Evil and ignorance: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Evil and ignorance » Evil and ignorance

Evil and ignorance
Another perspecitve on theodicy

Page: 1 2 3 4

Evil and ignorance

prometheus33
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 07, 2005
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 15

Posted 12/07/05 - 01:42 PM: Subject: Evil and ignorance	#1
I was thinking recently about my child and how much I love her. It's a love that I know exists, yet something that I cannot prove empirically. I can do things that bear witness of my love (e.g. provide for her needs, tell her I love her, defend her, etc), but I cannot “prove” it. In a sense she has to trust, on the basis of my words, and actions that I do in fact love her. But… not every action is convincing. I took her to the doctor recently for shots. She was not happy. In fact, hours later her leg swelled and became extremely painful--she screamed for an hour straight. She didn’t understand why they stuck those needles in her legs or why I allowed them to do so. The point: There are things that we know spiritually (e.g. love), yet cannot prove empirically. And there are things that we know empirically, (physical suffering, death) yet cannot “prove” spiritually (the problem of evil). With regards to God, the latter must submit to the former—i.e. He is a good God even though we don’t understand evil in the world.
"We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality." Albert Einstein

Whooopa8
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 11, 2005
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 77

Posted 12/07/05 - 04:30 PM:	#2
how convenient of you to state the existence of a theodicy and not even know what it is...
Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it. --- Andre Gide

darkcrow
Student

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 08, 2003
Location: San Diego
Total Topics: 97
Total Posts: 59

Posted 12/07/05 - 05:42 PM:	#3
prometheus33 wrote: I was thinking recently about my child and how much I love her. It's a love that I know exists, yet something that I cannot prove empirically. I can do things that bear witness of my love (e.g. provide for her needs, tell her I love her, defend her, etc), but I cannot “prove” it. In a sense she has to trust, on the basis of my words, and actions that I do in fact love her. But… not every action is convincing. I took her to the doctor recently for shots. She was not happy. In fact, hours later her leg swelled and became extremely painful--she screamed for an hour straight. She didn’t understand why they stuck those needles in her legs or why I allowed them to do so. The point: There are things that we know spiritually (e.g. love), yet cannot prove empirically. And there are things that we know empirically, (physical suffering, death) yet cannot “prove” spiritually (the problem of evil). With regards to God, the latter must submit to the former—i.e. He is a good God even though we don’t understand evil in the world. I believe you are correct on one point---The problem of evil cannot be coherently formulated on non-Christian grounds. Below is a piece I found that might interest you. If Christian grounds are assumed in order to pose the problem, Christian grounds, that is, the Scriptures explain evil's purpose in the world. "All things work together for good to those who love God and are called." Solving the problem of evil is a matter of adopting the correct starting point. With the Bible as our axiomatic starting point, the existence of evil is not a significant problem at all. In fact, the existence of evil is far more problematic in the unbeliever's worldview. As Jerome Zanchius wrote: The will of God is so the cause of all things, as to be, itself without cause, for nothing can be the cause of that which is the cause of everything. Hence we find every matter resolved ultimately into the mere sovereign pleasure of God. God has no other motive for what He does than ipsa voluntas, His mere will, which will itself is so far from being unrighteous that it is justice itself. Sin and evil therefore exist for good reasons: God has decreed them as part of His eternal plan, and they work not only for His own glory, but also for the good of his people. With this Biblical premise in mind, it is easy to answer anti-theists, such as David Hume, who argue that the pervasiveness of evil in the world militates against the existence of the Christian God. Hume, for example, argues as follows: 1. A benevolent deity will prevent [all] evil from occurring. 2. An omniscient, omnipotent deity is able to prevent [all] evil. 3. Evil exists in the world. 4. Therefore, either God is not benevolent, or He is not omniscient or [not] omnipotent. One problem with Hume's argument is his starting point. His first premise is false. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Hume can coherently define "good," "evil," and "benevolent," it does not follow that a benevolent deity will prevent all evil from occurring. Hume assumes that a benevolent deity is benevolent toward all his creatures, but Scripture explicitly denies that premise. All things work together for good, not for all God's creatures, but only for those who are called according to his purpose. Adapted from: Robert L. Reymond, God and Man in Holy Scripture (unpublished syllabus, Covenant Theological Seminary, 1990), 126, 127, 142.
"To the success of our hopeless task."

prometheus33
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 07, 2005
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 15

