VisorCentral.com - Inane ramblings

Pages (73): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 » ... Last »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- Inane ramblings (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=16736)

Posted by septimus on 07-13-2001 04:51 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
Where did you get this? It's in the best interest of Christian Theologians to argue for the existence of evil, otherwise there is no point to Christianity.

Right, but they argue for the existence of evil within the framework of a plan that is wholly good. I'm not talking about immediate evil, or even evil within our lifetimes, or within all history up to this point. Christian theology holds that the overall setup of the universe is essentially good, and therefore if you just zoom out enough, over all of time and the apocalypse and the entire universe, all evil is just part of a grand plan for us to be happy hanging out with god.

IMO, it's a sugarcoat.

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by septimus on 07-13-2001 04:52 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by GSR13
To DietRichBohn:
If you do not accept the Bible as God's revealed Word, where do you get your Moral Code?

A modified version of Kant's Categorical Imperative. I mix it with a bit of object utilitarianism & some Zen for fun. Bake at 350 for 25 minutes, and serve!

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by dick-richardson on 07-13-2001 04:53 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dietrichbohn

Well, there's Zen Buddhism,

Deals with a belief in God AFAIK

quote:
Communism, Utilitarianism, Object Utilitarianism

Ok.

quote:
Capitalism,

doesn't profess a moral code

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by GSR13 on 07-13-2001 04:53 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson

LOL! Nonetheless, I'll stick with my argument for the existence of evil.

I will never argue that evil does not exist. It does. That is obvious. However, it all comes down to unbelief in God.

What actually brought the Fall of Man was not Eve Partaking of the Fruit, but the fact that she stepped out from God's Word, thus not believing what God had said. It is not that we choose Good or Evil, it is simply we choose to believe God and ALL of what He says, or we choose unbelief. Sin is not murdering someone, that is simply the attribute of the real sin, unbelief. If you believe 99% of God's word, you are in the same boat as the guy who believes 1%.

But God had to allow this to happen, to show that He is God.

__________________
In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. JOHN 14:2

Posted by Toby on 07-13-2001 04:54 PM:

Originally posted by BobbyMike:
The only thing I have against the idea that you can be "spiritual", and not be "religious" is the way some people go about it. The reason "New Agers" get ridiculed sometimes (see "Mars Attacks" for an example) is that they pick and choose from different religious systems, taking what intrigues them and discarding anything that offends them.

Umm...that's true of Christianity as well. Many of the Christian concepts of Jesus bear striking resemblances to other dieties in vogue back in the days, e.g. Mithraism among many. There's really no way to say that they didn't just remove some of the less 'pleasant' aspects of those.

It's kinda like the song by XTC ("Dear God") where the guy whines about all the "bad" things in the world and why he can't believe in a god that would allow bad things to happen.
That would be like my kid not listening to me when I say to stay off the roof 'cause it's dangerous and after he falls off, he won't talk to me 'cause he can't believe I let him fall off the roof.

Did you claim to be an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being with the power to tell him the time and place that he would fall, have the capacity to stop it, but still not stop it, though?

Posted by dick-richardson on 07-13-2001 04:54 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dietrichbohn
Actually, the burden of proof always lies on the person who claims a given premise is logically impossible. Just because it's the assumption of all of western culture doesn't mean that it's correct. I simply am making it clear that this is an unjustified assumption. But here, I'll back it up:

"Free will and the nonexistence of evil is possible at the same time, in the same way, in the same universe."

That statement is correct until it is proven wrong, since all it does is state a logical possibility.

No, the burden of proof lies with the person making an assertion. Your comment is false until proven correct.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by septimus on 07-13-2001 04:56 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
So God created evil so that we'd all be really impressed when he fixed it? Sounds like Microsoft.

ROTFLMAO!!

...Man, there's a lot to do here!

Maybe this weekend I can be more coherent. There are a few greek theologans (3 guys, I forget their names) that I like, they argue that you can't speak about god, only about what god is not. I guess I'm just trying to say that god isn't Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Wholly Good. And since the Omni's lead into one another, you kinda have to either have a god that's weak, a god that wills evil, no god, or a definition that doesn't come out of the western tradition!

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by dick-richardson on 07-13-2001 04:57 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dietrichbohn

Right, but they argue for the existence of evil within the framework of a plan that is wholly good. I'm not talking about immediate evil, or even evil within our lifetimes, or within all history up to this point. Christian theology holds that the overall setup of the universe is essentially good, and therefore if you just zoom out enough, over all of time and the apocalypse and the entire universe, all evil is just part of a grand plan for us to be happy hanging out with god.

IMO, it's a sugarcoat.

Unless I'm missing the basic tenets of Christian Theology, your assertion here is incorrect. Not to mention that there is a big difference between stating that a given group doens't believe in evil when they most certainly do.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by septimus on 07-13-2001 05:00 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
No, the burden of proof lies with the person making an assertion. Your comment is false until proven correct.

Sorry Josh, that's not how modal logic works. Statements about logical possibility are true by definition until they are proven false. Mainly because they're so weak:

"It's possible that I'm a big, fat, hairy lizard"

Is true until it's been proven false in all possible times, places, and ways. Think back to DeCartes and his suppostion that we're being fooled by an malicious god. All statements are possibly true until they're proven false.

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by dick-richardson on 07-13-2001 05:01 PM:

Does the Bible make the assertion that God is Omnipotent? There's a possibility that might be fun to argue.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by septimus on 07-13-2001 05:02 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
Unless I'm missing the basic tenets of Christian Theology, your assertion here is incorrect. Not to mention that there is a big difference between stating that a given group doens't believe in evil when they most certainly do.

I'm stating that "basic tenets of Christian Theology" are inconsistent with themselves. They state that evil exists, and they state that evil exists so that a good divine plan can be executed more perfectly. If something makes a good divine plan better, then it must be good, no?

Christians do believe in evil, but their theology doesn't. That's one of the reasons I dislike it, it's hypocritical to the way that everybody practices it.

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by septimus on 07-13-2001 05:03 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
Does the Bible make the assertion that God is Omnipotent? There's a possibility that might be fun to argue.

I know it's been interpreted both ways, esp. the old testament. But I'm no bible scholar. GSR??

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by dick-richardson on 07-13-2001 05:03 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dietrichbohn

Sorry Josh, that's not how modal logic works. Statements about logical possibility are true by definition until they are proven false. Mainly because they're so weak:

"It's possible that I'm a big, fat, hairy lizard"

Is true until it's been proven false in all possible times, places, and ways. Think back to DeCartes and his suppostion that we're being fooled by an malicious god. All statements are possibly true until they're proven false.

Yes, but that leads to an argumentative mess.

My premise is that God lives in my pants and satisfies me sexually every hour on the hour.

Have fun.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by septimus on 07-13-2001 05:04 PM:

Sheesh! Maybe we do need a chat room!

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by dick-richardson on 07-13-2001 05:05 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dietrichbohn
They state that evil exists, and they state that evil exists so that a good divine plan can be executed more perfectly.

Where?

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by septimus on 07-13-2001 05:06 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson

Yes, but that leads to an argumentative mess.

My premise is that God lives in my pants and satisfies me sexually every hour on the hour.

Have fun.

Actually, you want to say "It is possible that God lives in my pants and satisfies me sexually every hour on the hour."

Now THAT'S what I call a Wholly Good God!

And the argumentative mess is there, but it turns out it's fairly difficult to base arguments on statements of possiblity. Chalk it up to my incredibly massive and beefy skill in logic that I did

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by dick-richardson on 07-13-2001 05:07 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dietrichbohn
Sheesh! Maybe we do need a chat room!

You have to admit VC has some damn fine servers. We just have to push the suckers to their limit.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by septimus on 07-13-2001 05:07 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
Where?

..Well, that's one of the problems with this discussion, we're speaking of Xn theology as if its uniform, and it's anything but. Give me the weekend and I can research catechisms for the major xn religions. Want me to?

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by septimus on 07-13-2001 05:08 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson

You have to admit VC has some damn fine servers. We just have to push the suckers to their limit.

lol...

Jeez, maybe you should just call me!

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by Toby on 07-13-2001 05:08 PM:

Originally posted by dick-richardson:
Deals with a belief in God AFAIK [...]

No, Buddhism is more of a philosophy of life than a religion. It really doesn't have a position on the existence of god(s) per se. Buddha only means 'enlightened one'. While Siddhartha Gautama is considered 'The Buddha', it does not mean that he is considered a 'god'.

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:34 PM.

Pages (73): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 » ... Last »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page