david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) (03/25/85)
In reply to Lord Frith: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Re: reply to Teitz (Why is there evil in the world) Message-ID: <776@trwatf.UUCP> Date: 23 Mar 85 20:24:56 GMT >> Starving thousands of helpless people in remote third-world countries >> seems to test little. If we are to believe that God is just and >> merciful we should see it in everyday life... yet reality provides >> glaring contradicitions. How can we love a God that allows (or >> according to your reasoning CREATES) such suffering when it seems >> to serve no useful purpose? If anything, reality provides a >> great deal of evidence that God is not merciful or just. > > How can you love any person, who upon hearing of the starving in > Africa does not donate money to help those who are starving... "Are you to accuse man now in order to justify God?" > Just as you don't judge people by these standards, so too, don't judge > G-D by these standards. The question should not be how can G-D let > this happen. What do you mean "Just as you don't judge people by these standards...?" We certainly DO judge each other by these standards, and we judge God by higher standards because he demands so much more of us! Does man claim to be perfect? Does man claim to love his neighbor unconditionally? Does man claim to care for all of his children? Does man claim to protect "his people" forever and ever. Who is it that promises eternal life? Who is it that demands unconditional love and obedience... God or man? God is judged by high standards because of his claims. But who can love a God that does not live up to them? > Rather ask, how can man let it happen. Many of our problems (especially those in East Africa) are, in fact, attributible to human mismanagement, you are right about this. And the more generous of us CAN do something about it. One can easily rationalize the view that man is an extension of God's love. That's one reason why he established the belief in Christ (who advocated "love thy neighbor" etc). To claim, however, that it's ALL man's fault and that a Holy God is somehow aloof and removed from the cause of the suffering does not show balance. It displays the typically exagerated doctrine of a human belief. Man cannot be held responsible for the climate. Similarly, we cannot be held responsible for any natural disaster that brings death and mutilation. Is man responsible for the painful myriad of birth defects that often end in early death? Is it man's fault that desease strikes down those least capable of coping with such misery? Tell me why man should be held responsible for events that are beyond his control? The answer to your question is, "Man can only sit by, watch it happen and try to ease the suffering after the fact." But if God is indeed a loving God, why does he create such torment for these people when there is NOTHING that humanity can do to prevent it? The problem is that man did not create the situation (if we accept Mr. Harwood's premise that GOD CREATED suffering for some positive purpose). If God created this useless suffering then why is it man's responsibility to clean up the mess? But more importantly, what "divine purpose" could possibly justify such deliberate cruelty? -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO "And Frith made the world" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So "Frith made the world". Then it must be you who spreads the clouds with the fingers of his hands like lightning, and commands them to hit the mark? But you stubbornly miss the mark: forget your self-justifying complaints -- the fact remains that even if there is not God, still almost all the suffering in the world is due to the moral failure of mankind; the suffering of warfare, terrorism, disease, starvation, unemployment, homelessness, crime, drug addiction, even most birth defects............ these things are all overwhelmingly due to our failure; we could stop them, but we are too selfish. Even the deaths caused by so-called "natural" events (as if these others were not), for example, earthquakes, hurricanes, ..., are also almost entirely avoidable as well if the politics of the world were not so stupid, and science was freed to deal with them, instead of making false gods out of tyrants commanding horrifying weapons. (60% of all government scientists and engineers are making weapons, and it's not for God's sake.) Wake up! Do not ask for whom the bell tolls -- it tolls for thee! I am deaf (95%), from early infancy, a genetic defect; besides this, but unrelated, I am partly crippled by polio, also from infancy; and I am personally acquainted with many others suffering. Do you think that I blame God for this? Not at all. The real suffering I and others have experienced is almost entirely due to the prejudice and neglect of others. Your notions of responsibility are purely imaginary -- since they will not help anyone -- who cares if you don't believe there is God, except that if you do not, will you also do nothing to help others. Don't you realize, as I've said before, world-maker, that by far the largest charitable force in the world, in the history of the world even, is those who do believe that God wants them to be charitable to others, even to strangers, and enemies. Even liberal atheists are indebted, ideologically, whether they realize it or not, to the Bible, and the examples of those who did believe that charitable love is the will of God. You may say that religious people also believe that God wills that they should conduct holy wars. But this argument is specious, since wars, although they are rationalized by false religion, exist because mankind has a cultural inheritance of violence and prejudice everywhere, regardless of religion; even atheists are as warmongering as others (Afghanistan). But charity in our world is culturally due to religion. Did you happen to hear what the historian Will Durant said before his death, about his religious beliefs? He said that he had lost faith as a young man, one who before would be a Catholic priest, if I recall; nevertheless, it was his conviction, after studying the history of Western civilization for 60 years, that the moral advance of the West from barbarism was almost solely due the influence of Christianity. And that while he did not believe in God, he warned that the belief should not be discouraged. Or, to take another example, did you know that at the end of his life, Lenin repented of the violence of the revolution, saying that he did not realize how bloody it would be, and that what true revolution needed was ten St. Francis of Assisi. Or what the atheist, socialist intellectual G.B. Shaw said, also at the end of his life, about Christianity. Or what the famous science fiction writer Olaf Stapledon said when he converted to Christianity, also at the end of his life.... All of these realized very late something about civilization which you still don't perceive... no matter what they formerly believed about the existence of God, they came to understand that Jesus was right about our moral hypocrisy, and about the way we should live.
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (03/26/85)
It is amazing how many times you can refute an argument and have it spring again to hideous life. Perhaps we should create net.religion.undead. In a nutshell: If you say that men are to blame for the problems of the world (such as hunger) because they do not do anything to solve them, then you are claiming that the following moral principle is valid: "A being which has the ability to help other beings and does not do so is to blame for the soluble problems of those beings." Not too bad a moral principle, although not wonderful. Regardless, let us accept it for the sake of argument. Now, apply the principle to God and see how it turns out. God is supposed to have the power to solve virtually all of the problems, and in particular such major problems as hunger and disease, but God does not do so. Therefore, if you wish to blame man for hunger, you will have to blame God as well, or use an inconsistent moral standard. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (04/03/85)
> [David Harwood] > So "Frith made the world". Then it must be you who spreads the clouds > with the fingers of his hands like lightning, and commands them to hit > the mark? Do I detect a note of self-righteous Christianoid sarcasm here? > But you stubbornly miss the mark: forget your self-justifying > complaints Would you care to provide quotations from any of my previous articles that prove my "complaints" to be self-justifying? I'm waiting for you to address these issues, David, and you're just spouting party-line. If you're going to make claims against me, or for your position, then substantiate them! > [David Harwood] > the fact remains that even if there is not God, still > almost all the suffering in the world is due to the moral failure > of mankind; Without God there is no morality, other than that which man decides to create. Without God, there wouldn't even be a universe. Just how can you prove the above hypothesis? Do you seriously believe you can demonstrate this to be a "fact." You'll have to show that morality has some sort of causal relationship to natural disasters.... God what an Elizabethan notion! Besides, you have contradicted your original premise which says: "God created suffering for a purpose" and I wish you would address this statement, but like all topics... you avoid it. > the suffering of warfare, terrorism, disease, starvation, > unemployment, homelessness, crime, drug addiction, even most birth > defects............ these things are all overwhelmingly due to our > failure; we could stop them, but we are too selfish. These are neither the claims of a scientist or a Christian. These are the views of a Utopianist. Would you care to provide Biblical substantiation for this view, by the way? Disease: What makes you think that we can, or could ever in the future, stop all disease? That's like saying there are no problems that cannot be solved (which is provably false). Some scientist YOU are. So how do you intend to substantiate this claim that science can cure ALL diseases that are, or ever will be? Birth defects: Oh sure. EVERY known form of birth defect is to be identified and corrected before it becomes terminal. Right. How can man overcome this with any change in moral attitude? Are we again to appeal to your "God of Science" for solutions to ALL known abnormalities? Exactly where do you intend to draw the line between abnormality and normality? Homelesness and Unemployment: I assume that you mean give jobs and homes to people that want them. This sounds, however, like the Utopianistic dreaming of those who wish to create heaven-on-earth. Come to think of it... it sounds like a brand of Marxism. Christ said that there will be poor always. There will be crime and suffering and immorality to the end of earth. And now you come along and proclaim such things as solvable without any real notion of what the goal should be or how to get there. Utopianistic claptrap. > Even the deaths caused by so-called "natural" events (as if these > others were not), for example, earthquakes, hurricanes, ..., are also > almost entirely avoidable as well if the politics of the world were not > so stupid, and science was freed to deal with them... Science is supposed to be able to deal with HURRICANES? What kind of "Deus ex machina" Christianity are you professing here? That we shall one day become as Gods through technology? More importantly, you have again avoided the question. The point I am making is "how can you eliminate the NEEDLESS wholesale suffering that does no one any good." Science can't do this. How would you propose eliminating suffering in a discriminatory fashion, so that only suffering that was beneficial occured... and that which was useless was eliminated. That's Utopianism again, and you can't achieve this with ANY technology even remotely imagined. What is required here is a cognizant, all-powerful agent that can act before any suffering can occur. As such it must be omniscient enough to see the future. Well around here we call such an entity, "God"... yet if such a God exists, he certainly DOES NOT prevent useless suffering because I can point to a lot of useless suffering in the world. And that is my original point. Forget your Deus ex machina. > Your notions of responsibility are purely imaginary -- since > they will not help anyone -- who cares if you don't believe there is > God, except that if you do not, will you also do nothing to help > others. And exactly WHAT are these "notions of responsibility?" Why don't you just trot them out and tell us all about my personal beliefs, if you're such an expert? Since only GOD knows our true hearts, who are YOU to make claims about what *I* believe in? Are you now proping yourself up as God? I doubt it, so don't act that way! Like most Christianoids you are so ready to judge others... but as you so blindly judge, so shall you be judged. > Don't you realize, as I've said before, world-maker, that by far the > largest charitable force in the world, in the history of the world even, > is those who do believe that God wants them to be charitable to others, > even to strangers, and enemies. More sarcasm? Was it not you who only a little while ago said that we are all makers of our own worlds? Why do you now deny me that which you did not give me? What is this smug tone of voice? Hardly the sort of attitude that Jesus would have recommended. > [David Harwood] > You may say that religious people also believe that God wills that they > should conduct holy wars. But this argument is specious, since wars, > although they are rationalized by false religion, exist because mankind > has a cultural inheritance of violence and prejudice everywhere, > regardless of religion; even atheists are as warmongering as others > (Afghanistan). Why are you lecturing us on topics that have nothing to do with the conversation? Because you're projecting what you WISH I believed, onto me! Consider the above. You're lecturing us on the basis of what you IMAGINE I would say... not upon what I have said. STOP! Read your netiquete! THINK about what you're doing. I am not this imaginary stereotypical secular humanist that you can flagellate in your mind. Is it perhaps that you don't care what my beliefs are? Perhaps you have already decided what I believe, which in turn gives you a grand opportunity to ask "Don't you realise that..." and then flail away at your favorite whipping boy. > ......... > All of these realized very late something about civilization which > you still don't perceive... no matter what they formerly believed about the > existence of God, they came to understand that Jesus was right about our > moral hypocrisy, and about the way we should live. Once again... you are in no position to tell me what I do, and do not, perceive. Like many Christianoids you perceive yourself as having all the faculties of God, including the ability to read minds. If you're going to accuse me... at least show up with some evidence to back up your claims. God does not support an irresponsible tongue. Are you ready to return to the topic of conversation? Have you finished lecturing now? Can you, for one moment, see that you're just mumbling away in your own little world and not holding a conversation? Hellllloooooo out there.... you ARE there aren't you? And PLEASE do NOT include entire articles at the top of your replies! -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO "And he made the stars, too, and the world is one of the stars"