Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > Am I missing anything?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 All_Sarcasm_Intended
Joined: 8/20/2008
Msg: 1
Am I missing anything?Page 1 of 2    (1, 2)
I've been looking into christianity and logically...it just doesn't all add up. Has anyone else come across this? What makes you believe/disbelieve? Also if you believe....could you explain the flaws in my logic that should lead me to believing?

Feel free to inform me if something is missing.
This is written assuming god exists. (I'm currently agnostic... I'd switch to a religion if the shoe fit.)
--------------------------------------------------------------

Ask yourself these 3 questions before you read any further

1) Is there any evil in this world?
2) Would anything that is good, always do the right thing whenever possible.
3) Would anything that is good, destroy evil when it was discovered.

This is a quote from a greek philosopher named Epicurus.


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?


Now according to the Revelations passages in the bible. God has the power to destroy/remove all evil from this world.

Do you think there is any evil in the world? If so, He allows it. That makes him malevolent.....or he cannot stop the suffering, diseases + crime that happen in this world. Which means he is not omnipotent.

If you disagree with that, look at it this way. If I watched someone burn to death knowing that I could easily save them with no risk to myself if I wanted to...would that make me evil or could I still be considered a good person?


Luke 18:19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.


Does this passage still make sense to you?

The point I'm trying to make is, God has free will. He does what he wants to.


Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


This makes sense now. He created us in his image. With the capability to do both good and evil. Like him.

Read Deuteronomy 20, 21 or 22. Murder is accepted in the bible under the right circumstances.


Leviticus 25:44-46

44 And as for your male and female slaves whom you may haveā€”from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. 45 Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. 46 And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves. But regarding your brethren, the children of Israel, you shall not rule over one another with rigor.


It isnt the slavery here that I disagree with. Slavery comes in many forms. The problem is...when most people hear the word slavery they immediately think of the southern states before the civil war. We can enter contracts for work. That is the same as slavery. Except there are more rules and regulations with modern day slavery.

The part of that I disagree with, is the favortism. You are not allowed to treat a jewish person the same way you would treat other people.

Is that not the basis for racism? Is racism not evil?

I'll ask you one more time, what makes you believe? Logically I just can't piece it together.
 herrethica
Joined: 11/19/2009
Msg: 2
view profile
History
Am I missing anything?
Posted: 2/17/2010 12:18:05 AM
hitting the bong/crack pipe huh
 themadfiddler
Joined: 12/9/2009
Msg: 3
Am I missing anything?
Posted: 2/17/2010 11:57:15 AM
To the OP:

IMHO you are approaching the book in the wrong way. First off, you are assuming way too much about it by assuming it is an easy to read, literal instruction manual/historical account/moral guide. This makes it very easy to read out of context. If you are, as you say, a logical person then I have to question your approach in this thread.

You are attempting to get your readers to defend their belief from false premises i.e. literal belief in which you are assuming for purpose of argument but likely do not believe yourself and thus making for a whole lot of internally inconsistent and out of context problems.

Why? Because this book is a book of myths and cosmology and is not, nor was meant to be an historical account of any kind as we know them today but a collection of stories relating the faith relationships of two religions (if we take the whole Christian Bible) mashed together into one semi-consistent story...

So, are you serious, or just trolling? And if serious, maybe you should rephrase the question in a more logical fashion...like if you believe in what seems on the surface to be logically inconsistent stories, based on a literal reading, why do you?
 *sass*
Joined: 11/2/2008
Msg: 4
Am I missing anything?
Posted: 2/17/2010 5:35:02 PM
I know a man who is in love with a christian woman. He is not christian. They have been together for many years, happily so, but this has been kept somewhat of a secret because her family is VERY religious. He recently proposed to her though, so things are about to change..

He has been flirting with the idea of taking her religion on for some time, but hasn't taken the 'mantle' on as of yet.

Her family have had conversations with him about how he should just 'do it', come to christ and all of that. But he is an intellectual and things have to sort of 'add up' before he can just blindly step in..

At the same time, he's not entirely sure what he is even waiting for since he really respects his fiance and her family, sees the benefits of their belief system, so why not just step in? Maybe it can add up later?

Is something 'missing' in him because he has these questions? On the contrary! And either decision that he makes is one that I would fully respect because I see how he has approached the entire scenario.

For myself, and perhaps I am not qualified to answer because I am not a christian, but I believe that the heart has a logic all its own..
 All_Sarcasm_Intended
Joined: 8/20/2008
Msg: 5
Am I missing anything?
Posted: 2/17/2010 8:30:27 PM


Why? Because this book is a book of myths and cosmology and is not, nor was meant to be an historical account of any kind as we know them today but a collection of stories relating the faith relationships of two religions (if we take the whole Christian Bible) mashed together into one semi-consistent story...

So, are you serious, or just trolling? And if serious, maybe you should rephrase the question in a more logical fashion...like if you believe in what seems on the surface to be logically inconsistent stories, based on a literal reading, why do you?



I'm not trolling. I don't think I really needed to phrase it differently. Really I think I'd be stuck regardless. If I didn't see inconsistencies, I would be told to take the bible literally and that it was absolute truth. But, since there are inconsistencies, I'm told not to take it literally.

Besides...if I approached all religions like they were mythology and never meant to be believed. What would be the point on educating myself on religions?

I just don't understand how anyone could believe if they read through it and saw the inconsistencies and contradictions.

How is anything I've used out of context?
 Uncle Fist
Joined: 12/18/2006
Msg: 6
Am I missing anything?
Posted: 2/19/2010 8:57:20 AM

Do you think there is any evil in the world? If so, He allows it. That makes him malevolent.....


This seems to be a rather short-sighted conclusion in my opinion. Just as obstacles exist for the purpose of gaining strength through overcoming them, it stands to reason that evil likely serves a purpose that ultimately allows for the growth of greater good.
 monalee1
Joined: 10/22/2007
Msg: 7
Am I missing anything?
Posted: 2/20/2010 11:02:05 PM
hi.. God Allows mankind to freely choose between His Government of Harmony and Peace or satans government which is the here and now... evil is allowed only for the time necessary for mankind to make the choice and for the Universe to see the results of a government void of Gods Holy and Perfect Laws... blessings with this
 arwen52
Joined: 3/13/2008
Msg: 8
view profile
History
Am I missing anything?
Posted: 2/21/2010 9:22:17 AM
Why are you applying logic to religion? Religion is about faith. Faith does not, by its nature, have to be logical.

Faith fills a need for many people. Unfortunately, many people misuse it to mistreat others who do not share their particular faith.

Using logic to understand religion is like using chemistry to understand Spanish.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 9
view profile
History
Am I missing anything?
Posted: 2/22/2010 8:37:45 AM
Yes. You posted the following:
This is a quote from a greek philosopher named Epicurus.
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 makes the assumption that the appropriate action in the presence of evil is to always remove it. The Creator would have created everything, including evil. However, Epicurus doesn't ask why a Creator created evil in the first place.

Likewise, we can ask other more pertinent questions. For instance, Epicurus would doubtless agree that imprisonment is an evil. If a parent "grounds" his child because he hit another child, this would be imprisonment, and therefore, according to Epicurus, no good parent would do this. Yet, most people would agree that it would be wrong to not give the child some punishment, to discourage such violent behaviour, and that grounding the child would be a reasonable punishment for such behaviour, in the interests of the child.

Further, there are plenty of organisations that restrict evil, such as the Guardian Angels in Manchester, and my own teacher's little group, who would patrol the streets when he was young, to keep them safe from violent crime. However, most people do not do that. According to Epicurus, most people would thus be able to prevent evil, but do not. Yet we would agree that most people are not malevolent for not patrolling the streets out of their own good will in their free time.

Clearly, Epicurus' argument is a starting-point for a discussion about the nature of good and evil, and their purposes in the world, but is in no way an answer, for it does not answer anything that can relate to our own experiences.
 All_Sarcasm_Intended
Joined: 8/20/2008
Msg: 10
Am I missing anything?
Posted: 2/22/2010 8:08:48 PM

Epicurus makes the assumption that the appropriate action in the presence of evil is to always remove it. The Creator would have created everything, including evil. However, Epicurus doesn't ask why a Creator created evil in the first place


Good point.


However, most people do not do that. According to Epicurus, most people would thus be able to prevent evil, but do not. Yet we would agree that most people are not malevolent for not patrolling the streets out of their own good will in their free time.


God is supposed to be all good. Humans aren't. If humanity was all good what evil would exist in the world? But then again if humanity was all good, we couldn't define evil. What is good and what is evil is just a matter of perspective.



Why are you applying logic to religion? Religion is about faith. Faith does not, by its nature, have to be logical.

Faith fills a need for many people. Unfortunately, many people misuse it to mistreat others who do not share their particular faith.

Using logic to understand religion is like using chemistry to understand Spanish.


Well said. You're right. I shouldn't apply logic to faith. I'd like to understand the reasons for faith but, its pretty hard when you don't believe.


If you were Eastern of lived in another time, logic may not be mainstream thought for you. Nor was it for ancient Israel, or Paul the apostle, who began dealing with the authors of logic in Greece.

Ideally like Paul, we should continually experience Jesus presence.


If....If is a pretty big word. IF he revealed himself to me perhaps I'd believe. IF you lived the life I've lived perhaps you'd think the same way I do.

Also, I'm going to ask you to leave the "we should" out of this. . I respect that you are taking time to have input on this. However, religion is a matter of personal choice. I don't ask you to believe what I believe. I don't expect you to ask me to believe what you believe in either.


.. God Allows mankind to freely choose between His Government of Harmony and Peace or satans government which is the here and now... evil is allowed only for the time necessary for mankind to make the choice and for the Universe to see the results of a government void of Gods Holy and Perfect Laws... blessings with this


You do know that humanity has been around for over 100 000 years right?
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 11
view profile
History
Am I missing anything?
Posted: 2/23/2010 2:09:22 PM
RE Msg: 13 by mike3193:

Epicurus makes the assumption that the appropriate action in the presence of evil is to always remove it. The Creator would have created everything, including evil. However, Epicurus doesn't ask why a Creator created evil in the first place
Good point.
Good. Now ask why.


However, most people do not do that. According to Epicurus, most people would thus be able to prevent evil, but do not. Yet we would agree that most people are not malevolent for not patrolling the streets out of their own good will in their free time.
God is supposed to be all good. Humans aren't.
That's no excuse for humans being malevolent.

Most humans aren't malevolent. But most humans don't really think out the full consequences of their actions either. So a lot of the time, people make accusations about other people and then only later on realise they were wrong, like jealous boyfriends who accuse their girlfriends of cheating, and then later on realise that it was all in their imagination. The same happens with G-d. But fortunately, G-d can be a lot more forgiving than your girlfriend is likely to be.

If humanity was all good what evil would exist in the world?
Earthquakes?

But then again if humanity was all good, we couldn't define evil.
Only because it wouldn't bother you. People without an inclination to cheat, invariably never consider if their partner is cheating on them. It just doesn't become a problem for them.

What is good and what is evil is just a matter of perspective.
It's a matter of perspective, if we are talking about relative versions of morality. For instance, I once read that in the different tribes of South Sea Islanders, some tribes said that it was OK to marry your mother but not your sister, and other tribes said it was OK to marry your sister but not your mother.

But it's preferable to avoid relative versions of morality. After all, to Hannibal Lecter, it's not evil to end the life of someone who is rude. But to me and many others, it isn't. I'm not sure that would work well, to have such relative moralities in the same society.
 JMars
Joined: 10/14/2006
Msg: 12
Am I missing anything?
Posted: 2/23/2010 2:32:51 PM

What is good and what is evil is just a matter of perspective.


Not entirely.

Judging by the strict definition of the words good and evil; good is those virtues that enable and sustain the wholeness of community, while evil is that which seeks to undermine and breakdown the wholeness of community.

Any survey of ethics amongst the various cultures of man reveal certain common features, which might differ widely in cultural implementation (which is where relativity comes in), but prevail nevertheless in regards to good and evil. Such acts against the in-group as killing, wounding, theft, vandalisim, adultery (see killing), defiling one's own word, etc. are universally deemed (by the various cultures of man) as contrary to the health of community.

So, the matter is both as relative and as absolute as anything else in nature.
 All_Sarcasm_Intended
Joined: 8/20/2008
Msg: 13
Am I missing anything?
Posted: 2/27/2010 10:33:55 AM
Scorpiomover,

You say earthquakes are evil. Why? What is your criteria for evil?


if we are talking about relative versions of morality


What other types of morality is there? Any judgement based solely on human emotion is relative. Just because some things are generally accepted as moral doesn't make them absolutely moral.


Judging by the strict definition of the words good and evil; good is those virtues that enable and sustain the wholeness of community, while evil is that which seeks to undermine and breakdown the wholeness of community.

Any survey of ethics amongst the various cultures of man reveal certain common features, which might differ widely in cultural implementation (which is where relativity comes in), but prevail nevertheless in regards to good and evil. Such acts against the in-group as killing, wounding, theft, vandalisim, adultery (see killing), defiling one's own word, etc. are universally deemed (by the various cultures of man) as contrary to the health of community.


Definition of Absolute: complete and without restriction or qualification

The Mayans believed in human sacrifice. Human Sacrifice is killing is it not?
They believed human sacrifice would appease their gods which would allow their society to flourish. For example they felt if they did not make sacrifices to their rain god. There would be no rain and their crops would wither. So in their perspective, It enabled and helped sustain their community.

So let me say this again. Any judgement based solely on human emotion is relative.
 monalee1
Joined: 10/22/2007
Msg: 14
Am I missing anything?
Posted: 2/27/2010 1:21:03 PM
hi... earthquakes are not evil, they are the result of sin in our world... God did not create the world imperfect, He Created it Perfect for the Perfect Pair... when the first humans decided to believe a serpent instead of God, they and the world began to deteriorate... I mean the bible says that before the fall the roses were without thorns and herbs became poisonous and animals became preditors after the fall... God did not create evil, evil is the result of separation from the Source of Goodness, just as darkness is the result of the absence of light... there is a Moral Code Set by God and from what I read in the bible this world is the only world in disobedience to This Code and this still does not include everyone on earth for some choose submission to God which leads to obedience.... blessings
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 15
view profile
History
Am I missing anything?
Posted: 2/27/2010 4:11:21 PM
RE Msg: 17 by mike3193:
Scorpiomover,

You say earthquakes are evil. Why? What is your criteria for evil?
I don't think earthquakes are evil. But those who ask why G-d does "evil" things, like Voltaire, do include earthquakes amongst them, presumably because lots of people die in earthquakes.


if we are talking about relative versions of morality
What other types of morality is there? Any judgement based solely on human emotion is relative.
That's exactly right. Morality based solely on human emotion is relative. In the same way, those who accused G-d of doing "evil" things, and consider "evil" to include death of human life, based on their emotional feelings about the mortality of humanity, are making accusations based on relative standards of morality.

Just because some things are generally accepted as moral doesn't make them absolutely moral.
That's also true. Morality that is based on society's values of the moment, are equally relative. Today, our society holds many values, that were not true in previous times. Many people have a problem with religions that go against the morals they have that are only representative of our society in the present day.

Judging by the strict definition of the words good and evil; good is those virtues that enable and sustain the wholeness of community, while evil is that which seeks to undermine and breakdown the wholeness of community.
That's one definition. But I still accept that even that definition is dependent on a certain view of morality, that morality is dependent on what is good for the community.

I'd personally agree that much of what is called good, and much of what is called evil, does agree with that definition. But I could not totally agree with it, as in communist U.S.S.R., it did unify the people to make capitalism the enemy of humanity. Likewise, in Germany in WWII, describing the Jews as being the enemy of all humanity, only really threatened the Jews, who were only 0.5% of the population anyway, and did support the community of Germany as a whole, as they were 99.5% of the population of Germany. So while I can agree that good is very often in common with what is beneficial for the community, I cannot say that is a clear definition of good, at least, not for me.

Any survey of ethics amongst the various cultures of man reveal certain common features, which might differ widely in cultural implementation (which is where relativity comes in), but prevail nevertheless in regards to good and evil. Such acts against the in-group as killing, wounding, theft, vandalisim, adultery (see killing), defiling one's own word, etc. are universally deemed (by the various cultures of man) as contrary to the health of community.
That is what we were told. But it's clearly not true. Killing was certainly acceptable in many societies, including the popularity of infanticide in Greek and Roman societies, and the popularity of assassination in Naples in the Middle Ages. Wounding was very popular when duels were popular, all over Europe. Even today, a scar, a mark that indicates one was wounded, is often regarded as a badge of pride. Theft is considered socially acceptable today, in the form of teenage shoplifting, and is so accepted that shops factor in the cost of shoplifting into their pricing structures. Graffiti is vandalism, and yet is considered a popular form of urban art, and often are applauded as things that help unite communities. Adultery is considered perfectly acceptable in our society. As you can see, its easy to see that when we observe societal values across different places and different times, we see that all of these values are relative.

Definition of Absolute: complete and without restriction or qualification
One could say this is true. But when one talks about something that is absolute versus relative, such as absolute space-time versus relative space-time, we are not interested in the definition of absoluteness, as much as the distinction we are making. Otherwise, we would say that the Newtonian definition of the universe was without restriction or qualification, not even the restrictions offered by gravity, such as in a black hole, and I doubt anyone would claim that, not even Newton.

When we talk about absolute versus relative, we tend to mean that if something is relative, then it is only be true for some people, but not for all people, and when something is absolute, it is true for all people.

So let me say this again. Any judgement based solely on human emotion is relative.
Again, I agree with this wholeheartedly, which is why I am adamant that people's criticisms of anything based on moral objections should be devoid of emotional considerations. So anyone has a right to say that criticise G-d for causing deaths of humans. But only if they wouldn't mind being murdered. Otherwise, they'd be objecting about things they only see as immoral, because they have personal feelings against it.
 VVendy
Joined: 6/7/2008
Msg: 16
Am I missing anything?
Posted: 2/27/2010 4:30:26 PM

If I didn't see inconsistencies, I would be told to take the bible literally....How is anything I've used out of context?


God made people to be like God who does not have to answer to any body because he is all powerful. Tom Hanks drew a face on a soccer ball for the same reason it is lonely being the only one like you. Unlike the soccer ball you have a choice even in if you want never see God or anything He made/makes ever again.

The Bible is right that there is a beginning and will be an end to everything. Simple Physics.
The Bible is right that the earth formed water on its surface, that life was first in the water then land first simple than complex, first plants than animals, last came humans. as seen in the fossil record.

The Bible was right that people are willing to enslave their self, their children, and thier neighbor for profit, for food, for the fun of it. Sociology studies show the pattern in Deuteronomy of blessing and cursing of a nation are observable.

God made you for the fun of it and wants to spend time with you because you were made to be just like Him. He is sad when you are and wants the very best for you. It hurts God to see you in pain that is why the Bible says over and over remember me and my commands that it may go well with you.

Case in point alcohol. He say you can drink and he says you may not be a drunk. Is that really a contradiction? Can you take a drink and not be drunk? Yes who knows how much you and God.

God gave Israel's children to Egypt to be slaves for 400 years. They can not enslave each other as they were owned by God. A stranger can eat any meat because God promised Noah and his children that they can eat anything that grows or moves on the Earth. If a person reads Deuteronomy he may think that God is telling the Israelites that they can sell bad meat to strangers because they do not matter. God is no respecter of persons so the "God is racist" statement is wrong and only can be made by taking text out of context.
 All_Sarcasm_Intended
Joined: 8/20/2008
Msg: 17
Am I missing anything?
Posted: 2/27/2010 8:54:16 PM

God gave Israel's children to Egypt to be slaves for 400 years. They can not enslave each other as they were owned by God. A stranger can eat any meat because God promised Noah and his children that they can eat anything that grows or moves on the Earth. If a person reads Deuteronomy he may think that God is telling the Israelites that they can sell bad meat to strangers because they do not matter. God is no respecter of persons so the "God is racist" statement is wrong and only can be made by taking text out of context.


I don't know why you're talking about meat. I was talking about slavery. Read Levicticus 25 39-55. There is different rules for "Israel's children" and "strangers". I don't see why your descent entitles you to different treatment. Treating someone differently based on descent is racism. As for the "They can not enslave each other as they were owned by God." God supposedly created all of us. So, wouldn't that mean God owns all of us?
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 18
view profile
History
Am I missing anything?
Posted: 2/28/2010 3:41:16 AM
RE Msg: 21 by mike3193:
I was talking about slavery. Read Levicticus 25 39-55. There is different rules for "Israel's children" and "strangers". I don't see why your descent entitles you to different treatment. Treating someone differently based on descent is racism. As for the "They can not enslave each other as they were owned by God." God supposedly created all of us. So, wouldn't that mean God owns all of us?
The Bible doesn't say that there are "different rules" for slavery for "Israel's children" and "strangers". It says there are different rules for the people of your community, than for the rest of humanity, according to their views that relate to their upbringing.

We all agree that we would like to choose where we work. But when we examine the behaviour of slaves after the American Civil War, most chose to stay with their masters. So when we examine what actually happens, we see that most slaves had no problem with their situation. What most slaves were unhappy about, was their ill-treatment.

The Bible already states clearly that if a master mistreats his slave, like putting his eye out, or knocking out a tooth, then the slave has to go free. So the freedom of slaves that are ill-treated is already mandatory. So in reality, if we were to adopt a system of slavery as dictated in the Bible, then slaves would have been happy to stay as they were, even if they were all freed anyway.

The difference between an Israelite and a non-Israelite, is that the Israelite already has a prior responsibility to do G-d's instructions, in all the aspects of his life. The Israelite has to be freed after a maximum of 7 years, so that the Israelite never gets to the point at which he considers his work responsibilities as more important than his responsibilities to G-d. A non-Israelite has no such heavy obligation expected of him/her, and so has no need to be freed. He is free to work for his employer for his entire life in contentment and happiness.
 JMars
Joined: 10/14/2006
Msg: 19
Am I missing anything?
Posted: 2/28/2010 11:32:43 AM

I wrote: Judging by the strict definition of the words good and evil; good is those virtues that enable and sustain the wholeness of community, while evil is that which seeks to undermine and breakdown the wholeness of community.

Scorpiomover responded: That's one definition. But I still accept that even that definition is dependent on a certain view of morality, that morality is dependent on what is good for the community.


No offense scorp, but that is THE technical definition of *good*; though one is of course free to disagree with the term and it's meaning, especially when one is talking of nonGermanic ethics. But so long as we are kicking the Germanic term *good* (or *evil*) around, we might care to know what we are actually talking about.


But I could not totally agree with it, as in communist U.S.S.R., it did unify the people to make capitalism the enemy of humanity. Likewise, in Germany in WWII, describing the Jews as being the enemy of all humanity, only really threatened the Jews, who were only 0.5% of the population anyway, and did support the community of Germany as a whole, as they were 99.5% of the population of Germany. So while I can agree that good is very often in common with what is beneficial for the community, I cannot say that is a clear definition of good, at least, not for me.


I would say that the treatment of the Jews in WW II Germany is an excellent example of evil ... of **exceeding due limits** and thereby **undemining the health** of the whole. This can be seen in the results of the actionsof the Nazis and the taint they have left both on the people of Germany and anyone of Germanic descendent who dares to show any pride in their heritage; no matter that their Germanic ancestors fought against the Nazis and have the scars to prove it.

Part of maintaining the health of one's community afterall involves both international relations, and most certainly how one treats certain segments of one's society.

And where is the macro-organism of Nazi society today? Where is the macro-organism of the U.S.S.R.?

Like any organism that refused to aknowledge and live within the "due limits" that maintain macro-organic wholeness, they are dead.
 NerdStatus
Joined: 1/9/2007
Msg: 20
view profile
History
Am I missing anything?
Posted: 2/28/2010 12:53:26 PM

Likewise, in Germany in WWII, describing the Jews as being the enemy of all humanity, only really threatened the Jews, who were only 0.5% of the population anyway, and did support the community of Germany as a whole, as they were 99.5% of the population of Germany. So while I can agree that good is very often in common with what is beneficial for the community, I cannot say that is a clear definition of good, at least, not for me.

You understand that they also rounded up the polish, Chinese, Gays... etc etc etc... right?
 All_Sarcasm_Intended
Joined: 8/20/2008
Msg: 21
Am I missing anything?
Posted: 3/18/2010 7:17:57 PM

I would say that the treatment of the Jews in WW II Germany is an excellent example of evil ... of **exceeding due limits** and thereby **undemining the health** of the whole. This can be seen in the results of the actionsof the Nazis and the taint they have left both on the people of Germany and anyone of Germanic descendent who dares to show any pride in their heritage; no matter that their Germanic ancestors fought against the Nazis and have the scars to prove it.

Part of maintaining the health of one's community afterall involves both international relations, and most certainly how one treats certain segments of one's society.


Germany lost the war because America was brought into it by the Japan attacking Pearl Harbor. Not because of the way they treated people.


Like any organism that refused to aknowledge and live within the "due limits" that maintain macro-organic wholeness, they are dead.


It's easy to say that the USSR and Nazi Germany failed because they "undermined the health" and "exceeded due limits"

Doesn't organized crime "undermine the health" of society?

If so, Why is it still around? And if you are to reply "It hasn't exceeded due limits";
quantify "Due Limits".

How much is too much?
 JP1111
Joined: 4/13/2008
Msg: 22
Am I missing anything?
Posted: 4/6/2010 11:54:40 PM
If you ask ME, it doesn't add up simply because man is the one who tried to piece things together from day 1.

You see, I don't even believe in God simply because I am one to believe in facts and I do not see the bible or the church as the teacher of factual things, only things that have been passed down from person to person, written in books, translated again and again, made it into a religion, it then spawning off many other religions etc...

So if you look into Christianity, right off the bat the information you will be obtaining will not be factual.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 23
Am I missing anything?
Posted: 4/7/2010 11:52:58 AM


Epicurus makes the assumption that the appropriate action in the presence of evil is to always remove it. The Creator would have created everything, including evil. However, Epicurus doesn't ask why a Creator created evil in the first place.


Consider:



Is He able, but not willing?
Then He is malevolent.


If God created evil then he must be malevolent, if we follow the logic of Epicurus. Even if evil is done for the greater good there are still victims of the evil. Does good and evil just become a numbers game? Can't an omnipotent God achieve the greater good without the accompanying lesser evil? If not, then in what sense is said God omnipotent?
 JMars
Joined: 10/14/2006
Msg: 24
Am I missing anything?
Posted: 4/7/2010 1:38:16 PM
Germany lost the war because America was brought into it by the Japan attacking Pearl Harbor. Not because of the way they treated people.


LOL. Typical American "brilliance". I'm just going to leave this one alone.


It's easy to say that the USSR and Nazi Germany failed because they "undermined the health" and "exceeded due limits"

Doesn't organized crime "undermine the health" of society?

If so, Why is it still around? And if you are to reply "It hasn't exceeded due limits";
quantify "Due Limits".

How much is too much?


You might care to note which way the wind is blowing friend, and how man's collective inability to live within due limits is impacting not only individuals and society, but the world itself.
 All_Sarcasm_Intended
Joined: 8/20/2008
Msg: 25
Am I missing anything?
Posted: 4/26/2010 11:55:14 AM

LOL. Typical American "brilliance". I'm just going to leave this one alone


American? I think not. 100% Canadian. My grandfather and his 4 brothers all served in the Canadian military during WWII. I simply give credit where it is due. How hard is it to click view profile and check where I'm from? You need to learn to use facts instead of assumptions.



You might care to note which way the wind is blowing friend, and how man's collective inability to live within due limits is impacting not only individuals and society, but the world itself.


Are you dodging my question? I'm still waiting for you to quantify due limits.
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > Am I missing anything?