Vorkosigan

I think God's intention is to populate the universe with free beings to whom he can give love and from whom He can recieve love, and who can give and recieve love from each other. IT IS NOT HIS PRIMARY PURPOSE TO RID THE UNIVERSE OF EVIL.

Thanks for the capitals, but shouting won't turn your personal opinions into good arguments.

Frankly, I think your god is a demon and you a demon worshipper, but I don't see what my personal opinion means one way or the other. I just thought I'd share it, as you did.

I think that is the category mistake that a lot of you folks are making.

No, it is our rejection of the morals of a being who would tolerate so much meaningless suffering.

I think His primary purpose is to give to those who will take it the opportunity to share in His love and to share the love of others.

Thank you for your opinion. That and $30 will get you a cup of coffee on the Ginza.

THE PRESENCE OF LOVE IS BETTER THAN THE ABSENCE OF EVIL.

But imagine if we could have both...

I think that is the point of the Gospel of Christ....

Which gospel?

As to all of this stuff about the Trilema... Folks it's a waste of time. This is ABSOLUTELY NOT what the book is about.

Nobody said it was what the book was about. I merely noted that it was a very silly argument Lewis apparently thinks is devastating.

Michael

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]</p>

Jerry Smith

We make things ILLEGAL because they are a source of EVIL the consequences of which cause HARM to the innocent.

God need not interfere when I masturbate. However, if I am going to torture a child, and if a person is able to prevent that child from coming to harm, he has a choice. One choice is Good. The other choice is Evil.

God is able to prevent a child from coming to harm through my effort to torture her. If He does not do so, then there are only two choices:

a) It is Good to allow her to come to harm through torture.

b) God chooses to do Evil.

No lengthy explanation is necessary. You may, if you like, just answer "a" or "b".

ex-preacher

In case you missed this when I originally posted it, luvluv, here it is again.

luvluv

Sorry about the caps, I got a little worked up.

turt:

"THE PRESENCE OF LOVE IS BETTER THAN THE ABSENCE OF EVIL.

But imagine if we could have both..."

That's my point. I don't see how we can have the possibility of love without the possibility of evil. If you can come up with a model, I'm all ears.

Jerry Smith:

I just think you're wrong. Firstly, if God was going to stop evil He would stop everything HE thought was evil. So whether or not you consider it necessary for God to stop you from masterbating, my entire point is that you are ABDICATING that choice by asking God to take away your moral freedom. If you are asking God to take away the moral freedom of human beings, you don't have a choice as to whether or not masterbation is a part of that package.

Secondly, I don't think you would really be happy if God were to give you what you asked for. Would you really feel better about living in a universe where God was constantly standing over every human being ready to drop a hammer if they stepped out of line? It would be like living in an Orwellian nightmare, with a Big Brother that is truly omniscient. I consider that a terrifying thought. A world in which God stood over all of us, visible in all of his power, and stood ready to prevent us from doing anything he disapproved of... that would be hell on earth in my mind.

Also, I find it kind of ironic that humanists are the ones advocating handing over moral freedom to God. I thought you guys wanted to take responisibilty for the world and for your own actions? Personally, I am not willing to give up my freedoms just because some people abuse them.

I hate that we live in a world where little girls can get abused, but I'd rather a little girl live in a world where she also has a chance to experience freely given love and commitment in a meaningful context. Sure, in your world (assuming it's even possible) she would never be raped... she would also never be really loved, and never be able to freely give love out of her own free will. You would create an essentially dead and sterile universe populated by automatons.

I am also kind of out to lunch as to how you guys can accuse someone whom you don't believe exists. How can God be a demon if he doesn't exist? How can all this evil be "God's fault" if there is no God?

luvluv

ex-preacher, good question. I don't claim to know how heaven is going to work. I imagine that our progression toward becoming free sons will be ongoing. I think the key to going to heaven is not actual perfection, it is the willingness to learn it. Will people make mistakes in heaven? I imagine they will, but this is obviously just a guess. The difference will be I guess that no one in heaven will wallow in their mistakes. But again, it's a great question I just don't think any human being is qualified to answer it.

Eudaimonist

Are you an anarchist? If not, why not?

luvluv

I don't think I'm an anarchist. Of course, I don't exactly know what it is... so who's to say?

Isn't an anarchist kind of a left wing Liberatarian? (I'm American, where Liberatrians are right wingers) No laws and what not?

99Percent

As a libertarian, I can tell you that libertarians are neither left wingers or right wingers but totally the opposite.

luvluv

Where are you from? Over here in the US, Pat Buchanan is a libertarian. I've always interpreted as a republican who wants the government out of the market and out of our social life.

Anyway, we digress.

Jerry Smith

Why must a God who is Morally Correct in preventing harm to the innocent also stop everything HE thought was evil or disapproved of?

I do not ask to abdicate my choice or ask God to take away my moral freedom. I ask only that He ensure that no one other than me suffers from my misdeeds. Then I could masturbate and suffer the consequences or, if I were evil-minded, attempt rape and suffer the consequences. No little girl, though, will suffer the consequences of my evil actions.

So, in order to assure that my niece, Rachel, is able to be really loved and able to freely give love, I must not intervene if the neighborhood pedophile attempts to rape her? I DON'T THINK SO! On the contrary, I think that Rachel will be in a much better position to freely give and receive love if I DO intervene and prevent the would-be rapist from harming her. On the other hand, she can do any number of things which I disapprove of without my interference, provided she does not harm another person.

Your idea of God is that He is all-powerful. That is a responsibility, and if He shirks it, He WILL be taken to task. I may not have the power to DEFEAT Him, but I certainly will not WORSHIP Him after He shirked His responsibility when the neighborhood pervert molested my niece. On the other hand, I have no good reason to believe that He exists, so whether I worship him or not is moot.

Furthermore, if you derive your idea of God from the Bible, this Guy is not only abdicating His responsibility to protect the innocent, but He is a Criminal by His Commands and Actions!

The fact is that we are not blaming God: we are pointing out the fallacies that go with believing in God.

I hope that you will see those fallacies and re-evaluate your moral position on God, even if you continue to believe in His existence.