General Donner wrote:
Man was created good, in the image of God. But unlike man of the present day (who, according to Christian belief, is of a sinful and corrupt nature), the first man and woman had a truly free will, and could choose to sin. I suppose you could take issue with a definition of "good" that includes that element.
Wait. The phrasing of the bolded sentence implies that we today do
not have “true” free will. I’m sorry, maybe I’m reading it wrong.
Not a formal apology as such, by any means. Just an answer to a question. Manifestly, the present world is not good, which is what we would expect of a good Creator.
Which does not make sense, to put it bluntly.
I'd say that if we judge an omniscient entity by the standards of our own greatly limited intelligence and knowledge, it's rather to be expected that its actions will often appear arbitrary to us. Can you remember when you were a child, and understood very little of what your parents said and did? And yet, the mental divide between you then was far lesser than that between the most intelligent man on Earth and God.
You’re right; we should judge an omniscient entity by
higher standards than we do with ourselves. The reality is that the argument “God knows best, he works in mysterious ways, all of the geonocide and war and sanction of slavery in the Old Testament has a purpose, it’s just too complex for us puny minds to perceive” isn’t an argument at all as much as it is an appeal to ignorance and circular reasoning; defending God’s omnipotence against logical holes on the basis that his is omnipotent, and is above said logical holes.
Which is fine for faith, bad for evidence.
Surely to a secular atheist, a miscarriage does not claim any life, since unborn children are neither people nor even living beings?
Actually, by a certain stage in the pregnancy, the child develops a functioning brain, at which point abortion in all but the most extreme circumstances is unethical. But we aren’t looking at this from my point of view; we’re looking at it from a Christian perspective, as to why God would kill babies
before they had a chance to do anything right or wrong. You cannot say that it is just punishment for a sinful world, because the babies had yet to even be born into it!
Mental retardation we will commonly view as a tragedy, but the individuals who suffer from it are still human beings with unique personalities. I have known several people who haven't been particularly bright (or who have suffered from other mental problems, such as autism) who have nevertheless been what I would call "good people" by the standards of this world, and who have also lived what would at least seem to be quite fulfilling lives. I don't believe they are, as a whole, a great problem for humanity, or personally tragic.
Doubtlessly, many are. My aunt, for example. But other mental retardations cause death in childbirth, and all restrict the free will that God values as so important, he forgoes simply making us unconditionally happy and pure by nature so as to maintain this, yet does nothing to prevent brain damage or genetic diseases.
[quote
I would argue that they can certainly help individuals, at any rate. We can perceive the acts of God in the strangest things. And a certain amount of suffering will build character.
God's doings as a whole are, as usual, far beyond me to speculate on. But from my readings of the Bible, I believe I can conclude that our temporary sufferings on Earth serve both a corrective and a punitive purpose. (As opposed to eternal punishment after death, which is purely punitive.)
[/quote]
Some experiences make people stronger. Others turn children into criminals and emotionally scar us.
[quote
I would argue against that. Statistics show us that high levels of income, education, social standing, etcetera, correlate
negatively with religious faith.
[/quote]
Which isn’t very good for the Christian position, and even so, the correlation is hardly absolute.
The fallen and corrupt human nature is a necessary product of original sin. The children of a sinful man will inherit sinfulness. It is no part of the original nature of man, which mas made in the image of God.
Inherit? Inheriting anything is by nature unfair and unjust. You are either punished or rewarded for something you did not do. Here on Earth, it is a good and necessary thing that we, for example, inherit loving parents, or good medical care built up by generations of scientists before us, but why inherit “original sin” from our ancestors? How is this fair or just?
As God is omnipotent, He obviously permits our sinfulness, since otherwise it could not exist. But we cannot blame Him for our sins. As human beings, we must each be responsible ourselves for whatever we do.
From a secular point of view, you are correct. From a religious point of view, God created us, and we are sinful. If I create a machine and it breaks down, it’s sort of my fault. I do not simply point to it and say “IT’S NOT MY FAULT! THE MACHINE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ITSELF!”
(Which prompts the question of whether you believe in free will? On a purely scientific basis, I don't believe one can reasonably argue against determinism. And if we have no free will for anything we do, obviously there is also no difference in principle between the degree of voluntariness in a thought and an action.)
Determinism and Christianity are completely incompatible though, so you would have to rationalize Science (again) in order to make it fit. XD