Religious discussion continued

Remove all ads!

Oh, and Shralp, I was trying not to let this bother me but in the end it was stronger than me. Sorry.

Your argument that evil is the absence of God, created by rejecting him, also seems to imply that the existence of good is only possible by accepting God (not any God, either, just the christian God), wich makes everyone in the world who is not a christian inherently evil. Please tell me that´s not what you were trying to say.

 

Truth be told, I wasnt paying attention to Whatnots, and so did not have the ... we could say Pleasure of reading this from the begining.

A bit about me:
I am Atheist, by definition, I do not believe in a God, I do not believe in a Devil, nor do I blieve in the places said people inhabit, aka, Heaven and Hell. I dont believe in Purgatory, and I dont believe in organized religion.
That said, I do not like to refer to myself as an atheist. Why? Why would you not embrace the word that most describes what you believe. I dont agree with what people think of Atheists, how so many people think they are Anti-God, and everything, and I hate even more those that actually call themselves atheist, for the simple reason its different from christianity.
I did not choose to be Atheist. I was born and baptized into Christianity, attended church since when my mother went. But Christianity never satisfied me, I never liked the answers that never actually answered the question posed, and and the Rules that said you should question everything, except God.
I have never enjoyied someone telling me what to do, be the person a parent an official of law, or an ordained minister. It never appealed too me, I know someone will say its not my place to agree with it ... But I say it is, it affects me, and the choices I will make in my life, so why should it jsut be their opinion that is good for me? Why do they, and not I know what is the best thing for me too do? Have they spent their entire life living mine? Or are they basing what is best for an individual on what is best for them?

I dont pretend to have answers for anyone, I dont have them, its simple as that.
I will never tell someone what to believe, I have had people ask me what they should believe in, and the only thing I told them was to look into what ever interests them, if it continues too, keep looking into it, till it no longer interests you, you will find what to believe sooner or later.

Shralp, your the only one Im going to comment on ... and my thoughts follow similar to hermit09's.
Evil is not the absense of God, because that makes everything without god evil. And that is much more generalization than saying all Christians are fanatics.
Evil is the absense of Good. That is why Evil and Good are objective, and speculative.

 

Say, Big B:

"The One forming light and creating darkness, causing well being, and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these."

Translations will vary, yes.

"If you take in the context of the whole chapter and not just a single word in a single verse (a common mistake) - you see that God does not throw "evil" around for fun. The chapter is about the power and authority of God. And that verse and some others are about bringing forth calamity on His enemies, those who worship false gods and idols and who shun Him."

Excuse me, I do not recall ever having said, or implied, that God threw "evil" around "for fun", as you put it. Shralp had equated evil to the absence of God. This passage seemed to contradict his argument. Perhaps there is some sort of failure to communicate here. In any case, the passage you have quoted seems to indicate that God does, indeed, create "evil", in the sense of misfortune or calamity (evil happenings, as it were), as a form of divine punishment, wich is then directed at unbelievers. It could be argued that God himself does not create evil in a moral sense, but rather his absence does, wich would put us in a very uncomfortable position, as the logical conclusion of this line of thinking is that only people who have accepted God (i.e., christians) can be good, but those of us who are not christians can only be evil (as we have "rejected God"). I´d like to think that this is not the case, and that one can be a good person without being a christian.

Your next quote, the one that says "Woe to the one who quarrels with the maker", does have me at a bit of a loss, but I seem to get the general feeling that you´re trying to tell me to just stop arguing about God, as He, being the Creator, obviously knows better than me about all these things, and I should just accept Him and what His ministers and his Book tell me, and quit questioning Them.

Lest some evil might befall me, unbeliever that I am.

But of course, I could be wrong.

[ September 27, 2002, 00:52: Message edited by: hermit09 ]

 

Big B, Yes, if I am the clay, I would say to the potter, "What are you doing?"

All of this under the supposition that God exists:

From where does it come, this notion that we are not to question of the meaning of our existence? Where is it said that we must live hollow and meaningless lives spurned on by the creation of some bored creator? Where is it proven that we CAN'T understand? If he is to spin the wheel, and I am to be born of its mechanations, then I am going to ask him why this is so. And what reason would he have then to smite me? Or to feel that I am "turning my back on him"? Why should he feel that I have to serve unquestioningly? I would not be intending disrespect, only exemplifying the capacities he granted me. If he is responsible for my creation, am I not entitled to a little respect in the form of an explanation? Is he not reasonable enough to grant an answer to my curiousity? Or does he regard me as so infinitely inferior as not to be worth his attempts at justifying my creation? I did not wish for this life. I did not request to be tested so. Yet if he exists he forces me to be present and abide by the natural laws he put in place. I am willing, being a good sport and all, (that's a twinge of sarcasm/jokingness, i do that) if out of sheer curiosity, to try it out- but why should I deny the capabilities I am granted? Why should I play soccer without my feet and have "faith" that the ball will go in the net? I'm not about to have "faith" and that be the end of the line when I have capacity to reason.

Tell me, do you have ample justification for denying your capacities to question God? And following, have you enough to deny questioning even the presence of God- the basis of your beliefs in existence?

Amon-Ra

 

My ex science teacher once said, 'If you think that Adam and Eve were two people who lived in a garden then you have an immature view of your faith.' he then proceded to explain how Adam in some language means 'mankind' and Eve means something else.
In other words, the bible cannot be taken literaly.

 

Thank you Big B!

- My old Corps Officer said that.

You made my day!

 

Hermit, you're correct that that is not what I was saying.

The person who is rejecting God is doing evil, but that does not make them evil themselves. Note also that there are many non-Christians who have never rejected God or Christianity. They may never have even heard of the latter.

[Edit] Missed your verse request.

Revised Standard Version:
"I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe, I am the LORD, who do all these things."

I'm not a Hebrew scholar, so I really can't get into the intricacies of translation. If you're truly interested (as opposed to just throwing stones in an attempt to shoot people down), I suggest consulting an authority on Church translation.

[ October 01, 2002, 22:50: Message edited by: Shralp ]

 

Ok, you got feet so you can do something without, however we all don't have the technique to score. Why should you play soccer when you are unable to get the ball in the goal? Many have tried and they all died, couldn't save themselves. We cannot save ourselves, so what is your tactic in the game? Still wanna do it by yourself? There's only one who can score that goal, so go for that substitution.

 

Aikanaro -

Most names have some extended meaning. They were given (or earned) up until quite recently because of a characteristic or feature of a person. Adam may have been called Adam because, at the time, he was all of mankind.

Boy, I got really absorbed reading all this. I have lots of opinions as well but they seem pretty well covered - so I'll leave you to it.

 

Eve means: Mother of All Living People, and Adam means Mankind indeed, but I think he got that name because all living people descend from him. However the dicussion of how the world started, when there were only Adam and Eve, then how could Kain after he fled, meet other people?

I don't think it is the most important thing to think about. I don't need to know all details exactly to believe in God, for there is so much we cannot understand. That is not to make it all more easy, and to have an answer on all questions I on wich I don't know the answer though.

 

There would be no one around to document those times anyway, they would not have had any developed ways of writing then and we wouldn't be able to translate it even if they did so whatever happened then cannot be proved and there are many more theories out there that make more sense than that one.

 

i've got one word for those who take genesis literally: incest.