Debate

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 10:48 am

ps are the different spellings of Qur'an a UK/America thing?
I am from oxford and have always learnt to spell it Qur'an, but some people are spelling it Koran...?

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 11:43 am

Originally posted by frogus

You are mixing up the impossible and the imaginable (arghh deja vu). It is thoroughly possible for me to have the will to fly. I can have the will to kill, the will to breathe under water. I can will whatever the hell I want. God has no hold on this. I have free will.
The laws of physics however are what stops me from flying and breathing underwater.
sorry to trivialise things when I just urged everyone not to...but if god were to change the laws of physics so that people could not kill, all sorts of other things would happen...dodgy stuff as in my 'perfect world' post. I know this is not what you are getting at (boring facts of musculature and physical action), but I hope I have already pointed out that the reason the reason we cannot breath under water is not an issue of 'will'.
In short, you said that god could stop murder without physical intervention, I said this limits free will and is therefore not permissable, you are now saying that he should do it in a physical way: "why didn't he make it impossible for us to murder another person, just like it is impossible for us to breath under water?". This brings us back to my first point.

??? I'm just getting more and more confused Frogus, I'm not sure we are discussing the same issue so I think it's best that we get back to the basics and check this.

This is what I am discussing:
1. God is omnipotent.
2. God is infinitely good
3. There is horrible suffering in the world (the kind of suffering Tom and I have been discussing)
4. This suffering is permitted by god

So:
A. Either god is not omnipotent (ie he/it cannot stop the suffering) or
B. God is not inifintely good since he/it permits this suffering or
C. God is still infinitely good because this suffering is necessary for other good things to take place.

Now, MM and yourself seems to be arguing that alternative C is a plausible model of explanation, whereas I argue that it is not, since the very concept of what is necessary and not is ruled by laws that the omnipotent creator has created. An infinitely good being would have created a different set of laws, a world where rape, murder, torture and starvation didn't need to exist in order for good things to exist. If the creator cannot create such a world, well then it's back to A, he/it is not omnipotent.

Furthermore, you seems to rule out alt B because it interferes with man's free will, which we have agreed is a prerequisite. I argue that alt B does not interfere with free will, and therefore it can't be ruled out. That's why I took the breathing underwater or flying as example.

The laws of physics prevents us humans from doing this, still we don't think that these laws, set by the creator, interferes with our free will. So my question is, why should biological/physical ?laws? that prevents us from murdering others be viewed as interfering with our free will? I argue it does not, unless we also view other limitations like wanting to fly but not being able to, as limiting as well.

Now, I'm not sure what your point is or what you are arguing for, or what questions you wish to point our or focus on, please explain - either I have missed something (although I've read through this thread twice) or my brain is just asleep.

is evil worth suffering, if it is the price of eternal harmony? (see The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky)

As I said, an infinitely good omnipotent creator should IMO have created a world where the laws/rules/prerequisites were set so that evil and/or major suffering would not have to be the price payed for harmony.

Re: the quran/koran thing: I've seen both spellings in both AE and BE, I write it "koran" because that's how it is spelled in Swedish - what is the correct spelling, perhaps CM can tell us? Or are both transcriptions equally acceptable?

Der-draigen · Post by **Der-draigen** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 12:12 pm

May I be permitted to add my little take on evil?

Originally posted by CE:As I said, an infinitely good omnipotent creator should IMO have created a world where the laws/rules/prerequisites were set so that evil and/or major suffering would not have to be the price payed for harmony.

"'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,' declares the Lord. 'As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts'" (Isaiah 55:8-9).

Sounds a bit like a cop-out, I realize. But I think there's something to it. It's easy for us to say "God should do this and that," when we see things from a human, rather than from a divine, perspective. We're not running the universe. We may think we know how it should be, but we don't. We can't see the whole picture because our vision is limited. It's limited to our own world and our own minds, both of which are finite. In the face of an infinite God, our finite minds are like little ****roach squeaks. God's wisdom knows how to run things, and it's very probable that we will never understand (in this life or any other) how divine providence works.

Interestingly, the Bible deals with and struggles with this question in great depth. (I only cite the BIble because that's what I know; I'm not familiar enough with other holy books to speak for them.) The Book of Job is perhaps the most famous example. Contrary to popular belief, Job did not have the "patience" of a saint. (In fact, the word "patience" comes from a reference to Job in the New Testament, and the Greek there is "perseverance," not "patience.") The Book of Ecclesiastes is another, along with many psalms, most notably Psalm 88. "Why do the wicked prosper," etc.

There is no answer for the dilemma of evil. There are many possibilities.

I don't believe the answer is that God is not omnipotent. It is illogical that the creator of the universe is not all-powerful.

It could be that God is neutral. Like the Deists believe -- God created the world and is now simply watching its progress without interference. Sort of like spinning a top and watching it wind itself down, or winding up a watch and letting it tick away.

