Your biggest intellectual compromise for faith

[Beaudreaux]

thats quite irrelevant isnt it? its the fact that people know what suffering does, how unfiar the fallen world is and how corrupt it is.

It would be a deterent because people would be aware of all these factors that made up world.

Aren't people aware of those factors now? Aren't they still sinning?

 

[tarasan]

No problem dude. Hey, is it fair to say that most Christians are like you and have no sympathy for these complaining cancer kids? I know a lot of silly atheists who actually get sad when a child dies a painful drawn out death at age 9.

Hey...did you just do a somersault?

of course not and clearly you and i mean something different from somersualt, with you it clearly means an explanation, I was under the impression that it was some kind of intellectual regression my bad.

the point is that when we explain things we shouldnt get bogged down in emotionalism, because that stops us thinking rationally about the situation. Im sure you yourself can understand that emotion can inhibate our abitility to think.

if your asking my opinion most of your recent question have been intellectual somersualts your not talking about the problem your talking emotion.

also dont you dare ever say christians dont care with people like cancer! thats a discusting statment made by a person who is obviously running out of ammo.

 

[tarasan]

Aren't people aware of those factors now? Aren't they still sinning?

indeed and that statement again shows your lack of knowledge when it comes to theology, Orignial sin depicts how has humans are nature now desires us to sin, i personally i advise you to look up more on this topic as I am not aware of every aspect of Original sin.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

but he did make a move to get rid of the problem didnt he? also the reason he withdrew is because it was humanities choice to do that, they rejected God so he withdrew.

Wait a minute: I thought you said that one of the qualities of God was that he could not fail. If he "made a move to get rid of the problem" of evil, then either evil would not exist, or he failed.

CS Lewis says it well in Merely Christianity. He states thats Gods goodness is perfect and therefore cannot tolerate evil, and if God were just good then he would have obliterated everything then and there at the fall. However because he has personal attributes like mercy and love, so he witholds his judgement and allows us to choose to come back to him.

Ah... so because he's an individual with a personality, he's less than perfectly good? The logical leap still seems like a non-sequitir to me, but I suppose the conclusion still addresses the problem of evil.

 

[tarasan]

Wait a minute: I thought you said that one of the qualities of God was that he could not fail. If he "made a move to get rid of the problem" of evil, then either evil would not exist, or he failed.

yes and he did you are just snipits of what I am saying, I told you that God allows people to come to him and repent and at the end of the age he will destroy evil once for all. So he did exactly what he set out to do, how is that failing?

please dont take snipits of what im saying it makes you look dishonest.

not really really God is good and personal, both characterisics are fulfiled ultiamtely he does right by is personal self when he gives us time to repent and come to our senses, all the while his Goodness is ultiamtely fulfiled because he will just the unrighteousness and he will conquor evil. no nonsequitirs there as far as I can see.

 

[walmul]

I was a Christian as a teen. Like many Christians, I started ro have questions about my faith, both in concept and experience. Like everyone who holds a belief, I also did not want to stop believing. As a result, I started doing some of the most intense and ultimately silly mental gymnastics of my life to resolve my questions.

I believe this happens here on RF as well. In a few recent threads, people were arguing the omniscience/free will problem and went so far as to say that maybe there's no such thing as time.

My question to the forum, both to current and former theists is "what is the biggest intellectual compromise you have made or are currently making to keep believing your faith?"

I quess as time goes by one learn, and in this learning some questions regarding faith, or religious faith starts crossing one's mind. Some people manage through their life spans to reject all thoughts of scepticism, others seek but not with passion, and eventually die, thinking; ok maybe I was wrong, maybe religion was right, and in that moment think about the criminal on the cross, who was forgiven by Jesus, finds peace and move on. Others live their whole lives not even knowing that a thing called Christian or Muslim Religion even exist, and die, happy to meet the ancestors.

The really sceptic guys go and investigate with a passion, they are the ones who become Atheists, Nihilists, alternative religious followers etc, I am probably part of this latter group.

My intellectual compromise, was to accept that someone or something beyond my understanding created this specific planet we live on, and the creator of such an incredible feat will in my opinion not be so 'small' as to choose a nation as special and above all others, would not kill since day one all who do not "fear and love" him.

Should the creator of this planet also be the creator of the universe as religion like to belief then he would most definately and more so, not have the time or intention to go and bless any nation anywhere as his chosen people. Such a creator would probably look at his creation and think; "ok, hopefully this bunch will not be as bloodthirsty as the lot in the other planetary structures, and try and convince their fellow citizens to hand over the gold or burn in hell forever".

walmul.

 

[Beaudreaux]

the point is that when we explain things we shouldnt get bogged down in emotionalism, because that stops us thinking rationally about the situation. Im sure you yourself can understand that emotion can inhibate our abitility to think.


if your asking my opinion most of your recent question have been intellectual somersualts your not talking about the problem your talking emotion.

Alright, fair enough. I was trying to point out to you how ludicrous your position is. You claim, through someone you say can express it better than you, that to expect and all-loving, all-powerful God to help us in our pain and suffering is "whining" and "hedonistic". Let's come back to that in a second.

also dont you dare ever say christians dont care with people like cancer! thats a discusting statment made by a person who is obviously running out of ammo.

Dude! I said that cancer kids were hedonistic whining brats and you posted a message saying "thank you". I didn't say all Christians were like you. I ASKED if all Christians were like you.

Please explain (without the emotion please) why in then world you would care about a child dying a painful death from cancer? Clearly, you think God has a good and secret reason for allowing this so why the compassion?

 

[tarasan]

Lets be honest Beaud, this seems like its headin down to mud slinging. should we just walk away from this and bring this up at another time?

before someone says something that gets them into trouble?

 

[tarasan]

Alright, fair enough. I was trying to point out to you how ludicrous your position is. You claim, through someone you say can express it better than you, that to expect and all-loving, all-powerful God to help us in our pain and suffering is "whining" and "hedonistic". Let's come back to that in a second.


Dude! I said that cancer kids were hedonistic whining brats and you posted a message saying "thank you". I didn't say all Christians were like you. I ASKED if all Christians were like you.

Please explain (without the emotion please) why in then world you would care about a child dying a painful death from cancer? Clearly, you think God has a good and secret reason for allowing this so why the compassion?

I used that statement to show you were emotionaly getting invovled with the agruement not that cancer kids were whiney brats, william lane craig was stating that against those who used emotion in the Arugement of evil.

so let me get this striaght you dont have commpassion on those who suffer even though there is a good reason? Im very sorry I didnt realise that compassion was only used for those who suffered without good reason. I think thats a none sequitir.

 

[Magic Man]

God has nothing to be redeemed from. God is righteous altogether, pure in holiness. He is not a man that we should liken Him to a man.

Wait, didn't God create us in his own image? Wouldn't that mean we could liken him to us or vice versa? Sure, he's not exactly like us, but that indicates that he's at least similar in some ways.

God is love. God is righteous wrath also.

That's a contradiction. A being cannot be love and wrath. The definition for wrath is "vengeance or punishment as the consequence of anger". An omnipotent being that is pure love would not be capable of wrath.

In His grace He has elected some to salvation and for this He ought to be praised and glorified forever.

Let me get this straight. God creates a bunch of us, knows some of us are going to be sent to hell and allows it to happen, but he should be praised for saving some of us from that ridiculously harsh punishment? That's some twisted thinking.

Those who end up in hell deserve to be there. In fact, those who end up in heaven also deserve to be in hell.

No one deserves to be in hell. I wouldn't send Hitler to hell, if I had the option.

But thanks be to God that He has chosen a people for Himself from before the foundation of the world, when He was under no obligation to do so.

You sound like a slave justifying your praise for your cruel master. God's the one who created us in the first place. What you're saying is he created some people who he knew were going to hell. That's sadistic.

 

[tarasan]

Wait, didn't God create us in his own image? Wouldn't that mean we could liken him to us or vice versa? Sure, he's not exactly like us, but that indicates that he's at least similar in some ways.



That's a contradiction. A being cannot be love and wrath. The definition for wrath is "vengeance or punishment as the consequence of anger". An omnipotent being that is pure love would not be capable of wrath.




Let me get this straight. God creates a bunch of us, knows some of us are going to be sent to hell and allows it to happen, but he should be praised for saving some of us from that ridiculously harsh punishment? That's some twisted thinking.



No one deserves to be in hell. I wouldn't send Hitler to hell, if I had the option.



You sound like a slave justifying your praise for your cruel master. God's the one who created us in the first place. What you're saying is he created some people who he knew were going to hell. That's sadistic.

its an extreme form of calvinism caleed double predestination, not very many people hold the view, its very interesting to see one of them here...

it generally breed a theology called fatalism that more or less stops evangelism in its tracks.

 

[Magic Man]

but he did make a move to get rid of the problem didnt he?

I don't know. Did he? If he tried to get rid of the problem, why didn't he? He can't fail, right?

also the reason he withdrew is because it was humanities choice to do that, they rejected God so he withdrew.

Why? If my kid rejected me, I wouldn't withdraw. I'd give him his space, but I'd still stick around and be there for him when he needed me. I wouldn't go off and sulk if he said he hated me.

CS Lewis says it well in Merely Christianity. He states thats Gods goodness is perfect and therefore cannot tolerate evil, and if God were just good then he would have obliterated everything then and there at the fall.

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. First, it has nothing to do with God being personal. Why would God have obliterated everything? And are you saying God is not just good? Didn't you just say he was? This would imply to me that God had made a mistake and he'd have to correct it. That's impossible, so it means he meant for evil and the fall to happen.

However because he has personal attributes like mercy and love, so he witholds his judgement and allows us to choose to come back to him.

Why are those personal attributes? How is sending us to hell or heaven withholding his judgement? And a loving God would not allow us to choose to come back to him. He wouldn't give us another option in the first place.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I used that statement to show you were emotionaly getting invovled with the agruement not that cancer kids were whiney brats, william lane craig was stating that against those who used emotion in the Arugement of evil.

so let me get this striaght you dont have commpassion on those who suffer even though there is a good reason? Im very sorry I didnt realise that compassion was only used for those who suffered without good reason. I think thats a none sequitir.

Please answer my question. Why do you feel compassion for the cancer kid?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Something just occurred to me.

I guess I got kinda wrapped up in the discussion, but now that I think about it more, does the problem of evil really represent an intellectual compromise for theists?

I mean, I get the issue: a belief system suggests something that appears to conflict with reality as we observe it. However, can't we arrive at similar problems in any belief system? If "I don't know" is a valid answer to the question of "how do you resolve this?" in other situations, why not here?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that on reflection, I think that while it may very well be an intellectual compromise for a theist to pretend that the problem of evil doesn't exist (assuming they believe in the sort of god(s) that are premised in the problem of evil), I don't think it's really an intellectual compromise for a theist to say "I acknowledge the problem of evil, and I don't have a good answer for it."

Heck - if we're supposed to have an answer for every question, then we're all intellectually compromised.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Something just occurred to me.

I guess I got kinda wrapped up in the discussion, but now that I think about it more, does the problem of evil really represent an intellectual compromise for theists?

I mean, I get the issue: a belief system suggests something that appears to conflict with reality as we observe it. However, can't we arrive at similar problems in any belief system? If "I don't know" is a valid answer to the question of "how do you resolve this?" in other situations, why not here?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that on reflection, I think that while it may very well be an intellectual compromise for a theist to pretend that the problem of evil doesn't exist (assuming they believe in the sort of god(s) that are premised in the problem of evil), I don't think it's really an intellectual compromise for a theist to say "I acknowledge the problem of evil, and I don't have a good answer for it."

Heck - if we're supposed to have an answer for every question, then we're all intellectually compromised.

You make a good point, but I think you have to make intellectual compromises to believe in logical inconsistencies. Good God/Almighty God/Evil World is such an inconsistency, IMHO.

 

[tarasan]

I don't know. Did he? If he tried to get rid of the problem, why didn't he? He can't fail, right?

I answered this when i responded to Penguin please read all my responses so i dont end up repeating myself

Why? If my kid rejected me, I wouldn't withdraw. I'd give him his space, but I'd still stick around and be there for him when he needed me. I wouldn't go off and sulk if he said he hated me.

thats exactly what I mean, God is still here doing things the bible reports that, however you must deal with consequences of giving people space, heck there are even consequences of giving your child space, aka letting them come back you when they are ready.

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. First, it has nothing to do with God being personal. Why would God have obliterated everything? And are you saying God is not just good? Didn't you just say he was? This would imply to me that God had made a mistake and he'd have to correct it. That's impossible, so it means he meant for evil and the fall to happen.

i never said he was just good, thats silly rubbish your making up, that is one of his attributes, another one is his personalness, omniscene, omnipotience. thats a ridiculously silly statement.
The reason he would have obliterated us at the bet go was because a completely godd being cannot tolerate evil, and would just have anihilated it, a good being does not need characteristics like mercy, which requires personal chacteristics to have.
again you only applying his good attributes and not his personal attributes to the situation. God wanted us to have freedom, which implies you must be able to make the wrong choices, so ultiamtely God did exactly what he wanted us to do, he didnt fail we just exercised our freedom when we sined.

Why are those personal attributes? How is sending us to hell or heaven withholding his judgement? And a loving God would not allow us to choose to come back to him. He wouldn't give us another option in the first place.

mercy and the like? well in order to be Good you dont need to be merciful, I acn be completely good and just without mercy. Mercy is you understanding hte individual and giving leniance which is a personal attribute. and he withholds his judgement by giving us this time on earth instead of obliterating us, which if you read my entire statement you would have known. that is violation of his free will, would a loving father force his son to go back to him? Or let him make his own decisions?

 

[Magic Man]

Something just occurred to me.

I guess I got kinda wrapped up in the discussion, but now that I think about it more, does the problem of evil really represent an intellectual compromise for theists?

I mean, I get the issue: a belief system suggests something that appears to conflict with reality as we observe it. However, can't we arrive at similar problems in any belief system? If "I don't know" is a valid answer to the question of "how do you resolve this?" in other situations, why not here?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that on reflection, I think that while it may very well be an intellectual compromise for a theist to pretend that the problem of evil doesn't exist (assuming they believe in the sort of god(s) that are premised in the problem of evil), I don't think it's really an intellectual compromise for a theist to say "I acknowledge the problem of evil, and I don't have a good answer for it."

Heck - if we're supposed to have an answer for every question, then we're all intellectually compromised.

As Beaudreaux said, it's the fact that it's a logical inconsistency. It's OK to say "I don't know" to the question "What is dark matter?", but that's not a logical inconsistency.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You make a good point, but I think you have to make intellectual compromises to believe in logical inconsistencies. Good God/Almighty God/Evil World is such an inconsistency, IMHO.

But that's the thing - there's two ways of looking at it:

- as an unanswered question ("how can a good god allow evil?"). In that case, there's no positive claim, so no burden of proof on the person asking the question, but also no intellectual compromise involved in simply saying "I don't know".

- as a logical claim ("Evil is logically inconsistent with a good god"). In this case, it's phrased as a positive claim, which places the burden of proof on the person asserting it. Until the claim is demonstrated to be true (or perhaps simply likely to be true or the most reasonable conclusion), there's no intellectual dishonesty in simply dismissing the claim as unsupported.

An intellectual compromise would only occur when the problem of evil, phrased as a positive claim, is actually demonstrated. Do you think it has been demonstrated?

 

[tarasan]

Something just occurred to me.

I guess I got kinda wrapped up in the discussion, but now that I think about it more, does the problem of evil really represent an intellectual compromise for theists?

I mean, I get the issue: a belief system suggests something that appears to conflict with reality as we observe it. However, can't we arrive at similar problems in any belief system? If "I don't know" is a valid answer to the question of "how do you resolve this?" in other situations, why not here?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that on reflection, I think that while it may very well be an intellectual compromise for a theist to pretend that the problem of evil doesn't exist (assuming they believe in the sort of god(s) that are premised in the problem of evil), I don't think it's really an intellectual compromise for a theist to say "I acknowledge the problem of evil, and I don't have a good answer for it."

Heck - if we're supposed to have an answer for every question, then we're all intellectually compromised.

thats an interesting thought mate good for you. I mean that in a good way of course I most certianly see where you are coming from

 

[tarasan]

But that's the thing - there's two ways of looking at it:

- as an unanswered question ("how can a good god allow evil?"). In that case, there's no positive claim, so no burden of proof on the person asking the question, but also no intellectual compromise involved in simply saying "I don't know".

- as a logical claim ("Evil is logically inconsistent with a good god"). In this case, it's phrased as a positive claim, which places the burden of proof on the person asserting it. Until the claim is demonstrated to be true (or perhaps simply likely to be true or the most reasonable conclusion), there's no intellectual dishonesty in simply dismissing the claim as unsupported.

An intellectual compromise would only occur when the problem of evil, phrased as a positive claim, is actually demonstrated. Do you think it has been demonstrated?

I dont believe so, but i most certianly understand your thoughts. I think thats the way I look at it, not one here has shown in my mind any inconsistancies.