Theodicy

Absolam

Theodicies are arguments put forward, generally in the Christian philosophical tradition, which are usually a defense of God's goodness and omnipotence in view of the existence of evil, or at least that is how I understand them.

Do any Christian posters (even Christian philosophers!) have any interest in them, or any views on them? Are they even relevent / more relevent than ever to a modern understanding of Christianity?

antiskeptic

Absolam wrote: »

Theodicies are arguments put forward, generally in the Christian philosophical tradition, which are usually a defense of God's goodness and omnipotence in view of the existence of evil, or at least that is how I understand them.

Do any Christian posters (even Christian philosophers!) have any interest in them, or any views on them? Are they even relevent / more relevent than ever to a modern understanding of Christianity?

I have a rather simplified view (in the sense of not having much problem with the co-existence of a good and omnipotent God and evil)

1. I take the view that Adam was given freewill and for that to have any value, Adam must have been a) allowed to express from the fullest range of possibilities: from good to evil b) must have something to chose from (that which is good and that which is evil)

2. Adam expressed unto evil

3. That expression actually banjaxed his free will (sin entered his nature) and man thereafter, if left to his own devices, would only unto evil all the time.

4. God acted, and at the same time as man received evil into his nature, he also received a balancing force of sorts: a conscience (a.k.a. knowledge of good and evil). This equips man with a free will of sorts. It's not enough to enable him to chose good vs. evil in a balanced sense like Adam had - rather, he would know he was choosing evil or good in his choosing them and rack up the consequences of same as he lived. These consequences include: sickness, pain, guilt, clear conscience, joy, etc.

5. These consequences would be the tools whereby God would attempt to draw each individual back to himself. If God successful, the man would be drawn unto salvation. If not, the man would continue on the default path he was on - to damnation.

6. Since salvation/damnation are the ultimate fruits of mans will expression, there is a necessity to allow the fallen canvas on which this all plays out; the fallen world and fallen man operating in it, to remain in existence.

7. This necessity to permit will expression unto good and evil (such that man has the ultimate choice in whether he would like to go God's way or go his own) stays God's acting for our good in more minor ways. It is a greater good that we be given will expression - even if this means we suffer in the process.

8. And it is a process. Our lives here is a precursor event, a sifting process, where our decision re: God or contra God determines our eternal destiny. I wouldn't go so far as to call our lives a sideshow, but that's in effect what it is. The main event is the one God is focused on.

9. Omnipotence doesn't mean God can do simply anything at all. He can no more make 2+2=5 than we. And he can't enable a free will without anything to chose between by way of will expresssion - yet it remain a free will.

Nick Park

Absolam wrote: »

Theodicies are arguments put forward, generally in the Christian philosophical tradition, which are usually a defense of God's goodness and omnipotence in view of the existence of evil, or at least that is how I understand them.

Do any Christian posters (even Christian philosophers!) have any interest in them, or any views on them? Are they even relevent / more relevent than ever to a modern understanding of Christianity?

I do think the aspect of free will is relevant.

Omnipotence does not mean the ability to do things which are intrinsically impossible (for example, to create a square circle). I would not want to live in a wrapped-in-cotton-wool paradise where no-one ever had sufficient free will to ever impinge on anyone else's happiness. Nor would I want to live in a world where people had an unfettered free will to cause unlimited pain without restraint.

In order for a world to truly be good in a moral sense - a world where people could grow, learn, freely choose to love etc - then that world, as I see it, must contain the possibility of pleasure and happiness being diminished at some point. I don't see that it is logically possible to truly choose to love someone without opening yourself up to the potential of not being freely loved back - a potential of grief and hurt.

In my experience most reasonable people (as opposed to fundamentalists who are just spoiling for a fight and have no wish to genuinely listen to anyone else) can see the reasonableness of that argument.

The discussion then is not so much why evil exists, as to why there is so much of it. Dostoyevsky explored this idea in his novel "The Brothers Karamazov".

solodeogloria

Good evening all!

Do you ever find sometimes that a video says a million words?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD1yv4J6ohE

Let me know your thoughts. I'd love to talk about it.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

MrPudding

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening all!

Do you ever find sometimes that a video says a million words?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD1yv4J6ohE

Let me know your thoughts. I'd love to talk about it.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

So, he answers the question of why gods allows bad things to happen by saying, no don't ask that question, ask why even more bad things aren't happening. So basically, "well, it could be worse." I think I prefer he moves in mysterious ways.

MrP

solodeogloria

MrPudding wrote: »

So, he answers the question of why gods allows bad things to happen by saying, no don't ask that question, ask why even more bad things aren't happening. So basically, "well, it could be worse." I think I prefer he moves in mysterious ways.

MrP

Good morning!

If God is God, an objective being beyond you or I it doesn't matter what you or I might prefer. What matters is what is true of this world, and what God declares about Himself.

The Christian worldview is the only one that I have come across that presents a tangible answer to human suffering. Not only that death and suffering and pain and loss entered the world through human sinfulness, but also that our God came into the world in His Son Jesus to suffer pain, and death and loss on our account so that we might be put into a restored relationship with God, but also that all things will become new on the last day.

The video deals with the question - "Why does God allow bad things to happen?". This question presumes that we are entitled to have good things happen to us by virtue of our merit. This isn't true from a Christian point of view. As a result the preacher asks for the right question to be asked to bring the right assumptions to the table. We don't deserve God's common grace at all in the many good things we experience in this life. We deserve rightfully God's wrath for our rebellion against Him. Yet, He still graciously offers us His Son and that rescue and that eternity with Him if we accept it.

Now, will the average atheist like that answer? Probably not, because I suspect the average atheist doesn't believe that he is guilty for any sin or any wrongdoing. The average atheist doesn't believe that they need forgiveness. But also, most crucially, I've found that the average atheist also doesn't have any form of explanation for the human suffering that exists in this world other than "life sucks". The Christian on the other hand can provide a robust framework for understanding these things that accounts to why bad things happen and can point to the clear person of Jesus Christ in history to show what God has done to bring all things to Himself and to make all things new.

What I'd say to you is if you don't like the Christian point of view on this issue, then happily provide a better one.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

MrPudding

solodeogloria wrote: »

[...]

The Christian worldview is the only one that I have come across that presents a tangible answer to human suffering. [...]

What I'd say to you is if you don't like the Christian point of view on this issue, then happily provide a better one.

There are no gods and the universe doesn't care. That provides a better answer than the christian world view.

MrP

solodeogloria

MrPudding wrote: »

There are no gods and the universe doesn't care. That provides a better answer than the christian world view.

MrP

Good afternoon!

