|
Post by gadreel on Dec 1, 2020 6:18:54 GMT
I don't have a Bible in front of me but God repented for ever making man. We are Gods big mistake. Is this not just the rock argument? I mean it all depends on how you define God™, until we actually shake his hand I doubt we can know anything for certain.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Dec 1, 2020 9:53:36 GMT
I don't have a Bible in front of me but God repented for ever making man. We are Gods big mistake. Is this not just the rock argument? I mean it all depends on how you define God™, until we actually shake his hand I doubt we can know anything for certain. Not quite the same, as the Bible does actually say God regretted having made humans. Which means he considered creating humans a mistake.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Dec 1, 2020 10:02:21 GMT
So when we read about God doing harm, we assume he does it for the lulz so we can brand him an asshole and smugly refute the whole benevolence thing. Easy peasy lemon squeezy. Now you are setting up a false dichotomy. Doing harm for harm's own sake would indeed be universally defined as evil, but it is not the entire definition. What Hitler did was evil, even if in his eyes he was only acting for the good of "pure-blooded" Germans. What Fritzl did was evil, even though his motivation was sexual pleasure, not "for the lulz". The God of the Bible can certainly be described as evil, because any human ruler who acted in the same way - and there have been a few - would be classed as evil. There is certainly nothing benevolent about the Biblical God, he is intolerant and admits it.
|
|
Huxley
Sophomore
@huxley
Posts: 258
Likes: 86
|
Post by Huxley on Dec 1, 2020 15:26:53 GMT
From everything I read in The Bible God hates man and wishes he had never created US. We really have to tow the line if we wish to get out of this mess. If not we will be thrown into a pit, to burn for all eternity. Hitler, Stalin and the other horrible leaders murdered people and it was over. It seems a bit extreme. Maybe all this was thought up several thousand years ago by a person wishing to impose his will on others. Maybe when we die we are gone, no matter what we have done.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Dec 1, 2020 21:04:53 GMT
Is this not just the rock argument? I mean it all depends on how you define God™, until we actually shake his hand I doubt we can know anything for certain. Not quite the same, as the Bible does actually say God regretted having made humans. Which means he considered creating humans a mistake. Then the definition of God you are using answers the question, as I stated. If God is defined as having made mistakes, then he is capable of making mistakes, if the definition is that he does not then he cannot and you have to either reject teachings that say he does, or you have to reconcile them somehow.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 2, 2020 0:17:00 GMT
So when we read about God doing harm, we assume he does it for the lulz so we can brand him an asshole and smugly refute the whole benevolence thing. Easy peasy lemon squeezy. Now you are setting up a false dichotomy. Doing harm for harm's own sake would indeed be universally defined as evil, but it is not the entire definition. What Hitler did was evil, even if in his eyes he was only acting for the good of "pure-blooded" Germans. What Fritzl did was evil, even though his motivation was sexual pleasure, not "for the lulz". The God of the Bible can certainly be described as evil, because any human ruler who acted in the same way - and there have been a few - would be classed as evil. There is certainly nothing benevolent about the Biblical God, he is intolerant and admits it. Flopping "evil" around as a noun, an adjective, and an adverb is what's causing the problem here, and I'm not quite ready to agree that love means unconditional tolerance. I don't think many parents would agree, either.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 2, 2020 0:20:32 GMT
Which part? How about this: Evil is the act of doing harm for no reason other than to do harm. Actually most evil perpetuated has a clear purpose.
The Nazis did not enslave and slaughter the Jews for no reason. They actually thought their cleaning actions would ultimately bring about a Great Good to all Mankind. So the sacrifice was needed. The only honorable thing the evil Jews of all ages could do was sacrifice their bodies and lives to the Christian. They wanted to separate the degenerate genes from the White Race the foreign Jews and Roma people brought to Europe. Once Germany had most of the world under their care, then the White Man’s superior breeding and intellect would spread peace and prosperity for 1000 years. I can't speak for Hitler's intentions, but is it not more or less universally agreed upon that he believed his actions were for the greater good?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 2, 2020 0:24:51 GMT
Actually most evil perpetuated has a clear purpose.
The Nazis did not enslave and slaughter the Jews for no reason. They actually thought their cleaning actions would ultimately bring about a Great Good to all Mankind. So the sacrifice was needed. The only honorable thing the evil Jews of all ages could do was sacrifice their bodies and lives to the Christian. They wanted to separate the degenerate genes from the White Race the foreign Jews and Roma people brought to Europe. Once Germany had most of the world under their care, then the White Man’s superior breeding and intellect would spread peace and prosperity for 1000 years. I can't speak for Hitler's intentions, but is it not more or less universally agreed upon that he believed his actions were for the greater good? The excuses that people make for their nefarious actions range from simply mistaken to psychotic. Simply mistaken is not evil.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 2, 2020 2:03:13 GMT
The Nazis were not crusading for Christianity... Didn't they say they were? And don't people still use the Holocaust to this day as proof that Christianity is the wart on humanity's ass? The point here is that Hitler believed he was acting for the greater good, which doesn't fit the definition of evil as doing harm for the sake of doing harm. To refute this, you have to either redefine evil as some here are already trying to do, or presume that the whole thing was based on a lie and he was really just killing Jews for the lulz.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 2, 2020 4:23:04 GMT
Didn't they say they were? And don't people still use the Holocaust to this day as proof that Christianity is the wart on humanity's ass? The point here is that Hitler believed he was acting for the greater good, which doesn't fit the definition of evil as doing harm for the sake of doing harm. To refute this, you have to either redefine evil as some here are already trying to do, or presume that the whole thing was based on a lie and he was really just killing Jews for the lulz. I’m using Nietzsche’s definition.* And he should know, because even before he went bonkers, he sensed his “anti-” philosophy would be misused by the magical thinking mind. There are no experts in areas such as these, but I will admit to borrowing from this article I bookmarked from someone's post awhile back: blogs.stlawu.edu/philosophy/2010/09/30/there-are-no-evil-people/So if Nietzsche can be an expert, then surely Laura Rediehs can be, too. Well, that's just it, isn't it? What's really in your heart is known only to you and God.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Dec 2, 2020 7:49:45 GMT
Now you are setting up a false dichotomy. Doing harm for harm's own sake would indeed be universally defined as evil, but it is not the entire definition. What Hitler did was evil, even if in his eyes he was only acting for the good of "pure-blooded" Germans. What Fritzl did was evil, even though his motivation was sexual pleasure, not "for the lulz". The God of the Bible can certainly be described as evil, because any human ruler who acted in the same way - and there have been a few - would be classed as evil. There is certainly nothing benevolent about the Biblical God, he is intolerant and admits it. Flopping "evil" around as a noun, an adjective, and an adverb is what's causing the problem here, and I'm not quite ready to agree that love means unconditional tolerance. I don't think many parents would agree, either. Love does indeed not mean "unconditional tolerance" - because no one is filled only with love. If you love someone, you want what is best for that someone. This never includes punishing them for their beliefs, much less damnation of any sort, however brief. When one says "God is love", however, then that does mean unconditional love - or God isn't love. God may love, but he isn't synonymous with love. Just like I am not love, nor are you love. But then, "God is love" is not supported anywhere in the Bible. It isn't even implied in the Bible. But just the opposite: "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." The New Testament is where you find the most references to love, but it is also where you get all the references to hellfire. And even when Jesus tells us not to seek revenge but rather turn the other cheek, the reason for this is that revenge is a privilege for God alone. So God doesn't want us to be vengeful - but he himself is still, very much so. And revenge comes from hate, not love.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 2, 2020 8:12:42 GMT
AdminThe Nazis practiced a staggering amount of sadism in their persecutions and vengeance against enemies. They bathed in the pleasure of this among themselves as addicts enjoy their drugs and porn watchers enjoy their most outlandish porn. They couldn’t call it a greater good to film the grisly executions of the people who attempted to assassinate Hitler and then watch them repeatedly as entertainment. Many of the plotters were hung by what they called piano wire in a way that took hours for them to die. They wiggled while their hands were tied so their pants fell off. The brother of the worst plotter (who was shot by a firing squad) was revived before dying on the wire several times so that he could repeat the hours long hanging process. All on film to watch again and again. When Czech commandos killed a Nazi leader in the early part of the war, the Nazis executed 5000 people for it. Seeing a “greater good” overall in there somewhere was certainly a thread in their thinking, but they created their own self-indulgent evil to pleasure themselves more than anything.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 2, 2020 8:26:05 GMT
Flopping "evil" around as a noun, an adjective, and an adverb is what's causing the problem here, and I'm not quite ready to agree that love means unconditional tolerance. I don't think many parents would agree, either. Love does indeed not mean "unconditional tolerance" - because no one is filled only with love. If you love someone, you want what is best for that someone. This never includes punishing them for their beliefs, much less damnation of any sort, however brief. When one says "God is love", however, then that does mean unconditional love - or God isn't love. God may love, but he isn't synonymous with love. Just like I am not love, nor are you love. But then, "God is love" is not supported anywhere in the Bible. It isn't even implied in the Bible. But just the opposite: "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." The New Testament is where you find the most references to love, but it is also where you get all the references to hellfire. And even when Jesus tells us not to seek revenge but rather turn the other cheek, the reason for this is that revenge is a privilege for God alone. So God doesn't want us to be vengeful - but he himself is still, very much so. And revenge comes from hate, not love. 1 John 4:7?As FilmFlaneur alluded to above, love isn't always flowers and puppies.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 2, 2020 8:37:16 GMT
AdminThe Nazis practiced a staggering amount of sadism in their persecutions and vengeance against enemies. They bathed in the pleasure of this among themselves as addicts enjoy their drugs and porn watchers enjoy their most outlandish porn. They couldn’t call it a greater good to film the grisly executions of the people who attempted to assassinate Hitler and then watch them repeatedly as entertainment. Many of the plotters were hung by what they called piano wire in a way that took hours for them to die. They wiggled while their hands were tied so their pants fell off. The brother of the worst plotter (who was shot by a firing squad) was revived before dying on the wire several times so that he could repeat the hours long hanging process. All on film to watch again and again. When Czech commandos killed a Nazi leader in the early part of the war, the Nazis executed 5000 people for it. Seeing a “greater good” overall in there somewhere was certainly a thread in their thinking, but they created their own self-indulgent evil to pleasure themselves more than anything. Well, I'm not saying they were good people, Sci. We deal with shit like that as best we can, but if there's anything after death, it's out of our hands at that point. If you were die and find out that Hitler accepted God's forgiveness, what would you do?
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Dec 2, 2020 8:40:10 GMT
Love does indeed not mean "unconditional tolerance" - because no one is filled only with love. If you love someone, you want what is best for that someone. This never includes punishing them for their beliefs, much less damnation of any sort, however brief. When one says "God is love", however, then that does mean unconditional love - or God isn't love. God may love, but he isn't synonymous with love. Just like I am not love, nor are you love. But then, "God is love" is not supported anywhere in the Bible. It isn't even implied in the Bible. But just the opposite: "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." The New Testament is where you find the most references to love, but it is also where you get all the references to hellfire. And even when Jesus tells us not to seek revenge but rather turn the other cheek, the reason for this is that revenge is a privilege for God alone. So God doesn't want us to be vengeful - but he himself is still, very much so. And revenge comes from hate, not love. 1 John 4:7?As FilmFlaneur alluded to above, love isn't always flowers and puppies. John is evangelising in the epistles, so naturally he is laying it on a bit thick. Funny how there is no desire to take Jesus at face value when he says no one can come to him if he hate not his parents. But John says that "God is love", well, that has to be literal. And the reason why love isn't always flowers and puppies is because we're not perfect.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 2, 2020 8:47:47 GMT
1 John 4:7?As FilmFlaneur alluded to above, love isn't always flowers and puppies. John is evangelising in the epistles, so naturally he is laying it on a bit thick. Funny how there is no desire to take Jesus at face value when he says no one can come to him if he hate not his parents. But John says that "God is love", well, that has to be literal. I don't know about all that. I was just pointing out that it is indeed in the Bible, and more than just implied. I see. So if God's love isn't always flowers and puppies, he isn't benevolent? How does that square with your statement that if you love someone, you want what is best for that someone? Furthermore, what would that love be to someone who doesn't want it, if not "flowers and puppies"?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 2, 2020 8:48:57 GMT
Only if God exists and it gives a crap about us. I think that there is no supernatural “intelligent being.” “God,” as we understand it via our multiple religions, is a human creation and we project our positive and negative, good and bad, righteous and evil instincts upon it. It is assumed for the sake of discussion. A debate about the actual existence of God is a completely different animal.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 2, 2020 8:58:20 GMT
I can't speak for Hitler's intentions, but is it not more or less universally agreed upon that he believed his actions were for the greater good? The excuses that people make for their nefarious actions range from simply mistaken to psychotic. Simply mistaken is not evil. What about psychotic?
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Dec 2, 2020 9:08:04 GMT
John is evangelising in the epistles, so naturally he is laying it on a bit thick. Funny how there is no desire to take Jesus at face value when he says no one can come to him if he hate not his parents. But John says that "God is love", well, that has to be literal. I don't know about all that. I was just pointing out that it is indeed in the Bible, and more than just implied. I see. So if God's love isn't always flowers and puppies, he isn't benevolent? How does that square with your statement that if you love someone, you want what is best for that someone? Furthermore, what would that love be to someone who doesn't want it, if not "flowers and puppies"? If I were omnipotent, and also omnibenevolent, then I would create a paradise for all beings. I would remove all their needs, cares and wants, and just let them exist in a perpetual state of bliss. I would not be the one to create those beings, however, because they'd have no need or desire to exist prior to creation. Although if I had to create living things, I would create them immortal and impervious to injury - and thus also without the need to eat or drink - and also without the ability to reproduce. I would create them without violent inclinations, without protective instincts, without competitive instincts, without possesiveness or jealousy, with only desire for happiness in themselves and others - and all would be right in the world. No, they would not become bored, because I would create them with personalities such that they would be perfectly happy with what they had.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 2, 2020 9:12:56 GMT
I don't know about all that. I was just pointing out that it is indeed in the Bible, and more than just implied. I see. So if God's love isn't always flowers and puppies, he isn't benevolent? How does that square with your statement that if you love someone, you want what is best for that someone? Furthermore, what would that love be to someone who doesn't want it, if not "flowers and puppies"? If I were omnipotent, and also omnibenevolent, then I would create a paradise for all beings. I would remove all their needs, cares and wants, and just let them exist in a perpetual state of bliss. I would not be the one to create those beings, however, because they'd have no need or desire to exist prior to creation. Although if I had to create living things, I would create them immortal and impervious to injury - and thus also without the need to eat or drink - and also without the ability to reproduce. I would create them without violent inclinations, without protective instincts, without competitive instincts, without possesiveness or jealousy, with only desire for happiness in themselves and others - and all would be right in the world. No, they would not become bored, because I would create them with personalities such that they would be perfectly happy with what they had. Seems to me they wouldn't be happy with what they have because they wouldn't know what they have.
|
|