quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
From my experience, there are three real approaches to this problem:

The Job solution. In essence this says that God has the bigger picture, he is running the universe, and because he has that big picture, we cannot argue. What it means is that we are insignificant, because our suffering is part of the bigger plan. In fact, we see at the end he has twice the wealth, a whole lot of replacement family (because numbers of children are important, not the actual individuals), and the signs of Gods blessing seem to be the Health, Wealth and Happiness gospel.

---

I'm going to nuance this up a bit.

First of all, "we cannot argue." Oh yes we can, as Job himself does. And you'll notice God says at the end to Job's friends, "You have not spoken rightly of me, as my servant Job has." Nice compliment there. Apparently God has no problem with arguing, yelling, etc. (Job gets slapped around a bit at the very end to remind him of his place in things--that is, the fact that he is limited, with a limited viewpoint and understanding--but there's no place at all where God says "Don't argue" or "Just shut up and take it."

Similarly, Job is not insignificant. He is VERY significant, witness the fact that this book ends up in the Bible. And it's one of the very oldest bits. If God has any hand at all in the Bible's assembly, that fact should give us something to think about.

His significance is also there in the bare fact that God takes the time to argue with him. I mean, what? God comes in a whirlwind to spend two chapters smacking him around? Okay, maybe that's not the ideal form of attention,
but every naughty child will tell you that any attention is better than none. We don't yell at people we don't value--not for any length of time, anyway. We just blow them off. God does not blow off Job.

Finally, the "happily ever after" bit in Job. Uh, no. Job gets ten more children, NOT double his previous number, precisely BECAUSE children are not replaceable. The ten who died at the beginning still exist in God's view. They are Job's children, living or dead, and God will not insult a grieving father by suggesting they are in the same category as donkeys or sheep. So he does in fact double the number by adding ten more to make a total of twenty children, ten living and ten dead. (does anybody besides me think this is a little hard on Mrs. Job?)

The whole health, wealth, happiness thing has already been shown to be hollow by, well, the whole preceding book of Job. So what's going on at the end? Certainly not a sudden reverse of theology ("Oh, yeah, Job's friends? You were right after all"). I'm not sure what's going on. Maybe it's just plain comfort. Maybe it's a "boo ya" in the face of Job's enemies. But the one thing it can't be is a sheer contradiction of the lesson the whole book teaches: that earthly prosperity has nothing to do with whether God loves you or not, and earthly disaster is no way to determine whether God is punishing someone or not.

On theodicy, I'll go for Job's solution (which is basically "Wait and see"). We don't get the whole answer, we are basically told that we couldn't understand it if we did--but we are loved, we are listened to, and (sometimes) we are comforted. And ultimately it will all be sorted. As Staupitz recommended, we look at it "through the wounds of Christ."
 

---

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
Lamb Chopped - sorry - yes we can argue, but God does not answer our arguments.

And I do think the ending is HW&H, even though this is disregarded in the rest of the book, because Job is rewarded for his faithfulness by Wealth and Happiness (Health too, I suspect, but I don't think this is clear). It differs because it is not a sign of Gods favour, just his random blessing.

Is Job significant? His story is, because it is meant to tell us that our arguments are futile, because God Knows Best. But him as a person (assuming he actually existed) is toyed with like James Bond. It is acceptable because there is a Lesson To Be Learnt. But really, God sucks in this story.

I suppose that is where my problem lies. I don't want to be a lesson for others. I don't want to be growing that much. I don't want to feel deeply spiritual about my suffering.

I want it to stop hurting. And I know nothing that really respond to that.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Well, we're just going to have to disagree on the meaning of Job, I suppose. But as for this:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I want it to stop hurting. And I know nothing that really respond to that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I suppose that is where my problem lies. I don't want to be a lesson for others. I don't want to be growing that much. I don't want to feel deeply spiritual about my suffering.

I want it to stop hurting. And I know nothing that really respond to that.

---

quote:

---

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

---

If God's omnipotent, buck stops there. Could've created a world without pain, and moreover, Christianity claims that paradise is our endzone, a blissful new heaven and new earth. We won't learn anything from suffering, 'cause we get clued in after death. So why not skip straight to the happy ending?

Looks a lot like theologians trying to reconcile concepts with a situation that don't fit.
 

---

Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :
 
The inadequacy of Christian theodicy is one of my major sticking points with being able to believe in Christianity in any meaningful way.

It seems to, as Byron stated just above, back itself into a corner and picture God and his characteristics in a way that is incompatible with the realities of this world.

One thing that has always puzzled me about the the 'evil is the result of a fallen creation' particularly in the case of so called 'natural evil' is that fundamentally the universe WORKS. It's not horribly broken with error messages everywhere, it's incredibly finely balanced in order to allow it to work and altering it in any way WOULD break it.

The things that we find tragic and difficult eg natural disasters are actually fundamental to the continual existence of our planet and life on it. Mars for example has no tectonic activity and no volcanic activity, consequently it lost its magnetic field and atmosphere. The greatest and most cataclysmic explosions and devastation that we are aware of, Supernovae and other stellar explosions, are actually responsible for us being here period so I can't really square that with 'bad things happen because we're broken'.

Just as a slight aside point I do find it very odd how people will on the one hand argue for the metaphorical and spiritual interpretation of Genesis on the one hand, and on the other use the actions of Adam and Eve and 'The Fall' as an explanation for human evil. I feel like insisting they pick a side.
 

---

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
Great points, Macrina.

The "fall" narrative is bizarre. Eve and Adam are wholly to blame for actions taken within a framework designed by their creator. Say what? Doesn't the designer, who plopped forbidden fruit in front of them, bear just a teeny bit of the responsibility? If you put a poison apple in a child's playpen, you're criminally negligent.

Then they had no concept of good and evil, so couldn't even know they were doing wrong. What happens in court to people so unwell they don't understand right and wrong? If the law's applied as it should be, they're acquitted.

Moderates who reject the literal Genesis narrative should junk the whole thing. 'Course, if they did that, they'd be radicals, going back to the roots and starting over.
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macrina:
The inadequacy of Christian theodicy is one of my major sticking points with being able to believe in Christianity in any meaningful way...

One thing that has always puzzled me about the the 'evil is the result of a fallen creation' particularly in the case of so called 'natural evil' is that fundamentally the universe WORKS. It's not horribly broken with error messages everywhere, it's incredibly finely balanced in order to allow it to work and altering it in any way WOULD break it.