This isn't an answer. It doesn't explain the origins of suffering, or why suffering exists other than to merely say "life sucks". Christianity applies an interpretative lens to our suffering and our pain and our death and tangibly helps people to deal with these day to day struggles. My point is that atheism doesn't.

It's a fair question when faced with atheist objections to ask if you dislike this what is your alternative? The answer seems to be there isn't one apart from "life sucks".

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

MrPudding

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

This isn't an answer. It doesn't explain the origins of suffering, or why suffering exists other than to merely say "life sucks". Christianity applies an interpretative lens to our suffering and our pain and our death and tangibly helps people to deal with these day to day struggles. My point is that atheism doesn't.

It's a fair question when faced with atheist objections to ask if you dislike this what is your alternative? The answer seems to be there isn't one apart from "life sucks".

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

The origins of suffering? What does that even mean? We have a universe, and there are rules. That is not "here are the rules that you have to follow" but simply rules on how things work. We reproduce and grow by, in very simplistic terms, copying. Sometimes there are errors in the copy. Sometimes that doesn't matter, sometime it mean a new born baby can't see. Nothing to do with sin.

Sometimes tectonic plates slip, sometimes that cause a massive wave that kills thousands of people. That isn't cause by sin, or marriage equality or even abortion, it is caused by the physical rules that dictate how solid plates floating on a bed of molten rock interact.

Personally I am not particularly fond of the say "life sucks" but sometimes it does. I, and many other people don't need religion to get by. My atheism is simply my rejection of the evidence put forward for the existence of gods. It doe snot tell me how to live my life or give me coping strategies for how to deal with it when things get rough. I developed those coping strategies myself, they are based on reason and rationalism. Bad things, sometimes, do just happen. That its not to say that sometimes we can't point to a cause... This person lost his wife because that other person decided to drive after getting drunk. If we can point to a cause, great. if something happen which apparently doesn't have a cause (impossible), we can say "ah, that was caused by the gays and/or the abortionists".

Christianly is not a good explanation for what we see. It is not a good explanation for suffering. The "interpretive lens" is a human construct and it is only necessary because the universe we see does not match your particular god. The video you posted is a great example of what we are talking about in the thread in A&A. This is a question christians can't answer satisfactorily. The guy in your video doesn't even attempt to, his answer is literally, "ha, you think it is bad, well, it could be much worse, so there. How do you feel about your question now?" Well, I feel exactly the same, so just answer it.

MrP

solodeogloria

MrPudding wrote: »

Christianly is not a good explanation for what we see. It is not a good explanation for suffering. The "interpretive lens" is a human construct and it is only necessary because the universe we see does not match your particular god. The video you posted is a great example of what we are talking about in the thread in A&A. This is a question christians can't answer satisfactorily. The guy in your video doesn't even attempt to, his answer is literally, "ha, you think it is bad, well, it could be much worse, so there. How do you feel about your question now?" Well, I feel exactly the same, so just answer it.

MrP

Good afternoon!

Last post for the day also I think.

My aim isn't to give you a "satisfactory" answer. The aim of answering a question isn't to tell you what you want to hear, but rather to tell you what the Christian position on this issue is, which I have done. I can't guarantee that you will like the Christian position on this issue.

His answer isn't that it could be much worse. His answer is that we aren't of definition deserving of what is good because of our sin. I've explained how this works above.

You're entitled to believe that Christianity is a human based construct, but simply stating that doesn't make it so.

I haven't read the thread on the A&A forum. On seeing this thread, my intention is to answer the question in the original post, not to provide a "satisfactory" answer to an atheist. My aim is to speak the truth in love to fellow Christians and to bear witness to Christ. It isn't to tingle peoples ears with what they would want to hear and believe.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

MrPudding

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

Last post for the day also I think.

My aim isn't to give you a "satisfactory" answer. The aim of answering a question isn't to tell you what you want to hear, but rather to tell you what the Christian position on this issue is, which I have done. I can't guarantee that you will like the Christian position on this issue.

His answer isn't that it could be much worse. His answer is that we aren't of definition deserving of what is good because of our sin. I've explained how this works above.

You're entitled to believe that Christianity is a human based construct, but simply stating that doesn't make it so.

I haven't read the thread on the A&A forum. On seeing this thread, my intention is to answer the question in the original post, not to provide a "satisfactory" answer to an atheist. My aim is to speak the truth in love to fellow Christians and to bear witness to Christ. It isn't to tingle peoples ears with what they would want to hear and believe.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

The point is, there is no satisfactory answer. Just hand waving and dodging.

mrP

Absolam

MrPudding wrote: »

The video you posted is a great example of what we are talking about in the thread in A&A.

Your own post below is a great example of what I was talking about in the thread in A&A :-)

MrPudding wrote: »

There are no gods and the universe doesn't care. That provides a better answer than the christian world view.

5. Arguments such as "There is no God, therefore..." or "The Bible is full of contradictions, therefore..." will not be tolerated.

MrPudding

Absolam wrote: »

Your own post below is a great example of what I was talking about in the thread in A&A :-)

5. Arguments such as "There is no God, therefore..." or "The Bible is full of contradictions, therefore..." will not be tolerated.

I wasn't making an argument. I was asked a direct question and I answered it. But thanks for proving a point that was made in the A&A forum, one that you denied. That it wouldn't possible to have a discussion in this forum on this question. Only 12 posts before you had to hide behind the charter, and even then it was a poor effort.

MrP

Absolam

MrPudding wrote: »

I wasn't making an argument. I was asked a direct question and I answered it. But thanks for proving a point that was made in the A&A forum, one that you denied. That it wouldn't possible to have a discussion in this forum on this question. Only 12 posts before you had to hide behind the charter, and even then it was a poor effort.

Actually, my point on the other thread was that at least here posters shouldn't have to contend with other posters derailing the discussion of theodicies with 'there is no God'. Like you just did (don't feel too bad, I figured it was only a matter of time before someone tried). 'Hiding behind the charter' sounds a bit on the butt hurt side in fairness; there's a reason for the Charter in Christianity being different from A&A. Should it not be considered?

Anyways thanks antiskeptic, Nick Park, and solodeogloria for your thoughts. I think I'm right in saying you are all posting from a Protestant perspective; I wonder will we get any posters advancing a Catholic perspective?

MrPudding

Absolam wrote: »

Actually, my point on the other thread was that at least here posters shouldn't have to contend with other posters derailing the discussion of theodicies with 'there is no God'. Like you just did (don't feel too bad, I figured it was only a matter of time before someone tried). 'Hiding behind the charter' sounds a bit on the butt hurt side in fairness; there's a reason for the Charter in Christianity being different from A&A. Should it not be considered?

