Radorth

Well of course I never took the Eden story literally, and it is an allegorical revelation. I believe there were human-like creatures before that and it is even possible (although the evidence is slim) that they evolved from apes or other prehistoric Radorth or Fenton Mulley-like creatures.



So I don't think it "broke as soon as it was made."

In any case, there was a difference in people's approach to God, signified by Cain and Able's sacrifices. If there was a gradual decline in lifespan in fact, then one can argue it "broke" rather slowly. You should at least consider the whole story if you are going to quote part of it.

How you can create somebody with a greater autonomy than an ant that won't screw up is quite beyond my powers of reason. You well know our answers from some very long threads done, if you've followed them. You remember when me and Luvluv trounced the skeptics on that subject I'm sure.



Where there is eternal rebellion there is eternal suffering. Of course my view of hell is a place people choose to go because they simply refuse to obey God even after they know he is real. They are so reprobate as to have no conscience at all, and are incapable of repentance.

Nah, I say as soon as Hitler has suffered 20,000,000 deaths, let him out.

Rad

Yellum Notnef

What exactly is an "allegorical revelation" and where did this particular one mentioned above come from?

The evidence is "slim"?
I do hope you brought your vaseline with you today because someone will be along shortly to give you a good hard....oh nevermind.

I`ve sometimes wondered if I`d be able to pick you out of a crowd,but now I`m quite sure of it. All I`d have to do is look for the guy wearing a black hat with a huge buckle on it.


I don`t recall any skeptics getting a trouncing. I do however remember you doing one of your famous and completely unmerited victory dances,but I don`t recall this alleged trouncing.

orac

You're so right. "God moves in mysterious ways" and "God has a plan even if we don't understand it" can not justify innocent people being burned to death. (Being burned to death is comparatively mild compared to some of the things people do to other people - there's more than enough evil in the world, if you'ld prefer other examples of evil things that God hasn't prevented.)

The next step is for you to acknowledge that either God chooses to let people suffer when he could achieve his divine plan without the pain, or to admit that God is limited and incapable of achieving his plan without allowing suffering. (You could try to argue that torture is a good thing in which case allowing suffering isn't a problem, but I don't believe you feel that way.)

You see, no matter what God's mysterious plan is, his chosen method appears to include innocent people suffering. Even if you want to argue that this is somehow "necessary" you have to admit that God either can't or won't intervene. If you want to make any other claim, you have to argue that innocent people are never made to suffer. That would be a difficult claim to make.

Many people make the leap from "God allows or can't prevent suffering" to "therefore God is either not good or not powerful enough to deserve the title God." Usually this is followed up by "wait a minute! Who's this God person, and where is he?" which eventually turns into atheism, making the entire question irrelevant.

So, here's my question for you: Does god -[list=a][*]Choose to allow suffering that he could prevent while still achieving his plan[*]Lack the ability to prevent suffering[*]Consider burning people alive (insert other forms of suffering as desire) to be good, or at least acceptable, rather than evil.[/list=a]

Remember objections such as "God gives us free will", and "suffering teaches valuable lessons" all come under the heading of "God can not achieve these results without suffering". If the lesson is valuable, then God can either teach it another way, and thus has chosen to use suffering, or God can not teach it another way, and thus must be limited in what he can do.

I'ld love to hear an alternative that allows for a benevolent god (prevents undeserved suffering), an all-powerful God (can achieve any goal that he has without allowing innocent people to suffer) and still explains why innocent people suffer. The only way I can see for this to work is to claim that innocent people actually do deserve to suffer, and I can't see how that can be considered a 'benevolent' or 'good' attitude.

orac

If we should be responsible for our actions, then why shouldn't God be considered responsible for his?

Btw, the issue is not about people taking responsibility for their own actions. The issue is about innocent people, through no fault of their own, being affected (caused to suffer) because of other people's actions.

An person's evil action doesn't become less evil if someone else acts to protect the victims. The claim is that if God is real, then he is failing to protect innocent people, not that he caused the need for protection.

Oddly, christians sometimes claim that God wants to protect innocent people, that he is powerful enough to do so, and for some mysterious reason chooses not to. Despite this, they continue to claim that God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. Apparantly they consider this to be rational and logical

(I vaguely recall you claiming that God is only benevolent to believers - in any case, bad things still happen to believers, so that claim doesn't actually solve the problem. Even the Bible claims that God will allow bad things to happen to anyone, no matter how good and faithful they are.)