The things that we find tragic and difficult eg natural disasters are actually fundamental to the continual existence of our planet and life on it. Mars for example has no tectonic activity and no volcanic activity, consequently it lost its magnetic field and atmosphere. The greatest and most cataclysmic explosions and devastation that we are aware of, Supernovae and other stellar explosions, are actually responsible for us being here period so I can't really square that with 'bad things happen because we're broken'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macrina:

Just as a slight aside point I do find it very odd how people will on the one hand argue for the metaphorical and spiritual interpretation of Genesis on the one hand, and on the other use the actions of Adam and Eve and 'The Fall' as an explanation for human evil. I feel like insisting they pick a side.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[...] Evolution itself "works" through death and a machiavellian "survival of the fittest" that means that both humans and animals suffer in often quite cruel ways. [...]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macrina:
The inadequacy of Christian theodicy is one of my major sticking points with being able to believe in Christianity in any meaningful way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macrina:
The inadequacy of Christian theodicy is one of my major sticking points with being able to believe in Christianity in any meaningful way.

---

Then do you have a non-Christian theodicy that works? A way that helps to understand why we suffer that is not nihilistic?

Because without a meaning, without a justification, suffering has no purpose, and I might as well die. No? That seems to be the conclusion Nietzsche came to.

---

quote:

---

Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose.

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us.

Streets stank of fire. The void breathed hard on my heart, turning its illusions to ice, shattering them. Was reborn then, free to scrawl own design on this morally blank world.

---

Just don't start saying, "I am Rorschach," kay?
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[...] Evolution itself "works" through death and a machiavellian "survival of the fittest" that means that both humans and animals suffer in often quite cruel ways. [...]

---

Words like "Machiavellian" denote intent, which evolution is devoid of. Adaptation is a better term than the value-laden "survival of the fittest." The most productive traits survive and flourish.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macrina:
The inadequacy of Christian theodicy is one of my major sticking points with being able to believe in Christianity in any meaningful way.

---

Then do you have a non-Christian theodicy that works? A way that helps to understand why we suffer that is not nihilistic?

Because without a meaning, without a justification, suffering has no purpose, and I might as well die. No? That seems to be the conclusion Nietzsche came to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

I think Macrina's points about exploding stars and tectonic plates are very good - pain and death are also very helpful to the continuance of life.

There is something fishy for me about such things being labelled part of a broken or imperfect world, when in fact, they make the world possible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

I think Macrina's points about exploding stars and tectonic plates are very good - pain and death are also very helpful to the continuance of life.

There is something fishy for me about such things being labelled part of a broken or imperfect world, when in fact, they make the world possible.

---

That seems to me to be dodging the question. Yes, of course these sorts of natural phenomenon are essential to the universe as we know it. The point is why? Why is it that these factors are essential to the universe? Would it be possible to have a different sort of universe, one w/o these sorts of phenomenon and natural suffering? And if it is possible, then why don't we?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But I think it's OK not to experience God at all; it's OK to disbelieve in God, and so on. After a while, I usually find that that comes back, I mean my sense of God. So there is a kind of rhythm. But I am not trying to make sense of it - I see that as a fool's errand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

But I think that one reason that God feels absent, is that my conception of God has been shattered. But I don't see that as the purpose of suffering - it has none.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
[...] The Rorschach was raised by Byron.
I think it's worse (or better) than that. We have no pictures, only descriptions of formless splats of ink by people with imaginations and terms of reference different from our's. We don't actually get to look at anything ourselves. [...]

---

quote:

---

I sat on the bed. I looked at the Rorschach blot. I tried to make it look like a spreading tree, shadows pooled beneath it, but it didn't. It looked more like a dead cat I once found, the fat, glistening grubs writhing blindly, squirming over each other, frantically tunneling away from the light. But even that isn't the real horror. The horror is this: in the end, it is simply a picture of empty meaningless blackness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
That sounds a bit euphemistic. My point is that the outcome is beneficial to the species as a whole, but at a high cost to the individual in terms of suffering. While "evolution" is a system so, yes, incapable of intent, the assumption we're bringing to the table when we start talking about theodicy is that there is an intelligent Creator behind evolution that does have an intent and purpose. Which, again, begs the question of theodicy-- why this sort of universe, ordered and structured in a way that depends on suffering and death, and in fact seems to be structured in a way contrary to what we've been led to believe are Kingdom purposes? One way to respond to that dissonance is to remove the assumption of an intelligent or beneficent Creator behind it. Another is to move towards something like Boyd's view that I was advocating for.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Then do you have a non-Christian theodicy that works? A way that helps to understand why we suffer that is not nihilistic?

Because without a meaning, without a justification, suffering has no purpose, and I might as well die. No? That seems to be the conclusion Nietzsche came to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

I think Macrina's points about exploding stars and tectonic plates are very good - pain and death are also very helpful to the continuance of life.

There is something fishy for me about such things being labelled part of a broken or imperfect world, when in fact, they make the world possible.

---

That seems to me to be dodging the question. Yes, of course these sorts of natural phenomenon are essential to the universe as we know it. The point is why? Why is it that these factors are essential to the universe? Would it be possible to have a different sort of universe, one w/o these sorts of phenomenon and natural suffering? And if it is possible, then why don't we?

---

Well, your why question baffles me really. I'm not sure if you are asking why of an omnipotent loving God, or not. That does seem to be a contradiction, since presumably, such a creator could create a better world, or in fact, has created a better world, but not just yet.

For me, that is a way of not accepting life; but there you are, I suppose Christianity is partly based on that, isn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
]Rejigging theism is one solution, sure, but if a mechanism of action suggests no plan, it's reasonable to infer that no plan exists. I guess you could reconcile trial and error natural selection with theism, but it'd take something more radical than Boyd suggesting that God doesn't know the future for sure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
fwiw, Boyd suggests no such thing. Nor would I.

---

quote:

---

And I don't see in the natural order of the universe the chaos you're implying. It very much looks like a "plan"-- an orderly system of operation within clearly defined cause and effect. The problem is not that there is no plan, it's that the plan seems at odds with what we (Christians) assume to be true about God and about God's Kingdom. That requires us to rethink our assumptions about God and/or the nature of the universe one way or the other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Penny S

That's a very powerful story. It baffles me that people think that a tumour contains evil or something against God, and that God should therefore cure it. There are so many preconceptions in that, that I don't want to unravel them really.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
fwiw, Boyd suggests no such thing. Nor would I.

---

OK, my mistake, was a quick Google. What is his/your position?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
[QUOTE]
To me, everything from our bodies to nature suggests a lack of design. Why do we spontaneously develop cancers, suffer lower back pain, and fall prey to bacteria? To call human beings imperfect creatures is a heroic understatement.

If we're not designed, but the result of natural selection, bad design becomes near miraculous success.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Boyd's/my position is that God knows thoroughly all of the infinite possible futures, knows each as a potential future dependent upon the free choices made by free creatures. God has a plan in each potential future to accomplish his ultimate purpose (the restoration of all creation).

Then, to the point of theodicy, this gets refined in terms of "spiritual warfare" (but not in the Kraftian sense)-- with a pre-big bang "corruption" of creation that was foreseen as a possible but not inevitable future resulting from the free choice of free spiritual beings (e.g. Satan).

---

Thanks for such a concise summary.

