Where was God during the holocaust?

  • Thread starter Thread starter YHWH_Christ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Prodigal1984 said:
In fact, rather than disproving God’s existence, the reality of evil actually points to it, in an indirect way. If evil exists, then it follows that real morality exists. Why? Because evil, by definition, is that which acts against the good. If there were no objective good, then we could say there are things we dislike, or what we call suffering, but there could be no such thing as evil. Therefore, if objective morality exists, then it follows that God exists. Objective moral laws point to a perfect and unchanging moral law-giver.
Click to expand...
Your version of “objective good” isn’t objective: it’s just based in the subjective feelings of your god.
 
The problem of evil is one of the oldest and most emotionally powerful arguments for atheism. It’s usually formulated in the following way: 1. God must be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. 2. An all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good being would eliminate evil. 3. Evil exists. 4. Therefore, God does not exist. Although this argument is emotionally powerful, from a logical perspective it suffers from a glaring weakness. Specifically, it leaves out a key premise that is usually never argued for: “God can have no good reason to allow evil to exist.” But St. Thomas Aquinas said that “God allows evils to happen in order to bring a greater good therefrom.”1It’s important to understand that evil is not created by God. Instead, evil is an absence of good that God tolerates because through it can come a good that he did create. There are two types of evil—moral evil and natural evil. A moral evil occurs when an agent acts against the good, such as a man poisoning his wife so he can marry another woman. Natural evil, on the other hand, occurs when bad effects follow from a morally good or non-moral cause, such as a woman accidentally drinking poison and dying. Moral evils are privations of the good and represent a defect in the one who is causing the moral evil. God cannot directly create these evils as he has no defects, but he can directly create physical suffering. That’s because natural maladies, like pain, can ultimately serve God’s good ends and are not inherently evil. Therefore, if God has morally sufficient reason to allow evil or suffering, then what is called the argument from evil for atheism falls apart, because God and the existence of evil are not logically contradictory. So what reasons might God have for allowing evil to exist? One reason might be the goal of creating creatures who freely choose the good and avoid evil. If God always compelled human beings to choose the good then our actions would be morally insignificant. They would be no different from the preprogrammed actions of appliances or robots. But if God allows human beings to choose to love, or to choose the good, then it is possible that some humans may choose evil instead. Thus, some critics might object that if I make a robot that I know will malfunction and hurt other people, then I am responsible for what the robot does. Since God made us and knew we would sin, this makes him responsible for the evil we do. But the problem with this objection is that the robot doesn’t choose to harm anyone; if it harms someone, it’s just following its programming. In that case, we rightly blame the programmer. But human beings aren’t robots programmed by God; when they freely choose to do evil we can’t blame God for it. But what about natural evils like disease or disasters? Free will may not explain why God allows these evils, but there may be other reasons why God allows them to exist. First, in a limited, physical world like ours there will always be competing goods that result in natural evils. For example, as fire burns, it consumes the oxygen around it. When a lion eats a zebra and becomes more perfect it reduces the goodness found in the zebra.
 
In God’s plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others, the existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forces of nature. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection (CCC 310). Second, natural evils may serve to build our character and help us develop virtue that could not exist in a world that is immediately brought to perfection. For example, it’s impossible for God to make someone be courageous if he is not in danger. Likewise, it is impossible for God to make someone be compassionate if that person cannot empathize with or sacrifice for a person who is suffering. Therefore, these goods could not exist without certain kinds of suffering that accompany them. Third, as limited human beings we are simply not in a good position to know the good that God can bring hundreds or even thousands of years later from the evil and suffering we face in the present. It’s interesting to ponder how atheists define evil. They know it can’t be defined solely as pain or suffering, because sometimes pain or suffering can be a good thing (such a criminal’s punishment or an athlete’s enduring hardship while training). Instead, evil can best be described as “unwarranted suffering” or “a state of affairs that is not supposed to be.” But this implies that there is “a way things are supposed to be”—a notion that doesn’t make sense in an accidental, atheistic universe, but does make sense in a universe created by God.
 
You need to edit those paragraphs better if you expect me to sort through all that.
 
Okay sad potato. I’m done with this. Stay sad and argue. I was an atheist for the better part of my life and you’re not going to convince me otherwise. Thank you for stopping by.
 
Last edited:
Prodigal1984 said:
Okay sad potato. I’m done with this. Stay sad and argue. I was an atheist for the better part of my life and you’re not going to convince me otherwise. Thank you for stopping by.
Click to expand...
I’m sad because of bipolar depression, so I probably will be staying sad.

I was a devout Catholic for the better part of my life: your arguments are nothing new to me, and it doesn’t change the fact that the Church hurt me more than it helped.
 
SadPotato said:
it doesn’t change the fact that the Church hurt me more than it helped.
Click to expand...
I am very sorry that you were hurt.

Now ask yourself, and be completely honest; was it the Church who hurt you or one or more people associated with the Church? I don’t need or even want to know the answer - this is strictly for you to consider when and if you wish.
 
AlNg said:
40.png
goout:
Love only exists in freedom.
Click to expand...
I don’t think so. There are people who have no freedom or restricted freedom, and they still love others.
Click to expand...
What?
You believe that love can be coerced?
Huh?

You must know that when we talk about freedom we are not talking about someone in jail or not being in jail, or whatever you are misconstruing…

We are talking about the freedom to actively will the good of another person.
One who is not free cannot love.

Which is why locking someone in a room to prevent them from being harmed is a hideous violation of their dignity.
Which is why God does not do that.
 
Last edited:
Since you chose to answer anyway…

I am having a hard time thinking of a way for theology or dogma to hurt someone (if properly applied that is), but I am not in your shoes and I can’t say categorically that it isn’t possible. And again, definitely not my business and I am not really in a position to do much other than sympathize.
 
whatistrue said:
I am having a hard time thinking of a way for theology or dogma to hurt someone (if properly applied that is), but I am not in your shoes and I can’t say categorically that it isn’t possible. And again, definitely not my business and I am not really in a position to do much other than sympathize.
Click to expand...
No True Scotsman strikes yet again.
 
Enlighten me. How is proper application of theology and dogma related to the No True Scotsman fallacy? All I meant was that sometime people misconstrue or distort dogma to fit their own notions and that can cause harm to result.
 
Sorry to hear such sadness.

Many wolves wear sheep clothing.

Try to forgive , I know that may sound impossible at the moment .

Every human can love but not all humans can forgive.

Forgiveness is what sets us free.
 
It’s not even about religion forgiveness.

Example:

A mother sees her son murdered.
The killer loves his own parents.
The mother has two choices to resent or forgive the murder.

Yes the revenge and anger will bring some comfort. But will not bring the child back .

Or try to forgive the murder and not allow the evil destroy ones own soul.

One person dies but the knock on effect ruins many more lives. Forgiveness will set all of them free.
 
englands123 said:
Or try to forgive the murder and not allow the evil destroy ones own soul.
Click to expand...
I mean, I don’t actively hate the Church. I just don’t think it’s the beacon of light and truth that devout Catholics make it out to be.
 
SadPotato said:
40.png
englands123:
Try to forgive , I know that may sound impossible at the moment .
Click to expand...
Can’t forgive theological abstracts.
Click to expand...
That’s correct.
Forgiveness is personal. It’s between human beings not concepts on a page or in your head.
The Church is composed of human beings, just like er…all of humanity is composed of human beings.

The things we are talking about: love for instance, are real not abstracts.
Love is incarnate, or in the flesh, not just a feeling. Willing the good of another person is a real human act not an abstract.
 
Last edited:
A lot of people talk of love. But Jesus wasn’t all about love.

Forgiveness played a huge part in his life.
 
There are a billion Catholics on the earth and maybe twice that number Christians! Starting from maybe 45 people in the upper room at Pentecost. That is a lot of people who have been touched is some way or another with the message of Jesus to love one another… There is a lot of good that is done but mostly in small doses.
The evil that men do is horrendous! There is also a great deal of good!
 
Prodigal1984 said:
Therefore, if objective morality exists, then it follows that God exists. Objective moral laws point to a perfect and unchanging moral law-giver.
Click to expand...
What would be the objective moral law concerning slavery? Is it objectively moral for a white European to enslave a young African woman? Also what would be the objective moral law concerning torture and burning another human being alive while she is tied to the stake? Would it be objectively moral to do this to a heretic or to a witch?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top