Suffering Can Be Considered A Moral Good

Excelsior

Spinning off from the "I hate mass" thread (mass meaning sacrifice...) and inspired as usual by Wicknight, I want to start a discussion not on whether or not God "caused" suffering, but whether or not suffering can be a moral good.

I cut myself doing some household maintenance this morning but it was only bleeding a little bit so I only actually noticed it and cared for the wound when I felt a twinge of pain putting on a pair of gloves.

I remember reading about a study of jilted brides who were left at or close to the altar. Interviewed 6 months later, most of these brides considered the humiliation and pain of the dumping the best thing that ever happened to them.

Leaving aside the question of what if any suffering our Creator claims as his own, can suffering be a moral good?

Zombrex

Excelsior wrote:

I cut myself doing some household maintenance this morning but it was only bleeding a little bit so I only actually noticed it and cared for the wound when I felt a twinge of pain putting on a pair of gloves.

Well in that case you are talking about "pain," which is certainly a good thing.

Physical pain is a necessary system in our bodies reflecting the fact that our bodies frail and can be damaged. We, to protect ourselves from further damage, need to know when and how badly, our bodies are being damaged.

Its certain not nice, but as you suggest, the alternative that we continue damaging our bodies until they fail and we die, is worse. Pain is designed (either by evolution or a Creator, depending on ones perspective) to be unpleasant so we stop doing the thing that is damaging us.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

Well in that case you are talking about "pain," which is certainly a good thing.

Physical pain is a necessary system in our bodies reflecting the fact that our bodies frail and can be damaged. We, to protect ourselves from further damage, need to know when and how badly, our bodies are being damaged.

Its certain not nice, but as you suggest, the alternative that we continue damaging our bodies until they fail and we die, is worse. Pain is designed (either by evolution or a Creator, depending on ones perspective) to be unpleasant so we stop doing the thing that is damaging us.

Suffer: to undergo or feel pain or distress

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

Suffer: to undergo or feel pain or distress

Thank you Jimi, I know what suffering means.

My point was that physical pain is a form of suffering and it certain is a good thing given the nature of our bodies. Given that our bodies can be physically damaged it is better that we are aware of this damage than not aware.

Scofflaw

Hmm. I would say that we can learn and grow through suffering - but that it is the learning and growing that is a good thing, not the suffering.

If we fail to learn and grow through suffering, then the suffering clearly cannot be a moral good in any way - consider, for example, torture, which is unlikely to teach us anything.

Further, we are capable of growing and learning without suffering, so suffering is not necessary to learn and grow.

The suffering itself, then, I would say is never a moral good, but can be considered as the negative balance in a learning process.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

Thank you Jimi.

your very welcome.

My point was that physical pain is a form of suffering and it certain is a good thing given the nature of our bodies. Given that our bodies can be physically damaged it is better that we are aware of this damage than not aware.

Obviously you would believe that a creator would have thought of a better method to alert us though? Something that didn't involve the feeling of pain?

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote:

Obviously you would believe that a creator would have thought of a better method to alert us though? Something that didn't involve the feeling of pain?

Curiously, I wouldn't say so. The experience of pain appears (as much as we can determine) to be universally unpleasant, which suggests, from an evolutionary perspective, that it works very well as a damage alert.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

Obviously you would believe that a creator would have thought of a better method to alert us though?

LOL :rolleyes:

That is like standing in the middle of a flood and thanking God for sending you some dry socks. The person beside you would no doubt wonder why God didn't just stop the flood.

Jimi the Creator, since he is omnipotent, could have created it so we cannot be physically harmed

Therefore pain becomes completely unnecessary.

It becomes impossible for someone to hurt or kill someone else. No need for "Thou shall not kill" rules, because you wouldn't be able to kill anyone anyway.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

Jimi the Creator, since he is omnipotent, could have created it so we cannot be physically harmed

A Plastic bubble perhaps?

Also, while it is true that i am above most of humankind, i am not infact 'Jimi the creator':D Sorry to disappoint.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

A Plastic bubble perhaps?

You really don't have a very good imagination do you Jimi

God, being God, could have set the universe up anyway he wanted. He could have set us up anyway he wanted.

I appreciate that it is difficult for some to imagine a universe other than the one we are in, or to imagine humans as anything other than humans, but by your own definition of him God doesn't have the limitation on imagination.

The only reason suffering exists in the world is because God wants it to be here. There is no getting around that. Suffering is not necessary for free will.

God does not simply allow suffering to take place, God created a universe where suffer will take place. A universe where suffering doesn't exist is equally plausible and possible as one where it does exist. For some reason God decided that suffering was something he wanted in his universe.