This is my personal idea on the subject:

God created humanity with an inner darkness. According to the creation account in Genesis, male and female were "made in God's image." Now, if you look at nature itself, you see all kinds of darkness -- the literal darkness of the night; and the figurative darkness of natural disaster like tidal wave, earthquake, volcano, etc. The way in which species hunt and kill each other can be viewed as a kind of darkness. There is a species (I can't remember what its name is) that deliberately keeps its prey alive while consuming it. Pain, violence, and death are part of the natural world, part of the natural order. This tells me that God has a dark side. (Again, the Book of Job, passages in Deuteronomy, and passages in Ecclesiastes, and certain psalms claim this much as well.)

Now:
1.) God has a dark side.
2.) Humanity was created in God's image.
Therefore:
3.) Humanity, by the very nature of its creation, has a dark side.

The question therefore becomes: Why does this dark side exist in the first place?

Consider this option:

Anger is part of this darkness within us. Anger can lead to hatred, prejudice, violence, murder, jealousy, selfishness, bitterness, and every kind of evil.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was a very angry person. So were Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. So was Mahatma Gandhi. So were Jesus, Oscar Romero, and every other person you can think of who ever did anything to stand up in the world and fight for justice and social change.

The difference here is, those people put their anger to good use. They channeled their anger into positive action.

My point here is -- We have anger, but it's our chioce how we use it and what we do with it.

Dishonesty. It's in all of us to be dishonest. But some use it for personal gain at the expense of others; while it's been known that some have used it to spare others' lives.

Now a counter-argument might be this -- "If there was no dark side to begin with, there wouldn't be a need for such righteous anger as you describe, Der-draigen. If there was no darkness in the human soul, there wouldn't be a need to fight for justice or to lie in order to save people's lives. Because society would be automatically just and lives wouldn't be endangered to begin with."

Well, I really don't know how to answer that

I could say, I suppose, that it's not God's fault if people want to put a good thing to bad use.

Irenaeus and Origen saw life as a kind of training ground, where the human soul builds and develops its character. How could such a thing happen if we were pre-made with no darkness and were spared all suffering?

There would be no growth, no learning, no wisdom. In short, we would be pod people, just existing with no development at all.

I'm not saying suffering and evil are good things. But we only see the immediate and the exterior. We can't see the long-term, or the interior of the soul and tis development.

There's a story about a man who sat on a roadside watching people pass by. And all day he was treated to the most ghastly examples of suffering and violence in the human condition. He saw children starving. He saw a man killed for a few coins. He saw old, infirm people trying to walk along; people with dreadful diseases, people begging. And at the end of the day he shook his fist at God and said "How can you let this go on? Why don't you DO something about it?!" and God answered, "I did do something about it. I created you."

The idea that one purpose of suffering might be to open our eyes and teach us to love is indeed a paradox; but hey, life is full of those

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 2:27 pm

this argument is perfectly good...but I fail to see why you are a christian (you are a christian, right?)

God created humanity with an inner darkness. According to the creation account in Genesis, male and female were "made in God's image." Now, if you look at nature itself, you see all kinds of darkness -- the literal darkness of the night; and the figurative darkness of natural disaster like tidal wave, earthquake, volcano, etc. The way in which species hunt and kill each other can be viewed as a kind of darkness. There is a species (I can't remember what its name is) that deliberately keeps its prey alive while consuming it. Pain, violence, and death are part of the natural world, part of the natural order. This tells me that God has a dark side.

You should not worship god in this case, if he is just as limited in that he lives by the laws of right and wrong as strictly as any human, then worship people instead. I recomend Mother Theresa, who was clearly afflicted with a 'dark side' (as you say that all humans, and god are). She, however, used the full scope of her power to eliminate evil as often as possible, which cannot be said for god, according to your argument.

It's easy for us to say "God should do this and that," when we see things from a human, rather than from a divine, perspective. We're not running the universe. We may think we know how it should be, but we don't. We can't see the whole picture because our vision is limited. It's limited to our own world and our own minds, both of which are finite. In the face of an infinite God, our finite minds are like little c0ckroach squeaks. God's wisdom knows how to run things, and it's very probable that we will never understand (in this life or any other) how divine providence works.

In this case you should not worship god. You say, god appears to be less than benevolent, but we know that he is so.
How do you know, if not by how he appears to be? This is like a judge throwing out evidence against someone in a trial.
'Why did you throw that out?' I would say
'It was false.'
'How do you know?
'The man is innocent, therefore, evidence which could convict him must be false.'
His logic is sound, but his premises are unstable. This is like saying 'because because because'.

"If there was no dark side to begin with, there wouldn't be a need for such righteous anger as you describe, Der-draigen. If there was no darkness in the human soul, there wouldn't be a need to fight for justice or to lie in order to save people's lives. Because society would be automatically just and lives wouldn't be endangered to begin with."

