LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksConsidering all the historical accounts of gods wrath in the bible woudl you call him good? I certainly don't, he's evil just like the Christians.
June 20th, 2007, 12:40 PM
Considering all the historical accounts of gods wrath in the bible woudl you call him good? I certainly don't, he's evil just like the Christians.
June 20th, 2007, 12:50 PM
I'm just gonna be frank and rude, since that's what you seem to be asking for. You're stupid. If you're going by the Bible, then you believe everything the Bible says, and the Bible has shown (as that is its intent) that God's goodness is overwhelming, and has justified everything that he did that we may view as 'wrong'.Originally Posted by sderenzi
U R wrong, gods evil
June 20th, 2007, 01:43 PM
yeh right! lol. he's a god little god isn't he.the Bible has shown (as that is its intent) that God's goodness is overwhelming, and has justified everything that he did that we may view as 'wrong'.
he doesn't kill babies does he.
your a laugh a minute, rotflmao.
and sderenzi your post should read "Considering all the biblical accounts of gods wrath" there's hardly any compartive historical evidence with the biblical version.
I'm glad that it's extremely unlikely that such a evil creature could exist.
June 21st, 2007, 12:11 AM
Well, until we even get close to being able to ascertain whether or not God exists, at least we're nice and safe with democracy and capitalism. :wink:
June 21st, 2007, 12:37 AM
the cristians had misunderstood the concept of God. They have changed the God's book sent to them.
So we cant base our knowledge on bible.
The actual God is Absolutely pure.
you are not safe with only democracy and capitalism. If so could you keep living for ever and stop death reaching you, with the help of democracy and capitalism????
June 21st, 2007, 12:45 AM
is it possible for any personality to be in a position of establishing order (king, school teacher, parent, etc not just god) without having recourse to chastisement?
There's been plenty of world leaders who have not demanded that their army
"Kill all who come before you, do not worship their gods, do not take their women, or livestock unto your own, Everything you find there, destroy. Kill the men, the babies, the women, the cows, the sheep, and burn all of their belongings, Melt their metals down and make a big commemoration to my glory and burn all the crops in their farmlands. then leave."
When God acts as General, he makes Nazis look humane.
Of course it also seems that God doesn't know how the planet Earth and the Universe works, yet claims that he is the one who made them. Either he is a liar (either lying about the nature of the universe, or is lying about having made it), stupid... or the bible is wrong.
In the case that the bible is wrong, who is to say that the bit about God wanting Prayer worship and obedience is not also wrong? Could the ten commandments also be flawed in the same way that the discription of the earth is wrong? Perhaps God just created the universe and doesn't particularly want anything from us... perhaps he really is incapable of hearing thoughts, just as every other organism on earth is incapable of hearing the thoughts of other organisms.
Maybe there is a God that didn't send Jesus Christ to die for our sins and Jesus Christ was just an average man who became deluded into believing that he was special and that God was as discribed to him and that he was filled with that spirit of God, just like now people believe not because it's natural to believe, but because they have been taught that that is the way things are.
If something is very obviously wrong with the bible, then one cannot trust it on face value, but should carefully dicern every single concept they take. The sun does not go around the earth, the world is not a flat firmament floating on water atop which a dome sits with the stars, clouds, and god above it looking down. The Earth is not the Centre of God's beloved creation... indeed it's always moving in circles around a sun which is moving in circles around a galaxy which is moving toward another galaxy in a billions-of-years-in-the-making head-on collision, the two of them just one tiny speck in a diffuse scattering of billions of galaxies.
It's like there was this absolutley huge creation that the bible-writers just plain didn't know about. Obviously whatever created that universe was not a part of writing the bible.
A god might exist, but it's not the character in the Bible.
June 21st, 2007, 03:26 AM
look & listen : there is no afterlife and no-one lives forever
anyone who says otherwise is deluded
June 21st, 2007, 01:32 PM
I was being sarcastic. Seemed pretty obvious to me.you are not safe with only democracy and capitalism. If so could you keep living for ever and stop death reaching you, with the help of democracy and capitalism????
That goes both ways there, buddy.
if there is a god(which there isn't) then hes a pretty sick fu*k and if im wrong(which im not), then when im face to face i'll kick him in the balls(if hes got any)
this thread isn't Atheist friendly (no vote for God doesn't exist) this is persecuting the choice that athiests made on not believing in god
True. It probably should read:
The figure of God is mostly benevolent.
The figure of God is mostly malevolent.
The figure of God is neither benevolent nor malevolent.
I don't think whether or not you believe in God really factors in, if you're judging the actions of God based on religious historical texts. It's subjective based on your interpretations of the events in the texts.
Of course, your reaction would have to be associated to some basis for your reasoning, too. If you think God was evil, for instance, to what standard are you comparing the religious historical texts?
then I side with Neitzcher God is dead
no, you got that all wrong - Nietzsche is dead
god never existed in the first place
true but in the intersts of this thread that is my desision
August 16th, 2007, 04:25 PM
How are christians evil??... your the one that is evil... Are you saying your perfect???.... here is a few question if you think your prefect..
1. Have you ever lied??
2. Have you ever stole something??
3. Have you ever killed someone??
4. Have you committed idolatry??
Reply to those....
1. i've been more truthful than most of my contemporaries.
2. yeah, i stole candy from a store once. but mostly i've been stolen from.
i loaned 1000$ to a drug addict so that he could set up a PC shop.
never got them back. my brother stole about 90$ when we were kids.
a friend of my brother stole some of my toys when i was a kid, then vandalized them and called them his own.
3. i killed a mosquito today. does that count? oh and i killed fish a few years back.
4.worshipping statues? nope.
you fear us, and call us evil. what gives you any right to judge us.How are christians evil??... your the one that is evil... Are you saying your perfect???.... here is a few question if you think your prefect..
i've tried striving for perfectionism, but its faulty at its roots.
you spend too much time trying to get 1 thing perfect, and forget about the whole. in the end, you have a lot of little perfect pockets, in a very messy whole.
how are christians evil? they aren't. it depends on who wields christianity as their moral shield.
if you take a look back at christian history, you will see all the evil thats been conducted in the name of god. its all a history of oppression,
rape, murder and intolerance.
black and white, either you're with us or against us philosophy,
with no regard to the tones of grey inbetween.
after looking at these websites:
GodHatesFags.com, GodHatesAmerica.com GodHatesCanada.com and GodHatesSweden.com.
the answer is a resounding yes.
a quote from the bible: god likes the pleasing aroma of burning flesh.
Nothing like a closed-minded religious zealot to make you wish you had a flip'n brick to throw.
What could be more productive or interesting than science forum evangelists...?
I thought the topic of this thread was to ascertain whether or not people believe that the deeds of God in the Bible (among other religious texts) were good, or evil (judging by today's perspective understandings)?
Arguing that God is good using statements such as "it says he is good in the Bible" or "you're a sinner if you believe he's evil" is total bullcrap and inappropriate in a science forum. If you can't construct a rational argument, don't post. This isn't a church.
This thread is for examining the wrathful acts of the Christian God, and interpreting their good or evil qualities (albeit by today's standards). That doesn't involve preaching from the Bible, calling people sinners, calling people stupid because they don't blindly believe the Bible, etc.
That said, the existence of God is irrelevant to this topic, too. The thread isn't asking anyone to state whether God exists or not.
Examine the wrathful acts of God in religious texts and determine which are good, and which are evil. (This is made even more complex by the fact that religious texts can't be trusted to be faithful transcriptions of the original stories.)
</rant>
well, going from biblical standards, heres the 7 deadly sins:
Pride is excessive belief in one's own abilities, that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity.
Envy is the desire for others' traits, status, abilities, or situation.
Gluttony is an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires.
Lust is an inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body.
Anger is manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Wrath.
Greed is the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Avarice or Covetousness.
