It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Problem of Evil.

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 02:30 PM
link   

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by ketsuko
 


So why did god step in at Sodom and Gomorrah or the Flood? Wasn't he interfering with our free will then?


The Old Testament was a different age in humanity's time. God was directly active setting up the events to come including the birth of Christ through the people of Abraham. This was the Age of Israel under Mosaic Law which demonstrates how impossible it is to be righteous through the law. No one could do it, not perfectly, until Christ who wasn't really human.

Christ was more or less God's last recognizable direct intervention in this age, the Church Age and age of the New Covenant. In this age, God acts through his Church (not a religious organization but the body of believers whether they attend a church or no). This is, as I said before, the age of man as we are to be God's direct agents. And when God steps in a starts directly acting again, and it should be very obvious, you'll know that this age, The Church Age, is about to end with the Second Coming.




posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Excuse any typos I am on my phone. So many of you are bringing up points touched on in the second video. Many of you have said moral law can exist without with out a law giver. Zacharias points out that when a question of evil is raised it is raised about a person or by a person. This implies that humans have intrinsic value. The theistic world view is the only one that even touches on that. How else are you to give intrinsic value to a product of time plus matter plus chance?

If good and evil are relative, then on what grounds does one differentiate one persons moral out look from another. How are you to say what ted Bundy did was evil if it was within his moral frame work? This just doesn't fit with me. How are we to say easterners who believe the world.would be better without the west are wrong for wanting to eradicate us when all they believe they are doing is bettering the world. This outlook is not even close to being reality. Not one person here believes that Stalin or Hitler were doing something good. Not one person believes rape is acceptable. Evil is real and we all know it.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   

jmdewey60
reply to post by Astyanax
 

The problem of evil is, simply, that it makes it impossible for God to be both good and omnipotent. There have been many attempts by the religious to resolve this contradiction, but they all amount to an eyewash. . . .
I think that the problem with "the religious" is this term, omnipotent.
There is this word in the Greek, Pantocrator, found twice in the Old Testament that, that gets interpreted as meaning omnipotent, but really means the highest authority.
It is a carry-over in the NT from its use in the Septuagint as the Greek substitute for the Hebrew word, El Shaddai, which means sovereign.

Also, the Bible doesn't say that God created the universe, but that there was a natural existence that had an evil quality to it, that had to be overcome just to make a habitable environment to have living beings in it to survive.


The bible doesn't say god created the universe? Have you read the first verse of the first book? In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth....in the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the word was god and by him and through him were all things made, and without him nothing that has been made can be made. Dewey you need some work on your interpretations.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 

The bible doesn't say god created the universe? Have you read the first verse of the first book? In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth....in the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the word was god and by him and through him were all things made, and without him nothing that has been made can be made. Dewey you need some work on your interpretations.
There isn't a Hebrew word that means create as in making something out of nothing, the word used in Genesis means formed.
God formed the heaven by making an expanse between the ocean and the firmament by separating the waters.
"The earth" is dry land that was exposed when the ocean was driven back.
It was already there, but was covered by the ocean.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 01:49 AM
link   

jmdewey60
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 

The bible doesn't say god created the universe? Have you read the first verse of the first book? In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth....in the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the word was god and by him and through him were all things made, and without him nothing that has been made can be made. Dewey you need some work on your interpretations.
There isn't a Hebrew word that means create as in making something out of nothing, the word used in Genesis means formed.
God formed the heaven by making an expanse between the ocean and the firmament by separating the waters.
"The earth" is dry land that was exposed when the ocean was driven back.
It was already there, but was covered by the ocean.


Ok so first, Why did you equate the heavens in verse 1 with the heavens in verse 8?

The Hebrew word for "heavens" in verse 1 is "shamayim" which includes the sky and outer space, and in verse 8 is is raqiya or the visible arch of the earths sky.

The word used for "create" in verse one is "bara" literally means "to create" and always refers to a direct work of God. What is the definition of create?

Create-
bring (something) into existence.

To bring into existence. That means start from a state of nonexistence or nothing.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 10:28 AM
link   

ketsuko
No, I have. If God stepped in and prevented bad things from happening, our wills would not be our own. What's the point of freewill if, as soon as someone decided to do something heinous to someone else, God stopped them?


Freewill (if it even exists) is a lot more than choosing to commit heinous crimes......if a 'god' had decided to save those people from the gas chambers/ovens...........who's 'freewill' would he be affecting? and how much of it?

This is a poor excuse for the non-actions of an apparent 'god' of any description.


Do you want to have freewill or a completely safe world?


Why would you think those are the only two options available?....


As horrible as it is, the consequence of freewill is that some will always do monstrous, even unspeakable things. Things like the holocaust and the captivity of Elisabeth Frietzl are possible, even likely, particularly if good men and women do nothing. All the world saw Hitler on the rise and heard his rhetoric and they chose to appease him rather than try to stop him. You can't tell me that everyone was completely ignorant of the treatment of the undesirables in Germany and elsewhere prior to the liberation of the first camps. The fact is that there has always been widespread hatred directed at Jews, Roma and others that persists to this day, and you can still see it on this site. Enough people chose to turn a blind eye, and the holocaust was the result.


So what is the point of a 'god' if it cannot even bring itself to help those in the absolute worst of circumstances?


In the midst of all the tragedy, people resist and do what's right even at the risk of their own lives. This, too, is a choice and part of having freewill for ourselves. You can do what's right, you can choose not to do anything, you can do what's popular, you can do what's wrong or a host of other variations in between. But if God steps in ... none of that is possible. It's done for you.


Nonsense, if person A decides to rape and torture person B and a 'god' intervenes, a singular choice was taken and then taken away, but person A's freewill is still intact. If I decide to help person B am I taking away person A's freewill?


So again, I ask, do you want a safe, riskless existence with a guiding hand, or one you have to truly live that involves making your own decisions and taking the responsibility for them and also involves taking the risk that the decisions of others might mean horrible things for you and yours?


If i'm under the threat of a god, threats that all gods make to their morals in one way or another (eternal hell etc), if a 'god' even expects something from me, if a god claims to love me, then yes I'd expect some help at sometime. Especially if I was in a situation as awful as the ones the jews and Elisabeth Fritzl faced. Otherwise....what's the point?


Btw, where did I say those people who risked things "felt goodness?" I didn't. I said they showed the depths of possible human goodness. There is a difference. You make it sound like they were acting entirely for their own self-gratification which is pure selfishness. Many of them did what they did because they simply couldn't ignore what was happening and had to help others. They were acting on the selfless side of the Golden Rule equation. They were doing what they did not out of any hope of gain for themselves, especially as many were putting their own lives at extreme risk to do what they did.


So I'll ask.....you're saying the suffering of the six million jews was worthwhile so those few people could show 'depths of possible human goodness'?


Now, you're the one making assumptions here. I mentioned nothing about the Bible or which God. You're the one bringing your anti-religious baggage to the table this time. Oh, an see the comments above about hatred of people of a certain religious persuasion....


......right.....so you've just made your own completely original beliefs up?


Some things are pretty universally wrong - murder, rape, theft.

But, I suppose if you want to get moral relativistic, you can look at things this way: I think murder is always morally wrong ... or at least, it's always morally wrong for me. However, that culture over there thinks murder is perfectly valid if an individual has stained their honor or the honor of their family, and who am I to judge their culture. At that point, you have just rationalized where murder is acceptable for you and no longer morally wrong. Congratulations! Murder is no longer always morally wrong for you.


......it's not.....if someone attempts to kill me and mine....ill attempt to kill them to stop that from happening. There are a few situations where killing another person is morally valid. I don't think you've thought any of this through...


Thus, moral relativism is really just a means to not ever have to say that anything is ever right or wrong, and a means of making everything acceptable in your worldview.


Right because we need a 'god' to tell us what not to do, whats right or wrong. If you think you need such a creature to tell you this, then i'm very happy you do believe in such a thing....



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 





I really wish you would have watched the second link, and that goes for many others on the thread who say there can be a moral law without a moral law giver. Many of you started talking about asteroids, and what not. When a question of Evil is raised, it is either about a person or by a person, which assume persons have intrinsic worth. Many of you are also saying that there doesn't have to be a law giver for a moral law. Let me ask you this, how do you give intrinsic worth to a product of time+matter+chance?


Because of the moon's tidal pull, waves continuously crash against the rocky cliff.



Eventually, the cliff will succomb to the water, lose its noble stance, and turn to sand.

You can look at this force in two ways, one, is seeing the water as an aggressive force. That's obvious. But, through my eyes I can also see unwavering love.

How does the cliff experience the constant onslaught of water? Does the cliff resist and hate the water for wearing it away? Or, does is the cliff madly in love with the water?

Such is the question of good and evil, in my opinion. It 's all perspective.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   

jmdewey60
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 

The bible doesn't say god created the universe? Have you read the first verse of the first book? In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth....in the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the word was god and by him and through him were all things made, and without him nothing that has been made can be made. Dewey you need some work on your interpretations.
There isn't a Hebrew word that means create as in making something out of nothing, the word used in Genesis means formed.
God formed the heaven by making an expanse between the ocean and the firmament by separating the waters.
"The earth" is dry land that was exposed when the ocean was driven back.
It was already there, but was covered by the ocean.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


Ok so first, Why did you equate the heavens in verse 1 with the heavens in verse 8?

The Hebrew word for "heavens" in verse 1 is "shamayim" which includes the sky and outer space, and in verse 8 is is raqiya or the visible arch of the earths sky.
"shamayim" is in verse 8, too, so what is your point?
There seems to be a double usage of firmament, to mean the thing itself and what is contained in it.
Like a cup of water could mean the cup or the water in it.
The NIV translates it as Vault, so you have this thing, a vault, meaning a roof, and then there is this thing the vault meaning the space contained in it.
Genesis says that the space within it, God called the heavens, so what you are presenting as a point of contention is irrelevant as it does not change anything that I earlier said.

The word used for "create" in verse one is "bara" literally means "to create" and always refers to a direct work of God. What is the definition of create?

Create-
bring (something) into existence.
You are taking an example of how the Hebrew word could be used in an English translation, then using standard English definitions of that word to jump back and define the original Hebrew word.

To bring into existence. That means start from a state of nonexistence or nothing.
You can bring about a situation that did not previously exist, by putting existing physical things into a particular relationship to each other.
edit on 9-3-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 03:11 PM
link   

jmdewey60
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


Ok so first, Why did you equate the heavens in verse 1 with the heavens in verse 8?

The Hebrew word for "heavens" in verse 1 is "shamayim" which includes the sky and outer space, and in verse 8 is is raqiya or the visible arch of the earths sky.
"shamayim" is in verse 8, too, so what is your point?
There seems to be a double usage of firmament, to mean the thing itself and what is contained in it.
Like a cup of water could mean the cup or the water in it.
The NIV translates it as Vault, so you have this thing, a vault, meaning a roof, and then there is this thing the vault meaning the space contained in it.
Genesis says that the space within it, God called the heavens, so what you are presenting as a point of contention is irrelevant as it does not change anything that I earlier said.

The word used for "create" in verse one is "bara" literally means "to create" and always refers to a direct work of God. What is the definition of create?

Create-
bring (something) into existence.
You are taking an example of how the Hebrew word could be used in an English translation, then using standard English definitions of that word to jump back and define the original Hebrew word.

To bring into existence. That means start from a state of nonexistence or nothing.
You can bring about a situation that did not previously exist, by putting existing physical things into a particular relationship to each other.
edit on 9-3-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


I am sorry Hebrews define "to create" differently than we do? You are also ignoring the statement quoted from John 1

I also apologize raqiya is used in verse 6 not 8.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   

windword
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 





I really wish you would have watched the second link, and that goes for many others on the thread who say there can be a moral law without a moral law giver. Many of you started talking about asteroids, and what not. When a question of Evil is raised, it is either about a person or by a person, which assume persons have intrinsic worth. Many of you are also saying that there doesn't have to be a law giver for a moral law. Let me ask you this, how do you give intrinsic worth to a product of time+matter+chance?


Because of the moon's tidal pull, waves continuously crash against the rocky cliff.



Eventually, the cliff will succomb to the water, lose its noble stance, and turn to sand.

You can look at this force in two ways, one, is seeing the water as an aggressive force. That's obvious. But, through my eyes I can also see unwavering love.

How does the cliff experience the constant onslaught of water? Does the cliff resist and hate the water for wearing it away? Or, does is the cliff madly in love with the water?

Such is the question of good and evil, in my opinion. It 's all perspective.


Al perspective, eh? Well lets say hypothetically I believe that you and your entire family need to be wiped off the earth, because that will make the world a much better place. Lets say I believe that whole heartedly. How are you to justify that what I am doing is wrong? You see this whole I think its perspective view is a cop out in my opinion. People don't want to accept that Evil is tangible substance.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 

You are also ignoring the statement quoted from John 1
It's just a reference to Genesis and doesn't add any information.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   

jmdewey60
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 

You are also ignoring the statement quoted from John 1
It's just a reference to Genesis and doesn't add any information.


How does it not add any information?

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 [a]He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

AND APART FROM HIM NOTHING CAME INTO BEING THAT HAS COME INTO BEING.

So I ask you. Did God create the universe?



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 





Al perspective, eh? Well lets say hypothetically I believe that you and your entire family need to be wiped off the earth, because that will make the world a much better place. Lets say I believe that whole heartedly. How are you to justify that what I am doing is wrong?


Well, first of all, isn't that exactly what the God of Old Testament did, wipe people and their families off the face of the earth, or order others to do it for him?

Secondly, I would argue that if you wipe me and my family out, what's to prevent someone from wiping you and your family out? Doesn't it work out better for everyone if we make and keep certain "agreements", to get along, like I won't kill you and rape your daughter if you promise the same"?


edit on 9-3-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   

windword
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 





Al perspective, eh? Well lets say hypothetically I believe that you and your entire family need to be wiped off the earth, because that will make the world a much better place. Lets say I believe that whole heartedly. How are you to justify that what I am doing is wrong?


Well, first of all, isn't that exactly what the God of Old Testament did, wipe people and their families off the face of the earth, or order others to do it for him?

Secondly, I would argue that if you wipe me and my family out, what's to prevent someone from wiping you and your family out? Doesn't it work out better for everyone if we make and keep certain "agreements", to get along, like I won't kill you and rape your daughter if you promise the same"?


edit on 9-3-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)


Lol its all relative. You can't say doesn't it make sense to make and keep certain agreements. Some easterners think the world would be better without the west. The believe that with all their heart. Why should they make that agreement with us?



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


And yet, here we all still are! Somehow we've managed to get along, albeit not perfectly. But people stop at stop signs, mostly, stand in line willingly to pay for stuff, and generally don't go around killing each other.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 08:55 PM
link   

windword
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


And yet, here we all still are! Somehow we've managed to get along, albeit not perfectly. But people stop at stop signs, mostly, stand in line willingly to pay for stuff, and generally don't go around killing each other.


Now using natural physical and chemical processes describe why we all follow those universal moral codes.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 

So I ask you. Did God create the universe?
God did whatever the Bible says that He did, which was to create a livable environment out of what was found in the existing universe.

If you believe in something beyond that, then you are not getting it from the Bible but somewhere else, like Medieval myths.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


LOL! It's not a universal moral code!

Our morality, human morality comes from "self centeredness" and the logic of "what's best for me", with an occasional altuistic notion thrown in there for good measure.


edit on 9-3-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


We can say we are kinda equal.

We have a standard of morality to tap into. Everyone straying from this standard is kinda called a nutcase. Your sense for moral can be triggered any time. Then it's still up to you what you do, to rape the rapist, to call law enforcement, or to forgive when he repents.

About God wiping people of the earth, or killing people.

Jesus Christ, how many times hasn't this been told already?

Do you think he would just go destroying people who've done nothing wrong? These people all went the wrong way too far. Let's say evil became the mass consciousness. To go against it would probably mean your death in those days by all whom approved evil. You would be thrown out of society if you didn't go against the laws. Utter chaos.

God does not destroy people for no reason, just remember that. All those whining about it are probably bad themselves and are just crapping their pants for paying the toll imho.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join