>There is no argument here to refute; the entire case is premised upon an inane anthropomorphism- abstracted from any living system of belief- that reduces God to a finite ethical agent...whose purposes are measurable upon the same scale as ours, and whose ultimate ends for his creatures do not transcend the cosmos as we perceive it. This is not to say that it is an argument without considerable emotional and even moral force; but of logical force there is none.
Is he right, brahs?
>le child rape and torture is actually GOOD on a cosmic, divine scale that we simply can't comprehend
yes, he's spot on
Utter trash
god works in le mysterious ways :))))
why
you just can't appreciate the beauty and design of ringworm, infant leukemia, and bread that goes moldy before you've finished it.
>All these emotional responses
What did you expect? Atheism is a revolt.
>evil doesn't exist
no shit
...Until you make it exist.
Atheism is evil. Atheists are evil. They try to project the evil inside themselves onto the universe and onto God. But they know in their hearts that they will be Judged. They know that even if there were no Hell (there is) that they'd still deserve to go there. Their atheism is ultimately wishful thinking, a coping mechanism in the form of a denial. This ego defense mechanism is evidently ineffective since none of them seem very comfortable. They're all obsessed with attacking God and His followers and sinning as much as they can. This is not the behavior patters of people at ease. Thank God that atheism is evolutionary maladaptive. Atheists don't reproduce. They're incapable of having or raising children, at least in any way that would make their offspring reproductively viable (hard to raise a family when your parents brainwashed you to cut your own dick off). Atheism is essentially a form of sterilization, a removal from the gene pool. Populations that adopt atheism are doomed to extinction and replacement by religious populations. This is ironic because they claim to be so into Darwin. Atheism runs counter to evolution. It is itself a maladaptive trait that reduces reproductive fitness and nature selects against it. God works in hilarious ways. In summay: fuck gaytheists.
There's no such thing as eternal hell. I investigated the matter initiatically.
He doesn’t imply that those things are good. He’s regaining the idea that those evils are incomparable to the eternal glory of God. I don’t blame you for misreading him, he’s a pseud who gets a lot of press because he’s a border-line heretic.
*rehashing
read the first few pages of beyond good and evil
Read Psalm 14, faggot.
Hart is a pompous buffon who is better at writing bloated quasi-philosophical prose than doing any sort of actual philosophy. Also, stop reading First Things if that is where you picked up on this hack, it was a once great publication now ruined by editors who pander to idiots and pseuds.
It's a fantastic publication now and Hart doesn't write often for it thankfully. They went from wishy wasy ecumenism to trad Catholicism which is excellent. Hart does suck tho.
the problem is is that we only care about deities which may interact with us in some ways - none fear the pantheon anymore - if the ends transcend the cosmos as we perceive it, by their very transcendence no worldly means can effect them. Thus this is sophistry, to be expected by a man who chooses to constrict his neck with a tight collar every day, since we should, in the best case, have both no evil and the transcendental aims achieve, as they are independent
OP here. Actually I got this quote from a book called The Crucifixion by Fleming Rutledge. Not sure how I feel about this book.
how is he a 'pseud'?
>yes, he's spot on
this but unironically
This kind of thinking leads to total skepticism when you do any moral evaluation.
Imagine you find someone on the side of the road, clearly in distress. You might think "I should help him!". But why do you think that? Might it not be the case that God is using that person suffering to create a great plan which results in supreme goodness and you, by helping him, are throwing God's plans in the air? If we really accept that evil is just some way for God to bring about good, then any moral evaluation has to bear this in mind, and it has to impact our decision to act.
In other words, this is yet another weak refutation of the evidential problem of evil that fails because of the weak epistemology it appeals to.
But the whole idea with Christianity is that the Bible is the Word of God, and God tells you what to do in that situation.
>But the whole idea with Christianity
First of all, we're talking about theism in general, not christianity.
Anyway, christianity doesn't solve the issue: the bible doesn't contain every single situation possible, and anytime it prescribed generalized principles it is subjected to interpretation, which means we're back at square one: in a world were every single evil thing can actually be part of a plan for greater good, we ought to become paralyzed moral agents.
He puts himself forward as an Orthodox theologian, yet places his opinions above the teachings of the Church, like he's just this brilliant guy that the Church needs to catch up with.
Ayy, I'm reading this book right now. That's what he says in the beginning of the book, but I'm fairly certain he goes on to explain things in further detail later.
>castigates other people for evil
>tries to direct someone toward divine good
>calls him a faggot in the process
Christians are always failing. Fail fail fail. Especially Veeky Forums Christians. They just can't stop themselves.
that's asinine. is he just denying the existence of evil at all?