Talking Religion...

[kinch]

It might help, by the way, to supplant "evil" with "suffering" in the discussions above (or to say that evil is known through suffering).

Typically, then the theist argues that one cannot know good without knowing evil (or suffering).

Then the questioner notes that if God were omnipotent he could have us know good without knowing evil, else he is not omnipotent and capable of anything.

Then usually they stare blankly at each other or get smoothies.

Of course, someone like BKB may assert that there is no such thing as suffering, but I would buy that, and wouldn't believe that he could either, because I know he's married.

 

[jwinslow]

Then the questioner notes that if God were omnipotent he could have us know good without knowing evil, else he is not omnipotent and capable of anything.

That doesn't really compute, not at the beginning nor the end. How is something good if there is no bad in contrast? There simply 'is' otherwise.

 

[kinch]

That doesn't really compute, not at the beginning nor the end. How is something good if there is no bad in contrast? There simply 'is' otherwise.

Then god is unable to have us understand that both good and evil could exist (and what they would be), but only good does due to his benevolence.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

It might help, by the way, to supplant "evil" with "suffering" in the discussions above (or to say that evil is known through suffering).

Typically, then the theist argues that one cannot know good without knowing evil (or suffering).

Then the questioner notes that if God were omnipotent he could have us know good without knowing evil, else he is not omnipotent and capable of anything.

Then usually they stare blankly at each other or get smoothies.

Of course, someone like BKB may assert that there is no such thing as suffering, but I would buy that, and wouldn't believe that he could either, because I know he's married.

Doesn't really change anything, if you ask me. Suffering is - like our determinations of good or evil - subjective and not universal. I think listening to 80s hair bands can cause a great deal of suffering on my part.... But... I know people who love that shit. (Trivial, I know... but still illustrative)

 

[kinch]

Doesn't really change anything, if you ask me. Suffering is - like our determinations of good or evil - subjective and not universal. I think listening to 80s hair bands can cause a great deal of suffering on my part.... But... I know people who love that shit. (Trivial, I know... but still illustrative)

But then suffering exists, correct?

Want to go get a smoothie?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

But then suffering exists, correct?

In the same way "evil" or "good" do...

Want to go get a smoothie?

Do they make em with whiskey?

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

This clip sounds confusing at first, especially the part stated by R.C. Sproul, although I think he has the best answer of the three of them, but if you think about it, it really does make sense as the answer provided from the Judeo-Christian perspective.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z51JkJUer2E"]YouTube - Ravi Zacharias, R.C. Sproul, Al Mohler on God and Evil[/ame]

BKB, you will even notice that they acknowledge your perspective, but of course their conclusion is that you really should just shut up on all issues of right and wrong. While I'm not going to tell you to shut up, I have to admit that I am always surprised that you take some of the stances you do considering your view that everything "just is", and even more surprised by the passion that appears to be behind some of them. I really can't wrap my head around the idea of why even bother with positions on issues when everything just is.

I also think the part by Mohler is very important too. We have to realize that we don't judge God by standards of good but good comes from His character.

God has designed us and created us with the idea that it is Good that we choose Him over evil and despite suffering. God is glorified when he have the choice not to follow Him when not following might be "easier", yet choose Him anyway. Therefore evil is good.

Then you've got the problem of immediacy being complicated by the fact that God created time and therefore is outside of it. In His existence it is dealt with, and was from the very beginning of time.

 

[kinch]

I also think the part by Mohler is very important too. We have to realize that we don't judge God by standards of good but good comes from His character.

God has designed us and created us with the idea that it is Good that we choose Him over evil and despite suffering. God is glorified when he have the choice not to follow Him when not following might be "easier", yet choose Him anyway. Therefore evil is good.

Then you've got the problem of immediacy being complicated by the fact that God created time and therefore is outside of it. In His existence it is dealt with, and was from the very beginning of time.

All of this sounds rather non-benevolent to me. Whatever it is that is best for us to do, feel, accomplish, understand, glorify, realize, etc., an omnipotent and benevolent god could give me all of that, with all of the benefits of having done it myself or whatever, without my Mondays sucking. In a way, the above appears to me to be just a very complicated way of saying "god works in mysterious ways" or "I don't want to argue with any human rationale or experience, so let's just not talk and say he exists as I say he does, based on my human rationale and experience." Seems odd, but this is usually where I usually run off for the smoothie. . .

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

All of this sounds rather non-benevolent to me.

Sweet, we've found the one who decides what is benevolent. We have proven God exists.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

T-scott, personally I find that unsatisfactory in as much as it leads down the path towards a "final conflict" if you will as between good and evil (See, Revelation). The whole idea strikes me as absurd. I mean, if we are to credit the notion that G-d is all powerful, then there is hardly much to worry about in this epic end. Leaving us, again (and in my view), with the position "Why bother?"

Of course, the answer to that from your position, I think (and I don't mean to put words in your mouth) is "you get eternal salvation" and then, I'm right back to the whole problem of damnation as it relates to a supposedly all loving G-d.

Eh... for me, it makes more sense to just understand that there IS and we label the rest...

 

[Gatorubet]

Therefore evil is good.

Which is why we have to destroy the village to save it.

 

[kinch]

Sweet, we've found the one who decides what is benevolent. We have proven God exists.

I must just be a god to myself, as is I said "it sounds. . . to me."

Oh sweet, now anyone with an opinion is god!

Why yes, those mushrooms in the smoothies I passed around are a bit. . . funny.

Anyway, with my parting remarks: I consider this type of argument for or against God, or rather for or against a perfectly benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient god, just kind of something that's fun for a while if you haven't played with it-- much like the ontological proof for the existence of a (the) god. I don't consider it to have much here nor there regarding real discussions of a personal or recognized god and its meaning. An academic argument maybe? Sometimes reducing things to simplicities takes the "character" out of the discussion. At the same time, the reason why this argument comes up so much is because it cannot be unsimplified or danced around. Have you ever hurt, in any way? You didn't have to. It's that simple. This is the problem with such an extreme word as omnipotent. It also takes the fun out of the argument. The capability to make whatever you can argue against it be true just by thinking of it all happening but without the trueness of the pain (or evil, etc.).

Wow I got lost there.

Damn shrooms.

 

[buckeyegrad]

T-scott, personally I find that unsatisfactory in as much as it leads down the path towards a "final conflict" if you will as between good and evil (See, Revelation). The whole idea strikes me as absurd. I mean, if we are to credit the notion that G-d is all powerful, then there is hardly much to worry about in this epic end. Leaving us, again (and in my view), with the position "Why bother?"

You are very correct in that from God's perspective, there is no need for worry about the "end". The devil, the advesary, evil, whatever, is irrelevant to God's standing as the conflict never has been between good and evil or God and some other entity. Rather the confict is between those who follow God's Will and those who resist it. (In fact, the idea that God has an advesary is repugnant IMO; it is only us humans that I believe have an advesary).

Of course, the answer to that from your position, I think (and I don't mean to put words in your mouth) is "you get eternal salvation" and then, I'm right back to the whole problem of damnation as it relates to a supposedly all loving G-d.

What do you mean by an "all loving God" and where does this idea come from? At least for me to answer this question, I have to know what you mean here and whether or not I agree with it.


T-Scott, not trying to answer here for you, just wanted to respond to BKB as he raises an interesting line of thinking that I wanted to probe a little more.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

T-scott, personally I find that unsatisfactory in as much as it leads down the path towards a "final conflict" if you will as between good and evil (See, Revelation). The whole idea strikes me as absurd. I mean, if we are to credit the notion that G-d is all powerful, then there is hardly much to worry about in this epic end. Leaving us, again (and in my view), with the position "Why bother?"

Of course, the answer to that from your position, I think (and I don't mean to put words in your mouth) is "you get eternal salvation" and then, I'm right back to the whole problem of damnation as it relates to a supposedly all loving G-d.

Eh... for me, it makes more sense to just understand that there IS and we label the rest...

Yeah, I'm not so sure we need to discuss it. If you can't see that God by definition is perfectly just, and therefore requires punishment for sin, then I don't know where to go. He's so loving that He gave His only Begotten Son so that whomever believes in Him shall surely be saved.

Attention very sensitive material not intended to offend.
BKB, don't know if you have kids, but say you did. Say someone brutalized, tortured, raped and killed your wife. To save this guy from his punishment of torture you have to sacrifice your own son. Essentially we are that guy that did that to your wife to God. Only with qualitative differences. That dude is not beholden to you. You have nothing over this guy. God is our maker. We are His. And God did exactly that. The price had to be paid so He paid it for us. We just have to choose Him.

Agreed with BGrad as well.

Which is why we have to destroy the village to save it.

Except "we" aren't benevolent and don't decide it.
edit: didn't mean to post yet will finish editing.
edit: finished

 

[Gatorubet]

You are very correct in that from God's perspective, there is no need for worry about the "end". The devil, the adversary, evil, whatever, is irrelevant to God's standing as the conflict never has been between good and evil or God and some other entity. Rather the conflict is between those who follow God's Will and those who resist it. (In fact, the idea that God has an adversary is repugnant IMO; it is only us humans that I believe have an adversary).

The problem here is that it looks like God is simply pouring the black ants into a jar to battle the red ants and seeing how it comes out - with the interesting side note that as it is God we are talking about, he already knows how it comes out.

And that He is the one who created the evil that is the opposition, and that He could with a wave of his hand (he does not have a hand, but you know what I am saying) eliminate evil all together, or have hard wired us to be good people in His image and not created the Tree or the Apple in the first place, or since he did, forgiven us that day, wiped Adam and Eve's memory and been back to Paradise Rev 0 a minute later.

It is not illogical to see all of that as sort of petty and mean, making us battle for thousands of years with evil just to watch us do it and make him happy when End Days are over. That is why the Gnostics believed that the God of the Old Testament was a demiurge, a lessor God who make a world like that, flood the world for people acting the way he made them, send bears to dismember kids who made fun of a bald guy, etc.

Interesting things to think about though as abstract thought.