|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 24, 2020 10:45:50 GMT
1. Epicurious probably didn't say that 2. Even if he did say it, it's flawed reasoning- something akin to an ant thinking a human should not step on it. No one actually cares what the ant thinks. 3. Disease and mean people are not a willful creation of God and more than likely is more the result of the bad habits and instruction of humans. This might be a decent argument if one thought free will didn;t exist, but let's assume there people having smarter conversations than that here. No one actually cares what the ant thinks. Except God. And he exhorts his followers to do the same. That his followers fail so miserably at simple respect for the non-human (and not all of the humans either) life of this planet is a strong case for free will being inherently evil, as the Bible stresses, or God really just don’t give a shit about us that much anymore. Know what doesn't have free will? A box of rocks.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 24, 2020 12:01:37 GMT
How can you think this God thing felt like it made a mistake, when you would have to prove this God thing, beyond your own thinking to even make this claim reasonable and rationale? What's missing here is a clear definition of "mistake." I think that most people take "omnipotent" to mean the god can "do" anything. It can then call whatever that is a "mistake" or not a "mistake," insofar as it is considered the arbiter of the definition of a mistake. One very troublesome man on this board likes to repeat that the god of the Bible "never changes." I am certain that is supposed to mean that a limitless entity has placed limits on itself since nothing else could. I am also certain that does not mean the entity has surrendered all free will entirely. It can plan a day one way in the morning and select another plan in the afternoon within the limitations it has set in advance. The Immutability of God is an attribute that "God is unchanging in his character, will, and covenant promises." The Westminster Shorter Catechism says that "[God] is a spirit, whose being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth are infinite, eternal, and unchangeable." Those things do not change. A number of Scriptures attest to this idea (such as Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; Ps. 102:26; Mal. 3:6; 2 Tim. 2:13; Heb. 6:17–18; Jam. 1:17) God's immutability defines all God's other attributes: God is immutably wise, merciful, good, and gracious. The same may be said about God's knowledge: God is almighty/omnipotent (having all power), God is omnipresent (present everywhere), God is omniscient (knows everything), eternally and immutably so. Infiniteness and immutability in God are mutually supportive and imply each other. An infinite and changing God is inconceivable; indeed, it is a contradiction in definition. It could be said that God knows beforehand all the possible steps each creature- i.e., each human, could take at any given moment, whether good or bad, and God also knows beforehand from eternity what he will or will not ultimately do in any given situation, knowing that sometimes he will say he is going to do something worse, and then doing either a less negative response or nothing at all. This allows God to exhibit a unique form of free will, and to show his mercy and forgiveness and holiness- qualities God values. [Wiki] It may be noted that 'placing limits on Himself' have evidently not excluded ordering mass killings in the past which indeed is that 'something worse'. To say that this purported God no longer thinks such displays of mass punishment are necessary is in effect to argue that the immorality evil and pain inflicted on mankind by some over the last century or so is less than it was in ancient times (and also to assert that one can know God's mind). It is a position hard to maintain, especially for those faithful who point up the handiwork of atheistic regimes as being the worst and perhaps the most likely to infuriate the deity.. I hope that helps. However why a such a god would need to plan when it necessarily knows what will happen anyway and is a being 'outside of time', only you can explain.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 24, 2020 12:40:20 GMT
What's missing here is a clear definition of "mistake." I think that most people take "omnipotent" to mean the god can "do" anything. It can then call whatever that is a "mistake" or not a "mistake," insofar as it is considered the arbiter of the definition of a mistake. One very troublesome man on this board likes to repeat that the god of the Bible "never changes." I am certain that is supposed to mean that a limitless entity has placed limits on itself since nothing else could. I am also certain that does not mean the entity has surrendered all free will entirely. It can plan a day one way in the morning and select another plan in the afternoon within the limitations it has set in advance. The Immutability of God is an attribute that "God is unchanging in his character, will, and covenant promises." The Westminster Shorter Catechism says that "[God] is a spirit, whose being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth are infinite, eternal, and unchangeable." Those things do not change. A number of Scriptures attest to this idea (such as Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; Ps. 102:26; Mal. 3:6; 2 Tim. 2:13; Heb. 6:17–18; Jam. 1:17) God's immutability defines all God's other attributes: God is immutably wise, merciful, good, and gracious. The same may be said about God's knowledge: God is almighty/omnipotent (having all power), God is omnipresent (present everywhere), God is omniscient (knows everything), eternally and immutably so. Infiniteness and immutability in God are mutually supportive and imply each other. An infinite and changing God is inconceivable; indeed, it is a contradiction in definition. It could be said that God knows beforehand all the possible steps each creature- i.e., each human, could take at any given moment, whether good or bad, and God also knows beforehand from eternity what he will or will not ultimately do in any given situation, knowing that sometimes he will say he is going to do something worse, and then doing either a less negative response or nothing at all. This allows God to exhibit a unique form of free will, and to show his mercy and forgiveness and holiness- qualities God values. [Wiki] It may be noted that 'placing limits on Himself' have evidently not excluded ordering mass killings in the past which indeed is that 'something worse'. To say that this purported God no longer thinks such displays of mass punishment are necessary is in effect to argue that the immorality evil and pain inflicted on mankind by some over the last century or so is less than it was in ancient times (and also to assert that one can know God's mind). It is a position hard to maintain, especially for those faithful who point up the handiwork of atheistic regimes as being the worst and perhaps the most likely to infuriate the deity.. I hope that helps. However why a such a god would need to plan when it necessarily knows what will happen anyway and is a being 'outside of time', only you can explain. Although your concept of "unchanging" seems to have improved, your are still not entirely recovered from your mental problem. You never had any sense of context and still refuse to acknowledge the very different context of very different "mass killings." It's not as difficult as you're making it.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 24, 2020 12:48:09 GMT
The Immutability of God is an attribute that "God is unchanging in his character, will, and covenant promises." The Westminster Shorter Catechism says that "[God] is a spirit, whose being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth are infinite, eternal, and unchangeable." Those things do not change. A number of Scriptures attest to this idea (such as Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; Ps. 102:26; Mal. 3:6; 2 Tim. 2:13; Heb. 6:17–18; Jam. 1:17) God's immutability defines all God's other attributes: God is immutably wise, merciful, good, and gracious. The same may be said about God's knowledge: God is almighty/omnipotent (having all power), God is omnipresent (present everywhere), God is omniscient (knows everything), eternally and immutably so. Infiniteness and immutability in God are mutually supportive and imply each other. An infinite and changing God is inconceivable; indeed, it is a contradiction in definition. It could be said that God knows beforehand all the possible steps each creature- i.e., each human, could take at any given moment, whether good or bad, and God also knows beforehand from eternity what he will or will not ultimately do in any given situation, knowing that sometimes he will say he is going to do something worse, and then doing either a less negative response or nothing at all. This allows God to exhibit a unique form of free will, and to show his mercy and forgiveness and holiness- qualities God values. [Wiki] It may be noted that 'placing limits on Himself' have evidently not excluded ordering mass killings in the past which indeed is that 'something worse'. To say that this purported God no longer thinks such displays of mass punishment are necessary is in effect to argue that the immorality evil and pain inflicted on mankind by some over the last century or so is less than it was in ancient times (and also to assert that one can know God's mind). It is a position hard to maintain, especially for those faithful who point up the handiwork of atheistic regimes as being the worst and perhaps the most likely to infuriate the deity.. I hope that helps. However why a such a god would need to plan when it necessarily knows what will happen anyway and is a being 'outside of time', only you can explain. Although your concept of "unchanging" seems to have improved, your are still not entirely recovered from your mental problem. You never had any sense of context and still refuse to acknowledge the very different context of very different "mass killings." It's not as difficult as you're making it. To the dead, which kind of mass killing they are victims of is, I'd suggest, of only of limited technical interest. A God capable of such a course once is still capable of it. Indeed on another thread, just recently, a Christian has assured me that "God is going to order BILLIONS of people to be killed and that will be the correct course to take". It appears at least one believer here thinks contexts haven't changed and that indeed " the vastly smaller group of his worshippers ... will always be more important to him."
