Jan Ardena and me share the same god and I'm muslim and she's christian. The jews also share the same god. We say, god is the creator of human beings and everything in the universe. The three religions of Christianity, Islam, and judiasm are iteration of the same message by the same god. Zues is not a god under our religion. Those were pagan beliefs that attributed seen things to god, like god for sea, god for land, god for sex, ect. Since then, we evolved.
Arguement from EVIL
- Thread starter MooseKnuckle
- Start date
MooseKnuckle
Registered Senior Member
Jan-
Let me try to answer some of your questions
Firstly, there is no argument, as you fail to answer my questions, and secondly, what makes you think theists don’t think about their beliefs, have you spoken to them?
Yes I have spoken to many theists in my time, I was raised a catholic- went to church, went to CCD and completed all the required ceremonies. I think one of the biggest contributors to my being able to come up with my own beliefs is the fact that my parents did not push Catholicism on me, any more so than simply being exposed to it, I never had to hear propanganda being issued by my parents, which I believe would have a bigger influence on my beliefs than just the church individually. I started to ask questions simply because I wanted to know some answers regarding the beliefs I was being taught. I would ask my CCD teachers and sometimes priests hard to answer questions and It always turned out to be some incomplete answer or "God works in mysterious ways"
Theists need to take into account that it is very hard for ex-theists to break away from beliefs that have been drilled into their heads by constant sermons, teachings and years of upbringing. It takes a lot of courage to reach inside of your capacities to question something that sounds so promising. I was looking for the truth in an honest attempt, I did not just accept something so blindly, there were so many unanswered questions, maybe other ideas had better answers than just "it is because I say so"
Presently I make a conscious effort not to discuss religious ideas with either my peers or friends. I only result to arguementation when someone has said they have found the truth, insulted me, or have not looked into other alternatives.
I do not look at this issue as a you vs me type of thing. I expect theists to answer some essential questions instead of referring one to the bible for the answer, the bible is only good for people that believe, otherwise it needs proof as to why it is the truth. What you need to understand is that theists claim to have all the answers, so a proper response is the least we can ask, Atheists on the other hand dont believe, and why should they believe? I dont remember any undeniably evidence for the belief in god, they are still on the quest for the answer.........Does anyone have a problem with that??????
To sum this issue up- Act with some respect when you argue with an atheist or agnostic, because they have taken the road less traveled and this road happens to not lead into the infinite sunset. This should at least show to many that the quest for truth may lead people into some harsh realizations, but if one is to say they are searching for the truth then you cannot say "well I dont like that idea.....it makes me sad
," therefore i will ignore it and stick to what I like best"
I still am open minded, I do not cut off my mind to different beliefs, but so far I am sticking with the trend that gives me the best answers for the truth( best being described as what works, not as what makes me feel better) So why should one yell at the atheist for believing for what they believe, it is only logical that they are skeptical when religious beliefs are not backed up with any conclusive or quality explanation.
Let me try to answer some of your questions
Firstly, there is no argument, as you fail to answer my questions, and secondly, what makes you think theists don’t think about their beliefs, have you spoken to them?
Yes I have spoken to many theists in my time, I was raised a catholic- went to church, went to CCD and completed all the required ceremonies. I think one of the biggest contributors to my being able to come up with my own beliefs is the fact that my parents did not push Catholicism on me, any more so than simply being exposed to it, I never had to hear propanganda being issued by my parents, which I believe would have a bigger influence on my beliefs than just the church individually. I started to ask questions simply because I wanted to know some answers regarding the beliefs I was being taught. I would ask my CCD teachers and sometimes priests hard to answer questions and It always turned out to be some incomplete answer or "God works in mysterious ways"
Theists need to take into account that it is very hard for ex-theists to break away from beliefs that have been drilled into their heads by constant sermons, teachings and years of upbringing. It takes a lot of courage to reach inside of your capacities to question something that sounds so promising. I was looking for the truth in an honest attempt, I did not just accept something so blindly, there were so many unanswered questions, maybe other ideas had better answers than just "it is because I say so"
Presently I make a conscious effort not to discuss religious ideas with either my peers or friends. I only result to arguementation when someone has said they have found the truth, insulted me, or have not looked into other alternatives.
I do not look at this issue as a you vs me type of thing. I expect theists to answer some essential questions instead of referring one to the bible for the answer, the bible is only good for people that believe, otherwise it needs proof as to why it is the truth. What you need to understand is that theists claim to have all the answers, so a proper response is the least we can ask, Atheists on the other hand dont believe, and why should they believe? I dont remember any undeniably evidence for the belief in god, they are still on the quest for the answer.........Does anyone have a problem with that??????
To sum this issue up- Act with some respect when you argue with an atheist or agnostic, because they have taken the road less traveled and this road happens to not lead into the infinite sunset. This should at least show to many that the quest for truth may lead people into some harsh realizations, but if one is to say they are searching for the truth then you cannot say "well I dont like that idea.....it makes me sad
," therefore i will ignore it and stick to what I like best"I still am open minded, I do not cut off my mind to different beliefs, but so far I am sticking with the trend that gives me the best answers for the truth( best being described as what works, not as what makes me feel better) So why should one yell at the atheist for believing for what they believe, it is only logical that they are skeptical when religious beliefs are not backed up with any conclusive or quality explanation.