Sloth is the avoidance of physical or spiritual work.
lets see how many we can check for god.
pride: check "i am all powerful"
envy: no
gluttony: check "more followers, MORE!"
lust: no
anger: check. ever heard "wrath of god"?
greed: check. "i am the only god"
sloth: check. he leaves everything to his followers.
thats 5 out of the 7 deadly sins.
according to the bible, god is evil.
So your saying that you never lied??? And don't say i just say white lies.... That is still lying...
oh... your brother stole a lot...
Nay... Misquotes don't count and fish doesn't too... i was talking about humans...
I new you would say that... but you believe in evolution so its almost the same thing so you should have said yes...
That doesn't mean anything... The people who aren't christians killed them... not christians kill the unbelievers...
Death is only bad because we don't understand what it is. Things humans don't understand are always bad for some reason. Saying there is no afterlife or God, is like saying that there has never been a race of beings that have ever been smarter than humans. How could someone feel so strong about a stance that can't be proven until after death? If there is a God, he doesn't kill anyone. Death happens at random to us all. Many who do believe in God believes he holds their hand and walks them through life. That's a load of crap. Does that make him evil? No, he's just the parent who throws us into the river to teach us how to swim. If we drown, it's our own fault.
i said i've lied less than my contemporaries, as in, the people i've lived with. all humans lie at some point.So your saying that you never lied??? And don't say i just say white lies.... That is still lying...
so white lies counts, but killing fish doesnt? who are you to set the rules here.Nay... Misquotes don't count and fish doesn't too... i was talking about humans...
i knew you would say that evolution is an idol.I new you would say that... but you believe in evolution so its almost the same thing so you should have said yes...
i believe a screwdriver is the best tool to use on a screw,
even though you can use knives.
do you call that faith too?
do you see me offering gifts, slaughtering animals and people in the name of a screwdriver? do you see me revolve my life around a screwdriver,
telling it is what created the universe?
idolization is about forming a lump of dirt into a figurine, offering it food and gifts so that it will have mercy when i pray upon it for help in times of need.
unlike god, evolution isn't the explanation of everything. its only 1 part of the field of biology, which simply explains our origin, and speciation.
heres a website:http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...e/0_0_0/evo_02
evolution explains man and woman.
those were baptised chrstians that killed in the name of god.That doesn't mean anything... The people who aren't christians killed them... not christians kill the unbelievers...
they killed because they had been told the bible had said their killing was righteous. they killed in revenge because they said jews had killed jesus.
thats what irrational christian thought gets you.
a lot of murder. and its going on even today.
intolerant murder of blacks in USA, by the christian ku klux klan.
intolerant murder of blacks in africa because god said the white man was superior.
almost everybody says that...
God did...
that has nothing to do with the topic..
Read the bible and see why they sacrifice animals to God..
How????....
ahuh.....
wheres your proof, wheres your numbers.almost everybody says that...
god doesnt exist. if he does, may he strike me with lightning.God did...
you're too stupid to see the connection.that has nothing to do with the topic..
i've read the bible, and i've already told you why they sacrificed animals.Read the bible and see why they sacrifice animals to God..
to please god. why please god? so he would grant you favors.
and whenever you prayed to god, he would grant you that favor.
just have faith that it does :P because you're too stupid to understand the real reasoning anyways.How????....
still in denial of the truth?huh.....
YOU KEEP ON SAYING THAT OVER AND OVER AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU CAN'T EVEN PROVE ME THAT EVOLUTION EXIST SO WE ARE EVEN.... SO STOP ON SAYING THAT..... :x
ahuh....
Just talk to macguy he can tell you what your question says....
What reason????
ahuh...
if god exists, may he strike me down with lightning!YOU KEEP ON SAYING THAT OVER AND OVER AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU CAN'T EVEN PROVE ME THAT EVOLUTION EXIST SO WE ARE EVEN.... SO STOP ON SAYING THAT..... Mad Evil or Very Mad Evil or Very Mad Evil or Very Mad Evil or Very Mad
i don't need to prove that evolutuion exists. it proves itself. you're living proof that evolution exists. the food you eat is proof, the animals you see every day,
the earth you dig in, the whole world is friggin proof that evolution exists.
for your information, retard, a question ends with one of these: "?"Just talk to macguy he can tell you what your question says....
the truth? you can't handle the truth, thats why you run off to religion to comfort you.ahuh...
that still doesn't prove it....
