Ronin: The Problem of Evil [Archive]

Sweetie

02-26-2005, 06:42 PM

Wow, so I'm really going to attempt this. :doh:

I'm not kidding when I say my mind needs a kick start, it's looking at the problem and not knowing where to start and where to go with it but, that's the point, get some discussion going, get some information happening, get the reasoning processes working. :yup:

"Alright, I have one for you, Sweetie.

It addresses "The Problem of Evil" with a real-time example from my world.

Iva Jewel Moore, was recently brutally murdered by a couple of teenagers looking for an easy burglary (watch the associated video report).

"Friends of Iva Jewel Moore describe her with words like beautiful and sweet. She attended Handsboro United Methodist Church for many years.

"She was just a beautiful person. Salt of the earth. And we're horrified. And greatly saddened. And all experiencing some anger along with it," said pastor Rachel Benefield.

"She loved her church. And she loved the Lord. And I was thinking last night at prayer service we had, that she was an angel on earth and now she's an angel in heaven," said friend of the victim, Betty Jubinville.

The autopsy showed the elderly victim was stabbed to death in the neck.

------

So...a few things I'd like for you to address if you're up to it:"

If we should "trust in God", then why do we need police officers?

Well, my first thought is that is it realistic, even supposing there is a God, that He intervene in every human matter supernaturally? We do think there is such a thing as original sin which ultimately means that people will do bad things and they will do bad things to each other which, if original sin is a fact, would be a law of our world.

Some alternatives are impossible:

a) God intervening to prevent free-will continuously.
b) God preventing evil in this world which St. Thomas Aquinas would say, would be a greater evil.

Why didn't God protect her?

Protect her from what? Death, suffering? Why would He need to protect her from these things, no one is protected from these things, it's the only two things we can trust as humans to be true, or as some might say the only promise we have is that we will die, suffer as well.

Why do bad things happen to good people? We would look to Christ and all the Saints for an answer to that question and a Catholic would answer that suffering is redemptive. Christ promised that His people would suffer, they will be beset by trials and afflictions, there's an army of martyrs to look to. A Catholic also would point to something we call the Treasury of Merits as way of explanation.

If we trust in an afterlife justice and "freewill", then why do we need any sort of earthly judicial system or legal statutes regulating behavior?

God's primary sphere of action is in the spirit/conscience. Some would say that we know what is good, it is written in our hearts but we have the choice to act against. We know what justice is, we know what mercy is, we know what love is but we will choose to act unjust, unmerciful, unloving. More response to this question in the next paragraph.

Why is the pastor horrified, sad and angered by her murder if dying makes her an angel?

Whether or not she is an angel now is a judgement call, one that a Catholic is not likely to make, dying didn't necessarily make her an angel, nor did dying by being murdered, (though keep in mind, technically/theologically she would not be an angel either way, of course, but the phrase "like an angel" would be more appropriate).

He could just be horrified like all of us that bad things have to happen. Sadness is natural, even to reference a Christian indication of this, Christ's tears at His friend's death even though He created the man, could've prevented his death, decided when it was he was supposed to die and could supposedly bring him back to life at any time, it is human.

Anger, yes, righteous indignation at something happening that is seemingly so unjust. It is unjust at that level of course, and so this injustice at this human level is met by justice (police officers, courts, trials) at this level, but as Christians we believe that ultimately there is a higher level, it doesn't limit this level and it doesn't make that what has to happen for justice to balance itself on the human level obselete.

For instance, consider the idea of sacrifice in this religion. Something was lost, something must be paid back. It can be paid back in myriads of ways, but as every great Saint would do, they take it upon themselves which is hard to clarify.

A further thought, we believe that our lives, the Universe are reflections of God, His face is within it. I would explain it simplistically this way:

Isaiah: "Does a mother forget her baby, or a woman the child within her womb? Yet even if these forget, yet even if these forget, I will never forget My own."

So God can say to us that I love you as a woman loves her child, though greater though that's unimaginable to us.

And to extend that to meet my point, one of many examples of Christ appealing to earthly justice so that we are familiar with His meaning:

Matt 5
21"You have heard that the ancients were told, 'You shall not commit murder and 'Whoever commits murder shall be lliable to the court.'

What exists on earth serves many purposes for God in this sense, in this case, these things, police officers and courts for instance, can serve as a means for God to explain Himself to us, their existence serves a dual purpose both to regulate human behavior so that if humans don't have the fear of God at least they have the fear of something so they won't quite be of the mood to just take and take and dominate which would happen in this world most likely if all things were pleasurable, if there was no fear of God, if the conscience was silent, ie: if there were no earthly consequences, that they know the truth of action/consequence which is a law/reality, and so that God may show to us what is just and unjust and how He will act towards us in the sense of, you will go to court in front of me.

Though in this case, He appeals to the court because there does need be earthly justice, but it must conform to God's sense of justice, and if it does not that will be met later or Providencially on earth, by Christ, the Just Judge.

If true justice isn't meted out by humans so Providence will pick up the slack, for instance, as is said of Chaldeon in Habakkuk. The law that they will get what they deserve, Chaldeon (Babylon) will reap what she sows, in this case she was evil and unjust, she was destroyed or not destroyed, she destroyed herself, her pride the cause of her own downfall, the truth of timeless wisdom, "Pride cometh before a fall." Humans, children/adults/elderly perform all their actions on this earthly sphere, it is no strange thing that God has provided a means in this earthly sphere to enact justice and to meet those human actions with human actions and material consequences.

Sweetie

02-26-2005, 08:00 PM

Injustice/murder often creates a sense of outrage that I understand and agree with on one hand but not on the other.

We look to the holecaust and feel outrage and feel empathy for the people who died. The problem is, they're dead, it doesn't matter to them anymore. Sure, it matters to the people existing and living with the after-effects of it but at that point where the outrage is kindof eternalized, I don't feel it necessarily as strong as many others, that's not to say I'm lacking empathy, I'm not, but they really are dead or perhaps I just see it differently.

I suppose the fact that if you think about it every person who existed two hundred years ago is dead, every mother and every father, every child, every priest, every blacksmith, every prostitute, every teenager, everyone so I think that makes a difference to me in the way I see history and murder and how much outrage I feel.

It's the same even of the ancient times, God the baby-killer. It just doesn't hit my intellect quite the same.

Personally, I don't know that I really think that outside of the here and now, if there is somewhere else other than here because I think we live on that murder itself is particularily outrageous, that it's a big deal. It is a big deal in two ways:

For the atheist:

Deprive some one of life who had nothing but this life to live.
Deprive people of their loved ones when they have nothing but this life to live.

Euthenasia:

Deprive someone of life who had nothing to live but this life and this life was nothing but suffering.

For the Christian:

The sin will live on and so too the consequences.
It's outrageous that man considers himself God with power of life and death.
"Abel's blood cries out to me [for justice] from the ground."

but for the Christian:

There is more than the here and now.
People live on.
No one is given more than they can handle.
Everyone's death is set in stone, the question is only of how they will die.

Alot of people would consider the latter "feel-good" philosophy. I don't know that it is especially considering for a Catholic that it's met with a hell philosophy, "Chaldean will reap what she sows," and so will I.

Some thoughts.

Dingfod

02-26-2005, 08:05 PM

/me pulls up chair and gets out popcorn and an extra-large cup of Diet Dr Pepper
:popcorn:

Dingfod

02-26-2005, 08:20 PM

Some alternatives are impossible:

a) God intervening to prevent free-will continuously.
An omnipotent and omnipresent god shouldn't have any trouble at all to intervene in anything anywhere, any time.
b) God preventing evil in this world which St. Thomas Aquinas would say, would be a greater evil.Denying protection for believers that pray to him for protection would be an even great evil in my view.

The usual Problem of Evil argument:
1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn't exist.
I think it jumps to an unsupported conclusion. A god which is missing one, two or all three of the three attributes could exist. However, if a god such as that in #6 does exist, they most certainly are not worthy of worship.

To put it in human terms:
I see someone bleeding profusely in the street. They will die without intervention.
I know how to intervene and stop the bleeding and notify emergency services. I have the power to save their life.
If I don't do that, haven't I done wrong? I think most people would agree that I have done wrong to the victim, that if I cared at all for the victim I would have acted. In fact, in some locales, I could be punished by the law for having done exactly this.
If God, in the same situation, did not intevene, either by using me or someone else to stop the bleeding or by divine intervention, such as preventing the accident in the first place (the easiest choice for an omnipotent god), increasing the blood clotting factors in the victim, etc., would have done the same wrong to the victim. But, a morally perfect God can do no wrong, right?

Illogical.

Zoot

02-26-2005, 08:24 PM

To put it in human terms:
I see someone bleeding profusely in the street. They will die without intervention.
I know how to intervene and stop the bleeding and notify emergency services. I have the power to save their life.
If I don't do that, haven't I done wrong? I think most people would agree that I have done wrong to the victim, that if I cared at all for the victim I would have acted. In fact, in some locales, I could be punished by the law for having done exactly this.
If God, in the same situation, did not intevene, either by using me or someone else to stop the bleeding or by divine intervention, such as preventing the accident in the first place (the easiest choice for an omnipotent god), increasing the blood clotting factors in the victim, etc., would have done the same wrong to the victim. But, a morally perfect God can do no wrong, right?

Put it in divine terms.

Have you ever played The Sims?

Dingfod

02-26-2005, 08:27 PM

Yes. But, I am a malevolent god in Sim City.

Zoot

02-26-2005, 08:34 PM

Malevolent? Or indifferent?

And is there a difference?

Dingfod

02-26-2005, 08:48 PM

Willful indifference is malevolence, is it not?

Zoot

02-26-2005, 08:51 PM

Would it all be better if everyone spent an eternity in bliss after they died? An infinity of happiness making up for necessarily finite suffering?

Dingfod

02-26-2005, 09:36 PM

For every yin there's a yang: An eternity of suffering for finite sins.

John Carter

02-26-2005, 10:10 PM

Sweetie, given that Aquinas thought that watching people get tortured was good entertainment, I don't think he is someone I would cite on Good vs Evil.

Sweetie

02-26-2005, 10:35 PM

An omnipotent and omnipresent god shouldn't have any trouble at all to intervene in anything anywhere, any time.

Well then, correction, some alternatives are impossible considering the premise.

Denying protection for believers that pray to him for protection would be an even great evil in my view.

Perhaps, in your view but that lacks the largeness of the view I'm speaking of and the important factors that bring all the elements together but man, it's a big subject. :sadcheer:

In this case, what I'm referring to specificially is:

"Sin and suffering are linked. Pope John Paul II teaches that “man suffers on account of evil, which is a certain lack, limitation or distortion of good.”8 “It is the lack of a good that essentially belongs to a nature; the absence of a good that is natural and due to a being. Evil is therefore the absence of what ought to be there.”9 “Salvation means liberation from evil and for this reason it is closely bound up with the problem of suffering.”10 God’s providence is mysteriously, inexorably bound up with evil. Says St. Thomas Aquinas, “If evil were entirely swept away, Provi dence could not regenerate and restore the integrity of things, and this would be a greater evil than the particular evils they suffer.”"

http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Faith/JAN-FEB99/Mystery.html

1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

The major problem is with no 4.

I think it jumps to an unsupported conclusion. A god which is missing one, two or all three of the three attributes could exist. However, if a god such as that in #6 does exist, they most certainly are not worthy of worship.

First of all, what does the desire to elimate all evil mean and how is that to happen?

To put it in human terms:
I see someone bleeding profusely in the street. They will die without intervention.
I know how to intervene and stop the bleeding and notify emergency services. I have the power to save their life.
If I don't do that, haven't I done wrong?

Yes, you have, it's a sin by omission.

I think most people would agree that I have done wrong to the victim, that if I cared at all for the victim I would have acted. In fact, in some locales, I could be punished by the law for having done exactly this.

Right, because your lack of action was unjust.

If God, in the same situation, did not intevene, either by using me or someone else to stop the bleeding or by divine intervention, such as preventing the accident in the first place (the easiest choice for an omnipotent god), increasing the blood clotting factors in the victim, etc., would have done the same wrong to the victim.

Well yes, this is the problem with your arguement. There is the sense that if God allows suffering then He is doing evil and I don't know how you reached that conclusion, the concept of the greater good and Providence is brought in here.

I suppose you must understand at the very least, that we worship a crucified Master, a God who allowed His own Son to be tortured and die a terrible death but why, is the question. Is there a reason or is God just simply evil because He allowed that to happen? I think there's more to the story that that which is the point of the story I think.

Dingfod

02-26-2005, 11:01 PM

Your conclusion is based on assumptions that I'm not willing to make. There has not been proven to my satisfaction that there is a crucified master, a son of god, or god incarnate, whichever you believe, that even lived, let alone supposedly suffered and die (even though a couple days suffering when you already know you're going to be resurrected and then live forever can't be that much of a sacrifice). And God is not self-evident or there wouldn't have to be the big ass sales pitch all the time, from toddlerhood to the grave. But, that is another matter for another debate. This one is about the problem of evil.

If the god you say exists, then by your own admission that god is guilty of the sin of omission because he allows suffering and death that is unnecessary because he could do something to stop it. A sinful god is not a perfect god.

Demonstrate to me, or us, in a way that makes logical sense that suffering is necessary and why.

Demonstrate to me, or us, in a way that makes logical sense why god would want his creations to suffer.

I know, I know. I don't see the bigger picture. :(

Dragar

02-26-2005, 11:28 PM

Unknown reason defence.

Remember, when you have enough obscurity in your theory, you can account for any observation.

Sweetie

02-26-2005, 11:59 PM

Your conclusion is based on assumptions that I'm not willing to make.

Certainly.

There has not been proven to my satisfaction that there is a crucified master, a son of god, or god incarnate, whichever you believe, that even lived, let alone supposedly suffered and die (even though a couple days suffering when you already know you're going to be resurrected and then live forever can't be that much of a sacrifice). And God is not self-evident or there wouldn't have to be the big ass sales pitch all the time, from toddlerhood to the grave. But, that is another matter for another debate. This one is about the problem of evil.

Right, the problem of evil from a Catholic perspective. :wink:

If the god you say exists, then by your own admission that god is guilty of the sin of omission because he allows suffering and death that is unnecessary because he could do something to stop it. A sinful god is not a perfect god.

Well, to me you're trying to reduce it to the point of absurdity. What about the fact that without suffering, none of us would ever mature? We'd probably all have fallen off cliffs anyways, it's painful to jump off cliffs but what is pain?

Or to quote a song, "Fighter":

It makes me that much stronger
makes me work a little bit harder
makes me that much wiser
so thanks for making me, fighter

Made me learn a little bit faster
make my skin a little bit thicker
makes me that much stronger
so thanks for making me, fighter

Demonstrate to me, or us, in a way that makes logical sense that suffering is necessary and why.

Oh, I didn't see this but the above will suit for now. I actually worked really hard on a thread way back when to that effect, it's hard work.

Demonstrate to me, or us, in a way that makes logical sense why god would want his creations to suffer.

That's assuming that God wants His creatures to suffer. Perhaps we can say He does not want it, we want it but then He can say because we want it, He meets it and brings out the greater good in it.

I know, I know. I don't see the bigger picture. :(

Well no, you don't understand the complete Catholic concept at present, nor do I understand the totality of atheism at present and Buddhism is just so much fun, no I don't understand the Buddhist worldview so, it's not a dig as far as that goes.

Sweetie

02-27-2005, 12:01 AM

Unknown reason defence.

Remember, when you have enough obscurity in your theory, you can account for any observation.

Feel free to expound.

John Carter

02-27-2005, 12:04 AM

Well yes, this is the problem with your arguement. There is the sense that if God allows suffering then He is doing evil and I don't know how you reached that conclusion, the concept of the greater good and Providence is brought in here.

I suppose you must understand at the very least, that we worship a crucified Master, a God who allowed His own Son to be tortured and die a terrible death but why, is the question. Is there a reason or is God just simply evil because He allowed that to happen? I think there's more to the story that that which is the point of the story I think.

If God is omnipotent and suffering serves some greater good, then it is only that way because God wants it that way; he could find a way to achieve the same end without suffering. So either he's not omnipotent, or he wants us to suffer for no good reason.

Dragar

02-27-2005, 12:29 AM

Feel free to expound.

You just posit some unknown reason that God must create a world where people suffer. Perhaps some 'greater good' will come out of it. And there's no reason you can't; your theory of 'God' is very flexible.

But instead of specifying the reason, you just leave it as unknown. And who can challenege an unknown reason?

Sweetie

02-27-2005, 02:15 AM

Sweetie, given that Aquinas thought that watching people get tortured was good entertainment, I don't think he is someone I would cite on Good vs Evil.

Well, first things first, I haven't encountered that thought from him specifically so I suppose I'd need a reference, he was a brilliant man and even had he had such thoughts which I doubt would be exactly as you state them, perhaps you are thinking of Dante, I don't know, it wouldn't make any difference as to the validity of any other arguement he ever set down.

I think he was severe sometimes though I don't get that directly from his writings only from people speaking about him but I haven't read alot by him, but everybody back then was, life was different, people were harder, suffering was more a reality and more inescapable than it is now so I would imagine there would have been less empathy in general back then.

Sweetie

02-27-2005, 02:24 AM

If God is omnipotent and suffering serves some greater good, then it is only that way because God wants it that way;

Well, yes and no I guess, depends what premise you are appealing to. For instance, why did God create a Universe? Why did God create man? Why did God create man with free-will? If He didn't create man with free-will then He didn't create man. Why did He create the Universe this way, to kick back when man kicks? Perhaps there is something in His nature that requires that it be this way, consistent with Him. Why is reality the way it is? That's like asking why is God the way He is?

What's the alternative? Man with no free-will? The whole point of man is that he is rational and he has free-will and a sphere to exercise these two functions. Without them he is irrational and no greater than an animal which means he exists just for the sake of existing, or He has no free-will because there is no free-will if you can't exercise it. Reality is what it is because God is what He is.

he could find a way to achieve the same end without suffering. So either he's not omnipotent, or he wants us to suffer for no good reason.

I suppose the real question is, what end is God supposed to achieve?

John Carter

02-27-2005, 02:25 AM

In the Summa Theologica he said that watching the damned in hell was one of the perks for the saints in heaven. Here's the actual quote:

That the saints may enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more abundantly they are permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell

Sweetie

02-27-2005, 02:28 AM

You just posit some unknown reason that God must create a world where people suffer.

Oh, well no, I didn't posit that or if I did I didn't clarify. God didn't have to create a world and in fact He didn't create a world where people had to suffer but He did create a world where in order for man to be rational they had to be free and in order for them to be free then they had to have a sphere to exercise choice and in order to exercise choice then they had to have something to choose between and in order to have something to choose between then they have to be able to choose between them for good or for ill. If the only choice is good, then good is not a choice and to choose evil is to choose suffering because they are bound up together.

But instead of specifying the reason, you just leave it as unknown. And who can challenege an unknown reason?

I've barely said anything on the subject as of yet, no all the i's aren't dotted and all the t's crossed, like I said, that takes work to make the case in full.

Sweetie

02-27-2005, 02:32 AM

That the saints may enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more abundantly they are permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell

I'd prefer context in this instance. Enjoy beatitude more abundantly, what does that mean?

To me on the surface it means good is more good when it's in the sight of evil, when it's directly compared to evil or like for instance, you know how high you are from seeing how far down you were, or chocolate for instance, chocolate tastes better when there is an alternative way down there, a place where there's no chocolate at all.

Ronin

02-27-2005, 04:28 AM

Sweetie:

First, I know that you are being bombarded with assorted tangents based on others NOT named "Ronin" in this thread despite the OP... :whup: ...however, I would like to respond with my own perspective.

If we should "trust in God", then why do we need police officers?

Well, my first thought is that is it realistic, even supposing there is a God, that He intervene in every human matter supernaturally? We do think there is such a thing as original sin which ultimately means that people will do bad things and they will do bad things to each other which, if original sin is a fact, would be a law of our world.

The presumption of "Original Sin" opens our conversation up to a completely new area of injustice as I consider it...that of holding generation after generation cursed with "sin" from birth based upon the rather benign action (misdemeanor disobeying a lawful order...disorderly conduct?) of two primitive humans allegedly beguiled by a talking serpent.

I'd really rather either start a completely new thread on that particularly subject one day...but, I'll concede to you the Original Sin concept for the purposes of continuing this discussion.

Some alternatives are impossible:

a) God intervening to prevent free-will continuously.
b) God preventing evil in this world which St. Thomas Aquinas would say, would be a greater evil.

These produce further queries:

If "free-will" is such an all important element that excuses God from intervening...why should I (as a police officer) intervene in the "free-will" of those performing such an evil?

Where did Iva's "free-will" go when she was being held down and stabbed?

Also, the question of "intervening" as it relates to the "free-will" of humans in this context really brings the power of prayer to an abrupt end, doesn't it?

Why didn't God protect her?

Protect her from what? Death, suffering?

Not necessarily.

To protect her from a brutal murder at the hands of another in violation of her own valuable "free-will" to continue to live.

Why would He need to protect her from these things, no one is protected from these things, it's the only two things we can trust as humans to be true, or as some might say the only promise we have is that we will die, suffer as well.

"He" needs to protect her from these things on precisely the same grounds as you or I would...it would be the right and moral thing to do.

Would you have shot these killers if you were there and had the chance to protect her?

Why would gods get a pass if any of them actually existed?

Isn't it more obvious that such inaction indicates that no gods exist to do so?

The result certainly is exactly the same.

Why do bad things happen to good people? We would look to Christ and all the Saints for an answer to that question and a Catholic would answer that suffering is redemptive. Christ promised that His people would suffer, they will be beset by trials and afflictions, there's an army of martyrs to look to. A Catholic also would point to something we call the Treasury of Merits as way of explanation.

But bad things happen to all people...as do good things...and utterly ambiguous things. The promise of Christ merely exploits the obvious and such a promise does not validate Catholicism as true.

Martyrs are in abundance...no religion is required for that to be sure...and their existence does not validate whatever ideology they hold, in my view.

If we trust in an afterlife justice and "freewill", then why do we need any sort of earthly judicial system or legal statutes regulating behavior?

God's primary sphere of action is in the spirit/conscience.

How to you come by this assertion?

Some would say that we know what is good, it is written in our hearts but we have the choice to act against. We know what justice is, we know what mercy is, we know what love is but we will choose to act unjust, unmerciful, unloving. More response to this question in the next paragraph.

I read the entire thread before responding to this assertion and still don't see where you addressed why we need a real world justice system regularing our behavior if all of our deeds are to be judged in the afterlife.

Aren't legal, real world statutes in violation of the concept of "free-will" you are positing?

I address this further later in this thread.

Why is the pastor horrified, sad and angered by her murder if dying makes her an angel?

Whether or not she is an angel now is a judgement call, one that a Catholic is not likely to make, dying didn't necessarily make her an angel, nor did dying by being murdered, (though keep in mind, technically/theologically she would not be an angel either way, of course, but the phrase "like an angel" would be more appropriate).

What's the diff?

He could just be horrified like all of us that bad things have to happen. Sadness is natural, even to reference a Christian indication of this, Christ's tears at His friend's death even though He created the man, could've prevented his death, decided when it was he was supposed to die and could supposedly bring him back to life at any time, it is human.

Then why do humans want to protect the innocent?

If God could do it, but doesn't protect others because of the "free-will" clause, why can't I seem to refuse as best that I can?

Anger, yes, righteous indignation at something happening that is seemingly so unjust. It is unjust at that level of course, and so this injustice at this human level is met by justice (police officers, courts, trials) at this level, but as Christians we believe that ultimately there is a higher level, it doesn't limit this level and it doesn't make that what has to happen for justice to balance itself on the human level obselete.

You haven't answered why this murder is an injustice and why it needs to be addressed at a human level...you've merely said that it does.

My question again is..."If we trust in an afterlife justice and "freewill", then why do we need any sort of earthly judicial system or legal statutes regulating behavior?

For instance, consider the idea of sacrifice in this religion. Something was lost, something must be paid back. It can be paid back in myriads of ways, but as every great Saint would do, they take it upon themselves which is hard to clarify.

Fair enough...I understand the honesty found in something that is "hard to clarify".

I suppose that is why I still continue to ask these questions of Christians.

:cool:

Being raised early in life under a predominantly Irish Catholic patriarchal family I still could never figure out what exactly was lost...and what needed to be paid back though.

I studied my catechism, read all sorts of texts and asked the question several times, however, none of them really explained what God wanted the rest of us to do to make up for whatever it was that got him so perturbed at humans in the first place.

Was it just a "belief in Him" that satisfied the original curse? That seemed rather naive and vain to me, so I figured I should just study more and keep asking questions.

Then I really couldn't figure out why he should have to send himself to earth as a man so that he could sacrifice himself to himself to redeem us, the accursed, in his own eyes!

:eek:

A further thought, we believe that our lives, the Universe are reflections of God, His face is within it. I would explain it simplistically this way:

Isaiah: "Does a mother forget her baby, or a woman the child within her womb? Yet even if these forget, yet even if these forget, I will never forget My own."

So God can say to us that I love you as a woman loves her child, though greater though that's unimaginable to us.

But a mother would directly protect the innocent should they come under brutal attack, right?

What love is so unimaginable that it does not act to protect the child (even a 93 year old one) in the dark of night?

I guess what keeps popping in to my head is...How come God gets a pass at acting morally, while a human present who did not act to protect Iva would not?

And to extend that to meet my point, one of many examples of Christ appealing to earthly justice so that we are familiar with His meaning:

Matt 5
21"You have heard that the ancients were told, 'You shall not commit murder and 'Whoever commits murder shall be lliable to the court.'

I have conceded that there is a real-world court that holds humans liable for their actions...I simply don't understand why there should be one given the notion of "free-will" that is posited...especially if there is some otherworldly afterlife judgment.

What exists on earth serves many purposes for God in this sense, in this case, these things, police officers and courts for instance, can serve as a means for God to explain Himself to us, their existence serves a dual purpose both to regulate human behavior so that if humans don't have the fear of God at least they have the fear of something so they won't quite be of the mood to just take and take and dominate which would happen in this world most likely if all things were pleasurable, if there was no fear of God, if the conscience was silent, ie: if there were no earthly consequences, that they know the truth of action/consequence which is a law/reality, and so that God may show to us what is just and unjust and how He will act towards us in the sense of, you will go to court in front of me.

Double jeopardy is not a morally acceptable concept in my view.

This also appears to be another violation of the assertion that "free-will":

a. is important to the individual and is a gift from God.
b. cannot be violated by God in order to protect others when you seem to now indicate that he does want "free-will" limited and contained.

This will always be confusing to me when the argument of "free-will" is brought up as something that prevents God from intervening, yet allows others to violate it.

Though in this case, He appeals to the court because there does need be earthly justice, but it must conform to God's sense of justice, and if it does not that will be met later or Providencially on earth, by Christ, the Just Judge.

If true justice isn't meted out by humans so Providence will pick up the slack, for instance, as is said of Chaldeon in Habakkuk. The law that they will get what they deserve, Chaldeon (Babylon) will reap what she sows, in this case she was evil and unjust, she was destroyed or not destroyed, she destroyed herself, her pride the cause of her own downfall, the truth of timeless wisdom, "Pride cometh before a fall." Humans, children/adults/elderly perform all their actions on this earthly sphere, it is no strange thing that God has provided a means in this earthly sphere to enact justice and to meet those human actions with human actions and material consequences.

Well, first, you have implied (via Original Sin) that we are all imperfect...so, "true justice" is unattainable. We simply cannot conform to "God's since of justice" so what is the point of a real-world judicial system?

Second, an imperfect justice system would be redundant given the notion of Providence being there to "pick up the slack".

Lastly, if God had "provided the means in this earthly sphere to enact justice and to meet those human actions with human actions and material consequences"...then "free-will" is no longer a gift and is routinely violated...

...and we are back to wondering why God (if one) didn't intervene on behalf of Iva.

:(

beyelzu

02-27-2005, 05:45 AM

can anyone play or is it just you and ronin?

mano a mano or some shit?

Ronin

02-27-2005, 06:33 AM

can anyone play or is it just you and ronin?

mano a mano or some shit?

For the record...I was just clowning around, bey...and have firsthand experience that Sweetie can handle assorted views coming at her from slightly different perspectives.

:3dkick:

Dragar

02-27-2005, 09:38 AM

Oh, well no, I didn't posit that or if I did I didn't clarify.

I didn't mean 'you' as in you. I meant it in the vague general sense of 'you', like 'first you take two eggs, and a cup full of sugar...'.

Apologies for the confusion.

Dingfod

02-27-2005, 02:25 PM

Well no, you don't understand the complete Catholic concept at present,...Oh, I understand it better than you know, I just don't agree with it.

Sweetie

03-02-2005, 06:24 PM

Sweetie:

First, I know that you are being bombarded with assorted tangents based on others NOT named "Ronin" in this thread despite the OP... :whup: ...however, I would like to respond with my own perspective.

LOL, I can share.

Sorry it's taking me so long to respond though, this guy keeps showing up at my doorstep every couple of weeks and expects attention, odd that. :chin: :D

The presumption of "Original Sin" opens our conversation up to a completely new area of injustice as I consider it...that of holding generation after generation cursed with "sin" from birth based upon the rather benign action (misdemeanor disobeying a lawful order...disorderly conduct?) of two primitive humans allegedly beguiled by a talking serpent.

I'd really rather either start a completely new thread on that particularly subject one day...but, I'll concede to you the Original Sin concept for the purposes of continuing this discussion.

k.

If "free-will" is such an all important element that excuses God from intervening...why should I (as a police officer) intervene in the "free-will" of those performing such an evil?

Because free-will can be used for both good and ill. Free-will acts evil, free-will acts good. There is no reason that good cannot act to meet evil and if we went back to warrenly's question, lack of action oftentimes is evil.

We have to act and there are really only two choices though they can put into four in this way:

greater good
good
evil
greater evil

Why should you intervene? Because you do something even if you don't do something and it's either good or evil, the choice (excluding choices such as paint color and the like).

Where did Iva's "free-will" go when she was being held down and stabbed?

Where did her free-will go when she had no say in the circumstances of her own birth? There are circumstances, things like situations, heredity, environment that we have no choice over and we are not held accountable for these because things you have no choice in you cannot be blamed for nor rewarded for. Free-will when we speak about it is where choice is, there are things that happen and things that must happen, there are things that people choose that have a butterfly affect, the point in all this for us at this level is what we choose in the circumstances provided us, our choices being judged in the end with consideration to the circumstances, the circumstances themselves though, I can't see that they have much meaning outside of the point of choice.

Also, the question of "intervening" as it relates to the "free-will" of humans in this context really brings the power of prayer to an abrupt end, doesn't it?

No, not with the paradox of free-will, predestination and providence as a unified theory.

To protect her from a brutal murder at the hands of another in violation of her own valuable "free-will" to continue to live.

No, I wouldn't say so personally. Free-will is not about being able to choose what you have the right to, free-will is not about being able to do what you want and other things of that nature.

Free-will is about what choice you make, what you do with what has been asked of you, with the situations as they crop up. You also have some hand in the situations as they crop up.

"He" needs to protect her from these things on precisely the same grounds as you or I would...it would be the right and moral thing to do.

That's assuming that existing peacefully on this earth and being harmed by no one is the ultimate goal of her existence.

Would you have shot these killers if you were there and had the chance to protect her?

Most likely.

Why would gods get a pass if any of them actually existed?

Isn't it more obvious that such inaction indicates that no gods exist to do so?

It's difficult at that theological level.

I must refer back to the example of Christ to explain. Christ, innocent, God, harmed no one, did only good, slaughtered, nailed to a cross, ridiculed, mocked. Supposedly the worst crime ever committed by man according to God, but the best thing God or man ever did for man.

So St. Paul's followers ask, look, Christ was murdered, a great evil, and our faithlessness caused it, but it brought about the greatest act possible, the greatest deed, from the greatest evil came the greatest good, so......shall we do evil so that good may come?

It's one of those things that requires a larger scope of vision. Without that vision then perhaps things are as you say they are, with it, it all fits together.

At this point though, many might say well we only accept such theories because they give us comfort, suffering has a purpose and so we can better endure it, we are creating answers and attributing meaning to that which has no meaning.

And truly, as well, remove the concept of free-will entirely, you have decimated (or so I think) this entire view.

We could perhaps look at the concept of freedom first of all to define what is meant by free-will.

But I must go for now, I know you are busy too and I'll try I'll get to the bottom half when I can.

:wave:

xorbie

03-02-2005, 06:45 PM

justaman

03-03-2005, 05:31 AM

xorbie

03-05-2005, 08:00 AM

Dragar

03-05-2005, 12:00 PM

Define free will....

The idea that a decision is ultimately not outside of the decider's control.

Ronin

03-05-2005, 05:53 PM

Because free-will can be used for both good and ill. Free-will acts evil, free-will acts good. There is no reason that good cannot act to meet evil and if we went back to warrenly's question, lack of action oftentimes is evil.

We have to act and there are really only two choices though they can put into four in this way:

greater good
good
evil
greater evil

Why should you intervene? Because you do something even if you don't do something and it's either good or evil, the choice (excluding choices such as paint color and the like).

I understand most of that, Sweetie...especially about the choices we make given the limited options we have and the assorted/relative ramifications/interpretations that they bring to our lives and the lives of others.

My main question is still unresolved, though.

Why is God given a pass (his inaction allowed the teens to brutally murder Iva)...when we are not?

Doesn't God have free-will?

Isn't His behavior (should He exist) subject to the same moral assessment?

Why/why not?

Where did her free-will go when she had no say in the circumstances of her own birth?

But, she did have "a say" in whether or not she should be stabbed.

There are circumstances, things like situations, heredity, environment that we have no choice over and we are not held accountable for these because things you have no choice in you cannot be blamed for nor rewarded for. Free-will when we speak about it is where choice is, there are things that happen and things that must happen, there are things that people choose that have a butterfly affect, the point in all this for us at this level is what we choose in the circumstances provided us, our choices being judged in the end with consideration to the circumstances, the circumstances themselves though, I can't see that they have much meaning outside of the point of choice.

Her choice, however, (more than likely) was that she didn't want to be brutally murdered...yet, she still was.

She did not have free will and/or another's will/choice superceded hers (same thing).

If you or I were there and possessed the power to defend her we would have because we are good...yet, God (we are told) had the power to defend her and yet did not.

People are justifiably horrified at the actions of the killers and we would equally have been maligned had we been there and not done anything to protect Iva given the opportunity...yet, God is still "good"?

I don't suppose I understand that jump in credulity.

How can something exist with described traits and then not reflect these traits in action?

No, not with the paradox of free-will, predestination and providence as a unified theory.

I am not familiar with a unified theory that resolves free will, predestination and providence...please explain.

No, I wouldn't say so personally. Free-will is not about being able to choose what you have the right to, free-will is not about being able to do what you want and other things of that nature.

Free-will is about what choice you make, what you do with what has been asked of you, with the situations as they crop up. You also have some hand in the situations as they crop up.

What good is this definition of "Free-will" then.

A slave could also be given precisely the same parameters (do what has been asked of you and make a choice based on future reward/punishment) and I would not consider them in possesion of Free-will.

Reality (as I perceive it) is full of relatively good events, bad events and ambiguous events. Some of which we, as humans, can have some participation in to change one way or another (to assorted degrees) and some where we just have no option or ability to effect.

I don't see how positing an anthropocentric deity makes sense given such a reality.

That's assuming that existing peacefully on this earth and being harmed by no one is the ultimate goal of her existence.

Well...uh...yeah.

It's also assuming that protecting our loved ones is the right thing to do.

Would you have shot these killers if you were there and had the chance to protect her?

Most likely.

Very good.

Why would gods get a pass if any of them actually existed?

Isn't it more obvious that such inaction indicates that no gods exist to do so?

It's difficult at that theological level.

I must refer back to the example of Christ to explain. Christ, innocent, God, harmed no one, did only good, slaughtered, nailed to a cross, ridiculed, mocked. Supposedly the worst crime ever committed by man according to God, but the best thing God or man ever did for man.

Well, doesn't "man's" failure here merely reflect the original curse of Original Sin given to both man and woman for the benign act of disobeying an instruction not to eat the fruit of knowledge?

Wouldn't just "forgiving" Adam and Eve...and then simply lifting the curse been a less violent, more loving resolution?

I mean, it's not like anyone had Free-will if it was already pre-ordained to happen that way anyhow.

So St. Paul's followers ask, look, Christ was murdered, a great evil, and our faithlessness caused it, but it brought about the greatest act possible, the greatest deed, from the greatest evil came the greatest good, so......shall we do evil so that good may come?

"Our" faithlessness didn't cause it, though, according to my reading of the Adam/Eve fable.

It was the curse that God levied upon humankind based upon the action of two others that caused the failure of justice which led to the execution of Jesus (of course, my view is that he was simply a man rocking the political power base and had to be eliminated...no supernatural elements involved).

It's one of those things that requires a larger scope of vision. Without that vision then perhaps things are as you say they are, with it, it all fits together.

I just never bought the whole "larger scope of vision" or "Great Unknowable Mystery of God's Plan" justification for allowing innocent old ladies to be killed by brutal teenagers.

I certainly wouldn't buy it at their trial if one of them tries to use it.

Would you?

At this point though, many might say well we only accept such theories because they give us comfort, suffering has a purpose and so we can better endure it, we are creating answers and attributing meaning to that which has no meaning.

I might join in agreement with those "many".

:wink:

And truly, as well, remove the concept of free-will entirely, you have decimated (or so I think) this entire view.

We could perhaps look at the concept of freedom first of all to define what is meant by free-will.

But I must go for now, I know you are busy too and I'll try I'll get to the bottom half when I can.

:wave:

I'm looking forward to it.

:yup:

xorbie

03-05-2005, 09:09 PM

Define free will....

The idea that a decision is ultimately not outside of the decider's control.

I'm not sure that helps so much as just pushing the question from how to define free will to how to define control. If I'm clinically insane, do I have free will? If I'm a dog, do I have free will? A fish? A spider?

A "normal" human?

Dragar

03-06-2005, 12:03 AM

I'm not sure that helps so much as just pushing the question from how to define free will to how to define control. If I'm clinically insane, do I have free will? If I'm a dog, do I have free will? A fish? A spider?

A "normal" human?

It's the best definition I've come across.

And no, I don't believe any of those things have 'free-will'. I don't even consider it a coherent concept. A decision is made for reasons - that's implicit in the notion of a decision. You can have actions done for no reasons (in the sense of 'Why did you do that?' reasons) - like muscle twitches and sneezes - but they're not decisions.

And ultimately, decisions must rest on reasons that were themselves not chosen.

xorbie

03-06-2005, 07:13 AM

Dragar

03-06-2005, 12:18 PM

I agree that it's not a coherent concept, which is my point.

Ah, right. I just find that definition is both accurate, and serves to make explicit the problems.

Sweetie

03-07-2005, 06:19 PM

But bad things happen to all people...as do good things...and utterly ambiguous things. The promise of Christ merely exploits the obvious and such a promise does not validate Catholicism as true.

Mostly true enough. I wasn't sure if the question "why do bad things happen to good people" was bound up in your original question or not.

Martyrs are in abundance...no religion is required for that to be sure...and their existence does not validate whatever ideology they hold, in my view.

Correct, but the problem is, this religion itself is founded on martyrdom so to ask the question of a sort of "where was God when this woman was suffering" is kindof nonsensical to us. Where was God when God was suffering?

God's primary sphere of action is in the spirit/conscience.

How to you come by this assertion?

The lives of the Saints I would say and my own experience with suffering/joy in particular.

"The solution to our suffering is our suffering!" - Peter Kreeft

I read the entire thread before responding to this assertion and still don't see where you addressed why we need a real world justice system regularing our behavior if all of our deeds are to be judged in the afterlife.

Oh, hm.

This is subject to revision or further development but simply, on the surface, it seems to me that every action has a consequence. There are three levels of consequence, physical and material, psychological or perhaps spiritual, then beyond the here and now, in the after-life though in the after-life consequences aren't so different than the here and now, I would suggest that those consequences are just continuations of the here and now. There is a hell on earth I think and many people taste it, so too heaven on earth and many taste it too but not in it's greatest degree and there's always the possibility of that changing while in the here and now.

Perhaps we can say simply that justice is cause and effect as is represented by the symbol of our judicial systems, the scale balanced on both ends.

So I answer tentatively, material and physical actions are met with material and physical consequences, we are required to act, our inactions too are actions and we are motivated to act good, even people who do terrible things have their own notion of good, preference and you can't act unless you think there is some good for you in it, whether it's a selfish act, "this will get me what I want" which is good or what have you. So the underlying theme which is why some try and attack the concept of good itself which I think is absurd, you can't lose the concept it just crops up somewhere else, anyhoo so why are police required?

Because we are motivated to act good, all of us. We can sit by and watch another murder another and the man doing this is thinking this has some value to him, but we can't sit back because that's not good. We have to act and so the long arm of the law acts and reaches, people against people, law, rules, regulations, enforcement, good vs. evil.

Isaiah: "Woe to those who call good evil and evil good."

Aren't legal, real world statutes in violation of the concept of "free-will" you are positing?

I address this further later in this thread.

Not at all. I pose that someone who is imprisoned, in a concentration camp even still has free-will if they still have their wits about them. The point of free-will in this schema is two-fold but the main point I think is free-will is the choice to do something you can be blamed for. If you can't be blamed, it was not your free-will/ free choice.

Or perhaps as Bono would say "In the Name of Love":

"They may take our life but they cannot take our pride*."

*Pride in this song resembling freedom of conscience and personal dignity rather than the common usage.

"Early morning, April 4,
shot rings out in the Memphis sky
Free at last! They took your life,
they could not take your pride."

Whether or not she is an angel now is a judgement call, one that a Catholic is not likely to make, dying didn't necessarily make her an angel, nor did dying by being murdered, (though keep in mind, technically/theologically she would not be an angel either way, of course, but the phrase "like an angel" would be more appropriate).

What's the diff?

Well, technically men cannot be angels first of all, they are a union of matter and spirit but my point was that dying or being murdered does not guarantee heaven for her. As a Catholic at her death we would offer the Mass for her and our prayers because we don't know where she is or where she's going. We believe in salvation by grace alone (technically Sola Gratia I think) through faith and works whereas others believe in Sola Fide, salvation by grace through faith alone, ie: she died being a believer therefore she goes to heaven no questions asked. That is not our view.

Then why do humans want to protect the innocent?

Because we are motivated to do good always though whether or not our definition of good is consistent with good or what we call good is consistent with reason is generally the question. Some people do evil and call it good but seriously, the reasoning can usually be found defective and self-justifications are usually brought to protect the psyche from something.

We know what justice is however, our sense of justice can suffer the same fate as our sense of good, it's altered according to our scope of vision.

So the average atheist acts strongly in the political arena and Christians do too because it's our right, we too have the dignity and freedom to defend ourselves and the duty to act good, to protect others but Christianity and Judaism sees a deeper problem, a greater problem than the ones named as the great evils of this world according to many materialists. The problem is with the will, they are acting to "free" people from oppression, poverty, weakness and the like and so we are right there next to them, Pope John Paul II worthy of note at this point acting on a global scale, however we need to be "freed" from the deeper oppression of sin, something I think Christianity has in common with Buddhism, they too see a deeper problem.

If God could do it, but doesn't protect others because of the "free-will" clause, why can't I seem to refuse as best that I can?

I kinda lost the train of thought that connects this statement with whatever else we are speaking of but I think the problem is that God can and can't depending on what we are speaking of at any given time.

God cannot act against His own nature in the same way that a circle cannot be a square. Reality reflects the reality of Him and then we hit a chain of paradox after paradox which is why this view is so complicated to understand.

You haven't answered why this murder is an injustice and why it needs to be addressed at a human level...you've merely said that it does.

Murder is unjust because it contradicts our unalienable human dignity. It's the foundation of our government at present, this idea is at the very root of Christianity, God came to save all, Gentiles and Jews, they all are human with dignity and freedom of conscience, they all have access to their God and they all can be saved.

My question again is..."If we trust in an afterlife justice and "freewill", then why do we need any sort of earthly judicial system or legal statutes regulating behavior?

Because we're human. What's the alternative?

Being raised early in life under a predominantly Irish Catholic patriarchal family I still could never figure out what exactly was lost...and what needed to be paid back though.

I studied my catechism, read all sorts of texts and asked the question several times, however, none of them really explained what God wanted the rest of us to do to make up for whatever it was that got him so perturbed at humans in the first place.

Was it just a "belief in Him" that satisfied the original curse? That seemed rather naive and vain to me, so I figured I should just study more and keep asking questions.

Then I really couldn't figure out why he should have to send himself to earth as a man so that he could sacrifice himself to himself to redeem us, the accursed, in his own eyes!

Truly, a better understanding of the Catholic view of Original Sin is really where I started to understand this, at least understand what Catholics were getting on about. To me it's the tie that binds, the concepts of Original Sin, sanctifying grace, venial and mortal sin, etc.

But a mother would directly protect the innocent should they come under brutal attack, right?

Right.

What love is so unimaginable that it does not act to protect the child (even a 93 year old one) in the dark of night?

Yes, but you're reducing the concept of love to only that that exists in the human sphere. C.S.Lewis did some excellent work supposedly in his book called, "The Four Loves." The concept of agape is brought in here, there is love with which we love each other and then there is agape with which God loves man and then there is a greater scope of vision. Whether or not that is true or not is not the debate, I think it is true that there is this greater/larger view but anyways.

I guess what keeps popping in to my head is...How come God gets a pass at acting morally, while a human present who did not act to protect Iva would not?

At this point let me respond simply and ask once again, what is God's end, what is the end for man?

You say it is bad for God to allow suffering because suffering is bad, in our view suffering is not bad or at least not bad in the way you see it. In the Nihilism thread justaman brought up the concept of that we can only determine how we should act if the end result can be determined, in that case, the game of chess for instance.

The goal is to take the King and win, in the process of the game, that there are the best moves to make is obvious if the goal is determined so you can say "you should have moved the rook here" "you should not have moved that bishop there," so then, seriously, to put suffering in perspective the goal needs to be established.

The goal of many human lives is to live a life free of suffering, that is not my goal personally with or without the concept of God. I always loved wisdom, if suffering can make me wise, bring it on. I love wisdom personally more than I love being healthy, more than I love pleasure but then who knows if that idea works as is because wisdom brings me pleasure so, but perhaps you get my point. We need to first establish what God is or should be trying to do and the Catholic answer is the opposite of the average atheists, God is trying to purify us and this is done most effectively through suffering, ie: The Refiner of Silver. The silversmith burns and burns the metal until it is purified and only stops when He sees His reflection in it.

Honestly, I remember the day when some of my perspectives took a sharp turn, went seriously topsy turvy, upside down, inside out and when I said to myself, these people in the Third World are better off than I.

Anyhoo, this is a long post and I'm winded and too, not sure which ideas to build up better and seriously, I know you said you won't be available for posting much in the next while, but it's here if you want to get back at it sometime. :wave:

Sweetie

03-08-2005, 07:31 PM

I'm actually fairly certain that most arguments for or against free will degenerate into semantics. Most arguments I've heard for it I find to be meaningless or absurd, as the definitions used are often tautologies or not even self-consistent. I'd certainly be interested in hearing your take on this, Sweetie.

I think alot of the arguements degenerate into semantics though I think certain trains of thought have some foundation and some validity. I don't know the answer to the question except that I personally think the problem is unsolvable but mostly that it's unsolvable in that we don't know enough to answer with any certainty.

If you asked me to lay my money down at this moment I would vote for both, both are true, not either/or but both/and. Either hold both true at white heat and it becomes the truth or the truth is in between them or right at the heart where they miss each other or however one might want to put it.

I don't think actions are completely uncaused nor that they are completely caused either but whether the operations are at seperate levels or they share the same sphere I just don't know though I lean to them operating at seperate levels.

I think that if you're going to pose that we are completely material and then reject the cosmological argument on the grounds that cause and effect breaks down at singularities and then pose that the concept of determinism is valid, I'm going to question. I have a few other lines of thought similar to this one but they are unformed in the sense of I am unable to articulate them at present.

Quantum Mechanics? Too much ambiguity at present from what I can tell, the information provided by QM is way too maleable and still so many questions unanswerable but once again, that's just how it seems to me, I know very little about the subject.

:shrug:

Sweetie

03-08-2005, 08:28 PM

Why is God given a pass (his inaction allowed the teens to brutally murder Iva)...when we are not?

Why is it that God can be omnipresent and not us? I could repeat this old adage:

To err is human, to forgive divine.

God isn't given a free pass, God has a different end for us than the one we think should be our end or we would prefer would be our end but how much do we know compared with how much there is to know? Without what I call a greater scope of vision which is inherent in the concept of God or the Christian God at least then what do we have?

A girl was cannonized and I heard about the story one time. She was fourteen and a man was trying to rape her, she refused to allow him in any way to taint her purity and she fought tooth and nail. She ended up being stabbed fourteen times. On her deathbed she either spoke this or had this man brought to her and she forgave him utterly, sincerely and completely which is why her story is called "Fourteen Flowers of Pardon."

That was her choice, from this great evil came a great good. At Sunday they read the story of the blind man and the question asked by others of Jesus, why is he blind? Was it because of his sin or his parent's sin? Jesus said neither, it was so that a great work could be done in his life and so God's glory can be known and revealed. Thinking in human terms this has no meaning to us.

John 9
3Jesus answered, "It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him.

And the passage ends with some of the ideas I've brought forth:

39And Jesus said, "For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind."
40Those of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things and said to Him, "We are not blind too, are we?"
41Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains.

"If you were blind, you would have no sin," being the point as far as the idea of what we can be blamed for and we can't, where our free-will is, what we will be held accountable for, touches on the Catholic concept of freedom of conscience.

Doesn't God have free-will?

Yay and nay I would say, depending on your definition of free-will.

It's very similar to a question I've been asked in the past, "can God change His mind"? In the end the question is equivalent to the question, "can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it," which is an unutterable question. Can a God who can do everything that is consistent with His nature do something He can't do?

To change your mind is to be finite, to know everything at once is to be infinite. Can we say that God is not infinite because He is not finite?

You can't change your mind when you know everything with infinite certainty. Can you make up your mind, can you think at all if you know everything with infinite certainty? Can you act at all? Those are good questions, but the previous question is my answer to that thought at least.

Does God have free-will? God is free and bound by His own nature at the same time I think.

Isn't His behavior (should He exist) subject to the same moral assessment?

Yay and nay once again. Oh!, someone quoted someone from the past which was the awesomist thought and I so wish I would have marked it because it was such a good thought and a serious attack on the Liberal Christian's conception of God and justice/morality and something people of the Nihilist persuasion have a very clear view of or like to ponder.

I'll hammer away at it and see what I can come up with.

But, she did have "a say" in whether or not she should be stabbed.

Did she? Ack, perhaps I should go read the article huh? :P

Her choice, however, (more than likely) was that she didn't want to be brutally murdered...yet, she still was.

She did not have free will and/or another's will/choice superceded hers (same thing).

To me that's a side-step. She may not have decided that she wanted to have to choose between being brutally murdered and any other option, there doesn't even need to have to be another option in this case.

There are things we do not choose of course, but the idea of free-will is that there are things we can choose and that is what free-will is all about, it is not about whether or not you can be physically overpowered by another, it's not about whether or not someone can take something that is yours, it's not about whether or not people can do things to you that you don't want, that's not it.

Free-will is about when given a choice, what you choose, it does not guarantee that you will be able to choose to be free as opposed to being a slave, that you will have food as opposed to living in poverty, that you can have anything you want or that you should have the right to.

I suppose to put it simply, you don't necessarily get to choose your choices or if you do only minimally and you don't get to choose the consequences of your choices because they are governed by laws and other conditional factors.

If you or I were there and possessed the power to defend her we would have because we are good...yet, God (we are told) had the power to defend her and yet did not.

The difference between I and God is that I may or may not have the power to help preserve her health and life, God has the power of life or death, salvation and damnation, there is a difference. She may die and be saved, her murderers may die and be damned, in the end, justice will be served. Why does He need to ensure her physical life if she is granted eternal life after death which is the point of life, to have the Kingdom of Heaven within you on earth and have it continue on in the next life?

Luke 12
4“I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. 5But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him. 6Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God. 7Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

LOL, then of course your concept of justice mingling with hell is probably another mountain to climb but, that's a different day. :D

But the whole Bible is full of the dual meanings of life and death, spiritual and physical life and death, and then the paradox of by life because of death, death because of life or several thoughts along those lines.

How can something exist with described traits and then not reflect these traits in action?

To me it's not that these traits aren't reflected, it's that they're altered according to perspective, to the scope of vision.

But alas, enough for now or today. :yup:

xorbie

03-08-2005, 09:46 PM

maddog

03-08-2005, 10:22 PM

My question again is..."If we trust in an afterlife justice and "freewill", then why do we need any sort of earthly judicial system or legal statutes regulating behavior?

Because we're human. What's the alternative? "Because we're human," is not an answer to the question. We will be human whether we have an earthly judicial system or not.

The alternative is letting the afterlife itself take care of all justice. You've said that God has a "vision" of justice that is beyond ours; if we can't see what justice is, and only God can, and God takes care of this ultimate justice in the afterlife, why should we not simply let the afterlife take care of everything? No need to intervene in this life at all; God will take care of ultimate "justice" according to the wider "vision."

But a mother would directly protect the innocent should they come under brutal attack, right?

Right.

What love is so unimaginable that it does not act to protect the child (even a 93 year old one) in the dark of night?

Yes, but you're reducing the concept of love to only that that exists in the human sphere. C.S.Lewis did some excellent work supposedly in his book called, "The Four Loves." The concept of agape is brought in here, there is love with which we love each other and then there is agape with which God loves man and then there is a greater scope of vision. Whether or not that is true or not is not the debate, I think it is true that there is this greater/larger view but anyways. What "greater scope of vision" would make it OK for God not to protect this child-of-God from brutal murder?

I guess what keeps popping in to my head is...How come God gets a pass at acting morally, while a human present who did not act to protect Iva would not?

At this point let me respond simply and ask once again, what is God's end, what is the end for man?

You say it is bad for God to allow suffering because suffering is bad[;] in our view suffering is not bad[,] or at least not bad in the way you see it.

In the Nihilism thread justaman brought up the concept of that we can only determine how we should act if the end result can be determined, in that case, the game of chess for instance. [Para.] The goal is to take the King and win, in the process of the game, that there are the best moves to make is obvious if the goal is determined so you can say "you should have moved the rook here" "you should not have moved that bishop there," so then, seriously, to put suffering in perspective the goal needs to be established.

The goal of many human lives is to live a life free of suffering[;] that is not my goal personally with or without the concept of God. I always loved wisdom[:] if suffering can make me wise, bring it on. I love wisdom personally more than I love being healthy, more than I love pleasure [--] but then who knows if that idea works as is because wisdom brings me pleasure so, but perhaps you get my point.

We need to first establish what God is or should be trying to do . . . how can we possibly know this if you keep positing a "vision" greater than we can know or comprehend? This can NEVER be "established," according to your theory. . . . and the Catholic answer is the opposite of the average atheist[']s[:] God is trying to purify us and this is done most effectively through suffering, ie [sic: e.g.]: The Refiner of Silver. The silversmith burns and burns the metal until it is purified and only stops when He sees His reflection in it. Well, if "purification" is the end, and "suffering" is the means, then it would be IMMORAL for a human being to intervene to help the 93-year-old murder victim. So there should be NO MORAL IMPERATIVE or duty for a human being to intervene to help the victim. Who are we to stop God's silversmithing? In fact, the logical consequence of determining that God's purpose is to "refine" us through "suffering," is that our moral duty would be to inflict the greatest amount of suffering on one another that we are able to accomplish. According to the "God is a silversmith" theory, Hitler was doing God's work.
#343

Sweetie

03-08-2005, 11:26 PM

I'm not really sure if much of your post answered my question at all.

Um, yes I did answer your question. My take on whether or not the arguements for or against were semantics, tautologies or however you put it. Yes I think the arguements oftentimes degenerate into semantics, I don't think the question is solvable at present, etc.

I'm trying to understand what you mean when you say free will.

Then ask that question. :wink:

I don't really understand what you mean by actions being "caused" or "uncaused."

Caused - we are completely bound by circumstance, we have no choice in circumstance therefore we cannot really make any choice.

Uncaused - we can make random arbitrary choices unbound by circumstance.

And then ask yourself this: if I had to make the decision to eat the cake 100 times, would it ever change?

That's not a great question/example first of all. I went to confession once and the priest told me that whether I fail or suceed the next time, always remember, you can always suceed the time after that.

Why if you decide to eat the cake one hundred times couldn't you decide not to eat the cake the 101st time? :chin: Now, there are some good examples possible but your example is not one of those.

IMO, the answer must paradoxically be no in order for us to have any control whatsoever.

Really? :chin:

Sweetie

03-08-2005, 11:44 PM

maddog

03-09-2005, 01:36 AM

"Because we're human," is not an answer to the question. We will be human whether we have an earthly judicial system or not.

I apologize if you happened to miss the posts before that, because we're human = we must act and all our actions fit into a category and we are motivated to act good.what is "good"? I thought you were just saying that we can't see and can't say what's good, that we don't have that vision, and that only God does. How do we know that any act we take is not interfering with God's notion of what's "good"?

The alternative is letting the afterlife itself take care of all justice. You've said that God has a "vision" of justice that is beyond ours; if we can't see what justice is, and only God can, and God takes care of this ultimate justice in the afterlife, why should we not simply let the afterlife take care of everything? No need to intervene in this life at all; God will take care of ultimate "justice" according to the wider "vision."

No, not really. If humans are not to be human perhaps but I think you just confused the issue.Well, I'm confused, all right. Now I don't know what you mean by "good."

What "greater scope of vision" would make it OK for God not to protect this child-of-God from brutal murder?

If I haven't answered this already two or three times, I apologize yet again.

What does God need to protect her from? Why does God need to protect her from brutal murder? Seriously.

Because the purpose of our lives is to not suffer at all, to live peacefully and have no one ever harm us? Is the point that we should all be happy as we're dying? Honestly, what's the alternative?Well, I think you've just proved too much. If the purpose and point of our lives is not to prevent unnecessary suffering, to live peacefully with one another, to not do harm to one another and have no one harm us, to be as happy as we can until we die, then what IS the purpose? If brutal murder is consistent with the purpose of our lives, then it is not "good" and not moral for a human being to step in and stop it. There should be no moral obligation on anyone to help the victim. You seem to have posited that God's silversmithing -- purifying us through our suffering -- is our purpose.

Well, if "purification" is the end, and "suffering" is the means, then it would be IMMORAL for a human being to intervene to help the 93-year-old murder victim.

That's like saying it's useless to pray because God already knows what is going to happen and in that case free-will, predestination and Providence work together.Yes. And it WOULD be useless to pray, wouldn't it, if God DOES already know what is going to happen? In fact, for the kind of super-powerful being that God is posited to be, isn't prayer pretty useless anyway? Not to mention selfish and arrogant? These aren't either/or concepts, they are repeatedly both/and concepts, neither work without the other, Calvinism being a shining example[;] you are just taking the other extreme.What aren't "either/or" concepts? Either something is "good" or it is not, isn't it? Something is either "moral" to do, or it is not, isn't it? Something is either consistent with "our purpose" or it isn't, isn't it?

So there should be NO MORAL IMPERATIVE or duty for a human being to intervene to help the victim.

The reality is that we do have to act and we all have to act good, so first step. We may all have to act. BUT, we don't "all have to act good," whatever that means. People do all kinds of things, good and bad, all the time. So, your first premise is false. In addition, you have to define what you mean by "good." THAT's what's under investigation, here. You have suggested that human beings DON'T KNOW what's "good," because God has some kind of magic bigger vision that we can't see. If we CAN'T SEE IT, we can't know what it is. So, we don't get to KNOW what "good" means. And if you want to throw away being happy, or eliminating suffering, or helping one another, or preventing hurt or murder, then I for one REALLY don't know what "good" means. Therefore, we CAN'T KNOW whether what we imagine might be good is really "not good," according to God. There's no action we can take which we know for sure is or is not good. And since God is in charge of what happens, being the powerful being who's controlling everything, then we have not only no right to interfere, but a moral obligation NOT to interfere. So, morality is "whatever happens." If that means Iva gets murdered, so be it. That's God's will. We must uphold God's will. Therefore, it's IMMORAL for a human being to try to stop the murder. Secondly, we will do evil and we will do evil to each other[;] God intervening to prevent our free-will at every turn is impossible because then we have no free-will. God takes what is bad and uses it to further the greater good, whether He uses good to fight evil or uses evil to fight evil.So "bad" is "good" because it serves the "greater good." What's "good" is "good", and what's "evil" is "good." OK. The end justifies the means. Gotcha. We can only choose to use good to fight evilExcept that we don't know what's good and what's evil. . . . only God can use evil to fight evilyou're right. I'm really confused about this. And I still don't know how humans can tell anything about what's evil and what's not. . . . but then that's the natural law[;] evil is it[]s own destruction. It is? What natural law is that? And, again, how would we, as human beings, have access to this "natural law," seeing as we cannot tell "evil" from "good"? I think though[,] that the primary assumption is that we have both a moral imperative to intervenewe do? on what basis? esp. seeing as it will interfere with God's "greater good," and that we can't tell what's good and what isn't to begin with. as well it's natural law that we must act I agree with this. As alive beings, we MUST act. and psychologically we all must aim to act for good. Again, we don't know what we're aiming at. We don't know what "good" is. In addition, even if we agreed on what "good" is, if we have free will, it is not necessarily the case that "we all MUST AIM to act for good." Plenty of people do plenty of bad things on purpose all the time (assuming for the sake of this statement that I can discern what "bad" is).

Well, . . . who are we to stop God's silversmithing? In fact, the logical consequence of determining that God's purpose is to "refine" us through "suffering," is that our moral duty would be to inflict the greatest amount of suffering on one another that we are able to accomplish.

Not quite.

According to the "God is a silversmith" theory, Hitler was doing God's work.

What were the Jews doing when the[y (?)] slaughtered[,] according to the story, the God-Man? Were they doing God's work? Even Pontious Pilate, a Roman could find no reason to condemn Him, but yes, that is part of the point. So, you agree, then. WHATEVER anyone does, WHATEVER happens, is necessarily for the "greater good." There is therefore NO moral duty to intervene in ANYTHING that happens.

Anything we choose to do can only serve the greater good[;] Again, you are agreeing with me. . . . the only question is whether or not we will be contributing to our own glory as well as God's, or better, whether or not we will be on the beneficial end of God's glory.Glory? This term is undefined. Even assuming that "glory" means something, God has already decided, and only God knows, what the "greater good" is that will achieve whatever "glory" he wants to achieve. Whatever we do that helps achieve God's "greater good" must therefore be consistent with whatever "glory" he desires. The BEST thing we can do, therefore, is to not interfere with God's accomplishment of the "greater good." Therefore, our own "glory," whatever that means, must be maximized when we behave consistently with God's achievement of his own (unknown to us) purpose. Consequently, we must refrain from interfering with anything that happens. Our greatest morality is to do nothing about what we see happening around us, as it must, of necessity, be God's desired means of accomplishing the "greater good" that we don't see and can't know.

#344

xorbie

03-09-2005, 04:53 AM

I'm trying to understand what you mean when you say free will.

Then ask that question. :wink:

What do you mean when you say free will? :wink:

I don't really understand what you mean by actions being "caused" or "uncaused."

Caused - we are completely bound by circumstance, we have no choice in circumstance therefore we cannot really make any choice.

Uncaused - we can make random arbitrary choices unbound by circumstance.

How can a decision be partly caused and partly uncaused? Does circumstance simply limit the randomness?

