Praying to god for Juve (4 Viewers)

[Zé Tahir]

Yes, I do. I believe we all carry with us a naural tendency to sin. This is the result of the Orginal Sin. Do you?

No, I don't believe that. I don't believe that I should be paying for someone else's sin and I believe that all children are born innocent.

What happens if a child dies at birth? Does he go to hell?

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[rounder]

That's obviously bullshit, because god is god and he could have prevented "sin entering the world". Or he could have sucked the evil out of man if he wanted to, he's god for christ's sake. As for freedom he could have made us "free" to choose any number of good options, and no evil options.You're trying to make it out as if god is all powerful, but inexplicably imposed a lot of really dumb restrictions upon himself. We humans call this "making excuses".

How is that freedom?

If I wanted to give my child freedom to do whatever he/she wants, I don't tell her you are free to do whatever you want as long as you never disobey me. That's not freedom! God could have given us the chioce to choose only good things but that contradicts the very meaning of freedom. If we can do only good things then we are not free, we are merely sheep that have but one choice.

 

[rounder]

No, I don't believe that. I don't believe that I should be paying for someone else's sin and I believe that all children are born innocent.

What happens if a child dies at birth? Does he go to hell?

No, that's not what I meant Ze. Perhaps I misunderstood your question. I thought you were asking if we inherit the tendency and the weakness to sin, to this I answered yes. I guess you are really asking me if I think we are born sinners? No, I don't believe in that. That's ridiculous.

I too believe new borns and children are innocent; this goes without saying.

 

[Zé Tahir]

No, that's not what I meant Ze. Perhaps I misunderstood your question. I thought you were asking if we inherit the tendency and the weakness to sin, to this I answered yes. I guess you are really asking me if I think we are born sinners? No, I don't believe in that. That's ridiculous.

I too believe new borns and children are innocent; this goes without saying.

Well we all have tendencies to do bad. That's true from a non-religious stand point.


If you don't believe we are born sinners then how do you explain the fact that mankind is still suffering the punishments handed down to Adam & Eve?

 

[rounder]

Well we all have tendencies to do bad. That's true from a non-religious stand point.


If you don't believe we are born sinners then how do you explain the fact that mankind is still suffering the punishments handed down to Adam & Eve?

We still and will always suffer the punishments handed down to Adam & Eve, but this does not mean we are born sinners. We are merely paying for the actions of our ancestors not because of our own personal sins but because of the Orginal Sin.

 

[rounder]

I think it's time for Bes to remind us what did Epicurus say.

Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?



Epicurus misses a third possibility.

If the world is not static, but changeable (and this is must be granted before there is any talk of changing anything), then such change may be in either past, present, or future.
The fact that evil now exists rules out only one of those temporal possibilities. If God wishes to abolish evil, and is competent to do so, that abolition may be either in the future, referred to throughout the old testament as “the day of the Lord,” or it may now be in process. The Christian view is of just such an in-process time.
One can dislike each of these views for esthetic reasons, or because we think it would be better to have evil simply obliterated in the blink of an eye. But the idea that God must not be able to do something because it has not already been completed is rather illogical.

Whatever one thinks of the Judeo/Christian story, the possibility must be acknowledged that God could intend another method for the elimination of evil, than simply obliterating it. My own interpretation of the story of Noah and the flood is exactly to that point: If God took the course of destroying evil every time it occurred, He would be no closer to a perfected world. Almost the first story out of the arc has evil picking right up and continuing. Simple removal of evil elements changes nothing. Perhaps humans should be made incapable of evil intentions. Great. Rocks are incapable of evil thoughts. Assuming God intends something with more autonomy, that won’t do. Perhaps all consequences of evil actions should be countered and rendered ineffective? Is that likely to improve the condition of my will, or just raise my frustration level?

I think it likely that assuming the conditions Epicurus did, the existence of a God and of evil, the resolution of human evil involves process, not executive fiat. If so, some time must be within that process. There is no logical reason to reject the idea that that time is now.

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

sorry alen, i missed this, but you know i'm always good when it comes to Epicurus

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
--Epicurus

 

[rounder]

Consider option 3.

 

[king Ale]

sorry alen, i missed this, but you know i'm always good when it comes to Epicurus

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
--Epicurus

Bullshit. This is just playing with the words. Why should God prevent evil? What would be the role of our opting then? The second part is the funniest one. Suppose he is able but he's not willing. Why does it mean that he is malevolent?

The true evils are exactly the people when they kill each other, when they lie, when they cheat, when they plunder...They themselves are malevolent.

 

[*aca*]

Adam & Eve were created innocent

Adam eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge.

Once he eat the fruit, he become aware of good & evil, shame and so on...

Adam and Eve were punished for doing wrong (eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil) before they had a concept of what wrong is (they hadn't eaten from the tree yet)?

Makes sense...right

 

[*aca*]

Bullshit. This is just playing with the words. Why should God prevent evil? What would be the role of our opting then? The second part is the funniest one. Suppose he is able but he's not willing. Why does it mean that he is malevolent?

Nah, it makes him benevolent

The true evils are exactly the people when they kill each other, when they lie, when they cheat, when they plunder...They themselves are malevolent.

its an old one...good people do good things, bad people do bad things.....

 

[*aca*]

Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?



Epicurus misses a third possibility.

If the world is not static, but changeable (and this is must be granted before there is any talk of changing anything), then such change may be in either past, present, or future.
The fact that evil now exists rules out only one of those temporal possibilities. If God wishes to abolish evil, and is competent to do so, that abolition may be either in the future, referred to throughout the old testament as “the day of the Lord,” or it may now be in process. The Christian view is of just such an in-process time.
One can dislike each of these views for esthetic reasons, or because we think it would be better to have evil simply obliterated in the blink of an eye. But the idea that God must not be able to do something because it has not already been completed is rather illogical.

Whatever one thinks of the Judeo/Christian story, the possibility must be acknowledged that God could intend another method for the elimination of evil, than simply obliterating it. My own interpretation of the story of Noah and the flood is exactly to that point: If God took the course of destroying evil every time it occurred, He would be no closer to a perfected world. Almost the first story out of the arc has evil picking right up and continuing. Simple removal of evil elements changes nothing. Perhaps humans should be made incapable of evil intentions. Great. Rocks are incapable of evil thoughts. Assuming God intends something with more autonomy, that won’t do. Perhaps all consequences of evil actions should be countered and rendered ineffective? Is that likely to improve the condition of my will, or just raise my frustration level?

I think it likely that assuming the conditions Epicurus did, the existence of a God and of evil, the resolution of human evil involves process, not executive fiat. If so, some time must be within that process. There is no logical reason to reject the idea that that time is now.

when you post someone's else opinion, the least you can do is give credit

http://metrostateatheists.wordpress.com/2008/10/09/epicurus-the-problem-of-evil/

unless you are R. Eric Sawyer?

i'll reply to this, probably tomorrow.

edit again: maybe today

You have a painful disease. Your body is rotting and the pain is driving you to madness. I hold the cure. I could give it to you. I decide to wait for 3 months. Then i administer the medicine and pain disappear

You might call that "good" - i call that sadistic.

it goes against the idea of god as omnipotent. If this is to be valid, god is temporal and not omniwhatever.

 

[*aca*]

I'm really busy these days, so i dont have much time to reply to all or some of the posts here.

Last thing i want to say is that there is no mention of original sin in the bible. That ridiculous idea that has been propagated as religious dogma for centuries was conceived by Augustine. As such, it was created by feeble and fallible human mind, not superb and perfect divine one.

The way catholic church has been interpreting this idiotic/inhuman/lunatic/fanatical and again idiotic idea has been changing and it is still analyzed by catholic theologians.

They have to make it more suitable and acceptable to modern day people, as opposed to level of awareness as existed in medieval times....

 

[Zé Tahir]

We still and will always suffer the punishments handed down to Adam & Eve, but this does not mean we are born sinners. We are merely paying for the actions of our ancestors not because of our own personal sins but because of the Orginal Sin.

No offense but you're running in circles here. On one hand you agree that no child is born with sin but yet you say that they're not immune from the original sin. It doesn't add up to me.

My parents could have been murderers and by their actions my name could have been dirtied but we would all agree that I wouldn't be guilty of anything just by being their child.

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

Bullshit. This is just playing with the words. Why should God prevent evil? What would be the role of our opting then? The second part is the funniest one. Suppose he is able but he's not willing. Why does it mean that he is malevolent?

because religion claims that he loves you, when in fact he is sadistic

when you post someone's else opinion, the least you can do is give credit

http://metrostateatheists.wordpress.com/2008/10/09/epicurus-the-problem-of-evil/

unless you are R. Eric Sawyer?

i'll reply to this, probably tomorrow.

edit again: maybe today

You have a painful disease. Your body is rotting and the pain is driving you to madness. I hold the cure. I could give it to you. I decide to wait for 3 months. Then i administer the medicine and pain disappear

You might call that "good" - i call that sadistic.

it goes against the idea of god as omnipotent. If this is to be valid, god is temporal and not omniwhatever.

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

No offense but you're running in circles here. On one hand you agree that no child is born with sin but yet you say that they're not immune from the original sin. It doesn't add up to me.

nothing he says adds up

 

[Alen]

when you post someone's else opinion, the least you can do is give credit

http://metrostateatheists.wordpress.com/2008/10/09/epicurus-the-problem-of-evil/

unless you are R. Eric Sawyer?

So, Juve Rev, what is your own interpretation of the story of Noah and the flood ?

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

i feel cheated

 

[Ahmed]

No offense but you're running in circles here. On one hand you agree that no child is born with sin but yet you say that they're not immune from the original sin. It doesn't add up to me.

My parents could have been murderers and by their actions my name could have been dirtied but we would all agree that I wouldn't be guilty of anything just by being their child.

nothing he says adds up

yep

 

[Ahmed]

So, Juve Rev, what is your own interpretation of the story of Noah and the flood ?

OWNED