long winded fool

Keep in mind that, in the analogy, you would be the son accusing the coach of not having your best interests at heart by desiring for you to lose. I would merely be a teammate saying "I don't understand either, but there's probably a good reason, since he's the coach."

I'm not necessarily comparing the 'physical realm' directly to the game. I merely went "one simpler" since I don't know the goals of God and I do know the goals of the coach. I can't answer your questions as to what God has in mind when he allows an innocent child to be raped and murdered. Analogously, as a teammate, I don't know what the coach has in mind by wanting us to lose the championships. It seems ridiculous to me, because the only thing I know is the desire to win at all costs. Maybe this desire to win is not necessarily the desire he wants us to focus on, i.e. maybe losing is not the ultimate failure, i.e. maybe intense suffering and physical death are not the ultimate evils. While building character and having a good time is more important than winning, I don't know what is more important than protecting the lives of innocent children. Remember, I'm just a teammate here.

And you haven't addressed the loving father allowing his children to harm his children and how such a thing can be loving. You can speak in "spiritual" terms all you desire. But people know that a father that permits such things is not loving.

I did address it. How can a father want his son to lose? If winning is the universe, this desire cannot possibly be loving. But it is. How? Because there is more to the universe than just winning. The love to win is not an accurate description of love in its true sense. The coach knows this. The kids don't. Applying the analogy "one better," maybe the love that everyone knows and understands is still not an accurate description of what love actually is. Maybe we're all kids and maybe our physical lives aren't as important as our uneducated and immature minds insist they are.

emur

I think we are talking past each other, long winded fool. I don't see what your coach illustration has to do with my original questions. Such comparisons to God don't make sense to me.

As for my loving father question, what does a father wanting his son to lose have to do with permitting his children to harm his other children? It's battleships and oranges to me.

Once again, God's supposed interventionist actions appear random, just like nature. And once again, God as loving father makes no sense with the reality of how Christians treat Christians.

Mel

long winded fool

Well, if the analogy is too obscure, just assume for the moment that what you consider "love" (desire, attachment, etc.) is a part of true love, but does not anywhere near describe love in its full context. Imagine that, while the way you act towards other people can (and should) be totally loving, the way you act towards other people is always only a tiny fragment of what it really means to love. While one ought to take care of one's physical body and help others do the same, "true love" is not bound by the physical. We feel like total failures if we allow someone, especially a child, to suffer and die, yet this is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. In fact, physical/emotional love is only a tiny sliver of true love. It is merely a reflection of spiritual love. This doesn't make it bad. It's good, it's just that it's insignificant when compared to spiritual love. Eliminating the physical cannot prevent love, and can open one up to more important forms of love. What those are and how it all works I don't know. Like you, the only way I know how to love is physically/emotionally, so this is the way I love. While there's nothing wrong with these, and there's nothing wrong with experiencing pain when you lose this type of love, there is infinitely more love than what we experience here. The death of children hurts us, but that's only because physical love is all we know. If we knew spiritual love and love apart from the physical realm, we'd gladly sacrifice a little insignificant physical and emotional pain (insignificant in the grand scheme of things, if not to the extremely ignorant body which experiences it, I mean,) for the greater good of educating someone so that they can appreciate and accept love in its true form and not settle for such an ignorant and animal love as human love. Nothing wrong with it, but it's the tiniest tip of the iceberg.

I never said that all Christians were perfect. Does the misbehavior of a son preclude the possibility of a loving father? Keep in mind that humans have free will, according to the Bible. God isn't a "cosmic rapist." We can freely accept his love, but we are also free to reject it. A father who forces his children to love him is not a loving father.

I agree that God's supposed interventionist actions appear random and can usually be explained through natural occurrences. But then, if we live in nature and are dependent upon the space-time continuum in order to perceive any phenomena, how could God intervene unnaturally? Anything He "does" must be explainable by the laws of the universe, otherwise beings that depend on the laws of the universe for perception and existence couldn't possibly be affected. I don't understand all of the laws of the universe, which is why there exist phenomena that I can't explain, but I have no doubt that there are natural explanations for all the phenomena that exist. God's "interventions" are all naturally occurring phenomena. Because we can't explain them or don't often encounter them doesn't mean that there are not natural explanations. We may never know what they are, but they are there. God is present and intervening in every single action that takes place, if he is the designer. Any "change" that he decides to make (even if he could decide to change something on the fly) still must logically go unnoticed as anything but a natural event by anyone not outside the space-time continuum.

Therefore, to call God "supernatural," as in above the laws of nature, is misleading. While the creator of nature must logically be independent of nature, a being totally bound by nature cannot visualize this because nothing natural can possibly perceive anything supernatural. God cannot perceptibly defy the true laws of the universe. "Miracles" can only be unexplained, never supernatural. We can postulate that God isn't bound by nature, but we can never find evidence for this while we are bound by nature. Jesus said that every miracle He did, we could do plus more, [if we'd only follow his lead and embrace true love.]

