how can a loving God and evil co-exist?

Remove all ads!

Faith - the ultimate cop-out for any theological discussion.

another cop-out:

- 'god' is not subject to human concepts of morality and 'his' actions cannot be justified by such. i.e, 'moves in mysterious ways.'

Which leads to:
'do not question 'god''.

So a being that supposedly is omnipotent and almighty actually allowed all the crap in the world to happen?

I could accept that. We are all familiar with the concepts of evil and oppressive tyrants.

If not for the fact that he's touted as a 'loving' and 'merciful' deity.

-( again this point can be countered by referring to The Revelation of St. John the Divine, the last book in the Bible.) But that's assuming that it's a 'Revelation' and not a 'Hallucination'. And here we go back into 'Faith' again. Such circular logic would be admirable if it wasn't so ridiculous. After all, they did build layer upon layer of it over more than 2000 years.

My focus here will be something else, though. It's a question that needs some leading up to.
The main query I have is: Why? Why would anyone who has any sense of respect for him/herself bow before an obvious tyrant in the form of the monotheistic deity? Must Intellectuality, Reason and Logic be subject to Fear and Subservience hidden underneath the lofty title of Faith? That is the primary thing I see amongst monotheists that drives them and I pity them indeed, be they Christians, Jews or Muslims.

Off topic: How would you answer this question, Christians?

"Why do you choose to worship Jesus?"

I mean no mockery in this query. Please tell me why, and see whether or not you are able to not make the fear of eternal damnation a large part of that answer.

Here's my viewpoint, which you can utterly disregard:
So basically we should all debase ourselves before this tyrants of tyrants and oppressor of oppressors? Not me. I choose to take the path of Lucifer if indeed, 'god' does exist. Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven, like Milton said. To bow before tyranny is to be subsumed by it. It is to lose your basic dignity and give up all rights to intellectuality.

Most of the evil present in the world today stems indeed from the belief and worship of this monotheistic 'god'. I tend to take an uncharacteristically optimistic viewpoint here: if humans would only stop attributing their actions to some external divine influence or divine will, they will surely regain their noble Reason and basic Honor. Why would anyone perpetrate such horrors on anybody else if his/her mind is clear?

Can any true thinking being commit an act that causes him/her to regard him/herself with disgust if he/she cannot attribute it to some 'higher' power? Surely the state of the world will be much better if people held themselves accountable for their own actions. But that's existentialist dogma and I won't get so far off the topic into that.

To LNT: the answer isn't 'up there'. Neither is it in any deity. It's in the strength of your arms and the keeness of your mind. There is 'evil' but once you start to realise that it's humans who have to fight 'evil' and stop attributing it to some deity, you'll get a much clearer perspective of things.

Humanity is not perfect. But that's what we have to work with.

 

From that point of view, God could make two and two five.

The focus of Christianity is not avoiding damnation, but achieving salvation. In Christianity, you're only damned if you totally refuse the love and mercy of God. Basically, this relies on seeing the evil within you as greater than God's mercy.

Then you have the problem of damnation. I don't want to go off-topic, but I'm ready to elaborate on it a bit, if there's a need.

 

I hope you have read my earlier posts, because this will build from there. Again, I am stating the Christian answer to the question originally raised by LNT, but while doing so I will also be providing answers to Morgoth and Shura.

We have discussed the nature of sin and also the three basic approaches that can be taken to rationalize the existence of evil in the world. With the exception of Manus’ correction of my misinterpretation of the nature of Buddhism, I am not aware of any other direct challenges to what has been said. All right, here we go…it gets a little tougher from here.

God. God is real. God exists. Volumes have been written trying to prove or disprove the existence of God, and that is not the purpose of this post. Maybe, it would be easier to remove the word “God” and simply call it a Creator Force. This Creator Force (whom Christians call “God”, by the way ) can be identified with certain properties, and these properties are not refuted by further study of the God or creation. The foremost of those properties are well known, and have been already posted to this thread…omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence and being of absolute goodness. God has no beginning or end, no physical entity or limitation. God has always existed, and always will.

This fundamental reality is the building block to any belief system that extends further than yourself and your immediate physical world. This knowledge of God is not based upon faith, as some detractors have already mentioned in derision…help us all if something as weak and flighty as human faith were responsible for our ability to realize the existence of God! It comes from within, without…from all around you as a shouted or whispered answer to a question. I feel sorry for those who can not know of the existence of God, but I don’t condemn you for it. I am far worse off if I claim knowledge of God and fail to live my life with the promptings of that knowledge, than someone who never knows God and lives to their conscience. I’m getting off the subject now, sorry.

So, we begin with God. God created. God created all of existence, all matter, all energy…everything. Don’t bring up objections about the Genesis creation story or evolution or any such thing…I am not proclaiming that it occurred over 6-24 hour days or that God was some sort of agent behind a Big Bang and Macroevolution…let’s just stick with the basics…God created everything. (Remember, I am giving the Christian answer to support my claim that the Christian answer satisfies the kinds of questions that LNT asks). Two key points about creation that I wish to make:

First, the mode of creation…God did not create the way a human would, say, bake a cake. God did not gather ingredients, mix, stir, bake yada yada yada, God “SPOKE” and it came into being. God began with nothing, and by speaking an intent and will, it became so. Bear in mind that God is spirit…speaking entails no physical action as it would for you and me…it would equate more to us like a “thought”. This supports the property of God’s omnipotence. It does not defy God’s omnipotence for already made creation to participate in creation…examples of this might be: matter coalescing into a planet, natural selection, Tectonic shift or even two humans joining with God in creation by having a baby.

Second, the reason for creation…God did not create for the sake of man (part of God’s creation, but we’ll get there in a minute). God was already perfect, creation in no way contributed to God’s perfection, although creation was perfect, proven by the response given in the scriptures after each phase…”God saw that it was good”. God created because it pleased God…creation was initially perfect and that perfection was a reflection and illustration of God’s own goodness, power and wisdom. Don’t connect human weakness to God and view this as some sort of ego trip, like God standing in front of mirror saying “Lookin’ Good…Pretty Damn Good…” It pleased God to see the perfection wrought from God’s will…the best comparison I can make are a mother and father looking upon their baby child…they don’t feel that the creation of the child is some sort of accomplishment, something to feel puffed up over…it is rather evidence of the love and union that they shared which has yielded the creation of new life and soul. It is not a self serving pleasure, rather a self giving pleasure. This is the closest example on an earthly outlook that we can find of the creative desire of God. In summation, God made the world not for the good of man, or any other creation, but for God’s own pleasure.

I’ll post this now and write more later…

 

Yup, God is above logic, no?


I still don't see why taking free will is bad.

Let's take the Maryland sniper as example, let's say that a policeoffice saw the sniper aiming at his newest victim.
The officer could arrest him, but he decides otherwise.
The victim is shot, dies, and the officer is too arrested for failing his duty.

Now I want to see the look on the judge's face when the ex-cop says that he didn't want to interfere with the snipers free will.

@Hacken Slash
Why is God so hard to find? There is no proof, hardly any serious support for any of the extreme parts of the bible (like the creation, resurrection).

Doesn't the greatest thing proof its existence in the greatest way?

 

Shura: I worship Jesus for three main reasons. One, without Him, reality doesn't make sense.

I'm a rationalist, and what I believe has to be justified by reason and logic. And of all the possibilities I've confronted, Christianity does the best job of meshing with reality. It may sound odd, but Christianity is the most logical choice. (And no, Morgoth, God is not above logic - Christ Himself is called the "Logos" and the "Truth".)

As a cold, brittle example that is totally inadequate to Late-Night Thinker's original plea - if Christianity has the problem of evil, atheism (or Budhism, as Manus has related it) has the problem of non-evil. Manus' solution is to deny that evil is really evil - it's just a deviation, or misunderstanding, or misperception, or whatever. But that answer is totally inadequate to Late-Night Thinker's genuine concern. Evil has substance, and we know it when we confront it - in others, and in ourselves. I knew a sincere Buddhist (two ds, Manus!) at school who could not bring himself to admit that the 9/11 attacks were evil (or, alternately, that the massive CIA plot to bomb the towers was evil).

But atheism has a similar problem, because whatever humans make, humans can unmake. If there is no moral standard from an authority beyond humanity - no independent standard - then yesterday's good becomes today's evil and then tomorrow's good again. There is no way to justify any end as an end, turning life into a string of meaningless means. Shura: how can you define what is really debasement, or tyranny, or honor, or reason, independent of a divine order? Nietzsche and the existentialists had it right - you can't, so you have to make up the definitions as you go along.

Nor can atheism even define what is truly "free" in free will. We're just skinny sacks of chemical processes and flashing neurological signals. The logical result of consistent atheism is materialist determinism (or dialectical materialism, if you want to take the idealistic path). Nor even can atheism define what is truly "you" about yourself. At what point does a limb cease to be simply a limb and become merely part of an individual? And at what point is an individual separate from the mass of humanity, or even the mass of the universe? Manus takes the logical course here - all is all is all, and ultimately anything is indistinguishable from the rest.

Reality presents us with the ideas of evil, truth, logic, freedom, and individuality. Only Christianity can explain reality in its entirety.

Second, I do indeed fear God - and quite properly. We fear fire, the State, our parents, the ocean, electrical power, motor vehicles, and countless other things that are glorious, good, and powerful. It is intellectually dishonest (or naive) to say that it is somehow bad to fear God, while our very lives depend upon healthy fears of so much in our environment - don't cross the street without looking both ways! don't drink rubbing alcohol! don't jump off that building! etc. Why should it be legitimate to fear fire and not fear God?

Third, I also love God. You can clinically crunch the statistics and calculate how much money your parents pour into your education, housing, food, clothing, etc., and determine, "According to the math, my parents have demonstrated their commitment to invest in me, and therefore they are beneficial to me." It is separate - but not unconnected - to say, "I love my parents and they love me." Love for parents (and their love for their kids) is both reasonable and emotional.

 

One can be atheist and still have an independent standard. Various forms of utilitarianism, Kant's deontology, intuitionism etc. And relativism, while personally distasteful to me, rejects the idea of an independent standard entirely - the lack of an independent standard isn't a problem. The fact that today's evil is tomorrow's good wouldn't mean there is no evil (like Manus supposes) it would just mean the good is, well, relative. The good could also be independent and still be mutable. As an aside, some Christians believe that the good flows from God and thus is not independent either. Edit to add - I just realized it appears that you mean God provides an independent standard and that the good flows from God. Well, if the good flows from God it isn't independent and since God is prior to the good God isn't good either. On the other hand, if God is good the good must be independent of God and whatever this independent standard is there is no reason it is the exclusive province of theists.

No. You're assuming atheism = reductionism. Look up Sydeny Shoemaker's talk about non-reductive materialism and from the metaphysics you may see how there are perfectly good theories that could don't require a reduction leading to determinism.

[ November 01, 2003, 23:55: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

Go Grey Magistrate. You seem to state so much of what I believe, but I will refrain from "high-fives" for the moment, as we still need to address the concerns of LNT, as well as the objections of Shura and Morgoth.

I will take a brief recess from the lectures that I have been giving to answer a specific objection stated by Mr. Morgoth.

You ask two questions...I'll address the second first.
You say that the extreme parts of the Bible are unsupported by observable fact and reference the creation and resurrection as evidence. You are correct. There is little logical proof for many of the claims made in the Bible, and this is a stumbling block for those who seek a more scientific standard of faith. Please bear in mind exactly what the Bible is...it is not a treatise...it is not a history book...it is not inspirational praise...it is not a piece of prophecy...it is actually ALL of the above. The Bible is not a book, rather a collection of works of men, inspired by the hand of God, to record the world and the effect of the will of God upon that world. Whole sections have been recorded with local or native understandings or prejudice. I am not concerned that the books of Chronicles or Kings record drastically different numbers for the forces of Israel. I do not turn to the Bible for Historial accuracy, only as a Testament to understand the will and plan of God for human creation. That is why it exists, that is why it has been preserved by the Church throughout the ages. The Bible, in a remarkable way, tells the story of creation, the fall and the salvation of creation. I further believe that it is almost dangerous to try to read the Bible without this understanding. Perhaps if you adopt this mentality, and no longer look to the Bible to support secular history, you will be able better to understand exactly what it is. I will gladly address this topic more fully if you wish, simply pm me if you have questions.

Second...I never meant that God is hard to find or understand. I will parapharase, but there is a scripture that states to the effect that "the wisdom of men will be confounded by the simplicity of truth". God tells us best how to find God, and the instructions could not be more explicit, and that is to come as a "little child". Adopt humility, abandon pride, accept your limitations, acknowledge your imperfection, deny self...and God will loom before you like an inpenetrable wall...you can't miss it. If you continue to hold to the ideals of self, of humanism, then you may as well try to shove a camel through the eye of a needle.

It's the same for all of Christianity...those things that should seem easy are hard, that which is impossible...already done.

Be back to finish class later

EDIT: You know what the problem is, Morgoth? It's your avatar...that outsider scares the hell out of me!

[ November 02, 2003, 03:16: Message edited by: Hacken Slash ]

 

To become a slave? Is that how your God wants me?
I now see why Satan was needed, as the great liberator.

 

I don't get your point. The attributes that help humans find God...

Are hardly Christian specific attributes, they are held in regard by Theists, Humanists, and Atheists alike. That does not equate itself into slavery by any definition. The next subject that I wanted to cover was the effect of free will upon creation...all those qualities that help to find God spring from free will, and where free will exists, there can be no slavery.

Based upon your personal beliefs it would equate to slavery if you were FORCED to worship a God in whom you did not believe, but then again that would be a violation of your free will. When you are free to exercise choice of will, part of the design of God's Creation, there can be no slavery. (at least to God...there is untold slavery due to the physical and moral evil in the world...but that was covered in a previous post)

Edit: I know that I haven't addressed your views of Satan here, but I will soon. My, it is easy to try to idolize Satan as a rebel, but then again, that's just what Satan wants. Perhaps in further discussions we will reveal who's will is being enslaved by whom.

 

Isnt it slavery if you are sent to hell for not believing and worshipping your god? Even if you dont believe in hell an unbeliever would be barred from the promised blissful paradise, isnt that a way of forced worship? "Do as I say or I will torture you for all eternity/you wont get to play in paradise".
For me that sounds like your god desires slaves, with the image of free will to skip away from responsibility.

 

joacqin, I was just thinking that.

Heaven, hell?

 

Your logic is incorrect. There can be no hell without God, the two are intrinsically linked. For someone who does not believe in God, there is no belief in hell, therefore no fear of being "sent to hell" as you have said. Further, you show a lack of understanding of the teachings of Christianity (maybe you've had dealings with Fundamentalists, who are wrong) If I know God, truly know God, as I feel I do, and know God to be Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent and All Good...if I then reject God, as an act of free will and turn away from the good that I know, then I face judgement and punishment.

For someone who truly nevers knows God and lives their life at the dictates of their conscience, there is no punishment, no banishment to hell. If you as an Agnostic never attain a knowlege of God, that is not your fault. You will be held responsible for your own actions of morality and justice, based upon whatever mores you obtain.

A close friend of mine has a habit of saying that hell will be full of Christians...the bad ones

Now, on the other hand, if something inside you tells you that God is there, if you somehow inwardly believe, but deny it and serve yourself out of pride and arrogance, claiming to be an atheist, then you will likely be held accountable.

I hope that clarifies the Christian stand to those who don't believe. If you have heard otherwise from so-called Christians, they are wrong and I apologize to you on behalf of them.

Edit: You know, I just realized that I have opened myself up to another line of objections...I have now invited disagreement from Fundamental Protestant Christians over "saved by faith" or "once saved always saved" and other nonesuch...and here I was having a nice polite debate with a couple of atheists!

 

@Jocquin (sp?) & Morgoth: That is exactly the point I was trying to highlight.

Worship = Paradise

Refuse to worship = Eternal damnation

Hence, Free Will = Illusion?

That is the basic jusitification for the monotheistic faiths of Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Non-believers are satanic infidels who are going to burn for eternity. Believers will ascend to paradise.

There was once this child-rapist murderer who got sentenced to death over here. Before his sentence, he converted to Christianity and there were hordes of Christians praying for him. That was many years ago. I still did not have a faith but I was studying Christianity and the bible for academic reasons with a church group.

I asked one of my fellow students who was a Christian his opinions and he said that the rapist would undoubtedly ascend to heaven and eternal paradise.

I should have left it there and then but I had to ask more: What about his victims?

The answer: Since none of them were Christians, they will burn in hell forever.

I spoke up again: So no matter how evil and twisted you are you go to heaven as long as you say 'Praise Jebus'? What about those who are virtuous and spend their whole lives helping people? Do they go to hell if they're not Christians?

The answer: Yes. It might not seem fair but it's all part of God's plan. Do not question his Will.

I ended up walking away in disgust. He was lucky I was in a relatively good mood that day or violence would surely have ensued.

His view was shared by a pastor whom I once studied under, along with the rest of the usual congregation. Only I said: " The hell with this." and threw away my bible before leaving the church for good.

Many more similar episodes with other Christians condemmned this faith in my eyes utterly. If there was such a deity who is so evidently powerful and who is so petty and malicious, I choose to side with his adversary. If Armageddon does come, expect me to stand with the forces of Hell. Satan deserves more respect from me than Jesus. At least he was honest and brave enough to rebel against a tyrant. Now, I fill in my religion as Satanism, if only to piss off every theist I come across.

Why should anyone worship 'God' or 'Jesus' or 'Allah' besides not wanting to burn in hell?

The simple act of creation does not warrant servility, especially if 'free will' is granted.

I shall not submit to such tyranny. I shall fight it with every fiber of my being. If it means eternal torment, then so be it.

Everyone who has the basic dignity accorded to him/her by intellectuality and reason should do no less to resist the Tyrant of tyrants and Oppressor of oppressors.

Meanwhile, I live with my own codes. I rely on my own strength and mind. If there is a 'higher purpose' to existence, the way to discover it surely lies here and not in absolute servility to a monstrous deity like the Christian god.

 

@Shura...did you read my prior post, or are you just speaking to make yourself heard? Your assumptions of the teachings of Christianity are incorrect. I am sorry that you have had bad experiences with "Christians", but everything that you believe to be true about Christianity is WRONG! Perhaps it would be best for you to explain the tenets of Humanism, Agnosticism and Atheism and leave the interpretation of Christian beliefs to...dare I say...a Christian.

Elaborate, passionate arguments are very impressive, but if they are based upon a lie or misunderstanding, then they are no more important than a pile of dung. A recurring theme that I have seen on these threads, is that many of the posters fail to truly read what has been said before them in a mad rush to get in "their two cents".

Despite what it may seem like (I tend to have a caustic tongue), I hold yourself, Morgoth, Joaquin and others in the very highest regard. I once felt exactly the same way you do, but due to fortunate circumstance, no longer do. I am not here to try to change your way of thinking, only to cogently express the Christian viewpoint per evil, sin, suffering and God. I feel that I provided a valid and substantial rebuttal in my last post, which you in all ways refused to address.

Now, you'll excuse me, I just got back from Mass and need to remove my manacles.

 

I've thought a lot about Hell too, although recently, the more I've thought about it, the more appealing (not exactly the right word I'm looking for here, though) becomes the idea that Hell is not so much as God saying, "You were bad, go here," and turning up the heat, as it is distance from God (or if you prefer, contentment, joy, happiness, simplicity, etc.).

I should probably check out Brave New World from the library and read the part between John and Mustafa about God, sickness, old age, youth, death, and humanity. It really was enlightening.

Well, just my two cents. Stepping out of the way now.

 

[Edit: Oops - wrote these two cents while the above three posts were being written...]

Quick catch-up...

Laches: I'm not familiar with Shoemaker, so I'll take your word for it. To be honest, when it comes to philosophy, I'm more the generalist bard than the specialist mage. All my college philosophy focused on (drumroll) Marxism, so that may have tainted my appreciation for its competitors. But I'm still suspicious of the validity of these so-called independent standards - doesn't utilitarianism judge by overall satisfaction, but since no one can determine conclusively how to measure satisfaction, it must fall to individual humans to make that judgement?

