tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post5374031665054938927..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: Suffering presupposes God's existencemregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-55445364859504528112013-12-01T20:09:39.931-05:002013-12-01T20:09:39.931-05:00KW,
What you describe as 'gymnastics' is ...KW, <br />What you describe as 'gymnastics' is exercise of mind; an attempt to reconcile perceived reality with suffering. <br />What you posit in it's place is form of intellectual lethargy. <br />You are a hypocritical, philosophical and moral couch potato with a serious hate on for anyone of faith. <br />But, I still love you as a fellow human - even if I hate the self deception that has you in it's grasp. <br />I will, once again, pray for you. I am sure others here will join me in that. <br />You need it, KW. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-45800652031671002102013-12-01T20:05:00.115-05:002013-12-01T20:05:00.115-05:00Man separated himself from God by Adam's choic...Man separated himself from God by Adam's choice. How much imperfection can perfection take and still be perfect? How much unholiness can holiness accept and still be holy? Adam was the representative for all of mankind. That was the deal. Adam knew it. Here's the good news. The has been a second Adam who succeeded where the first failed.<br /><br />Romans5:12 When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned. 13 Yes, people sinned even before the law was given. But it was not counted as sin because there was not yet any law to break. 14 Still, everyone died—from the time of Adam to the time of Moses—even those who did not disobey an explicit commandment of God, as Adam did. Now Adam is a symbol, a representation of Christ, who was yet to come. 15 But there is a great difference between Adam’s sin and God’s gracious gift. For the sin of this one man, Adam, brought death to many. But even greater is God’s wonderful grace and his gift of forgiveness to many through this other man, Jesus Christ. 16 And the result of God’s gracious gift is very different from the result of that one man’s sin. For Adam’s sin led to condemnation, but God’s free gift leads to our being made right with God, even though we are guilty of many sins. 17 For the sin of this one man, Adam, caused death to rule over many. But even greater is God’s wonderful grace and his gift of righteousness, for all who receive it will live in triumph over sin and death through this one man, Jesus Christ.<br /><br />18 Yes, Adam’s one sin brings condemnation for everyone, but Christ’s one act of righteousness brings a right relationship with God and new life for everyone. 19 Because one person disobeyed God, many became sinners. But because one other person obeyed God, many will be made righteous.IgnoranceBig Richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13222433855783705707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-52381807957735133242013-12-01T19:50:35.472-05:002013-12-01T19:50:35.472-05:00Hoo,
I can see what you mean, and I agree collecti...Hoo,<br />I can see what you mean, and I agree collective punishment is not a modern norm. Well, at least we do not admit as much. But, Earth is not a prison. At least not yet. If it becomes so, it will be by the hand of mankind. <br />Nor, perhaps just as importantly, was the punishment the 'death' the serpent had perhaps hoped for. <br />A better analogy would be a colony. If I were to commit a crime (petty, please!) in the 19th century and was 'transported' to Australia, and my wife was to be sent with me (her choice), and my children were born there - then we would have a semi valid comparison. <br />Consider also that Australia was a choice. I could have chosen prison or even hanging (as was the case with many common and petty offences), and my wife could have left me. Instead we stood together and accepted our responsibility. We would face much hardship and a lot of very hard work to establish ourselves. <br />If we made it, and clawed our way back up to a semblance of a life in this colony, with a little help...our children would have to live with that choice. They could have, as many did, helped to build a great nation and even gone so far as to have instituted and respected the same laws that I had transgressed. They would see in me my regrets. They would take from me the lesson, and pass it on to their children. <br />Others (not my kids!) would perhaps be bitter, and continue to transgress the law. They would find themselves outcasts, even in this colony. <br />This, while still imperfect, is a much better analogy. <br />We would be faced with harsh new reality that was the result of my choice. Our children could embrace those changes and try to make a life, or despise the law and continue the error. But no matter their choices, they would be living with the real consequences of our actions. They would still be free to choose between objective good and evil deeds, but they would be living an entirely new framework where our choices determined the daily reality that they face in harsh, new, open land. <br />Their choices would be forever more physical and far less symbolic.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-66894250242602894542013-12-01T18:23:36.568-05:002013-12-01T18:23:36.568-05:00naidoo: i'm not opposed to universal health ca...naidoo: <i>i'm not opposed to universal health care. i'm opposed to more government encroachment into healthcare. </i> <br /><br />What's your version of universal healthcare? Everyone is free to buy the best care they can afford? That's not exactly what the bishops meant, I suspect.<br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-8401827514209797632013-12-01T18:21:55.800-05:002013-12-01T18:21:55.800-05:00Of course it does, Naidoo. And pretty soon the wea...Of course it does, Naidoo. And pretty soon the wealth of the treasury begins to evaporate, one ice cream cone at a time. The people who get elected don't care.