Old Question -- Any New Answers?

[vz71]

A benevolent person does not seek excuses, does not try to outsource the helping hand, does not care who or what caused the problem, a benevolent person goes and HELPS. Especially if it does not cost him anything.

This seems shortsighted.

‘Especially if it does not cost him anything.’ indicates the person does not care if the help will cost anyone else anything.

It would seem more important to help if the help will not cost others more then they should pay.
Is it right to heal someone, or restore a limb, knowing it will eventually cause the person detriment?
Would it be right to heal someone based upon prayers concerned more for the loss to the family then what is best for the person that is sick?

I may not be able to see through the eyes of the omniscient God we pray to, but I can see enough to know it to be very complex deciding if a miracle is really the best thing for everyone involved.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

This seems shortsighted.

‘Especially if it does not cost him anything.’ indicates the person does not care if the help will cost anyone else anything.

It would seem more important to help if the help will not cost others more then they should pay.
Is it right to heal someone, or restore a limb, knowing it will eventually cause the person detriment?
Would it be right to heal someone based upon prayers concerned more for the loss to the family then what is best for the person that is sick?

I may not be able to see through the eyes of the omniscient God we pray to, but I can see enough to know it to be very complex deciding if a miracle is really the best thing for everyone involved.

 

[bigquests]

You seem to be under the impression that God should part the Red Sea every other day.

No, but how about preventing the rise of evil men, such as Hitler? How about creating in the human race a desire to do good which prevents evil? What about rescuing the Jews who died in the Holocaust They didn’t get two boats and a helicopter!

I find people who talk about free will and letting God off the hook to be very cavalier about the sufferings of others. That somehow they deserved it. Lots of talk about ‘free will’ as if that answers anything. Then something bad happens to these people and they wonder, “Why me, Lord?” Why not? As if they should be spared because they are more noble than the next person or more Catholic. People who believe that God will spare them because they believe, often end up very disappointed. Realizing that suffering is part of the human lot and accepting it can be very liberating, and does not require belief in the supernatural. But Jesus was very specific about how God would respond to prayer if asked --the egg/scorpion quote. In the end Jesus felt abandoned, like everyone else.

 

[tonyrey]

False! Being compelled to believe in God’s existence does not entailing believing in everything else against our wil

You are deliberately distorting the implications of my statement. Let me spell it out in detail for you:

1. Coercive miracles would defeat the purpose of giving us free will as far as belief in God is concerned.
2. Life would be purposeless from the point of view of choosing whether to believe in God or not.
3. If we are compelled to believe in God we would be idiots **not to take the existence of God into account **in deciding how to live.
4. We would be idiots to live entirely for ourselves and not bother to consider why God created us.

I should add:

1. Only an idiot is absolutely sure that God doesn’t exist and acts as if God doesn’t exist!

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, tony has argued himself into a corner again. The only way of reconciling the problem is to believe in a non-interventionist God.

His statement on ‘coercive miracles’ is simply false by the way, as believers in apparitions like Fatima or Lourdes base their faith in these events precisely on such ‘coercive miracles’.
I mean by definition it wouldn’t be much of a miracle if it isn’t ‘coercive’

You are the one who is stuck in a blind corner!

The apparitions at Fatima or Lourdes were obviously not coercive because not everybody believes they occurred.

 

[vz71]

No, but how about preventing the rise of evil men, such as Hitler? How about creating in the human race a desire to do good which prevents evil? What about rescuing the Jews who died in the Holocaust They didn’t get two boats and a helicopter!

Every step of the way for Hitler was preceded by a decision and the decisions of others.

Which of these free decisions would you have God deny them?

Free will is exactly that, free.
And the consequences it can have are hideous.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

No, but how about preventing the rise of evil men, such as Hitler? How about creating in the human race a desire to do good which prevents evil? What about rescuing the Jews who died in the Holocaust They didn’t get two boats and a helicopter!

I find people who talk about free will and letting God off the hook to be very cavalier about the sufferings of others. That somehow they deserved it. Lots of talk about ‘free will’ as if that answers anything. Then something bad happens to these people and they wonder, “Why me, Lord?” Why not? As if they should be spared because they are more noble than the next person or more Catholic. People who believe that God will spare them because they believe, often end up very disappointed. Realizing that suffering is part of the human lot and accepting it can be very liberating, and does not require belief in the supernatural. But Jesus was very specific about how God would respond to prayer if asked --the egg/scorpion quote. In the end Jesus felt abandoned, like everyone else.

I would like to know were it is written that we will be spared pain and suffering in thise world? Were I or anyone has suggested that they should be exempt? Evil men rise to power because Good men do nothing to stop them. Hitler and the Holocost would not have happened had he been stopped prior to Poland. But we keep say ok we will except that much evill but no more and he kept giving more.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

In the end Jesus felt abandoned, like everyone else.

I you are referring to were Chirst said “My God,My God why have you forsaken me” he ws not expressing feeling of abandonment. He we praying the 22nd Psalm.

 

[danserr]

No, but how about preventing the rise of evil men, such as Hitler? How about creating in the human race a desire to do good which prevents evil? What about rescuing the Jews who died in the Holocaust They didn’t get two boats and a helicopter!

I find people who talk about free will and letting God off the hook to be very cavalier about the sufferings of others. That somehow they deserved it. Lots of talk about ‘free will’ as if that answers anything. Then something bad happens to these people and they wonder, “Why me, Lord?” Why not? As if they should be spared because they are more noble than the next person or more Catholic. People who believe that God will spare them because they believe, often end up very disappointed. Realizing that suffering is part of the human lot and accepting it can be very liberating, and does not require belief in the supernatural. But Jesus was very specific about how God would respond to prayer if asked --the egg/scorpion quote. In the end Jesus felt abandoned, like everyone else.

But if you don’t believe in the supernatural, and you realize that life is suffering, how is this liberating? It means you suffer to no purpose, no point, and quite often that there is nothing you can do about it. It happens to no purpose and there is nothing to make it right ever. This does not seem liberating, it seems imprisoning!

At least no Christian who remembers Calvary need think his suffering is wholly pointless (though it may often seem that way) and no Christian who believes in the Resurrection need fear that there is no solution to it, or anything to make it right in the end. I do not see how the naturalist has these two hopes. Evil may be a problem for Christianity, but it is also a problem for unbelief since Christianity is also the only solution to evil.

 

[bigquests]

You are deliberately distorting the implications of my statement. Let me spell it out in detail for you:

1. Coercive miracles would defeat the purpose of giving us free will as far as belief in God is concerned.
2. Life would be purposeless from the point of view of choosing whether to believe in God or not.
3. If we are compelled to believe in God we would be idiots **not to take the existence of God into account **in deciding how to live.
4. We would be idiots to live entirely for ourselves and not bother to consider why God created us.

I should add:

1. Only an idiot is absolutely sure that God doesn’t exist and acts as if God doesn’t exist!

Well, then Adam and Eve, created by God, were idiots.

They knew God. They talked with Him. They didn’t have to rely on faith.

Jesus performed quite a few miracles to make people believe in him. Many did. One said, cure my servant in the next village–Jesus did. The person believed. He made the lame walk and the blind see. People believed in Him . Why otherwise would He have performed these miracles?

God could still create a good world and not be performing miracles all the time. He could create a good world and people still would have to decide whether to believe in Him or not.

Now that people are so aware of all the evil in the world, thanks to modern communication, and now that science is able to explain the evolution of modern life forms without resorting to miracles, many people are choosing not to believe in God. A poll of the American Academy of Science revealed that SEVEN PERCENT of scientists at the academy believed in God. The lowest percentage was among biologists. It is suspected that those not responding were probably non-believers, making the percentage of believers still lower.

 

[bigquests]

But if you don’t believe in the supernatural, and you realize that life is suffering, how is this liberating? It means you suffer to no purpose, no point, and quite often that there is nothing you can do about it. It happens to no purpose and there is nothing to make it right ever. This does not seem liberating, it seems imprisoning!

At least no Christian who remembers Calvary need think his suffering is wholly pointless (though it may often seem that way) and no Christian who believes in the Resurrection need fear that there is no solution to it, or anything to make it right in the end. I do not see how the naturalist has these two hopes. Evil may be a problem for Christianity, but it is also a problem for unbelief since Christianity is also the only solution to evil.

To the atheist, suffering is part of life. Few are spared it. You don’t have to reconcile your own suffering with “free will” or “God’s plan” or “you’ll understand one day” other equivalents of the pie in the sky by and by, or even–commonly heard–the punishment for previous transgressions. Atheists don’t have to wrestle with the Problem of Evil vs. the omnipotent and all-loving God the way that believers do, and believe me, they wrestle. The disconnect between suffering and the concept of God only adds to their woes.

 

[bigquests]

Every step of the way for Hitler was preceded by a decision and the decisions of others.

Which of these free decisions would you have God deny them?

Free will is exactly that, free.
And the consequences it can have are hideous.

I would have God give these men a desire to do good. Many people have this, only not enough. I could steal and kill and cheat and lie, but I don’t. There are good reasons not to do so. But I have free will. You can have free will and a desire to go good.

 

[vz71]

I would have God give these men a desire to do good. Many people have this, only not enough. I could steal and kill and cheat and lie, but I don’t. There are good reasons not to do so. But I have free will. You can have free will and a desire to go good.

So your claim is that they had no desire to do good?

Everyone has the same laws of God written upon their heart.
Everyone has a choice to follow God or not.

It is a hideous truth that those same people that committed these acts did so with the same propensity to do good that you and I have.

The question still remains, what free will would you have God deny?

 

[danserr]

Quote:
Originally Posted by danserr View Post
But if you don’t believe in the supernatural, and you realize that life is suffering, how is this liberating? It means you suffer to no purpose, no point, and quite often that there is nothing you can do about it. It happens to no purpose and there is nothing to make it right ever. This does not seem liberating, it seems imprisoning!

At least no Christian who remembers Calvary need think his suffering is wholly pointless (though it may often seem that way) and no Christian who believes in the Resurrection need fear that there is no solution to it, or anything to make it right in the end. I do not see how the naturalist has these two hopes. Evil may be a problem for Christianity, but it is also a problem for unbelief since Christianity is also the only solution to evil.

To the atheist, suffering is part of life. Few are spared it. You don’t have to reconcile your own suffering with “free will” or “God’s plan” or “you’ll understand one day” other equivalents of the pie in the sky by and by, or even–commonly heard–the punishment for previous transgressions. Atheists don’t have to wrestle with the Problem of Evil vs. the omnipotent and all-loving God the way that believers do, and believe me, they wrestle. The disconnect between suffering and the concept of God only adds to their woes.

But the atheist is also confronted with the problem of evil. Namely, what to do about it? Like I have said, when you deny Christianity, you deny that there is any hope whatsoever for all the evil in the world, all the innocents who have suffered, are suffering, and will suffer in the future. You deny that there is any hope to make the injustices of this world right. On atheism, the world is a prison, a large prison perhaps, but a prison nonetheless, and there is no hope of escape because there is nothing outside it. Yet you wish to consider such a view liberating?! It seems to me rather more likely to lead to despair.

The Christian may have to deal with the theoretical problem of evil (if God is good, whence evil?), but he also has a solution to the practical problem of evil. By believing in the Incarnation, he can affirm that God also has suffered all the evils of the world; by believing the Resurrection, he can affirm that there exists hope for a world with death defeated where all the evils and injustices of the world will be made right. That seems far more liberating to me!

 

[tonyrey]

1. Coercive miracles would defeat the purpose of giving us free will as far as belief in God is concerned.

We do not know the extent to which our ancestors knew God. Genesis should not be interpreted literally - unless you are a Fundamentalist.

Jesus performed quite a few miracles to make people believe in him. Many did. One said, cure my servant in the next village–Jesus did. The person believed. He made the lame walk and the blind see. People believed in Him . Why otherwise would He have performed these miracles?

His miracles did not compel everyone to believe. Otherwise they wouldn’t have had Him crucified.

God could still create a good world and not be performing miracles all the time. He could create a good world and people still would have to decide whether to believe in Him or not.

The issue at stake is coercive miracles, those which compel belief.

Now that people are so aware of all the evil in the world, thanks to modern communication, and now that science is able to explain the evolution of modern life forms without resorting to miracles, many people are choosing not to believe in God. A poll of the American Academy of Science revealed that SEVEN PERCENT of scientists at the academy believed in God. The lowest percentage was among biologists. It is suspected that those not responding were probably non-believers, making the percentage of believers still lower.

How is this relevant?

 

[razredge]

You are the one who is stuck in a blind corner!

The apparitions at Fatima or Lourdes were obviously not coercive because not everybody believes they occurred.

They were not coercive to those who weren’t present - but they most definitely were to the eyewitnesses! Such as the atheist journalists who were compelled to belief and converted following the ‘Miracle of the Sun’ at Fatima.

So your argument about God not performing ‘coercive miracles’ falls flat

 

[tonyrey]

The apparitions at Fatima or Lourdes were obviously not coercive because not everybody believes they occurred.

They were not coercive to those who weren’t present - but they most definitely were to the eyewitnesses! Such as the atheist journalists who were compelled to belief and converted following the ‘Miracle of the Sun’ at Fatima.

So your argument about God not performing ‘coercive miracles’ falls flat.

Unfortunately for you not everyone was convinced that God exists. They don’t believe seeing is believing… neither do I for that matter. It could have been a mass hallucination…

 

[JDaniel]

Not an answer. Obviously a direct brainwashing would have an impact on my freedom. But some measly miracles would not do the trick. And that was your positive claim: “A miracle would deprive us of our freedom”. Obviously it would not. The solution is simple: Next time don’t make such sweeping and ridiculous claims.

Luvya:

For the most part, I think we’ve been hospitable to you. Why not try to be hospitable back to us?

God bless,
jd

 

[razredge]

Unfortunately for you not everyone was convinced that God exists. They don’t believe seeing is believing… neither do I for that matter. It could have been a mass hallucination…

Myobjection does not depend on ‘everyone being convinced’ - if the atheist reporter of an avowedly secular and anti-Catholic newspaper turned up just so he could write about the failure of any miracle to eventuate and ridicule superstitious peasants but went home a believer - as did happen.

Then THAT is a case of God performing a coercive miracle - You will have to revise your definition of ‘coercive miracle’ to be something like ’ a miracle which everyone who has heard about it accepts’

 

[bigquests]

Myobjection does not depend on ‘everyone being convinced’ - if the atheist reporter of an avowedly secular and anti-Catholic newspaper turned up just so he could write about the failure of any miracle to eventuate and ridicule superstitious peasants but went home a believer - as did happen.

Then THAT is a case of God performing a coercive miracle - You will have to revise your definition of ‘coercive miracle’ to be something like ’ a miracle which everyone who has heard about it accepts’

The ‘miracles’ at Fatima are pretty feeble–easily attributable to mass hysteria and— people’s clothes drying? And not so many cures at Lourdes these days. Why doesn’t God grow back an amputated limb? That would be a convincing miracle.

The most salient feature about Fatima and Lourdes–is that they happened so long ago. No equivalent since 1918–almost a century ago. Now we have electronic media and vastly improved medicine to document miracles, so there seem to be fewer of them and many fewer apparitions.