I was not derailing the conversation, I was asked a direct question about an alternative, or what the atheist viewpoint was. I simply answered that question. If someone asks for the atheist viewpoint, or an alternative to their christian explanation, are you saying I should not be allowed to answer? My answer, saying there is no gods is not an inevitability of this discussion, but it is an inevitability of a direct question asking what the atheist explanation for what we see is. Obviously.

As for butt hurt... Meh. Just disappointment. I shouldn't be surprised you made "an appeal to charter" I knew that was going to happen, the delicate sensibilities of your christian friends must be protected, but I am disappointed you made it in relation to a post where I was answering a direct question, the nature of which meant I had to answer as I did. But, like I said, it isn't really surprising. Congratulations on making this thread exactly as the thread of A&A reckoned it would be.

It is an interesting subject but the overly delicate and sensitive nature of some of the posters here makes this, ironically, the wrong place to have it.

MrP

Absolam

MrPudding wrote: »

I was not derailing the conversation, I was asked a direct question about an alternative, or what the atheist viewpoint was. I simply answered that question. If someone asks for the atheist viewpoint, or an alternative to their christian explanation, are you saying I should not be allowed to answer? My answer, saying there is no gods is not an inevitability of this discussion, but it is an inevitability of a direct question asking what the atheist explanation for what we see is. Obviously.

Hmm. You were asked "if you don't like the Christian point of view on this issue, then happily provide a better one." Given that the issue is 'Why does God allow bad things to happen", it's pretty obvious that "There is no God" isn't a better point of view on the issue, it's a point of view that sidesteps the issue. As solodeogloria pointed out; that isn't an answer. Stepping outside the context of the issues is derailing the conversation.

MrPudding wrote: »

As for butt hurt... Meh. Just disappointment. I shouldn't be surprised you made "an appeal to charter" I knew that was going to happen, the delicate sensibilities of your christian friends must be protected, but I am disappointed you made it in relation to a post where I was answering a direct question, the nature of which meant I had to answer as I did. But, like I said, it isn't really surprising. Congratulations on making this thread exactly as the thread of A&A reckoned it would be. It is an interesting subject but the overly delicate and sensitive nature of some of the posters here makes this, ironically, the wrong place to have it.

Nope; the nature of the question required that you provide an answer for why God allows evil which is not a Christian answer, not that you step outside the question entirely and declare there is no God. So it wasn't me who made the thread exactly as the thread of A&A reckoned it would be; that was all you. Posters seemed to be doing just fine until you waded in with "There is no god". Oddly, no precious religious person was running off (metaphorically) in tears. And then you put your foot in your mouth.

solodeogloria

Good morning all!

My basic point is that I can't make an atheist think that Christianity is satisfactory to them. I can't make someone believe. That's a result of an active work of God in someone.

What I can do is explain the Christian position. Nonetheless it needs to be pointed out that the answer "life sucks" isn't actually an answer. It is declining to answer. The Christian has the privilege of a robust framework by which to see pain and suffering and the atheist doesn't.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

indioblack

Absolam wrote: »

Hmm. You were asked "if you don't like the Christian point of view on this issue, then happily provide a better one." Given that the issue is 'Why does God allow bad things to happen", it's pretty obvious that "There is no God" isn't a better point of view on the issue, it's a point of view that sidesteps the issue. As solodeogloria pointed out; that isn't an answer. Stepping outside the context of the issues is derailing the conversation.

Nope; the nature of the question required that you provide an answer for why God allows evil which is not a Christian answer, not that you step outside the question entirely and declare there is no God. So it wasn't me who made the thread exactly as the thread of A&A reckoned it would be; that was all you. Posters seemed to be doing just fine until you waded in with "There is no god". Oddly, no precious religious person was running off (metaphorically) in tears. And then you put your foot in your mouth.

If I understand your reply to Mr Pudding correctly the question posed by the OP is to be answered from within the Christian framework.
If that is so, the answer is simple - humans are responsible. In the Christian tradition, God cannot cause suffering - else he cannot be God. Well, not the Christian God.
For myself, if there is a God, he is the originator - he creates the parameters within which issues like theodicy arise.

antiskeptic

Absolam wrote: »

I think I'm right in saying you are all posting from a Protestant perspective; I wonder will we get any posters advancing a Catholic perspective?

Is not a Catholic a Protestant?

antiskeptic

Absolam wrote: »

I think I'm right in saying you are all posting from a Protestant perspective; I wonder will we get any posters advancing a Catholic perspective?

If not a Catholic, a Protestant? Especially if you protest about aspects of Protestantism

indioblack

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning all!

My basic point is that I can't make an atheist think that Christianity is satisfactory to them. I can't make someone believe. That's a result of an active work of God in someone.

What I can do is explain the Christian position. Nonetheless it needs to be pointed out that the answer "life sucks" isn't actually an answer. It is declining to answer. The Christian has the privilege of a robust framework by which to see pain and suffering and the atheist doesn't.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

If a person's belief is the result of God's work, isn't it reasonable to suppose that it's also the consequence of a person's response to that work?
I think this would imply a willingness to accept the Christian position - or, for the non-believer, an unwillingness, or inability to do this.
This would come down to the individual themselves - their lives, experiences, thinking, knowledge.
I regard some of the disbelieving posters inability to believe to be an honestly held position - even if it seems misguided to Christians.
I therefore disagree with you and suggest it may be profitable to attempt to persuade them that belief might be satisfactory for them.
With regard to Theodicy, I suspect the answer for the Christian is to accept it - even though, from that viewpoint, it cannot be explained.

solodeogloria

indioblack wrote: »

If a person's belief is the result of God's work, isn't it reasonable to suppose that it's also the consequence of a person's response to that work?
I think this would imply a willingness to accept the Christian position - or, for the non-believer, an unwillingness, or inability to do this.
This would come down to the individual themselves - their lives, experiences, thinking, knowledge.
I regard some of the disbelieving posters inability to believe to be an honestly held position - even if it seems misguided to Christians.
I therefore disagree with you and suggest it may be profitable to attempt to persuade them that belief might be satisfactory for them.
With regard to Theodicy, I suspect the answer for the Christian is to accept it - even though, from that viewpoint, it cannot be explained.

Good evening!

I've offered you an insight in my previous posts as to how a Christian can understand suffering in light of human sinfulness and in the light of the world being fallen through disobedience. I've also offered how Jesus Christ can offer hope to the Christian both now and for the age to come through His death and resurrection. The Christian has a God who came and suffered and died so that we could be made right with God. The Christian has a God who is intimately acquainted with suffering in a way that other religions do not. The Christian position provides an incredibly strong hermeneutic for suffering. I believe it can be explained through the Gospel. I don't think I need to decline to answer in the same way that an atheist has to.