Posted 12/07/05 - 06:55 PM:	#4
"how convenient of you to state the existence of a theodicy and not even know what it is... " (sorry not quite sure on the quote thing here) Whoopa8, enlighten me, please. Perhaps you could enlighten dictionary.com while you're at it. "theodicy: A vindication of God's goodness and justice in the face of the existence of evil." Edited by prometheus33 on 12/08/05 - 10:43 AM
"We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality." Albert Einstein

Jonzo
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 07, 2005
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

Posted 12/07/05 - 07:23 PM:	#5
darkcrow wrote: I believe you are correct on one point---The problem of evil cannot be coherently formulated on non-Christian grounds. Below is a piece I found that might interest you. If Christian grounds are assumed in order to pose the problem, Christian grounds, that is, the Scriptures explain evil's purpose in the world. "All things work together for good to those who love God and are called." Solving the problem of evil is a matter of adopting the correct starting point. With the Bible as our axiomatic starting point, the existence of evil is not a significant problem at all. In fact, the existence of evil is far more problematic in the unbeliever's worldview. As Jerome Zanchius wrote: The will of God is so the cause of all things, as to be, itself without cause, for nothing can be the cause of that which is the cause of everything. Hence we find every matter resolved ultimately into the mere sovereign pleasure of God. God has no other motive for what He does than ipsa voluntas, His mere will, which will itself is so far from being unrighteous that it is justice itself. Sin and evil therefore exist for good reasons: God has decreed them as part of His eternal plan, and they work not only for His own glory, but also for the good of his people. With this Biblical premise in mind, it is easy to answer anti-theists, such as David Hume, who argue that the pervasiveness of evil in the world militates against the existence of the Christian God. Hume, for example, argues as follows: 1. A benevolent deity will prevent [all] evil from occurring. 2. An omniscient, omnipotent deity is able to prevent [all] evil. 3. Evil exists in the world. 4. Therefore, either God is not benevolent, or He is not omniscient or [not] omnipotent. One problem with Hume's argument is his starting point. His first premise is false. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Hume can coherently define "good," "evil," and "benevolent," it does not follow that a benevolent deity will prevent all evil from occurring. Hume assumes that a benevolent deity is benevolent toward all his creatures, but Scripture explicitly denies that premise. All things work together for good, not for all God's creatures, but only for those who are called according to his purpose. Adapted from: Robert L. Reymond, God and Man in Holy Scripture (unpublished syllabus, Covenant Theological Seminary, 1990), 126, 127, 142. Excellently said. I congratulate you on presenting such a strong case, and I have truly learned something from it. Thanks, Jonzo

prometheus33
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 07, 2005
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 15

Posted 12/07/05 - 07:47 PM:	#6
darkcrow wrote: I believe you are correct on one point---The problem of evil cannot be coherently formulated on non-Christian grounds. Below is a piece I found that might interest you. If Christian grounds are assumed in order to pose the problem, Christian grounds, that is, the Scriptures explain evil's purpose in the world. "All things work together for good to those who love God and are called." Solving the problem of evil is a matter of adopting the correct starting point. With the Bible as our axiomatic starting point, the existence of evil is not a significant problem at all. In fact, the existence of evil is far more problematic in the unbeliever's worldview. As Jerome Zanchius wrote: The will of God is so the cause of all things, as to be, itself without cause, for nothing can be the cause of that which is the cause of everything. Hence we find every matter resolved ultimately into the mere sovereign pleasure of God. God has no other motive for what He does than ipsa voluntas, His mere will, which will itself is so far from being unrighteous that it is justice itself. Sin and evil therefore exist for good reasons: God has decreed them as part of His eternal plan, and they work not only for His own glory, but also for the good of his people. With this Biblical premise in mind, it is easy to answer anti-theists, such as David Hume, who argue that the pervasiveness of evil in the world militates against the existence of the Christian God. Hume, for example, argues as follows: 1. A benevolent deity will prevent [all] evil from occurring. 2. An omniscient, omnipotent deity is able to prevent [all] evil. 3. Evil exists in the world. 4. Therefore, either God is not benevolent, or He is not omniscient or [not] omnipotent. One problem with Hume's argument is his starting point. His first premise is false. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Hume can coherently define "good," "evil," and "benevolent," it does not follow that a benevolent deity will prevent all evil from occurring. Hume assumes that a benevolent deity is benevolent toward all his creatures, but Scripture explicitly denies that premise. All things work together for good, not for all God's creatures, but only for those who are called according to his purpose. Adapted from: Robert L. Reymond, God and Man in Holy Scripture (unpublished syllabus, Covenant Theological Seminary, 1990), 126, 127, 142. Darkcrow, thank you. I agree. But my analogy was meant to illustrate that from our human perspective sometimes our suffering is incomprehensible. Yes, the verse that you quoted provides the "forest" view, but often we go through personal difficulties that we'll never be able to explain. Our ignorance however does not discount God's goodness. God's goodness is discerned and known through faith-- this knowledge trumps our ignorance of the reason for personal suffering and evil. (In the same way that my daughter still trusts me even though she experienced pain that I allowed in her life for her own good)
"We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality." Albert Einstein

philosophy
Sapiens

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 01, 2005
Location: Ivory Tower
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 283