And then ask yourself this: if I had to make the decision to eat the cake 100 times, would it ever change?

That's not a great question/example first of all. I went to confession once and the priest told me that whether I fail or suceed the next time, always remember, you can always suceed the time after that.

Why if you decide to eat the cake one hundred times couldn't you decide not to eat the cake the 101st time? :chin: Now, there are some good examples possible but your example is not one of those.

IMO, the answer must paradoxically be no in order for us to have any control whatsoever.

Really? :chin:

Yes sorry, I didn't word this well at all. I'm saying if given the same exact decision 100 times (say in 100 alternate universes which, up until this very moment, are all exactly the same) do you make the same decision all 100 times?

If not, how can you truly have any control over your decisions and actions?

Sweetie

03-09-2005, 05:14 AM

what is "good"? I thought you were just saying that we can't see and can't say what's good, that we don't have that vision,

True or false, good is determined by what the end is? If our lives are only about avoiding suffering then it is good if we not suffer, correct? So in that view good is this, from another perspective with a different end, good is otherwise, correct? So don't throw back at me "oh you're just saying that we can't see," 'cause that's not exactly what I'm saying. It's either true or false, change the ends, move the goal posts change the best means to reach the goal, correct?

Now, tell me what good is. What is the goal of our lives? You can even respond with there is none, either way, that's all I'm saying.

and that only God does.

I'm not saying that only God knows the meaning of good in that sense, since I must repeat it, I'm saying that with God in the picture and heaven and beatitude the goal posts have shifted.

How do we know that any act we take is not interfering with God's notion of what's "good"?

What is the end God is trying to achieve? What is the end we are supposed to be achieving?

For the former I'll respond glory and perfection from what I can tell, for the latter I'll respond beatitude.

Well, I'm confused, all right. Now I don't know what you mean by "good."

Ok.

Well, I think you've just proved too much. If the purpose and point of our lives is not to prevent unnecessary suffering, to live peacefully with one another, to not do harm to one another and have no one harm us, to be as happy as we can until we die, then what IS the purpose? If brutal murder is consistent with the purpose of our lives, then it is not "good" and not moral for a human being to step in and stop it. There should be no moral obligation on anyone to help the victim. You seem to have posited that God's silversmithing -- purifying us through our suffering -- is our purpose.

*groan*

That is false. I am saying that we have to act, that is a moral obligation in itself and we are blamed or at fault if we do not act morally, that's the primary assumption. Our goal is beatitude therefore we must act good in order to attain it, that is a moral obligation in itself because if we do not then our end and our means is suffering however, paradoxically you can achieve beatitude through suffering. By dying we live, by living we die. There is such a thing as the natural law.

True or false? We always have to act when confronted with a choice even if the choice is not to act.

Yes. And it WOULD be useless to pray, wouldn't it, if God DOES already know what is going to happen?

Just becuase God knows what is going to happen does not mean that God causes what happens. Show me why the knowledge that something is going to happen is the same thing as causing such a thing to happen. Free-will is that you may choose to do something, destiny/predestination that God already knows what you did, it's predetermined not because your actions were predetermined but because your choosen actions were already known before they happened. Providence is where God uses and moves things so that they work for the greater good.

In fact, for the kind of super-powerful being that God is posited to be, isn't prayer pretty useless anyway? Not to mention selfish and arrogant?

Umm, no, sorry.

What aren't "either/or" concepts? Either something is "good" or it is not, isn't it? Something is either "moral" to do, or it is not, isn't it? Something is either consistent with "our purpose" or it isn't, isn't it?

No, that something is good or evil is an either/or concept, I'm meaning both/and.

We may all have to act. BUT, we don't "all have to act good," whatever that means.

Yes, I realized I wrote that wrong but I figured since I had already written something to my meaning in another post that someone might correct the mistake in their own head.

We all act towards a goal and that is what is good to us, that's as simple as that statement is.

People do all kinds of things, good and bad, all the time. So, your first premise is false.

Sorry, thought you had read some of my previous thoughts.

Alas, I'm just not in the mood. :wave:

maddog

03-09-2005, 06:37 AM

what is "good"? I thought you were just saying that we can't see and can't say what's good, that we don't have that vision,

True or false, good is determined by what the end is? I don't know. I don't know how you are using those words. "Good" is a value judgment. An end, or goal, is simply that -- an end or goal. Ends or goals might be either good or bad. I don't understand. If our lives are only about avoiding suffering then it is good if we not suffer, correct?I don't know. If Al Capone's life is only about acquiring money and power, then whatever he does toward that end is "good," correct? Is that what you are asking? So in that view good is this, from another perspective with a different end, good is otherwise, correct? So don't throw back at me "oh you're just saying that we can't see," 'cause that's not exactly what I'm saying.Well, I thought you were saying that God knows what the "good" is, and that we don't. It's either true or false, change the ends, move the goal posts change the best means to reach the goal, correct?I think I might agree with this, if I understand you. But having a goal, and choosing means to achieve the goal, does not mean that either the goal, or the means, are "good."

Now, tell me what good is. What is the goal of our lives? You can even respond with there is none, either way, that's all I'm saying. I thought that your thesis was that God knows the goal of our lives, but we don't, because he has a vision that we don't have.

. . . and that only God does [i.e., have the vision of the good].

I'm not saying that only God knows the meaning of good in that sense, since I must repeat it, I'm saying that with God in the picture and heaven and beatitude the goal posts have shifted.What? "beatitude"? what?

How do we know that any act we take is not interfering with God's notion of what's "good"?

What is the end God is trying to achieve? What is the end we are supposed to be achieving?

For the former I'll respond glory and perfection from what I can tell, for the latter I'll respond beatitude. What? "glory"? what does that mean? perfection? we're supposed to be achieving "beatitude"? what's that?

Well, I'm confused, all right. Now I don't know what you mean by "good."

Ok.

Well, I think you've just proved too much. If the purpose and point of our lives is not to prevent unnecessary suffering, to live peacefully with one another, to not do harm to one another and have no one harm us, to be as happy as we can until we die, then what IS the purpose? If brutal murder is consistent with the purpose of our lives, then it is not "good" and not moral for a human being to step in and stop it. There should be no moral obligation on anyone to help the victim. You seem to have posited that God's silversmithing -- purifying us through our suffering -- is our purpose.

*groan*

That is false. I am saying that we have to act, that is a moral obligation in itself and we are blamed or at fault if we do not act morally, that's the primary assumption. Our goal is beatitude therefore we must act good in order to attain it, that is a moral obligation in itself because if we do not then our end and our means is suffering however, paradoxically you can achieve beatitude through suffering. The run-on sentence is confusing. It is a MORAL obligation to act? how so? If you define "acting" as EITHER "acting" or "not acting," I don't see how we can help it (unless we're dead). How can it be a MORAL obligation simply to live? In the middle of the second sentence, you seem to have added to our moral obligations. We not only have a moral obligation "to act," (which we can do by EITHER action OR non-action -- there's no way to avoid it), we ALSO have an obligation to "act morally." And if we don't, then we get blame or fault. How do we determine what "moral action" is? You've ASSUMED that "our goal is beatitude." This hasn't been demonstrated. Not only has it not been demonstrated, but the word itself ("beatitude") is devoid of content for me. I really don't know what you mean when you use that word. The rest of the sentence (more than one sentence? should this be divided?) is unclear to me. By dying we live, by living we die. There is such a thing as the natural law.That's one of the strangest "natural laws" I've ever heard of.

True or false? We always have to act when confronted with a choice even if the choice is not to act. I think that's true. The only other option that I can think of is dying. I'm not sure where that leads, however.

[quote=maddog]Well, if "purification" is the end, and "suffering" is the means, then it would be IMMORAL for a human being to intervene to help the 93-year-old murder victim.
That's like saying it's useless to pray because God already knows what is going to happen and in that case free-will, predestination and Providence work together.Yes. And it WOULD be useless to pray, wouldn't it, if God DOES already know what is going to happen?

Just bec[au]se God knows what is going to happen does not mean that God causes what happens. Show me why the knowledge that something is going to happen is the same thing as causing such a thing to happen. Free-will is that you may choose to do something, destiny/predestination that God already knows what you did, it's predetermined not because your actions were predetermined but because your chosen actions were already known before they happened.If God already knows what I'm going to do, what CHOICE (free will) do I have to do anything different? Answer: I don't. If I could do something different, then he couldn't know. Providence is where God uses and moves things so that they work for the greater good. Wouldn't EVERYTHING God does be for the greater good? Isn't "Providence," then, just another name for EVERYTHING that happens?
In fact, for the kind of super-powerful being that God is posited to be, isn't prayer pretty useless anyway? Not to mention selfish and arrogant?

Umm, no, sorry. Why not? God knows all, sees all, controls all, does all, foresees all. What could possibly change on account of prayer? Isn't it all foreordained, because of the "greater good"? What would make us think we know better than God about what ought to happen for the greater good?

What aren't "either/or" concepts? Either something is "good" or it is not, isn't it? Something is either "moral" to do, or it is not, isn't it? Something is either consistent with "our purpose" or it isn't, isn't it?

No, that something is good or evil is an either/or concept, I'm meaning both/and. I don't understand what you are talking about. I thought we were trying to discern "what is moral" or "what is ethical" in a particular situation. Isn't that all about good/evil either/or? What about good/evil is both/and?

We may all have to act. BUT, we don't "all have to act good," whatever that means.

Yes, I realized I wrote that wrong but I figured since I had already written something to my meaning in another post that someone might correct the mistake in their own head.

We all act towards a goal and that is what is good to us, that's as simple as that statement is. Do you mean we choose actions with intentionality? Even if so, I don't see what that has to do with determining what is MORAL and what isn't in the context of acting/failing to act to protect a murder victim.

People do all kinds of things, good and bad, all the time. So, your first premise is false.

Sorry, thought you had read some of my previous thoughts.

Alas, I'm just not in the mood. :wave:
Well, okay. I guess I just don't understand what you mean by morality at all.

#345

Sweetie

03-09-2005, 04:21 PM

[QUOTE=Sweetie][QUOTE=maddog]
I don't know. I don't know how you are using those words.

Ok, but I can only say, "why not?"

"Good" is a value judgment. An end, or goal, is simply that -- an end or goal. Ends or goals might be either good or bad. I don't understand.

The concept of good is dependent on the concept of goals.

For instance, you say God is not good if He allowed this woman to be murdered which is making the assumption that good is to live a life free of suffering or to die happy or without pain or whatever, I have no idea what you could possibly have as your assumption to hold your ideas at present true. You make a value judgement according to the ends you perceive.

I don't know. If Al Capone's life is only about acquiring money and power, then whatever he does toward that end is "good," correct? Is that what you are asking?

Yes and note that is primarily a selfish motivation so generally in the end either we recognize that good is what God wills and we conform to it which is the greatest good for oneself or good is about what I want which generally leads to self-destruction which is generally the whole point of hell, that we create our own prisons. Self or God is generally what it boils down to.

