Originally posted by bbarrYour error is that when you teach moral philosophy you also teach
I'm an atheist, and an ethicist. I would prefer people to believe true things, not put their faith in fantasy. That is why I teach moral philosophy, not theology. The part I play is teaching and writing about the importance of virtues like compassion, and attempting to convince people across traditions that there are core values we should endorse, and basi ...[text shortened]... That's because I am not callous. God was there, and didn't intervene. That's because....?
against Theology. You need to correct your views so you can teach
moral philosophy without conflicting with the teachings of theology.
Originally posted by RJHindsI think the goal is simplicity. The result is often disaster.
Your error is that when you teach moral philosophy you also teach
against Theology. You need to correct your views so you can teach
moral philosophy without conflicting with the teachings of theology.
Originally posted by whodeySo God allowed that woman to be raped and stabbed in an effort to test our faith? He wanted to give us all an opportunity to be better people, and the absolute best way He could do that is by allowing that woman to be raped and stabbed. That is your view?
Not necessarily. What I'm saying is that God works through our faith and such faith will be tested. If we fail the test then faith brings forth nodda and all is lost.
Really trying to turn something bad into good is pretty much what we all try to do, is it not? However, not everyone can do it. As believers if we are doing God's will we are promised tha ...[text shortened]... pare him the agony of what lie before him, he had to go through with it. It was the only way.
Originally posted by RJHindsActually, it's really effective to use theological beliefs in introductory ethics classes. It allows the students an opportunity to present clear objections to ridiculous views. Then they can move on to the more interesting and plausible stuff in Aristotle, Kant, Hume and Mill. So I guess I owe you guys thanks for making my job a bit easier.
Your error is that when you teach moral philosophy you also teach
against Theology. You need to correct your views so you can teach
moral philosophy without conflicting with the teachings of theology.
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, it's actually quite easy. First you find an outrageous case of easily preventable evil, something no decent person would allow if they could have prevented it, then you ask why God allowed it. After you dispense with the usual confused theodicies, you conclude that God is morally in error (typically either callous or cruel or self-absorbed or vengeful...). No muss, no fuss.
I do not think you will have much luck judging God. Sorry.
Originally posted by bbarrLife apart from God is to suffer because he is the only source of life and love. We suffer for our sin as well as those around us. It is akin to a bomb going off. The bomb may have been designed to kill certain people, however, the bomb is indiscriminent as to the design.
So God allowed that woman to be raped and stabbed in an effort to test our faith? He wanted to give us all an opportunity to be better people, and the absolute best way He could do that is by allowing that woman to be raped and stabbed. That is your view?
What we have here with the cynics trying to say God is evil because He allows [fill in the blank with the most awful, heinous, torturous suffering imaginable], is a complete disconnect on the Christian perspective.
To these cynics, if I may, this physical life is for all intents and purposes, all we have -- therefore, if we are allowed to suffer [fill in the blank with the most awful, heinous, torturous suffering imaginable], our existence is completely ruined.
To the Christians, this physical existence we have is but a fleeting experience and but a mere blip of time compared to our total existence. Furthermore, our actual self is not this physical body with its nerve endings and swirling chemicals. Instead our true self is our soul.
Now if the cynics are capable and willing, I think it would be a good idea for them to imagine a soul, and then inflict [fill in the blank with the most awful, heinous, torturous suffering imaginable] upon the physical body associated with that soul... and then tell me. What actual pain does the soul feel?
The fact is, and again this is from the Christian perspective, whatever happens to our physical body here, when compared to the soul, is very much akin to whatever happens to us in a dream, when compared with our conscious life. God allowing someone to suffer in this physical presence is much like God allowing you to have a bad dream. No damage to the true self.
And in addition to that, if you were to suffer [fill in the blank with the most awful, heinous, torturous suffering imaginable] it would be no worse than the suffering the Lord Himself experienced on the cross. I firmly believe that part of the reason for the New Covenant and Christ's suffering on the cross, is to show us that God would not ask us to suffer anything in this physical existence, that He wouldn't suffer or hasn't suffered for us.
It goes without saying that the cynic reaction (stated or not) will be something like, "Oh, how convenient that this Christian zealot would just write off physical suffering as meaningless, just to escape the reality that His God is cruel and evil." But that reaction completely ignores the existence of the soul and about 80% of what I said, so it is really just a pat answer. Talking points.
Originally posted by whodeyIs this supposed to explain something? What are you trying to say? Look, whodey, you know the deal. Don't avoid the issue. How am I supposed to take the God hypothesis seriously when there are cases like the woman being raped and stabbed? Do you have an explanation for why God would allow this? Why he would fail to intervene? Because all you're giving me here are platitudes that seem to indicate that God is a huge fan of collective punishment, and that he is petty and callous. Where's the love? He could have put the rapist to sleep, or whisked him away to some room and convinced him the error of his ways, or slipped him an anti-psychotic drug, or taken him directly to Heaven after psychologically healing him, or... But God didn't do any of these things. He's a dick. Admit it.
Life apart from God is to suffer because he is the only source of life and love. We suffer for our sin as well as those around us. It is akin to a bomb going off. The bomb may have been designed to kill certain people, however, the bomb is indiscriminent as to the design.
Originally posted by sumydidWe should totally reform the legal system to reflect your insights regarding the meaninglessness of Earthly suffering. "Your Honor, my client only raped and stabbed the victim's physical body. But, as you know, her soul remained untouched..."
What we have here with the cynics trying to say God is evil because He allows [fill in the blank with the most awful, heinous, torturous suffering imaginable], is a complete disconnect on the Christian perspective.
To these cynics, if I may, this physical life is for all intents and purposes, all we have -- therefore, if we are allowed to suffer [fill in ...[text shortened]... the soul and about 80% of what I said, so it is really just a pat answer. Talking points.
Originally posted by bbarrThe question here is how does God work? For example, could God have saved mankind before the flood had it not been for the faith of Noah? Could God have given us the Messiah without the faith of Abraham and his symbolic act of being willing to sacrifice his son etc? In short, could God just zap this and that without second thought as he disregards human free will?
Is this supposed to explain something? What are you trying to say? Look, whodey, you know the deal. Don't avoid the issue. How am I supposed to take the God hypothesis seriously when there are cases like the woman being raped and stabbed? Do you have an explanation for why God would allow this? Why he would fail to intervene? Because all you're giving m gically healing him, or... But God didn't do any of these things. He's a dick. Admit it.
Apparently you think it possible to have a sinful world without any meaningful suffering. What would be the end game do you reckon? I mean, would that cause everyone not to reject him? Would it not be a perpetual world of sin without hope of an end to that sinful world?
From my observations, it seems that we often need to hit bottom before we realize the need to change.
Originally posted by bbarrI think your lawyer skills will be greatly outclassed.
No, it's actually quite easy. First you find an outrageous case of easily preventable evil, something no decent person would allow if they could have prevented it, then you ask why God allowed it. After you dispense with the usual confused theodicies, you conclude that God is morally in error (typically either callous or cruel or self-absorbed or vengeful...). No muss, no fuss.
Originally posted by whodeyIf I stop a rape and stabbing, do I disregard free will? No. I intervene in action. God could have prevented this rape and stabbing without interfering in free will. He would have prevented an action; just as he does by issuing commandments. And, yes, God could have saved without Noah, and brought the Messiah without Abraham. That's what it means to be omnipotent, on your own view. And you yourself think it's possible to have a world with little to no sin and little to no suffering. You call it 'Heaven'. But your God wants some people to get raped and stabbed before he allows them through the gates. Why is that?
The question here is how does God work? For example, could God have saved mankind before the flood had it not been for the faith of Noah? Could God have given us the Messiah without the faith of Abraham and his symbolic act of being willing to sacrifice his son etc? In short, could God just zap this and that without second thought as he disregards human fr ...[text shortened]... my observations, it seems that we often need to hit bottom before we realize the need to change.
Originally posted by sumydidThe cynic is likely to have the reprobate mind like you say. A few are
What we have here with the cynics trying to say God is evil because He allows [fill in the blank with the most awful, heinous, torturous suffering imaginable], is a complete disconnect on the Christian perspective.
To these cynics, if I may, this physical life is for all intents and purposes, all we have -- therefore, if we are allowed to suffer [fill in ...[text shortened]... the soul and about 80% of what I said, so it is really just a pat answer. Talking points.
different however for these can be reached with the truth of the gospel.