Suffering for the Good of the World

[TheRedneckProfessor]

In cases of childhood suffering--from horrific genetic mutations to painful deformities to starvation, abuse, trafficking and slavery--we see example after example of otherwise repugnant and gratuitous suffering readily allowed, and often even condoned, by the supposedly omnipotent and omnibenevolent god of the bible.  This presents a particularly difficult and untenable position for the apologist to attempt to defend.  And, indeed, we have heard them all here within the hallowed annuls of our forum. 

 

From the outset, most theists will attempt to explain suffering from the viewpoint of human responsibility: Adam and Eve sinned,  and therefore, everything that happens since then is humanity’s fault.  It is our choices, our sin, that not only cause, but also justify the evil we endure.  Such arguments, though, crumble in the face of a little boy starving, beaten, and dying in the gutter through no fault of his own; or of a little girl trafficked and raped in consequence of circumstances beyond her control. 

 

The more clever apologist (of which we've had an appalling dearth these past several years) will justify such suffering with the idea that god does not, will not, or cannot, interfere with free will.  Such suffering exists because men are evil and make repulsive choices.  But when it is pointed out that the free will of the starving boy and sex slave girl are both being violated without so much as a hint of concern from this supposedly loving god, it becomes much easier to see that the violation of free will isn't really all that big of a deal to him.  And, clearly, it isn't; otherwise he'd prefer the free will of evil men be violated, rather than that of innocent children. 

 

Finally, faced with dilemma on all sides, the apologist will attempt to show that such suffering is intended to, and indeed eventually will, result in some greater good.  The christian god allowed the boy to be beaten and starved because he knew it would make the boy more compassionate.  This same god allowed the girl to be trafficked and raped in order to make her stronger.  It almost seems like it comes close to possibly being a magical pile of apologistic horseshit.  While seeming to exculpate god, to make his motivation noble even, the obvious contradiction in this argument is that it directly violates the preceding argument that god does not, will not, or cannot violate free will.  

 

Whether the boy ever adopts a spirit of compassion or not should be entirely his choice, not god's or anyone else's.  Yet god is making that choice for the boy, without even first obtaining his consent; and even further violating his free will by deciding that suffering is the catalyst by which said compassion should be instilled in the boy, rather than by any of the other means which would be readily available to an omnipotent god. 

 

The same principle applies to the little girl.  Maybe she doesn't want to be strong.  Maybe she just wants somebody else who can be strong for her.  Someone who will protect her and keep her safe from hurt and harm.  Who the fuck is god to take that choice out of her hands and force her to either have to be the strong one, or be emotionally, psychologically, spiritually crushed and destroyed to the point that suicide seems the only way out for her?  Who the fuck is god to determine that the way she should be made strong is through being raped and brutalized?  Could he not have come up with some other way?  Like maybe just creating her strong from birth, from the very beginning?

 

Or is it just that there is simply no way that god can be both all-loving and all-powerful in the face of evil and suffering?  Is it just that the christian god simply does not exist?  Which is more likely?  Because one cannot argue that god does not violate free will, while simultaneously giving examples and justifications of god doing just that.  A and not-A cannot both be true.  So either god does not violate free will, or he does.  It can't be both ways.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

[older]

Thank you, thank you, Prof. for this. I am going to copy this and keep it in my file of great arguments. The free will argument is such bullshit. There can be no free will when the outcome is forced. Imagine walking down the street and a robber rushes up to you and points a gun at your head. He says, "You have free will. You can either give me your wallet or I'll put a bullet in your head." And thus it is with the alleged god. You have free will, but if you don't follow his rules he'll send you to an eternity of pain and suffering. Some free will.

[walterpthefirst]

The timing of your post is most pertinent, Prof.

 

It focuses our minds on the suffering of the children who were deliberately starved to death by their parents, in Kenya.

