I'm going to preface this by saying that I have not read this book but I have read most of his other books and heard him interviewed about this book as well as others. I am looking forward to reading it but I am nervous because I think I will agree too much with what he is saying and I not sure I want to go there.

Thanks for your review of the book. I found myself agreeing with quite a bit.

I just wanted to make a couple of comments though. I think it is a bit harsh to suggest that Ehrman is still being fundamentalist in his outlook. Is it really too much to ask that the Bible provide a reasonably coherent answer to theodicy at some point in the writings? I mean here is the basic text of our belief that many believe God had a hand in writing and it is full of less than satisfactory responses to this really major problem.

If one views the scripture as written by humans struggling, like we are, to understand the world then we can expect less. But few are willing to embrace the view of the Bible as philosophical treatise - it has to be more. I think Ehrman is justified in pointing it out, especially because we really aren't any closer at the end of the Bible in solving the problem. If one could point to later revelation and say, "See here it makes sense," that would be one thing but we can't. In fact, I would argue that current scientific revelation has only complicated things further. The Genesis narrative is as good/deficient as any later revelation and IMO opinion better than some later views of theodicy.

In his defense as well, I would argue that very few others are drawn to the idea of a god with limited power. The fact that most Christians believe in a god that will eventually destroy evil and provide immortality to some, suggests a sovereign god whether or not that god is picking out my outfit for me in the morning. On the things that really matter, we want sovereignty. It might be easier for Rabbi Krushner to accept a God who suffers with us if he does not have to reconcile a god who has the power to, and eventually will, come again and banish evil. God as Divine Therapist doesn't cut it for most though, if that is the end of the story.

Thanks again for your thoughtful review :)

Perhaps part of the problem is the assumptions we all bring to every perspective.
For example, early in the review, the author states,

"Fundamentalists believe that definitive answers must be found in the Bible–or they cannot be found at all. They believe that the Bible is a unitary and univocal document; that everything one needs to know about God has been revealed in the words of Scripture."

This is not so. Everything about everything is not covered in the bible. Insider stock trading and the moral implications and applications of certain gene therapies and a million other areas are not addressed.

A more correct statement would be, Everything one needs to know about God as our creator and loving father and the plan of salvation.

If the bible contained all knowledge, Heaven and all eternity would be a little boring. That being said, life as suffering is known by all and most people dont question or spend alot of thought on this area until they themselves are in that position.

My sister-in-law just lost her youngest son with no medical explanation. Through this process and the lack of information and that lack of an attributable "why?" has brought me to certain conclusions.

Why do we ask and demand more explaination of God in these circumstances than we accept of our own doctors or medical examiners or our search and rescue teams?

Planes go down, ships are lost and people disappear never to be seen again. Flight 19, Amelia Earheart ect. We all know this. These answers are out of our reach by any standard.

Certainly in this uncontrolable life it would be better to spend our time acknowledging that it is uncontrolable and unknown and instead concentrate on how we react to those situations.

I have seen some stages of mourning articals outlining blaming God as a step in the recovery process.

Is that how its supposed to work? Or is that just what we do as we flail around in our agony?

As we start to accept the fact that the world is not a fair place and that things go horribly wrong from time to time, the pain starts to subside and a more theosophical blaming of God takes its place.
It ususally sounds like this, What kind of a God would allow.....

Is this a suprise to anyone. We put the microfying glass on God about where were you when my son needed you and how come you allowed him to die when these bad people are still alive...

Someone is always responsible we believe and our society is growing ever worse at dealing with it.

Even when we ourselves are responsible for something we refuse to state the obvious truth. Witness the most litigious society in the world, California.
Homeowners sued for defending themselves in a home robbery and the thieves winning more in the court case than they would have gotten robbibg the house. People spilling hot coffee on themselves and blaming the resturant.

The search for why (usually) is not a search for truth these days. It is a search to find something to make us feel better.
Some feel better by attributing blame.
Some feel better by a big cash payoff.
I'll feel better when the Lord comes and we are off this rock!

Thank you for this great review of a book I have not read. In class last semester it was proposed to us that the Bible does not attempt to offer an answer of why suffering exists as much as present how God, and God's community, responds to suffering. The cross, as was mentioned in your review, is Gods response to suffering more than an explanation of its existence. There does seem to be an emphasis on, considering that Scripture, as much as anything else, is the story of God's acts throughout history and his people, presenting "theodical practices" which can be helpful for us as we try to create communities which can absorb suffering.

People however do want answers and, like you said, it's a perennial question which, depending on the questions we ask and the answers we seek, can strengthen or weaken our faith. But most importantly in my opinion is that while questions on theodicy are incredibly frustrating that yes indeed the important question is what we can do about it.

I should say that my reply is coloured by the fact that I am studying practical theology/ Christian ethics and that the reply of someone into the philosophy of religion would be different. Not better or worse but different. The book we read is Raging With Compassion: Pastoral Responses to the Problem of Evil.

Adventists have the great advantage of being distracted by the ins and outs of EGW and settling the resultant squabbles. The ever-present question of EGW absorbs much of the energy that otherwise would go into discussing serious, troubling issues that go to the heart of the Christian faith, such as those raised by Ehrman.

What strikes you about Ehrman is his honesty, his sincerity. And he also illustrates the danger that people of faith face when they study theology with an open mind. A Bible school is a much safer place for those who are unwilling to risk their faith.

Sin not God is the source of suffering. Because God does not intervene leaves Him open to be the primal cause. Christ in His parable of the Wheat and the Tares makes it clear that "an enemy hath done this!" "Its not wise to fool Mother Nature".

Man wanted to go it alone without even training wheels and he got his knees rubbed in the dirt. So now we have to blame God for the consequences of man's folly. Ask someone in their early eighty's: Death is a slow process. But faith and assurance are closer companions. I know in whom I have believed and I am persuaded that He is able!!!!!!!! Tom

P.S.

Someone, I hven't research sufficiently to attach authorship, states, I hope jokingly, that Satan could still win. It seems related to the accomplishments of the final generation and their vindication of God. If man saves God from final defeat, isn't man God? "Ye shall be as God's knowing both good and evil." In such a case Satan would still win.

Can it be the we have moved from Only By Scripture, Only By Christ, Only by Faith, to only by a purified few?

What utter nonsense. Tom

My Hope is built on nothing less than Jesus blood and Righteousn

The only justification for the suffering that so many experience--some more than others and ultimately all die at some point in their lives--is that God permits this suffering because he knows that in the long scheme of things it is meaningless. Why meaningless? Because after so much suffering by millions of human beings since time began, most but a truly sordid few, will be saved. How can an eternity of bliss for the majority of humanity--the straight and narrow road notwithstanding--compare to 75-100 years of human suffering per person?

I can relate to the confusion Bart Ehrman cites as I plodded through similar troughs in my life. I suppose it was reading Joseph Campbell and seeing the movie “Never ending Story” which ultimately turned the light on in my own mind. It may be that we are missing in the Bible what is implicit as to suffering.

The Bible is peppered with a myriad of stories that hint, at the core, to a death and rebirth motif. I’m thinking of Jonah in the belly of the fish/whale, the three Hebrews in the fiery furnace, Daniel in the lion’s den, Joseph tossed into the well for starters. These speak volumes to me about facing personal dilemmas, reverses, consternation, and tragedy with an end towards it ultimately being an opportunity for an individual change in direction and perspective. In short, seeing through suffering (physical and/or mental) as a vehicle to develop greater compassion, understanding, faith and perspective.

This is not to belittle calamity and misfortune for what it is but rather as an effective approach to see past it towards some type of personal growth. In this respect, we have the privilege of turning around a debilitating negative into a real and engaging growth experience that helps us weather the present and shoulder the future with our new found awareness.

This realization has subsequently profoundly impacted my life when I have faced my own catastrophes. Previously, I used to relegate the above stories to historical events or even fantasies that transpired long ago in an era very remote to me. Now, they are alive in my own life. I grasp the metaphor, becoming Jonah in the whale’s belly, Daniel in the lion’s den and the like. I marvel that I grew up entirely oblivious to grasping this compelling possibility as I heard or read these vibrant stories, robbed of their potency. Coming to this personal realization has made a remarkable difference in my life.

My take is that suffering is a way of life and the above stories, for example, are powerful ways we can get through it. The solution (allowing for the possibility of personal growth), for me, was already there in the Bible. I needed to reframe my question about suffering.

Thanks for a thought-provoking review, Donna.

And, Bruce--thanks for your comment--you used language that really helped me reframe that question too.

Donna, my thanks for you well-written review. Having read several of Ehrman's books, but not this one, he comes from the same position that many Adventists were taught: The Bible holds the answers for all of life questions and is our guide for life, period.

What nonsense! One can read the great literary classics (think Greek tragedies) that had no happy endings--which is the true life stories of many today. The unrealistic expectations placed upon the Bible by its promoters has led to the agnostic refusal to see life so simply. There are no pat answers. Tragedies are part of life and we were never promised otherwise, in spite of fundamentalist evangelists.

For some, it is much more honest not to believe in either a loving or soverign God at all. Just the ultimate acceptance that life may be full of unexpected pleasures, pain and many which we have no way to control. Acceptance is a part of maturity; and the ability to discern those we can effect and those beyond our control gives a peace that searcher for answers will never find. THERE ARE NO ANSWERS!! Life happens and if anyone promised it would be a bowl of cherries, that should have been left behind long ago in our bedtime stories that ended with "and they all lived happily ever after." Low expectations allows for unexpected, often happy surprises. The reverse can lead to many disappointments. I leave God out of it; what she decides to do is not mine to make.

C.S. Lewis made a career out of squaring suffering with an almighty God. Then he gets married and for a fleeting time he's happier than he has ever been--only to lose his wife to cancer. Lewis's world collapsed and his arguments came tumbling down like a house of cards. He was so shattered by this tragedy that when he wrote an honest account of it in the little book A Grief Observed he did not append his name to it. The movie Shadowlands (rent it, if you haven't)focuses on this part of his life.

Years ago I read a French short-story about a young boy who supposedly had a rich and benevolent uncle in America. But this heroic character was never there when the boy needed help, so he ends up concluding that it makes no difference whether he is real or not. I agree with Dave, on the philosophical level there is no more serious challenge to religious faith than perceived absence of God. Europeans in general concluded long ago that Beckett's Godot and the Bible's God are the same, nebulous character, whose existence or non-existence is equally insignificant. (Less than 5% of Europeans go to church).

Bruce, I agree that personal blows and misfortunes can build character but I don't necessarily think that those are the kind of events that destroy faith. I'm talking about Darfur, Bosnia, Liberia, the Holocaust.

Dave
I forgot to add the words "in the presence of human suffering" when said, above:

"I agree with Dave, on the philosophical level there is no more serious challenge to religious faith than perceived absence of God."

What about extending your adage to God--"God is as God does."
If you can go there, how would you determine what "God does" or "did"?
Aage

I also agree with Dave about the challenge to religious faith, however, the phrase, "perceived absence of God," can mean many things to many people. The problem with that moving target is that the "solution" to one person is not the solution to another. For some, personal tragedy trumps a lifetime of theoretical confidence. For others, blind dogmatism trumps all evidence, and such is falsely called "faith."

I have a PhD in philosophy, and have studied heavily in philosophy of religion. I believe that the "problem of evil" has been more than adequately resolved in favor of Christianity by such scholars as Alvin Plantinga. However, it is one thing to say that a particular response to the problem solves it on a theoretical level and quite another thing to find that solution adequate on a personal level in the face of tragedy.

God's people have ever had the problem of taking theory/theology (even if true) and internalizing it to the level of a genuine perspective change. A genuine perspective change makes a theory into a lens through which all the evidence is seen. We all spend our lives filtering the evidence through our perspectives, despite the most vaunted claims to objectivity. But we can strive to choose perspectives that are theoretically sound. The difficulty then is in so believing a theory that it actually filters the evidence rather than being threatened by the evidence.

My point is that the "free will defense" can serve as not only an adequate theoretical response to the problem, but it can serve as a perspective through which the events of the world make sense. I have found the free will defense adequate both theoretically and internally, and I am no stranger to personal tragedy and suffering, nor am I inured to the suffering I see around me.

It is beyond the scope of this comment, but I see the free will defense throughout the Bible, and I'm actually baffled how one honestly looking could miss it. God is not stupid or silent regarding the problem of evil. Thus, while the problem is pressing and in this world constant, one need not be driven by "evidence" or "human reason" to give up faith in the Judeo-Christian God. The "evidence" and "human reason" (philosophical argument) both sustain the Biblical claim that God is all-good and all-powerful (and all-knowing, if your pet version of the problem requires it).

So, the book might well be fascinating in its own way, but the problem of evil is "old news" philosophically, and one need not feel pushed or motivated by it to follow the author's path.

It is only the believer in God as omniscient and omnipotent who comes to a point in his life where none of the formerly pat answers will do. The age old questions: if God is so powerful, why does he allow suffering, and if he knows the future, why doesn't he prevent tragedies?

For those who simply accept that life includes joy, pain, suffering, and God is "out of the picture" and while we often bring consequences upon ourselves by our actions, there are equally as many over which we have no control; nor does God step in and control them in our favor.

One doesn't need a belief in a god or gods to realize that we were never promised a bed of roses, and for those that so taught us, shame on them! Whatever will be, will be.

Another reason prayer is a futile exercise. Recently I received an email requesting prayer for peace and many other good things and if millions would unite in prayer at the same time, miracles could happen! Is God one to be persuaded by numbers? Has there been any evidence, beyond dispute, that prayer has drastically changed things? How would it be substantiated? Might as well pray to Santa Claus.

Isn't the entire question of God's existence mote if God's presence and God's absence are indistinguisable?

If God is as God does (to borrow Dave's Jesus phrase), and God does nothing ( which is the story out of Darfur and other hotspots of the world), isn't the question of his existence rather irrelevant?

Suffering is so intertwined with the human experience that Siddharta Gautama created a religion out of this tragic situation. To live is to suffer and salvation is ultimately to find the solution Bill Murray was seeking without much luck in Groundhog Day--death.

The Judeo-Christian hope is that this conundrum will be resolved in favor of life, and individual, endless and better life at that (sort of what Bill Murray got, and then some.)

As I grow older and more tired of clever attempts to rake God's chestnuts out of the fires of moral indignation, I find myself more and more drawn to the Buddhist aspiration of all life finding rest in the pulsating soul of the universe. (There is, of course, much about it that I object to, such as the dictum to detach yourself from the suffering you see around you. I can accept that it is dignified to be able to rise above my own suffering, but not other people's.)

Thomas Hardy wrote some really gloomy poems. His poem "Hap" no longer speaks to me the way it used to do, when I was going through a gloomy phase of my life, but it captures perfectly, in my opinion, how people experience the absence of God in their darkest hours:

Hap
If but some vengeful god would call to me
From up the sky, and laugh: "Thou suffering thing,
Know that thy sorrow is my ecstasy,
That thy love's loss is my hate's profiting!"

