How could a moral God allow suffering?

[tonyrey]

How can an atheist be able to spout what he does on a ‘Catholic’ forum? A forum that at the heart of it has the love of God and the faith in his undying mercy?

It is a philosophy forum which welcomes everyone because it is intended to clarify and justify Christian beliefs. As early as the second century St Irenaeus was exposing the errors of the Gnostics and following the example of Jesus who had attacked the false beliefs of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

 

[ericc]

That he existed and taught, yes. That he is divine, no.

But you said God doesn’t interfere in the world after creation. You are being inconsistent. If you believe that Jesus is God, then you can’t hold on to your deist belief. Either God interact with his creation or he doesn’t. It seems you also believe he did. So you can’t hold yourself to be a deist.

 

[Amandil]

But you said God doesn’t interfere in the world after creation. You are being inconsistent. If you believe that Jesus is God, then you can’t hold on to your deist belief. Either God interact with his creation or he doesn’t. It seems you also believe he did. So you can’t hold yourself to be a deist.

He doesn’t believe that Jesus is God, only that Jesus existed.

How precisely he reconciles why Jesus was executed though is another matter entirely.

 

[oldcelt]

He doesn’t believe that Jesus is God, only that Jesus existed.

How precisely he reconciles why Jesus was executed though is another matter entirely.

As best we can tell, Jesus was executed for preaching sedition and heresy. Remember, he was accused by the Jewish religious hierarchy, who had no power to execute. He was turned over to the Romans and Pilate essentially found no fault with him, but sold out to an angry mob.

That version, of course, comes from the bible. No other sources exist, which makes the whole thing a bit problematic.

 

[Bradski]

It’s a common tactic by moral relativists/subjectivists to insist that their opponents (in this case the theist who holds to objective morality) must be an absolutist.

Now that’s not quite true in this case, is it…

In fact, I have been trying to insist that the majority of Christians (including yourself) are not absolutist in regard to the matter at hand. That making a comment such as: ‘I would give my life up (gladly) for a stranger’ actually needs some qualification. Such as: ‘I’d have my family to consider before I could do it’.

It’s a similar tactic here used by “Bradski”: get the theist to admit to some moral aspect of his religion (hardly matters which one), then make the charge that since he is not doing that at all times and in all cases then he must be a hypocrite and his religion therefore is ridiculous.

If someone said that they would do it at all times and in all cases and they didn’t, then it wouldn’t be hypocrisy. They simply wouldn’t be telling the truth. However, it would be hypocrisy if they said that all Christians must do it and then didn’t himself.

And if you skip putting the quotes around Bradski you’ll save yourself a little time.

The same follows from his attempt at using the apparent suffering of animals.

No, it’s not the same as I did earlier nor is it the same as you thought I did earlier. And I’m really having a hard time coming to terms with your idea that animal suffering is only ‘apparent’. Doesn’t the Catechism say something along the lines of it being contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer? So I think it’s a given, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned that they do (it’s not like it said one mustn’t cause apparent suffering).

I used this at least a dozen times or more when I was an atheist.

So you used to argue that animals suffered when you were an atheist but now you are a Christian you feel you can argue that they don’t?

Of course it is a strawman…

You’re using the term Strawman incorrectly again. You really should look these up.

 

[tonyrey]

As best we can tell, Jesus was executed for preaching sedition and heresy. Remember, he was accused by the Jewish religious hierarchy, who had no power to execute. He was turned over to the Romans and Pilate essentially found no fault with him, but sold out to an angry mob.

That version, of course, comes from the bible. No other sources exist, which makes the whole thing a bit problematic.

• Thallus writing around 52 A.D. argued that the abnormal darkness alleged to have accompanied the death of Christ was a purely natural phenomenon and coincidence (a fragment preserved by Julius Africanus). See Mark 15:33
• **Mara Bar-Serapion **writing around 73 A.D. was writing to his son from prison and mentions some historical men Socrates, Pythagoras and Christ. “… What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? … What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? …**What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? **…Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given.” (manuscript in the British Musem). (Please note that the date of this writing is in question and could have been written as late as the third century.)
• Cornelius Tacitus writing around 112 A.D. was considered one the greatest historians of Rome. He wrote about the reign of Nero (54-56 A.D.) and how he used the Christians as scapegoats for the great fire of 64A.D. It had been rumored that Nero started the fire in order to gain glory by rebuilding the city. Cornelius says, “ Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus…”
• **Pliny the younger writing around 112 A.D. wrote a letter to the Emperor Tragan telling him information he extracted from Christians by torture. “They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light when the sang an anthem to Christ as God, **and bound themselves by a solemn oath not to commit any wicked deeds.
• Suetoniuswriting around 120 A.D. he wrote about the life of Claudius and how expelled all the Jews from Rome by Imperial decree. “As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the **instigation of Chrestus, **he expelled them from Rome.” See Acts 18:1-2.

Evidence from 2 early Jewish sources.

• **The Talmud **(Jewish writings between 70 and 200 A.D.) contains many references to Christ. All of these references are hostile to the cause of Christ, but they help establish the existence of Jesus. According to these writings Jesus of Nazareth was a transgressor in Israel who practiced magic, scorned the words of the wise, led the people astray, and said he had not come to destroy the law but to add to it. See Mat. 5:17ff.
• **Flavius Josephus **(Sometime after 70 A.D.) not only writes about Jesus he also writes about many of the people we learn about in the Word of God such as Pilate, Quirinius of Syria, the Caesars, the Herods, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, Annas, Caiaphas, Felix, Festus, Jesus brother James, and of John the Baptist death. Notice what he says about Jesus.
  ”And there arose about this time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed we should call him a man; for he was a doer of marvelous deeds, a teacher of men who receive the truth with pleasure. He won over many Jews and also many Greeks.”
  
  ”This man was the Messiah. And when Pilate had condemned him to the cross at the instigation of our own leaders, those who had loved him from the first did not cease. For he appeared to them on the third day alive again, as the holy prophets had predicted and said many other wonderful things about him. And even now the race of Christians, so named after him, has not yet died out.”
  **Note: **Some have tried to say that these quotes were inserted by the church however, every single copy of Josephus writings that we have today contain these two quotes which gives strong evidence that they were not inserted by the church.

• lgchurchofchrist.com/Evidence%20from%205%20early%20Pagan.htm

 

[Amandil]

Now that’s not quite true in this case, is it…

Yeah, it is.

Or you’re utterly still missing the point.

It’s not qualified by anything except what God calls you to do in the circumstance that you find yourself in.

Even if someone has a family yet is in the circumstance that they are objectively obligated to give their life up for another, they must do it.

Bradski:

If someone said that they would do it at all times and in all cases and they didn’t, then it wouldn’t be hypocrisy. They simply wouldn’t be telling the truth. However, it would be hypocrisy if they said that all Christians must do it and then didn’t himself.

And if you skip putting the quotes around Bradski you’ll save yourself a little time.

There’s nothing about “must” in the definition of the noun hypocrite.

You just said:

Bradski:

It just seems to be the case that it’s a very good idea as long as it involves someone else.

So you are in affect accusing Christians of “putting on a false appearance of virtue or religion”, which is precisely what the definition of hypocrisy is.

Bradski:

No, it’s not the same as I did earlier nor is it the same as you thought I did earlier. And I’m really having a hard time coming to terms with your idea that animal suffering is only ‘apparent’. Doesn’t the Catechism say something along the lines of it being contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer? So I think it’s a given, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned that they do (it’s not like it said one mustn’t cause apparent suffering).

Because you’re conflating pain with suffering. I never rejected the notion that animals feel pain, obviously they do. Suffering is an emotion which is endured pain, either physical or spiritual, over a long period where pain is merely a temporary sensation.

Animals do not have emotions, nor rational souls. You’re simply using “suffering” equivocally.

