A 3rd Option

Originally posted by rwingett
That line of reasoning has always amused me. If god's fairness is unintelligible to humans, then humans have absolutely no basis on which to claim that god is fair. He has to be fair in a way that is understandable to humans, or the claim makes no sense at all. We would have no way of knowing if he was fair. If you have a god with unitelligible attributes, then at best you are left with a deist god about which nothing can be known.

There's a difference between something being completely unintelligible and something being not completely understandable (especially based on current knowledge). Christians claim the latter about God, not the former.

Originally posted by lioyank
No, I don't think you can have one extreme without the other. Having one extreme implies there is another.

"Righteousness/goodness if I'm allowed to say this, is how things
should be. Evil is a break from that, if God is real and I do believe
He is, righteousness and goodness are His ways, as we leave the
source of all things we can run afoul of righte ...[text shortened]... the Bible a valid source of God's goodness? (There are those who would argue the opposite.)

I don't think righteousness and goodness are the extreme, but
the norm, the way it should be. Which is not the same thing as
the other side of two extremes.

God's goodness has been in question since the snake talked to
Adam and Eve. It has been a debate for some time, the one thing
we do know, is man isn't 'good' if he were we wouldn't be murdering,
raping, stealing from one another and at times do it in the 'name'
of God.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't think righteousness and goodness are the extreme, but
the norm, the way it should be.
Kelly

Hmm... Well, at least I know where you're coming from.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't think righteousness and goodness are the extreme, but
the norm, the way it should be. Which is not the same thing as
the other side of two extremes.

God's goodness has been in question since the snake talked to
Adam and Eve. It has been a debate for some time, the one thing
we do know, is man isn't 'good' if he were we wouldn't be murdering,
raping, stealing from one another and at times do it in the 'name'
of God.
Kelly

Man is basically "good" as shown by the way normal men act in their normal lives. Kindness and caring is the norm, not the exception. This is to be expected in intelligent, social animals. The negative view of man's character as somehow "vile" or "evil" in the extreme is a peculiar and warped belief system held by many of the "Christians" posting here.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Man is basically "good" as shown by the way normal men act in their normal lives. Kindness and caring is the norm, not the exception. This is to be expected in intelligent, social animals. The negative view of man's character as somehow "vile" or "evil" in the extreme is a peculiar and warped belief system held by many of the "Christians" posting here.

Why ignore your atheist brothers who also think human nature is evil?

Thread 42325 (second post)

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Why ignore your atheist brothers who also think human nature is evil?

Thread 42325 (second post)

Since I'm not an atheist, why do you consider an atheist any more my "brother" than a Christian?? Typical shabby thinking from you; try to get your facts straight for once.

EDIT: Also where does that poster say human nature is "evil"?? And how did you discern he was an atheist??

Originally posted by KellyJay
Can you have good without evil?
Can you have evil without good?

Righteousness/goodness if I'm allowed to say this, is how things
should be. Evil is a break from that, if God is real and I do believe
He is, righteousness and goodness are His ways, as we leave the
source of all things we can run afoul of righteousness and goodness.
Kelly

"Should be" according to whom? How "should" things be? Why "should" they be that way?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Since I'm not an atheist, why do you consider an atheist any more my "brother" than a Christian?? Typical shabby thinking from you; try to get your facts straight for once.

EDIT: Also where does that poster say human nature is "evil"?? And how did you discern he was an atheist??

Since I'm not an atheist, why do you consider an atheist any more my "brother" than a Christian??

If an atheist is no more your brother than a Christian, is there any reason to ignore it when he claims human nature is vile as, according to you, Christians claim?

Also where does that poster say human nature is "evil"?? And how did you discern he was an atheist?

Both are reasonable conclusions based on the evidence. If you have counter-facts, present them.

Originally posted by rwingett
That line of reasoning has always amused me. If god's fairness is unintelligible to humans, then humans have absolutely no basis on which to claim that god is fair. He has to be fair in a way that is understandable to humans, or the claim makes no sense at all. We would have no way of knowing if he was fair. If you have a god with unitelligible attributes, then at best you are left with a deist god about which nothing can be known.

I agree with all of this, except the very last bit. I've always understood that the way we can know about God is because he chooses to reveal himself. The only things we know about him is what he chooses to tell us.

Originally posted by orfeo
I agree with all of this, except the very last bit. I've always understood that the way we can know about God is because he chooses to reveal himself. The only things we know about him is what he chooses to tell us.

Quite clearly, judging by the inability of believers to list any proprties of God, he likes to keep you in the dark.

What a naughty, selfish (ethereal, personal, responsible!?!?!?!) God.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Since I'm not an atheist, why do you consider an atheist any more my "brother" than a Christian??

If an atheist is no more your brother than a Christian, is there any reason to ignore it when he claims human nature is vile as, according to you, Christians claim?

[i]Also where does that poster say human nature is "evil"?? And how did you d ...[text shortened]... are reasonable conclusions based on the evidence. If you have counter-facts, present them.

" based on the evidence. If you have counter-facts, present them"

He was being truthful.

You and all other Catholics would not grasp this concept.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Since I'm not an atheist, why do you consider an atheist any more my "brother" than a Christian??

If an atheist is no more your brother than a Christian, is there any reason to ignore it when he claims human nature is vile as, according to you, Christians claim?

[i/]Also where does that poster say human nature is "evil"?? And how did you ...[text shortened]... are reasonable conclusions based on the evidence. If you have counter-facts, present them.

Rochade: Faith is the wretched and useless try of human beeings to look for a greater good behind all and a higher sense for their wicked lives.


There's nothing here that says the poster is an "atheist"; there are theists who don't rely on "faith" to believe in the existence of a "God". There are theists who don't necessarily believe that "God" is a greater "good". You seem to be saying that because someone doesn't share your particular theist beliefs or ones similar to your's, they must be an atheist. That's probably why you called me an atheist as well. You seem to be drifting to RBHILL land.

Secondly, the poster said some people live "wicked lives", a true statement. That does not suggest or imply that ALL men have an "evil" or "vile" nature. You read into the statement things which aren't there.

BTW, when you claim that a statement means something that is not apparent from its text, the initial burden is on YOU to present evidence supporting your claimed reading. Please try to keep that in mind in the future.

EDIT: Also try to keep from twisting my words; I did not claim "Christians" in toto had the view that human nature is "vile" and "evil" I said such a view is: held by many of the "Christians" posting here.

Do you understand the difference?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Basically, pantheism says that the universe is a unity that is all "God" i.e. there is no separate being of God. This website is a good one on pantheism: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/

Deists generally believe that there is a Creator God of the universe, but that he doesn't and never did take any active hand in human affairs. He's tended study requires reading most of the selections of Tom Paine linked to on the site.

Does pantheism vary from atheism? The existence of the word "universe" suggests it's a single thing (a "unity" ). It could be called "God" just like it could be called something else.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Does pantheism vary from atheism? The existence of the word "universe" suggests it's a single thing (a "unity"😉. It could be called "God" just like it could be called something else.

There is a difference in the underlying philosophy. The universe is part of the god-consciousness -- matter is not merely physical but metaphysical -- and we are all part of it.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Man is basically "good" as shown by the way normal men act in their normal lives. Kindness and caring is the norm, not the exception. This is to be expected in intelligent, social animals. The negative view of man's character as somehow "vile" or "evil" in the extreme is a peculiar and warped belief system held by many of the "Christians" posting here.

Man is basically good as shown by the way normal men act?
How do normal men act? If they step out of that "normal"
mode of acting, can they redeem themselves and be good
and the bad they have done no longer matters? How do you
judge it all?
Kelly