Progress

[B-Fly]

What do you think about the example of Job? I still come back to that as the fundamental writing on this topic.

I don't consider that the only valid perspective or response about our interaction with god, but it certainly seems like a good starting point when we are questioning his injustices. There is a lot of wisdom in the story of Job.

I'm not particularly fond of G-d as He is represented in the story of Job. He's supposedly omnipotent and omnibenevolent and yet he permits an innocent man to be tortured to answer a challenge from Satan? Why? To prove that He (G-d) commands devotion even absent the supposed self-interest the pious have in earning G-d's protection and blessings? I guess I agree that one should be a good and humble person for its own sake and not because one believes it will necessarily be divinely rewarded. That's the positive message. But that's 'props' to Job, not to G-d. G-d is essentially torturing the poor guy to settle a bet.

[billbuckner]

I'm not particularly fond of G-d as He is represented in the story of Job. He's supposedly omnipotent and omnibenevolent and yet he permits an innocent man to be tortured to answer a challenge from Satan? Why? To prove that He (G-d) commands devotion even absent the supposed self-interest the pious have in earning G-d's protection and blessings? I guess I agree that one should be a good and humble person for its own sake and not because one believes it will necessarily be divinely rewarded. That's the positive message. But that's 'props' to Job, not to G-d. G-d is essentially torturing the poor guy to settle a bet.

Is that because of your personal moral code or because you look like the dude from A Serious Man?

[B-Fly]

if fly wants to reinstate my post he's welcome to... if only to prove I'm not a prophet.

LOL. Done. I don't know if that makes me omnipotent, in which case I have a lot to answer for.

[Kevin Seitzer]

I have yet to see an adequate Christian response to the problem of evil.

Surely that can't be true. I thought you've said that you've noticed Christians being among some of those who are most willing to help those in need. Do I remember that wrong?

[OaklandA's]

Reading this over... I sometimes don't think you are too far off. I don't believe g_d sends plagues or whatever to punish us. He's not killing soldiers because we have homosexuals in the country, but the sins of not keeping nuclear plants up to date, or wells up to code, or deforestation, or climate change or over population or whatever are visited on us. I can't attribute earth quakes, sometimes **** just happens, but perhaps we do pay for ours and others sins.

I guess I don't view things like "keeping nuclear plants up to date, or wells up to code" as sins - they have nothing to do with religion.

[Kevin Seitzer]

I'm not particularly fond of G-d as He is represented in the story of Job. He's supposedly omnipotent and omnibenevolent and yet he permits an innocent man to be tortured to answer a challenge from Satan? Why? To prove that He (G-d) commands devotion even absent the supposed self-interest the pious have in earning G-d's protection and blessings? I guess I agree that one should be a good and humble person for its own sake and not because one believes it will necessarily be divinely rewarded. That's the positive message. But that's 'props' to Job, not to G-d. G-d is essentially torturing the poor guy to settle a bet.

Huh. It's interesting that we take the story of Job very differently. First of all, I don't see the question of "Why?" ever answered in the story. It's true that at the beginning of the book there is this interchange between God and the Accuser where God goads the Accuser regarding Job, but that's never addressed in the conclusion, so it can't have been the point of the story. I take it as a rhetorical device to set up the consideration of the most awful situation possible for a human--when even God himself seems to have turned against him.

[Gregg]

What is this supposed to mean? That the thousands killed by the tsunami were killed because of their own sin? Or that thousands of innocents were killed because of our sin? What exactly are you suggesting?

No, you will not hear me say that.

I am suggesting that none of us truly know the true ramifications of sin. We do know that evil leaks on us.

What I am suggesting is that since death is not final (Bible). Maybe death is more like a caterpillar changing to a butterfly. Maybe in God's world death is not as big a deal as in ours. Maybe what we do in our life is more important than how long we live it.

[Kevin Seitzer]

I guess I don't view things like "keeping nuclear plants up to date, or wells up to code" as sins - they have nothing to do with religion.

Some of those type of things fall into the category of simple mistakes or doing your best but not accurately forseeing the future. However, others of those things fall into the category of cutting corners and exploiting others out of greed, and that has everything to do with religion. I'm thinking about the recent housing market collapse in the U.S., for example. There were a lot of sins specifically called out in the Bible that led to the damage that was done to many people's lives.

[B-Fly]

I guess I don't view things like "keeping nuclear plants up to date, or wells up to code" as sins - they have nothing to do with religion.

I do, in the secular humanist sense by which we are all responsible for our own actions and omissions and should act, where we can, in accordance with our talents and opportunities, to make the world a better place for our fellows. When we as the human race fail to act in such a way as to minimize suffering, we collectively bear some responsibility for that suffering. I have no problem with that moral question in a world without an omnipotent deity. Once you accept the idea of an omnipotent deity, however, doesn't that deity have a moral responsibility to do something about suffering? Y'know, the Spider-Man thing: with great power comes great responsibility.

[OaklandA's]

What I am suggesting is that since death is not final (Bible). Maybe death is more like a caterpillar changing to a butterfly. Maybe in God's world death is not as big a deal as in ours. Maybe what we do in our life is more important than how long we live it.

Even if you believe that death is not a big deal, I don't see any justification for the suffering that so many experience while they are alive. In many cases, death is greatly preferable, but I don't understand why God would ever want someone's life to be that way.

[Kevin Seitzer]

You remember correctly, but that's not what I meant. I was referring an actual verbal answer to the "how can a benevolent God permit evil to exist?" question.

I know. But what I see in the Christian scriptures is the call to respond to the problem of evil with action. That's a valid and important response, even if it's not a philosophical answer, and I think ultimately it says something at a philosophical level, too.

[B-Fly]

Huh. It's interesting that we take the story of Job very differently. First of all, I don't see the question of "Why?" ever answered in the story. It's true that at the beginning of the book there is this interchange between God and the Accuser where God goads the Accuser regarding Job, but that's never addressed in the conclusion, so it can't have been the point of the story. I take it as a rhetorical device to set up the consideration of the most awful situation possible for a human--when even God himself seems to have turned against him.

In confronting the text, don't we have an obligation to ask ourselves "why?" with regard to G-d's role/behavior in the story?

[OaklandA's]

There were a lot of sins specifically called out in the Bible that led to the damage that was done to many people's lives.

If you are referring to things like greed and laziness, then I think they are called out in most religions.

[B-Fly]

I know. But what I see in the Christian scriptures is the call to respond to the problem of evil with action. That's a valid and important response, even if it's not a philosophical answer, and I think ultimately it says something at a philosophical level, too.

I guess I think the moral case for action in response to evil is far stronger in secular humanist thought, where we actually have to do it because it's right, not because it's commanded and because acceptance of G-d and G-d's law will earn us salvation.

[Kevin Seitzer]

If you are referring to things like greed and laziness, then I think they are called out in most religions.

Sure. I wasn't meaning to suggest otherwise with my reference to the Bible. (I made the specific reference to the Bible because of the quotes from the Jewish prophets that I listed earlier.)