Yes, our Lord tells us to take up our cross daily and follow Him, and in the Beatitudes as recorded by St. Matthew’s Gospel one reads that the highest blessing is to be persecuted for His name’s sake; and our Lord admonishes us to endure to the end. Certainly, by that reckoning, Oleg Kalashnikov will hear from His Lord, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant!”
We know he was killed by the Kiev regime, though not the identity of the individual(s) who perpetrated the deed. And we have a very good idea who supports that regime — it was dead broke, deeply in debt, and without massive infusions of money/weapons/mercenaries, it would simply pop like a soap bubble.
We do not know why the Lord allows such evil to persist, and seemingly prevail, for a while.
Amerikanski on April 19, 2015 · at 11:07 pm UTC said:
“We do not know why the Lord allows such evil to persist, and seemingly prevail, for a while.”
But you still assign omnibenevolence and omnipotence to the Lord.
Epicurus put it like this:
“The gods can either take away evil from the world and will not, or, being willing to do so, cannot; or they neither can nor will, or lastly, they are both able and willing. If they have the will to remove evil and cannot, then they are not omnipotent. If they can, but will not, than they are not benevolent. If they are neither able nor willing, then they are neither omnipotent nor benevolent. Lastly, if they are both able and willing to annihilate evil, how does it exist?”
Why can’t the sheeple wean themselves off the opiate?
Anonymous on April 20, 2015 · at 9:27 pm UTC said: “Jesus taught love, personal responsibility, and self-determination. These are the things that Oleg was all about and what he died for.”
But prior to that, in fact prior to creation, Jesus decided to create Oleg’s killer’s – knowing that they would kill Oleg.
Re: tired old chestnut ” why doesn’t God make all the bad things go away “?
Perhaps in order to show in full color what the world becomes when the most of us don’t listen to God and we model the world in our image? We, ourselves, are the physical source of our own sorrows.
And let’s not be too brazen in our attitude toward God – as a refresher, we should reread ( or read for the first time as the case may be ) Genesis 6: 5 – 7.
I don’t expect you to believe a word anyone says who holds an opinion on God in contrast to yours, but the least you can do is avoid is that arrogance reflected in your Marx allusions that is endemic to those who scorn and disdain those of us who do believe.
You will change no one’s mind. You’ve decided to go down your road and take your chances – I’m sure you’re prepared for whatever/Whoever it is you will/won’t face whenever it is you move on.
Blue Horseshoe on April 20, 2015 · at 11:08 pm UTC said: Re: tired old chestnut ” why doesn’t God make all the bad things go away “?
…[]…
You will change no one’s mind. You’ve decided to go down your road and take your chances – I’m sure you’re prepared for whatever/Whoever it is you will/won’t face whenever it is you move on.”
It’s of no particular interest for me to change your mind. What I am interested to discover is why you think what you think.
In that regard, can you please address Epicurus last point i.e why does evil exist?, as defined in his simple truth-table repeated again here:
“The gods can either take away evil from the world and will not, or, being willing to do so, cannot; or they neither can nor will, or lastly, they are both able and willing. If they have the will to remove evil and cannot, then they are not omnipotent. If they can, but will not, than they are not benevolent. If they are neither able nor willing, then they are neither omnipotent nor benevolent. Lastly, if they are both able and willing to annihilate evil, how does it exist?”
It’s really fairly straightforward – if you read it slowly you should be able to provide a straightforward answer.
PS:
While you’re at it, can you please explain why I would waste time in preparatione for:
“whatever you won’t face whenever it is you move on
“U.S. commander: Russia wouldn’t dare take on NATO”
Cue in some looney tune sounds.
Yeah, that ‘Battle of the Bulge thingie was a real proof of US strength. And that was against rag-tag, German divisions, so, guess what happens if you’re up against the guys who beat that army?
A better question is would NATO dare take on Russia.I don’t think so.I think they like to beat their chest and flex their muscles and jaws a lot. But when they are hit with a good shot to the jaw they would crumple like a rag doll.And I think they know that.Hence all the flexing and jaw wagging.The only problem is if they talk themselves into a corner with no way out (Putin has been good at giving them a way out so far).That is why I’m concerned over the new US elections.There will be 24/7 “flexing and jaw wagging ” then.We need to wrap up the junta before then.Liberate Ukraine and end the fascists soon.
