OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

bkb, am i wrong to think that you were raised by "believing" parents, grew up a believer yourself, but are now a man in search of meaning... being full of doubt but unsure about yourself if you were discard any belief whatsoever?

Yeah, I guess you could say I had "believer" parents... Mom especially... Dad... well, he's got a simple faith, I guess.

Grew up a believer myself - yes. And simply because I happened to have parents who believed... in other words, it occurred to me at 15 or so, that I was catholic because my Mom and Dad were (Actually, it wasn't even my MOm, who converted from being Lutheran to marry my dad, who was raised by fairly strict catholics... so what I'm saying is, truth is, I was a Catholic because my Great Grandparents (or even earlier) decided to be.) So, I decided to be a true believer, I needed to find God on my own (if you will) and not bother with all the crap I was supposed to just accept without question(s). (That's not to say my Mom and Dad discouraged questions, Catholism does... Mom actually actively sought my questions (and loved to hear my answers - whether she agreed or not.))

In search of meaning - I suppose that's true.

Full of doubt unsure about self if discard any belief - Not so much. I like to think one of my best attributes is my willingness to accept my shortcomings and worldviews when I am convinced they are incompatible with reality (or at least how I think Reality works). That said, I do think it's fair to say there is at the least some "hint" of doubt, since I bother to talk about these issues at all.

 

[lvbuckeye]

lv, using scripture to explain something to someone who likely doesn't believe in scripture is a failed attempt. though you think that the answer suffices, it means nothing to thump.

true. however, some who questions Scripture without being willing to actually read it, doesn't really want to know. their actions have stated it.

God is no respecter of persons on this earth. we are all given an opportunity. some use it for evil, some use it for good. we'll all find out in the end.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Or as theologian Paul Tillich put it that God is the opposite of existence... non-being if you will. In this case, God is beyond all reasonable thinking. I think most get the idea of God as "SuperMan" idea from the Genesis account which states that man was created in God's image. Freud would say that idea comes from our own mind. It is our manifestation of the ultimate "Super Ego."

Probably true, re: reason God is viewed as Super Man".... And on the Freud remarks too.

I think your assertion of the non existance of good and evil is best summarized by Brad Pitt's character in 12 monkeeys: "There's no right, there's no wrong, there's only popular opinion."

In one sense, for sure... That sense being Man's view of the world. In a larger sense, there isn't popular opinion either.

 

[CookyPuss]

I hope you learned in your philosophy of religion class that others have rejected this idea on the grounds that it makes the false assumption that evil exists as a separate, individual entity.

These other philosophers, who I believe have it correct, argue that evil is the absence of good, kind of like dark is the absence of light. Consequently, good does not need evil to exist in order for us to know what it is. If you act in a way in which good is absent, then you enter into a state of evil. You still get free will, but it isn't really a choice between good and evil, but a choice between good the absence of good.

Yeah, I was just trying to give a thumbnail sketch of some of the basic arguments before I headed to lunch. I honestly agree that no one has yet put forth a logically sound argument that solves this issue to date.

I believe the essence of what you are stating is that evil doesn't really exist. It's actually close to BKB's argument. Actually, these arguments only deal with moral evil. Thump's original question also included natural evil... disease and such. The free will discussion doesn't account for natural evil.

 

[OSU_Buckguy]

however, some who questions Scripture without being willing to actually read it, doesn't really want to know. their actions have stated it.

those who have converted and have been converted would disagree. again, insofar as it relates to thump, i don't think that citing scripture matters much. it's using a common language that would have the most impact. though you and thump likely believe in far different ideas, there can still be a common language. in this case (good, evil, and God), citing scripture is not it.

 

[CookyPuss]

In one sense, for sure... That sense being Man's view of the world. In a larger sense, there isn't popular opinion either.

I only brought up that quote because I always thought it was funny and your comments reminded me of it. Great response!

 

[buckeyegrad]

BKB,

If you don't mind me asking, when you were younger and a "believer", was there ever a time you really did believe in Christ's resurrection? By this, I don't mean you believed it as a child believes in Santa Clause simply because one's parents tell them, but that it really was a matter of faith you personally accepted.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I only brought up that quote because I always thought it was funny and your comments reminded me of it. Great response!

Welcome to the machine.

 

[buckeyegrad]

I believe the essence of what you are stating is that evil doesn't really exist. It's actually close to BKB's argument. Actually, these arguments only deal with moral evil. Thump's original question also included natural evil... disease and such. The free will discussion doesn't account for natural evil.

It's both closer and farther from BKB's argument. On one hand, you could say that I argue evil doesn't exist because it is only a conception to describe the lack of something else (i.e. good). On the other hand, I would argue that good exists, otherwise evil couldn't be described as its absence. So I am really saying something very different than BKB since I conceive the presence and absence of good to be two very different things.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

BKB,

If you don't mind me asking, when you were younger and a "believer", was there ever a time you really did believe in Christ's resurrection? By this, I don't mean you believed it as a child believes in Santa Clause simply because one's parents tell them, but that it really was a matter of faith you personally accepted.

Upon careful reflection (when I was younger - and still true today) there has been no time in my life where I have honestly believed in Chirst's resurrection... or really any of the stories that strike me as "magical" is some sense. I don't know... I just don't see the benefit in a magician for a savior. As you know, I believe these stories are employed to create awe and wonder... a sales pitch, if you will.

I must say this, however, I have always believed that Jesus the man did in fact exist and did in fact have very important things to say. My quarrel with him is not his message, but instead with his divinity (As far as I'm concerned each one of us is devine, I mean I don't view Christ (or Buddah, Mohammed, Krishna, etc.) as any more important than anyone else... He may have had more important things to say than some other folks, but what's special about that? Lots of people have important things to say.. lots dont. Big deal. I digress... No, I've never honestly believed Jesus was Christ. But, I do believe in Jesus the man.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

It's both closer and farther from BKB's argument. On one hand, you could say that I argue evil doesn't exist because it is only a conception to describe the lack of something else (i.e. good). On the other hand, I would argue that good exists, otherwise evil couldn't be described as its absence. So I am really saying something very different than BKB since I conceive the presence and absence of good to be two very different things.

If God is infinite, Good cannot be absent. Evil must therefore be something other than the absence of Good. Or... God isn't infinte. Frankly, I can live with either result, though I must confess, I try to explain things while keeping God Infinite. If Good and Evil have to disappear, so be it.

 

[CookyPuss]

It's both closer and farther from BKB's argument. On one hand, you could say that I argue evil doesn't exist because it is only a conception to describe the lack of something else (i.e. good). On the other hand, I would argue that good exists, otherwise evil couldn't be described as its absence. So I am really saying something very different than BKB since I conceive the presence and absence of good to be two very different things.

Quite true. The position that good exits but what we call "evil" is only the absence of good is very different than BKB's position that neither good nor evil exist. The first position is one in which there is a God outside of existence who controls all things and only allows for the appearance of evil to exist. In BKB's formulation there is no God beyond existence. Believe me, I'm definately not equating the two. In your formutalation evil only "appears" to exist, but there is an ultimate good. In BKB's, good and evil are human constructs and there is no ultimate. The other option is the traditional dualistic ultimate good and evil.

 

[Thump]

bgrad,

How do you explain/justify the rape and murder of young children in biblical terms?

 

[buckeyegrad]

Upon careful reflection (when I was younger - and still true today) there has been no time in my life where I have honestly believed in Chirst's resurrection... or really any of the stories that strike me as "magical" is some sense.

Thanks for you honesty.

This is yet another verfication of a hypothesis on which I have been working. My experience is very much like yours up until the teenage years. Was Catholic simply because my parents were Catholic (actually mother was Methodist until she married my father), which means I was Catholic because some ancestor of mine accepted it. Hence, I also began my exploration and while it lead me to reject Catholicism, I went the opposite direction in that I found all the answers through a literal interpretation of the Scriptures.

I've always wondered why the two different paths. Recently as I've been listening to the life stories of those who have done the seeking we have done, I have come to realize belief/non-belief of Christ's ressurection is the dividing line. In other words, I don't know of anyone who really believed in the resurrection to stop believing in it.

 

[BayBuck]

If God is infinite, Good cannot be absent. Evil must therefore be something other than the absence of Good. Or... God isn't infinte. Frankly, I can live with either result, though I must confess, I try to explain things while keeping God Infinite. If Good and Evil have to disappear, so be it.

That's a nice-sounding explanation, but I think that little 3-part formulation (God/infinite/good) is too simplistic to be the definitive word on the subject. I don't see how God's infinite nature would preclude the absence of good at all (are you including "omnipotent" within "infinite")--and where does man and his free will fit into the equation?