The argument of free will and suffering

[laylow]

Do you have a citation to support your claim that “Almost all Bible scholar (except extreme fundamentalists) agree that the Bible is not infallible”?
CCC#107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scripture.

Dr. Bart Ehrman has been quoted to say this. He is a nonbeliever who changed his mind from being a devout believer during his studies, so of course most of the religious will call him biased. However, I am a believer and I find his teachings mostly unbiased because they are more historical-based.

That multiple reasons for suffering are not harmonious is your opinion. I disagree.

There is no final answer that attempts to explain human suffering. What you cite (“So the final answer usually given for suffering is that, Well, in the afterlife everything will be made right.”) is hardly the final but more often the first given to juveniles who question their pain

The cause of all suffering is sin. One’s own suffering is not always attributable to one’s own sin. Suffering can be love’s response to the evil one does to another. Suffering has no good purpose at all if the sufferer is not changed by the experience and only bemoans his pain. Job was changed.

I’m not writing a book either.

Job was changed because he was given his stuff back. Even though 10 of his children were killed, which I think is pretty sick and to think that them being replaced by 10 others makes up for it is disgusting.
Saying “sin” is the cause is too broad. The scholars in the OT state that God made Israel suffer because of their sins. But then Job, a righteous man suffered because he needed to be tested. Some passages say the righteous must suffer, some say the wicked. No consistency to the message. So if there is perfect justice, when do this occur?

 

[laylow]

In the catechism the Church acknowledges that there is no easy, pat answer to the question of evil. Only in light of the fact that God, Himself, came down and lived among us, identifying with us in all ways, and allowed Himself to suffer victimization in an extremely excruciatingly humiliating and painful manner to demonstrate the extent He’d go to in order to prove a love that beckons but doesn’t force us to simply do the right thing, forgiving His tormentors all the while, can we begin to better accept the evil in this world that we’ll all experience to one degree or another.

This is laughable. Only the charmed would think that suffering is experienced by all to one degree or another and think that it is even close to being equal. Makes sense, since many of the writers were educated folk for well to do families, so their ideas would be represented in that way. That fact is the world is filled with indescribable suffering and believing that justice wouldn’t mean that some how that is evened out goes against any kind of rational thinking.

And the resurrection points to the fact that anything in this life is temporary, and that all manner of things shall be well in the next; all tears will be wiped away. As to exactly how God heals wounds in heaven or specifically deals with individual cases, the Church doesn’t pretend to know-only that such will be the case-the happiness to be known in heaven is ineffable, unimaginable.

Oh, I do think they do pretend to know. They claim that the “wicked” are subject to eternal torture, which would make the horrendous suffering here on earth seem like a mere flesh wound. Meanwhile many of the self-righteous here on earth seem to belief that they will miss out on most of that earthly suffering and then get eternal bliss, by saying some prayers, going to church, giving up meat, and helping their well-to-do friends and family, while driving $50,000 cars, living in $400,000 houses, getting to do jobs that they love, feed their face with excess food (some that is thrown away), go to movies and sporting events, sleep in comfortable bed with a roof over their head and climate controlled comfort. People are surprised that countries want to bomb the charmed, that people from bad backgrounds steel and murder, that depressed kids end their lives. There are not good answers for any of this. As a matter of fact, most believe these are the people who are going to “hell” when I would argue that it would be more rational for it to be the other way around.

 

[o_mlly]

Dr. Bart Ehrman has been quoted to say this. He is a nonbeliever who changed his mind from being a devout believer during his studies, so of course most of the religious will call him biased. However, I am a believer and I find his teachings mostly unbiased because they are more historical-based.

That’s one. Do you have a citation that supports “Almost all Bible scholar agree that the Bible is not infallible”

Job was changed because he was given his stuff back. Even though 10 of his children were killed, which I think is pretty sick and to think that them being replaced by 10 others makes up for it is disgusting.

Please read Job again. Job recants in 42:6. It is only in the epilogue that Job’s material possessions are restored. Scholars believe a later editor or editors added the prologue and epilogue to fix a happy ending for Job and encourage the afflicted (Anderson, Hugh, Lawrence E. Toombs, Robert C. Dentan, and Harvey H. Guthrie, Jr. Interpreter’s Concise Commentary Volume III: Wisdom Literature and Poetry. Nashville: Abingdon, 1983, p7).

After the theophany, Job is filled with God’s grace and the desolation that surged from Job’s false perception of God’s disaffection departs. Job now sees himself suffering with God; his prior view imagined his suffering as coming from God. Job’s new attitude allows grace to accompany suffering; his former attitude made suffering and grace mutually exclusive. Job’s renewed affection with God stunningly reverses Job’s disposition toward his suffering from the evidence of his alienation to the instrument of his atonement, “at-one-ment” with God.

In my interpretation, Job comes to see suffering as God’s instrument of intimacy; not of punishment. His prior experience of God expressed in verse five, “I had heard of You by word of mouth,” is indirect and wanting. In the time of his material prosperity, Job “heard” about God and responded liturgically using the proven formulas of his cult to maintain God’s goodwill. In a simplistic quid pro quo relationship, Job gives to God what is His—sacrifice—and, in return, God gives to Job—prosperity. But God so loves Job that He wishes to reveal Himself in a deeper, profounder way. To achieve this intimacy, God must first penetrate Job and strip away all his distractions, thereby capturing his complete attention. The bounty of the land impedes Job; prosperity and prolificacy inflict on Job a spiritual myopia, so God gracefully removes these obstacles to intimacy.

What Job first misinterprets as deprivation, he construes after the theophany as blessing, because intimacy with God requires detachment and an opening of oneself. Now a truly disinterested Job testifies of experiencing the intimacy of directly relating to God and he confesses so in verse five, “But now my eye has seen You.”*
Then Job answered the LORD and said:
"I know that You can do all things,
And that no purpose of Yours can be hindered.
I have dealt with great things that I do not understand;
Things too wonderful for me, which I cannot know.
I had heard of You by word of mouth,
But now my eye has seen You.
Therefore I disown what I have said,
And repent in dust and ashes” (Job 42:1-6).*

 

[laylow]

That’s one. Do you have a citation that supports “Almost all Bible scholar agree that the Bible is not infallible”

I do not. That was a paraphrase of what he said in a lecture. I trust it since he has many friends that are scholars and is immersed in that community.

Please read Job again. Job recants in 42:6. It is only in the epilogue that Job’s material possessions are restored. Scholars believe a later editor or editors added the prologue and epilogue to fix a happy ending for Job and encourage the afflicted (Anderson, Hugh, Lawrence E. Toombs, Robert C. Dentan, and Harvey H. Guthrie, Jr. Interpreter’s Concise Commentary Volume III: Wisdom Literature and Poetry. Nashville: Abingdon, 1983, p7).

After the theophany, Job is filled with God’s grace and the desolation that surged from Job’s false perception of God’s disaffection departs. Job now sees himself suffering with God; his prior view imagined his suffering as coming from God. Job’s new attitude allows grace to accompany suffering; his former attitude made suffering and grace mutually exclusive. Job’s renewed affection with God stunningly reverses Job’s disposition toward his suffering from the evidence of his alienation to the instrument of his atonement, “at-one-ment” with God.

In my interpretation, Job comes to see suffering as God’s instrument of intimacy; not of punishment. His prior experience of God expressed in verse five, “I had heard of You by word of mouth,” is indirect and wanting. In the time of his material prosperity, Job “heard” about God and responded liturgically using the proven formulas of his cult to maintain God’s goodwill. In a simplistic quid pro quo relationship, Job gives to God what is His—sacrifice—and, in return, God gives to Job—prosperity. But God so loves Job that He wishes to reveal Himself in a deeper, profounder way. To achieve this intimacy, God must first penetrate Job and strip away all his distractions, thereby capturing his complete attention. The bounty of the land impedes Job; prosperity and prolificacy inflict on Job a spiritual myopia, so God gracefully removes these obstacles to intimacy.

What Job first misinterprets as deprivation, he construes after the theophany as blessing, because intimacy with God requires detachment and an opening of oneself. Now a truly disinterested Job testifies of experiencing the intimacy of directly relating to God and he confesses so in verse five, “But now my eye has seen You.”*
Then Job answered the LORD and said:
"I know that You can do all things,
And that no purpose of Yours can be hindered.
I have dealt with great things that I do not understand;
Things too wonderful for me, which I cannot know.
I had heard of You by word of mouth,
But now my eye has seen You.
Therefore I disown what I have said,
And repent in dust and ashes” (Job 42:1-6).*

The Book of Job was written by 2 different authors, both whom had different views of the problems of suffering. Seems to be consistent with the rest of the Bible, no consistent message on the topic. I do find it hideous that God would murder 10 of his kids just to “test” him. Yet one of the 10 commandments is thou shalt not kill.

 

[fhansen]

This is laughable. Only the charmed would think that suffering is experienced by all to one degree or another and think that it is even close to being equal. Makes sense, since many of the writers were educated folk for well to do families, so their ideas would be represented in that way. That fact is the world is filled with indescribable suffering and believing that justice wouldn’t mean that some how that is evened out goes against any kind of rational thinking.

Pretty much unimaginative speculation. Everyone suffers to one degree or another in this life-just give it enough time. Maybe you’re privileged-and/or young. Everyone will lose loved ones, everyone will know pain and disease and suffering. Everyone will die. It’s no bed of roses down here-even if we may live in denial of that at times- if we can get away with it. And who even *hinted *that justice wouldn’t be evened out?

Oh, I do think they do pretend to know. They claim that the “wicked” are subject to eternal torture, which would make the horrendous suffering here on earth seem like a mere flesh wound. Meanwhile many of the self-righteous here on earth seem to belief that they will miss out on most of that earthly suffering and then get eternal bliss, by saying some prayers, going to church, giving up meat, and helping their well-to-do friends and family, while driving $50,000 cars, living in $400,000 houses, getting to do jobs that they love, feed their face with excess food (some that is thrown away), go to movies and sporting events, sleep in comfortable bed with a roof over their head and climate controlled comfort. People are surprised that countries want to bomb the charmed, that people from bad backgrounds steel and murder, that depressed kids end their lives. There are not good answers for any of this. As a matter of fact, most believe these are the people who are going to “hell” when I would argue that it would be more rational for it to be the other way around.

You may understand basic human nature-as most of us do or will-and it’s selfish tendencies, which aren’t at all limited to the rich and “charmed” BTW, including it’s ugliest behavior whether by people inside churches or out, but you don’t understand the basics of Catholic teaching.

First of all hell is simply about justice-that good and evil exist, as you acknowledge, and that the two won’t always be allowed to *co-*exist. It implies that justice will, indeed, be wrought, against those who freely and persistently choose to hate and victimize others, who choose good over evil by their acts, who choose hell over heaven; the victimization of people over the centuries won’t be unaddressed. And BTW, the rich who ignore the poor and helpless *are *the ones in some of the greatest danger according to the gospel-and the Church. It’d be best to study this stuff a lot more. But yes, I know, pontificating can be more fun.

The Church teaches that love and goodness and order and meaning are foundational to this universe. In this life we taste both-the many goods of this world-beauty and pleasure and love and friendship and learning and various interests, etc. We also taste evil, possibly in big doses. We may even commit and/or propagate some of it ourselves. We’re called to line ourselves up with one side or the other. Pretty simple. Our choice.

And the Church, if you bother to look, has been greatly responsible for making altruism an authentic human value. She’s always at the forefront of many social justice issues; she’s been fighting the war on poverty and implementing disaster relief for centuries. When the common value was and is to conquer and vanquish ones enemy, the church taught to love ones enemy. Centuries of encouraging the pursuit of excellence, building hospitals and orphanages, developing educational systems, countless hours of volunteer work and sums of wealth donated. Bury your head if you want but the Church, inspired by an ideal given her at the beginning, has brought hope and reason into an often dark and ignorant world, with no idea of a purpose or ultimate end. Mainly through very different times than our own.

It’s one thing to talk about how bad things are-it’s another thing to do something about it yourself. If we even really care.

 

[laylow]

Pretty much unimaginative speculation. Everyone suffers to one degree or another in this life-just give it enough time. Maybe you’re privileged-and/or young. Everyone will lose loved ones, everyone will know pain and disease and suffering. Everyone will die. It’s no bed of roses down here-even if we may live in denial of that at times- if we can get away with it. And who even *hinted *that justice wouldn’t be evened out?

I may be charmed compared to many around the world, but certainly have it worse than practically all the people I know, in my opinion. My father was an alcoholic. I believe that he had multiple mental illnesses, unfortunately that were undiagnosed, but he was too stubborn to get a diagnosis anyway. He was drunk almost all hours of the day. As a consequence, I was verbally abused by entire childhood and adolescence. But Dad demanded that we obey him, because he was my father… As time went on, Father’s day and his birthday, were obligations for us to be with him and try to accommodate him. He would always be drunk and most times talk with a defeated and depressed attitude. Other times he would outright not even acknowledge that we were trying to be there for him. This was very stressful and downright demeaning. In the meantime, my Mom is Autistic, so she had no idea how to handle the situation and it was also hard to find showing of love from her, because she had a hard time showing it. I have multiple mental illnesses, including aspergers, and also an additional chronic illness that causes me physical pain and discomfort on a near constant basis. I get eat only one meal a day and never go hardly anywhere to enjoy anything. But since I live in the gold ole USA I daily see everyone else enjoy their lives, so no, I’m not in a good mood very often.

I see nothing about the church teaching saying it evens out. Possibly purgatory, which I find highly unbibical. Even then, no specific teaching is given. That is why I say that sufficient answers are not provided.

You may understand basic human nature-as most of us do or will-and it’s selfish tendencies, which aren’t at all limited to the rich and “charmed” BTW, including it’s ugliest behavior whether by people inside churches or out, but you don’t understand the basics of Catholic teaching.

I see much of the ugly behavior firsthand. Many are Christian people. They apparently don’t learn or uphold what the “church” teaches. The teachings seem more concerned with “sacraments” and attending church and praying and “being a good person” as if that is hard when you have it so good. They teach this instead of actually doing something to change the world and help people. The reality is, not enough is being done and this has been going on for centuries. It is taught for the sufferers to suffer with patience while everyone enjoys their life and “prays” for us as if that helps.

First of all hell is simply about justice-that good and evil exist, as you acknowledge, and that the two won’t always be allowed to *co-*exist. It implies that justice will, indeed, be wrought, against those who freely and persistently choose to hate and victimize others, who choose good over evil by their acts, who choose hell over heaven; the victimization of people over the centuries won’t be unaddressed. And BTW, the rich who ignore the poor and helpless *are *the ones in some of the greatest danger according to the gospel-and the Church. It’d be best to study this stuff a lot more. But yes, I know, pontificating can be more fun.

Suffering for eternity for a few years of mistakes is not justice, that’s madness and insanity and any teaching institution that adheres to that teaching is insane or simply doesn’t believe it themselves.

The Church teaches that love and goodness and order and meaning are foundational to this universe. In this life we taste both-the many goods of this world-beauty and pleasure and love and friendship and learning and various interests, etc. We also taste evil, possibly in big doses. We may even commit and/or propagate some of it ourselves. We’re called to line ourselves up with one side or the other. Pretty simple. Our choice.

And the Church, if you bother to look, has been greatly responsible for making altruism an authentic human value. She’s always at the forefront of many social justice issues; she’s been fighting the war on poverty and implementing disaster relief for centuries. When the common value was and is to conquer and vanquish ones enemy, the church taught to love ones enemy. Centuries of encouraging the pursuit of excellence, building hospitals and orphanages, developing educational systems, countless hours of volunteer work and sums of wealth donated. Bury your head if you want but the Church, inspired by an ideal given her at the beginning, has brought hope and reason into an often dark and ignorant world, with no idea of a purpose or ultimate end. Mainly through very different times than our own.

Love and goodness while so many suffer on earth and supposedly so many will suffer for eternity. Not the message that I see being portrayed. But for some, their life is so good and they think that they will be in eternal bliss, since they are such great people, they don’t seem to see it that way because, well, they don’t see much of it because they isolate themselves from it. If so much was being done most of the suffering wouldn’t take place. And why doesn’t God intervene, he did at times in the Bible? Now all of the sudden he doesn’t?

It’s one thing to talk about how bad things are-it’s another thing to do something about it yourself. If we even really care.

Not trying to sound full of self pity, but I’m the one who needs help, I don’t have much capacity to be handing it out.

 

[o_mlly]

The Book of Job was written by 2 different authors, both whom had different views of the problems of suffering. Seems to be consistent with the rest of the Bible, no consistent message on the topic. I do find it hideous that God would murder 10 of his kids just to “test” him. Yet one of the 10 commandments is thou shalt not kill.

Yes, the commandment is not, “We shall not kill” for God is the author of all life.

As one of the Wisdom books, the Book of Job does departs from other OT books in its treatment of the problem of theodicy.

The “wisdom” writers of the Old Testament were a special class characterized by their rationalistic approach to ethics, religion and the problem of human life. Perhaps anticipating or reflecting the Hellenistic approach of viewing morality as a science, these writers sought to show how Yahweh not only brought order to chaos but gave humankind the ability to maintain that order through reason.

The essence of Wisdom theology might be stated as: 1) order is heaven’s first rule; 2) humankind, through a systematic reflection on daily living, can discover the underlying principles of causality; and 3) we may master life by conformance to these governing principles. A fundamental governing principle in the mind of the “wisdom” writers was retribution: in this life, Yahweh blesses the righteous and destroys the wicked. Such is the worldview of Job’s friends. However, in the Book of Job, I think, we find an anti-wisdom vein cautioning us on the folly of trying to contain an infinite God within the finite faculty of human reason.

Job is both a challenge and defense of the worldview that Yahweh controls history, that an outside agent bestows success or failure on the individual and the community. The theology of such a worldview requires strict adherence to its prescriptions for achieving the good life. The burden of monotheism in this worldview is that if you are desolate and the only God who exists is good, you must be bad because God has abandoned you. Job is an early attempt at addressing this issue of theodicy, the vindication of God’s goodness and justice in the face of the existence of evil.

The theophany is the central event, the free act of God which finally brings relief to Job. It is God’s action, not Job’s, that saves the day. The words of Yahweh may have been very different from what Job expected, but that is unimportant. The dark night is over; God has deigned to let himself be found by Job.

I’m still not writing a book.

 

[laylow]

Yes, the commandment is not, “We shall not kill” for God is the author of all life.

As one of the Wisdom books, the Book of Job does departs from other OT books in its treatment of the problem of theodicy.

The “wisdom” writers of the Old Testament were a special class characterized by their rationalistic approach to ethics, religion and the problem of human life. Perhaps anticipating or reflecting the Hellenistic approach of viewing morality as a science, these writers sought to show how Yahweh not only brought order to chaos but gave humankind the ability to maintain that order through reason.

The essence of Wisdom theology might be stated as: 1) order is heaven’s first rule; 2) humankind, through a systematic reflection on daily living, can discover the underlying principles of causality; and 3) we may master life by conformance to these governing principles. A fundamental governing principle in the mind of the “wisdom” writers was retribution: in this life, Yahweh blesses the righteous and destroys the wicked. Such is the worldview of Job’s friends. However, in the Book of Job, I think, we find an anti-wisdom vein cautioning us on the folly of trying to contain an infinite God within the finite faculty of human reason.

Job is both a challenge and defense of the worldview that Yahweh controls history, that an outside agent bestows success or failure on the individual and the community. The theology of such a worldview requires strict adherence to its prescriptions for achieving the good life. The burden of monotheism in this worldview is that if you are desolate and the only God who exists is good, you must be bad because God has abandoned you. Job is an early attempt at addressing this issue of theodicy, the vindication of God’s goodness and justice in the face of the existence of evil.

The theophany is the central event, the free act of God which finally brings relief to Job. It is God’s action, not Job’s, that saves the day. The words of Yahweh may have been very different from what Job expected, but that is unimportant. The dark night is over; God has deigned to let himself be found by Job.

I’m still not writing a book.

Thou shalt not kill, but I can. Sure seems that you would want to follow the rules that you create, hard to have credibility if that’s the case.

I don’t see how any of this mumbo jumbo answers any of my questions. Either the Bible has many issues, or God is a major murderer.

Either God can intervene to fix issues or he can’t or won’t. The more I look to the Bible for answers, the more contradictions I see. When studying it from a historical perspective, that is hardly surprising.

It’s very difficult if not impossible to derive any answers to complex problems.

 

[fhansen]

Dr. Bart Ehrman has been quoted to say this. He is a nonbeliever who changed his mind from being a devout believer during his studies, so of course most of the religious will call him biased. However, I am a believer and I find his teachings mostly unbiased because they are more historical-based.

Job was changed because he was given his stuff back. Even though 10 of his children were killed, which I think is pretty sick and to think that them being replaced by 10 others makes up for it is disgusting.
Saying “sin” is the cause is too broad. The scholars in the OT state that God made Israel suffer because of their sins. But then Job, a righteous man suffered because he needed to be tested. Some passages say the righteous must suffer, some say the wicked. No consistency to the message. So if there is perfect justice, when do this occur?

Job didn’t need to be tested, he simply was, as many people are. But he didn’t give up. He trusted in the basic goodness of the universe and his existence, naive or not. Giving up can include lots of things, -suicide, apathy, substance abuse, etc. So when the basic message of an entity such as the church tries to tell us that it’s all worth it, that life isn’t futile, that there’s hope and light at the end of the tunnel, that’s not a bad thing in and of itself.

Again, the church doesn’t claim to know about either heaven or hell with much detail. So she doesn’t have extended or involved teachings on them. That’s all left to a trustworthy God. But in any case we’re asked to make a choice. We can decide that the world is an irrevocably chaotic mess, at one extreme, and that that we might as well join the crowd that doesn’t much care, or dwells on cynism and negativity, or we can find reason to aim higher and not contribute to the destruction ourselves that’s caused by all the anger and selfishness and lack of love that we’ve already experienced. Going by your background, from another post, this not so easy to do in your situation, to break the cycle-you didn’t choose the life you were given. But it still involves choice-for how you make your future.

 

[laylow]

Job didn’t need to be tested, he simply was, as many people are. But he didn’t give up. He trusted in the basic goodness of the universe and his existence, naive or not. Giving up can include lots of things, -suicide, apathy, substance abuse, etc. So when the basic message of an entity such as the church tries to tell us that it’s all worth it, that life isn’t futile, that there’s hope and light at the end of the tunnel, that’s not a bad thing in and of itself.

Again, the church doesn’t claim to know about either heaven or hell with much detail. So she doesn’t have extended or involved teachings on them. That’s all left to a trustworthy God. But in any case we’re asked to make a choice. We can decide that the world is an irrevocably chaotic mess, at one extreme, and that that we might as well join the crowd that doesn’t much care, or dwells on cynism and negativity, or we can find reason to aim higher and not contribute to the destruction ourselves that’s caused by all the anger and selfishness and lack of love that we’ve already experienced. Going by your background, from another post, this not so easy to do in your situation, to break the cycle-you didn’t choose the life you were given. But it still involves choice-for how you make your future.

This is the kind of stuff I see and hear many say to people that suffer. Then, when they leave the situation, they say quietly to themselves, I’m glad I’m not in their situation.

 

[tonyrey]

Thou shalt not kill, but I can. Sure seems that you would want to follow the rules that you create, hard to have credibility if that’s the case.

I don’t see how any of this mumbo jumbo answers any of my questions. Either the Bible has many issues, or God is a major murderer.

Either God can intervene to fix issues or he can’t or won’t. The more I look to the Bible for answers, the more contradictions I see. When studying it from a historical perspective, that is hardly surprising.

It’s very difficult if not impossible to derive any answers to complex problems.

The very fact that you condemn murder demonstrates that you accept some of the “mumbo jumbo”. In a Godless universe there is no such thing as good or evil. They are merely human conventions that clever atheists can and do ignore with impunity.

 

[fhansen]

This is the kind of stuff I see and hear many say to people that suffer. Then, when they leave the situation, they say quietly to themselves, I’m glad I’m not in their situation.

I suppose that’s true. Some help, some don’t. And you could say the same about someone in a worse way than yourself. But the choice is still yours ultimately. You can say its all bad and live accordingly or seek a better way for yourself. Right now you don’t seem to even want to be convinced that’s possible-or that anything better exists. In any case no one can fix anyone else, or fix or intervene in every bad family situation.

In any case the church gives reason for why moral evil, considered as an anomaly in creation, exists, as a matter of people abusing their freedom, and why it doesn’t have to be that way.

 

[laylow]

The very fact that you condemn murder demonstrates that you accept some of the “mumbo jumbo”. In a Godless universe there is no such thing as good or evil. They are merely human conventions that clever atheists can and do ignore with impunity.

I don’t believe that there has to be a God for humans to understand “good” and “evil.” Obviously if murder is rampant, that creates a very fearful society, which prevents people from enjoying their lives as fully, since they are in fear of being murdered.

 

[laylow]

I suppose that’s true. Some help, some don’t. And you could say the same about someone in a worse way than yourself. But the choice is still yours ultimately. You can say its all bad and live accordingly or seek a better way for yourself. Right now you don’t seem to even want to be convinced that’s possible-or that anything better exists. In any case no one can fix anyone else, or fix or intervene in every bad family situation.

In any case the church gives reason for why moral evil, considered as an anomaly in creation, exists, as a matter of people abusing their freedom, and why it doesn’t have to be that way.

I have an understanding of moral evil. I don’t understand innocent evil and unfairness.

 

[tonyrey]

The very fact that you condemn murder demonstrates that you accept some of the “mumbo jumbo”. In a Godless universe there is no such thing as good or evil. They are merely human conventions that clever atheists can and do ignore with impunity.

In other words “good” and “evil” are merely human conventions devised to prevent people from killing others and there is nothing to stop a person from doing so if they can evade detection. You believe the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a load of nonsense?

 

[laylow]

In other words “good” and “evil” are merely human conventions devised to prevent people from killing others and there is nothing to stop a person from doing so if they can evade detection. You believe the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a load of nonsense?

no

 

[Vonsalza]

I don’t understand innocent evil…

Me neither. I have no idea what that is. Are you talking about the age-old problem of “When bad things happen to ‘good people’”?

The counter is usually a denial that anyone is good or the answers to the natural portion of “the problem of evil” - the Devil and/or creation falling to reflect now-fallen man.

and unfairness.

It’s a nice idea, but darn hard to objectively define.

Should we all be born into households of same income, race, education? God, if fair, would be a communist of some sort?

If not God, I’m not sure there is anyone who can really, objectively judge “fairness”.

 

[laylow]

Me neither. I have no idea what that is. Are you talking about the age-old problem of “When bad things happen to ‘good people’”?

The counter is usually a denial that anyone is good or the answers to the natural portion of “the problem of evil” - the Devil and/or creation falling to reflect now-fallen man.

This is the main reason why I say the Bible fails to provide consistent answers. Those are just 2 reasons given amongst many more and fail to provide any reason why they happen to some good people and not others.

It’s a nice idea, but darn hard to objectively define.

Should we all be born into households of same income, race, education? God, if fair, would be a communist of some sort?

If not God, I’m not sure there is anyone who can really, objectively judge “fairness”.

Communism with no disease, world disasters, hunger, etc. would be better than the world we live in.

I think it’s easy to see the drastic different between the “haves” and the “have-nots” to see that unfairness exists and in extremes. Saying that humans can’t understand and only God can seems to be a cop out answer and only works for people on the good side of things.
The only sensible answer is that the injustice will be made up for in the coming world. So the “haves” will now have to suffer hunger, poverty, pain, unlovingness, depression, etc to even the score. The church or Bible does not teach this per se. The likely reason is that they were created by the “haves” since at that time a very small minority actually knew how to write.

“Gods” idea of fairness should scare the many people. If he allows what he allows to happen on earth, there is no reason not to allow it in an “afterlife.” If “innocent” people can suffer now, why can’t they allow suffer later?

 

[Aloysium]

This is the kind of stuff I see and hear many say to people that suffer. Then, when they leave the situation, they say quietly to themselves, I’m glad I’m not in their situation.

They say that? Well, you have anyway.

Generally, advice useful or not, is what people say either trying to help or as a way to politely pull away from an uncomfortable encounter. In the first case, it is usually something one has learned through their own personal encounters with suffering. The latter, some ready made phrase that irritates, or evokes a sense of pity that one’s problems are a burden for the listener.

. . . fail to provide any reason why they happen to some good people and not others. Communism with no disease, world disasters, hunger, etc. would be better than the world we live in. . . “Gods” idea of fairness should scare the many people. If he allows what he allows to happen on earth, there is no reason not to allow it in an “afterlife.” If “innocent” people can suffer now, why can’t they allow suffer later?

News flash: You will die. Everything will be lost - wealth, pleasure, power, honour, all gone.

You may wish to reconsider the story of the rich man and Lazurus, if not the Beatitudes, which reveal the world to be upside down. Fact is that if you see people in need, it is a call to help them generated by the compassion which underlies all existence.

We are free to choose where our life leads within its determined parameters. As much as the hope of earthly paradise is enthralling, leading us to the bovine apathy of consumerism, the false righteousness of zealotry, or the illusion of equality in the surrender of one’s integrity to the group of communism, there is only transcendence as the way out of this. The symbol of Christian transcendence is the cross - love.

It’s good news, but we should be scared because God’s idea of fairness is the reality of Justice. Since love is what Existence is all about, anything that is not Love is transient and illusory. Clinging to what is of the world, we will end in suffering. The good we do is eternal.

 

[fhansen]

I have an understanding of moral evil. I don’t understand innocent evil and unfairness.

Yes, the bible says that things are not necessarily fair in this life: ‘the wicked prosper’, ‘the rain falls and the sun rises on the good and bad alike’, etc.

When it comes to moral evil, though, human choices are involved. A majority of the chaos and misery in this life is a result of just that.