God is smart, powerful, and good? No.

[Jesse2]

One of the fundamental christian tenets is that God is three things:

Omnipotent, which means all-powerful

Omnicient, which means all-knowing

Omnibenevolent, which means all-good

My question is, how can God be these things, and still allow all the suffering in the world to exist?

A christian will say that these things exist because God gives us free will. Why does God inflict us with such a terrible curse as free will? God must know what great and horrendous evil we will do to create such suffering in this world. God must know ahead of time everyone that will go to 'hell'. God created the devil, and yet allows it to exist. Is the devil just God's pet?

For there to be evil, we must take away some of God's powers.

Perhaps he is not all-knowing, and therefore did not know what horrendous and terrifying things he would create.

Perhaps the power of God is limited, and therefore it is out of God's hands what happens on this Earth or in the 'afterlife'.

Perhaps God is not a loving and benevolent God, and is forced by certain laws of the universe to do what he does.

Perhaps God is not any of these things or does not exist at all.

What is the answer?

(edited to correct some grammar)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Jesse2
What is the answer? The answer is that omnipotent is logically inconsistant, therefore a definition of God that includes "omnipotent" is logically inconsistant.

That is why religions tend towards definitions that use phrases like "most powerful" rather than "omnipotent".

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by Upchurch
The answer is that omnipotent is logically inconsistant, therefore a definition of God that includes "omnipotent" is logically inconsistant.

That is why religions tend towards definitions that use phrases like "most powerful" rather than "omnipotent". I won't argue against what you are saying. I've been through the Lutheran school system, I was taught that omnipotent was the correct word, and any christian I talk to will not disagree with the term omnipotent meaning "all-powerful".

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Jesse2


What is the answer?


You haven't adressed the possibility that he is non-existant.

That makes the seeming contradictions in his character disapear like the morning dew.

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
You haven't adressed the possibility that he is non-existant.

That makes the seeming contradictions in his character disapear like the morning dew. Thanks. I added that one in.

[hgc]

jesse,

Have you even taken into account the bad stuff that can't possibly be associated with "free will," the so-called "acts of God." Take for instance the current Euro-heatwave, where lots of people are dying (is that bad vis-a-vis omnibenevolence?) or a case where a storm knocks a tree down on a family driving to Home Depot, and all but one die.

Does Satan control the whether?

Oh, my head hurts just thinking about it. I think I'll stick to the non-conscious universe theory.

[The Mad Linguist]

Is it just me, or do all defenses to the Argument from Evil collapse to an appeal to some conjectured greater good that is unknown and, furthermore, unknowable?

Seems like ad hoc reasoning to me.

[Jesse2]

With christians, I have found that the defense always amounts to free will. "God gave us free will, therefore he can still be all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing". They act as if free will is a wonderful gift from God.

[Lord Kenneth]

One could simply say that since our time on earth is simply a test, the pain felt is meaningless becaues eternity in heaven is the big picture.

[Jesse2]

Playing "Devil's Advocate" eh? Fundamental to christianity is a belief in hell. So, regardless of this suffering-test on earth, there is a hell awaiting the unbelievers. In advance, God is supposed to know exactly who all those unbelievers are, and so God must know exactly who he is condemning to hell before he does so.

[Nucular]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
One could simply say that since our time on earth is simply a test, the pain felt is meaningless becaues eternity in heaven is the big picture. So God wouldn't mind if I started, say, torturing children to death on a daily basis? Presumably anyone who actually uses this as a theodicy also wouldn't mind - the pain is meaningless, right?

[SteveW]

I thought the explanation of why everything is not "good" in the world is because of Eve's temptation to eat from the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

God then took paradise away and let evil befall the world.

At least thats the hogwash that is meeted out in Xian thinking.

[Marc]

I think an omnipotent god and free will are mutually exclusive.

If god is omnipotent then he knows everything that will happen. The future is already known, our choices then are already determined, so no free will. If god doesn't know the future then he isn't omnipotent.

Also if you take god as creating the universe, then he created it already knowing everything that would happen, including who was going to hell or heaven. Your afterlife is already determined long ago. If he didn't want you to go to hell then he would have created a different world in which you were not destined for there.

[Nucular]

Originally posted by Marc
I think an omnipotent god and free will are mutually exclusive.

If god is omnipotent then he knows everything that will happen. The future is already known, our choices then are already determined, so no free will. If god doesn't know the future then he isn't omnipotent.

Also if you take god as creating the universe, then he created it already knowing everything that would happen, including who was going to hell or heaven. Your afterlife is already determined long ago. If he didn't want you to go to hell then he would have created a different world in which you were not destined for there. This is a common argument, but I'm not sure it's true. If God knows what choices you're going to make, it doesn't mean it's not you who made the choices. It calls into question God's benevolence, though.

The argument kind of semi-works, possibly, if God experiences time like everyone else, but knows the future; but if God is outside of time, which presumably He would be, it means He perceives everything that's ever happened and ever will happen all at once, which is kind of like our conception of what time is (I think): spacetime is all one static lump, but we just perceive a 'flow'. If you replace God knowing your future with the universe 'knowing' your future, does that also eradicate free will? I don't think it does.

Not that I necessarily think free will is a coherent concept anyway, mind - I just don't think this is the reason it's not.

[Yahweh]

Most people havent really taken the time to define "god". There is nothing that says "To be a god, you must be omnipotent". Nothing that says "To be a god, you must be all knowing". There is no reason why a god must desire good. There is also no reason why being God requires you to be everywhere.

All we know about "god" is the that he is "conscious". From there we dont know what defines a god.

Of course, an easy, very plausible, and scientifically sound solution to the problem is "God doesnt exist, everything came about by natural means".

[ImpyTimpy]

Can God make a rock so big even he can't lift?

Yes. At the time of lifting, time itself will freeze because the force needed to lift the rock will tend towards infinity as will the rock's weight. Since God is omnipotent he'll be able to lift the unliftable rock but at the exact same time the rock will become unliftable to the omnipotent God and vice versa.

There you go - a rock so big even God can not lift it.

Therefore omnipotence is not logically impossible.

:p

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Can God make a rock so big even he can't lift?

Yes. At the time of lifting, time itself will freeze because the force needed to lift the rock will tend towards infinity as will the rock's weight. Since God is omnipotent he'll be able to lift the unliftable rock but at the exact same time the rock will become unliftable to the omnipotent God and vice versa.

There you go - a rock so big even God can not lift it.

Therefore omnipotence is not logically impossible.

:p
Logical flaw: "Since God is omnipotent he'll be able to lift the unliftable rock but at the exact same time the rock will become unliftable to the omnipotent God and vice versa". That scenario is self-contradicting.

Logical "Whaaaa": Omnipotence implies the ability to do anything, even exist outside the realm of rational logic. Therefore nothing logical or rational can be said to provide support for or against the belief in an omnipotent god. Your scenario has an ambigous solution, its rendered useless.

[ntech]

It would be more fun if god would do these magic tricks that the theists say he does.

We could use more entertainment on this planet.

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by hgc
jesse,

Have you even taken into account the bad stuff that can't possibly be associated with "free will," the so-called "acts of God." Take for instance the current Euro-heatwave, where lots of people are dying (is that bad vis-a-vis omnibenevolence?) or a case where a storm knocks a tree down on a family driving to Home Depot, and all but one die.

Does Satan control the whether? Well, Yahweh, the jealous god of divine wrath is consistently destructive in the the Old Testament. The Old Testament is still considered by christians to be an aspect of the the bible, the divine and inspired word of God.

Trying to turn god from yahweh into the ultimate 'good guy' just doesn't click with all the suffering that takes place. But your point is well taken: Not all suffering takes place because of the 'free will' granted to humans. As the insurance companies call it, disastrous weather is quite often an 'act of God'.

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Logical flaw: "Since God is omnipotent he'll be able to lift the unliftable rock but at the exact same time the rock will become unliftable to the omnipotent God and vice versa". That scenario is self-contradicting.

Hence the problem of no-time. Time would freeze since both force and mass would tend towards infinity. Therefore both constraints would be satisfied at exactly the same time but no movement forward would be possible since any change to the situation would either make the rock unliftable or god too weak to lift it.


Logical "Whaaaa": Omnipotence implies the ability to do anything, even exist outside the realm of rational logic. Therefore nothing logical or rational can be said to provide support for or against the belief in an omnipotent god. Your scenario has an ambigous solution, its rendered useless.

Good point!

[c4ts]

Originally posted by ntech
It would be more fun if god would do these magic tricks that the theists say he does.

We could use more entertainment on this planet.

HA! This is God. The so-called "c4ts" is in my thrall right now. I shall not be performing any more magic tricks. I AM AN OMNIPOTENT BEING, NOT A FRIKKIN' SIDESHOW, OK?? I don't need this from you people, honestly.

[Loki]

Jesse2,

Omnipotent, which means all-powerful

Omnicient, which means all-knowing

Omnibenevolent, which means all-good

My question is, how can God be these things, and still allow all the suffering in the world to exist?
There is a possible valid response that resolves this from a christian perspective (credit where credit is due - MartinM and Metacristi walked me through this a while back!)

You have an implicit assumption in your question. This is much more obvious if the entire logical proof is written out, but since I'm feeling less that confident I can deliver the entire thing in the right terms I'll stick for the "informal" answer for now...

The *only* data you have to work from is the "real world".

You are assuming that the "real world" could be better.

A christian can assume that the "real world" is "as good as God can make it".

Implicit in your question is that you are rejecting the assumption "this is as good as it can be".

A christian can reject your assumption that "it could be better".

So, how do you intend to prove that your assumption is more valid that his? If you can't, then he's just as logically correct as you are!

[Nucular]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Most people havent really taken the time to define "god". There is nothing that says "To be a god, you must be omnipotent". Nothing that says "To be a god, you must be all knowing". There is no reason why a god must desire good. There is also no reason why being God requires you to be everywhere.

All we know about "god" is the that he is "conscious". From there we dont know what defines a god.

Of course, an easy, very plausible, and scientifically sound solution to the problem is "God doesnt exist, everything came about by natural means". Well isn't that the difference between 'god' and 'God'? It's true that the small-g god doesn't require any of those characteristics, but the big-G God is usually defined variously by "a being than which nothing greater can be conceived" (Aquinas) or more prosaically as having those four omni-characteristics (omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent).

[Nucular]

Originally posted by c4ts


HA! This is God. The so-called "c4ts" is in my thrall right now. I shall not be performing any more magic tricks. I AM AN OMNIPOTENT BEING, NOT A FRIKKIN' SIDESHOW, OK?? I don't need this from you people, honestly. Hi God.

What made You not want to be a sideshow anymore? I mean, in the Bible, you did tricks galore, and everybody clapped, and believed in You. Why the change?

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Logical flaw: "Since God is omnipotent he'll be able to lift the unliftable rock but at the exact same time the rock will become unliftable to the omnipotent God and vice versa". That scenario is self-contradicting.

Logical "Whaaaa": Omnipotence implies the ability to do anything, even exist outside the realm of rational logic. Therefore nothing logical or rational can be said to provide support for or against the belief in an omnipotent god. Your scenario has an ambigous solution, its rendered useless. This has been discussed before in a few other threads.

There are two underlying questions here, as I see it: first, does omnipotence truly imply the capacity to accomplish a rational impossibility? Second, if it does, what are the consequences?

As to the first point, I take it that the argument in favor of expecting God to be able to do the logically impossible goes something like this:

(1) An omnipotent being can do all things
(2) Logical impossibilities are things
Therefore,
(3) An omnipotent being can do the logically impossible

Let's assume the truth of (1) for the purposes of argument. There is a potential weakness in (2), however, because it is not clear that logical impossibilities are really "things" at all, in any ordinary sense of the term. Generally, "things" are understood as the set of that which either exists in reality or which, like a pink unicorn, exists in some nonreal mode (e.g. it exists in the understanding, or in a hypothetical alternate universe). Contrast "pink unicorns", though, with "married bachelors" (or, for that matter, "liftable-unliftable stones"). Is a married bachelor a thing? The term has no correlate, real or nonreal. It seems to be nonsensical wordplay that implies nothing beyond its name.

One could therefore argue that God's inability to create a married bachelor does not detract from his ability to do all things. Looked at another way, if the "unliftable stone" question is an intrinsically meaningless one, then we shouldn't expect the "answer", whatever it is, to imply any consequences for the the notion of God or for anything else.

For those who don't agree with the foregoing analysis, God still has a rhetorical "out" to rescue his omnipotent status. Let's assume (a) that omnipotence implies the ability to accomplish the logically impossible, (b) that God possesses this attribute and (c) that he uses it to create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it. Then what?

He lifts it. But, you protest, that's a contradiction. So what? If God in his omnipotence can perform one logical impossibility (the creation of a stone so heavy that an omnipotent being cannot lift it), he surely ought to be able to perform two (actually lifting such a stone).

This sounds preposterous, but that's why I favor the first alternative: omnipotence does not imply the ability to accomplish the logically impossible. But since God's hypothetical omnipotence is not threatened regardless of what omnipotence implies, I view any consideration of the "unliftable stone" scenario as an utterly useless exercise. There are far more promising avenues of challenge to the theistic notion of God, such as the questionable possibility of the coexistence of divine omnipotence and free will. Perhaps I'll consider that later.

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by Loki
A christian can assume that the "real world" is "as good as God can make it".

Implicit in your question is that you are rejecting the assumption "this is as good as it can be".

A christian can reject your assumption that "it could be better".

So, how do you intend to prove that your assumption is more valid that his? If you can't, then he's just as logically correct as you are! If God is all-good and all-powerful, of course he could make it better. If God were unable to change the obvious suffering and 'evil' in the world, I would count God to be not very powerful.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by ceo_esq

(.....what you said )

This sounds preposterous ................

Actually it doesn't..

The " Can he create a rock he cannot lift ?.... " question, is an intellectul cop-out, on par with the grade-school taunt of " you are whatever you say I am, ten times over... ".

Or the paradox of " Whatever I say is a lie " ...

God can do whatever we want him to do, since we are making him up..

It is illogical ( irrational perhaps ) for the skeptic to expect someone who believes in God to approach the question logically, and other than to point this out from time to time ( but never to the same person twice ), a total waste of time to argue about it..

[Loki]

jesse2,

If God is all-good and all-powerful, of course he could make it better.
Saying it forcefully doesn't make it any less of an assumption. Why is "could make it better" obvious? What reasoning supports this premise?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Nucular
Hi God.

What made You not want to be a sideshow anymore? I mean, in the Bible, you did tricks galore, and everybody clapped, and believed in You. Why the change?

Funny you should mention the bible. It's about an omnipotent creator of the universe by the same name, but the similarities end there. Do you honestly think I care enough about you to put on a magic show for correcting your moral ineptitude? NO! I have nothing to do with that book! End of story!

[swstephe]

omnipotence. Can God create a rock so big that even he can't lift it? It isn't a contradiction. The answer is "no". Doesn't matter about existence or ability. To simplify the logic, there are 2 implied premises that are very similar.

A can always perform action B, (rock creating)
A can always perform action C, (rock lifting)

If those are given as premises, than the conclusion is that there can be no state that contradicts the premise. In other words, bigger rocks, still lifting. When the Universe is entirely filled with an infinitely large rock(?) then it could still be lifted even though (1) there is nothing to leverage against since you need another infinite rock to push against, (2) there is no room left to budge it even one atom. None of that matters, the premise sets up the condition and the only possible conclusions is "no" (or the premises are wrong).

omnicience. If God knows everything you will do, do you really have free will? There are two kinds of definitions of "free will", and one kind, (compatibilism), says this is okay. But what about prophecy. If we are told ahead of time what will happen, an God is omnicient, we can't avoid it, even with our free will combined with our knowledge of what will happen. If all the pre-tribulation rapturist left the Christian church, (or went extinct), they could theoretically prevent the prophecies of such of an event, and several others), from happening. Therefore, they are actually causing it to happen themselves (okay, it's a stretch).

omnibenevolence. That's one I don't get. Goodness can be quite relative. You help out one person, it is good for that person, but not for another. The example of a lion trying to catch and eat a gazelle. If the lion catches it, its good for the lion, bad for the gazelle. If the gazelle gets away, its good for the gazelle, bad for the lion, (who might starve). There isn't a way to resolve the situation such that it is "good", (in the western sense), for both. I think they took the idea of "fair to all" and twisted into "benificial for all". Also, a mortal's idea of benevolence might be completely wrong.

[Loki]

swstephe,

omnibenevolence. That's one I don't get. Goodness can be quite relative. You help out one person, it is good for that person, but not for another. ... Also, a mortal's idea of benevolence might be completely wrong.
This is where the basic argument presented by jesse2 fails. You can express it like this :

1. Premise : When an Omnibenevolent god creates a world, he will always create a world with "the best possible amount of good".
2. Premise : An Omnibenevolent god created this world.
3. Conclusion : Therefore this world is "the best possible amount of good".

Jesse2 argument amounts to adding a third premise :

1. Premise : When an Omnibenevolent god creates a world, he will always create a world with "the best possible amount of good".
2. Premise : An Omnibenevolent god created this world.
3. Premise : This world does *not* contain "the best possible amount of good".
4. Conclusion : Therefore an omnibenevolent god does not exist OR he did not create this world.

That's the core of the argument, and it rides on the support for premise 3. Jesse2 reply seems to be that "I can conceive of a world with more good than this. Since I can conceive of it, it must be possible." Unfortunately, I don't think that logically follows (and we're back to the old discussion of "conceivability" versus "logically possible" versus "physically possible").

[elliotfc]

<<<<<One of the fundamental christian tenets is that God is three things:

Omnipotent, which means all-powerful

Omnicient, which means all-knowing

Omnibenevolent, which means all-good

My question is, how can God be these things, and still allow all the suffering in the world to exist?>>>>>

Because he desired to create creative beings. The creative beings he created are not omnipotent, omnicient, or omnibenevolent. Yet they are creative beings. So some creative acts they make will result in suffering. If God doesn't create creative beings, suffering does not exist. But then neither do we.

>>>>>A christian will say that these things exist because God gives us free will.<<<<<

That's part of it, but personally I try to keep the idea of creativity in the equation. See, a created creative being without free will is not a creative being, but a machine.

>>>>>Why does God inflict us with such a terrible curse as free will?<<<<<

The curse is genetic I think, more than anything else. Christian doctrine speaks of original sin. I have my own ideas about that doctrine, but anyhow, humanity is inherently in rebellion against God. That's just the way it is, and it would totally suck, accept for the fact that redemption is possible. It's a curse because temporal life is hard. I don't know how it will be after death, I don't know what free will is like when the soul is separated from the human body which is programmed to decay and die.

There's something, I think, to be said for freely loving someone, and freely being loved. Have you ever been in love before, or been loved by anyone? You can't compel anyone to love you, or you can't be compelled to love anyone. That isn't how love works. You can love someone and see them suffer. That may sound horrible, but it is true. It's sort of like learning from experience. You're told not to do something, but you do it, and you suffer. You wish that didacticism could be enough, but rarely it is. So people suffer.

>>>>>God must know what great and horrendous evil we will do to create such suffering in this world.<<<<<

Yes, and he became incarnate to show that he understands what it is like to suffer. Evil is permitted to govern this world, it's a temporary situation, and a consequence of free will. If you don't like the way it is that is your perogative, but I would implore you that should you, after death, be faced with this reality, acquisce. Failure to acquiese is to maintain the state of stubborn rebellion. The created can not question the way it is and be either temporarily, or eternally, happy.

>>>>>God must know ahead of time everyone that will go to 'hell'.<<<<<

Of course this "hell" business is fuzzy. It isn't a real physical place as we know real physical places. It isn't like a burning Alcatraz, or something like that. I see God as being fully existent and aware and immersed in every moment of continuous time. Predestination or foreknowledge is irrelevant, and takes away from the profound importance of every creative being. Every creative being will determine his/her own fate. God is willing to intercede, varying from person to person, and I truly believe that any soul that wants to be reconciled will be reconciled. Hell is the state of not wanting the reconciliation that is offerred. Knowing ahead of time means nothing from that perspective, since the determination does not come from God.

>>>>>God created the devil, and yet allows it to exist.<<<<<

He created Lucifer. Milton's got a pretty good take on the whole thing. Nobody reads Paradise Lost anymore. Creative beings don't cease to exist. He wasn't created as "the devil", but as the crown of creation. Lucifer's decent was chosen by Lucifer and Lucifer alone. If you're a malcontent who wants to be separated from God, you will be allowed to be separated from God.

>>>>>Is the devil just God's pet?<<<<<

No. The devil has no intimate relationship with God.

>>>>>For there to be evil, we must take away some of God's powers.<<<<<

Why is that? If I can lift a 10 pound barbell, but choose not to do so, does that mean I lack the power to lift a 10 pound barbell?

>>>>>Perhaps he is not all-knowing, and therefore did not know what horrendous and terrifying things he would create.<<<<<

He didn't create horrendous and terrifying things. The things, with all the potential given, chose to reject the beauty they could work for the ugliness they could work.

>>>>>Perhaps the power of God is limited, and therefore it is out of God's hands what happens on this Earth or in the 'afterlife'.<<<<<

The power of God is limited on this Earth, but that is not an eternal condition. It is out of God's hands whether a created being wants to "go to heaven" or "go to hell".

>>>>>Perhaps God is not a loving and benevolent God, and is forced by certain laws of the universe to do what he does.<<<<<

By definition, God is loving and benevolent. We may not think that he is loving and benevolent, but how can any of our standards be superior to God's standards? Objective reality is not contingent upon human preference or human aesthetics.

>>>>>Perhaps God is not any of these things or does not exist at all.

What is the answer?<<<<<

Love, sacrifice, redemption. I find meaning in those things, and those things are most fully realized in Christianity. If God does not become human and suffer, then God does not care or understand. But he did become human and suffer. I can never fully understand while I am a limited human being, but I find consolation in the fact that God became human and suffered.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Jesse2
With christians, I have found that the defense always amounts to free will. "God gave us free will, therefore he can still be all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing". They act as if free will is a wonderful gift from God.

How could a creative being not have free will? I don't see the alternative. Don't look at it as a gift, if that's the problem.

-Elliot

[ntech]

Originally posted by elliotfc


see posts above:

-Elliot

What has ever given you any idea that anything you wrote has even the slightest validity?

[swstephe]

Originally posted by Loki
That's the core of the argument, and it rides on the support for premise 3. Jesse2 reply seems to be that "I can conceive of a world with more good than this. Since I can conceive of it, it must be possible." Unfortunately, I don't think that logically follows (and we're back to the old discussion of "conceivability" versus "logically possible" versus "physically possible").

So, Jesse2 is channeling Dr Pangloss, (Voltaire's Candide, a satire of Gottfried Leibniz) ...

When you were hanged, dissected, stunned with blows and made to row in the galleys, did you always think that everything was for the best in this world?'"


That had them ROTFL in 1759!

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by ntech


What has ever given you any idea that anything you wrote has even the slightest validity?

Nice cop out.

People ask questions about a certain mindset, the mindset is explained WITHIN THE MINDSET, and then the explanations are dismissed out of hand.

How about this. Why not dismiss the questions then? I didn't ask the questions.

I could respond as you do whenever someone discusses abiogenesis or love. People have an intuitive sense.

-Elliot

[ntech]

Originally posted by elliotfc


Nice cop out.

People ask questions about a certain mindset, the mindset is explained WITHIN THE MINDSET, and then the explanations are dismissed out of hand.

How about this. Why not dismiss the questions then? I didn't ask the questions.

I could respond as you do whenever someone discusses abiogenesis or love. People have an intuitive sense.

-Elliot

No cop-out Elliot.
You simply respond to the questions so definitively as if you were responding with some proven knowledge and not just what was gleamed from a 2000 year old book that has long been discredited and that is highly contradictive.

Is there a secret book out there based on some fact?

[MRC_Hans]

I think your answers are good ones, Elliot. They make sense, and I find no basic contradictions.

They do not, however, provide any argument for the existence of God. They do not provide explanation for any observations that the notion of an unconscious Universe do not.

Hans

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by ntech


No cop-out Elliot.
You simply respond to the questions so definitively as if you were responding with some proven knowledge and not just what was gleamed from a 2000 year old book that has long been discredited and that is highly contradictive.

Is there a secret book out there based on some fact?

Yes cop out.

You're creating a "damned if you do, damed if you don't" scenario. I repeat, I didn't ask the questions. I didn't come here to supply answers. Somebody else asked the questions. By doing so, that OTHER person made the decision that the answers to those questions would interest that person.

You are not that other person. You saw the questions, and they made no apparent impression on you. But you have a problem with the answers. Do the questions have any validity?

I responded to the questions based on much more than what you call a 2000 year old book. I'm not going to submit to a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. If someone asks questions WITHIN A MINDSET, I'll answer them within the mindset. If my answers are inherently invalid, then don't ask the questions.

My answers are not based on a secret book, but on my thinking, reading, and thinking and writing of countless people before me. Nothing I say is new, although I may articulate it in ways that are perhaps less than common.

Is there any way I could have answered those questions to your satisfaction? I suspect not. Then why not just make snide remarks to asking the questions in the first place. That would be the fair thing to do. Instead you just pull out the trump card and damn the answers, whatever they may be. Discourse is not possible in such a situation. Why are you on a forum when obviously you can't engage in discourse with people who don't agree with you?

And what makes you an expert on validity by the way?

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I think your answers are good ones, Elliot. They make sense, and I find no basic contradictions.

They do not, however, provide any argument for the existence of God. They do not provide explanation for any observations that the notion of an unconscious Universe do not.

Hans

Hi Hans, thanks.

I can't prove the existence of God. I'm not even sure what God is. I can't prove whether God exists, or doesn't exist. All I have is an intuitive sense that there is a God, as do countless millions/billions people who have existed. Maybe that means nothing. But I suspect that it does mean something, since the debate is an age-old one.

I freely admit that I have a certain mindset. It is logical to me, intellectually fulfilling to me, and I am able to explain and understand things that I would not be able to explain or understand absent the mindset. It also supplies me with emotional and spiritual fulfilliment. If I am wrong, it doesn't matter. I'm not talking about Pascal's wager here. I'm not thinking about an eternal reward. If it's just the material life, I feel (at the moment) that I have chosen the way of thinking that will make me most content. If the alternative is discontent, screw it. I don't enjoy the company of malcontents. So why should I be one? If there is more than the material existence, I look forward to happily acquiescing to the correct answers, as I'm sure I've got some (well....just a little bit ;) ) of it wrong.

This is ostensibly a religion and philosophy forum. I'm assuming most people here are a-religious, or are materialists, or are skeptical about the inherent nature of religion. Yet you had the need, nonetheless, to name the certain forum as you did. So I'll happily talk about religion and philosophy. Yet if everything I say is inherently invalid, may I suggest that this forum be nuked? What's the point of having a forum about something that is inherently invalid?

We're all intelligent people. I disagree with the materialist outlook, but I am completely aware that it is a logical and sensible one with explanatory power.

-Elliot

[ntech]

Originally posted by elliotfc


Yes cop out.


And what makes you an expert on validity by the way?

-Elliot

I have no particular relevant expertise. I am just a Systems Engineer with an interest in astronomy, physics and other sciences. I simply find it funny that people with opinions as you boldly state are quick to dismiss all science in order to perpetuate a badly beaten myth.

Please remember that the buy-bull at one time stated that the world was flat, blacks should be slaves, women were property and all sorts of absurd declarations that would be eventually stripped out in order to fit modern knowledge.

Now with new scientific discoveries we find that genesis is a total fudge job. Cult followers of ID refuse to face facts and it seems that we need to shove them kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

It all reminds me of the Monty Python adventure where the knight after having his four limbs cut off in battle still professes that it is a mere flesh wound.

I responded to your post simply because you profess your answers as definitive knowledge.

[elliotfc]

>>>>>I have no particular relevant expertise. I am just a Systems Engineer with an interest in astronomy, physics and other sciences. I simply find it funny that people with opinions as you boldly state are quick to dismiss all science in order to perpetuate a badly beaten myth.<<<<<

OK, you're thinking of other people and not me. When have I dismiss "all science"? I'm sorry that there are people on this planet who dismiss all science, I'm not one of them.

>>>>>Please remember that the buy-bull at one time stated that the world was flat, blacks should be slaves, women were property and all sorts of absurd declarations that would be eventually stripped out in order to fit modern knowledge. <<<<<

I've never forgotten it. And please remember that Christians were behind the abolition movements of the 1800s. Margaret Sanger was as racist as any theist you can name.

>>>>>Now with new scientific discoveries we find that genesis is a total fudge job.<<<<<

First I am not here to defend Genesis. Second it is not meant to be read as history or science. It is a creation myth (at least the first few chapters, Genesis is an extensive book). I wouldn't call a story, like Beowulf, a total fudge job. Having said all of that I am not about to say that there is no historical truth in Genesis. I'm not exactly sure, or confident, how much of it is historically true. Maybe 50%, maybe .0005%. But even that is besides the point. I'll take the Book of Genesis over the Origin of Species because it is more meaningful to me. Then again I place importance in emotional and spiritual things. If I was pure intellect maybe I'd go with Origin of Species. Or maybe not. Genesis gives you a lot to think about. Anyhow, short of time travel, I don't know if anyone can proclaim certitude about origins.

>>>>>Cult followers of ID refuse to face facts and it seems that we need to shove them kicking and screaming into the 21st century.<<<<<

That's silly. It is the 21st century. Are you seriously talking about physical coersion, or is that just a way of speaking? People have the right to believe what they will. Call them a cult if you want, some people call scientism a cult. I think we should be above name-calling myself, but that's just me. All I know is that humans run on a genetic code. Genetic code implies design. As a systems engineer you know about codes and design.

