Bibilcal Swine?

If God is willing to prevent evil, but not able, Then he is not omnipotent.


If God Is able, but not willing then he is indifferent to suffering at best and malevolent at worst.


If God is both able and willing then whence comes evil?

If God is neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Indeed

OK Eric,

In the time I have available at the moment, let's have a go at tackling your points made in this (rather old) message:

quote:

Originally posted by erik scothron:

quote:

The conclusion is that no one had the body and that the resurrection claim, however incredible, was true. If you accept that, you pretty quickly conclude that Jesus must have been who he said he was.

I hope that helps.

Re. The staggering claim that the alleged divinity if Jesus is proved by there being no body is bizarre in the extreme IMO.

We have other evidence too, like >500 witness statements verified by Josephus (Roman historian).

quote:

Let us take, for example, a chap found living in the deep depths of the Amazonian jungle who has never heard of God, Jesus or Buddha. I could teach him a simple way to relax and meditate and then apply antidotes to negative states of mind. I could do this without any mention of Buddha or Buddhism or requiring any act of faith. Once he had become familiar with these antidotes his way of thinking would change and he would be happier. I think it is fair to say that having applied antidotes to negative states of mind the mind becomes more positive and virtuous. A mind that is more positive and virtuous could be said to be more pure. A person whose mind is filled with negativity tends to experience life in a negative way, they see fault everywhere. A person with a positive and virtuous mind tends to have a happier experience of the world. Thus I think it fair to say that if our Amazonian Indian purified his mind he would agree he had purified his experience. With me so far?

Yeah but no man is perfect, with or without antidotes, knowledge of breathing exercises, knowledge of microcosmic and macrocosmic orbits, moving meditation etc. Worth knowing, but Christianity tackles the issues of our imperfection.

quote:

Now, if it fair to say that a little effort to purify ones mind results in purer experience then would it not be fair to say that making a greater effort over a longer period would produce a greater more pure experience?

Well self-development is an important aspect of life. Development of other people is even more important. No real Christian would argue against that.

quote:

I think this is a fair and logical progression. I think if one purified ones mind a little one would purify ones experience a little and if one purified ones mind a lot one would purify ones experience a lot and that therefore it is not a great leap to suggest that if one purified ones mind completely one would purify ones experience completely and a completely pure experience would be like living in heaven no matter where you were.

Define pure... the number 0, morally pure?

quote:

I think this little scenario offers a demonstration of logically bridging the gap between one position (that of our Indian) and another (a highly realized being) in simple steps which seem to be provable and demonstrable.

Now let us look at your position. You meet our Indian in the jungle and teach him shame and guilt and that he was born in sin. You tell him he is going to hell if does not allow Jesus in his life. He asks who Jesus was and you say he was the son of God who died on the cross to save our sins. He asks who is God and you reply he is the creator of all and that he made the world in six days, caused the great flood which drowned the whole of mankind except for his favourites (even though he loves us all), poured down plagues and pestilence on the masses, destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah (yes he created them all but he did not like what he had created) and drowned the Egyptians who were chasing the chosen people (His flavour of the month) as they fled Egypt.

Lots of issues here to address. You assume that the Indian never did a bad thing in his life and doesn't feel guilt. That is unlikely, afterall he is Human. Maybe he is wondering where is he going to find forgiveness? Years ago South American culture involved guilt and fear of the creator and some tried to appease that creator through sacrifice.

Sure God probably did create the universe in six days... six of GOD's days - and who's to say one of God's days is linearly related to our days. Remember that time and motion are interlinked, throw in the big bang and comparing time inside and outside of the universe and I reckon there will be some kind of disparity - time may not even exist outside of the bubble of our experience. A day is a marker of time, and its perceived duration is related to consciousness (God's or ours).

God chose the Israelites to perform a task, because he knew the long-term outcome. He probably would have chosen your Amazonian Indians if the outcome would be better.

BTW, he did give the Egyptians a chance, but they did persist in not doing what's best for them (i.e. ignoring God, after it was blindingly obvious what they were up against).

quote:

You tell him God loves him but understandably he wonders if perhaps this murdering God is a bit of a looper.

Well, God is the creator that gave us life and has the right to take it away - indeed that will happen to us all when our time is up.

quote:

He asks if he might meet God in order to check him out but you say that he is everywhere but invisible. He asks for more information about Jesus and you say he was the son of God because it says so in the bible.

Actually the Bible says that many others are a Son of God, including King David - the term refers to people who will receive their rightful inheritance from God, through belief that God would work out a means of bridging the gap between ourselves and perfection of God.

That bridge came in the form of Jesus.

quote:

Not unreasonably he asks how you know the bible is true and you reply because it’s God’s word and he asks how you know it’s God’s word and you say ‘because the bible says so’! He maybe be a naked Indian living in the jungle but he knows a circular argument when he hears one.

Now you're trying to put words into the mouth of Christians. The Bible is obviously God's word because of the prophecies in it that became true. Before Jesus came there were >130 prophecies (if I remember the number rightly) relating to Jesus. ALL of these turned out correct. I would also argue that anything of greatness and good stems from the "creative forces of good" i.e. God (and that includes Naim equipment :P ).

quote:

He asks what proof there is that Jesus is the son of the creator God and you reply because when he died on the cross he was resurrected from the dead and when asked for proof of this miracle you reply it was because no one could produce a body he had never heard of Shergar so was unable to make a simple riposte but he knew a dodgy argument when he heard one after all he has read some of Fritz‘s posts. Our Amazonian friend thanks you for your concern and backs away ever so carefully towards the common sense camp which you claim is the work of the devil.

No matter at least you can pray for him and in the meanwhile you can target the local kids whose critical faculties have not yet been formed and present an easier target just like many schools in the UK now whose headmasters vet the teachers to make sure they share the same Christian values.

Do I go to far? All of the above is just my own opinion and need not be taking seriously.

All the best,

Erik

I got to go, will address these points later.

Andrew

quote:

Originally posted by Andrew Randle:

[QUOTE
We have other evidence too, like >500 witness statements verified by Josephus (Roman historian).

The 'evidense' does not appear in early copies of Josephus but miraculously appears in the third centuary - It's a forgery (someone else pointed this out earlier on this thread)

quote:

Yeah but no man is perfect, with or without antidotes, knowledge of breathing exercises, knowledge of microcosmic and macrocosmic orbits, moving meditation etc. Worth knowing, but Christianity tackles the issues of our imperfection.

[QUOTE]

Buddhism says we are not inherently imperfect and that perfection is obtainable and clearly explains how. Christianity says we are miserable sinners and are incapable of being anything other that this (a complete lie or at best ignorant misinformation)thus the church takes our salvation out of our hands and takes control of our lives as if we are children. The relationship we have with the church is adult/child in Transactional Analysis jargon and not very healthy IMO in this respect.

[QUOTE] Well self-development is an important aspect of life. Development of other people is even more important. No real Christian would argue against that.

How can we develop others if we have not first developed ourselves. I believe people spend way too much time trying to control others and not enough time trying to control themselves.

quote:

Define pure... the number 0, morally pure?

I don't know what you mean by 'the number 0'. Morally pure yes. Buddhist meditation as opposed to other types of meditation functions to familiarise the mind with virtue, to develop minds of virtue and mix the mind with virtue until no delusion/negativity remains. A virtuous mind is necessarily happy.

quote:

Years ago South American culture involved guilt and fear of the creator and some tried to appease that creator through sacrifice.

Yes, they learnt about it from their priests, it's amazing what some people will believe.

quote:

Sure God probably did create the universe in six days... six of GOD's days - and who's to say one of God's days is linearly related to our days.

What a pity that God when faxing down the bible was not more specific about this. Are you saying you are free to interpret the bible how you like then? What about the literal truth?

quote:

Remember that time and motion are interlinked, throw in the big bang and comparing time inside and outside of the universe and I reckon there will be some kind of disparity - time may not even exist outside of the bubble of our experience. A day is a marker of time, and its perceived duration is related to consciousness (God's or ours).

How do we compare time inside and outside of the universe. Expalin that and I will recommend you for a Nobel Prize. I partially agree with your last sentence.

quote:

God chose the Israelites to perform a task, because he knew the long-term outcome. He probably would have chosen your Amazonian Indians if the outcome would be better.

Sorry Andrew, what task?

quote:

BTW, he did give the Egyptians a chance, but they did persist in not doing what's best for them (i.e. ignoring God, after it was blindingly obvious what they were up against).

Well if He gave them a chance that's ok then, the silly sods asked for it.

quote:

Well, God is the creator that gave us life and has the right to take it away - indeed that will happen to us all when our time is up.

He creates imperfection then decides he does not like what he creates and destroys it rather like a kid playing with toy soldiers. If only he had come across soduku he could have amused himself for days (thats His days not ours) Actually I'm wondering why if God was pure and stable that he would have need to create us or to amuse himelf at out expense. What is his game exactly? Dr. Frankenstein did a similar thing did he not? True, Frankenstein is a work of fiction but then again...so is the creation myth IMO.

quote:

Actually the Bible says that many others are a Son of God, including King David - the term refers to people who will receive their rightful inheritance from God, through belief that God would work out a means of bridging the gap between ourselves and perfection of God.

Does the bible say we are all sons of god or does god have favourites? Do you think a loving god ought to have favourites?

quote:

Now you're trying to put words into the mouth of Christians.

I am quoting christians. Many many times I have heard this cirlular 'proof'.

quote:

The Bible is obviously God's word because of the prophecies in it that became true. Before Jesus came there were >130 prophecies (if I remember the number rightly) relating to Jesus. ALL of these turned out correct.

The prophesies and the 'evidence' for the prophesies coming true come from the same source. Also there is such a thing as self fulfiling prophesies. Christs and saviours were ten a penny at the time.

quote:

I would also argue that anything of greatness and good stems from the "creative forces of good" i.e. God (and that includes Naim equipment :P ).

Good comes from good this is true (conventionally) but obviously I do not agree that it comes from God. God cannot create anything other than himself as something cannot come from nothing 'can flames spring forth from deep darkness?' (to quote Buddhism) therefore evil must come from God too. I know you will say that evil comes from man but God made man according to you so I refute that now. You can say evil comes from free will but God gave us free will so I again I say logically evil comes from god based on your own logic.
[QUOTE]

I look forward to reading your remaining points.

All the best,

Erik

Simple point from a simple mind, perhaps: But if all the Old Testament Prophesies were fulfilled in Jesus, then what of the Jews since? They seem not to have been convinced, or else they have become Christains as well, wouldn't they?

Sincerely from Fredrik

Hi guys i found this intersting quote;
THERE were various practices in vogue amongst the orientalists, which originated with the design of appeasing the anger and propitiating the favor of a presumed to be irascible deity. Most of these practices consisted in some kind of sacrifice or destructive offering called the "atonement." But here let it be observed, that the doctrine of atonement for sin, by sacrifice, was unfolded by degrees, and that the crucifixion of a God was not the first practical exhibition of it. On the contrary, it appears to have commenced with the most valueless or cheapest species of property then known. And from this starting-point ascended gradually, so as finally to embody the most costly commodities; and did not stop here, but reached forward till it laid its murderous hands on human beings, and immolated them upon its bloody altars. And finally, to cap the climax, it assumed the effrontery to drag a God off the throne of heaven, to stretch its blood-thirsty spirit, as evinced by Paul's declaration, "Without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sin." Rather a bloody doctrine, and one which our humanity rejects with instinctive horror.

We will trace the doctrine of the atonement briefly through its successive stages of growth and development.

The idea seems to have started very early in the practical history of the human race, that the sacrifice and consequent deprivation of earthly goods, or some terrestrial enjoyment, would have the effect to mitigate the anger, propitiate the favor, and obtain the mercy of an imaginary and vengeful God. This idea obviously was suggested by observing that their earthly rulers always smiled, and became less rigorous in their laws, and milder in their treatment of their subjects, when they made them presents of some valuable or desirable commodity. They soon learned that such offerings had the effect to cheek their cruel and bloody mode of governing the people; so that when their houses were shaken down, or swallowed up by earthquakes, the trees riven by lightning, and prostrated by storms, and their cattle swept away by floods, supposing it to be the work of an angry God, the thought arose in their minds at once, that perhaps his wrath could be abated by the same expedient as that which had served in the case of their mundane lords -- that of making presents of property. But as this property could not be carried up to the celestial throne, the expedient was adopted of burning it, so that the substance or quintessence of it would be conveyed up to the heavenly Potentates in the shape of steam and smoke, which would make for him, as the Jews express it," a sweet-smelling savor." Abundant and conspicuous is the evidence in history to show that the custom of burnt- offerings and atonements for sin originated in this way.

The first species of property made use of for burnt-offerings appears to have been the fruits of the earth -- vegetables, fruits, roots, etc., -- the lowest kind of property in point of value. But the thought soon naturally sprang up in the mind of the devotee, that a more valuable offering would sooner and more effectually secure the divine favor. Hence, levies were made on living herds of cattle, sheep, goats and other domestic animals. This was the second step in the ascending scale toward Gods.

And here we find the key to open and solve the mystery of Jehovah's preferring Abel's offering to Cain's. While the latter consisted in mere inanimate substances, the former embraced the firstlings of the flock -- a higher and more valuable species of property, and quite sufficient to induce the selfish Jehovah to prefer Abel's offering to Cain's, or rather for the selfish Jews to cherish this conception. In all nations where offerings were made, the conclusion became established in the minds of the people that the amount of God's favor procured in this way must be proportionate to the value of the commodity or victim offered up -- a conviction which ultimately led to the seizure of human beings for the atoning offerings, which brings us to the third stage of growth in the atonement doctrine. Children frequently constituted the victims in this case. The sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter, as related in Judges xi. 30, and other cases cited by bible writers, Isaiah xxxii. 25, and modern Christian authors, prove that this practice was in vogue among "God's holy people."

One step more (constituting the fourth stage of development) brings us to the sacrifice of Gods. The climax is now reached; the conception can go no higher. The ancient Burmese taught that while common property in burnt-offerings would procure the temporary favor of the ruling God, the sacrifice of human beings would secure his good pleasure for a thousand years, and cancel out all the sins committed in that period. And when one of the three Gods on the throne of heaven was dragged down, or voluntairy came down (as some of the sects taught), and was put to death on the cross as an atonement for sin, such was the value of the victim, such the magnitude of the offering, that it "atoned" for all sin, past, present and future, for all the human race.

The Hindoos, cherishing this conception, taught that the crucifixion of their sin-atoning Savior Chrishna (1200 B.C.) put an end to both animal and human sacrifices, and accordingly such offerings ceased in most Hindoo countries centuries ago. Thus far back in the mire and midnight of human ignorance, and amid the clouds of mental darkness, while man dwelt upon the animal plane, and was governed by his brutal feelings, and "blood for blood" was the requisition for human offenses, originated the bloody, savage and revolting doctrine of the atonement.

Another mode of adjudicating the sins of the people in vogue in some countries anterior to the custom of shedding blood as an expiation, was that of packing them on the back, head, or horns of some animal by a formal hocus-pocus process, and then driving the animal into a wilderness, or some other place so remote that the brute could not find its way back amongst the people with its cargo of sins. The cloth or fabric used for inclosing the sins and iniquities of the people was usually of a red or scarlet color -- of the semblance of blood. In fact, it was generally dipped in blood. This, being lashed to the animal, would of course be exposed to the weather and the drenching rains, would consequently, in the course of time, fade and become white. Hence, we have the key to Isaiah's declaration, "Though your sins be (red) as scarlet, they shall become (white) as wool." (See Isaiah, i. 18.) And thus the meaning of this obscure text is clearly explained by tracing its origin to its oriental source.

And there are many other texts in the Christian bible which might be elucidated in a similar manner by using oriental tradition, or oriental sacred books, as a key to unlock and explain their meaning. We have stated above that some animal was made use of by different nations to convey the imaginary load of the people's sins out of the country. For this purpose the Jews had their "scape-goat," the Egyptians their " scape-ox," the Hindoos their "scape-horse," the Chaldeans their "scape-ram," the Britons their" scape-bull," the Mexicans their "scape-lamb" and "scape- mouse," the Tamalese their "scape-hen," and the Christians at a later period their scape-God. Jesus Christ may properly be termed the scape-God of orthodox Christians, as he stands in the same relation to his disciples, who believe in the atonement, as the goat did to the Jews, and performs the same end and office. The goat and the other sin-offering animals took away the sin of the nation in each case respectively. In like manner Jesus Christ takes away the sin of the world, being called "the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world." (John i. 29.) And more than two thousand years ago the Mexicans sacrificed a lamb as an atonement, which they called "the Lamb of God" -- the same title scripturally applied to Jesus Christ. The conception in each case is, then, the same -- that of the atonement for sin by the sacrifice of an innocent victim.

The above citations show that the present custom of orthodox Christendom, in packing their sins upon the back of a God, is just the same substantially as that of various heathen nations, who were anciently in the habit of packing them upon the backs of various dumb animals. If some of our Christian brethren should protest against our speaking of the church's idea of atonement as that of packing their sins upon the back of a God, we will here prove the appropriateness of the term upon the authority of the bible. Peter expressly declares Christ bore our sins upon his own body on a tree (see I Peter ii. 24), just as the Jews declared the goat bore their sins on his body, and the ancient Brahmins taught that the bulls and the heifers bore theirs away, etc., which shows that the whole conception is of purely heathen origin. And hereafter, when they laugh at the Jewish superstition of a scapegoat, let them bear in mind that more sensible and intelligent people may laugh in turn at their superstitious doctrine of a scape-God.

These superstitious customs were simply expedients of different nations to evade the punishment of their sins -- an attempt to shift their retributive consequences on to other beings. The divine atonement more especially possessed this character. This system teaches that the son of God and Savior of the world was sent down and incarnated, in order to die for the people, and thus suffer by proxy the punishment meted out by divine wrath for the sins of the whole world. The blood of a God must atone for the sins of the whole human family, as rams, goats, bullocks and other animals had atoned for the sins of families and nations under older systems. Thus taught Brahminism, Budhism, Persianism, and other religious systems, before the dawn of Christianity. The nucleus of the atoning system is founded in the doctrine, "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission for sin" (Rom. v. g) -- a monstrous and morally revolting doctrine -- a doctrine which teaches us that somebody's blood must be shed, somebody's veins and arteries depleted, for every trivial offense committed against the moral law. Somebody must pay the penalty in blood, somebody must be slaughtered for every little foible or peccadillo or moral blunder into which erring man may chance to stumble while upon the pilgrimage of life, while journeying through the wilderness of time, even if a God has to be dragged from his throne in heaven, and murdered to accomplish it. Nothing less will mitigate the divine wrath.

Whose soul -- possessing the slightest moral sensibility -- does not inwardly and instinctively revolt at such a doctrine? We would not teach it to the world, for it is founded in butchery and bloodshed, and is an old pagan superstition, which originated far back in the midnight of mental darkness and heathen ignorance, when the whole human race were under the lawless sway of their brutal propensities, and when the ennobling attributes of love, mercy and forgiveness had as yet found no place, no abiding home, in the human bosom. The bloody soul of the savage first gave it birth. We hold the doctrine to be a high-handed insult to the All-loving Father, who, we are told, is "long-suffering in mercy," and "plentiful in forgiveness," to charge Him with sanctioning such a doctrine, much less with originating it.

There is no "mercy or forgiveness" in putting an innocent being to death for any pretext whatever. And for the Father to consent to the brutal assassination of His own innocent Son upon the cross to gratify an implacable revenge toward his own children, the workmanship of his own hands, rather than forgive a moral weakness implanted in their natures by a voluntary act of his own, and for which consequently he alone ought to be responsible, would be nothing short of murder in the first degree.

We cherish no such conception. We cannot for a moment harbor a blasphemous doctrine, which represents the Universal Father as being a bloody-minded and murderous being, instead of a being of infinite love, infinite wisdom, and infinite in all the moral virtues. Such a character would be a deep-dyed stigma upon any human being. And no person actuated by a strict sense of justice would accept salvation upon any such terms as that prescribed by the Christian atonement.

It is manifestly too unjust, too devoid of moral principle, besides being a flagrant violation of the first principles of civil and criminal jurisprudence. It is a double wrong to punish the innocent for the guilty. It is the infliction of injustice on the one hand, and the omission of justice on the other. It inflicts the highest penalty of the law upon an innocent being, whom that law ought to shield from punishment, while it exculpates and liberates the guilty party, whose punishment the moral law demands. It robs society of a useful people on the one hand, and turns a moral pest upon community on the other, thus committing a two-fold wrong, or act of injustice. No court in any civilized country would be allowed to act upon such a principle; and the judge who should indorse it, or favor a law, or principle, which punishes the innocent for the guilty, would be ruled off the bench at once.

Here, however, we are sometimes met with the plea, that the offering of Jesus Christ was a voluntary act, that it was made with his own free will. But the plea don't do away with either the injustice or criminality of the act.

No innocent person has a right to suffer for the guilty, and the courts have no right to accept the offer or admit the substitute. An illustration will show this. If Jefferson Davis had been convicted of the crime of treason, and sentenced to be hung, and Abraham Lincoln had come forward and offered to be stretched upon the gallows in his place, is there a court in the civilized world which would have accepted the substitute, and hung Lincoln, and liberated Davis? To ask the question is but to answer it. It is an insult to reason, law and justice to even entertain the proposition.

The doctrine of the atonement also involves the infinite absurdity of God punishing himself to appease his own wrath. For if "the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Christ bodily" (as taught in Col. ii. 9), then his death was the death of God -- that is, a divine suicide, prompted and committed by a feeling of anger and revenge, which terminated the life of the Infinite Ruler -- a doctrine utterly devoid of reason, science or sense. We are sometimes told man owes a debt to his Maker, and the atonement pays that debt. To be sure! And to whom is the debt owing, and who pays it? Why, the debt is owing to God, and God (in the person of Jesus Christ) pays it -- pays it to himself. We will illustrate. A man approaches his neighbor, and says, "Sir, I owe you a thousand dollars, but can never pay it." "Very well, it makes no difference," replies the claimant, "I will pay it myself;" and forthwith thrusts his hand into his right pocket and extracts the money, transfers it to the left pocket and exclaims -- "There, the debt is paid!" A curious way of paying debts, and one utterly devoid of sense. And yet the orthodox world have adopted it for their God. We find, however, that they carefully avoid practicing this principle themselves in their dealings with each other. When they have a claim against a neighbor, we do not find them ever thrusting their hands into their own pockets to pay it off, but sue him, and compel him to pay -- if he refuses to do it without compulsion -- thus proving they do not consider it a correct principle of trade.

But we find, upon further investigation, that the assumed debt is not paid -- after all.

When a debt is paid, it is canceled, and dismissed from memory, and nothing more said about it. But in this case the sinner is told he must still suffer the penalty for every sin he commits, notwithstanding Christ died to atone for and cancel that sin.

Where, then, is the virtue of the atonement? Like other doctrines of the orthodox creed, it is at war with reason and common sense, and every principle of sound morality, and will

quote:

Originally posted by Rube:
Hi guys i found this intersting quote;
THERE were various practices in vogue amongst the orientalists,..........

Hi Rube,

Where did you find this?

Regards,

Erik

quote:

Originally posted by erik scothron:
If God is willing to prevent evil, but not able, Then he is not omnipotent.


If God Is able, but not willing then he is indifferent to suffering at best and malevolent at worst.


If God is both able and willing then whence comes evil?

If God is neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Indeed

I thought this would set the moggie amongst the roof rats but no one has commented so far. No one care to refute this quote?

Dear Erik,

This is why I cannot stomach Christianity. I posed this question at school as a 12 year old. It rather ruined the Scripture Teacher's poise, and as he was also the Vicar of our nearest Church to School, it produced a strange reaction towards me on alternate Sundays for a couple of years.

It was not meant to be a clever question, but I still have not heard an answer, from a Christian... By now you have realised that I reasoned myself out of it, and the more I see of it, the more I consider that it could again be very dangerous in World Affairs, as people believe their own thoughts are justified in some way by Divine intervention. That is scary. Indeed it seems as ludicrous as Fascism!

On the other hand my life is governed by a secular and moderated reading of the Christian ethos, in terms of human dealings. That is all I can draw from it now! I do pray for friends, if they are Chritians as perhaps their God will help them if I do so, but I seeno reason to ask on my own behalf...

All the best from Fredrik

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by erik scothron:
If God is willing to prevent evil, but not able, Then he is not omnipotent.


If God Is able, but not willing then he is indifferent to suffering at best and malevolent at worst.


If God is both able and willing then whence comes evil?

If God is neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Indeed


I thought this would set the moggie amongst the roof rats but no one has commented so far. No one care to refute this quote?

Yeah alright, I'll rejoin the fray.

God is willing and able, but if you search the scriptures you'll find he corrects only his own and saves only his own. I have mentioned in a previous post that Christ came to save his own.

The problem you seem to be having is that you think, and have been told, as have I, that "God loves everybody'. Clearly he doesn't.

I accept that concept, so pain and suffering etc etc I can deal with.

Is it really that hard?

Dear Joe,

That implies God is capable of an evil disregard. Not just an indiference, which I could accept, but a positive discrimination against parts of his Creation, who may through no fault of their own be subject to the cruelty of Christians, just because they are not Christian. You seem to be saying you accept this. Before I take it a stage further, perhaps you would clarify this point by stating exactly where you stand on Christain attrocities over the centuries, carried out in the Holy Name Of God?

Fredrik

quote:

Yeah alright, I'll rejoin the fray.

That's the spirit Joe.

quote:

God is willing and able, but if you search the scriptures you'll find he corrects only his own and saves only his own. I have mentioned in a previous post that Christ came to save his own.

What is the evidence he is willing and able? What is the evidence he saves only his own?

If you are correct the God truly is a monster and his bastard son too.

What about the millions (who through no fault of their own)who were born before Jesus was 'adopted' by Mary?

quote:

The problem you seem to be having is that you think, and have been told, as have I, that "God loves everybody'. Clearly he doesn't.

The problem you seem to be having is that you seem to forget I don't believe in God at all NOT AT ALL. Nor his son.

I agree with Fredrik. I look forward to your reply.

Erik

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Dear Erik,

This is why I cannot stomach Christianity. I posed this question at school as a 12 year old. It rather ruined the Scripture Teacher's poise, and as he was also the Vicar of our nearest Church to School, it produced a strange reaction towards me on alternate Sundays for a couple of years.

It was not meant to be a clever question, but I still have not heard an answer, from a Christian... By now you have realised that I reasoned myself out of it, and the more I see of it, the more I consider that it could again be very dangerous in World Affairs, as people believe their own thoughts are justified in some way by Divine intervention. That is scary. Indeed it seems as ludicrous as Fascism!

On the other hand my life is governed by a secular and moderated reading of the Christian ethos, in terms of human dealings. That is all I can draw from it now! I do pray for friends, if they are Chritians as perhaps their God will help them if I do so, but I seeno reason to ask on my own behalf...

All the best from Fredrik

LOL - I know what you mean, I ran rings around my scripture teacher at school and nearly gave her a nervous breakdown - but I always got an 'A' for scripture (it's not difficult, as long as you can remember a fairy story the rest is easy).

I think Chritianity in the US is getting very scary indeed, it is a form of fascism. Just try googling anything on biblical history or biblical archeology and the first 8 million websites that google returns are rabidly christian and all aim to mislead. The baulk of christians know nothing about the history of the bible. The US is becoming increasingly fundamentalist and as such are becoming more like militant Islam - just different sides of the same coin IMO. Both religions are becoming increasingly authoritarian and increasingly rabid. Both are increasing membership through fear and propaganda. I have good christian friends who are horrified by some christian churches in the US and deeply suspicious of some in the UK now. As ever we import the worst the US has to offer. I hope I am long gone before we ever get one of those looney evangelist tv channels here. Biblical scholars who contradict the 'evangelist' view are called 'the enemies of christianity' (whether they are christian or not) and some have had their houses burnt down. Complete madness.

Frederick:

quote:

Dear Joe,

That implies God is capable of an evil disregard. Not just an indiference, which I could accept, but a positive discrimination against parts of his Creation, who may through no fault of their own be subject to the cruelty of Christians, just because they are not Christian. You seem to be saying you accept this. Before I take it a stage further, perhaps you would clarify this point by stating exactly where you stand on Christain attrocities over the centuries, carried out in the Holy Name Of God?

I'm sure it's disregard - however it's you that labels it 'evil' and that's ok if you think that.
However, I believe that God has laid out pretty clearly the regulations as regards to conduct here on His creation and the consequences of failure to comply. Maybe harsh, but certainly fair.

If it was something you could never achieve or was hidden - I'd say He was evil, yes.

People may call themselves 'christians' but their cruelty to non-christians proves that they are not what they say.
I would like to think that I have a 'live and let live' attitude. I don't want to be lumped in with them.

The attrocities you state are acts in the Name of God - but no sanctioned by God, nor justifiable by His Word. They are just as you say - attrocities. Such hypocrisy is one reason why I do not worship in a mainstream church. Apparently it's a 'cult' according to such people. I point out that we never killed anybody, but that doesn't seem to click with these people.

If it helps, I'm more suspicious of 'Christians' and 'believers' than 'non-believers'. I find most of the time that non-believers are much better to be around. At least they are what they are.

Actually the later books of the New Testament comment specifically on this phenomenon. Paul warned against those who said they were of the flock but inwardly ravening wolves. Also in Revelation, the letter to the last Church Age, Laodicea (is that spelt right?) God exclaims that 'I would thou wert cold or hot, but as you are lukewarm I spew you out of my mouth' (paraphrased badly).

I don't blame you for your attitude - it's wholly justified.

Eric:

quote:

think Chritianity in the US is getting very scary indeed, it is a form of fascism. Just try googling anything on biblical history or biblical archeology and the first 8 million websites that google returns are rabidly christian and all aim to mislead. The baulk of christians know nothing about the history of the bible. The US is becoming increasingly fundamentalist and as such are becoming more like militant Islam - just different sides of the same coin IMO. Both religions are becoming increasingly authoritarian and increasingly rabid. Both are increasing membership through fear and propaganda. I have good christian friends who are horrified by some christian churches in the US and deeply suspicious of some in the UK now. As ever we import the worst the US has to offer. I hope I am long gone before we ever get one of those looney evangelist tv channels here. Biblical scholars who contradict the 'evangelist' view are called 'the enemies of christianity' (whether they are christian or not) and some have had their houses burnt down. Complete madness.

You're right.

You're a spiritual vacuum, but you're right in this respect.

quote:

Originally posted by joe90:
Such hypocrisy is one reason why I do not worship in a mainstream church. Apparently it's a 'cult' according to such people. I point out that we never killed anybody, but that doesn't seem to click with these people.

Hi Joe,

I am curious. What non-mainstream church you are a member of? I give you my word I will not make any negative comment about your choice.

Regards,

Erik

Hi JOe when Jonah ended up in Ninevah he wasn,t preaching to jews as far as i know and what about the story of the good samaritan jews hated samaritans and Jesus was telling the story to show who their neighbour was as in love thy neighbour .God is willing that none should perish but all should come to repentance ,Christ died for us while we were
yet sinners ,love your enemies .if god expects us to love our enemies shouldn,t he also .

Hi Fredrik sorry i forgot about the pigs I hope Jesus had public liability insurance the pig farmer would have been a bit miffed just as well the RSPCA wasn,t around back then the poor little piggys hadn,t done anything wrong but what do you expect from a bloke who goes round cursing fig trees .

Hi Rube,

Where did you find this?
Hi Erik i found the article here http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/kersey_graves/16/ chapter 11 down the page a bit .Heres another site i found http://members.tripod.com/jbrooks2/ra1fic0a.htm i think it will keep me busy reading for awhile .

Eric:

quote:

I am curious. What non-mainstream church you are a member of? I give you my word I will not make any negative comment about your choice.

It's a small group of believers - about 50.
For tax puproses it's called "Grace Gospel Fellowship'.

It is not aligned with any denomination, although it is protestant.

We're not Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses or Latter Day Saints, Scientologists etc etc etc.

We believe there is one God who has a Son, and that's about it. People can come and go as they please - and many have.
We don't place much weight on morals - no one's perfect! Though we all try to lead a good clean life - though of course we fail miserably.

However we put our faith in God's grace.

quote:

It's a small group of believers - about 50.
For tax puproses it's called "Grace Gospel Fellowship'.

Thanks for that Joe,

I wish you every success.

Regards,

Erik

You too.

Joe90

I haven’t replied to this as, to be honest, the thread has got to be a bit irrational as Imho all the “theories” put forward need faith and can be refuted by pure logic. The argument can have no winner.
But….to say atrocities have been carried out in the name of Christianity is of no significance to the problem of evil. Atrocities have been carried out in the name of many groups through history. Because the perpetrators use the cover of (in this case) of Christianity, the group is not to blame. If some one murdered another and said he did it in the name of cult X, is cult X to blame, even if the cult say he acted against the teachings or wishes of the cult?

As for evil, I am surprised with the depth of religious knowledge there appears to be on the thread that no one has given the text book responses. These are…St.Augustine’s view based on the neoplatonic ideas of forms. This is that things, concepts etc. are imperfect copies of the true reality, (the forms as Plato named them) and humans are bound to live in this imperfect illusionary world. In this world good and evil are not opposing forces, but evil is an imperfection that exists where good does not. Evil is absence of good not a force of its own. God allowed free will to humans and because of this imperfection evil exists.

Or the Ireanian thought that similarly humans are imperfect by having free will and therefore can lead to evil. Without evil there could be no good (could there be light without dark?) and therefore evil results in people turning to spirituality. A grand divine plan?

As I said not necessarily my views but there you go,
wishing all a happy life and afterlife,
John.

Btw A philosopher named Arthur Schopenhauer argued that suffering was a positive force, not negative.

quote:

Originally posted by John K R:

[QUOTE] I haven’t replied to this as, to be honest, the thread has got to be a bit irrational as Imho

Example?

quote:

all the “theories” put forward need faith and can be refuted by pure logic. The argument can have no winner.

Then maybe you have not read or understood my posts on empirical nature of Buddhism? Please give an example of your pure logic.

quote:

But….to say atrocities have been carried out in the name of Christianity is of no significance to the problem of evil.

Agreed. However it does say something about some messages in the bible that can be hi-jacked by those with evil minds because the messages are open to misinterpretation as are some in the Koran. Where are the clear and consistant teachings on non-violence? Especially when God is portrayed as being judgemental, jealous, partisan, discriminatory, murdering and given to violent retribution.

quote:

As for evil, I am surprised with the depth of religious knowledge there appears to be on the thread that no one has given the text book responses.

The text book responses only muddy the water IMO they lack precision, clarity and insight.

quote:

These are…St.Augustine’s view based on the neoplatonic ideas of forms. This is that things, concepts etc. are imperfect copies of the true reality, (the forms as Plato named them) and humans are bound to live in this imperfect illusionary

Whilst I agree 'things' and 'concepts' are conventional reality and not 'true' (ultimate reality)I do not accept that humans are 'bound' to live in this imperfect illusory world although escaping it is not easy. To teach there is no escape in the knowlege there is an escape is pure evil. To teach that there is no escape when there is an escape is pure ignorence IMO.

quote:

Evil is absence of good not a force of its own.

Interesting. I agree up to a point. The is no north without a south. No west without an east. No up without a down. How can something have an inherent existence when one can only define it by what it is not (it's oppossite)and the the definition for what it is not (it's opposite)is something that is not inherently existent either - (up is the opposite of down and down is the opposite of up is an example of a dependent related phenomena). Thus we can see these things have no self existence. Light is the absense of dark and dark the absense of light. If evil is the lack of good and good the lack of evil then these two also lack self nature. They are not a force on their own, this is true. Nothing is a force on it's own. Nothing. All phenomena lack self existence because all phenomena are dependent-related. They appear to exist as separate discreet self powered entities(conventional reality)but on careful analysis we see that they don't exist in this way at all. It is this lack of inherent existence that is ultimate reality.

quote:

Or the Ireanian thought that similarly humans are imperfect by having free will and therefore can lead to evil. Without evil there could be no good (could there be light without dark?) and therefore evil results in people turning to spirituality. A grand divine plan?

God gives us freewill so we can choose between good and evil, with no chance of self liberation from the suffering of life and gives redemption only through belief in his son? God provides the problem so he can gives us the solution? Seems like the purest nonesense to me. Even if you believe in God and Jesus it is still nonesense and I don't believe in either as the existence of both is easily refuted using pure logic.

quote:

As I said not necessarily my views but there you go,
wishing all a happy life and afterlife,

One famous Buddhist teacher said 'it is not death that worries me it is rebirth that worries me' Who knows where we will end up next time round but I wish you have a good one John.

quote:

Btw A philosopher named Arthur Schopenhauer argued that suffering was a positive force, not negative

Insofar as suffering can lead a person to look for an understanding of it's causes then I would agree but only if an understanding of it's causes lead to an understanding that there can be a cessation of suffering and it's causes and then only insofar as someone actually puts into practice the means of abandoning the causes of suffering then, and only then, would I agree with Schopenhauer.

All the best John,

Erik

Dear Erik,

Is it compulsory to come back again in Buddhism?

I am content to think I will make the best of the one shot at the life's performance that I have now, but really I don't fancy coming back, any more than I fancy eternal damnation for not having kept short account with the Christian God.

All the best from Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Dear Erik,

Is it compulsory to come back again in Buddhism?

I am content to think I will make the best of the one shot at the life's performance that I have now, but really I don't fancy coming back, any more than I fancy eternal damnation for not having kept short account with the Christian God.

All the best from Fredrik

Fredrik,

No it is not compulsory - you can break the cycle of birth,aging,sickness and death but it ain't easy. According to Buddhism we have all been reborn countless times. You just have to get enlightened Fredrick. Good luck.