God... He who supposedly exists above impossibility.

[JohnChasWebb]

Anyway, I think I've got you on the run Webb...so lets look at a few arguments, which I think will cover most of the points you've raised. Firstly, it is often suggested that god - inside or out - values free will, which allows human beings to misuse their freedom and so generate evil, injustice and suffering. Well, we did - didn't we?

Some did and some did not. However, it appears that your posture seems dependent upon a one dimensional 'reality'. Nevertheless, I agree that problems are closely linked to abuse of power.


So, the cause of evil is humanity, inside you, inside me. Now God does not interfere to stop this evil from continuing, partly out of respect for our freedom, and partly because this suffering is a just punishment for our sins and the sins of humanity, not god. But then, what about the idea of innocent children suffering for the sins of their forefathers? Doesn't this make your personalized internal god a little out of touch, a little helpless, a little redundant? I mean the child is a DIFFERENT person and cannot diserve the punishment and suffering due to another.

Your cosmology does not seem to include reincarnation or rebirth and suggests that any notion of 'perfect justice' is lacking.


Ok lets look at poor old Adam (god's first whipping boy). Was he created good or bad or both? If he was created good, then it is inexplicable that he should sin. And if he was created innocent it is inexplicable that he would disserve punishment, since he acted from ignorance, prior to having eaten the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If he was indeterminant it is inexplicable how he could make a choice at all without a 'nature' or 'character' to act from; and if he was created bad, well, that again is god's fault and responsibility i reckon.

The Genesis tale is a symbolic representation of how 'evil' was introduced into the otherwise 'all good' cosmology of Eden. The alleged 'sin' of Adam was the use of free will to disobey God and to introduce the concept of 'evil' (knowledge of good AND evil) which, apparently, was (is) God's 'other side' (alter ego?). Perhaps like a child disobeying her mother by playing in traffic and subsequently getting struck by a vehicle.


It makes no difference where you reckon god lives, inside or out, or both. You seem to be suggesting that god allows suffering and injustice to occur because it teaches us about good and evil, thus spurring us on to greater moral endevours and giving rise to qualities of character that may not otherwise develop, (such as those written above the gateway to this forum) and the determination to see JUSTICE gets done and the will to find ways to control the cause of suffering. However, a great deal of suffering is caused by natural disasters, which we often are not able to control, or which cause much misery for children. Why do these innocents suffer? Why did they come before, not later? Is this fair? Moreover, not much seems to have been learnt in 2000 years, since evil, suffering and injustice persist. It is also possible for those who 'witness' suffering to go the opposite way, to become bitter, angry, resentful... Suffering and punishment, can just as easily corrupt the human spirit as elevate it. If god - whatever and where you imagine it to be - created suffering and punishment to educate us, what a poor choice! In short, suffering and punishment have never been sound educational devises.


This is, primarily, an emotional argument. It does seem, however, that 'nature' is indifferent regarding her victims. There exists an 'alternate view' of 'reality' that has determined (correctly or not) that those 'souls' that are in a material form are actually 'fallen spirits or fallen angels' who are 'imprisoned' on the material plane (physicality and relative slavery) until their errors are corrected by either self adjustment or 'payback'.

Suoppose we introduce the notion of 'incarnation' to all this. Would that help? You know' karma' ( a word used in this forum quite often). That might explain why some poor little f---ing innocent kid gets his head blown off by some nutcase fundamentalist or gum chewing GI listening to death metal as he blows him away with his AK47...Yeah, the kid probably disserved it, for being naughty in a previous life. But this doesn't solve the problem, but only moves it back into the past, and so doesn't remove it at all. For there must have been some FIRST INCARNATION ( you creationists out there - listen to this! ) where new-born spirits or souls must have been as yet INNOCENT. Yet evils were perpetrated against them, handicaps and hardships must have befell them from birth, and why were these IN THE BEGINNING distributed so unevenly, unjustly, so that some people got off to a good start and others did not, which no doubt would have upset their whole course down the track of lifetimes. So the problem remains with YOU WEBB: why does god - inside or out - permit all this injustice and suffering to occur, against the innocent, the childlike ones, the beginners? Why do you permit it? Or do you?

O.K. now we are discussing the notion of reincarnation and karma. In much the same line of reasoning that caused you (presuming) to have made a determination of injustice one can just as easily make a determination of 'perfect justice' and decide that there are no truly innocent 'victims'. Typically, the mind is limited to its understanding by what falls between the brackets of life and death. It (the mind) has no clear information regarding karmic events from past lives. Just because there is no apparent cause for seeming injustice does not mean that there is none. Perhaps when one embraces a belief in a higher power one also is required to make a determination that there is a transcendental wisdom that governs and administrates justice on this plane of existence

The syllogism would go like this:
... Perfect justice permeates the world
... Perfect justice includes both perfect rewards and perfect punishment
therefore... whatever happens in the world is correctly interpreted through the lens of perfection.

Everyone here (material plane) has (at least one) 'an ordeal' through which one must navigate. The spiritual cosmology is that all ordeals are self designed and are the result of karma. I believe that 'the ordeals' are designed to either restore or to strengthen our eternal spirits.

One of the toughest items to 'reverse' in the human mindset is the context of 'victim'. Quite honestly, I can see it both ways... perfect justice or seeming random acts of cruelty. I simply choose to believe in perfect justice.
"As Above, So Below" (for demonstration purposes).... when a body dies it is (usually) put into the earth.... when a soul dies it is put into a material body (the earth). The earthbound soul is here (my belief) to balance his or ker karma.
The posture of 'victim' and 'injustice' are a major part of the misery of 'consensus reality'. The spiritual path to liberation (can) delivers us from the madness of consensus reality and introduces the notion of perfect justice (as a substitute) tempered with the same quality of mercy that we have shown to others in the past.

If I were to ask you for an answer regarding the past lives' activities of any individual the only possible clue that we have (via karma) is their current condition and circumstances. Every spiritual cosmology practically demands an eventual withdraw from the madness of the world. To dedicate oneself to ridding the world of seeming injustice guarantees their rebirth (endlessly) into a seemingly unjust world. Why? (Opinion) Because that is the game that they have chosen to play and the 'universe' accommodates them. I have chosen a different game and (also) have eliminated all unkindness from myself... which, actually, may be the reason why I can now make a different choice.
It seems that we have gone from logical analysis to emotional argument. Hopefully, this post can be the termination of this thread.

[zarathustra]

Webb, I think you've lost the plot mate. My argument, emotional? You must be kidding...your rebuttal is not only based on your own subjective opinions/beliefs/waffle/flights of fantasy /but on 'perhaps', 'maybes' and conjectures that in no way invalidate one word of any argument I've put up ( having one's feet on the ground has its advantages). So now you want to close the thread, just when it is starting to get interesting! Odd, when a couple of posts back you were having so much fun! Your rebuttal ( for the want of a better word ) is nothing but hot air. You should admit defeat gracefully and realize that perhaps you have something to learn. Your earlier arguments at least had balls, but this latest attempt makes you sound like a catholic priest on acid!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwNXvQ2OK_k

z

[zarathustra]

God...It who supposedly exists BELOW impossibility...
z

[Iolaus]

John-

Your understanding is very high (in my never very humble opinion).

Here's what I think:

The notion that God is ever interested in punishing anyone is just beneath contempt, albeit taught by religion. Although not taught by the church I grew up in. So its a nonstarter.

God allows evil because God allows, period. Most sufering is human caused. It is evil to control other beings. That, if you ponder it, is pretty much the definition of evil. A lot of Christians say that God respects our freedom. But I think while that is true, it does not address why. There are two reasons. One, God will never use force of any kind, although karma is indeed a universal law of the universe, a physics type law. Second, it is up to us to become adults and babysitting us would simply leave us forever in an immature state, meaning we would have no real inner inclination to unconditional love and respect toward all, but only be under constant control. We have to choose the good ourselves. If God never allowed anyone to do anything 'bad' - well just try to imagine, and the logistics of it!

For there must have been some FIRST INCARNATION ( you creationists out there - listen to this! ) where new-born spirits or souls must have been as yet INNOCENT. Yet evils were perpetrated against them, handicaps and hardships must have befell them from birth,

1. Perhaps those souls made a decision to plunge into the learning process.
2. We are all innocent in our innermost nature.

[ChaoticMelody]

When I say God. I am talking of the God of christianity.

His traits are;

Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent, Omniscient.... Perfect.

How can something possibly exist above logic.

[David Quinn]

God allows evil because God allows, period. Most sufering is human caused. It is evil to control other beings. That, if you ponder it, is pretty much the definition of evil.

Does that mean mothers are evil?

-

[ChaoticMelody]

Thats not the point.. Through misaction god allowed suffering to be caused. Thus he is not omnibenevolent

Thus the bible lied.

If the bible lied about one thing then we can't truth anything it says.

[divine focus]

God allows evil because God allows, period. Most sufering is human caused. It is evil to control other beings. That, if you ponder it, is pretty much the definition of evil.

Does that mean mothers are evil?

They are acting evilly, in a sense, by warding against evil and wrongness, but they are not evil. Evil is just the perception that there could be something other than the Supreme Blank.

[Carl G]

Through misaction god allowed suffering to be caused. Thus he is not omnibenevolent

"Through misaction" is an opinion. "Thus" is an opinion.

Causing suffering is not necessarily a non-benevolent thing. Therefore one cannot logically arrive at the conclusion that the causer is not benevolent.

Thus the bible lied.

Boo hoo. Every book contains falsity.

If the bible lied about one thing then we can't truth anything it says.

SO WHAT? News Flash: buyer beware, test everything for yourself. In this world that's fucking elementary.

BTW, I've never seen "truth" used as a verb before!

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Carl,

BTW, I've never seen "truth" used as a verb before!

What's the difference between a verb and a noun? Why can I not "truth" something? I mean, I think I do it all the time...

[Trevor Salyzyn]

...but there already is a word for that.

I'm twelve feet tall. Can you dig it?

[Shahrazad]

Chaotic,

I was just hoping some fool would come along and spread his ridiculous word about God so that we could all flame him.

You picked the wrong place for doing this.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Sher,

You picked the wrong place for doing this.

He should be picking on people his own size. Which means he better plunk his ass down in front of his keyboard and learn how.

[ChaoticMelody]

Sher,

You picked the wrong place for doing this.

He should be picking on people his own size. Which means he better plunk his ass down in front of his keyboard and learn how.

Who are you talking about.

[The Dude]

CM,

Who are you talking about.

I think Trevor was talking about you. You wanted to bully a small-minded religious zealot. Well, go find a small-minded religious zealot to bully! As Sher said, you're in the wrong place for that. Tough luck. Find a different forum.

[Carl G]

Carl,

BTW, I've never seen "truth" used as a verb before!

What's the difference between a verb and a noun?

A noun is a word used as the name of a thing, quality, or action, and a verb is the part of speech that expresses existence, action, or occurrence.

Why can I not "truth" something? I mean, I think I do it all the time...

We humans seem to be verbifying nouns at an increased rate. Probably nothing wrong with it as long as the meanings remain clear. In this case, I don't know what you're talking about. How does one go about truthing something? What does it mean "to truth"?

[The Dude]

Carl,

What does it mean "to truth"?

Since Trevor seems to have gotten fed up with QRS, and I'm the new guy, I'll answer this question. Can you truth that? Can you dig it? Or do you just keep digging and digging and digging...

Well, if you don't keep digging, you found the truth. If you keep digging, it's deep. If there's no bottom... and you know there's no bottom... well! Sucks to be you.

[Carl G]

Kinda like grok, then. I dig.

Kinda like supersize. Truth me, baby. Ultimate.

Aside, do you really think Trevor's sore about the new "T" in town, because this new MR "A-Team" T is usurping his rightful place in the lexicon?

You have to admit it is Trevor, among the men, who most closely tows the QRS line here. Not as strongly as Hindemarsh, Isabelle, and Kelly (Jones) -- also known as HIJ -- but still enough for him to see it as his rightful letter of the alphabet and place at the table.

Still, Laird -- playing the role of Clown Prince of Enlightenment -- is performing a function, as I stated in the another post. I mean, look at the reaction. Look at all the opportunity for learning he presents! Who really thinks he is stinking up the board anything like some of the trolls who chronically plague this place?