and is therefore not noble.

[YesNo]

Whether or not one is a believer in a supreme being, and whether or not one is a Buddhist (a different thing entirely), either philosophically or religiously, one option is to strive to find enlightenment and thus escape suffering by embracing life as including pain. The beginning of this is understanding that pain and suffering are two very different things. If one is a believer, one can perhaps find that there is a God given grace in such an aspiration.

Lest this seem Pollyannaish drivel, I don't believe it is necessarily something achievable, much less easily so. None of us is Buddha. But the idea is comforting. And perhaps, placed in a cosmology that allows for many earthly lives, it provides greater meaning and dimension.
If I understand the difference between pain and suffering, one can escape from suffering through enlightenment, but not pain. Right?

I do think we go through many earthly lives simply because others seem to have experienced this and reported on it, although I do not recall any of my own.

[cl154576]

Pain is inevitable, suffering is not. That's what I was told.

[Paulclem]

According to the Buddhist view, pain is a bodily response, and is part of gross suffering referred to in the 4 Noble Truths, of which the first is The Truth of Suffering.

Suffering includes pain, but is more focused upon the existential suffering that we all experience through dissatisfaction, impermanence, not getting what we want, getting what we don't want, death etc.

I have heard that upon realising a stable Emptiness, a practitioner is able to overcome bodily pain. This is a by-product though, as the aim is to strive for Enlightenment. Overcoming bodily pain is not an aim because there is pain relief in medicine etc.


Whether or not one is a believer in a supreme being, and whether or not one is a Buddhist (a different thing entirely), either philosophically or religiously, one option is to strive to find enlightenment and thus escape suffering by embracing life as including pain. The beginning of this is understanding that pain and suffering are two very different things. If one is a believer, one can perhaps find that there is a God given grace in such an aspiration.


Are you suggesting that Buddhists believe in a creator God? In the Wheel of Life, there is a "God" realm, but no Creator God/ ultimate God. It is said that life and the universe are perpetual - never ending.

[YesNo]

Are you suggesting that Buddhists believe in a creator God? In the Wheel of Life, there is a "God" realm, but no Creator God/ ultimate God. It is said that life and the universe are perpetual - never ending.
How do Buddhists view the Big Bang? That would be a beginning of the universe, I would assume.

[G L Wilson]

Buddhists and Christians are both indifferent to suffering and both equally useless.

[Paulclem]

How do Buddhists view the Big Bang? That would be a beginning of the universe, I would assume.

I don't know of any specific reference to the Big Bang, just that life has been ongoing. for example it's said that beings have had countless lives. They refer to time in eons described as the amount of time it would take to wear down a 100 mile high lump of rock with one wipe of a piece of silk every 100 years.

The Buddha did say that it wasn't very productive to spend time investigating the distant past, and that a person should focus upon their current condition. he used the analogy of someone shot by an arrow where you wouldn't take time to find out where the arrow had come from, and who shot it before you had dealt with the wound.

[Darcy88]

Paulclem... I tried hard to track down the passage/sutra where that position is put forth, the arrow one. Thanks for bringing it up. I am really only that familiar with Zen Buddhism and it indeed does seem in Zen that such philosophical speculation is considered unimportant if not wholly irrelevant next to the urgent and absorbing task of attaining enlightenment.

[Paulclem]

Buddhists and Christians are both indifferent to suffering and both equally useless.

:biggrin5:

4 Noble Truths:

The truth of suffering
The causes of suffering
The cessation of suffering
The path to the cessation of suffering

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths

One man's useless is another man's useful.

Soundbites are a good way to communicate when you don't want much of a conversation.


wwwww

I'm sorry - what does this mean?

[Darcy88]

I'm sorry - what does this mean?

I wrote something and then decided it was a mistake. I took objection to G.L's characterization of the world's estimated 700 million Buddhists and 2 billion Christians as useless. Then I realized that it was pointless to engage him. I couldn't figure out how to delete my post and so I just wrote wwwww.

[G L Wilson]

:biggrin5:

4 Noble Truths:

The truth of suffering
The causes of suffering
The cessation of suffering
The path to the cessation of suffering

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths

One man's useless is another man's useful.

Soundbites are a good way to communicate when you don't want much of a conversation.

The Buddhist is neither noble nor human. Buddha was a monster from palace to Nirvana, from the unawareness of suffering to the detachment of suffering from one's being. Such a rejection of the world shows neither care nor compassion, just a childish immaturity.

[Paulclem]

The Buddhist is neither noble nor human. Buddha was a monster from palace to Nirvana, from the unawareness of suffering to the detachment of suffering from one's being. Such a rejection of the world shows neither care nor compassion, just a childish immaturity.

:lol:

... a childish immaturity... you're killing me.

I take it you don't know the Buddha's story, or the meaning of attatchment.


I wrote something and then decided it was a mistake. I took objection to G.L's characterization of the world's estimated 700 million Buddhists and 2 billion Christians as useless. Then I realized that it was pointless to engage him. I couldn't figure out how to delete my post and so I just wrote wwwww.

No worries - I thought it was a text comment that I was unaware of. :biggrin5:

[G L Wilson]

:lol:

... a childish immaturity... you're killing me.

I take it you don't know the Buddha's story, or the meaning of attatchment.

I do not speak from ignorance.

[Paulclem]

I do not speak from ignorance.

So you should know that non-attachment is a state where the person who has achieved this is not attached in a negative way to people, places and objects.

One of the problems sentient beings face is a counter productive attachment to stability in the face of impermanence. Non-attachment recognises this, and allows unclouded compassion to be expressed but with the realisation that nothing stays the same.

[G L Wilson]

So you should know that non-attachment is a state where the person who has achieved this is not attached in a negative way to people, places and objects.

One of the problems sentient beings face is a counter productive attachment to stability in the face of impermanence. Non-attachment recognises this, and allows unclouded compassion to be expressed but with the realisation that nothing stays the same.

Metaphysics! Now I laugh.

The face of Buddha is a death mask.

[Paulclem]

Metaphysics! Now I laugh.

No it's an aim achieved through meditation. You're not demonstrating that youn know much about it.


The face of Buddha is a death mask.

Why are you being offensive?

[YesNo]

The Buddha did say that it wasn't very productive to spend time investigating the distant past, and that a person should focus upon their current condition. he used the analogy of someone shot by an arrow where you wouldn't take time to find out where the arrow had come from, and who shot it before you had dealt with the wound.
Yes, that makes sense. It probably doesn't matter from a current perspective on living one's life whether the universe had a beginning or not. It wouldn't change the practice.

[G L Wilson]

No it's an aim achieved through meditation. You're not demonstrating that youn know much about it.

One can have either metaphysics or Enlightenment, one cannot have both.


Why are you being offensive?

I am not being offensive. It's a fact, look at any statue of Buddha and tell me that it is not true what I said if you can.

[Paulclem]

I am not being offensive. It's a fact, look at any statue of Buddha and tell me that it is not true what I said if you can.

I see what you mean - :biggrin5: - though I disagree. It's supposed to represent meditative equipoise.