i can not say it better.. .
Thanks Sero, but that was not the thrust of my comment.
I was not attempting to present an argument for the correctness of theism from numbers of believers, but to show that calling them mentally deranged was arrogant.
I liked your explanation, however.
Burn
here's a question that came up in a bible study... why would matthew include a lineage at the very begining of his book?.
.
Hi Shawn,
The consensus among experts in the field is that Jesus was a historical figure the view that he was a myth is in the minority:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
There is also archeological evidence that David was a real person:
The "House of David" on the Tel Dan Stela.
The Mesha Stela mentions King Omri, who ruled in the northern kingdom of Israel after the united kingdom split.
The Shishak Reliefdepicts Egypt's victory over King Rehoboam, David's grandson, when Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem was sacked.
Just because we want the figures to be mythological does not make them so.
Burn
when i was a pioneer i used to get the comment a lot, as i am sure most here have.. my stock answer was the analogy.... wt 2002 10/1 page 7 as an example.
imagine a father allowing his child to go thru a painful operation in-order to get better...hence why god permits suffering.
anyway i used to trot this out without any counter arguments.. even when i left, it still seemed a reasonable explanations, then something clicked.
The problem for me is that Naturalism is a mechanistic, materalist philosophy. I am a theistic dualist.
Cheers.
Burn
when i was a pioneer i used to get the comment a lot, as i am sure most here have.. my stock answer was the analogy.... wt 2002 10/1 page 7 as an example.
imagine a father allowing his child to go thru a painful operation in-order to get better...hence why god permits suffering.
anyway i used to trot this out without any counter arguments.. even when i left, it still seemed a reasonable explanations, then something clicked.
an attempt should be made to attack the causes of stealing and prostitution.
I can agree with that.
Burn
when i was a pioneer i used to get the comment a lot, as i am sure most here have.. my stock answer was the analogy.... wt 2002 10/1 page 7 as an example.
imagine a father allowing his child to go thru a painful operation in-order to get better...hence why god permits suffering.
anyway i used to trot this out without any counter arguments.. even when i left, it still seemed a reasonable explanations, then something clicked.
Awakened,
Maybe, but I don't see it that way, I see Free Will as a divine gift.
Have a good night.
Burn
when i was a pioneer i used to get the comment a lot, as i am sure most here have.. my stock answer was the analogy.... wt 2002 10/1 page 7 as an example.
imagine a father allowing his child to go thru a painful operation in-order to get better...hence why god permits suffering.
anyway i used to trot this out without any counter arguments.. even when i left, it still seemed a reasonable explanations, then something clicked.
nvrgnbk,
When it comes to that issue ( contra-causal free will or ultimate self-determination), I think it is a little bit of both. I think our potentialities are partly determined by our physical makeup and its formative environment, but that within that framework we will what we wish. I am nothing if I am not an anti-determinist . This puts me at loggerheads not just with Naturalists of the Spinozan bent but also with Calvinist Christians.
As for the social theory outlined in the quote, who gets to set the social policy that tries to "maximize the opportunities for each person's development, independent of differences inherited talent or social status."?
Arguing from the naturalist position, it would have to be humans, who the quote itself states are "entirely the product of genetic and environmental conditions"!
Internally self contradictory.
when i was a pioneer i used to get the comment a lot, as i am sure most here have.. my stock answer was the analogy.... wt 2002 10/1 page 7 as an example.
imagine a father allowing his child to go thru a painful operation in-order to get better...hence why god permits suffering.
anyway i used to trot this out without any counter arguments.. even when i left, it still seemed a reasonable explanations, then something clicked.
-If suffering is allowed because of the importance of humans having free will, does that mean God will take away people's free will when they reach that promised place (whatever one's religion say that is) in order to prevent further suffering and evil?
I don't know Awakened. I think we will retain free will, and that if we reach that promised place it will be because we freely chose it (although i think the ability to choose is enabled by God). How that will correlate with a cessation of Evil? I don't know. I guess it is something to ponder.
And taking the biblical approach, does it mean Adam and Eve were not created with a free will (no suffering from the outset), but gained a free will when they willingly and freely chose(!) to eat of the forbidden fruit?
Adam and Eve evidently were created with a free will, and through a free choice ate of the "fruit".
Things to consider,
Burn
i can not say it better.. .
I don't doubt your sincerity, nvrgnbk.
Burn
i can not say it better.. .
Indeed Elsewhere, but that does not change the basic premise of my comment that such your assertion (that 98% of humanity is mentally deranged and that you are not) is arrogant.
The question of whether God exists is the single most important question we face about the nature of reality and to merely dismiss the other side as deranged with a flippant wave of the hand is...deranged (and if there is no God, then God is the greatest creation of the human imagination)
After all we use arithmetic daily, and we cannot even prove its consistency , how are we so sure that God's existence or nonexistence is something easier for our intellects to deal with?
Burn
when i was a pioneer i used to get the comment a lot, as i am sure most here have.. my stock answer was the analogy.... wt 2002 10/1 page 7 as an example.
imagine a father allowing his child to go thru a painful operation in-order to get better...hence why god permits suffering.
anyway i used to trot this out without any counter arguments.. even when i left, it still seemed a reasonable explanations, then something clicked.
There are many explanations and no one knows for sure the answer to your question (it may be unknowable) but personally I think that God permits wickedness because He allows us free will. In other words, if he did not allow evil, he would be violating our right to choose it.
* Free will requires the potential to do anything one chooses.
* Thus, free will requires the potential to do evil.
* Thus, removing the potential to do evil would remove free will.
In other words,free will is a good in itself, greater than the evil it costs to allow such freedom. Why should it be better for God to respect human freedom? What's so great about free will? The response is that free will is what makes us valuable moral agents, and that, if God were to deny us our freedom, human society would be in a deep sense like an assemblage of robots: not only incapable of evil, but incapable of moral choice in general. Though value would exist in such a world, the free moral agency possessed by God and actual humans is far greater. All the cruelty that we humans freely perform is indeed regrettable, but it is the price of freedom.
There is also the "free process" view. this view is that God has created the universe in such a way that it was, to a significant extent, allowed to make itself and that a world allowed to make itself is better than a puppet theater with a "Cosmic Tyrant".
There is also the point of view that God is so far superior to man, that he cannot be judged by man no more so than an ant can judge a human (actually far more so). Man's assumption that he can tell God what a benevolent and all-powerful god can or cannot do, is mere arrogance.
Burn
