A universe with God.

[elliotfc]

If one is perfect, complete unto Itself, without needs or desires, why even create anything at all?

Why make babies? Love is creative.

Yes I know there are other reasons for making babies too.

Love is not about need/desire, but the other. You are thinking here that God desires something for himself. That is not love.

-Elliot

 

[Pahansiri]

Careful of the use "friend" here, sounds like you're pointing a loaded weapon at me.

Again my friend I point nothing at you, you do this to yourself.

I have great respect for you and all beings and call al friend.

.Your refusal to conduct a logical, respectful, honest and intelagent convversation/ interaction is not a reason for me not to call you friend.

 

[elliotfc]

In my experience, until someone has overcome their personal Theidiocy problem, they are completely unaffected by the Theodicy problem.

Could you expound on that? I don't see it as a problem, but as mere reality. Why should I accept that reality is a problem? Don't be clever and say something witty in return please, I ask that as a courtesy. Evil exists, that is reality, and why should that make my own personal beliefs crumble? My personal beliefs make the existence of evil necessary.

-Elliot

 

[exarch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What are you saying human beings aren't part of the universe?

No, that's what you are saying, I'm merely saying that the universe itself is not human, that stars and planets aren't human, that even nature itself is not human, so why attach human traits to them, emotions like anger, compassion, etc...

For that matter, why give god such traits? He's not human either. He supposedly made humans in his image, but that would merely mean we look like god, not act like him. So howcome god acts like us then?

Does it matter, so long as you've identified yourself as being a rabble-rouser?

Main Entry: rab·ble-rous·er
Pronunciation: 'ra-b&l-"rau-z&r
Function: noun
: one that stirs up (as to hatred or violence) the masses of the people : DEMAGOGUE

Main Entry: 1dem·a·gogue
Variant(s): or dem·a·gog /'de-m&-"gäg/
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek dEmagOgos, from dEmos people (perhaps akin to Greek daiesthai to divide) + agOgos leading, from agein to lead -- more at TIDE, AGENT
1 : a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power
2 : a leader championing the cause of the common people in ancient times

I think all the rabble-rousers already believe they are going ot heaven

 

[elliotfc]

Re: Re: Re: A universe with God.

Take starving children in Africa who were born with HIV for example. Do you call merely "shining" on that occurrence benevolence?!?

I share your outrage. These starving children suffer and I think all of humanity should take responbility, outrage, and necessary steps to rectify this suffering.

This suffering, however, is not eternal suffering. It is a temporal reality of a fallen world. The creation of these souls was benevolent, and these souls have a Redeemer who also suffered.

The benevolence is not the suffering that is framed by a starting point and ending point. The benevolence is the creative act of making an immortal who can make choices. The immortal will suffer to some degree as all immortals suffer to some degree. Without the hope of redemption, this would all be borderline unbearable. The suffering of children is an abomination.

Oh, I see. So the starving children in Africa chose to starve and to be born with HIV, did they? Pray tell what did they "learn" from this "mistake"?

No, they did not choose anything of the sort. Suffering, however, demands examination.

doesn't explain earthquakes, illness or why good people should have to endure the evil of others.

Freedom means that people can inflict evil on others. If no evil can be inflicted on others, there would be no freedom.

Judeo/Christian theology holds that man's fall into sin involved the fall of the created universe as well, or, the fall of hierarchically higher entities (angels) involved the fall of the created universe as well. This is a theological point to be accepted or rejected. The theology continues that the physical universe will be rectified at some future time.

the Universe "God" has created then I freely acknowledge that he is an absolute a-hole.

You are not alone in that, and God will respect your opinion so much that he won't force you to any eternal residence (for lack of a better word). You'll have to choice to acquiesce, or to reject. God can't force you to respect him, but he will respect your decision on the matter.

-Elliot

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Could you expound on that? I don't see it as a problem, but as mere reality. Why should I accept that reality is a problem? Don't be clever and say something witty in return please, I ask that as a courtesy. Evil exists, that is reality, and why should that make my own personal beliefs crumble? My personal beliefs make the existence of evil necessary.

-Elliot

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.

 

[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.

Of course I see evil as a problem. I believe in Jesus as Redemptor.

-Elliot

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I should have been more specific. I did not mean that 'evil is a problem' in that bad stuff happens and someone should do something about it. I meant that the existence of evil is a problem for the consistency of your (apparent) theology. And you redefine the terms involved (omnipotence being the prime example I have seen) to make that problem disappear.

 

[exarch]

Double post

 

[elliotfc]

I should have been more specific. I did not mean that 'evil is a problem' in that bad stuff happens and someone should do something about it. I meant that the existence of evil is a problem for the consistency of your (apparent) theology. And you redefine the terms involved (omnipotence being the prime example I have seen) to make that problem disappear.

The existence of evil is the foundation of my theology, in many ways. Without the existence of evil, there is no Jesus.

As for redefining terms, terms do not limit God. Do you believe in an omnipotent being? If so, I can see your problem. If not, what is the problem?

-Elliot

 

[exarch]

Originally posted by elliotfc
The existence of evil is the foundation of my theology, in many ways. Without the existence of evil, there is no Jesus.

As for redefining terms, terms do not limit God. Do you believe in an omnipotent being? If so, I can see your problem. If not, what is the problem?

The problem is that you say evil has to exist for god/Jeebus to exist. Yet the very existence of evil means that either god is cruel, or not powerful enough to get rid of it. You assert that god is all-powerful, so he just doesn't care about getting rid of it, which is extremely cruel, I'd go one further and even say it's evil.

 

[Iacchus]

The problem is that you say evil has to exist for god/Jeebus to exist. Yet the very existence of evil means that either god is cruel, or not powerful enough to get rid of it. You assert that god is all-powerful, so he just doesn't care about getting rid of it, which is extremely cruel, I'd go one further and even say it's evil.

Dare God cast a shadow? If not, how would you know He exists?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The existence of evil is the foundation of my theology, in many ways. Without the existence of evil, there is no Jesus.



-Elliot

[sarcastic/rhetoric]Forbid that God should have created a universe without evil, so the whole Jesus thing wouldn't have been necessary...[/]..

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

As for redefining terms, terms do not limit God. Do you believe in an omnipotent being? If so, I can see your problem. If not, what is the problem?

-Elliot

I do not believe in an omnipotent being, which is why I don't have a problem. The Theodicy problem can only be a thorn in the side of one who professes belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent entity and who acknowledges the existence of evil, or at least suffering since many try to distance themselves from that word.

I've seen only two ways to avoid the problem. One is to be a Theidiot, and not even understand that it is a problem. The other is to redefine the terms involved until the problem disappears. This appears to be your way.

As for limiting God, that's not what I'm doing. My terms give God infinite control. You are the one playing silly buggers with the definitions. It seems to me that you are trying to limit God (to help him escape the Theodicy problem.)

 

[Iacchus]

[sarcastic/rhetoric]Forbid that God should have created a universe without evil, so the whole Jesus thing wouldn't have been necessary...[/]..

Why didn't you bother to quote the rest of the post?

 

[elliotfc]

The problem is that you say evil has to exist for god/Jeebus to exist. Yet the very existence of evil means that either god is cruel, or not powerful enough to get rid of it. You assert that god is all-powerful, so he just doesn't care about getting rid of it, which is extremely cruel, I'd go one further and even say it's evil.

Evil has to exist for Jesus as God incarnate to exist.

Evil exists because God created creative beings who are not perfect. You say that God is cruel, in this way, yet your ability to say that depends on your existence.

God does care about dealing with evil. Jesus. Incarnate God.

-Elliot

 

[Iacchus]

I do not believe in an omnipotent being, which is why I don't have a problem. The Theodicy problem can only be a thorn in the side of one who professes belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent entity and who acknowledges the existence of evil, or at least suffering since many try to distance themselves from that word.

I've seen only two ways to avoid the problem. One is to be a Theidiot, and not even understand that it is a problem. The other is to redefine the terms involved until the problem disappears. This appears to be your way.

As for limiting God, that's not what I'm doing. My terms give God infinite control. You are the one playing silly buggers with the definitions. It seems to me that you are trying to limit God (to help him escape the Theodicy problem.)

And the third option being?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Why didn't you bother to quote the rest of the post?

Because I wasn't addressing the rest of the post...

Lets see....
Originally posted by elliotfc

As for redefining terms, terms do not limit God. Do you believe in an omnipotent being? If so, I can see your problem. If not, what is the problem?

Nope... Still don't have anything to say about that...

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And the third option being?

I provided three options.

1) Disbelief in an entity with the named properties and/or disbelief in evil
2) Ignorance or idiocy
3) Redefinition of terms

Actually, with those "or"s in there, it's 5 options. If you see the need for another option, provide it yourself.

 

[CWL]

Do you know what makes it even more painful? Is when we find the need to blame it on someone else.

Quit dodging and answer the question. Is, in your opinion, your God responsible for HIV or not?

And wouldn't you like to know?

Indeed. Why don't you answer instead of dodging my questions?

And wouldn't you like to know?

Again, why do you refuse to answer simple questions?

A place where things have a tendency to get mixed up until they can be sorted out later?

... and your reasons for this belief of yours are...?

Maybe there's a reward in learning how to be patient with one another?

Oh, I believe there is - but it has nothing to do with any strictly hypothetical afterlives or fictional superbeings...