>>>>>It all reminds me of the Monty Python adventure where the knight after having his four limbs cut off in battle still professes that it is a mere flesh wound.<<<<<

Why do you think you've chopped four limbs off of religion? Do you have any idea how many religious people there are on the planet? You are overstating your prowress. Atheists are the minority.

>>>>>I responded to your post simply because you profess your answers as definitive knowledge. <<<<<

I clearly have said that I will happily relinquish my answers when I am supplied with the correct ones.

Again, you avoid my point. Do you believe the questions that were asked were worthwhile? Given your sentiments, asking religious people questions must be the most colossal waste of time. Perhaps the proactive thing to do would be to defuse the questions, as I would have had squat to say without the questions.

-Elliot

[Loki]

elliotfc,

Yes, and he became incarnate to show that he understands what it is like to suffer.
Why would this be necessary? Why would god "not understand" what it is like to suffer, since in the beginning he actually created *everything* (including 'understanding', 'feelings' and 'suffering', presumably)?

You seem to be implying in the "he became incarnate" statement that Jesus *was* god. So we killed god for 3 days? Or are you buying into the "trinity" explanation of "one god who is 3"? Would you agree that the trinity is fundamentally illogical?

Where do/did human souls come from?

Evil is permitted to govern this world, it's a temporary situation, ...
Why do you think Evil rules? Is it possible that the Earth is a 50/50 split between good and evil? Or that Evil is the minority?

... and a consequence of free will.
How does the suffering and eventual death of a young child (say, 2 years old) from disease fit with this "free will consequence"?

He didn't create horrendous and terrifying things. The things, with all the potential given, chose to reject the beauty they could work for the ugliness they could work.
Is cancer one of these "things" that have chosen to reject beauty in favour of ugliness? How about earthquakes?

The power of God is limited on this Earth, but that is not an eternal condition. It is out of God's hands whether a created being wants to "go to heaven" or "go to hell".
What is the source of this "want"? A human's "free will"? Where does the will exist? Presumably, in the soul - where did the soul come from?

By definition, God is loving and benevolent.
Unless he's angry. Just ask the Egyptians.

We may not think that he is loving and benevolent, but how can any of our standards be superior to God's standards?
Well, we mere humans don't think it is just to punish the son for the sins of the father, yet the christian god does.

We mere humans believe in making the puniushment fit the crime, yet god will inflict an infinite (eternal) exile from heaven in response to a finite decision not to believe. Alternatively, the christian god will forgive *any* amount of sin (effectively, forgoing any punishment) in exchange for a single pledge of loyalty. If Timothy McVeigh stood up in court and expressed utter remorse for the Oklahoma bombing, should the court have simply said "fair enough - off you go then"?

We mere humans believe that a person should not be punished for their political or religious beliefs. The christian god is prepared to punish you *solely* on the grounds of your religious belief, irrespective of your actions.

We mere humans believe that each person has a duty to uphold that law, and to aquaint themselves with the law. The christian god seems to have a fondness for ambiguous laws, and a poor system for information dispersal. Is slavery immoral? Is abortion? What about genetics and cloning? Is baptism required for salvation? Do works count towards salvation? Is there any sin that makes a sanctified person unfit for heaven?

But you might be right - perhaps the christian god just *seems* to treat humans worse than we (try/hope to) treat ourselves. I'm sure he has "good reasons" for this.

Objective reality is not contingent upon human preference or human aesthetics.
And certainly not contingent on christian theology.

[elliotfc]

>>>>>Why would this be necessary? Why would god "not understand" what it is like to suffer, since in the beginning he actually created *everything* (including 'understanding', 'feelings' and 'suffering', presumably)?<<<<<

I have to split the house, so I'll get to the rest of this later. But on this point...

It isn't that God has a problem with understanding. It has to do with us. We think that God doesn't understand, so he went out of his way to clearly indicate that he understood suffering by experiencing it.

Let's say you're a drug addict. And someone who never did drugs says that "they understand". You might just say "screw you how can you understand". Something like that.

-Elliot

[ntech]

Originally posted by elliotfc

Why do you think you've chopped four limbs off of religion? Do you have any idea how many religious people there are on the planet? You are overstating your prowress. Atheists are the minority.
-Elliot

Yes, I do, Yes, I don't think so and People who believed that the world is round were also once in the minority.


Originally posted by elliotfc

Again, you avoid my point. Do you believe the questions that were asked were worthwhile? Given your sentiments, asking religious people questions must be the most colossal waste of time. Perhaps the proactive thing to do would be to defuse the questions, as I would have had squat to say without the questions.

-Elliot

In order to not avoid your question: No I don’t but I didn’t post the questions.

Remember Elliot that in science, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. My response to your post was no more arrogant or misguided than your assertions put forth in your responses to the questions.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by elliotfc


It isn't that God has a problem with understanding. It has to do with us. We think that God doesn't understand, so he went out of his way to clearly indicate that he understood suffering by experiencing it.

-Elliot

This is absurd, in light of the suffering that God dishes out in the stories in the Old Testament..

If you insist that it is O.K. for God to do these things, for some ' we cannot understand the mind of God ' rationalization, then God clearly created a bunch of idiots who cannot be logically held responsible for their actions; which makes the concept of any action on our part, to obtain salvation, ridiculous.

[Ensign Steve]

Originally posted by elliotfc

This is ostensibly a religion and philosophy forum. I'm assuming most people here are a-religious, or are materialists, or are skeptical about the inherent nature of religion. Yet you had the need, nonetheless, to name the certain forum as you did. So I'll happily talk about religion and philosophy. Yet if everything I say is inherently invalid, may I suggest that this forum be nuked? What's the point of having a forum about something that is inherently invalid?


The forum should not be nuked, and the point of having such a forum could be (among other things) that if there is one thing that people need to be most skeptical about, it is religious claims. There are men, big, powerful, men, telling us how to live our lives. How to prevent (or not prevent) pregnancies. Where to give 10% of our income. Who we should or should not have sex with or have a marriage with. They expect us to make all these life decisions in order to receive some unseen reward (or avoid some unseen punishment) without a shred of evidence. If "they" expect "us" to base some major life decisions on some of these very outrageous claims, don't you think it would behoove us as individuals to be very skeptical about those claims?

[Ensign Steve]

Sorry, Elliot, let me expand on that. I do not mean simply to be skeptical of claims in favor of a religion, but any claim about religion, in general. A few people (very few people, I hope) accuse atheists of following our "atheistic dogma" with as much blind faith as any religious person. While I am pretty sure not all atheists are skeptics, and not all skeptics are atheists, there seems to be a decent amount of overlap, as you noticed. Those who are both skeptical and atheist, like myself, are going to be skeptical of most religious claims, those made in favor of religion and those against. For example, ceo_esq's "omnipotence, logical impossibilities, and the unliftable rock" post just blew me away, and really made me think. That was a rebuttal of a very common (if sophomoric) argument for atheism.

Forgive me if I am being redundant, but long story short, skepticism does not necessarily equal a-religious. Even though the one can often lead to the other, skeptics are skeptics, and don't take any claims at face value, even those that support their own materialistic worldview or what-have-you. So a religious forum for skeptics is quite valuable (IMO). And what you have to offer will not automatically be considered invalid, if you offer up logical arguments and good evidence. Thanks. :)

[swstephe]

I really don't like the term "omnibenevolent", "all loving", "all good". I don't think there is true scriptural foundation for how we interpret those phrases. It implies that God doesn't have free will. That He must always make the best possible choice, (for whom?), and it is impossible, because of his nature to act differently.

The omnicience part, (which is necessary for prophecy to be valid), means he is fully aware of the consequences of his actions until the end of time, which is quite different from our "free will". There is an implied deterministic quality to having that amount of knowledge rather than following rules, guidelines, and intuitions like we do. But if he is omnibenevolent as well, and knows the consequences of his actions, then he must always pick the same action at all times, unless the consequences are exactly equal, in which case his choice is pretty much random.

When I hear "omnibenevolent", I always have to ask "for whom". Every action can have benefit for one group, and not the other. Certainly, if the devil is the chief antagonist, he shouldn't derive any benefits from God, but according to Christian traditions, not only enjoy benefits but seems to be especially protected. He doesn't have to share the curse of mortality, has a lot more verification of the true nature of the Universe, (perhaps, conceptually, that he doesn't even exist). If his fate has already been communicated, (prophecized), then his existence is completely deterministic and for invisible decoration only.

I think the term should be denied and rejected. It would be better to allow the deterministic nature of omnicience, (and that it applies to everything else in the universe, if it is true), and that the rest is free will. That God is working toward a specific consequence which He determins to be good for Himself and nobody else. The story of the flood, for example, makes slightly better sense under a God whose means are toward an ultimate end, rather than dividing up each miniscule or catastrophic event as being morally correct. I think its better to focus on "all just", that whatever the ultimate consequence, it will be just, maybe not good for everyone involved.

[swstephe]

Ever notice ... that, according to the movie, the israelites who were worshipping the golden calf got punished before they even had heard the law. That's retro-active!

Also, there are two listings of the ten commandments in the Old Testament, and they *differ*, so which one of the commandments did they have at the courthouse in Alabama?

On top of that, Jesus explicitly added 2 more commandments, "Thou shalt love one another" and "Thou shalt love the lord your god with all your heart and all your mind". If anyone puts up just 10 commandments, they would be (fundamentalist?) Jews, (without dietary laws), not Christians, because they have left two additional laws off.

But these days, Judaism has 100's of laws. There are, in fact, a set of about 17, (not sure of the number anymore), laws which are written for non-Jews to practice. (Look up "Hashidic Gentile" -- you are also supposed to worship Israel). My favorite one is "you shall not eat the limb of an animal while the rest of the animal is still alive". My mind races at the thought of what act could have prompted the need for that law! Was this a pre-refrigeration act? We'll have leg of lamb today and leave the lamb hopping around on 3 legs until next time. -- I'm not making fun of the law, I think that if you choose to believe in that religion, you should definitely follow those laws. I'm just relating it in a light-hearted manner so some people don't get too bored.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by swstephe
.......We'll have leg of lamb today and leave the lamb hopping around on 3 legs until next time. -- I'm not making fun of the law, I think that if you choose to believe in that religion, you should definitely follow those laws. I'm just relating it in a light-hearted manner so some people don't get too bored.



:D :D :D

You have nothing to apologize for.. These are legitimate questions...

[ntech]

Originally posted by Ensign Steve


The forum should not be nuked, and the point of having such a forum could be (among other things) that if there is one thing that people need to be most skeptical about, it is religious claims. There are men, big, powerful, men, telling us how to live our lives. How to prevent (or not prevent) pregnancies. Where to give 10% of our income. Who we should or should not have sex with or have a marriage with. They expect us to make all these life decisions in order to receive some unseen reward (or avoid some unseen punishment) without a shred of evidence. If "they" expect "us" to base some major life decisions on some of these very outrageous claims, don't you think it would behoove us as individuals to be very skeptical about those claims?

Well said, Ensign Steve.
I have no doubt that you will make Captain someday.

Welcome!

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by elliotfc
humanity is inherently in rebellion against God. That's just the way it is
But it's that way because God wants it that way. He's the creator, remember, and omnipotent: so you can't appeal to random fate to explain why things are the way they are. They are that way because God explicitly desired them to be that way.

If you believe in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient creator God, I don't think you are entitled to use the phrase, "that's just the way it is."


Originally posted by elliotfc
There are, in fact, a set of about 17, (not sure of the number anymore), laws which are written for non-Jews to practice. (Look up "Hashidic Gentile"
It's only seven.

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by Loki
jesse2,
Saying it forcefully doesn't make it any less of an assumption. Why is "could make it better" obvious? What reasoning supports this premise? My reasoning is based on the idea that the assumption that the world is "as good as God can make it." is hogwash. If God is omnipotent, he can do absolutely anything he pleases, including eliminating all forms of pain. Pain exists, therefore God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, not omnibenevolent, or does not exist. Scientifically, we ascertain why pain exists. But if God is all-powerful and all-knowing, certainly he could find a work-around.

Finally, the notion "3. Premise : This world does *not* contain 'the best possible amount of good'" is defendable precisely because a single person can perceive that it is true. If god is all-powerful, he should have the ability to disallow any form of evil. You specified that my premises included that God was omnibenevolent, but actually each premise must include that God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient, as that is how I began this thread. You therefore slightly, but significantly, misrepresented the premises I first gave.

P.S. I am now spelling omniscient correctly.

[elliotfc]

Hey Loki:

>>>>>You seem to be implying in the "he became incarnate" statement that Jesus *was* god. So we killed god for 3 days? Or are you buying into the "trinity" explanation of "one god who is 3"? Would you agree that the trinity is fundamentally illogical?<<<<<

We killed the incarnate God for three days, yes. I understand the Trinity as the most perfect manifestation of love. Rene Girard has articulated this in his writings, and I am highly influenced by his ideas. Which are just ideas, analogies. I don't agree that the trinity is fundamentally illogical. God reaches humanity through the Word/Spirit, and through the Incarnate Son. Given the premises I accept, I don't think the Trinity is illogical. Of course I doubt you have the same premises that I have.

>>>>>Where do/did human souls come from?<<<<<

God.

>>>>>Why do you think Evil rules? Is it possible that the Earth is a 50/50 split between good and evil? Or that Evil is the minority?<<<<<

Because humanity allows itself to be ruled by Evil. I don't know about this 50/50 stuff. Given the existence of evil, suffering, sin, the fact is Evil reigns on the planet. That doesn't mean good can't fight back. I don't know if I'm interested in speculating about percentages.

>>>>>How does the suffering and eventual death of a young child (say, 2 years old) from disease fit with this "free will consequence"?<<<<<

Our human bodies are genetically programmed to die. Some will die sooner than others. Our bodily insufficiency is a consequence of original sin. Free will exists independent of original sin, so I would say that you're mixing them up with each other.

>>>>>Is cancer one of these "things" that have chosen to reject beauty in favour of ugliness? How about earthquakes?<<<<<

Cancer is an aspect of our inherent genetic defectiveness. Earthquakes...I have ideas about them that I'm still working out. Sorry to sound obtuse. If you are interested in the ideas, e-mail me personally, my e-mail address can be seen in my profile.

>>>>>What is the source of this "want"? A human's "free will"? Where does the will exist? Presumably, in the soul - where did the soul come from?<<<<<

I'm not sure about the whole "where" questions. The will is associated with a human body, but I think temporal locality misses the point. The will is not a tangible object, nor is the soul. It is associated with a body, but the association may be, literally, neither here not there.

>>>>>Unless he's angry. Just ask the Egyptians.<<<<<

In those days wars were fought under the banner of gods. Every political state had gods, and usually a particular god that represented them. The only way to convince the Jews, who only knew this mindset, that He was the most superior, most true God, was to obliterate the armies that fought in the name of foreign gods.

>>>>>Well, we mere humans don't think it is just to punish the son for the sins of the father, yet the christian god does. <<<<<

Do you know the Christian God better than I do? I have no idea what you are talking about here. It isn't punishment. The world is fallen, sin is everywhere. Bad things happen because evil reigns, not because God causes bad things to happen. Again, where do you get this idea about the Christian God?

>>>>>We mere humans believe in making the puniushment fit the crime, yet god will inflict an infinite (eternal) exile from heaven in response to a finite decision not to believe.<<<<<

No, exile will be a free choice. Anyone who wants to be with God eternally will be allowed to do so. Anyone who doesn't want to be with God eternally will be allowed to not be with God. People choose their own punishments, that is true justice.

>>>>>Alternatively, the christian god will forgive *any* amount of sin (effectively, forgoing any punishment) in exchange for a single pledge of loyalty.<<<<<

No, it's a lot more than that. We have to completely discard all of our ideas, all of our pride, all of our beliefs for the true ones. There is nothing easy or simple about that, particularly given the fact that humanity is an obstinate creation, they prove it all the time.

>>>>>If Timothy McVeigh stood up in court and expressed utter remorse for the Oklahoma bombing, should the court have simply said "fair enough - off you go then"?<<<<<

No. That is not how earthly justice works. It is the responsibility of the state to protect society. We can't trust people to be sincere in their remorse. God, however, can see through any and everything. The court doesn't have that ability.

>>>>>We mere humans believe that a person should not be punished for their political or religious beliefs. The christian god is prepared to punish you *solely* on the grounds of your religious belief, irrespective of your actions.<<<<<

Again, I don't see it as punishment, since humans choose it. And the cleansing of a human soul may be, no make that is, a harrowing experience.

>>>>>We mere humans believe that each person has a duty to uphold that law, and to aquaint themselves with the law. The christian god seems to have a fondness for ambiguous laws, and a poor system for information dispersal.<<<<<

What is ambiguous about treating every human being as a creation of God, as a child of God? Or seeing Jesus in every person you encounter? Call it a poor system of information dispersal if you want, but there have been a few billion Christians on the planet in the past 2000 years.

>>>>>Is slavery immoral? Is abortion? What about genetics and cloning? Is baptism required for salvation? Do works count towards salvation? Is there any sin that makes a sanctified person unfit for heaven?<<<<<

Slavery is immoral because you must treat your fellow human as a child of God, as you would treat Jesus. Abortion is immoral for the same reasons. Genetics and cloning is immoral for the same reasons. Works are part of the process of redemption. The ultimate work (the crucifixion) made the process of redemption, human works help to further it. The sin of pride, if maintained after death, will make a person unfit for heaven, by their own choice.

>>>>>But you might be right - perhaps the christian god just *seems* to treat humans worse than we (try/hope to) treat ourselves. I'm sure he has "good reasons" for this.<<<<<

The Christian God allowed himself to be treated horrifically by humanity. There was a good reason for that. If existence is only the human lifespan, it is meaningless. But Christains don't believe that.

>>>>>And certainly not contingent on christian theology.<<<<<

Agreed. Theology is only a way of thinking, it is not the same as objective reality. We do the best we can to understand, and God doesn't expect anything more than a sincere effort.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Hi there.

>>>>>People who believed that the world is round were also once in the minority. <<<<<

And Christians were once in the minority. That wasn't my point. You made an analogy that the limbs of religion have been chopped off. That analogy does not correspond to the world that I see. Now maybe 100 years from now that will be a terrific analogy. I was only referring to the present. Of course minorities and majorities fluctuate throughout history.

>>>>>In order to not avoid your question: No I don’t but I didn’t post the questions. <<<<<

OK. You didn't post the questions, and you didn't post the answers. You just decided to isolate the answers as invalid. OK.

>>>>>Remember Elliot that in science, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. My response to your post was no more arrogant or misguided than your assertions put forth in your responses to the questions.<<<<<

Agreed. It was equally opposite.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Hi Diogenes.

>>>>>This is absurd, in light of the suffering that God dishes out in the stories in the Old Testament..<<<<<

The revelation of God to humanity happened in phases. In those times everyone believed in gods. People died over which god was stronger. In order to persuade a tribe of people about certain ideas, and set the stages for the salvific act, God told the Jews that he was the true God, the most superior God, and then he proved it. He did it to make humanity understand. The Bible is the story of the evolution of human understanding about God.

>>>>>If you insist that it is O.K. for God to do these things, for some ' we cannot understand the mind of God ' rationalization, then God clearly created a bunch of idiots who cannot be logically held responsible for their actions; which makes the concept of any action on our part, to obtain salvation, ridiculous.<<<<<

We can understand the mind of God if we believe that Jesus was God. It can't be a complete understanding. We do the best we can.

God created limited creators. Humans are also governed by fallen evil spirits. While sin is a fact, all sins will be forgiven if the desire and repentance is there. Yes, humans cannot be logicall held COMPLETELY responsible for their actions. That's why humanity has been redeemed. Humans can't save themselves. Actions, however, are meaningful. Actions show the human desire to do what is good, despite what we've already have established as a pretty tough situation. But you're right that human actions alone can't obtain salvation. Only one action obtained salvation. It's a free gift that many will refuse.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

>>>>>There are men, big, powerful, men, telling us how to live our lives.<<<<<

You mean the government, right?

>>>>>How to prevent (or not prevent) pregnancies.<<<<<

You mean the public school system, right?

>>>>>Where to give 10% of our income.<<<<<

I'd say you mean the goverment, but they want more than 10%.

>>>>>Who we should or should not have sex with or have a marriage with.<<<<<

You mean wives and parents and husbands and friends and relatives, right? Tell you wife or husband that you want to have sex with someone else, and let me know how they respond.

>>>>>They expect us to make all these life decisions in order to receive some unseen reward (or avoid some unseen punishment) without a shred of evidence.<<<<<

No "you mean" here. People choose their own rewards and punishments as far as I'm concerned. Theology isn't about scientific evidence. Scientific evidence is nice and all, but other things are much more important. To me personally, that is.

>>>>>If "they" expect "us" to base some major life decisions on some of these very outrageous claims, don't you think it would behoove us as individuals to be very skeptical about those claims?<<<<<

Sure. I'm skeptical about tons of things myself, like evolution. If the general consensus is that everything I say is invalid, I should just nuke myself from the forum then. I'm sorry to rain on the parade here, the parade seems merely to mock religion and religious people. Whatever gets you off.

Is the point of the forum to complain about religion, and the fact that it has influenced billions of people? Or to coordinate ways to debate or defuse religion? I'm sorry for saying the forum should be nuked. From my perspective, complaining and mocking are two activities that I find to be complete waste of times.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Hi Steve.

>>>>>I do not mean simply to be skeptical of claims in favor of a religion, but any claim about religion, in general.<<<<<

Well I'm skeptical about all religions, including my own, so I agree with you.

>>>>>A few people (very few people, I hope) accuse atheists of following our "atheistic dogma" with as much blind faith as any religious person.<<<<<

I would make that accusation, but only to certain kinds of atheists. Atheists who insist they are correct about their ideas about religion, and that there is no way they are incorrect about their ideas about religion, or practicing blind faith. Most religious people I know express uncertainty about specific beliefs often.

>>>>>While I am pretty sure not all atheists are skeptics, and not all skeptics are atheists, there seems to be a decent amount of overlap, as you noticed.<<<<<

I have a skeptical nature myself, so I think the overlaps are greater than you have outlined.

Sorry for getting all huffy puffy. I should realize my place, and where I am. Of course most of you wouldn't agree with me, it's asinine for me to expect otherwise. Most forums that I participate in are forums where I am in the majority. :)

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

>>>>>I really don't like the term "omnibenevolent", "all loving", "all good". I don't think there is true scriptural foundation for how we interpret those phrases. It implies that God doesn't have free will. That He must always make the best possible choice, (for whom?), and it is impossible, because of his nature to act differently.<<<<<

You're right about the scripture thing. Of course, as a Catholic, it isn't just about scripture. We don't even read the Bible you know. :)

I like the omnibenevolent idea. God has the most perfect will, you see. All other wills are imperfect. So you can hardly look at it as free will. There is not a difference in degree with imperfect wills and the perfect will, but a difference in kind.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

>>>>>But these days, Judaism has 100's of laws. There are, in fact, a set of about 17, (not sure of the number anymore), laws which are written for non-Jews to practice. (Look up "Hashidic Gentile" -- you are also supposed to worship Israel). My favorite one is "you shall not eat the limb of an animal while the rest of the animal is still alive". My mind races at the thought of what act could have prompted the need for that law! Was this a pre-refrigeration act? We'll have leg of lamb today and leave the lamb hopping around on 3 legs until next time. -- I'm not making fun of the law, I think that if you choose to believe in that religion, you should definitely follow those laws. I'm just relating it in a light-hearted manner so some people don't get too bored.<<<<<

There are so many different sects of Judaism.

With Jesus, the law became a human being. The specific laws of the O.T. were how you would treat a little kid, which is what the Jews were. It was an infantile religion. The people had to be set apart from other people. It was a phase. I think you can be a religious person and not follow the letter of the biblical law.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

>>>>>But it's that way because God wants it that way.<<<<<

You're right. God wanted to create creatures who had the option to reject him.

>>>>>He's the creator, remember, and omnipotent: so you can't appeal to random fate to explain why things are the way they are. They are that way because God explicitly desired them to be that way.<<<<<

I'm not appealing to random fate. God did desire his creatures to have free will. And he decided he would not abandon his creation, you know, the whole Jesus thing.

>>>>>If you believe in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient creator God, I don't think you are entitled to use the phrase, "that's just the way it is."<<<<<

God's way is just the way it is. The way it is isn't contingent upon how I want it to be. It's only contingent on the way it is.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

>>>>>My reasoning is based on the idea that the assumption that the world is "as good as God can make it." is hogwash.<<<<<

Right. The world is NOT as good as God can make it.

>>>>>If God is omnipotent, he can do absolutely anything he pleases, including eliminating all forms of pain.<<<<<

Pain is a consequence of rejecting God. To eliminate pain, he would have to eliminate the possibility of rejecting God. But creative beings have the option of rejecting God. He can eliminate pain, but that would eliminate all creatures.

>>>>>Pain exists, therefore God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, not omnibenevolent, or does not exist.<<<<<

Or content to allow his creatures to experience pain by rejecting Him.

Of course there is another kind of pain, the temporary pain of simply being alive on a fallen world. And God experienced this temporary pain by becoming Jesus. Pain is significant, but the cliche is no pain, no gain, right?

>>>>>Scientifically, we ascertain why pain exists. But if God is all-powerful and all-knowing, certainly he could find a work-around.<<<<<

He did, the salvific act.

>>>>>Finally, the notion "3. Premise : This world does *not* contain 'the best possible amount of good'" is defendable precisely because a single person can perceive that it is true. If god is all-powerful, he should have the ability to disallow any form of evil.<<<<<

He does. He could destory all of his created creatures.

-Elliot

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by elliotfc
I can't prove the existence of God. I'm not even sure what God is. I can't prove whether God exists, or doesn't exist. All I have is an intuitive sense that there is a God, as do countless millions/billions people who have existed. Maybe that means nothing. But I suspect that it does mean something, since the debate is an age-old one.
Thats not necessarily a good form of reasoning. Intuitive senses (or Inner Convictions) dont constitute as a very good tool to justify a belief. There is a whole psychology behind religion, the psychology is roughly rooted in fear (of punishment) and reward (for acting good) That sounds a lot like the psychology behind religion has a great deal to do with selfishness, but thats just me being cynical. In any sense, many people have a problem rationalizing faith and religion. Random Example: If billions of people believed trees had souls or perhaps with a little work, we can turn water into gold, does it make it any more true? No.

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by elliotfc
We killed the incarnate God for three days, yes. We didn't vote to crucify Jesus. The jews did.

Originally posted by elliotfc
Our bodily insufficiency is a consequence of original sin. Free will exists independent of original sin, so I would say that you're mixing them up with each other.. Regardless, how could original sin exist without God allowing it to? If original sin exists, it can only exist by God's will. Satan can only exist by God's will. Therefore, Satan is God's pet.

Originally posted by elliotfc
Call it a poor system of information dispersal if you want, but there have been a few billion Christians on the planet in the past 2000 years.

How do you know who a real christian is? Are the boy-molesting catholic priests real christians? Are the serial-killers who find 'Jesus' in prison real christians? Am I a christian? Do you believe I am a christian purely because I tell you I am?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Jesse2
We didn't vote to crucify Jesus. The jews did.

But don't forget, back then Christians were considered Jews.

[evildave]

Well, I certainly will take your word for it.

You say you're a Christian, you're a Christian.

I'm not here to establish the standards for what a Real Christian (TM) is. That's for competing brands of Real Christians (TM) to kill each other over.

Leave me out of it.

So, yes. The child molesting ones and criminals and the saintly ones who do wonderful work are all Christians alike. Some just seem to "sin" more than others (in my opinion, given my definitions for "sin"). They're probably forgiven if they ask for it. Unless they're not. That's one of the central reasons why I don't establish "standards" for Christians. They all believe different things.

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by c4ts
But don't forget, back then Christians were considered Jews. Yes, and the statement was not meant to slur jews today. I wasn't back then, and neither were they. So "we" did not crucify him.

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by evildave
Well, I certainly will take your word for it.

You say you're a Christian, you're a Christian.
But how do you know I've really accepted christ into my heart? I could be lying or just plain wrong. And so could millions of others.

[ntech]

Originally posted by evildave
Well, You say you're a Christian, you're a Christian.



You say that like it's a good thing.

:D

[Loki]

elliotfc,

I don't have the time to cover everything...

Given the premises I accept, I don't think the Trinity is illogical.
I would like to hear these premises. Please continue.

Our human bodies are genetically programmed to die. Some will die sooner than others. Our bodily insufficiency is a consequence of original sin. Free will exists independent of original sin, so I would say that you're mixing them up with each other.
I don't think I'm confusing these things, but perhaps you need to tease them apart for me. So there are two causes of suffering - suffering as a result of our free will choices, and suffering as a result of original sin? Is that what you're saying? The child falls into the second category? Cancer is an 'outcome' of original sin?

Anyone who doesn't want to be with God eternally will be allowed to not be with God. People choose their own punishments, that is true justice.
But you're changing the question that we humans face - it's not "Do you Loki wish to spend eternity with God?". Instead, it's "Are you Loki prepared to accept the existence of a poorly defined concept called 'god' on faith alone?". Do you seriously think that if god was to prove his existence to me absolutely, and show me that his nature truly is benevolent, that I'd choose to live apart from him? The point is, the punishment ("living apart from god for eternity") is meted out simply because I choose to use my ability to reason to decide that god seems unlikely.

I guess you probably think that a decision to embrace the christian god is more "pure" if taken without evidence. If that's the case, then I have to wonder why god worked so hard to convince Moses and his buddies that god was for real, and why Jesus felt the need to perform "miracles" in order to build a following.

And as side note - gee, how dumb were the Hebrews! God slaughters an entire generation of Egyptians, then drowns the entire army, and as soon as Moses ducks off for a quick chat to the big guy the Hebrews fall into Paganism! Slow learners...

(I wrote) : Well, we mere humans don't think it is just to punish the son for the sins of the father, yet the christian god does.

(elliotfc wrote) : Do you know the Christian God better than I do? I have no idea what you are talking about here. It isn't punishment. The world is fallen, sin is everywhere. Bad things happen because evil reigns, not because God causes bad things to happen. Again, where do you get this idea about the Christian God?
Where did I get this idea? Well, here :

Exodus 12:29
And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.

The crime here is Pharaohs pride and intransigence (let's leave aside the issue of god hardening Pharaoh's heart).

Who commited the crime? Pharaoh.

Who carried out the sentence? The LORD.

Who paid the penalty? Pharaoh's son - and the children of everyone, including servants, farmers, and every average run-of-the-mill Egyptian. Oh, and the cattle!!

Is there some confusion here? Exodus is true, isn't it? Or is it allegorical?

Of course, as a Catholic, it isn't just about scripture. We don't even read the Bible you know.
Cool, a Catholic!!! You really need to start talking to "Christian" - you can start by explaining baptism...

If existence is only the human lifespan, it is meaningless. But Christains don't believe that.
Neither do I. You need to realise (or perhaps you don't!) that "the meaning of life" is not an exclusively christian, or even exclusively theist, concept. Have you investigated Secular Humanism at all?

(regarding souls) : I'm not sure about the whole "where" questions. The will is associated with a human body, but I think temporal locality misses the point. The will is not a tangible object, nor is the soul. It is associated with a body, but the association may be, literally, neither here not there.
How are souls created? What determines the 'properties' of a soul? If the soul is a 'decision-maker' (the power-cell of the Will) then can god build a soul that can make decisions he can't predict? If he *can* predict the set of all possible decisions a soul can make, then in what way are the decisions not ultimately "created by god"?

Anyway, I think I need to get going ... keen to hear about the trinity premises!

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by Loki
The point is, the punishment ("living apart from god for eternity") is meted out simply because I choose to use my ability to reason to decide that god seems unlikely. You're softening it down. The punishment is eternal damnation in hell. Remember that.

BTW, I enjoy the moses/pharoh references. I forgot about how yhwh deliberately 'hardened the heart' of the pharoh. What gives there? The poor pharoh didn't have a chance! LOL!

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by elliotfc
The revelation of God to humanity happened in phases. In those times everyone believed in gods. People died over which god was stronger. In order to persuade a tribe of people about certain ideas, and set the stages for the salvific act, God told the Jews that he was the true God, the most superior God, and then he proved it. He did it to make humanity understand. The Bible is the story of the evolution of human understanding about God. So God had first to be a jealous and angry god and kill lots of people, to show that he was God? He couldn't figure out a better way, like simply coming down from the heavans in a bright light in front of everyone on the planet saying, "I am God, and I am going to kick your asses unless you get them in gear." I'm just a dumbass (c4ts said so!) human, and even I can think of that!

[ntech]

Originally posted by Jesse2
So God had first to be a jealous and angry god and kill lots of people, to show that he was God? He couldn't figure out a better way, like simply coming down from the heavans in a bright light in front of everyone on the planet saying, "I am God, and I am going to kick your asses unless you get them in gear." I'm just a dumbass (c4ts said so!) human, and even I can think of that!

It’s true; if those folks would just step back and just look at all that is written in the bible they might see how ridiculous it really is. The thing reads like a really bad B movie.

I re-read genesis recently and could hardly stop my self from laughter on the commuter train.

[elliotfc]

Hey Yahweh, only have a bit of time so I don't know if I can explain myself compeltely. I'll do my best.

>>>>>Thats not necessarily a good form of reasoning.<<<<<

Necesarily is the correct word to use. It could be good, it could be bad. It is a form of reasoning.

>>>>>Intuitive senses (or Inner Convictions) dont constitute as a very good tool to justify a belief.<<<<<

That's your opinion. If a girl tells me she loves me, I have to use my intuition. The application of intuition will vary from person to person, but everybody uses intuition. Scientists use intuitions while conducting science. Obviously my kind of intuition isn't gonna cut it when I try to justify my beliefs to you. But it is sufficient when I justify my beliefs to others. We all have different standards and different exclusions.

>>>>>There is a whole psychology behind religion, the psychology is roughly rooted in fear (of punishment) and reward (for acting good).<<<<<

Yeah, that's how some people take it. I don't take it that way. I can't speak for other people, or religion in general. Religion doesn't have to be about fear and reward, and the way I think of religion doesn't incorporate fear and reward.

But having said all that, I don't have a problem or issue with some people fixating on fear and reward. We all understand things differently, we all have different levels of emotional and intellectual understanding. I won't fault people for not having the same outlooks I have. If someone decides they want to kill me, but at the last minute change their mind because of fear of imprisonment, I will honestly be thankful for the power of fear!

>>>>>That sounds a lot like the psychology behind religion has a great deal to do with selfishness, but thats just me being cynical.<<<<<

No, you should view religion as you want to. I would suggest that it is quite possible to practice religion and not get into fear and reward, and you can either take my word for it, or disagree. Use your intuition. ;)

>>>>>In any sense, many people have a problem rationalizing faith and religion.<<<<<

I still do.

>>>>>Random Example: If billions of people believed trees had souls or perhaps with a little work, we can turn water into gold, does it make it any more true?<<<<<

No, because reality is not contingent upon belief.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Hi Jesse. Where in Michigan are you? I used to live in Kalamazoo and Ann Arbor.

>>>>>We didn't vote to crucify Jesus. The jews did. <<<<<

I don't think voting had a heck of a lot to do with it. The "powers that rule" decided to kill Jesus, and that they were Jews is fine, but they were the authority, and I look at it more as the authority was just doing what it could to maintain authority.

>>>>>Regardless, how could original sin exist without God allowing it to?<<<<<

God does allow it to. I never said he didn't allow original sin to exist. I don't know anybody who thinks that God does not allow original sin to exist.

>>>>>If original sin exists, it can only exist by God's will.<<<<<

Not if you mean God's will created original sin. His creatures' wills created original sin. He created the creatures.

>>>>>Satan can only exist by God's will.<<<<<

He used to be known as Lucifer. Yes, he was created. I don't think God's creation can be uncreated. Now there's a corker of a philosophical question that no one has touched on. I suspect that God's creations (creative creators) can't be uncreated, but maybe I'm wrong about that.

>>>>>Therefore, Satan is God's pet.<<<<<

Obviously we have different definitions of pet, it's such a silly idea anyways that I'll give it to you. Satan and God are a complete disconnect, but if you want to see "pet" status in that, fine.

>>>>>How do you know who a real christian is?<<<<<

I don't. What do you mean by real Christian? I think a Christian is just a member of a Christian faith. A Christian can be a total monstrosity of a person and still be a Christian. I don't place any value judgment on Christian. It's just a classification, like doctor or stamp collector. Could be good people, could be bad people.

>>>>>Are the boy-molesting catholic priests real christians?<<<<<

They are Christians. Maybe. Perhaps they personally reject the faith and keep that fact to themselves. I have no idea. The idea of "real" Christian is intriguing. I can't read souls, so I don't know who is real or who is fake. There are some terrific Christians and some horrific Christians.

>>>>>Are the serial-killers who find 'Jesus' in prison real christians? Am I a christian? Do you believe I am a christian purely because I tell you I am?<<<<<

I do believe in being charitable...meaning, I will take people at their word unless I have compelling reasons not to. If a jailed person wants me to believe they are a Christian, I have no problem doing so. Doesn't mean for a second I think that should get them out of jail any earlier than they would. If you tell me that you are a Christian I'll take your word for it. I would follow up by asking you what Christian creed you follow.

-Elliot

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Hi Jesse. Where in Michigan are you? I used to live in Kalamazoo and Ann Arbor. I live in Harrison Township, which is next door to Mount Clemens. These places are about 30 minutes northeast of Detroit. We just got our power back on late yesterday afternoon.

Originally posted by elliotfc
I don't think voting had a heck of a lot to do with it. The "powers that rule" decided to kill Jesus, and that they were Jews is fine, but they were the authority, and I look at it more as the authority was just doing what it could to maintain authority. There was an actual vote. The option to vote was standard, and was given out at that time by Pontius Pilate. He asked the jewish crowd if they wished for Jesus to be released, or Barabbas to be released. Barabbas was a known murderer. They voted for Barabbas to be released. It was after this that Pontius Pilate 'washed his hands' of the matter, but sent Jesus to be crucified anyway.
Originally posted by elliotfc
I never said he didn't allow original sin to exist. I don't know anybody who thinks that God does not allow original sin to exist.

>>>>>If original sin exists, it can only exist by God's will.<<<<<

Not if you mean God's will created original sin. His creatures' wills created original sin. He created the creatures. If God allows original sin, and evil, and Satan to exist, what gives him any right to complain about them? Again, if God is all-knowing and all-poweful, he set into motion everything in existence knowing exactly the outcome. Free will is irrelevant if God knows the exact outcome of granting free will. (Marc said something similiar to this earlier in the thread.) God is more responsble for the creation and perpetuation of evil than any other entity; precisely because he knew what he was creating when he created, and because he is all-powerful and yet allows it to exist

[elliotfc]

>>>>>I don't have the time to cover everything...<<<<<<

I know what you're saying, I'm typing as fast as I can myself, so much to do.

>>>>>I would like to hear these premises.<<<<<

Trinity premises:
A Creator God exists.
A "messenger" is needed to translate the creative word into action.
An incarnation of God as man is necessary for salvation of fallen humanity.

If you don't believe those premises, I can't expect you to take anything I say seriously, so this discussion is probably completely pointless, unless you want to understand me. In that case, I've told you my premises, so maybe you can understand me better now.

>>>>>So there are two causes of suffering - suffering as a result of our free will choices, and suffering as a result of original sin? Is that what you're saying? The child falls into the second category? Cancer is an 'outcome' of original sin?<<<<<

Suffering existed before humanity. Suffering exists independently of humanity. The suffering of humanity that is most obviously is the suffering of our physical bodies, the consequence of original sin, or living on a falled world. But a spiritual suffering that humans feel is akin to the suffering that can be felt outside of created humanity, the problem with that is our souls are so connected to our physical bodies that it's basically just the original sin thing. Make sense? :)

>>>>>But you're changing the question that we humans face - it's not "Do you Loki wish to spend eternity with God?". Instead, it's "Are you Loki prepared to accept the existence of a poorly defined concept called 'god' on faith alone?". Do you seriously think that if god was to prove his existence to me absolutely, and show me that his nature truly is benevolent, that I'd choose to live apart from him?<<<<<

No, I have no doubt that you are rational person. I have no doubt that it was indicated to you that every belief you had was wrong, you would happily embrace the correct beliefs. There would be a period of "cleansing", called Purgatory. The best analogy for Purgatory would be the most painful thing you can imagine, it would be as bad as Hell accept their is hope at the end of Purgatory.

Read Paradise Lost. How could Satan...
Just read Paradise Lost. Great book.

Some people, I am sure you can imagine, will be obstinate and hate God and not want to hear that they were wrong their entire human existence. They will not want to experience the pain of knowing full well how much they have hurt themselves, hurt others, and hurt God. I have no reason to think you are this kind of person, and I'm not going to judge you. However, we can agree that these sorts of persons exist. If you are at war with God, unconsciously or consciously, how easy can it be to just capitulate? That will vary from person to person.

>>>>>The point is, the punishment ("living apart from god for eternity") is meted out simply because I choose to use my ability to reason to decide that god seems unlikely.<<<<<

Well I'm not about to have this word "punishment" be stricken from the conversation, so I'll have to deal with it. Understand, I don't really think of this as punishment.

But I could look at it as the best kind of punishment. With earthly punishment, the person is punished against their will. With divine punishment, the person is punished with their will. Again, God will not force you to live with him for eternity, so have no fear. If you want to live with God for eternity, however, there will be some hoops to jump through. The question is then "do you want to jump through hoops to live with God".

>>>>>I guess you probably think that a decision to embrace the christian god is more "pure" if taken without evidence.<<<<<

Oh yes. The faith of the pure, like children, is wondrous to behold. I'm fortunate to work at a Catholic Church. I see kids grasping sacramental grace, not by analysis but because it's all love, when you boil it down. At funerals I hear people try to articulate things, but at the end of it all, what is there to articulate? Theology is a coping mechanism that I freely admit I need and enjoy. I wonder if just accepting "love" would be enough for me. I don't know. However, I do try to appreciate the sheer beauty of it when I see it. I believe that I can work on a non-intellectual level, but I must admit that it goes against my nature. Or is it nurture? :)

>>>>>If that's the case, then I have to wonder why god worked so hard to convince Moses and his buddies that god was for real, and why Jesus felt the need to perform "miracles" in order to build a following.<<<<<

Regarding Moses and his buddies. It wasn't about convincing him that he was real. Gods WERE real. You couldn't count the number of real gods if you tried. The question was how powerful was this God in particular.

As for the miracles, it took a miracle to win salvation. Why wouldn't it take miracles to build a following? And of course Jesus was more than miracle man, he also talked a lot.

>>>>>And as side note - gee, how dumb were the Hebrews! God slaughters an entire generation of Egyptians, then drowns the entire army, and as soon as Moses ducks off for a quick chat to the big guy the Hebrews fall into Paganism! Slow learners.....<<<<<

I don't know if any other race of people would be any different. Old habits die hard. What have you done for me lately? And it was all very confusing back then. Again, there were thousands of gods back then, of course they'd get mixed up. The hard hand of God didn't quit though, he was always there to smack them around.

I don't think of them as stupid. I try to consider what the times were like then. It was different. Belief back then didn't mean the same thing as it does today.

>>>>>Who commited the crime? Pharaoh.

Who carried out the sentence? The LORD.

Who paid the penalty? Pharaoh's son - and the children of everyone, including servants, farmers, and every average run-of-the-mill Egyptian. Oh, and the cattle!!<<<<<

If he just took out Pharaoh, would it have made an impression on the people of Egypt or the Egyptian slaves? He had to make a dent on all of Egypt to show just how powerful he was. It was a very harsh penalty. The Egyptians felt their gods were more powerful than Yahweh, and an example had to be made.

>>>>>Is there some confusion here? Exodus is true, isn't it? Or is it allegorical?<<<<<

It's got a bit of everything in it. It's great literature. :)

>>>>>Cool, a Catholic!!! You really need to start talking to "Christian" - you can start by explaining baptism...<<<<<

Hmmm. Baptism is a ritual, an initiation, it is connected to ancient water rituals. It is a way to demonstrate love for God, either the parents making a decision for a child out of love, or an individual making the baptism choice himself. Nothing is assured after baptism, but I think you're better off with it than without it.

