Ship of Fools: OK Playmates

Thread: OK Playmates Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028891

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Paul, let's call him 'Paul', mid-seventies, working class, uneducated, brilliant, pressured speech, comic but of a remarkably consistent mixed, layered disposition, obviously wants there to be a best case God. But CANNOT compute the suffering of the innocent. And that if there is a God, that's what He WANTS.

Now I'm a neo-liberal postmodern and therefore do not question that God is and that He is great and good and all will be well and love wins. And that God CANNOT make anything better by intervening, by magic - so He doesn't. Period. Ever. Bar around Jesus.

So we ALL, including Him, have to suffer. Meaninglessly. Contingently. Randomly. He has to suffer us suffering. And NO ONE is to blame for anything.

And He'll fix it, but not now. That means EVER for this level of existence. We have to go to the next. Die. And I haven't the faintest idea how that's possible or works out, beyond walking together. And in the mean time we've just got to ever so slowly get nicer.

But what do I tell Paul? Sorry, 'Paul'?

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Don't him anything. Just be his friend. (?)

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

"Thank you," perhaps. "Thank you for making an honest effort to articulate what you see." There is no way to make him unsee it-- it's there.

Maybe God put that outrage in him to cry out to us.

[ 13. February 2015, 22:59: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

Do you have kids, Paul? (I'm going to assume yes).

When your kids were little, did you ever teach them to do something, like ride a bike, knowing they were going to fall off and skin their knee? But you taught them to ride a bike anyway, because you thought the rewards of bike riding were far greater than the pain of a few skinned knees?

I think G-d's like that. I believe that from G-d's point of view all our suffering is like a skinned knee. He understands it, because he suffered it as a person in Jesus. And he sent the Holy Spirit to guide people so they can help each other alleviate as much suffering as they can in this world, because the only hands G-d has here are ours. But G-d's more than just one person and the needs of all in the community have to be balanced.

That's how I see it, anyway. Others see it differently.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
"Thank you," perhaps. "Thank you for making an honest effort to articulate what you see." There is no way to make him unsee it-- it's there.

Maybe God put that outrage in him to cry out to us.

Yes. This. .

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

It's a toughie but (and this may get me called to Hell) there are worse things than death. Until that occurs to him, remain his friend. I have a whole stack of friends I haven't managed to let in on this.

Paul has got confused about God and Santa Claus. The problem is that Santa Claus doesn't exist (except in liturgical calendars).

Posted by LucyP (# 10476) on :

Someone I know worked in a maternity ward for some months, and then moved to a palliative care ward.

She had not had children, and watching the suffering of the women going through labour got to her at first. After a while, though, she started to see a pattern. Just as someone pointed out 2000 years ago, the screams of pain were always (in the births she witnessed) transformed into the tears or laughter of indescribable joy once the baby was out. Eventually, she was able to see beyond the pain, without being able to explain it.

When she started her palliative care rotation, the contrast from her last job (the beginning of life to its end) was overwhelming. Two things helped her. One was the way that facing death so often brought families/friends together and allowed them to express love in intensified ways, counting each day with the loved one as a treasure. The other was speculating that somehow, the suffering followed by joy in birth is a parable for what lies after death, only this time we can't see the other side.

Don't know if that helps. Maybe it all comes down to whether you believe the one who promised that all shall be well –- trust in a person, not isolated logic?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LucyP:
The other was speculating that somehow, the suffering followed by joy in birth is a parable for what lies after death, only this time we can't see the other side.

That's really good.

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :

Martin60 posted

quote:
So we ALL, including Him, have to suffer. Meaninglessly. Contingently. Randomly. He has to suffer us suffering. And NO ONE is to blame for anything.

I'm sorry? As I see it, a great deal of suffering of the innocent/not innocent is caused by *us*, meaning the human race. We are to blame for a great deal of it. And if we are going to get better, then a bit faster than slowly would surely bring a smile to God's face.

If he exists, of course.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Thank you everyone. There is no alternative is there? To the full freedom of evolution. If God stopped the evolution of Onchocerca volvulus to bore children's eyes out from the inside, as St. Stephen wants, where does the intervention end? In our stifled puppetry?

And aye Nicodemia. We're ALL innocent. No one is to blame for anything. For crawling in, as primeval slime. There's no judgement in that. Or forgiveness. And I fear as I say that.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

Two points: Firstly, it could be that 'Paul' knows in his heart that God is the best case God, it might not only be what we wants, and yet he can't get to grips with questions of theodicy satisfactorily - who can? There is a subtle difference between this and wanting God to be who God is, but not believing that he is.

Secondly, I'm not convinced that God cannot make anything better by intervening. I think that God does sometimes make things better by intervening, but that God doesn't always intervene - he would only do so by invitation, and only if the greatest good would come from his doing so, imv.

I would be more likely to give Paul searching questions to ponder and to pray for him than to try to appease him.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

What greater good is served by children having their eyes chewed inside out?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What greater good is served by children having their eyes chewed inside out?

Agreed. Which is why I think Kelly's response is the best one. We don't do Christianity any favor by trying to set up an apologetic for the evil and suffering that is so readily apparent in the world today. The fact that Paul notices that evil and suffering and cares deeply about it is, IMHO, a sign that he is not far from the heart of God. The fact that he rejects the false idol of a distant and capricious god who does such horrific things for some mysterious unseen "good" is a good step in finding the true God who came to earth to bleed and die precisely because he cares about that suffering.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

None at all, Martin, but like you I 'do not question that God is and that He is great and good and all will be well and love wins.'

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
We don't do Christianity any favor by trying to set up an apologetic for the evil and suffering that is so readily apparent in the world today. The fact that Paul notices that evil and suffering and cares deeply about it is, IMHO, a sign that he is not far from the heart of God. The fact that he rejects the false idol of a distant and capricious god who does such horrific things for some mysterious unseen "good" is a good step in finding the true God who came to earth to bleed and die precisely because he cares about that suffering.

We don't do Christianity any favour if we try to give answers we don't have, I agree, nor if we worship any false idols, let alone one that looks like God but who does horrific things, or wants us to.

But I think that we must ask the questions of theodicy, we must wrestle with God, we must care enough to try to understand and to let everyone know that we're not ducking them either, or contorting ourselves into knots as we try to defend God's good name with unconvincing guesswork.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
We don't do Christianity any favour if we try to give answers we don't have, I agree, nor if we worship any false idols, let alone one that looks like God but who does horrific things, or wants us to.

But I think that we must ask the questions of theodicy, we must wrestle with God, we must care enough to try to understand and to let everyone know that we're not ducking them either, or contorting ourselves into knots as we try to defend God's good name with unconvincing guesswork.

Agreed. That's why I referenced Kelly's post, which I think does that quite well.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
We don't do Christianity any favour if we try to give answers we don't have, I agree, nor if we worship any false idols, let alone one that looks like God but who does horrific things, or wants us to.

But I think that we must ask the questions of theodicy, we must wrestle with God, we must care enough to try to understand and to let everyone know that we're not ducking them either, or contorting ourselves into knots as we try to defend God's good name with unconvincing guesswork.

I haven't really seen any theodicy that didn't strike me as unconvincing guesswork. Either of the "Who are you to argue with God, o man?" variety, or the "His purposes are beyond our knowing" variety, or the "What's right or wrong for you to do is not binding upon God" variety, and so on ad nauseam. None of them would convince anybody who didn't already believe them, or at least very much want to.

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

The problem of theodicy is by definition a problem.

Sioni, death is a real and actual part of life and there is a lot of things much worse than death (death that is going to befall us all). But we have no understanding of it and it scares many of us often, if we are brave enough to consider it at all.

For me, the answer to theodicy is to walk along side those facing suffering and/or death. I have the enormous privilege of working in a field where this is my working life. I see the Christ in sharing the journey and not in a clever answer (mainly because I don't have clever answers).

In my own belief, Proleptic tension is key. We have a God who exists within and outside of time. We are forgiven, because God has seen all our lives already and forgiven the lot. We are restricted to time. God is not. But the issue with this God, is that this God could be callous as 'it/we/creation' is already all fixed and hence become inured to our suffering.
Christ solves that for me. By existing within time, Chrsit has suffered with us and for us. God knows our suffering having shared it.
This leaves me with a God who knows that we are suffering and shares that journey whilst simultaneously has seen the end of that suffering and can say with authority it will all be alright.

But to your friend I would listen and say very little.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

One of the things that it means to believe in God is to trust that things are alright when empirically they are not.
(It's apparently one of the things that children need to learn from the parents at a young age; it's tempting to see the various ways faith goes wrong as parallels with the ways growing up goes wrong.)

Faith is therefore an attitude to evil: without dismissing the reality of evil, to believe that all shall be well in the end. The belief that there is a theodicy to be had, but that we don't know it, is therefore I think intrinsic to faith.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I haven't really seen any theodicy that didn't strike me as unconvincing guesswork. Either of the "Who are you to argue with God, o man?" variety, or the "His purposes are beyond our knowing" variety, or the "What's right or wrong for you to do is not binding upon God" variety, and so on ad nauseam. None of them would convince anybody who didn't already believe them, or at least very much want to.

quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
We have a God who exists within and outside of time.

*insert my standard Open Theism lecture here*

nonetheless:

quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:

But to your friend I would listen and say very little.

this.

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

Thanks for tackling this one, Martin. It has produced some very reassuring replies. I think that much belief in God is an expression of faith in what is true, but difficult, if not impossible, to grasp. And the traditional forms, explanations, titles of God come with much baggage, some of it unrecognised or wilfully denied. God as a human invention, or an expression of wishful thinking, doesn't cut the mustard for anyone who thinks deeply about the human situation. But perhaps such negative extremes are necessary to counter the beliefs that come from a primeval fear of death, or an atavistic thirst for revenge on one's enemies.

Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on :

mousethief

quote:
I haven't really seen any theodicy that didn't strike me as unconvincing guesswork

What is wrong with the standard one in Genesis? God evolved man to resemble Him. The devil helped man to be like Him (presumable with permission), so we have free will first and knowledge of good and evil second.
God cannot make two plus two equal five, so men become evil by causing suffering to others out of their own free will.
The natural disasters that occur are just the way the world is - if we applied ourselves they would be vastly alleviated to allow love, compassion and creativity to flourish as originally intended.
Where Christianity has made a thorough mess is trying to have a theology of Justice. As a wise philosopher said "there ain't no justice".

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Shadeson:

quote:
God cannot make two plus two equal five, so men become evil by causing suffering to others out of their own free will.

This is the bit that I really, really hate about the free will argument. That the free will of some (mostly, but not exclusively, men, as you say) tramples willynilly over the free will of others without interference, because it would deny the free will of the doers, while allowing the ones they do to only the free will to accept what is done in some appropriately godly manner.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

When making the fricassee of theodicy, I always reach for the main ingredients I know are needed: the God revealed to us in Christ; the suffering in the world and its causes; the leaves of the trees of the knowledge of good and evil and of the tree of life; the promise of the second coming of Christ; and human nature. I think that other ingredients are needed, but I don't know what they are. Time might be one of them. I've never managed to work out the right quantities to make it palatable, but I know that the God revealed to us in Christ is the title of the dish.

Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on :

Penny S :

quote:
the free will of some.............tramples willynilly over the free will of others without interference

On one level you are right - the free will of some to deny the free will of others is part of the package. But then there are always limits to our powers.

As for an appropriately godly response, I am afraid that it rarely happens - hence the gun.

Your main point seems to be that God should interfere. Free will + interference = impossible, in my book.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

What's free will? In our at least 200,000 years as sapient beings, 97% longer than we've been a record keeping species, when did we become morally accountable, judgeable, damnable? In need of forgiveness? Of repentance? Of the Jesus prayer? At what point did we fail to rise and it was all our fault and we've only got ourselves to blame if we end up in Hell?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
The natural disasters that occur are just the way the world is - if we applied ourselves they would be vastly alleviated to allow love, compassion and creativity to flourish as originally intended.

This is woefully inadequate. Particularly if by "natural disasters" you include human children having their eyeballs eaten from the inside out. "That's just the way the world is" is not a theodicy, it's hand-waving of the worst sort. It is hand-waving that PRETENDS to be theodicy. You'd be better off just saying, "I don't know."

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Aye mousethief and it implies that we've failed some test, worse, defeated God's intent somehow, after hundreds of thousands of years of innocent hunter gathering, the rot set in in our becoming nomadic herdsmen and THEN, just like in a good Western, we became, the horror of it all, FARMERS and made POTTERY!!! And NOW look at us.

Beyond His ineffable wisdom, we haven't the faintest idea why God most consistently cannot intervene but once in 13.7 billion years.

I'm glad He did mind.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Aye mousethief and it implies that we've failed some test, worse, defeated God's intent somehow, after hundreds of thousands of years of innocent hunter gathering, the rot set in in our becoming nomadic herdsmen and THEN, just like in a good Western, we became, the horror of it all, FARMERS and made POTTERY!!! And NOW look at us.

Beyond His ineffable wisdom, we haven't the faintest idea why God most consistently cannot intervene but once in 13.7 billion years.

I'm glad He did mind.

What about prophets Martin?

Hasn't God always tried to guide us the right way?

Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on :

I guess free will is just the freedom to make a choice based on the circumstances present. Animals have it.

When we became conscious of the moral dimension, God knows. I do not believe that particular theology of judgement and hell either.

As for the example of suffering, I’m well aware of Ebola also

Job got the ‘hand waving’ answer from God at the end of all the argument about suffering for no apparent reason. At the beginning of that book, the indications are that suffering is not what God wants.

And its true I don’t know, but the way I see it is the only way I can make some sense of the world and give an answer to ‘Paul’

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

And guys, I have to say SOMETHING, as we're surrounded by Evangelicals saying - and I quote - that "there is good too" and "it's important to know God".

It's SO depressing.

I will start with thanking him, that was really good Kelly. Just as I have to with Him.

Patdys (despite ... [Smile]

). Dafyd. Penny S. Everyone. EVERYONE. Thank you.

Paul misses me when I'm away and loves to download everything that's happened in between. So I HAVE to listen. That is my duty, a labour of love. And I'll thank him more and especially for the question for which there is no answer apart from the duty of kindness regardless. I'll try and protect him from Job's Evangelical comforters. Hmmmmm. Job. Says it all really.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Faith is living within the tension of uncertainty. If any of us had to wait until we were certain, we'd all be up sh*t creek. So tell him 'congratulations and welcome to the club'.

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What's free will? In our at least 200,000 years as sapient beings, 97% longer than we've been a record keeping species, when did we become morally accountable, judgeable, damnable? In need of forgiveness? Of repentance? Of the Jesus prayer? At what point did we fail to rise and it was all our fault and we've only got ourselves to blame if we end up in Hell?

My Adam is the person who evolved to the point where they realised the wonder of and hence could have relationship with God. And I have universalist tendencies I think. (Which is consistent with my theodicy).

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Chorister. LOL. Yeah.

Patdys. I'm of that tendency by increasing orders of magnitude. But being a ... an old git, what's it got to do with our stories of having a relationship with God?

The Gods of Job, Moses, Abraham, ... Jonah ... are ... awesome. Horrific and very very cool indeed. Those mythic characters all had relationships thrust upon them by these Gods, this evolving Killer God, up until the post-Exilic period. By the final editors of the stories.

Adam is Man the hunter gatherer. Which is eerily cool again. As are his 'sons', the nomad and the farmer.

Only the Jewish myths have this, have the miracle of a recognizably moral, merciful God of evolution in God the Killer.

It's like the Jesus story. You couldn't make it up. The realization.

[ 16. February 2015, 22:00: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

It is only in relationship that i am accountable. If i am truly alone, then whom could I wrong? Only in acknowledging the creator God, do I develop a responsibility to creation.

If we were created through evolution for relationship, and who really can say how long the creation story reflects, then our failings are failings of relationship.

I guess if I keep progressing down this line of thought, then I would acknowledge that maybe the creation story is not complete. If you like, theodicy is the result of an incomplete creation. When will it finish? Second coming? The new creation? I don't know.

But to consider us the pinnacle of creation seems hubris, even for me. A work in progress- sure.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0