homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » "It is not logical, but it is often true." (Spock in 'Amok Time') (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: "It is not logical, but it is often true." (Spock in 'Amok Time')
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc
@EtymologicalEvangelical: I can assure you that I have none of these thoughts when I pray this prayer.

Irrelevant to the point I made.

If these thoughts are not there - even if only subconsciously or implicitly - then the prayer has no meaning.

Unless, of course, you pray the prayer believing that God is both God and not God, that he both exists and doesn't exist, that his love could actually be hate, and that he may not really keep his promises.

That would be the "thinking" behind a prayer that denies the validity of logic.

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I love it when Vulcans, Klingons and Bajorans try to understand each other.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
EtymologicalEvangelical: If these thoughts are not there - even if only subconsciously or implicitly - then the prayer has no meaning.
I didn't realize that you are the One who decides whether my prayer has meaning or not.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc
I didn't realize that you are the One who decides whether my prayer has meaning or not.

Then don't try to communicate with me then - or with anyone else, if you are expecting people to make sense of your insanity - or should I say, your pernicious attempts to screw up other people's minds.

And by the way... why did you call my views "silly" on the other thread?

I didn't realise that you are the One who decides whether my views are silly or not.

How arrogant!

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: I love it when Vulcans, Klingons and Bajorans try to understand each other.
Can I be a Klingon?

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: I love it when Vulcans, Klingons and Bajorans try to understand each other.
Can I be a Klingon?
Sorry mate. You're the Bajoran here.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Let me try to give an alternative to the prayer I suggested then. I don't really like to do this, as it feels a bit like spoiling a poem (or a good joke) by explaining it, but here goes.

"Dear God..."

(Excuse me for addressing You like this. I don't really know what it means for You to exist.

I mean, I can understand that a table exists, because I can feel and touch it, so it exists in the physical realm. I can understand that Brazil exists, but feeling and touching there isn't enough, I need to go to the legal or the cultural realm. I can understand that love exists in some ways, because it exists in the emotional realm and probably a couple of realms more.

When it comes to you, I wouldn't even pretend to know which kind of realm I should think of, so I'll humbly refrain from thinking too much about what it means for You to exist. What I do know, through the way You revealed Yourself in the Jewish-Christian tradition, is that I may address You as a person. So please forgive me if I humbly do so.)

"I'll never completely understand You."

(Because You are infinitely superior to me. Uhm yes, this means that I'm infinitely inferior to You.)

"My logic reaches its limit when it comes to You."

(Forgive me, Lord, but these are the exact words I intended to use. I know there are things that logic can't fully explain: love, inspiration, selflessness, creativity... I believe that they are connected to You, that You are the Source of them. How can I try to understand the Almighty Source and Embodiment of all these alogical things by logic? That would be silly [Biased] So I'll humbly refrain from relying too much on logic as a tool to understand You.)

"But you promised that You love us..."

(You made a promise. I don't have any logical proof of this promise. All I have is faith. Through this faith I try to trust in this promise.)

"...and You inspire me to try and carry out some of that love. It is in this love that I trust."

(And thank you, Lord, even I don't fully understand that love. Yes, I know that love isn't hate, but that really doesn't help me much when I try to apply it in practice. What I can do, even without fully understanding Your love, is to try to apply it in the best way possible, inspired by Your love.)

"In Jesus' name, Amen."

(I proabably should have added this.)


quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: Sorry mate. You're the Bajoran here.
Darn. And I wanted to use a bat'leth! Oh well, at least I get to screw up people's minds [Razz]

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The problem with your approach to God is that it reflecting the one dimensional understanding of God as a God of love, not one who is also creator and king of the universe, and our judge. On my understanding He really DOES know what is best for us, so is in a position to punish us appropriately. He has the right to impose punishments on those who resist Him.

But his punishments are unjust. There is no possible finite offence for which eternal punishment can be just - and eternal punishment is not good for anyone. If he does know what is good then by sending anyone to hell he chooses not to do it.

quote:
And He has a right ultimately to cast those who will otherwise mess up His new creation into Hell so that they won't be in a position to do so.
Possibly he has a right to behave like the most evil being it is possible to imagine. This doesn't change the fact that condemning someone to eternal torment is an infinitely evil act and also infinitely unjust and cruel. He may have the right - but that doesn't make it good.

quote:
THIS IS THE GOD THAT JESUS TAUGHT. He's the one who is the main source for our information on Hell, and does quite often mention it, though usually to his disciples rather than to the wider crowd. If we are seeking to reflect all the truth he is seeking to teach us, we need to ensure that this painfully challenging element does get a look in.
Yes. Which is why mainstream Christian morality is nothing more than a thinly warmed over "might makes right" system of ethics in which we suck up to and try to humanise the most powerful and evil being imaginable. The one who deliberately inflicts infinite evil on people and tortures them eternally.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Am I allowed to redo part of my explanation?


"I'll never completely understand You."

(Because You are infinitely superior to me. Uhm yes, this means that I'm infinitely inferior to You. In fact, You really screwed up this superior-inferior thing when You became a helpless child and later allowed us to nail You on the Cross, didn't You? It seems that You can even make Your superiority become alogical or, dare I say it, illogical.)

Better [Smile]

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941

 - Posted      Profile for Stejjie   Author's homepage   Email Stejjie   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:


(Because You are infinitely superior to me. Uhm yes, this means that I'm infinitely inferior to You. In fact, You really screwed up this superior-inferior thing when You became a helpless child and later allowed us to nail You on the Cross, didn't You? It seems that You can even make Your superiority become alogical or, dare I say it, illogical.)


Amen.

And this, to me (a not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist) sums up the whole problem with trying to see God through the lens of human logic. Because if the witness of Scripture is any kind of guide, God simply refuses to play by our ideas of what's logical and what isn't.

Take the book of Job - it's a book that thoroughly upturns any kind of logic. Job does no wrong, yet is subjected an apparently divinely-ordained onslaught of suffering. He protests loudly against the simplistic logic of his "friends", yet it's he who is subjected to the blast of divine indignation. Job submits to this but is commended by God for speaking right when his friends did not - presumably, then, for his protests about his innocence and the disconnect between guilt and suffering. This from the God who's apparently bargained with everything Job holds dear. Where's the logic in that?

Then there's Jesus. In Mark's Gospel, Peter follows the logic of the signs and wonders and teachings of Jesus and declares Him to be Messiah. Yet Jesus immediately undercuts all their logic by declaring that He's now going to go to Jerusalem and be crucified something which, if I understand it correctly, Messiah was simply not expected to do. Human logic is completely missing.

The existence of human suffering in the world, which Ender's Shadow pointed to, surely points away from seeing God in purely logical terms. Logically, if God loves humanity, hates suffering and has the power to end it, then He should be doing that. Yet people are still suffering in the world from things they can have no control over. Logically, it doesn't make any sense.

To see God primarily in terms of human logic is to see things the wrong way round. It puts us in the position of Job's friends, forced to try and make things fit into boxes which they just won't fit into, forced to make assumptions of God and others which simply are true. It makes an idol of human logic and suggests that God should submit to our "right" and "logical" way of thinking, rather than us submitting our logic to His.

I'm as conventional (for a Baptist) as they come, but I'm with LeRoc on this: mystery, not logic, seems a much better basis for our relationship with God.

--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist

Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
The existence of human suffering in the world, which Ender's Shadow pointed to, surely points away from seeing God in purely logical terms. Logically, if God loves humanity, hates suffering and has the power to end it, then He should be doing that. Yet people are still suffering in the world from things they can have no control over. Logically, it doesn't make any sense.

Baloney. Just because your understanding concludes that it isn't logical, doesn't mean that it isn't. If scientists resorted to that sort of argument every time they stumble across a piece of evidence that doesn't fit their hypothesis, scientific progress would have long since ground to a halt. What we have to do is to engage with the data, and decide whether we can come to understand what other premises we need to look at to add to explain logically what is going on. Jesus' response to the question in Luke 13:1-6 is helpful for me; the right question to ask in the face of my suffering is: 'Why NOT me, given that I am a sinner who deserves permanent separation from God?'. Once you start from that perspective, suffering is a lot simpler to explain.

