Is God the greatest criminal of all time?

Great Debates
61

God Joe goes back to work per that memo he got from Lissa…

No problem! Planet now automatically expands and changes orbital position relative to the sun so that atmospheric conditions remain constant and the planet never overcrowds. All heavenly bodies position and orbit changed appropriately to compensate for changes in the now expanding earths gravity field.

Done! All human vices are now removed. This is a good thing since if we could become irritable then we certainly would because of 6 billion people with the personality of Barney the purple dinosaur. :slight_smile:

No problem! Everyone gets their own material goods creation machine! Make whatever kind of material goods your heart desires!

Not anymore! Now everyone thinks the same things!

Edited for brevity…

Check and check!

I’m not arguing anything at this point. What I’m asking is if there’s anything wrong with God Joe doing the above actions. Is anything wrong with his actions?

Grim_Beaker

62

I think it is wrong for God to make us all think the same things. I also think it is wrong for God to allow little children to suffer horribly. I can, however, see ways to improve the world without taking things to the extreme of making everyone robots–perhaps decreasing fertility in overpopulated areas, getting rid of severe birth defects, etc. Iwonder why these things exist with an omnibenevolent omnipotent God; it seems like the bad that they engender far outweighs the good. ::shrug:: Your solution to overpopulation seems like a pretty good idea, though. :wink:

I still am curious, if it is so impossible for God to improve our lot, how God can make heaven any better than our world is now. IMHO, theists are better off claiming “mysterious ways” them attempting to show how utopia is actually horrible, since then they have to admit heaven is either impossible or is hell.

63

Free will and evil (and good) are irrevocably tied together. I think most people will agree with this.

This, to me, seems to be the key. Making everyone lockstep automatons in order to remove evil is certainly an extreme measure. There is a lot of grey area between that position and the status quo. Perhaps we can examine the issue more closely by positing the following question (assuming a divine being and design):

Question : What is the correct degree to which said being should limit our action and thought in order to fulfill said design?

My Answer: Impossible to evaluate without accurate knowledge of the design.

Conclusion 1: Questions such as “Why does God allow insert-tragedy-here to happen?” don’t tell us much without an accurate picture of divine design.

Conclusion 2: Reasonable people should act on the knowledge and experiences available to them in determining spiritual questions.

Conclusion 3: Reasonable people should also realize that it would be impossible for us (non-omniscient, non-omnipotent) to know to what extent the divine design is revealed. In other words if we’re given a few center pieces of a puzzle there is no way for us to tell how large and complex the actual puzzle is. We can act (or not act) on the pieces we can see, and perhaps try to imagine what the adjacent missing puzzle pieces would be like but the farther we get from those central pieces the less accurately we can deduce the content of the missing puzzle piece.

Short conclusion: Mysterious ways. Simply no getting around it.

Result: Different people accept explanations of divinity to differing degrees.

I’m not attempting to show with my hypothetical situation that utopia is horrible. I don’t envision heaven to be similar to the hypothetical “utopia on earth” of unlimited material goods, natural resources, and perpetual happiness created by God Joe. What I am attempting to do is to get people to think beyond the symptoms of the underlying evils in the world. The only way to eliminate the symptoms of evil (abuse, murder, stealing, rape, etc.) is to further restrict the available range of thought. You can not eliminate all child abuse without eliminating all abusive actions towards children and what is that but restriction of free will? Which leads me back to Question 1.
Grim_Beaker

64

Therefore, in heaven we will have no free will?

An unaided person today might choose to destroy instantly the entire world, yet they are resticted from doing so due to the limits of their physical powers. This does not restrict their ability to desire to do so, or their attempt to do as much evil as they can. It clearly does not make us robots for not every person to be physically capable of destroying the whole world.

Now, let’s say people can choose to attempt to abuse children. However, children have forcefields that will spring up to protect them and will alert the nearest responsible adult. Child abuse will be almost entirely eliminated, and we will have a 100% certain method of determining when a child is in danger. What is the problem with this?

Why did God decide it is OK to disallow a single unaided person person from destruction of the whole world, or being able to give people diseases with just a thought, or being able to make mentally retarded a child just by wishing–yet decided it isn’t OK to disallow adults from horrifically abusing children? The problem with the free will argument is that we are physically limited from doing quite a few evil things, yet no one thinks it harms our free will. We are not physically limited from quite a few other evil things, and I just have to ask what possible benefit we get from child abuse that makes it a good thing to keep around?

