Epicurean Paradox

[Drich]

[quote='genkaus' pid='271315' dateline='1334277282']
Apply the same principle to the real world, if you will. So, when judging whether a man is a criminal or not, instead of using well-established legal standards, we should use his standards on what constitutes a crime. When judging a person on whether he is suitable for a job or not, we should disregard the actual job requirements and judge him by what he says the criteria should be. While judging a beauty pageant, we should ask the contestants to pick the winner among them.

Definitions provide an objective and fair standard for passing judgment and the reason we are using the dictionary here is the same as to why we refer to law books when judging a criminal. What you want to do is subjectively redefine evil in such a way that your idea of god would be excluded tautologically.
[/quote]
EXACTLY! So then why use the bible to establish the works, attributes and will of God and then prohibit the use of the very same bible, to answer an accusation based on a biblical term? Why is it necessary to redefine that term by popular understanding rather than the absolute standard found in scripture? The same scripture you are willing to use to entrap God with?

IF "definitions provide an objective and fair standard for passing judgment." then why would any reasonable man refuse the use of the same source you used to define God, as a legitimate source to also define what you are accusing Him of?

What is this desperate need you all seem to have to separate God and the bible that defines Him? Are you speaking of a different god? Perhaps the god of the dictionary, therefore you must seek out the dictionary to define the principles of sin and evil as well?

If you want to talk real world, then I invite you to step into it. In the real world honorable men seek honest answers. Not conclusions pieced together from as many far flung sources one has to entertain to come to the conclusion he wants to find. If you are talking about the God of the bible then it is by the bible you are bound to define Him, and His methods. If you are speaking of the god of the dictionary or any other reference book then by all means use whatever reference material you need to crucify your god.

---

[quote='NoMoreFaith' pid='271254' dateline='1334272461']
[quote]Aaah, NOW we don't use the dictionary then.[/quote]This must be one of your favorite fallacies. Because you beg the question alot. Do you not have any other tools of communication avaiable?

[quote]Indeed, Needless pain and suffering.[/quote]Who are you to judge pain and suffering needless?

[quote]Nope. No dice. Epicurus is all about traditional evil, the death of an infant, the tsunami that kills beyond human control..[/quote]
Appearently you do not even understand the core Epicurean Arguement. It was not to the Hebrew God (as he would have known Him) Epicurs directed his efforts (In 300 BC) to the prominate gods of Rome.

In short Epicurus did not understand the biblical concept of evil either. His idea was based on the Greek understanding of the word which is far different than your modern wester defination of the word.
ponēros
Pronunciation

po-nā-ro's (Key)


Part of Speech
adjective

Root Word (Etymology)

From a derivative of πόνος (G4192)

TDNT Reference
6:546,912
Vines
View Entry
1) full of labours, annoyances, hardships

a) pressed and harassed by labours

b) bringing toils, annoyances, perils;causing pain and trouble

2) bad, of a bad nature or condition

a) in a physical sense: diseased or blind

In short Epericus is asking why is life hard. You are asking why do bad things happen to what you think are basically good people. For epicurus this was not a question, for he knew why bad things happened. He wanted to know why after so much sacerfice and giving to the gods of his day wasn't life easy and full of pleasure, as it was promised.

[quote]You may see it as stacking the deck. We see it as you have no good answer.[/quote]Says the man who has to stack the deck in his favor and refuses to look at plain unmolested facts.
You use the Bible to identify the God of the bible yet you refuse to use the very same bible to define the concept you are accusing Him of being meligned against.
For this you have supported your own understanding of the word that allows you the self appointed sense of righteousness needed to judge and convict God.

Know this is not the first time this happened. The Saducees had to break every single rule governing the death conviction of an accused man to have christ crusified. So know that you are not the first to have to break the rules in order to get what you want.

[quote]You mean other than the Qu'ran, Zend Avesta. If there is an all powerful God. Whom is as Epicurus states, Omnipotent, Not Malevolent, blah blah, then he is a contradiction, a paradox given the world we live in.[/quote]It's funny how you have to take my own work out of context in order to make your points have any meaning. Thier is a Reason I use the term "God of the Bible." If you wish to apply this "paradox" to any of the other gods out there then feel free.

[quote]So is your God a great soldier who is now outdated? That regardless of his power he is unable to act against those now more powerful given better technology?[/quote]Begging the question again???

[quote]Not Omnipotent.[/quote]If you wish to use that word or anyother "omin Aspect of God" then please show book chapter and verse that uses those terms to define God. As we are speaking of the God of the bible I will hold you to the bible to make your arguement. However if you have created your own little idea of god then feel free to do, say or blaspheme all you like. just let me know that you are talking about your own idea of god rather than the God of the bible so I do not waist any more time with you than I need to.

[quote]What biblical account? We are talking about Epicurus.[/quote]
Which appearently is a person like you (not implying anything about you or the relationship you have with your mother.)
Therefore i feel the need to correct your/his understanding as it applies to the God of the bible.

[quote]Answer this;
Do these things describe your God, yes or no is all that is required.
Is he Omnipotent, and is he not Malevolent, in context of HUMAN LIFE.[/quote]Define Omnipotent as this is not a biblical term.

[quote]He may not be malevolent by his standards, but he certainly is by ours is the whole of the argument.[/quote]Which is irrevelant because "our" standards change from generation to generation.

[quote]You may not feel he should be judged by Human Standards, but this is OUR life, and our pain and suffering, and he should be judged by them. [/quote]I don't care by what standards you ultimatly judge God. I am only pointing out the hyprocrisy in your efforts. Why? Because it is by the standard you judge, that you too will be judged. If you wish to be judged fairly then it is up to you, to judge fairly. I was appealing to your humanity because that seems to be the only foundation or the closest thing to it, that guys like you will claim. If you wish to judge God by your own version of righteousness then know it will be by your own standard of judgement that you too will be judged. In complete truth it is no skin off my nose whatever you decide.

[quote] You instead argue for the malevolent despot, because whilst he keeps the country safe from harm, does so by tyranny and injustice[/quote]May here you should ask why rather than assume you know the answer. It's up to you lest I be accused of over stepping by bounds.