The Premise: God is evil

[Hawke]

As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" - John 9:1

The rest of John 9 tells the story of the blind man.

 

[Ninjamom]

Ah, Mr. Hawke: when seeking answers about the Judeo-Christian belief system, it is best to go directly back to the Source. Well done.

I suppose the point of the incident you reference is that there always is a reason for pain/suffering, even in those many cases where we don't understand what it is.

 

[Ray]

As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" - John 9:1

The rest of John 9 tells the story of the blind man.

And so, tell me, how can one sin that they would be born blind? To me it implies existence elsewhere before birth...

 

[MartialArtHeart]

Ah, what an interesting concept, Mr. Ray! However, the bible does not say anything about other lives, other than the afterlife. Perhaps this is because it has no relevance. After all, the bible says nothing about alien life, but even if it did, how would that help us?

 

[shesulsa]

I think the traditional biblical views of God, angels, heaven and hell are narrow in scope and rather comic-bookish, really.

Belzebub and his posse (just to make things fun, I used that word) are powerful entities just as are God and his archangels, though it appears God has certain powers Satan does not. According to the bible, free will was not originally God's choice for man, as he did limit Adam and Eve by forbidding them to eat the fruit from the Tree of Life. Apparently, His original wish was that we remain innocent, unknowing and carefree, sheltered from outside danger. Yet if he truly wanted that, why endow Man with free will?

Once Man exercised free will, God granted him the freedom to do so in all the world - a challenge, a task.

We also must look at the meaning of suffering - do we learn from suffering? do we grow? If so, is that a gift or a curse?

God will end the suffering - at the end of life for each person who follows his path and at the end of life for the planet for the chosen, that is his promise.

To me the OP's question and the title of this thread is akin to saying a man could be a bad father if he allows his son to fall from his bicycle when learning to ride it. Failure is a wonderful teacher - painful, but it can be generally effective.

Just my .02.

 

[MartialArtHeart]

You bring up a good point, but as I have said before, I don't think that all suffering is bad by necessity. It's like the father who lets his son fall off his bike, but also simply watches as his son gets involved in a life of drugs, alcoholism, and all sorts of other harmful things at a young and "innocent" age... because that "innocent" age is about where we are in God's eyes. Not innocent, but young and naive.

 

[kaizasosei]

i believe that the God of the Old Testament is said to be a vengeful god that follows the sins of the parents for four more generations.

 

[MartialArtHeart]

i believe that the God of the Old Testament is said to be a vengeful god that follows the sins of the parents for four more generations.

scary
:whip1: :drinkbeer: :angry:
verkill:

 

[thardey]

It appears that this thread is referring to the Christian God. This would make the most sense since the gods of history have no compulsion to be good.

The only requirement for godhood until recently was a combination of power and immortality. That is, for the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, etc. Their gods were in no way "Good" nor did they claim to be.

In the Tanakh, usually known as the Old Testament, the pictures used illustrated God as a parent, or sometimes as a lover, who was primarily concerned with the descendants of a particular person, Jacob (who was later renamed Israel). The suffering and evil outside of this particular lineage was never addressed. Within the lineage, all of the suffering of these people as a whole (not individual suffering), was always related to their failure to follow the covenant they accepted as a nation which promised blessings and security if they followed the law, and punishments and fear if they rejected the law. These blessings and curses were shared by the entire community. That meant that if the nation as a majority rejected God, then all the people of the nation had to share in its suffering, including the innocent people among them. This was the nature of the covenant they accepted under Moses.

However, before Moses and his law came along, there is an "incubation" period for the Israelites. (In my opinion) They sort of grew to maturity in Egypt, until it was time to leave. The problem was that they were too comfortable there, so God had to put pressure on them to make them want to move on to the place they were supposed to be. Thus, God allowed/caused them to suffer under slavery, so that when the opportunity came, they actually wanted to go. (But only until things got rough in the desert, then they wanted to back to slavery). This was a period of "unjustified suffering" but it was necessary in order to get them moving to a better place. Some could say that this world is like Egypt, and that the Promised Land awaits us after death. So don't worry too much about comfort on this side of eternity.

In the New Testament God relates to us in more of a Loving kind of a picture. "For God so loved the world . . ." etc. For the first time in history, we have the question about a "Loving God" and suffering on a global scale.

But here's an interesting thing . . . it usually appears that the people who are bothered the most by an innocent suffering are not the innocents who are suffering.

When was the last time you saw a person who was unfairly suffering rail against God? I've seen many who got what they deserved ranting about "injustice" but no one listens to them.

I was an "innocent" victim at one point in my life. Many people who saw me felt that I was unjustly treated by God, and there were probably those who could have pointed to my situation and used it as a philosophical argument against the existence of a "Loving" God. When you're in that kind of a situation, you bond with others who are unjustly suffering, and we all felt the same. (Among followers of this God who claims to love us.) So I can speak for them as well. But none of us felt that we could be justifiably angry with our Father. That is, none of us felt abused or neglected. Those looking at us from the outside felt that we were, but they couldn't understand our acceptance of the situation. I still can't explain it to someone who hasn't been there.


Now the other assumption so far in this thread is that God's only enemy is Satan and his "posse". Of course it's going to make sense that God will not deal lovingly with him and his little goat-hoofed, pitchfork-wielding cronies, they're the enemy, right?

But think about it this way. (this is a hypothetical for many of you on this board) If -- just If, we can imagine that God is actually the rightful ruler of this cosmos, if he (insert "it" if you want to technically correct -- it just seems irreverent of me to refer to God as an object) is the best qualified for the job, then those who believe he is doing it wrong could well be considered an enemy of God.

That's not really unfair or childish, that's just simply basic reasoning. If you want to call God "wrong" then you're in opposition to him, are you not? At a much lesser level, if he is the rightful ruler, and someone practices "civil disobedience" that is, they decide what is right in their own life, not taking God's leadership into account, it's still disobedience. You're still setting yourself up as his enemy. Even worse, there are people out there who are claiming to be God's representatives without actually following him. They're just milking his fame for their benefit.

Now the kicker. Jesus commands his followers to "Love your enemy". That is very difficult. Even practiced perfectly, the love one has for his enemy is going to look different than the love one has for a friend.

To use the example of a loving parent earlier in this thread, we have to consider how a parent could love an adult child who is their enemy. Sometimes that does mean that the child has to be left alone to make their own decisions. Sometimes rescuing an enemy child is less loving than allowing them to get hurt. For a picture of this played out, read the story of King David (remember him? the guy who killed the Giant?) and how he treated his enemy son Absalom in 2 Samuel chapters 17 and 18. How would you have treated him?

Now, those who could be considered God's enemies are usually not out to be rebellious -- they are doing what they think is best, and usually with good intentions. However, they are still in opposition to God, and those well intentioned acts can hurt other innocent people, or allow them to be hurt. Should God destroy all of his enemy children (perhaps some of you reading this), so that no innocent person will ever be hurt? No, that's not loving. How does he bring justice to the people hurt by his enemies? He heals and blesses them in other ways, some of which outside people can see, and most of which they never will.

If, on the other hand, God is not the rightful ruler, then he's not really responsible for the suffering in this world anyway, is he?


To sum up, only when we have mastered the concept of loving our enemies, can we attack God for doing it wrong.

I really hate to post and run, but I'm going to be away from my computer for a couple of days because of the holiday, so if you want to :flame:me, (I would prefer respectful disagreement) I won't be able to defend myself until Friday sometime. See ya!

 

[MartialArtHeart]

I have no plans of flaming you and anyone who does would show immaturity to the extreme. I thank you for your well thought out input, although I must respectfully disagree on some points.
"Sometimes rescuing an enemy child is less loving than allowing them to get hurt."
Anytime you use the word "sometimes" in this context, I must disagree. Because if even a small bit of suffering is unjustified, it is still too much.

"But here's an interesting thing . . . it usually appears that the people who are bothered the most by an innocent suffering are not the innocents who are suffering."

An interesting point. I myself have suffered many things... which I will not bore you with. But I never blamed God for MY suffering, and I sometimes grew from it. But it's the bashing of a babe's head against a wall, the starving of a dog to death, the neglect of a retarded man.... it's those things. The sufferers cannot grow out of these things... and often no one else does, because the suffering happens behind closed doors.

No, they are not complaining.

But they can't.

 

[Kacey]

An interesting point. I myself have suffered many things... which I will not bore you with. But I never blamed God for MY suffering, and I sometimes grew from it. But it's the bashing of a babe's head against a wall, the starving of a dog to death, the neglect of a retarded man.... it's those things. The sufferers cannot grow out of these things... and often no one else does, because the suffering happens behind closed doors.

You cannot have free will unless you are willing to accept that people who truly have free will can choose wrongly, and that those choices can have consequences for the person making the choice and others, as well. If God were to step in to protect/rescue those who suffer because people made the wrong choice, then there would be no need to strive, to choose the more noble path - because there would be no consequence for choosing the easy way; one's errors would be corrected, by God.

Only by truly leaving us to suffer for our choices - or the choices of others - can we have truly free will. Is that evil? That is a definitional statement that I cannot answer for anyone other than myself - but for myself, I see it as necessary, in the same way a mother bird finds it necessary to push baby birds out of the nest to force them to fly; without that apparent evil - without the risk of injury or death - baby birds would live a stunted life until the parents died, leaving them unable to fend for themselves. Likewise, a truly concerned God, one who wishes to see humanity learn to fly, to leave the nest, must allow suffering, to encourage growth.

 

[MartialArtHeart]

Good point, Kacey. Although I must point out that, unlike the parents, God wants to "care for us" for eternity, apparently. ?

 

[Kacey]

Good point, Kacey. Although I must point out that, unlike the parents, God wants to "care for us" for eternity, apparently. ?

"If you give a man a fish, he eats for a day; if you teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime." What better way to care for your children than to teach them to care for themselves?

 

[exile]

You cannot have free will unless you are willing to accept that people who truly have free will can choose wrongly, and that those choices can have consequences for the person making the choice and others, as well. If God were to step in to protect/rescue those who suffer because people made the wrong choice, then there would be no need to strive, to choose the more noble path - because there would be no consequence for choosing the easy way; one's errors would be corrected, by God.

Only by truly leaving us to suffer for our choices - or the choices of others - can we have truly free will. Is that evil? That is a definitional statement that I cannot answer for anyone other than myself - but for myself, I see it as necessary, in the same way a mother bird finds it necessary to push baby birds out of the nest to force them to fly; without that apparent evil - without the risk of injury or death - baby birds would live a stunted life until the parents died, leaving them unable to fend for themselves. Likewise, a truly concerned God, one who wishes to see humanity learn to fly, to leave the nest, must allow suffering, to encourage growth.

I was very struck by Kacey's thinking here, and wanted to mention that there is in fact a branch of theology which is totally devoted to this problem, to the extent that the problem and the theological `theorizing' of it have a name: (the) theodicy. Theodicy is the often tortuous attempt to reconcile a perfect, all-good, omnipotent, omnicient power regulating every aspect of existence with the existence of apparently unlimited depths of evil. The theodicy is the name of that seemingly fundamental, unbridgable contradiction. There's a pretty good discussion of it at Wikipedia. Kacey's statement quoted above is a very elegant crystallization of what's called the free will theodicy. Some of the others strain credulity (unless you're a theologian, I suppose! :wink1. I've read theodicical arguments by distinguished logicians trying their hands at religious metaphysics, guys like David Lewis, who aren't even religious, but who can't resist a juicy philosophical problem. And the theodicy is nothing if not juicy...

 

[Rich Parsons]

You cannot have free will unless you are willing to accept that people who truly have free will can choose wrongly, and that those choices can have consequences for the person making the choice and others, as well. If God were to step in to protect/rescue those who suffer because people made the wrong choice, then there would be no need to strive, to choose the more noble path - because there would be no consequence for choosing the easy way; one's errors would be corrected, by God.

Only by truly leaving us to suffer for our choices - or the choices of others - can we have truly free will. Is that evil? That is a definitional statement that I cannot answer for anyone other than myself - but for myself, I see it as necessary, in the same way a mother bird finds it necessary to push baby birds out of the nest to force them to fly; without that apparent evil - without the risk of injury or death - baby birds would live a stunted life until the parents died, leaving them unable to fend for themselves. Likewise, a truly concerned God, one who wishes to see humanity learn to fly, to leave the nest, must allow suffering, to encourage growth.

I agree Free Will. Nicely written.

I was very struck by Kacey's thinking here, and wanted to mention that there is in fact a branch of theology which is totally devoted to this problem, to the extent that the problem and the theological `theorizing' of it have a name: (the) theodicy. Theodicy is the often tortuous attempt to reconcile a perfect, all-good, omnipotent, omnicient power regulating every aspect of existence with the existence of apparently unlimited depths of evil. The theodicy is the name of that seemingly fundamental, unbridgable contradiction. There's a pretty good discussion of it at Wikipedia. Kacey's statement quoted above is a very elegant crystallization of what's called the free will theodicy. Some of the others strain credulity (unless you're a theologian, I suppose! :wink1. I've read theodicical arguments by distinguished logicians trying their hands at religious metaphysics, guys like David Lewis, who aren't even religious, but who can't resist a juicy philosophical problem. And the theodicy is nothing if not juicy...

I like a good discussion / arguement about philosophy.

I think that the all powerful comments were added in by men who wrote the text. They were not looking and the logic of the arguement, but at trying to give people a feeling and understanding of what they believed.

 

[MartialArtHeart]

Interesting... so our free will has no limits, then? Our choices are not interfered with by God because He loves us, right? So then he does not love the innocents that suffer?
Oh, mighty God, loving Savior, tell me this is not your way of telling me you love me?

Perhaps, in spite of free will, we have no right to question the Sovereign Lord... in that case, I am hellbound like so many others. I am sure God has heard all of these questions before, many a time, and I'm sure he tires of it, because he has a perfectly good answer...

but tell me that letting others suffer at my expense is not the path of a loving god. If it is, what then does the devil hold in store that is worse? No free will?
Is my prayer for God to have mercy in vain?

just food for thought...

 

[thardey]

I have no plans of flaming you and anyone who does would show immaturity to the extreme. I thank you for your well thought out input, although I must respectfully disagree on some points.

"Sometimes rescuing an enemy child is less loving than allowing them to get hurt."
Anytime you use the word "sometimes" in this context, I must disagree. Because if even a small bit of suffering is unjustified, it is still too much.

My original statement is referencing the story of David and Absalom (one of the "sometimes"). You can find it online here:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=2Sa&chapter=015&version=nasb

I would recommend chapters 15 through 18. (Chapter 16 is sort of a parenthetical story referencing stuff that had happened before, but it gives you some insight into David's mindset).

Before I can really respond to a blanket statement, I have to know specifically: what would you have done in David's situation?

Or perhaps a New Testament parable: The prodigal son.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-...ly.pl?translation=NASB&book=Luk&chapter=15#11

Would you have given your son the inheritance, knowing that he was going to use it foolishly, probably for evil? (I mean, he squandered the wealth to evil men, who probably used for evil purposes, right?)

"But here's an interesting thing . . . it usually appears that the people who are bothered the most by an innocent suffering are not the innocents who are suffering."

An interesting point. I myself have suffered many things... which I will not bore you with. But I never blamed God for MY suffering, and I sometimes grew from it. But it's the bashing of a babe's head against a wall, the starving of a dog to death, the neglect of a retarded man.... it's those things. The sufferers cannot grow out of these things... and often no one else does, because the suffering happens behind closed doors.

No, they are not complaining.

But they can't.

That's assuming that 1.) Growth and maturity this side of death is the only justification optional, and out of that 2.) That death is the worst thing that could happen to you.

If we are indeed talking about the God of the Bible, then we have to take the whole Bible into account. The New Testament also promises justification for "all the little children", "all who are weak", that is, all of the innocents:

Mt. 5:3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of
heaven.
Mt. 5:4 Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
Mt. 5:5 Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
Mt. 5:6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
Mt. 5:7 Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
Mt. 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
Mt. 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of
God.
Mt. 5:10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of
righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Mt. 5:11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and
falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
Mt. 5:12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven,
for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were
before you.

Now the Bible never truly spells out exactly how each person will be justified, but, as Jesus replied to Peter when he basically asked the same thing about John "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." (John 21:22) That is, each of us is responsible for our own lives, God doesn't answer to us for how he justifies another-- he answers to them. But he does promise to justify them.

(Many leaders of organized religions really hate that concept, though they wouldn't admit it, because it takes away their ability to make their own promises and justifications for their "true followers" - But I digress.)

Also, it's probably fair to mention that I am changing my views of "justification", "righteousness", and "equity" - for a quick overview of my views on that, check out this thread:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48269

And if you have any thoughts to add to that thread, I would greatly appreciate it.

Cheers!

 

[thardey]

Good point, Kacey. Although I must point out that, unlike the parents, God wants to "care for us" for eternity, apparently. ?

God wants us to become like him, "one with him" is a phrase used in the New Testament. He does not want us to remain immature for eternity.

Now that's not to say that he will give us all of his power, and glory, and authority, but that he wants us to grown to be like him in character. That we grow to desire what he desires, and that we despise what he despises. That our "appetites" so to speak become aligned with his.

That's not much different than earthly parents, is it?

In that vein, I believe it is wonderful to question God, provided that you are truly seeking answers.
But I also believe that some questions do not have answers. If you are getting stumped on a particular question, perhaps it may be wise to ask the question from a different perspective.

For example: Can God make a square circle?
That question really gets us nowhere, even though it's fun to toy with. But once God makes the circle square, it no longer has the properties of a circle.
A more wise question may be: What is the nature of omnipotent power?

See what I mean?

By all means ask, search! "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart" (Jer. 29:13).

 

[Boomer]

Hmm. I like most of what I've read so far, many differeing views. I just finished a philosophy class last semester, and the argument of God was by far my favorite part.
I personally tend to lean toward philosopher John Hick's point of view that human beings are unfinished and in the midst of being made all that God intended them to be. The long evolutionary process made us into beings of reason and rationality, and now we have begun another phase that Hick calls "soul making".
According to Hick, the suffering of this life is part of the divine plan of soul-making. A world full of suffering, trials and temptations is more conducive to the process of soul-making than a world full of constant pleasure and the complete absence of pain. Through this process, we may truly become what Hick calls "children of God".


Hick (1977, pp. 255-256):

The value-judgment that is implicitly being invoked here is that one who has attained to goodness by meeting and eventually mastering temptations, and thus by rightly making responsible choices in concrete situations, is good in a richer and more valuable sense than would be one created ab initio in a state either of innocence or of virtue…. I suggest, then, that it is an ethically reasonable judgment… that human goodness slowly built up through personal histories of moral effort has a value in the eyes of the Creator which justifies even the long travail of the soul-making process.


​

At first, the whole course was a struggle, but I ended up loving philosophy and its challenge so much that I considered changing my major. But then I realized the job opportunities involving a degree in philosophy....namely thinking long and hard about why I don't have a job.
This was one of the best parts of philosohpy in my opinion, and I'm excited to see others share my interest.​

 

[Empty Hands]

According to Hick, the suffering of this life is part of the divine plan of soul-making. A world full of suffering, trials and temptations is more conducive to the process of soul-making than a world full of constant pleasure and the complete absence of pain. Through this process, we may truly become what Hick calls "children of God".

I challenged this view in an earlier post, and no one has really responded to it - while still making the above point. As I said before, there are many means of suffering and death in this world that allow no possibility of growth or learning for the individual affected. Also, the use of such an individual's suffering for others' benefit and growth is immoral and inconsistent with God's guidelines for us. Given those two points, I think the concept of suffering in this world for our growth and benefit is a fatally flawed one, and calls into question the concept of a loving, omnipotent God. Am I wrong?

Similarly, there are many means of suffering and death that do not have anything to do with free will and free choice. If a five year old dies of encephalitis, it is not because either she or the virus exercised their free will.