are angels really just... miserable?
To MadameLavender.
Perfection isn't perfection if there is an until. At least, not in the specific case of a perfect creation. How can there be imperfection in perfection, by definition? If Eve made the imperfect choice then the responsibility must lie with her creator.
Similarly the incoherent excuse of Satan or the serpent, whether or not they are the same creature. They are all integral part of his creation. Logically you cannot have the concept of a sole perfect creator and a created imperfection.
To Viddax.
A perfect being deliberately creating imperfection is an interesting one. But I find it hard to come up with any scenario in which that would make any sense.
The ones that you suggest are imaginative but scarcely convincing.
How can an imperfect thing be perfect? It is inherently contradictory. Perfect imperfection or imperfect perfection is an oxymoron.
How can a perfect being become depressed (apart from the depressing assumption of anthropomorphism)?
Would we not regard the ‘mad scientist’ who created a race of sentient beings to help with his depressive loneliness, and then proceeded to torture them for his diversion as anything, but immoral? Certainly not omnibenevolent.
If God has nothing at his level, how does creating a layer of beings far below him, even below the putative angels, help?
As God is eternal and therefore exists in infinite time how can any diversion ultimately help his depression?
How does he deal with the ennui when his diversion, with all its innate suffering and horror, stops with the Final Judgement?
How could Satan have been an interesting development to an omniscient being? How could the benefits of imperfection be interest, when God knows exactly what is going to happen beforehand?
Perfection isn't perfection if there is an until. At least, not in the specific case of a perfect creation. How can there be imperfection in perfection, by definition? If Eve made the imperfect choice then the responsibility must lie with her creator.
Similarly the incoherent excuse of Satan or the serpent, whether or not they are the same creature. They are all integral part of his creation. Logically you cannot have the concept of a sole perfect creator and a created imperfection.
To Viddax.
A perfect being deliberately creating imperfection is an interesting one. But I find it hard to come up with any scenario in which that would make any sense.
The ones that you suggest are imaginative but scarcely convincing.
How can an imperfect thing be perfect? It is inherently contradictory. Perfect imperfection or imperfect perfection is an oxymoron.
How can a perfect being become depressed (apart from the depressing assumption of anthropomorphism)?
Would we not regard the ‘mad scientist’ who created a race of sentient beings to help with his depressive loneliness, and then proceeded to torture them for his diversion as anything, but immoral? Certainly not omnibenevolent.
If God has nothing at his level, how does creating a layer of beings far below him, even below the putative angels, help?
As God is eternal and therefore exists in infinite time how can any diversion ultimately help his depression?
How does he deal with the ennui when his diversion, with all its innate suffering and horror, stops with the Final Judgement?
How could Satan have been an interesting development to an omniscient being? How could the benefits of imperfection be interest, when God knows exactly what is going to happen beforehand?
Anonymous
<< post removed >>
For the benefit of Harpalycus.
1. Imperfection from a perfect being: indulges some egomania by providing a lesser thing to lord over.
2. Perfection in imperfection: consider a statue that is not purely anatomically correct and has one arm slightly shorter than the other and provides an aesthetic quality in its imperfection. As opposed to a perfect thing that seems to be fake and been haunted by the sense of trying to hard, the ease of imperfection.
Perfection through imperfection not necessarily an oxymoron: perfection as in the right amount of character and features and imperfection as in a set amount of negative charater or features. As in a person who has the negative feature of being sometimes troubled or unsure: thereby seeming more human than a person who claims to be faultless.
3. Depression in this case meaning 'lack of purpose', lack of purpose without something to be an opposite to. Purpose in conflict.
4. God as a 'mad scientist': God does not always torture humanity, the proposed case also neglects the idea of the 'mad scientist' not being able to alter the outcome: that the sentient race and the torture is on purpose and not because of lack of an alternative. The idea is also that there is some pleasure from the torture, rather than the torture happens 'just because' and the 'mad scientist'/God is then trying to solve the problems of torture.
5. Making lesser stuff. Seems rather obvious to me: such as how a Grand Chess Master can win a game with amateurs. God has the divine capability, and also has mortal and demi-divine capability. Like how humans are supposedly higher animals but have basic primal instincts and traits (eat, sleep, sex).