I'm not trying to evangelize you here. I'm merely trying to answer the questions you've presented. The Biblical context of God seems to fit logically with the problems you have. Once you assume the God of the Bible and then go logically from there, (If God is so such and such, then...) there are very few contradictions that actually pan out. Not many atheists (or Christians for that matter) realize this.

emur

And you know this how? Define for me "true love".

That is not what my question is. Again, a father who allows his children to harm his other children is not loving. Let's say I have four children. Two of them mistreat the other two and use my relationship with them as justification. There is no way that I can be a loving father and not intervene on behalf of my mistreated children. Especially, and I repeat, especially when my mistreating children and using me as justification to hurt the others.

As for God's supposed intervention, I am glad you agree that it appears random. Whether it is explainable by the laws of nature isn't the issue for me. My concern is with its arbitrariness.

This is good. I do not like being evangelized. Do I detect a bit of presuppositionalism here? I find presuppositionalism just a way to philosophically dance around the obvious problems of the biblical God. I have no respect for it. Assuming something irrational is rational doesn't make it rational. It only means you think it is rational.

Assuming that God is the biblical version of God creates more problems than it solves. This is certainly true regarding my questions.

Mel

long winded fool

And again, the fact that you can't understand or won't accept that physical harm is not evil doesn't necessarily present a rational contradiction. The "harm" done to other children is not harm at all. You only think it's harm because all you know is physical love. That is not the goal of God. I don't have to prove the difference between human physical love and true love because you assumed it as an axiom when you assumed God as an axiom in your question. (If there is a God, then...) By accepting God for the sake of argument and then trying to find contradictions which pop up, you must accept the God of the Bible and all that entails. The God of the Bible is very arbitrary and is capable of allowing physical pain and suffering to plague his creation. If this is frightening, then you haven't grasped the temporal nature of pain and suffering and the eternal nature of love which are recurring themes in the Bible. Forcing your child to endure any amount of physical suffering, (even crucifixion) is worth the price of ensuring eternal love for even one of your children. I understand that you don't agree, but your question has been answered. God can allow any pain and suffering and still be all loving. This is not contradictory unless you throw out a vital component in the presentation of the Biblical God. The "Problem of Evil" is clearly addressed and is no problem at all. Read the Gospels.

You have presupposed the God of the Bible. (I'm assuming.) You then proceed to ask questions which are answered in the Bible. I have provided you with the answers. You have not presented any problems that make the existence of the Biblical God irrational. The nature of the physical and temporal in relation to the spiritual and eternal is clearly defined in the Bible. Jesus helped many people who were suffering physically, (sometimes even half-heartedly.) He left others to continue suffering. His goal was not to end suffering. It was to change our way of thinking so that we could end our own suffering. If the reason you are a christian is because you think God primarily wants to make you feel good physically, you aren't a true Christian. You believe in a false god. If you aren't a christian because you think God wants to make us feel good physically and fails miserably to do so, you are proving the irrationality of a false god, not the Biblical God.

BTW, when I was a little kid I would occasionally hit my sister. My sister would tell on me. My mother would then say, "Hit him back." Was this unloving? Was she sowing the seeds of hatred and violence between her children? Wasn't she teaching my sister to fight her own battles? Wasn't she being more loving by teaching my sister to take care of herself than if she coddled her and spoiled her? Didn't she want me to find out that hitting my sister brought more immediate and more painful consequences than merely being scolded by a third party after the fact? Of course, unless you accept the Biblical fact that physical pain is not evil, only turning away from God is evil, you can't accept this. If you don't accept the Biblical concepts, then you aren't honestly presupposing the Biblical God and then finding contradictions. You are essentially creating a straw man. You're creating a god much like the God of the Bible but giving him inconsistent attributes and then pointing out the inconsistencies.

JCS

I don't think your analogy works quite as well as others I've seen posted. My favorite is, you tell your kids how dangerous guns are, you explain the potential consequence of playing with guns. Then you place them in a room containing several loaded pistols and stand by letting what ever happens happen. Of course lessons will be learned, but at what price? No loving parent would ever consider employing such a despicable teaching method, would they?

Perhaps they would...
Actually what she was teaching you and your sister was that the only solution to violence was more violence.

But aren't you creating a god that you can agree with or the the very least explain?

emur

One person harming another is not evil? Christians slandering, gossiping, splitting churches, holding grudges...isn't harm? Not being philosophically minded, I don't know how to respond to this, except to say that your meaning of words and mine are vary different.

No, you don't have to prove the difference. I will ask you again, define "true love". If you cannot, then your comparison of physical love to it is mute.

I'm not trying to find contradictions. They are there, staring me right in the face. I will not deny them.

I agree, but I would add "causing" to go along with "allowing".

Why must physical suffering be the cost of ensuring eternal love? Just because the bible teaches it? I've read the gospels. I don't accept them as the inerrant word of God. As for the problem of evil, other threads on this site have dealt with it, and it being no problem at all is just your opinion.

No, I haven't presupposed the God of the bible. I have only asked questions regarding two possible characteristics of God: his being interventionist and his being a loving father.

Sure I have. The loving father description, when placed alongside reality, shows the biblical God to be irrational in the real world in which we live. You've just explained this away with the present suffering/eternal love bit.

Nothing I have said should imply to you that I expect to feel good physically. I don't expect to. On the days that I don't, I just accept it and go on. Even as an evangelical Christian, my faith in that God wasn't challenged by my own physical ailments. But Christians mistreating Christians (and others for that matter) was a problem for me. And then, after more than 10 years in the ministry, my faith in that God was unsustainable. After what I have seen and experienced, an interventionist loving God doesn't exist except in the minds of those who want such a God to exist and can deny reality.

So, when Christians are mistreated by other Christians, they should mistreat them back? Doesn't sound like Jesus to me.

Reality for me determines what is believable and what is not. The biblical God in total is simply not believable.

Mel

long winded fool

That's correct. The action of a person hurting another person is not evil. The desire, the thought process, the selfish motive behind these acts is what is evil. That's why all sins are forgivable. It's not what we do, it's who we are. Mistakes are not evil, however painful they are.

No, you don't have to prove the difference. I will ask you again, define "true love". If you cannot, then your comparison of physical love to it is mute.

True love is the absence of any and all desire to sin. It is truly loving your brother as you love yourself and loving reason and truth above all else. This is the goal. This is what Jesus had.

Why must physical suffering be the cost of ensuring eternal love? Just because the bible teaches it? I've read the gospels. I don't accept them as the inerrant word of God. As for the problem of evil, other threads on this site have dealt with it, and it being no problem at all is just your opinion.

The reason physical suffering can ensure eternal love is because most people instinctively respond to pain more readily than reason. It is not "necessary" in the absolute sense. It is merely necessary for those who love themselves more than others. (Which is everyone.) If we didn't have this trait, (call it original sin) we'd not need suffering to teach us how to use our brains instead of our instincts. Our animal instincts tell us to maximize pleasure and minimize pain in all circumstances. Our reasoning ability allows us to endure pain and sacrifice pleasure for the good of others.

No, I haven't presupposed the God of the bible. I have only asked questions regarding two possible characteristics of God: his being interventionist and his being a loving father.

So you've taken two divine qualities out of context with the rest and used this to form an argument that you claim contradicts the possibility of God? You're welcome to throw the Bible out of the argument, but once you do you're no longer contradicting the God of the Bible. Many Christians have very false ideas about what God is, due to the human desire to pick the Biblical ideas they like and ignore the ones they don't. If you're refuting these, I commend you. The God as described by the entire Bible in context is not so easily refuted, however, and certainly not by picking and choosing the qualities you want him to have.

Sure I have. The loving father description, when placed alongside reality, shows the biblical God to be irrational in the real world in which we live. You've just explained this away with the present suffering/eternal love bit.

And what's wrong with this explanation? It's logical. It's Biblical. It seems that the only thing wrong with it is the fact that you dislike it, being a physical being. You're more than welcome to dislike it, but it is important for you to understand that your dislike, given your question and the Biblical answer, is not rational.

Nothing I have said should imply to you that I expect to feel good physically. I don't expect to. On the days that I don't, I just accept it and go on. Even as an evangelical Christian, my faith in that God wasn't challenged by my own physical ailments. But Christians mistreating Christians (and others for that matter) was a problem for me. And then, after more than 10 years in the ministry, my faith in that God was unsustainable. After what I have seen and experienced, an interventionist loving God doesn't exist except in the minds of those who want such a God to exist and can deny reality.

It sounds like you were looking for the easy way out. Expecting God to do your thinking or acting for you, and then getting upset when you had to take on the emotional responsibility of witnessing these painful acts. Nowhere does God promise freedom from pain and from the temptation to sin to his children. Jesus warns that you'll likely be ostracized and mistreated if you follow the way of God. Having faith is about learning truth, not about eliminating pain, (from yourself as well as from others) which from what you say seems to be your goal despite your denial. Because you have this deep-rooted instinctive goal, you apply it to God when in fact this is not Biblical. The desire to eliminate pain is good and should be strong. The desire to love and reason and eliminate fear and instinct should always be far stronger and the final judge of what to do in any situation.

