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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

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!")

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

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. ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

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 :)).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

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

---

See above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pompey Bum

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pompey Bum

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pompey Bum

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

---

Ah, where did you hear that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pompey Bum

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pompey Bum

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pompey Bum

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melanie

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melanie

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mona amon

...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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mona amon

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mona amon

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melanie

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melanie

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melanie

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melanie

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. :)

True. Good on-topic discussion, mona.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

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!")

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pompey Bum

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pompey Bum

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

Ah, where did you hear that?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

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 :))

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mona amon

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mona amon

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mona amon

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. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pompey Bum

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pompey Bum

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pompey Bum

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pompey Bum

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. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pompey Bum

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pompey Bum

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pompey Bum

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pompey Bum

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pompey Bum

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pompey Bum

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pompey Bum

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pompey Bum

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mona amon

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mona amon

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. :))

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mona amon

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. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

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. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

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! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

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. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pompey Bum

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).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

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!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

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.

"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.")

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pompey Bum

.



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?).

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? :)

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.

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/

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pompey Bum

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by easy75

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by easy75

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pompey Bum

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.



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. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by easy75

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?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by easy75

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pompey Bum

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by easy75

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pompey Bum

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.

Quote:

---

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... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melanie

VIDEO:

http://www.prageruniversity.com/Reli...l#.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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by easy75

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by easy75

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by easy75

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. :)

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:

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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

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.