Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

The Christian God had to choose to allow evil to exist for our sake.

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Mike Goodrich

unread,
Jan 19, 2003, 5:50:17 PM1/19/03
to
In reference to the disobedience of Adam/Eve to God in the Garden of Eden...

"catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5b9l2v0ks6af6351v...@4ax.com...
>
> The omniscient god set this "test" up, *even though* he knew Adam and
> Eve would fail it, to teach *them* a lesson and then *punishes* them
> and *all* creation for failing it when he knew all along they would?
> In other words, god intended from the beginning of eternity that there
> be death disease and sin in this world.


Well my answer may surprise you, but this is basically true.

I suggest you go back and look up what I said to NA Sides about coupled
choices (and I hope he is listening in).

In creating the angels and mankind (i.e., free will non-omniscient beings in
general), God made a choice.

But God did not select the various aspects of this 'big' choice a-la-carte.

You see, all the ramifications of this choice are coupled as a unit-group in
a way that they cannot be disentangled.

God chose true free will->consequently the potential of evil->consequently
the actualization of evil (known in foreknowledge)->consequently His own
subsequent choice to suffer *Himself* for the redemption of man, and also
the punishment of the unrepentant wicked - ALL AT THE SAME INSTANT OF CHOICE
as a coupled group.

These choices are inextricably coupled and cannot be separated in God
choosing to have a reality populated by free will non-omniscients who will
enjoy an eternal loving relationship with Him, and to guarantee that the
price of evil will be paid in full in the final accounting.

God intended that their be love between Him and all non-omniscients willing
to have it with Him, and He had to make those choices as a coupled group to
provide that reality.

An astounding choice.

I for one am grateful that He made it so that I might be, and have that
potential.


regards,

-Mike Goodrich

Eric Gill

unread,
Jan 19, 2003, 6:50:15 PM1/19/03
to
"Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@cox.net> wrote in
news:F2GW9.7732$8N.9...@news1.east.cox.net:

> In reference to the disobedience of Adam/Eve to God in the Garden of
> Eden...
>
> "catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5b9l2v0ks6af6351v...@4ax.com...
>>
>> The omniscient god set this "test" up, *even though* he knew Adam and
>> Eve would fail it, to teach *them* a lesson and then *punishes* them
>> and *all* creation for failing it when he knew all along they would?
>> In other words, god intended from the beginning of eternity that
>> there be death disease and sin in this world.
>
>
> Well my answer may surprise you, but this is basically true.
>
> I suggest you go back and look up what I said to NA Sides about
> coupled choices (and I hope he is listening in).
>
> In creating the angels and mankind (i.e., free will non-omniscient
> beings in general), God made a choice.
>
> But God did not select the various aspects of this 'big' choice
> a-la-carte.
>
> You see, all the ramifications of this choice are coupled as a
> unit-group in a way that they cannot be disentangled.

Convenient. Limit "omnipotent," making it meaningless, then use this
irrational re-definition to justify your mythology and call it
"logical," thereby changing the definition of "logical" so that it, too,
is meaningless.

I think you need to go back to looking for physical evidence, since your
logical "proofs" are anything but.

<snip>

Bobby D. Bryant

unread,
Jan 19, 2003, 7:05:29 PM1/19/03
to
On Sun, 19 Jan 2003 22:50:17 +0000, Mike Goodrich wrote:

> These choices are inextricably coupled and cannot be separated in God
> choosing to have a reality populated by free will non-omniscients who will
> enjoy an eternal loving relationship with Him, and to guarantee that the
> price of evil will be paid in full in the final accounting.

I guess omnipotence isn't all it's cracked up to be, eh?

Your theology is as idiotic as your argument for using supernatural
methods in scientific investigations.

--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

dkomo

unread,
Jan 19, 2003, 8:56:10 PM1/19/03
to

After reading this my first thought was "this is a complete and utter
crock." But then I recalled something I had written in another post:
that if an omniscient and omnipotent Being really existed, It would by
necessity be beyond the bounds of normal human logic and
comprehension. So perhaps it shouldn't be too suprising that one of
Its dutiful human worshipers would post something about said Being
that likewise appears to fail the test of basic logic.


--dk...@cris.com

dandelion

unread,
Jan 19, 2003, 9:09:17 PM1/19/03
to
Mike Goodrich wrote:

> In reference to the disobedience of Adam/Eve to God in the Garden of
> Eden...
>
> "catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5b9l2v0ks6af6351v...@4ax.com...
>>
>> The omniscient god set this "test" up, *even though* he knew Adam and
>> Eve would fail it, to teach *them* a lesson and then *punishes* them
>> and *all* creation for failing it when he knew all along they would?
>> In other words, god intended from the beginning of eternity that there
>> be death disease and sin in this world.
>
>
> Well my answer may surprise you, but this is basically true.


You are a *great* adverstisemnt for atheism. That god of your sure *is* a
bastard.

--
Menu, n.:
A list of dishes which the restaurant has just run out of.

dandelion

unread,
Jan 19, 2003, 9:16:40 PM1/19/03
to
dkomo wrote:

> appears to fail the test of basic logic.

What did I tell you?

--
The optimum committee has no members.
-- Norman Augustine

dandelion

unread,
Jan 19, 2003, 9:15:41 PM1/19/03
to
Mike Goodrich wrote:


> You see, all the ramifications of this choice are coupled as a unit-group
> in a way that they cannot be disentangled.

You are not working for microsoft by any chance, are you?

> and to guarantee that the price of evil will be paid in full in the final
> accounting.

Sounds like microsoft legal and marketing deps.

> God intended that their be love between Him and all non-omniscients
> willing to have it with Him, and He had to make those choices as a coupled
> group to provide that reality.

It *is* microsoft. Can do a single release without bugs in it.

> An astounding choice.

> I for one am grateful that He made it so that I might be, and have that
> potential.

I'm just waiting for "Where do you wanna go today?"

At lest evolution is open-source.

--
"If we were meant to fly, we wouldn't keep losing our luggage."

catshark

unread,
Jan 19, 2003, 11:17:24 PM1/19/03
to
On Sun, 19 Jan 2003 22:50:17 +0000 (UTC), "Mike Goodrich"
<tachy...@cox.net> wrote:

>In reference to the disobedience of Adam/Eve to God in the Garden of Eden...
>
>"catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:5b9l2v0ks6af6351v...@4ax.com...
>>
>> The omniscient god set this "test" up, *even though* he knew Adam and
>> Eve would fail it, to teach *them* a lesson and then *punishes* them
>> and *all* creation for failing it when he knew all along they would?
>> In other words, god intended from the beginning of eternity that there
>> be death disease and sin in this world.
>
>
>Well my answer may surprise you, but this is basically true.
>
>I suggest you go back and look up what I said to NA Sides about coupled
>choices (and I hope he is listening in).

I think you overestimate my interest in your theological musings,
Mike. If you can't be bothered, then neither can I.

>
>In creating the angels and mankind (i.e., free will non-omniscient beings in
>general), God made a choice.
>
>But God did not select the various aspects of this 'big' choice a-la-carte.

Uh, why *not*?

>
>You see, all the ramifications of this choice are coupled as a unit-group in
>a way that they cannot be disentangled.

Uh, let's see . . .

He could have chosen to recognize that free will given to a creature
he created to be less-than-perfect would result in their making poor
choices and forgive them, without any rigmarole, for doing what came
"naturally", instead of punishing them and the rest of creation.
Nope, seems easy to disentangle. And that is only *one* way . . .

>
>God chose true free will->consequently the potential of evil->consequently
>the actualization of evil (known in foreknowledge)->consequently His own
>subsequent choice to suffer *Himself* for the redemption of man, and also
>the punishment of the unrepentant wicked - ALL AT THE SAME INSTANT OF CHOICE
>as a coupled group.

Why not skip the charade and go straight to forgiving?

>
>These choices are inextricably coupled and cannot be separated in God
>choosing to have a reality populated by free will non-omniscients who will
>enjoy an eternal loving relationship with Him,

So far, so good . . .

>and to guarantee that the
>price of evil will be paid in full in the final accounting.

So he creates evil, then "pays the price" for it but *still* punishes
*us* for it? This is "creative accounting" at its worst!

>
>God intended that their be love between Him and all non-omniscients willing
>to have it with Him,

Then he bears the burden of making the choice clear. Otherwise, as
the more knowledgeable and powerful partner in the relationship, it is
*his* failure if someone fails to believe. An omnipotent god could do
this easily. The fact that less than half of the human species
accepts this supposed god shows he is falling down on the job.

Besides, why limit the time of choice to this life (accepting your
premise that this life is not all there is)? Why is acceptance in the
pitiably short time *he* chose (as you admit) to give us on Earth so
important to an eternal being?

>and He had to make those choices as a coupled group to
>provide that reality.

Ya know, this is probably at the core of what eventually drove me away
from Christianity. You believe in such a *small* god.

>
>An astounding choice.

I have to agree that the word is descriptive of *your* theology . . .

>
>I for one am grateful that He made it so that I might be, and have that
>potential.

<Shrug> And dogs still show love for the masters that beat them.

---------------
J. Pieret
---------------

Cogito sum, ergo sum, cogito.

- Robert Carroll -

SortingItOut

unread,
Jan 20, 2003, 1:02:13 AM1/20/03
to
"Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<F2GW9.7732$8N.9...@news1.east.cox.net>...

> In reference to the disobedience of Adam/Eve to God in the Garden of Eden...
>
> "catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5b9l2v0ks6af6351v...@4ax.com...
> >
> > The omniscient god set this "test" up, *even though* he knew Adam and
> > Eve would fail it, to teach *them* a lesson and then *punishes* them
> > and *all* creation for failing it when he knew all along they would?
> > In other words, god intended from the beginning of eternity that there
> > be death disease and sin in this world.
>
>
> Well my answer may surprise you, but this is basically true.
>
> I suggest you go back and look up what I said to NA Sides about coupled
> choices (and I hope he is listening in).
>
> In creating the angels and mankind (i.e., free will non-omniscient beings in
> general), God made a choice.
>
> But God did not select the various aspects of this 'big' choice a-la-carte.
>
> You see, all the ramifications of this choice are coupled as a unit-group in
> a way that they cannot be disentangled.
>
> God chose true free will->consequently the potential of evil->consequently
> the actualization of evil (known in foreknowledge)->consequently His own
> subsequent choice to suffer *Himself* for the redemption of man, and also
> the punishment of the unrepentant wicked - ALL AT THE SAME INSTANT OF CHOICE
> as a coupled group.


If I choose not to sin, then why am I called a sinner?


>
> These choices are inextricably coupled and cannot be separated in God
> choosing to have a reality populated by free will non-omniscients who will
> enjoy an eternal loving relationship with Him, and to guarantee that the
> price of evil will be paid in full in the final accounting.


In this "eternal" relationship, is evil present? If not, then why is
it present now?

H,R.Gruemm

unread,
Jan 20, 2003, 4:48:40 AM1/20/03
to
"Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<F2GW9.7732$8N.9...@news1.east.cox.net>...
> In reference to the disobedience of Adam/Eve to God in the Garden of Eden...
>
> "catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5b9l2v0ks6af6351v...@4ax.com...
> >
> > The omniscient god set this "test" up, *even though* he knew Adam and
> > Eve would fail it, to teach *them* a lesson and then *punishes* them
> > and *all* creation for failing it when he knew all along they would?
> > In other words, god intended from the beginning of eternity that there
> > be death disease and sin in this world.
>
>
> Well my answer may surprise you, but this is basically true.
>
> I suggest you go back and look up what I said to NA Sides about coupled
> choices (and I hope he is listening in).
>
> In creating the angels and mankind (i.e., free will non-omniscient beings in
> general), God made a choice.
>
> But God did not select the various aspects of this 'big' choice a-la-carte.
>
> You see, all the ramifications of this choice are coupled as a unit-group in
> a way that they cannot be disentangled.
>
> God chose true free will->consequently the potential of evil->

Mike, it's your opinion that evil is defined by your God. So why
didn't he redefine it to eliminate the potential of evil ?

Or why didn't he just give us free will for any action which does not
harm anyone else ? We don't have free will to fly to the moon by
flapping our arms either.


consequently
> the actualization of evil (known in foreknowledge)->consequently His own
> subsequent choice to suffer *Himself* for the redemption of man, and also
> the punishment of the unrepentant wicked

Couldn't he have chosen to cancel the punishment of the wicked ?

- ALL AT THE SAME INSTANT OF CHOICE
> as a coupled group.

> These choices are inextricably coupled and cannot be separated in God
> choosing to have a reality populated by free will non-omniscients

I do not need the free choice to kill my family with an axe in order
to prove that I am not a robot and have free will. The free choice to
post or not to post is quite sufficient.


who will
> enjoy an eternal loving relationship with Him, and to guarantee that the
> price of evil will be paid in full in the final accounting.

Easy out: define evil differently, since he - IYO - defined it anyway.

IOW, your arguments - sorry to say - don't hold water.

> God intended that their be love between Him and all non-omniscients willing
> to have it with Him, and He had to make those choices as a coupled group to
> provide that reality.
>
> An astounding choice.
>
> I for one am grateful that He made it so that I might be, and have that
> potential.

You are glad that you have the potential to kill your family ?

regards,
HRG.

Bill Rogers

unread,
Jan 20, 2003, 9:18:02 AM1/20/03
to
"Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<F2GW9.7732$8N.9...@news1.east.cox.net>...

You may be letting God off the hook too easily here. He could have
done better. For example, according to Jesus what matters, from the
point of view of sin, is what you want to do, not what you actually
do. You know, lusting in your heart, getting angry at your brother,
etc. So wouldn't it have been possible to allow people scope for their
free will without actually letting them hurt anyone else. They could
still choose sin and end up condemned, but innocent bystanders needn't
get hurt. And of course people's ability to cause all the damage they
would like to is already limited. Thankfully, the large majority of
theose people who might want to set of a nuclear bomb or release Sarin
or spread smallpox do not have the means to do so. They may be
committing mass murder in their hearts, but physical constraints
prevent them from actually doing it. So why not let murderer's bullets
turn magically to styrofoam pellets at all the right moments? The
victim is OK and the sinner has still been able to exercise his fallen
free will.

If you say that free will without consequences is meaningless and that
to take away the consequences, even those which happen to innocent
third parties, then what was Jesus talking about in the Sermon on the
Mount? Woouldn't you then be disagreeing with his assessment of sins
of intention?

So a good theodicy has to explain not just why free will is such a
good thing that it balances out the suffering of the innocent victims;
it must explain why the incremental value of allowing free will joined
to the capacity to inflict harm is sufficiently better than free will
alone to justify all the damage done. And why, if for some reason it
is important that sinners' mental sins have physical consequences to
third parties, why he did not make it even easier for the wicked to
carry out their evil intentions.

Bill

David Sienkiewicz

unread,
Jan 20, 2003, 11:16:34 AM1/20/03
to
"Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<F2GW9.7732$8N.9...@news1.east.cox.net>...
> In reference to the disobedience of Adam/Eve to God in the Garden of Eden...
>
> "catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5b9l2v0ks6af6351v...@4ax.com...
> >
> > The omniscient god set this "test" up, *even though* he knew Adam and
> > Eve would fail it, to teach *them* a lesson and then *punishes* them
> > and *all* creation for failing it when he knew all along they would?
> > In other words, god intended from the beginning of eternity that there
> > be death disease and sin in this world.
>
>
> Well my answer may surprise you, but this is basically true.

No, Mike, it is NOT "true." It is your perception, at best; and it is
you worming your way around a very dicey conundrum, at worst.

Frankly, I think it's the latter. It is also exceptionally lame -
even for you.

< snip >

MJ

unread,
Jan 20, 2003, 12:55:49 PM1/20/03
to
> God chose true free will->consequently the potential of evil->consequently
> the actualization of evil (known in foreknowledge)->consequently His own
> subsequent choice to suffer *Himself* for the redemption of man, and also
> the punishment of the unrepentant wicked - ALL AT THE SAME INSTANT OF CHOICE
> as a coupled group.

Well, it looks like you've just solved the problem of evil!
Don't you wish Epicurus could see you now!

In all seriousness, the problem cannot be answered in a couple of
paragraphs. Your attempt is appreciated, but it doesn't solve
anything. It is a very complex problem for not only the Christian
faith, but Western Religion in general (Islam & Judaism). Here is a
quote from Hume that I'm sure most are familiar with, and may refresh
your memory:

"The questions asked by Epicurus, of old, are yet unanswered. Is
Diety willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not
omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is
He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither
able nor willing? Then why call Him Diety?"
--David Hume

gen2rev

unread,
Jan 20, 2003, 2:13:36 PM1/20/03
to
Mike Goodrich wrote:
>
> In reference to the disobedience of Adam/Eve to God in the Garden of Eden...
>
> "catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5b9l2v0ks6af6351v...@4ax.com...
> >
> > The omniscient god set this "test" up, *even though* he knew Adam and
> > Eve would fail it, to teach *them* a lesson and then *punishes* them
> > and *all* creation for failing it when he knew all along they would?
> > In other words, god intended from the beginning of eternity that there
> > be death disease and sin in this world.
>
> Well my answer may surprise you, but this is basically true.
>
> I suggest you go back and look up what I said to NA Sides about coupled
> choices (and I hope he is listening in).
>
> In creating the angels and mankind (i.e., free will non-omniscient beings in
> general), God made a choice.
>
> But God did not select the various aspects of this 'big' choice a-la-carte.
>
> You see, all the ramifications of this choice are coupled as a unit-group in
> a way that they cannot be disentangled.
>
> God chose true free will->consequently the potential of evil->consequently
> the actualization of evil (known in foreknowledge)->consequently His own
> subsequent choice to suffer *Himself* for the redemption of man, and also
> the punishment of the unrepentant wicked - ALL AT THE SAME INSTANT OF CHOICE
> as a coupled group.
>
> These choices are inextricably coupled and cannot be separated

Why not?


> in God
> choosing to have a reality populated by free will non-omniscients who will
> enjoy an eternal loving relationship with Him, and to guarantee that the
> price of evil will be paid in full in the final accounting.
>
> God intended that their be love between Him and all non-omniscients willing
> to have it with Him, and He had to make those choices as a coupled group to
> provide that reality.

Why is an omnipotent being restricted in his choices?

Mike Goodrich

unread,
Jan 20, 2003, 2:34:55 PM1/20/03
to

"gen2rev" <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
news:3E2C4BE7...@crosswinds.net...


The answers to both question are because of His forever unchanging nature
and complete consistency of all actions taken on His part that find their
impetus in His unchanging nature.

That nature is inadequately described by a non-exhaustive list of concepts
like love, mercy, compassion, holiness, justice, righteousness, ...

regards,


-Mike Goodrich

Jon Rothlander

unread,
Jan 20, 2003, 4:57:22 PM1/20/03
to

> Is Diety willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
> Is he able, but not willing? Then he is alevolent.

> Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
> Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him Diety?"

This is stupid and it's not a real argument. Didn't you take philosphy 101?
You can not use a contradiction to support your worldview. If God was to
prevent he would create a contradition to giving us free will. Just go back
to Philosphy 101 and review the first chapter.


"MJ" <Ma...@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:391b1893.03012...@posting.google.com...

dandelion

unread,
Jan 20, 2003, 5:08:27 PM1/20/03
to
Mike Goodrich wrote:

> The answers to both question are because of His forever unchanging nature
> and complete consistency of all actions taken on His part that find their
> impetus in His unchanging nature.

I just got off the phone with God. He says he changed his hair-style only
two weeks ago.

I'm not being serious, of course. But i'd like to know how you know of 'gods
nature' without giving him a call.

--
"Yeah, but you're taking the universe out of context."

Jon Rothlander

unread,
Jan 20, 2003, 5:30:27 PM1/20/03
to
> Why is an omnipotent being restricted in his choices?

Omnipotent does mean what you think it does. God can not do a number of
things.

He can not lie, he can not destroy himself, etc. Your problem is that you
do not understand basic philosphy and what a contradiction is.


Marc Carter

unread,
Jan 20, 2003, 6:28:48 PM1/20/03
to
On Monday 20 January 2003 04:57 pm in <v2osi4o...@corp.supernews.com>,
Jon Rothlander caused some electrons to represent:


>> Is Diety willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not
>> omnipotent.
>> Is he able, but not willing? Then he is alevolent.
>> Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
>> Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him Diety?"
>
> This is stupid and it's not a real argument. Didn't you take philosphy
> 101?
> You can not use a contradiction to support your worldview. If God was to
> prevent he would create a contradition to giving us free will. Just go
> back to Philosphy 101 and review the first chapter.
>

[Marc, lifting curtain and peering in}

Man, this is a *good* one...

[snip rest]

--
Marc Carter
Assistant Professor, Itinerant Scientist,
Inveterate Skeptic, Former Surfer,
And completely Microsoft-free.

Marc Carter

unread,
Jan 20, 2003, 6:29:24 PM1/20/03
to
On Monday 20 January 2003 02:34 pm in
<WdYW9.10021$8N.13...@news1.east.cox.net>, Mike Goodrich caused some
electrons to represent:

> The answers to both question are because of His forever unchanging nature


> and complete consistency of all actions taken on His part that find their
> impetus in His unchanging nature.

Oh, wow! *That* clears *every*thing up. ?

> That nature is inadequately described by a non-exhaustive list of concepts
> like love, mercy, compassion, holiness, justice, righteousness, ...

But I still want to know why it is that he tells us he has all these
things, but the data don't bear that assertion out.

Couldn't he have put the volcanoes somewhere else? Did there even *have*
to be volcanoes? Or hurricanes? What entailment do hurricanes come from?

And I mean, jeepers, he's *god* -- couldn't he have figured out a better
way? The things he is purported to be incapble of are contradictions (a
rock too big to lift), but I see no necessity for a volcano killing 23,000
people in their sleep.

Unless, of course, they *deserved* it, right?

m

dkomo

unread,
Jan 20, 2003, 6:42:42 PM1/20/03
to

"Omnipotence is maximal power. Some philosophers, notably Descartes,
have thought that omnipotence requires the ability to do absolutely
anything, including the logically impossible. Most classical theists,
however, understood omnipotence as involving vast powers, while
nevertheless being subject to a range of limitations of ability,
including the inability to do what is logically impossible, the
inability to change the past or to do things incompatible with what
has happened, and the inability to do things that cannot be done by a
being who has other divine attributes, e.g. to sin or lie."

DIVINE ATTRIBUTES, Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd ed.

So according to you, Descartes was an ass, and so was Hume.

Isn't this fun? When we discourse about a hypothetical all powerful
Being we have virtually unlimited degrees of freedom TO MAKE THINGS
UP! So you may prefer the limited definition of omnipotence, and I,
the unlimited one. I like the argument given by Billy Bob the
Theologian in another thread:

"Da LAWD a'bein truly allpotent and stuff, he can't a'bein bound by
Logic, 'speshially Human Logic, cause if'n he were, then he wouldn'
a'be omnepotent, now would He? If'n He has t'be a'follerin them logik
rules, then he shure ain't the LAWD. And that be that."


--dk...@cris.com

John Wilkins

unread,
Jan 20, 2003, 6:40:33 PM1/20/03
to
Marc Carter <marcMUN...@MUNGEspeakeasy.net> wrote:

> On Monday 20 January 2003 04:57 pm in <v2osi4o...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Jon Rothlander caused some electrons to represent:
>
> >> Is Diety willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not
> >> omnipotent.
> >> Is he able, but not willing? Then he is alevolent.
> >> Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
> >> Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him Diety?"
> >
> > This is stupid and it's not a real argument. Didn't you take philosphy
> > 101?
> > You can not use a contradiction to support your worldview. If God was to
> > prevent he would create a contradition to giving us free will. Just go
> > back to Philosphy 101 and review the first chapter.
> >
>
> [Marc, lifting curtain and peering in}
>
> Man, this is a *good* one...
>
> [snip rest]

Well *I* manfully resisted the temptation to make a comment...

Jon, I've read David Hume. You, sir, are no David Hume.
--
John Wilkins
Passed Phil 101, 201, 301, 401, 501, 601, 701 and working on Inf01
(but I cantor seem to complete it)

AC

unread,
Jan 20, 2003, 6:53:59 PM1/20/03
to

So, in other words, God is logically inconsistent. If there was ever a
better reason not believe in such a being, I cannot think of it.

--
A. Clausen

dkomo

unread,
Jan 20, 2003, 6:58:23 PM1/20/03
to
Jon Rothlander wrote:
>
> > Is Diety willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
> > Is he able, but not willing? Then he is alevolent.
> > Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
> > Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him Diety?"
>
> This is stupid and it's not a real argument. Didn't you take philosphy 101?
> You can not use a contradiction to support your worldview. If God was to
> prevent he would create a contradition to giving us free will. Just go back
> to Philosphy 101 and review the first chapter.
>

Go back to Math 101 and learn something about proof by contradiction.
One of the earliest and still one of the most elegant proofs in
mathematics was by Euclid in proving the infinitude of primes. This
is a simple proof by contradiction. One assumes that the number of
primes is *finite* and then shows that this assumption leads to a
contradiction. Therefore the number of primes is infinite.

Likewise if one makes assumptions about some hypothetical infinitely
powerful Supreme Being who no one has ever seen and then by deduction
is led to set of contradictions, one can deduce the following
possibilities:

1. the assumptions were wrong

2. the Supreme Being in question is beyond human logic
and comprehension

3. the Supreme Being doesn't exist.

I personally prefer (3) as the simplest conclusion. This is the
result of a proof by contradiction and Hume's arguments are just one
of numerous examples.

Now you apparently would prefer to play around with the assumptions,
calling that "Philosophy 101". But the problem is, your set of
assumptions about the Supreme Being in question are no better than
mine, or anybody else's, since there is no *objective* evidence for
such an entity, hence no way to verify the assumptions.


--dk...@cris.com

Ananda Gupta

unread,
Jan 20, 2003, 7:08:21 PM1/20/03
to
wil...@wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote in
<1fp4tsl.1sobs1kr91diyN%wil...@wehi.edu.au>:

>>> This is stupid and it's not a real argument. Didn't you take
>>> philosphy 101? You can not use a contradiction to support your
>>> worldview. If God was to prevent he would create a contradition to
>>> giving us free will. Just go back to Philosphy 101 and review the
>>> first chapter.
>>>
>

>Jon, I've read David Hume. You, sir, are no David Hume.

hahaha

Apparently Jon's freshman philosophy class hasn't gotten to "reductio ad
absurdum" yet. That is, if they use Latin words.

Hiero5ant

unread,
Jan 20, 2003, 8:43:34 PM1/20/03
to

"John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1fp4tsl.1sobs1kr91diyN%wil...@wehi.edu.au...

There you go, trying to russell up the hornets' nest again.

Brian M. Scott

unread,
Jan 20, 2003, 8:47:59 PM1/20/03
to
On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 23:40:33 +0000 (UTC), wil...@wehi.edu.au
(John Wilkins) wrote:

>Marc Carter <marcMUN...@MUNGEspeakeasy.net> wrote:

>> On Monday 20 January 2003 04:57 pm in <v2osi4o...@corp.supernews.com>,
>> Jon Rothlander caused some electrons to represent:

>> >> Is Diety willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not
>> >> omnipotent.

Diet-y behavior is frequently associated with 'willing but not
able'.

>> >> Is he able, but not willing? Then he is alevolent.
>> >> Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
>> >> Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him Diety?"

>> > This is stupid and it's not a real argument. Didn't you take philosphy
>> > 101?
>> > You can not use a contradiction to support your worldview. If God was to
>> > prevent he would create a contradition to giving us free will. Just go
>> > back to Philosphy 101 and review the first chapter.

>> [Marc, lifting curtain and peering in}

>> Man, this is a *good* one...

>> [snip rest]

>Well *I* manfully resisted the temptation to make a comment...

>Jon, I've read David Hume. You, sir, are no David Hume.

Does one get to him in the first chapter of 'Philosphy 101'? Or
to material implication? (I rather like 'contradition', though.
Extradition: We send you away. Contradition: We send you back.)

>John Wilkins
>Passed Phil 101, 201, 301, 401, 501, 601, 701 and working on Inf01
>(but I cantor seem to complete it)

Instead of cantoring crabwise, try galloping headlong.

Brian

Bobby D. Bryant

unread,
Jan 20, 2003, 9:22:19 PM1/20/03
to
On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:34:55 +0000, Mike Goodrich wrote:

> The answers to both question are because of His forever unchanging
> nature and complete consistency of all actions taken on His part that
> find their impetus in His unchanging nature.
>
> That nature is inadequately described by a non-exhaustive list of
> concepts like love, mercy, compassion, holiness, justice, righteousness,
> ...

And mimsy were his borogroves? Lewis Carroll did it much better.

You're closing in on Nemonimini, though.

Bobby D. Bryant

unread,
Jan 20, 2003, 9:34:04 PM1/20/03
to
On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:13:36 +0000, gen2rev wrote:

> Why is an omnipotent being restricted in his choices?

It appears that supernatural beings can violate natural laws, but not
supernatural laws. This leads to speculation that there are also
supersupernatural beings that can violate natural and supernatural laws,
but not supersupernatural laws.

The truth of this speculation can immediately be seen by considering the
superanthropic principle, which answers the question of why we would have
a superverse that has precisely those supernatural laws and other
supernatural properties that would make it hospitable to a supernatural
entity who would create a natural universe that satisfies the demands of
the ordinary anthropic principle.

And of course, this logic applies recursively, giving us the Goodrich
Hierarchy of super*verses constructed of super*natural laws and inhabited
by super*natural entities.


And the fascinating thing is that this gnosis was revealed over thirty
years ago by Tim Weber and Andrew Lloyd Rice in their bubblegum opera
_Jesus Christ Super*_.

--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

p.s. -- Sorry, I couldn't help myself on that coda.

Craig Franck

unread,
Jan 20, 2003, 11:10:50 PM1/20/03
to
"Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@cox.net> wrote

> You see, all the ramifications of this choice are coupled as a unit-group in
> a way that they cannot be disentangled.

How do you know? I get the impression that the universe
could exist in an infinite number of ways. All the free will
in the world isn't any good if the "rules" are being created
by someone who is being disingenuous. It's like saying
choose between door A and B, and you choose door A,
and a bunch of terrorists hunt down and kill your family.
Who the hell could have seen that coming?

It's far easier to simply say God is a drama queen who is
so bored out of his mind that he feels compelled to
construct schemes in which heaven or hell rides on
a belief system that pretends to be childishly simple, but
is in fact totally incomprehensible even to the people who
follow it, as your post demonstrates.

--
Craig Franck
craig....@verizon.net
Cortland, NY

Brian M. Scott

unread,
Jan 20, 2003, 11:46:52 PM1/20/03
to
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 02:34:04 +0000 (UTC), "Bobby D. Bryant"
<bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:13:36 +0000, gen2rev wrote:

>> Why is an omnipotent being restricted in his choices?

>It appears that supernatural beings can violate natural laws, but not
>supernatural laws. This leads to speculation that there are also
>supersupernatural beings that can violate natural and supernatural laws,
>but not supersupernatural laws.

Hm. Is the universe of supernaturalities well-founded? Assuming
generalized monotheism (every order of supernaturality contains
exactly one god), is there a natural (proper class) order
isomorphism between gods and ordinals?

[...]

Brian

Norseman

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 12:24:49 AM1/21/03
to

"catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:qjsm2vktr33jj0127...@4ax.com...

Either that or God is inherently sadistic or has bipolar disorder.

http://www.theonion.com/onion3716/god_diagnosed_bipolar.html

- Norseman

Norseman

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 12:22:17 AM1/21/03
to

"catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:qjsm2vktr33jj0127...@4ax.com...

Now where's the fun of sending people to a fiery torment in that?!

- Norseman

Norseman

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 12:39:39 AM1/21/03
to

"Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:WdYW9.10021$8N.13...@news1.east.cox.net...

Didn't He flood the Earth (to rid the world of the wicked no less -- and how
did that work out for Mr. Omnipotence?), destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, test
Lot, etc. in the Old Testament? Then he decides to immaculately create an
offshoot of Himself to be destroyed upon a cross so we could be forgiven?

Sounds like a change of plans to me. From aggressive to passive.

- Norseman

Norseman

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 12:41:31 AM1/21/03
to

"Marc Carter" <marcMUN...@MUNGEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:P5qcnfAmK_b...@speakeasy.net...

> On Monday 20 January 2003 02:34 pm in
> <WdYW9.10021$8N.13...@news1.east.cox.net>, Mike Goodrich caused some
> electrons to represent:
>
> > The answers to both question are because of His forever unchanging
nature
> > and complete consistency of all actions taken on His part that find
their
> > impetus in His unchanging nature.
>
> Oh, wow! *That* clears *every*thing up. ?
>
> > That nature is inadequately described by a non-exhaustive list of
concepts
> > like love, mercy, compassion, holiness, justice, righteousness, ...
>
> But I still want to know why it is that he tells us he has all these
> things, but the data don't bear that assertion out.
>
> Couldn't he have put the volcanoes somewhere else? Did there even *have*
> to be volcanoes? Or hurricanes? What entailment do hurricanes come from?
>
> And I mean, jeepers, he's *god* -- couldn't he have figured out a better
> way? The things he is purported to be incapble of are contradictions (a
> rock too big to lift), but I see no necessity for a volcano killing 23,000
> people in their sleep.
>
> Unless, of course, they *deserved* it, right?
>

Hehe... you must be confused. That's part of His free will plan. Those
people chose to live there and die. Or did they?! Now I'm confused.

- Norseman


Bill Rogers

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 3:46:10 AM1/21/03
to
"Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<F2GW9.7732<snip>

>
> In creating the angels and mankind (i.e., free will non-omniscient beings in
> general), God made a choice.
>
> But God did not select the various aspects of this 'big' choice a-la-carte.
>
> You see, all the ramifications of this choice are coupled as a unit-group in
> a way that they cannot be disentangled.
>
> God chose true free will->consequently the potential of evil->consequently
> the actualization of evil (known in foreknowledge)->consequently His own
> subsequent choice to suffer *Himself* for the redemption of man, and also
> the punishment of the unrepentant wicked - ALL AT THE SAME INSTANT OF CHOICE
> as a coupled group.
>
> These choices are inextricably coupled and cannot be separated in God

> choosing to have a reality populated by free will non-omniscients who will
> enjoy an eternal loving relationship with Him, and to guarantee that the
> price of evil will be paid in full in the final accounting.
>
> God intended that their be love between Him and all non-omniscients willing
> to have it with Him, and He had to make those choices as a coupled group to
> provide that reality.
>
<snip>>
>
> regards,
>
> -Mike Goodrich

At this rate, you will not be winning the Theodicy Cup anytime soon.
It's a hard problem, maybe insurmountable, but you could do a bit
better. For a start, why not make a few of your assumptions explicit.
I do not agree with you, but these are, I think, correct, based on
your argument

1. God wants to maximize the good, not minimize evil or suffering,
since if he wanted to minimize evil He could have refrained from
creating anything at all, or created an aesthetically pleasing (He is
the ultimate arbiter of good taste) but inanimate universe, or one
completely lacking other free wills.

2. For any suffering that occurs, there is a certain quantity of good
which could "balance" it out, at least from God's point of view. One
of the weakest points in most theodicies is that exactly how the
balance is worked out does not seem plausible. If you want to convince
anyone, you have to make a clear argument as to why the good that
comes from free will counterbalances all the suffering caused by its
abuse. And it has to be able to look someone in the eye and answer
such questions as "What, my uncle had to be beaten to death in
Auschwitz just so some Germans could have free will?" You have to
convince your audience that it is all worth it.

3. There are only two options, either free will + evil, or no free
will. This also is too limited, I think. All free will that exists is
constrained in some ways by circumstance. Osama probably hasn't
managed to kill as many people as his free will would like. So, if God
further ratcheted down people's capacity to harm one another (without
compromising their ability to wish to harm one another) how much of
the "good" of free will would be lost? On the other hand, maybe it
would be "better" to ratchet the ability to do evil up even further,
since then people who made the right choices would have a greater
impact. So, can you show that God got that max-min problem right?

4. The benefits of having a universe that operates by consistent
(except in the case of miracles) physical laws outweigh the suffering
of people harmed by the inanimate consequences of physical laws
(floods, earthquakes, volcanoes). This is particularly difficult
because you claim that God can, at times, supercede physical laws to
cause miracles. Therefore, the question is, has God got the frequency
of miracles set just right, so that the benefits of largely reliable
physical law outweigh the suffering. Would the total good in the
universe actually decline if He intervened a bit more frequently? You
know, released the tension along a geologic fault line more gently
once or twice per century. I mean, if it wasn't a problem to raise
Lazarus from the dead, what harm would be done by cutting a few
Colombian peasants in a hillside village some slack.

I do not doubt that theologians have actually taken these problems
seriously and tried to deal with them, but your arguments do not even
seem to recognize their own limitations.

Bill

catshark

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 6:44:02 AM1/21/03
to

Well, he could still send them to Heck to suffer an annoyance of, say,
having to listen to amateur theologists making it up as they go along
to get the result they want . . .

Uh oh . . .

---------------
J. Pieret
---------------

It is not best to use our morals weekdays,
it gets them out of repair for Sunday.

-- Mark Twain --

Ted Holden

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 9:06:50 AM1/21/03
to
Mike Goodrich wrote:

> In reference to the disobedience of Adam/Eve to God in the Garden of
> Eden...
>
> "catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5b9l2v0ks6af6351v...@4ax.com...
>>
>> The omniscient god set this "test" up, *even though* he knew Adam and
>> Eve would fail it, to teach *them* a lesson and then *punishes* them

>> and *all* creation for failing it when he knew all along they would?...

Consider the following possibility:

Consider the possibility that the spirit world which God inhabits and the
physical realm which we inhabit may be severely separated, that God may be
omnipotent within his own realm, but has very limited powers within the
realm which we inhabit; that those who dwell in the spirit world may view
our physical realm as an outpost and that we may have been originally put
here to man that outpost; that the human race may originally have been
able to communicate with the spirit world at will but that capability has
since been lost and we are now isolated on the outpost with no
communications back; that more than one set of hands was involved in
creating the lifeforms which we observe, i.e. that God did not create
lamprays, mosquitos, chiggers, biting flies etc. etc.; that God has
basically limited power to protect us from harm in this world.

Religion should not be illogical or anti-logical. Maybe what is needed is
what Nietzsche might call theologizing with a hammer, or what I would call
ursine theology.


Ted Holden
www.bearfabrique.org


. . , ,
____)/ \(____
_,--''''',-'/( )\`-.`````--._
,-' ,' | \ _ _ / | `-. `-.
,' / | `._ /\\ //\ _,' | \ `.
| | `. `-( ,\\_// )-' .' | |
,' _,----._ |_,----._\ ____`\o'_`o/'____ /_.----._ |_,----._ `.
|/' \' `\( \(_)/ )/' `/ `\|
` ` V V ' '


Splifford the bat says: Always remember

A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
doctrines.


Mike Goodrich

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 11:24:14 AM1/21/03
to
Hans,

I find your proclivity to ask loaded questions disturbing. I makes me feel
that you are not being serious about the subject matter. Nevertheless ...


"H,R.Gruemm" <psych...@xpoint.at> wrote in message
news:5662bb3.03012...@posting.google.com...


> "Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:<F2GW9.7732$8N.9...@news1.east.cox.net>...


> > In reference to the disobedience of Adam/Eve to God in the Garden of
Eden...
> >
> > "catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:5b9l2v0ks6af6351v...@4ax.com...
> > >
> > > The omniscient god set this "test" up, *even though* he knew Adam and
> > > Eve would fail it, to teach *them* a lesson and then *punishes* them

> > > and *all* creation for failing it when he knew all along they would?
> > > In other words, god intended from the beginning of eternity that there
> > > be death disease and sin in this world.
> >
> >
> > Well my answer may surprise you, but this is basically true.
> >
> > I suggest you go back and look up what I said to NA Sides about coupled
> > choices (and I hope he is listening in).
> >

> > In creating the angels and mankind (i.e., free will non-omniscient
beings in
> > general), God made a choice.
> >
> > But God did not select the various aspects of this 'big' choice
a-la-carte.
> >

> > You see, all the ramifications of this choice are coupled as a
unit-group in
> > a way that they cannot be disentangled.
> >

> > God chose true free will->consequently the potential of evil->
>

> Mike, it's your opinion that evil is defined by your God. So why
> didn't he redefine it to eliminate the potential of evil ?


God doesn't redefine things. He calls them what they are. It is not of
concern what the word is, the concern is the meaning.

He created the potential for certain types of willful intents and actions to
be taken. Eliminating said potential would eliminate the associated
frredoms. God intended there to be these freedoms, otherwise we just be
automatons.

>
> Or why didn't he just give us free will for any action which does not
> harm anyone else ?


Chez watt. Such a will would then not be free.


>We don't have free will to fly to the moon by
> flapping our arms either.


Category error. You certainly do have the greedom to have that will, your
physical inability to cause that will to come to physical fruition is
irrelevant.

You will never achieve a quality intellectual result Hans, as long as you
freely indulge in category errors, loaded questions, etc.

>
>
> consequently
> > the actualization of evil (known in foreknowledge)->consequently His own
> > subsequent choice to suffer *Himself* for the redemption of man, and
also
> > the punishment of the unrepentant wicked
>

> Couldn't he have chosen to cancel the punishment of the wicked ?

No He will never sdo that. What He did do was offer to bear that
punishment *Himself* for those who will meet His requirements. He will not
choose to do so for those who won't because He will not allow sin to be
trivialized - doing that would be inconsistent with His nature to execute
justice. The price of sin will be paid - God is sending a clear message
that sin is a *very serious* thing.

>
> - ALL AT THE SAME INSTANT OF CHOICE
> > as a coupled group.
>
> > These choices are inextricably coupled and cannot be separated in God
> > choosing to have a reality populated by free will non-omniscients
>

> I do not need the free choice to kill my family with an axe in order
> to prove that I am not a robot and have free will. \

False. You will never be able to prove that logically.

>The free choice to
> post or not to post is quite sufficient.

False. That is a whole-part fallacy.

>
>
> who will
> > enjoy an eternal loving relationship with Him, and to guarantee that the
> > price of evil will be paid in full in the final accounting.
>

> Easy out: define evil differently, since he - IYO - defined it anyway.


Nope. Evil is what it is. God doesn't do what humans do which is to seek
an expediant definition.

>
> IOW, your arguments - sorry to say - don't hold water.


Rather it is yours that are that exhibit problematic illogic.


>
> > God intended that their be love between Him and all non-omniscients
willing
> > to have it with Him, and He had to make those choices as a coupled group
to
> > provide that reality.
> >

> > An astounding choice.
> >
> > I for one am grateful that He made it so that I might be, and have that
> > potential.
>

> You are glad that you have the potential to kill your family ?


No, I am glad I have the potential to *will* to do so. Since that is
inseparable from the potential to (free) willfully love God, agree with His
offered new covenant, and enjoy Him for eternity ...

Having said potential (of will) is evidence that I really do have a free
will...

-Mike Goodrich

Dana Tweedy

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 11:40:40 AM1/21/03
to

"Ted Holden" <med...@fcc.net> wrote in message
news:G8Ocna4Tz7Q...@fcc.net...

> Mike Goodrich wrote:
>
> > In reference to the disobedience of Adam/Eve to God in the Garden of
> > Eden...
> >
> > "catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:5b9l2v0ks6af6351v...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> The omniscient god set this "test" up, *even though* he knew Adam and
> >> Eve would fail it, to teach *them* a lesson and then *punishes* them
> >> and *all* creation for failing it when he knew all along they would?...
>
>
>
> Consider the following possibility:
>
> Consider the possibility that the spirit world which God inhabits and the
> physical realm which we inhabit may be severely separated, that God may be
> omnipotent within his own realm, but has very limited powers within the
> realm which we inhabit; that those who dwell in the spirit world may view
> our physical realm as an outpost and that we may have been originally put
> here to man that outpost; that the human race may originally have been
> able to communicate with the spirit world at will but that capability has
> since been lost and we are now isolated on the outpost with no
> communications back; that more than one set of hands was involved in
> creating the lifeforms which we observe, i.e. that God did not create
> lamprays, mosquitos, chiggers, biting flies etc. etc.; that God has
> basically limited power to protect us from harm in this world.


Sorry, there aren't enough hallucinogenic drugs in the world to allow me to
consider that "possibility". At best it sounds like bad Sci-Fi.

>
> Religion should not be illogical or anti-logical. Maybe what is needed is
> what Nietzsche might call theologizing with a hammer, or what I would call
> ursine theology.

Maybe we need you to get back on your medications.


DJT


Dana Tweedy

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 11:52:59 AM1/21/03
to

"Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:XAeX9.18545$8N.18...@news1.east.cox.net...

> Hans,
>
> I find your proclivity to ask loaded questions disturbing. I makes me
feel
> that you are not being serious about the subject matter. Nevertheless ...

Remember to Mike, "loaded" question means "Question that requires a
thoughtful answer".


Snip the rest of Mike's floundering on the subject of free will


DJT


dkomo

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 12:07:41 PM1/21/03
to
Ted Holden wrote:
>
> Mike Goodrich wrote:
>
> > In reference to the disobedience of Adam/Eve to God in the Garden of
> > Eden...
> >
> > "catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:5b9l2v0ks6af6351v...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> The omniscient god set this "test" up, *even though* he knew Adam and
> >> Eve would fail it, to teach *them* a lesson and then *punishes* them
> >> and *all* creation for failing it when he knew all along they would?...
>
> Consider the following possibility:
>
> Consider the possibility that the spirit world which God inhabits and the
> physical realm which we inhabit may be severely separated, that God may be
> omnipotent within his own realm, but has very limited powers within the
> realm which we inhabit; that those who dwell in the spirit world may view
> our physical realm as an outpost and that we may have been originally put
> here to man that outpost; that the human race may originally have been
> able to communicate with the spirit world at will but that capability has
> since been lost and we are now isolated on the outpost with no
> communications back; that more than one set of hands was involved in
> creating the lifeforms which we observe, i.e. that God did not create
> lamprays, mosquitos, chiggers, biting flies etc. etc.; that God has
> basically limited power to protect us from harm in this world.
>

Good set of seed ideas for a new religious cult. Why don't you form
it and give it some catchy name like "Heaven's Gate." The world is
always in need of new prophets. You might even make a fortune like L.
Ron Hubbard did.



> Religion should not be illogical or anti-logical.

If it were logical, it wouldn't be real religion, would it?

> Maybe what is needed is
> what Nietzsche might call theologizing with a hammer, or what I would call
> ursine theology.
>

Some might disparagingly call it assinine theology.


--dk...@cris.com

gen2rev

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 12:36:26 PM1/21/03
to
Jon Rothlander wrote:
>
> > Why is an omnipotent being restricted in his choices?
>
> Omnipotent does mean what you think it does.

According to my dictionary, it means "Having unlimited or universal
power, authority, or force; all-powerful"


> God can not do a number of
> things.
>
> He can not lie,

Ezekiel 14:9.


> he can not destroy himself, etc. Your problem is that you
> do not understand basic philosphy and what a contradiction is.

Oh, I think I understand what a contradiction is rather well.

Matt Silberstein

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 12:45:33 PM1/21/03
to
In talk.origins I read this message from Ted Holden
<med...@fcc.net>:

[snip]

>Consider the following possibility:
>
>Consider the possibility that the spirit world which God inhabits and the
>physical realm which we inhabit may be severely separated, that God may be
>omnipotent within his own realm, but has very limited powers within the
>realm which we inhabit; that those who dwell in the spirit world may view
>our physical realm as an outpost and that we may have been originally put
>here to man that outpost; that the human race may originally have been
>able to communicate with the spirit world at will but that capability has
>since been lost and we are now isolated on the outpost with no
>communications back; that more than one set of hands was involved in
>creating the lifeforms which we observe, i.e. that God did not create
>lamprays, mosquitos, chiggers, biting flies etc. etc.; that God has
>basically limited power to protect us from harm in this world.

You say they "may" have had this communications ability. Which
means they may not. So we are really left with an idea that some
beings somewhere may have some abilities to do something here.
Ok, I accept this. Now what?

>Religion should not be illogical or anti-logical. Maybe what is needed is
>what Nietzsche might call theologizing with a hammer, or what I would call
>ursine theology.

I have to say I have no idea what this means.

--

Matt Silberstein

Stupendous -

The only word that starts off as an insult and ends up as a compliment...

Except, of course, for "Jerking"

Tony Martin

Lenny Flank

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 1:39:02 PM1/21/03
to
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 16:24:14 +0000 (UTC), "Mike Goodrich"
<tachy...@cox.net> wrote:

>Hans,
>
>I find your proclivity to ask loaded questions disturbing. I makes me feel
>that you are not being serious about the subject matter.

<snip>

And I find YOUR proclivity to refuse to answer questions MORE
disturbing. I have asked you a series of simple questions,
repeatedly, for several weeks now. Your "response"? <sound of
crickets chirping>

I can only think of three possible reason why you continue to refuse
to answer my simple questions. Either (1) intelligent designer
"theory" HAS NO ANSWERS to these questions, or (2) ID "theory" DOES
have answers but you don't know what those answers are, or (3) ID
theory DOES have answers and you DO know what those answers are, but
for some mysterious reason you want to keep those answers a secret.

My money, of course, is on number 1. And your continuing refusal to
either answer my questions or tell me WHY you won't answer my
questions, makes me feel (and I'm sure makes every lurker who comes in
here feel, as well) that your are not only "not being serious", but
are in fact being deliberate deceptive and evasive.

However, being a patient man, I am prepared to wait as long as it
takes to receive answers to my simple questions. Hence, I will
patiently repeat them, every time you psot anything to this
newsgroup,. until you either answer them or tell me why you WON'T
answer them. Your continuing refusal to respond will be plain to see
for all the lurkers who come here (which is, of course, part of my
intention).

=================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"

Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
Lenny Flank's Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html

Jon Fleming

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 1:45:35 PM1/21/03
to
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:39:02 +0000 (UTC), lfl...@ij.net (Lenny Flank)
wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 16:24:14 +0000 (UTC), "Mike Goodrich"
><tachy...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>Hans,
>>
>>I find your proclivity to ask loaded questions disturbing. I makes me feel
>>that you are not being serious about the subject matter.
><snip>
>
>
>
>And I find YOUR proclivity to refuse to answer questions MORE
>disturbing. I have asked you a series of simple questions,
>repeatedly, for several weeks now. Your "response"? <sound of
>crickets chirping>
>
>I can only think of three possible reason why you continue to refuse
>to answer my simple questions. Either (1) intelligent designer
>"theory" HAS NO ANSWERS to these questions, or (2) ID "theory" DOES
>have answers but you don't know what those answers are, or (3) ID
>theory DOES have answers and you DO know what those answers are, but
>for some mysterious reason you want to keep those answers a secret.

Or (4) Mike's an ignorant jerk with nothing to offer.


--
Replace nospam with group to email

Mike Goodrich

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 1:52:55 PM1/21/03
to

"gen2rev" <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
news:3E2D869C...@crosswinds.net...

> Jon Rothlander wrote:
> >
> > > Why is an omnipotent being restricted in his choices?
> >
> > Omnipotent does mean what you think it does.
>
> According to my dictionary, it means "Having unlimited or universal
> power, authority, or force; all-powerful"
>
>
> > God can not do a number of
> > things.
> >
> > He can not lie,
>
> Ezekiel 14:9.
>


Nope.

The NIV says:

7 " 'When any Israelite or any alien living in Israel separates himself from
me and sets up idols in his heart and puts a wicked stumbling block before
his face and then goes to a prophet to inquire of me, I the LORD will answer
him myself. 8 I will set my face against that man and make him an example
and a byword. I will cut him off from my people. Then you will know that I
am the LORD .
9 " 'And if the prophet is enticed to utter a prophecy, I the LORD have
enticed that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and destroy
him from among my people Israel. 10 They will bear their guilt-the prophet
will be as guilty as the one who consults him.


to Jon:

I suggest you ask Gen2Rev what is the significance of the statement "... I
the LORD have enticed ..." is.

While you are at it, also ask him what is meant by this verse (Matthew
26:31/Zechariah 13:7):

31Then Jesus told them, "This very night you will all fall away on account
of me, for it is written:
" 'I will strike the shepherd,
and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.'

How is it that God says "I will strike ..."?


The answer is that when God says ".. I have/will ..." it is not incorrect to
read this as "... I have permitted / will permit ...".

This follows directly from the Soveriegnty of God, since *nothing* can
happen unless God permits it.

Since God is Soveriegn and always has the final veto, anything He permits
can legitimately be said to be from His hand (note that Job apparently
understood this very well).

When folks like Gen2Rev like to snipe with these kinds of comments, they are
just revealing a shallow (if at all) commitmant to properly understand a
historical writing with full consideration of its complete context. Don't
get me wrong, the Bible is not always easy to understand - especially when
reading about certain events from several thousand years distance - but that
is no excuse for throwinng out these kinds of cheap little one-liner
critiques of such a work.


>
> > he can not destroy himself, etc. Your problem is that you
> > do not understand basic philosphy and what a contradiction is.
>
> Oh, I think I understand what a contradiction is rather well.
>


Or is he only giving evidence that he is failing to "...rightly divide the
word of truth"?

regards,

-Mike Goodrich


gen2rev

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 1:50:50 PM1/21/03
to
Mike Goodrich wrote:
>
> "gen2rev" <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
> news:3E2C4BE7...@crosswinds.net...

> > Mike Goodrich wrote:
> > >
> > > In reference to the disobedience of Adam/Eve to God in the Garden of Eden...
> > >
> > > "catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:5b9l2v0ks6af6351v...@4ax.com...
> > > >
> > > > The omniscient god set this "test" up, *even though* he knew Adam and
> > > > Eve would fail it, to teach *them* a lesson and then *punishes* them
> > > > and *all* creation for failing it when he knew all along they would?
> > > > In other words, god intended from the beginning of eternity that there
> > > > be death disease and sin in this world.
> > >
> > > Well my answer may surprise you, but this is basically true.
> > >
> > > I suggest you go back and look up what I said to NA Sides about coupled
> > > choices (and I hope he is listening in).
> > >
> > > In creating the angels and mankind (i.e., free will non-omniscient beings in
> > > general), God made a choice.
> > >
> > > But God did not select the various aspects of this 'big' choice a-la-carte.
> > >
> > > You see, all the ramifications of this choice are coupled as a unit-group in
> > > a way that they cannot be disentangled.
> > >
> > > God chose true free will->consequently the potential of evil->consequently

> > > the actualization of evil (known in foreknowledge)->consequently His own
> > > subsequent choice to suffer *Himself* for the redemption of man, and also
> > > the punishment of the unrepentant wicked - ALL AT THE SAME INSTANT OF CHOICE

> > > as a coupled group.
> > >
> > > These choices are inextricably coupled and cannot be separated
> >
> > Why not?

No answer?


> > > in God
> > > choosing to have a reality populated by free will non-omniscients who will


> > > enjoy an eternal loving relationship with Him, and to guarantee that the
> > > price of evil will be paid in full in the final accounting.
> > >

> > > God intended that their be love between Him and all non-omniscients willing
> > > to have it with Him, and He had to make those choices as a coupled group to
> > > provide that reality.
> >

> > Why is an omnipotent being restricted in his choices?

No answer?


> > > An astounding choice.
> > >
> > > I for one am grateful that He made it so that I might be, and have that
> > > potential.
> > >

> > > regards,
> > >
> > > -Mike Goodrich


> >
>
> The answers to both question are because of His forever unchanging nature
> and complete consistency of all actions taken on His part that find their
> impetus in His unchanging nature.

And your claim that his nature is unchanging is based on...?


> That nature is inadequately described by a non-exhaustive list of concepts
> like love, mercy, compassion, holiness, justice, righteousness, ...

Mercy? See Numbers 15:32-36, Ezekiel 8:18.

Also, you left out that he's a warrior (Exodus 15:3), pityless
(Zacheriah 11:6), a trickster (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12), a deceiver
(Ezekiel 14:9), and downright cannibalistic (Hosea 13:7-8).

Also, you used the term "unrepentant wicked". Does God know that some of
the wicked will *never* repent, no matter how much time they're given,
or is a time limit involved?


> regards,
>
> -Mike Goodrich

Mark Isaak

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 1:58:44 PM1/21/03
to
On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 21:57:22 +0000 (UTC), "Jon Rothlander"
<jroth...@cox-internet.com> wrote:

> If God was to
>prevent he would create a contradition to giving us free will.

I like to travel, and I like blueberries. I would like to travel to
Ganymede and pick a bushel of blueberries there, and to return within
ten minutes. God has so created the universe that He prevents me from
doing that. Therefore (your conclusion, not mine), we don't have free
will.

--
Mark Isaak at...@earthlink.net
Don't read everything you belive.

Mark Isaak

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 2:02:30 PM1/21/03
to
On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 22:30:27 +0000 (UTC), "Jon Rothlander"
<jroth...@cox-internet.com> wrote:

>Omnipotent does mean what you think it does. God can not do a number of
>things.
>
>He can not lie, he can not destroy himself, etc.

According to the Bible, God does lie. In fact, God's dishonesty is a
basic premise of young-earth creationism.

Ted Holden

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 3:13:12 PM1/21/03
to
Dana Tweedy wrote:


> Sorry, there aren't enough hallucinogenic drugs in the world to allow me
> to consider that "possibility".


Some would figure you and your fellow evolutionists were likely responsible
for the temporary shortage...

Dana Tweedy

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 4:14:10 PM1/21/03
to

"Ted Holden" <med...@fcc.net> wrote in message
news:VIGdndexy93...@fcc.net...

> Dana Tweedy wrote:
>
>
> > Sorry, there aren't enough hallucinogenic drugs in the world to allow me
> > to consider that "possibility".
>
>
> Some would figure you and your fellow evolutionists were likely
responsible
> for the temporary shortage...

I imagine the proper response to this is "I'm rubber, you are glue"..

Come on Ted, is that lame response the best you can do??


DJT


gen2rev

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 4:46:11 PM1/21/03
to

Well, let's find out. According to http://bible.crosswalk.com/ the word
we're interested in has a Strong's Biblical Concordance number of 6601.
If we ask for details at
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=06601 we get
the following:

1. to be spacious, be open, be wide
a. (Qal) to be spacious or open or wide
b. (Hiphil) to make spacious, make open
2. to be simple, entice, deceive, persuade
a. (Qal)
1. to be open-minded, be simple, be naive
2. to be enticed, be deceived
b. (Niphal) to be deceived, be gullible
c. (Piel)
1. to persuade, seduce
2. to deceive
d. (Pual)
1. to be persuaded
2. to be deceived

I very much doubt that definition #1 is the meaning we're looking for...

And in fact, several other translations actually translate the word as
"deceive". For instance, the King James Version:
And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD
have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and
will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.

The World English Bible:
If the prophet be deceived and speak a word, I, Yahweh, have deceived
that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand on him, and will destroy
him from the midst of my people Israel.

Webster's Bible:
And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD
have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and
will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.

The Revised Standard Version:
And if the prophet be deceived and speak a word, I, the LORD, have
deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him, and
will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.

The American Standard:
And if the prophet be deceived and speak a word, I, Jehovah, have
deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will
destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.

Douay-Rheims:
And when the prophet shall err, and speak a word: I the Lord have
deceived that prophet: and I will stretch forth my hand upon him, and
will cut him off from the midst of my people Israel.

And then there's the Basic English Bible:
And if the prophet, tricked by deceit, says anything, it is I the Lord
by whom he has been tricked, and I will put out my hand against him, and
he will be cut off from among my people Israel.


> While you are at it, also ask him what is meant by this verse (Matthew
> 26:31/Zechariah 13:7):
>
> 31Then Jesus told them, "This very night you will all fall away on account
> of me, for it is written:
> " 'I will strike the shepherd,
> and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.'
>
> How is it that God says "I will strike ..."?

And yet Zechariah 13:8-9 says:

8 In the whole land," declares the LORD, "two-thirds will be struck down
and perish; yet one-third will be left in it.
9 This third I will bring into the fire; I will refine them like silver
and test them like gold. They will call on my name and I will answer
them; I will say, 'They are my people,' and they will say, 'The LORD is
our God.' "

This would seem to have nothing to do with Jesus Christ.


> The answer is that when God says ".. I have/will ..." it is not incorrect to
> read this as "... I have permitted / will permit ...".
>
> This follows directly from the Soveriegnty of God, since *nothing* can
> happen unless God permits it.

Well, so much for free will.


> Since God is Soveriegn and always has the final veto, anything He permits
> can legitimately be said to be from His hand (note that Job apparently
> understood this very well).

No doubt.


> When folks like Gen2Rev like to snipe with these kinds of comments, they are
> just revealing a shallow (if at all) commitmant to properly understand a
> historical writing with full consideration of its complete context.

Is that the only possible interpretation of my 'sniping'?


> Don't
> get me wrong, the Bible is not always easy to understand

One has to wonder *why* it's not easy to understand, but no doubt you'll
claim that God wanted it that way.


> - especially when
> reading about certain events from several thousand years distance - but that
> is no excuse for throwinng out these kinds of cheap little one-liner
> critiques of such a work.

How are my critiques 'cheap'? Does God not say he deceives?


> > > he can not destroy himself, etc. Your problem is that you
> > > do not understand basic philosphy and what a contradiction is.
> >
> > Oh, I think I understand what a contradiction is rather well.
> >
>
> Or is he only giving evidence that he is failing to "...rightly divide the
> word of truth"?

Oh the irony...

Mike, this is 2 Timothy 2:15:
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to
be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

How is it that you use the King James version here, but not above when
discussing Ezekiel 14:9? Do you take 2 Timothy 2:15 to heart? If so, why
are you so evasive here?


> regards,
>
> -Mike Goodrich

Mike Goodrich

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 5:17:05 PM1/21/03
to

"Jon Fleming" <jo...@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ui5r2vgcf4qtpv8g4...@4ax.com...


Actually the reason I haven't answered Flank is because I killfilled him
some time ago.

You OTOH John I really thought would not descend into this kind of junk, but
I can see I was wrong about you, so you may as well be put there also.

AC

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 5:28:15 PM1/21/03
to
In article <VIGdndexy93...@fcc.net>, Ted Holden wrote:
> Dana Tweedy wrote:
>
>
>> Sorry, there aren't enough hallucinogenic drugs in the world to allow me
>> to consider that "possibility".
>
>
> Some would figure you and your fellow evolutionists were likely responsible
> for the temporary shortage...

Nice dodge.

--
A. Clausen

catshark

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 7:57:28 PM1/21/03
to
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 22:17:05 +0000 (UTC), "Mike Goodrich"
<tachy...@cox.net> wrote:

Gee, Mike, a few questions just occurred to me that I would very much
like you to answer:

What is the scientific theory of intelligent design. What, according
to this scientific theory of intelligent design, is the intelligent
designer?

What does the intelligent designer DO, precisely, according to this
scientific theory of intelligent design, to "guide" evolution--what
mechanisms does the intelligent designer use, and where can we see
these mechanisms operating today?

What scientific data or evidence is presented by the scientific theory
of intelligent design to demonstrate that there is only one
intelligent designer, and not, say, ten or fifty of them?

Oh, and why should we not conclude, based on intelligent design
"theory", that the Raelians are correct, and humans were produced by a
race of space aliens with advanced technology who designed us for a
science project or something, and therefore no supernatural gods are
necessary or required?

P.S. I know you can't have killfiled me, since you turned a response
to one of my posts into a whole new thread just a day or two ago.

---------------
J. Pieret
---------------

We have done amazingly well in creating a cultural movement,
but we must not exaggerate ID's successes on the scientific front.

- William A. Dembski -

Jon Fleming

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 8:14:44 PM1/21/03
to
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 22:17:05 +0000 (UTC), "Mike Goodrich"
<tachy...@cox.net> wrote:

I calls 'em as I sees 'em. the evidence is pretty clear ... no need
for a replay.

Ted Holden

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 10:35:57 PM1/21/03
to
Dana Tweedy wrote:


> Come on Ted, is that lame response the best you can do??


The human brain and nervous system appear to have originally been hardwired
for a communications methodology as far above anything we have as our
latest technologies are above smoke signals. My own take on this resides
at:

http://www.bearfabrique.org/babel.html


The question of possible contact with the spirit world in ancient times is
part of the picture. As the article notes, the words "prophet" and
"prophesy" which permeate the later books of the Old Testament are missing
in Genesis other than for the one vague reference to Abraham as God's
prophet.

That's more than a little bit strange and there appears to be a reason for
that.


Ted Holden
www.bearfabrique.org


Dana Tweedy

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 11:36:38 PM1/21/03
to

"Ted Holden" <med...@fcc.net> wrote in message
news:j2qdnbL_-t-...@fcc.net...

> Dana Tweedy wrote:
>
>
> > Come on Ted, is that lame response the best you can do??
>
>
> The human brain and nervous system appear to have originally been
hardwired
> for a communications methodology as far above anything we have as our
> latest technologies are above smoke signals. My own take on this resides
> at:
>
> http://www.bearfabrique.org/babel.html

A longer lame response is still a lame response.

>
>
> The question of possible contact with the spirit world in ancient times is
> part of the picture. As the article notes, the words "prophet" and
> "prophesy" which permeate the later books of the Old Testament are missing
> in Genesis other than for the one vague reference to Abraham as God's
> prophet.
>
> That's more than a little bit strange and there appears to be a reason for
> that.

What evidence do you have that the "spirit world" exists?


DJT


Lenny Flank

unread,
Jan 22, 2003, 8:46:25 AM1/22/03
to
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 22:17:05 +0000 (UTC), "Mike Goodrich"
<tachy...@cox.net> wrote:

Translation: "Flank asks a lot of questions that I don't want to
hear." <shrug>


That's OK, I really don't care if Mikey answers or not, since the
whole point of the posting is to demonsrate to all the lurkers that
Mikey simply has nothing scientific to say. If Mikey CAN answer my
questions, one would think that he WOULD, rather than hide them away
in his killfile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .

Marc Carter

unread,
Jan 22, 2003, 9:44:13 AM1/22/03
to
On Monday 20 January 2003 06:40 pm in
<1fp4tsl.1sobs1kr91diyN%wil...@wehi.edu.au>, John Wilkins caused some
electrons to represent:

> Marc Carter <marcMUN...@MUNGEspeakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>> On Monday 20 January 2003 04:57 pm in
>> <v2osi4o...@corp.supernews.com>, Jon Rothlander caused some electrons
>> to represent:
>>
>> >> Is Diety willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not
>> >> omnipotent.
>> >> Is he able, but not willing? Then he is alevolent.
>> >> Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
>> >> Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him Diety?"
>> >
>> > This is stupid and it's not a real argument. Didn't you take philosphy
>> > 101?
>> > You can not use a contradiction to support your worldview. If God was
>> > to
>> > prevent he would create a contradition to giving us free will. Just go
>> > back to Philosphy 101 and review the first chapter.
>> >
>>
>> [Marc, lifting curtain and peering in}
>>
>> Man, this is a *good* one...
>>
>> [snip rest]
>
> Well *I* manfully resisted the temptation to make a comment...

In my defense, I did, though, successfully resisted the temptation to
include "WebTV" in my comment.

m
--
Marc Carter
Assistant Professor, Itinerant Scientist,
Inveterate Skeptic, Former Surfer,
And completely Microsoft-free.

David Sienkiewicz

unread,
Jan 22, 2003, 1:14:31 PM1/22/03
to
Ted Holden <med...@fcc.net> wrote in message news:<VIGdndexy93...@fcc.net>...

> Dana Tweedy wrote:
>
>
> > Sorry, there aren't enough hallucinogenic drugs in the world to allow me
> > to consider that "possibility".
>
>
> Some would figure you and your fellow evolutionists were likely responsible
> for the temporary shortage...

Really, Ted?

Would this explain your behavior when confronted with the evidence of
Ed Conrad's fraudulent representation of AML lab reports, or your
retreat from the discussion of the Martian pyramid when shown a
reference that argues that it is not what you say it is?

David Sienkiewicz

unread,
Jan 22, 2003, 1:17:09 PM1/22/03
to
Ted Holden <med...@fcc.net> wrote in message news:<j2qdnbL_-t-...@fcc.net>...

> Dana Tweedy wrote:
>
>
> > Come on Ted, is that lame response the best you can do??
>
>
> The human brain and nervous system appear to have originally been hardwired
> for a communications methodology as far above anything we have as our
> latest technologies are above smoke signals. My own take on this resides
> at:
>
> http://www.bearfabrique.org/babel.html

Nope. Now way, Ted. I couldn't even get past the first line of the
article:

"Everybody who follows the evolution debate knows by now that
evolution doesn't work for animals..."

This, of course, is a lie. Not EVERYONE knows this - not even MOST
PEOPLE know this.

So if you lie in the very first sentence, how can we trust the rest?

You're a liar, Ted; and this time, you don't even have pictures.

< snip >

David Sienkiewicz

unread,
Jan 22, 2003, 1:21:08 PM1/22/03
to
"Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<lLjX9.20082$8N.19...@news1.east.cox.net>...

> "Jon Fleming" <jo...@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:ui5r2vgcf4qtpv8g4...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:39:02 +0000 (UTC), lfl...@ij.net (Lenny Flank)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 16:24:14 +0000 (UTC), "Mike Goodrich"
> > ><tachy...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >>Hans,
> > >>
> > >>I find your proclivity to ask loaded questions disturbing. I makes me
> feel
> > >>that you are not being serious about the subject matter.
> > ><snip>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >And I find YOUR proclivity to refuse to answer questions MORE
> > >disturbing. I have asked you a series of simple questions,
> > >repeatedly, for several weeks now. Your "response"? <sound of
> > >crickets chirping>
> > >
> > >I can only think of three possible reason why you continue to refuse
> > >to answer my simple questions. Either (1) intelligent designer
> > >"theory" HAS NO ANSWERS to these questions, or (2) ID "theory" DOES
> > >have answers but you don't know what those answers are, or (3) ID
> > >theory DOES have answers and you DO know what those answers are, but
> > >for some mysterious reason you want to keep those answers a secret.
> >
> > Or (4) Mike's an ignorant jerk with nothing to offer.
>
> Actually the reason I haven't answered Flank is because I killfilled him
> some time ago.

My, how very brave of you, Mike.

Has it ever occurred to you that the best way to show that you have
any credibility at all is to answer questions such as Lenny has put to
you?

You can whine all you like about "charity," Mike, but it's all a sham.

Let me suggest an alternative explanation for your failure to answer
Lenny's question, Mike: I suggest that it's because you are fully
aware that you have no answers.

Is that POSSIBLE?

> You OTOH John I really thought would not descend into this kind of junk, but
> I can see I was wrong about you, so you may as well be put there also.

Mike, you're never more amusing then when you resort to this sort of
condescending and patronizing nonsense.

Lenny's questions are good and reasonable and even topical, yet you
avoided them, just as you do any other question; and then you pretend
that you somehow hold the higher ground.

Mike, I still wonder what you think you're accomplishing with this
sort of behavior. Do you REALLY think anyone who isn't already
sympathetic to your views will buy ANY of it?

Lenny Flank

unread,
Jan 22, 2003, 6:56:00 PM1/22/03
to
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 18:21:08 +0000 (UTC), david.si...@attbi.com
(David Sienkiewicz) wrote:

<snip>


>Let me suggest an alternative explanation for your failure to answer
>Lenny's question, Mike: I suggest that it's because you are fully
>aware that you have no answers.
>
>Is that POSSIBLE?
>
>> You OTOH John I really thought would not descend into this kind of junk, but
>> I can see I was wrong about you, so you may as well be put there also.
>
>Mike, you're never more amusing then when you resort to this sort of
>condescending and patronizing nonsense.
>
>Lenny's questions are good and reasonable and even topical, yet you
>avoided them, just as you do any other question; and then you pretend
>that you somehow hold the higher ground.
>
>Mike, I still wonder what you think you're accomplishing with this
>sort of behavior. Do you REALLY think anyone who isn't already
>sympathetic to your views will buy ANY of it?


Indeed. It should be crushingly obvious to every lurker in here that
Mike simply has nothing scientific to say. Nothing at all.

Whcih was, of course, my point from the beginning.

Jerry Freedman

unread,
Jan 22, 2003, 7:50:19 PM1/22/03
to
>
> No He will never sdo that. What He did do was offer to bear that
> punishment *Himself* for those who will meet His requirements. He will not
> choose to do so for those who won't because He will not allow sin to be
> trivialized - doing that would be inconsistent with His nature to execute
> justice. The price of sin will be paid - God is sending a clear message
> that sin is a *very serious* thing.
>
>

So God create creatures with free will who will sin/do evil where
sinning and doing evil are defined by God. This sin/doing evil
requires punishment ( as God has ordained it). This punishment is to
be applied to all sinners/evil doers but God is willing, in some
situations for some sinners to punish Himself. This is supposed to
make sense and we should be thankful for it. If it doesn't make sense
to me or others we will probably told that we really can't hope to
fathom the motives of an omniscient/omnipotent being...and I/we will
probably suffer eternal damnation because we brush this off as
nonsense. Have I got it right?

J. Freedman

Mike Goodrich

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 7:57:51 AM1/23/03
to

"Jerry Freedman" <edi...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:6c840ad4.0301...@posting.google.com...

> >
> > No He will never sdo that. What He did do was offer to bear that
> > punishment *Himself* for those who will meet His requirements. He will
not
> > choose to do so for those who won't because He will not allow sin to be
> > trivialized - doing that would be inconsistent with His nature to
execute
> > justice. The price of sin will be paid - God is sending a clear message
> > that sin is a *very serious* thing.
> >
> >
>
> So God create creatures with free will who will sin/do evil where
> sinning and doing evil are defined by God.


True...


>This sin/doing evil
> requires punishment ( as God has ordained it).


True. He has ordained it because His nature precludes any other course of
action.


>This punishment is to
> be applied to all sinners/evil doers but God is willing, in some
> situations for some sinners to punish Himself.


False. He is *willing* to do for *all* sinners.


>This is supposed to
> make sense and we should be thankful for it.


You should be thankfull for it, else you wouldn't be here to dicuss it.

It makes more sense than any thing else. But that requires a large
discussion about what "makes sense" implies for us non-omniscient beings who
cannot know everything and must of necessity drawn a line of demarcation
where we take the rest on faith, which is to say make a *choice* as to what
we are are going to place our trust in.

*Everyone* makes a faith choice. The only question for a non-omniscient is:
In what have you placed your trust?

Knowing that the value of any faith choice rests entirely upon the ability
of that thing we have *chosen* to trust to ultimately deliver.

> If it doesn't make sense
> to me or others we will probably told that we really can't hope to
> fathom the motives of an omniscient/omnipotent being...and I/we will
> probably suffer eternal damnation because we brush this off as
> nonsense.


"Come now, let us reason together says the Lord..."

God says you have everything you need to make the right choice, and in the
end there will no longer be any denials of it.

If you "brush this off as nonsense" you had better spend a *lifetime* of
your most dedicated conscious honest effort being certain it really is, or
you are only hurting yourself in the end. It would be the proverbial
Pyrrhic victory.

Think about it ...


>Have I got it right?


Hardly ...

-Mike Goodrich

gen2rev

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 9:26:48 AM1/23/03
to
Mike Goodrich wrote:
>
> "Jerry Freedman" <edi...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:6c840ad4.0301...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > No He will never sdo that. What He did do was offer to bear that
> > > punishment *Himself* for those who will meet His requirements. He will not
> > > choose to do so for those who won't because He will not allow sin to be
> > > trivialized - doing that would be inconsistent with His nature to execute
> > > justice. The price of sin will be paid - God is sending a clear message
> > > that sin is a *very serious* thing.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > So God create creatures with free will who will sin/do evil where
> > sinning and doing evil are defined by God.
>
> True...
>
> >This sin/doing evil
> > requires punishment ( as God has ordained it).
>
> True. He has ordained it because His nature precludes any other course of
> action.
>
> >This punishment is to
> > be applied to all sinners/evil doers but God is willing, in some
> > situations for some sinners to punish Himself.
>
> False. He is *willing* to do for *all* sinners.
>
> >This is supposed to
> > make sense and we should be thankful for it.
>
> You should be thankfull for it, else you wouldn't be here to dicuss it.
>
> It makes more sense than any thing else.

Why?


> But that requires a large
> discussion about what "makes sense" implies for us non-omniscient beings who
> cannot know everything and must of necessity drawn a line of demarcation
> where we take the rest on faith, which is to say make a *choice* as to what
> we are are going to place our trust in.

Well, I'm up for such a discussion...


> *Everyone* makes a faith choice. The only question for a non-omniscient is:
> In what have you placed your trust?
>
> Knowing that the value of any faith choice rests entirely upon the ability
> of that thing we have *chosen* to trust to ultimately deliver.
>
> > If it doesn't make sense
> > to me or others we will probably told that we really can't hope to
> > fathom the motives of an omniscient/omnipotent being...and I/we will
> > probably suffer eternal damnation because we brush this off as
> > nonsense.
>
> "Come now, let us reason together says the Lord..."
>
> God says you have everything you need to make the right choice, and in the
> end there will no longer be any denials of it.
>
> If you "brush this off as nonsense" you had better spend a *lifetime* of
> your most dedicated conscious honest effort being certain it really is, or
> you are only hurting yourself in the end. It would be the proverbial
> Pyrrhic victory.

I'd debate that...

Jerry Freedman

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 3:40:23 PM1/23/03
to
"
>
> >This punishment is to
> > be applied to all sinners/evil doers but God is willing, in some
> > situations for some sinners to punish Himself.
>
>
> False. He is *willing* to do for *all* sinners.
>
>
> >This is supposed to
> > make sense and we should be thankful for it.
>
>
> You should be thankfull for it, else you wouldn't be here to dicuss it.
>
> It makes more sense than any thing else. But that requires a large
> discussion about what "makes sense" implies for us non-omniscient beings who
> cannot know everything and must of necessity drawn a line of demarcation
> where we take the rest on faith, which is to say make a *choice* as to what
> we are are going to place our trust in.
>
> *Everyone* makes a faith choice. The only question for a non-omniscient is:
> In what have you placed your trust?
>
> Knowing that the value of any faith choice rests entirely upon the ability
> of that thing we have *chosen* to trust to ultimately deliver.
>
Why does this make more sense than believing in Brahma or the 4 Noble
truths of the Bhudha(sp?). This is one carefully constructed religious
"theory of everything" but there are others equally plausible, equally
well constructed ( given time I could construct one of my own) yet
this is the one I should choose else I will somehow pay for it?

Why does this Christian idea have more ability to deliver than others?
And why the implied threat of punishment if I don't? And note that
this loosing out, or punishment has nothing to do(apparently) with the
life I lead. If I give all my goods to charity and devote my life to
the selfless helping of others and die of leprosy or TB contracted in
my toils yet still believe that this Christian stuff is hot air then I
am still up the creek.

What am I missing here?

J. Freedman

Mike Goodrich

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 4:56:11 PM1/23/03
to

"Jerry Freedman" <edi...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:6c840ad4.03012...@posting.google.com...


See last line ...

> And why the implied threat of punishment if I don't?


Simple. Because then He says you would be guilty of the greatest sin you
could ever commit - the one for which there is no forgiveness under any
circumstances - namely willful rejection of the willing sacrifice of Jesus;
or if you have not actually heard of Jesus then the injunction of Romans
1:18-20.

http://shorterlink.com/?IGH5YA


God will punish all sin, because He is holy and just and that demands that
He cannot overlook it.

Because He is also merciful and compassionate however, He did provide a way
of escape - if only you would accept it. He really asks very little from
you in order to do that my friend ...

> And note that
> this loosing out, or punishment has nothing to do(apparently) with the
> life I lead. If I give all my goods to charity and devote my life to
> the selfless helping of others and die of leprosy or TB contracted in
> my toils yet still believe that this Christian stuff is hot air then I
> am still up the creek.


True. You can't 'earn' your way past the issue of Gods wrath and judgement
against sin. Only by honoring the sacrifice of Jesus (in your case) can you
escape Gods wrath and judgement against sin.

Further, God says that it is possible to deny Christ based on the way you
live!


>
> What am I missing here?
>
>


In short, the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead...

AC

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 6:23:56 PM1/23/03
to
In article <wEZX9.771$ui1....@news1.east.cox.net>, Mike Goodrich wrote:
>
> God will punish all sin, because He is holy and just and that demands that
> He cannot overlook it.

Why can't he? He's omnipotent. He can do anything he darn well pleases.
Why should God, who permitted sin (if not being the outright creator of sin)
to go on. What purpose does it serve to further punish the beings he has
already victimized?

>
> Because He is also merciful and compassionate however, He did provide a way
> of escape - if only you would accept it. He really asks very little from
> you in order to do that my friend ...

If he's so merciful, then just wipe out sin. Only an evil god, a vile being
of horrific powers and despicable intents would put intelligent beings that
he created and permitted to live in sin through this,

--
A. Clausen

Mike Goodrich

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 7:01:32 PM1/23/03
to

"AC" <sp...@nospam.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrnb30up...@ts1.alberni.net...

> In article <wEZX9.771$ui1....@news1.east.cox.net>, Mike Goodrich wrote:
> >
> > God will punish all sin, because He is holy and just and that demands
that
> > He cannot overlook it.
>
> Why can't he?


Because He will not do anything which is contrary to His nature which in
this case is a total unchanging eternal commitment to justice which means He
cannot overlook sin.

>He's omnipotent. He can do anything he darn well pleases.


True. And it pleases Him to be just ...


> Why should God, who permitted sin (if not being the outright creator of
sin)
> to go on. What purpose does it serve to further punish the beings he has
> already victimized?


Loaded question. We got into this mess of our own free will ...

The purpose it serves is to forever show that sin cannot prosper, and must
be punished for the sake of justice.


>
> >
> > Because He is also merciful and compassionate however, He did provide a
way
> > of escape - if only you would accept it. He really asks very little
from
> > you in order to do that my friend ...
>
> If he's so merciful, then just wipe out sin.


That is precluded by His commitment to free will (another thing that
"pleases" Him).

>Only an evil god, a vile being
> of horrific powers and despicable intents would put intelligent beings
that
> he created and permitted to live in sin through this,


False, as I have explained.


-Mike Goodrich


David Jensen

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 11:07:40 PM1/23/03
to
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 21:56:11 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins
"Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@cox.net> wrote in
<wEZX9.771$ui1....@news1.east.cox.net>:
...

>Simple. Because then He says you would be guilty of the greatest sin you
>could ever commit - the one for which there is no forgiveness under any
>circumstances - namely willful rejection of the willing sacrifice of Jesus;
>or if you have not actually heard of Jesus then the injunction of Romans
>1:18-20.
>
>http://shorterlink.com/?IGH5YA
>
>
>God will punish all sin, because He is holy and just and that demands that
>He cannot overlook it.
>
>Because He is also merciful and compassionate however, He did provide a way
>of escape - if only you would accept it. He really asks very little from
>you in order to do that my friend ...

But, according to your theology, God must be responsible for allowing
sin. Why did He create sin in the first place?

>> And note that
>> this loosing out, or punishment has nothing to do(apparently) with the
>> life I lead. If I give all my goods to charity and devote my life to
>> the selfless helping of others and die of leprosy or TB contracted in
>> my toils yet still believe that this Christian stuff is hot air then I
>> am still up the creek.
>
>
>True. You can't 'earn' your way past the issue of Gods wrath and judgement
>against sin. Only by honoring the sacrifice of Jesus (in your case) can you
>escape Gods wrath and judgement against sin.
>
>Further, God says that it is possible to deny Christ based on the way you
>live!

And the YECs do it every day.

David Jensen

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 11:12:03 PM1/23/03
to
On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 00:01:32 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins
"Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@cox.net> wrote in
<4u%X9.1300$ui1.1...@news1.east.cox.net>:


>
>"AC" <sp...@nospam.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:slrnb30up...@ts1.alberni.net...
>> In article <wEZX9.771$ui1....@news1.east.cox.net>, Mike Goodrich wrote:
>> >
>> > God will punish all sin, because He is holy and just and that demands
>that
>> > He cannot overlook it.
>>
>> Why can't he?
>
>
>Because He will not do anything which is contrary to His nature which in
>this case is a total unchanging eternal commitment to justice which means He
>cannot overlook sin.

How is it justice for God, according to the teachings that you are
offering, to create humans who are capable of sinning and then punishing
them for doing it. The God that you are selling is no better than a
human who beats a puppy for defecating on the floor.

>
>
>>He's omnipotent. He can do anything he darn well pleases.
>
>
>True. And it pleases Him to be just ...

If I induce you to commit a crime, is there justice for me to be the one
who passes sentence on you?

>
>> Why should God, who permitted sin (if not being the outright creator of sin)
>> to go on. What purpose does it serve to further punish the beings he has
>> already victimized?
>
>
>Loaded question. We got into this mess of our own free will ...

That's a claim without evidence. How is free will defined and how can we
tell if we have it.


>The purpose it serves is to forever show that sin cannot prosper, and must
>be punished for the sake of justice.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > Because He is also merciful and compassionate however, He did provide a
>way
>> > of escape - if only you would accept it. He really asks very little
>from
>> > you in order to do that my friend ...
>>
>> If he's so merciful, then just wipe out sin.
>
>
>That is precluded by His commitment to free will (another thing that
>"pleases" Him).

Where is free will taught?

>
>
>>Only an evil god, a vile being
>> of horrific powers and despicable intents would put intelligent beings
>that
>> he created and permitted to live in sin through this,
>
>
>False, as I have explained.

Asserted.

Norseman

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 2:17:50 AM1/24/03
to

"Jerry Freedman" <edi...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:6c840ad4.03012...@posting.google.com...

It doesn't make anymore sense. There is no logic when it comes to belief.
It's BELIEF, remember?!

> Why does this Christian idea have more ability to deliver than others?
> And why the implied threat of punishment if I don't? And note that
> this loosing out, or punishment has nothing to do(apparently) with the
> life I lead. If I give all my goods to charity and devote my life to
> the selfless helping of others and die of leprosy or TB contracted in
> my toils yet still believe that this Christian stuff is hot air then I
> am still up the creek.
>

You're up the creek no matter what. If you believe in Mike's god, some
other god will be offended and damn you to their version of hell! Pretty
lame stuff, huh?!

> What am I missing here?
>

Unfortunately, not a damn thing.

- Norseman

Norseman

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 2:15:06 AM1/24/03
to

"Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:RHRX9.4246$i3.2...@news1.east.cox.net...

>
> "Jerry Freedman" <edi...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:6c840ad4.0301...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > No He will never sdo that. What He did do was offer to bear that
> > > punishment *Himself* for those who will meet His requirements. He
will
> not
> > > choose to do so for those who won't because He will not allow sin to
be
> > > trivialized - doing that would be inconsistent with His nature to
> execute
> > > justice. The price of sin will be paid - God is sending a clear
message
> > > that sin is a *very serious* thing.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > So God create creatures with free will who will sin/do evil where
> > sinning and doing evil are defined by God.
>
>
> True...

Wow... and you worship this being. Incredible. You and I are two REALLY
different people.

>
>
> >This sin/doing evil
> > requires punishment ( as God has ordained it).
>
>
> True. He has ordained it because His nature precludes any other course of
> action.
>

So God is limited by His nature? I can choose different courses of action
based upon what I believe is right or wrong. I adapt to situations.

>
> >This punishment is to
> > be applied to all sinners/evil doers but God is willing, in some
> > situations for some sinners to punish Himself.
>
>
> False. He is *willing* to do for *all* sinners.
>

False. He only started doing this 2000 years ago. Before that people were
fucked for THOUSANDS of years and He knew it. So why the change of heart?
Did He start feeling guilty... or did people become more compassionate and
writing as if God were becoming more compassionate?


>
> >This is supposed to
> > make sense and we should be thankful for it.
>
>
> You should be thankfull for it, else you wouldn't be here to dicuss it.
>

False. We're all here to discuss it, whether you believe in your God or
not.

> It makes more sense than any thing else.

False. Adding a supernatural being to the already complex and mystifying
universe only complicates matters. It doesn't simplify it.

But that requires a large
> discussion about what "makes sense" implies for us non-omniscient beings
who
> cannot know everything and must of necessity drawn a line of demarcation
> where we take the rest on faith, which is to say make a *choice* as to
what
> we are are going to place our trust in.
>
> *Everyone* makes a faith choice. The only question for a non-omniscient
is:
> In what have you placed your trust?
>

Hehe... good one. And if we don't believe in YOUR God, we're punished!
Funny stuff. I say if you don't believe Odin is the one and only God,
YOU'RE going to hell via Cerberus. And guess what? I'm just as right as
you are. That's because neither argument requires proof or validation of
any form. You simply need to believe.


> Knowing that the value of any faith choice rests entirely upon the ability
> of that thing we have *chosen* to trust to ultimately deliver.
>

And if we don't believe... it's Hell time! So simplistic and sooooooo dumb.

>
>
> > If it doesn't make sense
> > to me or others we will probably told that we really can't hope to
> > fathom the motives of an omniscient/omnipotent being...and I/we will
> > probably suffer eternal damnation because we brush this off as
> > nonsense.
>
>
> "Come now, let us reason together says the Lord..."
>

So where's the reasoning? So far I've heard everything but.

> God says you have everything you need to make the right choice, and in the
> end there will no longer be any denials of it.
>

And if you don't... FIERY TORMENT! Talk about lame... and dumb.

> If you "brush this off as nonsense" you had better spend a *lifetime* of
> your most dedicated conscious honest effort being certain it really is, or
> you are only hurting yourself in the end. It would be the proverbial
> Pyrrhic victory.
>

There's the fire thing again. So simple. Don't you think God could come up
with something better? How about trying to do the right thing to help your
fellow man or advance society? Doesn't that count for anything? Guess not.
It's fiery torment time. Once again, sooooooooooo lame.

> Think about it ...
>

I did. It's dumb.

>
> >Have I got it right?
>
>
> Hardly ...
>
>

He did.

- Norseman

Norseman

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 2:21:53 AM1/24/03
to

"Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:wEZX9.771$ui1....@news1.east.cox.net...

Will this be insightful?

I thought not. Talk about a weak and pitiful response. Nothing like using
your belief system to validate your argument!

I'm talking to Jesus now: why do you let your people believe in such dumb
things? Why punish them for making up their own minds? Is it really that
important that we believe in you?! If so, why? And if we don't, why damn
us to Hell? I wouldn't damn beings to Hell that I created and that don't
believe in me. Does that make me more compassionate than you?

- Norseman

P.S. It's like banging my head against the wall, so why do I post this?

Norseman

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 2:28:33 AM1/24/03
to

"Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:4u%X9.1300$ui1.1...@news1.east.cox.net...

>
> "AC" <sp...@nospam.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:slrnb30up...@ts1.alberni.net...
> > In article <wEZX9.771$ui1....@news1.east.cox.net>, Mike Goodrich
wrote:
> > >
> > > God will punish all sin, because He is holy and just and that demands
> that
> > > He cannot overlook it.
> >
> > Why can't he?
>
>
> Because He will not do anything which is contrary to His nature which in
> this case is a total unchanging eternal commitment to justice which means
He
> cannot overlook sin.
>

And that would be called a limitation by ANY definition. Failure to adapt
is surely a limitation. Then again, I might be an agent of evil sent to say
this right now. That's the most likely explanation.

>
>
> >He's omnipotent. He can do anything he darn well pleases.
>
>
> True. And it pleases Him to be just ...
>

But not as compassionate as me. For I would forgive beings that I've
created that don't believe in me. It's not that important. Unless, of
course, you're an egotistical maniac.

>
> > Why should God, who permitted sin (if not being the outright creator of
> sin)
> > to go on. What purpose does it serve to further punish the beings he
has
> > already victimized?
>
>
> Loaded question. We got into this mess of our own free will ...
>
> The purpose it serves is to forever show that sin cannot prosper, and must
> be punished for the sake of justice.
>

Once again, all the rules were created by your God. It's not a loaded
question. It's completely valid. The simple answer is your God will not
change the rules. Once again, failure to adapt. Your god probably isn't a
very good chess player.


>
> >
> > >
> > > Because He is also merciful and compassionate however, He did provide
a
> way
> > > of escape - if only you would accept it. He really asks very little
> from
> > > you in order to do that my friend ...
> >
> > If he's so merciful, then just wipe out sin.
>
>
> That is precluded by His commitment to free will (another thing that
> "pleases" Him).
>

Failure to adapt again? Why do you admit this so freely?!

>
>
> >Only an evil god, a vile being
> > of horrific powers and despicable intents would put intelligent beings
> that
> > he created and permitted to live in sin through this,
>
>
> False, as I have explained.
>

You did a poor job of it. I would forgive EVERYTHING I created...
regardless of whether they believed in me or not. Call me Mr. Compassionate
I guess.

- Norseman

Bill Rogers

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 3:18:05 AM1/24/03
to
"Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<4u%X9.1300$ui1.1...@news1.east.cox.net>...
<snip>
>
> -Mike Goodrich

We sin because we have a fallen nature which we got saddled with
because Adam sinned. As I understand it, we cannot NOT sin given our
fallen nature. So we would be being punished for our
great-to-the-nth-power grandfather's sin. Billions of people stuck
with a fallen nature because one guy sinned thousands of years ago.
And there really was no better way to handle the situation?

To see how completely unjust that is, look at an example of where that
sort of thing actually happens today. In some west african cultures
there is a practice called trokosi; if you sin you must atone by
giving your daughter as a slave to a temple priest with whom she
spends the rest of her life in a very miserable situation. The thing
that shocks most people about that is that she should have her life
ruined as payment for her father's sin. That really happens. It isn't
an eternity in a boiling lake, but it's pretty bad, and it's real.

So you have to do a much better job of convincing us that God really
had no other choice. I admit that if I can muster up a "temporary
suspension of disbelief" and make myself accept all the premises,
there is enough attractive in the changes rung on the atonement and
the incarnation by Medieval and Renaissance poets and musicians
(Langland, Dante, Byrd, Schutz, Herbert, et al) that I almost feel
like it might not be a gross self-contradiction. But then all I need
to do is read one of your posts and I'm fine. Every so often I feel
seriously attracted to Christianity, but guys like you bring me back
to my senses.

Bill

Jerry Freedman

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 5:14:44 AM1/24/03
to

Well. it seems that I am asking questions and your answers are less
than substantial. Basically you are saying "God told you so" and I
then ask "where and why did God tell us this" and "why should I
believe the source --the Bible-- over other sources - the Quran, the
Hindu scriptures ( won't try to spell it hera and embarass myself),
the sutras...If all you can say is that I have heard the word and if I
choose to ignore it then I have a problem. You are not answering my
questions, you are paraphrasing scripture at me and I am questioning
scripture--How do I know Jesus Christ rose from the dead? There is
very little historical evidence for his existence let alone
resurrection. If he did, why should I believe your interpretation of
the event over others? What makes you right and others wrong?

Jerry Freedman

catshark

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 6:53:43 AM1/24/03
to
On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 00:01:32 +0000 (UTC), "Mike Goodrich"
<tachy...@cox.net> wrote:

>
>"AC" <sp...@nospam.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:slrnb30up...@ts1.alberni.net...
>> In article <wEZX9.771$ui1....@news1.east.cox.net>, Mike Goodrich wrote:
>> >
>> > God will punish all sin, because He is holy and just and that demands
>that
>> > He cannot overlook it.
>>
>> Why can't he?
>
>
>Because He will not do anything which is contrary to His nature which in
>this case is a total unchanging eternal commitment to justice which means He
>cannot overlook sin.

He "cannot"?

>>He's omnipotent. He can do anything he darn well pleases.
>
>
>True. And it pleases Him to be just ...

Make up your mind, Mike. One moment you say he "cannot" overlook sin
and the next you say it "pleases him" not to overlook it.

Besides, we're just back at what constitutes "sin". God created
less-than-perfect beings, when he could have done differently. He
then defines less-than-perfect behavior by such beings as "sin", when
he could have shown understanding for their shortcomings, which he
chose to build into them anyway. Then he punishes them for their
less-than-perfect behavior and calls it "justice", which is just
adding insult to injury.

Mike, does it ever occur to you that this kind of simplistic blather
is actually driving people *away* from the religion that you profess
to evangelize?

Just curious.

---------------
J. Pieret
---------------

There has been only one Christian.
They caught him and crucified him -- early.

-- Mark Twain --

gen2rev

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 9:35:57 AM1/24/03
to
Mike Goodrich wrote:
>
> "AC" <sp...@nospam.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:slrnb30up...@ts1.alberni.net...
> > In article <wEZX9.771$ui1....@news1.east.cox.net>, Mike Goodrich wrote:
> > >
> > > God will punish all sin, because He is holy and just and that demands that
> > > He cannot overlook it.
> >
> > Why can't he?
>
> Because He will not do anything which is contrary to His nature which in
> this case is a total unchanging eternal commitment to justice which means He
> cannot overlook sin.
>
> >He's omnipotent. He can do anything he darn well pleases.
>
> True. And it pleases Him to be just ...
>
> > Why should God, who permitted sin (if not being the outright creator of sin)
> > to go on. What purpose does it serve to further punish the beings he has
> > already victimized?
>
> Loaded question. We got into this mess of our own free will ...

What about those born after the fall? Aren't they in this mess because
of the bad timing of their birth?

Mike Goodrich

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 9:38:41 AM1/24/03
to

"Jerry Freedman" <edi...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:6c840ad4.03012...@posting.google.com...
> > > >


Serious questions. Here are a few more for your consideration:

Why should you beleive "other sources" over the Bible? How do you know that
Jesus Christ *didn't* rise from the dead? What methodology of historical
investigation can guarantee that you won't make a mistake in
accepting/rejecting historical accounts? Even most secular historical
scalars as I understand it no longer doubt that Jesus was a real historical
figure. How is it that you did not know that? Why should you believe
others interpretations of the event over mine? What makes them right and me
wrong?


regards,


-Mike Goodrich

David Jensen

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 9:53:51 AM1/24/03
to
On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:38:41 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins
"Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@cox.net> wrote in
<vkcY9.31823$ui1.3...@news1.east.cox.net>:
...

>Serious questions. Here are a few more for your consideration:
>
>Why should you beleive "other sources" over the Bible?

Because other sources have testable evidence that they are based on.

>How do you know that Jesus Christ *didn't* rise from the dead?

I don't know one way or the other. There is no evidence for it (or
against it) which is why you must accept it by _faith_.

>What methodology of historical investigation can guarantee that
>you won't make a mistake in accepting/rejecting historical accounts?

Physical evidence is best. Multiple independent sources are a weak
second best. Single sources, such as the Bible, are worth considering
only to the extent of looking for places to search for physical
evidence.

>Even most secular historical scalars as I understand it no longer
>doubt that Jesus was a real historical figure.

It appears that there were many such teachers around that time, but the
fact that someone with that name taught the doctrines attributed to him
doesn't provide any evidence about his relationship to any god.

>How is it that you did not know that? Why should you believe
>others interpretations of the event over mine?

Some events, such as the first 11 chapters of Genesis, have evidence
that they _did_ _not_ _happen_.

>What makes them right and me wrong?

You are wrong in your attitude. You approach this as if your
interpretation of the Bible is the only possible interpretation and that
anyone who disagrees with you is the Anti-Christ. Pride is one of the
seven deadly sins.

John Wilkins

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 9:57:43 AM1/24/03
to
Mike Goodrich <tachy...@cox.net> wrote:

Why should you believe "other sources" over the Bhagavadgita? How do
you know that Buddha *didn't* become boddhisatva? What methodology of


historical investigation can guarantee that you won't make a mistake in
accepting/rejecting historical accounts? Even most secular historical

scholars as I understand it no longer doubt that Buddha was a real


historical figure. How is it that you did not know that? Why should
you believe others interpretations of the event over mine? What makes
them right and me wrong?

Why should you believe "other sources" over the Q'uran? How do you know
that Mohammed *didn't* become hear from the Archangel? What methodology


of historical investigation can guarantee that you won't make a mistake
in accepting/rejecting historical accounts? Even most secular

historical scholars as I understand it no longer doubt that Mohammed was


a real historical figure. How is it that you did not know that? Why
should you believe others interpretations of the event over mine? What
makes them right and me wrong?

....[Iterate for all religious claims based on some possible historical
figure, up to and including Zeus Pater, or Krsna, or Woden, etc.]

--
John Wilkins
"Listen to your heart, not the voices in your head" - Marge Simpson

John Thomas Grisham

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 12:58:02 PM1/24/03
to
"Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<F2GW9.7732$8N.9...@news1.east.cox.net>...
> In reference to the disobedience of Adam/Eve to God in the Garden of Eden...
>
> "catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5b9l2v0ks6af6351v...@4ax.com...
> >
> > The omniscient god set this "test" up, *even though* he knew Adam and
> > Eve would fail it, to teach *them* a lesson and then *punishes* them
> > and *all* creation for failing it when he knew all along they would?
> > In other words, god intended from the beginning of eternity that there
> > be death disease and sin in this world.
>
>
> Well my answer may surprise you, but this is basically true.
>
> I suggest you go back and look up what I said to NA Sides about coupled
> choices (and I hope he is listening in).
>
> In creating the angels and mankind (i.e., free will non-omniscient beings in
> general), God made a choice.
>
> But God did not select the various aspects of this 'big' choice a-la-carte.
>
> You see, all the ramifications of this choice are coupled as a unit-group in
> a way that they cannot be disentangled.
>
> God chose true free will->consequently the potential of evil->consequently
> the actualization of evil (known in foreknowledge)->consequently His own
> subsequent choice to suffer *Himself* for the redemption of man, and also
> the punishment of the unrepentant wicked - ALL AT THE SAME INSTANT OF CHOICE
> as a coupled group.
>
> These choices are inextricably coupled and cannot be separated in God
> choosing to have a reality populated by free will non-omniscients who will
> enjoy an eternal loving relationship with Him, and to guarantee that the
> price of evil will be paid in full in the final accounting.
>
> God intended that their be love between Him and all non-omniscients willing
> to have it with Him, and He had to make those choices as a coupled group to
> provide that reality.
>
> An astounding choice.
>
> I for one am grateful that He made it so that I might be, and have that
> potential.
>
>
> regards,
>
> -Mike Goodrich

Mr. Goodrich's view has generated much interest.

Firstly, I see an exception in defining an "All Knowing" Deity. An all
knowing Deity can know everything that is knowable. He can shape
events to produce a desired outcome. However, even if, He does know
the future (what hasn't happened, yet, and, therefore, interesting),
He would be foolish to do so.

It would be like reading the last chapter of every mystery novel,
first. If, you already know who will do what, then, there really isn't
any point in going back and reading the rest of the book.

Clearly, there are people, who read the end, first. They have a short
attention span. The Judeo-Christian Deity doesn't demonstate a short
attention span. So, there is no grounds to assume this particular
dysfunction is suffered by the Deity and He is wise enough to let
himself, be surprized.


Secondly, to address the original question posed by "Catshark", Did
the Deity intend death, disease and sin (and all the other bad things
that happen)? Imagine that the charactors in TV and film exist in an
analog/digital environment and some technician tweaks the parameters,
so, they become self aware. They would ask did man intend all the
death and violence in their universe. You know, we did! It entertains
us. And, we're likely to continue to do it, even if, they were self
aware, because it would be even more interesting and to us, it doesn't
matter, we can recreate them, on whim.

What choice, would we have? We could program a perfect universe for
them (how many cable channels are we up to?), but, no one would watch
it. Seven billion channels, in which, nothing challenging, ever
occurs. There'd be no money for it! We could shut down the complete
analog/digital environment, never watch TV or movies, again (dream
on!)or tweak their awareness back out of existence... but, then, for
them, it would be paramount to universal genecide ... the cruelest
choice, we could make. Basically, we're unlikely to be kinder, so, we
could program more sexual content (compensation for them, entertaining
to us ... isn't that the deal, we got out of original sin?). They
aren't exactly in a position to leverage anything better in a deal and
those are pretty much our only choices.

Maybe there is something else, we could do that we lack the
perspective to consider. We could give them free will! The writers
skew the plot line, so, they can choose, how the story progresses (Can
they do any worse than the standard afternoon soap opera?). Maybe,
they can keep it interesting enough, so, they don't get shut down.
Maybe they can figure out how to minimize the death and violence, keep
it interesting and resolve the problem to everyone's benefit (It's
more than we can imagine to do for them).

Let's write them some simple guidelnes ... "In the beginning, Man
create Hollywood and the TV. And Man said, "Turn on the TV!". And the
TV came on. And Man divided the TV into first-run Primetime and
first-run repeats. And Man saw that it was good. This was the debut
and the reruns of the first season ..."

What? Are you going to tell them about our reality? Haven't they got
enough to deal with? They've got the Neilson rating system to deal
with (Isn't it interesting that we built "Lucifer" into the
paradgym?)!

Seppo Pietikainen

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 1:05:51 PM1/24/03
to

First of all, why should one believe the bible as a source for anything
except a collection scripts from bronze age wannabe politicians, some
intelligent and up-to-date as to the morals and mores of their
contemporaries, some pretty weird and downright repugnant.

Why should anyone respect *your* personal cult's interpretation of the
bible as the single most significant one? Why should *anyone* even
*care* about *your* interpretation of repercussions of not accepting
*your* personal interpretation?

What makes them right and makes you wrong is simply the world around us.
Either the world around us is a fake produced by a set of lying "gods",
who are not so much interested in observed facts, or the world around
*simply is* as we *all* can observe (even you).

I have a big problem trying to figure out what you're trying to tell. On
one hand you describe you'r god as an omnipotent entity capable of
saving everyone from the evil of ... (exactly what?)

When a church owned by a christian denomination is bowled over by a
tornado with a whole load of believers crushed dead, is that an
indication of "yet another set of evidence to prove that our special
group of christians are right, they're on their way to hell"?

When *Humans* onboard aircraft headed for the twin towers prayed for
their life, you'r message is: "god wanted it that way".

Is that an indication of an "omnipotent god" or an indication of an
"omni-impotent god"?

You're sick.

>
> regards,
>
>
> -Mike Goodrich
>

Seppo P.

David Sienkiewicz

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 2:17:08 PM1/24/03
to
catshark <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<nm923v42hruohkrq9...@4ax.com>...

> On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 00:01:32 +0000 (UTC), "Mike Goodrich"
> <tachy...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"AC" <sp...@nospam.com.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:slrnb30up...@ts1.alberni.net...
> >> In article <wEZX9.771$ui1....@news1.east.cox.net>, Mike Goodrich wrote:
> >> >
> >> > God will punish all sin, because He is holy and just and that demands
> that
> >> > He cannot overlook it.
> >>
> >> Why can't he?
> >
> >Because He will not do anything which is contrary to His nature which in
> >this case is a total unchanging eternal commitment to justice which means He
> >cannot overlook sin.
>
> He "cannot"?
>
> >>He's omnipotent. He can do anything he darn well pleases.
> >
> >
> >True. And it pleases Him to be just ...
>
> Make up your mind, Mike. One moment you say he "cannot" overlook sin
> and the next you say it "pleases him" not to overlook it.

I'd love to get this guy on the stand.

> Besides, we're just back at what constitutes "sin". God created
> less-than-perfect beings, when he could have done differently. He
> then defines less-than-perfect behavior by such beings as "sin", when
> he could have shown understanding for their shortcomings, which he
> chose to build into them anyway. Then he punishes them for their
> less-than-perfect behavior and calls it "justice", which is just
> adding insult to injury.
>
> Mike, does it ever occur to you that this kind of simplistic blather
> is actually driving people *away* from the religion that you profess
> to evangelize?

Yes, if this is what we can expect from a "messenger of God," I
shudder to think what we can expect from GOD!

Frankly, I think that God gets a good laugh out of ol' Mike.

I know *I* do.

AC

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 5:05:05 PM1/24/03
to
In article <vkcY9.31823$ui1.3...@news1.east.cox.net>, Mike Goodrich wrote:
>
> Serious questions. Here are a few more for your consideration:
>
> Why should you beleive "other sources" over the Bible?

A reasonable person would quickly conclude that there is no reason that any
such holy book should be considered more reliable than any other. People
pick these holy books either because they were raised to believe such books
are holy and truthful or because they were converted into a belief system
that holds those books to be holy and truthful. Their value as articles of
faith should not be confused with their historical veracity.

> How do you know that
> Jesus Christ *didn't* rise from the dead?

Since we don't see people rising from the dead, it seems logical to infer
that such things do not occur. A basic understanding of biological
processes shows that organisms, once basic biological functions cease for a
significant period of time (hours), cannot be reanimated. A few lucky
organisms are built with the ability to go into suspended animation, but
humans aren't in that group.

> What methodology of historical
> investigation can guarantee that you won't make a mistake in
> accepting/rejecting historical accounts?

The lack of other sources, beyond the limited ones we find in the Gospels.
Given the inherent problems found in the Gospels, I would not classify them
as terribly useful historical documents. Couple with that supernatural
claims, I see no reason to trust the Gospel.

> Even most secular historical
> scalars as I understand it no longer doubt that Jesus was a real historical
> figure.

Most will admit that it is likely (you will note the "likely", not an
absolute statement of fact) that there was a Jewish man named Jesus who was
at least claimed by his followers to be a Messiah. He wasn't the only such
figure at the time.

> How is it that you did not know that? Why should you believe
> others interpretations of the event over mine? What makes them right and me
> wrong?

I think all such interpretations, *including* yours, are inherently
unreliable. We have a bit of reasonably certain historical material on the
early Christians, we just don't have such documentation on Christ. This is
hardly surprising, since during his lifetime, he was just another prophet or
holy man in Palestine, and not someone terribly memorable, save to those
that followed him. The key to Christianity's success wasn't Jesus, but his
disciples.

--
A. Clausen

Lenny Flank

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 6:34:38 PM1/24/03
to
On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:38:41 +0000 (UTC), "Mike Goodrich"
<tachy...@cox.net> wrote:

>snip<


>Why should you beleive "other sources" over the Bible? How do you know that
>Jesus Christ *didn't* rise from the dead? What methodology of historical
>investigation can guarantee that you won't make a mistake in
>accepting/rejecting historical accounts? Even most secular historical
>scalars as I understand it no longer doubt that Jesus was a real historical
>figure. How is it that you did not know that? Why should you believe
>others interpretations of the event over mine? What makes them right and me
>wrong?
>


Faith.

Pity that you don't seem to have any. . . . .

Mark VandeWettering

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 7:27:30 PM1/24/03
to
In article <vkcY9.31823$ui1.3...@news1.east.cox.net>, Mike Goodrich wrote:
>

*sigh*

Nothing he said indicates that he does. Something you said clearly
places the Bible (or rather your fundamentalist cartoon version of it)
above other sources of religious inspiration. Bob and weave, bob and weave...

> How do you know that Jesus Christ *didn't* rise from the dead? What
> methodology of historical investigation can guarantee that you won't
> make a mistake in accepting/rejecting historical accounts? Even most
> secular historical scalars as I understand it no longer doubt that
> Jesus was a real historical figure.

scalars?

That Jesus may have been a historical figure is vastly different than
claiming that he rose from the dead and was the son of God.

> How is it that you did not know that? Why should you believe
> others interpretations of the event over mine? What makes them right and me
> wrong?

You are a pinhead Mike. And a dishonest one.

Mark
>
> regards,
>
>
> -Mike Goodrich
>

Mark Isaak

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 9:42:12 PM1/24/03
to
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 21:56:11 +0000 (UTC), "Mike Goodrich"
<tachy...@cox.net> wrote:

>God will punish all sin, because He is holy and just and that demands that
>He cannot overlook it.

So all that talk about forgiveness is meaningless lip service?

The more I see you write, the more confused I am about what your
religion has to offer that might actually be good.

>> What am I missing here?
>
>In short, the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead...

Lots of people have done that. Read the Brothers Grimm sometime.

--
Mark Isaak at...@earthlink.net
Don't read everything you belive.

catshark

unread,
Jan 25, 2003, 12:01:08 AM1/25/03
to
On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 19:17:08 +0000 (UTC), david.si...@attbi.com
(David Sienkiewicz) wrote:

>catshark <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<nm923v42hruohkrq9...@4ax.com>...
>> On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 00:01:32 +0000 (UTC), "Mike Goodrich"
>> <tachy...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"AC" <sp...@nospam.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> >news:slrnb30up...@ts1.alberni.net...
>> >> In article <wEZX9.771$ui1....@news1.east.cox.net>, Mike Goodrich wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > God will punish all sin, because He is holy and just and that demands
>> that
>> >> > He cannot overlook it.
>> >>
>> >> Why can't he?
>> >
>> >Because He will not do anything which is contrary to His nature which in
>> >this case is a total unchanging eternal commitment to justice which means He
>> >cannot overlook sin.
>>
>> He "cannot"?
>>
>> >>He's omnipotent. He can do anything he darn well pleases.
>> >
>> >
>> >True. And it pleases Him to be just ...
>>
>> Make up your mind, Mike. One moment you say he "cannot" overlook sin
>> and the next you say it "pleases him" not to overlook it.
>
>I'd love to get this guy on the stand.

Fish, meet barrel . . .

>
>> Besides, we're just back at what constitutes "sin". God created
>> less-than-perfect beings, when he could have done differently. He
>> then defines less-than-perfect behavior by such beings as "sin", when
>> he could have shown understanding for their shortcomings, which he
>> chose to build into them anyway. Then he punishes them for their
>> less-than-perfect behavior and calls it "justice", which is just
>> adding insult to injury.
>>
>> Mike, does it ever occur to you that this kind of simplistic blather
>> is actually driving people *away* from the religion that you profess
>> to evangelize?
>
>Yes, if this is what we can expect from a "messenger of God," I
>shudder to think what we can expect from GOD!
>
>Frankly, I think that God gets a good laugh out of ol' Mike.
>
>I know *I* do.

I've known many good and intelligent people who spent a lot of time
and effort trying to understand their faith and coherently explain it
to others because they believe it could be a blessing to them. Even
if I don't share those people's views, it still makes me a little sad
to know that they have to go about their work carrying bozos on their
backs.

---------------
J. Pieret
---------------

Do you believe in the Devil?
You know, a supreme evil being
dedicated to the temptation,
corruption and destruction of Man?

- Calvin -

I'm not sure Man needs the help.

- Hobbes -

Alfred Einstead

unread,
Jan 25, 2003, 3:17:02 AM1/25/03
to
"Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@cox.net> wrote:
> In creating the angels and mankind (i.e., free will non-omniscient beings in
> general), God made a choice.
>
> But God did not select the various aspects of this 'big' choice a-la-carte.

An Omniscient being, by definition of Omniscience selects absolutely
every consequence of every action made, knowing them all; and therefore
automatically intends every consequence of every choice made.

Ted Holden

unread,
Jan 25, 2003, 3:27:19 AM1/25/03
to
David Sienkiewicz wrote:


> So if you lie in the very first sentence, how can we trust the rest?
> You're a liar, Ted; and this time, you don't even have pictures.


The only reason I'd ever bother to reply or respond to that (in more than
the three or four lines you see here) would be if there were some question
as to whether the typical reader might mistake what he was seeing. I
simply don't see any such question mark in your case, Stinkowitz.


Ted Holden
www.bearfabrique.org


. . , ,
____)/ \(____
_,--''''',-'/( )\`-.`````--._
,-' ,' | \ _ _ / | `-. `-.
,' / | `._ /\\ //\ _,' | \ `.
| | `. `-( ,\\_// )-' .' | |
,' _,----._ |_,----._\ ____`\o'_`o/'____ /_.----._ |_,----._ `.
|/' \' `\( \(_)/ )/' `/ `\|
` ` V V ' '


Splifford the bat says: Always remember

A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
doctrines.

catshark

unread,
Jan 25, 2003, 8:01:49 AM1/25/03
to
On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 17:58:02 +0000 (UTC), jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us (John
Thomas Grisham) wrote:

>"Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<F2GW9.7732$8N.9...@news1.east.cox.net>...
>> In reference to the disobedience of Adam/Eve to God in the Garden of Eden...
>>
>> "catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:5b9l2v0ks6af6351v...@4ax.com...
>> >

[snip]

<Not sure how to take this but hoping it is satire>

>
>Mr. Goodrich's view has generated much interest.
>
>Firstly, I see an exception in defining an "All Knowing" Deity. An all
>knowing Deity can know everything that is knowable. He can shape
>events to produce a desired outcome. However, even if, He does know
>the future (what hasn't happened, yet, and, therefore, interesting),
>He would be foolish to do so.
>
>It would be like reading the last chapter of every mystery novel,
>first. If, you already know who will do what, then, there really isn't
>any point in going back and reading the rest of the book.
>
>Clearly, there are people, who read the end, first. They have a short
>attention span. The Judeo-Christian Deity doesn't demonstate a short
>attention span. So, there is no grounds to assume this particular
>dysfunction is suffered by the Deity and He is wise enough to let
>himself, be surprized.

So, an infinite god exists *in* time, experiencing it linearly from
present to future? Gee, what did he do before he invented time? Or
did time exist *before* there was god? And he treats all of his
creation as characters in a fiction, not caring whether what he does
or refrains from doing is good or harmful to his creations?

>
>
>Secondly, to address the original question posed by "Catshark", Did
>the Deity intend death, disease and sin (and all the other bad things
>that happen)? Imagine that the charactors in TV and film exist in an
>analog/digital environment and some technician tweaks the parameters,
>so, they become self aware. They would ask did man intend all the
>death and violence in their universe. You know, we did! It entertains
>us. And, we're likely to continue to do it, even if, they were self
>aware, because it would be even more interesting and to us, it doesn't
>matter, we can recreate them, on whim.
>
>What choice, would we have? We could program a perfect universe for
>them (how many cable channels are we up to?), but, no one would watch
>it. Seven billion channels, in which, nothing challenging, ever
>occurs. There'd be no money for it! We could shut down the complete
>analog/digital environment, never watch TV or movies, again (dream
>on!)or tweak their awareness back out of existence... but, then, for
>them, it would be paramount to universal genecide ... the cruelest
>choice, we could make. Basically, we're unlikely to be kinder, so, we
>could program more sexual content (compensation for them, entertaining
>to us ... isn't that the deal, we got out of original sin?). They
>aren't exactly in a position to leverage anything better in a deal and
>those are pretty much our only choices.

Uh, but *we* and *our* limitations aren't what is being discussed.

>
>Maybe there is something else, we could do that we lack the
>perspective to consider. We could give them free will! The writers
>skew the plot line, so, they can choose, how the story progresses (Can
>they do any worse than the standard afternoon soap opera?). Maybe,
>they can keep it interesting enough, so, they don't get shut down.
>Maybe they can figure out how to minimize the death and violence, keep
>it interesting and resolve the problem to everyone's benefit (It's
>more than we can imagine to do for them).
>
>Let's write them some simple guidelnes ... "In the beginning, Man
>create Hollywood and the TV. And Man said, "Turn on the TV!". And the
>TV came on. And Man divided the TV into first-run Primetime and
>first-run repeats. And Man saw that it was good. This was the debut
>and the reruns of the first season ..."
>
>What? Are you going to tell them about our reality? Haven't they got
>enough to deal with? They've got the Neilson rating system to deal
>with (Isn't it interesting that we built "Lucifer" into the
>paradgym?)!

God as a "Reality TV" programmer *and* the only audience.

Congratulations! You've come up with the darkest, most hopeless, most
suicide-inducing vision of god I've ever heard.

Mike Goodrich

unread,
Jan 25, 2003, 8:31:32 AM1/25/03
to

"Alfred Einstead" <whop...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:e58d56ae.03012...@posting.google.com...

Yes, but only as an inseparable group, not "a-la-carte".

regards,

-Mike Goodrich

catshark

unread,
Jan 25, 2003, 9:26:39 AM1/25/03
to

You keep saying this. Mike, but you have yet to provide any rationale
that I've seen. Care to give us one?

---------------
J. Pieret
---------------

All superstition is much the same . . .
the deluded believers
observe events which are fulfilled,
but neglect and pass over their failure,
though it be much more common.

- Francis Bacon -

Paul Ferry

unread,
Jan 25, 2003, 10:26:54 AM1/25/03
to
"Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<F2GW9.7732$8N.9...@news1.east.cox.net>...
> In reference to the disobedience of Adam/Eve to God in the Garden of Eden...
>
> "catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5b9l2v0ks6af6351v...@4ax.com...
> >
> > The omniscient god set this "test" up, *even though* he knew Adam and
> > Eve would fail it, to teach *them* a lesson and then *punishes* them
> > and *all* creation for failing it when he knew all along they would?
> > In other words, god intended from the beginning of eternity that there
> > be death disease and sin in this world.
>
>
> Well my answer may surprise you, but this is basically true.
>
> I suggest you go back and look up what I said to NA Sides about coupled
> choices (and I hope he is listening in).
>
> In creating the angels and mankind (i.e., free will non-omniscient beings in
> general), God made a choice.
>
> But God did not select the various aspects of this 'big' choice a-la-carte.
>
> You see, all the ramifications of this choice are coupled as a unit-group in
> a way that they cannot be disentangled.
>
> God chose true free will->consequently the potential of evil->consequently
> the actualization of evil (known in foreknowledge)->consequently His own
> subsequent choice to suffer *Himself* for the redemption of man, and also
> the punishment of the unrepentant wicked - ALL AT THE SAME INSTANT OF CHOICE
> as a coupled group.
>
> These choices are inextricably coupled and cannot be separated in God
> choosing to have a reality populated by free will non-omniscients who will
> enjoy an eternal loving relationship with Him, and to guarantee that the
> price of evil will be paid in full in the final accounting.
>
> God intended that their be love between Him and all non-omniscients willing
> to have it with Him, and He had to make those choices as a coupled group to
> provide that reality.
>
> An astounding choice.
>
> I for one am grateful that He made it so that I might be, and have that
> potential.
>
>
> regards,
>
> -Mike Goodrich

Isn't good and evil just a reflection of what a particular society
deems to be good and evil? Many people in the middle east it would
seem deems the U.S. of A. to be evil and yet, many of the U.S. deem
them to be evil.

So who is right and who is wrong? We both are in either regards. We
just have have varying perspectives along a common thread.

Paul

Mike Goodrich

unread,
Jan 25, 2003, 11:19:17 AM1/25/03
to

"Paul Ferry" <Fer...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:f7649126.03012...@posting.google.com...

Not if there is a higher authority which both groups are accountable too.
If that is true, then there is a clear imperative to come to grips with what
that higher authority's concept of good and evil, as well as due
consideration to the consequences of non-compliance.

regards,


-Mike Goodrich

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages