Encouraging scriptures for the day

by Kosonen 543 Replies latest jw friends

  • nicolaou
    nicolaou
    I still think God was right to act at the time. I can "rationalize" it for you,

    Please do. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are an otherwise rational and compassionate person. I'm going to bet (and it's a bet I always win) that you can't justify the deaths of all these innocent children without an appeal to the supernatural.

  • PetrW
    PetrW

    @nicolaou

    Interesting challenge! I'm just a bit puzzled by the fact that if I'm to address the question of the relationship between God and Evil, what do you mean by "supernatural"?

    Don't worry, it's not an evasive maneuver to absolve myself of responsibility!

    Try writing your most pressing accusation with respect to God as part of your response as well. My point is just to understand your criticisms more. One last question: are you willing to read long texts? Because theodicey's question is indeed very difficult and there are many counter-arguments to deal with...


  • Queequeg
    Queequeg
    "All who have come to me must have enema each day."
    - G.I. Gurdjieff
  • Duran
    Duran

    "Enos, You Dipstick!" - Rosco P Coltrane

  • nicolaou
    nicolaou

    PetrW, imagine the story of the enslaved Hebrews without God. Moses repeatedly petitions Pharaoh to release the captives without success. Eventually Moses resorts to terrorist action, sending assassins into Egyptian homes where tens of thousands of children are murdered in a single night.

    Who wouldn't condemn this act? I believe even you would. So when I ask you to justify the similar Biblical account without resorting to the supernatural it's merely to prove a very simple point.

    I'll make that point after your response.

    And yes, I'm prepared to read lengthier posts but don't try to obfuscate. The question of theodicy is not in the least bit difficult.

  • Queequeg
    Queequeg

    Perhaps you could start a new thread. This is a thread for encouragement, friends.

  • PetrW
    PetrW

    @nicolaou

    If I were to evaluate the events concerning the death of the Egyptian children without taking into account any supernatural event, the "logic" of the events is not unlike what we know from other events: one nation enslaves another, commits barbaric crimes, including the murder of children, and after a certain period of time, when the oppression reaches an unbearable situation, that death by fighting the oppressors is no different from death by starvation or slave labor, there is a violent revolt. The oppressed will turn against all real or perceived oppressors. Very often, then, violent actions are accompanied by revenge even on innocents and lead to bestiality...

    If God does not exist, then the question of theodicey is useless. The evil of e.g. natural disasters is a "higher power" that can be prevented to some extent (not building houses in floodplains, building dams or fighting climate change). Evil that comes from humans can be eliminated by police, courts or the military. Diplomacy or military alliances are then supposed to have a "deterrent" role against potential invaders. Wars have been, are and will be. Diseases were, are and will be, but much of it, we have learned to manage.

    From this (simple but understandable) point of view, you are right, I don't feel the need to discuss the issue of theodicy at all either. Everything can also be explained without God.

    But I also understand that if you allow for the existence of God (the theodicey question itself presupposes that the existence of some rational, supernatural being is at least hypothetically admitted), then you put yourself in a less advantageous position. Clearly, one who addresses the theodicy question is working with some notion of God (not necessarily Christian ) that the opponent should - at the very least - accept as part of the proposed answer. It follows then that the plausibility of the solution then (perhaps!?) rests on intellectual ability rather than on the actual solution...

  • Earnest
    Earnest

    "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy"

    - William Shakespeare

  • KalebOutWest
    KalebOutWest

    I think also that some of what the Watchtower taught us (and maybe a few liberties taken by Hollywood movies, like The Ten Commandments and The Prince of Egypt) warp our memories of the Exodus narrative. First of all, the story of "plagues" and the exodus itself is believed to be a liturgical drama and not history by both Judaism and Christianity.--See the footnotes, introductions, and additional materials in both Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary, the official Bible of the Conservative Jewish movement and the NABRE, the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church in the USA.

    Second, in the Tenth Plague, "children" of the Egyptians are not killed by God, only firstborn "sons" die--and these are generally the eldest in each family (a significant point). The Book of Exodus opens with a pharoah of Egypt demanding the murder of infant "sons" of Israel, but allowing the girls to live. (Exodus 1:22) So in the final plague, God attacks Pharoah (who claims to be a god) by killing his "firstborn," or his next in line to rule, another "god," so to speak.

    In Judaism, "firstborn son" means "heir" and refers to the eldest male who inherits the same rights as the father. For example, Jacob offer Esau a bowl of stew in order to get his right as firstborn, and later was helped by his mother to seal this with stealing his brother's blessing from his father. (Ge 25:29-34; ch 27) And it often means a royal heir, not literal child at all.--See Psalm 2:6,7.

    This is what what was meant at the very beginning when God told Moses to warn Pharoah using these words:

    You shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, Israel is my firstborn son, and I say to you, “Let my son go that he may serve me.” If you refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill your firstborn son.”--Exodus 4:22, 23, ESV.--Compare Ex. 19:6.

    Thus, the drama unfolds with the Hebrew God striking Pharoah a blow to his heir, as promised via Moses at the first revelation at the Burning Bush. It was actually the first warning Pharoah ever got when Moses first visited him before even the first plague broke out--and thus foreshadowing how the story of the plagues end, with Pharoah losing his heir to the throne, not with literal children dying all over Egypt as you often see playing out in Hollywood movies or perhaps the way Jehovah's Witnesses mistakenly understand the text.

    Finally, by definition "theodicy" is actually not a debate over why God would punish another with death if they deserved it. In the above drama, the pharaohs of Egypt are guilty of infanticide and thus God repays them by killing their firstborn, so to speak. (Again it's a liturgical drama, not a historical piece.) Why does theodicy not work here?

    Because theodicy is not questioning why God brings justice upon the wicked, but why God allows evil if God can obviously do something in the first place. That is the opposite of what happens in the Ten Plague story: Pharoahs kill Hebrew sons, God kills Pharoah's sons. That is a story about God actively bringing justice for all to see.

    Theodicy is questioning why doesn't God act at all, if there is a God. Why is there suffering? Why does evil exist? If God is good and omnipotent, then how can all this other stuff be? Why doesn't God act? Where is God? That is theodicy. For that, we have the Book of Job (which by the way, does not answer the question--it merely adds more questions and recognizes that humans cannot answer it).

  • Queequeg
    Queequeg

    "See, the day of the Lord is coming — a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger. . . . I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty. . . . Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated." (Isaiah 13:9–16 NIV)

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit