If God of Abraham is true, then why didnt he use his intelligent design to make a new

[SteveII]

Thank you for correcting my phrasing. I agree with you.

I will just expand on this, now that I'm not on my mobile.

Neutrality in the face of evil can be at least as evil, if only in intent. For instance, if I closed the door on a rapist and leave him to his act, knowing what suffering is occurring but choosing to do nothing about it, I would be just as culpable as the rapist (if not more so).

I don't think there is a comparable state in the face of good.

---

(Bonus kudos to anyone spotting the inadvertent Doctor Who reference.)

In which case the neutrality is still the deprivation of good--the good being harm avoidance (brotherly love for your neighbor). 

I think evil can be used to describe an action or a result. In some cases, the actions were not evil (because of intent), but the result may have been (because of some lasting deprivation of good). If this is the case, then neutrality when you have information that an otherwise good action might result in an evil result, would in fact be evil to remain neutral. Does that make sense?

[Cyberman]

Seems legit. How much more evil (assuming a quantitative scale) would be a good agency that remains neutral in the face of evil, when said agency has the ability to do something about it? For instance, in the rape example above, if I had a gun or someo other means to subdue the attacker?

[SteveII]

Seems legit. How much more evil (assuming a quantitative scale) would be a good agency that remains neutral in the face of evil, when said agency has the ability to do something about it? For instance, in the rape example above, if I had a gun or someo other means to subdue the attacker?

Setting aside that if someone shoots a rapist, I think that it is not only NOT evil, but so good you should get some credit against some other evil you might have done prior...

The real ethical dilemmas occur when a lesser of two evils has to be chosen. I think in ethic theory, it is a good to choose the lesser of two evils when no other choices are possible and the choice to do nothing is the same or worse. The evil caused might still be evil, but culpability (in a legal and moral sense) has been removed. It is also good to have a set of objective moral values/duties in circumstance like these in which to govern.

[Cyberman]

I don't actually need to shoot someone to prevent an evil act or consequence; I could merely point it and threaten. That's not bowing to a lesser evil, surely?

[John V]

creation?

I mean if i make a bike, and some idiot rides it. I am not going to keep that model for future bikes to crash on.
I will create a new world for bikes that is according to my design and will create a barrier shield so that the idiot cannot ride it and ruin it for the customers according to what i built.

I like my life now, and I look forward to eternity in heaven. You're suggesting that God punish people like me who love him by destroying this world after A&E's failure, and reward the people who despise him.

That makes no sense.

[SteveII]

I don't actually need to shoot someone to prevent an evil act or consequence; I could merely point it and threaten. That's not bowing to a lesser evil, surely?

I was just kidding. I wouldn't shoot a rapist if there was a better way.

[Cyberman]

I don't actually need to shoot someone to prevent an evil act or consequence; I could merely point it and threaten. That's not bowing to a lesser evil, surely?

I was just kidding. I wouldn't shoot a rapist if there was a better way.

Agreed. The thing is though that you and I are fairly limited in what we could do, which depending on the level of severity of the act would make us unwilling observers. It's not that we're neutral, rather that we're relatively powerless. That would make us more a hostile audience than actually evil.

If we did have such power but chose not to wield it to prevent an evil act, we would then deserve the label of evil, even if only by accessory.

[Astonished]

creation?

I mean if i make a bike, and some idiot rides it. I am not going to keep that model for future bikes to crash on.
I will create a new world for bikes that is according to my design and will create a barrier shield so that the idiot cannot ride it and ruin it for the customers according to what i built.

I like my life now, and I look forward to eternity in heaven. You're suggesting that God punish people like me who love him by destroying this world after A&E's failure, and reward the people who despise him.

That makes no sense.

Your ignorance of the actual facts of your mythology notwithstanding, this ideal you have of a god who possesses omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence not only does not hold up against the problem of evil, but even the omniscient and omnipotent ones break down individually on their own. Anyone looking at all the data objectively would conclude that not only does the entire enterprise not exist and that death ends up the same state of non-being we experienced prior to birth, but even if it did exist, those who earn the 'reward' would hardly be better off at the foot of this monstrous demon god than those in the lake of fire.

[Aliza]

---

In what sense do Jews use the term "test?"

Christians do believe in testing from God but not as a main reason we were created, I would think the Jews of old would believe the same. The testing would be to better our relation ship with Him.

GC

I disagree with you on this. Jews of old viewed life as being experienced for the purpose of seeking out and enjoying in pleasurable experiences. (It's an oversimplification, but it's still accurate.)

... but even if I'm discounting some obscure, off-shoot, Hellenized Jewish movement who had incorporated darker, pagan elements into their religion, and did believe  that life was a "test," then those movements have long gone anyway. And even if I'm wrong about the beliefs of mainstream Jews of old, from which almost all Jews today hail, why would that even matter or need to have bearing on today's views? We live in the here and now, and Jews today see life as the pursuit in finding and indulging in enjoyable things.  If it's a test, then the test is to see how much joy you cultivated during your life and not a test to determine where your "eternal soul" will end up. 


Christianity and Judaism have almost nothing in common. Sadly, most people don't realize this and we get lumped in with the proselytizers and treated according to however the world views fundamentalist Christians.

---

God's creation was designed to have choice so we wouldn't be little robots to play with like some kind of small child would play with it's toys. We were designed to be able to have a loving relationship with Him, if we were only toys why would He have allowed us to know of Him.

GC

---

Christians do believe in testing from God but not as a main reason we were created, I would think the Jews of old would believe the same. The testing would be to better our relation ship with Him.

GC

Because he's such a petty, jealous, insecure prick that he wants worship and adoration. Anyone, god or not, with that mentality deserves none of what they seek.

Just a friendly thumbs up, Astonished, on your decision to be an atheist. Judaism would be a terrible fit for you. You're in good company, though. Judaism isn't a good fit for most people.

[Brian37]

Well jews dont believe hell fire is torment, the fire they think of is to cleanse you from unpure stuff, but not torture. Basically hell is more that you are ashamed or something and have to be rehabilitated. King of what psychologists do before you go to heaven. Basically in judaism anyone can go to heaven if they are good or dont commit blasphemy etc.... though even if they are bad there doesnt seem to be much consequences. Well unless you reaaaaaally are just awful, and that has to be on a huge level. There is this place called Abaddon, which esentially means your soul and body goes to the void or something, the nothingness.

Blasphemy in Judaism isn't the same as it is in Christianity, but your description is close enough. Thank you.

Still... What do Jews believe they are being tested on? (It might be appropriate for me to mention at this point that I'm an educated Jew.)

You are playing word games.

It does not matter the religious label, worldwide if you push any group far enough with criticism or ridicule, enough in that group will get angry that you are  pointing out the flaws in their logic. Jews not having a hell does not change that their head character is stolen from prior Canaanite polytheism. It also does not change the fact they also have their sects and individual families whom also are extreme right conservatives whom also are sexist and homophobic. And if you think there are no far right Jews in Israel whom have the same "all or nothing" "us vs them" mentality as their conservative Muslim counterparts, you'd be wrong.

There are also extreme right Hindus and Buddhists. I can show you stories of Hindus assaulting and murdering others for killing cows. I can show you stories of arrests in Asia for blasphemy of Buddha. 

Don't get stuck on labels. Our species behaviors are in us, and this is the problem WORLDWIDE. Humans far too much get focused on their camps and refuse to understand that even within the same umbrella labels, there are competing sub sects that don't agree on how to follow or who to follow when it comes to the umbrella label.

While you CANNOT rid the world of any group, it has to be said that religion itself, is a horrible way to conduct political diplomacy. It can only be managed and protected EQUALLY as a human right, but it should not get a blind pedestal free from criticism. 

I don't give Jews a pass either. That does not make me anti Jew, or anti Israel, it merely means when it comes to flaws in logic, or justifications for violence, I DON'T GIVE ANYONE a pass. I don't give my fellow atheists a pass either. Humans in general worldwide need to understand the difference between hate and bigotry, and criticism and ridicule of bad claims and bad logic.