Philosophically Speaking, "Is Suffering a Challenge to God's Existence?"

[Melanie]

This particular discussion has next to nothing to do with religion. It's not about what God says, nor about the Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, etc. There are no scriptures to quote. Many people without any religious persuasion believe a God exists, many don't. It's about whether our suffering is a challenge to his existence. I watched this video and the transcript of the video by Peter Kreeft, Professor of Philosophy at Boston College and found it to be a unique approach to the question from a philosophical perspective…

"Isn't human suffering proof that a just, all-powerful God must not exist? On the contrary, says Boston College Professor of Philosophy Peter Kreeft. How can "suffering" exist without an objective standard against which to judge it? Absent a standard, there is no justice. If there is no justice, there is no injustice. And if there is no injustice, there is no suffering. On the other hand, if justice exists, God exists".

VIDEO:

http://www.prageruniversity.com/Religion-Philosophy/God-and-Suffering.html#.VZEnkUv7VFI

TRANSCRIPT OF THE VIDEO:

All good people are appalled by the sufferings of the innocent. When an innocent person is struck by a painful disease, or tortured or murdered, we naturally feel sadness, helplessness, and often rage.

Many people have claimed that such suffering is a proof that God does not exist. Their argument goes like this:

God is all good and all powerful.
Such a God would not permit unnecessary
suffering.
Yet, we constantly observe unjust suffering.
Therefore, at least one of the premises about God must be false. Either God is not all good or He is not powerful. Or He just doesn't exist.

What's wrong with this argument?

First, let's examine what we mean when we say that God would not permit unjust suffering.

There are two categories of suffering: Suffering caused by human beings, which we call moral evils, and suffering caused by nature, for instance earthquakes or cancer.

Free will explains how God could be good and allow moral evil. Because God has given people free will, they are free to behave against God's will. The fact that they do evil does not prove that God is not good.

In addition, if there were no God, there would be no absolute standard of good. Every judgment presupposes a standard. And that's true of our moral judgments, too. What is our standard for judging evil to be evil? The most we could say about evil -- if there were no God -- was that we, in our subjective taste, didn't like it when people did certain things to other people. We wouldn't have a basis for saying an act was 'bad', only that we didn't like it. So the problem of human evil exists only if God exists.

As for natural suffering, that poses what appears to be a more difficult question.

We see an innocent child suffer, say from an incurable disease. We complain. Understandable. We don't like it. Understandable. We feel it is wrong, unfair, and shouldn't happen. Understandable, but illogical, unless you believe in God!

For, if you do not believe in God, your subjective feelings are the only basis upon which you can object to natural suffering. OK, you don't like it. But how is your not liking something evidence for God not existing? Think about it. It's just the opposite. Our judgments of good and evil, natural as well as human, presuppose God as the standard. If there's no God, there's neither good nor evil. There's just nature doing what it does.

If nature is all there is, there is absolutely no need to explain why one person suffers and another doesn't. Unjust suffering is a problem only because we have a sense of what is just and unjust. But where does this sense come from? Certainly, not from Nature. There's nothing just about nature. Nature is only about survival.

What, in other words, does it mean for suffering to be 'unnecessary or wrong?' How is that determined? Against what standard? Your private standard means nothing. My private standard means nothing. We can talk meaningfully about suffering being 'unnecessary' or wrong only if we have an underlying belief that a standard of right and wrong objectively exists. And if that standard really exists, that means there is a God.

Moreover, the believer in God has an incomparably easier time than the atheist psychologically as well as logically in dealing with the problem of natural suffering.

If you accept that a good God exists, it is possible to also believe that this God somehow sets things right, if not in this world, then in the next.

For the atheist, on the other hand, no suffering is ever set right. There is no ultimate justice. The bad win and the good suffer. Earthquakes and cancer kill. End of story. Literally.

If nature is all there is, how can a sensitive person remain sane in a world in which tsunamis wipe out whole towns, evil men torture and murder innocent victims, and disease attacks people indiscriminately? The answer is: it's not possible.

Is that how you want to live?

I'm Peter Kreeft, Professor of Philosophy at Boston College.

[YesNo]

It makes sense that "unjust suffering" would not exist without there being some standard by which one can call that suffering "unjust" and if all we have is a subjective standard then being unjust is the same thing as personally not liking something.

One might try to turn the subjective not liking something into a more objective moral standard without invoking a God by using a group of individuals. But suffering does not affect every individual in a group in the same way. For example, one person buys a stock from another and then the market turns either up or down. One of those people will suffer and the other will be glad they got rid of the stock or bought it.

The losers suffer. The winners don't. Although maybe they both do if suffering can be considered as whatever is either pleasurable or painful. If suffering is considered as what causes feelings of pleasure or pain, it might be the sign of a blessing for two reasons. First, it motivates us to do something to increase pleasure and avoid pain. This drives evolution, in the broad sense of that term, because it adds intention to changes that occur. Second, it might get us to realize that neither pleasure nor pain is ultimately important and make us ask why we are here at all.

[Ecurb]

First of all, many people think "free will" is incompatible with an omniscient God. That's because an omniscient God would always know what choice a person will make, and will have known it from the time of Creation. So, given an omniscient God, Creation involved God's knowledge of and approval of ("it is good") human suffering. In addition, if God knows what choices we will make before we make them (a condition of omniscience), free will is a delusion.

Second, I don't understand the conflation of "suffering" and "justice". Suffering is subjective by its nature; people can suffer whether there is an objective standard of justice or not.

Third, even if you do believe in God, "your subjective feelings are the only basis upon which you can object to natural suffering." For who can know the mind of God? Perhaps God's judgment is objective -- human judgment is not, whether the human is a believer or a non-believer.

Finally, Kreeft says, "Moreover, the believer in God has an incomparably easier time than the atheist psychologically as well as logically in dealing with the problem of natural suffering." This may be true; the heroin addict may have an easier time than the non-addict dealing with his own physical pain. But so what? Kreeft seems to suggest that we should believe what is comforting over believing what is true, which seems a strange position for a philosopher to take.

[WyattGwyon]

First of all, many people think "free will" is incompatible with an omniscient God. That's because an omniscient God would always know what choice a person will make, and will have known it from the time of Creation. So, given an omniscient God, Creation involved God's knowledge of and approval of ("it is good") human suffering. In addition, if God knows what choices we will make before we make them (a condition of omniscience), free will is a delusion.


For reasons I believe you will work out on your own, one might have to add omnipotence to the above formulation. But yes, this argument nails it: If God is omniscient and omnipotent, then free will is logically impossible and this God is morally culpable for all evil and suffering.

[Ecurb]

For reasons I believe you will work out on your own, one might have to add omnipotence to the above formulation. But yes, this argument nails it: If God is omniscient and omnipotent, then free will is logically impossible and this God is morally culpable for all evil and suffering.

I think God's omniscience alone may eliminate the possibility of free will (although you are correct that we would need to add omnipotence in order to find God responsible for our actions or our suffering). After all, whether God is omnipotent or not, if He knows all of our actions before we perform them, we cannot do other than what God knows we will do. It is true that without omnipotence it is possible that God KNOWS the future, but is not RESPONSIBLE for it. Nonetheless, by some definitions of "free will", mere omniscience is sufficient make it logically impossible for us to choose to do other than what God knows we will do.

It's a tricky subject. "Free" may simply mean "unconstrained by natural forces", in which case God's prior knowledge of our "choices" might NOT eliminate the possibility of "free will". In other words, although our choices are predetermined, they may still be "free" (under certain definitions of "free"). Personally, I don't see it as an insurmountable logical problem for religion. Some possible responses are:

1) God is super-powerful and super-knowledgeable, so we CALL Him "omniscient and omnipotent", but there's a touch of hyperbole involved. After all, we know that Odin is constantly referred to as "Odin the all-knowing" -- but he relies on those two ravens to bring him news, so he clearly isn't "all-knowing". Every religion likes to brag up its own God.

2) The petty suffering of humans is irrelevant to the big picture. Of course we are important TO US, and our religions go on about how God made us in His own image, but "as flies to wanton boys are we to the Gods". Blaming God for our suffering is bit like mosquitoes complaining when we swat them. Why should God care?

3) Perhaps certain virtues, which cannot exist without suffering, are so "good" that they outweigh the "evil" of suffering. Courage ("fortitude") couldn't exist without suffering. So a world without suffering would be a world without courage. Perhaps God thinks the trade-off is worth it. Anyone who has read "The Worm Ouroboros" by E.R, Eddison may sympathize with this viewpoint.

[YesNo]

First of all, many people think "free will" is incompatible with an omniscient God. That's because an omniscient God would always know what choice a person will make, and will have known it from the time of Creation. So, given an omniscient God, Creation involved God's knowledge of and approval of ("it is good") human suffering. In addition, if God knows what choices we will make before we make them (a condition of omniscience), free will is a delusion.

I don't see anything wrong with suffering by which I include both pleasure and pain. However, the existence of these experiences imply we can make choices.

For example, sex is pleasurable, but we don't have to have sex. Leaving a partner, since we are a pair-bonding species, is painful, but we can still leave.

If we were completely determined, there would be no need for suffering. You don't have to give a deterministic machine a pleasant experience nor threaten it with a punishment to make it do what you want.

So the bottom line is that we are not completely determined.

Since we are not determined, how is some God able to know our future choices which don't yet exist? There is nothing there yet to know. The most such a God would know is our disposition to behave in one way or another.



Second, I don't understand the conflation of "suffering" and "justice". Suffering is subjective by its nature; people can suffer whether there is an objective standard of justice or not.

This confuses me as well and perhaps I misunderstood the talk. I don't see suffering as just or unjust.



Third, even if you do believe in God, "your subjective feelings are the only basis upon which you can object to natural suffering." For who can know the mind of God? Perhaps God's judgment is objective -- human judgment is not, whether the human is a believer or a non-believer.

How do you know you cannot know the mind of God, at least in some way, whether you are a believer or not? This assumes the existence of some God-object totally separate from an individual. That God might not exist, and I find such a God uninteresting, but it is not hard to imagine a more panentheistic version of a deity that one can relate to.



Finally, Kreeft says, "Moreover, the believer in God has an incomparably easier time than the atheist psychologically as well as logically in dealing with the problem of natural suffering." This may be true; the heroin addict may have an easier time than the non-addict dealing with his own physical pain. But so what? Kreeft seems to suggest that we should believe what is comforting over believing what is true, which seems a strange position for a philosopher to take.

Assume it is true, and I think it is, that a theist is likely to be happier and live longer and have a healthier family than an atheist, why wouldn't an atheist fake belief to get those benefits? It would be like exercising or dieting or therapy even though you don't believe in exercising, dieting or therapy.

Given the benefits, the claim that a basic panentheistic belief is false needs evidence or argument to support it. One cannot just claim it is false.

To show that such a belief makes sense, one need simply point to the existence of the world around us. It is not something we are individually making up and it is consistent enough to run experiments against.

[Melanie]

Why would you (wyatt and ecurb) think that just because God knows ahead of time what our choices/free-will are going to be that it means they aren't possible? If God is omniscient and omnipotent then why wouldn't it be possible for him to make his plan work despite his foreknowledge….for instance, perhaps shield himself from that knowledge in order to let his perfect plan run it's course….or whatever else he may well please. After all, being omnipotent means he can do anything. Even humans can, and do, shield themselves from what they know to be true if that's their will…like "love is blind". That phrase is too trite to describe God's actions but I use it as an example of what even humans can do without even being omnipotent. And I'm not suggesting that shielding his knowledge is the only choice out of gazillions that God has to work with. And I'm not suggesting that I know this to be the answer. After all, I'm not omniscient. I am, however, suggesting that if God is omnipotent then he can do anything he wants.

[Ecurb]

If we were completely determined, there would be no need for suffering. You don't have to give a deterministic machine a pleasant experience nor threaten it with a punishment to make it do what you want.

So the bottom line is that we are not completely determined.

Since we are not determined, how is some God able to know our future choices which don't yet exist? There is nothing there yet to know. The most such a God would know is our disposition to behave in one way or another.....

Assume it is true, and I think it is, that a theist is likely to be happier and live longer and have a healthier family than an atheist, why wouldn't an atheist fake belief to get those benefits? It would be like exercising or dieting or therapy even though you don't believe in exercising, dieting or therapy.

.

Predetermination need not rely on God; things could be determined by physics. Now, I don't know enough modern physics, but I don't buy that it can prove randomness. Randomness might simply mean a pattern invisible to US. Proving randomness and uncertainty is like trying to prove a negative.

I don't care, by the way, if things are predetermined or not. Why would I? We always behave as if we have choices, so predetermination is moot.

I can't buy your "believe whatever makes you happy" philosophy. First of all, how can one believe what one doesn't really believe? Second, there may be moral virtue to truth.

To Melanie: it's irrelevant to the argument whether God ""shield's himself from that knowledge". The point is that if God CAN have foreknowledge of all of our choices, free will is a delusion. Our choices are all predetermined. I agree, however, that this is not an important theological point in criticizing Christian belief. It's a minor, side argument.

[YesNo]

Predetermination need not rely on God; things could be determined by physics. Now, I don't know enough modern physics, but I don't buy that it can prove randomness. Randomness might simply mean a pattern invisible to US. Proving randomness and uncertainty is like trying to prove a negative.

I don't care, by the way, if things are predetermined or not. Why would I? We always behave as if we have choices, so predetermination is moot.

I can't buy your "believe whatever makes you happy" philosophy. First of all, how can one believe what one doesn't really believe? Second, there may be moral virtue to truth.


Perhaps the reason "we always behave as if we have choices" is because we actually do. Given the evidence of our behavior, belief that we are determined needs to be justified. It is part of the "moral virtue to truth".

I assume when you mention "randomness" you are referring to quantum physics. As I understand it, the probabilities used there are not generally random like flipping a coin or throwing dice. That is, those probabilities need not generate a uniform distribution.

The reason I mention this is because determinism and randomness get linked together as if they represented the universe, however, all I see from quantum physics is uncertainty. Quantum waves are not determined, but are disposed to manifest and behave in predicable but uncertain ways.

Belief in determinism comes from a belief that the mathematical models of the universe, which are deterministic because that is the way mathematics is, are more than mere models, but are actually the way the universe works to a precision we could never measure and hence verify.

You have a point about believing what one doesn't really believe. However, just because one cannot believe something does not make it false. A "moral virtue to truth" would need to justify non-belief. Otherwise, it is just a "moral virtue to belief".

[Iain Sparrow]

I'll first say that Peter Kreeft's philosophical stance on human suffering and God, has more holes than a slice of swiss cheese and should be slapped on a ham sandwich. His position that if it's not this it must be that is absurd. Worst of all is his lack of understanding of how atheists like myself approach human suffering, or for that matter the Meaning of Life, God and Everything.
An atheist believes there is no intrinsic value to any human thought or endeavor, suffering, faith in a God, non belief, justice, redemption, etc, etc. A child dying of cancer is no more or less important than a leaf falling from a tree. It's meaningless.

[Pompey Bum]

An atheist believes there is no intrinsic value to any human thought or endeavor, suffering, faith in a God, non belief, justice, redemption, etc, etc. A child dying of cancer is no more or less important than a leaf falling from a tree. It's meaningless.

Are you sure those aren't just the nihilists, Iain?

https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jksadegh/A%20Good%20Atheist%20Secularist%20Skeptical%20Book %20Collection/Why%20I%20am%20Not%20a%20Christian%20-%20Bertrand%20Russell.pdf

[Ecurb]

I read (very quickly) Bertrand Russell's lecture. It's fun, but not particularly profound. I like the bit where he wonders whether the suffering of the good or the prosperity of the wicked is "more annoying".

I cannot agree with the notion that fear is the foundation of religion. Why would fear of death make people invent hellfire? That makes no sense. In addition, Russell's complaints about Jesus cursing the fig tree or placing devils in swine seem trivial. Who cares? (I suppose Christians -- especially those who believe in the infallibility of the Bible -- might care, but why should anyone else?)

Of course Russell is right that most people learn religion at their mother's knees, but the same could be said of atheistic moral principles, of faith in logic and reason, or of faith in science. Most religious people believe in God for the same reason I believe in the Punic Wars: people they trust have told them about Him. That's how humans learn, ever since we invented language.

[Pompey Bum]

I agree. Personally I've never been much impressed with Russell's rather classic statement of (non-Bolshevik) 20th century atheism. I only posted it to challenge Iain's assertion/assumption that:

"An atheist believes there is no intrinsic value to any human thought or endeavor, suffering, faith in a God, non belief, justice, redemption, etc, etc. A child dying of cancer is no more or less important than a leaf falling from a tree. It's meaningless."

All nihilists may be atheists, but not all atheists are nihilists. That may show Iain that he has other options, although whether he cares is his own business.

[YesNo]

I cannot agree with the notion that fear is the foundation of religion. Why would fear of death make people invent hellfire? That makes no sense. In addition, Russell's complaints about Jesus cursing the fig tree or placing devils in swine seem trivial. Who cares? (I suppose Christians -- especially those who believe in the infallibility of the Bible -- might care, but why should anyone else?)

Of course Russell is right that most people learn religion at their mother's knees, but the same could be said of atheistic moral principles, of faith in logic and reason, or of faith in science. Most religious people believe in God for the same reason I believe in the Punic Wars: people they trust have told them about Him. That's how humans learn, ever since we invented language.

The argument regarding "fear" may have been a rhetorical attempt to make religion look bad. I also don't care about Russell's particular complaints about Christians.

The claim that "people learn religion at their mother's knees" I think has been shown by child developmental psychologists to be false. Children's belief comes prior to cultural conditioning. See Justin L. Barrett's "Born Believers: The Science of Children's Religious Belief" for a summary of the literature. If one thinks about the prevalence of religion across many cultures, it makes sense that belief should be rooted in our biology rather than in our cultures.

The science that Russell's atheism relies on is out of date, which is to be expected since he gave the talk in 1927.

In his argument against a First Cause Russell has this sentence:


If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument.

What this sentence made me realize is that Russell likely believed the universe was eternal. It wasn't until the second half of the 20th century that the Big Bang became the accepted view.

I can see atheism being a reasonable and scientific world view if one did not have the Big Bang, quantum physics and relativity. With these, I don't see any scientific justification for atheism.

[Pompey Bum]

I can see atheism being a reasonable and scientific world view if one did not have the Big Bang, quantum physics and relativity. With these, I don't see any scientific justification for atheism.

None of which makes the Judeo-Christian God (taken in the sense of supposed Biblical literalism) the theos in question, correct?

[Ecurb]

Tangential to Pompey's point, I don't see how it is possible that "belief comes prior to cultural conditioning". I've never hear of Barrett, but the wide variety of differing religious (and atheistic) beliefs makes me incredulous.

[Iain Sparrow]

I agree. Personally I've never been much impressed with Russell's rather classic statement of (non-Bolshevik) 20th century atheism. I only posted it to challenge Iain's assertion/assumption that:

"An atheist believes there is no intrinsic value to any human thought or endeavor, suffering, faith in a God, non belief, justice, redemption, etc, etc. A child dying of cancer is no more or less important than a leaf falling from a tree. It's meaningless."

All nihilists may be atheists, but not all atheists are nihilists. That may show Iain that he has other options, although whether he cares is his own business.


Tuesday evening I was watching television and turned to pbs, an interesting show on birds, cleverness, and the capacity to solve problems... they pit a Raven against a Dog; the contest was to open a glass box in three steps to get at a food treat... a doggy biscuit for the dog, and some rat flesh for the raven. The dog had no idea how to open the box, nor even a clue what was expected... the raven opened the box so quickly and with so little hesitation that they had to play back the video in slow motion so you could fully appreciate it. By leaps and bounds the raven was the better problem solver. The dog can be trained to do far more complex tricks, but the raven had a natural ability to conceptualize... what we equate with cleverness.
As goes the raven, so goes our lives. We think the things, do the things, that we have the capacity for. No more, no less. We are clever, aren't we. What's inside the glass box... happiness, sorrow, God? Those things are no more important than rat flesh.

And I'm no nihilist.
You need a university degree and be far more fashionable than I, to be a nihilist.;)

[Pompey Bum]

That's an interesting parable, Iain, but I don't know what it's got to do with nihilism; a philosophy you sum up nicely when you say:

"there is no intrinsic value to any human thought or endeavor, suffering, faith in a God, non belief, justice, redemption, etc, etc. A child dying of cancer is no more or less important than a leaf falling from a tree. It's meaningless."

But as I said, your beliefs are your own business. I have not the slightest interest in whether you understand or own your nihilism. You sound to me like someone who is angry at people you think are better educated than you; but that, too, has nothing to do with me. It is your own nasty box to try to crawl out of. Good luck! :)

[YesNo]

None of which makes the Judeo-Christian God (taken in the sense of supposed Biblical literalism) the theos in question, correct?

The only thing I think one could draw from the big bang, quantum physics and relativity is a general panentheism. The big bang removes the eternal aspect of the universe. Quantum physics questions the underlying material substance of the universe and introduces consciousness collapsing the wave function. Relativity's speed of light limit on massive reality suggests that the outside of the universe is as near to us as light.

However, this panentheism would support many religions such as Hinduism or Christianity or even New Age spirituality. I don't see how it supports atheism.

[YesNo]

Tangential to Pompey's point, I don't see how it is possible that "belief comes prior to cultural conditioning". I've never hear of Barrett, but the wide variety of differing religious (and atheistic) beliefs makes me incredulous.

The variety of religious beliefs could be traced to cultural activity. The underlying similarity, however, would come from biology. This is from the cover of the book:


Infants have a lot to make sense of in the world: Why does the sun shine and night fall; why do some objects move in response to words, while others won't budge; who is it that looks over them and cares for them? How the developing brain grapples with these and other questions leads children, across cultures, to naturally develop a belief in divine power of remarkably consistent traits--a god that is a powerful creator, knowing, immortal, and good...

All of this comes before culture.

[Pompey Bum]

However, this panentheism would support many religions such as Hinduism or Christianity or even New Age spirituality. I don't see how it supports atheism.

How would pantheism support the idea of a personal God in whose physical likeness we are made-- the one who molded Adam's body out of clay, breathed life into his nostrils, and closed the ark's door behind Noah? How would it support the idea of an incarnate Christ? As usual, YN, you are a good man (better than me) who is trying to paint the scene a little prettier than the visible landscape will permit. :) At some point the picture really does require faith. The real question--one far too few Christians bother to ask--is what exactly do you have faith in?

[Ecurb]

The variety of religious beliefs could be traced to cultural activity. The underlying similarity, however, would come from biology. This is from the cover of the book:


Infants have a lot to make sense of in the world: Why does the sun shine and night fall; why do some objects move in response to words, while others won't budge; who is it that looks over them and cares for them? How the developing brain grapples with these and other questions leads children, across cultures, to naturally develop a belief in divine power of remarkably consistent traits--a god that is a powerful creator, knowing, immortal, and good...

All of this comes before culture.

This sounds like such malarky, YesNo, that I'm tempted to find Barret's book just to debunk it. It is true that Chomsky claimed that humans have the facility for language before they learn language -- but the still don't have a language until they learn it. Do non-human animals, who grapple with some of these same issues, have a belief in God? Human children's developing brains grapple with issues IN CULTURAL and LINGUISTIC terms.

[TRIGGERSIDEWYS]

Moreover, the believer in God has an incomparably easier time than the atheist psychologically as well as logically in dealing with the problem of natural suffering.



You can't just use natural suffering as the proof and end here. Suppose you have just survived cancer, there is no way to reconstruct the self you were in that prior time.

[Melanie]

The quote you quoted is from the Psychology Professor, not me (just clarifying), but I do agree with him. I'm not sure I understand what you mean, Trigger, about "reconstructing ourselves" to who we were prior to suffering, but he didn't mean what you understood his quote to mean. I appreciate your post for clarification purposes.

When the psychology Professor said (in post#1), "the believer has an easier time than the atheist psychologically as well as logically in dealing with the problem of natural suffering", he meant that, "for atheists, when it's over it's over, end of story, literally"…but for believers, their focus is far more reaching, into eternity, and they have a "peace that passes all understanding" when dealing with any trials and tribulations on earth in this temporary life that is just a speck of time compared to eternity.

That's making a long story short because I don't want to get into "religious" details so as to stick with the psychological and logical take on suffering as a challenge to God's existence presented by the Professor.

[TRIGGERSIDEWYS]

Psychologically you can't say that the believer in God has an easier time than the atheist psychologically as well as logically in dealing with the problem of natural suffering.

It is reciprocating at the start of the quote. Religion as help is like a double negative.

edit: Nihilism because of this quote.

[YesNo]

This sounds like such malarky, YesNo, that I'm tempted to find Barret's book just to debunk it. It is true that Chomsky claimed that humans have the facility for language before they learn language -- but the still don't have a language until they learn it. Do non-human animals, who grapple with some of these same issues, have a belief in God? Human children's developing brains grapple with issues IN CULTURAL and LINGUISTIC terms.

Great! I would like to hear any criticism you might have of it. This book is a literature survey, so it may require going deeper into the studies he references. In my case, not being all that political, I am not a fan of "social construction" theories, so Barrett would find it easier to convince me.

In the 20th century there was also something called the "social construction of gender" which had a similar line of reasoning giving culture too much credit. See Larry Young, "The Chemistry between us: Love, sex and the science of attraction" for a literature survey that challenges that view.

The belief that theism is rooted in culture could be called the "social construction of theism".

I suspect non-human animals have something similar, but I don't know of any evidence for that.

Why do human children's developing brains grapple with issues in cultural and linguistic terms?

[YesNo]

How would pantheism support the idea of a personal God in whose physical likeness we are made-- the one who molded Adam's body out of clay, breathed life into his nostrils, and closed the ark's door behind Noah? How would it support the idea of an incarnate Christ? As usual, YN, you are a good man (better than me) who is trying to paint the scene a little prettier than the visible landscape will permit. :) At some point the picture really does require faith. The real question--one far too few Christians bother to ask--is what exactly do you have faith in?

What I think the big bang, quantum theory and relativity imply is panentheism, not pantheism. Pantheism would have the universe itself be a God or some set of Gods, but the universe had a beginning, so one has an outside to it as well. The details about Noah or Adam would be more specific issues of faith as you mention.

[Virgil]

I'm not sure I quite understand your point Melanie in the original post. Suffering is part of how we form compassion, and through compassion, love and self sacrifice. Suffering is how God makes us worthy of salvation, and is actually a gift from God. Christ's suffering in His passion is our model for suffering, and many saints embraced suffering to bring themselves closer to Christ. If you're interested, the life and writings of St. Thérèse of Lisieux explains it well.

[Pompey Bum]

What I think the big bang, quantum theory and relativity imply is panentheism, not pantheism. Pantheism would have the universe itself be a God or some set of Gods, but the universe had a beginning, so one has an outside to it as well. The details about Noah or Adam would be more specific issues of faith as you mention.

Yes, I appreciate the distinction between pantheism and panentheism (we've had the conversation before), but I don't see how either supports the idea of the Judeo-Christian God, either in a general sense or in the details of Biblical literalism. I would say yes (at least in the general sense) if you could show me that this panentheistic divinity is a unitary God of love and justice rather than just a divine essence underlying all things--but I don't think you can. As far as I can see, the God of love and justice requires faith.

And for me, that touches the thread's original question: how is a God of love and justice reconcilable to a world of suffering and injustice. As some have already pointed out, that question is not answered by assertions that belief in such a God make suffering and injustice easier to bear. Worse (in my opinion) are appeals to a killer God whose supposed justice is little more than an excuse for the world's problems--including violence, death, and in some cases, even genocide. Since parts of the Bible were written or edited to reflect such apologetic views, an uncritical, "literalist" stitching together of the Bible's many voices, in my opinion, produces a dangerous chimera--one never dreamt of by the Bible's authors.

That controversy notwithstanding, any appeal to "God's perfect plan" needs to account for a mind-boggling degree of inscrutability. Divine inscrutability is, of course, a possibility (as far as I can see it is the solution put forth by the redactors of Job), but it raises its own troubling questions: how can we live moral lives when we are incapable of understanding God's plan? How can we speak with certainty of a God we are not capable of understanding? Can understanding/enlightenment be achieved in this lifetime? Is it attainable after death? And how do we know for sure (assuming that uncritical "proof texting" is off the table)?

One solution (and I'm only throwing it out there) is that we don't understand these things because we are not meant to understand them. In that view, we live in a world where any atrocity might happen and we respond accordingly: moving toward faith in God or away. We may lack full freedom of will, but we do not lack choice. Perhaps the meaning of life is simply to choose God (for the Christian: God-with-us) despite the world's depravity and our own natures; or from an ethical atheist's perspective, to choose the Good despite the temptations of nihilism.

For me, these possibilities raise the questions: to what end? A better life? A serene death? To "merit" eternal life in Paradise? Because choosing the Good is right regardless of the end? Because choosing to have faith in God is within me--trusting to God for whatever the end will be? To grow in wisdom in preparation for another spin at worldly existence? To be done with such things and find peace.

This is a theology I continue to consider.

[Melanie]

I'm not sure I quite understand your point Melanie in the original post. Suffering is part of how we form compassion, and through compassion, love and self sacrifice. Suffering is how God makes us worthy of salvation, and is actually a gift from God. Christ's suffering in His passion is our model for suffering, and many saints embraced suffering to bring themselves closer to Christ. If you're interested, the life and writings of St. Thérèse of Lisieux explains it well.
I have found in the "Religious Texts" Forum that many members here believe that IF God our creator existed then he wouldn't allow suffering and therefore, our suffering proves God doesn't exist. Many arguments using Biblical scripture, religious texts, faith, beliefs, and scientific theories have been battled out in the "Religious Texts" Forum ad nauseam. So, my original post and purpose of this thread is to approach God's Existence, as challenged by their argument regarding suffering, from a purely logical and philosophical angle in the "Philosophical Literature" Forum. I began with a compelling view from a Professor of Philosophy from Boston University. You'll notice that Professor Kreeft never used any references to religious texts to make his point that our suffering doesn't disprove God's existence.

Your post, Virgil, is about what you believe to be God's plan for our "worthiness" via suffering, and your belief that our suffering is a gift from God, and using St. Therese's writings as a foundation…but to a non-believer that is not compelling evidence for God's existence, not in the eyes of unbelievers who are driven by logic alone. I agree that there are many reason's listed in scripture for why God allows suffering but I'm not one to believe that our suffering is to make us worthy for God's Kingdom. In the Religious Text Forum I could use my King James Bible to argue against your view and to post my personal view that salvation is by grace and not earned by our suffering to make us worthy of salvation since Christ already paid that price for us by suffering on the cross (why would we have need of a savior if we must earn salvation ourselves through suffering?)…but this argument would belong in the Religious Texts Forum, using scripture verses etc...not here. I appreciate and respect your views though.

[Pompey Bum]

Suffering is part of how we form compassion, and through compassion, love and self sacrifice. Suffering is how God makes us worthy of salvation, and is actually a gift from God. Christ's suffering in His passion is our model for suffering, and many saints embraced suffering to bring themselves closer to Christ. If you're interested, the life and writings of St. Thérèse of Lisieux explains it well.

Thank you for your perspective, Virgil. I appreciate that it is heartfelt, although it raises some troubling questions. Here are a few:

Were the Jewish children who suffered and perished in the Holocaust receiving "a gift from God" making them "worthy of Salvation"? Why weren't they worthy of Salvation before this? Why didn't God find a less cruel way to give them this gift? Why couldn't they (and others) have been made worthy of Salvation without suffering? Were their deaths really required? Was God really imposing "Christ's suffering and His passion" as a "model of suffering" in the Final Solution? Could that view (which I imagine you reject as indignantly as I do) ever be reconciled with an all-loving God? Why would such a God give this "gift" to innocent children?

These are not meant to be rhetorical questions. If you have answers for them, I'm sure they would advance the conversation. Again, I appreciate your sincerity.

[Melanie]

...atheists like myself approach human suffering, or for that matter the Meaning of Life, God and Everything.
An atheist believes there is no intrinsic value to any human thought or endeavor, suffering, faith in a God, non belief, justice, redemption, etc, etc. A child dying of cancer is no more or less important than a leaf falling from a tree. It's meaningless.
Ouch. So, you have no feelings for the dying child (well, no more than a leaf)? Everything is meaningless? You have no purpose for living then? How do you remain sane? Aren't you scared?

[Clopin]

There's absolutely no way he upholds that philosophy in his day to day life.

[YesNo]

Yes, I appreciate the distinction between pantheism and panentheism (we've had the conversation before), but I don't see how either supports the idea of the Judeo-Christian God, either in a general sense or in the details of Biblical literalism. I would say yes (at least in the general sense) if you could show me that this panentheistic divinity is a unitary God of love and justice rather than just a divine essence underlying all things--but I don't think you can. As far as I can see, the God of love and justice requires faith.

I am not trying to argue for anything more than a cosmic consciousness that has both an immanent and transcendent aspect with respect to the universe. However, that cosmic consciousness does not prevent it from also being described as a God of love and justice. That is where you need to look to your religious tradition for answers. I don't have those answers.

The existence of a cosmic consciousness does invalidate atheism.



And for me, that touches the thread's original question: how is a God of love and justice reconcilable to a world of suffering and injustice. As some have already pointed out, that question is not answered by assertions that belief in such a God make suffering and injustice easier to bear. Worse (in my opinion) are appeals to a killer God whose supposed justice is little more than an excuse for the world's problems--including violence, death, and in some cases, even genocide. Since parts of the Bible were written or edited to reflect such apologetic views, an uncritical, "literalist" stitching together of the Bible's many voices, in my opinion, produces a dangerous chimera--one never dreamt of by the Bible's authors.

That controversy notwithstanding, any appeal to "God's perfect plan" needs to account for a mind-boggling degree of inscrutability. Divine inscrutability is, of course, a possibility (as far as I can see it is the solution put forth by the redactors of Job), but it raises its own troubling questions: how can we live moral lives when we are incapable of understanding God's plan? How can we speak with certainty of a God we are not capable of understanding? Can understanding/enlightenment be achieved in this lifetime? Is it attainable after death? And how do we know for sure (assuming that uncritical "proof texting" is off the table)?

One solution (and I'm only throwing it out there) is that we don't understand these things because we are not meant to understand them. In that view, we live in a world where any atrocity might happen and we respond accordingly: moving toward faith in God or away. We may lack full freedom of will, but we do not lack choice. Perhaps the meaning of life is simply to choose God (for the Christian: God-with-us) despite the world's depravity and our own natures; or from an ethical atheist's perspective, to choose the Good despite the temptations of nihilism.

For me, these possibilities raise the questions: to what end? A better life? A serene death? To "merit" eternal life in Paradise? Because choosing the Good is right regardless of the end? Because choosing to have faith in God is within me--trusting to God for whatever the end will be? To grow in wisdom in preparation for another spin at worldly existence? To be done with such things and find peace.

This is a theology I continue to consider.

The way I hear evolution described, it is a struggle for survival. Why do species want to survive anyway? I imagine because they find life enjoyable. Why is life enjoyable? Perhaps because they are faced with challenges that they have enough freedom and ability to solve.

The world's depravity causes us to suffer. This causes us to use what freedom we have to look for solutions to the problem. This generates change. We continue evolving. Why bother evolving? I think you answered that with the solution you provided above.

But to what end? That's sounds like another problem we will have the opportunity and pleasure to solve.

[mona amon]

I'm not sure I quite understand your point Melanie in the original post. Suffering is part of how we form compassion, and through compassion, love and self sacrifice. Suffering is how God makes us worthy of salvation, and is actually a gift from God. Christ's suffering in His passion is our model for suffering, and many saints embraced suffering to bring themselves closer to Christ. If you're interested, the life and writings of St. Thérèse of Lisieux explains it well.

Virgil, when I look around and see poverty and suffering all around me, I just cannot accept that God intended it for our benefit. I feel the instinct of compassion is in us already, that God created us with it, and the only purpose that large scale suffering serves, when we really cannot do anything about it, is to desensitize us and make us less compassionate. We are not all Mother Theresa, nor do I feel God meant us to be, nor would suffering end if we were. Poverty and suffering is just bad, bad for the victims, bad for those around, and to say it's all God's plan sounds like an insult to those who suffer.


I have found in the "Religious Texts" Forum that many members here believe that IF God our creator existed then he wouldn't allow suffering and therefore, our suffering proves God doesn't exist. Many arguments using Biblical scripture, religious texts, faith, beliefs, and scientific theories have been battled out in the "Religious Texts" Forum ad nauseam. So, my original post and purpose of this thread is to approach God's Existence, as challenged by their argument regarding suffering, from a purely logical and philosophical angle in the "Philosophical Literature" Forum. I began with a compelling view from a Professor of Philosophy from Boston University. You'll notice that Professor Kreeft never used any references to religious texts to make his point that our suffering doesn't disprove God's existence.

Your post, Virgil, is about what you believe to be God's plan for our "worthiness" via suffering, and your belief that our suffering is a gift from God, and using St. Therese's writings as a foundation…but to a non-believer that is not compelling evidence for God's existence, not in the eyes of unbelievers who are driven by logic alone. I agree that there are many reason's listed in scripture for why God allows suffering but I'm not one to believe that our suffering is to make us worthy for God's Kingdom. In the Religious Text Forum I could use my King James Bible to argue against your view and to post my personal view that salvation is by grace and not earned by our suffering to make us worthy of salvation since Christ already paid that price for us by suffering on the cross (why would we have need of a savior if we must earn salvation ourselves through suffering?)…but this argument would belong in the Religious Texts Forum, using scripture verses etc...not here. I appreciate and respect your views though.

Melanie, as far as I can tell, Kreeft's argument is that just or unjust, good or bad only have meaning if God exists. God is the only standard by which we can judge whether a thing is good or bad. Now I find this completely faulty. I feel that we ourselves are the standard by which we judge whether a thing is good or bad. If we do not want something to happen to us, it's bad. If we do, it's good. Another attempt to prove God's existence by logic fails.

All this is played out wonderfully in the book of Job. Not the question of God's existence which nobody in those days had any doubts about, but why a just and compassionate God would allow suffering. Job's friends come up with some pretty good logical/philosophical arguments which Job rejects outright (and God rebukes them for, in the end). Job accepts the fact that God permits suffering. That good people suffer. That the bad guys often flourish like the green bay tree. He realizes that the ways of God are beyond his understanding, but he still wants to know why. Finally God replies with cosmic grandeur and aplomb, but without really giving any answers. In the end I think it is only through such literary meanings that we can get a faint glimmer of the truth, so that is why it is almost impossible to answer a question about God without referring to the scriptures.

[Pompey Bum]

I am not trying to argue for anything more than a cosmic consciousness that has both an immanent and transcendent aspect with respect to the universe. However, that cosmic consciousness does not prevent it from also being described as a God of love and justice. That is where you need to look to your religious tradition for answers. I don't have those answers.

Here's my problem with all this, YesNo: you say that this cosmic consciousness invalidates atheism. I'm not dismissive of that (although imagine many physical scientists would beg to differ); neither am I an atheist. But you then say--although you are "not trying to argue for anything more"---"that cosmic consciousness does not prevent it from also being described as a God of love and justice."

And why on earth would that be? Because once we've hypothesized a cosmic consciousness we are free to call it anything we like? Is it also a god of fear and desperation like Pan? Or of madness and violence like Dionysus? Is it Loki? Or Sun Wukong? Or Beelzebub? What evidence do you have that it is the God of love and justice? Or the Hebrew God? Or the Holy Trinity? Am I correct in saying that you have none?


The way I hear evolution described, it is a struggle for survival. Why do species want to survive anyway? I imagine because they find life enjoyable. Why is life enjoyable? Perhaps because they are faced with challenges that they have enough freedom and ability to solve.

Survival and reproduction are biological imperatives (with big pleasure payoffs) engineered by natural selection. Critters who don't like to eat and date have passed on very little genetic material over the eons. Likewise those who prefer being killed to killing. You may find having the freedom to solve cool puzzles entertaining, YesNo, but if you were in a lifeboat on the open sea with nine men, and there was only food and water enough for three, you would find new sources of joy--and problem solving--soon enough.


The world's depravity causes us to suffer. This causes us to use what freedom we have to look for solutions to the problem. This generates change. We continue evolving. Why bother evolving? I think you answered that with the solution you provided above.

I don't know how to break this to you (I admit it's a religious view, so I'll try not to force it down your throat), but we ARE that depravity. And it is evolution that makes us so; because natural selection agrees with Iain: blind, stupid, and cruel, a child dying of cancer is no more important to it than a leaf falling from a tree. That is our Original Sin--bred in the bone. We don't need fables of Eden to understand the Fall. What we need is to be saved. How that happens is for us to work out--with fear and trembling or not. For me it means choosing God.


But to what end? That's sounds like another problem we will have the opportunity and pleasure to solve.

Okay, I'm in, although given the rancorous and bloody history of religious debate, I wouldn't hold your breath. :)

[Melanie]

Melanie, as far as I can tell, Kreeft's argument is that just or unjust, good or bad only have meaning if God exists. God is the only standard by which we can judge whether a thing is good or bad. Now I find this completely faulty. I feel that we ourselves are the standard by which we judge whether a thing is good or bad. If we do not want something to happen to us, it's bad. If we do, it's good. Another attempt to prove God's existence by logic fails.
That makes sense on the surface, mona, but here's the thing: You say we ourselves are the standard for judging what is good and evil but you're using subjective taste for the standard…like whether we don't like something that happens to us or we do like something that happens to us. There is no basis for saying it was good or bad, "only that we don't like it". When we don't like something bad happening to us it's understandable but illogical if God doesn't exist as a standard.

Kreeft says, "your subjective feelings are the only basis upon which you can object to natural suffering. OK, you don't like it. But how is your not liking something evidence for God not existing? Think about it. It's just the opposite. Our judgments of good and evil, natural as well as human, presuppose God as the standard. If there's no God, there's neither good nor evil. There's just nature doing what it does. If nature is all there is, there is absolutely no need to explain why one person suffers and another doesn't. Unjust suffering is a problem only because we have a sense of what is just and unjust. But where does this sense come from? Certainly, not from Nature. There's nothing just about nature. Nature is only about survival."

So, against what standard is good and evil determined? Our private, subjective standard means nothing. Good and evil can only be determined if a standard for right and wrong exists. And if that standard really exists, that means God exists.

[YesNo]

Here's my problem with all this, YesNo: you say that this cosmic consciousness invalidates atheism. I'm not dismissive of that (although imagine many physical scientists would beg to differ); neither am I an atheist. But you then say--although you are "not trying to argue for anything more"---"that cosmic consciousness does not prevent it from also being described as a God of love and justice."

And why on earth would that be? Because once we've hypothesized a cosmic consciousness we are free to call it anything we like? Is it also a god of fear and desperation like Pan? Or of madness and violence like Dionysus? Is it Loki? Or Sun Wukong? Or Beelzebub? What evidence do you have that it is the God of love and justice? Or the Hebrew God? Or the Holy Trinity? Am I correct in saying that you have none?

It could be any of those. Only it's existence is not worth questioning anymore given the big bang, quantum physics and relativity.

There is other information. For example, consider near and shared death experiences. What do they tell us about who we are and indirectly about that cosmic consciousness?




Survival and reproduction are biological imperatives (with big pleasure payoffs) engineered by natural selection. Critters who don't like to eat and date have passed on very little genetic material over the eons. Likewise those who prefer being killed to killing. You may find having the freedom to solve cool puzzles entertaining, YesNo, but if you were in a lifeboat on the open sea with nine men, and there was only food and water enough for three, you would find new sources of joy--and problem solving--soon enough.

So I've heard, but I wonder how true that perspective is. Is passing on specific genetic material really that important? We need to procreate for life to continue. That's all I think is necessary. But even creatures who don't procreate can provide benefits for the next generation by making the environment safer for the young.



I don't know how to break this to you (I admit it's a religious view, so I'll try not to force it down your throat), but we ARE that depravity. And it is evolution that makes us so; because natural selection agrees with Iain: blind, stupid, and cruel, a child dying of cancer is no more important to it than a leaf falling from a tree. That is our Original Sin--bred in the bone. We don't need fables of Eden to understand the Fall. What we need is to be saved. How that happens is for us to work out--with fear and trembling or not. For me it means choosing God.

Why does natural selection make us depraved? One problem with the way we see natural selection is that it looks as if there is no intentionality involved. But the environment is full of species with the intention to live (not unconscious, selfish genes trying to replicate). Evolution for the most part does nothing unless something or someone punctuates the equilibrium. This causes suffering and demands a response from living, conscious organisms (not randomly mutating, unconscious genes) which leads to change.



Okay, I'm in, although given the rancorous and bloody history of religious debate, I wouldn't hold your breath. :)

People make mistakes. That causes suffering. That leads to change.

[Ecurb]

So, against what standard is good and evil determined? Our private, subjective standard means nothing. Good and evil can only be determined if a standard for right and wrong exists. And if that standard really exists, that means God exists.

Suppose God doesn't exist. Nonetheless, YOUR standard of right and wrong -- determined by your interpretation of the Bible and the Christian religion -- would be EXACTLY THE SAME as it is now. If God is a cultural construct (instead of -- what? -- a noncorporeal being Who is not a cultural construct?) He is equally able to determine human morality as if He is an ACTUAL noncorporeal being (whatever that is).

At best, the argument that good and evil cannot exist without God is a distinction without a difference. God "exists" as a cultural construct whether or not He exists in any other way. This cultural construct creates a distinction between good and evil that is -- surprise! -- EXACTLY THE SAME as the one created by the Bible and other culturally constructed religious writings and rituals.

Of course there are also other ways to distinguish between good and evil, but it's absolutely clear that the Christian ability to objectively distinguish between good and evil is exactly the same whether God exists or not.

[Iain Sparrow]

Ouch. So, you have no feelings for the dying child (well, no more than a leaf)? Everything is meaningless? You have no purpose for living then? How do you remain sane? Aren't you scared?

Like anyone else with a brain that works within a normal "healthy" range of emotions, I'm deeply effected by tragedy just like you are. Whereas you may feel some relief to that sorrow by believing a child lost to cancer is now in a better place, I can ease my mind that we all travel the same road and that the journey ends all too soon for some. I will join that child soon enough, in a year or ten years, or twenty, or who knows when. The metaphors we use to make sense of the universe are different, but the results are pretty much the same; we feel more comfortable within our being, that we are more than a falling leaf. I also understand that in a cosmic sense, in the grand scheme of things in which there is no grand scheme, that you and I and all of us feel these emotions simply because we can. Evolution has predisposed us to these emotions, a survival mechanism.

Evolution has bestowed us with the capacity to feel such things. We share over 98% of our DNA with our closest relative, the Chimpanzee. Recently it was found that long ago in our evolutionary track, that a virus wrote its rna into our dna... not surprisingly that very same virus' rna was also discovered in chimp dna. What was a surprise however, is that in both human and chimp dna, that virus remnant is located in the same position. That can only mean one thing, we branched off from a common ancestor. Is there a God or Creator?.. perhaps so, but most definitely not the one portrayed by mainstream religions. If there is such a God that created the universe and everything in it, than that God has left a hallmark on all creation. In fact that means God works within a rational and natural realm, one that we can quantify and experience through Science. Or it's all just bull****, which I suspect it is.

So of course I'm sane, so far as I know :), with a purpose in life and feel all the emotions that go with living life, just like you. Scared?, sure, sometimes I am scared.

[Pompey Bum]

It could be any of those. Only it's existence is not worth questioning anymore given the big bang, quantum physics and relativity.

I need clarification on what you mean by that. Does "it could be any of those" mean that you are unable to say which it might be? If that is the case, it is not a correct statement since you have no evidence to show that it is any of them. In that case, you cannot say that the existence of Judeo-Christian God is supported by the Big Bang, Relativity, and Quantum Physics. God in that sense means something very specific.

Or are you saying that it doesn't matter what name you give your panentheistic divinity because this is simply what God turns out to be, so hey, call it whatever you like. That of course is the same thing as saying that the Judeo-Christian God does not exist; so it cannot also support that God's existence. (It's the ol' "Great news! Your God exists, but He turns out to be my God!")


There is other information. For example, consider near and shared death experiences. What do they tell us about who we are and indirectly about that cosmic consciousness?

Oh yes, I heard Bigfoot had one of those, YesNo. ;-)


So I've heard, but I wonder how true that perspective is. Is passing on specific genetic material really that important? We need to procreate for life to continue. That's all I think is necessary. But even creatures who don't procreate can provide benefits for the next generation by making the environment safer for the young.

Sure, which may account for female longevity after menopause. Or not. It's easy to speculate and difficult to know. That doesn't mean that organisms haven't inherited traits that led to more successful reproduction over time (that's why they inherited them).


Why does natural selection make us depraved?

Because it produces responses like rage, jealousy, fear, envy, aggression, and revenge (to name but a few) which can reduce humans to barbarity. Harvard professor Niall Ferguson has suggested that soldiers commit mass rape during combat (which is an odd thing to do, when you think about it) as an evolutionary vestige of millennia of prehistoric ancestors' impregnating females from adversarial groups while killing off the males. Others have noted the gruesome detail that women conceive more readily after aggressive sexual intercourse, especially rape. Homo antecessor, the first known humans in Europe, were cannibals despite clear fossil evidence that they were simultaneously accessing a great abundance of non-human food (in other words, they weren't starving). The humans they were eating were mostly children and young teenagers, probably taken from territorial interlopers. Chimps do the same thing. But even if natural selection is not responsible for these depravities, violence, rage, and the will to domination are still part of our shared nature. (Perhaps it was Eden after all :)).


One problem with the way we see natural selection is that it looks as if there is no intentionality involved. But the environment is full of species with the intention to live (not unconscious, selfish genes trying to replicate).

1. Traits inherited from ancestors: no intentionality
2. Random genetic mutation at conception: no intentionality
3. Changing environment: no intentionality (or limited)

Those are the variables of natural selection, are they not?


Evolution for the most part does nothing unless something or someone punctuates the equilibrium. This causes suffering and demands a response from living, conscious organisms (not randomly mutating, unconscious genes) which leads to change.

I believe you are confusing evolution by natural selection with a (historically naive) version of social progress.


People make mistakes. That causes suffering. That leads to change.

See above.

[YesNo]

I need clarification on what you mean by that. Does "it could be any of those" mean that you are unable to say which it might be? If that is the case, it is not a correct statement since you have no evidence to show that it is any of them. In that case, you cannot say that the existence of Judeo-Christian God is supported by the Big Bang, Relativity, and Quantum Physics. God in that sense means something very specific.

Why not? The Judeo-Christian deity is panentheistic. Support for something does not have to account for every particular.



Or are you saying that it doesn't matter what name you give your panentheistic divinity because this is simply what God turns out to be, so hey, call it whatever you like. That of course is the same thing as saying that the Judeo-Christian God does not exist; so it cannot also support that God's existence. (It's the ol' "Great news! Your God exists, but He turns out to be my God!")

I don't know what you are trying to argue here. The second sentence does not follow from the first.



Oh yes, I heard Bigfoot had one of those, YesNo. ;-)

Ah, where did you hear that?



Sure, which may account for female longevity after menopause. Or not. It's easy to speculate and difficult to know. That doesn't mean that organisms haven't inherited traits that led to more successful reproduction over time (that's why they inherited them).


Speculation is easy.



Because it produced responses like rage, jealousy, fear, aggression, envy, revenge (to name a few) which can reduce humans to barbarity. Harvard professor Niall Ferguson has suggested that soldiers commit mass rape during combat (which is an odd thing to do when you think of it) as an evolutionary vestige of millennia of our ancestors' impregnating females from adversarial groups while killing off the males. Others have noted the gruesome detail that women conceive more readily after aggressive sexual intercourse, especially rape. Homo antecessor, the first known humans in Europe, are known to have been cannibals despite clear fossil evidence that they were simultaneously accessing a great abundance of non-human food. The humans they were eating were mostly children and young teenagers--probably from territorial interlopers. Chimps do the same thing. But if even natural selection is not responsible for these depravities, violence, rage, and the will to domination are still part of our shared nature. (Perhaps it was Eden after all :)).

I just finished the movie "The Voices" (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_voices/) which reminded me of this thread.



1. Traits inherited from ancestors: no intentionality
2. Random genetic mutation at conception: no intentionality
3. Changing environment: no intentionality (or limited)

Those are the variables of natural selection, are they not?

I believe you are confusing evolution by natural selection with a (historically naive) version of social progress.


What I am trying to do is reason from the perspective of punctuated equilibrium which I think fits the facts from paleontology better than neo-Darwinism.

[mona amon]

That makes sense on the surface, mona, but here's the thing: You say we ourselves are the standard for judging what is good and evil but you're using subjective taste for the standard…like whether we don't like something that happens to us or we do like something that happens to us. There is no basis for saying it was good or bad, "only that we don't like it". When we don't like something bad happening to us it's understandable but illogical if God doesn't exist as a standard.

In what way is God the standard? Please clarify, as I do not see it at all. We do not like something bad happening to us because it is either painful (torture), or against our survival instincts (murder), or against our proprietary feelings (someone stealing from us what we slogged hard to get). All human morality can be traced back to some basic instinct or the other - to survive, to ensure the survival of the race, to avoid pain and so on.

As Darwin says - "“ Actions regarded by savages, and were probably so regarded by primeval man, are good or bad, solely as they obviously affect the welfare of the tribe." We instinctively know that when we protest against bad things happening to other members of society, we also ensure the same benefit to ourselves. This is not subjective, it is instinctive.


Kreeft says, "your subjective feelings are the only basis upon which you can object to natural suffering. OK, you don't like it. But how is your not liking something evidence for God not existing? Think about it. It's just the opposite. Our judgments of good and evil, natural as well as human, presuppose God as the standard. If there's no God, there's neither good nor evil. There's just nature doing what it does. If nature is all there is, there is absolutely no need to explain why one person suffers and another doesn't. Unjust suffering is a problem only because we have a sense of what is just and unjust. But where does this sense come from? Certainly, not from Nature. There's nothing just about nature. Nature is only about survival."

So, against what standard is good and evil determined? Our private, subjective standard means nothing. Good and evil can only be determined if a standard for right and wrong exists. And if that standard really exists, that means God exists.

Once again, it is instinctive feeling, not subjective feeling. But there is a lot of circular reasoning going on here. Everyone, believer or non-believer, knows that nature is neither just nor unjust, but a collection of amoral forces. If 1720 people die because of an earthquake, we think it is a bad thing because it goes against our basic survival instincts (as explained in my first paragraph) but we do not blame nature. The non believer does not have to explain anything, since he accepts that nature's destructive force strikes at random. To him it is bad luck rather than bad morals. It is the believer, who feels that God has the power to protect us from nature's amoral destructive forces, who has to explain why he does not do so.

So why does a good God permit suffering? I think the only answer is that we do not know. I do not believe for a moment that it can be proved through scientific or philosophical reasoning. Certainly Kreeft has not succeeded, and has in fact fallen way short of the mark. If we believe in the existence of a good God, it has to be through faith alone.

[Melanie]

...people die because of an earthquake, we think it is a bad thing because it goes against our basic survival instincts...but [non-believers] do not blame nature. The non believer does not have to explain anything, since he accepts that nature's destructive force strikes at random. To him it is bad luck rather than bad morals. It is the believer, who feels that God has the power to protect us from nature's amoral destructive forces, who has to explain why he does not do so.
Believers don't blame natural disasters on morals unless you're referring to occasional events like Noah and the flood. There are many other reasons such as natural consequences from environmental pollution caused by man, and "nature doing what nature does" like earthquakes and volcanic eruptions from a planet full of hot gases.


So why does a good God permit suffering? I think the only answer is that we do not know. I do not believe for a moment that it can be proved through scientific or philosophical reasoning...If we believe in the existence of a good God, it has to be through faith alone.
I agree. There are over 50 different reasons listed in the Bible for why a good God allows suffering…all of which make sense through faith. But this thread isn't about why God allows suffering, it's about whether or not suffering is a challenge to God's existence.


In what way is God the standard? Please clarify, as I do not see it at all. We do not like something bad happening to us because it is either painful (torture), or against our survival instincts (murder), or against our proprietary feelings (someone stealing from us what we slogged hard to get). All human morality can be traced back to some basic instinct or the other - to survive, to ensure the survival of the race, to avoid pain and so on.
Whether instinctive or subjective, our feelings about pain and survival don't prove that God doesn't exist. It only proves that it's nature doing what nature does. Speaking of instincts and feelings…another example of God's existence.

[mona amon]

Believers don't blame natural disasters on morals unless you're referring to occasional events like Noah and the flood. There are many other reasons such as natural consequences from environmental pollution caused by man, and "nature doing what nature does" like earthquakes and volcanic eruptions from a planet full of hot gases.

That's what I said - Both believers and non believers do not blame natural disasters on morals, and I'm talking about pure natural disasters like tsunamis and volcanic eruptions, not Noah or global warming.


I agree. There are over 50 different reasons listed in the Bible for why a good God allows suffering…all of which make sense through faith. But this thread isn't about why God allows suffering, it's about whether or not suffering is a challenge to God's existence.

Since suffering certainly exists, the only way we can answer the question is to show how suffering is compatible with God's existence, or in other words, why God allows suffering. As if this isn't enough of a challenge, Kreeft goes a step further and says that suffering, or rather our perception of suffering as something bad, actually proves God's existence. How?


Whether instinctive or subjective, our feelings about pain and survival don't prove that God doesn't exist. It only proves that it's nature doing what nature does.

No, but neither do they prove that God exists, and that's the main point, or at least the point Kreeft is trying to make.


Speaking of instincts and feelings…another example of God's existence.

I agree, but I do not know if that is enough to convince a non-believer. :)

[Melanie]

True. Good on-topic discussion, mona.

[Pompey Bum]

Why not? The Judeo-Christian deity is panentheistic.

In fact, there are parts of the Bible that explicitly reject God's panentheism (1 Kings 19:12, for example; and arguably Acts 17:20--a verse that is sometimes taken out of context to suggest an unlikely Pauline pantheism). The Bible, of course, speaks in many voices; but there are broader theological reasons for a Christian (in any case) to be wary of God's panentheism. A panentheistic deity is usually defined as dependent (to one extent or another) on the material universe. The classic statement of Hegelian idealism (straight from the horse's mouth) is: "Without the world is not God," to which the 20th century philosopher and mathematician Alfred North Whitehead added: "It is as true to say that God creates the world as that the world creates God." These positions challenge God's omnipotence by creating a dependent relationship between the Creator and the created. Followers of Whitehead have tried to finesse the difference, but they have been unable to do so without altering Hegel and Whitehead's positions. One might also note that such a relationship is irreconcilable with the creatio ex nihilo doctrine (or Big Bang) with which you postulate your divinity in the first place.

"Zzzzzzzzzzz," I hear you say. "Is this going to be over pretty soon?"

Not quite. We now get to your second point:


Support for something does not have to account for every particular.

The problem arises when you support something by significantly altering it. For example, when 2nd-4th century Greek and Roman converts to Christianity decided that they were going to accept the God of Israel after all (it wasn't always a done deal), it didn't take them long to decide that the Jewish Scriptures were not really for or about non-Christian Jews. It turns out there was a verus Israel, a true Israel, and that was, um, them. The real purpose of the Jewish Scriptures, it turned out, was to function as a kind of Gypsy fortune teller to predict Jesus; and unfortunately for the Jews themselves, well, do you remember those parts when God get's really angry at them and talks about how they are going to suffer horribly and mentions that they deserve it for not being faithful to Him? What, so you're saying God was wrong?

I don't mean to be too glib about this, since the ghettoization of European Jews and their sometime wholesale murder was a direct historical consequence. And OF COURSE I am not insinuating that you intended anything of the kind to Christians in your argument. But when one supports another's beliefs at the expense of those beliefs, it is easy to play the sorcerer's apprentice--giving way to enthusiasm without necessarily seeing all the consequences. Let me give you an nearer example:

The interdependence of Creator and created may seem exciting to you. It makes for a kind of partnership or mutual stewardship between God and humankind. It sounds like that would be right up your ally, YesNo. And as my brother-in-law would say: you enjoy. The problem is that it also destroys Grace theology. That's because if God's Salvation is wholly gracious, it cannot be conditional on a relationship of dependency on the recipient. And removing Grace from Christianity short-circuits the whole thing.

Borrowing and breaking someone else's religion with your own enthusiasms was what I meant by my wisecrack: (It's the ol' "Great news! Your God exists, but He turns out to be my God!")


I don't know what you are trying to argue here. The second sentence does not follow from the first.

Right, it was also the reason for the part you didn't understand:


Or are you saying that it doesn't matter what name you give your panentheistic divinity because this is simply what God turns out to be, so hey, call it whatever you like? That of course is the same thing as saying that the Judeo-Christian God does not exist; so it cannot also support that God's existence."

I hope it's clearer now, but in case not, saying My God is the only real God [and I only asked if that's what you were saying] but hey, you should feel free to identify it with your God (even though your God was different before) is the same thing as saying My God exists and yours doesn't. But knowing you, YesNo, I'm sure you didn't mean to say anything of the kind.


Oh yes, I heard Bigfoot had one of those, YesNo. ;-)


Ah, where did you hear that?

Does it matter? Somebody said it was true. What could be more compelling than uncorroborated personal testimony? :):):)


I just finished the movie "The Voices" (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_voices/) which reminded me of this thread.

Okay, I don't want to be your friend anymore. :yikes::yikes::yikes:
(Just kidding :))

[Pompey Bum]

We do not like something bad happening to us because it is either painful (torture), or against our survival instincts (murder), or against our proprietary feelings (someone stealing from us what we slogged hard to get). All human morality can be traced back to some basic instinct or the other - to survive, to ensure the survival of the race, to avoid pain and so on......We instinctively know that when we protest against bad things happening to other members of society, we also ensure the same benefit to ourselves. This is not subjective, it is instinctive.

