Which religious group?

[John in Covina]

What?

My point is that the Judeo-Christian God - one that is *omniscient* - would have known such things, yet proceeded with Creation anyhow.

I guess I don't understand what you're getting at.

Most people of Faith have an idea of a great plan by God for our Salvation. The idea does not make us robots for the side of good or evil. Evil is usually a deliberate choice but can be done under deception as in a False Flags scenario, however we can only judge people by what they do not the content of their heart. Judging by the content of the heart is for the Divine.

One thing that comes up when bad things happen to people, from car accidents to hurricanes and tsunamis is people will look at this and say it is a judgement from God and a punishment. BUT, this then begs the question, who here on earth is not a sinner and does not deserve the same judgement?

In the end all of these things should serve to say, look to your own soul and use this oppourtunity to help others. As to natural disaster, the whole of Creation groans under the Fall and things are not what they should be. As to the Holocost, all pomgroms, killing fields and ethnic cleansings, those are the works of man, not God. As our science and Technology has increased our ability to inflict death and destruction has increased so that in the last 100 to 200 years MAN has killed in levels unprecidented in history, and only the plagues or the Spanish Flu of 1917 come close to our mark.

 

[MK]

.

My point is that the Judeo-Christian God - one that is *omniscient* - would have known such things, yet proceeded with Creation anyhow.

Even though I am far from being omniscient, I chose to have children knowing full well some bad things would happen to them.

 

[Samsa]

Same. I don't worship so religion to me is just some form of mental stability created by man to build a higher being that controls ones self from doing evil.

My reference to your line was that Nostradamus did predict all that in writing and he is by all means not revered as "holy" or "godly", a heretic if anything. It's just that your belief is your belief, and my belief is mine. Let's just leave it at that.

I am actually no longer a believer; I too was Catholic, but no more. So I think we actually have the same belief. I just like theological and philosophical discussions, that's all.

 

[Samsa]

Most people of Faith have an idea of a great plan by God for our Salvation. The idea does not make us robots for the side of good or evil. Evil is usually a deliberate choice but can be done under deception as in a False Flags scenario, however we can only judge people by what they do not the content of their heart. Judging by the content of the heart is for the Divine.

One thing that comes up when bad things happen to people, from car accidents to hurricanes and tsunamis is people will look at this and say it is a judgement from God and a punishment. BUT, this then begs the question, who here on earth is not a sinner and does not deserve the same judgement?

In the end all of these things should serve to say, look to your own soul and use this oppourtunity to help others. As to natural disaster, the whole of Creation groans under the Fall and things are not what they should be. As to the Holocost, all pomgroms, killing fields and ethnic cleansings, those are the works of man, not God. As our science and Technology has increased our ability to inflict death and destruction has increased so that in the last 100 to 200 years MAN has killed in levels unprecidented in history, and only the plagues or the Spanish Flu of 1917 come close to our mark.

Having earned a degree in Theology I am intimately familiar with all of these points. The post of mine that you quoted was directed at RIOT (simply to see what point he was trying to make). I am quite aware that theologians have answers aplenty to the "why is there evil" question.

 

[Samsa]

Even though I am far from being omniscient, I chose to have children knowing full well some bad things would happen to them.

I think there is a world of difference between the omniscience of God vis-a-vis the assumption of risk that one takes in raising children.

For instance, if I were married and were considering having children, I would *not* have a child if I knew, absolutely, that my son or daughter would be brutally murdered as part of an ethnic cleansing campaign.

I should state for the record that I do not mean any of my responses as a criticism of God, or of religion, or anyone else's belief system. I still have the utmost respect for the truly pious, and for all religions. That being said, the issues this thread is now tackling - namely theodicy - are of major importance in the realm of religious debate, so I felt obliged to comment.

 

[Dr Doran]

*************

You may wish to re-read Job.

The film The Believer with Ryan Gosling has a most interesting interpretation of Job.

 

[Dr Doran]

I think there is a world of difference between the omniscience of God vis-a-vis the assumption of risk that one takes in raising children.

For instance, if I were married and were considering having children, I would *not* have a child if I knew, absolutely, that my son or daughter would be brutally murdered as part of an ethnic cleansing campaign.

A rather excellent point. Back when I called myself a Christian (Catholic), my only way out of this particular problem was to assume that contrary to teachings, God was either not entirely omniscient or else it/He was but was not omnipotent. I rode that motorcycle for a while. Then I decided God didn't want to micromanage.

I'd probably go ahead and have a child that would be murdered because I do not think that is the worst thing there is. Maybe I would not have it if I knew it would be tortured, and almost certainly not if it was to face a life of pain and physical disability ... only the last one is forseeable with present methods, and is, in fact, fixable ... although not in a way that is consonant with Christian teachings.

 

[Gilbey]

I'd probably go ahead and have a child that would be murdered because I do not think that is the worst thing there is. Maybe I would not have it if I knew it would be tortured, and almost certainly not if it was to face a life of pain and physical disability ... only the last one is forseeable with present methods, and is, in fact, fixable ... although not in a way that is consonant with Christian teachings.

Well, "He" just did! Sending His only begotten Son to be tortured, crucified, and mocked by this world. I believe no one has ever suffered and been tortured like this man... this Son of Man who was also the Son of God, and being God Himself in the flesh who identified with us, Emmanuel - God with us. WOW! There are no words to describe this awesome love for us.

See "The Passion".

 

[surely]

That being said, the issues this thread is now tackling - namely theodicy - are of major importance in the realm of religious debate, so I felt obliged to comment. (quote from Samsa)

Theodicy(adjectival form "theodicean") is a specific branch of theology and philosophy that attempts to reconcile the existence of evil or suffering in the world with the assumption of a benevolent God —ie. the problem of evil. Theodiceans use this to reconcile the co-existence of evil and God may thus be called "a theodicy". (wikipedia)

Why must we assume "a benevolent God". Let's assume a malevolent one and see where that takes us. Or let's assume that god is a prankster. Or let's assume we are incapable of knowing the nature of god.

Samsa, I also "felt obliged to comment."...

 

[metropd]

We are on the same page, my good fellow. I hope by "beautiful people" you are talking about more than your own people, though.

Beautiful people are beautiful people I did not mean to imply they had to be Jewish or any race, sex, gender or religion. I'm glad Doran you made that reponse because it would be a selfish comment if I had only implyed my people.

 

[Viola]

Metropd, I'm Jewish too, and while I respect your agnostic-Jewish perspective (that's clunky as heck, but I mean cultural w/o religious) and know many of similar persuasion, I feel kind of different about it.

I believe in free will. People being people, a lot of bad things happen. This is true, sadly, all over the world. What is not prevalent all over the world, is still-practiced, recognizably the same, 4,000 year old religions. There just aren't that many of them.

I totally agree with your point about survivors. I just don't believe we survived on our own.

 

[deanglen]

The starting point of choice for me in the exploration of religious matters is the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. One's view on Him speaks volumes about the rest of one's orientation.

dean

 

[Dr Doran]

Well, "He" just did! Sending His only begotten Son to be tortured, crucified, and mocked by this world. I believe no one has ever suffered and been tortured like this man... this Son of Man who was also the Son of God, and being God Himself in the flesh who identified with us, Emmanuel - God with us. WOW! There are no words to describe this awesome love for us.

See "The Passion".

A very beautiful idea. I have always argued in history courses that one highly attractive element of Christianity's success in the Roman world was that the Roman gods did not have NEARLY such a compelling story about such a loving god. To go through a life of frustration (no one understanding what the hell you are talking about) and then cap it off with betrayal and a very horrible torture and execution is quite impressive when there is no need to and one can simply live happily in the clouds. The implication is that this god deeply loves his people ... Jupiter and Apollo did not love them like that but were pretty indifferent to them. No wonder Christianity succeeded (besides other factors like emphasis on high reproductive rates and marriages ... hardly a thing to discount).

 

[Dr Doran]

Beautiful people are beautiful people I did not mean to imply they had to be Jewish or any race, sex, gender or religion. I'm glad Doran you made that reponse because it would be a selfish comment if I had only implyed my people.

That's what I thought you meant, just wanted to make sure.

 

[Dr Doran]

Why must we assume "a benevolent God". Let's assume a malevolent one and see where that takes us. .

I have toyed with that one for a while too. My father was a practicing Catholic until about 8 years ago when he told me that he just didn't think a benevolent god could have allowed the Jews to die in such numbers. (No, my father has no Jewish blood whatsoever. Irish-German.). A year after that, I started thinking that God was malevolent. But the Christ story is so beautiful! I toyed with Manicheanism for a bit because I like Czeslaw Milosz and cannot stand Augustine. I'm an atheist now, but I respect the ideas of many religions.

 

[Samsa]

A rather excellent point. Back when I called myself a Christian (Catholic), my only way out of this particular problem was to assume that contrary to teachings, God was either not entirely omniscient or else it/He was but was not omnipotent. I rode that motorcycle for a while. Then I decided God didn't want to micromanage.

There is another way around it. I seem to remember a philosophy teacher (this is orthodox Catholic philosophy, mind) saying that the reason that God created the world went something like this:

- God is pure spirit

- Entities that are purely spiritual do not really have the ability to contemplate, the way humans do. This is why Satan's "non serviam"* landed him in Hell, and more importantly, why there is no such thing as repentance for angels. In other words, thought equals action for purely spiritual beings.

- God is both purely spiritual AND omnipotent. When He thought of Creation, He could not "change His mind." I.e., God thought of creation, and it was.

I sure hope I got that right.

Of course this raises the issue of what exactly omnipotence is. How can one be omnipotent if one cannot change one's mind...

*edited to correct the Latin

 

[surely]

Duck, it's comming

The starting point of choice for me in the exploration of religious matters is the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. One's view on Him speaks volumes about the rest of one's orientation. Oh, boy,... here it comes!

dean

What does "speaks volumes" & "one's orientation" mean? It could be interpreted to sound like if one dismisses him then that person should be dismissed too.

 

[surely]

There is another way around it. I seem to remember a philosophy teacher (this is orthodox Catholic philosophy, mind) saying that the reason that God created the world went something like this:

- God is pure spirit

- Entities that are purely spiritual do not really have the ability to contemplate, the way humans do. This is why Satan's "non servum" landed him in Hell, and more importantly, why there is no such thing as repentance for angels. In other words, thought equals action for purely spiritual beings.

- God is both purely spiritual AND omnipotent. When He thought of Creation, He could not "change His mind." I.e., God though of creation, and it was.

I sure hope I got that right.

Of course this raises the issue of what exactly omnipotence is. How can one be omnipotent if one cannot change one's mind...

This sounds like a religious justification for the multi universe theory being seriously proposed by physicists. Every time god thinks a thought a new universe is created. We just are unlucky having been created before god worked out all the problems. oh well, sigh

 

[surely]

Metropd, I'm Jewish too

I come from that tribe too.

 

[Dr Doran]

It's "non serviam" not "non servum."

"I shall not serve"(or, since the related noun servus means slave, "I shall not be a slave").

However, that's quite interesting but implies a being who can think things into existence immediately. No beings like that are known to exist through normal means of investigating the natural world. I guess if that works for you, that is fine, but I lack that special element, that "faith" thing. Like Diet Coke, "never had it. Never will." (Actually, I did have it until about 14.)