Welcome to the World of Christianity
As a Christian, you are now following a supreme God who created the universe. The following are some of the main superlative facts you need to know about God (Yahweh):
He is omnipotent (Having unlimited power and authority).
He is omnipresent (He is present everywhere).
He is omniscient (Having total knowledge).
He commands billions of angels of which just one could destroy the world.
As a Christian, you are part of large and diverse group totaling over 2.1 billion members that has a worldwide yearly budget approaching one half of a trillion dollars.
HOWEVER
You now know Satan (a fallen angel) is your only and main adversary who leads a small rag-tag army of other fallen angles (demons).
Satan has very limited power (Just what little power and control God gives him).
Satan has no earthly members. (Just a few “Dabblers”).
Satan has no budget.
AND YET
According to God’s own word the Bible (especially the Book of Revelation) God, with all the above supreme attributes, is losing a battle He created and even sacrificed His only begotten son to win.
You, as a Christian, will one day stand before your God at the Great White Throne Judgment and be asked to “give an account” of why you, as a mortally limited and sinful human, screwed up. From there, most of your members will be given total blame for the lost of creation and along with unforgiven sinners you will be casted into The Lake of Fire to be burned and tormented forever.
HOW DO WE UNDERSTAND THIS?
It is a divine Mystery
(The theological term used by the Catholic Church for our mortal lack of understanding.)
39 comments:
Harry, I dont know what Columbia seminary was like when you went but i would imagine you either ignored what they taught you OR its changed alot since you went. First of all, some Christians dont even believe in Satan (as a supernatural entity) period. Now I myself do but that has to be stated. More tenuous is the fact that the bible is not completely clear on any of these issues, especially eschatology. Certainly to read revelation as a guidebook to the end is a common trait these days, but most persons with some theological education know not to do that. Period.
gordonblood:
Most to my relation with Christianity is in context with Bob Jones University here in my town of Greenville where I was once a student. I debated theology professor Layton Talbert (see my review at Amazon and Banes & Nobes on his "Learning to Trust a Sovereign God")over the Greek word "Ethnos" in the Gospel of Matthew. Also, my Southern Baptist background has alot to do with my view of the Bible.
Almost every single time I read a post like this, the argument being made has no application to me, because it's an argument against something that I actually don't believe. So my M.O. is to explain what I think the truth is, and hope that maybe next time they'll have an argument against that, and I can learn something.
Is the reductio ad absurdum here supposed to be the contradiction between God's omnipotence and the fact that He's losing the battle against Satan? Or did I misunderstand?
I don't believe that God is losing the battle against Satan, and I think that very few Christians would disagree with me. I do believe that He's purposely given over the governance of the Earth to Satan for the time being. This is very different from Him losing the battle.
In fact, if there's one thing that everybody can agree on about the Book of Revelation, it's that God will win the final battle.
My uncle went to Bob Jones, actually. He doesn't agree with their theology either.
"I do believe that He's purposely given over the governance of the Earth to Satan for the time being."
Oh, I see. So this is another instance of "if it isn't good then God is letting it happen with a purpose in mind." Other examples are the holocaust, the rape of women and children, mass murders by dictatorships around the world, and any other situation where God doesn't appear to be showing up.
Interesting!
As a Christian, you can believe whatever the hell you want, even if it's outside of scripture, especially if it defeats an argument.
'Cause there's no true Scotsman.
See my site at Gisus.org for my insights into the Book of Revelation from an astrophysical point of view. It helps explain how Jesus(G's-us) had knowledge of our universe and was able to relate to John the timetable using the Precession of the Equinoxes along with the Pole stars masked as the seven churches to show us the way on a larger scale. Please leave your comment in my guestbook!
I actually checked out Denise's site -- which I recommend to other fans of charming crackpottery. I also left a note in the guestbook -- pointing out the problems with building a theory involving 'hidden messages' in a book if your messages appear only in a stilted 17th Century translation from the Greek the book was written in.
For some strange reason, when I checked back, the entire guestbook -- all 3 messages -- was wiped clean.
Dear Harry, et al,
Let me ask you, nay, let me ask all of you who agree with the sort of argument presented in this latest post: How SHOULD an omniscient being behave?
Maybe this is a better question: How would an omniscient being stop evil, or heal a broken world?
You see, you MUST KNOW the answers to these questions or you would not be reaching conclusions based on your convictions regarding omniscience. At the very least, you seem to know that an omniscient being could not, if he existed, behave the way the Judeo-Christian God seems to behave, i.e., he doesn't do much at all. You seem to believe that if there was a God that met the criteria as allegedly adumbrated by Christian theology, then evil would be overcome in but an instant.
No?
Well, I can't wait to hear your answers.
Peace,
Bill Gnade
Bill Gnade said: "How SHOULD an omniscient being behave?
Maybe this is a better question: How would an omniscient being stop evil, or heal a broken world?
You see, you MUST KNOW the answers to these questions or you would not be reaching conclusions based on your convictions regarding omniscience."
Clever arguing indeed to shift this burden of proof. Asking atheists the very questions apologists ignore during their endless lectures on God's behavior.
You see atheists, it's ok for Christians to assign properties to their imaginary characters because God is their intellectual property. When outsiders do it, they are guilty of copyright infringement and must pay the royalties.
Harry:
Good. I just added this to my list of "Reasons I can no longer believe". Hope you won't mind if I use parts of it in future posts of my own.
Do you ever wonder if people who come in here bother to read your whole post? No. Like me, you must be convinced that they don't. So far I haven't seen any objectors get to your paragraph about God holding people accountable.
Bill Gnade:
> How SHOULD an omniscient being behave?<
I would posit that he should do SOMETHING. Anything really.
