Hassan's Ornery Atheism Rears Its Ugly Head

[Selah]

One ought not...what?

[Hassan]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1948876' date='Aug 14 2009, 03:18 PM']The Christian answer is found in the person of Christ. God does not tell us why he allows what he allows. But he became man and shared in the same suffering that he allows us to endure. If God himself was willing to endure the sufferings of this world, then what can we do but follow his example, knowing that if we suffer with Christ, then we will also be glorified with Christ (Romans 8:17). Does this make suffering easy? Of course not. Christ himself prayed, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt" (Matthew 26:39). Christ revealed to us what it means to have God as our Father. It means that we love and trust him absolutely, because "we know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose" (Romans 8:28).[/quote]


I'm sorry. Thank you for your time and I don't mean to seem obstinate, but I don't think I'm going to find any answer satisfactory.

I think of children who were abused savagely by their parents and ask myself if I could give them such a response without feeling ashamed of myself, as though I were committing a great fraud. I just couldn't. It might make sense to you but it just doesn't to me and I don't think it every will.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Selah' post='1949161' date='Aug 14 2009, 08:16 PM']One ought not...what? [/quote]
Not literally, that was just an example.


When I think of "cherry picking" I think of something like this.


I write, "Newton has often been accused of plagiarism. But this claim has no evidence."


And someone then quotes only, "Newton has often been accused of plagiarism" in such a way as to make it seem I was implying that Newton has been accused correctly of plagiarism.




I thought that was the sort of cherry picking you were talking about, which is why I was confused about the claim.

[Selah]

Oh, I see. Okay.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1948585' date='Aug 14 2009, 01:45 AM']I have several questions.

I posted this in another thread.



[i]
I knew a girl whose friend, once a devout Christian, lost her faith after her prayers went unanswered.

Or specifically her prayers while she was being violently raped (I'll let you guess what her request was) went unanswered.

God is our heavenly Father. In fact I'm told the Aramaic Jesus uses to describe him could more accurately be translated as "daddy" a term of close affection. And like any good daddy our requests-like her sobbing pleas that it would stop-must sometimes go unanswered. But we must remember it's for our own good.






I'll try to quote Aquinas from memory, and Rexi can tell me how close I am.

"The only way God, in his goodness, could permit evil to exist is if his omnipotence were such that he could bring goodness even out of evil.

When I was a Catholic that girl challenged my insistence on the power of prayer by asking about her best friend's desperate pleas that God would deliver her from her rapist. Like a good Dervish I quoted that line from Aquinas (More accurately, I'm sure than I just did here).

She seemed to be filled with righteous indignation that I would dare propose such an empty answer. While I did whore my conscience out for the defense of the faith, and spoke Aquinas' word with solemnity, the truth is that I was embarrassed by my response. Or rather shocked at my own audacity.[/i]



Can anyone here give me a human answer to this?




Next.


In response to my queries regarding the Divinely sanctioned genocide in the Old Testament I am told, again and again, that these orders by God are not morally repugnant. God has done nothing wrong. Murder is the unjust taking of a life. God is the author of life. As such it is his to give and take.

A selection from Dostoevsky

[i]One day a serf-boy, a little child of eight, threw a stone in play and hurt the paw of the general’s favourite hound. ‘Why is my favourite dog lame?’ He is told that the boy threw a stone that hurt the dog’s paw. ‘So you did it.’ The general looked the child up and down. ‘Take him.’ He was taken — taken from his mother and kept shut up all night. Early that morning the general comes out on horseback, with the hounds, his dependents, dog-boys, and huntsmen, all mounted around him in full hunting parade. The servants are summoned for their edification, and in front of them all stands the mother of the child. The child is brought from the lock-up. It’s a gloomy, cold, foggy, autumn day, a capital day for hunting. The general orders the child to be undressed; the child is stripped naked. He shivers, numb with terror, not daring to cry.... ‘Make him run,’ commands the general. ‘Run! run!’ shout the dog-boys. The boy runs.... ‘At him!’ yells the general, and he sets the whole pack of hounds on the child. The hounds catch him, and tear him to pieces before his mother’s eyes!...[/i]

If the General wanted to save his soul he would need to go to a Priest and receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation to receive God's forgiveness.

Was his sin, his wickedness an offense against the child or against God? What exactly was his sin in murdering the child? That he destroyed God's property without sanction? What grounds does God have to forgive the man? Does the child's only worth come in virtue of his being the creation of the Sovereign?[/quote]


1. So now because people have free will, God is evil? Did God rape that women? Yet he is blamed for the rape. That makes absolutly no sense. God allows evil into this world because we as humans brought evil into this world and because of free will. People all want their free will, but yet at the same time want God to take away evil free will. It don't work that way. To have free will makes us human. BUt to have free will means there will be evil in this world. It is not God's fault the women was raped. It was the rapists fault plain and simple. Blaming God for it happening and him not stopping it is just stupid.


2. What ground does God have to forgive this man? The same ground parents forgive their own children who rape, murder and do all other kinds of evil. We are God's children. He loves us all. Just the same way parents love their children. Its very rare where a parents child will do some evil and the parent will not forgive them if they are truley sorry. The parent may think the child stills needs to be punished, buit they will forgive them. God has free will, just like us and thus, just like us can choose to forgive anyone he so chooses.

[Hassan]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1949197' date='Aug 14 2009, 09:58 PM']1. So now because people have free will, God is evil? Did God rape that women? Yet he is blamed for the rape. That makes absolutly no sense.[/quote]


He is not blamed for the rape, but he is morally culpable for permitting it isn't he?


If I am perfectly able to stop a woman from being raped but just keep on walking what would you say about me?


[quote]God allows evil into this world because we as humans brought evil into this world and because of free will.[/quote]

God allows incalculable evil to be visited on innocent children because a long time ago a man they never met sinned.

There is something wrong with that.



[quote]2. What ground does God have to forgive this man? The same ground parents forgive their own children who rape, murder and do all other kinds of evil. We are God's children. He loves us all. Just the same way parents love their children. Its very rare where a parents child will do some evil and the parent will not forgive them if they are truley sorry. The parent may think the child stills needs to be punished, buit they will forgive them. God has free will, just like us and thus, just like us can choose to forgive anyone he so chooses.[/quote]


What standing does a parent have to forgive their son for raping a woman? The woman was wronged, not the parents.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1949164' date='Aug 14 2009, 08:20 PM']I'm sorry. Thank you for your time and I don't mean to seem obstinate, but I don't think I'm going to find any answer satisfactory.

I think of children who were abused savagely by their parents and ask myself if I could give them such a response without feeling ashamed of myself, as though I were committing a great fraud. I just couldn't. It might make sense to you but it just doesn't to me and I don't think it every will. [/quote]
When Christians say that we have free will, we mean it. Free will implies the ability to do horrible things. It also implies the ability to do great things. God gave man free will, and God allows man to exercise that free will. In God's plan of Redemption, he works within the world of free will that he has created. To take your objection to its logical conclusion, you wish that man did not have free will. But we would not be human without free will. We would be robots/puppets.

I have absolutely no shame in pointing people to Christ crucified. That is the only response I can give as a Christian. God does not stand on the sidelines. God does not ask man to bear what God himself has not borne. Christ is the Son of God, and yet Christ was not spared the Cross. The Father gave his Only-Begotten Son to suffer with and for the world. There is nothing we can sacrifice that is equal to or greater than what God himself has sacrificed.

The "great fraud," as I see it, is the idea that suffering is just some meaningless fact of a meaningless existence. The only explanation of suffering that makes sense to me is the love revealed in Christ crucified. When I see the love that is motivated in the midst of suffering, I cannot accept the falsehood that suffering has no greater purpose. The world has endless examples of the transforming power of love in the midst of suffering. In my own life, I have experienced so many times the transforming power of love. When I look into the eyes of the poor and the suffering, I do not see meaninglessness. I see an invitation for myself to be transformed by love, to suffer with and for those who are suffering, just as Christ suffered with and for the entire world. And of course, in my own way, I (and every other person) am among those who are poor and suffering, and in that capacity, I become an invitation to others to be themselves transformed by love, to suffer with and for me.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1949232' date='Aug 14 2009, 09:25 PM']What standing does a parent have to forgive their son for raping a woman? The woman was wronged, not the parents.[/quote]

I haven't gotten in on this thread because I won't pretend like I'm capable of answering these questions sufficiently. I do believe there is a reason and answer to all of it, but not sure how to put it myself.

