One repeating theme on this site is that invoking theodicy is some kind of theism-destroying silver bullet.
Not to nitpick, but the argument in question is actually the problem of evil. A theodicy is an attempt to respond to that problem. Just sayin'.
Metaphorically? In pieces?
Part of the problem with this approach, I think, is the question of why a putatively perfect being would use such an imperfect book to tell us of its existence. Christians would have us believe that God wants us to know about him and Jesus and how to be saved and all, and yet the book that's supposed to teach us about that is so remarkably open to interpretation. A good human philosopher or writer will take great pains to be as clear as possible if they are trying to make a point that they want everyone to understand, and yet a deity doesn't do that?
Edit: Oh yeah, and it raises the question of which parts we are supposed to take metaphorically. Genesis? Okay. The virgin birth, Jesus' miracles, including his death and resurrection? I don't see how any of those are saner than Genesis, and yet taking them symbolically would pretty much undermine the entire religion.
Which I think is a tiresome question based in an unnecessarily self-contradictory definition of God.
Well, it's easy for you because you don't believe in the Bible. Most Christians aren't nearly as willing to say that God isn't all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful. For them, the problem of evil (particularly the evidential variant) is indeed a serious problem, one that - I think - is insoluble.
Bear in mind that the author is writing for a specific audience: Christians. Obviously, objections to Christianity aren't necessarily going to apply to your religion. Moreover, he probably wouldn't care about that anyway, because Wiccans aren't causing the problems that Abrahamic folks are.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chiming
no subject
Date: 2008-04-03 02:16 am (UTC)From:Not to nitpick, but the argument in question is actually the problem of evil. A theodicy is an attempt to respond to that problem. Just sayin'.
Metaphorically? In pieces?
Part of the problem with this approach, I think, is the question of why a putatively perfect being would use such an imperfect book to tell us of its existence. Christians would have us believe that God wants us to know about him and Jesus and how to be saved and all, and yet the book that's supposed to teach us about that is so remarkably open to interpretation. A good human philosopher or writer will take great pains to be as clear as possible if they are trying to make a point that they want everyone to understand, and yet a deity doesn't do that?
Edit: Oh yeah, and it raises the question of which parts we are supposed to take metaphorically. Genesis? Okay. The virgin birth, Jesus' miracles, including his death and resurrection? I don't see how any of those are saner than Genesis, and yet taking them symbolically would pretty much undermine the entire religion.
Which I think is a tiresome question based in an unnecessarily self-contradictory definition of God.
Well, it's easy for you because you don't believe in the Bible. Most Christians aren't nearly as willing to say that God isn't all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful. For them, the problem of evil (particularly the evidential variant) is indeed a serious problem, one that - I think - is insoluble.
Bear in mind that the author is writing for a specific audience: Christians. Obviously, objections to Christianity aren't necessarily going to apply to your religion. Moreover, he probably wouldn't care about that anyway, because Wiccans aren't causing the problems that Abrahamic folks are.