NationStates Jolt Archive


God and Suffering

Justifidians
31-01-2005, 23:47
i posted this in the non-believers thread, but ill post it here too.

"Three philosophers are seated in a plane. The first man said that he heard that during the early hours of the night, hijackers took over the controls. As he spoke, the plane lunged to the left and thrust a number of passengers against the wall, seriously injuring some of them.

After the second man gained his composure, he said, “Because of what just happened, I don’t believe that this plane was ever made.” Even though his statement didn’t make sense, he continued to maintain that the entire plane, with its seats, windows, lighting, air conditioning, engines, etc., happened by accident.

As the third philosopher began to give his thoughts, the plane again lunged to one side. This time it was so violent that many passengers were seriously injured and two elderly people were killed. He was obviously shaken, but was able to share his thoughts about what had happened. He said that despite what was happening on the plane, he thought all was well in the cockpit.
It was then that someone quickly passed a hand-written note to the first man. It read, “Hijackers! All to be thrust out of the plane. Parachute under seat. Put it on now. Going to cut the lighting. Be ready to jump!” As he read its words, his eyes widened. This confirmed that something was radically wrong. He quickly reached under his seat and put the parachute on, and then passed the note on to the second philosopher.

The second man read the words on the note. He smiled said, “This note hasn’t used correct grammar. “Parachute under seat” isn’t even a complete sentence…” With that, he crumpled the note and dropped it to the floor.
The third man, still shaken by what had happened on the plane, picked up the note and read it. He said, “It sure looks authentic. It does have the airline’s letterhead. What’s happening on the plane does add up to something being radically wrong…I think I now believe there is something wrong.” However, he then sat in his seat, not bothering to put his parachute on, or even to pass the note on to others!

The first passenger is a genuine convert. He understands that the issue of suffering--disease, pain and death shows that something is radically wrong between God and man. His knowledge of the jump that he must take through the door of death causes him to trust in the Savior.

The second man is an atheist. He uses the issue of suffering to somehow make an illogical leap into the philosophy that there is no God. The thought that the whole of creation, with its flowers, its birds, the sun, the moon, the animal kingdom, the beauty of the seasons, the incredible variety of succulent fruit trees, etc., all happened by accident. He exalts himself above the mind of his Creator, and condescendingly becomes a critic of the Word of God. He maintains it is full of errors and therefore can’t be trusted.

The third man is an average person. He believes in God. He even believes the Bible. He is easily convinced that something may be wrong between man and God…but he doesn’t see his urgent need to put on the Lord Jesus Christ. How do we awaken these two men?

For the answer, let’s go back to the plane. The first man simply needs to tell the other two philosophers to look out of the window for a moment, and to think about the 25,000-foot fall. Their knowledge of the unbending law of gravity should kick in, and from there common sense should do the rest. It should cause both men to look under their seat for the parachute.

The issue of suffering is not something the Christian should avoid. It is glaring evidence that man has rejected God—all is not well on board the flight. It works for our cause, not against it. All these things—pain, disease, droughts, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc.—should cause the thinking person to investigate the claims of the “note” of God’s Word, and see its explanation."
Thelona
01-02-2005, 00:20
Interesting parable. That doesn't make your belief any more or less true, though.
Incenjucarania
01-02-2005, 00:25
1) I find it vastly amusing that you equate God with Terrorists

2) There was no claim that there are "All-loving, all-benevolent, all-knowing, all-powerful" terrorists at the helm.

3) You can see hijackers, you can touch them, and everything they do can be explained without faith being involved.

4) There is no magic involved in hijacking, last I checked.

5) There is no large body of evidence that proves hijacking notes to be in vast error when they state what they're doing (Of course, WHY they're doing it is often more religious mumbo jumbo)
Gnostikos
01-02-2005, 00:26
Ha! Though I can see how that was contrived, there are so many logical fallacies that make it less analogous, and more pseudo-analogous. The reality is that all three of the philsophers are fools! One is gullible, one is overly skeptical, and one is just an idiot. The solution is individuality! Do not be another sheep in the flock, remove yourself from the flock. Become the shepard if you see that to be fit.