But I do need to question this here. Would you really say that a violent crime such as this example that you give has no effect on anyone but the victim? If someone were to attack violently your mother or sister or daughter would you really not feel personally attacked as well? Maybe you wouldn't I don't know, but I know I would. I think God would feel the same way.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1949249' date='Aug 14 2009, 10:39 PM']When Christians say that we have free will, we mean it. Free will implies the ability to do horrible things. It also implies the ability to do great things. God gave man free will, and God allows man to exercise that free will. In God's plan of Redemption, he works within the world of free will that he has created. To take your objection to its logical conclusion, you wish that God had not given man free will. But we would not be human without free will. We would be robots/puppets.[/quote]

I don't see how me stopping a man from raping a woman implies that I have taken away his free will. When he put a rapist in a maximum security prison and thus stop him from ever raping a woman again we don't say we've abolished his free will.

[quote]I have absolutely no shame in pointing people to Christ crucified. That is the only response I can give as a Christian. God does not stand on the sidelines. God does not ask man to bear what God himself has not borne. Christ is the Son of God, and yet Christ was not spared the Cross. The Father gave his Only-Begotten Son to suffer with and for the world. There is nothing we can sacrifice that is equal to or greater than what God himself has sacrificed.[/quote]


And I do because it's not real. It's not there. I don't see Christ I see a text which tells a story about a man who dies on a cross. You don't point to Christ crucified, you point to the story. It's like saying "look at this story, isn't it nice? Now if it is true then perhaps God can relate to you, take comfort in that"

[quote]The "great fraud," as I see it, is the idea that suffering is just some meaningless fact of a meaningless existence. The only explanation of suffering that makes sense to me is the love revealed in Christ crucified. When I see the love that is motivated in the midst of suffering, I cannot accept the falsehood that suffering has no greater purpose. The world has endless examples of the transforming power of love in the midst of suffering. In my own life, I have experienced so many times the transforming power of love. When I look into the eyes of the poor and the suffering, I do not see meaninglessness. I see an invitation for myself to be transformed by love, to suffer with and for those who are suffering, just as Christ suffered with and for the entire world. And of course, in my own way, I (and every other person) am among those who are poor and suffering, and in that capacity, I become an invitation to others to be themselves transformed by love, to suffer with and for me.[/quote]

From my perspective the meaningless is when there is an all powerful who could have prevented it but chose not to. I can't stop every horrible parent from doing great wickedness to their child. It doesn't play into some transcendent grand play but it's tolerable because it couldn't be any other way. Man can't abolish all the suffering. And that fact allows me not to be utterly horrified at it. I mean it's still horrific, but bearably so. When that suffering was preventable. When there is a being who is supposed to be all powerful and all loving, whose abilities far exceed anything we can imagain, who could abolish all the suffering in a moment if he were to so choose. Then it becomes unbearably horrific and truly meaningless and arbitrary.


I don't claim that to be a rational assessment, it's just as best as I see it. And I do appreciate you being patient enough to try to explain it to me.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1949266' date='Aug 14 2009, 09:52 PM']I don't see how me stopping a man from raping a woman implies that I have taken away his free will. When he put a rapist in a maximum security prison and thus stop him from ever raping a woman again we don't say we've abolished his free will.[/quote]
If God were to prevent every horrible act, then man would no longer have free will. God created a physical world, and man is able to exercise his free will in a physical world. Your comparison between God and man in this discussion does not work, because God has to "set up the system" so to speak. To use an analogy, there are rules in baseball. A runner is free to steal second base, and the defensive team is free to try and prevent the runner from stealing second base. But the commissioner of baseball cannot step onto the field every time someone tries to steal second base, and forbid them from trying to steal second base. There would be no game otherwise. Similarly, if God were to always prevent man from badly exercising his free will in a physical world, then there would be no physical world as we know it. We would no longer be like players on a baseball field, who operate freely within defined rules and limits; rather, we would be like pieces in a chess game, unable to make free decisions.

[quote]And I do because it's not real. It's not there. I don't see Christ I see a text which tells a story about a man who dies on a cross. You don't point to Christ crucified, you point to the story. It's like saying "look at this story, isn't it nice? Now if it is true then perhaps God can relate to you, take comfort in that"[/quote]
Christ crucified is no mere story. It is transcendent and real and living and present. It is a mystery into which we can be baptized. It is a very real power that has transformed lives for thousands of years.

[quote]From my perspective the meaningless is when there is an all powerful who could have prevented it but chose not to. I can't stop every horrible parent from doing great wickedness to their child. It doesn't play into some transcendent grand play but it's tolerable because it couldn't be any other way. Man can't abolish all the suffering. And that fact allows me not to be utterly horrified at it. I mean it's still horrific, but bearably so. When that suffering was preventable. When there is a being who is supposed to be all powerful and all loving, whose abilities far exceed anything we can imagain, who could abolish all the suffering in a moment if he were to so choose. Then it becomes unbearably horrific and truly meaningless and arbitrary.


I don't claim that to be a rational assessment, it's just as best as I see it. And I do appreciate you being patient enough to try to explain it to me.[/quote]
See my first response above.

When I see/experience the transforming power of love in the midst of suffering, I experience something greater than any "rational assessment." I cannot explain it adequately. The only way I know how to explain it is to point people to that love. I cannot see the poor and suffering without being overpowered by the invitation to love that they present to me.

I will say something personal. I understand the "existential angst" that many people (and perhaps you) feel. I often feel it myself. But in the midst of that angst, I am keenly aware of a deep sorrow. The cause of that sorrow is not that I believe existence is meaningless; rather, the cause of that sorrow is the knowledge that I am not accepting the invitation to love which suffering presents. Instead of being transformed by love, instead of going beyond myself and suffering with and for others, I retreat to the prison of my own despair. I feel deep within me the invitation/vocation to love which suffering presents, and I am ashamed when I let this invitation pass me by. I fear that I will die having missed the transforming power of love in the midst of suffering. The invitation to love is something I feel deep within me; it is deeper than a merely "rational assessment." Even if I wanted to believe that suffering were meaningless, I could never efface the invitation/vocation to love that speaks from within me; the invitation is too powerful, too real, too mysterious. When I see death around me, when I see suffering, when I see poverty, I do not see meaninglessness and despair; I see only the invitation to love. Love is the only answer to suffering that gives peace and joy and hope to my soul. To put it another way, Christ crucified is the only answer to suffering that gives peace and joy and hope to my soul. I know you have a very philosophical mind, but Christ crucified is not a philosophical concept that I can debate you about. It is a living mystery which I can only point you to, and hope that some day you will experience it as I have, that some day you will hear within you the invitation to love that suffering presents, which I hear within me.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1949232' date='Aug 14 2009, 10:25 PM']He is not blamed for the rape, but he is morally culpable for permitting it isn't he?


If I am perfectly able to stop a woman from being raped but just keep on walking what would you say about me?




God allows incalculable evil to be visited on innocent children because a long time ago a man they never met sinned.

There is something wrong with that.






What standing does a parent have to forgive their son for raping a woman? The woman was wronged, not the parents.[/quote]


1. So that means the USA is morally culpabale for every murder, rape, suicide, and other kind of violence in not only the united stated but all over the world. By your logic, since the USA could prevent these things from happening. If the USA became a tolitarian state and took away everyone's freedom's, then they could prevent these things from happening. So would you be ok with America taking away your rights to keep you safe? Would you be ok with America running the world and taking away their freedom's? No? Yet that's what you want from God? You want God to stop all the evil of this world, which means removing free will. Yet if God did that, then you would be upset he is taking away your free will? Or better yet, is God morally culpable for all the sins of the world? Should God just make everyone stop sinning? Should God punish all those who don't believe in him the way he would like? It seems your implying this is what you want, yet we know its not.

2. God allows evil to happen because of free will. Without free will there would be no evil. Although there would be no humans. We would all be robots. There are no two ways around it. Either we have free will and are human and we choose to do evil or no evil happens and we are not really alive. Evil is from us, not God. God allows it because he allows us to have free will. Would you rather not have free will.

[Hassan]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1949335' date='Aug 15 2009, 12:18 AM']1. So that means the USA is morally culpabale for every murder, rape, suicide, and other kind of violence in not only the united stated but all over the world. By your logic, since the USA could prevent these things from happening. If the USA became a tolitarian state and took away everyone's freedom's, then they could prevent these things from happening. So would you be ok with America taking away your rights to keep you safe? Would you be ok with America running the world and taking away their freedom's? No? Yet that's what you want from God? You want God to stop all the evil of this world, which means removing free will. Yet if God did that, then you would be upset he is taking away your free will? Or better yet, is God morally culpable for all the sins of the world? Should God just make everyone stop sinning? Should God punish all those who don't believe in him the way he would like? It seems your implying this is what you want, yet we know its not.

2. God allows evil to happen because of free will. Without free will there would be no evil. Although there would be no humans. We would all be robots. There are no two ways around it. Either we have free will and are human and we choose to do evil or no evil happens and we are not really alive. Evil is from us, not God. God allows it because he allows us to have free will. Would you rather not have free will.[/quote]


Two questions

1-Is there sin and evil in heaven?

2-Do the saved have free will?

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Selah' post='1949150' date='Aug 14 2009, 08:58 PM']What's the theme of the Psalm, Hassan? What's going on in it? What events have just taken place?

They were held captives. They missed their homes. They were being tortured. Their children were being tortured.

You know, it's funny. People look at the Bible and think everything in it is "right" when really, it's simply recording events that took place. The Israelites, so overcome with grief, so overcome with sadness at having their children destroyed, tortured, ripped from their hands...and remember, they themselves were being tormented as well...they decided that they needed to kill their children as infants to keep them from experiencing what they were experiencing. Was it right? No, but based on the circumstances and the events that were going on, it's only understandable that they would want to spare their newborns from the fate they had. Again, was it right? No. God isn't saying, "yay! Babies being killed!" Neither are they, really. Don't you think that broke their hearts as well? Knowing their children would never see the sunrise or the beauty the earth has? Yet they also felt that they needed to spare them this fate.

Was it right? no. Did God approve? Of course not. Was it understandable? To an extant. Remember, this is a different culture, a different people, a different time. Stop thinking with a Western mind and put yourself in their shoes.[/quote]


maybe that verse could be rationalized.
but there's plenty of other verses, where God orders the killings of babies etc.
i'm pretty sure you'd have to say that sins of the kids are passed from the parents.

then there's rape, that usually God only allows, I admit. "send that army to the city, where the men will rape the women" sort of things.

then there's selling of women etc, which must be God thinking it's for their best. rationalizatin? who knows.
or women are dirty for menstrating, true, maybe? who knows.
pork is unclean- must've been a man made law? given God later said what he has made clearn we're not to call unclearn.
who knows with some of these things

absolutely tons of God ordering slaughers of towns, and people, for small sins, of others etc. you have to say that all sins warrant compelte annihilation, and theologicaly i gues you could make the argument. plus you'd have to reconcile innocents being slaughtered. i guess there's that verse in the new testament "what if there's two good people"? and God sparing it, but it's like, how low does it go, and even still, the OT God wasn't that merciful it didn't seem like. maybe the numbers did play out that way, i don't know.
that it don't happen now, is that God's wrath is somehow vindicated by Jesus or something? seems suspicious to me.

it all does.

Edited August 15, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

now it's era might, who's been blessed, speaking the word of God so powerfully.

[Hassan]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1949681' date='Aug 15 2009, 01:32 PM']maybe that verse could be rationalized.
but there's plenty of other verses, where God orders the killings of babies etc.
i'm pretty sure you'd have to say that sins of the kids are passed from the parents.

then there's rape, that usually God only allows, I admit.

then there's selling of women etc, which must be God thinking it's for their best.

absolutely tons of God ordering slaughers of towns, and people, for small sins. you have to say that all sins warrant compelte annihilation, and theologicaly i gues you could make the argument.
that it don't happen now, is that God's wrath is somehow vindicated by Jesus or something.

nothing definitive.[/quote]


I wouldn't defend the Old Testament in itself. But it is important to remember that however draconian and disproportionate the penal laws of the Torah are Jewish thought in the Talmud has often found ways around these punishments. By things like God's demands for mercy as well as justice, the sacredness of human life et cetera. Muslim jurists did this as well. Not necessarily for the same reason, but the same trend. Find ways to acknowledge the justness of the prescribed punishment, but insist there are mitigating factors for the offender. Like Ulema who insist that the most harsh punishments of Sharia' can only be carried out in a perfectly just society (like Muhammad's Medinah, the idealized version anyway). I don't think that means that the traditional punishments are any less unjust, but it does point to the gap between static texts and how living communities of believers actually interpret and understand those texts.

Of course that doesn't mean that the interpretation always trends towards more humane interpretations. Like the fanatical Israeli Rabbi's who suggest that modern Palestinians are the remnants of the Amalekites and that God's instructions to the Israeli's in the Torah still applies or Al Ghazali's rulings on Apostasy. As I recall went so far as to claim that the state had a duty to not simply execute those who Apostatized from Islam and went to fight with the pagans, but even secret Apostates. Actually I think it was more nuanced than that (it was pretty late when I read that) but regardless he made the Apostasy laws much harsher and much more intrusive into the private lives of individuals. In both cases it seems like feelings internal community security lead to trends towards mercy and more humane dealings while times of more uncertainty and threat lead to more harsh and Draconian interpretations.

Edited August 15, 2009 by Hassan