[end3]

So as not to derail this thread, I shall start another in a less hospitible environment. Maybe someone there will be up to the challenge.

[R. S. Martin]

end3, on Oct 10 2008, 03:40 PM, said:

HanSolo, on Oct 10 2008, 02:34 PM, said:

end3, on Oct 10 2008, 12:31 PM, said:

Let me ask this: do you believe that there are good and bad people?

If there is, then God must have made good and bad people. Only a God who knows how to be both, can create either. Right? How can a good God create evil people?

Poorly stated on my part...people that choose good or evil.

Hans, you can't be 2 or three steps ahead of my brain, I am not even that far ahead of it....so stop trying to trip up my arguments before I have thought them through... :P

One obvious solution to the problem--since you really can't control Hans--is not to post stuff before you have thought it through.

[R. S. Martin]

florduh, on Oct 10 2008, 04:17 PM, said:

Regarding the original post:

So I'm thinking there was this butterfly, he flapped his wing and started a hurricane. Storms were spawned from that, causing windy conditions in End's birthplace. A gust of wind knocked his stroller over, dumping End on his head. This resulted in a mental aberration from which he never recovered.

Therefore, God exists.

:lmao:

[REBOOT]

Asimov, on Oct 10 2008, 03:40 PM, said:

REBOOT, on Oct 10 2008, 09:16 AM, said:

I opened that can of worms a few months ago in my rant against having a definition of 'god'. Asimov can make that kind of assertion since he is in a camp with a definition.

What the hell are you talking about?

Hey that's my line :vent: ..... :lmao:

[REBOOT]

end3, on Oct 10 2008, 03:31 PM, said:

florduh, on Oct 10 2008, 01:43 PM, said:

"Don't make me revisit that argument, He probably took the animals and children to protect them from the perverts....oh, but you would let your children alone with them, I am sure..."

End, please re-read that sentence. Think. Would you write it again after thinking?

Let me ask this: do you believe that there are good and bad people?

From my perspective there are people with long term survival assets and those whose capacity to survive has been reduced by their environment or genetic predisposition.

The real issue here are these considerations versus the biblical definition of evil.

Do you believe in exorcism ? If you do, you've taken the blue pill. If you don't, you've swallowed the red pill and have a more mechanical and rational understanding of how this planet works.

Using the 'evil' word under the effect of a blue pill means you are judgmental, use the bible as a reference and are ready to use brute force to eliminate a biblically defined threat

Using the 'evil' word under the effect of a red pill means you are not judgmental, recognize the threat to your survival and will likely make the effort to find a rational and possibly less destructive solution.

[florduh]

I agree with REBOOT (who knew?)!

"The real issue here are these considerations versus the biblical definition of evil."


I would add also it's HOW you define the Biblical definitions. As we know, there are almost unlimited ways to interpret that book.

[R. S. Martin]

florduh, on Oct 11 2008, 01:53 PM, said:

I agree with REBOOT (who knew?)!

"The real issue here are these considerations versus the biblical definition of evil."


I would add also it's HOW you define the Biblical definitions. As we know, there are almost unlimited ways to interpret that book.

Only almost??? With 34,000 Christian denominations currently in existence, and many extinct that once did exist, and most members of each denomination having their own interpretation of the Bible, I think we're stretching the word "almost" to its utmost limit. :scratch:

Maybe that's just me. Being conservative is a good thing. I think I'm being conservative... :shrug:

[Asimov]

REBOOT, on Oct 11 2008, 08:22 AM, said:

Asimov, on Oct 10 2008, 03:40 PM, said:

REBOOT, on Oct 10 2008, 09:16 AM, said:

I opened that can of worms a few months ago in my rant against having a definition of 'god'. Asimov can make that kind of assertion since he is in a camp with a definition.

What the hell are you talking about?