>>>>>Neither do I. You need to realise (or perhaps you don't!) that "the meaning of life" is not an exclusively christian, or even exclusively theist, concept. Have you investigated Secular Humanism at all?<<<<<

Yup. Dated a secular humanist. Went to humanistic Judaism services. Gave me the spooks, probably just as my religion gives you the spooks. The meaning of life is an objective reality. Conceptual understanding of it will differ from person to person, and I feel comfortable in deciding that my understanding of it may be more superior than others. Of course I understand that everybody conceives the meaning of life though.

>>>>>How are souls created? What determines the 'properties' of a soul? If the soul is a 'decision-maker' (the power-cell of the Will) then can god build a soul that can make decisions he can't predict? If he *can* predict the set of all possible decisions a soul can make, then in what way are the decisions not ultimately "created by god"?<<<<<

I don't know the answers to any of those questions. I feel that I have a soul, it's just intuition. The soul is more than the decision maker. No, actually, it is not the decision maker. The brain makes decisions. Brains are faulty. The soul can interact with the barin. Souls can make decisions, but it is tough for me to conceive of that because my soul is so tied up with my brain. Non human entities like angels have souls and can make decisions.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

>>>>>You're softening it down. The punishment is eternal damnation in hell. Remember that.<<<<<

Jesse your dogmatic declarations really impress me, you ought to be a preacher. ;)

Punishment by damnation is an analogy to help us appreciate how hopeless and horrific separation from God is. I won't begrudge anyone that understanding if it helps them spiritually. If you want to fixate on this analogy and turn into your own personal dogmatic understanding of Christianity thats fine. But many Christians like myself don't fixate on punishment, which would have to make Christian theology more complicated than you would like it to be.

>>>>>BTW, I enjoy the moses/pharoh references. I forgot about how yhwh deliberately 'hardened the heart' of the pharoh. What gives there? The poor pharoh didn't have a chance! LOL!<<<<<

He got his chance after he died you see. :)

It isn't about going straight to hell. We'll all get a chance to be reconciled after death.

-Elliot

[The Mad Linguist]

y'know, if it turns I'm wrong and there is a God, I really hope Elliot et al. are correct and that Hell is really eternity in the absence of God. That'd be fine by me. Eternal life... no grovelling... woohoo!

If it's fire and torment a la old school Christianity, I might be a little bit annoyed.

[elliotfc]

>>>>>So God had first to be a jealous and angry god and kill lots of people, to show that he was God?<<<<<

To show that he was the most SUPERIOR god. It was very competitive back then. You can claim to be the greatest god (eventually that would turn into the ONLY God, but they weren't ready for that idea back then), but it's just hot air unless you back it up.

>>>>>He couldn't figure out a better way, like simply coming down from the heavans in a bright light in front of everyone on the planet saying, "I am God, and I am going to kick your asses unless you get them in gear." I'm just a dumbass (c4ts said so!) human, and even I can think of that!<<<<<

Any god can do that though, other demons/gods manifested themselves in those days. The Hebrew God wanted to have an intimate relationship with a group of people.

-Elliot

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by elliotfc
To show that he was the most SUPERIOR god. It was very competitive back then. You can claim to be the greatest god (eventually that would turn into the ONLY God, but they weren't ready for that idea back then), but it's just hot air unless you back it up.

Any god can do that though, other demons/gods manifested themselves in those days. The Hebrew God wanted to have an intimate relationship with a group of people.

-Elliot Are you saying there were other gods besides Yahweh? Now I'm really confused. I thought he was the one true god.

[ntech]

Originally posted by elliotfc
That's your opinion. If a girl tells me she loves me, I have to use my intuition. The application of intuition will vary from person to person, but everybody uses intuition. Scientists use intuitions while conducting science. Obviously my kind of intuition isn't gonna cut it when I try to justify my beliefs to you. But it is sufficient when I justify my beliefs to others. We all have different standards and different exclusions.

-Elliot

The big difference is that with science, the scene plays out and we actually find out whether the girl does love us or not. Definitively!
You don’t just stop after wishful thinking.

I understand why you fear science. At last look, 62% of scientists do not believe in god.

As for the 38%; Will Provine said it best in 1988, If you are a scientist and go to church you “simply have to check your brains at the church door.

[elliotfc]

>>>>>I live in Harrison Township, which is next door to Mount Clemens. These places are about 30 minutes northeast of Detroit. We just got our power back on late yesterday afternoon.<<<<<

I was thinking about all you Michiganders. On Long Island we only lost power for 6 hours.

>>>>>There was an actual vote. The option to vote was standard, and was given out at that time by Pontius Pilate. He asked the jewish crowd if they wished for Jesus to be released, or Barabbas to be released. Barabbas was a known murderer. They voted for Barabbas to be released. It was after this that Pontius Pilate 'washed his hands' of the matter, but sent Jesus to be crucified anyway.<<<<<

Oh yeah! I never thought of that as an actual vote, but you're right. I try to steer clear of the whole blame the Jews thing. Seems like there might have been some mob mentality going on there, any race of people would have done the same. Maybe, probably, I don't really know.

>>>>>If God allows original sin, and evil, and Satan to exist, what gives him any right to complain about them?<<<<<

God has the right to do anything, including complain. I don't know if it is complaining per se. What like minded souls can God actually complain to? Statements of unhappiness about a situation can come across as complaining, or not. I see complaining as words without the possibility of action. And God did commit action to deal with original sin, evil, and Satan. It might not fit into your timeframe (if time even means anything outside the physical world), but all that stuff has been or will be dealt with.

>>>>>Again, if God is all-knowing and all-poweful, he set into motion everything in existence knowing exactly the outcome.<<<<<

I don't think God thinks like that at all. I don't think God obsesses over outcomes like that. He is concerned with every moment of continuous time equally, and is always willing to lend spiritual support when asked, but he has to be asked. It doesn't do any good to complain about omniscience when all people have the power to accept or reject God. Just accept God and don't worry about the omniscience thing.

>>>>>Free will is irrelevant if God knows the exact outcome of granting free will.<<<<<

No it's very relevant. You have control over what you do. We are creative beings. We can't be creative beings without free will. If you want to think of yourself as a robot I can't stop you, but I'm not a robot and most people I know don't think they are robots.

When God is concerned about each particular moment of continuous time, at each of those moments he is not concerned about the other moments.

>>>>>God is more responsble for the creation and perpetuation of evil than any other entity; precisely because he knew what he was creating when he created, and because he is all-powerful and yet allows it to exist.<<<<<

He is responsible as the first cause. If you think the first cause (of creating creative individuals) to be inherently evil, take it up with God. I disagree with your sentiment obviously. I'm trying to think of a way you can convince me to agree with you. Since I exist, and since I appreciate being a creative individual, I can not in good conscience consider the first cause of creating creative individuals to be inherently evil.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

>>>>>y'know, if it turns I'm wrong and there is a God, I really hope Elliot et al. are correct and that Hell is really eternity in the absence of God. That'd be fine by me. Eternal life... no grovelling... woohoo!<<<<<

John Milton wrote a book about that. :0

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

>>>>>Are you saying there were other gods besides Yahweh? Now I'm really confused. I thought he was the one true god.<<<<<

He was the one true god, is the one true god. There are millions of false gods. Mammon is a god, in a sense. It's a false god.

Monotheism is a more recent idea than polytheism. When we say we are monotheistic we reject polytheism. We don't equate a pantheon of gods. There is one true god. The other gods are of a different kind than the true god, so it's better off to just take the one exception (exception in that it is inherently different to the others in that it created the others) and as for the rest, the more you reject them the better. And the best way to reject them is to call yourself a monotheist. The excluded gods still have power and can influence people of course.

If you take a test, there are an infinite number of answers. There is only one true test. We could say there are infinite numbers of answers to questions on tests, but isn't it most helpful to just say that there is only one answer, the correct one? Most teachers in objective hard sciences who give exams to students would agree with this sentiment (much to my chagrin grrrrrrrr).

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

>>>>>The big difference is that with science, the scene plays out and we actually find out whether the girl does love us or not. Definitively!<<<<<

What experiment to you set up to do this? What is the null hypothesis? Is there a control group? Is it necessary to test those who claim to love you, and vice versa?

>>>>>You don’t just stop after wishful thinking. <<<<<

I never do. :)

>>>>>I understand why you fear science. At last look, 62% of scientists do not believe in god. <<<<<

I never said that I fear science. Why do you think that I fear science? If I told you the number of university science classes I've taken would that be evidence that I don't fear science? If I told you that I read science books would that be evidence that I don't fear science? If I told you that I respect science would that be evidence that I don't fear science. I know that I don't fear science, while you think that I fear science. Perhaps I should not care what you think? That's the obvious thing to do in this situation (would you agree?).

>>>>>As for the 38%; Will Provine said it best in 1988, If you are a scientist and go to church you “simply have to check your brains at the church door.<<<<<

Believe what you want to believe. It takes brains to think and write and consider possibilities. If you are really a scientist you would know that you can engage your brain inside of a church. Go to church and let me know if your brain stops working. If you're just being sarcastic, then that's all you are. A sarcastic person who has not demonstrated the capacity to say anything remotely interesting.

My time that I can spend on this forum is limited so ntech, I just won't spend time responding to any of your messages. You will most likely chalk that up to fear on my part. Whatever. There are simply more intelligent people in this forum than you, and I base that on just a copule days of experience. You have judged me to be afraid of science in that short time, so I think you can understand how I can make such a judgment call in such a short amount of time. :)

-Elliot

[ntech]

Originally posted by elliotfc

What experiment to you set up to do this? What is the null hypothesis? Is there a control group? Is it necessary to test those who claim to love you, and vice versa?

I guess we can conclude she does after 15 years of marriage or so.

Originally posted by elliotfc

I never said that I fear science. Why do you think that I fear science? If I told you the number of university science classes I've taken would that be evidence that I don't fear science? If I told you that I read science books would that be evidence that I don't fear science? If I told you that I respect science would that be evidence that I don't fear science. I know that I don't fear science, while you think that I fear science. Perhaps I should not care what you think? That's the obvious thing to do in this situation (would you agree?).

Do as you wish however you obviously have some fears. You stated: :"I'll take the Book of Genesis over the Origin of Species because it is more meaningful to me".

Originally posted by elliotfc

If you're just being sarcastic, then that's all you are. A sarcastic person who has not demonstrated the capacity to say anything remotely interesting.

Yes I am being sarcastic. I am simply responding to your definitive statements about god, genesis and the bible. You assert as if you are stating absolute truth and I am simply pointing out the absurdity.

I am from the school that feels it is meaningless to have a respectful debate with a theist. If an evolutionist gets up to debate a creationist it does nothing for the evolutionist. It does however give credibility to the creationist who now shares the stage with an intelligent scientist giving the impression that the creationist has something meaningful to debate.

Originally posted by elliotfc

My time that I can spend on this forum is limited so ntech, I just won't spend time responding to any of your messages. You will most likely chalk that up to fear on my part. Whatever. There are simply more intelligent people in this forum than you, and I base that on just a copule days of experience. You have judged me to be afraid of science in that short time, so I think you can understand how I can make such a judgment call in such a short amount of time. :)
-Elliot

There are very intelligent people, we agree. I may get some points wrong however you must admit that since you believe genesis over evolution it must bother you that science is slowly exposing it as a fairytale.

You come on with blatant pronouncements of fact about subjects that science has ripped to shreds and I am simply responding in kind.

Ray-ntech

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Oh yeah! I never thought of that as an actual vote, but you're right. I try to steer clear of the whole blame the Jews thing. Seems like there might have been some mob mentality going on there, any race of people would have done the same. Maybe, probably, I don't really know. Well, both the jews and the romans were responsible. To be honest, my comment about the jews was misplaced. What I meant to emphasize was that we did not crucify Jesus, they did, meaning the jews and the romans did back then.
Originally posted by elliotfc
>>>>>Again, if God is all-knowing and all-poweful, he set into motion everything in existence knowing exactly the outcome.<<<<<

I don't think God thinks like that at all. I don't think God obsesses over outcomes like that. He is concerned with every moment of continuous time equally, and is always willing to lend spiritual support when asked, but he has to be asked. It doesn't do any good to complain about omniscience when all people have the power to accept or reject God. Just accept God and don't worry about the omniscience thing.How do you know how God thinks? or what he's concerned with? How can I grant acceptance to God if I cannot define what God is? If I define God as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, which is how I began this post, then I must find logical inconsistencies. I don't wish to complain about omniscience. I wish to say that it very likely does not exist.
Originally posted by elliotfc
>>>>>Free will is irrelevant if God knows the exact outcome of granting free will.<<<<<

No it's very relevant. You have control over what you do. We are creative beings. We can't be creative beings without free will.
I do not believe that free will exists outside of genetic and environmental causes. If you take away genetics and the environment, what have you got left as causes for choices? The answer is: nothing. What we define as randomness and chaos are simply elements which we do not yet scientifically understand or are not able to predict. I may begin another thread about Free Will. I'm curious to know what other people's responses are to this.
Originally posted by elliotfc
>>>>>God is more responsble for the creation and perpetuation of evil than any other entity; precisely because he knew what he was creating when he created, and because he is all-powerful and yet allows it to exist.<<<<<

He is responsible as the first cause. If you think the first cause (of creating creative individuals) to be inherently evil, take it up with God. The first cause of creating individuals who he knows, in advance, will do evil acts, is an act of knowingly creating evil. I could take it up with God, but I have no idea how to go about doing that.

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by elliotfc
>>>>>Are you saying there were other gods besides Yahweh? Now I'm really confused. I thought he was the one true god.<<<<<

He was the one true god, is the one true god. There are millions of false gods. Mammon is a god, in a sense. It's a false god.
If Yahweh was the one true God, why couldn't he simply wipe out all the false ones? (assuming Yahweh was omnipotent) If free will was so important to Yahweh, why did he have to harden the Pharoh's heart?

[Loki]

elliotfc,

The suffering of humanity that is most obviously is the suffering of our physical bodies, the consequence of original sin, or living on a falled world.
So a child that dies at age 6 months is an innocent victim of a frail body in a fallen world. What then happens to this child's soul, and why?

If he just took out Pharaoh, would it have made an impression on the people of Egypt or the Egyptian slaves? He had to make a dent on all of Egypt to show just how powerful he was. It was a very harsh penalty.
So, you agree then that the christian god punished the son for the sins of the father? You seemed to dispute this in an earlier post. Your explanation for this behaviour (which would be condemned by human standards) is "there were other priorities, such as establishing his authority, which had to be met". In essence, you're "special pleading" for god on this one?

A Creator God exists.
A "messenger" is needed to translate the creative word into action.
An incarnation of God as man is necessary for salvation of fallen humanity.
I'm not sure how these premises lead to the conclusion that the Trinity is a logically conceiveable entity? They seem to lead to the conclusion that the Trinity was logically necessary, which isn't the same thing at all. The Trinity is based on three premises (from the catechism here: (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm)

1. The Trinity is One... The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire
2. The divine persons are really distinct from one another..."Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another
3. The divine persons are relative to one another.

Now, the 3 "divine persons" are *not* "modalities or names" of the one god - they are "distinct" and "whole and entire". Yet there is only one god. One is Three, and Three are One.

You've explained why the Trinity is logically necessary with your premises. Can you explain how the Trinity is logically possible? If not, then can we assume that the Trinity is a logical contradiction?

Hmmm. Baptism is a ritual, an initiation, it is connected to ancient water rituals. It is a way to demonstrate love for God, either the parents making a decision for a child out of love, or an individual making the baptism choice himself. Nothing is assured after baptism, but I think you're better off with it than without it.

You appear to be a very "progressive" catholic! You are for or against the Limbus Infantum then?

(Regarding souls) : I don't know the answers to any of those questions. I feel that I have a soul, it's just intuition. The soul is more than the decision maker. No, actually, it is not the decision maker. The brain makes decisions. Brains are faulty. The soul can interact with the barin. Souls can make decisions, but it is tough for me to conceive of that because my soul is so tied up with my brain.
The purpose behind these questions is that I expected pretty much these sorts of answers - the "soul" is simply a poorly concieved and vaguely defined "bag" into which you place anything you can't figure out, and which acts as a "circuit breaker" for you in trying to see how Free Will and God's omniscience can be resolved. If god created your soul, then he created it's potential impact on your behaviour. WHatever you are capable of, he pout there. Whatever I'm capable of, he put there. If you could *never* abandon him, it's because it made your soul that way, if you *could* abandon him, it's because he put that there. Why would you (or anyone) choose to turn their back on god?

What reason? What process? How does this come to be? You've stated that our final destination is a place that's in accordance with our "Will" - but the Will is the soul (or lives in the soul) and god made that. Did he make something he couldn't see into?

Some people, I am sure you can imagine, will be obstinate and hate God and not want to hear that they were wrong their entire human existence.
Why would they do that? What leads to that state of affairs? When such a person reaches the point of saying "I hate god, and refuse to accept I was wrong" what brought them to that place? Outside factors? Internal "will"? Both? Who created the outside factors - god. Who created this person's will - god. Who's responsible for their decision - god!!!!

[elliotfc]

Hey Jesse.

How do you know how God thinks? or what he's concerned with?

Primarily through the life of Jesus. Secondarily through my reading of I don't know how many books. Then there is a lot of thinking on my part.

Theology. It is related to science, but it is not science. I accept that God exists (a creator who creates creative beings). Then I take it from there, and try to make sense out of everything.

Theology is not an exact science, obviously. I could be wrong about one thing or everything. I have been asked questions and I have answered them. If your premise is "how can this person know how/what God thinks", then I don't know why you're asking me questions. It seems you are all trying to get your heads around how I think or how this type of Christian thinks or how any Christian thinks. That's why I was wondering why this forum was here. If nobody can know how God thinks, or what he's concerned with, why scratch your heads over people who are concerned with those things?

How can I grant acceptance to God if I cannot define what God is?[/qoute]

I personally started with a very simple definition. God is the supreme creator who is (ultimately/directly/indirectly) responsible for the creation of every other creative being. I find such an idea unavoidable. If you don't find that idea unavoidable, then I honestly don't know how you can grant acceptance to God. Probably you can't.

Alternatively, maybe you can be impressed by the life of Jesus, who claimed to be God. If you think he was on to something, you could at the very least accept that God exists.

In theology people brainstorm about God, the existence of God is taken for granted. I think it's obvious that I've been designed, and that all living things have been designed, and that the universe has been designed. Of course that isn't self-evident to a lot of people. What can you do? All I'm trying to do here is respond to questions and get engaged in theological discussions. If the position is "we can't possibly know what God is", then there can't be any theological discussions. Just by the fact that you enjoy poking holes in theology seems, to me, to suggest that you are actually interested in theology. I've never talked to (I mean physically talked to) an atheist who wasn't interested in theology, their interest being negative of course.

[quote]If I define God as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, which is how I began this post, then I must find logical inconsistencies.

Agreed, sort of. Or it depends how you define or think about those words. I would be *difficult*, or *a pain in the butt*, and say that our ideas of omni-whatever do not correspond to God's ideas about omni-whatever, and that his ideas about omni-whatever are superior to our ideas about omni-whatever.

With omnipotence, let me see if I can spit out the two main objections (correct me if I've misidentified the two main objections.)

1) If God can't do "evil", how can he be omnipotent?
Response) As the perfect creator, the perfect creator can not act imperfectly. It is against the nature of the perfect creator to do anything imperfectly. It is up to imperfect creators to do imperfect things. If evil is, at the very root, separation from God, how can God be separate from God? God can only be God. That is omnipotence. If you have a different definition of omnipotence (God can be God, and/or God can be an imperfect creator), then we are disagreeing at that point. God can become a limited creator (ie Jesus), but Jesus was perfect in his limitations.

2) Since God doesn't stop evil, how can he be omnipotent?
Response) Just because God doesn't do something doesn't mean he can't do something. I would say that he will deal with evil when he will deal with evil. He won't deal with evil when we want him to deal with evil. I can make the analogy to any human thing. If there is a lamp that is off, and you choose not to turn it on, does that mean you can not turn it on? No, it just means you'll turn on the lamp when you choose to do it. A consequence of creating imperfect creators was them doing evil things. He felt that was an acceptable consequence, and who are we (who exist) to disagree? That is the way it is, take it up with God (well, I guess you already are) if you dislike the way it is.

Regarding omniscience...I don't know. At every particular moment of continuous time God knows everything about that moment. That's how I define omniscience.

Regarding omnibenevolence...Good is a standard. God is the ultimate standard. Therefore God is the ultimate good. The evil that exists goes against the ultimate standard, that is why it is evil. Omnibenevolence comes before evil, evil can only be understood compared to omnibenevolence. We understand evil, therefore omnibenevolence exists, and only God can be omnibenevolent.

I don't wish to complain about omniscience. I wish to say that it very likely does not exist.

If I implied you were complaining I apologize, I was just spouting about tendencies that I observe but that you don't apparently have. Your *idea* of omniscience...well I think that you're right. Your *idea* of omniscience does not exist. But there are many different ideas about omniscience. I'm being difficult. I'm sorry. It's just that I think we would define terms differently. If you want to say that my idea of omniscience does not exist...well, just say it, and I'll take it like a man. :) As long as if you think about what I say, that's enough. That would make this conversation we are having worthwhile, and that's enough, that's probably the best we can hope out of all this.

I do not believe that free will exists outside of genetic and environmental causes. If you take away genetics and the environment, what have you got left as causes for choices?

OK, I was referring to different levels of existence that are not human levels of existence. I am of the opinion that there are countless billions of creative beings, obviously most of whom are not human. Therefore free will can exist outside of *human* genetics and *earth* environment. But the other entities would have their own particular genetics and environment I suppose. So maybe you are right from your way of looking at things. I was looking at it from the human perspective of original sin (human original sin, I don't think that other entities have {necessarily} original sin. But all entities have free will.

If you say how do I know all of this...again, I plead theological innocence. I'm trying to make sense of everything through theology. If my opinions are baseless, then it's probably best to stop responding to me. I am not talking scientifically about ANYTHING, so don't apply scientific standards to this. Or do. If you do I agree that scientifically this is just nonsensical. But this is a theological/philsophical forum.

The answer is: nothing. What we define as randomness and chaos are simply elements which we do not yet scientifically understand or are not able to predict.

Right. I don't think that I believe in randomness or chaos. Science will ever be able to predict human decision making. I'll bet any amount of money that it won't happen...errr...in our lifetimes. I'd extend the timeframe but then I would be dead and couldn't put the money to good use.

The first cause of creating individuals who he knows, in advance, will do evil acts, is an act of knowingly creating evil.

Knowingly creating the POSSIBILITY of evil. God obviously thought it was worth it.

I could take it up with God, but I have no idea how to go about doing that.

You are taking it up with God, who is READING EVERY MESSAGE IN THIS FORUM. You'll be able to speak to him more directly eventually.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

If Yahweh was the one true God, why couldn't he simply wipe out all the false ones? (assuming Yahweh was omnipotent) If free will was so important to Yahweh, why did he have to harden the Pharoh's heart?

OK, now this is what I consider a really tricky one.

Can god "wipe out" any other god? I don't know if God can make his creations cease to exist. If that limits his omnipotence, so be it. If something exists at one time, it will always exist at that time, therefore it will always exist. I don't think time outside of temporal reality is as we think it is.

Retreating from the above philsophical problem, the state of the world is one in which Evil is permitted to reign. He could wipe it out today or yesterday, but he chose not to. Again, that doesn't imply non-omnipotence, anymore that the fact that you don't choose to drink a glass of milk at a particular time means that you are unable to drink a glass of milk.

I'm not sure if he actually did harden Pharoah's heart. Obviously the Exodus writer(s) thought God hardened Pharoah's heart. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. If you expect me to defend every statement in the Bible...that's expecting too much.

I'll defend a whole bunch of them fer sure, but not every one. ;)

I am not a literalist Christian who believes every single thing in the Bible. Am I supposed to be, and do you assume every Christian to be a literalist Christian? 0% of Catholics are literalist biblical Christians.

-Elliot

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Primarily through the life of Jesus. Secondarily through my reading of I don't know how many books. Then there is a lot of thinking on my part. Many athiests and agnostics have the same qualifications you do: Reading a lot of books and a lot of thinking.

Originally posted by elliotfc
Agreed, sort of. Or it depends how you define or think about those words. I would be *difficult*, or *a pain in the butt*, and say that our ideas of omni-whatever do not correspond to God's ideas about omni-whatever, and that his ideas about omni-whatever are superior to our ideas about omni-whatever. If we can't adequately comprehend these ideas, I see no point in thinking about them farther than I already have. I can therefore mentally eject the notions of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence, which does adequately address the post that began this discussion.

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by elliotfc
OK, now this is what I consider a really tricky one.

Can god "wipe out" any other god? I don't know if God can make his creations cease to exist. If that limits his omnipotence, so be it. Very well. This addresses the first post of this thread.
Originally posted by elliotfc
Retreating from the above philsophical problem, the state of the world is one in which Evil is permitted to reign. He could wipe it out today or yesterday, but he chose not to. Again, that doesn't imply non-omnipotence, anymore that the fact that you don't choose to drink a glass of milk at a particular time means that you are unable to drink a glass of milk. We keep slipping away from the original statement. The christian tenet is that God is simulataneously omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. In a nutshell, if evil is permitted, then God cannot be all three of these things. If he chooses not to wipe out evil, it seems God cannot be all three of the aforementioned 'omni-whatevers'

Originally posted by elliotfc
I am not a literalist Christian who believes every single thing in the Bible. Am I supposed to be, and do you assume every Christian to be a literalist Christian? 0% of Catholics are literalist biblical Christians. The original post of this thread addresses a 'literalist' or fundamental christian tenet. I perceive you to be backsliding a little bit, but that's just my non-literalist interpretation.

[elliotfc]

Hey Loki.

So a child that dies at age 6 months is an innocent victim of a frail body in a fallen world. What then happens to this child's soul, and why?

The child's soul is free from being tied to the human body. After that it is almost certainly reconciled with God completely. Or not. I have no idea. The soul, while we are humans, is stuck in the human perspective. Free from that human perspective I have absolutely no idea how it would think. Strike that. I have lots of ideas. I'm not exactly sure.

If there are visions of limbo dancing in your head, I could speak about limbo but I would only (probably badly) mumble stuff that can be found at the following webpage.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

So, you agree then that the christian god punished the son for the sins of the father?

More for the sins of the civilization. I don't think it was as personal as Exodus makes it. We're talking slaves rebelling against the enslaved. The slaves, for good reason, fixated on Pharoah, and no doubt explained it as Pharoah instead the Egyptian state.

Let me just go ahead and tell you what I believe. I do believe that God did in fact visit Egypt with a whole bunch of bad things. The reason for doing so was to prove that he, as a God, was more powerful than the Egyptian gods. This would create an impression on the Jews. Of course we can make fun of the Jews for all the times they slipped...but Judaism still exists, so it had to work. The specifics that are mentioned in Exodus may or may not be true, particularly how they explained the reasons of God behind the actions of God.

I'm just typing, I'm not looking back to see what I typed. I hope that helps to show you how I think about the Bible. Things happened. God was involved. The writers of the books of the Bible explained them as best they could. They probably got a lot of stuff wrong. Or maybe just a little stuff wrong. I don't know.

You seemed to dispute this in an earlier post. Your explanation for this behaviour (which would be condemned by human standards) is "there were other priorities, such as establishing his authority, which had to be met". In essence, you're "special pleading" for god on this one?

I hope I explained myself above. I don't take the bible literally. The writers did the best they could. They might have assigned specifics (God beating down Pharoah personally) that are off the mark. Egypt had to go down, and Egypt had to go down hard!

I'm not sure how these premises lead to the conclusion that the Trinity is a logically conceiveable entity?

God exists. I can't escape that logically. I just can't.

God as Jesus is God's way of reconnecting with his rebel creation. I conclude that Jesus is God because that explains a whole heck of a lot. God and humanity can only reconnect through...Jesus. Who is God and who is human. That's part two of the trinity. God taking on a limited role and still being God.

God's way of *action* is the Holy Spirit. If God, who I believe exists, does things, those things are done by the Holy Spirit. Which is a part of God. Think of it as the mechanism of God. A Hindu would get what I'm saying. The Holy Spirit is an aspect of God. The Virgin Mary became pregnant throught the Holy Spirit. Which is the same as becoming pregnant through God.

You can probably say that "well, Jesus got Mary pregnant since God is Jesus is the Holy Spirit man how weird is that". I would respond by saying "see, that's the beauty of the Trinity! We have different names, just to get around such weirdness!" It's very convenient to think of God as Three. I don't even think I have any idea just how convenient it is. The Trinity is called the greatest mystery of Christianity for good reason. Three names for the same thing? Something like that.

Jesus seemed like he knew what the heck he was talking about. He talked about God, he talked about the Holy Spirit, and he talked about Jesus. That's the trinity right there.

They seem to lead to the conclusion that the Trinity was logically necessary, which isn't the same thing at all.

I think objective reality is logically necessary? If God is Love, God CANNOT BE PURELY ONE. Love is interaction. Love is two creating another. The Trinity is logically necessary. I am summarizing I don't know how many people, people from Fulton Sheen to Rene Girard. More people than those two, I think they articulated it the best. I can't recomment Rene Girard highly enough, and I feel silly trying to explain this stuff when there is no way I can explain it better than him.

The Trinity is based on three premises (from the catechism here: (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm)

1. The Trinity is One... The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire

Right. I would never say that any part of the Trinity is only 1/3 of God. Jesus just wasn't 1/3 of God, Jesus was God.

2. The divine persons are really distinct from one another..."Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another

I agree with that competely.

3. The divine persons are relative to one another.

Good. I agree completely with my chosen theology. :)

By relative that implies family. You need three for a family.