Hi Mona! :) It is possible that you are right that our morality is instinctive. Frankly, I'm not sure. What confuses me is compassion. I do not feel physical pain to see the suffering of a horribly wounded soldier although I will never be combat; and I my own survival is not threatened by the site of an aborted fetus or a woman dying of toxoplasmosis; but I would probably feel an involuntary need to turn my head away if I were in the presence of those things. I am not really sure why compassion should be an instinct--caring about the survival of a community sounds more like learned cultural behavior to me--but it's hard to know for sure. It is a religious belief of mine that the radical compassion inherent in Jesus' teaching to love one's enemies is a call to turn away from instincts like rage and revenge fear and domination. So is compassion an instinct or an anti-instinct? I am still considering these things.


Everyone, believer or non-believer, knows that nature is neither just nor unjust, but a collection of amoral forces.

Perhaps, but that doesn't really get us very far from the original question about suffering. Why would a moral God create an amoral universe? Or did nature fall with Eden?


If we believe in the existence of a good God, it has to be through faith alone.

"By faith alone" was one of several battle cries during the Reformation; it did not refer to belief in God (something most people took for granted in 16th century Europe), but how Salvation was to be obtained. It didn't mean "Just believe in a God and you'll be saved" (not that you said it did) but that Salvation could not be earned through works as the Church taught, including by prayers and masses for the dead, building churches, buying indulgences, etc. Rather, if one believed God's promises to Abraham, one became passively receptive to God's gracious gift of (undeserved) Salvation. Whether the gift was actually bestowed was up entirely up to God, and it was considered arrogant to assume that one was saved just because one had faith. I wish that last point were still as scrupulously observed today.

Whether one accepts any of that formulation, your statement is still open to a certain amount of challenge. When the Son of Man returns in glory, will people know Him only through faith? When God dropped in for a chat with Abraham (to take the story literally), did he only know Him by faith? How about when Paul had his auditory "vision" on the road to Damascus? How about Thomas when he put his hand in the risen Christ's side?

Having made this unnecessary fuss (mostly because theology is fun), I will confess my view that, in the absence of such gifts, faith in God's existence is sufficient. And when Jesus does return, I'll try not to act too surprised. :) But there is a serious side to the distinction, too. The appropriation of "faith alone" for belief in God is sometimes used to justify personal prejudice and to demonize those logically prepared to expose it as such. This gets at the larger question of what exactly one had faith in. "Faith alone" applies to God, and not to doctrine or politics or--God forbid--Biblical literalism. One is, of course, free to believe what one likes, but one is never theologically justified in saying (for example): people with your beliefs are going to hell; and I am justified in saying so by faith alone. That is not Christianity. It's just garden variety prejudice. And way too many Christians do it.

Anyway, I appreciate getting your perspective on these issues and will think more about instinct and compassion. Thanks. :)

[YesNo]

In fact, there are parts of the Bible that explicitly reject God's panentheism (1 Kings 19:12, for example; and arguably Acts 17:20--a verse that is sometimes taken out of context to suggest an unlikely Pauline pantheism). The Bible, of course, speaks in many voices; but there are broader theological reasons for a Christian (in any case) to be wary of God's panentheism. A panentheistic deity is usually defined as dependent (to one extent or another) on the material universe. The classic statement of Hegelian idealism (straight from the horse's mouth) is: "Without the world is not God," to which the 20th century philosopher and mathematician Alfred North Whitehead added: "It is as true to say that God creates the world as that the world creates God." These positions challenge God's omnipotence by creating a dependent relationship between the Creator and the created. Followers of Whitehead have tried to finesse the difference, but they have been unable to do so without altering Hegel and Whitehead's positions. One might also note that such a relationship is irreconcilable with the creatio ex nihil doctrine (or Big Bang) with which you postulate your divinity in the first place.

"Zzzzzzzzzzz," I hear you say. "Is this going to be over pretty soon?"

Not quite. We now get to your second point:



The problem arises when you support something by significantly altering it. For example, when 2nd-4th century Greek and Roman converts to Christianity decided that they were going to accept the God of Israel after all (it wasn't always a done deal), it didn't take them long to decide that the Jewish Scriptures were not really for or about non-Christian Jews. It turns out there was a verus Israel, a true Israel, and that was, um, them. The real purpose of the Jewish Scriptures, it turned out, was to function as a kind of Gypsy fortune teller to predict Jesus; and unfortunately for the Jews themselves, well, do you remember those parts when God get's really angry at them and talks about how they are going to suffer horribly and mentions that they deserve it for not being faithful to Him? What, so you're saying God was wrong?

I don't mean to be too glib about this, since the ghettoization of European Jews and their sometime wholesale murder was a direct historical consequence. And OF COURSE I am not insinuating that you intended anything of the kind to Christians in your argument. But when one supports another's beliefs at the expense of those beliefs, it is easy to play the sorcerer's apprentice--giving way to enthusiasm without necessarily seeing all the consequences. Let me give you an nearer example:

The interdependence of Creator and created may seem exciting to you. It makes for a kind of partnership or mutual stewardship between God and humankind. It sounds like that would be right up your ally, YesNo. And as my brother-in-law would say: you enjoy. The problem is that it also destroys Grace theology. That's because if God's Salvation is wholly gracious, it cannot be conditional on a relationship of dependency on the recipient. And removing Grace from Christianity short-circuits the whole thing.

Borrowing and breaking someone else's religion with your own enthusiasms was what I meant by my wisecrack: (It's the ol' "Great news! Your God exists, but He turns out to be my God!")



Right, it was also the reason for the part you didn't understand:



I hope it's clearer now, but in case not, saying My God is the only real God [and I only asked if that's what you were saying] but hey, you should feel free to identify it with your God (even though your God was different before) is the same thing as saying My God exists and yours doesn't. But knowing you, YesNo, I'm sure you didn't mean to say anything of the kind.

It is possible that your version of Christianity is not panentheistic.

My understanding of panentheism and how it relates to Christianity comes mainly from this video by InspiringPhilosophy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xki03G_TO4 On re-watching it, perhaps only Orthodox Christianity or specific Western forms such as Lutheranism are panentheistic.

InspiringPhilosophy has a video on quantum physics that I thought was exceptional: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM



Does it matter? Somebody said it was true. What could be more compelling than uncorroborated personal testimony? :):):)

Does your version of Christianity have the resurrection of Jesus in it? That seems to me to be "uncorroborated personal testimony" unless you can show that such activities are possible. That is one reason why near and shared death experiences should matter to you. They help make sense out of what might have happened.

How does all this relate to suffering? I don't see suffering in a negative way and so suffering does not affect my view on whether a particular version of a deity exists or not or is evil or not. Suffering is what punctuates the equilibrium of our lives. It motivates us to change. Our response implies we have enough free will to initiate change.

[mortalterror]

I'm not sure I quite understand your point Melanie in the original post. Suffering is part of how we form compassion, and through compassion, love and self sacrifice. Suffering is how God makes us worthy of salvation, and is actually a gift from God. Christ's suffering in His passion is our model for suffering, and many saints embraced suffering to bring themselves closer to Christ. If you're interested, the life and writings of St. Thérèse of Lisieux explains it well.

I don't think the OP is talking about Theodicy or the problem of evil. I think she's referring to how evil is a proof of the existence of God. In terms of ethical theory God acts as an absolute foundation for morality. In the absence of God, so goes the argument, there would be no good or evil but relativity.

[Pompey Bum]

It is possible that your version of Christianity is not panentheistic.

My understanding of panentheism and how it relates to Christianity comes mainly from this video by InspiringPhilosophy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xki03G_TO4 On re-watching it, perhaps only Orthodox Christianity or specific Western forms such as Lutheranism are panentheistic.

InspiringPhilosophy has a video on quantum physics that I thought was exceptional: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

Yes, as I've said, Whitehead's heirs have been trying to square the circle for a long time. I don't have a problem with so-called "Christian panentheism" as long as it does not compromise the free relationship between Creator and created; which of course requires theistic dualism--God and the Universe must be separate or creatio ex nihilo--your Big Bang--is void. The narrator of this video assures me that he is not going to blur that line, then turns around and does it, as he says because dualism interferes with the monistic idealism hopes to syncretize with Quantum.

Like most post-Whitehead panentheists, your narrator wants to have it both ways: it isn't that kind of panentheism, he claims: God's not dependent on us, we're dependent on Him. That's fine by me, but wasn't it already the case with dualism (supported by the same proof texts he cherry picks--and more)? So why the shift from what we already have to a castrated form of Panentheism? The answer, of course, is that it supports both his syncretistic agenda and an underlying Eco-Christian trend that looks for a nature religion in Christianity. Eco-Christianity frequently amounts to crypto-Panentheism, in my experience.

The narrator is understandably unable to find much traction for this idea in the West. Luther's Sacramentalism was somewhat panentheistic, but it referenced the Eucharist as an ongoing miracle, so it's a stretch to generalize it too far. But views on the Sacraments vary between traditions, and I doubt that monistic idealism cares about it in any case (I apologize in advance, YesNo, if taking Communion is important to you). The Reformed view that the divine cannot be contained in the created--correct or not-- is glossed over with a scary looking picture of John Calvin (boo! hiss!), and the narrator has little choice but to turn to the fun and fascinating Eastern Orthodox theology of Gregory Palamas. Palamas followed a very ancient (and even "funner") Roman-Egyptian theologian named Clement of Alexandria, who wrote long 1300 years before the Reformation (and 250 years before Augustine), and was himself in an extremely different theological milieu, so it is not surprising that he approaches things in a manner peripheral to later Western Christianity. He is more generally Panentheistic, but he is hardly voice of consensus (far from it) and the narrator's claims to have overthrown normative Western Christianity through Gregory Palamas ("Christianity is very much a weak Panentheistic belief") is frankly kind of laughable.

The narrator's own endeavors are even less convincing. He is weakest when he is trying to divorce the term panentheism from its anti-dualist parentage. He states in an etymological analysis that the term panentheism "just means 'all in God' [okay] or all is dependent on God [its an interpretation, but okay]; "but that God is greater than the universe." And that is, um, you know, a lie. There is nothing in the word panentheism per se to suggest that God is greater than the universe. The narrator is simply trying to finesse panentheism into something that dualists will accept instead of dualism. But despite his efforts (and those of Gregory Palamas) the peg Panentheist peg won't fit the Christian hole. Creatio ex nihilo rules it out.


Does your version of Christianity have the resurrection of Jesus in it? That seems to me to be "uncorroborated personal testimony" unless you can show that such activities are possible.

Of course. I have faith that God is stronger than death, and my faith in Christ is part of my faith in God (as Christ is in God). Faith, being faith, requires no corroboration. Bigfoot does.


That is one reason why near and shared death experiences should matter to you. They help make sense out of what might have happened.

I don't rule them out (as I do Bigfoot: he's a guy in a gorilla suit), but neither are they very important to me. I guess I think of them as visions; I'm sure some are faked but others may be exactly what is claimed (it would be nice). But I trust to God in such matters, which puts Near Death Experiences in the same category (for me) as monistic idealism: interesting but ultimately unnecessary. But If you know something I don't, I'd love to hear about it.


How does all this relate to suffering? I don't see suffering in a negative way and so suffering does not affect my view on whether a particular version of a deity exists or not or is evil or not. Suffering is what punctuates the equilibrium of our lives. It motivates us to change. Our response implies we have enough free will to initiate change.

I wonder if pilot Isis put in a cage and burned alive would have seen suffering in quite the same way.

[mona amon]

Hi Mona! :) It is possible that you are right that our morality is instinctive. Frankly, I'm not sure. What confuses me is compassion. I do not feel physical pain to see the suffering of a horribly wounded soldier--although I will never be combat; and I my own survival is not threatened by the site of an aborted fetus or a woman dying of toxoplasmosis; but I would probably feel an involuntary need to turn my head away if I were in the presence from any of those things. I am not really sure why compassion should be an instinct--caring about the survival of a community sounds more like learned cultural behavior to me--but it's hard to know for sure. It is a religious belief of mine that the radical compassion inherent in Jesus' teaching to love one's enemies is a call to turn away from instincts like rage and revenge fear and domination. So is compassion an instinct or an anti-instinct? I am still considering these things.

Hi Pompey! I have no idea whether compassion is an instinct or learned behavior, but it can certainly be traced back to more basic instincts of survival, and survival of the race. I think empathy is an instinctive trait - or inherited or whatever - and that's why we relate to the suffering of the wounded soldier. I think it goes something like this - rage - protective instinct - revenge - natural justice. If you kill the one that I love, I'll kill you. Fair enough. But behavior based on instincts has a way of getting completely out of hand - blood feuds, etc.- someone gets killed for stealing a loaf of bread - the law has to lay down that only an eye for an eye and no more. But laws and customs obscure the original intent, and then comes someone who urges us to turn the other cheek, to love our enemies - radical? Yes, but not counter-instinctive because it is only a cry to get back to the basics, which have become obscured through centuries of law and tradition.


Perhaps, but that doesn't really get us very far from the original question about suffering. Why would a moral God create an amoral universe? Or did nature fall with Eden?

I'm yet to see a convincing answer to the question. :)




"By faith alone" was one of several battle cries during the Reformation; it did not refer to how to believe in God (something most people took for granted in 16th century Europe), but how Salvation was to be obtained. It didn't mean "Just believe in a God and you'll be saved" (not that you said it did) but that Salvation could not be earned through works as the Church taught, including by prayers and masses for the dead, building churches, buying indulgences, etc. Rather, if one believed God's promises to Abraham, one became passively receptive to God's gracious gift of (undeserved) Salvation. Whether the gift was actually bestowed was up entirely up to God, and it was considered arrogant to assume that one was saved just because one had faith. I wish that last point were still as scrupulously observed today.

Whether one accepts any of that formulation, your statement is still open to a certain amount of challenge. When the Son of Man returns in glory, will people know Him only through faith? When God dropped in for a chat with Abraham (to take the story literally), did he only know Him by faith? How about when Paul had his auditory "vision" on the road to Damascus? How about Thomas when he put his hand in the risen Christ's side?

I meant faith by default, because there is no rational explanation for the existence of a good God. If we believe in God at all, it can only be through faith, not by logic and reasoning. This was no doubt easier for Abraham since God actually dropped in to chat, as you put it, but even he had doubts about what God could do.


Having made this unnecessary fuss (mostly because theology is fun), let I will confess my view that, in the absence of such gifts, faith in God's existence is sufficient. And when Jesus does return, I'll try not to act too surprised. :) But there is a serious side to the distinction, too. The appropriation of "faith alone" for belief in God is sometimes used to justify personal prejudice and to demonize those logically prepared to expose it as such. This gets at the larger question of what exactly one had faith in. "Faith alone" applies to God, and not to doctrine or politics or--God forbid--Biblical literalism. One is, of course, free to believe what one likes, but one is never theologically justified in saying (for example): people with your beliefs are going to hell; and I am justified in saying so by faith alone. That is not Christianity. It's just garden variety prejudice. And way too many Christians do it.

Anyway, I appreciate getting your perspective on these issues and will think more about instinct and compassion. Thanks. :)

I agree with you, of course. As Paul says, love is infinitely more important than faith - "if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."

[YesNo]

Yes, as I've said, Whitehead's heirs have been trying to square the circle for a long time. I don't have a problem with so-called "Christian panentheism" as long as it does not compromise the free relationship between Creator and created; which of course requires theistic dualism--God and the Universe must be separate or creatio ex nihilo--your Big Bang--is void. The narrator of this video assures me that he is not going to blur that line, then turns around and does it, as he says because dualism interferes with the monistic idealism hopes to syncretize with Quantum.

I have not read Whitehead, so I don't know how he fits in this discussion. Creatio ex nihilo is what I see happening with the collapse of the wave function and it doesn't just happen at the beginning of the universe. It seems that dualism (theological or otherwise) is a syncretism between materialism and idealism. If the material universe is created out of nothing what does that say for materialism? I would answer that it implies matter is reducible to nothing. That would not only undermine materialism, but also dualism.



Like most post-Whitehead panentheists, your narrator wants to have it both ways: it isn't that kind of panentheism, he claims: God's not dependent on us, we're dependent on Him. That's fine by me, but wasn't it already the case with dualism (supported by the same proof texts he cherry picks--and more)? So why the shift from what we already have to a castrated form of Panentheism? The answer, of course, is that it supports both his syncretistic agenda and an underlying Eco-Christian trend that looks for a nature religion in Christianity. Eco-Christianity frequently amounts to crypto-Panentheism, in my experience.

One of the problems I have with Christianity in general is its view that the universe is "fallen". Christianity does blame our free choice for that expulsion from Eden and I can see how we might experience that fallen state through suffering. But animals have been suffering long before we arrived on the scene. How did they "fall"?

Dualism, as I see it, leads to a view that the universe is evil because suffering exists. We need to be saved from it or we need to save ourselves by escaping through some mediation technique.



The narrator is understandably unable to find much traction for this idea in the West. Luther's Sacramentalism was somewhat panentheistic, but it referenced the Eucharist as an ongoing miracle, so it's a stretch to generalize it too far. But views on the Sacraments vary between traditions, and I doubt that monistic idealism cares about it in any case (I apologize in advance, YesNo, if taking Communion is important to you). The Reformed view that the divine cannot be contained in the created--correct or not-- is glossed over with a scary looking picture of John Calvin (boo! hiss!), and the narrator has little choice but to turn to the fun and fascinating Eastern Orthodox theology of Gregory Palamas. Palamas followed a very ancient (and even "funner") Roman-Egyptian theologian named Clement of Alexandria, who wrote long 1300 years before the Reformation (and 250 years before Augustine), and was himself in an extremely different theological milieu, so it is not surprising that he approaches things in a manner peripheral to later Western Christianity. He is more generally Panentheistic, but he is hardly voice of consensus (far from it) and the narrator's claims to have overthrown normative Western Christianity through Gregory Palamas ("Christianity is very much a weak Panentheistic belief") is frankly kind of laughable.

I don't mind limiting my interest in Christianity to Orthodox Christianity or Western mystics.



The narrator's own endeavors are even less convincing. He is weakest when he is trying to divorce the term panentheism from its anti-dualist parentage. He states in an etymological analysis that the term panentheism "just means 'all in God' [okay] or all is dependent on God [its an interpretation, but okay]; "but that God is greater than the universe." And that is, um, you know, a lie. There is nothing in the word panentheism per se to suggest that God is greater than the universe. The narrator is simply trying to finesse panentheism into something that dualists will accept instead of dualism. But despite his efforts (and those of Gregory Palamas) the peg Panentheist peg won't fit the Christian hole. Creatio ex nihilo rules it out.

The word panentheism may be inappropriate. I think we should go with the way InspiringPhilosophy defines it and not worry about the fact that others have defined it differently. The different definitions are useful to clarify what he means.

Dualism implies that we have a good God but a bad universe. How that bad universe got there without implicating God then becomes a problem.

For me, call it an article of faith or just an assumption, given the fact that I'm here and have to live in this universe, I might as well view the universe as good and work out the consequences from there. That would imply suffering is good as well.



Of course. I have faith that God is stronger than death, and my faith in Christ is part of my faith in God (as Christ is in God). Faith, being faith, requires no corroboration. Bigfoot does.

I don't rule them out (as I do Bigfoot: he's a guy in a gorilla suit), but neither are they very important to me. I guess I think of them as visions; I'm sure some are faked but others may be exactly what is claimed (it would be nice). But I trust to God in such matters, which puts Near Death Experiences in the same category (for me) as monistic idealism: interesting but ultimately unnecessary. But If you know something I don't, I'd love to hear about it.


For me they are very important along with any psi phenomenon that people like Dean Radin verify through experimentation. Why? Because they give me insight about the world and who we are.

I am aware that some atheists and some Christians don't want anything to do with them. All that shows is that people suffer from cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance is a real suffering. I don't want to belittle it. However, I have no interest in blaming some evil universe for its existence nor do I expect God to save me from it. When it happens to me I am grateful for the resultant change of perspective.



I wonder if pilot Isis put in a cage and burned alive would have seen suffering in quite the same way.

From your religious perspective how do you deal with that? Do you have faith in God and wait for his grace to save you? Or do you learn from this suffering and stop burning people alive?

[Iain Sparrow]

Hi Pompey! I have no idea whether compassion is an instinct or learned behavior, but it can certainly be traced back to more basic instincts of survival, and survival of the race. I think empathy is an instinctive trait - or inherited or whatever...

You're in luck because I can answer that question, "whether compassion is an instinct or learned behavior", it is in our nature, that is compassion and an entire host of emotions including the basic concept of knowing the difference between good-bad-neutral, are indeed biological instinct. Numerous scientific studies have shown it to be true, we are hardwired for these emotions. Studies on infants revealed that at a very early stage they recognize the difference between good-bad-neutral, and assign an emotional value to these concepts... good is better than neutral and bad, neutral is better than bad but not as good, as good. Nothing more than biology.:)
As related before, the pbs program on birds that showed ravens to be instinctually 'clever', more so than a dog and indeed more so than a chimpanzee or a three year old human child. For the raven, what is gained by nurturing and group culture is they specialize the cleverness... that is different groups of birds modify tool-making in different ways. One group of ravens would sharpen a stick to get at burrowing grubs, another would carve a hook at the end of the stick, still another group would telescope the twig... but all raven were instinctually clever. Humans are instinctually compassionate... but not all humans are capable of compassion.

[Pompey Bum]

I think it goes something like this - rage - protective instinct - revenge - natural justice. If you kill the one that I love, I'll kill you. Fair enough. But behavior based on instincts has a way of getting completely out of hand - blood feuds, etc.- someone gets killed for stealing a loaf of bread - the law has to lay down that only an eye for an eye and no more. But laws and customs obscure the original intent, and then comes someone who urges us to turn the other cheek, to love our enemies - radical? Yes, but not counter-instinctive because it is only a cry to get back to the basics, which have become obscured through centuries of law and tradition.

I think this progression from instinctive justice to legal code is historically accurate. Obviously it was more complicated, and I suspect the instinctive phase (which covers over 99% of the Homo genus' experience on this planet) was even less just than your schema suggests; but the eventual progress from an instinctive to legal-at-least-in-principle basis is something we agree on. But how could Jesus' message have been "a cry to get back to the basics" when the basics were: "rage - protective instinct - revenge - natural justice. If you kill the one that I love, I'll kill you"? It seems to me that Jesus' message is to turn from the instinctive. Nietzsche, who hated him, at least understood who he hated (and why).

But perhaps you meant that the message was an attempt to get back to the basics of the Jewish Law, rather than that Law as it existed in the Second Temple period. That is a complicated subject upon which we might spill much ink (not that that would be a bad thing :)). It seems to me that Jesus' intent is to penetrate the Law to its radical (that is, root) intent, rather than to go back in time to an "unobscured" version (which may never have existed). So in Matthew, in the Sermon on the Mount, he says (after assuring his listeners that he has not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it):

You have heard that it was said to the people long ago [that is, in the Jewish Law/Ten Commandments], ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother will be subject to judgment...

Likewise:

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart....

You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also...

You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you...

Ironically, these verses are sometimes interpreted legalistically themselves; typically to create a pietistic litmus test (the very thing Jesus sought end) in which Christians are expected to deny to themselves and others about what they actually feel (although many laudably admit the truth and seek forgiveness). Internet atheists (at least the less ethical variety) are quick to exploit the verses, prooftexting as furiously as any Biblical literalist. And many a fledgling Christian has simply thrown in the sponge in the face of a creed that seems either impossible to follow or even unjust in itself. How can I be expected never to be angry, they say; or--how shall I say it to a lady--salty as a sailor?; and is it really moral to invite assaults? Could I really say I loved an enemy without being a hypocrite?

In my view, most of that misses what is really going on, which is the radicalization of Jewish law by the rejection of evolved animal instinct. It is not sufficient to abstain from murder, adultery, violence, and hate (although you still need to do it) when you instinctively feel rage, lust, revenge, and malevolence--and there is nothing you can do about those feelings. (This is why Christianity cannot do without a Grace theology).

So I see Jesus ministry as a fulfill the Law by penetrating it to the marrow--to what it must be in the Kingdom of God: a radical turning away from Original Sin, which I identify with natural selection. (I understand how unpopular that message is to many--including "eco-Christians" who want nature to be nice. :))


I'm yet to see a convincing answer to the question. :)

Neither have I. Perhaps you are right that the best we can do is to say we don't know; perhaps I'm right (in guessing) that we're supposed to work things out without knowing. One of the things I've learned in this thread is that people sometimes resolve the question on a personal basis that cannot be generalized to others. Virgil's position that suffering teaches compassion is laudable--even wise--but it cannot be extended to any but the sufferer. It works for Virgil, but it is another thing to prescribe it to children (or adults, for that matter) who died in the Holocaust. Similarly, YesNo doesn't see suffering as bad (or all that different than pleasure, if I understand him right). That's fine enough for him, but again it is not to be exported to other sufferers Part of the problem, I think is that we don't really know what another person suffers, so what they way we resolve our own suffering may not be applicable to him or her. It seems to me that a call to radical compassion can only help. (Easy to say--a lot harder to do).

Thanks again for your reply. :)

[Pompey Bum]

I have not read Whitehead, so I don't know how he fits in this discussion.

Whitehead was the father of Process Theology, which your video considers "heretical" (along with Stoicism, apparently). One of my concerns about the syncretism of religion with theoretical physics is that it will lead to dogma. The video's use of such concepts hardly reassured me.


Creatio ex nihilo is what I see happening with the collapse of the wave function and it doesn't just happen at the beginning of the universe. It seems that dualism (theological or otherwise) is a syncretism between materialism and idealism. If the material universe is created out of nothing what does that say for materialism? I would answer that it implies matter is reducible to nothing. That would not only undermine materialism, but also dualism.

And I would say that it shows that God and the material are separate, since God existed before matter. But (unlike you?) I am not asking you to accept my religion. :)


One of the problems I have with Christianity in general is its view that the universe is "fallen". Christianity does blame our free choice for that expulsion from Eden and I can see how we might experience that fallen state through suffering. But animals have been suffering long before we arrived on the scene. How did they "fall"?

I'm not a Biblical literalist, YesNo, nor do I believe that we have a completely free will (choice is another matter). You should probably ask someone who buys the premise. Good luck! :)


Dualism, as I see it, leads to a view that the universe is evil because suffering exists. We need to be saved from it or we need to save ourselves by escaping through some mediation technique.

For me, it leads to a distinction between the basic goodness of life and the basic rottenness of people, and fits the world I experience better your idealism--which seems to me to lead to castles in the air. But as I said, I am not asking you to join my religion, and I do not disrespect your approach.


I don't mind limiting my interest in Christianity to Orthodox Christianity or Western mystics.

Enjoy yourself, although you're going to find precious little to work with in Luther. He was mostly trying to find an alternative to the Vatican's position that the Sacramental Elements literally turned into Jesus' blood and body (Transubstantiation); and was actually trying to do the opposite of what you are by protecting the separation between the divine and profane--critical to his Grace theology and important to his low anthropology (Luther's opinion of humankind makes me look like Forest Gump). It was precisely because he didn't go far enough (or couldn't without losing the secular support that kept him from the stake) that Calvin and Zwingli chucked his Sacramentalism out the window. In any case, Luther would be rolling over in his jumbo-sized coffin if he knew what you guys were up to. Luther was Mr. Grace Theology. Enjoy Palamas, though. :)


Dualism implies that we have a good God but a bad universe. How that bad universe got there without implicating God then becomes a problem.

Yes, that's more or less what the thread's about, right?


For me, call it an article of faith or just an assumption, given the fact that I'm here and have to live in this universe, I might as well view the universe as good and work out the consequences from there. That would imply suffering is good as well.

Here's something from my last post on that. I hadn't read this post of yours yet (and you obviously hadn't read the below), but it applies to your position:


Perhaps you are right that the best we can do is to say we don't know; perhaps I'm right (in guessing) that we're supposed to work things out without knowing. One of the things I've learned in this thread is that people sometimes resolve the question on a personal basis that cannot be generalized to others. Virgil's position that suffering teaches compassion is laudable--even wise--but it cannot be extended to any but the sufferer. It works for Virgil, but it is another thing to prescribe it to children (or adults, for that matter) who died in the Holocaust. Similarly, YesNo doesn't see suffering as bad (or all that different than pleasure, if I understand him right). That's fine enough for him, but again it is not to be exported to other sufferers. Part of the problem, I think is that we don't really know what another person suffers, so what they way we resolve our own suffering may not be applicable to him or her. It seems to me that a call to radical compassion can only help. (Easy to say--a lot harder to do).


I am aware that some atheists and some Christians don't want anything to do with [claims of near death experience]. All that shows is that people suffer from cognitive dissonance.

Well, I wouldn't know about that. As I said before, I'd be interested to learn more about the subject (despite having some understandable skepticism); but near death experiences are not necessary to my faith, which is sufficient in itself.


From your religious perspective how do you deal with that? Do you have faith in God and wait for his grace to save you?

From my faith perspective, YesNo, God would save me even if I were burned alive (of which, may God forbid!)


Or do you learn from this suffering and stop burning people alive?

Well, I wasn't the one who was burning people alive. And as far as I can tell, all those who were learned was that YouTube really get's the message out. Unfortunately, there are people like that in the real world.

[Ecurb]

"Instinct" is simply a word we use to explain behaviors for which we have no other explanation. It is quite true, of course, that no mammals would survive without being nursed (before the invention of baby bottles, at least). Nonetheless, studies show that some female mammals don't know how to nurse their babies if they haven't learned from watching other mothers. Such nature/ nurture questions are unanswerable, because all of our behaviors depend upon what we have learned AND our natural capacities.

Ravens may be naturally clever, but they also learn to be clever. I'll bet those newly hatched raven chicks aren't so clever. Humans may have a facility for compassion, but they also learn to be compassionate ("Share your toys, Junior, or you get no dessert, you selfish brat! Also, don't bite your sister.")

[Ecurb]

.



In my view, most of that misses what is really going on, which is the radicalization of Jewish law by the rejection of evolved animal instinct. It is not sufficient to abstain from murder, adultery, violence, and hate (although you still need to do it) when you instinctively feel rage, lust, revenge, and malevolence--and there is nothing you can do about those feelings. (This is why Christianity cannot do without a Grace theology).

So I see Jesus ministry as a fulfill the Law by penetrating it to the marrow--to what it must be in the Kingdom of God: a radical turning away from Original Sin, which I identify with natural selection. (I understand how unpopular that message is to many--including "eco-Christians" who want nature to be nice. :))
:)

Yes, as I understand it, the basic Christian position is that: 1) Good and evil are states of being, rather than behaviors. 2) The states of being involved are separation from God, or oneness with and obedience to God. 3) Humans are naturally separated from God, and only with God's help (Grace) can they eliminate this separation.

These are reasonable even for an atheist if he sees God as a metaphor. In fact, it seems clear to me that the coward who wishes he were brave enough to commit mass murders is as evil as the courageous mass murderer (this speaks to the "state of being" theory). "Separation from God" might mean something to the atheist if we think of God as a metaphor for society and culture and a purveyor of their mores. WE learn and practice virtue by emulating the virtuous (what would Jesus do?. Only with Their help can we become virtuous (how could we understand virtue without mores and exemplars?).

[Pompey Bum]

It's a good basic schema, Ecurb. I'd probably call the first state alienation and the second justification, and add that Grace is inherently free, meaning that it is unmerited. The metaphorical application to atheism is interesting and new to me. I'll give it some thought. The degree of culpability between the killer and the would-be killer is profound in the secular world, of course, but neither they nor we can attain justification without God's Grace. We've all just got too much in common.

Emulating the virtuous is a bit problematic; even WWJD?, which is a historical-critical can of worms (trust me). One needs to approach one's role-models carefully. Having recently reread Plutarch's Lives, I would definitely recommend giving Lysander a miss, for example. :) On the other hand, my mother (long in Paradise) was certainly the person who taught me right from wrong. But the whole issue of moral behavior is complicated by the possibility Mona and I were discussing earlier that we really do not understand God's mind. As I said, my guess is that we are intended to choose God and the Good without fully understanding ("for now we see as through a glass darkly," as Paul wrote); but I admit it is a mystery. Some mysteries are fun, though. You don't want life getting too boring, right? :)

[Ecurb]

One of my favorite thing about Christianity is the notion of unmerited Grace, God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son..... Some Fundamentalists seem to think they merit Grace, because of their faith. This seems unbiblical, to me. It's as if they are whining to their parents, "But you PROMISED...."

IN one of his books GK Chesterton wrote (paraphrasing from memory): "This is not MY faith, for I did not make it; it made me." I've always thought that God created me, even if we humans created Him first. "Man makes himself," was the title of a V. Gordon Childe book. We created language, but language created the "us" we know (and love?). God is as real as language, regardless of any other way in which we might argue about or define His reality.

[Ecurb]

Thinking about the post I just wrote got me thinking about one of my favorite short stories, by none less than Leo Tolstoy,"The Three Hermits".

Here's a link (if you like sappy, religious stories as much as I do, and haven't read this, it takes 15-20 minutes to read and is one of the masterpieces in this genre of world literature. You owe it to yourself to read it: http://www.online-literature.com/tolstoy/2896/

[easy75]

If God doesn't promise that there will be no suffering in this life, why would the existence of suffering disprove His existence?

[Pompey Bum]

It wouldn't (and it doesn't). But it's still a mystery for a God who is both omnipotent benevolent.

[easy75]

It wouldn't (and it doesn't). But it's still a mystery for a God who is both omnipotent benevolent.

I guess I don't understand where the notion even comes from. Just about every major figure in the bible that I can think of suffered. Why would believers in the Bible believe that suffering shouldn't exist? It's a bit like saying that Napoleon couldn't have existed because there are flashlights in the world. (To my knowledge) Napoleon never said that there would never be personal lighting implements.
I think this is a matter of people projecting their ideas onto God. Something like : "if I were God I wouldn't allow suffering, so if God allows it he must either not exist, or not be good." But then we have become God haven't we?
It totally boils down to faith. If you believe God is just, and He allows suffering in this life... then this has to be taken into account when making up our definitions of just, doesn't it? At least as far as God is concerned?
I mean, if someone believes God is who he says he is, (all powerful, all knowing, all wise, knowing the end from the beginning, completely just, full of mercy, etc) then really nothing presents a barrier to His existence. I think it is when we try to understand the fullness of God with our limited capabilities, and place Him inside of our parameters concerning concepts like justice, mercy, compassion, etc that we end up with unanswerable questions.

[Ecurb]

I agree with you, easy. However, the argument goes like this: 1) If God is described as "omnibenevolent", that must mean something other than "whatever God does is good by definition". Otherwise, it is tautological. 2) We think preventing suffering is "good", and God doesn't do it. Conclusion: God cannot be omnibenevolent and omnipotent.

This seems like a self-centered (human-centered) view of what constitutes "goodness' to me, but it makes some sense to say that if we are to call God omnibenevolent, it is reasonable to infer SOME meaning from the word.

[easy75]

I agree with you, easy. However, the argument goes like this: 1) If God is described as "omnibenevolent", that must mean something other than "whatever God does is good by definition". Otherwise, it is tautological. 2) We think preventing suffering is "good", and God doesn't do it. Conclusion: God cannot be omnibenevolent and omnipotent.

This seems like a self-centered (human-centered) view of what constitutes "goodness' to me, but it makes some sense to say that if we are to call God omnibenevolent, it is reasonable to infer SOME meaning from the word.

Thanks Ecurb, that at least gives framework to the discussion. I read this entire post and I think it would be an understatement to say that I am way out of my intellectual depth here (Lol. but seriously, I am). Nevertheless.... I had never heard the term Omnibenevolent before, so I went to Wikipedia. From what I read there it doesn't seem to be a term used by many people (citation needed, heh, heh).
I guess the question would be then, is there evidence that God claims to be omnibenevolent? or maybe just "regular" benevolent instead? As in: God is benevolent, He sends the rain on both the wicked and the just. Or: God is benevolent, but those Amelekites are going to continue to be a problem, so go wipe them out.
I guess what I don't understand is how we got to the idea that God has to be kind and charitable to everyone and everything always? Is this omnibenevolence something that people put on God so that they can complain or derride Him?

[easy75]

God said that He created evil. Doesn't that sort of rule out omnibenevolence?

[Pompey Bum]

I read this entire post and I think it would be an understatement to say that I am way out of my intellectual depth here (Lol. but seriously, I am).

From what I know of you, Easy, I doubt that. :)

But sometimes it helps to keep things simple. Does Wilm's tumor, a fatal kidney cancer that usually affect young children, sound consistent with a good and just God whose omnipotence means that He could have prevented such a thing? How about a serial killer who kidnaps children and tortures them for months before killing them?

I reject the notion that these things mean that God does not exist, but I consider the persistence of natural and human evil to be a mystery.


It totally boils down to faith.

Yes, that's the short answer. :) I have faith that we will understand then what we do not or cannot understand now. Meanwhile (for me) it's a mystery.

[Pompey Bum]

Thanks for posting the story, Ecurb. I heard it as a humorous anecdote about 20 years ago, but didn't know about the Tolstoy version until now. It's interesting that Tolstoy says he is picking it up from oral sources, too. I wonder if the version I got had passed through the written form or was extra-Tolstoyan. Probably it was just from someone who knew Tolstoy, but it's still cool to think that it could have been an oral tradition that reached us both over time.


Some Fundamentalists seem to think they merit Grace, because of their faith. This seems unbiblical, to me.

Yes, it's an interesting phenomenon. Evangelical Protestantism was founded on the Reformation idea that Grace was a free gift and could not be earned. Most Evangelicals understand that, and virtually all claim to understand; but you are right that the practices of some don't always reflect it. Many will tell you that to be justified you need to accept Jesus as your personal Savior (the original Reformation version was to have faith in God's promises to Abraham); and some also insist that you say a prayer to prove to them, um, I mean Him that you really mean it. For me, the prayer seems like just another pietistic work. Grace is completely up to God; an omnipotent God is inevitably able to grant Salvation to anyone He chooses (Christian or not, by the way); and an omniscient God already knows all about your faith choices.

But okay, that part doesn't really bother me: the prayer does no harm that I can see; Christians ought to accept Jesus as Savior; and maybe it's important to some people to say things out loud. Fine, fine. But what is harmful (in my opinion) is the subtle expansion of what is supposedly required for Justification. Accepting God's promises to Abraham becomes accepting Jesus as Savior (as I said, for a Christian, that's fine by me); but then accepting Jesus goes on to mean accepting (supposed) Biblical literalism. And then, if you don't do what I claim the Bible tells you to, I know you don't really accept Biblical literalism; and therefore you don't really accept Jesus; and therefore you don't really have faith in God's promises to Abraham; and therefore you are not justified; and therefore you are damned to hell. Have a nice day!

At this point, I am reminded of a New Yorker cartoon in which a minister is shaking the hands of his parishioners as they leave his church. The man whose hand he is shaking in the cartoon is saying to him: "You go to hell, too." Heh.

I hasten to add that this is not a monolithic attitude among Evangelical Christians. Many know their own traditions well enough to recognize the above for what it is: a return to pre-Reformation Neo-Pelagianism that refastens the chains that the Reformers tried to break for good. But some Evangelicals don't see it, or don't understand, or don't care.

Why not? From my experience it mostly has to do with anger (ignoring instinctive feelings will do that to you); also pride (in a destructive sense); and sometimes just envy or fear that someone else may be better off or better educated. It's a nice feeling (to some) to think that people like that are going to hell and they're not. As usual, there are idiots in every group.

Again, that is not a general indictment of Evangelical Christians. I grew up near Boston, but I spent my boyhood summers in rural Iowa, where most of my friends (and family) were Evangelicals. The adults were among the kindest, warmest, and (sometimes) wisest people I've ever known; and the boys were just as wild and the girls as cute and curious as their East Coast counterpoints. The main difference was the sense of community, which was much stronger in among Evangelicals than it was back East. I have a strange story or two, but on the whole I keep a special place in my heart for the Evangelical Christians I knew in those days. I will always think of them as family.

[easy75]

I reject the notion that these things mean that God does not exist, but I consider the persistence of natural and human evil to be a mystery.

I agree that it is a mystery. I also agree that lack of understanding is not a good enough cause for disbelief. Many things in relation to God are a mystery. God didn't really answer Job regarding the question of suffering. He asked questions of Job to illustrate how far God's thoughts were from the mind of man. Again if God is who He says He is, and we are just men, it is unimaginable that we could even comprehend a fraction of His design.

We do not know what the effects of tragedy are, especially the far reaching ones. We also do not know the outcome of millions of possible alternate realities. We also really can't conceptualize the idea of eternity, or operate outside the boundaries of time. If life is eternal, and you suffered through every single day of this particular life, say eighty years or so, after a million years would it even matter to you? Especially if you were made to understand why? Paul said : "For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us." Again, this illustrates the idea, a main theme of the Bible, that suffering exists, persists, etc.... For a time.
So ultimately I guess it depends on what deity is being discussed. The God of the Bible does not make any promises regarding a lack of suffering in this life, so it doesn't hold that the existence of suffering would disprove His existence.

[easy75]

Thanks for posting the story, Ecurb. I heard it as a humorous anecdote about 20 years ago, but didn't know about the Tolstoy version until now. It's interesting that Tolstoy says he is picking it up from oral sources, too. I wonder if the version I got had passed through the written form or was extra-Tolstoyan. Probably it was just from someone who knew Tolstoy, but it's still cool to think that it could have been an oral tradition that reached us both over time.



Yes, it's an interesting phenomenon. Evangelical Protestantism was founded on the Reformation idea that Grace was a free gift and could not be earned. Most Evangelicals understand that, and virtually all claim to understand; but you are right that the practices of some don't always reflect it. Many will tell you that to be justified you need to accept Jesus as your personal Savior (the original Reformation version was to have faith in God's promises to Abraham); and some also insist that you say a prayer to prove to them, um, I mean Him that you really mean it. For me, the prayer seems like just another pietistic work. Grace is completely up to God; an omnipotent God is inevitably able to grant Salvation to anyone He chooses (Christian or not, by the way); and an omniscient God already knows all about your faith choices.

But okay, that part doesn't really bother me: the prayer does no harm that I can see; Christians ought to accept Jesus as Savior; and maybe it's important to some people to say things out loud. Fine, fine. But what is harmful (in my opinion) is the subtle expansion of what is supposedly required for Justification. Accepting God's promises to Abraham becomes accepting Jesus as Savior (as I said, for a Christian, that's fine by me); but then accepting Jesus goes on to mean accepting (supposed) Biblical literalism. And then, if you don't do what I claim the Bible tells you to, I know you don't really accept Biblical literalism; and therefore you don't really accept Jesus; and therefore you don't really have faith in God's promises to Abraham; and therefore you are not justified; and therefore you are damned to hell. Have a nice day!

At this point, I am reminded of a New Yorker cartoon in which a minister is shaking the hands of his parishioners as they leave his church. The man whose hand he is shaking in the cartoon is saying to him: "You go to hell, too." Heh.

I hasten to add that this is not a monolithic attitude among Evangelical Christians. Many know their own traditions well enough to recognize the above for what it is: a return to pre-Reformation Neo-Pelagianism that refastens the chains that the Reformers tried to break for good. But some Evangelicals don't see it, or don't understand, or don't care.

Why not? From my experience it mostly has to do with anger (ignoring instinctive feelings will do that to you); also pride (in a destructive sense); and sometimes just envy or fear that someone else may be better off or better educated. It's a nice feeling (to some) to think that people like that are going to hell and they're not. As usual, there are idiots in every group.

Again, that is not a general indictment of Evangelical Christians. I grew up near Boston, but I spent my boyhood summers in rural Iowa, where most of my friends (and family) were Evangelicals. The adults were among the kindest, warmest, and (sometimes) wisest people I've ever known; and the boys were just as wild and the girls as cute and curious as their East Coast counterpoints. The main difference was the sense of community, which was much stronger in among Evangelicals than it was back East. I have a strange story or two, but on the whole I keep a special place in my heart for the Evangelical community I knew in those days. I will always think of them as family.


That sounds like a wonderful experience! I have experienced that feeling of community once as well, and I have always remembered it.
And wow. I have always been skeptical of attending/belonging to an Evangelical church for the same basic reason. It feels ironically Catholic to me in most situations. The traditions of men weighing on the congregation. The sharp edges of all of the denominational differences being harped upon, separating believers into Baptists, Reformed Baptists, Methodists, Jehova's Witnesses, Presbyterians, etc, all based on works, despite what they say. I've always preferred to fellowship with my barber, and my brother, and my mechanic, and my friends, and it has been more uplifting to me. A community in miniature. :)

[Pompey Bum]

Many things in relation to God are a mystery. God didn't really answer Job regarding the question of suffering. He asked questions of Job to illustrate how far God's thoughts were from the mind of man. Again if God is who He says He is, and we are just men, it is unimaginable that we could even comprehend a fraction of His design.

Yes, but as Mona and I were discussing, this gets us into an even deeper dilemma; because if we cannot understand God's mind, then how can we live hope to live morally? How could a Bible written in Greek and Hebrew, or a Sutra written in Pali, or the Book of Mormon written in English ever communicate it to us? It seems to me that would require a direct experience of o logos tou theou: the mind or word of God (itself). That is something, of course, that the Gospel of John says Jesus is (and I accept it). But if Christians have really had the experience of Logos, then why don't we understand (for example) the problem of suffering? Or is the experience of Logos part of the "then" when "we will see clearly?"


Paul said : "For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us." Again, this illustrates the idea, a main theme of the Bible, that suffering exists, persists, etc.... For a time.

Well yes, maybe this gets at something we haven't considered yet. I don't just mean Afterlife (although that is part of my faith). I was raised a Christian, but to be honest, when I grew up and started to think about it, God was a lot easier to believe in than Afterlife. It annoyed me that people assumed that the existence of one would necessarily imply the existence of the other--although I now believe it does. The Judeo-Christian God is a God of love and justice, and the way I see it, there is even less justice in this life than love. And even the justice we try to make is grossly imperfect (to be a little Platonic about it). But the problem of suffering (though not the persistence of evil) is easier to understand if "the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us," when that glory includes--as Jesus asserts it does--radical justice in the life to come. So the suffering and injustice of this life imply either: that there is no God of love and justice; or: that there is existence beyond this age, in which suffering and injustice are redressed. And as I have already said, my faith is in God.

How does that work? Is there universal forgiveness? In there a hell? Was John of Patmos (the author of Revelation) experiencing o logos tou theou--or was he just bitter about what the Romans were doing to the Christians under Domitian? Would a loving God allow the horrors he describes? Does the Kingdom of God come to us or do we go there? Is Afterlife the way I want it to be, in which I introduce my wife to my mother, and we all drink lemonade and laugh together (while my old greyhound Connor shakes his head in joy, and the spit flies over all of us :))? Or is it like the paintings you see of Heaven? Or is it something (like God) that we can't really understand right now?

Unfortunately, I'm afraid every person reading this sentence knows exactly as much as I do about those questions.

[Ecurb]

Accepting God's promises to Abraham becomes accepting Jesus as Savior (as I said, for a Christian, that's fine by me); but then accepting Jesus goes on to mean accepting (supposed) Biblical literalism. And then, if you don't do what I claim the Bible tells you to, I know you don't really accept Biblical literalism; and therefore you don't really accept Jesus; and therefore you don't really have faith in God's promises to Abraham; and therefore you are not justified; and therefore you are damned to hell. Have a nice day!

.

That's inevitably going to be a problem for "faith alone" or "scripture alone" theology. It is impossible to determine what someone believes; we can know only what he says he believes. To the extent that religions establish communities, fundamentalist evangelicals reject basing membership (as Catholics or Orthodox Christians or Episcopalians base membership) on baptism, communion, or the other rituals of the Church. Yet, because there is no way to determine faith, they search for statements and behaviors that either confirm or contradict the member's faith. As a result, some Evangelical groups seem to require an entire set of statements to confirm "true" belief, including global warming denial, anti-abortion and anti-gay-marriage positions, etc.

[Pompey Bum]

I have always been skeptical of attending/belonging to an Evangelical church for the same basic reason. It feels ironically Catholic to me in most situations.

Some believe that the Reformation failed because Calvin (as they say) re-Catholicized the Church. I don't agree completely. I see the Reformation as mostly successful; and Calvin's theology is--complicated. I would also insist that "re-Catholicizing" is only a problem for those of us who choose a different approach to the religion than our Catholic brothers and sisters do (not that you were saying otherwise). But I sure know what you mean about the irony, and have often felt the same thing. For all its smaller failures, the Reformation was supposed to be about Christian freedom. In my opinion (and apparently yours), some traditions need to make that more than just an ideal. I recognize, of course, that there are many ways to approach our faith.

[easy75]

Yes, but as Mona and I were discussing, this gets us into an even deeper dilemma; because if we cannot understand God's mind, then how can we live hope to live morally? How could a Bible written in Greek and Hebrew, or a Sutra written in Pali, or the Book of Mormon written in English ever communicate it to us? It seems to me that would require a direct experience of o logos theou: the mind or word of God (itself). That is something, of course, that the Gospel of John says Jesus is (and I accept it). But if Christians have really had the experience of Logos, then why don't we understand (for example) the problem of suffering? Or is the experience of Logos part of the "then" when "we will see clearly?"

But isn't it possible that there is a level of morality that is not available to us? Godly Morality? I think there is. We can understand our own Moral duties as part of God's creation because God tells us what to do. Every major religion establishes practices for right living for us. Love your neighbor as you love yourself, and love God with all of your heart, soul and strength. I don't think we can or that we need to understand the whole mind of God in order to live morally in this life. We know that Justification and Sanctification are a process, or at least for most people they are. Again I think it hinges, for Christians at least on trust. God does not want us to necessarily question why, He wants us to trust him completely. Think of the myriad things that we don't understand when we are babies or toddlers, or even adolescents. At our youngest stages we simply cannot process anything beyond the immediate scope of our feelings no matter how hard our parents might try. How much more God?
I think for the most part we are too "young" to understand the mystery of the existence of suffering.

Well yes, maybe this gets at something we haven't considered yet. I don't just mean Afterlife (although that is part of my faith). I was raised a Christian, but to be honest, when I grew up and started to think about it, God was a lot easier to believe in than Afterlife. It annoyed me that people assumed that the existence of one would necessarily imply the existence of the other--although I now believe it does. The Judeo-Christian God is a God of love and justice, and the way I see it, there is even less justice in this life than love. And even the justice we try to make is grossly imperfect (to be a little Platonic about it). But the problem of suffering (though not the persistence of evil) is easier to understand if "the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us," when that glory includes--as Jesus asserts it does--radical justice in the life to come. So the suffering and injustice of this life imply either: that there is no God of love and justice; or: that there is existence beyond this age, in which suffering and injustice are redressed. And as I have already said, my faith is in God.

But why can't God be just and good without having to be nice to everyone? :)
But seriously? He created some vessels for honor and some for dishonor..... Shall the clay say to the potter why have you made me this way? Some people vehemently say that this scripture only applied to a handful of people like Pharaoh, but given the rampant amount of evil in the world I think that is a childish view. I think people have to decide who God is to them, but the danger there is that we create a god that we think is just. Then he falls short because he doesn't live up to our expectations, either because it is impossible, or because we can't understand the possibilities.


How does that work? Is there universal forgiveness? In there a hell? Was John of Patmos (the author of Revelation) experiencing o logos theou--or was he just bitter about what the Romans were doing to the Christians under Domitian? Would a loving God allow the horrors he describes? Does the Kingdom of God come to us or do we go there? Is Afterlife the way I want it to be, in which I introduce my wife to my mother, and we all drink lemonade and laugh together (while my old greyhound Connor shakes his head in joy, and the spit flies over all of us :))? Or is it like the paintings you see of Heaven? Or is it something (like God) that we can't really understand right now?

Unfortunately, I'm afraid every person reading this sentence knows exactly as much as I do about those questions.

The only one I would hazard a guess at is the question of Kingdom. A Kingdom is anywhere the king has dominion. Jesus said it is inside of us. Makes sense. If we are Gods people then the Kingdom of God is mobile and it travels everywhere that we go.
Heaven I would think is also beyond our comprehension, but if we imagine that the joy of heaven would completely eclipse the suffering, sickness, sadness, and death of this life it has got to be pretty great. Actually better than great. The best thing ever.
The rest I don't have a clue... :)

[YesNo]

VIDEO:

http://www.prageruniversity.com/Religion-Philosophy/God-and-Suffering.html#.VZEnkUv7VFI


I re-listened to the video after finding Peter Kreeft's book, "Letters to an Atheist", on the public library shelves and finding this passage (page 18):


Does love "go all the way up"? Is it the nature of ultimate reality? Does it "move the sun and all the stars," as Dante said? Is gravity "love among the particles"?

I wonder how people would answer that?

I expect an atheist to answer it by saying the universe is unconscious matter (in spite of the myth or metaphor of the "selfish" gene) and so it does not include "love" all the way up. Or an atheist might say that love is nothing more than a metaphor with no ground in reality forgetting that such beliefs themselves are as unsupported as their view of love.

But what would various religions say? I don't think a Buddhist would accept it. But a Buddhist would dodge answering the question arguing that the the task of achieving nirvana and ending suffering is too important to waste time on such speculations. That's an unsatisfactory answer.

A Deist might say that God is only necessary at the endpoints. God starts the universe and then lets it run under Newtonian determinism like a clock. There is no love "all the way up", only perhaps in some minor way at the beginning.

What does this have to do with the OP's problem of evil? The problem of evil is a complaint against the universe. If the universe is evil and God made it, then saying God is good is not a mystery. It's a contradiction.

But if the universe can be represented as "love going all the way up", how can one say that such a universe is evil, depraved, rotten, corrupted? That would also be a contradiction. Some description of the universe, not God, is incorrect.

[Pompey Bum]

That's inevitably going to be a problem for "faith alone" or "scripture alone" theology. It is impossible to determine what someone believes; we can know only what he says he believes. To the extent that religions establish communities, fundamentalist evangelicals reject basing membership (as Catholics or Orthodox Christians or Episcopalians base membership) on baptism, communion, or the other rituals of the Church. Yet, because there is no way to determine faith, they search for statements and behaviors that either confirm or contradict the member's faith. As a result, some Evangelical groups seem to require an entire set of statements to confirm "true" belief, including global warming denial, anti-abortion and anti-gay-marriage positions, etc.

I haven't heard of those things specifically (at least not as criteria for justification), but given the expansion mechanism I discussed above, it's possible (and problematic). Incidentally, in theory there shouldn't be a conflict between sola fide and sola scriptura since they govern different objects. Sola fide means that justification is attainable by faith alone; sola scriptura means that the Bible (as opposed, for example to the Pope) is the sole authority for Christian doctrine; but through the witness of the Holy Spirit in the heart of each Christian. It is different from Biblical literalism, which is based on a doctrine held by only some Evangelical and Baptist groups, that Scripture is clear and self-interpreting. Those groups are of course free to believe what they like. Personally I reject it as absurd (the Biblical text is anything but uncomplicated). It also subverts sole fida and forms the basis for the kind of political "loyalty oath for justification" that you mention. And again, the Reformation was supposed to end that.

[Pompey Bum]

But isn't it possible that there is a level of morality that is not available to us? Godly Morality?

I do not understand the morality of an omnipotent God who let those children at Sandyhook Elementary School be gunned down in terror. I'm not saying that there isn't a Godly morality: I'm sure there is. But I don't get it and doubt I will in this life.


Love your neighbor as you love yourself, and love God with all of your heart, soul and strength. I don't think we can or that we need to understand the whole mind of God in order to live morally in this life.

Well said. And a great example. I hesitate to say this because it sounds like boasting and it sure isn't meant to be, but I repeat the Lord's Prayer to myself over and over again for about two hours at a time every morning (it's down from 3 hours plus-- I sleep better since I've retired). I repeat it silently and slowly and all the while reflect on its meaning and my life--stopping frequently to give thanks and especially to ask for forgiveness. I find it endlessly instructive in how to live my life. So yes, we can try to work out our lives with what we have. As I said earlier, it strikes me that not being able to know God's mind may be the whole point. I can only think that God wants us to choose the Good on our own.


I think for the most part we are too "young" to understand the mystery of the existence of suffering.

Me too. It reminds me of a corny religious story I heard once that remains meaningful to me. According to the story (I assume true, but who knows?), one of the Native American groups had a rite of passage for boys before they could hunt with the men. At a certain age, each boy's father would lead him into the wilderness, farther than he had ever been before, until the night and total darkness fell. The father would then take leave of the boy, telling him that he was to sit still through the night and no matter what happened to stand his ground. After his father disappeared, the boy would have to struggle with his very real fears of the beasts that hunted in the forest, and his religious terrors of the spirits he could hear as the night filled with sounds. If he summoned the courage, he would remain sitting until the beams of dawn began to shine through the trees, and he would perceive (sorry, it is a little corny): his father, who had sat silently beside him during the night, keeping him from harm. I HOPE the mind of God works like that, but I have no way of knowing--for now.

Okay, the regulars can stop laughing at me. :)

[tailor STATELY]

re: Sandyhook, ISIS burning man alive, suffering...

If one where to have faith, as I do, that this earthly existence is our probation only (ref: "The Pearl of Great Price"/"Moses" & "Abraham"), and one that we chose btb in a pre-mortal council) - then those who have passed through the veil have obtained immortality - won through Christ Jesus' atonement; and those under the age of accountability: Exaltation guaranteed.

A few scriptures in "The Book of Mormon, Another Testament of Jesus Christ" may be informative; Alma 60:13:
For the Lord suffereth the righteous to be slain that his justice and judgment may come upon the wicked; therefore ye need not suppose that the righteous are lost because they are slain; but behold, they do enter into the rest of the Lord their God.
and Alma 14: 10,11

10 And when Amulek saw the pains of the women and children who were consuming in the fire, he also was pained; and he said unto Alma: How can we witness this awful scene? Therefore let us stretch forth our hands, and exercise the power of God which is in us, and save them from the flames.

11 But Alma said unto him: The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand; for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory; and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the judgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day.

The Restoration (this last dispensation of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ that succeeds the Reformation) teaches that our Heavenly Father is perfect love, as is our Savior. Knowing the true attributes of God will not lead one astray. Understanding agency will help a bit more... line upon line; precept upon precept.

With sincere respect for all beliefs/faiths/or no,

tailor STATELY

[Pompey Bum]

Hi Tailor! Thank you for your contribution to the discussion. We agree that faith is a human response to the problem of suffering. Please accept my condolences, too, at your good friend's passing yesterday. I'm sure he knows the answers now. God embrace him.

[tailor STATELY]

Thank you very much Pompey Bum. He was true to the faith to the end; throughout his suffering (cancer).

:tailor

[Pompey Bum]

(cancer)

Ah yes, been there and done that. I managed to cheat it for now, but we all die eventually. It helped me to appreciate the difference between my body and myself, though. Sorry for the grief you must be feeing for your friend. Perhaps you will laugh about it together someday. Keep the faith.

[easy75]

I do not understand the morality of an omnipotent God who let those children at Sandyhook Elementary School be gunned down in terror. I'm not saying that there isn't a Godly morality: I'm sure there is. But I don't get it and doubt I will in this life.

I think the way you feel is probably the way God wants you to feel. I don't think God wants us to be ambivalent to suffering. I think maybe when we mourn with those that mourn, and offer support, and shake our heads or shed tears at the tragedies of life we are fulfilling our moral obligations in the face of suffering. I experienced a lot of death in my life when I was still young, (mother, father, sister, 3 close friends) all before I was 24 years old. Some of my worst memories are of people that I didn't know very well "consoling" me by downplaying my sorrow and using my loss as an opportunity to extol the virtues of heaven, and even using the situation to try to "save" me or others in my family. If I hadn't already been a believer to some extent, this probably would have pushed me away from God and/or religion.



Me too. It reminds me of a corny religious story I heard once that remains meaningful to me. According to the story (I assume true, but who knows?), one of the Native American groups had a right of passage for boys before they could hunt with the men. At a certain age, each boy's father would lead him into the wilderness, farther than he had ever been before, until the night and total darkness fell. The father would then take leave of the boy, telling him that he was to sit still through the night and no matter what happened to stand his ground. After his father disappeared, the boy would have to struggle with his very real fears of the beasts that hunted in the forest, and his religious terrors of the spirits he could hear as the night filled with sounds. If he summoned the courage, he would remain sitting until the beams of dawn began to shine through the trees, and he would perceive (sorry, it is a little corny): his father, who had sat silently beside him during the night, keeping him from harm. I HOPE the mind of God works like that, but I have no way of knowing--for now.

Okay, the regulars can stop laughing at me. :)

For the record, I think that is a great story and I like to think the same. Sometimes enduring laughter is worth it. Lol.

Regarding your prayer routine, I have strived to meditate more on The Lord's Prayer. I think there is a key in it, or better, I think it is a framework to everything that I need. I have done a fair amount of study on early Christianity and Messianic Judaism and I think in the Sh'ma and in The Lords Prayer there is peace through meditation.

[YesNo]

He was true to the faith to the end; throughout his suffering (cancer).


I am sorry to hear of your loss.

Your quotes from Alma made me realize that it is not just those who are suffering who need to be saved, but also those who are causing the suffering.

I enjoyed the story, Pompey Bum, of the father watching over his son during the night-time wilderness ritual. It reminded me of a story told by a man dying of Lou Gehrig's disease. The story was about a fire in a house and everyone was safe except for a child who was still hanging onto a second-story window afraid to let go. His father was below the window and told the child to let go and his father would catch him, but the child complained saying that he could not see his father. His father said, "But I can see you."

[Pompey Bum]

I experienced a lot of death in my life when I was still young, (mother, father, sister, 3 close friends) all before I was 24 years old. Some of my worst memories are of people that I didn't know very well "consoling" me by downplaying my sorrow and using my loss as an opportunity to extol the virtues of heaven, and even using the situation to try to "save" me or others in my family. If I hadn't already been a believer to some extent, this probably would have pushed me away from God and/or religion.

Oh Easy, I'm sorry you had to deal all that, especially when you were so young. I know what you mean about people--religious and otherwise--who try to console you by minimizing the impact. I was talking to my physician about my family health history, and when I got to my Mother's cancer death when I was a young man, I choked up for a moment, then apologized, telling her that although it happened decades ago, I never really got over it. She told me in a very sensitive way, although an ultimately clinical one (in other words, she wasn't just trying to cheer me up) that the cutting edge psychiatry these days is that you never really get over that kind of thing: you just hide it because there is all this social pressure on you to stop grieving and move on. So your own suffering becomes a kind of dirty secret.

You have to forgive people when they do that. They are uncomfortable about death, too, and most of all they don't know what to say (which is why their goal is to get you to move on). Or maybe some are just inept. The doctor I mentioned is awesome, but I've had one or two real nincompoops in terms of the simple human support that you are talking about. I was diagnosed with lymphoma in my 20s, after an exit physical when I got out of the Peace Corps. The idiot doctor had a technician call me at my hotel to tell me the happy news on a Friday, with instructions to drop by and talk to him on Monday. Good news, he told me, the kind of lymphoma I had had a high survival rate--although he couldn't promise anything, and there would be difficult treatments ahead. Apparently he never even considered the lost weekend I had just spent under the impression that I was terminally ill. But it's not like he didn't have bedside manner. He told me that the Peace Corps would be sending me home, and asked me where that was. When I told him Boston, a big smile spread across his face, apparently because of the excellent cancer facilities there. "Boston," I swear he said to me, "is a GREAT town to have cancer in!" Hey, you have to look for the positive! It helps so much to laugh at that kind of cluelessness now. But it's good to forgive, too. (It was a pretty rough weekend, though).


I think the way you feel is probably the way God wants you to feel. I don't think God wants us to be ambivalent to suffering. I think maybe when we mourn with those that mourn, and offer support, and shake our heads or shed tears at the tragedies of life we are fulfilling our moral obligations in the face of suffering.

Yes, I believe that we are here to reject nihilism and choose the Good. Perhaps that goes a way toward explaining God's apparent silence in the face of suffering. But why does it happen in the first place? Why couldn't an omnipotent God have found a way that didn't involve suffering in the first place? Those are rhetorical questions at this point. I don't think they have answers that we are going to get--for now.

[Pompey Bum]

I enjoyed the story, Pompey Bum, of the father watching over his son during the night-time wilderness ritual. It reminded me of a story told by a man dying of Lou Gehrig's disease. The story was about a fire in a house and everyone was safe except for a child who was still hanging onto a second-story window afraid to let go. His father was below the window and told the child to let go and his father would catch him, but the child complained saying that he could not see his father. His father said, "But I can see you."

:)
..........

[easy75]

Oh Easy, I'm sorry you had to deal all that, especially when you were so young. I know what you mean about people--religious and otherwise--who try to console you by minimizing the impact. I was talking to my physician about my family health history, and when I got to my Mother's cancer death when I was a young man, I choked up for a moment, then apologized, telling her that although it happened decades ago, I never really got over it. She told me in a very sensitive way, although an ultimately clinical one (in other words, she wasn't just trying to cheer me up) that the cutting edge psychiatry these days is that you never really get over that kind of thing: you just hide it because there is all this social pressure on you to stop grieving and move on. So your own suffering becomes a kind of dirty secret.

You have to forgive people when they do that. They are uncomfortable about death, too, and most of all they don't know what to say (which is why their goal is to get you to move on). Or maybe some are just inept. The doctor I mentioned is awesome, but I've had one or two real nincompoops in terms of the simple human support that you are talking about. I was diagnosed with lymphoma in my 20s, after an exit physical when I got out of the Peace Corps. The idiot doctor had a technician call me at my hotel to tell me the happy news on a Friday, with instructions to drop by and talk to him on Monday. Good news, he told me then, the kind of lymphoma I had had a high survival rate; although he couldn't promise anything, and there would be difficult treatments ahead. Apparently he never even considered the lost weekend I had just spent under the impression that I was terminally ill. But it's not like he didn't have bedside manner. He told me that the Peace Corps would be sending me home, and asked me where that was. When I told him Boston, a big smile spread across his face, apparently because of the excellent cancer facilities there. "Boston," I swear he said to me, "is a GREAT town to have cancer in!" Hey, you have to look for the positive. It helps so much to laugh at that kind of cluelessness now. But it's good to forgive, too. (It was a pretty rough weekend, though).



Yes, I believe that we are here to reject nihilism and choose the Good. Perhaps that goes a way toward explaining God's apparent silence in the face of suffering. But why does it happen in the first place? Why couldn't an omnipotent God have found a way that didn't involve suffering in the first place? Those are rhetorical questions at this point. I don't think they have answers that we are going to get--for now.

Holy smokes! What an incredible life you have had! You seem to have made the best of some pretty awful circumstances and situations, with every right to feel the opposite of the way you do about a lot of things. Good for you!
And yes, I forgive people for their indiscretions and don't hold it against them. I have a friend who suffered a lot of family loss as well and we are both of the opinion that the best thing to say is a simple "condolences", a hand shake or a hug depending on the relationship, and then just move along.
Incidentally your Peace Corps service strikes a personal chord with me. My mother heard JFK speak at the University of Michigan in 1960 and promptly joined the Peace Corps and spent the next 5-6 years in East Africa.

[Pompey Bum]

Oh I've got lots of stories (you ain't heard nothin' yet), but the truth is I've lived a very privileged life and can barely list all the things I need to be forgiven for. But thanks. I was in Gabon, near the border with Cameroon and Equatorial Guinea. It was quite a life changing experience.

[YesNo]

A few scriptures in "The Book of Mormon, Another Testament of Jesus Christ" may be informative; Alma 60:13:


For the Lord suffereth the righteous to be slain that his justice and judgment may come upon the wicked; therefore ye need not suppose that the righteous are lost because they are slain; but behold, they do enter into the rest of the Lord their God.


I keep thinking about this passage and the idea that the Lord doesn't prevent us from making mistakes which is what would have to happen if those who suffer from our actions are not to suffer. If I generalize the "wicked" to all of us since we have likely caused others to suffer at some point in our lives, then the suffering we experience now could be viewed as part of the justice given back to us.

The existence of whatever free will we might have basically says that we are disposed to be fallible.

There is a story from the Bhagavatam that I've read through Amal Bhaktam's Mystical stories from the Bhagavatam : twenty-six timeless lessons in self-discovery. It is about a just king whom everyone loved and who served his community well. He did something to get a djinn angry, and as I recall from some of the Arabian Nights tales it is not hard to tick off one of these guys. The djinn decided to kill the king. The king had no power over such creatures and even though he was innocent of the djinn's current charges he accepted his coming death figuring he probably deserved it in some way that he was unaware of at the moment. At that point, because of his acceptance of his fallibility, some other deity stronger than the djinn stopped the djinn and the story ends.

This is how I view the problem of evil at the moment. There are three components to it: God, the universe and ourselves.

God represents the consciousness that was needed to initiate a universe and to keep it collapsed. This assumes either faith or acceptance of some version of a consciousness causes collapse interpretation of quantum physics. There are other interpretations of quantum physics and other faiths, but this is what makes the most sense to me.

The universe is good because it is consistent and we can find a home in it. It is a gift and from this gift one can derive the loving and personal aspects of God.

We have enough free will to be responsible for what we do and to mess things up. This is the source of suffering.

So, does the existence of evil and suffering imply that a good, loving God does not exist? No. What it implies is that not only did we receive the gift of a universe, we also received the gift of enough free will to be fallible.

[Pompey Bum]

So, does the existence of evil and suffering imply that a good, loving God does not exist? No. What it implies is that not only did we receive the gift of a universe, we also received the gift of enough free will to be fallible.

I agree that the existence of evil and suffering does not imply that a loving God does not exist (and I have faith that such a God does exist). But for me, "enough free will to be fallible" equals choice; and choice does not eliminate the underlying instinct/impulse one resists or acquiesces to with the choice. (Choosing to abstain from sex, for example, does not eliminate the underlying sex drive). So when you speak of people making mistakes (which technically is all sinning means), my question is what underlying instincts/impulses (rage, envy, jealousy, revenge, etc.) brought them to the mistake, and why those instincts/impulses exist on the first place. Augustine and Luther would have said it was from Original Sin. I agree, though I equate Original Sin with natural selection (which I see as the source of rage, jealousy, et al.).

So for me, having "enough free will to be fallible" does not get at the underlying issue of why we want what we want. On the other hand (to exchange our traditional site roles as optimist and pessimist, YesNo :)), having will enough to choose sin implies having will enough to choose the Good over instinct--as for example one might choose to love one who has damaged you despite instincts for rage or revenge.

The second issue your statement doesn't really address is so-called Natural Evil (but since I think we all view this phenomenon as amoral rather than immoral, perhaps we should simply call it Natural Suffering). Having "enough free will to be fallible" does not account for why toddlers suffer and die of a childhood cancer (with all the pain that applies for parents); or why a random twitch of the sea floor can bring horrific death in tsunami waves. It is a mystery to me how an omnipotent god can do nothing while such things happen; nor can I accept your suggestion that because "we have likely caused others to suffer at some point in our lives, then the suffering we experience now could be viewed as part of the justice given back to us." A just and loving God is neither amoral nor an abusive or murderous parent. To me, these things remain a mystery, but they certainly do not suggest an inherently good material universe. Perhaps we are east of Eden after all.

[MorpheusSandman]

Epicurus got it right thousands of years ago:

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

[tailor STATELY]

My take on Epi (not so) curus: He didn't ask the right questions :)

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

[MorpheusSandman]

What's the right question?

[tailor STATELY]

Questions abound:

James 1:5,6 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/james/1.5?lang=eng : " 5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed."

There was once a lad in the Spring of 1820 who read the above scripture and asked God what church he should follow. His answer, well, its consequence spans eternity.

Your questions might be different, or even diffident, but ask in the spirit of James and you may be surprised.

Sincerely,

tailor STATELY

[Pompey Bum]

What's the right question?

If He is able, why does he frequently seem not to? Isn't that the question we have been addressing on this thread? We have not needed to turn God into Yaldabaoth so far. :)

[MorpheusSandman]

Questions abound: Indubitably, but I've found the answers from believers who have asked to be quite dubious.

[MorpheusSandman]

If He is able, why does he frequently seem not to? So what's the best answer?

[Pompey Bum]

See above.

[MorpheusSandman]

Pun intended? :D

If you're just referring to above in this thread, there's a lot...

[Pompey Bum]

Pun intended? :D

How do you do, Morpheus? I'm Bum. I don't think we've met before. But yes, the pun is always intended. :)


If you're just referring to above in this thread, there's a lot...

As my brother-in-law is fond of saying, you enjoy!

[YesNo]

I agree that the existence of evil and suffering does not imply that a loving God does not exist (and I have faith that such a God does exist). But for me, "enough free will to be fallible" equals choice; and choice does not eliminate the underlying instinct/impulse one resists or acquiesces to with the choice. (Choosing to abstain from sex, for example, does not eliminate the underlying sex drive). So when you speak of people making mistakes (which technically is all sinning means), my question is what underlying instincts/impulses (rage, envy, jealousy, revenge, etc.) brought them to the mistake, and why those instincts/impulses exist on the first place. Augustine and Luther would have said it was from Original Sin. I agree, though I equate Original Sin with natural selection (which I see as the source of rage, jealousy, et al.).

I don't have a problem with natural selection. It is a side effect of each species seeking its own ends and thereby providing constraints on the others around it.

I do agree that we can trace to our biology our dispositions to "rage, envy, jealousy, revenge", but think of why those dispositions exist. In a pair-bonding species like ours or prairie voles, the males are defending the young and the females. This allows the females to engage in more babying of the young. The result is that the young are better cared for. See Young, "The Chemistry Between Us", for more details.

I noticed that I had Paul Ricoeur's "Symbolism of Evil" in my library and I will see if I can understand it now better than I did as an undergraduate. I don't know what original sin is, but it suggests to me that there is a communal context in which sin exists. It is not just an individual's mistake.



So for me, having "enough free will to be fallible" does not get at the underlying issue of why we want what we want. On the other hand (to exchange our traditional site roles as optimist and pessimist, YesNo :)), having will enough to choose sin implies having will enough to choose the Good over instinct--as for example one might choose to love one who has damaged you despite instincts for rage or revenge.

No doubt there are a lot of constraints upon us, both biological and cultural. They are not ultimately an excuse for our behavior, neither as individuals nor as a group.

What occurred to me when I wrote that post was only a slight difference to what we have been discussing. The way I originally looked at the problem was how could there be a loving God if I perceived the world as fallible. This assumed I was innocent. But what if there aren't any innocents? Now I see the problem as how could there be a merciful God, if I am the guilty party?

When viewed in that manner there is no longer any problem of evil that I need to complain about. There is only the problem of the existence of mercy in the face of justice. Is the loving God also merciful? As the guilty party, do I really want that God to be just?



The second issue your statement doesn't really address is so-called Natural Evil (but since I think we all view this phenomenon as amoral rather than immoral, perhaps we should simply call it Natural Suffering). Having "enough free will to be fallible" does not account for why toddlers suffer and die of a childhood cancer (with all the pain that applies for parents); or why a random twitch of the sea floor can bring horrific death in tsunami waves. It is a mystery to me how an omnipotent god can do nothing while such things happen; nor can I accept your suggestion that because "we have likely caused others to suffer at some point in our lives, then the suffering we experience now could be viewed as part of the justice given back to us." A just and loving God is neither amoral nor an abusive or murderous parent. To me, these things remain a mystery, but they certainly do not suggest an inherently good material universe. Perhaps we are east of Eden after all.

I don't know if natural evil is amoral or not. However, I think animals have the ability to make choices and therefore are also fallible.

Are toddlers innocent? Perhaps they are as individuals, but not as part of a group or species.

When you complain that "a just and loving God is neither amoral nor an abusive or murderous parent", I assume you are speaking from the perspective of an innocent party who feels misused expecting justice from God rather than from the perspective of a guilty party looking for mercy.

[Pompey Bum]

I think you've been hanging around with Protestants too much, YesNo. You are starting to sound like John Calvin on a bad hair day. :) Seriously, when I read your comment I wondered if you were spoofing me (and you still may be). Please don't take offense. But as Gandhi is supposed to have said when told that Indian protesters were offering flowers to British soldiers: "Maybe I have gone too far."


What occurred to me when I wrote that post was only a slight difference to what we have been discussing. The way I originally looked at the problem was how could there be a loving God if I perceived the world as fallible. This assumed I was innocent. But what if there aren't any innocents? Now I see the problem as how could there be a merciful God, if I am the guilty party?

Why should your share in humanity's sin constitute a restriction on God's mercy? That would require a legalistic and mechanical God--in effect a computer program. The notion is easily defeated by God's omnipotence. God gets to be as merciful as He chooses.


When viewed in that manner there is no longer any problem of evil that I need to complain about. There is only the problem of the existence of mercy in the face of justice. Is the loving God also merciful? As the guilty party, do I really want that God to be just?

What makes you think justice and mercy are mutually exclusive? Or that mercy would not be a condition of divine justice? Again, unless you are a Newtonian deist (and maybe you are), you are not talking about God the software package. And if you are inherently sinful, it seems to me you want to trust to God's mercy--which for me means turning from one's instinctive nature and "try[ing] to do it God's way" (which Gandhi actually did say, I think), no matter how many times you mess up. That's how it works for me anyway.


Are toddlers innocent? Perhaps they are as individuals, but not as part of a group or species.

What a question! (This is when I wondered if you were spoofing me). Of course a toddler's participation in our flawed humanity does not make childhood suffering or childhood cancers just! Why would a God capable of forgiving characters like you and me (and much worse) inflict such cruelty on the least guilty among us? That does not come close to solving the problem of natural suffering or evil. It changes nothing.

[YesNo]

Why should your share in humanity's sin constitute a restriction on God's mercy? That would require a legalistic and mechanical God--in effect a computer program. The notion is easily defeated by God's omnipotence. God gets to be as merciful as He chooses.

What makes you think justice and mercy are mutually exclusive? Or that mercy would not be a condition of divine justice? Again, unless you are a Newtonian deist (and maybe you are), you are not talking about God the software package. And if you are inherently sinful, it seems to me you want to trust to God's mercy--which for me means turning from one's instinctive nature and "try[ing] to do it God's way" (which Gandhi actually did say, I think), no matter how many times you mess up. That's how it works for me anyway.

Actually, I was thinking that you were the closet Newtonian deist. It is interesting that you had the same view of me. :)



What a question! (This is when I wondered if you were spoofing me). Of course a toddler's participation in our flawed humanity does not make childhood suffering or childhood cancers just! Why would a God capable of forgiving characters like you and me (and much worse) inflict such cruelty on the least guilty among us? That does not come close to solving the problem of natural suffering or evil. It changes nothing.

No, I'm not kidding. So, on what basis do you establish your innocence to make a claim that the universe is guilty?

Incidentally, I've started reading Ricoeur's "The Symbolism of Evil." There is nothing to report as of yet.

[Pompey Bum]

So, on what basis do you establish your innocence to make a claim that the universe is guilty?

I don't. Our bodies are made of universe, are they not? How should I be innocent? But maybe I don't understand what you mean by guilty. My view is that zoe (life)--or perhaps for a more conventional Christian pseuxn (soul)--is inherently good (and ontologically authentic), but that it is corrupted by the bodies we live in/fell to, whose biochemistry holds us prisoner to their evolutionary instincts. The best we can do is to choose to turn from this "default nature" to the Good, trusting to God's mercy for the forgiveness of our many mistakes.


Incidentally, I've started reading Ricoeur's "The Symbolism of Evil." There is nothing to report as of yet.

I haven't read Ricoeur. He thought Augustine technically lost the works debate to Pelagius but was right anyway (or something). I think he's also going to tell you that that we can't speak of Original Sin outside the context of the Eden mythos. I'm not sure if I'm doing that or not; but to anticipate the conversation a little, if I am, I'm just going to shrug and say: Fine, so just it's just evolution doing it, then. It's still an ontological moral predicament. :)

And how could you possibly think I was a Deist, YesNo? :)

[YesNo]

I don't. Our bodies are made of universe, are they not? How should I be innocent? But maybe I don't understand what you mean by guilty. My view is that zoe (life)--or perhaps for a more conventional Christian pseuxn (soul)--is inherently good (and ontologically authentic), but that it is corrupted by the bodies we live in/fell to, whose biochemistry holds us prisoner to their evolutionary instincts. The best we can do is to choose to turn from this "default nature" to the Good, trusting to God's mercy for the forgiveness of our many mistakes.

But if the body isn't good, why would you want to resurrect it?

I see biochemistry in a more positive light. For example, sex gives us a disposition to take care of each other.

Also, don't your sacred texts say, for example in Genesis, that what God made was good?



I haven't read Ricoeur. He thought Augustine technically lost the works debate to Pelagius but was right anyway (or something). I think he's also going to tell you that that we can't speak of Original Sin outside the context of the Eden mythos. I'm not sure if I'm doing that or not; but to anticipate the conversation a little, if I am, I'm just going to shrug and say: Fine, so just it's just evolution doing it, then. It's still an ontological moral predicament. :)

I'm still going through the introduction. He is defining what he means by a "symbol" and says he is looking to "re-enact" the original experience of "the crisis of the consciousness of fault". Here is a nice line (page 8):


Sin makes me incomprehensible to myself: God is hidden; the course of things no longer has meaning.



And how could you possibly think I was a Deist, YesNo? :)

Deism seems to me to be the default cultural theistic position in the USA. A faith such as Christianity is added on top of it. If a theist is not at heart a deist, the theist must also be counter-cultural. For example, if you believe in the selfish gene, you are not counter-cultural, but very much a part of the culture and Jesus is sugar-coating on top of that. If you believe in determinism, you are not counter-cultural, but very much a part of the culture. I would be in the same situation as you are since I live in the same culture and try to define theism against that culture.

That is why I like to talk about near and shared death experiences or psi phenomena. They go against the deistic and atheistic assumptions of what is possible. They are counter-cultural. So I don't fall off the deep end, I try to only accept what I think science can justify.

I agree with atheists such as Ecurb and Iain Sparrow: the deistic god does not exist. They would probably say no Gods exist, but I suspect all they can imagine with their atheism is a deistic god. Some, but not all, Christians can't imagine any other God either even though they have a rich tradition to lean on.

[mortalterror]

Epicurus got it right thousands of years ago:

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

I'm pretty sure that quote wasn't actually by Epicurus, and isn't even attributed to him until 1532. Epicurus is more like "Let us sacrifice to the gods... devoutly and fittingly on the proper days, and let us fittingly perform all the acts of worship in accordance with the laws... Moreover, let us sacrifice justly. For in this way, it is possible for mortal nature, by Zeus, to live like Zeus."

[mortalterror]

So what's the best answer?

That would be Theodicy. Usually the answer is that God fails to prevent evil because a)it's not really evil, b)this evil prevents a greater evil, or c)preventing this evil would also prevent an even greater good.

[Pompey Bum]

But if the body isn't good, why would you want to resurrect it?

Well, it's not a question of what I want. Evolutionary instinct has already ensured that I don't want my body to die in the first place, and that I want to keep spreading the ol' pollen from blossom to blossom instead. If you are talking about the Resurrection of Jesus, nobody asked me what I wanted at the time, and aside from having faith that it happened (which is part of my faith in an omnipotent God who is stronger than death), I don't really know much about the details. It seems to me that several of versions what happened--corporeal (Thomas touching the risen Christ's wounds); ghostly/spiritual (Jesus walking through doors or vanishing on the road to Emmaus), visionary (Paul's experience on the road to Damascus); Pentecostal (the speaking-in-tongues sequence in Acts)--have been stitched together, Frankenstein-like, to create the illusion of a single narrative (or are at least it is thought of in that way by many Christians). Beyond my faith in the Resurrection (and not Bigfoot), though I can't really answer for those witnesses. Personally, I wouldn't have wanted Jesus to get crucified in the first place. I wish it had all happened differently.

But if you are talking about the Apocalyptic tradition of the Resurrection of the dead, I have already said that you know exactly as much as I do about what happens after you die. I am aware of Scriptural traditions, but I don't know how Paul or John would have known what happens either. I imagine Paul was only speculating; and as for John of Patmos, as I said, it is impossible to say whether he was experiencing o logos tou theou or just unhinged by Christian persecutions under Domitian. In either case, it's not a question of what I want to happen.


Also, don't your sacred texts say, for example in Genesis, that what God made was good?

Well as you know, I'm not a Biblical literalist. But even if I were, the optimistic view of Creation is very quickly qualified by the Fall and indefinite exile East of Eden, where things are a lot less rosy. For me this is the fall of zoe (which I do believe to be good) into the material. It is Life, God, and the Good, in my opinion, we are here to choose.

Or as Joni Mitchell put it (and if you're reading this, Clopin, GO CANADA!):

We are stardust
Billion-year-old carbon
We are golden
Caught in the devil's bargain
And we've got to get ourselves
Back to the Garden.

That's the predicament. :)


If a theist is not at heart a deist, the theist must also be counter-cultural...I would be in the same situation as you are since I live in the same culture and try to define theism against that culture.

For what it's worth, I consider myself a religious radical who goes against the modernist trend of materialist atheism, but who will not yield to conventional religious orthodoxies either. Iain and Ecurb probably see themselves as going against some grain or other, too. Maybe valuing independent thinking is instinctual. It must have impressed some pretty lady Australopithecuses at some point. :)

[YesNo]

Well as you know, I'm not a Biblical literalist. But even if I were, the optimistic view of Creation is very quickly qualified by the Fall and indefinite exile East of Eden, where things are a lot less rosy. For me this is a fall from zoe (which I do believe to be good) into the material. It is Life, God, and the Good, in my opinion, we are here to choose.

Or as Joni Mitchell put it (and if you're reading this, Clopin, GO CANADA!):

We are stardust
Billion-year-old carbon
We are golden
Caught in the devil's bargain
And we've got to get ourselves
Back to the Garden.

That's the predicament. :)

I remember the Joni Mitchell song although the lyrics have never been clear to me until I looked it up just now.



For what it's worth, I consider myself to be a religious radical who goes against modernist trend of materialist atheism; but who will yield to conventional religious orthodoxies either. Iain and Ecurb probably see themselves as going against some grain or other, too. Maybe valuing independent thinking is instinctual. It must have impressed some pretty lady Australopithecuses at some point. :)

That's all one can do. It is also good that there is disagreement so our equilibrium has a chance to get punctuated.

[Pompey Bum]

I remember the Joni Mitchell song although the lyrics have never been clear to me until I looked it up just now.

We need a Joni Mitchell thread on this site. Is she still in the coma, I wonder. Here's the song in 1970.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cRjQCvfcXn0


That's all one can do. It is also good that there is disagreement so our equilibrium has a chance to get punctuated.

Well we've always known that you are a Berkelian idealist and I'm a Christian dualist. Iain and Ecurb are different kinds of atheists (if Ecurb prefers agnostic, I apologize); Melanie's a Christian literalist, and other people are whatever they are. I guess there are minor flare ups sometimes, but so far we're handling our differences better than Homo antecessor would have done. And as always, YesNo, you have been a great source of learning to me. Thanks. :)

[YesNo]

I liked the way Joni Mitchel sang that better than the way Crosby, Stills and Nash performed it. One of my favorite songs she wrote was "Little Green": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIzJnBWovOs

Thanks for the chance to discuss these issues with you, Pompey Bum.

[Pompey Bum]

I liked the way Joni Mitchel sang that better than the way Crosby, Stills and Nash performed it. One of my favorite songs she wrote was "Little Green": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIzJnBWovOs

Yes, Blue is one of the three or four greatest albums of that era--and the first LP I ever owned (I still have it in a closet). Little Green seems to be about Mitchell's early out-of-wedlock child, although maybe she changed the details. It contains the wonderful made-up word "nonconformer," which is presumably how a nonconformist might have said it.


Thanks for the chance to discuss these issues with you, Pompey Bum.

Oh you are welcome. Thanks to Melanie, too, for starting the thread.

[Ecurb]

I'd like to thank Pompey for refraining (in this thread, at least) from making the claim that Melanie or I insulted his wife. Well done, Pompey! Keep it up!

[Clopin]

Or as Joni Mitchell put it (and if you're reading this, Clopin, GO CANADA!):

http://static2.fjcdn.com/comments/Mfw+when+i+had+heat+and+power+the+whole+time+_4d35 5dda7fce9fa5c509d638521b354e.jpg

[Pompey Bum]

As long as we keep Leonard Cohen off the thread, I don't care how cold it gets. :)

[Clopin]

Hey, Joni herself was a big fan of his!

[Pompey Bum]

Beaver-huggers stick together.

[YesNo]

The only Leonard Cohen song I remember is that one with hallelujah in it.

[Pompey Bum]

How can you guys even listen to him?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ttEMYvpoR-k

[YesNo]

The first two stanzas seem canonical. After that people add on what they want and try to come to a better resolution. Here's the version Susan Boyle sings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPJFB0nfLAg

[Pompey Bum]

Ugh! (not the lady-- the song).

Here's a Leonard Cohen song I actually do like (the only one):

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX0CfFdk-jw

Can we go back to Joni Mitchell now?

This one's about instinct and spirit, I think. Its resolution isn't exactly dualistic, but it plays with a lot of dualistic images, and it's a song about dualism. The "coward...coward...coward" business is about people who think like me (and in the song, either herself or a lover or both of them); but maybe it's about materialists, too. It's an interesting coincidence in terms of our discussion that they are described as "caught between yes and no." :)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vzGHOucTxY8

[Clopin]

Great song by Cohen there, 'course it's not surprising because he wrote a lot of great songs.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nAK9Pj5-QXY

Anyway this one nearly makes me cry every time I listen to it, mostly because of some associated memories. Still, good song.

[Pompey Bum]

You know, I figured you'd like that song. It has a real Canadian feel to it (plus a "Clopin's sensitive side" feel).

This was my theme song 30-35 years ago when I was traveling around the world:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Bulwl46vz9s

And this is how I ended up (so beware!):

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=igj20M84hbo

[YesNo]

"River" is one of my favorite songs as well.

I was not familiar with "Don Juan's Reckless Daughter". I was confused by the lyrics: http://www.metrolyrics.com/don-juans-reckless-daughter-lyrics-joni-mitchell.html

[Pompey Bum]

"River" is one of my favorite songs as well.

I was not familiar with "Don Juan's Reckless Daughter". I was confused by the lyrics: http://www.metrolyrics.com/don-juans-reckless-daughter-lyrics-joni-mitchell.html

See this is my problem with the poetry contests. It's all, "Um, that one was about hawks killing mice, right Pompey?" :) Anyway, this one seems pretty straightforward to me. What if the eagle/airplane images were about spirit/heart and the snake/train images were about instinct/body? Note that it's not something obvious and Freudian like: snakes are for boys and eagles are for girls. The narrator (presumably Mitchell herself) starts by owning her serpent:

But the split tongue spirit laughed at me
He says, "Your serpent cannot be denied."

I think the split tongue spirit is a lover (so in part the snake image is about sexual desire); or maybe it's just the fact that the tongue points in two directions: spirit and instinct. I think the two lovers may be traveling simultaneously by plane and train, or maybe that's just more symbolism (or maybe it's both). The spirit speaks in images (later referred to as spectrums) that show spirit and instinct separately, or in a kind of congress or dualistic relationship. So it's:

He says:
"Snakes along the railroad tracks."
He says, "Eagles in jet trails"
He says, "Coils around feathers and talons on scales
Gravel under the belly plates"
He says, "Wind in the Wings"
He says, "Big bird dragging its tail in the dust
Snake kite flying on a string."

You see? So maybe the lovers have quarreled and they are going apart from one another by plane and train; or maybe the "coward...coward" business is Mitchell berating herself for not being able to choose between the the instinctive and the spiritual (and in settling for giving into sexual feeling against her better judgement).

You're a coward against the altitude
You're a coward against the flesh
Coward, caught between yes and no
Reckless this time on the line for yes, yes, yes!

The dualism is later made explicit as a kind of human (or at least American?) condition:

We are all hopelessly oppressed cowards
Of some duality
Of restless multiplicity.

So symbolically:

Behind my bolt locked door
The eagle and the serpent are at war in me
The serpent fighting for blind desire
The eagle for clarity
What strange prizes these battles bring
These hectic joys-these weary blues
Puffed up and strutting when I think I win
Down and shaken when I think I lose

Then back to the lovers in their separate vehicles:

There are rivets up here in this eagle
There are box cars down there on your snake
And we are twins of spirit
No matter which route home we take
Or what we forsake

The resolution, which was anticipated by some of the original split tongue spirit images, is that the serpent and the eagle--spiritual and the instinctive must join and be equally acknowledged. This, as a Christian, is where I get off the train (or parachute from the plane). I think the eyes of clarity are the eagles bright eyes of spiritual light, while the beads of guile are the serpents beady eyes of materialist pragmatism/trickery. Note that the lovers must go up and come down:

We're going to come up to the eyes of clarity
And we'll go down to the beads of guile
There is danger and education
In living out such a reckless life style

That idea continued in a more sexual context (with some nice playful-sounding poetry):

I touched you on the central plains
It was plane to train my twin
It was just plane shadow to train shadow
But to me it was skin to skin

And the conclusion, which expresses various forms of the lovers' duality (and the final synthesis). I love "Crawl and fly." I wish it had been the title.

