Not “unjust”, merely dumb. If there are several ways to achieve a desired result, then to choose an inferior solution (all other things being equal) is the sign of stupidity or indifference - or the lack of the creator. To have a chlorophyll based life is vastly superior to the kill or be killed predatorial arrangement. The food (sunlight) is readily available, there is no waste product. No pain, no suffering. What could be better?
Gorgias:
You really should know better than to present your opinion as a fact. Revelation means nothing to non-believers.
Thank you. Yes, it means to be able. That’s distinct from will do any particular thing. Therefore, the fact that a particular event doesn’t occur, doesn’t disprove God’s omnipotence.
Yes, He could. The fact that he, doesn’t though…
…doesn’t mean that he doesn’t want you to believe. It happens on his terms, not ours. We’re not the God in this scenario, remember?
No it doesn’t. Keep reading – it’s pretty simple:
Monogenesis? If the claim is that the allegory teaches monogenesis, then we don’t need the literal interpretation to hold to that claim.
Part of the allegory. Not needed literally in order for the lesson to hold.
Part of the allegory. In fact, it’s the whole point of the story.
Huh? The Biblical foundation is the story! It was given as an allegory for what God wanted to teach: the first sin of humankind and its consequences. The ‘baby’ is still alive and well, even though we might throw out the ‘bathwater’ of literalistic interpretation.
Fine… but that claim, then, is “we know God exists by virtue of the fact that He does what we tell Him to do.” That’s not a reasonable assertion.
God prefers ‘faith’. You got it! Good job!
When you get that job, let me know. Until then, your attempts to project your preferences on God aren’t relevant.
Having discovered God’s self-revelation, the Church presents its meaning. Really… this is getting tedious.
Umm… you realize that the “argument from silence” is a logical fallacy… don’t you?
Since I did say otherwise, your remark was superfluous.
Learning is our job, and its parameters must be on OUR terms. A teacher wants his students to learn. If he does not provide all the necessary means, he is not in the position to chastise them for not knowing. Every student is different. Some need more “revelation” than others.
An allegory should refer to something in reality. If there was no original sin, the whole Christian system collapses. What was that “original” sin is the whole pivotal point. To say: “well, there was one, but no one knows what it was, you just have to trust some other people” is nonsense. Especially since none of the “other people” have any more information than you do.
Which describes something that did not happen? A “fairy tale” is the foundation?
God prefers blind faith. Which is the whole problem.
No, I never heard that. Just like the argument from evil is not a fallacy either. Both of them are iron-clad evidence that God does not care. (or does not exist)
Right. 'Cause a student who says “teach it this way or else I refuse to listen, and the failure is yours” is being reasonable.
Right. 'Cause a student – who, very literally, comes to the teacher because he realizes the teacher has perspective that he, the student, does not – should presume he knows better than the teacher.
True. Doesn’t mean that the student dictates terms to the teacher (especially in the case of an omniscient teacher!)
This is an incorrect analogy.
Why would there be? The contradiction is between God’s alleged “goodness” and the existence of evil. IF you would assert that God is “evil”, THEN there would be a contradiction between the existence of “good”, and God’s alleged evil nature.
Suuuuuure.
No… the teacher has left plenty of material for his students. Many have testified to his existence, both in terms of personal experiences and the truth of his teaching.
Not a substitute teacher, but the proxy of the teacher. His authority proceeds from eyewitnesses and those who encountered the teacher while he taught on earth.
Certainly not. However, they certainly speak authoritatively.
Actually, the teacher claims it, too… but some students persist in suggesting he does not. There are always some students who think that they know more than their teacher. The rest of us roll our eyes when they say so.
No. The student rejects all the arguments that he is in error. It’s ok, though. The rest of us know he’s wrong, and are trying to help him with his illogic and stubbornness.
A summary of the summary:
Actually, he did “manifest himself in a physical fashion” about 2000 years ago. He went about explaining himself and his purpose. What did he get for that? Betrayed, ridiculed, scourged and hung on a cross to die.
On the question of who wants what, when I see you scourged and hung on a cross because of your dedication to anything, I will begin to take you as seriously as I do the God-Man.
Enumerate them, please.
Where does the teacher claim it? In the Bible? But you already denied that the Bible can be read literally. By the way, “rolling your eyes” is not an argument.
What arguments? Would you provide some? Are there any arguments to explain the silence of God? The problem of evil?
Responses:
There is not a single anonymous copy of the Gospels. Every extant copy of the codices from ancient times have their currently known human authors named on them. The authors were known and reasons why these specific writings were “selected” as canon is spelled out in great detail by the Church and NT scholars.
You haven’t provided any evidence at all for your position. You’ve just made wild unsupported assertions and generalizations dependent upon a juvenile analogy of student and teacher so this demand for “actual evidence” should be turned, first of all upon yourself.
I merely point out the contradiction between God’s alleged loving nature and the obviously unnecessary and gratuitous pain and suffering. If you wish to contend that the pain and suffering is NOT unnecessary, go ahead and bring up arguments for it. But you have your work cut out for you. You need to bring up evidence that ALL the pains and sufferings are actually “good” in disguise. Start with the Holocaust. And continue with the pains and sufferings coming from the process of teething. How can you explain those AWAY?
Baloney. Love is a feeling or an attitude, not subject to volitional decisions. Falling in love does not happen in a process of “Jack” decides that he will love “Jill”. And “free will” cannot account for the pains and sufferings coming from natural causes. (Some nincompoops argue that the naturally existing pains and sufferings are due to the original sin.)
It certainly does. Love is acting in the best interest of another. Someone, who does NOT act in the best interest of others cannot claim any kind of “love”.
Since there are several good possible decisions that can be made, you are not converted into some “robot” if all your available choices are good ones. What is the point to make “bad” decisions? Can you give any reasons for “making bad decisions”?