So, when Christians are mistreated by other Christians, they should mistreat them back? Doesn't sound like Jesus to me.

No, they should turn the other cheek. They don't. Should God force them to turn the other cheek if they don't want to? If God prevents the strike in the first place, can we ever learn from our mistakes? Can we ever love or reason without the ability to rationally judge right from wrong? Can we ultimately have free will if we are incapable of making a mistake?

Reality for me determines what is believable and what is not. The biblical God in total is simply not believable.


I understand. What I don't understand is how you come to the above conclusion through the questions you presented in the op. The Bible leaves neither of these questions unanswered if you take it in context for what it symbolically means and not just for what it literally says in a given book. While not all Christians may understand the rationale of supposedly contradictory Biblical ideas, the Bible ought to be given the benefit of the doubt, and the best and most defensible position ought to be argued against before the "right-wing fundie" position. While this position ought to be argued against, such an argument does not logically apply to all Biblical interpretations.

emur

I will begin with this first. I realize that the God the bible describes is both interventionist and described as a loving father. But because the bible says so doesn't make it so. Reality and the meaning of the term "love" show me otherwise.

No, I wasn't looking for the easy way out. I just cannot deny reality, that's all. I don't have a problem with cognitive dissonance.

I have said nothing about eliminating pain and I do not have that as a goal. I have said that God cannot be a loving father and allow his children to hurt his children. That's it. I'm not talking about ending all suffering or that Christians should never experience pain.

Now I do have a problem with Grandma Millie going to some charismatic service and getting her crochety ole back healed while Deacon Elmer dies a slow, horrible death from cancer. I realize that the biblical God is pictured as doing this kind of thing, but it is so arbitrary and biased that it is totally unacceptable to me that a truly existing supreme being would do such a thing. If both suffered, at least we can say that God wasn't partial.

Well, I reckon your mother didn't teach your sister the correct way to deal with you, did she?

As for the rest of your post, I disagree. If anyone else wants to respond or comment on it, I encourage you to do so.

Mel

long winded fool

So... all should suffer equally or no one should suffer at all? Don't you see that this implies a personal desire to avoid pain and an assumption that this is also God's goal for us? "It's not fair that one person is healed of their suffering and another is not," is the statement of someone who feels that pain is to be avoided first and foremost. That Christianity is about healing bodies and being collectively free from suffering and pain. This is not the teaching of the God whom you are trying to argue against. Jesus even said that "there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha, yet not one of them was cleansed-only Naaman the Syrian." The Israelites were the chosen ones, yet they were allowed to suffer. The Syrian was healed. Why would you assume that this is arbitrary? The Israelites were the chosen. Why should they need to be healed? "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but the sinners to repentance." I don't know why you would assume that God is partial when it comes to healing bodily suffering. Sometimes he heals Christians, sometimes he heals "pagans." (The servant of the Roman centurion for example.) All are sinners. It sounds like you want him to be partial to Christians, but not arbitrary between individual Christians. To either heal all Christians or no Christians. If you believe that being a Christian deserves the reward of healing, (Grandma Millie) and that a Christian having to endure more suffering than another one who has been healed shows that the God if the Christians is not loving, then you haven't understood the message of the Gospels.

Jesus said he'd leave His entire flock to save one lost lamb. If you don't understand how this can be compatible with an all-loving supreme being, then perhaps you ought to reread the Gospels. Alive or dead or in excruciating pain, His flock is eternally with Him and a part of His love. Alive or dead or in excruciating pain, the lost lamb is not. Better to save the body of the lost lamb than worry about the bodies of His flock. All those who are truly members of His flock will understand why. Their loving desire to have the lost lamb come home to their Master is more important than their personal desire to not be attacked by wolves. Wolves can do nothing to their membership in the flock. Only their crude material bodies can be harmed. The lost lamb's very soul is in peril. Members of His flock do not desire healing. They happily accept it when it is given and happily accept suffering when it is given. Their physical selves are merely transient vessels containing their true selves, their souls. They only desire their souls to be healed. Their bodies are tools for their souls, to be used to heal other souls. Even if the body must be sacrificed to heal another's soul, it is more than worth the sacrifice. And God is not partial when it comes to healing souls. If the lost lamb truly desires healing, it's soul will be healed.

Throw out the idea of "souls" and your above questions make sense. They do not refute the God of the Bible, of course. They refute a god of your own creation whom you name "God." You cannot logically impose the contradicting qualities of your created god onto the Christian God. "God" was your premise. In order for your conclusion to be true and your argument to be valid, your premises must be true. Throw out any of the Biblical qualities assigned to "God" and your premise beomes false and your argument invalid.