Theodicy -- Let's Dig Deeper

[ToGodorNottoGod]

his understanding is infinite. This does not necessarily mean understanding equals knowledge.
It is as simple as that.

OK, in understanding the Bible teaches God is infinite, i.e. omniscient in understanding. At least that was David's thinking. How he could possibly know that is another question, so I suspect he is really bragging about something he himself does not understand......

 

[pearl]

There is certainly no shortage of theological opinions concern theodicy.


What Soelle suggests, therefore, is that we should become people who can practically strive to abolish suffering, including

gratuitous suffering, instead of staying as apathetic bystanders: “It is axiomatic for me that the only humanely conceivable goal

is the abolition of circumstances under which people are forced to suffer, whether through poverty or tyranny.” [96]

How, then, can we abolish suffering? Soelle’s answer as a Christian is that we go to the sufferers and bear their pain with them,

like Jesus Christ did on the cross. She finds this answer particularly in the stance of Alyosha, Ivan’s younger brother in

Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov. A novice in a monastery,

Alyosha directs his attention not to the power above but to the sufferers. He puts himself besides them. He bears their pain with them.

During this conversation he says almost nothing. He listens in agony as Ivan introduces examples of suffering he had assembled as

witnesses against the compassion of God. Later Alyosha arises, goes up to Ivan, the rebel and insurrectionist, and kisses him silently on

the lips. It is the same gesture with which Christ departed in the legend of the Grand Inquisitor. [97]

It is in this imitatio Christi stance of Alyosha that Soelle finds at least two amazing things: 1) “Alyosha’s strength is the silent

sharing of suffering,” and 2) “God is not over Alyosha… [but] within him.” [98]


Jürgen Moltmann, too, takes seriously Ivan Karamazov’s rebellious complaint that traditional aesthetic theodicy harmonizes evil

with a greater purpose of an omnipotent and perfectly good God. The German Reformed theologian says: “The suffering of an

innocent child is an irrefutable rebuttal of the notion of the almighty and kindly God in heaven.” [102]

In this context he criticizes any aesthetic explanation for its inability to obliterate suffering from the world: “There is no

explanation of suffering which is capable of obliterating his [the sufferer’s] pain, and no consolation of a higher wisdom which

could assuage it.” [103] Again, with this “highly questionable” traditional explanation, the sufferer has to “come to terms with”

his suffering, without being able to overcome it:

The desire to explain suffering is already highly questionable in itself. Does an explanation not lead us to justify suffering and give it

permanence? Does it not lead the suffering person to come to terms with his suffering, and to declare himself in agreement with it? And

does this not mean that he gives up hope of overcoming suffering? [104]


Moltmann therefore proposes an entirely new approach which is both “practical” and “eschatological.” It is practical in that we,

together with God, strive to overcome suffering, and it is eschatological in that it seeks a future when the overcoming of

suffering will be completed, i.e., “the future in which the desire for God will be fulfilled, suffering will be overcome, and what

has been lost will be restored.” [105]

His approach involves a theologia crucis (theology of the cross), which he believes to be the only answer to the question of

severe torments in places like Auschwitz:

Any other answer [than the theologia crucis] would be blasphemy. There cannot be any other Christian answer to the question of this

torment. To speak here of a God who could not suffer would make God a demon. To speak here of an absolute God would make God an

annihilating nothingness. To speak here of an indifferent God would condemn men to indifference. [106]

http://www.tparents.org/UTS/JUS-17-2016/JUS-17-03.pdf

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

So I stay with my opinion: God's purported omniscience is a theory. But not Bible.

Everything in the Bible is theory of someone from ancient times. The Bible is not omniscient anymore than God is.... It is why the Jews never tried to settle issues as final using the Bible, especially using the Hebrew rather than translations (which removes one further away form the deep meaning and multiple ways of understanding something). The Bible is not a final answer, but the beginning of inquiry. There is a worldwide full of knowledge that is not "Bible." That is irrelevant to there being accurate knowledge.

 

[thomas t]

OK, in understanding the Bible teaches God is infinite, i.e. omniscient in understanding.

in my opinion, the phrase "omniscient in understanding" doesn't make sense. It's like saying "all shades of green are combined in this melody".

Knowledge is one thing, understanding another, I think.
So I stay with my opinion here: unlimited understanding does not give a hint to knowledge.

The Bible is not a final answer, but the beginning of inquiry. There is a worldwide full of knowledge that is not "Bible." That is irrelevant to there being accurate knowledge.