6. Divine time and distractions: surely having something to fill the endless hours is better than nothing. Goes back to number 3: the diversion gives purpose therefore negating the depression.
7. Ennui and Final Judgement: this 'game' or plan involving humans then ends and transcend to one where humans are in heaven. Possibly God then has other places to do the same thing, but still maintains some focus on humans on heaven. Party host cooking the food whilst greeting all the new guests.
8. Satan as interesting: imperfection becomes interesting because it is an 'other' and something different, the value is in its difference not in direct comparison. Possibly basis is how God knows how everything turns out but still hasn't experienced it happening, also coupled with divine patience to create a high boredom threshold.
If angels are miesrable, then are demons apologetic and embarrased? And do electric sheep dream of robots?....
1. Imperfection from a perfect being: indulges some egomania by providing a lesser thing to lord over.
2. Perfection in imperfection: consider a statue that is not purely anatomically correct and has one arm slightly shorter than the other and provides an aesthetic quality in its imperfection. As opposed to a perfect thing that seems to be fake and been haunted by the sense of trying to hard, the ease of imperfection.
Perfection through imperfection not necessarily an oxymoron: perfection as in the right amount of character and features and imperfection as in a set amount of negative charater or features. As in a person who has the negative feature of being sometimes troubled or unsure: thereby seeming more human than a person who claims to be faultless.
3. Depression in this case meaning 'lack of purpose', lack of purpose without something to be an opposite to. Purpose in conflict.
4. God as a 'mad scientist': God does not always torture humanity, the proposed case also neglects the idea of the 'mad scientist' not being able to alter the outcome: that the sentient race and the torture is on purpose and not because of lack of an alternative. The idea is also that there is some pleasure from the torture, rather than the torture happens 'just because' and the 'mad scientist'/God is then trying to solve the problems of torture.
5. Making lesser stuff. Seems rather obvious to me: such as how a Grand Chess Master can win a game with amateurs. God has the divine capability, and also has mortal and demi-divine capability. Like how humans are supposedly higher animals but have basic primal instincts and traits (eat, sleep, sex).
6. Divine time and distractions: surely having something to fill the endless hours is better than nothing. Goes back to number 3: the diversion gives purpose therefore negating the depression.
7. Ennui and Final Judgement: this 'game' or plan involving humans then ends and transcend to one where humans are in heaven. Possibly God then has other places to do the same thing, but still maintains some focus on humans on heaven. Party host cooking the food whilst greeting all the new guests.
8. Satan as interesting: imperfection becomes interesting because it is an 'other' and something different, the value is in its difference not in direct comparison. Possibly basis is how God knows how everything turns out but still hasn't experienced it happening, also coupled with divine patience to create a high boredom threshold.
If angels are miesrable, then are demons apologetic and embarrased? And do electric sheep dream of robots?....
Craic: Yes, "woman" ruined it, but "man" let her take all the blame for it, when he was just as much at fault for eating the apple. At least Eve fessed up to God and said "Yup--I screwed up, took the apple and ate it." Adam basically pointed his finger at Eve and said "God, she did it! She made me eat the apple!" instead of saying "Yup, I screwed up and ate the apple too." ....typical, though--women always take the blame for all of men's crap, on top of their own.
Harpalycus: Creation was initially "perfection", but God being fair, loving and just, also allowed for free will/free choice as to whether or not His creation(s) wanted to be on His side, worship, love him, etc. Sounds pretty giving, to me, in the sense that God didn't create everything to then say "NOW! You must all bow to me!". Instead, He said basically "Ok, here it is--the land of milk and honey. I hope you like it and want to hang out with me in the process, but if not, that's your choice; I'll still love you anyway. Doesn't mean I won't disapprove of some things you do, and won't reprimand you at times, but you're still my children."
Sort of what we as parents, do with our own children: give them everything we can, hope they love and respect us and not turn away, don't always like everything they do and have to punish them at times, but ultimately, it's their choice as to how they want to treat us as parents....just as all of humanity and creation chooses to treat God the Parent/Father.
