Theodicy

[Great Nepal]

They never specified they were talking about Christianity.

OK then.

If we're accepting the idea of the all being God, why are we rejecting the idea of an absolutely good savior?

Because, that is inconsistent with reality (unless you are looking at eastern religion). Someone can not be all powerful and good if they dont do something about the evil and suffering. Either, they are not all powerful or they are not good.

[Caninope]

OK then.

If we're accepting the idea of the all being God, why are we rejecting the idea of an absolutely good savior?

Because, that is inconsistent with reality (unless you are looking at eastern religion). Someone can not be all powerful and good if they dont do something about the evil and suffering. Either, they are not all powerful or they are not good.

That doesn't answer why we're not assuming an absolutely good savior doesn't exist.

For, you see, that would help resolve this paradox. God could be all powerful and good, even if he allows evil to exist in this way. By sending an absolutely good savior, the OP's original assumption (i.e. there is no good, only degrees of evil) is blown out of the water. In addition, this allows God to save people from evil without direct intervention.

So, still. Why are we assuming the presence of a God that is essentially all-being, but rejecting the idea of an absolutely good savior?

[Norstal]

OK then.

If we're accepting the idea of the all being God, why are we rejecting the idea of an absolutely good savior?

And that is what I wanted to say.

God may be Neutral in all things but...it's his son, our savior who will be the hero of all us

Because that argument is ridiculous. For an absolutely good savior to exist, someone has to define what "absolutely good" means. That God could mean killing babies as "absolutely good."

So sure, the idea of an absolutely good savior is possible. With questionable ethics. Which is why the tiered evil system the other guy said is much better in comparison.

[The Rich Port]

Probably because it's either not there or is not absolutely good, and/or absolutely perfect, and/or absolutely all-knowing.

[Caninope]

And that is what I wanted to say.

God may be Neutral in all things but...it's his son, our savior who will be the hero of all us

Because that argument is ridiculous. For an absolutely good savior to exist, someone has to define what "absolutely good" means. That God could mean killing babies as "absolutely good."

So sure, the idea of an absolutely good savior is possible. With questionable ethics. Which is why the tiered evil system the other guy said is much better in comparison.

I, however, reject his basic premise that there is no good, only tiers of evil.

[Big Jim P]

I am, therefore I am. Your question again?

[BushSucks-istan]

I sometimes wonder why they made up Satan. God is already doing satan's job anyway. And he is quite good at it! Aids, cancer, poverty, famine, dictatorships, sarah palin.... Al his creations.

And no they are not creations of man. If god was allpowerful and allknowing he would have known this would happen.
Tyrant 1st class.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

There is only one God, and she is omniscient and omnipotent.

[Defensor]

Read the Bible, and believe in God.

Or don't.

Those are your options, no arguments, nothing technical.

It really doesn't get much easier. This arguing over stupid stuff is really irritating

[Kilobugya]

How can evil exist if there is an absolutely Good, absolutely powerful, and allknowing God?

That's a very old question, theists tried to do tricks to avoid it since centuries. But we have answers using modern logic : absolutely good, absolutely powerful and all knowing is not logically possible. We know that for sure since, at least, Goedel's incompleteness theorem and Löb's theorem. We have also a modern understanding of "infinity" and what infinity implies, with modern calculus and set theory, which makes that kind of question just "fizzle".

[BushSucks-istan]

Read the Bible, and believe in God.

Or don't.

Those are your options, no arguments, nothing technical.

It really doesn't get much easier. This arguing over stupid stuff is really irritating

The problem is that religious people force their beliefs on those who do not want them. One of the true crimes of religion is stealing our children!

[Ashmoria]

Read the Bible, and believe in God.

Or don't.

Those are your options, no arguments, nothing technical.

It really doesn't get much easier. This arguing over stupid stuff is really irritating

The problem is that religious people force their beliefs on those who do not want them. One of the true crimes of religion is stealing our children!

how do religious people GET your children? are you sending them out to play on sunday morning and going back to sleep without realizing that your neighbor took your kid to church?

[BushSucks-istan]

The problem is that religious people force their beliefs on those who do not want them. One of the true crimes of religion is stealing our children!

how do religious people GET your children? are you sending them out to play on sunday morning and going back to sleep without realizing that your neighbor took your kid to church?

No, they take their child's right to interpret the world as they perceive it. Children should have the freedom to live a life without the ghost stories of man! Christian or Muslim children don't even exist. People aren't Christians because they love the religion so much. They are Christians because they were brought up Christian. If they would have been brought up in india they would be Hindu, if they were brought up in classical Greece they would be believing in Zeus and Poseidon. Children do not choose a religion, it's almost always forced on them.

''Stealing'' is a metaphor for ''indoctrinating''. ''Our children'' is a metaphor for ''future generations''. I thought that was pretty clear...
No 2 year old chooses to be Christian or Muslim.

[Ashmoria]

how do religious people GET your children? are you sending them out to play on sunday morning and going back to sleep without realizing that your neighbor took your kid to church?

No, they take their child's right to interpret the world as they perceive it. Children should have the freedom to live a life without the ghost stories of man! Christian or Muslim children don't even exist. People aren't Christians because they love the religion so much. They are Christians because they were brought up Christian. If they would have been brought up in india they would be Hindu, if they were brought up in classical Greece they would be believing in Zeus and Poseidon. Children do not choose a religion, it's almost always forced on them.

''Stealing'' is a metaphor for ''indoctrinating''. ''Our children'' is a metaphor for ''future generations''. I thought that was pretty clear...
No 2 year old chooses to be Christian or Muslim.

they are teaching THEIR children their beliefs.

its not your children or even our children. its theirs.

[BushSucks-istan]

No, they take their child's right to interpret the world as they perceive it. Children should have the freedom to live a life without the ghost stories of man! Christian or Muslim children don't even exist. People aren't Christians because they love the religion so much. They are Christians because they were brought up Christian. If they would have been brought up in india they would be Hindu, if they were brought up in classical Greece they would be believing in Zeus and Poseidon. Children do not choose a religion, it's almost always forced on them.

''Stealing'' is a metaphor for ''indoctrinating''. ''Our children'' is a metaphor for ''future generations''. I thought that was pretty clear...
No 2 year old chooses to be Christian or Muslim.

they are teaching THEIR children their beliefs.

its not your children or even our children. its theirs.

A child with the potential of becoming the scientist that cures cancer now believes that the Earth is 4000 years old. And is also told (told, not taught) that evolution is a hoax. I can't find the morality in that.

[Ashmoria]

they are teaching THEIR children their beliefs.

its not your children or even our children. its theirs.

A child with the potential of becoming the scientist that cures cancer now believes that the Earth is 4000 years old. And is also told (told, not taught) that evolution is a hoax. I can't find the morality in that.

sucks to be you then.

parents teach their children EVERYTHING. morality, religion, conscience, determination, constancy, loyalty, etc. the only immorality is when a parent fails to teach those things.

[BushSucks-istan]

A child with the potential of becoming the scientist that cures cancer now believes that the Earth is 4000 years old. And is also told (told, not taught) that evolution is a hoax. I can't find the morality in that.

sucks to be you then.

parents teach their children EVERYTHING. morality, religion, conscience, determination, constancy, loyalty, etc. the only immorality is when a parent fails to teach those things.

No they don't. There are enough anti-women social Neanderthal, abstinence obsessive, discriminating zealots, anti-intellectuals. Being con-gay marriage is not moral. Being anti-euthanasia is everything but moral. Martin Luther King gets to call himself a Christian because he actually loved his enemies, but people who rejoice in revenge, torture and war cannot say they are a follower of the guy who explicitly said ''love your enemies'' and ''do good to those who hate you''. The next line isn't ''and if that doesn't work hate them''. Jesus said things like ''Do not repay evil with evil'' and ''Do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you''.

You can not teach a child a religion. That child is not truly a Christian because he or she has never got to experiece Islam or hinduism in the same sense. Terms like ''Christian child'' do not exist. Teaching morality is a good thing as long as it isn't absolute morality. This is absolute morality...

[Ashmoria]

sucks to be you then.

parents teach their children EVERYTHING. morality, religion, conscience, determination, constancy, loyalty, etc. the only immorality is when a parent fails to teach those things.

No they don't. There are enough anti-women social Neanderthal, abstinence obsessive, discriminating zealots, anti-intellectuals. Being con-gay marriage is not moral. Being anti-euthanasia is everything but moral. Martin Luther King gets to call himself a Christian because he actually loved his enemies, but people who rejoice in revenge, torture and war cannot say they are a follower of the guy who explicitly said ''love your enemies'' and ''do good to those who hate you''. The next line isn't ''and if that doesn't work hate them''. Jesus said things like ''Do not repay evil with evil'' and ''Do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you''.

You can not teach a child a religion. That child is not truly a Christian because he or she has never got to experiece Islam or hinduism in the same sense. Terms like ''Christian child'' do not exist. Teaching morality is a good thing as long as it isn't absolute morality. This is absolute morality...

uhhuh

whatever

but no one is stealing anyone's children to indoctrinate them in their religion. they are raising their own children as they see fit. that you dont find it moral is irrelevant.

[BushSucks-istan]

You fail to understand the metaphors.

uhhuh

whatever

I rest my case

[Ashmoria]

You fail to understand the metaphors.

uhhuh

whatever

I rest my case

there were metaphors?

you mean you werent talking about children and religion? are you sure youre in the right thread?

[BushSucks-istan]

you mean you werent talking about children and religion? are you sure youre in the right thread?

''Stealing'' is a metaphor for ''indoctrinating''. ''Our children'' is a metaphor for ''future generations''.

I'm talking about children, I'm talking about religion and I'm talking about indoctrination. And no people do NOT teach faith to kids. If you teach faith to kids you should also teach them Islam and Judaism and Hinduism. People give them one belief and the child can no longer perceive the world freely. That is what I'm talking about. Denying it is useless because it has been shown that children in secular families have a much more free worldview than children in religious families because they only have one view. If a child WANTS to be religious, let the child decide when it CAN. That means when it understands what faith is. If you tell a two year old that ''Jack and the beanstalk'' is the truth and that ''Jonah and the whale'' is a fairy tale, they won't be able to tell the difference from what is happening now (i.e. the other way around). That IS indoctrination. If a child is brought up with no religion (and ''no religion'' is not atheism) and it then chooses to be Christian at the age of --lets say 18-- then it is indeed someone who knows what he is talking about. Then he is someone who chose for himself. If you were brought up in a religion you had no choice.

''If religious instructions were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in a quite different world'' ~Christopher Hitchens