Posted 12/07/05 - 08:18 PM:	#7
That is why Jesus tells us to call God "Our Father". This was a shocking idea to everyone at the time, especially the apostles. They were so shocked they recorded the exact word, "abba", and not in the Greek that they were writing in. It is still a shock today, but we must remember to be like the children.
There is no more pleasant food for the soul than the knowledge of truth. - Lactantius

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004
Total Topics: 40
Total Posts: 1179

Posted 12/07/05 - 11:00 PM:	#8
prometheus33 wrote: I was thinking recently about my child and how much I love her. It's a love that I know exists, yet something that I cannot prove empirically. I can do things that bear witness of my love (e.g. provide for her needs, tell her I love her, defend her, etc), but I cannot “prove” it. In a sense she has to trust, on the basis of my words, and actions that I do in fact love her. But… not every action is convincing. I took her to the doctor recently for shots. She was not happy. In fact, hours later her leg swelled and became extremely painful--she screamed for an hour straight. She didn’t understand why they stuck those needles in her legs or why I allowed them to do so. The point: There are things that we know spiritually (e.g. love), yet cannot prove empirically. And there are things that we know empirically, (physical suffering, death) yet cannot “prove” spiritually (the problem of evil). With regards to God, the latter must submit to the former—i.e. He is a good God even though we don’t understand evil in the world. I think 'preaching to the choir' is an accurate description of your arguement. Someone that believes in God may think what you say is true, but what about people of other faith? Your arguement means nothing to them, if their faith is different than yours. Anyone can believe whatever they want to believe through faith, but if you want to convince others of your views you should realize that you have to facts to support them. If you can not provide facts how can you expect others to change their view of the world unless their faith is weak or you force them to conform to your beliefs? One last thing, your story in a way supports the problem of evil instead of dismissing it.... Your child sounds like she is young enough where she can not understand how a shot can help her and to her it seems like a bad thing. In order for her not to be afraid of shots she needs to have the knowledge why the shots are good for her. If she is unable to understand why the shots are good for her is it wrong for her to believe that the shots are bad? Edited by dclements on 12/08/05 - 04:48 AM
No, you don't get it, thats why I'm telling you. You think you get it, which isn't the same as actually getting it. Get it?-Kakashi Hatake Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, And vice sometimes by action dignified-Friar Lawrence The state of mind that questions is much more important than the question itself.Any question may be asked by a slavish mind, and the answer it receives will still be be within the limitations of its own slavery...Freedom of desire for an answer is essential for the understanding of a problem-Krishnamurti

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 2507

Posted 12/08/05 - 02:00 AM:	#9
Anyone can believe whatever they want to believe through faith, but if you want to convince others of your views you should realize that you have to facts to support them. If you can not provide facts how can you expect others to change their view of the world unless their faith is weak or you force them to conform to your beliefs? It is not our responsibility to convince others. Providing facts does not only not convince them who demands facts to believe, but does not add to their faith. One last thing, there is a huge flaw in your arguement in that your story actually supports the problem of evil instead of dismissing it. Your child sounds like she is young enough where she can not understand how a shot can help her and to her it seems like a bad thing. In order for her not to be afraid of shots she needs to have the knowledge why the shots are good for her. If she is unable to understand why the shots are good for her is it wrong for her to believe that the shots are bad? The following sentences of the first in which you claim that the argument supports the problem of evil does not seem to necessitate that claim. How exactly would the first post support the problem of evil?
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004
Total Topics: 40
Total Posts: 1179

