Originally posted by bbarrTake a look at most holy men in the Bible. They are persecuted in a myriad of ways and thrown literally to the lions. Of course, we all know what happened to God's own Son even though we see him pleaing with the Father to spare him the cross as he sweats great drops of blood in protest.
Ah yes, selective reading at its finest. Every delivery from evil is construed as indicative of God's justice and love. Every allowance of evil is construed as the byproduct of fallen humanity. Last night in Seattle a woman was raped and stabbed. God knew, could have prevented it, and presumably would have preferred it not happen. If I knew about it, and ...[text shortened]... I can't take you seriously when you use those sounds to try and say things about God.
Can the consequences of our sin be sanitised to a mere hand slap, or is it malignant in origin?
Originally posted by VoidSpiritYou assume that bad exists. Bad may merely be the rejection of what is good.
that depends. what characteristics are you inferring on this god?
for example, if he is the source of all that is good, does that mean that he is not also the source of all that is bad? if not, then has he no power over all that is bad?
The Bible refers to sin as "darkness". In and of iteself, darkness does not exist, rather, the term is simply the refernce of a lack of light which does exist.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyNo.
You assume that bad exists. Bad may merely be the rejection of what is good.
The Bible refers to sin as "darkness". In and of iteself, darkness does not exist, rather, the term is simply the refernce of a lack of light which does exist.
What actual reasons do you have for thinking that bad is merely privation of good? Pain, for example, is not merely the privation of pleasure. Suffering is not merely a privation of good. Try telling some rape victim that her experience wasn't really a bad thing, but was more just an instance of being deprived of a good thing. At the end of the day, this seems all irrelevant anyway, with respect to theodicy. Even if so-called bads were in fact a privation of goods, they are still to be avoided, right? So, what difference does this distinction make?
The other problem with your line of reasoning here is that bads do not always come at the hands of willful volition (which is what is implied with your talk of 'rejection' ). There are many bads that have nothing genuine to do with talk of human free will.
This is just another tiresome line of the 'selective reading' that bbarr mentioned previously in this thread. God is responsible for all the good stuff; but all that bad stuff...well that's just the result of the absence of God. 🙄
Well, the bad stuff still sucks, so maybe your God should start showing up more often.
2 edits
Originally posted by sumydidSorry, but that post makes no sense. You start by saying that Agerg's claim was inane, pathetically absurd, fallacious and whatnot; and then go on to confirm the claim in question. Whatever.
Inane postulations such as these are pathetically absurd. For, in just your 2nd word, the existence of the God of the bible is already acknowledged. Therefore the rest of the statement is fallacious because (a) the God of the bible wouldn't do such a thing, and (b) even IF the God of the bible did it, by His very nature described in the bible, it absolutely WOULD be for the best... no trust required.
So you really think that if the God of the bible came down and gouged the eyes out of every living baby it absolutely would be for the best? Yikes....
Originally posted by VoidSpiritI dispute that claim that justice requires punitive punishment.
2) false. a loving god would not allow injustice at all, ergo it would never have to consider punitive judgement upon anyone.
Punitive punishment serves several purposes:
1. Deterrence.
2. Prevention of further crime (here it is only 'punitive' as a side effect ie incarceration is not necessarily intended to be 'punishment'.).
3. Revenge. (not really a part of 'justice', but more emotional).
None of these are required of justice. A decision may be considered 'just' without any punitive measures being taken.
I personally am very much in favour of minimizing the punitive side of justice systems and focussing more on corrective action.
Originally posted by bbarrA meditating atheist. You might be the first one I've "met". 🙂
Because the stories about God given in various theistic traditions describe a God who is neither just nor loving (as those terms are commonly understood). Of course, those traditions may be in errror; their books could make false claims about God, for instance. So I make no claim to knowing God (how could I, since I am an atheist). I just make claims about your God, as described by your tradition.
Originally posted by VoidSpiritYes.
shouldn't they?
let's assume that a mind-control drug is invented that allows a criminally insane person to live a normal, fulfilling life in society. should he be denied that drug?
All criminals should be treated as if they were mentally sick and given "proper (medical) treatment".
Problem is that mental health is still in it's infancy and there is no general consensus on what things like conciousness,sanity, etc. mean yet.
The only way to lead society out of it's insanity is through a qualified leader.
(I know this sounds as if I'm contradicting myself, but take from it what you will)
Originally posted by VoidSpiritAgreed, but our warring natures seem to underpin our whole minds/brains in this universe, and to transcend it we must first understand the nature of the universe we find ourselves in, which is a warring one.
there is no such thing. all war in unjust.
It's quite disturbing and I can see why people might not be able to handle the full truth of our history/histories, but we must be brave, and be men/women (in the true sense of the word), and digest the truth little by little, lest we go totally insane from too much exposure.
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat a ridiculous comment,even if it was just a joke,(and I know it wasn't totally a joke). You are just trying to skin 2 birds with one stone here and failing on both accounts.
Sounds like robbie carobbie. With a little indoctrination you might make a
good Jehovah's Witness.
And...strangely you continually try to justify war while continually posting on a spirituality forum.
Need I spell it out for you?
Originally posted by whodeythe trouble is that you are thinking in terms of sin towards an all-powerful entity [which is an absurd notion, one cannot sin against an almighty being]. eliminate sin and consequence thereof from the equation. there are still laws of a social nature and the consequences of breaking them, but nothing further concerning your immortal soul.
Take a look at most holy men in the Bible. They are persecuted in a myriad of ways and thrown literally to the lions. Of course, we all know what happened to God's own Son even though we see him pleaing with the Father to spare him the cross as he sweats great drops of blood in protest.
Can the consequences of our sin be sanitised to a mere hand slap, or is it malignant in origin?
so 'justice' is a fleeting, human experience. it is a mechanism for vengeance and emotional satisfaction. it means nothing in the sea of infinity. what injustice can be committed against an immortal soul? it has no needs, it has no wants. all it has are experiences and whatever you do to it (good or ill) will just add to that souls experiences and bring value to its existence.
Originally posted by karoly aczeltrue. when faced with such notions, people tend to find comfort in the relative safety of a religion that makes false promises of justice to right all the apparent wrongs.
Agreed, but our warring natures seem to underpin our whole minds/brains in this universe, and to transcend it we must first understand the nature of the universe we find ourselves in, which is a warring one.
It's quite disturbing and I can see why people might not be able to handle the full truth of our history/histories, but we must be brave, and b ...[text shortened]... word), and digest the truth little by little, lest we go totally insane from too much exposure.