Then would I bear it, clench myself, and die,
Steeled by the sense of ire unmerited;
Half-eased in that a Powerfuller than I
Had willed and meted me the tears I shed.

But not so. How arrives it joy lies slain,
And why unblooms the best hope ever sown? —
Crass Casualty obstructs the sun and rain,
And dicing Time for gladness casts a moan. . . .
These purblind Doomsters had as readily strown
Blisses about my pilgrimage as pain

Sometimes comfort from a non-believer can be preferable to comfort from a believer who feels he/she must defend God's position in a Sufferer's life, particularly if that Sufferer has endured years of pain and suffering through no fault of their own.

Richard I am only partly acquainted with Plantinga's defense and so I was wondering if you (or anyone else) knew how he might answer my question around the concept of heaven. I see his point as long as we consider only our time here on earth. However, most Christians believe that there is a heaven and that heaven is a place with no evil. How will the concept of free will enter then?

Many Christians believe we have to be altered somehow, with the evil stripped from us so to speak to be "heaven-compatible." Will we still have free will as understood by Plantinga? If not, why is it of such value here on earth but not in heaven? And if so, why would there be no evil accompanying it if evil is so necessary? If it is possible to have free will and no evil, why weren't we created that way to begin with? Even the Genesis story (which I understand as important myth) had evil squarely in the garden in the form of the serpent. And if it is not possible to have free will and no evil, what is heaven? Will it be a place with free will and evil too or a place with no free will and no evil?

I guess to sum up my questions it would be, if free will and evil are necessary for each other, what, if anything will have to go when it comes to heaven? And why couldn't it have been that way in the first place?

Donna

This is an excellent review and I thank you for it!

I very much agree with you that in this book Ehrman appears to have lost confidence in Scrpture because it does not conform to his fundamentalistic expectations. Another alternative would have been to abandon his fundamentalistic expectations. I agree with you that this would have made more sense.

I am surprised that Ehrman apparently expected the Bible to speak with a single voice on this and other matters. But the Bible is not a book; it is a library. Not many of us would expect every book in a library to say exactly the same thing!

Aage

I wholeheartedly agree with you that "God is as God does." We say this in order to deny that in all respects God never changes.

I love how Clark Pinnock puts it, I think in the title of one of his books. God, Pinnock says, is not the "Unmoved Mover," as Aristotle thought. Rather, in harmony with the overall drift of Scripture, God is the "Most Moved Mover!"

As you say, discerning where the Most Moved Mover is leading us is not always easy; however, I think that, among other things, Scripture may be helpful.

Although there are many twists and turns along the way, we can discern certain trajectories in Scripture. We can presume that today God is leading us in the same general direction but futher down the road. This might give us an idea about what to expect.

Richard

Welcome!

Not having worked my way through Plantinga's books, I am not certain of what he says. My impression is that he runs further with the free-will defense than most, even suggesting that natural evils such as earthquakes and the predatory nature of all life on this planet result may result from the misuses of freedom by demonic agencies.

I gather that he is not necessarily asserting that this actually happened; only that it would not be illogical to assert that it did.

Is this what he has in mind? I am eager to benefit from your hard work!

Thanks!

Dave

"God is as God does..."

So, God gets out of bed one morning on the Old Testament side and rains down vengeance on the world. The next morning He gets out of bed on the New Testament side and heals everyone in every village. Makes it really difficult to explain to my agnostic relative. There may be many books in the Bible, but they are still all describing the same God. It is hard for us to join One who allows Katrina and Rwanda with one who singles out a dying cancer patient and heals them. And, how does one treat someone who feels God miraculously saved them from dying in a car accident while the families of the other victims stand by and wonder why their relative wasn't "good enough" to be saved.

These are tough questions that must somehow be answered in one's mind if one is to continue to believe. Or, at least that is what appears to be necessary. In reality, as I've gotten older and gone through more "stuff" I find I care less about the reasons as much as I care about the relationship that will take me through them. I honestly don't know if I'm just too worn out to care or if we really don't HAVE to have the answers. Anyone have any ideas on this?

So we bump into the limits of our understanding of God, and conclude that He cannot be who we thought He was, or we jettison the belief that He is at all...

But that is not really a fault of God. Instead it is our inability to live with the intense tension of unanswered questions, non-intervention, and prayers that seem to simply bounce off the ceiling.
The attempt to "explain" God through various philosophies can be helpful, but seem to more often lead to agnostic and even sarcastic views of God (see some examples above).
The God of the Bible does not (often) explain His actions. Jesus healed only ONE at the pool of Bethesda. Weren't the others worthy too?

Dafur, Auschwitz, these things were either made by us (Auschwitz) or could have been prevented by us (Dafur). Don't blame God for the mess we humans create because we are selfish.

During the Millennium, God has His great inquiry into His government (why didn't He act when He should have), and we are given access to His files. If THAT doesn't happen, well, then you all have a point. But I will reserve my "judgement" until then.

Until that time, I keep accepting (often without concrete evidence) the fundamental presupposition that God is 100% trustworthy, as well as just and holy.

Thank you, Dave, for your kind words.

There are 100's of Erhmans out there, some within our own church and few even here on Spectrum. Our church had the opportunity to be at the cutting edge of the explosion of Biblical research in the last century. Because of our stated belief in thought inspiration, so well demonstrated and even articulated by Ellen White, Adventists had the opportunity to be the religious thought leaders of the past generation.

Poor Erhman whose evangelical zeal now propels him to share the good news that hell is not hot and waiting and whose mind set on the nature of what inspiration is supposed to be keeps him locked in a theological quandary. Nevertheless I personally prefer the evangelical fundamentalist atheist to his Christian counterpart. They are much easier to talk to.

I think Ehrman's point still stands though whether he is interpreting the Bible more fundamentally or not. By focusing on his interpretation, are we missing the point that the Bible does not answer the problem of evil? Does interpreting the Bible more openly make that problem easier to answer?

Can we not separate Ehrman's interpretation from his allegedly "evangelical, fundamentalist" assumptions? Psychoanalyzing him seems irrelevant, IMO, to evaluating the soundness of his conclusion. How the Bible fails to answer our most important question - why we suffer?

Dave,
You use the word "fundamentalistic" to explain Ehrman's conclusions ( "Another alternative would have been to abandon his fundamentalistic expectations.") Isn't that a bit misleading?

Ehrman was a fundamentalist at one time but anyone who's read his other books knows that his scholarship is not based on fundamentalistic assumptions. I suppose you may be referring to his concept of God--that he has held on to a traditional concept of God as omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. True, he does not seem to have gone the route of process theology but to your readers it may give the impression that you think of him as a Zondervan-type scholar, which he is not.

Beth & Joselito,

One of my favorite teachers used to say, "We see things not as they are , but as we are." Everything we learn is processed through our own intellectual filters. In this review I was attempting to focus on Bart Erhman's approach to this study and suggest that his evangelical background may have colored his conclusions. Knowing the bias of an author can help in our evaluation of his assumptions.

I admitted at the start of my review that I was not going to review this book on the basis of the question, why suffering. And while there has been a lengthy discussion of this topic on Julius Nam's site, this topic probably needs to be addressed here as well. It is a case of this ought ye to have done but not left the other undone.

My own feeling is that the SDA's paradigm of the Great Controversy may have merit in such a discussion. However this theory has yet to be presented to the scholarly world of biblical studies in a coherent and credible fashion.

Aage

I take your point. My generalization was too sweeping because I had in mind this one book.

It is, in my view, needlessly dismissive of all the careful thought that has gone on over the centuries on the issue of theodicy. Instead, it jumps straight back to the Bible as though the last two-three thousand years have not taken place. And when it gets there, it apparently wants Scripture to offer a single and tidier theodicy.

I think that all three of these features--its dismissiveness, its a-historical approach and its unappreciation of the diversity and developments in Scripture-are things we often see among fundamentalists. I am surprised to see them in a book written by Erhram.

Having said that, I think this book is making at least three very positive contributions. It is calling attention to the only serious challenge to monotheistic faith in a way that millions of people can understand and appreciate. It reviews the struggles of one thoughtful person about this challenge. It displays a significant portion of the diversity of Scripture on the topic.

Great! I think we should all read and discuss this book. What a great Sabbath School class, prayer meeting or Adventist Forum discussion this would make!

Thank you!

Dave

Stephan, You said:

"The attempt to 'explain' God through various philosophies can be helpful, but seem to more often lead to agnostic and even sarcastic views of God (see some examples above)."

I don't know if you were referring to my post or not. If so, please believe that this was absolutely not meant to be anything close to sarcasm. I was trying to show the wide spectrum of an O.T. God and a N.T. God and how I see someone try to explain this. If we were to know a person who was exceptionally kind on one hand and angry or (apparently) indifferent on the other hand, we would wonder which side of them was really genuine. Someone who has suffered a lot ends up having to look at this sooner or later. Who is this God anyway? They need Him, which means they have to figure out how to hang onto the hand of a God who, at times, appears to not care. That is scary. But, the alternative has got to be death all alone.

When life bumps along in relatively decent times, it is easy to begin to sort through and stash answers for all that you/others have gone through. But there are those who, a short time after getting up and brushed off, are shoved face-first back down into the mire of heart-breaking questions. You come up for air, start to clean yourself off and make sense of things and you are shoved under again…and again…and again…and again, sometimes for no apparent or logical reason. Pretty soon the questions look different than they did the first few rounds, then they look like repeats of ones you thought you had answered, then you get too tired to know what they even are anymore. In the end you wonder if any of them are worth taking the effort to try to figure out after all. Sometimes life can beat the stuffings out of you, leaving you pretty dazed and oh so weary.

For some this is not a theoretical, intellectual discussion, it’s the very air they are now breathing. A good friend is one who stands by them and lets them fight their way through to either answers or peace….or, for the blessed few, BOTH.

From the book "A Severe Mercy", a story written by a husband who eventually loses the love of his life, his wife, I quote:

"To believe with certainty...one has to begin by doubting."

The Bible does give the answer to the question of sufferring and tredegy in the face of God's love and omnipotence.

When one knows God as he has revealed himself though his word they will have all the answers they need. Thousands have Though the 60 centuries of earth's history sufferred as much or more than anyone here and have yet have had such confidence in their creator and saviour that they could express thier confidence in his answers. Read these expressions of faith again for the first time:

Job:
"though he slay me, yet will I trust in him.... Job 13:15

Paul:
....I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us....For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it. Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
....we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." Romans 8:18-28

"Yes", you might say, "he might have some academic rational for pain and sufferringm but what kind of pain did he experience personally?"

"Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches. Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not?" 2 Cor. 11:23-29

What of the centuries before the days of the apostles? Did tey suffer? How did they respond to it?

"Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection: And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin." -Hebrews 11:35-12:4

Dear friends, the Bible is full of the answers to this question! Listen with ears to hear and a heart to believe and understand and you may have a peace that goes beyond your circumstances. You will learn to rest in his arms and trust him as child who has complete confidence in a loving and wise parent. He does love you! He loves all of us! He gave the ultimate demonstration of that infinite love when he wilingly allowed us to torture him to death and yet, look down and pray, "Father forgive them; they don't know what they are doing!" He has given the ultimate evidence. If that is not enough, their is no more he can do. It is now up to you. How will you respond? Will you not return his love and trust him?

-Your brother, Jon

I, for one, am thankful for the complete story of Job. He was all over the place and God was OK with that. I'm all over the place right now and I need a God who is OK with it. Maybe I'm not handling all the difficulties I'm continuing to struggle with right now in the same way as a more "mature" Christian, but I'm hanging on the best I can and I NEED to know that my "hanging on the best I can" is good enough for God, while I'm still sorting. I've been thrown a whole lot, a whole lot of times and for a whole lot of years. I have been sent reeling over and over with totally new, unexpected, seemingly unrelated and overwhelming obstacles. It takes you to places few have been, nor can they understand until they have. I'm sure, before all his tragedies, Job thought he had God and life pretty well figured out, too.

That's a great book (I'm speaking of A Severe Mercy although I agree that Job in its entirety is comforting too) and a great quote from it, Gaylene: ""To believe with certainty...one has to begin by doubting."

We are the ones who have determined that the Bible is THE Answer Book, nowhere internally is that suggested.

It is an anthology of many writers and many ideas (cf. Ecclesiastes with Job or Judges). God is illustrated as a multi-faceted personality, depending on the writers' suppositions.

Why can't we honestly admit that we do not know God at all? All we can ever know is what others have written about him and what their creative minds and ours have chosen?

Christians have given the world a most impossible dilemma by claiming that Jesus is God; then explaining ad nauseum that he is only loving, not arbitrary, capricious, a murderer and genocidal ruler as depicted in the Hebrew Scriptures. Would you cherish a friend with such diverse characteristics? Impulsive, easily agitated, punishing any and all who displeased him? If that is not the god represented in the OT, why not eliminate it?

Would you marry a person who had such a sordid background and yet appeared loving and kind in your presence? Or would you believe that schizophrenia was a valid diagnosis? The more one tries to merge the two entirely opposing personalities, the closer to bi-polarity he becomes. Leave God out of it! Just accept the life we have here; try to leave the world a better place because we have occupied a little space and time, and enjoy what we have and do not curse the misfortunes and eventual death. We aren't getting out of this earth alive.

Elaine,
I remember teaching Religion in Norway in the early 1990s. After covering the basics of Genesis a fifteen-year old girl (this was public school)raised her hand. "You know, I get the impression that God must have had a difficult childhood!" The funny thing was, she did not even intend the statement to be funny.

I wince as I read your articulation of a position that I hold myself. I wish it weren't as bleak as it is. For years I've been saying that the first criterion that my God would have to meet was that of being better than I am. Unfortunately, that is not the God that much of Scripture portrays.

I find it ironic that some of the major stumbling blocks to faith, for instance the OT accounts of divinely ordained genocides, attribute atrocities to God that historically never happened. The civilian population of Jericho was not murdered by a marauding army of jewish slaves. The Bible writers seem to have invented Yahweh-inspired atrocities to prove that their God was just as powerful as the pagan god-kings of the day.

To me it would be progress if Christians stopped defending God for horrors that he was not responsible for, or implying that their God is capable of such deeds. Much of the Hebrew Scriptures, but also parts of the Christian Bible, should be rejected as blasphemous slander--on God's behalf (since God takes no part in this debate). Maybe that will be the last judgment--God getting back at humanity for having slandered him by spreading what to him must be another "Elders of Zion" book.

Aage,
The fact that you are wincing makes me think there is conflict between your heart and your doubt.
Doubt is easy. The world and these blogs are ripe with it. Anyone looking for perfect clarity and knowledge will be let down.

Should we make God fit our image of what God should be?
Have you seen the Bill Moyers special Genesis A Living Conversation and The Power of Myth?
A lot of it sounded like Elaine’s posts.

