|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 2, 2020 9:17:22 GMT
The excuses that people make for their nefarious actions range from simply mistaken to psychotic. Simply mistaken is not evil. What about psychotic? It's best not to ask that question. The law typically does not hold the mentally ill responsible for their actions, but it can enforce consequences anyway, if different than the consequences for people not considered mentally ill. With "schizophrenia" things get really murky as even the top experts disagree what it it.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 2, 2020 9:25:52 GMT
It's best not to ask that question. The law typically does not hold the mentally ill responsible for their actions, but it can enforce consequences anyway, if different than the consequences for people not considered mentally ill. With "schizophrenia" things get really murky as even the top experts disagree what it it. You said simply mistaken is not evil. I was just wondering if you thought psychotic is also not evil in the same sense. Now that I realize you're talking about our judicial system (I'm slow sometimes, don't hate) I'll just ask why it's a question best left unasked.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 2, 2020 9:41:35 GMT
It's best not to ask that question. The law typically does not hold the mentally ill responsible for their actions, but it can enforce consequences anyway, if different than the consequences for people not considered mentally ill. With "schizophrenia" things get really murky as even the top experts disagree what it it. You said simply mistaken is not evil. I was just wondering if you thought psychotic is also not evil in the same sense. Now that I realize you're talking about our judicial system (I'm slow sometimes, don't hate) I'll just ask why it's a question best left unasked. Don't blame yourself. This one is not on you. The term psychotic is supposed to be reserved for "extreme" breaks from reality as opposed to mere excursions into fantasy. It is not a term to be used lightly nor by people without years of special training. I should not have used it. Sometimes when people here claim to "lack" beliefs when they obviously do not I accuse them of a "psychotic reaction." I probably shouldn't be so informal. I do however consider this a "casual" setting.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Dec 2, 2020 9:46:48 GMT
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. Happiness is a feeling. Being omnipotent, I'd make sure they'd have that feeling.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 2, 2020 9:51:43 GMT
Seems to me they wouldn't be happy with what they have because they wouldn't know what they have. Happiness is a feeling. Being omnipotent, I'd make sure they'd have that feeling. Are you implying that omniscience and benevolence are not compatible?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 2, 2020 9:53:05 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. Are you saying God didn't? What difference would you have? Everyone would be locked in?
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Dec 2, 2020 10:00:44 GMT
Happiness is a feeling. Being omnipotent, I'd make sure they'd have that feeling. Are you implying that omniscience and benevolence are not compatible? That's a different topic altogether, not sure why you thought I was implying that. If anything, I feel it's the opposite: perfect understanding is perfect forgiveness.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Dec 2, 2020 10:02:50 GMT
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. Are you saying God didn't? Well, obviously he didn't. 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 Arlon10 on Dec 2, 2020 10:06:01 GMT
Are you saying God didn't? Well, obviously he didn't.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. Yet large numbers of people seem to think he did, and hope to go there when they die. No?
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Dec 2, 2020 10:13:10 GMT
Well, obviously he didn't.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. Yet large numbers of people seem to think he did, and hope to go there when they die. No? Oh, you're talking about the unevidenced afterlife. I'm saying I'd just jump straight to Paradise, and not create any possibility of anyone ever being anywhere else.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 2, 2020 11:06:38 GMT
Are you implying that omniscience and benevolence are not compatible? That's a different topic altogether, not sure why you thought I was implying that. If anything, I feel it's the opposite: perfect understanding is perfect forgiveness. You said if you were God (and omniscient), you would make sure they were happy. This seems to imply that God is either omniscient or benevolent, but not both. I mean, surely if he's omniscient, he knows how to force love. And if that's the case, it becomes a question of why he doesn't. Do we presume it's because he isn't benevolent? I don't know how forgiveness fits into a world where there is nothing to forgive, but here in the real world, isn't that what God offers? Perfect forgiveness? I've heard it said it's there for the taking, you just have to accept it.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 2, 2020 11:21:28 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? Judaism doesn’t quite see things this way. One of the 13 Principles of Faith for Jews is called divine justice. It’s something we don’t expect to see. Whatever divine justice God exercises on Hitler is God’s business, not ours.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Dec 2, 2020 11:22:26 GMT
That's a different topic altogether, not sure why you thought I was implying that. If anything, I feel it's the opposite: perfect understanding is perfect forgiveness. You said if you were God (and omniscient), I said if I were omnipotent and omnibenevolent - I did not grant myself any more knowledge than I currently possess in that hypothetical. My current knowledge is more than sufficient - all I need is the power to enact my will. Why? I just don't get it. This would imply nothing more than the power to do so, so omnipotence would be the closest applicable trait here. One may know how to do something without possessing the ability to do it. For example, I know how to fix the world with godly powers, but I do not have godly powers. Contrary to popular belief. You had the ability to forgive before the very first time you made use of it. God's forgiveness does not obliterate poverty, disease, famine, crime etc. Perfect forgiveness is given without the asking. God's forgiveness is conditional, and the conditions aren't even relevant to the sins. God wants us to repent for how we have hurt him, not for how we have hurt one another.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 2, 2020 11:56:12 GMT
This isn’t the Jewish perspective.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 2, 2020 22:20:47 GMT
Yet large numbers of people seem to think he did, and hope to go there when they die. No? Oh, you're talking about the unevidenced afterlife. I'm saying I'd just jump straight to Paradise, and not create any possibility of anyone ever being anywhere else. And no one takes your advice on what to do should it be found there is no god?
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Dec 2, 2020 23:00:25 GMT
Oh, you're talking about the unevidenced afterlife. I'm saying I'd just jump straight to Paradise, and not create any possibility of anyone ever being anywhere else. And no one takes your advice on what to do should it be found there is no god? What advice?
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Dec 2, 2020 23:05:42 GMT
This isn’t the Jewish perspective. The Jewish perspective isn't so much about repentance at all; I am obviously talking about Christianity here, the god of the New Testament. Which, I have to say, is a very odd and unlikely sequel to the Torah.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 2, 2020 23:10:12 GMT
And no one takes your advice on what to do should it be found there is no god? What advice? Exactly. You're done then? That's great, bye.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Dec 2, 2020 23:12:11 GMT
Exactly. You're done then? That's great, bye. Why would you need advice? In the advent there is no god, carry on as before. He didn't hold your hand before either, so what's the problem?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 2, 2020 23:18:59 GMT
Exactly. You're done then? That's great, bye. The advice is grow up and learn to make choices, decisions, and commitments in the absence of absolute and objective guides, without projecting out into the cosmos.
|
|