Though, truthfully, all three philosophers and the plane they are on are just all slight ripples on a pool of water.
Vegas-Rex
01-02-2005, 00:40
Hmm... I could just as easily define the one who gets the message as a militant atheist. The crashing plane is Christianity.
Using your symbolism, though, there are other problems. If there's something radically wrong, why don't Christians realize its their God? He HATES everyone!!! In the example, he is driving plane into the tower. If the guy parachutes from that high into traffic, he'll die too!
If God isn't exacltly evil then at least he has no clue what he's doing, like in Memnoch the Devil by Anne Rice.
Clonetopia
01-02-2005, 00:40
This thread is one of the weaker anti-atheist arguments, and that's saying something.

Also, my atheism does not depend on any "God would not allow suffering" argument, but even if it did, the post would not have defeated it".
Kisogo
01-02-2005, 00:51
Actually, uh, that doesn't make any sense.
Arenestho
01-02-2005, 01:12
That confused me and hasn't converted me. To me it was simply babbling about how God is exacting his revenge and we should just take it in the ass. The other two were exagerated and stereotypically stupid.

Here is a more likely scenario:
The atheist, assured that there is no God and that the plane is now going to be used as a weapon, he realizes that unless he jumps his death is assured. He grabs a parachute and prepares to jump.

The genuine convert pulls out a pocket Bible and depends we all repent, for if we do the plane will be saved. Everyone ignores him in an attempt to make sure they live. Assured that God will save him he stays in the plane. He later dies in a ball of fire as the plane hits the target.

The Christian prefers to keep alive by secular methods than depend completely on God, taking the initiative for his own life he joins the atheist in jumping. Later thanking God for keeping him alive during the jump and giving him the courage to jump, probably now going to Church every Sunday.
Cyrian space
01-02-2005, 01:15
The problem with these arguments is that they affectively state that something lays outside of God's control, and he is trying to save us from it. Supposedly, if he so chose, God could end all suffering. And yet he does not. Why?

note that God in the metaphor of this is not only the maker of the plane, but the hijackers.

Also, the note is not written by the makers of the plane. It is written by the men in front of these three philosophers.

Suffering is not proof that the universe has no creater, but it is significant evidence against a *BENEVOLENT* creator.
Bottle
01-02-2005, 01:16
wow, that has to be one of the worst efforts i have ever encountered. virtually every intended parallel is critically flawed. also, it's not very well composed, and structurally it is difficult to follow; you might want to try naming the man, for clarity, and trying to restructure some of the paragraphs to make it more readable.

oh, and just FYI, i'm not an atheist. so don't think my criticism is the result of hurt feelings or any such thing :).
Peechland
01-02-2005, 01:31
wow, that has to be one of the worst efforts i have ever encountered. virtually every intended parallel is critically flawed. also, it's not very well composed, and structurally it is difficult to follow; you might want to try naming the man, for clarity, and trying to restructure some of the paragraphs to make it more readable.

oh, and just FYI, i'm not an atheist. so don't think my criticism is the result of hurt feelings or any such thing :).

No doubt.....

I think I will stick to our other thread where we were accused of being mad that mommy wouldnt buy us candy ......or some crap like that.
Clonetopia
01-02-2005, 01:34
No doubt.....

I think I will stick to our other thread where we were accused of being mad that mommy wouldnt buy us candy ......or some crap like that.

Gweh?
Wong Cock
01-02-2005, 01:38
Interesting. But strange conclusions.

The first one is an Atheist. He observes and based on experience and knowledge draws a conclusion – that jumping is less risky than staying.
The second one is a manager. He sees just the packing (grammar), not the content. And like he dismissed Einstein who has the wrong tie or because he doesn’t understand him he dismisses the message.
The third one is the avarage person. He learns of something, maybe draws a conclusion but does nothing, just trusts in God.
Peechland
01-02-2005, 01:41
Gweh?


inside joke.....you had to be there.....sorry
Clonetopia
01-02-2005, 01:44
inside joke.....you had to be there.....sorry

No need to apologize.
Peechland
01-02-2005, 01:47
No need to apologize.

this one:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=392864

join in on that one if you like!