The authoress has a point. I've suffered through a number of her mind-numbing essays and found nothing in the least redemptive about them.

Question:

People write a books on Jesus, or the existence of Jesus. Is there anything existing from the Romans that state unequivocally that Jesus was crucified, and what he was crucified for, and on what date?

Everything that I read seems to be based on references to what people said at some time or another, but nothing contemporaneous to the time Jesus was around.

That said, lets assume that Jesus was around. What is there in the historical record from that period that says, again, unequivocally that Jesus was born of Mary, a virgin?

I'm not talking about Bibles, and books written on the bible or self-referencing material.

Are there any hard facts? If so, can someone point them out to me so I can read them?

To summarize the studies on the existence of a Jesus C. in first century CE:

"That Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, as the Creed states, is as certain as anything historical can ever be."

As per Professor JD Crossan, an On Faith panelist and the author of twenty studies on the historic Jesus.

Farnaz:

Sebastian has been sprung and he is delirious with his freedom and return home.

Furniture? In Austria, as in much of Europe, when you lease an apartment, it comes without stove and refrigeration, which you buy yourself, or purchase from previous tenants. This apt still contained those items from the previous tenant, so we spent appliance money on a big flat-screen TV. Complete bedroom suite, dining table with 6 chairs, leather sofa and two matching wing-back chairs, drapes for living room and bedroom. Thats all the essential stuff necessary to sustain Christian until I get there and we can pick up accessories.

Wie sind Ihre Tochter und ihr Freund Plautus?

CCNL/Yeal9 writes:

"As we know from many bloggers..."

As we know from CCNL1, now posting as Yeal9, and as we "know" it ad nauseum. We DO NOT "know it" from anyone else, let alone "many bloggers."
-----------------------------------------
Onofrio, a scholar of Near East religions, not dependent on cutting and pasting, has been far more informative and illuminating.
-----------------------------------
Back to the topic.

Suffering is, for believers, part of living. Buddhism, as others have noted, offers ways of handling pain and does not require belief in extra terrestrials.

Many Jews and Christians view suffering as a consequence of the world's imperfection. Many do not see it as "redemptive." Judaism does not.

It is true, as the Greeks believed, that knowledge may be gained through suffering. However, knowledge or wisdom can be accrued in other ways, without the bitterness, rage, depression, etc., that, more often than wisdom,accompany pain.

As noted many times by many bloggers:

What we know about the existence of one Jesus C:

From Professor JD Crossan and beyond:

From Professors Crossan and Watts' book, Who is Jesus.

"That Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, as the Creed states, is as certain as anything historical can ever be.

: “ The Jewish historian, Josephus and the pagan historian Tacitus both agree that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea. And is very hard to imagine that Jesus' followers would have invented such a story unless it indeed happened.

“While the brute fact that of Jesus' death by crucifixion is historically certain, however, those detailed narratives in our present gospels are much more problematic. "

“My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety.

I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset. And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

continued below:

See Professor Crossan's reviews of the existence of Jesus in his other books especially, The Historical Jesus and also Excavating Jesus (with Professor Jonathan Reed doing the archeology discussion) .

Other NT exegetes to include members of the Jesus Seminar have published similar books with appropriate supporting references.

Part of Crossan's The Historical Jesus has been published online at http://books.google.com/books?id=AsPHR4-7Wc8C&pg=PA444&lpg=PA444&dq=%22place+of+life%22+%22the+historical+jesus%22+crossan&source=web&ots=8mVx_1M6g4&sig=XFqT8S1coAT18xq8Qwt1vMcMjW0

See also Wikipedia's review on the historical Jesus to include the Tacitus' reference to the crucifixion of Jesus.

From ask.com,

"One of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Cornelius Tacitus is a primary source for much of what is known about life the first and second centuries after the life of Jesus. His most famous works, Histories and Annals, exist in fragmentary form, though many of his earlier writings were lost to time. Tacitus is known for being generally reliable (if somewhat biased toward what he saw as Roman immorality) and for having a uniquely direct (if not blunt) writing style."

Then there are these scriptural references:
Crucifixion of Jesus:(1) 1 Cor 15:3b; (2a) Gos. Pet. 4:10-5:16,18-20; 6:22; (2b) Mark 15:22-38 = Matt 27:33-51a = Luke 23:32-46; (2c) John 19:17b-25a,28-36; (3) Barn. 7:3-5; (4a) 1 Clem. 16:3-4 (=Isaiah 53:1-12); (4b) 1 Clem. 16.15-16 (=Psalm 22:6-8); (5a) Ign. Mag. 11; (5b) Ign. Trall. 9:1b; (5c) Ign. Smyrn. 1.2.- (read them all at http://wiki.faithfutures. Crucifixion org/index.php/005_Crucifixion_Of_Jesus )

continued below:

Added references to the existence of Jesus C:

1. Historical Jesus Theories, earlychristianwritings.com/theories.htm -- the names of many of the contemporary historical Jesus scholars and the titles of their over 100 books on the subject

2. Early Christian Writings, earlychristianwritings.com/
-- a list of early Christian documents to include the year of publication
30-60 CE Passion Narrative
40-80 Lost Sayings Gospel Q
50-60 1 Thessalonians
50-60 Philippians
50-60 Galatians
50-60 1 Corinthians
50-60 2 Corinthians
50-60 Romans
50-60 Philemon
50-80 Colossians
50-90 Signs Gospel
50-95 Book of Hebrews
50-120 Didache
50-140 Gospel of Thomas
50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-100 Epistle of James
70-120 Egerton Gospel
70-160 Gospel of Peter
70-160 Secret Mark
70-200 Fayyum Fragment
70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
73-200 Mara Bar Serapion
80-100 2 Thessalonians
80-100 Ephesians
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-110 1 Peter
80-120 Epistle of Barnabas
80-130 Gospel of Luke
80-130 Acts of the Apostles
80-140 1 Clement
80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians
80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews
80-250 Christian Sibyllines
90-95 Apocalypse of John
90-120 Gospel of John
90-120 1 John
90-120 2 John
90-120 3 John
90-120 Epistle of Jude
93 Flavius Josephus
100-150 1 Timothy
100-150 2 Timothy
100-150 Titus
100-150 Apocalypse of Peter
100-150 Secret Book of James
100-150 Preaching of Peter
100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites
100-160 Gospel of the Nazoreans
100-160 Shepherd of Hermas
100-160 2 Peter

3. Historical Jesus Studies, faithfutures.org/HJstudies.html,
-- "an extensive and constantly expanding literature on historical research into the person and cultural context of Jesus of Nazareth"

4. Jesus Database, faithfutures.org/JDB/intro.html--"The JESUS DATABASE is an online annotated inventory of the traditions concerning the life and teachings of Jesus that have survived from the first three centuries of the Common Era. It includes both canonical and extra-canonical materials, and is not limited to the traditions found within the Christian New Testament."

5. Josephus on Jesus mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

6. The Jesus Seminar, mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria

7. Writing the New Testament- mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/testament.html

8. Health and Healing in the Land of Israel By Joe Zias
joezias.com/HealthHealingLandIsrael.htm

9. Economics in First Century Palestine, K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998.

continued below:

10. 7. The Gnostic Jesus
(Part One in a Two-Part Series on Ancient and Modern Gnosticism)
by Douglas Groothuis: equip.org/free/DG040-1.htm

11. The interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Pontifical Biblical Commission
Presented on March 18, 1994
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM#2

12. The Jesus Database- newer site:
wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php?title=Jesus_Database

13. Jesus Database with the example of Supper and Eucharist:
faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb016.html

14. Josephus on Jesus by Paul Maier:
mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

15. The Journal of Higher Criticism with links to articles on the Historical Jesus:
mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

16. The Greek New Testament: laparola.net/greco/

17. Diseases in the Bible:
etd.unisa.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-08022006-125807/unrestricted/02dissertation.pdf
18. Religion on Line (6000 articles on the history of religion, churches, theologies,
theologians, ethics, etc.
religion-online.org/

19. The Jesus Seminarians and their search for NT authenticity:
mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria

continued below:

20. The New Testament Gateway - Internet NT ntgateway.com/

21. Writing the New Testament- existing copies, oral tradition etc.
ntgateway.com/

22. The Search for the Historic Jesus by the Jesus Seminarians:
members.aol.com/DrSwiney/seminar.html

23. Jesus Decoded by Msgr. Francis J. Maniscalco (Da Vinci Code review)jesusdecoded.com/introduction.php

24. JD Crossan's scriptural references for his book the Historical Jesus separted into time periods: faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf

25. JD Crossan's conclusions about the authencity of most of the NT based on the above plus the conclusions of other NT exegetes in the last 200 years:
faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

26. Common Sayings from Thomas's Gospel and the Q Gospel: faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan3.rtf

27. Early Jewish Writings- Josephus and his books by title with the complete translated work in English :earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html

28. Luke and Josephus- was there a connection?
infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html

29. NT and beyond time line:
pbs.org/empires/peterandpaul/history/timeline/

30. St. Paul's Time line with discussion of important events:
harvardhouse.com/prophetictech/new/pauls_life.htm

31. See www.amazon.com for a list of JD Crossan's books and those of the other Jesus Seminarians: Reviews of said books are included and selected pages can now be viewed on Amazon. Some books can be found on-line at Google Books.

32. Father Edward Schillebeeckx's words of wisdom as found in his books.

33. The books of the following other On Faith panelists: Professors Marcus Borg, Paula Fredriksen, Elaine Pagels, Karen Armstrong and Bishop NT Wright.

34. Father Raymond Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament, Doubleday, NY, 1977, 878 pages, with Nihil obstat and Imprimatur.

35. Luke Timothy Johnson's book The Real Jesus,

Schaum,

Please again forgive my typos! In my previous post I did not mean 'you' personally. I should have put it in the third person by saying living a faith based on reward/punishment puts one of the level of a lab rat. If that is all there is in a faith I can see the lack of appeal. Most people don't respond well to threats or bribery!

Schaum

Meant to replu earlier but we had the fabled (and dreaded) Parent-teacher conferences tonight.

Fear of dying? I think you have a point there and that is why I think many sects spend a lot of time obsessing about the Book of Revelations and the end times.

I personally feel that if I do what I am called to, I am called to it it in this life, not the next. The marine Corps graciously provided me with several near-death experiences so I can't say I've never been afraid to die but, as they say "that was in another country". Today I think I can say my motivations to dowhat I do don't come from a hope of heaven or a fear of hell, but I cannot speak for all believers. As I stated earlier, I think you make a good point but if you believe something based on reward or punishment that seems to put you on a level with B.F. Skinner's rats.

Yeal9

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes (try it in a sort of sing-song)! You told us a great deal about Crossan, none of which I did not know. The key, and revealing, point in your dissertation is when you describe Crossan using his methodology to support his 'pre-suppositions'; I think that says it all.

In point of fact, there is very little we can know about the 'historical' Jesus; the rest is guess work, informed no doubt by 'presuppositions'. Read Luke Timothy Johnson's remarks about Crossan's methodology and you'll find some very good points. After that of course, it is up to you. The debate over Jesus' literacy for example, all kinds of experts have posited various things but in truth, they don't 'know' they just suppose based on their methodology and if the literacy of Jesus is your primary concern, you are missing the boat anyway.

Test

Suffering needs to be explained to the religious masses much like the the rising and falling of the sun needed to be explained away by the Greeks and Romans.

Plants growing toward the sun, the roots toward gravity. For Spidermean, this is GOD!!! GOD is working in His mysterious ways.

I tried to get him to realize that science will eventually explain this phenomenon, just like the rising and the falling of the sun is due to gravity, and the continual falling away from each other planets. Kepler went bonkers with his solids, in the end, I think he blamed God for his inability to figure it out. (I think that reasonable in that case)

Some of these folks are still looking at the banana fitting into the hand as a sign of God's work. Why should suffering (original or whatever) be any different?

Emonty:

For my money, god-believers and christers are among the most frightened, insecure and unstable people on earth. All because they are so fearful of death, of not being, that they will hold in a death-grip ANY belief that offers them "eternal life." Thats what its about, the fear of not being. Anything that forces them to face their great fear causes terror for them. Of course they fight against reality! They have no choice.

Emonty:

I cannot speak for other atheists. But I can tell you what I fight against:

Ignorance. Superstition. Unproven "facts" used to establish policy, laws, widespread/national custom, attitudes.

Personally, I don't CARE what someone does or not believe. If you want to believe in The Divine Potato, whose son Spud rose from entombment in sour cream, thats fine with me. I have no argument with it. You are entitled to believe whatsoever you want, under any circumstances. You are not, in my opinion, entitled to in any way, by legislation, public policy, or custom, influence or affect my life and my beliefs.

My background is computer science and education. At the time I was in school, computer science was a math discipline. I am only able to function when and where logic can be demonstrated, and reason can rule. Religion does not admit of reason or logic. In an earlier post, I listed 499 past major world religions which are extinct because they were not rational, logical, or provable. They collapsed for these reasons: the superstitions they taught were that: superstition and nothing more.

The Abrahamic religions were founded on the same ideas, superstitions and myths found in MANY of those 499 defunct religions. For this reason, until and unless these religions -- primarily that of the christers -- can prove the existence of god, or the efficaciousness of prayer, or resurrection from the dead, ad infinitum, that could not be proven by other religions, I choose not to be influenced, controlled by or subservient to, a copycat "religion" that offers nothing new from its predecessors.

When god is proven to exist, I will convert to whatever religion offers that proof. I would be a fool not to. Until he is proven, I would be a fool to fall for yet another in a VERY long line of religious superstitions, no matter how nicely packaged or followed by however many billions of people choose that route.

Its just that simple. I will ridicule the ridiculous, call out people who preach superstition and myth as "truth", people who publicly state that there is "no way but theirs...", people who would take tyrannical postures of control over other people's lives and beliefs in the name of their "truth", and people who are simply -- and ultimately -- idiotic.

Professor JD Crossan is an On Faith panelist and author of over 20 books on the historical Jesus and the historical Paul.

From: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

"In the work of John Dominic Crossan, there is a refreshing emphasis on methodology. To this end, Crossan has compiled a database of the attestation for the Jesus traditions by independent attestation and stratification, provided by Faith Futures Foundation.

http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php?title=Crossan_Inventory

Crossan in The Historical Jesus explains that his methodology is to take what is known about the historical Jesus from the earliest, most widely attested data and set it in a socio-historical context. The bulk of the common sayings tradition shows itself to be specific to the situation that existed in the 20s of the first century in Galilee in which the agrarian peasantry were being exploited as the Romans were commercializing the area. The historical Jesus proves to be a displaced Galilean peasant artisan who had got fed up with the situation and went about preaching a radical message: an egalatarian vision of the Kingdom of God present on earth and available to all as manifested in the acts of Jesus in healing the sick and practicing an open commensality in which all were invited to share.

The historical Jesus was an itinerant whose mode of teaching can be understood on analogy with the Cynic sage but who was nonetheless a Jew who believed that the kingdom was being made available by the God of Israel to his people. The revolutionary message of Jesus was seen to be subversive to the Roman vision of order and led to the fateful execution of Jesus by Pilate on a hill outside of Jerusalem.

In The Birth of Christianity, Crossan re-iterates an emphasis on methodology in laying out his presuppositions about the gospel texts as forming the basis for all of his other judgments about the historical Jesus and early Christianity.

Among these are the existence of an early Cross Gospel reconstructed from the Gospel of Peter as elaborated in his tome The Cross that Spoke as well as his belief that the Gospel of John is dependent upon Mark. Crossan also explores the development of two different traditions from the historical Jesus, the Jerusalem tradition in which Jesus is believed to be the resurrected Christ, and the Q Gospel tradition in which Jesus is remembered as the founder of a way of life. For the former, Crossan reconstructs a group in the city of Jerusalem who shared everything in common and awaited the coming of Christ in power. For the latter, Crossan identifies Q, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Didache in which itinerants preach the teachings of Jesus and are supported by sometimes-critical communities. Both traditions are connected in their practice of share-meals and their origins in the historical Jesus. "

Schaum and Psoulus

Reflection? YES! I am forced to ask why so many believers speak (and behave outside the realms of this forum) in such a way that they provoke such strong feelings of fear and loathing. Is this Christianity? Is this the way I believe Jesus of Nazareth wanted people to interact with each other? If the negativity expressed by many believers towards others on this blog (and others like it) really IS true Christianity, I want nothing of it!

If the hate-filled attitudes of believers so often expressed towards those of other beliefs here are not representative of what faith can and should be, why not? The Christians posting here seldom hold themselves to the standards they ask of others. Again, why?

Those are a couple of things I reflect about as I read the blog. I don't post so much because the tenor of the comments usually stays about the same, and so do my opinions so why repeat them? I just come out now and then when I would like to use my teacher's voice to say "Settle down out there! What are you guys fighting about?"

Schaum

For starters, the propensity of believers to quote theologians speaking of matters of belief as 'proof' to support their arguments( i.e. Professor Crossan). I am amazed at how little theology they know, or at how they take it out of context to support a weak position.

As I see it, your position, and others, is that "I am not going to believe 'it' unless it can be seen, measured, proven, etc." which, from a rationalistic point of view is entirely supportable and logical. Under those terms of debate, I would consider the position virtually unassailable.

Believers try to argue by using faith based texts, etc. as if they are history books, which is not only poor usage, but plays entirely into the hands of those they are arguing with. If that does not work, both sides then get personal.

I would argue that there are reasonable reasons for believing in something more, but admittedly the arguments are based on my assumptions, my home field so to speak. If you ask me to 'prove' the existence of God, I cannot do so using the criteria you accept: game over.

Emonty:

"I find the believers to be much more offensive than agnotic/atheist posters, and I find this to be fertile ground for reflection."

Sounds great. Lead the way.

Schaum and PSolus

Thanks for responding. Yes, I am aware that this is a blog primarily representing an theist or agnostic point of view. That's why I read it, to see a view different than my own. However, I see little difference in the responses posted by the same people on blogs written by religious people of various backgrounds. In other words, despite the prompt or comments of the original author, I find the comment sections to be about the same.

Have I questioned my own beliefs? Less so than actions. I am in a program of study in which I question my beliefs often and deeply; much of what is offered here does not criticize my faith or beliefs nearly as much as those as the instructors within my own faith tradition, believe it or not!

I do however question deeply what actions on either side have provoked the vitriol I find here, and in truth, I find the believers to be much more offensive than agnotic/atheist posters, and I find this to be fertile ground for reflection.

Emonty:

"Nothing the non-believers has said would convince me to join their ranks. Nothing the believers say convinces me I should stay in theirs."

This is, as I'm sure you've noticed, a blog primarily, though not exclusively, for atheists. Do you imagine god-believers and christers will be allowed to post their delusions and superstitions and unproven claims here without challenge and rebuttal from atheists and agnostics? I don't imagine anyone posting here actually expects to "convince" anyone of anything.

"Nothing the non-believers has said would convince me to join their ranks."

But, has anything they've written caused you to actually think critically about what you believe, or to question what you believe?

Could somebody please post in the affirmative if anything said by anyone on this site has actually caused a shift in worldview(s)?

Nothing the non-believers has said would convince me to join their ranks. Nothing the believers say convinces me I should stay in theirs.

YEAL/CCNL

Your faith in Professor Crossan is almost, not quite, godlike. There are many, many people who do research into many things, and sometimes they differ! Professor Crossan is a fairly weak 'trump' card to play in the world of theological debate.

CounterWithWhining:\

"It's obvious that you have the read throught the New Testament or have listened much to Christians. Bloodthirsty?? really?"

Still having trouble forming complete thoughts and sentences, I see.

"We are born in sin."

You can speak for no-one but yourself.

"We can't help but do some things that God finds falling short of Him."

Prove the existence of god before you start speaking for him.

"Nickodemous asked about the term "born again"

WHO? Get a spelling checker, dude. You are lost on your own. Were you smoking crack in the 3rd grade?

"- and what this means is actually having God's spirit live inside us, to empower us to become sons and daughters of God and counteract not only counteract, but to supersede the desire to sin we all have."

English really is a mystery to you, huh?

"That is all. The death and resurrection of Jesus does this for all of mankind, and ALL are offered that power and love if we will lower our self and accept Him. His goals become our goals."

Your delusions broaden, deepen and expand. There was no resurrection. Dead criminals, Jewish or otherwise, do not revivify. And the "goals" he taught have never been adopted by christers as their goals. Have you sold everything, yet, and given it to the poor? That was one of the "goals" he taught.

How many times were you in the third grade, anyway?

Reality Check?

Did JC really rise from the dead to prove he was a god?

See
See http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php?title=017_Resurrection_of_Jesus,

http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php?title=002_Jesus_Apocalyptic_Return

for an opposing opinion.

As noted on this blog by many bloggers:

John Paul II and Aquinas concluded that heaven is a spirit state i.e. there can be no bodies there to include glorified bodies. So where is the body of JC?

Professor Crossan, an On Faith panelist, after exhaustive review of the existing scriptures, has concluded that the body of JC ended up in one or more of the following: the mass graves of the crucified, in the stomachs of wild dogs, in a shallow grave covered with lime, and/or under a pile of rocks.

See Professor Crossan's books, "Who is Jesus" and "Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts" for added details

EDTC:

It doesn't make sense, because it is unproven myth, speculation and superstition. It would only make sense if you could prove one word of it. You can't. There is not god.

Part 1
How does God allow suffering? Well before we ask God, let’s ask that about ourselves. How does man? God has blessed mankind with a planet capable of feeding every living human being, the intelligence to cure or prevent disease, and the moral conscience to respect the life of our fellow man. Yet, hunger still reigns in many parts of the world, preventable diseases continue to take lives, and thousands of people die every year because they come from the wrong gender, tribe, race, nation, or religion. The fact is, there has been far more suffering in this world caused by bullets, bombs, and human hatred than there has been by tsunamis, earthquakes, or other acts of God. And those who worship man rather than God are responsible for more than their fair share of that suffering. Quite frankly, when it comes to human suffering, man has a lot more to answer for than God does.

Part 2
The second point I’d like to make, Susan, is about your understanding of God. Neither the Bible, the Koran or most any other holy text describes a god that runs around protecting us from nature, from folly, or from the evil in our own hearts. None of these books describes God as a genie in a lamp, who proves himself on demand to the skeptic and on the skeptic’s own terms. The Bible consistently discusses how rain falls on both the righteous and the wicked, how He disciplines his own followers, and even how His followers will be persecuted by others. When you talk about a god that keeps us from taking that next drink or that next hit, that snaps our seat belt before we drive, that prevents disease, that intervenes in Darfur, prevents global warming and provides universal health care, you are talking about the god you want, not the God who is. Just because God does not meet your expectations does not mean He does not exist.

Part 3
And your argument about God’s omnipotence leaves out another characteristic of God: His omniscience. God is consistently described as all-knowing, something I don’t think that anyone on this earth would claim for himself. So exactly how do you know that there is no purpose behind suffering, when you don’t know the results of that suffering? I have worked with many people who, through God’s grace, were saved from the tyranny of the bottle, the needle, and the streets. And they will be the first to tell you that they had to suffer, they had to hit rock-bottom, and they had to feel first-hand the pain they were causing others, in order to change and ultimately save their own lives. The Bible, and our own secular history books, are filled with examples of people whose own suffering led them in a direction that changed the world. Just because you can’t foretell the results of that suffering, just because you don’t understand God’s purpose, doesn’t mean a purpose doesn’t exist.

Part 4
Since I know you’ve read the Bible, I’m sure you’ve read the Book of Job, which deals with a righteous individual questioning God about the suffering he endures. After listening to his wife encourage him to curse God for his suffering, after listening to his Pat Robertson-like friends tell him he must have done something wrong, after justifying himself and his own deeds, God finally answers. Is it the answer Job wants? No. In reply God essentially asks Job what right the created has to question the Creator, and to that Job has no reply. Just because God doesn’t give you the answer you want, it doesn’t mean he didn’t answer.

Part 5
Finally, you mention the redemptive suffering of Jesus on the cross, and I’m sure you’ve studied Christianity to know its significance. You know, that God cared enough about our suffering that He experienced it himself, and that His sacrifice made it possible to abolish suffering not in this life, but in the next. And just because that doesn’t make sense to you, doesn’t mean it doesn’t make sense.

Spiderstupid:

"For idiots, God is a myth.

"The FOOL hath said in his heart that there is no God"."

So, spiderstupid...how come your god didn't stop all those beatings your father gave you? Why didn't he stop you from molesting your nephew? Because your god is a myth. A superstition.

Important reading for students of religion - with valuable links to information sub-sets included.

Religious behavior follows mythically based guidelines and forms in the everyday world - a world that is changed, and takes on 'sacred' characteristics during the drama-like thaumaturgy and ritual of religious activities.

It is likely that many early 'esoteric' mystery religions, including Christianity, included drug-induced hallucinatory experiences that were designed to be transformative - with spiritual re-birth as the primary goal.

Research indicates that the drug was ergot-based and very similar in effect to LSD. It is thought that the pan-Christian communion ritual is a vestige of this ritual.

Sacred space is generated by our own mind, although attributed to 'divine' sources. Humans are past masters at projecting interior realities .... literally into outer space.

Check out the trickster link - our closest ally and perpetual foe ...... does the trickster give rise to many of life's more sublime mysteries and conundrums??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_mythology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickster

Ref. Intractible, religiously obsessed personalities - there is research to indicate that an implacable religious facade often conceals deep-seated developmental issues, confused self-identity, and in extreme cases, precarious mental health. Cognitive therapy seems to have little salutary effect.

"The FOOL hath said in his heart that there is no God".

It just confirms what I've been thinking about atheists. It only needs common sense to categorize them as such. Science can back it up.

Psalms 14:1; "The Fool hath said in His Heart,That, There Is No GOD."

This passage was written by Jewish scribes who also invented Adam and Eve, Abraham, Moses and Noah.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482

"We are born in sin."

I wasn't; I was born in a hospital -- a spotlessly clean hospital at that.

For idiots, God is a myth.

"The FOOL hath said in his heart that there is no God".

All followers of religion should be called "Mythians"!! What should we call atheists, secularists and agnostics?

I suppose that I am just unimpressed by Susan's philosophical reduction around suffering and it's value, or lack of it. Crap and hogwash. That realization gets further fueled by her own atheistically appropriate justification for suffering that is no more enlightened than Christianity's, (even if it is less dogmatically intricate).

I am not one for the concept of the Resurrection of Christ as Redemptive answer to human suffering and ignorance. It is a child's fantasy, and when the delusion of it is gone and the rational mind awakens we are utterly aware that we have a long road ahead of us and have not yet done the work to get to the goal. We have been playing in the sand.

That does nothing to disempower the reality that suffering is not only an essential element of life, but is one that, like so many others, can be used in an empowering or disempowering way. Suffering, by itself, is not inherently 'bad', as in some ways it does not exist but in the experience of the participant. Suffering is the realized experience of the recipient of the experience itself. It is not a thing of itself. It is how one receives the experience.

"I will always be pleased to answer that question, and my answer is that suffering has absolutely no positive meaning in an ethical sense."

"...but it does not endow the original suffering with positive meaning or with any meaning."

"To the redemptive rationale for suffering, the atheist says no. "

"Human-authored suffering has a moral meaning--an entirely negative one--attached to those who inflict it, but not to those who must bear it."

Utter crap.

Judy-in-TX,

Catholicism is NOT Christianity. You should read the Bible and learn what God says about homosexuality. Ignorance is self-destructive.

Catholicism has existed for more than a thousand years and yet its contribution to mankind is propagation of stupidity and massacres. The only reason it is tamed now is because it's been defeated in many of its idiotic wars.

Farnaz says- "Christians should realize as well how highly contradictory their beliefs are. If the God they envision is so miserable, wretched, and bloodthirsty, as to send his son to us so that we may torture him to death, and then be forgiven our sins (?), how then, are we still born in sin?"

It's obvious that you have the read throught the New Testament or have listened much to Christians. Bloodthirsty?? really?

We are born in sin. We can't help but do some things that God finds falling short of Him. Nickodemous asked about the term "born again" - and what this means is actually having God's spirit live inside us, to empower us to become sons and daughters of God and counteract not only counteract, but to supersede the desire to sin we all have. That is all. The death and resurrection of Jesus does this for all of mankind, and ALL are offered that power and love if we will lower our self and accept Him. His goals become our goals.

It is that simple, really.

Schaum,

"Without a second's hesitation she looked at me, straight in the eyes, with no shame, embarrassment, or sense of inappropriateness, and said: "Ja, ja, das ist der Führer Geburtshaus." Yes, Yes, this is the Fuhrer's birthplace." They still call him Fuhrer. And I wasn't wearing a swastika or uniform or anything!"

Plus ca change, Schaum, plus ca change....

The apartment sounds great. Hopefully, blown away boyfriend was not a skinhead and you won't be troubled by nazi ghosts in addition to the mortals.

Apartment sounds great. And the furniture you mentioned in an earlier comment? What did you buy?

Sounds like you got quite a bit done! Is there snow where you are stateside? Have you rescued Sebastian from boarding school yet?

test

Captn_Ahab:

"Even if her long term relationship was common law, her companion/partner would still be her husband.

Commonlaw marriage is recognized only in 15 states and the District of Columbia. In no place does mere cohabitation meet the requirements of commonlaw marriage.

I was wondering why Ms. Jacoby had such difficulty identifying her partner as her husband. It was almost like she tried as hard as she could to avoid the term. Even if her long term relationship was common law, her companion/partner would still be her husband. Would the use of such a term be demeaning to a secularist? Does it have theist overtones?

Susan, I'm Catholic.
To me, the central question you are raising is the question of redemptive suffering.
When I was a small child, growing up in a Cajun Catholic family and community, I was mystified, when someone got sick or died, to hear the comment:
"It's God's will.
We have to accept that."
My question was:
"You mean to tell me that a loving God wished this misery on the human beings He created?
That makes no sense and it doesn't say much for God's love for us."
It took me a long time and the premature death of my father for me to understand.
My father was a chemical engineer and died of leukemia working at a chemical plant in Texas.
He made the statement:
"This is the price I pay for having a good job in the chemical industry."
It took 20 years to find out that the cause of a cluster of leukemia cases at this plant of which my father was the first was due to venting benzene as a routine practice at the plant.
I have come to the conclusion that suffering and death are part of the human condition; they are not visited upon us by God.
They are the consequences of living on this planet, interacting with our society and all its conditions.
What Jesus taught us, as He suffered a painful and violent end, was that God's promise was not that He would protect us from the forces of nature and man's inhumanity.
Instead, He promised never to abandon us in our spirit as we were confronted with these appalling circumstances.
If we have faith that He will see us through the nightmare and stay with us when things were most bleak, we will share in His spiritual destiny of eternal life in His Spirit.
And since I have come to know many people who are not religious in the sense that they regularly attended a particular church, but who had a strong sense of moral and upright values, I have come to understand that our loving God will rescue the spirits of those people as well.
The only people He cannot reach are those who have developed barriers to participating in love of others.
That's where these judgmental fundamentalists are in error.
In my sense of what God does, even atheists can attain eternal life.
God will forgive all human error, as long as it does not damage good will towards Himself and towards others.
Now, I'm sure that a ton of those self-righteous idiots could blast holes the size of a 10-ton truck through my theological premise, but I rest my faith on my understanding of the power of God's will for us.

In "IT" We Trust

Im an engineer and I know it can't be figured out coz nobody understands the workings of DNA. The science of DNA is way too superb for any human to understand. That has been a enigma for centuries (gravity sensor) and nobody had or ever will answer it.

The Bible never mentioned that the earth is flat. In fact it stated that " the earth floats in space" when people were clueless what is space.

I can list a thousand or more enigmas which only a God can fill.

"harden not your hearts..."

Spidermean:
"No one knows exactly how plants sense gravity"

Read the whole article. They can only theorized but nobody knows how it works."

I did. They have not figured it out yet, just like it took a log time to figure out that the world was not flat and you didn't fall off the edge. I don't buy your theory either as it is less plausible.

spidermean2:

Could you please check your verb tenses? It really detracts from your argument. A spelling error here and there is normal, as is the occasional grammatical goof when typing in haste. But the repetitive nature of your verb tense issue lays bare something else: Your encounter with your room-mate happened during all of your college English classes. And for that I am truly sorry.

"It does no honor to sports for an American television network to block out the gold medal stand because it is occupied by a foreigner and pretend that the bronze and silver medals are more important because they were won by Americans."

It makes perfect sense if they are broadcasting to an American audience. If they were broadcasting in Fiji you would be right.

But they aren't, so you're wrong.

"No one knows exactly how plants sense gravity"

Read the whole article. They can only theorized but nobody knows how it works.

Fill in the blanks:

3. Self replication. With all the sciences we have today, nobody understands the science of self-replication. No computer make another computer or a car make another car. This is the ultimate in the field of engineering and yet we can see them everywhere in plants and animals. The science is so superb that only a God can fill.

"It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God". (Heb. 10:31)

100 percent guys, God is not kidding.

csintala79:

Well said.

Canada won. Great game.

Spidermean:
Read and be enlightened.
Fill in the blanks :

2. Plants don't seem to have sensors with them but they can sense gravity and light. They always grow opposite to the force of gravity and find a hole where there is light. Only a super intelligent being can make such "invisible" or built in sensors.

http://weboflife.nasa.gov/currentResearch/currentResearchFlight/spaceSpirals.htm

An atheist’s answer as to why there is suffering in this life would have to be that, unless there is a conscious actor causing the suffering, there is no “meaning” to be found. We can search for the “meaning” behind a person’s actions, such as a murder, but it is pointless to search for the meaning behind natural phenomena, e.g., and earthquake. For someone who doesn't believe there is a universal conscious creative force, questions about the "meaning" of anything not related to conscious perpetrators are non-sequiturs. Unless there are volitional choices where whatever happens could have been “willed” to occur differently, the question of “meaning” is not material. What is is what is, and the only “meaning” behind an incident of natural phenomena is the natural laws governing its occurrence. Tectonic plates move, resulting in earthquakes, and if this occurs near population center, people suffer. The plates moved due to physical laws governing seismic phenomena, and no amount of praying to a non-existent god will prevent the events. The suffering can be reduced by building more substantial structures, improving prediction of such events, speeding up the delivery of assistance, etc., but not by appealing to a willful actor. There is no supernatural or ethical “meaning” behind the suffering resulting from natural events such as earthquakes. Ethics only relate to persons, and if there is no personal god, the search for the “meaning” for the suffering resulting from natural disasters is pointless. While difficult to pin down the “meaning” of suffering due to wars, the contributing factors are many and debatable, at least since decision making by persons are involved, events could, to an extent, be willed differently. However, for an atheist, to extend the investigation as to the “meaning” for suffering in wars to the supernatural is as pointless as to looking for “meaning” to the suffering in an earthquake.

Fill in the blanks :

2. Plants don't seem to have sensors with them but they can sense gravity and light. They always grow opposite to the force of gravity and find a hole where there is light. Only a super intelligent being can make such "invisible" or built in sensors.

I can list thousands of enigmas which only a God can fill.

Spidermean:
"The God of prophecies. I've stated a lot of prophecies here. When they are fulfilled right before your eyes, think that this God of prophecies also stated that atheists who hate Him will burn forever."

I don't hate anyone. You are projecting.

The God of prophecies. I've stated a lot of prophecies here. When they are fulfilled right before your eyes, think that this God of prophecies also stated that atheists who hate Him will burn forever.

As the prophecies are slowly fulfilling, your appointment with God and hell is nearing.

With science and prophecies, God can be seen except for those who are doomed.

There is no escape.

"It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God" (Heb. 10:31)

100 percent true and even today, it is certain that unless you change, you guys are doomed forever.

Spidermean2:
"Fill in the blanks. Nature is full of blanks. Enigmas that only a God can fill."

There is a blank, a dark place in your head. For some reason you are projecting upon others what are feelings of inadequacy.
You should find someone to hug you, but not your nephew.
You should find love, preferably from another human being. They must be a willing participant in said love, for instance, you can't hit someone over the head and shove them in the back of your car and then keep them in your back yard. That won't count, plus it is not legal and immoral. Barring a willing human (understandable) maybe a dog or cat. Go to the SPCA. They'll check you out and see if you are suitable for the care of an animal.

Thank you for entertaining me while I watch the Olympics. Go USA!!! 2-2 in hockey.

Christianity if you look at it realistically was/is dependent on the free will of Pontius Pilate and should therefore be called "Pilate-anity". Some might say "Close to Stupidity". Some might even say "Almost But Not Quite Insanity".

On the other hand, Judaism is dependent on the myths of Adam and Eve, Abraham, Moses and Noah.

Then there is Islam that is dependent on the myth of Gabriel.

Conclusion: All followers of religion could be called "Mythians"!!

Fill in the blanks. Nature is full of blanks. Enigmas that only a God can fill.

1. Is it possible that a beautiful flower can grow up from soil? There is no natural selection at the time when there was only water or soil. there was no super machine that scientists use now to weave DNAs. And even with these machines, scientists are at a loss how to make flowers from just soil and water and air and sun.

I just stated one but I can list a thousand or more of these enigmas and they all point to a supper intelligent God.

In other words, atheists are basically dumb. They are not only blind spiritually, they are also have idiotic scientific IQ.

I tried to read Darwin's evolution but as an engineer I saw that it was garbage. Nothing in it is scientific and none can pass as science in the field of engineering.

If I am a librarian, I would classify it under comic books side by side with Marvel comics.

What a pity these atheists are. They based their hope on fantasies like Snowhite or Batman or even Spiderman.

Burn. I can almost imagine how these people sing their "chorus" in a lake of fire.

The God who made the flower is also the God who made the terrible eternal fire. Don't allow yourselves to be the devil's guinea pigs coz right now he has you lined up already like pork in a bar-b-q stick.

(2 of 2)

The Wars of the Past, and also the current wars and those in the future will always be about "ORGANIZED-JEALOUSY [via man-made and or so-called god-made systems] COMPETING FOR (god names) instead "IT". So the Wars will be between the "IT" SYSTEM and the MY-GOD(S) SYSTEM(S).. But "IT", the-Peoples real name [for GOD], will Winn, in the not too distant future. We're all on the same SHIP built by the same exact "IT" [MONO] not MY-GOD(S) [PLURAL] System.

So, Theocracy and Monarchy must Die 1st. Sorry Ayatollahs, Wahhabi, Mufti's; Sorry Pope, Bishops, Cardinals, Friars, Priests, Fathers Rabbi's, Imams; sorry Crowns.. The Death of all known Words for "GOD" from before the modern Atoms and Electricity age became the REVEALation of our times, will Unite, no more divide [US] on This beautiful, yet Miraculous 1-World ,but only IF this Planet's "Mixed Multitudes" start replacing the word "GOD" with "IT" in their Heads-1st; Bible, Churches 2nd; Then that "ONE-GOD-AGE" through that promised "ONE-IT-BOOK" (unlike "The Book Of Eli", a violent movie based on a brailed KJV bible) will bring about miracles.!

Sorry Pagans, Sorry Jews, Sorry Islamic Druz, Sufi's etc.. Sorry Christian's, Mormons, Baptists, Anglicans, Catholics, Protestants, Evangelical's etc.. Sorry Hindu's, Sorry Buddhist's, Seiks etc..

Ask, not what you can do for the future, but what the future can do for you (Posterity)" There is "HOPE" in "IT" , where "IT" and HOPE come from the past (History: Is Our Judge, Jury and Witness, and everybody's Business) and no-one else!

Excerpts from my book: "IT" the god(s) killer story:

DBOC-9911:
Our GOD, not my gods, has a name: "IT". And "IT" lives in a SYSTEM of System(s) of Miracles. No Sins, No Curses, No Fear, No Jealousy etc.. And this or that Systems are Not for you not for me but for "ITSELF". WE are all in the middle of this System eternally doing a "Holy Cosmic Dance WITH LIFE and LOVE" And this "IT" is a Personal thing. unlike a Personal gods. No bible, no genius, no book, no [god] pretender etc.. even knows what "IT" is.

It is Beautiful on the one end of the spectrum but not so beautiful, as some wrongly been think/believing, on the other side of universe. No equations please. The "Beauty" part is that LIFE/BIRTH or just being born (Whole and as sensual being), is a Miracle. So forget what you learned in school. There was never ever any Sin or a Curse in REALITY to begin with. Well Thank Photons. And

the "Not So Beautiful" part, ironically beautiful, is that "IT" is the Only-Correct-name for any god (Plural) imagined, if you don't mind, such that "IT" never was a MAN nor a WOMAN, only being/appearing as ITSELF. There's an old saying about "IT": "What I can't Create, I don't understand". So why do evolving-finite-Humans still "create" or carve gods, in "ITs" own Material creations? i.e., a Man or a Woman image or an Avatar (like and unlike the Movies)?

"IT" is sort of a Holy-Frequency making Itself know to us through each persons Frontal-Lobe. That's what makes us HUMAN, no other part.Forget "Intelligent-Design" or "Creationism" for ever! Forget Mind; except Consciousness, Awareness, aka Knowledge and Experience. The Holy word "IT" can be written in any dialect/lingo or language today. Think of the Possibilities. Every Religion Book must posit and replace all words for GOD, includes HE, HIS, Him or She, Her etc.. and replace them with the "IT" word instead. And Theocracy and Monarchy, who think they have a monopoly on gods (for SALE) instead of "IT" (FREE) must be abolished on Earth forever.

go to 2 of 2

Whynotajoke:

" I assume the beatings continue??? "

In his head, with his other demons.

THE NATURE OF ATHEISM BY DEDUCTION

The “orthodox” view of heaven poses the following significant challenges to Plantinga’s view:

(i) If heavenly dwellers do not possess morally significant free will and yet their existence is something of tremendous value, it is not clear that god was justified in creating persons here on Earth with the capacity for rape, murder, torture, sexual molestation, and nuclear war. It seems that god could have actualized whatever greater goods are made possible by the existence of persons without allowing horrible instances of evil and suffering to exist in this world.

(ii) If possessing morally significant free will is essential to human nature, it is not clear how the redeemed can lose their morally significant freedom when they get to heaven and still be the same people they were before.

(iii) If despite initial appearances heavenly dwellers do possess morally significant free will, then it seems that it is not impossible for god to create genuinely free creatures who always (of necessity) do what is right.

In other words, it appears that WORLD3 isn’t impossible after all. If WORLD3 is possible, an important plank in Plantinga’s Free Will Defense is removed. None of these challenges undermines the basic point established above that Plantinga’s Free Will Defense successfully rebuts the logical problem of evil. However, they reveal that some of the central claims of his defense conflict with other important theistic doctrines. Although Plantinga claimed that his Free Will Defense offered merely possible and not necessarily actual reasons god might have for allowing evil and suffering, it may be difficult for other theists to embrace his defense if it runs contrary to what theism says is actually the case in heaven.

Another problem facing Plantinga’s Free Will Defense concerns the question of god’s free will. god, it seems, is incapable of doing anything wrong. Thus, it does not appear that, with respect to any choice of morally good and morally bad options, god is free to choose a bad option. He seems constitutionally incapable of choosing (or even wanting) to do what is wrong. According to Plantinga’s description of morally significant free will, it does not seem that god would be significantly free. Plantinga suggests that morally significant freedom is necessary in order for one’s actions to be assessed as being morally good or bad. But then it seems that god’s actions could not carry any moral significance. They could never be praiseworthy. That certainly runs contrary to central doctrines of theism.

If, as theists must surely maintain, god does possess morally significant freedom, then perhaps this sort of freedom does not preclude an inability to choose what is wrong. But if it is possible for god to possess morally significant freedom and for him to be unable to do wrong, then WORLD3 once again appears to be possible after all. Originally, Plantinga claimed that WORLD3 is not a logically possible world because the description of that world is logically inconsistent. If WORLD3 is possible, then the complaint lodged that god could (and therefore should) have created a world full of creatures who always did what is right is not answered

THE NATURE OF ATHEISM BY DEDUCTION (Concl)

There may be ways for Plantinga to resolve the difficulties I have outlined, so that the Free Will Defense can be shown to be compatible with theistic doctrines about heaven and divine freedom. As it stands, however, some important challenges to the Free Will Defense remain unanswered. It is also important to note that, simply because Plantinga’s particular use of free will in fashioning a response to the problem of evil runs into certain difficulties, that does not mean that other theistic uses of free will in distinct kinds of defenses or theodicies would face the same difficulties.

I have shown that both deductive and inductive attempts to prove the existence of god fail, just as they fail to prove that evil and suffering are part of any “divine” plan…that they, in fact, originate anywhere except in the human mind. As someone has rightly said, ‘Nothing is good or bad except that thinking makes it so.’

Evil and suffering are not the same things. “Good” and “evil” are human constructs, as god is a human construct, to “explain” what is yet unexplainable. Physical suffering – all of it – is explicit in the experience of being a mortal human. Humans die, because we must. Without death, we would have endless disease, poverty, hunger, and god knows what all. Death is not brought about by any of the non-existent, unproven gods. It is entirely natural.

Psychological suffering, and suffering imposed on others by humans themselves are entirely different matters. They are what the christers love to call “evil”. Yet good and evil are nothing more than the result of human thought. To think clearly is to be good, see good, do good. To have clouded thinking is to be evil, see evil, do evil. There are no satanic manipulations to promote evil, any more than there is a god. There is only man, who is ultimately responsible for his “moral” values. He determines whether he will be good or evil.

Or both.

Farnaz:

"Honestly, reading much of this thread, I do believe we are doomed. And God has nothing to do with it."

I too believe the human race is doomed, and of course god has nothing to do with it, simply because there is no such thing as god.

Home finally! We got a really fantastic apartment, albeit on the 2nd floor, for an unbelievable price. Seems the place has been unrentable for a couple of years...previous tenant blew her boyfriend away in it. I hope it comes with a ghost.

Saturday morning, we got up early and drove about 30 miles NE of Salzburg, to Salzberger Vorstadt 15, birthplace of Adolf Hitler, in Braunau am Inn, Austria. I've seen pics of it from the 30s and 40s. Really a rundown, shabby looking place and neighborhood in the pics. But now, it is pristine and immaculate, if somewhat dated looking. I mean really, somebody has spent some dollars in restoring and keeping the place a nice residence, which it is now. I wasn't sure it was the right place, so I asked a 55-60 year old woman on the street, Bitte, das ist Adolf Hitlers Geburtshaus?"

Without a second's hesitation she looked at me, straight in the eyes, with no shame, embarrassment, or sense of inappropriateness, and said: "Ja, ja, das ist der Führer Geburtshaus." Yes, Yes, this is the Fuhrer's birthplace." They still call him Fuhrer. And I wasn't wearing a swastika or uniform or anything!

Schaum:
"
...some time ago..."
Sorry, I was late to the game, but I catch on quick.

"Get him to tell you about his father beating him. Interesting story. Revealing, in fact."

Oh boy. I think I'd rather not, but it does, in fact, fit with my rather haphazard analysis. I assume the beatings continue???

I disagree that "the only possible answer for the monotheist is that suffering is necessary to build character". If one accepts the platitude of some horror being part of "God's plan" then I suppose it would seem the "only possible answer". However, there's no basis in the Christian canon for the idea that God has any plan which includes suffering. The closest to that would be the account of Job, but even in that instance, God allows the testing of Job through suffering but is not described as planning it.

As a Christian turned prosletyzing atheist who returned to Christian belief, I can see some suffering as random, as in earthquakes, and some as manifestations of malicious human will, as in torture. At the same time, I would suggest that the philosophical problem of evil can be resolved by a careful consideration of the role of memory in being critical to the experience of suffering. If, by either the obliteration of individual consciousness in death or the action of divine "wiping away all tears" in an afterlife, what actual meaning does suffering have if one cannot remember it?

Whynotajoke:

"Spidermean has a classic case of self-hate, probably spurred (pun intended) by a college mate [ing?] gone awry, "

Get him to tell you about his father beating him. Interesting story. Revealing, in fact.

Whynotajoke:

"Spidermean2 has an issue, and I think I am onto something. I think that he is sexually repressed, and possibly a closeted homosexual."

Yeah, dude, we all figured this out some time ago. But your revelation of his involvement with his own young nephew does add a new dimension and explains a lot of things. Thanks.

DBOC_:

"That is a hard thing to accept but it doesn't mean it isn't true."

Nor does the fact that you have "accepted" this delusion, as well as the delusion of the christer religion, mean that it is true.

Luke 22:31 "And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:"

From Father John P. Meier -

(Meier is Professor of New Testament in the Department of Theology at the University of Notre Dame. Before coming to Notre Dame, he was Professor at The Catholic University of America.)

"In his discussion of Simon Peter [Marginal Jew III,221-245], Meier gives some attention to the Lucan version of this saying (Luke 22:31). After noting that this form of the tradition is unique to Luke, exhibits characteristic Lucan interests (such as a reduction in the negative tone of Peter's treatment by Mark), and "sketches in a nutshell the entire career of Peter through the rest of the Gospel and into Acts" [III, 242], Meier offers the opinion that Luke 22:31-32 is a CREATION of Luke rather than something he took from older tradition."

I am a christian and suffering is just as painful for me as for the athiest. However, as an observant human being evil does bring about greater good. Just look at how families draw tighter during a funeral... one can't deny that while suffering sucks, it does draw us outside of ourselves. That is a hard thing to accept but it doesn't mean it isn't true.

Hello Tojby_2000,

"The enlightenment of which you speak is gained only by shedding the practice of magical thinking."

Another example of assumptions and an exclusive, "only" based idea of what is required to realize 'enlightenment'. This time atheistically based.

Only if one adopts a rational, objective viewpoint, focused only in the proven, with one 'realize'.

Have you noticed that spidermean has been posting all morning, this Sunday morning? Why is this rabid bible thumper not in church? Is he a phony, like so many bible thumpers, who talk some mean religion but don't actually live any of it? Except the hate, of course. They are obviously sincere about that. Hating in the name of Jesus! Seen it all my life. Thanks, but No Thanks! I'll spend this lovely Sunday strolling about outdoors and worshipping God's creation, with a bobolink for a chorister and an orchard for a dome.

I wonder if you aren't reading Kitman wrong. I don't think he means that suffering is worthwhile because it brings out compassion in others. I think he is saying that one thing Alzheimer's teaches us is that people are not just the sum of their learning or cognitive capabilities. To know someone with dementia is, of course, to be reminded every day of what they were and are no longer, and it is both sad and horrifying. It is also to learn that what the disease is taking from them is not all that they are. They are still social creatures, capable of connection. In short, being human does not depend on intact capacity for reason any more than it depends on the use of one's limbs. Alzheimer's teaches this.

Is the lesson "worth it"? Most of us would say no, of course not. The lesson does not make everything even. The world would still undoubtedly be a better place if we could find a cure to this disease. But given that we have not found such a cure yet, it seems to me OK to say that its effects include teaching us something about ourselves and those we love.

"The concept of self-sacrifice and martyrs are central to Christianity."
=============================================================
They are central to any Abrahamic religion (Islam and Judaism too). Buddists believe suffering is needed to find enlightenment. I find funny the Buddists without a belief in a deity say it is not a religion. A reincarnated 2 year old determined to be it's leader (new Dalai Lama) is not religious thought?

Spidermean2 has an issue, and I think I am onto something. I think that he is sexually repressed, and possibly a closeted homosexual. Again, I have zero issues with gays. I simply don't care. I care about everyone, probably my biggest fault...darn liberal that I am.

Spidermean has a classic case of self-hate, probably spurred (pun intended) by a college mate [ing?] gone awry, and has been uncomfortable about this ever since. He sees his nephew, who he thinks is a pervert (he equates homosexuals to perverts, I have a different ruler) since he may or may not be a homosexual.

He has deep feelings about this, and sees religion as his only way...seeking out God for forgivness for giving him these homosexual feelings [that are probably natural for him], and trying to purge them by mixing his verb tenses only succeeding in irritating me.

I am having a good time, but have three books to read today. I really hate to leave the conversation.

spidermean2 wrote: "Repent guys before it's too late."

Repent what? You assume the bloggers here have something to repent? Could you imagine a world where atheists are better people than christians because they have no devil to blame for their actions? If you feel YOU have something to repent, feel free to do so, but instead of blaming the devil, blame yourself, even if your religion says you are not responsible except for giving in. You allow yourself to do evil when it is not you but instead the devil who is responsible. Believe in yourself and you will be much better at fending off evil urges instead of acting like a child, believing an angel is on one soldier and a devil on the other.

spidermean2 wrote: "Satan hath desired you and you guys took the bait."

Hmmm, I wonder who took the bait, those who believe in the devil and do not accept responsibility for their actions, or the atheists who have no one to blame but themselves.

Jihadists listen to God and commit murder on His behalf. They take no responsibility. Bush listened to god and invaded Iraq knowing the intelligence was sketchy. Afterward, knowing it was God's decision and not his yet no WMD were found, he rationalized by making up other reasons God must have wanted the invasion, like Saddam was a bad guy who *had* to be removed. Bush, thanks to his religion, takes no responsible and is only accountable to God, who it seems is pleased with Bush. No accountability on Bush's part except acting when God called, just like a Jihadist.

spidermean2 wrote: "c ya later"

I'm sure of it.

Question for Ms. Jacoby: how do you feel about having such a devoted reader as Spidermean? I mean, it's odd to me that such a narrowly, fervently religious person would be apparently Susan Jacoby's biggest devotee, but he is by far the most frequent commenter on every post. I mean, I'm an atheist and a fan, and I don't read her blog or comment with anything like the fervor Spidermean2 exhibits. Interesting....

Spidermean:
"I've seen this firsthand with my nephew. Perverts causes gay. It's a disease."

Now I understand. You were at a college frat party, and you got it on with another guy. I think you might be a closeted homosexual...not that there is anything wrong with being gay. I happen not to care, just please stay away from your nephew.

It is simple. Believe in the difference between right and wrong.

God and Devil? Created by those who wanted power over the masses. Pause to think about 'organized' religion and the multi-million dollar churches, the evangelical TV channels and and radio stations that exist primarily to dupe the gullible.

All holy books were written by man for increasing the leaders power over the flocks. Religion established a moral code that today's atheists freely accept. The Bible is flawed in many ways pointed out in Thomas Payne's "Age of Reason". Many things that worked 2000 years ago, no longer apply today. People don't go into flowing river waters to be cured of infections, they take anti-biotics, a woman menstruating does not take 2 doves to the tent of the elder to slaughter one (easy meal to prepare) and set one free, are just 2 examples. Raised Catholic I'm for gay unions since they will give the 1 million children raised by gays no punishment for the parent's "sins". Did Christ perform some supernatural act at the last supper or did he say share earth's bounty with others in memory of himself? That is exactly how new sects of thought originate.

I think being gay is a disease spread by perverts to young children at a very young age. They corrupt the child's mind and so he grows up a pervert himself.

Another reason is the lack of male bonding from the father.

Exposure to perversion and the lack of proper care as a child is the root cause of being gay.

I've seen this firsthand with my nephew. Perverts causes gay. It's a disease.

But gays can fight the disease.

c ya later guys

Hey Spideyman! You did know Jesus was gay, didn't you?

"And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:" (Lk 22:31)

Sifting is a form of trapping, little by little. He does it to everyone.

Repent guys before it's too late.

Satan hath desired you and you guys took the bait.

c ya later

"I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

(as noted previously by many bloggers)

This passage was, according to many NT experts, not said by the historical Jesus but was an embellishment by John to make Jesus more like the ancient and local gods of first century Palestine.

Place of Life: (1) Dial. Sav. 27-30, (2) John 14:2-12; http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

Spidermean:

"While the devil is successful with you and now owns you guys, he failed in me by the grace of God."

Wow. By your rationale, God failed me, and Jesus failed god by not supporting me. We're a family of losers.

Don't forget, God made the devil. He [God] is omniscient, so when he had me popped out, he already knew what was in store for me. I guess I better get out the Ray Bans and the SPF 5000 for when I go to hell.

We are responsible for what we do and in times where we don't know where to go the devil is always present to show you the way to self-destruction.

While the devil is successful with you and now owns you guys, he failed in me by the grace of God.

Spidermean:

Little by little. That is always his gameplan.

So you are not at all responsible for your actions, past, present, or future. You do not have free-will. You are a puppet. I feel sorry for you. I genuinely feel sorry for you. I wish I could help.

The snake is the personification of the devil. He teaches you to make the wrong decisions little by little. Eve is the personification of a person being fooled by the devil.

What was first wrong in the eyes of Eve suddenly became right after some prodding by the devil. I transformed from a God fearing child to a devil's servant doing everything he pleases without any conviction. It was a slow transformation and in those years (as I look back), I can see the devil's hand at play.

Little by little. That is always his gameplan.

spidermean:

"In my college days, I'm ignorant of the Bible. I know some verses and that is all I know. The word has no life and meaningless. Does it sound familiar?"

Uh, no. I think someone may have touched you in an unwanted manner at a college frat party. I went to college after serving (honorably) in the U.S. Army.

Quoting biblical verse does nothing for me. Until you can explain why God gave my mother sepsis, the disease from which she died a horrible and painful death, it will do nothing for me. If you say "mysterious ways", you are a cop-out. If you say freewill, again, I say cop-out.

"I am the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (Jn 14:6)

If you learn to love this verse and believe it 100 percent, YOU HAVE THE TREASURE.

In my college days, I'm ignorant of the Bible. I know some verses and that is all I know. The word has no life and meaningless. Does it sound familiar?

spidermean2 wrote: "The devil is real."

You got any real proof?

spidermean2 wrote: "I was raised in an evangelical Christian Church."

You know, I'm not surprised.

spidermean2 wrote: "Lived a descent God fearing life in my childhood and ended up a bad person in my college days. Why? Because the devil is real."

You see, this is where the religious can really mess themselves up. By believing in the devil you can claim you were only accountable for not resisting the devil, that you were not strong enough to resist. However what you will not account for is your actions that were initiated by you. In your mind they were initiated by the devil and you could not resist, as opposed to you, on your own, initiating the actions you now find wrong. How can one learn when they feel are not responsible for their actions? Saying the devil made me do it is a cop-out.

spidermean2 wrote: "He bends you little by little until you turn 180 degrees going on the opposite direction without you knowing it."

So again, your actions are not your own. You are a puppet who must resist the pulling of its strings? In your mind doing wrong is a result of weakness whereas in an atheist's mind doing wrong is a result of determining to do wrong, an action initiated by that person. We do not put people in prison for being weak, we put them in prison for doing wrong.

spidermean2 wrote: "Because atheists grope in the dark, their morality is at the mercy of the devil. Wherever the devil leads them, there they go."

I use to believe the devil exists because it was drilled into me as a child, and I also did bad things, but it was realizing that there are no spooks, no gods, no devils, and that my actions are my own that turned me around. Try a little accountability next time. You'll feel worse than thinking you simply could not resist some spook (God or the devil), and as a result of taking yourself to account, become a better person.

Spidermean:

Only those who grope in the dark can be brainwashed. The devil is in control of your minds. You won't notice coz you don't have any "guidepost".

Like you were in your college days. So you went to church and were brainwashed. I'm using your own logic.

Only those who grope in the dark can be brainwashed. The devil is in control of your minds. You won't notice coz you don't have any "guidepost".

In a darkroom, you won't know in what corner you are standing. Lost and brainwashed.

Spidermean:

""Faith cometh by hearing the word of God."

Over a year long period.

Read: Faith comes by way of indoctrination and repetition. Also known as brainwashing.

Spidermean:

"The treasure can't be described. You have to receive it to know it."

Good enough. So on the other side of that curtain, you'll meet the most indescribably wonderful thing. I certainly hope that you don't find out that God finds something nice that you don't find nice. Here is what I mean by that:

God had Eve 'know' her children. That said, will he have the same thing in store for you?

I leave you this message guys :

"Faith cometh by hearing the word of God."

Go to a conservative evangelical Christian Church. Listen for a year or more. It worked with many people I know. It might work with you.

"To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it." (Rev 2:17)

The treasure can't be described. You have to receive it to know it.

Spidermean:

"The treasure is God's gift. Man cannot simply just desire it to get it. He can't attain it by himself like what atheists do. It's a futile exercise."

So, do you get 72 virgins like the Muslims do? What do you do with them if you do? Are they disease free? Are they male or female virgins? If you are a male, and said treasure also be male, do you hit that said treasure?

"Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, NOR of the WILL of man, but of God." (Jn 1:13)

The treasure is God's gift. Man cannot simply just desire it to get it. He can't attain it by himself like what atheists do. It's a futile exercise.

Spidermean:

""Seek and ye shall find"

If you find a great treasure, you forget all the hard labors you made prior to finding the treasure. I didn't beg, I just seek.

Just like how Jesus described it, no amount of wealth can top it."

I found, and guess who I did not ask for help, and who's help I did not need?

"Seek and ye shall find"

If you find a great treasure, you forget all the hard labors you made prior to finding the treasure. I didn't beg, I just seek.

Just like how Jesus described it, no amount of wealth can top it.

Spidermean2,

Thy wisdom:
"The FOOL hath said in his heart and not in his MIND means fools are not using their minds. It's so dark that it can't see anything. They are groping in the dark."

In Spidey's funny dystopia, hapless, groping, nincompoop minds slither mollusc-like through a Christless waste, while beaming, pellucid bibliolaters sh*t fragrant teflon turds on them, stamped with bracing bon mots from the epistles of St Paul.

spidermean:

"The devil is real.

I was raised in an evangelical Christian Church. Lived a descent God fearing life in my childhood and ended up a bad person in my college days. Why? Because the devil is real. He bends you little by little until you turn 180 degrees going on the opposite direction without you knowing it."

I'm sorry, but I think you are still a bad person because you think that Atheists are bad people because they do not believe as you.

The devil is real.

I was raised in an evangelical Christian Church. Lived a descent God fearing life in my childhood and ended up a bad person in my college days. Why? Because the devil is real. He bends you little by little until you turn 180 degrees going on the opposite direction without you knowing it.

Because atheists grope in the dark, their morality is at the mercy of the devil. Wherever the devil leads them, there they go.

"The enlightenment of which you speak is gained only by shedding the practice of magical thinking."

Can this be equally applied to Magically asking, or in Spidermeans case, begging for years?

edbyronadams wrote: There is no relief except through enlightenment and you can't get there through atheism.
___________________________________________
The enlightenment of which you speak is gained only by shedding the practice of magical thinking.

Spidermean:

"Years of asking."

Please God don't hurt me.
Please God let me into heaven.
Please God, stop this bully.
Please
Please.

Oh please, stop whining to God. He ain't listening.

Persiflage:

"JOEDBROWN, apparently a Spidermean blood relative, sums up us dummies..."
You are truly the one-eyed man in our blind society. ;^)

JOEDBROWN:

"Once you remove God and religion you remove the basis for any shared, authoritative, ethic or morality...Just an individual opinion."

