Another sincere question for theists...

[Atlas]

I'm not defending any thing here. I'm pretty lazy and skipped most of this thread. (it's late, and I should be going home from work to be with my wife and kids, not posting on an internet forum.) But I wanted to posit this:

All your lamentations about how horrible God is because of all the suffering in the world (undeserved death, hideous birth defects, etc.) could all be rendered meaningless if you just look at it a different way.

When you were a child and your parents sent you to your room for misbehaving (or spanked you, whatever worked in your household) it was devastating to you. Your world was over. You couldn't have candy, or what-not it was you did wrong. But your parents knew that their punishment was temporary and just, and in the long run, you would be better for it.

If our lives truly are eternal, than the mere 100 years we spend here is but a few minutes of our childhood. [/B]

Are you describing a god not of the Islamo-Judeo-Christian personality? You seem to be assuming the parallel is between our life on Earth and a child being sent to his room.

But the punishment that the Islamo-Judeo-Christian god offers to the eternal soul is not temporary, is not designed to correct bad behavior, and in no way are we made "better for it" in the long run as you describe.

 

[farmermike]

Karen ...again
Would someone please do the math on what the chances of me finding ultimate truth are, when I rule out the possibility of the "supernatural" from the get go, and check my enquiring mind, at the mere mention of the word science.
The consciousness stuff I referred to in my defence of Christianity comes from chapter 10 of The Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel, a layman's guide to the evidence supporting design etc. Don't discount it just because the guy has a particular point of view, not unlike the scientific community at large. Actually the journal Resuscitation Feb. 2001 reports a study you might consider valid. "The Quantitative Study of the Incidence, Features and Aetiology of Near-Death Experience in Cardiac Arrest Surviviors"

-As for Phineas, I don't think the fact that he suffered brain damage is proof that his "soul" ceased to exist. Might not the faulty switchboard have been unable to correctly transmit it? And just as insanity is a valid defence in a court of law, I don't think God would hold you guilty of suffering a particularly devastating mental disorder.

-What else? Oh yeah, the YEC thing with Mike was post marital and I'm not dogmatic on this point. The Bible doesn't say when God created the earth, although interestingly it does say the earth was formed from water, and science could reverse itself on any number of key points in the future, so why get bent out of shape about the timeline?

-And I majored in Journalism at university. (astro-physics was my second choice)Just Kidding!

-And, And, why isn't forgiveness indicitive of love, if I have transgressed and deserve punishment? An illustration I heard once, likened God to the judge who encounters a childhood friend in the courtroom and is obliged to find him guilty but steps from behind the bench and accepts the judgement on himself? But maybe you're asking why God should be constrained by his constants?
Christ the Lion-C.S. Lewis The Silver Chair
"Are you not thirsty?" said the Lion.
"I'm dying of thirst," said Jill.
"Then drink," said the Lion.
"May I -could I-would you mind going away while I do?" said Jill.
The Lion answered this only by a look and a very low growl...
"I daren't come and drink," said Jill.
"Then you will die of thirst," said the Lion.
"Oh dear!" said Jill, coming another step nearer. "I suppose I must go and look for another stream then."
"There is no other stream," said the Lion.

 

[KingMerv00]

Karen ...again
Would someone please do the math on what the chances of me finding ultimate truth are, when I rule out the possibility of the "supernatural" from the get go, and check my enquiring mind, at the mere mention of the word science.
The consciousness stuff I referred to in my defence of Christianity comes from chapter 10 of The Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel, a layman's guide to the evidence supporting design etc. Don't discount it just because the guy has a particular point of view, not unlike the scientific community at large. Actually the journal Resuscitation Feb. 2001 reports a study you might consider valid. "The Quantitative Study of the Incidence, Features and Aetiology of Near-Death Experience in Cardiac Arrest Surviviors"

-As for Phineas, I don't think the fact that he suffered brain damage is proof that his "soul" ceased to exist. Might not the faulty switchboard have been unable to correctly transmit it? And just as insanity is a valid defence in a court of law, I don't think God would hold you guilty of suffering a particularly devastating mental disorder.

-What else? Oh yeah, the YEC thing with Mike was post marital and I'm not dogmatic on this point. The Bible doesn't say when God created the earth, although interestingly it does say the earth was formed from water, and science could reverse itself on any number of key points in the future, so why get bent out of shape about the timeline?

-And I majored in Journalism at university. (astro-physics was my second choice)Just Kidding!

-And, And, why isn't forgiveness indicitive of love, if I have transgressed and deserve punishment? An illustration I heard once, likened God to the judge who encounters a childhood friend in the courtroom and is obliged to find him guilty but steps from behind the bench and accepts the judgement on himself? But maybe you're asking why God should be constrained by his constants?
Christ the Lion-C.S. Lewis The Silver Chair
"Are you not thirsty?" said the Lion.
"I'm dying of thirst," said Jill.
"Then drink," said the Lion.
"May I -could I-would you mind going away while I do?" said Jill.
The Lion answered this only by a look and a very low growl...
"I daren't come and drink," said Jill.
"Then you will die of thirst," said the Lion.
"Oh dear!" said Jill, coming another step nearer. "I suppose I must go and look for another stream then."
"There is no other stream," said the Lion.

If God exists, he created science. That means he CHOSE to exclude the supernatural from it. Why would he do such a thing? Why does God insist on playing a cosmic game with my soul?

As it is, science does not entirely exclude supernatural effects. The only example I can think at the moment is transubstantiation. If bread COULD turn into flesh that would be detectable fairly easily. This has never been shown to be true. That mean either God doesn't exist or he is INTENTIONALLY hiding his presence? How can a mere mortal like me hope to outsmart a diety?

I think you missed that point about Mr. Gage. If the soul is real, brain damage should have no effect on personality. The soul, our eternal essence, should not be effected by anything short of the hand of God.

Sure science reverses itself every once in a while, but look at what it has accomplished in spite of that. Religion has no such error-correction mechanism. Religion yields to science not the other way around.

Whoops, gotta go. Hope I get I get a chance to respond to the rest of this later.

 

[pgwenthold]

-And I majored in Journalism at university.

You're joking, right? Was this at the Larry King School of Journalism? Because I have to say, and I don't mean to derail this thread or offend, that you are one of the most incoherent writers I have ever encountered on internet discussion forums, and I've been around a long time (before it was web based (and I still like newsgroups)).

 

[farmermike]

Play Nice

You're joking, right? Was this at the Larry King School of Journalism? Because I have to say, and I don't mean to derail this thread or offend, that you are one of the most incoherent writers I have ever encountered on internet discussion forums, and I've been around a long time (before it was web based (and I still like newsgroups)).

Karen
My apologies if I'm firing on too many cylinders for you but I attempt to address a variety of missives in my responses, sans benefit of quotes. Alas, you're probably right that I have a tendancy not to fully develop my arguments and I must say, you guys are nothing if not thorough.

 

[jimmygun]

-And, And, why isn't forgiveness indicitive of love, if I have transgressed and deserve punishment?

Forgiveness can be an indicative of love if the punishment fits the crime. Is the love of a parent sufficient grounds to have a three-year-old's hand held to a burner to teach him to stay away from stoves? Does a loving parent kill their child because he has spilled his milk on the rug? Does a loving parent allow someone to fly a fully loaded airplane into an office building and kill some three thousand people simply because they or someone takes a liberal view on homosexuality?

Punishment is not an act of love, it is an act of necessity.

Although many have put forward ideas here, I still fail to see anything that would point to a loving god.

 

[Atlas]

Karen (Mrs. FarmerMike),

You have surprised me with your comeback posts. You stride in here like a Christian into the Lion's Den. I hope you'll choose to register and join the fray in your own right. You seem willing and able to hold your own. I'm sure with your views you'll recieve a welcome and embrace akin to your World Wrestling Federation broadcast.

I'm a tiny bit sympathetic to your position. I've walked the path you are on. For me accepting a deity was alot easier if I catagorized the God of Abraham, Jesus and Mohammed along with the pantheon he was jealous of. That is, the desert god is just as defective as the Norse, Roman and Greek gods and any other personified or iconized god you can name.

As to the question of all loving... I think one can assume the Islamo-Judeo-Christian god is all loving in the same way the Iraqi people think of Saddam as all loving. The pictures of him walking the streets among the people are quite heart warming and the torture chambers seem tame to descriptions of hell and eternal damnation. It's really a definition thing. Saddam fed his people and gave them everything they had. Sure, some were ungrateful when their daughters were raped and stuff but it's the same complaints against God you hear from people whose children are dying from cancer. Small minded people who don't understand love, in my opinion.

You have accepted Pascal's wager at face value and made the only wise decision among the four presented. It's been pointed out already that folks hereabouts don't put too much stock in Pascal's wager. A faulty set of assumptions sets up the reader and offers poor choices. Still, there is no apparent harm in choosing Pascal's life of joyful hope. There's no apparent harm in selecting an apple with a worm in it either. But for folks here, both are tough to swallow.

Still, I don't think your choice is unsafe. It's kind of like a flat Earth whose dangerous edge dooms all who venture close. If you close your eyes to science and Nature's reality you can still enjoy the safety of your familiar home ground. Familiar home ground is a good place to be. It does have a few drawbacks but it's a place where one finds strength.

Perhaps you'll long for an adventure sometime and explore the ideas presented on these threads in more depth. I hope so. I've found it to be a good community with only a few soreheads. Some have steered their vessels too close to the edge and are blithely calling to others - "This way... This way". I think they're easy to spot. You've probably already made up your mind about me. But in my defense, I'm really more of a "Not that way, you fool!" type of guy. Not perfect... but I'm working on it.

 

[BobM]

Are you describing a god not of the Islamo-Judeo-Christian personality? You seem to be assuming the parallel is between our life on Earth and a child being sent to his room.

But the punishment that the Islamo-Judeo-Christian god offers to the eternal soul is not temporary, is not designed to correct bad behavior, and in no way are we made "better for it" in the long run as you describe.

*sigh* I can never manage these discussions because people won't focus. My metaphor is not for hell. It is a metaphor for our time on earth. Atheists are always saying "look at the suffering here on earth, how can a loving God do that?"

If we are eternal beings, the suffering that we endure on earth will soon be forgotten as an adult forgets his childhood.

Regarding Hell? It's not a requirement in my theology. That the pope or Paul Robertson believe that you'll suffer forever is meaningless to me.

Regarding the omniscient/omnipotent angle: excatly. My parents aren't omni~, and neither are you. You think you have a better way, but you can't know. I'm not sure what else I can say about that. The whole omni~ thing comes down to this for me: either you trust that God is doing what is best, or you don't. He's not going to disappear in a puff of logic because our limited minds can't figure out what he's up to.

 

[Iacchus]

So, strictly from an evolutionary standpoint, is suffering a good thing or a bad thing? It seems to fit the bill for the purposes of existent life doesn't it? So, if we were to modify that a bit and say God created life through the process of evolution, what difference would it make? Or, is it just offering us the opportunity to gripe and complain a bit? It almost sounds like some of us want vindication for the whole thing.

 

[Atlas]

*sigh* I can never manage these discussions because people won't focus. My metaphor is not for hell. It is a metaphor for our time on earth. Atheists are always saying "look at the suffering here on earth, how can a loving God do that?"

If we are eternal beings, the suffering that we endure on earth will soon be forgotten as an adult forgets his childhood.

Regarding Hell? It's not a requirement in my theology. That the pope or Paul Robertson believe that you'll suffer forever is meaningless to me.

Sorry BobM, if I appear to be unable to focus.

You appeared during a discussion I had generally accepted to be about the Judeo-Christian deity. Obviously yours is not the God of Jesus. No hell, huh. Sorry I jumped to that conclusion.

You said... All your lamentations about how horrible God is because of all the suffering in the world (undeserved death, hideous birth defects, etc.) could all be rendered meaningless if you just look at it a different way.

What theology are you representing where hideous birth defects are the equivalent of sending a child to his room. It sounds like reincarnation. But you end your post with If our lives truly are eternal, than the mere 100 years we spend here is but a few minutes of our childhood.

Do those God smites get bigger rewards or does everybody get the same? Your belief sounds different than most others. I'd like to hear about it. If you get a moment please expound, I'll try to stay focussed.

 

[Atlas]

So, strictly from an evolutionary standpoint, is suffering a good thing or a bad thing? It seems to fit the bill for the purposes of existent life doesn't it? So, if we were to modify that a bit and say God created life through the process of evolution, what difference would it make? Or, is it just offering us the opportunity to gripe and complain a bit? It almost sounds like some of us want vindication for the whole thing.

I'm not sure I understand the thrust of this post, Iacchus.

As far as evolution goes, and I'm thinking you mean natural selection, that which aids survival is a good thing. So where the suffering leads to a fitter member of a species I suppose it could be considered good. If the fish pool dries out and the fish suffer and die I suppose you could say that survival of the fittest found no fit members. Was their suffering a bad thing? Who knows? They certainly were unable to communicate whether they felt good, bad, or ugly about it. I suspect the latter but good and bad seem like such human measurements.

How did this relate to the thread topic of a loving deity? Were you trying to get us to see that evolution does not love us? Sorry if I seem dense today... apparently I'm having trouble staying focussed.

 

[Iacchus]

How did this relate to the thread topic of a loving deity? Were you trying to get us to see that evolution does not love us? Sorry if I seem dense today... apparently I'm having trouble staying focussed.

Basically what I'm saying is that we're stuck with what we've got. So which is it? A good thing or a bad thing? And if it's neither, then why I do I continue to hear about the wonders and glories of evolution? Whereas if God did in fact create us through such glorious means, why shouldn't our wonder and admiration be directed towards Him? Or, does it actually change things because we do suffer and experience pain?

 

[pgwenthold]

Regarding the omniscient/omnipotent angle: excatly. My parents aren't omni~, and neither are you. You think you have a better way, but you can't know. I'm not sure what else I can say about that. The whole omni~ thing comes down to this for me: either you trust that God is doing what is best, or you don't. He's not going to disappear in a puff of logic because our limited minds can't figure out what he's up to.

Why should I believe that God is doing what is best? If I have to trust it to be true, then I guess I should take it that you can't provide any justification for it.

Man, that is the whole _point_ of this thread. Can you provide any reason to think that God is doing what is best? When you do, I'll add it right to the list of reasons to believe God loves us...

It's pretty simple: if God is omnipotent, then he can make us better without subjecting us to punishment. This is pretty much true by the definition of omnipotent.

Therefore, the fact that he doesn't indicates that either he can't (and therefore is not omnipotent) or doesn't want to, which pretty much flies in the face of him being all so loving (third option: he doesn't know about it, but that means he isn't omniscient).

Back to your parents example, I never claim to be as loving as god is supposed to be, but I do know that if I had the ability to make my children better without hurting them, I would do it. If I am this benevolent, then why shouldn't I expect it from God?

 

[Atlas]

Basically what I'm saying is that we're stuck with what we've got. So which is it? A good thing or a bad thing? And if it's neither, then why I do I continue to hear about the wonders and glories of evolution? Whereas if God did in fact create us through such glorious means, why shouldn't our wonder and admiration be directed towards Him? Or, does it actually change things because we do suffer and experience pain?

I was hoping you'd be more direct in addressing how it relates to a loving deity.

But I'm confused by the post in another way. I read your words with my own definitions of good and bad as purely subjective human assessments. But God's love and evolution to my mind would be more objective reality. Anyway, the notions are apples and oranges for me.

I do think it is normal for humans to express wonder and admiration at the myriad expressions of nature... even nature's god. But the personification of the deity with traits of love, jealosy and petty angers that would lead to human torments is god of thunder fear talk. It's not much different than sacrificing to the rain gods or tempting the garden fairies. Many gods explains things just as well as any reference to Him. No gods seems to as well. It's harder to personify the love of no gods however.

I realize that is convoluted. I'm trying to aim at what I think you mean but I'm not quite sure I'm doing so well at it.

 

[Iacchus]

I was hoping you'd be more direct in addressing how it relates to a loving deity.

But I'm confused by the post in another way. I read your words with my own definitions of good and bad as purely subjective human assessments. But God's love and evolution to my mind would be more objective reality. Anyway, the notions are apples and oranges for me.

Yes, maybe this is what I'm trying to say, is that we get the subjective belly-aching out of the way, and appreciate the wonders of creation for what it is.

 

[Atlas]

Yes, maybe this is what I'm trying to say, is that we get the subjective belly-aching out of the way, and appreciate the wonders of creation for what it is.

I take your meaning this time.

I'm a big fan of appreciation. I think the gods are inventions arising out of human appreciation. That is, from our first awareness we begin to appreciate what is. For me there is a relation between appreciation and the gods like the old chicken and egg question.

For me, the appreciation of good, of power, of awesomeness, and of the contrasts and associations we make... as in how the sunshine recedes and we witness a storm on the mountain descending... from this type of appreciation arises our gods and their human traits.

 

[Iacchus]

For me, the appreciation of good, of power, of awesomeness, and of the contrasts and associations we make... as in how the sunshine recedes and we witness a storm on the mountain descending... from this type of appreciation arises our gods and their human traits.

Yes, we have to ascribe these things to something, because it's hard to image that they came about of their own accord. Or else why would they have so much awe and influence over us? And, at least that aspect of it is real.

 

[farmermike]

It concerns me, whenver I attempt to present God in a nutshell, especially to a variously hostile audience, that I not invent some kind of non-threatening, fuzzy-wuzzy, easily marketable illusion. Selling Christianity would be a whole lot easier, minus the Old Testament and no doubt, great chunks of the New. Either God's never heard of "presentation", or He's not running for election here.
Can we agree that if there is a God, he has an acquired right as creator, to make the rules, even if his standards of conduct are impossibly high for us to attain on our own? And would it not be loving of Him, in recognition of that fact, to substiute his own righteousness as a means of making up the difference?
******************************************
Suffering remains an enigma. Like why did God choose to burden himself with us, live like us, be rejected by us and be nailed to a
cross by us?
From our perspective, cookies and ice-cream all round would seem to be a better way to go but maybe that's a dead end. At any rate, that same brutally honest God of the Old Testament, promises to uphold me through the trials of life, and I do take comfort in that.
One of my favourite tunes at church goes; "He knows my name. He knows my every thought. He sees each tear that falls and He hears me when I call."

 

[jimmygun]

It concerns me, whenver I attempt to present God in a nutshell, especially to a variously hostile audience, that I not invent some kind of non-threatening, fuzzy-wuzzy, easily marketable illusion. Selling Christianity would be a whole lot easier, minus the Old Testament and no doubt, great chunks of the New. Either God's never heard of "presentation", or He's not running for election here.
Can we agree that if there is a God, he has an acquired right as creator, to make the rules, even if his standards of conduct are impossibly high for us to attain on our own? And would it not be loving of Him, in recognition of that fact, to substiute his own righteousness as a means of making up the difference?
******************************************
Suffering remains an enigma. Like why did God choose to burden himself with us, live like us, be rejected by us and be nailed to a
cross by us?
From our perspective, cookies and ice-cream all round would seem to be a better way to go but maybe that's a dead end. At any rate, that same brutally honest God of the Old Testament, promises to uphold me through the trials of life, and I do take comfort in that.
One of my favourite tunes at church goes; "He knows my name. He knows my every thought. He sees each tear that falls and He hears me when I call."

 

[jimmygun]

Somehow only the quote made my reply. I will answer later.