Stephen T-B

“You are just picking and choosing the worst possible scripture to refer to...”
Funnily enough, that’s not the case. I knew Leviticus or Deuteronomy listed three million things God laid down for the Jews to do and not to do (when I embarked on reading the whole of the Bible, I didn’t get any further than the first 80 because I thought “Hang on. How come I’ve only been told about the Ten Commandments? There’s three million of them.” And the answer was obvious: if my school teacher had started telling us about priests strangling chickens, the Scripture lesson wouldn’t have got any further, us being a blood-thirsty bunch of little monsters) and for that quote I put “Levitucs” in my Google Search, got the Book of Leviticus up and that’s what I read, straight off.
Another time I thought I’d just dip in the Bible at random - you’ve heard of people doing that, no doubt, and reading texts which turned them into True Believers? the opposite happened to me. At random, I found myself reading about Samuel chopping up Agag, King of the Amalakites “in the sight of the Lord” (Saul having failed to carry out God’s instruction to kill every single Amalakite, including all their animals); Elijah (I think) being called “baldy” by some children, and God sending a she bear to “tear them;” Joshua getting extra day-light so as to be able to complete the annihilation of an enemy; Ahab, after a liftetime of crimes, prostrating himself before the Lord just before he died and being forgiven. And then God ordering that all 72 of his children should have their heads cut off - and finally (it was by now all getting too much for me) the account of David “counting” the children of Israel and God, for some reason taking exception to this and visiting them with all sorts of extremely unpleasant miraculous events.
My experience is that you have to pick and choose NOT to find something pretty gruesome going on in the Bible.
Now, either you say: “DO NOT read the Old Testament as though it were a religious text because it’s just a collection of myths and legends got together around 600BC by Josiah and his priests to bolster their grip on Judah,” or you must insist that it is as valid as the New Testament, in which case, “picking and choosing the worst possible scripture to refer to” doesn’t really make sense. There shouldn’t be any “worst possible scriptures,” to refer to., and characterising a commandment of God as such is, I think, a distinctly dodgy thing to do, for someone who believes in Hell.

Rhea

Consider it taken to the bit bucket.
I am more interested in the topic anyway.
Solly!

Dr Rick

Rhea, you make an excellent point; A god that loved us wouldn't want us to suffer; he would give us free will if that is what he wanted and still protect us from evil and suffering if he could. Since these the existence of free-will in the absence of suffering is not contradictory, there is no reason for a god to do otherwise unless he wants us to suffer, can't stop us from suffering, and/or didn't know that we would suffer.

Christian provides the best and most honest answer a Christian can give us when presented with the contradiction of an omni-God creating and allowing our state of existence; it's a variation of "God works in mysterious ways; I don't know why He did what He did, but I trust him."

This position can't be proven wrong, as far as I know, but it's not a very satisfactory one for a free-thinker.

Perhaps, but this begs the question: If he could make heaven that way, why didn't he make us that way here on Earth?

Rick

Christian

Rhea,

You seem to think that as long as YOU can imagine a worse scenario that noone has right to claim they have experienced that category of events called “the very worst problems of this world.”

Allow me to clarify. I am not claiming that Jesus personally experienced every possible bad scenario that ever will exist on earth during His incarnation. If that is the standard you are looking for, it’s a specious one. What I do claim adamantly is that the human pain and suffering Jesus went through was so bad that it easily qualifies as belonging in the category of “the very worst problems of this world.”

Consider what He went through. First, in the garden the night before He experienced a great deal of psychological stress. So much psychological stress that it produced hematidrosis … where severe anxiety causes the release of chemicals that break down the capillaries in the sweat glands. A small amount of blood is mixed with the sweat, but it also sets the skin up to be extremely fragile and very sensitive. After staying up all night he was flogged by Roman soldiers. Floggings were usually 39 lashes, but often more at the whim of the soldier applying the blows. The whip was braided leather thongs with metal balls woven into them. The balls would cause deep bruises which would break open on later blows. The whip also had pieces of sharp bone woven in, which would cut the flesh severely. Often in Roman floggings the back would become so shredded that parts of the spine would become exposed. The beating would have shredded the flesh all the way from the shoulders down to the backs of the legs. History tells us that many people died from this type of beating before they could be crucified. At the very least the victim would experience tremendous pain and go into shock from loss of blood (hypovolemic shock). In this state of shock the heart races to pump blood that isn’t there, the blood pressure drops causes fainting or collapse, the kidneys shut down, and the person becomes very thirsty. He carried the horizontal beam of the cross as far as He could before collapsing. Once they got to the execution site He was laid down with His hands outstretched on the horizontal beam. The horizontal beam was not yet attached to the vertical beam, which remained permanently in the ground. Pointed spikes that were 5-7 inches long were driven through His wrists onto the cross. The spikes went through the place where the median nerve runs, the largest nerve going into the hand. That nerve would have been crushed by the spike as it was pounded in. This would have been excruciatingly painful. It also would have rendered the hands useless. He was hoisted as the crossbar was attached to the vertical stake. Then the same type of spikes were driven through His feet into the vertical beam. The nerves in His feet would have been crushed and He would have experienced a similar type of pain. Then His arms would have immediately become stretched, probably about 6 inches, and both shoulders would have become dislocated. Once hanging in the vertical position, crucifixion was an excruciatingly slow death by suffocation. The stresses on the muscles and the diaphragm put His chest in the inhaled position. In order to exhale He would have to push up on His feet so that the tension on the muscles would be eased for a moment. By doing so the spikes would tear through His feet, eventually locking up against the tarsal bones. After exhaling He could relax down and take another breath in. Then back up to exhale again. Every time He pushed Himself up He would scrape His bloodied back up and down the course wood of the cross. Eventually complete exhaustion would take over and He would not be able to push up and breath any more. As His breathing slowed down the carbon dioxide in His blood dissolved as carbonic acid, causing the acidity of the blood to increase. This led to an irregular heart beat, and then He died of cardiac arrest. And all of this, every second of it, purely voluntary. He could have cried “uncle” at any point and ended it, but He willed Himself to endure it.

Is that exactly the same horrors that the girl you describe experienced? No. But I think that if that girl had witnessed what Jesus went through she would have identified with Him as fellow journeyer through that category of things called “the very worst problems in this world.”

What you seem to be asking for is a God who is “perfect” yet is on the same level as you and me. Anything beyond what we can understand and He must not be perfect. That’s simply a narrow minded approach.

What question have I not permitted you to ask? What question have I avoided? Wouldn’t it be more fun to debate me than this strawman you are referring to?

Yes, Noble.

Please refer back to the last post on page one where I answered this exact question. If you are now asking something different than what I answered there you will have to be more specific and explain your question to me.

Respectfully,

Christian

GunnerJ

Re comparitive suffering:

Notice how Christian completely misses the point. For his benefit, I will point out the most relevent passages in Rhea's post:

Christian

Philosoft,

It’s all the same universe. I’m not sure how you are defining “universe”, but this is just the beginning of eternity for all of us. I believe that God will create a new heavens and a new earth, but it will still be the same creatures (including you and me) and the same location … just different trimmings and perhaps physical properties and the like.

All of which to say that I believe that the eternal state will take place in this universe at some point in the future. The trimmings may be different, but it’s still the same universe. Therefore the universe in question will have seen a bad state of affairs. Therefore your inductive argument (if I even understand it) doesn’t hold.

Therefore, it DOES have to do with an a posteriori probability.

True

In the sense that no internal or external constraint are imposed which prevent the bad decision. The good decision and the bad decision are both viable options.

Situation #1 – We have the ability to choose wrongly but in practice we always make a morally correct choice.

Situation #2 – We don’t have the ability to choose wrongly and therefore always make a morally correct choice.

Both situations are similar in the mere fact that morally wrong choices do not occur. But there is a huge difference between the two in the volition of the creature. Being constrained to choose a certain way is a much different thing than simply choosing from personal preference.

Could and would are distinct concepts. “I could buy a Ferrari but I chose not to” is a very different idea from “I can’t buy a Ferrari because I don’t have enough money.” In both cases the Ferrari, sadly, is never mine. But the first situation is a very different state of affairs than the second situation. The reason that the choice is made matters.

In the first statement my lack of Ferrari is a matter of unconstrained personal preference. In the second statement my lack of Ferrari is a matter of ability. It is a much better thing to be making the first statement accurately than it is to be making the second statement accurately. They are not identical situations, as you suggest.

With all due respect … baloney. Please provide an objective reason why this assumption of yours might be true.

Location (heaven or earth) has nothing to do with it. The new heavens and the new earth will be the Christian’s place of business in the eternal state. There is nothing about the location or the proximity to God that effects the change to making only morally good choices. It is type of creature that we are which enables us with the ability and desire to always make the morally correct choice. With our new and improved bodies Christians will make only morally good choices. The change is that we are given the ability to achieve our desires in the area of moral choices. This is an enhancing of our volitional ability and is in no way a constraint, since nothing external or internal stands in the way of our making a bad choice.

Your statement assumes that any change in behavior is necessarily the result of a constraint of some sort. That isn’t currently true in this universe, and it won’t be true in the distant future in the universe either. If I put a supercharger on my Miata (and I’m definitely tempted to) the behavior and abilities of my Miata will change. But it will not be a change due to constraint, it will be a change due to enhancement. Big difference.

I maintain a distinction between “can’t happen” and “won’t happen.” “I won’t buy a Ferrari” is simply a different situation than “I can’t buy a Ferrari.” They are only similar in that no Ferrari is bought. They differ greatly on the issue of WHY no Ferrari is in the driveway.

I will grant you that the situation you impose on my words (no ability to choose wrong) is similar to the situation I am describing (ability to choose wrong, but no wrong choices made) in the mere fact that only morally correct choices happen. But if you look just a bit deeper than that and ask WHY no morally wrong choices happen, the difference is staggering. “I choose xyz because it was the right thing to do” is vastly different than “I choose xyz because it is the only possible option.” Vastly different. Surely you can see that, even in the current moral state of affairs.

It is not impossible that a bad SOA will obtain in heaven as a result of a bad choice. That’s exactly what happened to satan. However, no bad choices by humans there will actually happen in practice.

[QUOTE} If you acknowledge a "transform[ation]," it seems that something is being done to our souls, presumably by God, that eliminates our ability to make bad choices[/QUOTE]

The theological term is “glorification” and what happens is basically that our physical bodies get upgraded to the version that only Jesus currently has. That does not eliminate our ability to make bad choices, though. It gives us the moral strength of will and the desire to resist all bad choices in practice. It is a distinct concept. Supercharging the engine is an opposite concept to constraining the engine. New ability is added. None of the old ability is taken away.

Things happen because of reasons. You are assuming a reason (no ability to make bad choices) for a thing (only good choices made) that is vastly different than the reason (more pure desire and greater will power) that I am describing. I understand the situation you are describing (beings constrained to only good choices by some external or internal factor), but it is simply a different situation than what I am describing.

It is not a violation of free will because good and bad choices were available and unconstrained choices are made.

Respectfully,

Christian

Radorth

Really? What names did I call you?

And an amazing recovery it was. BTW you immediately insulted me again by asking me if I had any ideas.

No her point is very shortsighted and begs the questions I raised. You cannot give a valid example of him allowing disobedience which will not likely result in suffering. Furthermore, if he allows disobedience and then alleviates the suffering which follows, he's just encouraging stupidity.

Rad

HelenM

Then...er...why doesn't He let everyone go to hell for their sins? Isn't sending Jesus to die and forgiving those who believe in Jesus, alleviating the suffering of Hell which is supposed to follow disobedience, thereby 'encouraging stupidity'?

I look forward to your answer, Rad!

Helen (the 'holy one' )

Christian

Rhea,

I'm assuming you mean eliminating options or possible choices, since it not possible to actually remove someones free will.

It's a necessary evil in this cursed world. I will say as a career military officer that I would rather have 5 men willingly fighting beside me than 25 who are constrained to fight beside me. It's a pretty common principle of leadership.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Rick,

Redemption is a better plan than perfection from the get go. I don't really understand why. Maybe we need the contrast in order to appreciate what we have.

Valid question. I'm afraid I'm not a philosopher.

Respectfully,

Christian