What shits me is Christians (and Jews and Muslims, but it’s mainly Christians who do this) who just handwave away the problem of evil. Like fine, I can accept that some evils might arise as a result of human decisions and free will. Things like wars and genocides are done by people. It’s difficult to swallow even that much with the idea of a god who supposedly knows all, is capable of doing anything, and is “all good”, but fine, maybe free will ultimately supplants all that.
But what I absolutely cannot accept is any claim that tries to square the idea of a god with the triple-omnis with the fact that natural disasters happen. That children die of cancer. You try telling the parents of a child slowly dying of a painful incurable disease that someone could fix it if they wanted, and they completely know about it, but that they won’t. And then try telling them that person is “all good”. See how they react.
I find religious people who believe in the three omnis after having given it any amount of serious consideration to be absolutely disgusting and immoral people.
If the purpose of life is to be a test, how can you test without challenges (evil)?
The crux of the problem is once again the modernized version of Christianity. Where hell has been written out and Adolf Hitler goes to heaven because “Jesus died for his sins”.
Easy. You take the world as it is right now…and then remove the evil things. Evil is a metaphysical concept. We often use analogies of light and dark, but it doesn’t literally work that way.
First, you’ll note that I started this conversation by conceding free will and concentrating my discussion of evil on evils that are not performed by humans, but by the planet itself, or by fundamental biology.
But as for “the concept of life as a test”…why is something supposedly omniscient performing a test? It should already know the result of said test, thus making the test itself irrelevant. That’s what omniscience is.
Evil existing is necessary for a test in good and evil. Whether done by humans or natural causes.
Angels were created as perfect servants who obey all commands without free will. Humans were created as the opposite. Those who have free will to perform both good and evil.
It should already know the result of said test, thus making the test itself irrelevant. That’s what omniscience is.
An all-powerful entity is not bound by paradoxes. If that was the case it would end at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox which is even more extreme than the free-will paradox for which some explanations can be thought of.
That doesn’t work. People with crap lives often can’t meet the standards of goodness that many forms of Christianity need for you to be qualified for heaven
The concept tends to fall apart with modern Christianity where everyone just goes to heaven and hell is written out.
Huh? From what I can tell Christians are more fixated on hell than ever now. Listen to them talk about gay/trans people, Palestinians, women who get abortions, or literally anyone who isn’t Christian, and it’s clear that they’re really excited about the idea that their god will torture those people for all eternity while they get to watch from heaven. You’ll even get catholics and protestants both thinking they’re the only ones going to heaven and the “wrong” kind of Christian goes to hell because of technicalities like whether you go to confession or not or whether praying to Mary is idolatry. Some outright say that it’s okay to kill gay/trans people, Palestinians, etc, because they’re damned anyway and god doesn’t give a shit about them.
Most we observe in the media either the kumbaya Christians, where Jesus died for everyones sins and everyone goes to heaven. Or the MAGA Christians who believe treating the poor like dirt is owning the libs.
The question about evil existing is rather easy to answer but all the Christian internal discourse would be more confusing. I don’t have much experience with it but
technicalities like whether you go to confession or not or whether praying to Mary is idolatry.
Wouldn’t that directly violate the first commandment?
Asking someone already in the kingdom is no different than asking someone without the kingdom to intercede on our behalf. Also God has 72 names in our tradition, millions in others.
Also God has 72 names in our tradition, millions in others.
Mary is not God or part of the trinity right? Jesus ascending into heaven would not mean Mary is in heaven. Which would mean Mary remains dead until judgement day and is not yet in heaven. Unless I am not familiar with something.
You’re not familiar with a lot because churches and politicians occulted this information. It’s in the whole Bible (you can find the Ethiopian Bible in English online but there are mistranslations so you have to go to the Jewish and hermetic kabbalah and other sources to find them. Also I already referred to Psalm 82, wrt God.
Again, we’re not meant to take everything literally and that’s why Jesus taught in parables. Here’s what you can take literally, “the Kingdom of Heaven is within you.”
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you here, but thought I’d provide a counter argument.
A group of children are dying of a horrible, deadly disease that can only be cured with the bark from a specific tree. So we go into the forest and chop this tree down to save the children from an excruciating disease.
A squirrel had built its entire home in that tree. That tree was everything to the squirrel. Now the squirrel has nothing and will suffer because we chopped down its home.
How do we explain this to the squirrel? Well, we can’t. No matter how hard we try, we can’t explain why we needed to destroy its home. The squirrel is physically incapable of understanding.
Playing devils advocate here, perhaps the reason for the need for human suffering is so beyond our understanding and comprehension that we are just physically incapable of understanding. Maybe we’re just squirrels, and human suffering needs to happen for some greater purpose unbeknownst to us.
That is an interesting thought experiment in general but I don’t think it really squares with Christian theology and the central role humanity has in it.
That argument lands you in the “we can’t know which religion is true” category, because if we can’t know the plans of god, we also can’t know which god is real.
So, while it absolves the believer from having to answer the problem of evil, it simultaneously robs them of any certainty about the truth of their religion.
They’re all true and all not true. Each culture given the appropriate teachers at the appropriate time for the appropriate lessons. Five is five, until it’s 5.2.
IF there was some reason, first of all, God could give us the ability to understand if he wanted to, as he is not supposed to be limited. Second, it would imply someone is getting something from it, God, us, or otherwise, that for some reason, God can’t give in a way that doesn’t involve evil. But again, if he is never limited, that shouldn’t be the case.
Also, if cancer and other diseases are supposed to exist and kill people for some kind of purpose we don’t understand, why do we have the ability to treat, vaccinate and cure those same diseases? If medicine gets to the point of preventing every ailment, then why does that “oh so important” reason for it existing not matter anymore? It would seem if these things NEED to exist, we shouldn’t be able to prevent them from happening under any circumstances.
Also, if cancer and other diseases are supposed to exist and kill people for some kind of purpose we don’t understand, why do we have the ability to treat, vaccinate and cure those same diseases
Oh god, now you’ve hit on why some of the sects that we consider cults do what they do. Somehow, wearing clothes, using plows, building structures to provide shelter and warehousing, creating roads that wheeled contraptions (but they don’t have engines!) use, etc., etc., as part of our technological lives isn’t a sin, but using medical advancements is!
I’m upvoting because I thought this was done good engagement with the premise and you don’t deserve to be downvoted for it.
But fundamentally, you’ve missed a pretty big step. What if god just…didn’t create a situation where children get diseases that can only be cured with one rare tree?
Or, more importantly, what about diseases that cannot be cured? What about natural disasters? Yes, some types of natural disasters have gotten more common and worse as a result of human action, but they still happened before climate change, and if anything were more disruptive to people before we had modern building practices.
We’re talking about a god that is literally capable of anything. It could just wave its hand and delete all disease from existence. It chooses not to.
We’re talking about the Abrahamic trio, so God is supposed to be all powerful. That means there is nothing beyond his power. There is no “can only” or “can’t” or “incapable” for him. He can have His cure and save the tree too, He doesn’t have to choose. Your example only works if God is limited in some capacity, and has to make trade offs that we can’t understand.
A parent can easily do their children’s homework. How does that benefit the kids? A passing mark doesn’t mean the kid understands and the lessons don’t get easier.
So we’re given the means to solve these tests. When we learn to work together to solve them, rather than “punishing” each other, we get closer to solving them. Disasters happen, whether natural or man-made. We either work together or we don’t. Test time.
the Abrahamic trio, so God is supposed to be all powerful.
The funny thing is, the ancient Israelites almost certainly didn’t believe this. It was a more recent invention that’s obviously not supported by the old testament or the talmud.
Yep years ago I was in a bible study, well on my way to being an agnostic already. They were going over a difficult passage and the conclusion was ‘god works in mysterious ways’. Not that I hadn’t heard that nonsense before but for some reason hearing it in that scenario was the last straw and I never went back.
Yeah, the average person gets a pass on this sort of thing because I generally assume they haven’t thought much about it. But it’s particularly galling when biblical scholars do it.
I saw one biblical scholar whose schtick was debunking things evangelicals believe about the bible. He would happily admit it’s written by a collection of authors over a long period of time, who were doing so not literally but in rhetorical styles popular in their day. Things like that.
Once, I saw him describe how the early Israelites did not believe in the three omnis. They may not have even believed in a monotheistic god, but it was certainly not omniscient and omnibenevolent. Then he went on to say that despite that—despite the fact that the authors of the religious text and the society that invented this god not believing in three omnis—he nevertheless did believe god was omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. Wtf?
What shits me is Christians (and Jews and Muslims, but it’s mainly Christians who do this) who just handwave away the problem of evil. Like fine, I can accept that some evils might arise as a result of human decisions and free will. Things like wars and genocides are done by people. It’s difficult to swallow even that much with the idea of a god who supposedly knows all, is capable of doing anything, and is “all good”, but fine, maybe free will ultimately supplants all that.
But what I absolutely cannot accept is any claim that tries to square the idea of a god with the triple-omnis with the fact that natural disasters happen. That children die of cancer. You try telling the parents of a child slowly dying of a painful incurable disease that someone could fix it if they wanted, and they completely know about it, but that they won’t. And then try telling them that person is “all good”. See how they react.
I find religious people who believe in the three omnis after having given it any amount of serious consideration to be absolutely disgusting and immoral people.
Any “evil” suffered in current life will be compensated with reward in afterlife.
The concept tends to fall apart with modern Christianity where everyone just goes to heaven and hell is written out.
But why is that all good? Why couldn’t he have earth be good?
If there is no evil how can there be good?
If the purpose of life is to be a test, how can you test without challenges (evil)?
The crux of the problem is once again the modernized version of Christianity. Where hell has been written out and Adolf Hitler goes to heaven because “Jesus died for his sins”.
Easy. You take the world as it is right now…and then remove the evil things. Evil is a metaphysical concept. We often use analogies of light and dark, but it doesn’t literally work that way.
Then how does the concept of life as a test work when humans can do no evil?
First, you’ll note that I started this conversation by conceding free will and concentrating my discussion of evil on evils that are not performed by humans, but by the planet itself, or by fundamental biology.
But as for “the concept of life as a test”…why is something supposedly omniscient performing a test? It should already know the result of said test, thus making the test itself irrelevant. That’s what omniscience is.
Evil existing is necessary for a test in good and evil. Whether done by humans or natural causes.
Angels were created as perfect servants who obey all commands without free will. Humans were created as the opposite. Those who have free will to perform both good and evil.
An all-powerful entity is not bound by paradoxes. If that was the case it would end at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox which is even more extreme than the free-will paradox for which some explanations can be thought of.
That doesn’t work. People with crap lives often can’t meet the standards of goodness that many forms of Christianity need for you to be qualified for heaven
Something about camels and needle eyes.
But definitely don’t bring that up with the american ‘christian’ or you’ll have to hear the litany of excuse attempts.
Huh? From what I can tell Christians are more fixated on hell than ever now. Listen to them talk about gay/trans people, Palestinians, women who get abortions, or literally anyone who isn’t Christian, and it’s clear that they’re really excited about the idea that their god will torture those people for all eternity while they get to watch from heaven. You’ll even get catholics and protestants both thinking they’re the only ones going to heaven and the “wrong” kind of Christian goes to hell because of technicalities like whether you go to confession or not or whether praying to Mary is idolatry. Some outright say that it’s okay to kill gay/trans people, Palestinians, etc, because they’re damned anyway and god doesn’t give a shit about them.
Most we observe in the media either the kumbaya Christians, where Jesus died for everyones sins and everyone goes to heaven. Or the MAGA Christians who believe treating the poor like dirt is owning the libs.
The question about evil existing is rather easy to answer but all the Christian internal discourse would be more confusing. I don’t have much experience with it but
Wouldn’t that directly violate the first commandment?
Asking someone already in the kingdom is no different than asking someone without the kingdom to intercede on our behalf. Also God has 72 names in our tradition, millions in others.
Mary is not God or part of the trinity right? Jesus ascending into heaven would not mean Mary is in heaven. Which would mean Mary remains dead until judgement day and is not yet in heaven. Unless I am not familiar with something.
You’re not familiar with a lot because churches and politicians occulted this information. It’s in the whole Bible (you can find the Ethiopian Bible in English online but there are mistranslations so you have to go to the Jewish and hermetic kabbalah and other sources to find them. Also I already referred to Psalm 82, wrt God.
I did a quick google search and apparently the pope added it in 1950 but it is not canon
Again, we’re not meant to take everything literally and that’s why Jesus taught in parables. Here’s what you can take literally, “the Kingdom of Heaven is within you.”
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you here, but thought I’d provide a counter argument.
A group of children are dying of a horrible, deadly disease that can only be cured with the bark from a specific tree. So we go into the forest and chop this tree down to save the children from an excruciating disease.
A squirrel had built its entire home in that tree. That tree was everything to the squirrel. Now the squirrel has nothing and will suffer because we chopped down its home.
How do we explain this to the squirrel? Well, we can’t. No matter how hard we try, we can’t explain why we needed to destroy its home. The squirrel is physically incapable of understanding.
Playing devils advocate here, perhaps the reason for the need for human suffering is so beyond our understanding and comprehension that we are just physically incapable of understanding. Maybe we’re just squirrels, and human suffering needs to happen for some greater purpose unbeknownst to us.
That is an interesting thought experiment in general but I don’t think it really squares with Christian theology and the central role humanity has in it.
That argument lands you in the “we can’t know which religion is true” category, because if we can’t know the plans of god, we also can’t know which god is real.
So, while it absolves the believer from having to answer the problem of evil, it simultaneously robs them of any certainty about the truth of their religion.
But only if they think about it.
They’re all true and all not true. Each culture given the appropriate teachers at the appropriate time for the appropriate lessons. Five is five, until it’s 5.2.
IF there was some reason, first of all, God could give us the ability to understand if he wanted to, as he is not supposed to be limited. Second, it would imply someone is getting something from it, God, us, or otherwise, that for some reason, God can’t give in a way that doesn’t involve evil. But again, if he is never limited, that shouldn’t be the case.
Also, if cancer and other diseases are supposed to exist and kill people for some kind of purpose we don’t understand, why do we have the ability to treat, vaccinate and cure those same diseases? If medicine gets to the point of preventing every ailment, then why does that “oh so important” reason for it existing not matter anymore? It would seem if these things NEED to exist, we shouldn’t be able to prevent them from happening under any circumstances.
Oh god, now you’ve hit on why some of the sects that we consider cults do what they do. Somehow, wearing clothes, using plows, building structures to provide shelter and warehousing, creating roads that wheeled contraptions (but they don’t have engines!) use, etc., etc., as part of our technological lives isn’t a sin, but using medical advancements is!
I’m upvoting because I thought this was done good engagement with the premise and you don’t deserve to be downvoted for it.
But fundamentally, you’ve missed a pretty big step. What if god just…didn’t create a situation where children get diseases that can only be cured with one rare tree?
Or, more importantly, what about diseases that cannot be cured? What about natural disasters? Yes, some types of natural disasters have gotten more common and worse as a result of human action, but they still happened before climate change, and if anything were more disruptive to people before we had modern building practices.
We’re talking about a god that is literally capable of anything. It could just wave its hand and delete all disease from existence. It chooses not to.
We’re talking about the Abrahamic trio, so God is supposed to be all powerful. That means there is nothing beyond his power. There is no “can only” or “can’t” or “incapable” for him. He can have His cure and save the tree too, He doesn’t have to choose. Your example only works if God is limited in some capacity, and has to make trade offs that we can’t understand.
A parent can easily do their children’s homework. How does that benefit the kids? A passing mark doesn’t mean the kid understands and the lessons don’t get easier.
The “homework” you’re talking about is war, starvation, disease, rape, slavery, and death.
A parent is supposed to help their children, not torture them to death for a “lesson”.
We did that. It’s our mess to clean up.
Oh, but I never voted for that politician! Did we do anything besides vote and clicktivism?
Disease? Starvation? Disaster? Let us not pretend like God didn’t create human evil either. For what? For fun? “To teach us a lesson”?
The all powerful, all knowing God never seems to do anything either in case you haven’t noticed.
So we’re given the means to solve these tests. When we learn to work together to solve them, rather than “punishing” each other, we get closer to solving them. Disasters happen, whether natural or man-made. We either work together or we don’t. Test time.
We aren’t given the means to solve every “test” - sometimes people just die in twisted agony because the test is impossible.
Btw, Alan Watts addressed some of this in The Book (on the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are). If you can be bothered.
The funny thing is, the ancient Israelites almost certainly didn’t believe this. It was a more recent invention that’s obviously not supported by the old testament or the talmud.
Yep years ago I was in a bible study, well on my way to being an agnostic already. They were going over a difficult passage and the conclusion was ‘god works in mysterious ways’. Not that I hadn’t heard that nonsense before but for some reason hearing it in that scenario was the last straw and I never went back.
Yeah, the average person gets a pass on this sort of thing because I generally assume they haven’t thought much about it. But it’s particularly galling when biblical scholars do it.
I saw one biblical scholar whose schtick was debunking things evangelicals believe about the bible. He would happily admit it’s written by a collection of authors over a long period of time, who were doing so not literally but in rhetorical styles popular in their day. Things like that.
Once, I saw him describe how the early Israelites did not believe in the three omnis. They may not have even believed in a monotheistic god, but it was certainly not omniscient and omnibenevolent. Then he went on to say that despite that—despite the fact that the authors of the religious text and the society that invented this god not believing in three omnis—he nevertheless did believe god was omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. Wtf?