Originally posted by KingsGambit
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Problematic Natural Evil
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThe concept of the 'Fall,' original sin, moral evil and natural evil remain deeply engrained in the scripture and theology of traditional Christian churches."I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill
Comment
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostOnce you get to the point of trying to an establish a greater good, it seems almost comically futile attempting to speculate as to the deeper intentions of God. While I may find certain insights to be helpful, I have to do something very difficult for me personally and admit I have no idea.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostI prefer the Baha'i view that Evil does not exist as described in the dualism of ancient worldviews. The Natural circumstances of what appears to be violence and suffering is simply a part of the physical nature of our constantly cyclic evolving, physical existence and life itself. The spiritual nature of our human souls also evolves through their journeys through many worlds, but their is no direct relationship between the physical violence and suffering, and the spiritual nature of the journey of the human souls.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostSome Christians (and I may as well be honest and place myself in this camp) have been questioning whether what we see as "natural evil" really qualifies as such. The biblical book of Job in particular presents the awesome forces of nature, even including predation, as simply majestic portions of God's creation. There is no hint that they are anything less, and the Hebrews of time time must have been content with that... and we may simply have to acknowledge that this was a part of God's "very good" creation.
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostThis might be compatible with Chrawnus's suggestion in post 39 if we define "negative effects" in terms of on humanity in particular. After all, there are some very non-negative results from things like plate tectonics that also cause earthquakes, as Bethany Sollereder explains here: http://biologos.org/blog/how-could-g...heodicy-part-1
The solution is not to wish for a world with no pain, but for a world where pain is appropriately experienced.Last edited by whag; 05-23-2014, 11:43 PM.
Comment
-
When you find a problem in your philosophy it is good to go back to your fundamental assumptions because that is usually where the problem lies. Religious philosophy is inhibited in its development by doctrine and therefore things like the problem of natural evil are permanent features. No rationalisation will be perfectly satisfactory but the continual chase after the new rationalisation might be sufficiently diverting for most people.
Comment
-
Originally posted by firstfloor View PostWhen you find a problem in your philosophy it is good to go back to your fundamental assumptions because that is usually where the problem lies. Religious philosophy is inhibited in its development by doctrine and therefore things like the problem of natural evil are permanent features. No rationalisation will be perfectly satisfactory but the continual chase after the new rationalisation might be sufficiently diverting for most people.
Comment
-
Originally posted by whag View PostIronically, doctrine becomes its own stumbling block. Whereas Eve's birthpangs curse is--I suppose--meant to convey the gravity of human evil and bring people to repentance, the story reveals itself as bald fiction as we see the same "pangs" have been inflicting all female mammals for eons.
I'm not sure why the experience of other female mammals correlates in your mind to Eve's situation. Care to explain?
As far as the rest of the discussion here, I've always been satisfied with the explanation involving God choosing to preserve free will. I'll admit that I'm a novice with regards to philosophical/theological matters, but I really don't see a big problem here."If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship
Comment
-
Originally posted by myth View Post"Bald fiction", really?
I'm not sure why the experience of other female mammals correlates in your mind to Eve's situation. Care to explain?
Comment
-
Originally posted by myth View Post
As far as the rest of the discussion here, I've always been satisfied with the explanation involving God choosing to preserve free will. I'll admit that I'm a novice with regards to philosophical/theological matters, but I really don't see a big problem here.
Comment
-
Originally posted by whag View PostPhilosophers and theologians see a big problem there, hence all their philosophizin' and theologizin'. =)
But, to be more effective as a witness for my faith, I'll probably continue to follow the thread. After all, it's easier to debate this issue with others if I have a better handle on the standard arguments involved. To that end, do you mind briefly describing why you, personally, view this as a problem?"If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship
Comment
-
Originally posted by myth View PostThey see a problem because they approach the situation from a vastly different worldview than my own. The fact that I see no problem with here is not because of my lack of ability to comprehend the situation, but because my worldview provides anwers to the 'question', if you will, that are satisfactory to me. The more I read about this topic, the more convinced I become that it is of little consequence to me.
But, to be more effective as a witness for my faith, I'll probably continue to follow the thread. After all, it's easier to debate this issue with others if I have a better handle on the standard arguments involved. To that end, do you mind briefly describing why you, personally, view this as a problem?
Ditto, Adam's curse to obtain food by the sweat of his brow.
Comment
-
Originally posted by whag View PostThe problems are various. Let's start with human female birth pangs since you took issue with it. Since suffering and death were part of the teleological plan regardless of the actions of Satan and human beings, we cannot reasonably interpret human birth pangs as a "curse," correct?
Ditto, Adam's curse to obtain food by the sweat of his brow.
As far as birth pangs are concerned, I think we can both agree that the biology involved is very complex. Additionally, if we are accepting (in broad terms, at least) the biblical narrative of the Garden of Eden, we must acknowledge that the way Eden functioned was clearly different than our world today (i.e. God's causing edible plants to grow, presenting animals to Adam, having Adam 'tend' the garden, and God's creation of Eve...they're all supernatural events). The context of your question requires me to assume that the same God who did all this, and created all these things could not also choose to alter their biological functions as a form of punishment. I accept that God created the Garden of Eden, and as an extension of that belief I also have no problem believing that he could make alterations to the Garden and its inhabitants, as he deemed necessary."If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship
Comment
-
Originally posted by myth View PostPerhaps I should have been more clear. I was asking why, in the general sense, you seem to regard PONE as inconsistent with the existence of God. Please correct me if I have assumed this incorrectly.
Originally posted by myth View PostAs far as birth pangs are concerned, I think we can both agree that the biology involved is very complex. Additionally, if we are accepting (in broad terms, at least) the biblical narrative of the Garden of Eden, we must acknowledge that the way Eden functioned was clearly different than our world today (i.e. God's causing edible plants to grow, presenting animals to Adam, having Adam 'tend' the garden, and God's creation of Eve...they're all supernatural events). The context of your question requires me to assume that the same God who did all this, and created all these things could not also choose to alter their biological functions as a form of punishment. I accept that God created the Garden of Eden, and as an extension of that belief I also have no problem believing that he could make alterations to the Garden and its inhabitants, as he deemed necessary.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 04-22-2024, 06:28 PM
|
17 responses
104 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
04-23-2024, 01:46 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
70 responses
398 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-26-2024, 05:47 AM | ||
Started by Neptune7, 04-15-2024, 06:54 AM
|
25 responses
165 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cerebrum123
04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
254 responses
1,174 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Today, 04:59 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 02-04-2024, 05:06 AM
|
190 responses
926 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Today, 12:53 PM
|
Comment