This doesn't get around the problem of an omnipotent god creating Satan to begin with, does it? If God wanted reality to be perfect, he could just do a Picard, and make it so. For some reason, it seems, God didn't.

quote:

---

But again, that's begging the question. Once you poise it as a "theodicy" question, you are presupposing the existence of God. So then the question becomes, why all this suffering if God is good? If you don't presuppose a good and powerful God, then there's no theodicy problem-- life just sucks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Boyd's/my position is that God knows thoroughly all of the infinite possible futures, knows each as a potential future dependent upon the free choices made by free creatures. God has a plan in each potential future to accomplish his ultimate purpose (the restoration of all creation).

Then, to the point of theodicy, this gets refined in terms of "spiritual warfare" (but not in the Kraftian sense)-- with a pre-big bang "corruption" of creation that was foreseen as a possible but not inevitable future resulting from the free choice of free spiritual beings (e.g. Satan).

---

Thanks for such a concise summary.

This doesn't get around the problem of an omnipotent god creating Satan to begin with, does it? If God wanted reality to be perfect, he could just do a Picard, and make it so. For some reason, it seems, God didn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Boyd is a whack job. He gives open theism a bad name.

God cannot know even if it's going to rain tomorrow. And daemons aren't allowed out much. There's NOTHING wrong with creation. This is the best of all possible worlds at this point of evolution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Boyd's/my position is that God knows thoroughly all of the infinite possible futures, knows each as a potential future dependent upon the free choices made by free creatures. God has a plan in each potential future to accomplish his ultimate purpose (the restoration of all creation).

Then, to the point of theodicy, this gets refined in terms of "spiritual warfare" (but not in the Kraftian sense)-- with a pre-big bang "corruption" of creation that was foreseen as a possible but not inevitable future resulting from the free choice of free spiritual beings (e.g. Satan).

---

Thanks for such a concise summary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Boyd's/my position is that God knows thoroughly all of the infinite possible futures, knows each as a potential future dependent upon the free choices made by free creatures. God has a plan in each potential future to accomplish his ultimate purpose (the restoration of all creation).

Then, to the point of theodicy, this gets refined in terms of "spiritual warfare" (but not in the Kraftian sense)-- with a pre-big bang "corruption" of creation that was foreseen as a possible but not inevitable future resulting from the free choice of free spiritual beings (e.g. Satan).

---

Thanks for such a concise summary.

---

Thanks seconded. How is this at core different from a fatalism - that what happens happens, and God will find some way of making things right? So it doesn't really matter what we do?

It sounds a bit like the film Sliding Doors, where the initial difference seems to produce two different time-lines, but - crucially - they converge to the "ultimate purpose". What it means, to me, is that our choices and decisions are meaningless, because somehow they will all be resolved correctly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I might well be understanding it wrong, but surely if the aim is to achieve "God's ultimate purpose" then the route we get there is irrelevant? Sliding Doors again, the final scene happens whichever route is taken, so the process to get there doesn't matter? The choices made to move in that direction do not change the future, so they are irrelevant?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

If the redemption of the world can be achieved whether I break my leg (for example) or not, then why not ensure that I don't, because for me, that is better. I suffer less. Because it doesn't change the final result, my suffering means nothing?

Surely a loving God would rather a way to an end that involved less suffering? Surely the best route to his ends would be one that involved the least suffering? Because the suffering doesn't make a difference.
.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

And OK, if there are many possible end-scenarios, and the better ones involve my suffering, surely this is back to the fact that my suffering is for the greater good? For a better end result?
.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
The only question of theodicy is why would God step in at all outside the context of the Incarnation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I don't actually think that God has a plan for reality to achieve, that he is more concerned about individuals, where they are and what they do. In that sense, nothing can thwart him, because he works through whatever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I don't actually think that God has a plan for reality to achieve, that he is more concerned about individuals, where they are and what they do. In that sense, nothing can thwart him, because he works through whatever.

---

The individual versus "a chosen people" seems to be an OT/NT shift, with an ongoing tension since. There is a hyper-individualism these days, with a detectable shift within my lifetime.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
If the redemption of the world can be achieved whether I break my leg (for example) or not, then why not ensure that I don't, because for me, that is better. I suffer less. Because it doesn't change the final result, my suffering means nothing?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
First of all, "we cannot argue." Oh yes we can, as Job himself does. And you'll notice God says at the end to Job's friends, "You have not spoken rightly of me, as my servant Job has." Nice compliment there. Apparently God has no problem with arguing, yelling, etc. (Job gets slapped around a bit at the very end to remind him of his place in things--that is, the fact that he is limited, with a limited viewpoint and understanding--but there's no place at all where God says "Don't argue" or "Just shut up and take it."

---

quote:

---

Job 42:1-6 (RSV-CE)
Then Job answered the LORD: "I know that thou canst do all things, and that no purpose of thine can be thwarted. 'Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?' Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. 'Hear, and I will speak; I will question you, and you declare to me.' I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees thee; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
btw, Byron, sorry for my initial somewhat defensive response to your (not unusual) misreading of Boyd. I was too used to responding to this:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Boyd is a whack job. He gives open theism a bad name.

God cannot know even if it's going to rain tomorrow. And daemons aren't allowed out much. There's NOTHING wrong with creation. This is the best of all possible worlds at this point of evolution.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
[...] This life in this world is a test, a qualifying exam for the afterlife with God. [...]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
[...] This life in this world is a test, a qualifying exam for the afterlife with God. [...]

---

A god that "tests" a six-year-old and their family with terminal cancer, or the Armenian people with a death march, is a god I can do without. I'll flunk, and gladly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
If the redemption of the world can be achieved whether I break my leg (for example) or not, then why not ensure that I don't, because for me, that is better. I suffer less. Because it doesn't change the final result, my suffering means nothing?

---

The answer I see in scripture - OT and NT, though with somewhat different emphases - is fairly straightforward. This life in this world is a test, a qualifying exam for the afterlife with God.

In terms of such an exam, it is not surprising that you should find some of it challenging, even painful. And it is also not surprising that some of it is perhaps a bit "wasted" on you. Whether we pass an exam or not may well hinge on a few key questions worth a lot of points, but that doesn't mean that all the other questions are meaningless - even though we may experience them as trivial in and by themselves. Still, they take effort to answer correctly, and this actually contributes to the overall difficulty because it eats into our time and concentration. Likewise, your broken leg might be "meaningless" to salvation in and by itself, but the presence of illness and pain and bodily limitations as something that in general has to be dealt with in this life, and which eats up more of our time and resources than we would like, surely isn't. How you react to this challenge may well be something God is evaluating.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
[...] This life in this world is a test, a qualifying exam for the afterlife with God. [...]

