Does a Good God exclude the possibility of a Bad World?

[Christian]

It seems to me that people use this bad world as an excuse to disbelieve in a good God, but does a bad world necessitate the absence of a good God?

I don't think it's reasonable

[Sapphire]

I guess the reasoning behind it lies in God's omnipotence.

God is omnipotent - God is thus capable of everything - God is capable of defeating evil.

If God is Good, why does he allow evil to exist? Why does he let the world suffer? Why doesn't he just bring Heaven to earth and be done with it?

I don't say this is right, I don't say omnipotence means that God is capable of everything, I just say that I think this might be the reasoning behind using the Bad World as an argument to claim the non-existence of a Good God.

[Christian]

Yes that would definately be the reason, but does that nature of God necessitate that he change the world? What if his good nature were compromised in destroying all evil? perhaps there is a greater good to be achieved in allowing it to run its course.

Its just as though if you and I and everyone on this board lived in a perfect world and I was God(its not perfect because of that, but for arguments sake...) and you decided to rebel against my authority. You assembled the people of the board together and conspired against me, telling all sorts of lies about my nature. Would I then prove myself true and good by destroying you?

Perhaps evil needs to run its course to show the goodness of God's nature

[Sapphire]

In your example:
No. But you would proof* yourself true and good by destroying the evil in me.
Or maybe, if you think "destroy" and "good" don't go together, by making me see rebellion is bad, BEFORE I go about and kill and plunder and rape and whatever else you can imagine.

I can see the idea of opposites you use: for good to be truly good, we must see what truly bad is like. I just don't see why this has to be the case. We have the gift of imagination, we can imagine what bad is like without the world to really be that bad.
And after all, if we're talking about a Good God - why can't he just be good without us having to realise he is being Good? Do we really need to be thankful - can't we just live in a Good world without knowing how Good it is?
There is of course always the possibility that this is the Best of all possible Worlds... I highly doubt it though.

It reminds me of Gabriel in the movie Constantine. That character (in my interpretation of the movie) wanted evil to rule the land, so more people would turn to God...

[Gabriel holds Constantine helpless]
Gabriel: You're handed this precious gift, right? Each one of you granted redemption from the Creator - murderers, rapists, and molesters - all of you, you just have to repent, and God takes you into His bosom. In all the worlds in all the universe, no other creature can make such a boast, save man. It's not fair.
[leans closer]
Gabriel: If sweet, sweet God loves you so, then I will make you worthy of His love. I've been watching for a long time. It's only in the face of horror that you truly find your nobler selves. And you can be so noble. So, I'll bring you pain, I'll bring you horror, so that you may rise above it. So that those of you who survive this reign of hell on earth will be worthy of God's love.
John Constantine: Gabriel, you're insane!
Ok, maybe not exactly... but that is how the last scene struck me to be: Gabriel choosing to help evil to make God more popular...

*not sure, proof or prove :confused:

[JBI]

Maybe it isn't reasonable. However, it has nothing to do with literature either.

[Sapphire]

There are enough writers and poets who have touched directly/indirectly on this subject. But I guess you can say that of anything - and saying this would make anything literature would be unreasonable...

OK, it is not stated here in a way that it would have something to do with literature. And this is a literature forum, thus... http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/PicturesToLinkTo/Smiley/Nords%20smileys/tapedshut.gif

[verum]

Well God did destroy the human race except for Noah and his family because the world was growing too evil. The world is the way it is because we are given free choice to be the way we want to be. It is possible that there must be a breaking point because there was before.

God is indeed a good God, but I dont think that is a valid argument for the evil world in which we live. Not at all.

I agree with Sapphire in that evil is a way to put more emphasis on God, simply because there must be polar opposites that reflect each other. We think the world is bad because we have a good God, but would we feel the same way if we did not believe in a God? Or if we belived in an evil God? Could that be possible?

[Redzeppelin]

Well God did destroy the human race except for Noah and his family because the world was growing too evil. The world is the way it is because we are given free choice to be the way we want to be. It is possible that there must be a breaking point because there was before.

God is indeed a good God, but I dont think that is a valid argument for the evil world in which we live. Not at all.

I agree with Sapphire in that evil is a way to put more emphasis on God, simply because there must be polar opposites that reflect each other. We think the world is bad because we have a good God, but would we feel the same way if we did not believe in a God? Or if we belived in an evil God? Could that be possible?

I disagree very much with the "necessity of evil" argument - that position makes evil necessary, and I do not believe it is. The only "necessary" thing in existence needs to be God - everything else (evil included) is unnecessary. Evil is a consequence of our free will. Simply eliminating it won't work in God's plan. If God is good - as the Bible asserts Him to be, then it follows that there must be a reason He allows it to exist. And, this is something we should be greatful for, for if God simply eliminated all evil then all of us would cease to exist; by God's pure and holy standard, we are all sinners. That's part of the catch. Those who insist that God eliminate all evil must have the audacity to assume that they are exempt from that classification entirely. How can that be?

I do not think evil needs to exist for me to appreciate good; obviously, though, because evil does exist, it does tend to heighten our awareness of good, and by contrast, to increase its value - but I don't think good needs evil in order to be understood.

[jakobmuller]

Anyone ever read A Clockwork Orange?

[billyjack]

but I don't think good needs evil in order to be understood.

prove it, please

[grotto]

Why do you assume God is a separate entity from you or the rest of the world for that matter? An entity that some how will set everything all right?

In a total view, everything is as it needs to be and adding valuation and dualism to the mix is what creates the debate. You can not have good with out its opposite evil, just as you can’t have black without white or wet without dry. To pick only one proves the definition and existence of the other. To defend one, immediately makes you acknowledge the other.

So if there is a “good” God in your eyes, then there is also it’s opposite, a “bad” God.

[Mathor]

I do not think evil needs to exist for me to appreciate good; obviously, though, because evil does exist, it does tend to heighten our awareness of good, and by contrast, to increase its value - but I don't think good needs evil in order to be understood.

I completely disagree. Without evil you CANNOT appreciate good.

[Lynne Fees]

It seems to me that people use this bad world as an excuse to disbelieve in a good God, but does a bad world necessitate the absence of a good God?

I don't think it's reasonable

Not if bad entered the world due to Satans' fall from grace and man & woman's desire to follow Satan to achieve their desire to be their own god. At that point, God gave his creation what they "wanted," that is, a world system of self-actualization. Hence, death, sickness, misery, sadness, etc. God also gave us a savior, and the following promise:
Romans 8:28 "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose."

[MissScarlett]

God gave man free will. God allows man to choose evil, if that's what he wants. It's not God who created evil, it's not God who perpetuates evil, but man by choosing it over good.

[jakobmuller]

I definitely think so. Think about it. What good would summer be if you hadn't been in school all year? It would just be more of the same. It's the concept of yin and yang. A hot shower would just get boring and steamy if you hadn't ever been in the cold to feel the contrast.

[JBI]

Bitter-Sweet by George Herbert
Ah, my dear angry Lord,
Since thou dost love, yet strike;
Cast down, yet help afford;
Sure I will do the like.

I will complain, yet praise;
I will bewail, approve;
And all my sour-sweet days
I will lament and love.

[jakobmuller]

i am a bit confused to tell the truth...

define "bad world"

does that just mean our world having evil thrown in there with good or.... a separate world that's all evil? other than hell?

[Redzeppelin]

I completely disagree. Without evil you CANNOT appreciate good.

So tell me, do I first need to whack you with a 2x4 for you to appreciate the goodness of a hug or kiss? Do you need to eat a piece of rotting cheese in order to appreciate the taste of chocolate? Really? Must I yell at you first so that you can appreciate a whisper in your ear?

Do babies need to eat sour things so that they'll appreciate the sweet? Must you be abused before you can understand the beauty of being loved?

Really? Really? Do we only understand by contrast? Nothing out there is good or bad IN AND OF ITSELF without having to be evaluated in contrast to something else?

[blazeofglory]

This is a very intriguing question, and of course God is over and above all these worldly attributes.

God is not an entity we associate attributes like good or bad, and of course God remains untouched by all these things.

Our understandings about God are based on what we read in books or they have their roots in what our parents have told us and it does not go beyond this periphery at all.
In fact it is hard to describe God, and we human beings are subject to angers, joys and the like and to try to understand God from this perspective is really a wrong course.

[jakobmuller]

So tell me, do I first need to whack you with a 2x4 for you to appreciate the goodness of a hug or kiss? Do you need to eat a piece of rotting cheese in order to appreciate the taste of chocolate? Really? Must I yell at you first so that you can appreciate a whisper in your ear?

Do babies need to eat sour things so that they'll appreciate the sweet? Must you be abused before you can understand the beauty of being loved?

Really? Really? Do we only understand by contrast? Nothing out there is good or bad IN AND OF ITSELF without having to be evaluated in contrast to something else?

not solely by contrast, but it is a huge factor if it is there. It is a way to compare things against each other and evaluate them on a personal level.

The 2x4 example doesn't work anyways lol

[Redzeppelin]

not solely by contrast, but it is a huge factor if it is there. It is a way to compare things against each other and evaluate them on a personal level.

The 2x4 example doesn't work anyways lol

Bad/evil accentuates our appreciation of good, but it does not define it. To give it such weight is to suggest that it is as equally valid and necessary as good. That simply cannot be. As well, to argue thusly would also put an end to those arguments people wish to put forth as to the problem with God not eradicating evil from this world; if it's equally valid and necessary, why should He do so?

[jakobmuller]

Another thing is that "good" and "bad" are such relative terms. They basically lie only on a personal level, and how we interpret them.

We have no universal measurement of good and bad.
There's no metaphorical scale of 1 to 10 of righteousness, no numerical value we can assign.

[Redzeppelin]

Another thing is that "good" and "bad" are such relative terms. They basically lie only on a personal level, and how we interpret them.

We have no universal measurement of good and bad.
There's no metaphorical scale of 1 to 10 of righteousness, no numerical value we can assign.

Beyond absurd. It is logically impossible to maintain this position.

[JBI]

Beyond absurd. It is logically impossible to maintain this position.

How so? What makes this absurd and illogical? What is illogical about relativism, as apposed to a naturalist belief, which in itself is built on an assumption, and therefore is, in itself, illogical. Where does logic fail here?


There is a story of the RamBam, when he was looking for appointment as a doctor in Cairo, how one of his competitors tried to demonstrate how he could cure blindness. After the long treatment, filled with bandages and prayers, for which RamBam was present, the doctor took off the bandages, and the patient exclaimed how he could see colors, and how this was blue, and that yellow. RamBam of course, being who he was, looked at the king and merely remarked, "If he was blind, how could he know colors", for which, the other doctor was dismissed as a fraud, and RamBam was appointed. The moral of the story? Even something as central to us, such as color, is only central because we see it. In that sense, we can only know the feeling of bad once we have experienced the good. Kindness cannot be fully understood unless one has experienced selfishness.

Is that not what the moral of the Garden of Eden chapter in Genesis is about? How by eating the apple, they experience going against the will of God, and then are opened to the knowledge of right and wrong, because they finally know what wrong is? Isn't that the message, how without the knowledge, everything is flat, and there is no good.

Certainly, Aquinas, when justifying the fall used the notion of it being "Fortunate" ("Felix Culpa"). What is so wrong with that?

The notion of a natural Good, and a natural bad is far more illogical than a relative one to my view at least. If you are going to accuse someone of faulty logic, don't just accuse, at least give some substantial evidence to support such a rigorous claim.

[jakobmuller]

Beyond absurd. It is logically impossible to maintain this position.

alrighty then... i guess that's that. :lol:

Maybe the purpose of "Bad" is to accentuate "good" (assuming that's all it does), as in that's the reason for an all-powerful God allowing its existence.

[Redzeppelin]

How so? What makes this absurd and illogical? What is illogical about relativism, as apposed to a naturalist belief, which in itself is built on an assumption, and therefore is, in itself, illogical. Where does logic fail here?

Relativism is illogical because it suggests that there is no absolute truth - and yet, its very definitional statement IS a statement of "absolute truth" - ISN'T IT?

Although the nature of life means that some things may be good/bad due to context, we cannot extend that out to mean that there is NO absolute truths whatsoever: that position is madness because then we must allow for the validity of ALL moralities - not just ones of which we approve. I am certainly thankful that moral relativism wasn't in style during WWII. I'm also very thankful that it wasn't the prevailing philosophy for those who stepped forward to abolish slavery.


Is that not what the moral of the Garden of Eden chapter in Genesis is about? How by eating the apple, they experience going against the will of God, and then are opened to the knowledge of right and wrong, because they finally know what wrong is? Isn't that the message, how without the knowledge, everything is flat, and there is no good.

Completely wrong. The presence of the tree was to provide Adam and Eve with freedom of choice. They could not willingly serve God without the option to NOT serve him. The tree provided that option. "Knowing" good and evil was not something we were designed to do - only God can "know" evil without it affecting him - we can't handle it - it's like radiation - the minute it touches us, we begin to die. We were never created to possess that knowledge.


The notion of a natural Good, and a natural bad is far more illogical than a relative one to my view at least. If you are going to accuse someone of faulty logic, don't just accuse, at least give some substantial evidence to support such a rigorous claim.

The problem with your position is that history and culture argue against it, as does human experience and human nature:
1. Throughout history and culture, certain values have been stable: all cultures have valued honesty, fidelity to one's word, loyalty, courage, love; similarly, all cultures do not value murder, rape, lying, theft, cowardice, betrayal. This alone suggests that there are certain things that are universally recognized as "good" and "bad."
2. If I do not believe theft is morally wrong and you don't - I guess you're out of luck when I car jack you; the only CONSISTENT response you can have as a moral relativist is "Well, guess I'll have to go get a new car - I can't condemn you Red for your alternative morality - which postmodern relativism suggests is just as valid as mine."
3. There is something in human nature that recoils against certain things - and this is observable in very young children that suggests that we have encoded within us some rudimentary ideas of right and wrong.

[Lynne Fees]

I definitely think so. Think about it. What good would summer be if you hadn't been in school all year? It would just be more of the same. It's the concept of yin and yang. A hot shower would just get boring and steamy if you hadn't ever been in the cold to feel the contrast.

I hadn't thought of it like that before.

[JBI]

Relativism is illogical because it suggests that there is no absolute truth - and yet, its very definitional statement IS a statement of "absolute truth" - ISN'T IT?

Although the nature of life means that some things may be good/bad due to context, we cannot extend that out to mean that there is NO absolute truths whatsoever: that position is madness because then we must allow for the validity of ALL moralities - not just ones of which we approve. I am certainly thankful that moral relativism wasn't in style during WWII. I'm also very thankful that it wasn't the prevailing philosophy for those who stepped forward to abolish slavery.



Completely wrong. The presence of the tree was to provide Adam and Eve with freedom of choice. They could not willingly serve God without the option to NOT serve him. The tree provided that option. "Knowing" good and evil was not something we were designed to do - only God can "know" evil without it affecting him - we can't handle it - it's like radiation - the minute it touches us, we begin to die. We were never created to possess that knowledge.



The problem with your position is that history and culture argue against it, as does human experience and human nature:
1. Throughout history and culture, certain values have been stable: all cultures have valued honesty, fidelity to one's word, loyalty, courage, love; similarly, all cultures do not value murder, rape, lying, theft, cowardice, betrayal. This alone suggests that there are certain things that are universally recognized as "good" and "bad."
2. If I do not believe theft is morally wrong and you don't - I guess you're out of luck when I car jack you; the only CONSISTENT response you can have as a moral relativist is "Well, guess I'll have to go get a new car - I can't condemn you Red for your alternative morality - which postmodern relativism suggests is just as valid as mine."
3. There is something in human nature that recoils against certain things - and this is observable in very young children that suggests that we have encoded within us some rudimentary ideas of right and wrong.

Hitler came to power, with much popular support from Germany. He then expanded his domain, and massacred millions of people. To those who elected him, fought for him, supported him, and pulled the triggers, he was somewhat of a superman. To them, the murder of millions of people was justified, and thought of as a great service to humanity and science.

Beyond that though, was theft condoned? Well, in Auschwitz for example, how much gold was stolen from people's mouths alone? How much property and cash was confiscated? I don't see the Swiss handing back any of it either.


Society functions not to uphold a moral law, but to stabilize itself through a social contract, in a means of maintaining the status quo, or establishing a new status quo. That's why, when countries are poorer, they tend to be against free trade, whereas when they are richer, they are all for it. The changing infrastructure changes the values and opinions of the population, and their moral outlook on what is acceptable and what isn't.

For thousands of years in the West, Homosexuality was a crime, and for a large enough chunk of that, punishable by death. Does that mean homosexuality is now against the moral code?

What about women's rights. For large portions of time, they as good as didn't exist. Women weren't even considered people in many places of the world until recently - does that mean they were always people?


History shows one thing - people do not wish to die, and people wish to gain power. I cannot see how that has anything to do with natural morality.

Please, saying a statement that professes rationalism is illogical because it says a statement is not true. Language is limited, because it is rational, therefore the fact that it is illogical or not is irrelevant. The paradox is relative to the language used to convey it.

[atiguhya padma]

It is claimed that evil is a consequence of our freewill. I assume that this does not mean that evil originated with man. Nor that all evil is as a result of man.

Some might say there are many cases where evil occurs despite man's freewill, such as natural disasters.

Some might say that men and women are often not in a suitably informed position to avoid making evil decisions. Greek tragedy surely highlights that.

I, for one, do not consider evil to be anything substantial. I believe evil is nothing less than a construct to denote those things we prefer to avoid, the things we hate about the world, life etc.

[NikolaiI]

The existence of God for me is the infinite, and the infinite is real. Actually, the infinite is the source of all. The material universe is like a dream in relation to the absolute. This is what I believe, but not in the interests of arguing over it. Arguing and getting upset doesn't help or create anything. It doesn't help us be more perfect. Life in this world is so different for so many different people. Some are suffering, some are not; some are suffering for good reasons, some by their own actions... the world is infinitely complex.

And yet there is simplicity among the complexity, and unity among the multiplicity. That simplicity and that unity is truth. I prefer to live a simple and happy life, try to live well and wholesomely, and be as much of a joy and help to others as possible. I try to live a meaningful life! My view that God is infinite, and the source, comes from my whole life of experience, and certain revelatory experiences, as well as all I've read and so on. Emily Dickinson in a short poem describes it well.

The Infinite a sudden Guest
Has been assumed to be-
But how can that stupendous come
Which never went away?

It describes certain ideas which are sacred within Hinduism. You never left, you were never separate, you were never bound by Maya. It's a feeling so profound, when one feels it, which may not be in this life, one may know it is true.

[blazeofglory]

It seems to me that people use this bad world as an excuse to disbelieve in a good God, but does a bad world necessitate the absence of a good God?

I don't think it's reasonable

God has little to do with badness and goodness. These are humans' attributes not God's

[CDJIV]

Well God did destroy the human race except for Noah and his family because the world was growing too evil. The world is the way it is because we are given free choice to be the way we want to be. It is possible that there must be a breaking point because there was before.

God is indeed a good God, but I dont think that is a valid argument for the evil world in which we live. Not at all.

I agree with Sapphire in that evil is a way to put more emphasis on God, simply because there must be polar opposites that reflect each other. We think the world is bad because we have a good God, but would we feel the same way if we did not believe in a God? Or if we belived in an evil God? Could that be possible?There is contradicting statements in your writing and I think this is the first thing we should look at: ourselves. Adding, how we think and how we express ourselves.

If the evil is used to put more emphasis on God, then evil is either a servant of God or exactly like God in nature. Maybe both. If God is so good, and Satan wants to be "like God", then whose got the problem? Us or God? God wants us to be like him but Satan is bannished for trying to be exactly like God wants us to be.

How much of free choice can there be in the Bible? If Nedbank sends me a letter saying I qualified for a R20 000 loan without me even asking for it, do they send hitmen to sort me out if I say no? Well, I hope not.

[NovemberGuest]

This my (admittedly biased :P) christian view.

God is Good.
The world is bad..well: sinful.

I'm probably repating what someone said...if so, sorry.

Well when God made the world it was Good. But Satan, and ex-angel who rebelled against God, wanted to have power over humankind. So he tempted Eve, the first woman, to disobey God. She did, and her husband Adam followed her.
This was the fist sin...but it ruined man forever.
This sin became know as "the fall of man."
Since then, mankind has been sinning...and we are all born with "sin nature", the tendancy to sin.
God can only accept perfection. And since mankind was no longer perfect, it meant that they would have to "die" (not only physically...bit spiritually, meaning they would go to hell)
But God also loved People. So he decided to make them perfect again.
But to attone for all the sin in the world, there would have to be a perfect sacrifice.
Someone who had never sinned would have to die in the place off all the people who had...and that someone was Jesus. He died on the cross, giving his life for ours. Becasue he died, according to my belief, if we accept him as our savior and admit that we are sinners, our sins will be washed away, and we will, again, be perfect in Gods eyes. We will die physically, but we will be spared spiritual death, and we will go to heaven.

"But he was pierced for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. The punishment that brought our peace was on him; and by his wounds we are healed."
-Isaiah 53:5

"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life." -Romans 6:23

The world is a bad place, but God is good, and gives us a way out.

I know thats not very well written, and most likely many people won't agree with me. But its what I think on this subject, and I'm interested to hear what other people think, too.

[CDJIV]

Not if bad entered the world due to Satans' fall from grace and man & woman's desire to follow Satan to achieve their desire to be their own god. At that point, God gave his creation what they "wanted," that is, a world system of self-actualization. Hence, death, sickness, misery, sadness, etc. God also gave us a savior, and the following promise:
Romans 8:28 "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose."The story of Satan's fall is not viewed in the same way by all 2.1 billion Christians. Neither is Adam and Eve's sin. If evil is necessary in understanding good (Genesis 1 & 3), then evil must be God-given.


God gave man free will. God allows man to choose evil, if that's what he wants. It's not God who created evil, it's not God who perpetuates evil, but man by choosing it over good.

Isa 45:7 "..I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.."

How much of what we think we read, we don't actually read?


So tell me, do I first need to whack you with a 2x4 for you to appreciate the goodness of a hug or kiss? Do you need to eat a piece of rotting cheese in order to appreciate the taste of chocolate? Really? Must I yell at you first so that you can appreciate a whisper in your ear?

Do babies need to eat sour things so that they'll appreciate the sweet? Must you be abused before you can understand the beauty of being loved?

Really? Really? Do we only understand by contrast?Yes, because the Bible teaches us contrasts. Light and Darkness. You cannot understand the one without knowing the other.

Genesis 3:22 "..And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.."


In fact it is hard to describe God, and we human beings are subject to angers, joys and the like and to try to understand God from this perspective is really a wrong course.Who gave us anger, joy and the like? Once we get born, we don't automatically know the Bible or even morality. That we get taught. Knowing God then has to resemble in what our senses perceive and express. The two is thereby closely linked. Do we wait for miracles to happen every five minutes, or do we question the input that tells us how we are supposed to feel about God? It's not wrong to question.

Acts 17:11 "..Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.."

Once you question the input, you can always go back to where you came from, but at least you'll know you made a more informed decision.


Bad/evil accentuates our appreciation of good, but it does not define it. To give it such weight is to suggest that it is as equally valid and necessary as good. That simply cannot be. As well, to argue thusly would also put an end to those arguments people wish to put forth as to the problem with God not eradicating evil from this world; if it's equally valid and necessary, why should He do so?God didn't say to Moses that he was good or bad. God just said "He is". That's midway if you may. If there is only beautiful in heaven, how do you define beautiful then? It will be obsolete with no name. The same as a "Good God". The "good" will be obsolete in heaven.

This might lead someone to argue that "good" in our terms defines what heaven will be like, and not an inbetween. Once we get there we would not know evil anymore but only the security of our "good" fealing we sometimes had when we were still living on this cursed earth.

Denying it might be a form of denial. :D


We have no universal measurement of good and bad. There's no metaphorical scale of 1 to 10 of righteousness, no numerical value we can assign.Jakobmuller suggests the need of empirical evidence. Redzeppelin reckons it's..


Beyond absurd. It is logically impossible to maintain this position...And the parting of the Red Sea? Walking on water? Healing a blind man with spit and clay? Turning water into wine?


How so? What makes this absurd and illogical? What is illogical about relativism, as apposed to a naturalist belief, which in itself is built on an assumption, and therefore is, in itself, illogical. Where does logic fail here? ...The moral of the story? Even something as central to us, such as color, is only central because we see it. ...How by eating the apple. ...If you are going to accuse someone of faulty logic, don't just accuse, at least give some substantial evidence to support such a rigorous claim.I agree with most of what you are saying but my focus was "apple". You've got no way to prove that it was an apple that was eaten. This is an example of missing some things we still bring from our past beliefs. Identifying the fruit is still important but nothing really concludes it to being an apple. Grapes are more likely due to being more evident and within context.

[Redzeppelin]

God didn't say to Moses that he was good or bad. God just said "He is". That's midway if you may. If there is only beautiful in heaven, how do you define beautiful then? It will be obsolete with no name. The same as a "Good God". The "good" will be obsolete in heaven.

This might lead someone to argue that "good" in our terms defines what heaven will be like, and not an inbetween. Once we get there we would not know evil anymore but only the security of our "good" fealing we sometimes had when we were still living on this cursed earth.

Denying it might be a form of denial. :D

No - there is no "midway" between good and evil - Jesus said this: "Why do you call me 'good'? No one is good except God alone." (Mark 10:18)

The definition of the word "good" is God Himself; all that characterizes God defines what is good: justice, mercy, love, generosity, kindness, loyalty, courage, compassion, etc. Heaven isn't about a "feeling" - it is about being in the presence of the creator of the universe.


Jakobmuller suggests the need of empirical evidence. Redzeppelin reckons it's..

..And the parting of the Red Sea? Walking on water? Healing a blind man with spit and clay? Turning water into wine?

I dislike being misquoted. My statement had nothing to do with empirical evicence; it had to do with the absurdity of making "good" and "evil" fully subjective terms; that is flatly illogical and nobody can long maintain such a position with consistency. Please make sure you do not quote me out of context. Your rhetorical questions put to me are meaningless because I wasn't addressing the possibility of miraculous events.

[LMK]

I do not think that pain and suffering preclude the existence of God (by what ever form one gives Him).

Just as I do not think that the existence of God (by any other name would smell as sweet...sorry, couldn't resist) precludes the existence of anything good, bad or otherwise.

~L

[RichardHresko]

The question presented in the thread needs to be examined a little more carefully.

It is certainly not a given that the world is bad. (The position that the world is bad is the position of Manicheism -- a gnostic group.)

Further, it can and has been argued by Augustine and others that there is no such thing as natural evil. Earthquakes may not be pleasant affairs, but are not evil in a universal sense, only from the POV of human beings.

The question of what can be said of moral evil is what is really interesting. Moral evil is the choosing of a lesser good over a greater good, and is a possibility that exists only by creatures that have free will.

LMK is correct that suffering does not preclude the existence of a good God, since suffering in and of itself is not evil in the moral sense.

[blazeofglory]

The question presented in the thread needs to be examined a little more carefully.

It is certainly not a given that the world is bad. (The position that the world is bad is the position of Manicheism -- a gnostic group.)

Further, it can and has been argued by Augustine and others that there is no such thing as natural evil. Earthquakes may not be pleasant affairs, but are not evil in a universal sense, only from the POV of human beings.

The question of what can be said of moral evil is what is really interesting. Moral evil is the choosing of a lesser good over a greater good, and is a possibility that exists only by creatures that have free will.

LMK is correct that suffering does not preclude the existence of a good God, since suffering in and of itself is not evil in the moral sense.


I agree to the points here; and all I feel is that what we call bad for us can be good for others. Losing life for deer is bad and getting food for tigers is good. Good and bad are simply points of views or conceptions but not realities in point of fact

[Judas130]

It seems to me that people use this bad world as an excuse to disbelieve in a good God, but does a bad world necessitate the absence of a good God?

I don't think it's reasonable

Not necessarily true. The problem of evil is a matter of concern to the doubting believer, yet does not have to dwell on the mind of the unbeliever. The unbeliever realises there is no 'problem' of evil, but that there is just life.

[DanielBenoit]

I'm a bit ambivilent on my opinion on this matter, but if there is a God, then he certainly doesn't consider suffering to be experienced in vain.

One very interesting opinion is that of Chestov's, who made the paradoxical conclusion that the world was a lot more absurd with God in it, and thus a reason to believe. That, to embrace the absurdity of life, is to embrace God, and that His greatness arises out of his incomprehensibility.

[balehead]

I believe God to be good, and to be letting the world run it's course, whether that course be bad or evil, because we need our free will etc.

[hiuspinci]

Hi there, Would a new one like me be welcome here?
Thanks so much in deed.

__________________
Telemarketing companies lists - Outbound telemarketing services (http://telemarketingservicescompanies.com)

[TheQuarkGotAway]

God has little to do with badness and goodness. These are humans' attributes not God's

Blazeofglory has it right in my mind. Good/bad/evil are relative conditions for each person, subject even to redefinition over time for that individual. Any broad generalizations about the common good depend ultimately on a generalized attitude about what humanity is. That definition- what humanity is- ah, there's the rub.

[isidro]

Milton argues that God could stop evil but wanted people to choose Him out of love, not coercion. He could force goodness on us but then He would destroy our ability to learn and think and progress in ways we need to learn.

A rather evil man, for example, tortured me nearly to death and stopped my heart twice. Does that mean that God is necessarily bad? No. His doing so and my miraculous survival eventually forced him into therapy and whereas before he was an excellent liar in hiding the truth of his actions and heart from everyone, because I was so plainly injured and could threaten him with imprisonment, he could no longer hide. He has now made a complete 180 and quite a philanthropist.

[atiguhya padma]

Is heaven not a case of God forcing goodness on others? Or does freewill occur there too?

[Virgil]

Milton argues that God could stop evil but wanted people to choose Him out of love, not coercion. He could force goodness on us but then He would destroy our ability to learn and think and progress in ways we need to learn.

A rather evil man, for example, tortured me nearly to death and stopped my heart twice. Does that mean that God is necessarily bad? No. His doing so and my miraculous survival eventually forced him into therapy and whereas before he was an excellent liar in hiding the truth of his actions and heart from everyone, because I was so plainly injured and could threaten him with imprisonment, he could no longer hide. He has now made a complete 180 and quite a philanthropist.

Oh my gosh Isidro. That sounds horrible. My sympathies to to you and hope you have recovered. I commend that it has not warped your attitude toward life and God. You must be a strong person.

[miss tenderness]

I believe God to be good, and to be letting the world run it's course, whether that course be bad or evil, because we need our free will etc.




I agree .
I guess advising people to do good and be good - in the Holy Quran and the Bible - declares that there gonna be lots of evil , hence , it's a key which tells us that God has intended the two sides of gooodness and evil to be in the world .

[soundofmusic]

:confused: I'm still trying to figure out why the tree no one was supposed to eat from was smack in the middle of the garden; and the talking snake was left to babysit Eve while Adam took walks with God at twilight :( Is that free will or baiting ?) :brickwall

[isidro]

Of course there is freewill in heaven. Could any person be truly happy in any other situation? Could we be happy if we were not allowed to think for ourselves? Of course not. Heaven is the natural result of exercising our agency and choosing what is good and harmonious to other people. In my view, we have existed forever and will exist forever and this lifetime is a concentrated learning arena, much like this forum itself, where we learn by experience that goodness really is more desirable than evil in the long run and we learn by our own experience where happiness may be attained. Do we stop learning and experiencing after we reach the pearly gates? Of course not. We keep refining our characters, seeking for what is benevolent and out of the generosity of our hearts help others to do the same. In this forum we do the same thing. Is anyone forced into this forum? Of course not. But we mutually agree to be here and help each other to learn. Same concept, grander scale. Welcome to heaven my friend - you are already there. :)

And thank you, Virgil. Story of my life. You should learn some of the more grotesque chapters, for unfortunately that isn't the worst! :) I love the comment about the garden of Eden. Beautifully put! :)

[soundofmusic]

Of course there is freewill in heaven. Could any person be truly happy in any other situation? Could we be happy if we were not allowed to think for ourselves?

:confused: That's always been the rub for me; why free will was needed in paradise. If one has everything that is desirable, why does he need temptation unless it was already forseen that man would fall and needed the training manual, " How to fight off wild beasts and get your wife through childbirth":(

[NikolaiI]

The existence of a bad world does not exclude the possibility of God, which, I believe, may have been the intention of the thread title. God is the infinite - infinite knowledge, power, peace, and bliss. That is Atman, or Brahman, or Sacchidananda. Also God is Lord, not just an impersonal light. But there is a spiritual light, but it is not all of God. But even that impersonal spiritual light is pretty significantly different from the material world. It is different in that it is eternal. In relation to that, the material world is temporary. But the material world comes from the spiritual light.

This is not just speculation. Speculation has little value. Just us saying, "I think it may be like this, I think it may be like that." What is the value of that? We should only speak about what we have experienced, what we know is true. Sages and seers have spoken of spiritual existence, of God, and so forth. It is not that they should be accepted blindly. But it is pretty amazing that what they say is so very similar. You can know someone is not a genuine mystic if they speak of negative things, or dark things all the time. What value is that? Not all those who speak of love, light, God, etc., are genuine, but no genuine ones do not.

There are so many topics - one of the most important ones is consciousness. Anyway, it is possible to realize that all is connected, it is possible to realize one's true nature. Our true nature is divine. Divine means, pure love, pure intelligence, pure bliss, and pure peace, etc. This is truth as I have understood it. God is the source of all of that, God is the Lord of Love, as described in the Vedas, etc.

Also, God is the only reality. This is all illusion. The material world. And atheists and all others who deny God also deny that this is illusion, and they decry all who say that it is, they do this very much. But it is a dream within a dream as the saying goes. Enlightenment means to know God, the unlimited divine, the infinite. You see, there are infinite levels of existence. God is the source of all.

Countless persons have realized that this is all an illusion, and they have never told anyone. They have realized the divine truth and they kept quiet. A few of those who realized this gave their lives to teaching others, such as Buddha, Christ. They gave their lives to trying to let people know that they were actually at one with the universe, or in Christ's case, that they were under the care of an infinitely merciful God. The Buddha taught that our true self is buddha-nature, as the Hindus teach that our true self is the divine soul. So that is what Hinduism is about. The self-realized sages and seers from Hinduism are also, like the Buddha, trying to let people know, that they are themselves the divine, that their own source is infinite peace, truth, and bliss.

The argument that an evil world, a bad world, excludes God, is a completely thoughtless one. Some suffer in this world, and this is true. But this doesn't mean we should give up our ideals, our loves, our hopes, our dreams! It's absolutely absurd to say anything like this! The fact that some suffer does not mean there is not good in the world! And anyone who says so, is just as evil as those who are causing the suffering! Who would say, "People have suffered, so do not smile!" Surely I am not advocating irreverent laughter at a funeral. But what I am saying is, it's just a thoughtless proposition to assume the non-existence of an infinite reality because of the existence of a finite one.

Yes, the finite exists. But that does not exclude the existence of the infinite. This is one of the most important truths that has been waged war upon.

The divine means pure love, infinite peace, knowledge, and bliss. The infinite is a truth in our world and in the spiritual world, just as it is a truth in mathematics. The divine is the source of all that exists. The divine is not different from the truth, and also the absolute. These are all accurate of the divine - truth, eternal, and absolute. Truth exists, and by its nature, there is no contradiction in it. But one should only accept what one knows to be true, what one has experienced. But also, one should never give up until one has attained the highest goal, enlightenment. Nothing else matters. Why? Because, in sleep, in dreaming, if it goes on too long, then eventually we become more and more restless, until panic and desparation, to wake up. Dreams are nice in moderation, but how much more splendid is it to wake up, to open one's eyes, to stretch one's legs, walk around and see the sunlight! So therefore the desire for liberation is a forerunning necessity in spiritual life - a desire to know the truth.

[isidro]

Bravo NikolaiI! I thoroughly enjoyed your commentary. Quite refreshing after talking to so many who would like to entirely deny any kind of supernatural existence.

Why is freewill needed in paradise? Because we cannot as intelligent beings be happy under the yoke of coercion. We cannot be happy being forced to be something. Individual agency certainly must exist as it is necessary for happiness and heaven is all about happiness. The point is that we would employ our faculties for choice for good - not out of being forced but out of love one for another. Consider this as pertaining to freewill. Let us assume we all have it, are all celestialized in mind and body etc. We want to create a society among ourselves and make it as beautiful as possible. We have Michelangelo do all the sculptures. How does he choose what to sculpt? It is not an ethical choice he is making, but one of fancy. He can either create this kind of beauty or that kind. Hence agency is needed, as it is certainly requisite to unleashing creative genius. Does that take care of the rub?

And my dearest Virgil, and also NikolaiI, God got me through trauma and over 850 panic induced seizures. I don't have a warped idea of God because the very situation gave me first hand knowledge of who God is. So when I speak of religion, I speak by very prolonged and intense experience. No, I am no prophet and don't claim to be.

[atiguhya padma]

If there will be freewill in Heaven, what's to prevent Heaven from becoming like Earth? I always thought the Christian excuse for the world being the way it is, is that man's disobedience through the use of his freewill, created all the nastier aspects of life (it always seemed a bit odd to me that an all-knowing, all-powerful God somehow escapes all blame from setting things up like this, but there you go). But if man has freewill in heaven then what's to prevent man from screwing up heaven too? And what is the point of freewill in heaven? I mean I thought freewill was supposed to be the essential tool that gets you either into heaven or into hell. So what's the point of it in heaven? And considering that God set up the paradise situation knowing full well what was going to happen, how can you be sure he hasn't got a similarly amusing experiment for the afterlife??

The Garden of Eden story has always baffled me. Its like you handing an axe to a madman and then after the carnage is all over, claiming that you are not to blame, its the evil that mad men do that's to blame... or rather the madman himself that's to blame.... but whoever it is, its certainly nothing to do with you handing him the axe.

[isidro]

It's a bad sign when you are sitting at your office doing finances and put work on pause to answer a comment on a thread.

Ahem.

Okay, here is my whole answer (I've been dancing around it trying to keep my entire opinion to myself). We are children of a living God. We have existed forever, as God has, and have therefore the ability and capacity to eventually become as God is now. Yes, God is all powerful and all knowing and nothing He does is an accident. Going back to Milton. Could He not have stopped the original sin? Yes. Of course. But in order to understand this, we need to understand that God is our parent, and a loving one at that, not skulking around waiting for us to mess up so He can cart us off to everlasting damnation. He knows that we fail sometimes and therefore provided a Savior so that we could pick ourselves up and keep going. He knows that we learn most profoundly from our mistakes. He lets them happen because He respects us enough to let us learn without entirely breathing down our necks and striking us with lighting every instant. He let the original sin happen because He knew that if we were to learn from our own experience we would need to be in a rather toughened world with no memory of our having existed forever previously. This is how we really see what we are made of and try to improve it.

In heaven we keep improving but in a different capacity. When you are around someone or something that is bright and beautiful and you love and which inspires you to be your best, you will do your best. That is the difference between heaven and here and why it won't be like earth. We will be in the constant presence of a God we know and love and who knows and loves us and by that love we will be more powerfully inspired to be the best we can be. We would have learned by our own experience here that good really is better than bad and once having made up our own minds about that point and being in heaven, we continue to learn, not by coercion but by love and inspiration.

Who is to blame? Don't even worry about it. Just use the opportunity we have to pick ourselves up off the floor and keep learning by our mistakes. That is what repentance is for.

[soundofmusic]

The Garden of Eden story has always baffled me. Its like you handing an axe to a madman and then after the carnage is all over, claiming that you are not to blame, its the evil that mad men do that's to blame... or rather the madman himself that's to blame.... but whoever it is, its certainly nothing to do with you handing him the axe.

:smash: I always find myself agreeing with "The Devil's Advocate"; maybe it's the carnage from a fundamentalist upbringing;) I really have never "gotten" several of the "lessons" in the Bible. As I am a very protective parent; I've never punished my child after turning her loose "in the garden".
I do have great spiritual faith; and I believe that many of the bible stories are historically accurate, I'm just not always sure of the writers "take on things" :goof:

[jocky]

It's a bad sign when you are sitting at your office doing finances and put work on pause to answer a comment on a thread.

Ahem.

Okay, here is my whole answer (I've been dancing around it trying to keep my entire opinion to myself). We are children of a living God. We have existed forever, as God has, and have therefore the ability and capacity to eventually become as God is now. Yes, God is all powerful and all knowing and nothing He does is an accident. Going back to Milton. Could He not have stopped the original sin? Yes. Of course. But in order to understand this, we need to understand that God is our parent, and a loving one at that, not skulking around waiting for us to mess up so He can cart us off to everlasting damnation. He knows that we fail sometimes and therefore provided a Savior so that we could pick ourselves up and keep going. He knows that we learn most profoundly from our mistakes. He lets them happen because He respects us enough to let us learn without entirely breathing down our necks and striking us with lighting every instant. He let the original sin happen because He knew that if we were to learn from our own experience we would need to be in a rather toughened world with no memory of our having existed forever previously. This is how we really see what we are made of and try to improve it.

In heaven we keep improving but in a different capacity. When you are around someone or something that is bright and beautiful and you love and which inspires you to be your best, you will do your best. That is the difference between heaven and here and why it won't be like earth. We will be in the constant presence of a God we know and love and who knows and loves us and by that love we will be more powerfully inspired to be the best we can be. We would have learned by our own experience here that good really is better than bad and once having made up our own minds about that point and being in heaven, we continue to learn, not by coercion but by love and inspiration.

Who is to blame? Don't even worry about it. Just use the opportunity we have to pick ourselves up off the floor and keep learning by our mistakes. That is what repentance is for.

You are a lovely human being, not omnipotent, not omniscient but fallable like the rest of us. Milton was a poet using the Bible as his reference point, as most intellectuals did till Darwin. The Bible has been shown to be unreliable and historically inaccurate in the main. If however, you are arguing that God is personal to you then best of luck. Being a decent and moral human does not need supernatural cement.

[isidro]

Of course I am terribly fallible. Back to Milton:

"God created man sufficient to stand but free to fall."

Yes, you are quite correct about the Bible. It is of the same texture as Swiss cheese. It has gone through so many linguistic translations, so many opposing Popes, changed and exploited by power hungry priests, inspired debates and votes on what doctrine is right with the voted consent toted as God's revelation that it is very hard to believe the Bible. In truth, I would not believe Christianity myself if I did not have another witness.

I do. It's called the Book of Mormon - are you shocked? :) Most folks are. It discusses Christianity in a different light, a more realistic light and one that makes far more logical sense than the Bible. Also, having studied Meso America and spent much time there in the last few years the descriptions match up with ancient American civilizations quite nicely. The whole point of the B of M is to acknowledge the flaws in the Bible and testify that although such flaws exist, the actuality of a Savior and Messiah is in fact real.

Thanks for all the compliments, people. Making me a little blushed and self conscious now. :)

And I love your last sentence there. Made me grin. Beautifully put.

[jocky]

I do. It's called the Book of Mormon - are you shocked? :)

Not at all, as I was saying to one of my wives the other day. Love of my life that Book of Mormon has some bloody good ideas, apart from the religious stuff. :)

[isidro]

Oh Jocky, that is beyond the funniest thing I have EVER heard in my life! I am laughing almost to tears.

Good one! :)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!

[jocky]

Oh Jocky, that is beyond the funniest thing I have EVER heard in my life! I am laughing almost to tears.

Good one! :)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!

Well if you get fed up of your hubby I could always find room for you in my harem. ;)

[isidro]

My "husband" used to be quite abusive actually. I'm not exactly entirely married. I guess, maybe, kinda. Umm...?

Unluckily for you though buddy, I'm not an easy catch! :)

[jocky]

My "husband" used to be quite abusive actually. I'm not exactly entirely married. I guess, maybe, kinda. Umm...?

Unluckily for you though buddy, I'm not an easy catch! :)

Thats what they all say. :)

[soundofmusic]

My "husband" used to be quite abusive actually. I'm not exactly entirely married. I guess, maybe, kinda. Umm...?

Unluckily for you though buddy, I'm not an easy catch! :)

:lol: I'm confused, isidro, are you advocating free will or free love; because I don't think Jockey's kidding. Although, I wasn't aware they made Mormons in Scotland :lol:

[isidro]

Jocky is starting to make me wonder whether or not he is kidding actually. :) We tried to enter Scotland but there were too many harems around already.

Mormons, on a serious note that my conscience is making me say, had polygamy for several reasons, partly to protect women since at that time, they couldn't hold land, vote, etc without a man and when we got rid of it the women were quite upset. The men were afraid of it from the first and didn't want it. Jocky, I am sure you can relate that one man having to put up with several women on their periods at the same time is no easy task.

I'm still not an easy catch. Take a number, pal! :)

[jocky]

:lol: I'm confused, isidro, are you advocating free will or free love; because I don't think Jockey's kidding. Although, I wasn't aware they made Mormons in Scotland :lol:

Well they must because they are never done knocking at my door, especially when I am in the middle of my dinner. Luckily for them I am a man of peace. :)


Jocky, I am sure you can relate that one man having to put up with several women on their periods at the same time is no easy task

And there is the added problem of multiple mother in laws. :lol:

[soundofmusic]

Well they must because they are never done knocking at my door, especially when I am in the middle of my dinner. Luckily for them I am a man of peace.

:brickwall: I don't know:
1. Do they ride bicycles even up the steepest mountain?:eek2:
2. Are they only a few shades darker than their pefectly ironed
white shirts (that never wrinkle even in extreme heat):flare:
3. Are there always two: one to put his foot in the door jam and
one to mesmerize you with his smile.:nod::nod::nod:

:alien: If you can not answer yes to all three of these questions;
then #1. The Irish have come to your village, in disguise, to
proselytize. or #2. The aliens who are doing the crop circles GPS
went wacky :lol:


Jocky, I am sure you can relate that one man having to put up with several women on their periods at the same time is no easy task. :)

:lol: I was thinking, if Atheist wasn't amenable to doing the raincoat gig for my :bday_2:; I might ask jocky...What do you think: Does jocky stand for his employment, his choice of clothing or his reputation with women?:ladysman:
Come out with it Jocky, inquiring minds want to know:D

[jocky]

:lol: I was thinking, if Atheist wasn't amenable to doing the raincoat gig for my :bday_2:; I might ask jocky...What do you think: Does jocky stand for his employment, his choice of clothing or his reputation with women?:ladysman:
Come out with it Jocky, inquiring minds want to know:D

The question does not arise as Atheist will do it like a shot. By inquiring minds do you mean nosy women? :lol:

Soundofmusic you will be delighted to hear that I have publicised your forthcoming bash on the Blokes Thread. It will be great all the guys will be there and will get to meet you and Isidro. Its not a bring your own booze affair is it? :)

[soundofmusic]

The question does not arise as Atheist will do it like a shot. By inquiring minds do you mean nosy women? :lol:

Soundofmusic you will be delighted to hear that I have publicised your forthcoming bash on the Blokes Thread. It will be great all the guys will be there and will get to meet you and Isidro. Its not a bring your own booze affair is it? :)

:lol: What a time we will all have:ladysman: ..You did tell them to leave their girlfriends (unless their willing to jump out of cakes or dance on the poles...other entertainment will be provided for the gentlemen, so Isidro and I can make our choice), children and religion at the door; Just bring their libido and choice of good Scottish liquor (Not that we're cheap, but Isidro and I both are "in the states" and if those strong Scottish men were exposed to our watered down American beer; they would think it was a dry town.) :mad:
I'm thinking there should be an age limit; unless the old fellows have alot of cash and no relatives: rolleyes:
:goof: Hey, you got me all excited and didn't answer: So what is it, boxers or briefs? :lol:


Jocky is starting to make me wonder whether or not he is kidding actually. :)
:bday_2: You will come to our bash, won't you? All we will be missing is your great wit!:nod:

Mormons, on a serious note that my conscience is making me say, had polygamy for several reasons, partly to protect women since at that time, they couldn't hold land, vote, etc without a man and when we got rid of it the women were quite upset. The men were afraid of it from the first and didn't want it. Jocky, I am sure you can relate that one man having to put up with several women on their periods at the same time is no easy task.

:confused: Do you consider yourself a feminist-mormon? You seem very strong-willed and self sufficient to me. Do you mean that polygamy protected the women from being homeless and penniless or from having their lord and master creep into their room every night. :ladysman:

[isidro]

If you log onto www.lds.org or look up "Mormon Messages" on youtube you will easily find how the modern leaders define femininity. I am in essence, a walking example of what they believe a woman should be and how they should behave actually. The leaders constantly put women on a pedestal and encourage them to learn, to stand up for themselves, not to take abuse, to educate themselves and above all to nurture their children and remember they are daughters of a living God.

Polygamy protected female legal rights and allowed them safety so that random "lords and masters" off the street didn't creep into their rooms at night. The women were under no obligation to physically submit to their husbands. It was advised, as it still is, that women be home loving and want to have children and take care of a family and house (which I love doing though you don't often see that side of me here). Women are to be respected and treated like goddesses in every respect.

And one more nod to Mormons. We are the life of the party without having to touch alcohol. Not allowed to drink, which means we are all that and a bag o' chips without having to down vodka to be that way! Hee, hee, hee. (I'm probably going to be thrown out of this discussion now....)

[soundofmusic]

If you log onto www.lds.org

And one more nod to Mormons. We are the life of the party without having to touch alcohol. Not allowed to drink, which means we are all that and a bag o' chips without having to down vodka to be that way! Hee, hee, hee. (I'm probably going to be thrown out of this discussion now....)

:lol: Why would we throw out our favorite "bag o chips" when you are so intellectually satisfying and don't drink all of our booze. :nod:

[isidro]

Aw! Blushing at that compliment! And you can rest assured, I'll never touch your booze. All yours!!!!! :)

[soundofmusic]

:lol: So pleased you're pleased, Isidro! You know we all would be lost without you. :( Do you think Jocky didn't tell me about the briefs or boxers because he runs free? Where's our sweet Atheist, it's just not a party :bday_2: without him!

:crash: While I was enjoying all of our cleverness; a young chaste and celibate lady (or maybe man) told us our segways from religious texts were disgusting. While I have no doubt, in thirty years she will be exactly where we are; I suppose I'll come back to the religious thread a bit:mad

If one wants to believe in the God, Angels and Adam and Eve theory; then God created good and evil. Satan fell before the creation of Adam and Eve; and God was aware of his influence on them.
It is impossible to have free will with a creator who has the ability to see everything we are doing, punish us in excess of our deeds and change the outcome.
I don't believe in hell, because no creation warrants going there (in the christian concept of fire and pain); I don't believe in heaven because the materialism of the place (golden streets) is useless to a spirit; and I would get very bored singing and having no real activity all day. Plus, I'd then be stuck with my two husbands and their 4 wives, 3 mother-in-laws...it would be hell:flare:

[KrakenRouge]

What of the plagues against Egypt, done even while 'God hardened pharoah's heart', how is this free will? How is it justifiable also, in terms of a political history, that the Israelites slay and massacre whole towns of people on the orders of this God, while he only offers salvation to the Israelites. Even the Israelites commited many moral faults, and yet they are still given a chance while others are slaughtered outright. I tend to read the Old Testament as a political justification for the actions of the Israelites, written after the fact if in case these acts happened, justified by fear of an unbalanced and tempermental deity. When they ask for food in the desert because they are starving, Moses and God respond in vengeance, they send flaming snakes to to torture his own group (which he's trying to save technically right?)

New Testament problem: According to the Bible, God required the Jews to sacrifice animals to atone for their sins. He then sent Jesus to be the last sacrificial lamb. Meaning, of course, Jesus was a sacrifice to God.
And if Jesus is God in the flesh, then that means Jesus sacrificed himself to himself.

Also, another question, why is Cain even pushed to the point of rage in the first place. What is bad about an offering of grain as opposed to a live animal sacrifice, you can even offer more to God through a harvest than the mass culling of animals couldn't you? It seemed like a perfectly good sacrifice, considering a harvest of grain will usually feed more than a lamb will, so its a bigger sacrifice.

BTW, Im approaching this from the view that the Bible is an exceptionally interesting piece of literature, and nothing else.

[atiguhya padma]

The answer to this question I feel is: not if the good god is limited. An omnipotent good god would surely not create a bad world. As Epicurus pointed out:

Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent.
Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?

I'm afraid if we have a bad world, and wish god to exist, then that god would seem to be either impotent or malevolent

[isidro]

Perhaps it is that God is both able and willing but understands as a parent does more than a hysterical infant, the importance of eating one's vegetables, of learning to play nicely with other children, and the like. The fact is when we as humans discuss this we somehow seem to think that God should see exactly as we do and have only in immediate consequences in mind as we often do but if we limit God to that, what is there to worship worth worshiping? We worship God, those of us who do, exactly because God has a broader perspective than we do, has the ability to eventually make wrongs righted and the like. What we see in our one quick snapshot of a perspective as bad may and usually does prove a learning experience in the long run. The Inquisitions were very bad but they inspired various people and groups to move away from the Catholic Church and think more clearly for themselves and throw off the chains of servitude not only in the religious realm but the political, economic and social arenas as well. Define bad, therefore. Anyone who spends any time at the gym knows you get stronger, gain muscle and become a better person by meeting with difficulties and overcoming them. And perhaps God realizes that too.

[atiguhya padma]

I am trying to imagine an all-compassionate, all-seeing parent watching on as the concentration camps, the Gulags, the Inquisition, the evils of colonialism rage all around him or her, and the ultimate parent shrugging its shoulders and saying to him or herself, oh well, sure Auschwitz is bad.... but it will reap benefits in that people will become more thoughtful and compassionate towards each other and the same for the Gulag, and oh yes, the Inquisition was really a good thing because it inspired various people and groups to move away from the Catholic church etc etc. Now i'm sorry but I find that rather unpalatable and not in any way an advert for god, morality or religion. You might think it is the ultimate in parenting best practice, however, immediate intervention and a stern talking to might have been better. In fact, I'm not sure which is more disturbing a god that can do this or a group of followers who can think this is somehow not only right and justified, but also compassionate in the long run. How anyone can think that an evil means is justified provided we get a good end is beyond me.

Then there are the problems of natural disasters which the all-loving all-compassionate god allows to devastate indiscriminately, annihilating innocent lives in ways that make Hitler and Stalin appear amateurs (and provide spin doctors to try and make him look good while he's at it)

Isidro, its very easy to say all you have said to an amorphous group such as this forum, but I wonder whether you would be prepared to tell a group of holocaust survivors the same?

[JommiL]

Yes. I know. But IF it is the truth, that Satan rules? God gave him that change?

From my point of view; Human i free one now. You can judge, what is wrong or right. For me, it is NOT God´s fault, but human´s. We just choose and this hell is the place that WE created. Not God. There´s no any sense to say that lying, stealing etc. are ok.

From my point, we just should to low our heads, and admit, that our thoughts will NOT rise above out skull.

[isidro]

I speak strictly from my own experience, my dear, which includes abuse as a child, abuse as an adolescent, and marital abuse that caused nearly 850 panic induced seizures and stopped my heart twice while I was pregnant with a second child. It also induced amnesia so I had to relearn to read, write, work and do several other things that most people take for granted. I think I am slightly qualified to discuss pain and suffering with any group and surely many of those who have survived the Holocaust have a broader view than those on an ambiguous forum who have never tasted suffering to a massive degree. I speak of God as someone who has a greater view than us, and I know this for a fact due to a great extent because of what I have gone through. Yes, I would say it to Holocaust survivors but those survivors I have met are the first to try to tell it to me. Pain on a massive scale changes a perspective and I feel fully qualified to discuss it and the divine plan behind it.

[atiguhya padma]

Isidoro,

You say you are "fully qualified to discuss [pain on a massive scale] and the divine plan behind it" even though you earlier confess that you are "slightly qualified to discuss pain and suffering", which I find a little confusing. That confusion increases when you say things like "God [is] someone who has a greater view than us, and I know this for a fact due to a great extent because of what I have gone through". I have known atheists who have suffered as much if not more than you, and who say they know through their own experiences that there is no god. Quite honestly, I don't see why pain, no matter how great or intense, should somehow be a window onto truth. What I think it does do, is concentrate our mental and emotional attention towards refining our beliefs and faith. That is very different to knowing facts about god, about the world we live in and about reality per se. Our most painful experiences teach us to question our pre-conceptions. Sometimes it strengthens them, sometimes it reforms them, sometimes it destroys them.

Tell me Isidoro, do you believe that an evil means is justified as long as it leads to a good result?

Is it fair to indiscriminately cause unwanted pain and suffering to millions of unwitting people just so that future generations may learn something? I find that a despicable idea. And almost everyone would find that a despicable idea if a human being put that into practice on a massive scale. Yet some people seem to think that the idea of a god putting this into practice is morally justifiable. Swap a human being for a god and somehow the morality of it all changes. Yet I cannot help but feel towards a multitude that thinks god is justified in behaving like this, as I would about a multitude that backs a dictator doing evil things to teach us a good lesson. Morality, I would hope, isn't so relative that a change in the agent somehow changes the morality of the act.

[billl]

Morality, I would hope, isn't so relative that a change in the agent somehow changes the morality of the act.

A very good point.

[Michael T]

It seems to me that people use this bad world as an excuse to disbelieve in a good God, but does a bad world necessitate the absence of a good God?

I don't think it's reasonable


The trouble with this is that you are arguing against the argument for the existence of God.

If it’s a bad world, then there is the possibility of a more perfect God that could create the perfect ‘good world’ That would mean that the God who creates a ‘bad world’ is less perfect than a God who creates a perfect ‘good world’ which would mean he can’t be God, who by definition is perfect and would not create something imperfect if he has it in his nature to be perfect, for that would mean he is not perfect.

[gbrekken]

What would be the value of love if not for free will. In this age we have choices to make. Decide with caution, hope, conviction.

[gbrekken]

I'm just starting to catch up on the humor here. I used to be aprofessional *******. I got paid for the words out of my mouth. It cold've also been called diarrhea of the lip. keep me posted on real develpments.

[gbrekken]

I believe it is written somewhere: "the god of this world".

[blazeofglory]

I wonder at things. Why God has created us in the first place? To suffer? Or why do we suffer? I oftentimes think we suffer in order that we cleanse ourselves of the sins committed by us at sometimes.

In fact we are not accountable for all we do. It is the circumstances we will be hemmed in, and of course by accident we will fall into a particular circumstance and the circumstances compel us to behave the way we do in point of fact.

Why does a person become a poacher? The reason is the circumstance he is in demands of him of poaching and he is helpless.

It is really hard to make judgment in point of fact.

[soundofmusic]

I'm just starting to catch up on the humor here. I used to be aprofessional *******. I got paid for the words out of my mouth. It cold've also been called diarrhea of the lip. keep me posted on real develpments.

:confused: I may be the only person who doesn't understand the asterix: were you referring to a minister, lawyer, psychiatrist or prostitute?