<br /><br />JoeyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-40993885340223073522013-12-01T18:20:33.875-05:002013-12-01T18:20:33.875-05:00Thanks for your detailed answer, crus. I understan...Thanks for your detailed answer, crus. I understand the responsibility of our actions for future generations. The real hard question is whether your actions should entirely determine the life of your descendants. <br /><br />Suppose, for the sake of the argument, that you commit a serious crime and you go to jail for life. Your wife, an accomplice, also gets a life sentence. And so that the lesson is not lost on future generation, your children go to jail for life, and so do their children, and so on. <br /><br />That doesn't make much sense from our modern perspective, does it? It did to the writers of the Bible, however. For most of human history, collective responsibility was the norm. You were responsible for the misdeeds of your father and grandfather. <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-25115732673203535122013-12-01T18:20:27.186-05:002013-12-01T18:20:27.186-05:00Hoo wants to live in a Catholic theocracy. It'...Hoo wants to live in a Catholic theocracy. It's clear. He wants to legislate his and the Church's moral teachings. If the rest of us don't like it, tough nookie. <br /><br />Joey Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-20741373777603791422013-12-01T18:14:36.468-05:002013-12-01T18:14:36.468-05:00i'm not opposed to universal health care. i...i'm not opposed to universal health care. i'm opposed to more government encroachment into healthcare. <br /><br />your comment demonstrates that you really don't understand the difference between giving and taking. <br /><br />naidooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-60363494305536006982013-12-01T18:04:19.876-05:002013-12-01T18:04:19.876-05:00Yep, I think it's un-Christian. US Catholic bi...Yep, I think it's un-Christian. US Catholic bishops have been in favor of universal healthcare. That's Christian. <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-39473345679689090372013-12-01T18:01:45.539-05:002013-12-01T18:01:45.539-05:00CNTD
So why would God allow these trees to grow w...CNTD<br /><br />So why <i>would</i> God allow these trees to grow where both or either Adam and/or Eve could be tempted by them? Why would he allow a fallen/jealous Angel to take on the form of a serpent? Why would a loving God allow his children/creations to learn these hard lessons and to pass on the suffering they entail to continue to haunt their future generation? <br />Well, these are extremely complex questions, but the answers are not all that tough to wrap one's mind around if one makes an effort to understand the language of the old testament and it's iconic nature. <br />The trees grew in the garden because the questions and temptations they raise(d) were and are central to our existence; to our ability to be agents of free will, and hence our <i>willing</i> relationship with God and Goodness. <br />The serpent is the agent of deception, but what is not stated openly, but is implicit in the description and use of that form, is that the serpent is also subject to it's nature. <br />The serpent is invited (as all such things are) by the curiosity of Eve. Adam is in turn compelled by the fact his only companion - made of his own flesh - is committed to the quest for secret/forbidden knowledge and spurred on by the fact that Eve has not dropped dead. Here again, we see a distinction between the 'deaths' defined by the two trees. <br />The punishment for this transgression is handed out when God sees the two have lost their humility and adopted shame. And, as one would expect from a God who both loves and respects His creations, is to introduce these two to the world/reality in which knowledge is power. This is the choice that they have made. This is the path God sets them upon. <br />What Eve and Adam chose was the path to moral subjectivity. More accurately, I would argue, they chose the long, hard, and painful path to the truth about moral subjectivity - that it (moral subjectivity) is a form of self deception. <br />Further it shows the nature of the the being in the form of the serpent. This aspect is also noted in Genesis, when it is described how the relationship between mankind and the serpent (ie the deceiver) shall be all about striking at the heals of man and being crushed for doing so. <br />So we have a story in which the first fully human beings, designed by God to be like God, have made a terrible choice for the sake of power through knowledge. They have been deceived into thinking (by the Adversary) that such knowledge gives them the power to define good and evil. They have learned through this mistake that such a world is far from what they were made for, that death can be more than physical, and that the forces that would mislead them are slaves to their own hunger for power. <br />Finally, you protest that God should allow a sin / wrong should affect the generations. This, you complain, is inconsistent with a loving God. I do not see this as inconsistent. Far from it. <br />Being a father, I am far to familiar with the concept that children must make choices and live with them, or they will never learn to decisions based on forethought. <br />In the reality in which we live - chosen and built by our ancestors - this is a daily reality. If your father or mother is a drunk and does nothing for his family, you may well grow up in abject poverty. That does not mean you cannot work to better yourself and your own family; or even that of your parents. In the very same sense, we may work to better our world. But we must do so with the deception clearly in mind. We must also take into account that our decisions will reverberate through history. <br />The core of what I am saying is that we have free will. Our decisions will and do echo through the generations. Genesis illustrates this perfectly. <br />That is very the nature of the choice. The purpose of the trees, and the (visible) reasoning behind allowing for it all. <br />We have chosen this world for our physical existence. We must make the best of it, and that includes finding a way back to God despite our own (and our ancestors) bad decisions. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-41997510712792543562013-12-01T17:58:07.755-05:002013-12-01T17:58:07.755-05:00Hoo,
(Sorry I took so long to reply. Busy day.)
