tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post4307898396510485530..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Cognitive Dissonance and the Problem of EvilUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-53805978362310845632007-08-25T02:49:00.000-04:002007-08-25T02:49:00.000-04:00jbrunt,yes, I'd support God and yes, because he is...jbrunt,<BR/><B><I>yes, I'd support God and yes, because he is God. God, definitionally, is what is right. If I can't understand why something is or is not right according to God, that's on me....</B></I><BR/>Okay, so now, historically what is the precedent god has set for communicating to us? through people right? So now when your president orders his generals to "kill everything and let god sort it out" because his preacher told him that God told him that is what God wants, what are you going to think about that?<BR/>bear with the analogy please, it has a purpose related to cognitive dissonance, but I'd rather call it 'self-justification' theory because it is a more descriptive term so we don't lose track of what we are talking about.<BR/><BR/><B><I>I'm not sure what argument you are making concerning evidence and the problem of evil. Evil exists in the world. Does that support or undermine a belief in God? Since God said that there is evil in the world, and that his people would be treated badly by other people, I'd say that things like the Holocaust, if they are to be weighed as evidence in this, are evidence that he exists. Since the bible describes life on earth as very faulty, and full of turmoil, and doesn't guarantee a life without trouble, I'd have to say it is very correct on the issue of evil.</B></I><BR/>The problem of evil, as I understand it, properly phrased is 'why is there so much needless suffering in the world'. Presumably all suffering leads to the greater good, but in many cases there doesn't seem to be any unless you want to say that the suffering of others is a test for the faithful, and it strengthens your belief then you are in SJT (self-justification theory) territory and now the observer is justified in asking, what sets the christian apart from the alcoholic? The alcoholic can be shown to be self-justifiying because of empirical evidence, the christian cannot because there is only the bible saying that the bible is gods word, and describing god. This is self-referential and not considered evidence. Add to that, a strong inference can be made against the existence of the supernatural since no reliable empirical evidence exists to support it.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B><I>...this notion that an increase in suffering would lead to increased faith is not out of step with Christian thought. ....So that not only would the relief of cognitive dissonance by way of increased faith when confronted with unexplainable suffering not debunk Christianity, it would serve as a fair description of a mechanism discussed in the bible as a method of God's works.</B></I><BR/>You bring up a good point. In my article the bible as natrual history, I comment to someone that polythiesm among the tribes doesn't make sense if there was a living god among them. What sets a living god apart from the myths? Evidently not much. Since god is that same always, we can reasonably expect him to act back then as he does now. Not a lot of obvious interaction, which leads me to ask, 'where did the miracles come from in the old testament'. Folklore comes to mind, since it is an established human behavior. Why exaggerate? Maybe to rally the troops around an idea of solidarity to motivate them to resist the constant invasions. This has historical precedent as well. <BR/><BR/>So I claim that to justify the past deeds of the culture and tribes the bible is a result of self-justification to give some coherence to a group of people that wanted a collective cultural identity.<BR/><BR/>so now back to the presidents preacher. Thats a handy way (just as in old testament), to self-justify killing them all and letting god sort them out isn't it?<BR/><BR/>And its a handy way to prevent stem cell research, the civil rights of homosexuals, etc.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-71603990123439953942007-08-24T21:16:00.000-04:002007-08-24T21:16:00.000-04:00Then, in that case, God cannot be stated to be who...<B>Then, in that case, God cannot be stated to be wholly good (omnibenevolent) by any recognizable definition of the term, which is a premise in the PoE.</B><BR/>You seem to imply that omnibenevolence implies prevention of evil at all times and places.Michael Ejercitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10707862691472293497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-54490441635745992362007-08-24T16:00:00.000-04:002007-08-24T16:00:00.000-04:00Hi Lee,I'm the "Jason" that posted the reply above...Hi Lee,<BR/><BR/>I'm the "Jason" that posted the reply above. I've grabbed a different name to avoid confusion with a different Jason here.<BR/><BR/><B>"... sending in our troops to wipe out civilians as well as enemy troops in a conflict? Would you support God doing it? What makes one right and the other wrong? The presumption of God? "</B><BR/>yes, I'd support God and yes, because he is God. God, definitionally, is what is right. If I can't understand why something is or is not right according to God, that's on me. That state of affairs would be cognitive dissonance. To adjust my definition of him in order to relieve my own cognitive dissonance would be by the same mechanism whether I adjusted such that I could believe him more or believe me more.<BR/><BR/>[after rereading your reply, it occurs to me that you might not have meant "civilians" necessarily, but rather, "innocent people" or "people who it would be wrong to kill." Since God does not do wrong, but only what is right, you can see how the premise in that case would be problematic]<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>"okay, i can see that a little bit, but the deciding factor would ultimately have to be the evidence. Meaning the type of evidence considered acceptable and the relative importance of each.<BR/>quick and dirty analogy: addicts and alcoholics are a good example, because it is so able to be seen clearly. They hurt themselves and disregard the evidence that what they are doing is really that bad. In some cased deny there is even a problem.</B><BR/><BR/>I'm not sure what argument you are making concerning evidence and the problem of evil. Evil exists in the world. Does that support or undermine a belief in God? Since God said that there is evil in the world, and that his people would be treated badly by other people, I'd say that things like the Holocaust, if they are to be weighed as evidence in this, are evidence that he exists. Since the bible describes life on earth as very faulty, and full of turmoil, and doesn't guarantee a life without trouble, I'd have to say it is very correct on the issue of evil.<BR/><BR/>I like the drug addict analogy, but who is the addict? Is it someone who sees a murder, and believes in God more, or someone who watches a flower bloom and believes in God less?<BR/><BR/><BR/>and, importantly, this notion that an increase in suffering would lead to increased faith is not out of step with Christian thought. The bible (Romans) says that suffering leads to perseverance, which ultimately leads to hope and increased relationship with God. The point is also emphasized in James that trials lead to endurance, and ultimately being complete (presumably as a work of God). So that not only would the relief of cognitive dissonance by way of increased faith when confronted with unexplainable suffering not debunk Christianity, it would serve as a fair description of a mechanism discussed in the bible as a method of God's works.jbrunthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11783083809244957463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-43552051560571071432007-08-24T15:22:00.000-04:002007-08-24T15:22:00.000-04:00Michael,Then, in that case, God cannot be stated t...Michael,<BR/><BR/>Then, in that case, God cannot be stated to be wholly good (omnibenevolent) by any recognizable definition of the term, which is a premise in the PoE.<BR/><BR/>You argue for a God who is powerful, and claim that power (and ONLY power) determines what is good and evil. In that case, you are not truly claiming an omnibenevolent God, as you have reduced the idea of "good" to a synonym for "powerful".Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-65430967269936349502007-08-24T14:04:00.000-04:002007-08-24T14:04:00.000-04:00God's Biblical history of intervening in man's aff...<B>God's Biblical history of intervening in man's affairs shoots the "free will" defense for the PoE out of the water.</B><BR/>God intervenes sometimes.<BR/><BR/>He does not intervene <I> all </I> the time; after all, He did not stop Adam from eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.<BR/><BR/>Nor did He stop Cain from killing Abel.<BR/><BR/>Nor did He stop Amnon from raping his half-sister Tamar. <BR/><BR/>God's intervention is a gift, not a duty.Michael Ejercitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10707862691472293497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-26709319256595565292007-08-24T10:10:00.000-04:002007-08-24T10:10:00.000-04:00Hi Stevej and Shygetz,personally, I don't believe ...Hi Stevej and Shygetz,<BR/>personally, I don't believe that Michael Ejercito is sincere so I ignore him. I spent a day or two deleting him justified partially by the characteristics you are discussing. I don't feel he adds any value to either side.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-16581146856559661622007-08-24T10:02:00.000-04:002007-08-24T10:02:00.000-04:00stevej said: "Michael E., is there any such thing ...stevej said: <I>"Michael E., is there any such thing as "good" -- I mean, as an abstract concept? Or is "good" simply "that which the most powerful being around forces on everyone.""</I><BR/><BR/>michael ejercito has a consistent history of indicating that he worships power. He is at least consistent in his toadying, although like you, I am disgusted.<BR/><BR/>God's Biblical history of intervening in man's affairs shoots the "free will" defense for the PoE out of the water.Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-19244970631957798142007-08-24T07:04:00.000-04:002007-08-24T07:04:00.000-04:00Jason, Just because a belief is reinforced as a...Jason,<BR/> <B><I>Just because a belief is reinforced as a result of cognitive dissonance, does not mean that belief is wrong. Someone's atheism could be reinforced just as well as their theism..... Also, the presence of cognitive dissonance in any belief would not preclude the presence of God or of God's influence in those beliefs.</B></I><BR/> I agree with you. however, when you consider that a belief in god requires a relatively unsubstantiated presumption that the supernatural exists or at a minimum god exists, then it is problematic (from my perspective). <BR/> Consider this, would you support the president sending in our troops to wipe out civilians as well as enemy troops in a conflict? Would you support God doing it? What makes one right and the other wrong? The presumption of God? Now lets apply that to slavery, civil rights of homosexuals, stem cell research, or work our way back through invitro-fertilization, black civil rights (the curse of shem), birth control, divorce, treating daughters/women like property, yada, yada, yada...<BR/> <BR/> <B><I> The cognitive dissonance theorists might also argue that Cindy Sheehan's behaviors are describable in terms of cognitive dissonance. </B></I> <BR/> I don't get it, I don't see why they would.<BR/> <BR/> <B><I>The same would be true of a belief concerning some objective truth, rather than an unprovable truth or an opinion. Someone might "believe more" in something like gravity or the absence of life on mars (objective truths whether we know them or not) thanks to cognitive dissonance.<BR/> </B></I><BR/> okay, i can see that a little bit, but the deciding factor would ultimately have to be the evidence. Meaning the type of evidence considered acceptable and the relative importance of each. <BR/> quick and dirty analogy: addicts and alcoholics are a good example, because it is so able to be seen clearly. They hurt themselves and disregard the evidence that what they are doing is really that bad. In some cased deny there is even a problem. <BR/><BR/>I realize there is a danger of circular reasoning in the outsiders assessment of self-justification (cognitive dissonance), but (as i see it) the way to break out of it is the inclusion of data as evidence.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-10551472148784979852007-08-23T13:26:00.000-04:002007-08-23T13:26:00.000-04:00just to reflect on something mentioned earlier:Jus...just to reflect on something mentioned earlier:<BR/>Just because a belief is reinforced as a result of cognitive dissonance, does not mean that belief is wrong. Someone's atheism could be reinforced just as well as their theism. The cognitive dissonance theorists might also argue that Cindy Sheehan's behaviors are describable in terms of cognitive dissonance. The same would be true of a belief concerning some objective truth, rather than an unprovable truth or an opinion. Someone might "believe more" in something like gravity or the absence of life on mars (objective truths whether we know them or not) thanks to cognitive dissonance.<BR/><BR/>Also, the presence of cognitive dissonance in any belief would not preclude the presence of God or of God's influence in those beliefs.jbrunthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11783083809244957463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-45645407329276535522007-08-21T21:29:00.000-04:002007-08-21T21:29:00.000-04:00Michael E., is there any such thing as "good" -- I...<B><BR/><BR/> Michael E., is there any such thing as "good" -- I mean, as an abstract concept? Or is "good" simply "that which the most powerful being around forces on everyone."</B><BR/>Whoever decides how electromagnetism and gravity works also decides how morality works.Michael Ejercitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10707862691472293497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-41326914182583298542007-08-21T10:38:00.000-04:002007-08-21T10:38:00.000-04:00Michael E., is there any such thing as "good" -- I...Michael E., is there any such thing as "good" -- I mean, as an abstract concept? Or is "good" simply "that which the most powerful being around forces on everyone."<BR/><BR/>Your ideas of ethics, morality and goodness are scarcely one step removed from the Bronze Age. Frankly, I think they disgust just about everyone here, believers and unbelievers alike.SteveJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04525881183798559993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-91470711634104623382007-08-20T14:33:00.000-04:002007-08-20T14:33:00.000-04:00OK, Jim, then I have to say that we agree here on ...OK, Jim, then I have to say that we agree here on quite a bit. I too wonder how those who are literalists, of which I'm not, account for such behavior.Richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816549810869986623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-60095270444512163732007-08-20T01:28:00.000-04:002007-08-20T01:28:00.000-04:00But if God intervened anywhere, there is no excuse...