The Problem of Evil

[Bond]

The Problem of Evil

http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/5343/300pxjennifergarner1wo6.jpg
Is Elektra's violent nature problematic?

The Most Potent Objection

There is one powerful objection to those Christians, Jews and Muslims who believe in an all powerful all good god. This, is the problem of evil.

http://tob.hollywood.com/wp-content/uploads/jennifer_garner.jpg

What is the Problem of Evil?

There are two cores problems when we examine evil:

The Logical Problem. Some would argue the existence of evil itself is logically incompatible with the existence of god.

The Evidential Problem. The evidential issue deals with the quantity of evil and suffering. It is rational to assume an all good and all powerful god would have the ability to produce a world without suffering, or at least without quite so much suffering. And surely he would desire this.

The quantity of suffering is certainly a problem if it is to believed that there is an all good and all powerful god.

http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/4339/25611195er1.png

Dealing with the Logical and Evidential Problem

For theists, the evidential problem poses quite a challenge, but the logical problem can be dealt with fairly easily. An all powerful all good god would create some suffering if that suffering results in some greater good that outweighs it. Hence, the world would be a better place with this suffering. In example, compassion and sympathy are great virtues, but these virtues can not be exhibited without someone or something to feel this sympathy for.

The evidential problem is more difficult. Logically, an all good all powerful god would not produce a world in which so much suffering exists. For many, this makes the belief in god unreasonable.

http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/6203/59117931ig8.png

Reasonability

There are certain degrees of reasonability – those beliefs that are very reasonable, somewhat reasonable and highly unreasonable. For example:

Very reasonable. Mars exists – though I have never been to Mars myself, I have ample evidence to assume that Mars does indeed exist and have no reason to think otherwise.

Somewhat reasonable. Existence of intelligent life on other planets – we know intelligent life has evolved on Earth and that there are countless planets like Earth, but we have no conclusive evidence to prove this.

Highly unreasonable. Fairies and goblins exist – there is very little evidence for the existence of these beings, and there is ample evidence against their existence.

With this in mind, it is logical to believe we can not conclusively prove or disprove the existence of god. But, even if the existence of god can not be proven either way, it is still possible to believe that the existence of god is very reasonable or highly unreasonable. In this sense, it is not an issue of there being proof for the existence or nonexistence of god, it is an issue of reasonableness.

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/3356/17886763hp1.png

Is Belief in God Reasonable?

There are two issues that cause the belief in god to be unreasonable. The first, is a popular argument for the existence of god:

It is highly unlikely for Earth to have formed the exact distance away from the Sun to flourish by chance, therefore there must be some type of intelligence behind the universe. This may be true, but the flaw with this argument is that you cannot draw a conclusion to do with the morality or goodness of this creator. All that can be drawn from this argument, and many others like it, is that there is some kind of intelligence behind the universe.

The second problem, is the evidence against the existence of god – this would be the problem of evil.

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/7710/53292273zv1.png

Responses to the Problem of Evil

There are several theological responses to the problem of evil:

Free will. God gave us free will, he did not wish us to be his puppets. He cut our strings and set us free. Unfortunately, often times we choose to do the wrong thing, which causes suffering. But, that suffering is outweighed by the good of free will.

This, is a good argument, but fails to explain a great deal of natural suffering. Such natural suffering includes tsunamis, hurricanes and earthquakes. It is difficult to reason these natural atrocities in light of an all good all powerful god. Surely this can not be explained in conjunction with free will, as we have no control over such natural disasters. These reasons lead us to explore an often overlooked scenario.

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/4720/32707813kj8.png

Is there an all Powerful all Evil God?

Interestingly, the argument for an all powerful all evil god is supported by many of the same arguments for an all powerful all good god. Of course, the belief in a supremely evil god is not reasonable, as there is too much good in the world for there to be an all powerful all evil god. This could be referred to as the problem of good. This of course can be countered: Why would an all powerful all evil good give us the feeling of love? Only so that it can be taken away.

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/7819/jennifergarner2yw4.jpg
Is Jennifer Garner the Philosopher Queen?

Conclusion

On the scale of reasonableness, the all powerful all good god and all powerful all evil god are highly unreasonable beliefs. A somewhat more reasonable belief would be that there is a form of intelligence that is neither all good nor all evil. An examination of daily life on Earth would lend itself well to this argument.

[Teuthida]

Quite distracting. But hey, at least it isn't Natalie Portman.

The concept of good and evil are both relative terms. You don't need to prove the existence of a god to determine if they are relevant. It's the basis of the religion you're scrutinizing that needs to be proven. While the notion of evil is prevalent in the Judaeo-Christian religions, in polytheistic religions this abstraction is almost nonexistent.

You have your trickster gods and your gods who cause hurricanes and such, but none of them are considered to be evil.

If you submit to the Judadeo-Chrisitian God then the laws found in the Old & New Testaments, and the Qur'an (whichever of the three is your flavor of choice) are the word of God, which is enough of a reason to follow them. Who cares if you like pork? God forbids it...or he did...and then he stopped...and then he did again...

For those who don't believe in this God or his buddy Satan, the concept of evil still exists. If one does something "bad" chances are they'll feel regret or remorse. Not always though. And one's concept of what makes something "bad" can change just as easily.

I don't for a second believe there is "evil" in the world. There are things not socially acceptable but change the society and that changes as well.

I'll conclude how I always do: People are idiots. They make up laws and taboos and call things evil because they don't know any better.

:devil:

[Bond]

Thanks for the reply Teuthida.

I added the pictures to... encourage people to keep reading. I can take them out for the next topic if they're too distracting.

Now, you said you don't believe there is such a thing as evil. Do you believe there is suffering?

[KillerGremlin]

I've always interpreted the Bible as a literary work, specifically an interpretation of events past; it is full of moral and stories that a religion was supposed to be built on. All literary works, at least fiction, have a good and an evil. I believe that good cannot exist unless there is evil. In order to qualify good you need to have an opposite, which is evil.

Too have a world with all good would mean that good would no longer exist. If there was no evil or no bad life would cease to exist because one could no longer experience good. By "adding" evil to the world, we are able to experience good. If you never felt pain you would never be happy because you would never know what it feels like to suffer, and then to not suffer. We, as we are now, could not exist without pain/bad/evil. It was like they said in the Matrix....The early Matrix was designed as a perfect world but no one was happy.

Morals work on opposites. You can't have morals without good and evil. If defining good means "don't kill people" than "killing people" needs an opposite definition, evil. Religions are based on a set of beliefs, and beliefs are rooted on morals, which all fall back on Good and Evil.

[Teuthida]

Now, you said you don't believe there is such a thing as evil. Do you believe there is suffering?

Now suffering is something I can get behind. Everyone experiences suffering. Everyone. Stub your toe? You just suffered; unless you enjoy stubbing your toe. Your body sensed pain and received injury but to your mind it was an enjoyable experience. I'll focus on that for a bit.

People impose suffering upon themselves all the time. Usually it's for a greater good and thus tolerated. Want to get buff like Arnold? You're going to be in the gym breaking down your muscles to rebuild them bigger and stronger. When you life weights your body releases endorphins. Endorphins feel good. Without having a goal like in the bodybuilding example why else would someone subject themselves to pain? Consume a Bhut jolokia pepper and you'll feel like you’re dying. But no one sprung it on you. You'll injest it with prior knowledge that it'll hurt. Yet you do it anyway. It's painful but it still feel good. It's a rush.

Ascetics suffer as a way to reach spiritual enlightenment. Might be mistaken of the sect, but heard cases of Jainism in India where one fellow rolled along the ground for months, or maybe years instead of walking. Some other folks keep one arm raised above their head until it becomes withered and useless. Or take a look at monks giving up physical belongings and other things the typical person would consider to be pleasurable. Ascetics one up them by giving up their physical body.

Then there is suffering in the form of deprivation, which also goes hand in hand with the above. In prisons the most severe punishment is usually isolation. Sometimes one is deprived of light or food as well. Fasting is a form of suffering that can be quite healthy. Giving up food or certain types of food is found in almost every religion. One needs food to live. To eat is the most basic of instincts, so to deprive one self or another of food would be considered suffering.

Suffering is a bit more clear than the evil argument. It's still relative because what someone considers suffering, another might enjoy. Physical pain is observable though, so no matter if you hate it or like it, it's clearly wrecking havoc on your body. The fruits of one's labor almost always arise out of some sort of suffering.

A bit rambly.

[Yoda9864]

God and Satan are in an eternal struggle for the souls of men. Each side coerces people so that their souls may be taken. It's all explained in the movie Constantine.


Of course, this whole question relies on the fact that you believe in some higher power. If you do not, then the answer is simply that bad people exist and there is nothing you can do about it. Good people exist, and bad people exist. They balance each other. If they didn't balance each other (i.e.- one side massively outweighed the other), the world could not function. We would self destruct.

[Angrist]

Are we supposed to take this seriously with all those pictures of that woman in it?

[Bond]

Are we supposed to take this seriously with all those pictures of that woman in it?
Yes. The pictures don't alter the content, but I'll take them out next time.

God and Satan are in an eternal struggle for the souls of men. Each side coerces people so that their souls may be taken. It's all explained in the movie Constantine.
That's a bit of an easy way out. Absolutely anything can follow that - so nothing can count as counter evidence against it.

[BreakABone]

Personally, I'm a fan of the women.

Haven't got around to reading the thread yet.
So guess doesn't disprove they are a distraction.

[Professor S]

Well, it all depends on what you think is the definition of Evil. There are theological beliefs in evil, but quite honestly, I think the dieas of good and evil go far beyond religion. They are a shared belief that pretty much all humans have, regardless of religion or lack thereof.

Is evil a compulsion to do horrific things by a deity working towards our distruction?

Is evil a natural trait developed to ensure survival of that being's DNA that can go terribly awry?

Is evil simply a lack of empathy?

Is evil apathy towards your common man?

I tend not to try and lend definitions to that which is the sublime. I know what evil is, but if I had the capacity to put something so archetypical to the human existance into words, it would no longer be an adequate definition.

Back to the specific ideas, I find the entire wording of the "problem" to be extraordinarily weak. To even state that the existence of evil is incompatible with God reveals an severe misunderstanding of religion in general. And honestly, there is no reason that evil and God have to be married at all.

Most events that I would describe as stereotypically "evil" took place in cultures that abandoned God (Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia).

So then, if we want to bring this back to the religious statements, is evil the absence of God?

[Yoda9864]

That's a bit of an easy way out. Absolutely anything can follow that - so nothing can count as counter evidence against it.
Exactly :D

[Bond]

Back to the specific ideas, I find the entire wording of the "problem" to be extraordinarily weak. To even state that the existence of evil is incompatible with God reveals an severe misunderstanding of religion in general. And honestly, there is no reason that evil and God have to be married at all.
I believe I said that some would view the existence of evil logically incompatible with God. Personally, I do not, but I was trying to look at the issue from a generalist point of view.

Now, you addressed the evils created by man in Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, but how do you feel about gratuitous suffering - the kind that is not inflicted by humans, but we suffer at the hands of?

[TheGame]

I believe I said that some would view the existence of evil logically incompatible with God.

Anyone who believes that has a huge misunderstanding about religion in general. Ask yourself, what is evil? According to the most religions, anything that's against their god's will is evil, and everything god approves of is good. Some religons support war, some don't. Some support people haiving 10 wives, some don't. Some support worldy lusts, some don't.

So all in all, whoever said evil is relative is correct.

The general consent from christians is that god created men with free will, just because he wanted men to chose him themselves. Of course, men would frown upon this idea, but that's what's believed to be true generally.

If he wanted mindless slaves who had no choice but to follow him and who had no will to do evil or suffer whatsoever.. well, we wouldn't be haivng this conversation. :P Maybe he felt that having people chose to follow him was better than enforcing the will on people to follow him.

So following god and his own morals is good, rejecting them is evil. And if someone rejects it he has every right to react however he wants to it... cause he's god?

Hope that clears it up somewhat for you. According to religion: Following him = good, not following = evil, god himself = whatever he wants to be... you can call him good or evil, that's your choice. Most people who believe and follow would call him good for giving them the oppertunity in the first place.

[Bond]

Again, I wasn't stating my opinion, I was stating others opinions. I was trying to cover the issue fairly objectively.

I've had twelve years of religious education. I'm fairly well versed when it comes to Christianity/Islam/Judaism/Taoism/Buddhism.

[TheGame]

Again, I wasn't stating my opinion, I was stating others opinions. I was trying to cover the issue fairly objectively.

I've had twelve years of religious education. I'm fairly well versed when it comes to Christianity/Islam/Judaism/Taoism/Buddhism.

Note: I wasn't attacking you personally. You just said that some people (not nessicarily yourself) use the existance of evil as a reason that it wouldn't have been reasonable for god to exist. I was explaining how evil is relative to the religion/nation/person you are talking about. There is no "objective" way to define evil really, there's only subjective. One day's good can be the next's evil. And vice versa.

No need to get somewhat defensive, I just offered the true explanation for the classification of evil, and how it doesn't debunk god's existance whatsoever.. If you think the info I gave in my last post is wrong though, feel free to explain how.

[Bond]

Note: I wasn't attacking you personally. You just said that some people (not nessicarily yourself) use the existance of evil as a reason that it wouldn't have been reasonable for god to exist. I was explaining how evil is relative to the religion/nation/person you are talking about. There is no "objective" way to define evil really, there's only subjective. One day's good can be the next's evil. And vice versa.

No need to get somewhat defensive, I just offered the true explanation for the classification of evil, and how it doesn't debunk god's existance whatsoever.. If you think the info I gave in my last post is wrong though, feel free to explain how.
I was trying to look at the issue objectively and not input my own personal opinions in the original post. The reason why I was somewhat defensive when it comes to religion in particular is because I would consider myself fairly well educated when it comes to religions - whether they be western or eastern.

Anyway, no hard feelings.

In an effort to continue on the discussion, you seem to believe in an all powerful all good god, how do you explain the amount of natural suffering that we as humans endure?

[TheGame]

In an effort to continue on the discussion, you seem to believe in an all powerful all good god, how do you explain the amount of natural suffering that we as humans endure?

From my personal standpoint? I'm not going to preach to you guys here. :P But if you go back to the book of Genesis there's your answer for me.

As for your wording as an all powerful "good" god, that can be taken out of context. I agree with my last post when I said someone can call god good, evil, or whatever. I just feel god has the right to be however he choses to be, my opinion of him is positive, but that doesn't mean everything he does is meant to be agreed with by everybody.

Think of killing for example.. the word in itself is seen as evil by most people. But there's a lot of circumstances where the same people would approve of it to prove a point or to protect themselves, or even to punish those who do something equally bad. Every single freedom and right a person has in the world was gained by someone dying for it, and someone killing for it. It just depends on what side of the fence you're on.

But yeah, for my opinion suffering read Genesis.

[Typhoid]

I just want to ask this, since there are religious people posting.
And I've never got a straight answer to this - and I don't mean it sarcastically, or trying to cut down religion- and I just want to read/hear someone's standpoint who religiously believes in the western culture's version of God.


So, if we're all created in God's image, why are there Black people, Asian people and Hispanics? If God is relatively white, and we're in his image, why are there other people? And hell, if God's something else, why are we white?

And why does God allow other religions to exist? And if he allows them to exist, why does he care what we believe in, and tell us we'll go to hell if we use our own free will? If we have the free will to believe in whatever we want, why does he want to put limitations on our free will, and say "Well, you can do what you want, but as long as what you want is within what I say."

The one fault I have with religious people, is that whenever they encounter something they can't respond to, they say "The Bible says so" or something to that matter.

Remember when the world was flat, and earth was the centre of the Universe?

Anyways.

This reminds me of a joke, I'll post.

"Catholicism views homosexuality as a crime. It's bad. It's unnatural. You know what's unnatural to me? Zombies. And I seem to recall a certain easter Zombie somewhere. You get on your knees, drink the blood, and eat the body of Christ? Just so he has enough time to sneak up behind you and eat your brain? But not the whole thing. Just the part that controls independent thought."

[Bond]

The one fault I have with religious people, is that whenever they encounter something they can't respond to, they say "The Bible says so" or something to that matter.
Yeah... that's what I've been trying to avoid in this discussion, those kind of easy out answers that don't really state anything.

I'll answer your question from the Catholic church's point of view if no one else responds.

[TheGame]

Like I said, I'm not going to preach to you. Everything I've said dealt with the general idea of god.. Only specifics for some religons. I'm not trying to convert anyone, if you really want the answer read about it.. Suffering existing doesn't mean god doesn't exist according to my beliefs and many other's who may or may not believe the same exact thing as I do.

As for typhoid's question, I already answered it in an earlier post:

The general consent from christians is that god created men with free will, just because he wanted men to chose him themselves. Of course, men would frown upon this idea, but that's what's believed to be true generally.

If he wanted mindless slaves who had no choice but to follow him and who had no will to do evil or suffer whatsoever.. well, we wouldn't be haivng this conversation. :P Maybe he felt that having people chose to follow him was better than enforcing the will on people to follow him.

He gave man the free will to do whatever they wanted, but he WANTS them to chose him. Just like if you have a kid, you didn't have them with the idea in mind to be your slave, yet you WANT them to do what you feel is right, and you WANT them to love you. But you can't FORCE them to do anything, which makes them being a good person and loving you more valid, right?

Free will is a bitch like that. This is why I say one can view him as good or bad or whatever they want, because its their will to do so.

"But that doesn't make sense! Why allow suffering, why give us the option!"

Maybe he did it for kicks, maybe he did it to make his ego bigger. Who knows? He's god, he's not meant to be your friend, he's not meant to hold your hand, he's meant to be your ruler, your king, and your father. He doesn't like people going against him, oh well.. he created us that way..

And I think the creation in his image is not based off of LOOKS alone. Its more based off of what he is.. A being with the ability to make choices himself.

[Professor S]

These are not nedcessrily my beliefs, but are instead what I believe to be legitimate religious/philosphical responses to Typhoid's comments.

So, if we're all created in God's image, why are there Black people, Asian people and Hispanics? If God is relatively white, and we're in his image, why are there other people? And hell, if God's something else, why are we white?

If God is truly omnipotent, then he is all things at all times. So in essence, all races are created in God's image, because God is all images.

And why does God allow other religions to exist?

Free will. Myself? I believe there are many paths to one God.

And if he allows them to exist, why does he care what we believe in, and tell us we'll go to hell if we use our own free will?

(Christian)Choosing God is free will as well. Thats the point. God does not want to "force" you to choose Him, he WANTS you to choose Him. (Jewish) Hell? What Hell?

If we have the free will to believe in whatever we want, why does he want to put limitations on our free will, and say "Well, you can do what you want, but as long as what you want is within what I say."

There are no limitations, but there are consequences. You are free to do whatever you choose without limitation, but you must be prepared to reap what you so.

The one fault I have with religious people, is that whenever they encounter something they can't respond to, they say "The Bible says so" or something to that matter.

You do not understand religion or more specifically, faith, so why would understand that answer? Faith is that which denies evidence. If you could prove the existence of God, then God would no longer be devine. God is the epitome of the sublime. To give God definition is to give him limitations, and therefore he is no longer God.

Remember when the world was flat, and earth was the centre of the Universe?

The earth being flat was a theory endorsed by the church because it was the best of the time and did not refute Christian belief. It's not in the Bible, but was instead adopted as dogma by the Catholic church, which has admitted its past reluctance to adapt. As for earth being the center of the universe, well that depends on exactly what you're talking about. Spacially? No. In God's eyes? Possibly.

And Typhoid, if you truly did not want to "cut down religion", I'd advise not posting a "joke" that is in reality just an insult to those that believe. Thats like saying "I have nothing against black people" and then telling a n****r joke.

Myself, I tend to think that those that are atheists tend not to truly be atheists. An atheist simply does not believe in God. Most that claim to be atheists tend to hate God for various reasons. I used to be in this category. Don't confuse anger with disblief.

[Typhoid]

He gave man the free will to do whatever they wanted, but he WANTS them to chose him. Just like if you have a kid, you didn't have them with the idea in mind to be your slave, yet you WANT them to do what you feel is right, and you WANT them to love you. But you can't FORCE them to do anything, which makes them being a good person and loving you more valid, right?

But they're still my kid, so I'd love them nonetheless.
I wouldn't say "You don't respect me, so I'm going to set you on fire for the rest of eternity."

And Strangler:

You do not understand religion or more specifically, faith, so why would understand that answer?

Who said I don't understand faith?
I just said I wasn't Catholic, or believed in any western religion.

[Angrist]

If you want a very satisfying and hopeful answer to the problem of evil, read these two pages: http://www.watchtower.org/e/20010515/article_01.htm and http://www.watchtower.org/e/20010515/article_02.htm. Actually the first page is just an introduction, you can skip it.

I'll give you some highlights (about 1/3 of the original page):

When God created the first human, he produced more than just a body with a brain. Further, God did not create Adam and Eve to be mindless robots. He implanted in them the faculty of free will. And that was a fine gift, for "God saw everything he had made and, look! it was very good." (Genesis 1:31)

However, was the fine gift of free will to be used without limits? In directions given to early Christians, God's Word answers: "Be as free people, and yet holding your freedom, not as a blind for badness, but as slaves of God." (1 Peter 2:16) For the common good, there must be boundaries.

Humans were not created to be independent of God. God made mankind subject to his physical laws, such as the law of gravity. Similarly, he made humans to be subject to his moral laws, which are designed to result in a harmonious society. For good reason, then, God's Word urges: "Trust in Jehovah with all your heart and do not lean upon your own understanding."—Proverbs 3:5.

What went wrong? God gave our first parents, Adam and Eve, a perfect start. Of their own free will, they stepped outside the boundaries of his laws. (Genesis, chapter 3) "Through one man [Adam] sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned."—Romans 5:12.

The main issue - sovereignty. When Adam and Eve rebelled against God, they challenged his sovereignty, that is, his right to rule. Jehovah could have destroyed them and started over with another couple, but that would not have settled the issue of whose rulership is right and best for people. Granted time to develop their societies according to their own ideas, humans would demonstrate beyond any doubt whether rulership independent from God could ever be successful.

God will soon intervene in human affairs. The vindication of Jehovah God's sovereignty by means of the heavenly Kingdom is the Bible's theme. Jesus made this his foremost teaching. He said: "This good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come."—Matthew 24:14.

When God's rulership replaces man's rule, who will survive and who will not? At Proverbs 2:21, 22, we are assured: "The upright [who uphold God's rule] are the ones that will reside in the earth, and the blameless are the ones that will be left over in it. As regards the wicked [who do not uphold God's rule], they will be cut off from the very earth."

A marvelous new world. Marvelous physical benefits will flow to obedient humans living in God's new world. There will be a canceling out of all the bad consequences of rebellion against God's rule. Imperfection, sickness, old age, and death will be things of the past. The Bible assures us: "No resident will say: 'I am sick.'" Moreover, the Scriptures promise: "At that time the eyes of the blind ones will be opened, and the very ears of the deaf ones will be unstopped. At that time the lame one will climb up just as a stag does, and the tongue of the speechless one will cry out in gladness." (Isaiah 33:24; 35:5, 6) What a thrill it will be to enjoy vibrant health every day—forever!

What about the billions of people who have died? Those in God's memory will be brought back to life, for "there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous." (Acts 24:15) Yes, the dead will be restored to life. They will be taught the wonderful truths regarding God's rulership and be given the opportunity to live forever in Paradise.—John 5:28, 29.



So........... I couldn't have said it better. Conclusion: evil is tolerated for a time, to prove once and for all that people are better off living with God. The world we live in now is not what God wants and He will change it soon. All suffering will be compensated for, even death.

[TheGame]

But they're still my kid, so I'd love them nonetheless.
I wouldn't say "You don't respect me, so I'm going to set you on fire for the rest of eternity."

Of course you would still love your kid, no matter how disrespectful/evil he/she grows up to be you'd give them chance after chance after chance to redeem themselves. And that's exactly what god does.

Every day you wake up you're offered the oppertunity to go out and read the bible, or go to church. And you're offered the oppertunity to repent. If you ignore this oppertunity your whole life, and you die and go to hell.. you can never EVER say that he didn't give you a chance. All you could say is that you didn't chose to accept it, and you got what was coming to you.

God offers a hand, but you chose to ignore it or reject it.

And yes, god created satan and hell. There's MANY examples in the bible of him being angered by people who disrespect him and immorality. But that's the thing, he's god... you aren't. He has the right to make such decisions if you agree or disagree with it.

[Professor S]

Who said I don't understand faith?
I just said I wasn't Catholic, or believed in any western religion.

Once again, I was not speaking personally, but instead putting out arguments you would hear from a religious person (western). To a highly religious person, your questions/challenges would show a basic lack of understanding of their veiw on faith and Christian religion. Thats all I was saying.

I wrote a lot more than that, is there anything else you'd like to comment on?

[Bond]

And yes, god created satan and hell. There's MANY examples in the bible of him being angered by people who disrespect him and immorality. But that's the thing, he's god... you aren't. He has the right to make such decisions if you agree or disagree with it.
Speaking of hell and Satan... they've gone through an interesting transformation over the years. It seems to me as though hell kind of started out as a bargaining tool for peasants to fight for their king, and if they disobeyed they were going to hell. We've now moved away from that thought to a kinder and gentler hell. My prediction is that soon Christianity will move away completely from the concept of hell. The same goes for Satan. More and more modern Christians are moving away from the idea of Satan and that Lucifer became Satan. It's natural for a religion's interpretation of the world around it to change overtime.

But in any case, the best defense for the existence of Satan I have read is C.S. Lewis's The Screwtape Letters (http://www.amazon.com/Screwtape-Letters-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652934/ref=pd_bbs_2/105-5546838-5747607?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187621021&sr=1-2).

[Angrist]

I understand you want to ignore my post, because it wasn't a direct response to other posts, but I really have to defend the Bible here.

Satan exists. The hell doesn't. At least not as a burning place for punishment.

Satan was an angel who turned evil. He wanted to be worshipped like his Creator. Why can't he be symbolic for something that sinful humans have? Because Jezus, the firstborn son of God, was tempted by Satan, and Jezus was perfect, without sin. Satan was even in the heavens, talking with Jehovah God (read the beginning of the book of Job).

The words (Hebrew and Greek) usually translated with hell do not mean a burning place of suffering. The Jews never believed in such a place, they knew that when they died, they just stopped existing (but they also knew that God could and would bring them back to earth one day). Sheol and Hades refer to the common grave of humankind.
In the meanwhile, heithen religions did support the thought of a place of punishment, and a few centuries after Jezus died and the Bible was completed, teachings like a burning hell and eternal soul crept into christianity.

And it's not like nobody knows this. People will even acknowledge that their religion doesn't practise what Jezus taught. I refer to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol

[Bond]

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here Angrist. I'm well aware of all the teachings of the Bible, I've read it twice, the New American and King James version.

Now, from a philosophical standpoint, I'd like to stay away from the Bible, because we're going to get into the messy situation of where some believe it is the written word of God and others don't. But don't get me wrong, there is great philosophy in the Bible, it's just that these discussions become hard to respond to, because I certainly do not want to discredit what anyone believes in, but it is hard to have a true argument or something to respond to your Jehovah's article with without doing just that.

Now, I never said hell was a burning place for punishment. And to call other religions heathen was not very nice (depending upon what definition of heathen you are using).

[Professor S]

Typhoid, Angrists posts are a perfect example of the power of faith.

If it is in the Bible it is true. Don't bother arguing about it, because there is no argument. There are no other possibilities beyond that which has been given down by God: His Word is law, and just as there will be no other God's before him, there will also be no other laws before His (natural or otherwise).

There can be no discussion of Evil with Angrist outside of his religion, because his religion dictates both good and evil concepts. There are no questions left unanswered when it comes to this.

Now I don't particularly care for this view of religion, because I do think it lends itself to closed mindedness. Also, citing bible passages as "proof" only works if the person you are conversing with has the same beliefs as you. If not, you might as well be quoting any fictional novel.

I don't like to think that God answered all questions for us. In my mind, ideas and belief go hand in hand, and without examination and overcoming challenges there is no value to either.

That is simply my interpretation, no offense meant to anyone.

[Angrist]

Isn't the definition of heathen anything that isn't your religion? So when christianity introduced teachings of other religions, those could be called heathen teachings.
Most christian people are aware of the teachings that do not come from the bible, like most of the christmas celebration. But please don't take it as an offense.

As noted by Bond and the Prof, I cannot take part of this discussion, because I simply believe in the truth of the word of God. All I did was provide our/the explanation to 'the problem of evil', as was the topic of this thread. And I quoted the Bible, I haven't seen others do that. :)

[Professor S]

Isn't the definition of heathen anything that isn't your religion? So when christianity introduced teachings of other religions, those could be called heathen teachings.

Well most scholars believe that the oldest form of Christianity that is still in existence is Russian Orthodox, and their view of Christianity could not be more divergent from yours. They view the bible as a book of parables: story's based in truth but meant as guides for living your life. There is no literal translation. Now considering they do not view the bible as strict law, does that make their view heathen since it is not specific to the exact Word?

[Angrist]

I should be a heathen in your eyes, since I have a different religion than you. End of discussion? that is still in existenceBingo. So because they're the oldest, they must have it right? Look at the Bible books that were written after Jesus died and compare it to Christian religions these days.

One (hopefully) last thing: I don't get it, it seems so pointless to me. First people came up with teachings that caused the misunderstanding of evil. Then they don't want you to explain it by telling what the Bible says about it.
So it's about the discussion and not about understanding/solving, if I am correct?

[Professor S]

I should be a heathen in your eyes, since I have a different religion than you. End of discussion? Bingo. So because they're the oldest, they must have it right? Look at the Bible books that were written after Jesus died and compare it to Christian religions these days.

One (hopefully) last thing: I don't get it, it seems so pointless to me. First people came up with teachings that caused the misunderstanding of evil. Then they don't want you to explain it by telling what the Bible says about it.
So it's about the discussion and not about understanding/solving, if I am correct?

1) No. Its not the end of the discussion. Actually, I think its just the beginning. To call someone heathenb who is Christian falls into the same mistakes the Catholic religion fell into when converting pagan tribes in Brittania, where Christian faiths were slaughtered in their entirety for believing in Christ and the church differently than they. As I say, many paths to one God is my belief. Religion should be based on love and inclusion, not exclusion, but thats my personal belief. Most of what I've written has been simply impersonal discussion and consideration of possibility, unless specifically noted as my personal belief system.

2) I think you misunderstand. We consider evil to be beyond just Christianity, or more specifically, its definition in the literal Bible. This is why I talk about western/christian themes and not specific text. We're trying to analyze evil objectively through religion as a whole, and not just one's personal faith.

Also, I'm not Russian Orthodox. I'm not even Christian, but instead a deist. I think Christ was a brilliant man, but I'm not certain he was the son of God by any means.

[Bond]

This discussion is free to continue, but I have started a new one on utilitarianism (http://www.gametavern.net/forums/showthread.php?t=17380).