rainbow walking

Hey, thanx PB, I see alot of fresh meat has moved in.

Darwin's Finch

I want to second that welcome back, RW. I still vividly remember your last posts, before you left for a while, as among the most heartfelt and moving I've seen around here. I hope things are going well for you.

phlebas

RW! Welcome back, ye olde adversary

rainbow walking

Thank you DF for those kind words. Things are actually going quite smoothly since my transition. I'm finding that I'm actually beginning to enjoy life more fully without the constant pressure of believing I'm being monitored and the accompanying guilt associated. I've actually been too busy to dwell much on establishing a particular world view but I hope to explore the world of ideas and resolve a few nagging doubts still lingering. I'll probably shake both the believer and the non-believers trees awhile to see if I can dislodge some choice nuggets

rainbow walking

Old is an apt description in more ways than one. Say, I've been working not far from the Metro area just north in Rome for the past few months. Might be working somewhere around Cartersville in May but could be in Chicago. Not decided yet. At any rate, good to hear from you. Hope all is well with you.

GPLindsey

Everybody's welcoming this guy back after he threw all these darts at my post?!? I'm stricken! Actually, I think I am basically in agreement with Rainbow Walking on the origin of the Adam and Eve story--a myth developed by primitives to help make sense of a complex world. But I think that because I am an atheist.
Fundamentalists would disagree strongly of course, arguing A&E should be taken literally.
Which brings us to the mainstream Christians, the group I was targeting in my post.

As an atheist, I'm not at all baffled as to why the "innocent" suffer (bow to rw). Natural events beyond their control, mistakes, cruelty of others, etc. And of course one can draw distinctions between types of suffering and whether some are actually beneficial or not (pain in one's legs due to vigorous exercise is a form of "suffering" that is good, if you are training for the Olympics; pain in one's legs due to cancer is not). However, I think everyone reading this could come up with situations where the suffering people go through is so extreme and pointless that the theological justifications seem empty.

A married couple who would make wonderful, loving parents go through 2,3, or 4 miscarriages before they successfully have a child. The child that is born has a crippling, degenerative condition that causes it increasingly severe pain. The parents spend months hopelessly watching their only child waste away, in agony, in a hospital bed. (For those who say we can give the child drugs to ease the pain, let's move the calendar back a century or two, and say that painkillers weren't available yet).

If there is a loving God, what possible point could there have been to put this couple and the child through this? Again, the fundamentalist answer is Original Sin. The atheist answer is that nature is a blind, imperfect, unthinking force that doles out cruelty at random--there was nothing that the couple or the child did that caused the suffering. But what does the non-fundamentalist Christian say? It's a mystery? God has a Plan for this couple that doesn't involve children? Why didn't he give them a Word of Knowledge about this plan before they went through all that?

What also annoys me about theological arguments concerning suffering is how quickly Christians are ready to turn their arguments on their head when something good does happen. Then, suddenly, God is an interventionist! For example:

A ship sinks, killing hundreds. Where was God? "God gave Man free will," they say. "But he took that free will and committed sin, bringing suffering upon himself. Man must live with the consequences of his actions, etc. etc."

A few days later, rescuers find a raft with three survivors. "Praise God!! He extended his loving hand to save those innocents from the abyss. This is a miracle proving God's sovereign power!"

The three survivors end up being too far gone and die en route back to port. "God gave Man free will, and he took that free will and committed sin...etc. etc."

Perhaps a more interesting question to pose to the religious is God's inconsistency--why does he intervene to limit suffering in some cases but not others?

Veil of Fire

"If there is a loving God, what possible point could there have been to put this couple and the child through this?"

Anyone interested in what a non-Christian theist would say?

Photocrat

It's good to see you again :]
We've all missed you.

It's funny what you said about guilt; I've had almost the opposite experience. In spite of my many faults, I find love, not guilt, awaiting me.

In a dark night when I almost renounced my faith, though, I turned the other way.

Anyhow, none of have forgotten about you and it's nice to see you again :]

Howard

rw,
Let me also add my welcome back to you. I have to say that in some ways I’m a little disappointed in your de-conversion. You were always one of the more interesting and challenging debating opponents – and you certainly have a way with words.

On the question at hand, the fact is believers haven’t a clue as to why the righteous suffer just as much as the unrighteous. If you read the Old Testament on that subject you realize that this circumstance brought about a major crisis in ancient Judaism. A recurring theme in the OT is the cycle of

- apostasy (the people falling away from God and his laws)
- suffering and persecution usually by an outside agent, e.g., the Babylonian exile.
- a return to faith in God and obeying his Laws
- redemption and salvation (again by an outside agent such as the Persians defeating the Babylonians and returning the Jews from exile.)

However, there were times when the Israelites were keeping the faith and obeying the Laws (or trying to anyway) and still suffering and still being persecuted. Hence the Book of Job, the message of which is: “I’m God, you’re nothing. I created the universe and I created you. I don’t have to explain myself and I don’t care if it doesn’t make sense to you.”

IOW, the Bible has no answer other than “Trust in the Lord...” Just don’t expect it to make sense.

DMB

Originally posted by GPLindsey:
It is not unknown for believers to think that it is immoral to try to avoid suffering imposed by god. In 19th-century England, anaethesia for childbirth was at first shunned because Genesis says something along the lines of "in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children". (Sorry if I haven't got the quote 100% right; I haven't a bible to hand.) Then Queen Victoria used it for one of her births and it became widely accepted.

The book of Job, with the questionable behaviour of god and satan, always seems to me to illustrate Shakespeare's thesis in King Lear:
[edited to correct typo]

[ April 25, 2002: Message edited by: DMB ]</p>