...Hoo, <br />(Sorry I took so long to reply. Busy day.)<br /><br />Okay, fair enough. It is an observation. <br />But first, allow me to point out that your 'take' is not exactly accepted amongst those who study the Bible, whether they be believers or secular scholars. <br />It is, rather the identical position taken by the 'New Age' theosophists and the like. The serpent becomes the good guy. <br /><br />Now let's look at the actual story itself. <br />There are actually two trees that are forbidden. One is commonly known as the 'Tree of life', which could be called the 'tree of physical immortality' or in modern language perhaps the 'tree of transhumanism'. <br />This first tree's 'fruit' was supposed to unlock the promise of permanent residency within the physical universe. Of this tree we do not learn much from the texts themselves. Rather, the lesson of this tree seems to be more along the lines of transcendence of living consciousness into some other realm. Adam and Eve were apparently not too concerned about this being in direct contact with God and the hosts. They did not fear (natural) death and did not understand what the nature and death experience would be outside of the place we know as 'Eden'. <br />The second tree is 'the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. In modern terms it could be the called the tree of Moral Subjectivism. God warns that the punishment for eating this fruit is 'death'. Obviously not the same death that can be avoided by eating the fruit of the 'Tree of Life'. <br />The serpent is noted as a deceiver and tells Eve that she will not die (physically) have her 'eyes opened' and that she and Adam become like a gods in the consumption of this (secret/forbidden) knowledge. <br />Now this is a complex deception on the part of the serpent. <br />As Genesis goes on to explain, the promise of death was not idle, and the result was the expulsion of these two chosen examples of humanity from the innocence that was 'Eden'. Return was forbidden, and the entrance to this 'paradise' was guarded by two immensely powerful beings charged (created?) for that specific duty. I wont get into the details on those beings, as that is a subject in and of itself. Sufficed to say they also represent more than a surface value. <br />So what does all this have to do with your question/observation that God placed this specific tree within the grasp of Eve and so allow the tempting of her? <br />Well, the fact there was actually two trees is not something to be ignored. Nor is the fact that the serpent chose the 'Tree of Knowledge' to use as a means of deceiving Eve and Adam. Nor should it be ignored that it chose Eve as the medium of that deception. <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-55718085411734575292013-12-01T17:57:31.429-05:002013-12-01T17:57:31.429-05:00vote for me and i will give you an ice cream cone....vote for me and i will give you an ice cream cone. works every time.<br /><br />naidooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-58216989619055132082013-12-01T17:57:02.209-05:002013-12-01T17:57:02.209-05:00OK. It is reasonable to conclude that the man (and...OK. It is reasonable to conclude that the man (and the woman) who made the choice should suffer. Why should the future generations? What was their fault? <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-50798051320232452592013-12-01T17:53:46.596-05:002013-12-01T17:53:46.596-05:00you have already said that you are finding holes i...you have already said that you are finding holes in the theory of god. how can I understand that any other way?<br /><br />suffering exists. i'm not sure what I suppose to be rationalizing. <br /><br />naidooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-23117474044921742392013-12-01T17:51:43.585-05:002013-12-01T17:51:43.585-05:00i think the torch answered it quite well. i agree ...i think the torch answered it quite well. i agree with him and have nothing to add.<br /><br />there. i answered your question. now answer mine. is it unchristian to oppose an ever-growing welfare state? <br /><br />naidooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-11280919971958885822013-12-01T17:46:33.474-05:002013-12-01T17:46:33.474-05:00The problem of evil is a theist problem.
Evil is ...The problem of evil is a theist problem.<br /><br />Evil is an atheist impossibility, because without transcendence nothing is objectively good or evil. <br /><br />We Christians struggle to understand evil under God's providence. <br /><br />You atheists have no explanation for evil at all, except that it is an evolutionary illusion-- confused monkeys in the savanna or whatever. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-2926224705357386292013-12-01T17:40:51.208-05:002013-12-01T17:40:51.208-05:00There was a choice in the beginning, Hoo. That is ...There was a choice in the beginning, Hoo. That is the whole point. When God created man, He created a moral agent with a choice unlike any other animal, but like The Supreme Being himself. The tree whether literal or analogy, represented that choice. Big Richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13222433855783705707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-78303294740805917692013-12-01T17:25:55.658-05:002013-12-01T17:25:55.658-05:00naidoo,
I have already said that I am not dispro...naidoo, <br /><br />I have already said that I am not disproving God. I don't need to do that for myself and the believers don't care for that, either. <br /><br />I am asking how the believers rationalize human suffering. Theodicy isn't a problem for unbelievers. It is a problem for those who believe. <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-88116518934752058462013-12-01T17:23:31.804-05:002013-12-01T17:23:31.804-05:00Hey naidoo,
Maybe you can answer my question firs...Hey naidoo,<br /><br />Maybe you can answer <a href="http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2013/12/suffering-presupposes-gods-existence.html?showComment=1385920263381#c985008754705218633" rel="nofollow">my question</a> first. Torch did. He is clearly to the right of Bishop Dolan, and that's saying a lot.<br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-38547214941173802982013-12-01T17:12:40.240-05:002013-12-01T17:12:40.240-05:00Oh, okay. Your source is Christopher Hitchens, the...<i>Oh, okay. Your source is Christopher Hitchens, the patron saint of the aggressive atheist movement. So, no credibility. I suspected he was your source.</i><br /><br />Nice try, Torch. If you read the story I linked to, you might have noticed that the story is based on new research carried out by the University of Montreal. Hitchens take down of MT is old news, but apparently quite accurate according to the investigators. <br /><br />Have a nice day.troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-2010187635259275192013-12-01T17:06:56.492-05:002013-12-01T17:06:56.492-05:00I think it's important to note that even polit...I think it's important to note that even politicians who advocate for a robust welfare state always assure the voting public that only the rich will pay higher taxes. They're usually pretty vague about the definition of the word rich, leaving the voters to decide for themselves what it means. The voters tend to define "rich" as someone who makes more than they do. <br /><br />The welfare state is supremely selfish. People who support it generally think that it will require no sacrifice on their part, and they may be correct in that assumption if they are on the receiving end of all that redistributed wealth. But it will always be some other richer person who foots the bill for it all, or so they believe. <br /><br />Let's not forget loyal Obama-supporter Cindy Vinson on the "Affordable" Care Act: "Of course, I want people to have health care,” Vinson said.<br />“I just didn’t realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally.”<br /><br />JoeyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-41936141583055219882013-12-01T16:33:13.039-05:002013-12-01T16:33:13.039-05:00i've used the term psychopath loosely before. ...i've used the term psychopath loosely before. but it does have a true definition, which is to say someone who is oblivious to the feelings of others and only looks out for himself. people who spend their lives in the slums of a third world country dealing with untounchables don't usually fit that description. it sounds a bit like roman polanski who rapes little girls and then lives high on the hog in europe, all the while insisting that he's the true victim here. <br /><br />naidooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-10478367510587342132013-12-01T16:29:51.547-05:002013-12-01T16:29:51.547-05:00hoo is dancing around the point. let's just as...hoo is dancing around the point. let's just ask him straight out whether he agrees with troy that it's unchristian to oppose the ever-growing welfare state. <br /><br />naidooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-58698426508173140652013-12-01T16:26:11.066-05:002013-12-01T16:26:11.066-05:00"Yet you seem to think that making the humank..."Yet you seem to think that making the humankind suffer for the sins of their predecessors is not a problem."<br /><br />How many times must this be explained to you before you get it? <br /><br />We don't make the rules. We're not being punished for something Adam and Eve did. We're sinners and sin fills the world with pain. <br /><br />The TorchAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-13890621144353257702013-12-01T16:21:37.844-05:002013-12-01T16:21:37.844-05:00Oh, okay. Your source is Christopher Hitchens, the...Oh, okay. Your source is Christopher Hitchens, the patron saint of the aggressive atheist movement. So, no credibility. I suspected he was your source. <br /><br />In the future, don't use words that you don't know the definitions of.<br /><br />The Torch Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com