BUT what if ( and yes, it is a what if) we know that He knew that letting the child die would simply bring it to another stage of life far greater than this one
It's as if you only read the replies you want to read.
The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday
by cofty 2596 Replies latest jw experiences
-
cofty
-
bohm
psac: If "Life just is this way" is accetable to an atheist then the atheist can't really fault the theist for stating that "God is just that way" either.
Come on! You started out by considering how to define evil; certainly you must see why there is a difference here? Things that cause suffering happends that is a fact; it cannot be "acceptable" or not it is how things are. What we are considering is what conclusions are indicated if someone is watching passive by horrible suffering he or she can prevent.
Again, do you feel any of these arguments come close to working for the man with the child in the car?
-
bohm
psac: BUT what if ( and yes, it is a what if) we know that He knew that letting the child die would simply bring it to another stage of life far greater than this one, a life surround by a love beyond our comprehension, that the child would be reborn and that death of this child would serve a greater purpose for the child, NOT that he THOUGHT buty that not only did he KNOW but that HE made it possible for the child to have all that. Add to that that we would also KNOW that He was right?
I fail to see how it change anything. We are discussing the suffering of the child and the mother. We can think they get rewarded in the end, but why did they have to suffer?
The man can accept the argument too: "If god allow suffering, a world with suffering must for some reason i cannot think off be what god intents. At any rate, we all go to heaven. Therefore I will let the child die".
What is wrong with that argument if anything?
-
PSacramento
What is wrong with that argument if anything?
Indeed and that is why that particular argument, that God knows that the end result is better so He allows it, or God allows suffering because it brins people to Him, is IMO, not a very valid one.
One can argue that God KNOWS and that person above simply think so, but Ithat doesn't really address the issue.
There are many arguments that are made as to WHY they or anyone, should suffer BUT none of them are acceptable to the atheist and, to be honest, even to Christians that believe that God is a god of Love, because there is always this feeling that it just SHOULD not be that way.
I have struggled with these questions over and over and while I have come to many answers, acceptbale to a degree, they ALL fail when I return to the premiss that Cofty stated:
Everything Jesus said about loving others needs to be reconciled with this fact.
So I end up going to the one thing that is consistant with BOTH Theists and atheists alike and that is this:
We feel, we KNOW in our "bones" ( for lack of a better way of putting it) that it should NOT be so, that we feel that God SHOULD do something, that He should NOT allow such horrific acts, that He SHOULD do what WE would do, what we view ( base don His own teachings) as the RIGHT thing to do.
ALL people feel this, know this and my question is WHY?
As great as this thread is about addressing the problem the confronts Christinaity in regards to suffering ( other religions don't really have this problem by the way), to me and because of the years I have spent thinking about this very issue, it seems more fascinating WHY we do have this issue.
I will try to read thorugh this thread as much as I can.
-
cofty
my question is WHY
Because we are social apes with big brains who understand empathy.
If we could prevent the unimaginable suffering of the Asian tsunami with no cost to ourselves or others we would do it. We would expect anybody else to do the same. That is how empathy works.
You christians have invented a god who is supposed to be the epitome of all that is good but he behaves worse than the most evil tyrant humanity has ever produced.
Natural evil cannot be reconciled with the god of christian theism. You have demonstrated your need to resort to temporary deism in order to square the circle.
Papering it over with "it's actually a moral good in some mysterious way" is a non-answer.
You can't have the god as revealed through the carpenter AND any of the proposed answers in the past 111 pages.
-
sunny23
Psacramento you obviously havn't read most of this thread! You are wasting peoples time and energy by bringing up things that have already been brought up several times before. I believe if it weren't for re-hashing the same topics that this thread would be 60 pages easily.
