devils and that

[chrismythoi]

in the bible the term satan means 'adversary'. this is most clearly shown in the book of Job.
in the new testament, devils/evil spirits take on a more nefarious role, notably with the 'messianic secret' in mark's gospel. also in the eschatology of Revelation.

my question though is to what extent has paradise lost shaped modern understanding of evil and its 'spiritual' qualities. for me, it always seems strange that so many people believe in a perfect, perfectly loving god, who also created evil in the form of a powerful god like being.

[Wilde woman]

The standard argument goes God is perfectly good because he didn't intentionally create evil. Instead, in his infinite compassion, he let Lucifer (and everyone else) have free will. So Lucifer chose evil by turning on the unquestionable Good which is God. The onus falls on Lucifer and not God.

[JBI]

It's so shaped by Milton, that it is almost impossible to separate Milton's Satan from the real Satan, or from Biblical Satan. Our very picture of Satan seems to come from Milton, are very picture of Hell seems to come from Milton, are notions of the fall, and of Satan come from, in one way or another, Milton.

The Satan of Revelation, or the Lucifer of Isaiah seem very different than our modern understanding.

The problem I think though, is Paradise Lost is a lot denser than people take it to be, and as such, they sort of mis,or half-interpret it, and leave out the context behind the poem, and its objective, to "justify the ways of God to man." The Fortunate Fall is used then, not as a response to contemporary theology, as it was in Milton's time, but as a justification for wrongs in this world. The "free will" that Milton speaks about is completely different than what people now interpret "free will" to mean. They think it is a break from determinism, whereas I think Milton saw it as more of a way to repent, even when caught up in sinful action, and a way for redemption, which Satan in the text cannot achieve, because he so refuses to accept God.

[skasian]

I believe that satan exists in order to serve God.
Satan exists to temptate us during our lives in earth and the ones that are able to fight it off and seek God may identified as God's Children. I always thought that life in earth was a test, whether we are worth the weight of entering God's Kingdom.

When Jesus came down to earth, He was temptated three times by satan. The idea is that Jesus resisted all, providing us an insight, a meaning for Christians to follow the same.

It seems for a long some people see God vs satan and Good vs Evil as an infinite battle between the two. The fact is that God, all light and righteous won from the beginning of time, beginning of everthing, and that satan, all evil and darkness serves the good. For example a light bulb conquers over the darkness, and unmatchable in every way.

[kiki1982]

Theologists (and Catholic doctrine) hold the idea that (and Milton based Paradise Lost on that theory and just made a story out of it):

Satan, Lucifer and the other devils were originally created by God. They were not evil, but they were angels, as Micheal and Gabriel, for example. Yet, Lucifer started to question the authority of God, his Creator, and rebelled with a few, amongst which Satan, against the authority of God. God was so angry that he banished them out of Heaven. Yet, they chose Hell as their own realm upon which Satan dressed up in the snake and tempted Eve who tempted Adam (the pets of God).

Out of this, for me, follows that God didn't intend or create evil, but that it was forced upon Him. It would be logical for Satan to want people/souls to populate his kingdom with and so he tries to tempt people into damnation.

I do not believe that God can send devils to test the Faith in Him, although that is widely believed. It doesn't seem logic to me, as God would be insecure about His position? It is far more logic to me if Satan continuously competes with his Creator. Eternally, really, like total damnation on Satan's part. That would also be in concord with the cardinal sins that lead to eternal damnation: pride, envy, greed and wrath, all of which are present in Satan, being envious of God's position, being proud, being greedy and wanting to have the same position of authority and being angry or impatient as to his own position. Rebelling against his Creator was, for him, a manifestation of his extreme contempt for God and that leads to eternal damnation, hence his realm Hell that, since Dante has stood for that same state of contempt in which Satan or Lucifer found himself in.

Of course, God wins this battle continuously, because He is the final Being, the biggest, the Infinite, the Authority. Satan was, is and will always be a being created by God, and so always His subordinate, whatever happens.

That makes more sense than God testing us...
Jesus was not tested by His Father, but was tested by Satan out of contempt for His Father... By being able to condemn Jesus to eternal damnation (if Satan had succeeded), evil would have conquered God as His Son and Himself were at stake, and that would have sent the whole world into damnation, because God had sent His Son to sacrifice Him for the salvation of the world. The good always wins, because the Good is bigger than the bad...

[lupe]

Devils and demons were created at the same time - and in the same process - than gods. It couldn't be other way: the idea of a powerful "good" god would not have survived without that of a "bad" devil. The next step is for those humans who represent the various gods to tell us what is "good" and "bad" and the whole religious establishment is ready.

However, throughout the centuries, "Satan" or "demons" have also taken a different meaning: the one of "knowledge". This came naturally, with the progress of human sciences and civilization: according to those who see their power and influence diminish, "knowledge" is given by the devil to push people away from god. The more people ask questions, search, argument and emancipate themselves, the more likely is that they will stop rely on irrationals beliefs, superstitions and "faith".

[PoeticPassions]

So if you read Paradise Lost closely, it is interesting to note how God is represented, versus Satan. Satan employs beautiful rhetoric, as he is eloquent and grandiose in speech, whereas God's speech is quite pedestrian and dull. God exhibits vengeance (is this not a sin?) and is portrayed much like a Tyrant... where Satan is portrayed as a type of revolutionary. This epic poem cannot be removed from its time and place however-- it was written for a religious audience, and Milton himself was a believer... but he created a poetic Satan (if you look at Blake's works you can draw parallels, and Blake accuses Milton of being of the Devil's party, merely because he is a poet himself.) The Devil is active, he is energy, he is imagination.

Furthermore, the poem cannot be separated from the political environment of its time either. Milton critiques the English Parliament-- the monarchy-- in his works, and when you read through the parts where the devils get together and have a conference and voting, it is all to much akin to a parliamentary session. And in real life, the rebellion fails and the monarchy is reinstated (much like Satan's rebellion is bound to fail...)

Well there are many interpretations of this poem... I tend to choose the more Romantic view of Satan as the protagonist, and thus my view of these entities and spirituality is warped (then again I am an agnostic and do not believe in an actual physical Hell or Heaven anyway).

But I would say that at least in Milton's Paradise Lost, God is not a perfect being, and is often driven by his temperament, and even his vanity/narcissism (to cast out the one that dares to disobey him?). Whether Milton intended for him to come across this way or not, I am not sure (though I believe he did not), but I am convinced that Satan is the hero in this epic...

[kiki1982]

Devils and demons were created at the same time - and in the same process - than gods. It couldn't be other way: the idea of a powerful "good" god would not have survived without that of a "bad" devil. The next step is for those humans who represent the various gods to tell us what is "good" and "bad" and the whole religious establishment is ready.

However, throughout the centuries, "Satan" or "demons" have also taken a different meaning: the one of "knowledge". This came naturally, with the progress of human sciences and civilization: according to those who see their power and influence diminish, "knowledge" is given by the devil to push people away from god. The more people ask questions, search, argument and emancipate themselves, the more likely is that they will stop rely on irrationals beliefs, superstitions and "faith".

You have a good point there! Indeed, powerful 'good' wouldn't be able to be as good if there were no 'bad'.

Thinking of Faust, knowledge was indeed an important tool.

@ PoeticPassions:

You have a point as well. Satan is indeed the the protagonist. I would consider him so as well.
As to God in it. I suppose that for a public who starts to read Paradise Lost with a preconceived notion of God being right and Satan being wrong, and knowing the commandment 'you shall honour mother and father', that God doesn't need to say much and only does what is right in their eyes. He probably comes across now as vain and wanting to retain his position, because for us it is not natural that he would be entitled to the positionn whereas for readers then it would be only natural. Much like the political situation then and now: challenging the monarchy? Who does that? 'It is their divine right to be on the throne!' Whereas now, we just kick the king out when we feel like it since 1789...

[Pendragon]

Devils are fallen angels, such as Lucifer was in the beginning before time as we know it.

[DeadAsDreams]

I hardly believe that there is really such a thing as satan, at least in the popular incarnations of him. Satan to me seems like a way out for people; it wasn't me, it was satan. Rubbish. I've even heard people blame their math test scores on satan, proclaiming "I'm going to kill satan!" as if satan had anything to do with it. Satan, if such a being exists would be another manifestaion of God's eternal glory. He exists, but only because humans chose for him to exist. By eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, we, as beings of free will chose to be able to sin. The snake I believe is simply the budding sin in all of us, created by necessity, represented in our ability to have free will.

There is enough evil in people that we can do without satan quite handily. Satan to me, is simply the incaranation of the choice within all of us to choose sin.

[Pendragon]

Disbelief in something is no proof that it does or doesn't exist. I could say I don't believe in gravity, but that won't make me levitate...

[weltanschauung]

ironically, the belief in something doesnt make it true either. i can say i believe with all my heart that frankenstein god talks to me and tells me he loves me and that im his beloved child, along with my brothers, and that a cosmic jewish zombie, who is his own father, can make us live forever if we symbolically eat his flesh and telepathicaly tell him you accept him as your master, so that he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. i know, it makes perfect sense, but i could never be sure.

[Redzeppelin]

I hardly believe that there is really such a thing as satan, at least in the popular incarnations of him. Satan to me seems like a way out for people; it wasn't me, it was satan. Rubbish. I've even heard people blame their math test scores on satan, proclaiming "I'm going to kill satan!" as if satan had anything to do with it. Satan, if such a being exists would be another manifestaion of God's eternal glory. He exists, but only because humans chose for him to exist. By eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, we, as beings of free will chose to be able to sin. The snake I believe is simply the budding sin in all of us, created by necessity, represented in our ability to have free will.

1. Satan is not responsible for our choices, but he is guilty of making suggestions that are very appealing to the human nature that he is so well-acquainted with.

2. The math test thing is silly - but don't put it past the Bad Guy to use tiny things to put our lives into disarray. As CS Lewis writes (under the guise of Master Tempter Screwtape): "Murder is no better than cards if cards can do the trick."

3. Humans do not create reality; they can "create" their own idea of what reality is, but they can't create reality itself.




There is enough evil in people that we can do without satan quite handily. Satan to me, is simply the incaranation of the choice within all of us to choose sin.

We will do evil on our own because we are predisposed to do so; but Satan is in the mix because (as Milton suggests) he has a vested interest in destroying the creations God so loves.


ironically, the belief in something doesnt make it true either. i can say i believe with all my heart that frankenstein god talks to me and tells me he loves me and that im his beloved child, along with my brothers, and that a cosmic jewish zombie, who is his own father, can make us live forever if we symbolically eat his flesh and telepathicaly tell him you accept him as your master, so that he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. i know, it makes perfect sense, but i could never be sure.

1. You're correct - which puts both believer and non-believer on equal ground.

2. I'm not sure the "zombie" comment is necessary. You reduction of some of the principle tenants of Christianity is certainly witty, but it isn't really a fair representation of Christianity. I'm curious if you would present such a condescending run-down of Islam, Juddiasm, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc? If so, I'd be interested in seeing such wit turned on other beliefs which can certainly be no more credible than Christianity.

Unfortunately, much of what you wrote about Christianity is wrong.

[Lokasenna]

It may be a little pretentious of me to post this, but I wrote a little piece a while back for a pseudo-theological thingum I got involved in, arguing the case for "the debt we owe to Hell" - here goes nothing:

A few thoughts on the debt we owe to Hell.

Satan was the first democrat. In all creation, he was the first to rebel against hegemony and tyranny - indeed, the great hegemony! Of God Himself! The ineffable plan was exposed, a declaration in a world were disagreement and discord had never previously appeared, and Satan took it upon himself to disagree. How revolutionary - how human! Power to the masses, not just the One! The first ever example of something so important: not just discord, but creativity - the single greatest event, if only a change in the mind, in all the history of existence.

But how can this be so? Angels have no free will - Satan specifically rebelled because we mere humans were to possess it! I suggest that free will played no part in it, but was rather a mistake of God. This universe is governed by an absolute law that every action has an equal and opposite reaction; God has bound Himself - limited Himself - to a universe that requires an opposite for Him. As the sole embodiment of all-powerful benevolence, of necessity, there must be an equal and opposite power for malevolence.

Satan's choice, then, was illusionary. His rebellion was the product of a universal imperative that is born of God, and yet which contains God. Free will is not about acknowledging a choice, but allowing chaos to dictate that choice - to ignore the choice! The stimuli and consequences of the universe will always dictate the most fitting end to a choice - but we can ignore them! Show me the child, our essential self, that would not sacrifice half the world, all the world to save its mother! Our freedom is in the denial of rationality.

It is this denial that makes us such interesting creatures. Our creativity comes from our free will, and that comes from chaos. Heaven is perfection, and perfection, by its very definition is unchanging and eternal - creativity cannot add to perfection, for creativity is about changing the world, even in a minute way. Hell is torment, and chaos, and, most importantly, energy. The fuel of creativity is discord - without Hell, mankind could never have advanced. Hell can truly be said to hold "the mirror up to nature." The creative genius sees himself in Hell, the fantasy of it all! - and he creates!

Satan, because of his faults, was the first artist - genius! As creatures, as products of this world, we far more resemble him than our creator!