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I wish you good luck with your scientific studies of God, I really do. But I don't think that He is a scientific object can be understood in this way. Once again, to me this would be an attempt to reduce God, to 'put Him in a box' as Stejjie said, and I don't think that I'm allowed to do that.

To come back to the example of love, I don't think that it works this way either. If a couple quarrels, it isn't just a case of 'just look logically at the reasons and if you dig deep enough you'll find a solution.' Maybe some problems can be solved in this way, but definitely not all of them.

The problem of evil and suffering is a difficult one, and to me it can't easily be solved by 'people suffer because they don't repent'. I respect that this is the accepted solution within your faith tradition, but I'm sure you're aware that there are other traditions that have more nuanced views of this.

People have pondered on the problem of suffering since the earliest days. In fact the Bible itself is a record of that, and looks at it from different and often conflicting points of view. Look at the Psalms, Job, the Gospels themselves... There's a rich variety there of people struggling with this problem, and personally this variety of viewpoints is an inspiration to me.

To me, the fact that people are pondering on this problem is a good thing, especially when this also leads to actions to relieve other people's suffering, within the spirit (or should I say Spirit?) that Jesus showed us.

The fact that we don't have a logical answer to this problem doesn't make it easier for us. But that's part of the human condition. I'm not the kind of person that thinks: "I need to have a 100% consistent, proven, logical answer, or else it's all complete chaos." What I can do, even if things aren't 100% logical to me, is to be inspired by the Bible, to try my best to follow Jesus' example, and ultimately to trust in God.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There are also some fairly straightforward reasons for suffering, which involve the intelligibility of the universe.

Once you accept a material universe, then its intelligibility would seem supremely important, for a rational species as ourselves. It means that we are able to begin to describe and explain its features in terms of regularities.

The issue of pain can be explained in evolutionary terms - it is highly advantageous for living animals, since it warns them of injury, disease, danger, and so on.

There is of course the usual problem here of reconciling evolution, as an unplanned phenomenon, with the idea of a God who plans.

However, leaving that aside, given materiality, pain and suffering are not that mysterious - in fact, you could argue that you can't have one without the other.

Of course, you might then wonder, why a material universe? Why not build a non-material one, without pain and suffering? Well, a material world is good, and worthwhile.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
The existence of human suffering in the world, which Ender's Shadow pointed to, surely points away from seeing God in purely logical terms. Logically, if God loves humanity, hates suffering and has the power to end it, then He should be doing that. Yet people are still suffering in the world from things they can have no control over. Logically, it doesn't make any sense.

Baloney. Just because your understanding concludes that it isn't logical, doesn't mean that it isn't. If scientists resorted to that sort of argument every time they stumble across a piece of evidence that doesn't fit their hypothesis, scientific progress would have long since ground to a halt. What we have to do is to engage with the data, and decide whether we can come to understand what other premises we need to look at to add to explain logically what is going on. Jesus' response to the question in Luke 13:1-6 is helpful for me; the right question to ask in the face of my suffering is: 'Why NOT me, given that I am a sinner who deserves permanent separation from God?'. Once you start from that perspective, suffering is a lot simpler to explain.
Does that explain babies dying of painful diseases? Young children starving to death? They're being punished for being wicked sinners who deserve it?

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109

 - Posted      Profile for the long ranger   Email the long ranger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It seems to me that the aspect which is often forgotten in this argument is that Jesus is portrayed as breaking the "intelligibility of the universe" by conducting miracles.

And if the intelligibility of the universe would somehow be affected by a deity who intervened to prevent unearned suffering, then how is the intelligibility not affected by someone who can turn water into wine, who can walk on water and miraculously heal the sick?

So then you can only be left with (a) God intervening is not affecting the intelligibility of the universe and (b) he could interfere but is choosing not to.

