|
Replies:
94
|
Vox
A1 · 4,870 Forum Posts
|
September 10, 2009 at 12:15 PM
Last Edited:
|
quote: Originally posted by kevin1122: Weather or not “evil” is a noun or not is not the point; the point is, evil does not have a physical existence. It is mearly a word used do describe something (a person, place, or thing) that has such an existence. The same can’t be said for temperature and light.
Obviously it doesn't have a physical existence, but I guess we have a difference in our understanding of what "existence" is. I don't subscribe to the idea that something has to have a physical existence in order to "exist." quote: quote: “Under my philosophy (if u can call it that), evil is a human quality that flows from the improper application of our God-given free will. God gave us free will, and he made us imperfect. Therefore we are capable of misusing our free will. The malevolent misuse of free will constitutes evil. Evil exists as a human trait.
To suggest that "evil exists where god does not" suggests that somehow God forces us to do the right thing. God does not do that.”. I guess that would all depend upon which concept of God one believes in. The concepts I am familiar with; such as the ones described in the Koran, Bible, or the Torah, this God does use force. If depending upon your actions while living, punishment or reward awaits you upon death, by definition; that is not free will.
I don't know if I agree with that last part. You're saying that free will is not really free will if perceived consequences influence your decision on how to exercise it. I think it's still free will; I'm typing this post while at work, with the full understanding that all of the work I have to do will be harder to get done the more time I spend away from it (but will still have to get done). Of course, that consequence is nowhere near as severe as eternal heaven or hell, but people still behave wrongfully even if they believe in heaven and hell. Anyway, this is interesting stuff, but it's back to work for me!! 

|
HonestBrother
A1 · 9,116 Forum Posts
|
September 10, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Last Edited:
|
quote: Originally posted by Vox: quote: Originally posted by kevin1122: Weather or not “evil” is a noun or not is not the point; the point is, evil does not have a physical existence. It is mearly a word used do describe something (a person, place, or thing) that has such an existence. The same can’t be said for temperature and light.
Obviously it doesn't have a physical existence, but I guess we have a difference in our understanding of what "existence" is. I don't subscribe to the idea that something has to have a physical existence in order to "exist."
A word definitely doesn't have to describe something that exists in a physical sense in order to be a noun!  (e.g., unicorns, Justice, imaginary numbers, heaven, hell, nirvana, etc.)
|
kevin1122
A3 · 331 Forum Posts
|
September 10, 2009 at 8:50 PM
Last Edited:
|
Vox: quote: “Obviously it doesn't have a physical existence, but I guess we have a difference in our understanding of what "existence" is. I don't subscribe to the idea that something has to have a physical existence in order to "exist."”
Actually I agree with you. That which is a part of ones imagination can be a noun quote: “I don't know if I agree with that last part. You're saying that free will is not really free will if perceived consequences influence your decision on how to exercise it.”
Not quite; True, we do all have freewill but it doesn’t come from he who doles out punishment. Example; I have freewill to buy a gun and rob a bank, but that freewill comes from me, not the law. If I attempt such a feat the law will enact punishment thus the freewill doesn’t come from the law, it comes from me. For theists, if their God provides punishment for making the wrong choices, they do have freewill, but it comes from within themselves, not their God, because their God provides punishment. Kevin

|
Vox
A1 · 4,870 Forum Posts
|
September 11, 2009 at 8:26 AM
Last Edited:
|
quote: Originally posted by kevin1122: Vox: quote: “Obviously it doesn't have a physical existence, but I guess we have a difference in our understanding of what "existence" is. I don't subscribe to the idea that something has to have a physical existence in order to "exist."”
Actually I agree with you. That which is a part of ones imagination can be a noun
I thought you said whether it's a "noun" or not is beside the point? A noun is a grammatical part of speech; it's a word that denotes something that can be the subject or object of a verb. In the very question, "Does evil exist?" you can see that evil is used as a noun there. That would end that question. The more purposeful point was whether it equals the "absence" of something, the way cold is the absence of heat, or darkness is the absence of light. I believe that the state resulting from the absence of something is still "something," conceptually. But the further question of whether evil is the "absence of God," I think we both agree is kind of hard to support. quote: quote: “I don't know if I agree with that last part. You're saying that free will is not really free will if perceived consequences influence your decision on how to exercise it.”
Not quite; True, we do all have freewill but it doesn’t come from he who doles out punishment. Example; I have freewill to buy a gun and rob a bank, but that freewill comes from me, not the law. If I attempt such a feat the law will enact punishment thus the freewill doesn’t come from the law, it comes from me. For theists, if their God provides punishment for making the wrong choices, they do have freewill, but it comes from within themselves, not their God, because their God provides punishment.
I don't think I understand your point here. I define "free will" as the capacity to make decisions on how to act or what to do, within a certain situation. Rather than strictly being subject to the stimulus-response dynamic, human beings in most situations have the ability to decide how to respond to a stimulus, before they actually respond. That's what I mean by "free will." That does not "come from you," it comes from nature. If you believe in God, you believe that if it's conferred by nature, it's conferred by God. But if you don't believe in God, you still believe that it's a capacity naturally conferred by nature upon the human brain. Evil, then, would be the exercise of that free will in contravention of what is understood (at least by society, if not intuitively) as the "morally right" way to exercise it.

|
James Wesley Chester
A1 · 10,110 Forum Posts
|
September 12, 2009 at 6:10 AM
Last Edited:
|
'Evil' exists to the same degree that 'Good' exists.
No more.
No less.
The rest is belief.
Religion.
PEACE
Jim Chester
|
kevin1122
A3 · 331 Forum Posts
|
September 12, 2009 at 12:10 PM
Last Edited:
|
Vox: quote: “I thought you said whether it's a "noun" or not is beside the point? A noun is a grammatical part of speech; it's a word that denotes something that can be the subject or object of a verb. In the very question, "Does evil exist?" you can see that evil is used as a noun there. That would end that question.”
I would conclude from the way the question was asked, the person was inquiring if evil exists; like a force (noun) that goes around reeking mischief and mayhem, and if it attaches itself to a person it will cause the person to do evil stuff. Obviously I don’t think such a force exists; but just because I have such an opinion, doesn’t mean end of discussion. quote: “I don't think I understand your point here. I define "free will" as the capacity to make decisions on how to act or what to do, within a certain situation. ”
I also define “free will” that way, but I also say this free will can not come from the one who attaches consequences to the decisions you make; the dictionary defines free will that way as well “That;s what I mean by "free will." That does not "come from you," it comes from nature. If you believe in God, you believe that if it's conferred by nature, it's conferred by God. But if you don't believe in God, you still believe that it's a capacity naturally conferred by nature upon the human brain.” Actually if you don’t believe in God, the origins of free will could be endless. I just so happen to believe it come from within ourselves Kevin

|
kevin1122
A3 · 331 Forum Posts
|
September 12, 2009 at 12:14 PM
Last Edited:
|
Vox quote: “I thought you said whether it's a "noun" or not is beside the point? A noun is a grammatical part of speech; it's a word that denotes something that can be the subject or object of a verb. In the very question, "Does evil exist?" you can see that evil is used as a noun there. That would end that question.”
I would conclude from the way the question was asked, the person was inquiring if evil exists; like a force (noun) that goes around reeking mischief and mayhem, and if it attaches itself to a person it will cause the person to do evil things. Obviously I don’t think such a force exists; but just because I have such an opinion, doesn’t mean end of discussion. quote: “I don't think I understand your point here. I define "free will" as the capacity to make decisions on how to act or what to do, within a certain situation. ”
I also define “free will” that way, but I also say this free will can not come from the one who attaches consequences to the decisions; the dictionary defines free will that way as well quote: “That does not "come from you," it comes from nature. If you believe in God, you believe that if it's conferred by nature, it's conferred by God. But if you don't believe in God, you still believe that it's a capacity naturally conferred by nature upon the human brain.”
Actually if you don’t believe in God, the origins of free will could be endless. I just so happen to believe it come from within ourselves Kevin

|
Vox
A1 · 4,870 Forum Posts
|
September 12, 2009 at 1:43 PM
Last Edited:
|
quote: Originally posted by kevin1122: quote: “I thought you said whether it's a "noun" or not is beside the point? A noun is a grammatical part of speech; it's a word that denotes something that can be the subject or object of a verb. In the very question, "Does evil exist?" you can see that evil is used as a noun there. That would end that question.”
I would conclude from the way the question was asked, the person was inquiring if evil exists; like a force (noun) that goes around reeking mischief and mayhem, and if it attaches itself to a person it will cause the person to do evil things. Obviously I don’t think such a force exists; but just because I have such an opinion, doesn’t mean end of discussion.
A noun is a word. Any word that can be used in a sentence to denote a person, place, thing, idea or concept, which, according to that sentence, either "does," "has," or "is" something, is a noun. That is a point of grammar that's not subject to our differing opinions on how we actually define whatever it is that the word denotes. quote: quote: “I don't think I understand your point here. I define "free will" as the capacity to make decisions on how to act or what to do, within a certain situation. ”
I also define “free will” that way, but I also say this free will can not come from the one who attaches consequences to the decisions; the dictionary defines free will that way as well.
Which dictionary are you using? If free will is defined the way you just said you agree with me that it is, then all it means is, "the capacity to make decisions on how to act or what to do, within a certain situation." I'm referring to the mental ability to make such a choice. It is one of the key differences between humans and other animals. Most animals respond to stimulus without any kind of reflection or self-examination that would lead to a choice other than their natural programming. You are clearly talking about something else, because you obviously don't think human beings invented this endowment. You may be thinking of the actual choice you make as something that comes from within. What I'm talking about is the mental ability in the first place to be able to make such a choice.

|
BLACK GODDESS
D4 · 9 Forum Posts
|
November 1, 2009 at 10:35 AM
Last Edited:
|
Yes evil does exist in the hearts and minds actions and mannerisms of any and everyone who accepts this ancient unrighteous artform...
|
kresge
A1 · 4,391 Forum Posts
|
November 1, 2009 at 1:52 PM
Last Edited:
|
quote: Originally posted by BLACK GODDESS: Yes evil does exist in the hearts and minds actions and mannerisms of any and everyone who accepts this ancient unrighteous artform... 
|
HonestBrother
A1 · 9,116 Forum Posts
|
November 1, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Last Edited:
|
quote: Originally posted by kresge: quote: Originally posted by BLACK GODDESS: Yes evil does exist in the hearts and minds actions and mannerisms of any and everyone who accepts this ancient unrighteous artform... 
|
BLACK GODDESS
D4 · 9 Forum Posts
|
November 2, 2009 at 4:35 PM
Last Edited:
|
@ kresge and HonestBrother
???
|
EbonyRose
A1 · 17,637 Forum Posts
|
November 3, 2009 at 10:16 AM
Last Edited:
|
quote: Originally posted by BLACK GODDESS: @ kresge and HonestBrother
??? 
|
Vox
A1 · 4,870 Forum Posts
|
November 3, 2009 at 11:36 AM
Last Edited:
|
I think Kresge and HonestBrother are wondering what "ancient unrighteous artform" the people are accepting. If they're not wondering that, I kinda am... 
|
BLACK GODDESS
D4 · 9 Forum Posts
|
November 4, 2009 at 8:37 PM
Last Edited:
|
@ Vox
LOL, The people, LOL!!!
I wasn't aware that you represented the people. Since I am not the new kid on the block, let's just say it does not require hard math to discern what I stated in plain english:
1. Evil is a very old concept that dates back into antiquity 2. Evil is certainly not righteous, by any standard or stretch of the imagination. 3. Evil is definitely an artform -- practiced by the most secret of societies....!
Fine1952
|
Vox
A1 · 4,870 Forum Posts
|
November 5, 2009 at 7:16 AM
Last Edited:
|
Okay, thanks for the clarification.
|
BLACK GODDESS
D4 · 9 Forum Posts
|
November 5, 2009 at 6:13 PM
Last Edited:
|
You are most welcome.
|
Kevin-1122
A2 · 64 Forum Posts
|
November 5, 2009 at 10:58 PM
Last Edited:
|
Vox: quote: "Which dictionary are you using? If free will is defined the way you just said you agree with me that it is, then all it means is, "the capacity to make decisions on how to act or what to do, within a certain situation." I'm referring to the mental ability to make such a choice. It is one of the key differences between humans and other animals. Most animals respond to stimulus without any kind of reflection or self-examination that would lead to a choice other than their natural programming. You are clearly talking about something else, because you obviously don't think human beings invented this endowment. You may be thinking of the actual choice you make as something that comes from within. What I'm talking about is the mental ability in the first place to be able to make such a choice. "
The dictionary I was using was "dictionary.com". Which dictionary were YOU using that defines free will as a mental ability? K
|
Kevin-1122
A2 · 64 Forum Posts
|
November 5, 2009 at 11:01 PM
Last Edited:
|
I believe evil is just a word that humans use to discribe vary bad behavior. I don't think it is anything more than that
K
|
Vox
A1 · 4,870 Forum Posts
|
November 6, 2009 at 3:48 AM
Last Edited:
|
quote: Originally posted by Kevin-1122: Vox: quote: "Which dictionary are you using? If free will is defined the way you just said you agree with me that it is, then all it means is, "the capacity to make decisions on how to act or what to do, within a certain situation." I'm referring to the mental ability to make such a choice. It is one of the key differences between humans and other animals. Most animals respond to stimulus without any kind of reflection or self-examination that would lead to a choice other than their natural programming. You are clearly talking about something else, because you obviously don't think human beings invented this endowment. You may be thinking of the actual choice you make as something that comes from within. What I'm talking about is the mental ability in the first place to be able to make such a choice. "
The dictionary I was using was "dictionary.com". Which dictionary were YOU using that defines free will as a mental ability? K
First of all, in response to my definition, you already said, "I also define 'free will' that way," so any attempt to challenge me as being wrong now is going to be FOS from you. So on that point alone, you need to withdraw your question... Secondly, you stated that your definition "also" provides that "free will can not come from the one who attaches consequences to the decisions you make." You This is how you claimed your dictionary defined free will. Based on the fact that you now say you got that definition from dictionary.com, you're saying that dictionary.com has in its definition this idea, that "free will can not come from the one who attaches consequences to the decisions you make." Evidently, you must have dictionary.com: The Deluxe Edition, because the one my cheap internet connection leads me to says nothing about "the one who attaches consequences." Dictionary.com defines "free will" as: 1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will. 2. Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces. And all I'm saying is that the capacity to be able to do this -- our human ability to do this -- is conferred to us naturally. It's either a god-given capacity (if you believe in God), or it developed in nature independently of God (if you don't). Just like our capacity for language, abstract thinking, or anything else, this is not something that I can understand why somebody would disagreement about.

|
Kevin-1122
A2 · 64 Forum Posts
|
November 6, 2009 at 11:36 AM
Last Edited:
|
Vox: quote: “First of all, in response to my definition, you already said, "I also define 'free will' that way," so any attempt to challenge me as being wrong now is going to be FOS from you. So on that point alone, you need to withdraw your question...”
I agreed with you when you said: “I define "free will" as the capacity to make decisions on how to act or what to do, within a certain situation. ”I agreed with you because I didn’t know you were defining free will as a mental ability. I guess I misunderstood you so I will withdraw my agreeing with you. quote: “Secondly, you stated that your definition "also" provides that "free will can not come from the one who attaches consequences to the decisions you make." You This is how you claimed your dictionary defined free will. Based on the fact that you now say you got that definition from dictionary.com, you're saying that dictionary.com has in its definition this idea, that "free will can not come from the one who attaches consequences to the decisions you make."
Evidently, you must have dictionary.com: The Deluxe Edition, because the one my cheap internet connection leads me to says nothing about "the one who attaches consequences." Dictionary.com defines "free will" as:
1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will. 2. Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.”
Using the first definition, if a person is given a free and independent choice; a voluntary decision if you will, punishment or reward can’t be a part of the picture. IMO when you attach consequences to the decision, it is no longer an independent and free choice. Think of it this way; if a robber puts a gun to your head and says " your money or your life" for him to explain to the po po upon capture " hey he gave me his money on his own free will" I am sure you would agree that would be ridiculas K

|
Vox
A1 · 4,870 Forum Posts
|
November 6, 2009 at 1:10 PM
Last Edited:
|
Okay, we were talking about slightly different things, I see now. You've been speaking of free will as the choices and decisions themselves (which I admit is more consistent with the dictionary definition I posted). I've been referring to the human ability to make those choices in the first place. Now I think we have a meeting of the minds.
The robber is depriving you of the number of choices and decisions you can reasonably make. "Free will" in that sense is pretty much lost.
But the capacity to make the choice is still there. Compliance with the mugger's demands requires a response other than the instinctive fight-or-flight response common among animals who lack that ability to choose.
|
Kevin-1122
A2 · 64 Forum Posts
|
December 20, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Last Edited:
|
Vox " Compliance with the mugger's demands requires a response other than the instinctive fight-or-flight response common among animals who lack that ability to choose." Actually animals DO have the ability to choose. When an animal is being attacked; that fight-or-flight response is a choice; a freewill decision the animal makes if he should face his attacker or run for his life. K
|
EbonyRose
A1 · 17,637 Forum Posts
|
December 21, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Last Edited:
|
Reference: Actually animals DO have the ability to choose. When an animal is being attacked; that fight-or-flight response is a choice; a freewill decision the animal makes if he should face his attacker or run for his life. K Not necessarily. Some animals instinctively fight back when they are attacked, driven by a desire for self-preservation. Many animals will not choose to run away ... as there is, by default, no such choice to be made.
|
Kevin-1122
A2 · 64 Forum Posts
|
December 21, 2009 at 5:51 PM
Last Edited:
|
Ebonyrose " Not necessarily. Some animals instinctively fight back when they are attacked, driven by a desire for self-preservation. Many animals will not choose to run away ... as there is, by default, no such choice to be made." Well this animal that acts stricly on instinct is probably one that I am not familiar with so I'm just gonna take your word on it. Let me put it this way; there are some animals that do have free will and do make choices such as the ones I mentioned. Kevin
|
Naf
C3 · 63 Forum Posts
|
December 23, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Last Edited:
|
Evil certainly does exist and the biblical god, Yahweh is an embodiment of evil. At least so says the bible itself: "And the lord repented of evil" - 2 Sam 24:16
What was the evil Yahweh perpetrated that provoked this revealing statement? Yahweh massacred 70,000 innocent people because King David committed the heinous crime of conducting a census (2 Sam 24:15).
That's not all, the evil Yahweh ordered Jews to ethnically cleanse and exterminate the Cannaanites:
"In the cities of the nations the lord your God gives you as inheritance, do not leave anything that breathes. Completely destroy the Hittites, Canaanites, Perizites, Hivites and Jebusites as your lord commands" - Deut 20:16 -17
He turned “his people” (Jews) into cannibals and made them eat their children:
"Therefore in your midst fathers will eat their children, and children will eat their fathers" - Ezekiel 5:10 "With their own hands compassionate women have cooked their own children, who became their food when my people were destroyed" - Lam 4:10 The bloodthirsty Judeo-Christian quasi-deity even demands human sacrifice: "You must give me (Yahweh) the first born of your sons. Do the same with your cattle and sheep" - Exodus 22:29-30
"I (Yahweh) gave them laws that were not good, and laws they could not live by, and I defiled them through their very gifts - the sacrifice of every first born - that I might fill them with horror, so that they would know that I am the lord" - Ezekiel 20:25-26. In Amos 3:6, Yahweh even admits to being responsible for human suffering and calamities. Need I go on, or has the point being clearly made that Yahweh is evil?

|
Naf
C3 · 63 Forum Posts
|
December 23, 2009 at 1:23 PM
Last Edited:
|
Evil certainly does exist and the biblical god, Yahweh is an embodiment of evil. At least so says the bible itself: "And the lord repented of evil" - 2 Sam 24:16
What was the evil Yahweh perpetrated that provoked this revealing statement? Yahweh massacred 70,000 innocent people because King David committed the heinous crime of conducting a census (2 Sam 24:15).
That's not all, the evil Yahweh ordered Jews to ethnically cleanse and exterminate the Cannaanites:
"In the cities of the nations the lord your God gives you as inheritance, do not leave anything that breathes. Completely destroy the Hittites, Canaanites, Perizites, Hivites and Jebusites as your lord commands" - Deut 20:16 -17
He turned “his people” (Jews) into cannibals and made them eat their children:
"Therefore in your midst fathers will eat their children, and children will eat their fathers" - Ezekiel 5:10 "With their own hands compassionate women have cooked their own children, who became their food when my people were destroyed" - Lam 4:10 The bloodthirsty Judeo-Christian quasi-deity even demands human sacrifice: "You must give me (Yahweh) the first born of your sons. Do the same with your cattle and sheep" - Exodus 22:29-30
"I (Yahweh) gave them laws that were not good, and laws they could not live by, and I defiled them through their very gifts - the sacrifice of every first born - that I might fill them with horror, so that they would know that I am the lord" - Ezekiel 20:25-26. In Amos 3:6, Yahweh even admits to being responsible for human suffering and calamities. Need I go on, or has the point being clearly made that Yahweh is evil?

|
neocarl
C1 · 63 Forum Posts
|
January 20, 2010 at 11:50 PM
Last Edited:
|
I have a question on this subject that maybe someone can shed some light on or offer an opinion I can get some insight from.
From what I have heard some Pastors preach, God is supposed to know the end from the beginning. If that is true and the Bible is to be taken literally or even symbolically, Why would God create Lucifer, if God knew in advance that Lucifer would rebel? Then, why would God set the stage for man's fall by placing the object of temptation, Man and Lucifer all together in the same environment? I gotta tell you, I have always had some real issues with some of the things I read in the Bible...especially the dialog between God and Satan in the book of Job in the Bible. Maybe someone can shed some light on this for me. This in not a challenge, but rather a sincere question. Naf, I am kind of on the same page with you on this at this point...I'm still not sure, but I am leaning in the direction you advocate.
|
neocarl
C1 · 63 Forum Posts
|
January 21, 2010 at 12:28 AM
Last Edited:
|
I have one more question regarding "Free Choice." I'm thinking about the Biblical story of the people whom the Bible says God took by the hand and led out of Egypt or the house of bondage. I'm conflicted about the circumstances in that story. I mean, here's the deal, God says, I'm going to free you, BUT, you have to serve me in the desert and I'll lay the law down to you when I get you there. If you do not behave a certain way, I'm going to allow certain really bad things to happen to you. I've been trying to understand how that is free choice. I gotta tell you, I am really not getting that. I get that you can make someone fear you, but I don't think it is possible to make someone sincerely love you out of fear. They may fake it, but would anyone want a fake love from someone? It looks like God is saying something like; I saved you and now if you don't worship me, I will hand you over to your enemies and my enemies as well. I really struggle with this stuff.
|
Kevin-1122
A2 · 64 Forum Posts
|
January 23, 2010 at 6:35 AM
Last Edited:
|
Hello Neocarl I think the questions you've asked are a few of many, that show the contradictions of the bible that claims the Christian God is all wise and loving, yet regularly engages in foolish and cruel behavior. Many Atheists (myself included) were once Christian but upon reading the bible, realized that what we were taught since youth was not the truth, and that an all-knowing God would have behaved differently than the one discribed in the Bible. It would be interesting to see how those who still believe in the Christian God of the Bible would explain the questions you asked Kevin
|
EbonyRose
A1 · 17,637 Forum Posts
|
January 23, 2010 at 10:19 AM
Last Edited:
January 23, 2010 at 10:25 AM
|
Reference: Many Atheists (myself included) were once Christian but upon reading the bible, realized that what we were taught since youth was not the truth, and that an all-knowing God would have behaved differently than the one discribed in the Bible. So lemme see if I'm understanding you correctly, Kevin ... In your youth, you were taught untruths through Christian lessons via the Bible ... and when you found out that what they (whoever "they" are) were teaching you wasn't true, you decided that God didn't really exist?  If that's what happened, did it ever cross your mind (i.e., did you ever entertain the thought) that maybe God actually did exist, but just not in the way that you were erroneously taught? (And at a later time became an Atheist for other reasons?) Or did you (at that time) more or less just 'throw the baby out with the bath water' (for lack of a better/more appropriate phrase that I can't think of at the moment!) and canceled out the possibility of of His existence right then and there?  I hope I'm not being too personal ... and if so, just tell and I'll be happy to butt out!  I'm just curious as to how you ended up where you are. And if you wouldn't mind sharing, it would be most appreciated.

|
neocarl
C1 · 63 Forum Posts
|
January 23, 2010 at 11:49 AM
Last Edited:
|
This verse really make me wonder: King James Bible Job 2:3And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause. "... thou movedst me..." The words I have made red, give me pause, because, what is God doing letting Satan move him or manipulate God in any way? I do not get that. God himself says that Job is a perfect and an upright man. I mean, WTF? To destroy Job WITHOUT CAUSE. I have heard Christians give all sorts of reasons for this, like God was trying to demonstrate what faith meant through Job, but the fact is, God clearly says that there was no cause for this.
I could care less about what Job got back, I am more concerned with why any of this had to happen to Job in the first place and why God is allowing Satan to manipulate him. After all, Satan, even in this story, must get God's permission to do all these things, which sounds a lot like Satan acts as the left hand of God, based on how the Bible is telling these stories.
It is interesting to note that in the Job story, God initiates this mess that Job has to go through. All Satan did in the beginning was show up and God is the one who brings up Job.

|
neocarl
C1 · 63 Forum Posts
|
January 23, 2010 at 12:28 PM
Last Edited:
|
I have one more question that maybe someone can shed some light on for me. I will admit that I could have the wrong idea here, but I thought God was suppose to be perfect. If I am understanding that correctly, that means God doesn't make mistakes. Then if that is the case, why have so many of God's projects went horribly wrong? For instance...it repented God that he made man in the Earth. It repented God so much that God decides to have a flood and destroy all flesh with the exception of Noah and his family. It repented God...hmmmm, Now, I don't understand how a God who never makes mistakes is sorry for something he did himself and still maintain the status as being perfect. God himself says that he felt repentance for something he did himself. What's up with that? If all things originated with God, Where did sin come from? How can this be a mystery to an all knowing God if God is supposed to know everything? Do you see the dilemma here?
This whole thing begins to unravel if you have the courage to ask the right questions and not the questions we are led into and away from in the conventional way of thinking and examining the Bible. I'm just saying, these are questions I would like to have adequately answered. I'm not saying that there aren't answers, I just cannot find any that make sense in a rational way. (To me...just speaking for myself of course)

|
neocarl
C1 · 63 Forum Posts
|
January 23, 2010 at 1:26 PM
Last Edited:
|
Then we get things like the following: King James Bible Numbers 22:28And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? I mean, we don't even get Mr. Ed. We are given donkey from Shrek.
|
Kevin-1122
A2 · 64 Forum Posts
|
January 23, 2010 at 6:59 PM
Last Edited:
|
EbonyRose: " So lemme see if I'm understanding you correctly, Kevin ...
In your youth, you were taught untruths through Christian lessons via the Bible ... and when you found out that what they (whoever "they" are) were teaching you wasn't true, you decided that God didn't really exist?" (reply) Kinda sorta..... lemme put it this way; When I read the bible for myself (rather than the parts everybody points to me to read) I noticed contridictions in the bible when compared to what I was taught about God; and when I asked those who were more experienced in christianity than I was (kinda like Neocarl is doing now) I was made to feel ashamed to even ask such questions. When my questions weren't answered it caused my faith to become "shaken" and after about 5 years of constantly having my faith shaken, I questioned my religion and became agnostic (atheism was too harsh to admit even to myself at that time). after about 5 years of claiming I was agnostic, I was finally ready to admit I no longer believed in God. For me going from Christian to Atheist was never an overnight thing, it was gradual over a 10 yr period. True I did consider maybe some other religion could be correct, but who has time to search them all? I have always maintained that if God does exist and he makes his presence known to me in a way that I could recognize, I would accept his existence; but until then I will continue to not believe in that which I can't experience. Neocarl " It is interesting to note that in the Job story, God initiates this mess that Job has to go through. All Satan did in the beginning was show up and God is the one who brings up Job." (reply) Good point! Here is the problem I had with Job when I was christian; *Satan knows God knows everything *Satan knows God only speaks the truth So all God has to do is tell Satan "Even if I were to allow you to have your way with Job, you would not be able to shake his faith". If God were to tell Satan this, Satan would know this was the truth and the conversation would be over; right? That's what I would do if I were God, but instead God takes this challenge which basically results in pissing contest between the two of them, which results in the death of Job's innocent children. I always had a problem with that. Anyway let's see how your questions are answered Kevin

|
EbonyRose
A1 · 17,637 Forum Posts
|
January 24, 2010 at 9:56 PM
Last Edited:
|
Reference: Kinda sorta..... lemme put it this way; When I read the bible for myself (rather than the parts everybody points to me to read) I noticed contridictions in the bible when compared to what I was taught about God; and when I asked those who were more experienced in christianity than I was (kinda like Neocarl is doing now) I was made to feel ashamed to even ask such questions. When my questions weren't answered it caused my faith to become "shaken" and after about 5 years of constantly having my faith shaken, I questioned my religion and became agnostic (atheism was too harsh to admit even to myself at that time). after about 5 years of claiming I was agnostic, I was finally ready to admit I no longer believed in God. Well, yours certainly isn't the first story I've heard that details that same kind of disillusionment with Christianity. I don't think I know anybody who eventually turned to Atheism because of it though!  But your explanation does explain a lot about you. I know this may be closing the barn door after the horse is gone ... and actually, this is not intended to be a suggestion for your circumstance ... just really more of an observation ... But, perhaps instead of deciding not to believe in God, you could have chosen to not believe in those people that wouldn't tell you the truth, or in the Bible, or in the religion of Christianity itself. It seems to me that although God wasn't the one who deceived you (and probably the only one, at that) .. He's the one you chose to give the pink slip to, nonetheless. And personally, I don't think that searching through all of the various religions in search of "the right one" is the way to go either! (Although I have met more than a few people who gave it their best shot and investigated about as many as they possibly could!  ). But, I don't believe that 'religion' is what truly connects people to God as much as it is 'spirituality' that does that job. Religion generally tends to cloud the issue(s), IMO. And sends a lot of people down the wrong track, if you ask me.

|
Kevin-1122
A2 · 64 Forum Posts
|
January 25, 2010 at 7:39 PM
Last Edited:
|
Ebonyrose:
perhaps instead of deciding not to believe in God, you could have chosen to not believe in those people that wouldn't tell you the truth, or in the Bible, or in the religion of Christianity itself. (reply) I think the people meant well, they told me what they believed was the truth; but simply didn't know how to handle it when confronted with questions they were unable to answer. (quote) It seems to me that although God wasn't the one who deceived you (and probably the only one, at that) .. He's the one you chose to give the pink slip to, nonetheless. (reply) The reason I gave God the "pink slip" as you call it; (along with Christianity, the Bible, and those who told me about God) is because the only reason I believed in God in the first place was because they told me so. I never experienced the existence of God, I was never given any emprical evidence that God even existed; my entire belief in God was based upon what they told me; I simply took their word for it. When I found out their words concerning Christianity was untrue, I had no reason to assume their words concerning God was true. Personally I feel if I were ever to believe in God again it would have to be because this God presented evidence of his existence to me in a way that I can recognize. Of course I ain't holdin my breath waitin for it to happen, if this God (assuming he exists) choose to remain hidden from me when I spent all those years searching for him, why would he choose to come out of hiding now that I no longer believe? That wouldn't make sense to me. Anyway, just thought I'd share that with ya Peace Kevin

|
EbonyRose
A1 · 17,637 Forum Posts
|
January 26, 2010 at 1:15 AM
Last Edited:
|
Well, it sounds to me, Kevin, that you and God (if he does exist) are at an impossible impasse!  You not only want proof but are demanding that it given to you on your terms ... and from what I know and understand of God, (and of course I could be wrong about this!) but, He has never, ever worked like that! Quite the opposite, really ... because He seems to operate under the notion that the proof of His existence is already out there, and (through "faith" of that, I suppose), it's just up to you to find it - (preferably for yourself, since it is ultimately a highly personal, one-on-one connection) - with or without using the vehicle of 'religion' to do so and without anybody else telling you where/who/what/how/why He is! Because let's face it, other people DO get it wrong sometimes!!  Okay .. a LOT!!  But, I think in the end, as long as you two get each other, that's really all that really counts. However, if neither one of you is lookin' for, nor expecting to find the other ... I don't foresee finding that "middle of the road" happening for either one of you anytime soon! But that's okay ... because the beat will go on!  Either way, whatever will be, will be.

|
kresge
A1 · 4,391 Forum Posts
|
January 26, 2010 at 5:28 AM
Last Edited:
|
I had not noticed the recent activity on this thread, but I have a suggestion for those who are interested in an alternative way of engaging the biblical tradition other than as literalist. As I have said before, strict literalism is a modern invention (a little over a hundred years old), and probably the most devastating phenomenon to confront the world religions.
Two books by the same author that you might find evocative, if not compelling.
Marcus Borg's Reading the Bible Again for the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously, but not Literally and Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time. The first book will be particularly instructive in getting over the phenomenon of reading the Bible as a kind of historical or scientific treatise and more as inspired literature connected to human communities over the millennia.
|
Vox
A1 · 4,870 Forum Posts
|
January 26, 2010 at 6:40 PM
Last Edited:
|
Kresge, are you saying that 500 years ago, no one believed that Adam and Eve were real people? Or that 300 years ago, no one believed that the world was created in 6 days? Or that 200 years ago, no one believed that there was ever really a Noah, or an Ark?
Or that 150 years ago, no one believed that God and Satan had this discussion about Job?
Over the years, I've come to the conclusion that literalism is exactly how the Bible was intended to be read, by both the writers and by those who compiled it... and that the "figurative language" idea was devised by devoted but realistic theologians who, faced with the inescapable realization that modern enlightenment made continued belief in the Bible as written untenable, needed a way to maintain the Bible's relevance and reverend status as the inspired word of God.
For the record, Kevin, I don't blame you for becoming an atheist. I believe in god, but that's probably because I derive comfort in that belief. My belief is not something I try to hold onto. It's something I recognize, and see no reason to fight. But you and I have much more in common than you'd think, given our history.
I am more or less a "deist." I believe in God, but expressly reject any idea that there is a text inspired by him. His existence, and his plan for us, is more or less evident in nature, including in certain inevitabilities that arise when we interact with one another.

|
 |
Tags
You can edit the tags associated with this topic.
None
|
|
|