I think that you are offering an interpretation, and saying it's mine. Not sure why.
Well, because I am trying to understand what you are saying.
My recollection of this conversation is that @lilbuddha claimed that, if God heals people at all, he must be a ‘bastard’, because he heals some people and not others, a proposition to which you assented strongly. From this I drew the implication that you believed it preferable that God should heal no-one, than that there should be healings you believed to be unjust, and asked whether this was indeed the case. Your response was, I take it, that a just God would heal everyone without exception, which seemed to me merely to restate the origInal assertion in positive (God should heal everyone) rather than negative (God shouldn’t heal people selectively) terms. To my admittedly-biased eye, it looks to me as though you wish to continue making the assertion while denying the implication, though without addressing it.
This might not in fact be what you are doing or claiming, and the lapse into (I take it) sarcasm doesn’t help. But in that case, I don’t know what you are doing or claiming. Hence the paraphrase
It was a genuine question …. MT was speaking as if Job not being a real character dismisses the lessons it can teach us.
You clearly didn't read what I wrote. Please go back and try again.
I read it as I read it. I may not have read it in the manner or with the meaning you expected - sorry for that but I think we all should face the fact that people will interpret the written word in any way they choose. It really isn't something to be getting all passive:aggressive about.
I think that you are offering an interpretation, and saying it's mine. Not sure why.
Well, because I am trying to understand what you are saying.
My recollection of this conversation is that @lilbuddha claimed that, if God heals people at all, he must be a ‘bastard’, because he heals some people and not others,
An assertion that no one has refuted beyond handwave, handwave and, what was the other position? Oh yes; handwave.
I think that you are offering an interpretation, and saying it's mine. Not sure why.
Well, because I am trying to understand what you are saying.
My recollection of this conversation is that @lilbuddha claimed that, if God heals people at all, he must be a ‘bastard’, because he heals some people and not others,
An assertion that no one has refuted beyond handwave, handwave and, what was the other position? Oh yes; handwave.
I think the question is whether you see 'God healing some people but not others' as a separate issue from the general Problem of Evil or not.
That is: If the Problem of Evil is valid, then nobody should be healed because nobody should get sick in the first place.
If the Problem of Evil is not valid, then it follows that sickness must have some kind of justification, or something that makes it All Worthwhile. In which case, it isn't necessarily a problem if God doesn't heal any specific individual, because that individual's sickness is, on some level, OK under whatever argument is used to get round the Problem of Evil.
I think that you are offering an interpretation, and saying it's mine. Not sure why.
Well, because I am trying to understand what you are saying.
My recollection of this conversation is that @lilbuddha claimed that, if God heals people at all, he must be a ‘bastard’, because he heals some people and not others,
An assertion that no one has refuted beyond handwave, handwave and, what was the other position? Oh yes; handwave.
I think the question is whether you see 'God healing some people but not others' as a separate issue from the general Problem of Evil or not.
That is: If the Problem of Evil is valid, then nobody should be healed because nobody should get sick in the first place.
If the Problem of Evil is not valid, then it follows that sickness must have some kind of justification, or something that makes it All Worthwhile. In which case, it isn't necessarily a problem if God doesn't heal any specific individual, because that individual's sickness is, on some level, OK under whatever argument is used to get round the Problem of Evil.
I thought that the Problem of Evil was that suffering (aka EviL) in the world means that God cannot be omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient.
So, since suffering obviously exists, God falls short of the three Os. The only argument I've seen to this is handwave, handwave and, of course, handwave.
An assertion that no one has refuted beyond handwave, handwave and, what was the other position? Oh yes; handwave.
Well, I don’t think ‘x is a bastard’ is really an assertion that can be refuted or demonstrated. It’s a value judgement. And of course, in a theistic universe (if the premise that said bastard actually exists is granted), your particular value judgement is not the most important one anyway.
Besides which, if the demand is that God heal everyone equally, the judgement is IMV absurd on the face of it. We don’t call a judge a ‘bastard’ if they fail to hand down the same judgement on everyone haled before them, regardless of crime, circumstances, or evidence; or a parent the same, for reacting differently to identical behaviour from elder or younger siblings. Even within the quite limited scope of a value judgement, then, it seems rather sweeping...
Eutychus....started to reply to you the other day and gave up....must have then posted by mistake. All your suggested continuations are more interesting than what I would have written however.
And of course, in a theistic universe (if the premise that said bastard actually exists is granted), your particular value judgement is not the most important one anyway.
This is an assertion. It cannot be refuted at the moment, because it is nothing but an assertion. I'm fully prepared for my value judgements to not be the most important ones, but it would be nice to hear why you think they are not.
Besides which, if the demand is that God heal everyone equally, the judgement is IMV absurd on the face of it. We don’t call a judge a ‘bastard’ if they fail to hand down the same judgement on everyone haled before them, regardless of crime, circumstances, or evidence; or a parent the same, for reacting differently to identical behaviour from elder or younger siblings. Even within the quite limited scope of a value judgement, then, it seems rather sweeping...
The judge does not create the system in which the person acted, does not create the person and every, possible permutation or, indeed, the person themselves.
We also don't view the judge as all powerful, all knowing and loving. Well, I don't think we do. This takes you to the Epicurus alternatives, either God is able but unwilling, willing but unable, able and willing, or neither. I guess most Christians accept option 3, but cite other reasons, e.g., free will must be preserved.
It was a genuine question …. MT was speaking as if Job not being a real character dismisses the lessons it can teach us.
You clearly didn't read what I wrote. Please go back and try again.
I read it as I read it. I may not have read it in the manner or with the meaning you expected - sorry for that but I think we all should face the fact that people will interpret the written word in any way they choose. It really isn't something to be getting all passive:aggressive about.
You can read me to have said that the moon rises in the south and is made of Camembert, but really if you want to discourse with people you should try to read it in a way that at least resembles what they wrote. Two other people understood what I wrote, and told you so. So this response is totally uncalled-for and quite unhelpful and, well, useless.
I think that you are offering an interpretation, and saying it's mine. Not sure why.
Well, because I am trying to understand what you are saying.
My recollection of this conversation is that @lilbuddha claimed that, if God heals people at all, he must be a ‘bastard’, because he heals some people and not others,
An assertion that no one has refuted beyond handwave, handwave and, what was the other position? Oh yes; handwave.
I think the question is whether you see 'God healing some people but not others' as a separate issue from the general Problem of Evil or not.
That is: If the Problem of Evil is valid, then nobody should be healed because nobody should get sick in the first place.
If the Problem of Evil is not valid, then it follows that sickness must have some kind of justification, or something that makes it All Worthwhile. In which case, it isn't necessarily a problem if God doesn't heal any specific individual, because that individual's sickness is, on some level, OK under whatever argument is used to get round the Problem of Evil.
I thought that the Problem of Evil was that suffering (aka EviL) in the world means that God cannot be omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient.
So, since suffering obviously exists, God falls short of the three Os. The only argument I've seen to this is handwave, handwave and, of course, handwave.
The view that was attributed to you was that God is a bastard if he heals some people but not others. I'm just trying to establish whether you regard that as a specific application of the Problem of Evil, or as an additional and separate problem. IOW: if you encountered a refutation of the Problem of Evil that you found totally satisfying, would you then nevertheless consider God to be a bastard if he healed some people but not others?
The context of the thread was a question by one Christian to another Christian, i.e. between people for whom the Problem of Evil (rightly or wrongly) isn't an insuperable objection. So if your objection is simply a restating of the Problem of Evil, then (rightly or wrongly) it isn't going to carry much weight.
I think that you are offering an interpretation, and saying it's mine. Not sure why.
Well, because I am trying to understand what you are saying.
My recollection of this conversation is that @lilbuddha claimed that, if God heals people at all, he must be a ‘bastard’, because he heals some people and not others,
An assertion that no one has refuted beyond handwave, handwave and, what was the other position? Oh yes; handwave.
I think the question is whether you see 'God healing some people but not others' as a separate issue from the general Problem of Evil or not.
That is: If the Problem of Evil is valid, then nobody should be healed because nobody should get sick in the first place.
If the Problem of Evil is not valid, then it follows that sickness must have some kind of justification, or something that makes it All Worthwhile. In which case, it isn't necessarily a problem if God doesn't heal any specific individual, because that individual's sickness is, on some level, OK under whatever argument is used to get round the Problem of Evil.
I thought that the Problem of Evil was that suffering (aka EviL) in the world means that God cannot be omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient.
So, since suffering obviously exists, God falls short of the three Os. The only argument I've seen to this is handwave, handwave and, of course, handwave.
The view that was attributed to you was that God is a bastard if he heals some people but not others. I'm just trying to establish whether you regard that as a specific application of the Problem of Evil, or as an additional and separate problem. IOW: if you encountered a refutation of the Problem of Evil that you found totally satisfying, would you then nevertheless consider God to be a bastard if he healed some people but not others?
The context of the thread was a question by one Christian to another Christian, i.e. between people for whom the Problem of Evil (rightly or wrongly) isn't an insuperable objection. So if your objection is simply a restating of the Problem of Evil, then (rightly or wrongly) it isn't going to carry much weight.
I think that you are offering an interpretation, and saying it's mine. Not sure why.
Well, because I am trying to understand what you are saying.
My recollection of this conversation is that @lilbuddha claimed that, if God heals people at all, he must be a ‘bastard’, because he heals some people and not others,
An assertion that no one has refuted beyond handwave, handwave and, what was the other position? Oh yes; handwave.
I think the question is whether you see 'God healing some people but not others' as a separate issue from the general Problem of Evil or not.
That is: If the Problem of Evil is valid, then nobody should be healed because nobody should get sick in the first place.
If the Problem of Evil is not valid, then it follows that sickness must have some kind of justification, or something that makes it All Worthwhile. In which case, it isn't necessarily a problem if God doesn't heal any specific individual, because that individual's sickness is, on some level, OK under whatever argument is used to get round the Problem of Evil.
I thought that the Problem of Evil was that suffering (aka EviL) in the world means that God cannot be omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient.
So, since suffering obviously exists, God falls short of the three Os. The only argument I've seen to this is handwave, handwave and, of course, handwave.
The view that was attributed to you was that God is a bastard if he heals some people but not others. I'm just trying to establish whether you regard that as a specific application of the Problem of Evil, or as an additional and separate problem. IOW: if you encountered a refutation of the Problem of Evil that you found totally satisfying, would you then nevertheless consider God to be a bastard if he healed some people but not others?
The context of the thread was a question by one Christian to another Christian, i.e. between people for whom the Problem of Evil (rightly or wrongly) isn't an insuperable objection. So if your objection is simply a restating of the Problem of Evil, then (rightly or wrongly) it isn't going to carry much weight.
The idea should matter more than the person proposing it. Generally speaking.
Given that multiple believers agreed with my point should have weight with you if club membership is your criterion.
I think that you are offering an interpretation, and saying it's mine. Not sure why.
Well, because I am trying to understand what you are saying.
My recollection of this conversation is that @lilbuddha claimed that, if God heals people at all, he must be a ‘bastard’, because he heals some people and not others,
An assertion that no one has refuted beyond handwave, handwave and, what was the other position? Oh yes; handwave.
I think the question is whether you see 'God healing some people but not others' as a separate issue from the general Problem of Evil or not.
That is: If the Problem of Evil is valid, then nobody should be healed because nobody should get sick in the first place.
If the Problem of Evil is not valid, then it follows that sickness must have some kind of justification, or something that makes it All Worthwhile. In which case, it isn't necessarily a problem if God doesn't heal any specific individual, because that individual's sickness is, on some level, OK under whatever argument is used to get round the Problem of Evil.
I thought that the Problem of Evil was that suffering (aka EviL) in the world means that God cannot be omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient.
So, since suffering obviously exists, God falls short of the three Os. The only argument I've seen to this is handwave, handwave and, of course, handwave.
The view that was attributed to you was that God is a bastard if he heals some people but not others. I'm just trying to establish whether you regard that as a specific application of the Problem of Evil, or as an additional and separate problem. IOW: if you encountered a refutation of the Problem of Evil that you found totally satisfying, would you then nevertheless consider God to be a bastard if he healed some people but not others?
The context of the thread was a question by one Christian to another Christian, i.e. between people for whom the Problem of Evil (rightly or wrongly) isn't an insuperable objection. So if your objection is simply a restating of the Problem of Evil, then (rightly or wrongly) it isn't going to carry much weight.
I think that you are offering an interpretation, and saying it's mine. Not sure why.
Well, because I am trying to understand what you are saying.
My recollection of this conversation is that @lilbuddha claimed that, if God heals people at all, he must be a ‘bastard’, because he heals some people and not others,
An assertion that no one has refuted beyond handwave, handwave and, what was the other position? Oh yes; handwave.
I think the question is whether you see 'God healing some people but not others' as a separate issue from the general Problem of Evil or not.
That is: If the Problem of Evil is valid, then nobody should be healed because nobody should get sick in the first place.
If the Problem of Evil is not valid, then it follows that sickness must have some kind of justification, or something that makes it All Worthwhile. In which case, it isn't necessarily a problem if God doesn't heal any specific individual, because that individual's sickness is, on some level, OK under whatever argument is used to get round the Problem of Evil.
I thought that the Problem of Evil was that suffering (aka EviL) in the world means that God cannot be omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient.
So, since suffering obviously exists, God falls short of the three Os. The only argument I've seen to this is handwave, handwave and, of course, handwave.
The view that was attributed to you was that God is a bastard if he heals some people but not others. I'm just trying to establish whether you regard that as a specific application of the Problem of Evil, or as an additional and separate problem. IOW: if you encountered a refutation of the Problem of Evil that you found totally satisfying, would you then nevertheless consider God to be a bastard if he healed some people but not others?
The context of the thread was a question by one Christian to another Christian, i.e. between people for whom the Problem of Evil (rightly or wrongly) isn't an insuperable objection. So if your objection is simply a restating of the Problem of Evil, then (rightly or wrongly) it isn't going to carry much weight.
The idea should matter more than the person proposing it. Generally speaking.
Given that multiple believers agreed with my point should have weight with you if club membership is your criterion.
Which doesn't answer my question. (The question is the bit that ends with the ? symbol.)
Because it doesn’t make sense.
How could I find the answer satisfying and still think god is a bastard?
It's possible for there to be more than one reason for objecting to Christianity ....
You could believe that God is off the hook for the Problem of Evil, but that he doesn't heal anyone (because if he did, that would make him a bastard). (Which would be I suppose the view of many liberals, and some conservative cessationists.) Or you could believe that Christianity is bullshit because it proposes a God who heals some people but not others, but that the Problem of Evil is not in itself a valid reason for rejecting Christianity.
You could believe that God is off the hook for the Problem of Evil, but that he doesn't heal anyone (because if he did, that would make him a bastard). (Which would be I suppose the view of many liberals, and some conservative cessationists.) Or you could believe that Christianity is bullshit because it proposes a God who heals some people but not others, but that the Problem of Evil is not in itself a valid reason for rejecting Christianity.
The Problem of Evil is a valid reason to criticise the way God and healing are portrayed by many Christians.
... But that quote suggests to me that he squared the circle by deciding that God doesn't care about people (or sparrows, presumably). Logical, perhaps, but not Christian.
Except he was. And so am I.
I am persuaded that God pays less attention to our individuality and personal sufferings: pays less attention to things we'd like God to pay attention to. Like whether we've guaranteed our eternal life. This is a misfocus from our modern individual focus,
to mine and Davies' way of thinking. That there is context to the quote and rebuke of Christianity which makes few demands on people to live differently and is mostly practiced to give them personal comfort. That God cares far more about how we behave in the context of others' suffering- first. Our suffering second. Which is the Jesusly example. Anything about ourselves is secondary to how we are instructed to live. There's nothing Christian in loving yourself.
I suspect that for God, the difference between life and death is more about their similarity than difference. They're states of being, of existence. The same thing in essence.
I'm not questioning whether you and Robertson Davies are Christians. What I'm saying is that the view of God expressed in the initial quote and in your long paragraph above makes God seem unnecessary. God's existence or a belief in God need not inform moral behavior in the context of others' suffereing or in any other context. Jesus can be a great example without having been the Son of God. That Robertson had more than a little Stoicism in him is not my original idea.
CS Lewis also had it in The Screwtape Letters that WW2 deaths were merely a backdrop. They might be tasty devil's food but not nutritious.
Yes, but the context is that Wormwood is excited about the prospect of vast human suffering in the war, and Screwtape warns him that in the extremes of war many souls are driven to God. Lewis does not advise us simply to be moral beings; he is interested in acts of faith: "Our cause is never more in danger than when a human, no longer desiring, but still intending, to do our Enemy's will, looks round upon a universe from which every trace of Him seems to have vanished, and asks why he has been forsaken, and still obeys."
You could believe that God is off the hook for the Problem of Evil, but that he doesn't heal anyone (because if he did, that would make him a bastard). (Which would be I suppose the view of many liberals, and some conservative cessationists.) Or you could believe that Christianity is bullshit because it proposes a God who heals some people but not others, but that the Problem of Evil is not in itself a valid reason for rejecting Christianity.
The Problem of Evil is a valid reason to criticise the way God and healing are portrayed by many Christians.
The problem of evil is indeed a valid reason for rejecting Christianity, as it is one of the strongest arguments against the existence of God.
@lilbuddha .... Sorry. I'm going to try to reframe.
My understanding of the conversation was that it was all in a hypothetical mode. That is to say, your claim was (a) if God were to exist; and (b) he were to heal some and not others; then (c) he would be a bastard. So I was writing as though (a) and (b) were granted for the sake of argument on all sides, and quarrelling with (c). So in this exchange ...
And of course, in a theistic universe (if the premise that said bastard actually exists is granted), your particular value judgement is not the most important one anyway.
This is an assertion. It cannot be refuted at the moment, because it is nothing but an assertion. I'm fully prepared for my value judgements to not be the most important ones, but it would be nice to hear why you think they are not.
... I thought that this was just given in the premise. If one assumes an Abrahamic God who created the heavens and the earth and all the beasts, including humans, then it seems to me just a fact that any human judgement is subordinate and secondary to the deity's. God is the source of authentic value judgements, and humans are not; and there is no standpoint 'outside' the heavens and the earth from which to validly critique the universe and its workings; human judgements are correct only insofar as they reflect divine judgements. And while the fact that humanity is made in God's image means these judgements at least have the potential to reflect or harmonise with the deity's, in cases where they conflict God's judgement will necessarily be correct and the human's deficient.
The judge does not create the system in which the person acted, does not create the person and every, possible permutation or, indeed, the person themselves.
... well, yes, the metaphor may perhaps fall down there, depending on whether one subscribes to the free will argument @quetzalcoatl alludes to. But then, if the judge did create that system, the person, indeed all people, and all the possible permutations of their motives and interactions, well ... from what transcendent-even-of-God standpoint are you hoping to accuse said creator of being a 'bastard'?
@lilbuddha .... Sorry. I'm going to try to reframe.
My understanding of the conversation was that it was all in a hypothetical mode. That is to say, your claim was (a) if God were to exist; and (b) he were to heal some and not others; then (c) he would be a bastard. So I was writing as though (a) and (b) were granted for the sake of argument on all sides, and quarrelling with (c). So in this exchange ...
And of course, in a theistic universe (if the premise that said bastard actually exists is granted), your particular value judgement is not the most important one anyway.
This is an assertion. It cannot be refuted at the moment, because it is nothing but an assertion. I'm fully prepared for my value judgements to not be the most important ones, but it would be nice to hear why you think they are not.
... I thought that this was just given in the premise. If one assumes an Abrahamic God who created the heavens and the earth and all the beasts, including humans, then it seems to me just a fact that any human judgement is subordinate and secondary to the deity's. God is the source of authentic value judgements, and humans are not; and there is no standpoint 'outside' the heavens and the earth from which to validly critique the universe and its workings; human judgements are correct only insofar as they reflect divine judgements. And while the fact that humanity is made in God's image means these judgements at least have the potential to reflect or harmonise with the deity's, in cases where they conflict God's judgement will necessarily be correct and the human's deficient.
The judge does not create the system in which the person acted, does not create the person and every, possible permutation or, indeed, the person themselves.
... well, yes, the metaphor may perhaps fall down there, depending on whether one subscribes to the free will argument @quetzalcoatl alludes to. But then, if the judge did create that system, the person, indeed all people, and all the possible permutations of their motives and interactions, well ... from what transcendent-even-of-God standpoint are you hoping to accuse said creator of being a 'bastard'?
I am not accusing anyone of anything. I am saying that the God of the three O's is inconsistent with reality. To quote the inestimable Sammy Davis Jr.: 'Something's got to give'
I am not accusing anyone of anything. I am saying that the God of the three O's is inconsistent with reality. To quote the inestimable Sammy Davis Jr.: 'Something's got to give'
The God of the four O's (there's also omnibenevolence) is a problem. I do not see God as being a micro-manager covering every little thing that is a consequence of every decision made by seven billion people before breakfast. God does not clan to be able to prevent bad stuff happening, the only Biblical promise is that he can bring good out of the bad stuff. The bad stuff remains bad. I do not believe in the God of the four O's, but I know from experience that there is a God who is loving and can heal.
There's a global pandemic God's apparently not fussed about, so I don't buy the loving part.
Huh?
@mousethief I’ve corrected the error in the quoting code in @Ruth’s post which I think gave rise to your response. I’ve also corrected it in your quotation of @Ruth. I think it makes your ‘Huh?’ Look a bit odd - I’m sorry about that. BroJames Purgatory Host
As you are in another time zone @Ruth I'll expand:
When the first 2 people were found to have Covid-19 in the UK, is it's God's fault that the hotel they were in stayed open? ( source : BBC and Sky News)
Is it's God's fault that the Cheif Medical Officer aid there was 'minimal risk' to the public? (source: Sky News)
Is it God's fault that in Italy, against government advice, people flocked to the northern ski resorts where there was a Covid-19 outbreak during the half term holidays? (source BBC)
This is not the fault of God, not unless you buy into the four O's, which I have clearly said I do not. It does not affect God's love.
If you subtract the 4 O's, what are you left with?
The ancient creeds of the church. They still stand without the 4 O's as well.
I thought the 4 O's were inferences in any case.
From the creeds? How?
Eh? Where did I say that?
You didn't, I said it. I was replying to your direst reply to where I said it. If you are not saying the omnis of God can be inferred from the creeds you should have been more specific in your reply.
That is indeed basic logic. I think with God we're not dealing with basic logic.
Someone said (might have been Einstein) that if you cannot explain a scientific concept in simple terms, you do not thoroughly understand it yourself. If that is a criterion people can manage, surely All-Powerful would have no issue.
Intellectually I can cope with believing that God is love and believing that his reasoning may be unfathomable to me to the point that I don't always understand why his loving nature doesn't result in certain outcomes.
I don't think these two beliefs are incompatible.
In the face of specific personal suffering the question "why did God allow this" is a natural one, not least because it's natural to seek rationalisations (essentially the reason why many Christians I know are desperate to find out "what God is saying through the pandemic"). However, from a Christian perspective, the book of Job is there to tell us that we're not entitled to an explanation and indeed may never get one. None of which means God is not loving.
[ETA Job also shows that demanding explanations, or ranting when we don't get them, is not unacceptable or to be frowned on]
Comments
You clearly didn't read what I wrote. Please go back and try again.
Well, because I am trying to understand what you are saying.
My recollection of this conversation is that @lilbuddha claimed that, if God heals people at all, he must be a ‘bastard’, because he heals some people and not others, a proposition to which you assented strongly. From this I drew the implication that you believed it preferable that God should heal no-one, than that there should be healings you believed to be unjust, and asked whether this was indeed the case. Your response was, I take it, that a just God would heal everyone without exception, which seemed to me merely to restate the origInal assertion in positive (God should heal everyone) rather than negative (God shouldn’t heal people selectively) terms. To my admittedly-biased eye, it looks to me as though you wish to continue making the assertion while denying the implication, though without addressing it.
This might not in fact be what you are doing or claiming, and the lapse into (I take it) sarcasm doesn’t help. But in that case, I don’t know what you are doing or claiming. Hence the paraphrase
I read it as I read it. I may not have read it in the manner or with the meaning you expected - sorry for that but I think we all should face the fact that people will interpret the written word in any way they choose. It really isn't something to be getting all passive:aggressive about.
I think the question is whether you see 'God healing some people but not others' as a separate issue from the general Problem of Evil or not.
That is: If the Problem of Evil is valid, then nobody should be healed because nobody should get sick in the first place.
If the Problem of Evil is not valid, then it follows that sickness must have some kind of justification, or something that makes it All Worthwhile. In which case, it isn't necessarily a problem if God doesn't heal any specific individual, because that individual's sickness is, on some level, OK under whatever argument is used to get round the Problem of Evil.
...me feel brand new?
...the world go round?
...stars fall down from the sky?
Enquiring minds...
So, since suffering obviously exists, God falls short of the three Os. The only argument I've seen to this is handwave, handwave and, of course, handwave.
Well, I don’t think ‘x is a bastard’ is really an assertion that can be refuted or demonstrated. It’s a value judgement. And of course, in a theistic universe (if the premise that said bastard actually exists is granted), your particular value judgement is not the most important one anyway.
Besides which, if the demand is that God heal everyone equally, the judgement is IMV absurd on the face of it. We don’t call a judge a ‘bastard’ if they fail to hand down the same judgement on everyone haled before them, regardless of crime, circumstances, or evidence; or a parent the same, for reacting differently to identical behaviour from elder or younger siblings. Even within the quite limited scope of a value judgement, then, it seems rather sweeping...
You can read me to have said that the moon rises in the south and is made of Camembert, but really if you want to discourse with people you should try to read it in a way that at least resembles what they wrote. Two other people understood what I wrote, and told you so. So this response is totally uncalled-for and quite unhelpful and, well, useless.
The view that was attributed to you was that God is a bastard if he heals some people but not others. I'm just trying to establish whether you regard that as a specific application of the Problem of Evil, or as an additional and separate problem. IOW: if you encountered a refutation of the Problem of Evil that you found totally satisfying, would you then nevertheless consider God to be a bastard if he healed some people but not others?
The context of the thread was a question by one Christian to another Christian, i.e. between people for whom the Problem of Evil (rightly or wrongly) isn't an insuperable objection. So if your objection is simply a restating of the Problem of Evil, then (rightly or wrongly) it isn't going to carry much weight.
Given that multiple believers agreed with my point should have weight with you if club membership is your criterion.
Which doesn't answer my question. (The question is the bit that ends with the ? symbol.)
How could I find the answer satisfying and still think god is a bastard?
It's possible for there to be more than one reason for objecting to Christianity ....
You could believe that God is off the hook for the Problem of Evil, but that he doesn't heal anyone (because if he did, that would make him a bastard). (Which would be I suppose the view of many liberals, and some conservative cessationists.) Or you could believe that Christianity is bullshit because it proposes a God who heals some people but not others, but that the Problem of Evil is not in itself a valid reason for rejecting Christianity.
I don't know why you'd expect that. And you're wrong.
I'm not questioning whether you and Robertson Davies are Christians. What I'm saying is that the view of God expressed in the initial quote and in your long paragraph above makes God seem unnecessary. God's existence or a belief in God need not inform moral behavior in the context of others' suffereing or in any other context. Jesus can be a great example without having been the Son of God. That Robertson had more than a little Stoicism in him is not my original idea.
Yes, but the context is that Wormwood is excited about the prospect of vast human suffering in the war, and Screwtape warns him that in the extremes of war many souls are driven to God. Lewis does not advise us simply to be moral beings; he is interested in acts of faith: "Our cause is never more in danger than when a human, no longer desiring, but still intending, to do our Enemy's will, looks round upon a universe from which every trace of Him seems to have vanished, and asks why he has been forsaken, and still obeys."
The problem of evil is indeed a valid reason for rejecting Christianity, as it is one of the strongest arguments against the existence of God.
My understanding of the conversation was that it was all in a hypothetical mode. That is to say, your claim was (a) if God were to exist; and (b) he were to heal some and not others; then (c) he would be a bastard. So I was writing as though (a) and (b) were granted for the sake of argument on all sides, and quarrelling with (c). So in this exchange ...
... I thought that this was just given in the premise. If one assumes an Abrahamic God who created the heavens and the earth and all the beasts, including humans, then it seems to me just a fact that any human judgement is subordinate and secondary to the deity's. God is the source of authentic value judgements, and humans are not; and there is no standpoint 'outside' the heavens and the earth from which to validly critique the universe and its workings; human judgements are correct only insofar as they reflect divine judgements. And while the fact that humanity is made in God's image means these judgements at least have the potential to reflect or harmonise with the deity's, in cases where they conflict God's judgement will necessarily be correct and the human's deficient.
Or to put it another way, when you write ...
... well, yes, the metaphor may perhaps fall down there, depending on whether one subscribes to the free will argument @quetzalcoatl alludes to. But then, if the judge did create that system, the person, indeed all people, and all the possible permutations of their motives and interactions, well ... from what transcendent-even-of-God standpoint are you hoping to accuse said creator of being a 'bastard'?
To consider them when evaluating an argument, yes. To consider them at all, absurd.
The God of the four O's (there's also omnibenevolence) is a problem. I do not see God as being a micro-manager covering every little thing that is a consequence of every decision made by seven billion people before breakfast. God does not clan to be able to prevent bad stuff happening, the only Biblical promise is that he can bring good out of the bad stuff. The bad stuff remains bad. I do not believe in the God of the four O's, but I know from experience that there is a God who is loving and can heal.
There's a global pandemic God's apparently not fussed about, so I don't buy the loving part.
Corrected quoting attribution. BroJames Purgatory Host
Huh?
@mousethief I’ve corrected the error in the quoting code in @Ruth’s post which I think gave rise to your response. I’ve also corrected it in your quotation of @Ruth. I think it makes your ‘Huh?’ Look a bit odd - I’m sorry about that. BroJames Purgatory Host
When the first 2 people were found to have Covid-19 in the UK, is it's God's fault that the hotel they were in stayed open? ( source : BBC and Sky News)
Is it's God's fault that the Cheif Medical Officer aid there was 'minimal risk' to the public? (source: Sky News)
Is it God's fault that in Italy, against government advice, people flocked to the northern ski resorts where there was a Covid-19 outbreak during the half term holidays? (source BBC)
This is not the fault of God, not unless you buy into the four O's, which I have clearly said I do not. It does not affect God's love.
The ancient creeds of the church. They still stand without the 4 O's as well.
I thought the 4 O's were inferences in any case.
Thank God!
From the creeds? How?
Eh? Where did I say that?
And I agree, unless he is much less potent than typically described.
You didn't, I said it. I was replying to your direst reply to where I said it. If you are not saying the omnis of God can be inferred from the creeds you should have been more specific in your reply.
Bohr: Einstein, stop telling God what to do.
No, I'm saying that a loving God would heal or perhaps not allow such a thing in the first place.
So what are we dealing with?
I don't think these two beliefs are incompatible.
In the face of specific personal suffering the question "why did God allow this" is a natural one, not least because it's natural to seek rationalisations (essentially the reason why many Christians I know are desperate to find out "what God is saying through the pandemic"). However, from a Christian perspective, the book of Job is there to tell us that we're not entitled to an explanation and indeed may never get one. None of which means God is not loving.
[ETA Job also shows that demanding explanations, or ranting when we don't get them, is not unacceptable or to be frowned on]