Why is god benevolent?

[Gaige]

If a God is capable of anger, then he is also capable of malevolence and rash decisions. A God must be perfect in the eyes of his worshipers simply because to believe in a flawed higher being is to believe in a flawed afterlife. If a deity can be flaws, anything can be flawed, so God's fury, God's rash decisions. God's simple refusal to tolerate any deity, any faith, or any person who does not look upon him as their God is justified as "righteous anger."

And the Kingdom of Heaven mentioned many times seems to be blind obedience to God in some text, or something we cannot comprehend in another.

Of course, we cannot comprehend God. He is never fully described aside from only the Seraphim being able to gaze upon his true form. Can God's anger not be compared to an arrogant parent who refuses to let go of His children? He might mean well, of course, but he has almost certainly shown malevolence.

To damn someone to Hell, to curse people. He's done thing demons in this religion and others have been condemned for. This is a benign, wholly good, and wholly flawless God. To a devout insider, maybe, but not to all.

 

[Jquestionmark]

I've explained vanity in full detail. You have not, and likely cannot, prove otherwise that vanity is what causes any and every form of immorality.

You know, I'll save addressing this for later because I still want to know how vanity causes things like earthquakes, as you claimed earlier. Lets talk that one out before we worry about morality (also, you should clarify which moral system you're talking about, since there is no absolute or true moral system).

Vanity is self-importance. Without it, no other immoral act could exist.

Other posters have taken care of this one already in other ways, so I'll just bring this one up: Since there is no absolute moral system, you cannot guarantee that vanity causes immoral acts in all moral systems. For example: in my moral system, plenty of immoral acts occur without vanity.

So, no, you are incorrect, immoral acts can exist just fine without vanity.

I have evaluated it, extensively no doubt. This is why I stopped posting on the other thread, because logical fallacies in lieu of my past explanations take over. Like a big circle. Sound familiar?

When you perform a logical fallacy, we quote it and explain how it is a fallacy. If you cannot do the same with ours, we can only assume that we're not actually performing fallacies and you are mistaken.

The same can go for the abilities and intentions of God. You nor J even delved into it, but rather dismissed the idea altogether because it threatens your take on God.

Actually, your interpretations of god weren't the original thing we were addressing: it was the common interpretations. We're certainly not threatened by your ideas (which disagree with typical christianity about as much as they disagree with anyone posting here), but are trying to show you the flaws in your reasoning.

I've already addressed it. Reason. And you put your own foot in your mouth. If metaphors are unfalsifiable and there are so many things of the sort within holy intrigue, than you do not even have enough reason to deem God as evil or unjust.

Wait, the Bible is full of metaphors, you say? Fun fact: metaphors are fiction, not fact. They may contain factual information, but they are not facts. If the serpent is a metaphor for Lucifer, then we're talking about fiction (since there was no serpent). So there you go, you think the Bible is fiction too. Thanks for backing me up.

Because der Astronom, do you believe that an actual snake cursed all of man?

I doubt he does, but the bible (the only source for the eden story) sure seems to. There is literally no evidence in the bible to suggest that the serpent is Lucifer. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary: God punishes the serpent for his actions, by removing his legs. This supports the idea that it is actually a serpent, and not some other being (otherwise there'd be no reason for the punishment, and certainly not one specifically aimed at serpents).

Please provide some evidence that the serpent is Lucifer.

It's ridiculous, and why would God need to test man with a serpent when Lucifer, the Prince of Earth, the Adversary, etc. is more than willing to tempt man?

There's only a test if you imagine there to be one. The bible just has god telling man not to eat the fruit, since it will kill man (hey, a lie, another example of god being evil/unjust). The serpent didn't tempt anyone: he just told them the truth (which makes him a cooler dude than god in my book, but I've always liked snakes, and god is an asshole, so I guess it all comes full circle). Anyways, the point here is, there's no evidence for the serpent being Lucifer, and there's not even evidence of a temptation occurring. Your story is interesting, but not supported by the source it is based on.

Like I said before, which is actually becoming quite a comical thought: You are dismissing the Bible with technicality.

This may come as a total shock to you, considering how you've been responding to it so far, but let me lay it out for you:

If something is wrong technically, it is not right, it is wrong.

This isn't even just my interpretation.

Just yours? Maybe not.

It's that of Christians, the Vatican, ect.

Of christians? All christians, or just some? Cause I'd wager that many christians don't think of it the same way you do (well, it's not really fair to bet on something I know is true, but I'd still wager).

, and reason will say that there is no actual 'sea urchin', just as there is no 'serpent'. To think otherwise is what is illogical.

You know, since we're talking about a work of mythology, we could use reason to interpret the beast from the sea as all sorts of things.

And once again I say: dismissing the Bible with technicality.

And once again, I say that being technically wrong is still being wrong.

The beast from the sea is regarded in Revelations. Do you think a sea urchin is supposed to be ravaging Earth at the end of days.

Why not? It could be a super-gigantic sea-urchin. We know that sea urchins exist, something we don't know about god, christ, the anti-christ, etc. I'd say it makes more sense to guess the beast from the sea is a beast from the sea, given that we know of actual creatures in the sea existing.

Blasphemy, I tell you.

If you're an "agnostic," why would you care about blasphemy? And what evidence do you have that interpreting the bible literally is blasphemy (lots of christians interpret the bible literally, and consider doing otherwise to be blasphemy - why are they wrong instead of you?)?

Nothing is satisfactory for you,

Well, you complaining about his demands doesn't invalidate the issues he is pointing out. I'd worry about addressing this: "why you don't see anything wrong with a god who doesn't condemn slavery, commands people to murder and rape others, punishes people who don't deserve it when he could prevent it, and bother even creating hell, or even letting people go there" instead of being upset that he wants you to answer a simple question.

because the only thing you want to believe is that theism is evil and there is no god.

Are you a telepath? Or do you have some sort of evidence for this claim? How about we tell you what we believe (or want to believe) instead of you assuming what we believe?

People do these things with or without god.

So you agree that people do these things with god? You still haven't addressed how that's not a sign that god is malevolent.

But you know,, I'm not re-posting my entire philosophy on the matter. Read previous posts/threads.

We did read your previous posts/threads. They are the problem, and that's why we're asking you questions about them. Your failure to clarify when we request it does not make your prior posts magically good, valid, or unbeatable. Your philosophy is flawed, we have pointed out those flaws, and you refuse to address them. You saying "Read previous posts/threads" does not make them right: the flaws still exist, and without clarification, your desire to reference yourself is just a waste of time.

A big circle.

Break the cycle then: answer our questions, and argue our refutations.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

And I'm not asking you to restate your argument. We know what your argument is; it's just lacking a proper justification that isn't consistently filled with fallacies.

Any person who has ever fought for a greater cause that they believed in (be it soldiers giving their lives for their country, or crusaders purging the infidel) has given themselves to a higher purpose, selflessly, and have often committed immoral acts like destruction and murder. They are completely selfless and, in the Christian sense, immoral.

Really? Because you couldve fooled me. My past explanation answers all your questions, and this is further credited by the fact that you are at a complete loss with vanity.
You are asking for examples, but it is much easier for you to think of one teeny tiny example of how vanity is not the root of immorality.
It's more hypothetical, really, because there isn't one.
But I will entertain it, just to be thorough and so we can move on from this idea:

> Patriotism is vanity. You and your country are fighting for yourselves. Vanity is what causes the warring to begin with. Or individual countries for that matter.
All angles are of vanity.
>You become jealous- of practically anything.
Vanity.
>You cheat on your wife.
Vanity.
>You obtain something keep it for yourself
Vanity.
>Stealing.
Vanity.

It just goes on and on and on. There is nothing immoral that doesn't result from vanity. It is something that cannot be denied, even by atheists.

Let me disprove you again. There are groups of Christian who believe the Bible literally. That is completely counter to what you claimed about Christians.

Well, let's just exclude them and talk of the 98% of Christians who believe otherwise. If there is any wrong way to interpret the Bible, that is it. Case closed on that.
Really, this statement right here makes me wonder why I even waste my time on here, seriously.
Was this statement even to make a point, or just to irritate the debate with more technical redundancy?

I think you all have been so consumed with being contrary, that reason and intuition has been completely snuffed out by it.

The only other thing I find worth answering since my last post is why God put the Tree of Knowledge in Eden.
Everything else I've already answered, and do not wish to re-post from this or the other thread. Frau, I'm not sure you were on the 'The Problem of Evil' thread, but pay a visit. Everyone else here has seen it.

God put the Tree of Knowledge in Eden to complete the idea of free will. What is the point of free will if there are no choices?
There a couple ways to go about it. One would be that God wanted man to want to praise Him for His gift of life and prosperity. Accordingly, there had to be choices.
Another way would be that God wanted to show Lucifer how life can choose to not be tempted by vanity, and the entire thing took a dead turn for the worse.

There is a splitting concept on how Lucifer was booted out of Heaven. For the second way to be true, that would have to be Lucifer's finale to be booted from Heaven. Accordingly, 1/3 of the angels disagreed as they had never seen anyone fall from grace and felt a certain way about it.
This is contrary to Lucifer falling from Heaven before man was even born, but still possible nonetheless.


Do you see how that explanation went? Reason and intuition was the touch, not technical madness. How are we to talk about how God is/isn't benevolent if the subject is undermined with how we can't know anything? It's stupid, and arguing all this with that approach pretty much outlines the idea that I'm right,, or at least more right than you all are.

 

[Jquestionmark]

Really? Because you couldve fooled me. My past explanation answers all your questions, and this is further credited by the fact that you are at a complete loss with vanity.
You are asking for examples, but it is much easier for you to think of one teeny tiny example of how vanity is not the root of immorality.

We already did that. You're just not responding to it.

It's more hypothetical, really, because there isn't one.
But I will entertain it, just to be thorough and so we can move on from this idea:

> Patriotism is vanity. You and your country are fighting for yourselves. Vanity is what causes the warring to begin with. Or individual countries for that matter.

No. When you do something selfless (fight for your country), you are being selfless, and not vain (vanity doesn't even factor into it - it's about selfish versus selfless, and not about how you're excessively proud of yourself). You are committing to an ideal outside of yourself, not being vain. Please post your definition of vanity, because you're not actually using the standard one.

All angles are of vanity.
>You become jealous- of practically anything.
Vanity.
>You cheat on your wife.
Vanity.

Lust can't account for this? Or wrath? Wanting to hurt others is vanity? I'm not quite sure how wanting to hurt others is "excessive pride in one's appearance, qualities, abilities, achievements, etc." Oh, wait, it's not.

>You obtain something keep it for yourself
Vanity.

This is selfish, not vain.

>Stealing.
Vanity.

Selfish, not vain.

It just goes on and on and on. There is nothing immoral that doesn't result from vanity. It is something that cannot be denied, even by atheists.

I did deny it in my last post. I guess you missed it. In case you did:

"Since there is no absolute moral system, you cannot guarantee that vanity causes immoral acts in all moral systems. For example: in my moral system, plenty of immoral acts occur without vanity."

Please show how that is mistaken before you continue with your claim that I have shown to be incorrect.

Well, let's just exclude them and talk of the 98% of Christians who believe otherwise. If there is any wrong way to interpret the Bible, that is it. Case closed on that.

What makes this interpretation invalid? You claim that we can't disprove the Bible: why is a literal interpretation invalid? You need to show it to be wrong, not just claim it is. That's very poor debate technique.

Really, this statement right here makes me wonder why I even waste my time on here, seriously.

Upset that someone directly disproved a claim you made? That's rough buddy. Try refuting it instead of complaining.

Was this statement even to make a point, or just to irritate the debate with more technical redundancy?

I'll lay this out real simple like:

The statement directly refutes a claim you made. It was not make to bother you. It was not made to be redundant. It directly counters something you said, and you are not addressing that.

Try actually debating our refutations instead of complaining.

I think you all have been so consumed with being contrary, that reason and intuition has been completely snuffed out by it.

I'm seeing a lot of reason and intuition on our side. Even Frau pointed out an issue with something you said and you're flat out ignoring it.

The only other thing I find worth answering since my last post is why God put the Tree of Knowledge in Eden.

So you concede to all of the other points and refutations we have made since your last post? I appreciate that.

Everything else I've already answered,

Oh, I was mistaken. You're not conceding, just confused. You have yet to answer:

If you're an "agnostic," why would you care about blasphemy?
And what evidence do you have that interpreting the bible literally is blasphemy (lots of christians interpret the bible literally, and consider doing otherwise to be blasphemy - why are they wrong instead of you?)?
Are you a telepath?
Or do you have some sort of evidence for this claim?
How about we tell you what we believe (or want to believe) instead of you assuming what we believe?
So you agree that people do these things with god?
How does vanity cause earthquakes?
Why would we think the serpent is Lucifer?
Why not? It could be a super-gigantic sea-urchin.
why you don't see anything wrong with a god who doesn't condemn slavery, commands people to murder and rape others, punishes people who don't deserve it when he could prevent it, and bother even creating hell, or even letting people go there?

These are just things that came up in my last post, not even all of my unanswered questions from this thread (and lets not even start on other threads).

and do not wish to re-post from this or the other thread. Frau, I'm not sure you were on the 'The Problem of Evil' thread, but pay a visit. Everyone else here has seen it.

We have seen it, and you fail to address any of our questions or refutations there as well.

God put the Tree of Knowledge in Eden to complete the idea of free will. What is the point of free will if there are no choices?

Why is free will necessary? You still haven't explained that. Or addressed the conflict between free will and fate.

There a couple ways to go about it. One would be that God wanted man to want to praise Him for His gift of life and prosperity. Accordingly, there had to be choices.

Or he could just force them to do it. He still gets praised. This is not a good reason; choices are not necessary for god to be praised.

Another way would be that God wanted to show Lucifer how life can choose to not be tempted by vanity, and the entire thing took a dead turn for the worse.

Except Lucifer was never there, just a poor serpent that got screwed.

There is a splitting concept on how Lucifer was booted out of Heaven. For the second way to be true, that would have to be Lucifer's finale to be booted from Heaven. Accordingly, 1/3 of the angels disagreed as they had never seen anyone fall from grace and felt a certain way about it.
This is contrary to Lucifer falling from Heaven before man was even born, but still possible nonetheless.

So now you're making up the story of why Lucifer got kicked from heaven. Well, you're quite the talespinner.

Do you see how that explanation went?

It was a story, not an explanation. What makes it more valid than a literal interpretation of Genesis? Do you have ANY reason that your story is more valid than a literal interpretation? ANY AT ALL?

Reason and intuition was the touch, not technical madness.

Or maybe it's just a serpent, like it actually says. That seems pretty reasonable (as much as anything in the bible does).

How are we to talk about how God is/isn't benevolent if the subject is undermined with how we can't know anything?

We never said we can't know anything. We're just addressing the issues with your ideas on the topic.

It's stupid,

Nice ad hominem. Good to see some things never change.

and arguing all this with that approach pretty much outlines the idea that I'm right,, or at least more right than you all are.

I like how you constantly try to proclaim yourself winner of the argument, or "more right," or anything like that. If you're right, why are we constantly proving you wrong and pointing out contradictions to your claims?

Wait, I think I might know what the problem is: could you post your definition of the word "right"? Maybe this is all just a big misunderstanding, maybe you're using your own definition for that word that we're not familiar with.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

It just goes on and on and on. There is nothing immoral that doesn't result from vanity.

The structure of your argument is poor, and I'm going to illustrate why. Regardless of any example of a non-vain immoral act, you will simply say "Well, it originates from vanity." I can do the same with any other 'sin'.

> Patriotism is greed. You and your country are fighting for yourselves to take things that are not your own (glory, land, resources, allegiance, power). Greed is what causes the warring to begin with.
All angles are of greed.
>You become jealous- of practically anything.
Greed. You are coveting someone else's things.
>You cheat on your wife.
Greed. You wish to have more - more women, more sex.
>You obtain something keep it for yourself
Greed. You want it.
>Stealing.
Redundant. Greed.

Pick one of the major sins and I can spin it to fit in the same way you have. It's pretty much a chicken or the egg thing. If you claim vanity, then I can claim it really originates from greed. On and on. Neither are more valid... because both are nonsensical and pointless.

It is something that cannot be denied, even by atheists.

I just denied it and refuted it.

If there is any wrong way to interpret the Bible, that is it. Case closed on that.

If there is any wrong way to interpret the Bible, it's yours. Case closed on that.

I think you all have been so consumed with being contrary, that reason and intuition has been completely snuffed out by it.

I think you have been so consumed with being correct that reason and intuition have never been present in your arguments.

God put the Tree of Knowledge in Eden to complete the idea of free will. What is the point of free will if there are no choices?

Why'd there have to be a tree? Adam and Eve could have chosen to eat beef, or have stir fry for dinner. They could have decided when to frolick. What the hell are you even talking about?

One would be that God wanted man to want to praise

That sounds pretty vain.

Another way would be that God wanted to show Lucifer how life can choose to not be tempted by vanity, and the entire thing took a dead turn for the worse.

So God's vain and stupid? Looks like Lucifer at least understands human nature.

Reason and intuition was the touch

I'm pretty sure there was no reason or intuition. You just stated something with no logical form or evidence.

How are we to talk about how God is/isn't benevolent if the subject is undermined with how we can't know anything?

I think the bigger issue is that your reasoning has a ton of holes in it that you refuse to address or fix.

I'm right,, or at least more right than you all are.

It's pretty funny that you say that, but you just ignored all of the fallacies that you made and that I pointed out.

Wait, that's not funny at all.

Regardless, more on topic:

A God must be perfect in the eyes of his worshipers simply because to believe in a flawed higher being is to believe in a flawed afterlife.

This makes a lot of sense. Part of the reason so many people look to religion is because it has definite answers. As soon as the crux of the whole thing becomes uncertain, the attraction of it is lost. Other certain things, like the laws of physics, aren't quite as comforting. How things work does little to give meaning to most people.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

The structure of your argument is poor, and I'm going to illustrate why. Regardless of any example of a non-vain immoral act, you will simply say "Well, it originates from vanity." I can do the same with any other 'sin'.

> Patriotism is greed. You and your country are fighting for yourselves to take things that are not your own (glory, land, resources, allegiance, power). Greed is what causes the warring to begin with.
All angles are of greed.
>You become jealous- of practically anything.
Greed. You are coveting someone else's things.
>You cheat on your wife.
Greed. You wish to have more - more women, more sex.
>You obtain something keep it for yourself
Greed. You want it.
>Stealing.
Redundant. Greed.

Pick one of the major sins and I can spin it to fit in the same way you have. It's pretty much a chicken or the egg thing. If you claim vanity, then I can claim it really originates from greed. On and on. Neither are more valid... because both are nonsensical and pointless.

Vanity is practically greed, if you want to be technical about it (once again). Pick another sin that is not almost literally synonymous with vanity, and it won't fit.

You have refuted nothing. The rest of your post is laughable. Try again.

All this has become is denial vs intuition. Some bogus shit right here.. I might as well be psychic, because I told what would become of this.

Speak for the ad hominems, logical fallacies, and masquerades in your own arguments, not the non-existent ones in mine.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

Vanity is greed

y u make me do dis?
Greed
–noun excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions.
Vanity
–noun 1. excessive pride in one's appearance, qualities, abilities, achievements, etc.; character or quality of being vain; conceit: Failure to be elected was a great blow to his vanity.
To spell it out: They are two different things.

Pick another sin

Fine.

> Patriotism is wrath. You and your country are fighting another. Wrath is what causes the warring to begin with.
>You become jealous- of practically anything.
Wrath. You are angry you do not possess it.
>You cheat on your wife.
Wrath. You are indignant because you haven't got enough of something (sex or intimacy or whatever)/you do it as revenge/you do it to hurt them.
>You obtain something keep it for yourself
Wrath. You are indignant that anyone else wants what is yours, so you withhold it.
>Stealing.
Wrath. You are angry you do not have it and this causes you to act rashly, stealing it.

Speak for the ad hominems, logical fallacies, and masquerades in your own arguments, not the non-existent ones in mine.

Homie don't play dat. Your fallacies were by the book and quite clearly explained. They most certainly exist.

It'd be helpful if you pointed out what anyone has said that was fallacious. Y'know, like how I did with you? Otherwise you're just saying things without backing it up. Which is fine, I can do it too. Here goes: Everything you've said is hogwash and you know it, you just don't want to admit it. I won't (and can't) substantiate that, just like you haven't done for your claims. But given the way you consider just stating things to be valid reasoning, I suppose it's true.

However, ad hominem has been used by everyone in here. Well, except the people who haven't entered into this argument.

Try again.

Shit... where's the coin slot? I know I have enough quarters. Waitaminute... the screen says I haven't lost any credits!

More on topic: Some people are clearly afraid of being punished in Hell or another bad afterlife for not obeying god(s). However, some of these same people claim that god(s) is benevolent. Perhaps it's justification because the people who end up there deserve it? Sort of like how murder and stealing are bad things, but if you murder someone bad or in self-defense or you steal to feed yourself, they're not considered bad. In my mind, they're still bad, but they were necessary. I know some people (perhaps many) view something necessary like that as no longer bad or immoral?

 

[Jquestionmark]

Vanity is practically greed, if you want to be technical about it (once again). Pick another sin that is not almost literally synonymous with vanity, and it won't fit.

You responded to nothing I said, and debated none of my refutations. I take that to mean that you have no counter to my points and they are all correct (since you won't answer any of my questions, the logical assumption is that you have no answer).

You have refuted nothing. The rest of your post is laughable. Try again.

Actually, he did a pretty good job. The only laughable thing is your inability to come to terms with it or provide a counter argument.

All this has become is denial vs intuition. Some bogus shit right here.. I might as well be psychic, because I told what would become of this.

I don't remember you predicting yourself being totally unable to respond to any of my refutations. I'm failing to see any intuition on your side. Just redefining terms at will to suit your needs. And making baseless claims. Just like the good old days.

Speak for the ad hominems, logical fallacies, and masquerades in your own arguments, not the non-existent ones in mine.

Two fun facts for you:
-They exist, which is why we are able to show and explain them.
-If you think we're making mistakes, how about actually pointing them out and explaining them, like we're kind enough to do for you? Then, we might address some of them (you know, if you were willing to show that they exist).

_______

Anyways, the point about viewing god as benevolent if you're faithful and malevolent if you're not is an interesting one. If god is not benevolent, what kind of afterlife faces the "good" people (let alone the bad ones)? This situation almost necessitates believing in a benevolent god.

In many other religions, when you die, you're just dead. Some of them have an "afterlife" of a sort, but it mostly just involves sitting around and being dead (good aren't rewarded, and bad aren't punished unless they personally pissed off a god). Benevolence and malevolence don't enter in: death is just death.

As far as morality, it's all a tricky situation, since there's no absolutes in morality. If fear of winding up in hell is the main thing driving your morality, then you're going to wind up with very different values than someone who thinks the afterlife is bogus and holds all human life in the highest regard.

For murder, I could see a lot of support for it being universally bad (even when justified). Stealing is a little more tricky. This one gets into a need to assess people owning things, what it means to own something, etc. The complexities of our society make it difficult to determine if some things are actually bad or not (from any sort of general/universal standpoint).

 

[Sum1sgruj]

You want more than needed out of self-importance.
Vanity.

Vanity is elementary, every other sin is secondary. I don't know how this gets lost in translation.
But I guess it takes a certain amount of intuition to realize that vanity is attached with sin in general. Greed, wrath, jealousy, etc. are all components of vanity alone.

It's logically correct, and it's simply not going to falter. Vanity and greed may not be literally synonymous, but greed is a very close second nonetheless.

The simple fact is, I have already answered all of these questions before they were even asked. How is that not getting through?

Instead of asking the same question, take something I've said on it and explain what you see wrong with it. I want you to C&P something from here or the other thread and tell me how it is wrong.

I am not going to repeat myself over and over. It is entirely too much stuff to explain everytime you want to ask and promote the same shit. Over and over and over.
I'm starting to think that there is no real inquiry//

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

You want more than needed out of self-importance.

Wanting more than you need is the definition of greed, dude. But whatever, believe what you will.

vanity is attached with sin in general.

I agree that self importance is attached to most sin in part (in the form of selfishness), but you're going to ridiculous ends to shoehorn everything into your idea. There greater things influencing certain 'immoral' acts than self importance alone.

but greed is a very close second nonetheless.

That still doesn't address how I was able to use wrath in place of vanity for your idea.

Instead of asking the same question, take something I've said on it and explain what you see wrong with it. I want you to C&P something from here or the other thread and tell me how it is wrong.

Okay.

There is nothing immoral that doesn't result from vanity.

Your definition of vanity (self importance in your words) is so vague that anything can fit in its place. If everything arises from self importance, the only way around it is to be completely selfless or entirely reactionary. You try and shoehorn everything into your view without adapting it. Even if self importance plays a role in all sins, there are greater impacts that would still have someone commit an immoral act(like wrath or lust or greed or envy), so the self importance is moot in many cases. Your idea is not very applicable to the human condition because to fix it would require not being human. That may work for some people, but I know it wouldn't work for me.

All of that is why you are wrong.

I'm starting to think that there is no real inquiry

Why vanity? Why must it be condensed into a single issue? Real life and morality are far more complex, so why try and reduce it to a black and white issue?

------------------------------------

If god is not benevolent, what kind of afterlife faces the "good" people (let alone the bad ones)?

It reminds me of a scene in Johnny the Homicidal Maniac. As anvilicious as most of that comic is, he did have an interesting idea of Heaven. All of the people in Heaven sit on chairs in an endless room. They have powers like that of a god, but they do not use them. They simply sit because they are entirely content. If something like that is all that waits for us in the end... well, that'd suck. Growth is part of being human.

Benevolence and malevolence don't enter in: death is just death.

I think this is a big thing that we're missing today (at least in many places). We focus a lot on death rather than life. Why not focus on what you can do in this world for the sake of improving life, rather than for the afterlife?

For murder, I could see a lot of support for it being universally bad (even when justified). Stealing is a little more tricky. This one gets into a need to assess people owning things, what it means to own something, etc.

I tend to eschew the idea of justifying something. In my mind, when you've done something bad, you've done something bad regardless of whether or not you needed to. We can look at whether something was necessary or not and withhold punishment based on that, but we should never consider the wrong act a 'good' thing.

The issue with the concept of justification is that it means that the act itself wasn't bad because of the situation. Let's say you have a dangerous criminal that you can't stop with the law, so you resort to vigilantism. Sure, he needed to be stopped, but that doesn't mean what you did wasn't against the law. Even if we all agree it was necessary, you've still broken the law. That distinction, that you will never have not broken the law, is how I regard morality. Granted, the analogy isn't completely airtight as we have loopholes in legal systems, but I think the point gets across.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sum1sgruj
See, this is why debating with you two is so frustrating. I say that you cannot believe in Christ and flaunt vanity, and..
you know what, it's not even worth wasting space on this post

It sure is tough when people want you explain or justify your claims, huh? Wouldn't want to waste space on actually responding to the refutations against you... You still haven't actually responded to the refutation, by the way.

This is a test of patience for me, let me assure you. I figured I'd post this just to show where my frustration comes in with this debate.

I said that you cannot believe in Christ and flaunt vanity. You bring a literal construct of how it could be so. I was so obviously not speaking in the extreme literal sense you are throwing up.
So no, I wouldn't want to waste space talking about something so incredibly asinine.

Anyways, I want to post these past statements (that answer your current questions, mind you) to show where I stand as far as these accusations against me go. The quotes in red are my past explanations.

Vanity is elementary, every other sin is secondary. I don't know how this gets lost in translation.
But I guess it takes a certain amount of intuition to realize that vanity is attached with sin in general. Greed, wrath, jealousy, etc. are all components of vanity alone.

This means that every sin results from vanity.
That is why someone can replace vanity with other sins in the examples I posted.

This wraps up the concept of vanity.

Well, the first thing to heed is that God gets angry and grieves throughout certain parts of the bible, so omnipotence shouldn't be taken to it's full literal construct. If He was 100% omnipotent, he would not be angry or grieved, because He would've known it was going to happen infinite years beforehand.

Another thing is that regardless if evil, it was not specifically created by God, it was created by breaking His tenets. Lucifer's vanity (self importance; greed) led to how things are now. Like a chaos theory, knowledge of good and evil topples man like dominoes.

Lucifer becomes jealous in Heaven, and is cast out. Since he was promised to be the keeper of Earth, he threw man through the loop.
Eve- became tempted to eat the forbidden fruit. After doing so she felt ashamed and insecure, so she had Adam eat the forbidden fruit also. They both became ashamed and covered themselves with garments, as well as being fearful of God.
See, what happened was that the tree itself bore no knowledge. The knowledge of good and evil was gained by the act of disobeying God.
Once they became enlightened, they knew of shame, fear, anger, etc. and so were booted out of Eden for cursing all of man.

This is why God is held to be omnibenevolent. He has the exaction of benevolence that outdoes man-made morals. To illustrate it further:
Sin literally translates to 'missing the point'. Because we miss the point, we create and continue a flux of evil. This idea alone presents a high morality of God, as it happened exactly like so.

Notice that God kicked Adam and Eve out of Eden instead of annihilating them. If He let them stay in Eden, man would've still eventually been screwed. He did so for them to repent even though they screwed man forever and deserved worse.
The Quran states that killing one man is like killing all mankind. This is inspired by the fact that if God killed Adam and Eve, you or anyone you know wouldn't be alive today.

But that's just a little something I wanted to throw out there. The rest is backdrop detail to vanity and a broad look at God.

The point of Hell is balance. The idea of holiness is perfection. God served grace out of acknowledgment that we as man cannot achieve such. If we refuse that, balance must be maintained. I see no reason why God would or should be cruel. There is nothing in the Bible that suggests that He doesn't want the best for man, some just naturally see an unjust nature of Him because they fail to see the big picture.

Pretty much, you fail to see the big picture.

I believe He is omnipotent, but also capable of making mistakes. This is quite relevant throughout the entirety of the Bible. He has the power to create life and a universe for life to dwell in, and yet He becomes grieved to see man screw itself. It's not so much a tantrum as it is dismay and correction.

Yes, I know the literal definition of omnipotence. Save it.
This is the infliction God endures while dealing with man. He made something He even proclaims to be ashamed of ever making, and yet does not wish to see it all completely destroyed either.

And life without free will is vain, as there is no purpose in it. Does God want praise? How is it praise if there is no will in it? Does God want company? How is it company if there is no will in it? Does God need slaves? No, He's God. What purpose would he need slaves?

Vain- lacking substance or worth.
Yet it is the root word of vanity
Vanity- self importance

The bible takes advantage of these terms to exemplify that when you die, none of your greed or self preservation meant anything, and all it did was indirectly contribute to others poverty.

Oh, and life without free will is vain to a god who could not possibly have any purpose of it. Almost got carried away

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

This means that every sin results from vanity.
That is why someone can replace vanity with other sins in the examples I posted.
This wraps up the concept of vanity.

I'd argue that vanity and all other sins are components of greed. The urge to want and covet occurs before placing yourself above others, meaning self importance (vanity) is adopted later to facilitate stealing or doing some other immoral act. That makes vanity secondary to greed, unlike your statement. That's why you can replace greed with vanity in the example I just posted.

I used your logical form, changing vanity to greed, and achieved the same result. Your argument is so vague it's weightless. But I suppose discussing it any further is a moot point. You think you have a really brilliant insight here.

Vain- lacking substance or worth.
Yet it is the root word of vanity
Vanity- self importance
The bible takes advantage of these terms to exemplify that when you die, none of your greed or self preservation meant anything, and all it did was indirectly contribute to others poverty.

How does the Bible take advantage of a word from a language it wasn't written in, especially when the etymology of that word occurred in the 13th-14th centuries? Its your belief that takes advantage of the word.

All I'm arguing is that your view is such a liberal interpretation of the Bible that it's silly to consider any other interpretation a crock, which you seem to be doing. How is interpreting it literally worse than the way you do so? At least if you interpret it literally, everyone will arrive at the same conclusion.

Not to mention that you seem to take some things from it to be completely literal (the existence of Eden, angels, the earth being 6000 years old, even God himself) while disregarding others as silly and impossible. Exactly how do you distinguish between the two? You think it being a literal snake and a literal sea monster in Revelations is ridiculous and fantastical, but I consider the idea of Eden, God, and angels as just as ridiculous and fantastical. Your decisions of what is literal and what is not is completely arbitrary; it's based on your own taste.

And yet you don't seem to consider that nearly any other interpretation of the Bible is equally valid to yours, and some more so (as they are actually concerned with what is said, rather than completely loose interpretations).

I'm beginning to ramble. Bollocks.

Oh, and life without free will is vain to a god who could not possibly have any purpose of it. Almost got carried away

How do you know what is pointless to God? It's difficult and rather foolish to try and suppose the reasoning of another human being, or even an animal, but to do so with God? That's quite vain of you.

Also, you question the need God has for slaves. I question why he needs praise, worship, or company. Why didn't the angels suffice? They clearly had free will, if Lucifer was any inclination.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

I'd argue that vanity and all other sins are components of greed. The urge to want and covet occurs before placing yourself above others, meaning self importance (vanity) is adopted later to facilitate stealing or doing some other immoral act. That makes vanity secondary to greed, unlike your statement. That's why you can replace greed with vanity in the example I just posted.

I used your logical form, changing vanity to greed, and achieved the same result. Your argument is so vague it's weightless. But I suppose discussing it any further is a moot point. You think you have a really brilliant insight here.
How does the Bible take advantage of a word from a language it wasn't written in, especially when the etymology of that word occurred in the 13th-14th centuries? Its your belief that takes advantage of the word.

All I'm arguing is that your view is such a liberal interpretation of the Bible that it's silly to consider any other interpretation a crock, which you seem to be doing. How is interpreting it literally worse than the way you do so? At least if you interpret it literally, everyone will arrive at the same conclusion.

Not to mention that you seem to take some things from it to be completely literal (the existence of Eden, angels, the earth being 6000 years old, even God himself) while disregarding others as silly and impossible. Exactly how do you distinguish between the two? You think it being a literal snake and a literal sea monster in Revelations is ridiculous and fantastical, but I consider the idea of Eden, God, and angels as just as ridiculous and fantastical. Your decisions of what is literal and what is not is completely arbitrary; it's based on your own taste.

And yet you don't seem to consider that nearly any other interpretation of the Bible is equally valid to yours, and some more so (as they are actually concerned with what is said, rather than completely loose interpretations).

I'm beginning to ramble. Bollocks.

How do you know what is pointless to God? It's difficult and rather foolish to try and suppose the reasoning of another human being, or even an animal, but to do so with God? That's quite vain of you.

Also, you question the need God has for slaves. I question why he needs praise, worship, or company. Why didn't the angels suffice? They clearly had free will, if Lucifer was any inclination.

Omg,, you cannot have greed without first having vanity. How can you have greed without having vanity?
For the last time, vanity is elementary. If you do not have vanity, you cannot have greed, lust, wrath, etc. PERIOD. It's just that damn simple. You are arguing with a truth that cannot be argued against.

And you want to talk about how the bible doesn't use a word that didn't exist then..
Well no shit// The Bible also says almost nothing of the angelic/demonic hierarchy or the affairs in the realms either.
Believe it or not, the Jews did not have a Bible. How the hell could they,, they were living it. The Bible is actually based upon the concepts of God, angels, demons, and the like that they believed in after Moses introduced it to them. Therefore, the Bible is just a history/instruction book and is all that is needed for a believer. The rest is left to the religious authorities.

When it comes to the Bible, however, you have to have a formidable rationality to understand it. It is one of the most mysterious books known to man.
There are ways to help decipher it's meanings, however.
Numerology, for example, riddles the Bible. You will see it in metaphorical as well as literal text.
You will find constants that appear and appear again throughout the Bible, metaphorical as well as literal.
As far as metaphors/literal text: Reasoning and intuition.

Here's a fun fact: The beast from the sea. I stated that it is speaking of the Anitchrist- the beast that will arise from the sea of people.
Now I guess it's safe to assume that you play Final Fantasy. What's the summon's name that is a big sea urchin? Leviathan.
In angel/demonology, Leviathan was an angel in the Seraphim within Heaven before being cast out with Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels.
But you do not need to be a FF fan to know this. All you need to do, like me, is study the aspects of the religion as a whole before making brash conceptions of it.
In educating yourself, it becomes easier to uncover what is/isn't metaphorical.
But really, if you do not have intuition, it is pointless to even attempt to understand.

On another subject you have posted:
Why would God need praise, worship, etc.

Well, I never said that He needed those things, I was simply saying that life with free will isn't vain if He chose to want those things.
It is quite simple that God would have no need for life without free will. It''s not as if I am speaking for Him, I am telling the reality that God is powerful and has no need for such a thing.
Maybe He just wanted to create life to watch it prosper. We are referred to being the object of His love./ But nonetheless, the elements that surround Him and the religion practically conclude that He wouldn't make life without free will.
Likely because He is a god of purity, and such an act is vain

I have exemplified a lot of the rationale more than once.

Reason and intuition_

 

[Jquestionmark]

Vain- lacking substance or worth.
Yet it is the root word of vanity
Vanity- self importance

Just so you know: picking a specific definition for a word that is irrelevant to a second word that the first word happens to be a root for does not mean that the two definitions magically connect.

You might not be aware of this since you're so fond of making up your own definitions, but english words sometimes have more than one definition. You're performing a logical fallacy called equivocation, where you're using the other definition for a word and pretending it works in your context (when you were originally using a different definition). If you want, since you might be a bit confused, I could show you an example with the words "right" "left" and "wrong" just to show how what you're doing with combining vain (lacking substance or worth) and vain/vanity (self importance) looks like it makes sense but is actually absurd. If this is how you define "vanity" and "vain", then everything you've said up to this point is completely incorrect.

That enough evidence that you're wrong? It is for anyone who understands basic logic/debate.

Final interesting note for this part of this post: "I am telling the reality that God is powerful and has no need for such a thing."
So you DO believe in god. Glad we finally got that one answered.

unadulteratedawesome: You're being too nice to him. You've let him escape from his vanity causes all destruction claim. Don't let him apply it to morality until he answers how it causes earthquakes.

And, if we're going to talk about acts in a moral context, what differentiates "good" from "necessary"? Wouldn't accomplishing a necessary thing be good? Probably not always (murder again comes up), but just food for thought.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

And, if we're going to talk about acts in a moral context, what differentiates "good" from "necessary"? Wouldn't accomplishing a necessary thing be good? Probably not always (murder again comes up), but just food for thought.

Harm differentiates good from necessary (at least to me). It may be necessary to kill someone, but it's never good. And it's good to help someone, but not always necessary. It's mainly an internal thing, but I dislike viewing a bad act as good in any circumstance. Once you begin viewing bad acts as good in certain contexts, it's not much of a jump to extremism. If it becomes good to kill, and then good to kill an infidel, then there's not much of a deterrent not to do it.

Then again, the issue with this is that I don't view some acts as bad in the first place that others thing is bad. There's others, but sex out of wedlock is one. I don't see that as bad in anyway, but some people do. The subjective context of morality (even if we can agree that in most cases murder and stealing and other such things are wrong) muddies it up a bit. Not to mention I don't consider being offended harm, but many people do. So even harm can be up in the air in some cases.

Especially when you're discussing god(s). A discussion of god normally has a discussion of objective morality, or morality created by god. To me that just seems like might makes right. Morality is subjective to every sentient creature, even a god. The only reason a god's might be considered 'superior' is because it can smush you if it gets pissed enough or damn you to an unpleasant afterlife.

Don't let him apply it to morality until he answers how it causes earthquakes.

If I address that point seriously, I may have an aneurysm. It's along the same lines as God punishing man with natural disasters because we're not doing what the Bible says. And if he wants to argue that earthquakes are caused by our vanity, he's saying the same thing. And that means God is malevolent as fuck.

Or it could just be that natural disasters are natural occurrences.

---------------------------------------------

you cannot have greed without first having vanity. How can you have greed without having vanity?

If you needed vanity to come first, then I couldn't have swapped any sin with vanity and ended up with the same result. I did it with wrath as well and it worked fine. You haven't shown why vanity must come first, you've simply stated it. Yes, in your mind Lucifer was vain first and that started a chain reaction - but that doesn't explain why vanity is always the root cause of every sin. To be able to make it the root cause of every sin you've kept your definition very wide reaching and vague - which I can do with any other sin and have it work the exact same way. If it had to be vanity then it wouldn't be able to be replaced by any other sin.

In angel/demonology, Leviathan was an angel in the Seraphim within Heaven before being cast out with Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels.

Demonology is to the Bible as fan fiction is to Final Fantasy. Sure, the core of the fan fiction may come from the original source (Leviathan or Lucifer, etc), but everything else is made-up bullshit. Where the hell does it come from that Leviathan is an angel? All it says about Behemoth, Ziz, and Leviathan is that they were monsters created by God and placed on earth when He made everything else. It wasn't until later that they began to take on demon overtones in art as enemies of the faithful (probably because Leviathan is described in Job as being totally badass).

The problem with demonology and any other study that tries to illuminate more about the good book is - there's no other sources. There's the Bible and some of the books that were excluded, and that's it. Everything else people just make up. To see why that doesn't work, just look at the history of Catholic canon and how inconsistent it can be.

It is quite simple that God would have no need for life without free will. It''s not as if I am speaking for Him, I am telling the reality that God is powerful and has no need for such a thing

Okay, if God really wanted some company with free will, then why didn't he make some peers? Y'know, other gods? He'd understand them far more than he does us (if the numerous mess-ups he's committed according to the Bible are any inclination).

Regardless, his motivations for making humans with free will is irrelevant. The issue is that there's a mess resulting from it that He has yet to clean up (Not that he needs to, but it doesn't seem like a benevolent god would pout in his room).

 

[Sum1sgruj]

I am making a connection with the words that the bible implies. If you are going to state that it is a logical fallacy, make sure it is accurate, because the connection works.

The take on vanity is undeniable. I am just amused to see you all keep fighting it, as it really shows the element of debating with you three in general.

unadulteratedawesome: You're being too nice to him. You've let him escape from his vanity causes all destruction claim. Don't let him apply it to morality until he answers how it causes earthquakes.

No, I think he finally gets it. Earthquakes? Oh, you mean exaction for the cruelty that vanity causes.. okay. Vanity doesn't cause earthquakes.

Men murder each other. We drop nukes and war constantly. People die everyday of unnatural causes.
God has promised you paradise so long as you can prove you will not corrupt Heaven with vanity as you do Earth.
It seems pretty damn fair to me.
One minute you are talking about how murder is so wrong and whatnot,, so I guess I'll take you and your entire race and condemn them to slavery in a hot desert. And you can worship me for doing so. But you say slavery is wrong..
You defeat yourself at your own argument.

NOTE: Hmm.. I see that I have made my points. The rest is just sour semantics and desperate countering. I see no more reason to be on this debate.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

No, I think he finally gets it. Earthquakes? Oh, you mean exaction for the cruelty that vanity causes.. okay.

Wait, so you actually believe that man is punished with natural disasters for our indiscretions? That is nothing short of insane. What did the current generation in Japan do to deserve an earthquake? If such a God exists that demands such things happen, then He must be abolished. Such disproportionate and aimless retribution is mad and cruel.

I'd much prefer an apathetic god that lets us do as we please and allows things to naturally occur. At least that god truly respects freedom and choice.

It seems pretty damn fair to me.

Even if 50% of the people God killed with natural disasters deserved to die, that still does not excuse what He does. I mean shit, that's a kill count worse than Hitler's or Stalin's.

so I guess I'll take you and your entire race and condemn them to slavery in a hot desert. And you can worship me for doing so. But you say slavery is wrong..

Both of those things are wrong. What the hell are you talking about?

If you are going to state that it is a logical fallacy, make sure it is accurate, because the connection works.

I already explained how many non-literal interpretations people can make of the Bible... but what's the point? You completely ignored when you were identified as making textbook fallacies. You are concerned with your own views, not with the truth.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

First of all, how am I concerned with my own views and not the truth, when you are saying god is evil, something the Bible metaphorically and literally denies?
God is benevolent and has His reasons for doing what He does. Has it occurred that maybe the earthquake in Japan is not His doing, but rather He didn't prevent it? In otherwords, Japan is secular, so let them have whatever naturally happens with them.
And the thing with vanity,, I spoke the truth, and what happens? Someone brings up natural disaster like there is any f*cking connection whatsoever.
Like it's going to undo the truth I have spoken on vanity..

The point is this, I have re-posted my entire explanation on God, and you all are asking the same questions and assuming the same things without even challenging what I stated.
Until anyone provides why those explanations are false, everything else stated is vain.

Banding together against me out of necessity.
Brings to light my user name

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

when you are saying god is evil, something the Bible metaphorically and literally denies?

Though this has been focused on Christianity, I am not using the Bible as my source. There is more than one religion or worldview. I said that God is either all-powerful and malevolent or impotent and benevolent. This is based on my own observation, not the Bible. Though he's also a bastard in the Bible, too. Doesn't matter how much it's said he's benevolent if he kills people for terrible reasons.

Has it occurred that maybe the earthquake in Japan is not His doing, but rather He didn't prevent it?

So he's still a dick. Why doesn't he let nature decide what happens all the time, rather than playing favorites? Frankly, I think plate tectonics can explain the earthquake better than religion, but whatever.

Someone brings up natural disaster like there is any f*cking connection whatsoever.

Do you have amnesia? Did you forget what you just posted?

No, I think he finally gets it. Earthquakes? Oh, you mean exaction for the cruelty that vanity causes.. okay. Vanity doesn't cause earthquakes.

You just said that natural disasters are the exaction for the cruelty vanity causes.

You have posted two exactly contradictory statements. Again.

The point is this, I have re-posted my entire explanation on God

And it's still as poor as it was from the beginning.

without even challenging what I stated.

I challenge what you say in every post!

Until anyone provides why those explanations are false, everything else stated is vain.

I've provided explanations (different ones, even) about why it's false. You can believe what you will in spite of evidence, but don't deny that we ever said something.

Banding together against me out of necessity.

It is necessary because you are acting as the enemy of reason and rational thought. You are either mad or a very good player at Devil's advocate.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Though this has been focused on Christianity, I am not using the Bible as my source. There is more than one religion or worldview. I said that God is either all-powerful and malevolent or impotent and benevolent. This is based on my own observation, not the Bible. Though he's also a bastard in the Bible, too. Doesn't matter how much it's said he's benevolent if he kills people for terrible reasons.

So he's still a dick. Why doesn't he let nature decide what happens all the time, rather than playing favorites? Frankly, I think plate tectonics can explain the earthquake better than religion, but whatever.

Do you have amnesia? Did you forget what you just posted?

You just said that natural disasters are the exaction for the cruelty vanity causes.

You have posted two exactly contradictory statements. Again.

And it's still as poor as it was from the beginning.

I challenge what you say in every post!

I've provided explanations (different ones, even) about why it's false. You can believe what you will in spite of evidence, but don't deny that we ever said something.

It is necessary because you are acting as the enemy of reason and rational thought. You are either mad or a very good player at Devil's advocate.

This is EXACTLY what I mean. I say that vanity is irrelevant to natural disasters (which it IS) but still humor the argument posted against me. If anyone is contradictory, it's you and him for bringing it up in the first place.

Even now, you have failed to tell how my past explanations are false. YOU ARE THE ONE WITHOUT REASON. It is exemplified by the what you are saying.

I said that vanity not only makes you two-faced to benevolence, but it also causes immorality. It doesn't take a Hitler. The electricity you are using on your computer right now is resulting in someone elses poverty. When you take a shower, someone is dying of thirst. You do nothing about it out of vanity.
Why don't you get past your cradled lifestyle and see how the world really is. Do you really think that what you do, even as an average person, does not cause or continue poverty? If you cannot fathom that, then it is comical that you would think God is evil.

I am done with this debate. You all are so lost in self-righteousness that you become blind to the obvious and oblivious to complexity.
Good-bye