Dodging theodicy: 'On Faith' panel stumbles over Haiti and God

[tackattack]

that was funny Adrian.

Anways without quoting everyone let me just attempt to sum it up again.

Infants have the ability to choose, yet they have no rational moral construct to judge right and wrong. They pick the red block over the blue one because it's instinctual. Once they develop reasoning skills they also start developing moral constructs to validate right and wrong. That's when we call them children. The child continues to develop moral constructs based off extranious observations and grows into a sinner.

Yes you have the ability to choose. You may choose good or evil but your nature, aside from morality and society, would choose more evil than good.

As for original intention, I disagree. We had no knowledge of good and evil before the original sin. I envision a group of adult shaped infants. I mean imagine a world where humans had the same morals and rational as another species of deer. It would be a far friendlier and peaceful place. But we don't we chose reason and knowledge. I don't think they chose to disobey as much as let their natural curiosity take control. That lack of control or taking control is our free choice. All in all we take the good with the bad but we can't blame God for our choice. You're continuing Adam and Eve's choice by using your rationale. You wouldn't know what rational, logical or scientific is without them, so yes you can take credit for that one.

I'm not one to schew personal responsibility either, so I wouldn't let anyone else die for my sins. He did though in my book (which I know you don't believe) and that's why I'm thankful and praise God whenever I can, as thanks for the opportunity, not out of fear.

If I were an omnioptent, omnipresent being with my current moral constructs, perspective, bias and logic then I'd choose differently as well. However he just provided and we chose.

As far as his Glory, I do think he'd rather have a few morally developed respectful visitors back in heaven then billions of warring, rebellious social misfits. He's already had one rebellion and he's probably quite done with that. Let's say God came down tomorrow personally and visited every person in the world with rational thought. He showed you everything you needed to believe he was God. Now let's skip ahead 6 generations and the children who's parents saw God are long dead and due to our mortality people start to curiously question whether it really happened. I mean we can't see God or hear God, so why should we believe in him. 6 more generations down the road there's a frationing in society between the believers and the non believers. People start arguing and warring and restricting people's rights, leading to territorial wars ,etc. That's about where we're at today so why should he go through all that if we ALL can't learn to constantly overcome our nature and develop a moral construct which universally and consistantly chooses Good over Evil?

I feel there are no true absolutes within our universe. That doesn't say that 99.999~% of the time a universal truth can't be consistant, and relied upon. Your use of suffering I think is wrong. I've stated elsewhere that the only suffering God has wrought on modern man is a seperation from his Love, which in fact we chose for ourselves. Disobeying God is wrong, because it is contrary to the only absolute we have access to, which is God. We may misconstrue his meaning and intent and signs, but if you ever heard it from God himself, you wouldn't question it again. I wouldn't call what God has morality, it's just God's nature. It's like I can say, "Void, that was a good use of morals making that decision." but what if you always made that decision that way, before and till the end of time never chaning. It wouldn't necessarily be a set of developing values like morality and ethics are as we see them today, it'd be a constant and absolute.

@EvF -
"If God is to be approved for allowing" I don't understand the context of your language here. Could you perhaps rephrase for me. Thanks!

I think I covered everything.. If I missed something point it out please.

[fr0d0]

It's not a dodge VOID it's an answer. To put the condition that only positive is good dismisses the "indifferent" as bad. That you're indifferent to Christianity doesn't make you a Christian, it makes you a non Christian.

I'm glad you're willing to learn, but your aggressive negativity is possibly the worst methodology i could possibly think of if you're genuinely trying to grasp anything.

The whole omnipotent/ omni-benevolent fallacy has been dismissed thoroughly by Arcanus here. Maybe you just have a short memory?

Additionally... to play the "dodge" card is you really saying that you won't consider the point made. I sincerely tried to answer. If you don't understand or would like an alternative thought stream, why not say, rather than actually dodge completely and resort to insult?

[Edwardo Piet]

Because he is the opposite of Evil

Not by the definition of Evil how I understand it.

Such as, 'being a total cunt on purpose' does dot=not evil in my view.

The absence of good.

Non-love is not the same as anti-love, right?

Just as absence of Good is not the same as presence of Evil.

Being lazy and not going out and doing good= absence of Good. And perhaps a bit selfish.

Going out and slaughtering a load of newborn babies 'just for kicks' is not merely absence of good, is fucking Evil to say the least (if anything is).

EvF

[fr0d0]

"Being a total cunt" requires proof of total cunt-ness. You don't believe the stories, and we, as believers tell you you're misunderstanding. So either you, who have no clue if it's right or wrong, are right; or we, who have worked it out and get it, are right. I know where I'd put my money... but then you have great difficulty understanding what isn't thrashed out for you in black and white yes?

Well I'm glad someone is interested in moving the debate on. Not

What about taking no steps to stop something happening? Inaction could cause a lot of suffering. But then this isn't the issue here. We're really taking out of context what the biblical stories are saying and imposing ridiculous accusations of cruelty where none exist, apart from in your imaginations.

[Purple Rabbit]

What about taking no steps to stop something happening? Inaction could cause a lot of suffering. But then this isn't the issue here. We're really taking out of context what the biblical stories are saying and imposing ridiculous accusations of cruelty where none exist, apart from in your imaginations.

But since you mention it the above argument would of course make god, as the omnipotent yet inactive bystander of kid cancer ruining young lives, evil to the core. This again shows the christian god concept is morally abject.

Furthermore you answered that absence of good is the first cause of evil. That is a total bullshit answer. It means something can come from nothing and would cripple the first cause argument in the first place. Please get some coherence in your answers.

[tavarish]

This thread is full of win.

[tackattack]

?? what's that mean? good thing?.. sorry I'm tired and things are getting blurry..

[Autumnlicious]

It is funny that many Christians I've run into argue that God brings absolute morals, like the 10 commandments, while ignoring the touchy subject of the same deity striking down innocent babes just to make a point. Even if there was a greater moral accomplishment, like freeing the Isrealites (assuming that is true), it immediately invalidates the absoluteness of God's morality and changes it to something more akin to the Catholic view of doing a lesser evil for a greater good.

Sounds trivial, but when you start breaking down the absolutes on an absolutist being, it throws more into question, like can such a being possibly exist in terms of any absolutes and how does one verify it?

[tackattack]

As a Christian I feel that God brings an absolute standard for my evolved morals, helping to hone them to be a baetter person. As far as innocent babes, God doesn't strap bombs to kids and send them off to allah, people do that, seriously messed up people.

How would freeing the Isrealites invalidate the absoluteness of God's morality? I'm not seeing your perspective on this clarify please?

ahhh verification, yes that is the key.

[Zen Badger]

As a Christian I feel that God brings an absolute standard for my evolved morals, helping to hone them to be a baetter person. As far as innocent babes, God doesn't strap bombs to kids and send them off to allah, people do that, seriously messed up people.

How would freeing the Isrealites invalidate the absoluteness of God's morality? I'm not seeing your perspective on this clarify please?

ahhh verification, yes that is the key.

Really?

And when god told the Israelites to destroy the Moabites and lay waste to their land?

That is different how?