Well, I thought you were saying that God knows what the "good" is, and that we don't.

Guess that's not it but perhaps I can say that God defines good by setting the ends though I don't know that He necessarily set the ends but that the ends must necessarily be that by nature. Our end is beatitude which is why we are required to act one way if we are to achieve, God's ends are different.

I think I might agree with this, if I understand you. But having a goal, and choosing means to achieve the goal, does not mean that either the goal, or the means, are "good."

Assuming that there is no such thing as an objective standard to appeal to. In the end for us, good is what God wills both what He wills for us to do which we should do because it's good though we don't have to and good is what God does with what we have done whether what we have done is bad or good. Like I said, the only question is whether or not we will be on the "pleasant" end of it all in the end.

Natural law though, I think dictates that this is the case with or without the standard of God to appeal to, perhaps the Buddhists appeal to this as well.

I thought that your thesis was that God knows the goal of our lives, but we don't, because he has a vision that we don't have.

No, that's not quite it. I'm saying that I think our lives have a different goal than what you think our lives are geared towards. I think Christianity is accurate, I think with or without Christianity reason and the natural law dictate this as true, I would speculate that many of the Stoics came to very similar conclusions. It's absurd to me no matter what because of reality to hold a premise that good is to not suffer.

What? "beatitude"? what?

Beatitude, perfect harmony of body and spirit by a direct vision of God.

The beatitudes of Christ, for instance for the sake of reference:

Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

What? "glory"? what does that mean? perfection? we're supposed to be achieving "beatitude"? what's that?

I suppose I simply don't know how to explain it. It seems like I would completely have to begin from ground up on the concepts for your sake.

[quote=maddog]Well, I'm confused, all right. Now I don't know what you mean by "good."

Ok.

The run-on sentence is confusing. It is a MORAL obligation to act?

Seriously, I am not greatly possessed of the virtue of patience.

It is not a moral obligation to act, pardon my mistating the third time as opposed to most likely the correct stating of my meaning previously.

We have to act, yes or no? Don't side-step, you can't undercut such a simple question, you can't avoid it, etc.

When we act, we have to act towards a goal, yes or no? Depending on the stated goal, we will act either good or bad, rationally or irrationally.

how so? If you define "acting" as EITHER "acting" or "not acting," I don't see how we can help it (unless we're dead).

Acting or not acting in the sense of you see someone overtaking someone else with the seeming intention to harm or murder. Do you intervene or not intervene when presented with the choice because you have been presented with a choice?

Intervention is an action, lack of intervention ie: choosing not to intervene is also an action.

How can it be a MORAL obligation simply to live? In the middle of the second sentence, you seem to have added to our moral obligations.

:doh: My apologies for not writing everything perfectly!

You've ASSUMED that "our goal is beatitude." This hasn't been demonstrated.

The problem is, I am not trying to prove Catholicism to you. If you want some demonstration to that effect try "Wisdom, Beatitude and the Incarnation" by St. Thomas Aquinas, or any other Catholic apologist or writer or Saint since him for an explanation or for an attempt at proving such a thing.

Since I am trying to explain the Catholic concepts and the Catholic answers according to Catholic principles to Ronin on the concept of evil and why God didn't have to intervene, then.

I have indeed assumed though not arbitrarily that beatitude is our end and I have not tried to prove it here because that's not what I'm doing in this thread, seriously. If you want to understand what I am trying to say since we can't cover all ideas and concepts and subjects in one idea, concept and subject, then perhaps you would grant me the honor of at least considering the ideas as I present them for the sake of understanding what I am trying to say or prove as opposed to what I am not. You want to understand the Catholic concepts, at least deal with one concept at a time which means that you will have to identify the assumptions and whether or not you question them at present is not the point. You very well may question and reject but we have questioned and accepted and in order to explain one concept dependent on other concepts that at some point we are just going to have to say, ok so, a Catholic says this because of this. Now, I don't know about or don't accept this, but I can see why they say this because of this, I can see why they reached that conclusion.

Even beyond all that, the ideas and the premises presented in this thread are terribly simple.

1. We have to act.
2. Our actions must necessarily be decided according to some goal.
3. Our judgements of whether or not actions were good or bad is dependent upon how well they worked to achieve the goal, if they did at all.
4. Change the goal, change the judgement.
5. It is assumed God acts immorally if He doesn't intervene to prevent suffering.

Deal with the above, don't side-step or nit-pick a whole bunch of little things, avoid the simple ideas on which the reasonings are based, etc. because the above are my only real points.

Ronin

03-25-2005, 04:40 PM

Why is it that God can be omnipresent and not us? I could repeat this old adage:

To err is human, to forgive divine.

Well, I agree it is an adage...I don't see how this applies to the issue I have raised regarding being omnipresent and yet failing to act to stop what we would act to prevent.

Are you saying that I should no longer seek to prevent such acts and merely forgive the killers?

God isn't given a free pass, God has a different end for us than the one we think should be our end or we would prefer would be our end but how much do we know compared with how much there is to know? Without what I call a greater scope of vision which is inherent in the concept of God or the Christian God at least then what do we have?

I may have asked you this before as it applies to the "Greater Plan" theory of excusing a purported omnipotent/present being from acting to prevent such murders:

Would you accept such a defense from me if I was present during this particular killing, yet did nothing to prevent it?

What if I also said I was present when the killers were planning it and knew where they were hiding after the murder?

Would you expect me to be charged as an accessory or would you accept my claim that I have a greater scope of vision as a valid defense?

A girl was cannonized and I heard about the story one time. She was fourteen and a man was trying to rape her, she refused to allow him in any way to taint her purity and she fought tooth and nail. She ended up being stabbed fourteen times. On her deathbed she either spoke this or had this man brought to her and she forgave him utterly, sincerely and completely which is why her story is called "Fourteen Flowers of Pardon."

That was her choice, from this great evil came a great good. At Sunday they read the story of the blind man and the question asked by others of Jesus, why is he blind? Was it because of his sin or his parent's sin? Jesus said neither, it was so that a great work could be done in his life and so God's glory can be known and revealed. Thinking in human terms this has no meaning to us.

John 9
3Jesus answered, "It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him.

And the passage ends with some of the ideas I've brought forth:

39And Jesus said, "For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind."
40Those of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things and said to Him, "We are not blind too, are we?"
41Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains.

"If you were blind, you would have no sin," being the point as far as the idea of what we can be blamed for and we can't, where our free-will is, what we will be held accountable for, touches on the Catholic concept of freedom of conscience.

If I am to accept that bad things occur to defenseless people as a part of your theory the God has a greater plan in the face of them...then why should I, as a protector, continue to interfer with such a will?

I surely don't want to confound the free will and conscience of another (even a killer) since there is supposed to be a Greater Plan in store for people.

Doesn't God have free-will?

Yay and nay I would say, depending on your definition of free-will.

It's very similar to a question I've been asked in the past, "can God change His mind"? In the end the question is equivalent to the question, "can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it," which is an unutterable question. Can a God who can do everything that is consistent with His nature do something He can't do?

To change your mind is to be finite, to know everything at once is to be infinite. Can we say that God is not infinite because He is not finite?

You can't change your mind when you know everything with infinite certainty. Can you make up your mind, can you think at all if you know everything with infinite certainty? Can you act at all? Those are good questions, but the previous question is my answer to that thought at least.

Does God have free-will? God is free and bound by His own nature at the same time I think.

Then what good is asserting that a certain God exists if everything happens as if there weren't one (no intervention due to "free will"?

Also, why are there stories of certain gods (including the Christian one) where He or She did intervene and interact with humans regularly?

Isn't His behavior (should He exist) subject to the same moral assessment?

Yay and nay once again. Oh!, someone quoted someone from the past which was the awesomist thought and I so wish I would have marked it because it was such a good thought and a serious attack on the Liberal Christian's conception of God and justice/morality and something people of the Nihilist persuasion have a very clear view of or like to ponder.

I'll hammer away at it and see what I can come up with.

I hope you can find that quote as I would find any response to my question very interesting.

Did she? Ack, perhaps I should go read the article huh? :P

That would be a good start, however, I don't think that an argument could be made that she wanted to be murdered by these two young men.

She did not have free will and/or another's will/choice superceded hers (same thing).

To me that's a side-step. She may not have decided that she wanted to have to choose between being brutally murdered and any other option, there doesn't even need to have to be another option in this case.

There are things we do not choose of course, but the idea of free-will is that there are things we can choose and that is what free-will is all about, it is not about whether or not you can be physically overpowered by another, it's not about whether or not someone can take something that is yours, it's not about whether or not people can do things to you that you don't want, that's not it.

Free-will is about when given a choice, what you choose, it does not guarantee that you will be able to choose to be free as opposed to being a slave, that you will have food as opposed to living in poverty, that you can have anything you want or that you should have the right to.

I suppose to put it simply, you don't necessarily get to choose your choices or if you do only minimally and you don't get to choose the consequences of your choices because they are governed by laws and other conditional factors.

How would this theory differ from a universe without any gods?

If you or I were there and possessed the power to defend her we would have because we are good...yet, God (we are told) had the power to defend her and yet did not.

The difference between I and God is that I may or may not have the power to help preserve her health and life, God has the power of life or death, salvation and damnation, there is a difference. She may die and be saved, her murderers may die and be damned, in the end, justice will be served. Why does He need to ensure her physical life if she is granted eternal life after death which is the point of life, to have the Kingdom of Heaven within you on earth and have it continue on in the next life?

Luke 12
4“I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. 5But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him. 6Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God. 7Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

That's it in a nutshell, Sweetie...the defense of God you are asserting is that God is purported to be the Gamesmaster of all things and so is not subject to the same rules that we (as humans) are subject to.

Of course, even though we have a justice system in life to access certain action, there still is a second posthumous justice to reconcile all the crimes that have been allowed to be committed under the guise "free will" (that isn't really free) and as a part of a greater scope of vision that is already known by the Gamesmaster.

This brings us back to something I think you may have skipped over recently:

originally posted by Ronin:

I am not familiar with a unified theory that resolves free will, predestination and providence...please explain.

LOL, then of course your concept of justice mingling with hell is probably another mountain to climb but, that's a different day. :D

True dat.

:cool:

But the whole Bible is full of the dual meanings of life and death, spiritual and physical life and death, and then the paradox of by life because of death, death because of life or several thoughts along those lines.

I agree.

Only I call them contradictions.

:wink:

How can something exist with described traits and then not reflect these traits in action?

To me it's not that these traits aren't reflected, it's that they're altered according to perspective, to the scope of vision.

So, stories about God directly intervening (in conflict with the "free will" theory you propose) to save people at one point in time...yet not saving them in other circumstances is simply a vision/perspective error on my part?

But alas, enough for now or today. :yup:

:wave: