There’s circular and then there’s circular
1 Like
Especially when reasoning – or trying to – with some.
1 Like
Would you mind stopping with the universe thing? No one gives a ■■■■ if it’s infinite or not for real.
There are more important things than that I’m sjre
1 Like
Philosophy is always a poor substitute for science where science is germane. It is always suspicious to see these ancient puzzles trotted out in the service of an argument with no actual support. A red herring is never persuasive.
1 Like
There is a great deal embedded in these remarks - but we need to acknowledge that the notion of good and evil has (plagued?) fascinated us humans for all of recorded history. There are so many things to consider - freedom, law, will, intellect, faith, choice … need I go on?.
And yet, when we face life day to day, it all seems so simple. Things work out to give us pleasure and security, and we are glad and say life is good. Yet life turns around and we are in ■■■■, and it is all so evil. Would it not help to see a higher power that we can praise so that we get the good always? Or at least, a higher power we can blame, since it should have done a better job.
I am not sure this helps anyone (perhaps a higher power than me is needed 
) and yet here we are continuing the debate that has gone on for over 6000 years give or take.
That must be some help since so many have relied on such things since forever. My only hesitation is to think of what that is as a single (or trinitarian) being with motivations like our own. Of course even if that isn’t entirely true it may be useful for humans to address themselves toward whatever it is as if it were a being closer to the sort of being we are. I’m just not convinced it is essential to the retention of a high regard for what is greater.
My question is concerned with the way(s) we as human beings have dealt with the good and evil in our existence - as individuals and as communities. Have we sought so called religious outlooks to enable us to avoid self-examination and admission of our selves as oriented towards evil impulses. I find Christianity as taught in the Gospel as being contrary to the religious impulses shown in our civilisations.
Seemingly so in many highly visible cases in the US. Listening to the analysis of the hearings going on currently in the US, one gets the impression the crazies have taken over and are keen to sink the ship.
2 Likes
Can you explain further a bit?Didnt quite understand that sorry
I have in mind major religions we find in historic times, which inevitably include a powerful deity or deities, and the role of humanity is to serve them. These generally stand in stark contrast with the Christian faith which shows God willing to send His Son to live as we do, to serve, and to find a way out of our miseries and conflicts. The contrast is great and I am inclined to believe the Faith contradicts these other religions.
2 Likes
However I recall in the Old Testament God demanding be worshiped and it even sounds like he had an attitude about it.
Also if you use that as an argument in basis of "since God sent his son he care about us and hense he is not evil and will help us in our difficult times " well that certainly is not the case I think.
Again I don’t want to judge God ,but to me he somewhat failed to show superiority in the world. I mean you have the Old Testament God performing feats of strength and power . Justice and vengeance. Sure it was brutal. But his authority wasn’t questioned at all. And then you have the New Testament. Same God beign killed in front of everyone and beign humiliated. What changed?
I get the message of love and stuff but he already had a sacrificial system for sins no? Why show that character? Why show weakness?
And that’s my conclusion. Humans do not understand these principles. Your brain(our brain) is so primal it only understands fear and power.
I’d rather have a God whose nature was constant like in the Old Testament showing really what’s gonna happen if you disobey ,rather than have a God who “forgives” you from everything and then you do it again.
Don’t know how that’s gonna sound but sometimes tyrany,authoritarian ,or whatever you wanna call it is necessary to prevent civilization from going downhill.
People don’t need excess freedom. They need rules. Rules are what separates us from animals. If rules are abolished or are being broken society falls prey to attributes that takes them back to be animals.
Imagine a cop forgiving every crime. Or a judge doing the same.
Hard pill to swallow for me.
All that’s was an allegory for Christians. You do whatever the @ you want ,breaking every rule that good God has made and then you go crying asking for forgiveness. And you are forgiven of course ,for some reason. That reason being “love”.
It seems you have forgotten the central teaching of Christ - repent, turn away from doing evil.
Sigh you didnt got it did you?What i wrote above?
I think you may ‘not get it’ Nick, or perhaps you want to avoid the central question - you have started this discussion on God and the problem of evil. I have pointed out what is different about the Christian faith, including what Christ taught and did. And He certainly did not teach that we break every rule and then get forgiven for it. This is very far from what Christianity teaches and what we are told (commanded) to do and live by.
Yet you go do that np? He didnt taught that i agree.But you do it anyway.That was my point which you missed
And what im pointing out is that if that was The God of the OT(which it is but different) you wouldnt though of doing that.
Christianity is not a licence to sin.
The idea is that you repent, ie change.
If you are truly a Christian then evil is repugnant. You align yourself with God and attempt to live as Jesus taught and demonstrated. You should not need any further forgiveness, but occasionally we make mistakes. That is not the same as living the life of Riley and getting continual forgiveness.
Richard
9 posts were split to a new topic: Nick venting about Christians
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
Without looking back through the above posts to see if this question, or one like it has been already thoroughly addressed above; I’ll presume not, and just on the strength of the thread title alone, post this fresh challenge here.
Last night I watched a (mercifully short) locally-written play set in a women’s prison of the Siberian Gulag. Sort of a female equivalent short story form of Solzhenitsyn’s “Gulag Archipelago” And true to the subject matter, it was thoroughly depressing all the way through. As it should be - what else could such experiences have been; and yet sprinkled here and there with flecks of human courage and compassion or prisoners reaching out to each other as they live together in hell.
It provoked this thought and question for me - not a new thought, of course, but just raised to fresh consideration for me at the moment.
If human depravity and hell leads to a “tougher, more resilient” humans (at least among those who survive it), and a healthy, well-structured, benevolently governed situation leads to a pampered, weaker, and lazier (both mentally and physically) society of humans, then is this observation (if indeed it is accurate) a problem for the moral dictum that a society built on love is better than one built on hatred and fear? We all (believers and unbelievers) prefer to live in the former sort, of course. But just because I prefer something doesn’t mean it’s necessarily what I need, right?
Or here is another similar form of this same question. How many heroes (either in real life or fiction) emerged from loving, unbroken, healthy families. Complete with conventional church and school experiences - earning their accolades and growing up entirely within the warm cocoon carefully constructed for that purpose by (wait for it…and you guessed it…) the prior generations who had to scrabble tooth and nail to hone such a ‘utopia’ for their precious little ones! You don’t hear too many stories where the hero doesn’t have a viciously alcoholic father or disfunctional (or absent) family life in the extreme. It seems most people who go on to exhibit great courage or do great things come from the most atrocious and lamentable backgrounds.
So if hell-holes lead to strength, and utopias lead to weakness, where does this leave our divinely imposed quest to further the kingdom of God with all these ‘mamby pamby’ virtues like love, joy, peace, patience … and all the rest? Should teachers rather be red-faced and screaming at their classrooms of shell-shocked pupils, calling them idiots so they traumatically flee from the classroom, hatred for their teacher fresh in their hearts, determined that they will never be the same as that despicable person - or perhaps even driven to prove their teacher wrong as they go on to accomplish ingenious and miraculous things?
Just to note - I don’t believe or advocate any of that for a moment. It would indeed be straight from Neitzsche - and I don’t think that man’s philosophy has a prayer to stand on. Which makes me wonder though why it’s out of fodder like his that we see moral heroes emerge?
2 Likes