I mean you look at the Bible and God does things. Healings, earthquakes, flames of fire, wiping out armies, etc.
I propose that the God of the Bible should have to answer up to His own challenge that He issued to other gods via His prophet Isaiah: "Do something, whether good or bad, so that we will be dismayed and filled with fear." Isaiah 41:23
>At the very least, you seem to know that an omniscient being could not, if he existed, behave the way the Judeo-Christian God seems to behave<
It's not the omniscience. It's the omnibenevolence. (I think Harry boo-boo'd a bit when left that one out of his list.)
> You seem to believe that if there was a God that met the criteria as allegedly adumbrated by Christian theology, then evil would be overcome in but an instant.<
Bingo.
"Debunking" Christianity apparently requires misunderstanding and oversimplifying it.
Great job, harry.
Dear Openly Atheist,
Thank you for the compliment, but I am not at all trying to be clever. I am merely following the argument laid down by the author of the initial post. I've not shifted a thing since I've not even posited a position here, so your criticism has missed its mark.
Moreover, I've also not posited a thing here about God's nature; it is not my wont to be so ambitious. But if we are going to accept Harry's contention that God is omniscient (if God exists, of course), then we must ask how we -- who are not omniscient -- can presume to know how omniscience must behave. How, after all, do we know that the very life we see before us -- one fraught with joy and goodness, pain and evil -- is not the very evidence we should expect to find when an omniscient being intervenes to destroy evil? Why do we assume omniscience acts like an over-amped action figure, plunging into countless scenarios and rectifying wrongs before the next commercial?
Maybe it's because people have watched too much of that sort of TV programming where simple and ridiculous resolutions are provided by the screenwriters' guild. That, at least to me, may explain why so many laymen infringe upon the domain best left for theologians and philosophers, for such laymen appear to think certain intellectual problems are as easily resolvable as the issues raised in "24."
Not that I should riff on your copyright metaphor.
Peace to you,
Bill Gnade
Leopardus, good response to Bill. I agree...how should an omniscient god behave? Yes...DO SOMETHING. ANYTHING. In the Old Testament story of Elijah confronting Ahab and the Baal gods (I Kings 18), Elijah challenges the gods to prove themselves by taking action. "The god who answers by fire, let him be god," he challenges. The Baal prophets pray to him...nothing happens. Elijah mocks them. Then Elijah prays, and God answers by fire. Ta-dah! GOD HAS DONE SOMETHING.
Perhaps that is the kind of challenge that we should present, or demand, from Christians. Let the god who answers by fire be god. My prediction...God Jesus Yahweh Jehovah whatever the heck he calls himself...will be as deathly silent as Baal was to his faithful prophets. We don't really need to go to the trouble that Elijah did, though...the God of Christianity has been silent for a long, long, long time.
Bill - and any christian - your God should do something. At least he would then be consistent with himself. As it is...he has undergone a profound shift in operational methodology since the bible. Which, of course, makes you go "hmmmmmmmm....."
Leopardus, good response to Bill. I agree...how should an omniscient god behave? Yes...DO SOMETHING. ANYTHING. In the Old Testament story of Elijah confronting Ahab and the Baal gods (I Kings 18), Elijah challenges the gods to prove themselves by taking action. "The god who answers by fire, let him be god," he challenges. The Baal prophets pray to him...nothing happens. Elijah mocks them. Then Elijah prays, and God answers by fire. Ta-dah! GOD HAS DONE SOMETHING.
Perhaps that is the kind of challenge that we should present, or demand, from Christians. Let the god who answers by fire be god. My prediction...God Jesus Yahweh Jehovah whatever the heck he calls himself...will be as deathly silent as Baal was to his faithful prophets. We don't really need to go to the trouble that Elijah did, though...the God of Christianity has been silent for a long, long, long time.
Bill - and any christian - your God should do something. At least he would then be consistent with himself. As it is...he has undergone a profound shift in operational methodology since the bible. Which, of course, makes you go "hmmmmmmmm....."
Dear Leopardus,
Bingo, indeed.
Not knowing you at all, I am nonetheless inclined to believe that you would not consider yourself omniscient. With that said, I wonder then how you know that if an omniscient being was to attempt to eradicate evil and suffering from the world in which we find ourselves, such a being would not be doing EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE SEEING happen right now? How do you know that God is not destroying evil the ONLY way it can be destroyed, i.e., as we see human history unfolding?
Perhaps what I am asking is whether some of us might conclude that the presumption of omniscience throughout Harry's post and the ensuing comments thread is not a bit naïve and childish.
So, how MUST an omniscient being behave? (For a more complete analysis of this, please see my series here -- but only if you are so inclined and have the requisite curiosity and motivation. It may not answer a thing, but I promise it will entertain you.)
And if it is, as you say, the "omni-benevolence," then I ask you the same question with only slightly different terms: Since you are not omni-benevolent, please tell us how an omni-benevolent MUST act to bring about justice -- and the eradiction of evil and suffering -- in the world in which we live?
Blessings!
Bill Gnade
Dear Brother Crow,
How are you? I missed our conversation -- too brief -- that began elsewhere on this site several days ago. I am glad you are here.
I think that if you took a few more minutes to think through Leopardus' response to me, you would conclude that it was the exact opposite of what you just said it was.
I could be wrong about that, though.
Let me ask the question of you: If God is omniscient and omni-benevolent, and you are neither, how do you know that God is not destroying evil the ONLY WAY IT CAN BE DESTROYED, namely, the way things are unfolding right before our eyes? How do you know that some other way represents the actions of an omniscient being?
Peace to you,
Bill Gnade
Dear Leopardus,
Oops!
