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

[mortalterror]

Epicurus got it right thousands of years ago:

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

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

[mortalterror]

So what's the best answer?

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

[Pompey Bum]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's the predicament.

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

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

[YesNo]

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

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

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

That's the predicament.

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

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

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

[Pompey Bum]

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

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

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

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

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

[YesNo]

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

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

[Pompey Bum]

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

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

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

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

[Ecurb]

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

[Clopin]

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

[Pompey Bum]

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

[Clopin]

Hey, Joni herself was a big fan of his!

[Pompey Bum]

Beaver-huggers stick together.

[YesNo]

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

[Pompey Bum]

How can you guys even listen to him?

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

[YesNo]

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