Page 4 of 74 FirstFirst 1234567891454 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 1473
  1. #61  
    Ok, I HAVE to work now. Feel free to attack my stuff. I'll try to post tomorrow, then it's honeymooning for a week. Have fun, everybody! Thanks for the conversation, DR!
  2.    #62  
    Originally posted by dietrichbohn


    Actually, you want to say "It is possible that God lives in my pants and satisfies me sexually every hour on the hour."

    Now THAT'S what I call a Wholly Good God!

    And the argumentative mess is there, but it turns out it's fairly difficult to base arguments on statements of possiblity. Chalk it up to my incredibly massive and beefy skill in logic that I did
    Yes, but possibilities aren't truths. If the purpose of an argument is to work toward an understanding of truth (as opposed to possibilities - "Anything's possible."), then assertions have to be proven. 'm not letting God out until you agree with me.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  3.    #63  
    Originally posted by dietrichbohn
    Ok, I HAVE to work now. Feel free to attack my stuff. I'll try to post tomorrow, then it's honeymooning for a week. Have fun, everybody! Thanks for the conversation, DR!
    It's been fun, congratulations (again), and live it up with the missus.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  4. #64  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson
    Yes, but possibilities aren't truths. If the purpose of an argument is to work toward an understanding of truth (as opposed to possibilities - "Anything's possible."), then assertions have to be proven. 'm not letting God out until you agree with me.
    "Anything" is not possible. And why can't possibilities have truth values attributed to them? They can. I'm asserting that a certain state is possible. And that assertion is true until it is disproven. Here's the classic example of a false possibility, it's the original one from Aristotle (the *******) himself:

    It is not possible that a thing can both have and not have a property in the same way at the same time.
    ...It's a good thing god can colocate, 'cause he's in my pants too. If god had to be in just one place, we'd have some 'splainin' to do to our wives!

    Ok, NOW I have to work!
  5. #65  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson
    Does the Bible make the assertion that God is Omnipotent? There's a possibility that might be fun to argue.
    Actually, yes it does. In the Revelation of Jesus Christ:

    REVELATION 19:6
    6 And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
    In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. JOHN 14:2
  6. #66  
    "No, it's not; or at least I've yet to see sufficient evidence that it's not--and the burden of proof lies on you, not me. Let me explain. We're not talking about this universe, in which it may not be possible to have free will w/out evil (although I disagree there too), but of all possible universes. God could have created the universe however he felt, and if it's logically possible for both free will and 0-evil to exist, then god could have created the universe in that way. Obviously, god chose not to, so there are only two possiblities: either free will and evil must coexist or god willed evil. But to say that free weill and evil must coexist you have to show that it is logically impossible for the opposite to be true. The best way is to cause it to lead to a direct contradiction, i.e both A and not A at the same time and in the same way in all possible universes. Saying "There is only good and there is free will" is not even close to a contradiction.

    You're only stuck on this idea of impactful free will being only choosing between good and evil because that's how the universe was set up from the get-go. In order to show that god's hands were tied in doing so, you have to show that it's the best possible universe, or a necessary condition for reality. I don't think that can be done. In fact, with sufficient creativity, I think we could think up a universe that's exciting, challenging, free, and wholly good. It's just that we're stuck in this one, and therefore may lack that creativity. "


    and

    "Actually, the burden of proof always lies on the person who claims a given premise is logically impossible. Just because it's the assumption of all of western culture doesn't mean that it's correct. I simply am making it clear that this is an unjustified assumption. But here, I'll back it up:

    "Free will and the nonexistence of evil is possible at the same time, in the same way, in the same universe."

    That statement is correct until it is proven wrong, since all it does is state a logical possibility."


    No offense, but that's all yak-yak. That is not a logical staement sense it flies in the face of all the evidence we have seen.
    You could as easily say there is the possibility for pigs to learn how to speak in another universe, given the right conditions. Not only is that not provable, it's not un-provable. You're coming from the "anything is possible" realm, which can also be rightly called 'fairy tale land'. I'm coming from the land of 'this is how it was set up, how do I respond'?

    If God wanted us to be purely 'good' with no chance of 'turning to the dark side' he could have. That wasn't what he wanted. He wanted us to be in a world where dangers existed, moral and physical, where there were consequences for our actions. He wants us to choose good, not just 'be good'. Free will implies choice, as I said before, and you need at least two choices to make that work. If there were no evil, you wouldn't have a choice, you would just be good with no struggle of any kind. No free will, as your ability to choose had been removed, by lack of another choice. Plain and simple. That is logic. He couldn't get the result he wanted with no evil. He didn't want 'Sim City'.