Harpalycus: Creation was initially "perfection", but God being fair, loving and just, also allowed for free will/free choice as to whether or not His creation(s) wanted to be on His side, worship, love him, etc. Sounds pretty giving, to me, in the sense that God didn't create everything to then say "NOW! You must all bow to me!". Instead, He said basically "Ok, here it is--the land of milk and honey. I hope you like it and want to hang out with me in the process, but if not, that's your choice; I'll still love you anyway. Doesn't mean I won't disapprove of some things you do, and won't reprimand you at times, but you're still my children."
Sort of what we as parents, do with our own children: give them everything we can, hope they love and respect us and not turn away, don't always like everything they do and have to punish them at times, but ultimately, it's their choice as to how they want to treat us as parents....just as all of humanity and creation chooses to treat God the Parent/Father.
Anonymous
<< post removed >>
MadameLavender said:Craic: Yes, "woman" ruined it, but "man" let her take all the blame for it, when he was just as much at fault for eating the apple. At least Eve fessed up to God and said "Yup--I screwed up, took the apple and ate it." Adam basically pointed his finger at Eve and said "God, she did it! She made me eat the apple!" instead of saying "Yup, I screwed up and ate the apple too." ....typical, though--women always take the blame for all of men's crap, on top of their own.
...butt, didn't God see? isn't he fair? Adam was a bit of a bastard then ...no wonder there's so many crazy feminists in the world
...butt, didn't God see? isn't he fair? Adam was a bit of a bastard then ...no wonder there's so many crazy feminists in the world
Anonymous
<< post removed >>
To MadameLavender.
Free choice I have no problem with. Free will there are serious objections to its very existence. You link the two. What exactly do you mean by free will?
Assuming that free will does exist why should it be fair, loving and just to have it? What is the great good of free will? In particular what is the great good of having free will that makes it worth all the terror, pain and suffering that it has been responsible for, not just to humans but to all sentient beings in their billions, for many millions of years?
I presume that you believe in heaven. In which case does free will exist there? If so, then it is obvious that there can exist a world with free will and obedience to God. So why not this one? If not, then how can it be this great good that is worth a literal world of pain and suffering?
It can be logically shown that free will can exist in a perfect creation without the associated pain and suffering. I will demonstrate the proof if you wish.
Within a perfect (but not infinite) creation then a perfect creature with perfect (limited by the limited creation) knowledge not only can, but WILL, make the perfect i.e. correct choice. Therefore if Adam and Eve made the wrong choice they were faulty in some way and the fault is the doing of the sole creator.
It cannot be passed on to Satan, as he too, is a creation of God. If flawed then God did it deliberately to make him fall or is not a perfect creator.
It is interesting that you disapprove of God saying ‘"NOW! You must all bow to me!" Isn’t that exactly what he does? Cp Exodus 20:2-6. And the idea that he still loves us as he casts us into Hell verges on the bizarre. Surely God should be big enough to leave it up to us to love him or not and there an end. Why the demand to love him (Mt 22:36-8) when love is an emotion that cannot be given on demand and why the terrible punishment for not so doing?
Ultimately, if you regard the Abrahamic God as he is traditionally described by theology and see the Bible as the word of God then there is no escaping the damning syllogism.
God is the supreme creator.
Pain and suffering (or evil if you wish) exist in his creation.
Therefore God created evil.
To Viddax.
1. You regard egomania as a perfection???
2. This in no way explains how imperfection can be perfect.
• The example you give is that physical imperfection MAY lead to aesthetic perfection. This is not demonstrable. And is the asymmetry necessary for aesthetic perfection? It may possibly be the case, but it is most certainly not necessarily the case. Therefore a perfect sculptor could make a perfectly symmetrical form with perfect aesthetic appeal.
• You do not describe perfection. A pleasing combination of characteristics is not a perfection. At best it is a limited ‘perfect’ combination only, though how that could be measured is beyond me. And the individual may appear more human, but humans are imperfect, so this demonstrates nothing. Nothing you have said makes the concept of imperfect perfection coherent.
3. Since when did depression mean lack of purpose? And how can a perfect being lack something that is necessary? That would be an imperfection.
4. This requires a great deal of unpacking.
• ‘God does not always torture humanity’. This has the clear implication that he does sometimes. Is he responsible for the pain and suffering of mankind (and do not forget sentient creatures) or not?
