Aggravating is it not ?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Do you believe that the saved will go to heaven eventually?
No. The saved are immediately transported to heaven at the moment of death.

If yes, will they sin in heaven?
Sin is not possible in heaven, just as sin was not possible in the Garden of Eden.

If no, do they still have free will?
Yes, free will is--- and always will be--- in effect.[/b]

Sin is not possible in heaven, just as sin was not possible in the Garden of Eden.

Freaky, I don't understand how you can say that sin was not possible in the Garden of Eden.

Did not Adam and Eve sin in the Garden of Eden?

Originally posted by sumydid
Oh, and now for the conversation on the last page... better known as the "problem of evil," or the problem of suffering.

The Atheist, again, is forced by very definition, into believing that death is a bad thing and suffering is a bad thing. The exact opposite is true in the case of the believer.

The postulation that any degree of pain is a tre ...[text shortened]... uffering and then death, that's another case entirely and can be discussed if desired.

I'm an atheist, and I am not forced into thinking that death is a bad thing. I think that death is often a bad thing, for the one who died. I think that death can also be a good thing, if it alleviates fates worse than death. Sometimes death can also be neither bad nor good, if it comes at the right time in the right circumstances.

Although pain can constitute suffering, it may not; it may even be enjoyable. Further, not all suffering is bad, though it may always be regrettable, because it may be a means necessary for us to bring about some greater good (think here of the moral education of children).

The point being made here is not about all suffering, but about suffering that is unnecessary for the greater good. The point being made here is that it is profoundly implausible that all instances of suffering in the world actually are necessary to bring about the greater good. To deny this is to claim, in effect, that the world contains the absolute minimum amount of suffering possible consistent with the realization of the greater good. It is to claim that we live in the best of all possible worlds.

Originally posted by bbarr
I'm an atheist, and I am not forced into thinking that death is a bad thing. I think that death is often a bad thing, for the one who died. I think that death can also be a good thing, if it alleviates fates worse than death. Sometimes death can also be neither bad nor good, if it comes at the right time in the right circumstances.

Although pain can co ...[text shortened]... alization of the greater good. It is to claim that we live in the best of all possible worlds.

Are you disagreeing with Dr. Pangloss? If we live in a deterministic universe, then things could not be other than what they are. It really is the best of all possible worlds.

Originally posted by rwingett
Are you disagreeing with Dr. Pangloss? If we live in a deterministic universe, then things could not be other than what they are. It really is the best of all possible worlds.

Even if the world were deterministic, it would only entail the nomological necessity of all suffering; that is, the necessity of suffering given some specification of how the world is at a time and the laws of nature. I'm talking here about logical necessity, which is the appropriate notion given that God is, by all accounts, able to contravene the laws of nature at will.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
For the last time, Freaky, I understood your question perfectly fine (which was: whose suffering ought to be relieved), and my answer again is, all those involved who happen to be suffering.
Had you understood it, you would have known that 'both' was not a reasonable option.

You are mistaken if you think that it is necessary that one or more y see the real demans of justice, you cannot be reached by reason on any related topic.

At what point do his actions become moot? When he is 57? 67? 89?

I don't understand this question. I'm not sure what it means to say that one's actions "become moot".

Clearly, you haven't clue one about justice, so it's no wonder that you consider it reasonable to view the situation as you do.

Why don't you teach me something about justice, then. For instance, please put forth some argument for your claim that justice here demands that it is emphatically necessary that someone be made to suffer.

How incredibly patronizing and trite.

You think it is patronizing and trite to suggest that it would be good for the family of the victims to come to a healthy understanding of the situation and to come to healthy acceptance of circumstances they cannot change? There is absolutely nothing that suggests to me that being vindictive and sticking the old guy's head on a stake is in any way necessary for cessation of their suffering.

The rest of your post isn't worth responding to. I feel like I've been a good sport in addressing your question over and over (especially given that I take it to be tangential at best to the actual topic of the problem of suffering). I would appreciate it if you would address my questions.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]There are psychological properties that arise from the mere meaty substrate, and with these come meaning and value and real content to your existence.

So meaning comes from meat?

I'll think about that next time I'm enjoying a nice juicy sirloin.[/b]

There I was agreeing with buckky that we are "more than meat" because of certain properties that emerge from the physical substrate. Do you disagree with this?

By the way, the animals that you think make a juicy dinner are "more than" just meat, too.

Originally posted by sumydid
Oh, and now for the conversation on the last page... better known as the "problem of evil," or the problem of suffering.

The Atheist, again, is forced by very definition, into believing that death is a bad thing and suffering is a bad thing. The exact opposite is true in the case of the believer.

The postulation that any degree of pain is a tre uffering and then death, that's another case entirely and can be discussed if desired.

As bbarr mentioned, the problem of suffering has to do with instances of suffering that are logically unnecessary for the greater good. This doesn't rule out several other things you touch on here, such as the idea that not all suffering is wholly bad; or that instances of suffering can bring about some good; etc. These kind of considerations are not strong enough to meet the problem of suffering. As I am trying to get across in some of my questions (like the ones FreakyKBH keeps selectively ignoring), it seems extremely unlikely that some instances of suffering are necessary for the greater good.

And taking all that into account it is clear that just as the Bible says, pain and suffering are tools used by God to discipline mankind. The end result is good, as we learn and improve.

Okay, so say a baby is born with an incurable disease and suffers horribly for a few days and then dies; or say a tsunami decimates a village and causes a lot of suffering. What is the lesson that God wanted us to learn here with such instances of suffering? And, even supposing there is some lesson, could God have taught it to us by any other possible means that involve less suffering?

Originally posted by LemonJello
(especially given that I take it to be tangential at best to the actual topic of the problem of suffering).

I doubt if it is tangential. The idea that justice or holyness somehow requires suffering as a form of payment or balance for sin or crime is central to Christian theology - without it the concept of sacrifice would fall apart rendering Jesus' death (and thus the whole religion) meaningless.
I have found very few Christians willing to discuss the topic and none so far willing to state the reasoning behind the concept. However many people seem to take it as a given that that is how justice works.
Most notable is the fact that the suffering does not need to be perpetrated on the guilty party - hence sacrifice where someone willingly (or unwillingly in the case of animals) suffers on behalf of the perpetrator, or the punishment of descendants or whole races for the crime of one or a few individuals.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I doubt if it is tangential. The idea that justice or holyness somehow requires suffering as a form of payment or balance for sin or crime is central to Christian theology - without it the concept of sacrifice would fall apart rendering Jesus' death (and thus the whole religion) meaningless.
I have found very few Christians willing to discuss the topic a ...[text shortened]... tor, or the punishment of descendants or whole races for the crime of one or a few individuals.

Sure, those kinds of considerations are central to his religion. But his points have in my opinion little or nothing to do with addressing the argument from suffering because (1) his points and examples are framed from within our limited abilities when the argument from suffering is about a putatively all-knowing and omnipotent being and (2) his points have absolutely nothing to do with suffering that doesn't have something genuine to do with the concept of sin. It is in this sense that I considered the entire exchange we had as at best tangential to the actual topic brought up by SwissGambit.

Other than that, your point is well taken.

Originally posted by LemonJello
There I was agreeing with buckky that we are "more than meat" because of certain properties that emerge from the physical substrate. Do you disagree with this?

By the way, the animals that you think make a juicy dinner are "more than" just meat, too.

I definitely agree that we are more than just meat due to certain properties that emerge from the physical substrate. What I disagree with is the notion that meaning itself also arises from the physical substrate. At the risk of sounding naive (though perhaps I am naive), I have not met, nor have I ever heard of, a single soul who has ever found meaning in meat. At least not the type of meaning people generally search for in life, i.e., the existential kind; that which provides the will to live even in the face of unimaginable suffering and misery. That which has emerged from the physical substrate of the human organism, what we call consciousness and mind, has the capacity to discover or create meaning, but this meaning which is either discovered or created cannot itself be of the physical substrate, for if it was, it could not then be sufficiently meaningfull to serve as the basis of one's whole purpose for living (assuming the individual in question is perfectly sane).

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I definitely agree that we are more than just meat due to certain properties that emerge from the physical substrate. What I disagree with is the notion that meaning itself also arises from the physical substrate. At the risk of sounding naive (though perhaps I am naive), I have not met, nor have I ever heard of, a single soul who has ever found meanin ...[text shortened]... asis of one's whole purpose for living (assuming the individual in question is perfectly sane).

Matter (and energy) has two basic properties, what it consists of and its location. Its location is basically information and that information is in some ways independent of the physical matter. The information can be copied (as happens in a computer) and the information can form highly complex patterns such as the solar system or the human brain.
The patterns in the information, though stored and transmitted and in some ways entirely dependent on at least some physical form, are really completely independent of the physical. This is why the same patterns can be just as real in a simulated or virtual world. A human being in 'The Matrix' should have just as much meaning as a human being made of actual atoms, just as a book is just as meaningful whether it is made of paper or consists of a stream of bytes flowing through the internet.
This information however is as much a part and parcel of the universe as the physical matter is. I suspect though that the information cannot truly be said to 'come from' the physical atoms. If anything the atoms are molded by the information.
Meat itself is therefore as much information as it is 'physical substrate' and does have meaning.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I definitely agree that we are more than just meat due to certain properties that emerge from the physical substrate. What I disagree with is the notion that meaning itself also arises from the physical substrate. At the risk of sounding naive (though perhaps I am naive), I have not met, nor have I ever heard of, a single soul who has ever found meanin ...[text shortened]... asis of one's whole purpose for living (assuming the individual in question is perfectly sane).

Thanks. But I am not quite sure I understand your objection (or even how, or if, your view is at odds with mine). When you say that you deny that "meaning itself also arises from the physical substrate", that sounds like something I deny as well. I don't hold that meaning in and of itself arises from the physical substrate because I don't think meaning and value, etc, are mind-independent things. In my view there can be no such thing as meaning or value without something that is at least minimally capable of creating the meaning or carrying out the valuing. So, in short, I think psychological properties emerge from the physical substrate (and that this is the stuff of minds); but that the existence of meaning is dependent on the existence of minds. So, if I understand what you mean, I would agree with you that "meaning...cannot itself be of the physical substrate" -- because meaning is something that only grows out of relation between the substrate and emergent properties.

Does this make sense; or am I not understanding your objection?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Sin is not possible in heaven, just as sin was not possible in the Garden of Eden.

Freaky, I don't understand how you can say that sin was not possible in the Garden of Eden.

Did not Adam and Eve sin in the Garden of Eden?[/b]

'Good and evil' as as system wasn't accessible to them until they chose against God's system of life. Naked and unashamed, there was nothing to miss, no line to tresspass. They had but one decision everyday: either stay in God's system of life or enter into the system currently in effect.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
'Good and evil' as as system wasn't accessible to them until they chose against God's system of life. Naked and unashamed, there was nothing to miss, no line to tresspass. They had but one decision everyday: either stay in God's system of life or enter into the system currently in effect.

People who think they don't sin, why are they not naked...?

Originally posted by LemonJello
At what point do his actions become moot? When he is 57? 67? 89?

I don't understand this question. I'm not sure what it means to say that one's actions "become moot".

Clearly, you haven't clue one about justice, so it's no wonder that you consider it reasonable to view the situation as you do.

Why don't you teach me something about ...[text shortened]... the problem of suffering). I would appreciate it if you would address my questions.[/b]

I'm not sure what it means to say that one's actions "become moot".
You bring up the man's age (as well as infer the passing of time) somehow renders the crimes as so far in the past, that it's all just water under the bridge. Therefore, moot. Had these atrocities happened, say, last week and were the man, say, 57, would their insult be any more impactful?

For 32 years, this man has escaped the consequences of his actions. Since he was able to so successfully keep judgment at bay, should that judgment now be dismissed?

For instance, please put forth some argument for your claim that justice here demands that it is emphatically necessary that someone be made to suffer.
That's kind of like arguing that without oxygen it is impossible to breathe. The very nature of a just society, i.e., abiding by an agreed set of laws dictates that deviation from such abiding carry some form of reprecussion, typically commensurate with the damage done.

You think it is patronizing and trite to suggest that it would be good for the family of the victims to come to a healthy understanding of the situation and to come to healthy acceptance of circumstances they cannot change?
No, I think it is patronizing to suggest that the family of the victims somehow lack a "healthy understanding of the situation," and trite to suggest they ought to accept the things they cannot change. What things can they not change? Bring their loved ones back? I'm going to go out on a limb here and speculate they probably have come to grips with the fact that those people ain't coming back.

However, what they can--- what they ought to--- change is the decades-long avoidance of justice.

I feel like I've been a good sport in addressing your question over and over (especially given that I take it to be tangential at best to the actual topic of the problem of suffering).
You've finally made it very clear that justice is not part of the equation, so therefore any further discussion on the topic will be nothing less than nonsense.

"Tangential?" Seriously?