At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
I take the modern scietific view that the universe came into existence on its own and continuously expanding. Also that it has growth within it making it a living entity. Evil exist because it always has but that does not imply it always will. The problem that people have is they think prophecies are design plans rather than something that actually already occurred, In thinking its a design plan evil will always try subvert or even tak over the plan. The coming into existence omniscient being is required so all past is known regardleless of what presently exist, evil always try to cover its tracks. Knowing this I dont' hide things from myself and take up my cross and follow my Lords, God the Father and Son, with this prespective they will come into being without me having to follow design path.
Did you read it?
Yes, The existence of and evil God is not new, in fact its Biblical. This is why I personally believe in the good God coming into being. This principlle requires one live's as the good God exist and in that way assist in bringing Him about, without this guidance you cater to what is, evil God, and not to the good God to be. I always had problems with philosphy esp in the realm theology, tried reaing Thomas Aquinas once but it was filled with so much Greek philosphy I go disgusted. Its like out culture actually more full of ancient Greece, theater, sports, poitics and the like than scriptures.
I guess one will only know at the final judgement, and to whom and why mercy is applied. Some scriptures say evil is part of God which will be removed someday, but I take a different veiw in that evil came into existance in the beginning and will eventually be conquored.
The definition of good and evil may be differ at different contexts... Do you agree @nincompoop ?
Modern view of evil are natual phenomenon as lightening storms, earthquaks, tidal waves, disease, and other human conditios. They shy away from evil in the form of illusions and delusions that may come for certain sources because they can't deal with these spiritual forces. How one human being may affect another other than with the five senses, the recognition of these phenomenon would put our justice system jeopardy because it assumes human are entirelly independant of each other, other than the five senses, and take full responsiblity for their action. Frankly I find this view in error as mankind is may be propelled in certain directions by various forces both evil and good.
How could God possibly be evil when good exists in the first place? Think about it. If there were an all, powerful, omniscient being that were purely evil, good would not exist. Our very existence would be torture. We simply know that an evil God cannot exist, because good exists. And although atheist could easily say this the other way around, anyone with a biblical worldview is able to understand why a good God can allow evil to continue.
not just biblical view people who believe in GOD will able to understand. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pyZkY93B2A
@Nnesha this is disappointing Video :O how would you be satisfied for being told you won't be ever happy on earth and more ever just don't be sad cause Allah designed it like this this is just annoying :-\
@nincompoop origin article seems won't be available for some times :-\
@theraggeddydoctor I think you missed out on the argument. Here's what is being suggested: you can use the same argument that god is evil based on the evidence that evil exists just as it has been argued that god is good because good exists. We can probe each argument on both sides and you will just witness that the argument for the good weighs the same if not more convincingly more for the argument of evil. Thomas Paine actually put it more eloquently in his piece The Age of Reason using the bible as a reference itself. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3743/3743-h/3743-h.htm
we are not PERFECT we can't be `PERFECTLY` happy in this world EVERYONE has their own reason for being sad/depression * `you won't be ever happy on earth ` * that doesn't mean you never gonna be happy they are saying :we all have different problems there will be difficulties we should face them as a test even though if we got everything in our life but still we will gonna get problems in our life......... as u can see he also said `we believe in happy ending` watch it again u will see things differently :=)
i won't watch, such a waste of time :P
ok, as you wish. but you are taking it wrong
Happy ending is not a unique issue. The interesting part throughout the history of mankind, in many ways we have devised to deal with happiness as a management of suffering. As if happiness and suffering seem to exist together - one cannot exist without the other. What I mean here is that our definitions or conception of something good does not exist without it being defined or describe that is something bad and both are extended in the context of happiness and suffering. Then think about how this is stretched out into morality, which lead into dogmas and assertion of truths and then to who has the right revelation.
can't we hope for happiness ? we can hope for the test . other than that i'm totally agree with you. well-said!
NO ONE IS SAYING that you cannot hope for happiness.
okay don't yelllll at me..
Stephen Law is correlating God’s moral character based on what we do and what we have. If I am rich, then god loves me, and therefore, his intentions are good. If I am poor, then god doesn’t like me so his intentions are bad. God is good if I’m living well; god is evil if I’m living ill. This moral character human’s give to god is not god’s moral character but rather a designed moral character by humans. If Stephen law’s description about god’s moral character of good and evil god is true, then I can’t argue with his presumption on this matter and I’d agree that good and evil god contradicts. But how can good and evil be the same? God loves structure and order, and allowing us to help each other is a part of it. If there’s a wealthy person, he should help the poor so happiness can be balanced out. What would an evil god like? A wealthy person owning slaves and torturing people is permissible? Is that order and structure? Would that bring happiness for everyone? Not! When I read his description of the evil god and how it could exist, I got confused because how can good correlate with evil?? I’m not really sure where he got that a good god is supposed to “Give some of us immense health, wealth and happiness; Put natural beauty into the world, which gives us pleasure; Equip us with beautiful, healthy young bodies.” God didn’t give a person a good health solely out of kindness, but rather a test for this person regarding the actions on what she or he will do with this health. Will they treat it well, or will they harm it? Same thing goes for wealth, are they going to use money wisely, help the poor? My conclusion is that Law is creating his own hypothesis on god’s moral character and argues against it, and his idea that god is good and bad based on the outcomes of our actions or our responses is rather strange. I noticed that some people argue that if people are born with disabilities, their loved ones dies, become ill, indicates that god is not nice but rather evil. There’s one thing I would like to respond to this premise: Surah 67. Al-Mulk, Ayah 2 “[He] who created death and life to test you [as to] which of you is best in deed - and He is the Exalted in Might, the Forgiving.” I could have more power, more money, but after all it is a test on how we respond or treat these privileges not solely based that god was being kind. How we respond to it is what god judges. I hope i understood what Stephen Laws argument is about, because it did not make any sense to me at all.
Borrowing from our ancestors' minds from the Orients, I have less-eloquently provided that good does not exist without having the invoke the bad/evil. It is a contradiction based on our current more Westernized thinking. Print or save to read it again later, @zale101 It is not easy to digest what these things are because of our preconceptions. Remember that these are philosophical arguments, and you're resting it against theology although theology uses a lot from philosophy.
I have a few suggested readings on theological grounds, which many would probably agree and I believe helped establish grounds for apologetics. Dynamics of Faith - Paul Tillich
I am currently trying to digest Mircea Eliade's The Sacred and The Profane.
Lets put your logic to the test grin emoticon Professor : You are a Christian, aren’t you, son ? Student : Yes, sir. Professor: So, you believe in GOD ? Student : Absolutely, sir. Professor : Is GOD good ? Student : Sure. Professor: Is GOD all powerful ? Student : Yes. Professor: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to GOD to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But GOD didn’t. How is this GOD good then? Hmm? (Student was silent.) Professor: You can’t answer, can you ? Let’s start again, young fella. Is GOD good? Student : Yes. Professor: Is satan good ? Student : No. Professor: Where does satan come from ? Student : From … GOD … Professor: That’s right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world? Student : Yes. Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn’t it ? And GOD did make everything. Correct? Student : Yes. Professor: So who created evil ? (Student did not answer.) Professor: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don’t they? Student : Yes, sir. Professor: So, who created them ? (Student had no answer.) Professor: Science says you have 5 Senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son, have you ever seen GOD? Student : No, sir. Professor: Tell us if you have ever heard your GOD? Student : No , sir. Professor: Have you ever felt your GOD, tasted your GOD, smelt your GOD? Have you ever had any sensory perception of GOD for that matter? Student : No, sir. I’m afraid I haven’t. Professor: Yet you still believe in Him? Student : Yes. Professor : According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says your GOD doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son? Student : Nothing. I only have my faith. Professor: Yes, faith. And that is the problem Science has. Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat? Professor: Yes. Student : And is there such a thing as cold? Professor: Yes. Student : No, sir. There isn’t. (The lecture theater became very quiet with this turn of events.) Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don’t have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it. (There was pin-drop silence in the lecture theater.) Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness? Professor: Yes. What is night if there isn’t darkness? Student : You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light. But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness, isn’t it? In reality, darkness isn’t. If it is, well you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you? Professor: So what is the point you are making, young man ? Student : Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed. Professor: Flawed ? Can you explain how? Student : Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good GOD and a bad GOD. You are viewing the concept of GOD as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, Science can’t even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey? Professor: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do. Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir? (The Professor shook his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument was going.) Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor. Are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher? (The class was in uproar.) Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor’s brain? (The class broke out into laughter. ) Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor’s brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir? (The room was silent. The Professor stared at the student, his face unfathomable.) Professor: I guess you’ll have to take them on faith, son. Student : That is it sir … Exactly ! The link between man & GOD is FAITH. That is all that keeps things alive and moving. P.S. I believe you have enjoyed the conversation. And if so, you’ll probably want your friends / colleagues to enjoy the same, won’t you? Forward this to increase their knowledge … or FAITH. By the way, that student was EINSTEIN.
cool, thanks for sharing!! :=)
Is this information about Einstein's supposed discussion about duality with a professor written in his autobiography or in a any reliable source?
Regardless of source one must consider the truths and fallacy of the converstions, regardless of any Stars involved. This Professor was telling his class that he was a atheist and doesn't believe in God. A student got up walked up to the Professor and punched him in the face sayin God told me to do it. This was actually told to me by a person who really believes in God, I just listened and didn't say anything. The story to my mind actually shows God doesn't exist, for if God only exist by a person's action then only the person exist. As for your story, it say's in scriptures that darkness witl not consume the light, which is saying darkness itself is the absence of light. The same can be said about evil in that its just the absence of good. Instead of using duality I would prefer contrast which could include gray areas which under certain condition can become evil or good; This is why a person words and actions are important in they can tilt a person in the gray area toward either. In the Gnostic writinge its prophied "that man will become stars", to understand this one must realize that a star Biblically also refers to a constellation which can be used for navigation. A K-12 teacher may become your star, or a professor at college, and sadly sport figure and movies stats. Who do you Idolize in such a manner that their you navigation points in life. My point is you eventually must do your own work rather than just accepting something just because your Idol say's so. By the way evolution is observable in viruses, bacteria, and even in insects with short lifespans. The question of whether one wishes to expand this proven notion to larger animals such as humans(?). As for brains, it only observable by what it generates, when someone is called a as-hole it means only sh-t comes out of it.
Hey Einstein was a Jew, not a christian...
I think this is a fabricated story....
I found a copy of The Sacred and The Profane by Mircea Eliade. It is a very easy book to read. https://www.dmt-nexus.me/doc/the%20sacred%20and%20the%20profane.pdf
The analysis of real physical data verses the religious experience is difficult, especially using real physical data surrouning a religious experience. You might be able to note changes in personality and how it actually may spead within an environment, or even how the physical environment might change. The general mode of change is through human endeavor, though it may be through a group's entity usually considered a diety. Prior to the modernity of science the Roman Catholic Church made determination of whether a specific miracle was actual and tried to find to source. Though we may consider their methods crude today we still must deal with the reality of a miracle, actual physical change not illusion or delusion. The source of a miracle maybe entirely within an individual, in the Prophet's if say's "do you not have a king within", or a vary real nexus of a group, the validity of telepathy is well accepted today but what affects these entities have on the physical is still unknown. As one goes through life learning others ideas and concepts they must endeavor to understand and comprehend their own personal experiences and there direction's if we ever wish either to escape it or wholly follow it.
There is nothing about hierophany as proposed by Eliade that is contingent on physical data per se. They are a mere observations across the history of mankind highlighting the act of consecration projected in different modalities by groups of people as indicated by their practices as well as their attitudes. Part of the thesis is that whatever religious experience one may claim to validate the notion of sacrality (the sacred) rests upon distinct qualitative values people impose. As an example for the sacred space, the physical structure of the Vatican church or the Mecca is believed to separate and distinct not just for its purpose but also in its value or "quality" from other structures nearby or elsewhere thereby making sacred and the rest of the structures profane (desacralized). Another key example that I can probably use is water. The consecration of water (called blessed water in some Christian denominations) whereby it is "holy" or "sacred water" does not make it anything other than what the physical attributes of water are or of any water anywhere else. So, there are no changes in the attributes of the actual blessed water, but rather on the quality - blessed water being sacred, and anything else profane. Though I have a few minor contentions, this book is very enticing and for the most part I can't really disagree on the majority of the key points. Probably we can discuss of his use of profane/desacrilization particularly his notion of crypto-religious, which some of my contentions rest.
Actually using hierophant, a priest in ancient Greece, places the discussion in a philisophical framework, which many religions tend to do today. Personally I find this abhorrent to religion in that it places religion in an profane space. As to sacred spaces I cite Isaiah 66 verse 1, the purpose of supposed sacred spaces is for people to congregate and focus giving an outward expression to others. You mention Jerusalm and Mecca but there are many others within various religions, even AA has it sacred space in which members come together but allows for where ever two or three meet. Placing the religious experience within a philosophical framework requires physical data elsewise its nothing but a flight of fancy.
I know that there are many other examples, but the Vatican and Mecca are the common one that I can use considering the people reading this thread and their sheer number and to be in line with current events - Pope visiting the United States and Haaj pilgrimage. In the book, the author clearly documented many more from different group of people from around the globe. From the author's POV, I sense that it was rather through the lens of religion and sacrality and this was carried out to drive his message pertaining to crypto-religious acts, which I find presumptuous (as in the case of many religious theology and arguments of today).
Sunday's musings about religion involved https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/12187944_10153140712936109_3209644132351068470_n.jpg?oh=6ceacba06431c950a569ef4b6d318bc6&oe=56C2BEA2
is that were you got this all O.O
Slight thread hijacking: I am already accustom with this idea God being evil. It goes far back, which begs me to ask why is the concept of God being evil considered humours (not worth exploring) by Descartes? Leibniz talks about God's possible characteristics, is it anything like that?
The distinction is nature is not God, all ill affects come from nature from earthquakes to fetal abnormalities. God the Father represents the Ideal and with Him and Christ human error will be removed.
Nin always challenges like dis one -.= eh