As for good standing independent of God or flowing from Him - I think the two ideas flow together in this case. If we say that a woman is beautiful, is that because the woman is beautiful herself, or because something within her taps into the ideal beauty without? How much more muddled when we try to distinguish the indistinguishable, between God and good, at such an ultimate source?

Per Satan, already mentioned twice: Perversely, this is maybe the most on-topic we've been on the question of good and evil. Shura, maybe it is better to reign in hell than serve in heaven, but that ain't an offer you'll be presented any time soon. As Calvin and Hobbes observed, the tragic thing in life is not that people are willing to sell their souls, but how cheaply they sell them. As Robert Burns wrote:

Yet ne'er with wits profane to range
Be complaisance extended;
An atheist-laugh's a poor exchange
for Deity offended!

Check out Christopher Marlowe's play Faust for the same idea.

joacquin: But so much of life is like that! If you obey the laws, you stay free; if you break the laws, the police lock you in jail. If you exercise a healthy, nutritious lifestyle, you stay fit; if you eat junk food and lie around, you decay. If you keep fire in the fireplace, it's great; if you burn it in the hills, it's bad. Are we "slaves" to society or calories or fire because they reward good behavior and punish bad? Is oxygen tyrannical because it rewards breathers but penalizes those who refuse to breathe? Is it bad that the traffic system rewards those who cross at the crosswalk and penalizes those who play in the freeway?

What I mean is, if you accept that man's legitimate place is to praise things that are praiseworthy (friends, family, sports teams, politicians, Olympic athletes, etc.), and if you also accept that God is praiseworthy, then it really isn't that big a deal to think that there should be rewards for praising Him and penalties for cursing Him. (Just as it isn't that big a deal to accept that lovingly praising your kids is a surer ticket to family happiness than cursing them.) But instead we have an easier time praising buggy computer games (three cheers for ToEE!) than the perfect Lord God of Heaven.

Speaking of authority: What say we create a new posting before Taluntain or Blackthorne rebukes us for going off-topic?

 

Hacken Slash, you have a very open and appealing view of christianity, which in itself is a blow to christianity as it shows how arbitrary the faith of people is. You pick and choose what to believe and which parts of your holy scripture are true for you. How is that different from someone thinking up a philosophy from scratch and how can that be a part of anything true if everyone have their view of what is true? If the god of the bible exist and inspired the writing of the bible and everything in it is true, isnt truth something absolute? Shouldnt that mean that one interpretation should be the true one? Why then are there so many different denomination, not to mention all the individual takes on the christian faith? Isnt it kinda presumptous of you to decide who are good christians and who arent? How do you know that your take on it is more true than another? Then of course we have the problem of what there is to say that christianity itself is more true than islam, judaism, hinduism, shamanism, greek pantheon or the Moonies.

@Grey Magistrate, you seem to put your god on the same level as a tidal wave, forest fire or gravity. A force unable to think or feel or have a conscience. Is you god an unthinking force, a natural law or is it an entity capable of thought and reason?

I dont really think this is much off topic, it all entwines and you cant really discuss one aspect of religion without taking up all others.

@Shura, I pretty much share your view of the world, if the either of the christian/muslim/jewish god exists it isnt worthy of any worship or love whatsoever and I prefer to go to hell than to grovel before an entity who so obviously is, I dont like the word but here it comes anyway, evil.
But I dont think we need to fear, the existance of a god might be possible but that that any religious text concerning divinity should be more than the thoughts of men and no more divine than the words I write here is in my eyes impossible.

 

You will find that explaining 'evil' in terms of Christianity will be very difficult. Christianity and all other religions are MYTHOLOGIES. They have no basis in reality. Christianity's links to real-world events are as tenuous as those of Homer's "The Iliad." The Christian God is as real as the the Sumerian diety "Enlil" which he was based upon.

"Evil" is simply the product of the cause-and-effect manner in which matter and energy interact in the universe.

Why was the 14 year old girl raped? Cause and effect. She was at the wrong place, at the wrong time. The man who raped her lacked the empathy/socialization to ignore his sexual desires. God had *nothing* to do with this. The rape is satisfactorily explained as a culmination of of all events that came before.

My take is that you shouldn't even worry about God. Humans have an extremely limited perception of reality and your 4-dimensional thought process will never be able to comprehend the 11-dimensional complexities of the universe.

[ November 03, 2003, 01:42: Message edited by: InquisitorX ]

 

@Joacqin: I am honored by something that you have said, you said that I
“Have a very open and appealing view of Christianity”.

Thank you. That is the truth, but it is not my view… it is the view held by countless millions of Christians throughout the world. Unfortunately, the loudest are not often the most truthful when it comes to proclaiming God’s plan. You go on to cite that the sheer preponderance of different “Christian” faiths serves as a condemnation to the world, that it is arbitrary and subject to the personal interpretation of individuals all over the world. What you observe is true; it is only your interpretation on that observation that is in error.

You are correct when you observe that Christianity is in schism. At last count, there were over 14,000 denominations and sects that claimed to be Christian. This presents a very divisive presentation of the faith, especially to intellectuals like yourself, Shura, Morgoth, and InquisitorX. I am going to ask you to take a stretch for a moment…not much of one, but try nevertheless…

Imagine for a moment, you are Satan (easy Shura ). You can’t stop the birth of Christ, because being part of creation you can’t stop what God has set in motion. You can’t stop the ministry of Christ; he seems illogical, fearless, even rejecting the worldly gain that you offer him. You seek to eradicate him by the Jewish templar authorities and the Roman magistrate, yet he goes to his death asking forgiveness for your human pawns. You can’t stop the resurrection of this man Christ, because he truly is the Son of God. You can not stop the message that his followers carry to a waiting world, because they die with the praise of God on their lips. Finally, the moment when you can strike has come…unable to destroy the founder or even the founding fathers, you attack the Church that was left behind to carry the message of salvation to the world. By playing on human vanity and weakness, you succeed in breaking up Christ’s church, by creating schism within it's ranks so it can never present a simple or unified message to the world. Pleased with your efforts, you sit back, realizing that 14,000 different voices are far weaker than one.

This is what has happened. This explains the status of the church in the world today. I am not seeking to blame the Pontificate, the Byzantine Elders or the Protestant revolutionaries; it is just an illustration of what is. This is why the church seems so fractured, so subject to personal interpretation…it is all part of the attack of Satan upon truth and God.

Everything that I say can be backed up by not only scripture, but history itself. Yes, I am presumptuous. I am arrogant as hell. I view myself as the worst kind of Christian in the world…but it does not mean that what I say is not true. I have this frail understanding of God’s plan for me, and continue to stumble along the way. There is a distant goal line, and we can all reach it one way or another…

@InquisitorX: you have demonstrated fully the second mode for dealing with the existence of evil in our world, thanks for sharing. Yes…Christianity is full of Mythology…but I am unaware of when mythology became synonomous with “lie”.

 

Well, I can see this is becoming heated, and the thing is, it is hard to have a meaningful argument based on false premises. So I'm just going to take a breath and dive right in here. Take note that this is not in responce to any post in particular, and it has taken me a while to write.

While I do not ascribe totally and solely to any of the views expressed here, even my own (yeah it's tough being me), I have come to certain conclusions, and while I respect the views of those of any particular faith, or lack thereof, as the case may be, I feel a lot of the current arguments springs from the errors all of these people have been taught to believe. This is not to take for granted the insights that these members have provided, I only speak in terms of cosmogeny.

So without analyzing the bible ( for this is what has been spoken most of) and trying to show what was originally or actually meant (in my approximation), compared to the way it is nowadays interpreted, or the way it has been abused by the church, I will just clear up a few things specifically related to the argument at hand.

The Old Testament is a hodgepodge for a start. I'll leave off the myriad of problems either by deliberate misconstuing or accidental misinterpretation, and focus on the original basis.

Jehova (or JodHauVeHau) is actually the androgynous composite of the Elohim. It's name refers to male and female (if anything it's more female) and also means I am He and also You are Me as well as I am I. I can display this by showing you the Kabbalistic Numerical values and double manings for the words but I think that would be a waste.

Genesis is actually highly esoteric, and is a slightly garbled form from another source (Chaldea, but there's was from others too, as is everyone's faith). I wont explain the first part, but the "punishment" of Adam and Eve is not really such.

The Serpent was originally a symbol of Wisdom. Here Jehova is actually the serpent, and is teaching those he has become. The Serpent represnets the decietful also becasue of the Spirit-Matter distinction. Divine Wisdom at one end, Illusion (and evil=matter) at the other. They don their clothing (their material forms) learn good from evil (become apperceptive and morally aware) and descend out of paradise to the physical world (from Rupa to Arupa, that is to form from no-form)

So, no punishment there.

The other events can also be seen in the same light, some are semi-historical tribal accounts, some are symbolic visions, some are taken out of context, some are moral laws writen the same as any other country's, a lot of the Wrathful Vengence stuff is just dogma, I don't want to get into that for now.

The idea of Hell sprang up a time after the New Testament. For one, the concept is utterly false.

The idea I believe is spoken of in terms of everyone has to meet, pay accounts for their wrong-doings. That is, the frame of mind upon death is lived for some time. A hateful man would be filled with a hateful universe until things have progressed (a relatively short period of time), as upon entering a frame of existense which is based in thought, then emotional and mental attributes would be applied to your surroundings.

After this period, then all your past events are seen in a clear light, you recognize the meanings of each. The thing is, most of these things are deliberate (again, the idea of punishment here is false) As in you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours, as in people do do various wrong-deeds to each other, or suffer them, the same as they do kind things, all for learning and develpment.

There have been numerous studies that will re-inforce this if you don't want to take my word for it. The best teacher is experience. Once you know someone who remembers such a thing happening or you do yourself you will better understand what I mean. It is irrelevant really so I'll get back on track.

Also, the thing spoken of as "The Fiery Pit" was a natural geographical oddity outside Bethleham. I believe the only reference to such a thing specifically was along the lines of "Better to live a good life then to be thrown as thieves and murderers into the firery pit."

Garbage was diposed of here, and the dead bodies of criminals were as well. It was taken as an insult to your family, and to yourself, to meet such a fate. The same as it was to be publically disected was in industrial England, it was an undesireable way of being disposed of upon death.

The references to Satan have also been deliberately changed (Revelations is actually speaking of something else entirely as well, it is more about the creation then the destruction, but again, totally mis-interpretated). Satan is God, purely and simply, the dual aspect of the Absolute which was idolized by the founding fathers of the Church. The Zoastrin Hindu Devas were seen as evil, and this progressed to the word D'Evil, Devil (Diabolos, Diable, Diavolo, Teufel etc.) Jesus is even quoted as saying "Be ye wise as serpents" by the way, so I don't knw why people take them as a sign of evil.

While we're talking about Jesus, There is a discrepencey between Jesus and Christos, Christos was a part of the early Gnostic religion (and others before them) and is the Logos, Avalokitishvara, Brahma, Osiris, Tetragammatron (or Adam Kadmon), Ahura Mazda and Atman, among others. It is the Impersonal Principle. Jesus is merely a prophet, a wise and powerful one surely, but no more divine than the rest of us.

Lucifer, is not Satan. Lucifer is Lux, the "Bright Lord of the Morning" the "Son of the Manvantaric Dawn" and is higher/earlier than the Elohim/Jehova, he is said to be the first among the sons of the Fire, the highest of Arch-Angels. He is in this manner more akin to the common view of God than Satan or God, but not more so than other figures, and is not to be confused with the previously mentioned Logos, or the objective reflection of such, Fohat, nor the refelction of Universal Mind, and the intellectual force behind cosmic ideation, Mahat. Nor the Father/Mother/Son Trinity/Quaterity, as they speak of something else entirely. Nor would I put him as a supreme figure, as there are many that come before him.

I know this is could be taken as an affront to many of you, but when these figures are put in this light a lot becomes clearer. Feel free to disagree if you like, I only say this in the hope of bringing further understanding to those who rightfully object to the huge discrepencies between different teachings (Be they between any of the related faiths, christian, catholic, protestant, islamic, kabbalist, whatever, all those are from the same background), or within any particular one of them (the bible for example).

Perhaps this will make things clearer, perhaps not, because I think the points of both parties here are valid, and they practically seem to be saying the same thing, as far as morality is concerned, all anyone seems to dispute is the cosmogeny which I have here highlighted.