Diversity, Inclusion, Equity

[Immanuel Can]

The historical Jesus is dead and gone.

...and raised, and coming back, and going to judge the world.

"...So having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now proclaiming to mankind that all people everywhere are to repent, because He has set a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all people by raising Him from the dead.” (Acts 17:30-31)

You will see this day, be sure of it.

Be ready for it.

[Belinda]

The historical Jesus is dead and gone.

...and raised, and coming back, and going to judge the world.

"...So having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now proclaiming to mankind that all people everywhere are to repent, because He has set a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all people by raising Him from the dead.” (Acts 17:30-31)

You will see this day, be sure of it.

Be ready for it.

So your deity has resorted to threats and rewards.

[Immanuel Can]

So your deity has resorted to threats and rewards.

No. God is eventually going to provide the Earth with the very justice it's clamouring for right now: for the world, for the nations, and for you. So the allegation that he's allowed suffering too long is going to be answered with justice. Count on it.

It's not a threat. It's a promise.

[Belinda]

So your deity has resorted to threats and rewards.

No. God is eventually going to provide the Earth with the very justice it's clamouring for right now: for the world, for the nations, and for you. So the allegation that he's allowed suffering too long is going to be answered with justice. Count on it.

It's not a threat. It's a promise.

Your deity is incomprehensible. If He can do that at some future date why not all the time? I cannot demand that deity be comprehensible, but I would not even vote for a politician who was so mysterious.

[Immanuel Can]

Your deity is incomprehensible. If He can do that at some future date why not all the time?

"...with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:8-9)

[KLewchuk]

Belinda,

What you wrote is the "irrefutable" argument against classical theism. At least irrefutable in that I've never read a "argument" against it that does not require the "leap of faith"... and that others have agreed on this point.

Of course, it is not necessarily logical to conclude that "God" does not exist. Rather, it may be our definition of God which is the issue.

Our definition of God is the issue. There is no need to abandon The Bible as a source of inspiration, especially the life and work of Jesus both as a historical source of morality and as mythic perfection of man in a dangerous and uncertain world.

Whatever attributes the deity has we cannot know them except by way of something in the world i.e. the myth of Christ, or myth of a holy book and holy prophet.

The classic attributes of God with accompanying need for a leap of faith no longer serve men who trust probability, for want of better. We can still worship (worthship) universal wisdom and universal kindness and also ourselves bear the responsibility for making the world wiser and kinder.

Agreed; the United Church of Canada, for example, believes that the Bible was written by men who were "inspired". A very careful nuance which does not require for them to say that the Bible is inerrant, etc. It also leaves the door open for other writings to be "inspired". I think some of the Sufi writings are also inspired, in this sense.

The conversation has now moved from "fundamentalism" to philosophy.

[KLewchuk]

One can be a "cultural Christian" just as there are "cultural Jews" who adopt the culture but not the "parting of the Red Sea" or "Israel is ours" stuff.

There are very good reasons why your analogy fails. For one thing, "Jewishness" is not merely a matter of belief, but one of DNA, and in particular, as any Jew can tell you, of your matrilineage. Thus, one can biologically be a Jew, and be anything else as well...even a Christian (though a rabbi once told me personally that orthodoxy holds "That's too far.")

One cannot be a biological "Christian," because Christianity is entirely founded on belief, not on DNA.

And, I will also say, one cannot be a "cultural Christian" either; for Christianity is trans-cultural and supra-cultural. The first Christians were actually all Jews. Later, there were Romans and Greeks, and now people of all sorts, from all manner of cultures. So no, even if there are those who misunderstand this fact, there are no such things as legitimate "cultural Christians."

Do you regard England as Christian? So many of the people in Rotherham will be delighted to hear it...or Birmingham, perhaps. They have been labouring under the delusion they're still Muslim. Do you regard America as Christian? Well, they're not British, but I wonder if you would include Sam Harris as one. And does that mean that all the Christians in India are actually closet Hindus? And those in Africa...closet Animists?

You see that the idea of a "cultural Christian" quickly becomes absurd.

