[quote='NoMoreFaith' pid='273197' dateline='1334579271']
[quote]Point to where I have misused the term Sin please. All sin is Evil. If you have separated the two concepts that constitutes as a misuse of the term.
[quote]Try to understand, this is not an argument aimed solely at the Hebrew god. But any God that claims omnipotence and kindness. [/quote]Then the rest of the conversation is moot. For God does not claim that attribute. It is given to him by worshipers and atheists like.
[quote]You have stated that you have no idea if your God has omni aspects.[/quote]Not what was said. I said God of the bible does not claim these terms. They are given to him from people who do not know of or understand the biblical descriptions of Him.
[quote] So the question is; What can your God actually do apart from fail to act?[/quote]Begs the question.
[quote]Let's look at moral responsibility, the more power you have, the greater the moral responsibility you have for the usage of it. With great power comes great responsibility and all that.[/quote]Maybe if you are spider man.
[quote]If God is capable of averting an earthquake, then does he not have a moral responsibility to do so?[/quote]No. Why? Because at the fall of man, the reigns of this world were given over to us. It is now our responsibility to mitigate the destruction of a fallen world.
[quote]So by referring to me as a child repeatedly, you were actually saying your argument was an act of desperation.[/quote]In a sense yes, as I am desperately trying to communicate these basic principles.
[quote]Or does it not count when you are offensive?[/quote] The offense should be secondary to your personal understanding of these basic concepts. If there is a lack of understanding in these basic terms then questions should be asked rather than trying to push past them with your current understandings. I was trying to force a productive dialog rather than continually argue a belabored point.
[quote]I trivialize your argument solely on the basis that your stance is irrelevant to the paradox. You say you don't know if he is omnipotent because the bible says nothing, then he is either omnipotent subject to Epicurus, or he is not omnipotent and is merely finitely powerful yet immoral (by human standards).[/quote]You do not understand my argument at all. I am saying omnipotence in not a biblical term and as such God is not bound to your (or Epicurus') understanding of the word in question.
[quote]Tell me, substituting evil as "against the will of God" does not change the dynamic? Not to mention completely irrelevant to Epicurus' statement.[/quote]
Sin is anything not in the expressed will of God. Evil is a malicious intent to commit sin, and yes it does, which is my point.
Plus If it is irrelevant to Epicurus' statement in it's original context then by definition is breaks the paradox.
If Epicurus is talking about a different understanding of God or different understanding of evil then the "paradox" does not apply everything man deems or addresses as God or any and everything he identifies as evil. Therefore to plug in the God of the bible to this work we must also bring in the definitions and descriptions the God of the bible uses to identify Himself!
Otherwise the work of Epicurus simply does not apply to the God being discussed.
[quote]No issue. No argument. If your God fails to live up to the standards for Godhood set by Epicurus then he is exempt.
Hence 'Then why call him God'.[/quote]Because of what God does call Himself and How He identifies Himself.
Believe it or not the standard of identifying God does not reside in the scope of Epicurus.
[quote]Pleasure and pain were ultimately, for Epicurus, the basis for the moral distinction between good and evil.
Do you deny this statement? Yes or No?[/quote] For Epicurus no, which again is not the issue as He was not talking about the God of the bible which Again He has his own definitions of Sin and Evil, and description of himself that puts him beyond the "paradox" EP made for himself.
[quote]If No, In what way does pain and suffering equate against our argument that evil is suffering.[/quote]How is pain and suffering not evil?
Because these two disliked human experiences are not intrinsically evil or sinful. They simply exist. It is how we perceive and interpret these experiences that ultimately ascribes good or bad value it as a whole.
[quote]Explain it once more, and explain how trying to define evil as "against Gods will" has ANYTHING to do with pain and suffering as defined by Epicurus.[/quote]Nothing to explain as you have made my point for me. They are two totally separate things. Therefore if we are to judge God then should it not be by His bible and His definitions of Sin and Evil?
[quote]If Yes, then prove that what we know of Greek Skeptics is actually completely wrong.
You accuse us all of twisting the argument, yet you are the one who wishes to use a faulty understanding of Evil. You are blinded by the blinkers of your faith if you cannot see this has been proven without doubt.[/quote]I said this once before I am only pointing out the hypocrisy in Judging God by a standard that you yourself would not want to be judged. in that you all have judged God using terms and descriptions of him not consistent with what He has claimed for himself.
What if i draged you before a like minded judge and labled you a rapist and murderer and then proceeded to tell the judge (in a general non specific way) all the bad things muderers and rapists do. All the while the two of us conspiring to ignore all of the personal attributes that would vindicate you, all the while soley focousing on what "murderers/rapeist" are known to do. Never mind the fact we are not even describing you in the least little way. You simply share a title that i arbertarily gave to you. would this be justice in your eyes?
[quote]My efforts are based into research into how Epicurus defined evil, through pleasure and pain. If you wish a responsible discussion, you must accept the terms as used by the creator of the argument and not the bible.[/quote]I see that you have finally changed direction and are facing the same way I was at the beginning. Now the only question is can you continue down this line of thought and catch up?
[quote]Point to where I have misused the term Sin please. All sin is Evil. If you have separated the two concepts that constitutes as a misuse of the term.
[quote]Try to understand, this is not an argument aimed solely at the Hebrew god. But any God that claims omnipotence and kindness. [/quote]Then the rest of the conversation is moot. For God does not claim that attribute. It is given to him by worshipers and atheists like.
[quote]You have stated that you have no idea if your God has omni aspects.[/quote]Not what was said. I said God of the bible does not claim these terms. They are given to him from people who do not know of or understand the biblical descriptions of Him.
[quote] So the question is; What can your God actually do apart from fail to act?[/quote]Begs the question.
[quote]Let's look at moral responsibility, the more power you have, the greater the moral responsibility you have for the usage of it. With great power comes great responsibility and all that.[/quote]Maybe if you are spider man.
[quote]If God is capable of averting an earthquake, then does he not have a moral responsibility to do so?[/quote]No. Why? Because at the fall of man, the reigns of this world were given over to us. It is now our responsibility to mitigate the destruction of a fallen world.
[quote]So by referring to me as a child repeatedly, you were actually saying your argument was an act of desperation.[/quote]In a sense yes, as I am desperately trying to communicate these basic principles.
[quote]Or does it not count when you are offensive?[/quote] The offense should be secondary to your personal understanding of these basic concepts. If there is a lack of understanding in these basic terms then questions should be asked rather than trying to push past them with your current understandings. I was trying to force a productive dialog rather than continually argue a belabored point.
[quote]I trivialize your argument solely on the basis that your stance is irrelevant to the paradox. You say you don't know if he is omnipotent because the bible says nothing, then he is either omnipotent subject to Epicurus, or he is not omnipotent and is merely finitely powerful yet immoral (by human standards).[/quote]You do not understand my argument at all. I am saying omnipotence in not a biblical term and as such God is not bound to your (or Epicurus') understanding of the word in question.
[quote]Tell me, substituting evil as "against the will of God" does not change the dynamic? Not to mention completely irrelevant to Epicurus' statement.[/quote]
Sin is anything not in the expressed will of God. Evil is a malicious intent to commit sin, and yes it does, which is my point.
Plus If it is irrelevant to Epicurus' statement in it's original context then by definition is breaks the paradox.
If Epicurus is talking about a different understanding of God or different understanding of evil then the "paradox" does not apply everything man deems or addresses as God or any and everything he identifies as evil. Therefore to plug in the God of the bible to this work we must also bring in the definitions and descriptions the God of the bible uses to identify Himself!
Otherwise the work of Epicurus simply does not apply to the God being discussed.
[quote]No issue. No argument. If your God fails to live up to the standards for Godhood set by Epicurus then he is exempt.
Hence 'Then why call him God'.[/quote]Because of what God does call Himself and How He identifies Himself.
Believe it or not the standard of identifying God does not reside in the scope of Epicurus.
[quote]Pleasure and pain were ultimately, for Epicurus, the basis for the moral distinction between good and evil.
Do you deny this statement? Yes or No?[/quote] For Epicurus no, which again is not the issue as He was not talking about the God of the bible which Again He has his own definitions of Sin and Evil, and description of himself that puts him beyond the "paradox" EP made for himself.
[quote]If No, In what way does pain and suffering equate against our argument that evil is suffering.[/quote]How is pain and suffering not evil?
Because these two disliked human experiences are not intrinsically evil or sinful. They simply exist. It is how we perceive and interpret these experiences that ultimately ascribes good or bad value it as a whole.
[quote]Explain it once more, and explain how trying to define evil as "against Gods will" has ANYTHING to do with pain and suffering as defined by Epicurus.[/quote]Nothing to explain as you have made my point for me. They are two totally separate things. Therefore if we are to judge God then should it not be by His bible and His definitions of Sin and Evil?
[quote]If Yes, then prove that what we know of Greek Skeptics is actually completely wrong.
You accuse us all of twisting the argument, yet you are the one who wishes to use a faulty understanding of Evil. You are blinded by the blinkers of your faith if you cannot see this has been proven without doubt.[/quote]I said this once before I am only pointing out the hypocrisy in Judging God by a standard that you yourself would not want to be judged. in that you all have judged God using terms and descriptions of him not consistent with what He has claimed for himself.
What if i draged you before a like minded judge and labled you a rapist and murderer and then proceeded to tell the judge (in a general non specific way) all the bad things muderers and rapists do. All the while the two of us conspiring to ignore all of the personal attributes that would vindicate you, all the while soley focousing on what "murderers/rapeist" are known to do. Never mind the fact we are not even describing you in the least little way. You simply share a title that i arbertarily gave to you. would this be justice in your eyes?
[quote]My efforts are based into research into how Epicurus defined evil, through pleasure and pain. If you wish a responsible discussion, you must accept the terms as used by the creator of the argument and not the bible.[/quote]I see that you have finally changed direction and are facing the same way I was at the beginning. Now the only question is can you continue down this line of thought and catch up?