• The proposed case does not require the ‘mad scientist’ not to be able to alter the outcome. How can you possibly justify that assertion?
• ‘The torture is on purpose.’ This is the case with the analogy. But if it is not on purpose, then how can it possibly be there. God is omnipotent and therefore unconstrained. God can do anything, except for logical impossibilities (and even that is debateable) and there is no way that torture can be shown to be a logical necessity. There is always an alternative open to God, or he is helpless against the force of ‘evil’. You have not considered the concept of omnipotence.
• You seem to be saying that God finds ‘pleasure in torture.’ This certainly seems to be a logical conclusion, but did you actually mean that? You have not considered the concept of omnibenevolence.
5. The utility of making ‘lesser stuff’ doesn’t seem obvious to me.
• A chess grand master could play chess with six year old children if he so wished (and that would not even begin to measure the distance between God and a human being) but would he find the chess game satisfying? Scarcely. How can God have mortal capabilities? If he has he could destroy himself. Either it is logically impossible or the concept of God is logically impossible. It would be a new twist on the old conundrum as to whether God could create a rock too heavy for himself to lift.
• I disagree entirely with the assumption that human beings are higher animals on any qualitative scale. The amoeba is as evolved. Human beings may be more complex than many, but complexity is not an obvious marker for superiority. Nor can we be regarded as ‘higher’ than dolphins or elephants, except by dint of special pleading. The ‘primal’ traits are just as much a part of our humanity as the frontal cortical lobes.
6. Divine Time. A perfect God cannot have the imperfection of being bored. The accumulation of perfections does indeed cause some serious difficulties for the theologian. How can a God be perfectly merciful and perfectly just? But, so long as theology insists that God is totally perfect then the argument is incontrovertible. You have not considered the concept of perfection.
7. Ennui.
• Theologically it is generally agreed that God is outside of time and so there are no hours to fill. To fill them with the suffering of sentient creatures scarcely describes the Christian concept of God.
• If God is eternal then his eternal greeting of new guests will become eternally boring. You have not considered the concept of eternity.
8. God is omniscient. There is no interest to be found in Satan because he knows everything about him and his rebellion. And he not only knows what happens but knows how it feels to have experienced it happening. You have not considered the concept of omniscience.
Free choice I have no problem with. Free will there are serious objections to its very existence. You link the two. What exactly do you mean by free will?
Assuming that free will does exist why should it be fair, loving and just to have it? What is the great good of free will? In particular what is the great good of having free will that makes it worth all the terror, pain and suffering that it has been responsible for, not just to humans but to all sentient beings in their billions, for many millions of years?
I presume that you believe in heaven. In which case does free will exist there? If so, then it is obvious that there can exist a world with free will and obedience to God. So why not this one? If not, then how can it be this great good that is worth a literal world of pain and suffering?
It can be logically shown that free will can exist in a perfect creation without the associated pain and suffering. I will demonstrate the proof if you wish.
Within a perfect (but not infinite) creation then a perfect creature with perfect (limited by the limited creation) knowledge not only can, but WILL, make the perfect i.e. correct choice. Therefore if Adam and Eve made the wrong choice they were faulty in some way and the fault is the doing of the sole creator.
It cannot be passed on to Satan, as he too, is a creation of God. If flawed then God did it deliberately to make him fall or is not a perfect creator.
It is interesting that you disapprove of God saying ‘"NOW! You must all bow to me!" Isn’t that exactly what he does? Cp Exodus 20:2-6. And the idea that he still loves us as he casts us into Hell verges on the bizarre. Surely God should be big enough to leave it up to us to love him or not and there an end. Why the demand to love him (Mt 22:36-8) when love is an emotion that cannot be given on demand and why the terrible punishment for not so doing?
Ultimately, if you regard the Abrahamic God as he is traditionally described by theology and see the Bible as the word of God then there is no escaping the damning syllogism.
God is the supreme creator.
Pain and suffering (or evil if you wish) exist in his creation.
Therefore God created evil.
To Viddax.
1. You regard egomania as a perfection???
2. This in no way explains how imperfection can be perfect.
• The example you give is that physical imperfection MAY lead to aesthetic perfection. This is not demonstrable. And is the asymmetry necessary for aesthetic perfection? It may possibly be the case, but it is most certainly not necessarily the case. Therefore a perfect sculptor could make a perfectly symmetrical form with perfect aesthetic appeal.
