Originally posted by Zahlanzi
if he can avoid making murderers maybe he can avoid making thieves as well. or jaywalkers or people who wear pink. and then you would have a very very boring world.

So you are claiming that you only have fun when you meet sinners? Or are you claiming that only sin is fun?

And are people allowed to wear pink in heaven or is that a boring place?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you are claiming that you only have fun when you meet sinners? Or are you claiming that only sin is fun?

And are people allowed to wear pink in heaven or is that a boring place?

i do think heaven is a boring place at least as compared to what some preach. imagine having to wear white all day and sing on the harp. if i will not be able to eat pizza and listen to some marilyn manson i will go crazy. (hey maybe satan will let him concert from time to time). well a state of eternal boredom i guess trumps a state of eternal pain.

i am saying that if you have no obstacles in life, no hardships it is hardly called life. one must endure to better oneself. a life with no obstacles and hardships is why empires fall, that is why some species survive while others thrive. for example romans got it easy compared to other countries and considering the times. so they let the legions grow weak. and the huns kicked their asses.


and if people are forced to wear pink in heaven, i want my money back and converting to islam

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i do think heaven is a boring place at least as compared to what some preach. imagine having to wear white all day and sing on the harp. if i will not be able to eat pizza and listen to some marilyn manson i will go crazy. (hey maybe satan will let him concert from time to time). well a state of eternal boredom i guess trumps a state of eternal pain.

i a ...[text shortened]...

and if people are forced to wear pink in heaven, i want my money back and converting to islam

You are avoiding the question, so I'll rephrase it in light of your latest comments.
Is sin, or are sinners, necessary for your happiness or for you to better yourself?

Originally posted by vistesd
Re free-will: see my post to twhitehead on why I don’t think there is necessarily a free-will issue here.

Re omnipotence: your counter says that God cannot act in ways that are logically contradictory. I would ask if God’s omnipotence is limited in any other ways. But, yes, if God is not omnipotent with regard to the ability to create any (logically ...[text shortened]... ings Happen To Good People[/i], exploring Euthyphro’s dilemma in the context of the Book of Job.

To your point (a), who said that we only have a finite amount of actions or a finite consciousness?

Free will isn't about doing whatever you want whenever you want and immediately reaping the benefits. If we truly will something, who's to stop us from getting it? Just because something is not achievable in your own realm of reality, doesn't mean that it's so. Maybe God just wants us to try harder?

"If you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you can move mountains. " Our own rational thought prohibits us from having true faith.
Just because we can't attain something in our current state, doesn't mean it's unattainable.
It's like saying, "you can't get there from here". It may not be an easy trek, but it is possible.

Edit: We only use 10% of our brain power on average. Who's to say what the other 90% can do?

P.S. I'm not a theist in the traditional sense

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are avoiding the question, so I'll rephrase it in light of your latest comments.
Is sin, or are sinners, necessary for your happiness or for you to better yourself?

The difference between good and evil exist only in our minds as to how certain experiences effect us and our moral values and how it effects our happiness.

Sin is a religious belief. Why do people believe that something different will happen to them when they die if they do action A over action B? Not only is religion the opium of the people, but while they're high, the opium dealer lives happily, funded entirely by the money and efforts of the addicts. If narcotics are illegal, so should organized religion. It has the same symptoms of addiction.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are avoiding the question, so I'll rephrase it in light of your latest comments.
Is sin, or are sinners, necessary for your happiness or for you to better yourself?

well without evil(let's not use the word sin) how can there be good? good only has meaning if there is something in contrast. else there is no good way of doing things, it is the only way of doing things.

happiness only occurs if you have a lesser state to which to compare it. might sound horrible but oh well. human beings need to know there are worse states to feel good about their current states. and likewise, people in suffering must know there are better situations and strive to achieve them.

so yes, as human beings we take joy from other people's suffering. we define our happiness on how miserable others are. pretty depressing isn't it?

this is why heaven and hell(the current conceptions) are not so appealing. it takes away evolution, self improvement. knowing it can't get any better (in both places) might cause boredom. for that matter, the viking heaven was pretty nice.

Originally posted by vistesd
Re free-will: see my post to twhitehead on why I don’t think there is necessarily a free-will issue here.

Re omnipotence: your counter says that God cannot act in ways that are logically contradictory. I would ask if God’s omnipotence is limited in any other ways. But, yes, if God is not omnipotent with regard to the ability to create any (logically ...[text shortened]... ings Happen To Good People[/i], exploring Euthyphro’s dilemma in the context of the Book of Job.

To your point (b). I don't know. But you just can't remove one aspect and not think of the consequences it has on everything else. If we remove child torture (and I'm not condoning it in ANY way) then that means something else has to give. (this sucks that we're using child torture as an example because I'm making myself sick just thinking about what I have to write here) Child torture is an effect of some cause, and a cause for some effects. Removing it from existence means that the causes and effects have to change as well. The changes made may be better, or they may be worse (good or bad)

It is left to everyone's personal feelings on what is good and what is bad, but those feelings and opinions have no bearing on the absoluteness of the action.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
so yes, as human beings we take joy from other people's suffering. we define our happiness on how miserable others are. pretty depressing isn't it?

Depressing for you is happiness for me isn't it? 🙂

Are the happiest people those who are living next to the starving in Ethiopia but not actually starving themselves? Or maybe prison Guards perhaps?

I do know that you are partially correct in that many people are either happy or unhappy depending on how they view their success in comparison to others - but I disagree that the suffering of others is a necessary condition for my happiness - and I strongly disagree that extreme suffering is necessary at all.

So can I take it from your posts that you do not believe in the standard versions of heaven?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Depressing for you is happiness for me isn't it? 🙂

Are the happiest people those who are living next to the starving in Ethiopia but not actually starving themselves? Or maybe prison Guards perhaps?

I do know that you are partially correct in that many people are either happy or unhappy depending on how they view their success in comparison to othe ...[text shortened]...

So can I take it from your posts that you do not believe in the standard versions of heaven?

well yes, it is not universally true and doesn't apply to all cases. and as more extreme ones sorrow becomes the less happiness you get as a normal human being because we have empathy, essential to the survival of the species.

my argument mostly applies when by some magical means, all people have the same everything. the same wealth, the same jobs, the same physical traits. in my view, a person in that world or a world that is close to that cannot feel happiness even if what he has is something that would make him happy in this world(let's say eating pizza). also not only happiness but progress as well. you must have situations to compare, like A says: "B has a crappier job, i am so happy i have this nice job" or "B has a nicer job than me, i want it so i will work harder to get it"

if we were not forced to adapt by being faced with adverse conditions, we would have been still in trees. you wish God to take away those hardships. That is why God (if he exists, if you prefer) allowed evil into the world so we better ourselves by fighting it(or the people who surrender to it, forgive me for sounding too jedi ) and feel some satisfaction from playing the game of life.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
well yes, it is not universally true and doesn't apply to all cases. and as more extreme ones sorrow becomes the less happiness you get as a normal human being because we have empathy, essential to the survival of the species.

my argument mostly applies when by some magical means, all people have the same everything. the same wealth, the same jobs, the s ...[text shortened]... rgive me for sounding too jedi ) and feel some satisfaction from playing the game of life.

I'd take it one step further and say that evil does not exist. It is our own interpretations as to how it effects our own happiness that makes OUR determination if something is bad or good.

In the grand scheme of things, nothing is inherently bad because it MUST serve the greater good. For everything you interpret as negative, there is a positive. The difference is the relativity to the person experiencing it.

"We can never know the true consequences of our actions. They reach into places that are impossible for us to see." i.e. Butterfly effect. If we can never know the true consequences and implications, then who are we to judge what is good and bad? We do so in a vacuum as to how it is effecting us now. Not thinking about other implications it may have.

Originally posted by brobluto
I'd take it one step further and say that evil does not exist. It is our own interpretations as to how it effects our own happiness that makes OUR determination if something is bad or good.

In the grand scheme of things, nothing is inherently bad because it MUST serve the greater good. For everything you interpret as negative, there is a positive. The d ...[text shortened]... a vacuum as to how it is effecting us now. Not thinking about other implications it may have.

lets not get crazy here. we have some issues that will always be evil, under any moral system that has any value. no good will come out of genocide, rape, etc. stealing money from a children's hospital is evil no matter who judges it.


some notions of good and evil are subjective. some good things might not be so good in the long run. but there are evil things that no mater how you look at them are shameful and disgraceful. you cannot even say that hitler did some good by killing all them jews because otherwise stalin would have conquered all of europe. one evil that leads to a better state isn't less evil

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
well without evil(let's not use the word sin) how can there be good? good only has meaning if there is something in contrast. else there is no good way of doing things, it is the only way of doing things.

Then how could God have pronounced His Creation as 'good' if there wasn't something 'lousy' with
which to compare it?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
lets not get crazy here. we have some issues that will always be evil, under any moral system that has any value. no good will come out of genocide, rape, etc. stealing money from a children's hospital is evil no matter who judges it.


some notions of good and evil are subjective. some good things might not be so good in the long run. but there are evil ...[text shortened]... alin would have conquered all of europe. one evil that leads to a better state isn't less evil

This is my point. You can't concieve the good of it because you don't know all of the consequences, or the effects that were set in motion because of it. (also, your own morales effect your judgement)

What if a rape was the catalyst that sent the cops looking for the rapist, but led them to a terrorist cell just before they could leave to blow something else up? It's unfortunate for the woman who got raped, but extremely fortunate for hundreds of others whose lives were saved.

All I'm saying is that everything is related and intertwined. You can't remove one action without following it down the line to see what else is effected. Granted, the removal of that action may make room for another action to take place, however, because of O-O-O God, the best option already is. It's not our job or our place to judge those actions as to whether or not they are right or good or wrong or bad. They just are. It's our job to suck it up, put our judgements to the side, make the best of it for ourselves and move on and struggle to FIND the silver lining.

There is no evil and there is no good. things just ARE, right wrong or indifferent.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
well yes, it is not universally true and doesn't apply to all cases. and as more extreme ones sorrow becomes the less happiness you get as a normal human being because we have empathy, essential to the survival of the species.

my argument mostly applies when by some magical means, all people have the same everything. the same wealth, the same jobs, the s ...[text shortened]... rgive me for sounding too jedi ) and feel some satisfaction from playing the game of life.

So based on your comments, am I correct that you do not think that the current world is the best possible world?

Originally posted by Nemesio
Then how could God have pronounced His Creation as 'good' if there wasn't something 'lousy' with
which to compare it?

Nemesio

because we hadn't done anything wrong and we had and still have great potential to do good.