Do Religious People Really Believe in Their Religion?

[LilyM]

Yes, we are no all knowing, so we have to work within a finite limit of knowledge. This means we will make mistakes and errors, but God has perfect knowledge (that is what all knowing means) of everything, so He does not have to work within these limits and thus He can not make mistakes like we are forced.

WHO is forcing? As I’ve said time and again, and as you don’t seem to understand, not every circumstance, or combination of cirucmstances, that induces or leads one to sin rises to the level of force. So we canNOT always plead that we were forced to sin.

Again, by way of analogy, courts can be very sympathetic to the circumstances in the lives of criminals that lead them to commit crime while at the same time recognising that nothing FORCED those criminals to crime and that they are still culpable. Do you think they are wrong? Do you think no-one willingly commits crimes and that no-one deserves to be punished for them?

As a corollary, what about the positive things we do? Do we deserve the rewards we get for those? If you work hard for your boss, do you not righfully claim the reward for that work - the pay, the promotion or whatnot? If you study hard and accordingly get good marks in your exams, would you claim that you didn’t deserve those marks as the rightful recompense?

How can we justify this thinking if according to you the things we do are beyond our control but we are merely responding to force? Surely this applies just as much to the positive and productive things as the negative, no?

Yes, and God has far more knowledge (infinitly more) and far mroe self control (infinitly more). So this means that God is infinitly more culpable for His actions than we are.

Culpable? Meaning deserving blame or censure? From who? For what? Whose law has He transgressed that either binds Him or that is set in authority over Him and can thus be used as the standard by which His behaviour can be judged?

He has set a standard of behaviour for us, sure, and it may appear that He has different rules for Himself. What is wrong in that?

Is a parent bound to go to bed at the time they set for their child to go to bed? Or to give a child loan of the parent’s car if the parent doesn’t want to? Or bequeath something to the child out of its will if the parent wishes to leave nothing to that child?

Of course the child suffers when it’s made to go to bed, denied the car, or cut out of the will. Of course the child thinks it’s unfair. But ultimately it’s the parent’s right to choose its own bed time and that of the child. And it’s the parent’s right to dispose of its property, largely, as it sees fit. Either by loaning the car or bequeathing property in the will.

The child can complain all it likes, but it never had any right to set its own bedtime (or have the parents go to bed at the same time). It never had any right to borrow the car, nor to have property left to it. So there’s no unfairness in the matter, no right breached.

In the same manner - we don’t have any right to salvation, or to freedom from suffering, or to whatever it is you might think God ‘owes’ us. God owes us nothing whatsoever. There are no rights we can claim against Him.

Who is capable of deciding that God is worthy of blame or censure? Surely we’d need to comprehend His motives and the reasons behind His actions, as well as their effects not just on those who suffer, or even on all mankind, but on all of creation. Such a task is beyond you, me or anyone but God Himself, the creator of all, surely.

So by your arguemnts, God has voluntarily given us suffering that is unnecesary. This is what makes God cruel.

But how do you know it’s unnecessary? What makes you think that there aren’t benefits that humankind - or creation as a whole - receives from suffering that are unique to suffering alone? Benefits that can’t be had any other way? Benefits so great that they outweigh all the disadvantages?

You’re forgetting that God has voluntarily HIMSELF chosen to suffer personally - in the person of Jesus. It’s not something He merely inflicted on us remotely, it’s something He chooses to partake in as well. That strongly suggests what I’ve said - that there are benefits unique to suffering alone that can’t come about any other way.

 

[sinnerdexter]

LilyM: The defense of the apparent evil of God that you offer – that he is infinitely superior to us so we cannot know what logic prompts him to act as he does and we cannot claim to hold him morally responsible to us – makes the classical logical error of petitio principii, or assuming the reality of what is in question. Since we are trying to understand how to make the evil which God allows to exist in the world, which does not seem logically necessitated by any project he could have which is consistent with his nature, somehow consistent with God’s essential quality of being perfectly good, we can’t solve that problem just by asserting that his ways exceed our puny intellects and he owes us no moral duties in any case. If we are going to accept those conclusions as premisses of the argument, the argument is over before it starts, so there is nothing to discuss.

 

[fhansen]

In this world, we are to be the hands of God, if they’re going to be any hands working for the good at all. To that extent, no one who isn’t doing every last thing they can possibly do to right the wrongs they see-and complain about-everything within their own power to make life better for those who struggle with poverty or are victims of some evil or another, has the right to complain if God or anyone else refuses to lift their hands for those purposes. To the extent we don’t help out to that degree, we show how much we really don’t care, regardless of platitudes.

 

[R_Daneel]

There is no lack of notification, the authority is God, and God repays.

Can you offer some actual “proof” for this, besides your faith in some ancient texts? Obviously not.

It is by analogy that we try to hold God to our human standards, but we do not comprehend God, so we project human-ness onto God, loosing the proper order.

That does not wash. We do not hold children, retarded people or animals resposible, because they are not sentient beings, because their ability to separate right from wrong is lacking. Clearly this does not apply to God. God is superior to us, not inferior. So God must be held to an even higher standard than humans. If it is morally wrong to commit genocide for humans, then it is infinitely more wrong to commit genocide for God.

 

[Vico]

God made Adam and eve free of sin and evil. It was only when they ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil did they aquire the ability to sin and comit evil acts…

…He can be seen as cruel in that He knew ahead of time and had the power and opertunity to prevent the suffering and did not. …

This is incorrect. Adam and Even had the ability to sin from the start, and exercised it in the original sin. Before they were judged by God and expelled from the Garden of Eden, they were already suffering: Adam and Eve were hiding in fear (Genesis 3:8-10). Eating the fruit gave them knowledge, not ability. They suffered as a result of the original sin. And they knew what not to do:

**Gen **2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

There is an erroneous idea that suffering is evil. The comission of sin is evil: that is, going against the instruction of God.

Considering: “As God is all knowing, He would have know that these events would have occurred. As He knew that these events would have occured and lead to suffering, and that there are valid actions that God could have taken to prevent them and chose not to do so, then He can be seen as cruel in that He knew ahead of time and had the power and opportunity to prevent the suffering and did not.” (spelling corrected)

Above there is the erroneous statement that God is cruel, that is inclined to suffering, where clearly God gave instructions on how to avoid evil and its consequences (Gen 2:17): the valid action that God took, without destroying free will, but that Adam and Eve choose to disobey.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Atheists prove time and again that they fervently believe in their ‘religion.’

And make no mistake—a religion it is.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

LilyM: The defense of the apparent evil of God that you offer – that he is infinitely superior to us so we cannot know what logic prompts him to act as he does and we cannot claim to hold him morally responsible to us – makes the classical logical error of petitio principii, or assuming the reality of what is in question. Since we are trying to understand how to make the evil which God allows to exist in the world, which does not seem logically necessitated by any project he could have which is consistent with his nature, somehow consistent with God’s essential quality of being perfectly good, we can’t solve that problem just by asserting that his ways exceed our puny intellects and he owes us no moral duties in any case. If we are going to accept those conclusions as premisses of the argument, the argument is over before it starts, so there is nothing to discuss.

Hi again. Sorry for disappearing, life gets in the way sometime.

In my absence, I must have missed your post where you proved that temporary suffering is inherently evil. Can you point me towards it?

Thanks!

 

[reggieM]

That does not wash. We do not hold children…resposible …because their ability to separate right from wrong is lacking.

We hold children responsible for some things that we don’t hold adults responsible for.

If it is wrong for a child to …], therefore it is even more wrong for the child’s parent to …]?

We can fill in the blanks with many examples.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Can you offer some actual “proof” for this, besides your faith in some ancient texts? Obviously not.

That does not wash. We do not hold children, retarded people or animals resposible, because they are not sentient beings, because their ability to separate right from wrong is lacking. Clearly this does not apply to God. God is superior to us, not inferior. So God must be held to an even higher standard than humans. If it is morally wrong to commit genocide for humans, then it is infinitely more wrong to commit genocide for God.

If Bobby builds a tower with his blocks, it is wrong for Joe to push it over. But Bobby can push his own tower over, can’t he?

 

[sinnerdexter]

Hi again. Sorry for disappearing, life gets in the way sometime.

In my absence, I must have missed your post where you proved that temporary suffering is inherently evil. Can you point me towards it?

Thanks!

Did i say “temporary” suffering? I think I said, “unnecessary” suffering. If it’s unnecessary, then it is inherently evil since existence does not necessitate it, and an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omnipresent god could allow existence without “unnecessary” suffering.

 

[bluelake]

I can’t imagine anyone believing they have never committed a sin.
To say this brings up the sin of ‘pride’ which is found in the Book of Proverbs.
God bless as you search for the answer.

bluelake

 

[bluelake]

If I believed that this present life were just a brief test to determine whether I would be admitted after death to another life of eternal bliss, it is inconceivable to me that I would ever commit a sin, since it would simply be foolish. Yet I hear Christians all the time say that they were ‘weak’ or ‘tempted’ on a given occasion to sin, and so did so, thus jeopardizing their own rational best interest in enjoying infinite bliss for the sake of a brief moment of trivial indiscretion. But since sane people are never tempted to bend down and touch the third rail of a subway because they are tempted by a piece of candy they spot lying there, I would assume that no sane Christian would ever be tempted to sin. Since they so often do sin, however, demonstrates that they don’t really believe in the doctrine they profess.