Answer this Sacrament: Do you think God is/was capable of creating a planet that will sustain life and not be hostile to humans (like earthquake causing tsunamis)? Do you think he has the power to stop a tsunami or to "put it in peoples hearts" to steer clear of danger zones so noone ever got hurt by natural disaster ever? Of course you do. Yet the argument you make saying "God doesn't see death and suffering like we do, He knows it is simply a small stage in our development and that NOT physical death is a true death, but simply a state of change of our material form, one the leads to a far greater "evolution" of man, with far greater rewards, more than we can even contemplate at this time." This DOESNT make it OK!! Consider this analogy and please read it at least 90 times over..
Like other theodicies it is dehumanising by reducing humans to pawns in god's game.
Imagine that scientists developed a pill that would eradicate all unwelcome memories and create a feeling of bliss. How would you judge a scientist who imposed the most horrific suffering on millions of people, as unwilling subjects of his experiment, but who offered some of his favorite victims the magic pills when it was over?
You said this Psacramento, "humans tend to be at their best when they show compassion and what is compassion?
To suffer with others." That sounds like something Hitler would have said concerning the millions of Jews he had murdered. Hitler taught them a sh** ton of compassion right? right?
______________________________
Mathew 5:43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor i and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. " This is the type of love the bible claims God has! It sure looks like he took off his "love hat" for thousands of years right?
___________________________
Whatever reason we give to excuse god's inaction must work if we were to present it to the lady in the photograph below. If we would be embarassed to say it to her then it is probably Ivory Tower bullshit and we should think again.
-
PSacramento
I think it is beyond empathy Cofty.
I think that there are valid arguments, they simply, like you said, tend to have to resort to either going a semi-deistic way OR being an orthodox fundamentalist that can simply state that God will have mercy on who he chooses.
I find BOTH stands very unsatisfying and try to find another way because it just doesn't seem "right" based on what I personally know and feel about God.
I can only state how I was able to reconcile this issue and whether or not that can means anything to anyone else I do not know:
The world is the way it is because it can be no other way in THIS universe, it falls on us to adapt and survive and God has given us ALL the tools to do so to the best of our ability to use them. He does NOT interefe because suffering and pain is part of the "birthing" process, the forging process of making as better. WHY do we have to go through it this way, because of our nature, becaus suffering compells us to do more and do better for OTHERS more than ourselves. Why did He created us this way? Because the process is the only process there is and us WANTING a different one or NEEDING a different one doesn't mean a different one would be better for Us in the long run, which is what matters. His Love is such that, KNOWING there is no other way, He suffered and died with Us so that we can truly know the magnitude of His love.
This view may not work for you or anyone else, BUt I has worked for me, NOT because I wanted it to ( I was rather happy being a half-assed agnostic that was born a Catholic) but because, for some reason, I found Christ.
I know this means very little to you in regards to the argument at hand inthis thread and I know it won't matter at all in regards to your view about the non-existence of God BUT, having been away, I wanted you to know what I think, especially since I have always had respect for you and your views, as I do with ALL the people here that do not share my views.
-
cofty
The world is the way it is because it can be no other way in THIS universe
Yes it can. Tectonic plates could slide over each other without getting stuck. We still get all the benefits but not the mass violent deaths.
You have VERY low expectations for god. He is not the god of the carpenter so you still have all your work to do.
-
cofty
He suffered and died with Us so that we can truly know the magnitude of His love.
That is sick.
How would you respond to a young man who started cutting himself to prove his love for your daughter?
-
OneEyedJoe
So its good that the infant dies because it will be instantly transported to a better place. What, then does the infant gain during its time here? Is it not evil for god to bring a child into the world only to drown in a tsunami? Why couldn't god have just birthed the child directly into heaven? What loving person could look at the choice between birthing a child directly into heaven and birthing it on earth only to be drowned a few days later and choose the latter? The baby isn't cognitively developed enough to form memories or become self aware, so it brought no benefit to the baby. The baby is, however developed enough to fell pain, and I might remind you that a drowning death is tremendously painful - so much so that merely simulating it is considered a form of torture.
So, let me rephrase the question, what is gained by good allowing a baby to be tortured to death?
