The Problem of Evil - Page 6

so anything contained within the bible is null and void as a result...

or is it just partly true?

"what is a "change of heart", a "last minute decision", or anything of the like?

freedom implies something random- uncontained. "
True. There is some randomness. However,m psychiatrists can predict how a group of people act (example, we know how much people will conform 40% usually).

Hence its not true randomness, it obeys to laws like everything else.

A professor once told me that at some point an argument is no longer worth arguing.

so it adheres to some known laws- as a result we can predict (you said usually, does that mean not always?)

and if we are unable to accurately predict, are we not taking some things into consideration? are there too many things to take into consideration?

is the unknown factor -that "decision for no apparent reason"-
the result of a decision ultimately being yours to make?

wise professor...



i have felt as though i have been chasing my tail the whole way through this one...

cycles are fun/ especially my sleep cycle...

Humans attempt to chain free will, thus making it not free by social context, which can have real and "evil" consequences of retribution and judgement, which are enacted by other dictations of will, that have to be chosen to be followed through as well.

This is a factor that being referred to. And so yes, a question must arise of what is evil?

Are acts of pain and suffering caused to humans alone evil? What is this evil we speak of. What qualifies as evil choices and existing realities to you guys?

The relativity of said evil was slightly mentioned before.

I don't thus far believe in evil. I believe that there are things that are unpleasant, unpreferred, but not evil. The only thing I've heard of that crosses the line of reasonable and natural (thereby making it not evil, but just natural) is the concept of hell.

What is equally as troubling is the notion that god made 2 completely innocent and unlearned beings and then proceeded to give unto them the burden of the first choice ever (because apparently their life before the apple was completely dictacted? Meaning they would have to eat the apple to have choice, meaning that god made them eat the apple.). And in the burden of the first "choice" ever, he then places the fate of all mankind on this one "choice", including the effect of creating all known suffering and pain, and opening the path to this eternal hell. Would you give such responsibility to a new born, an innocent? Could you hope for them to comprehend such a grandly important idea. Of course not, its just rediculous. If god did this then god is stupid.

You guys were sure busy while i was sleeping.

quote:

---

"excluding "evil's" like PLAGUE and "good" like a beautiful sunrise" Why has God let those evils exist which man is not responsible for?

---

Good point DT, perhaps natural occurences were not considered evil, but hardships of life. Evil is related to sin, wrong (headed) hearted thoughts or actions by man. The earth is not evil, evil exist in man.

quote:

---

life before the apple was completely dictacted?

---

How did you come to that conclusion? Adams first job was to name the animals, independent thought?

quote:

---

Meaning they would have to eat the apple to have choice,

---

Ah, I see, said the blind man. If the dog chews on your shoes, it wasn't a matter of choice? So why do you get mad at the dog, I mean he didn't know not to chew on your shoes, right?
draught is on the land & your crops burn in the sun vs. an angry neighbor sets your field on fire yoour crops burn. Different concepts especially if the neighbor's anger resulted from while he was spreading seed in his field, you were with his wife spreading your own seed.
Eating the fruit of the tree involved a choice, the act of eating the apple was the source of wrong doing =>knowing, not the apple itself? Hey, don't eat those berries, theyare poisonous & you will die from eating them!
Foolishly, you ate them anyway?
Ithought, reviewed thread & noted you had previously presented these points, good thinking. Oh, how long were Adam & Eve in the Garden before they ate the fruit?
Hm . . wonder how long it took for Adam to name all the animals?
Did he go out looking for animals to name or did he name them as he happened upon them?

life before the apple was completely dictacted?

"How did you come to that conclusion? Adams first job was to name the animals, independent thought?"

How do you get a conclusion out of a question?

To say one understands a natural human act, and all human acts are natural as man is a natural creature as much as any other so far as can be reasonably determined, and to say that that natural human act is evil, then first all natural acts are then possibly evil, and second this assumes that there is a such thing as evil as well as that the human brain is actually able to comprehend and judge such evil, regardless of descriptions of evil also including manipulation, lies, and deception which goes against the idea of people being able to understand evil let alone adequately judge an evil act as such.

Deception is possibly because we cannot know things, just as we are claimed unable to understand what god is or his intentions. The argument has been presented that because we cannot know is exactly why we need to trust and have fatih. But because deception is both created and allowed by god trust cannot be possible and faith is just a lie to oneself.

Sought, when you tried to argue my point about God not taking responsibility for HIS actions and creations, you spoke as though it made sense that while being omnipotent and omniceint and having been responsible for the creation of everything (except evil by some arguments you've made?) that suddenly all sorts of things are not of his doing or control. Namely "evil" in the world.

I want it clarified, what is the bibles claim of the source of evil, word for word, as well as the concensus' interpretation?

Because if this universe and all of its creations are of god's making then so is evil.

I know the American law system holds people accountable for their inactions and accomplicing to crimes, god has the power to stop evil, to keep any evil act from occuring, or to keep from even deeming things innapropriately as evil to begin with.

What if God were both good and evil, a great being infused by both light and darkness, Yin and Yang simultaneously? What if all things in the universe, including ourselves were merely elements of the mind and body of some great conscious being we call God? What if this God were working on himself to make all of his parts more good than evil, waging a war that manifests itself in the deeds of mankind in the universe? Everything he does would conform to this duality of his nature. For instance, all living things must kill and devour other living things for survival. Why couldn't living things eat rocks or something? Life and death seem to be as One in this respect. Childbirth is both a beautiful and painfully bloody and horrifying experience. Lovemaking is both spirtitual and physical, tender and savage. Nature is both beautiful and frightening, nuturing and destructive. The concept of God is probably alot more complex than ordinary Christian concepts. Looking at ourselves would give us a better look at what God may be like. And, besides, I think God has rules he has to follow as well. A friend of mine once asked me a riddle: If God can do anything, could he beat 4 aces with a pair of twos? The answer is 'of course not.' He would have to change the rules of the game, in which case the game would be a different one, one where he could beat the four aces with a pair of twos. Weird thought, huh?

You would have a lot of scared and upset people who have never bothered to think for themselves and now are hopelessly lost

If God uses Satan as an example of evil..then you'd think it'd be necessary to HAVE Satan around in order to prove the value of good. A sort of standard, if you will.

So God Makes This Deal With Satan... We've covered that one in a whole other thread.

quote:

---

How do you get a conclusion out of a question?

---

Adams first job was to name the animals, (biblical statement => independent thought (naming) => decision (choice)?"

quote:

---

which goes against the idea of people being able to understand evil let alone adequately judge an evil act as such.

---

Contained within the Books of Moses => Ten Commandments (individuals code of ethics) + code of ethics for establishing social order with the Hebrew people.

quote:

---

and having been responsible for the creation of everything (except evil by some arguments you've made?) that suddenly all sorts of things are not of his doing or control. Namely "evil" in the world.

---

God knew that by giving man frre will, man would make wrong decisions => that evil would enter into the world through the spirit of man.
Man may change so that the spirit reflects such change. Which is God's plan of the existence of man separate state from animals. (For this reason Satan hates the world, in biblical terms)

How do you get a conclusion out of a question?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

Adams first job was to name the animals, (biblical statement => independent thought (naming) => decision (choice)?"

I meant I was phrasing a question and wasn't sure how you thought I was coming to a conclusion.

Contained within the Books of Moses => Ten Commandments (individuals code of ethics) + code of ethics for establishing social order with the Hebrew people.

This I don't get either because the main referrence to my point is the knowledge of adam and eve, before moses.

"God knew that by giving man frre will, man would make wrong decisions"

What is a wrong decision? An act of god at the hand of man? That seems to cover all "wrong decisions" quite incedentally, this also covers all things thought to be good as well? Seems there is room for confusion.

Romach - Sorry babe, I don't go rummaging through all the threads posted to make sure I haven't stated what already was. And I'm not too sure the way I see it, was even discussed. So no need for the cold reply.

What you guys are rambling on about, probably was discussed in depth by many a philosophers, for many a centuries.