You should not believe a theory in which you can see faults which you cannot answer for.

Irenaeus and Origen saw life as a kind of training ground, where the human soul builds and develops its character. How could such a thing happen if we were pre-made with no darkness and were spared all suffering?

see my earlier quotes:

is evil worth suffering, if it is the price of eternal harmony?

I don't care if good can't take place as long as everyone is happy.

It could be that God is neutral. Like the Deists believe -- God created the world and is now simply watching its progress without interference. Sort of like spinning a top and watching it wind itself down, or winding up a watch and letting it tick away.

You obviously shouldn't worship this god either.

Der-draigen · Post by **Der-draigen** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 3:32 pm

Originally posted by frogus:I fail to see why you are a christian (you are a christian, right?)

Yeah I am, why is that hard for you to believe? Because I question things and don't just buy everything I'm spoon-fed from the rule-book?

You should not worship god in this case, if he is just as limited in that he lives by the laws of right and wrong as strictly as any human, then worship people instead. I recomend Mother Theresa, who was clearly afflicted with a 'dark side' (as you say that all humans, and god are). She, however, used the full scope of her power to eliminate evil as often as possible, which cannot be said for god, according to your argument.

I never said or implied that God lived by laws of right and wrong. I said God's ways are unfathomable. I also said God has a "dark side." This does not mean that God is imperfect or evil. I also never said that such a "dark side" was an affliction. It's just a fact of nature and whether or not it becomes an affliction is up to our own decisions. What I hope I went on to explain was, God governs the world in divine wisdom, a wisdom we cannot comprehend with our finite minds. What appears as an allowance of evil and suffering on God's part, has some purpose we cannot see. However, we humans can choose to use our own darkness, "inherited", as it were, from the Creator, for better or for worse.

God's own "dark side" is always "used" (as it were) for the best governance of the universe. Even if we can't understand why. That's called divine providence, and the way it works is an immense mystery.

I never said or implied that God does not eliminate evil as often as possible. We think the world has evil in it now?? How do we know what evil God prevents on a regular basis?...

You say, god appears to be less than benevolent, but we know that he is so.
How do you know, if not by how he appears to be? This is like a judge throwing out evidence against someone in a trial.
'Why did you throw that out?' I would say
'It was false.'
'How do you know?
'The man is innocent, therefore, evidence which could convict him must be false.'
His logic is sound, but his premises are unstable. This is like saying 'because because because'.

Huh??...

You should not believe a theory in which you can see faults which you cannot answer for.

In my remark you're referring to here, I anticipated a potential counter-argument, which is necessary to a complete logical debate.

Like I said -- I don't have any solid answers, I'm just throwing some ideas out there for consideration. Not everything has to be perfectly cut-and-dry nice and neat, explained and packed in a box before it's considered as a viable option.

You obviously shouldn't worship this god either.

You're referring here to my remark about Deism, in which God creates without further interference.

Why should we not worship such a God?? It seems to me that your theory, frogus, is that we should only worship a God who fixes all our messes, prevents the messes from occurring to begin with, and provides free lollipops for his carefree children who flutter about the world with no concerns while he expertly controls their lives. It seems to me that you don't believe a neutral God should be given any reverence.

It doesn't matter if God controls our lives and influences world events or not. He created the smallest molecule of the brain that doubts him and that creative power is what needs to be revered.

A grand theological issue throughout the centuries has been: is it possible to revere God for God's own self alone, and not for what God does for us? (The Book of Job deals with this issue as well.)

Personally, I don't buy that God is this warm fuzzy "Touched by an Angel" best pal who just feels really really bad about the bad things that happen in the world and sends Oprah Winfrey to save everything. Nor do I believe that God himself is going to come down here and save everything. Why on earth should he? That's like a parent who constantly follows a bratty child around the house picking up after it and making excuses for the havoc the child wreacks in the nieghborhood. Wouldn't people just love it if God came down here, took control, and fixed everything himself? Takes all the responsibility off us, doesn't it? Gee, we wouldn't have to do a thing, wouldn't have to lift a finger. How easy for us.

Nor do I believe that God is evil or cruel by nature. It might appear that way to us but like I said -- we're seeing the reverse side of the tapestry. Appearance can be and often is deceiving. Ordinary life situations teach us this much. Things are not always as they appear. It doesn't make sense to us but it makes sense in the grand scheme of things, in a cosmic perspective. Like I said, that sounds like a cop-out, but it's the truth. Some things are simply mystery.

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Sat Mar 02, 2002 6:18 am

Yeah I am, why is that hard for you to believe? Because I question things and don't just buy everything I'm spoon-fed from the rule-book?

no...because you seem to question things and not find answers to them. I do not believe anything just for the sake of beleiving.

I never said or implied that God lived by laws of right and wrong. I said God's ways are unfathomable. I also said God has a "dark side." This does not mean that God is imperfect or evil. I also never said that such a "dark side" was an affliction. It's just a fact of nature and whether or not it becomes an affliction is up to our own decisions.

Why do you worship god if his ways are unfathomable? It would seem to me to be obvious to worship a god who is always just and good, but if he is not, then why worship him?
I understand that when you say 'dark side' you mean a negative, neccesary, evil side to counteract the positive good side.
Why do you think god has a 'dark side' if it is always used for goodness? what is 'dark' about it?

What appears as an allowance of evil and suffering on God's part, has some purpose we cannot see.

why do you believe that there is a purpose if you cannot see it? This is what I meant in my example which you didn't get.

Like I said -- I don't have any solid answers, I'm just throwing some ideas out there for consideration. Not everything has to be perfectly cut-and-dry nice and neat, explained and packed in a box before it's considered as a viable option.

now there's no need for sarcasm....my point is just that I don't think you shjould worship god just because he is a 'viable option'. Just because there is no absolute proof that he doesn't exist does not mean that you should dedicate your life to him.

Why should we not worship such a God?? It seems to me that your theory, frogus, is that we should only worship a God who fixes all our messes, prevents the messes from occurring to begin with, and provides free lollipops for his carefree children who flutter about the world with no concerns while he expertly controls their lives. It seems to me that you don't believe a neutral God should be given any reverence.

again...sarcasm is unnecessary. It will not make me ashamed of my opinions. Wether I believe a neutral god is not worth worship does not matter (although that is my opinion). I'm pretty sure that you are not allowed to be a christian unless you believe that god is perfectly good and benevolent.

A grand theological issue throughout the centuries has been: is it possible to revere God for God's own self alone, and not for what God does for us?

Why rever a master who is not good to you, just because he is your master?

Personally, I don't buy that God is this warm fuzzy "Touched by an Angel" best pal who just feels really really bad about the bad things that happen in the world and sends Oprah Winfrey to save everything. Nor do I believe that God himself is going to come down here and save everything. Why on earth should he? That's like a parent who constantly follows a bratty child around the house picking up after it and making excuses for the havoc the child wreacks in the nieghborhood. Wouldn't people just love it if God came down here, took control, and fixed everything himself? Takes all the responsibility off us, doesn't it? Gee, we wouldn't have to do a thing, wouldn't have to lift a finger. How easy for us.

What's wrong with a life that is easy and free of suffering? You seem to be saying that suffering isgood, because it makes our lives difficult?
is that really your position?

Nor do I believe that God is evil or cruel by nature. It might appear that way to us but like I said -- we're seeing the reverse side of the tapestry. Appearance can be and often is deceiving. Ordinary life situations teach us this much. Things are not always as they appear. It doesn't make sense to us but it makes sense in the grand scheme of things, in a cosmic perspective. Like I said, that sounds like a cop-out, but it's the truth. Some things are simply mystery.

alright: I'll use the example of 'don't judge a book by it's cover'
It seems to me that you are seeing a book on the shelf. Oooh the cover's a bit nasty.
Now here the only evidence you have is that the cover is nasty. Why do you not just assume that the book is nasty? It is against all reason to think that the book will be nice, even if the one piece of evidence you have (the cover) is not very convincing.
Why do you then go on to say 'well, seeing as the book is nice, the cover must be misleading'? Where did you get the idea that the book will be nice in the first place? You say yourself that maybe humankind may never be allowed to read it.
Where did you get the idea that god is good (in the greater scheme of things) from at all?

This might sound as if I am ignoring what you have said...but I believe that this is a good argument against your position of being a Christian. If you really do not believe that god is good, then you will have to stop calling yourself a Christian and I will give you my arguments against worshipping a neutral god later on.

Der-draigen · Post by **Der-draigen** » Sat Mar 02, 2002 9:51 am

you seem to question things and not find answers to them.

Not everything has an answer. I haven't been on this planet very long but I've been here long enough to know that. If I had an answer to everything I had a question for, I'd just be an omniscient genius, wouldn't I?

Why do you worship god if his ways are unfathomable? It would seem to me to be obvious to worship a god who is always just and good, but if he is not, then why worship him?
I understand that when you say 'dark side' you mean a negative, neccesary, evil side to counteract the positive good side.
Why do you think god has a 'dark side' if it is always used for goodness? what is 'dark' about it?

Do you think God should only be worshiped if he can be thoroughly understood, comprehended, and figured out? It seems to me that is what you are saying. If so, you're going to be waiting an awfully long time.

Like I said -- our minds are finite and limited. The "mind" of God is infinite and limitless. To say that we can fully comprehend such a being is like saying a rabbit can comprehend a human.

