Why does God do/allow...

Obviously when one takes into consideration viewpoints like those of Sleepy and Justin, it is crucial just as Sleepy pointed out that we are on the same page.

What or which God is one speaking abgout in any given discussion. The Christian one, the agnostic one, the higher power force?

I refuse to attempt to define or describe something I know nothing about other than the fact that it exists. So I can tehorize about all sorts of aspects regardiung the dynamics of life and creation around this mysterious force, but I cannot become personal as in trying to be familiar with it. So to try to address these issues of benevolence are just not worth consideration. Most are man made problems that man must face himself.

Sleepy - If you read the work of Church Fathers and theologians you will find that their typical response is not redefining God, but investigating the very nature of language about God. Typically, they argue that language of God is figurative rather than literal: to say God is all powerful points to the truth but is not the truth. In this way, the problem of evil is simply a semantic misunderstanding: a misunderstanding of the nature of the language of God.

We can spend our whole lives refuting God if we take the language of God literally, but such a task is pointless, even silly, when we consider the fact that the vast majority of both thinkers and theologians do not take the language of God literally. To argue against God by taking the language of God literally is, therefore, a straw man argument.

Well, I was talking about those who accept such argument, especially in the analytic philosophy tradition. I doubt church fathers/theologians pay much attention to such arguments made by philosophers much less accept them. I'm talking about the philosophical theists--from Aristotle, Aquinas to Descartes and rationalists to the philosophical atheists--Hume ... to just about everybody in today's analytic philosophy. About church fathers etc. I don't know a thing.

Yes I know about today's "liberal" trend in taking books like the Bible figuratively rather than literally. I see absolutely no merit in such approaches if that's what you're talking about. I don't really get it, actually. I mean, you can agree or disagree with what the Bible says, but how in the world do you know whether the writer meant something figuratively rather than literally. Did some original version of these manuscripts say "FICTION!" in front of it? Or maybe "Just kidding!" at the end? How in the world would you know any of their intentions? It certainly isn't presented as a work of fiction or poetry and if that's what it really is, the writers should be condemed for such gradios miscommunication. Afterall, millions, heck billions, of people misunderstood and took them literally. When anyone writes something as a work of nonfiction, the standard intent is to present something literally and to be understood literally. People reinvent Christianity these days doing away with, well, almost everything, except what they like. Don't like hell? It was just figurative, hell doesn't really exist ... blah blah blah. But why take only those parts you don't like as figurative and the parts you like as literal. Why not take everything as figurative? I.e. there's no God, or Jesus, or was never a crucifixion, or ressurection, no heaven, no hell... But that's just like an atheist position. Otherwise you're just choosing what you like arbitrarily with no basis.

Actually, those church fathers and theologians are typically well educated in philosophy: for these men, philosophy and theology are often times inseparable subjects. Not to mention the many church fathers and theologians who are studied as philosophers: Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, and Abelard come to mind.

As for what you call the "modern trend" of reading scripture figuratively rather than literally, you are mistaken my friend. The modern development is fundamentalism: the literal reading. No one suggested that the Bible be read literally until the Enlightenment, and the idea was not even remotely popular until the 1800's.

As for 'how do we know the Bible is figurative': how do you know that Dante's Comedy is not literal? No where in the document does Dante suggest to the reader that his text be taken figuratively rather than literally.

Biblical literalism, or fundamentalism, is actually today the minority opinion: even in the United States. Fundamentalism is a modern development, a reaction against the abrasive rhetorical techniques of early scientific atheists in the 1800's.

Further, saying that Hell, ect is figurative does not discount the existence of Hell much less the scriptural discussion of Hell. Instead, reading the Bible figuratively is just more difficult than reading the book literally: a figurative reading challenges a person spiritually. Which is exactly the point in having such a book to begin with.

I am about to commit the crime of digressing from the main topic. I just wanted to make a few comments on literal interpretations of the Bible, because it seems statements for or against tend to be very sweeping.

Whether the Bible is inspired, whether it is true, and whether it is literal are three different topics, and I often seem them mangled together.

Didymos makes a good point that one can speak metaphorically or allegorically about something like hell and still believe it exists. Consider the "Rime of the Ancient Mariner".

But, specific to whether it is literal, it depends on which section is being discussed. I've never encountered someone who claimed the entire Bible was literal, but I suppose someone could. They would have to be pretty nutty to do so. For Jesus to say, "I am the vine" and mean it literally would be pretty absurd.

In some cases, "literal" interpretations come from ignorance. I once had someone try to argue that the Bible calls psychology evil based on a passage from the Psalms.

Another time I had someone argue that the Bible did its math wrong because Solomon told a barrel maker that the circumference was three times the diameter, whereas pi has been proven to be 3.14. All that did was reveal the person's ignorance of math.

But, I suspect that most people are thinking of things like Moses and Jonah. Are those "literal" in the sense that the Bible is claiming Moses really parted the red sea and Jonah was really swallowed by a sea creature? In that case the real debate is over the possibility of miracles.

Well I have no interest in debating the history of Christianity though I must say that your view, didymos, sounds radically revisionistic. My view is that Christianity has generally been "liberalized" over time. Luther and Protestantism, for example, is a liberalization of the older, more strict, catholicism. Today's liberal sects that hold that there is no hell are liberalization of the more strict protestantism. What we today call fundamentalists are those who refuse to go along with the various liberalization of the (more) modern times. This is my view and I state it just to contrast with yours and I do not wish to get into all the source citing to justify which view is correct--history doesn't interest me THAT much.

Now the relationship between this liberalization and taking some ancient books figuratively or literally is somewhat dubious. It seems that taking something said in the Bible figuratively allows one to liberalize Christianity. It's true that one can take all of Bible's talk of hell as figurative and still believe in hell--no one's denying that. But if all of Bible's talk of hell is merely figurative, where's the justification for believing in hell? Certainly not the Bible. And if one takes all such verses about hell as being merely figurative, it allows one the possibility of saying you can be a Christian and NOT believe in hell. The same strategy goes for premarital sex, homosexuality, birth control, etc.

Apart from this, I see no relevance of this talk of "figurative vs. literal" to the topic of the problem of evil or the existence of God. Ok. If we're talking about the CHRISTIAN GOD, and we hold the Bible as the authority on this God, then the question of which verses in the Bible about God is merely figurative and which literal are relevant to the topic of this God's attributes (or qualities) and any argument that turns on such attributes as well as this God's existence and arguments that turn on such attributes. The arguments by philosophers generally don't start with "the Bible says God is such and such, yet." In fact, the definition of God as being perfect (in the 3 Omni's) don't come from the Bible. It's what philosophers figured as consisting of perfection. And when philosophers talk about God in this way, or talk about this or that attribute that must be in "perfection", they most definitely are not talking figuratively. Whether church fathers or theologians are talking figuratively, I have no idea. Take Bishop Berkeley. Yes he was a bishop, (and therefore qualify as a "church father"?), but when he presents his idealism (only ideas exist, no physical objects), he's not talking figuratively. When he talks about God (as the observer of all ideas), he's not talking figuratively. And if he (or others) ARE talking figuratively, then they just aren't engaging in the (literal) discussion about God's existence.

Yes, this discussion (about God's existence and his attributes) is a literal discussion, especially in today's analytic philosophy. If you want to say this was not a literal discussion in the past (say when Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Hume, Berkeley, Locke, etc. talk about), then fine, I disagree with you but don't care to debate that at all. I'll just say then the modern discussion has nothing to do with THAT discussion (if they really be figurative). If you also want to say that the modern literal discussion is somehow meaningless, inferior, pointless, or whatever, then Ok, I don't agree, but whatever. You haven't presented any reasons for that though. If you're saying something else entirely (I suspect it might be), then I have no idea what you're talking about. Much of what you say doesn't make any sense to me, so that may be where we're at. {shrug}

Resha, for me, I'm not that interested in the possibility of miracles. The sorts of things I'm interested in are: Does hell (a place of eternal suffering) really exist? Does God really exist? Is it really (ethically) wrong to have sexual thoughts? To have premarital sex? Homosexuality? Things like that. If Bible's talk of God is merely figurative, it sure fooled lots of folks that believed it on this basis.

Well, I'd suggest you go read a book or two on the history of Christianity, then. The Church may have been "liberalized", whatever that means, but the fact remains that literal reading of scripture is a modern development. That's history.

Check out Karen Armstrong's History of God for a great overview of the subject. She also has a wonderful book on fundamentalism called The Battle For God which covers the history of fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

You say my arguments are historical revisionism: I'd challenge you to produce a single significant theologian who wrote prior to 1600 who claimed that scripture should be read literally. Heck, if you can find one prior to 1700 I'd be impressed.

You are right, Sleepy, that many have tried to liberalize Christianity. It has happened to many controversial historical figures. People also try to make Mohammed nicey-nice when he wasn't.

I do my best to avoid letting my own feelings interpret a text. I try to see it as it was meant. I'm not perfect, of course, but I'm willing to take much of the Bible liberally, even if Western democracies insist relative, figurative, and pluralistic interpretations are the way to go.

I intended my earlier post to be neutral, but I will say that I do believe God can do what people cannot understand - and that we are sometimes left with little choice but to call it a miracle.

With regard to your interest, I do believe in hell. But it is not devils with pitchforks like the cartoons of common mythology. And sexual behavior can become immoral.

didymos, like I said, I don't care to debate history of Christianity much less go digging books about it. The subject just doesn't interest me and you seem to have glossed over the general point about its irrelevancy toward philosophical arguments about God as I'm not necessarily talking about the Christian God and couldn't care less what the Bible has to say about anything (figurative or literal).

Resha, this discussion reminded me of a friend in collge (a biology major and Kierkegaard freak--yea, a bad combination! ) who insisted on taking almost everything in the Bible figuratively. To her, hell exists, but not anything like the "fire and brimstone" of the scriptures. To her, it is merely an absence of God or being apart from God. That really infuriated me. I mean, you can be for it or against it, but to just pick what you like as literal and the rest as merely figurative (not because of any contextual evidence that such and such are said figuratively and others literally) but merely because those are what you like and the rest aren't. Apart from bad scholarship, what's the point? A position totally devoid of any intellectual integrity in my view.

But I understand why she wanted it that way. Religion isn't just a belief system, it's also part of your culture, your heritage, your social structure, among others. I can see that she desperately wanted to hold on to that label of "Christian" while also finding much in the Bible repulsive, horrifying. While I chose to throw out the whole thing from my life, she couldn't and had to hold on to bits and pieces, even if in name only. I suspect that the "figurative reading of the Bible" movement today stems from much the same roots, even to go as far as revising history to make it seem like it has some intellectual integrity. While I'm disgusted by it, I understand why people do it.

That's fine if you prefer not to know: I really don't care if you are uninterested.

However, I think it is worth noting that fundamentalism is a modern development, as opposed to your claim that figurative readings are modern, so that future readers of this thread are not confused with incorrect historical statements about the evolution of the way man reads scripture.

And I don't really care that you don't care whether I'm uninterested. And, no, it is not worth noting that fundamentalism is a modern development because first it is not true and second, even if it were, is really of no consequence except as a minor historical matter. Certainly whether people in the past read it certain way and today they started reading it differently has no relevance to the truth or how it should be read.

SHORT VERSION: How can there be any rational talk without a common understanding of what's being discussed? "God" is a subjective whatever-I-think-it-is term. I really think such topics ought have the context defined and/or restrained

LONG VERSION: I find such god-talk endlessly entertaining; and this thread illustrates it well well - as do the hundreds before and thousands will after it - the difficulty of multiple people discussing the nature of something which has been qualified into absolute obscurity. Find 10,000 theists and 9,000 of them will have different notions of what god is. If that, alone, isn't enough to make you chuckle then consider our discussions here. For the past several months I've watched various views on theism and the variety is really amazing. What I get is...[INDENT]God may or may not be an entity
God isn't necessary one entity; he/she/it could be many
God may or may not be everything or something
God may be One Thing, but that One thing could be All things or no "thing" in particular
God may be just a warm fuzzie you feel; but that could be real (or not)
God may or may not have created some, most or all of what we know
God may or may not have visited us unruly children
God doesn't, or might, care of about what you do and may or may not judge you after you die
God may be a lifeforce, but he may not be
God isn't necessarily a "He", but could be; perhaps a "she" or "it"
God is everything good, with my conception of "Good"; or not
God is, or isn't, defined in the bible, koran or any other collection of 'scripture'
God's son is Jesus; no wait, all of us! Wait, who was Jesus?

... and my personal favorite: "I believe in God but I can't define it"
[/INDENT]So as one who doesn't believe in any god, I watch such discussions and say to myself, "Wow, how can something be spoken of, with any successful communication, where there is no common understanding of what's being discussed?".

Tomorrow, another 10 threads of obscurity will be posted and a hundred next week. Each will argue the same old "Christianity -vs- I don't Define Anything!" views and the wheel keeps turning. The words "not necessarily" will be tossed about and one won't, again, be able to swing a dead cat without hitting someone who professes his or herself to be a Believer (but not in anything in particular).

Kind of amazing.

I thought you were uninterested in the history of Christianity? Yet you come and reassert that fundamentalism is somehow not a modern development? Let's see some evidence. Oh, wait, you would rather make the same claim over and over without providing evidence because you do not want to discuss the topic.

I've provided resources which support my claim that fundamentalism is a modern development; you come equipped only with assertions. Perhaps if you were interested, if you did look into the matter, you would find the error in your history. But, alas, you would prefer not to know? You would prefer to make false assertions based on your own self imposed ignorance? That's a shame. I get the feeling you could do better than ignorance.



Actually, it does. If modern readers re-interpret scripture literally, going against the way scripture has been read for over two thousand years, then clearly these fundamentalists are religious revisionists who attempt to reinvent the meaning of scripture.

In literature, there is no one right interpretation, but there are incorrect interpretations. When you reinvent the meaning of a work, and we could do this by reading Dante literally just as fundamentalists try to read the Bible literally, we are creating an incorrect interpretation of the work.