True: not all knowledge in the world can be found in the Bible.

However, I merely said that God's purported omniscience cannot be found in the Bible.
Maybe God is omniscient indeed. Maybe not. It's theory.
Many things can be found in the Bible, though.

Claim: Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.
Support: John 14:6.
That's not theory. That's a fact in the Bible. You can back it up by plain scripture.

Claim: God is omnicsient.
Support? there is no Bible verse in this sense. It remains theory.

So the latter is mere theory, the former can be backed up by actual scripture.

Everything in the Bible is theory of someone from ancient times.

see above

 

[thomas t]

I didn't interpret those verses - I simply chose them as examples which your fellow "bible-believing" Christians have used to claim god is omniscient. If the bible were clear, then there wouldn't be endless disagreements about its interpretation and hence there wouldn't be all the endless sects, cults, and denominations that all claim to follow it.

if it would be that easy to disprove the correctness of the Bible... it would only take some fools who misunderstand and set up their own theories.
I stay with my opinion: the vast multitude of denominations is not God's fault.
It's man's fault.
Bible is clear.

I've seen endless excuses - but the fact remains that the two gospels flatly contradict each other.

I didn't give an excuse. I gave a reason of why the two gospels differ from each other without poseing a contradiction.

To the extend any event (such as a choice) is not fully determined by all its antecedents, it is determined by nothing (and is therefore random). There is no logical way in which free will can make sense to a god whose creation determines all events (the antecedents to all choices) or who has deliberately introduced randomness (which can have no bearing on anybody's will). It is every bit as contradictory as a square triangle.

Actuallly it's not, I think.
God either determined an outcome or introdiced randomness or he gave free will.
These three forces coexist, in my opinion.
The existence of one force for a couple of events does not rule out the existence of another force.

 

[wellwisher]

As defined by Alvin Plantinga, theodicy is the "answer to the question of why God permits evil." Theodicy is defined as a theological construct that attempts to vindicate God in response to the evidential problem of evil that seems inconsistent with the existence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity. Another definition of theodicy is the vindication of divine goodness and providence in view of the existence of evil. The word theodicy derives from the Greek words Θεός Τheos and δίκη dikē. Theos is translated "God" and dikē can be translated as either "trial" or "judgement". Thus, theodicy literally means "justifying God.”

I don’t think this definition goes far enough, however, and would like interested members to explore further, into not only what God allows, but what God Himself does. What follows is taken from the Christian perspective, as I couldn’t do justice to any other religion. Other members may take that challenge on if they’d like.

What traditional theodicies never seem to look at are questions about what God ordains, or does, or causes to be done. Things like: eternal punishment after death, and unjust, God-ordained or God-committed actions in this world.

For example: we are told that defaulters from Christian belief are condemned to eternal torture in hell. We are also told that believers, although they may have committed horrible crimes in life, can repent and have a chance to avoid that eternal punishment and achieve salvation. That is never available to someone who simply cannot bring himself to believe, given the lack of any evidence whatever. The question is: is that just?

Let us consider the flood of Noah, or the plagues of Egypt, or the Massacre of Canaanites: the flood, we are told, was deliberately caused by God and drowned all humans on earth except Noah and 7 family members, and all of the animals except a few saved on the ark. All humans, including the infant born just when the rain began to fall. God orders that the Canaanites be destroyed, including the women and children, except for the females who were still virgins, who the Hebrews could keep for themselves. In Egypt, God finally sends a “destroyer” targeted on the first-born of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharaoh to the first-born of the lowly farmers sheep. What on earth was the crime committed by those first-born sons of Egypt – including the children? Can we say, after all this, that God acted justly and rightly? Or did God do very real evil?

Let us consider, turning to the New Testament, Ananias and Sapphira. They sold their property, but withheld some of the price for themselves, giving the rest to Peter and the Apostles. Because they withheld some of their own money, and did not admit to the true price they had received, they died on the spot – a story presented in a magical-enough way to make it clear that these were miracle deaths, and therefore caused by God. But in the story (Acts 5), Peter himself made it clear that Ananias was in control of his own money, and could give or keep it as he saw fit. Were their deaths at the Hand of God just?

In other words, does God not only allow evil in the world, but is He the proximate cause of much evil in the world? Discuss.

In Genesis, God created the heavens and earth in six days and God rested on the Sabbath or seventh day. The questions that come to my mind are, how long was God's rest? And while God rested, who was doing the work of maintaining creation?

In the Jewish faith, one is not supposed to work on the Sabbath. If work needs to be done, one needs to make provisions, in advance, or pay others who are not part of the Sabbath traditions, do the work for you; clean for you.

The question becomes who was working on behalf of God, while God rested and how long did God rest and allow this other entity to do the work?

One may ask why did God allow Adam and Eve to sin if God was omniscience. A sabbath rest would allow God to warn Adam and Eve, but it would not allow him to work at a solution to their transgression. Rather another entity would be making the call for God, as he rested. The other entity appears to be Satan. Satan was the Lord of the Earth or CEO for God, the Chairman of the Board, as God rested.

The best evidence of this is connected to when Jesus was fasting in the wilderness and Satan came to him. Satan, among other things promises Jesus all the wealth and power of the kingdoms of the world if he would bow and serve him. Jesus does not question Satan's authority as CEO and Lord of the Earth. Rather he refuses the offer. Had he accepted, Jesus would have become the Old Testament Messiah; rich and powerful. But by refusing the offer, and staying different, he would become something better. Satan would be thrown from heaven and the CEO job, for the remainder of God's rest, would come up for bid. Jesus gets the job as the new CEO. Nobody can come to the father except through the son, as God rests.

There is no spectacular events of creation, that cannot be explained by science, until Revelations, such as plagues and floods. The six days of creation each were time of creation with vast scope. The next spectacular event is in Revelations. This new phase of creation would be when the Sabbath rest ends, and day 8 begins. For example, Heavenly Jerusalem descends from heaven and becomes part of the earth; new exotic materials designed to last for 1000 years. Then God creates a new Heaven and earth; Day 9. There is little about day 10 and beyond.

 

[ratiocinator]

if it would be that easy to disprove the correctness of the Bible... it would only take some fools who misunderstand and set up their own theories.

What are you even trying to say here? There are endless people with their own theories - they are called Christian denominations, cults, or sects. Your view is just one amongst many.

I stay with my opinion: the vast multitude of denominations is not God's fault.
It's man's fault.

Good for you but your reasoning is missing.

Bible is clear.

You don't seem to get that when somebody makes an argument (such as the bible can't be clear because there are endless different interpretations of it, all held by sincere people who want to follow it), just a statement of the opposite is very, very far from convincing and makes you look rather as if you don't want to think about it.

I didn't give an excuse. I gave a reason of why the two gospels differ from each other without poseing a contradiction.

It's an excuse because you have to ignore what they actually say.

Actuallly it's not, I think.
God either determined an outcome or introdiced randomness or he gave free will.
These three forces coexist, in my opinion.

Again - you haven't addressed the argument, you are just, apparently thoughtlessly, stating your disagreement.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

the vast multitude of denominations is not God's fault.
It's man's fault.
Bible is clear.

If that were so, there could not possibly be all the denominations who all claim the Bible is clear, and yet they contradict and fight each other. I'm just sayin....

It appears to me that if the Bible is clear, there could not possibly be so many problems in various theologies about the differences of understanding the Bible. The Bible is not clear, anymore than its meaning is. We have many dozens of early Christian councils demonstrating that it is not clear about Jesus, who he is, what he is, and how he is... I'm just sayin.

Further, does anyone think we all just right here in our own little corner of the world could all agree on every "clear" verse of the Bible and its meaning? I would think that is simply not possible.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

unlimited understanding does not give a hint to knowledge.

So what would the understanding be of if not knowing something enough to understand it? An understanding is based upon a knowledge of something, else how is it understanding? Understanding what, nothing? If I understand an infinite amount of any branch of knowledge, then I have an infinite amount of knowledge in that subject, no? If I have infinite understanding of how automobiles function, how they are built, the materials used to produce them, etc., it follows that my knowledge of automobiles is infinite doesn't it? If I have an infinite understanding of how to do Calculus, then my knowledge is infinite of Calculus, no? If there was any part I did not understand, then my knowledge is incomplete, but if I understand all aspects of Calculus, I KNOW how to do it, and why I do what I do, and when and how to put various calculations together, etc.
I don't know if understanding can be so divorced from knowledge. It appears this is what you are attempting to do. I'm not sure it will work is all.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

Bible only please if you want to refer to the Christian God.

Mankind has done this since the Bible was put together and probably before and have never come to an agreement, so shall we start a new thread where you show the "Christian" God from the Bible only? Remember one thing, Jesus isn't "Christian" but Jewish. His Christianization came later from his followers. Jesus never propounded "Christian" views, he always stayed within Judaism and mentioned he was there for only one reason, to literally fulfill every jot and tittle of the Law. What Law? The Law of Moses. So, I am indeed, quite curious about what the Bible says about the "Christian" God. Bible only, lets see who this God is.... I don't mean this as an antagonistic stance to fight, I am genuinely interested in seeing a "Bible only" view of God.....

 

[thomas t]

If that were so, there could not possibly be all the denominations who all claim the Bible is clear, and yet they contradict and fight each other. I'm just sayin....

why not?
A denomination saying that the Bible is clear is not bound to always telling the truth.
It's not as simple as that. It does not suffice to say "bible is clear" and then you become inerrant.

The Bible is not clear, anymore than its meaning is. We have many dozens of early Christian councils demonstrating that it is not clear about Jesus, who he is, what he is, and how he is... I'm just sayin.

They could not all have been right at the same time. So what?
It's not God's fault.

It appears to me that if the Bible is clear, there could not possibly be so many problems in various theologies about the differences of understanding the Bible.

why not? The problems are man's fault, I think. Bible is clear, in my opinion.
Bible does not always go into great detail of things, but when Bible does specify something it is clear, I think.

So what would the understanding be of if not knowing something enough to understand it? An understanding is based upon a knowledge of something, else how is it understanding? Understanding what, nothing? If I understand an infinite amount of any branch of knowledge, then I have an infinite amount of knowledge in that subject, no? If I have infinite understanding of how automobiles function, how they are built, the materials used to produce them, etc., it follows that my knowledge of automobiles is infinite doesn't it? If I have an infinite understanding of how to do Calculus, then my knowledge is infinite of Calculus, no? If there was any part I did not understand, then my knowledge is incomplete, but if I understand all aspects of Calculus, I KNOW how to do it, and why I do what I do, and when and how to put various calculations together, etc.
I don't know if understanding can be so divorced from knowledge. It appears this is what you are attempting to do. I'm not sure it will work is all.

It's like music, I think. Perhaps some might understand music perfectly, or some kinds of music at least, which does not imply knowledge of one and every tune ever played in the world.
This is at least my standpoint.

Mankind has done this [derive statements about the Christian God by using Bible only] since the Bible was put together and probably before and have never come to an agreement, so shall we start a new thread where you show the "Christian" God from the Bible only?

If there is disagreement on the fundamentals, it's not God's fault. It's man's fault.
If it's disagreement on minor things, it's good for making Christianity interesting.

Bible only is the best way to go I think. Few churches follow this path, it seems.

 

[thomas t]

What are you even trying to say here? There are endless people with their own theories - they are called Christian denominations, cults, or sects. Your view is just one amongst many.

In my opinion, the many denominations only show that they are wrong if they disagree on the fundamentals of faith.
Other denominations just agree on minor issues with each other, so this doesn't matter.
However, this doesn't necessarily mean that the Bible is not clear.

Good for you but your reasoning is missing.

it's my belief.
When you blame God to not have been clear enough... the onus is on you.
The onus is on the accuser here, I think.

You don't seem to get that when somebody makes an argument (such as the bible can't be clear because there are endless different interpretations of it, all held by sincere people who want to follow it), just a statement of the opposite is very, very far from convincing and makes you look rather as if you don't want to think about it.

Actually I state that I believe the opposite. My argument here is that your argument (the many denominations) don't necessarily show that God was wrong. It could as well mean that they are wrong. Simply.

It's an excuse because you have to ignore what they actually say.

I don't ignore what they actually say, so this wasn't merely an excuse.

Again - you haven't addressed the argument, you are just, apparently thoughtlessly, stating your disagreement.

In my opinion you didn't present an argument that true randomness, true predetermination and true free will cannot coexist.
You didn't show that potentially some events are determined by randomness or God's choice while others are subject to free will.
In my opinion, all you did was declaring that these three cannot coexist on different matters at the same time. But you did not present any reasoning why this sould be that way. This is at least how I read what you had to say in this regard.
All I did was saying that I don't believe this to be true. That's all.

 

[Kooky]

Not something I dwell on or understand, however, I will offer this for discussion. Because theodicies, as theories are not a solution but are part of the problem. Their attempt to explain God's reasons for allowing evil in the world creates myths that make God ultimately responsible for evil. They are false in that they claim to know God's reasons and also create a world that denies the existence of social sin.

Logical defenses show it is possible to believe without contradictions two propositions that only seem contradictory; that God is omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent, and that there is evil in the world. The reality of God may be affirmed and recognize the reality of evil, without a theory to explain why God allows evil in the world. A theodicy offers a theory to explain why God allows evils. A defense simply shows that two propositions p and q are logically compatible. The defense does not explain what God does, but simply shows that the believer is not irrational in holding both propositions. Logic of the free will defense is clear;

p God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent

q There is genuine evil in the actual world.

The 'problem' of evil is that these propositions seem incompatible, contradictory. It is logically the case that if there is a possibly true proposition r that combined with p entails q, then p and q are not contradictory, but compatible. So consider r, which would do the job;

r All the genuine evil in the world is the result of the choices of creatures with free will.

The point is that r has to be possibly true, not actually true. One may think r is false while recognizing that it could possibly be true. But why think r is possibly true, couldn't God know how to make free creatures not produce evil?

Now consider s; An omnipotent God cannot make creatures such that they always freely choose the good. What s does is to show that it is logically contradictory to think God can control the choices of free creatures. God could make creatures always choose the good or God could make creatures free. Either God is in control and creatures are not free, or the creatures are free but God cannot be in control. Since s must be true (a logical point), r is possibly true, p and q are both possibly true and compatible with each other. Put together p, q, r,s; even an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God could not make the world such that God could make it both with free creatures who are free and without evil.

reference: Terrence Tilley "Doing Theology in the Context of the Gift

Ignoring for a moment the obvious objections to the Free Will argument that other people have already brought up, one issue I have with this approach is that "Free Will" is only ever a defense against evil committed by free-willed creators nominally not under God's command.

All other instances of suffering, such as those caused by natural disasters or those willed into being by God Himself (as the Bible attests at numerous times) are not affected at all by this argument, and still require their own justification within the framework of a Theodicy argument.
So if we, for example, agree with Leibniz that the Lisbon Earthquake that destroyed thousands of innocent lives and brought an entire country to its knees can be considered evil, or at the very least a malign phenomenon, we need some sort of explanation as to how either a) God was not responsible for a natural disaster occurring in a deterministic world He created, or b) natural disasters aren't actually evil and the suffering they cause is perfectly justified.

 

[Kooky]

The problem is not the answer, it's the question. The question presumes that it's God's responsibility to serve the well-being of humanity, even though humanity is unwilling to serve it own well-being a great majority of the time. And there is simply no logical basis for our making this presumption.

The logical basis for making this presumption are the numerous claims of people who claim to speak the Will of their benevolent, all-powerful God.

Obviously, if you don't buy into a concept of the Divine popularized by the Abrahamics, then a Theodicy is of no value to you. The Problem of Evil was, for example, almost never a philosophical problem for pagan worshippers, because they generally did not expect the forces they worshipped to be intrinsically benevolent.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

A denomination saying that the Bible is clear is not bound to always telling the truth.
It's not as simple as that. It does not suffice to say "bible is clear" and then you become inerrant.

Um, I think we are talking past each other here, sorry. I'm honestly not trying to trip you up, but to understand your view, so I will "know" your stance.....GRIN!

You say the Bible is clear, not even bringing in the issue of which Bible, but I digress (not all of them are the same, and it is mere bias to select one over another). Many churches also make that same claim, yet you don't belong to them. Why? Perhaps their view of the Bible is wrong in your mind (not to worry, I am right there with ya!). But what makes you imagine that your "clear" view of the Bible is correct? That is what everyone else thinks too, and all is confusing, contradictory and problematic. Just saying the Bible is clear is not a proof that your view of it is correct and all others not. Right?
I entirely agree with you that simply saying the Bible is clear does not make one inerrant, yet, you keep saying that yourself, and coming across as being always correct, i.e. inerrant. It appears to me you are having your cake and eating it too. Is your own view of what the Bible alone says the right one? Does everyone who disagrees with you automatically get an answer from you that they are wrong and your view alone correct? How do we go about figuring out who's view of the Bible is accurate and who's view isn't? Your very view that the Bible is clear is obviously contradicted by many thousands of differing views of what the Bible says and means, yet you seem to think that doesn't matter the Bible is clear anyway, a DIRECT contradiction to valid evidence we possess. So how do we get out of this conundrum?

Oh and, I invited you to start a new thread on Bible only view of the Christian God. I am genuinely interested in seeing what that God might be. And how the Bible explicates said deity. Or shall I start the new thread?

On a side note, I can't imagine a Bible only view ever taken since no one has ever been able to do so. One always has to bring in interpretation, language analysis and translation and meaning of words, since words can and do have more than a single correct meaning, etc. It is why I am curious about your seemingly stringent and unnecessary view. If I can understand your reason, I can "know" better why you take this rather almost illogical approach. I have never literally seen anyone who does this. Perhaps it can be done and ought to, it's why I am willing to discuss with you the "Christian God" from a "Bible only" stance.

 

[thomas t]

You say the Bible is clear, not even bringing in the issue of which Bible,

the original. Hebrew for OT, Greek for NT...

Many churches also make that same claim, yet you don't belong to them. Why? Perhaps their view of the Bible is wrong in your mind (not to worry, I am right there with ya!). But what makes you imagine that your "clear" view of the Bible is correct?

no, I am not a member of that church I play the piano in for their political views. Not Bible.
I consider my church to be the Christian friends I am with.

Just saying the Bible is clear is not a proof that your view of it is correct and all others not. Right?

+

you keep saying that yourself, and coming across as being always correct, i.e. inerrant.

I am not inerrant and my words are not proof.
But the Bible is clear and inerrant I suppose.

Is your own view of what the Bible alone says the right one?

I suppose so.
I only answer to detractors of faith here on RF.
You were the one starting a discussion on faith with me here, I would have let you alone otherwise.

Your very view that the Bible is clear is obviously contradicted by many thousands of differing views of what the Bible says and means, yet you seem to think that doesn't matter the Bible is clear anyway, a DIRECT contradiction to valid evidence we possess. So how do we get out of this conundrum?

My stance on this: if the denominations contradict each other for substancial issues they are wrong but not God.

Oh and, I invited you to start a new thread on Bible only view of the Christian God. I am genuinely interested in seeing what that God might be. And how the Bible explicates said deity. Or shall I start the new thread?

you may go ahead and start the thread, I'll reply.

On a side note, I can't imagine a Bible only view ever taken since no one has ever been able to do so. One always has to bring in interpretation, language analysis and translation and meaning of words, since words can and do have more than a single correct meaning, etc. It is why I am curious about your seemingly stringent and unnecessary view. If I can understand your reason, I can "know" better why you take this rather almost illogical approach. I have never literally seen anyone who does this. Perhaps it can be done and ought to, it's why I am willing to discuss with you the "Christian God" from a "Bible only" stance.

Bible only is the only view on the Christian God that makes sense to me.
If someone brings in an interpretation of a word from the original text, they need to back it up by other occurences of that word. If it hinges on grammar, present a grammar analysis. In these forums, I have debated approximately five hundred Bile verses. I can only remember some 5 issues in which you would really have to dive into the Greek or sometimes the Hebrew grammar.
5 out of 500 debates - it's worth it to dive into the grammar if needed.
But normally a mere discussion oif the word as used in the original suffices.
In most cases, noone needs to cite the exact word of it, because the meaning becomes clear quite fast. This was at least the experiences I made in the forums (I've been a member in 4 of them and I had a thousand posts in each of them on average..

 

[sun rise]

Perhaps, ethically, the question we should each be asking ourselves is not, “why does a loving God allow the innocent to suffer?”, but rather, “what can I do to alleviate the suffering of others, and so serve God?

I like that 2nd question - no matter what our religion or lack thereof, relieving suffering is a noble aim.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Bible only is the only view on the Christian God that makes sense to me.

"Bible only" (or Sola Scriptura as some Protestant sects might call it) suffers from one tiny self-contradiction: it isn't supported, in fact, by anything in canonical scripture. Therefore, it must be supported by extra-scriptural doctrine. That is self-referentially incoherent, I think.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

My stance on this: if the denominations contradict each other for substancial issues they are wrong but not God.

you may go ahead and start the thread, I'll reply.

OK, I shall start one and give you a heads up on it. And it wasn't about God being wrong I was commenting to you about, but the idea of Bible only. No worries.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

@thomas t I have now started our new thread, in the Interfaith Discussion area, comparative religion and it is entitled "A Look at God Only From What the Bible Teaches" See ya there amigo!