Fiction & Theodicies

[Kane]

Jesus did call those who were believers "evil" (Matt. 7:11). So is it to believers's benefit that they are evil? Also, is it to non-believers's benefit that we have to suffer believers? And while that last question seems flippant, I understand, I'm actually quite serious in asking it.

[JimL]

As I tried to explain to Kane, there is a general principle that through suffering and adversity, we become stronger and develop better characters (a la the reason behind military training). Of course, this sometimes has the reverse effect. This is a common principle that I honestly thought everyone knew was true. As far as God's specific plans, yes, the suffering only benefits the believer within that context (we can presume since there is no real evidence that there is a grander plan for unbelievers), which is the explanation of why God doesn't stop the evil -- it's ultimately for the benefit of the believers.

So suffering you would say benefits everyone as a general rule, such as your analogy with the military, but the distinction you make has only to do with an ultimate reward that believers will receive for their suffering, according to Gods plan, that non believers will not receive. So, is it your belief that God rewards and or punishes people specifically because of their beliefs? If so do you have a logical reason as to why a God woud so punish good people, imperfect though they be, whose world views, based on their own reason, do not include God?

[seanD]

So suffering you would say benefits everyone as a general rule, such as your analogy with the military, but the distinction you make has only to do with an ultimate reward that believers will receive for their suffering, according to Gods plan, that non believers will not receive. So, is it your belief that God rewards and or punishes people specifically because of their beliefs? If so do you have a logical reason as to why a God woud so punish good people, imperfect though they be, whose world views, based on their own reason, do not include God?

Yes, with what you said in bold. None of us are good (Psalms 14:3, Romans 3:12), which is what salvation is for.

[JimL]

Yes, with what you said in bold. None of us are good (Psalms 14:3, Romans 3:12), which is what salvation is for.

That much I had assumed correctly then, but how would you answer then the latter part of my post?

[seanD]

That much I had assumed correctly then, but how would you answer then the latter part of my post?

I don't see how I didn't answer it. The second succinct sentence was the answer to the latter part of your post.

[Kane]

Yes, with what you said in bold. None of us are good (Psalms 14:3, Romans 3:12), which is what salvation is for.

Wait... what? Salvation is for those who are good (even though they're evil [Matt. 7:11]), which is a status conferred on them because they have the 'correct' theology/beliefs? Or salvation is a means of separating the good from the bad due to beliefs, and despite the relative goodness or badness of the person?

[seanD]

Wait... what? Salvation is for those who are good (even though they're evil [Matt. 7:11]), which is a status conferred on them because they have the 'correct' theology/beliefs? Or salvation is a means of separating the good from the bad due to beliefs, and despite the relative goodness or badness of the person?

Salvation is for those that are evil, which is all of us (but this is off topic in regards to the PoE issue). I never brought up the term "good;" JimL did.

[JimL]

Salvation is for those that are evil, which is all of us (but this is off topic in regards to the PoE issue). I never brought up the term "good;" JimL did.

So, salvation is for all people, regardless of their relative moral characters, but only in so far as they believe in the christian God?

[lilpixieofterror]

An old and pointless canard lilpix!

That is your logic Jimmy, you want God to do things in the way you want to do or else he doesn't exist. Since when is God required to work and act in ways you desire?

No need to twist and spin, I already suggested it in my previous post. If we ourselves can become a certain way, achieve a certain mindset, then certainly an all powerful creator could have created us with that mindset to begin with.

So you want God to force you to be somebody else? Is that what you're getting at Jimmy?

Your answer is that the creator is less powerful than the created, that the creator is incapable of doing what his creation can do.

No, that is a strawmen Jimmy. How revealing... my answer is that God created the world and gave us the ability to choose if we want to follow him or not. You seem to want God to force you to be something you don't want to be instead of letting you choose your own path. Is that what you really want? A God that forces you to do his will instead of letting you choose what you want to do?

If you make it into your heaven will you not still have free will, will you not still have a choice to do right or wrong?

Point is Jimmy, I choose to obey the will of God and I choose to do his will and it really depends upon your view here. My view tends to say yes, you still can choose to do what you want, but why would you? You are there because you choose to be, not because you are forced. Do you want to be forced into heaven Jimmy? Would that make you happy?

Your answer of course is yes, because free will is the whole point and yet you will always choose the right thing in heaven because you have achieved a certain mindset that predisposes you to make the right choices.

Perhaps Jimmy, but you keep missing the key point. Those who choose God have made the choice to obey him and not disobey him and (depending on your view of this) they choose not to disobey God eventally, while you choose not to. Basically, you want God to force you to obey him and make you into a forced subject rather then letting you get the choice. Pretty much, you keep ignoring this point and hoping it goes away because it undermines your entire argument. Again, do you want God to force you to obey so you can then whine that he did so?

Now, if you can end up that way, then you could have been created that way in the first place. God can do anything that it is possible to do, no? So, if it is possible to achieve a certain mindset, then it is possible for a God, who can do anything that it is possible to do, to have created you with that mindset to begin with.

Again Jimmy, I would have choosen to have that mindset while others did not. Why do you keep ignoring this? Are you hoping if you scream loud enough, nobody will hear the lack of argument you got thus far?

But I did notice lilpix, that as usual, you failed to answer my question. "How is it that we can achieve in ourselves, that which God could not achieve in our making?" Is God less powerful than are we?

Your question is dumb Jimmy and shows a lack of understanding from a little fundy atheist like you. Ever hear of 'saintification'? There's different views on how this works, but the short version is that the process in which we become better people is by God working in our lives and helping us along to become better then we were before. In other words, little boy, you are attacking a strawman and using your ignorance of Christian theology to create this strawmen with. Nice try, but I already can see though it, now run along and let the adults talk.

[lilpixieofterror]

Unless you can provide solid evidence that God's interference in evil would spoil humanity, you have nothing further to add to the conversation that advances it in any way.

And what is ‘solid evidence’? Am I supposed to create a magical crystal ball that is capable of seeing all choices and realities that you can dream up? What else am I suppose to present forward to you other then observation evidence?

Until you can support your assertion, your point is entirely agnostic; that is, neither knowable or unknowable. It is a trinket adorning the dressed-up agnosticism that is your theology.

No, you are just seeking excuses to support your doubts with because I am pretty confident that Sean is 100% correct, you are emotionally invested in this and thus you are letting emotion cloud your reasoning. God has given us all the choice to follow his will or not in our lives and again, if everybody choose to follow the commandments that he gave us to love our neighbors as we love ourselves or to bless those that curse us, would the world be as it is? Nope, it would be a very wonderful world, but it isn’t because not everybody chooses to follow the will of God and thus bad things happen as a result. You ignore that even with God present with Adam and Eve, they still choose to disobey God and in fact, there is not a single story in the entire Bible in which the presence of God magically prevented people from sinning. Not a one, but despite that evidence against your view, you ignore it and just repeat the same assertion that God being directly present before us all would prevent evil and yet, what evidence do you have to support your assertion with? Zero, but of course… everybody else, but you has to present evidence. How lovely…

What you have offered so far is that observing people provides evidence of evil; and that that's just the way things are because we have free will. What you have not done is furnish solid evidence for your assertion that humanity would be made worse-off if God stepped in and dealt with the problem of evil. That is your challenge. It has been my challenge to you and SeanD this whole time. Until you can provide evidence to support your claim, everything else you write is simply peripheral.

So in other words, ignoring stories in the Bible is how your argument works. Nice, it also seems that everybody else, but you, has to present evidence while all you got to do is sit on your high horse and condemn God for the evils WE CAUSE. How lovely, so when did you gain all knowing powers and automatically know all of this stuff and why is it that everybody else has to furnish evidence, but you do not? Hypocrite much?

[Kane]

I don't have to present evidence for my questioning of your assertion, LPoT. You have to provide some kind of confirmatory evidence that cinches your claim that God's interference in evil would spoil (or, make bad) humanity. By evidence, I mean: verifiable, demonstrable, empirical data that directly confirms a) God as an interfering agent against the evils of the world, and b) the spoiling of humanity as a result of God's interfering agency against the evils of the world.

Good luck!

[seanD]

So, salvation is for all people, regardless of their relative moral characters, but only in so far as they believe in the christian God?

Is that really a question you need to ask, or are you just playing a game? And what does this have to do with the OP, which is about the so-called Christian PoE issue.

[lilpixieofterror]

I don't have to present evidence for my questioning of your assertion, LPoT.

I see how it works...

Kane can make any claim or any assertion he wants and it's ok because he's above the rules and standards he expects other people to follow. You assert, with zero evidence (and even contradictory evidence, since you tried to use the Bible to support your position) that God being among us would mean we wouldn't sin, but you ignore the evidence against your position. Yet, when I state my position and show supporting evidence for it, I need to present MORE evidence and MORE evidence to meet your unreasonable standards. It seems that you are doing what I suspect you are doing, seeking any excuse to feed your doubts and simply ignoring evidence against your position. God was directly among Adam and Eve and yet... THEY STILL SINNED, God was among Israel, and yet... THEY STILL SINNED and God was among the disciples and yet... THEY STILL SINNED! It seems that your assertion that God being among us would prevent sin and evil is totally unwarranted and without any evidence to support it, at all. Likewise, your inability to figure out that some people find many outright silly things as 'evil' and would also want those eliminated seems to escape you too. The point, your argument is full of many holes that you refuse to cover, but of course, you expect others to meet burdens you refuse to meet, you know what that is called? Being a hypocrite because sorry dear heart, this works BOTH ways and if you’re unwilling to meet the same standard you demand of others, then don’t ask for them. Simple as that.

You have to provide some kind of confirmatory evidence that cinches your claim that God's interference in evil would spoil (or, make bad) humanity. By evidence, I mean: verifiable, demonstrable, empirical data that directly confirms a) God as an interfering agent against the evils of the world, and b) the spoiling of humanity as a result of God's interfering agency against the evils of the world.

In other words, you set your standards so unreasonably high and will just outright ignore psychological example that prove otherwise, no evidence will convince you because you do not want to be convinced, you want excuses for your doubts and thus found them. Likewise you need ZERO evidence to support your assertions, but I need to produce evidence you yourself refuse to produce. You know what that is called? Being a hypocrite. I believe in fairness to such a degree that I will not ask people to meet burdens of evidence I will not meet myself. Now please back your argument, with the same amount of evidence you expect me to, that God being directly present will prevent people from doing evil. I know you can't present this evidence and the evidence you want to use would contradict your insane claim, so please meet the burden you want me to meet or am I correct that you're just seeking an excuse, any excuse, to feed your doubts with?

Good luck!

Good luck explaining why you are above the standards you expect everybody else to follow.

[JimL]

Is that really a question you need to ask, or are you just playing a game? And what does this have to do with the OP, which is about the so-called Christian PoE issue.

Yes, that is the question I would like you to answer. People obviously vary in their moral character, else there is the no point of you and lilpix sayig that people, through their suffering, improve along the way. But it seems that improving, no matter how much better a person you become, doesn't matter unless you are a believer in the christian God. This is how I have interpreted your words, so I am just asking for a direct answer to that question if you don't mind. What is the criteria for salvation? Are good people, relatively speaking, denied entrance due to their beliefs? And are less good people, relatively speaking, insofar as their moral character is concerned, allowed to bypass their betters and enter into heaven because of their belief?

[seanD]

Yes, that is the question I would like you to answer. People obviously vary in their moral character, else there is the no point of you and lilpix sayig that people, through their suffering, improve along the way. But it seems that improving, no matter how much better a person you become, doesn't matter unless you are a believer in the christian God. This is how I have interpreted your words, so I am just asking for a direct answer to that question if you don't mind. What is the criteria for salvation? Are good people, relatively speaking, denied entrance due to their beliefs? And are less good people, relatively speaking, insofar as their moral character is concerned, allowed to bypass their betters and enter into heaven because of their belief?

Obedience incorporates morality, but it's not just about morality because our morality falls short regardless of how good we think it is. I already gave a basic definition of obedience...

Obedience = repentance and then acknowledging him in all your ways ever after. Christianity 101.

Even obedience to God doesn't guarantee the believer a totally evil-free (or sin-free) character, but it's the step in the right direction towards that goal. Obedience involves specific actions that lead us in the direction of God's plan than just morality.