Well - what do you think? It is, if nothing else, a different opinion. A lot of this actually draws from William Blake's conception of Heaven and Hell - I strongly urge you to go away and read his "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell" - it is absolutely fantastic as a piece of poetry, and the philosophy and theology behind it is extremely intriguing as well.

[weltanschauung]

its wrong because you said so?

ah.

anyhow,
judaism, christianism, islamism, spiritism, ismssmsmsms, theyre all religions. religions are dualistic social hysteria. religions observe behaviors that occur in society, categorize them arbitrarily into expected/acceptable and forbidden/unacceptable and preach condemnation of some sort to the non-followers of the tyrany. and finally, validate this argument with the figure of a gigantic tyranic angry transparent person, who they named god after compiling a vast source of assembled fables gathered throughout centuries of reinforced mind control.

budhism, hinduism are philosophical systems. they observe the behaviors that occur in society, analise the consequences and rely on everyone's ability to judge on their own what is best for all.

this is what you said:
"1. Satan is not responsible for our choices, but he is guilty of making suggestions that are very appealing to the human nature that he is so well-acquainted with."


ok, so let me analise this.
god created us so that we could love him, according to skasian. alright, so here we are, and our sole purpose to be here is to love our maker, ok.
somehow, this evil groteske smelly horned malicious goat adversary popped out of the holy bosom and started ruining god's glorious kingdom of peace and love, for some reason, although no one can provide a sufficiently logical fundamentation to validate those events, which, according to them are historical and not metaphorical. everyone repeats that story although no one can point its source, because it's not in the bible.
so anyways... god, in his perfection, gave us the gift of freewill. however, if we do something "wrong", it is not our fault, really. it's the devil's fault because he's evil and he's constantly "tempting" us. he takes pleasure in that, because he knows us, and apparently we're evil too, although we were created as the image of god, who is infinitely good. ok.
nonetheless, i should never fear faltering upon troublesome roads, because god helps me when i need. he's perfect and good and loving. however, apparently, he cannot prevent me from the terrif(r)ying presence of his most superior creature, because he's evil and turned against his maker, god, the good guy.

ok so basically, this is the fundamental dogma of religions:
mankind, life is hard, but do not fear. there is someone who knows more than you do and is always watching and protecting you. so go on, and face these struggles, because you are not alone. however, watch out for this monster that lies in the shadows. he's sly and will try to destroy you. dont do anything wrong, because that one who knows everything will punish you someday.

whereas, it should be this:
mankind, you are on your own. life is hard and doesnt really make any sense, however, you should ponder upon your utility to the others, for you are all together and no one knows exactly what is going on. reflect about how you could make this place better, and always seek to do those things that would have a positive overall effect in case everyone else around you should do the same. if you succeed, congratulations, and keep up the good work. if you fail, try again until you get it right. most of all, mankind, think for yourself. and if someone grabs a sword and forces his will upon yours, fight back.


am i the crazy one? or are you.

[Tyler Self]

in the bible the term satan means 'adversary'. this is most clearly shown in the book of Job.
in the new testament, devils/evil spirits take on a more nefarious role, notably with the 'messianic secret' in mark's gospel. also in the eschatology of Revelation.

my question though is to what extent has paradise lost shaped modern understanding of evil and its 'spiritual' qualities. for me, it always seems strange that so many people believe in a perfect, perfectly loving god, who also created evil in the form of a powerful god like being.

The bolded part is not true at all, if it was it would make no sense. A loving god would not create evil so it would torment us.

I'm not saying God isn't good, i'm saying your concept of evil is incorrect. Evil is not a 'thing'. Evil is the absence of good, like darkness is the absence of light. Thus God couldn't create 'evil'.

[weltanschauung]

The bolded part is not true at all, if it was it would make no sense. A loving god would not create evil so it would torment us.

I'm not saying God isn't good, i'm saying your concept of evil is incorrect. Evil is not a 'thing'. Evil is the absence of good, like darkness is the absence of light. Thus God couldn't create 'evil'.


if god didnt create evil but he created the world and lucifer, who created evil? god's creator?
you dont even realise the screaming contradiction in that.
light and darkness are the same thing, differing only by intensity. and point of view.

[Tyler Self]

^^You are begging the question good sir.

I am saying evil is not a thing that is to be created. It is not tangible. It is the absence of good. It is the same as light. We don't have a thing called darkness. You can't give me a jar of darkness (or cold for that matter). You can only have darkness if you DO NOT have light. Darkness is not a thing, it is a concept.

God didn't create anything called evil. He created everything (..."and saw that it was good.."). The good in it disappeared because of sin.

[weltanschauung]

youre justifying a logical flaw with a materialistic attempt to elaborate a paradox of an abstract concept. good and evil are relative judgements of value, and they arent absolute concrete objects. and yes you can have a jar of darkness, sir, allow me to prove you wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

what you call god obviously didnt create evil, because good wasnt created as well, since those things are human judgements of value, and are not in any way absolute beings of existence in tangible reality. if im a general in war and i pray for god to protect my army, am i not being unfair, since my enemies are people too? and why would god protect me and not my enemy? why would he save me and not my enemy. how could i be right absolutely?
if there is no absolute right, then there is no absolute wrong, and both of those things are relative, varying in intensity according only to the one judging, by using subjective standards of value.

[Tyler Self]

youre justifying a logical flaw with a materialistic attempt to elaborate a paradox of an abstract concept. good and evil are relative judgements of value, and they arent absolute concrete objects. and yes you can have a jar of darkness, sir, allow me to prove you wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

Since i'm not a fan of semantics, I won't bother to continue. I think you know exactly what I am saying and just want to go on. With your idea, I could substitute "give me darkness" for "give me cold" and you would say to stick liquid nitrogen in the jar. That solves nothing.


what you call god obviously didnt create evil, because good wasnt created as well, since those things are human judgements of value, and are not in any way absolute beings of existence in tangible reality. if im a general in war and i pray for god to protect my army, am i not being unfair, since my enemies are people too? and why would god protect me and not my enemy? why would he save me and not my enemy. how could i be right absolutely?
if there is no absolute right, then there is no absolute wrong, and both of those things are relative, varying in intensity according only to the one judging.

While my argument is indeed based on my preconceived notion that good would be the 'thing' and evil would be its absence, it is not true that I am calling it a tangible thing. The tangibility of hot and light was to explain my reasoning.

The human judgement of value comes from the existence of God. It is also a preconceived idea to me (being a Christian) that God is good. I believe "good is what we call an absolute being of existence in tangible reality", because the good is God.

As for your war idea, read "The Kingdom of God is Within You" and you'll know my view of it.

[DeadAsDreams]

its wrong because you said so?

ah.

anyhow,
judaism, christianism, islamism, spiritism, ismssmsmsms, theyre all religions. religions are dualistic social hysteria. religions observe behaviors that occur in society, categorize them arbitrarily into expected/acceptable and forbidden/unacceptable and preach condemnation of some sort to the non-followers of the tyrany. and finally, validate this argument with the figure of a gigantic tyranic angry transparent person, who they named god after compiling a vast source of assembled fables gathered throughout centuries of reinforced mind control.

budhism, hinduism are philosophical systems. they observe the behaviors that occur in society, analise the consequences and rely on everyone's ability to judge on their own what is best for all.

this is what you said:
"1. Satan is not responsible for our choices, but he is guilty of making suggestions that are very appealing to the human nature that he is so well-acquainted with."


ok, so let me analise this.
god created us so that we could love him, according to skasian. alright, so here we are, and our sole purpose to be here is to love our maker, ok.
somehow, this evil groteske smelly horned malicious goat adversary popped out of the holy bosom and started ruining god's glorious kingdom of peace and love, for some reason, although no one can provide a sufficiently logical fundamentation to validate those events, which, according to them are historical and not metaphorical. everyone repeats that story although no one can point its source, because it's not in the bible.
so anyways... god, in his perfection, gave us the gift of freewill. however, if we do something "wrong", it is not our fault, really. it's the devil's fault because he's evil and he's constantly "tempting" us. he takes pleasure in that, because he knows us, and apparently we're evil too, although we were created as the image of god, who is infinitely good. ok.
nonetheless, i should never fear faltering upon troublesome roads, because god helps me when i need. he's perfect and good and loving. however, apparently, he cannot prevent me from the terrif(r)ying presence of his most superior creature, because he's evil and turned against his maker, god, the good guy.

ok so basically, this is the fundamental dogma of religions:
mankind, life is hard, but do not fear. there is someone who knows more than you do and is always watching and protecting you. so go on, and face these struggles, because you are not alone. however, watch out for this monster that lies in the shadows. he's sly and will try to destroy you. dont do anything wrong, because that one who knows everything will punish you someday.

whereas, it should be this:
mankind, you are on your own. life is hard and doesnt really make any sense, however, you should ponder upon your utility to the others, for you are all together and no one knows exactly what is going on. reflect about how you could make this place better, and always seek to do those things that would have a positive overall effect in case everyone else around you should do the same. if you succeed, congratulations, and keep up the good work. if you fail, try again until you get it right. most of all, mankind, think for yourself. and if someone grabs a sword and forces his will upon yours, fight back.


am i the crazy one? or are you.

I like you.

Still your conception of christianity is wholly based on the views the millions of yokels who seem to flourish within the context of religion preach.

To me, the devil is part of God's glory as much as the mountains or the sunset. He vindicated God's creation of a race of beings with free will. The devil isn't evil nor is he some trickster being floating around putting ugly thoughts in our heads. He is the vindicator of God's glory, just as we all vindicate the Glory of God. The role of Satan in our life's has been grossly exaggerated.

[weltanschauung]

Since i'm not a fan of semantics, I won't bother to continue. I think you know exactly what I am saying and just want to go on. With your idea, I could substitute "give me darkness" for "give me cold" and you would say to stick liquid nitrogen in the jar. That solves nothing.



While my argument is indeed based on my preconceived notion that good would be the 'thing' and evil would be its absence, it is not true that I am calling it a tangible thing. The tangibility of hot and light was to explain my reasoning.

The human judgement of value comes from the existence of God. It is also a preconceived idea to me (being a Christian) that God is good. I believe "good is what we call an absolute being of existence in tangible reality", because the good is God.

As for your war idea, read "The Kingdom of God is Within You" and you'll know my view of it.

heat is tangible because its a physical phenomenon and so is light, also tangible, especially because they are made of fotons who have mass. you are saying you cant have a jar of darkness and im saying you can, because there is this tangible object called dark matter, with mass. however, good and evil arent tangible because they are values and not objects, therefore you cant really define what they are, because they are submitted to the valued judgement of a person and they dont exist without these conditions, whereas light and heat do. the human judgement of value comes from men, because god, as far as reality is concerned, is nothing but a wishful thought, and thoughts arent tangible, according to the argument i've evolved, and since it isnt tangible it cant be absolutely observed therefore it only exists in a thought, which is a subjective object deprived of independent existence. so i believe i can declare god is a "being" that only exists in humankind's mind. otherwise, prove me wrong. or show me.

[Redzeppelin]

youre justifying a logical flaw with a materialistic attempt to elaborate a paradox of an abstract concept. good and evil are relative judgements of value, and they arent absolute concrete objects. and yes you can have a jar of darkness, sir, allow me to prove you wrong:

Um..I'm no scientist, but dark energy and dark matter aren't the same as "darkness" itself. In both the articles you offered, "dark" is an adjective and not the noun - hence it is merely a descriptor of the thing it preceeds, rather than the thing itself.


what you call god obviously didnt create evil, because good wasnt created as well, since those things are human judgements of value, and are not in any way absolute beings of existence in tangible reality.

What we call "God" is the source of all Life and good in the universe. Tyler is correct in that evil is both an absence of good and a distortion of it as well. Evil is parasitic in nature - it has no existence of itself - it is created when a rational creature exercises its free will (a gift of God) to choose what is not God.

Good and evil are not random human values because to lower them to that status is to pave the way for horrific atrocities. We cannot be the definers of "good" and "evil" because our selfish, self-interested selves will twist, massage, and spin our conception of morality until evil becomes "good."

Good is that which is contradictory to God's character.



if there is no absolute right, then there is no absolute wrong, and both of those things are relative, varying in intensity according only to the one judging, by using subjective standards of value.

Completely problematic. Without an absolute standard, morality is up for grabs and it is only a matter of time before we descend into sterile pragmatism or "might makes right." Both end up victimizing society.

[lupe]

To put believers and non-believers on an “equal ground” is a famous trick to transfer the responsibility of proof from the one who believes that something exists to the other. We are all equals of course, but if one has a theory, he is the one who has to convince us – not us who has to convince him that his theory is wrong.

If I say to Redzeppelin that at that moment I have in my refrigerator a cream, which – if apply to my skin – will make me invisible, the least he will ask me is to prove it. And he would be right.

However, if I say to him that next to my bed I have a book that was written thousand years ago under the guidance of a powerful supreme power and establishes moral values for humanity, and those who don’t follow them will be tortured and burned in a place called Hell after their death, he won’t ask me for proofs.

But, hey, I forgot. God cannot be comprehended and we, humans, should not question his existence. Either we believe or not. We should be grateful for what we have – our own existence is somehow a proof that he exists...

[Redzeppelin]

To put believers and non-believers on an “equal ground” is a famous trick to transfer the responsibility of proof from the one who believes that something exists to the other. We are all equals of course, but if one has a theory, he is the one who has to convince us – not us who has to convince him that his theory is wrong.

What "theory"? Christianity isn't a "theory" - it is a system of belief. Beliefs and theories are not the same thing - but you knew that, right? We don't need to prove anything to anybody because God is not provable - and certainly not to the individual whose heart is not open to believing in God. I Corinthians 2:14 makes this plain:

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

God reveals Himself to those who love Him - but not in a way that science can measure. Just as you know when someone loves you - something that science also cannot measure or prove. Science cannot prove that your parents loved you, or that you love your spouse or children.


If I say to Redzeppelin that at that moment I have in my refrigerator a cream, which – if apply to my skin – will make me invisible, the least he will ask me is to prove it. And he would be right.

Certainly. But your example requires me to believe in something that physics suggests is impossible. Granted, a belief in God requires something similar, but there's a difference: the invisible cream has to have a cause - and there is no known cause on earth to produce such a thing. When Christianity asks you to accept the contents of the Bible, this is based upon the idea that behind the Bible's events is the cause of all things: God. Remember your Aristotle (yes, we "brainwashed" and "limited thinking" believers know how to read) from the Metaphysics - there can be no infinite regression - there is a cause for everything, and there must be an initiating cause that is self-existent (not caused by anything else). As such, the existence of the universe requires a cause because physics already tells us that matter is not eternal and that all things have a beginning.

Experience and knowledge tells me your invisible cream doesn't exist - but I could be wrong. Unfortunately, the same logic doesn't work with God because He exists beyond our limited 3 dimensions. We can't prove Him scientifically because we cannot access the realm within which He exists.


However, if I say to him that next to my bed I have a book that was written thousand years ago under the guidance of a powerful supreme power and establishes moral values for humanity, and those who don’t follow them will be tortured and burned in a place called Hell after their death, he won’t ask me for proofs.

Because there is a difference between the claims. One is in the existence of a material thing that the physics of the world denies. The other asks you to enter into relationship with the Being outside of this world that created it. Relationships aren't about "proof" and such - nobody conducts relationships like that and expects them to last. Christianity is about entering into a relationship with the Creator of the universe. He need not be proven - He will reveal Himself to those who seek Him - and at that point, He will be fully real to you. But not before. We don't demand that those we enter into relationship with "prove" to us ahead of time that they'll be a good friend or spouse. God won't do that either.


But, hey, I forgot. God cannot be comprehended and we, humans, should not question his existence. Either we believe or not. We should be grateful for what we have – our own existence is somehow a proof that he exists...

Oh you're quite free to question God's existence. He can handle that. If you've read the Bible closely, many of His servants questioned Him, challenged Him. See the book of Job. You're free to be discontent with what you have if you wish.

How else would you like to explain our existence that doesn't sound just as impossible as a divine being creating us?

[weltanschauung]

"Um..I'm no scientist, but dark energy and dark matter aren't the same as "darkness" itself. In both the articles you offered, "dark" is an adjective and not the noun - hence it is merely a descriptor of the thing it preceeds, rather than the thing itself."

it isnt? because you said so? youre trying to tell me darkness isnt an actual object, and is just a name (value) used to describe the absence of light, and im saying no, it is an actual object, and the core of its existence is dark energy. so youre saying dark energy isnt really dark energy, its just a name used to describe something that isnt light? http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/78.gif come on man.

"What we call "God" is the source of all Life and good in the universe. Tyler is correct in that evil is both an absence of good and a distortion of it as well. Evil is parasitic in nature - it has no existence of itself - it is created when a rational creature exercises its free will (a gift of God) to choose what is not God.

Good and evil are not random human values because to lower them to that status is to pave the way for horrific atrocities. We cannot be the definers of "good" and "evil" because our selfish, self-interested selves will twist, massage, and spin our conception of morality until evil becomes "good."

Good is that which is contradictory to God's character."


all life and good? define good here, but dont give me fiction, give me facts. and if god isnt the source of "bad", what is? satan? and what is the source of satan? contradictions contradictions. youre saying tyler is correct with what authority? who are you to define right and wrong? what you say doesnt mean a thing, youre just some guy, like the rest of us. you dont know anything.
youre saying evil is parasitic in nature, and now we're entering the world of poetry... what the hell are you talking about? "good" has no existence in itself either, its just a value, its not a thing.
you said "Good and evil are not random human values because to lower them to that status is to pave the way for horrific atrocities." which could be read as "good and evil arent the same thing otherwise christianity is absurd". well, now we're getting to the core of the problem.
"the consequences of a claim that something is true are entirely irrelevant to the issue of whether the claim is true" (steven goldberg)

the flaw is that you cant define "good', because its not an absolute value.
and dont give me this sentimental aproach. just think of it as a rational thing.

"Good is that which is contradictory to God's character."
oh give me a break. just go ahead and say "god is that which i have no idea."

[lupe]

We don't need to prove anything to anybody because God is not provable - and certainly not to the individual whose heart is not open to believing in God.

I know, of course. It’s the same conclusion of all discussions. How easy... We cannot prove, so we say that there is nothing to prove, because it’s beyond our comprehension and we will only find out when God chooses the time. Brilliant, but you realize that we have to conclude that there is no point for humans with only 3 dimensions to discuss...

Once they asked Bernard Russel what he responds to all those who claim that it’s vain to question the existence of God with his logic, because we cannot comprehend or understand God. He replied that, “if you’ve noticed, those people imply that we cannot understand, but somehow they can!” That’s exactly what you do when you write that “we cannot access the realm within which He exists”. In other words, we can not know anything, but ...eh... He exists!!!

[Pendragon]

2 Corinthians 11:14
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an ANGEL OF LIGHT.

So much for the smelly horned deamon image, derived by the Catholic Church to terrify people into believing their own dogma was correct. The more terrifing the image of evil, the worse people fear it. That's why HP Lovecraft was such an enduring horror writer. The Mystos he created is one of blinding terror.

[Redzeppelin]

it isnt? because you said so? youre trying to tell me darkness isnt an actual object, and is just a name (value) used to describe the absence of light, and im saying no, it is an actual object, and the core of its existence is dark energy. so youre saying dark energy isnt really dark energy, its just a name used to describe something that isnt light? http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/78.gif come on man.

No, it's not. That's why I qualified my statement by admitting that I'm no expert. I said nothing about the nature of dark energy. I was talking about darkness itself. The word in and of itself refers to the lack of light - not the presence of an actual thing. I gave an observation based upon experience. Darkness happens because light goes away. Darkness isn't a force that drives the light away from the earth. I won't pursue this because I'm out of my element, but I think your point is kind of stretched in terms of credibility. "Dark" describes the character of the matter and energy - "darkness" is the characteristic of something without light.



all life and good? define good here, but dont give me fiction, give me facts.

God and Christianity aren't about "facts" - you've apparently not read the Bible closely, and if you have, you've not understood it. The Bible is about the character of God - a being who wishes to be in intimate relationship with us.

God establishes what "good" is - but you want "facts" - can you provide me "facts" as to what good is? I'd certainly like to hear your "facts" about what good is - because from my understanding, greater minds than ours have been pondering that question for quite some time and they are not in agreement. You speak as if you know "Good" or could recognize it, so let's hear your factual definition of good.


and if god isnt the source of "bad", what is? satan? and what is the source of satan? contradictions contradictions.

Bad/evil comes from choosing that which is not God. God is the source of all good in the universe; that which is contradictory to his character is bad. God created Satan, but He gave Satan free will and Satan chose to try and exalt himself by making himself - a created being - equal to God (the uncreated being). No contradictions that I can see.



youre saying tyler is correct with what authority? who are you to define right and wrong? what you say doesnt mean a thing, youre just some guy, like the rest of us. you dont know anything.

But you certainly speak as if YOUR opinion is authoritative. Why is that so? Why is my opinion worth nothing while yours - "some girl" - is supposed to carry any weight whatsoever?

I don't define right and wrong - I pass on what the Bible and my experience as a Christian has taught me it is.

Umm..to say I don't know "anything" is rather presumptuous, don't you think? I know enough to be having a discussion with you. And, only God really knows what I know. Should I assume you're speaking "factually" when you say I know "nothing"? To quote you "don't give me fiction, give me facts!"


youre saying evil is parasitic in nature, and now we're entering the world of poetry... what the hell are you talking about? "good" has no existence in itself either, its just a value, its not a thing.

Is your definition of evil any better? Evil is an absence of good or a distortion of it. What's so difficult about that to understand, so objectionable that you refuse to entertain it as a possibility?


you said "Good and evil are not random human values because to lower them to that status is to pave the way for horrific atrocities." which could be read as "good and evil arent the same thing otherwise christianity is absurd". well, now we're getting to the core of the problem.
"the consequences of a claim that something is true are entirely irrelevant to the issue of whether the claim is true" (steven goldberg)

Not sure what the point is here.


the flaw is that you cant define "good', because its not an absolute value.
and dont give me this sentimental aproach. just think of it as a rational thing.

I'm not giving you a "sentimental" approach. My belief system establishes God as the standard by which good is established. Nothing sentimental about that.


"Good is that which is contradictory to God's character."
oh give me a break. just go ahead and say "god is that which i have no idea."

But saying that would be a lie. I do have plenty of ideas about God because the Bible - the revelation of his character - tells me plenty about who he is.

What I don't understand is the shrill nature of your reply. I'm just expressing an opinion and you seem really bugged that I have one that you don't agree with or don't understand.


I know, of course. It’s the same conclusion of all discussions. How easy... We cannot prove, so we say that there is nothing to prove, because it’s beyond our comprehension and we will only find out when God chooses the time. Brilliant, but you realize that we have to conclude that there is no point for humans with only 3 dimensions to discuss...

What's "easy" is your dismissal of what others believe because you can't access it. Your failure to understand doesn't establish reality. You may not comprehend the physics of a black hole, but that doesn't mean that those physics aren't real. God is not some "obseravable" phenomenon in the universe that we can just go find if we wish. By very definition as a Being who can create the universe with his voice, God exists beyond our ability to find, examine, and measure him. Your stubborn insistence that we or he prove his existence is beyond absurd, and even a little childish in my opinion. There are plenty of things that you believe that you have no factual "evidence" to support. Life is like that. Very little of what we believe to be true can be factually verified or personally observed. Since you didn't see Lincoln assassinated, then how do you know it happened? What - scholars/historians wrote it down? It's a conspiracy, that's what it is - Lincoln never existed...I mean, come on - once we do this "facts - only facts" game, everything can be brought into doubt.


Once they asked Bernard Russel what he responds to all those who claim that it’s vain to question the existence of God with his logic, because we cannot comprehend or understand God. He replied that, “if you’ve noticed, those people imply that we cannot understand, but somehow they can!” That’s exactly what you do when you write that “we cannot access the realm within which He exists”. In other words, we can not know anything, but ...eh... He exists!!!

You're oversimplifying, and Bertrand Russel was a mathematician - not a theologian, so I forgive his misunderstanding of God.

I have no access to the realm of God - wherever he's at I can't see Him or heaven. What I do understand is that you too can understand who he is, but only if your heart is in the right place. Like any relationship, if you don't seek God with the right attitude, he won't reveal himself to you. It's that simple. He doesn't accept demands from those who only seek to attack him, disprove him, or interrogate him. He is interested in a love relationship with his creatures - and this includes you. But he won't force himself on anybody, and will only make himself known to you when you're ready. No being on planet earth would reveal him/herself to you if you approached him/her as you attempt to approach God - "Prove you exist! Prove you love me! Prove to me that your feelings are real!"

[lupe]

I surely don’t understand many things in this world and I’m eager to learn more. That’s why I like research, education, science, ARGUMENTS. On the other side, you believe that you do understand, that you have “put your heart in the right place”, that you adopted “the right attitude” and therefore god was revealed to you. And his existence is as certain as Lincoln’s assassination. Now, this is childish, my friend...

Which bring us exactly to what Brenard Russel said. We cannot understand – you can. Now, it’s of course awkward that you dismissed the mathematicians for being able to understand god (I never thought that only theologians are!). But I’m sure that Russel can finally rest in peace now that you forgave him.

[Redzeppelin]

I surely don’t understand many things in this world and I’m eager to learn more. That’s why I like research, education, science, ARGUMENTS. On the other side, you believe that you do understand, that you have “put your heart in the right place”, that you adopted “the right attitude” and therefore god was revealed to you. And his existence is as certain as Lincoln’s assassination. Now, this is childish, my friend...

Which bring us exactly to what Brenard Russel said. We cannot understand – you can. Now, it’s of course awkward that you dismissed the mathematicians for being able to understand god (I never thought that only theologians are!). But I’m sure that Russel can finally rest in peace now that you forgave him.


1. Where did I indicate that I personally have "the right attitude" or that "my heart is in the right place"? I simply have accepted that there is a God and that He is in control, not I. I know what I know (which isn't much) about God because I have voluntarily entered into relationship with Him. I'm not perfect, I still sin, but I have chosen to surrender control of my life to He who knows better than I. Those who enter into relationship with God (by very nature of how relationships work) know more about Him than those who aren't in relationship with Him. That's hard to understand? Isn't that how it works here in the REAL WORLD (to borrow your phrasing)?

2. Tell me, why is that so-called "open minded" and "free thinking" and "enlightened" people such as yourself have such a difficult time engaging in a conversation with a believer without being condescending? Is that a charateristic of being so much more versed in reality - that you're patronizing to others? If so, then I suppose I'm glad to count myself amoung the childish and brainwashed individuals you seem to think us to be.

[weltanschauung]

No, it's not. That's why I qualified my statement by admitting that I'm no expert. I said nothing about the nature of dark energy. I was talking about darkness itself. The word in and of itself refers to the lack of light - not the presence of an actual thing. I gave an observation based upon experience. Darkness happens because light goes away. Darkness isn't a force that drives the light away from the earth. I won't pursue this because I'm out of my element, but I think your point is kind of stretched in terms of credibility. "Dark" describes the character of the matter and energy - "darkness" is the characteristic of something without light.

"weltanschauung, i dont know why youre wrong, i dont have any arguments to prove my statements, but i know youre wrong."
youre saying dark describes the character of the matter and energy, but youre saying that that type of matter and energy arent dark. im telling you, darkness is a phenomenon just like light, for dark matter and dark energy emanate darkness, youre just looking at the word in a poetic way. go read stephen hawkins or something.


God and Christianity aren't about "facts" - you've apparently not read the Bible closely, and if you have, you've not understood it. The Bible is about the character of God - a being who wishes to be in intimate relationship with us.

God establishes what "good" is - but you want "facts" - can you provide me "facts" as to what good is? I'd certainly like to hear your "facts" about what good is - because from my understanding, greater minds than ours have been pondering that question for quite some time and they are not in agreement. You speak as if you know "Good" or could recognize it, so let's hear your factual definition of good.

oooh ok. god establishes what "good" is, and that is what? what is it? why are you going around in circles instead of just defining the term. define it for me, please. youre asking me now to give you facts about whatever, youre trying to turn this towards me because you cant answer it, which is what ive been trying to get you to do. the pilar of my argumentation is that good and evil are relative terms, plastic and malleable, that they dont have a definition or a precise meaning, therefore they are lose terms that arent defineable, but they have a fundamental value attached to them due to subjective judgement, which is not by any means an absolute truth, since people have limited comprehension.



Bad/evil comes from choosing that which is not God. God is the source of all good in the universe; that which is contradictory to his character is bad. God created Satan, but He gave Satan free will and Satan chose to try and exalt himself by making himself - a created being - equal to God (the uncreated being). No contradictions that I can see.


is this how you want to fundament your counter-argumentation? "that which is not god" isnt a precise term. if you want to use those terms, you have to define them. "god is the source of all good in the universe" isnt a precise statement, because you also havent defined what do you mean by "good".
and if god created satan and satan "chose to try and exalt himself by making himself equal to god", that is still saying god is also satan, because if god is the world, and by that i mean all things experienced through the phenomena provided by our active presence in tangible reality, then god is the source of satan, and satan is also god. how can something that isnt god exist in god, which is the world, so, speaking as if you were 5 years old, how can satan not be god if he's inside god?


But you certainly speak as if YOUR opinion is authoritative. Why is that so? Why is my opinion worth nothing while yours - "some girl" - is supposed to carry any weight whatsoever?

I don't define right and wrong - I pass on what the Bible and my experience as a Christian has taught me it is.


its very authoritative to say "i dont know what is truth"? i beg you pardon, sir.
my opinion is worth the same as yours, which is nothing, so you have no authority whatsoever to say what is right or wrong. i am asking you valid questions and giving you the core of my uncertainty, but you, instead of defining your terms, keep revolving around the same unexplained justification and discrediting the validity of my arguments, which are simply questioning your definitions instead of attempting to redefine them.



Umm..to say I don't know "anything" is rather presumptuous, don't you think? I know enough to be having a discussion with you. And, only God really knows what I know. Should I assume you're speaking "factually" when you say I know "nothing"? To quote you "don't give me fiction, give me facts!"

Is your definition of evil any better? Evil is an absence of good or a distortion of it. What's so difficult about that to understand, so objectionable that you refuse to entertain it as a possibility?

you dont know anything at all, youre just a man. sorry to break your bubble there.
i dont have a definition for evil, i dont know what it is, ive been trying to get that out of you since you seem to have it all precisely measured.
you say "evil is the absence of good or a distortion of it", DUUUUH, but what the hell is that supposed to mean? if you say 'light is that which is not darkness", yeah sure, youve said what light is, havent you? um, NO. if you ask me the definition of light i'll tell you 'it's fotons in movement, and the brightness of it is due to the energy released while an electron jumps from one atomic layer to a less energetic one", there, i gave you a precise definition, now you go and do that with "god", "good' and "bad". can you do that for me? quit going round and round, youre not confusing me, dude.


Not sure what the point is here.

duhhh. i know you dont get the point, and that is why we're having this silly argument, which isnt taking us anywhere, but the replies are just getting longer and longer although no significant progress has been made.



I'm not giving you a "sentimental" approach. My belief system establishes God as the standard by which good is established. Nothing sentimental about that.

But saying that would be a lie. I do have plenty of ideas about God because the Bible - the revelation of his character - tells me plenty about who he is.

What I don't understand is the shrill nature of your reply. I'm just expressing an opinion and you seem really bugged that I have one that you don't agree with or don't understand.


well maybe youre just looking at this as some silly rethoric game, in which you state your "opinion", and we both duel about who knows more.
well, im trying to find out what reality is, i could care less about anyone's opinions, i want truth. so maybe you should save your english to argue with a fellow opinionated person, so that you can fill more 150 pages of circular arguments that dont say anything, just "opinions".




What's "easy" is your dismissal of what others believe because you can't access it. Your failure to understand doesn't establish reality. You may not comprehend the physics of a black hole, but that doesn't mean that those physics aren't real. God is not some "obseravable" phenomenon in the universe that we can just go find if we wish. By very definition as a Being who can create the universe with his voice, God exists beyond our ability to find, examine, and measure him. Your stubborn insistence that we or he prove his existence is beyond absurd, and even a little childish in my opinion. There are plenty of things that you believe that you have no factual "evidence" to support. Life is like that. Very little of what we believe to be true can be factually verified or personally observed. Since you didn't see Lincoln assassinated, then how do you know it happened? What - scholars/historians wrote it down? It's a conspiracy, that's what it is - Lincoln never existed...I mean, come on - once we do this "facts - only facts" game, everything can be brought into doubt.


he isnt? so the world is something "apart" from god, and he's a gigantic transparent person who exists inside this infinite unkown thing/place and goes around looking for pure virgins to impregnate or lepers to cure, is that what god is? its comical that you say that im trying to get you to prove me that god exists, because i never said i didnt know god. my argument here is on your (and by that i mean christian) definition of what god is, and subsequently "good", "evil", blah blah blah.



I have no access to the realm of God - wherever he's at I can't see Him or heaven. What I do understand is that you too can understand who he is, but only if your heart is in the right place. Like any relationship, if you don't seek God with the right attitude, he won't reveal himself to you. It's that simple. He doesn't accept demands from those who only seek to attack him, disprove him, or interrogate him. He is interested in a love relationship with his creatures - and this includes you. But he won't force himself on anybody, and will only make himself known to you when you're ready. No being on planet earth would reveal him/herself to you if you approached him/her as you attempt to approach God - "Prove you exist! Prove you love me! Prove to me that your feelings are real!"


im sorry you feel that way. i dont feel any distance from my maker, i have a very little comprehension of what and how he is, but i know i am him (how could i be anything else?), and hes in me; the realm of god is life, and he IS all around.
"He doesn't accept demands from those who only seek to attack him, disprove him, or interrogate him." <- this is you talking, not god, man. its your voice there.

[QUOTE = redzeppelin]"Prove you exist! Prove you love me! Prove to me that your feelings are real!"[QUOTE]

you fail, man.

7 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened.

now you can go use the skasian argument and acuse me of saying "random disconnected things" just because you dont understand them.

[Redzeppelin]

go read stephen hawkins or something.

so, speaking as if you were 5 years old

i beg you pardon, sir.
my opinion is worth the same as yours, which is nothing

you dont know anything at all, youre just a man. sorry to break your bubble there.

DUUUUH, but what the hell is that supposed to mean?

duhhh. i know you dont get the point, and that is why we're having this silly argument, which isnt taking us anywhere


well maybe youre just looking at this as some silly rethoric game,

i could care less about anyone's opinions

so maybe you should save your english to argue with a fellow opinionated person, so that you can fill more 150 pages of circular arguments that dont say anything, just "opinions".

blah blah blah.

you fail, man.

now you can go use the skasian argument and acuse me of saying "random disconnected things" just because you dont understand them.

*sigh*

Why would anyone want to continue a conversation with this kind of attitude?

OK - I haven't been clear. Excuse me.

Good is recognizable in most cultures as things like love, loyalty, compassion, sacrifice, courage, family, work, play, generosity, charity, fidelity, justice and mercy.

Evil is recognizable in most cultures as murder, rape, theft, lying, betrayal, infidelity, selfishness, dishonesty, manipulation, jealousy, rage, laziness.

Those are the short lists. Few cultures discourage the first list, and few cultures value the second list.

That's about all I feel like saying right now because life is too short to spend it arguing with an angry and condescending young woman. Sorry - it's clear your intelligent - but you're not very patient, and I've got better things to do than listen to you patronize me when I'm doing the best that I can.

When you've got the time and patience to continue the conversation, let me know. Otherwise, I'm just too tired to wade through your condescension in order to pursue this discussion. You may call this a "forfeit" if you feel like it.

[lupe]

1. Where did I indicate that I personally have "the right attitude" or that "my heart is in the right place"? I simply have accepted that there is a God and that He is in control, not I. I know what I know (which isn't much) about God because I have voluntarily entered into relationship with Him. I'm not perfect, I still sin, but I have chosen to surrender control of my life to He who knows better than I. Those who enter into relationship with God (by very nature of how relationships work) know more about Him than those who aren't in relationship with Him. That's hard to understand? Isn't that how it works here in the REAL WORLD (to borrow your phrasing)?

2. Tell me, why is that so-called "open minded" and "free thinking" and "enlightened" people such as yourself have such a difficult time engaging in a conversation with a believer without being condescending? Is that a charateristic of being so much more versed in reality - that you're patronizing to others? If so, then I suppose I'm glad to count myself amoung the childish and brainwashed individuals you seem to think us to be.


All these expressions come from your posts. In the real world, you cannot enter in relationship with something that we humans have created (for very good reasons maybe). This can only happen in a spiritual world that you have chosen to believe in, and you have all the right to do so.

As for condescending, you are the one who first used the words “childish” and “brainwashed”. Please check before you used it instead of answer to the substance of the post.

[Redzeppelin]

All these expressions come from your posts. In the real world, you cannot enter in relationship with something that we humans have created (for very good reasons maybe). This can only happen in a spiritual world that you have chosen to believe in, and you have all the right to do so.

Your primary error is the idea that we created God. That's absurd. We can debate the real world if you want, but it won't get us anywhere. All individuals start from a fundamental presupposition as to the nature of reality and then base their idea of reality based upon that. You base is naturalism, mine is Christianity. From each of those we construct our positions. You think yours is more convincing because it's based on measurements and observations. I'm OK with that.


As for condescending, you are the one who first used the words “childish” and “brainwashed”. Please check before you used it instead of answer to the substance of the post.

Those terms are my interpretations of the general attitude I receive. They're fair and accurate.

[weltanschauung]

*sigh*

Why would anyone want to continue a conversation with this kind of attitude?

OK - I haven't been clear. Excuse me.

Good is recognizable in most cultures as things like love, loyalty, compassion, sacrifice, courage, family, work, play, generosity, charity, fidelity, justice and mercy.

Evil is recognizable in most cultures as murder, rape, theft, lying, betrayal, infidelity, selfishness, dishonesty, manipulation, jealousy, rage, laziness.

Those are the short lists. Few cultures discourage the first list, and few cultures value the second list.

That's about all I feel like saying right now because life is too short to spend it arguing with an angry and condescending young woman. Sorry - it's clear your intelligent - but you're not very patient, and I've got better things to do than listen to you patronize me when I'm doing the best that I can.

When you've got the time and patience to continue the conversation, let me know. Otherwise, I'm just too tired to wade through your condescension in order to pursue this discussion. You may call this a "forfeit" if you feel like it.


the words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart; his words were softer than oil, yet they were drawn swords.

(better to be true than to be false.)

[Redzeppelin]

the words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart; his words were softer than oil, yet they were drawn swords.

(better to be true than to be false.)

I like the quotation. Not sure I get the relevance. Not sure I get the parenthetical statement either - which probably means that much of what you're saying is going over my head and it was wise for me to bail out before I made an even worse fool of myself.

[weltanschauung]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFtXW7veUnc

[blazeofglory]

What we call devil is part of us