A question for the believers....

[cantdog]

I think the primary distinction between a tyrannical despot and a leader worthy of respect is exactly the cupcake issue.

Managers become extremely strict and niggling about punch-clock issues. Why? They don't have to punch the clock. The rule doesn't apply to them. Managers become very anal about dress codes. Why? They're exempt from dress codes. The rule doesn't apply to them.

Such people are tinpot tyrants. It is the easiest thing in the world to make rules for other people. Those managers resent any limits on their ability to enforce their iron whim. (Like, say, a union.)

God, as Joe points out, is like that. Jealous, vindictive, willing to slaughter wholesale. Cruel. Tyrannical. Despotic.

It's a good thing he's just a figment of some diseased imaginations.

cantdog

 

[mismused]

There are however a great many more Christians that do ask why God allowed this or allowed that. I am one of them. I question everything unless I already know the answer or unless someone can convince me that I'm wrong. Sadly when it comes to the Bible no one has convinced me to change my mind.

=======================

Sting,

I'm using your post because of what you said above, but in truth, I'm not really aiming this at you, but read it if you will, and think as you will. From you, it is probably not open to discussion with me.

For any others that may be following these posts, and is interested, perhaps this is new to you, perhaps not. This is for those interested, and unaware of this.

I'm going to present it in the form of a comparison of two things, one, the bible, the other the constitution of the US. Trust me, it's not a silly comparison, as you'll see.

~~~

The constitution, it is historically recognized and accepted, that we have a document that is over two hundred years old. We know by that continuous historical recognition, and the historical record of our Supreme Court often taking the time to make judgements about their then cases as to whether or not those cases are/were in line with what our constitution set forth.

If we accept this, then we say that yes, we do have a literally known document, as well we know who all signed it, and most likely who all probably wrote it, as we do the Preamble to our constitution.

Remember this now, that this document is over two hundred years old, and this it where I will be making the comparison.

~~~

Now let's look at the bible, keeping in mind as a kind of background, the time from of our constitution -- two hundred years.

The bible, as we have it, was, historically put together by the Council of Nicea about three hundred years ago when they decided on one church doctine. How they chose what they did to be representative of the bible, we don't exactly know, nor who recommended what, or by what vote, or what all was summarily rejected, or considered before rejection. What we do know is that they were convened by the Roman Emperor Constantine. What he said to do, they did, or had to face the consequences. In his day, Constantine, after his total victory, and ruler of all that was the Roman Empire, could probably have told them that he was really God, and Jesus represented him on earth in his day, and none would have contested it. That's an assumption, yes, but most likely a very good one.

IOW, they were under more than the sword of Damacles, they were under the worry of a man who took on God/Jesus as his cause of victory, and we can easily guess that they did anything they could to please him.

No, I'm not going to say that Constantine dictated what to put into the bible.

What I am saying now is that we have a bunch of local bishops all vying for power and position, so there was more than just "truth" to be considered.

How can I say that now? Easy. Let's look at the "comparison" I spoke of earlier, the "time" thing.

Two hundred years later our Supreme Court still has to decide what is according to our canon, and we have the original document.

Three hundred years, and we have no idea what was original as a "document" that it was considered canon for the bible, then many corrupt officials during the ensuing seventeen hundred more years..

If the bible has no original documents, or books, if you will, and it was decided under the conditions it was, wouldn't you see some possibilty for error? Yes, it's a stretch, and each person must decide for themselves how much of a stretch it is.

No one knows who "wrote" the documents that were used as canonical by the Council of Nicea. No one knows when any of those documents were actually written, where, or by whom.

Yes, it is a wonderfully put together document, but it was put together in such a way that centuries later, the schism that developed brought about a newer canon, that of the reformers.

So, we still have a question of what to use as biblical canon, and if it has any real originality.

Our Supreme Court has no such problem, yet there are still problems with interpretation. If we have the document, and yet have interpretation problems after two hundred years, what must we say about a bible that was put together some three hunred years after Jesus, and them having no real knowledge of "who, when," or "where" those copies they held were made, or if they even "held" any documents at that time, or whether they then proceeded to make some of the documents.

Let's face it, the "scribes" from the time of Jesus to the time of the Council of Nicea were not quite totally free to do business as they would, and under the best of circumstaces. We have to conclude that "word of mouth" probably was much in use then, or parts here and there as could be found. Three hundred years is a long time for anything to take place in.

So, should we ask questions? Absolutely! Is there a logic for asking them other than just wondering as we usually do? Again, a resounding yes. The tiime frames we have to make our comparison, and what we are dealing with as documents to verify, or set our judgement from, are telling.

Questions about our laws abound, and our document to set forth our laws is quite short in comparison with the bible, or even just the new testament, yet those questions still abound.

It should be easy to see that the same, and far more, could be said in the respect of the bible too.

Ooops! Kind of long, but I hope I didn't get too far off base with my presentation. If I did, I'll use a lack of sleep as an excuse.

Personally, I have read much of the bible, studied it in some detail, and usually found that this tyro often knew more than the priests/preachers. That in itself was enough to make me question the bible in even greater lenght/detail.

I like what a lady named Thelma says:

"We ain't what we think we are. We ain't. Thar's too much that's unknowable ta us, too much we doan see, doan know, never wonder at."

Hope this has helped some better understand some reasons for questioning the bible as we have it. God? That's another question.

mismused

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by cantdog
I think the primary distinction between a tyrannical despot and a leader worthy of respect is exactly the cupcake issue.

Managers become extremely strict and niggling about punch-clock issues. Why? They don't have to punch the clock. The rule doesn't apply to them. Managers become very anal about dress codes. Why? They're exempt from dress codes. The rule doesn't apply to them.

Such people are tinpot tyrants. It is the easiest thing in the world to make rules for other people. Those managers resent any limits on their ability to enforce their iron whim. (Like, say, a union.)

God, as Joe points out, is like that. Jealous, vindictive, willing to slaughter wholesale. Cruel. Tyrannical. Despotic.

It's a good thing he's just a figment of some diseased imaginations.

cantdog

That would not be Joe's point. Joe's point would be very much unlike that if we would read Joe's point and take care to allow for the relative dryness of Joe's accounting of moral agency.

Past that, God--of course--may be far more than a figment of diseased imagination... the accusation that He is representing what? One's ability to give the middle finger to Christianity? Congrats, I guess.

. . .. ... .....

As a side note to others... there is a recurring theme of "MY gods aren't like that" and "MY gods don't do bad horrible things" and "The Christian God is somehow magically unlike any god ever" sort of talk.

If you believe in nothing but benevolent gods, how do you resolve the same problems that Christianity faces in it's ethical relational-frame? If all the Gods are generous and kind and loving, why is there suffering? We make the point "MY gods would never send anyone to eternal torture in hell" but that doesn't really address why they then allow people to live out 60 years of torture on earth.

In other words, if your Gods are superior to believe in for their moral weight, then why is earth shitty? And if the answer is "well, man and Christians make it shitty, because you know how horrible men and Christians are with their horrible-ness"... then why doesn't your God just fix that?

Unless they're unable.

And if they're unable to correct so much as simple human suffering, then are they only able to offer warm fuzzy feelings during times when people are not suffering? And if that's all they can do, then really... what good are they except the ultimate emotional crutch?

Some are talking about the glory and wonderfulness of their ability to question Christianity (and how lowly and unfortunate the Christians are as they cannot... poor stupid things)... but what about questioning the thinly reasoned or at least poorly explained theological alternatives?

 

[cloudy]

I've been following this with interest.

I wonder if y'all realize that none of you are going to convince the other that they're wrong, and all of this is pointless?

I see arrogance on all sides of the issue. No one is willing to concede a single point to anyone else.

Why not just say "to each his own" and let it go?

I'm reduced to quoting myself, since everyone seems to enjoy all this foaming at the mouth way too much.

 

[English Lady]

Cloudy, I know it,youknow it and everyone knows it. Why are we doing it? Possibly because we enjoy it, possibly because we feel led to do it and possibly because we need to do it.

As I've said, this isn't my thing. I'm not sharp enough to really debate but I am enjoying the opportunity to question my faith and look at others too.

