Heaven and The Problem of Evil
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-12-2013, 01:48 PM
RE: Heaven and The Problem of Evil
(12-12-2013 01:16 PM)viole Wrote:  Now, take the same judge. He decides to let his own son be tortured and, well, sort of getting killed so that the killer can go free.

I don't think that many people would consider that to be good of the judge to do, either (althought the killer and his family might be thankful for ever).
Good point. With Christianity, the people who can admit that they're the killers are thankful forever. Those who think they don't need justification scoff at the offer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2013, 02:02 PM
RE: Heaven and The Problem of Evil
(12-12-2013 01:16 PM)viole Wrote:  
(22-11-2013 08:24 AM)alpha male Wrote:  Again consider a judge. It would be benevolent of him to sentence a serial killer to eating a piece of chocolate cake and going on his way. However, most people wouldn’t consider that to be good of the judge to do (although the killer or his family might).

Now, take the same judge. He decides to let his own son be tortured and, well, sort of getting killed so that the killer can go free.

I don't think that many people would consider that to be good of the judge to do, either (althought the killer and his family might be thankful for ever). I actually think he might get locked in a psychiatric institution. Lol.

Ciao

- viole

aaaannnnd that's why the atonement is such an immoral concept

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2013, 04:01 PM
RE: Heaven and The Problem of Evil
(12-12-2013 01:48 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(12-12-2013 01:16 PM)viole Wrote:  Now, take the same judge. He decides to let his own son be tortured and, well, sort of getting killed so that the killer can go free.

I don't think that many people would consider that to be good of the judge to do, either (althought the killer and his family might be thankful for ever).
Good point. With Christianity, the people who can admit that they're the killers are thankful forever. Those who think they don't need justification scoff at the offer.

Because the offer is insane. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
12-12-2013, 05:29 PM
RE: Heaven and The Problem of Evil
(18-11-2013 03:03 PM)sporehux Wrote:  So much Jasper in Heaven, must have been one of the authors Favourite stones.

The wall was built of jasper, while the city was pure gold, clear as glass.
The foundations of the wall of the city were adorned with every kind of jewel. The first was jasper, the second sapphire,
And he who sat there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian
having the glory of God, its radiance like a most rare jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal.
And the fourth row, a beryl, an onyx, and a jasper:


[Image: Red-Jasper-Crystal-Skull-01.jpg]
I like that, it actually sounds like the Emerald city, but in the book they'd have to wear emerald tintend glasses at all times within the city since well..it wasn't shiny enough without them.

"I don't have to have faith, I have experience." Joseph Campbell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2013, 07:25 PM (This post was last modified: 13-12-2013 08:36 AM by RobbyPants.)
RE: Heaven and The Problem of Evil
(12-12-2013 01:04 PM)Alla Wrote:  Very good points.
And your question:" What the fuck?! Why couldn't God have made us this way in the first place?"
WE are not robots who are designed to do someone's will.
WE are intelligent beings who have an opportunity to make our own choices(WOW!).
If I am doing good because I am programmed this way I can not be responsible for my actions/choices. I can not have rewards.
When I am doing good because it is MY choice I feel happy(reward)
If there is no OPPOSITION there is no CHOICENo.
Do you want to be a robot who can not make OWN choices and be happy?

You totally missed my point. The part you quoted was me asking if we have free will in heaven, yet never do any bad things, why couldn't we just be that way on earth? If heaven is a good place with no bad, yet we are able to do bad, but somehow never choose to, why didn't God just make us that way in the first place? What makes us stop doing bad things in heaven if we still have free will? It has to be something. Whatever it is, God could fix it, yet he doesn't.

Ergo, he wants us to inflict suffering on each other. That, or the standard Christian notion of hell heaven being perfect, yet having free will is completely wrong. I'm leaning toward the latter.


Edit: Oops. Said "hell" instead of "heaven", which makes no sense.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RobbyPants's post
12-12-2013, 07:35 PM
RE: Heaven and The Problem of Evil
(12-12-2013 09:28 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(12-12-2013 08:00 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  If the stated goal is to have relationships, suffering is a byproduct of that, and miscarried fetuses get to have that relationship (with presumably less suffering), why not just do that, instead? Why doesn't God have fetus ensouling/miscarrying factories to make souls with which he can have relationships?
The stated goal isn't to just have relationships, it's to have deeper relationships.

That's neither hear nor there. If he can have deeper relationships with a fetus that "suffered" in utero and then was miscarried, why do we have to suffer more here? If he can't have deeper relationships with miscarried fetuses, then why create them?


(12-12-2013 09:28 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
Quote:It seems like the justification for God wanting relationships is more of an ad hoc attempt to justify the world we live in (with suffering) rather than something to try and explain the best way for God to get what he wants. Within your parameters, there are better ways and God is not taking advantage of them.
What are the better ways?

You said dead fetuses get to have a relationship with God. Either

1) That relationship is deep enough to satisfy God. If those fetuses suffer less than people on earth, than any suffering we have after birth is unnecessary, and God could get what he wants without that extra suffering. This makes him malevolent.

2) Alternately, fetuses don't get the same quality relationship with God as people do after birth because of [reasons]. If this is the case, why does God create them? They have no choice in the matter of whether or not they are born. If they have no input into the situation and God chooses to create them fully intending on them having a less-than-optimal shot at the afterlife, that is malevolent.

There's no magical third option. Given this framework, you get to pick between malevolent and malevolent. It's just how he's malevolent that's up in the air at this point.


(12-12-2013 09:28 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
Quote:If they do enjoy heaven as much as we do, then any suffering we go through after birth is unnecessary,
Not necessarily. If they do enjoy it as much, it could be because they benefit vicariously from our suffering. So, my suffering is helping others, as Jesus' suffering helped me. Works for me.

How do fetuses benefit vicariously through our suffering? Are you talking about in utero or after death?


(12-12-2013 09:28 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
Quote:and God is not omnibenevolent.
I never said he was, and have plainly said that he isn't.

Not good. Not nice. Not whatever. I don't particularly care how you describe it. My point is, no matter how you answer the question about fetuses enjoying heaven, it points to a god that either creates souls that will have a less than good time in the afterlife with no ability to control it on their own, or a god who puts us through an unnecessary amount of suffering if he can achieve his goals with less suffering.

That's it. There's no magical third option.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
13-12-2013, 08:06 AM
RE: Heaven and The Problem of Evil
(12-12-2013 07:35 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  That's neither hear nor there. If he can have deeper relationships with a fetus that "suffered" in utero and then was miscarried, why do we have to suffer more here? If he can't have deeper relationships with miscarried fetuses, then why create them?
You’re setting up a false dichotomy. We don’t eschew casual friendships just because they won’t reach the level of other friendships.


Quote:You said dead fetuses get to have a relationship with God. Either

1) That relationship is deep enough to satisfy God. If those fetuses suffer less than people on earth, than any suffering we have after birth is unnecessary, and God could get what he wants without that extra suffering. This makes him malevolent.
Again, this is a false dichotomy. There’s nothing malevolent about having relationships of different levels.
Quote:2) Alternately, fetuses don't get the same quality relationship with God as people do after birth because of [reasons]. If this is the case, why does God create them? They have no choice in the matter of whether or not they are born. If they have no input into the situation and God chooses to create them fully intending on them having a less-than-optimal shot at the afterlife, that is malevolent.
I have to strongly disagree. I don’t see it as malevolent to freely give someone something that’s very good, and nothing that’s bad. Seems ludicrous to me. I suppose if a stranger gave you a new Dodge you’d consider him malevolent because it’s not a Lexus.

Quote: How do fetuses benefit vicariously through our suffering? Are you talking about in utero or after death?
After. Remember, one of the points on suffering is that it allows God to show more of his qualities. Those who die young may learn these things through observation of us.

Quote:Not good. Not nice. Not whatever.
I’d say taking my sins away and freely giving me eternal happiness is good and nice.
Quote:I don't particularly care how you describe it.
OK, your mind is closed.
Quote:My point is, no matter how you answer the question about fetuses enjoying heaven, it points to a god that either creates souls that will have a less than good time in the afterlife with no ability to control it on their own,
Not less than good time. Rather, a less good time than some others. Doesn’t bother me. There are plenty of Christians who have given more and suffered more for the faith than me. Why shouldn’t they receive greater reward than me?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2013, 08:57 AM
RE: Heaven and The Problem of Evil
(13-12-2013 08:06 AM)alpha male Wrote:  You’re setting up a false dichotomy. We don’t eschew casual friendships just because they won’t reach the level of other friendships.

Again, this is a false dichotomy. There’s nothing malevolent about having relationships of different levels.

I'd say that depends on what heaven is like for them. The problem with this paradigm is that the fetus gets no input into this decision. God decides how much they'll get to enjoy heaven, not them. Sure, their heaven is probably way better than earth, but it could have been better, and they never had a shot at it.

If it's good enough, why not have everyone have that heaven without inflicting extra suffering on them. If it's not good enough, why inflict that on the fetuses?


(13-12-2013 08:06 AM)alpha male Wrote:  I have to strongly disagree. I don’t see it as malevolent to freely give someone something that’s very good, and nothing that’s bad. Seems ludicrous to me. I suppose if a stranger gave you a new Dodge you’d consider him malevolent because it’s not a Lexus.

I'd complain when the stranger starts inflicting suffering on me without my consent, and then dismissed my complaints, telling me that I'm earning a car.


(13-12-2013 08:06 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
Quote: How do fetuses benefit vicariously through our suffering? Are you talking about in utero or after death?
After. Remember, one of the points on suffering is that it allows God to show more of his qualities. Those who die young may learn these things through observation of us.

I thought that heaven had no suffering. How would they benefit from suffering in heaven?

Also, I'm not trying to be rude here, but that came off as exceptionally creepy. I'm not sure if you were looking to word it a different way or not, but the way you worded it was that God reveals himself to us through suffering. That sounds cruel. By very definition, any quality of which we learn through suffering also includes suffering.


