Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [christian-philosophy] philosophy and problem of evil

Expand Messages
  • Warren
    ... Yup, IF something was perfect then by definition it cannot produce imperfection, for if it does THEN it wasn t perfect by definition. However this
    Message 1 of 8 , Jul 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      David Wrote:

      > Alex wrote:

      >> "why did God allow evil in the first place, if God is good, wise and the most
      >> powerful Being. Could the omnipotent God stopped the evil
      >> to appear in the created world?"
      >
      > That seems to me to be the most difficult question of all. But, there seems to
      > me to be a "hidden" (i.e., implicit) assumption in this kind of question which
      > may be of utmost importance for really understanding the question, and thus of
      > gaining the best understanding that is possible for us to gain about the
      > biggest questions we have. We know from the physical world that something
      > (call it x) cannot produce something else that, in turn, can become *unlike* x
      > in the way that x is primarily what x is. God is perfect in his power, and
      > perfect in his goodness, so how can it be that he created something that
      > became evil? Our way of looking at the physical world is mechanistic. It seems
      > to me that this way of looking at things is really the highest kind of
      > understanding that we have and which we feel is the only truly solid
      > understanding on our part. We tend to think that if something cannot be
      > understood as a machine, then it cannot exist but is only a figment of our
      > imagination. So, we take this implicit view of everything unless we hope that
      > there really is something more to reality than what is understandable as a
      > machine. How can something which God had created perfect then later become
      > imperfect? We tend to feel that anything which really is supposed to be
      > perfect but which later becomes imperfect either has become imperfect because
      > of some outside mechanism, or really was not perfect to begin with.

      Yup, IF something was "perfect" then by definition it cannot produce
      imperfection, for if it does THEN it wasn't "perfect" by definition. However
      this axiom only holds to this material universe, to machines such as "man".
      Man's imperfection could not have been "man's" doing, for it existed (or in
      the case of Christ, didn't exist) in the womb. Since man's own imperfection
      wasn't his doing is MUST have been someone else's.

      Now that argument holds true for the "determinist" and "indeterminist"
      alike, for the duelist or materialist and even the theist or atheist.

      Bottom line,

      1) man sins because he is inherently corrupted
      2) Man didn't "make" himself

      Therefore WHOEVER made man, made him corrupt.


      > But, still something must exist of itself. If all things are reducible to
      > mindless, cold mechanism,

      Which all things "man" are...


      > then there really is no meaning to the question of
      > how anything which is perfect to start with can later have become imperfect.

      There is only one solution, a "child". God had children who were
      ontologically his "flesh and blood". They were free and independent beings
      capable of non-contingent action. They were not the "creature" of their
      "creator", but rather sons of their father; Sons of God.

      As such they were capable of "freely" choosing evil over good without any
      culpability on God's part.

      Humanity, however, is not so "free", indeed nothing in humanity transcends
      his mechanistic materialism. We are enslaved to cause and effect in our very
      thinking, the very process by which we select is governed by a force beyond
      our control. Thus where we (as men) are "free" to function within our design
      parameters, we 1) are not free to function beyond them and 2) had no part in
      their assembly. Therefore we will perform exactly as our material algorithm
      dictates; no more and no less.


      > There would also be no meaning to the objection that "God cannot exist because
      > it is objectively unjust for any living being to make any other living being
      > suffer (forever) for anything which this other living being has done (or has
      > wished to do) to other living beings." The most that we could objectively say
      > about the suffering of any being is that that being suffers---that that being
      > doesn't like it.

      Yeah, and what is that to you... or me?

      That would be well and good but for the Moral Law to loving your neighbor as
      yourself, taking the part of the Good Samaritan who viewed the suffering of
      his neighbor as important as his own.

      Any god who ignores this Law isn't the "God" of the bible.


      > As if a living being who does not happen to empathize and sympathize with the
      > suffering of some other living being is not doing anything evil by failing to
      > empathize and sympathize with the suffering of that other being. Even if the
      > suffering is the result of the one being's selfish acts. Even if those acts
      > are an effort to escape having to ever suffer again itself.

      Who wrote "selfishness" into the algorithm of man, who set those parameters
      so poorly? Answer that and you will find your "author" of sin.


      > But, if we think of the world like a prison in which suffering is the common
      > denominator, then the inmates of this prison are known for their *trust*
      > crimes by how much or little they *truly* value their fellow inmates. The idea
      > that we are really nothing but machines that are so highly evolved that we
      > actually feel is an idea that is asking too much (and too little) to be
      > believed. But, whatever really is the case, that is, whether there is a God or
      > whether we are just machines that, incredibly, feel, the thing which exists of
      > itself must be beyond my mechanistic understanding. Thus we return to God as
      > that very thing which exists of itself, hence the answer to the problem of
      > evil.
      >
      > If there is a God, then whence evil? But, if there is no God, then whence good
      > and whence objective justice? There are two kinds of evil. One,
      > lies/falsehoods, and two, suffering. Which one of these two kinds of evil is
      > the truest evil?

      Actually it is my understanding that "evil" is defined through one of two
      perspectives: Objective or Subjective.

      Subjective Morality is defined by that which is GOOD for "me", that which
      does me benefit, which contributes to my wellbeing or that which makes me
      happy.

      Objective Morality is a bit more rugged, for views others as of equal or
      greater value than oneself, the highest form of its application being:
      Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his
      friends. Objective morality can therefore define or comprehend personal
      sacrifice and suffering for a cause greater than oneself, with no hope of
      recompense.

      Regarding your "two" kinds of evil, the former is Objective (theoretically)
      and the latter is Subjective. Notice that what is "evil" or "good" depends
      expressly upon your perspective: the same event of personal suffering CAN be
      "evil" (subjective morality) or "good" (objective morality) depending upon
      which code you adhere.



      --
      Warren
    • deniz ak
      hi to everybody i am watching closely members writings and took profit from them..i am a research assistant in philosophy of religion department and
      Message 2 of 8 , Jul 2, 2002
      • 0 Attachment

         

         hi to everybody

        i am watching closely  members'  writings and  took profit from them..i am a research assistant in philosophy of religion department and studying on theology of John Calvin. my theses subject is : understanding of faith and revelation in john Calvin..i am not sure how can i examine the concept or fact of revelation in calvin..could you show me a way please..for example what can be the main points...under which titles i may study the revelation in calvin..

        i dont try to come into possession of your thoughts ,i just look for the best..i made the titles like that: A:Nature of Revelation   B:Revelation and Knowledge  C:Relationship between Faith and Revelation  D:   Scripture and Revelation

        if you could write me the main and central points that i have to   mention ...and proper titles that i have to use in the section of revelation ..i will be very grateful..

        thanks and best regards

        Gog bless you

         



        Do You Yahoo!?
        New! SBC Yahoo! Dial - 1st Month Free & unlimited access
      • deniz ak
        hi i want to apologize you for a big mistake , i recently saw it .. i mistakenly wrote at the bottom of the message gog bless u instead of god bless you ..you
        Message 3 of 8 , Jul 3, 2002
        • 0 Attachment

           

          hi

           i want to apologize you for a big mistake , i recently saw it .. i mistakenly wrote at the bottom of the message gog bless u instead of god bless you ..you know gog means a hostile power that is ruled by satan ..in the book of revelation.. so somebody may think that it was not a mistake .then .i need to explain ,soory again..

          another thing is that my question is not about book of revelation..it is related to revelation of god .according to philosophy of religion

          thanks god bless you :))

            deniz ak <exagnos@...> wrote:

           hi to everybody

          i am watching closely  members'  writings and  took profit from them..i am a research assistant in philosophy of religion department and studying on theology of John Calvin. my theses subject is : understanding of faith and revelation in john Calvin..i am not sure how can i examine the concept or fact of revelation in calvin..could you show me a way please..for example what can be the main points...under which titles i may study the revelation in calvin..

          i dont try to come into possession of your thoughts ,i just look for the best..i made the titles like that: A:Nature of Revelation   B:Revelation and Knowledge  C:Relationship between Faith and Revelation  D:   Scripture and Revelation

          if you could write me the main and central points that i have to   mention ...and proper titles that i have to use in the section of revelation ..i will be very grateful..

          thanks and best regards

          Gog bless you

           



          Do You Yahoo!?
          New! SBC Yahoo! Dial - 1st Month Free & unlimited access

          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          christian-philosophy-unsubscribe@egroups.com



          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



          Do You Yahoo!?
          New! SBC Yahoo! Dial - 1st Month Free & unlimited access

        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.