(13th February 2012 09:07)Vaeolet Lilly Blossom Wrote:  I believe myself to have a 'good heart'... yet I still appreciate having the options of 'evil'. Even then... I rarely intentionally do something I regard as 'evil', and then only when I believe it is worth it.

I didn't state you would not have options of evil. I'm saying the people whom would be evil, not simply do a bad thing, could have been not created, and instead only the good souls created.

Quote:Options are nice to have... I'd be one hell of a lot less 'good hearted' without the ability to do evil. And my appreciation for the difference between them would be that much lower.

You would have the exact same options, there is no change in free-will, except that God would create only those whom he knew would be good people.

I have the option right now to grab a knife, go outside, and shank someone. I like having this option, incase I ever need it. If you deny me evil, then I no longer have this option. And I am the lesser for it.

I reject your notion of 'evil' people until you can tell me what constitutes an evil person or a good person.

(13th February 2012 20:29)MysticKnight Wrote:  You would have the exact same options, there is no change in free-will, except that God would create only those whom he knew would be good people.

Well, not only that, but the Christian claim is that no man can resist evil on his own. All men are sinners. The idea is that after they accept Jesus into their life, then Jesus comes into their heart and they no longer desire to do evil.

But that's an oxymoron. If no man can chose to be sinless on his own and he can only become sinless after God enters his heart and makes it so he only desires to do good, then like MysticKnight suggests, why doesn't God just do this in the first place?

Obviously a person's "choice" would have nothing to do with it anyway.

That's just yet another oxymoron of this religion.

The religion is so oxymoronic there can only be one possibly explanation for it. It's man-made religion created to try to control the masses via a concept of fear of punishment or luring them in with the hopes of winning eternal life in paradise.

In terms of an actual "God" it makes no sense at all.

In only makes sense in terms of a man-made scam.

The fact that this religion claims that a mere disbelief in this God is proof positive. They try to scam people into believing that to merely disbelieve in this God equates to choosing to be an evil person, etc.

That alone is absolute proof positive that this religion is the devious brainwashing treachery of men.

They won't even permit someone to be a "Good Person" without worship their religion and cowering down to all its male-chauvinism and religious bigotry.

It's just a man-made religion that uses a make-pretend God to condemn everyone who refuses to join and support the cult.

That's all it is. It can't be anything more than this. It's simply the most successful man-made cult in all of history, duping billions of people over thousands of years.

And Jesus was either an innocent victim of this religion, or a totally made-up character himself.

Personally I believe that some guy actually did speak out against the immortal teachings of the Torah (or Old Testament) and call the Pharisees, hypocrites. And they probably did publicly crucify this guy in a horrific fashion under the charges of "blaspheme".

First they nailed him to the pole and killed him. Then all sorts of rumors got started, so they they set about nailing him to the Torah (or Old Testament) by proclaiming that he was indeed the "messiah " (one of the rumors that started up about him). And in doing so they successfully nailed him back onto the Torah proclaiming that he was the "Son of the God of Abraham", they very same fictitious God that Jesus himself clearly rejected.

Jesus was a victim of "Christianity", a religion that used him as a patsy.

I'm seriously too. I seriously believe this is exactly what happened.

Jesus taught the exact opposite moral values that had been taught in the Torah. He renounced the idea of judging others. He renounced the stoning of sinners. He renounced the seeking of revenge as in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, and instead he taught people to forgive each other and to turn the other cheek.

He was the polar opposite of the God of Abraham. Could not possibly have been the "son" of that God.

Quote:Jesus taught the exact opposite moral values that had been taught in the Torah. He renounced the idea of judging others. He renounced the stoning of sinners. He renounced the seeking of revenge as in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, and instead he taught people to forgive each other and to turn the other cheek.

Negatron. Much of the nastiest shit in christian myth comes directly from the mouth of this particular babe. He didn't renounce the stoning of sinners, he reserved the responsibility for himself (he without sin). He renounced the human drive for revenge, instead reserving it, again, for himself, in any sort of cosmic judgement, or end of days scenario. Turning the other cheek does nothing but to promote wickedness and suffering, as removing the consequences of those actions as undertaken by human beings is to remove the only deterrent we have available to us.

He's still the same fuzzy thinking desert god.

On the other hand, I completely agree that jesus was a patsy. Of course, he would have been wouldn't he. He was created as a scapegoat, to be tortured in our stead. He was always going to be a patsy, just another unacceptable and sick piece of this particular myth.

You're referring to the Christian lies. Jesus didn't go around demanding that everyone worship and obey him lest he personally stone them to death.

The Christians created that monster.

Moreover, once you recognize and realize that Jesus was not the divine son of God that these fables claim, it should suddenly also become apparent that there is no need to hold Jesus to ever single verbatim word that was shoved into his dead mouth by the authors of these rumors.

Suddenly you realize that you need to "read between the lines", to try to figure out what this person might have actually stood for in spite of all the erroneous claims that these rumors attempt to shove onto him.

On moment they claim that Jesus himself said that he will not judge anyone for not believing in his words. And the next moment they try to claim that to not believe in Jesus' words is grounds for certain condemnation.

Clearly these rumors are riddled with blatant falsehoods throughout. So you've got to realize that much of the claims being made by the rumors is clearly false.

But yes, I agree, if taken as infallible 'verbatim quotes' directly from the mouth of Jesus, then Jesus would not only be an unreasonable egotistical monster, but he would also be highly confused, inconsistent, and totally unsure of what he even wants from people.

He would not only be untrustworthy and potentially cruel, but he would also clearly be a lunatic who can't even think clearly or with any dependable consistency.

So yes, if the New Testament is just hearsay rumors (which it even confesses to be itself) then there's no need to hold Jesus responsible for all the superstitious rumors contained within it.

(12th February 2012 22:04)Abracadabra Wrote:  

(12th February 2012 08:12)chipan Wrote:  and last of all, God does not seperate us from what is good. he does not channel good to us from something else. he is the source of all that is good. he is no middleman. you can worship all that you see that is good, or worship the one who created it. you can give credit to the painting or the artist.

The very notion that God is the source of all that is good, is clearly utter nonsense.

In fact, for this to be true would violate the concept of free will in humans.

No human could do a good act on their own free will if God is the sole source of all that is good.

So this mythology shoots itself in the foot right there.

It can't possibly be true because it demands oxyomoronic absurdities.

This mythology proves itself wrong at every turn of the page.

The more you preach it, the more you prove it's false.

Interesting argument but still wrong. True, God is the source of all that is good, but that doesn't mean his creation can't be good. And yes, everything does what is good and wrong. These Actions do not influence the choice. The choice is whether to accept Jesus as your personnel savior because everyone has sinned. For our sin we all deserve eternal separation from God and everything that comes from God but he gave us an alternative. We can choose god by accepting his redemption or not. You say this doesn't give us choice. But this is the. Choice we are faced with. It's in black and white here for you and I don't think I can spell it out any clearer. On one hand however you're right. We have no choice but to do good at least once in our life. It's our nature to want what is good, just, and righteous. That's not the ultimate choice though. The choice is to accept Jesus as our savior to pay the debt of our sins or not. Therefore it does not contradict free will.

(3rd February 2012 05:15)MysticKnight Wrote:  It's usually argued that allowing evil was necessary to allow free-will.

A problem with this is that we know some people are not evil but good. God could have just created the good people and spared the evil people that would go to hell from being created.

God is believed to have knowledge of all potential souls. Even if it's 1 in a trillion souls that are good and would not do any serious evil, out of infinite potential souls, he could pick only those ones.

At the very least, he could have only created the people that would not earn hell.

The people he would chose to do good with same free-will could be created, so it would not negate free-will at all.

Thus evil is not necessary to allow free-will if God knows everything.

God was invented thousands of years ago by primates. The only good side to keeping it going is as a model for evolution.

In other words, you can't win over nature. Nature created man, religion, athiesm. In that order.

the only way you can defeat atheism is to kill us all. but by that time there will only be you left and the question about God is invalid.

Is that what you want?

(18th February 2012 03:13)jason56 Wrote:  

(3rd February 2012 05:15)MysticKnight Wrote:  It's usually argued that allowing evil was necessary to allow free-will.

A problem with this is that we know some people are not evil but good. God could have just created the good people and spared the evil people that would go to hell from being created.

God is believed to have knowledge of all potential souls. Even if it's 1 in a trillion souls that are good and would not do any serious evil, out of infinite potential souls, he could pick only those ones.

At the very least, he could have only created the people that would not earn hell.

The people he would chose to do good with same free-will could be created, so it would not negate free-will at all.

Thus evil is not necessary to allow free-will if God knows everything.

God was invented thousands of years ago by primates. The only good side to keeping it going is as a model for evolution.

In other words, you can't win over nature. Nature created man, religion, athiesm. In that order.

the only way you can defeat atheism is to kill us all. but by that time there will only be you left and the question about God is invalid.

Is that what you want?

Wow that is not even close to the subject I was talking about. I was talking about why God allows evil. This was brought up by the athiest who posted the thread and I'm giving an answer to it. That's it; I'm not trying to kill atheists or anything like that.

Quote:your words are like that of a child saying he doesn't have to listen to his parents.

And yours are those of a mindless fool who thinks BIG BROTHER is watching him all the time.

Grow up, Chippy.

(18th February 2012 03:24)chipan Wrote:  

(18th February 2012 03:13)jason56 Wrote:  

(3rd February 2012 05:15)MysticKnight Wrote:  It's usually argued that allowing evil was necessary to allow free-will.

A problem with this is that we know some people are not evil but good. God could have just created the good people and spared the evil people that would go to hell from being created.

God is believed to have knowledge of all potential souls. Even if it's 1 in a trillion souls that are good and would not do any serious evil, out of infinite potential souls, he could pick only those ones.

At the very least, he could have only created the people that would not earn hell.

The people he would chose to do good with same free-will could be created, so it would not negate free-will at all.

Thus evil is not necessary to allow free-will if God knows everything.

God was invented thousands of years ago by primates. The only good side to keeping it going is as a model for evolution.

In other words, you can't win over nature. Nature created man, religion, athiesm. In that order.

the only way you can defeat atheism is to kill us all. but by that time there will only be you left and the question about God is invalid.

Is that what you want?

Wow that is not even close to the subject I was talking about. I was talking about why God allows evil. This was brought up by the athiest who posted the thread and I'm giving an answer to it. That's it; I'm not trying to kill atheists or anything like that.

My answer may be generic but so is the question. I could give you 25 reasons why God doesn't have any effect on evil, but I can't work past the fact that God doesn't exist in your premise. sorry.