If I were to shoot your wife, would you have a problem with that?
-michael martin
The Church of the FSM is always looking for content. Details here
The Church is funded entirely by your purchases of FSM merchandise. Thank you for your support.
Purchase from
Amazon.com
Purchase from BN.com
An elaborate spoof on Intelligent Design, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is neither too elaborate nor too spoofy to succeed in nailing the fallacies of ID. It's even wackier than Jonathan Swift's suggestion that the Irish eat their children as a way to keep them from being a burden, and it may offend just as many people, but Henderson, described elsewhere as a 25-year-old "out-of-work physics major," puts satire to the same serious use that Swift did. Oh, yes, it is very funny. -- Scientific American
Add these buttons to your site:
Bobby's Blog
Contact Bobby: Contact Me
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License. This means you're free to use the content but not sell it. More Details |
Dose this guy just close his eyes and keep repeating his questions like the ‘Dr’ no matter how many times you answer them or what?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Penne,
You haven’t even come close to answering my question. Let me make it real simple: Is there ever a time when murdering completely INNOCENT people is okay? I would explain all the ramifications that follow that question, but obviously you and I should take our discussion one step at a time.
Peace
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Penne,
I believe this guy is the good Dr, I have no doubt in fact.
And yes to what you just said, anybody who takes the time to read back through here will see that. Which is way I will no longer reply to him. I’ve never been big on repeating myself or repeating myself or repeating myself for that matter.
I do want you and the other posters here to know though, that while I may seem harsh and rude when I do reply to the likes of a Dr nic. That I’m not an angry person, I just have zero tolerance for the likes of people like him/it. And I have years full of reasons to be this way.
Ramen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ 13 OK, Friend.
Good enough, I do want to point out though, that is not what you said in the post I referenced. At least thats not the way it came out anyway.
Which is why is said what I did. And why I’ll say again, I think you are smart, but you have much to learn. Maybe how to put your point across, when writing?
Just some construtive criticism.
Ramen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Swabbies Bucket,
I glanced back through the post on this page, and I do not see the “Dr” you are referring to. Could you clarify? I interested to see whom you have confused me with.
/
You wrote, “I just have zero tolerance for the likes of people like him/it. ” – Isn’t that your criticism against God??
/
I think the real reason you will not reply to me is that you sense the tension of your worldview. The atheists can hide behind subjective interpretations of scientific observations, but they can’t shake the irreducible logic of the anthropological argument. Everyone agrees that killing INNOCENT people is wrong, but there is no naturalistic explanation for this reality. Thus, the atheist lives in complete contradiction. I am using extreme examples, but this concept is actually very far reaching. Let’s consider aesthetics: If someone decides that it is aesthetically pleasing (beautiful) to kill your loved ones and take a picture of their bodies, there is no logical reason to call this is ugly from within an atheistic framework. For the atheist what is…is always right. Atheist can have opinions, but they are merely opinions.
/
Peace
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Penne,
I believe this guy is the good Dr, I have no doubt in fact.
And yes to what you just said, anybody who takes the time to read back through here will see that. Which is way I will no longer reply to him. I’ve never been big on repeating myself or repeating myself or repeating myself for that matter.
I do want you and the other posters here to know though, that while I may seem harsh and rude when I do reply to the likes of a Dr nic. That I’m not an angry person, I just have zero tolerance for the likes of people like him/it. And I have years full of reasons to be this way.
Ramen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
BIG ONE FOLKS, AIMED AT NIC,
but feel free to read if you have an interest.
.
.
.
@nic; You ask
.
“Is it not possible that someone could create a scenario in which the world was over populated, the natural resources were rapidly depleting, etc., and that in this scenario it is moral to rid ourselves of the weak, and insufficient contributors… Is it possible that someday it would be moral to kill innocent people, or is that always evil?”
.
.
Morality is a subjective quantity. To us, sanctioned murder of innocents will always be horrendous. However, that is not an absolute quality, but rather a product of our times. We can still afford to allow that sort of morality, so we do so.
.
However, it is not difficult to imagine a world where the population is so far gone that something must be done about it. I reinforce my statement, that to us, with our current morality, the idea is a hideous one. Unfortunately, our morality is defined by what is good for the society. If the population feels that the elimination of humans is necessary, then by that society’s standards IT IS MORAL.
.
One example is the Inuit people. I am not completely sure of the validity of this (any help by those reading would be appreciated), but I have heard that (prior to the advent of modern science and welfare) when a tribe member became old enough that he could no longer aid the tribe, he sailed out to sea on a piece of pack ice.
The tribe could not afford to support someone who did not contribute, and so the tribe made there farewells, and sent gramps on his way. By the morality of the tribe, this was fine, by western culture it seems disturbing at the least.
.
China is another good example (although it could be argued that it is not a good example of a democracy).
Nevertheless, there is already a practice of sternly limiting family sizes. By the morality of the ruling party, exactly what you propose is allowable.
To my knowledge, they do not eliminate excess children, but there have been reports of forced abortions on those that break the rules. From the standard christian viewpoint, is not that killing the same as killing any human (my views on abortion are somewhat more liberal)?
.
.
If you do not like these ways of looking at it, let me ask you this;
Let us say, you have five children all under 10 years old, and a nutcase kidnaps them.
.
He then offers you an ultimatum: kill a 90 year old man.
.
He is infected with AIDS, is bedridden, and has been locked away in a nursing home.
.
.
The choice is horrible. Kill an innocent man, or your own 5 children. The morals of a man that would force someone to make that choice are horrible, but it is YOUR morals that must make the choice.
.
So what do you do? If you kill your children, you will save a man, that for all we know may have been a great man. A scientist, who managed to perfect fusion as a power source. A doctor, who may have cured cancer.
.
However, you must weigh that against the murder of five children, with their whole lives ahead of them. They COULD go on to cure AIDS, achieve world peace, or just become lazy slobs.
.
The old man has lived his life. He is infected with a terminal illness that will kill him within 5 years (though probably significantly less with his age-weakened body).
.
By nearly any morality held in western culture, it is better to save the children.
.
It is the same principle that will lead the U.S. government to shoot down a plane full of innocents if a hijacker aims it at another skyscraper.
.
This is the same principle as the global culling. Sacrifice the few to save the many.
.
It is cold.
It is sad.
It is lamentable.
.
It happens.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I always liked that movie, “death race 2000″ myself.
But that’s just me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
RAmen Jingles!
It really is good to have you back on board.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jingles,
I believe you have very accurately understood the logical conclusions of the atheistic presuppositions. Sometimes Christians say, “If I didn’t believe in God I would do what ever I wanted.” Well, Here’s what I would do If I were an overwhelmingly convinced atheist: I would grieve when I heard about a murder; I would be angered when my property was stolen; I would cringe when I heard dissonance disguised as music; I would certainly make all types of judgments everyday, but I would recognize that they were only illusions and that everything possessed no real meaning, nor any actual definition. Christians certainly would not offend me when they made judgments about morals, art, etc. After all, they are only acting logically consistent with their presuppositions. And those Christians are merely a product of their environment; they couldn’t be otherwise. Everything is matter & energy/cause & effect. There is no soul; there is no free will for the observer to act upon. What is…is always right. I may feel that things ought be other than they are, but those feelings are an existential illusion. There is no “oughtâ€. There is only is.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sorry if I’m repeating guys, but I just got back from converting those who may not have been aware of His Noodleyness prior. I just have to answer this comment.
nic Dec 1st, 2006 at 6:43 pm
@nic
“You haven’t even come close to answering my question. Let me make it real simple: Is there ever a time when murdering completely INNOCENT people is okay?”
.
I ask again nic, where is the christian morality in purposely travelling to, and preaching against the use of condoms in countries where lack of information makes AIDS rife?
I consider that dissemination of misinformation akin to murder of innocents!!!!
I could get very serious about this subject if you like nic?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“You haven’t even come close to answering my question. Let me make it real simple: Is there ever a time when murdering completely INNOCENT people is okay?â€
.
You have just really pissed me off nic! Not a good idea, trust me!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I just read my last post. It should read: “…nothing possesses any real meaning, nor any objective definition.” Sorry. That sentence was driving me crazy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cat Dec 1st, 2006 at 9:41 am
“266 for 3, you can’t have the ashes back!”
.
much bigger than when I heard about an hour ago! Nothing like a false sense of security! It ain’t over till the fat lady sings!!!!! GRR
ps I know who you are!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I mean much bigger score now (for the bloody English!) No matter, wait and see!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That Wenchy Character,
I certainly did not mean to anger you. I apologize.
/
Before you put me in my place let me say this: I do not always agree with what Christians do. In fact, I don’t really like be called a Christian. I would rather be known as a follower of Christ. Sounds like ridiculous semantics, but the word “Christian” no longer has its original meaning. We (Christians) have developed for it certain connotations. My point is Christians should reveal an accurate picture of Christ, but if we do not, that is not reason to condemn Christ.
/
Peace
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Aahhh nic, I see you are straying into nihilism. Don’t do that, it’s so boring.
.
It is a common argument against atheism, that if we don’t believe in there being any absolute, then there is nothing to strive for. That because there is no afterlife, there is no point doing anything now.
.
What a horrible idea.
.
Just because we don’t believe there is an ABSOLUTE better universe, doesn’t mean there isn’t a subjective one.
.
Many atheists are secular humanists. We try to be good to humanity for goodness’ sake. We don’t just stand by and say “oh, what we do doesn’t matter, because all life is just a complex system of chemical and physical processes governed by a series of alternating bases in a complex deoxyribonucleic acid.”
.
Rather, we understand that if the world can be made a better place, by which I mean we can alleviate the suffering of people, then we will try to do so.
.
We do not go around condemning people to hell for acting the way they are. We do not prevent the distribution of supplies that could prevent the transmission of one of the most virulent diseases in the world. We do not tell people to rely on a fairy tale rather than trying to save there own problems.
.
One last thing… where did this no free will bit come from? As far as I can tell, in the religion v atheism debate, if any side stifles free will, it is the religious one.
.
.
.
Now, I’m off to see Borat, and laugh at all thse southern redneck bible bashers. Fare thee well, and feel free to respond nic, I’ll be back.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“I would cringe when I heard dissonance disguised as music;”
It’s ok nic, now I’m laughing again!! :)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh, you reckon thats bad, its 4/460something now :O
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No reason for anybody to condemn christ. His daddy did that. No sense in pouring salt in old wounds.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
nic Dec 1st, 2006 at 10:37 pm
” My point is Christians should reveal an accurate picture of Christ, but if we do not, that is not reason to condemn Christ.”
.
Why aren’t the, apparrently moderate, cristians taking the fanatics to task nic???
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jingles Dec 1st, 2006 at 10:40 pm
Oh, you reckon thats bad, its 4/460something now :O
.
Thanks Jingles, I mean thanks! Don’t you know ignorance is bliss. Again THANKS!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
BTW Jingles did I tell you “I’m not listening….I’m not listening….tralalalalalalalalala”
.
Bugga, I’m turning into a fundie!!
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jingles,
You wrote, “That because there is no afterlife, there is no point doing anything now.” – That’s not where I was going. I simply intended to illustrate the reality of the atheistic conclusions (i.e. If there is no God, murdering innocent people is equivalent to feeding a hungry baby.) That’s your reality! Be good for goodness sake, but don’t judge the next guy for being bad for badness sake. It’s all relative. When an atheist judge condemns a person to prison he is being a hypocrite, do you agree?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@nic
“(i.e. If there is no God, murdering innocent people is equivalent to feeding a hungry baby.) That’s your reality!
.
nic , I know your response is at Jingles, but I don’t quite understand where you get this kinda shit from?
I mean come on, you appear to be terribly misinformed?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
13 back with the latest dream to be interpreted.
I was riding a roller coaster when suddenly it stopped moving while I was upside down. Everyone paniced. All of a sudden I was falling, down down into the earth. It opened and swallowed me up. Somehow, the earth turned into a black hole, and I felt the changes that those science articals say would happen to you were you to go into a black whole, namely, your body stretches out into a long, stringy shape, like spaghetti, and then snaps. Only I was alive through all of this.I reached the center of the whole and pas compressed into a small ball, and next to me I saw other people getting compressed. Our compressed bodies then reached the center and compressed into one another, sorta like a giant meatball. Something else was about to happen, but I woke up.
This was a rather disturbing nightmare, please make sense of it for me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Jingles Dec 1st, 2006 at 8:47 pm
BIG ONE FOLKS, AIMED AT NIC,
but feel free to read if you have an interest.
.
Jingles, I just got around to reading all of the above post to nic.
RAmen Jingles… RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That Wenchy Character,
You wrote, “You appear to be terribly misinformed?” – How so?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The way most fundies are…..that people need an imaginary being to bestow morals on them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Do you even read the post you criticize?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
These sort of people really worry me nic. You see, I I think I’ve got pretty solid morals, and most who know me would probably agree. I don’t need to use a “god” to account for my actions. Never have and never will! I do just fine without. Thanks anyway.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am not actually aware about what you hope to gain by your posts here nic?
I gather converting people to your world view (as it is now commonly called) would be the main intent?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nic,
.
Part 1:
.
In answer to your question, “Is it ever moral to ‘murder’ a completely innocent person?”, you stack the deck when you use the word ‘murder’. Murder automatically implies the act is morally wrong. To that question, the answer is no.
.
A better question would be “Is it ever moral to kill a completely innocent person?” Then the answer is yes. Others have hit on this already, but I’ll weigh in with a few examples. 1) Return to the classic railroad dilema. A train is going to kill five people stuck on a track. You can’t stop the train or move the people. You can switch it to another track, but you will kill another person trapped on the other track who was previously safe. Either way, someone is going to die. It would be moral to kill the one to save the five. 2) An unborn child threatens the life of the mother. Abortion of the fetus would be moral to save the mother. Of course, this all ties into when someone believes a fetus is a person. 3) A person suffers from a terminal disease. They live in excrutiating pain and have no quality of life. They wish to die to end their suffering. Killing them would be not only moral, but kind.
.
Part 2:
.
In another post, you write, “Well, Here’s what I would do If I were an overwhelmingly convinced atheist: … I would recognize that they were only illusions and that everything possessed no real meaning, nor any actual definition … There is no ‘ought’. There is only is.”
.
That’s correct. There is no meaning. The only meaning in anything is the meaning we choose to apply to it and we can choose that meaning to be whatever we like. This is not nihilistic or dispairing. Once someone gets past the knee jerk reaction of “If there is no meaning, then everything is pointless”, they can move on to “Everything I do matters because that is all there is.”
.
In the billions of years our universe has existed, there are billions upon billions of people that were never born. The fact that the organism I know as ‘me’ was born at all was a staggeringly unlikely event. Given that unlikelihood and the knowledge that all I have is this one life, I am highly motivated to make the most of it while I am here.
.
Of course, since I know I will be spending eternity hanging out at the beer volcano, this discussion is an entirely academic exercise.
.
OEJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Your way or no way, hey nic?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’ve said it before to you OEJ and I say it again RAmen!
I for one am glad for your improbable existence ;)
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Now you’ve gone and made an old sea dog blush.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Good!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ The Wenchy Character
What do you mean you know who I am???
hmm, if you could pick a score, would it be 28-1 or 551 declared?
Each society develops a set of morals that suits it. Societies create religions that suit them. Religion does not create morals, it is simply a method for enforcing the use of them. People in a society without a religion have the same morals as someone with a religion, but do not have the threat of burning in hell for eternity. There is no correlation between the number of people who commit crimes and their religion (or lack of). If Nic is correct, and athiests have no morals and are all hypocrites, surely all athiests would go out commiting crimes and then be sent to prison?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t mean exactly the same morals (sexism, racism and homophobism aren’t high on my list of things to do today). I think athiests have an advantage in that they are able to weigh up situations and judge them on their individual merits rather than one thing being evil in any situation. Laws that were relevant thousands of years ago may no longer be relevant, the situations they apply to may have changed dramatically, or it may just be that some laws were wrong. If you follow religous laws that are set in stone (literally!) you have no way to deal with a modern situation where two laws contradict each other. Athiests would have to follow the laws of the country which can be rewritten to be made correct as new situations and develop and new information becomes available. Surely the athiest system allows for BETTER morals?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Cricket lovers everywhere, it looks like we are going to have to hope for a draw for this test, folks.
.
.
.
Otherwise,
.
GUESS WHAT CHAPS, ITS A BIG ONE!
.
Again, aimed at nic, but those with a somewhat masochistic streak should feel free to go to trouble of reading my post.
.
.
.
@nic, I am sorry, but to me your argument smacks strongly of “I reject your reality, and substitute my own!” (Adam Savage, Mythbusters, although it pains me to quote such a hero in this context).
.
“I simply intended to illustrate the reality of the atheistic conclusions (i.e. If there is no God, murdering innocent people is equivalent to feeding a hungry baby.) That’s your reality!”
.
You compare the murder of an innocent to the feeding of a hungry baby. In no way are the two alike. The act of feeding a child is a loving act between mother and child, one that harms no one.
The death of someone, when necessary, is a tragic and lamentable thing, but murder is not that.
.
Murder is the unnecessary, undesired by society (by the victim is almost always a given) and immoral premature extinguishing of life.
I fail at all to comprehend what you attempt to draw from the comparison.
.
Your tone also implies that atheists kill as a matter of course. That is a rather offensive viewpoint, you realise? My argument was that, IF GIVEN NO OTHER CHOICE, an atheist that holds a humanist viewpoint would make the choice of sacrifice, and then ONLY the one that causes the least harm, for the greatest good.
.
We would never commit murder when in a rational frame of mind (things are a little different if you happen to be gripped by emotion, in a drug induced rage, insane, etc).
.
We would never resort to the culling of innocents either, unless we had NO OTHER CHOICE!
.
Most importantly of all however, we accept the resposibility for what we do. We never forget that sacrifice still has a cost, and we never claim any more authority than a human one.
.
.
.
“When an atheist judge condemns a person to prison he is being a hypocrite, do you agree?”
.
No, when a judge condemns a criminal, he is not hypocritical. We have been through this. He is the duly selected representative of the society in which he exists, chosen by that society to perform that exact task. He (in an ideal world) is moral, well informed, intelligent, just and well behaved.
.
Supposedly, Christ himself said “let he who is without sin, cast the first stone”.
.
A judge is the closest we will ever get to that, and surely, as a christian, you cannot argue with your own teachings?
.
.
.
Your God has MURDERED innocents. He has willfully taken away their lives.
.
He is a murderer.
.
He claims to grant free will, yet when there are those that exercise it, he has killed them.
.
He is a hypocrite
.
He also claims he loves us, yet it is him alone that has caused untold pain and suffering.
.
He is identical to the man who beats his wife, all the while telling her he loves her, and it is really her fault, her that makes him do it.
.
Your god is sick.
.
By the my morals, he does not deserve to exist.
.
By those of our society, I cannot judge.
.
It is not my right, but remember nic, neither is it yours.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
nic-Is it ever moral to kill a completely innocent person?†The answer is NO. 1) Return to the classic railroad dilema. A train is going to kill five people stuck on a track. You can’t stop the train or move the people. You can switch it to another track, but you will kill another person trapped on the other track who was previously safe. Either way, someone is going to die. Don’t do anything,and your not killing anyone. 2) An unborn child threatens the life of the mother. Abortion of the fetus would be moral to save the mother. Of course, this is up to the mother; no one eles. 3) A person suffers from a terminal disease. They live in excrutiating pain and have no quality of life. They wish to die to end their suffering. Killing them would be wrong, and get you in a lot of shit. Let them do it themselves if they want to . I would never put that on any of my loved ones, they should ask for medication and do it themselves.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nic, you are being quite offensive by telling me that I could feed my child or kill innocent people and it would be no different to me, and that when I am a judge i will be a hypocrite. How rude!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wench Nikkiee,
You wrote, “I think I’ve got pretty solid morals, and most who know me would probably agree.” – Not once have I question the goodness of the moral character of the average atheist. I have plenty of atheist friends. We get along quite well. They are basically good people, just as good as me. Most of you are getting too easily offended. That anger that wells up inside of you is keeping you from actually reading what I’m typing. All I am saying is that absolute morals cannot evolve. And yet, we all agree that murdering INNOCENT people is absolutely wrong. How do we account for this phenomenon? Do not answer quickly. Please travel inside your mind the original instant. To the alleged “Big Bang” and then imagine yourself inside the inflationary expansion of the universe, in which particles are mysteriously being created in asymmetrical amounts to their antiparticle counter parts. Drift through time and space and find the one guy, or society who has the right to establish a standard that everyone must live by.
/
The thing that makes this argument so hard to grasp is that morality is such an obvious thing. Few ever take the time to ask questions about it. The reality is that morality is a social construct just like clothing fads. Their will probably never come a day when the global majority acts like the National majority of Nazi Germany, but that doesn’t make it impossible. If it happens…it just happens. There is nothing, from within the atheistic framework, which by the way is where Hitler’s concepts had their roots that can call such an atrocity inherently evil. The end.
/
Cat,
You wrote, “If Nic is correct, and atheists have no morals and are all hypocrites, surely all atheists would go out committing crimes and then be sent to prison?” – Again, I didn’t say atheist have no morals. I said they have no logical basis for those morals and that they are simply an existential illusion (i.e. they “feel” right).
/
One Eyed Jack,
You wrote, “You stack the deck when you use the word ‘murder’. Murder automatically implies the act is morally wrong. To that question, the answer is no. A better question would be: Is it ever moral to kill…?” – If you change the words in my question you change my question. All of your illustrations where good, but they do not negate the reality of the issue. Murdering INNOCENT people for no good reason is wrong, but that’s not provable, at least not naturalistically.
/
Jingles,
You use words like, “loving act” and else where, “tragic and lamentable”. – Surely you realize that those are relative terms.
/
You wrote, “An atheist that holds a humanist viewpoint would…” – This discussion is not an attack on what atheists do. I have never insinuated those atheists are immoral or even amoral people. I have simply pointed out that beginning with the atheistic presuppositions, there is no logical reason to define anything as good or bad. Yet, atheists do. Hypocritical is probably too strong a word for a friendly conversation like ours. Forgive me. Perhaps inconsistent is the word I should have chosen.
/
You wrote, “…When a judge condemns a criminal, he is not hypocritical. We have been through this. He is the duly selected representative of the society in which he exists, chosen by that society to perform that exact task.” – So this judge imposes the arbitrary standard of the majority upon a person who may not agree with that standard, and that is okay. Wow! Talk about suppressing new and different ideas. I really want to elaborate at this point, but I will refrain.
/
Concerning God, freewill, and love, I am about to post an explanation. It is long, but I think you’ll find it interesting. It will begin with the heading: “Why is this world so messed up?”
/
Penne,
…I give up.
/
Peace
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Why Is This World So Messed Up?
Introduction:
There is no getting around the fact that there is evil and suffering in the
world.
Evil has often been cited as strong evidence against the existence of the God
Christians proclaim. David Hume put it succinctly when he wrote of God: “Is He
willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is He impotent. Is He able, but
not willing? Then is He malevolent. Is He both able and willing: whence then
is evil?â€
On the surface this appears to be a valid argument.
1. Defining Omnipotent
Job 42:2, “I know that You can do everything, And that no purpose of Yours can
be withheld from You.†(NKJV)
Mark 10:27, “…with God all things are possible.†(NKJV)
However, Scripture makes it clear that there are some things God cannot do:
Titus 1:2, “… God, who cannot lie….†(NKJV)
James 1:13, “…for God cannot be tempted by evil….†(NKJV)
In other words, He cannot do anything that is “out of character†for a God
whose character is perfect and right. It is not a weakness to be perfect and
unable to sin…that is actually a strength.
(All Quotations from this point in the argument for God’s omnipotence are
direct statements of C.S. Lewis.)
“The ordinary usage of the word impossible generally implies a suppressed
clause beginning with the word unless.†I can’t see front door unless I get up
and walk around a few corners. However, some things, such as those things
which are self-contradictory, are absolutely or intrinsically impossible.
These things are “impossible under all conditions and in all worlds and for
all agents. ‘All agents’ here includes God Himself. His Omnipotence means
power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically
impossible. …Nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk about God.†A good
example of an intrinsic impossibility is that God cannot cease to be God. Or
the ever popular: God cannot make a rock so big that even He cannot move it.
C.S. Lewis suggests that “not even omnipotence could create a society of free
souls without at the same time creating a relatively independent and
‘inexorable’ Nature.â€
“It is against an environment and preferably a social environment, an
environment of other selves, that the awareness of Myself stands out.†So I
need you in order to realize I’m me. Further, in order to distinguish thoughts
we need “a neutral something, neither you nor I, which we can both manipulate
so as to make signs to each other. Matter, which keeps souls apart, also
brings them together. But if matter is to serve as a neutral field it must
have a fixed nature of its own. Again, if matter has a fixed nature and obeys
constant laws, not all states of matter will be equally agreeable to the
wishes of a given soul, nor equally beneficial to that particular aggregate of
matter which he calls his body. If a man traveling in one direction is on a
journey downhill, a man going in the opposite direction must be going up
hill.†The fixed nature of matter “furnishes the occasion for all those acts
of courtesy, respect, and unselfishness by which love and good humor and
modesty express themselves. But it certainly leaves the way open to a great
evil, that of competition and hostility.â€
You may conceive of a world in which God corrected the results of matter
abuse. “But such a world would be one in which wrong actions were impossible,
and in which, therefore, freedom of the will would be void; nay, if the
principle were carried to its logical conclusion evil thoughts would be
impossible….†Miracles are instances when God modifies the behavior of matter,
but a stable world “demands that these occasions should be extremely rare.†If
you’re playing chess you can’t just let every thing go the way your opponent
desires (do-over’s, etc.) or you’ll never really have a game. The same is true
with our existence; God has to allow things to run their natural course in
order for our existence to really mean anything.
We are all probably guilty of thinking, “I would have made things differently
if I were God.†But, if we look at things logically we’ll doubtlessly come to
same conclusion to which C.S. Lewis came when he wrote, “Perhaps this is not
the ‘best of all possible universes, but the only possible one.â€
2. Defining Good
God is good. Beyond this, it is God’s character and nature, which determines
what is good and what is bad. It is impossible to absolutely determine whether
a thing is good or bad without comparing the thing to the person, character,
and nature of God. Any attempt to define what is good or bad outside of the
person, character, and nature of God will be relative and arbitrary. It will
be the mere opinion of humans. We will look further into this matter in a
moment. But at this point lets us consider the goodness of God.
(All Quotations from this point in the argument for God’s perfect goodness are
direct statements of C.S. Lewis.)
When we talk of the goodness of God, we mainly mean his love, but our concept
of love needs correction. We all want a “kind†God who only wants us to be
happy and have a good time. We want a Grandfather in heaven more than we want
a Father. We just want some old Guy who gives us whatever we want. “There is
kindness in Love: but Love and kindness are not coterminous, and when kindness
is separated from the other elements of love, it involves a certain
fundamental indifference to its object…. As Scripture points out, it is
bastards who are spoiled: the legitimate sons, who are to carry on the family
tradition, are punished [Hebrews 12:8, “But if you are without chastening, of
which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons.â€
(NKJV)].†If God is Love, He is, by definition, something more than mere
kindness.â€
His love for us is like: “that which an artist feels for an artifact†(the
artist desires a certain character); “the love of a man for a beast†(an
animal “high in scaleâ€, like a dog is so nearly loveable that it is worth a
man’s while to train and make it fully lovable.); “a father’s love for a sonâ€
(the father uses his authority to make the son into the sort of human being
he, rightly, and in his superior wisdom, wants him to be); “a man’s love for a
woman†(“Love may, indeed, love the beloved when her beauty is lost: but not
because it is lost. Love may forgive all infirmities and love still in spite
of them: but Love cannot cease to will their removal.â€).
God loves us too much to let us stay in our present sinful condition. He wants
us to be perfect!
Some will say that God’s love is utterly “selfishâ€. However, “God is Goodness.
He can give good, but cannot need or get it. In that sense all His love is, as
it were, bottomlessly selfless by very definition; it has everything to give
and nothing to receive.†Further, God is fully acquainted with us. Therefore
He knows what will truly make us happy. “When we want to be something other
than the thing God wants us to be, we must be wanting what, in fact, will not
make us happy.â€
It’s not that God arbitrarily made us such that He is and has our only Good,
but rather that there were no other possibilities. All other possibilities
are, as it is, intrinsically impossible. He is the only possible Good.
“God gives what He has, not what He has not: He gives the happiness that there
is, not the happiness that is not. To be God – to be like God and to share His
goodness in creaturely response – to be miserable – these are the only three
alternatives. If we will not learn to eat the only food that the universe
grows – the only food that any possible universe ever can grow – then we must
starve eternally.â€
God is perfectly good and God is all powerful.
3. So where did evil come from?
Before I answer that let me say this: The existence of evil really does not
present a problem for Christianity. But it is a problem for those how do not
believe God exists. How can evil even exist much less be defined if existence
began from the impersonal + time + chance? Beginning from the Big-Bang or any
other beginning other than God, evil cannot exist, and what is is always
right. Because there is nothing absolute to decide what is evil. Matter and
energy are silent; they don’t care how people act. While someone who believes
in these theories might say that a particular thing is evil (i.e. cannibalism), some guy in a jungle tribe might say, “That’s good eatin’.â€
Who’s to say whose opinion is worth more? If there is no God nothing is
absolutely bad, not even murder! It’s all a matter of personal opinion. Some
one might say, “The majority agrees on what’s good and bad, so that’s a way to
absolutely define good and bad.†However, if that is the case then Hitler’s
tactics in Nazi Germany were good because they represented the majority’s
opinion. The bottom line is this: Evil can’t be anything more than an illusion
unless God exists.
But back to the question at hand: “Where does evil come from?â€
The answer is Free Will.
People have the ability to choose. God made us like this because He desired to
have loving fellowship with beings who would obey Him, beings who would choose
to do so even in the face of temptation to do other wise. If He wanted us to
love Him, but never gave us a choice, that wouldn’t be love at all: it would
be slavery. If God didn’t give us free will we wouldn’t even be people: we
would be robots. This is the key to understanding this whole thing.
Evil arises out of the possibility of choice.
Did God know what people would choose?
Yes. God foreknows everything, but God’s complete foreknowledge does not mean
our steps have been predetermined. When your parents had you as their child,
they foreknew you would grow up and one day break their rules. Of course their
foreknowledge is not perfect like God’s. But the main point is that your
parents don’t force you to break their rules, just because they know you will.
And God doesn’t force anybody to break His rules. The choice is ours. God
simply knows what we are going to choose, because He is God.
In order to fully understand the presence of evil, we have to look back at the
beginning.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. It was good and
without the effects of sin. God created everything perfect and without sin.
Adam and Eve had the ability to choose between obedience and disobedience.
Now the choice wouldn’t have been a real choice if it was without consequence.
The choice that God presented them with was this: Obey God and live forever in
bliss with all of your needs being met, or disobey God and live a hard life
away from the presence of God. Adam and Eve chose to live apart from God. It
was humanities first sin. The consequences of the first sin were devastating.
God was clear when he commanded Adam and Eve not to eat of the Tree of
Knowledge of Good and Evil. He said that disobedience would mean death, a
spiritual death, apart from His presence. That is exactly what happened. But
it didn’t just affect them. It affected every thing.
God created Adam and Eve in His own perfect image, but they passed on a broken
image to their children and ultimately to the entire human race. [Romans 5:18,
“…Through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in
condemnation….†(NKJV)] Once sin entered the world, people were condemned to
live painful, imperfect lives. Even natural evil (i.e. hurricanes, tornadoes,
tsunamis, earthquakes, etc.) is the result of the first sin.
Romans 8:21-22, “…Creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of
corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that
the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs….†(NKJV)
Sin has corrupted everything and created a barrier between God and His
creation that only He can cross.
God never wanted Adam and Eve to disobey him. God did not create sin or evil.
He created choice, which provided an opportunity for true love, but at the
same time and opportunity for sin and evil. He knew that this was a risk. But
God decided that love was worth the risk.
A great amount of evil and suffering in the world is the result of God letting
the natural consequences of things take their course.
Some one may ask, “Why doesn’t God just eradicate all evil?†But think about
this: if God were to wipe out all evil at 12:00 midnight tonight, where would
you be at 12:01 ? I know I’d be toast! We’d all be toast!
Romans 3:23, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.â€
It is critical to remember that there really is no such thing as the
“innocent†suffering.
Here’s why God doesn’t just erradicate evil:
2 Peter 3:9, “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count
slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish
but that all should come to repentance.†(NKJV)
God is giving people time to repent.
God has suffered longer than you and I because of evil; He’s been patiently
dealing with this thing for a long time. God has not only suffered the
longest, but He has suffers the most.
God truly suffers the most.
Stop and think for a moment about how much humanity suffers at the hands of
evil. Yet even the worst imaginable pain does not even hold a candle to what
Jesus went through on earth when He was crucified and killed.
Matthew 27:46, “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice,
saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?†that is, ‘My God, My God, why have You
forsaken Me?’†(NKJV)
When Jesus took our sins upon Himself on the cross something happened that has
never happened before and will never happen again. Jesus was separated from
the Father.
Remember also that He continues to go through anguish in heaven as He sees the
devastating results of an evil world filled with evil people.
God could have chosen not to do anything about the mess we made, but instead
He took on human form and allowed Himself to be murdered so that we could have
a way out of our hopeless and helpless condition. God may have allowed evil
into the world, but by doing so He condemned Himself to more suffering than
anyone in history.
“This is going to hurt me more than it’s going to hurt you!â€
Have you ever heard that line before? It’s a statement from parents designed
to “comfort†their children right before they get a good old fashioned
b-whooping.
Somehow I feel that whoever invented this tactic really didn’t think things
through too well. I mean, what kid hears that and is suddenly overwhelmed by
relief that his/her parent is a participant in the pain being inflicted on the
posterior?
Our defiance really hurt God more than it hurt us! God is not far off watching
this messed up world like it’s a comedy or a bad drama. He is intimately
connected with our suffering.
Here’s some Great news:
The story of this evil world has a happy ending for those who have trusted
Christ. One day all evil and pain will be gone forever. As one person said –
for the believer, this world is the worst that life will ever get. For the
unbeliever, this world is the best life will ever get.
Revelation 21:4, “And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there
shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain,
for the former things have passed away.†(NKJV)
4. Providence
Providence sums up God’s caring relationship(s) to the created world. God uses
all this evil and suffering. He turns it into good stuff. Here are a few ways:
1. God uses pain and suffering to help people see that everything isn’t all
good. Evil is actually a great witnessing tool. Here’s the way C.S. Lewis put
it:
“God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in
our pains: it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world.â€
Hard times and suffering often turn people to God. Further, you can use the
fact that evil exists to show people that God has to be real.
2. God uses pain and suffering to shatter the illusion that what we have is
enough for us. C.S. Lewis observes that this is where some people think God
looks evil, but really He looks most attractive. Sometimes God allows really
hard times to fall on seemingly good people so that they will stop loving
stuff and start loving Him. C.S. Lewis calls this “Divine humilityâ€. This is
God’s willingness to receive us even when our only motive is that we have lost
everything and things have become rather rotten for us. He points out that
this is to our good fortune by asking: “If God…would not have us till we came
to Him from the purest and best motives, who could be saved?â€
3. Serving God sometimes has to be hard and contrary to our liking or else
we’d never know if we were serving God because we love Him or if it’s just
something we like doing. So God uses pain and suffering to authenticate our
faith.
As Christians, we don’t have to view suffering as purposeless bad karma or
random chance. God promises to weave it into His plan. Even amidst all the
evil and suffering in the world Christians can rejoice.
Romans 8:28, “And we know that all things work together for good to those who
love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.†(NKJV)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nic
You keep talking about absolute moral standards using the example of the murder of innocent people being universaly considered wrong, but in Nazi germany the murder of innocent people eg.Jews, disabled people etc. was considered morally aceptable, and so does not fit with their being some universally acepted absolute set of moral standards and Hitler was a catholic. Hitler was catholic and so this would have influenced his concepts not atheism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nic, or should I call you Dr Michael ?
.
Have you read the book,
.
“Causing Death and Saving Lives: The Moral Problems of Abortion, Infanticide, Suicide, Euthanasia, Capital Punishment, War and Other Life-or-death Choices” – J.Glover, Penguin, London 1977. ISBN 0140134794
.
Not an easy read. Worth it though. It made me question a number of my beliefs. Especially the one about war being different to murder.
.
Sorry I didn’t read your answer – faaaaaar tooooo lonnnnng.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Penne,
.
Changing the conditions of the situations I outlined does not make a valid argument against them.
.
1) The railroad. Doing nothing is not an option. You must make a choice. 2) The mother. Of course it is her choice. I never said otherwise. 3) Terminally ill. I neglected to state it, but my intended message was that the terminally ill person could not end their life on their own. Of course, many Christians would argue that you don’t have the right to take your own life. I disagree. If there is one thing in your life that you have a right to do with as you wish, it is your own body. See number 2.
.
Nic,
.
As I said, if you use the word “murder” you automatically create a situation that is morally wrong. So, the question is pointless.
.
Murder as a moral wrong IS supportable by naturalistic evolution. As I stated earlier, individuals inclined towards murder would be detrimental to the group. Through evolution, genetic traits and social memes against murder will tend to spread or the group will suffer. Simple, natural, and logical.
.
OEJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I haven’t read the docs latest above rambling.
.
But this caught my eye…
.
NIC WROTE/ I have plenty of atheist friends. We get along quite well. They are basically good people, just as good as me. Most of you are getting too easily offended.
.
I am overjoyed to be “just as good as him”.
.
Sad thing though, I am better then him, I just don’t feel like typing out 3,000 words to explain that fact!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nic you have written a very long and confusing artical. I am trying to understand what your point is. Please help me. I think that you think that a) Atheists have good morals, but the phylosophy of atheism is such that there is no inherent morality, good, or evil in this world, and hence no real reason to follow morals other than personal preferance. b)That there are inherent morals in the universe from the moment of creation. c)A vast intelligent being, God, put great consideration and planning into the development of earth and humanity and its morality, and that the structure of good, evil, etc, is all intentional and a way to mold and speak to humanity. d) This god wants us to “worship” him and so puts suffering and evil on earth to authenticate our worship, for how do you know that someone is serving your and not his own will if he is not suffering?
I can’t argue with you unless I understand you.
please tell me, are these your beleifs?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have to agree swabbies. Nic please shorten your posts they are far too tedious. Which is why I attempt to condense it in the last post.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0