Posted 12/08/05 - 05:16 AM:	#10
keda wrote: It is not our responsibility to convince others. Providing facts does not only not convince them who demands facts to believe, but does not add to their faith. You are missing the point that the arguement means little to those that do not have the same views as Christians. If one is trying to dismiss the problem of evil and their arguements only mean something to those who already do not believe that the problem of evil is a valid arguement against God and the arguement is too biased to be considered by those that have other views, how good can the arguement be? If one posts on the forum they have to realize there are more viewpoints than their own and should try to create arguements that are meaningful to people that have the different views than their own. When I see members post that think that the original post is a good arguement against the problem of evil I wonder how well they are able to understand views that are different than their own. keda wrote: The following sentences of the first in which you claim that the argument supports the problem of evil does not seem to necessitate that claim. How exactly would the first post support the problem of evil? If you try to answer the question at the end on whether the child is wrong for thinking the shots are bad for her if she does not have knowledge why they are good you will see my point.
No, you don't get it, thats why I'm telling you. You think you get it, which isn't the same as actually getting it. Get it?-Kakashi Hatake Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, And vice sometimes by action dignified-Friar Lawrence The state of mind that questions is much more important than the question itself.Any question may be asked by a slavish mind, and the answer it receives will still be be within the limitations of its own slavery...Freedom of desire for an answer is essential for the understanding of a problem-Krishnamurti

prometheus33
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 07, 2005
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 15

Posted 12/08/05 - 05:16 AM:	#11
dclements wrote: I think 'preaching to the choir' is an accurate description of your arguement. Someone that believes in God may think what you say is true, but what about people of other faith? Your arguement means nothing to them, if their faith is different than yours. Anyone can believe whatever they want to believe through faith, but if you want to convince others of your views you should realize that you have to facts to support them. If you can not provide facts how can you expect others to change their view of the world unless their faith is weak or you force them to conform to your beliefs? One last thing, your story in a way supports the problem of evil instead of dismissing it.... Your child sounds like she is young enough where she can not understand how a shot can help her and to her it seems like a bad thing. In order for her not to be afraid of shots she needs to have the knowledge why the shots are good for her. If she is unable to understand why the shots are good for her is it wrong for her to believe that the shots are bad? Dclements, I don't think that I'm necessarily preaching to the choir. The first part of my post pointed out that empiricism has an extremely narrow epistemilogical grid. We can know things without necessarily being able to prove them empirically. Would you concede to this at least? The second part of my post points to man's inability at times to grasp the bigger picture. I think that's true regardless of what you believe in. I'm suggesting that you consider what seems like pointless suffering may indeed have a greater purpose. With regards to your suggestion that my argument supports the problem of evil, I disagree. You're correct, my daughter is young enough to not understand. But she got over her pain and distrust regardless of her continued ignorance of the need for the shots. That's my point. We will not always know why, by we can know (not necessarily through empiricism or 'facts', as you called for) that God is good nonetheless. Perhaps this is not an argument based on a strict line of logic, but it wasn't intended to be-- the purpose was to illustrate a point through analogy.
"We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality." Albert Einstein

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 2507

Posted 12/08/05 - 07:30 AM:	#12
dclements wrote: You are missing the point that the arguement means little to those that do not have the same views as Christians. I didn't miss it, I've known it for a long time, and I'm ignoring it because I also know that it is irrelevant. If one is trying to dismiss the problem of evil and their arguements only mean something to those who already do not believe that the problem of evil is a valid arguement against God and the arguement is too biased to be considered by those that have other views, how good can the arguement be? An argument isn't an argument if it alters ones beliefs. The problem of evil is a strawman. If you disagree, provide the scripture verse(s) that support premise 1 in Hume's formulation posted by darkcrow, but if you don't, your unsupported belief that the problem of evil is a valid argument against the existence of God as has been revealed from scripture has not altered. If you try to answer the question at the end on whether the child is wrong for thinking the shots are bad for her if she does not have knowledge why they are good you will see my point. I beleive prometehus33 has answered the question, and I guessed that it served as an analogy to the love of God that has been revealed; we are like children who can trust in the goodness of God, even when we face innocent suffering.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin

Fake Zen
Sword-Bearing Sage

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 11, 2005
Location: Roanoke
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 126

Posted 12/08/05 - 07:47 AM:	#13
Regardless of what you have done above you have only created a personal theodicy. dclements is right, insofar as someone who is not willing to accept evil that easily will not take the theodicy. Not only that but theodicy really doesnt solve the problem of evil, its a cop out. only humanity's ignornace is confirmed. Indeed we are to call God Father, but we can use the properties of analogy to come to a close, though not full, understanding of his love for us. In your analogy of your daughter you make a point (whether you meant to or not) that her suffering is good for her in the end. this is not always the case. some people suffer so much that it turns them away from God. Or perhaps you will recall the chapter titled Rebellion in Dostoievesky's book the Brothers Karamazov in which we have images of infants being thrown atop bayonets. And of course we have natural evils such as tsunamis that sweep children away from their parents either to their deaths or abondanment. Would care to explain how such acts are beneficial for us, or the children? Or why God has created a world where such things are allowed to happen? Our ignorance isnt enough to base a theodicy on and still satisfy the problem. God remains unjust, bececause he allows suffering and (if Amos, the Second Isaiah, and Job are right) he is a God of evil as well as good. Injustice remains injustice regardless of a benevolent agenda.
Amors est Mors

darkcrow
Student

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 08, 2003
Location: San Diego
Total Topics: 97
Total Posts: 59

