Elimination of "evil" and "suffering" the ultimate goal?

[fccool]

I sort of stumbled on the idea when discussing the classical problem of evil and God with one of my friends. In his mind, the two can't co-exist. I.E. , if God has a tremendous problem with sin (which is evil), then He would do everything possible to get rid of it, so that evil would not exist. He does not believe in existence of all-powerful God for that reason. I.E. either God is not all-powerful, or He is not good, or He does not exist all-together.

Yet, this argument comes from a perspective that considers suffering to be the ultimate evil, and riddance of the suffering and evil to be the ultimate goal.

I do believe that whatever happens is in fact the best possible reality... otherwise the idea of omnipotent and all-knowing God would make no sense at all, as my friend correctly points out.

If much of the Earthly processes are driven by the free-choosing moral agents who have limited knowledge of environment and motives, then it would be natural to assume that at some point of time there will be unfortunate accidents and events that we would not consider "good".

For example, Steve climbs an apple tree. He falls and breaks his leg. I don't think many of us would think that such event would be "good". Yet, in context of human existence, such things are bound to happen. It was a consequence of Steve's choice to get an apple in seemingly "safe" environment, yet you would hardly call Steve's actions "evil"... yet you definitely would not label the consequences "good". These are obviously neutral independent of the result. Simple mis-calculations lead to something that would seem to be a natural consequence of such event.

Now, let's relay this to our understanding of "good", "evil" and "sin". If we interpret the above event in the original meaning of sin (i.e. missing the mark of perfection), then the event is a "sin" to the extend that it's something that God does not want to happen. God would not want Steve to break his leg, and God would certainly want Steve to be more careful and closer to perfection when it comes to calculating his moves. Thus, as a free moral agent Steve is responsible for the consequences of his actions. Let's say that in process of the fall, Steve would die. Death in this context has nothing to do with breaking moral law. It's a natural outcome based on our natural limitations of not knowing enough. If you extrapolate this reasoning far enough... then being human being would mean being imperfect.

And that's where I think a lot of modern Christian phylosophy goes south. They equate the idea of "good" with idea of "perfect". Thus, if we re-arrange the equations a bit... "evil" = "imperfect" , or "imperfect" = "evil"

Strangely, Bible does not describe the creation to be perfect, neither does it describe man to be perfect. I see "good", yet does it mean perfect? It's a strange route to take, hence perfection = GOD. By the very definition, anything lesser than GOD = imperfect.

Forgive me for reaching into "unoriginal" dictionary definitions here... but I think we have to define perfection here. Perfection is

1) Total and absolute conformity to the ideal

which makes it

2) Without flaw or beyond practical or theoretical improvement.

The biggest Christian dishonesty = lies IS that men (and women) were created perfect. By definition of perfection THIS IS A LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY. In objective universe where God is the standard of perfection, men can not be perfect. It's impossible, unless men becomes God (remember the definition #2)

If men is perfect, then there's no need for improvement, then by definition of perfection... man is like God. It's theoretically impossible by mutually exclusive and incompatible definitions of man and God.

Which leads me to re-evaluate several key assumptions of Christianity:

1) Man was created perfect.

Bible does not state that. It states that God thought that man was good. Definition of "good" is to be of desirable in purpose and function. Interesting enough... as I looked for a synonyms for "good", the word perfect did not jump right off the page as the first one on the list... at least in the sources that I've used. Why is that? Could it be that Christians are lost in words and understanding of these two terms?

It is common understanding of Christian dogma that God created man to be perfect. Before you start throwing bunch of verses back at me (which thankfully you can't in this forum), please consider the context of perfection as I framed it... perfection as without any need for improvement. As literally "sin-less" ... not in term of being blameless, but it term of complete conformity of standard of perfection. In this case... incapable to sin as God is incapable to sin.

You could perhaps describe men BLAMELESS and GOOD at their point of Biblical creation, but you can't honestly describe them as PERFECT.

I'll break this post up a bit

[fccool]

The second dishonesty of Christian paradoxical dogma is that

2) God requires perfection of men

God requires men to be "sinless" i.e. He requires for them to be "perfect". Once again, before you start throwing verses at me, we have to understand what we are talking about here.

If the standard of perfection is God... the demanding perfection of human beings is like demanding a portrait of human being to be human. By definition these are mutually exclusive. For humans to be perfect would mean that humans have to be like God, and not in some mysterious "Holy Spirit and Jesus are inside me" kind of way. They literally would have to conform to God in terms of knowledge, foreknowledge, limits, shape, physics... you name it.

YET, when you read and try to understand and evaluate Christian dogma... generally the reason why God is told to be angry with humanity is because they are missing the mark of perfection. I.E. If you are anything short of perfect and without Jesus... you are fit for hell, because God can't look at sin (i.e. imperfection).

So, naturally... Christ would be the requirement for salvation, because of the problem of imperfection. I.E. God looks at Christ who was both God and Human, thus fulfilling the standard of perfection... because it does sort of merge the two otherwise mutually exclusive entities together to present a truly perfect human being. Thus, as dogma would state, God looks at Christ and is pleased about humanity that tries their best to follow in His footsteps... even though perfection can not be obtained.

Yet, coming back to the premise of God demanding perfection from humanity. Would God be so unreasonable? I mean, think about it in context of humans... it would be like asking your dog to use the toilet. Dogs have limitations, both mental and physical, which would prevent them from doing so well. It does not matter how much you scream, or get angry, or threaten them... they will not use the toilet (perhaps some more trainable ones would, but that's besides the point). Your demands and threats would be unreasonable due to this limitation.

It would be much more reasonable to believe that God desires harmony... rather than perfection.

[fccool]

Yet another huge dogmatic dishonesty is:

3) Potential to do evil is not a flaw, or imperfection

That's generally how all of the evil is explained away... I.E. God created humans perfect, but with potential to do evil. That potential is a part of perfection, but God put a great disclaimer on using free will that reads:

If used for evil... I assume no responsibility... all responsibility rests with the user

The obvious problem with such idea is the duplicity in argument that becomes rather paradoxical, and Christians end up digging the proverbial Catch22 hole and then falling into it when attempting to reconcile the problem of evil by using the idea of free will. I'll show you what I mean:

a) God possesses a free will. God is perfect. God can't lie, and can't sin.

Humans posses free will. Humans were created perfect. YET. Humans CAN sin.

This creates a rather logical dichotomy that's hard to reconcile in light of explaining away the problem of evil. I.E. God did not want for humans to be robots, and He wanted them to choose freely, YET God is not a robot and He will not choose to sin no matter what. It's a paradox. And one can't simply explain away the problem of evil by framing it in context of free will. If we draw from example of God, then free will is obviously compatible with inability to do evil.

Thus, we have to re-evaluate the idea of human perfection in that context. Once again, I think it is consistent with my premise that human beings would have 1 flaw that God does not have... ability to choose evil.

[fccool]

From this, we move on to the next problem that arises from the above:

4) Jesus was tempted to do evil

I think that people who compiled Christian dogma would understand the paradoxes displayed above. There is tremendous need to sort of level the playing field in order for the dogma to make some sense. So, there are really only two options for that to happen:

1) We'd have to have a perfect human as a demonstration that Biblical demands are not impossible.

2) God would have to be tempted to do evil (i.e. it would be possible for God to be tempted) and yet come out dry... otherwise God's demands would not be fair.

Christian ideology seems to fuse both in person of Christ without any underlying explanation. It was made an intentional mystery that needs no explanation. Sort of like... "God has not beginning or the end... the end of story" . So it became "God became human being, the end of story", "And it is not possible for God to endure the temptation, the end of story".

Yet, the mechanics of it is never pondered on, or brushed under, or completely avoided. By definition of perfection, God could not become imperfect. That's the requirement of perfection. Bible is being honest about it (i.e. Titus 1:2, and James 1:13). God can't be tempted with evil by Biblical admission. Yet, somehow, miraculously God now was able to be tempted by "becoming human". Most of the Christians simply claim to understand this paradox as some deeper spiritual mystery... yet It's NONSENSE. It does not make any logical sense whatsoever. Either God can be tempted, or He can't. There's no in-betweens or "escape clauses". It would completely undermine any reasonable teleological reality of God. Temptation could not be explained away by God taking on a human shell. Inside the human shell is still God that can't be tempted and can't commit evil, and can't fail.

Yet, it certainly makes sense in terms of modern Christian dogma in terms of what the actual purpose God-human was. In context of dogma, it was to demonstrate perfect life in light of true and real temptation, and then satisfy father's wrath about human imperfection in general.

I.E. before it was:

-= Obey to perfection or be punished =-

Now it is

-= You don't have to be perfect literally, but vicariously through a sacrifice of perfect being who was punished instead of you thus making you perfect by proxy =-

Thus in context of Christian theology... two wrongs make it right. Humans commit wrong, and then reconciled by another wrong of killing God. Does it make sense? I have to be honest, but it hardly does to me.

Yet, if Jesus is indeed God... he would not be capable of evil. Some may say, well... the human side of him could be, yet ... there is no "human side" in terms of the driving mind... which is the mind of God.

Let me demonstrate to you what I mean in terms of a computer game. If I'm a creator of computer game, I can choose to either go through it in "God mode"... all invincible and unstoppable. Thus my character is unable to be beaten, stopped, run out of ammo, food, money, health or whatever.

I can likewise choose to go through with the game and obey the original limitations of the character. I.E. it's my choice to limit myself for whatever reason and play the game by the rules and constraints of the world (i.e. not in God mode). BUT... either way, I'm the creator, and it does not automatically changes my desires and inclinations.

If Jesus had no desire to do "evil", then we can't rightly say that he was tempted like we are tempted. Example:

You show me the chocolate cake and say... it's sooo gooood! Have a bite.

Case 1 (authentic human temptation): I really want that chocolate cake, but I'm aware of consequences... so I deny myself the cake... even though I really really want it bad.

Case 2: I have no desire to eat the cake because it's ingrained in me that it's terrible for me. I don't want it, and thus I reject it.

... which leads me to the next point.

[fccool]

Yet another dishonest representation of teleology of God is the fact that

5) Jesus had desire to do evil

The most clear definition of "temptation" that I could find would be a desire to do evil knowing that one should not do it.

That's what separates God from humans. God does not have capacity to desire to do evil, thus He can't be tempted with evil.

Yet, by some odd mechanics ... Jesus in fact has capacity to desire to do what's evil... at least according to Biblical authors. It becomes a very popular Christian mantra:

I.E. Jesus was tempted (I.E. He wanted to do certain things, yet his sense of obedience prevailed). It makes no sense in context of God "playing the game" in human body by human rules.

Christians LOVE to brush the argument aside by saying that Jesus was fully human and fully God. But it's a paradox! You can't brush it aside by means of a mystery.

Likewise the phrase "to tempt God" is meaningless in context of impossibility of such thing. It's like saying to breathe water, or to drink rocks. You can't do it. God can't be tempted to do evil, because it would mean that somewhere deep inside He has a potential desire to do so, and He forces Himself not to.

In that context, the temptation is not such a big deal for God as Christians make it out to be. I.E. -He lived a sinless life-. I think it would be more impressive if someone said that God did not live a sinless life. That would be harder to accomplish for God.

[fccool]

Christian dogmatic dishonesty...

6) Evil and suffering is because of disobedience (sin)

I think it's important to point out that it's a fairly substantial claim that needs to be appropriately evaluated.

Sin is essentially human imperfection. I don't think we have to argue about it here. All of us are born with limitations of knowledge and ability to know things from the start. That essentially becomes our greatest flaw. People are not born knowing that stealing is wrong. Kids running around and taking each other's toys with no permission... and it's not a big deal for them to keep it. They have no concept of private property. Neither do they have a concept of "truth" vs "lie". They can lie if they logically deduce that it would hide their flaws, and it's not really that different from the adults.

With that in mind, any human being which is not raised and taught directly by God, in environment that lacks major flaws will learn imperfection as a habit, through incomplete or erroneous knowledge. Therefore, humans are imperfect by default by virtue of being born in the wrong time and wrong place. Christian dogma does not excuse such reality. It simply places human beings automatically on the wrong side of God, and then provides the cure for subscribing to the dogma by means of rather enigmatic transformation and mystery (i.e. magic rituals). Yet, historically neither nation of Israel, nor Christianity succeed in fixing humanity. In fact, it somewhat backfired as force-feeding the dogma became the means for solving human problem of imperfection.

Yet, if we look at the pain and suffering in terms of limited human beings, then it becomes obvious that human limitations are the primary cause of suffering, be it hitting your finger with a hammer by accident, or whatever it may be... boils down to human limitation, not necessarily disobedience to certain moral law. A person may forget to turn off the gas stove, and burn the entire building with all of its residence. Has nothing to do with disobedience or sin, but natural lack of attention to details.

[fccool]

so, this long runt brings me to the original point

Is elimination of "evil" and "suffering" the ultimate goal?

I guess THE MOST IRONIC thing that I find about Christian dogma is the very idea that ultimately the imperfections are being fixed by willful desire not to want evil. You may think it's a minor thought, but it's sort of conflicting with the original premise as to how it's achieved in the last days. And it goes something along these lines:

1) All of the evil people and devil will be burned up, so there will be no one to tempt the remainder of saints

2) People will have the new bodies which will rule out the idea of sex... thus the idea of lust.

3) The new bodies will apparently include new brains that will be able to think much better and more clearly.

So, to make the long story short, the fix for the problems of humanity is ultimately the very argument that is used to explain existence of evil. I.E.

1) God can't snap Satan out of existence - Yet God does exactly that in the end

2) God can't eliminate temptation because of free will (i.e. sexual temptation) - Yet God does exactly that in the end

3) God can't simply rid the world of evil people - God does exactly that in the end

So, there's inconsistent standards as to the reasons why evil exists and what purpose it serves. The explanations given are rather paradoxical and dogmatic (i.e. you can't question them without being accused of heresy).

[cardw]

What you have outlined here is why I am agnostic. I freely admit that I don't know. It doesn't mean that I don't seek out more understanding or that I accept things that are clearly contradictory. It means that I am not locked into defending any particular authority, but am more interested in forming the best understanding possible. It is a pursuit of truth no matter where that leads.

I observe that we live in a world of cause and effect. It is ego that needs to assign evil motives, causes, and explanations for why I am suffering.

That is why I like the idea of personal responsibility for choices that I make, even the mistakes. It is religion that I believe is based on ego. I see that many religions need to add shame and punishment. This often interferes with the ability to look at what is true because it adds shame and the threat of punishment that goes way beyond what the effect of a bad choice is. (e.g. eternal hell fire.)

The world view of Christianity is egocentric and obviously flawed. If we can accept it as one view along a continuum of the evolution of human awareness I think we would be far better off.

[Sonny]

[A person is] agnostic because,

1] [a] misunderstand[ing of] God's agape love,

2] ...a righteous view of [oneself]

Both 1 & 2 lead to living one's life without God.

[The ad hominem approach has been edited out. Please address your opinions to the topic and not to the person. - Moderator]

[fccool]

Well, if he misunderstands anything it's because you explain it in two sentences. That's a fair response to several pages of observations that I've posted in this thread? Simply dismiss it without addressing any points?

I would be more happy with someone being honest and saying <I really don't know and I don't claim to understand it, but I believe and it works>. What you are essentially saying is that you do understand it because you believe... and you believe because you understand it

1) Believe first

2) Understanding later

If other people would like to understand something before believing it it (I'm not talking about TV remote control here), then why are you so impudent about your reasoning process that does not fit in the framework of "understanding", but rather fits in the framework of faith.

Look up the definition of faith, and I think you'll see that faith does not rely on complete understanding. Quite the opposite, it relies of trust in spite of lack of understanding. What you have is faith, and you can only explain it by cutting and pasting some paragraphs of the Bible. And without that ability you don't even carry on a formal argument, because you arguing out of incomplete understanding and claim the higher ground.

You don't examine or respond to any arguments presented. You just claim to understand, and then everyone else do not believe because they don't understand.

So, if you do understand... EXPLAIN, and BE ABLE TO ANSWER FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS.

[Sonny]

Paul argued with the Greeks. It got him nowhere. So from that day forward he decided to preach "the message of the cross". To the unbeliever the cross is foolishness.

[Tom Wetmore]

Sonny,

It seems to me that the opinion you expressed regarding the cause/reason for being agnostic reflects a misunderstanding of the definition of agnostic and a preconceived idea of the rightness of one's own idea to the exclusion of another point of view. That tends to lead to a breakdown in communication and relationships.

Tom

[Sonny]

Sounds reasonable. So why do you believe folks reject the idea of God?

[Tom Wetmore]

You may have hinted at the reason - it's an idea born of human confusion that is rejected. But the point of being agnostic is not rejection but rather an honest acknowledgment of simply not knowing for lack of convincing evidence or in the face of confusing and conflicting ideas about God from people. I think it is the ideas of supposed believers in God that do more to create agnostics than anything else. And it is important to not confuse agnostic with atheistic which would rely more on something like rejecting or denial of God's existence. They may have some common roots, like the many misrepresentations about God made by those who think they know God but whose ignorance far exceeds their knowledge and are too often blind to the difference.

[Dr. Shane]

I have found that many agnostics think they know more about what religion is or what it teaches than they actually do. What they have is a sliver of knowledge and based on the sliver they have, they reject God. Over the past 25 years of being involved in a 12 Step program, I have known scores of agnostics that became believers only after they decided to forget evey thing they thought they knew about God and religion and to start out over again.

Most Christian denominations do not have answers for hard questions. Adventism has a much greater depth to it but even within Adventism, there are some things that have not been revealed to us.

The whole idea of Steve breaking his leg from falling from an apple tree is hypothetical to the extreme. The Bible does tell us that in heaven there will be no more death or tears. So if Steve falls in heaven, I guess we can assume he won't cry about it.

[fccool]

Who was saying anything about Heaven? The whole discussion is on the nature of "evil". And the example is hardly hypothetical. There are scores of people who fall down, or slip and break their limbs. This idea has nothing to do with sin, but everything to do with human limitations, which is the source of the perceived "evil" and "sinfulness". We are told that we are "full of sin", and that all of human problems are due to sin. I'm just pointing out that it's not so. Humans were never perfect. Perfection is a standard that humans will never reach. Perfection is the highest standard for anything, which on the scale of 1 to God is God! To be perfect is to be God. If humans are imperfect, they will have imperfect knowledge (since they have to learn everything), they will have imperfect (limited) understanding, and they will have imperfect awareness.

[Dr. Shane]

Will people slip, fall down and break limbs in heaven? Will evil be absent in heaven? We probably need to talk a bit about heaven in order to explore this topic of what evil is and isn't.

[fccool]

Well, while we are on the subject ... explain to me how we would get to have the environment of heaven in such a way that would be impossible to restore right after fall of men in Eden, or even prevent such fall in the first place.

I.E., if there will be no evil in heaven, what would make such thing possible in context of free will of human being?

[Dr. Shane]

I am not sure I understand the question. The "fall" happened in heaven first. Then Satan was cast to Earth and the war moved to our planet. I don't think that has a lot to do with this subject...

God created the angels with free will. Lucifer became jealous of Jesus' position. God allowed the rebellion of Lucifer to play out so that He (God) would be vindicated from Lucifer's accusations.