Similarly, if I believed that my present life were just a brief test prior to a possibly infinite afterlife of heavenly bliss, nothing that goes wrong here could ever seriously bother me. If we were all at a giant garden party given by God, and he imposed a forfeit on someone and made him blind for the duration of the party prior to admission to Heaven at the end of the afternoon, that blindness would be no more distressing than being ‘it’ for a little while in a schoolyard game of tag. So the fact that Christians wail in despair when some serious but mundane tragedy ruins only this life for them makes me again suspect that they don’t really believe what they profess.

I do imagine that Christians seriously think that they believe, but this is only because they have never seriously examined the incongruities of their behavior in the situations I have sketched above.

I can’t really understand your thoughts about sinners. Or is it the Doctrine which
folks can’t understand?
Have you ever committed a sin?

bluelake

 

[Vico]

Can you offer some actual “proof” for this, besides your faith in some ancient texts? Obviously not.

That does not wash. We do not hold children, retarded people or animals resposible, because they are not sentient beings, because their ability to separate right from wrong is lacking. Clearly this does not apply to God. God is superior to us, not inferior. So God must be held to an even higher standard than humans. If it is morally wrong to commit genocide for humans, then it is infinitely more wrong to commit genocide for God.

The proof is existence of our consciences (discrimination and empathy and sympathy) from which we have a sensitivity to others, even as children, and our intelligence with which we reason the order of nature. We also have intuitive perceptions.

Well actually children, retarded people and animals are sentient, however I can take that to mean those that have not developed the capacity to discriminate right from wrong yet or ever, are not culpable.

One can say that God knows good and evil (we see this in Genesis 3:22), yet God exists apart from his creation so is of a higher order, and is the creator of the laws of nature. All creatures are subject to the laws of the Creator regardless of if they consider those laws fair or not. Mankind does not judge God rather God judges mankind.

 

[sinnerdexter]

Did i say “temporary” suffering? I think I said, “unnecessary” suffering. If it’s unnecessary, then it is inherently evil since existence does not necessitate it, and an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omnipresent god could allow existence without “unnecessary” suffering.

NaturalEnquirer: For example if I torture someone for 40 years, it is temporary suffering but still unnecessary and evil.

 

[GaryTaylor]

What I find most interesting in these days is a Truth. There is but “One” religious dogma in Debate: “What do you mean by God?”

In this regard, today is like all our yesterdays!

And all our tommorrows, will be as today. And this struggle will continue. Untill one idea prevails. And that very idea will either be our salvation or destruction.

Its not by chance Jesus Christ and the trial with Pilot, Calvary and the Cross, are remembered daily through history. Its not by chance the voice’s of the Martyred reverberate the words “I believe in GOD”.

What is the evidence of the existence of such a Supreme
Being? In presenting this manifold evidence, we shall appeal
not to the authority of the Bible or of the Church but to the
court of human reason. If occasionally we quote a writer of
the Scriptures or a prelate of the Church, we shall do so not
as an inspired or infallible spokesman, but as a witness whose
testimony we lay before the bar of human reason,

In our debate we shall assume agreement upon the
validity of but two primary principles: the ability of the
human mind to know, and the law or principle of causality.
These need not, and in fact cannot, be demonstrated because
they are self-evident and shine by their own light.

So we wander down this path of skeptical philosophy, an
here we meet at the River.

Should I find a Footprints in the Sand, should I not conclude
a man had walked before me?
Should I come upon a Watch in the sand, should I not
conclude this watch was made by man?
When I observe the Universe. Should I not believe the intricates of
our Universe, could only have been constucted by “Supreme” beings?

Last, in retrospect and evaluation of History, who would I conclude
to be the Master of this supreme Universe?

In this day and age, we have but one constant. God, and Mary is
the one bearing witness to this Truth in our time, this Century and Last. She
has appeared relentlessly in a effort to save mankind. Mary “is” the
Footprint in the Sand, the Watch of Discovery, and thus the Universe.

We are not debating the Evil and Savage values of one Kingdom on
the earth anymore. And the very idea that it must be desroyed.
No that isn’t and never has been enough. Today we are shooting for the
whole ball of wax. The Destruction of the World. And the foolishness of
man has bought us so close to this very thought, all of us can feel it in
our bones. And that my friends isn’t by chance either.

So, how is it, down this path we walk?

And the Lord told Noah, Build an Ark on Dry Land. And everyone rolled on the
ground in laughter. And here we are rolling on the ground in laughter, once again.
This moment we are “once again” in the last minute of the last hour. Theres but four words we need to remember here at the end.

I BELIEVE IN GOD. And at the end, and the end of those four words is GOD!

Should by some miracle we arrive at this conclusion, we may in fact
find salvation and the Truth we all seek.

GT

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Did i say “temporary” suffering? I think I said, “unnecessary” suffering. If it’s unnecessary, then it is inherently evil since existence does not necessitate it, and an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omnipresent god could allow existence without “unnecessary” suffering.

Well, every example of suffering in the discussion has been temporary. So if temporary suffering is not inherently evil, then there is no conflict with omnibenevolence.

As for “unnecessary”, that’s a rather futile line of attack. How can we possibly determine if something is unnecessary from the standpoint of eternity?

 

[sinnerdexter]

This is incorrect. Adam and Even had the ability to sin from the start, and exercised it in the original sin. Before they were judged by God and expelled from the Garden of Eden, they were already suffering: Adam and Eve were hiding in fear (Genesis 3:8-10). Eating the fruit gave them knowledge, not ability. They suffered as a result of the original sin. And they knew what not to do:

**Gen **2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Per the Bible, Adam and Eve did not know what not to do, even though they were told. For example, if someone tells you in Chinese not to do something, you’ve been told what not to do but you don’t know what not to do. Anyhow, before eating the fruit Adam and Eve did not have knowledge of good and evil and so couldn’t have known that it is good to obey god and sin to disobey god. It is only after they ate the fruit that they realized that they did something “wrong”.

There is an erroneous idea that suffering is evil. The comission of sin is evil: that is, going against the instruction of God.

Suffering isn’t evil, true, but causing or allowing unnecessary suffering is evil. Think of the Golden Rule. Now, not only did God allow Adam and Eve to sin (as above, they couldn’t have even known it was a sin), but after that he cursed the whole of creation as a punishment for it, specifically going out of his way to create thorns and such. This punishment would be overly harsh (and so cruel) even for a real crime such as murder.

Considering: “As God is all knowing, He would have know that these events would have occurred. As He knew that these events would have occured and lead to suffering, and that there are valid actions that God could have taken to prevent them and chose not to do so, then He can be seen as cruel in that He knew ahead of time and had the power and opportunity to prevent the suffering and did not.” (spelling corrected)

Above there is the erroneous statement that God is cruel, that is inclined to suffering, where clearly God gave instructions on how to avoid evil and its consequences (Gen 2:17): the valid action that God took, without destroying free will, but that Adam and Eve choose to disobey.

Ah, but the consequences were not the problem, it was God’s overreaction that was the problem. It’s the difference between warning someone that your cookies are moldy and they’d get sick if they eat them, and hunting them and their children down and torturing them for the rest of their lives for eating your cookie.

 

[sinnerdexter]

Well, every example of suffering in the discussion has been temporary. So if temporary suffering is not inherently evil, then there is no conflict with omnibenevolence.

As for “unnecessary”, that’s a rather futile line of attack. How can we possibly determine if something is unnecessary from the standpoint of eternity?

I think Epicurus already summed this up far better than I could, and he did it way back in 300BC:

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

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

I think Epicurus already summed this up far better than I could, and he did it way back in 300BC:

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

Yes, Epicurus has the same unsupported assumption that you do. Namely that the temporary existence of evil is malevolent. Without supporting that assertion, the argument has no teeth.

I will grant you that if evil were to be permanently ascendant, your argument would have something. But we haven’t seen to forever yet, and according to Christian doctrine, evil loses.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Per the Bible, Adam and Eve did not know what not to do, even though they were told. For example, if someone tells you in Chinese not to do something, you’ve been told what not to do but you don’t know what not to do. Anyhow, before eating the fruit Adam and Eve did not have knowledge of good and evil and so couldn’t have known that it is good to obey god and sin to disobey god. It is only after they ate the fruit that they realized that they did something “wrong”.

Nonsense. That is not what “knowledge of good and evil” means at all. Adam and Eve were not created so retarded that they didn’t know up from down or obedience from disobedience. Your arbitrary interpretation of the name of the tree flies in the face of all Jewish and Christian tradition. Unless you can support it beyond “this is the hunch I had when I read it” or “this is what I read on Internet Infidels,” it’s not even worth rebutting.

Suffering isn’t evil, true, but causing or allowing unnecessary suffering is evil. Think of the Golden Rule. Now, not only did God allow Adam and Eve to sin (as above, they couldn’t have even known it was a sin), but after that he cursed the whole of creation as a punishment for it, specifically going out of his way to create thorns and such. This punishment would be overly harsh (and so cruel) even for a real crime such as murder.

In light of the totality of scripture, the thorns and such are best understood not as God throwing a tantrum, but rather as a necessary step in the redemption of man.

Col 1:24: Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ

Ah, but the consequences were not the problem, it was God’s overreaction that was the problem. It’s the difference between warning someone that your cookies are moldy and they’d get sick if they eat them, and hunting them and their children down and torturing them for the rest of their lives for eating your cookie.

Again, suffering is better understood as a necessary surgery than a torturous punishment.