--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”

Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, if God intervened in a major way, say, every time somebody was going to have a car crash, an angel interceded, and prevented it, then the universe would no longer be intelligible, clearly. The laws of physics would be shredded.

In such a situation, humans would be in a complete pickle, in terms of their ability to grasp the regularities of the physical universe. It's possible that science itself would be impossible.

Well, I see this as a reply to those atheists who sometimes ask why God doesn't regularly perform miracles.

The point is, that for a rational God, intelligibility and order would be very high on the list of desirable features to a universe, and for rational beings such as humans, they are essential.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109

 - Posted      Profile for the long ranger   Email the long ranger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, if God intervened in a major way, say, every time somebody was going to have a car crash, an angel interceded, and prevented it, then the universe would no longer be intelligible, clearly. The laws of physics would be shredded.

Any time he intervened the laws of physics would be shredded. Why should you get to determine which interference is major and which is minor?


quote:
The point is, that for a rational God, intelligibility and order would be very high on the list of desirable features to a universe, and for rational beings such as humans, they are essential.
Right. Therefore God does not interfere. Ever.

--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”

Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, I used 'major' there to mean regularly. If God intervened every time there was a car crash, or every time somebody was ill, that would be pretty major!

So, if God exists, why wouldn't he do that? It just seems to me because it would destroy the intelligibility of the universe, which would make life for rational beings (humans), very difficult. In fact, it might make life difficult for all animals.

This question obviously comes up in terms of the apparent contradiction between a loving God and 'natural evil', which God appears to permit. If he didn't permit it, there would be no material universe as we know it.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl
Well, if God intervened in a major way, say, every time somebody was going to have a car crash, an angel interceded, and prevented it, then the universe would no longer be intelligible, clearly. The laws of physics would be shredded.

In such a situation, humans would be in a complete pickle, in terms of their ability to grasp the regularities of the physical universe. It's possible that science itself would be impossible.

Well, I see this as a reply to those atheists who sometimes ask why God doesn't regularly perform miracles.

The point is, that for a rational God, intelligibility and order would be very high on the list of desirable features to a universe, and for rational beings such as humans, they are essential.

You (and the long ranger) might want to read this post.

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941

 - Posted      Profile for Stejjie   Author's homepage   Email Stejjie   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Baloney. Just because your understanding concludes that it isn't logical, doesn't mean that it isn't. If scientists resorted to that sort of argument every time they stumble across a piece of evidence that doesn't fit their hypothesis, scientific progress would have long since ground to a halt. What we have to do is to engage with the data, and decide whether we can come to understand what other premises we need to look at to add to explain logically what is going on. Jesus' response to the question in Luke 13:1-6 is helpful for me; the right question to ask in the face of my suffering is: 'Why NOT me, given that I am a sinner who deserves permanent separation from God?'. Once you start from that perspective, suffering is a lot simpler to explain.

Simpler, or more simplistic? There's huge gaps in that account that skips over huge amounts of data. Firstly, what about babies born with illnesses, babies who are still-born? Do they deserve to suffer? What about Christians who go through suffering; presumably they have been made justified, made right with God (in one view of the scheme of things) - by this account, shouldn't they be exempt from suffering? Yet we know us Christians are not exempt.

Secondly, it skips over huge amounts of Scripture that speak of the exact opposite. Take Jesus' words in Matthew 5, where Jesus calls on His disciples to love their enemies because that's what God does, sending sun and rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous. Or what about the aforementioned book of Job which, for all its apparent illogicality, strongly protests against the idea that people suffer because they've done wrong or are sinful. I think an argument could be made that the world is as it is because of sin - but I'm really not sure that that's the same as what you're arguing (that we should just accept suffering because that's what we deserve).

So I think there's huge gaps in your data which undermine the logic you see in your conclusion.

Which was the point I was trying to make. God is not a scientific hypothesis to be tested. Believing in God, having faith in God, is not just about finding material evidence for God's existence and trusting in that, otherwise why would we walk by "faith and not by sight"? Science is important and crucial and I agree with your point about the importance of it to human existence (though it could be seen as a double-edged sword). But our call is not to try and prove God using these methods, using science and logic and the rest of it - it's something far greater and deeper than that.

--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist

Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm also puzzled what 'you're suffering because you don't repent' might mean in pastoral terms. Suppose a preacher is visiting a nice elderly lady in the hospital who has cancer. She might have had a naughty thought or two in her life, but she's just a very nice, Christian person, good for everyone around her.

The preacher tells her to repent. She really does, although she hasn't done that much wrong in her life. But no matter how much she repents, the cancer gets stronger and stronger, and her pain grows.

[ 11. October 2012, 11:23: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The problem of evil and suffering is a difficult one, and to me it can't easily be solved by 'people suffer because they don't repent'. I respect that this is the accepted solution within your faith tradition, but I'm sure you're aware that there are other traditions that have more nuanced views of this.

Oh please - read what I said, not what you jumped to assuming what I said. What I said is that suffering is as a result of sin in the world. We have all sinned, and the claim of Christianity is NOT that repentance is remove all the consequences of sin, but that your faith will offer a way to cope for now, and the prospect of being in a world in the future where 'God will wipe away every tear' and suffering and pain will be no more. Now, to be fair to you, there are people within the charismatic tradition who would go a stage further and argue that we can expect to live pain and suffering free, but I'm not one of them; the clear evidence of the epistles, including Timothy's stomach, torpedoes that logic.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
The existence of human suffering in the world, which Ender's Shadow pointed to, surely points away from seeing God in purely logical terms. Logically, if God loves humanity, hates suffering and has the power to end it, then He should be doing that. Yet people are still suffering in the world from things they can have no control over. Logically, it doesn't make any sense.

Baloney. Just because your understanding concludes that it isn't logical, doesn't mean that it isn't. If scientists resorted to that sort of argument every time they stumble across a piece of evidence that doesn't fit their hypothesis, scientific progress would have long since ground to a halt. What we have to do is to engage with the data, and decide whether we can come to understand what other premises we need to look at to add to explain logically what is going on. Jesus' response to the question in Luke 13:1-6 is helpful for me; the right question to ask in the face of my suffering is: 'Why NOT me, given that I am a sinner who deserves permanent separation from God?'. Once you start from that perspective, suffering is a lot simpler to explain.
Does that explain babies dying of painful diseases? Young children starving to death? They're being punished for being wicked sinners who deserve it?
Yes, but I suspect you're not going to agree. For me it is clear from the teaching of the bible - especially for example the story of David's first child by Bathsheba dying because of their sin - that God treats the children as being, to some extent, an extension of the parents. Therefore 'innocent' suffering is legitimated from God's perspective, which I regard as the only issue. YMMV Note that this is the flip side of children benefiting from the positive aspects of their parents; the same sort of spiritual process of 'reaping what is sown' result in the two effects.

The other suggestion is that in fact even babies knowingly act selfishly - or so parents have assured me. In that context they are acting sinfully, so are no longer innocent.

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Have you any idea how morally repugnant that appears, ES? That God would splat my kids because of something I'd do?

What sort of evil monster do you call God that gives babies painful conditions to punish their parents.

Extremely fucking hell.

[ 11. October 2012, 14:19: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Have you any idea how morally repugnant that appears, ES? That God would splat my kids because of something I'd do?

What sort of evil monster do you call God that gives babies painful conditions to punish their parents.

Extremely fucking hell.

IMNSHO it seems to me that part of your problem is that you assume that being splatted is the end of the world. In the context of eternity, an early death is really neither here nor there - or as Paul puts it: "For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us."

And note that the reality is that children do suffer for the sins of their parents. ALL the time. It's the way the world's set up. If mummy is an alcoholic, baby will suffer. If Dad is a wimp, the child will suffer. If the parents don't care enough to enforce meaningful boundaries, the teenager will be a mess. On the whole I don't think this makes God evil - just someone who is foolish enough to take an enormous risk with the children that he allows to be born into the world.

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools