Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Not sure I buy that premise Ceridwen. We call the absense "evil".
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Riddle of Epicurus
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
Well, that would certainly work under the assumption that god is good.
However, we know that god is not all good, because if he/she was, he/she would not permit for himself/herself to be absent anywhere. If god is all-good and hates evil, he/she would eradicate evil.
Isaiah 45:7 (JPS) -NetDoc said:
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am HaShem, that doeth all these things.
No*s
Captain Obvious
SoulTYPE01 said:
That's the heart of the challenge and riddle, actually. I've usually heard it in this form: "If God is all-powerful, and all-good, then why does evil exist?" Whether one talks about evil in the sense of God's absence or evil in the sense of actions, I believe you can see the argument.
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Hmnnnn... the NIV renders this:
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.
The romanized word is "rah", and seems to have a plethora of meanings, some extrapolations and some not. Does anyone have a literal translation?
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.
The romanized word is "rah", and seems to have a plethora of meanings, some extrapolations and some not. Does anyone have a literal translation?
No*s
Captain Obvious
Ceridwen018 said:
Precisely. I will still say "God is good," because I believe He acts in good ways, but this is still an anthropomophism. If I say "God is love," then I say He is like love in some way, but not that he is literally an emotion. It does make sense that way.
The God who is a doting grandfather and never does anything we would construe as negative...that God doesn't exist.
No*s
Captain Obvious
NetDoc said:
I don't know Hebrew, but I'd bet they're both literal translations. It wouldn't be the first word with more than one literal translation into another language, or more than one applicable in one particular phrase.
The LXX also translates it evil, or literally "evil things" with kaka/.
Strong's Lexicon lists "evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity". It is the same term used for "evil" in Genesis 2.9 and elsewhere. It is translated as "evil" in the standard from the Jewish Publishing Society (JPS). That is also the translation employed by the Hebrew Names Version, as well as Webster's, Darby, Young, and the ASV. It is likewise the term employed by the online Septuagint.NetDoc said:
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Excellent, No*s!No*s said:
Please read the words I wrote. Please read all of them.NetDoc said:
Let's forget the word 'evil' for a moment, as we seem to have a disagreement on its definition: Is God willing to prevent tsunamis?
It's a 'yes' or 'no' question, NetDoc. Please answer it. :banghead3
Yes, but it goes beyond questioning why God allows evil to questioning why God perpetrates evil. Even if one leaves aside the biocide of the Global Flood, what remains is a pattern of rather ugly acts: the destruction of Sodom, the killing of the first born, the genocide of the Midianites, the enslaving of their virgin daughters, the shredding of 42 children by two she-bears. If the Tanach is taken literally, YHWH's commitment to excessive force is matched only by his disregard for collateral damage.No*s said:
To cry out in indignation: "How dare you presume to understand God! How dare you judge him!" is just a bit too convenient. Such a response can be used to justify just about anything.
Then, not understanding his actions, inactions, and intentions, you should not presume to market him as loving and caring.No*s said:
Mr Spinkles
Mr
This is one of the reasons I began thinking of God as the impersonal, unintelligent, and amoral equivalent of nature itself. Thus, the term "god" became superfluous to me--I believe in nature, and that's enough.
Clearly, tsunamis aren't trying to hurt anyone--they are just part of nature, and nature is what it is regardless of our human concerns. I don't think the point of Epicureus' riddle is to blame an imaginary god for anything, but merely to show that if one exists, it is clearly either unable or unwilling to prevent evil and suffering. Whether that means we should:
1)get angry at God,
2)assume all those 150,000 men women and children deserved to die, or
3)take another look at how exactly we define 'God'
...is a related but seperate matter.
I would be thrilled if NetDoc would give me a straight answer to my question.
Clearly, tsunamis aren't trying to hurt anyone--they are just part of nature, and nature is what it is regardless of our human concerns. I don't think the point of Epicureus' riddle is to blame an imaginary god for anything, but merely to show that if one exists, it is clearly either unable or unwilling to prevent evil and suffering. Whether that means we should:
1)get angry at God,
2)assume all those 150,000 men women and children deserved to die, or
3)take another look at how exactly we define 'God'
...is a related but seperate matter.
I would be thrilled if NetDoc would give me a straight answer to my question.
Excellent!
No*s
Captain Obvious
Deut. 32.8 said:
Frankly, Deut., I have made it explicit in this thread that calling His actions anything, "loving," "caring," "good," whatever are anthropomorphisms we use, and even those only upon His actions or words (if I believe them to be His words). If you don't like this sort of thing, then I guess you better start threads on account of anthropomorphisms of death and other things that I and others make...and we don't even think those act.
I take offense here, because you are a intelligent person. You know what I said, and I'm pretty sure you understood it. Because of this, I assume you're choosing to ignore it for what for some reason.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
I just realized I've been mispelling 'Epicurus' this whole time. How embarassing.:bonk:
No, but it was entirely my fault. The "you" in my sentence referred, not to you personally, but to Judeo-Christian apologists in general, i.e., those who presume to argue that their God is worthy of worship.No*s said:
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
I am reticent to answer further lest more words be stuck in my mouth that I did not utter. You may find my answers in posts 71 and 78 of this thread. But you didn't accept them then, so I doubt you will accept them now.I would be thrilled if NetDoc would give me a straight answer to my question.