<B>But if God intervened anywhere, there is no excuse for him not -- publicly -- intervening in these horrors.</B><BR/>He is God.<BR/><BR/>He need not excuse His actions to anyone, for there is none above Him.Michael Ejercitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10707862691472293497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-52968196937408832072007-08-20T01:24:00.000-04:002007-08-20T01:24:00.000-04:00Ananias was punished not for lying, but for refusi...<B><BR/>Ananias was punished not for lying, but for refusing to accede to the (non-Marxist, of course) communism of the early Church, and retaining part of his property as private property.</B><BR/>Have you read the particular passage.<BR/><BR/>The apostles accused Ananias of lying to God.Michael Ejercitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10707862691472293497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-5935002679792842672007-08-19T18:41:00.000-04:002007-08-19T18:41:00.000-04:00As for the literalists out there, I continue to as...As for the literalists out there, I continue to ask the same question. If God smote Onan, Ananias, and the people of Sodom, why does he not act against serial killers?<BR/><BR/>But I also want to point out that in each of these cases, God's action was directed against a violation of a law later abandoned.<BR/><BR/>Onan was punished, not for masturbation or even <I>coitus interruptus</I> but for violating the custom of Levirate marriage. Yet Deuteronomy later allows such violation, and today, Levirate marriage is forbidden in both Judaism and Chjristianity.<BR/><BR/>Ananias was punished not for lying, but for refusing to accede to the (non-Marxist, of course) communism of the early Church, and retaining part of his property as private property. But Christians, today, are strong defenders of private property and do not practice -- except for certain minor sects -- any form of communism or communalism.<BR/><BR/>And Sodom was punished not for homosexuality, or for gang rape, but for violating the custom -- common in any desert community -- that a guest is inviolate. (Of course, the people of Sodom and Gomorrah already had a pretty bad reputation, as shown by their previous appearance in the Bible.) But this custom is no longer considered unbreakable, is now considered 'manners, not morals.'Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-78047979482460329602007-08-19T18:31:00.000-04:002007-08-19T18:31:00.000-04:00rich: Two preliminary points. First, I have trie...rich: Two preliminary points. First, I have tried to be careful in distinguishing between 'evil' (implying direct human action) and 'suffering' (which I'm using here to imply such things as natural disasters and disease which are not directly caused by human action -- though of course they can be exacerbated by human actions, inactions and other factors). I'm talking here about 'evil' as I defined it.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, my argument is meant for those who take a 'biblical literalist' position, which I believe you do not. I am unaware if you hold that God ever does directly intervene in human affairs other than by sending 'messengers' to teach humanity. If you do, then I'd have to ask why he does not -- not in all cases but in some exemplary cases -- continue to do so.<BR/><BR/>Let's take the case of serial killers -- because I can even imagine an argument against intervening in the Holocaust, but I can not in this case. Imagine if someone had killed, say, 20 people and so far gotten away with it, and at that point God decided to 'smite' him, in a way that was clearly supernatural, at the same time providing the evidence -- or 'inspiring' a policeman to find it -- proving the person was guilty. Imagine if, in some way at the same time there was a message saying "I said 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' and <B>I MEANT IT!</B>"<BR/><BR/>This would not only be a powerful proof of his existence, but it would also go far to affect other similar killers.<BR/><BR/>But that sort of thing does not happen. Not in every case, not in any case. (And why do those who argue that God sends hurricanes to punish immorality never mean <I>this</I> sort of immorality?Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-76817058351484277202007-08-18T12:49:00.000-04:002007-08-18T12:49:00.000-04:00While I do understand what is being argued, Jim, t...While I do understand what is being argued, Jim, thank you for making your comments.<BR/>i have to disagree though that because God intervenes in one case, makes it imperative that he intervene in similar and worse cases in the future. In your eyes he should, and I understand that. I am looking now at the track that hurricane Dean is on and I have friends in both the Cayman Islands and Louisiana and I would hope that God would steer this hurricane into a place where it will hurt no one, even the thousands of people I don't know, and fizzle it out. That presumes though that because God is good he should never allow bad things to happen to anyone. And because he should love everyone, he should shelter us from bad, death, destruction, and the like.<BR/>I think, Jim, that it also becomes a point where we can't draw a line. If we say its allowable to murder one but not many, or no mass life loss with natural disasters, but a mine cave with 3 or 4 lives lost is acceptable. Doesn't that now become the worst we can see? We now want those changed, and it continues until we live in a blissful state where nothing bad is ever allowed to happen. I realize and understand that you are not asking for bliss, I really do, but ultimately we end up at that point don't we? When can we say we have an acceptable level of suffering. Wouldn't those that experienced these things wonder why that is acceptable?Richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816549810869986623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-85658369302721325602007-08-18T11:49:00.000-04:002007-08-18T11:49:00.000-04:00No, rich, what Jospeh (and I) argue is that, if Go...No, rich, what Jospeh (and I) argue is that, if God intervened in human affairs at all, then he should have intervened in this case -- and the other great evils mentioned. Not in every case, no. But in the greatest, yes.<BR/><BR/>You put God in the position of a policeman who sees a pickpocket and a murderer, arrests the pickpocket, and ignores the murderer. You put him in the position of the parent who severely punishes a child for stealing candy, and looks the other way when he burns his baby sister with cigarettes.<BR/><BR/>If you chose to abandon the myths of Sodom, of Jericho, of the flood, of Ananias, of Onan, fine. Then you might argue as you do. But if God intervened anywhere, there is no excuse for him not -- publicly -- intervening in these horrors.Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-62103430153171224002007-08-18T11:39:00.000-04:002007-08-18T11:39:00.000-04:00MichaelE:The article you quote, at least the first...MichaelE:<BR/>The article you quote, at least the first part, involving Pope Benedict's statement -- I'll get to the second in a bit -- simply displays the author's ignorance of history, or the Pope's willful blindness.<BR/><BR/>Hitler's anti-Semitism did not spring from nowhere. It was part of a series of anti-Semitic actions and writings that poisoned the first part of the century -- and had been preceded by other historical events that we need not go into now, such as the Spanish expulsion of the Jews and the Russian pogroms.<BR/><BR/>But before we look at these actions, one important distinction has to be made because it totally vitiates this point. Hitlerian anti-semitism was <I>racial</I> not religious. The beliefs of a "Jew" -- by Hitler's definition -- did not matter. He could have converted to Christianity, or have been totally secular, or have been an atheist, but if one grandparent was Jewish, off to the ovens.<BR/>(I would agree that Hitler was attacking a set of values and a morality -- however, I would argue that these were the products of the Enlightenment, not of religion. Hitler attacked rationalism, arguing that 'will' was more important than 'reason.' Hitler argued that he was a 'representative of the collective mind of the German people,' an argument depending on 'faith' as much as any religious position.)<BR/><BR/>And the argument of the Pope is weakened by the history of the Dreyfus Affair, in which it was Catholics and Catholic Priests that were leading the anti-Semitism that was so strong in France, that continued up until WWII and made French Society less anti-Hitler than it should have been.<BR/><BR/>As for the rest of the article, I would argue -- without diminishing the horror of the other evils the author mentions, that someone who looks closely at the Holocaust would see that it was, in fact, unique. It was not 'mere killing' but dehumanization as well -- which was not true in the Gulag or in Armenia. It brought out the worst in the guards, in the Mengeles, in the Himmlers, because Jews were 'objects' that anything could be done to -- and this was not an exception, but a policy.<BR/><BR/>The argument the writer makes is precisely the attitude of 'if its good, credit God, if it's bad, blame humanity' that we have ben questioning over many articles.<BR/><BR/>This argument puts god in the position of a very bad parent or teacher who argues they have no responsibility for their charges' action, 'because I told them what they shouldn't do, and that's all I needed to do.' It also makes inexcusable the deliberate avoidance of clarity in God's message, the dependence on 'faith.' At the least, if that was all God was going to do, he should have done a better job of conveying his message, given more demonstration that he really was who he claimed to be, and avoided the contradictions and absurdities that fill the Testaments.<BR/><BR/>But finally, if a Christian argues this way, he can not at the same time argue for 'Biblical inerrancy,' or he makes God monstrous. If God had not intervened -- except by teaching and sending messages and messengers -- in human affairs, then a small case can be made for this position. But if God smote Onan, killed Ananias, destroyed Sodom, interfered in the course of the Sun to help the Israelites win battles, etc, then how <B><I>DARE</I></B> he not intervene in evils this great?Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-13265396327728398602007-08-18T11:09:00.000-04:002007-08-18T11:09:00.000-04:00"That's an argument based upon what we clearly rea..."That's an argument based upon what we clearly read in the Bible. So here's my question: If God exists and is the same yesterday, today, and forever, why isn't God intervening to stop evil today--right now, in the world we live? Why was it only in "the Bible times"? What's so different about today? Shouldn't a good God be concerned about the greater good?"<BR/><BR/>So in the bible there was never an evil act committed because God always intervened? I know your really not trying to say this of coarse but that is where a statement such as that leads me. In the end, to me, you are saying that if the Christian God exists then all evil should be abolished because he should control all of us to the point that our very will to do bad things vanishes. Are you completely sure God doesn't intervene today?Richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816549810869986623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-34469691221571190942007-08-16T18:33:00.000-04:002007-08-16T18:33:00.000-04:00In addition to the fact which Jospeh points out ab...In addition to the fact which Jospeh points out above, another of the many problems with the free will defense is the simple fact that free will and freedom of action are not the same thing---to interfere with someones freedom of action is not the same as altering their will (a police officer who prevents a man from carrying out a rape has not in any way altered his will to rape).David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-56400205744820315912007-08-16T12:36:00.000-04:002007-08-16T12:36:00.000-04:00Yawn! This is the same tired argument we've heard ...Yawn! This is the same tired argument we've heard over and over again, i.e. evil must be completely and fully allowed because God wouldn't want to violate this oh so sacred thing called human freedom.<BR/><BR/>So let the butchers continue hacking their victims! On with human freedom of the dictators, sadists, and murderers! But f*** the human freedom of the victims who would have gladly CHOSEN to get the hell out of Auschwitz, the Gulag, the World Trade Center, the Sudan, and the rapist's clutches. When will my fellow Christians wake up to see that the free will argument is weak, weak, weak!<BR/><BR/>If you believe the Bible, explain to me why God intervened AT ALL in human history? He is said to have drowned an evil generation, hardened hearts, and sent plagues upon the disobedient. Hell, he even stopped the knife that Abraham was about to plunge into Isaac. Was that not a violation of Abraham's free will? <BR/><BR/>So, if the Bible is to be believed:<BR/><BR/>1. God hates evil.<BR/>2. God had no problem intervening to stop evil in the past, even when a person's free will was at stake. 3. Therefore, God should have no problem intervening to stop evil today, even though it means that someone's free will (to do evil) will be usurped.<BR/><BR/>That's an argument based upon what we clearly read in the Bible. So here's my question: If God exists and is the same yesterday, today, and forever, why isn't God intervening to stop evil today--right now, in the world we live? Why was it only in "the Bible times"? What's so different about today? Shouldn't a good God be concerned about the greater good?<BR/><BR/>One more thought for you. Jesus promised, "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father" (John 14:12). So, at the very least, God should be endowing Christians with the supernatural power to combat evil (both moral and physical). But he's not...Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07058424176773515878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-70502220451011854962007-08-16T12:06:00.000-04:002007-08-16T12:06:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07058424176773515878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-10790318528270963082007-08-16T10:43:00.000-04:002007-08-16T10:43:00.000-04:00How do Jews deal with the Holocaust? The Jews beli...<B> How do Jews deal with the Holocaust? The Jews believe they are the chosen people, and god is looking after them. How could a good loving god have permitted genocide? </B><BR/>http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006...