A universe with God.

[Skeptical Greg]

If He had the power to save us outright what would be the point? Things have to happen as a matter of course, in order to allow other things to happen as a matter of course.

Otherwise there would be no consequences, good or bad.

If[/] he had the power? You mean he doesn't?

 

[Iacchus]

If he had the power? You mean he doesn't?

LOL! I'm not the one who brought it up.

Ehm? Nope, the problem still exists. God is all-powerful, and loves us, but he doesn't have the power to save us, his beloved children, from evil. Or he doesn't really love us at all, and can save us but chooses not to, because he likes to see us suffering. Yet he still demands we worship him, for no other reason than his own vanity most likely because those who worship him still suffer from evil, except they have stopped realising it because they have stopped thinking about it.

 

[exarch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If He had the power to save us outright what would be the point? Things have to happen as a matter of course, in order to allow other things to happen as a matter of course.

So he's just playing with us, observing us as we croack and die all over the place, laughing at us insignificant little ants as we try to make something of our lives and our planet, even though he knows we can't. He's definitely not a loving god. He's a sick b*st*rd.

Otherwise there would be no consequences, good or bad.

Exactly. That's what the rest of us believe: there are no consequences except those we impose on ourselves or others.

You steal, you go to jail. If you don't get caught, you get away with it. No cosmic karma slapping us in the face later on.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If He had the power to save us outright what would be the point? Things have to happen as a matter of course, in order to allow other things to happen as a matter of course.

Otherwise there would be no consequences, good or bad.

If you remove from God the power to save us outright, then you remove from him omnipotence, and you have successfully avoided the problem of evil. (Your God still has other problems, most glaringly lack of evidence, but he did get by this one) I can comprehend an all-loving all-knowing God who just happens to be too much of a wimp to help anyone.

I doubt that was your purpose, though, so let me reformulate a tad. Since he has the power, but perhaps not the inclination, to save us outirhgt, how is he not an a-hole?

 

[elliotfc]

I find it interesting you ask me to expound on a sarcastic post, but I'll do my best.

I was merely saying that in my own experience(TM), most theists I have seen confronted with the Theodicy problem do not see the problem at all through ignorance. The Theidiocy problem is just that. They do not see any conflict because their only mode of reasoning is "The pastor said it, it must be true." Until they overcome that, they cannot begin to think about Theodicy at all.

It should be noted that I do not believe this is true of all theists, nor do I even venture to guess what percentage of them deal with the Theidiocy problem. I only assert that most that I have met personally are rather dense. They are also almost invariably Christians of the fundamentalist stripe.

As to your other questions, I believe, from reading other of your posts, that you do see evil as a problem. That is why you find it necessary to redefine the words so that the problem disappears.

Sorry, I'm not the best at detecting sarcasm. I try to be charitable and assume people are serious until told otherwise.

Are there people with the "pastor said it" reasoning? I'm sure. Of course I can't speak for them. Are there millions of such? Maybe hundreds of thousands? I have no idea. This is, of course, related to people who go with the "science teacher said it" deal, "auto mechanic", "parents", "best friend", etc.

Of course evil is a problem. A problem that was remedied. It is an ongoing problem that must be fought. I reject definitions of words if they don't fit what must be the reality of God. You would have God contingent on definitions. That is nonsense, words and definitions can not define or limit God; a dictionary is not omnipotent, or more potent, than God.

The dictionary definition of omnipotent is a nice thought that does not correspond to God, and I won't be straw horsed into having it stuck to God, particularly by people who don't even believe in God, or believe in the possibility of an omnipotent being.

-Elliot

 

[Pahansiri]

The dictionary definition of omnipotent is a nice thought that does not correspond to God,

-Elliot

My great friend that statement is fully illogical.

What you are saying is the dictionary definition of omnipotent is wrong because it does not fit your personal desires as to how you personally want your belief ( God a non fact) defined.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Sorry, I'm not the best at detecting sarcasm. I try to be charitable and assume people are serious until told otherwise.

Sarcasm is not always frivolous.