Only a fool argues with a madman.
It’s dumb to say, “he would not use that knife.”
Yes, he would–and he already has.
Hiroshima, Nagasaki–no other reason except a threat to Stalin.
And so many lunatic moves, the 1950 march to the Yalu, and Quemoy, and offering two nukes to the French for Dien BIen Phu. And Cuba 1962, when Nikita saved the world and lost face.
Agreed. NATO and US commanders are demented when they talk.
Dempsey: We factored in the S 300 missiles in our attack plans against Iran.
Yeah. And they also factored in that the Iranians have missiles that will sink carriers.
So, how do they suppose they will attack Iran, get those bunker busters onto their targets?
Oh, and then remove all regional targets from counter-attack, like carriers, embassies, military bases, US assets in the ME.
Dempsey would have a tough time defeating stone-throwing Neanderthals.
When US and NATO talk military might, they mean missiles launched from 1000 miles away and air strikes over villages and towns made out of mud and clay bricks. Third world targets.
A half-hour over Russia and all Western planes would be grounded because the losses in that half-hour would be catastrophic to any air force. Jets just don’t fly fast enough to evade the Russian missile systems.
Without air power, NATO and the US are military midgets on the land.
As for threatening Russian from inside Ukraine, until you see the skies filled with US planes, there will be no movement on the ground by troops in numbers large enough to scare the militia much less the Russians. American troops cannot fight without air support. Simply isn’t there style, tactics or training.
It’s like the Blue Coats taking on the Indians. Without gatling guns, all they fought were old men and women left in the villages.
The entire world of sovereign nations wants the S 300s and S 400s because those systems are the guarantee that the US is neutralized from attacking.
Amazing history of just over 70 years ago few are even aware of, as we get near that MAY 9 70th anniversary date which almost every west country has boycotted:
During World War II America’s strategic bombing campaign utilized several Soviet bases. “Shuttle bombing” is a tactic where bombers fly from their home base to bomb a first target and continue to a different location where they are refuelled and rearmed. The aircraft may then bomb a second target on the return leg to their home base.
–Operation Frantic, from June to September 1944: This was a series of air raids conducted by United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) bombers based in Britain or the Mediterranean which then landed at bases built by the Americans in Ukraine in the Soviet Union.
Hi Sanjay…well I would ask you the same question….my answer would be that we can only do what we can do …. pray and help with alternative media … what else ? Perhaps prepare for nuclear war … Sanjay, are you in India ?
How does one get evil out of the financial/banking structures? How does one get the US from funding turmoil across the globe?
Why was the Ukraine in such a miserable economic state (as was Russia until recently)?
What brought Germany to such a state that National Socialism was able to grow (and who funded NS, and why?)
Follow the money and you will see through the puppets.
If you want to stop the American Empire of Chaos from funding phony “pro-democracy” (read: destabilization) campaigns around the world, then the United States of America must be ended as an entity.
The United States needs to be plunged into a Second Civil War that will finish what the first Civil War started: the dissolution of the United States of America.
Nothing less.
The American Menace is a clear and present threat to the sovereignty of all peoples, nations, and religions that do not bow down and accept the superiority of that warped ideology known as American Values(TM).
As such, it has no moral legitimacy to exist.
All these pro-American apologists, alternative media, and “activists” desperately try to lie, deny, and spindoctor away this fundamental reality.
You are confusing the AZ Empire with the United States of America. Not the same thing. The AZ Empire is the warmonger and widowmaker, not the little united states, which is just a recruiting ground for cannonfodder in the Empire’s foreign wars. U.S. presidents serve the Empire, not the American people. That should be obvious.
The neatest ‘solution’ would be a global tactical ‘war of liberation.’
Takin Occupy as the template, a combination of hackers/guerilla units to neutralize the main suspects on all continents would be ideal. Hackers can disable command systems, including the banksters casino system, and the tactical GUs could abduct/neutralize the main political/fiscal players.
The www allows for the first time the identification of individuals directly responsible for war/atrocity across the globe – we know for example, all the main players both native and foreign responsible for the destruction of the Ukraine. Such would also avoid the worst aspects of war: the wholesale slaughter of entire populations country by country.
Taking out the architects instead of sending armies of brickies to certain doom makes much more sense to me.
Sorry to all I have a question for Saker
Why do Russian media call Navaly anti-corruption activist?
Navaly has many faces and he could be called many names, why to call him with a name which the Natoists are forcing on people?
And why there is not one single anti-corruption activist in Italy, Europe, USA, Canada… or at least nobody has got that title from media.
The Party of Progress headed by anti-corruption activist Aleksey Navalny has announced a strategic union with the RPR-Parnas party led by former Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov and invited all “people of good will” to run on their election lists. http://rt.com/politics/250633-russia-opposition-party-navalny/
RT and Russian leadership seem to use words for their ironic meaning, and the population seems to “get it”, understanding the dissonance.
A character like Navalny is on the West’s payroll, is burrowed into corrupt and dishonest “democratic” agitation, so it shows why the voters never select these stooges.
“Partner” is one descriptor that is ironic, also. It drives many of us nuts to hear it, but they use it in ironic sense, although it is the parlance of diplomatic protocol to refer to anyone in negotiation or relationship in the most general way as partner.
The danger with these stooges is they become sacrificial to be gunned down for propaganda purposes. If RT and Kremlin had demonized them, it adds value to the sacrifice. Nemtsov was of no consequence until he was slaughtered. Trying to raise him to sainthood is Herculean because he never had status as worth to the people. He only had value to his handlers. Navalny is even less worthy. It will take millions of dollars of “preparation” to elevate him. Of course, because Kiev is bumping off so many opposition, the US may start killing many more in the streets of Moscow to cover the bloodletting in Kiev (if it ever gets notices in EU and US media).
Very good insights, Red. Moscow should go even further and call their western “partners” – friends. Yes, friends. Doesn’t the Bible tell you to pour hot coals over the heads of your enemies? What makes Putin and Lavrov so invaluable to world peace is that they know how to defuse a dangerous situation. The world is a big tinderbox and Russia is licking up the sparks. Nobody is better at ignoring carefully crafted provocations than the Kremlin.
(…) “Mao claimed that China can defeat the reactionary armies “only with millet plus rifles” which soon after confirmed the Vietnamese peasants.
(….) .. Place the military technology in the center is tantamount to surrender to the logic of the enemy. Popular wars always were won with determined people, not guns. “(…)
“However, this does not solves the problem of how to deal with enemies who are willing to exterminate the popular sectors of the world to break the impasse in which they are. Especially not used to make decisions at what is guessed as a long period of harassment (“encirclement and suppression”, the Chinese Communists defined) “.(…)
(…) “Without wishing to exhaust a debate that just started, I can see four needs in movements to face this new stage.
-The First, understand the logic of the above. Which is to study, analyze and deduce what are the plans against us, what goals are plotted. Not in general, but in every region, in every country and in every area. (…)
-Two, get full autonomy, not rely on them. Implying get even food autonomy, maybe not all at first, but draw it as a target. Water, land, food, are vital. For that it is necessary to reduce to eliminate dependence on social policies.
-Three, no illusions with promises, good manners and even invitations that make us those above. The most delicate moment for Cuba comes now once won the “recognition” of the empire. Those above never got anything for free.
-Four, the fundamental: being willing to fight and face all the difficulties necessary, “long suffering” before defeating enemies, as Mao said in the interview. This is decisive: the mood, the spiritual preparation for not falter before the inevitable setbacks and suffering. It is the ethic of commitment. There is no other way that to chisel will.
It’s of no particular interest for me to change your mind. What I am interested to discover is why you think what you think.
But it *is* of interest to you, otherwise you wouldn’t salt your attitude towards Christians ( and I guess to Jews, Muslims, or anyone else with the belief in a supreme being ) with that disdain common to those with atheistic arrogance ( that last a redundancy, I know ).
———-
It’s really fairly straightforward – if you read it slowly you should be able to provide a straightforward answer.
You’re so disappointing – stylistically I would’ve thought that you’d know better than to add the flourish of a double adverb and, as an atheist and English, I had hoped that you’d break with the stereotype of supreme arrogance for which your island nation is famous. Is it the water in the UK in general or is it particular to the Sheffield area?