I note that my last sentence in my reply to you should actually read like this, now that I've inserted the omitted word:
"Since you are not omni-benevolent, please tell us how an omni-benevolent being MUST act to bring about justice -- and the eradiction of evil and suffering -- in the world in which we live?"
I apologize for any confusion my oversight may have caused you and other readers here.
Peace, always.
Bill Gnade
Hmmm... I will have to agree with bill here: there's no way of knowing how an omniscient being should behave. But that means that making claims about His goodness, or mercy, or jealousy, or whatever, is meaningless. Because who knows what "good" means to an omniscient being?
In my humble opinion, anytime you preface an adjective with "omni", you're likely to run into problems, unless you are talking about a toy domain such as mathematics. And if you insist on bashing logic-breakers such as "omniscience" and "omnipotence" against each other, it's not kosher to try to logick any real-world consequences from the rubble.
Bill Gnade said: …I've not even posited a position here…
and …I've also not posited a thing here about God's nature…
Of course you haven’t, because you would be hoisted by your own petard, falling victim to the same accusation you level against Harry: stuck defending the CHRISTIAN’S "contention that God is omniscient." Best not to claim anything at all, eh? You must come from the Metacrock school of theology.
Bill Gnade said: we -- who are not omniscient
Whoa, whoa, WHOA! It looks like we DO have a positive claim from Bill Gnade: Bill claims we are not omniscient. How does Bill know this? Can Bill show what omniscient beings MUST know in order to be omniscient or not? How can Bill know that omniscient beings do not appear EXACTLY as we are and know EXACTLY what we know? How long can Bill keep up an apologetic without making any positive claims? Stay tuned!
Dear Openly Atheist,
It is a pleasure to read your rejoinders to my comments.
Indeed -- you've caught me. Alas, I guess I have -- now -- posited a position, namely I've offered something in negation (and not a positive, as you declare). But a closer reading of my comment would have revealed that I have not posited a position here regarding God, which is the topic at hand. You seem overly interested in the one assertion I've made about my own inadequacies -- that I* am not omniscient -- which is, as you can guess, not what we are discussing.
What we are discussing is whether we can conclude that we even remotely understand what we mean by omniscience; and how omniscience MUST respond to evil. The discussion is really rather basic; I don't think it's too hard to follow. Maybe I am missing the theme of the thread completely.
Hmm, the "Metacrock School of Theology." I believe I've only heard of it from you.
Here's a positive statement I will defend, just to show you that I will make such statements: Harry's essay is -- in part -- about God's qualities. And here's a negative statement I will defend with alacrity: This discussion is not about me -- or you.
And here's another simple proposition that is paradoxically complex: God is.
Metacrockisms, no doubt.
*I presume no one else here is omniscient either, though I am open to being wrong about that.
Peace and mirth,
Bill Gnade
Actually, we all know exactly what an omniscient being would have to know in order to be omniscient. Everything. By definition. Omniscience is defined in terms of what you know and what you don't know.
Zilch!
Great points all!
But is it really meaningless to talk about God's qualities if we concede that we don't understand how omniscience must behave? You might be right. I will think about this for a minute.
OK. Minute's over (actually, several minutes have passed). I am still unsure.
If I don't know what it feels like to be a woman, can I still talk about how a woman feels? If I don't know what it is like to be black-skinned, can I understand racial discrimination? If I have not been paralyzed, can I at all talk about overcoming physical difficulties? A young son does not know what it's like to lose his father to cancer, or even how to be a man; but can't he talk about all of this with his father who has intimate knowledge of both the death of a parent and the requirements of manhood?
Maybe my questions are absurd. Maybe I should ask: If I have never been a football (U.S.) running back in the NFL, does it follow that I can't speak about a running back's intentions, or that he has feet, or that he has a helmet, or that he is not playing the game alone. (I'm sorry. Seriously. I am at a loss here trying to find a decent example/analogy, but I sure FEEL like there is one out there.)
I can't know the answer to any of these questions with much confidence, particularly if what you said is true. But the point I've tried to make here is that we are wrong to presume to know HOW an omniscient being MUST overcome evil. I think it is OK to presume that God IS omniscient, good, kind and just. I just think it a wrong presumption to insist that MY way of being good, kind and just transcends God's (if God exists); in other words, that I know how God would act if there was indeed such a Being. So I wonder if we can still talk about God's qualities, but only if we do so from a position of honest self-awareness, i.e., humility?
What do you think? Do you think that because we can't understand something, at least fully, our language about it is meaningless and our efforts futile?
(Have I committed a fallacy here? My gut says "Yes" and my tired brain says that I am too baked to know.)
Peace to you,
Bill Gnade
Dear Matt Talamini,
Fair enough. Omniscience is as you say -- the knowledge of everything. That this is a bit tautologous is obvious, but it does not discredit what you are trying to do. Now, where does this lead us? Well, let's expand the definition further; let us say that it also includes that whoever possesses omniscience knows ALL the best and right answers, and KNOWS HOW to act on those answers: an omniscient being can deliver, knowing how.
OK. But the question is this: How would we know that the best way to destroy pain, suffering, evil and death is NOT the way we see life unfolding right before our eyes? This is not a trick question. It is a great question to explore, full of intellectual and philosophical interest. How do we know that a sagacious God would not destroy evil the way He is destroying it right now -- through Tiger Woods' incredible success and my incredible failures; through the births and deaths of each of us; through the gifts and injuries of all people; through the history which is our ancestors', ours, and our progeny's? What if we could look at omniscience and we could see that ANY OTHER way of dealing with life's injustices than what we see right now would result in failure -- and more death, sorrow, tragedy and disaster than the mind could ever comprehend?
Peace to you,
Bill Gnade
Bill Gnade said: “But a closer reading of my comment would have revealed that I have not posited a position here regarding God, which is the topic at hand.”
This is rich, a Christian, who by his own admission has “not even posited a position here,” presuming to lecture on “the topic at hand.” A CLOSER READING of my last comment would have revealed that I have already acknowledged that you have “not even posited a position here,” that was my point in fact, and I explored why: (Bill Gnade is skirting the Christian burden of proof re: omniscience), thus revealing that the only person avoiding the topic at hand is you, Bill, by not taking any position by your own admission.
You have posted plenty of negative questions: “How would we know that the best way to destroy pain, suffering, evil and death is NOT the way we see life unfolding right before our eyes?”, etc., etc., as if the atheists here must account for the attributes they assign to your God, but you need not account for why you reject their opinions. Nor have you interacted with your own negative questions by proposing a positive theory or position that prevents others from taking whatever stance they find logical. Upon what grounds do you take umbrage with what anyone has to say about the behavior of an omniscient God? You are man without a position, prohibited from interacting with your own indictments through your self-imposed double standard.
Dear Openly Atheist,
I have been here about a week now, and I would say that yours are the first comments I've read that can be described as acrimonious. Sorry you feel the way you do; sorry, too, that I should be the object of your scorn. I mean no harm.
Moreover, every comment of yours thus far can be described as avoiding the topic. You have not been one whit germane; you are picking a fight and not looking at the cogency of the argument originally presented. Or so it seems.
Why don't you tell us what the issue is here, now that you claim I am disqualified by my failure as a Christian to offer any position? Please, lay out the groundworks; why don't you set the criteria for what is a just, prudent and wise debate. I promise to follow. But I assure you, I will not follow if you cannot show us what is "on topic."
The only thing I've asked anyone to do is to answer the question I posed. So far, only one person really has done that; he concedes the point to me. I've thanked him for that.
It is curious that you should have written:
"Nor have you interacted with your own negative questions by proposing a positive theory or position that prevents others from taking whatever stance they find logical."
It's curious because I do not know what your statement can possibly mean. What does "whatever stand they find logical" mean? Are you suggesting that each person's logical stance is subjective, held by whim and fancy? Well, if that is the case, then surely you will allow me to write whatever I want to here; I should think you will permit me to hold -- and withhold -- whatever I choose, as it is my prerogative, my CHOICE, to take whatever "logical" stance I find meaningful.
With that said, that you should then ask me "on what grounds" I judge others' positions is mis-directed. I have merely asked questions by strictly following the logic posited here by others. You should ask them "on what grounds" they have presented their cases; ask Harry the bases for his original post and how such bases are justified. But then again maybe you shouldn't, since you have already answered that question: we all take whatever logical stance we wish for whatever reasons we wish.
Lastly, I have taken a position, despite your assertions to the contrary: The idea of omniscience presented in the original essay is naïve and childish. Surely you see the naïveté irrespective of what I have either said or asked, no? In fact, I think that if you just spend some more time with the material on your own, you will hear yourself ask the same, or nearly the same, questions I've asked here. I am sure your doubts will be quite similar, too.
But I am only guessing.
Peace to you, and much goodness,
Bill Gnade
bill- sorry it took me so long to get to this, but meatandpotatospace must sometimes take precedence over cyberspace.
I appreciate your careful attention. More of that in the world, and we'd all be better off. Thanks.
Suppose there is a God, and She is omniscient and omnipotent. As far as I can see, we immediately run into problems of logic, such as: if God sees the future, can She make decisions at all? Can She make 2+2=5? Can She make a stone so large even She can't move it? But let's suppose these problems solved somehow, and move on.
One problem I've never heard a convincing answer to is that of free will. What can free will mean, if God, being omniscient, already knows what we will decide to do, and being omnipotent, made us in such a way that we will decide as we do? Then our perception that we have a choice is an illusion, and free will does not exist.
The problem of good is related: even supposing that there is an objective knowable good, what does it mean to say that we choose good or evil, when God knew our choices in the beginning and made us in such a way that we would make precisely those choices? I don't see how omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence (in whatever sense of "good" one chooses) are commensurate.
But let's forget these conundra, and just think about the problem of knowing what "good" means to God.
As I've already mentioned to John, I was initially skeptical that the problem of evil could be an effective debunking device. The reason for my doubt was that I have often heard Christians say that what we consider good is not binding on God: if God considers it good to make our worldly existence a means to separate the sheep from the goats and nothing more, then that's God's perogative. And as far as I can see, there's no answer to that: if the most horrendous suffering by innocents is part of God's plan, and God's plan is by definition "good", then who are we to gainsay it?
Of course, the reason the problem of evil is still a problem for many Christians, is that they, like everyone else, are not insensitive to pain and suffering in this worldly plane, and if the only way they can accept it is by throwing out any resemblance between what we humble humans consider "good" and what God considers "good", that's a high price to pay to salvage belief in an omnipotent and omniscient God.
Of course, one can choose a middle road, as I suspect you do- what God does is not always, but is often, comprehensible, in the same way that we can imagine ourselves, if only inadequately, in the position of someone not like us but not totally unknown. In that case, there might be quite a lot of overlap in what we consider good and what we may or may not ever understand: what is good to God. At least, that's the position I would probably take, if I were to believe in God.
cheers from rainy Vienna, zilch
Bill Gnade, I put on my mining cap and sifted through those lengthy posts and it looks like you're gaining some ideas despite the fog of apologetics you're seeing through.
Bill said…
The only thing I've asked anyone to do is to answer the question I posed. So far, only one person really has done that; he concedes the point to me. I've thanked him for that.
I searched for the word "thank" and don’t see it addressed from you to anyone else here but me. Zilch said, "But that means that making claims about His goodness, or mercy, or jealousy, or whatever, is meaningless." I agree with that, but you didn’t seem to agree, which means it must not be a concession, since that's not your position. Matt Talamini gave you a definition that you picked up and ran with. I'm betting that it is your response to Leopardus where you said "bingo," but I don’t see a concession from him. But this is neither here nor there to me, back to you.
I implied…
"…that prevents others from taking whatever stance they find logical."
Which inspired Bill to say:
Well, if that is the case, then surely you will allow me to write whatever I want to here; I should think you will permit me to hold -- and withhold -- whatever I choose, as it is my prerogative, my CHOICE, to take whatever "logical" stance I find meaningful.
Why YES Bill, if only you had thought of that idea on your own instead of stealing it from me and trying to use it as a weapon against me, we would not be having this conversation. I would never begrudge someone who recognizes that their opinion is just as whimsical as the next man's. Perhaps I mistook you for someone who thinks his opinions more valid than others. I might have thought that because you used words like naïve and childish to refer to them.
Bill said…
Lastly, I have taken a position, despite your assertions to the contrary: The idea of omniscience presented in the original essay is naïve and childish.
I was excited there for a second. Clearly you went to a lot of trouble to dig up that sentence, despite all YOUR insistence that you don’t have a position ("…I've not even posited a position here, so your criticism has missed its mark." Forget that rejoinder?), but then you failed once again to explain to the readers what is the non-naïve and non-childish idea of omniscience, and how you would know anyway. So far, here and on your blog, your idea of omniscience consists almost entirely of imagining scenarios in which Christians can have their cake and eat it too; "How do you know that God is not destroying evil the ONLY way it can be destroyed?", etc. Very whimsical, I think.
Bill asked directly:
Surely you see the naïveté irrespective of what I have either said or asked, no?
As a matter of fact Bill, I HAVE lectured many an atheist on the naïveté of playing pretend by assigning qualities to imaginary beings. That's the Christian Game, and Christians don't like it when we don't play by Christian rules. I’ve said so on this very blog, explaining how quick apologists are to pounce get when they see the opening left in an argument as an atheist begins to subscribe to the Christian's patented concepts. It's a favorite subject.
Bill: I wonder then how you know that if an omniscient being was to attempt to eradicate evil and suffering from the world in which we find ourselves, such a being would not be doing EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE SEEING happen right now? How do you know that God is not destroying evil the ONLY way it can be destroyed, i.e., as we see human history unfolding?
This doesn't carry the discussion anywhere. Maybe an omniscient being working to eradicate evil would produce a world totally different from this one.
OR
Maybe we can extrapolate from our limited perspective to what in omniscient perspective would produce.
Since we are both limited, we can't be sure if any of the guesses above are right, wrong, or whacko.
So let us leave off impossible guess work.
Since you are not omni-benevolent, please tell us how an omni-benevolent being MUST act to bring about justice -- and the eradiction of evil and suffering -- in the world in which we live?
Same problem here right?
So we'll need to take a different tack. Since we are talking about the Christian (and Jewish) God of the Bible, let's go to the Bible to see what we are expected to be able to know about God.
And we find there..... nothing we can hang on to.
God is said to be "good", "just", "merciful", "loving" and so on. But when we attempt to apply any understanding to those terms, we get hopeless contradictions or nonsense.
For example: We all have some definitions of "good". We can go to a dictionary if need be. And we can fairly easily distinguish good actions from evil ones in some cases (not all of course). Now apply those definitions and distinctions to God. I'll just use one example.
Joe sees a thug beating the crud out of an old woman and preparing to rape her granddaughter. Now let's say Joe is armed, strong, and a world class fighter. If Joe jumps in and beats the thug up, and takes the woman and girl to a hospital, Joe's a good man. (We'll add that Joe is also a nice guy, loving father, good friend, hard worker, etc as well.) If Joe does nothing, not even call 911, Joe has done evil.
So why should we give God a free pass on that sort of thing? He can certainly stop that thug. But God does nothing.
You want to say that God has some greater plan that makes it necessary for Him to sit by? Whoa! I thought He wasn't limited? Poor God. Blocked out by His own plan. Sounds like it's time to go back to the planning board.
To return to Harry's original post: at the Great White Throne Judgment and be asked to “give an account” of why you, as a mortally limited and sinful human, screwed up
The immortal, all-powerful one gets a pass no matter what. No matter how big the SNAFU, He's off the hook. And we mortal, weak, limited ones get blamed for every little screw up.
Final note: The POE (problem of evil) isn't the only reason I don't believe any longer. It's not even the main one. But once I admitted that I was just making up excuses for an imaginary friend, the POE, and the other issues vanished.
It's wonderful not to have to make excuses for the inexcusable anymore.
Yikes!! That got long! Mea culpa. Sorry all.
Dear Zilch,
Once again, I thank you for your kind reply to me. It is good to make friends this way; it is good be challenged by someone who offers comments with such grace. Thank you.
And if I failed to thank you earlier, well, let me thank you now. For it was nice of you to agree with me in my one simple point in this thread. That there is a limit to what you've agreed to is immediately evident; however, making ANY concessions in these sorts of discussions is nearly impossible for most participants.
You raise some fairly common logical questions about the potency of God; most answers whirl around the idea that such questions are inherently problematic, calling for God to perform impossible tricks. 2+2 can't equal 5, simply because the terms don't allow it. A square circle, a rock too heavy to lift, a married bachelor, are all a priori dismissed because they contradict the very terms we hold dear. An omni-competent God is sagacious and shrewd enough to know that a square circle is impossible; the terms are not on the same par as a formerly dead person revived.
I have explored the whole problem of evil at my own website in a series that begins here. I promise: I am a serious Christian who looks right into the heart of evil every day, and I make no exception when I explore it in my essays. I also promise that my exploration is different and that it will entertain readers; I make no claims it is at all convincing. My sole claim is that it is mine; as such, I can only take the blame for it. Truly, I covet your analysis of what I attempted to do.
Perhaps I will explore the idea of free will with you some other time. Suffice it to say that I am content believing that foreknowledge is not synonymous with predestination. That this is a sticky wicket is undeniable. But I rest (fitfully) in some form of the idea that God is so competent He has the capacity to see the end of something without having to predetermine it. But, as I said, that topic's for another time, I guess.
All I can say to you with any sort of certitude is this: For me, the problem of evil is solved.
Peace to you, always.
Bill Gnade
Dear Leopardus,
Greetings, you lithe, swift, and sly spotted cat! I have neither tooth nor claw to defend myself; I pray my bald spot affords me some protection!
You wrote:
This doesn't carry the discussion anywhere. Maybe an omniscient being working to eradicate evil would produce a world totally different from this one.
Permit me to agree with you. Permit me to disagree with you. For you see, my question SHOULD stop the conversation. For if we concede that God is indeed omniscient and that we have no idea what that must look like, then we cannot fault Him for not intervening. Hence, the entire argument as traditionally presented from the problem of evil topples to its death. It is rendered impotent at best, and meaningless at worst. If we cannot descry what it means for a being to be omniscient; and if we cannot divine how an omniscient being solves the problems of suffering and evil, then we cannot conclude -- because evil and suffering exist -- that, A) God is not all powerful; B) God is not all good; C) God is neither good nor all-potent; or D) that God does not exist. These conclusions must be abandoned. So, in one sense, you are right: my statements end the conversation -- we've been led nowhere.
But I also disagree with you, because it does lead the discussion somewhere. For a more comprehensive look at what I mean, I invite you to explore my series on the problem of evil here. It is, or so I believe, different and entertaining. It is not the traditional argument you think you've read before. I think the series also answers the problem of the thug (if it doesn't, then let me know). It may not SOLVE anything for you, but I would love to hear what you think. (I also have a very interesting essay on the problem of Christian violence/pacifism, but we'll get to that only if necessary.)
Of course, there is ample proof that I am often wrong, so I do not hold too tenaciously to my own claims.
As for your claim that God is "off the hook" no matter what, my series on the problem of evil completely contradicts that idea. God is not off the hook at all (which is a perfectly apt image, by the way).
Peace to you, dear sir.
Bill Gnade
Dear Openly Atheist,
I pray this note finds you well. And thanks for engaging me. I appreciate your persistence.
But I do not know how to reply to you. Forgive me. I will try to respond, but I grope about for some sort of understanding.
Let's see. Do you think that what you said about "others ... taking whatever stance they find logical" is unique to you or unfamiliar to me? Egads. I hardly used a new thought as a new trick. It is a very old trick, as old as discourse itself.
As for my thanking Zilch, I believe that he and I have made our peace in a separate thread here; "thanks" may not have been explicitly said, but if he does not know my gratitude, then I fail as a writer. But I have now thanked him. You can search if you'd like.
You are right about one thing: I did use your own statement as a weapon against you. And I will continue to. For you keep asking me for something "positive," which really stumps me. That you are dissatisfied with my claims that the idea presented here based on omniscience is naïve is not only evident but expected. But surely you see that I do not have to justify how or why it is naïve. For you've given me permission to be subjective and utterly whimsical: What is logical to me is not necessarily logical to you; and what is illogical to me, well, that's my prerogative and my bliss!
See the problems we run into when someone announces that all knowledge is subjective? When someone doesn't play by the expected rules, we begin to hear shouts of "Unfair!" Really? Remember, there is no meaning to the universe except what each of us chooses to create for ourselves. I am utterly consistent here. And I can choose to be as logical or illogical as I wish.
Yes, Matt Talamini did provide a definition of omniscience for us, and my response to him was kind and accurate. For the definition he offered is tautologous; it does not REALLY say much and hence is mostly unhelpful.
But I don't have as dire a view of my performance as you have of that performance. I think I don't need to explore God's omniscience precisely because I've already accepted the problem: I don't know how omniscience MUST behave in gaming scenarios, even if the game is philosophy. I have surely noted that we might be able to tell how omniscience is behaving, assuming there is a God. Let me put it this way: If there is a God and He is omniscient, then the ONLY way omniscience can overcome evil in this world (affirming that the final resolution must be the best possible outcome), is the way we see history unfolding right now.
Contrary to what you say, OA, I am being quite transparent here; I am taking a position. My earlier claims at not positing one were indeed true, though they are not true any longer. At best, my earlier statements merely suggested a position; and even what I've posited here is not all I have to say on the matter at hand.
My comments to Zilch and Leopardus which immediately precede this comment to you certainly add to the picture of what I stand for.
Again, I am not applying imaginary qualities to an imaginary being. The being may be imaginary, but sapience or wisdom is not. Possessing all-wisdom is just an amplification of what we ourselves experience in our own heads -- we have wisdom; but taking our existence and placing it outside of time and space is a different sort of intellectual stretch. So, I don't agree that Christianity is all about pasting make believe qualities onto some strange amalgam of desires we call God: the amalgam may be strange but (most of) the qualities are not.
If you'd like to see where I consider my epistemological starting point, then I invite you to read my "Letter to Christopher Hitchens." You will see that I am not afraid to travel where logic takes me -- or cannot take me.
Look, my dear Openly Atheist, I am openly Christian. But if you are going to claim that there is no god, no purpose to life, no absolutes, no meaning apart from what each of us creates; no meta-purpose or religiously-equivalent unity, then please note that I WILL play by those rules. And I promise to bring my A-game wherever I go; I hope you will bring your A-game along, too.
Peace to you,
Bill Gnade
Leopardus!
I apologize for the faulty link. Too hasty. Forgive me, please.
If interested, try this series.
Sincerely and embarrassedly,
Bill Gnade
According to God’s own word the Bible (especially the Book of Revelation) God, with all the above supreme attributes, is losing a battle He created and even sacrificed His only begotten son to win.
You, as a Christian, will one day stand before your God at the Great White Throne Judgment and be asked to “give an account” of why you, as a mortally limited and sinful human, screwed up. From there, most of your members will be given total blame for the lost of creation and along with unforgiven sinners you will be casted into The Lake of Fire to be burned and tormented forever.
As Lord of Lords and King of Kings, God has the absolute perogative to punish us as He sees fit.
His enemies will burn forever in Hell; He will not. That pretty much debunks the idea that God will lose.
bill gnade, you seem to be what I would call a "New Age Christian" that is, I find little (or better said), no use of Biblical Theology in your writings. In fact, you seem to have more in common with the Theosophy Society than with Orthodox Christianity. I began to realize this in your comment to my post of Rev. Green and Bultmann (see my answer to your criticism).
Now at your website you state:
“God loved the Jews in the gas chambers as much as he loved Hitler outside them; God loves the victimizer as much as any victim. It is almost too difficult to even write, let alone admit into one's reflections on these matters. But it must be true. God cannot HATE what we might hate; His wisdom must not be void of love or justice, nor can His love and justice be void of wisdom. God loved Hitler, and all other disgusting tyrants, as much as He loves any of us."
Bill, this is a good excuse for God doing nothing and using this negative reasoning to assume there is indeed a god of love. I could claim the same about the "Man in the Moon" who is there and we can see him only with the eyes of faith. He will reveal his love to those who only have a positive attitude of faith.
The fact is that while I was a student at Columbia Theological Seminar the school’s library bottom floor housed volumes by Jews and Christians on the injustice of the Holocaust. After WWII many Jew either outwardly rejected their faith (as God’s chosen people) or went in the more liberal branches of Judaism such as Reconstructist Jews. In fact your statement “His wisdom must not be void of love or justice…” is a strong denial of the history of the orthodox Christian tradition. The very fact of my closing statement in this post (that got a rise out of Michael Ejercito…Amen Brother?!) shows that the God of Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) known for his famous sermon “Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God” is alive and well.
You want a god cut off from a past and devoid of the hate in the Hebrew Bible and its Yahweh, Church Councils, the Crusades, the Inquisitions, and the Witch Tails (where thousands of helpless old women in Europe were tortured, hung, impaled or brunt alive at the stake). As the late Malcolm Muggerich stated: “The pious religious mind wants a God devoid of an anus.” But your God of love does have a past and an anus which still smells of his so-called “Mighty Acts”.
In the end (and from what I have read in your comments and at your website) Bill Gnade himself would make a hell-of-a better god that the one under current discussion!
And Bill, one things for sure, if you were the god you seem to believe exists (as hinted to on your posts) I would still be a Christian and probably one of the most famous evangelist which ever lived! But that’s not the God of historical and doctrinal reality is it?
Harry said...Bill Gnade himself would make a hell-of-a better god that the one under current discussion! But that’s not the God of historical and doctrinal reality is it?
Right on Harry. Bill's God is not derived from the Bible and yet he claims to be a Christian. How is that really possible? It's like stealing the best out of the Bible and rejecting the rest. It's picking and choosing. He has a canon within the canon just like Thomas Jefferson did with his Bible, and just like him, Bill is the authority on which parts are truly about God and which parts aren't.
He can call himself a Christian if he likes, but then I might as well do the same, since anyone can use any label they want to and define it idiosyncratically.
Sorry Bill, but what exactly do you base your beliefs on? Are you a deist, or a mysticist? They have their separate, different problems, you know.
Dear Harry McCall,
I could not be a New Age Christian, Harry, because I did not pass "Crystals and Christologies" and "Thaddeus: How the Coolest of Names Defined The Christ's Hippest Disciple" when I was at the Gaia Institute. I did, however, earn the highest marks in "Walking On Water: The Christ's Metaphors For Getting High."
All silliness aside, I consider myself thoroughly orthodox. There is nothing in the great creeds with which I disagree; I hold fast to most of the teachings of the Church Triumphant; and I take Holy Writ seriously.
The reason I do not cite Scripture throughout most of my writings is simply because there is nothing that demands that I do. I will cite Scripture only when necessary. Besides, I write the way I do to interest people; I seek to entertain. A bunch of citations can hardly help, being so many distractions and digressions. I am called, or so I believe, to "reason" together with my friends, fellow seekers and sojourners; and if they do not share my enjoyment of the holy text, then I will not impose it upon them. And -- while here at DC -- I try to take my cues from my hosts. If Scripture does not work for you, then I will not act like it does, or that it even could.
In short, there is nothing odd about me. If you were to peruse all the comments I've made in the past week or so at DC, you could easily put together what it is I believe, at least the basis of what I believe.
REGARDING MY SERIES ON TPOE
I appreciate very much that you have posted here a passage from my series of essays, "On Knowing Good And Evil." However, I don't appreciate that you would choose but a single fragment, and that from the first part of a FOUR-part series. That you would then suggest to everyone here that I even remotely imply God is off-the-hook (or that I've neglected to note that I've somehow absolved Him), shows that you are not a serious and fair interlocutor. For not only do I show exactly the opposite of what you've suggested, I point out how blind most thinkers are to the Problem of Evil issue as a whole. My series confronts head-on the issue of God's involvement (or lack thereof) in the world's affairs, and is unflinching in its look at the issue of evil, suffering, death and the presence of God in the midst of it. And, I believe, wrongly perhaps, I have solved the POE.
Yes, I am well aware that all kinds of folks, Jewish or otherwise, have understood the Holocaust in a myriad of ways. Had you carefully read through my series, you would have noted that I am not exploring that issue as an end; had you read my series, you would have noted that I attempt to look at the POE in a way I am convinced was not available to you while you were at Columbia.
John W. Loftus, in this link, directs us to a review of Bart Ehrman's new book, God's Problem: How The Bible Fails To Answer Our Most Important Question -- Why We Suffer. I am bold and conceited enough to say that, had Mr. Ehrman read my series, he could not have possibly written the book he did. I am not saying that he needs to accept my answer; I am merely saying that had he read my answer to the problem of evil, he could not have asserted the kinds of things reported in the related review of his book.
Thus, I am befuddled and disappointed by your apparent disinterest in what I have written. I do not believe I have shown that sort of discourtesy here. If I have, please let me know so I may issue an apology.
Harry, you wrote:
In fact your statement “His wisdom must not be void of love or justice…” is a strong denial of the history of the orthodox Christian tradition.
I do not for the life of me see how you can suggest my statement stands outside of Christian orthodoxy. The statement is so blatantly and thoroughly orthodox, I can only conclude that either you've misunderstood my statement or you do not know Christian orthodoxy.
As for God having an anus -- indeed, 'tis true. One can imagine that the bread of the Last Supper passed through His anus while He hung naked on the cross; the bread of the new covenant, the bread of life and heaven. I've shown quite clearly that God takes the blame for evil; I show that even if He is the source of evil we are not therefore absolved; and I show a whole lot more than that, too. God naked, indeed!
And I further show what is, in the end, perhaps the most difficult part of the mystery of the Incarnation, which is the flip-side of God's forgiveness: We need to forgive God.
But I admit that what I've just said is too divergent for those of you who, when judging my arguments, do so from a sudden position of Christian orthodoxy.
Forgive my forcefulness, Mr. McCall. I am passionate about what I believe. I admit this unashamedly. Nor do I shirk away from all that I've said throughout this thread: If people here begin with the idea that God is omniscient, then they instantly destroy the problem of evil (this may be an overstatement, but I will stick with it for now). If people can't see this or refuse to admit it, that is neither my fault nor is it my responsibility. And I do not need to quote Scripture to prove it.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to state my position. I appreciate immensely that you have created a forum for all kinds of thinkers, believers, and doubters.
In all sincerity I hope for you the best of lives,
Bill Gnade
An Old-Age Christian
Dear John W. Loftus,
Since last night you suggested that I should -- or could -- move on from the debates at hand because my presuppositions are so different, I have not responded to the issue that you shared with me in the comments thread in the DC Challenge, Part 2. I have taken to heart what you said, and you are probably right. My starting points are different; as such, they do not fall under the main lines of your attack on Christianity.
But I have repeatedly tried to share with you and others here where I believe my starting point, ultimately, resides. No doubt it is rooted in faith; faith is the inevitable fact of human experience. But my starting point and all that follows from it, find their source in my will: my beliefs find their source in my desires. In this I am a good atheist: my source is what I will. Surely that is the case with you, too.
Beliefs and desires are inseparable, don't you agree? What do you want? Do you want what contradicts your beliefs? No?
Neither do I.
Peace to you, dear sir.
Bill Gnade
Bill,
I did look at your POE posts. As I said before though, the POE is not a really big deal for me, though I know it is for many folks. When I was a Christian, I did do quite a lot of reading about the POE and I tried trotting out the apologetics at times when discoursing with people. But in the end I came down to the simple, “Evil exists. I don’t know why. Deal with it.”
Given how much time I’ve spent with my nose in apologetics, exegesis, theophilosophy, and other such stuff, it won’t come as a surprise that your series didn’t really bring anything new to my eyes. It’s written well enough though. (Actually the fly bit was kind of new in that I’ve never seen anyone use horseflies for that sort of analogy.)
In the end though, your approach is presuppositional. Not that you are to be heavily faulted for that. Almost everyone has presuppositions in their argumentation. (America is the greatest; God exists; Satan doesn’t exist; rugby is tougher than football; broccoli is yucky; etc.) What is truly difficult is to get away from those presuppositions, or to take on totally different ones, in order to think about an issue. If you can do it though, whole new vistas open up.
BUT, it’s dangerous and scary. There’s always a chance that you won’t come back. That’s how Protestants become Catholics: how liberals become conservatives: how steak lovers become vegetarians: and of course vice-versa to any of those.
On the one hand I encourage people to try to get completely out of their presuppositions. This can declutter your thinking and may enable you to truly understand other points of view. On the other hand I don’t encourage this because you just may never come back. This can be scary. I know, it was scary, and I didn’t come back.
But the take home here is that you are stuck in a presupposition. To wit: God has to exist and has to be good. As long as you cannot allow yourself to step away from that, your apologetic cannot help but be circular.
Since I alluded to it earlier, I'll state very tersely what convinced me that there isn't a God (at least nothing remotely like the one imagined by Christians, Muslims, or Jews).
Simply put it is the total absence of God. [I can now label that the TAG problem :) ] By this I mean that you can't detect God by any means. Not by the senses; not by prayer; not by observing those who believe in God. To believe one must believe first (or at the least be considering believing), then one can look for evidence that fits the presupposition of belief.
Minus the presupposition though, one has to deal with the lack of evidence, and the counter evidence.
That's too short but maybe you can a little glimpse into my meaning.
Post a Comment