Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: January 14, 2025, 2:32 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Epicurean Paradox
RE: Epicurean Paradox
(April 17, 2012 at 6:02 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: You're right, I do have trouble believing your God makes no claims to being all powerful and benevolent.
two thing the first addresses the next talking point. you accuse me of insulting you simply because you do not/can not understand basic christianity. Again not an insult but a point of fact. this is an example of that fact. I am sorry if you see it as an insult it is not meant to be. as it is an actual hinderance in this conversation. we can not continue unless you address how you understand biblical Christianity.

the second address the nature of your disbelief in God's claims to omni benevolence.
Look it up yourself:http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=omnibenevolance&searchtype=all&version1=50&language1=en&spanbegin=1&spanend=73

you have to learn to separate Religious teachings (the works thoughts and traditions of man) from actual scriptural teaching. I have found in my time that most of you identify Christianity and the christian religion to be one in the same. Religious Christianity or pop christianity deviates from the bible in order to fill in silent spots, and to under gird popular christian doctrine. To give people the answers they want to hear rather than represent what the bible teaches.

The Doctrine that supports the Omni Aspects of God (Including Omni benevolence) is one such doctrine. God is All Good but not to the fickle standards of man. God's goodness looks beyond your current life to your eternal life and seeks the path for you that will yield the greater good. God has no obligation to give you the good you see and want now. Therefore God is not omni benevolent as the doctrine suggests nor how those outside of the faith like EP interprets that term.

Quote:What you propose is that human existence is equated with the movements of ants. God has no benevolence for the ant, and does not care what befalls their existence, all he cares for in your world view is worship. It is not a reciprocated relationship.
He has the means to prevent needless pain and suffering but chooses not to, based on the indiscretion of his first creations.
Not at all. God is playing the long game, looking to your eternal life and what is needed in your current life to make your eternal one more complete.

Our time here in this life has been described as being in a forge, we're soft iron ore that is heated and pounded into harden steel. being that ore, how would or could we understand the True concept of omnibenevolance in the mist of the fire, anvil, and hammer Unless we turn to God's explaination of the heat and hardships to come.

Quote:Theres a word for that... spiteful. Synonym with malevolent.
Again only from the perspective from the anvil and furnace.

Quote:The bible does not say he is benevolent? So why are you arguing against the paradox? His actions, from our perspective are malevolent.
Again I did not say that. i only ever said He does not conform with the doctrine of Omnibenevolance, because that term nor that doctrine is not found in scripture.
Again we are Separating Religious and biblical Christianity.

Quote:Insults again. We understand the base and core principles very well. You simply do not wish to accept a counter-argument, through assertion of your own faulty definitions.
see the first half of the first paragraph.

Quote:To blame us for lack of understanding is nothing more than misdirection, which I accuse you of often, merely because it is a factual statement.
Your right i do give fractal understandings. why? again because you all have some experience in the church and believe your current understandings are the foundations of the whole of christianity. Which seldom if ever is the case. So what i am attempting to do is help you rebuild a basic understanding of Christianity using the bible as our guide and not some doctrinal nonsense designed to create a distinctive between denominations.

It is not my fault you guys do not take the time to process what is given and simply assert what you remember christianity to be about.
without a foundation based in the bible their is no point of discussing anything else. That means I can not proceed with the conversation until you have acknowledged the simple premise i am trying to install. To you I know this looks like i am being evasive and that I am stalling because I do not have answers. when the truth is my answers will not make sense unless you first have a basic working knowledge of the bible.
So I get to hear the abuse for short comings that are not my own.

The other thing this does is weed out those who are simply looking for a fight and singles out those seeking. Since it takes so much time and efforts to "start over" it is better to stick with the seekers and let the rest watch by the way side.

Quote:On the contrary, it is a simple question about the capabilities of the creator.
Then ask what can the creator do. If you are of the faith then you know basically the same stories i know. From Genesis/ the garden to the flood, to the story of Joseph and how he preserved Egypt and Israel from a famine to the exodus, to the conquests of David, the empowerment of Samson, the wisdom of Solomon, the punishment of Israel in the book of Daniel, to the preservation of his blood line to the birth life death and resurrection of Christ to the out pouring of the holy spirit to now.

Quote: It is commonly thought that the easiest way to define God is through his limitations, such as Aquinas perfection of power limitations, would you prefer to express your thoughts that way?
As God is the infinite "I am" there in lies his definition.
truthfully I can not even begin to comprehend all that that means. So i am stuck with the simple explanation. God is whoever he wants to be.

Quote:The philosophical statement I propose is thus;

The greater power you wield, the greater the moral responsibility you have to use at least some measure of it to prevent pain and suffering.

This is the premise I propose if you wish to prove that your God has no obligation to prevent pain and suffering.
Again which pain should God look to limit or eliminate? what we feel now or what takes place on an eternal level, and should He sacrifice one for the other?

Quote:You've already used it twice in this post. You claim God has no moral responsibility to prevent pain and suffering. We simply must put up and shut up and keep worshiping, despite his ability to prevent pain and suffering, its all our fault we're suffering.
Nobody buys that, its a perfect expression of infinite spite, and therefore malevolent.
I would say not only does God NOT prevent Pain and suffering He allows it. Look at the book of Job.

Quote:I'm starting to question why you feel the need to argue against the paradox, if your God is not benevolent.
Benevolence is not the issue your or EP's understanding of it is.

Quote:Understandable, I accept your apology, and offer my own for any slight I have offered in defense.
Kiss

Quote:I concede absolutely, and without reservation that your knowledge of the bible is greater, I wouldn't dare say otherwise. What I am suggesting, is that we are only capable of presenting our case for pain and suffering in ways that affect human beings. It is not logical to approach it from the standards of an infinite(perhaps) being, because we are not "He".
IF the question is why. Then we must endeavor to seek out what has been left for us to understand. The answers are there if you are willing To Ask, seek and Knock for them.

Quote:However, what I do suggest, is that we are in a position to state that his inaction appears to be malevolent from our standpoint, like the hamster trapped in the wheel.
If you feel, the hamster has no right to judge us for not preventing its pain and suffering because it does not understand human ways, does not remove the injustice that the hamster could feel in that position, and we appear malevolent.
the appearance of malevolence does not equate to malevolence.
The appearance of anything only points to one's perspective.

Quote:Even unto the millionth descendant yes.

This, from our position, would seem spiteful to punish us for the Sin of our antecedents.
We are not being punished for Adam's sin. our lives are littered with the consequences of our own sin.
The only thing passed down from Adam is the responsibility to own our sin, and even that has been care for if we seek atonement.

Quote:Would you agree with the following statement;

To mankind, God appears immoral, as morality has no meaning to God, only righteousness.

I make no judgments from this statement, I merely want to be sure we both agree on a concept.
without question just look at all of the arguments for a malevolent God just in this thread. Which again boils down to a simple matter of perspective.

Quote:If I am God, then my concepts are the religious concepts, not your understanding of them. Wink
Big Grin Now apply this sentiment to the paragraph/your question above.


Quote:The same principle as knowing your children are hungry, and therefore starving them so that they may know what real hunger is like.
Or taking them to a homeless shelter to work so they understand the privilege life they live. Or having them volunteer to spend time with kids with cancer.. The principle is sound in that unless we push past our comfort zones we will not know or can not live an informed/content life.

Now take this principle and place it on an eternal scale. How much more will we have to experience in order for these lessons to be imprinted on us for an eternity?

Quote:We were made in Gods image, now I'm not sure what your interpretation of this term is,
God's image refers to the spiritual aspect of our being. Meaning we have a soul.

Quote:so forgive me if I misuse it, but does this not mean that he has created us with this sense of entitlement to not suffer. Then makes us suffer to prove we are not entitled to it.
Being created in the Image of God does not mean anything other than we are of a dual nature. We have a physical aspect and a spiritual one. Suffering has nothing to do with any of this.
It is true we were originally created to not suffer as we were placed in the middle of paradise with God himself. However all of that changed when 'we' chose death and suffering over an existence with God.

Quote:Then we are the starving child, crying desperately for our parent to feed us, and only by obedience will we be sustained.
The ends do not justify the means in any interpretation of what you state.
I /the bible contends we are a starving child who will not eat. sustenance has been provided, yet we crave something not being offered so some of us refuse to eat.

If your kid tells you he will not eat the healthy "slop" you or your wife has served nor will he eat again unless it is hot dogs cookies or chips. do you let him go hungery a night or two? or do you change what you feed him the rest of his life?

Quote:What you propose appears to me, as if it makes all religion futile, that God is deliberately absent so that we may learn our lessons. Judgment is irrelevant because our redemption is measured through our suffering. Jesus has prevented none of this.
Now you are beginning to understand. This life is not purposed in order that we may learn how to make formal wishes, trades or demands of God simply by following a given set of rules. This is the departure in which i was speak about from the EP's paradox. His gods promised a good life and did not deliver. God promises a Hard life and that we have in abundance. The paradox does not stand because it does not apply to God in relation to what happens in this life.

Quote:Quick question; slightly besides the point, but idle curiosity. Do you believe your God wants to be loved, and do you believe he wants worship?
according to the bible yes, but maybe not in the way you picture love and worship.

Quote:If so, given we are born atheist, what does he do to warrant it if we do not know about eternal life.
I was born without the ability to speak or to eat solid foods, that does not mean I have to live the next 70 or 80 years equip with what I are born with.

Quote:The existence of the bible is futile, as it is without basis, and has no apparent truth element to it beyond any other work of fiction.
There is a real simple way to dismiss the bible or to find it creditable for yourself.
Read it and put into practice the promises it makes. If you note a change when you follow the directions then be faithful to what you are given and you will be given more. At some point (depending on your heart and your willingness to make biblical (not religious) changes) in your life you will come face to face with God. At that point nothing anyone else has to say about the bible or christianity being just anther work of religious fiction will matter. you will know for yourself Who God is and where you stand. This will not be a easy journey, but you can take comfort in the fact you will not be given more than what you can bear.
Plus as you progress you will have more and more access to God and what He has promised to the faithful.

Quote:If God means for us to worship him, despite suffering, then why be obtuse and mysterious?
He makes himself known to all who Ask, Seek and Knock as outlined in Luke 11. Why else do you think so many have worshiped so long?

Quote:All it does, is make him appear malevolent. He may not to you, and you accept suffering as is your "due".
Your position my position are all a matter of perspective. If you learn to look from where He would have you look then clarity is offered.

Quote:When this is all said and done, lack of existence is more probable than absenteeism given the obtuse instruction you claim he has given.
Perhaps from where you are standing, but I know in my trials my pain and suffering were heavily regulated. I was often pushed to my breaking point but never past. It is in these trials that we learn to truly ask and seek. when we learn to ask and seek properly we in turn receive answers.

Answers from God are like those found in this thread. You have a beginning of knowledge because you continued/knocked to ask and seek till you got what you were looking for.
The same effort is required of God. He will show you an issue with an area of your life that is preventing further knoweledge/contact and it will be up to you to make a change, when you do you will be given more knoweledge and shown another part of your life that needs to be changed.
Reply
RE: Epicurean Paradox
@Drich,

You still haven't answered me yet. Should we, form now on, take the following statements as true regarding the god of bible?

1. The god of bible is neither omnipotent nor omni-benevolent.
2. By Epicurean standards, the god of your bible is not an actual god.
Reply
RE: Epicurean Paradox
This conversation is circling around to a point that it has already passed Genk, you're going to be disappointed.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
RE: Epicurean Paradox
(April 17, 2012 at 7:55 pm)Rhythm Wrote: This conversation is circling around to a point that it has already passed Genk, you're going to be disappointed.

When? Where? What was the conclusion? Did Drich accept that his god is a poser?
Reply
RE: Epicurean Paradox
Nope. I'll dredge back and find the posts for you. The general gist was that the omni-aspects are not doctrinal, so epicuras doesn't apply, but that the non-doctrinal omni-attributes contain "enough truth" to be claimed anyway..lol. I believe the analogy of an un-authorized biography was made. May have been in the thread that this thread bled over from. Not sure why he felt the need to create a new thread?

(at the time I thought maybe this was just some misunderstanding about what was entailed in a "consistent thought", but now I'm pretty convinced Drich is a troll)

I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
RE: Epicurean Paradox
(April 17, 2012 at 8:30 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Nope. I'll dredge back and find the posts for you. The general gist was that the omni-aspects are not doctrinal, so epicuras doesn't apply, but that the non-doctrinal omni-attributes contain "enough truth" to be claimed anyway..lol. I believe the analogy of an un-authorized biography was made.

No need. I know that my first statement about the omni-aspects was established. I reiterated it for clarity.

I wanted the answer to the second point - that the biblical god doesn't measure up to the Epicurean standards of godliness.
Reply
RE: Epicurean Paradox
(April 17, 2012 at 8:30 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Nope. I'll dredge back and find the posts for you. The general gist was that the omni-aspects are not doctrinal, so epicuras doesn't apply, but that the non-doctrinal omni-attributes contain "enough truth" to be claimed anyway..lol. I believe the analogy of an un-authorized biography was made. May have been in the thread that this thread bled over from. Not sure why he felt the need to create a new thread?

(at the time I thought maybe this was just some misunderstanding about what was entailed in a "consistent thought", but now I'm pretty convinced Drich is a troll)
How so? Because I am talking about aspects of Biblical Christianity that you are unfamiliar with?



(April 17, 2012 at 8:35 pm)genkaus Wrote:
(April 17, 2012 at 8:30 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Nope. I'll dredge back and find the posts for you. The general gist was that the omni-aspects are not doctrinal, so epicuras doesn't apply, but that the non-doctrinal omni-attributes contain "enough truth" to be claimed anyway..lol. I believe the analogy of an un-authorized biography was made.

No need. I know that my first statement about the omni-aspects was established. I reiterated it for clarity.

I wanted the answer to the second point - that the biblical god doesn't measure up to the Epicurean standards of godliness.

No the God of the bible and the gods the Epicurean paradox do not promise the same things. they are not the same gods/God.

If you would take the time to read some of the other posts all of your questions have already been answered in detail.
Reply
RE: Epicurean Paradox
(April 18, 2012 at 12:22 am)Drich Wrote: No the God of the bible and the gods the Epicurean paradox do not promise the same things. they are not the same gods/God.

If you would take the time to read some of the other posts all of your questions have already been answered in detail.

That wasn't the question. Ofcourse they are not the same god and you have no idea what Epicurius's gods promise.

The question was, do you accept that by epicurean standards your god is inferior being?
Reply
RE: Epicurean Paradox
(April 18, 2012 at 12:35 am)genkaus Wrote:
(April 18, 2012 at 12:22 am)Drich Wrote: No the God of the bible and the gods the Epicurean paradox do not promise the same things. they are not the same gods/God.

If you would take the time to read some of the other posts all of your questions have already been answered in detail.

That wasn't the question. Ofcourse they are not the same god and you have no idea what Epicurius's gods promise.

The question was, do you accept that by epicurean standards your god is inferior being?
The epicurean paradox does not make such a compareson. you do, and no I do not agree with you.

Reply
RE: Epicurean Paradox
(April 18, 2012 at 12:51 am)Drich Wrote: The epicurean paradox does not make such a compareson. you do, and no I do not agree with you.

Yes it does. The Epicurean paradox says "Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"

The "he" here refers to whatever entity is posing as a god such as your biblical one, God refers to a god by Epicurean standards and the question here clearly a comparison between the two based on their qualities of ability and intent. Seems like a straightforward comparison to me.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The Paradox of Power.... ronedee 607 125371 October 6, 2015 at 12:17 am
Last Post: ronedee
  A strange apologetic paradox Esquilax 10 3035 February 21, 2014 at 1:16 pm
Last Post: fr0d0
  The abortion paradox Ciel_Rouge 88 30555 September 9, 2012 at 9:21 pm
Last Post: TaraJo
  Christian Paradox tackattack 127 52011 February 18, 2010 at 5:26 pm
Last Post: fr0d0



Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)