|
Valiantman posted:I like a lot (a lot!) how one preacher I heard as a teenager first framed the problem of evil and then, paraphrasing, told the listeners that it's fine and good to be interested in theory and dogma but the real question you should be asking is "what am I going to do about it?". That's the best solution I've heard. Go on and do something about that evil that obviously is a huge problem! Don't stay in the sidelines, be a part of the solution! Yeah, that's a lot of my resolution of the issue. We would not know what Good was if we didn't know there was an alternative, and we must deliberately choose it. It's significant that the tree in the Garden of Eden was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. An important part of what makes us human is the ability to distinguish between them. So regardless of whether evil has to exist or not, the fact that it does gives us all the opportunity to exercise free will in choosing good.
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 07:59 |
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Why does existence require suffering? Why does a being of infinite power and benevolence allow these problems to occur and still be called "good"? This is the problem, existence does not require it, and yet God allows it. Any of us can tell you how our faith tradition addresses this, but asking why it hasn't been solved ignores the fact that it's a fundamental philosophical problem that isn't going away. People have been working on this, for thousands of years, and there isn't one solution that satisfies everybody. The best any of us can tell you is "Thomas addresses this in such and such a way, but Philosopher Z says Y." A similarly insoluble problem is what exactly did Jesus mean by "Do this in remembrance of me" at the Last Supper? Are we just having bread and wine as a ceremony of remembrance? Are we participating in Christ's sacrifice as we do so? Are the bread and wine actually Christ's flesh and blood? Is it even acceptable to have wine? You aren't going to get one answer; you're going to get the answers of different Christian faith traditions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
yeah but only one is right and it's us 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
One of the common things that I'm reminded of when discussing the nature and presence of evil in the world today (and historically), is that we more or less asked for it as humans and are assigning to God the consequences of our own error. Regardless of whether a literal Adam and Eve ever ate from a literal tree, the message that comes from the story of the Fall is that humanity chose not to trust God and instead to trust in their own wisdom. The consequences of that have been a creation that God has allowed us to rule as we wish, and it turns out that humanity sans perfect relationship with God is wholly unfit as a master over creation. Those who are angry at God about allowing evil to be the just consequences of our own choices are (at least to some degree) discounting the agency humanity has had in bringing that evil about. We're angry that there are consequences to our choices, or that God allows people to exist who would make choices which might have consequences we do not desire, or that we're allowed to make choices which may result in consequences we do not desire. I don't know that any of those are any better of a situation for humanity to be in. I'm not certain that this is entirely relevant to the conversation, but I remember watching a video with Stephen Fry a while back where he was asked what his one question to God would be were he able to see him face to face. He said that he'd ask God how dare he allow children to get cancer and die. He was/is furious that innocent children are dying because God has allowed them to (assuming that any such God existed in the first place). What he failed to take into account, or willfully ignored, is that children get cancer from things we as humans have chosen to do/create. Genetically modified foods we don't know all the effects of, radiation from technological "necessities", harmful toxins released into nature from manufacturing, the list goes on. There are countless reasons we can find that are directly attributable to our own actions as a species which have led to cancers and illnesses that very likely (almost definitely) would never have been had we chosen differently. What makes Christianity hopeful, is that despite our willful choice to drag creation into ruin, God has made a way for what we've wrought to be redeemed. Not only ourselves, but the creation we've destroyed. It's not too late for us to be brought back.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
That doesn't really hold up, though. Creation as-is without human intervention is even crueler and uglier than we are, even with all of our many flaws. Romanticism is bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