We are essentially doing this because we're driven too.

It may seem daft, but it's still gonna go on

 

[cloudy]

Cloudy, I know it,youknow it and everyone knows it. Why are we doing it? Possibly because we enjoy it, possibly because we feel led to do it and possibly because we need to do it.

As I've said, this isn't my thing. I'm not sharp enough to really debate but I am enjoying the opportunity to question my faith and look at others too.

We are essentially doing this because we're driven too.

It may seem daft, but it's still gonna go on

It just seems sort of silly to me, that's all. I firmly believe that religion is a very personal thing. Not saying that you can't talk about it, not at all, but the hostility that seems to have come out of this discussion seems to be diametrically opposed to the way religion is supposed to feel, no?

 

[Kassiana]

So Cant's going with the God's a jerk theory. Okay. The comedian in me can go with that, too. The theist in me dislikes things that smack of Calvinism, though, so we're going to have to have our own internal fight over here if you don't mind.

--But it was FUNNY!

 

[English Lady]

hmmm I think it's passion. I think it's difficult to do this kind of thing and keep level headed.

It's the old human thing coming to the fore. It honestly is a matter of life and death in many peoples eyes. It's easy to get worked up and it's gonna get a bit rough when you're dealing with folks core beliefs.

Also the online forum thing is great but words on a screen can so easily take the wrong tone you know? I think it's easier to misunderstand someone via this media.


Ahh cloudy I dunno, if you don't get it you won't get it. *L* I admire your laid back attitude in some ways

 

[cloudy]

hmmm I think it's passion. I think it's difficult to do this kind of thing and keep level headed.

It's the old human thing coming to the fore. It honestly is a matter of life and death in many peoples eyes. It's easy to get worked up and it's gonna get a bit rough when you're dealing with folks core beliefs.

Also the online forum thing is great but words on a screen can so easily take the wrong tone you know? I think it's easier to misunderstand someone via this media.


Ahh cloudy I dunno, if you don't get it you won't get it. *L* I admire your laid back attitude in some ways

I'll confess.....I don't get it.

I believe what I believe, and I don't care if you believe the same thing I do or not. That's your business, not mine.

*shrug*

Maybe it's just part of my beliefs....hmm, there's a thought.

 

[English Lady]

that is probably it Cloudy.


As Christians you're called to witness, called to stand up and argue the corner for your faith. That is essentially why I'm in here. I've got to stand up for what I believe. It's just part of me and my faith

 

[cloudy]

that is probably it Cloudy.


As Christians you're called to witness, called to stand up and argue the corner for your faith. That is essentially why I'm in here. I've got to stand up for what I believe. It's just part of me and my faith

I dunno, babe.....standing up for what you believe, and trying to convince others that your way is the only way, are two different things.

I'll stand up for what I believe any time, any place, but you won't ever catch me telling someone else that what they believe is wrong. After all, who am I to say that?

Your way is right for you, my way is right for me. I'll never tell anyone that what they believe, spiritually, is wrong.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I used to be of the school of thought that I believed what I did, that it wasn't anyone's business nor could my opinions be wrong in any real way... just different.

Then, I started taking a formal education and realized that my thoughts about history, sociology, psychology, philosophy, religion, science, mathematics, and loads of other fields could be qualified... that just because I believed that men and women acted differently and had inherant psychological differences didn't mean it was evidentiary or true. It was the strength of argument and my willingness to entertain the position I did not have that made all the difference. We say "nobody will ever be convinced", but that just isn't true.

It was made apparent to me, by the wealth of work the scholarly community has done... that just because I believed a thing hardly made it true. And not every opinion was as well informed as any other. And not every belief was as accurate as any other. And not every thought that passed through everyone's head was qualitatively the same.

Once I got there, I was hooked. If there were truths and falsities, and if there was accuracy and inaccuracy, and if there was rational and irrational, and if there was evidentiary and totally suppositioned... then, maybe there's such a thing as being more right than wrong.

