Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Church of FSM
( ) 2 Votes
| Re: Church of FSM [message #177539 is a reply to message #177438] |
Wed, 02 November 2005 17:33   |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| mrpirate wrote on Wed, 02 November 2005 12:35 |
Ding ding. You can prove something without seeing it with your own eyes.
|
Oh? Like what, exacty?
| Quote: |
What reason or motivation is there for me as a rational thinking person to believe in this story, in this being?
|
No more than a rational thinking person such as myself does.
| Quote: |
Just because I don't HAVE to believe a science book doesn't mean I have any basis to believe in the "good book".
|
Exactly. Now, please tell me why there is this supposed difference between believing what someone tells you is truth, in some book, written by someone before your time, perhaps even in a language not native to you, with no way of validating that it's true except by believing what others educated in that area say... and religion?
| Quote: |
It would be an awesome stretch to put, say, a strand of my hair on a slide in a certain position and look at it through a microscope and see it in that same position. Then to see that hair and see it move in the scope real-time to my motions. Then, to put another slide with blood under that same microscope and see bacteria and say it's been tampered with.
|
Prove to me that the hair you see under the microscope hasn't been distorted in some way? (And I don't mean distorted by magnification)
| Quote: |
How does this prove God's existence?
|
I never said it does. Infact, I've never once said that "God Exists". As I've always said, the existance of God can not be proven or disproven, hence why it is (for the <unknown> time) a system of belief.
| Quote: |
Willfull blindness? Because I look at something and don't see it as "God's work"? What exactly am I blind to? Where could I see God's work and know that's exactly what it is?
|
You can see it every day if you just look out the window. Yes, even the weather.
| Quote: |
"God" being is all you've known from so young that you can't even seem to fathom that *I* might in fact be right, that there is no "God" at all. You can't even FATHOM this at all, while I have, as I've said before, considered the existence of God and found no justification.
|
I can't fathom it? Oh, I can comprehend the non-existance of God very much. Just as easily as I can comprehend the idea that Descarte brought forth about whether or not the world exists.
As well, please stop with the hypocritical comments. Saying that I'm wrong because I believe in God, simply "because I was raised with "knowledge" of him", and then claiming that your way is better is completely redundant. You've even admitted it yourself that you did not grow up with "knowledge" of God. Well, the only reason you can claim a disbelief in him is because of that reason.
That argument works both ways, you know. Of course, this applies to everything else as well. Why Capitalism is better than socialism, why no Government funding of Health Care is better than funding it, why Social programs are a waste of time, or why the opposite of that is believed by people. It's what they grew up with.
So, if you're still wanting to continue with the train of thought regarding why I believe in God, you had better be willing to apply that same logic to everything you believe in yourself.
Oh, yes... and I'm still waiting to see some proof that God does't exist. No one seems willing, or able, to produce it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Church of FSM [message #177551 is a reply to message #175124] |
Wed, 02 November 2005 17:59 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
hey, I have no problem with people saying they don't believe. As long as you're not trying to say that you "know" that God does't exist, I have no argument with you.
My two challenges still stand, though.
[Updated on: Wed, 02 November 2005 17:59] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Church of FSM [message #177566 is a reply to message #177547] |
Wed, 02 November 2005 19:20 |
 |
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| warranto wrote on Wed, 02 November 2005 19:53 |
Prove to me that 2+2=4. And remember, you can not use anything that is visible. (ie. take two of somethign and add another two of it)
|
You can. And here's why:
| Immanuel Kant |
We might, indeed at first suppose that the proposition 7 + 5 = 12 is a merely analytical proposition, following (according to the principle of contradiction) from the conception of a sum of seven and five. But if we regard it more narrowly, we find that our conception of the sum of seven and five contains nothing more than the uniting of both sums into one, whereby it cannot at all be cogitated what this single number is which embraces both. The conception of twelve is by no means obtained by merely cogitating the union of seven and five; and we may analyse our conception of such a possible sum as long as we will, still we shall never discover in it the notion of twelve. We must go beyond these conceptions, and have recourse to an intuition which corresponds to one of the two- our five fingers, for example, or like Segner in his Arithmetic five points, and so by degrees, add the units contained in the five given in the intuition, to the conception of seven. For I first take the number 7, and, for the conception of 5 calling in the aid of the fingers of my hand as objects of intuition, I add the units, which I before took together to make up the number 5, gradually now by means of the material image my hand, to the number 7, and by this process, I at length see the number 12 arise. That 7 should be added to 5, I have certainly cogitated in my conception of a sum = 7 + 5, but not that this sum was equal to 12. Arithmetical propositions are therefore always synthetical, of which we may become more clearly convinced by trying large numbers. For it will thus become quite evident that, turn and twist our conceptions as we may, it is impossible, without having recourse to intuition, to arrive at the sum total or product by means of the mere analysis of our conceptions. just as little is any principle of pure geometry analytical. "A straight line between two points is the shortest," is a synthetical proposition. For my conception of straight contains no notion of quantity, but is merely qualitative. The conception of the shortest is therefore fore wholly an addition, and by no analysis can it be extracted from our conception of a straight line. Intuition must therefore here lend its aid, by means of which, and thus only, our synthesis is possible.
|
You're merely synthesizing two concepts (even if they are the same) to produce something that is not itself. But you'll never *know* (thus attempt to prove) that any math is a priori unless you can prove that a priori synthesis is possible-- and it is. But I'll let you figure that out. :>
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Church of FSM [message #177576 is a reply to message #175124] |
Wed, 02 November 2005 20:03 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Almost sucessful there Javaxcx (or, perhaps I should congratulate Kant?  )
however, dispite the fact that he could, for all intents and purposes, "prove" math, he still had to do it by using his hand as a reference point for 5.
| Quote: |
and have recourse to an intuition which corresponds to one of the two
|
Unfortunatly, it still required the sight of something to make the proof work. Even if it only is done as an intuition.
[Updated on: Wed, 02 November 2005 20:04] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Church of FSM [message #177586 is a reply to message #175124] |
Wed, 02 November 2005 21:03 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
a priori or not, by the simple fact that he required to use a visual reference point to prove something, states that the experience was required prior to the proof being usable. He had to know that the hand had 5 fingers before the idea of the hand could be used. In short, a visual representation of some sort was still required to prove it. The "seeing" part if it is, in Kant's instance, "seeing with the mind's eye," so to speak.
hmm.. perhaps restricting this to "seeing" is a bit misleading. "Experience" is the idea that I'm trying to get across, however the seeing aspect of that is the one that seems to get the most credit, so I decided to go with that simplification. Don't take this too broadly in regards to the challenge though. I'm not saying that you can't use ANY experiences to assist, you just can't use them to directly prove the aspect. (example: referencing a dog would constitute something that is being used to represent a visual effect. However, refrencing the fact that every time you've done the equation you have reached that answer, while not a strong argument by itself, is valid. There is no representation of anything to prove a point.)
Keep in mind that I'm not disputing that Kant has proven it, rather he has quite nicely. However, the challenge is still whether it can be done without visual aids.
Experience is the idea of where knowing comes from. The phrase "seeing is believing" is a misnomer of sorts. It should actually state "experiencing is knowing". This is where a priori comes into effect. Whether it is knowable without appeal to a particular experience (keep in mind, the "appeal to an experience" is the important part. It has been experienced, but that experience is not used to prove <whatever>). However, the a priori argument does not apply here as he IS using the experience to prove his argument. He uses his experience of how his hand looks to create a basis for the number "five".
Note: this went through a number of edits before it was submitted. If something is not as coherent as could be, tell me and I'll fix it.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Church of FSM [message #177621 is a reply to message #175124] |
Thu, 03 November 2005 04:23 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7427
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
Rather than trying to prove to me that I can't possibly "know" anything at all, which is 100% irrelevant and just a not-very-underhanded attempt to make me doubt ALL my earthly knowledge and intellect and somehow twist that to make me fall on my knees and worship some imaginary deity with tears in my eyes and the holy gospel ricocheting through every core of my being... let's go another route.
As far as philsophy and the subjects you are speaking of, I don't read the books and works of others very much. I have my own theories and ideas. One, for example, I thought up sometime when I was in elementary school, turns out is a prevailing notion in quantum physics about alternate dimensions. But that's a subject for another time. You always seem to want to come back to "Yeah, but you don't REALLY know anything by true definition" thinking it will magically win you any argument.
Explain to me how I:
- always conduct myself lawfully (aside from minor traffic infractions from time to time)
- do good for other people (loan money, provide support, etc)
- Have attained the age of 26 without serious illness
- Am in a loving relationship
- Have a great job
- Have a great house
- Have great friends
ALL without EVER praying for any of it. My life, even when you look deep inside, isn't all that much different from someone who does pray and believes with all their heart and soul that God or Jesus is choosing whether to answer that prayer or not. Explain this.
Next, Explain to me why, when you pray for something, and God/Jesus doesn't provide, you will say "It's God's will". So, if God was just going to do whatever is in his Plan anyway, then why bother to pray? Furthermore, how do you have "free will" if the events influencing your life are all "planned" by God?
Any time I ask why there is so much evil and bad luck in this world, while "God" allegedly "loves us", all I get is "free will". No one has been able to rationally explain this to me.
I'm the bawss.
[Updated on: Thu, 03 November 2005 04:24] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Church of FSM [message #177637 is a reply to message #175124] |
Thu, 03 November 2005 08:10 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Quote: |
Explain to me how I:
|
(That's all I need to quote) Easy, you've made the right choices. I sincerely hope that your luck continues.
| Quote: |
ALL without EVER praying for any of it.
|
Actually, neither do I. I don't ask anything of God, nor to I expect it.
| Quote: |
Next, Explain to me why, when you pray for something, and God/Jesus doesn't provide, you will say "It's God's will"
|
Because, for whatever reason, the prayers are not granted. Think of whatever reason you want, but for whatever the reason, we do not NEED what we are praying for to occur.
| Quote: |
Furthermore, how do you have "free will" if the events influencing your life are all "planned" by God?
|
This is one that I don't agree with. Perhaps God knows our future, perhaps not. This doesn't mean that he has it planned for us.
| Quote: |
Any time I ask why there is so much evil and bad luck in this world, while "God" allegedly "loves us", all I get is "free will". No one has been able to rationally explain this to me.
|
perhaps the same reason your own parents didn't prevent bad things from happening to you. Someone else chose to do it (or in the event of an illness, your own body failed you).
The reason "free will" is used, is exactly that. Someone had the freedom to wrong you.
"But if God loves us so much, why doesn't he prevent that occurance?", correct?
Easy. it's the same reason why murderers are allowed to go free in the American justice system simply because a "right" of theirs has been violated. If you make exceptions for one person, the whole thing falls, or at least starts to fall, apart. If one persons "free will" is violated, then the entire system of free will fails, simply because we are no longer free. We have a forced set of rules imposed on us.
edit: Missed this point:
| Quote: |
As far as philsophy and the subjects you are speaking of, I don't read the books and works of others very much. I have my own theories and ideas. One, for example, I thought up sometime when I was in elementary school, turns out is a prevailing notion in quantum physics about alternate dimensions. But that's a subject for another time. You always seem to want to come back to "Yeah, but you don't REALLY know anything by true definition" thinking it will magically win you any argument.
|
The only reason I bring that up (at least for the purpose of this argument) is because you are stating that you KNOW God doesn't exist. That is all that I am challenging. I could care less if you believe that God doesn't exist, I could care less if you think that Satanism is "the way". That's your own choice.
Just don't claim to know things that you don't. At least not without backing it up with proof. And sorry, posting links about where the Christian religion got it wrong doesn't prove that God doesn't exist. It just proves where the Christian religion got it wrong.
[Updated on: Thu, 03 November 2005 08:14] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Church of FSM [message #177653 is a reply to message #175124] |
Thu, 03 November 2005 09:56 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7427
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
Because I don't understand your point, and especially how it's relevant to this discussion.
You think I'm going to say I have "faith" in my driving abilities? You're incorrect. I don't have "faith" in them. I have previous experience as well as wisdom passed along by those who drove before me to help me drive defensively. I also make assumptions about those who share the road with me. While I assume most of them have the same desires as me, to get to our destinations, I also assume they are morons who might make a mistake or forget to look before changing lanes. This prior knowledge and assumption that people are idiots has kept me accident-free for the 8 years I've been driving.
That said, I don't know where that leads to faith in "God". I think I can guess where you might be going with that, and this line of logic might work on a child or a guy with an IQ of 90, but you're going to have to reach quite a bit deeper than that with me.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Church of FSM [message #177658 is a reply to message #177637] |
Thu, 03 November 2005 10:11 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7427
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
Regarding the prayer stuff, fine. We agree there is no power in prayer. We can agree that whether there is a God or not, praying to him for him to do things is not necessary to live a happy life or to make the right decisions.
| Quote: |
This is one that I don't agree with. Perhaps God knows our future, perhaps not. This doesn't mean that he has it planned for us.
|
Then what role does God even have in your life? You don't pray to him, and you don't think he has a plan for you. All you concede at this point is that he may or may not know the future.
| Quote: |
Easy. it's the same reason why murderers are allowed to go free in the American justice system simply because a "right" of theirs has been violated. If you make exceptions for one person, the whole thing falls, or at least starts to fall, apart. If one persons "free will" is violated, then the entire system of free will fails, simply because we are no longer free. We have a forced set of rules imposed on us.
|
Easy? That's not much of an explanation. You've made a very interesting leap from rights violations to free will violations.
| Quote: |
The only reason I bring that up (at least for the purpose of this argument) is because you are stating that you KNOW God doesn't exist. That is all that I am challenging. I could care less if you believe that God doesn't exist, I could care less if you think that Satanism is "the way". That's your own choice.
Just don't claim to know things that you don't. At least not without backing it up with proof. And sorry, posting links about where the Christian religion got it wrong doesn't prove that God doesn't exist. It just proves where the Christian religion got it wrong.
|
I hope you're not implying that because I don't believe in God means I believe in Satan. You probably don't mean to imply that but to an outside observer, it sure would look like Moore-esque tactics. You don't believe in Santa, so I don't call you an asantaist. With that in mind, I'm not even technically an "atheist". I'm just normal. You don't believe in Thor, and neither do I. So are we athorists? No. In fact, once you understand why you don't believe in all the other deities that man has invented over the centuries, perhaps then you will understand why I don't believe in yours. Out of all those deities, I just believe in one less than you do, and somehow I'm the evil "atheist".
You say I can't claim to "know" there is no God. Maybe not by the definition you are pushing. But down to the very core of my being, with every bone in my body, I am absolutely sure there is no "God" as defined by ALL the major religions out there. Whatever or whoever started the Big Bang that created this universe has no bearing on the course of my life and has no influence or direction in the decisions I make. The Christian, Catholic, Muslim, and Greek gods all are equally fictional and ridiculous to me.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Church of FSM [message #177685 is a reply to message #177621] |
Thu, 03 November 2005 13:56 |
 |
NeoSaber
Messages: 336
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Crimson wrote on Thu, 03 November 2005 06:23 |
Any time I ask why there is so much evil and bad luck in this world, while "God" allegedly "loves us", all I get is "free will". No one has been able to rationally explain this to me.
|
Warranto has tried a bit, but I figured I'd take a stab at it too. 
For starters we need to determine a suitable definition of evil. After all, in science you can't hope to explain a phenomena properly if you can't define it. Newton had this problem with gravity, which was corrected by Einstein.
Evil is not a creation in itself, it does not exist like a rock exists. It exists like a shadow exists, or cold exists. It is defined by being the absence of a creation. In the case of a shadow, it is the absence of light. In the case of cold, it is the absence of heat. In the case of evil, it is the absence of good. Because it's 'existence' is entirely dependent on good, we need to define good as well.
Essentially, good is everything that comes from God. Good being something that is created, and all creations ultimately come from God. Since good is what God does, it is impossible by definition for God not to be benevolent. His nature requires that He is benevolent, as it is part of being omnipotent and omniscient. If you understood everything, you'd know what the 'right thing' was to do in every situation you could ever face. You'd have to do what was right because it violates your very nature to do otherwise.
It should be noted, that due to this relationship between good and evil. Evil can only exist if good exists somewhere else. However good can exist on its own, without the need for evil to occur. This makes evil powerless to good. If by some fluke, evil could overcome good, it would be self defeating as it would cease to exist as well. If good overcomes evil, it probably wouldn't even notice the event happened, as it shares no connection with evil from its perspective.
By all this, we can say good is what God wants, and evil is what He doesn't want. Good is His creation, His very essence. Evil is the lack of His creation, the absence of His presence. Hopefully, we've now hammered out a definition of what constitutes good and what constitutes evil.
Now we come to humans, who have the free will to choose whether to follow God's way or not. You have the choice to do what's right, or not to do what's right. When you reject God's way, the absence you cause is 'evil'. Why would a supreme benevolence allow for this? It serves the purpose of teaching. Like a parent won't prevent every mistake of a child, so they can learn why it is 'wrong' to do something, God allows people to make mistakes because it helps people to learn why it is a mistake. Sure you can be told, but God wants you to understand, truly understand. As a finite being, understanding comes from experience. A human learns by pattern recognition. Seeing, hearing, etc the same thing over and over until you understand it.
God doesn't want you to 'be good', He wants you to 'want to be good'. He wants you to understand why you should be good. If He wanted He could have a race of mindless drones that did what He wanted, because they are programmed to. However, He made us. Creatures that can defy Him, that in doing so prove that to defy Him is pointless.
Free will is the ultimate test of His infinite power (as well as the ultimate test of a person's character). "Can God create a rock so heavy, He can't lift it?" as the saying goes. Can God sacrifice all His power over us, and yet still bring us back to Him? Will we understand and accept the ultimate truth about existence, the 'meaning of life' so to speak? Can God prove He is God, without using His dominant power over us? That'll probably be up to us, we have free will after all.
That's the way I see it anyway.
NeoSaber
Renegade Map Maker at CnC Source
Animator/Compiler/Level Editor/Object Rigger/Programmer for Red Alert: A Path Beyond
|
|
|
|
| Re: Church of FSM [message #177693 is a reply to message #177658] |
Thu, 03 November 2005 14:42 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Crimson wrote on Thu, 03 November 2005 12:11 |
Then what role does God even have in your life? You don't pray to him, and you don't think he has a plan for you. All you concede at this point is that he may or may not know the future.
| Quote: |
Easy. it's the same reason why murderers are allowed to go free in the American justice system simply because a "right" of theirs has been violated. If you make exceptions for one person, the whole thing falls, or at least starts to fall, apart. If one persons "free will" is violated, then the entire system of free will fails, simply because we are no longer free. We have a forced set of rules imposed on us.
|
Easy? That's not much of an explanation. You've made a very interesting leap from rights violations to free will violations.
| Quote: |
The only reason I bring that up (at least for the purpose of this argument) is because you are stating that you KNOW God doesn't exist. That is all that I am challenging. I could care less if you believe that God doesn't exist, I could care less if you think that Satanism is "the way". That's your own choice.
Just don't claim to know things that you don't. At least not without backing it up with proof. And sorry, posting links about where the Christian religion got it wrong doesn't prove that God doesn't exist. It just proves where the Christian religion got it wrong.
|
I hope you're not implying that because I don't believe in God means I believe in Satan. You probably don't mean to imply that but to an outside observer, it sure would look like Moore-esque tactics. You don't believe in Santa, so I don't call you an asantaist. With that in mind, I'm not even technically an "atheist". I'm just normal. You don't believe in Thor, and neither do I. So are we athorists? No. In fact, once you understand why you don't believe in all the other deities that man has invented over the centuries, perhaps then you will understand why I don't believe in yours. Out of all those deities, I just believe in one less than you do, and somehow I'm the evil "atheist".
You say I can't claim to "know" there is no God. Maybe not by the definition you are pushing. But down to the very core of my being, with every bone in my body, I am absolutely sure there is no "God" as defined by ALL the major religions out there. Whatever or whoever started the Big Bang that created this universe has no bearing on the course of my life and has no influence or direction in the decisions I make. The Christian, Catholic, Muslim, and Greek gods all are equally fictional and ridiculous to me.
|
The role that God has in my life is that he exists. There is some power out there that we don't (and potentially can not) understand. He created and is the cause everything (even if he doesn't have a direct connection, ie. influencing the weather, sickness and disease, microevolution, etc.) and as such I acknowledge (or, more directly, believe) that he exists.
As for the leap from rights violations to free will violations: that was done because the principles of why they are there are similar to each other. Rights exist to keep us from taking advantage of others, while this is not the reason for free will, the result if they did not exist is similar to that of free will not existing. That being people would have nothing. We would be under a strict rule of someone who could dictate what we do as he pleases (be that God, or someone else).
And no, I'm not suggesting that you believe in Satan. All I'm doing is getting across that I don't care what you belive in, just don't suggest that you "know" the truth. Be that a belief for God's existance, or against God's existance. With your disbelief being from the "very core of your being", that tells me that you possess a very strong belief. However, that still doesn't mean that you know, wih an absolute 100% certainty (as that's is the minimum requirement for knowing) whether or not he exists.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Church of FSM [message #177705 is a reply to message #177685] |
Thu, 03 November 2005 15:12 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7427
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
| NeoSaber wrote on Thu, 03 November 2005 13:56 |
Warranto has tried a bit, but I figured I'd take a stab at it too....
|
This seems more directed at a believer than a non-believer. See, I believe that man created the concepts of "good" and "evil", pretty much based on the Golden Rule.
Some of the things God has "done" also seem pretty evil. Such as punishing man for eating the forbidden fruit, killed everyone in the big flood. Also, why is there an "old covenant" and a "new covenant" with God? Did he change his mind?
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Church of FSM [message #177726 is a reply to message #175124] |
Thu, 03 November 2005 16:20 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Created by God or man, good and evil (in simplist terms) is just a by-product of free will.
Someone had the freedom to act in a certain way, and the group didn't like it and deemd it evil. God, then saw how man was acting, and passed down a few rules, using what people at the time saw as good and evil, and made a few suggestions on how to make sure that we always acted in a "good" way.
As for the old and new testiment, while I'm not claiming that this is the correct reason, perhaps it wasn't God who changed, but man? Enough so that a new agreement had to be made so that it was more relevant to the times.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Church of FSM [message #177727 is a reply to message #177705] |
Thu, 03 November 2005 16:24 |
|
NeoSaber
Messages: 336
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Crimson wrote on Thu, 03 November 2005 17:12 |
This seems more directed at a believer than a non-believer. See, I believe that man created the concepts of "good" and "evil", pretty much based on the Golden Rule.
|
You asked how can a benevolent God exist if there is evil in the world. The question presumed the existence of God and therefore so did the answer.
| Crimson wrote on Thu, 03 November 2005 17:12 |
Some of the things God has "done" also seem pretty evil. Such as punishing man for eating the forbidden fruit, killed everyone in the big flood. Also, why is there an "old covenant" and a "new covenant" with God? Did he change his mind?
|
In a way you could say God changed His mind. I see it that He 'changed reality', to correct a human failing we were unable to repair ourselves. Like a parent will let a child make mistakes, to learn a lesson, they will also prevent a child from making a fatal mistake while they are still learning.
The change between the old covenant and new covenant centers entirely on Jesus, God come to earth to overcome sin. Prior to this event, you could make the argument that someone who turned away from God had no way of returning to Him. This would be indicated by God's 'harsh' method of dealing with extreme sins in the old testament. People that had completely turned their backs on God were a burden on those who followed God, without any potential benefit. They could not come back, and only served to turn the faithful against the creator.
With the introduction of Jesus, overcoming the human's inability to come back from oblivion, the new covenant was required as the reality of the old was no longer valid. Humans now had the potential to come back to God, no matter what they'd done in life and so the 'harsher' methods of the past had to be done away with. Like patching a game, a new set of rules were now in effect.
As to God seeming to do 'evil', like killing everyone in a flood, we need to look at a few different things. First, is killing by its very nature 'evil'? When God handed down the ten commandments He said "Thou shall not kill" (or a more accurate translation may be 'thou shall not murder'), not "Killing is wrong no matter what, even if I do it". He created the universe, and understands it to its very core. Animals, plants, etc all die eventually, this is written into their nature, by what created them. God understands why and when things must die, and takes appropriate action to that end. He told the rest of us not to interfere as we lack the knowledge to understand why something is alive to begin with, let alone when it should die.
NeoSaber
Renegade Map Maker at CnC Source
Animator/Compiler/Level Editor/Object Rigger/Programmer for Red Alert: A Path Beyond
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue May 07 02:54:42 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01356 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