Not true, as I’ve shown. And we are not only discussing the symptom’s of man’s evil: birth defects, crippling diseases, little worms that burrow into your body and back out again wihile you still live–these are not (usually) creations of man. If we must die of cancer to reduce the population, why is it not painless? If the population is too high, why isn’t our fertility lower? Why do we need worms that eat us from inside?

We may not be able to make the world perfect, but I think the world could be better. And without losing our free will. “Mysterious ways” is the only way to wiggle out, IMHO. :wink: Even “free will” cannot answer for all the evil in this world–since we are limited from certain evils by physical restraint (and we are limited from certain goods by physical restraints, too), why did “child abuse” land in the “acceptable” spectrum, but others did not? The answer to that is clearly not “free will”, but only “mysterious ways”.

[Edited by Gaudere on 01-11-2001 at 02:23 PM]

65

Of course we will. But if the only people to get into (and stay in) heaven are those who think/act “good” then it shouldn’t be a suprise if the only acts done in heaven are “good” acts.

I think you’re really asking the same thing I am. Question 1 as above: “What is the correct degree to which said being should limit our action and thought in order to fulfill said design?” Obviously no one can give the definitive answer since no objective observations can be made regarding divinity and divine design.

I don’t think you’ve shown that. You’re saying “Well, God could prevent A by doing B and by doing so people can choose to abuse children but children won’t be abused”. You’re hypothesizing a possible “God solution” to an admittedly tragic situation where you can’t possibly know what the full ramifications would be. If we’re assuming a being with intelligence, knowledge and understanding beyond our comprehension I don’t see how we can say “This! This is a solution to this problem! It’s so easy! Why doesn’t God see it?!”

Maybe I wasn’t clear. I thought I was agreeing that there was no way to tell why child abuse landed in the “acceptable” spectrum. i.e. Mysterious ways. We can’t know because we have no objective way to determine divine will/design.

It’s certainly possible to use “mysterious ways” to characterize all tragedy. However it’s not clear that “mysterious ways” is the only explanation for all tragedy. Free will can still be attributable to the allowance for evil acts while not being an argument relative to cancer, birth defects, etc.

Grim_Beaker

66

But if there is no evil in heaven, and we must have evil to have free will, how can we be free? How do you take the people on earth, none of whom has never sinned, and put the whole lot of 'em in one place and expect them to suddenly be totally good all the time? Yet you claim it’s impossible for God to make it so that everyone on earth is good without making us robots, but everyone in heaven will be good and have free will.

I most certainly have shown that allowing “free will” does not mandate a need to allow people to be physically capable of child abuse. We clearly accept physical limitations on our abilities to do evil without considering it to infringe on our free will. You can use “mysterious ways” to excuse child abuse, but not “free will” alone.

Why not? I just did. :smiley: I have come up with a very tidy solution to child abuse (a thing that very very rarely has any possible good), one that God could have chosen, yet He did not. I think it is important to acknowledge how many of man’s evils must be filed under “mysterious ways”, because IMHO the “free will” excuse is often used without acknowledging the many evils we are kept from doing that don’t harm our free will at all. Some people make it sound as if you need the capability to commit the most terrible evil to be free, and you simply don’t.

Fair enough. So God has chosen to physically limit many of our possible “evil” actions, but not child abuse. He has chosen to make cancer painful. He has chosen to allow birth defects that cause terrible suffering. And we will just call it “mysterious ways” and never question why, since God must know better than us. Not being biased towards an omnibenevolent God, I must note that this excuse makes it impossible to tell whether God really is omnibenevolent at all. If he was only “sorta” good, we could still perceive him as omnibenevolent, so lonm as we do not think we have the right to look at His choices and thus question his motives. Heck, I could claim to have divine inspiration that God is wholly evil, and excuse any good with “mysterious ways” just as easily. Then I would explain how free will was necessary, since people needed the ability to freely choose evil, and the concomitant good was a necessary drawback, and explain away any good circumstance as “mysterious ways”. It’s interesting how many of the arguments for God’s onmibenevolence work equally well for omnimalevolence. (And a neutral God doesn’t even have to deal with it at all!)

67

Perhaps God made this tiny, ephemeral universe as the first step in a larger, grander design. Perhaps in this world beings can be born who have within them the potential to grow into immortals themselves. Beings beyond the angels, with free will, and great spirits able to walk with God Himself into the vast reaches of infinity. The cost might be that those beings must be free to live their lives and find their own way. To help them, God might need to be born, Himself, among them, so that they might perceive Him in a way that their own love could encompass. In such a case, the love between Man and God, made real, would be the Spirit which makes Man Immortal.

