Epicurus 300 BC

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You might want to consider the ego bolstering aspect of it and the accompanying delusion. Come to think of it, insofar as that goes, it is much like Christianity, i.e. Paulianity. They are belief systems of the ego, by the ego, for the ego.

Yah,Yah, I hears ya.
You might want to consider the idea that I am completely on top of my life and just in God's waiting room waiting for my ego to finally die.

Now please understand that my philosophy of life and spirituality is completely my own. No doubt influenced by others , but always my own at the end of the day.

Like I indicated before, I understand the difference between short-term pleasure and pleasure that is derived from the overcoming of the ego.

Now I ask again, do you have a problem with me advocating pleasure,in whatever form, as a way to coming to understand God?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Epicurus' questions are sensible, but they still fail to show that a "OOO" God cannot exist.

I think that's debatable, but I suspect we agree up to a point, as with our discussion of Euthyphro.

I think we should be suspicious of the claim that logic can demonstrate the existence or non existence of a particular entity, as various versions of the ontological argument show.

But what Epicurus's questions do demonstrate is the lack of coherence of the human account of god. This is no surprise really, to believers or non believers on the whole.

Originally posted by josephw
The premise is irrational.

I agree with ThinkOfOne, I don't think you were quite getting the sense of the argument.

Now you do understand it, you might want to argue that the argument doesn't work due to human inability to comprehend god, but that's another discussion.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Christ taught humility, did he not? On what, then, do you base your claim that Christianity is a belief system "of the ego, by the ego, for the ego" ? This "Christianity" that you speak of is utterly foreign to me.

It looks like you might try to make the argument that Paul had his own version of Christianity and that his version was "of the ego, by ...[text shortened]... hristianity is "of the ego, by the ego, for the ego" except by deliberate distortion.

There seems to be an underlying implication here that the teaching of humility is necessarily proof of a belief system that is not of the ego. This is not true. What do you see as the relationship between humility and ego?

If you really want to discuss this, why don't you start another thread as this is really off topic.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Yah,Yah, I hears ya.
You might want to consider the idea that I am completely on top of my life and just in God's waiting room waiting for my ego to finally die.

Now please understand that my philosophy of life and spirituality is completely my own. No doubt influenced by others , but always my own at the end of the day.

Like I indicated befor ...[text shortened]... e a problem with me advocating pleasure,in whatever form, as a way to coming to understand God?

Insofar as such a belief is false.

If you really want to discuss this, why don't you start another thread as this is really off topic.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Insofar as such a belief is false.

If you really want to discuss this, why don't you start another thread as this is really off topic.

Oh thats right you're the one that thinks I'm immature,right?
Sorry for replying to your post.
Dont worry though ,
I wont judge you on this dismissal alone, I've read many interesting posts from you🙂

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Oh thats right you're the one that thinks I'm immature,right?
Sorry for replying to your post.
Dont worry though ,
I wont judge you on this dismissal alone, I've read many interesting posts from you🙂

Why are you sorry for replying to my post?

Seemed like it might be an interesting discussion, but off topic for this thread. I was interested in discussing it, just not on this thread. I figured if you were interested, you would start a new one.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Why are you sorry for replying to my post?

Seemed like it might be an interesting discussion, but off topic for this thread. I was interested in discussing it, just not on this thread. I figured if you were interested, you would start a new one.

Wouldn't be the first time a thread went off topic.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Wouldn't be the first time a thread went off topic.

Rather self-centered, i.e. egocentric, stance to take, don't you think? 🙂

Originally posted by 667joe
Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

--------------------667joe--------------------------

What if he is both able and willing but prefers not to prevent evil because through doing so free will (and other benefits) becomes possible in some way?

For example , I am both able and willing to stop my son from crossing the road by himself right now on the way to school , but I am choosing to allow for the possibility of serious harm occuring to him for the sake of a higher good that I prefer for him (eg his independence and autonomy)

Am I malevolent?

I care deeply about what happens to him and would be distraught if he were hurt or killed. However , I know that I must allow this to happen for him to be free and grow as a person. It's agonsing but neccessary. I offer him instruction as to how to avoid harm , and hope he will listen , but I must allow him to be free. He must learn for himself that which cannot be taught.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Am I malevolent?

No, because you didn't create the conditions for your son to suffer through, whereas apparentally God did.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Rather self-centered, i.e. egocentric, stance to take, don't you think? 🙂

Problem?
Again I ask you: Were you the one that labelled me "immature" after I called you a "wuss"?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Problem?
Again I ask you: Were you the one that labelled me "immature" after I called you a "wuss"?

Sorry, but I don't know what you mean by "problem?"

Don't recall, though I must say that calling someone a "wuss" is quite immature. Haven't heard that much since high school.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Sorry, but I don't know what you mean by "problem?"

Don't recall, though I must say that calling someone a "wuss" is quite immature. Haven't heard that much since high school.

Sheeesh!
You have a problem with me being self-centered and/or ego-centric?

It must've been you. I'm glad you've grown up. How does it feel? Better than when you weren't?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Sheeesh!
You have a problem with me being self-centered and/or ego-centric?

It must've been you. I'm glad you've grown up. How does it feel? Better than when you weren't?

Earlier you made this claim:
"...I am completely on top of my life and just in God's waiting room waiting for my ego to finally die. "

Seems extremely doubtful for someone who is self-centered. Seems extremely doubtful for someone who advocates "pleasure,in whatever form, as a way to coming to understand God."

Asking, "How does it feel?", also indicates one who is deeply mired in ego.

Seems very likely that you're going to be waiting for a very long time unless you gain better understanding.