Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

You cannot dismiss the evidence in the Christian bible so blatantly.

Yes, the four Gospels do have numerous contradictions.  Such contradictions are what you would expect to find in four separate compilations of eye witness accounts of events which actually took place.  Such contradictions would not be present in man made attempts to portray the fictitious, idealised versions claimed by many non believers.   The perceived contradictions do not detract from the profound, world changing message which forms the foundation of our modern civilised culture.  Do you honestly believe that our modern society could be founded on a book containing zero reasoning and evidence?

Hindu culture and society is likewise born of a book not founded on evidence based reasoning.  Neither the Bible nor the Vedas are works of diligent scientific research and clearly this has not hindered their appeal to followers. To believers, factual accuracy matters less than the moral and cultural values imparted.

[Nearly Sane]

Jeremy considers a tome that is still discussed thousands of years after completion and spots a bear.

You consider that a god who gets a bear to murder children for mocking a bald man is worthy of worship.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You consider that a god who gets a bear to murder children for mocking a bald man is worthy of worship.

Can a bear be tried for MURDER? Wasn't it doing what bears do? Trying God for murder? Can you show your reasoning?

[Gordon]

Can a bear be tried for MURDER? Wasn't it doing what bears do? Trying God for murder? Can you show your reasoning?

As I recall, the story is that Elisha was a pupil of Elijah (who had prophetic 'power', could perform miracles and had been 'taken up by a whirlwind). Elisha also had 'power, and more than Elijah' and could perform miracles, curses those children who were mocking his baldness whereby two bears appeared and mauled 42 children - not a great advert for both Elisha and 'God' - setting dangerous animals on children would certainly see you in the dock today.

Do you think Christians today accept this story as being historical fact and, if so, how do they rationalise the suffering being inflicted on children for trivial reasons?

[Outrider]

But we are back to who decides what is necessary suffering or immoral suffering.

Amongst many, many others; me. The person going through it. The person seeing his children, particularly, going through it. With a perfect deity ANY suffering is immoral.

Surely the entity which has maximal knowledge.

If it weren't suggested to have absolute power, yes - if it were limited in capacity, but could in theory design the least bad creation. That's not the suggestion, though.

Those suggesting other physics would be better need to make their case although I suspect such physics would collapse into irrationality and chaos even before we consider the moral implications.

Again, not an issue with an omnipotent deity who doesn't need the system to be self-sufficient, even if there weren't better self-sufficient designs.

I think you rather overestimate yourself and your proneness to unintended consequences.

I overestimate my proneness to unintended consequences? Even if that made sense - I think you mean the opposite - it still doesn't matter with an omnipotent, omniscient deity, as any 'unintended consequence' (which is meaningless in the face of omniscience) who can intervene on a whim with literally negligible personal impact.

You have though brought up another complaint that God doesn’t intervene enough. They of course mean that God should be rescinding his laws quite frequently. That demand is the equivalent of wanting a different physics.

Yes. If there is an omniscient, omnipotent deity, the system could be better - I'm not bothered which way of it being better your purported deity would choose, but the fact they haven't is another strand of evidence that the whole notion is nonsense.

God didn’t create people only to make them suffer.

There is no apparently sensible reason why a God would make people; the story, though, suggests that it did, and subsequent to that we suffer. It's not really that important if there are other aspects to life, or whether you're happy with the balance. The fact is that an omnipotent, omniscient deity could create a reality for people where they did not suffer; we are here for God's reasons, not ours, why should we have to suffer for God's benefit?

Prior to the fall people were in perfect unbroken communion with God and would have enjoyed that through suffering and through everything until they came through to the next life.

If you think the Garden of Eden is a true story, I'm afraid we have issues that go way, way beyond whether there's suffering in the world, but even if you do: God put the tree where it could be reached by a creation he gave curiosity, but denied wisdom, and therefore this remains God's fault.

If you don't think the Garden of Eden is a true story, man's 'fall' is a result of the human nature that your religion says is part of what God made us and is, therefore, still a part of God's design and God's fault.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As I recall, the story is that Elisha was a pupil of Elijah (who had prophetic 'power', could perform miracles and had been 'taken up by a whirlwind). Elisha also had 'power, and more than Elijah' and could perform miracles, curses those children who were mocking his baldness whereby two bears appeared and mauled 42 children - not a great advert for both Elisha and 'God' - setting dangerous animals on children would certainly see you in the dock today.

Do you think Christians today accept this story as being historical fact and, if so, how do they rationalise the suffering being inflicted on children for trivial reasons?

Some fair questions. Is it a story of how a real miracle disciplined a faith community and or brought those outside it in? Or is it just a story which acts as a discipline to a faith community. I don’t know. Today a group of 42 youths unsupervised giving grief to a senior citizen might justly be looked on as problematic. If two bears appeared after cussing from the target and injuries ensued, how would that be viewed?

[Alan Burns]

As I recall, the story is that Elisha was a pupil of Elijah (who had prophetic 'power', could perform miracles and had been 'taken up by a whirlwind). Elisha also had 'power, and more than Elijah' and could perform miracles, curses those children who were mocking his baldness whereby two bears appeared and mauled 42 children - not a great advert for both Elisha and 'God' - setting dangerous animals on children would certainly see you in the dock today.

Do you think Christians today accept this story as being historical fact and, if so, how do they rationalise the suffering being inflicted on children for trivial reasons?

I am impressed with your knowledge of the Old Testament, Gordon.  Do you have such detailed knowledge of the New Testament too?

To answer your question, I would think most Christians would interpret this as a story used to discourage unwarranted name calling rather than a literal truth.

[Alan Burns]

Hindu culture and society is likewise born of a book not founded on evidence based reasoning.  Neither the Bible nor the Vedas are works of diligent scientific research and clearly this has not hindered their appeal to followers. To believers, factual accuracy matters less than the moral and cultural values imparted.

The Vedas comprises moral and cultural teachings but contains no claims of historical facts - as would be expected from man made attempts at such teachings.

The Christian bible on the other hand comprises many claims of historical facts from which the moral and religious teachings are derived - as would be expected from a God making Himself known to the people who were separated from Him by the Fall.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Amongst many, many others; me. The person going through it. The person seeing his children, particularly, going through it. With a perfect deity ANY suffering is immoral.

Since none of us have complete knowledge I’m not sure we are qualified. Pain is for survival although death seems inevitable, both physical and spiritual. Earlier you did say that if their was no existence their would be no suffering. This identifies the evil in the act of creation. You think existence is evil imo

I overestimate my proneness to unintended consequences? Even if that made sense - I think you mean the opposite - it still doesn't matter with an omnipotent, omniscient deity, as any 'unintended consequence' (which is meaningless in the face of omniscience) who can intervene on a whim with literally negligible personal impact.

You have neither sufficient foresight or knowledge to plan a universe without unintended consequence.

Yes. If there is an omniscient, omnipotent deity, the system could be better - I'm not bothered which way of it being better your purported deity would choose, but the fact they haven't is another strand of evidence that the whole notion is nonsense.

This doesn’t make sense, how can you get better than best or to put it another way, there’s always a better than the best?

There is no apparently sensible reason why a God would make people; the story, though, suggests that it did

God makes people for themselves and others.

If you think the Garden of Eden is a true story, I'm afraid we have issues that go way, way beyond whether there's suffering in the world, but even if you do: God put the tree where it could be reached by a creation he gave curiosity, but denied wisdom, and therefore this remains God's fault.

I’m not sure I believe in it literally but there has to be a point where what is recognisably man passed, by choice, from being a creature of nature, chance, accident and amorality to being one of immorality.

[Maeght]

The Vedas comprises moral and cultural teachings but contains no claims of historical facts - as would be expected from man made attempts at such teachings.

The Christian bible on the other hand comprises many claims of historical facts from which the moral and religious teachings are derived - as would be expected from a God making Himself known to the people who were separated from Him by the Fall.

What historical facts?

[Gordon]

Some fair questions. Is it a story of how a real miracle disciplined a faith community and or brought those outside it in? Or is it just a story which acts as a discipline to a faith community. I don’t know.

Oh I think it's a story, especially since 'real miracle' sounds like an oxymoron.

Today a group of 42 youths unsupervised giving grief to a senior citizen might justly be looked on as problematic.

It would.

If two bears appeared after cussing from the target and injuries ensued, how would that be viewed?

Bearing in mind that in the story the bears are the direct result of the curse vented by Elisha, which presumably involves divine power, then I'd say both Elisha and 'God' should be held to account. Then again it's just a silly old story that even Alan doesn't take literally.

[Gordon]

I am impressed with your knowledge of the Old Testament, Gordon.  Do you have such detailed knowledge of the New Testament too?

The internet is a handy thing for looking stuff up.

To answer your question, I would think most Christians would interpret this as a story used to discourage unwarranted name calling rather than a literal truth.

Seems a bit OTT even if it is just a story.

[Gordon]

The Christian bible on the other hand comprises many claims of historical facts from which the moral and religious teachings are derived - as would be expected from a God making Himself known to the people who were separated from Him by the Fall.

Nope - aside from the names of places and some people it is a collection of anecdotes that have little or no provenance, some of which are impossibly fantastical (dead people not staying dead) and others that are no more than myth (the so-called 'Fall').

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Amongst many, many others; me. The person going through it. The person seeing his children, particularly, going through it. With a perfect deity ANY suffering is immoral.

Ok that was one of my points as well - from observation it seems each person going through it decides what is moral / immoral because morality is a human construct and subjective.

The crux of the matter seems to be you think a perfect deity should not have created life in a way that means that any living organism has to go through any pain/ suffering. As there is clearly pain / suffering in the world, that negates the idea of a perfect deity for you.

I don't have a view on judging perfection because both god and perfection are each such abstract concepts that I can't define them and nor can anyone else, so the supposed perfection of a deity is not something that drew me to religion.

Based on my nature/ nurture I can't link "perfection" to "no suffering" because I wonder what I would lose if no suffering was the basis of existence. Now I have experienced life with highs and lows I don't want a life with just highs as pain has also brought benefits as well as costs   - obviously if 'only benefits' was all I ever knew then my nature/ nurture would be different and I wouldn't be 'me' anymore so I would hold a different view.

I pray to a god because it is part of the rituals of my religion and having tried it out, I find it benefits me. I suspect most theists pray for the same reason.

My life works better when I pray than when I don't - it's a bit like the Shaolin monk I mentioned earlier who practises Qigong and whose brain (according to an MRI scan) does not register the normal levels of pain associated with putting his hand in ice cold water. Personal experience is therefore sufficient reason for me to pray.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh I think it's a story, especially since 'real miracle' sounds like an oxymoron.

It would.

Bearing in mind that in the story the bears are the direct result of the curse vented by Elisha, which presumably involves divine power, then I'd say both Elisha and 'God' should be held to account. Then again it's just a silly old story that even Alan doesn't take literally.

It does remind me of an unbeliever who came to church with me and was muttering all through the service in criticism. After the service was over he stepped on a turd a dog had left on the church steps.

He converted the year after.

[Gordon]

It does remind me of an unbeliever who came to church with me and was muttering all through the service in criticism. After the service was over he stepped on a turd a dog had left on the church steps.

He converted the year after.

Henceforth we should call this 'the dogshit miracle': seems quite a fitting description.

[Alan Burns]

..... The person going through it. The person seeing his children, particularly, going through it. With a perfect deity ANY suffering is immoral.

If we lived in a world with no pain or suffering we would have no concept of good or bad.  In order to recognise what is good we need to experience some bad things.  The so called perfect world would be a recipe for self centred indulgence with no incentive to offer help to those who need it, because no one would need any help.  In my mind it would be hell on earth.

Heaven is a place for those who appreciate what is good - not a place for those who take it for granted.

[jeremyp]

I am impressed with your knowledge of the Old Testament, Gordon.  Do you have such detailed knowledge of the New Testament too?

To answer your question, I would think most Christians would interpret this as a story used to discourage unwarranted name calling rather than a literal truth.

If you want a ridiculous story from the New Testament, how about Matthew's claim that Jesus rode two donkeys simultaneously into Jerusalem like some bargain bucket circus act?

Of course, we know the reason he made this mistake is that he read the OT text he lifted it from wrongly.

[jeremyp]

The Vedas comprises moral and cultural teachings but contains no claims of historical facts - as would be expected from man made attempts at such teachings.

The Christian bible on the other hand comprises many claims of historical facts from which the moral and religious teachings are derived - as would be expected from a God making Himself known to the people who were separated from Him by the Fall.

No. That's not what we expect from a god making himself known to people after the Fall. We would expect, at the least, a press conference. We would expect God to appear to many people all over the World. We would expect him to take care that his sources were unimpeachable and easy to verify.

Four mutually inconsistent stories from anonymous authors that show signs of being cobbled together partly from OT scripture and contain many historical errors is absolutely not what we would expect from an all powerful god.

[jeremyp]

It does remind me of an unbeliever who came to church with me and was muttering all through the service in criticism. After the service was over he stepped on a turd a dog had left on the church steps.

Yeah that really happened.

He converted the year after.

Quite right too. Cats are better than dogs.

[jeremyp]

If we lived in a world with no pain or suffering we would have no concept of good or bad.  In order to recognise what is good we need to experience some bad things.  The so called perfect world would be a recipe for self centred indulgence with no incentive to offer help to those who need it, because no one would need any help.  In my mind it would be hell on earth.

Heaven is a place for those who appreciate what is good - not a place for those who take it for granted.

If there was no alternative world to one with immense suffering, why did God create it at all?

[Nearly Sane]

If we lived in a world with no pain or suffering we would have no concept of good or bad.  In order to recognise what is good we need to experience some bad things.  The so called perfect world would be a recipe for self centred indulgence with no incentive to offer help to those who need it, because no one would need any help.  In my mind it would be hell on earth.

Heaven is a place for those who appreciate what is good - not a place for those who take it for granted.

So 'the fall' was already predetermined by your god?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

If there was no alternative world to one with immense suffering, why did God create it at all?

My guess is - so that there would be something to ask the question "If there was no alternative world to one with immense suffering, why did God create it at all?" 

[Outrider]

Since none of us have complete knowledge I’m not sure we are qualified.

None of us are qualified to know if we're suffering? Really? I might know of the details of a way it could be better, but I don't need that for the point. I need to recognise THAT someone is suffering, and to realise that's not necessary if there's an omnipotent, omniscient deity.

Pain is for survival although death seems inevitable, both physical and spiritual.

But why do we have to suffer the pain? Why does it have to be a negative experience, why can it not just be functionally negative. Which is just pain, there is so much more to suffering than merely physical pain.

Earlier you did say that if their was no existence their would be no suffering. This identifies the evil in the act of creation. You think existence is evil imo

I don't know if you're deliberately misunderstanding, or if this is somehow genuinely escaping you despite the simplicity - creation in and of itself is neither evil nor good. The specifics of what reality is created, the consequences of that (such as people suffering) make a particular choice of creation evil, given that there other options.

You have neither sufficient foresight or knowledge to plan a universe without unintended consequence.

I don't need to, I just need to know that an omnipotent, omniscient deity could either create one that didn't involve suffering, or could intervene on a regular basis to avoid, mitigate, ameliorate, diminish or outright eliminate suffering. On that basis, either your God is evil or mythical.

This doesn’t make sense, how can you get better than best or to put it another way, there’s always a better than the best?

Creation is flawed, as I understand the Christian theology, whether intrinsically, or because of 'The Fall' or whatever. God is perfect, but somehow his creation isn't? Either way, it's the creation that could be better, although if all God can create is a flawed creation, it calls into question the omniscience, omnipotence or omnibenevolence, and therefore perhaps something better is possible.

God makes people for themselves and others.

Which doesn't explain or justify the suffering.

I’m not sure I believe in it literally

You're not sure? Wow...

but there has to be a point where what is recognisably man passed, by choice, from being a creature of nature, chance, accident and amorality to being one of immorality.

No, there isn't. There's a point where we evolved enough to be capable of morality, but that's not a choice.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

None of us are qualified to know if we're suffering? Really? I might know of the details of a way it could be better, but I don't need that for the point. I need to recognise THAT someone is suffering, and to realise that's not necessary if there's an omnipotent, omniscient deity.

But why do we have to suffer the pain? Why does it have to be a negative experience, why can it not just be functionally negative. Which is just pain, there is so much more to suffering than merely physical pain.

I don't know if you're deliberately misunderstanding, or if this is somehow genuinely escaping you despite the simplicity - creation in and of itself is neither evil nor good. The specifics of what reality is created, the consequences of that (such as people suffering) make a particular choice of creation evil, given that there other options.

I don't need to, I just need to know that an omnipotent, omniscient deity could either create one that didn't involve suffering, or could intervene on a regular basis to avoid, mitigate, ameliorate, diminish or outright eliminate suffering. On that basis, either your God is evil or mythical.

Creation is flawed, as I understand the Christian theology, whether intrinsically, or because of 'The Fall' or whatever. God is perfect, but somehow his creation isn't? Either way, it's the creation that could be better, although if all God can create is a flawed creation, it calls into question the omniscience, omnipotence or omnibenevolence, and therefore perhaps something better is possible.

Which doesn't explain or justify the suffering.

You're not sure? Wow...

No, there isn't. There's a point where we evolved enough to be capable of morality, but that's not a choice.

O.

I said immorality, not morality. That was the choice made. I shall address your other statements another time.