    'Right, but they argue for the existence of evil within the framework of a plan that is wholly good. I'm not talking about immediate evil, or even evil within our lifetimes, or within all history up to this point. Christian theology holds that the overall setup of the universe is essentially good, and therefore if you just zoom out enough, over all of time and the apocalypse and the entire universe, all evil is just part of a grand plan for us to be happy hanging out with god.

    IMO, it's a sugarcoat."


    NO, what they say is that the capacity for evil exists in all of us, and God has given us the choice to follow those impulses, or not. We were created 'in his image', that doesn't merely mean we look like him, but that we, like him, have the ability to choose to create or destroy. For us to reach our highest potential we have to have evil to tempt us, or we won't have anything to strive against. In Genesis, when it says God created the darkness and light, it wasn't really talking about day and night- that was a direct reference to evil and good. Great good comes about in the face of great evil, usually involving self-sacrifice. If there were no evil in a universe, you're not talking about Heaven, you're talking about stasis. No chance for improvement, 'cause you're already there.

    "Well, there's Zen Buddhism, Communism, Capitalism, Utilitarianism, Object Utilitarianism, and so on."

    Their adherents display all the symptoms of religious zealots.

    "Logical possibilities" such as what you propose are interesting head scratchers, but they don't change the way this world is. They also don't disprove that there is a God, or if he actually allowed evil into his creation, or had no control over that.

    "In fact, with sufficient creativity, I think we could think up a universe that's exciting, challenging, free, and wholly good."

    IMO, no you couldn't. Without having the possibility of evil, you could come up with a very limited world that was stale, stifling and boring (prove me wrong!). The promise of Heaven is so great because we will be coming from a world where evil exists, and we resisted/repented and got in. The measure of Heaven is as equally what it is not, as what it is.

    Wow, this is fun!
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  7. #67  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike:
    [...] "Logical possibilities" such as what you propose are interesting head scratchers, but they don't change the way this world is. They also don't disprove that there is a God, or if he actually allowed evil into his creation, or had no control over that. [...]


    Perhaps not, but they can disprove certain perceptions that people possess about what 'God' is or isn't. IOW, it might not be able to prove or disprove the existence of 'God', but it can certainly prove that if there is an omnipotent 'God', then he obviously wanted 'evil' to exist (since if 'He' were omnipotent _and_ did not want it to exist, it wouldn't).
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  8. #68  
    Originally posted by Toby
    but it can certainly prove that if there is an omnipotent 'God', then he obviously wanted 'evil' to exist (since if 'He' were omnipotent _and_ did not want it to exist, it wouldn't).
    Exactly, the conclusion of the argument cannot have more of a scope than its premises, one of which is "God is Omnipotent".

    bobbymike:
    As far as people's distaste for modal logic, I just gotta shrug my shoulders. That's how the rules of meaning work, so far as anybody's been able to elaborate them. If you're not going to allow for talking about possibilities, then what are we going to talk about. You say I'm coming from "fairy tale land," but it doesn't matter where I'm coming from: the logic of the argument still holds. If it's all "yak-yak" then so is all analytic philosophy since 1800. What I'm saying is that god could have set us up in fairy tale, yak yak land, but chose not to. If you don't like the argument, dash one of the premises.

    And yes, it is possible that, in another universe, there are flying and talking pigs. What conclusions can we draw from that, not much? But we can draw conclusions from the possiblity that free choice and zero evil coexist. Again, remember the scope. IF god exists and IF god created the universe and IFGod is omniscient and IF evil exists and so on.

    The argument is valid (i.e. it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false), so you have 3 choices:

    1) Disprove a premise.
    2) Accept my conclusions.
    3) Reject all logical thought based on modalities.

    ...looks like you're leaning toward #3. If so, say goodbye to a lot of philosophy, theology, etc. Also, I'm betting that a number of other things (AI) depends on modal logic as well (I have to look that one up)
  9. #69  
    I don't go on VC for just over a day and look what happens . After I absorb all of this I plan on responding, but at the moment Final Fantasy calls. Now there is a world where pigs can fly, talk, dance, be enlightened or turn to the dark side.

    As for my first statement, it is mainly based on my disillusionment of an institution that claims to have the answers to life, but is just as corrupt as say Microsoft. I have fully enjoyed reading this thread. For the record I have sat through many a church service as a child, I won't pretend I was awake , and it wasn't my style. More recently (not by much) I have seen a lot of people use religion as an excuse or answer for everything in their lives. Something went wrong? It was the devil (where is the church lady when you need her?). Do you need a new computer? Pray for it.

