Heaven and The Problem of Evil
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-11-2013, 04:36 PM
RE: Heaven and The Problem of Evil
(19-11-2013 04:34 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  About the Libet experiments...

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and...lve.1.html

...which calls into question the reductionism assumed where one stimulus/one response is said to counter the nuanced selection process occurring with "free will." I'm thinking, not so fast. Tongue

Indeed, this is why it depends on what you mean by Free Will.

The ability to make choices is not disputed by me, but rather the ability to CONSCIOUSLY choose.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 04:51 PM
RE: Heaven and The Problem of Evil
(19-11-2013 04:36 PM)Boysurroundedbymoms Wrote:  
(19-11-2013 04:34 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  About the Libet experiments...

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and...lve.1.html

...which calls into question the reductionism assumed where one stimulus/one response is said to counter the nuanced selection process occurring with "free will." I'm thinking, not so fast. Tongue

Indeed, this is why it depends on what you mean by Free Will.

The ability to make choices is not disputed by me, but rather the ability to CONSCIOUSLY choose.

So what would be the impetus to put "consciously" in capital letters?

(Which looks petulant and immature, by the way. Tongue )

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 04:54 PM
RE: Heaven and The Problem of Evil
(19-11-2013 04:51 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(19-11-2013 04:36 PM)Boysurroundedbymoms Wrote:  Indeed, this is why it depends on what you mean by Free Will.

The ability to make choices is not disputed by me, but rather the ability to CONSCIOUSLY choose.

So what would be the impetus to put "consciously" in capital letters?

(Which looks petulant and immature, by the way. Tongue )

Sorry if it looks petulant and immature, House. I didn't mean it that way.

It seems to be an unconscious response. Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2013, 01:07 AM
RE: Heaven and The Problem of Evil
(19-11-2013 02:48 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  This is why I always direct things back to the Hebrew and Greek.

Textual variants in the New Testament (with the original Greek)

List of major textual variants in the New Testament (all in English)

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2013, 07:30 AM
RE: Heaven and The Problem of Evil
(19-11-2013 01:02 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  If God didn't create it and it exists, the God isn't omnipotent.
OK, doesn’t bother me.

Quote:Also, what are your apologetics for these verses:

Isaiah 45:7 Hebrew here.
As already noted, that “evil” isn’t the only acceptable translation.

Quote:And no, it's not translated as "calamity".
Yes, it is, in a number of translations. I’ve already quoted a few.

Quote:Word that is used is "ra". Defined here.
This link gives the primary definition as adversity. Thanks for the support.

Quote:Follow that link and search for "Isaiah 45:7". You'll see the specific definition of it for that verse. It is defined as a masculine noun and absolute and means: evil, distress, adversity, or calamity.
OK, three of the four support my position. What’s your point?

Quote:"Calamity" is used in Amos 6:3 (here) and is associated with a day or an event and not a person or being.

"Evil" is the proper translation when in context of an action of a being.

You can look it up.
No, it’s your position, you support it. If you could, I think you would have. You did give links above, but they support my position as well.

Quote:Likewise, Amos 3:6 (here) states (uses the same "ra" as the Isaiah verse) that the city does evil and that God did it. The Hebrew shows that God is directly acting over the action; therefore, He is "doing" the evil of the city.
In some translations. In others, it says differently.

Orthodox Jewish Bible - Shall there be disaster in a city, and Hashem hath not caused it?
ESV - Does disaster come to a city, unless the LORD has done it?

Now let’s look at the two you consider most accurate:
Young’s Literal –Is there affliction in a city, And Jehovah hath not done [it]?
Darby - Shall there be evil in a city, and Jehovah not have done [it]?

Sorry, but this verse is the same as the other. There are legitimate differences regarding the translation, even among your preferred translations.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2013, 07:49 AM
RE: Heaven and The Problem of Evil
(19-11-2013 01:04 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Okay. I was conflating the two. Still, it'd be nice to know what that goal is, since all of the stuff along the way looks pretty unnecessary...
I gave a goal – potential for deeper relationship with us. Depth of relationship is dependent on knowledge of the subject.

Quote:However, a judge is working within a framework that he as no control over. He doesn't have the ability to modify the laws, nor did he create them. Typically, these types of God -> human analogies don't work well unless you are positing a God that has no control over heaven, hell, or morality. You would have to argue that God is powerless to get rid of hell.
All analogies break down at some point. This one is pretty good. You’re taking a narrow view of judge. Across time and cultures, some judges have pretty much been the lawmakers as well. Alternatively, rework the analogy to include lawmakers and judges. We don’t consider it malevolent for lawmakers to make laws per se.

Quote: I need you to elaborate on that one. What do you mean that he deals with it effectively?
He consigns it to hell and fully protects his own from it.
Quote:From a Christian perspective, the eternal reward and punishment system has nothing to do with evil or morality, and everything to do with whether or not you swore an oath of fealty to Jesus. The framework literally holds that you could burn down an orphanage and accept Jesus as your lord and savior and be rewarded or that you could build several orphanages and not accept Jesus and be punished.
It holds that everyone sins and deserves punishment for that sin, but God removes that punishment from some as an act of mercy, and gives gifts as an act of grace.

Quote:What is that purpose? Without knowing what it is, can you understand why I paraphrase the entire thing as "[reasons]"? From an outside perspective, being presented with a non-falsifiable, non-answer isn't very compelling.
I’ve given one purpose – deeper relationships with man, which requires deeper knowledge of god.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2013, 07:56 AM
RE: Heaven and The Problem of Evil
(18-11-2013 09:39 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  One thing I've realized that I seldom see Christians talk about in any detail is heaven. Now, the Bible only gives us glimpses into what heaven is supposed to be, but it doesn't seem to be talked about other than in the most vague sense imaginable. I've noticed this both back when I believed and after I stopped. The only consistent thing I hear about it is that there is supposed to be no suffering. Now, how that is achieved differs from person to person. You might think that you'd feel sad thinking about loved ones that ended up in hell, but some people suggest that you are simply incapable of thinking about it (some go so far as to say your memory of those people is erased). Also, there is no sin or suffering in heaven, and certainly, no one is hurting anyone up there.

Now, that can conjure up some odd mental images, but where it really gets weird is how any imagining of heaven mixes with the most common forms of theodicy and modern apologetics.

There are a lot of different ways to try and solve the Problem of Evil, but the most common ones you hear about these days are Free will, you have to know dark to appreciate light, and the best of all possible worlds. Lets look at those in depth a bit in context with heaven.



Free Will:
Free will has always been a big deal for the Abrahamic religions. Many consider it the cause of all of our current suffering and the justification for the existence of hell. You can ask why God has to work under this framework and why it's necessary for us to be able to be this terrible for God's great plan, but rest assured that this is because of [reasons]. Sometimes, people speculate that this is because God needs to know that we really love him, so we have to be able to love him on our own, and that this isn't super creepy or narcissistic because of [more reasons]. I'm starting to get off track, but what's important is that free will is really important.

So, the believers all die and go to heaven (yay!) and everything is wonderful beyond all imagination. Also, they are being nice to each other, because if they weren't, it wouldn't be wonderful. So, are they able to sin or be mean to each other? Do they still have their free will? Yes or no?

Yes: Yes, they still have their free will, but they never make bad decisions. What the fuck?! Why couldn't God have made us this way in the first place? And before you say "well, only the good people go to heaven, so of course they behave themselves", according to the Bible there are no people on this planet who are without sin. It's not like they are already that good or anything. There's obviously some type of transformation going on here, and YHWH is clearly holding back on Earth. So, this leads to the conclusion of unnecessary suffering.

No: What the fuck!? I thought that free will was super important to justify The Problem of Evil because of [reasons]. This answer just invalidated this approach of theodicy on first principles.



You have to know dark to appreciate light/The best of all possible worlds:
(I'll combine these two here, because they work similarly when discussing heaven)

So, the idea here is that God faces some sort of limitations (because [reasons], of course) and that we have to suffer here before we can enjoy heaven there. It's a rather convenient Post Hoc justification, but it is what it is. The point is, we suffer some finite amount here so we can enjoy heaven infinitely there. Now, this seems like a bit of a math failure regarding how finite and infinite numbers work, but whatever. Now this leads me to an important question: does the amount we suffer in this life in any way impact our enjoyment of heaven (for all eternity!)? Yes or no?

Yes: Yikes! As creepy as it sounds, the most optimal solution here is the torture the ever-loving crap out of ourselves/each other as much as possible for optimal bliss later. Lets hope we weren't wrong and there is no heaven! Also, why does an all-loving God "bless" some people with more suffering than others? This seems unfair. Is it [reasons]?

No: So, as long as we've "suffered", then that's good enough to get the most out of heaven? Then anything more is unnecessary and God is being unnecessarily cruel. Anything beyond having souls exist in human bodies for just baaaarely as long as needed and then killing them and sending their souls to heaven is gratuitous. What the crap, YHWH?

Of course, the obvious answer is that these two approaches are simply Post Hoc rationalizations for why we get the world that we live in and can observe while simultaneously talking about God and The Problem of Evil. It's painfully obvious that either the yes or no answer to the question above point to a world that is clearly different than what we have, so, if you believe that heaven involves no suffering, then you have to come to the conclusion that God didn't craft the world in the most optimal fashion (making the best of all possible worlds fail).



So, there you have it. As soon as you start imagining an infinitely wonderful heaven, the Problem of Evil rears it's ugly head again, destroying several hundred years of carefully crafted apologetics. I really with Christians would talk more about heaven in Bible studies and ask these sorts of questions.

Actually the Hebrews who wrote the Bible did not believe in immortality, heaven, hell, or "free will". So they're all out the window. Their concept of "evil" was the common one in the ancient Near East, (chaos vs order), the place ALL the dead went to was Sheol, (where no one suffered), and all their divine beings, (and there were many) lived above the "firmament", with NO humans present, ever. "Free will" (as a moral concept) has been debunked by 21st Century Neuro-science.
So, it IS "turtles all the way down". So solly.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
20-11-2013, 11:06 AM
RE: Heaven and The Problem of Evil
(20-11-2013 07:49 AM)alpha male Wrote:  I gave a goal – potential for deeper relationship with us. Depth of relationship is dependent on knowledge of the subject.
So, he wanted some friends, but he wanted us to be better friends, so we have to be able to suffer for it? Couldn't we be friends in heaven with no suffering? If not, then what is the point of heaven? If we have to suffer here first to become good friends with him, then when we get to heaven, we no longer need free will, why not operate on a faster time line on earth?

Again, this all seems rather inventive and blatantly asserted. You have no evidence that this is the case. You are just making things up to try and reconcile the Problem of Evil and an afterlife with no suffering.


(20-11-2013 07:49 AM)alpha male Wrote:  All analogies break down at some point. This one is pretty good. You’re taking a narrow view of judge. Across time and cultures, some judges have pretty much been the lawmakers as well. Alternatively, rework the analogy to include lawmakers and judges. We don’t consider it malevolent for lawmakers to make laws per se.

Yes, but judges don't have the power to determine greater societal conditions. We have laws against things like murder because society can't function if we allow it. Sure, a judge could let murderers go free, but there would be consequences.

If anyone believes in a heaven that has no suffering or sin, then they already believe that God is powerful enough to create a world like that. Judges can't do that. My point is all this judgment is unnecessary on first principles. God isn't judging and punishing us because he has to. He does it because he wants to. That's why the analogy fails.


(20-11-2013 07:49 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
Quote: I need you to elaborate on that one. What do you mean that he deals with it effectively?
He consigns it to hell and fully protects his own from it.
Yes, except for, in one way or another, he created evil, so he's effectively protecting us from himself. I asked you earlier and you didn't answer: you say that God didn't create evil. What did create it? What created the thing that created evil?


