From: MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: some musings on theodicy
Date: 11 Apr 92 06:19:46 GMT
Organization: HAM - Hackers Against MUDs

In article <Apr.10.04.53.51.1992.19282@porthos.rutgers.edu>,
hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu says:
>
>What I'm suggesting is that it's not that God intentionally damns
>people and throws them into the fire, but that those without proper
>spiritual preparation can't survive.
...
>This does not necessarily absolve God of responsibility.  If we assume
>that he's responsible for the whole setup, he still chose to create
>the dangers.  Ultimately I think I fall back on what amounts to "the
>free will defense".  Yes, God created a dangerous world, and probably
>we can hold him responsible for that.  But he may not have been able
>to create a safe world and still end up with results that were worth
>having.

First, we have to assume that god is responsible for the creation of the
universe and everything in it--it's assumed in the bible. There is no choice
involved here, because if god didn't, then some other, more powerful god
is responsible for what the christian god didn't do. I think I can safely
assume that this is not what christians believe.
Then we have the "free will defense." It may be true that a safe world was
not possible. Of course, this would contradict god's supposed omnipotence,
but I will ignore this for the sake of argument. If god wasn't able to create
a safe world and had to settle for this one, then why did he go ahead and
make it? From his omniscience we can assume that he knew what the results
would be. My conclusion from this is that god approved of the result and
made it happen. God is pleased with the state of affairs today. God approves
of people going to hell, etc. as well as the good in the world. This raises
serious doubt in my mind as to the supposed only-good nature of god.

>
>  The Bible certainly sees God as ultimately
>responsible, and it suggests that he has is all-powerful in at least
>some context.  But the Bible does not discuss things in quite the
>abstract terms that many of these discussions reach.  Are there at
>some level constraints on God?  I rather suspect that there are.
...
>I don't see anything in the Bible that requires me to say that he is
>free of such constraints.

Well you did note that it suggests that god is all-powerful in some way.
Your argument would destroy the idea of god's supposed omnipotence, and
this would make me wonder why someone would worship a being of limited
power. Just how powerful is god? Well, he's supposed to have created a
whole universe, but he can't make it safe...essentially, there is also the
argument, "I don't see anything in the bible that requires me to say that
he has any constraints."

>
>Note that the only book in the Bible that deals with these issues at
>length is Job, and in Job it seems to be considered perfectly
>legitimate for someone to be upset at God for what he has done.

I don't see where you get this from Job. The ending of Job was just the
opposite of what you suggest: god came down, humbled Job with his power,
and Job relented, begging forgiveness, at which point he got it. I
definitely don't see how your idea that being upset with god is allowed.

>
...quoting Luther...
>  ...When these men talk of sweetness and of being
>  transported to the third heaven, do not believe them.  Divine Majesty
>  does not speak directly to men.

This clashes with reports from christians I talk to everyday. They are
always telling me how god talks to them, sometimes directly. Also, it is
merely a claim, just like those who claim to be speaking to god. It would
seem that Luther has sometihing against visions of heaven being nice,
but that is just something to wonder about...

Martin Schulte