    And then these same people say how evil homosexuality is and how everyone who doesn't believe in Christianity is going to Hell.

    Hell? Does a place really exist? I don't think so. Sure you can make your own hell, but I'll be damned if there is some eternal place of fire and torture that everyone except for Christians go to. There is still plenty of evil without a Hell, but I would have to be on dietrichbohn's side and say a world could exist with only good.

    Lets just say it has all left a bad taste in my mouth.

    Ok, end of rant. I need to learn a few more things about logic if I'm going to participate in this thread. (or is the key to wear pointy ears while you type?)
    <A HREF="http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_69783.html"TARGET=_BLANK><IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/lenn0nhead/hvcslogo181x75.jpg"BORDER=1></A>
  10. #70  
    Originally posted by lennonhead
    Ok, end of rant. I need to learn a few more things about logic if I'm going to participate in this thread. (or is the key to wear pointy ears while you type?)
    LOL! Logic is actually intuitive, you just have to go at it slow. To make it easier, just attach letters to all the phrases, and leave the If, and, ors, and Therefores. You'll see the flow.
  11. #71  
    I guess what I don't get is how you can claim that free will can exist independent of evil. Free will means just that. If you remove one side of a choice (black/white, up/down, good/evil, left/right - even computer code is binary) you remove the ability to choose. No choice is left, one has to pick the one left because there is no other choice. That is not free will. There has to be duality or there can be no free will.
    I have no problem with the idea of 'possibilities'. I love reading fiction. I have a problem understanding how you can take away one of two choices and say free will can still play a part.
    Example. Exchange right arm for evil and left arm for good. Use same logic to conclude that it is possible for someone born into a universe without right arms to have a choice (free will) of which hand he wears a ring on.
    Logically you can't have free will if you remove one of the two choices. Your argument is not valid by that standard. Regardless of your knowledge of modal logic, your basic premise is flawed. Unless you have a much different definition of free will.

    My belief states that God allows evil in the world because he doesn't need for us to just 'be good'. He allows us to be tempted because he wants us to make the choice to be good. He endowed us with free will and put us in a world that allowed for us to screw up and choose evil. Not doing so would have not given him the result he wanted (and for him the process is part of the result). Either you believe in that, or you don't. You can't disprove that (although many have claimed to prove or disprove it), you can simply accept it or reject it.

    There are many people who go to Christian services who act like Lennonhead says, but by the definition that Christ gave as to who was one of his followers, they fail. They can say they are Christian, but as long as they act in ways that repute his teachings, they can't be Christian.

    "Hell? Does a place really exist? I don't think so. Sure you can make your own hell, but I'll be damned if there is some eternal place of fire and torture that everyone except for Christians go to. There is still plenty of evil without a Hell, but I would have to be on dietrichbohn's side and say a world could exist with only good."

    I can understand how you feel, but you must also know that every devout Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc. knows that they are striving to please their creator and will not agree with you (except for the "I'll be damned" part" . For them to say any other faith (or non-faith) is right, destroys their ability to be right.

    Toby wrote:
    "Perhaps not, but they can disprove certain perceptions that people possess about what 'God' is or isn't. IOW, it might not be able to prove or disprove the existence of 'God', but it can certainly prove that if there is an omnipotent 'God', then he obviously wanted 'evil' to exist (since if 'He' were omnipotent _and_ did not want it to exist, it wouldn't)."

    I agree.

    I appreciate that this topic has gone on so long with out senseless name calling. Thanks everybody!
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  12. #72  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike:
    I guess what I don't get is how you can claim that free will can exist independent of evil. [...]


    Simple. If God is omnipotent, then He can create a world where free will can exist independent of evil. If God cannot create such a world, then God is not omnipotent.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  13. #73  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    I guess what I don't get is how you can claim that free will can exist independent of evil. Free will means just that. If you remove one side of a choice (black/white, up/down, good/evil, left/right - even computer code is binary) you remove the ability to choose. No choice is left, one has to pick the one left because there is no other choice. That is not free will. There has to be duality or there can be no free will.
    Why does there have to be a duality there? Why not a triad, or a monad, or something not involving nubmers at all? One of the issues I take with the conception of god is it drives ideas into dualities when there is no need for them to be. We think of "Good vs. evil" as being two side of a coin, with no other options, when really the analogy to a coin is very poor. I'm not talking about shades of grey, I'm talking about a whole different way of thinking about it. Yes, even computer code is binary, but it could (and has?) be trinary. I don't understand why free will must be tied to the good/evil dichotomy. I feel it's a false dichotomy to begin with, and even if it weren't there's no compelling reason to tie it to free will except it made things easier for Augustine and Aquinas to explain their worldview.
    I have no problem with the idea of 'possibilities'. I love reading fiction. I have a problem understanding how you can take away one of two choices and say free will can still play a part.
    Because, as I said, there isn't necessary reason for there to be just 2 choices.
    Your argument is not valid by that standard. Regardless of your knowledge of modal logic, your basic premise is flawed. Unless you have a much different definition of free will.

    Trust me, the argument is valid. You're saying it's not sound by refuting premise 2, "It is logically possible that there be created a universe in which humanity can have free will and in which it is impossible for evil to exist." If you're defining free will as "the ability to choose evil," then I suppose that would refute that premise. However, I don't like that definition, seems to me that free will need not and should not necessarily include any reference to evil. It's not about evil, is it?
    Either you believe in that, or you don't. You can't disprove that (although many have claimed to prove or disprove it), you can simply accept it or reject it.
    I'm not trying to disprove it, or your beliefs (Not yet, anyway... ). I've got respect for anybody who's thought about their religion, and twice as much respect for somebody who will engage in an argument on terms other than citing bible verses. All I'm proving is that you can't hold onto free will, evil, and a wholly beneficient god. One of them has to go.
    I appreciate that this topic has gone on so long with out senseless name calling. Thanks everybody!
    Amen!
  14. #74  
    Originally posted by dietrichbohn:
    [...] Yes, even computer code is binary, but it could (and has?) be trinary. [...]


    Computer code is only binary because modern computers are still based on the concept of switches. The switch was either on or off. There's no hard and fast rule that said we had to keep it that way. People just tend to do whatever's been done previously (Santayana's warning notwithstanding).

    I don't understand why free will must be tied to the good/evil dichotomy.

    Because there are two kinds of people in this world: Those who believe there are two kinds of people and those who don't.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  15. #75  
    I've been off all day and a lot has been said, so there is much to respond to & comment on. Some of this may trod upon areas touched upon in other things I've not read yet as I write. Apologies in advance for a long, long post (rather than beefing up my post count).

    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    God can stop evil (check the Bible for numerous times Jesus, or God, stays the hand of Satan.).

    Is Satan truly evil, or just of a diametrically opposed moral code?

    Finally, Yorick asked:
    "I thought the Romans killed Christ.
    Or am I splitting hairs?"


    Roman soldiers put him to death, at the command from Pontius Pilate at the behest of the Jewish priests, who considered Jesus to be a dangerous heretic and radical. Left to themselves the Romans wouldn't have killed him. The Jews demanded it because they said he broke Jewish law.


    okeydoke.

    Originally posted by GSR13
    The problem I have, is you try to sum it all up by saying one person is religious and another is not. It is not that simple.
    That wasn't my intent. I'm not religious. I did not grow up in a religious household. My parents attended church when younger (my mother even attended a Catholic school at one time) and decided as adults they weren't interested in it. I never set foot in a church until I was in college, and that was for an art history class (because, most western art from the time of the Romans to the Rennaissance was religious in nature). I only know those parts of the bible of the Catholic church that are publicly well-known (Noah, Cain & Abel, the travels of Jesus, Last Supper, etc.)

    The question is, are you a Christian? Do you believe that Jesus Christ is God manifest in the Flesh? Do you believe He died and was resurrected?

    I believe in reincarnation and accept that the person known as Christ may have been ressurected. I don't believe Jesus Christ is God manifest partly because I'm unsure there is a God. (This is a position I've arrived at after a number of years and considerable thought on the issue, so it's extremely unlikely I'll be converted here, but I appreciate the discussion.) I'm willing to accept that Jesus Christ could have been the agent of a God.

    **I do not want to hurt anyone or Flame anyone. I believe this discussion is interesting and thought provoking. Please do not take anything I say personally or as disrespectful to you.

    okay. ditto, please.

    Originally posted by ****-richardson
    God made the "actions have consequences" rule

    Newton's Third Law states, "To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."
    Not to say that a god did not provide this as a law, just that it's also a law of nature.

    Originally posted by GSR13
    God simply wanted to be worshipped.

    God is an egomaniac?

    Sure, he could have left it Adam and Eve and never allow Satan to tempt them. He could have simply vaporized Satan from the start, or never have created him to begin with. But, God wanted to be worshipped as an AllKnowing God.

    Again, by no means am I a theology scholar. I was of the impression that the snake and the apple was a test. If Adam and Eve did not partake of the apple, then they were worthy of His love and His gift of the garden, and if they did so, if they broke His rule, they were to be cast out and have to make it on their own.

    The only way we could worship Him as a Healer is if He allowed sickness. The only way we could truly know His love, is to experience hatred.

    Cain and Abel, correct?

    The entire plan behind this was for Christ to receive a Bride that would NEVER leave His Word. God will abolish evil. There will be a day when there is no evil at all and it will be the New Heaven and the New Earth.

    [poking a little fun]
    If all people are the Bride of Christ, then what's up with the anti-homosexuality stance?
    [/poking a little fun]

    Originally posted by dietrichbohn
    God could have created the universe however he felt, and if it's logically possible for both free will and 0-evil to exist, then god could have created the universe in that way.

    Now I feel a little like part of an experiment. God sets up three environments: one of all good, one of all evil, and one comingled, and sees which suceeds. We're motes in a petri dish.
    I'm reminded of Star Trek's "mirror universe" concept, where those considered "good" in one reality (Kirk, et al.) are "evil" in the other reality, and vice versa. Tho, the "evil" characters there seemingly had different agression levels, so perhaps not a good analogy.

    Finally, I prefer not to be patronized by my deities.

    nice, I like that.

    dietrichbohn, you went on from there about evil and its existance or lack thereof. While I find your arguements valid, I personally feel that "evil" is only a perception. Even a "bad" person generally feels what they are doing is the right thing to do, whether "good" or "evil" in the eyes of society at large. Consider Alexander the Great. He inflicted a lot of pain and suffering as he conquered Europe, and was likely seen as an evil person by those his armies trod upon. But, those same armies, and history, regard him as a good person. Even a good person is capable of evil deeds.

    Originally posted by ****-richardson
    My premise is that God lives in my pants and satisfies me sexually every hour on the hour.

    ROTFLMAO!

    Originally posted by dietrichbohn
    "Anything" is not possible.

    well, nothing is impossible, ergo it is possible that anything (the opposite of nothing) is not impossible (a double negative, something which is not impossible is possible).

    Nothing is impossible, but a number of things are highly improbable.
    "Everything is possible and nothing is real." -Vernon Reid

    ...It's a good thing god can colocate, 'cause he's in my pants too. If god had to be in just one place, we'd have some 'splainin' to do to our wives!

    how convenient. "God did it. God is good. very good."

    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    Not only is that not provable, it's not un-provable. You're coming from the "anything is possible" realm, which can also be rightly called 'fairy tale land'.

    I prefer Wolkekuckuckland (cloud-cuckoo land; Aristophanes) myself.

    We were created 'in his image', that doesn't merely mean we look like him, but that we, like him, have the ability to choose to create or destroy. For us to reach our highest potential we have to have evil to tempt us, or we won't have anything to strive against.

    This follows with an observation I've made (not in this thread, but in my real-world so-called life): It is easier to destroy than it is to create. Example: it takes many months and many man-hours to put up a skyscraper. It takes only a few hours (including placement of explosives) to bring it down.

    In Genesis, when it says God created the darkness and light, it wasn't really talking about day and night- that was a direct reference to evil and good.

    By this, one would say that evil existed first, correct? 'From the darkness, there was light'?

    "Well, there's Zen Buddhism, Communism, Capitalism, Utilitarianism, Object Utilitarianism, and so on."

    Their adherents display all the symptoms of religious zealots.


    The claw is our master! we must obey the will of the claw!
    ahem. sorry.

    The promise of Heaven is so great because we will be coming from a world where evil exists, and we resisted/repented and got in. The measure of Heaven is as equally what it is not, as what it is.

    but not every belief system includes a Heaven, my own personal beliefs included. (I expect to be back again.) There are reports of a "white light" by people who've had near death experiences but this has also been explained as a surfiet of electrical energy in the brain. My goal in this life is to achieve a certain level of personal happiness, and I consider that to be heaven. If it includes a certain kind of hash, so much the better.

    Originally posted by lennonhead
    Sure you can make your own hell, but I'll be damned ...
    intentional or not, that was funny.

    (Toby said what I was going to about binary.)

