Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Element206 wrote:yep, your argument is similar to the "problem of evil" : If god is a truly loving god and demontrates the big O's, then why does he allow for natural disasters and other evils to occur. Its a good question to ask a hardcore bible beater!

Even a half assed catholic like myself can answer that: it's because god doesn't care about our plight here on earth. It's not pretty, but god is truly loving with regards to the long term, not the time we spend on the mortal coil.

It's also worth noting that evil can be most easily defined in theological terms as "opposing the will of god." Floods aren't evil, nor is cancer. Killing a person in battle isn't evil. Murdering another without cause is evil.

Polonius wrote:Even a half assed catholic like myself can answer that: it's because god doesn't care about our plight here on earth. It's not pretty, but god is truly loving with regards to the long term, not the time we spend on the mortal coil.

It's also worth noting that evil can be most easily defined in theological terms as "opposing the will of god." Floods aren't evil, nor is cancer. Killing a person in battle isn't evil. Murdering another without cause is evil.

This makes no sense. Your inferring God has more important things to do in the universe than worry about his creation on earth? Maybe thats true, since OBVIOUSLY he has so many other worlds to focus on. This honestly makes sense to you??? So would you buy a animal, feed it once, then walk away and not concern yourself with it? --because thats what your expecting me to believe that god is doing.

Nice to see you wrote the book on what is evil and what isnt; but im not buying your personal interpretation of evil. I was referring directly to the philisophical argument about the 'problem of evil.' It defines evil in two categories, natural evil and moral evil. Killing someone would be a moral evil, Blasting the coast of Sri Lanka with a typhoon killing hundreds of thousands is considered a natural evil. Maybe you should look up and research some common thiestic arguments before replying to what I said.

I like that you said killing someone in battle isnt evil yet murdering without cause is evil....hmm, I forgot God is patriotic. I am barely going to waist my time or dignify this comment with a lengthly explanation, so I will just ask you this. How exactly does that work? Furthermore, name a war that didnt have murder without cause????

Easy killer. It'll be ok.

In my opinion, God isn't concerned with our comfort of safety on earth because he's concerned with our spiritual and moral decisions. Life on earth is like a job interview, it's the means, not the end. God is looking for those people that seek him out, play by his rules, and freely choose to associate with him. I'm not a fire and brimstone guy, I think that salvation is a reward, but the alternative is simply the destruction of the soul, so that when you die you die.

There is this view among a lot of non-christians, and IMO too many christians that God is a fairy godmother. It doesn't work that way. So god doesn't save us from famine or plague because it doesn't matter to him. He wants to know what we do under pressure.

Hey, I don't know much about the problem of evil, but if you expect people to do some reading before they reply, it's a pretty common courtesy to include some links to the appropriate material. I think that my definition of evil slides neatly into the idea of moral evil.

God, at least the old testament version, was highly patriotic. The bible never says that war is inherently immoral. I think god recognizes that political and economic pressure can lead to war, and that serving as a soldier and killing in war is something that people do out of obligation, not out of moral choice.

I'm not sure what you mean about naming a war that didn't have murder. Most wars, like most times in general, include crimes, including murder. But there's a difference between killing in the heat of combat and massacering villagers.

Element206 wrote:yep, your argument is similar to the "problem of evil" : If god is a truly loving god and demontrates the big O's, then why does he allow for natural disasters and other evils to occur. Its a good question to ask a hardcore bible beater!

It really isn't. Its a mildly interesting question to ask of someone who isn't particularly convinced of all their religion's teaching, but most "true believers" can find refuge in a defense from wickedness; ie. whatever God does is correct, therefore the people in question were dealt with as they should have been.

The rest can use a combination of Sebster's free will argument, and either divine intention or limitation's upon God's power. The latter being a literalistic interpretation of "almighty".

Honestly, the problem of evil isn't really a problem at all, there have been many, many solutions to it throughout history; primarily based on the ambiguity of terms like good and evil. Honestly, the question "What is the good?" is a much more problematic for the a theist than any question regarding evil because questions regarding the Good entail questions regarding the nature of God. Hence the Bible talks a whole lot about proper practice, and relatively little about improper practice.

Element206 wrote:
By the way, I briefly skimmed through some of the replies to your post....I love that people are postulating the attributes of God and also gauging his abilities and their effectiveness. Arbitrarily pulling things out of the air makes you even less credible on the subject.

Who has been arbitrarily pulling things out of the air? I mean, yeah, theology is based, to a degree, on a sort of arbitrary blend of plausibility and possiblity, but that's the nature of the discipline. You can't discuss it at all without accepting that, unless you're going to write it all of as absurd, which is just boring.

Element206 wrote:
Not to offend anyone on this thread, but I suggest you take your argument to a level of higher education where you will get better responses...otherwise, expect to recieve some of the most ignorant retort you have ever heard in your life from the people in here.

Have we found a new Gailbraithe?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Element206 wrote:Furthermore, name a war that didnt have murder without cause????

Battle and war are the same things now?

When did that happen?

Polonius wrote:...salvation is a reward, but the alternative is simply the destruction of the soul, so that when you die you die.

I like this interpretation. Everybody's happy.

Element206 wrote:
I like that you said killing someone in battle isnt evil yet murdering without cause is evil....hmm, I forgot God is patriotic. I am barely going to waist my time or dignify this comment with a lengthly explanation, so I will just ask you this. How exactly does that work? Furthermore, name a war that didnt have murder without cause????

If I may respond logically, let us look at the example of God and the Egyptians. God killed the firstborns of every household in Egypt that did not mark its doors. He did this so that his people, the Jews, could go free and be their own nation. Let us assume that God is benevolent, and as such incapable of evil.

1. God is incapable of evil.
2. God sent his angel to kill every firstborn Egyptian.
3. There are times when killing is not evil.

Polonius wrote:

Element206 wrote:yep, your argument is similar to the "problem of evil" : If god is a truly loving god and demontrates the big O's, then why does he allow for natural disasters and other evils to occur. Its a good question to ask a hardcore bible beater!

Even a half assed catholic like myself can answer that: it's because god doesn't care about our plight here on earth. It's not pretty, but god is truly loving with regards to the long term, not the time we spend on the mortal coil.

It's also worth noting that evil can be most easily defined in theological terms as "opposing the will of god." Floods aren't evil, nor is cancer. Killing a person in battle isn't evil. Murdering another without cause is evil.

I totally disagree with this interpretation(but then again I'm not Roman Catholic).

I believe that God does care about our plight on earth, in fact Jesus Himself said that our very hairs are numbered, and that God takes care of the birds of the air how much more so would he not take care of us. Also the doctrine of the Trinity includes the person of God The Father, so when does a father not care for his children?

As far as evil... the age old problem of evil includes not only moral evils but also natural evils. This can be traced back to the fall of Adam and Eve in the garden whereby the universe was cursed through Adam and Eves sin. So floods and cancer are evil in the sense that it was evil that led to the cursed creation and the legacy thereof.

GG


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gitzbitah wrote:

Element206 wrote:
I like that you said killing someone in battle isnt evil yet murdering without cause is evil....hmm, I forgot God is patriotic. I am barely going to waist my time or dignify this comment with a lengthly explanation, so I will just ask you this. How exactly does that work? Furthermore, name a war that didnt have murder without cause????

If I may respond logically, let us look at the example of God and the Egyptians. God killed the firstborns of every household in Egypt that did not mark its doors. He did this so that his people, the Jews, could go free and be their own nation. Let us assume that God is benevolent, and as such incapable of evil.

1. God is incapable of evil.
2. God sent his angel to kill every firstborn Egyptian.
3. There are times when killing is not evil.

From a Biblical perspective I think this is true. Many times God commanded the Israelite's to slay every last man, woman and child, including the livestock during the cannanite wars. This was not evil because
A. It was a command from God and
B. It was God's judgment being poured out on the Caananites, who worshiped Baal and performed child sacrifice and other evils.

GG

The problem with any interpretation of god's love that features material aspects raises some pretty tricky questions about how it get's doled out. Do those that work hard but fail not deserve success or love? What about bad people that have great wealth?

The story of the birds shows that god does love and care about every person. It doesn't mean he's going to heal my cancer or get my brother a job or whatever. Jesus spends far more time talking about the rewards that come later than he does talking about how god can help you now. Not that he was against wealth, I think the takeaway message is that life on earth is short and transitory, the life eternal is the real concern.

If you look at the beatitudes, they explicitly state that there are meek, and poor, and they'll be rewarded... later. Christinaity was one of the first western religions to be truly universal: you didn't need to be born a jew, or be able to afford sacrifices, or have some special connection. It offers salvation and eternal life, but only after the fact.

i don't think there's anything wrong with giving thanks to god for what you've been given, and I sure do. But if a person is poor and sick, it doesn't mean god doesn't love them.

Polonius wrote:...salvation is a reward, but the alternative is simply the destruction of the soul, so that when you die you die.

So your saying Hell is not actually a place where you are punished? Because in the bible, it never actually says anything about Hell, except for the fire, so I'd say thats a pretty good interpretation.

The Dante's inferno view of hell comes from the greek idea of Hades, mixed with increasingly dramatic medieval attempts to scare people into believing, and finally capped off by Paradise Lost. I don't feel that it jives with the biblical concept of the afterlife, which really doesn't mention hell at all. How many times does Jesus say he offers salvation from death?

The current Catholic view of Hell is that it's a state of being, of total removal from god. Sounds a lot like death to me. It also eliminate the tireseome "if god loves me, why would he send me to hell" argument. Christianity isn't a test as much as it is an offer. It's available, and God would be happier if people took it, but if people don't, they simply cease to exist when they die.

GeneralGrog wrote:

Gitzbitah wrote:
If I may respond logically, let us look at the example of God and the Egyptians. God killed the firstborns of every household in Egypt that did not mark its doors. He did this so that his people, the Jews, could go free and be their own nation. Let us assume that God is benevolent, and as such incapable of evil.

1. God is incapable of evil.
2. God sent his angel to kill every firstborn Egyptian.
3. There are times when killing is not evil.

From a Biblical perspective I think this is true. Many times God commanded the Israelite's to slay every last man, woman and child, including the livestock during the cannanite wars. This was not evil because
A. It was a command from God and
B. It was God's judgment being poured out on the Caananites, who worshiped Baal and performed child sacrifice and other evils.

GG

Oh that's a whole other question. I was just disproving the idea that killing people is always evil. That part's easy, if we're arguing in a theist style. Deciding when it is ok to kill people is a vastly more complicated subject.

Gitzbitah wrote:Oh that's a whole other question. I was just disproving the idea that killing people is always evil. That part's easy, if we're arguing in a theist style. Deciding when it is ok to kill people is a vastly more complicated subject.

I would agree that killing people is not always evil, such as if someone is trying to kill you/if you are in a you-or-them type situation, but the problem I had with GG's post was the fact that he seems to find using divine will as justification to kill someone to be perfectly fine.

Here's a relevant question: is there any such thing as absolute morality?

Polonius wrote:The problem with any interpretation of god's love that features material aspects raises some pretty tricky questions about how it get's doled out. Do those that work hard but fail not deserve success or love? What about bad people that have great wealth?

The story of the birds shows that god does love and care about every person. It doesn't mean he's going to heal my cancer or get my brother a job or whatever. Jesus spends far more time talking about the rewards that come later than he does talking about how god can help you now. Not that he was against wealth, I think the takeaway message is that life on earth is short and transitory, the life eternal is the real concern.

If you look at the beatitudes, they explicitly state that there are meek, and poor, and they'll be rewarded... later. Christinaity was one of the first western religions to be truly universal: you didn't need to be born a jew, or be able to afford sacrifices, or have some special connection. It offers salvation and eternal life, but only after the fact.

i don't think there's anything wrong with giving thanks to god for what you've been given, and I sure do. But if a person is poor and sick, it doesn't mean god doesn't love them.

Sorry... but you are backtracking now. Maybe you just misstated what you really believe in your earlier post? I mean, either God cares about his creation or not.

Also I'm particularly concerned with your views on salvation and hell. You seem to be positing a works salvation, independent of Grace. I know the classic Roman Catholic teaching of works go hand in hand with grace, and I would agree mostly with that. (Although I don't think I totally understand what the Roman Catholic church leaders' view is)

Also when you say hell is the grave you sound like a Jehovas witness, which is considered by most reformed denominations as a cult. Hell is not the grave.

Jesus was very emphatic about what he thought hell was. Read Matt.25:41,Matt25:46, Jude 7, Rev.20:15 Also the story of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke16 19-31.


GG



Automatically Appended Next Post:

rubiksnoob wrote:
Soooooooooo, your saying it's alright to kill people if God tells you to?

Well if God told Joshua to have the people of Israel slaughter the Canaanites and Joshua said "God I will not do that because it isn't alright". Who is right, God or Joshua?

This isn't to say that I think God would ask anyone in modern times to do this, since we are under a different covenant. A covenant of grace. This is why Holy Wars (the crusades for example) after Jesus' resurrection would be outside of God's will. Whereas the Israelite's entering the "promised land" was God's will because he was using the Israelite's to pass judgment on caanan, much like he did with the earth during the flood, and Sodom and Gomorrah.

GG

Well, I think god cares about his creation. I just don't think that care translates into cash and prizes.

I think grace is essential to salvation. I think you have to walk the walk, as well as talk the talk, but salvation is only through god.

As for the biblical description of hell, I think that the writers were poetic. I don't think heaven is literally full of many rooms, nor do I think that hell is literally a fiery pit of torment. I suppose I'm more of annhiliationist, in that I feel that the soul is only immortal through salvation. It's accepted in the Church of England, and not exactly incompatible with Catholic doctrine.

generalgrog wrote:

Also when you say hell is the grave you sound like a Jehovas witness, which is considered by most reformed denominations as a cult. Hell is not the grave.

Reformed denominations; Cult- what's the difference? I'm not a J-dub but when I hear christians calling a group a cult I think of the "cool" nerds calling other people nerds and ostracizing them for it. It seems like calling a church a cult is a convenient way of invalidating their beliefs without actually addressing them.

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

Also when you say hell is the grave you sound like a Jehovas witness, which is considered by most reformed denominations as a cult. Hell is not the grave.

Reformed denominations; Cult- what's the difference? I'm not a J-dub but when I hear christians calling a group a cult I think of the "cool" nerds calling other people nerds and ostracizing them for it. It seems like calling a church a cult is a convenient way of invalidating their beliefs without actually addressing them.

I would love to address them, but that would derail the thread. Basically reformed denominations such as baptists, lutheran,episcopalian, methodists, pentacostal, anglican etc,etc. are orthodox denominations in that they accept orthodox doctrines such as the Trinity, bodily resurection of Christ, diety of Christ. Stuff like that. Any group not espousing these beliefs are considered cults. and most of them are harmful to their members as well. Mormonism, Jdubs, christian science, etc.

GG

generalgrog wrote:

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

Also when you say hell is the grave you sound like a Jehovas witness, which is considered by most reformed denominations as a cult. Hell is not the grave.

Reformed denominations; Cult- what's the difference? I'm not a J-dub but when I hear christians calling a group a cult I think of the "cool" nerds calling other people nerds and ostracizing them for it. It seems like calling a church a cult is a convenient way of invalidating their beliefs without actually addressing them.

I would love to address them, but that would derail the thread. Basically reformed denominations such as baptists, lutheran,episcopalian, methodists, pentacostal, anglican etc,etc. are orthodox denominations in that they accept orthodox doctrines such as the Trinity, bodily resurection of Christ, diety of Christ. Stuff like that. Any group not espousing these beliefs are considered cults. and most of them are harmful to their members as well. Mormonism, Jdubs, christian science, etc.

GG

So you're one of Those people. I thought you were reasonable fellow. Have you witnessed first hand the "harmful" nature of these religions? their beliefs don't fit into the big christian churches' framework so you call them harmful to keep people away. this is one reason why people who believe in god don't trust in organized religion and why otherwise religious people call themselves agnostics.

Having said my peace, perhaps I should withdraw before yet another philosophical thread sees an early grave. you can PM if you want.

I think that while GG is being a bit overly dismissive, you're overreacting.

Even an ecumenical christian like myself feels that not all beliefs are equal. I respect all beliefs, and I feel everybody has the right to practice in their own way, but I'm not a complete relativist.

the big three branches of Christianity (Catholicism, orthodoxy, and protestantism) all fundamentally share a pretty common theology and set of scriptures. Most of the difference between them are in practice and structure. There is a lot of common ground, and frankly a lot of historical heft to those groups.

Other christian groups tend share fewer beliefs, and some even include substantial new scriptures (Mormonism in particular). I wouldn't lump all of them together in terms of harm, but it is worth noting that those denominations more actively separate themselves from society, and some do cause some harm on their members (by forbidding medical care in some cases).

And harm can be spiritual too. I think many of the more recent christian or semi-christian religions stray too far from the core message of the gospels. I feel that most established religions do too, but the newer sects tend to either focus on completely new material, or extremely narrow readings of the bible. They can, at best, often "miss the forest for the trees."

I think one of the points being missed in the whole "why does God allow evil" sub-topic to this thread is man's understanding of evil is flawed in comparison to God's.

A perfect, omnipotent being has a different frame of reference as to what is evil. As God is perfect, all sin is infinitely evil just as 1 is infinitely larger than 0. Therefore, stealing a loaf of bread is the moral equivalent to killing someone is God's eyes. Since all people have sinned in God's eyes, asking why God allows evil to exist is the same as asking "Why does God allow me to exist?"

The answer is because God is Love and he desires that you love Him. He will give you a huge number of chances to come to him. He doesn't follow the Kantian principles of coming to God with perfect motives - otherwise he would not have us at all.

EDIT: small little theological correction to several posters in the thread. God is eternal, not infinite. Infinite suggests a beginning but no end while eternal has neither a beginning nor an end. As a matter of fact God is both The Beginning and The End of all things (I am the Alpha and the Omega) Rev 1:8, Rev 1:17, Rev 22:13, Isaiah 48:12 (all NIV)

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:I think one of the points being missed in the whole "why does God allow evil" sub-topic to this thread is man's understanding of evil is flawed in comparison to God's.

A perfect, omnipotent being has a different frame of reference as to what is evil. As God is perfect, all sin is infinitely evil just as 1 is infinitely larger than 0. Therefore, stealing a loaf of bread is the moral equivalent to killing someone is God's eyes. Since all people have sinned in God's eyes, asking why God allows evil to exist is the same as asking "Why does God allow me to exist?"

The answer is because God is Love and he desires that you love Him. He will give you a huge number of chances to come to him. He doesn't follow the Kantian principles of coming to God with perfect motives - otherwise he would not have us at all.

Umm okay. How does God been perfect equate to sin been infinitely evil? And 1 isnt infinitely larger than 0. Its 1 larger than 0.

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:

So you're one of Those people. I thought you were reasonable fellow. Have you witnessed first hand the "harmful" nature of these religions? their beliefs don't fit into the big christian churches' framework so you call them harmful to keep people away. this is one reason why people who believe in god don't trust in organized religion and why otherwise religious people call themselves agnostics.

Having said my peace, perhaps I should withdraw before yet another philosophical thread sees an early grave. you can PM if you want.

PM sent to avoid derailing.

GG

Let me put it this way - you are either perfect or you are not. Since no one (barring God) is perfect, we are all evil.

If we are zero and God is One, how many zeros does it take to make one?

None. You can add as many zeroes as you want and you wont ever get 1.

Just because people arent perfect doesnt make them evil.
And i, unlike God, didnt kill the entire population of the world barring Noah and his family. I didnt wipe out the Sodomites. God is evil and anything but loving. We can't just say "God is Love" and then ignore all the things he does that are anything but.

Is there a difference between justice and evil?

Genesis 6:5 (NIV) The Lord saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

Genesis 6:9 9This is the account of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God

Calling the Creator of all things evil for destroying his works is akin to calling you evil for destroying your favorite warhammer army or tearing down your backyard hut.

generalgrog wrote:PM sent to avoid derailing.

If you PM how am I supposed to be entertained?

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Is there a difference between justice and evil?

Genesis 6:5 (NIV) The Lord saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

Genesis 6:9 9This is the account of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God

Calling the Creator of all things evil for destroying his works is akin to calling you evil for destroying your favorite warhammer army or tearing down your backyard hut.

My warhammer army isnt sentient. My backyard hut doesnt live. Heck those are my possessions. Are you saying we are are god's possessions? So he can do whatever he wants with us just cause he made us? Some perfect being. Children throw tantrums and destroy things.
This (christian) god is no god of mine, and definitely not perfect.

God decreed that a man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath day was to be stoned to death (Numbers 15:32-36)
God commanded that anyone who curses his father or mother was to be put to death (Exodus 21:17).
Witches, and those of differing religious views were to be killed (Ex. 22:18,20)
God declares that a slave is the property of another man (Exodus 21:21).
God commanded men to divorce their foreign wives for no other reason but that they were not God’s people (Ezra 9)

Heck this God turned Lot's wife to salt just because she turned around. What a guy!

She turned around after he told her not to.

It's generally a good practice to do what a Deity specifically tells you to do.