Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 20th, 2020, 11:30 am
Fanman wrote: ↑October 20th, 2020, 9:01 am
Jack D Ripper,
As a former theist that believed in the Christian God, I think that a Christian would simply argue that the reason you are so antithetical towards God, in terms of your apparent reasoning at least. Is due to the fact that you don’t have a relationship with him. You make some valid points in reference to the problem of evil, but if a being is omniscient including of the future, how can we as mortals truly scrutinise his actions when we can at most see 5 years into the future by way of prediction, not true foresight.
Your argument is strong, but the Christian, based upon their own experiences and other people's testimonies, will tell you the great things that God has done in their lives. Granted, we have no valid reason to assent to their claim(s). But the fact that there is an alternative, diametric view to yours, should at least cause you leave the door slightly open to the possibility that the state of the world does not reflect God’s character, but the nature of autonomous human-beings. If we blame God for everything that can be referred to as bad or evil, just because he has the power to do otherwise, do we not take away from the power of mankind to do good, and our accountability? In the sense that, apart from natural disasters, we have made our own beds? And the rods that beat our backs, are they not of our own making?
This is why I hesistate to blame God for the problem of evil, because if he exists as he is purported to, we cannot fathom the reasons why such a being would allows evil to occur in a world of both good and evil, the best we can do is speculate by way of reason. I mean, he supposedly sent Jesus Christ into this world to be a sacrifice for the sins that he never even committed, so as to defer mankind's judgement. Why would a being that is capable of allowing something that he treasured (his own son), to be destroyed, even temporarily, be incapable of doing good?
Two things.
First, nothing in the future can undo the bad things that happen now.
Are you ABSOLUTELY SURE that "NOTHING, in the future," can undo the bad things that happen now.
If you are, then you REALLY are a VERY CLOSED individual.
Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 20th, 2020, 11:30 am
So no matter what good things happen in the future, it does not make things okay now.
This is yet ANOTHER example of a very CLOSED view and perspective of things.
Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 20th, 2020, 11:30 am
I am reminded of a film I saw many years ago regarding medical ethics, where someone who was burned over most of his body, was being kept alive, even though the person was in agony, because they could not give him enough pain killers to stop the pain as a sufficient dose of the pain killers for that would kill him (they no longer do things that way, I am told; now, they used medically induced comas for such patients, as they do not wish to torture people if they can keep them alive without torture). He was constantly begging them to kill him, to put him out of his torment. Eventually, he healed and left the hospital. He later on met a woman and got married, and was happy with his life at that point. However, when he was asked if that meant that his previous suffering was worth it, he said, no, they should have killed him. That nothing could possibly make up for what he endured. Of course, at that point in time, he had no reason to kill himself, as his life at that point was good. But the totality of his life wasn't.
Good things in the future do not undo bad things now.
Well this is an OBVIOUS FACT.
What is also an OBVIOUSLY FACT is that ONLY 'that' which undoes, so called, "bad things" is what CAN undo "bad things".
Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 20th, 2020, 11:30 am
So it is just BS nonsense to say that a good plan makes up for it. Especially since an omniscient, omnipotent being could just make the thing it wanted without using bad things to achieve those things.
You OBVIOUSLY still have absolutely NO idea how things actually work here, YET.
Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 20th, 2020, 11:30 am
We use means to achieve ends because we cannot directly achieve our ends. But a being that is claimed by many to make something out of nothing
LOL Who claims that a being makes something out of nothing?
Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 20th, 2020, 11:30 am
does not need to use means to ends; it can directly achieve its ends. So god using evil to achieve god's ends means god is evil.
LOL If this is what this means, TO YOU, then so be it.
Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 20th, 2020, 11:30 am
Second, the Jesus story shows god in that story to be evil.
Why do you write an opening post with explicit explanations about big 'G' and small 'g', and then seemingly go against that explanation?
Are we discussing god with small 'g' or God with big 'G'?
Also, have you ever considered that the story, which has been relayed to you, and the one which you accept is being told to you, has been misinterpret, or conveyed, WRONGLY, at all?
Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 20th, 2020, 11:30 am
Instead of just deciding "to defer mankind's judgement", god decides that it is better to punish a supposedly innocent being.
Again, what is with the small 'g' here?
Do you write "god" with small 'g' purposely here now?
Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 20th, 2020, 11:30 am
Remember, the reason why a punishment is required is because god requires it.
What evidence do you have that some other god (notice, small "g") - besides the God/Being, which is omniscient (all knowing), omnipotent (all powerful), and omnibenevolent (all good) - "requires" 'punishment'.
From what I have observed 'punishment', itself, is only a, supposed, "requirement" by adult human beings and one handed out by adult human beings. I am not sure where you are getting your information from but a lot of it appears to be very false, wrong, and/or incorrect.
Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 20th, 2020, 11:30 am
God could instead simply not require that anyone be punished.
But God does NOT require that anyone be punished. In fact, God guides and instructs otherwise.
To me, the only ones that require that anyone be punished is adult human beings.
Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 20th, 2020, 11:30 am
Punishing an innocent individual makes god a worse being than just deferring judgement.
You appear to really enjoy talking about 'god' (notice, small "g") when you specifically mentioned in YOUR opening post that 'god' (small "g") is the one which to not talk about here, in this thread.
Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 20th, 2020, 11:30 am
The whole basis of Christianity is ridiculous and obscene.
If you say so, then it must be so, correct?
Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 20th, 2020, 11:30 am
What is remarkable is that people are so accustomed to the story that they do not think about its meaning, about what it is saying, about what an evil being that god must be to do such a thing.
And some people do not even think at 'its' meaning in the words they, themselves, use, and say.
Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 20th, 2020, 11:30 am
But that is the way with a lot of religious stories; people do not think about them in the same way that they think about other stories; they do not properly think about the religious stories at all.
If you say so, then this would be further "proof" that your already gained conclusion is more true and correct, right?
Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 20th, 2020, 11:30 am
This is why they are ready to believe things like Mary being a virgin while pregnant, because some guy supposedly has a dream in which that is claimed by angels, but would not believe the same story if I told them that my wife was pregnant when we got married, but was a virgin, and I knew this because angels told me this in a dream. When the story is brought into the modern world like that, even most of the people foolish enough to believe the ancient story see how idiotic the story is.
When the story is told, with the misconceptions that you have here, then obviously the REAL and True story is NOT being expressed.
Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 20th, 2020, 11:30 am
(Not that it matters for the hypothetical above, but my wife was not pregnant when we got married. Indeed, I do not need to have a wife at all for the point to be made.)
Then expressly saying, "my wife was not pregnant when we got married", is VERY misleading, which only leads to misconceptions being made, which then lends itself to misinterpretations appearing and things being completely taken out of context.