Posted 12/08/05 - 09:32 AM:	#14
Fake Zen wrote: Regardless of what you have done above you have only created a personal theodicy. dclements is right, insofar as someone who is not willing to accept evil that easily will not take the theodicy. Not only that but theodicy really doesnt solve the problem of evil, its a cop out. only humanity's ignornace is confirmed. Indeed we are to call God Father, but we can use the properties of analogy to come to a close, though not full, understanding of his love for us. In your analogy of your daughter you make a point (whether you meant to or not) that her suffering is good for her in the end. this is not always the case. some people suffer so much that it turns them away from God. Or perhaps you will recall the chapter titled Rebellion in Dostoievesky's book the Brothers Karamazov in which we have images of infants being thrown atop bayonets. And of course we have natural evils such as tsunamis that sweep children away from their parents either to their deaths or abondanment. Would care to explain how such acts are beneficial for us, or the children? Or why God has created a world where such things are allowed to happen? Our ignorance isnt enough to base a theodicy on and still satisfy the problem. God remains unjust, bececause he allows suffering and (if Amos, the Second Isaiah, and Job are right) he is a God of evil as well as good. Injustice remains injustice regardless of a benevolent agenda. […for what son is there whom his father chasteneth not? 8But if ye are without chastening, whereof all have been made partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. 9Furthermore, we had the fathers of our flesh to chasten us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? The fact that such discipline is received proves undeniably that we are being treated like sons and not like unwanted and unloved illegitimate children. Lam 3:32 But though he cause grief, yet will he have compassion according to the multitude of his mercies. However if you begin a Lam 3:1 it will make the matter more clear. If the suffering we may yet undergo makes us kinder, more sympathetic and compassionate toward fellow humans and results in our conforming more closely to the righteous requirements set forth in the Bible, this form of discipline will indeed serve a beneficial purpose. For this to be the case, we must have the kind of implicit trust in our heavenly Father that a young child has in its earthly father. We need unshakable faith that whatever God permits to come upon us will eventually work for our eternal welfare and happiness. May we, therefore, always keep before us the words of Romans 8:28: ‘God makes all things cooperate together for the good of those who love him.’
"To the success of our hopeless task."

prometheus33
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 07, 2005
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 15

Posted 12/08/05 - 09:43 AM:	#15
Fake Zen wrote: Regardless of what you have done above you have only created a personal theodicy. dclements is right, insofar as someone who is not willing to accept evil that easily will not take the theodicy. Not only that but theodicy really doesnt solve the problem of evil, its a cop out. only humanity's ignornace is confirmed. Indeed we are to call God Father, but we can use the properties of analogy to come to a close, though not full, understanding of his love for us. Perhaps you’re correct concerning the personal nature of the theodicy. But doesn’t it all come back to the “personal”? Even if I came up with some elaborate theodicy based on ‘facts’ and flawless reason wouldn’t it come down to someone’s personal decision to believe it. If I find this analogy helpful in explaining the problem of evil, doubtless there are others who do as well. Of course there will be those who are “not willing to accept evil that easily and will not take the theodicy.” No matter the nature of the argument, that will be the case. Fake Zen wrote: In your analogy of your daughter you make a point (whether you meant to or not) that her suffering is good for her in the end. this is not always the case. some people suffer so much that it turns them away from God. Your are correct that my analogy does not address every situation. Analogies always break down at a certain point—they are not capable of addressing the totality of the topic (nor are they intended to). True enough some people turn away from God as a result of suffering. But part of the point my thread (or any theodicy for that matter) is to dissuade such a decision. Fake Zen wrote: Or perhaps you will recall the chapter titled Rebellion in Dostoievesky's book the Brothers Karamazov in which we have images of infants being thrown atop bayonets. And of course we have natural evils such as tsunamis that sweep children away from their parents either to their deaths or abondanment. Would care to explain how such acts are beneficial for us, or the children? Or why God has created a world where such things are allowed to happen? No, I would not care to minimize such pain by providing you with some trite reply. Nor do I know, to a full extent, the reason why such things are allowed to happen. I could go into secondary causation or God's sovereignty and human responsibility,etc but admittedly these only provide a partial resolution to an issue that is beyond our capacity to fully grasp-- which is exactly my point. (Though I believe Darkcloud does offer a resonable perspective on how all things work together for good for God's children not necessarily for all people) Fake Zen wrote: Our ignorance isnt enough to base a theodicy on and still satisfy the problem. God remains unjust, bececause he allows suffering and (if Amos, the Second Isaiah, and Job are right) he is a God of evil as well as good. Injustice remains injustice regardless of a benevolent agenda. God has determined the parameters of justice and injustice, and his plan includes the existence of both, yet with the ultimate triumph of the former. That does not make him unjust.
"We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality." Albert Einstein

