ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu (Lonnie D Harvel) (05/07/91)
Martin Schulte writes: |> Who has the power to create these days? Is it "create" in the absolute terms |> of making something from nothing, or "create" is a less strict sense? On the |> basis of the more loose defintion (why would you say the other?) God does allow |> everything that ever happens (or ever will) to happen. Therefore he is |> responsible for everything he does or does not affect directly. He creates |> something with an inclination to perform evil acts, lets it do just that, and |> then sends it to hell as its "just" reward. "I smell a rat." |> BTW, could you explain this notion about parents disagreeing? |> To create, an interesting concept. When an artists creates, where did the idea come from? I mean both concepts of create. We do not possess the same power as God, but we create with what we have. Often we create suffering, and inflict it on ourselves and others. As for the notion of the parent analogy, it is a matter of responsibility. For example, if an adult commits murder and is sentenced, do we seek out the parents and sentence them as well? Do we hold them responsible for the action of what was created by their sex? That "sort of" handles the question of responsible because of creation. Another, more difficult problem is, if they had the power to stop there child, and did not, would they be responsible. That I think fits the "god" problem better. It is not the concept of creation which generates the responsibility question, but the concept of omnipotence. My belief is that God chose interaction with mankind, instead of intervention. This is getting close to Deism, I realize, and would probably take a lot of explaining, and bore most people on this group to tears. Simply put, if God were to intervene to prevent "evil" actions, then we would be possessed of limited will. Able to do what we wanted, but if it wasn't what he wanted he would stop it or change it. Which brings us around to, "He creates something with an inclination to perform evil acts, lets it do just that, and then sends it to hell as its "just" reward." I have only one honest answer, touche. I don't know. My intellectual cop out is that I don't believe in a buring hell. I am not a scriptural literalist anyway. The jews have no concept of a burning hell. My personal opinion of the rather popular christian view of eternal torment is, that some colorful images of how bad it would be to cease to exist, to be forgotten by God, have been blown up and embellished by individuals who were truly adept at mastering the self-rightous nature of man. Apparently the idea of burning the "trash" with unquencing fire, to destroy absolutely, was a popular turn of phrase at the time. (given the number of "flames" I will most likely recieve, I will probably gain a new understanding of the image.) In other words, for me, those who freely choose to play by their own set of rules, who ignore the "ref", play out the game, but don't go on. They cease to exist. Most of them don't think they will anyway, so to me that is "just". |> |> Ease their pain--or end it. Prevent it--a novel idea! |> Prevent it, it is not a novel idea at all. Vaccines. Storm warning schemes. The Peace Corp is dedicated to the idea, as well as many other organizations. One case, why do we have homeless? Is there a shortage in our country (USA) of shelter? No? Then why do we have homeless. It is awful suffering that could be prevented. Another, why do people starve, is there really a shortage of food and arable land, or is it lack of cooperation and concern. (I understand that soon we will not have enough of either with the population growth.) So why does mankind allow suffering and pain to continue, we have the power to stop a great deal of it. We can prevent so much. Are we not responsible? -- The comments and spelling herein are mine and nobody else lays claim to them. ================================================================ Lonnie D. Harvel | ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu