- cross-posted to:
- Memes@europe.pub
- cross-posted to:
- Memes@europe.pub
You must log in or register to comment.
Reminds me of the Epicurean Paradox:
What shits me is Christians (and Jews and Muslims, but it’s mainly Christians who do this) who just handwave away the problem of evil. Like fine, I can accept that some evils might arise as a result of human decisions and free will. Things like wars and genocides are done by people. It’s difficult to swallow even that much with the idea of a god who supposedly knows all, is capable of doing anything, and is “all good”, but fine, maybe free will ultimately supplants all that.
But what I absolutely cannot accept is any claim that tries to square the idea of a god with the triple-omnis with the fact that natural disasters happen. That children die of cancer. You try telling the parents of a child slowly dying of a painful incurable disease that someone could fix it if they wanted, and they completely know about it, but that they won’t. And then try telling them that person is “all good”. See how they react.
I find religious people who believe in the three omnis after having given it any amount of serious consideration to be absolutely disgusting and immoral people.
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you here, but thought I’d provide a counter argument.
A group of children are dying of a horrible, deadly disease that can only be cured with the bark from a specific tree. So we go into the forest and chop this tree down to save the children from an excruciating disease.
A squirrel had built its entire home in that tree. That tree was everything to the squirrel. Now the squirrel has nothing and will suffer because we chopped down its home.
How do we explain this to the squirrel? Well, we can’t. No matter how hard we try, we can’t explain why we needed to destroy its home. The squirrel is physically incapable of understanding.
Playing devils advocate here, perhaps the reason for the need for human suffering is so beyond our understanding and comprehension that we are just physically incapable of understanding. Maybe we’re just squirrels, and human suffering needs to happen for some greater purpose unbeknownst to us.
We’re talking about the Abrahamic trio, so God is supposed to be all powerful. That means there is nothing beyond his power. There is no “can only” or “can’t” or “incapable” for him. He can have His cure and save the tree too, He doesn’t have to choose. Your example only works if God is limited in some capacity, and has to make trade offs that we can’t understand.
the Abrahamic trio, so God is supposed to be all powerful.
The funny thing is, the ancient Israelites almost certainly didn’t believe this. It was a more recent invention that’s obviously not supported by the old testament or the talmud.
A parent can easily do their children’s homework. How does that benefit the kids? A passing mark doesn’t mean the kid understands and the lessons don’t get easier.
The “homework” you’re talking about is war, starvation, disease, rape, slavery, and death.
A parent is supposed to help their children, not torture them to death for a “lesson”.
We did that. It’s our mess to clean up.
Oh, but I never voted for that politician! Did we do anything besides vote and clicktivism?
Disease? Starvation? Disaster? Let us not pretend like God didn’t create human evil either. For what? For fun? “To teach us a lesson”?
The all powerful, all knowing God never seems to do anything either in case you haven’t noticed.
Btw, Alan Watts addressed some of this in The Book (on the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are). If you can be bothered.
So we’re given the means to solve these tests. When we learn to work together to solve them, rather than “punishing” each other, we get closer to solving them. Disasters happen, whether natural or man-made. We either work together or we don’t. Test time.
I’m upvoting because I thought this was done good engagement with the premise and you don’t deserve to be downvoted for it.
But fundamentally, you’ve missed a pretty big step. What if god just…didn’t create a situation where children get diseases that can only be cured with one rare tree?
Or, more importantly, what about diseases that cannot be cured? What about natural disasters? Yes, some types of natural disasters have gotten more common and worse as a result of human action, but they still happened before climate change, and if anything were more disruptive to people before we had modern building practices.
We’re talking about a god that is literally capable of anything. It could just wave its hand and delete all disease from existence. It chooses not to.
Is a hero a hero without a villain?
I’d wager you’ve been a hero to some people’s telling and not so much, to others’.
Every relationship is karmic, that is we learn.
IF there was some reason, first of all, God could give us the ability to understand if he wanted to, as he is not supposed to be limited. Second, it would imply someone is getting something from it, God, us, or otherwise, that for some reason, God can’t give in a way that doesn’t involve evil. But again, if he is never limited, that shouldn’t be the case.
Also, if cancer and other diseases are supposed to exist and kill people for some kind of purpose we don’t understand, why do we have the ability to treat, vaccinate and cure those same diseases? If medicine gets to the point of preventing every ailment, then why does that “oh so important” reason for it existing not matter anymore? It would seem if these things NEED to exist, we shouldn’t be able to prevent them from happening under any circumstances.
Also, if cancer and other diseases are supposed to exist and kill people for some kind of purpose we don’t understand, why do we have the ability to treat, vaccinate and cure those same diseases
Oh god, now you’ve hit on why some of the sects that we consider cults do what they do. Somehow, wearing clothes, using plows, building structures to provide shelter and warehousing, creating roads that wheeled contraptions (but they don’t have engines!) use, etc., etc., as part of our technological lives isn’t a sin, but using medical advancements is!
Why? If we just knew, we’d be stepford wives or ai.
Being created little gods who die like men, our lesson is to solve certain things, at least amelioration of them. But all things die, and are born anew. A mutation that is helpful or harmful today may not have been so yesterday or tomorrow.
If we knew why God made things that are objectively evil from the human perspective, we’d be AI
I literally have no response to this.
Any “evil” suffered in current life will be compensated with reward in afterlife.
The concept tends to fall apart with modern Christianity where everyone just goes to heaven and hell is written out.
The concept tends to fall apart with modern Christianity where everyone just goes to heaven and hell is written out.
Huh? From what I can tell Christians are more fixated on hell than ever now. Listen to them talk about gay/trans people, Palestinians, women who get abortions, or literally anyone who isn’t Christian, and it’s clear that they’re really excited about the idea that their god will torture those people for all eternity while they get to watch from heaven. You’ll even get catholics and protestants both thinking they’re the only ones going to heaven and the “wrong” kind of Christian goes to hell because of technicalities like whether you go to confession or not or whether praying to Mary is idolatry. Some outright say that it’s okay to kill gay/trans people, Palestinians, etc, because they’re damned anyway and god doesn’t give a shit about them.
Most we observe in the media either the kumbaya Christians, where Jesus died for everyones sins and everyone goes to heaven. Or the MAGA Christians who believe treating the poor like dirt is owning the libs.
The question about evil existing is rather easy to answer but all the Christian internal discourse would be more confusing. I don’t have much experience with it but
technicalities like whether you go to confession or not or whether praying to Mary is idolatry.
Wouldn’t that directly violate the first commandment?
Asking someone already in the kingdom is no different than asking someone without the kingdom to intercede on our behalf. Also God has 72 names in our tradition, millions in others.
Also God has 72 names in our tradition, millions in others.
Mary is not God or part of the trinity right? Jesus ascending into heaven would not mean Mary is in heaven. Which would mean Mary remains dead until judgement day and is not yet in heaven. Unless I am not familiar with something.
You’re not familiar with a lot because churches and politicians occulted this information. It’s in the whole Bible (you can find the Ethiopian Bible in English online but there are mistranslations so you have to go to the Jewish and hermetic kabbalah and other sources to find them. Also I already referred to Psalm 82, wrt God.
I did a quick google search and apparently the pope added it in 1950 but it is not canon
But why is that all good? Why couldn’t he have earth be good?
If there is no evil how can there be good?
If the purpose of life is to be a test, how can you test without challenges (evil)?
The crux of the problem is once again the modernized version of Christianity. Where hell has been written out and Adolf Hitler goes to heaven because “Jesus died for his sins”.
If there is no evil how can there be good?
Easy. You take the world as it is right now…and then remove the evil things. Evil is a metaphysical concept. We often use analogies of light and dark, but it doesn’t literally work that way.
Then how does the concept of life as a test work when humans can do no evil?
First, you’ll note that I started this conversation by conceding free will and concentrating my discussion of evil on evils that are not performed by humans, but by the planet itself, or by fundamental biology.
But as for “the concept of life as a test”…why is something supposedly omniscient performing a test? It should already know the result of said test, thus making the test itself irrelevant. That’s what omniscience is.
Evil existing is necessary for a test in good and evil. Whether done by humans or natural causes.
Angels were created as perfect servants who obey all commands without free will. Humans were created as the opposite. Those who have free will to perform both good and evil.
It should already know the result of said test, thus making the test itself irrelevant. That’s what omniscience is.
An all-powerful entity is not bound by paradoxes. If that was the case it would end at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox which is even more extreme than the free-will paradox for which some explanations can be thought of.
You want stepford wives. I don’t and you don’t get to choose that for me.
It’s not about “want” at all. It’s about figuring out what’s true. And what’s true is that the Abrahamic god, as understood by modern Jews, Christians, and Muslims, is very clearly impossible, unless you choose to define “good” as including children dying of cancer.
Life isn’t binary.
The hero’s journey is exactly the point!
It is good. Challenges are meant to evolve us to our best possible selves.
Children dying of cancer is not “good”, and frankly the fact that you seem to think it is is fucking disgusting.
Then seek solutions. Everyone has something of value to offer.
That doesn’t work. People with crap lives often can’t meet the standards of goodness that many forms of Christianity need for you to be qualified for heaven
Something about camels and needle eyes.
But definitely don’t bring that up with the american ‘christian’ or you’ll have to hear the litany of excuse attempts.
If the kingdom of heaven is within us, where is the kingdom of hell? The tree of life, whether yggdrassil, abramic, or hermetic offers great insight, here.
I think you can have this same dilemma as an atheist as well. I’m personally agnostic as I don’t have the knowledge to make a decision.
If we are all just atoms moving/reacting, surely everything we’d ever do would be predetermined by the initial reactions/vectors/forces at the big bang. I know there’s quantum randomness and stuff, but it’s possible that’s all calculable and we simply don’t have the means to calculate it. If that’s the case, IMO we still have freewill because we can’t predict the future, and it’s still worthwhile to move forward doing our best to be good people.
My take is that there is no free will, but that this fact is irrelevant and we’re all better off just behaving as though we do.
Yeah. It’s a fair take, and this is generally what I was getting at.
John Calvin approves.
Why are we better off behaving that way? Under that outlook, it seems like free will is a trap to hold people accountable for things they wouldn’t actually be responsible for.
Because one of the many inputs to people’s actions, if we assume that their actions are deterministic, is their knowledge of how other people will respond, and how they have responded to similar things in the past.
If you’re a complex machine whose action could be perfectly predicted (with full knowledge of everything you ever experienced) it’s still reasonable to punish you for breaking rules - the risk of punishment goes into your programming as part of the (deterministic) calculation of what action to take
I think you can have this same dilemma as an atheist as well.
I’d like to hear your opinions on how you think so (truly). The way I see things, Atheism is only the answer to a single question: do you believe in any gods? If “yes,” you’re a theist or deist. If “no; I don’t know; not currently; maybe one day,” then you’re an atheist. It’s not a philosophy or a comprehensive worldview, and it can’t possibly answer deeper questions.
What you’re referring to in the latter half is Determinism and Compatibilism (Determinism + free will). Science is currently leaning pretty strongly towards Determinism, but since Compatibilism doesn’t add much more to the idea, it’s also still a candidate possibility.
It’s very likely you could calculate every chain reaction from the Big Stretch up until now and maybe even into the future. Whether we have the ability to affect or disrupt those chains might be a matter of philosophy.
God having a plan vs. everything being calculable to us is practically the same thing, no? Either way, it’s still best to act within your moral framework, religious or atheist because it’s just better to be a good person. I think me calling it a dilemma for either side is a stretch.
God having a plan vs. everything being calculable to us is practically the same thing, no?
No. A supernatural conscious agent with intent (e.g. a god) planning and orchestrating every quantum-interaction is not the same as humans documenting or even predicting extremely complex chains of physical reactions.
Either way, it’s still best to act within your moral framework, religious or atheist because it’s just better to be a good person.
Agreed. Whether Determinism is true only gives credence to philosophies like cosmic nihilism, and being a cosmic nihilist myself, it doesn’t matter that much whether my actions have purpose beyond now. It feels good to be kind, I know how it feels to be hurt, and so I try to do as much of the former and as little of the latter as possible.
This isn’t a problem for athiests, I am a determinist athiest, we have no free will and the idea is silly in a place governed by physical laws. It honestly doesn’t matter at all to me and I don’t see any reason to care.
it’s a problem for theists because this is supposed to be a big test, god is checking if we belong in heaven. If we have no free will the test makes no sense at all.
not a christian, but it is a problem for atheists depending on your framework of morality
traditionally, determinism is not compatible with moral responsibility since all actions are predetermined and it is not obvious that one can be held morally responsible for them. you have to do some mental gymnastics with either the nature of causation (see hume), or the nature of morality (see error theory), or the nature of what exactly ‘freedom’ is (see john stewart mill) to resolve this incompatibility
to the problem of the theist test, standard christian doctrine is that your fate in heaven is predetermined and individuals have been pre-chosen by god (theological term is ‘the elect’). in that sense, your worldly life is not a ‘test’, but the idea is that the holy spirit reveals god to those who have been selected.
there are philosophical problems with all of these, but just wanted to make the point that both theist and atheist philosophers have been debating this for hundreds of years and it is not at all actually obvious accepting hard determinism solves everything.
traditionally, determinism is not compatible with moral responsibility since all actions are predetermined and it is not obvious that one can be held morally responsible for them.
this is nonsense. You’re still making choices, just because you would’ve made those choices no matter what doesn’t mean your choices aren’t punishable or your fault. It’s not that you didn’t have a choice, it’s that you would’ve made that decision no matter what based on the laws of physics. These are not incompatible ideas, and I don’t get why people struggle with this. It’s very straightforward.
to the problem of the theist test, standard christian doctrine is that your fate in heaven is predetermined and individuals have been pre-chosen by god (theological term is ‘the elect’). in that sense, your worldly life is not a ‘test’, but the idea is that the holy spirit reveals god to those who have been selected.
this is also nonsense, the point was that it was a test, god should already know who’s going to be selected, if there’s no free will, this is still all pointless. Why does god need the holy spirit to do all that nonsense if it isn’t a test? If it’s predetermined, why did god make all these evil people that were just going to be miserable in hell anyway?
It’s not that you didn’t have a choice, it’s that you would’ve made that decision no matter what based on the laws of physics
in your view, what is the difference between having a forced decision and not having a choice? and why exactly would this forced choice be punishable in the same way a free one would be?
the point was that it was a test, god should already know who’s going to be selected, if there’s no free will, this is still all pointless.
a calvinist would not agree that the point is a test. read up on the ‘doctrine of unconditional election’ if you are curious. in brief, god makes decisions about who is saved and who isn’t not based on conditions they follow in their life, but based on his own purposes and goals.
If it’s predetermined, why did god make all these evil people that were just going to be miserable in hell anyway?
this is the problem of evil, there are numerous responses and the literature is extensive. again, a calvinist would probably say that he created evil people for his glory and grace. notably, jesus dying on the cross for humanity’s sins as a display of god’s grace does not make sense without the existence of evil.
in your view, what is the difference between having a forced decision and not having a choice? and why exactly would this forced choice be punishable in the same way a free one would be?
In determinism, you still have free choices, it’s just you would’ve made that choice if time was reversed and played again, nothing changed so why would the result be different? You compared all the options, and decided to make that choice, and if we reversed time, and played it back, you’d still make that decision… but it’s not like the universe compelled you to make that decision, nobody FORCED you to make that choice, you still made a decision all on your own, even if we reversed time and you would’ve made the same one, that changes precisely nothing of importance.
in brief, god makes decisions about who is saved and who isn’t not based on conditions they follow in their life, but based on his own purposes and goals.
then he’s just a dickbag putting us all in a world to suffer for fun, when he could just make us all in heaven.
again, a calvinist would probably say that he created evil people for his glory and grace. notably, jesus dying on the cross for humanity’s sins as a display of god’s grace does not make sense without the existence of evil.
yeah it doesn’t make any sense. that doesn’t actually make it make sense, that’s just a vague set of words. So god is a dickbag that needs worship why? Quite frankly like, any decent human being is better than this god, he’s just evil.
there is a bit of a shifting of goalposts here with respect to how you define making a ‘choice’ with regard to logical and physical possibility/impossibility.
suppose i place a marble on a slope and let go. the marble rolls down due to gravity. did the marble ‘choose’ to roll down? it does not seem so.
is it possible for the opposite to occur, that is, the marble to roll up?
- logically? yes, there is nothing logically contradictory about the marble rolling up after i drop it
- physically? no, due to the laws of gravity
the logical possibility that the marble can roll upwards does not mean that it is a free will choice. replace the marble with an agent ‘choosing’ between options A and B, supposing the agent ‘chooses’ B. because you claim to be determinist, i take it you believe physics completely dictates the universe’s events, thus it is physical necessity that the agent ‘chooses’ B. however, it is logically possible for the agent to ‘choose’ A as choosing A does not entail anything logically contradictory.
what is the difference in the case of the agent vs. the marble? or do you actually believe the marble ‘chooses’ to roll down?
what is the difference in the case of the agent vs. the marble?
The agent made its decision based on knowledge, reasoning, experience, the risks, the morals. A marble doesn’t have knowledge, humans do, even if we’re deterministic, we can make decisions, it’s just that the decision will be made no matter what. That doesn’t free us from the responsibility of our decisions.
Just because the agent would’ve never made a different choice, doesn’t mean these things don’t matter anymore, it’s wholly irrelevant to whether or not we should punish them.
Quite frankly like, any decent human being is better than this god, he’s just evil.
incidentally, i agree with all this. but what a theist would probably say in response is that if god exists, he defines what evil is. what you perceive as evil is just your perception and can be wrong.
its not a bad argument, but i believe contrarily we have deep moral intuitions and can generally rationalize them in a kantian way, i believe we can make moral judgements independently of god.
if god exists, he defines what evil is.
There’s no way to make babies having cancer moral. There’s no version of that god that is any good. If this isn’t a test, why give babies cancer?
It’s “free will” vs determinism (or other options).
The problem is that our entire violent society is based on the pseudo-scientific, religious concept of “free will”. It’s what has justified prisons, etc. since the dawn of the christian fascism.
Scientifically the problem is that there’s not much evidence for “free will”. It’s largely an illusion of consciousness.
I don’t think believing in fate (or a plan) is strongly correlated with atheism
I don’t think many Christians would actually argue for that first point tbh. It’s not something Biblically portrayed as one of God’s gifts. Free will is portrayed as something that was given conditionally, but taking from the tree of knowledge and specifically eating the fruit of knowledge is known as man’s first sin in the Bible.
I think it’s a bit of a metaphor for a parent wanting to shield their child from the harshness of reality, but as the sheltered child grows older they often want to know more about the outside world and in doing so become exposed to the cruelty. This was my own experience with religion growing up. A teacher of mine one day sat us down and pleaded the above with our class, as many of us grew to see through the veil of how reality looked.
In retrospect I think some things about the world make sense to not be told about, depending on one’s age. However, I think other things should never be hidden, have been hidden, or done in other cases.
Side note: I think the idea of God’s plan is for people to hold love for one another. Lots of people lose sight of what they are called to do and how they are to act though. They’re called to love their neighbor as their self, called to love their enemy, and called to forgive others for their transgressions. I personally think people are called to do good works in conjunction with holding faith, as people are called to act righteously in this life.
Don’t worry, they don’t read the Bible, and especially don’t read the old testament.
They believe they have god given freedom of action
I don’t think many Christians would actually argue for that first point tbh.
Then truthfully, I don’t think you’ve had this conversation with many christians. Every single one immediately defaults to that point when confronted with the horrors god would be responsible for if god is in control.
I’m not saying that people don’t have free will or that it’s not talked about in the Bible, but free will is not something presented as a gift, yet alone God’s greatest gift to humanity as the meme says.
From my perspective, once God set the universe in motion he has mostly taken a step back from direct action. I would say life is a test of sorts for us, to see if we can make earth resemble the good of heaven, on a humanity wide scale. But it’s also an individual test for each person’s willingness to use their obtained knowledge to still be good unto others. We are all the children of God, from my own perspective we are learning to become like God, who is the Bible is shown as loving and kind.
What’s the use of being god if every run-down schmuck with a two dollar prayer book can come along and fuck up your plan?
- George Carlin
Well, since this is a religious discussion, I’m a Christian. It’s always God.
Job 1:6-12 very clearly shows God granting permission for Satan to test Job.
1 Kings 22:19-22 shows the “court in heaven” and God soliciting ideas from spirits for enticing Ahab to attack Ramoth Gilead, where he will die. When a good suggestion is made, God grants permission.
Exodus 10:1-2 states clearly that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart to not let the slaves go, so that God could display his “signs” (plagues).
Satan is a liar, and the father of lies.
Romans 9:19-21 NIV
One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ ” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
Wow, sounds like a cruel deity that’s definitely not worthy of worship.
Hey, at least you’re judging based on the facts of what the Bible says. God is who He is. He’s not campaigning. You disagree with Him, but at least it’s really Him.
Of course, that puts you in the same position as Job. You want to judge God. You want to put him on trial. You disagree with Him.
And if you have the opportunity to question Him directly, you’ll say the same thing Job said.
I’m judging a fictional character based on how he’s characterized by the book he appears in. There may be a higher power, but the god of the Bible certainly ain’t it.
Certainly? You have a better candidate? Baal? Molech? Satan, perhaps?
You do you; pick a side, deny the battle, anything you choose.
I’m quite seriously suggesting that the God of the Bible, and specifically the Christian God, is is the most perfect God that could be imagined, and yet wholly unexpected as He is revealed. The God of the Bible soothes no one. He ruffles everyone’s feathers. He is pure perfect and exacting. Yet there is love and mercy there.
Now, His followers have done a lot to screw up that presentation. But that’s as it always has been. In the Old Testament, in Jesus’s day, and now, the people of God - even those with direct divine revelation - have been misrepresenting Him.
Joshua 24:15 NIV
But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. [Or the gods of reason, science, and unbelief?] But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.”
Certainly. Any candidate that doesn’t have a traceable origin as being created by people would be a good start, which all the religions of the world do.
I’m quite seriously suggesting that the God of the Bible, and specifically the Christian God, is is the most perfect God that could be imagined
Yes, that’s what people of every religion say about their god. I’m guessing your parents are Christian?
“Traceable origin…as being created by people.” You’ve set quite a high bar for yourself, but I assume you would consider your traceability as…
Yes, nominally Christian. Raised in USA, fed cornbread and gospel music, prayin’ at baseball games.
Here’s an example of traceability. If the god of the bible were real, eternal, unchanging, etc., there would be no historical record of him being just another god in a pantheon until someone decided to make him THE god. This is just one example of many and you can do this with any god in any religion - there’s nothing notably special about Yahwah aside from how popular his worship became.
I asked because it’s especially suspicious if you have been raised from birth to believe in a god, even if it wasn’t a main focus. My intention isn’t to dissuade you from believing - I couldn’t do that even if I wanted to - but just to encourage you to see Christianity objectively, looking at its history and how it compares with other religions. If you choose to have faith regardless, that’s fine, and in fact is stronger than if you never questioned it at all. I just always prefer that people make an informed decision on things.
Certainly? You have a better candidate? Baal? Molech? Satan, perhaps?
A rose by any other name…
Maeve like in The Boys? I’m unfamiliar with the name from anywhere else.
As in Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet. Sorry, I gotta move my butt. Have fun! Study the mystics, especially any flavor kabbalah!
And if you have the opportunity to question Him directly, you’ll say the same thing Job said.
That would be what, “Why are you so weirdly obsessed with Leviathan?” after Job 41?
Haha, Leviathan was certainly the “big bad” in Job. I don’t know what creature was being referred to (maybe a species of large crocodile?) but yes, he gets a lot of air time.
No, I meant Job 42:3, “Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know.”
Haha, Leviathan was certainly the “big bad” in Job.
To quote a work of fiction I particularly enjoyed, during a discussion between the characters on the Book of Job:
“You know,” said Bill Dodd, “what is Leviathan, anyway? Like a giant whale or something, right? So God is saying we need to be able to make whales submit to us and serve us and dance for us and stuff? Cause, I’ve been to Sea World. We have totally done that.”
“Leviathan is a giant sea dinosaur thing,” said Zoe Farr. “Like a plesiosaur. Look, it’s in the next chapter. It says he has scales and a strong neck.”
“And you don’t think if he really existed, we’d Jurassic Park the sucker?” asked Bill Dodd.
“It also says he breathes fire,” said Eli Foss.
“So,” proposed Erica, “if we can find a fire-breathing whale with scales and a neck, and we bring it to Sea World, then we win the Bible?”
I read Earthsea, and it is my professional opinion that Leviathan is a dragon. Which we know is, as they say in baseball, a “tough out.”
I would add that not every author is writing unbiased in the Bible. We know now for instance that some books near the end of the Bible attributed to Paul may not have been written by him, but by some of the people under Paul in the early church. So adding parts about women not holding positions of authority within the Church more or less served to cement their own positions and authority for the early-Christians that were formalizing the religion.
Yep. That’s addressed in books the Council left out.
From my perspective, the Bible should have continued to been written forward, and included pieces of the issues Christians sought to address in their current times. I think an updated one would have spoken of the poorly of the actions taken by the church and followers alike through the ages, and would have followed people trying to do good in hard times.
Well there’s been more written, but you have to seek it. “If you seek me withall your heart, soul, mind, you will find me.” It’s usually in other religions or what we would call the occult. And people showed us and are still showing us, but people read one thing or a few and dismiss it because we are so conditioned to the box, we have a hard time understanding parables. For instance, people think astrology and tarot refer to externals. They refer to internals. I’ve been trying to learn for decades and only am just beginning to see differently! And I was dragged to some of the most hateful churches as a child. So I had a grudge for a long time. That was my choice. Now I don’t. Btw religion is about the internal, too. And you can tell a tree by the fruit it bears. And the fruit of the Spirit is: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self control; for such there is no law.
Church dilemma - knowing the will of God vs affirming that God’s ways are inscrutable, According to convenience
How dare you bring logic into god’s house!
I’m also sick of hearing people say, “God never gives you more than you can handle.”
I know people who have been driven batshit insane by what God has given them.
No matter how well you point out the paradox (if God knows everything that will happen, free will doesn’t exist, because everything is predetermined, just like a fully written book), a significant portion of christians will simply ignore and keep circling between “but God gave us free will” and “God knows everything”
Thought terminating cliche
That is exactly true. Life is only about 3 things: food, reproduction and dealing with boredom. Humans add so many colours to that, that it looks like we do more than those 3 things so that’s where you might see free will.
Did Calvin write this post?
Only the right half. Arminius was responsible for the left.
It was Hobbes who said…
“But his Lordship [tells]us that God is wholly here, and wholly there, and wholly every where; because he has no parts. I cannot comprehend nor conceive this. For methinks it implies also that the whole world is also in the whole God, and in every part of God. Nor can I find anything of this in the Scripture. If I could find it there, I could believe it; and if I could find it in the public doctrine of the Church, I could easily abstain from contradicting it.”
Satan: Hey, i only do Black Metal bands and orgies, all other things are with the other bloke
Libs: The religious concept of “free will” is fundamental to our ideology because it justifies prisons, wars, exploitation, colonialism, etc. Historically it’s all the same thing.