(13-12-2013 08:06 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
Quote:Not good. Not nice. Not whatever.
I’d say taking my sins away and freely giving me eternal happiness is good and nice.
Quote:I don't particularly care how you describe it.
OK, your mind is closed.

No, my complaint is that it looks like you're trying to change the adjectives you are using to say that God is [some word for good] while trying to dodge the arguments. I set up why God can't be omnibenevolent, and you say you don't believe he's omnibenevolent (which is fine), but then you say that he's [some word for good] without addressing my point.

The most you've done is try to use an analogy about human judges based on human limitations, and those always fall short. If in your arguments to make God look good, you give him human weaknesses and limitations, why call him God? If you believe he's far more powerful than that, why use humans in poor analogies? Either God is great or he's not. If he is, those analogies fail on first principles.


(13-12-2013 08:06 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
Quote:My point is, no matter how you answer the question about fetuses enjoying heaven, it points to a god that either creates souls that will have a less than good time in the afterlife with no ability to control it on their own,
Not less than good time. Rather, a less good time than some others. Doesn’t bother me. There are plenty of Christians who have given more and suffered more for the faith than me. Why shouldn’t they receive greater reward than me?
If the good of heaven offsets the suffering on earth, then he's holding out on the fetuses for reasons that they'll never be able to control. If the good that fetuses get is good enough to warrant not having suffered as much as the rest of us on earth, then all of our suffering on earth is unnecessary. The first makes God capricious. The second makes him malevolent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2013, 10:56 AM
RE: Heaven and The Problem of Evil
(13-12-2013 08:57 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  I'd say that depends on what heaven is like for them. The problem with this paradigm is that the fetus gets no input into this decision. God decides how much they'll get to enjoy heaven, not them. Sure, their heaven is probably way better than earth, but it could have been better, and they never had a shot at it.
I don’t see that giving someone something good and nothing bad is a “problem.” TO use your own terminology, it seems like a manufactroversy or whatever it was.
Quote:If it's good enough, why not have everyone have that heaven without inflicting extra suffering on them. If it's not good enough, why inflict that on the fetuses?
Again, false dichotomy. There’s no reason that everyone needs to be at just “good enough,” and no reason that everyone needs to be at the highest possible.

Quote:I'd complain when the stranger starts inflicting suffering on me without my consent, and then dismissed my complaints, telling me that I'm earning a car.
That’s not happening with the unborn.

Quote: I thought that heaven had no suffering. How would they benefit from suffering in heaven?
Not suffering in heaven – they could learn about god by observation of suffering and evil on earth.

Quote:Also, I'm not trying to be rude here, but that came off as exceptionally creepy. I'm not sure if you were looking to word it a different way or not, but the way you worded it was that God reveals himself to us through suffering. That sounds cruel.
Evil and suffering allow God to show himself as righteous judge and compassionate savior.
Quote: By very definition, any quality of which we learn through suffering also includes suffering.
Suffering for someone, yes. These things may be learned to an extent by observation, but yes, they can probably only be fully appreciated by those who suffer themselves.

Quote:
No, my complaint is that it looks like you're trying to change the adjectives you are using to say that God is [some word for good] while trying to dodge the arguments. I set up why God can't be omnibenevolent, and you say you don't believe he's omnibenevolent (which is fine), but then you say that he's [some word for good] without addressing my point.
I believe I’ve addressed your points. Not sure what your complaint is. God can be good without being omnibenevolent.
Quote:The most you've done is try to use an analogy about human judges based on human limitations, and those always fall short. If in your arguments to make God look good, you give him human weaknesses and limitations, why call him God? If you believe he's far more powerful than that, why use humans in poor analogies? Either God is great or he's not. If he is, those analogies fail on first principles.
All analogies break down to some extent, but I disagree that they’re based on human limitations and fail on first principles. Let’s do away with the analogy and just state:

It’s good in a broad sense to punish wrongdoing, yet the punishment itself is not benevolent. Therefore, a good being is not necessarily omnibenevolent.

Quote:If the good of heaven offsets the suffering on earth, then he's holding out on the fetuses for reasons that they'll never be able to control.
“Holding out” indicates that the unborn have somehow earned better than what God gives them. How did they earn it? This makes no sense to me. They were given something good and nothing bad.
Quote:If the good that fetuses get is good enough to warrant not having suffered as much as the rest of us on earth, then all of our suffering on earth is unnecessary.
First, as noted, the unborn can benefit from the suffering on earth through observation.

Second, again, it’s not malevolent to give different people gifts of differing value. They’re all gifts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2013, 11:58 AM
RE: Heaven and The Problem of Evil
If we can get the good with no bad, then why have the bad?

If we can learn about God through observation instead of actual suffering, why can't we just be shown a horror film and then let into heaven?

Why is the notion of punishing wrongdoing even necessary? If we can know God without ever having to have been born, then free will is not necessary to achieve God's desire for deeper relationships.

You're not reconciling the need for free will for anything. You keep giving ways around it, yet keep saying it's necessary.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: