The Song Fight Bulletin Board

Sven's Paradox wrote:If God is, as the bible says, all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-seeing, and sees the future as easily as the past, why then did he create the angel who would later on become Satan? He knew of its treachery before he even created it. And furthermore, why did he create human beings, knowing full well that we'd fall from grace and endure thousands of years of suffering until such a time as he sees fit to set things right? These are not things that a perfect, infallable, and 'loving' creator would do. They are more along the lines of insane, sadistic, and emotionally detached experiments for his amusement. Don't even get me started on 'hell'.

FIRST: Get rid of the outdated symbols. The Bible was written long ago, by humans (inspired or not), and their conception of how things work was extremely primitive. A lotta people still get some guidance out of it (essentially by cherry-picking the parts they like, which is alright as long as they admit that), but it isn't the Ultimate True Word of God.


Now, there's still a bit of sense to your argument. Why, if there is some ultimate benevolent force that flows through everything and guides the progress of the universe, did such a force allow for anything evil to ever occur?

Well... To make things interesting. What's better?: a world where nothing happens, or a world full of all kinds of beauty, in which some people are happy but everybody suffers at least a little bit (and some a lot). I'd take the second choice any day.

Also, perhaps "benevolent" isn't the right word to describe this higher being. Maybe "perfect", "beautiful", or "the embodiment of everything". Of course, you <i>could</i> lump "benevolent" into those categories, as long as you understand that <b>being benevolent doesn't mean making everyone happy</b>.


Someone might argue, "yeah, but a perfect God could create a world where <i>everyone</i> is <i>always</i> happy and there's never any suffering." To which I say, grow up. It's like asking God to make a square circle or any other contradiction.

Oh and also, preventing all evil would mean preventing free will. It's wonderful that we have to <i>choose</i> to be good, rather than being forced to be good all along. Ever see or read "A Clockwork Orange"?


So, to sum up why Sven's Paradox is not at all a paradox, one of Sven's assumptions must be wrong. Those assumptions are:
1: God exists.
2: God has all those qualities traditionally associated with God.
3: An omniscient omnipotent God could create a world without evil or suffering.

I say 3 is most definitely false. I don't even care about 1 and 2, as I think they're so muddled up by years of redefinitions that they can simultaneously and non-contradictorily be both true and false.

mogosagatai that sounds like crappy world to live in. If that were true there really wouldn't be a point to life, you would just die anyway. i think your on the right track with the free will though. just the rest doesn't make much sense to me.

his question is basically based on logic and i dont really see how we have that much better of a concept of "how things work" than people did thousands of years ago. Its not a science question, not that it would matter.

First of all, I think the Bible is amazingly internally consistent, and I believe it. So there.

The Levitical laws (Moses) were clearly intended for a theocratic nation, and are therefore not applicable beyond this. To do so would be akin to cherrypicking a single verse from a controversial chapter elsewhere in the Bible, and basing all of your thoughts around that.

The modern purpose of this part of the Bible is in demonstrating the impossibility of pleasing God under our own strength. The first five books of the OT thoroughly establish the downfall of man and God's desire to bring us back into a relationship with him, despite our shortcomings. The rest of the OT is a panorama of Israel's failures to pull this off. Hence the Messiah -- bringing people into this relationship at a personal level, rather than a national one.

The sketchy area, for me, comes when you think about the nations and people destroyed by Israel as they stormed into the promised land. The answers here lie in a divine perspective that we cannot have. There are certainly cultural differences here, so it's hard to relate. We're talking about a culture of slavery and war, brought on by the fundamental brokenness of humanity.

So, why did God start this ball in motion? To suggest that he shouldn't have is to assign cosmic significance to our personal feelings on the matter. Maybe he was bored with everybody doing what he told them to. There are people in the world that know God and genuinely want to please and worship him, even though they have a choice not to.

-craig

Unrelated in it's genesis to this thread, but related, I was asked by a student of mine to explain my beliefs. He is a christian school student, his father is a minister.

His biggest question (other than the desire to save me... he never said it, but when I was a young christian, I was concerned for the fate of "sinners"...it seemed to be where he was going) anyway, his question was "do you believe that God MIGHT exist"?

I said "sure, why not?"

For me, religion in terms of belonging to a group and following "rules" that are met with severe punishment is only about humans (usually men) controlling other humans.

I find it hard to believe that an absolute being would be concerned with such things.

It was a good conversation though, for a kid born into a belief system, he's very tolerant and open minded while still dedicated to his beliefs.

I can appreciate that. What I personally believe is basically simple: Don't hurt others, don't hurt yourself, respect others beliefs"


There's more detail to it, and it's obviously complex, but that's the crux of it.

Mogosagatai wrote:a world full of all kinds of beauty, in which some people are happy but everybody suffers at least a little bit (and some a lot)

slowRodeo wrote:mogosagatai that sounds like crappy world to live in. If that were true there really wouldn't be a point to life, you would just die anyway.

That <i>is</i> the world we live in. Taken as a whole, it's really not that crappy, but quite the opposite.


And Starf, I'm with you on every paragraph except:

starfinger wrote:The sketchy area, for me, comes when you think about the nations and people destroyed by Israel as they stormed into the promised land. The answers here lie in a divine perspective that we cannot have. There are certainly cultural differences here, so it's hard to relate. We're talking about a culture of slavery and war, brought on by the fundamental brokenness of humanity.

To which I say:
It was immoral of Israel to destroy all those peoples. Yeah, they were a culture of slavery and war. But that's a perfect example of people taking righteousness too far. If you're uncertain about the Bible glorifying all that slaughter, you could certainly just attribute it to the unknowable Divine Perspective, but... Well I guess that's where we fundamentally disagree. That's essentially saying "God works in mysterious ways", which I don't think gets us anywhere.

I understand that this is the world we live in now. The bible clearly states that this isn't the world we are supposed to live in.
i was disagreeing with your three points. specifically the last one.

Mogosagatai wrote: If you're uncertain about the Bible glorifying all that slaughter, you could certainly just attribute it to the unknowable Divine Perspective, but... Well I guess that's where we fundamentally disagree.

I think the message is that God is not bluffing, he accepts no substitutes or imperfections, and the sinful and depraved have no hope in and of themselves. In particular, he wanted Israel to completely remove these idolatrous, child-sacrificing pagans so they would not be bad influences on his people (they did not).

His obliterating holiness is totally incompatible with humanity's sin (their rejection of Him). Hence Jesus -- a mind boggling sacrifice of himself to atone for our sin, and allow us into his presence. And that is why the tone shifts so dramatically between the Old and New Testament.

Perhaps it is also why we are horrified when we read about the slaughter of nations, including their children. From this vantage point, there is hope in the world -- even if you don't recognize it as such.

-craig

Only slightly off-topic; would anyone want a used copy of "Left Behind". Great sci-fi idea but a little too preachy for me.

starfinger wrote: Hence Jesus -- a mind boggling sacrifice of himself to atone for our sin, and allow us into his presence.

I've never understood the math of this idea. I don't get the mechanism. What was the force generated by Jesus dieing, and what was the thing that it effected that caused people to be forgivable? Was it just Dads a hard ass and would only let people in to heaven if his son suffered a bunch.

Why couldn't Jesus have sneezed for our sins or written a song for our sins or stomped his foot for our sins. I don’t get the connection? where is the cause and effect?

pegor wrote:

starfinger wrote: Hence Jesus -- a mind boggling sacrifice of himself to atone for our sin, and allow us into his presence.

I've never understood the math of this idea. I don't get the mechanism. What was the force generated by Jesus dieing, and what was the thing that it effected that caused people to be forgivable? Was it just Dads a hard ass and would only let people in to heaven if his son suffered a bunch.

Why couldn't Jesus have sneezed for our sins or written a song for our sins or stomped his foot for our sins. I don’t get the connection? where is the cause and effect?

It's a perfect example of the mindset of the people who wrote the books. 'Eye for an eye', etc. Adam and Eve were supposedly perfect human beings, lost their perfection through rebelling, and the passed on their imperfection to all of the rest of humanity. The only way to 'buy back' mankind's perfection was through the sacrifice of a perfect human being. See? Pretty wack shite. Why so many people believe in this crap is beyond me.

pegor wrote:Why couldn't Jesus have sneezed for our sins... I don’t get the connection? where is the cause and effect?

This is a huge question, and there are a few parallel answers.

First of all, Jesus's death was entirely for our benefit. Can you think of a more powerful statement, from a human perspective, than "I would subject myself to brutal torture and death by crucifixion to show you how much you mean to me" ?

Secondly, it was the culmination of the Jews culture of sacrifice. Sacrifice as an atonement for sin has huge symbolic implications: the death of the self, the separation of our doomed mortal flesh from our eternal spiritual selves, the giving of ourselves and our possessions to honor God, etc.
This concept was a huge part of Israel's laws, and by this final ultimate sacrifice, God proclaimed that era of Israel's history to be complete. More significantly, it extended the power of sacrificial atonement to the rest of humanity.

Thirdly, it paved the way for Jesus's resurrection (happy easter). This triumph over death shifted the focus from our mortal bodies to our eternal spirits.

I mean, sneezing would just be silly.

-craig

Mogosagatai wrote:

Sven's Paradox wrote:If God is, as the bible says, all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-seeing, and sees the future as easily as the past, why then did he create the angel who would later on become Satan? He knew of its treachery before he even created it. And furthermore, why did he create human beings, knowing full well that we'd fall from grace and endure thousands of years of suffering until such a time as he sees fit to set things right? These are not things that a perfect, infallable, and 'loving' creator would do. They are more along the lines of insane, sadistic, and emotionally detached experiments for his amusement. Don't even get me started on 'hell'.

FIRST: Get rid of the outdated symbols. The Bible was written long ago, by humans (inspired or not), and their conception of how things work was extremely primitive. A lotta people still get some guidance out of it (essentially by cherry-picking the parts they like, which is alright as long as they admit that), but it isn't the Ultimate True Word of God.


Now, there's still a bit of sense to your argument. Why, if there is some ultimate benevolent force that flows through everything and guides the progress of the universe, did such a force allow for anything evil to ever occur?

Well... To make things interesting. What's better?: a world where nothing happens, or a world full of all kinds of beauty, in which some people are happy but everybody suffers at least a little bit (and some a lot). I'd take the second choice any day.

Also, perhaps "benevolent" isn't the right word to describe this higher being. Maybe "perfect", "beautiful", or "the embodiment of everything". Of course, you <i>could</i> lump "benevolent" into those categories, as long as you understand that <b>being benevolent doesn't mean making everyone happy</b>.


Someone might argue, "yeah, but a perfect God could create a world where <i>everyone</i> is <i>always</i> happy and there's never any suffering." To which I say, grow up. It's like asking God to make a square circle or any other contradiction.

Oh and also, preventing all evil would mean preventing free will. It's wonderful that we have to <i>choose</i> to be good, rather than being forced to be good all along. Ever see or read "A Clockwork Orange"?


So, to sum up why Sven's Paradox is not at all a paradox, one of Sven's assumptions must be wrong. Those assumptions are:
1: God exists.
2: God has all those qualities traditionally associated with God.
3: An omniscient omnipotent God could create a world without evil or suffering.

I say 3 is most definitely false. I don't even care about 1 and 2, as I think they're so muddled up by years of redefinitions that they can simultaneously and non-contradictorily be both true and false.

You're missing my point entirely. This is an xtian-centric question, for one. This god they speak of is all-knowing and all-seeing, omnipotent and omniscient, and sees the future as clearly as the past and present. No 'loving' creator would create something, knowing fully well that it will catastrophically fail shortly after, causing millions of souls to suffer for thousands of years. This is not an act of love. This leaves (in my mind) exactly 2 possibilities:

1) God exists, created the universe and all in it, but is not a loving benefactor.
2) The whole thing is bullshit, the glaring flaws in the story indicative of imperfect human imagination.

starfinger wrote: I mean, sneezing would just be silly.

It would have made Mel Gibsons The Passion a hell of a lot more entertaining, though.

sausage boy wrote:

starfinger wrote: I mean, sneezing would just be silly.

It would have made Mel Gibsons The Passion a hell of a lot more entertaining, though.

Sven wrote:2) The whole thing is bullshit, the glaring flaws in the story indicative of imperfect human imagination.

whatever path it takes to reach the logical conclusion - altho it's not so much imperfect imagination as the bible being a mish-mash of dozens or hundreds of authors creating new material or rehashing even older religious parables. it is not a self-consistent document. there is no logic to it. that's why they call it a faith.

the NT gospels were all written way, way after jesus died, by anonymous authors. none of them claim to actually have been present for anything, they just tell the story as tho they saw it personally.

It was a serious dispassionate reading of the bible that firmly convinced me that neither Judaism or Christianity could possibly be true.

Steve

Did someone mention the Pope and AIDS, yet?

j$ wrote:Did someone mention the Pope and AIDS, yet?

what what what?! The pope has AIDS? FRIKKIN' AWESOME!

blue wrote: the NT gospels were all written way, way after jesus died, by anonymous authors. none of them claim to actually have been present for anything, they just tell the story as tho they saw it personally.

Assuming that Jesus even existed. There's pretty much zero verifiable evidence that he did. I mean, come on- the Roman Empire documented a *lot* of stuff, quite a bit of it quite inconsequential... why is there not even a vague mention in ancient Roman history of this Jesus dude that supposedly caused such an uproar at the time?

Sven wrote:You're missing my point entirely. This is an xtian-centric question, for one.

Well actually, I saw your point and tried to politely explain that it wasn't worth worrying yourself over Christianity, since it's so obviously flawed (you obviously agree with me over the flawedness). Then I went on to say that, even once you strip off the Christian dogma, you still had a valid question: Why is the world so full of evil and suffering if there could be a better alternative? And then I went on to say that there isn't a better alternative, and that the one we're in now is pretty much the most amazing thing ever. And then I concluded by suggesting something along the lines of...

Sven wrote:1) God exists, created the universe and all in it, but is not a loving benefactor.
2) The whole thing is bullshit, the glaring flaws in the story indicative of imperfect human imagination.

Okay, I can live with that.

That reminds me, the talk of human imagination. My theory recently is that the heaven/hell idea in particular smacks of human invention. Because to me, in the inevitable conformity of death, no one escapes it or is better than it, only human beings could have developed a system of winners and losers.