God, Moral Evil, and Man's Nature

[Kharakov]

Our sexual organs wouldn't also be our bodily evacuation locations?

Not all of us ride the poop loop to anal town.

Oh... and taco Tuesdays.

I stand corrected.

 

[Bronzeage]

I have no idea what your angle on this is. But regarding "happy", a massive chunk of the Tanakh is trying to assess why if they are the chosen people, they aren't happy. The general answer is 'it was our forefather's fault'.

Have you ever considered the possibility that God is not all that nice, and the revelators are just trying to get on his good side?

A god 4000 years ago wouldn't be nice. They would be powerful and demand obedience. They would be the sword of the people to cut down other people and take their stuff, hump their women, sponge off their online authorization code for on demand cable programming. Their god would make their fight the obviously moral one, because they were ordained by the deity to fuck up some other group of people... and steal their HBO Go password.

The God in the Tanakh isn't a nice guy... though he does show a repeated sense of always trying the mend bridges... after going ape shit over something rather trivial... for a god. God is a the banner of war, not some pacifist that wants peace among the people.

I don't really have an angle, must less a grasp on any of this, which is why I keep asking the same question over and over. There seems to be confusion over whether a person's revelation can alter reality.

It is the fact than billions claim to know about God's nature from revelation, and the claims supposedly tell us about reality, the supposed nature of God. Which fails the logic test. The supposed nature of God constrains God, we should see a reality that supports the claims, God is all powerful, creates all and is perfectly morally good. We don't in fact see that.

I think you are teasing me. The problem of declaring that someone or something has failed a test, is we don't know how you score your GQ(goodness quotient) test. What would God be like, if he were actually good?

Our sexual organs wouldn't also be our bodily evacuation locations? Oh... and taco Tuesdays. And a generally habitable planet.

With apologies to William Butler Yeats, I've heard the objection to mixing excretion and reproduction many times, but it seems disingenuous when one considers how much of the internet is devoted to anal sex.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

And with that, this thread is officially derailed.

 

[Kharakov]

What do you mean by morally good?

Does it mean "cares about and attempts to do the right thing for those around them?" Because that leads to all kinds of problems when the blind try to lead the uninformed.

Does it mean "hesitant to act without understanding everything so one doesn't fuck stuff up?" Because someone is bound to think "umm, maybe waiting for all the information is a bad idea, better start acting to get ahead of potential problems".


What does creating man morally good mean?

Does it mean creating a man that will not sacrifice themselves for you or others, because to do so would make you morally evil?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

What do you mean by morally good?

Does it mean "cares about and attempts to do the right thing for those around them?" Because that leads to all kinds of problems when the blind try to lead the uninformed.

Does it mean "hesitant to act without understanding everything so one doesn't fuck stuff up?" Because someone is bound to think "umm, maybe waiting for all the information is a bad idea, better start acting to get ahead of potential problems".


What does creating man morally good mean?

Does it mean creating a man that will not sacrifice themselves for you or others, because to do so would make you morally evil?

See? You've just demonstrated that we are not created morally good.

 

[Kharakov]

Who judges whether a tabula rasa writes wrong?

 

[Learner]

Sorry if already mentioned and stating the obvious. I am all for idea we are born to yet become either one or the other not forgetting inbetween. The 'potential' is there from birth to be morally good or evil,which is most definitely suited to 'freewill'.

 

[Random Person]

According to Christian theologians, God created man. And man's nature. God then had three choices.
1. Man created with an evil nature.
2. Man created with an indifferent nature.
3. Man created with a good nature.

Why does moral evil exist. Many theologians tell us that if God were to create us with a good nature, we would lose free will. Of course the NT pretty much does not support the idea we have free will to begin with. Predestination from Romans. The idea that God in Romans 11 hardened the hearts of Jews to not believe in the messiah etc.

But there is a more serious objection. If God designs and created us, he must have designed our moral nature. And God had three choices.

1. Create man evil.
2. Create man morally indifferent.
3. Create man morally good.

But no matter our nature, God is responsible for choosing 1., 2. or 3. By choosing 2., moral indifference, we do not gain any sort of free will. We only get a moral nature prone to moral failure. Since we get no choice, all is God's choice. If God is good, then God must choose 3. a god-like moral nature and a god-like free will such as God enjoys.

This to me also calls God's supposed foundation of morality in question. If there is a perfect morality that is derived from God, it would seem God would be a perfect moral being and chose 3. Creating man a moral being as any choice God makes creates our morality. To fail to chose 3. is a moral failing.

Obviously the theologians will choose to deny 2., that as a choice it creates a great deal on immorality due to God's choice.

Of the three, which are you?

Are you evil, indifferent or good?

 

[Atheos]

There can only be the potential for good or evil as we know the terms in an environment in which resources are limited and we can cause harm to each other.

Ostensibly god created such an environment when no such environment existed. The rationale behind such a bonehead move escapes me.

 

[Learner]

There can only be the potential for good or evil as we know the terms in an environment in which resources are limited and we can cause harm to each other.

Ostensibly god created such an environment when no such environment existed. The rationale behind such a bonehead move escapes me.

I do have some agreement . There is 'limited' access to many but there is enough resources. We'll harm each other because some of 'those with the most' as many see it. Are not really morally good when it comes to their self interested selfishness.

 

[DrZoidberg]

According to Christian theologians, God created man. And man's nature. God then had three choices.
1. Man created with an evil nature.
2. Man created with an indifferent nature.
3. Man created with a good nature.

Why does moral evil exist. Many theologians tell us that if God were to create us with a good nature, we would lose free will. Of course the NT pretty much does not support the idea we have free will to begin with. Predestination from Romans. The idea that God in Romans 11 hardened the hearts of Jews to not believe in the messiah etc.

But there is a more serious objection. If God designs and created us, he must have designed our moral nature. And God had three choices.

1. Create man evil.
2. Create man morally indifferent.
3. Create man morally good.

But no matter our nature, God is responsible for choosing 1., 2. or 3. By choosing 2., moral indifference, we do not gain any sort of free will. We only get a moral nature prone to moral failure. Since we get no choice, all is God's choice. If God is good, then God must choose 3. a god-like moral nature and a god-like free will such as God enjoys.

This to me also calls God's supposed foundation of morality in question. If there is a perfect morality that is derived from God, it would seem God would be a perfect moral being and chose 3. Creating man a moral being as any choice God makes creates our morality. To fail to chose 3. is a moral failing.

Obviously the theologians will choose to deny 2., that as a choice it creates a great deal on immorality due to God's choice.

The old testament God isn't all powerful. So there's no need to introduce human free will. It's simply assumed. Or was back then. It's not until you introduce an all powerful God that it needs to be stated that God gives humans free will.

The fact that free will can't exist in a universe with an all powerful agent is just another omnipotence-paradox in the pile of paradoxes.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I have no idea what your angle on this is. But regarding "happy", a massive chunk of the Tanakh is trying to assess why if they are the chosen people, they aren't happy. The general answer is 'it was our forefather's fault'.

Have you ever considered the possibility that God is not all that nice, and the revelators are just trying to get on his good side?

A god 4000 years ago wouldn't be nice. They would be powerful and demand obedience. They would be the sword of the people to cut down other people and take their stuff, hump their women, sponge off their online authorization code for on demand cable programming. Their god would make their fight the obviously moral one, because they were ordained by the deity to fuck up some other group of people... and steal their HBO Go password.

The God in the Tanakh isn't a nice guy... though he does show a repeated sense of always trying the mend bridges... after going ape shit over something rather trivial... for a god. God is a the banner of war, not some pacifist that wants peace among the people.

I don't really have an angle, must less a grasp on any of this, which is why I keep asking the same question over and over. There seems to be confusion over whether a person's revelation can alter reality.

It is the fact than billions claim to know about God's nature from revelation, and the claims supposedly tell us about reality, the supposed nature of God. Which fails the logic test. The supposed nature of God constrains God, we should see a reality that supports the claims, God is all powerful, creates all and is perfectly morally good. We don't in fact see that.

I think you are teasing me. The problem of declaring that someone or something has failed a test, is we don't know how you score your GQ(goodness quotient) test. What would God be like, if he were actually good?

Our sexual organs wouldn't also be our bodily evacuation locations? Oh... and taco Tuesdays. And a generally habitable planet.

With apologies to William Butler Yeats, I've heard the objection to mixing excretion and reproduction many times, but it seems disingenuous when one considers how much of the internet is devoted to anal sex.

I must be the only person that uses their penis to urinate.

 

[Learner]

The old testament God isn't all powerful. So there's no need to introduce human free will. It's simply assumed. Or was back then. It's not until you introduce an all powerful God that it needs to be stated that God gives humans free will.

The fact that free will can't exist in a universe with an all powerful agent is just another omnipotence-paradox in the pile of paradoxes.

Interesting Cheerful Charlies choices of three. You will have to include the 2nd part testament . If Freewill is to be debateble and God is the maker then it is the whole bible that should be subject to question.

Jesus said;
Revelation 3:16
16 So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

He says don't choose number 2. in other words.

 

[Learner]

@ Random Person

Of the three, which are you?

Are you evil, indifferent or good?

Sorry Random not sure if this was intended for me or reply back to original poster. But I am really trying to get out of luke warm . (reffering to above post)

 

[Horatio Parker]

The old testament God isn't all powerful. So there's no need to introduce human free will. It's simply assumed. Or was back then. It's not until you introduce an all powerful God that it needs to be stated that God gives humans free will.

The fact that free will can't exist in a universe with an all powerful agent is just another omnipotence-paradox in the pile of paradoxes.

I think theres more to it than that.

The OT God was an external force that had to be appeased. The NT God is inside as well as outside, which IMO explains its revolutionary appeal: you don't need to be materially substantial to be spiritual.

(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

That free will is an illusion does nothing to address the problem of people having to make choices. And it's yet another paradox that these tools intended to help provide clarity are themselves about as clear as mud.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Before Christianity, the issue of free will was hotly debated. By the Greeks and Jews. As per Josephus, the Saducces supported free will, the Pharisees struggled to square prophecy and free will and the Essenes claimed all was predetermined. And the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate that Josephus was correct concerning the Essenes. Who probably influenced Paul's theology. Paul's theology states clearly that the elect had been predetermined from the begiing and that God the Great Potter makes some "Vessels" to "honor", some to "dishonor". All happens according to a plan, God's providence. Islam is no better.

What I did was further abstract out the concept of man's moral nature, created by God. And whatever moral nature man has is directly designed and created by God according to theology.

It really has little to do with free will per se. God after all is said to be morally good and have free will and freely chooses to do no moral evil by his own unfettered free will. See Aquinas for example of these propositions. Why not then create man with a god-like good nature and a god-like free will?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Before Christianity, the issue of free will was hotly debated. By the Greeks and Jews. As per Josephus, the Saducces supported free will, the Pharisees struggled to square prophecy and free will and the Essenes claimed all was predetermined. And the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate that Josephus was correct concerning the Essenes. Who probably influenced Paul's theology. Paul's theology states clearly that the elect had been predetermined from the begiing and that God the Great Potter makes some "Vessels" to "honor", some to "dishonor". All happens according to a plan, God's providence. Islam is no better.

What I did was further abstract out the concept of man's moral nature, created by God. And whatever moral nature man has is directly designed and created by God according to theology.

It really has little to do with free will per se. God after all is said to be morally good and have free will and freely chooses to do no moral evil by his own unfettered free will. See Aquinas for example of these propositions. Why not then create man with a god-like good nature and a god-like free will?

Hmm... I'd say no they didn't. There's three distinct debates regarding free will.

1) Ancient Greek pagan religion believed in destiny. All their free will debates revolved around reconciling the religious concept of destiny with free will. That is gone today.
2) The Christian discussion of free will, ie, how is omnipotence compatible with free will.
3) The post-Christian non-debate on free will. Without religion the free debate is uninteresting. I mean... we feel we have free will. Who cares if we really have it or not? What difference does it make?

 

[Learner]

Yes it It is a difficult notion to think "freewill" is anything other than being non compatible with omnipotence. However this non compaitblility idea is currently flawed because this statement is only derived from a logic limited by what we only know of ourselves in human terms and what we know of the universe to date.

Considering we have accepted multi universes or parrallell universe ideas and dimensions. An omnipotence entitiy knowing everything would also see many choices made of the same road and varied final outcomes all at once in a non linear state and why not?. Mans comprehension is logical only to the linear experience . This 'freewill' would be our tool and so by ourselves we make those decisions to end up with one of the many possible outcomes already seen by this entitity.

Ok this is pure imagination but there is a large hole where there needs to be more entered in the philosophical equation regarding the'freewill' contradiction.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Yes it It is a difficult notion to think "freewill" is anything other than being non compatible with omnipotence. However this non compaitblility idea is currently flawed because this statement is only derived from a logic limited by what we only know of ourselves in human terms and what we know of the universe to date.

Considering we have accepted multi universes or parrallell universe ideas and dimensions. An omnipotence entitiy knowing everything would also see many choices made of the same road and varied final outcomes all at once in a non linear state and why not?. Mans comprehension is logical only to the linear experience . This 'freewill' would be our tool and so by ourselves we make those decisions to end up with one of the many possible outcomes already seen by this entitity.

Ok this is pure imagination but there is a large hole where there needs to be more entered in the philosophical equation regarding the'freewill' contradiction.

If God can see all that is, and including the future, all is determined and there is no free will. Free will is an illusion and no tool at all. In a timeless Universe, Got creates all including all that is, and so all we do is a direct creation of God, including all moral evil we "do". Martin Luther in his "Bondage Of The Will", struggled with these puzzles and in the end, found no way out. All he could do is throw logic out the window and fall back on the non-solution, "God is incomprehensible."

 

[Horatio Parker]

I'd state the views of ancient Greeks a little differently.

There's Fate and Providence, Fate being whatever your situation is, you fated to it. Providence represents unperceived potential. When someone recognizes their fate and seeks to change it, they look for ways to do that, and what they find is in the realm of providence.

Free will is inherent, not only in looking to Providence, but in recognizing fate.