quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

quote:

Nature is indifferent to human suffering.

Nature does not give a shit!

I disagree.  Nature doesn't have a collective consciousness to do anything.  It just 'is'.  Why do you need to instill human emotion onto something that isn't human?

Man may be nothing more than a cosmic and insignificant burp in the eternal swirl of matter and energy.

I don't see anything contructive in anyone seeing anything as insignificant.

the.dark.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

quote:

ORIGINAL: looking4princess

quote:

Well, first you would have to define what you mean by christian - in other words - which one? Baptist? JW? etc... and then I am assuming that you are excluding the catholic god from this then?

It would help the discussion if you single out a specific belief.

Excuse me if I suspect you are playing a game of Defense Attorney with me now. I cannot imagine why you would assume to exclude any of the denominations. The paradox of omnipotent god vs human suffering has been a common thread throughout. The problem is well acknowledged from the Prophet Amos and Job to the Gospel of John and Revelations of John. "Why has thou abandoned me, oh Lord," etc. The problem is pretty consistently recognized. The answers vary, however. So, please spare me such nit-picking as demanding definitions of "christian." No, I fear you are just playing a distracting game with me. I would hope for better than that from you.

Ah.... hope in something you do not know.  So it's not just the religious that use that practice.

The problem with your premise is that you are assuming that all christians think the same.  That would be an incorrect assumption and it shows that you are making your case (that is the attorney in me showing) against a group of people instead of a single section with information that has nothing to do with some of those people.

Making generalised assessments like you have only means you are no different to all the people you are rallying against that makes a blanket statement.  Like - all snow is white.  Or the sky is blue.  You are working only on what you think you see, not on what you know.  Isn't that part of your complaint about christians?

the.dark.

I do believe you continue to play an avoidance ploy much like Bill Clinton parsing "It depends on what you think the meaning of IS is." Let me offer, Mr Attorney, that I am including all people of the Book and that the meaning of Evil is unnecessary suffering of innocent humans permitted by the Omnipotent God of the Book. I invite you to address that issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Unnecessary suffering... i would love you to explain who decides what is necessary and what is unnecessary as it applies to humans.. animals.. nature in general.

I do believe you continue to play an avoidance ploy much like Bill Clinton parsing "It depends on what you think the meaning of IS is." Let me offer, Mr Attorney, that I am including all people of the Book and that the meaning of Evil is unnecessary suffering of innocent humans permitted by the Omnipotent God of the Book. I invite you to address that issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: looking4princess

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Unnecessary suffering... i would love you to explain who decides what is necessary and what is unnecessary as it applies to humans.. animals.. nature in general.

I equate unnessary with innocent. Say, an infant drowned by a tsunamis. I hold Nature to be unfeeling and without motive. Others, not I, argue that the Christian God has the power and beneveolence to prevent such an occurence. He seems to be missing. Hence, the issue of why. I have defined this earlier, I think.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

I do believe you continue to play an avoidance ploy much like Bill Clinton parsing "It depends on what you think the meaning of IS is." Let me offer, Mr Attorney, that I am including all people of the Book and that the meaning of Evil is unnecessary suffering of innocent humans permitted by the Omnipotent God of the Book. I invite you to address that issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: looking4princess

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Unnecessary suffering... i would love you to explain who decides what is necessary and what is unnecessary as it applies to humans.. animals.. nature in general.

I equate unnessary with innocent. Say, an infant drowned by a tsunamis. I hold Nature to be unfeeling and without motive. Others, not I, argue that the Christian God has the power and beneveolence to prevent such an occurence. He seems to be missing. Hence, the issue of why. I have defined this earlier, I think.

quote:

ORIGINAL: looking4princess

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

quote:

Nature is indifferent to human suffering.

Nature does not give a shit!

I disagree. Nature doesn't have a collective consciousness to do anything. It just 'is'. Why do you need to instill human emotion onto something that isn't human?

Man may be nothing more than a cosmic and insignificant burp in the eternal swirl of matter and energy.

I don't see anything contructive in anyone seeing anything as insignificant.

the.dark.

