Capricious God

[aspen]

I didn't buy into Lewis' argument for the existence of God based on moral law in Mere Christianity and I do not believe it is sound logic today. The fact is human beings cannot live outside community - in order to have community we have to have agreed upon laws or group norms. These norms exist in groups of animals, as well. The rules probably took hundreds of years to develop into norms

 

[pom2014]

With what are you disagreeing?

I disagree with your theodicy, which is Augustine's variant as well.

I maintain a Irenaean model of theodicy.

 

[pom2014]

I have heard Fry's argument and have seen a video of him expressing his distaste with God. When he says God, he actually means the Christian God.

His argument is an emotional one. It is not an intellectual argument.

Fry, like just about everyone else on this planet believes there is good and evil in the world. In fact, if I were to directly ask him if there is such a thing as good and evil, I am sure he would agree that there is both good and evil in the world.

Therefore, Fry is assuming that an unwritten moral law exists in order for him to distinguish between both good and evil.

The interesting thing about moral law, is that moral law can only originate from a Moral Law Giver. If there is no Moral Law Giver, very simply, there is no such thing as moral law. If there is no moral law, then there is no evil. And if there is no evil, then there is no good either.

Frankly, I find Fry like most atheists I have either spoken to or debated, as intellectually dishonest. They do not want to believe in God, especially the God of the Bible, not because of some strong intellectual argument. Very simply, they reject the God of the Bible because they do not like the God of the Bible.

Some may say that they believe that good and evil exists but that is not dependant on a God or gods of any form. Again, this is being intellectually dishonest. If I lined up a thousand atheists and asked them if murder was right or wrong, then an atheist is only going to give their subjective opinion. Some may say murder is right. Others may say it is wrong. Whether or not it is right or wrong varies from person to person. If I asked a thousand Christians whether murder was right or wrong, the answer should be unanimous that it is indeed wrong because God has deemed that it is wrong as written in His Word.

As a Christian, I believe every human being is made in the image of God. Because God made both man and woman in His image, then this is the reason why we have a sense of right and wrong because as the Bible claims, God is righteous. There are things God considers right. And things God considers wrong. Therefore, one of the reasons I believe God exists is because of an objective moral reality among humanity.

"Here's my question then. How do you resolve the splendour of nature and its horror with an all loving God?"

I believe that nature itself has been corrupted by Lucifer in ages past. I have certainly admired the efficiency of ecosystems around the world, how everything seems to be in a sacred balance. But when I look closely at those ecosystems, I see creatures which survive by devouring other creatures. Every single day, hundreds of millions of creatures die. Whales devour krill by the millions. Bats eat thousands of moths. Snakes eat frogs and so on and so on.

Isaiah 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

Isaiah 66:1 Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?

If you notice, Lucifer is claiming in verse 13 of chapter 14 that he will exalt his throne above the stars of God.

But according to Isaiah 66, heaven is God's throne and certainly not Lucifer's..

In order for Lucifer to exalt his throne above the stars of God, he had to originally have a throne to exalt. I believe that throne was originally here on the Earth in the ancient past. A throne designates a place to rule from and a kingdom. I believe that Lucifer ruling over the Earth was part of Lucifer's original commission from God because he earned it but then it was taken from him because of his rebellion as described in Ezekiel 28 and Revelation 12.

When Jesus is tempted by Lucifer in the New Testament, Jesus does not dispute Lucifer's claim that all the kingdoms of the world have been given to him.

Lucifer in my opinion, corrupted all of God's creations. Our world is full of the fossilized remains of ancient animals. The existence of coal from forests many hundreds of millions of years ago and oil fields buried deep underground attest to the fact there was a lot of death in the ancient world. Many of those ancient creatures were abominations which devoured other creatures. And according to the New Testament in Hebrews 2:14, Lucifer had the power of death. In other words, he had the ability to cause plants and animals to die. And he is certainly not called the "prince of this world" by Jesus and the "god of this world" by Paul in the New Testament for no apparent reason.

I suppose, you would have to define evil. I define evil "Evil" as a violation of purpose or a departure from the way things ought to be. So if we all agree that there is evil in the world and that it is a departure from the way things ought to be, then there is evidently a way things ought to be.

So if there is indeed a way things ought to be, then there must be some design plan or purpose for the way things ought to be. And so there must be some transcendent being, a Creator in fact, whose will is the basis for how things ought to be. And thus the existence of evil is therefore evidence that God must exist.

Hope that helps.

You assertion that creatures predating on other living things is a sign of the enemy at work.

This perplexing as it then makes every living thing that lives off of a another living thing as an abomination.

That line of reason then stands in opposition to The King stating what goes into us does not defile us.

If all life that lives of of the life of another is am abomination and we eat that abomination we are defiled.

How do you rectify this?

 

[OzSpen]

I disagree with your theodicy, which is Augustine's variant as well.

I maintain a Irenaean model of theodicy.

That is not a helpful response. If you disagree with my view of theodicy, please tell us (and me) where it is wrong and why it is wrong. Here, you are just giving assertions.

 

[pom2014]

That is not a helpful response. If you disagree with my view of theodicy, please tell us (and me) where it is wrong and why it is wrong. Here, you are just giving assertions.

I have to pick apart Augustine to satisfy you? Everyone else just looked it up if they did not know and read it for themselves. (Google IS your friend.)

Alright I'll humour you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustinian_theodicy

That way you can read it.

And here is Irenaean variant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaean_theodicy

After you have read the two you'll quickly see why there is a difference between your theodicy and mine.

Now as to WHY it is wrong.

Before the Man was created there was a rebellion in Heaven.

THERE evil first began, NOT with original sin. That is the first and most compelling reason why the Augustinian variant fails.

So can't blame man.

Now point two. And this is where you have to step out of Genesis for a bit.

These parasitic creatures like the assassin bug are made that way for a point. God made them all to keep up a healthy ecosystem.

Yes Mr. Fry, and sadly it appears some Christians with him, God made nasty little things like that so population can be controlled and for other creatures to be nourished by them

Mosquitoes have killed millions of people, but without them many bats and dragonflies (just as two examples alone) would have no yummies for their din dins.

God also created lightning which causes fires, kills people and causes great property damage. WHY? Because it fuses nitrogen he put in the air and places it into the ground for plants to use.

Yes sure we get in its way when out golfing during a thunderstorm, like dunderheads, but it has a purpose. And all those fires it causes, well it paves the way for new growth. Cleansing Fire.

All of these "bad" things are actually good things from God. But sadly fru fru, hippy dippy God love Christians have preached this God is the biggest Love Child since the 60's that now even 60's generation Atheists believer this touchy feely God stuff.

Look things have to eat other things. That is just the way it works. It is all so saddy waddy that the cute little deer gets eaten by the wolf. But without that predatory animal the deer would overpopulate and die of starvation.
Fungus will do the same to decaying organic matter to clean it up. God is a smart cookie. And just because man thinks it is cruel in his infinite stupidity does not mean that God is a nasty piece of work. Sorry Mr. Fry God is still good even IF he made a worm that eats a baby lamb's eye ball. Boo Hoo.

And we cannot blame mankind for that nasty little worm. Because one day that nasty little worm will be eaten by somethingelse and that baby lamb corpse will feed other scavengers that need to eat too. Eventually feeding the soil to grow grass for other baby lambs to eat.

It is a wonderful thing this world, IF you look at it with realistic eyes. And not with the eyes of some bleeding heart humanist or some foist the blame on men they are so awful Augustinian.

God had to do what he did to make sure EVERYTHING is taken care of, not just the fluffy bunny, majestic eagles and beautiful human people.

There are nasty, ugly, ghastly and quite hideous things out in nature and they play a vital role in every organic life born. Thank God we have the vultures soaring over head of a nearly dead man. They will clear away that body and make sure that it doesn't fester and cause a plague.

 

[OzSpen]

I have to pick apart Augustine to satisfy you? Everyone else just looked it up if they did not know and read it for themselves. (Google IS your friend.)

Alright I'll humour you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustinian_theodicy

That way you can read it.

And here is Irenaean variant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaean_theodicy

pom,

Being insulting and cynical towards me does not help communication!

I would never recommend Wikipedia for anyone to obtain reliable historical and theological information. Try the IVP series, one vol of which is Dictionary of New Testament Background. Encyclopaedia Britannica is a country mile ahead of Wikipedia.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

That was the easy to digest version so it is obvious to everyone knows what the two schools of thought were.

And it is insulting that you insist on a dissertation of voluminous length to get a point across that only requires a few sentences to perhaps two paragraphs.

I do not do verbosity just for the sake of it.

The short form is, you believe man's fall caused a parasite to eat a lamb's eyeball and kill it.
I say God created the worm, and eats the eyeball because the worm has got to eat.

We just do not agree, just as Augustine did not agree with Irenaeus. Now if these TWO could not agree and were considered church fathers, why cannot we simply disagree and not have to get into a urination contest on who can type the most words in a post?

Honestly am I one of the only few that cannot stand these posts that you have to either scroll or swipe ten to twenty times to get through? It is like dealing with government agencies or lawyers the verbosity in this forum.

Mr. Fry can blame God all he likes and you can blame man all you like. I just do not need to get into a game of literary regurgitation.

Your appeal to ridicule fallacy continues.

 

[katabole]

You assertion that creatures predating on other living things is a sign of the enemy at work.

This perplexing as it then makes every living thing that lives off of a another living thing as an abomination.

That line of reason then stands in opposition to The King stating what goes into us does not defile us.

If all life that lives of of the life of another is am abomination and we eat that abomination we are defiled.

How do you rectify this?

Yes, I do believe that creatures predating on other living things is a sign of the enemy at work to a certain extent. Not in every case. I was not specific enough. Plants do not have souls. Neither do many creatures. But some creatures do. Not the same as a human soul mind you, but still a soul.

In Genesis 1, it could be interpreted that for man to have dominion over the fowl of the air and the fish of the sea and over every living thing, that man had cause to consume these creatures as food. But that is not necessarily true because many plant, animal, reptile, insect and fish species are poisonous and will kill humans if consumed. The word "dominion" in Genesis 1:26 & 28 is this word from Strong's concordance and it could be used in a weak sense to imply food consumption but it really means to rule over:


7287


radah
raw-daw'


a primitive root; to tread down, i.e. subjugate; specifically, to crumble off:--(come to, make to) have dominion, prevail against, reign, (bear, make to) rule,(-r, over), take.


In Genesis 2, there is no command to eat meat, that is, a living creature with a soul.

Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Some whale species would not have survived without eating krill. However, I do not believe that krill have souls.

The word "creature" I underlined in this verse is Strong's:


5315


nephesh
neh'-fesh


from 'naphash' (5314); properly, a breathing creature, i.e. animal of (abstractly) vitality; used very widely in a literal, accommodated or figurative sense (bodily or mental):--any, appetite, beast, body, breath, creature, X dead(-ly), desire, X (dis-)contented, X fish, ghost, + greedy, he, heart(-y), (hath, X jeopardy of) life (X in jeopardy), lust, man, me, mind, mortally, one, own, person, pleasure, (her-, him-, my-, thy-)self, them (your)-selves, + slay, soul, + tablet, they, thing, (X she) will, X would have it.


Which is the same word as "soul" found in Genesis 2:7, when God creates Adam as a living soul.

Genesis 2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

Yet after the Fall and after the flood this is what is written:

Genesis 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

The phrase "meat for you" actually means "for your purpose". So I suppose it could be inferred that if the purpose of all moving things is to consume them for food, then that may be true. However, as I already stated, there are many species which are poisonous to humans and will cause sickness and/or death if consumed.

Genesis 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

The word life in this verse is Strong's 5315 which I quoted above. Again, it is forbidden to eat flesh with a nephesh or soul.

So further on down the generations, evidently, flesh starts being consumed. So In Leviticus 11, God gives the Israelites the food laws; the creatures they may eat and the creatures they may not.

Well, there are many things that if they go into us certainly may defile us even kill us if we consume them. If you believe Jesus was speaking about the consumption of food in Matthew 15:11 and Mark 7:15, then you do not understand what He is saying. Unless you believe Jesus did not eat Kosher?

Paul makes it clear to Timothy in the New Testament that:


1Timothy 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

1 Timothy 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

Well there are many creatures, God created to be received with thanksgiving. And there are many creatures God created to never be received. Period. Leviticus 11 lists quite a number of creatures that were never meant to be consumed because they were either (a) scavengers, (b) animals that ate their own dung and (c) animals that ate their own kind and their own young. And I believe God would certainly know what creatures were good for humans to eat and which ones were not meant for eating.

Anyways, I digress. If you compare life today on this planet with the way it is pictured in the future in the Bible, then there is a huge difference in the character and temperament of living things. As it is written:

Isaiah 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

Isaiah 11:7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

Isaiah 11:8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.

Isaiah 11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

I believe the new order of living things as described in these verses is the way God originally wanted it to be, where no living thing ever consumes another or is destroyed in any way. No predation. But as I mentioned, due to Lucifer's rebellion in the ancient past, it tainted God's original perfect creation and creatures dyed the Earth with blood. But when Lucifer is done away with in the future, then God will return creation to the way it was supposed to be where no creatures hurt or destroy and where there is no death.

That is my humble opinion on this subject.

 

[pom2014]

Your appeal to ridicule fallacy continues.

You do not like someone to disagree with you.

I have explained that I do not share your point of view... as that is precisely what it is.

Response from you is again argumentum abusi fallacia.

This is now your modus operandi.

 

[OzSpen]

You do not like someone to disagree with you.

I have explained that I do not share your point of view... as that is precisely what it is.

Response from you is again argumentum abusi fallacia.

This is now your modus operandi.

This is a false allegation. I'm always open to anyone disagreeing as long as he/she presents reasons for disagreement.

If any of us uses logical fallacies in a post, we cannot have a logical conversation because fallacies involve illogical reasoning. It seems that you are unaware of when you use a logical fallacy. I suggest you become conversant with logical fallacies and how you used them against me. The 'Nizkor Project' has an excellent list with explanations of major logical fallacies that are used.

I most definitely can agree to disagree with you, but when you use logical fallacies in responses to others and me, I'll be pointing them out so that logical/reasonable discussion can continue. You should know that the best way to engage in wholesome discussion is to quit using these fallacies.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I have to pick apart Augustine to satisfy you? Everyone else just looked it up if they did not know and read it for themselves. (Google IS your friend.)

Alright I'll humour you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustinian_theodicy

That way you can read it.

And here is Irenaean variant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaean_theodicy

After you have read the two you'll quickly see why there is a difference between your theodicy and mine.

Now as to WHY it is wrong.

pom,

The late Dr John Hick, a sceptical British philosopher of religion, was a promoter of the Irenaean Theodicy. Here is one assessment of 'The Irenaean Theodicy and Its Problems'.

Oz

 

[pom2014]

pom,

The late Dr John Hick, a sceptical British philosopher of religion, was a promoter of the Irenaean Theodicy. Here is one assessment of 'The Irenaean Theodicy and Its Problems'.

Oz

My issue with the Augustinian model is that it presumes that the fall is responsible for "bad" things.

To sit here after all the scientific knowledge we have of bio-diversity and say just because a mosquito is a parasitic creature and it can spread disease if itself is infected is evil; well it is just wrong to even say it.

The mosquito was designed by God to fill a niche in the food chain for many creatures. Same with parasitic worms (of the Fry hand wringing variety), assassin flies, bugs, poisonous spiders, snakes, sharks, wolves and all manner of thing that mankind at one time or even now deem horrid. These things God made because they are needed to keep a healthy and thriving ecology. They are not BAD, nor EVIL. They are simply doing what they are supposed to do. No maliciousness nor premeditation on their part.

It is for this reason I cannot side with Augustine, a man whom could not begin to understand these things as he had no information to see the complexity of nature. In essence, Augustine was alright with saying there are things we don't understand about God, but anything in nature I cannot comprehend and does things that are contrary to life must be bad. It is a baby and bathwater form of logic. It is short sighted and myopic.

Now I love his treatise on the life in the womb, obviously divinely inspired, but his natural world I cannot agree.

Now Irenaeus, I cannot stand his stance on the canon of the New Testament at ALL. But he was humble enough to agree that God works in ways we do not always understand and so too nature sometimes does things that are horrific but are ordered by God because they MUST BE THAT WAY. All in the plan. Any ill effects wether by the enemy, man or haphazard can be overcome by God's Good and faithfulness by us in that Good. The TEST, as Job, as Jesus, as pharaoh, as Peter, as Judas, as Esau, as Cain, as many. What choice will you make/ Will you retain faith like Job, Noah, Abraham and Jesus? Or will you second guess, lose faith and make mistakes like pharaoh, Cain and Judas?

This is all a test to see if we will side with God or the enemy. The creation of man is based upon that whole ideal. What will we choose?

If I adhere to Augustine, then I will have to say that lightning is evil as it strikes people down and starts fires. But I know that is simply one side presented in this dichotomous world.

The other side, I KNOW, is that every time lightning strikes the ground it deposits about half a kilogram of nitrogen into roughly a four meter area. It gets that nitrogen from the air by fusing it at high temperatures of 30,000 kelvin about five times the surface of the sun. This nitrogen is used by plant life so that it may give us so much goodness. Yes get in the way of it and you will most likely die, but it is NOT evil. Nor is a worm that eats a lambs eye. It is simply doing what God said for it to do as part of the ecology of this world.

You and others may agree with Augustine, but here due to my knowledge of science, I know these things are not evil. They simply are doing the will of God. They are not corruptions, aberrations nor operate under maliciousness. They simply are glorifying God's good through less than savoury methods to child-like minds of men.

And really that is what we are dealing with is a child-like mind. When Mr. Fry chastises Christian's belief in God being loving, he is doing it with the mind of a child. A child that gets stung by a bee and thinks bees are all bad because he was stung. But the bees make sure he has food to eat and honey to please his sweet tooth. Only a child, not fully versed in the knowledge of ecology, will call a bee evil when all she was doing was defending herself because she feared for her life. She is an animal, we have to strive to be above that thought process. (thought sadly we rarely do)

There is no evil in the natural world. And it is certainly not caused by any fall or rebellion. God made it all and he said it was GOOD. I believe that.

 

[OzSpen]

My issue with the Augustinian model is that it presumes that the fall is responsible for "bad" things.

To sit here after all the scientific knowledge we have of bio-diversity and say just because a mosquito is a parasitic creature and it can spread disease if itself is infected is evil; well it is just wrong to even say it.

pom,

I was not discussing the Augustinian model but gave a link to the problems with the Irenaean model of theodicy.

Rom 8:18-23 (ESV):
For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies (emphasis added).
Isa 65:25 (ESV) states:

'The wolf and the lamb shall graze together;
the lion shall eat straw like the ox,
and dust shall be the serpent's food.
They shall not hurt or destroy
in all my holy mountain,”
says the Lord'.

That is not the situation now because in our contemporary world the wolf will devour the lamb. God did not create it that way in the beginning paradise of God. Animals were not eating each other. God created the living creatures on the earth and in the oceans (Gen 1:20-21 ESV) with the statement that 'God saw that it was good'. The lamb being eaten by the wolf is not good, so when did the change come?

We know from Genesis 1 that everything God created was good but that changed after the Fall into sin. We know from Romans 8:18-23 (ESV) that all of creation was affected (human beings, animals and plant life). We are this way because of sin entering the world - that's Bible. It will be remedied when the new heavens and the new earth come in the eschatological future.

Oz

 

[pom2014]

pom,

I was not discussing the Augustinian model but gave a link to the problems with the Irenaean model of theodicy.

Rom 8:18-23 (ESV):
For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies (emphasis added).

Isa 65:25 (ESV) states:
'The wolf and the lamb shall graze together;
the lion shall eat straw like the ox,
and dust shall be the serpent's food.
They shall not hurt or destroy
in all my holy mountain,”
says the Lord'.

That is not the situation now because in our contemporary world the wolf will devour the lamb. God did not create it that way in the beginning paradise of God. Animals were not eating each other. God created the living creatures on the earth and in the oceans (Gen 1:20-21 ESV) with the statement that 'God saw that it was good'. The lamb being eaten by the wolf is not good, so when did the change come?

We know from Genesis 1 that everything God created was good but that changed after the Fall into sin. We know from Romans 8:18-23 (ESV) that all of creation was affected (human beings, animals and plant life). We are this way because of sin entering the world - that's Bible. It will be remedied when the new heavens and the new earth come in the eschatological future.

Oz


That was in the garden.

What happened outside of the Garden?

Wolves ate their prey. This is how it is.

We have to use context. In the garden is way different than in the world out of it.

The Garden was not all the world. Genesis clearly states that.

 

[OzSpen]

That was in the garden.

What happened outside of the Garden?

Wolves ate their prey. This is how it is.

We have to use context. In the garden is way different than in the world out of it.

The Garden was not all the world. Genesis clearly states that.

pom,

You are not listening to the evidence I presented from Genesis. We are wasting each other's time in discussing this as we are talking past each other. You can try it on someone else.