As for belief and disbelief being a response to God's work. Yes, and no. Yes in the sense that we do have the ability to reject God, but no in the sense that God already knows who are His and God knows and chooses those who come to Him. Indeed He did this before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:3-4). This is a controversial point of view, but I think it is Biblical. That however is a topic for a thread on predestination. Jesus' sheep hear His voice and they come to Him (John 10:3).

All disbelief, however sincere it may seem, is a form of rebellion against the God who made us. There is no middle ground from a Christian point of view. Either you accept God's rescue and turn to God's Son for the hope of eternity or you don't. God is good, and He is just. However, to pin the blame at God, when it is actually squarely at rebellious, sinful humanity is utterly wrong.

I know that isn't nice to hear, but we need to face up to the truth of our condition rather than blaming the good God who offers us forgiveness and the hope of heaven in Jesus.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

indioblack

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I've offered you an insight in my previous posts as to how a Christian can understand suffering in light of human sinfulness and in the light of the world being fallen through disobedience. I've also offered how Jesus Christ can offer hope to the Christian both now and for the age to come through His death and resurrection. The Christian has a God who came and suffered and died so that we could be made right with God. The Christian has a God who is intimately acquainted with suffering in a way that other religions do not. The Christian position provides an incredibly strong hermeneutic for suffering. I believe it can be explained through the Gospel. I don't think I need to decline to answer in the same way that an atheist has to.

As for belief and disbelief being a response to God's work. Yes, and no. Yes in the sense that we do have the ability to reject God, but no in the sense that God already knows who are His and God knows and chooses those who come to Him. Indeed He did this before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:3-4). This is a controversial point of view, but I think it is Biblical. That however is a topic for a thread on predestination. Jesus' sheep hear His voice and they come to Him (John 10:3).

All disbelief, however sincere it may seem, is a form of rebellion against the God who made us. There is no middle ground from a Christian point of view. Either you accept God's rescue and turn to God's Son for the hope of eternity or you don't. God is good, and He is just. However, to pin the blame at God, when it is actually squarely at rebellious, sinful humanity is utterly wrong.

I know that isn't nice to hear, but we need to face up to the truth of our condition rather than blaming the good God who offers us forgiveness and the hope of heaven in Jesus.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

An insightful post.
Predestination is certainly controversial - and would open up a bigger debate than this one.
If there is a God, to pin the blame on him would not only be wrong - it would be illogical.
Thanks for the reply - you nailed your colours to the mast - which makes a refreshing change.

EirWatcher

Absolam wrote: »

I'm right in saying you are all posting from a Protestant perspective; I wonder will we get any posters advancing a Catholic perspective?

There were many Christian philosophers in the Catholic church through the millennia. Their body of work stands and informs Catholic theologians up to the present day. Most recently, Pope Benedict himself is considered to be a living Christian philosopher (especially in his works prior to becoming Pope). Some specific example references related to your original query "defense of God's goodness and omnipotence in view of the existence of evil":

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I, Q48-49:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP_Q48.html

Anselm of Canterbury, De Casu final, Chap. 20:
"How God causes evil wills and evil actions; and how they are received from Him."
http://jasper-hopkins.info/DeCasu.pdf

Cardinal Ratzinger, God and the World, pp. 127-128:
"The question has come up time and again in the history of religions: [...] Doesn't evil has its origin in God himself? [...] Christ has, so to speak, taken the wind out of the sails of this question [...] He did this by dying for our sake and thereby showing us the unfathomable depth of God's love. Thus, the Letter of James can say, 'there is no darkness in him' (that is, in God); the darkness comes from elsewhere [...] The Christian and biblical answer says: It comes from freedom. [...] Evil is not something with its own nature, its own being, but is simply negation. And when I take a step into evil, I leave the realm of the positive development of being"

Absolam

antiskeptic wrote: »

Is not a Catholic a Protestant? Especially if you protest about aspects of Protestantism

I'm pretty sure some Protestants are catholic, and some Catholics protest against Protestantism, but any more than that may be somewhat off topic

xz

Absolam wrote:

5. Arguments such as "There is no God, therefore..." or "The Bible is full of contradictions, therefore..." will not be tolerated.

The second one is actually true, and therefore should be tolerated, the first one is a matter of opinion or faith, depending on your leaning, that one I will give you, now getting back to this origin of suffering, that, I do not know, but history shows us that suffering has been perpetrated by Christians, in the Name of God. For example, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the persecution of those, who we would now call atheists, or even Scientists, personally I believe that the God Christians believe in, is not all loving and powerful, he is vengeful and powerful, there is a world of difference, and to follow that kind of belief is actually dumbfounding ..... Accepts slap on wrist for expressing a non conforming opinion, but I'm fully entitled to it whether it offends anyone or not, I'm not debasing Christianity, I'm merely expressing my own personal view.

I've done the Religion thing, grew up and made my own choice as to the validity of it all, so for the Mod to warn people, like he did above, to someone like me, isn't very Christian, there is no God is an opinion, not a state of fact, which cannot be proven, no more than anyone can prove his existence, there are contradictions in the Bible, I'm not getting into that or we'll be here all year.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Thanks for your post. Let's work through it.

xz wrote: »

The second one is actually true, and therefore should be tolerated, the first one is a matter of opinion or faith, depending on your leaning, that one I will give you, now getting back to this origin of suffering, that, I do not know, but history shows us that suffering has been perpetrated by Christians, in the Name of God. For example, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the persecution of those, who we would now call atheists, or even Scientists, personally I believe that the God Christians believe in, is not all loving and powerful, he is vengeful and powerful, there is a world of difference, and to follow that kind of belief is actually dumbfounding ..... Accepts slap on wrist for expressing a non conforming opinion, but I'm fully entitled to it whether it offends anyone or not, I'm not debasing Christianity, I'm merely expressing my own personal view.

This is beyond the discussion. We should and I would support opening a thread on how Christians have mistreated others. There's much room for repentance amongst many of us. We have all (humanly speaking, irrespective of what religion it is) mistreated other people. Often in horrendous ways. I agree that where Christians have mistreated others that they ought to repent. Similarly, I can't make myself accountable for the wrongdoing of others. Thirdly, I can't make God accountable for the sin of other people. We all ought to be transparent about our failings irrespective of whether we are Christian or not. As a Christian, I'm not claiming to be better than any of you. On my own account I am as much a sinner as anyone else, and probably more of a sinner than quite a number. For the Christian that is the very reason why we are so much in need of God's grace to begin with. It is because on our own account we are not righteous at all, but we are fully deserving of God's condemnation. We need the mercy of Jesus because He is the only one who lived a truly righteous life. We need His sacrificial death so that we can be forgiven. If Christians were perfect, we wouldn't need a perfect Saviour. I'm happy to walk through this with you if you want to, and I am happy to accept that Christians have failed many times in the past in horrendous ways and will probably fail many times in the future. We ought to be honest, I agree.

I however, will always disagree and strongly refute any attempt to claim that my God is anything but good, righteous, holy and utterly merciful because this is what we see in God's Son. You're right that my God is wrathful at sin. A loving God hates what is evil. A god who tolerates all kinds of evil is not a god I wish to believe in.

xz wrote: »

I've done the Religion thing, grew up and made my own choice as to the validity of it all, so for the Mod to warn people, like he did above, to someone like me, isn't very Christian, there is no God is an opinion, not a state of fact, which cannot be proven, no more than anyone can prove his existence, there are contradictions in the Bible, I'm not getting into that or we'll be here all year.

You're perfectly entitled to your view and nobody is saying that you are not.

However, I disagree with you about contradictions in the Bible. Every time I have seen atheists present these they tend to be from websites that intentionally pull verses out of context such as evilbible.com and The Skeptics Annotated Bible. I'd be happy to discuss this if you are willing to present the text from your own personal reading from the Bible. If you're simply googling you're showing that you don't have any honest interest in the discussion. We don't want the discussion to turn into you quoting from The Skeptics Annotated Bible and me running to CARM.

If you're up for discussing the claim that the Bible has contradictions from your own personal reading however, I'd love to discuss it on a separate thread, not this one which is about theodicy.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

xz

Another insight, from a non believers point of view, according to the Bible, God created Heaven and Earth, Adam and Eve and all the animals.
Now, bare with me, Eve was tricked by the Devil, in the form of a serpent to eat an apple from the forbidden tree of knowledge, and therefore was able to easily seduce Adam into doing the same, God became angry and cast them out of Eden, not very happy, jump forward to Lot, and his fleeing Sodom, or his wife being turned into a pillar of salt by God, or the tower of Babel, where everyone was given different languages and dispersed, the act of God..... Obviously causing suffering to those involved...... Humans

Now, what did the animal kingdom do to God, there is suffering in the animal kingdom, a new dominant Male lion will kill the offspring of his predecessor, that is suffering, a female preying mantis and some species of spider will kill their partner after mating and so on, why would God cause this suffering in the animal kingdom, who apart from the serpent, did no wrong...... So God created suffering to punish.

Now, shortly after the Big Bang, and the dust had settled, and conditions became right to produce the first single cell organisms, evolvement began, single cells, split into two, became more complex over time, required sustenance, would kill and eat the weaker ones, survival of the fittest in its most basic form, millions of years of evolution and plenty of killing to feed later, in both the animal and human kingdoms, suffering is just a survival instinct, the weak suffer whilst the strong provide the suffering, no outside or omnipotent involvement, just the process of evolution in order to survive.

I believe this is the kind of response that is acceptable, but not too the agreement of all

Delirium

MOD NOTE

The topic of the thread is theodicy, and their relevance to Christianity.

It's not about creationism/existence of God. There is already a superthread for that topic if posters wish to discuss it.

It certainly isn't a place to challenge the charter. Which if posters see breaches of, it's best to report them instead of engaging in backseat moderation.

Everyone please try to keep to the topic.

Thanks for your attention.

xz

theodicy is often based on a prior natural theology, which attempts to prove the existence of God, and seeks to demonstrate that God's existence remains probable after the problem of evil is posed by giving a justification for God's permitting evil to happen.


I'm sorry, but Mod argument is invalid, I merely gave an answer based on two sides of the coin, I wasnt debating creationism /the existence of God as you put it, I pointed out that God is aiding evil in his actions, or that he has nothing to do with anything, and that it's survival of the fittest, I'm sick of being rapped on the knuckles for NON CONFORMIST thinking, if you dont like a non Christian or cannot accept a non Christian opinion then this forum is a sham, most of us "atheists" as you call us had a Christian upbringing, so, though we're not quoting scripture to get our point across, our point is nonetheless as relevant as anyone else's......... Rant over.

I shall go and read the charter before I post again, as it's clearly used here against those of us with a differing opinion

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Firstly the mod is an atheist as far as I know.

Secondly feel free to respond to my post.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

xz

If you are referring to the one about debating contradictions in the Bible, I frankly do not have the energy, because it's a pointless discussion, we would both just be quoting from the Bible, but it's the interpretation of those quotes where the arguments begin

I shall do the adult thing and just quit, as my opinion is falling on deaf ears.

solodeogloria

xz wrote: »

If you are referring to the one about debating contradictions in the Bible, I frankly do not have the energy, because it's a pointless discussion, we would both just be quoting from the Bible, but it's the interpretation of those quotes where the arguments begin

I shall do the adult thing and just quit, as my opinion is falling on deaf ears.

Good morning!

I don't know where you got the impression that it fell on deaf ears. I replied to your post didn't I?

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Delirium

MOD NOTE

xz carded for arguing with mod instruction.

xz

Delirium wrote:

xz carded for arguing with mod instruction.

OK, having now read the charter, carding accepted, and my apologies to the Mod.

indioblack

xz wrote: »

If you are referring to the one about debating contradictions in the Bible, I frankly do not have the energy, because it's a pointless discussion, we would both just be quoting from the Bible, but it's the interpretation of those quotes where the arguments begin

I shall do the adult thing and just quit, as my opinion is falling on deaf ears.

The thread question was put specifically to Christians - perhaps those who don't come under that umbrella term should have stayed out of this thread - including myself.
The question of theodicy - explaining suffering in relation to a loving god - should encourage a lot of debate.
Or should it?
For the unbeliever there is no debate - there is no god to relate the suffering to.
The same with Christians. If this apparent contradiction cannot be explained, then it must be accepted - it's the nature of belief after all. No debate.
In the Christian tradition, if there's a problem it must be a human problem - anything else is a criticism of God - which would be a denial of God.
As I've stated before, if there is a God, he is the one who creates the parameters of existence within which these issues arise.
As one poster has pointed out, we should accept the reality of the conditions of existence - and not attempt to create our own perspective of god.
In fairness to disbelievers, though, they are simply responding to the given descriptions and attributes of the Christian god .

recedite

antiskeptic wrote: »

2. Adam expressed unto evil

3. That expression actually banjaxed his free will (sin entered his nature) and man thereafter, if left to his own devices, would only unto evil all the time.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The Christian worldview is the only one that I have come across that presents a tangible answer to human suffering. Not only that death and suffering and pain and loss entered the world through human sinfulness, but also that our God came into the world in His Son Jesus to suffer pain, and death and loss on our account so that we might be put into a restored relationship with God, but also that all things will become new on the last day.

Sounds like you guys really don't like humans. But even if humans really were such weak-minded evil creatures, and suckers for anything evil, that still does not explain why the god handed them all this evil in the first place.

You do not hand a sharp knife to a baby, unless you enjoy seeing blood and suffering.

antiskeptic

recedite wrote: »

Sounds like you guys really don't like humans.

We is as we is. Fallen, but redeemable. Look at anyone and you see something falling short of perfection. And perfection is what's up for grabs.

You might be quite happy with the current state of affairs, but might understand others desiring something better.

But even if humans really were such weak-minded evil creatures, and suckers for anything evil, that still does not explain why the god handed them all this evil in the first place.

You do not hand a sharp knife to a baby, unless you enjoy seeing blood and suffering.

Adam wasn't a baby. He gave indication of understanding that there was a choice involved and that negative consequences would follow conscious decision to disobey. "But God said .. surely die" indicates same. Now, you can argue all you like that Adam didn't have any comprehension of negative consequences but that strikes as a rather weak plank on which to base your defense .. before Him, that is. You might as well argue that they hadn't any understanding of any of the words spoken by them or to them.

indioblack

antiskeptic wrote: »

We is as we is. Fallen, but redeemable. Look at anyone and you see something falling short of perfection. And perfection is what's up for grabs.

You might be quite happy with the current state of affairs, but might understand others desiring something better.



Adam wasn't a baby. He gave indication of understanding that there was a choice involved and that negative consequences would follow conscious decision to disobey. "But God said .. surely die" indicates same. Now, you can argue all you like that Adam didn't have any comprehension of negative consequences but that strikes as a rather weak plank on which to base your defense .. before Him, that is. You might as well argue that they hadn't any understanding of any of the words spoken by them or to them.

If Adam understood fully the consequences of his actions, [whatever they were], he couldn't have disobeyed.
If he was told clearly and bluntly - and assuming he knew who was addressing him - why would he disobey?
He lived in paradise - there must have been some heavy duty enticement to make him want to lose it.
It seems like an incomplete story.

solodeogloria

recedite wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

2. Adam expressed unto evil

3. That expression actually banjaxed his free will (sin entered his nature) and man thereafter, if left to his own devices, would only unto evil all the time.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The Christian worldview is the only one that I have come across that presents a tangible answer to human suffering. Not only that death and suffering and pain and loss entered the world through human sinfulness, but also that our God came into the world in His Son Jesus to suffer pain, and death and loss on our account so that we might be put into a restored relationship with God, but also that all things will become new on the last day.

Sounds like you guys really don't like humans. But even if humans really were such weak-minded evil creatures, and suckers for anything evil, that still does not explain why the god handed them all this evil in the first place.

You do not hand a sharp knife to a baby, unless you enjoy seeing blood and suffering.

Good evening!

I don't think it is about disliking humans, but rather it is about having the right realistic perspective on what we are like. Humanity was created in God's image and for that reason humans have a lot of potential. However, it is also clear that we live in a pretty screwed up world even if it does have redeeming features. Christians would also hold that humanity flourishes at its best when it right relationship with God as it was intended to be. The reality is that the heart of man is too often inclined towards what is evil rather than what is good, and despite our best efforts this still remains and this still reigns in our world. Why? Well the solution comes from God's intervention and not ours. No matter how much we might not like to hear this, we need God's rescue. Only God can make us right with Him, only God can make us more like Christ, only God can change our hearts so that we are no longer inclined towards sin.

This isn't bad news, it is good news. I suspect the only reason one would consider it bad news is because there is a lack of understanding of the situation we find ourselves in and a lack of understanding as to how great Jesus Christ and His mercy and grace towards us is. When you see these two things starkly held together, you'll see how amazing Christianity is and how it changes everything.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

recedite

solodeogloria wrote: »

The reality is that the heart of man is too often inclined towards what is evil rather than what is good, and despite our best efforts this still remains and this still reigns in our world. Why? Well the solution comes from God's intervention and not ours. No matter how much we might not like to hear this, we need God's rescue.

What happened to free will? If he corrupted us by feeding us this evil, why would he want to rescue us afterwards? Unless he is admitting he made a mistake by exposing us to that evil. Surely he should just accept that humans are corrupted and/or corruptable, and move on. Start work on a new and improved model of humanoid that is less susceptible to the evil.
Evil which he either enjoys testing us with, or else he is unable to get rid of.

antiskeptic

indioblack wrote: »

If Adam understood fully the consequences of his actions, [whatever they were], he couldn't have disobeyed.
If he was told clearly and bluntly - and assuming he knew who was addressing him - why would he disobey?
He lived in paradise - there must have been some heavy duty enticement to make him want to lose it.
It seems like an incomplete story.

It seems to me that in order to be presented with genuine choice, the scales need to be balanced. That is: the positive attraction of acting in a particular way vs. negative consequences of acting so .. be balanced.

If the scales are unbalanced such that the attractions/impediments themselves dictate the choice, then it's not really human choice, but the attractions/impediments forcing the 'choice'

A person doesn't need to know the fullest consequences in either direction in order to choose (barring omniscience, who can know this). All that need be is that the consequences known/understood be balanced.

The issue is that: balanced choice, not to-the-fullest-knowledge choice.

indioblack

antiskeptic wrote: »

It seems to me that in order to be presented with genuine choice, the scales need to be balanced. That is: the positive attraction of acting in a particular way vs. negative consequences of acting so .. be balanced.

If the scales are unbalanced such that the attractions/impediments themselves dictate the choice, then it's not really human choice, but the attractions/impediments forcing the 'choice'

A person doesn't need to know the fullest consequences in either direction in order to choose (barring omniscience, who can know this). All that need be is that the consequences known/understood be balanced.

The issue is that: balanced choice, not to-the-fullest-knowledge choice.

If I understand this correctly, Adam is not fully aware of the consequences of the choice he makes.
He's told that he will know death if he goes one way and then told that he will not suffer this penalty if he chooses another path.
Adam is being tempted away from God's command and makes a choice based on insufficient knowledge - he believes he will not suffer death.
Adam is going to make a decision that will have a massive effect for all of his descendants. This is his free will.
But he is willfully acting within the parameters of existence created by God.
An existence, if I understand it correctly, with the action of Eve, [who initially gets the blame], and behind her the machinations of Satan.
It's as if Adam is being indirectly sent down this road - any corrective action by God might prevent Adam's descendants from becoming what we are today.
In the Genesis story, we are the result of Adam - and the other factors permitted to operate at that time. Our fall is his fall - a fall that happened within the framework of existence then.

antiskeptic

indioblack wrote: »

If I understand this correctly, Adam is not fully aware of the consequences of the choice he makes.

