God and Satan

[Magisterium]

Actually, in this scenario, like the self defense scenario, the taking of a human life is always wrong. However, like the self defense scenario, intent and circumstances affect the responsibility of the person acting. In this case, the person who struck the thief with the blunt object is not culpable for two reasons. The first reason is that he did not necessarilly intend to leathally wound the theif. The second reason is that he was acting in defense of his fellow man. Because Christians are called to love their neighbor as themselves, he is effectively acting in self defense (but that's a little deeper into theology that I think you'd like to go).

At any rate, both Good and Bad things did occur from this action. However, the outcome of an action can never be definitively predicted and does not have an impact on culpability. Often the most beneficial acts are commited with malice and the most destructive acts are commited with the best of intents. This is why intent (or intended outcome) is the appropriate measure of culpability.

 

[KatebTheChaotic]

However, perfect love does not allow discrimination (even before creation). Therefore, ones who are evil (spiritual and physical) are still created and allowed to exist. However, God's love and the works of evil are analagous to light and dark. Dark only exists as an absence of Light. So also evil only exists as an absence of good. Darkness can never overcome light. Likewise, evil cannot prevail against good.

If I hear that argument again, I'll explode!

Evil is the lack of morals...not GOD...they are not opposites as evil would exist in the absence of god.

God, I believe, is the lack of scientific knowledge.

 

[Magisterium]

If I hear that argument again, I'll explode!

Evil is the lack of morals...not GOD...they are not opposites as evil would exist in the absence of god.

God, I believe, is the lack of scientific knowledge.

That's so profoundly ignorant, I can't decide where to begin dismantling it!

First of all, morals are standards of right and wrong. Evil falls under morals, just under the "wrong" or bad side. Additionally, we never stated that Evil and God were opposites. We're discussing Evil and Good. (you apparently missed the second "o")

As for your belief that God is the lack of scientific knowledge, I can't imagine a more ignorant assertion. Clearly you don't know much about theology or science. What you call science was originally called "natural philosophy". It was the branch of philosophy (which literally means "search for" or "love of" wisdom) that dealt with the natural world. The intellectual, contemplative, and spiritual (theological)branches of philosophy also continued. In that time, science was understood to be one branch on the universal tree of wisdom. Funny how people like you not knowing this think the study of the natural world is the whole tree!

 

[KatebTheChaotic]

That's so profoundly ignorant, I can't decide where to begin dismantling it!

First of all, morals are standards of right and wrong. Evil falls under morals, just under the "wrong" or bad side. Additionally, we never stated that Evil and God were opposites. We're discussing Evil and Good. (you apparently missed the second "o")

As for your belief that God is the lack of scientific knowledge, I can't imagine a more ignorant assertion. Clearly you don't know much about theology or science. What you call science was originally called "natural philosophy". It was the branch of philosophy (which literally means "search for" or "love of" wisdom) that dealt with the natural world. The intellectual, contemplative, and spiritual (theological)branches of philosophy also continued. In that time, science was understood to be one branch on the universal tree of wisdom. Funny how people like you not knowing this think the study of the natural world is the whole tree!

Implying that my misconception is indeed ignorance certainly doesn't serve to make you look any better. It'd please me to see you stop that!

God is the lack of logical thought...where did the presents come from that are under the tree? SANTA brought them! What created the universe and all life on earth...oh, GOD made it.

The wisdom tree needs to be pruned.

 

[Magisterium]

Implying that my misconception is indeed ignorance certainly doesn't serve to make you look any better. It'd please me to see you stop that!

God is the lack of logical thought...where did the presents come from that are under the tree? SANTA brought them! What created the universe and all life on earth...oh, GOD made it.

The wisdom tree needs to be pruned.

In fact, ignorant literally means destitute of knowledge or education, uninformed, or unaware. While it may seem offensive, it actually is the appropriate term to describe your spirited but incorrect assertion.

Again, you draw an incorrect analogy. Santa Clause is not a Christian creation. Nor are the tooth fairy, or the Easter bunny. These children's tales can only be compared to theism by the unlearned who have not bothered to study the origins and deveolpment of the religions of the world.

 

[KatebTheChaotic]

In fact, ignorant literally means destitute of knowledge or education, uninformed, or unaware. While it may seem offensive, it actually is the appropriate term to describe your spirited but incorrect assertion.

Again, you draw an incorrect analogy. Santa Clause is not a Christian creation. Nor are the tooth fairy, or the Easter bunny. These children's tales can only be compared to theism by the unlearned who have not bothered to study the origins and deveolpment of the religions of the world.

I never said christians created santa claus...I just don't subscribe to religion because it is my belief that:

A)Religion is man made, borne of the human fear of death, but more so from meaningless life.

B)God is a convenient excuse for ignorance...(i.e. why did that happen?...god works in mysterious ways!)

C)development...

D)Studying the religions of the world do you no good...I repeat NO GOOD...they all boil down to fantasy...an invisible man in the sky.

While you are very articulate...your cynicisms are devoid of any real substance. I suppose you expect me to just trust that you've done extensive research when you say "These children's tales can only be compared to theism by the unlearned who have not bothered to study the origins and [development] of the religions of the world."

Have YOU even studied the religions of the world, Or was that just a baseless general statement?

I vote the latter!

 

[Jet Black]

However, God's love and the works of evil are analagous to light and dark. Dark only exists as an absence of Light. So also evil only exists as an absence of good.

I question this analogy.

Dark is indeed the absence of light, but then light is a clear property which has binary existance.

I do not think of Good and Evil as being binary properties.

However without knowing your definitions of Good and Evil, I cannot comment. Can you make the individual definitions clearer without resorting to analogy?

 

[TScott]

A)Religion is man made....

That may be true, but so is mathematics. Man made mathematics to help him understand the physical world around him. Maybe gods were created to help understand the metaphysical; i.e. the fundamental nature of reality and being.

D)Studying the religions of the world do you no good...I repeat NO GOOD...they all boil down to fantasy...an invisible man in the sky.

No good? I disagree, like them or not, the religions of the world have had an incredible influence on our civilization and our way of thought. Any study of mankind would be incomplete without the study of religion.

 

[vajradhara]

Incorrect. Actually, in such a scenario, the light which is shined upon the black cloth is actually absorbed and converted into heat. When the light energy is absorbed by the cloth, it's wavelegnth is altered and it is dissapated as heat. (precisely why darker colored items get hotter in sunlight than lighter colored items). For more on this law of physics, look up the physical law of conservation of energy.

At any rate, scientifically as well as metaphorically, darkness exists as a lack of light. The same as cold exists as a lack of heat

Namaste AB,

whilst this seems to be correct, it actually is not.

http://www.sciencenews.org/20010127/fob1.asp

"In a sense, stopping light is a trivial feat, comments Michael Fleischhauer of Kaiserslautern University in Germany, who helped develop the theory behind the new stopping techniques. "Take a black piece of paper and you can stop light very easily," he notes. "However, the photons absorbed by that paper are destroyed."

i think you are referring to the energy that the light carries within as part of it's wave properties... said energy, interacting with the atoms of the cloth, cause those atoms to become excited... the excitation of the atomic structure of the cloth dissapates in another wave form, that of heat.

in any event, i'm speaking specifically of the photons in this case, and, given the supporting link, i think i shall have to continue to hold this view.

however, this conversation is probably one that can be had on the science forum instead of this particular forum, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Magisterium]

I never said christians created santa claus...I just don't subscribe to religion because it is my belief that:

A)Religion is man made, borne of the human fear of death, but more so from meaningless life.

B)God is a convenient excuse for ignorance...(i.e. why did that happen?...god works in mysterious ways!)

C)development...

D)Studying the religions of the world do you no good...I repeat NO GOOD...they all boil down to fantasy...an invisible man in the sky.

While you are very articulate...your cynicisms are devoid of any real substance. I suppose you expect me to just trust that you've done extensive research when you say "These children's tales can only be compared to theism by the unlearned who have not bothered to study the origins and [development] of the religions of the world."

Have YOU even studied the religions of the world, Or was that just a baseless general statement?

I vote the latter!

In fact, I'm a religious studies major. (I'm currently studying the religions of the world).

As for your "beliefs" about religion, you don't really understand what religion is in the first place. As I explained earlier, the persuit of wisdom has always been divided into natural, contemplative, and supernatural. (science, philosophy, and Theology respectively).

In their true forms, science and theology should never conflict because they seek to answer different questions. Science seeks the "how" while theology seeks the "why". Obviously scientific study could never investigate "intent" in the universe (which is the why") and theology can never really define the "by what means" (which is the how). But together, they form a complete understanding.

We run into these kind of problems particularly in the english language because when we ask "how" we are really meaning to ask why, and when we state "why, we are really meaning to state how.

Having been an engineering student and suffered through years of physics, I assure you that religion is NOT a lack of scientific knowledge.

Now for your theses:
A) Actually, religion (theism as a whole) does seek to answer the question "why am I here". However, if you investigate mankind throught all of recorded history, you find that this question has ALWAYS been at the forefront. Man has NEVER been content to "believe" that he simply exists for no reason. Of course if you can find peace in such a belief, you're better off than the last 6 thousand years of human beings.

B) Actually, here, you fall victim to the why/how confusion. To ask "why" (or by what intent) something happened, is ONLY answerable by religion. However, to ask "how" (or by what means) something came to be, is answerable by science. For instance, many often say "why is the sky blue" when they are really asking "by what means does the sky appear to be blue". The more appropriate question would be "how" is the sky blue? To ask "why" is to seek intent.

C)I'm not sure what you mean by development.

D)Interesting that you presume to just know so much about all of the religions of the world. Further more, you are completely oblivious to the social effects on a society without an objective arbitor of morality (even an "imaginary" one). One only needs to investigate Nazi German moral code to see the effects of subjective morality. It's not that the German people were a nation of savages following a madman, the truth is, the Nazi moral code was completely "logical". Unfortunately, they just didn't agree with the rest of the world about the value of all human life. This "disagreement" is inevitable when you believe that right and wrong are somehow obtained through popular opinion. (as has been demonstrated time and again throughout history).

 

[Blindfaith]

Reminder:

The insults need to stop immediately. There have been a couple of posts that break this rule;

[notroll]

This is a Christian website people. Remember that.

 

[tcampen]

D)Interesting that you presume to just know so much about all of the religions of the world. Further more, you are completely oblivious to the social effects on a society without an objective arbitor of morality (even an "imaginary" one). One only needs to investigate Nazi German moral code to see the effects of subjective morality. It's not that the German people were a nation of savages following a madman, the truth is, the Nazi moral code was completely "logical". Unfortunately, they just didn't agree with the rest of the world about the value of all human life. This "disagreement" is inevitable when you believe that right and wrong are somehow obtained through popular opinion. (as has been demonstrated time and again throughout history).

I don't think anyone really thinks Nazi Germany's moral code was based on popular opinion, but rather the skillful work of a diabolical person convincing the masses of the rightness of such a moral code. Keep in mind that Nazi Germany was never an atheistic nation. Unfortunately, Hitlers used and perverted Christianity to further his own ends, and too many people bought into that as well.

I believe that morality or government based on popular opinion is a dangerious thing. That's why America's founders did not want a democracy, but rather a constitutional republic, with a representative form of government. Morality, laws, and ethics must be based on what makes sense, what is good for the people without violating the fundamental civil liberties of the individual.

It's fine to claim "right and wrong" ultimately come from a particular concept of god, but wouldn't even that god choose what is right and wrong based on good reasons for doing so? In other words, doesn't it ultimately have to make sense anyway?