see http://tinyurl.com/23p5xm for a couple of good book reviews on this topic. The comments are especially revealing of common attitudes on these issues.

I've posted this here instead of on Book Reviews as I haven't read the books and would welcome discussion of the topics in general.

quote:

How did purposive behavior of the kind we engage in all the time � understanding, meditating, enjoying � ever emerge from electrons and chemical elements?

Yeah, the comments are wild! Sad to see the bias in so many of them.

Al

I can't believe Bart Ehrman has strayed away from the Christian faith, I have read a few of his books and they are researched and written extremely well... he has fallen for the atheist argument of how could a loving God permit suffering- I can't believe it! Here is an interesting rebuttal from an ex-atheist regarding this argument (www.ex-atheist.com):

How Can A Good And Loving God Permit Suffering?
by A.S.A. Jones

Questions concerning Christianity may be passively or aggressively stated:

If there is a loving God, why does He permit us to suffer? � passive

A loving God would not permit us to suffer, therefore, there is no loving God. - aggressive

2: Recognize the argument.

Formalizing this issue into a proper argument allows for greater clarity of thought and would look like this:

A loving God would not permit us to suffer.
Some people suffer horribly.
Therefore, a loving God does not exist.

3: Question a faulty premise

There isn't anything wrong with the process of inference in the above argument; However, our criticism lies with the legitimacy of the first premise.

Since 'loving' is a characteristic that is applied to both humans and God, we make note of the comparison and make an analogy:

A loving parent would not permit his child to suffer.

Or would he? A parent who would not permit his child to suffer would never deprive his offspring of any want, nor would he discipline the child. What then, do we mean by 'suffer'? If we limit the definition of suffering to physical pain, then we have to acknowledge that loving parents permit their children to suffer pain, at least to some degree, when they allow them to have immunization shots, or undergo chemotherapy or teach them how to ride a bike, knowing that the chances of them falling and getting hurt are probable. Therefore, a loving parent does permit his child to suffer physically, if he considers the suffering to be insignificant and for a greater good.

But would a loving parent permit his child to suffer significant pain for a greater good? As humans, we have a corporeal concern; no matter how strong our faith in God, this material and physical world is the only world of which we are aware. Therefore, we consider any significantly painful infliction as harmful to our bodies and our existence.

The difference between man and God is that God is fully aware of man's spiritual reality in addition to his physical reality. God knows that physical suffering cannot harm our eternal souls. God knows that our physical destruction is not an end to our existence. Of what significance is an hour of physical suffering compared to eternity? Of what significance is a lifetime of suffering compared to eternity? We can conclude that from God's perspective, our physical suffering is relatively insignificant. This is not to say that He is unsympathetic or oblivious to our pain; loving parents feel empathy when their child receives a shot, knowing full well that the pain is inconsequential.

But what greater good can be derived from our suffering? Is there a greater good involved? What would justify God sending us to live in a physical world with physical dangers? Why didn't God let us stay in the Garden of Eden?

According to the Bible, man was removed from the Garden of Eden in order to be born again so that one day, he could eat of the Tree of Life and be forever in God's company as a holy people. If men were made to live forever in their natural, sinful state, they would be eternally hellish creatures. God sees the greater good being accomplished in the transformation that will allow us to live eternally in heaven, a transformation that can only take place in the physical world. Spiritual lessons can�t take place in the garden; they have to take place in a desert.

It isn't that God wills us to experience misfortune, but that these misfortunes are merely the consequence of living in a physical world within our physical bodies. Every day, loving people make the decision to bring children into this world, knowing that it is a world filled with risk and injury. God is no less loving for having created the world in which we all live. But one may ask, "Why doesn't God do what He can to prevent these injuries, as any good parent would?

The argument quickly reduces itself into absurdity. At what point should God cease to prevent suffering? Should He suspend gravity for every trip of the foot? Should He suspend the properties of heat for every finger that touches a lit stove? In short, we would be asking God to suspend the physical laws that allow our very existence. We are saying, "Surely, God, there had to be a better way than all of this!" But until we can create a better planet that contains no risk to physical life, I shouldn't think that we would be in a position to criticize. For all we know, the existence that we are experiencing now may well be the only logical possibility of existence.

4.State your position in the affirmative.

In summary, the initial argument against God's existence was:

A loving God would not permit us to suffer.
Some people suffer horribly.
Therefore, a loving God does not exist.

We make the following rebuttal:

We make an analogy between God, the loving Father, and human parents. The attribute that we are comparing is the ability of each to love his �children�/�creation�.

1) We consider parents to be loving when they permit their child to suffer insignificantly for a greater good.
2) Our greater good is salvation.
3) Our earthly suffering is insignificant when examined in the scope of eternity.
4) Therefore, we can experience suffering and still believe in the existence of a loving God.

Good rebuttal, Caneman. It's not like those questions are new nor that the Church hasn't ever reflected on them and articulated responses. Amazing that so many modern authors throw it out there as a "gotcha" of some kind, failing to realize that an entire branch of theology (theodicy) addresses these issues.

BTW, it's better to link to an article than to post to it in its entirety -- unless you have permission to do so. Just a reminder . . .

Heaven comes at the end of long suffering


Heaven is an end to the suffering with wisdom on the true nature of reality


bad, is really really good


Good, is really really bad!


an example?


how does your bed feel?


how would it feel if you just walked 20 miles in the snow and rain barefoot to reach it?


a little better tha it usually does?


thats where heaven is


at the end of long suffering


nothing good ever came easy


Daniel x

========

bad, is really really good


Good, is really really bad!

========

I don't agree with this at all. The example used to prove this point isn't really about good or bad in a moral sense. It's about comfort and discomfort.

There is bad and good, right and wrong. They're like oil and water. Sometimes when things are stirred up, it might be hard to tell the difference, but if you give it time, the two do separate, even within ourselves. That's been my experience, at least.

Claire