The Wolfen posted:He was/is furious that innocent children are dying because God has allowed them to (assuming that any such God existed in the first place). What he failed to take into account, or willfully ignored, is that children get cancer from things we as humans have chosen to do/create. Genetically modified foods we don't know all the effects of, radiation from technological "necessities", harmful toxins released into nature from manufacturing, the list goes on. The Wolfen posted:Those who are angry at God about allowing evil to be the just consequences of our own choices are (at least to some degree) discounting the agency humanity has had in bringing that evil about. If Christ on the cross was allowed to yell "My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" even though he knew exactly why he was there, I think the rest of us, who are not sinless, get a pass on being despairing and outraged.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:I'd like to sidetrack here to say that degenerative and fatal diseases were around a long, long time before modern manufacturing and science. Kids were dying of leukemia in Christ's time, and he didn't heal all of them. This is, in my opinion, one of the great American (don't know if you're American, but it's a particular weakness of ours) fallacies. We assume that all misfortune is traceable: you got sick *because* you didn't eat right, or toxins, or vaccination. I wish we were more amenable to "poo poo happens, I'm sorry for your bad luck", rather than "your wellbeing is controllable, because otherwise I'd have to admit that bad things could happen to me." The attitude of people earning or deserving the bad things that happen to them was addressed by Jesus as well: John 9:1-5 posted:As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” His response doesn't address the general existence of evil, just this particular man's problems. The important thing that jumped out at me from it was Jesus' emphasis that nobody did anything to "cause" the man to be blind.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
This is probably not something I shouldn't bother people about, but if god is the person who makes the rules, did they make them so because they wanted to, or because they had to? Not wondering why, but if they just wanted to do things the way they are, or if they didn't. One would imply an arbitrary nature to gods judgement, and the other would necessitate something beyond even gods power. I mean, you can say you don't know the answer, but it is a dichotomy, and either would be contradictory to things that seem to be thought of as necessary as aspects of god: ultimate power, and the idea that god ain't just fuckin around. Even if it were both, it would still be a problem for each of those by themselves. I also don't see how something being beyond our understanding would make it so it doesn't want to do anything, yet would want to do something. I guess this is just a rehash of that old thing by plato or something, though I think the wording is distinct. Its not like god being arbitrary is necessarily antithetical to it being the god you have to worship. Just means it don't feel as good doing so. More like doing what god says because you have to, rather than doing it because you think it is good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:This is probably not something I shouldn't bother people about, but if god is the person who makes the rules, did they make them so because they wanted to, or because they had to? Not wondering why, but if they just wanted to do things the way they are, or if they didn't. One would imply an arbitrary nature to gods judgement, and the other would necessitate something beyond even gods power. It's a great question, but it's hard to answer. Socrates could stump Euthyphro with "do the gods love good deeds because they are good, or are good deeds good because the gods love them?" at least in part because the Greek gods did not all agree on what was pleasing to them. The traditional Aristotelian answer is "neither", though. A law is good if it fulfills the purpose of laws more fully, if it has as little missed potential as possible. An action is good if it fulfills the actor's nature, bad if it doesn't. (That's why building the Hoover Dam or wearing glasses is a natural act for people, but drinking to unconsciousness is not, even though animals get drunk but don't build concrete dams or correct their vision.) God wants his creations to fulfill their natures, so the actions he commands are good because they're good for us, not because he thinks they're neato or because he's relying on an external standard. He is the source of our natures, the reason why we can fulfill any potential, so he is also the source of our actions' goodness.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:I'd like to sidetrack here to say that degenerative and fatal diseases were around a long, long time before modern manufacturing and science. Kids were dying of leukemia in Christ's time, and he didn't heal all of them. This is, in my opinion, one of the great American (don't know if you're American, but it's a particular weakness of ours) fallacies. We assume that all misfortune is traceable: you got sick *because* you didn't eat right, or toxins, or vaccination. I wish we were more amenable to "poo poo happens, I'm sorry for your bad luck", rather than "your wellbeing is controllable, because otherwise I'd have to admit that bad things could happen to me." I really appreciate this response, and, for the record, I am American. I am in no way disillusioned to the prevalence of illness and disease before modern times. The gospels are filled with accounts of Christ healing the lame and sick, so clearly there was suffering then as well as now. The world presented in the first two chapters of Genesis, being the world that God is not only explicitly accredited with creating but also where He intended humanity to live and thrive, is far different from the world we actually live and suffer in today and the one humanity has lived and suffered in for nearly all of our time here. I do not believe there was a better time before manufacturing arose to prominence where humanity was able to live without suffering to be expected, but we're presented a time before (the period before The Fall) where that did not appear to be part of the plan. What changed wasn't God inviting evil, death, and destruction into His creation, but humanity demanding it in place of God's rule. Humanity was forcibly removed from a perfect world and accursed in the new one. Labor was painful, work was now difficult, the introduction to suffering begins. We absolutely, as humans, should look at this with outrage and despair, but I think it's wrong to terminate that outrage and despair on the person of God without taking in our own culpability for where we've landed ourselves. God gave us the world we wanted, it just turns out we don't actually want it because it's terrible. To more clearly address Deteriorata's example, Jesus does not blame the man's blindness on sin or evil explicitly attributed to the blind man or his family, but there was clearly something wrong with the world as a whole that Jesus's life, death, and resurrection was intended to correct. The blindness the man suffered was only a symptom of the disease that was afflicting the whole of humanity. Or in other words, at the Fall humanity went wrong and due to its wrongness there was disorder that manifested itself as suffering and illness and death from then until now. Perhaps this is me showing my largely Protestant, and that mostly Southern Baptist, upbringing. I have learned a lot about the different understandings of Christianity by lurking this thread, but wanted to contribute my own thoughts and beliefs to see where others disagree or could point me to further understanding since everyone here generally seems to be pretty helpful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
zonohedron posted:It's a great question, but it's hard to answer. Socrates could stump Euthyphro with "do the gods love good deeds because they are good, or are good deeds good because the gods love them?" at least in part because the Greek gods did not all agree on what was pleasing to them. The traditional Aristotelian answer is "neither", though. A law is good if it fulfills the purpose of laws more fully, if it has as little missed potential as possible. An action is good if it fulfills the actor's nature, bad if it doesn't. (That's why building the Hoover Dam or wearing glasses is a natural act for people, but drinking to unconsciousness is not, even though animals get drunk but don't build concrete dams or correct their vision.) God wants his creations to fulfill their natures, so the actions he commands are good because they're good for us, not because he thinks they're neato or because he's relying on an external standard. He is the source of our natures, the reason why we can fulfill any potential, so he is also the source of our actions' goodness. So is fulfilling our potential good because god said so, or because it is irrespective of gods desires? Is anything good because god said so, or because it is irrespective of gods desires? Is anything anything because god said so, or because it is irrespective of gods desires? thechosenone fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:So is fulfilling our potential good because god said so, or because it is irrespective of gods desires? I think what zonohedron is saying is that God created our potentials, so He created them with the intent that they be fulfilled. I guess that sort of falls into line with the latter part of the question, though I don't think that what God desires would necessarily be arbitrary. Or while they might appear arbitrary to us, would not be so to Him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
It's impossible for moral responsibility not to terminate at the person of an omnipotent and omniscient being. A human being can't take total responsibility for events that arise from their own actions but are so attenuated they cannot realistically be expected to understand the consequences, but God doesn't have that limitation. Similarly free will doesn't excuse it because you can have free will without necessarily having the power to enforce your will upon the world. Our ability to turn will into reality is more constrained than not, so limitations are clearly morally permissible, which in turn raises the question of why we need to be able to hurt each other at all. Also, while the Fallen world sucks, it's better than a prelapsarian state of ignorance. But it's fair to nonetheless look to an all-good being with suspicion if the world is anything less than perfect. Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
The Wolfen posted:I think what zonohedron is saying is that God created our potentials, so He created them with the intent that they be fulfilled. I guess that sort of falls into line with the latter part of the question, though I don't think that what God desires would necessarily be arbitrary. Or while they might appear arbitrary to us, would not be so to Him. So then when asked if it is so because god desired it so, or for some other reason, then you would say some other reason? Once again, is anything anything because god said so, or is it for some other reason? thechosenone fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
Valiantman posted:Now, relationship between me and my imaginary dog is fairly certainly nothing like the relationship between God and mankind but in both relationships one is able to comprehend and see and experience things the other cannot even begin to imagine. Yes, but if you were to beat the dog based on it's actions when you trained it then it is your fault that the dog is like that. It's a perspective certainly, but I am unsure as to how much it can be considered. There is a difference between something that does no active harm and something that does good and something that seems to have no good part of it. You come back to the dog at the end of the 8 hours. God does not come back. Lutha Mahtin posted:again, the reason you have this problem in the first place is because you yourself have decided that it is axiomatic the text describes God acting "like an arsehole". in reality this is not axiomatic, but is in fact simply your interpretation of, and/or projection onto the text. multiple people have been telling you this for pages now, so im not sure what else there is to be said really Well if we are going to start saying that what's the point of arguing anything. I am wondering how people justify something that seems clear to me in a particular way and people are explaining how I might be wrong. Wether we find areas of agreement or disagreement is a matter of the argument itself. I am still shocked that people can basically go He may act like this and act in this particular way but He isn't bad because we can't understand him. its something to think and talk through, if it does get boring replying to me do tell me. Deteriorata posted:And my point is, that is what Job is all about. You may not like it, but that's the book of Job's perspective. Do you share that perspective? Because that seems like something worth discussing. I mean a "you" as a collective, not just yourself. Do you believe that the book of Job shows God being Unjust? If it does and you still worship him I would like to debate that more. The problem of evil is solved if there is no "Problem", when I said "nogodlol" I meant it in the style of many internet atheists who presuppose that anything cna be solved by removing religion from it. I personally disagree with that sentiment, but the problem of evil genuinelly is one of those ones where if you simply remove a particular sort of God from the equasion then the problem is already solved. Evil happens because its just stuff happening, it happens because someone did something that started it off. Valiantman posted:I like a lot (a lot!) how one preacher I heard as a teenager first framed the problem of evil and then, paraphrasing, told the listeners that it's fine and good to be interested in theory and dogma but the real question you should be asking is "what am I going to do about it?". That's the best solution I've heard. Go on and do something about that evil that obviously is a huge problem! Don't stay in the sidelines, be a part of the solution! I am not sure that is what is meant by the problem of evil, but I would say that why does doing "good deeds" require a belief in divinity? I mean I know thats probably not what was meant, but its an interesting side discussion. Arsenic Lupin posted:Theodicy is a central problem of Christian theology and philosophy. If God is infinitely powerful and infinitely benevolent, how can there be evil? It's right there in the foundation of the religion: those three things are incompatible, if you boil them down to a sentence. I mean I am not going to claim to go "but I solved it" I had always thought that the problem of evil seems more of a philosophical question only if one believes in a personal god that is all of the "Omnis". If you believe in, say, a finite God or a lack of a divinity the answer seems easy enough. Well, I mean usually. Working out what an "evil" deed is then comes up for discussion, but that would be a whole separate thing I thought. Maybe I am getting it backwards and being smug, I do apologise. I agree whole heartedly with Arsneic Lupin's views on the subject I am afraid. Cancers and so on are not caused by the fall of man. Tuxedo Catfish posted:That doesn't really hold up, though. Creation as-is without human intervention is even crueler and uglier than we are, even with all of our many flaws. Romanticism is bullshit. Also this. Sir or Madam. I appreciate what you are most likely trying to do. However I would very much appreciate it if you did not include me in your prayers. If you wish to do something then donate to a charity of your choosing. I will discuss the rest of the content of your message later. I do apologise if I have given offence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
I appreciate prayers for my sake (or anyone's) because either I'm wrong and I'm going to need all the help I can get or I'm right and they're still a good exercise in consideration for the needs of others.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:It's impossible for moral responsibility not to terminate at the person of an omnipotent and omniscient being. What was Man ignorant of before the Fall that our current state is better than? Is there any reason to believe that anything good would have been denied humanity? That attitude assumes that there is something valuable that we would have missed out on that we have somehow gleaned from all the suffering and misery that has arisen in the aftermath. If that was the case we should be glad of the suffering because of the gains we've made in knowledge and wisdom apart from the ignorance we were once entombed in. We would be right to be defiantly gleeful in the face of our destruction because it meant we had triumphed where God intended us to fail. Why can a human being not take responsibility when we cannot realistically be expected to understand the consequences? Consequences were promised regardless of whether humans were capable of understanding them. A child playing in the street likely has no more capacity for understanding the possibility of their death when being struck by a car, but that does not in any way shield them from a car taking their life. Understanding is not necessary, though if it comes will later lead to appreciation of the instruction given by a loving parent who told their child not to play in the street.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
The Wolfen posted:What was Man ignorant of before the Fall that our current state is better than? Is there any reason to believe that anything good would have been denied humanity? That attitude assumes that there is something valuable that we would have missed out on that we have somehow gleaned from all the suffering and misery that has arisen in the aftermath. If that was the case we should be glad of the suffering because of the gains we've made in knowledge and wisdom apart from the ignorance we were once entombed in. We would be right to be defiantly gleeful in the face of our destruction because it meant we had triumphed where God intended us to fail. So did bad things happen to us when we ate the fruit because god wanted that to be the consequence, or for some other reason?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Do you share that perspective? Because that seems like something worth discussing. I mean a "you" as a collective, not just yourself. Do you believe that the book of Job shows God being Unjust? If it does and you still worship him I would like to debate that more. My view, and I think it's pretty Protestant mainstream, is that parts of the Bible are teaching stories, parts (like Deuteronomy) are beside the point for modern Christians, and part are the continuing word of God, directly applicable to our moral choices. I am well aware of issues like the two conflicting creation stories in Genesis, and it neither shakes my faith nor is something I feel the need to explain away. I don't think all the stories are literally true. I think they are about God and God's will, but I don't think you can disprove God by noting that evolution is a thing that happened, and noting that there isn't a bright line you can draw between proto-hominids and man. On Job? It's very much a teaching story, and it isn't directly about the character of God. It's about Job's suffering, and his response to the suffering, and his "comforters'" responses. The frame story of God making a bet with Satan is textually very small compared with the text of Job's speeches. Do I think it happened just as written? I dunno. I think Job is a parable, just such a parable as Christ told, and that it's about the moral response to suffering.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
I feel that I can sort of generalize the main thrust of socrate's argument like so: Did things have to be this way? Has god had to do anything? thechosenone fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:I feel that I can sort of generalize the main thrust of socrate's argument like so: (A) We don't know and (B) He set the whole thing up and continues intervening in ways that, again, are church-specific.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
The Wolfen posted:What was Man ignorant of before the Fall that our current state is better than? Is there any reason to believe that anything good would have been denied humanity? That attitude assumes that there is something valuable that we would have missed out on that we have somehow gleaned from all the suffering and misery that has arisen in the aftermath. If that was the case we should be glad of the suffering because of the gains we've made in knowledge and wisdom apart from the ignorance we were once entombed in. We would be right to be defiantly gleeful in the face of our destruction because it meant we had triumphed where God intended us to fail. Knowledge of good and evil is the first step to being a participant in the moral order of the universe instead of just a bystander. Without it, you might be capable of good acts, but you aren't really capable of good will, which is an imperfection. That's no reason to celebrate suffering, but it's a reason to look at the Fall as a hard bargain (or an acceptable risk) on the path to apotheosis, rather than a disaster. The Wolfen posted:Why can a human being not take responsibility when we cannot realistically be expected to understand the consequences? Consequences were promised regardless of whether humans were capable of understanding them. A child playing in the street likely has no more capacity for understanding the possibility of their death when being struck by a car, but that does not in any way shield them from a car taking their life. Understanding is not necessary, though if it comes will later lead to appreciation of the instruction given by a loving parent who told their child not to play in the street. A child who understands the danger will protect himself, will obey commands in his own interest more readily, and will defy commands that are unjust or unreasonable. The lattermost point doesn't apply to a tri-omni God, of course, but most interactions with the world are with beings and situations whose knowledge and goodness are less absolute. Most of what we do in real life isn't nearly as clear-cut as "don't play in traffic," either. For example I'm studying to become a lawyer, and occasionally I have serious doubts as to whether this is a good idea because the law in the United States is so arbitrary and sometimes even downright malicious that I worry I'm buying into a system which will co-opt me rather than the other way around. But at the same time, before this I was doing nothing with my life and this gave me a sense of purpose and the promise of enough power to actually help people that I still went ahead and did it. With a multitude of voices asking (or demanding) one thing or another of me, understanding is the only way I have to negotiate life on my own terms; without it I'd just be an extension of someone else's will and/or random circumstance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Yeah, the structure of Job simply seems to be a rhetorical gimmick to make it clear to everyone that nothing that happened to Job was his fault in any way. It does make God seem like a kind of arbitrary dick, but when it was written that may have been a common way of understanding the behavior of God (or gods) generally. I think it is a mistake to read too much into it. Job reminds me a lot of Plato's Republic in its style and form - illuminating philosophical issues in the form of a conversation among friends. While it's probably based on much older stories, it was written between the 4th and 7th centuries BC, right about the time time period as Plato - so it may be reflecting more of a trendy literary style in its depiction of God than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:So did bad things happen to us when we ate the fruit because god wanted that to be the consequence, or for some other reason? Regardless of whether there was a literal fruit to eat or not (like Arsenic Lupin I'd lean more towards parts of the Bible as being teaching stories versus pure literal word for word accounts of history (especially so with the creation as its a fairly poor account of how things came to be at least on the details front)), the point of the Genesis creation seems to say that God intended a consequence, in fact the exact consequences we have received, from the rejection of God and the consumption of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. God's only comment on the subject to Adam in the text is that if he eats of the fruit he'll die. He ate anyway, and well, we've seen the results. As to whether it had to be this way, no. There was a point of choosing, and we chose wrong. There was a chance that things didn't have to be this way at all, but if that were the case there'd be no need for this discussion. Also, I'm really grateful this thread is here to talk about these things and that so many perspectives and beliefs are represented. I am aware that what I believe or say may be wrong, and definitely isn't a complete or accurate picture even if it's trending towards right, but it's nice to have a place to talk and get a plethora of different responses. Also, will pray for you Tuxedo Catfish. I've always appreciated your thoughtful responses in this thread and am just hoping to contribute my own thoughts so I can hopefully grow from the experience myself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:(A) We don't know and can you elaborate on B? are you talking about the poster I was speaking with or god? if god, then how so be he "intervening in ways that... ... are church-specific"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Or put another way, if God exists, then with perfect understanding I would be a lesser mirror of God, doing His will as if it were my own because it is also my own. If we're created in God's image and Christ is held up as the perfect example for humanity, then it seems to follow that this is preferable to being an unconscious tool or an aimless beast confined to his Garden. And of course, if there is no God, or if He's unlike the Christian conception of Him, then we're the best we've got and understanding is even more important not only because it's intrinsically better than ignorance but also because it's (as close as we get to) a sure way to better ourselves and the universe around us. Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