We'd like to say "but religion can't be qualified like that because religion is just people's subjective beliefs", but that's bottlenecking religion before it gets out of the gate. Like saying science is just people's subjective beliefs. If religion is the search and relationally framed question of divine metaphysics--which I believe it to be--then no... not everyone's right. Beliefs aren't true just because one wills them to be any more than believing Kerry won the election, right now, makes him the President.

 

[cloudy]

I used to be of the school of thought that I believed what I did, that it wasn't anyone's business nor could my opinions be wrong in any real way... just different.

Then, I started taking a formal education and realized that my thoughts about history, sociology, psychology, philosophy, religion, science, mathematics, and loads of other fields could be qualified... that just because I believed that men and women acted differently and had inherant psychological differences didn't mean it was evidentiary or true.

It was made apparent to me, by the wealth of work the scholarly community has done... that just because I believed a thing hardly made it true. And not every opinion was as well informed as any other. And not every belief was as accurate as any other. And not every thought that passed through everyone's head was qualitatively the same.

Once I got there, I was hooked. If there were truths and falsities, and if there was accuracy and inaccuracy, and if there was rational and irrational, and if there was evidentiary and totally suppositioned... then, maybe there's such a thing as being more right than wrong.

We'd like to say "but religion can't be qualified like that because religion is just people's subjective beliefs", but that's bottlenecking religion before it gets out of the gate. Like saying science is just people's subjective beliefs. If religion is the search and relationally framed question of divine metaphysics--which I believe it to be--then no... not everyone's right. Beliefs aren't true just because one wills them to be any more than believing Kerry won the election, right now, makes him the President.

So, because Christianity is better documented than other religions, it's more valid?

I don't buy it.

You're wasting the energy trying to convince me, babe.....according to y'all, I'm lost.

 

[English Lady]

I guess thats where our faiths do differ.

and it's a reason so many are so very anti-Christian.

I try to never say someone is wrong, but try to put my view across in a more non-confrontational way. That's me though. I'm not an in your face kinda person

(well I try not to be anyways *L* I am sure I fail sometimes, before osmeone comes back with an example of me doing so *L*)

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by cloudy
So, because Christianity is better documented than other religions, it's more valid?

I don't buy it.

You're wasting the energy trying to convince me, babe.....according to y'all, I'm lost.

No, because beliefs can be qualified means than people can change their minds due to more information. That was my point.

I haven't wasted any energy trying to convince you of anything but that.... according to ya'll, somehow beliefs are totally impossible to alter and represent permanent psychological constructs. Ya'll would be wrong.

 

[cloudy]

I guess thats where our faiths do differ.

and it's a reason so many are so very anti-Christian.

I try to never say someone is wrong, but try to put my view across in a more non-confrontational way. That's me though. I'm not an in your face kinda person

(well I try not to be anyways *L* I am sure I fail sometimes, before osmeone comes back with an example of me doing so *L*)

I think the biggest difference lies in that my religion is personal. I don't feel the need to preach or convert anyone, because it is so personal.

I'm not saying what you believe is wrong, far from it. I think it's wonderful that you have the faith you do. But, you're right - I think all the preaching and hostile pointing of fingers drives more people away than it converts, and that's something that no one seems to understand.

 

[cloudy]

according to ya'll, somehow beliefs are totally impossible and permanent psychological constructs. Ya'll would be wrong.

Nope, love, never said that. In fact, I'm not an atheist at all. I'm just not a Christian.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by cloudy
Nope, love, never said that. In fact, I'm not an atheist at all. I'm just not a Christian.

I'm not actually Christian. Isn't it amazing what we're assuming from the get go? What groups and words-being-put-in-mouth we're so comfortable wagging assuming fingers at?

Reeee-markable.

 

[English Lady]

cloudy..I do believe there is a fine blanace between standing up for your faith and pushing it on folks. No one is made to read this thread, so that's who I like to throw my bit in nowand then

And as Joe is pointing out, people do get "converted" and it's part of my faith to look for that. I'll keep putting my beliefs out there and let God do the rest. It's all I can do.

My faith is personal, deep and very personal but it's also something that's made to share *L* So share I do. As non-confrontationally as I can.

 

[Pure]

Joe said,

If you believe in nothing but benevolent gods, how do you resolve the same problems that Christianity faces in it's ethical relational-frame? If all the Gods are generous and kind and loving, why is there suffering? We make the point "MY gods would never send anyone to eternal torture in hell" but that doesn't really address why they then allow people to live out 60 years of torture on earth.

In other words, if your Gods are superior to believe in for their moral weight, then why is earth shitty? And if the answer is "well, man and Christians make it shitty, because you know how horrible men and Christians are with their horrible-ness"... then why doesn't your God just fix that?

Unless they're unable.

And if they're unable to correct so much as simple human suffering, then are they only able to offer warm fuzzy feelings during times when people are not suffering? And if that's all they can do, then really... what good are they except the ultimate emotional crutch?

Some are talking about the glory and wonderfulness of their ability to question Christianity (and how lowly and unfortunate the Christians are as they cannot... poor stupid things)... but what about questioning the thinly reasoned or at least poorly explained theological alternatives?
------

I'm not sure of your point, Joe. You state, "The problem of evil," wrestled with by Jews and Chrisitians (among others) also besets some of the more optimistic or benevolent theologies, e.g., Universalist Christianity.

FTSOA, suppose that's true. The issue remains: Are you claiming the alternatives to orthodox Christianity are MORE affected by the problem? Are you claiming those who are NOT orthodox Christians have given (proportionately) less thought to the problem than Christians?

Essentially the problem of evil says that evil exists. But supposing a benevolent, omnipotent God exists, either 1) 'he' can't or 2) he won't stop the evil. {Then, if he can't, he's not omnipotent; if he won't he's immoral, at best a passive spectator of evil}

Karen, apparently endorsed something akin to the first alternative in limiting God, either in power or goodness. That's the way I read her. That's one solution. Whether, as she suggests, it leads to deeper reflection and more tolerance, I don't know.

I think the second alternative can be defended on the supposition that God created a 'natural order,' a material world, which by its nature is imperfect. 'He' withdrew or stands aside, in general, during the natural course of things, which by and large is a kind of 'evolution.'

If I may use an example: If you leave a baby on the beach, near the water at low tide, and go away, and there is no one else around, the tide is going to come in and the baby will drown.

The alternative is like a Cecil B. Demille movie: God intervening in the natural course of things: God, as with the Red Sea, creates an invisible wall blocking the tide in that location. It simply does not come in that day. Plainly that rarely if ever happens. Apparently God wishes nature to proceed on its course, according to the natural laws of physics, astrophysics, etc.
The example of an ordinary person leaping from a cliff or tall building will do, also.

However, Joe, it's a bit unfair to toss the problem of evil at the alternatives to mainstream Christianity, if by that, you're implying they're less able to deal with it.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Pure
FTSOA, suppose that's true. The issue remains: Are you claiming the alternatives to orthodox Christianity are MORE affected by the problem? Are you claiming those who are NOT orthodox Christians have given (proportionately) less thought to the problem than Christians?

I'm saying that the subject hasn't been explored here, as thoroughly.

However, Joe, it's a bit unfair to toss the problem of evil at the alternatives to mainstream Christianity, if by that, you're implying they're less able to deal with it.

I suppose. I tossed the problem because the comparison was already drawn and I felt it deserved a more thorough answer.

 

[stingray61]

Kassi, before I take the time to answer you please read what Joe has said here and answer that if you can.

"As a side note to others... there is a recurring theme of "MY gods aren't like that" and "MY gods don't do bad horrible things" and "The Christian God is somehow magically unlike any god ever" sort of talk.

If you believe in nothing but benevolent gods, how do you resolve the same problems that Christianity faces in it's ethical relational-frame? If all the Gods are generous and kind and loving, why is there suffering? We make the point "MY gods would never send anyone to eternal torture in hell" but that doesn't really address why they then allow people to live out 60 years of torture on earth.

In other words, if your Gods are superior to believe in for their moral weight, then why is earth shitty? And if the answer is "well, man and Christians make it shitty, because you know how horrible men and Christians are with their horrible-ness"... then why doesn't your God just fix that?

Unless they're unable.

And if they're unable to correct so much as simple human suffering, then are they only able to offer warm fuzzy feelings during times when people are not suffering? And if that's all they can do, then really... what good are they except the ultimate emotional crutch?

Some are talking about the glory and wonderfulness of their ability to question Christianity (and how lowly and unfortunate the Christians are as they cannot... poor stupid things)... but what about questioning the thinly reasoned or at least poorly explained theological alternatives?"

You can answer it can you not?


Did God harden pharohs heart
--Yes. That's what the story says.




God gave them FREE WILL.
--Free will doesn't overrule God, if it even exists. Where in the Bible does it say that God gave us free will, BTW? I don't think it does. It talks a lot about salvation, but nothing about free will.

He might allow it if He felt it was the only way
--Are you forgetting before that you said God was omnipotent? An omnipotent God doesn't HAVE only one way to do things! He can do anything. Otherwise, he isn't omnipotent, just kinda powerful and more powerful than humans. If that's what you meant, that'd be great to hear.


Yes God has more than one way to do things and when I get to Heaven I'll see if I can ask Him why He chose to do things the way He did.

why France?
--Why not? You aren't one of these France hating Republicans now, are you?

NOPE, So why France?

people never learn when they are given everything
--How about if they're taught everything?

These others may have in turn informed
--Mighta woulda coulda. Isn't enough, is it? I don't think it is.

weren't all the Egyptians in agreement that the Jews were or should be slaves?
--1. I don't think this story ever happened. There is no physical evidence that the Jews were ever slaves in Egypt, and the Egyptians kept damned good records.

well if you don't think it ever happened then you can't use it as an argument agaisnt God IMO

2. Don't you know that no country's people are ever in agreement about anything? I find it hard to believe that every last Egyptian, from the Egyptian slaves to the five year old kids to the Pharaoh's daughter all agreed on anything, much less that slavery was the way to go with the Jews.

no-one but God knows if those children went to heaven
--I hope you aren't saying that it's okay to kill kids as long as they go to heaven. I believe it is wrong to kill kids, no matter who you are, even if they do go to heaven.

I'm not saying that at all. Let me ask you this....is it better to die young and go to Heaven or live to be old and possibly suffer a lot here on Earth, and then die and go to hell? Or is it better to go through life here and go to Heaven after suffering through life here?

I think the only reason you feel I'm making things worse is because you have a closed mind.
--You're wrong. I think you're making things worse because you're trying to justify abuse and atrocities. They can't be justified, Sting. You can't excuse away kid murders by saying that God said he'd kill those kids to their parents. Think about this outside the context of your God for a moment. Can you really think of any situation in which this could possibly be morally justifiable?

No but then again I'm not God. I'm not trying to justify it I'm trying to get you to see things outside of your narrow perspective.

I can't. I am outraged and aghast that anyone can try to excuse evil, and I'm trying to show you that this is what you're doing. I may well be failing, because you're reacting angrily to me, but I can't help it.

Please don't assume to know how I'm re-acting to you because in this case you're very much wrong. I have no anger towards you at all. Again I'm NOT trying to excuse evil I'm just saying that we as humans can't call it evil when we don't have all the evidence. Again please, if you don't believe it even happened please don't use it as an argument against God

I think that it is blasphemy to say any God would murder kids because their parents were "bad" even if they get ice cream in Heaven later. I can't help but be distressed by that. I'd be distressed by someone trying to say spousal abuse was justified too because "she/he was asking for it."

So would I.

I see this as attempting to excuse away evil, Sting. I don't see you as being open-minded at all on this issue. You aren't thinking about the logical implications of this or of being God. If you were God, would you choose to murder babies because their parents were bad? Seriously. Would you?

No I wouldn't but again I'm not God, I won't judge Him for what He chooses to do.

I don't think you would. I think you're a good person. I think you can see that murdering babies is bad. Why can't you see that your God choosing to do so is bad? I mean, why couldn't he have killed their parents if they were bad? Why murder babies?

I've done a little study on this and the best I can do with my limited human knowledge is to say that God did this to show the Egyptians that their gods had no power. Well that apparently is one of the reasons He did it. NO-ONE will ever know for sure until we go to Heaven and then we still may not know.

