The Problem of Evil

[CryOfALion]

Is it our fault that a destructive typhoon slams into the Philippines, killing tens of thousands of people?

To be frank with you, YES.

The world kills thousands a day, and we act like they are beacons of light and justice - turning a blind eye. So, maybe a typhoon is what Japan, or China did in fact deserve because of their actions. You seem to think you are perfect, undeserving and Lilly to draw up these emotional arguments. You aren't perfect. I know you have broken universal law. Your problem is you want to blame god, satan, everyone but yourself. It's ok; that is genetic. Adam did the same thing with God...tried to shift blame...

"The woman YOU gave me..."

 

[CryOfALion]

Is it within my power to be morally perfect? Or does "Original Sin" stand in the way?

So, from God to Adam, right? Because surely you have to think you have never done any sin in your life in order for you to place a marginal blame on your parents.

TAKE responsibility. You have sinned. You offended universal law. You are owed death. You aren't owed roses, champagne and a good life.

Breaking a law is not self-evidently something that robs one of entitlement of humane treatment.

You still don't get it. Breaking universal law is punishable by DEATH. YOU AREN'T OWED LIFE LET ALONE "HUMANE TREATMENT."

It is possible to question the justice of a law, and of punishments for breaking a law. I'm sure that a dictator could tell you to "man up" about being sent to the gulag, but that does not place his actions beyond judgment.

Right, get on Christians for anthropomorphizing our God, but you use it for linguistic purposes to get your point across.

You wouldn't question the law if you knew and understand it's implications. IN India, you can leave your wallet at the security check, because people who steal lose their hand. They know the law, and the consequences of it. They do not cry to their gods about unfair treatment and such. They take responsibility.

Man and Woman up - human up, and take responsibility. Stop crying to something you don't believe in when it is evident humans do 99.99% of evil. Not Satan's and gods.

The problem here is that Christian doctrine puts an absurd amount of responsibility on human beings to live up to an impossible standard of morality, and then face dire eternal consequences for failing to do what it is not in their nature to do.

"Christian doctrine..."

Have you even read the bible? Because clearly YOU would see even Christ warns about DOCTRINE. ALSO, apparently you believe that the wrathful vengeful god of legend/OT was NOT the same One who sent His son to die for us so we could boldly approach Him. You are all wrong with this.

Furthermore, one gets only one vanishingly short life (compared to infinity) to get one's infinite destiny right. One wrong move and one is treated like dirt.

It has already been made right for you so you don't have to think like this. HIS NAME IS Christ. My goodness you miss this fundamental, but can swear up and down The Most High is evil? You don't know much about Christianity, or you have been severely misled.

Yes, I certainly do believe in responsibility, but I also believe that there is a responsibility for any authority to treat human beings with full human dignity. There is a word for authorities that fail to do this -- tyrants.

You marginally move your responsibility to the One who created you because you don't take responsibility. God told you and everyone else what would happen if you sinned. You have sinned. Don't act like you deserve better treatment when you are supposed to be dead by universal law. Take responsibility, work toward redemption. Or, cry more about a god you don't believe in. Your choice.

Bzzzt! Wrong. Apparently, Adam and Eve are responsible for Original Sin,

Is that what the Bible canon said, or is that what you heard? And, how would that thwart your RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN PERSONAL SIN?

and God is responsible for creating them without the wisdom to avoid eating of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. That is the logical consequence of Christian doctrine.

DOCTRINE... again, Christ said something about that. You would rather let people on a pulpit tell you stuff than check for yourself. Is that why you don't want to take responsibility? You Are Responsible For Your Own soul... I Don't Know If You Realized that.

The doctrine is all a house of cards.


eudaimonia,

Mark

And yet you use it to substantiate things. As I said, if you really read your canon, you wouldn't even be here.

 

[abacabb3]

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the original issue -- the injustice of infinite punishments for finite crimes.

Even if I were to agree with you that hate crimes should be punished more harshly than non-hate crimes, or that crimes against the poor should be punished more harshly than crimes against the rich, or that crimes against women should be punished more harshly than crimes against men, we'd still be in the realm of the finite.

I did not tease out the logic yet, but being that you don;t believe the nature of the party violated is relevant, then the proceeding logic would not make any sense. Now, of course, if you actually felt that nature of the victim does have bearing on the punishment, then that changes everything.

 

[abacabb3]

If by "good," you mean "morally perfect," then you're not likely to ever met someone who is "good."

That's how I define good. "Morally perfect."

Why do we deserve eternal torment for not being morally perfect?

