Tom, one of the reasons I wanted to start the "minimal theodicy" thread months back was to see where folks stood on a philosophical level, alone, with respect to theodicy.  Since so many of us disagree about the meaning of texts and which texts (if any) are authoritative, I wanted to know WHAT purely philosophical requirements folks EXPECTED the bible to be consistent with.  Now, one of the really important ideas that must be confronted with respect to theodicy is the following, posted by Alan:

Here I would reject your assumption that God's killing the Canaanite children is evil. As our creator, God retain rights over us, such as the right to give or take life as he sees fit, that we do not have over each other. We implicitly recognize this when we say that it's wrong for someone to "play God"--it's wrong for us to do so because we are not God. But it's analytically true that it's okay for God to "play God". So there's no inconsistency here.

Sista! Where you been?

I dunno, Selah. Nobody's showing up to help me out on this one. I'm thinking nobody's got a knock-down answer.

Tom

Post Edited (MephEternal) : 9/7/2005 11:28:32 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (TGB) : 9/8/2005 12:13:04 AM (GMT-5)

Mephi: And I'll tell you, the MAIN reason that I hold their to be some hope of a kernel of historicity to the Exodus story is because of the messianic idea associated with Jesus. Without the Exodus, so much of OT theology becomes groundless. If Jesus's person and work is IN NO WAY actually related to God's supposed work with God's people in the Exodus...then we have a deep mystery on our hands about the self-understanding of the Jewish people and Jesus.

Tom: Maybe the Jewish people and Jesus were wrong. Maybe they're all wrong about a lot of things. Maybe the only thing that's true (because our very experience of the living Christ would be empty without it) is that God exists, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, and we're worth nothing without love. That's the beginning and end of it all. An atheist wants to debate us about the existence of God? We should offer to wash his car and help him care for his dying mother. He laughs at us? We visit his mother by ourselves. A Muslim wants to debate us about the death and resurrection of Christ? We should tell him the best evidence there is that Jesus rose from the dead is the countless number of people whose lives have been changed wherever the message of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection has gone and been embraced throughout the earth. No debating. No symposiums. No philosophical societies. No public forums. No Ph.Ds. No papers. The Muslim laughs when we refuse to debate and declares victory? We offer to help paint the local mosque. He says he can produce countless numbers of people whose lives have been changed by Muhammad? We say we're happy to see people sensative to their spiritual needs and can only offer what we have experienced. End of story. Some scholar says there was no Exodus, no flood, no salvation of Jews in the Exile, no resurrection? We don't concern ourself with the evidence for or against. We stop relying on fancy arguments and ask God to annoint us with power--not to argue, but to love, serve, sacrifice, suffer, praise, rejoice, THAT'S IT. THAT'S our job. That's our calling.

We should throw our books away and just mentor people in the art of Christlike loving and suffering.

But anyhow, your argument sounds exactly like the line of reasoning I used to argue the author of Genesis 6 should NOT be thought of as believing God did not foreknow as possible the precise situation he supposedly regrets. Accounting for other beliefs the author must have held regarding God as Creator becomes a deep mystery.

Tom

Post Edited (selah) : 9/8/2005 7:01:48 AM (GMT-5)