He doesn't have to be fully aware for a balanced choice to exist (just as we don't have to be fully aware of the totality of consequences in order to make a balanced choice). He only has to appreciate a negative consequence is promised. This he recognizes.

He's told that he will know death if he goes one way and then told that he will not suffer this penalty if he chooses another path.

Not quite right.

He's got a life going with certain qualities to it and is promised a negative disruption to this life is he choses to disobey. The choice is take no action/do nothing (and, according to the laws of motion, life will continue as is, on a straight line, unless acted upon by an exterior force) Or take action and divert the current course.

this notion: something happening diverting a course vs. nothing happening and course continuing is paralleled in our own salvation. For example: all are born on a path to hell. If nothing happens then to hell we would all go. If something happens (salvation) then our course is diverted. Similarly, we will all be saved without our doing anything (due to God's action aimed at saving us) unless we do something (wilfully refuse God's attempt to save).

Some choices require action in both directions to be manifest. Will I go right or left? Other choices are to do nothing and stay where you are. Or act and move from where you are

Adam is being tempted away from God's command and makes a choice based on insufficient knowledge - he believes he will not suffer death.

Insufficient knowledge isn't the issue. It's choosing to discount the knowledge you do have in for one direction in favour of the knowledge you do have (or think you have) in the contra direction. Such is every choice we make. If Adam had overwhelming knowledge of death-a-certainty and overwhelming knowledge of the lie which was the counter-point then he would have had no choice.

The point was to offer choice. For that you need balance. The level of knowledge is irrelevant to balance. Just that the knowledge (whether true or not) be equal on both sides.

But he is willfully acting within the parameters of existence created by God.
An existence, if I understand it correctly, with the action of Eve, [who initially gets the blame], and behind her the machinations of Satan.
It's as if Adam is being indirectly sent down this road - any corrective action by God might prevent Adam's descendants from becoming what we are today.
In the Genesis story, we are the result of Adam - and the other factors permitted to operate at that time. Our fall is his fall - a fall that happened within the framework of existence then.

The consequences being that monumental are irrelevant to the issue of choice (the same as the point above). It might be that the consequences of Adam's obedience would have equally monumental - all mankind forever in perfect unity with God because the dominion-head of mankind brought unto mankind all the blessing for his decision. Just as he brought, as dominion-head the curse onto all mankind for his decision.

The issue is balance. Not the extent of knowledge or the extent of consequences known by Adam in his choosing.

indioblack

antiskeptic wrote: »

He doesn't have to be fully aware for a balanced choice to exist (just as we don't have to be fully aware of the totality of consequences in order to make a balanced choice). He only has to appreciate a negative consequence is promised. This he recognizes.



Not quite right.

He's got a life going with certain qualities to it and is promised a negative disruption to this life is he choses to disobey. The choice is take no action/do nothing (and, according to the laws of motion, life will continue as is, on a straight line, unless acted upon by an exterior force) Or take action and divert the current course.

this notion: something happening diverting a course vs. nothing happening and course continuing is paralleled in our own salvation. For example: all are born on a path to hell. If nothing happens then to hell we would all go. If something happens (salvation) then our course is diverted. Similarly, we will all be saved without our doing anything (due to God's action aimed at saving us) unless we do something (wilfully refuse God's attempt to save).

Some choices require action in both directions to be manifest. Will I go right or left? Other choices are to do nothing and stay where you are. Or act and move from where you are





Insufficient knowledge isn't the issue. It's choosing to discount the knowledge you do have in for one direction in favour of the knowledge you do have (or think you have) in the contra direction. Such is every choice we make. If Adam had overwhelming knowledge of death-a-certainty and overwhelming knowledge of the lie which was the counter-point then he would have had no choice.

The point was to offer choice. For that you need balance. The level of knowledge is irrelevant to balance. Just that the knowledge (whether true or not) be equal on both sides.




The consequences being that monumental are irrelevant to the issue of choice (the same as the point above). It might be that the consequences of Adam's obedience would have equally monumental - all mankind forever in perfect unity with God because the dominion-head of mankind brought unto mankind all the blessing for his decision. Just as he brought, as dominion-head the curse onto all mankind for his decision.

The issue is balance. Not the extent of knowledge or the extent of consequences known by Adam in his choosing.

I'm thinking that Adam thought he would gain something from the decision he made. Something more, acquisition, advantage - knowledge - power.
He was in Paradise. Then he was offered more.
Did this create a kind of diffuse dissatisfaction?
Interesting speculation.
Presumably at one stage he may not have had awareness of potential or offered possibilities. Then there was a change.

antiskeptic

indioblack wrote: »

I'm thinking that Adam thought he would gain something from the decision he made. Something more, acquisition, advantage - knowledge - power.

That's usually the reason for making a choice. Gain. The gain can be positive (obtaining something desirable) or negative (reduction in something perceived as undesirable)

He was in Paradise. Then he was offered more. Did this create a kind of diffuse dissatisfaction?

Clearly what was being offered was deemed attractive (whether adding to what he had or reducing something he found dissatisfying. More likely the former given it was Paradise, without anything dissatisfying).

Interesting speculation. Presumably at one stage he may not have had awareness of potential or offered possibilities. Then there was a change.

Indeed. I'm supposing Satan permitted by God into the garden for the precise purpose of enabling choice. And Adam equipped to be capable of desiring more than he had (without the present situation being considered dissatisfying). Again to enable choice.

God set the stage for Adam.

solodeogloria

recedite wrote: »

What happened to free will? If he corrupted us by feeding us this evil, why would he want to rescue us afterwards? Unless he is admitting he made a mistake by exposing us to that evil. Surely he should just accept that humans are corrupted and/or corruptable, and move on. Start work on a new and improved model of humanoid that is less susceptible to the evil.
Evil which he either enjoys testing us with, or else he is unable to get rid of.

Good morning!

The bolded piece is the issue. Why make the assumption that God gave us evil rather than us doing what is evil? We don't do evil things because God makes us do them. We do evil things because we do them. Our sin comes from within not from without.

Shirking responsibility isn't an option. We are accountable for our sin and our rejection of God. No ifs buts and ands about it.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

indioblack

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's usually the reason for making a choice. Gain. The gain can be positive (obtaining something desirable) or negative (reduction in something perceived as undesirable)



Clearly what was being offered was deemed attractive (whether adding to what he had or reducing something he found dissatisfying. More likely the former given it was Paradise, without anything dissatisfying).




Indeed. I'm supposing Satan permitted by God into the garden for the precise purpose of enabling choice. And Adam equipped to be capable of desiring more than he had (without the present situation being considered dissatisfying). Again to enable choice.

God set the stage for Adam.

God set the stage for Adam.
That would be a requirement if an act of will was wanted from Adam.
In this view God would want Adam to make a free choice - or as free as the limitations created for him would allow.
Did God need Adam to make the right choice of his own volition?
This probably goes against the Christian tradition - the idea of God needing.
God wanting Adam to choose for himself would be more acceptable.
And the gain if he chooses right?
And the penalty for everyone if he chooses wrong?
This may be an area of speculation where religion has only one answer - acceptance in belief.

antiskeptic

indioblack wrote: »

God set the stage for Adam.
That would be a requirement if an act of will was wanted from Adam.

Indeed.

In this view God would want Adam to make a free choice - or as free as the limitations created for him would allow.

As I say, limitations isn't the issue. Balance is. So long as balanced, then ideal, perfect.

Did God need Adam to make the right choice of his own volition?
This probably goes against the Christian tradition - the idea of God needing.

Need, as in confined to act in a particular away. The nature of love is to express. If deciding (not necessarily needing) to create a love situation then that is confined. Love, per definition, cannot compel return-love.

God wanting Adam to choose for himself would be more acceptable.

What would drive that want, if not love. Which brings things back to God a player.

As it happens, everyone born is given a choice re: God's way or not. Not the same setup choice as Adam but equally balanced in it's own right. There are more ways than one, to skin a cat and God seems to have skinned it a couple of ways, with no material difference between what Adam faced and what we faced: God's way or our way.

I wonder is Adam saved.

This may be an area of speculation where religion has only one answer - acceptance in belief.

I think it's a case of seeing whether there's a mechanism to be assembled which fits the information as we have it. If yes, then not so much acceptance as satisfactory theology, if not then something else.

Sure. Belief is required as a general starter motor on the whole thing. I believe God exists for all kinds of reasons. Thereafter, however, the asssembly of a theology must work mechanistically, rationally, common-sensically etc.

indioblack

antiskeptic wrote: »

Indeed.



As I say, limitations isn't the issue. Balance is. So long as balanced, then ideal, perfect.



Need, as in confined to act in a particular away. The nature of love is to express. If deciding (not necessarily needing) to create a love situation then that is confined. Love, per definition, cannot compel return-love.



What would drive that want, if not love. Which brings things back to God a player.

As it happens, everyone born is given a choice re: God's way or not. Not the same setup choice as Adam but equally balanced in it's own right. There are more ways than one, to skin a cat and God seems to have skinned it a couple of ways, with no material difference between what Adam faced and what we faced: God's way or our way.

I wonder is Adam saved.




I think it's a case of seeing whether there's a mechanism to be assembled which fits the information as we have it. If yes, then not so much acceptance as satisfactory theology, if not then something else.

Sure. Belief is required as a general starter motor on the whole thing. I believe God exists for all kinds of reasons. Thereafter, however, the asssembly of a theology must work mechanistically, rationally, common-sensically etc.

Even an agnostic like myself would want Adam saved - he's got some questions to answer!
When I spoke of acceptance I was thinking of Theodicy - another poster wrote that we should not try to impose our view of God - in effect wanting our own conditions regarding this issue. One consideration of Theodicy is the sheer immensity of suffering - this, I think, is part of the critics view.
The reality is that this existence we have now is the reality - stating the obvious of course. How it came to be so is part of this debate - though some would say it belongs elsewhere.
That suffering is part of life is stating the obvious - suffering in a world created by God, [even allowing for the Fall], requires a different view.
As I've stated elsewhere, in the Christian tradition our life on Earth is the consequence of Adam's sin - and, for us, our inherited nature.
If, as Christians are obliged to accept, God's response to that original fall from grace is just, then this is a God acting with righteous anger .
My point is that if this God exists, and if this perspective of him is accurate, [in this respect], then the poster's warning about trying to impose our conditions regarding Theodicy should be heeded.

antiskeptic

indioblack wrote: »

Even an agnostic like myself would want Adam saved - he's got some questions to answer!

No more than any of us.

When I spoke of acceptance I was thinking of Theodicy

See the 2nd post in this thread (my first). It's not so much acceptance as it is considering the mechanisms and finding it works fine. I'm a mechanical engineer, so working mechanisms are important to me.

One consideration of Theodicy is the sheer immensity of suffering - this, I think, is part of the critics view.

Which is but a reflection of the immensity of God, the immensity of his holiness (no darkness at all), the immensity of the importance of our own lives. The critic's problem is that they think too small. This isn't surprising: if your worldview holds the extent of our existence but a few score years and that's it, then you can't help but import that overview into a discussion about suffering

God had children. The choice was to remain children or go own way. The choice was love (in that father/child context) or it's polar opposite. Immense brokeness or immense perfection.

The reality is that this existence we have now is the reality

See the 2nd post in this thread where I see the place of this reality. A staging post of sorts. A place where the ultimate question is posed us and obtained from us. There's more to it than that, but ultimately, it's about that

If, as Christians are obliged to accept, God's response to that original fall from grace is just, then this is a God acting with righteous anger.
My point is that if this God exists, and if this perspective of him is accurate, [in this respect], then the poster's warning about trying to impose our conditions regarding Theodicy should be heeded.

I'm not sure what is being imposed. For myself I don't feel "obliged to accept", but rather understand, I think, why God did as he did (his righteous anger is but one element of things. Choice presented out of love another, love seeking to redeem the fallen children, love sacrificing itself so as to absorb the righteous anger so that we don't have to, etc).

I'm obliged to accept in the sense of being struck as to the fittingness of things being as they are. It couldn't be any other way. Don't get me wrong: I suffer myself and empathize with those who suffer abominably. But I retain, and hope I will continue to retain a global perspective.

It was one of the very first things that struck me as a new Christian, long before I'd gotten interested in the deeper workings of God's Plan of Redemption (theology is too austere and generalized a word). I suddenly understood the whole world: why it is the way it is, why it operates the way it operates. The fall permeates every area of human activity and the mess that is human activity is completely to be expected. And won't ever be fixed fail for his coming again.

The world is like a bunch of kids without a father. Street urchins, gangs, trouble & strife. Sophisticated, technological but nothing more than that..