Are there people with the "pastor said it" reasoning? I'm sure. Of course I can't speak for them. Are there millions of such? Maybe hundreds of thousands? I have no idea. This is, of course, related to people who go with the "science teacher said it" deal, "auto mechanic", "parents", "best friend", etc.

As for the numbers, I have no idea, either, which is why I didn't speak to such. And, granted, non-theists have their counterparts.

Of course evil is a problem. A problem that was remedied. It is an ongoing problem that must be fought.

The problem is not evil. The problem is the existence] of evil. We're not talking about remedies for the ills of the world when we speak of the problem of evil. We're talking about the irreconcilability of the existence of evil and the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator.

I reject definitions of words if they don't fit what must be the reality of God. You would have God contingent on definitions. That is nonsense, words and definitions can not define or limit God; a dictionary is not omnipotent, or more potent, than God.

The dictionary definition of omnipotent is a nice thought that does not correspond to God, and I won't be straw horsed into having it stuck to God, particularly by people who don't even believe in God, or believe in the possibility of an omnipotent being.

-Elliot

It almost appears that you are trying to say that God is, by nature, indefineable. Not a position I will argue, but I must ask: if this is so, how do you define him to be worthy of worship? How do you define him to be merciful? Just? The father of Jesus? You can't just switch off the defineability of God when it inconveniences your beliefs. We can either pin him down, or we can't.

 

[elliotfc]

that will not be true, “he” allows the wishes to be safe and happy of the person being harmed by the being harming them or the natural disasters that harm people that he is in full control of and the beings being harmed by them have no control over. The same would be said for all many illnesses that the being does not seek but this God forces on them.



Of course that is a belief and to be respected but it does limit the love of this being please refer to my thread http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35055

You have also said God does not force you to respect him. That would not be the case in most God based beliefs as you either respect and believe in him or you will forever suffer.

This is like stand before your child with a bat telling them they need not respect you but if they do you will beat them to death with the bat.

Do you believe God has unconditional love?

I'll try to restate what I've already said.

God created/creates creative beings. For whatever reason, God feels it is important that these beings have free will. The creative beings, not being God, have the capacity to make bad choices. Without free will, the creative beings would not be creative beings, but copy machines. To consider the alternative is impossible as we are flawed creative beings. We could certainly wish that to not be the case, but then it is all a moot point. Everything would be different. Would it be better? That is a judgment call that the ultimate judge obviously doesn't accept.

As for parents...different parents have different standards. Take proms. Fornication/alcohol usually go hand in hand, with I'd say 50% of kids. Go ahead and scoff, some of you are talented at that. Anyhow, different parents will have different threshholds in judging how to handle the situation. Should you kid go to the problem? Should the kid be chaperoned from start to finish? Or do you allow anything to happen. Panhasiri, you would have your parenting decisions placed on God. If God's parenting decisions do not match yours, you would say he is not all-loving. That is fine. In response, I would say that God must not have his parenting decisions contingent on you, for that would make his choices less potent than yours.

As for all-loving. You appear to hold that having the possibility of creative beings making bad choices means that God is not all-loving. I disagree. We not only have the choice to make bad choices, but good choices as well. In addition, the temporal world is not the end-all, be-all. There is another world, and their is redemption, and there is eternal justice.

As for "forcing" of respect. I do not confuse force/allow, and I am not saying that you do either, but to be clear, allowing someone to respect you is different from forcing someone to respect you. Like all-loving, our concepts of eternal punishment differ as well I reckon. To me, eternal punishment is the accepted result for a person who does not embrace God, rejects God, continues to rebel, and refusees to repent. All of that. In that way, eternal damnation is a choice, the choice for those who do not choose to endure reconciliation (I think endure is a good way of looking at the process, I can't expound on that now as I am short of time).

Suffering then is a choice on earth, and a choice after the earthly life is over. Eternal damnation is an extension of free will. God allows us to damn ourselves in our war against him.

As for the bat analogy, I agree. God does not threaten us with baseball bats. The Hell analogies...they are pedological conceits I think, meant to scare. But they all pale in comparison to what we can not imagine, a life absolutely cut off from God's grace. God does not say acccept me or Hell. You look at it from the negative, and for good reason, as there is a history and a foundation for that in Judeo-Christain theology. These analogies you can no doubt refer to and quote are teaching aids. God is positive, however. God asks us to embrace. If we don't embrace, we will not be forced to embrace. Hell is not being hit with a baseball bat, or fire, or ice. It is a complete severance from God's grace, and that is worse than any constructed parable or analogy.

Unconditional love means there is a possibility of forgiveness or redemption or reconciliation. But that can not be forced on anyone.

As for the dictionary definition it exists. Because a dictionary definition exists, that does not mean it corresponds to the reality of God. Definitions change throughout human history of course, particularly when you examine realities like science or anatomy. You would, again, hold God to what is written in a dictionary. I don't.

One more thing, and this is an aside. God didn't create evil. Rather, he created creative beings who can not make perfect choices as God does. He created the possibility for non-perfect creative beings to make faulty choices.

Unlikely that I can visit this forum again til Monday. And since I can not typically spend more than snippets of time here, I will do my best to track down responses and keep up with this. After next week I am swamped with schoolwork.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

The problem is not evil. The problem is the existence] of evil. We're not talking about remedies for the ills of the world when we speak of the problem of evil. We're talking about the irreconcilability of the existence of evil and the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator.

The existence of evil is a necessary result of the existence of creative beings who are not perfect.

Evil can be eradicated, I suppose, by the eradication of all non-perfect creative beings.

It almost appears that you are trying to say that God is, by nature, indefineable. Not a position I will argue, but I must ask: if this is so, how do you define him to be worthy of worship? How do you define him to be merciful? Just? The father of Jesus? You can't just switch off the defineability of God when it inconveniences your beliefs. We can either pin him down, or we can't.

I think the attempt to define God is good exercise. That is theology, innit? My thing is when I do have it out with God, I will genuflect and accept the truth as it is, not as I think it is. I'd like to believe that I have some good notions. I am doing the best I can. As for worthy of worship, as a creative being, I feel it appropriate to worship the perfect creative being who created me.

You are correct. We can't pin down God....well...God does make allowances. Jesus was crucified. Theology is not futile, I don't accept that. Ideally we are approaching Truth, even if we never achieve it, or can never prove we achieve it. If this is futility, why engage in theology or theological discussion?

-Elliot

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Unlikely that I can visit this forum again til Monday. And since I can not typically spend more than snippets of time here, I will do my best to track down responses and keep up with this. After next week I am swamped with schoolwork.

-Elliot

Have a good weekend. We'll keep the fire stoked while you're away.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by elliotfc
The existence of evil is a necessary result of the existence of creative beings who are not perfect.

If I accept your premise that evil is a necessary result of free will, I still cannot see this as absolving God of the responsibility of creating evil. He created beings with the full knowledge that such a creation would bring evil into the world. That evil was an indirect creation hardly seems to remove the blame. If a creator exists, he is guilty for all evil in the world.

To put it another way, if I am running a chemical plant, and I know that the production of some compound is going to produce, as a necessary result, some dangerous and illegal pollutant, I will be held accountable for said production. I cannot make my chemical withou taking the blame for the (known) byproducts.

I think the attempt to define God is good exercise. That is theology, innit? My thing is when I do have it out with God, I will genuflect and accept the truth as it is, not as I think it is. I'd like to believe that I have some good notions. I am doing the best I can. As for worthy of worship, as a creative being, I feel it appropriate to worship the perfect creative being who created me.

Theology is not futile, I don't accept that. Ideally we are approaching Truth, even if we never achieve it, or can never prove we achieve it. If this is futility, why engage in theology or theological discussion?

Actually, I do think it's kind of futile, but it's fun (see sig.), but I can understand how you view it as an impotant venture. I must ask, though, how you know "the truth as it is" and what exactly you mean by "have it out with God." Do you experience God as revealing these truths to you directly, or are they things you have researched, and found evidence weighing in the favor of?

 

[Iacchus]

So he's just playing with us, observing us as we croack and die all over the place, laughing at us insignificant little ants as we try to make something of our lives and our planet, even though he knows we can't. He's definitely not a loving god. He's a sick b*st*rd.

Or, maybe you have Him mistaken for someone else? Well you know, there's always hope.

Exactly. That's what the rest of us believe: there are no consequences except those we impose on ourselves or others.

You steal, you go to jail. If you don't get caught, you get away with it. No cosmic karma slapping us in the face later on.

It's funny, but this isn't what Tricky was trying to explain to me in another thread.

 

[Pahansiri]

Greetings my friend.

I'll try to restate what I've already said.

My friend just give me the same respect I have shown you and answer my questions.


1- if God has control over what “he’ does how does this loving father allow a child/person to suffer when he knows it will happen and yet does nothing to stop it?

It is by this thinking his fault and makes him far from being a loving father.

2-Why does “he” allows the wishes to be safe and happy of the person being harmed by the being harming them or the natural disasters that harm people that he is in full control of and the beings being harmed by them have no control over?

3-The same would be said for all many illnesses that the being does not seek but this God forces on them, why?

4- You have also said God does not force you to respect him. That would not be the case in most God based beliefs as you either respect and believe in him or you will forever suffer correct?

This is like stand before your child with a bat telling them they need not respect you but if they do you will beat them to death with the bat.

5-Do you believe God has unconditional love?

Please, let us conduct a respectful interaction and conversation.

I will show you again respect and address everything you say and ask. I look forward to you doing the same.

God created/creates creative beings.

I respect you believe that.

For whatever reason, God feels it is important that these beings have free will.

1- How do you know what God feels/thinks?


I have pointed out but you ignore that we do not have a complete free will. I no matter how I wish run 100 miles an hour etc.

Also and what you have ignored when a person shoots me because he wanted to he exercise his free will but my free will to not be shot is ignored.

Does God ONLY respect free will to harm?

The creative beings, not being God, have the capacity to make bad choices.

I respect you believe that but can if you wish demonstrate many hundreds or thousands of cases in the Bible or the holy books of other God based religions where this being/God has made very evil choices.

Regardless, how is it free will for the child who is raped and killed ? Please answer.

Without free will, the creative beings would not be creative beings, but copy machines.

my friend I do believe in a form of free will as I have said, please just be honest and answer my questions.

To consider the alternative is impossible as we are flawed creative beings.

My friend please stop dancing around and answer my questions.

When a man rapes and kills a child what of the free will of the child, parents, family and friends to not have her harmed?

Does God only allow free will for evil acts?

As for parents...different parents have different standards.

what does this have to do with what I said?

Take proms. Fornication/alcohol usually go hand in hand, with I'd say 50% of kids. Go ahead and scoff, some of you are talented at that.

What does this have to do with anything?

Anyhow, different parents will have different threshholds in judging how to handle the situation. Should you kid go to the problem?

What???

Should the kid be chaperoned from start to finish? Or do you allow anything to happen.

No, they could be as your God is and allow the child go to the prom knowing that the child will drink, and park later knowing that a rapist and killer that he has full control over will rape and kill her and her date.

This parent ( god) knew this would happen allowed it to happen and helped it to happen. Is it the child’s fault in your mind?

Panhasiri, you would have your parenting decisions placed on God.

My friend read my post again slowly and you will see how you have not understood what is written.

If God's parenting decisions do not match yours, you would say he is not all-loving. That is fine. In response, I would say that God must not have his parenting decisions contingent on you, for that would make his choices less potent than yours.

My friend do you know what analogy means?

As for all-loving. You appear to hold that having the possibility of creative beings making bad choices means that God is not all-loving.

What is not all loving is allowing a child to do something or have something done to them that they have no control over or choice in when you have all the power to stop it and you are the very one who put in place the causes that will harm her.

I disagree. We not only have the choice to make bad choices, but good choices as well.

STOP, take a deep breath and read what is written.

IF a child who does not want to be raped and killed is raped and killed by a man who wanted to do this.

Her parents, grandparents etc all did not want here to be raped and killed.

It was not their choice but in your belief the killers free will comes first?

In addition, the temporal world is not the end-all, be-all.

that is your belief and irrelevant. Are you saying it is OK for some people to really suffer greatly and that is ok?

There is another world, and their is redemption, and there is eternal justice.

I will be happy to see your proof of this but find that right or wrong meaningless to this conversation.

As for "forcing" of respect. I do not confuse force/allow, and I am not saying that you do either, but to be clear, allowing someone to respect you is different from forcing someone to respect you.

Not at all. You believe God is all knowing, knowing I will be Buddhist and not believe in “him” long before I was born, as do using today 76% of the worlds population do not believe in your Christian God.

Knowing this ahead of time no matter how they live he is going to punish them for doing what he knew they would do, not believe in him or massage his ego.


I will say again, you ignored this.

An analogy for your God would be this.

A father knows his son will tell a little fib to him, he asks his child to answer already knowing he will fib. He tells him he wants him to tell the truth but it is up to him but if he fibs he is going to beat him to death with a bat.

Like all-loving, our concepts of eternal punishment differ as well I reckon. To me, eternal punishment is the accepted result for a person who does not embrace God, rejects God, continues to rebel, and refusees to repent.

how sad and evil and un-loving this god is.


His love is predicated on his ego and having beings massaging his ego. He allows them to be born knowing they will not believe in him, many never having any opportunity to even know he is a possibility. He never proves he exist and makes you just guess but knows that most never will believe in him.

He then makes suffer for all time people who he knew would not believe in him. People he knew would not believe in him who may live a year to 99 just a blink of the eye will suffer forever simply because they would not believe in him.

I have no such respect for such a being, this “God” I have only sadness for his for how evil he is.

Suffering then is a choice on earth, and a choice after the earthly life is over.

1-How did the child who was kidnapped and raped choose that?
2- How did the person hurt or killed by the hurricane, earth quake, flood etc choose this suffering?
3- How did the person who contracts the most painful illness choose this suffering.

I could go on for hours, please stop and thing about what you say.

Eternal damnation is an extension of free will. God allows us to damn ourselves in our war against him.

the child that is born into a tribe in the most distant rain forest never seen by other humans is at war with God?

Stop and think.

As for the bat analogy, I agree. God does not threaten us with baseball bats. The Hell analogies...they are pedological conceits I think, meant to scare. But they all pale in comparison to what we can not imagine, a life absolutely cut off from God's grace.

I have great joys and happiness without your God. I will rather stay with people who suffer and help them then be near such an evil self centered God.

God does not say acccept me or Hell.

My friend I can help you learn your bible better if you like.

Deuteronomy 32:22
For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.

Matthew 5:22
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Matthew 18:9
And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

Mark 9:43
And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

Mark 9:45
And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

Mark 9:47
And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:

James 3:6
And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.

Revelation 20:14
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

You look at it from the negative, and for good reason, as there is a history and a foundation for that in Judeo-Christain theology. These analogies you can no doubt refer to and quote are teaching aids.

A teaching aid? Believe in me or die?

God is positive, however. God asks us to embrace. If we don't embrace, we will not be forced to embrace.

So you do not believe God is all knowing?

Hell is not being hit with a baseball bat, or fire, or ice. It is a complete severance from God's grace, and that is worse than any constructed parable or analogy.

I respect that is how you wish to interpret your Bible.

Unconditional love means there is a possibility of forgiveness or redemption or reconciliation. But that can not be forced on anyone.

No my friend. Unconditional be no conditions not one.

Believe in me or suffer is not unconditional.

Also again it seems you are saying God is now all knowing, that is interesting.

As for the dictionary definition it exists. Because a dictionary definition exists, that does not mean it corresponds to the reality of God.

God is a belief not a reality until proves to be such. I greatly respect you and your belief but it is not fact.


The definition is a definition of what the word means not what you want it to mean.

Definitions change throughout human history of course, particularly when you examine realities like science or anatomy.

All realities and facts.

You would, again, hold God to what is written in a dictionary. I don't.

I hold god as a myth. I hold love and respect for all beings and their beliefs but I hold God as a unproven myth just as unicorns.

One more thing, and this is an aside. God didn't create evil.

Again you do not know your bible well.