<BR/><BR/>JEFF JACOBY<BR/>The silence of God<BR/><BR/>By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | June 4, 2006<BR/><BR/>It is the inevitable question in Auschwitz, that vast factory of death<BR/>where the Nazis tortured, starved, shot, and gassed to death as many<BR/>as a million and a half innocent human beings, most of them Jews. ``In<BR/>a place like this, words fail," Benedict said. ``In the end, there can<BR/>be only a dread silence, a silence which itself is a heartfelt cry to<BR/>God: Why, Lord, did you remain silent?"<BR/><BR/>News reports emphasized the pope's question. Every story noted that<BR/>the man who voiced it was, as he put it, ``a son of the German<BR/>people." No one missed the intense historical significance of a German<BR/>pope, on a pilgrimage to Poland, beseeching God for answers at the<BR/>slaughterhouse where just 60 years ago Germans broke every record for<BR/>shedding Jewish blood.<BR/><BR/>And yet some commentators accused Benedict of skirting the issue of<BR/>anti-Semitism. The national director of the Anti-Defamation League<BR/>said that the pope had ``uttered not one word about anti-Semitism; not<BR/>one explicit acknowledgment of Jewish lives vanquished simply because<BR/>they were Jews." The National Catholic Register likewise reported that<BR/>he ``did not make any reference to modern anti-Semitism."<BR/><BR/>In fact, the pope not only acknowledged the reality of Jew-hatred, he<BR/>explained the pathology that underlies it. Anti- Semites are driven by<BR/>hostility not just toward Jews, he said, but toward the message of God-<BR/>based ethics they first brought to the world.<BR/><BR/>``Deep down, those vicious criminals" -- he was speaking of Hitler and<BR/>his followers -- ``by wiping out this people, wanted to kill the God<BR/>who called Abraham, who spoke on Sinai and laid down principles to<BR/>serve as a guide for mankind, principles that are eternally valid. If<BR/>this people, by its very existence, was a witness to the God who spoke<BR/>to humanity and took us to himself, then that God finally had to die<BR/>and power had to belong to man alone -- to those men, who thought that<BR/>by force they had made themselves masters of the world."<BR/><BR/>The Nazis' ultimate goal, Benedict argued, was to rip out Christian<BR/>morality by its Jewish roots, replacing it with ``a faith of their own<BR/>invention: faith in the rule of man, the rule of the powerful." Hitler<BR/>knew that his will to power could triumph only if he first destroyed<BR/>Judeo-Christian values. In the Thousand-Year Reich, God and his moral<BR/>code would be wiped out. Man, unencumbered by conscience, would reign<BR/>in his place. It is the oldest of temptations, and Auschwitz is what<BR/>it leads to.<BR/><BR/>``Where was God in those days?" asked the pope. How could a just and<BR/>loving Creator have allowed trainload after trainload of human beings<BR/>to be murdered at Auschwitz? But why ask such a question only in<BR/>Auschwitz? Where, after all, was God in the Gulag? Where was God when<BR/>the Khmer Rouge slaughtered 1.7 million Cambodians? Where was God<BR/>during the Armenian holocaust? Where was God in Rwanda? Where is God<BR/>in Darfur?<BR/><BR/>For that matter, where is God when even one innocent victim is being<BR/>murdered or raped or abused?<BR/><BR/>The answer, though the pope didn't say so clearly, is that a world in<BR/>which God always intervened to prevent cruelty and violence would be a<BR/>world without freedom -- and life without freedom would be<BR/>meaningless. God endows human beings with the power to choose between<BR/>good and evil. Some choose to help their neighbor; others choose to<BR/>hurt him. There were those in Nazi Europe who herded Jews into gas<BR/>chambers. And there were those who risked their lives to hide Jews<BR/>from the Gestapo.<BR/><BR/><B>The God ``who spoke on Sinai" was not addressing himself to angels or<BR/>robots who could do no wrong even if they wanted to. He was speaking<BR/>to real people with real choices to make, and real consequences that<BR/>flow from those choices. Auschwitz wasn't God's fault. He didn't build<BR/>the place. And only by changing those who did build it from free moral<BR/>agents into puppets could he have stopped them from committing their<BR/>horrific crimes.</B><BR/><BR/>It was not God who failed during the Holocaust or in the Gulag, or on<BR/>9/11, or in Bosnia. It is not God who fails when human beings do<BR/>barbaric things to other human beings. Auschwitz is not what happens<BR/>when the God who says ``Thou shalt not murder" and ``Thou shalt love<BR/>thy neighbor as thyself" is silent. It is what happens when men and<BR/>women refuse to listen.<BR/><BR/>Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jac...@globe.com.Michael Ejercitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10707862691472293497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-14133322224540928632007-08-16T06:44:00.000-04:002007-08-16T06:44:00.000-04:00Hi all,I am going to be offline for a little while...Hi all,<BR/>I am going to be offline for a little while and will close off my participation in this article today.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your participation and I'll see you on other topics!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.com