Atheists....

[kilted exile]

I kind of figured that you were speaking of the issue of pain and suffering here on earth. That is troubling, but God has His reasons for permitting it (just as a parent has reasons for permitting a child to experience a certain amount of failure and suffering). Granted - I'm not going to sit here and say that suffering is a good and necessary thing - but God has granted us freewill; He can't just grant freewill to those of us who want to do things His way (i.e. be loving, compassionate, fair, etc) because that means only certain people have freedom to act. I'll stop there, because that's a different discussion. I will say, though, that making the suffering issue a reason for discounting the existence of God requires us to believe that God is ignorant of our sufferings and indifferent - He is neither.

See the suffering caused by the actions of humans I could always reconcile in my head, the issue I have is with the natural disasters which cause so much suffering e.g earthquakes, tornadoes etc.

OK - but my point would be that human nature is so flawed and self-interested that Christians believe that only through serving God do we begin to understand the servant-nature required to create good societies that "work together."

I think there is a distinction to be drawn here I dont think we need to adopt a servant nature. I would far prefer an "equal nature" I know this is really idealistic, I am cynical enough to realise this will never happen but I believe it can.

Your point is well taken; but I think that observable harm is often only the tip of the iceberg - that by the time you see it, already a significant amount of harm has occurred at levels apparent only at emotional and spiritual levels. "Harm" is also somewhat subjective: how do we qualify what "harm" is and its effects? Isn't that related to a moral framework?

Yep harm is related to a moral framework

But can we be sure of the "sound mind" thing? Why can't I just end my life if I want to? Why must it have the qualifiers of "meaningless" or experiencing "intense pain"? And why wouldn't you agree with my decision? Aren't you - at that point - rendering a sort of judgment as to the moral value of my choice?

I would think with the example you gave we would need to have an examination of sound mind and an idependently witnessed agreement in order to prevent somone killing another and then saying they had been asked to do it.

With regards to the meaningless qualifier, I would think if you have decided you want to die you have already decided that your life is also meaningless.

With regards to not agreeing & that itself being a moral judgement: I may think that I would never do such a thing, but I do not have to live that persons life. - I do not so much see this as judging the morality of the act, I am ascribing it as neither good or bad just simply something I wouldnt do.

Perhaps; but decreasing the importance of the level of commitment required will do little to repair this suffering institution.

That of course depends on whether you believe marriage should be repaired.
Quick history perhaps giving some insight as to why I think this: My parents were together for 7years, my dad left my mother for another woman and stayed with her until she died approx 16years later (never remarried to her)

I spoke with a bit of extremity and with considerable obscurity in terms of making my points clear. Christianity believes that a life lived without God may be gratifying, but not satisfying; C.S. Lewis pointed out that - since God created humans - humans were designed to "run" on God; any other substitute would be unfulfilling.

Point taken; but as Christ pointed out in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7), the motivation precedes the action - and the motivation is where the sin begins.

Yes but we can not prosecute people for a thought.

Fair enough (but, if judgment arrived and you faced eternal loss of heaven and eternal life, would you think kindly on he who gave up so easily in trying to avert such an outcome?)

Ok, if that happens I will think kindly on the person who tried to alert me to the situation - the annoyance/dislike would be for myself

Fair enough. I'm only trying to explain some of the intensity of Christian evangelizing - we really really believe that heaven is real and we'd like everybody there.

I understand the explanation, and that people think that way. I am just unable to agree with the position.

I posted a poem by Norman McCaig called Assissi in the favourite poems thread (somewhere near the top of page 20 if I remember correctly) The second stanza really sums up my opinion (wrong word, but best I can think of) on the matter:

"A priest explained
How clever it was of Giotto
To make his frescoes tell stories
That would reveal to the illiterate the goodness
Of God and the suffering
Of His Son. I understood
The explanation
And the cleverness"

[Redzeppelin]

See the suffering caused by the actions of humans I could always reconcile in my head, the issue I have is with the natural disasters which cause so much suffering e.g earthquakes, tornadoes etc.

That surprises me that you blame God for the disasters that nature causes? Generally people get angry at God for the inhumanity they see coming from human beings.

I think there is a distinction to be drawn here I dont think we need to adopt a servant nature. I would far prefer an "equal nature" I know this is really idealistic, I am cynical enough to realise this will never happen but I believe it can.

Einstein said that only a life of service is worthwhile (paraphrased); Mother Teresa proved it. Our culture's demand that we all be "equal" hasn't done much to improve the condition of society. Choosing an attitude of service might be an improvement.

Yep harm is related to a moral framework

We agree.

I would think with the example you gave we would need to have an examination of sound mind and an idependently witnessed agreement in order to prevent somone killing another and then saying they had been asked to do it.

How could you ever really be sure? Are you saying my desire to die (which may show up many times for reasons that may or may not be that dire) is sufficient reason to end my life?

With regards to the meaningless qualifier, I would think if you have decided you want to die you have already decided that your life is also meaningless.

Are we always the best judge of the value of our own lives (especially when our value to those around us is often unclear to us)?

With regards to not agreeing & that itself being a moral judgement: I may think that I would never do such a thing, but I do not have to live that persons life. - I do not so much see this as judging the morality of the act, I am ascribing it as neither good or bad just simply something I wouldnt do.

May I push a bit further? Why wouldn't you do it? Your choice not to do something implies an evaluation of some sort.

That of course depends on whether you believe marriage should be repaired. Quick history perhaps giving some insight as to why I think this: My parents were together for 7years, my dad left my mother for another woman and stayed with her until she died approx 16years later (never remarried to her)

But aren't you condemning the institution for the failure of the people in it? My parents split when I was 12 - I know the drill. My first marriage ended within one year; my second has struggled mightily - but I think there is great value in a committed relationship and the growth that can result from it. We assume marriage is supposed to make us "happy" - I believe it is to help us grow - but many of us run because the required growth asks more than we are willing to give (but I also understand [from experience, mind you] that some things cannot be repaired).

Avoiding marriage doesn't avoid pain - it just avoids the seriousness of the commitment.

Yes but we can not prosecute people for a thought.

Right - and I wouldn't advocate that. What I was implying was that although people are free to believe as they wish, that atrocious behavior is always preceded by atrocious thoughts.

Ok, if that happens I will think kindly on the person who tried to alert me to the situation - the annoyance/dislike would be for myself

Fair enough.

I understand the explanation, and that people think that way. I am just unable to agree with the position.

Unfortunate, but understandable.

I posted a poem by Norman McCaig called Assissi in the favourite poems thread (somewhere near the top of page 20 if I remember correctly) The second stanza really sums up my opinion (wrong word, but best I can think of) on the matter:

"A priest explained
How clever it was of Giotto
To make his frescoes tell stories
That would reveal to the illiterate the goodness
Of God and the suffering
Of His Son. I understood
The explanation
And the cleverness"

Yes, that's one way of seeing things.

[Babbalanja]

That surprises me that you blame God for the disasters that nature causes? Generally people get angry at God for the inhumanity they see coming from human beings.

No, generally people just realize that either is exactly what we'd expect from a Godless, indifferent universe.

[wrestle-135]

There is no way that I could ever be athiest. I've grown up in an Apostolic Pentecostal church all my life and I've seen the deaf ears open and people with cancers have them completely healed when they went back to their doctors. I've seen my Youth Pastor get his big toe healed after he ran it over with a lawn mower and take off running and jumping in praise. God's real no doubt in my mind. He's a great God.

[Redzeppelin]

No, generally people just realize that either is exactly what we'd expect from a Godless, indifferent universe.

This comment presupposes some idea as to what a universe with God in it would look like. What would such a universe look like?

[kilted exile]

That surprises me that you blame God for the disasters that nature causes? Generally people get angry at God for the inhumanity they see coming from human beings.

No, I blame humans for humans problems, for example I do not blame God for the fact that my brother needed major facial reconstructive surgery, has 3 plates in his head & is still being treated for PTSD 2& a half years later, I blame the 3 #$%^%$^&$&$&$ that callously attacked him and the useless police force for not charging anyone in connection with it. I see things like earthquakes as a "design" flaw.

Einstein said that only a life of service is worthwhile (paraphrased); Mother Teresa proved it. Our culture's demand that we all be "equal" hasn't done much to improve the condition of society. Choosing an attitude of service might be an improvement.

This again relates to my political views, which I cant go into here. Suffice to say my issue with the servant nature is that it is dependent also on a master

How could you ever really be sure? Are you saying my desire to die (which may show up many times for reasons that may or may not be that dire) is sufficient reason to end my life?

Are we always the best judge of the value of our own lives (especially when our value to those around us is often unclear to us)?

100% certainty on most things is impossible, however I think we can be pretty close to sure using psychological techniques. As far as the reaons behind the choice, I would hope that the person has put at least some thought into it, and if they have not the discussions necessary in a case like this would cause them to if the reasons are simple things they would come out in this process and the person may well change their mind about going ahead with it. If they are still committed to the deed so be it (I know that seems kinda cold and uncaring)

May I push a bit further? Why wouldn't you do it? Your choice not to do something implies an evaluation of some sort.

This has to do with other issues from my past which I have since put behind me and do not really like discussing, suffice to say at one point I sat with the knife in my hand, but was unable to make the cut.

But aren't you condemning the institution for the failure of the people in it? My parents split when I was 12 - I know the drill. My first marriage ended within one year; my second has struggled mightily - but I think there is great value in a committed relationship and the growth that can result from it. We assume marriage is supposed to make us "happy" - I believe it is to help us grow - but many of us run because the required growth asks more than we are willing to give (but I also understand [from experience, mind you] that some things cannot be repaired).

Avoiding marriage doesn't avoid pain - it just avoids the seriousness of the commitment.

My point with the example about the difference in time period my father spent with my mother compared to the second women was to show that the level of committment was not reduced by not being married to her, if anything he was more committed

Right - and I wouldn't advocate that. What I was implying was that although people are free to believe as they wish, that atrocious behavior is always preceded by atrocious thoughts.

Yes, I understand and agree with that but until they act on those beliefs we can not do anything about it & we cant prevent them from holding the belief

[Redzeppelin]

No, I blame humans for humans problems, for example I do not blame God for the fact that my brother needed major facial reconstructive surgery, has 3 plates in his head & is still being treated for PTSD 2& a half years later, I blame the 3 #$%^%$^&$&$&$ that callously attacked him and the useless police force for not charging anyone in connection with it. I see things like earthquakes as a "design" flaw.

I agree that human beings are responsible for their behavior. I would suggest that earthquakes may or may not have been God's inteded ideal for the earth; Chrisitian thought (at least one strain of it) believes that sin affected all of reality - not just humanity. In my mind, expecting God to stop how nature appears to work is similar to expecting him to stop all humanly-constructed tragedies.

This again relates to my political views, which I cant go into here. Suffice to say my issue with the servant nature is that it is dependent also on a master

Right - but I speak in terms of ideal: ideally, if all people have a servant attitude, there are no masters. (Granted, human nature pretty much squashes the practicality of this idea to an extent: I think it is possible to serve without becoming enslaved - you serve because you choose to - not because you're obligated to.)

100% certainty on most things is impossible, however I think we can be pretty close to sure using psychological techniques. As far as the reaons behind the choice, I would hope that the person has put at least some thought into it, and if they have not the discussions necessary in a case like this would cause them to if the reasons are simple things they would come out in this process and the person may well change their mind about going ahead with it. If they are still committed to the deed so be it (I know that seems kinda cold and uncaring)

I suppose my response would be that humans are very emotional, fickle, and self-interested creatures; without a moral law to say "look - this behavior is wrong" we then end up with situations like you described where we really have no good reason to say "no" to a particular behavior - but we naturally recoil from it and think "I'm not totally comfortable with this."