Why did God create suffering? Well that is up to you guys to figure out. But the argument that God doesn't want suffering is utter nonsense.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

You really don't have a very good imagination do you Jimi

God, being God, could have set the universe up anyway he wanted. He could have set us up anyway he wanted.

I appreciate that it is difficult for some to imagine a universe other than the one we are in, or to imagine humans as anything other than humans, but by your own definition of him God doesn't have the limitation on imagination.

The only reason suffering exists in the world is because God wants it to be here. There is no getting around that. Suffering is not necessary for free will.

God does not simply allow suffering to take place, God created a universe where suffer will take place. A universe where suffering doesn't exist is equally plausible and possible as one where it does exist. For some reason God decided that suffering was something he wanted in his universe.

Why did God create suffering? Well that is up to you guys to figure out. But the argument that God doesn't want suffering is utter nonsense.

The crux of it is however, you are assuming that there is a better way. If he created us, he knows whats best for us, not just short term but longterm. We may not appreciate it, like a child that doesn't get what they want, but for all order including the beings of heaven, the plan may be better than anything else, its just that we don't have the foresight to see it.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

The crux of it is however, you are assuming that there is a better way.

Of course there is a better way. Do you enjoy suffering?

Claiming there isn't a better way is putting a restriction on God. God can set the universe up perfectly. Are you claiming the universe is perfect?

JimiTime wrote:

If he created us, he knows whats best for us, not just short term but longterm.

Well yes there is that. Blind faith. The "I'm not going to question" aspect. Which ultimately this discussion always boils down to.

Remind me to quote this the next time BrianC says it is the duty of Christians to question.

Of course it doesn't change the fact that God wants there to be suffering in the world, and placed it here. You may argue that he did so for some unknown reason that will ultimately benefit all humanity. But he still did it, on purpose.

So either way, God created suffering.

Scofflaw

The question is not whether suffering is enjoyable, or whether there is a better way, or even whether God created suffering, but whether suffering can be a moral good.

If Jimi can show how suffering, in its present form, is a moral good, then he can make the case that God was doing good when allowing suffering. If he can't show that, then he is forced back on the position that suffering certainly appears bad, and that we should just put up and shut up, because God knows best - a position he appears to have already adopted.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

The question is not whether suffering is enjoyable, or whether there is a better way, but whether suffering can be a moral good.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Very true

The discussion with Jimi belongs in the thread I created earlier. Yes Excelsior's tread has caused my original thread to be ignored, but in the spirit of Christianity, I forgive him

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Very true

The discussion with Jimi belongs in the thread I created earlier. Yes Excelsior's tread has caused my original thread to be ignored, but in the spirit of Christianity, I forgive him

Your cheekiness goes beyond mere turning.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

Of course there is a better way. Do you enjoy suffering?

Claiming there isn't a better way is putting a restriction on God. God can set the universe up perfectly. Are you claiming the universe is perfect?

Again, that is an assumption. the answer is, I don't know. I have faith that God is good. I believe that we don't have the foresight necessary to answer the question.

Well yes there is that. Blind faith. The "I'm not going to question" aspect. Which ultimately this discussion always boils down to.

Its not blind. Its just not a question that needs answering as a Christian. For we only have partial knowledge, we don't need to strain out every gnat. I question most things, but these types of questions, that you think are spanners, mean nothing to the faithful. Questions like, 'if god is so good, why is this or that' really hold very little weight, for they have no real answers.

Of course it doesn't change the fact that God wants there to be suffering in the world, and placed it here. You may argue that he did so for some unknown reason that will ultimately benefit all humanity. But he still did it, on purpose.

So either way, God created suffering.

Maybe. As I said its all speculation until it is revealed. As far as I can see anyway.

JimiTime

Scofflaw wrote:

The question is not whether suffering is enjoyable, or whether there is a better way, or even whether God created suffering, but whether suffering can be a moral good.

maybe, pain makes a man gain control. Jesus fasting in the desert. Its like the suffering is helping him gain control. This is just an idea.

If Jimi can show how suffering, in its present form, is a moral good, then he can make the case that God was doing good when allowing suffering. If he can't show that, then he is forced back on the position that suffering certainly appears bad, and that we should just put up and shut up, because God knows best - a position he appears to have already adopted.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Even in this quote you are saying that i am forced back to saying suffering 'appears' bad. This is the crux of it for me. Its like, I don't know the answer, but I know the person you are talking about and know that they are Just, loving and wise. So yes, I am in a position of, I have faith, but thats hardly a surprise now is it?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

I have faith that God is good.

I suppose ultimately it comes to this. You have unquestioning faith that God is good, the idea that God isn't good just isn't a possibility worth considering. And as such you interpret all the bad as actually being good, no matter what this bad is

But one wonders why you have faith that God is good in the first place.

How does one initially reach the conclusion that God is good in any rational or logical manner, since if one comes to the question from an unbiased position they cannot explain away the bad with blind faith that they do not yet possess. The bad is just that, bad. And the conclusion that God can do good and bad is an acceptable conclusion at this point.

But again, perhaps this is for another thread

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote:

maybe, pain makes a man gain control. Jesus fasting in the desert. Its like the suffering is helping him gain control. This is just an idea.

Even in this quote you are saying that i am forced back to saying suffering 'appears' bad. This is the crux of it for me. Its like, I don't know the answer, but I know the person you are talking about and know that they are Just, loving and wise. So yes, I am in a position of, I have faith, but thats hardly a surprise now is it?

Indeed not - and it's the fundamental difference between us. You have faith that God is good, and I would prefer to see evidence that God is good.

You would say, I imagine, that you see evidence that God is good, and that this reinforces your faith. I do not see any such evidence, which I attribute to lacking your faith.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JimiTime

Scofflaw wrote:

Indeed not - and it's the fundamental difference between us. You have faith that God is good, and I would prefer to see evidence that God is good.

You would say, I imagine, that you see evidence that God is good, and that this reinforces your faith. I do not see any such evidence, which I attribute to lacking your faith.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I think that sums it up well.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

I suppose ultimately it comes to this. You have unquestioning faith that God is good, the idea that God isn't good just isn't a possibility worth considering. And as such you interpret all the bad as actually being good, no matter what this bad is

The scripture in Kings about the bears killing the young boys actually says, elisha called down 'evil' from God. I think thats an interesting one to ponder.

But one wonders why you have faith that God is good in the first place.

He created me. he gave me the ability to love and make choices. He gave me the sense of taste, touch, sight and hearing. He made a world that tingles these senses. He promises to destroy the wicked and give us a world of exquisite delight. His Son was tortured and killed to save me. These are just a few.

How does one initially reach the conclusion that God is good in any rational or logical manner

I learned from Tim Robbins that what I always assumed was logic was not. That logic had strict rules etc drawn up for it, so logic is man made, and thus not really of great importance IMO. Rationale is relative. I can rationalise the death penalty, but to someone else its abhorrant. Some will agree with my rationale, some with the other.

since if one comes to the question from an unbiased position they cannot explain away the bad with blind faith that they do not yet possess. The bad is just that, bad. And the conclusion that God can do good and bad is an acceptable conclusion at this point.

But again, perhaps this is for another thread

There are many people converted to christianity. I'm sure some start in an unbiased position and haven't got the 'blind' faith you insist on using that don't conclude God is bad. if one believes in God, one must believe that they are shortsighted and that their rationale is limited. Man certainly hasn't proven itself worthy of being its own keeper. between the many wars famines etc, the planet is in turmoil. For some non-believers this wont be realised until the earth is in even more distress. But alas, such is their plight.

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote:

I learned from Tim Robbins that what I always assumed was logic was not. That logic had strict rules etc drawn up for it, so logic is man made, and thus not really of great importance IMO.

Ah. I wouldn't regard Tim as a good source, I'm afraid - he is more concerned with talking about the rules of formal logic than applying logic to actual reasoning. What had you previously assumed was logic?

JimiTime wrote:

There are many people converted to christianity. I'm sure some start in an unbiased position and haven't got the 'blind' faith you insist on using that don't conclude God is bad. if one believes in God, one must believe that they are shortsighted and that their rationale is limited. Man certainly hasn't proven itself worthy of being its own keeper. between the many wars famines etc, the planet is in turmoil. For some non-believers this wont be realised until the earth is in even more distress. But alas, such is their plight.

That mankind is not worthy of being its own keeper (debatable in itself) does not imply that we therefore have some other keeper.

Conversion to Christianity is rarely (if ever?) a matter of pure reason, any more than continued faith is. It doesn't constitute an argument that God is good, or can be seen to be good without faith - particularly since many who have faith are nevertheless troubled by the existence of suffering and evil, and the lack of objective evidence for God's goodness. There are also those, of course, who appear to revel in God 'causing' the suffering of others.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

He created me. he gave me the ability to love and make choices. He gave me the sense of taste, touch, sight and hearing. He made a world that tingles these senses. He promises to destroy the wicked and give us a world of exquisite delight. His Son was tortured and killed to save me. These are just a few.

But you only believe all this is true because you already have unquestioning faith that it is true.

I'm wondering why you have the faith in the first place.

JimiTime wrote:

That logic had strict rules etc drawn up for it, so logic is man made, and thus not really of great importance IMO.

That isn't quite correct (as I'm sure Tim would explain).

For example mathematic is purely "man made" , but that doesn't mean the bridge you crossed this morning is an illusion. The maths that the engineers used to construct that bridge is an invention of man, and so is the bridge itself, but it did save you from wading through the water.

JimiTime wrote:

There are many people converted to christianity. I'm sure some start in an unbiased position and haven't got the 'blind' faith you insist on using that don't conclude God is bad.

I imagine they start off wishing it to be true. Humans have great desire for something external to fix problems for them (as the Lotto demonstrates)

You can see this in the way that Christianity promotes itself through the ages. In older times it was all sin and God's punishment. These days it is all God's love and living forever.

One should not under estimate the power of both guilt and hope. People turn to religion because they wish to feel better.

JimiTime wrote:

if one believes in God, one must believe that they are shortsighted and that their rationale is limited.

Well doing so certain helps.

It is easier to have faith that the things you wish to be true are true rather than actually trying to figure out if they are true or not, because ultimately you might discover that they aren't.

Its like wife who suspects her husband is cheating. Every day he goes into a hotel with a woman from work and comes out half an hour later. She sees him in town go into the hotel with another woman. She has the opportunity to follow them inside, but she doesn't. Some would say she is mad, if she followed them she would know either way. But ultimately she doesn't want to know, because the faith that he is faithful is more important to her that than knowing that he is. She might find out that he isn't cheating, that it is all innocent. But she might find out that he is cheat, which is an option she won't consider.

JimiTime wrote:

between the many wars famines etc, the planet is in turmoil

That isn't a reason to believe God exists and is good. Quite the opposite in fact

Though I suppose it is a reason to hope that God does exist and is good.

JimiTime wrote:

For some non-believers this wont be realised until the earth is in even more distress.

Believing in God doesn't seem to stop distress. People who believe in God still get murdered, raped, die of cancer, start wars, die in wars etc.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

But you only believe all this is true because you already have unquestioning faith that it is true.

faith, yes. Unquestioning, no.

I'm wondering why you have the faith in the first place.

i believe I went into great detail about this on a thread in A&A. If you recall how I inherited my faith, and affirmed it when I was older?

That isn't quite correct (as I'm sure Tim would explain).

If I got it wrong apologies, but i'm pretty sure that it consists of rules that one must follow. rules that man has made.

For example mathematic is purely "man made" , but that doesn't mean the bridge you crossed this morning is an illusion. The maths that the engineers used to construct that bridge is an invention of man, and so is the bridge itself, but it did save you from wading through the water.

Indeed, but it doesn't mean its flawless.

I imagine they start off wishing it to be true. Humans have great desire for something external to fix problems for them (as the Lotto demonstrates)

I know its used to somehow discredit faith, but hope is not a negative thing. i understand your arguement. The wanting to believe it, makes you believe it. I can only say, that thats not how I feel. But if its a brainwashing thing, I'm deep in its throngs.

You can see this in the way that Christianity promotes itself through the ages. In older times it was all sin and God's punishment. These days it is all God's love and living forever.

The thing is, people like Job did not love god for what he got out of it. Nor do alot of faithful Christians.

One should not under estimate the power of both guilt and hope. People turn to religion because they wish to feel better.

They turn to a doctor when they are sick.

It is easier to have faith that the things you wish to be true are true rather than actually trying to figure out if they are true or not, because ultimately you might discover that they aren't.

Faith is also a great responsibility. Especially in this world. As for this business of blindness. I know you like to think that, but I know what i am, and I know what I know and don't know. You seem to think that i just turn away from the 'difficult bits'. i don't. I embrace them. I couldn't discover that they aren't true. Just because you have convinced yourself God does not exist, does not mean I would follow your reasoning. I understand where you are coming from. i just disagree with it.

Its like wife who suspects her husband is cheating. Every day he goes into a hotel with a woman from work and comes out half an hour later. She sees him in town go into the hotel with another woman. She has the opportunity to follow them inside, but she doesn't. Some would say she is mad, if she followed them she would know either way. But ultimately she doesn't want to know, because the faith that he is faithful is more important to her that than knowing that he is. She might find out that he isn't cheating, that it is all innocent. But she might find out that he is cheat, which is an option she won't consider.

God analogy of ignorance is bliss. Speaking for myself however, this does not apply.

Believing in God doesn't seem to stop distress. People who believe in God still get murdered, raped, die of cancer, start wars, die in wars etc.

Ahh, but it will. remember, foresight:)

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

faith, yes. Unquestioning, no.
...
You seem to think that i just turn away from the 'difficult bits'. i don't. I embrace them.
...
God analogy of ignorance is bliss. Speaking for myself however, this does not apply.

You say that Jimi, but every time we have this discussion you say that you don't know why God would act in such a way, you don't know why he would do things that would be by any other standard terrible, but you have faith that he has a reason and that everything he does must be just.

And then you say that you do question, you do challenge and you do embrace the difficult questions

Can you see how those claims would ring hollow?

JimiTime wrote:

Ahh, but it will. remember, foresight

Clearly it doesn't

Religion is very careful to claim that it does, because this is something that is testable, and as every we want to avoid this in case it turns out that, oh dear, God doesn't help.

So as ever things are relegated to where they cannot be tested, the after life. Suffer in this life and God will make things great for you in the after life.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

You say that Jimi, but every time we have this discussion you say that you don't know why God would act in such a way, you don't know why he would do things that would be by any other standard terrible, but you have faith that he has a reason and that everything he does must be just.

And then you say that you do question, you do challenge and you do embrace the difficult questions

Can you see how those claims would ring hollow?

i could, if what you are saying was true. But what i actually said was, that any reasons that i would give at this stage of my learning would be speculative. You seem to demand some categoric, definitive answer. I can't give you one. But based on answers I do know, I feel safe in the knowledge that his acts are just. I don't actually have an issue with him wiping out nations. I look forward to the day he judges the world again. The day he wipes the wicked from the earth once and for all. Many will be destroyed then but will be deserving of anhialation. The great thing about god is that there is no bureaucracy, or fooling him or manipulating the law. He'll just know you and judge you accordingly. I have every Faith in his judgements being Just. he has looked after his people and honoured his promises.

So as ever things are relegated to where they cannot be tested, the after life. Suffer in this life and God will make things great for you in the after life.

Indeed, and therein lies Faith. Faith, Hope and Love. 3 fundamentals for a Christian, most important of course being Love. I question, I just don't expect, or need scientific answers to them.

Excelsior

My position on the thread title is not that suffering can be considered a moral good. This is going too far for me. But suffering need not be considered a moral bad.

robindch

Excelsior wrote:

Leaving aside the question of what if any suffering our Creator claims as his own, can suffering be a moral good?

I don't know what you mean by a "moral good" and your post seems, vaguely, to beg the question.

I'm certainly with Wicknight in believing that pain and bad things in general can be useful, but only if they're part of a learning experience within a framework where one can apply the learning later to avoid whatever it is that caused the suffering in the first place. I can't see much good arising from suffering, as generally understood, outside of that fairly narrow area

Certainly, there are belief systems which assert that suffering, or at least certain types of it, are "good" for some specific meaning(s) of the word specific to the belief system when the suffering is undertaken in some belief-specific manner. I'm thinking of catholicism and "grace" here, but I'm sure similar ideas exist in many other religions. But I doubt that the specific definitions of "good" which apply in each of these cases are accepted outside each of the religions, so I therefore believe that your original question has little meaning without an attempt to tie down what you mean by "moral good".

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

I don't actually have an issue with him wiping out nations. I look forward to the day he judges the world again. The day he wipes the wicked from the earth once and for all. Many will be destroyed then but will be deserving of anhialation. The great thing about god is that there is no bureaucracy, or fooling him or manipulating the law. He'll just know you and judge you accordingly. I have every Faith in his judgements being Just. he has looked after his people and honoured his promises.

Ok, that is possibly the scariest thing anyone has ever said on this forum, so I think I'm going to drop this and back slowly out of the room, avoiding eye contact

Excelsior

robindch wrote:

I don't know what you mean by a "moral good" and your post seems, vaguely, to beg the question.

Should we go over to philosophy and start a thread on what moral good means?

Or perhaps more basically, over to A&A to discuss whether talk of "morality", "ethics" or "aesthetics" is meaningless by design?

Maybe the briefest way to move the discussion on Robin is to rephrase it to read, "In what ways can we consider suffering bad?"

robindch

Excelsior wrote:

Should we go over to philosophy and start a thread on what moral good means?

Well, we could have it here, since you did ask the question here.

Excelsior wrote:

Or perhaps more basically, over to A&A to discuss whether talk of "morality", "ethics" or "aesthetics" is meaningless by design?

Not by design -- that's a creationist argument -- but rather generally meaningless by variation and selection amongst different meanings. Do feel free to visit A+A and ask it there

Excelsior wrote:

Maybe the briefest way to move the discussion on Robin is to rephrase it to read, "In what ways can we consider suffering bad?"

As above, good and bad are relative terms and can mean pretty much whatever the speaker wants them to mean within the whatever framework they're using. To explain by example, the gay guys currently condemned to death in Nigeria (see here) presumably regard their death as "bad", while the sharia court that handed down the sentence presumable regards the same deaths as "good".

I'm not trying to split hairs here to be obtuse, or indeed to irritate you as I seem to be doing constantly these days, but simply to point out that allocating meanings to the terms "good" and "bad" only means something when there is a cultural or personal context present. A better question to ask is whether the suffering is useful or not.

For myself, suffering is "bad" when it's the opposite of the "good" stuff I mentioned above -- ie, where pain happens which does not lead to learning how to avoid it in the future, either because the system within which the pain is being suffered does not permit this future avoidance, or the sufferer is incapable of learning.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

Ok, that is possibly the scariest thing anyone has ever said on this forum, so I think I'm going to drop this and back slowly out of the room, avoiding eye contact

Why is it scary? 'I look forward to the day the wicked are destroyed'. Why is that the scariest thing ever written on this forum? I'm lookin' forward to a time when i don't have to worry if my child is safe or not. Incidents like the madeline kidnapping don't happen. Things like the holocaust are no more. Love rules. So why is that scary? if you are afraid of the wicked being destroyed, I think that says more about you than me TBH.

Red Hand

JimiTime wrote:

Why is it scary? 'I look forward to the day the wicked are destroyed'. Why is that the scariest thing ever written on this forum? I'm lookin' forward to a time when i don't have to worry if my child is safe or not. Incidents like the madeline kidnapping don't happen. Things like the holocaust are no more. Love rules. So why is that scary? if you are afraid of the wicked being destroyed, I think that says more about you than me TBH.

It depends on who you consider to be the wicked. I've never harmed anybody, yet don't believe in God-does that make me wicked? And if God reveals Himself to a devout believer and tells them to smite the wicked (as he has so often done so in the bible), then I and perhaps many others will be gone the way of the dodo?

PDN

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

It depends on who you consider to be the wicked. I've never harmed anybody, yet don't believe in God-does that make me wicked? And if God reveals Himself to a devout believer and tells them to smite the wicked (as he has so often done so in the bible), then I and perhaps many others will be gone the way of the dodo?

These days it tends to be more a case of unbelievers smiting Christians than vice versa. However, we are unlikely to go the way of the dodo.

The Mad Hatter

JimiTime wrote:

Why is it scary? 'I look forward to the day the wicked are destroyed'. Why is that the scariest thing ever written on this forum? I'm lookin' forward to a time when i don't have to worry if my child is safe or not. Incidents like the madeline kidnapping don't happen. Things like the holocaust are no more. Love rules. So why is that scary? if you are afraid of the wicked being destroyed, I think that says more about you than me TBH.

No, I think he's quite right. There are very few things that are universally condemned by humanity (and incidentally, I think that genocide -or 'wiping out nations' as you put it- is one of them), and nearly everything that's done has some element of both good and evil in it.

I think that when you look closely at the people in the world, you'll find that there are very, very few truly evil people in it.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

Why is it scary? 'I look forward to the day the wicked are destroyed'. Why is that the scariest thing ever written on this forum? I'm lookin' forward to a time when i don't have to worry if my child is safe or not. Incidents like the madeline kidnapping don't happen. Things like the holocaust are no more. Love rules. So why is that scary? if you are afraid of the wicked being destroyed, I think that says more about you than me TBH.

Do you not see the problem in hoping that the majority of the population of the world, including children, are wiped out so that "love rules"

Mad Hatter summed it up quite well. There are few things in the world that are almost universally condemned. Mass genocide is one of them

And yes, I realise you think that genocide in the name of God is righteous and therefore not a crime.

That is the scary bit.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

It depends on who you consider to be the wicked. I've never harmed anybody, yet don't believe in God-does that make me wicked? And if God reveals Himself to a devout believer and tells them to smite the wicked (as he has so often done so in the bible), then I and perhaps many others will be gone the way of the dodo?

These days it tends to be more a case of unbelievers smiting Christians than vice versa. However, we are unlikely to go the way of the dodo.

Which is not an answer. You may have left your 'auto-hedge' feature one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

It depends on who you consider to be the wicked.

Everyone is wicked, by their nature of being human (remember the Fall?).

Those who believe in Jesus will be saved, those that don't believe will be sent to hell.

There is no place in heaven for the good non-believer (some Christians would say that is an oxymoron), as parodied quite well in the South Park Movie when Kenny goes into the after life and find just over a 1,000 people in Heaven.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

Do you not see the problem in hoping that the majority of the population of the world, including children, are wiped out so that "love rules"

Mad Hatter summed it up quite well. There are few things in the world that are almost universally condemned. Mass genocide is one of them

And yes, I realise you think that genocide in the name of God is righteous and therefore not a crime.

That is the scary bit.

Ahhh. so you make the assumption that i know who is wicked, and that I've decided its you. Well, i don't know. And to say its the scariest thing you've seen on boards etc, is a pile of sh1te. You are being way over the top and far too dramatic. There is nothing scary about an end to wickedness. Its not my fault you chose to include yourself as one of the wicked. You are an unbeliever, yes, but I really don't know, and its not my place to say, what Gods judgement on you will be. Whatever it is though, I'll be happy with it, because i know it will be Just.

The Mad Hatter

JimiTime wrote:

Ahhh. so you make the assumption that i know who is wicked, and that I've decided its you. Well, i don't know. And to say its the scariest thing you've seen on boards etc, is a pile of sh1te. You are being way over the top and far too dramatic. There is nothing scary about an end to wickedness. Its not my fault you chose to include yourself as one of the wicked. You are an unbeliever, yes, but I really don't know, and its not my place to say, what Gods judgement on you will be. Whatever it is though, I'll be happy with it, because i know it will be Just.

But you're not talking about an end of wickedness. You're talking about the slaughter of so-called wicked people. I don't see any indication that Wicknight believes you're talking about him when you refer to wicked people. You also mentioned, offhandedly, wiping out nations, and I think that that's the bigger issue here.

JimiTime

The Mad Hatter wrote:

But you're not talking about an end of wickedness. You're talking about the slaughter of so-called wicked people. I don't see any indication that Wicknight believes you're talking about him when you refer to wicked people. You also mentioned, offhandedly, wiping out nations, and I think that that's the bigger issue here.

He says that he thinks that I believe a non believer is wicked in the eyes of God. I really should not have to clarify it. its in the posts if u read them.

Anything god does is Just. So if he wipes out a nation, its justified. If you don't accept him as God, then we have a disagreement and the discussion ends. i believe in him and believe his judgements are just. you don't, so you believe none of it was his judgement in the first place.

The Mad Hatter

JimiTime wrote:

He says that he thinks that I believe a non believer is wicked in the eyes of God. I really should not have to clarify it. its in the posts if u read them.

Can you quote that? I can't see it. I mean, I can see how you might have read that into

Everyone is wicked, by their nature of being human (remember the Fall?).

Those who believe in Jesus will be saved, those that don't believe will be sent to hell.

There is no place in heaven for the good non-believer (some Christians would say that is an oxymoron), as parodied quite well in the South Park Movie when Kenny goes into the after life and find just over a 1,000 people in Heaven.

, but that's a pretty loose interpretation...particularly given the way that you seem to be defending yourself from an accusation here: 'so you make the assumption that i know who is wicked, and that I've decided its you.'

Anything god does is Just. So if he wipes out a nation, its justified. If you don't accept him as God, then we have a disagreement and the discussion ends. i believe in him and believe his judgements are just. you don't, so you believe none of it was his judgement in the first place.

Nope. That's not gonna hold. If you're going to talk about wiping out nations, I think better justification is needed than 'God must be right to do it'.

Incidentally, while sticking to your guns, you don't seem to have considered the points that Wicknight or myself have made regarding the alleged nature of people.

CathyMoran

Just to lighten things up a bit. There was an instance with me where suffering turned into something morally good. I was diagnosed with oesophageal cancer in October but knew a short while before hand, had it not been for that I would not have married my husband which is genuinelly the best thing that I have ever done. We were on the verge of splitting for good after almost 9 years together when the cancer happened, I told him that I wanted to get married and he agreed, both of us are very happy together.

JimiTime

CathyMoran wrote:

Just to lighten things up a bit. There was an instance with me where suffering turned into something morally good. I was diagnosed with oesophageal cancer in October but knew a short while before hand, had it not been for that I would not have married my husband which is genuinelly the best thing that I have ever done. We were on the verge of splitting for good after almost 9 years together when the cancer happened, I told him that I wanted to get married and he agreed, both of us are very happy together.

Congrats on the marriage. Is the cancer in recession?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

Ahhh. so you make the assumption that i know who is wicked, and that I've decided its you. Well, i don't know.

No, I'm making the "assumption" that the Bible teaches that everyone is wicked, because of the Fall. Because it does.

JimiTime wrote:

And to say its the scariest thing you've seen on boards etc, is a pile of sh1te.

It is the justification for genocide that is the scary bit. I was well aware that most of the Christians who post here believe in the Fall of Man, and in hereditary sin, and that we all deserve punishment for simply existing.

But I've never seen it used quite so enthusiastically as justification for genocide.

JimiTime wrote:

You are being way over the top and far too dramatic.

I hope so.

I hope you don't really believe what you claim to believe, and that you don't actually wish for these things. But I suppose only you know if that is true or not.

JimiTime wrote:

There is nothing scary about an end to wickedness.

Oh there most certainly is -

International Criminal Tribunal into Rwanda p.116
These writings portrayed the Tutsi as inherently wicked and ambitious in language clearly intended to fan the flames of resentment and anger, directed against the Tutsi population.

JimiTime

The Mad Hatter wrote:

Can you quote that? I can't see it. I mean, I can see how you might have read that into, but that's a pretty loose interpretation...particularly given the way that you seem to be defending yourself from an accusation here: 'so you make the assumption that i know who is wicked, and that I've decided its you.'

Ehhhh He is an atheist. He then says that he believes the christian stance is that an atheist is wicked. You quote it urself. So what are you looking for?

Nope. That's not gonna hold. If you're going to talk about wiping out nations, I think better justification is needed than 'God must be right to do it'.

Yep, thats gonna hold alright. I don't need or aim, to justify Gods actions. God deemed it necessary is good enough. It can never be for u because you are atheist, but hey, you make up your mind, I make up mine.

Incidentally, while sticking to your guns, you don't seem to have considered the points that Wicknight or myself have made regarding the alleged nature of people.

Sticking to my guns? watever man. Why would I consider your points? they are based on assumptions that I can't confirm! You want some kind of answer like, you are doomed if you don't believe? Well I can't give you an answer, only god will.

Excelsior

robindch wrote:

... but simply to point out that allocating meanings to the terms "good" and "bad" only means something when there is a cultural or personal context present. A better question to ask is whether the suffering is useful or not.

You reject terms like good or bad as subjective and relative, devoid of meaning without context. You propose instead to ask about their usefulness which is at best, as subjective and as relative.

Or at least it is from where I stand.

You can see why I might think this is an obtuse digression away from the topic at hand since your argument swallows itself...

Thanks for the input Cathy. I am delighted to hear about your happiness. 7-month itch hasn't set in then?

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

Oh there most certainly is -

International Criminal Tribunal into Rwanda p.116
These writings portrayed the Tutsi as inherently wicked and ambitious in language clearly intended to fan the flames of resentment and anger, directed against the Tutsi population.

And with that, Jimitime has left the building!

The Mad Hatter

JimiTime wrote:

Ehhhh He is an atheist. He then says that he believes the christian stance is that an atheist is wicked. You quote it urself. So what are you looking for?

Ah. Whatever. This isn't important anyhow.

Yep, thats gonna hold alright. I don't need or aim, to justify Gods actions. God deemed it necessary is good enough. It can never be for u because you are atheist, but hey, you make up your mind, I make up mine.

Who said I was an atheist?

You know what, I'm going to accept this. But, just so that you're aware, the argument seems to run like this:

JT: I think that the wiping out of nations and wickedness is alright because my religion says so.

TMH/WKn: I believe that genocide is never justifiable, and that all people have the capacity for good and evil.

Sticking to my guns? watever man. Why would I consider your points? they are based on assumptions that I can't confirm! You want some kind of answer like, you are doomed if you don't believe? Well I can't give you an answer, only god will.

Not those points; do you believe that people can be entirely wicked? Do you believe that the entire population of a nation can be wicked? These are important points if you're trying to justify the extermination of wicked people.

robindch

Excelsior wrote:

You propose instead to ask about their usefulness which is at best, as subjective and as relative.

Didn't say that asking about usefulness was perfect, just a bit better, in the sense that something useful or beneficial might arise out of it. Same as suffering -- seems pointless to me without at least the chance of some kind of benefit accruing. Do you agree or not agree?

Excelsior wrote:

You can see why I might think this is an obtuse digression away from the topic at hand since your argument swallows itself...

Not "swallows itself", but "refers to itself" which is different.

You've mentioned that your position is not that suffering is a "moral good", but that it is not necessary to consider it as a "moral bad". Which, while it's accurate as far as it goes, doesn't convey much about what you actually think about the topic of suffering.

Comments?

JimiTime

The Mad Hatter wrote:

Who said I was an atheist?

Sorry, I mixed you up with MooseJam.

You know what, I'm going to accept this. But, just so that you're aware, the argument seems to run like this:

JT: I think that the wiping out of nations and wickedness is alright because my religion says so.

TMH/WKn: I believe that genocide is never justifiable, and that all people have the capacity for good and evil.

Let me correct your perception.

JT: I believe in God. I think that if God judges a person, a nation, a planet etc. His judgement is Just.

TMH/WK: I don't believe in God, so I believe that the hebrews just wiped out nations and were genocidal maniacs. I also don't believe in Judgement day, but that would be genocide if it did happen.

Not those points; do you believe that people can be entirely wicked? Do you believe that the entire population of a nation can be wicked? These are important points if you're trying to justify the extermination of wicked people.

Well, in the context of man, we cannot judge who is wicked, for we don't know perfection or see to the hearts of man. Personally I don't think we can even call Hitler doomed. He certainly didn't exhibit the fruits of the spirit, but it really is not place to say. As for 'can an entire nation be wicked'. As far as Gods standards go, yes. Sodom and Gomorrah springs to mind. But naturally, you don't acept it because you do not believe in the christian God. So your standard on what is wicked, is based on mans standards.