Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It doesn't seem to be controlled.
Who says the earth is moving safely when there are proofs of huge impacts left on the planet's surface just like the moons? The Vredefort crater is 300km wide.
They don't make sense to you and metaphors can't prove anything. They just explain how you believe things happen.
It means chaos, but the solar system isn't chaos.
That was history, what about today?
But if that stone flied and took one path and kept rotating then you have to think how that happened.
Yes it is. Planets smashing into one another, asteroids and comets smashing into planets. Stars exploding, black holes... There's tons of chaos in space!
That's pure fantasy, and not really worth consideration.
Thanks for your reply. However, the question here is not whether one can have a theology where a good God allows suffering for some future greater good. The question here is whether it is possible that God is malevolent all along and is allowing some good in order to create some future greater evil.. and how a theist ascertains that this is not the case. For example is it not possible to construct a malevolent God theology that is consistent with all the events of the Bible? If so, what makes a good Biblical God hypothesis superior to an evil Biblical God hypothesis?
So, in paganism, Gods are more limited beings, constrained by some laws of reality. Correct? The Ragnarok cycle is necessarily true and gods don't have the power to create realities outside of its parameters. Correct?
Gravity.
One can alter the question to saying how can a theist ensure that the God she worships has the intention of reducing or minimizing suffering and enhancing well being of all sentient creations rather than the opposite.
Not so. A pauper suffers less than a rich man who have become a pauper. Loss is the greatest form of suffering, and for us to experience loss (of wealth, of health, of hope, of security, of loved ones) we have to have these things in sufficient amounts first. The transition of life from healthful young to sick old age seems geared to maximize the sense of loss and is something that a malevolent God is likely to do.
Yes, the gods (as seen by Pagans) are not omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent beings.
Yes and no. It's not true in that it will literally happen, but it teaches the less to let die what needs to die, so that a new world can grow from the ashes.
Outside of the particular god's parameters? If that's what you meant, then yes, I think. For example, one wouldn't really look to Thor to nourish their crops; he's better for defense of the crops against jotnar, or destructive elemental forces. By simply sharing space on this physical plane, Thor is the thunderstorm as much as he creates it. He would not come to our reality as the ocean or the mountains. He is The Thunderer.
I do not intent to devote a lot of time on this, but there are many fictional stories by good authors in which we have multiple kinds of gods, very entertaining. R. A. Salvatore writes some of these, good reading.
Except for pretty much anything in the Old Testament.