Bradski:

So you used to argue that animals suffered when you were an atheist but now you are a Christian you feel you can argue that they don’t?

I don’t “feel” anything when it comes to acts if the mind, I think. You might want to try it.

As I demonstrated above, its a flawed argument. Dawkins uses it constantly despite it’s flaw.

Bradski:

You’re using the term Strawman incorrectly again. You really should look these up.

Yes because creating a distorted view of your opponents position and attacking the distortion clearly is not what the “Strawman” fallacy is.

If you say so, then it must be true.

 

[Amandil]

As best we can tell, Jesus was executed for preaching sedition and heresy. Remember, he was accused by the Jewish religious hierarchy, who had no power to execute. He was turned over to the Romans and Pilate essentially found no fault with him, but sold out to an angry mob.

That version, of course, comes from the bible. No other sources exist, which makes the whole thing a bit problematic.

Was “heresy” even a crime in the Roman Empire?

And what specifically does “preaching sedition” entail?

Surely you have sources to back this up?

 

[Bradski]

It’s not qualified by anything except what God calls you to do in the circumstance that you find yourself in. Even if someone has a family yet is in the circumstance that they are objectively obligated to give their life up for another, they must do it.

They must do it? That doesn’t imply a choice if God calls and you must obey. We seem to be moving away from: ‘I would sacrifice myself gladly’ through: ‘I couldn’t if I had obligations to my family’ to the current: ‘I must if called by God to do so’. It’s a moveable feast, isn’t it…

There’s nothing about “must” in the definition of the noun hypocrite.

I’ll repeat: If a Christian says that one must give up one’s life for a stranger and then personally decides not to, then that is an example of hypocrisy.

Because you’re conflating pain with suffering. I never rejected the notion that animals feel pain, obviously they do. Suffering is an emotion which is endured pain, either physical or spiritual, over a long period where pain is merely a temporary sensation.

Yes, I am intentionally conflating them (look these terms up!). You mean confusing them. I said, quite clearly…

Let me get this straight…you are proposing that God is not allowing animals to suffer pain because there is no method of actually discerning that they do. Is that correct? You are proposing that animals are not sentient therefore there’s no problem?

And you have been arguing against that point since. That animals do not suffer pain. I have used the term more than once and have even used the example of a dog being beaten as an example.

So the question still stands: Why has God set up the natural world so that animals suffer so much pain?

Animals do not have emotions, nor rational souls.

Souls no, they don’t exist. Emotions? Oh, c’mon…first it’s no pain, now it’s no emotions. Didn’t your parents get you a dog when you were a kid so you could learn about these things?

If you say so, then it must be true.

Thank you.

 

[Amandil]

They must do it? That doesn’t imply a choice if God calls and you must obey. We seem to be moving away from: ‘I would sacrifice myself gladly’ through: ‘I couldn’t if I had obligations to my family’ to the current: ‘I must if called by God to do so’. It’s a moveable feast, isn’t it…

I’ll repeat: If a Christian says that one must give up one’s life for a stranger and then personally decides not to, then that is an example of hypocrisy.

Yes, I am intentionally conflating them (look these terms up!). You mean confusing them. I said, quite clearly…

And you have been arguing against that point since. That animals do not suffer pain. I have used the term more than once and have even used the example of a dog being beaten as an example.

So the question still stands: Why has God set up the natural world so that animals suffer so much pain?

Souls no, they don’t exist. Emotions? Oh, c’mon…first it’s no pain, now it’s no emotions. Didn’t your parents get you a dog when you were a kid so you could learn about these things?

Thank you.

Putting words in my mouth and building strawmen for you to attack does not advance your argument nor grant you much credibility.

 

[Bradski]

I haven’t made an argument yet. I just need you to agree that animals feel pain. And likewise emotion as we’re at it. Such as, let’s see…fear

So can we agree that if an animal is being attacked by a predator it is feeling pain and fear?

 

[Amandil]

I haven’t made an argument yet. I just need you to agree that animals feel pain. And likewise emotion as we’re at it. Such as, let’s see…fear

So can we agree that if an animal is being attacked by a predator it is feeling pain and fear?

You have yet to even put forth a workable definition of what emotion is.

 

[Bradski]

There are many emotions. I’m talking about fear. Are you telling me you don’t understand what I mean by it?

Do you really want to put yourself into the incredible position of trying to argue that animals do not feel pain and fear?

 

[Amandil]

There are many emotions. I’m talking about fear. Are you telling me you don’t understand what I mean by it?

Do you really want to put yourself into the incredible position of trying to argue that animals do not feel pain and fear?

Clear terms are the foundation of any philosophical discussion.

I’m not discussing anything with you until you clarify your terms, beginning with the term “emotion”.

 

[Bradski]

Clear terms are the foundation of any philosophical discussion.

I’m not discussing anything with you until you clarify your terms, beginning with the term “emotion”.

Oh good grief. A phrase comes to mind that includes the words ‘straws’ and ‘grasping’. However, not that it has anything at all do do with the statement to which I would like you to agree, but here’s a workable definition of emotion:

A mental state that arises spontaneously rather than through conscious effort and is often accompanied by physiological changes

Now, once again, do you agree that animals can and do experience pain and fear. Or would you like a definition of ‘animal’ perhaps. Or a neurological definition of pain. Or perhaps we can discuss the meaning of ‘agree’. Your call…

 

[Amandil]

Oh good grief. A phrase comes to mind that includes the words ‘straws’ and ‘grasping’.

If basic philosophical method is “grasping at straws” instead of heading off such things as confirmation bias then again it seems that you make a pretense at philosophy rather than actually doing it correctly.

Bradski:

However, not that it has anything at all do do with the statement to which I would like you to agree,

Is this about getting me to agree with you or about getting to the truth?

Bradski:

but here’s a workable definition of emotion:

A mental state that arises spontaneously rather than through conscious effort and is often accompanied by physiological changes

So how is that distinguished from “feelings”?

Bradski:

Now, once again, do you agree that animals can and do experience pain and fear. Or would you like a definition of ‘animal’ perhaps. Or a neurological definition of pain. Or perhaps we can discuss the meaning of ‘agree’. Your call…

It appears that you lack the sincerity and patience to really look at your own subjective assumptions.

I always thought that atheists appreciated a healthy amount of skepticism.

Apparently not…

 

[Bradski]

Is this about getting me to agree with you or about getting to the truth?

It’s about reaching agreement with an extremely basic concept.

Once again, do you agree that animals feel pain and fear?

 

[Amandil]

It’s about reaching agreement with an extremely basic concept.

If they are so basic why are you avoiding being clear about what is supposedly meant?

Bradski:

Once again, do you agree that animals feel pain and fear?

Bradski:

But the definitions of basic elements such as lines and circles need to be agreed so that the axioms can be stated unequivocally. It doesn’t work otherwise.

First you said “emotions” now you are saying “feel”.

Are you claiming that there is no difference between them?

 

[Bradski]

If they are so basic why are you avoiding being clear about what is supposedly meant?

I’m not really sure that you realise this but this sequence of posts of yours is just screaming: I Don’t Want To Answer The Question! I don’t know about you, but I’ll be keeping this up until I get a sensible answer…

Do you understand the concept of physical pain? If so, do you think that animals feel it when attacked by a predator?

Do you understand the concept of fear? If so, do you think that animals feel it when attacked by a predator?

First you said “emotions” now you are saying “feel”.
Are you claiming that there is no difference between them?

No, I’m just trying to get your answer to the questions above. Any chance this time?

And the last quote is from another thread. Please concentrate on this one.

 

[WilT]

Moral is a term to be used upon other people, not God. God, creator of all seen and not seen stands above human ideals.
Since God is all knowing and all loving it is best to just allow God to do what He feels is best for humanity even if it means we will need to go through some suffering.
God who created all and we who cannot even tie our shoes unless taught shouldn’t have to question God and His overall plan for mankind.