Religious inconsistency question

[Onceler]

Hehe. In a thread on religious inconsistency, you have now claimed that God is neither good or evil but created angels intended to fall but by their own choice. That's fine by me that you believe this but it fails to impress me as a logical idea given that God created man in his own image. To my way of thinking you have side stepped an important and crucial religious philosophical issue by pretending to yourself that two mutually exclusive concepts can be true at the same time. You do not logically account for how a being created in the image of perfection by a perfect creator could turn around and do other than his creator.

In my opinion, it is this capacity to sweep things under the rug common to so many religious people that drives rational people away from religion.

And the problem is important, I believe also, because if you can't give a logical explanation for the fall of man that makes some kind of sense, you can't offer the fallen any redemption. They will simply see in the shallowness of your explanation a means to avoid the notion that they need it. If you can't offer some kind of account for the existence of sin, you will have nothing to offer by way of a God of salvation.

For that reason the ideas one can derive from an analysis of the notions presented in the story of the Garden of Eden are important. The notion of eating from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge indicates to me that those who created that story knew either intuitively or with direct insight that evil exists as an adjunct to the evolution of man's capacity to know. To know is to step into the world of ideas where things can be imagined that do not exist for other animals. Only man has the capacity to create his own suffering by believing in things that do not exist. Men discovered God when they were first taken in by and then escaped from that dream, when they discovered their own perfection. God is a lighthouse that proclaims there is a way back from delusion, a bridge to a different state of consciousness.

No I am saying the God that I worship, not the bible's god made everything both good and evil, in other words it started out that way.

 

[PowerEngineer]

No I am saying the God that I worship, not the bible's god made everything both good and evil, in other words it started out that way.

So is it fair to ask how many other people worship the same god that you worship?

I'm guessing that the answer may be zero or something relatively small when compared either to the world's population or to the subset who claim they are Christians.

Let me suggest that the root of religious inconsistency (especially in these forums) is the small number of beliefs that believers actually have in common. It's interesting to me just how quickly believers will sidestep the need to explain the beliefs of others by declaring that their own personal beliefs are somehow different (and by implication that what those other believers believe is wrong). This seems particularly evident in discussions of the meanings ascribed to biblical passages.

There's something inherently unsatisfying about conflicting claims of religious truth by groups of believers, especially when none of these claims can be demonstrated, shared, and accepted by everybody who is exposed to them. Clearly belief comes with the biggest YMMV imaginable.

If the big puffy white cloud looks like a different animal to every person who sees it, then maybe we should conclude that the cloud doesn't really look much like any one of those animals.

 

[Paul98]

No I am saying the God that I worship, not the bible's god made everything both good and evil, in other words it started out that way.

This is your brain trying to justify your beliefs and thoughts. The god you believe in is what you imagine a higher form of yourself or what you would like to be is. Along with some ingrained ideas about god that you like or feel is needed.

 

[Moonbeam]

No I am saying the God that I worship, not the bible's god made everything both good and evil, in other words it started out that way.

I don't really care what god you are describing, Biblical or otherwise. A belief in a God that created good and evil is inconsistent with being a God who has anything to offer. My critique applies to the god you claim to believe in.

I am saying also that the Biblical god couldn't have created evil and be consistent with other claims that he is perfection. Perfection admits to no evil. You, however, seem satisfied with an imperfect god. That's fine by me, but it's inconsistent with the idea of a God of perfection and useless as inspiration.

I am saying then, that to be consistent with your notion that God created good and evil, you have invented a God of imperfection, an inferior god to the one others claim exists.

I merely assert that the notion of a perfect god can be rescued form and preserved from logical inconsistency if one understands the real origin of evil.

 

[dphantom]

I don't really care what god you are describing, Biblical or otherwise. A belief in a God that created good and evil is inconsistent with being a God who has anything to offer. My critique applies to the god you claim to believe in.

I am saying also that the Biblical god couldn't have created evil and be consistent with other claims that he is perfection. Perfection admits to no evil. You, however, seem satisfied with an imperfect god. That's fine by me, but it's inconsistent with the idea of a God of perfection and useless as inspiration.

I am saying then, that to be consistent with your notion that God created good and evil, you have invented a God of imperfection, an inferior god to the one others claim exists.

I merely assert that the notion of a perfect god can be rescued form and preserved from logical inconsistency if one understands the real origin of evil.

Both St Augustine of Hippo and later St thomas Aquinas offer views on the nature of evil that refute your claims of God's imperfection. They may be a good source to review in light of your argument.

 

[Moonbeam]

Both St Augustine of Hippo and later St thomas Aquinas offer views on the nature of evil that refute your claims of God's imperfection. They may be a good source to review in light of your argument.

Well I don't know what their arguments are, but the fact that they have them shows the reality of the problem. You have the notion of a perfect God, the notion that he created everything, and the belief that evil exists. I know of no argument that does anymore than sweep that logical impossibility under the carpet other than what I suggested which is that evil doesn't exist other than the emotional damage rendered when one believes in the delusion that it does exist. The kingdom of heaven is all around us and within us but because we have been programmed to not believe it we don't see it. The programming is done with language. We were told we are evil and we believed it but it was a total lie.

 

[beginner99]

I've always wondered why people make this a Science vs Religion debate, when there is plenty of religion in science.

Believing in god (and much more in a specific religion and it's rules) just shows a lack of intelligence, IMHO. A study actually shows a correlation between intelligence and belief, eg. the more intelligent the less people belief. Of course social background matters a lot and that's why 17th-19th century scientists like Newton or Darwin actually did believe. Nowadays however at least here (not sure about US...) you don't face extreme social repercussions if you say you don't believe.

Believing in god is also something different than following stupid rules even if the rules might have made some sense 2000 years ago (like no sex before marriage and such due to STDs). More problematic are really stupid laws like kosher. As Richard Dawkins but it, religion is a "virus of the mind" and it seems obvious that everyone and whole humankind is better of if they are healthy.

For me it's also the lack of questioning established rules. Why you are asked to do something should be questioned (that's why I'm not suited for a lot of jobs...). Rules are there to be questioned and broken and then discarded if useless.

As a metaphor, religious people are like the drunk guy at the party how thinks he is soooo cool and so right and so funny and just better than all the lame people around him while the sober people just pity him. And once he is sober he realizes how ridiculous stupid and annoying he was while being drunk.

 

[Retro Rob]

Believing in god (and much more in a specific religion and it's rules) just shows a lack of intelligence, IMHO. A study actually shows a correlation between intelligence and belief, eg. the more intelligent the less people belief. Of course social background matters a lot and that's why 17th-19th century scientists like Newton or Darwin actually did believe. Nowadays however at least here (not sure about US...) you don't face extreme social repercussions if you say you don't believe.

Didn't want to respond to this post, but since it is filled with utter and inexcusable ignorance, I guess these guys are as "unintelligent" as they come.

The rest of your rant is bigoted nonsense.

 

[dphantom]

Well I don't know what their arguments are, but the fact that they have them shows the reality of the problem. You have the notion of a perfect God, the notion that he created everything, and the belief that evil exists. I know of no argument that does anymore than sweep that logical impossibility under the carpet other than what I suggested which is that evil doesn't exist other than the emotional damage rendered when one believes in the delusion that it does exist. The kingdom of heaven is all around us and within us but because we have been programmed to not believe it we don't see it. The programming is done with language. We were told we are evil and we believed it but it was a total lie.

Interesting stance. You do not know the arguments, yet dismiss them anyway and offer instead your own incontrovertible argument using the opposing arguments as proof your argument is the only logical one.

Quite a circle you have where there can only be one right answer...yours. Now whether it is the right answer or not we will never know as all other arguments have been dismissed in the face of your own self-made logical creation.

 

[kia75]

Interesting stance. You do not know the arguments, yet dismiss them anyway and offer instead your own incontrovertible argument using the opposing arguments as proof your argument is the only logical one.

Quite a circle you have where there can only be one right answer...yours. Now whether it is the right answer or not we will never know as all other arguments have been dismissed in the face of your own self-made logical creation.

This is a discussion club, not a name-drop club.

You can't name-drop and expect other people to do your homework for you. If St Augustine of Hippo and St Thomas Aquinas's arguments are relevant then you should be able to show us why their arguments apply and why they are correct.

There are literally billions of of people, living and dead, that have opinions on the subject, nobody can expect to know them all or their opinions on various ideas. If you believe that a 3rd party source's ideas are relevant to the debate then you have to bring in the relevant details.


Crash course on Augustine's opinion of Evil, followed by St Thomas's ideas.

Basically their idea was God is good, and Evil is the lack of God, much like cold is the lack of heat or dark is the lack of light. It's an interesting take but it falls apart whenever God asks someone to do something evil, such as kill all the women and babies.

 

[Moonbeam]

This is a discussion club, not a name-drop club.

Hehe, he was attached to a belief he had that two famous people had something to say to me and felt I blew them off and thus damaged the illusion he has of himself we call the ego. Thus it was, that instead of responding with what those two believed, he responded with evil. He wanted me to feel his hurt. He didn't know that I have considered this problem from many angles and many philosophical points of view including the ones you mentioned, but have no interest in the scholarship on who said what. My interest is in talking to real people on this forum as to what they believe and if he believes as they, then he can, as you stated, make their case.

I believe the argument you stated, that evil is the absence of God is a round about and intuitive way of saying what I said. To know God is to end duality. The state of perceiving life in a state of duality is the absence of knowing God. The state of duality depends on thought which is separation from direct perception, living in the state of knowing about things which is memory of the past. We see our conditioning and call it knowledge, an accumulation of experience we remember via language about our past. When we are told we are evil and punished for that, we push that knowledge away in denial. We could not survive our childhood in an open, fresh, and constant state of humiliation and denigration. Evil exists when we act to protect our ego from pain and because our pain is enormous we will do anything. Few will risk seeing the kingdom of heaven we were born in because the road back leads through hell. The psychological validity of these facts are scattered throughout the mythology of the cultures of the world.

 

[justoh]

While i realize that this is a religious inconsistency thread and that it's therefore appropriate to argue about this good and evil "problem," it still takes for granted the existence of gods.

Of course there are ways to reconcile this "problem," but i don't see the point. Why care if it's possible to account for this apparent inconsistency? Doesn't make it any more or less reasonable to believe in gods.

If you can believe something without evidence it seems like a small obstacle to get over internal inconsistencies.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

of God, much like cold is the lack of heat or dark is the lack of light. It's an interesting take but it falls apart whenever God asks someone to do something evil, such as kill all the women and babies.

God didn't tell them to do evil. It only appears evil from your very limited human perspective.

Similar to people who say that vaccines are evil because of their limited perspective.

 

[Paul98]

God didn't tell them to do evil. It only appears evil from your very limited human perspective.

Similar to people who say that vaccines are evil because of their limited perspective.

Do you believe your God knows everything?

 

[Moonbeam]

While i realize that this is a religious inconsistency thread and that it's therefore appropriate to argue about this good and evil "problem," it still takes for granted the existence of gods.

Of course there are ways to reconcile this "problem," but i don't see the point. Why care if it's possible to account for this apparent inconsistency? Doesn't make it any more or less reasonable to believe in gods.

If you can believe something without evidence it seems like a small obstacle to get over internal inconsistencies.

In post #95 I gave my answer to your question. You are approaching the issue already from a position of doubt and thus see it as irrelevant. Long ago I approached the question of the existence of God from a point of faith which was broken on the rocks of such questions.

You already take for granted that God does not exist and perhaps have never believed otherwise and as a consequence flounder of the question of a lack of scientific evidence as to whether he does or does not. For you and folk like you alone, the internal tenants of what religious people teach about their gods and whether they are rational and consistent with logic are of no consequence. But it was those questions of the internal logic of what I was taught to believe that broke my faith.

I could not take without evidence the existence of a God that was also irrational and created evil to boot. My faith would likely not have been so easily destroyed had my foundation been stronger. It was only by some process I can't really fathom that I call grace that turned my world inside out, that the key to God and love was hidden in my own heart and my thirst for scientific proof was put to rest. I don't need faith any more because I know.

But the issue is relevant to me because I think more folk enter that state of knowing via faith than I had to do by the back door. For that reason I would wish that religious teachings be internally logical for the folk who grow up believing.

 

[sandorski]

God didn't tell them to do evil. It only appears evil from your very limited human perspective.

Similar to people who say that vaccines are evil because of their limited perspective.

If by "limited" you mean our Correct perspective that Genocide is immoral, then yes. If not, then no it is evil regardless who may have ordered it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

God didn't tell them to do evil. It only appears evil from your very limited human perspective.

Similar to people who say that vaccines are evil because of their limited perspective.

It's endlessly amusing that the people who make claims akin to the above will also contend vigorously that morality is objective.

 

[sandorski]

It's endlessly amusing that the people who make claims akin to the above will also contend vigorously that morality is objective.

indeed

 

[justoh]

In post #95 I gave my answer to your question. You are approaching the issue already from a position of doubt and thus see it as irrelevant. Long ago I approached the question of the existence of God from a point of faith which was broken on the rocks of such questions.

You already take for granted that God does not exist and perhaps have never believed otherwise and as a consequence flounder of the question of a lack of scientific evidence as to whether he does or does not. For you and folk like you alone, the internal tenants of what religious people teach about their gods and whether they are rational and consistent with logic are of no consequence. But it was those questions of the internal logic of what I was taught to believe that broke my faith.

I could not take without evidence the existence of a God that was also irrational and created evil to boot. My faith would likely not have been so easily destroyed had my foundation been stronger. It was only by some process I can't really fathom that I call grace that turned my world inside out, that the key to God and love was hidden in my own heart and my thirst for scientific proof was put to rest. I don't need faith any more because I know.

But the issue is relevant to me because I think more folk enter that state of knowing via faith than I had to do by the back door. For that reason I would wish that religious teachings be internally logical for the folk who grow up believing.

We're supposed to take it for granted. You don't take it for granted that santa claus doesn't exist? It's not the same as believing he doesn't, either. What the fluff? It's improbable, not impossible.

 

[dphantom]

Morality is objective in God's eyes. It is us humans who fail.

At probably the singular point in history, God gave us the perfect example of His ultimate Goodness. He allowed His Son to be murdered by men - the ultimate evil act - so that we sinners would have a path to Salvation through accepting Jesus Christ into our life - the ultimate Goodness.

God is not evil. God did not create evil. It is our failing through sin that evil exists.

 

[sandorski]

Morality is objective in God's eyes. It is us humans who fail.

At probably the singular point in history, God gave us the perfect example of His ultimate Goodness. He allowed His Son to be murdered by men - the ultimate evil act - so that we sinners would have a path to Salvation through accepting Jesus Christ into our life - the ultimate Goodness.

God is not evil. God did not create evil. It is our failing through sin that evil exists.

Evil is as Evil does. By that metric, the god of the Bible is about as evil as they come.

 

[Retro Rob]

Morality is objective in God's eyes. It is us humans who fail.

At probably the singular point in history, God gave us the perfect example of His ultimate Goodness. He allowed His Son to be murdered by men - the ultimate evil act - so that we sinners would have a path to Salvation through accepting Jesus Christ into our life - the ultimate Goodness.

God is not evil. God did not create evil. It is our failing through sin that evil exists.

If people in this thread were even the slightest bit honest, they'd admit this...Biblically speaking anyway.

 

[sandorski]

If people in this thread were even the slightest bit honest, they'd admit this...Biblically speaking anyway.

Biblically, sure, but so what? If other people were honest they'd see that the Bible and the god spoken therein is vile.

 

[dphantom]

Biblically, sure, but so what? If other people were honest they'd see that the Bible and the god spoken therein is vile.

Only mankind can be evil. We are misled by our own human failings all to easily. Trust in the Lord, seek salvation through His Son and you will see the Goodness that is Him.

 

[Retro Rob]

Biblically, sure, but so what? If other people were honest they'd see that the Bible and the god spoken therein is vile.

Biblically speaking is all there is, so what do you mean "so what"? You don't agree with it, so it doesn't matter -- you're gonna hold to your personal view regardless. Just admit it.

You overtly and singularly focus on what you call "vile" becasue it serves your own purposes, and when given counter information (as with the post about the death of Jesus), it's "so what", all of a sudden?