What I had in mind here were the reports that there have been at least FIVE geological catastrophes that resulted in the extinction of large numbers of Species. Accepting that geological history, it may be fair to say there is nothing really all that special about the human species. We can as well be here today and gone tomorrow. Sorry I did not make that more clear but fell back on flippancy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom


I was only addressing the problem of evil, not of the broader argument of creation and a creator, which is quite another topic of its own. My point was simply that even ridiculously miniscule changes in the physical laws of the universe would result in an existence devoid of life and in most cases even devoid of matter or existence as we know it. The same laws of physics and biology that permit the creation of life also necessarily include the existence of disease and natural disasters. The dynamism is both constructive and destructive.

quote:

While certainly a fine colliquial meaning of "evil", your interpretation of the term has little to nothing to do with good and evil in terms of the philosophical question. Even in a common speech sense, your definition is shaky. There's the old trope of good intentions and the road to hell illustrating this shortcoming. There are additionally many varieties of negligence that most people would call evil even in the absence of intentions to do wrong.

quote:

More to the point, since ancient Greece, evil is generally equated with suffering. Epicurius even went so far as to assert that the greatest good is the complete absence of suffering.

quote:

We are put on this Earth to fart about. Never let anybody tell you any different.

quote:

ORIGINAL: looking4princess
I equate unnecessary with innocent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: looking4princess
I guess i was confused by this statement you made: So, it is reasonable to presume that in order to create a universe with life and sentience, that the universe and interaction of life must be dynamic. There you did refer to creating a Universe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: looking4princess

quote:

While certainly a fine colliquial meaning of "evil", your interpretation of the term has little to nothing to do with good and evil in terms of the philosophical question. Even in a common speech sense, your definition is shaky. There's the old trope of good intentions and the road to hell illustrating this shortcoming. There are additionally many varieties of negligence that most people would call evil even in the absence of intentions to do wrong.

50 points for you, sir. I will conceed that my use of the word intent as a requisite for Evil did leave out Evil by omission (although I wonder if even omission does not require intent to be considered Evil rather than mere accident) Is unintentional negligence really Evil? Or more to your point, can good intentions be considered Evil if their outcome is harmful? Don't know if I wish to buy into that.

i fail to see how this applies to acts of Nature and ask you to enlighten me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: looking4princess

quote:

More to the point, since ancient Greece, evil is generally equated with suffering. Epicurius even went so far as to assert that the greatest good is the complete absence of suffering.

Exactly! We agree. Evil is generally equated with suffering. So where is the benevolent God?

I speak from only passing reference, admittedly weak, that Epicurus was bereted by the propagandists of the early Church who had a more active view of the necessity of suffering. There was this jew hanging from a tree to be justified after all. The philosophy of Epicurus, though somewhat popular at the time, did not fit the bill.

Anyway, we stray far from your definition of "Natural Evil" which still seems obscure to me and eludes me. Sorry. I just don't get what you mean.

But, I thank you for a damn fine discussion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

I do believe you continue to play an avoidance ploy much like Bill Clinton parsing "It depends on what you think the meaning of IS is." Let me offer, Mr Attorney, that I am including all people of the Book and that the meaning of Evil is unnecessary suffering of innocent humans permitted by the Omnipotent God of the Book. I invite you to address that issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: looking4princess

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Unnecessary suffering... i would love you to explain who decides what is necessary and what is unnecessary as it applies to humans.. animals.. nature in general.

I equate unnessary with innocent. Say, an infant drowned by a tsunamis. I hold Nature to be unfeeling and without motive. Others, not I, argue that the Christian God has the power and beneveolence to prevent such an occurence. He seems to be missing. Hence, the issue of why. I have defined this earlier, I think.

quote:

There's been an awful lot written about theodicy (making excuses for God acting like a shit), though: I don't think the Dominicans or the Jesuits do much of anything else since they changed the Inquisition to the Holy Office.
Have you not read (or seen) The Exorcist? That's full of excuses for God allowing this sort of thing to happen.

quote:

I'll take the blame for not being more exacting in my choise of words. Replace "to create a universe" with "for a universe to exist".

<snip>

I am of the mind that this is the best possible world that allows for both sentient life and free will. Some suffering is a necessary evil, if you will. Or rather, it is an unavoidable consequence of a universe suitable to the evolution of sentient life possessing free will.

"Nautral evil" is simply the suffering caused by the natural world, as opposed to the actions of sentient actors (moral evil).

quote:

ORIGINAL: looking4princess

My apologies to Miss Attorney. It is not my inclination to be harsh and ill-mannered. To make amends allow me to recommend Bart Ehrman's book GODS' PROBLEM How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question -Why We suffer. He is a Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina and his book is quite interesting and readable. Apologies, luv.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

quote:

ORIGINAL: looking4princess

My apologies to Miss Attorney. It is not my inclination to be harsh and ill-mannered. To make amends allow me to recommend Bart Ehrman's book GODS' PROBLEM How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question -Why We suffer. He is a Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina and his book is quite interesting and readable. Apologies, luv.

Babe... already read it, as I have most of his books.  He is fascinating.

the.dark.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark


I disagree.  Nature doesn't have a collective consciousness to do anything.