---

A god that "tests" a six-year-old and their family with terminal cancer, or the Armenian people with a death march, is a god I can do without. I'll flunk, and gladly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
A god that "tests" a six-year-old and their family with terminal cancer, or the Armenian people with a death march, is a god I can do without. I'll flunk, and gladly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so... :
I'll refuse a heaven run by a being like this, and gladly go to hell with Byron (I think we get to literally smoke there!). They're my kind of people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
But everyone's exam seems to be different. Some people definitely have an easier exam than others. So if they "pass" their exam, but someone "fails" an easier exam, is that fair and just? Is that reasonable?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Do I want a God who puts people through exams that they cannot cope with, and take their own lives rather than deal with the exam? That is vile.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The real problems come when I ask why do I suffer? Why do I or my child get shot, get gassed? When you look from the position of the sufferer, as an individual, it becomes far more difficult. All of the answers seem to be about the general, the broad sweep.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I get that Ingo's comment seems drawn pretty directly from Job

---

quote:

---

Martin60: Job's my favourite book of the OT.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
There is not a hint here of God accepting what Job had said before.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
God is rather accepting Job's repentance. And while it may be pleasing to think that God at least delivered the STFU in person, let's not forget the context. This is actually a kind of a bet between God and Satan, whether Satan can turn God's "best man" Job, if only God withdraws his protection. And the answer is, sadly, that yes, Satan is managing to turn Job against God. Job considers himself righteous and seeks the fault with God. God has to step into the story and shown Himself to Job, in order to save Job from the brink of rebellion. Here God comes in all His power to save man, and basically bullies him into the necessary repentance. But God arguably has forfeit His bet with Satan in doing so. Exposed to enough suffering by Satan, even God's hero Job broke down and required God's emergency intervention. Now, what else could God try? Who could be the hero, where even Job failed? Hmmm.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
(A better place to find a model for "allowed" arguing with God - even outright bitching - are the psalms, of course. They always wrap up their complaining and ranting in a positive way though. And so should we.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Martin60: Job's my favourite book of the OT.

---

Mine too. Of the Bible, in fact.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
(A better place to find a model for "allowed" arguing with God - even outright bitching - are the psalms, of course. They always wrap up their complaining and ranting in a positive way though. And so should we.)

---

Try Psalm 88, for one. Positive ending? Ha.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
[QUOTE][....]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Come now. What else is "You have not spoken what is right of me, as my servant Job has?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I am astonished that you think of this world in terms of qualifying tests to get into heaven.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Or that you think God could lose, never mind place, a bet with Satan. Seriously? He who knows the outcome from the beginning, having to step in and "rescue" his own bad bet?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
In the same way, he has no need to test us to find out what is in us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Nor does he expect us to earn heaven by passing a test of any sort. Again, that is what our Savior Jesus is for. He'd have a very empty kingdom if he relied on us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Try Psalm 88, for one. Positive ending? Ha.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
This is a false playing out of eternal knowledge against temporal freedom. God foreknows because we decide, it is not that we must decide according to God's foreknowledge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
This is a false playing out of eternal knowledge against temporal freedom. God foreknows because we decide, it is not that we must decide according to God's foreknowledge.

---

*tangent* This is a logical impossibility: If God infallibly foreknows our future choices, then we can't possible choose other than what he foreknows. Which means our freedom is illusionary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
This is a false playing out of eternal knowledge against temporal freedom. God foreknows because we decide, it is not that we must decide according to God's foreknowledge.

---

*tangent* This is a logical impossibility: If God infallibly foreknows our future choices, then we can't possible choose other than what he foreknows. Which means our freedom is illusionary.

---

Many choices are predictable by us, that doesn't make them not free choices! Take someone who loves chocolate and hates fruit jellies, offer a choice of the two candies, you know he will choose the chocolate but that don't mean his choice was imposed on him instead of being his true independent free will choice. So I don't think knowledge of what someone will do denies free will of the doer.

God knows us better than we know each other, and can predict a lot!

But I do think we can surprise God, for delight or distress. Jer 19:5 "and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, a thing which I never commanded or spoke of, nor did it ever enter My mind;" NASB. Sounds to me like God did NOT foresee that behavior by his chosen people!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
One thing I struggle with is the role of Satan. If, like me, one believes in total depravity in humankind, what's the point of Satan? It seems like a convenient way to blame an outside force for one's own sins.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
One thing I struggle with is the role of Satan. If, like me, one believes in total depravity in humankind, what's the point of Satan? It seems like a convenient way to blame an outside force for one's own sins.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
No theodicean convo's complete without the Epicurean paradox:-

quote:

---

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

---

If God's omnipotent, buck stops there. Could've created a world without pain, and moreover, Christianity claims that paradise is our endzone, a blissful new heaven and new earth. We won't learn anything from suffering, 'cause we get clued in after death. So why not skip straight to the happy ending?

Looks a lot like theologians trying to reconcile concepts with a situation that don't fit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I might well be understanding it wrong, but surely if the aim is to achieve "God's ultimate purpose" then the route we get there is irrelevant? Sliding Doors again, the final scene happens whichever route is taken, so the process to get there doesn't matter? The choices made to move in that direction do not change the future, so they are irrelevant?

If the redemption of the world can be achieved whether I break my leg (for example) or not, then why not ensure that I don't, because for me, that is better. I suffer less. Because it doesn't change the final result, my suffering means nothing?

Surely a loving God would rather a way to an end that involved less suffering? Surely the best route to his ends would be one that involved the least suffering? Because the suffering doesn't make a difference.

And OK, if there are many possible end-scenarios, and the better ones involve my suffering, surely this is back to the fact that my suffering is for the greater good? For a better end result?

I do have some sympathy with this approach, I am just wanting to work out the implications, to see whether I can find a place for it. I don't actually think that God has a plan for reality to achieve, that he is more concerned about individuals, where they are and what they do. In that sense, nothing can thwart him, because he works through whatever.

---

Your suffering doesn't change the final result only if achieving the redemption of the world is the only thing that matters in the end, and if its benefits are equally available to everyone who enters it regardless of their experiences or character they bring with them. But since nothing important and worthwhile that we experience in this life is nearly so simple and arbitrary, I see no reason to think that will change, even after redemption.

I am much more sympathetic to your view that God is concerned about individuals because it makes sense to me that God needs to prepare each of us to be as ready as possible to participate in and benefit from such a world.

I also believe that suffering does not have value per se, but is more just an unavoidable part of the general healing of society as a whole. Like any good public health physician, God wants to keep suffering to a minimum, but at the same time gives priority to the long-term health of the population.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Maybe it is a test. Maybe one of the most important questions is whether we are willing to kowtow to the God IngoB describes, or whether we have sufficient conscience, sense of injustice, right and wrong, to say "No. That cannot be." Perhaps it is in so risking our salvation that we gain it?

Makes as much sense to me as IngoB's God does.
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
mousethief fancy that, here I am at last.

An innocent sinner. Turned from that trope at last.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
*tangent* This is a logical impossibility: If God infallibly foreknows our future choices, then we can't possible choose other than what he foreknows. Which means our freedom is illusionary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Many choices are predictable by us, that doesn't make them not free choices! Take someone who loves chocolate and hates fruit jellies, offer a choice of the two candies, you know he will choose the chocolate but that don't mean his choice was imposed on him instead of being his true independent free will choice. So I don't think knowledge of what someone will do denies free will of the doer. God knows us better than we know each other, and can predict a lot!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Maybe it is a test. Maybe one of the most important questions is whether we are willing to kowtow to the God IngoB describes, or whether we have sufficient conscience, sense of injustice, right and wrong, to say "No. That cannot be." Perhaps it is in so risking our salvation that we gain it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I'll take Huggy Bear God over Bully Asshole God. But neither of these caricatures exist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
IngoB, the problem I have here is that if you are correct, there is no hope, and no escape. I cannot even kill myself, seeing no hope in a universe governed by your cold God, because he's on the other side as well. The only thing I'd want, were you correct, would be non-existence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I cannot reconcile myself to your version of God, in so many ways. I do understand what you're saying, if this is the evidence, that God's a bit of a git, then accept it. But I don't have the mental furniture for that. It's like looking at grass and convincing myself it's blue. Your postings frequently make me hope the atheists are right. Surely the gospel should be better news than this, to be good news?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The problem isn't that your God isn't nice, or isn't cuddly. It's that, as far as I can see, he isn't Good. He torments people for eternity in Hell. He orders genocides. These things are not Good. They are evil. Or the terms Good and Evil have no meaning that I can discern.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
So all nows are Now? So God sees our 4D pink worm but Satan - a black superworm - doesn't?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's not about a preconceived notion about what God "ought to be like."

It is a reaction to the monster you have created under the name God. If God is as you describe him, he's really, really quite horrible. You're asking me to call that horrible image good. I cannot do that. It just isn't, any more than grass is blue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
*tangent* This is a logical impossibility: If God infallibly foreknows our future choices, then we can't possible choose other than what he foreknows. Which means our freedom is illusionary.

---

No, it isn't a logical impossibility. If I watch a movie of you taking a free decision in the past, then this is no way or form impedes the freedom of what you did back then. Even though after watching the movie I have certain knowledge of what you did. Your freedom resides in not being extrinsically determined by the world in your choice at the time and in the place that you make it. It does not reside in me being uncertain about what you did. For humans this works only looking at the past, because we are temporally and spatially bound. But God is eternal, omniscient and omnipresent. God sees all time at once in eternity. Hence he sees what you did, are doing, and will do, all at once, and has certain knowledge of it. .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

The problem isn't that your God isn't nice, or isn't cuddly. It's that, as far as I can see, he isn't Good. He torments people for eternity in Hell. He orders genocides. These things are not Good. They are evil. Or the terms Good and Evil have no meaning that I can discern.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
To give an analogy, say your child comes home from school and say "Mr Smith is such an asshole, he gave us another maths test today." How do your respond? My point is that your response comes in two parts, the second part of which is often skipped over (in particular in dealing with small children). The first part is that Mr Smith is not an asshole, he is doing his job as maths teacher. Even though taking a maths test may be painful, Mr Smith is not torturing his students because he is some kind of sadist. There is good purpose to this hardship, even if the child is not able to see this. The second part is however a lot deeper and more difficult, which is why it is usually glossed over. Namely, we still need to answer what this good purpose is, and why it is part of Mr Smith's job to test children. Attempting a proper answer to this involves a discussion of society, culture, the common good, available resources, organisational structures, etc. It really is quite non-trivial if one actually tries to answer this.

---

quote:

---

IngoB: If I watch a movie of you taking a free decision in the past, then this is no way or form impedes the freedom of what you did back then. Even though after watching the movie I have certain knowledge of what you did.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

IngoB: If I watch a movie of you taking a free decision in the past, then this is no way or form impedes the freedom of what you did back then. Even though after watching the movie I have certain knowledge of what you did.

---

I've said this before. Your 'watching a movie' analog of God being outside of time is wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:


If there is any point at all to suffering I would say it is to show what all pain shows: that something is wrong, something is unhealthy. That might be read on a small, local level or in the bigger picture of the world at large. It's not to "teach us a lesson" or "help us grow spiritually". It is, rather, a sign that things are "not right" and so we yearn for the day when all will be set right-- Maranatha, come Lord Jesus, come.

---

quote:

---

mousethief: How? Meaning, in what way? What's wrong with it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
IngoB, you deeply, deeply, do not get my problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It is a reaction to the monster you have created under the name God. If God is as you describe him, he's really, really quite horrible. You're asking me to call that horrible image good. I cannot do that. It just isn't, any more than grass is blue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
God may be exactly how you describe. If so, however, I cannot for the life of me fathom why I'd want to be with him, apart from the threat of eternal hellfire. Hobson's choice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If God cannot be judged - or, rather - assessed - morally, then what is the point of the statement "God is good"? You render it meaningless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It only has meaning if God could be evil, but isn't - if we look at God and can assess "yes, he's not evil, he's good". You seem to deny the possibility, declaring any such assessment attempt a category error. By the same token, so are "God is good", "God is love", indeed any "God is..." that are followed by an attribute that could be assessed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Indeed, I'd like to ask, why do you want to be with this God, with all the blood on his hands? I don't get it. Why do you want to spend eternity with the being that you believe commanded Joshua to slaughter babes in arms? Don't you want to run screaming to the hills, futile as it may be?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't really get this 'things are not right' idea, since it seems circular to me. I mean, that it presupposes that there is something that is right, or could be right. The idea is already there, in order to come up with 'things are not right'.

So it seems odd to go from things not being right to a possible state of being right, since you have already brought that in to begin with, covertly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
No, I say that you should do two things: 1. Look carefully whether you have actually understood what is being proposed, or whether you are simply misunderstanding that. 2. Evaluate why you consider this horrible, and whether that is reasonable. You cannot necessarily control your emotions, but you do not have to be controlled by them.

You see, I think much the reaction has to do not with God being a monster, but with God as God being alien. God really is not particularly like a human being. At all. And if you approach God with the expectations that you have of a human being, then you get a problem. One key reason for the Incarnation is in my opinion that God is trying to bridge the gap, so to speak.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't really get this 'things are not right' idea, since it seems circular to me. I mean, that it presupposes that there is something that is right, or could be right. The idea is already there, in order to come up with 'things are not right'.

So it seems odd to go from things not being right to a possible state of being right, since you have already brought that in to begin with, covertly.

---

Well, to begin with, it's one of the assumptions of the question. When you raise the question of theodicy you're implicitly assuming that "things are not right", otherwise there's no problem to consider.

And I think it's something we can all empirically know. Outside of some elitist ivory tower blue-sky thinking, I don't suppose there's really anyone in all of history who truly believes that "the way things are"-- genocide, children dying of cruel disease, etc.-- is "right" or "the way things should be". In fact, Wm. James suggests that that belief-- that "something is wrong with us"-- is the one core belief that unites all world religions and philosophies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
...

To chalk up evil to God's "divine mystery" is the road to ruin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
IngoB - if you are going to persist in telling me that my problems are nonsense, and effectively, if I was as thoughtful and clever as you I wouldn't have this problem, then you might as well stop wasting your time, because that kind of condescension doesn't wash with me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Your argument is based on the assumption that God is basically unknowable in such a holistic, comprehensive way that we can get it entirely backwards-- black is white, up is down-- evil is good.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
If God wants us to be just, moral, kind, gracious, and the purpose of the incarnation is in part to show us what those things look like-- then we should be able to recognize them, at least in part or like "through a mirror dimly".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:


Well, you can argue that this is the best of all possible worlds. This does not mean that this is a very good world, I think, but that it satisfies various requirements.

As an example, if we argue that any divinely made world will be intelligible, and creative, then this seems to produce the possibility of great evil, both moral and natural. (I'm not saying that there aren't other requirements)...

I suppose such a view would not stop people wishing for a better one, or decrying this one!

But maybe this is an ivory tower solution?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Sorry, that first bit above was unclear. The reason that the best of all possible worlds isn't very good, is that it's impossible to have less evil, without violating one of the basic requirements. Thus, you could make the world less intelligible, to make it have less evil in it (by numerous miracles); or you could make it less creative, so that nasty things could not arise, such as predation. Both these things would change God's creative act massively.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Sorry, that first bit above was unclear. The reason that the best of all possible worlds isn't very good, is that it's impossible to have less evil, without violating one of the basic requirements. Thus, you could make the world less intelligible, to make it have less evil in it (by numerous miracles); or you could make it less creative, so that nasty things could not arise, such as predation. Both these things would change God's creative act massively.

---

That's actually not too far from Boyd's position that I was advocating... Boyd would say it's not possible to have a truly free world without the possibility of those nasty things. The degree to which we (and other created autonomous beings) are free to choose good is also the degree to which we are free to choose evil. So in that sense, it is the "best possible world".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I've got a couple of questions for cliffdweller. I can understand open theism's explanation of how the world is now, but not of how it can be better one day. What is going to change to make possible a world without evil and suffering when it's not possible now ?

The second question is, whatever that change is, why is it for then and not for now ? I can't see an answer to that other than the one Ingob has spoken of, that now is some kind of preparation for then.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Damn, I keep having afterthoughts. I think the point about intelligibility is often not made, but it is crucial in the whole argument. It means that nature is intelligible, in other words, exhibits regularity and order. (Well, it also exhibits disorder, of course).

I can remember pursuing this argument against atheists, who might ask, why doesn't God cure cancer, or stop earthquakes? Well, such interventions would wreck the intelligibility of the world, and would produce a magical world. It seems to me that God abhors that. Well, you could say that it would demonstrate his power, but it would minimize his rationality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I've got a couple of questions for cliffdweller. I can understand open theism's explanation of how the world is now, but not of how it can be better one day. What is going to change to make possible a world without evil and suffering when it's not possible now ?

The second question is, whatever that change is, why is it for then and not for now ? I can't see an answer to that other than the one Ingob has spoken of, that now is some kind of preparation for then.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Are you presenting this [Epicurean paradox] as a summary you agree with? It is concise and makes for a good starting point for a discussion, but it's far too simplistic to be a complete summary of the possibilities, or even a good one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
That's your choice to make, of course. You do not however get to choose the consequences of that choice.

One thing is clear though, the world as it is and the theodicy argument in fact kill the "huggy bear" God of most Christian imagination (well, modern Western Christian imagination) stone cold dead. Just as the cosmological argument remains the best theists have to prove to atheists that there is a God, theodicy remains the best argument atheists have to prove to theists that such a God must be a total asshole. Neither argument can be evaded as easily as the other side thinks.

However, there is no sign of the "huggy bear" God in scripture. Not in the OT, for sure, but also not in the NT. There is little sign of Him in tradition, prior to modernity. So while dealing with Theodicy is not easy, it is not as hopeless as one might think. But people prefer to be "mystified" by the evil they see with their own eyes, rather than adjust their picture of God to something that, well, fits the evidence. It's a particular brand of very blind faith that is untouchable because it is so nice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
IngoB - if you are going to persist in telling me that my problems are nonsense, and effectively, if I was as thoughtful and clever as you I wouldn't have this problem, then you might as well stop wasting your time, because that kind of condescension doesn't wash with me.

---

Do you even listen to yourself? You have said that I created a murderous monster in my mind, for which the labels goodness and love are meaningless, and from which I should run screaming rather than to worship it. You have speculated that it is a sign of having a conscience, a sense of justice, of knowing right from wrong to reject my conception of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
My faith goes this far: In the words of that crusty old aristo Captain Picard, I refuse to believe the universe is so badly designed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
My faith goes this far: In the words of that crusty old aristo Captain Picard, I refuse to believe the universe is so badly designed.

---

Don't be watching Star Trek V where "God" lives at the centre of the galaxy and is every bit as nice as IngoB suggests. (I personally prefer Q who has a sense of humour, whatever row row rows your boat.)

Time for some Earl Grey, hot.

---

Didn't they toss V out the canon. (Due to godawfulness, not heresy, tho some of it comes close ... )
 

---

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
I have argued elsewhere that God is not a moral agent, and that His interactions with us have to be measured by their eternal consistency, not simply by human moral standards. In other words, you cannot look at God as at another human being. Well, actually just look at what God says to Job, and stop seeing that as simply a dictator telling his subject to obey. Consider it instead as a straightforward description of reality. God is not part of what is judged by human moral standards. In fact, only humans are judged by human moral standards. You will laugh at stories of medieval courts condemning a pig to death over its misdeeds, because of course human morals do not apply to a pig. Well, just as they do not apply to what is lesser, so they do not apply to what is greater. God's goodness as far as you are concerned primarily consists in giving you your goodness in his creative act. Both in giving you existence, and in determining what it means for you to be a "good" human being. God is good as the source of human goodness, indeed of all goodness, but He is not good as a human being is morally good. Morals are basically goodness specs of free creatures. God is free, but He is not created. He does not have goodness specs because nobody created Him with such specs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pimple:
IngoB made an interesting point about Job prefiguring the Incarnation, somewhere back there.

Jung certainly supports the view partially expressed by Ingo, that there is no Huggy Bear God - or wasn't in the OT. In his controversial analysis of the book, Jung suggests that the OT God is incomplete, having no self-awareness, because self-awareness is something he created in humans, but can not exist in a perfect (that is, perfectly powerful, all-knowing, perfectly impassive) God.

Putting it crudely (which Jung didn't), a perfectly perfect god is bugger all use in an imperfect world - the one he created. The Incarnation became necessary to give meaning to a a formerly meaningless divinity. Self awareness came through becoming human - and thus enabling him to offer a way out for suffering humanity.

The bullying tirade with which God addresses Job towards the end of the book is accepted by Job because, frankly, he ain't stupid. Job recognises the uncomfortable fact that God just doesn't "get it" and accepts the inevitable.

I'm sure that's an atrociously gross over-simplification of Jung's thesis (it's some time since I read it and I understood it imperfectly then), but I recommend it to anyone who wants to get away from some of the stereotypical arguments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pimple:

Putting it crudely (which Jung didn't), a perfectly perfect god is bugger all use in an imperfect world - the one he created. The Incarnation became necessary to give meaning to a a formerly meaningless divinity. Self awareness came through becoming human - and thus enabling him to offer a way out for suffering humanity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
As for IngoB's idea that God is not morally good as God would have us be then one wonders why we are entreated to be perfect as our heavenly father is perfect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
As for IngoB's idea that God is not morally good as God would have us be then one wonders why we are entreated to be perfect as our heavenly father is perfect.

---

'Perfect' is not a moral attribute - in the Greek it is about being 'whole'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Which brings me back to, how can I become more perfect, more me if I am suffering so much that I can't think? How is my perfection being achieved by my suicide? How is the perfection of others who care for me assisted by my death (which devastates them)? Some suffering can be helpful, but not all. How does suffering I cannot cope with "perfect" me or anyone else?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
As for IngoB's idea that God is not morally good as God would have us be then one wonders why we are entreated to be perfect as our heavenly father is perfect.

---

'Perfect' is not a moral attribute - in the Greek it is about being 'whole'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

Which brings me back to, how can I become more perfect, more me if I am suffering so much that I can't think? How is my perfection being achieved by my suicide? How is the perfection of others who care for me assisted by my death (which devastates them)? Some suffering can be helpful, but not all. How does suffering I cannot cope with "perfect" me or anyone else?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
While the Greek word can be used for other contexts than moral, in the context of Matthew 5 and in other places, it most certainly has moral overtones.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
While the Greek word can be used for other contexts than moral, in the context of Matthew 5 and in other places, it most certainly has moral overtones.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
While the Greek word can be used for other contexts than moral, in the context of Matthew 5 and in other places, it most certainly has moral overtones.

---

Only if you think Matthew 5 is a complete sermon rather than various utterances strung together.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
Matthew didn't write his gospel by pulling letters out of a scrabble bag.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
While the Greek word can be used for other contexts than moral, in the context of Matthew 5 and in other places, it most certainly has moral overtones.

---

Only if you think Matthew 5 is a complete sermon rather than various utterances strung together.

---

Also, that Matthew didn't write his gospel by pulling letters out of a scrabble bag.


Seriously - the "be perfect" command fits, er, perfectly, into Jesus' elaboration of the "love your enemies" command. You can speculate, if you like that Matthew rather than Jesus is the mind responsible for fitting those ideas together, but someone did, and they did it in a way that makes obvious sense. Like it or not, there is a context to the words "be perfect" and if you don't want to look at that context to help explain what that command might mean, you might as well use the 'scrabble bag' hypothesis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
That Matthew has arranged it this is because in his redaction it echoes Moses and Torah.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
n what are we actually being commanded to do here? How do we obey the command, except morally?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
The problem with saying that God is only "good" in the sense of being the source of moral rules for everything else, is that there's too much in the Bible and Christian tradition which looks a lot like praise of God's character.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
Yes, God is in an entirely different category to everything else, and yes, goodness must mean something very different when applied to God than to anything else, but God is also a person who we are meant to admire, adore, learn from, declare to be worthy, and in some sense imitate, because his character is closer to what we generally mean by 'good' than it is to what we mean by 'evil'. God's 'morality' doesn't come from external constraints, of course, but from his own perfect nature, but that doesn't mean we toss out human morality when thinking about God. Morality is one of the better clues we have to what God is like.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
The problem with your exegesis of Job is that, if you're right, chapters 3 to 37 are basically padding. Job's friends are wrong about God. Job is wrong about God. There's little of positive value in their mutual trading of errors. I don't think the writer went on for that long just to present a lot of mistakes of varying plausibility.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
Job knows that he is being punished unjustly, he complains that God has abandoned him, but he doesn't lose faith in God's essential goodness - he still trusts that if he could win a hearing with God he would be vindicated.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
He drives home the extent of Job's ignorance, silences him completely, and takes away his confidence. I don't see him as intervening to save Job from failing Satan's test, but as piling the last stone on to an already crushing burden.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
And when Job still does not curse God, or deny him, or lose faith in God's goodness, but reaffirms it even when he can't be sure of anything else at all, that's when God vindicates him, and declares that he has spoken truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
Job might not understand exactly what it means for God to be good, and mistaken about how God's goodness is expressed, but he's right to think that God's goodness is a real thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the point about intelligibility is often not made, but it is crucial in the whole argument. It means that nature is intelligible, in other words, exhibits regularity and order...
I can remember pursuing this argument against atheists, who might ask, why doesn't God cure cancer, or stop earthquakes? Well, such interventions would wreck the intelligibility of the world, and would produce a magical world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

I think the problem with 'the best of all possible worlds' is that it is often misunderstood. It doesn't mean the best world that you can imagine; in other words, it's not some kind of super-optimistic position. In fact, some writers make the joke that the best of all possible worlds isn't a very good one!

One approach to it is to ask how evil could be reduced (thus making the world better, presumably).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scruff:
'Silence' by Shusaku Endo is one of the 20th century's great novels and it centres around this question. Well worth reading, and (without giving too much away) as inconclusive as the discussion here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

Well, you are now discussing the human ability to increase or decrease evil, which looks a fairly knotty problem!

But this thread is concerned with theodicy, that is, the reconciliation of God with extant evil.

But I suppose the two can be linked;

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
But then maybe a being with infinite power and ability could do anything, so that everything that He doesn't actually do is a considered choice to not-do, so that He is responsible for everything whether He does it or not ? But then He's equally responsible for good and evil alike ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

Well, you are now discussing the human ability to increase or decrease evil, which looks a fairly knotty problem!

But this thread is concerned with theodicy, that is, the reconciliation of God with extant evil.

But I suppose the two can be linked;

---

Whether the envisaged improvement is something that humans could do, or something God could do(*) or something God could have done, is beside the point.

---

quote:

---

It only needs there to be one tiny possible improvement - one particular evil subtracted or good added - to disprove the traditional Christian view of an all-powerful all-benevolent God.

---

quote:

---

(*) sometimes it seems strange that the Christians I meet are so definite that our Creator is good, and so vague about what He actually does that's good. But then maybe a being with infinite power and ability could do anything, so that everything that He doesn't actually do is a considered choice to not-do, so that He is responsible for everything whether He does it or not ? But then He's equally responsible for good and evil alike ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Is that like putten' the ij in mdijon now?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
IngoB - if you are going to persist in telling me that my problems are nonsense,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I've been thinking about this in terms of people. Are we responsible for what we do NOT do if it causes or allows evil to continue?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Well we technically have the ability to end world poverty (for example) but we don't. Is this suffering our fault or Gods?

The same question could be asked of most other evils bar natural evil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Its not either or Schrodie. Can be both. Our own sins certainly have a habit of catching up with us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

Why can't I be the one who always sins, while someone else suffers the consequences please?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Well we technically have the ability to end world poverty (for example) but we don't. Is this suffering our fault or Gods?

The same question could be asked of most other evils bar natural evil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
It's obvious to me that it is. Funny isn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

Because it is pointless suffering from "natural evil" (arthritis is my favourite example) that disproves the traditional Christian idea that this is the best if all possible worlds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Why should I suffer because of other peoples sins?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Well we technically have the ability to end world poverty (for example) but we don't. Is this suffering our fault or Gods?

The same question could be asked of most other evils bar natural evil.

---

Some Christians are much more comfortable talking about human responsibility for evil than about God's responsibility for evil, and constantly try to turn the conversation that way.

Because it is pointless suffering from "natural evil" (arthritis is my favourite example) that disproves the traditional Christian idea that this is the best if all possible worlds.

But to reply to your main point, consider the situation of a starving man suffering the pangs of hunger and approaching death. I hope we can agree that this is a bad thing.

A man who put him in that situation - who took away his ability to earn a living - has greater moral responsibility for his suffering than a passer-by - a man who merely observes and does nothing.

And a passer-by who has a surplus of money to buy food has a greater responsibility to help than a man whose few resources are spoken for to feed and clothe his own children.

And a literal passer-by who is on the spot has greater moral responsibility for not helping than someone miles away who unaccountably fails to travel around searching for people who need help.

So that if you believe in a personal God who created the situation, who has no resource constraints and who is present everywhere, then all the factors that in ordinary human natural justice would diminish responsibility are absent.

But maybe you believe in a different sort of God ?

Best wishes,

Russ

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
[...] This life in this world is a test, a qualifying exam for the afterlife with God. [...]

---

A god that "tests" a six-year-old and their family with terminal cancer, or the Armenian people with a death march, is a god I can do without. I'll flunk, and gladly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
Yes - I like that, too - though surely the boat could still mow you down?

I have an atheist version of the blind men and the elephant story: the atheist is the guy a couple of paces behind the elephant, going: "There is no elephant; it's just a stinking heap of shit!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I would disagree with the statement that "this is the best of all possible worlds" is a traditional Christian belief.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I would disagree with the statement that "this is the best of all possible worlds" is a traditional Christian belief.

---

Then I have to ask - according to your understanding of traditional Christian belief, which does God lack ? the goodwill to make this the best of all possible worlds, or the power to make it so ?

Best wishes,

Russ

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I would disagree with the statement that "this is the best of all possible worlds" is a traditional Christian belief.

---

Then I have to ask - according to your understanding of traditional Christian belief, which does God lack ? the goodwill to make this the best of all possible worlds, or the power to make it so ?

Best wishes,

Russ

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I would disagree with the statement that "this is the best of all possible worlds" is a traditional Christian belief.

---

Then I have to ask - according to your understanding of traditional Christian belief, which does God lack ? the goodwill to make this the best of all possible worlds, or the power to make it so ?

Best wishes,

Russ

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Therefore this, now is the best of all possible worlds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
What compromise? Between autonomy and puppetry?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
karndleh

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
I'd certainly have issues with a God who let a demiurge ruin some unimaginable 'perfect' other way from the first Planck tick.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
[...] This life in this world is a test, a qualifying exam for the afterlife with God. [...]

---

A god that "tests" a six-year-old and their family with terminal cancer, or the Armenian people with a death march, is a god I can do without. I'll flunk, and gladly.

---

As the Blessed Clive said (I paraphrase): Imagine your best friend kicked you downstairs and you broke your leg. He comes to see you in hospital and you ask him why and he tells you is't so that the suffering might give you the chance to become a better person. Well, you might or might not become a better person, but you can bet you would no longer think of the guy as your best friend.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
That analogy falls short for me because the key component is that our lives our "written"-- set in stone, unchangeable-- by the author (God). We can't change the final outcome. We can't influence what happens next. We are pawns. Which does raise all sorts of theodicy questions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Then, after the curtain falls, you can go to the Director's party...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
What compromise? Between autonomy and puppetry?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
What compromise? Between autonomy and puppetry?

---

Very neat. It also shows the difficulty in arguing about 'better' and 'best'. How do we know which is best? Do we tot up various qualities, or is it a gut feeling? I don't know, but should I?

---

IMHO, the "best possible" world is one in which we freely choose love. Where we freely choose consistently to "love God and neighbor with heart, mind, soul, and strength". Something we all do in theory but obviously not so much when it comes down to cases. When we/I fail to do that, it is the result of fear-- fear that we'll be exploited or abused or won't have enough or that God won't really come thru for us or doesn't really know what's in our best interests. Fear holds us back from trusting God enough to live life his way. And so we must learn-- painfully, slowly, the way humans learn most everything-- thru trial and error. That's the point of this whole "less than perfect" life. So that in the end, we might see clearly what has been true all along-- that living life God's way really is the "best possible world". At which point we (possibly all) will choose to freely enter the Kingdom of God.
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
q: no you shouldn't. There are no shoulds The world will be improved, is being improved, but it's as good as it can be right now. For the reasons you give: It's impossible to calculate how now could be a better one. Except when a choice presents itself.

c: nice. That's the trajectory we've been on for hundreds of thousands of years. Half way?
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:

c: nice. That's the trajectory we've been on for hundreds of thousands of years. Half way?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
That analogy falls short for me because the key component is that our lives our "written"-- set in stone, unchangeable-- by the author (God). We can't change the final outcome. We can't influence what happens next. We are pawns. Which does raise all sorts of theodicy questions.

It's too easy to just say it's a "choose your own adventure" story-- where we make choices within some constraints. But it's a move in the right direction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
That analogy falls short for me because the key component is that our lives our "written"-- set in stone, unchangeable-- by the author (God). We can't change the final outcome. We can't influence what happens next. We are pawns. Which does raise all sorts of theodicy questions.

It's too easy to just say it's a "choose your own adventure" story-- where we make choices within some constraints. But it's a move in the right direction.

---

The problem of pain is not a problem with the sort of pain you get when you bang your head against a wall for dramatic effect. That pain relates to your choices in a meaningful way.

It's not a problem with the sort of pain you get when someone punches you. That pain relates to their choices in a meaningful way.

It's a problem with the sort of pain you get from a disease that doesn't relate to anything that you or anyone else has chosen, other than the God who's decided to write it into your story. The sort of emotional pain you get from seeing others' lives blighted or cut short pointlessly. When comfort isn't willingly traded for the glory of defeating Sauron but ripped from us and cast away for no visible purpose.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0