This has to do with other issues from my past which I have since put behind me and do not really like discussing, suffice to say at one point I sat with the knife in my hand, but was unable to make the cut.

Fair enough.

My point with the example about the difference in time period my father spent with my mother compared to the second women was to show that the level of committment was not reduced by not being married to her, if anything he was more committed

But why not "dot the i's and cross the t's" since he was so committed? I think "burning one's ships" is a demonstration of commitment; if you intend to stay forever, why not demonstrate thusly? What's gained by refusing to offer public affirmation of commitment? How is the relationship better for not getting married?

Yes, I understand and agree with that but until they act on those beliefs we can not do anything about it & we cant prevent them from holding the belief

I'll agree there.

[Babbalanja]

This comment presupposes some idea as to what a universe with God in it would look like. What would such a universe look like?

Why don't you tell me?

It seems our universe has as much brutality as beauty, and rewards us with its wonders as often as it shocks us with its heartlessness.

Occam's Razor, amigo. The word "God" might help you make sense of it, but the rest of us are just fine with the universe the way it is.

[Redzeppelin]

Why don't you tell me?

Because I asked you the question - that's how questions work. Whoever gets asked the question is supposed to answer it.

If you claim a definition of what a "godless" universe is like, I assume that you must have some idea about what a "God-filled" universe looks like (because to claim something as "less" - example: "heartless" - you must know what it is that is "minus" [if I have no feelings, compassion or love, I am, therefore, "heartless"]). If you can't or won't answer the question, that's fine, but I don't know how you can say what a "godless" universe looks like unless you have some idea as to what the universe is missing in terms of events or actions of characteristics that reveal that God's not here.

It seems our universe has as much brutality as beauty, and rewards us with its wonders as often as it shocks us with its heartlessness.

The universe does not have a "heart" - its ability to kill us is incidental and not a matter of intent.

Occam's Razor, amigo. The word "God" might help you make sense of it, but the rest of us are just fine with the universe the way it is.

I have no idea why you're telling me this. Why bring up Occam? I'm waiting for you to present what the universe would look like with God in it, since you seem to know what a "godless" universe looks like. I await a better answer than the one you've given.

[kilted exile]

I agree that human beings are responsible for their behavior. I would suggest that earthquakes may or may not have been God's inteded ideal for the earth; Chrisitian thought (at least one strain of it) believes that sin affected all of reality - not just humanity. In my mind, expecting God to stop how nature appears to work is similar to expecting him to stop all humanly-constructed tragedies.

Yeah, I've heard this reasoning before. It's never really worked for me however. My main issue is with the indescriminate nature of natural disasters.

Right - but I speak in terms of ideal: ideally, if all people have a servant attitude, there are no masters. (Granted, human nature pretty much squashes the practicality of this idea to an extent: I think it is possible to serve without becoming enslaved - you serve because you choose to - not because you're obligated to.)

I think we may be arguing semantics here, what you describe I would describe as an equal nature seeing as everyone has the same nature

I suppose my response would be that humans are very emotional, fickle, and self-interested creatures; without a moral law to say "look - this behavior is wrong" we then end up with situations like you described where we really have no good reason to say "no" to a particular behavior - but we naturally recoil from it and think "I'm not totally comfortable with this."

Yes we are emotional, fickle and a lot of the time self-interested. What makes me more uncomfortable is not having a good reason to refuse a particular behaviour, but still telling people they can not do it because a preconcieved notion of how we might act under the circumstances.

But why not "dot the i's and cross the t's" since he was so committed? I think "burning one's ships" is a demonstration of commitment; if you intend to stay forever, why not demonstrate thusly? What's gained by refusing to offer public affirmation of commitment? How is the relationship better for not getting married?

If people wish to get married and wish to display it publically that is fine. However if the two people involved in the relationship, are happy living a "private" life that is fine also it is just what works for some people.

I have also realised I never actually responded to one of your previous points

I spoke with a bit of extremity and with considerable obscurity in terms of making my points clear. Christianity believes that a life lived without God may be gratifying, but not satisfying; C.S. Lewis pointed out that - since God created humans - humans were designed to "run" on God; any other substitute would be unfulfilling.

I believe you are referring to Matthew 6v24 here: "Man can not serve 2 masters etc" This is/was one of my favourite verses from the bible. It is a point which there is some degree of difficulty arguing with seeing as it is a personnally (albeit wideheld amongst the religious in nature) held belief. For a number of people the belief in a God gives their life extra meaning, for others it adds little.

[Devon_Marie07]

There is no way that I could ever be athiest. I've grown up in an Apostolic Pentecostal church all my life and I've seen the deaf ears open and people with cancers have them completely healed when they went back to their doctors. I've seen my Youth Pastor get his big toe healed after he ran it over with a lawn mower and take off running and jumping in praise. God's real no doubt in my mind. He's a great God.

Speaking of people healing, on the same day my pastor's daughter found out her "hole in the wall of her heart was completely gone" and she was discharged my best friend went to the doctor and found that her breast cancer that had been there a week ago was completely gone. God works gread miracules!

[Babbalanja]

Because I asked you the question - that's how questions work. Whoever gets asked the question is supposed to answer it.

If you claim a definition of what a "godless" universe is like, I assume that you must have some idea about what a "God-filled" universe looks like.

No need to be snide. You being a believer, I thought you might have a better idea what to expect from an omnipotent deity.

Can I assume there would be any discernible difference between a universe controlled by an all-powerful, all-loving God and one without? Am I naive to think that this Being would protect His creatures from harm? That the innocent would not suffer? Isn't that what prayers and submission and belief are all about?

The mere fact that the innocent DO suffer should make us wonder whether belief in the all-loving-all-powerful God isn't wishful thinking. Because then we have to create ad hoc explanations for why the omnipotent Being, no doubt in His infinite wisdom, allows such random brutality in His creation.

I invoked Occam's razor, because it's relevant to this dilemma. Is the universe amoral and indifferent because that's just the way it is, or is it because God is trying to make us think that's just the way it is? Are we being honest with ourselves about the tragedy inherent in the suffering of the innocent, or merely trying to rationalize it away by pretending it's not really tragedy?

In other words, is there actually a good reason to think there's an all-powerful-all-loving God overseeing the universe? How would the universe look if there weren't an omnipotent Being controlling everything?

[ennison]

The creation groans as we do due to the existence of evil, within and around us. I guess some of us find that hard to accept. And a few might say, 'Well why did God create evil?' Some of us accept that there was a Fall and find that an explanation of sufficient strength. I believe this might be a partial response to some of the comments above.

[Babbalanja]

The creation groans as we do due to the existence of evil, within and around us. I guess some of us find that hard to accept.

But you're really not accepting it if you think it's all part of "God's plan," are you? Either you accept that tragedy and happiness are part of our existence, or you relinquish the right to see anything as tragic, since God has His reasons for making or allowing it to happen.

So am I blaspheming for asserting that I don't see what greater good He could want to achieve by allowing child abuse or devastating tsunamis? Or are you blaspheming by asserting that God is basically responsible for these things since he doesn't deign to prevent them?

[Bookworm4Him]

No, I blame humans for humans problems, for example I do not blame God for the fact that my brother needed major facial reconstructive surgery, has 3 plates in his head & is still being treated for PTSD 2& a half years later, I blame the 3 #$%^%$^&$&$&$ that callously attacked him and the useless police force for not charging anyone in connection with it. I see things like earthquakes as a "design" flaw.

I'll pray for him.