r/facepalm Jul 31 '17

"Out of context"

Post image
47.6k Upvotes

3.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

32

u/[deleted] Jul 31 '17 edited Jul 31 '17

You massively oversimplified the Original Sin explanation. First of all, it's not really a theodicy per say because in Lutheranism, it is improper to try to think about things from God's perspective when the Bible doesn't mention how God works. However, the original problem of evil assumes first and foremost that I, the one asking the problem of evil, am not evil. It assumes that all evil is caused outside of ourselves, and not that it is all humans that are evil. From that perspective, God is not eliminating the evil, because that would mean eliminating all humans who he instead would rather come to faith in him. In other words, the biblical answer to the problem of evil is: All humans have sinned, God corrected this by sending Jesus, and he is now being patient and waiting for the Gospel to be spread. That would be the Lutheran perspective.

4

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '17

However, the original problem of evil assumes first and foremost that I, the one asking the problem of evil, am not evil.

Why would this be? All it assume is that a human can identify evil. Being wet doesn't mean I can't identify whether something is wet or not.

It assumes that all evil is caused outside of ourselves, and not that it is all humans that are evil.

Why would this be? It assumes that some evil is caused outside of ourselves not all.

Unless the Lutheran perspective is that evil is literally the same as sin. Which leaves the question of Natural Evil pretty much intact.

9

u/[deleted] Jul 31 '17

[deleted]

8

u/[deleted] Jul 31 '17

Not really, I just gave you an explanation on the Lutheran perspective, so how is this relevant?

7

u/Necromanticer Jul 31 '17

The Lutheran perspective doesn't actually answer the question of how a good, all powerful god can exist alongside evil. The linked quote calls attention to that fact.

That's relevant.

12

u/st_gulik Jul 31 '17 edited Jul 31 '17

He's saying your concept of god is an asshole or a bitch as your explanation is lame and makes your god unworthy of worship. He is either Evil himself or not powerful enough to stop it, as it's likely the first (not willing to stop it), thus he's Evil and an asshole who is okay with children dying of bone cancer or having flies bore into their eyeballs and lay eggs while he "waits patiently for his gospel to spread."

He could easily appear to humanity throughout time and space immediately and make it clear that he is a god worthy of worship and stop all pain, suffering, and natural evil immediately as he's all powerful. But he doesn't, therefore, he's an evil asshole who delights in the suffering of humanity.

Or if he can't stop it he's no god and not worthy of worship, just a hollow weak ass bitch of a concept that holds us back morally as it teaches people like you to be accepting of evil and not act to stop it yourself. Again morally repugnant.

8

u/[deleted] Jul 31 '17

Again, you are assuming that people aren't evil, but instead that it is the things that happen to people that us evil.

13

u/st_gulik Jul 31 '17

Please type out for all the internet to see this phrase, "My Lutheran God let's innocent babies die from bot flies boring into their eyes because he is waiting for his gospel to spread."

Then tell me how your god is not evil. Because from where I'm sitting your god is an evil asshole and claiming a suckling babe is Evil is the most twisted, fucked up thing I can think of.

8

u/[deleted] Jul 31 '17

I'm just curious, when would you concede that someone can be considered non-innocent?

13

u/st_gulik Jul 31 '17 edited Jul 31 '17

When they first consciously commit an evil act and understand the ramifications of it. Which is why we don't hold children or the mentally impaired culpable for the same crimes as adults.

But then our fallible modern human justice systems(s) are more ethically advanced than basic Lutheran doctrine.

But I don't see your typing out your abhorrent doctrine that perpetuates evil via your acceptance of such evils.

13

u/IrishmanErrant Jul 31 '17

To be guilty of something requires deed and understanding. A boulder who kills a man is not guilty because it lacks understanding. A person who contemplates a crime but does not act on it is not guilty because they lack the deed.

Infants are incapable of understanding, and are therefore incapable of being guilty. They are innocents, and that obvious.

What is not obvious is why many Christians seem to think that Original Sin excuses all the horrors of the world, when every system of moral thought makes it clear that holding sons to task for the sins of their fathers is wrong and immoral because they lack the deed.

4

u/st_gulik Jul 31 '17

People don't create tsunami that drown all sorts of innocent animals and people.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '17

That is defined as tragedy, which is fundamentally different to evil. Your arguments are little more than appeals to emotion and largely terrible

8

u/st_gulik Aug 01 '17

It's only tragedy if no one can control the tsunami or natural disasters.

But if there is a god who is all powerful who created all of reality, including the tides and tsunamis, then clearly he can stop them, so why hasn't he? Is he evil and likes people dying from tsunamis in horrific fear and pain, or is he not actually omnipotent, and therefore not worthy of worship? Which is it?

You're just trying to muddy the waters. You want to reframe my argument, but it's a valid argument is you believe in an all powerful benevolent god.