Jump to content

trust

Members
  • Posts

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

trust's Achievements

New Member

New Member (3/9)

0

Reputation

  1. "The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one". - Matthew 13:38. Of course it is not our job nor ability to judge the ultimate soul of anyone. I would be upset if everyone thought the way I thought. We would never find the truth or come up with different ideas. I have reached the following thought process. Of course feel free to disagree or agree to disagree. 1) Natural evil was a precursor to moral evil 2) Denying natural evil means that we deny moral evil 3) Natural evil is the desire for selfish DNA survival 4) The first signs of life on earth were possibly created by the debris of a star that came to earth and combined with other building blocks pre-existing on the earth 5) Life from this common ancestor developed to the point we are at now 6) The "devil" has been with us since this "beginning" of life (1 John 3:8) on earth. We are filled with his nature and it is this nature that causes us to sin 7) This world is not ours. "My Kingdom is not of this world...My Kingdom is not of this realm. (John 18:36) "I'm not asking you to take them out of this world, but to keep them from the evil one" (John 17:15) 8) The "mind" in humans and some other animals has now developed to the point where we can not only recognize the selfish DNA survival, but we can actually break away from the selfish DNA survival 9) Christ shows us this "mind" the best and how we can break away from the old selfish DNA surival. He shows a complete reversal of selfish DNA survival: "I am the Good Shepherd. I lay down my life for the sheep". "If any of you wants to be my follower, you must turn from your selfish ways, take up your cross, and follow me" (Matthew 16:24) 10) It is this dying to our selfish DNA reproduction based on our own free will that will lead us the promised land and the greater good for all of creation 11) "The wolf will live with the lamb" (Isaiah 11:6) and all of creation will follow the golden rule on earth as it is in heaven.
  2. When we take away the obvious forgeries and contradictions that made it into the much later written gospels, what are we left with? The most intelligent teaching the world has ever known. To me, the intelligence is beyond human. For someone to live at that time and get these concepts that we are just now understanding and still wrestling with is almost beyond belief to me. Since these do not have a central nervous system to experience pain, and combining the fact that they do not have a brain to imagine yourself as, it is impossible to break the golden rule with them. There is no reason to believe that this would even be "harming" them. Insects of course have a brain (though it might be doubtful that most of them experience pain) so it is possible to start breaking the golden rule with them. Jump up to animals and that is of course where it becomes even more critical that we follow the golden rule. I think we can all agree that we should at least start thinking about others in creation, even if it only starts out with minimal consideration it hopefully turns into asking what we would want if we were them. Thinking of natural evil when I look at my garden..... I see so many beautiful flowers, yet the weeds always draw my attention. Even plant life mimics our moral world. That first life had bad apples or weeds built in by design. Maybe I should just start focusing on the flowers.
  3. Below is the most succinct explanation I have heard for the problem of evil (taken from here http://sguthrie.net/evil.htm). Point one below refers to the question at hand and while I initially thought this was not a good explanation, I am starting to think it is a better explanation than I originally thought.
  4. I was watching the Big Bang Theory and slowed the intro down to a crawl to see all the pictures. You can actually see all of them here http://haraldkraft.d...ebigbangtheory/ This got me thinking about how the stars starting eating each other. When the the stars eat each other, there is no suffering. Yet there is suffering when we eat each other because of mind. This got me looking into theories on when life first started on earth. Something that was interesting was how it is possible that the building blocks of life came through comets to earth. Just as how the moon has craters from asteroids hitting its surface, the earth attracted other objects that could have been an ingredient in the begining of life on earth.
  5. Sorry I meant to say above I have not read any of this philosophy that you are referencing. Obviously I have read a limited amount of philosophy. So where do we stand? We don't know why natural evil was allowed? It was necessary to create moral evil? Natural evil does not exist in the first place? Natural evil is simply the lack of God similar to how cold (absolute zero temperature) does not actually exist? It could be any number of reasons but we are unsure which one(s)? etc.
  6. Since I have never read any philosophy, you seem to be going over my head Going back to my quote from Christ, I have three options 1) Christ is literal in his discussion of the devil. This seems rather unlikely considering our current knowledge of life. 2) The devil is simply ego. When the devil (aka "ego") takes Christ on a forty day journey, this is simply Christ's own ego tempting him. This makes perfect sense in the realization that we all have a inner demon tha tempts us, yet at the same time is a complete manifestation of something completely separate from reality. This does not really explain why ego existed before the fall in animals. Are animals only rarely capable of exhibiting non-ego? 3) This is simply, in my opinion, a fable based on the tens of years the gospel was written after the fact. The incredible teaching of Christ in seen in the gospels such as the Sermon on the Mount becomes almost defiled by this "devil" or "unclean spirit" talk that we know is without any scientific reasoning of our current knowledge. However, to ignore the sheer genius of Christ would be an even greater mistake than to believe Christ actually taught we should handle snakes and drink deadly poison or believe in a physical devil.
  7. It seems that life is designed to be this way. As soon as we judge or condemn anyone, we have also condemned ourselves. If I am correct in my belief that life was designed to be centered around Christ, then suffering is a pre-requisite for us to become Christ-like.
  8. Natural evolution has built in us a desire to reproduce with as many others as possible, to lie, cheat, steal, kill, etc. to get what we want at any cost and survive. Every single moral evil can be traced to the precursor of natural evil. It is only recently that we have developed the moral and emotional intelligence to know when this is wrong. We can now follow the golden rule of doing to others what we would want done to ourselves if we were them. It is the choices of the heart that Christ talked about. According to the Gospel of John, Christ says "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies." Job says: "Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?" According to this, there were angels in the early beginning. Later on, Christ says, "Simon, Simon! Listen! Satan has received permission to test all of you, to separate the good from the bad, as a farmer separates the wheat from the chaff. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith will not fail. And when you turn back to me, you must strengthen your brothers." I can't help but think that according to the Gospels, Christ believed that natural evil from the beginning was a result of the evil one who had free will. "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one".
  9. Obviously it would be terrible to divide the world into saints and sinners. I don't even like applying personal blame. But ignoring acts of evil will not stop it. It is just going to let it flourish. When Christ says that when we lust after others we have already committed adultery in our hearts, should we ignore this teaching because it teaches us to think in terms of good and evil? Whether we like it or not, knowledge of good and evil is here to stay on earth. Two hundred years ago, we claimed that whites are obviously meant to be free and blacks are meant to be slaves. Blacks are, after all, just three-fifths of a person. Racism like this was eventually recognized as an evil and this type of evil is being eradicated. Today we claim that cats and dogs are obviously meant to be loved on as pets and other animals are meant to go through factory farms and be killed. Farm animals are, after all, just not quite animals. Specism like this is being recognized as an evil and will be eradicated. Ignoring these types of acts, whether they are Jews suffering in the Holocaust, blacks being forced to be slaves, or animals screaming behind factory farm doors, we must recognize them for what they are: Evil. All of these can be traced back to natural evil. Christ taught us that there is no slave and there is no master when he kneeled down and washed the feet of the disciples. This was unheard of for someone in power to do this. Christ tells us that he longs to gather us together, as a mother hen gathers her chicks under wings, but we were not willing. Christ is relating himself to a chicken. A freakin chicken. This was at a time when people barely even considered that animals feel pain. This was unheard of. In all instances, Christ actually takes on the role of the abused. God is supposed to conquer his enemies, not take on the role of the oppressed and suffer with them. Racism, specism, and sexism are all created in our hearts. Without natural evil though, none of these moral evils would exist. I see no logical reason why we should only try to eradicate moral evil without eradicating natural evil. Should we just stand around while a tornado kills our neighbors? Why not stop all natural evil? One thing is clear, ignoring evil will not just make it go away. I am not looking to place blame or judgment. I am looking for understanding. For the same measure I use to judge God, God will also use to judge me.
  10. Yes, they do. Which is a result of natural evil. I suspect that 99% of the public would agree that factory farms are disgusting. Yet we put 99% of the animals we eat through factory farms. I am hoping that something like cultured meat (real meat, just without the suffering) or changes in the human heart will eradicate this natural evil and replace it with the wolf living with the lamb. I think this is certainly a good outlook until I find an answer to the question.
  11. This mostly summarizes it. You make a good point about evil being defined from the perspective of those affected. But no matter what we call it, suffering is still suffering. Why is there suffering allowed to take place that is not the result of free will? I think we agree here. I am simply stressing the importance of not accepting the status quo more since I know things can be changed. This just comes at the expense of some tough and uncomfortable questions. I like where you are coming from though. I think everyone has to deal with things like this. I know I certainly have things like this I have to work through. Though we tend to only pay attention to the things that effect ourselves. This is a natural part of life. And there can even be human reasons for needing to overcome things like this. Have you ever noticed that when we refer to helping others, we only refer to helping other humans? I know this is obviously just what we are used to saying and has nothing to do with much of anything, but I do hope we as a society can start encompassing all of creation. It seems they have been given the shaft throughout much of history. Regardless of them being slightly less evolved than us. While I certainly think there is evil based on our choices, I am not sure what to make of the suffering before human choice. We can def. agree on hoping that the pros outweigh the cons.
  12. I agree that good can be relative to the perspective of the describer. That is why we need to try to look at this from as unbiased a viewpoint as possible. I also agree that we have a very human centered viewpoint. All throughout history we have just assumed that we are the center of everything. We have fought, sometimes violently, to prove that the sun revolves around the earth or that the earth is the center of the Universe. We are needing to re-evaluate whether we are the whole picture or simply a piece of the puzzle. Our ego has become inflated because of what privileges God has given us. I am not so much second guessing the mind of God as I am simply trying to understand. If I never find out the reason for natural evil, then so be it. I have already given God the benefit of the doubt. I already know the end of the story where the wolf lives with the lamb and I even know the mechanism for how we will reach that here on earth. What I do not understand is the beginning and why natural evil exists. I would like to try to find out the answer though. When cancer comes and attacks a small child, what do you call it? Suffering is suffering. I have no doubt in my mind that there was a reason for it just like there is a reason for moral evil. At the same time I don't want to act like it is some wonderful thing when anyone suffers, because it is not. Anyone who has spent some time around animals knows that they experience pain and suffer just like we do. Sure, we could claim that their screams are simply mechanistic reactions, but we could also claim the same about other humans. We have no way to prove that others humans are not simply robots. We can say with 99.9% certainty that animals and humans experience pain. That is enough for me. My wife and I had two cats and a rabbit. One of the cats would protect the rabbit from the other cat. The other cat didn't really try to intentionally harm the rabbit as much as he tried to play a little too rough with him. The rabbit and one of the cats has since passed on. Yesterday, my wife was driving to work and she saw a cat in the middle of the road with something in its mouth. So she stopped the car in the middle of the road and ran out to try to help whatever was in its mouth. It turned out it was a rabbit and she could hear it sheeking. So she chased the cat until he dropped the rabbit and the rabbit ran off. In our world, we can sense when we are causing pain to others. Cats are carnivores and need to cause pain to others to live. I am trying to understand why God would do this. It is easy for us to try to ignore the suffering of the animals. But a grave mistake. I believe in God. I believe that God allowed natural evil for some reason. I am trying to find out what that reason is. The question is not, "Why does an organism need nourishment". The question is, "Why did God not design the world so that organisms can get nourishment without causing suffering to others"? You see on one hand that it is possible for humans to live without causing suffering to others. On the other hand, it is probably not possible to live without causing at least some death to others. However, I see this abused by people. The argument boils down to, "If we can't stop all suffering, why stop any suffering?" Which is obviously a terrible argument. Our goal should always be to cause the least amount of suffering to others as possible. Although I unfortunately do not do this myself, if we all ate plants, we would be able to only cause 0.4 (accidental) animal deaths a year. After we take the time to actually prevent small animals from getting in the crop fields, that number would drop even more. At the end of the day though, we would still be responsible for causing an innocent death because we lived. Why is life setup this way? Why must others die for us to live? And why do we think that this automatically gives us a license to then go on and continue to cause suffering to others?
  13. Can you put in laymen's terms why natural evil does not exist? Whether we call it by a different name does not really matter to me. Either way we put it, we see suffering that does not have an immediate explanation. Why create a carnivore? What is the purpose? The only reason I mentioned Adam and Eve is to say that the original explanation for suffering we see in the world is traced to Adam and Eve. I reject this explanation in general since we know based on God's actual evidence that suffering and death existed for millions of years before this supposed Adam and Eve story. To me it is simply a story about how our choices matter and can be detrimental. Not a story explaining ALL evil. Evolution does not really have infinite possibilities since it is restricted by the laws of nature. This is probably a discussion for another thread but I never understood why Einstein would claim that "God does not play dice", or rather, why Einstein would think there is such a thing as "dice" to God in the first place. Einstein is much smarter than me so I must be missing something. Even if everything is proven to be completely random without an underlying mechanism, God would still be able to simply create the world however he wanted while still including free will. When looking at the big bang, he could have thought, "Meh. I don't like that outcome at this current time x. Let's go for x + 14040.5466 seconds where the story works out just how I want it". Time could really be any variable. Randomness is only what we see. Anyhow this is getting off track. This in itself does not present a problem for me as there are plenty of explanations why this would be so. I already know God to be a Utilitarian so personally this has no hold on me. The problem for me is why create a carnivore in the first place? For us, we have a choice. We can eat plants which do not have a brain to imagine yourself as or a central nervous system to experience pain. To the carnivore, they have no choice and either cause suffering to others, or they die. That is not much of a choice. One good explanation has been the idea that evil is simply the absence of God. Just like cold does not exist, cold is simply the absence of heat. Or how darkness does not exist and is merely the absence of light. This however still leaves us with needing to understand more. If the animals are simply a pawn in a game, then that itself would be evil just like if we were a pawn in a game. The animals must exist for their own reasons. What are those reasons?
  14. For this discussion, let's ignore moral evil since it does not present a tough theological question. Let's instead focus on natural evil and describe natural evil as anything that causes suffering that does not have a moral agent behind the suffering and does not have some greater good. This excludes small amounts of pain since pain is what keeps us alive and our hand away from the fire. What about the carnivorous animals though? Why create them when their only option is to cause suffering to others to live? Some suffering could have a greater good behind it or some suffering could have a moral agent behind it. But does a creating a carnivorous animal have that or some other explanation behind it? This does not take into account those who have flat-lined brain activity. Obviously killing yourself is against almost all religions beliefs but killing yourself would cause massive amounts of suffering to those left behind. It also would be ignoring that there is a reason for being here in the first place. Not to mention we have evolved to try to live. We would agree that if God exists, God is all knowing right? You just think it does not apply to being good? No, that is not good. To evaluate whether something is good, we simply follow the golden rule taking into account every individual in the situation. In other words, what would we want if we were the wolf. AND what would we want if we were the lamb? This is absolutely not good for the lamb to have to suffer. In a normal situation, we would say that the free will of the lamb is broken and the wolf killing the lamb is unethical. However, the wolf is not an ethical agent. But the more pressing question at hand is why the wolf was created as a carnivore in the first place. We can think of a world where carnivores do not exist at all or at least omniovores like us where we have a moral choice in the matter. The problem of evil in regards to moral actions is easily shown to be no problem at all. Assuming we reject illogical logic (God cannot draw a square circle, therefore God is not all powerful), then it is easily shown why evil can exist similar to how Alvin Plantinga shows this. The problem of natural evil needs more discussion.
  15. On a practical level, I think that it stands to reason that if there is a God, that he is good. On a personal level, I believe in the ideas Christ talked about and a place where the wolf lives with the lamb as Isaiah says. When we look at people who have near death experiences, there are just way too many people from way too many walks of life that report essentially the same death experiences for us to claim that they are lying (although some certainly are). I think it is difficult to deny the experience in general. These people have their entire lives transformed by these experiences that they know they experienced. Many atheists change their beliefs after NDE's so at the very least it is real enough for them to believe it. So the question comes down to whether that experience is the next life or still a part of this life. Personally I think this life is and always will be about us reaching out to God based on our own free will so I don't think we wil ever have "proof" one way or the other. That would negate one of the main reasons for this life. To the theist, the mere fact that we are here, we are conscious, and we have a conscience is enough to make one at the very least an agnostic. There are a million other reasons to make one a theist. For the atheist, the odds of there being more than this are too low and they therefore do not believe. This is probably the sole question we cannot reason through. We must simply agree to disagree. Just about every other question in existence we are able to reason through. To me, this life is full of heartbreak so that we feel the desire to become Christ-like. Although I don't agree, even if we take the assumption that this is all that there is, then we are even more obliged to help those in need because this is all they will ever experience.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service