DEvolution in America

[gryphon strike]

While I'm happy that you feel your life is improved by suffering, I find it slightly horrifying that people can hold this attitude from a position of privilege. Do you think the lives of brutalised war orphans in Darfur are improved by suffering? How about those kids with the worms growing in their eyes? At least the Anti-Targ's position makes some kind of sense (it's the nearest I've seen to a reasonable justification for loving-God-causes-suffering, though still leaves a nasty taste).

ahh but you choose to blame the Creator for human things, I don't, earthquakes and natural disasters on the other hand.

And min no offense intended but from what you have said you have absolutely no idea just what my position is.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

What's your take on Noah's story, Adam and Ever, and Jesus Christ, with that approach?

I'm honestly not sure how to answer this. Perhaps you could elaborate more about what you are asking from me, so I can have a better idea about what I am answering.

[Galactus]

This may be, but the idea that humanity is somehow so special that God must cater to us and our notions of being a caregiver is also a rather somewhat silly. ETA: I did add a little bit above too, which covered the "at least in the classical conception."

Oh, I agree. The idea of an alien unknowable and wholly incomprehensible God makes perfect sense to me. (I'd still reject it by Occam's Razor, but I have no real problem with the concept apart from lack of evidence) even the idea of a human-like dickish god like Zeus (and that is, I think, the original conception of the semitic God as well: Something essentially human-like if far more powerful and influential)

BUT that also removes any claims of moral benevolence/superiority. It really makes him no different from Azathoth.

Basically the "god" as described by modern christians by and large makes little sense, contradicts itself (mostly by assigning various "perfect" qualities to God that are mutually exclusive or at least not compatible with external reality) I agree that this is probably a product of trying to combine jewish notions of the tribal god with platonic notions about perfection.

[Shryke]

Of course, that doesen't really fly either: Human parents can be flawed, but if God is the *perfect* parent and with all the other traits attributed to God... He can't be.

Because the way being God works, *everything* that happens must be deliberate. Even if we can assume he gives us free will, he's *still* deliberately infecting us with plague or letting us get eaten by tigers or buried by avalanches.

God doesen't have the excuses a mortal parent does: He can't say "I didn't know" or "I was too busy" or even make the excuse that he has a personality not suited to be a parent. (since he is, per definition, perfect)

Why?

[Galactus]

Why?

Because if you are both omniscient (which would mean you could know the future) and omnipotent (which mean you could change it) any future events will be something you deliberately allow to happen. (even more so if you created the damn thing in the first place)

God can't say "Ooops, I didn't see that coming." because well, he can see the future. (again, in his classical conceptions, there are a few alt-gods that don't have this problem) if something happens it's because he lets it happen.

The usual standard for culpability is that if you could reasonably have assumed that something would result from your actions you are responsible for them. Since God can know the result of ALL of his actions and since (by creating the universe) he is the source of ALL further actions he is responsible for all that happens, and deliberately so.

The classic free-will Theodicy doesen't really change this (all it means is that God has a good reason to let things proceed anyway) it doesen't make her any less responsible.

EDIT: Basically an omniscient being can't have any unforseen side-effects of her actions. Thus all consequences must, by nature of the omniscience, be deliberate.

[Shryke]

So given this paragraph:

Basically the "god" as described by modern christians by and large makes little sense, contradicts itself (mostly by assigning various "perfect" qualities to God that are mutually exclusive or at least not compatible with external reality) I agree that this is probably a product of trying to combine jewish notions of the tribal god with platonic notions about perfection.

I'm assuming this is the standard "Why does God let bad stuff happen?" shtick?

[Galactus]

So given this paragraph:

I'm assuming this is the standard "Why does God let bad stuff happen?" shtick?

God doesn't just let things happen though: He CAUSES bad things to happen. That's the problem with being the First Cause: Every other Cause flows from you. Of course, God causes every GOOD thing to happen too.

I can provisionally accept the Free Will Theodicy (IE: The ability for humans to choose outweighs anything else, so humans must be free to do bad Shit to each other) but that doesn't explain the rest of the shitty world we live in. (as I mentioned earlier, there are things that lay eggs in the eyes of children, God must not just know that these things happen, he deliberately set out to create a world in which such things would eventually exist)

Again you can fudge this: Maybe God can't see into the future, or maybe there are things he can't do, but then you aren't really talking about the classical conception of God any more.

[Shryke]

Or you can just take the explanation the Bible actually gives for this and go with the whole "God does stuff for his own reasons and sometimes you don't get to know why or understand it".

My friend's 2 year old would like nothing better then to watch Dora the Explorer 24 hours a day. Sometimes she'll cry for like an hour when she doesn't get to. My friend will just let her wail (can't give in on that kind of shit).

I'm sure that 2 year old must think of her mother as a capricious, cruel and indifferent parent on many occasions.

[Galactus]

Or you can just take the explanation the Bible actually gives for this and go with the whole "God does stuff for his own reasons and sometimes you don't get to know why or understand it".

Yes, that's what I said: An unknowable alien god, who cannot be described, is a perfectly sensible idea in my book.

But in that case we cannot describe him as good (or indeed as anything) because he is unknowable. Which I'm fine with. God is God, obey him or he smites you (or he might smite you anyway just for the lulz) he does his shit, there's nothing you can do about it.

But that doesen't qualify as good in my book.

My friend's 2 year old would like nothing better then to watch Dora the Explorer 24 hours a day. Sometimes she'll cry for like an hour when she doesn't get to. My friend will just let her wail (can't give in on that kind of shit).

I'm sure that 2 year old must think of her mother as a capricious, cruel and indifferent parent on many occasions.

Which, given the information she has at that time makes sense. Given more information (and parents SHOULD give more information) she will eventually learn why watching Dora 24 hours a day isn't a good idea. THEN she can reasonably switch. But until she gets that information, why should she NOT believe her parents are evil?

[HT Reddy]

Re: HT Reddy

I don't think that it's unfair of me to ask you to examine the behavior of yourself and other Christians when you start to question the same behavior in others. Obviously, you feel comfortable saying that you think some self-proclaimed Christians are not truly Christians. Why not give others the same latitude on the same issue to others?

Well, no, what I said was that I would personally think it's more likely that some people are Christians based on their actions and confessions of faith than others. But I wouldn't say that I know this for sure at all, and I wouldn't expect anyone else to either. Don't get me wrong, the last thing I want to be is outrageously accusing others of doing things that I don't approve of that I myself am happy to do; equally, I am not responsible for the actions or words of all Christians.

Which, given the information she has at that time makes sense. Given more information (and parents SHOULD give more information) she will eventually learn why watching Dora 24 hours a day isn't a good idea. THEN she can reasonably switch. But until she gets that information, why should she NOT believe her parents are evil?

Maybe she should believe her parents are evil. maybe you are justified in thinking God is evil. But that doesn't make the little girl's parents actually evil, nor does it make God evil. But Shryke's right - 2000 years of Christian theology have not given us an answer to the problem of evil and suffering. What we do know is that suffering is something that God hates (see Jesus' reaction to his friend Lazarus' death) and has the power to remove (see Jesus' healing miracles) and yet doesn't remove suffering in the short-term in a way we can see, and even sometimes instigates it (see Exodus, the Flood, all of human history). Now the way I square that circle is by saying that all of suffering is a result of human rebellion against God and sin - don't misunderstand me, I don't mean that the kid who has leukaemia deserves it at all - Jesus taught very strongly against this. But my sin and the sins of the world certainly caused leukaemia to be. Other Christians have different explanations. But none of them are going to be completely satisfactory. Ultimately the fact that hundreds of millions of people have managed to be Christians despite this serious problem either shows the power of saving faith and grace, or the ability of the human mind to cope with cognitive dissonance (or whatever the right term is), depending on your point of view.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Galactus,

Which, given the information she has at that time makes sense. Given more information (and parents SHOULD give more information) she will eventually learn why watching Dora 24 hours a day isn't a good idea. THEN she can reasonably switch. But until she gets that information, why should she NOT believe her parents are evil?

But if God (I assume the parent in your analogy) is omnisient we can't know everything God knows because humans are not omnisient. God may be doing everything for our benefit but we are incapable of understanding why God's actions are for our benefit because God is so far beyond our capacity to understand. In other words she knows her parents love her and though they do things she doesn't like that doesn't give her reason to believe her parents are evil because of her parents love.

[Galactus]

Ser Scott:

But if God (I assume the parent in your analogy) is omnisient we can't know everything God knows because humans are not omnisient. God may be doing everything for our benefit but we are incapable of understanding why God's actions are for our benefit because God is so far beyond our capacity to understand. In other words she knows her parents love her and though they do things she doesn't like that doesn't give her reason to believe her parents are evil because of her parents love.

If we can't know God's motives (which I am perfectly OK with as a concept) then we can't *know* if he is good or evil. We can make assumptions and project our inner feelings on the unfathomable, but God's true nature would, by it's very nature prove to be elusive.

As said, I have no problem with the "God is god, unfathomable and unknowable" aspect. But claiming that God is moral would need backing up.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Galactus,

That's fair. And I will not attempt to prove God is moral because, in my opinion, that's where faith comes in. Heck, we hope our parents are moral when they are raising us but do we ever really know as we are growing up?

[Galactus]

No we don't. And Freud had quite a bit to say about that incidentally :P

[Ken Stone]

Ser Scott:

If we can't know God's motives (which I am perfectly OK with as a concept) then we can't *know* if he is good or evil. We can make assumptions and project our inner feelings on the unfathomable, but God's true nature would, by it's very nature prove to be elusive.

As said, I have no problem with the "God is god, unfathomable and unknowable" aspect. But claiming that God is moral would need backing up.

I think to many people God is the source of morality. Asking if God is moral is like asking if water is wet.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Or you can just take the explanation the Bible actually gives for this and go with the whole "God does stuff for his own reasons and sometimes you don't get to know why or understand it".

You could also make another scriptural argument that God made the world good, but not perfect.

On the question of God's morality: That is a rather large can of worms. Perhaps God established the world this way so that we would be more aware of our own moral senses. Honestly, it's not worth deliberating over. It's simply much easier to go with the "God is god, unfathomable and unknowable" answer.

[Shryke]

Which, given the information she has at that time makes sense. Given more information (and parents SHOULD give more information) she will eventually learn why watching Dora 24 hours a day isn't a good idea. THEN she can reasonably switch. But until she gets that information, why should she NOT believe her parents are evil?

Your making a terrible assumption here though:

That said 2 year old is even capable of understanding the reasons.

[Ocean of Notions]

Whats with this "he" bull shit? :leaving:

When I first posted in this thread, I actually thought about whether I should refer to God with a masculine or feminine pronoun.

[HT Reddy]

When I first posted in this thread, I actually thought about whether I should refer to God with a masculine or feminine pronoun.

It doesn't really matter - God is above such distinctions. So the convention is to say He, because that is what the Bible says, but it's no big deal I don't think.

[Ocean of Notions]

It doesn't really matter - God is above such distinctions. So the convention is to say He, because that is what the Bible says, but it's no big deal I don't think.

When I wrote "should", it had nothing to do with what God actually is. It was all about convention and whether to go with it or not.