So is the question, "How could have Lucifer became jealous of Christ in a perfect environment?" The answer to that is free will.

[Sonny]

"Free will" didn't include sin. There are many definitions of sin. Sin is living your life outside or without Christ. Sin is opposite agape - it is a u-turn agape. Agape bent back to oneself - better know as self-love.

Lucifer invented what I call a u-turn agape. The Bible is clear that God made Lucifer perfect - with a free will. If the principle of this u-turn agape was in Lucifer then we could blame God for our problems.

The Bible calls the love of self, iniquity. In Lucifer selflessness was polluted with iniquity. How? No one knows. The Bible does not reveal how a sinless being could become sinful. The Bible calls iniquity a mystery. I can't explain it.

Nevertheless we are told that it will not arise a second time. Does God take away our wills? No! Then why won't it happen again?

When Lucifer rebelled against God he was rebelling against His agape love. Remember that the Bible states that "God is love". The essence of God is agape. It's not a side attribute. Agape is who He is.

In place of agape Lucifer came up with the love of self. Keep in mind agape lives to serve. Jesus, when on earth, stated that He was servant of all. The creator God lives to serve. He loves us more than Himself for there's no self-love in agape. It always goes outward - it never bends back....

Lucifer insisted that agape was too restrictive. The only way God's created being could be genuinely happy was if they loved themselves. To live for others was demeaning.

So on paper the love of self sounds convincing. Sin, says the Bible, is a deceive. Lucifer insisted on self-love - and God agape love. God would not allow the love of self to be tested in heaven. So Satan came to this world to setup his way of love.

For 6000 years we have seen firsthand what the love of self brings: Hate, murder, strife, competition, rage, pride and a host of other evils.

[fccool]

1) Why would God need to vindicate himself at expense of enormous amount of death and suffering? It's like saying to the rapist... <I'm going to let you rape my daughter in order to prove to everyone (including you) that you are wrong about rape being o.k. Just rape her, and see how much suffering it will bring. See everyone, see how much mental anguish there's in rape. Go free will!> It makes no sense.

2) Is God able to sin? Does He have free will?

[Dr. Shane]

The book of Job is all about God vindicating Himself.

[Take the accusations directly to God](Job 40:2)

[You can't say God tempted me. That not how God works](James 1:13)

[fccool]

I did not ask you about what the book of Job was about. I've asked you the why and do you think it's ok ... question. On top of a free will one.

1) Do you think it's ok to allow a rapist to rape your daughter in order to prove that rape is wrong? (you = anyone's not yours specifically) If not... why would it be ok for God to do the same?

2) Does God have a free will? Can he sin?

This forum is quote free, because cutting and pasting support text can be a way to either avoid point, or to hide behind the text... or both. Let us reason, shall we?

[fccool]

I rest my case then.

[cardw]

It is interesting when a recent quiz about the Bible was given to people from many groups. Guess who scored the highest? Agnostics and atheists.

The evidence shows that the more you know about the Bible the less you want to be a Christian. You will find that reason among many atheists and agnostics who took the Bible seriously and found it wanting. Not only wanting but harmful.

Most of my agnostic friends have done quit a bit more research and study than most Christians and are qualified to know quite a bit about many religions.

As a group atheists and agnostics tend to be the most educated and knowledgable. You have to wonder why Christianity fails to retain many of the brightest and most talented people in our culture.

Too often Christianity is a celebration of ignorance and is hostile to education and knowledge. It is because knowledge reveals the false claims of Christianity. This has been true of Christianity in the past and present.

Almost every major social and ethical advance has had to fight Christianity. This includes slavery, women's rights, labor rights, gay rights, freedom of speech, scientific advancement, freedom of religion, and other advances of humanistic movements.

Today if non-believing was a religion, it would be the fastest growing religion of all time. I believe this is because we have more knowledge and access to it. In my experience most of Christianity does not hold up to honest evaluation within the world of ideas.