Now, the 3 "divine persons" are *not* "modalities or names" of the one god - they are "distinct" and "whole and entire". Yet there is only one god. One is Three, and Three are One.

If I said anything above I am sorry, I was just doing a bad job of explaining what you outlined above.

You've explained why the Trinity is logically necessary with your premises. Can you explain how the Trinity is logically possible?

No, it's the biggest mystery in Christianity. I can only perceive that it is necessary (three implies Love, because Love is both unifying and creative).

If not, then can we assume that the Trinity is a logical contradiction?

Human logic is limited, we do the best we can though.

You appear to be a very "progressive" catholic! You are for or against the Limbus Infantum then?

No, I HATE the Limbo. Love the chicken dance though. :)

Here is a link regarding Limbo. I must admit that the ideas of Limbo have evolved throughout the history of Catholicism (the link extends that to predate Christianity). I'm glad Catholicism is not totally stagnant in doctrine.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

The purpose behind these questions is that I expected pretty much these sorts of answers - the "soul" is simply a poorly concieved and vaguely defined "bag" into which you place anything you can't figure out, and which acts as a "circuit breaker" for you in trying to see how Free Will and God's omniscience can be resolved.

I did the best I could. :(

My soul is how I feel connected to God. And I do feel connected to God. I can't be connected to God without a soul. I can exist without a connection to God, but then I would be totally uncreative and a bore (no snide comments please :) ). Here's a quote from GK Chesterton:
"To each man one soul only is given; to each soul only is given a little power - the power at some moments to outgrow and swallow up the stars."
That's how I feel about the soul. The soul is what is more than this human body/brain of mine. It is my wishes, my conscience, my dreams, my fears and joys. You can scientifically explain all that (I said EXPLAIN not prove) but such an explanation has no spiritual value to me.
If you respond to that by saying "you are just a weakling who NEEDS spiritual value when none exists", I would respond by admitting that I am a weakling with needs, while disagreeing that none exists.
My intellectual pursuits (I have many) are also spiritual pursuits. My soul is hungry, as much as my brain. You can tell me there is no difference, but I feel there is a difference. You can tell me the feeling is an illusion, but you can't prove that my feeling is an illusion. It is a very real feeling to me, and I'm not about to rationalize out of it.

Here's something else to consider.
IF God exists, and IF there is human existence after human death, does that mean a soul exists?

I'm very curious to hear everyone answer that question. I can't escape the idea that God exists. Given my belief in Jesus, I believe that there is existence after human death. Therefore I believe a soul exists. Does all of that follow? I mean, if you accept the two IFs, does it follow that a soul exists? Even if we have only the most vague definition of soul?

If god created your soul, then he created it's potential impact on your behaviour. WHatever you are capable of, he pout there. Whatever I'm capable of, he put there.

If you could *never* abandon him, it's because it made your soul that way, if you *could* abandon him, it's because he put that there. Why would you (or anyone) choose to turn their back on god?

He made our souls so that they can freely choose to abandon him or stick with him. Both options are in the soul. Let's say I choose to abandon God. That's in there as you put it, yes. I also say that the other option is in their too. Why would anyone choose to turn their back on God? Any of a trillion reasons. Read the first book of Paradise Lost and tell me what you think. Everytime we sin we turn our back on God. Why would we do such a thing? Because at the moment we sin, we place ourself (or someone else or something else) in the center of the universe. Why would we do that? Isn't the answer obvious? The option is there. If you give an multiple choice test, you'll have people choose each of the options. You do your best to instruct them about the correct answers, and you even offer to TELL THEM the correct answers (if they would just listen to you). But if there is one thing that creative beings have shown, it's that they can and do decide to rebel against their creator.

What reason? What process? How does this come to be? You've stated that our final destination is a place that's in accordance with our "Will" - but the Will is the soul (or lives in the soul) and god made that. Did he make something he couldn't see into?

No! Since he can see into our souls, he cooperates with those who reject him. He created wills/souls that could reject him. If you think that is just a crazy thing to do...that's your opinion. I think it a reasonable thing to do because you can't force Love. If God wants Love, he has to allow that love to be free, and if it is free that leaves the possibility for, errr, hate. He'll let the "haters" hate if they want to. If they want to. If they want to. If they want to. God doesn't force anyone to reject Love.

Why would they do that? What leads to that state of affairs?

"They" meaning the people who ultimately reject God. I don't know, I think it's a stupid thing to do myself. Pride. That's the answer. What leads to pride? Discontentment maybe. Loving yourself more than God. A whole bunch of stuff. Or maybe it's pride that leads to discontentment.

Why do people do stupid things? I don't know. The answer isn't "because they are stupid" because smart people do stupid things all the time. Does that make them not smart? I don't know. Maybe. Some people have the attitude that all people are stupid, or most people are stupid. I don't like that attitude. I think most people are smart, but they just love themselves or other things to much, they get their perspectives out of wack, that doesn't make them stupid.

When such a person reaches the point of saying "I hate god, and refuse to accept I was wrong" what brought them to that place?

Varies from person to person. It all boils down to the word "pride" in the end. Some people can never say they are wrong. Maybe you've met people like that. We can theorize what brought them to that place, and maybe even blame others. But we are all responsible for our own stubbornness.

Outside factors? Internal "will"? Both? Who created the outside factors - god. Who created this person's will - god. Who's responsible for their decision - god!!!!

No, decisions are up to the decision makers. God created beings with the capacity to make decisions. He gives all of us the option to make the right decisions or the wrong decisions.

Again, what is the alternative? Choiceless automatons? Is that what you would rather be? There's no love in that.

Here is another question. Is love possible without choice? If you respond "what's love?" then I give up, I'll have reached the end of my ability to contribute to the thread.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Jesse2
[B] Many athiests and agnostics have the same qualifications you do: Reading a lot of books and a lot of thinking.

You're right. We are all qualified to be theologians, and I don't know if there is a limit to possible conclusions. We are disagreeing and trying to express our disagreements.

My ideas are ways to help me understand what I think I need to understand. If they don't help others so be it. I'm doing the best I can. It goes without saying that I favor my ideas over anyone elses, or, at least the other ideas I encounter. When I encounter other ideas that I think are superior to mine I readily alter my perspective.

Again, we aren't talking about science here.

If we can't adequately comprehend these ideas, I see no point in thinking about them farther than I already have. I can therefore mentally eject the notions of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence, which does adequately address the post that began this discussion.

OK. It was a pleasure talking to you in this thread, see you in another I'm sure. :)

My intention is not to convince anyone anything, just to articulate what I believe. If my articulations don't cut it, I sincerely appreciate hearing that, and the whys behind it.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

The christian tenet is that God is simulataneously omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

Since we define those words differently we disagree. I am not content with how you define them, but I understand with your definitions you think as you do.

In a nutshell, if evil is permitted, then God cannot be all three of these things. If he chooses not to wipe out evil, it seems God cannot be all three of the aforementioned 'omni-whatevers.

So if you don't choose to open a bottle of beer you can't open a bottle of beer? Eradicating evil or the possibility of evil would be to eradicate every creative being. We disagree with omniscience because I don't think God perceives time as you/I do.

The original post of this thread addresses a 'literalist' or fundamental christian tenet. I perceive you to be backsliding a little bit, but that's just my non-literalist interpretation.

OK. This thread has evolved past the original post. Should I apologize for that? I'm sorry if that is against the rules of the board. I am supporting the "fundamental christian tenets" by declaring that your definitions of omni-whatever are not how "fundamental christians" would define them. I consider myself a "fundamental" Christian becaue I believe in the fundamentals of Christianity. I introduced the "literalist" idea.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Jesse if I got away from the initial sentiment of your original post, that wasn't my intention, but it seemed we were going in a direction that led to a discussion.

I can't possibly think of anything else to say, and I do have the habit of over-verbage and repeating myself. Please respond to anything I said, I'll read the responses and ONLY reply if I have something NEW to say. But I think that will be very unlikely (but possible).

I've come to the unavoidable conclusion that we have different ways of thinking about the "omni"-words.

Here are some interesting questions I get out of this which I think deserve thought, at least on my part.

1) Can God "uncreate" what he has created? I suspect not. Does that have ramifications on a definition of omnipotence. I suspect so. I (at this point) am thinking, since God is omnipotent, God cannot undo what he has already done, because what he has already done cannot be undone because God is omnipotent. I am slightly dissatisfied with that idea, but only slightly. :)

2) Do creatures who have the option to choose evil have the right to blame God for being the source of that evil. The answer is definitely YES. We all have the right to blame anybody for anything. Is that blame appropriate? I would say YES, only if you are furious that you were created as a creative being and would have preferred non-existence to existence. Is the a legitimate position? I don't think so, but I am not exactly sure about that. If you prefer non-existence to existence, then you should not do anything creative. Ever. Or stop making decisions. But to cease making decisions is to make a decision. Therefore creative beings are forced to exist and forced to make decisions.

3) If God exists, does he have to be omni-anything? I say yes, but would leave the definitions of those omnis to God. If we whip up an idea of omni-something, try to apply it to God, and find that the application doesn't work, I would not blame that on God but on oneself for trying to stick a faulty omni-definition on God. But returning to question three...IF (premise) God exists, does he have to be omni-anything. I answer a whole-heared YES.

Very interesting to hear your ideas on those three points Jesse. And if you have any specific questions for me that you would like me to answer or give an opinion for, go ahead and ask them. Barring that it's likely I'll stop contributing to this thread (but no promises :) ).

-Elliot

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by elliotfc
OK. It was a pleasure talking to you in this thread, see you in another I'm sure. :) You misunderstood me. When I say "these ideas" I am referring to the omni-whatever ideas. If we agree they can be thrown out, there's nothing more about them to discuss.

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Since we define those words differently we disagree. I am not content with how you define them, but I understand with your definitions you think as you do. Why don't we just use the dictionary definition? If you say omnipotent doesn't mean unlimited power, then you contradict the dictionary. Why should christians use words and change their meaning and apply them to God? If you throw out the idea that God has unlimited power, then we agree and should stop gabbing about it.

Originally posted by elliotfc
So if you don't choose to open a bottle of beer you can't open a bottle of beer? Eradicating evil or the possibility of evil would be to eradicate every creative being. We disagree with omniscience because I don't think God perceives time as you/I do. You're ignoring again 'omnibenevolence', meaning all-good. If God is all-good, of course he would eradicate evil, unless he couldn't, which means that God is not all-powerful. If I don't choose to open a bottle of beer it means I don't want the beer. If God chooses to leave the evil alone, it means he wants the evil to exist. If God wants the evil to exist, he cannot be omnibenevolent. Since you have already redefined these words for yourself, why should we continue talking about them? For the sake of convenience, I am using the dictionary definition.

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Jesse if I got away from the initial sentiment of your original post, that wasn't my intention, but it seemed we were going in a direction that led to a discussion. You're missing the point. Open discussion is welcome. I'm not encouraging you to stop writing in the thread. Please continue to do so. I'm simply saying there's no point in discussing the omni-whatevers if you either:

A) Agree that God is not all three of them

or

B) Have chosen to redefine words already clearly defined.

Originally posted by elliotfc
1) Can God "uncreate" what he has created? If God is all-powerful, he can uncreate anything he has created. If God is not all-powerful, there's no point in applying the term to him. It's that simple. Saying God is all-powerful when he is not in actuality all-powerful is simply going to confuse people; christian and non-christian alike.

Originally posted by elliotfc
3) If God exists, does he have to be omni-anything? I say yes, but would leave the definitions of those omnis to God. If we whip up an idea of omni-something, try to apply it to God, and find that the application doesn't work, I would not blame that on God but on oneself for trying to stick a faulty omni-definition on God. But returning to question three...IF (premise) God exists, does he have to be omni-anything. I answer a whole-heared YES. If our definitions of God are best left to God, it's best not to define God at all. Why spread confusion amongst people if God is humanly undefinable? And I'm not blaming God for that, I'm blaming any christian who attempts to define God when the definition of such is best left only to God. It's really not fair to say, "God is omni-anything, but only if you don't find logical flaws. If you find logical flaws, then the definition of God is best left to God. But God is still omni-anything."

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Jesse2
It's really not fair to say, "God is omni-anything, but only if you don't find logical flaws. If you find logical flaws, then the definition of God is best left to God. But God is still omni-anything."
Not fair: but distressingly common. You get the sense they are just waiting for you to leave the room, so they can get right back to their omni-ing.

[elliotfc]

I surrender from this thread. Tonight I am going to start a new thread, and I might just be kidding myself, but I am prediciting that you will agree that the scope of the new thread (that I will start tonight) will get this omni-words thing going into a different direction. I am not ready to quit this, but I am getting sick of this particular thread. No offense, I blame MYSELF alone. ;)

-Elliot

[Ensign Steve]

Originally posted by ntech


Well said, Ensign Steve.
I have no doubt that you will make Captain someday.

Welcome!

Thank you! :D I lurk around here a lot, but I'm just starting to post a little bit more.

[Loki]

elliotfc,

I can see that you're 'abandoning" this thread, but I wanted to add one more comment, whihc you can clarify if you wish...

(loki wrote) : So, you agree then that the christian god punished the son for the sins of the father?

(elliotfc wrote) : More for the sins of the civilization. I don't think it was as personal as Exodus makes it. We're talking slaves rebelling against the enslaved. The slaves, for good reason, fixated on Pharoah, and no doubt explained it as Pharoah instead the Egyptian state.

Let me just go ahead and tell you what I believe. I do believe that God did in fact visit Egypt with a whole bunch of bad things. The reason for doing so was to prove that he, as a God, was more powerful than the Egyptian gods.
The point I originally made was "god killed children because of the parent's decisions (sins/crimes)". You seem to be trying to use two different responses here :

1. It wasn't really personal - god was punishing the entire civilisation, so naturely the woman and children (and innocent men, assuming there were a few Egyptians who just sat at hiome and did their work, rather than repressing Hebrews all day) also got punished. For punished, we mean 'killed'.

2. It wasn't really about "punishment for sin", it was about "establishing his power".

So, to clarify :

Do you believe that god (personally, not acting through human agents) killed even one Eqyptian child?
Do you believe that Exodus is correct, and that god deliberately targeted children for his "punishment/demonstration of power"?
Do you believe that to "establish his power" god was justified in killing innocent people?

[Jesse2]

Well, Loki, in terms of Exodus, Elliot already explained that he is a 'non-literalist' and that he does not believe that God hardened pharoh's heart, even though Exodus clearly states this. Under the defense of being a non-literalist, he may pick and choose which items he believes and which he does not.

Originally posted by elliotfc Let me just go ahead and tell you what I believe. I do believe that God did in fact visit Egypt with a whole bunch of bad things. The reason for doing so was to prove that he, as a God, was more powerful than the Egyptian gods. Once again, if God needed to show his power to 'prove' things, why didn't he just show himself to everyone and bypass all this bloodshed and terror? And to support your point, Loki, by ending the lives of the egyptian firstborns, is he not uncreating his creations, something Elliot already stated that God could not do?