prometheus33
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 07, 2005
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 15

Posted 12/08/05 - 10:23 AM:	#16
prometheus33 wrote: (Though I believe Darkcloud does offer... darkcrow... sorry about that
"We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality." Albert Einstein

darkcrow
Student

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 08, 2003
Location: San Diego
Total Topics: 97
Total Posts: 59

Posted 12/08/05 - 10:49 AM:	#17
prometheus33 wrote: darkcrow... sorry about that Thank you, DarkCloud may well appreciate that; although we seldom hear anything from DarkCloud anymore.
"To the success of our hopeless task."

Fake Zen
Sword-Bearing Sage

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 11, 2005
Location: Roanoke
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 126

Posted 12/08/05 - 12:39 PM:	#18
darkcrow wrote: […for what son is there whom his father chasteneth not? 8But if ye are without chastening, whereof all have been made partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. 9Furthermore, we had the fathers of our flesh to chasten us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? The fact that such discipline is received proves undeniably that we are being treated like sons and not like unwanted and unloved illegitimate children. Lam 3:32 But though he cause grief, yet will he have compassion according to the multitude of his mercies. However if you begin a Lam 3:1 it will make the matter more clear. If the suffering we may yet undergo makes us kinder, more sympathetic and compassionate toward fellow humans and results in our conforming more closely to the righteous requirements set forth in the Bible, this form of discipline will indeed serve a beneficial purpose. For this to be the case, we must have the kind of implicit trust in our heavenly Father that a young child has in its earthly father. We need unshakable faith that whatever God permits to come upon us will eventually work for our eternal welfare and happiness. May we, therefore, always keep before us the words of Romans 8:28: 'God makes all things cooperate together for the good of those who love him.' You have not answered my question, only disagreed with it. what are we to do with suffering that is not beneficial? And may we also keep the words of Job with us, [In response to bildad asking "Does God pervert justice?"] "If it is a contest of strength, he is the strong one! IF it is a matter of justice, who can summon him?...When disaster brings sudden death, he mocks at the clamity of the innocent." 9:19, 23.
Amors est Mors

Fake Zen
Sword-Bearing Sage

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 11, 2005
Location: Roanoke
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 126

Posted 12/08/05 - 12:56 PM:	#19
prometheus33 wrote: Perhaps you're correct concerning the personal nature of the theodicy. But doesn't it all come back to the "personal"? Even if I came up with some elaborate theodicy based on 'facts' and flawless reason wouldn't it come down to someone's personal decision to believe it. If I find this analogy helpful in explaining the problem of evil, doubtless there are others who do as well. Of course there will be those who are "not willing to accept evil that easily and will not take the theodicy." No matter the nature of the argument, that will be the case. Your are correct that my analogy does not address every situation. Analogies always break down at a certain point—they are not capable of addressing the totality of the topic (nor are they intended to). True enough some people turn away from God as a result of suffering. But part of the point my thread (or any theodicy for that matter) is to dissuade such a decision. No, I would not care to minimize such pain by providing you with some trite reply. Nor do I know, to a full extent, the reason why such things are allowed to happen. I could go into secondary causation or God's sovereignty and human responsibility,etc but admittedly these only provide a partial resolution to an issue that is beyond our capacity to fully grasp-- which is exactly my point. (Though I believe Darkcloud does offer a resonable perspective on how all things work together for good for God's children not necessarily for all people) God has determined the parameters of justice and injustice, and his plan includes the existence of both, yet with the ultimate triumph of the former. That does not make him unjust. In fact it does. Because you beat a child then hand him a sweet and hope he forgets the brusies does not save a person from the original beating. While indeed God maybe predisposed to what we call good, that does not save him from his own injustice. Justice is concieved on ideas of fairness, yet most suffering is not fair. Good things happen to bad people and vice versa. He has allowed injustice to take place, if not directly caused it as with the case of Job. Jeremeiah (the author of lamentations i might add) himself says that "our fathers sin and we suffer for their aniquities." this is not justice, and Jeremiah is forced to look toward a day when people will suffer for their own sin only. Jeremiah 31: 29-30 "In those days people will no longer say, 'The Fathers have eaten sour grapes and thier children's teeth are on edge. Instead everyone will die for his own sin." It is clear that unjust suffering happened in his day, and his prophecy has yet to be fulfilled.
Amors est Mors

prometheus33
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 07, 2005
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 15

Posted 12/08/05 - 12:57 PM:	#20
Fake Zen wrote: You have not answered my question, only disagreed with it. what are we to do with suffering that is not beneficial? And may we also keep the words of Job with us, [In response to bildad asking "Does God pervert justice?"] "If it is a contest of strength, he is the strong one! IF it is a matter of justice, who can summon him?...When disaster brings sudden death, he mocks at the clamity of the innocent." 9:19, 23. Yes, but this is a man in the midst of the suffering still struggling with his terrible loss. Listen to him after he sees the Lord and has experienced a deeper knowledge of him. Job 42 1 Then Job replied to the LORD : 2 "I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted. 3 You asked, 'Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?' Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know. 4 "You said, 'Listen now, and I will speak; I will question you, and you shall answer me.' 5 My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you. 6 Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes." Here he understands 1) that God is good (implied) and omnipotent 2) that he (Job) is ignorant and sinful. Whe you come to realize these two facts the so called problem of evil becomes irrelevant.
"We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality." Albert Einstein

prometheus33
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 07, 2005
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 15

Posted 12/08/05 - 01:46 PM:	#21
Fake Zen wrote: In fact it does. Because you beat a child then hand him a sweet and hope he forgets the brusies does not save a person from the original beating. According to a biblical perspective our "suffering is not worthy to be compared to the glory that will be revealed in us" (Romans 8). So you're analogy of a "sweet" is a bit of an understatement to say the least. Fake Zen wrote: Justice is concieved on ideas of fairness, yet most suffering is not fair. Yes, but whose ideas of fairness? Who sets those parameters? The message of the Bible is that we all deserve some measure of evil and suffering on the basis of our own sinful actions. A mystery much more puzzling than that of evil, is the fact that God would in fact save some from the consequences of their deeds. The fact that Christ experienced death for the sake of sinful souls was not fair, but it was good.
"We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality." Albert Einstein

darkcrow
Student

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 08, 2003
Location: San Diego
Total Topics: 97
Total Posts: 59

Posted 12/08/05 - 01:48 PM:	#22
Fake Zen wrote: You have not answered my question, only disagreed with it. what are we to do with suffering that is not beneficial? And may we also keep the words of Job with us, [In response to bildad asking "Does God pervert justice?"] "If it is a contest of strength, he is the strong one! IF it is a matter of justice, who can summon him?...When disaster brings sudden death, he mocks at the clamity of the innocent." 9:19, 23. You must assume that there is such a thing as suffering that is not beneficial. ‘In the meantime, what about all the innocent victims?’ you may ask. ‘Is it really worth their pain to prove some point of law?’ Well, God has not allowed evil to exist just to prove some obscure point of law. On the contrary, it is to establish once and for all the fundamental truth that he alone is sovereign and that obedience to his laws is essential for the continued peace and happiness of all his creations. One crucial thing to keep in mind is that God knows that he can undo completely any harm that this may bring to the human family. He knows that in the long term, the temporary period of pain and suffering will have a beneficial outcome. [as pointed out in the OP] Think of the mother who holds her child firmly while the doctor inflicts the pain of injecting a vaccine to give protection against some disease that would otherwise kill the child. No mother wants her child to feel pain. No doctor wants to cause distress to his patient. At the time, the child does not appreciate the reason for the pain, but later he will understand why it was permitted. The apostle Peter refers to trials or sufferings as a “fire” that proves the quality of the Christian’s faith. (1Pe 1:6, 7) Later, he likens suffering for righteousness to a burning when he tells his fellow Christians: “Do not be puzzled at the burning among you, which is happening to you for a trial, . . . you are sharers in the sufferings of the Christ, that you may rejoice and be overjoyed also during the revelation of his glory.” (1Pe 4:12, 13) That such suffering for righteousness has a beneficial effect is pointed out by the apostle Paul when he says: “Tribulation produces endurance.” (Ro 5:3) A person who faithfully and successfully passes through a difficult “burning” trial is stronger and more solidly established as a result of his endurance.—Ac 14:22; Ro 12:12. Some may feel that just knowing these things may be of little solace to those who are suffering. Hans Küng [ one of today's leading Catholic theologians] makes the point that a rational explanation for the existence of suffering is “about as helpful to the sufferer as a lecture on the chemistry of foodstuffs to a starving man.” He asks: “Can all the shrewd reasoning really give new heart to man, almost overwhelmed by suffering?” Well, all the “shrewd reasoning” of men who ignore God’s Word, the Bible, has not given heart to those who are suffering. Such human reasoning has only added to the problem by suggesting that God meant for man to suffer and that the earth was designed as a valley of tears or a testing ground for those who will eventually gain life in heaven. What a blasphemy!
"To the success of our hopeless task."

mric
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 723

Posted 12/08/05 - 02:37 PM:	#23
So, Darkcrow is of the view that the suffering and death of infants is wilfully caused or allowed by God to "establish once and for all the fundamental truth that [God] alone is sovereign...". An apparently consistent, if rather scary, idea. However, the passages quoted only really work for responsible adults, and only then if they succeed in coming out of the 'trial' on the right side. It sounds rather like a father who says to his five-year-old, "cross the busy road to come to me, and try not to get run over. If you do, I will give you a big cuddle. If you don't, hey, I have other children who have faster reactions."

darkcrow
Student

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 08, 2003
Location: San Diego
Total Topics: 97
Total Posts: 59

Posted 12/08/05 - 03:14 PM:	#24
mric wrote: So, Darkcrow is of the view that the suffering and death of infants is wilfully caused or allowed by God to "establish once and for all the fundamental truth that [God] alone is sovereign...". An apparently consistent, if rather scary, idea. However, the passages quoted only really work for responsible adults, and only then if they succeed in coming out of the 'trial' on the right side. It sounds rather like a father who says to his five-year-old, "cross the busy road to come to me, and try not to get run over. If you do, I will give you a big cuddle. If you don't, hey, I have other children who have faster reactions." There is a distinction between “willfully caused and “allowed.” However, it was the first family, Adam and Eve who wanted to know evil, as well as good, not God who wanted them to know. Now, we all get the opportunity to “know evil,” and it is by the grace of God we also have the ability to know the difference. “Be obedient to your parents in union with the Lord.” (Ephesians 6:1) You have powerful reasons for obeying God. He loves you, and he has given his laws, including the law for children to obey their parents, to protect you and to help you enjoy a happy life. (Isaiah 48:17) He has also given his Son to die for you so that you can be saved from sin and death and enjoy everlasting life. (John 3:16) Are you grateful? So no, “a father who says to his five-year-old, "cross the busy road to come to me, and try not to get run over,” is not what a “parents in union with the Lord” would say.
"To the success of our hopeless task."

Fake Zen
Sword-Bearing Sage

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 11, 2005
Location: Roanoke
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 126

Posted 12/08/05 - 05:40 PM:	#25
prometheus33 wrote: Yes, but this is a man in the midst of the suffering still struggling with his terrible loss. Listen to him after he sees the Lord and has experienced a deeper knowledge of him. Job 42 1 Then Job replied to the LORD : 2 "I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted. 3 You asked, 'Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?' Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know. 4 "You said, 'Listen now, and I will speak; I will question you, and you shall answer me.' 5 My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you. 6 Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes." Here he understands 1) that God is good (implied) and omnipotent 2) that he (Job) is ignorant and sinful. Whe you come to realize these two facts the so called problem of evil becomes irrelevant. This is an extreme misinterpretation of the book of Job. Never once does he come to recongize God's goodness, nor does God. Omnipotence is established, even in the verse i quoted. However, if you had read a few more lines down (or the entire book) you would see that God admits to his injustice. He says that, Jobs friends has have spoken wrongly about the Lord, and they should die were it not for Job's prayerful intervention. The view of god that the friends presented is similar to yours, that god is all good and incapable of evil. WHat it is that Job realizes from the speech of the lord is that man is of small account in this world. The only argument Job has had of God is that he is obsessed with the evil of mortals and this shouldnt be such a big deal. God comes in reply at the end of the book by hurling rhetorical questions at Job and the order of the universe. What he is trying to get across is not his benevolence but his power, and that the ways of the world are not understood by man. The world in which suffering befalls by chance allows one to gain truth. But God remains unjust. read the whole book next time, or choose a verse that better reflects the actual intent of the book. It is preciesly the attributes of goodness and omnipotence that bring the problem of evil about. THere is GOd and he is good and all powerful. therefore he disdains evil and has the power to end it. yet evil remains.
Amors est Mors

Page: 1 2 3 4

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.