---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

see https://www.catholic.com/...and-the-whale-a-myth

This website seems to answer lots of questions from the Catholic perspective. I do not think many of the other denominations spend as much effort explaining their beliefs online.

regardless of what current priests and theologians say, Jonah and the whale is a parable describing reincarnation. btw, I'm going on record as being opposed to reincarnation.

I haven't seen the documentary, but will say that many folks opposed to Christianity (just what I'm citing for reference, could be applied to any or every religion & then distilled further to specific denominations and sub-denominations) pick and choose what they base their entire opposition on. Sure, some Christians think the earth was created in a literal 6 days 6000 years ago. Not all do; many see the story as a parable, as they do with many other things in the Bible. It's just not so simple.

But I'll also agree that many people grow up with what they're told to believe, don't question it, and say they believe it but don't know what they say they believe or don't really believe it even if they understand. I'll use Hell as an example: the modern belief of hell as a place of Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) is something many Christians say they believe. Very few actually believe it. Why? Because if they did believe it they'd stop everything they were doing and make it their entire life's mission to work their ass off to save even just one single person from going there. If they didn't they'd be a sick, depraved, evil individual that would be worthy of such a place, and there are few of those type of depraved people so the explanation is they don't believe in that thing they say they believe in.

This all said simply -- it's so much more nuanced than people say. I'm firmly Christian but not fundamentalist and have more doubts and questions than I do answers, which is actually fits very comfortably into an approach to faith when one doesn't approach faith as "the place" where all of their questions are given certainty and packaged answers. Ask away if this raised questions about what I mean and I'll do my best to find the time to answer.

I'll go back to church when someone can explain free choice and a omniscient creator. That is, how can we have free choice to make our own decisions if God already knew everything we were going to do before he/it created the universe

How can we have free choice when God decided to destroy the world with a flood because we sided with evil? We chose, he hated our choice. Game over?

---

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."

Can god create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

More specifically, he made you such that you would choose evil.

"Whatcha doin', Jesus?"
"I'm making jkca1.....oh, and please call me God when I'm making a dude."
"You gonna give him free will?"
"Sort of. I mean, he'll have free will, but since I'm omniscient, I already know that he'll choose evil and I'll have to punish him with an eternity of torture."
"So then why make him in the first place?"
"Love."

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

The bible defines God away...

1.) God is good.
2.) God made the universe.
3.) God is all-powerful.
4.) Yet, the universe contains evil and the suffering of innocents.

You forgot:

"So what are you going to do about that eternity of torment?"
"Send you to die for him"
"Will that work?"
"No, he'll still chose evil, and get the eternity of punishment"
"Do I still have to die?"
"Yes, painfully"
"Seems legit to me"

Post your question on Slowtwitch lavender room.

Good on you for pursing answers to questions you have. I have found that these type of questions have been addressed and debated for 2000 years. For instance, Augustine 1600 years ago took the position that the bible should not contradict natural reason (the greatest Catholic philosopher, Aquinas, some 800 years ago also advocated faith must be in accord with reason). Thus, Augustine said when the bible contradicts reason, it should be interpreted metaphorically. Augustine was one of several who wrote about faith and reason in the early centuries.

The foregoing is a very brief and loose statement about biblical interpretation and the positions of Augustine and Aquinas. You have to ask yourself whether you want to inform yourself or be taught by someone. If it is the former, pick and issue and start digging into it seeing what the various schools of thought say about it (and/or what various denominations teach as their dogma on the issue). You can start on the internet but on many issues you will eventually have to get and read some books.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

Do you believe that you have free choice to make your own decisions? Are you not a biological machine created, programmed, and operating in accord with physical laws? If so, how can any decision you make be anything other than what is demanded by the physical laws?

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

Do you think it is evil for people to have children?

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

By what rule do you determine what a writing or story "is."

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

Children are evil.

---

_____________________
Fester from Detroit, Mi

Exactly, so explain this while being created by an all knowing creator. Btw God knew you were going to say that before he/it created anything.

Why seek an explanation. Your understanding is a fact of nature. Whether you are right or wrong, you cannot know.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

Cant know what?

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Generally, no, but it's a complex world. There are scenarios where it could be.

Do you think there is any child brought into the world that does not suffer innocently?

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

There are lots of ways to get at this. The laws of physics should make it clear to you. But let's try logic. Have you ever been wrong about something, i.e., believed something to be true and later determined that it was false?

Now let's ask about today. Do you believe that everything you believe to be true is in fact true? Or, instead, do you believe that there are things that you are wrong about today, but just don't know it?

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

Are you trying to compare me to God?

Are you saying there is a God?

Edit: and to the point: I'm saying that one thing I don't understand is how people can have problem with the Problem of Evil, and have no problem bringing children into the world themselves.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

There was a point? Next time just get to it.

People don't claim to be all-powerful creators of the Universe.
People don't claim to be entirely good.

As such we can make judgement calls on net benefit to ourselves, the world, and our children.
The bible's propositions on God aren't "on net" types of propositions.

You should explain this

Well I wasn't asking about people nor the bible's propositions.

I was asking if you think someone who brings children into the world causes innocent suffering and thus evil.

Can I take from your statement "judgment calls on net benefit to ourselves, the world, and our children" that you believe that creating children can be good even though innocent suffering will result?

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

I should explain this or what? Am I going to hell?

Assuming you are asking a question, I don't understand the POE. I find it a silly construct on many levels. One level is that people allow themselves a "net" analysis, for instance when bringing children into suffering but would say God can't exist if he created this world where suffering exists.

I understand that one response to the foregoing is to say "God is supposed to be all good but I'm not claiming to be all good." But I think that is an evasion as the acts are similar: God created a world where suffering exists and a Person having a child is causing suffering to exist. How do you claim that the former act is evil and the latter act is not?

Another level where I have a problem is that most POE advocates would object to a god that would interfere in human action by, for instance, by prohibiting people from doing anything that that causes suffering. For instance by stopping a violent criminal and wiping his mind clean before he assaults someone (or, for instance, causing people to no longer desire sex). Stated another way, an all good God would not have allowed human choice. So is human choice evil?

The counter thought experiment is to ask a POE believer: if you had the power to extinguish the universe and thus ensure that there would be no more innocent suffering, would it be good to extinguish the universe?

Another level on which the POE is silly to me is that the POE posits an all powerful god, yet strips god of that power. An all powerful god can rectify any suffering that occurs, thus, solving the supposed POE.

So to me it seems the POE begins by positing something beyond human comprehension, and then argues against the proposition on the basis of human comprehension.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

It was an innocent question - I don't see the connection between the POE and the decision to have children or not, I don't see this as an issue for believers nor non-believers

The connection seems obvious, even if it is superficial.

If you object to the goodness of God (or, more accurately, to the existence of a good God) because suffering exists, isn't everyone who brings children into existence guilty of perpetuating suffering?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

It may be obvious, however except for the rare nut job no one takes that position, that is, neither believers nor atheists believe the world is evil so I'm not having children. The only POV I can imagine would be someone who believes we are living in an evil-founded simulation.

that is, neither believers nor atheists believe the world is evil so I'm not having children.

Exactly the point, though, isn't it?

Like I said, it's a superficial comparison. But a lot of times people talk about the world as if it's some ongoing nightmare overflowing with nothing but suffering when talking about the problem of evil- how could a good God possibly create something this awful! In reality, the world and existence in general is pretty awesome, despite the reality of suffering.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Yes, but you should be asking about the bible's propositions because my original statement that you had a problem with was: the bible defines God away. It seems to me that you want to come up with an H- definition of God here. Sure, I can deal with the issues of your personal definition in due time, but can we stick to what I said long enough so it doesn't get all confused?

But aren't you coming up with your own definition of God as well or choosing one to use? Even within the Christian tradition, God is defined differently, using the same texts. Reading the works of the mystics like Meister Eckhart & Thomas Merton will lead you to a totally different understanding of God than someone like a Joel Osteen, Jerry Falwell, etc. Some define God as something "out there and omniscient" as you seem to be doing, but others define God moreso as being in an event, a force. Barth described God as something that was like an explosion in the encounters of what we know. It's just not so simple and as easily dismissed in looking at one mindset -- which, sadly, is probably the most simplistic mindset of religion -- and thinking one understands a fullness of the tradition or can equate it all as equal.

People do tend to oversimplify God (it's hard not to), but that doesn't change the fact that Christianity is mostly unanimous in its belief that God is all-good and all-powerful. More complex, deeper, nuanced beliefs about God do not solve Christianity's problem of evil.

That said, it's only a problem for the Christian belief system- it doesn't begin to address the existence of "God" in general.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

True with the oversimplification. Concepts of the immortal cannot be adequately captured with mortal thinking, hence the reason why these are conversations that, quite literally, span the centuries as opposed to items of closed discovery and resolution.

I'd say that one must really define "all powerful" before making the leap that it's a nearly unanimous belief. There is the tricky difference between stated theological belief and practiced ecclesiology and "all powerful" seems to differ between theology and ecclesiology, not unlike my earlier post referencing Hell and stated belief but practiced disbelief.

But, yes, the conversation about the existence of a god in the first place is something yet different altogether and not so easily defined even within one tradition.

Honestly, I think "all-powerful" is fairly straightforward and relatively easily understood, as well as being a constant across Christian belief. God can do all things, nothing is impossible for God.

A more fruitful discussion when it comes to the problem of evil would probably entail defining and understanding the concept of "all good."

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

You can always choose a religion that doesn't require an omniscient and omnipotent creator. Or one that doesn't believe in free choice.

Thank you.

"All powerful" may be straightforward in its most simplistic sense -- that god is something "out there", we're here, and god can see everything before it happens & do whatever it wants -- but it's a highly problematic definition in many ways. Mostly, it presupposes a fairly fixed type of being for god, but then the deeper problems are with the interaction of god and humanity.

But in the end we could spend a ton of time debating or philosophizing this stuff and actually do absolutely nothing. The problem with philosophy & theology are when they only philosophize and theologize, but do nothing. The Pope just spoke about this & uninvolved church attendance. And he's correct -- right theology without right living in the community of humanity is just empty noise.

So to that end, my 3 year old is getting up and I'm gonna go make Elsa & Anna (Frozen movie) cookies with her and get to the business of right living.

No.

An omniscient and omnipotent god both knows the outcome and has the ability to control or contain it. If that god is also benevolent, then there should be no suffering. And you can't argue that this omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent god is utilitarian and judges the outcome based on whether, over all, benefits outweigh the suffering. Because this god is omnipotent, which should mean that it has the ability to eliminate the suffering part of the equation.

A human isn't omnipotent or omniscient. So it's possible that a human can recognize the so-called problem of evil and still believe that the child he or she brings into the world will have an overall positive life. That person might actually think that because of his or her parenting skill, station in life, means and resources, etc., that bring a child into the world will be an overall net benefit. The parent may be wrong, but hey, he or she's not omniscient.

As I said, the analogy is superficial. It's not wholly without merit, though.

You didn't really answer the question, though: Yes, it's true that humans aren't omniscient or omnipotent. And yes, it's true that a person might believe or hope that his child's life will be, on balance, positive. But isn't that person still responsible for the suffering the child will inevitably experience in the course of that life?

I think people are being a little hasty to jettison any consideration of the net positive of our universe, too. Who says that an omnipotent, omniscient God would have to create a universe without suffering in order to bring about the best possible creation? If there were no sentient beings in the universe, there would be no suffering at all. Would that be more or less benevolent on God's part? Are you sure that allowing some degree of suffering doesn't maximize the positive that is possible in creation?

Is all suffering a negative? Is it like a cosmic balance sheet, with any suffering at all throwing the entire ledger into meaninglessness?

To return to the parental analogy, aren't there situations in which a parent will allow for his child to risk suffering in order to increase the child's happiness ultimately? Isn't it true that trying to shield the child from suffering altogether stunts development? Maybe some suffering isn't really a cosmic defect, but merely a condition appropriate to our nature, without which we could not be fully what we are.

The problem of evil is real, and not easily answered by considering one aspect- there are many different approaches to it, and many challenges to reflect on.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Would you have god take away people's ability to choose their actions? Specifically the actions that cause others to suffer?

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

Nevermind. (in other words, I stand corrected.)

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

But isn't that person still responsible for the suffering the child will inevitably experience in the course of that life?

Depends on what you mean by responsible. What level of responsibility or accountability does someone have if they lack the mens rea.

Who says that an omnipotent, omniscient God would have to create a universe without suffering in order to bring about the best possible creation?

Well, if a god were omnipotent, wouldn't he be able to create a universe that didn't have suffering and was the best possible creation?

I agree that not all suffering is negative. And yes, parents will allow their kids to go through trials for their betterment. But that's not even comparable to the kind of suffering that goes on in the world.

My point, and I say this as a nonbeliever, is that the idea of an omnipotent and omniscient god is overplayed and is not required by Christianity or the Bible. When I was a believer, I viewed those characterizations as hyperbole -- that the God of the Bible was really, damn powerful and smart, more so than any thing else out there (Marduk, Baal, etc.). Not that he was truly all powerful and all knowing in a literal sense.

Depends on what you mean by responsible. What level of responsibility or accountability does someone have if they lack the mens rea.

Who lacks the mens rea? You know what the world is like. You know nobody makes it through without suffering, even in the best possible circumstances. If you know your offspring will undoubtedly suffer, are you or are you not responsible for that suffering if you choose to procreate?


Well, if a god were omnipotent, wouldn't he be able to create a universe that didn't have suffering and was the best possible creation?

Maybe? That's the issue, right? And I'm saying, maybe not. A universe that didn't have what we consider suffering would also lack much- most, probably- of what we consider good, right?


My point, and I say this as a nonbeliever, is that the idea of an omnipotent and omniscient god is overplayed and is not required by Christianity or the Bible.

Ehhh . . . It's pretty well established in the Bible, and has always been integral to Christianity. Additionally, those characteristics are often arrived at by philosophical reasoning. It's the benevolent part that can be a hang up there.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I don't believe in god, so I don't know what I would have something I don't believe in do.

There are religions that don't believe in free choice. And, in fact, I believe it's more commonly referred to as "free will," which is a slightly different concept.

The apologetic reconciliation I've heard between omniscience and free will (or choice) is often with a comparison to how a parent will know how his or her child will react under certain circumstances. While the child is still free to make a choice, the parent knows the child so well that the choice can be anticipated. Only with this god, the knowledge is perfect.

Another analysis would be chaos theory, except that god has the ability to still predict or know what the result will be.

With regard to whether this god should restrict people's choices knowing the resulting suffering, perhaps he thinks that free will is more important than suffering, or that the cost of suffering is worth free will.

It's pretty well established in the Bible, and has always been integral to Christianity. Additionally, those characteristics are often arrived at by philosophical reasoning. It's the benevolent part that can be a hang up there.


I'll agree that it's integral to mainline Christianity, for the most part. I don't agree that it's well established in the Bible.

The apologetic reconciliation I've heard between omniscience and free will (or choice) is often with a comparison to how a parent will know how his or her child will react under certain circumstances.

I think there isn't really as big of a conflict between omniscience and free will as people sometimes think. Knowledge is not control.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Moving on then...

One of the issues with even the "net good" concepts of God is that "net good" is a really, really low hurdle to get over. Vladmir Putin could make the argument that he is saving lives by carpet bombing Aleppo -- a net good. The torturers from the Spanish Inquisition could argue that a short stint of torture here on earth -- designed to help you understand the benefits of confession and belief -- easily outweighed the eternal torment that was waiting for you in the hereafter. When MLK makes the statement "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere", theologians would need to reply "Well, actually...".

I'm not sure that this is a satisfactory approach either.

And it's not all tied to mankind and his/her decisions. You go out in the wild and basically all animals consume other animals in order to live. It's the way of the world.
Heck, lionesses often begin eating gazelles while they're still alive... balls first! That's having your innocents suffer, I'll tell you what.

I'm not really following your examples of "net good." To me the question is whether a certain action is good or bad. Yes people can make arguments about whether their actions are good or bad. However, their subjective view does not change affect the question: is a certain action good or bad?

Accordingly, relevant to your formulation of the POE, I don't care what some hypothetical person may argue. I'm asking your opinions on existence.

Is it good or bad action to bring a new human being into this world?

Similarly, if you were put in the position of God, holding the current existence of the world in your will, the action at question is do you instantly extinguish the world or allow it to continue. Which action is good?

Do you have a view on those two questions?

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

Your definition is simplistic and is countered by arguments such as can God make 1+ 1 = 3. or Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it.

These kind of examples come from saying he can do all things. Even early theologians realized this. Some would say God is all powerful in the areas he would choose to influence.

So, by extenuation, you are saying that a world without evil in it is a logical incongruence much like 1+1=3?

Quote:

I'm not really following your examples of "net good." To me the question is whether a certain action is good or bad. Yes people can make arguments about whether their actions are good or bad. However, their subjective view does not change affect the question: is a certain action good or bad?

I don't think you are understanding the concept of "net good" then -- which is weird because you were just arguing for the concept when it comes to God. The idea of net good is that we total up all the good, and total up all the evil and at the end we come to an equation that has Good>Evil.

So when Putin carpet bombs Aleppo all he has to do is formulate how this action ultimately cuts the civil war short, keeps a (relatively) benevolent dictator in power, and ultimately saves lives. In other words good>evil from his carpet bombing plan.

This is the same situation and calculation you set up for God when you decided that some evil was OK as long as there was net good.

Your definition is simplistic and is countered by arguments such as can God make 1+ 1 = 3. or Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it.

I think those arguments are simplistic. ;)

As you note, that question has been well addressed by theologians for centuries. Omnipotent has not generally been understood to include being capable of logical or conceptual impossibilities. (Which, itself, might be a wedge to help pry open an answer to the problem of evil.)

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Thanks. That's what I was thinking but could not express it -- and simple is usually my forte.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

The highlighted is not an argument - it's usually the first clever thought someone has when they sign up for Philosophy 101

lol. Right?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

The highlighted is not an argument - it's usually the first clever thought someone has when they sign up for Philosophy 101

Those are the kind of people I wished would take a gap year...

it's usually followed up "Is my mind all there is?"

The argument thats not silly is that if there is a god, he either cannot stop evil, or he chooses not to.

Choosing not to, is widely recognized as immoral and we hold some of these people criminally responsible. (Madatory reporters for example) should we really hold flawed people to a higher standard than a supposedly perfect god?

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

What's a little funny is your notion that if God exists, we have any business holding the Supreme Being to a "higher" standard.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Shouldnt it be?

Its not a foreign concept. We do this in society all the time. In the criminal justice system, we hold the actions of more intelligent people to a higher standard than we do to people who are of low intelligence.

You always dismiss the idea that we cant hold god to any standard but you have never given an argument as to why. If you want to argue that we cant judge god, then you have absolutely zero justification to say he is good.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

You always dismiss the idea that we cant hold god to any standard but you have never given an argument as to why.

Because I find it self evident. If a Supreme Being exists, that being is itself the standard.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Then are you against mandatory reporting laws? Because in those, we are holding people to a higher standard than god.

A supreme being does not equate to perfect being nor does it abdicate it of responsibility.

Lets take your idea into a smaller closed system to see if it holds up.... imagine an island inhabited by a diverse range of beings. One is clearly superior to the others in every way. Are the others not alllowed to judge or find fault with the superior one since it is the standard?

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Lets take your idea into a smaller closed system to see if it holds up

Actually, let's not, because that's not in any way analogous to what I'm talking about when I reference a supreme being. You seem to be under the impression that I'm talking about a being that is essentially just like us, only more- bigger, stronger, smarter, maybe with magical powers or something. What I'm talking about is a being who is the author and well spring of all reality. It makes no more sense to find fault with a being like that than it does to talk about square circles.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"Let us make man in our image"



Thats complete nonsense. If this were true, it would be illogical for you to conclude that child rape is anything other than glorious. Since, this god was the wellspring of child rape. Or do you find child rape abhorrent? If you do, you may want to take that up with the author who invented it and watches silently as it happens.

If I were the author of reality, I would do without child rape. It would be an improvement if it wasnt invented by your god, dont you think?


Eta: intercessory prayer is a tacit acknowledgement that god can do better

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Free choice doesn't remove the consequences of our behavior. As you noted it says the people were acting wicked.

Genesis 6:5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

If I ask my wife if she'd rather have sushi or go to the hole in the wall Mexican place (which is awesome) I know she'll choose sushi. That doesn't mean she doesn't have free will, it means I know her so well I know what she'll choose. Pair that idea with a God who created the universe and everyone in it. If God did all that he's very clearly infinitely superior to us so why couldn't he know what choices we'd make?

Setting aside the free will/determinism debate and simply granting that free will exists...

Demanding action under threat of violence is not a demonstration of free will for the victim. This is the system that the christian god set up.. "if you dont love me then youre going to burn"

Free will would be "you can choose to love me or not and i will not torture you either way"

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Then you not free to make any other choice...hence 50's point.

God cannot know what you will choose if you are actually free to make another choice. If you have comoletely free will, it would be impossible for god to know the outcome before hand.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

I wouldn't say we should hold it to a higher standard. I would ask whether it was worthy of worship. Just because something can fuck you right the hell up (literally) does not mean it should be worshiped.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Bt higher standard, i mean a higher standard than believers usually do. I mean raise it to the standard in which we hold eachother.

I also agree with your point but would add, worship is useless.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

I would ask whether it was worthy of worship.

Again, I have to wonder what makes you capable of judging such a being worthy or unworthy.



Just because something can fuck you right the hell up (literally) does not mean it should be worshiped.

No, that's true. Of course, I didn't make that argument.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I feel that I have to clarify this. This notion of Hell as a place of Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) is a relatively recent theological evolution and is definitely not universally held amongst Christians. I'll set aside the lack of lived belief I mentioned in an earlier post, but while many people "believe" in ECT, many others believe in Hell as something completely different (temporary, for example, though there are others), many others believe that it doesn't exist. ECT has been a great means of psychologically controlling people, though. I don't have time to get into it right now, but as far as I'm concerned ECT is highly problematic theology and full of holes and it's unfortunately done nothing to lead people into living a more full, fulfilled life.

I only mention this because with a statement like "the christian god" there's an implied understanding that this is the belief, when it's only a belief and I want it to be clear that there are many of us who don't buy the westernized ECT belief...not to be combative with you!

42

Why not? Stephen Hawking has said that scientist agree that at one point space time and matter did not exist. That means something outside of space, time and matter choose to create space time and matter. So if God exists outside of space, time and matter how could we, the created thing, even fathom what he knows?

For the same reason you do. He has reason.
Lets not pretend that you dont judge god.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Nonsense sequitor.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

I am aware of the different hell beliefs. Both from experience in an annihilation cult (yay jehovahs witnesses!) And reading, conversations etc.

Vitus though happens to believe in eternal torment of hell. Unless hes changed his mind.. so i am speaking to that. Perhaps i wasnt ecplicit enough.

Dont apologize for criticizing or clarifying!

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

The Bible literally has dozens of verses about hell and eternal suffering. Nearly every parable Jesus told talks about hell.

I am well aware of the verses, arguments, and interpretations people make to justify their belief in ECT as well as the history of how the theology of ECT came to be. The ECT interpretation was not the belief system of the early church and it takes some leaps in thinking and theologizing to justify it alongside the notion of a Jesus of love, a Jesus who came and constantly dwelled amongst the rabble, moving toward and with the marginalized, constantly speaking of a new way of living here, and making all things new in this place that we dwell.

If the greatest good is for someone to be reconciled with God, receiving forgiveness and going to heaven (where their is no evil or pain), how would we ever see a need for God if we never faced evil or pain? In our bodies pain tells us that something is wrong. The same is true in our world.

Hmmm... but within the modern understanding of the mathematical geometry of space-time it is possible that you have free will, but that free will has simply "already transpired" in the view of a being that can sit outside that space-time continuum.

I'm mostly on your side here, but I love getting the abstract arguments right even more.

That couldn't be farther from the truth, but don't take my word for it pick up the New Testament and give it a read. Most of the books in the New Testament are letters written to the early church in different cities. Each letter talks about sin, the consequence of sin (hell) and the need for a savior.

I would say this is an incoherent thought. Outside of time? What does that mean? How can something exist for 0 seconds?

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Sure, that's one interpretation from a Westernized anglo-saxon theological viewpoint, but not that of the early church and the heritage & deeper meaning of the text. I'm extremely familiar with the New Testament, read it often, teach from it, read many theological works as well. Sin, consequences of sin, and the need of a savior are all things that absolutely exist outside of ECT.

It's not an incoherent thought. There are geometries that can contain other geometries.

I wouldn't say we should hold it to a higher standard. I would ask whether it was worthy of worship. Just because something can fuck you right the hell up (literally) does not mean it should be worshiped.

If you believe in God, you would also believe God created you and everything in the world. That would be the reason for worship, not because he can mess you up.

Being a Creator makes a being inherently worthy of worship?

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

That's not the same thing. What does it mean to exist for 0 seconds?

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Doesn't your daughter worship you?

'Worship' has nothing to do with the worthiness of any creator, it is something we do when we appreciate or show gratitude, whether it be a piece of art or a sunset, etc. It is a natural expression.

It is the same thing. Existing for 0 seconds is an irrelevant question.

Just popped into the thread to check it out, and yep, more of the same. It's somewhat reassuring to know that we can have the exact same conversations year after year.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Existing outside of time is the same thing as existing for no time.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

The political threads are the same way. Also, its not just us!

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

 Think of it more like a family reunion and that crazy, drunk uncle whose conversation is already known to you well before you even get there but is still inexplicably endearing.

Yeah, I remember a thread that was almost this same one verbatim.

Not necessarily. Conceptually there may be dimensions or places or whatever not constrained by "now".

You don't know your wife's every thought, You don't know what she's going to say to you on july 5th 2022 at 4 pm. God does and did before he/it created anything.

This just seems like a solipsisim type of assertion. Things sinply cannot change without time so existing without time is as useless as it is meaningless.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

I don't think "changing" is a necessary part of the definition of God in any meaningful way. He's eternal. What makes you think he changes over time?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

You misunderstand. Taking action is a change from the way things were. Change cannot happen without time.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

i saw it years ago, and remember it being sort of disappointing. i'm mostly a fan of maher's, but he too often goes in for the softballs, and religulous definitely had a lot of that. there's nothing really big or clever about picking apart the beliefs of an undereducated nobody . . . why not really dig in and ask big questions to the people in charge?

i thought the central argument about religion being fine for personal belief but crummy for making policy was a good one and wish he'd spent more time on it. as it was things jumped around, went for a few cheap laughs here and there, and then kind of limped across the finish line.

-mike

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

Fairly good assessment, its how i felt about it too.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

I quit about half way through after he was asking some broke rednecks theological questions that they couldn't answer. He was picking on people the way a child does in the school yard. I thought it was shameful. If he had legitimate question go find an apologist, a seminary trained pastor. Many Christians don't study the Bible and many atheist have a subjective world view based on their moral preferences.

It's not any more "objective" if you pick and choose the parts that you follow and the parts you ignore.

Leaving aside the fact that the Bible is not an internally consistent document that presents a unified world view or moral compass.

You put those two things together and you come up with the vast differences you can see in Christian sects. If it were "objective" everyone would come to the same conclusions and they don't.

Change and action include a time component within our universe. That doesn't mean the same rules apply outside of our universe.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

perhaps you can be the first to explain what it means to exist for no time?

I agree there are things unknown. You are certainly free to speculate about them, but be honest that they are unknown speculations and never present them as knowns. This is the problem with insisting there is a god that exists outside of space and time.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Why would I do that? It's not pertinent. God doesn't exist for "no time." He exists independent of time. Within our universe, he is eternal. In other words, he exists in all time.


We come back to the concept of faith and belief, which is what religion involves. There is no problem with insisting that there is a God who exists independent of time and space, so long as we acknowledge that we are unable to prove it.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I am working on an explanation for this, here is what I have come up with:

You build two staircases that are used hundreds of times per day. One has has three grip strips on each case, the other just the standard single strip. You sit and watch. Over the course of several years there are a few slips and falls. Some on each of the two staircases. But overtime a lot more people slip on the single strip case. Did you know more people would slip on the single grip side? Yes. But if you ask the guy who ran up the stairs, didn't use the handrail and consequently slipped if he was operating with his own freewill is he going to deny it and say you made him slip?

Outside of time is the same as no time. You can't insist that he exists outside of time while also saying that he exists for all time.. the statements are in conflict.


We're saying quite similar things here.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

No, it's really not, but that's not what I said. I said he exists independent of time.


I didn't say that. What I said is that "within our universe, he is eternal."

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

youre still saying the same thing. independent of time, is the same as outside of time, is the same as no time.

you didnt say it, but others did which is what we were talking about.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Again, no, not really. Independent of time, does not mean the same as no time.

If I tell you that I am independent from money, that means I am not dependent on money to exist or survive. That doesn't necessarily mean I have no money.

God's existence is independent from time. It is not tied to time, limited by time, etc. That doesn't mean that he exists for no time. It means he is not bound by our conception of time. Time, in our universe, exists as a function of the expansion of the universe after the big bang. If God existed "before" the big bang, and created the big bang (and by extension, everything that followed) that means he created time. If he created time, certainly he is not dependent on it to exist, because he existed "before" time did. However, that doesn't mean he exists for no time. If he existed "before" time began, and will exist "after" time ends, then he actually exist for all of time. Hence the characterization of God as eternal.


What I'm talking about is God and his relationship to time. If you just want to nitpick and bitch about what other people said, instead of moving forward in the conversation, then I'll leave you to it. I'm not interested.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)