 

https://www.tuko.co.ke/people/503164-paul-mackenzie-10-bodies-controversial-preachers-followers-buried-land/

 

Family had the bodies of all its family members being exhumed; a man, his wife, and their three children 

 

This is not a case of sinful unbelievers wickedly causing other people's children to suffer and die.  Here, Christian parents, who were responsible for their own children's welfare, caused them to suffer and die in the name of Jesus.

 

God, of course, knew in advance that this would happen.  He also knew in advance that these children's free will would be violated and overridden by their parents.  Even if the parents were hopelessly under the thrall of an evil or mislead pastor, why couldn't god have simply spoken secretly to the parents, in the quiet of their own minds?  Telling them not to do harm to their children?   Or telling them to leave the malign influence of the cult leader?   

 

I suppose that if he did that God himself would be overriding the free will of the parents.  And, of course, there are NO instances in the bible where god speaks directly to a person, telling them what they must do?

 

 

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

It seems to me that if god is going to violate a person's free will anyway, for some "greater good," like making the sex slave stronger, it would make for an even greater "greater good" to violate the rapist's free will and make him... not be a rapist.  Seems like that could turn out to be a win-win for everybody involved.  

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

It seems to me that if god is going to violate a person's free will anyway, for some "greater good," like making the sex slave stronger, it would make for an even greater "greater good" to violate the rapist's free will and make him... not be a rapist.  Seems like that could turn out to be a win-win for everybody involved.  

 

But this raises some questions, Prof.

 

If god always acts for the greatest good then when he intervenes and violates a person's free will, surely the result must be the greatest possible good?  Or, at the very least, the greatest possible diminishment of suffering?  And, presumably, the greatest possible diminishment of moral evil?

 

If so, then why didn't he intervene and violate the free will of Satan, by preventing him from tempting Adam and Eve?  Surely that would have resulted in the greatest possible good, the greatest possible diminishment of suffering and the greatest possible diminishment of moral evil?  After all, scripture itself describes how god DID violate the free will of other rebel angels, by confining them in chains to await judgment.  (Jude 6  and 2 Peter 2 : 4)

 

So why didn't god do this with Satan, seeing as he knew in advance what the serpent planned to do in Eden?  Then NO children would ever have to suffer.  NOBODY would ever have suffered.  NO animals would ever have suffered.  There would be no death, disease or moral evil to blight a perfect world.  Surely the greatest possible good that god could do?

 

 

But he didn't do it and Satan was allowed to act freely, corrupting everything.

 

 

 

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I reckon he's just mysterious and shit. 

 

But that brings us back to: there's nothing mysterious about being able to prevent a child being raped; but not being willing to do it.

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I reckon he's just mysterious and shit. 

 

But that brings us back to: there's nothing mysterious about being able to prevent a child being raped; but not being willing to do it.

 

God himself may not be willing to do it.  But surely his Body on earth would be the perfect agency to do it?

 

All it would take would be for god to inform some Christians of the location of a child in their area that was in danger of being raped.

 

Then these Christians could intervene directly to stop the child being violently violated.

 

So why isn't god using his followers to directly stop suffering and moral evil in this way?

 

 

Oh, wait a minute.  I think I know.

 

If this did happen it would be prime evidence for the existence of god.

 

And since he wants people to choose to love him WITHOUT any evidence, he doesn't use his Body this way.

 

 

That's why.

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

It's an interesting question,  Walt; and one that I asked multiple times while I was a christian.  Without sidetracking the thread too much, I will say the majority of answers I got, from lay persons, pastors, and evangelical college professors fell into one of the following categories:

 

1. god wants the glory for himself, and knows people will try to take the glory from him.

2.  People do not have enough faith to really be used of god in a powerful way. 

3. god waits to be wanted.

4.  Mysterious ways and shit.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Of course, it's rather obvious that every one of the preceding answers to the question is just a variation on the theme that god is steadfastly not willing to alleviate the suffering of the world.  I'd even go so far as to wager a modest sum that every argument ever given would boil down to god's supreme unwillingness in some form or fashion.

 

The other alternative being that suffering persists because god simply does not exist to alleviate it.  If god exists, and if god is both able and willing to prevent suffering, then why is there suffering?  I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer that doesn't either contradict itself, as the violation of free will argument, or contradict the purported nature of god.  

 

It is reasonable to conclude, then, that either god is not able to prevent suffering, or he is not willing to, or he doesn't even exist in the first place. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

So we have this idea that god has a plan.  We're invited to believe that there's this divine destiny or greater purpose and that god has it all in control.  Everything that happens either happens exactly according to god's plan, or else god will use it for his higher purpose and glory.  Even tragedy.  Even trial and tribulation.  It all somehow serves god's perfect, though mysterious, plan and will.

 

But from the outset, god cannot execute his plan without violating free will.  If what happens to us happens because it was god's will, then we have no choice in what happens to us.  If it isn't exactly god's plan; but he allows it for his greater good, then we still have no choice in the matter.  It has all been predetermined by god and his purpose. 

 

If a little girl is raped because it was god's plan for her to get raped, then her free will is directly violated by god.  If god did not plan for her to be raped, but allowed it to happen for some greater purpose of his own design, then, again, her free will is directly violated by god.  Because whether it was purposefully planned or whether it was simply allowed for some grander design, the outcome is exactly the same.  The omniscient foreknowledge of god directed the event without the girl's consent.  And either of those is a direct violation of her free will.

 

The argument that god does not violate free will simply does not wash; because it directly contradicts the argument that god has a plan and is in control.  And god must be in control; or else god is not omnipotent.  If god is not omnipotent and god is not in control, then who would bother to call him god?  If god is in control, and plans for little girls to get raped, then who would you be if you worshipped him?

 

Perhaps the plain truth is that god does not exist in the first place. 

[walterpthefirst]

19 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

It's an interesting question,  Walt; and one that I asked multiple times while I was a christian.  Without sidetracking the thread too much, I will say the majority of answers I got, from lay persons, pastors, and evangelical college professors fell into one of the following categories:

 

1. god wants the glory for himself, and knows people will try to take the glory from him.

2.  People do not have enough faith to really be used of god in a powerful way. 

3. god waits to be wanted.

4.  Mysterious ways and shit.

 

Well, # 1 certainly fits in with scripture.

 

In three of the gospels Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus during the Transfiguration, shining with glorious light. 

 

So, it seems that true believers will have to wait until after their earthly lives are over before god is willing to share any glory with them.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

18 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Of course, it's rather obvious that every one of the preceding answers to the question is just a variation on the theme that god is steadfastly not willing to alleviate the suffering of the world.  I'd even go so far as to wager a modest sum that every argument ever given would boil down to god's supreme unwillingness in some form or fashion.

 

The other alternative being that suffering persists because god simply does not exist to alleviate it.  If god exists, and if god is both able and willing to prevent suffering, then why is there suffering?  I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer that doesn't either contradict itself, as the violation of free will argument, or contradict the purported nature of god.  

 

It is reasonable to conclude, then, that either god is not able to prevent suffering, or he is not willing to, or he doesn't even exist in the first place. 

 

Prof,

 

I agree that the most likely explanation for the existence and continuation of suffering is the non-existence of god.  However, I did once hear (where?  can't remember) an apologetic argument that went something like this.

 

Suffering is the price free willed beings like humans and angels must pay for having the ability to choose between good and evil.  God cannot ever cause suffering by any of the decisions he makes because he's perfect and is also perfectly aware of their outcome, in advance.  But angels and humans are not perfect and nor can they perfectly know the full consequences of their decisions in advance.

 

Therefore, because they are fallible they will inevitably fail and this failure is the cause of all suffering.  This was true in heaven, when Satan and a third of the angels rebelled against god and it was also true of Adam and Eve in Eden, who brought sin, corruption and death into the world by making an imperfect choice and disobeying god.  It is still true today because humans inevitably make the wrong choices and so bring about more suffering.