• You do not describe perfection. A pleasing combination of characteristics is not a perfection. At best it is a limited ‘perfect’ combination only, though how that could be measured is beyond me. And the individual may appear more human, but humans are imperfect, so this demonstrates nothing. Nothing you have said makes the concept of imperfect perfection coherent.
3. Since when did depression mean lack of purpose? And how can a perfect being lack something that is necessary? That would be an imperfection.
4. This requires a great deal of unpacking.
• ‘God does not always torture humanity’. This has the clear implication that he does sometimes. Is he responsible for the pain and suffering of mankind (and do not forget sentient creatures) or not?
• The proposed case does not require the ‘mad scientist’ not to be able to alter the outcome. How can you possibly justify that assertion?
• ‘The torture is on purpose.’ This is the case with the analogy. But if it is not on purpose, then how can it possibly be there. God is omnipotent and therefore unconstrained. God can do anything, except for logical impossibilities (and even that is debateable) and there is no way that torture can be shown to be a logical necessity. There is always an alternative open to God, or he is helpless against the force of ‘evil’. You have not considered the concept of omnipotence.
• You seem to be saying that God finds ‘pleasure in torture.’ This certainly seems to be a logical conclusion, but did you actually mean that? You have not considered the concept of omnibenevolence.
5. The utility of making ‘lesser stuff’ doesn’t seem obvious to me.
• A chess grand master could play chess with six year old children if he so wished (and that would not even begin to measure the distance between God and a human being) but would he find the chess game satisfying? Scarcely. How can God have mortal capabilities? If he has he could destroy himself. Either it is logically impossible or the concept of God is logically impossible. It would be a new twist on the old conundrum as to whether God could create a rock too heavy for himself to lift.
• I disagree entirely with the assumption that human beings are higher animals on any qualitative scale. The amoeba is as evolved. Human beings may be more complex than many, but complexity is not an obvious marker for superiority. Nor can we be regarded as ‘higher’ than dolphins or elephants, except by dint of special pleading. The ‘primal’ traits are just as much a part of our humanity as the frontal cortical lobes.
6. Divine Time. A perfect God cannot have the imperfection of being bored. The accumulation of perfections does indeed cause some serious difficulties for the theologian. How can a God be perfectly merciful and perfectly just? But, so long as theology insists that God is totally perfect then the argument is incontrovertible. You have not considered the concept of perfection.
7. Ennui.
• Theologically it is generally agreed that God is outside of time and so there are no hours to fill. To fill them with the suffering of sentient creatures scarcely describes the Christian concept of God.
• If God is eternal then his eternal greeting of new guests will become eternally boring. You have not considered the concept of eternity.
8. God is omniscient. There is no interest to be found in Satan because he knows everything about him and his rebellion. And he not only knows what happens but knows how it feels to have experienced it happening. You have not considered the concept of omniscience.
Harpalycus: I interchange free will with free choice, because I believe them to be the same--the will to choose one's own destiny. Our world as we know it became as is with all the suffering, if one is to believe what is in Genesis about the whole apple, Eve and sin entering into what was once perfection. I am of the belief that Heaven always existed, regardless of when our world came into play, and with that, all things originated in Heaven or from the "perfection" source.
As for God's stance on whether or not we are forced to believe/worship him--take a look at the Old Testament vs. the New Testament, in general. The Old Testament was the original way things were done, God required sacrifices, blood sacrifices of animals, etc., but God is also allowed to change his mind and try new things, just as we, his creations, are. The New Testament is the start of a new way of looking at things from God's perspective, that being through Jesus. Jesus was the final blood sacrifice required by God, as atonement for this imperfect world we now have due to Eden and the doings there. If you note in the Gospels where Jesus dies on the Cross, he calls out "It is done!" and the veil is rent (ripped) in the tabernacle. The veil was what separated the "holy" place in the temples from the common area, and only the priests could go into the place beyond the veil to talk to God for us. With the tearing of the veil, the way was opened for us to go directly to God, a "new testament", without having to go through a priest or be cut off in some way. The tearing of the veil was symbolic of this at the time of Jesus' death and the "It is done" part refers to the old ways being just that--done, and the resurrection 3 days later was to show that death is not the end, it has been conqured and there is life after our earthly deaths.
In otherwords, God had to come down and show us Himself, through Jesus, that there is much we don't know yet, only see in part to, but through faith, we have the promise of getting back to that perfection-source after our time here is done. As for all the hurt and unjust in the world as we know it, it's a product of that original disobedience with the apple, and it is my belief that God being a loving Father, does not "do" bad and evil things to us, but rather "allows" for them to happen so that we may be taught something, grow in some way, move closer to our purposes in life, etc. Example was what I mentioned earlier in the post about Job--Satan had to ask permission from God to afflict Job, and God said "Yeah, ok, but you can only do this, this, this and that."
And the next argument is how can a loving God "allow" people to be maimed, killed, and all the other ugly stuff that happens? Well, again, we only know in part right now, but there's a reason for it, and I go on faith that God didn't "give" me cancer, 5 years ago, but "allowed" it to happen to me for reasons that continually show up here and there in my life as I continue to live it.
As for God's stance on whether or not we are forced to believe/worship him--take a look at the Old Testament vs. the New Testament, in general. The Old Testament was the original way things were done, God required sacrifices, blood sacrifices of animals, etc., but God is also allowed to change his mind and try new things, just as we, his creations, are. The New Testament is the start of a new way of looking at things from God's perspective, that being through Jesus. Jesus was the final blood sacrifice required by God, as atonement for this imperfect world we now have due to Eden and the doings there. If you note in the Gospels where Jesus dies on the Cross, he calls out "It is done!" and the veil is rent (ripped) in the tabernacle. The veil was what separated the "holy" place in the temples from the common area, and only the priests could go into the place beyond the veil to talk to God for us. With the tearing of the veil, the way was opened for us to go directly to God, a "new testament", without having to go through a priest or be cut off in some way. The tearing of the veil was symbolic of this at the time of Jesus' death and the "It is done" part refers to the old ways being just that--done, and the resurrection 3 days later was to show that death is not the end, it has been conqured and there is life after our earthly deaths.
In otherwords, God had to come down and show us Himself, through Jesus, that there is much we don't know yet, only see in part to, but through faith, we have the promise of getting back to that perfection-source after our time here is done. As for all the hurt and unjust in the world as we know it, it's a product of that original disobedience with the apple, and it is my belief that God being a loving Father, does not "do" bad and evil things to us, but rather "allows" for them to happen so that we may be taught something, grow in some way, move closer to our purposes in life, etc. Example was what I mentioned earlier in the post about Job--Satan had to ask permission from God to afflict Job, and God said "Yeah, ok, but you can only do this, this, this and that."
And the next argument is how can a loving God "allow" people to be maimed, killed, and all the other ugly stuff that happens? Well, again, we only know in part right now, but there's a reason for it, and I go on faith that God didn't "give" me cancer, 5 years ago, but "allowed" it to happen to me for reasons that continually show up here and there in my life as I continue to live it.
If you believe that free will and free choice to be the same, then free choice is simply making a decision without any duress or external constraint. However, such a decision will be made in accordance with the person you are. It will be due to the interplay of many factors, environmental and genetic, but will be determined by them. You are not free to make a decision, it will be made in a certain way simply because of what you are. Free will is simply incoherent. The only alternative to causal determination is some kind of random fluctuation and I know of few who would regard a mental dice roll as constituting free will.
You need to face the simple fact that if God made a perfect world, with perfect inhabitants, then how could it go wrong? Just saying Eve did it does not explain anything. Why did Eve make the wrong decision? If it was the wrong decision, she knew it to be the wrong decision, of the awful consequences of that decision and if she was not warped or twisted in some way, then how could she have made it? If any of these were not true then God is responsible for the lack/flaws that led to it. Watchmaker ‘I have made the perfect watch.’ Observer ‘But it does not work!’ Watchmaker ‘That is the fault of the spring. It is not strong enough.’
You happily talk about God changing his mind. How can He? How can perfection, complete unto itself, as in the case of God, change? And how can a good God demand genocide, animal (and probably human) sacrifice, absolute obedience, death for innumerable cultic transgressions? If he is omnibenevolent then he is omnibenevolent. And what about the clear teaching of Hell in the New Testament? That is surely the most sickening and horrific religious doctrine ever taught.
Why, on Earth, was a blood sacrifice ‘required’ by God. What possible explanation do you have?
You talk about life after earthly death. Why did God introduce death in the first place?
Hurt is the product of disobedience with the apple (it was actually a ‘fruit’). Then why am I hurt? I had nothing to do with Eve’s choice!
Someone who allows suffering to be visited upon someone else, when they could have prevented it, is acting immorally. It is a ‘sin’ of omission rather than of commission.
But God does not allow it, he creates it. He created raptors that tear their sentient prey to pieces, he thought up the ichneumon that lays its eggs in the living caterpillar to eat it alive, he ‘designed’ the hurricanes and droughts, earthquakes and tsunamis, volcanic eruptions and meteorite strikes, he brewed up bubonic plague and typhoid, Ebola and Spanish Flu. Who else?
Job is a fine example. Just read the book and see what this loving God allowed Satan to do to Job. How many innocent lives he sacrificed over a disagreement.
To claim that you do not know the answer is a cop out. If you do not know why God has acted the way he has then why not? Why has God not made it clear in his book? If he is so incomprehensible then how can you know anything about him? How do you know that God is good in the way that you think he is? The evidence of the world seems to indicate that he is heedless if not actively malevolent.
So for what reason did God create cancer? It can’t be to create stronger character, as he could do this by divine fiat, it can’t be to make the victim wiser, as this too is open to divine omnipotence and does not require suffering, nor can it be to ‘test’ the person, as God is omniscient. He knows the result beforehand. So why does God ‘allow’ it?
You need to face the simple fact that if God made a perfect world, with perfect inhabitants, then how could it go wrong? Just saying Eve did it does not explain anything. Why did Eve make the wrong decision? If it was the wrong decision, she knew it to be the wrong decision, of the awful consequences of that decision and if she was not warped or twisted in some way, then how could she have made it? If any of these were not true then God is responsible for the lack/flaws that led to it. Watchmaker ‘I have made the perfect watch.’ Observer ‘But it does not work!’ Watchmaker ‘That is the fault of the spring. It is not strong enough.’
You happily talk about God changing his mind. How can He? How can perfection, complete unto itself, as in the case of God, change? And how can a good God demand genocide, animal (and probably human) sacrifice, absolute obedience, death for innumerable cultic transgressions? If he is omnibenevolent then he is omnibenevolent. And what about the clear teaching of Hell in the New Testament? That is surely the most sickening and horrific religious doctrine ever taught.
Why, on Earth, was a blood sacrifice ‘required’ by God. What possible explanation do you have?
You talk about life after earthly death. Why did God introduce death in the first place?
Hurt is the product of disobedience with the apple (it was actually a ‘fruit’). Then why am I hurt? I had nothing to do with Eve’s choice!
Someone who allows suffering to be visited upon someone else, when they could have prevented it, is acting immorally. It is a ‘sin’ of omission rather than of commission.
But God does not allow it, he creates it. He created raptors that tear their sentient prey to pieces, he thought up the ichneumon that lays its eggs in the living caterpillar to eat it alive, he ‘designed’ the hurricanes and droughts, earthquakes and tsunamis, volcanic eruptions and meteorite strikes, he brewed up bubonic plague and typhoid, Ebola and Spanish Flu. Who else?
Job is a fine example. Just read the book and see what this loving God allowed Satan to do to Job. How many innocent lives he sacrificed over a disagreement.
To claim that you do not know the answer is a cop out. If you do not know why God has acted the way he has then why not? Why has God not made it clear in his book? If he is so incomprehensible then how can you know anything about him? How do you know that God is good in the way that you think he is? The evidence of the world seems to indicate that he is heedless if not actively malevolent.
So for what reason did God create cancer? It can’t be to create stronger character, as he could do this by divine fiat, it can’t be to make the victim wiser, as this too is open to divine omnipotence and does not require suffering, nor can it be to ‘test’ the person, as God is omniscient. He knows the result beforehand. So why does God ‘allow’ it?
