Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But even if I did not ... your question is a non-sequitur and a diversion from the point at hand, which is that sitting passively by and expecting god to Do Something, even as a believer, is not a very effective strategy. Many believers would say that god expects his people to be working against the problems in this world, trusting him for guidance and enablement -- that his people are his prime agents in the world. I've heard it said that god gets nothing done apart from that in this world, at least in the present day.
Odd then that a lot of those who claim to be god's chosen, are opposed to things like a wealth tax or limiting the size of anyone's personal fortune in any way. You report that the 300 wealthiest people have more assets than the bottom 3 billion (I believe it's now even worse than that, but close enough for purposes of this discussion) ... yet most believers seem to lap up the nonsense that those wealthiest people should not have to return even some of that wealth to the public they extracted it from, that they produce jobs or innovation that actually justifies their passive income. I think believers have way more to answer for THAT.
You are correct, theologically speaking, that god supposedly created evil as well as good, and this is an interesting, er, problem for those positing an omnibenevolent deity.
Apart from heavy indoctrination from certain pulpits, though, things like sin and evil don't connote what you think they do to people in colloquial usage. Either that, or you know full well it doesn't, and are not arguing honestly.
At the level of society people generally mean "evil" as "great harm", usually rendered without conscience. Or put another way, sociopathic activities in the ruthless service of personal power and dominance and wealth.
It is unsurprising that this is just one more thing which god (or satan) are not at all necessary to explain. Since empathy is a function of mirror neurons plus socialization, then certain genes or gene expressions will disable or mute the function or even presence of those neurons in some people, making it difficult or impossible to imagine how others (or your future self) would feel in response to actions you are considering. Also dysfunctional socialization (typically from another sociopath) can limit or remove one's access to these facilities.
Without empathy, people remorselessly do really harmful things to others -- or more accurately, they function in the world without regard to how it might harm others or any concern for personal responsibilities to the collective. Colloquially, we often call this 'evil'.
Paradoxically, some activities of god depicted in the Bible are not rendered as evil, but would be seen colloquially as evil. Ordering the armies of Israel to commit genocide on an enemy, wiping them out to the last man, woman and child, and even animal, is excused because god ordered it and what god wants can only ever be good, even if it's ... evil. For humans it'd be evil, for god it's some elevated thing like "righteous indignation". Talk about special pleading!
Trying to stone your child for disobedience today will rightly get you life in prison or possibly the death sentence, but it was what good parents did in Bible times, apparently, and in fact, failure to murder your own child might make YOU culpable for the child's misdeeds.
It is strange how little knowledge there seems to be among Christians about the actual savagery and brutality of our ancient ancestors, mordant. As bad as we still can be in less civilized parts of the world, there is really no comparison.
You must not have read The Book that contained all that information about "The Father".
That Book informs us that suffering is good.
We are told suffering is a good thing, that's beneficial to ones Spirit: >>Galatians 5:22-23 KJV
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.<<
So..if you are gonna go by a literal interpretation of that Book...you must take that as a given.
So...hunger/starving (a form of "suffering") is a "fruit of the Spirit"...just like love, peace, joy, and goodness.
Do you understand now?
Oh, and...Religious Organizations (especially Christian) are epic & prolific in their efforts to combat world hunger.
Love, joy, peace, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance are things of the human mind. Therefore, the word suffering should remain something abstract - a want in one's mind. Food is something concrete that alleviates the want for nourishment. This is similar to me doing something concrete such as a hug to demonstrate love and affection. It would be weird to me to think that it's okay that you didn't get a hug or food because you need to suffer.
Love, joy, peace, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance are things of the human mind. Therefore, the word suffering should remain something abstract - a want in one's mind. Food is something concrete that alleviates the want for nourishment. This is similar to me doing something concrete such as a hug to demonstrate love and affection. It would be weird to me to think that it's okay that you didn't get a hug or food because you need to suffer.
If one is going to read the Book literally...and not interpret "All Powerful" as abstract....then they can not accept "suffering" as abstract.
And that is my point...arguments against The Bible from the standpoint of a literal interpretation are losers from the get-go. Because a literal interpretation must take as a given the Omnimax Powered God that knows everything and can do anything with thoughts and ways that are above ours, such that we are not supposed to lean on our own understanding, but just accept whatever God did or said as how it is supposed to be. However things are, are exactly as they are supposed to be...and the only reason we might not think so, is our inferior thoughts, ways, and understanding.
A literal interpretation tells us:
**He knows...we don't.
**He has the power...we don't.
**His thoughts and ways are above ours.
**We are not to question God.
I understand that The Bible is a allegorical and metaphorical work of great literary art.
But those that want to question and critique God based upon a straight literal interpretation...they must accept everything it says about God that crushes any argument they have.
The All-Powerful & All-Knowing Omnimax Powered God who's thoughts and ways are above ours dunnit! And we are not to question it. THAT is the dilemma those literal interpreters are up against.
If one is going to read the Book literally...and not interpret "All Powerful" as abstract....then they can not accept "suffering" as abstract.
And that is my point...arguments against The Bible from the standpoint of a literal interpretation are losers from the get-go. Because a literal interpretation must take as a given the Omnimax Powered God that knows everything and can do anything with thoughts and ways that are above ours, such that we are not supposed to lean on our own understanding, but just accept whatever God did or said as how it is supposed to be. However things are, are exactly as they are supposed to be...and the only reason we might not think so, is our inferior thoughts, ways, and understanding.
A literal interpretation tells us:
**He knows...we don't.
**He has the power...we don't.
**His thoughts and ways are above ours.
**We are not to question God.
I understand that The Bible is a allegorical and metaphorical work of great literary art.
But those that want to question and critique God based upon a straight literal interpretation...they must accept everything it says about God that crushes any argument they have.
The All-Powerful & All-Knowing Omnimax Powered God who's thoughts and ways are above ours dunnit! And we are not to question it. THAT is the dilemma those literal interpreters are up against.
Mein Gott, the word is used every day without religious implications.
So you admit (without admitting) that there are other problems than world hunger.
The 'we' you were talking about, the people who post here. Are you a goldfish, because you appear to forget the arguments you keep posting?
No one is saying gods do not exist but they are guilty (apart from your (and Goldie's) straw man). We are pointing out to the religious that if their gods do exist, then they have a problem explaining the bad things that happen, especially when they claim their god is responsible for everything.
Mein Gott, should you go there when you fail to understand how the word 'evil' is used in common language?
Also irrelevant, you told us to focus on one of many problems instead of practicing what you preach. , I said 'preach' outside of a religious context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
First of all thank you for pointing out the inaccuracy of thinking that 'evil' requires 'god'. I just looked up the definition of evil. As an adjective: "profoundly immoral and wicked". As a noun: "profound immorality and wickedness, especially when regarded as a supernatural force". Nowhere does it mention god. Buddhist have morals, but no creator god. Atheists have morals, but no god(s). Hindu have morals but have very different 'gods' and 'goddesses'. And a "supernatural force" does not have to be god. Ghosts, poltergeists, voodoo, etc. all involves "supernatural forces".
And, you're right, there is also 'evil' as used in the vernacular.
ha!
“God does not exist because there is no evidence. However, evil exists because people talk about it every day, AND it has a definition in the dictionary”
And then I am the goldfish?
You should get the Darwinism award. I rest my case. You win argument, enjoy the award.
ha!
“God does not exist because there is no evidence. However, evil exists because people talk about it every day, AND it has a definition in the dictionary”
And then I am the goldfish?
You should get the Darwinism award. I rest my case. You win argument, enjoy the award.
We should get the Darwinism award because you do not know what you are talking about?
I like to thank people for attempting to "explain" things to me especially when I can't add to the conversation in the direction that it is going. Our application of literal and figurative may not be in alignment, so I can't contribute.
"This is water" can be a literal statement and it is something that we can experience through our senses independent of each other. It is a resource independent of my existence as it clearly interacts with the environment and is independent of identification. The word "water" itself is figurative as it takes on different forms in different languages. "I am happy" can also be literal and others can witness me smiling but my idea of happiness might be different from somebody else's. This makes the concept figurative and literal at the same time. GldnRule states that people need to either take things literally or figuratively. What I am saying is that humans manage to do it at the same time through the use of language.
Arguments center around the claim that God is good as in God is equal to good and anything outside of good is bad and evil, yet goodness takes on different shapes. That makes it figurative. Its shape is dependent on knowing what good is not and that makes humans the sculptors of their god.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, I said 'preach' outside of a religious context.
