I have asked myself this question for awhile, and I really do finally understand. His perfect plan at times, includes times of hardship, and we can't see the end of the tunnel, but if we let him, he will always guide us through. Great message!
To remember who is in control when you are going through hardship what is the first thing you do you do not look down do you "you look up" to who?to he who is in control and can sort things out for you.That makes you remember who your lord is dose"nt it.
The love for Jesus Christ is proportionated to how you witness Christ in your life demonstrated in Vince Vitale and many other Godly man throughout the history of mankind.
I would go along with much of what Vitale says, but his response to the problem of suffering seems plainly inadequate. Once God has made us out of love and then sees our suffering, couldn't he _then_ stop that suffering without threat to _our_ identity? There's something deeper, also. If my existence has depended (as it has done) on the entire history of the world being precisely what it is (including all its misery and suffering) can it be right for _me_ to think that _I_ am worth such cost? Moreover, if future (I suppose to _us_) particular people's lives depend on our suffering, and an even lengthier history of suffering, should _they_ ever think, "_We_ are worth it"? We may accept that God loves us and take ourselves to have good reason for such belief, but that fact (just assuming that it to be one) does not licence _our_ having such a monumental estimation of our own worth. Another thing: that Christ himself suffers alongside us is, of course, hugely significant, but it does not seem to me to justify terrible suffering. Take an innocent child dying slowly from starvation with no one to help. Can Christ's suffering alongside us really justify or give any possible satisfactory placement to the idea of God's not simply stopping such suffering? I don't think so and I certainly _hope_ not. I am a Christian, _and_ a philosopher, but I don't like this smiling evangelical theodicy. I would far sooner (and _do_) just admit that I have no adequate answer. Indeed, I think I _must_ have no answer. Pretending that one does is to create, I think, deep hurt. It is to fail adequately to acknowledge the depth of things. It is to pretend that we _can_ figure out God's laying the foundations of the world. Of course, none of this entirely defeats our _other_ good reasons for believing in the reality of (a good) God. It's just that we _ought_ to be baffled by the existence of certain kinds of suffering given that we believe in the existence of the God of Christianity.
I agree with your primary objection, which seems to be that *any* human answer to the problem of suffering is inadequate. When people are suffering - you might even say to the degree to which they are suffering - is directly related to the inadequacy of the answer. This is very clearly a Biblical position, as it was in the book of Job. It is also, though, a very different response than to say that there *is* no answer - so the various attempts to reason with God - are as Biblical as anything. Actually, when God asks us to reason with him in Isaiah 1:18 (Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.) it's about His most unreasonable claim - just that what is irreparably damaged will be made whole, complete, entire, untainted, unspoiled. As if it never occurred. Can I ask you if that, in God's eyes, is reasonable - doesn't that by itself completely prove that ALL of our explanations in some critical away inadequate? However, your secondary description, the "something deeper", seems to me an overreach. Can it be right for me to think that I am worth the cost of all the suffering that has ever happened?Of course not. Nowhere in the Bible are we asked to have such a noble vision of ourselves. Vince is simply saying not that we are worth it, but just that it wouldn't be us. Not justifying, simply clarifying God's non-negotiable terms - you are you because the world is as it is. Not that we are worth it. Not that the world has to be this way. But we are us, the world is this way, and that's the terms on which He came to our world, and comes to us in our lives. God Himself presented this very argument - in His way - at the end of Job. Asking Job dozens of unanswerable questions to silence his miserable "comforters." All Job needed was to experience Him - what other answer could possibly be adequate? Isn't this the very meaning of grace? Isn't this why it's so absolutely laughable that we could possibly be so valuable as to merit the even momentary suffering of even *one* innocent? Isn't this why Christianity's key claim - that the ONE person who bore no responsibility is the very one who *asked to accept it*. Not my will (not me, as the Son of God, the most perfect human who ever lived, not my will, but yours be done). So in that respect I think of course we must have no answer - so we agree, but what I disagree with you is that the efforts to understand our God's will is to create great hurt. Much of the Psalms is composed by David, in the midst of tremendous suffering, in that deliberate effort. Our Christ also spent much of his ministry "justifying" suffering. Did they truly do what you are charging them with? I too struggle daily with the inadequacy of my reasons for his actions. But I do admire those who commit their lives to providing a defense of their faith, which necessarily includes a defense of faith as a reasonable path in a vicious world filled with countless events of pain, cruelty, and vast horror. Christ's response to the fall of a tower killing many workmen was simply - did He make them sin? If our answer is no, than that is the only thing we should really concern ourselves with - the only thing that is beyond His control - willful sin - and that can only happen through the means he provided, Christ. I respect your disagreement, but I think it's based on an inadequate understanding of God's love (which I share), rather than the inadequacy of Vince's approach. Joshua
You offer Vitale a defence by pointing out that he is not insisting that we should think ourselves as ‘worth it’ (all the past suffering of the world that has, after a long series of cause and effect, resulted in us) but is simply saying that, had history been different, then we wouldn’t exist. There may well be others who exist in our stead but they would not be us. I entirely accept Vitale’s thesis regarding individual human identity, and it is indeed an interesting, even sobering thought that the entire history of the world had to be precisely what it was for we specific individuals to exist. Beyond our doubtless need to be reminded of this stunning fact of our contingency however, there seems to be little point in Vitale’s thesis in the context of the video if he _isn’t_ attempting to use it as a way of squaring the existence of the entirely good God of Christianity with suffering. I wouldn’t want to get the man wrong but the idea at play here at least _seems_ to be that God so wanted the existence of you and I (and others who happen to inhabit the world) so badly that this want does justifify the sheer awfulness of what was required to bring it about. But isn’t that just what _we_ shouldn’t think? I do not doubt that God, in some sense, has his reasons. I am sure, however, that we must not think that _we_ can figure them out - not entirely at least and certainly not beyond the point of recognizing the rather inscrutable nature of God’s love. Vitale’s presentation, however, seemed to be precisely an attempt to go beyond this boundary. I suppose I accept much of the rest of what you say. I, too, admire those who commit their lives to providing a defense of their faith. I agree that it is Christianity's key claim that the one person who bore no responsibility [for all the evil] is the very one who asked to accept pain for it. I accept that this act has deep connections with our salvation. It is hard to see, though, what difference these matters make to the central point at play here. Once we have admitted, as you and I do, that it is “absolutely laughable that we could possibly be so valuable as to merit even the momentary suffering of even one innocent”, then the problem remains does it not? Whatever it is that makes you and I that valuable after all (if it is _true_ that we are) really must be beyond our ken and Vitale’s thesis about the conditions of our identity cannot bring it within our ken. In fact, I am inclined to think that Vitale’s identity thesis, even though true, is a red herring with respect to the problem of evil.
This is one big tautology. If things were different, then things would be different. If humans didn't suffer then humans wouldn't be changed by suffering. This is a logical consequence not a justification. This very quickly becomes circular.
I have asked myself this question for awhile, and I really do finally understand. His perfect plan at times, includes times of hardship, and we can't see the end of the tunnel, but if we let him, he will always guide us through. Great message!
To remember who is in control when you are going through hardship what is the first thing you do you do not look down do you "you look up" to who?to he who is in control and can sort things out for you.That makes you remember who your lord is dose"nt it.
The love for Jesus Christ is proportionated to how you witness Christ in your life demonstrated in Vince Vitale and many other Godly man throughout the history of mankind.
I would go along with much of what Vitale says, but his response to the problem of suffering seems plainly inadequate. Once God has made us out of love and then sees our suffering, couldn't he _then_ stop that suffering without threat to _our_ identity?
There's something deeper, also. If my existence has depended (as it has done) on the entire history of the world being precisely what it is (including all its misery and suffering) can it be right for _me_ to think that _I_ am worth such cost? Moreover, if future (I suppose to _us_) particular people's lives depend on our suffering, and an even lengthier history of suffering, should _they_ ever think, "_We_ are worth it"? We may accept that God loves us and take ourselves to have good reason for such belief, but that fact (just assuming that it to be one) does not licence _our_ having such a monumental estimation of our own worth.
Another thing: that Christ himself suffers alongside us is, of course, hugely significant, but it does not seem to me to justify terrible suffering. Take an innocent child dying slowly from starvation with no one to help. Can Christ's suffering alongside us really justify or give any possible satisfactory placement to the idea of God's not simply stopping such suffering? I don't think so and I certainly _hope_ not.
I am a Christian, _and_ a philosopher, but I don't like this smiling evangelical theodicy. I would far sooner (and _do_) just admit that I have no adequate answer. Indeed, I think I _must_ have no answer. Pretending that one does is to create, I think, deep hurt. It is to fail adequately to acknowledge the depth of things. It is to pretend that we _can_ figure out God's laying the foundations of the world.
Of course, none of this entirely defeats our _other_ good reasons for believing in the reality of (a good) God. It's just that we _ought_ to be baffled by the existence of certain kinds of suffering given that we believe in the existence of the God of Christianity.
I agree with your primary objection, which seems to be that *any* human answer to the problem of suffering is inadequate. When people are suffering - you might even say to the degree to which they are suffering - is directly related to the inadequacy of the answer. This is very clearly a Biblical position, as it was in the book of Job.
It is also, though, a very different response than to say that there *is* no answer - so the various attempts to reason with God - are as Biblical as anything. Actually, when God asks us to reason with him in Isaiah 1:18 (Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.) it's about His most unreasonable claim - just that what is irreparably damaged will be made whole, complete, entire, untainted, unspoiled. As if it never occurred. Can I ask you if that, in God's eyes, is reasonable - doesn't that by itself completely prove that ALL of our explanations in some critical away inadequate?
However, your secondary description, the "something deeper", seems to me an overreach. Can it be right for me to think that I am worth the cost of all the suffering that has ever happened?Of course not. Nowhere in the Bible are we asked to have such a noble vision of ourselves. Vince is simply saying not that we are worth it, but just that it wouldn't be us. Not justifying, simply clarifying God's non-negotiable terms - you are you because the world is as it is. Not that we are worth it. Not that the world has to be this way. But we are us, the world is this way, and that's the terms on which He came to our world, and comes to us in our lives.
God Himself presented this very argument - in His way - at the end of Job. Asking Job dozens of unanswerable questions to silence his miserable "comforters." All Job needed was to experience Him - what other answer could possibly be adequate?
Isn't this the very meaning of grace? Isn't this why it's so absolutely laughable that we could possibly be so valuable as to merit the even momentary suffering of even *one* innocent? Isn't this why Christianity's key claim - that the ONE person who bore no responsibility is the very one who *asked to accept it*. Not my will (not me, as the Son of God, the most perfect human who ever lived, not my will, but yours be done).
So in that respect I think of course we must have no answer - so we agree, but what I disagree with you is that the efforts to understand our God's will is to create great hurt. Much of the Psalms is composed by David, in the midst of tremendous suffering, in that deliberate effort. Our Christ also spent much of his ministry "justifying" suffering. Did they truly do what you are charging them with?
I too struggle daily with the inadequacy of my reasons for his actions. But I do admire those who commit their lives to providing a defense of their faith, which necessarily includes a defense of faith as a reasonable path in a vicious world filled with countless events of pain, cruelty, and vast horror.
Christ's response to the fall of a tower killing many workmen was simply - did He make them sin?
If our answer is no, than that is the only thing we should really concern ourselves with - the only thing that is beyond His control - willful sin - and that can only happen through the means he provided, Christ.
I respect your disagreement, but I think it's based on an inadequate understanding of God's love (which I share), rather than the inadequacy of Vince's approach.
Joshua
Hello Joshua,
What a wonderful and thoughtful response you give. It will take some thought to go through your points but I shall get back to you.
You offer Vitale a defence by pointing out that he is not insisting that we should think ourselves as ‘worth it’ (all the past suffering of the world that has, after a long series of cause and effect, resulted in us) but is simply saying that, had history been different, then we wouldn’t exist. There may well be others who exist in our stead but they would not be us.
I entirely accept Vitale’s thesis regarding individual human identity, and it is indeed an interesting, even sobering thought that the entire history of the world had to be precisely what it was for we specific individuals to exist. Beyond our doubtless need to be reminded of this stunning fact of our contingency however, there seems to be little point in Vitale’s thesis in the context of the video if he _isn’t_ attempting to use it as a way of squaring the existence of the entirely good God of Christianity with suffering. I wouldn’t want to get the man wrong but the idea at play here at least _seems_ to be that God so wanted the existence of you and I (and others who happen to inhabit the world) so badly that this want does justifify the sheer awfulness of what was required to bring it about. But isn’t that just what _we_ shouldn’t think? I do not doubt that God, in some sense, has his reasons. I am sure, however, that we must not think that _we_ can figure them out - not entirely at least and certainly not beyond the point of recognizing the rather inscrutable nature of God’s love. Vitale’s presentation, however, seemed to be precisely an attempt to go beyond this boundary.
I suppose I accept much of the rest of what you say. I, too, admire those who commit their lives to providing a defense of their faith. I agree that it is Christianity's key claim that the one person who bore no responsibility [for all the evil] is the very one who asked to accept pain for it. I accept that this act has deep connections with our salvation. It is hard to see, though, what difference these matters make to the central point at play here. Once we have admitted, as you and I do, that it is “absolutely laughable that we could possibly be so valuable as to merit even the momentary suffering of even one innocent”, then the problem remains does it not? Whatever it is that makes you and I that valuable after all (if it is _true_ that we are) really must be beyond our ken and Vitale’s thesis about the conditions of our identity cannot bring it within our ken. In fact, I am inclined to think that Vitale’s identity thesis, even though true, is a red herring with respect to the problem of evil.
This is one big tautology. If things were different, then things would be different. If humans didn't suffer then humans wouldn't be changed by suffering. This is a logical consequence not a justification. This very quickly becomes circular.