I mean, come on, it's hard enough for one person to understand another. You think we're ready to understand the almighty creator of the cosmos?...

And I never said God was not just and good. I said, it can appear to us as if he is not, but we cannot see the whole picture. We don't know the plan or purpose of what happens. We don't know the long-term effects; we can't see the future, we can't see into anyone else's mind.

And no, you misunderstand me. I did not say that the "dark side" of God, or of human nature, is evil in and of itself. I said, we can and frquently do choose to use it in ways that bring evil into the world.

What is "dark" about it? It's the darkness of the yin/yang balance. Nighttime, for example, is dark but it's not evil. Evil comes from choices, not from the natural condition. Like I said before -- anger can be considered a "dark" emotion, but it can be used in either a positive or a negative way.

I hope that's clear...

why do you believe that there is a purpose if you cannot see it?

Because I can accept that human beings don't know everything and can't know everything. What I cannot accept is that everything is random. A purpose I can't see makes more sense to me than a random jumble of occurrences. I mean, so what if I can't see it? Doesn't mean it's not there.

I believe that things can exist which no one can see or understand. I believe that things can exist beyond proof and evidence and empirical data. That's a personal belief; being subjective it's hard to argue. If your personal belief differs then there's really no point in continuing that particular issue.

sarcasm is unnecessary. It will not make me ashamed of my opinions.

I was not being sarcastic. You haven't seen my sarcasm yet. And I was not trying to make you ashamed of your opinions.

I'm pretty sure that you are not allowed to be a christian unless you believe that god is perfectly good and benevolent.

I believe that this is a good argument against your position of being a Christian. If you really do not believe that god is good, then you will have to stop calling yourself a Christian

ROFLMAO, thank you for enlightening me on my own religion. I'll change it right away, since I've been told by someone who knows absolutely nothing whatsoever about me, my life, my mind, my experiences, my character, etc., that I'm not really that religion after all. Pretty amazing for someone you've never even met.

Now, THAT was sarcasm, and you mightily deserved it

What is the symbol of Christianity? The cross. A symbol of torture and slow, agonizing death. Christians believe that Jesus, as God's son, suffered and died on such a cross. God's own son. Now, God did not spare his own son from suffering and even death. Pretty crazy, huh? What kind of a god is this, for crying out loud?

Well, I'm sure that God wouldn't allow his son to go through such horror if there wasn't some larger good to be accomplished for the creation. In this case, according to Christian belief, that good was the salvation of all creation. I addition -- the cross reminds us that God is present with us in our suffering. Not that he spares us from it but that he shares it. The cross is the symbol of God's solidarity with us in suffering.

But the cross is not the end, we Christians also have the resurrection. The restoration of all things.

So you see, frogus, Christians don't just believe that God is good. We also believe that suffering is real, it serves a purpose, and we are not alone in it when it inevitably occurs.

Again -- I never said God was not good. I said -- we can't understand God completely. It's frequently hard for us to believe that God is completely good because of the terrible things that happen in the world and in our own personal lives. But God's "goodness" extends beyond us to the larger plan of the universe. It's like a chain reaction. Even the most terrible event has repercussions we don't know about.

Now, I'm not saying that God causes these events. Humans cause them. God didn't cause the Holocaust; Hitler did. God didn't put the Taliban in power; they put themselves there. God didn't fly two planes into the World Trade Center; a couple of human freaks did that. And so on and so on.

Now, it comes back to the free will argument. If GOd is all-powerful that must mean he at least allows these things to happen, right?

Okay...but why is the question. And we simply can't know why. But it's my belief that such permissiveness accomplishes a purpose, as I said above. And this leads to...

What's wrong with a life that is easy and free of suffering? You seem to be saying that suffering isgood, because it makes our lives difficult?
is that really your position?

Well...sort of.

Suffering itself is not good but it can accomplish a good purpose.

I'm going to repeat what I said earlier about early theologians' views on earthly life as a kind of training ground. But I'm going to quote from a history text, The Early Church by Henry Chadwick.

"(Irenaeus) grants from the start that there is imperfection in the world, but it is like the blunders made by a growing child, and the purpose of our existence is the making of character by the mastery of difficulties and temptations."

According to Origen: "the material world is not a disastrous mistake in which humanity is involved by a cruel chance, but a realm created under the will of the supreme God and expressing his goodness, justice, and redemptive purpose, which is not to make souls comfortable but to educate, to train, and to remake them so that they turn back towards their Maker without whom they are less than temselves. Origen saw that the 'problem of evil' lies in its apparent purposelessness. For a solution he looked both to Ireneaus' idea that the world is intended to make strenuous demands on us who are called to overcome the difficulties confronting us, and also the Platonic tradition that evil is a perversion of goodness and that responsibility for the disorder lies in the misuse of free will. The material world is for Origen temporary and provisional, and life in it is a short period in the much longer life of the soul...since it is God's way not to use force but to respect freedom, the work of restoration to a correspondence with the divine intention is a slow and painful ascent."

The italics were added by me, they're not in the text.

So, to answer your question -- Yes. I would rather have a world in which people do rotten evil things which I have to learn to overcome, as a training ground, a proving ground for my soul and for my spirit, than a world in which everything is handed to me on a silver platter, where I don't have to learn anything or work for anything or develop my character at all. An easy life, as you say, is a life in which we don't have to discover anything at all about ourselves, there's no growth, no knowledge, no wisdom, no nothing. Can you honestly say that a life without difficulties has anything to teach us?

Where did you get the idea that the book will be nice in the first place?

Well, there's no way to tell. But it's worht taking the book down to check it out instead of just leaving it there, isn't it?

Where did you get the idea that god is good (in the greater scheme of things) from at all?

Once again -- I believe that the creator of the universe governs said universe according to his/her/its wisdom. It wouldn't make sense for God to create the universe and then trash it

So, I believe that God's goverment of creation is, ultimately, for the good of creation, even though it might not always appear that way to our limited, short-sighted vision.

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Sat Mar 02, 2002 2:20 pm

Do you think God should only be worshiped if he can be thoroughly understood, comprehended, and figured out? It seems to me that is what you are saying. If so, you're going to be waiting an awfully long time.

I don't mind how long I have to wait for god to reveal himself to me. I won't just say, ah well, he will probably never give me a reason to worship him so I just will anyway on the off-chance.

Because I can accept that human beings don't know everything and can't know everything. What I cannot accept is that everything is random. A purpose I can't see makes more sense to me than a random jumble of occurrences. I mean, so what if I can't see it? Doesn't mean it's not there.

No, the fact that you cannot see soemthing does not mean that it is not there...but it definately does not mean that is there!

ROFLMAO, thank you for enlightening me on my own religion. I'll change it right away, since I've been told by someone who knows absolutely nothing whatsoever about me, my life, my mind, my experiences, my character, etc., that I'm not really that religion after all. Pretty amazing for someone you've never even met.

Not amazing at all. I could speak to someone on the internet:
'I am a christian' they say
'well gosh..I'm not..let's talk about religion' I say
'I do not believe in god, I do not pray, I have never been to church and I do not believe there was ever any such man as Jesus.' they tell me
'I'm sorry' I reply 'but you are not a Christian.'
'ROFLMAO, thank you for enlightening me on my own religion. I'll change it right away, since I've been told by someone who knows absolutely nothing whatsoever about me, my life, my mind, my experiences, my character, etc., that I'm not really that religion after all. Pretty amazing for someone you've never even met.'

Is this person on stable enough ground to start getting sarcy?

The fact is that I do not need to know anything about you, your life, your mind, your experiences or your character to know what religion you are. If your beliefs go against those of Christianity then you are not a Christian. Simple as that. It is not me, but the person who meets a person and asks them all about themselves before saying 'Right. You are a Christian' who is taking liberties.

It now seems that you do believe that god is perfectly good, so you may be a Christian. If you do not (as it seemed earlier on in the discussion) then you may not. Sorry, but it's not my decision.

Now, THAT was sarcasm, and you mightily deserved it

Well I'm very impressed.

What is the symbol of Christianity? The cross. A symbol of torture and slow, agonizing death. Christians believe that Jesus, as God's son, suffered and died on such a cross. God's own son. Now, God did not spare his own son from suffering and even death. Pretty crazy, huh? What kind of a god is this, for crying out loud?Well, I'm sure that God wouldn't allow his son to go through such horror if there wasn't some larger good to be accomplished for the creation. In this case, according to Christian belief, that good was the salvation of all creation. I addition -- the cross reminds us that God is present with us in our suffering. Not that he spares us from it but that he shares it. The cross is the symbol of God's solidarity with us in suffering.

What kind of god is this? A perfectly reasonable one.
I am going to sacrifice my son to purge your sins, he told the people. 'OK that's very nice of you' said the people. This is fine.
My problem is when I have to believe that he is serving a better purpose without any reason for me to believe such a thing.

Suffering itself is not good but it can accomplish a good purpose.

What good purpose?

And no, you misunderstand me. I did not say that the "dark side" of God, or of human nature, is evil in and of itself. I said, we can and frquently do choose to use it in ways that bring evil into the world.

I think you are twisting my words. I never brought up anything about a dark-side. It seems to be that you saying 'evil is darkness' 'very well' I say 'but darkness isn't evil..it's just dark' you say. That's not fair.

please tell me simply in plain language (or as plain as possible) what exactly this 'darkness' is, why you brought it up in the case against evil and what it has got to do with god having evil in him, if it is not actually evil?