Because I have very high standards.

No, what I'm asking is what is meant by a "focal point."

We need to orient our perspective honestly in this discussion. If the only suffering we care about is human suffering, then we need to admit to an anthropocentric worldview.

How does him not being glorified do him harm?

It does not physically hurt Him obviously, but if morality is centered around the Creator and not the Creation, then working out anything that does not make existence work out to the greatest possible benefit of the Creator would be an injustice.

So you do not claim that God is good, just, merciful, etc?

I never argued that God wasn't good, then I would have already conceded the argument. He is good within the parameters of justice that would not be anthropocentric.

That is consistent with the character of a narcissist constantly in need of praise.

Divine narcissism is a good thing. I want not my glory or will, but His glory and will.

 

[Dave Ellis]

So what? You think if a God said don't lie, steal, lust... and you do it you deserve to be acquitted AND have a good, easy life? do you believe in responsibility? You broke universal law; "man up" and stop blaming a sky daddy you don't even believe in.

Breaking laws has consequences. You are not owed a rape free, painless life because you ate you. So, stop being a baby and blaming a god for your problems 9th others I the world. People kill, steal, lie, cheat, rape, destroy, and so on. God doesn't make someone kill. Not even satan. Do you know why?

YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE.

The blessing should be clear by the fact God preserves our whining behinds with luxuries like good tasting food, a blue sky and sex that isn't excruciating. We aren't owned anything.

The funny thing is you consider yourself a Christian.

The basis of Christianity is avoiding responsibility for your sins by letting Jesus pay for them in your place. That's one of the reasons why I view the entire religion immoral to its core.

I believe in being accountable for my actions. Christianity is built around scapegoating, passing your crimes off on the innocent so that you may be saved. It's horrendously immoral.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I don't know what church people who hate what they think is an imaginary sky daddy go to, but your first sentence, and ultimately entire paragraph is wrong. Adam was not a BABY. HE WAS MATURE. And, as a mature perskn, when someone tells you not to do something - especially when that thing is your Father/God - you DON'T do it. ADAM did, and suffered consequences of breaking universal law.

The rest of your post echos the same lame and flawed story that if someone does nothing they are powerless to do it, and/or unloving and uncaring. So human, so romantic, so Western.

Genesis also says he was unaware of the distinction between good and evil before he ate the fruit. Therefore he has no way to judge what he's doing is good or evil, even if he is told not to do something.

In a modern court of law, if you are shown to be unable to understand the consequences of your actions you are ruled to be not criminally responsible. That's the closest just sentence you can give to Adam within the garden of Eden story.

 

[CryOfALion]

The funny thing is you consider yourself a Christian.

The basis of Christianity is avoiding responsibility for your sins by letting Jesus pay for them in your place. That's one of the reasons why I view the entire religion immoral to its core.

So avoiding responsibility, not salvation is the basis of Christianity? Should I be ironically cliche because this is coming from an atheist, or worried that this is the reason you are atheist?

You must be reading and hearing something very different. Nowhere in the bible does it suggest we are avoiding responsibility because of Christ. If that was the case, we would not DIE. There would be no need for martyrdom. There would be no need to dying to self. There would be no need for carrying a cross, and a yolk. Are you serious?

I believe in being accountable for my actions. Christianity is built around scapegoating, passing your crimes off on the innocent so that you may be saved. It's horrendously immoral.

So I see you made it past Genesis 7. Care to read the rest of the bible, and rethink your lack of understanding of a religion you don't even believe in?

Everything you said here is wrong, except the bit about accountability. If I believed what you believe about God, I would be an atheist who thought God was a tyrant also.

 

[CryOfALion]

Genesis also says he was unaware of the distinction between good and evil before he ate the fruit. Therefore he has no way to judge what he's doing is good or evil, even if he is told not to do something.

Innocence isn't stupidity, and you still have responsibility. Otherwise, God would not have consequences for Adam's mistake, and He wouldn't have a need to tell Adam about a consequence. clearly the fact that Adam was instructed meant that he was capable and cognizant to accept what he was being told. He sinned by his choice, and tried to blame Eve.

That is why I said this "blame the sky daddy I don't understand or believe in" is nothing new.

In a modern court of law, if you are shown to be unable to understand the consequences of your actions you are ruled to be not criminally responsible. That's the closest just sentence you can give to Adam within the garden of Eden story.

Who said Adam didn't understand the command of God that said, "Do not eat from this tree... or you will surely die"? Adam would be an irresponsible limp to blame God for his mistakes when he was warned before.

 

[Dave Ellis]

That's how I define good. "Morally perfect."

So I take it your definition of evil is perfect immorality?

For example, a person who dedicates their life to committing nothing that could be considered a good act under any circumstance. They go around killing anything they see, raping everyone they see, stealing everything they can, etc.

If you have to be perfectly moral to be good, then it would follow you have to be perfectly immoral to be evil.

If that's not your position, then you have set up a double standard.

Because I have very high standards.

And many would claim unreasonably so. Good doesn't mean perfect, good means good.

We need to orient our perspective honestly in this discussion. If the only suffering we care about is human suffering, then we need to admit to an anthropocentric worldview.

What other kind of suffering is there? (taking into account animals and whatnot as well)

It does not physically hurt Him obviously, but if morality is centered around the Creator and not the Creation, then working out anything that does not make existence work out to the greatest possible benefit of the Creator would be an injustice.

Morality is centred around objective consequences, not any one person or group of people. Morality only applies to sentient beings however, since they are the only things morality can affect.

I never argued that God wasn't good, then I would have already conceded the argument. He is good within the parameters of justice that would not be anthropocentric.

What parameters of justice apply to inanimate objects?

Divine narcissism is a good thing. I want not my glory or will, but His glory and will.

Then you're a slave, which is not a good thing.

 

[abacabb3]

I never claimed that, you're trying to put that on to me. I have no problems sharing personal history as I have nothing to hide.

Do you want to share with the forum the web history from your browser from the last 72 hours?

 

[Eudaimonist]

So, from God to Adam, right? Because surely you have to think you have never done any sin in your life in order for you to place a marginal blame on your parents.

I'm talking about the Christian doctrine of Original Sin.

You still don't get it. Breaking universal law is punishable by DEATH. YOU AREN'T OWED LIFE LET ALONE "HUMANE TREATMENT."

So God is a tyrant?

Have you even read the bible?

Several times.

Because clearly YOU would see even Christ warns about DOCTRINE.

And yet this is what we are talking about.

It has already been made right for you so you don't have to think like this. HIS NAME IS Christ.

I don't believe that Christ exists. Many people don't for honest reasons. Why are they doomed simply for being honest people? It doesn't add up.

My goodness you miss this fundamental, but can swear up and down The Most High is evil? You don't know much about Christianity, or you have been severely misled.

I'm not missing anything. I've been around the block a few times when it comes to discussing these issues with Christians.

You marginally move your responsibility to the One who created you because you don't take responsibility.

No, I assign responsibility where it belongs. It belongs with God to a large degree given the logic of Christian doctrine. That is the problem with making humankind so imperfect it can't live up to divine laws, and where God is omniscient and omnipotent, and thus doesn't have any excuse when it comes to creating an imperfect species.

God told you and everyone else what would happen if you sinned.

No, human beings did that.

Don't act like you deserve better treatment when you are supposed to be dead by universal law.

By an apparently unjust law.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave Ellis]

So avoiding responsibility, not salvation is the basis of Christianity?

Salvation within Christianity requires you to avoid responsibility for your crimes.

The point of Jesus sacrifice was to atone for the sins of mankind. An innocent person was put to death to pay for the crimes of the guilty, and Christianity teaches that the only way you can be saved is to accept that sacrifice. There is no other way.

If you are interested in justice, then you are morally bound to pay for your own crimes. You can not be moral and allow an innocent person to pay for your crime in your place. To do that is the definition of an abdication of responsibility for your crime. Jesus sacrifice is nothing more than an immoral subversion of justice.

Taking responsibility means you pay for your own mistakes. Anyone interested in allowing an innocent person to pay for their crimes is not at all interested in responsibility.

Should I be ironically cliche because this is coming from an atheist, or worried that this is the reason you are atheist?

That isn't the reason I'm an atheist. Just because it's immoral doesn't mean it's not true.

The reason I'm an atheist is because I don't think this is anything more than a fictional story taken out of a book of myths. Just because it's a fictional story doesn't stop us from examining the moral consequences though. In fact, that often leads to an interesting discussion.

You must be reading and hearing something very different. Nowhere in the bible does it suggest we are avoiding responsibility because of Christ. If that was the case, we would not DIE. There would be no need for martyrdom. There would be no need to dying to self. There would be no need for carrying a cross, and a yolk. Are you serious?

How would we not die? I'm not even sure what you're getting at here....

So I see you made it past Genesis 7. Care to read the rest of the bible, and rethink your lack of understanding of a religion you don't even believe in?