Hey that's my line :vent: ..... :lmao:

:shrug:

[chefranden]

end3, on Oct 10 2008, 11:43 AM, said:

Don't make me revisit that argument, He probably took the animals and children to protect them from the perverts....oh, but you would let your children alone with them, I am sure...

Well then why didn't he kill the children's parents when they were children to preserve their innocence? And what about the grandparents when they were innocent? In fact why didn't he kill Adam an Eve while they were innocent?

Why doesn't God kill Altar boys and Catholic orphans?

By your logic you should have killed your own children before they had a chance to loose their salvation.

[PocketAces]

R. S. Martin, on Oct 9 2008, 10:54 AM, said:

My question concerns the middle paragraph with the underlines. I added the emphasis. Is it true that scientists say all this? I quote the before and after paragraph to provide the context.

Quote

[T]he transcendent and sovereign God sees the end of history from its beginning and providentially orders history so that his purposes are ultimately achieved....In order to achieve his ends God may well have to put up with certain evils along the way. Evils that seem pointless or unnecessary to us within our limited framework....

To borrow an illustration from a developing field of science, chaos theory, scientists have discovered that certain macroscopic systems--for example, weather systems or insect populations--are extraordinarily sensitive to the tiniest perturbations. A butterfly fluttering on a branch in West Africa may set in motion forces that would eventually issue a hurricane over the Atlantic Ocean....

The brutal murder of an innocent man or a child's dying of leukemia could send a ripple effect through history so that God's morally sufficient reason for permitting it might not emerge until centuries later or perhaps in another country.

From Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, by J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, 2003, p. 543.

My reason for asking this question is that this book seems more scholarly than any of the other books I've yet seen written by evangelicals. The other books I saw were written for stupid atheists. This book is written for aspiring Christian philosophers and ministers. I didn't know about this but last night I saw in someone's post that they make a definite distinction in talking with atheists. They won't discuss apologetics with atheists because apologetics is only for Christians. I hadn't known that. Nor does it keep me from reading their books. Amazon did not ask me whether I was suitably religious when I ordered the book. This 600-page volume is much better documented than the paperbacks I've been reading up till now, and it looks like the footnotes might actually be honest.

That led me to look whether the teachings and theories are accurate. But I don't know enough science to judge this one. It just sounds quirky and superstitious. Even if we take the whole god belief out of it, I still think it sounds quirky and superstitious. How can a butterfly start a hurricane? Is that science? Or is that the slippery evangelist talking? and i'd ask how in the world does a butterfly createing hurricanes and tornados

He doesn't actually say that scientists have discovered a relationship between butterflies fluttering and hurricanes. He only says that scientists have seen that weather systems and insects are very sensitive. And then he suggests this thing about butterflies setting off hurricanes. The power of suggestion is so strong but he doesn't actually say it. That is what I mean by "slippery evangelist talk."

to me that is slippery evangelist talk. a mere attempt to prove their point that the problem of evil doesn't debunk the idea of god. nothing more, nothing less.

i don't know too much about any scientific theory on the premise of a butterfly starting a hurricane. even if it would be proven that a butterfly could do that scientifically, it'd show nothing about God. a theory about butterflys createing hurricane, supposedly giving us about our mortality and disease and the reasons? i don't see how anyone could construct some theory that is useful, logical or rational out of that.

but i'm of the belief that the problem of evil is for the religious to figure out since they believe in a omni of all sorts type of god, and their proclamation that he's holy, and loves his creation and yet all powerful. for me, an atheist, the problem of evil means nothing to me in relation to God because simply put, God doesn't exist.

[Kuroikaze]

end3, on Oct 11 2008, 04:13 AM, said:

This comes from a 21 year old? And the point is again.....if God is there, and the Bible and science say we only see dimly, how can you speak from an omnicient point of view. Please

Quote

Let me ask this: do you believe that there are good and bad people?

Ok I don't know if you are reading this thread anymore end, but I have to comment on these two posts, they are right next to one another and they offer entirely incompatible world views.

In the second quote you are indirectly claiming that you can judge a person, or at least their actions as being good or evil.

However, in the first post, you doubt another persons right to judge a set of actions as immoral because that person does not have omniscience. So which is it? can we judge actions as being moral or immoral or do we need omniscience to do so? If we cannot even judge genocide as immoral without the benefit of omniscience then we must cease to make judgments about anything.

Remember, in the bible stories being referenced god is not killing directly but ordering others to kill. If you make an allowance here what is your logical basis for viewing Hitler as immoral, or incarcerating Jeffery Dalmer? For all you know they were just following the will of god. In fact many serial killers believed they were doing just that.

One does not need omniscience to judge actions, speaking of some nebulous good that will come out of genocide somewhere down the line begs the question of who exactly is seeing the benefit, It certainly wasn't the ones who just had their heads lopped off.

You are going to have to accept that the only logical way to justify the actions of the bible god in this instance is to admit that no human has the right to judge ANY action of any kind as moral or immoral. As such, it would no longer make sense to call god "good" because you cannot make a choice on that with out the fiat of your god, and since god is the one telling you what your definition of good is in the first place, calling god good would just be redundant.

[Vixentrox]

chefranden, on Oct 22 2008, 03:26 PM, said:

end3, on Oct 10 2008, 11:43 AM, said:

Don't make me revisit that argument, He probably took the animals and children to protect them from the perverts....oh, but you would let your children alone with them, I am sure...

Well then why didn't he kill the children's parents when they were children to preserve their innocence? And what about the grandparents when they were innocent? In fact why didn't he kill Adam an Eve while they were innocent?

Why doesn't God kill Altar boys and Catholic orphans?

By your logic you should have killed your own children before they had a chance to loose their salvation.

Believe it or not this was a question I struggled with as a Christian, and became an argument I used after I broke the chains of religion. Every Chrisitian wants thier childern to go to heaven. It would make more sense to kill thier children as babies, right after baptism so they were sin free and would go to heaven. After all, heaven is the ultimate goal. What value is there in this life when the eternal one is so much better and you could spare them the pains, illnesses, and sins that were sure to come? Yes, murder is a sin but you could ask for forgiveness from Jesus for murdering children just like any other sin. Your babies go to heaven, you go to heaven, and it's win win for both you and God as you got extra souls into heaven and kept them from Satan's clutches.

[R. S. Martin]

As I read through these posts, esp. yours Vix, life begins to make some sense. Christians simply cannot afford to think through the implications of their concepts. They say with their lips that babies are innocent and that heaven is so much better, all of which logically adds up that parents should kill their babies to save them from the ills of life and risks of getting lost to Satan's clutches.

But they stop short of doing the logical adding up. Like the rest of us, they are horrified at the outcome. And rightly so.

Where does that leave humanity? Or Christianity? Christianity needs to be rewritten and room must be made in it for real humans who make mistakes. Possibly the tyrant who relishes tossing sexual beings into an eternal BBQ could be barbecued and had for Thanksgiving for those of you who haven't had Thanksgiving yet this year. (Ours in Canada is in early October.) The superior Being who procreated him can possibly be called out of oblivion, or wherever the Gnostic teachings were put one and a half thousand years ago, and allowed to govern the universe and heavens once more.

OR we could just do without Christianity.

But the sense I am beginning to see is that Christians reject some of us not because we ask stupid questions but because our questions push for logic where the human heart refuses to go. And most Christians conveniently disconnect their head and heart at just the right places, then reconnect them at just the right places. They do all of this to retain the cognitive dissonance required to live peacefully with the irreconcilable beliefs they profess in their religion. And, by disconnecting and reconnecting head and heart like this, they can declare (without ever knowing that they are lying) that their beliefs are absolute and objective Truth!!!

Did I hear the preacher pound the pulpit there? I think so. It really must be so.

Except that it isn't.

[Ouroboros]

Well said Ruby.