The spirit talks in spectrums
He talks to mother earth to father sky
Self indulgence to self denial
Man to woman
Scales to feathers
You and I
Eagles in the sky
You and I
Snakes in the grass
You and I
Crawl and fly
You and I

[YesNo]

I'm confused by whom the pronouns, "you" and "I", refer to in the poem.

I don't think she is confronting a lover, but rather tensions within herself. The cowardice refers to her inability to find peace with herself. There is also a spirit talking to her who seemingly keeps pointing her in conflicting directions of accepting first the eagle and then the serpent. If she succeeds then she and that spirit (who is neither the serpent nor the eagle) become united.

For example, these lines make me think of a kundalini enlightenment process, but I don't know if she was intending such a meaning.


We're going to come up to the eyes of clarity
And we'll go down to the beads of guile
There is danger and education
In living out such a reckless life style

The kundalini serpent (or train) rises from the base of the spine which represents security and sexual desire and moves up through the chakras above the head. Clarity is reached at the top (in the airplane or eagle). In the tantric process, the kundalini must go back down as well bringing the new-found clarity back to the earth. This up and down process is both dangerous and enlightening. One could call it reckless. It is not for cowards. The spirit is telling her to stop being a coward and make the journey.

That's how I read the lyrics. Of course, I could be full of it.

[Pompey Bum]

I'm confused by whom the pronouns, "you" and "I", refer to in the poem.

I don't think she is confronting a lover, but rather tensions within herself. The cowardice refers to her inability to find peace with herself.

I know what you mean. I think the "you're a coward" section is at least partly self-directed. The second person pronoun keeps it powerful, but In a certain way, I think the point is being generalized: one is a coward against the altitude (that is, the implications of spirit); and yet one is also a coward against the flesh (that is, the implications of the physical). What makes me think she is also regretting/not regretting a casual sexual episode is (among other things) the next line: "Reckless this time on the line for yes, yes, yes."


I don't think she is confronting a lover, but rather tensions within herself. The cowardice refers to her inability to find peace with herself.

Well she is certainly doing that, but poems can work on more than one level. A lot of her songs at the time were about casual sex (it was the '70s); and the verses: "No matter which route home we take/Or what we forsake" even suggest something a bit illicit.

It also strikes me that, on the simplest level, this poem is about a woman in an airplane (casting a shadow on the plains), who is looking down on an train (also casting a shadow) and believing that her lover is on it. The touching of the two shadows resolves the duality between eagle/plane/spirit and snake/train/instinct; but it is also symbolic of their intercourse. Thus:

I touched you on the central plains
It was plane to train my twin
It was just plane shadow to train shadow
But to me it was skin to skin


There is also a spirit talking to her who seemingly keeps pointing her in conflicting directions of accepting first the eagle and then the serpent. If she succeeds then she and that spirit (who is neither the serpent nor the eagle) become united.

Yes, the split tongue spirit is interesting. On a metaphorical level (in any case) he--that is the pronoun Mitchell uses--is a spirit, and so presumably spiritual; but this spirit had a split tongue like a snake--a symbol in this poem for the physical/instinctive. So rather than "neither the serpent nor the eagle," I would say he is both. My question is whether this (curiously male) spirit is just a spirit, or also the lover, who laughs at her protestations and says: "Your serpent will not be denied." I suppose one could take it either way.


For example, these lines make me think of a kundalini enlightenment process, but I don't know if she was intending such a meaning.


We're going to come up to the eyes of clarity
And we'll go down to the beads of guile
There is danger and education
In living out such a reckless life style

The kundalini serpent (or train) rises from the base of the spine which represents security and sexual desire and moves up through the chakras above the head. Clarity is reached at the top (in the airplane or eagle). In the tantric process, the kundalini must go back down as well bringing the new-found clarity back to the earth. This up and down process is both dangerous and enlightening. One could call it reckless. It is not for cowards. The spirit is telling her to stop being a coward and make the journey.

That's how I read the lyrics. Of course, I could be full of it.

That's very interesting. Mitchell probably knew about some kind of pop Tantrism (everyone did in the '70s), so she may have been alluding to something like that. The snake could also be interpreted as the tempting serpent in Eden that ultimately led to the Fall of spirit into material/instinctive existence. That's the meaning I bring to the text, although I don't know if Mitchell had it in mind. Snakes (and airplanes) turn up in Mitchell's poetry from time to time, so they seem to have had some kind of special meaning to her. But like most art, finding the interface with one's own thoughts and feelings doesn't necessarily make anyone "full of it" (except for those damned intellectuals, of course :))

[YesNo]

That's very interesting. Mitchell probably knew about some kind of pop Tantrism (everyone did in the '70s), so she may have been alluding to something like that. The snake could also be interpreted as the tempting serpent in Eden that ultimately led to the Fall of spirit into material/instinctive existence. That's the meaning I bring to the text, although I don't know if Mitchell had it in mind. Snakes (and airplanes) turn up in Mitchell's poetry from time to time, so they seem to have had some kind of special meaning to her. But like most art, finding the interface with one's own thoughts and feelings doesn't necessarily make anyone "full of it" (except for those damned intellectuals, of course :))

Your interpretation works as well. That is why I don't like this song as much as I do River or Little Green. There is too much ambiguity. The line "I made my baby cry" in River is not explicit about what she did, but it is easy to guess. When little Green's parents wished her to "have a happy ending" that resolved the entire ballad very nicely. These rank for me among the greatest poems ever written.

To bring this back to the OP, you mentioned the serpent in Eden. From this story we get original sin and our freedom as a group initiating what we perceive as evil today. This is represented as a "fall", but it could be a second story of the creation of the universe after the first one at the beginning of Genesis where everything was "good".

I see this story as Eve offering to Adam sex through the apple. It is interesting that Adam does not come up with this idea to eat the apple first and offer it to Eve. There is a similar (at least to me) story of Shakti (female) trying to get Shiva (male) to stop his self-indulgent meditations and do his job and create the universe. She has a hard time convincing him, but ultimately she succeeds. My views on Tantrism and Goddesses come from Sally Kempton's Awakening Shakti although I might have misunderstood Kempton's descriptions.

So where does evil come from? It might be an illusion. If that is the case there is no need to blame someone for it. That does not mean we should not act to remove suffering and be content with meditating as Shiva was.

[Pompey Bum]

To bring this back to the OP, you mentioned the serpent in Eden. From this story we get original sin and our freedom as a group initiating what we perceive as evil today.

Another way to look at it is that the story reflects the reality of what came to be called Original Sin more than 1000 years later, and shows what the authors and redactors of that part of Genesis thought about the phenomenon.


and our freedom as a group initiating what we perceive as evil today.

Original Sin is more than a freedom to initiate what we perceive as evil today. Per Augustine, it is a tendency toward actually doing evil, inherited from the first human beings. Augustine viewed this as a continuation of the "original sin" of Adam and Eve. As I've said, for me, it is instinct inherited from our evolutionary ancestors through natural selection. That is what I mean when I use the term.


This is represented as a "fall", but it could be a second story of the creation of the universe after the first one at the beginning of Genesis where everything was "good".

Well, to be very clear, I see the Fall story reflecting an ontological reality (although the version we have has obviously been worked over theologically). Although I am not a Biblical literalist, I believe that the story captures the predicament of zoe--life--imprisoned in flesh. But to take your suggestion that the Fall might actually have been more of a move upstairs, let's see where the myth goes with it:

14 So the Lord God said to the serpent:

“Because you have done this,
You are cursed more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you shall go,
And you shall eat dust
All the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.”
16 To the woman He said:

“I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.”
17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:

“Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.
18 Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,
And you shall eat the herb of the field.
19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.”

If it's all the same to you, YesNo, I'll hold on to my downstairs office. :)


So where does evil come from? It might be an illusion. If that is the case there is no need to blame someone for it. That does not mean we should not act to remove suffering and be content with meditating as Shiva was.

Or it might be a moral reality. In either case, the need is to be saved, not to blame someone else. It's "Forgive me, for I am a sinner," not "Don't blame me, the devil made me do it!" (remember Flip Wilson? :)) "Removing suffering" sounds great, but human beings have a pretty poor track record on that score. And again, human evil is not an illusion to those who have to suffer it.

What other Joni Mitchell do you like?

[Ecurb]

Isn't Joni Mitchell suffering from some bizarre and gruesome disease?

And speaking of Canadian anthems and folk singers from that era, how about "Canadian Railroad Trilogy" by Gordon Lightfoot (of course it's not a Jon Mitchell song, but what is?). I blast it from the car stereo whenever I go to Canada.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yzo6Otpgj-E

[Pompey Bum]

Isn't Joni Mitchell suffering from some bizarre and gruesome disease?


I guess she had an aneurysm. I heard she was in a coma, but now I'm hearing that was just a rumor. I think she's in pretty rough shape, though.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/30/joni-mitchell-aneurysm_n_7690018.html

[YesNo]

Well, to be very clear, I see the Fall story reflecting an ontological reality (although the version we have has obviously been worked over theologically). Although I am not a Biblical literalist, I believe that the story captures the predicament of zoe--life--imprisoned in flesh.

I pick and choose what parts I want to accept much like the Redactor did. I don't even mind modifying them.

Harold Bloom thought J (or Bathsheba, as he suggested) was a comic author. I can see that in the way David Rosenberg translated the fall in "The Book of J". Yahweh took a rib from Adam and created Eve. After they ate the fruit, she was punished with "pain increasing, groans that spread into groans: having children will be labor". That didn't stop her from seeing the bright side of things. After she had her first son, she didn't complain about the pain as Yahweh predicted, but remarked with an evident sense of accomplishment, "I have created a man as Yahweh has." (page 65)



What other Joni Mitchell do you like?

I mainly know the album "Blue". There is "Both Sides Now" from an earlier album and "Help Me" From "Court and Spark" that I remember.

[Virgil]

Your post, Virgil, is about what you believe to be God's plan for our "worthiness" via suffering, and your belief that our suffering is a gift from God, and using St. Therese's writings as a foundation…but to a non-believer that is not compelling evidence for God's existence,
I didn't say that was evidence for believing in God's existence. My point was that it was not proof that God didn't exist. That's the claim: because suffering is in the world God is ether malicious or doesn't exist. That does not follow and is incorrect.

If you already come at this as a non-believer, and no argument is going to change your mind, then why are you having this discussion?

I always hated the religious threads here at Lit Net. It's a waste of my time.

[YesNo]

What other Joni Mitchell do you like?

I've started listening to other Joni Mitchell albums. Yesterday's was "Both Sides Now" (2000)

The best songs on this album were the two she wrote: "A Case of You" and "Both Sides, Now". The others were old love songs. She was singing them in a bluesy-jazzy way that made me realize that what I like about her songs is not the music so much as the lyrics.

Another thing that struck me is that she seemed to think these songs fit together in terms of quality or why would she put them into one album? That made me wonder if she felt the same way about her songs as her fans do. I would not have matched these songs together.

And that brings me to the OP. Do we really know what someone else is suffering? There are some cases where it seems obvious, but in most cases I wonder. Do we really know suffering at all?

[Pompey Bum]

I didn't say that was evidence for believing in God's existence. My point was that it was not proof that God didn't exist. That's the claim: because suffering is in the world God is ether malicious or doesn't exist. That does not follow and is incorrect.

Isn't that what we have been saying on this thread for some time, Virgil?


If you already come at this as a non-believer, and no argument is going to change your mind, then why are you having this discussion?

That's hardly fair to Melanie, if that is who you are talking to. She, YesNo, and I all believe in God, and Ecurb, who says that he does not, is open to argument and more theologically informed than many believers. Melanie and I disagree strongly in many aspects of our approach, but she is an extremely devout Christian, and so am I.


I always hated the religious threads here at Lit Net. It's a waste of my time.

You of course are the best judge of that. Hate, though, can be a disagreeable traveling companion. I may be wrong, but I get the feeling you are judging us without having read much of this thread. Another approach (and in my opinion, a better one) would be to give it a try. You are welcome to join us in any case. :)

[Pompey Bum]

I pick and choose what parts I want to accept much like the Redactor did. I don't even mind modifying them.

Harold Bloom thought J (or Bathsheba, as he suggested) was a comic author. I can see that in the way David Rosenberg translated the fall in "The Book of J". Yahweh took a rib from Adam and created Eve. After they ate the fruit, she was punished with "pain increasing, groans that spread into groans: having children will be labor". That didn't stop her from seeing the bright side of things. After she had her first son, she didn't complain about the pain as Yahweh predicted, but remarked with an evident sense of accomplishment, "I have created a man as Yahweh has."

It seems to me that our approaches differ in this way: I am saying, Well, there's the story, I wonder what they were referring to; while you are saying, Well, there's the story, I wonder where I can take it from there in terms of other stories I find meaningful (as you say, leaving out and modifying what you like). A third approach would be literalist: that story is clear and self-interpreting; accepting it as historical is the same thing as having faith (and since justification is by faith alone...figure it out). A fourth would be doctrinal: Well, there's the story, now what do the church authorities say it means (or even dogmatic: what do church officials say I must believe it to mean)?

There are pros and cons to each of these approaches, although personally I don't find them benignly equal. As I said before, there is nothing simple about Biblical text, its history of redaction, or its historical context; and in practice Biblical literalism becomes a bogus litmus test for having faith. For me, faith in God is simply not the same as faith that every story in the Bible is literally true.

Your approach is called midrashic. It was popular among Jewish scholars in the Middle Ages, and still has some practitioners today. The Rabbis, of course, wouldn't have compared texts Hebrew and Tantric texts, but their attempt to generate further meaning by comparing texts was essentially the same as your approach.

The best known midrash in modern pop culture (because it was seized on by feminists a few years ago) is the story of Lilith, supposedly Adam's first wife, who would not submit to his authority. The texts in question were Genesis 1:24-1:27 (the P version of Creation); Genesis 2:18-2:23 (the J version, written down 400 years earlier, and likely even older); and Isaiah 34:14, which is difficult to date, but is centuries younger than J in any case. In the J version, God creates Adam by breathing into dust, and later creates Eve from his rib to act as his helper:

18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

But in the P version, God creates the Eve and Adam simultaneously, presumably from the same original substance, and arguably coequal:

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, lafter our likeness: mand let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

This apparent discrepancy (Medieval Jewish scholars had never heard of P or J) was resolved by going to a third text, in which Isaiah uses the Hebrew word lilit, perhaps a reference to Assyrian demon (or an owl--or perhaps the demon and the owl were the same creature). Modern translators have a difficult time with lilit, but Medieval Jewish scholars identified it with a female demon who, through midrashic speculation, became Adam's ex-wife, who had been created his equal not his helper, and who is never specifically identified as Eve. Some modern feminists have seen Lilith as cool and pagan (even through the midrash is, you know, pretty Jewish).

You are free to build bridges in this way, as you do here:


I see this story as Eve offering to Adam sex through the apple. It is interesting that Adam does not come up with this idea to eat the apple first and offer it to Eve. There is a similar (at least to me) story of Shakti (female) trying to get Shiva (male) to stop his self-indulgent meditations and do his job and create the universe. She has a hard time convincing him, but ultimately she succeeds...

...So where does evil come from? It might be an illusion. If that is the case there is no need to blame someone for it. That does not mean we should not act to remove suffering and be content with meditating as Shiva was.

Midrash is not my approach, but I find it no less logical than the Frankenstein Bible that literalists concoct by, for example, pretending that Genesis 2:18-2:2 is just a continuation of Genesis 2:18-2:23, and not a different story representing a somewhat different perspective. And both approaches, whatever their flaws, can potentially produce meaning for those who employ them. As always, problems start when some try to push their interpretations (including "literalist" interpretation) as the only way to look at things. You will get no objection from me to your holding a more optimistic view than I do about the material world. But when you start telling me or others that our suffering does or did not exist, you have crossed the same literalists cross who cast those who do not accept Biblical literalism into hell: you are exporting your own dogma and expecting someone else to take it seriously.

For me, the story of the Fall is a pessimistic one. Your "appeal to Bloom" (as it were) to try to turn it into a comedy is cute, by the way, but not very compelling. Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis (which Bloom was cribbing in The Book of J) is a historical-critical theory that has of been tweaked considerably in recent years. Nowadays not many historical-critical scholars see J, P, D, and E the products of individual writers or redactors. Rather, they are seen as theological tendencies or schools of thought identifiable to certain priestly, prophetic, or scholarly communities overseeing redaction of earlier sources, in close association with events in Israelite and Judaean history: the establishment of the monarchy and construction of the First Temple for J; the destruction of the northern kingdom for E; Josiah's (failed) attempt at the restoration of Judea as a regional power for D; and the Babylonian Captivity for P; and not comedy or tragedy in the Greek (much less the modern) sense. It is not surprising to find some humor in texts with oral antecedents (including funny stories), but that does not turn the story of the Fall into Ghost Busters. Nor is it surprising to find a pessimistic worldview in the ancient Levant: the predominant cultures and political empires from Mesopotamia had an even bleaker assessment of things

So for me, it is not a question of how to turn a pessimistic mythos into one that always looks on the bright side of life. It is an inquiry--both rational and spiritual--about why the story takes such a negative outlook (does it capture something about the human condition, independent of Mesopotamian pessimism? Does it offer a extra-material basis for Salvation (which Mesopotamian pessimism did not)? How do I understand any such Salvation in the light of Christian experience and my own life?

I could easily connect dots between stories I know to construct something new to cheer for a position I already hold. (That is essentially my problem with midrashic speculation and one of my many problems with Biblical literalism). But my approach (for me) has the integrity of a real investigation. I find I honor Scripture best when I treat it as a revered and challenging teacher, and not a magical book of things people want to hear. Even so, it is necessary for all of us to see these things in the light that God gives us to see them.

[Pompey Bum]

I mainly know the album "Blue". There is "Both Sides Now" from an earlier album and "Help Me" From "Court and Spark" that I remember.


I've started listening to other Joni Mitchell albums. Yesterday's was "Both Sides Now" (2000)

The best songs on this album were the two she wrote: "A Case of You" and "Both Sides, Now". The others were old love songs. She was singing them in a bluesy-jazzy way that made me realize that what I like about her songs is not the music so much as the lyrics.
Another thing that struck me is that she seemed to think these songs fit together in terms of quality or why would she put them into one album? That made me wonder if she felt the same way about her songs as her fans do. I would not have matched these songs together.

Well, Both Sides Now (the album, not the single) was pretty late and somewhat atypical. In the 70s, Mitchell used to use something called open tuning (I think), which is like playing and singing out of tune but in one's own consistent musical universe, giving her songs (especially her voice) that weird but beautiful sound of hers. (I wish Lykren were here--he'd probably be able to describe what I'm talking about--come back, man! :))

Anyway, the distinction you make between her music and poetry is interesting. Blue does it both ways, but much of what followed it had a lot to do with her own wacky beat-ish poetry (like Don Juan's Reckless Daughter, which you said you didn't like that much). There were still album artists in the '70s ('80s capitalism hadn't killed them yet), and most of Mitchell's records from that time were mostly for listening to the lyrics. She would still write pop songs from time to time, apparently because record producers made her. She tells a hilarious story on a live recording about writing You Turn Me On I'm a Radio because she hoped it would seduce disk jockeys into playing the single (and in that context, it's a pretty funny song). Unfortunately the pop-ish songs are all most of the kiddies know of her work anymore.

Check out the difference in style and poetry (and especially the attitude toward women and marriage) between these two songs:

This is the hippie line from Blue in 1970 ("We don't need no piece of paper from the city hall" and all that):

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UgsqNRSOSwM

And this is only six years later, writing in that beat-ish poetry of hers, but singing quite a different tune:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rG0kNny3WlY

And since I sense you prefer the pre-beat poet stuff, here is an early stage performance (in London, apparently) from the Blue/Just Before Blue era. It really captures that weirdly beautiful off-tune voice of hers:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LoKBGotuNhc

[YesNo]

Anyway, the distinction you make between her music and poetry is interesting. Blue does it both ways, but much of what followed it had a lot to do with her own wacky beat-ish poetry (like Don Juan's Reckless Daughter, which you said you didn't like that much). There were still album artists in the '70s ('80s capitalism hadn't killed them yet), and most of Mitchell's records from that time were mostly for listening to the lyrics. She would still write pop songs from time to time, apparently because record producers made her. She tells a hilarious story on a live recording about writing You Turn Me On I'm a Radio because she hoped it would seduce disk jockeys into playing the single (and in that context, it's a pretty funny song). Unfortunately the pop-ish songs are most of the kiddies know of her anymore.

The up-side of being popular is that it is influential. I only know her most popular songs.



Check out the difference in style and poetry (and especially the attitude toward women and marriage) between these two songs:

This is the hippie line from Blue in 1970 ("We don't need no piece of paper from the city hall" and all that):

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UgsqNRSOSwM

And this is only six years later, writing in that beat-ish poetry of hers, but singing quite a different tune:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rG0kNny3WlY


Here are the lyrics to "Song for Sharon": http://www.metrolyrics.com/song-for-sharon-lyrics-joni-mitchell.html They make more immediate sense than "Don Juan's Reckless Daughter", however, I don't sense the freshness in the ideas she expressed that her more popular songs had.

It seems like her attitude toward women and marriage is similar between the two periods. As she mentioned in "California", I expect her to be always "strung out on another man". There is a certain charm to that childish flightiness, but it gets old which is what I pick up in "Song for Sharon".

Here is a verse from "Song for Sharon" that reminded me of another thread about a woman asking for purification from Mohammed after committing adultery. She wanted to be stoned. Mitchell puts what I think is the same yearning in terms of suicide:


A woman I knew just drowned herself
The well was deep and muddy
She was just shaking off futility
Or punishing somebody

At least she isn't asking Mohammed to defile himself so she can be purified. The need for purification might be what brings this back to the OP. Is the existence of situations that make a person consider suicide the result of a suffering that would make one question the existence of a good God? By the way, animals commit suicide as well.



And since I sense you prefer the pre-beat poet stuff, here is an early stage performance (in London, apparently) from the Blue/Just Before Blue era. It really captures that weirdly beautiful off-tune voice of hers:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LoKBGotuNhc

Nice concert. I don't know what the "off-tune voice" means, but I do like the way she sings.

[Pompey Bum]

The up-side of being popular is that it is influential. I only know her most popular songs.

As I said, this is a funny self-conscious attempt to write a hit:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ByhiLftL1bE

Here's another pop-ish Mitchell tune you may like. It was from The Hissing of Summer Lawns, which was one of the first beat-ish album, so they probably told her to write it. It catches something about being a teenager, though.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7De3WgHas7U


Here are the lyrics to "Song for Sharon": http://www.metrolyrics.com/song-for-sharon-lyrics-joni-mitchell.html They make more immediate sense than "Don Juan's Reckless Daughter", however, I don't sense the freshness in the ideas she expressed that her more popular songs had.

I wonder if what you are really missing is the catchy melody of a pop song rather than freshness of ideas. But either way, you are entitled to your tastes. I prefer Don Juan's Reckless Daughter (although I like this song, too) precisely because you have to mull over its lyrics a little more. Considering what Mitchell meant helps me to understand how I personally understand some of the same issues. For me, that's more important than having a catchy tune to hum. "Kick off the sand flies, honey, the love keeps flowing" is a hilarious line that brings me a teenage memory of kissing girls on the beach while the bugs were eating us alive, but it doesn't do much more than that for me.


It seems like her attitude toward women and marriage is similar between the two periods.

I disagree. The song was written for a childhood friend, and these verses speak of the fascination (ambiguous for the adult Mitchell) that young girls feel about brides, weddings, wedding gowns, etc.:

I went to Staten Island.
To buy myself a mandolin
And I saw the long white dress of love
On a storefront mannequin
Big boat chuggin' back with a belly full of cars
All for something lacy
Some girl's going to see that dress
And crave that day like crazy...

When we were kids in Maidstone, Sharon
I went to every wedding in that little town
To see the tears and the kisses
And the pretty lady in the white lace wedding gown
And walking home on the railroad tracks
Or swinging on the playground swing
Love stimulated my illusions
More than anything

And when I went skating after Golden Reggie
You know it was white lace I was chasing
Chasing dreams
Mama's nylons underneath my cowgirl jeans
He showed me first you get the kisses
And then you get the tears
But the ceremony of the bells and lace
Still veils this reckless fool here

I don't know if "Golden Reggie" was the kid who got her pregnant, but her wish for a Wedding Day (as opposed to a husband per se) is being remembered in bittersweet way. I compare that to the sentimental free love ditty, My Old Man: "We don't need no piece of paper from the City Hall keeping us tied and true," etc.-- a sentiment many modern women have since figured out was more or less the boy's version of the same fantasy ("I don't want a husband, I want a Wedding Day" vs. "I don't wan't a wife, I want to get laid"). Somewhere between 1970 and 1976, it seems to me, Mitchell noted the discrepancy. I think that, and Mitchell's own frustrations in finding a lasting love, is what the song is about (the latter is a frequent theme in her poetry). I love the verse about going to the Gypsy and watching 18 bucks go up in smoke, by the way. I think it would cost more expensive nowadays!


Here is a verse from "Song for Sharon" that reminded me of another thread about a woman asking for purification from Mohammed after committing adultery. She wanted to be stoned. Mitchell puts what I think is the same yearning in terms of suicide:


A woman I knew just drowned herself
The well was deep and muddy
She was just shaking off futility
Or punishing somebody

I took those verses differently, too. To me, they just say: who knows why she did it? Maybe she had given up on life, or maybe she wanted to make someone feel guilty. The point was that everyone was buzzing about it because that kind of desperation wasn't really all that far from any of their lives. So:

My friends were calling up all day yesterday
All emotions and abstractions
It seems we all live so close to that line
And so far from satisfaction


Is the existence of situations that make a person consider suicide the result of a suffering that would make one question the existence of a good God?

My experience with suicide (one adult neighbor, two neighbor's teenage sons, one colleague's 20-something son, and a close friend) is that every event was a hate-motivated act of violence directed at a spouse or parent--to devastating and I mean devastating effect. Talk about suffering! I understand that there are other motives, too. Sometimes soldiers (and others) see what humans are like in their evolutionary state and decide they don't want to stick around. Sometimes people have chronic agonizing physical pain. Some are just really depressed. None of that changes what I have already said about faith in God despite not understanding suffering.


By the way, animals commit suicide as well.

To torture their zookeepers, no doubt. (Sorry).


And that brings me to the OP. Do we really know what someone else is suffering? There are some cases where it seems obvious, but in most cases I wonder. Do we really know suffering at all?

Would you like me to tell you what a bone marrow biopsy feels like? I imagine having your head cut off with a knife is a little like that, although it would take longer. Being left to die on a cross is harder for me to imagine, but the pain of being nailed to it is not. On the whole, I think people know what feels like to suffer.

[YesNo]

As I said, this is a funny self-conscious attempt to write a hit:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ByhiLftL1bE

Here's another pop-ish Mitchell tune you may like. It was from The Hissing of Summer Lawns, which was one of the first beat-ish album, so they probably told her to write it. It catches something about being a teenager, though.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7De3WgHas7U


Here are the lyrics to "You Turn Me On, I'm a Radio": http://www.lyricsfreak.com/j/joni+mitchell/you+turn+me+on+im+a+radio_20075399.html

Here are the lyrics to "In France They Kiss on Main Street": http://www.lyricsfreak.com/j/joni+mitchell/in+france+they+kiss+on+main+street_20075353.html

What both of these lack is "heart", but they try to make up for that with specific details.

I don't know who the "they" are that you refer to. Based on the first part of this interview, it seems that she is calling the shots: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HajWhhXkfYQ

That may be the problem. One needs to approach an album or a book as a team marketing project.



I wonder if what you are really missing is the catchy melody of a pop song rather than freshness of ideas. But either way, you are entitled to your tastes. I prefer Don Juan's Reckless Daughter (although I like this song, too) precisely because you have to mull over its lyrics a little more. Considering what Mitchell meant helps me to understand how I personally understand some of the same issues. For me, that's more important than having a catchy tune to hum. "Kick off the sand flies, honey, the love keeps flowing" is a hilarious line that brings me a teenage memory of kissing girls on the beach while the bugs were eating us alive, but it doesn't do much more than that for me.

If it is the familiar melody why do I not find the two songs you mentioned interesting? They both have that same Joni Mitchell sound.



I disagree. The song was written for a childhood friend, and these verses speak of the fascination (ambiguous for the adult Mitchell) that young girls feel about brides, weddings, wedding gowns, etc.:

I went to Staten Island.
To buy myself a mandolin
And I saw the long white dress of love
On a storefront mannequin
Big boat chuggin' back with a belly full of cars
All for something lacy
Some girl's going to see that dress
And crave that day like crazy...

When we were kids in Maidstone, Sharon
I went to every wedding in that little town
To see the tears and the kisses
And the pretty lady in the white lace wedding gown
And walking home on the railroad tracks
Or swinging on the playground swing
Love stimulated my illusions
More than anything

And when I went skating after Golden Reggie
You know it was white lace I was chasing
Chasing dreams
Mama's nylons underneath my cowgirl jeans
He showed me first you get the kisses
And then you get the tears
But the ceremony of the bells and lace
Still veils this reckless fool here

I don't know if "Golden Reggie" was the kid who got her pregnant, but her wish for a Wedding Day (as opposed to a husband per se) is being remembered in bittersweet way. I compare that to the sentimental free love ditty, My Old Man: "We don't need no piece of paper from the City Hall keeping us tied and true," etc.-- a sentiment many modern women have since figured out was more or less the boy's version of the same fantasy ("I don't want a husband, I want a Wedding Day" vs. "I don't wan't a wife, I want to get laid"). Somewhere between 1970 and 1976, it seems to me, Mitchell noted the discrepancy. I think that, and Mitchell's own frustrations in finding a lasting love, is what the song is about (the latter is a frequent theme in her poetry). I love the verse about going to the Gypsy and watching 18 bucks go up in smoke, by the way. I think it would cost more expensive nowadays!

The lines about the gypsy suggested to me a mean-spirited arrogance. I am neutral about any concern for Mitchell's frustrations about finding a lasting love. I don't know the specific situations well enough. Listening to "River" makes me think she may not be totally innocent.



I took those verses differently, too. To me, they just say: who knows why she did it? Maybe she had given up on life, or maybe she wanted to make someone feel guilty. The point was that everyone was buzzing about it because that kind of desperation wasn't really all that far from any of their lives. So:

My friends were calling up all day yesterday
All emotions and abstractions
It seems we all live so close to that line
And so far from satisfaction

I agree. She is not consciously intending anything with those lines, but it is how I hear them. In the interview I cited above, she thought "Both Sides, Now" was a failure at the time. There is a disconnect between what she thinks she is saying and what people are hearing.



My experience with suicide (one adult neighbor, two neighbor's teenage sons, one colleague's 20-something son, and a close friend) is that every event was a hate-motivated act of violence directed at a spouse or parent--to devastating and I mean devastating effect. Talk about suffering! I understand that there are other motives, too. Sometimes soldiers (and others) see what humans are like in their evolutionary state and decide they don't want to stick around. Sometimes people have chronic agonizing physical pain. Some are just really depressed. None of that changes what I have already said about faith in God despite not understanding suffering.



To torture their zookeepers, no doubt. (Sorry).



Would you like me to tell you what a bone marrow biopsy feels like? I imagine having your head cut off with a knife is a little like that, although it would take longer. Being left to die on a cross is harder for me to imagine, but the pain of being nailed to it is not. On the whole, I think people know what it means to suffer.

Or being burnt at a stake. Or being hanged, drawn and quartered in Merrie Old England. I get it. People suffer. The self-righteousness involved in burning someone at a stake or the self-righteousness involved in trying to avenge that when the political climate turns is also suffering. With self-righteousness comes painful feelings of injustice (more suffering) that one tries to rectify and/or blame others or God for.

The description of suffering in the video in the OP does not go into it deeply enough. The only distinction that is made is between moral evil and natural suffering.

[Pompey Bum]

None of that changes what I have already said about faith in God despite not understanding sufferings

On the whole, I think people know what it means to suffer.

You highlighted those two lines from my post above, so I wanted to point out that the first means not understanding the phenomenon of suffering is light of a benevolent and omnipotent God; while the second means knowing enough about what suffering feels like to recognize it in others. To clarify, I'll change the second one to: On the whole, I think people know what it feels like to suffer.


I don't know who the "they" are that you refer to.

As I said in an earlier post: record company producers. If you think it was marketing, fine.


One needs to approach an album or a book as a team marketing project.

Yup, that's how it goes today. What I love about her best albums, though, is that they were made before artists had completely surrendered to marketers. (Can you imagine Taylor Swift twerking to Don Juan's Reckless Daughter? :))


If it is the familiar melody why do I not find the two songs you mentioned interesting? They both have that same Joni Mitchell sound.

Oh I wouldn't know. People like what they like, right?


The lines about the gypsy suggested to me a mean-spirited arrogance.

Oh it's funny. All the magic smoke in a fortune tellers parlor, and hey, there goes my 18 bucks! That's not arrogant. If anything, it's self-deprecating.


Or being burnt at a stake. Or being hanged, drawn and quartered in Merrie Old England. I get it. People suffer. The self-righteousness involved in burning someone at a stake or the self-righteousness involved in trying to avenge that when the political climate turns is also suffering. With self-righteousness comes painful feelings of injustice (more suffering) that one tries to rectify and/or blame others or God for.

I didn't really understand what you were getting at here.

[YesNo]

None of that changes what I have already said about faith in God despite not understanding sufferings

On the whole, I think people know what it means to suffer.

You highlighted those two lines from my post above, so I wanted to point out that the first means not understanding the phenomenon of suffering is light of a benevolent and omnipotent God; while the second means knowing enough about what suffering feels like to recognize it in others. To clarify, I'll change the second one to: On the whole, I think people know what it feels like to suffer.

Yes, I agree. Those passages are not contradictory. I should not have highlighted them




As I said in an earlier post: record company producers. If you think it was marketing, fine.

After watching the first 10 minutes of the interview, I don't think she had anyone forcing her to do anything. She was in control.

There is nothing wrong with record company producers or book publishers. It is good today that we also can self-publish if we cannot get a publisher, but that means we do not work with a professional team. We lose their input. Although I haven't listened to all of Mitchell's albums, what I have listened to recently makes me suspect they are not as good as "Blue". So I ask why? The interview makes me think that Mitchell was not taking advice from others.



Yup, that's how it goes today. What I love about her best albums, though, is that they were made before artists had completely surrendered to marketers. (Can you imagine Taylor Swift twerking to Don Juan's Reckless Daughter? :))


I don't mind listening to Taylor Swift. Here are the lyrics to "Blank Space": http://www.directlyrics.com/taylor-swift-blank-spaces-lyrics.html

By comparison, here are the lyrics to "Don Juan's Reckless Daughter": http://www.metrolyrics.com/don-juans-reckless-daughter-lyrics-joni-mitchell.html

I think some reasons Swift's lyrics are more powerful are they are less ambiguous than Mitchell's and they speak to personalities that most people can relate to. Some of the lines are very fresh in the song's context, such as "cause darling I'm a nightmare dressed like a daydream". I can't find any line from Mitchell's song that is so striking. The repetition of "cowards" and "restless" in Mitchell's song are more tedious than memorable and make me think she is preaching. It makes me want to argue with her. I don't mind the kundalini associations, but it doesn't seem like Mitchell knows much more about it than I do and perhaps she is not even writing about it.

I also see credits to three people for Swift's song: Taylor Swift, Max Martin and Johan Shellback. It looks like Swift is more of a team player. One doesn't have to be a team player, but I like to see other people be given credit.



Oh it's funny. All the magic smoke in a fortune tellers parlor, and hey, there goes my 18 bucks! That's not arrogant. If anything, it's self-deprecating.

I do see the potential humor there, but it doesn't strike me as funny. By contrast when she wrote about the redneck on the Grecian isle who kept her camera, she also portrayed him in a positive way. The gypsy was only there to be mocked.



I didn't really understand what you were getting at here.

What I am trying to do is bring the thread back to suffering and the argument against a loving God because of the existence of suffering.

I think the logical arguments claiming that suffering cannot disprove the existence of a loving God are fine but they are ineffectual because the argument against God is not a rational but an emotional argument. The emotion is self-righteousness. One can logically argue that self-righteousness has no ground, especially if one is an atheist, but logic won't stop one from being self-righteous. Because of that it is unconvincing.

So one could take Mitchell's inability to find a lasting relationship. That is a form of suffering. Why does she experience it? Can we generate an anti-male argument from that. The anti-male argument would be similar to the anti-God argument and maybe we can learn something about the reaction to suffering from it.

Or one could introduce even more painful suffering and consider people being burnt at the stake for translating the Latin Bible into English during Thomas More's day. (See "God's Bestseller" for the details.) This can lead more quickly to an anti-God argument since both sides of those atrocities see God on their side and have an emotional response to those who are burning.

[mortalterror]

He who learns must suffer. Even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, 'til in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom by the awful grace of God. -Aeschylus

I've always loved that quote. Bobby Kennedy recited it when he informed a crowd of Martin Luther King Jr's assassination. It was a beautiful speech. I wonder if suffering is a gift, a gift to make us like him, a suffering god.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCrx_u3825g

[Pompey Bum]

He who learns must suffer. Even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, 'til in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom by the awful grace of God. -Aeschylus

I'm speechless.

[Pompey Bum]

But then again, never speechless for too long.

All I have to say about Joni Mitchell and Taylor Swift is (as usual) to each his own.

For this part though:


I do see the potential humor there, but it doesn't strike me as funny. By contrast when she wrote about the redneck on the Grecian isle who kept her camera, she also portrayed him in a positive way. The gypsy was only there to be mocked.

...I still think you're missing the point.

There's a gypsy down on Bleecker Street
I went in to see her as a kind of joke
And she lit a candle for my love luck
And eighteen bucks went up in smoke

In other words, my love luck is so bad that even that Gypsy was wasting her time (and my money) over it. It's not a question of whether you believe in fortune tellers helping your love life by lighting magic candles (which I certainly do not, but perhaps you do). I'd feel awful, though, if that poor Gypsy on Bleecker Street had actually felt insulted or mocked by the lyrics; because if there is one thing I have always sought, it's a happy medium. [:)]


What I am trying to do is bring the thread back to suffering and the argument against a loving God because of the existence of suffering.

I think the logical arguments claiming that suffering cannot disprove the existence of a loving God are fine but they are ineffectual because the argument against God is not a rational but an emotional argument.

So on a rational level, they do not preclude the existence of some kind of god. Whether that is a good God, however, must be a matter of faith.


The emotion is self-righteousness. One can logically argue that self-righteousness has no ground, especially if one is an atheist, but logic won't stop one from being self-righteous. Because of that it is unconvincing.

No, this is where you lose me. Many people doubt for reasons other than self-righteousness (it could even be thought of as self-righteous for you to assume so--then where are you? Stuck in an infinite loop! Sounds like a wrong turn to me. But let me give you an example of how doubt that is not self-righteous can work. In my opinion (to be honest rather than boastful) I am more faithful than most men I know of my age. My greatest moments of doubt come with the death of those I love, especially if the death was horrible to them. My low point was 26 years ago, when my Mom died in a lot of pain. Afterwards, for a time, my faith took a vacation. Because my faith is a real thing for me (as opposed to a "Oh gee, wouldn't that be nice!" kind of thing), it is either really there or it really isn't. And It REALLY wasn't. That wasn't a choice or reaction: it was just as a fact. My Mom was gone forever, and I knew it, and it was just the most obvious fact in the world.

In terms of my faith, it was like being paralyzed at the waist and trying to move my legs. There just wasn't a lot to be said about it. But there was no sense of: "Oh God, how I've suffered, and you don't know the half of it, so just don't you talk to me about God's existence, because I'm in pain. So there!" It wasn't like that at all--despite the dumb *ss clergy who had been trained to tell me that it was (and who really just didn't know what the hell else to say). So okay, maybe I was being my usual arrogant self (clergy ARE dumb), but there was nothing self-righteous about it. It was really just me being honest about how I felt.

Feeling that way didn't last forever, thank God. But those days were brought back to me last week when something upsetting happened. Without going into the whole story, I had a close friend--almost a second father--who was around 80; and we had a mutual friend, the daughter of an adult friend, who was a 15 year old Chinese girl. We taught her English and western culture, which she loved; and we all sort of loved each other. So then she got sick and died of a childhood cancer in fairly short order. That was a few years ago, and I've since returned to the States to look after my own aging father. Last week I found out that my old friend had just died, too. I was sad at first, then thought the (gratuitous?) struck me:.Maybe L--- was waiting for him when he got to Paradise. Right away I was struck with the old paralysis: "What kind of stories are you telling yourself, boy, so you can feel better about L---'s horror and T--'s death?" It was the exact same gone forever feeling as before. It stayed with me for a few days, until I managed to cry. Then it left.

So I guess all I'm trying to say is don't assume you know what's in another person's heart. It's easy to convince yourself that you do know, but you know, you're probably wrong. People can be as mysterious as God.


Or one could introduce even more painful suffering and consider people being burnt at the stake for translating the Latin Bible into English during Thomas More's day. (See "God's Bestseller" for the details.) This can lead more quickly to an anti-God argument since both sides of those atrocities see God on their side and have an emotional response to those who are burning.

Oh yes, I know about Tyndale and actually have an old copy of Wycliff around somewhere--not as old as that, but old enough. I recently read Wolf Hall, which touches a little on the phenomenon of setting people on fire because they have different ideas about God than you do. It's upsetting, but Wycliff was already dead when they burned him--they actually had to dig him up first). But I knew a lot about the subject before.

[Pompey Bum]

I thought more about what you might have meant about self-righteousness. I wonder if you are feeling stymied because you need suffering to be less than real for your conception of God to be authentic, but you cannot get that because I keep pointing out that suffering is real to the one who is tortured or crucified or burnt alive. That response is not an emotional one. Being burnt is a different experience than feeling the summer grass between one's toes or hearing a song that fills one with joy. And it is not self-righteous to mention extreme examples of suffering. Are you sure that the emotion you sense is not arising from frustration at having such (admittedly upsetting) examples set out for you?

In any case, on reflection, I suspect that we are nearing the point on this thread where we are just going to have to embrace the ideas we share (the existence of a good God, for instance), and agree to disagree on the rest. You are not going to convince me that suffering doesn't exist, and I don't think I am going to convince you that it is a part of God's mystery that we can only bear faithfully. And I think everyone else moved on long ago. Haven't we really been at an impasse for a while ourselves?

[YesNo]

In other words, my love luck is so bad that even that Gypsy was wasting her time (and my money) over it. It's not a question of whether you believe in fortune tellers helping your love life by lighting magic candles (which I certainly do not, but perhaps you do).

I would not be so quick to claim it doesn't help, but let's not worry about this gypsy.



No, this is where you lose me. Many people doubt for reasons other than self-righteousness (it could even be thought of as self-righteous for you to assume so--then where are you? Stuck in an infinite loop! Sounds like a wrong turn to me.

The infinite loop is part of the reason why logic isn't going to help. I am a part of the self-righteousness problem when it comes to suffering. If atheists whine about Christians burning people at the stake, I will bring up the Khmer Rouge. If Christians whine about Jews "killing baby Jesus", I will remind them that I think the antisemitism that grounded the holocaust is rooted in their sacred texts.

I'm the kind of guy who likes to keep that loop turning.


But let me give you an example of how doubt that is not self-righteous can work. In my opinion (to be honest rather than boastful) I am more faithful than most men I know of my age. My greatest moments of doubt come with the death of those I love, especially if the death was horrible to them. My low point was 26 years ago, when my Mom died in a lot of pain. Afterwards, for a time, my faith took a vacation. Because my faith is a real thing for me (as opposed to a "Oh gee, wouldn't that be nice!" kind of thing), it is either really there or it really isn't. And It REALLY wasn't. That wasn't a choice or reaction: it was just as a fact. My Mom was gone forever, and I knew it, and it was just the most obvious fact in the world.

In terms of my faith, it was like being paralyzed at the waist and trying to move my legs. There just wasn't a lot to be said about it. But there was no sense of: "Oh God, how I've suffered, and you don't know the half of it, so just don't you talk to me about God's existence, because I'm in pain. So there!" It wasn't like that at all--despite the dumb *ss clergy who had been trained to tell me that it was (and who really just didn't know what the hell else to say). So okay, maybe I was being my usual arrogant self (clergy ARE dumb), but there was nothing self-righteous about it. It was really just me being honest about how I felt.

Feeling that way didn't last forever, thank God. But those days were brought back to me last week when something upsetting happened. Without going into the whole story, I had a very close friend--almost a second father--who was about 80 then; and we had a mutual friend, the daughter of an adult friend, who was a 15 year old Chinese girl. We taught her English and western culture, which she loved; and we all sort of loved each other. So then she got sick and died of a childhood cancer in fairly short order. That was a few years ago, and I've since returned to the States to look after my own aging father. Last week I found out that my old friend had just died, too. I was sad at first, then thought the (gratuitous?) struck me:.Maybe L--- was waiting for him when he got to Paradise. Right away I was struck with the old paralysis: "What kind of stories are you telling yourself, boy, so you can feel better about L---'s horror and T--'s death?" It was the exact same gone forever feeling as before. It stayed with me for a few days, until I managed to cry. Then it left.

I am sorry for your loses.

I am going to ask a question. I mean no disrespect by it. I expect you to throw the question back at me: What do you think happens to them?



So I guess all I'm trying to say is don't assume you know what's in another person's heart. It's easy to convince yourself that you do know, but you know, you're probably wrong. People can be as mysterious as God.

I only claim to know what I feel. I assume that others who make the same kinds of arguments that I would make against one group or another because of some alleged suffering are feeling something similar to the self-righteousness that I would feel.



Oh yes, I know about Tyndale and actually have an old copy of Wycliff around somewhere--not as old as that, but old enough. I recently read Wolf Hall, which touches a little on the phenomenon of setting people on fire because they have different ideas about God than you do. It's upsetting, but Wycliff was already dead when they burned him--they actually had to dig him up first). But I knew a lot about the subject before.

I know very little about them except what I read in Bryan Moynahan's book, "God's Bestseller".

I do think it was ludicrous to dig up Wycliff just so they could burn his body and hope they sent him to hell. They probably condemned themselves in the process.

This is one of the beautiful things about death. It so frustrates the self-righteous. They can only make someone suffer for so long. The Romans did their best to keep the suffering going as long as humanly possible with crucifixions. The Christians did their best with burning people at the stake or hanging, drawing and quartering their enemies. The ones who burn the longest are the ones who survive.

[Pompey Bum]

If atheists whine about Christians burning people at the stake, I will bring up the Khmer Rouge. If Christians whine about Jews "killing baby Jesus", I will remind them that I think the antisemitism that grounded the holocaust is rooted in their sacred texts.

I'm the kind of guy who likes to keep that loop turning.

Interesting. You're talking about the appropriation of history for ideological purposes. There is a lot of that going around these days. In the post-modern academy it is considered inevitable (because things like sex, sorry, gender, and melatonin level supposedly carry the ultimate truths) and you're even supposed to do it in some cases. And in politics proper, framing narratives to manipulate support is the name of the game. You're right that dueling self-righteousness is central to all this lying. But critical historians soldier on. We've seen worse. In my opinion, there is nothing inevitable about the self-righteousness that needs to impede logic or morality; nor is it a basis for dismissing the problem of suffering in the human experience. So I'm not convinced it needs to be an infinite loop. It is a potential pitfall though.


I am sorry for your loss.

I am going to ask a question. I mean no disrespect by it. I expect you to throw the question back at me: What do you think happens to them?

Thanks. No, your question is not disrespectful. I don't know if this is what you meant by throwing it back at you, but as I've said, no one knows what happens after you die. Or maybe that doesn't answer your question, which was what do I think happens. Okay, I think one's body reverts to particles and one's life (zoe) goes its own way. My suspect that zoe takes something gleaned in its late physical experience (maybe wisdom?), but how would I know? And given the great influence of the late body on zoe's recent experience as human being, I am not at all convinced that one's personality (psyche) survives death. On the other hand, it may be that what does survive--freed from the limits and instincts of the body--is a truer self than the dice roll of one's personality. But I'm really just speculating.

Okay, maybe throwing the question back at you means asking you what you think happens. I'd be interested to hear.


I know very little about them except what I read in Bryan Moynahan's book, "God's Bestseller".

Thomas More comes off as a real psycho killer in Wolf Hall. (Do you remember what a heroic martyr he was in A Man for All Seasons?) I've heard this has brought some accusations of anti-Catholicism against Mantel, but I don't see it in the book. She could have come down much harder than she did on the 16th century Papacy, and Wolsey, England's appetitive Catholic theocrat at the time, is actually a sympathetic character. Mantel herself is a lapsed Catholic (turned Socialist agnostic), so that may have produced some hard feelings. I heard her say in an interview, though, that she is considering to join the Church of England now. And she doesn't sound like much of a Socialist anymore, either. Anyway, chit, chat, gossip, gossip.


I do think it was ludicrous to dig up Wycliff just so they could burn his body and hope they sent him to hell. They probably condemned themselves in the process.

Condemned themselves to hell? Do you really think so?

But yes, it was as stupid as burning anyone else alive; although I doubt Wycliff's cadaver minded much. I think they used copies of his Bible to stoke the fire, which seems the greater crime to me. Or maybe I made that detail up. I don't really remember.

[YesNo]

Interesting. You're talking about the appropriation of history for ideological purposes. There is a lot of that going around these days. In the post-modern academy it is considered inevitable (because things like sex, sorry, gender, and melatonin level supposedly carry the ultimate truths) and you're even supposed to do it in some cases. And in politics proper, framing narratives to manipulate support is the name of the game. You're right that dueling self-righteousness is central to all this lying. But critical historians soldier on. We've seen worse. In my opinion, there is nothing inevitable about the self-righteousness that needs to impede logic or morality; nor is it a basis for dismissing the problem of suffering in the human experience. So I'm not convinced it needs to be an infinite loop. It is a potential pitfall though.

Then we agree. Suffering is an excuse used to "frame narratives to manipulate support". The arguments are emotional based upon ideas of injustice which can only be grounded in whether I like the suffering or not. The righteousness that calls for justice has only the self as its ground.



Thanks. No, your question is not disrespectful. I don't know if this is what you meant by throwing it back at you, but as I've said, no one knows what happens after you die. Or maybe that doesn't answer your question, which was what do I think happens. Okay, I think one's body reverts to particles and one's life (zoe) goes its own way. My suspect that zoe takes something gleaned in its late physical experience (maybe wisdom?), but how would I know? And given the great influence of the late body on zoe's recent experience as human being, I am not at all convinced that one's personality (psyche) survives death. On the other hand, it may be that what does survive--freed from the limits and instincts of the body--is a truer self than the dice roll of one's personality. But I'm really just speculating.

Okay, maybe throwing the question back at you means asking you what you think happens. I'd be interested to hear.

That would be how I see it as well although we might differ on details about "zoe" or "particles". I would have referred you to Raymond Moody's "Life After Life" if you didn't have an answer.



Thomas More comes off as a real psycho killer in Wolf Hall. (Do you remember what a heroic martyr he was in A Man for All Seasons?) I've heard this has brought some accusations of anti-Catholicism against Mantel, but I don't see it in the book. She could have come down much harder than she did on the 16th century Papacy, and Wolsey, England's appetitive Catholic theocrat at the time, is actually a sympathetic character. Mantel herself is a lapsed Catholic (turned Socialist agnostic), so that may have produced some hard feelings. I heard her say in an interview, though, that she is considering to join the Church of England now. And she doesn't sound like much of a Socialist anymore, either. Anyway, chit, chat, gossip, gossip.

Thomas More did not come off looking very good in Moynahan's book either.

I thought "A Man for All Seasons" was grossly sentimental. Of course, I saw it after reading "God's Bestseller", because I wanted to know more about More. Whatever Pope canonized this guy should be ashamed of himself.



Condemned themselves to hell? Do you really think so?

But yes, it was as stupid as burning anyone else alive; although I doubt Wycliff's cadaver minded much. I think they used copies of his Bible to stoke the fire, which seems the greater crime to me. Or maybe I made that detail up. I don't really remember.

Not "to hell", but yes, their actions were an unconscious self-condemnation just as Thomas More burning his religious opponents at the stake was an act of self-condemnation on his part. He didn't see it that way. Whether he is actually in some hell or not, I don't know. More and those he burned may be partying now in heaven, like in the movie "The Voices", for all I know.

By the way, not all near-death experiences are happy movements through the tunnel into the light. People have reported "hellish" experiences. So maybe they are all partying in hell.

[Pompey Bum]

Then we agree. Suffering is an excuse used to "frame narratives to manipulate support". The arguments are emotional based upon ideas of injustice which can only be grounded in whether I like the suffering or not. The righteousness that calls for justice has only the self as its ground.

We do? Haven't I just said that framing narratives to manipulate support is not inevitable and need not impede logic and morality? And that it is no basis for dismissing he problem of suffering in human experience? I think you are confusing narratives of special victimhood with suffering. Having a giant needle driven into your pelvis and them forcefully pulled out (because it has lodged there), twice on each side, while you screen in pain, is not the same experience as feeling joy in your heart at the site of your beloved's smile. I understand that you need them be be part of the same spectrum for your theological and scientific speculations, but they are categorically different experiences that don't appear to want to cooperate with you. :)

That is twice recently that you have taken something I wrote seriously out of context, YesNo. Are we playing chess here, or trying to learn from one another's differences? Hmmmmm?


That would be how I see it as well although we might differ on details about "zoe" or "particles".

Really? I don't want to put words into your mouth, but are you sure you see the experience of life after the body as potentially different from the personality? Perhaps you do. It surprises me though.


I would have referred you to Raymond Moody's "Life After Life" if you didn't have an answer.

I read it when it came out: 30 or 40 years ago now. Even then I wondered how anyone knew those people were telling the truth. I am open to the possibility, of course, but I was hardly convinced by Moody.


Not "to hell", but yes, their actions were an unconscious self-condemnation just as Thomas More burning his religious opponents at the stake was an act of self-condemnation on his part. He didn't see it that way. Whether he is actually in some hell or not, I don't know. More and those he burned may be partying now in heaven, like in the movie "The Voices", for all I know.

Yeah, I don't know how that stuff works, either. Having faith in a God of love and justice is enough for me, though. For now. :)

[YesNo]

We do? Haven't I just said that framing narratives to manipulate support is not inevitable and need not impede logic and morality? And that it is no basis for dismissing he problem of suffering in human experience? I think you are confusing narratives of special victimhood with suffering. Having a giant needle driven into your pelvis and them forcefully pulled out (because it has lodged there), twice on each side, while you screen in pain, is not the same experience as feeling joy in your heart at the site of your beloved's smile. I understand that you need them be be part of the same spectrum for your theological and scientific speculations, but they are categorically different experiences, and don't appear to want to cooperate with you. :)

That is twice recently that you have taken something I wrote seriously out of context, YesNo. Are we playing chess here, or trying to learn from one another's differences? Hmmmmm?

Perhaps we don't agree.

When someone is upset with God because of some specific suffering they are experiencing, I don't expect their argument to be based on anything logical nor moralistic. They suffer. They are upset. They may well be looking for someone to blame. This would impede logic and morality at least until they calm down.

However, other suffering arguments, the ones I am more interested in, are based on "narratives" to use your term. These narratives are designed to impede logic and morality and work up the emotions of the listeners. The purpose is to use the narrative to establish an evil group of people based on the suffering of their alleged victims and make a political call to justice to rectify that suffering. Self-righteousness impedes both logic and morality in its campaigns for justice.



Really? I don't want to put words into your mouth, but are you sure you see the experience of life after the body as potentially different from the personality? Perhaps you do. It surprises me though.

I read it when it came out: 30 or 40 years ago now. Even then I wondered how anyone knew those people were telling the truth. I am open to the possibility, of course, but I was hardly convinced by Moody.

I don't follow your argument about personality.

However, let me suggest a similarity between the publication of near and shared death experiences today and the publication of unauthorized translations of the Bible into English during Thomas More's time.

Why was More so upset about Tyndale's translation? It undermined the monopoly that Catholicism had over Christianity with the help of the new printing technology. The Catholic Church wanted to make sure words like "ecclesia" and "presbyter" and "caritas" were defined to legitimate the Catholic Church, its ordained priests and the virtue of giving money to only that church. Tyndale opened Christianity up threatening the Catholic monopoly.

Today, we have a new printing revolution. Now Christianity (and its long-despised Jewish minority) are not the only games in town. All of the religions of the world are available for individuals to examine. After all the in-fighting between the various Judeo-Christian and atheist sects civil liberties provide powerful obstacles to the modern equivalents of More from gaining power. What Christians have enjoyed was a monopoly not only on spirituality, but also on "resurrection". Only their Jesus could resurrect. Only their Jesus could provide resurrection to others. That is no longer the case.

What Christians find objectionable about near death experiences today is that it threatens their religious monopoly in the same way that Catholics felt threatened by Protestantism undermining their monopoly in More's day.

From my perspective, I don't see any difference between the shared-death experiences reported in the Christian New Testament and shared-death experiences reported by people of all faiths or even no faith. The only thing that Christians could argue for is the quantity of these experiences was more massive.

[Pompey Bum]

Perhaps we don't agree. When someone is upset with God because of some specific suffering they are experiencing, I don't expect their argument to be based on anything logical nor moralistic.
They suffer. They are upset. They may well be looking for someone to blame. This would impede logic and morality at least until they calm down.

What about the many mature adults who are able to confront "specific suffering" without becoming "upset with God"; or even if they do, are still able to think in terms of logic and morality? Is it correct to tar them with the brush of the illogic of others who (at least as you claim) may be too upset to think clearly. Even if you were right about the others, it would not mean that those who assert the reality of suffering are incapable of logic or morality.

Your argument at present amounts to this:

1. Individuals suffer. You seem to finally concede this, but in fact, you want to have it both ways because their suffering is inconvenient to your often stated position that suffering does not really exist.

2. You are therefore compelled to argue that individuals who are suffering are not capable of appreciating their true situation because they are suffering, which "impede[s] their logic and morality."

The argument is circular. Those who suffer cannot be wrong about the fact that they are suffering because they are suffering.


However, other suffering arguments, the ones I am more interested in, are based on "narratives" to use your term. These narratives are designed to impede logic and morality and work up the emotions of the listeners. The purpose is to use the narrative to establish an evil group of people based on the suffering of their alleged victims and make a political call to justice to rectify that suffering. Self-righteousness impedes both logic and morality in its campaigns for justice.

Here we begin to agree. Fetch the long-suffering fatted calf! :)

But we need to make an important distinction. As I said in my previous post:


I think you are confusing narratives of special victimhood with suffering.

We will move toward greater common ground (and make the fatted calf nervous indeed) if we can acknowledge that suffering per se is not the same thing as attempting to use one's own suffering, the suffering of one's ancestors, or the suffering (contemporary or historical) of identified groups as a means to enhance one's personal or political status or power or to advance an argument through an appeal to emotion or special pleading.

Can we agree on that at this point? I'm hungry (and the fatted calf's just sitting there).


I don't follow your argument about personality.

As I said before, it's not an argument, just speculation. I don't know what happens after death, and I place my faith in the God of love and justice where such things are concerned. But I'm happy to explain/discuss some of my speculations


Thanks. No, your question is not disrespectful. I don't know if this is what you meant by throwing it back at you, but as I've said, no one knows what happens after you die. Or maybe that doesn't answer your question, which was what do I think happens. Okay, I think one's body reverts to particles and one's life (zoe) goes its own way. My suspect that zoe takes something gleaned in its late physical experience (maybe wisdom?), but how would I know? And given the great influence of the late body on zoe's recent experience as human being, I am not at all convinced that one's personality (psyche) survives death. On the other hand, it may be that what does survive--freed from the limits and instincts of the body--is a truer self than the dice roll of one's personality. But I'm really just speculating.

Okay, so maybe we are just electric meat. Maybe the bulb blows and the whole thing gets tossed out and that's just all she wrote. It's possible. But I don't believe it and neither do you, so let's move on. Another way to look at it is that once we die, our physical bodies are reduced to elemental particles that get recycled; but that we cannot directly observe what happens to the rest of us: the part of us capable of non-physical suffering, for example, which may nevertheless take years to heal, or may even leave us permanently impaired. And if we can't observe this "self" directly, what can we say about it (assuming it exists at all)? Must we accept what has been handed to us by folk traditions, religions, or modern "experts" who may not know more than anyone else about the subject? Or can we bring some logic of our own to our speculations?

Okay, so many would call what I am talking about the soul. The New Testament uses the term pseuxn (psyche) and modern psychology adopts the term to mean the self. In both cases, it is understood to refer to the personality. So I start by asking: why do we assume what remains is the personality? It seems to me there are a lot problems with that idea. Is the personality really consistent between the ages of two and 17 and 48 and 88 (let alone in utero) or do the physical processes of the body change it? What about dementia? Or a massive brain injury resulting personality change (such as in the Phineas Gage or even Jim Brady cases)? Do those born disabled because of damaged or different brains remain "retarded" once the brain is gone? Is the Afterlife like Florida: full of senior citizens and reckless kids? It seems to me that the survival of the personality per se should not be taken for granted, even by those who believe that the light and the bulb are not the same thing.

This is why I prefer to speak of zoe (life) rather than pseuxn (soul). And while it may be the death knell of the old canard that belief in an afterlife is wishful thinking based on a selfish desire to live forever (because who wants to keep living if it's not "you"), I can already see torches and pitchforks being raised by those whose faith has long been that if they go to church or say a special prayer, they will one day be reunited with their lost parents and grandparents and husbands and wives and and brothers and sisters and friends and children. And while I'm tempted to just shrug as compassionately as I can at those people and say: "Look, what makes you think that I know how it works?", I actually suspect that their situation may be better than it seems. It's what I meant when I said: "it may be that what does survive--freed from the limits and instincts of the body--is a truer self than the dice roll of one's personality." In other words, our true selves may not be done with the true selves of those we have loved. And so, to get a little sappy for a moment, we are left with Eric Clapton's question: "Would you know my name?" I say yes. But how would I know?

And in case "freed from the limits and instincts of the body--is a truer self than the dice roll of one's personality" is not clear enough, I mean that the personality is limited by the brain, and manipulated by the biochemistry of a the body, which is itself the product of millions of years of natural selection. But free of body and brain and biochemistry and lethally grubbing for physical survival, there is (in my belief) zoe, the living self that God created for us. It seems to me that with the death of the material, life is liberated to its true form, though perhaps grown in some ways (in wisdom?) by its experience in matter; or perhaps changed for the worse?

What comes next? How should I know? Perhaps zoe (with some dearly bought wisdom) sees what can be learned as a bird of prey or a pine tree or starving Ethiopian mother. Perhaps those who are ready move closer to God while those who are not fall farther still. Perhaps some are simply saved from suffering. Perhaps they go to God. Perhaps they go to another universe. Perhaps the question doesn't even apply. I mean, who died and left me in charge of all the answers? Trusting to a God of love and justice really does help.


However, let me suggest a similarity between the publication of near and shared death experiences today and the publication of unauthorized translations of the Bible into English during Thomas More's time.

Why was More so upset about Tyndale's translation? It undermined the monopoly that Catholicism had over Christianity with the help of the new printing technology. The Catholic Church wanted to make sure words like "ecclesia" and "presbyter" and "caritas" were defined to legitimate the Catholic Church, its ordained priests and the virtue of giving money to only that church. Tyndale opened Christianity up threatening the Catholic monopoly.

Today, we have a new printing revolution. Now Christianity (and its long-despised Jewish minority) are not the only games in town. All of the religions of the world are available for individuals to examine. After all the in-fighting between the various Judeo-Christian and atheist sects civil liberties provide powerful obstacles to the modern equivalents of More from gaining power. What Christians have enjoyed was a monopoly not only on spirituality, but also on "resurrection". Only their Jesus could resurrect. Only their Jesus could provide resurrection to others. That is no longer the case.

What Christians find objectionable about near death experiences today is that it threatens their religious monopoly in the same way that Catholics felt threatened by Protestantism undermining their monopoly in More's day.

Okay, I think I've followed your rather complicated analogy. I do see a some problems with it. But even if the analogy were much clearer, it would still do nothing to advance the veracity of near death experiences. Even if you could show that Christians find the idea objectionable (which I doubt you can), it would not follow that those who report such experiences are telling the truth; or if they are, that their perceptions were authentic experience. They may be, but it has nothing to do with whether Christians find them objectionable.

Also, a statement predicated "What Christians find objectionable about near death experiences today is..." presumes a non-existent uniformity and unanimity of belief between Christian confessions, denominations, and individuals. The Catholic Church has no official position on "NDEs." Many Protestants are interested and even feel vindicated by some of the reports. (The reason the teenaged Pompey Bum plunked out his hard earned law mowing money for a copy of Ray Moody's slender book was that our dippy youth minister had been talking it up). No doubt you could find some Christians who object, but cherry-picking evidence doesn't fly in reasoned discourse. Objecting to the veracity of reports of near death experiences is in no way definitive of being a Christian. So your argument is still born.

I might object to some details of your analogy, too (world religions were widely known before the Internet, Christianity hardly has a monopoly on belief in an afterlife or the transmigration of souls, etc.), but I feel your argument has already been sufficiently blown out of the water. :):):)


From my perspective, I don't see any difference between the shared-death experiences reported in the Christian New Testament and shared-death experiences reported by people of all faiths or even no faith.

Well I'm glad you've found something that seems so universally meaningful to you, YesNo. As I've said before, I am open to the idea; but I treat the subject with no less a critical approach than I bring to Biblical studies. Since we have spoken of such things for many weeks now, I'm sure you see that I am not being inconsistent.

I have a suggestion, too, before I close. Rather than claim that the miracle stories of various religions constitute near death experiences, you would be on stronger ground to argue that medical technology in the 20th and 21st centuries led to a new kind of experience: one in which patients who had clinically died were resuscitated--and this has resulted in near or partial experiences of afterlife. If you are right about that, you won't need to negate somebody else's miracle story. That seems like a polite approach if nothing else. Poor old Lazarus has been through a lot. :)

[YesNo]

What about the many mature adults who are able to confront "specific suffering" without becoming "upset with God"; or even if they do, are still able to think in terms of logic and morality? Is it correct to tar them with the brush of the illogic of others who (at least as you claim) may be too upset to think clearly. Even if you were right about the others, it would not mean that those who assert the reality of suffering are incapable of logic or morality.

Some people can still think logically and morally when they suffer. Some can't.



Your argument at present amounts to this:

1. Individuals suffer. You seem to finally concede this, but in fact, you want to have it both ways because their suffering is inconvenient to your often stated position that suffering does not really exist.

2. You are therefore compelled to argue that individuals who are suffering are not capable of appreciating their true situation because they are suffering, which "impede[s] their logic and morality."

The argument is circular. Those who suffer cannot be wrong about the fact that they are suffering because they are suffering.

People suffer. My position is that I don't see the existence of suffering as evidence that the universe is evil.



We will move toward greater common ground (and make the fatted calf nervous indeed) if we can acknowledge that suffering per se is not the same thing as attempting to use one's own suffering, the suffering of one's ancestors, or the suffering (contemporary or historical) of identified groups as a means to enhance one's personal or political status or power or to advance an argument through an appeal to emotion or special pleading.

Can we agree on that at this point? I'm hungry (and the fatted calf's just sitting there).

I am a vegetarian, but you are welcome to eat the calf.

I think I have already made the distinction you have made.



As I said before, it's not an argument, just speculation. I don't know what happens after death, and I place my faith in the God of love and justice where such things are concerned. But I'm happy to explain/discuss some of my speculations

Okay, so maybe we are just electric meat. Maybe the bulb blows and the whole thing gets tossed out and that's just all she wrote. It's possible. But I don't believe it and neither do you, so let's move on. Another way to look at it is that once we die, our physical bodies are reduced to elemental particles that get recycled; but that we cannot directly observe what happens to the rest of us: the part of us capable of non-physical suffering, for example, which may nevertheless take years to heal, or may even leave us permanently impaired. And if we can't observe this "self" directly, what can we say about it (assuming it exists at all)? Must we accept what has been handed to us by folk traditions, religions, or modern "experts" who may not know more than anyone else about the subject? Or can we bring some logic of our own to our speculations?

Okay, so many would call what I am talking about the soul. The New Testament uses the term pseuxn (psyche) and modern psychology adopts the term to mean the self. In both cases, it is understood to refer to the personality. So I start by asking: why do we assume what remains is the personality? It seems to me there are a lot problems with that idea. Is the personality really consistent between the ages of two and 17 and 48 and 88 (let alone in utero) or do the physical processes of the body change it? What about dementia? Or a massive brain injury resulting personality change (such as in the Phineas Gage or even Jim Brady cases)? Do those born disabled because of damaged or different brains remain "retarded" once the brain is gone? Is the Afterlife like Florida: full of senior citizens and reckless kids? It seems to me that the survival of the personality per se should not be taken for granted, even by those who believe that the light and the bulb are not the same thing.

This is why I prefer to speak of zoe (life) rather than pseuxn (soul). And while it may be the death knell of the old canard that belief in an afterlife is wishful thinking based on a selfish desire to live forever (because who wants to keep living if it's not "you"), I can already see torches and pitchforks being raised by those whose faith has long been that if they go to church or say a special prayer, they will one day be reunited with their lost parents and grandparents and husbands and wives and and brothers and sisters and friends and children. And while I'm tempted to just shrug as compassionately as I can at those people and say: "Look, what makes you think that I know how it works?", I actually suspect that their situation may be better than it seems. It's what I meant when I said: "it may be that what does survive--freed from the limits and instincts of the body--is a truer self than the dice roll of one's personality." In other words, our true selves may not be done with the true selves of those we have loved. And so, to get a little sappy for a moment, we are left with Eric Clapton's question: "Would you know my name?" I say yes. But how would I know?

This is where near and shared death experiences may offer something.



And in case "freed from the limits and instincts of the body--is a truer self than the dice roll of one's personality" is not clear enough, I mean that the personality is limited by the brain, and manipulated by the biochemistry of a the body, which is itself the product of millions of years of natural selection. But free of body and brain and biochemistry and lethally grubbing for physical survival, there is (in my belief) zoe, the living self that God created for us. It seems to me that with the death of the material, life is liberated to its true form, though perhaps grown in some ways (in wisdom?) by its experience in matter; or perhaps changed for the worse?

I think I agree with this, but not with the pessimistic portrayal of this "material" world.

Natural selection is a bad metaphor. Supposedly this selection process occurs without consciousness because it is "natural" unlike artificial selection which is what we do when we breed plants and animals, but if it really were unconscious that would mean no "selection" occurred at all.

What one has are organisms faced with the various climate changes over the billions of years. Those organisms made choices. Those choices materialized changes that ultimately led to us. As I see it, they were not just trying to survive, but they were looking for something better pretty much the way we do today except their range of possibilities were different.



What comes next? How should I know? Perhaps zoe (with some dearly bought wisdom) sees what can be learned as a bird of prey or a pine tree or starving Ethiopian mother. Perhaps those who are ready move closer to God while those who are not fall farther still. Perhaps some are simply saved from suffering. Perhaps they go to God. Perhaps they go to another universe. Perhaps the question doesn't even apply. I mean, who died and left me in charge of all the answers? Trusting to a God of love and justice really does help.

My assumptions are similar, but that doesn't stop me from wanting to find out more.



Okay, I think I've followed your rather complicated analogy. I do see a some problems with it. But even if the analogy were much clearer, it would still do nothing to advance the veracity of near death experiences. Even if you could show that Christians find the idea objectionable (which I doubt you can), it would not follow that those who report such experiences are telling the truth; or if they are, that their perceptions were authentic experience. They may be, but it has nothing to do with whether Christians find them objectionable.

What I am trying to do is understand why you find shared death experiences problematic, while at the same time you seem to accept the reports that Thomas put his hand in Jesus' wounds after the crucifixion when Jesus suddenly appeared in the room.

My guess is that you believe two things: (1) the event actually happened, and (2) only Jesus could do something like that. I have no problem with (1) because I can think of an example of a shared death experience like it. That means I don't have to believe that the event occurred because the event is now no longer a miracle contradicting my general view of reality. Belief (2) is what I am trying to describe as a monopoly.



Also, a statement predicated "What Christians find objectionable about near death experiences today is..." presumes a non-existent uniformity and unanimity of belief between Christian confessions, denominations, and individuals. The Catholic Church has no official position on "NDEs." Many Protestants are interested and even feel vindicated by some of the reports. (The reason the teenaged Pompey Bum plunked out his hard earned law mowing money for a copy of Ray Moody's slender book was that our dippy youth minister had been talking it up). No doubt you could find some Christians who object, but cherry-picking evidence doesn't fly in reasoned discourse. Objecting to the veracity of reports of near death experiences is in no way definitive of being a Christian. So your argument is still born.

I am sure some Christians accept these things. Others don't. What I am trying to understand is why don't those Christians who doubt that shared death experiences are real nonetheless accept their New Testament that contains many such stories?



I might object to some details of your analogy, too (world religions were widely known before the Internet, Christianity hardly has a monopoly on belief in an afterlife or the transmigration of souls, etc.), but I feel your argument has already been sufficiently blown out of the water. :):):)

I think the technology today is critical. Not just publishing, but also transportation. When I was an undergraduate, there weren't any computers with chat and forum interfaces. Sure, I heard of Buddha or Krishna, but I could not discuss these issues with anyone and I would not have even thought of discussing them.

You could look at the rise of new spiritual practices and ideas like species undergoing punctuated equilibrium. Catholicism could be seen as a "species". When its monopoly on spirituality broke down due to the environment having new printing technology various other Christian "species" could come into existence. Similarly today with the environment undergoing technological changes (a kind of cultural climate change), new religious species can emerge.



Well I'm glad you've found something that seems so universally meaningful to you, YesNo. As I've said before, I am open to the idea; but I treat the subject with no less a critical approach than I bring to Biblical studies. Since we have spoken of such things for many weeks now, I'm sure you see that I am not being inconsistent.

I have a suggestion, too, before I close. Rather than claim that the miracle stories of various religions constitute near death experiences, you would be on stronger ground to argue that medical technology in the 20th and 21st centuries led to a new kind of experience: one in which patients who had clinically died were resuscitated--and this has resulted in near or partial experiences of afterlife. If you are right about that, you won't need to negate somebody else's miracle story. That seems like a polite approach if nothing else. Poor old Lazarus has been through a lot. :)

I don't believe in "miracle stories". Either Jesus appeared to travelers on the road to Emmaus, later ate food with them and then disappeared, or he did not. If he did, then that has to be taken into account as part of the way the real world behaves.

[Pompey Bum]

Sounds like we agree on most of what I wrote yesterday. The Fatted Calf was made of ginger cheesecake, by the way. Mmmmm-boy! Gone now, though. :)


Natural selection is a bad metaphor. Supposedly this selection process occurs without consciousness because it is "natural" unlike artificial selection which is what we do when we breed plants and animals, but if it really were unconscious that would mean no "selection" occurred at all.

This discussion belongs on the evolution thread, but while we are here, it seems to me that you are practicing a kind of equivocation with "natural selection." As I understand the term, nature is the one doing the selecting, through genetic recombination and mutation (against the backdrop of the environmental stress you mention). I agree that it is a misleading term, and that there is no discernible selection occurring in terms of choice or will. But that doesn't mean that organisms are choosing how their parents genetic material combines and mutates, or the likelihood of their survival in the changing environment (as you seem to imply below).


What one has are organisms faced with the various climate changes over the billions of years. Those organisms made choices. Those choices materialized changes that ultimately led to us.

As I see it, they were not just trying to survive, but they were looking for something better pretty much the way we do today except their range of possibilities were different.

Which choices exactly did the blue green algae make? When did Australopithecus africanus choose to have a gracile jaw and small teeth so that it could not chew through the increasingly tough vegetation of the drying African savanna? In what way way the bacillus that causes syphilis "looking for something better pretty much the way we do today"? Did it document I it's hopes in any form you are able to demonstrate? But again, let's take that discussion to the evolution thread. I think the biologists among us have long given up on this one.


What I am trying to do is understand why you find shared death experiences problematic, while at the same time you seem to accept the reports that Thomas put his hand in Jesus' wounds after the crucifixion when Jesus suddenly appeared in the room.

Ah, ad hominem tu quoque fallacy. I wondered if that's what you had in mind. Whether I believe that or not has no logical bearing on the validity or non validity of reports of near death experiences. You are also still employing the faulty premise that I "find shared death experiences problematic." I have said several times now that I am open to the idea; but I employ the same critical approach to them that I do, for example, to Biblical studies. If that's still confusing, or if my personal convictions about the Resurrection are not clear, please refer to my discussion about it a few pages back. Now, into the penalty box with you and no more fouling.


My guess is that you believe two things: (1) the event actually happened, and (2) only Jesus could do something like that.

How come you didn't just use what I had already told you I believed instead of guessing? What I said then was that my belief in the Resurrection was part of my faith in an omnipotent God who is stronger than death. It doesn't bother me that the Gospels are a bit confused about what actually happened It's what I'd expect. It doesn't interfere with my faith in God, nor my conviction that the Resurrection was a historical event. So yes, I believe it actually happened and that God did it.


I have no problem with (1) because I can think of an example of a shared death experience like it.

Yes, we've talked about your experience before. But this is the first I have heard of your claim that it was like the Resurrection. And yes, you ARE going to have some hurdles to get over on that one.

First of all: do you or do you not believe that the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth was a historical event? Please answer yes or no (as I just did). If your answer is no, then how can you claim something that didn't happen in the first place was like something that (you say) did happen? But if you answer yes, you still have some hurdles to get over, too.

Your claim that your experience was like the Resurrection is necessarily dependent on your knowing what the Resurrection was like. If you do not know what it was like, then you cannot make the case that the other event was like it. So what was it like and how do you know? Did Jesus rise in the flesh? If so, how did he walk through a door? Or was he a spiritual being at that point? If so, how did he eat food with his disciples? How did he digest the food and how did he excrete it? But if he was corporeal, how did he vanish on the road to Emmaus, and why didn't Cleopas and his companion see who he was until just before he vanished? How did he later ascend into Heaven? But if he was spiritual, how was Thomas able to touch put his hand in his wounds?

And most importantly for the purposes of your claim, how do you know which it was for sure? What information do you have that the rest of us don't to establish what the Resurrection was really like? Or that it occurred at all? Before you answer, please note that "I know because I know what happened in the other experience" is circular thinking (and thus fallacious). You cannot claim that event 1 is like event 2 because event 2 was x way so event 1 must have been x way, too. Your notion that the event was like the Resurrection turns into what George W. Bush once described as a "three-spiral crash." :)


That means I don't have to believe that the event occurred because the event is now no longer a miracle contradicting my general view of reality.

You are free to believe what you like about the event in question. I imagine one more rigorously trained in science would want you to repeat your experience under laboratory conditions before it would be considered quite as natural a phenomenon as you seem to think it is; but you will only get a fight from me to the extent that you try to use your beliefs to negate the faith of others. Why not live and let live? Hmmmm?


Belief (2) is what I am trying to describe as a monopoly.

You have confused belief and faith; of which Christians have no monopoly. For a faithful person (or for myself at least) there is no problem with contradictions between the the Road to Emmaus and Doubting Thomas. I don't know what the Resurrection was like anymore than you do. My faith is in God is sufficient for me to understand that it happened. Who needs the ghost stories?


I am sure some Christians accept these things. Others don't. What I am trying to understand is why don't those Christians who doubt that shared death experiences are real nonetheless accept their New Testament that contains many such stories?

Ah, bait and switch. We weren't talking about Christians "accept[ing]these things" before, but objecting to them. Being open to a possibility (that is, not objecting to it) is not the same as accepting it as necessarily authentic. How did that become a matter of "doubt[ing"?] Do you personally accept every claim to have had a near death experience uncritically? Personally, I don't know of any Christians who object to the idea of it per se. But that doesn't mean we were born yesterday. ;-)


You could look at the rise of new spiritual practices and ideas like species undergoing punctuated equilibrium. Catholicism could be seen as a "species". When its monopoly on spirituality broke down due to the environment having new printing technology various other Christian "species" could come into existence. Similarly today with the environment undergoing technological changes (a kind of cultural climate change), new religious species can emerge.

Oh YesNo, you have some interesting concepts! :-D I'll try on the idea of the Catholic Church as a species unto itself, but I'm not promising anything. But I do like the idea that you and I may be the harbingers (via LitNet) of new approaches to God and meaning. (You, perhaps, as the Prophet of the coming bad marriage between science and religion, and me as the only one who seems to get the difference between sola fide and sola scriptura). Are we to become the Punch and Judy of theology? This thread has had more than 5182 views so far, and that can't all be Melanie. But maybe it's just us writing new posts? (So much for your brave new world!) If it isn't, though, we should definitely consider taking up a collection.

EDIT: How 'bout the Stones? You like the Stones?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KW3ASB3SqRU

[YesNo]

This discussion belongs on the evolution thread, but while we are here, it seems to me that you are practicing a kind of equivocation with "natural selection." As I understand the term, nature is the one doing the selecting, through genetic recombination and mutation (against the backdrop of the environmental stress you mention). I agree that it is a misleading term, and that there is no discernible selection occurring in terms of choice or will. But that doesn't mean that organisms are choosing how their parents genetic material combines and mutates, or the likelihood of their survival in the changing environment (as you seem to imply below).

I think the discussion is relevant because we are talking about theodicy. Since atheists don't believe in God, one can switch that to "cosmodicy" or justifying the universe in the face of suffering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy#Cosmodicy_and_anthropodicy

You seem to admit that "natural selection" is "misleading" because "there is no discernible selection occurring in terms of choice or will."



Which choices exactly did the blue green algae make? When did Australopithecus africanus choose to have a gracile jaw and small teeth so that it could not chew through the increasingly tough vegetation of the drying African savanna? In what way way the bacillus that causes syphilis "looking for something better pretty much the way we do today"? Did it document I it's hopes in any form you are able to demonstrate? But again, let's take that discussion to the evolution thread. I think the biologists among us have long given up on this one.

I don't know how they chose to do these things, but they are the only ones who could have made a choice in response to the climate changes at the time. The climate changes did not change the jaw shape.

The documents that it left were fossils. The "when" based on punctuated equilibrium happened in a relatively rapid time frame, tens of thousands of years of "punctuation" compared to millions of years of "equilibrium". For more information on this, see Niles Eldredge, "Evolution and Extinction".

Let me throw the question back at you. How did random mutations without the use of consciousness of any sort generate an evolutionary history, documented by fossils, involving increased complexity?

I like to think of "natural selection" as a metaphor as bad as "Mr. Market". For those who don't know, Mr. Market is credited with a stock rising or falling. Now, we all know there is no Mr. Market making these choices. The people responsible are the individual investors who traded that day given the changing financial environment. We forget that about natural selection.



What I said then was that my belief in the Resurrection was part of my faith in an omnipotent God who is stronger than death. It doesn't bother me that the Gospels are a bit confused about what actually happened It's what I'd expect. It doesn't interfere with my faith in God, nor my conviction that the Resurrection was a historical event. So yes, I believe it actually happened and that God did it.

I have no problem with God doing it. I don't think we'd see anything at all without some transcendent Consciousness manifesting the world.

There may be parts of the Gospels that are confused. I don't think the stuff about the Jews was very nice for example. The Romans killed Jesus.



First of all: do you or do you not believe that the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth was a historical event? Please answer yes or no (as I just did). If your answer is no, then how can you claim something that didn't happen in the first place was like something that (you say) did happen? But if you answer yes, you still have some hurdles to get over, too.

I'm not a Christian, so my views on the bodily resurrection of Jesus are irrelevant. However, from what I remember about reading parts of the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles when I was thinking about near and shared death experiences, I don't think Jesus had a near death experience. The body he had may have de-materialized or it may have been taken away. It doesn't matter. What I think he did do was generate very powerful and materialized shared death experiences for his followers.

So, did he resurrect with the same body that was crucified? No. He would have needed many months of recovery and Pilate would have crucified him a second time. Did he materialize and de-materialize later in a real body, as real as yours or mine? Yes. Or, at least, based on shared death experiences I have no reason to doubt that these events did not happen as reported.

Those events are enough to justify the creation of a new, legitimate religion that reflects spiritual reality.



Your claim that your experience was like the Resurrection is necessarily dependent on your knowing what the Resurrection was like. If you do not know what it was like, then you cannot make the case that the other event was like it. So what was it like and how do you know? Did Jesus rise in the flesh? If so, how did he walk through a door? Or was he a spiritual being at that point? If so, how did he eat food with his disciples? How did he digest the food and how did he excrete it? But if he was corporeal, how did he vanish on the road to Emmaus, and why didn't Cleopas and his companion see who he was until just before he vanished? How did he later ascend into Heaven? But if he was spiritual, how was Thomas able to touch put his hand in his wounds?

As you are aware, I am a panentheistic idealist. I am neither a materialist nor a dualist. There is no unconscious matter out there to stop him from doing whatever he wants. Luckily, our minds are not so free or who knows what damage we would do to others.



You have confused belief and faith; of which Christians have no monopoly. For a faithful person (or for myself at least) there is no problem with contradictions between the the Road to Emmaus and Doubting Thomas. I don't know what the Resurrection was like anymore than you do. My faith is in God is sufficient for me to understand that it happened. Who needs the ghost stories?

I need them if I want to grant credibility to the New Testament stories.

I am also looking for levitation events. For example, did Jesus actually walk on water, a form of levitation event? I've heard of other stories from the past that are similar, but I want something more contemporaneous.



Ah, bait and switch. We weren't talking about Christians "accept[ing]these things" before, but objecting to them. Being open to a possibility (that is, not objecting to it) is not the same as accepting it as necessarily authentic. How did that become a matter of "doubt[ing"?] Do you personally accept every claim to have had a near death experience uncritically? Personally, I don't know of any Christians who object to the idea of it per se. But that doesn't mean we were born yesterday. ;-)

I let people like Raymond Moody verify these events. So, I trust what this authority has to say. I don't trust what so-called skeptics have to say, because I reject the metaphysics of these skeptics.



Oh YesNo, you have some interesting concepts! :-D I'll try on the idea of the Catholic Church as a species unto itself, but I'm not promising anything. But I do like the idea that you and I may be the harbingers (via LitNet) of new approaches to God and meaning. (You, perhaps, as the Prophet of the coming bad marriage between science and religion, and me as the only one who seems to get the difference between sola fide and sola scriptura). Are we to become the Punch and Judy of theology? This thread has had more than 5182 views so far, and that can't all be Melanie. But maybe it's just us writing new posts? (So much for your brave new world!) If it isn't, though, we should definitely consider taking up a collection.

I'm not a prophet, but someone discussing my own cultural assumptions with you and trying to weed out the ones that don't make sense. Part of my problem is that I don't know what I believe, but I have learned to realize that I believe a lot of junk that I should not.



EDIT: How 'bout the Stones? You like the Stones?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KW3ASB3SqRU

How about Meghan Trainor? I do like that song about the bass.

[Pompey Bum]

Look, despite your attempt to change the subject, you are going to have to have the complexity debate on the evolutionary thread. It is not relevant to our discussion of near death experiences and the Resurrection of Jesus. When you get to that thread, by the way, you might want to try again on some of the questions from my last post. Claiming that blue green algae or early hominids chose their own genetic make-up because "they are the only ones who could have made a choice in response to the climate changes at the time" is execrable logic. "The documents it left were fossils" is a nonsensical response to my questions: "In what way way the bacillus that causes syphilis 'looking for something better pretty much the way we do today'? Did it document it's hopes in any form you are able to demonstrate?" Even if the bacillus had left any fossils (and if it did, please show them to me), they could not be used to sustain a claim that the pathogen was "looking for something pretty much the way we do today'"

But let's not get distracted. ;-)


I'm not a Christian, so my views on the bodily resurrection of Jesus are irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant if you claim:


I can think of an example of a shared death experience like it.

Once again, you cannot claim something you say did not happen is an example of something you say did happen. That logic does not go away just because you choose to ignore it. So did it happen and how do you know?


However, from what I remember about reading parts of the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles when I was thinking about near and shared death experiences, I don't think Jesus had a near death experience. The body he had may have de-materialized or it may have been taken away. It doesn't matter. What I think he did do was generate very powerful and materialized shared death experiences for his followers.


So, did he resurrect with the same body that was crucified? No. He would have needed many months of recovery and Pilate would have crucified him a second time. Did he materialize and de-materialize later in a real body, as real as yours or mine? Yes. Or, at least, based on shared death experiences I have no reason to doubt that these events did not happen as reported.

What makes you think that "what [you] remember about reading parts of the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles" is historically accurate? The answer you give above is: "based on shared death experiences I have no reason to doubt that these events did not happen as reported."

So to examine your reasoning: you claim that the Resurrection of Jesus provides evidence for the validity of shared death experiences. But how could you possibly know what (if anything) actually happened during the Resurrection? Your answer: I know because it was a shared death experience; and I know what those are like. That is a circular argument--more crap logic. Again, you'd probably do better to just focus on modern reports (IMHO).


I let people like Raymond Moody verify these events. So, I trust what this authority has to say. I don't trust what so-called skeptics have to say, because I reject the metaphysics of these skeptics.

So despite your claims to be dealing with the world as it really is, you are relying just faith, too. The difference is that I have faith in God and you have faith in someone selling a book. Good luck with that, YesNo.


I am also looking for levitation events. For example, did Jesus actually walk on water, a form of levitation event? I've heard of other stories from the past that are similar, but I want something more contemporaneous.

The Indian rope trick?

[YesNo]

Once again, you cannot claim something you say did not happen is an example of something you say did happen. That logic does not go away just because you choose to ignore it. So did it happen and how do you know?

I am not following this.



What makes you think that "what [you] remember about reading parts of the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles" is historically accurate? The answer you give above is: "based on shared death experiences I have no reason to doubt that these events did not happen as reported."

So to examine your reasoning: you claim that the Resurrection of Jesus provides evidence for the validity of shared death experiences. But how could you possibly know what (if anything) actually happened during the Resurrection? Your answer: I know because it was a shared death experience; and I know what those are like. That is a circular argument--more crap logic. Again, you'd probably do better to just focus on modern reports (IMHO).

Just the opposite. The shared death experiences provide evidence that the events reported in the Christian New Testament could have happened.



So despite your claims to be dealing with the world as it really is, you are relying just faith, too. The difference is that I have faith in God and you have faith in someone selling a book. Good luck with that, YesNo.

It perhaps could all be generalized to faith or belief.

There might be different levels of belief. Some things we take for granted like common sense. We don't call common sense a belief, but it is. We like to think of it as a bunch of obvious facts. Other things contradicting common sense we might explicitly believe in even though they contradict what we think are facts. These would be miracle stories. They are miracles because they contradict our common sense facts, but we still believe in them. I prefer avoiding miracle stories. If a miracle occurred it tells me to reset my common sense to allow for such things to occur.

How does this relate the the OP?

The question is whether a good God can exist with the existence of suffering. I view suffering as a way to learn. In trying to avoid it we make adjustments so the next time the suffering will be less.

For those who don't believe in God, the question shifts to whether suffering implies that the universe is not good. I don't think that is true either. In other words I disagree with the message in the "Melancholia" movie: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/melancholia-2008 However, that puts me at odds with religious people who believe the universe is bad and something they must save themselves from or be saved from by someone else.

That is where the arguments about evolution enter the discussion. Does the suffering to life through climate change resulting in evolution and extinction imply that the universe is not good? I don't think so. Suffering motivates species to change. What I think is the case is that what we mean by evolution is clouded by bad metaphors that emphasize suffering, survivalism and unconsciousness rather than the agency of the living organisms involved in the process.

[Pompey Bum]

I am not following this.

Pigs can fly. You know that famous story of the pigs flying 2000 years ago? Well that never happened. See? Pigs can fly.


Just the opposite. The shared death experiences provide evidence that the events reported in the Christian New Testament could have happened.

But how do I know whether those pigs 2000 years ago (the ones that didn't fly) were actually flying? Simple: because pigs can fly, it provides evidence that those pigs 2000 years ago were flying. And those pigs flying 2000 years ago in turn provide evidence that pigs can fly.


It perhaps could all be generalized to faith or belief.

Fine. Have faith in what you choose.

[duke-one]

Free will and choice? The supernatural? I think I understand the very common human desire for some sort of "overseer" or god. Much has been said here about terrible things happening to good people and the desire to believe that there is a reason for it, either the individuals choices or some supernatural being putting these events in motion. I believe it is neither. I choose to live in California in an old non-earthquake strengthened house. It could fall down on me before I type the next word here or it could happen the hour after I move to some non seismic area. There could be a major quake and I could "luck out" and not be hurt. I could spend a small fortune on seismic retrofitting and the house could still fall apart depending on the type of quake, it's strength and direction. I could be taking out the garbage and the house falling wouldn't affect my physical health.
It is an interesting subject to discuss and has been for ever but, in my humble opinion, there is no answer and certainly not a supernatural answer.
Duke Masters
l

[YesNo]

Pigs can fly. You know that famous story of the pigs flying 2000 years ago? Well that never happened. See? Pigs can fly.


I'm still not following this, but it probably doesn't matter.