Though God weeps with every child that cries, so too does He weep with every soul that chooses destruction. But the magnitude of immortality is so great that only freely chosen love is able to withstand the trials. The world is but a small place, where we live for a brief time. Our suffering is our own, and our triumph over it comes from His love.

Tris

68

I don’t. I said that in order to get into heaven and in order to stay there one would have to be good. Lucifer was in God’s presence before he fell and I don’t see how it would necessarily be different for people.

Ok. Child force fields on! Here comes Bad-Temper-Bill who chooses to abuse children. He swings a mighty blow at his 12 year old neighbor simply becauses he wants to be abusive! And… and… dang! Force field! No consequence there. But wait! He chooses to abuse again! Force field again! Gah! 12 year old neighbor laughs, shoot’s Bad-Temper-Bills dog, pisses on his flower garden and defecates on his porch. Peachy scenario! I love it! Is this an acceptable situation? While I still have you in the “giving advice to God” mood maybe you could append a few new rules to cover these situations? Thanks. :smiley:

Understandable position. I respond by asking what level of evil do you think we would need the capability to commit and still be considered free?

Heck, I could claim that God isn’t omniscient and is ignorant of earthly suffering thus isn’t responsible for human suffering. Then of course I would be changing the fundamental assumptions we’re making about God’s nature for purposes of this debate.

I said nothing about never questioning. Pondering the good, the bad and the ugly in life and what meaning they have to you is IMHO beneficial. Setting that aside for a second if God exists as postulated (omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent), then yes, God must know better than us.

Grim_Beaker

69

What, are people constantly popping in and out of heaven? Or once they screw up once, they’re out of there? If so, given that no normal human has been without sin even for a short span of 70 or so earthly years, before a very short blip of eternity is over everyone’s going to be in Hell.

That seems a exceedingly tortured attempt to make abusing a child “good”…and I don’t think it succeeds, either. Are you saying it is more to your preference–more acceptable, as you put it–that Bad-Temper-Bill beat the snot out of the twelve year old? The force field protects children from “abuse”, not restraining a dangerous child or calling the police. Given that you keep hammering home how God knows everything, I think he can tell the difference between restraining a dangerous child and abusing an innocent. If adults knew they could not abuse, they would have to use only the force necessary to keep the child from doing harm (even physical punishment–not abuse–that will help the child is allowed; and God certainly knows whether it will help him/her or not, so that’s an easy call)–and what’s wrong with that? Particularly when you contrast the loss of “freedom to abuse children” with the alternative of the horrific physical and sexual abuse some children suffer through. I don’t know of a single child that “needed” abuse, your example of the 12-year-old neighbor of Bad-Temper-Bill notwithstanding. God has already disallowed certain evils, right? All we’re doing is taking “child abuse” out of the “acceptable” catagory and moving it into the “unacceptable” category with “insta-diseases capabilities”, “kill the whole world capabilities” and such–just drawing the line a little different than where God originally did. What do you think God forsees that makes child abuse a good thing? What horrors could happen if children were not abused, besides a lot less screwed-up adults and fewer little coffins?

Well, I could do without painful, deadly diseases (at least do not make people suffer pain when there is absolutely no point to it–there’s no reason a cancer patient should have to spend the last months of their lives in terrible pain or loopy with painkillers). I could do without the times when people’s systems “short circuit” and they suffer terrible pain without relief without having it due to physically harm. Let’s have fertility decrease when overcrowding is resulting in starvation. Let’s do away with the worst of the birth defects, so no child is born with an IQ of 20 or so crippled that they will never live past 5. And I do like my “forcefields” idea for children. At the very least, I don’t think we should be physically capable of committing evils that “break” people, that harm them so badly that they cannot have a happy life. And if you think my world will so much worse than our current one, you don’t have to live there. :wink:

Well, that pretty much just begs the question. God is wholly good and knows better than we do because I define Him as such, therefore whatever horrible evil thing he seems to do is actually good. It is an axiom, not an argument, and such is not open for debate.

70

To me the question in the OP is answered pretty clearly in the parable of Job.

Job is a swell guy who loves God, has a great family, wealth, land, some nookie on the side, etc.

The Devil says “Job only loves you because he’s got it so good. I’ll bet he’d change his tune if life wasn’t so cushy.”

God (who is incomprehensively gullible here,) says “Deal! your on!”

Bam! Wife dies! Bam! Kids are victims of a drive by! Pow! Loses all his property! KBIFF! Nookie on the side finds another sugar daddy! Kabblooie Job’s whole body gets covered with festering boils, and he’s reduced to begging in the street.

“God,” says Job. “This bites. What the hell did you do this for? Why are you pulling all this crap? What’d I ever do to you to deserve this?” and so on.

God, of course is ready with The answer:

“Where were you when I made Heaven and Earth?”

In other words, positing a choreographer, who are we to bemoan our role in the dance?

Fianlly, any God posited does have a pretty good claim to a Granfather exclusion.

71

I’d advise you not to lead with that story if you want to convince people that God’s all that great. God’s running around betting one of his old chums about how much torture a human can handle? Gee, how nice. That’s like adopting a dog from a pound and betting your pal that you can break all his ribs, blind him, starve him and he’ll still lick your hand. Pretty damn sick. And then He says, essentially, “I made everything, so I can do whatever I want, so there.” God comes across as rather a self-aggrandizing bastard with a serious gambling problem.

And you must not know many dancers if you think they don’t question the choreographer, or indeed, that they should never do so… :wink:

72

Awww. You know better than that. I’m not saying he’s great, I’m not even arguing he exists (although the Op is kinda moot if we don’t grant that point for purposes of discussion.)

You’ll also notice I labelled that story as a Parable, which is not to be to taken literally, but is rather a fictional story designed to illustrate the point.

I’m also not saying that the dancer’s don’t bitch and complain. I’d be surprised if they didn’t. Ultimately, it’s not the dancers’ place to do so. The dancers’ job is to dance. The audience and the critics judge the merit of the production, because it is impossible for the performers to provide an impartial opinion.

Still another metaphor, a molecule of pigment may bemoan its unjust use and lowly station, but it’s in no positon to judge the painting.

73

hey guys, this was a plesant convo but now its starting to turn :frowning: two things… first the story of job is to explain that you shouldnt question God or His plans because you arent as powerful as He is. you didnt make the earth and stars, He did. you didnt see the earth come to life, or mark down the first day, that was what God did. and He has a plan for everything. now im not saying that this is all a fact, cuz i dont know if it is or not. but tahts the point of the story of Job. its not his suffering etc.
two: the plans of a forcefield for children and whatnot so that people would still have all that free will stuff, well dont you think thats just a bit extreme? yeah, that might be ok for cartoons, but in real life… i dont think so. besides… wouldnt He have thought of things like this? i dont really think that He likes to see people suffer, children or otherwise, and no i dont know why they do, but i personally think that if there was some practical and achievable way, besides the armagedon, that He would find a way.
but like i said these are my points of view in regards to your statements and what i have read and learned.

74

I’m not saying anything of the kind. I did say that you couldn’t predict all the ramifications of what you were proposing. I took your suggestion at face value since you stated that you had a solution you felt would solve the problem. However you did not provide information for determining what constitutes abuse nor what an acceptable level of punishment is. This is especially crucial since it’s plainly obvious that different people apply different levels of force (from no force to outright killing) to their own and other children. Also, at what age would children be considered adults and no longer receive the benefit of the force field? Does the force field protect them from other dangers as well (i.e. wild animals, accidentally discharged firearms, etc.)?

Ok, since you didn’t provide any specific rules as to what constitutes abuse I’m assuming you’re leaving that up to God. Forgive me for saying so but it seems rather inconsistent to argue that God is omniscient, omnipotent, etc. only when applied to supporting your hypothetical idea, but not when applied to current day reality.

I whole heartedly agree that no child needs abuse and I want to make that clear since you seem to think it’s in question. I’m not advocating abuse. I’m trying to increase my understanding by positing “what ifs” and discussing ideas.

So rape and murder of adults would still be allowed?

Wait a second. Are we debating:

  1. “God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent so why does he allow insert-tragedy?”

Or are we debating…

  1. “God isn’t omnipotent, omniscient and/or omnibenevolent because look at all the insert-bad-thing in the world!”

How are you defining God for purposes of this debate?

Grim_Beaker

75

True. :wink: But since I am wondering what is wrong with setting up the world this way, I am postulating a world where we have the Omni god, and he did choose to set up the world with the forcefields. For instance, when you argue for the existence of evil, you say, “well, God could have set it up this way, but then we would not have free will, and that would be worse than having evil and free will.” You posit a alternate world ruled by the Omni God where everyone can only do good, and you decide that it’s lacking. Just like as above, where you positited an Omni God that could make the earth expand to house all the people–I didn’t argue, “hey, you can’t have a different world than this one and still have the Omni God!” You were wondering “well, what if the Omni God did this–what would be wrong with this? Let’s think it through and see.” Well, that’s what I’m doing too.

So if God was omniscient, and He did want forcefields that protect children, and He could deploy them whenever He saw a child abused, how would that world be worse than the one we have now? You can just argue “mysterious ways” and that child abuse is for the best, but I can’t see any reason why this is so–none at all. I am just wondering what would possibly be wrong with a physical restraint by God that protected children from abuse. Just a little crumb that would explain why God doesn’t think protecting children from abuse is better than the alternative. I mean, at least your possible-world ended up with Barney-clones so we all know how horrible that possible-world would be. :smiley:

Well, we’re just dealing with child abuse here, so howzabout as soon as the kid moves out of the house, or is over 16. They can still call in the police and such for children who don’t want to leave; certainly, abuse is rarely required to make children move out. Or it ends whenever God thinks it’s OK! (Since I think I can still use the Omni God)

We’re just dealing with child abuse right now; we can deal with the rest of the world’s ills later. :wink:

Why not? It is now (technically; we have laws and such). At the very least, you wouldn’t be worse off in my world, aside from positing some terrible thing that will happen if children are no longer abused. But let’s do away with mental illnesses that make people do evil who do not choose to do so; that both removes free will and causes evil, so you’d figure God’d want to get rid of that double-whammy. I’m not trying to make the world perfect, just better.

There’s nothing to argue there; it’s always “it looks bad, but it’s really for the best.”

Not that, either. I’m more arguing: “Look, the world could have been set up this way. What do you think is so bad about this that God chose not to do this?” Just like you did with your possible-worlds. There’s no argument against “mysterious ways”, really. So I just like to question what sort of reasons might conceivably justify child abuse, and what makes my world worse than our current one. Psychiatrists and hospitals might get a bit less business in my world, I’ll admit. :wink: If you can’t think of any disadvantages that outweigh the advantages, just go with “mysterious ways” and I’ll shut up, but it looked like you were arguing that no possible-world could appear better than this one once it was thought through, and I think we could take out a few nasty things from this worth and not miss them. “Mysterious ways” works, but running through a possible-world to show how much worse off we’d be if the world was different (Barney-clones!) doesn’t always do so (IMHO).

76

Scylla:

I diagree; for one thing, there’s no such thing as an “impartial opinion” in art. The audience and critics have their own biases, and their opinions are not inherently more worthy simply because they are not actually involved in the production. Your metaphor is so muddled it doen’;t make the point you want it to, IMHO. Sometimes the dancers do know better than the choreographer what will work best, and I see no reason why a molecule (assuming it is sentient) cannot judge its painting. You’re better off with, “'cause He’s God, that’s why,” rather than using those metaphors (particularly artistic metaphors, and with me! :wink: ).

77

I still don’t think the force field situation works. I would argue that the only way to enforce the “no child abuse” divine rule would be to make it impossible for a person to even think in any form about it. I don’t think the force field works by itself. What if the parent locks their child in a closet and then feeds them from under the door for 2 years? Obviously thats abuse, but it didn’t require the parent to strike their child. What about the parent who, through constant criticism and emotional deprivation, depresses a child to such an extent that they commit suicide? Force fields don’t work for either of these scenarios and they are still abuse. I don’t see how it would be possible to stop child abuse without stopping the thoughts that cause it. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

I think we’re uncovering a problem right here. For every person who thinks that the line on free will should be drawn where you think it should be drawn I’m sure there are 10, 20, 100? (who knows how many?!) who think it should be drawn somewhere else. Are you saying “my view of the appropriate balance is the correct one and anyone who thinks differently is wrong”?

Bolding mine…

I’ll quote myself to answer part of this…

I’ll say it again. No getting around “Mysterious ways”. I’m agreeing with you! Can’t I agree!? :smiley:

I’m sure there are an infinite number of worlds that could appear better than this one and I’m sure there are an infinite number of worlds that could appear worse. Hell, a world exactly like ours except that no people ever itch appears better.

While I can’t come up with any advantages to human happiness that outweigh the disadvantages to human happiness I would argue that neither can you predict all the outcomes of your force field scenario.

Here are a few more “what ifs” that I don’t expect you to answer and that I only bring up to illustrate that you can’t predict the “child force field” results.

  1. Person knows he can’t physically strike a child with intent to abuse so instead coerces child by withholding food.

  2. People still aren’t required to provide for their children. Infanticide (by abandonment) of children occurs at a much greater rate.

  3. Child is completely unprepared for adult violence once force field goes away, (or dissipates, or goes up in a flash of light… umm… just what kind of pyrotechnics did you have in mind for this occasion Gaudere? :slight_smile: ). Adult homicide rates triple.

  4. Medieval-Max realizes that children can not be abused. Medieval-Max decides to put innocent 13 year olds in front of his archers as shields. Using children as an essential part of war becomes common place.

We live in a universe that is exceedingly complex. Not just in a physical way (quantum particles, chemistry, etc.) but also in a social and moral way. Just as many people find it arrogant that some fundamental christians say “Don’t believe what I do? You’re going to burn in hell!” (Note: I’m not a fundie) I find it exceedingly arrogant for any person to say “Well, if only the world was like this all would be well”.

Are you willing to agree that there is no way for you to know what the ramifications of the “child force field” would be?

Grim_Beaker

78

Remember the light goes off when the child is endangered; we can have it do the same for emotional abuse. Of course, we’ll still have to deal with incompetent child-services workers, but it’s better than it is now, right?

How many people will be lining up to say that free will must include the physical capacity of child abuse, here? We are currently physically restrained from all sorts of evil–surely 10, 20, 100 people feel that not being able to instantly kill anyone they please infringes on their free will. The line has already been drawn. The question is, why there, and can we envision a better place to draw it? You did the possible-world routine before; I am just showing that they don’t all have to end in mindless Barney-clones, sometimes they look a lot nicer than our current world.

Warning light goes off. We covered this. Even if this doesn’t work, coercion via food is still better than murdered children, right?

What!? If parents can’t abuse their children, they are more likely to abandon them? Great, let’s never try to keep parents from abusing children then–I’ll call Child Services and tell them to stop bothering. Even so: let’s say the light on the force field goes off if children are abandoned. Fair 'nuff?

Again, do you think it better that adults more or less freely abuse children? Anyhow, most child abusers do not abuse adults who are quite capable of fighting back. The child will be aware that after a certain point s/he is on his/her own–that would be the way life is.

Who said “all will be well”? But I have a way to greatly reduce child abuse–which we all agree is bad–and you want me to utterly reject it because I don’t know everything it might do? That’s not the most striking humanitarian drive I’ve ever seen–that seems excessively timid. Shall we therefore avoid reducing child abuse because of fear of some terrible unknown evil that might erupt if children are not abused?

::shrug:: That’s an awful trivial admission. I have no way to know the ramificiations of a cure for AIDS either. Does that mean I should not agree that AIDS is bad and I should try to stop it? What can we do but the best we can with the knowledge we have–shall we be stymied from any dream of a cure for life’s ills becuase we see them as the work of a benevolent God? I suspect medicine would be a great deal less advanced if we thought in this manner.

Mysterious ways, fine, go with it. But don’t argue from possible-worlds to show that the world could not appear better in any way–as you most definitely seemed to be doing with your first few possible-worlds posts. And your argument that “we can’t know that the consequences are for sure!” seem to logically lead you to argue that we shouldn’t fight against abuse or disease. You’re stepping into dangerous territory in there, in my opinion; while we may not know the final consequences of eliminating child abuse…must we then not say that eliminating it is a good thing?

79

Gaudere:

I missed your earlier reply. Perhaps it is unwise for me to use art as metaphor, unless I’m getting to enjoy ass-whoopins. Therefore I will try another tack.

[facetious] Everybody knows that all you fancy artsy fartsy types, live in studio apartments eating Ramen noodles off of a hot plate. They lack practical culinary experience as they suffer for their art. Therefore I will attack from that undefended quarter. Behold the following metaphor and despair:[/facetious]

Consider God as Chef. As mere clams and shrimp and such mankind has no idea whether God intends to create a stew, gumbo, appetizer, or Sushi. Indeed such concepts are beyond the abilities of clams and shrimp to even comprehend. We may protest being sauteed, but our thoughts are really moot.

God may love us (I love clams and shrimp. I feel bad when I drop a live clam into the steamer, but that doesn’t stop me.)

Much of beauty comes from suffering. We may perceive injustice, but positing a God we lack the perspective to judge it validly, much like my clam.

80

Scylla said:

So you’re saying God loves us with a nice white sauce and a bottle of wine?

God is Hanibal Lecter!