So... is God incompetent or uncaring? Which of the two?

[Rakhel]

Except for those in which your church was explicitly told not to do a proxy baptism

 

[Koldo]

OK, but that doesn't address my objection. Anything and everything we can say on the subject at hand is contingent including your own rebuttals.

Give me an example of one of my rebuttals that you consider to be contingent and why.

Omnipotent does not mean capable of definitive impossibilities. I hold that even an omnipotent God cannot provide meaning and value without context.

We were talking about knowledge, which this God happens to possess without context.

Moving the goal posts. A common desire, even a universal desire, does not imply a universal ultimate desire. IOW, just because everyone wants to be happy doesn't mean that everyone wants that more than anything else.

What else could offset happiness? What desires can only be fulfilled by its absence and that are more important than happiness itself?

Sure, but I'm not sure where I lost you. Can you tell me that much, or should I just start over?

If possible, go back to and elaborate the following sentence: "The question is whether such a state is preferable when human desires are set aside" - Storm.

The common, yes. Not the only. There are Christian process theologians, too.

How do you reconcile our actual world with such a major value given to those attributes such as hope, growth, dissatisfaction and competition?

We are considerably limited on how much we grow in this life. Some people die just after being born. There are possible worlds where hope would be put to use in a far more extreme manner, where dissatisfaction would be seen everywhere, and people would be far more able to do tasks and have several more reasons to try to succeed. A world with humans able to do nearly anything, fast learners, with a high risk of death every day, where hope could do anything but not with certainty which would lead severe dissatisfaction to people. If those attributes are of such a great relevance to a world, how can one defend our actual world is the best one to this end?

Not only this. There can't be a heaven where people are eternally happy if one thinks this way, because several things you mentioned would not be seen on heavens. What kind of afterlife would exist then?

 

[Storm]

Give me an example of one of my rebuttals that you consider to be contingent and why.

Honey, I'm losing track. Can we just drop the 'contingent' objection?

We were talking about knowledge, which this God happens to possess without context.

Yes, but you keep comparing human knowledge to divine. That's cheating.

As you say, God is held to be unique. We're just a science project, far, FAR from His equals.

What else could offset happiness? What desires can only be fulfilled by its absence and that are more important than happiness itself?

Depends on the person. I'll agree that happiness is MOST people's ultimate desire, but not ALL.

If possible, go back to and elaborate the following sentence: "The question is whether such a state is preferable when human desires are set aside" - Storm.

Ah, ok. The premise of theodicy is that human desire is based on limited perspective, while God's is infinite. All we really know is that we don't like this or that. We're like children who don't know why we have to get shots or sit in time out.

So, when pondering theodicy, we must set aside our own preferences, and try to figure out what Daddy wants for us and why. It's virtually impossible, of course... but that's the goal.


Damn, I'm out of time. If you could, please remind me to finish responding.

 

[predavlad]

Actually, they were. As I recall, they date back to ancient Greece - they just didn't have latex. Also, iirc, Onan was punished because he disobeyed a direct command to impregnate his brother's wife. He didn't want to because that would mean less inheritance for him. This is precisely why Bibliolatry sucks.

Oh yea, they were made from sheep skin if I remember correctly

I will try to use a slightly different approach. If you decide to read the bible as mythology, you would never think that god exists, just like you don't think Zeus exists after reading Greek mythology.

If you decide to take it literally - you will end up killing your neighbor for mowing the lawn on the sabbath.

Now let's say you take half of it literally, and the other half as myth. How do you decide which is which ? If you go grab a math book and the first 10 pages have wrong formulas - you will throw it away because you don't know which parts are right and which are wrong (unless you know the math explained in that book).

For religion, you can't have inside information (unless you're alive for 2000 years) - and there are historically incorrect facts in the bible. So where does that leave the bible / quran ?

It's arguable. Depends on who goes where and why, as well as how Hell is understood.

That doesn't really matter. The immoral things are that they are both eternal, and there is no middle ground. What finite action deserves infinite punishment / reward ?

And most people do both good and bad things - does an extra lie send you to hell, and without that lie you would have gone to heaven ? When viewed from a distance these concepts don't seem that bad, but when you take a good look at them, they start to break down at every possible level. Sadly, most people don't do this.

That one I'll grant you.

Finally got a win !

 

[Storm]

Trimming this because it's gotten unwieldy:

I will try to use a slightly different approach. If you decide to read the bible as mythology, you would never think that god exists, just like you don't think Zeus exists after reading Greek mythology.

That's where you're wrong. I don't view "mythology" as code for "made up stuff that doesn't mean anything real." I view it as metaphor that carries truths that run too deep for baldly factual statements. Religious mythology in particular seeks to understand God through symbolism.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Trimming this because it's gotten unwieldy:

That's where you're wrong. I don't view "mythology" as code for "made up stuff that doesn't mean anything real." I view it as metaphor that carries truths that run too deep for baldly factual statements. Religious mythology in particular seeks to understand God through symbolism.

So mythology is a language?

 

[Storm]

So mythology is a language?

In a sense. More a mode of thought.

 

[predavlad]

Trimming this because it's gotten unwieldy:
That's where you're wrong. I don't view "mythology" as code for "made up stuff that doesn't mean anything real." I view it as metaphor that carries truths that run too deep for baldly factual statements. Religious mythology in particular seeks to understand God through symbolism.

But that's not what religion is

I found this definition of religion that I think is closer to the truth:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

That definition most certainly trespasses on the realm of factual statements. Any creature that can give us a moral code is (at least in theory) superior to us from this POV. Then we can ask ourselves how did it come into existence ? And the answer science gives us is that it must come from a process similar to our evolution. In that case how can we call it god ?
"any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"

truths that run too deep for baldly factual statements

You already have the truth that runs deeper than fact before reading the book, and you use that knowledge to distinguish the truths from the fallacies in the bible (using this as an example, it can probably be extended to multiple religions). And yes, I'm talking about the wisdom you can get from religion.

PS: Although I don't agree with you, I have to admit that if everyone saw religion the way you did, the world would be a better place.

 

[Storm]

But that's not what religion is

Not religion, mythology. The latter is only one component of the former.

I found this definition of religion that I think is closer to the truth:


That definition most certainly trespasses on the realm of factual statements. Any creature that can give us a moral code is (at least in theory) superior to us from this POV. Then we can ask ourselves how did it come into existence ? And the answer science gives us is that it must come from a process similar to our evolution. In that case how can we call it god ?

Science is impotent in the face of supernaturalism. I reject said concept for that reason, among others, but it can't be avoided when discussing Christianity.

Which I'm frankly getting bored with. I always do this playing DA... I either lose interest or reach a point where I have to say "I just won't defend that."

"any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"

Clarke ftw! I don't agree with the argument, but kudos for the quote.

You already have the truth that runs deeper than fact before reading the book, and you use that knowledge to distinguish the truths from the fallacies in the bible (using this as an example, it can probably be extended to multiple religions). And yes, I'm talking about the wisdom you can get from religion.

You lost me.

PS: Although I don't agree with you, I have to admit that if everyone saw religion the way you did, the world would be a better place.

Thank you!

 

[Heathen Hammer]

mind if I jump in?

Not at all. Storm pointed out she is not actually Christian so her responses, though I desired them, would be as an outsider.

1.) we don't know the full story of those who were destroyed, nor do we know the future repercussions that would have resulted from allowing oppressive regimes to remain unchecked.

The stories are irrelevant; they were destroyed.

2.) mistranslations blame God for things that God did not actually do. (The corrupt church of the dark ages relied on people fearing God, and altered the scriptures to suit their power-hungry purposes)

That's nice, but since these are NOT mistranslations, were the laws evil, according to your modern morals, or not? It's a simple question.

I see a desire to avoid actually answering.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

OK, I just can't answer that one. You'll have to ask an actual Christian.

I condensed your post as the other statement wasn't actually an answer either.

I sense I have asked a truly sensitive question, and I am thoroughly delighted. Nobody wants to touch it.

Feel free to give me frubals.

Some of you may dislike me, but I rock pretty hard on occasion.

 

[Storm]

I condensed your post as the other statement wasn't actually an answer either.

I sense I have asked a truly sensitive question, and I am thoroughly delighted. Nobody wants to touch it.

Feel free to give me frubals.

Some of you may dislike me, but I rock pretty hard on occasion.

Now, now... I said I lack the knowledge to answer. Not quite the same thing.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

'Not quite the same thing', as what?

 

[Sir Doom]

Do you have any data that proves prayer makes children get better?
If you do, please share.

I die a little inside every time I state something definitive and it gets pointed out. I try to reread my posts before pulling the trigger to avoid these sorts of situations, but I failed to do so this time. For that I apologize. Normally, I do my best to keep things within the realm of belief and interpretation so that we can discuss it honestly, but this time I did not. I have no data regarding prayer whatsoever. Allow me to restate my position the way I should have stated it originally.

I don't actually think prayer is a worthwhile endeavor, similarly meditation, chanting, or any other number of ceremonial or traditional means of communicating with higher powers. In fact, I will go so far as to say that I see it as little more than wishful thinking supported by coincidence.

But, what I think is hardly important to someone that prays for something and receives it. Least of all, a parent that prays for a sick child to recover and receives a healthy child afterwards. No amount of intelligent discourse is going to convince the believing parent that prayer had nothing to do with their child's recovery. My assumption that it did nothing is no more valid than their assumption that it did something. Except that the results turned out in their favor. Coincidence or not.

Yes, it matters.

If you don't believe in god, I assure you it doesn't matter in the slightest. Do you believe in god/gods/FSM? I'm convinced that the OP doesn't. Just a guess of course.

Where does it fit?

There is no way to answer this question without assuming quite a bit. Here are some possible answers (all assumptions):

God is incompetent.
God is uncaring.

The OP suggests these are the only valid assumptions to make which is obviously not the case. I am convinced that the OP himself has settled on a third option:

There is no god.

Another assumption, but equally valid as the first two. But of course, there are plenty of other assumptions that are just as valid:

God cares a lot but does nothing as it fits into an overall motivation that would be rendered useless if anything so drastic were to be changed.

God is actively pursuing a way to stop babies from dying and simply hasn't arrived at a method yet.

Again, nothing more than speculation and assumption. But equally as valid as any other assumption.

If God has mercy on those children and allows them to die not making them endure hard lives, then why does he allow several people to endure long hard lives?

I think the previous parts of this post answer this as well. Just to be clear, I don't think this world is horrible enough that killing 5-year-olds is a mercy. I only offered it as an alternative to incompetence or lack of care. In fact, I only asked the OP if he had considered it as opposed to stating it as my belief which is the way I generally try to approach these things (albeit heavily slathered with sarcasm, as is my way).

In conclusion, when we play the game of speculation, all speculations are valid bets. That blanket wraps around the bed a billion times and we've all got three of them.

 

[waitasec]

I see a desire to avoid actually answering.

me too.

 

[Storm]

'Not quite the same thing', as what?

As wanting to avoid the question.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

As wanting to avoid the question.

All right, I'll concede. Do you wish to ponder it?

 

[Storm]

All right, I'll concede. Do you wish to ponder it?

Well, if I had time I'd do the research, but I don't. You might ask Angellous or fallingblood instead.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I don't think an answer from FB will be anything, but Angellous, hm! If they wander by, perhaps...

 

[InChrist]

Anyone can respond of course, but I'd like to jump in.
The response here avoids actually addressing the idea if those specified laws were evil. It simply dismisses them as no longer 'valid'. Were those laws, all to do with killing [except one for rape] evil, or not?

In addition this raises another very odd specter, concerning the OP's question:

These laws deal with execution for a crime. Previously they were in force, now thanks to Jesus they are not. While they were, were they considered evil, or not? Now that they are not valid, those of us who do not have to follow them, do we consider them evil when they were in effect, or not?

According to the scriptures the laws given by God are perfect, they were given specifically to the nation of Israel, for a specific time in history, and for specific reasons.

The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul;
The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple;
The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart;
The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes;
The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever;
The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. Psalm 19:7-9

In terms of modern day people not under these laws: how, specifically, must they consider people who would have been executed under them, but may not be now, if they are committing the same actions those laws address respectively?

Are the people committing those acts, deserving of death, but simply now untouchable? can any attitude be displayed toward such people, yea or nay? Is it moral, or immoral, to look at such a person and think/say "I despise you, you should die, but you're lucky because I can't do that any more, the laws are no longer valid"?

As I said the scriptures show that the law was for a specific nation, time and purpose in history. The New Testament states that our attitude toward others is to love our neighbor as ourselves.