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 24, 2020 12:58:10 GMT
Although your concept of "unchanging" seems to have improved, your are still not entirely recovered from your mental problem. You never had any sense of context and still refuse to acknowledge the very different context of very different "mass killings." It's not as difficult as you're making it. To the dead, which kind of mass killing they are victims of is, I'd suggest, of only of limited technical interest. A God capable of such a course once is still capable of it. Indeed on another thread, just recently, a Christian has assured me that "God is going to order BILLIONS of people to be killed and that will be the correct course to take". It appears at least one believer here thinks contexts haven't changed and that indeed " the vastly smaller group of his worshippers ... will always be more important to him." If other "Christians" are wrong about it, that is no excuse for you to be wrong about it also. "Two wrongs don't make a right." You may expect to never be effective in argument. You have no talent for argument. Most people don't like arguing anyway. I'm certain you can find some pass time that suits you and them better. You won't though, I'm guessing.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 24, 2020 13:14:43 GMT
To the dead, which kind of mass killing they are victims of is, I'd suggest, of only of limited technical interest. A God capable of such a course once is still capable of it. Indeed on another thread, just recently, a Christian has assured me that "God is going to order BILLIONS of people to be killed and that will be the correct course to take". It appears at least one believer here thinks contexts haven't changed and that indeed " the vastly smaller group of his worshippers ... will always be more important to him." If other "Christians" are wrong about it, that is no excuse for you to be wrong about it also. "Two wrongs don't make a right." I see you didn't address my main point. Ah well. And in such matters as these there is no way of discerning for sure who is right and what is wrong, not least since no one apparently can know the mind of god. All one can go on is previous form.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Nov 27, 2020 10:51:07 GMT
How about a bacon cheeseburger? Come to think of it, it violates two dietary laws, and it's in the bible. Why does Burger King serve them? Those dietary laws are abrogated by 1 Burger Kings 2:18.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Nov 27, 2020 11:05:24 GMT
Was the black death one of Jehovah's mistakes or was it intentional? How about Adolph Hitler? How about Covid? How about a bacon cheeseburger? Come to think of it, it violates two dietary laws, and it's in the bible. Why does Burger King serve them? As there are lots of contradictions in the Bible, (e.g. Ezekiel 4: 9, 12, & 15), was Yahweh just writing the Bible off the top of his head without thinking of what (S)He had previously written?
Epicurus: “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?”
1. Epicurious probably didn't say that 2. Even if he did say it, it's flawed reasoning- something akin to an ant thinking a human should not step on it. No one actually cares what the ant thinks. Ants care. And if God can squish humans with the same indifference as we squish ants... we still care. God may use God standards, but as humans, we use human standards. Ebola, bubonic plague, polio, syphilis the results of bad habits? The microorganisms were formed by bad habits? As for free will, it actually doesn't exist, but that's neither here nor there. Assuming it did (even though no mechanism has ever been proposed as to how it possibly could, or even properly defined what it's supposed to be), we did not choose to have free will. That was God's idea, apparently, and a phenomenally bad one at that. If his creation chooses of its own volition to act on faculties they were intended to have, then any and all consequences resulting from that is God's fault, and nobody else's. If I had an ant tank at home, and decided to take the top off, it's not the ants's fault that my house is infested by them. They only acted on the choice I decided they should have, and so it is my folly, and my folly alone, that caused the ants to roam freely in my house. The ants are just doing what ants do. Just as humans are only doing what humans do. We didn't have to be this way, God could have created us with perfect personalities and with no desire whatsoever to act against his will. And we would be perfectly happy in that scenario, because God would have designed us to be happy with only good and righteous interests.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Nov 27, 2020 11:08:44 GMT
I'm going to really alienate fundamentalists with what is obvious, that the good God couldn't have created the physical laws and environment our souls experience. Indeed, he sent his son to save us from the "prison" that Satan has us in. The laws of Heaven are far superior to the laws we live by, whether man mad or laws of Physics. That's been proven, actually. The laws of Heaven? Are they available in print?
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Nov 27, 2020 11:13:30 GMT
The Immutability of God is an attribute that "God is unchanging in his character, will, and covenant promises." The Westminster Shorter Catechism says that "[God] is a spirit, whose being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth are infinite, eternal, and unchangeable." Those things do not change. A number of Scriptures attest to this idea (such as Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; Ps. 102:26; Mal. 3:6; 2 Tim. 2:13; Heb. 6:17–18; Jam. 1:17) God's immutability defines all God's other attributes: God is immutably wise, merciful, good, and gracious. The same may be said about God's knowledge: God is almighty/omnipotent (having all power), God is omnipresent (present everywhere), God is omniscient (knows everything), eternally and immutably so. Infiniteness and immutability in God are mutually supportive and imply each other. An infinite and changing God is inconceivable; indeed, it is a contradiction in definition. It could be said that God knows beforehand all the possible steps each creature- i.e., each human, could take at any given moment, whether good or bad, and God also knows beforehand from eternity what he will or will not ultimately do in any given situation, knowing that sometimes he will say he is going to do something worse, and then doing either a less negative response or nothing at all. This allows God to exhibit a unique form of free will, and to show his mercy and forgiveness and holiness- qualities God values. [Wiki] It may be noted that 'placing limits on Himself' have evidently not excluded ordering mass killings in the past which indeed is that 'something worse'. To say that this purported God no longer thinks such displays of mass punishment are necessary is in effect to argue that the immorality evil and pain inflicted on mankind by some over the last century or so is less than it was in ancient times (and also to assert that one can know God's mind). It is a position hard to maintain, especially for those faithful who point up the handiwork of atheistic regimes as being the worst and perhaps the most likely to infuriate the deity.. I hope that helps. However why a such a god would need to plan when it necessarily knows what will happen anyway and is a being 'outside of time', only you can explain. Although your concept of "unchanging" seems to have improved, your are still not entirely recovered from your mental problem. You never had any sense of context and still refuse to acknowledge the very different context of very different "mass killings." It's not as difficult as you're making it.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 28, 2020 4:56:33 GMT
1. God cannot do anything. He has limitations. Let's assume that means he is neither omniscient or omnipotent since that means nothing anyway. Chapter and verse for this view? God didn't know what was going on in Sodom & Gomorrah, and he sure had a lot of questions for Adam and Eve after they ate that apple. Interesting. Are things good and bad because God said so, or were they always good and bad and God was just letting us know?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 28, 2020 4:58:09 GMT
Epicurus: “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?” I'm not sure that is necessarily true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2020 5:00:26 GMT
Epicurus: “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?” I'm not sure that is necessarily true. It could mean a low GAF (Give a F--K) factor.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 28, 2020 5:12:58 GMT
I'm not sure that is necessarily true. It could mean a low GAF (Give a F--K) factor. Or a high one. For the sake of discussion, we presume God exists and that he is benevolent, hence the arguments challenging that presumption. If we are also to presume that "evil" is an objective term, maybe we should agree upon its definition before continuing this chat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2020 5:18:34 GMT
It could mean a low GAF (Give a F--K) factor. Or a high one. For the sake of discussion, we presume God exists and that he is benevolent, hence the arguments challenging that presumption. If we are also to presume that "evil" is an objective term, maybe we should agree upon its definition before continuing this chat. Evil can be a very subjective term - and very relative depending on how you argue this. Lawyers do this all the time. They could turn a witness like Mother Theresa and paint her as a scabby whore and make Hitler a champion of the German people.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 28, 2020 5:21:08 GMT
Or a high one. For the sake of discussion, we presume God exists and that he is benevolent, hence the arguments challenging that presumption. If we are also to presume that "evil" is an objective term, maybe we should agree upon its definition before continuing this chat. Evil can be a very subjective term - and very relative depending on how you argue this. Lawyers do this all the time. They could turn a witness like Mother Theresa and paint her as a scabby whore and make Hitler a champion of the German people. Then it isn't necessarily malevolent to not prevent it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2020 5:26:49 GMT
Evil can be a very subjective term - and very relative depending on how you argue this. Lawyers do this all the time. They could turn a witness like Mother Theresa and paint her as a scabby whore and make Hitler a champion of the German people. Then it isn't necessarily malevolent to not prevent it. A person sees a small child about to walk on a street where a speeding car approaches. The person knows the small child will be killed if he or she doesn't intervene. The person does nothing to intervene and lets the child die even though the child could easily be saved by that person. That is a low GAF factor. Is that evil?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 28, 2020 5:33:36 GMT
Then it isn't necessarily malevolent to not prevent it. A person sees a small child about to walk on a street where a speeding car approaches. The person knows the small child will be killed if he or she doesn't intervene. The person does nothing to intervene and lets the child die even though the child could easily be saved by that person. That is a low GAF factor. Is that evil? I don't know why that person didn't save that child, so I couldn't say. Are you sure you don't want to define evil?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2020 5:33:43 GMT
A person sees a small child about to walk on a street where a speeding car approaches. The person knows the small child will be killed if he or she doesn't intervene. The person does nothing to intervene and lets the child die even though the child could easily be saved by that person. That is a low GAF factor. Is that evil? It's definitely indifference...Herald. I'm the anti-Herald. When a person gets banned their IP address is tracked so they can't come back. I doubt any Internet Cafes are open in Alabama at this time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2020 5:41:18 GMT
A person sees a small child about to walk on a street where a speeding car approaches. The person knows the small child will be killed if he or she doesn't intervene. The person does nothing to intervene and lets the child die even though the child could easily be saved by that person. That is a low GAF factor. Is that evil? I don't know why that person didn't save that child, so I couldn't say. Are you sure you don't want to define evil? We can use this definition. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil
|
|