[Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping' (really?)

[Joe Campbell]

Sorry. Take any subjective proposition P. It is still the case that either
P is true or it is false (provided that false just means "not true"). Logic
pertains to ALL domains. In this case, we're just talking about the basic
meanings of common words like "not" and "or." They are not subjective!

 In any event, I'm out. You've lost track of the conversation and just
complicated matters more by introducing more complicated stuff (you've got
theories about the nature of truth and morality which you've added on to
your complex views about God's nature). Further it turns out that all you
mean by saying "God is perfect" is that "According to Donovan's personal
standards, God has no flaws." Not much I can say about that! I wouldn't,
for instance, debate with you about whether or not you like coffee since
you would be the one to best know that answer!


On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
> wrote:

> Yes. Garbage in, garbage out. You cannot use subject criteria to get an
> objective answer. You can only use objective criteria to get an objective
> logical truth. And you can only get a subjective answer to a statement
> containing only subjective criteria. All moral claims about anyone are only
> subjective.
>
> God is either benevolent or not benevolent based upon a
> person's determination of the word benevolent. To me He is a benevolent,
> loving God that is interactive with people. To you, perhaps, he doesn't
> even exist. Because we have different criteria for evaluating the
> characteristics of God.
>
> Logical thinking is an excellent tool, but limited to only leading to the
> right conclusions if we have the right facts. Determining the objective
> existence or non-existence of God is neither provable or improvable using
> logical thinking or any other method created by humans. The only way to
> establish if God exists is through direct or indirect observation of Him or
> His works. If you have not had any experience with God, you could not know
> He exists. However, you could never know He doesn't exist for sure.
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
>
>    *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> *To:* Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 4, 2013 12:17 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping'
> (really?)
>  **
> No. I don't see how you win if we can't talk about the standards for
> evaluating God's actions. That is pretty much the second horn of my
> dilemma. One problem is, How can you make any moral claims about God? You
> seem to think that our lack of knowledge is a clear winner but how can that
> be so? All your comments suggest, for instance, that we can know that God
> is benevolent. But if we can't judge him, morally speaking, then clearly we
> can't say that God is benevolent.** ****
> ****
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Donovan Arnold <
> donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:**
>
> Joe,
>
> Black dogs, and dogs are real. They are objective and definable.
> "Standards to morally evaluate God" is a made up abstract concept. You
> cannot locate it, count them, or objectively identify them. It doesn't
> exist. If it did, it would be completely subjective. So we would have to
> add another logical truth in front of your statement;
>
> Standards to morally evaluate God exist or not. If so, your statement is
> logical, if not, then they are not true.
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
>
>    *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>** *To:* Donovan
> Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> **
> *Sent:* Monday, June 3, 2013 9:36 AM
> ** *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a
> Whupping' (really?)**
>  **
> A logical truth is a statement that cannot be false. For any sentence P,
> either P is true OR it is false (not-P). ****Also, adding the
> qualification "with different conditions" does nothing. If I say "Either it
> is a dog or not" you can't say "There is a third option: it could be a
> black dog." Black dogs are dogs. Same standards with different conditions
> are still same standards. Your points are beside the point.** **
> I'm going to have to get back to work now but nice chatting!
> ****
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Donovan Arnold <
> donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:**
>
> "P or not-P" is the form; logical truth." I agree, and I understand, I'm
> not arguing this, but it is still a false premise. It's not your logic, it
> is your premise. You present a choice of "A" or "B", When both A and B have
> a false premise. Again, I'm not disagreeing with your logic, but validity
> of truth in the wording of choice A or B.
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
>
>    *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>** *To:* Donovan
> Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> **
> *Sent:* Monday, June 3, 2013 8:45 AM
> ** *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a
> Whupping' (really?)**
>  **
> "P or not-P" is the form; logical truth. "Different" is the opposite of
> "same." The sentence can't be false. No use continuing the conversation if
> you can't even accept this much.
> **On Jun 3, 2013, at 8:32 AM, Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:****
>
>
> "Either we should morally evaluate God's -- the God of traditional
> theism's actions, to be precise -- actions according to the same standards
> that we evaluate human persons OR we should morally evaluate God according
> to different standards."
>
> This is false dilemma, because it excludes two other options for
> evaluation. You present only two horns to a four horned argument. If you
> want it to be two horned, it needs to be inclusive of all possible options.
>
> Let me rephrase for you;
>
> "Either we should morally evaluate God's actions and inactions according
> to the same standards and conditions of humans, or we can morally evaluate
> God according to different standards and conditions as humans".
>
> When asked correctly, we do not have the theological dilemma you present.
>
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
>
>
>    *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> *To:* Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, June 3, 2013 7:47 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping'
> (really?)
>  The first premise is a logical truth; it cannot be false. And you
> continue to speculate about my assumptions and end up criticizing them even
> though they are not assumptions I made.
>
> Here is your style of argument: "You say X. But in saying that you are
> supposing Y, which is false." You make up things you think I say and
> criticize those.
>  On Jun 3, 2013, at 1:14 AM, Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> Joe,
>
> The problem with your made up scenario is that it doesn't properly
> evaluate morality because it creates a false dilemma. It assumes there is
> only two options, "actions according to the same standards that we evaluate
> human persons OR we should morally evaluate God according to different
> standards."
>
> You can evaluate with same standards but with different conditions placed
> on the different subjects as both operate and function with different
> abilities. The ability of God, an able bodied human, a child, a dog, cat,
> tree, worm, and rock vary. So the morality remains the same, but their
> abilities of knowledge and action must be taken into consideration.
>
> Your standards for who is moral lack the important components of knowledge
> and ability of the subject. What someone knows and their ability to act
> must be considered in evaluating any act of morality.  What God knows, and
> what He can do is different then that of a human. Finally, your test of
> morality assumes the prevention of a death, injury, or pain is the highest
> moral priority.
>
> Take a baby that falls in the water when both God and human is present.
> What if God knew if He saved the baby, both the human and baby would suffer
> more in the future, or cause more death and suffering of others in the
> future by letting the baby drown, or requiring the human to save the
> baby? The human doesn't know what is best in the far future for humanity.
> So the human would be required to act only on what they know and can do,
> the ending of an innocent life is wrong, so they are excepted, as they can,
> to save the baby.  God, knows more, so His inactions to save the baby,
> maybe the higher moral act. We are incapable of knowing because we lack
> proper information. We can only evaluate based on what we know, which is
> what the human most likely does.
>
> Your false scenario also assumes that God can violate higher morals to
> prevent lower ones. For example, in order to prevent harm, or take action
> to save a life, which you expect to be moral, He would need to defy
> freewill of humans. If freewill is the highest moral prerogative it would
> be immoral to violate that to meet the standards of a moral lower standard.
> Which is the higher morality, to prevent all women from the freewill
> of dropping their babies into the water, or to prevent babies from falling
> into the water? Taking away freewill makes us useless and our existence
> pointless, which maybe the highest immoral act of all, the elimination of
> freedom and freewill.
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
>
>    *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> *To:* Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> *Cc:* Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>; "vision2020 at moscow.com" <
> vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 2, 2013 9:23 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping'
> (really?)
>  Donovan, I don't think you understand the argument. You assume I am just
> retelling the problem of evil but that is just part of the story. That's
> why you think I'm making assumptions about God's moral obligations. I'm
> not.
> The argument I am giving fits the form of a constructive dilemma. In this
> argument, you assert a dilemma (a true "or" sentence) and then claim that
> if the first horn of the dilemma is true, then a certain claim follows, and
> if the second horn is true, the same claim follows. This argument has one
> disjunction and two conditionals. It doesn't make any assumptions. It tries
> to show you that even if you exhaust the arguments, you come to the same
> conclusion. Here's the argument.
> 1/ Either we should morally evaluate God's -- the God of traditional
> theism's actions, to be precise -- actions according to the same standards
> that we evaluate human persons OR we should morally evaluate God according
> to different standards.
> 2/ If we morally evaluate God's actions by human standards, traditional
> theism is problematic (since God seems guilty of negligence at the very
> least). [This is a point Nick made in the article that sparked this
> discussion.]
> 3/ If we morally evaluate God's actions by other standards, traditional
> theism is problematic (I talked about this in detail in several of my
> posts).
> 4/ Therefore, traditional theism is problematic.
> Note it is not an argument for atheism; it is an argument against a
> particular kind of theism.
>
> Best, Joe
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Donovan Arnold <
> donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I UNDERSTAND you. Heard this argument before in Ethics and Logic classes,
> several times. It is a very narrow view of God.  It is you that aren't
> following us. You are so busy explaining your view, you don't listen to the
> answer.
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
>
>    *From:* Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>
> *To:* vision2020 at moscow.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 2, 2013 4:52 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping'
> (really?)
>  **
> @Joe,**
> I think it a reasonable inference that Donovan did not read, or if he did,
> did not understand the article you referenced.****
> w.**
>
> ****
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Donovan Arnold <
> donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:**
>
> Joe,
>
> Yes, you are making moral claims about God's obligations. And because He
> doesn't meet your understanding, you falsely conclude He must be immoral if
> He does exist.
>
> God's obligations are not the same as my own. I am morally responsible for
> saving a baby if I can without harm to myself or another. If God was too, I
> would no longer be. Why? Because I would know God would save the baby, or
> not even put the baby in danger in the first place. So would not exhaust
> the effort or loss, nor endure the experience of trying to save a baby.
> That opportunity, experience and effort to save a life would be lost. This
> is what helps define us as human, to love and sacrifice for another human.
> This loss and suffering for one another is how we come to know God and
> understand Him.
>
> The loss of the living flesh is not the same to God, because He doesn't
> lose anybody, He transforms them, He is always with them.
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
>
>    *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> *To:* Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> *Cc:* Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>; viz <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 2, 2013 7:23 AM
> ** *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a
> Whupping' (really?)**
>  **
> I didn't make any claims about God's moral obligations. I was trying to
> carry YOUR logic full circle. ****Don't you think it is odd that God
> isn't obligated to (say) save a drowning baby during a hurricane (to use
> one example)? If you were standing next to a pool and a baby fell in the
> pool and all you had to do was lean over and pick it up, wouldn't you do
> that? Wouldn't you be properly blamed for failing to do so? Of course, for
> God (who is omnipotent) every act is as easy as leaning over and picking up
> a baby. Certainly it doesn't deprive the baby of his humanity simply
> because you saved his life. I'm not sure why God's prevention of (say)
> particularly heinous evils or suffering would deprive us of being human. *
> * **
> But what is worse is ultimately this view seems to leave you with a
> worthless God, or it ends up causing more mysteries than it attempts to
> solve. For either is totally inactive in worldly events (for the reason you
> give: saving everyone all the time would deprive us of our humanity) OR God
> picks and chooses who he saves and when. Why? How could a benevolent
> creature do that? Well, we don't know. People say things like "The Lord
> works in mysterious ways!" I'm not sure why one would go to the trouble of
> trying to solve one mystery only to produce others.
> **On Jun 1, 2013, at 6:36 PM, Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:****
>
>  Joe,
>
> Let's carry your logic full circle. If God is obligated to prevent humans
> from dying, suffering, and feeling pain that would make humans incapable of
> dying, suffering, or feeling pain because God controls everything. If
> humans were incapable of dying, suffering, or feeling pain, that would
> change all humans into immortal Gods. In this event, we would no longer be
> humans, and God would have destroyed the existence of all humans. So, God
> has to let our bodies die before we return to him.
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
>
>    *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> *To:* Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> *Cc:* viz <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 1, 2013 10:53 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping'
> (really?)
>  **
>
> If the creation story you are supposing is true, then NO ONE is a (true)
> creator of anything other than God. We are all just characters in God's
> "program." Computer programmers are no more the ultimate cause of their
> programs than parents are of their children. To the extent that computer
> programmers are justified in "killing" their programs by virtue of
> "creating" them -- and this supports the idea that God is justified in
> killing humans -- the same principle should apply to parents, as well. Yet
> it clearly doesn't apply to parents.****Thus, either the principle is
> false (as I maintain) or it is at least not supported by your example. In
> fact, you can't find an example to support the principle since there is
> only one true creator (according to your creation story). Nothing in the
> set of your cumulative life experiences could provide the basis for such a
> principle.****
> Again, I'm just trying to make a point similar to the one that Nick made
> in his original post, or maybe I'm extending that point a bit. Really our
> only understanding of morality comes from the human realm, as your attempt
> to support the principle in question suggests. (I'm not saying morality is
> a human creation, just that our moral understanding is limited by our
> experiences.) If we apply those moral principles to God, then the problem
> of evil suggests that some religious views are problematic. But not all, as
> Nick notes. People try to get around this by making up crazy moral
> principles that give God a unique moral status but it is unclear how those
> principles could be supported. Nick did a good job of showing that some of
> those principles have absurd consequences. My point is that they aren't and
> can't be support by appeal to common sense examples, nor anything else as
> far as I can see.
> ****
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>wrote:
> **
>
> In my analogy, the parent is just another character in the video game.
> They didn't program it, they just made use of an existing subroutine to
> generate another character.  The programmer(s) that made game is a
> different story.
>
> Paul
>
>
>    *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>** *To:* Paul Rumelhart<
> godshatter at yahoo.com> ***Cc:* Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>; viz
> <vision2020 at moscow.com> ** *Sent:* Friday, May 31, 2013 9:54 PM
> ** *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a
> Whupping' (really?)**
>  **
> The "I created it, I can kill it" rule doesn't work for parents, right?
> **On May 31, 2013, at 8:10 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> wrote:** **
>
> The way I view it, since God created the universe and everything in it,
> then if anyone has the right to kill one of the denizens therein, God
> does.  Especially since, to Him, He's just moving us from one place to
> another (earth to heaven or hell).  It would be like saying that a computer
> programmer doesn't have the right to kill off the characters in the video
> game he's writing.** **Paul**
>
>
>    *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> *To:* Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>
> *Cc:* viz <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, May 31, 2013 6:16 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping'
> (really?)
>  **
> You are confusing descriptive facts about the world (what is the case)
> with norms (what should be the case).
> **On May 30, 2013, at 7:38 PM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>
> wrote:** **
>
> 'Might makes right' is irrespective of a belief in God.  It's an
> irrefutable fact of life, the universe, and everything.  It holds true for
> your rhetorical question of 'can [God] not take our bodies away at will'
> and Joe's scenario about killing your own dog if you so choose.  It doesn't
> really matter one wit if someone deems that someone else 'has no right' to
> do something.  All that some else (or entity) needs is means, motive,
> opportunity, and - above all else - the power to do it.** **
> Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 18:50:04 -0700**From: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com*
> *Subject: Re: RE: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a
> Whupping' (really?)** To: philosopher.joe at gmail.com;
> scooterd408 at hotmail.com**CC: vision2020 at moscow.com** **
> Only if you don't believe in God.
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
>   **
>  * From: * Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>; ** * To: * Donovan
> Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>; philosopher.joe at gmail.com <
> philosopher.joe at gmail.com>; ** * Cc: * viz <vision2020 at moscow.com>; ** *
> Subject: * RE: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping'
> (really?) ** * Sent: * Fri, May 31, 2013 1:37:55 AM **
> **
> Might makes right.****
> Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 00:41:29 -0700**From: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com*
> * To: philosopher.joe at gmail.com**CC: vision2020 at moscow.com**Subject: Re:
> [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping' (really?)** **
> Didn't say kill it Joe. We didn't create dogs we simple capture them and
> call them our own. We do modify the bodies of dogs. And we do kill our pets
> and other animals under conditions we deem proper.
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
>   **
>  * From: * Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>; ** * To: * Donovan
> Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>; ** * Cc: * Nicholas Gier <
> ngier006 at gmail.com>; vision2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>; ** * Subject: *Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping' (really?)
> ** * Sent: * Wed, May 29, 2013 4:55:07 PM **
> **
> Donovan asks: "... since we are also the property of God, can he not take
> our bodies away at will?"
>
> No. Even if you own a dog, you can't just kill it because you want to do
> so. Sorry.
> ****
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Donovan Arnold <
> donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:**
>
> I don't think God punishes us with tornadoes, floods, earthquakes and
> volcanic eruptions. Most of these deaths are almost 100% human fault. We
> know where floods, earthquakes and volcanoes are located, yet choose to
> still build crappy buildings and live there. Tornado deaths are now usually
> the fault of global warming, caused by humans, and the collapse of
> buildings, built by humans in tornado prone areas. God doesn't create the
> deadly situation, humans do. Any human saved from the consequences of
> human action can be considered an act of God. However, let us also consider
> that since we are also the property of God, can he not take our bodies away
> at will? To God, nothing dies, it just changes shape and location. Only in
> our minds is the death of someone a loss.
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
> **
>    *From:* Nicholas Gier <ngier006 at gmail.com>
> *To:* vision2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, May 27, 2013 10:51 AM
> *Subject:* [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping'
> (really?)
>  **
> Good Morning Visionaries:
> **
> I dusted off this exercise in the philosophy of religion from the time of
> Katrina and I'm reissuing it once again.
> **
> One Oklahoma official said that it was wonderful that God saved those who
> survived.  But if God was the cause of the storm, then why didn't he save
> those who did not make it?  I address the issue of Satan below.
> **
> The problem of evil and the very unsatisfactory answer from the Abrahamicreligions is one of the primary reasons why good, rational people become
> atheists.
> **
> On this Memorial Day I send out my own tribute to those were served, and
> also those, such as Rosie the Riveter and my UP train master father, who
> made sure that war machines were built and that those machines and soldiers
> got to where they were needed.
> **
> Nick
> **
> *THE GOOD LORD JUST DONE GAVE US A WHUPPIN’!*
> *NATURAL DISASTERS AS THE WRATH OF GOD?*
> I make peace and create evil; I the Lord do all these things.**
> ~Isaiah 45:7 (Anchor Bible)
>             Why do bad things happen to good people? Why do the wicked
> get away with murder and the innocent die in disasters such as tornadoes,
> hurricanes, and terrorist attacks? **
>             After Katrina hit, a man gave this explanation to NPR: “The
> Good Lord just done gave us a whuppin’.” This is the Pat Robertson
> answer: all of us are being punished for the sins of homosexuals,
> abortionists, and their liberal supporters.  Most of us, however, are
> repulsed by such an outrageous and poisonous diagnosis.
>             In Agatha Christie’s *Then There Were None*, one of the
> characters opines that those who had been murdered were “struck down of the
> wrath of God.” Justice Wargrave was not convinced: “Providence leaves the
> work of conviction and chastisement to us mortals.”
>             Justice Wargrave is a good Confucian in holding a doctrine of
> General Providence.  In this view, held also by Presidents Washington and
> Lincoln, God presides over a world that operates by natural laws and in
> which humans govern their own affairs.
>             On the other hand, the Abrahamic religions--Judaism,
> Christianity, and Islam-- believe in Special Providence.  This means that
> God chooses particular prophets or saviors that embody divine authority,
> and God then intervenes in history as an expression of divine will and
> judgment.
>             There is a difference between moral evils and natural
> evils.  The first is the result of humans choosing to do good or evil.  For
> orthodox Christians the prototypical moral evil was Adam and Eve’s choice
> to disobey God in the Garden of Eden.
> Natural or physical evil is defined as that which is not the result of any
> human will: disease (both physical and mental) and natural disasters.  In a
> theology in which God is all powerful, it must be God who wills these
> conditions and events to happen.
> Recently some Christian legislators in Oklahoma tried to change the
> language of their insurance law, which called natural disasters “acts of
> God.” For them Satan was the cause of all evil, and they thought it was
> blasphemy to make God responsible for these horrible events.
> Orthodox Christians, however, have always rejected the heresy of
> Manicheanism, a view that undermines God’s power by holding that there is
> another cosmic power that competes with God.
> Following the Book of Job, where it is clear that Satan operates only with
> the permission and delegated power of God, Christian theologians have
> consistently declared that even Satan is empowered by God.  In the end
> Job’s brothers and sisters “comforted him for all the evil the Lord brought
> upon him” (42:11).
> Martin Luther expressed the point most clearly: “Since God moves and does
> all, we must take it that he moves and acts even in Satan and the godless;
> . . . evil things are done with God himself setting them in motion.”
> How do Christian theologians justify God doing evil?  Here is one
> rationale: God cannot abide the moral evils committed by humans, so God
> must show that justice must prevail.
> Natural disasters are simply dramatic previews of the Last Judgment, when
> divine justice will finally be done.  If God is performing justice, then
> God is doing *good*, not evil.  We would call a judge who let all
> criminals off the hook a bad judge, wouldn’t we?
> Let’s take a closer look at this solution to the problem of evil.  There
> is something important that has been forgotten.
> When the former Manichee St. Augustine discussed the Fall of Adam and
> Eve, he made a very interesting concession: “Our first parents fell into
> disobedience because they were already secretly corrupted.”
> Adam and Eve were already corrupted because they had “deficient
> wills.”  But who was responsible for their deficient wills?  They could be
> only if they had created themselves.  The only answer is that God created
> them finite, fragile, and corruptible.
> I submit that General Providence is a much more coherent view if people
> are going to continue their belief in God.  The Confucians and Stoics also
> believed that God is not a Creator.  Rather, God is coeternal with a
> universe that operates according to natural laws and contains rational
> beings that freely choose their own destinies.
> Following Justice Wargrave, we are solely responsible for our own
> “convictions and chastisements.” Louisiana and New Orleans government
> officials are responsible for not being prepared for the big storm they
> knew was coming.  And God had nothing to do with it, and she certainly does
> not stand ready with a whip to punish her children.
> Nick Gier taught religion and philosophy at the University of Idaho for
> 31 years.
> **=======================================================** List services
> made available by First Step Internet,** serving the communities of the
> Palouse since 1994.**              http://www.fsr.net/**          mailto:
> Vision2020 at moscow.com**=======================================================
> ****
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net/
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
> **
>    **======================================================= List
> services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of
> the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net/ mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com<Vision2020 at moscow.com>=======================================================
>
> **=======================================================** List services
> made available by First Step Internet,** serving the communities of the
> Palouse since 1994.**              http://www.fsr.net/**           mailto:
> Vision2020 at moscow.com**
> =======================================================****
>
> ****
>
> **
> **=======================================================** List services
> made available by First Step Internet,** serving the communities of the
> Palouse since 1994.**              http://www.fsr.net/**          mailto:
> Vision2020 at moscow.com**
> =======================================================****
>
> ****
>   =======================================================  List services
> made available by First Step Internet,  serving the communities of the
> Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net/
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
> ******-- **Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)**art.deco.studios at gmail.com** ****
> **=======================================================** List services
> made available by First Step Internet,** serving the communities of the
> Palouse since 1994.**              http://www.fsr.net/**          mailto:
> Vision2020 at moscow.com**
> =======================================================****
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net/
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>    ****
>
> **
> ****
>
>
> **
> ****
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130605/3be0ca36/attachment-0001.html>