The Problem of Evil.(Theodicy)

[AACJ]

Evil only occurs when human's force their brand of goodness on other humans.

So you are politically inactive? You are an anarchist? What do you think the formulation and imposition of law and tradition on society is if not the forcing of a "brand of goodness" on other humans? That's what societies do, the appeal to some moral system and then impose that on everyone else. That includes secular humanists and atheists.

 

[BioLeap]

So you are politically inactive? You are an anarchist? What do you think the formulation and imposition of law and tradition on society if not the forcing of a "brand of goodness" on other humans? That's what societies do, the appeal to some moral system and then impose that on everyone else. That includes secular humanists and atheists.

Ah! But you haven't factored in the other side of the coin.

Human's only invent goodness as a solution to the evil they've created.

 

[AACJ]

Ah! But you haven't factored in the other side of the coin.

Human's only invent goodness as a solution to the evil they've created.

 

[BioLeap]

What standard are you using to identify the evil you mention?

Positive & Negative polarities.

 

[AACJ]

Ah! But you haven't factored in the other side of the coin.

Human's only invent goodness as a solution to the evil they've created.

Humans cannot event truths which derive from outside themselves. That absolute and objective standard--that allows man to identify and understand moral truth--logically, actually, necessarily, and demonstratively derives from outside of man, just as other truths derive from outside of man, such as truths pertaining to certain abstract entities.

 

[AACJ]

Positive & Negative polarities.

LOL, your trolling, eh?

 

[BioLeap]

LOL, your trolling, eh?

I'm a monster matey, not a troll.

 

[BioLeap]

Humans cannot event truths which derive from outside themselves. That absolute and objective standard--that allows man to identify and understand moral truth--logically, actually, necessarily, and demonstratively derives from outside of man, just as other truths derive from outside of man, such as truths pertaining to certain abstract entities.

That doesn't make any sense, arhhhh!

 

[Ken-1122]

That is just a claim; and I dare say, a way for many to alleviate their sin-guilt. You know very well if someone walked up to you, pointed a gun to your face, and threatened to end you, then you would know that would be absolutely wrong. I believe that is true outside of cultural conditioning.

You seem to be confusing ethical subjectivism with ethical nihilism. If someone says that it is "wrong," but disagrees that it is "objectively wrong" on the grounds of subjectivism, it doesn't follow that they are therefore saying that it's "not wrong.”

If there is no true standard of righteousness, then the formulation of law is founded only upon "who has the biggest gun" concept and you are unjustified in making any moral truth claims.

The formulation of law IS founded upon who has the biggest guns. Why do you think international slavery was perceived a a good thing for so many years? Why do you suppose in some countries it is okay to kill a woman if she disrespects her family? Why do you suppose 75 years ago in Germany it was okay to kill people simply for being Jewish? Why do you suppose in some places that which we see as wrong is right there, and visa versa? Because law (not morality) is based on who has the biggest guns.

Without an absolute standard concerning morality, you would not be enjoying many of the liberties that you now enjoy (assuming you are in the US). You really are sawing at that branch you are sitting on.

No; the USA is a country based on LAW enforcement; not morality enforcement. Big difference.

of course it does.

Are you suggesting that my inability to prove it invalidates it? I can’t prove slavery is wrong either. Does that make it okay?

That which is true and thus corresponds to reality is conducive to and necessary for salvation and true prosperity.

That which is conductive for prosperity and salvation does not equal right, or truth.

The only system of morality that is historically demonstrated to be conducive to true peace, liberty and prosperity is only found within the Christian worldview.

The Christian world view is in a constant state of change. Many of the Christian world views of 200 years ago is considered evil and wrong by the Christians of today; and many of the Christian world views of today would have been considered evil and wrong of the Christians of 200 years ago. I will bet dollars to donuts that 200 years from now, the christian world view of that time will be considered evil and wrong by the Christian standards of today. How can you call this type of morality objective?

 

[Ken-1122]

That which is true and thus corresponds to reality is conducive to and necessary for salvation and true prosperity. The only system of morality that is historically demonstrated to be conducive to true peace, liberty and prosperity is only found within the Christian worldview. That is arguing from history. Will you argue against history?

I disagree. I believe the United States system of morality; (which is found within the secular world view) has historically demonstrated to be conductive to true peace, liberty, and prosperity. Which Christian country were YOU talking about?

 

[RichardY]

I'm a monster matey, not a troll.

Troll is in the category of monster. Monster itself, is too general. Incredible Hulk?

Witches: Inversion and Projection.
Vampires: Introjection.
Demon: Selling part of their soul, often for material gain, performance related abilities.
Goblin.
Troll.
Subspecies

Concern Troll.
Passive Troll.
Bully Troll.​

 

[AACJ]

You seem to be confusing ethical subjectivism with ethical nihilism. If someone says that it is "wrong," but disagrees that it is "objectively wrong" on the grounds of subjectivism, it doesn't follow that they are therefore saying that it's "not wrong.”


The formulation of law IS founded upon who has the biggest guns. Why do you think international slavery was perceived a a good thing for so many years? Why do you suppose in some countries it is okay to kill a woman if she disrespects her family? Why do you suppose 75 years ago in Germany it was okay to kill people simply for being Jewish? Why do you suppose in some places that which we see as wrong is right there, and visa versa? Because law (not morality) is based on who has the biggest guns.


No; the USA is a country based on LAW enforcement; not morality enforcement. Big difference.



Are you suggesting that my inability to prove it invalidates it? I can’t prove slavery is wrong either. Does that make it okay?


That which is conductive for prosperity and salvation does not equal right, or truth.


The Christian world view is in a constant state of change. Many of the Christian world views of 200 years ago is considered evil and wrong by the Christians of today; and many of the Christian world views of today would have been considered evil and wrong of the Christians of 200 years ago. I will bet dollars to donuts that 200 years from now, the christian world view of that time will be considered evil and wrong by the Christian standards of today. How can you call this type of morality objective?

You should know that all laws require moral justification. Law cannot and is not separate from the moral component, as certain brilliant early American legal minds have affirmed. And indeed, in general everyone seeks moral justification for the their words and actions, and necessarily so, not unless they want to be viewed as complete imbeciles. Such moral justification proceeds from some moral system that is contained in some worldview. Now, if such basis for moral justification is subjective and not rooted in authoritative truth, then effectively laws are grounded in "the biggest gun" idea.

The claim that, "No; the USA is a country based on LAW enforcement; not morality enforcement" presents a false dichotomy and is just silly. Of course those writing law and policy for law enforcement and those carrying it out are enforcing what they consider to be moral standards.

Concerning your contention that the Christian world view is in a constant state of change is of course grossly mis-representative. The core principles/truths making up the biblical worldview (within Protestantism) literally remains the same including the principle of Biblical authority. The standard itself of authoritative truth for the biblical worldview--God's Word--remains the same. There are irreconcilable differences between the biblical Cristian worldview and the godless worldview.

What you have done I believe is take certain sins, such as professing Christians that justified human slavery, and present that as the majority opinion of Christians in that era, which of course is just silly. It was professing Christians that were instrumental in getting the slavery practice abolished.

Now, there have been changes in certain holiness standards that were practiced in early America that have been largely abandoned--but not entirely--such as concerning dress, but the core biblical principles remain the same.

Also, your appeal to changing standards within the Christian worldview is a two way street that, if consistency is followed, can be applied to other worldviews including your own. Its like that sophomoric claim that Christianity is nothing more than the product of cultural conditioning, that can also be said of godless worldviews.

 

[AACJ]

That doesn't make any sense, arhhhh!

Ok, I believe this might help.

You would not try to determine if a line on the board in front of you is perfectly straight unless you have some idea (standard) of what constitutes a perfectly straight line. That standard is very real and does not derive from man. That standard of perfect straightness would still be a real standard even if all of mankind was entirely extinguished tomorrow.

You then apply that standard to the line in front of you by means of some instrument that is itself patterned as close as possible to the perfect standard. You do not try to make up your own standard; you appeal to that standard which is outside of yourself. Outside of man.

So is it with perfect morality, or the perfect moral standard. God Almighty is that perfect standard of morality. Any appeal made to something or to someone outside of God, would be an appeal to man's idea of what constitutes perfect moral action. So if you want to feel good abut yourself, morally, then you might compare yourself with, say, Hitler. If you want to feel bad about yourself, you might compare yourself with someone like mother Teresa. However, you should understand that God does not judge you by comparing you to either person, rather, He judges you by that perfect standard, which is Himself. For that reason, no man is justified morally before God except through the work of Christ Jesus' shed blood.

Are you ready to except Him as your your only hope for eternal salvation?

Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

 

[Ken-1122]

You should know that all laws require moral justification. Law cannot and is not separate from the moral component, as certain brilliant early American legal minds have affirmed.

True! The moral justification for the Trans-Atlantic slave trade was that Africans were an inferior race that deserve to be owned by the superior race. The justification for the Holocaust was that the Jews were a garbage people and the world would be better off without them. The justification for the atrocities of Amin were that his country was better off with him as ruler and anybody who opposed him deserved a violent death. Nearly every atrocity committed by mankind was justified by the sick mind committing the act.
Just because it’s legal, does not make it right!

And indeed, in general everyone seeks moral justification for the their words and actions, and necessarily so, not unless they want to be viewed as complete imbeciles. Such moral justification proceeds from some moral system that is contained in some worldview. Now, if such basis for moral justification is subjective and not rooted in authoritative truth, then effectively laws are grounded in "the biggest gun" idea.

Per the examples I gave above, those laws were grounded in “the biggest gun” idea.

The claim that, "No; the USA is a country based on LAW enforcement; not morality enforcement" presents a false dichotomy and is just silly. Of course those writing law and policy for law enforcement and those carrying it out are enforcing what they consider to be moral standards.

I find it naive to assume everybody who vote on and enforce laws agree with said laws. There were politicians who disagreed with taking the Bible out of school, but helped pass the legislation because they voted on what they felt should be legal not what they agree with. During racial segregation in the South, there were doctors who wanted to give medical attention to black people, but because the law prevented them, they obeyed the law.
History is full of examples of people enforcing and voting on laws that they disagree with morally.

Concerning your contention that the Christian world view is in a constant state of change is of course grossly mis-representative. The core principles/truths making up the biblical worldview (within Protestantism) literally remains the same including the principle of Biblical authority. The standard itself of authoritative truth for the biblical worldview--God's Word--remains the same.

If that is the case, the system the USA was built on was NOT the Christian world view, and you need to quit claiming that it was.

What you have done I believe is take certain sins, such as professing Christians that justified human slavery, and present that as the majority opinion of Christians in that era, which of course is just silly. It was professing Christians that were instrumental in getting the slavery practice abolished.

Who do you think started slavery in the USA? (hint; it rhymes with Christians) Yeah eventuality other christians ended it (another example of changing morality), but according to US history originally Christianity was used to justify slavery in the US; it was seen as way of saving their souls.

 

[Ken-1122]

Ok, I believe this might help.

You would not try to determine if a line on the board in front of you is perfectly straight unless you have some idea (standard) of what constitutes a perfectly straight line. That standard is very real and does not derive from man. That standard of perfect straightness would still be a real standard even if all of mankind was entirely extinguished tomorrow.

You then apply that standard to the line in front of you by means of some instrument that is itself patterned as close as possible to the perfect standard. You do not try to make up your own standard; you appeal to that standard which is outside of yourself. Outside of man.

A straight line is objective; which is why everybody agrees on what constitutes a straight line. Morality is Subjective, which is why everybody does not agree on moral issues. If you disagree, provide a moral issue that can be empirically proven to be morally right. (I can prove empirically whether a line is straight or not)

So is it with perfect morality, or the perfect moral standard. God Almighty is that perfect standard of morality. Any appeal made to something or to someone outside of God, would be an appeal to man's idea of what constitutes perfect moral action.

Where is it written that your idea of God is the perfect moral standard? Why not somebody else's idea of God? Why can’t I be the perfect moral standard? What proof do you have that your God is the perfect moral standard as opposed to someone or something else?