I will offer you only a few examples but if you wish more I will supply them for you:

"I am Jehovah, and there is none else; besides me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known me; that they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none besides me: I am Jehovah, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, who does all these things." (Isa. 45:5-7)

The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." Proverbs 16:4

Do you believe your God lied?

Rather, he created creative beings who can not make perfect choices as God does. He created the possibility for non-perfect creative beings to make faulty choices.

Then punishes them for doing what he made them do.

Be well my friend.

 

[CWL]

Elliotfc and Iacchus,

You insist on explaining the existence of evil as a necessary result of free will.

I have asked you the below (very simple) question several times in this thread already, however without any reply. Please do me the courtesy of answering.

How can earthquakes and HIV be a necessary result of free will ?!?

 

[Pahansiri]

Elliotfc and Iacchus,

You insist on explaining the existence of evil as a necessary result of free will.

I have asked you the below (very simple) question several times in this thread already, however without any reply. Please do me the courtesy of answering.

How can earthquakes and HIV be a necessary result of free will ?!?

Greetings CWL I tried the earthquake, floods, illnesses, killers etc no responce.

 

[CWL]

Greetings CWL I tried the earthquake, floods, illnesses, killers etc no responce.

Greetings, friend.

Sometimes silence is a telling thing indeed.

 

[exarch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Or, maybe you have Him mistaken for someone else? Well you know, there's always hope.

Actually, maybe YOU have him mistaken for someone else? Maybe you are worshipping a being wich you believe to be perfect and loving, but is in fact not interested in how you feel. A being that only wants to see you suffer and squirm around trying to make your idea of what god is like fit reality or your perception of that being.

Then again, you have no perception of that being, because that being cannot be percepted. He doesn't exist, and those who think they saw him just had some brain neurons misfire. I take that as the most plausible explanation over a plethora of other beliefs, most of them involving exceptions to the existing, established rules.

Originally posted by exarch
Exactly. That's what the rest of us believe: there are no consequences except those we impose on ourselves or others.

You steal, you go to jail. If you don't get caught, you get away with it. No cosmic karma slapping us in the face later on.

It's funny, but this isn't what Tricky was trying to explain to me in another thread.

Please provide a link to the supposed thread where Tricky is arguing there is such a thing as karma, so I can verify for myself whether he's merely being ironic or sarcastic or somehow joking, or is in fact dead-serious.

(Edited to fix a quote tag)

 

[exarch]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Are there people with the "pastor said it" reasoning? I'm sure. Of course I can't speak for them. Are there millions of such? Maybe hundreds of thousands? I have no idea. This is, of course, related to people who go with the "science teacher said it" deal, "auto mechanic", "parents", "best friend", etc.

I had to lift this statement out, because there is a difference between "my pastor told me" and "my science teacher told me". The difference is that being a science teacher means that if you start spreading lies (about science), you could end up losing your job, while for a pastor spreading lies, no, let's be fair: preaching "unfounded assumptions", is part of the job description.

 

[Dancing David]

One more thing, and this is an aside. God didn't create evil. Rather, he created creative beings who can not make perfect choices as God does. He created the possibility for non-perfect creative beings to make faulty choices.


-Elliot

Hey Elliot, I think that if you can accept the idea that the world came about in a totaly chaotic fashion, this is exactly the surmise I came to from the other direction. I say that 'evil' exists because this is an organic chaotic realm, and that there fore, evil was not intended in the design but is just an aspect of freedom of choice.

I would just say that chaotic evolution, gave freedom of choice to certain creatures.

But I feel that 'evil' was unnessecary to the construction, just an unintended consequence.

Same language different angle.

 

[Iacchus]

So he's just playing with us, observing us as we croack and die all over the place, laughing at us insignificant little ants as we try to make something of our lives and our planet, even though he knows we can't. He's definitely not a loving god. He's a sick b*st*rd.

And yet there's a lesson to be learned in everything.

Exactly. That's what the rest of us believe: there are no consequences except those we impose on ourselves or others.

You steal, you go to jail. If you don't get caught, you get away with it. No cosmic karma slapping us in the face later on.

Hey if you want to stand out in the freezing cold buck naked that's entirely up to you, but don't tell me you won't be suffering the consequences.