    Haven't had one olf these intellectual discussions here in a while. Thanks.
    The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.
  16.    #76  
    Of course God willed evil. I don't think He "tainted" himself by dealing with it directly, but rather used "free will" to birth it secondarily, but that isn't a premise I can back up. Oh, I forgot, I don't have to back up my premises in this argument. "It's possible for God to have created evil through the facet of free will between giving me 'favors'."

    Anyway, I think the question deals more with His motivation than His guilt.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  17. #77  
    dietrichbohn, you've been very patient with me so far. Could you please give us your definition of free will? I feel like we are talking in circles here. For me free will means that you have the ability to choose (good, bad, semi-good, semi-bad, etc.), so I'm having difficulty understanding how creating a universe with no evil (removing a possibility) can actually be said to include free will.

    "Simple. If God is omnipotent, then He can create a world where free will can exist independent of evil. If God cannot create such a world, then God is not omnipotent"(Toby)

    "All I'm proving is that you can't hold onto free will, evil, and a wholly beneficient god. One of them has to go."(dietrichbohn)

    You both are close with these comments. First you Toby, God created us in his image- I take that to mean that he gave us free will. He chose to do that, as a test? I don't try to imagine his reasons other than how they are stated in the Bible. I think that what he did was create a world where we could earn his respect through our actions (free will). I don't think it's possible to really appreciate what you haven't earned. He could create a world/universe where evil was nonexistent, but he would have to 'cheat' to include free will in that place(see Lucifer). He would have to put limits on his creations. If he doesn't have limits on his free will, how could he truthfully create something in his image that did? AI proponents have been going through the same quandrary. HOw can you create something that thinks for itself, yet will also do what you want? Why did HAL have a mental breakdown? He was given contradictory programming. If he was a fully aware AI, with free will, that would not have been possible. (although he could have had a mental breakdown for some other reason)

    dietrichbohn, God never claimed to be wholly beneficient. He created the Egyptians didn't he? Yet he repeatedly whacked them with plagues when they didn't do his will. He also flooded the world once. Remember, this is his world, we just live in it.


    "Is Satan truly evil, or just of a diametrically opposed moral code?"(yorick)

    He is evil. His 'crime' was too much pride and no feelings of remorse or regret for his actions. He chose to try and overthrow his creator. It wasn't a matter of lifestyle choice as a matter of direct disobediance to his father.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  18. #78  
    Man! I'm late to the party--the kegs are tapped out and all the cute guys are gone!!

    A few thoughts, as there has been way too much stuff for me to address specifics. These points may be recognized as tying in somewhere with the above, if not, please excuse my inane ramblings (Wasn't that the topic)

    1. God has tainted himself by dealing directly with evil, according to the Bible, as he had a conversations with Lucifer regarding Job and his faithfulness and how to test same;
    2. The Jews also demanded that Barabus (sp?) be set free rather than Jesus, leading to his crucifixion. I agree with the above point that the Jewish people were fulfilling a pre-ordained plan.
    3. The point about things are "Good" or "Evil" is biblical, as the Bible says you are either of God or of the World, which is sinful. Of course, if you don't believe the Bible, you may see things less black and white.
    4. I know a lot of Christians who are A.H.s. I know a lot of non-Christians who are A.H.s. I liked Josh's point about who God most likely wants with him for eternity.
    5. There is a verse in the Bible that I have heard explains God's whole reason for creating the earth (I'll try to find later) and I seem to recall it is, basically, he wants the heavens to see him be worshipped by those who chose to do so.

    The problem with not being around VC for a while is that GREAT threads like this one do not get the quality K. Cannon attention that they deserve!
  19.    #79  
    Don't worry about it, K. This is my thread and I'm still catching up with it. Concerning your 1st tenet, addressing evil may not "taint" God, rather like speaking with hypocrites may not make one a hypocrite.

    Sorry, I can't do anything about being ugly.

    Originally posted by Toby
    No, Buddhism is more of a philosophy of life than a religion. It really doesn't have a position on the existence of god(s) per se. Buddha only means 'enlightened one'. While Siddhartha Gautama is considered 'The Buddha', it does not mean that he is considered a 'god'.
    Damn! More information I have to learn about. Got any good links?

    So it's possible to be a Catholic Buddhist?
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  20.    #80  
    Originally posted by Yorick
    Newton's Third Law states, "To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."
    Not to say that a god did not provide this as a law, just that it's also a law of nature.
    I wasn't referring to Newton's law. I was dealing with it's elder sibling.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
Page 4 of 74 FirstFirst 1234567891454 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions