The Riddle of Epicurus

[Master Vigil]

Humans are no different from animals, we are just stupid compared to them thats all. Would you agree that the terrorists believe they are doing good and eradicating evil? If so then the idea of good and evil is completely subjective. While we have agreed that the tsunamis are not evil in and of themselves, people may consider what happened because of the tsunami to be considered evil. You of course stated that natural death is not evil. I believe nothing is unnatural, since everything happens in nature, I believe murder to be completely natural. If it wasn't natural, no one would do it. Therefore I see a difference between societies idea of "right" and "wrong" compared to an objective idea of "good" and "evil." I believe that good and evil do not exist except for within our minds own perception of the world around us. There is no god that is completley good, nor is there a satan that is completely evil. It is cimpletely illogical. For if there were, there would be no subjectivity within our perceptions of it. No matter how much free will we have. Also, animals also have this capacity in which you call free will. It isn't all just survival of the fittest, they have fun too. They fight over emotions, they kill for spite. We are no different my friend. The only difference is that they do not waste their time debating on whether or not they have free will. They would rather be out doing something constructive.

Also, I fail to see where the absence of free will equates the absence of love. I also do not believe the evil is the absence of god, since god is everywhere, there can be absence of it. And of course if your god is omnipotent, and omniscient, sure he could create a free will that allows love. Stop limiting your god. Oh, I am not demanding anything that your god supposedly cannot or would not do if your definitions are correct. But since he does not do it, I suppose your definition may not be correct.

 

[cardero]

True GOD fact No. 7

GOD does not interfere with our human lives.

 

[Scuba Pete]

And of course if your god is omnipotent, and omniscient, sure he could create a free will that allows love.

Uh, that's what he did. That's my point.

They would rather be out doing something constructive.

Like what??? Maybe they are building something for the rest of mankind? The only animals that I know who have shown "evil tendencies" have contact with man. Go figure.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What I see as the root cause of the non-theist confusion (on this thread and in general)is lack of Biblical understanding. Some here persist in reading the OT and trying to use every word in a literal sense.... looking in every story, every myth for more ammunition to attack God.

This seems worth revisiting. Whatever the differing positions might be, I'm sure that all would like to clear up any lingering "confusion". While the reference to "every story, every myth" is left vague, the "story" that I have used frequently is that of the Flood. It might be instructive to see how one source views the possibility that this story is no more than myth or allegory.

II. HISTORICITY OF THE BIBLICAL DELUGE ACCOUNT​

It has been contended that the Flood story of the Bible and the Flood legends of other peoples, looked at from a merely historical point of view, stand on a similar footing, the Biblical account being a mere late variant of one of them. And on inquiring into their origin, we find that four theories have been advanced:

• The Flood story is a mere product of fancy. This theory contradicts the analogy of similar legends among all peoples.
• The Deluge story is by others considered as a nature-myth, representing the phenomena of winter, which in Babylonia especially is the time of rain. ...
• Connected with the preceding theory is the explanation which makes the Deluge story a cosmogonic fable. ...
• It has been inferred from the improbability of the preceding theories, that the Flood story must be a poetical or legendary presentation of some natural occurrence. ...

Thus far we have considered the Biblical Flood story from a merely historical point of view. But the student who believes in the inspiration of the Sacred Scriptures and admits the value of tradition in their exegesis can hardly rest satisfied with the results thus far obtained. It will not even be enough to grant that the ancient Flood legend became the vehicle of religious and spiritual truth by means of a divinely guided religious feeling and insight of the inspired writer. The Deluge is referred to in several passages of Scripture as a historical fact; the writings of the Fathers consider the event in the same light, and this view of the subject is confirmed by the numerous variants under which the Flood tradition lives in the most distant nations of the earth.

• The following are some of the New Testament passages which imply that the Deluge was a real historical event: "And as in the days of Noe, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, even till that day in which Noe entered into the ark, and they knew not. till the flood came, and took them all away; so also shall the coming of the Son of man be" (Matt., xxiv, 37-39). ...
• As to the view of Christian tradition, it suffices to appeal here to the words of Father Zorell who maintains that the Bible story concerning the Flood has never been explained or understood in any but a truly historical sense by any Catholic writer (cf. Hagen, Lexicon Biblicum). ... The few stray discordant voices belonging to the last fifteen or twenty years are simply drowned in this unanimous chorus of Christian tradition.
• The historicity of the Biblical Flood account is confirmed by the tradition existing in all places and at all times as to the occurrence of a similar catastrophe. F. von Schwarz (Sintfluth und Völkerwanderungen, pp. 8-18) enumerates sixty-three such Flood stories which are in his opinion independent of the Biblical account.

- see Catholic Encyclopaedia: Deluge

According to this source:

"The Deluge must have been anthropologically universal, i.e. it must have destroyed the whole human race."
​

This is a doctrine of biocide, not an exercise in Midrash.

 

[Master Vigil]

"Uh, that's what he did. That's my point."

My bad, I meant he could create a world without free will and still allow love.

"Like what??? Maybe they are building something for the rest of mankind? The only animals that I know who have shown "evil tendencies" have contact with man. Go figure."

Why is building something for the rest of mankind constructive? I know when I see houses being built, they tear down trees. Rip up the ground, and destroy the homes of thousands of beings just to house a few. Sorry, not seeing how that is constructive. And for the second sentence, do some study on wolves and tell me how they act towards other wolf packs is not in your perception evil.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's not a matter of "blaming the victims" but of people choosing to get into the life boat instead of trying to swim for shore on their own, because they simply can not believe in invisible pink lifeboats.

It is precisely a matter of blaiming the victims. How many of the tsunami victims deserved to be washed away? To talk of "invisible pink lifeboats" in the face of such tragedy is, itself, tragic.

 

[Scuba Pete]

It would have to be labled a "selective biocide" and should not be considered evil since it ensured the survival of many species. This is an area where God is condemned if he lets the evil continue, and also condemned by removing evil from the earth.

It is best to prune the shrub of ALL of the infected parts, even if that only leaves an eensy teensy bit of it left, in order to ensure the shrub's survival (unless of course, it is a barren fig tree, then one should prune with a shovel).

 

[Scuba Pete]

It is precisely a matter of blaiming the victims. How many of the tsunami victims deserved to be washed away? To talk of "invisible pink lifeboats" in the face of such tragedy is, itself, tragic.

The tragedy is that you have resorted AGAIN to twisting my words. Was I not referring to spiritual death? But you in your arrogance attribute me to speaking of tsunami victims. When will you show us some intellectual honesty and stop trying to distort what I say? Please show us some moral backbone and stop putting words or thoughts in my mouth. "Winning" can't be THAT important to you, can it? You must get this from the Captain Insane-O school of debate.

 

[cardero]

Deut 32:8 How many of the tsunami victims deserved to be washed away?

If not washed away by a tsunami how would you like these people to exit this physical existence? What would you feel is a deserving way to die? Death does not judge innocent or guilty.

Deut 32:8 To talk of "invisible pink lifeboats" in the face of such tragedy is, itself, tragic.

Tragedy is a man-made adjective used by people to describe something they do not understand.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The tragedy is that you have resorted AGAIN to twisting my words. ... in your arrogance attribute me to speaking of tsunami victims.

And I am again tired of your incessant whining and baseless ad hominems. I know very well that you were talking of "spiritual death". In fact, you will talk of virtually anything, the more abstract the better, to evade the question at hand. You abrogate to yourself the right to sublimate the flood and tsunami to talk of spiritual death and invisible pink lifeboats, then bluster when you're yanked back to earth. But it's on earth, in the mire of mangled bodies and lost futures, that the "Problem of Evil" exists, and it's on earth that you sacrifice the victims, admonishing them to avoid "Spiritual Death" and cling to your imaginary lifeboat as their loved ones slip from their grasp.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Well tire no more. I will leave you to your pathetic twisting. It has come time to unsubscribe to this thread. Good day.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Can't we all just get along?

C'mon, folks--please keep it civil.

 

[Scott1]

If that is what you deem myself or my position worth, I'll take it. The fact that we do not agree on this issue does not preclude my respecting you.

No nononononononononono..... please don't take that the wrong way.... that was my lame attempt at humor.

... get it....... you signed off with all due respect.... and I ..... well..... it was funny in my head.

Just wanted to clear this up.
Scott

 

[The Voice of Reason]

No problem Scott. I am not offended - not in the least. It would not be the first time that I have missed the humor intended in a post - not by a long shot.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[Scott1]

It might be instructive to see how one source views the possibility that this story is no more than myth or allegory.

It also would be instructive to make a point...... once source views on the topic are no more relevant to this debate than a online cooking guide..... ask a question to me, I'll answer it. I know you are doing your best to ignore everything I write that does not jibe with your theology, but it grows tiresome. Unless you are waiting for Mr. Knight to jump on this site and respond to your questions, I propose you ask a question of a poster who is actually a member of this site, or let's move on.

Deal?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I know you are doing your best to ignore everything I write that does not jibe with your theology, ...

As you know, that is a misrepresentation.

 

[Scott1]

Oy vey...... I apologize from the depths of my soul..... can we move on now?

 

[Jaymes]

The only animals that I know who have shown "evil tendencies" have contact with man. Go figure.

I'd have to disagree. I watched a special on the Discovery Channel Sunday called Predators at War, and it showed footage of a lion who had just feasted on a carcass kill a hyena pup who had a broken back and couldn't flee for no reason other than to kill it. He mauled the carcass, and wouldn't leave it until it turned cold to make sure it was dead.

 

[No*s]

I've enjoyed your participation.

Thank you Deut. I've enjoyed it as well, but from the looks of things, it has heated up a bit much now .

 

[Papersock]

The riddle that has sparked this debate is very much like something I read recently about the Holocaust, in A History of God

"If this God is omnipotent, he could have prevented the Holocaust. If he was unable to stop it, he is impotent and useless; if he could have stopped it and chose not to, he is a monster."

I think this statement was meant to reflect the view of many Jews who went through the Holocaust. It was very difficult on some people's faith in a loving, omnipotent god.

Sorry if this doesn't really add much to the debate. It's mostly a different take on the original post.