(20-11-2013 07:49 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
Quote:From a Christian perspective, the eternal reward and punishment system has nothing to do with evil or morality, and everything to do with whether or not you swore an oath of fealty to Jesus. The framework literally holds that you could burn down an orphanage and accept Jesus as your lord and savior and be rewarded or that you could build several orphanages and not accept Jesus and be punished.
It holds that everyone sins and deserves punishment for that sin, but God removes that punishment from some as an act of mercy, and gives gifts as an act of grace.
Except for God set the bar and created the punishment/reward system. Any "mercy" from him is just him shifting the goal posts. And, again, the punishment/reward system doesn't address evil; it addresses "Do you believe in Jesus? Y/N".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
20-11-2013, 11:13 AM
RE: Heaven and The Problem of Evil
(20-11-2013 07:56 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Actually the Hebrews who wrote the Bible did not believe in immortality, heaven, hell, or "free will". So they're all out the window. Their concept of "evil" was the common one in the ancient Near East, (chaos vs order), the place ALL the dead went to was Sheol, (where no one suffered), and all their divine beings, (and there were many) lived above the "firmament", with NO humans present, ever. "Free will" (as a moral concept) has been debunked by 21st Century Neuro-science.
So, it IS "turtles all the way down". So solly.

I did write "the Abrahamic religions" when I discussed free will, but the thread was largely pointed at Christianity. I know that the Hebrews had an entirely different concept of the afterlife. I should have just left that to say "Christianity".

This reminds me: I have a friend who is an ex-Jew. I should ask her what she was raised to believe. We never talked about it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2013, 01:59 PM
RE: Heaven and The Problem of Evil
(20-11-2013 11:06 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  So, he wanted some friends, but he wanted us to be better friends, so we have to be able to suffer for it? Couldn't we be friends in heaven with no suffering?
Depth of relationship is dependent on depth of knowledge. I don’t see that this concept is controversial. If I said I loved a woman I just met as much as I love my wife of 22 years, people would correctly note that I can’t love the acquaintance that much as I barely know her. God reveals aspects of himself which alienate some, but allow a deeper relationship with others.

Quote:If not, then what is the point of heaven?
To enjoy that relationship, among other things.

Quote:If we have to suffer here first to become good friends with him, then when we get to heaven, we no longer need free will, why not operate on a faster time line on earth?
Huh?

Quote:Again, this all seems rather inventive and blatantly asserted. You have no evidence that this is the case. You are just making things up to try and reconcile the Problem of Evil and an afterlife with no suffering.
I didn’t invent it, I took it from Romans 9: 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

Quote:
Yes, but judges don't have the power to determine greater societal conditions. We have laws against things like murder because society can't function if we allow it. Sure, a judge could let murderers go free, but there would be consequences.
Likewise heaven wouldn’t be heaven if everyone were let in.

Quote:If anyone believes in a heaven that has no suffering or sin, then they already believe that God is powerful enough to create a world like that. Judges can't do that. My point is all this judgment is unnecessary on first principles. God isn't judging and punishing us because he has to. He does it because he wants to. That's why the analogy fails.
As already noted, God has a purpose – deeper relationships. Yes, he wants to achieve that purpose. He could have decided to accept shallower relationships in order to avoid the need for sin and suffering. That would punish those who would have loved him anyway, and reward those who would have hated or ignored him. That’s obviously not a logical thing to do.

Quote:Yes, except for, in one way or another, he created evil, so he's effectively protecting us from himself. I asked you earlier and you didn't answer: you say that God didn't create evil. What did create it?
Angels and people.
Quote:What created the thing that created evil?
God.



Quote: Except for God set the bar and created the punishment/reward system. Any "mercy" from him is just him shifting the goal posts. And, again, the punishment/reward system doesn't address evil; it addresses "Do you believe in Jesus? Y/N".
Incorrect. Earlier I privately gave you kudos for not conflating justice and mercy, but that was apparently premature.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: