Prayer for Others

Participant

Quote (Cato @ Mar. 08 2008,06:30)

My point is that all suffering is not necessarily needless, perhaps in this case it may nudge a man or his family to looking at life differently

That is an offensive philosophy, born of the most cowardly apologetics. The only ethical resolution to this is non-belief, which indeed is what happened to many with a brain after the Asian tsunami, the holocaust and most other natural disasters and human atrocities.

Stuart

March 8, 2008 at 10:10 pm#83437

Participant

Come now Stewart, when you claim the only ethical resolution is non-belief, it is just as preposterous as saying the reverse. I never claimed that God or any other agency condones or encourages tragedy, but that it may allow such, for that is the price of free will and living under the law of cause and effect. It is unfortunate but nonetheless all too true, that sometimes we advance or learn more from life's challenges and sorrows then from success and prosperity. The worse thing in facing any of life's great misfortunes is to view them as random and purposeless. When no matter how sorrowful an event is, it helps, I believe, to think there is a purpose or meaning to it and not merely the fickle hand of chance. For if there is purpose then we can find the means to rise above and make something positive from the ashes.

March 9, 2008 at 3:39 am#83452

Participant

Quote (Cato @ Mar. 09 2008,10:10)

Once again, I think there is absolutely no good to be seen in any massacre. None. There is no advantage for anyone in it. They are all avoidable, and we need to progress in the direction of finding peaceful resolutions to conflict that actually work. A person who sees opportunity in the slaughter of humans is ethically stunted, to put it mildly.

Natural disasters are different, they are unavoidable and we can learn from them in terms of preparedness and increasing the chances of survival. To guilt-trip people by lying to them about divine punishments for percieved 'sins' as do Hagee, Robertson and all the other nutjobs like them, is just callous. Why would you even bother with civil defense if just living a pious existence were enough to avoid hurricanes, floods and earthquakes?

A naturalistic world view obviously suffers no theological difficulties here. There is no convoluted and circulating arguments about what a god could / should / would do that fail on every statistical analysis. Non-belief is the obvious resolution to any such question.

Just as the christian needs at least one death for his own selfish 'salvation', he would seem to need more carnage to learn ethics that non-believers seem to have already grasped.

Stuart

March 9, 2008 at 4:14 am#83461

Participant

Stewart,
I think you again confuse the idea of a diety allowing evil and tragedy, with the causation of same. I don't think or ever claimed that God goes about sending storms or madmen to do mayhem, what I am saying is that he may allow such for the reasons I have already stated. You wrongly assume I am justifying or supporting life's misfortunes when instead I urge trying to find meaning in the midst of such as a way of dealing with tragedy and avoiding needless anger or worse despair. You rightly said that “A person who sees opportunity in the slaughter of humans is ethically stunted, to put it mildly.” Yet when the slaughter is done we can cry, deny, seek revenge or we can use the horror of same to energize others to make sure such never happens again. I think you are trying to make an argument when one doesn't exist. I don't claim justification which is what you are implying, but show a path for dealing in a positive way for pain and the avoidance of despair.

March 9, 2008 at 4:30 am#83463

Participant

Quote (Cato @ Mar. 09 2008,16:14)

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

-Epicurus

Stuart

March 9, 2008 at 5:19 am#83464

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy

Participant

Hi Cato

Quote

Yet when the slaughter is done we can cry, deny, seek revenge or we can use the horror of same to energize others to make sure such never happens again. I think you are trying to make an argument when one doesn't exist. I don't claim justification which is what you are implying, but show a path for dealing in a positive way for pain and the avoidance of despair.

I am glad that you distance yourself from the view genuinely held by some christians that we are better off because of the holocaust; that it gave an opportunity for the Jews to show bravery, for example. It would be a view most obviously the conclusion of calvanism but it would not seem to be theirs exclusively.

I agree that the memorials and museums at Dachau and Auchwitz are very important for showing the brutality that have resulted from certain paths through history, but some argue that the atrocities committed there were necessary, and allowed to happen by their god for some gain. That logic obviously has a parallel in the ‘necessity’ that Jesus died. I assume you still require at least that one death in order to live a righteous life.

Stuart

March 10, 2008 at 12:02 pm#83550

Participant

Quote (Stu @ Mar. 09 2008,16:30)

[/quote]
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

-Epicurus

IStuart

Is god able to prevent evil – yes
Omnipotent – Yes
Is he able – yes not willing – essentially yes
Malevolent – no
Whence cometh evil – from ourselves and perhaps from others, forces of chaos or the infernal perhaps.
Why call him God – Creating the universe for one would merit such.

God, I believe has the power to prevent evil, but if he used that power a greater evil would be committed, the violation of our free will. There are a variety of reasons evil exists but much of it stems from ourselves and if we are to be independent beings we have to have the capability of making bad as well as good choices. As parents we sometimes let our children make mistakes, for often that is the only way they learn and grow, even if in the short term it hurts them. Also if you take the view (which is mine and not generally reflected by others here) that the body and our lives are just temporary vehicles for the soul, and designed for the development and advancement thereof then what we perceive as tragedy, is in fact, very emphemeral and when looked at in the larger view of our souls progression, not as bad as what we see here. There is even a debate on evil itself as being of two types, one which wants to hold us down and stop our evolution and the other which tests us, and provides the friction to overcome, so that good can be an active and not just a passive principle. We can't blame God for evil we create, and if we ever are to learn we can't separate effect from cause which would be the case if God stepped in everytime we messed up to save us. Yet when we make mistakes and hurt from the results, we learn and will not be so quick to make them again.

March 10, 2008 at 9:33 pm#83574

Participant

Hi cato,
The only lesson we have time enough to learn while we sojourn here is that we need to be able to relate to God if we discover the rather alarming future we face without him after death.

March 10, 2008 at 11:23 pm#83584

Participant

So this life is just the initiation into God's fraternity, and just like “pledge week” some don't make the cut?

March 11, 2008 at 12:13 am#83585

Participant

Hi kj,
Do you have the same options as others?

March 11, 2008 at 12:29 am#83590

Participant

I have no idea what you are talking about Nick. I have the same options most humans have I suppose. Likely more than some since I live in the USA.

March 11, 2008 at 12:42 am#83591

Participant

Hi kj,
Then why not stop complaining?

March 11, 2008 at 12:59 am#83593

Participant

I still have no idea what you are saying. Did you get enough sleep today Nick?

March 11, 2008 at 11:46 am#83633

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 11 2008,09:33)

Hi cato,
The only lesson we have time enough to learn while we sojourn here is that we need to be able to relate to God if we discover the rather alarming future we face without him after death.

That is a sorry comment on the meaning of life and God's purpose for humanity; relate to God or be damned, your view of God is very negative and restricted. I would think that God would want more from us then obedience, if that is all he wanted he wouldn't have given us the means to disobey. I wonder if you are a parent? The closest I feel we will ever come to understanding God is being a parent.

March 11, 2008 at 5:25 pm#83638

Participant

Hi cato,
Does God still accept He is your parent?
Should we develop our own view of God's righteousness?
Seems that God gives all a choice as to whether or not they see life or remain under His wrath.

Jn3
36He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

March 11, 2008 at 5:48 pm#83640

Participant

Quote (Cato @ Mar. 11 2008,00:02)

Quote (Stu @ Mar. 09 2008,16:30)

-Epicurus

IStuart

This is exactly the kind of convoluted and circular apologetics that can be answered in one sentence by the non-believer.

By the way I don't think you have adequately addressed the charges that Epicurus made.

Stuart

March 13, 2008 at 7:21 pm#83780

Mandy

Participant

My friend, Andy, goes in for his biopsy tomorrow. He was crying last night on the phone. I feel so helpless. Please pray for him and his dear family. I love them all so much and they are such dear friends to us.
Thanks everyone,
Mandy

March 13, 2008 at 7:35 pm#83786