A person could get confused anywhere if they're not rational.

Radorth

A shame you are so far off the mark. I was hoping we'd meet for a beer but you'd never recognize me. You probably aren't as much fun as I had hoped, judging by your reaction to my friendly joke.

(Sigh) Jesus loves you anyway.

BTW, I was reading Peck before he was a Christian. He actually believed in demonic activity before his conversion, and was present at some exorcisms, so I think Helen's post was a little misleading in that few "liberal" Christians believe in demons. He tells the whole story of his reasons for becoming a Christian in Further Along the Road Less Traveled. I'm a little mystified as to why people think I'm "conservative" since some incredibly progressive people took the Gospels as historical, including the resurrection. I'm also pro-separation, vote Democrat about half the time, and totally against war with Iraq.

Rad

Radorth

Maybe that is what you are saying. Many others have said if God is real, then he is responsible for all that goes wrong with his creation. Therefore if God is real, we can shirk reponsibility because God made us so. Fortunately no Christians I have associated with believe that.

Furthermore, whatever reponsibility God has for his creation's problems, he well took care of on the cross.

And he will avenge the innocent. Some skeptics will whine he should have done it sooner, but I imagine II will not be the forum for there complaints.

Rad

HelenM

Fair enough. I don't have the particular book you referred to and it's been a while since I read any of Peck's books. I didn't know he believed in demons. How does he define them? As evil spirits?

I think of you as a conservative Christian because I think you believe in salvation by grace through faith in Jesus. It doesn't have to do with your politics, as far as I'm concerned.

Helen

orac

Sure, God (supposedly) created a world where innocent people would be tortured to death. I don't see a problem with saying this was a less than good choice for God to make, given that an omnipotent God could have created a world where everyone had free will but innocent people didn't have to be burned to death because of what other people do.

Btw, if God's actions in the real world are inconsistent with the Bible, then the Bible can not be considered an accurate guide to God. Despite appearances, the debate here is "is God consistent with the christian bible, and if not why should we believe what the bible says?" One of the claims the bible makes is that god is good and loving, and another claim is that he is all powerful and without limit or restriction. Many people believe these are inconsistent with God's (alleged) actions in the real world. So far, noone has managed to explain why suffering is a good thing.

The statement that "God, if he exists, is responsible for suffering" is a denial of God's goodness. Whether his responsibility is due to active participation or passively not preventing it isn't a major issue.


You're saying that the crucifixion means that torture is now acceptable? Or are you saying that the crucifixion means that anyone who claims to have suffered is now a liar?

The question isn't "will good people go to heaven?" The question is "why does God choose to let good people suffer before they go to heaven?" The crucifixion wasn't the answer to that question.

Just because evil people can be forgiven and thus get into heaven doesn't actually help their victims.

Even if the victims get into heaven too, that doesn't justify their pain and suffering. You certainly haven't managed a rational explanation of why suffering is still necessary.

Still, it's nice to know that Jesus died for the sins of every hurricane that ever killed innocent people.


Wow. That helps a lot. As long as you're avenged, it doesn't matter what happens to you.

It's perfectly acceptable for you to believe that, but you shouldn't be surprised if some people don't call that "good". Humans have come up with this weird concept called "justice", and it's not particularly compatable with "vengance".

Hey, hold on a second! What vengance are you talking about? Last I heard, Jesus died on the cross for our sins, so that we don't have to go to hell. Even if you're tortured to death, it's quite possible (assuming God is real) that the guilty party will be forgiven and go to heaven. Vengance isn't supposed to be the solution to our problems now.

Stephen T-B

Radorth - you bang on about “obeying god” and us atheists refusing to obey him even if he were to appear right in front of us.
I’ve asked you once already (if you gave a reply, I’m sorry, I didn’t see it. Perhaps you’d be kind enough to repeat it it?) what exactly do you mean by “obey”?
HelenM suggested what Christians generally have in mind, but I want to know what you have in mind.
I should remind you that I was committed and determined to obey god, and it was the absence of any instructions which made me wonder if anyone / anything was actually out there.
So please tell me, how am I supposed to obey god?