Last edited:
Re: Re: Re: Well then let me ask you THIS, Jan Ardena
Well wes, this appears to be a somewhat reasonable line of questioning, so i am going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and try an answer your questions.
A concept is simply an idea, every human being has the ability to construct ideas. You are right when you say, everyone can't be right, because ultimately there can only be one right.
God has many names, i believe heflores pointed you to a website where there were 99 different names, just for the one God, Allah. Each name depicts a certain attribute of God, eg.
The name “God” is of germanic origin, it translates, “The Good one.”
Elohim is hebrew, and sometimes it is broken further down to El, I’m sure you know, this means, mighty, strong or prominent when translated.
In the language of aramaic, Jesus reffered to a more loving side of God, “Awoon”, which means Universal Father.
The name Allah, is as you know, an arabic term for God, many islamic sholars have translated it to mean, One Who Gives Life.
Vishnu, is sanskrit term for God, is translated as, All-pervading.
Krishna, also sanskrit, is translated as, All Attractive.
Those are just a few.
Zues, according to Greek mythology, was the son of God, named Adonai, Ganesha, is the son of Lord Shiva, whom a large portion of people believe to be God.
All these different names are different aspects of His character and personality, the difference with God is that every single aspect of Him is personified, and the personifications are both different and the same, this is the Omnipotent, Absoluteness of God, this is how He is described.
God is described perfectly, in every scripture, to some degree or other, so unless the descriptions match what is in the scripture, how can they be right?
The confusion comes when, lets say, the muslims say that there is one God, Allah, it says so in the Qur'an, so all other gods are nonsense, then the christians say, Jesus says, i am the light, the truth and the way, you only get to God through me. But if you read and try and understand each scripture, you can easily recognise the one God, who is dealing with different sets of people at different times.
How do I choose my god?
The answer is, attraction, I am attracted to God.
There is no methodology, other than personal experience, that would lead you to the point where you cannot refute, this applies in all aspects of life. We are all different in our personalities, desires, ambitions and so on, if you do not want to accept that God exists, then God will give you the opportunity to live that life.
My question to you is, why do you torment yourself so much, why don’t you just accept that you don’t believe in God, and leave it at that?
Love
Jan Ardena.
Well wes, this appears to be a somewhat reasonable line of questioning, so i am going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and try an answer your questions.
A concept is simply an idea, every human being has the ability to construct ideas. You are right when you say, everyone can't be right, because ultimately there can only be one right.
God has many names, i believe heflores pointed you to a website where there were 99 different names, just for the one God, Allah. Each name depicts a certain attribute of God, eg.
The name “God” is of germanic origin, it translates, “The Good one.”
Elohim is hebrew, and sometimes it is broken further down to El, I’m sure you know, this means, mighty, strong or prominent when translated.
In the language of aramaic, Jesus reffered to a more loving side of God, “Awoon”, which means Universal Father.
The name Allah, is as you know, an arabic term for God, many islamic sholars have translated it to mean, One Who Gives Life.
Vishnu, is sanskrit term for God, is translated as, All-pervading.
Krishna, also sanskrit, is translated as, All Attractive.
Those are just a few.
Zues, according to Greek mythology, was the son of God, named Adonai, Ganesha, is the son of Lord Shiva, whom a large portion of people believe to be God.
All these different names are different aspects of His character and personality, the difference with God is that every single aspect of Him is personified, and the personifications are both different and the same, this is the Omnipotent, Absoluteness of God, this is how He is described.
God is described perfectly, in every scripture, to some degree or other, so unless the descriptions match what is in the scripture, how can they be right?
The confusion comes when, lets say, the muslims say that there is one God, Allah, it says so in the Qur'an, so all other gods are nonsense, then the christians say, Jesus says, i am the light, the truth and the way, you only get to God through me. But if you read and try and understand each scripture, you can easily recognise the one God, who is dealing with different sets of people at different times.
How do I choose my god?
The answer is, attraction, I am attracted to God.
There is no methodology, other than personal experience, that would lead you to the point where you cannot refute, this applies in all aspects of life. We are all different in our personalities, desires, ambitions and so on, if you do not want to accept that God exists, then God will give you the opportunity to live that life.
My question to you is, why do you torment yourself so much, why don’t you just accept that you don’t believe in God, and leave it at that?
Love
Jan Ardena.
MooseKnuckle
Registered Senior Member
Jan-
Why dont you try to stick with answering questions, for I do not confess to having all the answers.
Why do you think I am the one to have to defend the notion of God, you know im sorry if people have high standards for a supreme being, but it comes with the territory of being a supreme being.
Why dont you try to stick with answering questions, for I do not confess to having all the answers.
Why do you think I am the one to have to defend the notion of God, you know im sorry if people have high standards for a supreme being, but it comes with the territory of being a supreme being.
Jan Ardena and me share the same god and I'm muslim and she's christian. The jews also share the same god. We say, god is the creator of human beings and everything in the universe.
\Respectfully, that's a crock. First of all, all humans have their OWN conception of god even if based upon what you claim above.
The three religions of Christianity, Islam, and judiasm are iteration of the same message by the same god.
\THAT, is another crock. How can you say that? Ack. Okay, whatever.. let's just say it's true (though it sounds like another complete crock to me given that I would imagine the 99 blah blah's of god that you quoted would piss off a lot of christians or jews.. as a matter of fact, aren't you as a muslim, supposed to shun jews?) Islam is based on the teaching of Mohammed or whatever, and then jews and christians argue about which part of the bible is right, correct? The quran and bible are significantly different documents right? I'm not particularly familiar with either of them.. just know the basics. Regardless, you choose the quran and she chooses the bible. WHY? They say completely different things, but both talk of some "all powerfull guy who told me to write this shit down". Based on that premise, you say "we share the same god."? If so, you aren't much of a thinker regarding this topic IMO.
Zues is not a god under our religion. Those were pagan beliefs that attributed seen things to god, like god for sea, god for land, god for sex, ect. Since then, we evolved.
\Exactly my point. But yet you think YOUR god is better because you've "evolved"? STOP RIGHT THERE. Do you understand what you just said? Oh man, you need to think about that long and hard and realize how stupid that is, how presumptuous and how really, you just invalidated your entire perspective on religion. You basically said that "if it were a thousand years ago, I would have done the zues thing because that's as 'evolved' as
\Respectfully, that's a crock. First of all, all humans have their OWN conception of god even if based upon what you claim above.
The three religions of Christianity, Islam, and judiasm are iteration of the same message by the same god.
\THAT, is another crock. How can you say that? Ack. Okay, whatever.. let's just say it's true (though it sounds like another complete crock to me given that I would imagine the 99 blah blah's of god that you quoted would piss off a lot of christians or jews.. as a matter of fact, aren't you as a muslim, supposed to shun jews?) Islam is based on the teaching of Mohammed or whatever, and then jews and christians argue about which part of the bible is right, correct? The quran and bible are significantly different documents right? I'm not particularly familiar with either of them.. just know the basics. Regardless, you choose the quran and she chooses the bible. WHY? They say completely different things, but both talk of some "all powerfull guy who told me to write this shit down". Based on that premise, you say "we share the same god."? If so, you aren't much of a thinker regarding this topic IMO.
Zues is not a god under our religion. Those were pagan beliefs that attributed seen things to god, like god for sea, god for land, god for sex, ect. Since then, we evolved.
\Exactly my point. But yet you think YOUR god is better because you've "evolved"? STOP RIGHT THERE. Do you understand what you just said? Oh man, you need to think about that long and hard and realize how stupid that is, how presumptuous and how really, you just invalidated your entire perspective on religion. You basically said that "if it were a thousand years ago, I would have done the zues thing because that's as 'evolved' as
Since then, we evolved.
Not hardly, mankind has - devolved - not evolved.
We were created perfect, and like a copy made of a copy have gotten dumber and weaker every generation since.
Why have were been allowed to accumulate this much knowledge this time around, is stead of destoying ourselves and our enemies. because the Holy Spirit has been anointing mankind for the last two milliniea, and protected us from ourselves.
The just and un-just receive the same rain.
But guess what ....the rains about to stop.
Remember Noah? preaching "the rains coming , the rains coming, it's going to destroy the world.
Nobody believed Him though he peached for 120 years while building the ark.
The messages the opposite this time.......the rains(Holy Spirit) about to stop. And when god removes His protective hand from mankind................you'll see just how "Evolved" they've become.
Not hardly, mankind has - devolved - not evolved.
We were created perfect, and like a copy made of a copy have gotten dumber and weaker every generation since.
Why have were been allowed to accumulate this much knowledge this time around, is stead of destoying ourselves and our enemies. because the Holy Spirit has been anointing mankind for the last two milliniea, and protected us from ourselves.
The just and un-just receive the same rain.
But guess what ....the rains about to stop.
Remember Noah? preaching "the rains coming , the rains coming, it's going to destroy the world.
Nobody believed Him though he peached for 120 years while building the ark.
The messages the opposite this time.......the rains(Holy Spirit) about to stop. And when god removes His protective hand from mankind................you'll see just how "Evolved" they've become.
Since then, we evolved.
Not hardly, mankind has - devolved - not evolved.
We were created perfect, and like a copy made of a copy have gotten dumber and weaker every generation since.
Why have were been allowed to accumulate this much knowledge this time around, instead of destoying ourselves and our enemies, as soon as we invented the bow or gunpowder....?. Because the Holy Spirit has been anointing mankind for the last two milliniea, and protected us from ourselves.
The just and un-just receive the same rain.
But guess what ....the rains about to stop.
Remember Noah? preaching "the rains coming , the rains coming, it's going to destroy the world. See.... there had never been rain fall on the earth it, was watered from a dew that came up from within....Like the way Man was watered from the inside...before the fall.
Nobody believed Him though he peached for 120 years while building the ark.
The messages the opposite this time.......the rains(Holy Spirit) about to stop. And when God removes His protective hand from mankind................all hell's going to break lose.
Power without character is Satanic, and all the knowledge man has accumulated during two thousand years of Holy Spirit anointing, when that Spirit is removed that knowledge and power (the lethality of the tree of Good and Evil) is going to be left in the hands of those without the charcter to use it.
You're about to see just how "Evolved" they've become.
Not hardly, mankind has - devolved - not evolved.
We were created perfect, and like a copy made of a copy have gotten dumber and weaker every generation since.
Why have were been allowed to accumulate this much knowledge this time around, instead of destoying ourselves and our enemies, as soon as we invented the bow or gunpowder....?. Because the Holy Spirit has been anointing mankind for the last two milliniea, and protected us from ourselves.
The just and un-just receive the same rain.
But guess what ....the rains about to stop.
Remember Noah? preaching "the rains coming , the rains coming, it's going to destroy the world. See.... there had never been rain fall on the earth it, was watered from a dew that came up from within....Like the way Man was watered from the inside...before the fall.
Nobody believed Him though he peached for 120 years while building the ark.
The messages the opposite this time.......the rains(Holy Spirit) about to stop. And when God removes His protective hand from mankind................all hell's going to break lose.
Power without character is Satanic, and all the knowledge man has accumulated during two thousand years of Holy Spirit anointing, when that Spirit is removed that knowledge and power (the lethality of the tree of Good and Evil) is going to be left in the hands of those without the charcter to use it.
You're about to see just how "Evolved" they've become.
Last edited:
So instead of accepting that knowledge is the truth, the light and the way, you think it's a dead guy and invisible sadist in the sky. Typical of a theist (IMO) to blame his feable mind... and thus the minds of his human brethren on his own inept belief system.
It still kills me that you people ask for proof not to believe. OMFG, that is just typical of a lesser brain.
Blah blah blah. You're stupid and you want everyone else to seem that way to you can have a leg up. You are insecure and your ego commands that you compensate.
As a brief and informative post i will apply this:
Jan Ardena is not stupid. he/she/it is fully aware and understanding of what you ask. It's a case of answering questions with a question in order to avoid the original question. that's all very well and good but it's actually easier just to type: "i dont know".
It is fully possible Jan is from a foreign 'disposition' and doesn't understand or pick up on the subtleties of the English language. Perhaps it would be better by us to speak in a simpleton tongue.
Jan.... the pretentiousness and apparent lack of understanding you promote is rare and bizarre. I concur that you are in fact smart enough to understand what is being said and asked but choose to avoid it as if it were the plague. In my opinion it's better to just answer the questions than to avoid them as if you are incapable.
I notice this attitude from you on many post throughout this forum, stooping to not answer a question 'cause wesmorris made a typo and so on. If you can't answer a question, don't- there's no need to act like you're incompetent.
Jan Ardena is not stupid. he/she/it is fully aware and understanding of what you ask. It's a case of answering questions with a question in order to avoid the original question. that's all very well and good but it's actually easier just to type: "i dont know".
It is fully possible Jan is from a foreign 'disposition' and doesn't understand or pick up on the subtleties of the English language. Perhaps it would be better by us to speak in a simpleton tongue.
Jan.... the pretentiousness and apparent lack of understanding you promote is rare and bizarre. I concur that you are in fact smart enough to understand what is being said and asked but choose to avoid it as if it were the plague. In my opinion it's better to just answer the questions than to avoid them as if you are incapable.
I notice this attitude from you on many post throughout this forum, stooping to not answer a question 'cause wesmorris made a typo and so on. If you can't answer a question, don't- there's no need to act like you're incompetent.
And this is all substantiated by...? Gospels? I refute this. The Pali Text of the Northern Buddhist Schools are inspired by The True God, literally and infallably. So are the Shinto Text. I believe in these with a heart of blind faith because they are true. Therefore, the Bible is wrong. The end.
Are you beginning to understand the futility of circular reasoning yet?
God? Let me tell you about God: The God you are all arguing about is a myth. The God of classical theism doesn't exist, has never existed and will never exist. The God so many of you adore is nothing but a careless Creator. Like the scientist who grew the bacterium in his pathetic petri dish, he hatched us and then left us to rot. He is not good, or all loving. He's not even that clever! Given a few centuries, we could create an inhabited planet as 'good' as he has!
Evil is not his problem - it is ours. We do what we can to survive, and inevitably it has caused us to become ruthless and unforgiving in nature.
Evil is not his problem - it is ours. We do what we can to survive, and inevitably it has caused us to become ruthless and unforgiving in nature.
One thing that always bothered me about this argument:
No one seems willing or able to define "evil." The abstract is so vague, like God, that it could mean nearly anything to anyone. Do we mean suffering? Suffering is impersonal, a result of some phenomenal interactions. It could be used to refute the existence of a benevolent deity.
Not necessarily human action. Do we mean cruelty on the part of man? This is at best a weak argument against a deity. It's also more easily controled. Or maybe it's not. It persists.
Do we mean mere limitation and separation? Kabbalists figured this out centuries ago. Refer to them if you already believe in all that religious stuff.
Aside from the more elegant of these Judaeo-Mystical speculations, I find all religious attempts at removing the problem of evil ridiculous and full of gaping, weeping holes.
Hellenistic Gnosticism: God made/accidentally allowed the Demiurge, a devil-like creator who causes suffering. OK, why'd he do that?
Primitive Judaism: God is good and bad. He allows suffering. The world is meaningless aside from harsh, impersonal lives within a community context. Why is this omnipotent being swayed by either "good" or "evil?"
Later, cultic Judaism: Some angels rebelled and created evil. Why did God make rebellious angels? Or for that matter, why did God make angels? Why did he place such arbitrary limits on them and, as he apparently did according to the myths, give them desires for rebellion?
Christianity: If we only believed in Jesus... Well, yes, if everyone followed Christ's mandates, or some of the basic ones, we'd be fine in terms of human cruelty. Bored, hungry, soon to be dead, but we'd lack human evil. We'd increase our suffering, unless we became so Christlike that we abandoned ALL our worldly cares that we ceased to be concerned with our own pain. This is suicide.
A side note on the above - No amount of Golden Ruling will cure childhood cancer. Formal Morality doesn't touch some of the worst, most horrific accounts of human suffering.
Hinduism: Karma, hell, I don't even want to go into the philisophical/logistical problems inherint to the Karma idea.
Classical Buddhism: We suffer. That's it. No further explanation. Very unsatisfying and it gets us nowhere in terms of understanding. As for the method for the removal of suffering, see Christianity.
Classical Manichaean Gnosticism/Zoroastrianism: Two Gods, one bad, one good. Why? Where'd they come from? How can either be The Real God? Neither is obviously omnipotent, since neither can kill the other. Taking these two as abstracts, as the Tao and Kabbalah do, I can see the vague beginnings of a decent philosophy, but we could dispense with the theistic aesthetics.
Almost all religious philosophies ignore the intrinsic and exponential complexities of the universe, earthly world, and human society. Certainly ALL dogmatic systems do. They fail at everything they attempt to undertake at a below-surface level. I'm beginning to honestly belive they only survive because the majority of humans are basically simple minded and merely survival-oriented.
No one seems willing or able to define "evil." The abstract is so vague, like God, that it could mean nearly anything to anyone. Do we mean suffering? Suffering is impersonal, a result of some phenomenal interactions. It could be used to refute the existence of a benevolent deity.
Not necessarily human action. Do we mean cruelty on the part of man? This is at best a weak argument against a deity. It's also more easily controled. Or maybe it's not. It persists.
Do we mean mere limitation and separation? Kabbalists figured this out centuries ago. Refer to them if you already believe in all that religious stuff.
Aside from the more elegant of these Judaeo-Mystical speculations, I find all religious attempts at removing the problem of evil ridiculous and full of gaping, weeping holes.
Hellenistic Gnosticism: God made/accidentally allowed the Demiurge, a devil-like creator who causes suffering. OK, why'd he do that?
Primitive Judaism: God is good and bad. He allows suffering. The world is meaningless aside from harsh, impersonal lives within a community context. Why is this omnipotent being swayed by either "good" or "evil?"
Later, cultic Judaism: Some angels rebelled and created evil. Why did God make rebellious angels? Or for that matter, why did God make angels? Why did he place such arbitrary limits on them and, as he apparently did according to the myths, give them desires for rebellion?
Christianity: If we only believed in Jesus... Well, yes, if everyone followed Christ's mandates, or some of the basic ones, we'd be fine in terms of human cruelty. Bored, hungry, soon to be dead, but we'd lack human evil. We'd increase our suffering, unless we became so Christlike that we abandoned ALL our worldly cares that we ceased to be concerned with our own pain. This is suicide.
A side note on the above - No amount of Golden Ruling will cure childhood cancer. Formal Morality doesn't touch some of the worst, most horrific accounts of human suffering.
Hinduism: Karma, hell, I don't even want to go into the philisophical/logistical problems inherint to the Karma idea.
Classical Buddhism: We suffer. That's it. No further explanation. Very unsatisfying and it gets us nowhere in terms of understanding. As for the method for the removal of suffering, see Christianity.
Classical Manichaean Gnosticism/Zoroastrianism: Two Gods, one bad, one good. Why? Where'd they come from? How can either be The Real God? Neither is obviously omnipotent, since neither can kill the other. Taking these two as abstracts, as the Tao and Kabbalah do, I can see the vague beginnings of a decent philosophy, but we could dispense with the theistic aesthetics.
Almost all religious philosophies ignore the intrinsic and exponential complexities of the universe, earthly world, and human society. Certainly ALL dogmatic systems do. They fail at everything they attempt to undertake at a below-surface level. I'm beginning to honestly belive they only survive because the majority of humans are basically simple minded and merely survival-oriented.
wesmorris,
A reply soon...
I have just found this thread, and I'm not "going nuts"...
A reply soon...
Answer to the original post
MooseKnuckle,
The only real problem I have with that is that I have to deal with evil in my everyday life, and that kinda sucks. But as I grow and mature spiritually, evil will have less and less influence in the way I feel. The same for everybody.
MooseKnuckle,
Indeed. I do have some problems with that (only personal, though)... but...
...that's not really a problem because the key here is free will. We can do evil if we want, and that's why there is so much evil in the world.
The only real problem I have with that is that I have to deal with evil in my everyday life, and that kinda sucks. But as I grow and mature spiritually, evil will have less and less influence in the way I feel. The same for everybody.
Hehe... "evolved"...
MooseKnuckle
Registered Senior Member
Truthseeker-
What about natural evil?
The immense suffering resulting from natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods, droughts, hurricanes, and the like, which are not the causal result of any moral agent in the world.
What about natural evil?
The immense suffering resulting from natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods, droughts, hurricanes, and the like, which are not the causal result of any moral agent in the world.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well then let me ask you THIS, Jan Ardena
Well wes, this appears to be a somewhat reasonable line of questioning, so i am going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and try an answer your questions.
\thanks.
A concept is simply an idea, every human being has the ability to construct ideas. You are right when you say, everyone can't be right, because ultimately there can only be one right.
\Of course.
God has many names, i believe heflores pointed you to a website where there were 99 different names, just for the one God, Allah. Each name depicts a certain attribute of God, eg.
\Yeah, but that's kind of BS. You're talking about completely different religions and saying "oh, well.. since they all talk about one god, it must be the same one". That's like saying "since I took a road to get to work, it must be the same road I took to get to st. louis." Just because you've all adapted the word and say "must have created the universe" or whatever, doesn't mean that you're talking about the same thing.
The name “God” is of germanic origin, it translates, “The Good one.”
Elohim is hebrew, and sometimes it is broken further down to El, I’m sure you know, this means, mighty, strong or prominent when translated.
In the language of aramaic, Jesus reffered to a more loving side of God, “Awoon”, which means Universal Father.
The name Allah, is as you know, an arabic term for God, many islamic sholars have translated it to mean, One Who Gives Life.
Vishnu, is sanskrit term for God, is translated as, All-pervading.
Krishna, also sanskrit, is translated as, All Attractive.
Those are just a few.
\While somewhat interesting, I fail to see how it supports your assertion that your religion is reasonable choice of perspective on the creation of the universe. You're talking about a bunch of independent incarnations of properties that different people think that the creator of the universe must have had. Silly.
Zues, according to Greek mythology, was the son of God, named Adonai, Ganesha, is the son of Lord Shiva, whom a large portion of people believe to be God.
\I didn't know that. Take me to school baby, that's what I'm talkin bout.
All these different names are different aspects of His character and personality, the difference with God is that every single aspect of Him is personified, and the personifications are both different and the same, this is the Omnipotent, Absoluteness of God, this is how He is described.
\That is a ridiculous theory created to support your poor assumptions. It's as if all I have to do is come up with a word you might interpret as good.. and you'll say "yes, that is an attribute of god".. in that manner you shall always reach the same conclusion.
God is described perfectly, in every scripture, to some degree or other, so unless the descriptions match what is in the scripture, how can they be right?
\Who are you to qualify what is "perfect" regarding god? GOD IS NOT YOUR CONCEPTION. IF GOD EXISTS, THEN GOD IS GOD, NOT SOME RIDICULOUS ABSTRACT. Don't you see? You are in the grips of a cult mind set. You say "described perfectly". That is not possible... we are human right? We cannot perfectly describe our asses let alone the "ultimate being". Your argument is moot due to that invalid assumption, as is the tendency of all of your arguments on this topic.
The confusion comes when, lets say, the muslims say that there is one God, Allah, it says so in the Qur'an, so all other gods are nonsense, then the christians say, Jesus says, i am the light, the truth and the way, you only get to God through me. But if you read and try and understand each scripture, you can easily recognise the one God, who is dealing with different sets of people at different times.
\Blah blah dogma dogma. What bearing does your scripture have on reality? It has an undetermined amount of historical value based on a anthropological interpretation and analysis of motives behind the authors. You have to think about it, just "accepting it as the word of god because it moves you" would be the same as you accepting ME as god because you were moved by my earnest plea of reason...
How do I choose my god?
The answer is, attraction, I am attracted to God.
\Hehe, I'll reserve comment because you seem nice.
There is no methodology, other than personal experience, that would lead you to the point where you cannot refute, this applies in all aspects of life.
\Then I find your method of discerning the correct flavor of religion somewhat stark if a tad bit of critical thinking is applied. For instance, not all religions are correct right? According to most of them you'll go to hell if you're not a member of it right? I mean, you may just go to pergatory or whatever depending on the level of "touchy feely" interpretation you've been exposed to, or done your self... but you're definately wrong if you're not a member.. unless you are going to come up with some bullshit about how that's wrong.. which would have an inkling of truth but would have to be mostly founded on pure conjecture... I digress. Well, what if you're going to hell because you chose the wrong one? Spectacular spiritual bummer and waste of time for you. Okay, tell me how it's "no, you're not bad if you're not in my religion, you're just ignorant" or the line of denial "we are tolerant of all other religions" (which I'm sure some of the members are, but the nature of bueracracy betrays religion by insisting that this attitude is instilled somewhere throughout the structure of the religion.. but that just me reasoning on the fly.. pardon). Okay I'll drop it.
We are all different in our personalities, desires, ambitions and so on, if you do not want to accept that God exists, then God will give you the opportunity to live that life.
\Certainly, but you just agreed that only one can ACTUALLY EXIST, okay, IF that's true.. WHY THE HELL does the bible have any bearing on it? What's the correlation between god and the bible? Not, is he in it... but what if people just LIED and said he wrote it.. or were INSANE and THOUGHT he said it and wrote it down and it is really just people making up crazy stories based on their interpretations of what happened to them or people they knew in their time of limited understanding of their context in nature/the universe/all that. *sigh*
My question to you is, why do you torment yourself so much, why don’t you just accept that you don’t believe in God, and leave it at that?
\You don't understand... I'm not tormented, I'm enthralled with the quest, I'm into it man. I love the nogginflexin. I think I'm very very good at it (hey, gimme a break, I wouldn't do it if NOBODY cheered for me, I might as well!). I need this stimulation, oh man.. I wish I could explain it to you as you likely wish you could explain your religious experience junk to me. I'll just leave it with this: I'm not tormented by this, you can believe it. I'm just gifted in that I can see through the bullshit and I feel I have to open the eyes of whoever I can... which is likely nobody.. but I'll try anyway just for the excercise of the brain and love of the quest for understanding.
tired now, hope I wasn't toooo offensive or stupid. not sure if my head is on exactly straight at the moment... kind of spaced out and tired.
Well wes, this appears to be a somewhat reasonable line of questioning, so i am going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and try an answer your questions.
\thanks.
A concept is simply an idea, every human being has the ability to construct ideas. You are right when you say, everyone can't be right, because ultimately there can only be one right.
\Of course.
God has many names, i believe heflores pointed you to a website where there were 99 different names, just for the one God, Allah. Each name depicts a certain attribute of God, eg.
\Yeah, but that's kind of BS. You're talking about completely different religions and saying "oh, well.. since they all talk about one god, it must be the same one". That's like saying "since I took a road to get to work, it must be the same road I took to get to st. louis." Just because you've all adapted the word and say "must have created the universe" or whatever, doesn't mean that you're talking about the same thing.
The name “God” is of germanic origin, it translates, “The Good one.”
Elohim is hebrew, and sometimes it is broken further down to El, I’m sure you know, this means, mighty, strong or prominent when translated.
In the language of aramaic, Jesus reffered to a more loving side of God, “Awoon”, which means Universal Father.
The name Allah, is as you know, an arabic term for God, many islamic sholars have translated it to mean, One Who Gives Life.
Vishnu, is sanskrit term for God, is translated as, All-pervading.
Krishna, also sanskrit, is translated as, All Attractive.
Those are just a few.
\While somewhat interesting, I fail to see how it supports your assertion that your religion is reasonable choice of perspective on the creation of the universe. You're talking about a bunch of independent incarnations of properties that different people think that the creator of the universe must have had. Silly.
Zues, according to Greek mythology, was the son of God, named Adonai, Ganesha, is the son of Lord Shiva, whom a large portion of people believe to be God.
\I didn't know that. Take me to school baby, that's what I'm talkin bout.
All these different names are different aspects of His character and personality, the difference with God is that every single aspect of Him is personified, and the personifications are both different and the same, this is the Omnipotent, Absoluteness of God, this is how He is described.
\That is a ridiculous theory created to support your poor assumptions. It's as if all I have to do is come up with a word you might interpret as good.. and you'll say "yes, that is an attribute of god".. in that manner you shall always reach the same conclusion.
God is described perfectly, in every scripture, to some degree or other, so unless the descriptions match what is in the scripture, how can they be right?
\Who are you to qualify what is "perfect" regarding god? GOD IS NOT YOUR CONCEPTION. IF GOD EXISTS, THEN GOD IS GOD, NOT SOME RIDICULOUS ABSTRACT. Don't you see? You are in the grips of a cult mind set. You say "described perfectly". That is not possible... we are human right? We cannot perfectly describe our asses let alone the "ultimate being". Your argument is moot due to that invalid assumption, as is the tendency of all of your arguments on this topic.
The confusion comes when, lets say, the muslims say that there is one God, Allah, it says so in the Qur'an, so all other gods are nonsense, then the christians say, Jesus says, i am the light, the truth and the way, you only get to God through me. But if you read and try and understand each scripture, you can easily recognise the one God, who is dealing with different sets of people at different times.
\Blah blah dogma dogma. What bearing does your scripture have on reality? It has an undetermined amount of historical value based on a anthropological interpretation and analysis of motives behind the authors. You have to think about it, just "accepting it as the word of god because it moves you" would be the same as you accepting ME as god because you were moved by my earnest plea of reason...
How do I choose my god?
The answer is, attraction, I am attracted to God.
\Hehe, I'll reserve comment because you seem nice.
There is no methodology, other than personal experience, that would lead you to the point where you cannot refute, this applies in all aspects of life.
\Then I find your method of discerning the correct flavor of religion somewhat stark if a tad bit of critical thinking is applied. For instance, not all religions are correct right? According to most of them you'll go to hell if you're not a member of it right? I mean, you may just go to pergatory or whatever depending on the level of "touchy feely" interpretation you've been exposed to, or done your self... but you're definately wrong if you're not a member.. unless you are going to come up with some bullshit about how that's wrong.. which would have an inkling of truth but would have to be mostly founded on pure conjecture... I digress. Well, what if you're going to hell because you chose the wrong one? Spectacular spiritual bummer and waste of time for you. Okay, tell me how it's "no, you're not bad if you're not in my religion, you're just ignorant" or the line of denial "we are tolerant of all other religions" (which I'm sure some of the members are, but the nature of bueracracy betrays religion by insisting that this attitude is instilled somewhere throughout the structure of the religion.. but that just me reasoning on the fly.. pardon). Okay I'll drop it.
We are all different in our personalities, desires, ambitions and so on, if you do not want to accept that God exists, then God will give you the opportunity to live that life.
\Certainly, but you just agreed that only one can ACTUALLY EXIST, okay, IF that's true.. WHY THE HELL does the bible have any bearing on it? What's the correlation between god and the bible? Not, is he in it... but what if people just LIED and said he wrote it.. or were INSANE and THOUGHT he said it and wrote it down and it is really just people making up crazy stories based on their interpretations of what happened to them or people they knew in their time of limited understanding of their context in nature/the universe/all that. *sigh*
My question to you is, why do you torment yourself so much, why don’t you just accept that you don’t believe in God, and leave it at that?
\You don't understand... I'm not tormented, I'm enthralled with the quest, I'm into it man. I love the nogginflexin. I think I'm very very good at it (hey, gimme a break, I wouldn't do it if NOBODY cheered for me, I might as well!). I need this stimulation, oh man.. I wish I could explain it to you as you likely wish you could explain your religious experience junk to me. I'll just leave it with this: I'm not tormented by this, you can believe it. I'm just gifted in that I can see through the bullshit and I feel I have to open the eyes of whoever I can... which is likely nobody.. but I'll try anyway just for the excercise of the brain and love of the quest for understanding.
tired now, hope I wasn't toooo offensive or stupid. not sure if my head is on exactly straight at the moment... kind of spaced out and tired.
Re: Answer to the original post
OK, as MK pointed out, you still must contend with what he terms "natural evil." On the same, you failed to respond to my earlier, identical criticism. For argument, a paraphrasal readdressment; All the believing and moralizing in the world won't keep childhood cancers at bay.
How exactly would you explain miscarriages and spontaneous natural abortion? What, God decided he didn't like that one? Don't tell "I don't know. I have faith." That's a glaring escape route. I suspect it doesn't impress anyone and only makes your case weaker and weaker still.
I have yet to hear a reasonable Christian answer to this question. Ever. I'm sure you'll be no different. If your and other believers' track records hold up, you'll either ignore this post or you'll respond to it as if it were a wholley different question, with some ridiculous but forgettable non sequitur.
OK, as MK pointed out, you still must contend with what he terms "natural evil." On the same, you failed to respond to my earlier, identical criticism. For argument, a paraphrasal readdressment; All the believing and moralizing in the world won't keep childhood cancers at bay.
How exactly would you explain miscarriages and spontaneous natural abortion? What, God decided he didn't like that one? Don't tell "I don't know. I have faith." That's a glaring escape route. I suspect it doesn't impress anyone and only makes your case weaker and weaker still.
I have yet to hear a reasonable Christian answer to this question. Ever. I'm sure you'll be no different. If your and other believers' track records hold up, you'll either ignore this post or you'll respond to it as if it were a wholley different question, with some ridiculous but forgettable non sequitur.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well then let me ask you THIS, Jan Ardena
Originally posted by wesmorris
Yeah, but that's kind of your opinion.
I don't recall telling you what my religion is.
It is not that I am qualifying any perfection regarding God, but i am qualifying that the description of God is in all scriptures, that is a fact.
I see that this is your opinion.
This assumption is your opinion.
This is an assumption based on your opinion.
Read them for yourself and see.
This is your opinion, therefore it doesn't really matter what i say.
Somehow or other, your hidden sentiments come shinging through, but that is only my opinion.
That's fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion.
An example?
An example?
I have not come across anything in any scripture that resembles this or anything (for that manner), that you said. You seem to be arguing from the point of veiw "he said and she said".
But what if you're wrong and it is all true?
Why do you feel the need to debase religion so much, it is not good conduct, I hope Cris will do something about this kind of behaviour, because it is totally unnecessary.
You mean you are proseletyzing.
Probably not too offensive, but definitely unnecessarily offensive.
Love
Jan Ardena.