Epicurus riddle.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The riddle doesn't account for the notion that this is the best of all possible worlds. It also doesn't address the role of kenosis, if there is one.

EDIT:

To clarify my earlier post, objections that rely on the Problem of Evil fail to undermine the Sovereignty and Might of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Taken collectively, the following clarifications show that the objections are naïve, at best:

The supposed refutation presupposes that God may act contrary to order. Unlike the pagan notions of the Divine, our Lord does not govern His creation by magic; but rather, according to an order that reflects His own intelligibility (Romans 1:20, Psalm 19: 1-6).

By necessity, the creation cannot equal or exceed the perfection of God. (Revelation 1:8, Isaiah 43:10) Without some privation, creation would be a second God identical in all ways, a violation of the Law of Identity.

A world with the possibility of voluntary love is better than one in which love is compelled or absent. (Duet 10:12, 1 John 4:7, John 15:12, John 3:16)

Our Lord is Just and will restore His order when disrupted by either moral or natural order (Rev 21:4, Job 34:12)

The Passion of Our Lord shows that He does not stand aloof from our pain; but rather participates in it (Matthes 27:32-56). Pain is a given; suffering is optional.

Additionally, the argument tacitly accepts that there are moral absolutes. If the skeptic holds that moral values and judgments can be mitigated by circumstance then he places his own incredulity above Divine Judgments.

[Minimalist]

It's not a "riddle."  It's a statement of the obvious.

[Catholic_Lady]

The riddle doesn't account for the notion that this is the best of all possible worlds. It also doesn't address the role of kenosis, if there is one.

EDIT:

To clarify my earlier post, objections that rely on the Problem of Evil fail to undermine the Sovereignty and Might of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Taken collectively, the following clarifications show that the objections are naïve, at best:

The supposed refutation presupposes that God may act contrary to order. Unlike the pagan notions of the Divine, our Lord does not govern His creation by magic; but rather, according to an order that reflects His own intelligibility (Romans 1:20, Psalm 19: 1-6).

By necessity, the creation cannot equal or exceed the perfection of God. (Revelation 1:8, Isaiah 43:10) Without some privation, creation would be a second God identical in all ways, a violation of the Law of Identity.

A world with the possibility of voluntary love is better than one in which love is compelled or absent. (Duet 10:12, 1 John 4:7, John 15:12, John 3:16)

Our Lord is Just and will restore His order when disrupted by either moral or natural order (Rev 21:4, Job 34:12)

The Passion of Our Lord shows that He does not stand aloof from our pain; but rather participates in it (Matthes 27:32-56). Pain is a given; suffering is optional.

Additionally, the argument tacitly accepts that there are moral absolutes. If the skeptic holds that moral values and judgments can be mitigated by circumstance then he places his own incredulity above Divine Judgments.

Very well said.

[Mudhammam]

The riddle doesn't account for the notion that this is the best of all possible worlds. It also doesn't address the role of kenosis, if there is one.

I can easily imagine better possible worlds. A start would include the elimination of natural evil, such as excessive suffering and death as a necessary mechanism for the evolution of species, and catastrophes such as tsunamis, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc. Even if you argue that suffering of this sort, that a more perfect God could easily rid the world of (as we are told in many religious traditions that eventually he will), is needed for greater acts of goodness to be realized, it still remains unreasonable to believe that none of the evil observed could have been reduced without the loss of opportunity for such acts. Of course, your point is valid if you concede that God is not omnipotent. Otherwise, you can only hold out on faith that the simplest and most evident explanation is incorrect, though consequently this is by definition an irrational belief to hold.

To clarify my earlier post, objections that rely on the Problem of Evil fail to undermine the Sovereignty and Might of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Taken collectively, the following clarifications show that the objections are naïve, at best:

The supposed refutation presupposes that God may act contrary to order. Unlike the pagan notions of the Divine, our Lord does not govern His creation by magic; but rather, according to an order that reflects His own intelligibility (Romans 1:20, Psalm 19: 1-6).

If that's the case, that God's creation is "according to an order that reflects His own intelligibility," we should not expect to find ourselves inhabiting an atom in which the infinite amount of space surrounding us is both hostile and chaotic. Aside from the fact that it is only due to our ability to adapt that we are able to survive what are otherwise rather harsh conditions, we actually cannot adapt to basically anywhere else in the known universe, minus these few continents that we do indeed possess. So, appearances would suggest that creation reflects anything but the work of an orderly, intelligent, or benevolent creator... at least insofar as it concerns human beings and any judgments we are able to make about morality, beauty, order, etc.

By necessity, the creation cannot equal or exceed the perfection of God. (Revelation 1:8, Isaiah 43:10) Without some privation, creation would be a second God identical in all ways, a violation of the Law of Identity.

If you cannot imagine some privation without the excessive and unnecessary suffering present in the world, you lag even behind the ancient who fantasized Isaiah 11:6.

A world with the possibility of voluntary love is better than one in which love is compelled or absent. (Duet 10:12, 1 John 4:7, John 15:12, John 3:16)

Non-sequitur

Our Lord is Just and will restore His order when disrupted by either moral or natural order (Rev 21:4, Job 34:12)

My first paragraph rebuts this to the extend that it requires blind faith in an elaborate scheme in place of a far simpler explanation, but even if it were true, it wouldn't establish the necessity of most or all of the present disorder.

The Passion of Our Lord shows that He does not stand aloof from our pain; but rather participates in it (Matthes 27:32-56). Pain is a given; suffering is optional.

Non-sequitur.

Additionally, the argument tacitly accepts that there are moral absolutes. If the skeptic holds that moral values and judgments can be mitigated by circumstance then he places his own incredulity above Divine Judgments.

I don't know what you're trying to say here, but why shouldn't there be moral absolutes simply because there is no God, whether he's omnipotent and morally indifferent or evil, or benevolent but restricted in his powers? If you mean that we're not in a position to determine good and evil, without divine guidance, you're argument is simply question begging, and further, it disallows yourself from making any such judgments.

Clearly, you have failed to invalidate Epicurus' paradox.

[Jenny A]

---

I've never really understood what it means to be a slave to sin.

---

We all have sin we tend to violate more than others. try to stop sinning. The reason you can't is because you are a slave to it. you must yield to your desire to sin.
No one is without sin. if they believe themselves to be without sin they have deluded themselves. We ALL Sin all the time.
 Biblically, sin is transgression against god's laws.

I don't pay any attention to god's laws at all.  No god, no laws of god.  It's fairly simple. I do pay attention to what I consider to be moral and immoral.  I haven't found much problem avoided seriously hurting anyone and I'm not much concerned with minor injuries.  I am indifferent to the large set of things you call sin.

 So other than following them, how could anyone be a slave to god's laws.

The law is not the goal. In the Roman's study I did a while back we learn that the Law only has one purpose, and that is to show everyone Is a Sinner. To be a 'slave to God' means is to allow Jesus to 'buy' your sin debt with his spilt blood.

Allowing someone to purchase something for you can hardly be called slavery by any ordinary definition of the term.

This is the only real 'choice' we are given. to chose to be remain a slave to sin or to be bought by Christ. To remain a slave to sin means we all owe a death. a Spiritual death and a Physical death. Christ paid both and offers us eternal life in exchange for our debt.

Stated that way it's just coercion.  Do something physically impossible, or believe in me and love.  Otherwise I kill you.  --No thanks.

 

But of course as defined by Jesus, the abscence of sin is impossible as it would involve not only giving away everything you have, but not ever having any bad thoughts either, including harmless natural ones like lust.

That's the point of Jesus expanding the law to include even sinful thoughts. So that all would understand they were [not] without sin.

I took the liberty of adding the "not" I think you intended.  

What you are really saying is Jesus came to make it impossible to follow the law.  Is that really what you mean?  Do you realize what an ugly idea that is?

 Frankly, given his failure to honor his mother and father,

How did Jesus' teaching the teachers of the temple for 3 days bring shame on his father and mother?

I didn't say that:

"47Someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You." 48But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?" 49And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers!…"  Mathew 12:48

questioning god at Gesthsemone,

Where in the law says we are not allowed to ask God questions?
1Thess 5:21 says question ALL Things and hold on to what is Good. This means not only question the questionable but we are also to question the foundational.[/Quote]

He wasn't asking god questions at Gethsemone.  He was asking god to change his will. "Take this cup away."  In other words, a thought crime.  

and authorizing the theft of both a donkey and an ass(or was it a colt?),

I must have missed that one. If your talking about the donkey he rode into Jersulem on, how was that stealing? was it stealing when Jesus told one of his disciples to pay the temple tax with a gold coin they found in the mouth of a fish?
Is it not possible for you to conceive that the God who call creation into existence could not have put the tax money needed in the mouth of a fish or leave a donkey tied up??? I could do both of these things and I'm not God. What makes these things Jesus', is the fact he knew where and when these things would be left for Him.
The donkey like the tax money was prepared for him/his use.

"21 As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, 2 saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. 3 If anyone says anything to you, say that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away.”  Mathew 21:1=-

Why would anyone say anything to them, if that colt and donkey did not belong to someone else?  He told the disciples to steal and then made use of the stolen goods.


 

"good" being defined by popular morality is meaningless. for example Oscar Shiendler was a "Good Nazi" Now if you judge the man in light of his peers and fellow war propheteers he was a hero, but if you were to judge his life against even the morality of today he was a monster.
He worked train loads of slaves to Death.
This includes women and children.
The people in his care lived in death camp environments, they starved, their medical needs were not met, yet he profited/millions from this work.
Not to mention he 'skimmed young ladies off the top.'

Take away his name and what he did in the end to 'redeem himself' and apply these deeds to a single person, and use your best 'moral judgment' and evaluate these deeds as they stand on their own. Now ask yourself is a man who were to do these things hero by your understanding of what is 'moral?'

No of course not. It is not until you put these deeds in context of his specific story does he become a hero. Why does that make a difference? Because 'we' put a false grade on sin. we believe some sins are worse than others. and if we stay on the lighter end of the spectrum we are 'good people.'

but again look at Oscar's list of 'immorality.' The fact that we can label him a hero in light of all of his misdeeds points to how perverse his society's time and morals of that people were, because his list was on the light side of what his peers were doing, was capped by a simple gesture of humanity made him a hero. It is only from a third person perspective can we truly see how far our 'morality' has shifted from any standard of good.

Or did you think in that time the Nazis saw themselves and what they were doing as immoral? Do you think members of ISIS see themselves as 'Immoral"? what about the guys who flew into the world trade center did they see themselves as 'immoral?'

Without God's law how is it you are any different? How would you see yourself as 'immoral' if like the people of ISIS, the Nazis, and the Taliban you grew up in a society where everything they do is moral (no matter how crazy it would seem to other societies?) You only see yourself as 'moral' because your society dictates morality for you, and you stay with in those bounds.

I'm asking you and people like you what if you grew up in one of the soceities this society defines as 'evil/immoral'? With Your pattern (without God/Without the bible) is to simply follow what society sets fourth as 'morality.' So how could you be 'moral' as this society defines it IF you did not grow up here in this society? Or would you be blowing yourself up at the first sign of westerns? Marching Jews into death camps? Cutting off heads of 'immoral people' if the pop morality you grew up with said that was ok?

This kind of thinking illustrates the danger of thinking that all moral infractions are equal.  Shiendler was recognized by the Jews as a hero.  Surely, those in his care have some right to an opinion on the matter.  Shiendler saved them from a greater evil by committing a lessor one.  He did some at some personal risk. And he did so against the laws and customs of the Nazis. You see context very much matters.

I think the devil's greatest victory was to sell you guys on 'morality' and the distain you have for all slavery.
When in reality not all slavery is evil. what makes slavery evil is the absolute power unchecked/unregulated slavery gives to evil men. with such power comes complete corruption, once such complete corruption is overcome any aspect of slavery without thought or regard is automatically given over to the stereotype of pure evil without forethought.

In the bible Slavery trades work for honor, lands, commodities, the right to marry into a great or strong family.. On some level this is what God is asking us for. the humility, the honesty to look at ourselves critically, and a heart contrite enough to follow through a superficial process of redemption.. After all, if we are not commanded to repent and live a sin free life, what is the actual cost to us? aside from humility and a little honesty when looking at ourselves... Nothing! and that all goes back to "Salvation is a gift from God so that no man can boast!"
What would one boast about?? His 'morality' of course!

Hebrew slavery looks pretty corrupt to me and that the Bible causes you not to think so is a sign that the Bible is an evil book.  The power to beat a man so badly that he dies of his wounds three days later, is hardly lack of control.

[Godscreated]

Didn't read the link did you? The link represents 'the problem of evil' and how it has been argued for literally thousands of years! I don't have to argue with you because you are the one who literally arguing with how this paradox is accepted and defined.

We are slaves to either God or sin, their is no free will either.

So why do I want to worship God? I do not want to be bound/be a slave to sin.

Nonsense, you don't want to fry in hell. That's all the Christian belief system is, the fear of punishment.

Nonsense, Christianity is about love, "a love that saves us from hell through forgiveness", this is true love. We choose this love because we do not want to go to hell. Call this fear if you choose, I want argue against it. What happens to those who actually seek this love and grow in it, we come into a living relationship with God and desire to leave sin behind us as much as possible. For those who do not seek this love, well, they should be terrified of the punishment they are building for their eternity, it will be a hell beyond belief until they have to face God and then live eternally the hell they have made for themselves, the hell they live is their's and their's alone. They make it and then will live it.
GC

[Mudhammam]

Nonsense, Christianity is about love, "a love that saves us from hell through forgiveness", this is true love. We choose this love because we do not want to go to hell. Call this fear if you choose, I want argue against it. What happens to those who actually seek this love and grow in it, we come into a living relationship with God and desire to leave sin behind us as much as possible. For those who do not seek this love, well, they should be terrified of the punishment they are building for their eternity, it will be a hell beyond belief until they have to face God and then live eternally the hell they have made for themselves, the hell they live is their's and their's alone. They make it and then will live it.
GC

Insert Islam for Christianity, and then consider what you think about your prospects of spending eternity in hell because you have chosen to follow your will over the will of God. You don't have to tell us about the terror it causes you, I don't care. Oh, it doesn't cause you to blink because you're confidant that Islam is bullshit? Well, that pretty much sums up my thoughts on your religion too, which by the way, encourages nothing but a sort of perverse self-love that actually gets people like yourself to talk as if you have acquired some special rights on account of your bullshit detector failing to function every now and then.

[Godscreated]

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
God has prevented evil, thus is able.
Then he is not omnipotent.
He's thus omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
God has prevented evil, showing He's willing.
Then he is malevolent.
Thus He's not malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Yes, as stated above, why be redundant in asking.
Then whence cometh evil?
Evil comes from the hearts and minds of people. Even evolutionary thinking doesn't deny this point.
Is he neither able nor willing?
As above He's able and willing.
Then why call him God?”
Because He's able and willing to save people from the evil they have made.

Knockout in the first round.

Epicurus was knocked out before he began, the above bold is mine and shows why ol' Epi never was a concern to God and His followers.

GC

[Godscreated]

---

Nonsense, Christianity is about love, "a love that saves us from hell through forgiveness", this is true love. We choose this love because we do not want to go to hell. Call this fear if you choose, I want argue against it. What happens to those who actually seek this love and grow in it, we come into a living relationship with God and desire to leave sin behind us as much as possible. For those who do not seek this love, well, they should be terrified of the punishment they are building for their eternity, it will be a hell beyond belief until they have to face God and then live eternally the hell they have made for themselves, the hell they live is their's and their's alone. They make it and then will live it.
GC

---

Insert Islam for Christianity, and then consider what you think about your prospects of spending eternity in hell because you have chosen to follow your will over the will of God. You don't have to tell us about the terror it causes you, I don't care. Oh, it doesn't cause you to blink because you're confidant that Islam is bullshit? Well, that pretty much sums up my thoughts on your religion too.

 Ignoring God is your will, not God's or mine, it's your life to do with as you want here, eternity belongs to God.


GC

[Minimalist]

Knockout in the first round.

Epicurus was knocked out before he began, the above bold is mine and shows why ol' Epi never was a concern to God and His followers.

GC

Still conning yourself with fairy tales, G-C.