A small point before diving in: be sure and leave the numbers after a name when you use the quote function or the arrow/link isn’t in play and those answered might, as I just did (having a few irons in various fires) have to hunt for earlier posts to make sure of a given context. It’s also a courtesy to those who might enter the thread at that juncture and want to jump back to the earlier exchange for a broader contextual understanding. Thanks.
Re: Faith isn't why some believe, but how.
You'd be surprised how many reference faith as their reason for belief in both Islam and Christianity
Not surprised. The nuances of language can get away from people. That’s why so many new verbs keep popping up.
How do you suppose that faith is how most of us process the world?
Because we can’t be certain of much more than being and even that’s an assumption, if you break it down.
And more importantly: How are you defining faith here?
An assertion of a thing as true without the present ability to objectively demonstrate it. Rationalism itself is a sort of vicious, if necessary, circle.
Re: hell and will
But hell is the product of no-one's will.
Sure it is, if indirectly. No one on death row desired to be there, but they desired another thing and that row was the consequence.
Re: Absent the good, hell remains.
The above as a justification certainly does and cannot describe the traditional evangelical rendition of hell of the unsaved wallowing for eternity.
I’m not arguing for the non metaphorical understanding, only advancing one that should meet your demand as a just end.
So according to your understanding and beliefs: Who are those that 'inhabit' hell?
Those unreconciled to God. Those who by their actions demand judgment.
And might I ask, what does actually becoming suffering itself involve and what does it mean? Or can I conclude it is merely hyperbole?
Depends on whether you’re just another someone interested in being heard or someone making a genuine inquiry. I find that people who rather immediately run to insult, directly or by inference, are rarely the latter sort. Remove every thing the good is and does from a man and you are left with what? That’s what, if you remain within the influence of the good, could only be considered suffering itself. Inconvenience and discomfort don’t really seem to do it justice.
Re: Why bad things happen/a dilemma revisited in the illustration of an earthquake
Because it would directly prevent the death of thousands and displacement of millions. It would alleviate suffering on a gargantuan scale. It can serve absolutely no purpose in the eyes of an omniscient and omnibenevolent superpower than could literally will any end into being.
This life isn’t about the alleviation of suffering. It’s about how we respond to it, among a host of things. Read Job, or look at the Passion. Why did God suffer on the cross? Wasn’t the act itself sufficient as payment? The answers to your questions begin there.
Re: perspective
I'm talking about natural disasters and not children demanding a new toy.
Rather, you’re talking about perspective and judgment and the underlying nature of what it means to live, imperfectly, within a larger imperfect context. There’s no way around that absent our absence. Remove the natural and you still have the man made horrors. Remove those and you have the inconvenient and emotional. And so on. Which leads us to…
Re: God as wish granter.
I consider this a slippery slope fallacy and not relevant to the point I was making.
I’m less concerned with your feelings than your arguments. Waving an empty sleeve won’t move me or the margin, to reply in the same spirit.
The bottom line is that God is not comparable to any parent (any analogy that has ever tried this has always failed).
I think that's an interesting if unsupported declaration, but it wasn’t my proffer. The child/parent bit was only offered regarding perspective. The genie illustration that followed and preceded this quote of yours was aimed at evidencing the problem with relegating God to correct what appears to be a designed element of our experience.
If you describe God as an omniscient and benevolent being then it becomes effectively mandatory for him to root out injustice.
It isn't a question of that, but of when and how. That's where, within the context of God, we differ.
Re: measuring the measure.
I am judging what fallible humans tell me are the characteristics of their God and I compare that to my perception of reality.
You’re doing a bit more than that. You’re attempting to force God into your context. If God is, then you’re rather contained within His.
I consider, for an example that omniscience and free-will are mutually exclusive and that any property of a hypothetical being that includes omniscience cannot be considered a rational concept.
I think you own a bad dictionary then. :idunno: They aren’t remotely incompatible.
Re: Christ’s example as the rule by which…
Repetitious or not, you don't seem to be disputing the claim that I'm making that God made us with the ability to sin
Of course I’m not. We’re imperfect and willful. That’s the recipe for sin.
and then holds us accountable at the end of it all for our sinning (excluding those who have been made exempt).
Depends on whether or not we accept grace, that nexus where God’s justice and love meet in the sacrifice of Christ. Else, yes. We are responsible for our actions. And those needn’t by necessity lead us to sin, though they do and have.
How do you view it as fair that those who could not believe or made their bed with other views are to be held to such rigid standards?
You’ll have to explain what you mean by this more particularly. No man cannot believe, though many choose not to. Or are you talking about other faiths?
