In about 300 B.C., Epicurus eloquently summed up the problem of the existence of evil. It has come to be known as the Riddle of Epicurus or the Epicurean paradox. It was translated by David Hume in the Dialogues concerning Natural Religion:
If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
Then He is not omnipotent.If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?If He is neither able nor willing
Then why call Him God?
Dearest Christians,
I love you all so much. You cling to the traditions of thousands of years of evolution-based religion. I propose a riddle, my dearest:
God loves all man, indeed?
God controls the universe…quite?
God is a jealous God, and those who don’t acknowledge him are cast to hell…very well…
And if God controls the world, why are there those who aren’t aware of it? If he loves all man, why does he hide himself from those so…’unfortunate’ as to not have individuals like you shoving your pious dogma down their throat. If he casts those who do not acknowledge him into hell, why would he willingly create-for, as you know, he controls everything-souls manifest, solely to condemn them to eternal punishment? You claim he is a loving father. All I see is an abusive drunk.
-Silence
Because he gave humans something he didn’t give the angels…Free will. I’m not a christian, though i do believe Jesus existed and that there is a God. Talking to the ‘real’ Christians I’ve learned that the belief is that only the most wicked will go to hell, and that even when they go to hell they still have a chance to redeem themselves through atonement and by the prayers of the living. Its not supposed to be eternal damnation nor are they supposed to be condemned there by God. As for myself, i don’t believe in hell, i think you just go to purgatory until you purge yourself of your grief for your sins
Re: free will & angels, there was (apparently) the small matter of Lucifer’s rebellion. Also, or so it is written, rejecting the Holy Ghost is an unpardonable offence.
Can’t ever tell from the Happy Nihilist if the Bible is entirely just allegorical or if there is anything real in it at all.
If we are dealing with something that is truly infinite than even the greatest of human minds is utterly incapable of even beginning to contemplate the enormity of what is proffered therein.
Thinking that God is jealous is silliness.
The necessity of knowing about God is man-made.
God does not judge…ever.
The difficulty for most who wish to deny the existence of a Creative Source (that thing people call God), along with their denial of responsibility (to themselves), for uplifted behavior and the state of this reality, is found more directly in the fact that they disbelieve in what they think God is.
We, all too often, default to judgment as opposed to accepting something that is not life-threatening and then moving on.
Best of luck with your judgment.
Thee Dave Moore
That about states it as clearly as I’ve seen it put in this discussion, except for the denial that God does not judge.
God simply does not judge as we suppose we would judge if we were somehow to delude ourselves into believing we had the right or authority to do so.
Ergo Sodom & Gommorah.
Sodom and Gommorah’s sin was open and rampant spiriiutally and physically abusive behavior towards anyone of any gender that dared to resist public humiliation by thinking they had a right to judge what was best for themselves. Anykind of “gang rape” is about as deplorable a lifestyle as a society could possibly condone. The leaders of these cities not only looked the other way but participated in the indoctrination.
If this doesn’t strike you as being “evil” incarnate what else would?
Their children were being raised through forced on the job training to perpetuate this type of lifestyle. How would you propose to re-educate their masses?
And God judged them just like “we suppose we would judge if we were somehow to delude ourselves into believing we had the right or authority to do so,” didn’t He…
God does not judge like some random fickle sociologically based consensus of the “good” righteous people versus the “evil” rotten sinners.
God views us all as sinners, including Lot who was numbered as part of Sodom’s leaders. God provided a means for Lot to find escape and pardon but that doesn’t mean he was biased towards Lot and against the other sinners for some wacky perverse reason.
God’s judgements always include the potential for redemption for those with the faith to believe redemption is possible.
However, why would anyone wish for redemption if they never believed there was even a need for it?
Satan will not come to the realization that God’s offer of pardon and redemption could apply to him, thus he will forever be the embodiment of the spirit of the sinners that believe that God is unjust and just as evil or even more evil then they are.
Ya, those darned sociologically based consensuses, they’re so abominably human.
“Their children were being raised through forced on the job training to perpetuate this type of lifestyle. How would you propose to re-educate their masses?”
Ya, burn the li’l buggers, yer right … nuke the lot of ’em. What else is an omnimax deity to do! Yell reeeeaaallly loud at them or something? Send down angelic counsellors? Naw, that’d just be absurd.
Boy Karl, you sure know a lot about God! He doesn’t rely on wacky, perverse reasons? Yet he creates as his hobby a hopeless troop of sinner-apes and toys with them through a cryptic game of redemption roulette. But you seem to know the inner-workings of this God fella’s mind much more intimately than mere ol’ me. Guess I’ll just have to take your word for it, huh…
Don’t take it on my word. I’m not the one claiming to have the ability to use rationalizations to make supposed informed judgements that impune evil to God, Satan is the one doing that.
You seem to have a desire to take the word of a known fabricator of lies as your means of decision making. That is of course your right to do so.
No, you got me all wrong, Karl. I’m claiming to have “the ability to use rationalizations to make supposed informed judgements” which put into question the whole durn fairy tale.
FYI: Satan and I haven’t been on speaking terms since, well, ever… but put in a word forme next time he whispers in your ear.
So when was the last time you were on speaking terms with Satan?
Was it the last time you believed the “fairy tale?”
This would mean Satan stopped whispering to you when you finally just agreed that God couldn’t exist so you were at that point pretty much in strong agreement with the message, whether or not you hear the messenger currently or not.
A messenger’s words do not have to be repeated every day for them to be capable of accomplishing their purpose of trapping the mind of a person so that their spirit pretty much just is kept in captivity to what their thoughts tell them are the facts or fiction about a matter.
Satan has no need to be on speaking terms with you currently because you have pretty much just believed the lies that made his point to your thought process, this is the way your mind rationalizes reality.
Two thousand years ago a child was born in Bethlehem of Judea that was to be an offense to those who deny the purpose behind His birth, life, death, and ressurection. But to those who trust in the purpose behind his birth, life, death and ressurection he was the source of redemption and reconciliation of men both to God and each other.
But alas, that was all just once upon a time as well.
However, it is very well documented by eyewitnesses that the world has been around for umpteen billion years. Once upon a time umpteen billion years ago life as a simple cell somehow happened and now the evolved apes finally figured it all out for themselves.
You happen to believe a different “tale” than I do, and that fairy tale to me is one that has little if any actual historical proof at all. Its obvious to me, but not to you that given enough influence in a person’s life a limited perspective blocks out serious consideration of other potential realities.
I lose nothing by believing in the possibility of a creator God who has a purpose for people beyond random existence. You can say I lose my credibility with atheistic naturalistic scientists that are convinced the fairy tale is pointless to pursue, but then that’s a choice myriads have made in the past and one myriads will continue to make into the future, dispite the rationalizations of atheists.
“So when was the last time you were on speaking terms with Satan?
Was it the last time you believed the “fairy tale?” ”
Ya, no, I truly and dearly waited to hear them thar voices in my head, but they never came… I even earnestly tried to believe my own thoughts might be from some divine disembodiment or other, but frankly, while I could intellectually understand how someone might convince themselves of such, for myself I just couldn’t pull that trick emotionally… it clearly sang of self-deception.
But you’re right about the “tales” thing. And, if you’re actually going to the trouble of basing a belief system on them, the important thing to know about tales is that you first read lots of them. Then you have a comparative basis upon which to conceive what it is you’re actually reading.
Have you read many other “tales”, Karl? Here’s one you might find interesting…
The Buddhist Creation Myth (from PRIMAL MYTHS: Creation Myths Around the World, Barbara C. Sproul ed., Harper Collins, 1991, pp. 194-5). NOTE: I’ve replaced “Brahma” with “Yahweh” for your reading pleasure:
“There are some monks and priests who declare as a doctrine received from their teachers that the beginning of all things was the work of the god Yahweh. I have gone and asked them whether it was true that they maintained such a doctrine, and they have replied that it was; but when I have asked them to explain just how the beginning of things was the work of the god Yahweh they have not been able to answer, and have returned the question to me. Then I have explained it to them thus:
“There comes a time, my friends, sooner or later, …when the world is dissolved and beings are mostly reborn in the World of Radiance. There they dwell, made of the stuff of mind, feeding on joy, shining in their own light, flying through middle space, firm in their bliss for a long, long time.
“Now there comes a time when this world begins to evolve, and then the World of Yahweh appears, but it is empty. And some being, whether because his allotted span is past or because his merit is exhausted, quits his body in the World of Radiance, and is born in the empty World of Yahweh, where he dwells for a long, long time. Now because he has been so long alone he begins to feel dissatisfaction and longing, and wishes that other beings might come and live with him. And indeed soon other beings quit their bodies in the World of Radiance and come to keep him company in the World of Yahweh.
“Then the being who was born first there thinks: ‘I am Yahweh, the mighty Yahweh, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-seeing, the Lord, the Maker, the Creator, the Supreme Chief, the Disposer, the Controller, the Father of all that is or is to be. I have created all these beings, for I merely wished that they might be and they have come here!’ And the other beings… think the same, because he was born first and they later. And the being who was born first lived longer and was more handsome and powerful than the others.
“And it might well be that some being would quit his body there and be reborn in this world. He might then give up his home for the homeless life; and in his ardor, striving, intentness, earnestness, and keenness of thought, he might attain such a stage of meditation that with the collected mind he might recall his former birth, but not what went before. Thus he might think: ‘We were created by Yahweh, eternal, firm everlasting, and unchanging, who will remain so for ever and ever, while we who were created by the lord Yahweh…are transient, unstable, short-lived, and destined to pass away.’
“That is how your traditional doctrine comes about that the beginning of things was the work of the god Yahweh.”
Such, of course, provides an excellent resolution to Epicurus’s paradox.
I have read many stories concerning creation that have no physical flesh and blood human eyewitnesses. It would be kind of whimsical for anyone simply flesh and blood to have the audacity to say I was there and have the inside scoop. Even more foolish to think I can extract a definitive answer concerning the record of life on planet earth by assuming tremendous lengths of time so that nothing can be connected from one million year time period to the next. All of these stories come down to which tradition is most clearly the least paradoxical to the individual in terms of one’s beliefs concerning the origins and nature of physical existence.
I don’t know why you even try to discuss such things because you clearly have only one deisre which is to remove anything which you find paradoxical by denying the need to even consider from whence we have come and to whence we go. You can think life began and has evolved for some random chance reasons, but that doesn’t work for me.
I have also read and considered many written accounts of a great flood that ravaged and changed the earth in ways we can only indirectly imagine. The account I believe in this regard is indeed the one with the least paradoxical actual human eyewitness account of what happened before, during, and after this event as this would be the only verifyable avenue for passing down these human records concerning human life both before and after this flood event.
When a naturalist can admit to themselves why they have little deisre to actually connect real dots in real time I’ll reconsider what they have to say about imaginary dots in a potential imaginary timeframe.
For such a witty little riddle, seems some what of a cowardly act to single out Christians. Tell me, (with disregard to the sub-atomic level) which came first, the chicken or the egg, Mr. Riddles?
The idea of “poor” includes both the ideals of good and evil when one judges from a temporal point of view. This is because one can view one’s choices as either a step wise progression towards or away from a permanent relationship with God.
From a sin filled temporal framework “poor” is indeed relative when compared to others and even to your own past ideas and actions. But to remain remain +poor in spirit one should acknowledges that what may have once been recognized a fairly good choice may be a poor one if one persists in making the same choice everytime one is confronted with similar options. If one becomes content that you have fully “arrived” in the sense that your past choices and actions are “good enough” – you are not poor in spirit, but rather full of pride in yourself and prejudice against God.
Lets see, If I were to believe God was either unreal or not good I would of course look for ways to confirm my bias. In addition I would try to weave my way through any discussion concerning these issues by down playing or ignoring matters of the spirit.
So why do you try to quote scripture as if it means anything to you? Yes, blessed are the meek for shall inherit the earth and blessed are the poor in spirit for they shall see God. From these examples “poor in spirit” means something to you, but I doubt it means anything more than a willful discrediting of something you believe you never have to deal with in terms of actualities.
Hey Karl,
“The idea of “poor” includes both the ideals of good and evil when one judges from a temporal point of view. This is because one can view one’s choices as either a step wise progression towards or away from a permanent relationship with God.”
It is also because poverty is a concept invested with moral import, which plays on our minds with questions of judgement, guilt, and shame. If we are not poor, we are not to blame, and therefore we are deserving. Yes, I am using a sarcastic tone.
“From a sin filled temporal framework “poor” is indeed relative when compared to others and even to your own past ideas and actions.”
But from a virtue-filled temporal framework, I take it, it isn’t.
“But to remain remain +poor in spirit one should acknowledges that what may have once been recognized a fairly good choice may be a poor one if one persists in making the same choice everytime one is confronted with similar options.”
I assume you take your own advice to heart.
“If one becomes content that you have fully “arrived” in the sense that your past choices and actions are “good enough” – you are not poor in spirit, but rather full of pride in yourself and prejudice against God.”
So, you’d accordingly agree that it is technically, albeit very distantly, possible that you, too, have fundamentally mistaken the nature of God, and that the direction of your “arrival” thus far is to be trusted, as they say, on nothing other than “faith”… which is to mean, without direct evidence?. A wise Christian once remarked: The opposite of faith is not doubt, it is certainty. Faith without doubt is corrupted. Faith with certainty is deficient.
“Lets see, If I were to believe God was either unreal or not good I would of course look for ways to confirm my bias.”
I’m sure you would. I, on the other hand, continue to consider whatever evidence drifts through my spiritually challenged pea-brain mind-space. I’m open to all sources, insofar as I can fathom. Call it a “scientific” attitude, if you must…
“In addition I would try to weave my way through any discussion concerning these issues by down playing or ignoring matters of the spirit.”
By the way, as I assume it is directly connected to a matter I previously asked for clarification about, to no avail, vis. our “real essence”, (and we’ll put a hold on the issue of “choice-substance” you most recently evaded) might you please clarify your notion of “spirit”? Given that you have considered it a mode of being separate from the mind (and that the mind is not the matter for salvation, such that it is in principle disinterested), what is it you qualify as a matter of the spirit? I truly apologize for appearing to down-play or ignore these matters, but I was not clear on your meaning.
“So why do you try to quote scripture as if it means anything to you?”
Well, first, it’s public domain. Secondly, it indeed does mean something to me.
“Yes, blessed are the meek for shall inherit the earth and blessed are the poor in spirit for they shall see God.”
Sure you got that right?
“From these examples “poor in spirit” means something to you, but I doubt it means anything more than a willful discrediting of something you believe you never have to deal with in terms of actualities.”
Ah, well, at least you doubt [italic][bold]me[/bold][/italic]. Now we both know, I assume, that John’s story of “not throwing stones lest you be judged” is actually apocryphal, but I think the point is well taken nonetheless, wouldn’t you agree?
Theory One:
God loves all men and women: He died for all of us so that we wouldn’t be condemned to a life completely absent from him (hell).
He controls the universe? While man’s idea of omnipotence may have the constraints that god needs to control all things, it would mean that god controlling us gives us no free will. Have you considered that god has the power to control man and chooses not to for his own reasons? Why would you describe a higher power as though they follow our rules like rats in a maze?
Like I stated before, the idea of throwing man into hell is actually god spiritually departing from those who haven’t entrusted their lives to him. This would be an existence deprived of all good things, and with no hope of good returning. Why would a compassionate god leave man? God cannot co-exist with sin, it cannot enter him, it does coexist with us. Gods decision to let man exist with him only is simply a choice. It has been made clearly in John 3:16 what needs to be done in order for god to choose you.
If you are content with this life and all it has to offer, then it only gets worse from here.
Hi Shinku,
God died? He chose not
to control apes with knowledge
like rats in a maze?
Any rewards I may think are behind door “number one” are not anything I can get because of anything I’ve done or chosen. It’s only because of what Jesus has done on my behalf that I can even hope to receive eternal life to begin with.
In eternity, all glory and honor goes to God because we are thankful for the life, death and ressurection of Jesus. If that sounds too impersonal for you, just think about what it means to receive a gift. If you beieve you have done something to earn it you are not going to be very thankful, if thankful at all for it.
Even my claimimg to “say” I believe in God and that Jesus is the Son of God gets me nothing in terms of rewards. The best I can hope to say when I get to heaven is that I did what I thought I could to keep other “beliefs” from preventing my spirit from being able to remain thankful for Jesus in the midst of life’s circumstances. The potential for salavation is there for every human, we just need to receive it as a gift, not as anything we deserve on our own merits or choices.
Fear has to do with perceived personal loss. If I don’t expect to receive anything on the basis of my beliefs and actions then I lose nothing when “That Day” arrives. If I somehow think I can earn rewards with God while still alive it is only because when I get to heaven I will still consider them as crowns to be cast at the feet of Jesus and not something I earned for anyone’s glory other than God’s and Jesus.’
“Any rewards I may think are behind door “number one” are not anything I can get because of anything I’ve done or chosen. It’s only because of what Jesus has done on my behalf that I can even hope to receive eternal life to begin with.”
So, nothing you think or do ought to be considered in terms of your attempting to “earn” God’s good graces. Okay.
“In eternity, all glory and honor goes to God because we are thankful for the life, death and ressurection of Jesus. If that sounds too impersonal for you, just think about what it means to receive a gift. If you beieve you have done something to earn it you are not going to be very thankful, if thankful at all for it.”
Yes, and if it is given, in fact, in spite of what I have done, …well, that would REALLY make me thankful!
“Even my claimimg to “say” I believe in God and that Jesus is the Son of God gets me nothing in terms of rewards. The best I can hope to say when I get to heaven is that I did what I thought I could to keep other “beliefs” from preventing my spirit from being able to remain thankful for Jesus in the midst of life’s circumstances. The potential for salavation is there for every human, we just need to receive it as a gift, not as anything we deserve on our own merits or choices.”
On the basis of that logic, perhaps then we should most clearly avoid believing in, worshiping, and obeying any divinities at all, as such only encourages an attitude of contractual entitlement. If it is purely a matter of God’s grace, perhaps we shouldn’t put ourselves in the position of second guessing what’s going on in God’s mind.
“Fear has to do with perceived personal loss. If I don’t expect to receive anything on the basis of my beliefs and actions then I lose nothing when “That Day” arrives. If I somehow think I can earn rewards with God while still alive it is only because when I get to heaven I will still consider them as crowns to be cast at the feet of Jesus and not something I earned for anyone’s glory other than God’s and Jesus.’”
Fear has also to do with the threat of pain. Behavioralism 101.
Nice justification there for collecting “crowns” during your temporal phase, by the way. Saving them up for Jesus? What ego deficiency do Yahweh & co. suffer from that they must subject themselves to the casting of riches their way by sycophants?
It is of course possible to think and to do what is righteous in God\’s will for any specific human. It just doesn\’t happen though because of how people use the values of good and evil to justify their own thoughts and actions and to blame God for their own short comings.
If I were perfect, I wouldn\’t need the work of Jesus dying on the cross. Those who think they are not in need of redemption do not uderstand that it is their spirits that are pulled away from God through the wrong actions they take based upon false information they believe about God. This includes of course false things they believe about Jesus, who did do the will of God the father, dispite the difficult choices that this required. Jesus constantly evaluated what his actual thoughts were but didn\’t let them cloud out the things he knew in his spirit had to be done.
Never said it was what \”I\” thought in my mind that pleases God, never said it was what \”I\” did either that pleases God. Its my physical feelings, concern for my physicsl body and mind that usually leads me to doubt in God, which in turn results in behavior and actions contrary to the will of God. When my body and mind cloud out the spirit which is my true essence, I am in need of redemption.
It is possible for a person to be perfect in both their thoughts and actions, both of those can be pleasing to God, but for either of these to be true I must follow the example of Jesus.
Jesus had to deal with thoughts about the physical pain and spiritual separation from God that He knew was the will of God the Father yet the thoughts he had in his mind didn\’t cause him to doubt that it still needed to happen.
If I were able to think only thoughts that never questioned faith and trust in God, it would be a good thing, but that would also mean I wouldn\’t need the work of Jesus dying the cross. Its what I actually \”do\” that accomplishes God\’s will that utimately matters.
If I were able to only act in ways that displayed my faith and trust in God, it would also be a good thing, but that would also mean I wouldn\’t need the work of Jesus dying on the cross.
Christians who simply rely on the idea that they understand the gospel message and have had their spiritual life renewed in the past do not fully understand that at any fork in the road they can start to trust in self again and this heads them away from God once again.
Have you ever understood the gospel message in these terms?
I believe that God alone can give me mercy and redemption, but it can only happen in this life if I admit I am in need of His grace, not because I am good in my own estimation.
I can not explain to your satisfaction what the spirit of man is in terms of essence, because all you claim to belive in is what science has somehow “proven” to you that it exists.
What if I were to tell you that gravity is caused by the pressure of particles so small but so dense that humans with all of the best science we will ever have at our disposal will never be able to prove that this is so?
Would you just go on believing that the existence of mass alone creates gravity or that there could be a fundamental explanation that is beyond our abiltiy to prove, but could accept this to be true even though we have no direct proof?
I believe in the essence of the spirit.
“I can not explain to your satisfaction what the spirit of man is in terms of essence, because all you claim to belive in is what science has somehow “proven” to you that it exists.”
I beg your pardon, but where did I claim that?
Happy Nihilist,
You do not need more hard and fast evidence to consider that some kind of a creator God could exist. You only need to refuse to use the blinders that atheistic naturalistic science insists you use as filters when you consider what various evidence(s) might mean.
You did not claim to believe anything other than what has been proven to your satisfaction. Your comments have revealed enough, to me anyway, that with a fair degree of certainty you would place evolution (a supposed scientifically proven fact to you) above anything else concerning the existence of the physical world. This by default means you hold to a “crap shoot” fate concerning existence past, present and future that is fatalistic to yourself and those you wish to believe the same way.
I believe in something other than unending random chance and self motivated decisions premised upon some will to physically survive and not die.
Perhaps I am wrong, but this mean to me that you do not desire to look for anything else to believe in other than what naturalistic and atheistic science supposes to be facts about why (if there is a why) of our existence.
If this is not true please explain how you came to be a “happy nihilist.”
“You do not need more hard and fast evidence to consider that some kind of a creator God could exist. You only need to refuse to use the blinders that atheistic naturalistic science insists you use as filters when you consider what various evidence(s) might mean.”
Again, I once DID believe such. I took those particular blinders off. I have little doubt that many blinders remain round my perspective, but at least I do not consciously “use” them to avoid considering other perspectives. FYI I continue to have many fruitful discussions with theists who reflect humility over piety, …and sometimes even with the righteously pious as well, though I’m not sure the latter feel the same.
“You did not claim to believe anything other than what has been proven to your satisfaction. Your comments have revealed enough, to me anyway, that with a fair degree of certainty you would place evolution (a supposed scientifically proven fact to you) above anything else concerning the existence of the physical world. This by default means you hold to a “crap shoot” fate concerning existence past, present and future that is fatalistic to yourself and those you wish to believe the same way.”
Well, evolution is actually concerned with biology, not physics. But in any case, I am neither a physicist nor a biologist, and though I do accept my limited understanding of various scientific explanations about sundry matters to be of greater reasonability than most ancient texts are able to provide (some do continue to offer profundity in many ways), your assumption that “crap shoot” is a sufficient description of my admittedly incomplete perspective is ironic, to say the least.
“I believe in something other than unending random chance and self motivated decisions premised upon some will to physically survive and not die.”
…except, of course, when it comes to the rumor of an afterlife, whereupon you have “faith” your “faith” will pay off…
“Perhaps I am wrong, but this mean to me that you do not desire to look for anything else to believe in other than what naturalistic and atheistic science supposes to be facts about why (if there is a why) of our existence.”
