Religion?

[EnterPseudonym]

Well to start,

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Epicurus – Greek philosopher, BC 341-270
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gAeYxgwuSo

"As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good."

I'll continue with my original point when he replies.

 

[Hershey]

"As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good."

How exactly can someone produce good from evil?`

 

[EnterPseudonym]

How exactly can someone produce good from evil?`

Well quite simply, the apocalypse.
It is said in the book of revelations that after the apocalypse happens there will be a time when Jesus reigns and there will be no evil, but for this to happen there has to be evil.

 

[Escher]

I honestly don't understand why zmikecuber posted from Summa Theologica. St Thomas Aquinas' arguments are 700 years old and although an interesting waypoint for Western philosophy, certainly not relevant any more. Objections are reasonably put forward here: http://much-ado-about-nothing-homar.blogspot.com/2007/10/five-ways-of-aquinas_07.html

There are very few arguments that provide anything close to proof in God and I wish that people would stop posting ancient and disproved ones here.

 

[ZamHalen]

No, that's not what I said at all.
There are good lessons in the Bible, and there are bad lessons in the Bible. Some people like the Westboro Baptist Church members pay attention to all of the Bible, and spread hatred. Some people, "normal" Christians, generally ignore the bad stuff and follow the good stuff.

Here's the problem though. How do they know which parts to ignore and which parts to follow? The only way they would know is if they already had a morality system within them, independent from the religion. So, the Bible isn't giving them any morals, they are getting it from themselves. The Bible doesn't inspire people to do good things, because people already do good things. The Bible only inspires people to do bad things, like the Westboro Baptist Church.

Well there is a very closed minded idea, as I would argue that people who twist the bible inspire people to do bad things. Also in terms of morals in Christianity those are obviously derived from the 10 commandments are they not?

 

[Chapuunka]

What most Christians do could be considered extreme. They ignore certain parts of the Bible and consider other parts. They pick and choose parts of the Bible because they know better, in other words, they are overriding the Bible with their own morals because their own morals are superior to the morals of the Bible. So in essence, Christianity and the Bible become useless for morality. So then, the only thing that Christianity is doing is influencing the people that you call "extremists" to do the terrible things that they do.

They're doinitwrong. If you say you believe that the Bible is holy and inspired Word of the Almighty God, then you should listen to the whole thing, and it's definitely not up to you to pick and choose relevant pieces for yourself.

The Bible doesn't inspire people to do good things, because people already do good things.

Not really.

What is even meant by "good"? How do you define morals? Historically, the definition has come through religion, but if you're rejecting that, then is there an objective moral standard? If not, is it up to each person to decide for themselves what is "good"? If so, what if someone decides that it is very good (for them) to slam doors into people's faces, is that still okay?

 

[EnterPseudonym]

I just noticed he is offline, so I will continue without him.

Lets start off:

If God is omniscient then he can see into the future and past, and see his future actions.
If God is omnipotent then he can do anything he wants e.g. water into wine.
However if God is both then he can see his future actions and these actions must be true.
If these actions are true, then when time comes that God must take this action he must take the action he has foreseen or he is not omniscient, but If he must take that action that would not make him omnipotent, for he cannot do what he pleases. Yet if he can take another action than the one he foresaw, he is omnipotent but not omniscient. Therefore, why call him God if he can't be both omniscient and omnipotent?

 

[EnterPseudonym]

What is even meant by "good"? How do you define morals? Historically, the definition has come through religion, but if you're rejecting that, then is there an objective moral standard? If not, is it up to each person to decide for themselves what is "good"? If so, what if someone decides that it is very good (for them) to slam doors into people's faces, is that still okay?

I agree, morals, ethics, and many other things are defined by society. If you look back the Greeks used to think that the purist form of love was between two men and that love between a man and woman was a stepping stone to true love. Now look at Homosexuality in America today. Totally different.

 

[PatrickJameson]

What is even meant by "good"? How do you define morals? Historically, the definition has come through religion, but if you're rejecting that, then is there an objective moral standard? If not, is it up to each person to decide for themselves what is "good"? If so, what if someone decides that it is very good (for them) to slam doors into people's faces, is that still okay?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKxLb4Lx6A0#t=3m50s

This is a great response to where atheists get their morals.

(imma reply to zmarkcuber's paste of St. Thomas Aquinas's writing in little while. Just wanted to get this link out).

 

[Weston]

Well there is a very closed minded idea, as I would argue that people who twist the bible inspire people to do bad things. Also in terms of morals in Christianity those are obviously derived from the 10 commandments are they not?

The morals of Christianity are not exclusive to Christianity. It's not Christianity, the 10 commandments, or the Bible that make people do good things.

They're doinitwrong. If you say you believe that the Bible is holy and inspired Word of the Almighty God, then you should listen to the whole thing, and it's definitely not up to you to pick and choose relevant pieces for yourself.

I'm confused.
Are trying to tell me to do this...?
I'm not saying that I do this, or people should do this. I'm just saying that most Christians do this. Whether or not this is true to Christianity is irrelevant to my point.

Not really.

What is even meant by "good"? How do you define morals? Historically, the definition has come through religion, but if you're rejecting that, then is there an objective moral standard? If not, is it up to each person to decide for themselves what is "good"? If so, what if someone decides that it is very good (for them) to slam doors into people's faces, is that still okay?

Objective morality has been defined by evolution.
Morals do NOT come from religion. Are you saying there were no morals before the first religion?

 

[Chapuunka]

I'm confused.
Are trying to tell me to do this...?
I'm not saying that I do this, or people should do this. I'm just saying that most Christians do this. Whether or not this is true to Christianity is irrelevant to my point.

I meant "you" in a general sense. I was just clarifying, as you probably already know, that "Christians" who trim the Bible to their beliefs are wrong.

Are you saying there were no morals before the first religion?

We disagree on that time anyway, so it's not really relevant to the current discussion.

 

[ZamHalen]

The morals of Christianity are not exclusive to Christianity. It's not Christianity, the 10 commandments, or the Bible that make people do good things.

Exactly, but you asked where the morals of Christianity came from and I gave you an answer. Also please stop changing the subject every post it is becoming annoying.

 

[zmikecuber]

I just noticed he is offline, so I will continue without him.

Lets start off:

If God is omniscient then he can see into the future and past, and see his future actions.
If God is omnipotent then he can do anything he wants e.g. water into wine.
However if God is both then he can see his future actions and these actions must be true.
If these actions are true, then when time comes that God must take this action he must take the action he has foreseen or he is not omniscient, but If he must take that action that would not make him omnipotent, for he cannot do what he pleases. Yet if he can take another action than the one he foresaw, he is omnipotent but not omniscient. Therefore, why call him God if he can't be both omniscient and omnipotent?

This is stemming from a misunderstanding of the concept of God.

If God is omniscient then he can see into the future and past, and see his future actions.

God is outside of time. He does not abide to time, since He created it. He doesnt see his future actions in the way we do. I believe Einstein proved that the passage of time is merely an illusion...?

So... yes, the "God" you are describing, which abides to time, makes no sense.

and to reply to all the things people have said, since theres so many people against me on here (my own fault heh heh) is going to take a little bit of time... and Im really tired right now, so I will reply again in the morning. dont have TOO much fun without me.

 

[Weston]

Exactly, but you asked where the morals of Christianity came from and I gave you an answer. Also please stop changing the subject every post it is becoming annoying.

I'm not changing the topic. You're just misinterpreting what I am saying so I am saying it in different ways.
What I was saying was that the Bible tells you to make certain exceptions to the 10 commandments. Many people don't follow these exceptions because they realize that these exceptions are morally wrong. They realize that they should do this because they have their own morality.

 

[Specs112]

This is stemming from a misunderstanding of the concept of God.

How convenient. Since you're defending something that's essentially made up, you can just change whatever the proper understanding of it is to suit whatever you need to argue.

That's adorable.

 

[ZamHalen]

I'm not changing the topic. You're just misinterpreting what I am saying so I am saying it in different ways.
What I was saying was that the Bible tells you to make certain exceptions to the 10 commandments. Many people don't follow these exceptions because they realize that these exceptions are morally wrong. They realize that they should do this because they have their own morality.

I have to say that the subject has strayed from the original argument. But onto the the argument at hand. The exceptions you are talking about are subjective and are dependent on the situations which aren't as common as you may claim.

 

[Jorghi]

Nobody knows God's concepts, and 'nobody' knows if God is real. Obviously nobody is in quotes.
If you are using science to disprove religion, you are only doing to based on human observation of the natural world. For that is what science is.

We don't even know what we know. We are just classifying it based on its observable characterists by technology and humans.

 

[Muesli]

The question that Christians have to ask themselves is what makes them choose which part(s) of the bible they follow and which they don't. ZamHalen, you said that Christian morals are based off the 10 commandments, but what makes you choose that passage over any other? What about the parts in the bible that endorse slavery? Or the parts that command you to stone an insubordinate son to death at the edge of town? Or the part that commands you to marry the woman that you rape? It's all part of the same book and it's all commanded by the same God, so what makes one part more worthy than the others? Unless your God has changed his mind, which would contradict how he is defined by most Christians (Omniscient)

The reason you choose some over the others is that you know that some are bad. You know that owning another human as property is wrong, and always has been regardless of what your God may have decreed (I'd like to see anyone try and argue otherwise). This is because you decide your own morality. It's obviously not God given otherwise we'd still all be out there raping and slashing open the pregnant wombs of our enemies because 'God sed so lol'

Take some credit for being a moral human being. Be proud of it.

 

[EnterPseudonym]

This is stemming from a misunderstanding of the concept of God.



God is outside of time. He does not abide to time, since He created it. He doesnt see his future actions in the way we do. I believe Einstein proved that the passage of time is merely an illusion...?

So... yes, the "God" you are describing, which abides to time, makes no sense.

and to reply to all the things people have said, since theres so many people against me on here (my own fault heh heh) is going to take a little bit of time... and Im really tired right now, so I will reply again in the morning. dont have TOO much fun without me.

If he exists outside of time, then you're trying to convince someone of something they can't comprehend. Like wise if they can't understand it, then It's highly unlikely you can comprehend it.

 

[ZamHalen]

The question that Christians have to ask themselves is what makes them choose which part(s) of the bible they follow and which they don't. ZamHalen, you said that Christian morals are based off the 10 commandments, but what makes you choose that passage over any other? What about the parts in the bible that endorse slavery? Or the parts that command you to stone an insubordinate son to death at the edge of town? Or the part that commands you to marry the woman that you rape? It's all part of the same book and it's all commanded by the same God, so what makes one part more worthy than the others? Unless your God has changed his mind, which would contradict how he is defined by most Christians (Omniscient)

The reason you choose some over the others is that you know that some are bad. You know that owning another human as property is wrong, and always has been regardless of what your God may have decreed (I'd like to see anyone try and argue otherwise). This is because you decide your own morality. It's obviously not God given otherwise we'd still all be out there raping and slashing open the pregnant wombs of our enemies because 'God sed so lol'

Take some credit for being a moral human being. Be proud of it.

Well for one the bible is subject to interpretation.An atheist such as yourself and others will read the bible in an entirely literal sense because you want to, one group of Christians may see it in a literal sense also, while another group may look at it in terms of metaphor and that's where it gets hard for me to argue, as I mostly know my own beliefs and very little of others. e.g. I know what the basics of Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and other religions including other christian denominations.But as I don't practice any of those I can't speak for their beliefs.
BTW the rape punishment is an interesting idea, though it may cause polygamy which by most modern standards is bad.