Most atheists can agree on many points and do disagree on some others, just like those of any kind of faith. The same is true of the choice to live a life of morality or not. To pretend that you must know religion to keep shared ethical values is exactly the "fundamental problem" plaguing those who dismiss or decry atheism carte blanche.

An atheist most certainly can see the difference between the Hitlers of this world and the Ghandis. Have you been paying genuine attention to the posts here?

"As real atheists we eat, fight, mate, take what we want when we want and then die. What else is there?"

The very real atheists I know--and you may know some too without being aware of it, because they are as good or bad as the rest of us--live much as anyone else and actually don't always try to "persuade others of the correctness of [their] beliefs" because they can recognize the value of another's actions/beliefs regardless of the religious tag they apply.

Life and the quality of it matter just as much, if not more, to an atheist because they're certain we only get one life in the first place.

"Atheists are...silly, cowardly people who cannot face up to the challenge of life...The author might consider that the civilization that supports her and allows her to spew her drivel was built by people of faith and regulated, imperfectly, by rules based on that faith."

Atheists are by no means "silly" or "cowardly;" instead they live a very well-examined and deliberate life that requires them to face up to and overcome life's challenges without the often-flimsy and empty reassurance of a cushy afterlife and a God and clergy who paste approval with great certainty upon their foreheads just because an invisible and unproven deity "said so." How often do believers say "I could not have done this without God's help?"

Instead, atheists take life by the collar and succeed in this world with or without the believers who both help and hinder them with their reliance on texts written and contorted by imperfect humans, for better and/or worse.

whynotajoke wrote "Are you interpreting scripture? WHy would one do this? If the scriture is the Word of GOD, why would you have to do this?"

The Bible is a very intelligently written book. It needs superb intelligence to understand it. God is the source of that intelligence and he gives the wisdom how to understand it.

"Seek and ye shall find; ask and it shall be given". In my case I did a lot of asking. Years of asking.

What doesn't kill you (e.g., suffering) makes you stronger.
-Friedrich Nietzsche (atheist)

JOEDBROWN, apparently a Spidermean blood relative, sums up us dummies thusly:

'Atheists are in the final analysis silly, cowardly people who cannot face up to the challenge of life. To rise through all of the misery and suffering to something better.'
________________

Now I feel thoroughly challenged to timidly rise up out of my atheistic stupor and select a religion - but which one? I'll be reviewing the list below for the very best one....and the one that killed the fewest non-believers.

A word to the wise - don't expire until you get your religion ticket punched ;^)

http://www.religionfacts.com/big_religion_chart.htm

spidermean:

"The darkness is in the minds of atheists where fire can't illuminate it."

So, this only applies to Atheists?

"The FOOL hath said in his heart and not in his MIND means fools are not using their minds. It's so dark that it can't see anything. They are groping in the dark."

Are you interpreting scripture? WHy would one do this? If the scriture is the Word of GOD, why would you have to do this?

"There is no relief except through enlightenment and you can't get there through atheism."

Really? Where is "there", and what does "there" look like??? Who is "there" waiting? What are the waiting for "there"? WHy don't they just go from "there" and be done with it? Why wait around?

The darkness is in the minds of atheists where fire can't illuminate it.

The FOOL hath said in his heart and not in his MIND means fools are not using their minds. It's so dark that it can't see anything. They are groping in the dark.

The darkness is in the brain of atheists where fire can't illuminate it.

The FOOL hath said in his heart and not in his MIND means fools are not using their minds. It's so dark that it can't see anything. They are groping in the dark.

FarnazMansouri:
Not if you lift up your arms to the heavens. Also, try a bilingual dictionary and a good skincare regimen.

Skincare regimen? Even if I do the uplifting of the arms at night and howl at the moon [God]?

I have not seen a Pons phrase book for chidish. I'll look.

No person escapes suffering. Everyone experiences the sufferings of life and illness followed by old age and death.

There is no relief except through enlightenment and you can't get there through atheism.

Spidermean:
"Exactly. That's the feeling of groping in the dark. Seeing nothing and therefore understanding nothing."

Who's groping in the dark? I know how to make fire, even when it is raining and at night.

""The FOOL hath said in his heart that there is no God"."

I speak with my mouth, not my heart. If your heart is talking to you, go see a doctor, you might be having a heart attack.

Whynotajoke:

"The chidish will elude me though, and that is sort of upsetting."

Not if you lift up your arms to the heavens. Also, try a bilingual dictionary and a good skincare regimen.

FarnazMansouri:
"Probably not, but you might get to sing it."

Cool. I've always wanted a good singing voice. (provided of course I will get a good singing voice by the Great Maker) The chidish will elude me though, and that is sort of upsetting.

whynotajoke wrote "I read it yet I do not understand."

Exactly. That's the feeling of groping in the dark. Seeing nothing and therefore understanding nothing.

"The FOOL hath said in his heart that there is no God".

whynotajoke:

"Will I then get to speak the chidish?"

Probably not, but you might get to sing it.

Will I then get to speak the chidish?

whynotajoke:

"DO you speak the "chidish" that Joedbrown speaks? I read it yet I do not understand."

Seek not to understand. Repent, and be saved.
Also, balance your nutrition, get eight hours of sleep nightly, and exercise regularly.

"You mean you can't tell me what the alternatives are right?"

Of course I cannot. I am not insane nor do I speak the chidish.

You cannot tell me which bible is correct, not if the Koran or Talmud is correct...they were all written by some dudes wanting to explain things that go bump in the night.

I'm not so arrogant to say I am right or I am wrong. You however, have passed judgment based on your previous screed.

"While true Christians feel so fulfilled with that hidden treasure, the poor atheists are groping in the dark."

Only now do I understand.

DO you speak the "chidish" that Joedbrown speaks? I read it yet I do not understand.

If your reading habits are good, I should not have to tell you what the alternatives are.
Posted by: whynotajoke
________________________

You mean you can't tell me what the alternatives are right? Please, don't give me hypocritical appeals to reason. Reason itself is just an opinion, a preference, an escape under true atheism. Keep in mind atheism and reason are not synonymous.

I don't want to unneccesarily demean atheism. However, it is difficult to take seriously people who believe in a flat earth or green cheese on the moon and then weave a whole, reality denying, belief system out of that.

Ask yourself a simple question. What would the world be like today if atheism had been the major, moral building block of civilization for the last 4000 years?

"Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." (Mt.11:28)

"The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure buried in a field. When a man discovered it, he buried it again. He was so delighted with it that he went away, sold everything he had, and bought that field." (Mt.13:44)

I think these verses are self-explanatory. Christianity is a cure to suffering. Suffering do happen to everyone but most of it are due to stupidity and Christianity is a cure to stupidity.

While true Christians feel so fulfilled with that hidden treasure, the poor atheists are groping in the dark.

What is "chidish"? Is that some form of Yiddish combined with cheddar cheese?

I'm sorry if I upset you. I am deeply hurt by reducing you to name-calling. Who exactly is the hypocrite?

If your reading habits are good, I should not have to tell you what the alternatives are.

"I humbly propose the need for you to pick up a book other than the bible or whatever biblical/whatever text you've been reading.
There are alternatives to morality that do not stem from a god-like being.
Posted by: whynotajoke"
____________________________

Do you know me or my reading habits? Chidish, stupid and impolite.

What are the alternatives? Aren't they in the final analysis just someone's opinion? If there is no God or something bigger then us why shouldn't we do whatever gives us pleasure or sustenance irregardless of others or other considerations. Who cares about morality or the future? they don't exist. might makes right. If it feels good do it.

Atheism is silly. Don't add hypocrisy to it too.

"There is a fundamental problem with atheism when considered within the network of a culture or civilization. Once you remove God and religion you remove the basis for any shared, authoritative, ethic or morality."

I humbly propose the need for you to pick up a book other than the bible or whatever biblical/whatever text you've been reading.

There are alternatives to morality that do not stem from a god-like being.

There is a fundamental problem with atheism when considered within the network of a culture or civilization. Once you remove God and religion you remove the basis for any shared, authoritative, ethic or morality. If you are an honest atheist you must admit that in your world all values are equal. Just individual opinion. You can choose or pretend to live what is considered an ethical life as we understand it but you can choose not to with equal validity. The views of Hitler, Stalin, Ghandi or Mother Teresa are all of equal value.

As real atheists we eat, fight, mate, take what we want, when we want and then die. What else is there? Why bother to try and persuade others of the correctness of my beliefs or the incorrectness of theirs? Go for the gusto and when it becomes to hard blow your brains out. What does it matter, right?

As far as we know animals are honest atheists and live by the law of fang and claw. An honest atheist with the courage of their convictions would not be writing articles for the WPO and living a sedate bourgeois tax paying life.

Atheists are in the final analysis silly, cowardly people who cannot face up to the challenge of life. To rise through all of the misery and suffering to something better. The author might consider that the civilization that supports her and allows her to spew her drivel was built by people of faith and regulated, imperfectly, by rules based on that faith.

A very fine column. I think you've missed one central Judeo-Christian explanation for unearned bad fortune: Satan. The Jews & early Christians believed Satan ran the world (think of the story of Jesus' encounter with Satan in the wilderness, in which Satan promised Jesus earthly glory if Jesus would come over to his [Satan's] side), but God sometimes intervened on behalf of the good & sometimes made things worse if "his people" misbehaved.

The Constant Weader at www.RealityChex.com

Ms. Jacoby,

I respect your work a lot, even when I don't agree with what you say. The fact is without civility and many of the other things people argue about to start with, they could not have societies which allowed them to have religion. Often people become too easily tempted to put their spiritual cart before the dray horse of a tolerant civil society.

However, I seriously wonder how you managed to get all the way through this entirely otherwise well written piece without a single mention of Buddhist beliefs associated with suffering. There is theology there that would be at least of some utility in discussions about the nature of suffering, if nothing else as some contrast to Christian theology on the subject.

Well worded. But, you paint religious people (namely American Christians) with one broad brush. You lump them all in a very simplistic, inadequate, understanding of suffering. Trust me, not all Christians think of suffering this way.

One form that the oxymoronic notion of redemptive suffering takes bears heavily on international relations in the Near East: that Jews [Israel], who have suffered so much, should be more forgiving than the rest of us, Christian, atheist, Islamic, whatever, because they [Jews] of all people know how wrong it is to be punished for being who-you-are. The logic of that is laughable to Jews and horrible for the rest of us: it implies that we [the rest of us] should all be sent to the gas chambers, presumably by the Israelis, until some Christian-Crusade-in-Europe rescues a handful who have presumably become morally improved by their sufferings. In my limited experience, brutality brutalizes: it makes us worse, brutalizer and brutalized alike. "Redemptive suffering" is nothing but a pretext to permit the worst of us to perpetuate in a more humane world the barbarities of the periods that produced Christianity and Islam.

Doug-

Re: Your post

Below is my earlier post. I don't think we are that far apart:

"Actually, I don't know that Christianity founders on suffering. This is a "fallen world" for Christians. Suffering is not God's will. Rather, it is the way of the world.

Jews attribute suffering to the world's imperfection, since they don't hold with the "fall."

Of course, not all Christians and Jews think in these ways, but they are not at all uncommon. (In normative Judaism, the view I give predominates.)

And among Christians, I count Catholics, including our own TTWSY."

Posted by: FarnazMansouri | February 26, 2010 10:26 PM
-----------------------------

I'm not sure I follow your argument re your brother. I did not mean to say that we do not create problems for ourselves, that we are never responsible for our own misery.

A man who gambles away his fortune and then suffers in poverty may be said to have caused his own pain. That does not mean that we should not have compassion for him or not help him, I'm sure you will agree.

Farnaz wrote, "What troubles me is the view that we here and now cause our own suffering, that it is punishment from God".

If by that you mean that Haitians and Chileans brought about their own earthquake, I'm with you.

On the other hand, I had a brother, born to wealth and Christianity, whose character defects involved the use of cocaine and abusing children. In my 55 years I have not known another human being who felt more put upon, more that everything that went wrong in his life was the fault of people who had it in for him.

An argument could be made that my little family recollection has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I'd offer it as a case in point of what goes wrong when we adopt an ideology which holds that nothing bad that happens to us is our own fault.

Farnaz, I remembered the part about you being Jewish, not Muslim. I didn't catch the post of yours that you mention several times, but then again, I can't be sitting at my computer watching comment boxes 24 hours a day.

I didn't remember you mentioning before that you were a non-believer.

I enjoy reading your posts here, regarding you as one of the more thoughtful folks on the premises, and my own ideas are subject to revision any time I see a better argument. You're a likely source of that sort of revision.

I think I've about used up my column inches for the night!

Hi Douglas Barber,

You write:

First of all, it's not a necessary part of Christianity to see the victims of suffering as having brought about their own suffering through sin. That's a particular "Pat Robertson" style of Christianity that actually mimics the way the biblical author known as the "Deuteronomist" understood history.
-----------------------------
First, the reading you give for Deuteronomy is a Christian/Catholic literalist reading, not the reading of Judaism.
--------------------
"The broader Christian concept is that human selfishness created the context within which we suffer - a context I'd argue is mythologized under the rubric 'original sin.'"
-------------
In an earlier post, I pointed out that the Judaic understanding is that we suffer because we live in an imperfect world. The job of humans, per Judaism, is to perfect it, to heal it: "Tikkun Olam." This we do by reducing, ultimately ending, poverty, reducing illness, ending war and violence.

Christians/Catholics do, as you say, subscribe to the myth of Original Sin. (Jews, of course, do not.) As you say, and I acknowledged that in the same earlier post, many Christians/Catholics subscribe to the view that the world's imperfection stems from the "Fall" and is the cause of human suffering. That view is not far removed from Judaism, saving the notion of a Fall, of course.

What troubles me is the view that we here and now cause our own suffering, that it is punishment from God. Unfortunately, that view is evident on this thread.

At all events, Doug, I must remind you, I am not Muslim. Am an Iranian-American, born in Iran to a Jewish family. I am not a believer.

Farnaz

Ms. Jacoby--excellent work. Though I myself am generally a deist, I have tried several times to defend my atheist acquaintances/allies against those who label them hard and fast as evil devil-worshippers and felt as if I were trying to reason with rocks. (Of course, I'm not usually talking with those of more moderate tendencies in the first place, so I'm burdening myself with a disadvantage from the very start.)

I believe there are two kinds of knowing: you can know something with your body/mind, and you can know it with your heart/spirit. There are many areas that can overlap, and perhaps some that don't, depending on your POV, but I find each of value. I see that we can find validity in different routes, even if that truth is only on an individual scale of experience.

My heart aches when friends saddle themselves with the burden of "I'm suffering and therefore I must deserve this pain," "life is unfair and therefore God is too," or "I'm helpless and hope is futile." It's even worse to me when some take it to the extreme and simply submit unquestioningly to what they believe is ordained by God. However, I've discovered that while the fellow church members of my friend dying from ALS are saying, "God has a plan," they may be saying, "Let's not get hung up on the reasons for this--let's get on with what we can actually do about it."

I'm dumbfounded and outraged by those on the other side of Christianity who take pleasure in the idea that those who suffer must be atoning for their evil ways, and that's it's only right to stand back and chastise them--or promise aid only if they convert. Though I sometimes find brief comfort in thoughts of vengeance when I'm knee-deep in resentment, I believe more deeply in our inter-connectedness with all life, and in the inherent goodness of all, in some measure, no matter how small it may seem to us "mortals" from the outside.

In any case, the celebration of the redemptive suffering theory has hurt many believers as well as those who see it as their duty to punish "non-believers." It turns many away from the church/Abrahamic religions, and also turns them against each other. If my experience-based belief in the goodness of humankind makes me an outsider, so be it. I'll stand with the ethical atheists any day, knowing that they need no holy text to declare me worthy of their respect, compassion, and unrepentant love.

FarnazMansouri wrote, "The idea that we suffer because we have sinned is what gives rise to some of the worst bigotry, racism, and other forms of stupidity. It leads to the sort of pronouncement that Haitians were suffered because they had sinned, not because the earth quaked."

It's always good to see you commenting here Farnaz.

Let me take issue with your comment.

First of all, it's not a necessary part of Christianity to see the victims of suffering as having brought about their own suffering through sin. That's a particular "Pat Robertson" style of Christianity that actually mimics the way the biblical author known as the "Deuteronomist" understood history.

The broader Christian concept is that human selfishness created the context within which we suffer - a context I'd argue is mythologized under the rubric "original sin".

I also don't think it's odd that most posters here assume that Christianity is true, any more than it would be odd for people posting on the Tehran Times to assume that Islam is true.

You're a smart person Farnaz and you'll find the holes in my argument. I hope in the process I've made a point or two worth making. You be well!

God is too often viewed as The old Man in the Sky. Some bearded old fella who carves wooden things in his workshop and has his every thought on all seven billions egos and thats just the human number and that number is only on this earth.

How about the All Pervading God who is everyone.

When God realizers proclaim their Realization and it is authentic (their bodies are typically transcendent with Bliss or Love), what they are proclaiming in the birthright of every human being.

To transcend the human condition of attachment to the body-mind, which is inherently suffering, one must transcend the ego and realize what is always already the case - God.

Honestly, reading much of this thread, I do believe we are doomed. And God has nothing to do with it.

Ms. Jacoby clearly is a dilligent student of Christianity, and has thought long and hard about God. In that sense, she is closer to God than many, even those who claim to be "believers." Everything is in place for her conversion. Only the scales need to drop from her eyes. That is not something she will do herself - God will do it for her.

Ms. Jacoby will, before her life is over, have a great conversion - God will give her the grace of Faith.

I just hope we get to hear about it!!

Jesus C. did not die for you or for me or for anyone else. He suffered and died because one Pontius Pilate decided that rabble-rousers would not be tolerated during the Jewish Passover. PP could have simply sent Jesus C. to the salt mines and then where would Christian theology be?

Christianity if you look at it realistically was/is dependent on the free will of Pontius Pilate and should therefore be called "Pilate-anity". Some might say "Close to Stupidity". Some might even say "Almost But Not Quite Insanity".

The assumption with many of these posts is that God is some sort of Man in the Sky, rather like a carpenter making things and attending to every ego's whims and fancies, as well as all the billions of non-humans and thats only in this little slice of life on planet earth!

What about God as the very Substance of Everything. In and as the air we breathe.

But just not recognized as such? Yet.

This earth realm is known in Buddhism as the outer red-yellow realm, where lessons are short and hard.

The ego and its attachment to the body-mind and body-mind point of view (most of what is expressed on this board is body-mind point of view driven) must be Transcended.

To transcend something is to move or go beyond, not in denial but drawn into a condition that literally transcends the current condition. It is a Blissful State beyond this current condition.

That is called God Realization and has been practiced by a small number of people since ancient times.

It is the demand of life.

All will ulimately Realize God it just may take a while.

Among the many bizarre comments I've read here are those that equate God with Jesus Christ, as though one particular view of God is all their is.

The idea that we suffer because we have sinned is what gives rise to some of the worst bigotry, racism, and other forms of stupidity. It leads to the sort of pronouncement that Haitians were suffered because they had sinned, not because the earth quaked.

Christians should realize as well how highly contradictory their beliefs are. If the God they envision is so miserable, wretched, and bloodthirsty, as to send his son to us so that we may torture him to death, and then be forgiven our sins (?), how then, are we still born in sin?

Other kinds of stupidity this leads to? One of the greatest American writers, a creative genius, IMHO, proclaimed herself a
"Catholic writer," and, in fact, she was. Catholicism, at deep levels, informed her great work. Yet, this same writer stated that African Americans had suffered for our sins.

Others have said that "the Jews" [sic] have suffered for "our sins." AT whose hands did these folks suffer?

Suffering comes as a result of natural disaster, human immorality, mortality.
Better to realize you are in the same boat as everyone else. Better to realize that you are responsible for your fellow human. Better to realize that your job is to heal the world. Choose life.

Abhab,

Thee:
abhab1 | February 27, 2010 5:25 PM
"The whole logic around which the atheists, build their “cases” rests on the faulty assumption that what you do not see is not there. A scary ghost would disprove their premise and further put the fear of Jehovah in their hearts. Got it now or should I repeat it?"

On two occasions I have encountered what you might call "a scary ghost". Was I scared? In one case, YES. Didn't frighten me into Jehovah's arms though. It's a huge, wild cosmos out there; weird stuff happens. Jehovah himself is just part of the mondo bizarro.

I have also seen:

- a so-called "legendary" (I'd prefer the term "liminal") creature;

- kinetic activity of the sort typically attributed to a "poltergeist";

And, in case you're wondering, none of these experiences involved drug-use, drunkenness, auto-suggestion, or mental illness on my part.

In skimming the comments that came before this one (far too many to read all of them), I saw variations on the same two themes: (1) there is no God, suffering proves it, and it's foolish to say that suffering means anything; (2) God exists and suffering is somehow good for us. I am a Catholic Christian, and I don't believe either of those things.

Suffering is evil, horrible. I feel like only someone who has never really suffered or someone who is not completely honest with themselves could say otherwise.

I believe in God for intellectual reasons as well as reasons based on personal experience that reason alone cannot explain. And I believe that God is good, that he is love, and that he chose to become man and suffer with us out of compassion for the evil we experience, not to show us that we ought to like suffering for what it gets us.

Christianity (the only version that makes any sense to me) does not say that it is God's plan for children to die tragically or for a 60-year-old to lose her mind to Alzheimer's. That God allows these things to happen does not mean that he wants them to or makes them happen. (Also, that God restrains himself from controlling everything does not mean that he is somehow not all powerful.)

What Christianity says is that when our first parents sinned, the whole relationship of creation to its maker was torn, and into the good and suffering-free world that God intended and created, evil and suffering and death entered in.

Now we see two things side by side: evil and good, suffering and joy. Both are undeniably part of the human experience, each as real as the other. Jesus does not redeem suffering by making it good for us. He redeems it by making accessible to us a power of love and grace that is able to exist in spite of suffering and that even the worst suffering cannot snuff out. And in the end, that power will conquer evil and suffering once and for all.

As to why God does not simply make it so that there is no suffering in the first place, part of it has to do with the fact that he made us free to choose, and takes that freedom so seriously that he will not override it, even when we choose evil. Part of it is a mystery: God, who loves us, has reason to believe that allowing good and evil to exist side by side for a time is worth the suffering, will produce in the end something worth suffering for.

In order to conclude that God does not exist because you cannot possibly imagine what that reason could be, you must be willing to claim that you know everything God could know and are able to see the problem more clearly. As a religious person, I acknowledge that there is much I do not know and cannot understand. I believe that someone exists who does know everything and understands all things clearly, and that this someone sent his son Jesus Christ to show us that suffering, terrible as it is, does not have the last word.

Why does WAPO give Susan Jacoby such a frequent platform to espouse her faith online. She has faith, its that there is no God. And that takes a lot of faith. Even Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawkins believe there is a God.

And furthermore, where are the comments from people like Rick Warrens, or Joel Olsteen, Max Lucado and others? Its always intellectual atheism with the post. WAPO does a poor job of reaching out to faith groups to participate in the "Religion" section.

Christians believe that suffering is a result of human wrongdoing.

I find that easier to believe than the story that hydrogen atoms in a vacuum have a tendency to develop into things like the retina, lens and optic nerve of the human eye, or the cochlea of the human ear, by way of supernovae - and that is essentially the atheist's explanation for all that we experience.

Re: The comment about atheistic nations such as under Stalin.....
The people who carry out the orders of the dictators are usually not atheists, they just live under a regime that denies them the right to publicly practice their religion. So most atrocities were commited by believers, even in so-called atheistic states.
My father's family was taken by the Red Army from Poland to Siberia where they were kept for 2 years. The Red Army was full of believers, not atheists. Believers are much better at following orders.

I am one of those people suffering an incurable and debilitating disease, and find no answer in the 'God has a plan for your disease' platitude.
It seems to me that a loving and caring G-d, would by the very nature of that love wipe out the disease and suffering of humanity, yet for all the platitudes and piousness, Monotheists cannot explain evil and its concomitant consequences.
I find the very idea of a loving and caring G-d, to be a legend that has no basis in fact and it is not one which I choose to believe in.
I do not fault others for their faith, yet I cannot see how someone can take at face value the ideal of a loving and caring G-d, who allows suffering, even redemptive suffering. This is not a moral or even theological question, but one which must be
answered logically and with forthright honesty. You cannot say logically that a loving and caring G-d would allow a child's
death and then on the other hand say that the child was pre-destined to die for 'some
reason' known only to G-d.
How dare man presume to know the mind of something that does not exist and cannot be proven, platitudes and piousness cannot answer the age old questions of existence and substance. We must as a society move away from the crutch of G-d, to one of logical and rational thinking. To think that there is a bearded and wise being who destroys life based upon a whim is to ascribe to that being willful and harmful power which in the true sense of the word does not exist and cannot exist by reason of logic and fact.

The pre-eminent atheistic nation of our time was the Soviet Union, founded on the ethic of equality and social justice. In due time the NKVD, the KGB and the gulags became the true legacy of Lenin and Stalin, atheistic substitutes for God. 100 million human beings were sacrificed on the altar of atheistic materialism. Stalin cynically commented that to make an omelet you must break some eggs. How often has Susan spoken out against the atrocities of Fidel Castro- how often did she criticize Pol Pot or Ho Chi Minh or Ciaucescu or any of the many more atheistic tyrants of our time? Or did Susan praise those men and find in them hope for the changes she and her fellows believed would flow from the teachings of Karl Marx? In order to properly evaluate atheism one must first evaluate how it has operated in the real world of human beings and not merely in the fanatical minds of true believers- in nothingness.

Absolutely one of the best articles I've ever read.

Thank you Susan for telling it exactly as it is.

50%off ca,ed hardy t-shirt$15 jeans,coach handbag$33,air max90,dunk,polo t-shirt$13,,lacoste t-shirt $13 air jordan for

sale,$35,nfl nba jersy for sale

free shipping
accept paypal credit card
lower price fast shippment with higher quality

our website: http://www.b2b2.us

I agree. Suffering to me, is a signal transmitted by my body to my mind telling me something is wrong, physically or emotionally.

Suffering to someone suffering from religion however, means something different in some cases, and is a signal to me that they are a little bit off..

50%off ca,ed hardy t-shirt$15 jeans,coach handbag$33,air max90,dunk,polo t-shirt$13,,lacoste t-shirt $13 air jordan for

sale,$35,nfl nba jersy for sale

free shipping
accept paypal credit card
lower price fast shippment with higher quality

our website: http://www.b2b2.us

lower price fast shippment with higher quality
BEST QUALITY GUARANTEE!!

SAFTY & HONESTY GUARANTEE!!

FAST & PROMPT DELIVERY GUARANTEE!!

Packing: All the products are packed with original boxes and tags also retro cards/ code
numder

Features: AAA QUALITY, COMPETITIVE PRICE AND SERVICE
1) The goods are shipping by air express, such as EMS,the shipping time is in 5-7 business days
2) They are in stock now;
3) Various styles and color for clients' choice
4) The Products are fit for most people, because of our wholesale price

ugg45$ puma gucci$35,nike jordans six ring,yeezy$%5!!

new era caps$13 gucci handbags jeans,t-shirts sunglass,caps

true religion jeans$35,ca,ed hardy jeans$35,nfl jerseys$20

LV,CHANAL,HANDBAGS$35

NIKE SHOX+AIR MAX+TL3+OZ+NZ ONLY $35

UGG TIMBLAND+LACOSTE SHOES+ED HARDY SHOES$35

DIESEL T-SHIRT,GSTAR T-SHIRT,CA T-SHIRT,50% OFF FOR SALE $15

DIOR SUNGLASS,DG SUNGLASS$15

our website: http://www.b2b2.us

Sometimes when billions of minds over thousands of years intently ponder a question and reach no consensus, there's something wrong with the question.

Suffering is a brute fact for human beings and undoubtedly for countless other living organisms (though only dogs and cats seem capable of whining as loudly and often as people). You might as well ask what is the meaning of rocks, or of sodium chloride, or of the moon.

"If someone could define the term "meaning" as it is used in phrases like "the meaning of suffering" it would greatly advance this conversation."
Religion says that suffering is done for a reason, to give something meaning if you will. See below.

1.)That which Jesus did (or had done to him) to save us from ourselves.
2.)That which other do to save us from each other. (Military, Preachers (esp. TV Types))
3.)Childbirth.

Why should any suffering have any rhyme or reason to it? Why are we so egotistic to feel that every occurrence under the sun has to have some positive meaning for all of those involved? Answer: Faith is nothing but Ego under a facade of humility. Susan has the most simple, and humble position on human suffering and grief - cause no harm, do no harm, and ease the suffering without expecting any form of reward here or in an afterlife- and she is just an atheist.

WoW! Huge number of comments! But they all view the world through a monotheistic lens where morals emanate from God. The world, however, contains possibly more than five thousand religions,a significant fraction of which are found only in New Guinea. They are not all written down and only major religions have a holy book like the Bible, Koran, or Baghavad-Gita. The interesting thing is that the moral teachings of all the major religions share many features in common, one of them being the prohibition against murder. The explanation is not that all these different gods got together and decided what morality ought to be but simply human nature we are born with. More specifically, we have the ability to put ourselves in another person's place called empathy. It starts with a three-year old when they acquire a "theory of mind," the ability to understand what others are thinking. And surely the maternal care instinct of mammals which has survival value utilizes this same ability as well. For us humans it is part of our biological inheritance, the glue that holds society together. And here is the answer to why an atheist does not become a murderer if there is no God: morality does not come from God but is an expression of inherited human nature, a product of evolution that produced human society. The fact that social behavior is biologically based can be verified by a study of autism. It is a brain defect that comes in different degrees of severity, from totally non-verbal to a just slightly nerdish personality. Some of those who are verbal have special abilities, may even be highly educated, but all report inability to understand normal human interactions. Temple Grandin, one of the best-known and talented of them, reports having to learn a simple thing like how to open and close a door in the presnce of crowds! It is this cluster of inherited behaviors that is the origin of moral codes. It is far older than any of the holy books, older than our species itself. When religion developed it simply built upon the existing infrastructure codified in customs and this is why the major religions have many parallels today. All this in the absense of god(s).

What is to keep me from murdering someone? Simple human kindness, and knowing that what goes around comes around. The golden rule perhaps? The ability to get along with one another was with us before the bible, an the ability to read and write.

Buddhists don't believe in God per se, but you don't see them going around murdering people willy nilly do you?

If someone could define the term "meaning" as it is used in phrases like "the meaning of suffering" it would greatly advance this conversation.

I have no idea what people mean by the term in that context. "End toward which suffering is directed by some conscious being"? "What suffering actually brings about?" "Benefit of suffering?" "Conscious purpose which caused suffering to happen?" These are quite different things and any of them could sloppily be meant by "meaning of suffering".

I care nothing for arguments about the existence, or lack thereof, of God.

I care about how people treat others.

People who have strong ethical beliefs that distinguish good and bad behavior and favor the former seem to me to be better people.

Hence the question which you refuse to answer: "Without religion, what's to keep you from commiting murder?"

Existentialism seems cool when you are young. Get some experience under your belt and it doesn't look so hot. Ethics needs to be grounded in something.

God gave my mother sepsis and she died. Thank you Lord God for allowing your only begotten son to die on the cross so that you could give my mother this painful disease and die after suffering needlessly.

The Lord works in mysterious ways, and that mysterious way still alludes my discovery. I pray that God/Jesus/whoever, does not give me this hideous malady.

I'm still trying to figure out how freewill was involved, but I must only assume that my mother prayed that God work in his mysterious ways to give her sepsis.

'Could a person born blind or color-blind have the right to say light/colors don't exist?'

Colors don't exist - they're an illusion. So imagine all the blind people that have been given a total bill of goods by sighted folks with good intentions!

And so it goes for religion........pure illusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum

Jfprog pontificates to me that the difference between waves we see and do not see is the wavelength. Fine! Yet even though the TV electromagnet waves are not part of the visible spectrum yet we know it is there because of its effect on a TV screen. You missed that point. As for ghosts they are there even if some of us do not see them. What does all that has to do with the subject of redemption? The whole logic around which the atheists, build their “cases” rests on the faulty assumption that what you do not see is not there. A scary ghost would disprove their premise and further put the fear of Jehovah in their hearts. Got it now or should I repeat it?

BELIEVEANDRECEIVE:

I would never suggest that you do not have the right to indulge your delusions. But when you are able to prove the existence of god, then you will have something to talk about. Until then, not so much.

Harold Kushner's book did not say to me anything close to SCHAUM's interpretation. God gave man free will and nature free will also so to speak. Bad things happen because of man's free will and/or nature's free will. God does not plan, cause or desire all the pain and suffering in the world. But He is there to help us through it. That is what I got out of "When Bad Things Happen to Good People".

You may also want to read Dr. George Docherty's "Under God" Sermon with an open mind. The sermon can be found at the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church's web site (of Washington, D.C.).

Thank you YEAL9 for posting. I had not read the book you mention but appreciate it being said another way. "........From Father Edward Schillebeeckx's book, Church: The Human Story of God,
Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)
"Christians (and others) must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history" .
"Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices. Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."..."

THE NATURE OF ATHEISM BY DEDUCTION (13)
Note similarities between WORLD1 and WORLD4. Both are populated by creatures with free will and in neither world does god causally determine people to always choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong. The only difference is that, in WORLD1, the free creatures choose to do wrong at least some of the time, and in WORLD4, the free creatures always make morally good decisions. In other words, whether there is immorality in either one of these worlds depends upon the persons living in these worlds—not upon god. According to Plantinga’s Free Will Defense, there is evil and suffering in this world because people do immoral things. People deserve the blame for the bad things that happen—not god. The essential point of the Free Will Defense is that the creation of a world containing moral good is a cooperative venture; it requires the uncoerced concurrence of significantly free creatures. But then the actualization of a world W containing moral good is not up to god alone; it also depends upon what the significantly free creatures of W would do.

THE NATURE OF ATHEISM BY DEDUCTION (12)

The fact that WORLD is impossible is important to Plantinga’s Free Will Defense. Atheologians, as I wrote above, claim that god is doing something morally blameworthy by allowing evil and suffering to exist in our world. They charge that a good god would and should eliminate all evil and suffering. The assumption behind this charge is that, in so doing, god could leave human free will untouched. Plantinga claims that when we think through what robust free will really amounts to, we can see that atheologians are asking god to do the logically impossible. Being upset that god has not done something that is logically impossible is, according to Plantinga, misguided. He might say, “Of course he hasn’t done that. It’s logically impossible!” Plantinga maintains that divine omnipotence involves an ability to do anything that is logically possible, but it does not include the ability to do the logically impossible.

Consider WORLD4. Is it possible? Yes! Most people are tempted to answer “No” when first exposed to this description, but think carefully about it. Although there is no evil and suffering in this world, it is not because god causally determines people in every situation to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong. In this world god has given creatures morally significant free will without any strings attached. If there is nothing bad in this world, it can only be because the free creatures that inhabit this world have—by their own free will—always chosen to do the right thing. Is this kind of situation really possible? Yes. Something is logically possible just when it can be conceived without contradiction. There is nothing contradictory about supposing that there is a possible world where free creatures always make the right choices and never go wrong. Of course, it’s highly improbable, given what we know about human nature. But improbability and impossibility are two different things. In fact, according to the judeo-christer story of Adam and Eve, it was god’s will that significantly free human beings would live in the Garden of Eden and always obey God’s commands. If Adam and Eve had followed God’s plan, then WORLD4 would have been the actual world in which we now live.

"The concept of self-sacrifice and martyrs are central to Christianity. Often found in Catholic and Orthodox Christianity is the idea of joining one's own sufferings to the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Thus one can offer up involuntary suffering, such as illness, or purposefully embrace suffering in acts of penance, such as fasting.

Some Protestants criticize this as a denial of the all-sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice, but it finds support in St. Paul: "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church" (Col 1:24). Pope John Paul II explained in his Apostolic Letter Salvifici Doloris (11 February 1984):

"In the Cross of Christ not only is the Redemption accomplished through suffering, but also human suffering itself has been redeemed...Every man has his own share in the Redemption. Each one is also called to share in that suffering through which the Redemption was accomplished...In bringing about the Redemption through suffering, Christ has also raised human suffering to the level of the Redemption. Thus each man, in his suffering, can also become a sharer in the redemptive suffering of Christ...The sufferings of Christ created the good of the world's redemption. This good in itself is inexhaustible and infinite. No man can add anything to it. But at the same time, in the mystery of the Church as his Body, Christ has in a sense opened his own redemptive suffering to all human suffering" (Salvifici Doloris 19; 24).

On the other hand:

Jesus C. did not die for you or for me or for anyone else. He suffered and died because one Pontius Pilate decided that rabble-rousers would not be tolerated during the Jewish Passover. PP could have simply sent Jesus C. to the salt mines and then where would Christian theology be?

Christianity if you look at it realistically was/is dependent on the free will of Pontius Pilate and should therefore be called "Pilatianity".

THE NATURE OF ATHEISM (10)

It is important to note that (A) directly conflicts with a common assumption about what kind of world god could have created. Many atheologians believe that god could have created a world that was populated with free creatures and yet did not contain any evil or suffering. Since this is something that god could have done and since a world with free creatures and no evil is better than a world with free creatures and evil, this is something god should have done. Since he did not do so, god did something blameworthy by not preventing or eliminating evil and suffering (if indeed God exists at all). In response to this charge, Plantinga maintains that there are some worlds god cannot create. In particular, he cannot do the logically impossible. (A) claims that God cannot get rid of much of the evil and suffering in the world without also getting rid of morally significant free will. Is god’s omnipotence compatible with the claim that god cannot do the logically impossible?

Consider the following descriptions of various worlds. We need to determine which ones describe worlds that are logically possible and which ones describe impossible worlds. The worlds described will be possible if the descriptions of those worlds are logically consistent. If the descriptions of those worlds are inconsistent or contradictory, the worlds in question will be impossible.

WORLD1: (a) God creates persons with morally significant free will;
(b) God does not causally determine people in every situation to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong; and
(c) There is evil and suffering in W1.

WORLD2: (a) God does not create persons with morally significant free will;
(b) God causally determines people in every situation to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong; and
(c) There is no evil or suffering in W2.

WORLD3: (a) God creates persons with morally significant free will;
(b) God causally determines people in every situation to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong; and
(c) There is no evil or suffering in W3.

WORLD4: (a) God creates persons with morally significant free will;
(b) God does not causally determine people in every situation to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong; and
(c) There is no evil or suffering in W4.

XAVISEV:

"The fact you don't understand something doesn't give you the right to declare it a myth/nonsense."

The question is not whether something is "understood". The question is whether something can be proven to exist. god cannot be proven to exist. Without evidence, atheists decline to follow you into your delusion.

"Could a person born blind or color-blind have the right to say light/colors don't exist?"

He certainly has the right to say they don't exist. There is no way to prove to him that they do. For him, they don't. Prove that they exist for you. Can you do that?

susan,
you listed "figure skating" among the sports you like.

on somewhat of a tangent from your main point i would say figure skating DOES NOT BELONG IN THE OLYMPICS. sure, it's lovely to watch, i suppose (though not for me...), and no doubt the participants are great athletes, and what they do is difficult, but it's not "faster, higher, stronger" - there's a judge...whose opinion matters...

one event that really annoys me is ski jumping. that seems like a perfect event to "measure" but, no, they've got "style points" - that's totally crazy. it should be whoever jumps the farthest...oh brother...style points....sheesh.

btw, i feel the same way about gymnastics, toilet-paper dancing, and diving in the summer olympics.

The fact you don't understand something doesn't give you the right to declare it a myth/nonsense.

Could a person born blind or color-blind have the right to say light/colors don't exist?

Glob Alone:

"A better question might be, "what stops you from becoming addicted to pornography and damaging your ability to be a good husband or father?""

A better question would be "what was to stop Jimmy Swaggart, or Jim Bakker, or Oral Roberts or Ted Haggard, or the pedophile priests in the US, or the christer abuses of so many in Ireland? Shall I go on?

BOBMOSES:

"Why is the dominant voice on "OnFaith" a militant atheist?"

Idiot. This is "Spirited ATHEIST". Did you expect to find mormons? Do you not have mental health services on your home planet?

Why is the dominant voice on "OnFaith" a militant atheist?

mssnatchquatch:

Interesting point. All Bloger's, not bots, here or there need to understand that "UNJUSTIFIABLE-HOMICIDE" or unjust hurting or plain wronging (after all, there is a guilty conscious; but some are too cold or closed to feel or see "IT" within) someone else either via JEALOUSY (please revisit that definition) or for whatever ulterior reason has nothing to do with "MY GOD" thinking nor believing.

"IT"s about that almighty "FEELING(S)" which is inseparable and is majestically attached to ones own "Conscious", less GUILT(S) beyond a mere throbbing Heart. To me, Experience is Immortal. Not even god can destroy it, not take it away from oneself. Your stuck with "IT" and yo haven't a choice, but one might have or get a CHANCE to get better, improve, learn etc... That's what makes LIFE/Living so Lovingly beautiful.

Therefore; old-time , middle-time or new-time RELIGION "IT"s all in ones Head, not heart. and there's an innate Constitution awareness in each and every one of us Human-beings, a/k/a Grown ZYGOTE's or upright/Walking developed Sperms. Everyone is born with religion, only they don't know "IT"!

And "IT" says, that the Laws of "IT"s Nature are the Laws of the CREATOR, and the Creator, A/K/A/ "IT" or call IT GOD, never ever breaks its own LAW(s). Only alive Bloger/Human tends to break his/her own living Constitution. So, go ahead and Kill in the name of "MY GOD" belief, Faith, Religion?

And there is one important but undeniable reality worth mentioning: "IT" knows ALL, and there's No escape but via "HOPE" where HOPE ,like Atheism or Secularism or Agnosticism, whatever, is also a old-time and or a New-time RELIGION for US. Then

Believe in "IT" or be forever lost (un-like in the Series/Movies "LOST"; only this is REAL!). Enjoy while "IT"s splendor lasts. Last TIME!

IYes, Susan, you who answers only questions you think you can answer, suffering has no purpose - sort of like WORK, no sense in doing that either, is there. How about communication. What's the point of that, Susan? People engaging in debates trying to get their points across, well, that's no different than these apes that you say have these complex moral codes , and trees, they have complex moral codes, too, we just can't understnd them but we know that rain has a complex moral code, and the reason we know that, and don't have to answer questions, is because we're atheists, and Quinn and Meacham have turned the "ON Faith" forum into an "Off Faith "forum, so that Susan doesn't have to answer questions that offend her because she has a complex moral code........like an ape. But boy is she 'blessed' to be able to rant in the "On Faith" venue and be indignant about questions. Kinda like a recently elected leader of the free world. Yep, Susan, certain kinds of questions are "illegitimate" if you are your own God.

I am sympathetic to Monty Keeling's argument that suffering is redemptive, because those who suffer treat other people better than those who don't. I too lost a young brother, and can identify with that pain. But I don't believe that just to make us better people on average, that some people have to outright suffer more than we do, and indeed be sacrificed, as my younger brother was if I believe Keeling. That just does not make sense.
It is all random.

These arguments can go on forever without reaching a useful conclusion, but I cannot agree with Dotherightthing when they say:

" It turns out the parents have knowledge and insight unfathomable by the children - THAT is how our all-loving God is easily reconciled to the horrors of the material world."

We have heard this argument many times before, and I do not know how it could possibly sound reasonable to anyone who thinks about it for more than a second or two.

The argument is that God's intellect is so far above ours (he is God, after all, so it's easy to imagine any type of infinite ability) that in comparison, we are like the two-year old, who yelps at the pain of a vaccination, unable to comprehend that it is for their own good. Well, if there is some good to hundreds of thousands being killed in a natural disaster, I think the adult human intellect is certainly at a level where it could be explained to us.

But the truth is that there is no reasonable explanation, other than blind, non-intelligent physical forces. When in an earthquake one person is killed and another survives, it is because, the latter is lucky enough to be inches away from a falling beam or chunk of concrete, and the former isn't. To think that God has meticulously arranged these events as part of a grand overall plan cannot be taken seriously. Such a god would not be like a loving parent, but more like a cat playing with a mouse before killing it. And if I believed that I truly would despair. The only reason we ever believed such things is due to our previous ignorance. Yes an earthquake is truly a mystery to those who have never heard of plate tectonics.

"that's what stops us atheists from committing crimes and doing horrible things, not futuristic consequences that somebody wrote in a book about the afterlife"

Christians have no more or less desire to go to prison than anyone else in the world, so I'm not sure what that answer really means.

A better question might be, "what stops you from becoming addicted to pornography and damaging your ability to be a good husband or father?"

As a disabled, retired pastor, who deals with suffering on a daily basis, who had an eight-year-old brother die horribly of leukemia when I was a high school junior, I've pondered and prayed a lot about the question of God and suffering. Because I believe in a loving God there can be, from what I can recognize, only one of two answers. Either God is not all powerful or there is a redemptive reason for suffering.

We know from research that people who suffer are far more likely to help others who suffer. My own personal experience is that, depending on how we react to our own suffering, we either become more loving people, or more hardened in our relationships with others.

Also I hold that Jesus showed us that God suffers also. In fact God suffers right along with us.

In this life we have no choice but to suffer. Our only choice is how will respond to our suffering and the suffering of others. And that choice is the main stuff of what religious people call faith.

Monty Keeling

"If you don't believe in God, what's to stop you from committing murder?"

I can't believe nobody has given what appears to me to be an obvious answer.

I don't wanna go to jail.

Real human consequences set by real humans in the world we're in now - that's what stops us atheists from committing crimes and doing horrible things, not futuristic consequences that somebody wrote in a book about the afterlife.

Wow. I did it again. This post was meant as the last installment on Mr. David Waters blog. Please excuse Us.

Oh, Mr. Waters and Company, I forgot;

You also said, whether you was conscious of it or not , "Replace the phrase "inherently religious" -- which is so misunderstood -- with the phrase "explicitly religious."

Please tell those 3-guy's floating above your blog(Angels: McCain, Warren & Obama) that wherever they see the "PHRASE" or word "God", in any Man-made or god-made books (Zondorvan, Stone Edition, New international Version, KJV etc..) ,should, in all-Reality be "REPLACED" with the word "IT". No it's or buts about it.

And wherever you or they see the word "HE" or "HIM" therein inscribed, it too should be "REPLACE" with the "PHRASE" or word "IT" wherever.

Then everything will and suddenly becomes so so very clear, no mud, no smoke, to all such lovers or worshipers of not only the Sun, but "GOD" itself.

Imagine if every Holy-Book was replaced, in any language, with that almighty word "IT" instead of "GOD" being either a "HE" or a "HIM", even a "SHE" or "HER"?

Example: So "IT" said, "LET THERE BE....!" "IT" is Love! "IT" is always there when yo need "IT" (not Him, not God). Understood?

So this world needs "IT'S - Bible" based on being "ITSELF" in and out of US All. Not a "HE" not a "SHE" No Exceptions!

IT just takes a little getting used to. And Time is the best medicine. Note: Bending someone else's, man-made or their-gods-Law, is not like breaking our IT's real Laws. Yes, No, Nobody knows?

You are as cunning as the Serpent that fooled or tempted EVE and ADAM into thinking that gods law can be bent, but not broken for the sake of Humanity?

In This way, this world or planet, which itself is limited, will become a better-place to Love and live in graciously. "IT" was under yo noses all this time. So, now you know, and you and Company (God Players) can never again be in denial to this new-REVEALATION, if you will.

Says Abhab1: "Many atheists who claim to be avid followers of the scientific method of investigation cannot deny the existence of TV electromagnetic waves" . Uh, the only difference between the "TV electromagnetic waves" and the electromagnetic waves with which we all actually see is the frequency. Likewise gamma rays, infrared rays (heat), Xrays, etc. all being EM waves of different frequencies. So your examole of believing something we can't see is not very good. We see by exactly such things.

Ghosts, on the other hand, not so much. And even if there were such, what has that to do with this article?

Any Mets fan ought to be an atheist. The thought of a merciless supreme being allowing such feckless play in the shadow of the Bronx Bombers is a cruelty too great to ascribe to Providence.

An atheist does not believe in a God. As a first step in believing in someone whom we do not see is to believe in the existence of things that we do rarely see. Many atheists who claim to be avid followers of the scientific method of investigation cannot deny the existence of TV electromagnetic waves; even they do not see them. To roundup their education I hope such people would encounter at least one ghost of the scary type.

What stop an atheist from committing musder? It's in our genes.
Millions years ago, many our ancestors recognized that it come to their family and their clan benefit to practice the ethic of reciprocity, both in the positive and the negative form. Eventualy this ethic got inbedded in their genes. Eventually it was extended to all humans.

Read your history and ask yourself the question which is more likely. I don't believe in God, therefore I must go and kill someone or I believe in God, therefore I must go and kill someone. The ratio must be about 99 to 1 in favor of the later.

Maybe it's just inevitable that most religious people will express their experience in terms of redemption and mitigation. It doesn't necessarily follow that they believe reason is inferior to emotion. There is another way of thinking in which, in religious terms, light is knowledge and reason is the light of God. I'm not an atheist, but I agree with you that it is our responses to suffering that have meaning. I too am repelled when people attribute horrors and suffering to "God's will", but I cannot be repelled that they find meaning in experience, whatever the terms they use to describe it.

I say I'm not an atheist because of my personal interpretation of my own experience, not "faith", but I'm not conventionally religious, either. I would no more try to convince you that some kind of god existed than I would try to convince a religious person that it didn't. Finding meaning in experience is our moral and ethical response to it, atheist or not. I can't shake the feeling that the rhetoric of both "sides", the insufficiency of language, often creates a false divide. I have that feeling often when I read your column - and thank you, truly, for that. The myriad religious beliefs really necessitate that the conversation about meaning be had in secular terms - and finding meaning is what it's all about. No meaning would be true despair for me - and the ultimate demotion of reason.

Suffering and death are a mystery, but no more a mystery than life. These do not stop a believer because a believer sees and feels a spirit and power that moves through all things. You quoted an existential theologian. Here is another one: Gabriel Marcel said that life is a mystery to be lived, not a problem to be solved. We will never be able to answer it all. Walt Whitman, when asked if he believed in infinity, said that infinity is what he saw all around him.

I would be very afraid of anyone whose only reason for not killing (or worse) was his or her belief in a "god" as the corollary for this is killing (or worse) in the name of this same "god." We see this evidenced everyday mostly in the god of Abraham based religions. From the "pro-life" murder of doctors and the prevention of proper health care to the religious warfare in the Middle East, from the aiding and abetting of pedophilia by the Catholic Church to Irish "Christian" terrorists; on and on in the name of a non-existent "god" as interpreted to the congregation's by the self-chosen human interface to "god."

Most suffering, throughout the ages (in the West) has been directly related to how humans treat others of which various forms of "Christianity" has been in the forefront as exemplified by the Inquisition, the Dark Ages, and the excommunication of the medical professionals that saved a 9-year olds life by aborting the twins she was carrying after being raped by her stepfather. If we remove suffering directly cased by religion, we remove the single greatest source of suffering. If we remove the ancillary suffering caused by religion, (such as the anti-science, self-serving delusions) we can go a great ways to alleviating the suffering of all the beings that inhabit our small planet.

To claim that without a belief in a god belies morality has been quite clearly proven false. Unfortunately, as long as faith trumps reason, we are dooming ourselves to the on-going suffering created by a completely unsubstantiated belief in a god of Abraham.

Shaum's posted circumambulations remind me of the rhetorical "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
But of course man invented the pin.

"Since I don't have any statistical analysis on the correlation between atheists and murderers, I guess I will just ask: Is anyone aware of any such study or set of dat that would allow one to make such a correlation?"

Athiests are probably less likely to commit murder on a per-capita basis. An athiest is likely to be better educated than a non-athiest, and education is highly correllated with wealth. Both poverty and ignorance are posively correllated with murder.

Relgious belief as a deterrent to murder might be as ineffective as education though. An example is Dr. Amy Bishop, the Harvard-educated biologist who recently killed three colleagues. Harvard book learnin' did not change her. When some people become so insane that they will kill, then no amount of education or faith will stop them.

What about mass-murderers? On the other end of the spectrum, we can tally the deaths due to religious crusades against those caused by the likes of Hitler and Stalin. In the former instances, religion justifies the killing. In the latter, logic, justice, and social progress are used to rationalize killing. Regardless of the source of the justification, humans seem to kill each other a lot.

Instructor5

I liked what you said.

In my previous comment, I may have expressed myself a little awkwardly and clincally.

I know a lot of Christians. They are not at all like the Christians who often post on this forum. Many of the Christians who post here promote their many specialized theologies in defiance and anger.

Theology is not what people turn to in times of suffering. Theology, to me, is simply navel-gazing, a sort of puzzle-solving, like working a cross-word puzzle. It is an intellecutual pursuit that challenges people in times of mental repose. But that is not what is behind basic religious belief, and that is not what people worry over in times of stress, trouble, or grief.

Among many Christians, the appeal of their relgion is simply and merely a sense of deep empathy for Christ, whose suffering was like their own.

hello.

The problem of suffering is simple.

Suffering is an integral part of the our expereince; we expience existence as an aspect of an organized existence, which is to say, as conscious beings; and we exist as complexly put-together bodies, in a delicate and fragile state of equlibrium, which eventually comes undone.

Suffering has not been admitted or allowed into the world to test us or punish us. Suffering is not a separate thing, from ourselves or from the world; suffereing is an integral consequence of the defining nature of all existence, which includes ourselves.

Conversations about God or atheism are irrelevant against the fact of suffereing. Neither the fact of suffering, nor wishing it away, is a question of what God might do to us or for us or what the non-existence of God might mean. In their personal confrontation with suffereing, people come up with many ways to cope with it.

Belief in a loving God that will reward us later is one way to think. Promoting this way of thinking as an organized and proselytizing religion veers away from the problem of suffereing, and goes off into the direction of politics, power, and control.

Yet back to the problem at hand: suffering, Navin is right; to bannish suffering from the world would transform us into beings different than we are, and isn't that frightening? Without danger, we would not be alert and conscious; without worry, our feelings of love and attachment for others, even for our children, parents, siblings, spouses, would be calmer and would even go quiet.

With just minimal speculation, we can see how intractable is the problem of bannishing suffering, from the world, yet maintianing ourselves in it as we are, in a happy state.

When I say that we cannot wish suffering away, I mean, in a philsophical sense, that as a fundamental condtion of human experience, we all must suffer. I so not mean that the individual experience of suffering should be simply endured, or merely ignored.

For that is the true problem, how to manage our lives in a world of suffering, how to cope with personal suffering, how to react to the suffering of others, how to forsee, prevent, or delay suffering.

For many people, the personal experience of suffering enables a deep empathy for the suffering of others.

I believe that in the journey through life, that people experience varying degrees of suffering, but after a point, the difference is difficult to tell, only that it is very great for each of us. How can you judge the difference betwee 20 tons of suffering and 50 tons of suffering?

Since I don't have any statistical analysis on the correlation between atheists and murderers, I guess I will just ask: Is anyone aware of any such study or set of dat that would allow one to make such a correlation?

It seems to me that if you believe that an atheist is more likely to commit murder than someone who believes in a Supreme Deity, you should be able to call forth data to support that. I have seen a great many perpetrators of evil acts that are literally soaked with religious zeal. One of the more recent acts of mass murder--the attack on 9-11-2001--was committed by people who believed they were carrying out the will of their God.

I suspect that the propensity for such violence and evil is fairly equally distributed between the atheists and the true believers.

Jacoby: "If a child has been brutalized by a parent and grows up to become a good parent, that is a moral triumph for the child--but it does not endow the original suffering with positive meaning or with any meaning."

Susan seems to take lightly the "moral triumph" of the child abuse victim who grows up to be a good parent.

Regarding the parents who have lost children, the question is not just about the suffering of the children, but also the suffering of the parents. How will they relate to their own suffering? Some believers will be angry at God.

Many Christian believers in the midst of prolonged trauma may believe that they have been abandoned by God. Many atheists who have been traumatized may lose the reasonable compass by which they have steered their moral lives.

For believers, the question of recovery might be: How can I believe God loves me? Where was God in the midst of my suffering?

Belief in redemptive suffering might be a way that some Christians work through their own suffering. But when other Christians try to "help" the victims by telling them to believe it, they are not being helpful. Many times they are uncomfortable with the suffering of others.

Jacoby: "Good may emerge from evil, but evil and suffering are more likely to breed more evil and suffering." Is this an empirical statement supported by evidence, or is it an atheist's belief?

As a Christian who has PTSD from child abuse and other prolonged childhood suffering, the challenge for me is how do I respond to the call of Jesus, "Pick up your cross and follow me." What does follow me mean? Seek first the kingdom of God.

from "Invisible Heroes: Survivors of Trauma and How They Heal" by B. Naperstek. "Scientists, theologians, and mystics would have to agree that people suffering from post-traumatic stress face extraordinary emotional hardship and an unsettling loss of identity, safety, trust, and meaning.....Hope has to come from somewhere, once the normal hope-carrying avenues have melted away. For this reason many people lean hard on their faith or return to it for support. Most will seek out some form of spiritual sustenance, even those who barely believe it exists."

"...some form of prayer or ritual, regularly practiced, that invokes larger forces to come and assist with healing, can be a huge help....For those who have a more skeptical relationship with matters of spirit, any well-meaning ritual activity that symbolically invites archetypal assistance from the whole human race, or calls upon benign, fill-in-the-blank, invisible force to lend their assistance, is all to the good."

Waters: Sir; There are 2-holes in your, "... What if that's good for National Security?

#1: When it comes to some-one-else's religion(god-made or man-made, imported here or rehashed then exported) that People have a superstitious streak, if that's the right word, in their own belief System, such that, if they see or feel, personally or as a group, that an foreign nation is advocating or promoting or encroaching or infringing via, say "Abstinence", then it could cause Adults, not so much kids, to raise or rise-up against such an attempt to influence "My Religion" in cunning ways. People are not stupid. They have Choices; i.e. To wear Condoms or not to wear, to refrain from promiscuous Sex or not etc..

#2: Even though there's nothing like a "Good Philosophy" on a Local or International awareness that Human-experience, via time, is the torch that all Human's carry; weather they are Planned or unplanned into this world. And god, if any, cannot help everybody at the same time while fanatics or rather "Fundamentalism" (as Mr. Marty Martin explains) from religion, is itself the evil or the double-standard of man kinds sufferings/misery trouble/poverty etc..

Humanity can't eat, even though its possible in the literal sense, their so-called "Holy-Books" via someone else holy story's? and the words therefrom (a Plurality of such competition of beliefs, not a singularity yet) in order to keep from disappearing while those promoting such "knowledge" or song New or old are not starving and do-not know what its like to be hungry or poor (on or off intermittently) because of His or Her "Environment" or misfortune.

Everyone knows, that food, glorious food, and or disease etc.. is a reality that No book or no preacher can cure; only time but in a better light, less dimness, via HOPE fulfillment. So ALL Humans have hope, regardless where or when (in time) they appear that "HOPE" if fulfilled, by another Human in time of need, is worth living for. And no Bible nor Government or "Council Of Faith-Based Preacher's" (from Obama's white-house or Clinton's or Bush's et..) can fill-in for "Mighty-HOPE" when "FEAR" is all around us while those from such Council's are the source of such problems in the first place? So, man-made or god-made Religion is poison, no matter how "Faith-Based"; but Democracy is Food and the light. And "SECULARISM" not Theocracy nor Monarchy or Oligarchy is Humanity's best SECURITY or it's best friend! No, Not and never any one else old-time [competing] religion(s).

WE learn By-Example not By-Hypocrisy! So, it's a U.N. problem, not a for Prophet "501(3) C" problem disguised as a for Profit entity; regardless of all those cunning , but nice talk'n sounding "Reports or Recommendations" for the sole? purpose in order to Usurp our holy U.S. Constitution and the "COMITY" rules/Laws it's based-on here and abroad.?

Yours and their M.O. is Clear as MUD!

Ms. Jacoby,

You write that you chose to memorialize Paul Tillich with his belief that Christianity demands "Not the courage of the soldier, but the courage of the man who feels all the riddles and all the meaninglessness of life and is nevertheless able to say 'yes' to life," and you add, "It occurred to me at the time that this was an even better definition of an atheist's ethical approach."

With respect, Tillich did not think his values applied "even better" to another belief system: he wrote them quite deliberately to apply to his own Christian faith (and so you chose them well.) As you no doubt know from Tillich and others, there are many thoughtful believers who accept suffering without insisting that God plans or desires it, and without their faith foundering upon the rock of theodicy.

If you think God is responsible for all things that happen to anyone and everyone, then the natural disasters would prove that God is a mass murderer. Guess many think that natural disasters like Katrina, the earthquake in Haiti and other disasters that take many lives are God's way of getting rid of the non-believers!

How do you know if those killed were "good Christians" or otherwise?

Religion is like Feng Shue..if you need it, its important.

SUSAN: All these advocates to Religionize foreign secular players by manipulating our President and the subsequent "Executive Orders" pertaining to the so-called "Faith-Based" Office in our White House is outright wrong and illegal and should be abolished altogether.

There is and are too-much religion or religious Offices/Departments in our Government Already. Our Constitution seems to have some holes in it, like an old flag of Glory, but holes that some usurpers in our Government managed to sew.

There is such a phenomenon as "Too Much Religion" and devilishly lurks between the fine-lines of "Separation" Of CHURCH and STATE.

Again, Exactly where, who and how much of our "Tax" payers dollars is enriching them "501(c)3's" beneficiary's, includes those currently advocating or sitting on "The Presidents [Faith-Based] Council" and or their constituents.

Republicans Should be suspicious of what the Democratic Party, of this Faith-Base Recommendation attempting to do. It smells sneaky, like what the Intelligent Design Proponents attempted to do via our Federal Courts and the "attempt" to Hijack our Public Schools, and a conspiracy to displace (have Power Over) the American and Worldly "SECULAR" movement (by Religious Fanatics, in any clothing) only now it's an attempt to hijack our "Establishment-Clause", as if it's exclusively theirs and not ours but, with nice sounding reports and multi faceted smiles. NO, YES, No-Body Knows?

WHY is our Constitution being Usurped by un-Godly Players as if be Godly, regardless of their denomination or preference of Faith?

SHAUM: You are a follower, not a leader. And a self serving Plagiarizer. Or borderline or obvious cray and stupid is a compliment.

Susan, I describe myself as a "recovering atheist," but I largely agree with your comments; I see no redemptive value in suffering, and I do suspect that it destroys character far more often than strengthening it. I do want to point out, however, that the existence of suffering in the world is not evidence in support of the atheistic position; it can easily be understood by the theist simply as evidence that God is not omnipotent. Also, true heroism, not the sort that seeks medals of honor and such, is something of real beauty. It is as moving as great art. Your patience with your former spouse might be an example. Furthermore, the potential of suffering, at least in civilization, is poorly understood by almost everyone. Civilization is new born. In terms of our potential duration (billions of years) our present 10,000 years is equivalent to a baby's first hour. And we are making great progress. Disease and poverty have not ended, but we have made significant inroads. And notice that advanced nations have stopped going to war with one another. Do you see the implication? As the developing nations catch up, no more war. Finally, I want to point out that the sentiments you express are couched in terms of compassion. These are Christian sentiments. I would argue that you are not truly, or least not fully, an atheist. (What's that you say? "Them's fightin' words"? Sorry.) The supernatural? The anthropomorphic God? The afterlife? Know this: meaningful definitions of religion need not make any use of such. These can be viewed as the concepts of early efforts in theology. The history of science has numerous parallels (geocentric astronomy, phlogiston model for heat, etc.) Enjoy.

THE NATURE OF ATHEISM, BY DEDUCTION (9)

Although the term “libertarianism” isn’t exactly a frequently used word, the view it expresses is commonly taken to be the average person’s view of free will. It is the view that causal determinism is false, that—unlike robots or other machines—we can make choices that are genuinely free. According to Plantinga, libertarian free will is a morally significant kind of free will. An action is morally significant just when it is appropriate to evaluate that action from a moral perspective (for example, by ascribing moral praise or blame). Persons have morally significant free will if they are able to perform actions that are morally significant. Imagine a possible world where god creates creatures with a very limited kind of freedom. Suppose that the persons in this world can only choose good options and are incapable of choosing bad options. So, if one of them were faced with three possible courses of action—two of which were morally good and one of which was morally bad—this person would not be free with respect to the morally bad option. That is, that person would not be able to choose any bad option even if they wanted to. This hypothetical person does, however, have complete freedom to decide which of the two good courses of action to take. Plantinga would deny that any such person has morally significant free will. People in this world always perform morally good actions, but they deserve no credit for doing so. It is impossible for them to do wrong. So, when they do perform right actions, they should not be praised. It would be ridiculous to give moral praise to a robot for putting your soda can in the recycle bin rather than the trash can, if that is what it was programmed to do. Given the program running inside the robot and its exposure to an empty soda can, it’s going to take the can to the recycle bin. It has no choice about the matter. Similarly, the people in the possible world under consideration have no choice about being good. Since they are pre-programmed to be good, they deserve no praise for it.

According to Plantinga, people in the actual world are free in the most robust sense of that term. They are fully free and responsible for their actions and decisions. Because of this, when they do what is right, they can properly be praised. Moreover, when they do wrong, they can be rightly blamed or punished for their actions.

SUSAN: All these advocates to Religionize foreign secular players by manipulating our President and the subsequent "Executive Orders" pertaining to the so-called "Faith-Based" Office in our White House is outright wrong and illegal and should be abolished altogether.

There is and are too-much religion or religious Offices/Departments in our Government Already. Our Constitution seems to have some holes in it, like an old flag of Glory, but holes that some usurpers in our Government managed to sew.

There is such a phenomenon as "Too Much Religion" and devilishly lurks between the fine-lines of "Separation" Of CHURCH and STATE.

Again, Exactly where, who and how much of our "Tax" payers dollars is enriching them "501(c)3's" beneficiary's, includes those currently advocating or sitting on "The Presidents [Faith-Based] Council" and or their constituents.

Republicans Should be suspicious of what the Democratic Party, of this Faith-Base Recommendation attempting to do. It smells sneaky, like what the Intelligent Design Proponents attempted to do via our Federal Courts and the "attempt" to Hijack our Public Schools, and a conspiracy to displace (have Power Over) the American and Worldly "SECULAR" movement (by Religious Fanatics, in any clothing) only now it's an attempt to hijack our "Establishment-Clause", as if it's exclusively theirs and not ours but, with nice sounding reports and multi faceted smiles. NO, YES, No-Body Knows?

WHY is our Constitution being Usurped by un-Godly Players as if be Godly, regardless of their denomination or preference of Faith?

THE NATURE OF ATHEISM, BY DEDUCTION (8)

If (19) and (20) are true, then the god of orthodox theism does not exist.

What would it look like for god to have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil? Let’s first consider a down-to-earth example of a morally sufficient reason a human being might have before moving on to the case of god. Suppose a gossipy neighbor were to tell you that Mrs. Jones just allowed someone to inflict unwanted pain upon her child. Your first reaction to this news might be one of horror. But once you find out that the pain was caused by a shot that immunized Mrs. Jones’ infant daughter against polio, you would no longer view Mrs. Jones as a danger to society. Generally, we believe the following moral principle to be true:

(21) Parents should not inflict unwanted pain upon their children.

In the immunization case, Mrs. Jones has a morally sufficient reason for overriding or suspending this principle. A higher moral duty—namely, the duty of protecting the long-term health of her child—trumps the lesser duty expressed by (21). If god has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil and suffering, theists claim, it will probably look something like Mrs. Jones’.

What might god’s reason be for allowing evil and suffering to occur? Alvin Plantinga has given the most famous contemporary philosophical response to this question. He suggests the following as a possible morally sufficient reason:

(A) god’s creation of persons with morally significant free will is something of tremendous value. god could not eliminate much of the evil and suffering in this world without thereby eliminating the greater good of having created persons with free will with whom he could have relationships and who are able to love one another and do good deeds.

(B) claims that god allows some evils to occur that are smaller in value than a greater good to which they are intimately connected. If god eliminated the evil, he would have to eliminate the greater good as well. god is pictured as being in a situation much like that of Mrs. Jones: she allowed a small evil (the pain of a needle) to be inflicted upon her child because that pain was necessary for bringing about a greater good (immunization against polio). Before we try to decide whether (A) can justify god in allowing evil and suffering to occur, some of its key terms need to be explained.

To begin with, (A) presupposes the view of free will known as “libertarianism”:

(22) Libertarianism: the view that a person is free with respect to a given action if and only if that person is both free to perform that action and free to refrain from performing that action; in other words, that person is not determined to perform or refrain from that action by any prior causal forces.

THE NATURE OF ATHEISM, BY DEDUCTION (7)

From (9′) through (12′), it is not possible to conclude that god does not exist. The most that can be concluded is that either god does not exist or god has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil. So, some theists suggest that the real question behind the logical problem of evil is whether (17) is true.

If it is possible that god has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil and suffering to occur, then the logical problem of evil fails to prove the non-existence of god. If, however, it is not possible that god has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil, then it seems that (13) would be true: god is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, or not perfectly good.

An implicit assumption behind this part of the debate over the logical problem of evil is the following:

(18) It is not morally permissible for god to allow evil and suffering to occur unless he has a morally sufficient reason for doing so.

Is (18) correct? Many philosophers think so. It is difficult to see how a god who allowed bad things to happen just for the heck of it could be worthy of reverence, faith and worship. If god had no morally sufficient reason for allowing evil, then if we made it to the pearly gates some day and asked god why he allowed so many bad things to happen, he would simply have to shrug his shoulders and say “There was no reason or point to all of that suffering you endured. I just felt like letting it happen.” This callous image of god is difficult to reconcile with orthodox theism’s portrayal of god as a loving father who cares deeply about his creation. (18), combined with the assumption that god does not have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil, yields:

(19) god is doing something morally inappropriate or blameworthy in allowing evil to occur,
and
(20) If god is doing something morally inappropriate or blameworthy, then god is not perfectly good.

THE NATURE OF ATHEISM, BY DEDUCTION (6)

How might a theist go about demonstrating that (16) is false? Some theists suggest that perhaps god has a good reason for allowing the evil and suffering that he does. Not just any old reason can justify god’s allowing all of the evil and suffering we see. Mass murderers and serial killers – many of whom are christers -- typically have reasons for why they commit horrible crimes, but they do not have good reasons. It’s only when people have morally good reasons that we excuse or condone their behavior. Philosophers of religion have called the kind of reason that could morally justify god’s allowing evil and suffering a “morally sufficient reason.”

Consider the following statement.

(17) It is possible that god has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil.

If god were to have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil, would it be possible for god to be omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and yet for there to be evil and suffering? Many theists answer “Yes.” If (17) were true, (9) through (12) would have to be modified to read:

(9′) If god knows about all of the evil and suffering in the world, knows how to eliminate or prevent it, is powerful enough to prevent it, and yet does not prevent it, he must not be perfectly good—unless he has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil.
(10′) If god knows about all of the evil and suffering, knows how to eliminate or prevent it, wants to prevent it, and yet does not do so, he must not be all-powerful—unless he has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil.
(11′) If god is powerful enough to prevent all of the evil and suffering, wants to do so, and yet does not, he must not know about all of the suffering or know how to eliminate or prevent it (that is, he must not be all-knowing)—unless he has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil.
(12′) If evil and suffering exist, then either: a) god is not omnipotent, not omniscient, or not perfectly good; or b) god has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil.

"WE won a gold, silver, and/or bronze metal"!!

Yes indeed, as in "WE donated to Team USA at

https://secure3.convio.net/usoc/site/Donation2?df_id=1320&1320.donation=form1

"For America's Olympic and Paralympic Team, the Olympic and Paralympic Games don't take place every four years — they're every day!"

When you give to Team USA, you help all of our athletes, Olympic and Paralympic, on their path to realize their potential. They use our support to get ready for the world's most intense competition and to reach their dreams. "

God is love. Does love not exist?

Christ is a JEW ! you guys fall out of tree ? King of the JEW,s get it ? drink blood ? Sounds like nazie germany,s martin luther , the first nazie ! KING of Jews is Christ ! and thats a fact. LOL

On the local newscasts, I hear that 'we' won a gold or silver or bronze medal. What's with the 'we' stuff? Where were 'we' that last few years when an individual athlete was spending hours per day to learn their craft and strengthen their body? I certainly do not take credit for the athletes accomplishments and neither should 'we'.

I am an old man soon to take that long trip. I'll try to get back to ya on what I find. :)

All our belief systems start with non-provable assumptions. Both science and religion have them. For many informed people the assumptions of science are more readily accepted. For those interested I would suggest E.A. Burtt's "The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science" Or better, Book 4 (On Human Values) of the free ebook series "In Search of Utopia" (http://andgulliverreturns.info). It examines the basic assumptions of science and some religions.
Because the basic assumptions of the various religions and those of empirical science vary, no meaningful discussions can result. But as shown in the aforementioned ebook series when a number of moral questions are examined (such as abortion, capital punishment, homosexuality, torture and about twenty other such ethical concerns), identical morals can be derived from quite different premises. The authors do a masterful job of clarifying our various “moralities.”
A question of absurdity of beliefs usually goes to the type of evidence used (ie. empirical, historical, from some 'authority'. etc. If daddy told me that Santa Clause brought all my Christmas presents I held the belief deeply and unquestioned when I was 7 years old. But new evidence should have changed my deeply held beliefs by now. Non-verifiable beliefs need not be given much respect today.
In Europe the more secular countries have less murder, drug use and teen pregnancy than the religious countries. The numbers are also listen in Book 4.

There doesn't have to be a supernatural cause of anything. But there has to be a social compact for a community to function, and all social contracts are based on faith in the authority of the people making the contract. The atheist delusion is to both deny the supernatural along with the reality of faith in our lives. It's easy to demonstrate that the world functions without a supernatural cause. But one runs into contradictions when one extends the reasoning to the infinite material forces of the universe, because there is no proof either way or there is no way to demonstrate that our imagination of a supernatural force is not an accurate hypothesis of how sentient beings like us necessarily have to live by faith in good intentions to one another, even when that faith is often broken. Where does that faith originate in atheism? It originates in the same faith as belief in a supernatural basis of life, the imagination of the atheist. Go outside that imaginative construct and we find that a society, a government, and a history have neither rhyme nor reason for being.

Good column. In dealing with the insulting questions thrown at you by people of faith, you have the patience of a saint.

Certain branches of religion believe that life is a classroom to learn lessons so that a soul can evolve. And they believe that each soul is at a different state of evolution, that it evolves from an imperfect state to an more enlightened state. And on this earth plane there are souls at different stages of this growth towards a more enlightened state. So my thoughts on this very complicated subject are such.

If there was no evil, how can we have a choice or chance to do good. How can we even measure good if there was no evil to compare it too.

It is easy to do good or be brave if there were no evil or no fearful experiences, but it is more difficult if there are 'evil temptations' or dangerous or difficult circumstances to face in life.

Pain, suffering and all that we term as evil and all that we term as good are powerful experiences and are often the catalyst of change and growth. Without people doing wrong acts, we would have no courageous acts, and there would be no meaningful acts of kindness because being kind is far too easy in a world without challenges.

It may take these powerful experiences here on earth to have an affective impact on the evolving soul.

And if one is cruel to someone else, we may reincarnate as an object of someone else's cruelty not so much as punishment, but to gain a different perspective, to walk in that person's shoes so our higher self can learn that past actions were wrong.

The Creator has giving us free will in this world, to make these choices and learn these lessons, so He/She may allow the bad things to happen because that is what it takes for us to ultimately reach a more perfect state of being.

Meanwhile,

(CNN) -- Political, religious and sexual behaviors may be reflections of intelligence, a new study finds.
Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women. The findings will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/index.html?hpt=C2

Actually, I don't know that Christianity founders on suffering. This is a "fallen world" for Christians. Suffering is not God's will. Rather, it is the way of the world.

Jews attribute suffering to the world's imperfection, since they don't hold with the "fall."

Of course, not all Christians and Jews think in these ways, but they are not at all uncommon. (In normative Judaism, the view I give predominates.)

And among Christians, I count Catholics, including our own TTWSY.

Has anyone ever returned from 'the other side' to tell us what gives there ? What a load of crap is disseminated by those who purvey their warped cultist preachings to the masses of sucker adherents.

Sorry, last part:

It is not redemptive. It is revealing of our deep deep relationship with Truth, Love, and all That.

hariaum

I greatly appreciate your posts. Alzheimer's is particularly important to me in many ways.

I once had a client ask me why his children so misbehave. My suggestion was a question to him: when do you love your children more? When everything is going fine or when you need each other.

Love is meaningless without loss. If one takes one's mind for granted, then it is, like so many other things, disvalued. If one takes love for granted, it too is lost. No painting is meaningful without contrast - even if that contrast is the frame of the "nonpainting."

For those of us in the eastern traditions (actually the non-christo-islamic traditions for we span far more than just the East) we accept suffering as a part of the plan. (Yes, I know even easterners forget this and cry out "why me, why me") Just as you have. But in the struggle between the suryas and asuryas (the sun and the sun-less) as our human lives are in turmoil, we have the freedom to love even that which is perishable - what insanity, what nobility, what a common thing for us humans to do - to love one who does not even remember who we are.

hariaum

Part one.

On whether or not the universe--or more properly life--is intelligently designed, unintelligently designed or with no design period.

First, differentiating between unintelligent design and no design is at bottom a false differentiation even though the former can be characterized as evil and the latter indifferent. If the universe has no design behind it then it cannot help but be seen as unintelligently designed even if indifferent rather than evil because humans find it futile to ever give it a design to suit human purposes. Unintelligent design can be designated evil design, but a universe of no design can be designated evil as well because exactly a chaotic universe, one with no direction to it that humans find beneficial. Of course all these constructs "intelligent design", "unintelligent design", and "no design" are human constructs. We interpret the universe from the perspective of what benefits humans.

Now to make the discussion easier, we will avoid using the concept "unintelligent design". We will grant the universe is not unintelligently designed but simply has no design at all to avoid characterizing it as evil and to posit it rather as simply indifferent. So we have an indifferent universe, one with no design. And opposed to this indifferent universe we have the intelligently designed universe. These are the two conceptual schemes we will use in trying to determine whether the universe has an intelligent design or not. Now the argument for an intelligent design is obvious. Apparently we humans feel there is enough order and sense in what occurs apart from our actions not to mention through our actions to speak of intelligent design. A place apparently can be carved out where human life prospers. We speak of an intelligent design to existence. In fact everything seems to have been made by design not least because so much valuable in human life has been designed by humans.

Part two.

But some people say there are problems with this concept of an intelligent design. Some people are puzzled by this concept because they believe it means what is designed has a designer, and that designer too must have been designed--and so on, an infinite regression to some ultimate designer which can never exist apparently. But an argument such as this overlooks that the regression can find a terminus, and this terminus is called God. In fact that the regression is infinite implies a totally extended and probably eternal process, which can be characterized, again, as God (though of course no particular God such as we find in this religion or that). The problem of an infinite regression does not seem the real problem at all. We can say all effect is traceable to a cause, and the ultimate cause is God.

The problem seems rather that an infinite regression which just becomes "God", all effect traceable backward to an ultimate cause, cannot help but include so much humans find indifferent if not evil. To say the universe is intelligently designed means to say all the universe, but if all the universe then how intelligently designed? Or rather how intelligently designed from the human perspective, for humans evidently find much which does not particularly help them if not outright hurting them. In other words, trying to say the universe is intelligently designed runs up against the problem that so much does not really demonstrate an intelligent design. The infinite regression which we would like to say just becomes "God" is a regression which necessarily includes every aspect of existence, which means "God" cannot help but be evil as well as good, or if that is too strong a word, indifferent as well as good.

Part three.

Or to put it at its simplest, if the universe is intelligently designed then why so much tragedy in life, why so much pain for humans? It seems preposterous to say the universe is intelligently designed unless of course one wants to call intelligence all which does harm in life, but that would be perverse... So the simple matter is that the concept of intelligent design is refuted every day by design which does not seem particularly intelligent...

But what occurs if we say therefore that the universe has no particular design, or no design, if not an unintelligent design? Then we run up against the problem that what humans value most, reason and morality and aesthetics and so on, are mere human and futile constructs against a background of no design, or more clearly, chaos. We have here humans telling themselves that reason and morality and so on exist but of course this existence is that of a perfect little bubble on a turbulent and disordered water and destined to pop sometime. With such knowledge how can one reliably build a civilization, how get citizens to aim toward greater reason and morality?

Asking them to do so is like asking them to create one of those economic bubbles such as the expanding housing market which is destined to pop eventually. Here we have the famous "can one be moral without God"? So many answer yes,--or rather the atheists especially do--but this is being good despite knowing that reason and morality, again, are as so many bubbles on the turbulent water of existence. Certainly that one chooses to attempt to be good in such a situation does not mean one has any claim on the person who chooses otherwise. What becomes set up at best is a force of people determined to be good regardless of things against those who could not care less.

So we have a problem whether we posit an intelligent design to existence or no design if not unintelligent design. We have a paradoxical situation. On one hand we say there must be an intelligent design, but if such exists then why so much evidence of the contrary? On the other hand we say there is not so much evidence of intelligent design as no design if not unintelligent design, but if such is the case then how have reason and morality developed not to mention how do we expect humans to actively engage in the process of developing such further when essentially we are faced with nihilism?

Part four.

Perhaps God does not exist, perhaps there is no intelligent design--for so much about existence demonstrates no design if not unintelligent design--but if God does not exist, if there is no intelligent design, then how can one reasonably expect the human race to create a civilization based on such knowledge? Perhaps an atheist here and there can not only preserve morality and reason despite holding there is no intelligent design but develop morality and reason further, but expect millions upon millions of humans to be not only moral and reasonable despite no intelligent design but develop such further? Is that not ridiculous? A civilization based on the fact that human life is ultimately futile because no intelligent design is behind things? Millions upon millions of people going to work every day of the week, year after year, believing no intelligent design is behind existence? Such people are not going to face a psychological problem no other age of humanity has ever faced? Psychiatrists and psychologists are reliably going to determine the sane from the insane when everyone believes everything is futile anyway? Can a civilization even be formed on such knowledge much less exist for any length of time?

One thing we can say for certain: human consciousness is faced here with a dilemma that never really plagued other ages of man. Humans here might not go so far as to say all is without design if not unintelligently designed, but a regression to an automatic and easy belief in intelligent design, God, is not possible either. One is faced here with a particular metaphysical/physical dilemma that has ramifications we have not even remotely arrived at yet. Let a few hundred more years pass and see the effects on humans. I believe we are faced here with something of the dilemma of Hamlet. There is no God and we have to decide if this will influence us toward not being rather than being. To be or not to be. And we all know how Hamlet ended.

No easy answer to the question of whether the universe is intelligently designed or not. But we all know for all scientific method and what remains of art over science that this will probably be the dominant theme in human consciousness in the coming time. Which is why philosophy despite all science relegating it to second degree status is actually, as it always was (despite many objections), the queen of the sciences. Only the proper philosophical attitude can sustain a man burdened with such knowledge.

I don't think empathy evolved primarily to build character. That may be a bi-product of empathy, but I think empathy evolved as a survival skill, by allowing us to correctly interpret the feelings of the fellows of our species. If I am a chimp and I come across a lion chewing on the leg of another chimp and I can't correctly interpret it's cries as an expression of pain (and triggering the flight response), and not pleasure (and queuing up to get my share), I'm not likely to survive for very long.

-------------

It's all well and good to speculate that an all-loving and omnipotent god allows suffering to teach us some lesson that may evade our current capacity to understand it, but that doesn't account for the immense of amount of suffering experienced out in the bushes by the other animals totally unbeknownst to us. What lesson could they possibly be learning?

DOTHERIGHTTHING wrote:

"It turns out the parents have knowledge and insight unfathomable by the children - THAT is how our all-loving God is easily reconciled to the horrors of the material world."

The problem with that hypothesis is that you cannot falsify it. You cannot point to any observable difference between a universe in which God acts for reasons beyond our understanding, and a universe in which God does not exist and things happen for no reason. So, based on Ockham's razor I think the latter is more likely.

RCBII's comment about the need for some degree of suffering to build empathy is well stated and seems correct to me. To take an extreme case, I think FDR was an effective reformer, and he could empathize with people, because he suffered from polio. It is terrible price to pay and I do not think God did it deliberately, but it did seem to build character in FDR's case, and the rest of us are better for it. (Eleanor thought the disease built his character but his children did not.)

Also, we all need some degree of toughening up, because suffering are death are still inevitable. A person who has never experienced anything bad may fall apart and be unable to cope with a reversals. It is analogous to the fact the we need either vaccinations or exposure to infectious disease to build up antibodies, or we will be killed by exposure to the measles.

The OT and NT are being cleansed of Dark Age theology and myths like redemptive suffering. See http://www.simpletoremember.com/ ...vativeTorah.htm and http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

Unfortunately this is not happening with the Koran because of the threat of fanatical Islamic death/riot squads as evidenced by the treatment of Salmon Rusdie after his publication of The Satanic Verses and the riots after the cartoons of Mohammed were published in Denmark. Until Muslims and non-Muslims are free to criticize the Koran, Islam will remain a sham religion.

Farnaz:

Sunny and COLD in Bischofshofen. Apartment was secured yesterday, spent yesterday and this morning buying furniture. I'm coming home on Sunday morning, so Christian will be left to set it all up by himself, when the stuff is delivered. Sebastian is in boarding school. I'll spring him on Monday. Blizzard in NYC? I wonder if that means a lot of new snow in the mountains of VA. I just wish it would all go away.

THE NATURE OF EVIL, BY DEDUCTION (5)

Theists who want to rebut the logical problem of evil need to find a way to show that (1) through (4)—perhaps despite initial appearances—are consistent after all. I said above that a set of statements is logically inconsistent if and only if that set includes a direct contradiction or a direct contradiction can be deduced from that set. That means that a set of statements is logically consistent if and only if that set does not include a direct contradiction and a direct contradiction cannot be deduced from that set. In other words:

(15) A set of statements is logically consistent if and only if it is possible for all of them to be true at the same time.

Notice that (15) does not say that consistent statements must actually be true at the same time. They may all be false or some may be true and others false. Consistency only requires that it be possible for all of the statements to be true (even if that possibility is never actualized). (15) also doesn’t say anything about plausibility. It does not require the joint of a consistent set of statements to be plausible. It may be exceedingly unlikely or improbable that a certain set of statements should all be true at the same time. But improbability is not the same thing as impossibility. As long as there is nothing contradictory about their conjunction, it will be possible (even if unlikely) for them all to be true at the same

The atheological claim that statements (1) through (4) are logically inconsistent is a rather strong one. The atheologian is maintaining that statements (1) through (4) couldn’t possibly all be true at the same time. In other words:

(16) It is not possible for God and evil to co-exist.

The logical problem of evil claims that god’s omnipotence, omniscience and supreme goodness would completely rule out the possibility of evil and that the existence of evil would do the same for the existence of a supreme being.

THE NATURE OF EVIL, BY DEDUCTION (4)

To phrase it bluntly, this line of argument suggests that—in light of the evil and suffering we find in our world—if god exists, he is either impotent, ignorant or wicked. It should be obvious that (13) conflicts with (1) through (3) above. To make the conflict more clear, we can combine (1), (2) and (3) into the following single statement:

(14) god is omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good.

There is no way that (13) and (14) could both be true at the same time. These statements are logically inconsistent or contradictory.

Statement (14) is simply the conjunction of (1) through (3) and expresses the central belief of classical theism. However, atheologians claim that statement ( 13) can also be derived from (1) through (3). [Statements (6) through (12) purport to show how this is done.] (13) and (14), however, are logically contradictory. Because a contradiction can be deduced from statements (1) through (4) and because all theists believe (1) through (4), atheologians claim that theists have logically inconsistent beliefs. They note that philosophers have always believed it is never rational to believe something contradictory. So, the existence of evil and suffering makes theists’ belief in the existence of a perfect god.

Can the god-believer escape this dilemma? In his best-selling book When Bad Things Happen to Good People, Rabbi Harold Kushner offers the following escape route for the theist: deny the truth of (1). According to this proposal, god is not ignoring your suffering when he doesn’t act to prevent it because—as an all-knowing god—he knows about all of your suffering. As a perfectly good God, he also feels your pain. The problem is that he can’t do anything about it because he’s not omnipotent. According to Kushner’s portrayal, god is something of a kind-hearted wimp. He’d like to help, but he doesn’t have the power to do anything about evil and suffering. Denying the truth of either (1), (2), (3) or ( 4) is certainly one way for the theist to escape from the logical problem of evil, but it would not be a very palatable option to many theists. In the remainder of this essay, we will examine some theistic responses to the logical problem of evil that do not require the abandonment of any central tenet of theism.

THE NATURE OF EVIL, BY DEDUCTION (3)

Atheologians claim that a contradiction can easily be deduced from (1) through (4) once we think through the implications of the divine attributes cited in (1) through (3). They reason as follows:

(6) If god is omnipotent, he would be able to prevent all of the evil and suffering in the world.
(7) If god is omniscient, he would know about all of the evil and suffering in the world and would know how to eliminate or prevent it.
(8) If god is perfectly good, he would want to prevent all of the evil and suffering in the world.

Statements (6) through (8) jointly imply that if the perfect god of theism really existed, there would not be any evil or suffering. Obviously, however our world is filled with a staggering amount of evil and suffering. Atheologians claim that, if we reflect upon (6) through (8) in light of the fact of evil and suffering in our world, we should be led to the following conclusions:

(9) If god knows about all of the evil and suffering in the world, knows how to eliminate or prevent it, is powerful enough to prevent it, and yet does not prevent it, he must not be perfectly good.
(10) If god knows about all of the evil and suffering, knows how to eliminate or prevent it, wants to prevent it, and yet does not do so, he must not be all- powerful.
(11) If god is powerful enough to prevent all of the evil and suffering, wants to do so, and yet does not, he must not know about all of the suffering or know how to eliminate or prevent it—that is, he must not be all-knowing.

From (9) through (11) we can infer:

(12) If evil and suffering exist, then god is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, or not perfectly good.
Since evil and suffering obviously do exist, we get:
(13) god is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, or not perfectly good.

Theists (and I am not one) do not necessarily say that suffering "ennobles." It is true, however, that some Christians do.

No Jew would ever say this; I doubt one ever has. Jews generally say that it is an imperfect world, that suffering can and will be reduced to the extent that Human directs himself/herself toward eliminating it. The elimination of suffering is part of healing or righting the world.

Hi Schaum,

Sorry to digress, but how goes it in Austria?
(Are they suffering?) Do you have Sebastian with you?

Blizzard here. Amazing. Daughter is in Nirvana, with neighbor pup, Plautus.

Blaise... Wildfyre with a Y because when I first started using the userid back in the 80s, "wildfire" was already taken. Whats it matter to you anyway?

True in the protestant tradition good works don't get you to heaven. To them what gets you there is a belief that Jesus is the son of god and that he died to pay for your sins and accepting him as your savior is the only way to get to heaven. Good works or being a "good christian" are not strictly required (although they are seen by many as evidence that there was an authentic "conversion" experience).

However in the Catholic world, doing good works and attoning for sins through confession and penance (could be considered a "good work") are what makes the difference between hell, purgatory or heaven. The more good works you do the more likely you are to avoid that uncomforatble layover in purgatory.

Other religions also have a "pay for play" basis. Hindus have karma... be a bad man and you'll come back as a slug. Be a good man and eventually you could be the Dali Lama. Muslims have the whole 72 virgins thing...

I try to do good just because it's the decent thing to do... not because I expect anything in "the afterlife."

THE NATURE OF EVIL, BY DEDUCTION (2)

Is the problem of evil and suffering a kind of “moral protest? In asking “How could god let this happen?” people are often claiming “It’s not fair that god has let this happen.” Many atheists try to turn the existence of evil and suffering into an argument against the existence of God. They claim that, since there is something morally problematic about a morally perfect God allowing all of the evil and suffering we see, there must not be a morally perfect God after all. This is a very popular argument, and the argument from evil has developed into “the logical problem of evil.”

The problem of logical inconsistency began to take root in the past fifty years, among people who attempt to prove the non-existence of god. The idea is not that religious beliefs lack rational support, but that they are positively irrational… that several parts of essential theological doctrine are inconsistent with one another.

Evil and suffering are problems, for the theist, in that a contradiction is involved in the fact of evil on the one hand and belief in the omnipotence and omniscience of God on the other. It is impossible for all of the following statements to be true at the same time:

(1) God is omnipotent (that is, all-powerful).
(2) God is omniscient (that is, all-knowing).
(3) God is perfectly good.
(4) Evil exists.

Any two or three of them might be true at the same time; but there is no way that all four can simultaneously: (1) through (4) form a logically inconsistent set. What does it mean to say that something is logically inconsistent?

(5) A set of statements is logically inconsistent if and only if: (a) that set includes a direct contradiction of the form “p & not-p”; or (b) a direct contradiction can be deduced from that set.

None of the statements in (1) through (4) directly contradicts any other, so if the set is logically inconsistent, it must be because we can deduce a contradiction from it. This is precisely what atheologians claim to be able to do.

THE NATURE OF EVIL, BY DEDUCTION (1)

Having dealt with the nature of evil/suffering by INDUCTION, I move on now to an examination of the same subject approached by DEDUCTION.

The existence of evil and suffering in our world seems to pose a serious challenge to belief in the existence of a perfect god. If god were all-knowing, it seems that god would know about all of the horrible things that happen in our world. If god were all-powerful, god would be able to do something about all of the evil and suffering. Furthermore, if god were morally perfect, then surely god would want to do something about it. And yet we find that our world is filled with countless instances of evil and suffering. These facts about evil and suffering seem to conflict with the orthodox theist claim that there exists a perfectly good god. The challenged posed by this apparent conflict has come to be known as the problem of evil.

This post addresses one form of that problem that is prominent in recent philosophical discussions–that the conflict that exists between the claims of orthodox theism and the facts about evil and suffering in our world is a logical one. This is the “logical problem of evil.”

I will clarify the nature of the logical problem of evil and consider som theistic responses to the problem -- particularly the free will defense, which has been the most widely discussed theistic response to the logical problem of evil and suffering.

Journalist and author Lee Strobel commissioned a public-opinion pollster to conduct a nationwide survey. The survey included the question “If you could ask God only one question and you knew he would give you an answer, what would you ask?” The most common response, offered by 17% of those who could think of a question was “Why is there pain and suffering in the world?”. If god is all-powerful, all-knowing and perfectly good, why does he allow so much suffering, and let so many bad things happen? This question raises what philosophers call “the problem of evil.”

It would be one thing if the only people who suffered debilitating diseases or tragic losses were the likes of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin or Osama Bin Laden. As it is, however, thousands of good-hearted, innocent people experience the ravages of violent crime, pain, terminal disease, and other evils. Something is dreadfully wrong with our world. An earthquake kills hundreds of thousands in Haiti. A pancreatic cancer patient suffers prolonged, excruciating pain and dies. A pit bull attacks a two-year-old child, angrily ripping his flesh and killing him. Countless multitudes suffer the ravages of war in Somalia. A crazed cult leader pushes eighty-five people to their deaths in Waco, Texas. Millions starve and die in North Korea as famine ravages the land. Horrible things of all kinds happen in our world—and that has been true since the beginning of civilization.

Rather too nitpicking, Wildfire (why with a y?) Showing off a little je pense and somewhat overly self-satisfied, bordering almost on smug.

Re: good works. Atheists like Dawkins & Dennett use a crude reductionist trope like "it feels good to do good", which is tautological.

Christ's and Christianity's identification with the poor and suffering is total. The record of Christians themselves has been mixed, but the impulse has always beat very strongly.

And I would hold your characterization that "do good and you'll get to heaven" explanation of why Christians do good works as reductionist and somewhat crude. They do good because of the example of Christ and because he told them to do so. He also had some rather harsh things to say about rich people, directing would-be disciples to sell everything they had.

Followed well, it's not an easy religion to practice.

Make that "Jesus BarAbbas"... not "Besus..."

BlaiseP wrote:

Instead of Barrabas, suppose the mob had shouted:
"Give us Jesus!"
-----------------------------

In that case Pilate would have been very confused since both men standing before the crowd were named Jesus... Jesus BarJoseph (referred to as Christ) and Besus BarAbbas. "Bar" means "Son of" in Hebrew (and Aramaic too I believe).

Actually I think athiests DO hold the high moral ground here. After all, we do good with no expectation of a metapysical afterlife reward while many, if not all, religious people do it in order to earn compensation in their faith's particular "afterlife".

This includes "trusting jesus as your savior" by the way as this is just another affirmative act without which, in the evangelical christian dogma, you cannot get to heaven.

Instead of Barrabas, suppose the mob had shouted:

"Give us Jesus!"

Glad to see Susan Jacoby still grappling with the question of pain and suffering. A few thoughts:

* The Question of Pain
by CS Lewis gives an intelligent, Christian answer although it will not satisfy non believers

* We are living creatures--all of us--and as living creatures, by definition, we batten upon other living creatures and they in turn prey upon still others . It is how we have been constructed, (should you wish not to use the word created.)

* Pain is always relative. Your pain being eaten balanced by your predator's satisfaction of his hunger, to put it crudely, or "Nature red in tooth in claw" to as Tennyson said more elegantly.

* So far as nature good we are rather uninspiring, neither so quick as the horse, brave as the lion (well, lioness), enduring as the elephant;

Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature; but he is a thinking reed. The entire universe need not arm itself to crush him. A vapour, a drop of water suffices to kill him. But, if the universe were to crush him, man would still be more noble than that which killed him, because he knows that he dies and the advantage which the universe has over him; the universe knows nothing of this.

All our dignity consists, then, in thought. By it we must elevate ourselves, and not by space and time which we cannot fill. Let us endeavour, then, to think well; this is the principle of morality.

Actually, Jesus C. did not die for you or for me or for anyone else. He died because one Pontius Pilate decided that rabble-rousers would not be tolerated during the Jewish Passover. PP could have simply sent Jesus C. to the salt mines and then where would your theology be?

Christianity if you look at it realistically was dependent on the free will of PP and should therefore be called "Pilatianity".

BTW, so a loving and merciful god allows some children to be born blind, deaf or a host of other deformities???

I understand why I make my children clean their room, go to the doctor, punish them for bad behavior, and make them study for school.

I don't understand how an omnipotent God, who could intervene, would allow a child to be raped and buried alive.

I think this happens because of mental illness. There are scientific studies o it.

What was your reason again for allowing very bad things to happen to children again? Because we don't understand God? That's a non-answer and cop out.

There is an assumption at play here that suffering is inflicted by God for a purpose, and therefore God (any God) must be awful for allowing it or actively persecuting. Most theology runs a lot deeper than that!

I believe suffering in the world is inevitable. I believe that good MIGHT come out of suffering but that is entirely dependent upon the sufferer's world view. I do not believe one MUST suffer to be good.

I don't claim to know why suffering exists although I am a believer in God. I do believe, there are things I simply do not have an answer for, although there might indeed. be an answer far beyond my ken.

The experience of my life, a limited laboratory to be sure, has shown me good coming out of suffering but that does not mean I think suffering is ipso facto good, not do I look for chances to suffer.

"How can the existence of an omnipotent, loving God be reconciled with the horrors he allows to be inflicted on his creations?" One just as easily might as well ask, "How can the existence of supposedly-loving parents be reconciled with the social, psychological, and medical horrors (as perceived by many in today's non-conformism-is-oh-so-smart-thinking society) they allow to be inflicted on their children as they grow up?" It turns out the parents have knowledge and insight unfathomable by the children - THAT is how our all-loving God is easily reconciled to the horrors of the material world. Just as Jesus' death by torture is revealed as God's supremely loving act for humanity in light of Jesus' resurrection, so also will every suffering - evil though it is - will be revealed somehow to be part of God's design for human salvation. Jacoby thinks as does a worldly human, not as God does.

"...a total lack of suffering can be harmful to a person's moral and empathetic growth..."

So, if I see someone who is not suffering, I should go up to him/her and smack him/her around a bit to improve his/her moral and empathetic growth?

I'm up for that.

This is an excellent commentray on the issue.
But, as an ethical non-theist, I do see a slight caveat in the moral significance of suffering. Because suffering exists (itself not of any good reason), a total lack of suffering can be harmful to a person's moral and empathetic growth (of course, so can too much suffering). by RBCII
-----------------------------------------
This is an important point -- the fact that (in this case, negative) experiences DO have moral educational value, just that neither natural nor supernatural forces send them for our edification.

As someone wrote in OnFaith about the alleged theistic motive of the Haiti earthquake, "If it's a test, when will we know if the children crushed to death passed it."

This is an excellent commentray on the issue.
But, as an ethical non-theist, I do see a slight caveat in the moral significance of suffering.
Because suffering exists (itself not of any good reason), a total lack of suffering can be harmful to a person's moral and empathetic growth (of course, so can too much suffering).
Granted, if suffering did not exist at all, there would be no truth to this. But since it does, since it's in our biology, we need to develop reasonable empathetic qualities to counter it.
And I don't see how that's possible on the individual level without understanding suffering and taking a fair share of it.

"If you don't believe in God, what's to stop you from committing murder?"
___________________________________________

Well, Jimmy...
Since there is no such thing as god, I don't murder for the same reason nearly everyone else doesn't. It's wrong.
__________________________________________
"How can you tell what's right and wrong if there is no god?"
__________________________________________
This sort of common sense has been a part of man's makeup since before our species was even man. Did you know our close relatives, the apes, behave with complex moral codes, too?
We have morality embedded in our DNA so as to prevent murder within our community and that sort of natural selection has helped our species survive. Remember, pre-man and man had many thousands of years before the notion of gods popped into our heads, yet we evolved into the morality-based beings we are today.
Tomorrow, let's talk about why Original Sin (or Man's inclination toward evil) is a kind of mental illness, OK?

Excellent article, thank you.

Most people are taught at an early age to narrow their scope of thought and will never question their country or religion. They have been fed that atheists are synonymous with evil. We have to answer their insulting question because it's one of ignorance more than it is malicious. We have all met people who never have read contrary opinions to their position.

I think you should answer this question because you do it well. It will open minds.

I'm not forgiven. I'm responsible for my actions. I act appropriately.

Go Phillies!

'Therefore the historical future is not known even to God;'

God is dead and has been dead since Nietzche discovered the corpse - theologians need to get a new job and stop wasting everyone's time splitting hairs.

"If you don't believe in God, what's to stop you from committing murder?" Questions of this nature are illegitimate and do not deserve an answer, because they are merely rhetorical devices designed to frame an insult.
------------------------------------------
I'm sure many theists do ask this question in exactly that spirit. But it still constitutes a teachable moment for the part of the theistic world that honestly has no idea that morals can come from a source other than the supernatural.

As a group defined by our lack of interest in a subject in which interest is common, we should be engage the preconceptions of the group that has probably never questioned them.

BTW, Keith Hernandez wrote probably the best "how to watch a baseball game on TV" book ever -- Pure Baseball.

"How can an omnipotent, loving God be reconciled with horrors inflicted on his creation? Atheists have a real answer".

So do theologians!

e.g.

From Father Edward Schillebeeckx's book, Church: The Human Story of God,
Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)

"Christians (and others) must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history" .

"Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices. Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise weand our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

With respect to Olympic coverage only on NBC, Susan apparently did not read the following note on the previous thread.

http://vancouver-2010-live.com/

"Don’t miss an event! Watch all sports with uncensored coverage!

Get V.I.P. Access to every sports event of the year and beyond. Every one-timer, triple axel, sweep, Air-D, crank, sprint, mogul, indycross and big air can be enjoyed over and over again with DVR functionality.

Freeze, rewind, and forward sports feeds from around the world! Multi-language support and a clean and sleek interface, with search and click functionality, ensure you only watch what you want, when you want!

Take your favorites on the go. With region-free access you can watch any sporting event on the face of the earth from any spot on the globe. Enjoy on demand sporting coverage!"

Every sport, streaming live, 24/7. Full and instant access is guaranteed for every sporting event. Whether its amateur or professional, 100% event coverage comes standardized. "