 

Now, this sounds wonderful, but it's full of holes.

 

Why?  Because in the bible we see many examples of god himself choosing to cause suffering.  He chose to make his servant Job suffer by letting Satan torment him.  He chose to make different nations suffer by inflicting plagues upon them.  He chose to wipe out everyone except eight survivors by flooding the entire world.  Because god is perfect these decisions cannot be mistakes or miscalculations on his part.  They must therefore be deliberate acts of cruelty. 

 

After all, isn't that what cruelty is?  Knowing that your decision will cause others to suffer and deliberately choosing to go ahead despite that full knowledge?  And the one person in the universe who has the clearest and fullest knowledge of the full consequences of their actions isn't a human or an angel - its god himself.  So, he's always known the full extent of the suffering he chooses to cause and yet still goes ahead and does it.

 

So much for that apologetic argument!  

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

So we have this idea that god has a plan.  We're invited to believe that there's this divine destiny or greater purpose and that god has it all in control.  Everything that happens either happens exactly according to god's plan, or else god will use it for his higher purpose and glory.  Even tragedy.  Even trial and tribulation.  It all somehow serves god's perfect, though mysterious, plan and will.

 

But from the outset, god cannot execute his plan without violating free will.  If what happens to us happens because it was god's will, then we have no choice in what happens to us.  If it isn't exactly god's plan; but he allows it for his greater good, then we still have no choice in the matter.  It has all been predetermined by god and his purpose. 

 

If a little girl is raped because it was god's plan for her to get raped, then her free will is directly violated by god.  If god did not plan for her to be raped, but allowed it to happen for some greater purpose of his own design, then, again, her free will is directly violated by god.  Because whether it was purposefully planned or whether it was simply allowed for some grander design, the outcome is exactly the same.  The omniscient foreknowledge of god directed the event without the girl's consent.  And either of those is a direct violation of her free will.

 

The argument that god does not violate free will simply does not wash; because it directly contradicts the argument that god has a plan and is in control.  And god must be in control; or else god is not omnipotent.  If god is not omnipotent and god is not in control, then who would bother to call him god?  If god is in control, and plans for little girls to get raped, then who would you be if you worshipped him?

 

Perhaps the plain truth is that god does not exist in the first place. 

 

Prof,

 

 

Satan supposedly exercised his free will and rebelled against god.  As did a third of the host of heaven.  Adam and Eve had free will and also rebelled against god.

 

But, at the end of days, when everything is renewed and made perfect by god in the new heaven, will the humans and angels dwelling there have free will?

 

If the answer is No, then we are faced with two equally horrible fates.  (I don't know which is worse!)

 

Either accept god and lose your free will for eternity or reject him and keep your free will, but burn for eternity.

 

The No answer applies if god has done what you've mentioned Prof and predetermined everything according to his purpose.

 

If the answer is Yes, then it falls to the Christian apologists to explain how there can be free will in heaven if god has predetermined everything.

 

And if they say that god hasn't predetermined everything, then that statement contradicts scripture, which clearly says that he has.

 

Good luck with answering that one!

 

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter. 

 

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

This does put our hypothetical apologist into a profound pickle.  Because god must have predetermined everything.  How could god be in control, unless he has already determined that everything should work according to his plan and purpose?  And how could god be omnipotent unless he is in control?  If there is something that happens outside of god's control, then he is no longer omnipotent; but suddenly becomes omni-impotent. 

 

Moreover, unless god knows in advance what will happen, then he cannot even have a plan that will encompass everything.  Nor can he be omniscient.  Like it or not, by scripture and by the very nature of god himself, the apologist is stuck with god's predetermination of everything. 

 

And therefore god can and does violate free will.

[walterpthefirst]

Prof,

 

I've been thinking some more on this and it occurs to me that our hypothetical Christian apologist might try to use this escape hatch to get out of the free will/no free will dilemma.  But its pretty desperate and in the end creates just as many problems as it solves.

 

Revelation 21 : 1 - 4

 

1 Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 

2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 

3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 

4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

 

This future event was prophesied about by Isaiah.

 

Isaiah 65 : 

 

17 “See, I will create
    new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered,
    nor will they come to mind.
18 But be glad and rejoice forever
    in what I will create,
for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight
    and its people a joy.
19 I will rejoice over Jerusalem
    and take delight in my people;
the sound of weeping and of crying
    will be heard in it no more.

 

And by the apostle Paul.

 

Hebrews 12 : 25 - 29

 

25 See to it that you do not refuse him who speaks. If they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, how much less will we, if we turn away from him who warns us from heaven? 

26 At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, “Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.”

27 The words “once more” indicate the removing of what can be shaken—that is, created things—so that what cannot be shaken may remain.

28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, 

29 for our “God is a consuming fire.”

 

Now, everything you and I have alluded to in scripture concerning god predetermining everything comes either from the Old Testament, the Gospels or the Epistles.  And all of these verses and passages precede Revelation 21.  So, what happens when god's grand plan is finally finished?  Why, he sweeps away the old heaven and the old Earth, replacing them with new ones.  That which can be shaken is replaced with that which cannot.  And here is where the Christian apologist could get clever.

 

What if god's plan of predetermining everything only applied to the old heaven and the old Earth?  But once the old is replaced with the new, its no longer necessary for the old rules (predeterminism) and the old order of things (predestination) to be hold sway.  Everything god pre-ordained to happen has happened.  Now there is no longer any need for him to predetermine anything.  This leaves the stage open for free will to replace determinism.  Now, those dwelling in the new heaven and the new earth can enjoy their free will.  

 

This clever scheme seems to work.  God is eternal and unchanging, but everything he creates is not and since he created everything, then everything has the potential to change or be changed, while he never changes.  Therefore, nothing in scripture is contradicted or violated by using god's destruction of the old and his creation of the new.  So, all of the verses and passages that speak of him predetermining everything according to his purpose only apply until his purpose is complete.  After that, he's perfectly free to change the rules because what is new only applies after his predetermined master plan is complete.

 

Very elegant!  But there is a sting in tail.

 

If our Christian apologist uses this escape hatch we can then point out something very inconvenient to him.  If free will for humans comes only in the new heaven and the new Earth, after god's plan is fulfilled then NOBODY AT ALL ever freely chose to accept, love and worship Jesus.  God predetermined and predestined everyone to either sing his praises forever or to burn forever. 

 

God violated everyone's free will to bring about the result he wanted.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Good call, Walt.  I would add to that: if god no longer predetermines everything in the new heaven and earth, will god no longer be all-knowing then?  If things are going to start happening that he doesn't know beforehand will happen, what then becomes of his omniscience?  This would further imply that things will happen that god does not specifically plan to happen, rendering him no longer in control of what happens.  And if god cannot control what happens, does that not also indicate that he is no longer omnipotent?

 

But, as you said, god never changes.  So how could he go from being omniscient and omnipotent, to being literally the opposite... if he doesn't change?

[walterpthefirst]

8 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Good call, Walt.  I would add to that: if god no longer predetermines everything in the new heaven and earth, will god no longer be all-knowing then?  If things are going to start happening that he doesn't know beforehand will happen, what then becomes of his omniscience?  This would further imply that things will happen that god does not specifically plan to happen, rendering him no longer in control of what happens.  And if god cannot control what happens, does that not also indicate that he is no longer omnipotent?

 

But, as you said, god never changes.  So how could he go from being omniscient and omnipotent, to being literally the opposite... if he doesn't change?

 

Well, there could be a loophole which god could use to avoid these problems, Prof.

 

Suppose there were a committee of a dozen people who all thought alike and felt alike.  Any decisions made by this committee would therefore be likely to be unanimous.  Each person can think and feel for themselves and by themselves and each person also possesses free will.  But when they are assembled en masse, because they think and feel in the same way, they tend to agree with each other and also arrive at similar or the same conclusions.  They also tend to decide things in similar ways.

 

Even though these appear to be contradictory concepts, these people exhibit individual diversity but collective unity. 

 

There is no adequate example that I can think in nature, but low-level parallels might be flocks of birds, herds of grazing animals or schools of dolphins.  Each is a fully separate entity, capable of functioning by itself, but when they come together their individuality and their collectiveness work together for the benefit of the whole.  Individual members survive better because the whole supports every part of itself.  Can you see what biblical illustration I'm going to use next, Prof?

 

1 Corinthians 12 : 12 - 14

 

12 Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 

13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 

14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.

 

So, the people inhabiting the new heaven and the new earth will all be parts of the same body.  Each of them began their earthly lives as spiritually dead as Adam was when he sinned.  But when they accepted Jesus as their saviour and lord they were born again of the holy spirit - Christ's spirit.  Even though they are fully independent individuals with their own free will, they are united spiritually into one body.  I'm only speculating here, but perhaps this spiritual unity will cause them to think and feel alike, just like the members of that hypothetical committee I mentioned earlier.

 

So, what does this mean with regard to god's omniscience, omnipotence and unchanging nature?

 

In this scenario god no longer needs to predetermine anything according to his will.  Nor does he need to be all-knowing.  Nor does he need to know everything in advance.  Nor does he have to control everything.  Because of his unchanging nature he will still be omniscient and omnipotent, but because all of his worshippers think and feel as he does, he won't need to exercise his foreknowledge to see what they will do in a billion years time.  Nor will he have to exercise his total power to enforce his will over any of his worshippers.

 

Because they live by the power of his spirit living in them they will always see, understand and know that whatever he wills must be the most loving, perfect, wisest and best outcome possible.  They will be the recipients of this love and wisdom.  Their every need will be fully met by him - and more.  More than they can imagine and more than they can understand.  

 

Yes, they could exercise their free will to disobey and rebel against god.  But what would be the point of that?  They will all know what happened to the last band of rebels, their leader and those humans who were deceived by him.  And why would they trade in perfection for imperfection?  Because, even though they are filled with god's spirit, he alone is perfect.  So, by spiritual inclination and by simple logic there would be no reason for them to rebel against god.

 

They are fully free to choose to rebel but they simply can't see a reason to to do so.  Which is exactly the same mindset possessed by the loyal angels who didn't fall for Satan's lies.  Under such a system god doesn't need to coerce or threaten.  His worshippers will always be happy to do his will because they are spiritually united with him.  If they possess free will under this system but can find no reason to usurp or change it and are unwilling to do so, then it cannot be called slavery or mind control.  In both of those cases the free will of the people in question is violated are they are also unwilling.

 

Here endeth the sermon!

 

 

Ok, all of the above is wildest speculation Prof.  But I've tried to be logically consistent and biblically consistent too.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I can't see anything but the pure and unadulterated evilness of god displayed in your idea here, Walt.  If the scenario you present genuinely is the end game god desires, he could have created such a situation in the very first place, instead of Eden.  In place of Eden.

 

But he created Eden, all the while having the foreknowledge that billions upon billions of people would suffer eternal conscious torment in hellfire and brimstone, just so that a paltry handful could become automatons in all but name only.  Such a "plan" could only have been conceived by a truly despicable and wicked monster.  god is surely evil if he violates the free will of children now just so he can call his chosen few "righteous" in eternity.  And his righteous few deserve him if they can honestly defend and justify such a diabolical thing. 

[older]

Another great point, Prof. That heaven/hell thing is something that just fries my cookies. According to Christian theology it’s either heaven or hell, and unless you’re a Christian, it’s hell. So if there are approximately 7.79 billion people on the planet today, and approximately 2.382 billion are Christians, that leaves 5.408 billion who are going to hell. Never mind that most of those are honest, caring, hard working people who love their families and their neighbors, and who probably live closer to some of the alleged Christian values than many of those who claim to be Christians.

[walterpthefirst]

8 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I can't see anything but the pure and unadulterated evilness of god displayed in your idea here, Walt.  If the scenario you present genuinely is the end game god desires, he could have created such a situation in the very first place, instead of Eden.  In place of Eden.

 

Indeed.

 

For the record, what I was doing was playing Devil's Advocate in that post.  Isn't it ironic that in doing so god seems to be revealed as worse than the Devil?

 

 

8 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

But he created Eden, all the while having the foreknowledge that billions upon billions of people would suffer eternal conscious torment in hellfire and brimstone, just so that a paltry handful could become automatons in all but name only.  Such a "plan" could only have been conceived by a truly despicable and wicked monster.  god is surely evil if he violates the free will of children now just so he can call his chosen few "righteous" in eternity.  And his righteous few deserve him if they can honestly defend and justify such a diabolical thing. 

 

As I said yesterday Prof, I was speculating, but trying to be as biblically accurate and logical as possible.

 

But the sadistic god seen in that scenario is the result of applying logic and later bible passages to the Eden narrative.  This seems to demonstrate that when you take the vengeful and misogynistic bronze age god of whoever wrote the Eden narrative and apply omniscience to him, the result is a terrifyingly evil monster.  

 

What bothers me however is why present day Christians can't see this.  Perhaps they think that their god is more like the 'gentle Jesus, meek and mild' as presented in the gospels?  They also seem to forget or deliberately overlook the bible passages that clearly say that god is eternal and does not change.  Once a sadistic monster, always a sadistic monster!

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

I think I'll call it the Gary Mitchell Effect.

 

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Gary_Mitchell

 

Q.

What happens when godhood is thrust upon an ordinary human being?

 

A.

The person in question is magnified a million fold and they inherit stupendous powers.  But a side effect of this 'magnification' is that their flaws are magnified too. 

 

 

I submit that something similar occurred when the bronze age goat herders who wrote what we now call the book of Genesis tried to imagine how their creator god would think and behave.  They could imagine him wielding godly power but their understanding of godly omniscience was sadly lacking.  So, the god of Genesis and Eden behaves more like a magnified human being than a truly eternal god who has all power and perfect knowledge of everything - past, present and future.

 

And is this really so surprising?   When people write things they can only write what they know or what they can imagine.  Things beyond their comprehension can't be written about or described by them.  And so, because those who wrote the Eden narrative couldn't comprehend how a true god would behave and think, what they describe in their writings is a god who is little more than a magnified version of themselves - complete with magnified flaws, prejudices and limitations.

 

The god of Genesis shares the same parochial, backward and misogynistic views held by those goat herders.  Intolerance, curses and vengeance-taking are acceptable to god, precisely because those were the accepted moral standards of the day.  Instead of god's mind and actions being beyond their understanding, the people of that time understood how their god thought and acted all too well.  Why?  Because that's the way they thought and acted.  Those are the moral and ethical standards they held to.  

 

The eternal and omnipotent god described in the beginning of the bible is no more than a magnified projection of the hearts and minds of barbaric people.

 

 

So, what has all this got to do with suffering?

 

My thoughts about the human origin of the god of Genesis are an attempt to explain why he causes so much suffering.  When our modern-day understanding of perfect all knowledge is retrofitted to this primitive god created by primitive people, the result is a sadistic monster.  How could it be otherwise?  Going back to the example of Gary Mitchell, if a bronze age goat herder suddenly had godhood thrust upon them, what would be the result?

 

An intolerant and easily-angered being with great power to cause great suffering.  In other words, something virtually identical to the god described in the book of Genesis.  

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

I don't know if you saw my other posts about this, but another theory of how "god" and creation stories came about can be found in Anton Parks book, EDEN: The Sumerian version of Genesis.  And he has written other books on the subject.  Also Paul Wallis has written a series of "EDEN" books on the same subject.  If I'm not mistaken he is an ex-minister of the Anglican church and is from England.  Has also has lived in Australia.

 

I'm not sure I buy into all their theories, especially about the gods being ETs, but it does look like the biblical creation stories may have been lifted and revised from Sumerian writings, which were done long before the Bible was written. 

 

In one Sumerian story one of the gods decided to kill off the humans with a flood because the humans were making so much noise, the god couldn't sleep.  

 

They also say humans were created to be slaves/servants for the gods.  The whole story gets pretty complex.  If I understand it correctly, over a long period of time the gods fought and Yhwh(?) finally won, and then declared he was the one and only god.  He was one of the meanest and not well liked.  

 

I am now reading some different views on the subject.  Some of the stuff about ETs is "far fetched".  But the Hebrews borrowing from Sumerian creation stories sounds plausable.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

20 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

What bothers me however is why present day Christians can't see this.  Perhaps they think that their god is more like the 'gentle Jesus, meek and mild' as presented in the gospels?  They also seem to forget or deliberately overlook the bible passages that clearly say that god is eternal and does not change.  Once a sadistic monster, always a sadistic monster!

 

I am convinced most people have never read the Bible.  Only the proof text talked about at church.  And I have heard some stories lately about well known ministers, and happen to know one of them, who recognize the inconsistancy of god in the bible, but dare not bring it up due to the confusion it would create, and might get them fired.  So they just go with the flow.   The one I know rationalizes going with the flow because, over all, the system, as is, is "doing so much good".  So he doesn't want to rock the boat and lose their financial support.  And there are those who have blind spots in their thinking process.  It is called psychological denial.  The inconsistancy just does not register in their mind. 

 

And there are those who justifify god's genocide because the people were wicked.  And they justify killing the innocent children also because they would have grown up to be iike their parents.  Some (my father was one) who saw god as a "jealous" god, and since he was god, he could do what ever he wanted with his creation.  We never had the discussion about why god let evil happen to innocent people, but knowing my father, I think that was one of his blind spots.  He simply could not go there in his mind.  He would literally tune you out if he got into a corner in a religious discussion.  His mind would "change gears" as we used to say.  His denial took over.

 

It is really scary, but human conditioning/programming is a very powerful thing.  It is how Hitler got so many to follow him.  He said "if you tell a lie long enough, people will begin to believe it", and he and the catholic church were very good at it.  You create an "enemy" in peoples mind, and then convince people that this enemy must be done away with.  (wars are still started that way) The christian lie has been told so long, it has become absolute truth to millions of people.  Many simply cannot see it any other way.  And like two of my sister-in-laws, (who have not read the bible) they won't even talk about it.  If you question the "truth", you will spend eternity in Hell.  And they see me as a dangerous influence on their children.

 

If you think about it, how many things did you simply not see, perhaps for years, when you were a faithful christian?   And for me it took years of things "adding up" before I finally said, ENOUGH!  And as I look back, it is hard to understand why I didn't see some of the things earlier.  It was the conditioning/programing.  We tend to see what we are trained to see, or expect to see, and want to see, and find what we are looking for.   

 

Dang it!  I've given another of my late night sermons.  It must be the senility!

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

I also heard the argument that the OT should have never been attached to the NT.  It was done by the early church and writings were doctored to connect Jesus which the OT god.  And that Jesus actually "bad mouthed" the idea of the Jewish god.  And that wording was changed to include the concept of eternal Hell.  It wasn't clear whether the writer believed in the divinity of Jesus.  

 

I think that may have been in one of Paul Wallis books.

 

Another possibility??  At least it blows the possibility of an inerrant bible out of the water.  It is really interesting to see how some slight changes in the translation of words can make a big difference in different biblical concepts.