13 May 09
Originally posted by LemonJelloAs bbarr mentioned, the problem of suffering has to do with instances of suffering that are logically unnecessary for the greater good.
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 st ...[text shortened]... lesson, could God have taught it to us by any other possible means that involve less suffering?
Logic requires structure, and using this as the only standard, an argument can be made for just about anything... including this one. However, if one wants to make a true statement, one necessarily needs to have all the parts. You cannot possibly have all the parts is you are leaving out the most critical element, i.e., the righteousness of God.
13 May 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI thought that the two cases LJ presented, of the ill child and the tsunami, are precisely cases where justice, as typically understood, doesn't play a role. Since you think that LJ is missing the point because he fails to incorporate into his analysis the righteousness of God, perhaps you could explain a bit how the notion of justice, as you understand it, should factor into an analysis of these cases.
[b]As bbarr mentioned, the problem of suffering has to do with instances of suffering that are logically unnecessary for the greater good.
Logic requires structure, and using this as the only standard, an argument can be made for just about anything... including this one. However, if one wants to make a true statement, one necessarily needs to have a ...[text shortened]... all the parts is you are leaving out the most critical element, i.e., the righteousness of God.[/b]
13 May 09
Originally posted by bbarrIndirectly, justice is involved in all aspects of the fallen nature of this world. Sometime after the beginning, the righteousness of God was violated. We entered into a system of good and evil. Inside that system, for all societies, a system of law and order are requisite for their continued existence. In short, justice.
I thought that the two cases LJ presented, of the ill child and the tsunami, are precisely cases where justice, as typically understood, doesn't play a role. Since you think that LJ is missing the point because he fails to incorporate into his analysis the righteousness of God, perhaps you could explain a bit how the notion of justice, as you understand it, should factor into an analysis of these cases.
Is the pain experienced by a sick child or the collective pain of those impacted by a tsunami a direct result of the righteousness of God being violated? No.
Indirectly? Absolutely. But that isn't what is being addressed by LemonJello. He wishes to fit a round peg into a square hole, and when it doesn't, he wishes to blame one or the other or both. His 'fix' is to take the concept of ultimate justice (a requirement of ultimate righteousness) out of the picture altogether, without acknowledging the utter necessity it is for the whole.
13 May 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBut how does justice indirectly apply to the two cases? The child is not at fault for the world being fallen, the child is not responsible for his illness, the child was given no choice concerning whether to come into existence. It seems there is nothing about the case that indicates that the child deserves his fate. Similar comments apply regarding the tsunami. But these considerations are just those that we typically make reference to when assessing whether that which befalls a person is just or consistent with justice. So I am unsure how justice relates to these cases, even indirectly. Could you, perhaps, elaborate a bit more?
Indirectly, justice is involved in all aspects of the fallen nature of this world. Sometime after the beginning, the righteousness of God was violated. We entered into a system of good and evil. Inside that system, for all societies, a system of law and order are requisite for their continued existence. In short, justice.
Is the pain experienced by ...[text shortened]... ut of the picture altogether, without acknowledging the utter necessity it is for the whole.
13 May 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI don't see anything in here that resembles an actual argument for the idea that justice entails that persons be made to suffer. Justice as I understand it has to do with things like fairness and equitable treatment, the respect of basic liberties and opportunities, the distribution of goods and bads, contractual obligations, etc, and yeah maybe it recommends that there be desert-based consequences, such as the giving of punishments that are deserved. None of this suggests to me that it is "emphatically necessary" that persons be made to suffer in the name of justice. To say that it is emphatically necessary that someone be made to suffer does not in any way strike me as a just thing to say (especially with the emphasis of inflicting suffering like it is the end goal); rather, it just strikes me as cruel and vindictive.
[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 ...[text shortened]... ion on the topic will be nothing less than nonsense.
"Tangential?" Seriously?[/b]
But, whatever. So you think I am hopelessly confused on the notion of justice, and you think I'm hopelessly confused in this case because I don't in any way see it as a necessity of reasonable resolution that someone be made to suffer, crazy me. Why don't you address the questions I raised which bear on the subject of the problem of suffering and yet have nothing to do with the subject of justice?
13 May 09
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHe wishes to fit a round peg into a square hole, and when it doesn't, he wishes to blame one or the other or both. His 'fix' is to take the concept of ultimate justice (a requirement of ultimate righteousness) out of the picture altogether, without acknowledging the utter necessity it is for the whole.
Indirectly, justice is involved in all aspects of the fallen nature of this world. Sometime after the beginning, the righteousness of God was violated. We entered into a system of good and evil. Inside that system, for all societies, a system of law and order are requisite for their continued existence. In short, justice.
Is the pain experienced by ut of the picture altogether, without acknowledging the utter necessity it is for the whole.
If you think I am failing to understand considerations of justice that are necessary to these instances of suffering, please explain what they are. Are you honestly trying to say that justice demands that the baby suffer; or that the tsunami bring suffering on the village?
13 May 09
Originally posted by bbarrThe righteousness of God was violated, man was forced out of the previous system and into this one, the system of good and evil. That system is inherently flawed. Those born into that system inherit the basic flaw of their fathers. The creation also groans under this system, having been subjected to an existence of less-than: less-than ideal, less-than perfect, less-than what it was at the time of God's recreation.
But how does justice indirectly apply to the two cases? The child is not at fault for the world being fallen, the child is not responsible for his illness, the child was given no choice concerning whether to come into existence. It seems there is nothing about the case that indicates that the child deserves his fate. Similar comments apply regarding the tsu ...[text shortened]... how justice relates to these cases, even indirectly. Could you, perhaps, elaborate a bit more?
Justice itself (the judgment for the violation of God's righteousness) is not being served upon man or creation, but rather, justice in the Garden demanded that man be pushed from the Garden, from God's presence. Until man's time on earth is complete, the justice that pushed man from the Garden will continue to keep him from it and in the system of good and evil.
Therefore, indirectly, all of the crap that happens on this planet which cannot be viewed as the direct result of a particular agent(s) undesirable action, is a result of the justice of God cursing both man and creation, and thus keeping both from enjoying all of the richness communion with Him can impart.
13 May 09
Originally posted by LemonJelloNone of this suggests to me that it is "emphatically necessary" that persons be made to suffer in the name of justice. To say that it is emphatically necessary that someone be made to suffer does not in any way strike me as a just thing to say (especially with the emphasis of inflicting suffering like it is the end goal); rather, it just strikes me as cruel and vindictive.
I don't see anything in here that resembles an actual argument for the idea that justice entails that persons be made to suffer. Justice as I understand it has to do with things like fairness and equitable treatment, the respect of basic liberties and opportunities, the distribution of goods and bads, contractual obligations, etc, and yeah maybe it recom ...[text shortened]... of the problem of suffering and yet have nothing to do with the subject of justice?
In clarifying the position, relative to causing one person to suffer for their actions in defiance of another's liberties or etc., I said:
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.
In choosing the words "emphatically necessary" I was specifically referring to the case of the geriatric Nazi currently going through the paces of the court system. For his atrocities against mankind, it remains emphatically necessary that, if proven guilty, he be made to suffer with an eye toward the considerations of all aspects.
13 May 09
4 edits
Basically, we are putting God on trial and using the suffering of innocents as evidence against Him. The charge against God is that he is unjust, and because he is unjust, we are therefore justified in disregarding his commands. But this assumes that we are in a position to put God on trial. What if we are not in such a position?
Obviously, we are not omniscient, which severely limits the reliability of the evidence we are able to present in a court of law against God, who is omniscient. At the very least our supposed ability to put God on trial is based on the presumption that we are equals with him, if not morally superior to him, yet even in this one respect, omniscience, we are worms in comparison. How, then, can such a trial proceed?
And what is the suffering of innocents the evidence of exactly? And is it even conclusive evidence? It is not logically necessary, for instance, that God be powerless to stop evil simply because evil exists. Nor is it logically necessary that God himself be unjust simply because innocent people suffer. Neither am I forced to choose one or the other. Such a false dichotomy presumes that our evidence is conclusive, but the evidence is far from conclusive.
Humanity is in no position to judge God.
14 May 09
Originally posted by epiphinehasOn the contrary, it is inescapable that all who are aware of a concept of God will judge the truth and merit of it. We cannot help but evaluate the idea of God based on who we are [which encompasses our philosophies/how we view the world], and the evidence at our disposal.
Humanity is in no position to judge God.
No one expects a worm to solve a calculus problem. It can only do the best it can with what it has.
14 May 09
Originally posted by epiphinehasYet I have no doubt that you will do just that when the evidence appears to point the other way. How many times have I heard Christians proclaim the goodness, righteousness, and justice of God and claimed how these properties are clearly visible?
Humanity is in no position to judge God.
Yet you are saying that God has never been known to do anything good or bad because we are incapable of knowing the goodness or badness of his actions. The claim that God is good must be taken entirely on faith based on zero evidence ie wishful thinking.
14 May 09
Originally posted by buckkyI think the answer is within your question.
We go back and forth trying to convince the other that our position is the one that's right, and none of us really know anything about what we speak. The whole spiritual question is up for grabs because we have no Spiritual being we can go to and get the Truth from. We have holy books that are suppose to tell us all we need to know about God or the afterlife ...[text shortened]... e hide and seek thing ? Why is it soo drapped in mystery, and confusion ? I know I'm confused.
14 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloFirst (and I won't fail to follow up on this thread, nor will I intentionally let something of substance go unanswered) I would like to hear your official stance. You've mentioned a problem of suffering and a problem of death.
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 st ...[text shortened]... lesson, could God have taught it to us by any other possible means that involve less suffering?
I hate to step backward but it's necessary for me, and hopefully it won't last longer than your one post answer.
I'm going to take a leap and hope to hit it on the button first try. If I miss just correct me and then I will answer.
Are you saying that the God of the Bible cannot be good, or else the senseless, meaningless suffering you gave a couple of examples of, would not occur? Or put another way, a God that would allow these events to occur could not be good.
I guess then you could go on to say that if God was good yet those things happen, it must mean God is powerless to stop it; rendering God less than all-powerful; negating the claims of the Bible and the existence of the Christian God Himself.
Is that about it?
I have to make sure we are talking about the same thing, i.e. Christian God. If we are, I'm afraid it will be necessary for both of us to use the Bible as reference since there is no other besides personal experience. If at any time during this discussion you question the veracity of the Bible, then the whole issue becomes undebatable because the sole material we have to reference would then be useless.
With me so far? I'm anxious for your response!
14 May 09
Originally posted by bbarrWell ok, I most certainly made a mistake there. I grouped Atheists in with evolutionists.
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.
I don't now any, maybe you are the first one I've met; I'm not aware of any Atheists who believe that there is a meaningful existence beyond death. All the people I know personally that believe in reincarnation for example, are Wiccans, Pagans, and New Agers who all believe in gods of some sort.
However if you are the typical Atheist, then you believe when we die, that is it; our existence is over. In that case, 99.9999999% of the time--barring the very rare situation where someone is in a constant state of horrible, endless suffering--death is the single worst thing that can happen to an individual. That's because after death all hope is lost and it's completely over. At least in the case of someone who isn't suffering continually, there is hope and that makes life worth living.
So again unless you are that rare Atheist I've never met who believes there is no God yet life goes on after death... then surely you believe that the worst thing to happen to someone is for their existence to end, i.e. death. Conversely, which is why many Atheists are classified as humanists, the single most important thing is human life and the quality of human life.
That's what I was getting at. To the Christian and people of other faiths as well, the quality of our lives on Earth is wholly secondary to the quality of our lives after death. And to the same people, their death can be looked forward to as an end to their suffering and the beginning of a new, wonderful life... a rebirth.
On that note isn't it interesting that in nature you see the same thing. Winter comes and all the trees and plant life go through a sort of 'death,' only to be born again in the Spring, prettier and stronger than ever before. It's fun to imagine that something like that could have been instituted by our Creator to symbolically represent what we hope for in our lives.... and so-called 'deaths' ...
14 May 09
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI'm failing to see how any of this actually addresses my question. What you are stating here is that justice demanded that man be forced out of some previous "system" and into another system; and you claim that this newer system features suffering. But even if this is true, it doesn't address my question which was along the lines of why does god permit certain instances of this suffering? We can point to instances of suffering in this "system" that seem to be unnecessary for the greater good. Supposing that god is omnipotent and omniscient, he knows about these instances and knows that he can successfully prevent them. I am asking you if you have some reasons why he would allow such suffering. If I were placed in a position where I know that I can successfully prevent someone else from suffering or being harmed for no good reason, then it would be blameworthy and callous of me if I failed to do so. Does god have these kinds of defects of character, or something? Or am I just mistaken in thinking that, say, the suffering of the baby I described is not necessary for the greater good? Does god have good reasons why he allows the suffering of the neonate? If so, what are they?
The righteousness of God was violated, man was forced out of the previous system and into this one, the system of good and evil. That system is inherently flawed. Those born into that system inherit the basic flaw of their fathers. The creation also groans under this system, having been subjected to an existence of less-than: less-than ideal, less-than tion, and thus keeping both from enjoying all of the richness communion with Him can impart.
Therefore, indirectly, all of the crap that happens on this planet which cannot be viewed as the direct result of a particular agent(s) undesirable action, is a result of the justice of God cursing both man and creation, and thus keeping both from enjoying all of the richness communion with Him can impart.
So justice acts as a curse that keeps people from enrichment? Interesting...I would have thought that justice somehow facilitates the collective good life.