The Fallacy of Good vs. Evil: Christianity is inherently flawed [Archive]

FreakDaddy

08-01-2005, 08:44 PM

Inherent in the Judeo-Christian world view is a flawed metaphysical proposition which is scantly explored. As most believers of this world view will tell you, God is the supreme, all knowing, good, wise and only god. While the concept of monotheism was never derived from the Judeo-Christian world, it also doesn’t exist if you apply some simple reasoning to the propositions offered in the bible.

The fundamental tenant in the bible is that there is only one god, which through the use of man and his son (if you apply the New Testament), has passed on teachings on how to live a proper life, and reach the kingdom of heaven (return to the father). All this time, god is engage in a war over mans soul with a fallen angel Lucifer, also known as the devil. Lucifer represents an evil force, which is here to tempt man and sway him to reside in his kingdom (hell), instead of the father’s kingdom (heaven).

The problem with this world view is that it creates a dualism, and NOT a monotheistic world view. You now have two opposing forces, competing for some object (mans soul), thus you either have two gods, OR evil does no truly exist. You cannot apply properties to God, such as goodness, while in the same breath say that god is one, BUT an evil exist. Either this evil is separate from God, and thus creates two gods, or God is not indeed good. These points of course have been addressed to Christian scholars before, but in my searching, never properly addressed, and rarely discussed by laymen.

Here’s the argument for simplicities sake:

God is a ONE and is Good. (These two terms have to be shown to also be one in order for god to be one)

Satan is ONE and is Evil.
===================
Thus you have 3 conclusions:
1) God is the Supreme being and Satan (evil) does not exist.
2) Satan is the Supreme being and God (Good) does not exist.
3) God and Satan are equal and there are two opposing forces.

Conclusion 1
Obviously if you choose conclusion one, then the inherent problem becomes, what is the role of Satan then according to the Bible, and where did Satan come from? He could not have come from God, because good is wise and good, and basic reason tells us that an evil can not come from a good.

Conclusion 2
If you proceed with this conclusion, then there truly is no good. Satan is the supreme creator, and God’s role is a mere fairly tale for children.

Conclusion 3
This conclusion leads us to the problem of having two gods and not one wise, supreme, and good god. We now have two competing gods with vastly different agendas for the fate of man.

There is of course the famous dark/light analogy so often offered when exploring the concept of good vs. evil. The analogy basically states that while light reigns supreme over darkness, the darkness exists in the light, but is not of the light. It’s a flawed analogy that gives away its problem in the last part of the previous sentence. If the darkness is not of the light, then what is its source? Furthermore, from a purely scientific perspective, only light exists in our universe and darkness is measured in degrees of the lack of light.

This leads me into a more sound and complete metaphysical world view, one which comes from classical philosophy. Instead of having two competing forces, a classic philosophical approach to monotheism states that there is ONE god (which is good), and like a thermometer, degrees of goodness that relate directly to the participation with that God. Thus you have a range of goodness, from the good to bad. Bad is understood perceptually by the individual based on a fragment of time (incomplete information), and thus is bound within a time/space conclusion of bad, but may indeed still be good.

Peter666

08-01-2005, 10:26 PM

That's why philosophers and true theologians define evil as the absence of good where the good ought to be. Evil is not an entity in and of itself, but a misuse of anything that is good, drawing it away from its appropriate end. Your last paragraph draws out the correct conclusion.

bobman0330

08-01-2005, 11:21 PM

You crazy Manichean! Burn him at the stake!

Why do you say that it is not good for God to allow evil though? Say that he has 2 options: forcing all the angels and men to obey, or giving them freedom to choose. Going with the latter option allows the possibility of evil, but it also allows a fuller existence of good. If the good that arises is worth "more" than the evil, the good choice would be to allow evil to exist. Thoughts?

FreakDaddy

08-01-2005, 11:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
That's why philosophers and true theologians define evil as the absence of good where the good ought to be. Evil is not an entity in and of itself, but a misuse of anything that is good, drawing it away from its appropriate end. Your last paragraph draws out the correct conclusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you that most theologians define evil as the absence of good, (they typically use the dark/light analogy), but I hope most 'good' philosophers wouldn't make such a silly claim.

See if good is a ONE, and if evil is the ABSENCE of good, then it is no longer a part of that one, and thus becomes a two. I would hope that most 'good' philosophers would grasp this concept.

Good post.

FreakDaddy

08-02-2005, 12:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You crazy Manichean! Burn him at the stake!

Why do you say that it is not good for God to allow evil though? Say that he has 2 options: forcing all the angels and men to obey, or giving them freedom to choose. Going with the latter option allows the possibility of evil, but it also allows a fuller existence of good. If the good that arises is worth "more" than the evil, the good choice would be to allow evil to exist. Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be happy to discuss the problem of free will with you, but staying specifically with the concept of good vs. evil, having a ONE god that is good, does not directly rule out that a BAD can occur. I'll try to make this less semantical because it's sometimes hard to discuss without properly defining all these terms that we're flinging around.

I personally have no problem saying that a good and evil can exist together. The specific problem I'm pointing out is based on the flawed concept that these are competing forces, which if they are, no longer makes God a ONE. For if God were a one, and evil, the opposite of good existed, it would no longer make God good, for within that one evil would exist. Let's not confuse in free will principles here, just stay with the reason.

Now if you want to say that God is good and is ONE, but an evil exist which is LESS than the good, you are still stuck with the same problem. It's again not to say that a BAD cannot exist, but that they cannot be competing forces.

txag007

08-02-2005, 12:56 AM

"Thus you have 3 conclusions:
1) God is the Supreme being and Satan (evil) does not exist.
2) Satan is the Supreme being and God (Good) does not exist.
3) God and Satan are equal and there are two opposing forces."

or 4) God is the Supreme Being and Satan (evil) does exist.

The Bible does not hide the fact that Satan exists and Hell is real. However, nowhere in the Bible does it say that Satan is a god. Lucifer was banished to Hell when he wanted to become a god. Therefore, this does not conflict with a monotheistic worldview. There is one true God, and He is Jehovah.

That being said, spiritual warfare is real too. Good and evil are in constant battle with one another. The Bible, however, gives away the ending in the Book of Revelation. God wins. He is in complete control, and thus, good and evil are not equal.

FreakDaddy

08-02-2005, 02:29 AM

Ok, good you agree that evil exist. Where did Satan come from?

08-02-2005, 04:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, good you agree that evil exist. Where did Satan come from?

[/ QUOTE ]

uhhh! Let me guess... From the same place god came from?

PairTheBoard

08-02-2005, 05:12 AM

I think the traditional view was that God is One. God created Angels which are not dieties, not gods, but something else. Some of these angels, led by satan, rebelled and seperated from God. God also created humans. Humans are not dieties, not god, and not Angels, but something else. Eve and Adam were tempted by Satan to seperate from God. Humanity has been seperated from God ever since, thus explaining everything in the world that appears to be less than good - or evil.

imo, where this comes from is the fact that we want to believe that we come from a good source. How then do we explain everything that seems bad or evil. Well, we construct this metaphysical system where everything that's good comes from God and everything evil is our fault. How did it come to be our fault? The bad angel satan mislead us.

This is not such a bad metaphysical construct. It forces us to take responsibility for the world not being better than it could be. And it takes some of the heat off of us and puts it on Satan. It's really pretty monotheistic. There's only one real Diety. Satan is more like one of us than a Diety. You might say Satan is the personification of our rebelion against our better selves.

PairTheBoard

TheRedDragon

08-02-2005, 06:18 AM

Bad reasoning.

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with this world view is that it creates a dualism, and NOT a monotheistic world view. You now have two opposing forces, competing for some object (mans soul), thus you either have two gods, OR evil does no truly exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you assume that God and Satan exist on equal footing when the text makes clear that they don't? You do have two competing forces, but that doesn't mean that they're engaging in symmetrical warfare. You'd have a point if Christians believed that the outcome of the battle was undetermined, but we don't.

We believe that God is bound to win in the end. The struggle exists not as a test for Him, but as a test for us.

We believe that both Good and Evil exist, but that in the end Good is bound to triumph over Evil. Might that be a bit optimistic? Surely. But it's certainly not inconsistent.

08-02-2005, 06:24 AM

I think that there is only one God and a lot of confused people

txag007

08-02-2005, 08:20 AM

"Where did Satan come from?"

You seem to already know the answer to this. He came from God. He was created by God as one of his angels. It was only when he tried to become greater than God that He was banished to Hell and became known as Satan. He never was a God, however, and does not have the power of (or equal to) God. What's the problem?

Peter666

08-02-2005, 10:35 AM

I think the absence of good is defined as a reduction of the good, and not as something separate, so your original point about everything being different degrees of good is correct. A real theologian would agree with this, and not make a light/dark claim.

From a religious perspective (and a correct theological one) Satan was not made evil because God cannot make something evil. Satan has an angelic nature that is good, and a free will that is good, but he used his free will for the opposite end of what his angelic nature was intended for. So in essence, he reduces his good to the lowest degree possible. The absence of all that potential good, is evil.

FreakDaddy

08-02-2005, 07:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think the absence of good is defined as a reduction of the good, and not as something separate, so your original point about everything being different degrees of good is correct. A real theologian would agree with this, and not make a light/dark claim.

From a religious perspective (and a correct theological one) Satan was not made evil because God cannot make something evil. Satan has an angelic nature that is good, and a free will that is good, but he used his free will for the opposite end of what his angelic nature was intended for. So in essence, he reduces his good to the lowest degree possible. The absence of all that potential good, is evil.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two questions for you then.
1) How is the reduction of something and the absence of something the same thing in your mind? If I have two boxes in a room, and I remove one of them, then room is absent of the boxes. Now if I remove one of the two boxes from the room, the room has been reduced to one ball. The are two SEPARATE ideas and terms. Pick one and then make a conclusion from it based on your definition.

2) Please explain in very clear terms how the concept of free will being created by a ONE god is seperate from the consequent of the initial action (allowing free will)? Remember, God is wise.

FreakDaddy

08-02-2005, 07:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"Where did Satan come from?"

You seem to already know the answer to this. He came from God. He was created by God as one of his angels. It was only when he tried to become greater than God that He was banished to Hell and became known as Satan. He never was a God, however, and does not have the power of (or equal to) God. What's the problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

Conclusion: God created evil.

Peter666

08-02-2005, 10:50 PM

"How is the reduction of something and the absence of something the same thing in your mind?"

This has to do with the concept of potency. The reduction of something and the absence of something are the same in that they both share the potentiality for something to be actualized. So when I speak of absence, I do not mean a total nothingness, because God always maintains the foundation of act. He is pure act. There is no creature that can reduce itself to total nothingness or annihilation.

So something that is absent has either not been actualized yet, or once it was actualized, it has been reduced back to its potentiality. The latter is what happened in the case of the devil. God made the angels to "see" Him, so at the moment of their creation they went from instant potency to act (seeing). Those angels who decided to close their eyes and reduce themselves as much as they could (back to potentiality) became devils. The difference this time being that they could not annihilate themselves into total nothingness, because God created them and maintains their existence. They could only move their wills away from God as much as possible.

It would be like a baby growing into a man, but then with some sort of magical power being able to reduce itself back to a baby. It was intended to become a man, not remain a baby.

To explain your second point, again, free will is a creation. God makes it out of nothingness, and its actuality is to either accept or reject. It can be reduced to non use - back to potentiality, but it cannot be annihilated into a vacuum as long as God maintains the potentiality.

Now my brain hurts.

FreakDaddy

08-03-2005, 02:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think the traditional view was that God is One.

[/ QUOTE ]
What do you mean the 'traditional' view was this?

[ QUOTE ]

God created Angels which are not dieties, not gods, but something else. Some of these angels, led by satan, rebelled and seperated from God. God also created humans. Humans are not dieties, not god, and not Angels, but something else. Eve and Adam were tempted by Satan to seperate from God. Humanity has been seperated from God ever since, thus explaining everything in the world that appears to be less than good - or evil.

[/ QUOTE ]
Conclusion: God created evil.

[ QUOTE ]

This is not such a bad metaphysical construct. It forces us to take responsibility for the world not being better than it could be. And it takes some of the heat off of us and puts it on Satan.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't these last two sentences contradict themselves?
[ QUOTE ]

It's really pretty monotheistic. There's only one real Diety. Satan is more like one of us than a Diety. You might say Satan is the personification of our rebelion against our better selves.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are the problems you face when you try and turn mythology into history. What kind of God do you have that knowingly creates an evil force, who's primary role is to sway man away from god, then sits around, and although God is more powerful, allows this to occur? If we wish to move the subject to a free-will = love conversation, we can do that. I've had that one at least 100 times with Christians.

FreakDaddy

08-03-2005, 03:03 AM

1) Good is Good and God is ONE.
Agreed? If so proceed...
2) If God is good, then he could not have created evil, BECAUSE then god himself would no longer be good.
Agreed? If so proceed...
3) Satan is evil
Agreed? If so proceed?

Conclusion: Satan is either NOT evil, OR if so then he is a seperate and unique entity. A god, or whatever terminology you wish to use here.

On a side note, there is a war occuring according to the bible, and it's a war over mans soul. We can go over passages if you wish to clarify this, but I'd much rather you read your bible and understand the role of satan.

FreakDaddy

08-03-2005, 03:19 AM

Great. Someone who can make sense. That always makes a dialogue easier. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

So, I would agree with your understanding of absence, and I would only wish that any Judeo-Christian teaching would approach the concept of good and evil in a more rational manner. Unfortunetly from my experience, these concepts (good and evil) are always at war with one another, so they are presented as opposites of one another, which according to our reasoning, they would not be.

The fundamental problem of God being good and all knowing remains unfortunaetly. For of course our next quesiton is going to be, what kind of God would knowingly create a diety (or angel to use your words) powerful enough to resist him and harm his creations?

PairTheBoard

08-03-2005, 03:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the traditional view was that God is One.

[/ QUOTE ]
What do you mean the 'traditional' view was this?

[ QUOTE ]

God created Angels which are not dieties, not gods, but something else. Some of these angels, led by satan, rebelled and seperated from God. God also created humans. Humans are not dieties, not god, and not Angels, but something else. Eve and Adam were tempted by Satan to seperate from God. Humanity has been seperated from God ever since, thus explaining everything in the world that appears to be less than good - or evil.

[/ QUOTE ]
Conclusion: God created evil.

[ QUOTE ]

This is not such a bad metaphysical construct. It forces us to take responsibility for the world not being better than it could be. And it takes some of the heat off of us and puts it on Satan.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't these last two sentences contradict themselves?
[ QUOTE ]

It's really pretty monotheistic. There's only one real Diety. Satan is more like one of us than a Diety. You might say Satan is the personification of our rebelion against our better selves.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are the problems you face when you try and turn mythology into history. What kind of God do you have that knowingly creates an evil force, who's primary role is to sway man away from god, then sits around, and although God is more powerful, allows this to occur? If we wish to move the subject to a free-will = love conversation, we can do that. I've had that one at least 100 times with Christians.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can see you've given this a lot of thought. I don't think I have anything to add.

PairTheBoard

FreakDaddy

08-03-2005, 03:36 AM

You have nothing to add, or you don't want to accept the conclusion?

PairTheBoard

08-03-2005, 03:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You have nothing to add, or you don't want to accept the conclusion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if you insist I'll add this. From a Post Modernist perspective I think your comments are as ridiculous as whatever it is you think you're slamming.

PairTheBoard

FreakDaddy

08-03-2005, 03:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You have nothing to add, or you don't want to accept the conclusion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if you insist I'll add this. From a Post Modernist perspective I think your comments are as ridiculous as whatever it is you think you're slamming.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

If we were in a sandbox right now, would you be throwing sand in my eyes? Come come, if you have a problem with my ridiculous statement, then articulate your problem. I'm not trying to slam anything, I'm pointing out a serious problem in world view that is BELIEVED by so many people. It has to be believed because it can't be UNDERSTOOD. From my own experience, I think understanding is a much more valid way to approach life than believing, thus I'm expressing my position and sharing my understanding. Either we all learn something or we don't, but it won't occur unless someone clearly states a position, and someone else who disagree's states their position and disagreement. Isn't it great how dialogue works? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

PairTheBoard

08-03-2005, 03:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You have nothing to add, or you don't want to accept the conclusion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if you insist I'll add this. From a Post Modernist perspective I think your comments are as ridiculous as whatever it is you think you're slamming.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

If we were in a sandbox right now, would you be throwing sand in my eyes? Come come, if you have a problem with my ridiculous statement, then articulate your problem. I'm not trying to slam anything, I'm pointing out a serious problem in world view that is BELIEVED by so many people. It has to be believed because it can't be UNDERSTOOD. From my own experience, I think understanding is a much more valid way to approach life than believing, thus I'm expressing my position and sharing my understanding. Either we all learn something or we don't, but it won't occur unless someone clearly states a position, and someone else who disagree's states their position and disagreement. Isn't it great how dialogue works? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Feel free to dialogue with my original post.

PairTheBoard

FreakDaddy

08-03-2005, 04:12 AM

Well, good fortune to you. Thanks for your response.

txag007

08-03-2005, 09:23 AM

"Conclusion: God created evil."

Lucifer's rebellion was of his own free will. God didn't force it upon him. Punishing evil is not the same thing as creating it.

Girchuck

08-03-2005, 10:13 AM

The problem is, you allow for the possibility that a creature can imagine ways of being greater than the creator.
This implies a limitation of the creator's power.
If the creator is limitless and the creatures are limited, creatures would not be able to imagine a way to be greater than the creator.

txag007

08-03-2005, 11:04 AM

"This implies a limitation of the creator's power."

No, it doesn't. Did Satan succeed? By sending Satan to Hell, God showed that He was in complete control.

"If the creator is limitless and the creatures are limited, creatures would not be able to imagine a way to be greater than the creator."

What about free will? We aren't puppets. We are limited in our power but not our ambitions.

Girchuck

08-03-2005, 11:26 AM

Lets see.
You have a creator with infinite power.
and you have a creature with limited power and full knowledge that creator has infinite power.
Yet, this creature manages to imagine a plan that would somehow make it greater than the creator with infinite power.
I say this creature is mad, and in need of mental help. Do you believe that Satan is mad? Why isn't Satan cured by now?

txag007

08-03-2005, 12:32 PM

I don't pretend to understand Satan's motivation or his mental state, but I'll follow you on this. I think Satan is extremely smart, very real, and very deceptive. And mad, you ask? I don't know. Does it matter?

kleos

08-03-2005, 01:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You have nothing to add, or you don't want to accept the conclusion?

[/ QUOTE ]
What conlcusion... I dont even see a real thesis statement, much less a clear 'conclusion'.

I loosely gathered that you are trying to show that:

'Paradise Lost is some how being turned into history, and this presents a "bad metaphysical construct" because if God is good, one, and all powerful; why would he create something evil (defined/exemplified by you as Satan).'

PS - you needed to drop the judeo from judeo-christian you keep mentioning, before you started posting. None of this has anything to do with judeo/jewish beliefs.

FreakDaddy

08-03-2005, 03:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"Conclusion: God created evil."

Lucifer's rebellion was of his own free will. God didn't force it upon him. Punishing evil is not the same thing as creating it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who created 'free will'?

FreakDaddy

08-03-2005, 03:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You have nothing to add, or you don't want to accept the conclusion?

[/ QUOTE ]
What conlcusion... I dont even see a real thesis statement, much less a clear 'conclusion'.

I loosely gathered that you are trying to show that:

'Paradise Lost is some how being turned into history, and this presents a "bad metaphysical construct" because if God is good, one, and all powerful; why would he create something evil (defined/exemplified by you as Satan).'

PS - you needed to drop the judeo from judeo-christian you keep mentioning, before you started posting. None of this has anything to do with judeo/jewish beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you wish to come in the middle of a response, then at least read the previous exchange. The conclusion was: God created evil. Now please see if you can put that into contect, because that is not my original conclusion. My post is open ended, but the primary point is that there is a flawed understanding of a One God and the concept of evil. They cannot co-exist. And yes, it is Judeo-Christan, as most of this comes from the OT.

txag007

08-03-2005, 04:56 PM

"Who created 'free will'?"

By giving us free will, God allowed for the possibility of evil. That's not the same thing as creating it. To take that a step further, He allows the devil to reign in the world today. That does not mean that every bad thing is caused by God. See the difference?

bossJJ

08-03-2005, 06:01 PM

"Judeo-Christian" is an oxymoron. Christianity contradicts the Hebrew bible on just about every theological point. We have different definitions of and beliefs about just about everything, including: heaven, hell, God, messiah, Satan, bible, sex, the importance of faith versus actions, and much more. In claiming that Torah Law (which God said should be observed forever, and never changed) no longer needs to be followed, Christianity denies the whole Torah.

Contrary to the Hebrew bible, Christians believe that God and the messiah are the same. They follow a "messiah" who failed to fulfill a single messianic prophecy, as their beliefs about god and messiah are from paganism, not the bible. In worshipping a man as if he were a god (or God), they deny our God as well. Christians and Jews don't even worship the same God: They worship a false pagan mangod/failed messiah (Jesus), and we worship God.

Regarding Satan and evil, there are more than the three possibilities you suggest, and there is no agreement here either, thus no "Judeo-Christian" belief about this.

According to the Hebrew bible (Isaiah 45:7) God created evil: "I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I the Lord do all these things."

Satan, like all other angels, is a loyal servant of God. Angels do not have free will, and thus are incapable of rebelling against God or acting against His will. There is nothing in the Hebrew bible to support the Christian belief that Satan is evil or that he rebelled against God. This is discussed here (http://www.outreachjudaism.org/satan.html). Christians have essentially made Satan into an evil fourth god (after the three in their trinity). They don't call him a god, but they do believe that he has god-like powers and can act on his own.

bossJJ

08-03-2005, 06:11 PM

As to why God created evil in the first place, this is what I said in another thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=2798051&page=1&view=colla psed&sb=5&o=&fpart=all&vc=1#Post2907930) (near the bottom, post 2907930):

We don't believe in two gods, one good and one evil; There is only one God, who created both good and evil. As to why God created evil, and why good people suffer, that is something we just don't fully understand. Various reasons why good people may suffer:

- The suffering of the innocent is required for there to truly be free will. If we saw that only the wicked suffered, then no one would do any evil, and we would have lost the possibility of (and merit for) free will choices to do good.

-Without evil, we wouldn't appreciate the good. We couldn't even understand it was good if everything in the world was good and there was no suffering.

- There is also a World to Come. Suffering in this world will be balanced by reward in the World to Come. Evil that isn't punished in this World will be punished in the next.

- The innocent suffer in order to provide opportunities for others to do good, and in so doing, the innocent, and those who do good as a result, are all rewarded.

- For the Kabbalistically inclined, most people today are actually reincarnations of previous lives. Suffering in this life may be punishment for sins in a previous life, or they are here simply to learn a lesson that they failed to learn in a previous life.

- The Jews are a people outside of history, in a sense. Under normal circumstances we would have disappeared millenia ago, but because of our relationship with God, He has held back the natural course of events, which has allowed us to survive. When we are not deserving of God's mercy, He allows the natural course of events to unfold for a while. He withdraws His protection and the antisemites get the upper hand and oppress us.

- People have national, as well as individual destinies, and this applies in particular to the Jews. Although they may not individually have done anything wrong, or deserved death, the destinies of all Jews, innocent or guilty, are tied up with the Jewish people's, for better or worse.

David Sklansky

08-03-2005, 09:00 PM

Is there amongst any of you even one person who might accept something like the following:

God created the universe. Worries about human beings. Will reward or punish them. And wants to reveal himself to them. In the year 3465. Meanwhile all the previous supposed revealings didn't happen. Just like they didn't happen to the inhabitants of Mesopotamia ten thousand years ago or the hunter gatherers 40,000 years ago. Just like they didn't happen 2000 years ago according to Jews or like they didn't happen to Greece 3000 years ago according to almost everybody.

Put another way, are there any people out there who believe that there is a God in a much stonger way than mere theism but also believe that all of the religions are hogwash (as far as the details are concerned)?

Zeno

08-03-2005, 10:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Put another way, are there any people out there who believe that there is a God in a much stonger way [not based on human invention] than mere [orthodox] theism but also believe that all of the [current] religions are hogwash (as far as the details are concerned)?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's Possible, or putting it another way - it is a viable hypothesis.

Testable?

Any evidence?

How probable?

-Zeno

RJT

08-03-2005, 11:06 PM

Certainly. But it leads to at least three questions, for me at least.

1) How will people know in the year 3465 that His revelation to them isn’t more hogwash? Will said appearance be indisputable by all? Is He waiting until then for us to evolve into more intelligent beings, so we will know for sure in 3465?

2) What are we supposed to do in the mean time? Is he giving us clues now about how we should be living our lives and we are too dense to see them?

3) If there are no clues now, what is the point of us being here now?

Jim T

08-03-2005, 11:17 PM

There is a different inherant flaw in Christianity (AND Judaism). It involves Judeo-Christian belief that God is both all-knowing and benevolent.

From those postulates, when He put the Tree in the Garden of Eden while telling Adam and Eve not to touch it, He knew as He did it that they would eventually eat the fruit. It's something like giving my 5 year old son a differential equation problem and being furious when he doesn't get it right - I know ahead of time what the result will be, that he will fail the "test".

To institute a "test" that you already know will be failed (you could essentially call it pre-ordained), and then to enact a death sentence (there was no death in the Garden of Eden, right?) on not only those who failed the "test" but all their progeny too can be described with one word: evil. If the Judeo-Christian god exists as described, He is clearly an evil sadistic bastard.

Luckily, he's just a hoary old fable. I am frankly amazed that any reasonably intelligent person can believe such ridiculousness, yet I'm empirically forced to conceed that such intelligent believers exist by the millions.

PS Don't even get me started on the idiocy of needing to send down his "son" to "redeem" mankind. This "perfect being" screwed up everything so badly that he had to institute such a (incredibly clumsy) fix?

David Sklansky

08-03-2005, 11:36 PM

"Luckily, he's just a hoary old fable. I am frankly amazed that any reasonably intelligent person can believe such ridiculousness, yet I'm empirically forced to conceed that such intelligent believers exist by the millions."

It is a disease, similar to stoke victims who don't admit they are paralyzed or Multiple Personality sufferers (who were almost always horribly abused as children). It is cause by the brain's propensity to do whatever is necessary to prevent severe emotional pain.

However while intelligent people can suffer from this disease, it is rare that extremely intelligent people do. Remember how in "BEUTIFUL MIND", John Nash relaizes he is hallucinating because "she never gets older". Similarly, brilliant people eventually are forced to see (as of about 75 years ago) that what they believe is at the least incredibly farfetched, regardless of the emotional consequences that has for them.

David Sklansky

08-03-2005, 11:43 PM

3) If there are no clues now, what is the point of us being here now?

To go to strip clubs. How many times do I need to explain this?

( What was the point of dinausaurs? Or Neandertals, or people who lived before Abraham?)

PairTheBoard

08-04-2005, 01:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"Luckily, he's just a hoary old fable. I am frankly amazed that any reasonably intelligent person can believe such ridiculousness, yet I'm empirically forced to conceed that such intelligent believers exist by the millions."

It is a disease, similar to stoke victims who don't admit they are paralyzed or Multiple Personality sufferers (who were almost always horribly abused as children). It is cause by the brain's propensity to do whatever is necessary to prevent severe emotional pain.

However while intelligent people can suffer from this disease, it is rare that extremely intelligent people do. Remember how in "BEUTIFUL MIND", John Nash relaizes he is hallucinating because "she never gets older". Similarly, brilliant people eventually are forced to see (as of about 75 years ago) that what they believe is at the least incredibly farfetched, regardless of the emotional consequences that has for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or.

Maybe there is something going on that you just don't understand.

PairTheBoard

FreakDaddy

08-04-2005, 03:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Is there amongst any of you even one person who might accept something like the following:

God created the universe. Worries about human beings. Will reward or punish them. And wants to reveal himself to them. In the year 3465. Meanwhile all the previous supposed revealings didn't happen. Just like they didn't happen to the inhabitants of Mesopotamia ten thousand years ago or the hunter gatherers 40,000 years ago. Just like they didn't happen 2000 years ago according to Jews or like they didn't happen to Greece 3000 years ago according to almost everybody.

Put another way, are there any people out there who believe that there is a God in a much stonger way than mere theism but also believe that all of the religions are hogwash (as far as the details are concerned)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I studied comparitive religion in undergrad school, but mastered in classical philosophy. There is a much better way to understand and particiapte directly with 'God' (which I personally hate using that term because there are so many images attached to it). Religion, if ever studied in the context of geo-political struggles, will clearly show how it was used by governemnts to unify and numb their own people, while at the same time divide their government from other countries/governments.

'Unfortunately' most people hold the most fundamental of human questions such as, where did I come from? Where am I going? And today in society religion and science is offered to attempt to provide some comfort to these questions. Before the Christians destroyed all the schools of philosophy, a large portion of populations would turn instead to philosophy to understand some of these questions, which imo offers a much better way to approach a direct understanding of some of the most complex of subject matter.

FreakDaddy

08-04-2005, 03:27 AM

I would tend to agree with you BossJJ, but as it stands (perhaps unfortunetly) Christians use the OT as part of their teachings and part of the 'proof' that prophecies were fullfilled. I don't agree with any of that personally, nor is it my personal view that Judiasm and Christianity should be lumped together, but it typically is.

I could move sytematically through the NT and show how and when it was changed, and for what reasons it was changed as I've studied the original text quite thoroughly. I undoubtly think the NT should be divorced from the OT entirely, but the validity of Chrisitanity depends on the OT, as you well know.

Yet, my orignal post applies to both Jewish and Christian world views, both of which are flawed imo.

FreakDaddy

08-04-2005, 03:57 AM

Perhaps I'm sadistic to laugh at other people's belief (which in my view is like their own hell), but I just spit my water all over my keyboard after reading that.

Ok, now I need to repent. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

txag007

08-04-2005, 08:56 AM

"They follow a "messiah" who failed to fulfill a single messianic prophecy"

What are you talking about? The number of prophesies Jesus fulfilled is in the hundreds. Could you please name a few that were not fulfilled?

Girchuck

08-04-2005, 09:35 AM

When insane humans commit crimes, they are sent to a mental institution. When they are cured of their madness, they are released. Why is satan not in a mental institution? Why is it beyond god's power to cure satan?

kleos

08-04-2005, 09:47 AM

If this is how you present and defend, I can see why you 'mastered' and didn't move on.

txag007

08-04-2005, 09:50 AM

"Why is it beyond god's power to cure satan?"

Perhaps He doesn't want to cure Satan. Perhaps Satan isn't mad, just power hungry. When criminals are found to be sane, they are punished.

FreakDaddy

08-04-2005, 01:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If this is how you present and defend, I can see why you 'mastered' and didn't move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

You must be Christian.

Peter666

08-04-2005, 02:28 PM

I concur that it is a sad state of affairs when after about 3000 years of philosophy and 2000 years of Christianity, the best most people can do to argue for their Faith is to say "It's true because I can feel it!"

"what kind of God would knowingly create a diety...powerful enough to resist him and harm his creations?"

I believe the answer to this is the same type of God who wants to share His nature with others out of no motivation except love.

Obviously, without free will, a creature is just a programmed robot incapable of true love. And without real consequences(such as eternal Hell or Heaven)to our actions there is no motivation for a creature to do anything important except keep itself alive.

So I suppose the reason God allows His creatures to hurt other creatures is for merit. The more one can suffer for God's sake, the more he proves his love, and hence the more he is entitled to a greater reward. And because the award is an eternal one, any suffering on temporary Earth is incomparable to the consequences it can attain.

I am reminded of a similar question regarding the sufferings of Jesus. If Jesus who is God was incarnated as man to redeem us from sin, why would he choose to suffer greatly on the cross like He did? If He is God, surely the slightest pain, or even just the indignity of being reduced to the level of his creatures is enough to redeem everyone from anything because God's nature is infinite, and the slightest sacrifice is an infinite one.

The answer to the above question is that there is no other reason God chose to suffer as much as He did except to give a lesson to His creatures, showing how horribly He regards sin.