IBDaMann
Well-known member
Spoke about, i.e. past tense. Einstein.
Could A Good God Permit So Much Suffering?
- Thread starter Hume
- Start date
IBDaMann
Well-known member
The correct answer was "yes."
Scott
Verified User
As J. L. Mackie (1955, 200) formulated the so-called logical problem of evil:
God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists. There seems to be some contradiction between these three propositions, so that if any two of them were true the third would be false. But at the same time all three are essential parts of most theological positions: the theologian, it seems, at once must and cannot consistently adhere to all three.
Could A Good God Permit So Much Suffering? A Debate
As J. L. Mackie (1955, 200) formulated the so-called logical problem of evil: God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists. There seems to...ndpr.nd.edu
Agreed. I think Neil Degrasse Tyson summed it up:
Being a Pantheist myself, that basically equates God to everything, I go for the "not all good" one.
Having faith and thinking you are an insufferable moron are not mutually exclusive. You are really a fucked up example of a human being.
Based Chad
Was it me?
so stupid.
this is what nazi humanist exploiters tell themselves and each other to keep their eugenics plans in place.
Based Chad
Was it me?
sacrifice is not part of every religion.
that's just your cultic tendencies manifesting in your worldview.
Based Chad
Was it me?
actually, the busy hands are the genociders.
"All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone." ― Blaise Pascal
Nor did I say EVERY religion. I said almost every one. Sacrifice is the core of Christianity, certainly.
You could have taken some time to craft an actual critique of my point and show me the errors but instead you just come on here to lob shit. I didn't realize they put computer terminals into the ape house.
It's not my personal opinion. It is the default position of pretty much every major world religion on the planet - that there is a universal moral law, a Tao, or an eternal logos which is independent of opinion, whim, secular law, or social convention.
Even many or even most mentally healthy adults who don't practice a religion have a conscience telling them there is absolute right and absolute wrong.
You're really getting into fringe belief when one starts believing morality is strictly relative and subjective.
The ritual sacrifice of children, orphans, virgins, twins, prisoners, concubines, and retainers is always wrong, for all time and all place.
That sounds like an opinion. I am not held by the same rules as those who believe in the supernatural. And since no one has EVER proven God's existence or the existence of "universal moral law", then it is nothing more than an "opinion".
Do you have some studies showing that?
But the sacrifice of full-grown adults is morally OK? Because it forms the core of the dominant religion in the West. Which you feel is not simply an "opinion" but carries some necessary truth.
Last edited:
I will also remind you that in the Holy Book that forms the basis for Western Civilization the Chosen People of God were commanded to slaughter countless children, orphans, virgins, twins, prisoners, concubines and retainers specifically by the God of those people. And in cases where they failed to sufficiently slaughter their king was punished by God.
So it kind of sounds like the "morality" of the Holy Book differs from your assessment of universal moral codes.
You're free to believe morality is subjective and relative.
Thanks! I do. Morality is made up by humans to serve human needs. There are going to be commonalities, but not so much a "universal". Besides, if there's some 'universal' morality: where does it come from?
Always complaining about the Hebrew Bible, and never the New Testament, eh?
War has never been considered immoral if it is waged for moral reasons.The Cananites were being judged for ritually sacrificing innocent babies to their God. Even later Roman historians expressed shock at this practice.
Even though atheists complain about Evangelicals reading the Bible too literally, atheists themselves want to practice strict biblical literalism when it suits their agenda.
Atheists are the most unapologetic Biblical literalists around, bar none.
You have to allow an author to use hyperbole, symbolism, and metaphor. The scribes of the Second Temple period were not strictly writing historical narrative, and wouldn't even understand the concept of analytical history like we do.
Archeology does not support that there was mass destruction of cities and towns in the time period being considered. Archaeology supports the idea that the authors in the Hebrew Bible are using hyperbole and exaggeration.
In some cases, the Israelites were supposed to marry women of the defeated tribes, and people from those defeated tribes sometimes show ups later in the Bible. That couldn't happen of there had been a mass genocide.
Excellent exegesis. So long as we ignore the Bible morality can be universal.
Your free to think all war is immoral.
The vast majority of people have never considered war to be universally immoral, especially in cases of self defense or when based on considerations of moral justice.
From the Hebrew Bible's perspective, the war on the Cannanites was morally just.
The Israelites even thought upon reflection that their defeat by the Babylonians was morally just, because the Israelites were being judged for reverting to the depravity of child sacrifice and temple desecration. So the Israelites were consistent in that way, even when it was to their disadvantage.
More recently, most people would say World War 2, and the air campaigns in the Balkans were morally justified, even though it was understood lots of innocent people would die.
Was dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima “moral”?
Interesting. That seemed easy enough. So the countless innocent who were carbonized deserved it? There was no possible alternative?
(Mind you I actually agree that what Truman did was a calculated action to achieve a good end but there WERE more “moral” options available to him)