Good and Evil

[PsychoSarah]

I'm not really concerned if I have misunderstood Christianity. Christians don't concern themselves with properly understanding anyone else's religion. Why should I concern myself with properly understanding theirs?

To me, it's not a big deal which religion I choose to follow or if I choose to follow none. To me, they're all bad. To me, the basic gist of the story is ridiculous. So I dismiss it.

If God wants me to know or understand something, he knows where to find me. I'm not hiding.

 

[Feldon]

I'm not really concerned if I have misunderstood Christianity. Christians don't concern themselves with properly understanding anyone else's religion. Why should I concern myself with properly understanding theirs?

To me, it's not a big deal which religion I choose to follow or if I choose to follow none. To me, they're all bad. To me, the basic gist of the story is ridiculous. So I dismiss it.

If God wants me to know or understand something, he knows where to find me. I'm not hiding.

That's the thing about Free Will: You have the freedom to reject God. Or the freedom to think you know better than everyone else. Or the freedom to boast of being ignorant.

But Free Will is not without cost.

 

[Feldon]

“Mr. Joe, this question is for you,” he said. “With all the religions in the world, how can you claim that yours is the only path to Heaven?”

“Because it is so,” answered the reticent sage. “A child may ask why only pregnant women give birth, since stories of storks and cabbage patches abound. But such stories are not true. There is no fountain of youth. There is no cheating my judgment. There are no alternative paths. I alone am the way, the path to eternal life. No one comes to the Father except through me. No one. Understand that half-truths can surely be found in other faiths—and in the drivel of Devils and the babble of transients. Understand that elements of truth boldly reflect in rivers, seas and moons; this is their validation. Understand that remnants of truth reverberate in temples, mosques, synagogues and cathedrals; yes, even prayers to Satan still reach my ears. All corners of life provide fleeting glimpses of my majesty—the silhouette of a power beyond comprehension. Understand, even Hell has a Sinai. But I alone am truth. I alone am the key to salvation. Many religions exist, this is true. Many strange superstitions gather like storm clouds—controlling the sky, razing the landscape and crackling menacingly before crumbling into nothingness. But only truth survives. ”

As Joe spoke, an unusual accent seeped noticeably through his speech: “The Lord created this world. The Lord created you. The Lord reveals Himself repeatedly, in miracles, signs and love. The Lord twice delivered His only son to this land—as well as His prophets and books of Scriptures.” Joe paused and ruefully asked: “What more is it you ask of God? That all of humanity find seat in the afterlife, nestling by the breast of the Almighty, including those who slay His son, reject His Bible and abhor His morality? No. No! No matter how many times you beg—no. Heaven is not your birthright. Understand that God establishes the laws of Heaven—not mankind. And understand how insignificant your burden truly is.” Joe stopped speaking and glowered; his power might be limitless but his patience was not.

The Second Coming: A Love Story

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

By the definition of what omnipotent and omniscient mean

And what do they mean when used in reference to God?

 

[Received]

"Freedom" and "freewill" aren´t synonyms, to begin with.

Secondly, seeing how God created us with limited freedom (e.g. we aren´t free to flap our arms and fly), anyway, even with freedom as a positively connotated term you don´t get to appeal to unlimited freedom as the intention behind creation.
Thus, "free vs. not free" (in the absolutely dichotomic way your question suggests) can´t be the question here.

Freedom always presupposes limitations, in this case the limitation of finitude (which might be the only real limitation of freedom). I'm not referring to unlimited freedom.

"Free from what (specifically)...?" and "free to what (specifically)...?" would be better questions. Or, IOW, the issue is the very balance of the freedom that we do have and that we don´t have (in the huge spectrum of possibilities of distributing freedom).

Right.

And, yes, I would say there isn´t a point for an Omni-God to give us certain "freedoms to..." and "freedoms from" that we do have (unless said God is interested in seeing It´s creatures suffer unnecessarily), and possibly there isn´t a point for an Omni-God to deny us certain freedoms that we don´t have.

God can't (I don't really know what you mean by omni-, btw) negate the freedom we do have without influencing the external playground of physical space. Having a deity who would limit freedom in any other way basically would look like someone who attempts to do something evil to another person and, whoop, he can't for some reason -- or a flying spaghetti monster comes out of nowhere and noodles him up -- because of God's influence on his will. And maybe that happens, who knows. Either way, we're back to the problem of evil: why doesn't God stop certain things (by manipulating external events to prevent people from being capable of fulfilling evil intentions)?

This, of course, takes us (relevantly) off course from the problem we're discussing here: is it possible to negate a person's freedom only with regard to the bad stuff and still consider a person free? I don't think that's possible; to make a person free means having the potential for a will that goes toward good or evil, without which they're not a self (in the existentialist sense, at least).

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Why?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

The Second Coming: A Love Story

It sounds really nice on the surface but the underlying message is, "Believe that I exist, or else." Obviously, it's not a requirement to be perfect. But the more important part seems to be that I must accept that I am nothing without God and that I need to be saved and Jesus is the only way.

Problem is, this has only been communicated to me by people. So I ask, "what do people know about God's plan?" Well people know about God's plan because this book here outlines it for us. This book that was written by people.

Now, if that were the only religious text that exists... I might give it some more credit. But there are literally thousands of different religions out there. And they can't all be right, but they can certainly all be wrong.

 

[theophilus777]

It sounds really nice on the surface but the underlying message is, "Believe that I exist, or else."

No it's not. The entire message is to an audience that presupposes more than mere belief in God's existence. See, those misconceptions you hold are real, and really do mess up your thoughts on the subject.

Obviously, it's not a requirement to be perfect. But the more important part seems to be that I must accept that I am nothing without God and that I need to be saved and Jesus is the only way.

You can't understand a statement like that w/o understanding the audience it was spoken to, and what purpose the statement has. Ripped out of context it becomes something foreign. Your misconception here is perfectly in line with a bulk of church teaching, which is why I asked if that's where you got your ideas from.

Now, if that were the only religious text that exists... I might give it some more credit. But there are literally thousands of different religions out there. And they can't all be right, but they can certainly all be wrong.

That's a false dichotomy that excludes the possibility that the truth is larger than any can express, and that each may contain at least some merit. Please notice that our world is not black and white.

 

[quatona]

Freedom always presupposes limitations, in this case the limitation of finitude (which might be the only real limitation of freedom). I'm not referring to unlimited freedom.

So would you mind rephrasing your question in a way that does justice to this fact?

God can't (I don't really know what you mean by omni-, btw) negate the freedom we do have without influencing the external playground of physical space. Having a deity who would limit freedom in any other way basically would look like someone who attempts to do something evil to another person and, whoop, he can't for some reason -- or a flying spaghetti monster comes out of nowhere and noodles him up -- because of God's influence on his will. And maybe that happens, who knows. Either way, we're back to the problem of evil: why doesn't God stop certain things (by manipulating external events to prevent people from being capable of fulfilling evil intentions)?

No, God spontaneously interfering wasn´t the point of discussion, at all.
I was specifically addressing the notion of an *omnipotent, omniscient creator of everything* (and I shortened that to omni-God later), and I was addressing the very way this omni-God created his creation to function (not: what he could possibly do later in order to interfere).
Seeing that omni-God is the creator of nature and physics and all that, he could have created all that differently.
Seeing that omni-God is the creator of the way our brains work, he could have created that differently.

Furthermore, we quite obviously are already limited in the way you describe (I don´t have to fight the urge to spontaneously cut off my legs, or to burn my hands, for example) without this limitation suggesting that this is due to acute interventions or ongoing efforts by God or the flying spaghetti monster. Thus, would the range of my will be limited in the same way in other instances (e.g. that no matter what I wouldn´t even get or entertain the idea of killing or raping someone), I wouldn´t perceive that limitation any differently than I do perceive the limitations I already have.

This, of course, takes us (relevantly) off course from the problem we're discussing here: is it possible to negate a person's freedom only with regard to the bad stuff and still consider a person free? I don't think that's possible; to make a person free means having the potential for a will that goes toward good or evil, without which they're not a self (in the existentialist sense, at least).

Under this definition of "freedom", if hard-pressed to answer your original question ("So you're saying there's no point in making people free?") yes or no I´d have to respond:
"Yes, that´s what I am saying."(IOW, this sort of freedom isn´t a positive thing, in my book.)

 

[GoldenBoy89]

No it's not. The entire message is to an audience that presupposes more than mere belief in God's existence. See, those misconceptions you hold are real, and really do mess up your thoughts on the subject.

But that's what it always comes down to in the end. If I don't believe the stories in this book and I don't follow it's commandments, I'm screwed. Well I don't believe the stories in your book and I don't follow your commandments because of the authority the book has. So I guess I'm screwed, right?

You can't understand a statement like that w/o understanding the audience it was spoken to, and what purpose the statement has. Ripped out of context it becomes something foreign. Your misconception here is perfectly in line with a bulk of church teaching, which is why I asked if that's where you got your ideas from.

No. I don't go to church. I go on bike rides Sunday mornings.

So what do I need to do to properly understand that statement? Open myself up and just 'believe' these stories? I'm sorry, but I can't just turn belief on like a light. It doesn't work that way. You either believe something to be true, or you don't. For me, belief is based on evidence. Where's the evidence for the stories in the bible? That fact people believe in them isn't enough..... People believe in Scientology and whacked out conspiracy theories. I don't see why Christianity would be any exception here.

I'm sorry but, people believe in some pretty ridiculous things. Walking under a ladder will not bring you bad luck. Neither will breaking a mirror. Disobeying the commandments of the bible will not curse my soul for eternity.

I don't even think such a thing as a soul even exists. There's no evidence for it and the belief is as ancient as humanity itself.

There is just as much evidence for the existence of God as there is for aliens and extraterrestrials. Yet, the people who believe aliens exist, they're the crazy ones. Not the ones who believe in the invisible man in the sky. Or the magical Jewish carpenter. No, that's perfectly rational.

That's a false dichotomy that excludes the possibility that the truth is larger than any can express, and that each may contain at least some merit. Please notice that our world is not black and white.

I'll give the first half of this some credit. Perhaps all religions are just trying their best to define a much larger truth than what any one person could see. I'll give you that. But then, atheism would also be included in that quest for truth.

The second part I have to stop you on. You guys are the ones with The Book. The Truth. The Way. You guys are the ones that say, "believe in these stories, or else." You guys are the black and white ones, here.

 

[Feldon]

It sounds really nice on the surface but the underlying message is, "Believe that I exist, or else." Obviously, it's not a requirement to be perfect. But the more important part seems to be that I must accept that I am nothing without God and that I need to be saved and Jesus is the only way.

Problem is, this has only been communicated to me by people. So I ask, "what do people know about God's plan?" Well people know about God's plan because this book here outlines it for us. This book that was written by people.

Now, if that were the only religious text that exists... I might give it some more credit. But there are literally thousands of different religions out there. And they can't all be right, but they can certainly all be wrong.

I know. It's unfair that God won't let those who spurn His love, His son, His Bible and His morality into Heaven. It's unfair that He doesn't grant the GIFT of Eternal Life to mud-monkeys who dedicate their free time to ridiculing the notion He even exists.

It's just not fair.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

No, there definitely are freedoms that I´d prefer to not have, such as the freedom to rape, murder, etc.
On another note, appealing to the status quo within a system wouldn´t make a cause for creating the system as it is, anyway. IOW: Even if people were happy to have the freedom to rape, murder etc. and Omni-God could have created them so that they are not happy to have that freedom.

You essentially are saying you would rather be something other than a human being.

You would rather have been a dog or a cat or some other type of creature that does not have the freedom to love or hate, to heal or to hurt, etc.

But you actually do not even need to take this line. You see, just because you have the ability to rape someone does not mean that you are determined to rape someone anymore than me having the ability to murder someone means I will murder.

The fact that I have the ability or freedom to rape and murder and torture does not trouble me in the least little bit, nor does it trouble those who understand that possessing the ability to do something does not equate to doing or being determined to do said something.

I am not convinced that you wake up every morning with an acute sense of dread, fear and anxiety over the fact that you have the ability to love your neighbor or murder your neighbor.

I am not convinced that you go through life distraught over the fact that you can choose to show compassion and concern for the people you meet or to kidnap them and rape them.

I am not convinced that you do not like being free to live how you want.

 

[quatona]

You essentially are saying you would rather be something other than a human being.

You would rather have been a dog or a cat or some other type of creature that does not have the freedom to love or hate, to heal or to hurt, etc.

No, that´s not what I am "essentially saying".
Some details of your wording can be found in what I was saying (while others can´t, and while some of what I was saying doesn´t show up), though, but that doesn´t render your description the essence of what I was saying.

But you actually do not even need to take this line. You see, just because you have the ability to rape someone does not mean that you are determined to rape someone anymore than me having the ability to murder someone means I will murder.

I wasn´t aware that Received´s intention when asking his question was to make me substantiate determinism. So I am clueless how this paragraph (even though I agree with it) has to do with anything.

The fact that I have the ability or freedom to rape and murder and torture does not trouble me in the least little bit,

That´s ok, but I wasn´t asked to describe your feelings about it, but mine.

nor does it trouble those who understand that possessing the ability to do something does not equate to doing or being determined to do said something.

Incorrect. I do understand your statement that options do not equal determinism (that´s about as trivial as it gets, after all), I agree with it, and yet I´d prefer to have my limitations to be stricter in some areas than they are anyway. That´s not an essential or substantial difference (which would make a completely different animal of me) - it´s but a gradual difference.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

But that's what it always comes down to in the end. If I don't believe the stories in this book and I don't follow it's commandments, I'm screwed. Well I don't believe the stories in your book and I don't follow your commandments because of the authority the book has. So I guess I'm screwed, right?

No. I don't go to church. I go on bike rides Sunday mornings.

So what do I need to do to properly understand that statement? Open myself up and just 'believe' these stories? I'm sorry, but I can't just turn belief on like a light. It doesn't work that way. You either believe something to be true, or you don't. For me, belief is based on evidence. Where's the evidence for the stories in the bible? That fact people believe in them isn't enough..... People believe in Scientology and whacked out conspiracy theories. I don't see why Christianity would be any exception here.

I'm sorry but, people believe in some pretty ridiculous things. Walking under a ladder will not bring you bad luck. Neither will breaking a mirror. Disobeying the commandments of the bible will not curse my soul for eternity.

I don't even think such a thing as a soul even exists. There's no evidence for it and the belief is as ancient as humanity itself.

There is just as much evidence for the existence of God as there is for aliens and extraterrestrials. Yet, the people who believe aliens exist, they're the crazy ones. Not the ones who believe in the invisible man in the sky. Or the magical Jewish carpenter. No, that's perfectly rational.


I'll give the first half of this some credit. Perhaps all religions are just trying their best to define a much larger truth than what any one person could see. I'll give you that. But then, atheism would also be included in that quest for truth.

The second part I have to stop you on. You guys are the ones with The Book. The Truth. The Way. You guys are the ones that say, "believe in these stories, or else." You guys are the black and white ones, here.

The question really is not whether there is evidence for the Bible as being the inspired word of God, but rather, what would you do with the Bible if you were persuaded it was indeed the word of God?

Would you abandon bike riding on Sunday mornings in order to fellowship with the brethren as the Bible exhorts?

Would you abandon the things you love doing that the Bible condemns?

Would you be willing to have your desires, mind, and heart changed by God?

Would you seek to live a life of self-denial and self-sacrificial love and thereby prove you are a disciple of Christ?



You want us to think that the only thing holding you back from being a Christian is evidence and that if you had this evidence you would immediately become a Christian and thus abandon all of your long held views and beliefs in order to adopt a whole new set of views and beliefs.

I have no reason to think you would unless your desires changed.

One who has the desire to live righteously will find reasons to do so. Those who do not have that desire but the desire to live however they want will find reasons to live however they want.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

No, that´s not what I am "essentially saying".
Some details of your wording can be found in what I was saying (while others can´t, and while some of what I was saying doesn´t show up), though, but that doesn´t render your description the essence of what I was saying.


I wasn´t aware that Received´s intention when asking his question was to make me substantiate determinism. So I am clueless how this paragraph (even though I agree with it) has to do with anything.


That´s ok, but I wasn´t asked to describe your feelings about it, but mine.

Incorrect. I do understand your statement that options do not equal determinism (that´s about as trivial as it gets, after all), I agree with it, and yet I´d prefer to have my limitations to be stricter in some areas than they are anyway. That´s not an essential or substantial difference (which would make a completely different animal of me) - it´s but a gradual difference.

You would rather exist without the freedom to rape.

You would therefore rather exist without the freedom to love for the freedom to love entails the freedom to rape.

You would therefore rather exist as something other than a human being for only human beings possess the capacity for choosing to love or rape.

 

[BL2KTN]

Again for those of you who missed it:

So let me get this straight...

You're saying that a dirt-man and a rib-woman lived in a garden and were tricked by a talking snake, who was actually evil incarnate, into eating a magic fruit that placed an invisible, undetectable darkness in the invisible, undetectable spirit/soul/ghost of every human being after them. You're saying that to save ourselves from this invisible, undetectable darkness in our invisible, undetectable spirit/soul/ghosts, we can telepathically ask a two-thousand year old Jewish man who was his own father, plus the Canaanite war god Yahweh mixed with the Caananite chief god El, who himself also came back to life, to forgive us. You're saying that because the Canaanite war god Yahweh loves us, he will forgive us this way, and thus not set us on fire for trillions of years like he intended. You're saying that in spite of every shred of scientific, archaeological, and psychological evidence, this is true.

Does that about get it?

 

[quatona]

You would rather exist without the freedom to rape.

Yes.

You would therefore rather exist without the freedom to love for the freedom to love entails the freedom to rape.

Unsubstantiated premise at best, utter nonsense at worst. Probably both.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Yes.

Unsubstantiated premise at best, utter nonsense at worst. Probably both.

If someone is free to choose to love their neighbor, then they must also be free to choose not to.

Do you agree?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Again for those of you who missed it:

So let me get this straight...

You're saying that a dirt-man and a rib-woman lived in a garden and were tricked by a talking snake, who was actually evil incarnate, into eating a magic fruit that placed an invisible, undetectable darkness in the invisible, undetectable spirit/soul/ghost of every human being after them. You're saying that to save ourselves from this invisible, undetectable darkness in our invisible, undetectable spirit/soul/ghosts, we can telepathically ask a two-thousand year old Jewish man who was his own father, plus the Canaanite war god Yahweh mixed with the Caananite chief god El, who himself also came back to life, to forgive us. You're saying that because the Canaanite war god Yahweh loves us, he will forgive us this way, and thus not set us on fire for trillions of years like he intended. You're saying that in spite of every shred of scientific, archaeological, and psychological evidence, this is true.

Does that about get it?

No.

 

[BL2KTN]

Where'd I go wrong?