Epicurean Paradox

[Drich]

No for He defines Sin and Evil. The special exception is your personal definition of sin and evil.

No, he redefines sin and evil. The concepts of sin and evil - where Epicurus is concerned - were defined independently and prior to your bible. Your god may futilely attempt to redefine those concepts through the Church's sock-puppets, but when talking about the paradox, we'd use the meanings applicable in that context.

I am glad to see we agree on this very important point, for as I said several times now. Epicurus with his definitions was not speaking to your understanding of sin and evil, and if we are hold a strict understanding to the work of Epicurus and his definition of Evil then we must also strictly look and only look to the gods He was calling out as well. Why because His definition of Evil specifically addresses failed promises of his gods. None of which were made by the God of the bible.

I have Identified the original Greek word that translate to evil in the English and I have posted the original meaning of the word. (Which basically translates into unfair hard work.) Which is a far cry from how you are using the term.

Therefore if you use the bible to define God, and ignore Epicurus' gods and Epicurus' definition of evil then you are only left with the definition of Evil used by the very same bible you used to define God.

Otherwise know you have undertaken a personal vendetta ignoring all semblances of a honorable and or a fair inquiry. For you have literally redefined the terms being discussed to stack the deck n your favor to win this argument. If you persist then know my interest in the conversation stops. As I told the other guy arguing this broken line of logic I am not here to change your personal philosophy on God I am simply trying to provide clarity for all who earnestly seek it.
Clarity has been provided, it is not my responsibility to keep you from mucking it back up in your own minds.

---

So to recap we look to the bible for the definition of evil because it is in the context (Judgment of the God of the bible) that we use it. We use modern dictionaries to further break down the definition to clarify the biblical definition so people like you can not rely on the loop holes you think you have found in the biblical account.

The Paradox speaks to any tri-omni version of God. It's generic. It's not about your God in particular, so no fair re-writing the terms to suit your specific religion. Besides, you've already evaded the Paradox by conceding that your particular version of God values free will over beneficence. The Paradox is only a problem for people who believe all three attributes are absolute, and you don't. Yet something compels you to continue to argue against the Epicurean Paradox despite its inapplicability to the God you believe in.

---

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.

It took sixteen pages but glad you finally get that Epicurus wasn't using your biblical definition of evil.

Even after 16 pages you still do not understand Epicurus was not speaking of the God of the bible.

It is amazing how some of you can completely close off your minds to contextual information and only select what you wish to accept.