Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Things may be _generally_ considered good or bad because a large amount of people adhere to certain sentiments toward certain actions.
People, in general, do not like to see babies tortured. So the act is "evil" because society in general disapproves of it.
On the other hand, you have a group of sadists who think that torturing babies is grand.
But a "universal good" is not meant to be voted democratically. So just because many think that it is bad does not make it universally bad, it only makes it bad from the perspective of the majority of society. Society deems things bad, and attempts to remove them, because they have negative effects on its well being and cohesion.
Then again, you brought up a somewhat silly example, because most humans are against inflcting suffering on another for one's own amusement.
Then again, look at the romans, they fed live people to the lions for their amusement. So they thought it was good. I don't see a large distinction between adults and babies for the purpose of this argument.
Spinoza says we call evil what is not in our advantage.
Why does God allow evil to exist upon the earth?
It is not that God chooses evil over good. Note--in the parable of the sheep and goat, Jesus wished to divide the good from the corrupt, the wheat from the tare.
A what if, with God hanging over our shoulders, as in the presence of God, the wicked would always choose the path of good, out of fear. Take God away, and each and every soul is cast into a fire where it is tested, in order to separate the good fruit from the bad. To give the wicked the rope to hang themselves with, so that in the day of judgement, the wicked would have no defense, saying that we chose good over evil; although we are evil.
Without signs and wonders, men, naturally, do not believe in God; for they cannot conceive of what they cannot grasp with their senses. Hence, Jesus said, this generation of vipers, this wicked and adulterous generation shall receive no sign. Because if you do not believe in the path of good, from the start (without the presence of God) then how are you to believe in it with the presence of God, if your natural tendency is to sway toward an evil inclination.
To separate the sheep from the goats, is what Jesus and God intended. To gather the wheat (the good) into the barn and the tares (the wicked) into the furnace to be burned.
I hope I enlightened the problem of evil for you. I hope that this expounded parable for you, since it is not given to you to understand parable--that a higher wisdom is at work--one that tests souls in a fire.
First, I'm not sure that the acceptance of a moral standard implies a divine moral standard. Why could this standard not be, say, Platonic, or perhaps one of the various theories of morality i.e. utilitarianism. I do not see how one can conclude that this moral standard is divine.
The second question is that is this moral standard external to God? Because I think if we posit that its good derives wholly from God, we fall prey to the Euthyphro dilemma.
The third question is, are we discussing the logical problem of evil or are we discussing the evidential problem of evil?
What is the Euthyphro dilemma?
Then again, without evil there wouldn´t be any need for good.God allows evil for without evil there is no good. It's a balance.
The Euthyphro dilemma is found in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro: "Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" (10a)
In monotheistic terms, this is usually transformed into: "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?" The dilemma has continued to present a problem for theists since Plato presented it, and is still the object of theological and philosophical debate.
The Euthyphro dilemma is found in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro: "Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" (10a)
In monotheistic terms, this is usually transformed into: "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?" The dilemma has continued to present a problem for theists since Plato presented it, and is still the object of theological and philosophical debate.
There we go, two mintues - wikipedia/
bish bash bosch -
Hope that Helps, Elman.
Then again, without evil there wouldn´t be any need for good.
First, I'm not sure that the acceptance of a moral standard implies a divine moral standard. Why could this standard not be, say, Platonic, or perhaps one of the various theories of morality i.e. utilitarianism. I do not see how one can conclude that this moral standard is divine.
The second question is that is this moral standard external to God? Because I think if we posit that its good derives wholly from God, we fall prey to the Euthyphro dilemma.
The third question is, are we discussing the logical problem of evil or are we discussing the evidential problem of evil?
Except when there isn´t a need for being loving.If good is being loving there is always a need for good.
Not sure I agree with this (seems to be based on an unusual definition of "love"), but this thought certainly does not explain why god created a world with love and evil.And if there was no evil there would be no need for love, because there would be nothing except love.
Except when there isn´t a need for being loving.
God did not create a world with love and evil. God create a world with humans and humans created evil.Not sure I agree with this (seems to be based on an unusual definition of "love"), but this thought certainly does not explain why god created a world with love and evil.
Yes, because god has forced this necessity into existence by creating the the antagonists evil/love.As long as humans exist there will always be a need for being loving.
Yes, because god has forced this necessity into existence by creating the the antagonists evil/love.
Not sure I agree with this (seems to be based on an unusual definition of "love"), but this thought certainly does not explain why god created a world with love and evil.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?