Your the retard one... you believe you came from a monkey... what a stupid belief...
Your the one who can't handle the truth..... Is that why you run to your little darwin crying ma ma ma ma ma.... you run to him so he can comfort you huh huh????
yes it does.that still doesn't prove it....
no, i believe came from a monkey.Your the retard one... you believe you came from a monkey... what a stupid belief... Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
nah, i can take care of myself, which is what darwin teaches. only the strongest survives.Your the one who can't handle the truth..... Is that why you run to your little darwin crying ma ma ma ma ma.... you run to him so he can comfort you huh huh????
you're the one who needs a frigin god.
Gentlemen,
I am leaving the last series of posts here as a reminder that even if there is a perfect God, or even a perfect human, such perfection does not reside in the entities known as dejawolf and Ezra.
Now, be nice, be logical and stop this tit for tat, repetitive waffle.
Or the thread gets locked.
Thank you.
Ophiolite
Actually, I had already used Ezra's post above accusing another of being a "retard" to give her a 7-day ban. HomoUniversalis gave her a "first and final warning" in another thread.
This post serves as warning to DejaWolf and others that might be tempted to participate in such flame wars or blatant insults. That isn't the way we do things here at The Science Forum.
finally some moderation here.
i just can't help fighting fundamentalist with all possible means.
i got a temper, but i learn from my mistakes.
Hmm...when the abusive and pointless evangelism is silenced, it gets quiet.
Are we able to get back onto topic now? If there's anything more to be said, that is?
I have no problems with people discussing some of the issues that have been brought up, but it's never a good idea to hijack a thread to do so. Especially when there's no reason behind the arguments. This is a science forum, I would hope there can be a level of scientific method in response posts.
We're here to discuss the topic at hand, and nothing more. The topic of this thread is to determine whether or not people believe that the deeds of God in the Bible (among other religious texts) were good, or evil (judging by today's perspective understandings). The topic is NOT for discussing whether the religious texts claim to be good or evil. Such arguments are irrelevant in the position of stand-alone statements.
I trust any further deviations from the topic are a sign of continued intent for trolling. Let's keep it civil. This is an interesting topic if nothing else...
-------------
On the perspective of good and evil in relation to the biblical texts, I think we need to make a determination regarding how the concept of good and evil, and divine influence, has changed over the centuries. The views on the dynamics and structure of God, Heaven, Hell, and the rest, have changed since ancient times; in some cases quite drastically. The modern concept of an angel is shockingly different from the "original" explanations. So too is the idea of how God interacts with humanity.
In order to assess the disposition of the biblical texts, do we first need to assess whether or not the stories in the texts are accurate translations of the events and actions? Do they make the same sense in their current form today, as they did back then?
Furthermore, how is it that we can determine if our interpretation of "good" and "evil" are correct? Given that many may agree that we as a society have "strayed" from religion and faith, how does that effect our ability to analyze what we read and hear? Does not the criminal proclaim right in the things he does? What is the perspective of this issue?
well, what we need is an absolute definition of evil,
to be able to determine whether god is evil according to current values.
but as i already stated, according to biblical values, god is evil :P
if you actually try and logically anchor "evil" you'll start running into problems.
how evil is a lesser evil? a greater evil? is evil the overall definition of bad things, smaller and greater, or is it the lowest point possible for a human being to sink? as in pure evil? how much "bad" is then the unpurer evil?
is there a root of all evil? what does it mean that a person is evil?
is an evil person someone you hate,
or someone who hates everything?
is it possible to affix evil to a numerical scale?
is evil measurable, if we take into consideration the calculation of evil from relative points of view?
the hero of one nation, is the scourge of another nation.
can you call a country evil?
good and evil only exists in cartoons and hollywood movies - in the real world there's society's rules and those who abide by them or not
I don't have much to add, aside from this name, and a paradox:
Have any of you heard of Epicurus?
Apparently not. I read no mention of him in this thread.
Here's some quickie info:
Epicurus, Greek materialist philosopher, (341-270 B.C.E.)
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” -Epicurus
The question of whether or not God is inherently evil is a paradoxical one. This question was one of the first that lead to the development of atheism in Greece. In fact, it was the first paradox to lead to atheism. . . anywhere.
Beyond that, the paradox of the omnibenevolent Biblical Yahweh etc. has also lead to the advent of maltheism: the relgious belief that god is evil.
So, really, it's a pointless paradox. If "God" is benevolent, then why the flood? If "God" is evil, then why the good things "he" supposedly did?
That's what you call a regress paradox.
Here's a question:
If we say that God's actions were evil...doesn't that kinda make us wrong? I mean...he's God...He kinda defines the rules, does he not?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the general concensus is that, according to the bible, torah, koran etc. God created man after his own image, and defined for them what is morally right. If god did not create man's morals, then the concept of sin is erroneous. How can God punish us for what he percieves as sin, while not telling us exactly what those things are, and be considered omnibenevolent? Punishing his "chosen creation" for ambiguous crimes is cruel, isn't it?
Once again, we end up in a state of paradoxical regress.
Allow me to make my point more clear for those who don't understand what I mean by my first statement:
God created man. Sin is a concept of humanity's relation with God. Sin is crime against the MORALS that God says are correct. So, if we say God did something evil, then it is evil because our morals say so. Our MORALS were created by God, therefore, our concept of good/evil is consitent with his.
So, you don't have much of a point Wolf. Unless "God" is a rules breaker.
Why does there have to be only one set of rules?
Looking back at my point, we have his moral outline (ie the ten commandments) but God is God. He can do whatever the heck he wants, really. His rules in which he governs himself by, don't necessarily have to be our rules.
Therefore, if we believe that God is benevolent, then that leaves us to find the purpose behind the actions we see as evil. (As in, we see them as evil, but is there really an overall good outcome? The ends justify the means, in a way.)
If we on the other hand believe that God is evil, well...heh...that's kinda like poking your own doom button, isn't it?
There is also a third option, and that is the idea that we simply cannot fathom God's actions. That we lack the ability for understanding of God. If that is the case, what difference does it make if we in our "limited" understanding define him as good or evil? We're not able to see the whole picture, so any assessment we make is invalid.
It's a mess.
Then that makes God hypocritical and his rules superflous. If he tells mankind: do this, go to heaven, do this got to hell, then does something...oh gee...I don't know, like killing thousands of people in one fell swoop, after telling us we will burn for the act of murder, it's as if he holds himself above his own created laws. That then makes god an asshole, and I'd rather not acknowledge him.Looking back at my point, we have his moral outline (ie the ten commandments) but God is God. He can do whatever the heck he wants, really. His rules in which he governs himself by, don't necessarily have to be our rules.
The key word here is benevolent. If god is, as the Bible says, omnibenevolent, he is a paradox, because he allows evil. It's really not that hard to grasp this regression paradox.Therefore, if we believe that God is benevolent, then that leaves us to find the purpose behind the actions we see as evil. (As in, we see them as evil, but is there really an overall good outcome? The ends justify the means, in a way.)
I can't help but wonderwhat good outcome things like 9/11 had. God allowed it to happen, so he is not benevolent. If he is benevolent, but could not stop 9/11 from occuring, he is not omnipotent, therefore he is not worthy of worship (again, think about Epicurus.) I do not doubt though, that many will refute this by saying that Satan made such things happen. Well then, that makes Satan more powerful then God.
There is also a third option, and that is the idea that we simply cannot fathom God's actions. That we lack the ability for understanding of God. If that is the case, what difference does it make if we in our "limited" understanding define him as good or evil? We're not able to see the whole picture, so any assessment we make is invalid.
If god did not want us to understand him, then why should he want us to worship him? knowing full well (since god is supposedly omniscient [sp?]) that his actions would cause doubt in the world, and be one of the primary causes of atheism, what's the point in his forcing us to believe in him and follow his bigoted rules? Why not just judge us for our actions, not by standards he doesn't even hold himself to?
However, this "lack of understanding" is also used to support "faith."
Ie: after hurricane Katrina, many people in New Orleans said the event increased their faith in god. Even as their lives were ruined, and infants across the city were drowning in their cribs as the flood waters rose.
But, who are we to question god? If we can't understand him, then obviously the killing of thousands every year in some natural disaster or other serves his plan. They obviously all deserved what they got. God always knows what he's doing.
You'll excuse me if I laugh, I hope.
The same logic would apply to the forum mods here, and every authority figure.
But you also hit another nail on the head. You said that God was telling US that if WE do some thing, WE will be punished for it. He didn't say that those rules were the rules for everything, did he?
Plus, as the creator of those humans, is God still subjected the the same subject as "murder" as we are?
Let's try this hypothetical:
Let's say I make a garden, and put some plants in it, and then I put some gnomes in the garden and tell them they're not to eat any of the plants.
Then two things happen:
1. I eat one of the plants.
2. A gnome eats one of the plants.
What happens? I never said I wasn't allowed to eat the plants, nor did I say it was wrong for me to do so. In fact, the plants were for my eating. But they were not for the gnome to eat.
Who's at fault here? Me, or the gnome?
If we jump back into context, God created us all, but then lets say he saw some group that just was really causing the whole plan to get screwed up. He warns them to stop what they're doing, but they don't. So for the sake of the whole "project" he deletes those people. You could even say they were a failure in the design.
What's the meaning then? If God didn't interviene, there might have been a huge disaster. Plus, as the one who put the whole bit together, is God not the one who has the right to make corrections as he sees fit? Would a benevolent God just walk away from the disaster and let all his creation be destroyed?
True, but "benevolence" doesn't mean that everything is purely good in action. Sure, if God whacked a few heads, it may seem a bad thing, but if the overall intent and outcome was good, then it can still be a benevolent action.
If a herd of deer outgrows its forest and some must be killed to keep the herd from starving, the act of killing can be seen as evil, but the reason is benevolent.
There's actually a lot been said and thought about on that subject. If God is all-powerful, why does he not make us all rich, happy, and content?
That's a far larger can of worms than I think this thread wants. The question of why God would let terrible things happen if he has the power to stop them. The answer probably lies in the notion that humanity cannot have its free-will if its actions are micromanaged by God.
For instance, if a child hits his sister for taking his toy. In the Utopian-God view, the moment the child thought of hitting his sister, God would physically reach down and stop his hand from hitting his sister. In another viewpoint, God allows the kid to hit his sister, because the result in the end will probably be that the kid learns that hitting others is wrong. If God simply stopped him from hitting his sister, the kid would learn nothing.
How does that relate to 9/11 (or any other bad act in history)? Can you think of any reasons why America getting its clean face pounded might be a good thing?
Of course, I'm not saying there's always a good reason, either. Consider the idea that God does, in fact, allow Satan to exist and do evil, even though God is all-powerful and created Satan.
It's an interesting problem. And there's also the angle of "no good without evil" to be considered, too. In that, you can't know good if you don't know evil. How would you know you are happy if you've never been sad? How would you know comfort if you've never known discomfort?
In a way, living in an existence where God protected us from every single bad thing, would be more hell than any idea of hell currently known. :?
But can we also compare natural disasters to intentional acts of God? If God smites a group of people directly, is it the same as a river flooding?
If you assume that God created us, but doesn't micro-manage us, then we are in a sense an ultimate form of a creature under test.
Let's say you build some robots and make the robots capable of trying to figure out solutions to their problems. You then set the robots loose in a field. Some of the robots wander around and do just fine, but one falls in a hole and another gets eaten by an animal. The one in the hole eventually figures out how to get out, and the other robots learn to protect themselves from animals that might eat them. Okay, yeah, it was tragic that two robots had bad things happen to them, but in the big picture, the project progresses successfully. The robots have triumphed over adversity.
Let's go a step further. Let's say you tell your robots that if they leave the field, there will be big problems, so leaving the field is forbidden. Most of the robots obey, and stay within the field, but one particular group of robots keeps wandering out of the field. Despite repeated lecturing, the robots keep wandering out of the field, and each time they do, they attract animals to the field which eat some of the innocent robots. In order to save your experiment, what do you do? Do you just let the disobedient robots keep wandering out of the field? Or do you put a stop to it? Perhaps you have those disobedient robots melted down and made into new robots? Perhaps you just turn them off?
First off wolf, I would like to say you are very refreshing. You are one of the first highly articulated, well thought and thorough theist I have ever had the pleasure of debating. Your the sort of person I relish having his conversation with, you don't immediately resort to ad-hominem as soon as I make a good point. You hold you own and point out my fallacies. For that, I applaud you.
Now, let's get down to business.
Your post, while very well written, is, as you yourself said, a whole other can of worms this thread doesn't need.
Now, there are some things I feel that I should address however.
You use the word "benevolence" I use "omnibeveolent". There is a difference. The Bible holds God is omnibeveolent, thus ALL his actions must be good. This is the reason for the "omni-" prefix. If there are events that serve no greater purpose, like the Crusades, that caused decades of suffering in the name of religious justice, then God allowed this suffering to occur, therefore, he is not omnibenevolent. With his lack of omnibenevolence, he cannot be omnipotent, for if he was omnipotent, he could stop evil from occurring, and thus retain his omnibenevolence. It is this paradox I am addressing. Benevolence is different than omnibenevolence.
As for the rest of the argument you propose, a lot of the answers (and resultant questions) would be way off topic, and perhaps we should continue our discussion in a new thread?
Oh, and a question if you don't mind. I can't quite put my finger on it, but are you Christian, or a diest?
(Oh, and your yard gnome Adam/Eve analogy was very well worded. Again, I applaud your articulatness.)
August 25th, 2007, 10:55 AM
God, for those who seek an intelligent debate, is a "term", a use of "language", a "statement"........of the "limits" which we can only hope to achieve.
Any small-minded poll you do is an act of worship..........like it or not...........your choice defines how you see what you may as well understand as "your world".
Yeah, I see that. I'm unfortunately letting in my own viewpoints on God. Shame on me. I view God as benevolent, but not omnipotent, because I don't believe God knows what every single atom is doing, nor do I believe that God micromanages.
So have we made a conclusion about God (even though it's off the topic)?
That perhaps it can't be that God is omni-benevolent because that defies what we observe?
Sounds good to me. Although I would point out that it does actually show that the religious texts are not exactly always to be taken word for word. Perhaps the person(s) writing that edition thought "omni-benevolent" sounded like a good word for describing God, and just didn't think it through?
Of course, now we have to re-evaluate the thread question, because I believe changing God from an omnipotent God to a quasi-omnipotent God, changes the results of this discussion. In that, I mean, if God IS allowed to have bad things happen, then how does that position the question of his actions in the Bible?
I'd argue that it actually supports God's actions if that is the case.
BTW, all those "bad" things that happened in the Bible...they have explanations if I remember right. If you read only "God killed 30 people" then yeah, it's easy to judge that as plain evil.
You can always PM me if you want to start a new topic on something in here.
Christian? Deist? I'm not really sure I'm even a theist. :P
The reason I tend to appear straight-theist is because I often play devils-advocate from the faith side of the argument. (Did that sound even remotely correct? lol )
Whether or not I've fully made a decision on the existence or non-existence of God, is something I feel irrelevant to the discussion. I think people are too quick to jump to conclusions, and often even in this science forum people can tend to ignore the processes of scientific analysis. Science demands that you explore all avenues of an issue to determine truth, and to also examine your methods by which you search for that truth. If you keep coming up with a negative by one test, it does not necessarily mean you're testing correctly.
| « Religion and education. | Was Jesus of Nazarath homosexual? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