Yes, you are wrong.
“If this is not true please explain how you came to be a “happy nihilist.””
Well, it’s kinda a day to day thing. Role with the crap shooting, give a li’l whistle, and as Mr. Idle put it:
Some things in life are bad
They can really make you mad
Other things just make you swear and curse.
When you’re chewing on life’s gristle
Don’t grumble, give a whistle
And this’ll help things turn out for the best…
And…always look on the bright side of life…
Always look on the light side of life…
If life seems jolly rotten
There’s something you’ve forgotten
And that’s to laugh and smile and dance and sing.
When you’re feeling in the dumps
Don’t be silly chumps
Just purse your lips and whistle – that’s the thing.
And…always look on the bright side of life…
Always look on the light side of life…
For life is quite absurd
And death’s the final word
You must always face the curtain with a bow.
Forget about your sin – give the audience a grin
Enjoy it – it’s your last chance anyhow.
So always look on the bright side of death
Just before you draw your terminal breath
Life’s a piece of shit
When you look at it
Life’s a laugh and death’s a joke, it’s true.
You’ll see it’s all a show
Keep ’em laughing as you go
Just remember that the last laugh is on you.
And always look on the bright side of life…
Always look on the right side of life…
(Come on guys, cheer up!)
Always look on the bright side of life…
Always look on the bright side of life…
(Worse things happen at sea, you know.)
Always look on the bright side of life…
(I mean – what have you got to lose?)
(You know, you come from nothing – you’re going back to nothing.
What have you lost? Nothing!)
Always look on the right side of life…
HN: “Light, dark, empty, full, …binary equivocations. Perhaps eternity is grey, …maybe even colourful. Yesses and nos, straight lines and goals. There is, was, and ever will be only now or nothing. Today’s the day, tonight’s the night.
Black is beautiful, baby! Fear destroys.”
And that would have been the perfect end to this monster thread.
The debate was “won”, but the beat goes on…
Hey man, I’m not in it to win… 😀
(…is this community tiring of this thread?…)
“If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him” – voltaire
also, look up the cake theory in relation to the existence of God. Its a good argument through reason, and not faith, that a God exists.
Yes, Gen, God is an epiphenomenon. And Cake(s) ar(is)e.
(…sorry Mike (and community), I can’t seem to help it.)
…could you expand on the Cake Theory connection, Gen? A quick google wasn’t helpful in that respect. 🙂
to the happy nihilist
you only seem to be what you think is happy trying to discredit people on the internet.
…well, that and eating babies, terrifying the townsfolk, and J-walking.
“If God able but not willing he is malevolent”, really? Man calls for God to rid the world of Genocide, but how? By the death of a dictator, the the rise of an oppressed people, an angelic army? Wouldn’t it be “fair” for God to exact this purge of earthly evil across the board, ridding the world of every evil from deceit to genocide? but from where does Genocide,theft, poverty, lies, or deceit stem? It stems from man. God willingly removing all evil from the world would be purging humanity of much of its practices, icons, and private thoughts. Limiting humanity to only thoughts and actions which glorify God. How receptive would humanity be of this? Becoming living automatons, no ability to make decisions as to how to live ones life. God does not want robots, He desires sons and daughters who make a cognitive decision to be in a fulfilling relationship with Him.
Hi VoR,
““If God able but not willing he is malevolent”, really? Man calls for God to rid the world of Genocide, but how? By the death of a dictator, the the rise of an oppressed people, an angelic army? Wouldn’t it be “fair” for God to exact this purge of earthly evil across the board, ridding the world of every evil from deceit to genocide?”
Well, He apparently wasn’t shy about doing such in the Old Testament. In fact, He dabbled in a little genocide of his own, if I recall correctly.
“but from where does Genocide,theft, poverty, lies, or deceit stem? It stems from man.”
Some claim Lucifer plays the role of first cause here.
“God willingly removing all evil from the world would be purging humanity of much of its practices, icons, and private thoughts.”
Oh dear, heaven on earth!
” Limiting humanity to only thoughts and actions which glorify God. How receptive would humanity be of this?”
I’m guessing it wouldn’t need to be put up to a vote.
“Becoming living automatons, no ability to make decisions as to how to live ones life.”
Hmmm, let’s see, a world free of evil versus losing whatever miniscule control we actually have in our decision-making patterns… I vote no evil.
” God does not want robots, He desires sons and daughters who make a cognitive decision to be in a fulfilling relationship with Him.”
On pain, of course, of hellish consequences, and through mysteriously vague & contradictory clues.
Voice of reason, there’s a dimension of “evil” you’re not considering in your response. What of so-called “natural evils”, such as the suffering arising from such things as Childhood Disintegrative Disorder or Borderline Personality Disorder? Assuming, as the voice of reason, you’d want to avoid copping out with the “it’s all part of the big mysterious plan” answer, why would an omnibenevolent deity allow such tragic circumstances if it were in fact in its power to create matters to be otherwise? How many “man-made” evils stem from an inability to process the “natural” ones?
A finite being trying to use its conceptions of good and evil to evaluate an omniscient, infinite and omnibenevolent creator, sustainer and redeemer’s plans and purposes is like a pit bull swearing off the use of his jaws in a dog fight. While it might be possible, by their very nature its not going to happen.
I will only be able to “begin” to conceive of what omnibenevolence means when I’m willing to admit that my own ideas and values are twisted and warped by comparison.
People have the outlandish idea that they can whimsically confuse good and evil at the choice of their own will because they can basically claim that its all just relative.
Then they can also turn around and seriously claim that objective goodness can’t exist because if it did they would find themselves either measuring up or not.
What we take seriously and whimsically really shows where we stand on the issues of Good and Evil.
“Black Humor,” where one basically works at creating laughter out of difficult circumstances and occurences even shows basic disdain for the sometimes harsh realities of human life in general. Does this mean God created these harsh realities specifically or does it mean that God permits them so that people can really learn what is good and evil from a perspective other than just their own?
You should be able to laugh at you own less than best decisions, but laughing at the less than best decisions of others just keeps them coming back for more laughs derived in the same way.
This is not humorous, it is a trap caused by thinking we have both the right and the ability to judge the plans and purposes of God.
HN: This thread has been going on since 2008. Not dead, yet.
…so long as there’s no complaint about stumbleuponers such as myself keeping it alive…
what if god is an allegory? for those of you who don’t know, an allegory is an extensive metaphor that literately means “not these words”. Looking at it from that angle, we can thereby deduce that maybe, there was someone out there who wanted people to do the right thing, but it didn’t quite work out the way they wanted. But seriously, think of it as an allegory. Do it for the lulz
As to the ultimate nature of things we can know nothing, and only when we admit this do we return to equilibrium.
Carl Jung
Ah, but God is both willing and able to prevent evil. Sometimes He allows bad things to happen to us just to test our faith in Him. Take for instance the story of Job. God allowed Satan to take everything from him here on earth, but Job never cursed God.
Everything that God does is looking out for our best interest in the end. It’s just up to us to realize this and to find the good in our trials. Pray for strength, God may give you a difficult situation to become strong from. It’s all in the way we look at things.
Many of you probably think I’m crazy that I believe in God, but think what you want. I can’t deny His existence because of all that He has done in my seventeen years of life. May He bless you all, and may you all find solace in His arms.
Bjork: Here’s the way I look at things. When you think and speak of “God” as you do, you are really referring to yourself. You are God.
I am God. We are all God(s). You may not realize it (or want to admit it at this stage), but you are God playing “hide and seek” with yourself, for the sheer fun and experience of it all. As am I. You’re On now, then you will be Off, then On again. Life’s a ball…enjoy yourself!
(and thanks for the blessing and solace.)
Mike M., you explain why there is free will, but what are we creating here, a playground? I think there is an intelligent force behind creation and there is a plan. It maybe connected to everything, but creation is messy, and hell would be the waste basket.
Karl, I’m a big fan of Christ, but I still don’t get the sacrifice angle. I understand setting up a new path to the eternal realm, but sacrifice was old school. Why wouldn’t dying of old age do the trick?
To grapple with sacrificial ideas one has to look at both extremes at once. On the one hand sacrifices mean a loss of something of intrinsic value to the person making the sacrifice. On the other hand it also can serve as the means by which a stated penalty for offenses can be met. Jesus had both in heart and mind when he went to the cross.
Those who believe there is no need to satisfy a penalty for nonexistent offenses would not get the second half and would most likely remain puzzled over why anyone would give up their physical lives in this world for another.
Some people realize that to forgive an offense without it costing someone something along the road just amounts to saying that the offense really is not that much of a matter to them in the first place. This is why a post modern society simply keeps pulling down one standard after another as though they are all pointless lunacies. What’s wrong with “pay to play,” or bribery? Well, nothing since no one can connect the dots because standard operating procedures have codified into law, unless you actually manage to alienate those you were suppose to and been “playing” along side of.
Jesus Christ’s physical death on the cross wasn’t just to show that he was the Son of God, it was to show people that God can and will forgive, but it had to cost the one who established the requirements of the law something of great value to Himself. Jesus didn’t have a need to show people that he had authority to rule as a King. He desired to show us that to really be worthy of leading, one must realize that Justice can only be served by those whose desire reconcilation above the offense itself, and that the reconciliation must not simply decide that the offense was nonexistent.
In this regard offenses are only the means of showing the nature of mans’ relationship with the true God and not just what he can convince his own conscience of.
I coult easily convince myself that my thoughts were all that the true God was, but that would be an offense not needing reconcilation.
“Sacrifices can be a means by which a stated penalty for offenses can be met.” I am assuming a stated penalty for offenses = fine. Jesus paid our “fine” in a way that I don’t agree. I can’t accept a fine like that being paid on my behalf, before I did anything wrong. If I don’t sin that much, doe’s he get a refund?
The aeon is a child at play with colored balls. The World can indeed be considered a playground and/or theatrical stage and/or an endless dance of energy. All is an interconnected moving process. Eternity=Time; Time=Eternity. You are already There, so no sacrifices are needed.
Hell is only a state of mind, but it can exist (for you) if you want to create it (for yourself). Do what you Will. For me, life is too important to take seriously.
Peace and blessings to all for 2012.
My take on the sacrifice is that we took God (or at least his ambassador) and violated Him with shocking depravity. “It was Caiaphas (the high priest that year)who advised the Jewish Authorities, that it was better that one man should die for all people.”(from the Bible:John chapter 18).
As mankind’s idea, He was not ours to offer. “Forgive them, for they know not what they do” shows his capacity for forgiveness, but I have to agree that we were more than stupid to do what we did. I would never except redemption with those conditions and I can’t understand anyone that had any respect for Jesus could, unless one just had faith that one’s elders and ancestors didn’t misunderstand it.
The Almighty received a sacrifice or payment from Jesus? Jesus raising from the dead, was that a sacrifice? I love his story, but I see that event as a despicable display of how we waist His gifts to us. He sacrificed His Authority to destroy us maybe. I may be thick headed, but the sacrifice angle just doesn’t make sense. I think He didn’t have very good secretaries and was misunderstood.
Getting back to the original question of God being malevolent for allowing evil, I think evil is a byproduct of free will and creation. Remaining good is stagnant. To create means one has to break a few eggs.
if he is God how can we think so highly of ourselves to understand his reasonings
The one true God’s purposes and reasoning established both natural and moral laws. Evil simply says while natural laws plainly exist the moral ones are only human creations and not God’s. Evil is denying the possiblity of a true God’s moral laws and trying to ignore/reject the obvious consequences of these same moral laws.
Our post modern era is rotting away our individual and collective morals at such a quick pace that most people are only concerned about themselves and those they “play around with” for their own self interested purposes.
This is why Jesus’ sacrifice makes no sense to the people that simply think that Jesus had virtue but this sacrificial death was pointless.
Again I repeat, Jesus desired to show us that to really be worthy of leading, one must realize that Justice can only be served by those whose desire reconcilation above the offense itself, and that the reconciliation must not simply decide that the offense was nonexistent.
Jesus was a brilliant teacher of morals, but the dying for our sin, it just doesn’t fit into my brain. Is God excepting vengeance from the suffering of an innocent to balance some moral scale?
I accept the lesson of ascending beyond death, that we could free ourselves from the deadly prison of worldly concerns. He showed that the soul is what animates these pieces of meat and that they are toxic if you don’t keep your soul clean. Sin is ignorance and our following his message of love and listening to him will help alleviate the damage we have done to ourselves and others.
It is my understanding that we initiated the crucifixion, it was not His idea or sacrifice. He sacrificed his ability to get out of the event, perhaps. He complied to our savage nature, which, through regret and shame, will compel some to seek guidance in his council.
He has earned the right, with the Father, to be the Judge? If He could put up with the worst we could offer, and still forgive us, than the Father will let us into the fold? Did he need street cred with the Father?
This is a sore point with church goers and that is why I am not one of them.
Reconciliation is of course not necessary for anyone that believes they are never at least partially at fault for the circumstances surrounding their relationships with others.
Of course God needed to say something about the process He established for enabling people to grow up and mature into the types of people He would be glad to call His sons and daughters.
He had to give them free will and the ability to mess up or they wouldn’t have been anything other than automatrons.
God accomplished way more than anyone can fully grasp when He died on the cross. We weren’t okay and we still aren’t okay when we choose the worst of two options, but he always knew we had the potential for becoming like Jesus.
God died on the cross? I thought it was the Son of God…
Rev. K,
Zzzz… & Ughh.
Shhh!
@ The Happy Nihilist
I love you.
That is all
The Happy Nihilist
I love you! Not in the gay kind of way, but in the you are awesome, keep it up kind of way!
Karl you are funny!
Upon further review, it wasn’t the lawyer writing this quip, it was an ancient philosopher (therefore my last post was aimed at the philosopher who cannot respond, not the lawyer. Point is, the first line in the riddle is invalid. Since the conclusion of the riddle is based from an invalid foundation….you get the picture. God chooses to let us have Free-Will and not intervene. There is no arguing this fact of Christianity.
Pray tell, good sir, how is the first line invalid? You forgot, it seems, to add an argument to your assertion.
And btw, Epicurus isn’t specifying any particular God, but is critiquing the definition of an omnimax divinity of whatever stripe.