I've read the bible cover to cover, that's one of the reasons I don't believe it to be true. Have you read it cover to cover?

Everything you said here is wrong, except the bit about accountability. If I believed what you believe about God, I would be an atheist who thought God was a tyrant also.

What you just said is a contradiction.... If you were an atheist you would not believe god was a tyrant, you wouldn't believe a god exists at all.

Unless of course you're just talking about within the story. For example, I believe Emperor Palpatine was a tyrant in Star Wars, but that doesn't mean I think he really exists, etc.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Innocence isn't stupidity, and you still have responsibility. Otherwise, God would not have consequences for Adam's mistake, and He wouldn't have a need to tell Adam about a consequence. clearly the fact that Adam was instructed meant that he was capable and cognizant to accept what he was being told. He sinned by his choice, and tried to blame Eve.

That is why I said this "blame the sky daddy I don't understand or believe in" is nothing new.

Ok, back up your assertion. Demonstrate how Adam could have known what he was doing was evil, when he has no knowledge of good or evil.

Telling someone not to do something means nothing when that person has no comprehension of what it is to be good or evil. By definition he couldn't have known doing something he was told not to do was evil.

Who said Adam didn't understand the command of God that said, "Do not eat from this tree... or you will surely die"? Adam would be an irresponsible limp to blame God for his mistakes when he was warned before.

Except we have a clear example of god lying here... Adam didn't die after eating the fruit, instead he was evicted from the garden.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Do you want to share with the forum the web history from your browser from the last 72 hours?

Sure, I have watched a couple videos on YouTube, I've visited Facebook, a dating site (don't worry, I'm single lol), this website, CNN, The Toronto Sun newspaper, Wikipedia, Google Maps, Pizza Hut and another local restaurant.

I don't view anything particularly immoral in there.

 

[Non sequitur]

You do not get it. You do think you are owed rape-free, painless life because your focus is emotional, and on those things. You aren't owed anything in life at all - not air, water or emotional happiness. You do not realize how ingrained that is in your wants. And, you and people like you implicate a sky daddy you don't even believe in when in fact it isn't Him, or a Satan messing life up. IT IS HUMANS.

Take responsibility.

No, I don't. Please stop telling me what I think, as I've told you this already.

I don't think I'm owed anything.

However, you have to justify a god that knows and watches children being raped, who can do something, but doesn't.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I don't know what church people who hate what they think is an imaginary sky daddy go to, but your first sentence, and ultimately entire paragraph is wrong. Adam was not a BABY. HE WAS MATURE. And, as a mature perskn, when someone tells you not to do something - especially when that thing is your Father/God - you DON'T do it. ADAM did, and suffered consequences of breaking universal law.

Adam was created flawed, and then punished by God for being flawed. He and Eve were set up to fail. It's clear where the blame lies.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That's how I define good. "Morally perfect."

Then your standards can never be met by any human being.

Because I have very high standards.

So what? I have high standards as well, but I don't wish for people to be tortured eternally when they fall short of my standards.

We need to orient our perspective honestly in this discussion. If the only suffering we care about is human suffering, then we need to admit to an anthropocentric worldview.

What's the justification for a theocentric focal point then?

It does not physically hurt Him obviously, but if morality is centered around the Creator and not the Creation, then working out anything that does not make existence work out to the greatest possible benefit of the Creator would be an injustice.

Why? Regardless of what we do we are unable to harm or hinder God in any way, so where is the injustice of which you speak?

I never argued that God wasn't good, then I would have already conceded the argument. He is good within the parameters of justice that would not be anthropocentric.

And those parameters would be?

Divine narcissism is a good thing. I want not my glory or will, but His glory and will.

Divine despotism too apparently.

 

[CryOfALion]

I'm talking about the Christian doctrine of Original Sin.

Stop listening to humans if you are really serious about your pursuit of knowledge. Humans killed scores of thousands of people because they thought they were witches, from a biblical perspective. Humans enslaved people, raped their men, women and children, beat them and killed them because they thought they had biblical justification. Honestly speaking as philosophy, do you really think "hippy Jesus" was about mass slavery, rape and genocide?

People can be ignorant, and stumbling blocks for spiritual knowledge.

So God is a tyrant?

Absolutely to humans. But, when you put in perspective what we did - how we break Universal Law against the God that arbiters gods - you realize you are very blessed. We deserve death at best for what we do. We have grace.

Get locked up, and see if a CO gives you grace. You aren't owed anything, human. You got a chance at your life back with Christ; everything else is consequential and collateral.

Several times.

I know you have read the bible enough, but the questions you ask implicate that you haven't read the bible - or you have been listening to too many humans. Eastern religion on meditating and inward movement isn't too far off; you should have fully meditated and consulted/sought after God for you to make your decision. I would hope human Christian doctrine would be your last measure of influence on the existence of an entity that is supposed to be infinitely magnificent.

And yet this is what we are talking about.

You use human doctrine to substantiate the arguments of your own object(s) of scorn. I am saying you are kidding yourself if you entrust celestial knowledge of an Entity of infinity of human standards and understanding. That is why Christians say it is a relationship, not a religion. I know that grinds some atheists' gears to hear because of hypocrisy seen. Stop following doctrines of men.

I don't believe that Christ exists. Many people don't for honest reasons. Why are they doomed simply for being honest people? It doesn't add up.

It doesn't add up because you are using an abacus, and God uses a TI-89/93. You couldn't possibly account for all perturbation and trajectories of life unless you actually wrote the science. There are celestial smarter than you trying to figure out the "secrets of the universe," and havent. That is why you need trust, otherwise known as faith.

And, let's not forget belief is a choice. Although I remember us seeing forked vision on the philosophy of choice on another thread.

I'm not missing anything. I've been around the block a few times when it comes to discussing these issues with Christians.

Stop trusting humans with celestial knowledge. You should have a relationship with God instructing you - even if it is a relationship of hate and disdain. The demons have it; aren't you better than a demon?

If you have to listen to a human, discern their information. You are responsible for your soul. Not me, not Jimbob, not any human except you.

No, I assign responsibility where it belongs. It belongs with God to a large degree given the logic of Christian doctrine.

Christian doctrine [of men.]

That is the problem with making humankind so imperfect it can't live up to divine laws, and where God is omniscient and omnipotent, and thus doesn't have any excuse when it comes to creating an imperfect species.

God told Adam what not to do, and what would happen if he did it. Adam was not tricked, or suckered. He did what he chose to do. Omniscience doesn't excuse individual responsibility.

No, human beings did that.

No, God did. Humans regurgitated it in many different forms, of which many people are confused about. All "logos" came from the Most High. Even if Prometheus/Azazel gave us fire, God created him.

The Word of God has been around, and in us since the beginning. The New Covenant tells us His Law is written on our hearts so that you won't even have to ask your neighbor if s/he knows God.

We all know what is right and wrong.

By an apparently unjust law.


eudaimonia,

Mark

At least you said "apparent."

Get locked up, and then ask your CO for grace. Better yet, tell him he should care about you more than the next inmate because you are only away for petty theft.

 

[CryOfALion]

Salvation within Christianity requires you to avoid responsibility for your crimes.

Not in Christianity. Otherwise there wouldn't be so much energy spent by the prophets and gospel writers trying to convince the newly saved not to feel guilt.

The point of Jesus sacrifice was to atone for the sins of mankind.

That was the consequence of His actions. his sacrifice did substantially more than simply atone for our sin that, by the way some of us keep doing and blame Him for it.

An innocent person was put to death to pay for the crimes of the guilty, and Christianity teaches that the only way you can be saved is to accept that sacrifice. There is no other way.

Well, honestly speaking what do you expect. We are already dead; meat sacks rotting away. We have been had by this serpent, and some of us believe he was still right. So, if I chose to die for people's sins to atone for them, then logically only those who believe I did that, and trust me would fall under the umbrella of my sacrifice. Why would I do it for people that hate me? Of course you have to believe He actually did what He did to gain His gifts. That should be logically sequential, or consequential.

If you are interested in justice, then you are morally bound to pay for your own crimes. You can not be moral and allow an innocent person to pay for your crime in your place. To do that is the definition of an abdication of responsibility for your crime. Jesus sacrifice is nothing more than an immoral subversion of justice.

Innocence does not equate to stupidity, or lack of intellect.

Christ's sacrifice was about love. I think I will stop here with you.

 

[CryOfALion]

Adam was created flawed, and then punished by God for being flawed. He and Eve were set up to fail. It's clear where the blame lies.

No, he wasn't. That is for people deflecting responsibility for a very real crime.

Adam was radiant, and charged with dominion over this planet, as well as an appointment of four stars for his existence alone (Enoch.) He was made in the image of God - who isn't stupid, and certainly isn't without responsibility. Adam broke Universal Law. HE knew the consequences because his Father told him. The serpent lied.

Omniscience does not excuse responsibility of individual choice.