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Sat Mar 02, 2002 2:35 pm

Is it actually possible to have one of these excessively lengthy religious coversations without everyone becoming antagonistic, i just wonder really, since this debate has descended to the point where i have to keep an eye on everyones conduct, i would prefer if this was not the case and everyone remained civil, please, for my sanity if nothing else can everyone respect the other people and stop being disparaging.

T'lainya · Post by **T'lainya** » Sat Mar 02, 2002 3:47 pm

Considering that this is the second time everyone's been asked to settle down and remain civil I back Sleep fully on this. Everyone should consider this an official warning to respect each other and follow the rules

Der-draigen · Post by **Der-draigen** » Sat Mar 02, 2002 3:57 pm

@frogus:

I had originally written a very lengthy post in this space, but am now editing it. I have only this to say:

It's obvious to me that you already have your mind firmly made up regarding certain things in this discussion.

It is also obvious that you did not read, or chose to ignore, much of what I wrote in my last post. You would apparently rather sound like a broken record, stating the same points over and over again, than to actually address the issues raised by, for example, my quotes regarding Irenaeus and Origen, and the "growth" theory of suffering.

Instead of addressing any of the issues that have been raised, you repeatedly discard my ideas as automatically untrue, without providing a single reasoned argument against them; and you have made assumptions about my personal beliefs regarding which you know nothing, based upon misquoting and misrepresenting me. For example:

'I do not believe in god, I do not pray, I have never been to church and I do not believe there was ever any such man as Jesus.' they tell me
'I'm sorry' I reply 'but you are not a Christian.'

I never said a single one of those things. Your implied attribution of those words to my own intent is simple and blatant falsehood. Misrepresentation is no way to get a point across. Your straw man is rather moldy.

In addition, there is absolutely no reason for a personal attack. I fail to see why your crusade to prove that I am not a "real" Christian has any bearing whatsoever on this discussion. What does it matter if I am a Christian, a Buddhist, a Jew, or a Cherokee shaman?

You also seem unable to open your mind enough to admit of possibilities other than what you have already determined to be true. In addition, you seem determined to not comprehend the meaning of my ideas. Believe it or not, it is possible to understand what someone is saying without renouncing your own beliefs.

The irony that you, yourself, asked everyone to be civil, then turned around and launched a personal tirade against me because you didn't like what I had to say, has not escaped my notice. If you didn't want to be open to ideas other than the ones you already hold, why did you start this thread? It seems, from my own experience here, that you wanted an argument (in the non-debate sense) rather than an answer.

All this together being the case, I am wasting my time continuing this discussion with you.

Perhaps when you gain some maturity, someone will be able to discuss these issues with you. Until then, however, I fear that anyone who makes the attempt will also be wasting their time.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Mar 02, 2002 4:19 pm

Frogus writes:
It now seems that you do believe that god is perfectly good, so you may be a Christian. If you do not (as it seemed earlier on in the discussion) then you may not. Sorry, but it's not my decision.

Just to help the conversation along and perhaps quiet things down a bit, maybe you could explain what branch of Christianity demands in its credo that its worshippers accept the essential "goodness" of their deity. I've checked the Athanasian, and there's no mention of this.

Default · Post by **Default** » Sat Mar 02, 2002 6:01 pm

Originally posted by Aegis
Did god need to create man, or did man need ot create god?

WOOOO Aegis was getting extremly serious about this...

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Mon Mar 04, 2002 1:24 am

sorry mods...sorry Der.
I hope you do not think so badly of me that you think I came in here to start a fight. I did not mean to hurt anyones feelings with what I said...but clearly have a lot to learn before telling other people to stay friendly in their debate. I will try to remain keeled from now on. Maybe this circus was just a lttle too frenzied for me...will keep to spamming from now on.
sorry again...Der, I will just try and stay out of your hair...

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Mon Mar 04, 2002 8:32 am

I think that we should not discuss the members on this thread but rather the ideas they bring to it.

So here is a reply to you frogus - in the safely abstract realm. Hope you stay in the debating threads.

As far a I can understand you you are claiming that a perfect world is not possible.

But there is something wrong with your argument.

The world you describe is clearly impossible but a perfect world must be possible or it would not be perfect. Something that cant exist is flawed. Therefore what you describe is not perfect.
(now there is a bit of sofistry for you)

But seriously all this talk about perfection misses the point I think. Maybe the perfect world have no humans in it - that does not mean I would ask god to wipe the slate clean and start over.(I don't want to die)

There are many ways to improve the planet with out taking peoples freedom away. Now while it might not be possible to make earth and its inhabitants perfect one could with out problems envisage optimisation. Difficult choices would have to be made to strike a balance between how much or little intervention ought to be made but there is no credible argument for zero intervention. A bit of rain on the countries where people die from thirst and starvation etc. Sure it would take the freedom away from the western world to help but when we do the balance sheets the freedom gained be those that have enough to eat and drink far outweigh the western world's loss of freedom.

I don't know is this have any baring on your point as I am not 100% sure I understand you.

(@ Eminem. you have used the cosmological argument but despite all this talk of perfection you haven’t tried the ontological argument. What is your opinion on that particular argument?

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Mon Mar 04, 2002 9:05 am

Originally posted by Tom

(@ Eminem. you have used the cosmological argument but despite all this talk of perfection you haven’t tried the ontological argument. What is your opinion on that particular argument?

I'm not familiar with it. Well, I know it was originally proposed by Anselm, criticized by Kant, and has been much debated over the centuries, but since it isn't used widely today by Christian scholars as a defense for the theist worldview, it probably has too many existential holes to fill in. My area of Christian apologia extends no further than the Cosmological, Teleological, Objective Moral, Resurrection, and Immediate Experience arguments, so allow me surf a few sites and get back to you on this one.

Der-draigen · Post by **Der-draigen** » Mon Mar 04, 2002 10:19 am

Originally posted by Tom
So here is a reply to you frogus - in the safely abstract realm. Hope you stay in the debating threads.

Yeah, me too.

I didn't mean to suggest that you should limit yourself to spam, frogus. Just...try to be more open and less assuming, and we might ALL learn something in here.

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Mon Mar 04, 2002 10:37 am

I was going to kill this thread off..but maybe I won't if you're still interested in it. Maybe the mods should decide...

The world you describe is clearly impossible but a perfect world must be possible or it would not be perfect. Something that cant exist is flawed. Therefore what you describe is not perfect.

this doesn't seem to hang well..no. That's not true. Something which is impossible is beyond being flawed or faulty. However, I think you should know that 'perfect' is possibly not the ideal word. By perfect I mean 'without suffering'. I iknow that isn't exactly what the word means, but I am young and do not know a better word for what I do mean. I do not mean logically perfect etc...I mean without suffering.
Also I'd better clear up now that in the past I have talked about 'good' and 'evil'...which has lead to quite some confusion. I have been meaning by 'evil' anything which causes suffering. I will now use the word 'bad' instead because a lot of people think that 'evil' has to be something deliberate and malicious. sorry about that.

But seriously all this talk about perfection misses the point I think. Maybe the perfect world have no humans in it - that does not mean I would ask god to wipe the slate clean and start over.(I don't want to die)

OK hope I cleared that up (above).

There are many ways to improve the planet with out taking peoples freedom away. Now while it might not be possible to make earth and its inhabitants perfect one could with out problems envisage optimisation. Difficult choices would have to be made to strike a balance between how much or little intervention ought to be made but there is no credible argument for zero intervention. A bit of rain on the countries where people die from thirst and starvation etc. Sure it would take the freedom away from the western world to help but when we do the balance sheets the freedom gained be those that have enough to eat and drink far outweigh the western world's loss of freedom.

Yeah...I am not exactly sure where I stand here. Should god do something more? If he does then we can still say...'perhaps a little more?' until we get to the 'perfect' impossible world. Where can we draw the line? Also we do not know how much god is doing (if anything) already. Perhaps he is doing as much as he needs in order to retain moral urgency*. As far as I know, the Moral Urgency Argument is a popular one as far as god's allowing evil goes. The confusion comes because we have to think of god as being 'perfectly' good, so we cannot think how his creations could not be either. I can't talk very convincingly though because to me every argument for god's allowance of evil in the world is very flawed. Yes I am starting to have doubts about what I was saying earlier last time I was swayed by a great argument.
thanks for not patronising me by telling me what ontology is...but I don't know. I get the feeling however that you already have a good argument against it.
*This argument itself is flawed so that I cannot accept it, in ways which you are all familiar with I'm sure.

My area of Christian apologia extends no further than the Cosmological, Teleological, Objective Moral, Resurrection, and Immediate Experience arguments

argh shorter words please.

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Mon Mar 04, 2002 11:02 am

Sorry.

Okay then, in everyday English:

Cosmological: God is the best explanation of why and how the universe came into being. Naturalistic and atheistic attempts to explain the origin of the universe run into problems.

Teleological: the universe is vastly (about 1.00 x 10 to the 46th power, or 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000) more life-prohibiting than life-permitting. The "fine-tuning" that must have been involved to allow this to happen points to the hand of a Creator.

Objective Moral - because objective moral value exists, God exists.

Resurrection - evidence (mostlly eye-witness testimony) of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ implies the existence of God.

Immediate Experience - not really proof for God's existence, but the argument goes that you can experience a loving and transforming relationship with God by faith and obedience to his Word.

'Hope that helps!

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Mon Mar 04, 2002 11:18 am

cheers MM...thankyou for forgiveness Der...nice to be on friendly terms