Are you serious? They celebrate Christmas in London and not Riyadh.

[KLewchuk]

What you wrote is the "irrefutable" argument against classical theism.

How odd, then, that this allegedly "irrefutable" argument has been abundantly and repeatedly refuted.

It's as old as Epicurus, actually, and is known as his "trilemma." Unfortunately for Epicurus and his admirers, it's simply a false trilemma, because it takes for granted that God can have no sufficient reason for allowing any evil or suffering in the world...and obviously, as B. recognizes, He can.

That is hilarious; that is what you call a leap of faith.

[KLewchuk]

Immanuel Can wrote:

However, we might well have seen the last in terms of His present self-revelation to mankind: for Hebrews says "God, who in times past spoke to the fathers in many ways and by different means, has, in these last days, spoken to us in His Son." That Son is the ultimate in God's self-revelation, as the passage goes on to reveal. So all that God needs to tell us about Himself has already been revealed in Jesus Christ. In that sense, the Last Word has indeed been spoken.

It depends on what the wording of your comment means.

The historical Jesus is dead and gone. The Christ of faith and myth can 'live' in fleeting moments of real lives that we have either seen for ourselves, or read about perhaps in the newspapers, in poetry, or in historical photos.

Jesus never wanted to be idolised. I bet neither did the BVM.

Many realize that Christianity was not about Jesus very long; it was about a syncretism of Jewish monotheism and Greek philosophy. Allan Watts has an interesting understanding of Jesus that reflects the possibility of an Eastern influence that resonates and has some support. May want to look it up, if it is of interest.

When speaking to fundamentalists I move between fear (i.e. can we lock them up? They are dangerous), comedy (i.e. I find them funny) and drudgery (they are so predictable and boring, with nothing to add).

[Immanuel Can]

Are you serious? They celebrate Christmas in London and not Riyadh.

Is that what you think a Christian is? Somebody who celebrates Christmas?

[Immanuel Can]

What you wrote is the "irrefutable" argument against classical theism.

How odd, then, that this allegedly "irrefutable" argument has been abundantly and repeatedly refuted.

It's as old as Epicurus, actually, and is known as his "trilemma." Unfortunately for Epicurus and his admirers, it's simply a false trilemma, because it takes for granted that God can have no sufficient reason for allowing any evil or suffering in the world...and obviously, as B. recognizes, He can.

That is hilarious; that is what you call a leap of faith.

What is? The idea that some suffering can be warranted? Hardly. That's actually pretty easy to show. Just ask any triathlete. Or a mother. Or a doctor. Or anybody who's actually lived a life. There are some things, in fact, that are only good if you DO suffer for them.

[Belinda]

How odd, then, that this allegedly "irrefutable" argument has been abundantly and repeatedly refuted.

It's as old as Epicurus, actually, and is known as his "trilemma." Unfortunately for Epicurus and his admirers, it's simply a false trilemma, because it takes for granted that God can have no sufficient reason for allowing any evil or suffering in the world...and obviously, as B. recognizes, He can.

That is hilarious; that is what you call a leap of faith.

What is? The idea that some suffering can be warranted? Hardly. That's actually pretty easy to show. Just ask any triathlete. Or a mother. Or a doctor. Or anybody who's actually lived a life. There are some things, in fact, that are only good if you DO suffer for them.

Probably you yourself, Mannie, same here for me, everybody has experienced at least a little suffering and loss. It is part of your responsibility as a man to make up your mind, preferably on a case by case basis, how much suffering is productive and how much is useless suffering.

Some people such as doctors or athletes' trainers have the professional remit to decide on behalf of others what is to be the laudable degree of suffering .

[Immanuel Can]

Probably you yourself, Mannie, same here for me, everybody has experienced at least a little suffering and loss.

It is part of your responsibility as a man to make up your mind, preferably on a case by case basis, how much suffering is productive and how much is useless suffering.

Actually, it can't be. For if it is, then your claim that God might allow too much suffering reduces to nothing more than "Belinda doesn't like the amount of suffering she gets." Is that all you want to say? I think it's probably not.

Some people such as doctors or athletes' trainers have the professional remit to decide on behalf of others what is to be the laudable degree of suffering .

"Laud"? What does people praising you have to do with your suffering? After all, in a world without God, you aren't in any real-world sense "noble" if you suffer. You're just unlucky...or maybe incompetent in ways that allow you to end up suffering more than others do. That's hardly worthy of any "laud."

No, the question of suffering is much more profound than that. Let me sharpen it for you, since you're struggling.

Last night, my friends and associates in Honduras were hit by a hurricane. It's their second one in a couple of weeks. The devastation and flooding are horrible...thousands of people living under bridges, in the rain, with nothing but the few scrappy possessions they could grab as they left their flooded homes, and with not a prospect of aid coming in to keep many of them from starving, or from dying of water-borne diseases, or exposure...all their attempts to better their lives washed away in a single night.

Now, there's something bad you want to ask God about.

Fooling about stops at that kind of point, doesn't it?

[Belinda]

Probably you yourself, Mannie, same here for me, everybody has experienced at least a little suffering and loss.

It is part of your responsibility as a man to make up your mind, preferably on a case by case basis, how much suffering is productive and how much is useless suffering.

Actually, it can't be. For if it is, then your claim that God might allow too much suffering reduces to nothing more than "Belinda doesn't like the amount of suffering she gets." Is that all you want to say? I think it's probably not.

Some people such as doctors or athletes' trainers have the professional remit to decide on behalf of others what is to be the laudable degree of suffering .

"Laud"? What does people praising you have to do with your suffering? After all, in a world without God, you aren't in any real-world sense "noble" if you suffer. You're just unlucky...or maybe incompetent in ways that allow you to end up suffering more than others do. That's hardly worthy of any "laud."

No, the question of suffering is much more profound than that. Let me sharpen it for you, since you're struggling.

Last night, my friends and associates in Honduras were hit by a hurricane. It's their second one in a couple of weeks. The devastation and flooding are horrible...thousands of people living under bridges, in the rain, with nothing but the few scrappy possessions they could grab as they left their flooded homes, and with not a prospect of aid coming in to keep many of them from starving, or from dying of water-borne diseases, or exposure...all their attempts to better their lives washed away in a single night.

Now, there's something bad you want to ask God about.

Fooling about stops at that kind of point, doesn't it?

My choice of 'laudable' is due to my interest in the old doctors' practice of recognising "laudable pus" i.e. copious pus formation which stopped healing that was too fast and caused abscess, or retained foreign bodies within the healed tissue. I think we experience the word 'laudable' in different ways.

IC quoted me:

It is part of your responsibility as a man to make up your mind, preferably on a case by case basis, how much suffering is productive and how much is useless suffering.

Actually, it can't be. For if it is, then your claim that God might allow too much suffering reduces to nothing more than "Belinda doesn't like the amount of suffering she gets." Is that all you want to say? I think it's probably not.

But |I am not the only person to use my judgement. I am not even a prime minister or a president. The more people who can reason the less suffering there will be.

[Immanuel Can]

It is part of your responsibility as a man to make up your mind, preferably on a case by case basis, how much suffering is productive and how much is useless suffering.

Actually, it can't be. For if it is, then your claim that God might allow too much suffering reduces to nothing more than "Belinda doesn't like the amount of suffering she gets." Is that all you want to say? I think it's probably not.

But |I am not the only person to use my judgement. I am not even a prime minister or a president. The more people who can reason the less suffering there will be.

Sorry, B. Again, you're missing the point.

The question is not "how much suffering does B., or the PM, or the President like?" That's irrelevant. Whether anybody at all "likes" it matters not a whit. After all, the supposition of somebody who doesn't believe in a Creator has to be that whatever amount of suffering in the world there may be, it's not "evil." And it's not "good." It's not either, or anything.

So the only real question that one can raise regarding God and suffering is, "How much suffering is actually justifiable for the ends gained thereby?" Whether or not anybody "likes" it...well, nothing could be more trivial. One doesn't have to "like" something for it to be justifiable or unjustifiable.