I can't believe you're so blind. Please think about this and don't just blindly say "Well it's okay because it's God." WHY is it okay because it's God but it's not okay for anyone else? Why can't I do the same and have your endorsement?

Simply because you're NOT God. Look I never said I liked it any more than anyone else did, All I'm saying is obviously God has His reasons and by nature He can't do evil.

This is special pleading as far as I can tell. As such, it is logically invalid. It is also morally disgusting, whether you see it that way or not.

For more info other than my limited info please go here.
*********/questions_God.htm. Then go to the carm frontpage and get more knowledgable answers.

or you can go here...allaboutgod.com.

 

[stingray61]

Joe said,

If you believe in nothing but benevolent gods, how do you resolve the same problems that Christianity faces in it's ethical relational-frame? If all the Gods are generous and kind and loving, why is there suffering? We make the point "MY gods would never send anyone to eternal torture in hell" but that doesn't really address why they then allow people to live out 60 years of torture on earth.

In other words, if your Gods are superior to believe in for their moral weight, then why is earth shitty? And if the answer is "well, man and Christians make it shitty, because you know how horrible men and Christians are with their horrible-ness"... then why doesn't your God just fix that?

Unless they're unable.

And if they're unable to correct so much as simple human suffering, then are they only able to offer warm fuzzy feelings during times when people are not suffering? And if that's all they can do, then really... what good are they except the ultimate emotional crutch?

Some are talking about the glory and wonderfulness of their ability to question Christianity (and how lowly and unfortunate the Christians are as they cannot... poor stupid things)... but what about questioning the thinly reasoned or at least poorly explained theological alternatives?
------

I'm not sure of your point, Joe. You state, "The problem of evil," wrestled with by Jews and Chrisitians (among others) also besets some of the more optimistic or benevolent theologies, e.g., Universalist Christianity.


I can't believe you said you aren't sure of Joes point. It is clear as day to me. There are people on this thread that swear their god or gods would never send anyone to hell or kill children. If those self same gods are all powerful then why don't they put a stop to all the evil on Earth? Obviously they aren't all powerful or they are just as bad as some say the God of the Bible is.

FTSOA, suppose that's true. The issue remains: Are you claiming the alternatives to orthodox Christianity are MORE affected by the problem? Are you claiming those who are NOT orthodox Christians have given (proportionately) less thought to the problem than Christians?

Essentially the problem of evil says that evil exists. But supposing a benevolent, omnipotent God exists, either 1) 'he' can't or 2) he won't stop the evil. {Then, if he can't, he's not omnipotent; if he won't he's immoral, at best a passive spectator of evil}

Don't forget about our free will to do evil or not. What good is a god that gives free will and then doesn't let us use it in all things?

Karen, apparently endorsed something akin to the first alternative in limiting God, either in power or goodness. That's the way I read her. That's one solution. Whether, as she suggests, it leads to deeper reflection and more tolerance, I don't know.

I think the second alternative can be defended on the supposition that God created a 'natural order,' a material world, which by its nature is imperfect. 'He' withdrew or stands aside, in general, during the natural course of things, which by and large is a kind of 'evolution.'

If I may use an example: If you leave a baby on the beach, near the water at low tide, and go away, and there is no one else around, the tide is going to come in and the baby will drown.

The alternative is like a Cecil B. Demille movie: God intervening in the natural course of things: God, as with the Red Sea, creates an invisible wall blocking the tide in that location. It simply does not come in that day. Plainly that rarely if ever happens. Apparently God wishes nature to proceed on its course, according to the natural laws of physics, astrophysics, etc.
The example of an ordinary person leaping from a cliff or tall building will do, also.

However, Joe, it's a bit unfair to toss the problem of evil at the alternatives to mainstream Christianity, if by that, you're implying they're less able to deal with it.

We probably will never know why God does what He does. I don't think we could ever comprehend it due to our limited knowledge. Therefore we shouldn't be trying to answer these questions without all the facts. Maybe God allows bad things to happen to see if we will choose to believe in Him in spite of all that He allows to happen. I think the question we should really be asking ourselves is why we as a population allow these things to happen. Why do we do these things in the first place? Maybe God allows these things to happen because He wants us to stand up and stop them ourselves. Don't ask me I don't know the answers but why don't some of you try to answer them.

 

[Pure]

In line with what you say, Sting, if one made a list in each of these categories, for the last, say 200 years, which list is greater in terms of fatalities:

1. Pure 'natural disasters' allegedly caused[or allowed] by God (FTSOA)
2. "Natural disasters" to which humans contributed substantially, e.g., mud slides on denuded hills.
3. Human wars, exterminations, genocides.

In category 1., I find an earthquake in Gansu China killed 200,000 in 1920, which is one of the larger earthquake diasasters.

For category 3, we know, for WWII, that deaths were in numbers like the following: 5+ million Jews, maybe 10,000,000 Russians, and maybe 100,000 Japanese at Hiroshima alone.

Which might raise the question why God created such a rapacious and violent species (often against itself)? Is this the crown of creation, the pinnacle of achievement recounted in Genesis?

---
PS for Sting:

St: During the time before Christ, all but the Jews that obeyed Gods law were to go to hell.
-----

Depending on the period, not all Jews believed in 'hell' in the present sense. In all periods, the possibility of 'righteous gentiles' was considered and live. Iirc correctly, Rahab is an example. In all, your point is not correct, imo.

Further I *think you are suggesting the Christians were less exclusive (that they were more charitable about the fate of nonChristians); if so, I think that's another mistake, not supported in the facts, imho.

 

[stingray61]

In line with what you say, Sting, if one made a list in each of these categories, for the last, say 200 years, which list is greater in terms of fatalities:

1. Pure 'natural disasters' allegedly caused[or allowed] by God (FTSOA)
2. "Natural disasters" to which humans contributed substantially, e.g., mud slides on denuded hills.
3. Human wars, exterminations, genocides.

In category 1., I find an earthquake in Gansu China killed 200,000 in 1920, which is one of the larger earthquake diasasters.

For category 3, we know, for WWII, that deaths were in numbers like the following: 5+ million Jews, maybe 10,000,000 Russians, and maybe 100,000 Japanese at Hiroshima alone.

Which might raise the question why God created such a rapacious and violent species (often against itself)? Is this the crown of creation, the pinnacle of achievement recounted in Genesis?

God didn't create a "Rapacious and violent species". Adam and Eve were given free will to choose to eat of the tree of knowledge or not. They chose unwisely. After the "fall" of Adam and Eve, all subsequent people were born in sin and suceptable to sinning.

God created a species with free will, right or wrong, better or worse. God wants us to love Him freely, without free willl we can't do that. The love wouldn't be pure. YES God could prevent everything bad from happening if He wanted to. I don't think He does because He wants to see what kind of people we are, and if He fixed everything He wouldn't be able to see that. He loves us enough to let us make our own decision about right and wrong, and by the very nature of that it follows He must also let us live with the results of those decisions for better or worse.

Some would say that the option to love God or burn forever in hell isn't really a choice if one is so terrible then of course we are naturally going to want to choose the better one ie; loving God. The problem with that as I see it is we DO know hell is terrible and yet some still choose that anyway.

This one's for Kassiana.....What's so hard about saying Christ died for my sins and I am going to live my life following his example? Which to say is to "Love everyone as myself and have no other gods before the one true God". Never mind in this case what you think of God just tell me why it's so hard for you to do that.

God, Jesus, and The Holy Spirit, are indeed one but they are also seperate and distinct as well. Just like St. Patrick used the shamrock to explain the Trinity to the Irish. Each leaf is separate by itself and yet each leaf is also a part of the entire flower. We too are each separate by ourselves and yet we are all a part of the Earth. I don't think Jesus *allowed* God to do what He has done but I also think Jesus knew why God did what He did and knows, as God does, that it's for the best. Just because we don't like it or understand it or can't see it that way doesn't make it not true. I can't see how the sun works and humans as of yet don't know exactly how it works but we do know it works all the same.