The Wolfen posted:Regardless of whether there was a literal fruit to eat or not (like Arsenic Lupin I'd lean more towards parts of the Bible as being teaching stories versus pure literal word for word accounts of history (especially so with the creation as its a fairly poor account of how things came to be at least on the details front)), the point of the Genesis creation seems to say that God intended a consequence, in fact the exact consequences we have received, from the rejection of God and the consumption of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. I guess really what I wonder, Is anything anything because god said so, or because of some other reason? I've been wondering that. Not even a matter of anything being good or bad even, just, is god even allowed to do things arbitrarily? It seems as if everything has to have a purpose for some reason. What if god made birds because it thought they were pretty, and not for any grandiose reason? Is god not allowed to paint? thechosenone fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:I guess really what I wonder, Is anything anything because god said so, or because of some other reason? I've been wondering that. Not even a matter of anything being good or bad even, just, is god even allowed to do things arbitrarily? It seems as if everything has to have a purpose for some reason. What if god made birds because it thought they were pretty, and not for any grandiose reason? Maybe God really did make birds because they are pretty. That still wouldn't be arbitrary. He'd be making them because it delighted Him to do so. A purpose doesn't have to be a convoluted plan.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
This stuff also ties in to why I find Gnostic theologies so appealing -- for all the uncomfortable baggage some of the historical sects have (the exclusivity, mainly) or things that appeal to me for arguably more superficial reasons (defiance against the demiurge), the heart of them is that knowledge is salvific. No one who truly knows God in the most absolute and complete sense would turn away from Him in the first place; Eden is at best a cradle, and at worst a trap.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:can you elaborate on B? are you talking about the poster I was speaking with or god? if god, then how so be he "intervening in ways that... ... are church-specific"? When you argue here, it's very, very important to understand that there is no generic Christian. There are a lot of different Christians, from different faith traditions, and the dogmatic foundations we agree on are pretty drat small. I joke that anybody who can recite the Nicene Creed with a straight face is a Christian, because that's one of the last generally-accepted documents before the Orthodox/Roman Catholic split. It's a very short Creed, and it doesn't address most of the questions you're asking. e: Also, just to be clear, many of the posters in this thread disagree on foundational faith issues; we agree to talk courteously not because we're all equally correct, but because courteous discussion of Christian differences is both enlightening and fun.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:I guess really what I wonder, Is anything anything because god said so, or because of some other reason? I've been wondering that. Not even a matter of anything being good or bad even, just, is god even allowed to do things arbitrarily? It seems as if everything has to have a purpose for some reason. What if god made birds because it thought they were pretty, and not for any grandiose reason? God made birds because colorful flying dinosaurs are rad, and you need to get feathers to put in your silly hats from somewhere
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:e: Also, just to be clear, many of the posters in this thread disagree on foundational faith issues; we agree to talk courteously not because we're all equally correct, but because courteous discussion of Christian differences is both enlightening and fun. This. This is why I have enjoyed lurking this thread, and the primary reason why I decided to actually post instead of continuing to do so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
but are there not similarly rad and awsome ways to get feathers? Are there not other pretty things other than birds god could have created instead of them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:but are there not similarly rad and awsome ways to get feathers? Are there not other pretty things other than birds god could have created instead of them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Sure. If you're asking me to explain God's choices, that's way, way above my paygrade. All I know is what we've got, and what I believe through the gift of Faith. I cannot -- and IMNSHO nobody can -- tell you why God chose anything, because s/he's God and I'm not. Ineffable, man. Alright, I figure you mean what you say. Another question then: Did god create logic?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:Did god create logic? Define logic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
quote:Another question then: Did god create logic? I think so. To me, logic represents order and harmony. In Genesis God makes order out of chaos, and in the New Testament he does the same thing. Where there should be entropy and death, he brings life and order.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Halbey posted:I think so. To me, logic represents order and harmony. In Genesis God makes order out of chaos, and in the New Testament he does the same thing. Where there should be entropy and death, he brings life and order. So why did god create logic?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 07:59 |
|
|
thechosenone posted:Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity? Define reasoning, and define principles of validity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:39
|
|