 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Let’s solve the problem of evil > Carlie was murdered--Where was God? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 2/28/2004 6:11 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote that JET posted:
quote:
In that case a ship sank at sea forcing the survivors to crowd into a leaking lifeboat. The crew decided to throw sixteen passengers overboard to prevent the boat from sinking. Holmes, a crew member who participated in tossing passengers into the sea, was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to six months' imprisonment. On appeal Holmes argued that his conduct was justified given the choices confronting him. Although rejecting Holmes's argument because the method of determining who was to live or die was not fair, the court nonetheless accepted the principle that committing a harm, even the taking of human life, could sometimes be justified because it avoided the loss of even more lives, which was a greater harm.
The difference between Holmes and God is that Holmes sacrificed others whereas God sacrifices Himself. We know exactly what Jesus would do in that same (meta-physical) situation - He would jump into the water Himself.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
 |
shell
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280
| Posted 2/28/2004 6:19 AM (GMT -6) | | I couldn't find the quote I was talking about here...so I took down my post till I find it. I don't want to misquote anyone.
shell
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 2/28/2004 6:45 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
BBBCanada: OK. First, the word "complicit" is as Meph Man and Tom say, probably the best that you are gonna get.
Tom: I thought I had argued that it was the worst word to use. I'd never use it. To express what Mephi is talking about, I'd just say, Jesus was a human being who participated in his world. I simply don't see the value of the whole complicit thing.
Tom
In the way that Meph Man is using it, it's the best word that we have to describe God's involvement in Creation. Besides, I bet my bottom dollar that this is how Greg will use it given the potential that you will give him a "full MESSAGE treatment" and a SWANKY ONE at that!  Greg has admitted to God having to "work with" the variables. He simply gives more explanatory power to it in SATPOE.
BJS said:
quote:
I know this point has been made already, so I hope you don't mind if I say it again:
How is it evil (complicit, active, whatever) to choose the lesser of two evils?
It isn't. Was Eisenhower evil for sending young men to die in battle in order to defeat Hitler?
So all of this angst about trying to explain how God can be "complicit" in evil because he at times may "sacrifice the rook for the queen" is unnecessary in my mind. There's nothing evil AT ALL about choosing the lesser of two evils. Nothing.
Well this is what I was trying to say before. And in a sense I agree with you. But here again, we have a play on words. The language is important. God has to choose between the "lesser of TWO EVILS." Evil "A" or evil "B," which is the lesser evil. Either way, he has to choose one of them. I have always believe that God is JUSTIFIED in choosing the LESSER evil of the two. I have always thought that when I said God is justified that the lesser evil IS NOT evil. That somehow (given the context of the situation) it BECOMES good. But yea, given the "state of affairs" the lesser evil is STILL an evil that God has to "work with." When you look at the principle of "double effect" (which I asked of Meph Man clarification questions one time) he told me that though God would be justified in choosing the lesser evil, it is still evil nonetheless. Ultimately the lesser evil is evil for the simple fact that it even had to occur given the fallen context.
But this is part of Meph Man's premise. Why do you think he puts forth scripture showing that God does some crazy whacked out stuff? That crazy whacked out stuff is God complicity in evil. And to say that God is NO WAY in ANY instance on ANY LEVEL implicated in evil flies in the face of Christ and the Christ work.
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 2/28/2004 7:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Good Morning, Brother:
I (respectfully) disagree with your interpretation of Exodus 4, which, in your opinion, implies that God is the cause of children being born with disabilities.
I sincerely believe that your view of this Scripture erroneously attributes evil/suffering to God that IS NOT of His causing.
You asked for a "compelling" argument to convince you otherwise.
I submit the following facts for your consideration:
Mephi...
• DID YOU KNOW .... that approximately 50% of children who are born with autism-spectrum disorders never develop functional language -- and, a number of these children are completely nonverbal? (i.e., "mute").
Are you saying that Our Loving GOD is responsible; but, that's permissible in the grand "scheme" of things -- because He has a (mysterious) PURPOSE for having caused the lifelong struggles that these children face?
• DID YOU KNOW .... that babies who are born prematurely are at increased risk of a variety of 'complications', including blindness?
In view of your understanding of Exodus 4, would you attribute their disabilities to God??
• DID YOU KNOW .... that if an expectant mother is exposed to Rubella (German measles), in the first 5 months of her pregnancy, her unborn baby is at increased risk of being born deaf? (The damage that happens to the fetus will last for the child's entire life).
Is this the result of God's hand??
I think you and I agree that God is responsible for *all creation*; however, I submit that Our Heavenly Father IS NOT to blame for the suffering/evil that befalls innocent children by virtue of being born far, far from Eden.
Conclusion:
In view of the above facts, can you entertain the possibility
that your interpretation of Ex. 4 may be "short-sighted" (Q: did God cause this 'blind-spot'?... ); and, that the lifelong challenges/suffering that some children with disabilities face -- may instead be the result of something OTHER than the ideal world that God had envisioned for his precious children?
Hint: THE FALL.
Your turn, Brother:
Please provide
A COMPELLING ARGUMENT for what you believe to be
GOD'S PURPOSE in causing children to be born with disabilities.
Peace & blessings,
<><
quote:
Mephi wrote:
Mayflower:
Ok. With respect to Ex 4, give me another COMPELLING interpretation. How do you personally interpret this Scripture?
Outside of saying that God just plain didn't say this, and that this was, most likely, just an erroneous belief of the writer, I have a hard time escaping it.
What do you think?
MephEternal wrote:
quote:
God is no respector of persons, but God is a respector of purpose.
And to the extent that persons fit into purposes, God deal with those persons accordingly.
========================================================
ALSO SEE:
Christus Victor Ministries Discussion: My Problem with the Zosia Argument http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2510&SearchTerms=zosia
Iconoclast wrote:
quote:
I am sticking with the nazi guard being the culprit on the torture of Zosia and NOT God. God is love. He doesn’t torture little children.
thanks,
Iconoclast
MephEternal wrote:
quote:
Yeah...and God doesn't MAKE anyone deaf or mute, either...riiiight?
Ex. 4:10-12
But Moses said to the LORD, “O my Lord, I have never been eloquent, neither in the past nor even now that you have spoken to your servant; but I am slow of speech and slow of tongue.” Then the LORD said to him, “Who gives speech to mortals? Who makes (Heb. from shin yod mem. To put or set) them mute or deaf, seeing or blind? Is it not I, the LORD?
This had to have been humans putting words in the mouth of God...right?
========================================================
SEE:
Christus Victor Ministries Discussion: Handicapped Persons & the Bible http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2507&SearchTerms=,handicap
MephEternal wrote: quote:
Taken all this, God, at least SOMETIMES, is the one who MAKES
people deaf, mute and all that. GOD does it. Not only that, but on the basis of being blind or whatever, a person could be near to God insofar as they were thought of as NOT being symbolically “holy” enough. So, God makes the people deaf and blind…KNOWING that they will defective even in GOD’S sight.
. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 2/28/2004 7:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom
Nothing here to disagree with. I’m with ya on the meta-physical realm. I’m not claiming God is physically limited (he can’t get to both bluffs on both hills to save all his sheep). All the constraints in my analogies are metaphysical constraints required by a world where love is possible.
Iconoclast
Okay. We are then back to the core disagreement. Does God face a metaphysical conflict between the “good” of the one and the “good” of “the whole”?
First let’s talk about your analogy. Your analogy of the train track only serves to provide the logic that you believe maps to the good of the one and the good of the whole. It in no way proves or even suggests that it is valid to map this logic to begin with. Thus, you cannot hang your hat on the analogy as proof that such a metaphysical conflict exists. This is true also of the chess analogy. The chess analogy neither proves nor suggests that God faces some metaphysical conflict related to love and the possibility of evil – it only provides us a physical metaphor for understanding one aspect of the logic of the metaphysical conflict once we determine, USING OTHER METHODS, that the metaphysical conflict really exists.
The REASON we both agree that love must be chosen is NOT found in the chess analogy. It is found in our understanding and experience of what is MEANS to love.
Furthermore, it is invalid to continue to apply other aspects of the chess analogy just because one aspect of its logic seems to map well to the metaphysical conflict God faces between love and the possibility of evil.
To do so is like saying that because one aspect of the logic of driving a car maps well to human relationships (“I think our relationship is at a dead end.”) that other aspects of the logic of driving a car must also map well to human relationships (“honey – it would be a lot better if you started carrying around a spare tire.”)
We need to use metaphors to help us manipulate logic but we must never forget that the thing itself contains its own unique logic that we are trying to explore.
So what exactly is this “thing itself” you are talking about when you say that God experiences a metaphysical conflict between the “good” of the one and the “good” of “the whole”?
I understand that love must be chosen which implies free-will which entails the possibility of evil. But I do not know what you mean by the “good” of the one nor do I know what you mean by the good of “the whole”. You need to be clear about exactly what this is and why there is a metaphysical conflict between them. Your analogy provides us with the logic that you believe is valid but does NOT provide us with any clarity about what exactly it is that the logic applies TO.
Tom
I don’t see how we can deny that persons play roles of greater and lesser importance to the accomplishing of God’s purposes in the earth. This does not amount to limiting the value a person has to God to their relative importance in the overall scheme of things. That’s an assumption that doesn’t follow from the face that people figure into God’s purposes differently. And, I might add, God’s not the only one who decides what role we play in the bigger scheme. We can, through a history of bad choices, render ourselves permanently unqualified for SOME tasks.
Iconoclast
I do not understand what you are trying to get at here. My understanding of God’s purpose in the earth is to create loving beings. And that therefore this purpose supercedes all other purposes – or, rather, all other “purposes” ARE this purpose. Therefore the “good of the one” is that the one has the opportunity to choose to become a loving being and that the “good of the whole” is that ALL human beings have this opportunity. The “good of the whole” is that ALL human beings have immeasurable worth to God.
What do you mean by “persons play roles of greater and lesser importance to the accomplishing of God’s purposes in the earth”? God’s purpose is that ALL humans choose to love God. WE are God’s purpose in the earth.
Now, I agree that when we choose to love God and each other we are, by definition, fulfilling God’s purpose in the earth but also, by definition, this does not mean that we are more or less important to God. God risks the 99 to save the 1.
You seem to be suggesting that there are somehow “lesser” purposes of God in which it makes sense for God to have a “lesser” measurement of a human’s worth and thus be willing to actualize a “lesser” evil on that person than on others. This seems like an outright contradiction to me of what God’s purpose is. How is this not some form of compartmentalization unless by “lesser” purpose you really mean some OTHER purpose unrelated to God’s purpose of loving us? In other words – some form of a “Glorification Principle” outside of God’s purpose of creating loving beings.
Let me suggest that there are two categories or realms in which the words good and evil have meaning:
1. The meta-physical realm:
In the metaphysical realm good means love. It means to love God and others. Evil means to objectify God and others – to see others and use others as objects for your own purposes. This is always a choice of a free-will agent. In this realm good and evil are binary. There is no such concept of a “lesser” evil or a “greater” good as good and evil are always related to each other through a binary choice – to either love others or objectify others. Good and evil in this realm are distinct ontological categories.
2. The physical realm:
In the physical realm good means pleasure and evil means pain. Thus good and evil are related to each other on a continuum. A lesser evil is simply less pain in relation to more pleasure and a greater good is more pleasure in relation to less pain. In this realm good and evil are NOT distinct ontological categories. They are really simply a measurement within a single ontological category called physical “well-being”.
My view is that the whole “lesser evil” in order to prevent a “greater evil” argument is an argument based on the definition of good and evil in the physical realm. I do not believe that this definition is a valid one. I believe that this definition is a false understanding of good and evil that comes from the stolen knowledge of good and evil.
Tom, what I hear you saying is that God is working to minimize pain and maximize pleasure and that, in doing so, He measures the potential worth of humans (related to this goal) based on their potential to minimize pain and maximize pleasure.
My objection is two-fold:
1. This presumes that this definition of good and evil is a valid one and that God operates according to this definition.
2. For God to do this would mean that God is now objectifying people (at some level) in terms of their value to this goal. In my view for God to objectify people AT ANY LEVEL is, by (my) definition, metaphysical evil. A little leaven…
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 2/28/2004 8:10 AM (GMT -6) | | Re: Is God to blame when children are born with disabilities?
P.S.
Mephi...
• DID YOU KNOW .... that environmental pollutants can cause; or, be a contributing factor -- in (some) birth defects, and/or diseases?
Why do we have environmental pollutants; why are streams and rivers polluted? Why is food contaminated by toxic pesticides?
I believe that these problems are, in part, the result of the FALLEN WORLD in which we live. (i.e., "greed").
Yes, God "created" the world that we inhabit; HOWEVER, He did not create the greed that causes mankind to desire wealth over health -- and, pollute this earth for the sake of temporal riches.
POINT: Does God "cause" cancer? No?
Then why birth defects -- such as blindness, hearing impairments, and neurological disorders that cause children to have impaired language??
The reality is that many diseases, disabilities, and birth defects have multiple etiologies -- but, GOD is not one of these causes.
Can you imagine a label on a can of green beans that reads:
"CAUTION -- GOD IS TOXIC TO YOUR HEALTH"?
I cannot.
Peace & blessings,
<><
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 2/28/2004 8:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks, Laika.
Second only to GOD -- laughter is the best medicine!
Peace & blessings,
<><
M.A.D.D. Member
(Mothers Against Deviant Deity). | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/28/2004 10:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Springs: TGB, So you want me to throw the switch while I'm unconscious? ps: BJS is not code for BBBC dude.
Tom: Dang. Did I screw up BJS's name again? I am forever confusing those two. Guess I had to choose the lesser of two...oh never mind.
Naw, Springs, you don't throw the switch while your unconsious. You choose to do it, which is why this is UNLIKE the sort of complicity Mephi is arguing we are all tainted with by virtue of just being born, or being white, or being male, or whatever the category is.
Ya'll are racing too fast for me. Shoot. This would work a LOT better if I just lived in St. Paul!
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 2/28/2004 12:16 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/29/2004 12:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Laika: Tom, in the train tracks analogy, why is the agent always switched from God, who's powerful enough and smart enough to enact a non-evil solution, to us mere mortals who don't have those resources? Springs switches to the third track, the empty track.
Tom: OK, once again. In applying the analogy to God, everything has already been done by God to outright prevent any and all evil. God’s sought to enlist prayer warriors but like in Ezekiel nobody responded. God’s tried to open up the earth and swallow the train like in the Old Testament, but demons and other factors had that door closed. Jesus had already thrown himself in front of the train (Christ died on the cross), but that hasn’t stopped the madman (evil has continued barreling down the tracks of life AFTER Jesus died in case nobody’s noticed). God tried to switch to Springs’ third tracks but the factors disallow it. All the factors are figured in. All the variables accounted for. Springs’ third track too. It’s all there. All accounted for. God’s done everything miraculous the factors at play open the door to, but the train keeps barreling down the tracks. Any sort of third option you wanna put into there to escape the lever that switches the tracks, anything at all, I’ve included. God has done EVERYTHING he can do to prevent this evil—everything—and he’s failed. God fails. Anybody here wanna try to deny that God ever fails to prevent evil? OK, so here we are. It can’t be prevented, but it CAN be minimized. God can switch the tracks. WE are certainly sometimes in such predicaments. WE intuitively affirm the appropriateness of switching the tracks. WE universally refuse to call what the person switching the tracks does “evil” and exonerate this one from all responsibility for the death of the one. So we either extend this to God OR claim that though life is like this for us it’s never like this for God. Mephi, Brandon, Bret, and I (F.F.I.G. = Fathers for an Involved God) find less problems in the first option whereas you and Iconoclast join the M.A.D.D. club).
Laika: Springs switches to the third track, the empty track.
Tom: There IS no third track. The factors and free will variables YOU GUYS admits have ruled out a third track.
Laika: Also, you wouldn't mind if I e-mailed your wife, would you Tom? Given the choice of which of her children to sacrifice for God's greater good, she may want to join MADD herself.
Tom: Email away, but I've already asked her. If ten children were on one track and one child on another and she was the last link in a chain of attempts to stop the train and free all eleven children, and all the attempts failed, and the LAST option was switching the tracks and SHE was at the lever, she'd pull it.
A very smart woman that wife of mine. 
----------------------------------------
Mephi-
Way back on page one of this thread we were talking about Joseph Smith’s murdering Carlie and you and I both agreed that Doc would respond to this with “Joe Smith is the only one responsible for Carlie’s death.” You objected to this because you thought it presumptuous and a denial of the ambiguity of things. As we talked through it we came out understanding each other better and agreeing on some fundamental things that got everybody upset. But I want to come back to this question again, because as I understand the agreement to have opened the door for YOU to agree with Doc in spite of the ambiguity. That’s the whole revelation as far as I’ve been understanding things. Now we CAN say that Joe Smith is the only one responsible for Carlie’s death. Even in cases where, say, I switch the tracks to save the ten, it remains true that the train driver alone is responsible for the death of the one. I do not share in the responsibility for the evil that befalls the one even if I switched the tracks. You seem to have agreed with this. Even if we factor in your understanding of ‘complicity’ it remains the case that Smith alone is morally responsible, alone “to blame.” Complicity, as you understand it, doesn’t implicate people “morally” in the evil of the systems they cannot escape.
So, my question is, are you prepared to grant that when an evil like Carlie’s murder occurs (ANY evil actually) it’s the case that the perpetrator (Joe Smith in this case) alone is responsible? He alone is to blame. (Yes, yes, it might be that the Florida State legislature and courts share partly in the blame by creating a situation in which Smith was allowed to go free, BUT the point is that God is not to blame, so let’s forget state legislatures and Christians who failed to pray, OK?) It’s Smith immediately and possibly other people who influenced the event remotely, who are to blame. Even if it were true that tracks were switched so to speak (which is where you want to place the ambiguity) God is not to blame. Given the agreement and discussion that followed after page one, I’m wondering what problem you would now have with agreeing with me (and Doc) where you once clearly disagreed. On page one you said you objected to anyone who claimed that Joe Smith is alone responsible for Carlie’s death precisely because you want to argue that we can never know when some evil is a switched track. But you’ve also agreed now with my summary that claims that even when the tracks are switched the responsibility falls entirely on the shoulders of the train driver. Will you now agree that Smith alone is morally responsible for Carlie’s death? And if so, can you type it out really large in 6 pt. font for all to read?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 2/29/2004 1:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom, thanks for the summary for Doc. It will be interesting to see his reply (although I bet I can guess based on your language over there ).
A couple questions 1) do you really think the division of "almost everyone" but you meph etc. is over this: quote:
And, lastly, even if we admit that WE are sometimes in less than perfect situations faced with having to make the best possible choice in the worst possible situation, what about God? Does God—given the conditions and variables of our evil world—ever find himself in such situations? One side in this debate is denying that God every faces such conflicts, that the good of the whole and the good of the one are ever conflicted (i.e., not conjointly maximizable). The other side (I, Mephi, Brandon, and Bret) are arguing that God does sometimes face such situations but that we can never know the details on it because the mystery is in creation.
I don't. 2) Don't you think it is MUCH MORE over what it LOOKS LIKE to "sacrificing the rook to save the Queen"? And (as you asked below) IS GOD TO BLAME for evil? ever, at all?
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
On page one you said you objected to anyone who claimed that Joe Smith is alone responsible for Carlie’s death precisely because you want to argue that we can never know when some evil is a switched track. But you’ve also agreed now with my summary that claims that even when the tracks are switched the responsibility falls entirely on the shoulders of the train driver. Will you now agree that Smith alone is morally responsible for Carlie’s death? And if so, can you type it out really large in 6 pt. font for all to read?
Tom
I do.
God BRINGS GOOD OUT OF EVIL. GOD Works together for the GOOD of the one or the whole or whatever HE sees/knows at the time.
So, when GOD DOES work in a particular evil situation, it is for the purpose of bringing good out of it. God never originates and causes evil - that would be antithetical to God. In my opinion, this is the good news. We don't ever have to wonder when we see something evil...who's behind it. If it doesn't line up with what we see in Jesus Christ then it comes from wills OTHER THAN GODS...always.
love
selah
"When we acknowledge that all of life is sacred and that each act is an act of choice and therefore sacred, then life is a sacred dance lived consciously each moment. When we live at this level, we participate in the creation of a better world."
Scout Cloud Lee | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 2/29/2004 1:41 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
God has done EVERYTHING he can do to prevent this evil—everything—and he’s failed. God fails. Anybody here wanna try to deny that God ever fails to prevent evil? OK, so here we are. It can’t be prevented, but it CAN be minimized. God can switch the tracks. WE are certainly sometimes in such predicaments. WE intuitively affirm the appropriateness of switching the tracks. WE universally refuse to call what the person switching the tracks does “evil” and exonerate this one from all responsibility for the death of the one. So we either extend this to God OR claim that though life is like this for us it’s never like this for God.
Tom, another problem. See, when YOUR daughter, sweet and innocent, is the "one" who dies on the tracks and you are told that God switched the tracks to prevent a greater evil... YOU THINK GOD SUCKS. [exercise: pretend this really happened, now, stand up (go ahead do it) on the count of three WORSHIP! Ready, one, two, three ....Praise God from Whom all Blessings flow..........]
After that, imagine your friendly neighborhood apologist wants you to understand her God. She tries to tell you about the omnipotent God who IS love.....whos essence is love and who out of that love ascribes to you ULTIMATE WORTH (no thanks!) You try to reconcile this with God switchin the tracks and smashing the "worth" of your little girl, laugh in disgust, and conclude that not only does God suck, the apologist sucks too.
implications implications implications
"When we acknowledge that all of life is sacred and that each act is an act of choice and therefore sacred, then life is a sacred dance lived consciously each moment. When we live at this level, we participate in the creation of a better world."
Scout Cloud Lee | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/29/2004 2:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Selah: It will be interesting to see his reply (although I bet I can guess based on your language over there ).
Tom: Oh gee, I hope I didn’t misrepresent things over there. Tell me if I can make it clearer.
Selah: A couple questions 1) do you really think the division of "almost everyone" but you meph etc. is over this:
“(Tom)…One side in this debate is denying that God ever faces such conflicts, that the good of the whole and the good of the one are ever conflicted (i.e., not conjointly maximizable). The other side (I, Mephi, Brandon, and Bret) are arguing that God does sometimes face such situations but that we can never know the details on it because the mystery is in creation.”
OR this:
Don't you think it is MUCH MORE over what it LOOKS LIKE to "sacrificing the rook to save the Queen"? And (as you asked below) IS GOD TO BLAME for evil? ever, at all?
Tom: The latter, or what it looks like and whether or not God is to blame ever. That’s the issue. One side of this debate is denying that the good of the ONE vs WHOLE even exists, that God is ever in the conflicted position of facing a choice between these. On the other hand (Mephi, I, etc.) are arguing that God does sometimes face these situations (but that God doesn’t determine or desire them), and when he does he goes with the good of the whole.
So you’re granting with us “guys” that God sometimes faces such situations but that you just don’t know a) what this would look like in real life and b) whether or not God is to blame? Am I following ya? None of us knows exactly what the inner workings of such conflicted situations “look like.” But we’re all agreeing that in such situations God is never to blame for evil.
Selah: God BRINGS GOOD OUT OF EVIL. GOD Works together for the GOOD of the one or the whole or whatever HE sees/knows at the time. So, when GOD DOES work in a particular evil situation, it is for the purpose of bringing good out of it. God never originates and causes evil.
Tom: No complaint here!
Selah: We don't ever have to wonder when we see something evil...who's behind it. If it doesn't line up with what we see in Jesus Christ then it comes from wills OTHER THAN GODS...always.
Tom: Again, no complaint here. If I see the madman run his train run over ONE child, I don’t question whether someone other than the madman is “behind it.” EVEN if somebody comes up and tells me, “Hey, that guy WAS heading for TEN children and I switched the tracks to save them but couldn’t save the one,” I’d STILL say nobody except for the train driver is “behind” or responsible for the death of the one.
This is what bothers Iconoclast, Semeia, and Laika. They cannot agree that the one who switched the tracks is not morally responsible for the death of the one. In their view, BOTH driver and track switcher are “behind” the one’s death and “to blame” for it.
Do you want me to change something about the summary for Doc? I told him to read pages 30-36 of this thread, so I think he’ll get it.
----------------------
More...
Selah: Tom, another problem. See, when YOUR daughter, sweet and innocent, is the "one" who dies on the tracks and you are told that God switched the tracks to prevent a greater evil... YOU THINK GOD SUCKS.
Tom: Yes, we’re likely to think that. I see. I’ve been there. No with my daughter, but with other very closely related loved ones (couple of times).
Selah: [exercise: pretend this really happened, now, stand up (go ahead do it) on the count of three WORSHIP! Ready, one, two, three ....Praise God from Whom all Blessings flow..........]
Tom: Or let’s sing this one: “I have never seen the righteous forsaken or their children begging bread…” Yay! Worship is so incredibly difficult sometimes. If it weren’t for the fact that I believed God always does all he can to prevent evil, and that when he can’t prevent it he does all he can to minimize it, and that whether he minimizes it or not he does all he can to redeem it and bring good out of it…I wouldn’t be able to worship.
Selah: After that, imagine your friendly neighborhood apologist wants you to understand her God. She tries to tell you about the omnipotent God who IS love.....whos essence is love and who out of that love ascribes to you ULTIMATE WORTH (no thanks!) You try to reconcile this with God switchin the tracks and smashing the "worth" of your little girl, laugh in disgust, and conclude that not only does God suck, the apologist sucks too.
Tom: If you ask that apologist whether or not switching the tracks to save ten as opposed to one, when that’s the last option left us, is the right thing to do or not, my guess is they’d agree it’s appropriate. That the one is their child complicates it emotionally because of the relationship, but God loves each ONE the same. He’s torn up regardless.
Selah: I'm joining my own club. You guys can have the others. Mine is called "God is not to Blame for your hurt and pain- so please, whatever you do, at all costs, don't draw an evil picture of God in your head that you will end up relating to" club...
Tom: That IS our club! And it’s Iconoclast’s, Semeia’s, and Laika’s club too! If you don’t unpack the details, we can all agree that God is not to blame for any evil and that we are not to draw an evil picture of God in our heads. When we read the finer print, some don’t agree that others can really say “God is not to blame.”
Tom
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
shell
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280
| Posted 2/29/2004 7:05 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Laika: Also, you wouldn't mind if I e-mailed your wife, would you Tom? Given the choice of which of her children to sacrifice for God's greater good, she may want to join MADD herself.
Tom: Email away, but I've already asked her. If ten children were on one track and one child on another and she was the last link in a chain of attempts to stop the train and free all eleven children, and all the attempts failed, and the LAST option was switching the tracks and SHE was at the lever, she'd pull it.
A very smart woman that wife of mine.
----------------------------------------
Tom
Shell: This is a question for Tom and or his wife. Is her answer the same if all of the children were her own...let's say there were two on the track that had the train barreling towards them, and one on the other track. I've done this one in my head. My daughter Anna and son Brandon are on one track with the train barreling towards them, and my daughter Grace is on the other track.I CAN'T PULL THE LEVER in the direction of my beautiful daughter Grace, and make that CHOICE to sacrifice her life in place of the other two whom I treasure beyond words as well. Put your kids names and faces on it. It absolutely doesn't work for me. NO WAY. There is no lesser evil here. That is putting a non-existent measure of value on my children's lives. Grace's ONE life is worth LESS than the other TWO? But then again Mephi throws in the variable of his belief that God is a respector of purpose as well.
shell | | Back to Top | | |
|
shell
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280
| Posted 2/29/2004 7:31 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
Shell:
quote:
This is a question for Tom and or his wife. Is her answer the same if all of the children were her own...let's say there were two on the track that had the train barreling towards them, and one on the other track. I've done this one in my head. My daughter Anna and son Brandon are on one track with the train barreling towards them, and my daughter Grace is on the other track.I CAN'T PULL THE LEVER in the direction of my beautiful daughter Grace, and make that CHOICE to sacrifice her life in place of the other two whom I treasure beyond words as well. Put your kids names and faces on it. It absolutely doesn't work for me. NO WAY.
Don't stop there, Shell. Along with Anna and Brandon, mentally place my two kids there too. Seriously. Place my two boys right there alongside your Anna and Brandon. They are all screaming for you to help them. You're the only one who can pull it. I can't reach it. My kids are going to die if YOU don't help them.
You still can't pull it?
Very serious,
SHELL:Absolutely not. I am being very serious here. I see Grace looking into my eyes and seeing me evaluate her life as LESS valuable if I were to flip that switch. I see myself literally jumping onto the the tracks in front of the train to hold onto my kids and yours, if that was really happening. | | Back to Top | | |
|
shell
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280
| Posted 2/29/2004 8:16 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Not easy is it? Nope.
I don't know if it'll affect things, but God would not have the limited emotional attachment to my kids that I have for my kids over and against someone else's kids I don't know. It's a weakness (in a sense, maybe that's the wrong word) of mine that I can only love my kids like I love them and not love everybody's kids the way I love mine. Point is, God doesn't face that. He loves them all equally.
SHELL: Please read this carefully. This was my WHOLE point in saying that ALL of the children were my own. Mephi chose to attach his two kids to the mix. I was trying to make the point that God loves all of his children EQUALLY. I am thinking of God's perspective when I imagine choosing between MY three children.
The point I would like to make is that IF I were to switch the tracks, the two of my children that I saved would see me DIFFERENTLY. They would know that I have it in me to CHOOSE between my children. How would they ever truly TRUST me completely. I might switch the track in THEIR direction the next time.
Shell
| | Back to Top | | |
|
shell
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280
| Posted 2/29/2004 8:19 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Selah
I think Icon is right about this analogy. It doesn't work. AND it is currently causing its own evil...disunity 
love
selah
Selah, my heart is for unity and I was just speaking my heart and applying the analogy in a very direct way, as opposed to the abstract ways it has been presented. This is where the rubber meets the road in bringing out the reality of this analogy and the thinking behind it. I have NO desire to emphasize or bring out disunity by referring to this analogy.
thanks, shell | | Back to Top | | |
|
shell
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280
| Posted 2/29/2004 8:25 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Shell, this doesn't mean we're reducing people's value down to pure numbers. If they were PURE numbers and I believed that, I'd walk away and not care what happened. But if a life represents so much, so much potential love and goodness, don't many lives represent much potential love and goodness? Is it objectifying people to recognize this? I don't think so. Of course, there is often times much self-serving in much of our love, but if such evaluating is to be done, God does it perfectly.
Love,
Tom
If it's not about sheer numbers...my TWO kids as opposed to my ONE kid, then what should I be considering here to make it the lesser of two evils, when we are talking about MY TWO CHILDREN VERSES MY OTHER ONE CHILD. Should I consider which one will take care of me better when I'm old? Who is more obedient? Who has the most creativity to offer the world? Who has the most compassionate heart? What criteria am I basing it on when I LOVE all of my children the SAME. THAT is what I mean't by sheer numbers. TWO is better than ONE right? That is what I am hearing. I would prefer that we stopped using the 10 to one ration if it's not about numbers. Let's say 2 to 3, 1 to 2, 10 to 9. And the kids are ALL MINE or ALL YOURS. Because that is the reality. We are ALL God's children.
Shell | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/29/2004 8:26 AM (GMT -6) | | SHELL:: The point I would like to make is that IF I were to switch the tracks, the two of my children that I saved would see me DIFFERENTLY. They would know that I have it in me to CHOOSE between my children. How would they ever truly TRUST me completely. I might switch the track in THEIR direction the next time.
Tom: I understand. But one can argue equally that if you do nothing and let the train run over the TWO, the ONE that lives will see you differently as well. That one would know that you don't have it in you to make the best choice in the worst of circumstances, that when faced with conflicted situations you retreat and back down from difficult choices. They'll certianly be happy to be the one that got to live, but...? That might not connect with you right now, shell, but it makes as much sense to me as your argument for not pulling the lever.
Just a thought.
Love, love, love, and more love,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
| 777 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:07 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|