Not to be personally critical in any way, and I apologize preemptively if it is taken that way, but, for example, Elaine's viewpoints don’t draw me to a better view of God. She has related in different threads that she doesn’t believe in the bible, prayer or even God necessarily. Nothing is offered in its place only skepticism and doubt.

What a person says or believes or teaches about God, does not change God. No matter what one thinks of Gods actions concerning the flood, God is still God.
How honest is it when we say, “Why can't we honestly admit that we do not know God at all?” and then also think we know the value of prayer or the accuracy of the bible or what God did or didnt do?

Jon,

Well written! My sentiments too.

Aage, you made me laugh with your "Zondervan-like scholar" comment :)

On a slightly different note, I heard a sermon today that I needed to hear. The pastor is no slouch when it comes to sophisticated theological thinking but he talked about the importance of kindness. I love to dig in deep and wrestle around with these questions but I know I am going overboard when I start getting cranky and people start irritating me. I want so much to understand, to have it make sense, to believe in something that fits together and when that is denied me, I get frustrated. And I get even more frustrated at those for whom it does just seem to make sense (not talking about anyone here, just in general).

Sometimes it feels like a big Twister game where I try and accommodate this concept of Christianity and then this concept over here, and then this other one which makes me have to leave the first concept because they contradict, but wait, no, I still have to accommodate it and so I stretch and twist and finally fall in a heap. Then I get up and play again.

When I find myself in this state, I have to cling to the idea that really what matters, in the long run, is not the nuances of what I believe, but how well I love. Goodness knows I fail there too but at least it isn't that complicated. I think one can make a decent case for this argument (not criticism-proof but decent) looking at what Jesus said. And somehow, focusing on that calms my frustrations. I believe in compassion even on the bad days when I wonder if I can even call myself a Christian. On the bad days, I cling to good and hope that what I am clinging to is God.

Beth -- Your question parallels J.L. Mackie's response to Plantinga's version of the free will defense. Basically, Mackie argued that free will entails the necessity of evil. In other words, in any possible world where there is free will, necessarily there will be evil (and, apparently, the attendant "bads" that go along with it). So, Mackie argued, Plantinga's free will defense doesn't fly because by creating free creatures, God intentionally and quite directly created evil; therefore, God is still the proximate cause of evil (and attendant "bads").

Plantinga responded that free will necessarily entails the logical possibility of evil but not the necessity of actual evil. In other words, the responsibility for evil (and attendant "bads") still lies with the free creatures that choose evil; therefore, an all-good and all-powerful God could still create free creatures, prioritizing freedom above all other values, without the necessity of evil arising.

The way this answers your question, Beth, is that Heaven is presumably a place where all the creatures have committed themselves to harmony with God. So, there is no evil there, yet all the creatures are free. Freedom does not entail evil; it only entails the possibility of evil. In Heaven, that possibility is simply not actualized; the creatures there could at any time choose evil, but they simply do not.

Dave -- I think you have fairly summarized Plantinga. Like most philosophers, he avoids taking what might be construed as "doctrinal" stands. As you note, he only argues for the coherency of various Christian doctrines (such as the widespread belief in demonic agencies). I don't remember him arguing for that particular point, but he might have, and your take certainly seems consistent with his other views.

One thing that has always amazed me over the years is that people genuinely believe that they are free, they believe that they have the power to introduce causal chains into the universe, but then they hop all over God for not "fixing" the "bad" results of the causal chains they have introduced. But are we really free if every time we introduce a causal chain, God sweeps in to bend it to His will? In general, God allows causality to have its way with the world; such is the nature and consequence of freedom.

This can lead to the issue several above have raised, that God doesn't appear to "do anything." In the context of this discussion, however, that strikes me as a blatant straw man argument. After all, in this discussion we cannot properly discuss the many evidences for God's existence and His activities in the world. For example, this is not the place to display the litany of failures of evolutionary theory. So, instead, I will simply erect my own parallel straw man and baldly assert that God's agency in the world is a clear as are the vast and many failures in the evolutionary account of origins. There. Tit for tat. :-)

Interesting discussion, folks.

Richard:

You write:

"One thing that has always amazed me over the years is that people genuinely believe that they are free, they believe that they have the power to introduce causal chains into the universe, but then they hop all over God for not "fixing" the "bad" results of the causal chains they have introduced. But are we really free if every time we introduce a causal chain, God sweeps in to bend it to His will? In general, God allows causality to have its way with the world; such is the nature and consequence of freedom."

Precisely so. When the Devil tempted Jesus to ask God to suspend gravity in his case, Jesus said that we should not give God a hard time. This should say something about the importance of maintaining causal chains.

Excellent, too, on evil in heaven: It will always be a possibility but not always an actuality.

Thanks!

Dave

Beth
I never went through the Twister-stage and no doubt saved myself a lot of frustration in the process. But I've ended up embracing what to you is the bottom line: trying to be a decent human being. When somebody finds themselves stranded at night on the Interstate with no cell phone, we can all play the role of God should have played no matter the state of our faith or lack of such. What ultimately matters to those around us is how we treat them, not whether we believe this or that. Especially not on the side of the road.

Unfortunately, the focus on the value of faith is often predicated on nothing more than a selfish fear of fire at the end of life. I don't find great moral value in going through theological contortions to save one's bacon. Religion can at times be the most selfish of all endeavors, and at the end, many people think they have accomplished something huge when they have secured the assurance that they personally won't burn at the end of the story.

Thanks so much Richard for the clarification. It helps to know that Plantinga is arguing for the possibility, not necessity of evil.

I wonder though, if he draws a distinction between natural evil and moral evil. I know you mentioned your concern with evolutionary theory so would you say that there was no natural evil (death and suffering of other living creatures) before humans chose evil? It seems Plantinga's view would fit much more comfortably with a literal Genesis account. Thanks again for your contributions - it's great fun to pick the brain of a philospher :)

The Bad News and Why? Gen.3:1-24.

The Good News: Gen.3:15;Rom.3:21-26;Rom.5:1;Rev.21:1-4.

pat

Pat, I'm pretty sure you don't mean to come across as dismissive, but I've noticed that you love to pop in scripture (and chastise those who don't) as if these questions are that flip and the people discussing them just haven't actually read those verses before. Good, thoughtful, committed Christians can and do read the same Bible and come away with different conclusions and questions. I'd imagine a verse or three can be found to support most any position.

Beth--thank you for your post. I had a similar experience this weekend too and just wanted to affirm your thoughts: "When I find myself in this state, I have to cling to the idea that really what matters, in the long run, is not the nuances of what I believe, but how well I love."

To worship a god represented by the Hebrews in their unique history is to revere a most twisted picture. Yes, I believe that the myths were created by a people attempting to justify their horrendous acts and credit them to their god's direction.

How should their stories be read? Fiction? Faulty description of God? Then where do we go from there? Christians of all groups still refer to and promote the Bible stories to augment and justify their particular beliefs; and these stories can be used to prove anything one wishes.

One must either constantly explain that they are cultural myths, or else believe them in their entirety which becomes a very hard and difficult sell to those who speak from both sides of their mouth: God is love and cares for even the sparrows, yet he destroyed nearly all his creatures in the flood, ordered his "chosen people" (a self-designated label) to destroy its enemies in total annihilation. Rather an impossible dilemma for both speaker and listener; revealing the continuing problem of claiming Jesus is God--the God of the OT. Not too convincing.

Elaine,
I hear your perspective. You point out all the problems from your perspective but offer nothing in solution or in the alternative.
What DO you advocate? Atheism? Humanism? Deism? Pandeism?
If so, why the affinity for Spectrum and/or SDA websites compared to something that would seemingly appeal to you more like Unitarian Universalists ect?
I'm trying to understand. For example you say,

"How should their stories be read? Fiction? Faulty description of God? Then where do we go from there? Christians of all groups still refer to and promote the Bible stories to augment and justify their particular beliefs; and these stories can be used to prove anything one wishes."

"Faulty description of God?" By what definition? Were you there? Any other ancient books would be no more authoritative than the bible because as you suggest, people only wrote down their own perspectives anyway.

"..these stories can be used to prove anything one wishes."

And so does Diesm where whatever the realities are make no diffrence since everything derives its meaning from whatever a person might think about it.
Wikipedia says it clearer than I could.
"Deists typically reject supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and tend to assert that God does not intervene with the affairs of human life and the natural laws of the universe. What organized religions see as divine revelation and holy books, most deists see as interpretations made by other humans, rather than as authoritative sources. Deists believe that God's greatest gift to humanity is not religion, but the ability to reason."

What a Diest thinks about what happened 2000 years ago is no more of a valid or empirical discovery process than others might take by finding value in a document written by people 2000 years ago.

Oh, and I am really curious about the Unitarian Universalist thing.

Daneen,

You say, "Good, thoughtful, committed Christians can and do read the same Bible and come away with different conclusions and questions. I'd imagine a verse or three can be found to support most any position."

That is true but what if the reader doesn't feel the textual apparatus is inspired or accurate? How does that change the outcome?

I believe the textual apparatus is inspired and accurate.Therefore my conclusions will often be different. While there is room for different understanding between those that hold scripture to be inspired, you find an area of larger agreement than disagreement. In seminary, I shared much more in common in Christ with others than our "disinctive" denominational positions separated us.

The same can not be said for those that discount the Bible's inspiration, accuracy, or authority. I think this is one of those issues...that is that the Genesis story says that sin's entry is the cause of our suffering and redemption and the second coming will solve it. "All creation groans and travails...waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our bodies."

Is it not true that if we use no scripture in developing our position, we have become a god in which our word and thought is the final authority? How can those thoughts and views be appraised or challenged?

regards,

pat

Hi Pat--People who "feel the textual apparatus [of the Bible] is inspired or accurate" still do read the same Bible, same texts and come to different conclusions. I'm not lumping you in this camp, but the most dangerous element of fundamentalism is its tendency to feel that if "you" don't come away with the same reading as "me" then you must not be a) a believer in the inspiration of the Bible or b) close enough to God to see the "truth."

Given that I grew up in a family and community steeped in the Bible and Adventism, not to mention my continued involvement with religion (Adventist and otherwise), it would be impossible for me to formulate a position without having scripture play a part in that formulation (even if I wasn't consciously aware of it). I don't exist in a vacuum.

Now, while I am very aware of the problems of the origins of scripture (translation, politics, how we got what we've got, etc.), I still don't toss the Bible aside as easily as others might. I still feel that the trajectory of scripture reveals God's character, priorities, and concerns. This means that while it stopped being written almost two millennia ago, I still have a responsibility to take the core ethic and apply it to modern situations (i.e. creation care or other justice issues). That's not making myself or my thoughts a god; rather, it's keeping me from hiding behind scripture or easy proof texts in order to not get involved with God's priorities today.

the Genesis story says that sin's entry is the cause of our suffering and redemption and the second coming will solve it. "All creation groans and travails...waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our bodies."

Pat

Was this your final answer, from Scriptures, to Beth's query regarding the presence of natural and moral evils?

While I don't agree with the claim often repeated here that we can posit almost anything and find good textual evidence for the same in the Bible, I also believe what we can know from Scriptures is not exhaustive.

Has Ehrman, whatever his approach to Scriptures may have been, presented the biblical data accurately? Why we suffer?

Michael,

Good questions.

Frank

Joselito,

Are you referring to, "I wonder though, if he draws a distinction between natural evil and moral evil. I know you mentioned your concern with evolutionary theory so would you say that there was no natural evil (death and suffering of other living creatures) before humans chose evil?"

Scripture does not address this as the situation prior to the human fall...does it? It doesn't address the possibility of the existence of little green martians either. Where there is scriptural silence there can be wisdom in silence.

pat

PS. I have no idea how the eco-systems supportive of other life forms existed prior to the fall. Likewise, I don't fully understand the massive upheaval of the flood. I accept the Biblical account of how things now exist in the present age. This would not rule out an uninhabited "old earth" in my view.
I do see sin as the cause of mankinds and "all creations" current problem....Thanks Joselito.

Michael, I have previously said that I find Deism very attractive and is open-ended rather than limiting. This is a good snyopsis of my belief:

Wikipedia says it clearer than I could.
"Deists typically reject supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and tend to assert that God does not intervene with the affairs of human life and the natural laws of the universe. What organized religions see as divine revelation and holy books, most deists see as interpretations made by other humans, rather than as authoritative sources. Deists believe that God's greatest gift to humanity is not religion, but the ability to reason."

If we refuse to use our gift of reason, that which separates us from all other animal life, we dishonor our Creator. Our mind and reasoning ability is absolutely the only way for us to engage in questioning and in making decisions. Ignore this, and one can be led by any charlatan coming down the path. I refuse to abandon this ability, nor do I believe we have ever been asked to do so.

It's ironic to me that I just recently got involved in this particular discussion, because we just found out today that our beloved cat has contracted FIP, which is, statistically, almost 100% fatal. It's really hard to know where to draw the "suffering line" and put her to sleep, while she still purrs, eats, gets around, etc. Watching her labored breathing is very difficult for me, and I also see the pain in my wife's eyes. My wife loves this cat even more than I do.

I know that many are not "cat people," and I've never thought of myself as a "cat person," but, honestly, this has been a very special cat for us. Basically the cat loves only us and disdains and avoids other people. But the cat showers us with affection. It's deeply endearing. To say she's been a "good cat" really doesn't express the affection we feel. It's hard to see any animal slowly losing it, but seeing one that has brought you such joy slowly being pulled away from you is sad and angering at the same time! As I write at this very moment, I'm choked up.

This is, of course, a very minor tragedy in the grand scheme of things, although the pain for us is very deep and real.

I guess I'm sharing this here because you folks seem to take this discussion very seriously, which I appreciate. So, it seems that you will be able to understand what I'm saying and recognize that my earlier expressed theoretical position is put to the test even as I write this. I have lost a lot in my life (of which this is just one very tiny incident). But I continue to maintain that my perspective about evil and bad in the world is no mere "ivory tower philosophizing." It makes sense to me and gives me solidity even at this very moment. I guess that makes me a "true believer," and thereby destroys my credibility as an "objective philosopher."

Oh Richard, I'm so sorry about your cat. We too had to decide when to end the life of a very special cat and it still chokes me up years later to think about it. I've heard the phrase, "My heart cat," or "My heart dog" used to refer to a pet that is a once in a lifetime animal with whom you share a unique bond.

Now our dog on the other hand, well, let's just say she doesn't fit in that category.

Pat

Plantinga's idea of openmindedness includes the supernatural and miraculous. His critique of what he calls the Grand Evolutionary Story, used as a secular cultural defense mechanism by atheists, may be of interest to you.

- "When Faith and Reason Clash: Evolution and the Bible," Christian Scholars Review, XXI:1 (Sept 1991) 8-33.

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/articles/plant...

Richard

Compared to residents of developed nations, there's arguably far less animal lovers in poor countries. Still, the pain experienced by the latter (me included), consequent to the loss of loved ones cannot be much less; their suffering may possibly be even greater in degree and quantity. Is this why there are more believers among the poor and fellow sufferers of this world? (I digress.:-)

Alvin Plantinga's free will defense (FWD) theism, according to some, seems to treat evil in general, more abstract terms. Is the criticism justified? For example, what does he say about (natural) evil such as animal suffering caused by disaster (forest fire) and the pain of children due to incurable illness?

Thanks for joining this conversation and for your input. Years ago, while still in my teens, I studied under a young American professor, a La Sierra alum, who had an earned PhD in philosophy from a midwestern university. I didn't pursue the discipline as a career but his mentoring and introduction to the subject made a lasting impression and may have helped me sort things out for my own benefit, not least when faced with man-made adversity within the community of faith.;)

Elaine

Is it possible to be a Seventh-day Deist? I'm not certain; however, there is a part of me that wants to say "yes." We have some Seventh-day Superstionists, afterall!

Richard

The loss of a true friend is always difficult. May your and your wife stay especially close at this time. You can support each other as no one else can.

Dave

(I haven't been able to read through all the posts, hence just a quick note)

Gaylene, thanks for the clarification. I like what you said.
I guess, when I was in college, theoretical debates were great, but now, as a pastor, theory isn't worth much by the bedside of an ill, or dying person, unless you can translate it into meaningful practice.

Just read in the news that an SDA missionary family survived the plane crash in the Congo. Glad for them. They say, God spared them for a reason. I guess they are right.
But what do my colleagues over there tell those family members of those who went to the market, and didn't come back.

David, whether it's possible to be an Adventist Deist is a moot question. If one wishes to become a member of a religious group, there are usually requirements or restrictions. Organized religion seems to me to be an oxymoron, much like organized love or organized spirituality.

Deism is very attractive for those of us who do not wish to limit our understanding and leave open other possibilities. The Jews are monotheists for the best of reasons: "Our God is One." When was that statement rescinded, an by whom? Deism recognizes a superior, transcendent being, but beyond that, they refuse to speculate as to the actions, behavior and wishes she might have. Honesty should demand that none of us truly knows; we only know what many and various writers have attributed to a god when none of them either saw or heard her speak. How can it be other than imagining? And whose imagination is superior? Those who are the most ancient? The most recent? Those who claim to have experienced supernatural revelations? I find none of them very convincing when viewed rationally, but only when they apply "faith" spectacles.

Elaine,
Have you checked these guys out? It seems your kindred spirits are here
http://www.uua.org/
http://kinja.com/user/uublogs

Beliefs Within Our Faith
Unitarian Universalism is a liberal religion that encompasses many faith traditions. Unitarian Universalists include people who identify as Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, Atheists, Agnostics, Humanists, and others. As there is no official Unitarian Universalist creed, Unitarian Universalists are free to search for truth on many paths.

To quote the Rev. Marta Flanagan, "We uphold the free search for truth. We will not be bound by a statement of belief. We do not ask anyone to subscribe to a creed. We say ours is a non-creedal religion. Ours is a free faith."

Although we uphold shared principles, individual Unitarian Universalists have varied beliefs about everything from scripture to rituals to God.

Elaine

We need to sort out the difference between knowledge and opinion. This is true for Bart Ehrman, you, and me, too. For starters, see if you and I can agree with the following comment from Adler (who else?:-)

"When the criteria for calling anything knowledge are such exacting criteria as the certitude, incorrigibility, and immutability of the truth that is known, then the few things that are knowledge stand far apart from everything that might be called opinion.

"Examples of knowledge in this extreme sense of the term are a small number of self-evident truths. A self-evident truth is one that states something the opposite of which it is impossible to think. It can also be called a necessary truth because its opposite is impossible."

http://radicalacademy.com/adlerknowledge1.htm

My point is the truth claims of deism are not knowledge in the above sense. At best they are opinions which may be either true or false. Ehrman may be on to something in regard to the Bible writers' failure to answer life's most important question: Why we suffer. If so, has God failed, too? I think not.

Hebrews 1:1-3 (The Message)
The Message (MSG)

"Going through a long line of prophets, God has been addressing our ancestors in different ways for centuries. Recently he spoke to us directly through his Son. By his Son, God created the world in the beginning, and it will all belong to the Son at the end. This Son perfectly mirrors God, and is stamped with God's nature. He holds everything together by what he says—powerful words!"

Man has two vexing problems: 1. Man declares on the one hand God is too remote, too self-centered, too uncaring, too pre-occuptied. 2. Man declares that God incarnate is just like man, and man can, with divine approval, become as God. Exactly like the first temptation in the Garden.

Pain, suffering, and death, are the consequences of man's choice. Assurance, redemption, and wholeness are the consequences of God's Grace. The Hebrew axiom is appropriate:
"This too shall pass!" We have the story of Job, of Jonah, of Daniel, and most of all of Jesus Christ. In the years since retirement I have had three major surgries; that included long nights without sleep or comfort except for an IPod. It had the Voice of Prophecy Quartet and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. The most often listened to selection was "Peace Like a River". The story behind that hymn should be the center piece of this discussion. "It is well with my soul." Tom

P.S. One can find the story on the inter-net. Tom

Michael,

Yes, I have attended several times, the local Unitarian-Universalist church and do find their beliefs to be open-ended. However, I will always and inevitably be a cultural Adventist. Nor do I consider that a bad thing, only that we choose to worship with those with long-standing ties and the "truth" is not something to be found within any one church. Fellowship of like-minded believers is more important than hoping to find a church with the absolute "truth," when there are none that qualify.

Joselito,

Yes, all of our ideologies are merely opinions, but what else is there? None of us can have certainty, only that some we can rely on by past experience. Certitude may be what some are looking for, but I find it becomes a stopping point for futher inquiry and knowledge.

Tom,

I can also appreciate post-surgical pain, and still am not free from the most recent (3 weeks and counting); also the emotional pain that accompanies the trials and problems of our loved ones. No one can live as long as we have without such experiences. I found that listening to Bach's masterpieces and the best of violin concertos were the most soothing and rest-inducing sounds--even the nurses always remarked on the beautiful music--compared to the popular sounds, called music, today. It is so true that music soothes the breast and is often the best medication.

As an aside, last Sunday night on 60 Minutes, there was a segment on Venezeula's "El Sistemma," a program introduced to make classical music available to the poorest children there. Each child is given an instrument and instruction. They now travel the world giving concerts and it has absolutely revolutionized the education of these young people who have had an entirely new world opened to them through the benevolence of one man, now sustained by the government which has been convinced of its value. What would happen if something similar were instituted here in the states?

Just turning off italics. My head hurts when there is too much italics.

How do you turn off italics anyway?

[Carlitas: an earlier comment failed to properly close the <cite> html tag and the blogging software this website uses - Drupal - does not properly fix such omissions, so the effect ripples to subsequent comments. I fixed the html manually. Sorry for the problem. - Rich Hannon]

Elaine,

Off the main point of this thread, I too have previously seen this piece on 60 Minutes. As a music teacher and musician, I would love to see something like this instituted in the states. But, until NCLB is given a funeral, I don't forsee government backing or funding on this one. And it is needed.

The more well to do school districts can offer a variety of music education experiences to their students. But, a friend of mine teaches in a school in the Bronx, where there is absolutely no music program... general, vocal or instumental. But they keep taking those standardized tests!

Whose being left behind?

Thanks...

Frank

I, too, saw the 60 Minute piece. I also heard the cost of supporting it. Their people are seeing the results and are willing to continue to support it. This program works on many different levels, but one level is a point at which any of us can contribute without nescessarily requiring money. Many of these children have nothing in their lives, no one to take an interest in them. I believe it takes far less than most of us realize to make a difference in a child's life. There are children everywhere who just need ONE adult who cares about them, loves them unconditionally, spends time with them and believes in them. It can totally change the direction of their lives. Things we do, much of which might seem like so little, can produce such amazing results.

Carlitas

I'm sorry for causing your head pain because of my long italicized quotes. Now I know better. I apologize.

Elaine

We need to separate mere opinions, those that are false with no good evidence to support them, from ones that are closer to the truth. How do we know this? Two ways or tests we can use to determine their truth values: 1) falsifiability as in science and 2) refutability by sound reasoning. The conversation in another thread in regard to premodern, modern, and postmodern culture is apropos. My only comment is it suffers from identifying most contemporary western societies as postmodern. And the rest of the world, especially those residing in poor, underdeveloped countries as what? All premodern until or unless they've been touched by western influences?

About music education and therapy. (We digress.) Except for me, all members of my family (wife and 3 young adult children) are professional classical musicians/educators. Interestingly enough, the same study that seemed to indicate no direct association between prayer and enhanced recovery following percutaneous coronary intervention also included music as a component or variable. Same results. Opinion?!

- Krucoff MW, Crater SW, Gallup D, Blankenship JC, Cuffe M, Guarneri M, Krieger RA, Kshettry VR, Morris K, Oz M, Pichard A, Sketch MH, Jr., Koenig HG, Mark D, Lee KL. Music, imagery, touch, and prayer as adjuncts to interventional cardiac care: the Monitoring and Actualisation of Noetic Trainings (MANTRA) II randomised study. Lancet 2005; 366(9481):211-217.

http://www.dukespiritualityandhealth.org/resources/pdfs/Research%20-%20l...

Elaine
Still glad you're back and that you plan to stick around. We need to hear from you for many reasons. One of them is to keep us in touch with the real world. Thanks!
Dave

David, wherever that "real world" is! We each have a variety of experiences that influence our ways of thinking and adapting to the world around us. How could it be otherwise? We are all conditioned by so many external forces, and take them for granted. That is why my constant theme is to realize that we are products of our environment in birth, education, and life. We here in North America have been given so many advantages denied most of the world that it is almost impossible to realize others' situations. That is why tolerance and acceptance is so very important in our relationships with others.

Elaine,

I also had the Three Tenors--Great music and they had such fun.

Tom

Joselito,

When speaking of theological matters, how does one separate opinions from facts with supporting evidence? Even the best of studies always is able to contain biases.

Question: Is theology based on opinions or on evidence?

Why all the sufferring? Perhaps a short story could shed a little light on the question.
Harry was playing with his
considerable collection of
action figures. He had the
old favorites such as Superman,
Batman, Spiderman, Incredible
Hulk, and Aquaman, as well as
most of the latest superheroes. He
had memorized the powers each
one had to conquer evil people and
their evil plans. In his imagination,
these heroes used their supernatural
power against bad guys known
as supervillains, who also had supernatural
power. Harry would
imagine different evil plots of the
bad guys and then figure out how
the good guys would use their
powers to solve the problem before
anyone got hurt. Sometimes he pretended
that he had special powers,
and that was great fun, especially
when one of his friends would play
a supervillain against him.
Something happened, though,
that made Harry put away his
action figures forever. Zack, his
much-loved older brother, came
and sat down next to him. “Harry,
you know what special powers
each superhero has, don’t you?”
“Oh, yes,” answered Harry eagerly.
He was just about to name
each one’s special powers, but Zack
spoke first.
“Which one is the top superhero?
The best of the best? The most
powerful?”
“I guess . . . well, probably . . .
or maybe. . . .” Harry couldn’t pick
one superhero over the other. There
were so many to choose from. Then
Zack asked another question.
“Harry, when you play with
these action figures, what is the
worst evil that you can imagine
that can be solved only by
supernatural power?”
Harry was stumped again!
He’d imagined so many things,
but which one would be the worst?
Fires, floods, crime? While Harry
thought about that question, Zack
asked, “Do you know who I think
is the best superhero?”
Harry looked over his collection.
Which one would Zack pick?
He couldn’t wait to hear! But he
never expected the answer Zack
gave: “I would pick God.”
God! Harry never thought about
God being a superhero! Zack continued,
“I think people don’t like
all the evil they see, so they make
up special powers that certain people
can have to solve the problems.
But God is the only one who is a
true hero. He’s for real; the others
are only imaginary. I like thinking
about the real Superpower—the one
who created everything we see.”
A real superhero sounded good
to Harry, but he was puzzled about
one thing. “So why doesn’t God
use His powers to stop all the evil
people?” he asked.
“All the evil in the world is called
sin, and God has a perfect plan to
end it forever. But first, He has to let
people see how bad sin is, and give
them a chance to choose whether
they will work with Him to end sin,
or work with Satan against Him.
Satan, who hates God, has supernatural
powers, too, but God’s love
and power are stronger, so Satan
will lose in the end. But while the
war between them is still going on,
people have to choose God’s good
way or Satan’s evil way.”
Harry had another question.
“How can someone without super
powers work with God to end
evil?”
“People join God’s invisible
army by deciding they hate what sin
and evil do, so they make up their
minds they don’t want to do sinful
or evil things. They ask God to
help them never to do those things,
and they trust that God will use
His superhuman power to change
them—sort of create them all over
again, this time making them into
people that do things God’s good
ways, instead of Satan’s evil ways.
And if you know about His power
and His love for us, you can be sure
He will do just that.”
Harry thought for a minute then
said, “I don’t want to think about
these superheroes and their powers
any more. I want to think about
God and be in His army, and let
Him use His power on me. I want
be on His side in this war against
evil, because I hate evil.”
Zack smiled, “Then let’s pray
that He will change us, so sin
will soon end forever.” And that’s
just what they did—right then
and there.

"Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein." -Mark 10:15

"...Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?" -Matthew 21:16

I hope this help someone here who is sufferring under the burden of fear and doubt.

Hmmm.... Doubt should not be a "burden" but instead a motivation. All intellectually honest people question their beliefs, which is the nature of "doubt," but it is also the nature of honesty and development.

Even though I am presently confident in my faith, I do not "suffer" fear that additional evidence might cause me doubts. If the Bible is correct, we are assured that the Holy Spirit will lead all sincere seekers (intellectually honest seekers) into all the truth. So, there is nothing to fear from investigation and "doubts." On the other hand, if the Bible is not correct, then there is also nothing to fear from the "doubts."

Either way, I don't understand the nature of "suffering" from a "burden" of fear and doubt.

The book's title implies that the Bible should answer all our questions. Where did that idea originate? Or, have Christians made impossible claims for the Bible which were never intended?

Life should be experienced as joys, sorrows, and difficulties--many of which we should learn to overcome as part of maturation. Children are taught, wrongly I believe, that they should pray and God will hear, listen, and usually answer their prayers. What nonsense! We should experience the feeling of accomplishment by overcoming or accepting circumstances, not looking for any book or instantaneous answered prayer for solutions.

Has anyone lived on this earth threescore and ten without having problems? Where does God ever tell someone that he will not suffer? We have built our own idea of Utopia and when things go "bump in the night" we complain that no one is listening to our cries. Even Job had a time of wallowing in self-pity; and many of us had short or long "pity parties" for ourselves. But those should be short and few and to look for some god-in-the-sky to give us a reason is receive an explanation? And, would it have relieved their suffering? If life were all a bed of roses, how would we be able to enjoy the constant norm? Contrasts are what enables us to enjoy dark and light, pain and good health, sorrow and joy. It's called LIFE.