————————–
In that regard, can you please address Epicurus last point i.e why does evil exist?, as defined in his simple truth-table repeated again here: “The gods can either… “
He never knew God.
I can’t really fault anyone who lived before the birth of Christ and so never managed to hear his words or the words of his Apostles – it is possible that Epicurus listened to Christ as he preached to all willing souls in Hades after his death and so now Ep could be in a much better place. One can only conjecture.
PS:
While you’re at it, can you please explain why I would waste time in preparatione for:
“whatever you won’t face whenever it is you move on?
Disregard it if it is a waste to you. That goes for everything. Best of luck :-)
Anonymous on April 21, 2015 · at 11:13 pm UTC said:
“But it *is* of interest to you, otherwise you wouldn’t salt your attitude towards Christians ( and I guess to Jews, Muslims, or anyone else with the belief in a supreme being ) .”
Epicurus logic is related to any god who claim omnibenevolence, omniscience, omnipotency – that includes God (at least in the version of Christianity I am familiar with, I think it also includes YWH and Allah. Jehovah, as in Jehovah witness, seem to sit on the fence regarding Jehovah and omniscience – hard to pin those guys down, they can swing either way depending on the situation specific argument.
Anonymous on April 21, 2015 · at 11:13 pm UTC said: “with that disdain common to those with atheistic arrogance (that last a redundancy, I know)”
I’m not atheist, i’m agnostic. According to Epicurus logic the Abrahamic descriptions of the nature of their god is ridiculous. I don’t believe creation popped out of nowhere.
Anonymous on April 21, 2015 · at 11:13 pm UTC said: “You’re so disappointing – stylistically I would’ve thought that you’d know better than to add the flourish of a double adverb and, as an atheist and English,
I’m an Engineer not a linguist – I barely remember what an adverb is. That doesn’t matter on most occasions – meaning is generally clear. I’m not English (i’m Irish) & as stated, i’m not atheist.
Anonymous on April 21, 2015 · at 11:13 pm UTC said: “I had hoped that you’d break with the stereotype of supreme arrogance for which your island nation is famous.”
Not arrogance – frustration. The question is simple – non answer is frustrating causing imperfect behaviour. Apologies for that (if you were offended). I don’t think the Irish are generally stereotyped for supreme arrogance but haven’t searched for that. I also detest stereotypes based on pieces of dirt. Stereotypes are a safety mechanism for when people don’t have time to analyse the individual involved. Necessary for safety sometimes but not in a conversation with an individual.
Anonymous on April 21, 2015 · at 11:13 pm UTC said: ” Is it the water in the UK in general or is it particular to the Sheffield area?”
Did I mention i’m Irish? your stereotyping now seems arrogant to me – I know some fine people who were (accidentally, by birth) born English people and many scumbag people who were (accidentally, by birth) born in England (Nationalism is another infantile disease).
Anonymous on April 21, 2015 · at 11:13 pm UTC said: “In that regard, can you please address Epicurus last point i.e why does evil exist?, as defined in his simple truth-table repeated again here: “The gods can either… “
He never knew God.”
I can’t really fault anyone who lived before the birth of Christ and so never managed to hear his words or the words of his Apostles – it is possible that Epicurus listened to Christ as he preached to all willing souls in Hades after his death and so now Ep could be in a much better place. One can only conjecture.”
Seriously, did you read all of Epicurus statement? it covers all possible situations that involve a god described as omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent (unless you can idenfify an ommission). These descriptions cover God. It is quite straightforward – can you please answer the question he poses at the end regarding the existence of evil – here’s the statement:
““The gods can either take away evil from the world and will not, or, being willing to do so, cannot; or they neither can nor will, or lastly, they are both able and willing. If they have the will to remove evil and cannot, then they are not omnipotent. If they can, but will not, than they are not benevolent. If they are neither able nor willing, then they are neither omnipotent nor benevolent. Lastly, if they are both able and willing to annihilate evil, how does it exist?”“
Anonymous on April 21, 2015 · at 11:13 pm UTC said: “PS:
While you’re at it, can you please explain why I would waste time in preparatione for:
“whatever you won’t face whenever it is you move on?
Disregard it if it is a waste to you. That goes for everything. Best of luck :-)”
The reason I must disregard that statement is because that particular statement doesn’t make any logical sense. If I won’t face it then I don’t need to prepare to face it.
It’s not a stereotype – it’s a lifelong observation of tendencies of those I deal/dealt with. A land breeds certain types. It is what it is and, unfortunately ( and fortunately in many cases ), it’s valid based on experience. Since you’re so sensitive about what you call stereotyping, I won’t get into what I’ve seen regarding the Irish – tendencies which, by the way, the majority would admit to themselves…
Anyway – sorry you went through the trouble of such a focused response. i reiterate, I am not here to make you believe – that is a waste of time. My goal was to shine a light on your outward disdain toward those who hold their Creator and their faith in high esteem. You may think that I’m stereotyping again, but my experience with both atheists and agnostics over the years has been one where they can’t help but insinuate their own opinions where it’s not called for or appropriate – for example in the ” Christ is Risen ” thread.
Re Epicurus, he comes from a place of pure logic and his argument is tight and linear. The Apostles who spread the gospel were witnesses to miracles and could perform miracles themselves. As an example: if Epicurus were to witness a man – beaten, flayed, crucified to death, and stabbed to make sure of death – rise from the dead after 3 days, how would his ” gods do this but not that ” argument hold up? Would he ask to be baptised like so many did in those days? People, witnesses to miracles and not, would hold to this faith on pain of torture and death. Faith which told them that God is beyond logic, beyond physics and math ( sorry :P ). He is not bound by his creation, but the opposite, no matter how much we may not understand or rail against our world’s sorrows, is perfectly true.
As to your problems with God when he allows bad things to happen – babies dying, people starving en masse, I suggest that you keep faithfully hunting down an answer; and when you find out, let the rest of us know since we don’t have God on speed dial.
He does what he wants, when he wants, how he wants. He = creator. We = creation. Having that particular type of humility that is required to go from day to day while we witness the sunshine and rain falling on the good and evil alike is what keeps us from getting lost. ” Thy will be done “.
Again, i am not trying to sway your belief or lack thereof, however I urge you to stop throwing stones at those who express their own.
Blue Horseshoe on April 23, 2015 · at 12:42 am UTC said: “Since you’re so sensitive about what you call stereotyping, I won’t get into what I’ve seen regarding the Irish – tendencies which, by the way, the majority would admit to themselves…
Blue Horseshoe on April 23, 2015 · at 12:42 am UTC said: “Apologies if I gave the impression of having any sensitivity to nationaliity – it have no sensitivity to it – I am an individual. You may wish to assign me to a group to which I have no affiniity. I know some fine people who were (accidentally, by birth) born Irish people and many scumbag people who were (accidentally, by birth) born in Ireland (Nationalism is another infantile disease).”
Blue Horseshoe on April 23, 2015 · at 12:42 am UTC said: “Anyway – sorry you went through the trouble of such a focused response.”
No worries – I enjoy the debate.
Blue Horseshoe on April 23, 2015 · at 12:42 am UTC said: ” i reiterate, I am not here to make you believe – that is a waste of time.”
Not necessarily – I once considered myself a Christian. I’m now agnostic. If an argument makes sense I can change.
Blue Horseshoe on April 23, 2015 · at 12:42 am UTC said: ” My goal was to shine a light on your outward disdain toward those who hold their Creator and their faith in high esteem. You may think that I’m stereotyping again, but my experience with both atheists and agnostics over the years has been one where they can’t help but insinuate their own opinions where it’s not called for or appropriate – for example in the ” Christ is Risen ” thread.”
If you find I have been unpleasant I apologise.
Blue Horseshoe on April 23, 2015 · at 12:42 am UTC said: “Re Epicurus, he comes from a place of pure logic and his argument is tight and linear.”
Correct
Blue Horseshoe on April 23, 2015 · at 12:42 am UTC said: “The Apostles who spread the gospel were witnesses to miracles and could perform miracles themselves. As an example: if Epicurus were to witness a man – beaten, flayed, crucified to death, and stabbed to make sure of death – rise from the dead after 3 days, how would his ” gods do this but not that ” argument hold up?
His argument would be exactly the same – and end with “how does evil exist?”
Blue Horseshoe on April 23, 2015 · at 12:42 am UTC said: “Would he ask to be baptised like so many did in those days?”
That depends on his moral position – if he thought this man was god then he would say “you have described yourself as omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient yet evil exists so you are a liar”
So, I cannot answer for Epicurus but I could not tolerate such a god.
Blue Horseshoe on April 23, 2015 · at 12:42 am UTC said: “People, witnesses to miracles and not, would hold to this faith on pain of torture and death.”
Did they ask him the same question Epicurus would have?
Blue Horseshoe on April 23, 2015 · at 12:42 am UTC said: “Faith which told them that God is beyond logic”
Why – it’s a simple question?
Blue Horseshoe on April 23, 2015 · at 12:42 am UTC said: “beyond physics and math ( sorry :P ).”
Not really sure why you say sorry?
Blue Horseshoe on April 23, 2015 · at 12:42 am UTC said: “He is not bound by his creation”
I haven’t said he is not omnipotent.
Blue Horseshoe on April 23, 2015 · at 12:42 am UTC said: “but the opposite, no matter how much we may not understand or rail against our world’s sorrows, is perfectly true.
As to your problems with God when he allows bad things to happen – babies dying, people starving en masse, I suggest that you keep faithfully hunting down an answer; and when you find out, let the rest of us know since we don’t have God on speed dial.
He does what he wants, when he wants, how he wants. He = creator. We = creation. Having that particular type of humility that is required to go from day to day while we witness the sunshine and rain falling on the good and evil alike is what keeps us from getting lost. ” Thy will be done “.
Again, i am not trying to sway your belief or lack thereof, however I urge you to stop throwing stones at those who express their own.”
Do you consider your God as
(i) omnibenevolent
&
(ii) omnipotent
&
(iii) omniscient
?
Before proceeding, may I ask: since you once considered yourself a Christian and now you are an agnostic – what would you say caused the change.
Also, going forward ( and this is a suggestion – if there’s a reason you do it and it helps you proceed with discourse, then fine ), you can proceed with paraphrasing with what I said as opposed to ctrl c/v – I’ll take it as face value that you’ve paraphrased correctly.
I came to feel this was unjust – why would a good god create something knowing that it was not one of the “elect” the result of which was eternal damnation on the creatures death (there is no purgatory in Calvinism).
Around this time I wrote a long letter to our Minister along the lines of “if I was unbounded and a good potter I would create a perfect pot every time – not one would be broken”.
I can’t remember his reply – but it didn’t help.
I began to feel that the Bible had been written by men only for men. I started to see that a particular religion was largely assigned by birthplace/culture – i.e. it was mostly accidental.
I haven’t forgotten our conversation – am out and about and not going into depth using a tiny keyboard with my hands. To be continued Monday / Tuesday…
Yeah, ” creating the elect ” (the belief in predestination), ” Sinners in the hands of an angry God ” type of rhetoric, et al is utterly rejected by where I come from.
And this isn’t a geographical accident or assignment – this is about where people have rejected a certain message, often to a laundry list of abuses by those in clerical power.
It’s as if you start out with a brilliant bottle of wine, you put it in a decanter and then, for whatever reason, you dilute it and pass it on. The next person thinks it’s off and so *they* dilute it and so on – each with a different taste and strength until, after enough time passes, people have forgotten the original taste.
It is a mess.
Is He all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing? Yes.
But why is there evil…
Try to look at it this way: you’re observing an artisan working on a stretch of quilt with ugly patterns, threads sticking out all over, random patterns, overall a mess. And you wonder why on earth anyone’s wasting time continuing with that mess and how that person calls themselves an artisan.
Then, when they choose, they present the other side of the quilt, the side meant to be shown – and it all makes sense. No weird patterns, no threads, no mess.
We shouldn’t ignore the evils and sorrows – we should do whatever is in our power to mitigate what we come across that is *within* our abilities. That’s our cross to bear. Leave the world that we can’t deal with to God – he’s already served his time on the cross for it.
Blue Horseshoe on April 30, 2015 · at 1:08 am UTC said: “Yeah, ” creating the elect ” (the belief in predestination), ” Sinners in the hands of an angry God ” type of rhetoric, et al is utterly rejected by where I come from.”
They would say your opinion was an invalid interpretation of “the truth” (my dad did for sure).
“And this isn’t a geographical accident or assignment – this is about where people have rejected a certain message, often to a laundry list of abuses by those in clerical power.”
statistics say different – if born in the Irish Republic high risk of Catholicism, if born in Northern Ireland high risk of Protestantism.
“It’s as if you start out with a brilliant bottle of wine, you put it in a decanter and then, for whatever reason, you dilute it and pass it on. The next person thinks it’s off and so *they* dilute it and so on – each with a different taste and strength until, after enough time passes, people have forgotten the original taste.”
Maybe the original interpretation was wrong.
“It is a mess.”
True
Is He all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing? Yes.
But why is there evil…
Try to look at it this way: you’re observing an artisan working on a stretch of quilt with ugly patterns, threads sticking out all over, random patterns, overall a mess. And you wonder why on earth anyone’s wasting time continuing with that mess and how that person calls themselves an artisan.
Then, when they choose, they present the other side of the quilt, the side meant to be shown – and it all makes sense. No weird patterns, no threads, no mess.”
The artisan you describe would, by virtue of omniscience, have identified the ugly patterns before making such a quilt and would not (if also omnibenevolent) have started that quilt (or any other that had similar flaws).
Since the artisan you describe created the quilt knowing it’s future flaws then the artisan cannot be described as omnibenevolent – perhaps both omniscient and omnipotent but definitely not omnibenevolent.
“We shouldn’t ignore the evils and sorrows – we should do whatever is in our power to mitigate what we come across that is *within* our abilities. That’s our cross to bear. Leave the world that we can’t deal with to God – he’s already served his time on the cross for it.”
No comment.
“Have you ever been to Jerusalem?”
I haven’t. I visited Rome in December – fascinating visit. My favourite trip was to the Pantheon.
Simply put – I believe the nature of the god you trust in is not as it has been described to you.
Jesus is not posited by Christians as the Creator/Prime Mover so he did not ‘create’ Oleg’s killers.
He is considered the ‘Way, the Truth and the Light’. (The Tao or ‘Way’ offers many similar insights.)
The New Testament essentially states humanity will best survive in toto if it rejects the Old Testament ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’ system of justice: the OT resulted in feuding carried inter-generationally and perpetual war/unrest.
The ‘meek will inherit the earth’ because pacifism (not to be confused with appeasement) allows the species to ‘go forth and multiply’. Aggression as a stock behaviour would ultimately result in humanity’s annihilation,( something we are all too aware of on this blog.) Basically, Jesus offers a code for conduct, as does Mohammed and Confucious. Which is why the Bloody Christ of the Rapture of so-called ‘Christian’ Zionism is a cult like Scientology, not branch of Christianity.
You are one of many who misunderstand Marx on observing that ‘religion is the opium of the masses.’ He meant that without the opiate of religion, reality for the masses would have been largely unbearable : he passed no judgement on the ‘comfort’ it offered, either directly or implied. That imputation came from later Marxists.
To illustrate: while 19c working-class German men had both clubs and pubs where they could both relax and fraternize, German women (the studies I read were on the lives of washerwomen/seamstresses) had neither. The only place where they could actually rest physically from labour was in the local church.
Sometimes high-falutin’ abstractions comes down to bums on seats.
eimar on April 30, 2015 · at 2:35 am UTC said: “@.. Anonymous on April 20, 2015 · at 9:41
pm
Jesus is not posited by Christians as the Creator/Prime Mover so he did not ‘create’ Oleg’s killers.
He is considered the ‘Way, the Truth and the Light’. (The Tao or ‘Way’ offers many similar insights.)”
Is Jesus God?
Is God Jesus?
Do you think the left hand does not know what the right is doing?
Do you think God the Father is omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent?
Do you think God the Son is omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent?
Do you think God the Holy Spirit is omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent?
He picked up his cross and followed Christ
Yes, our Lord tells us to take up our cross daily and follow Him, and in the Beatitudes as recorded by St. Matthew’s Gospel one reads that the highest blessing is to be persecuted for His name’s sake; and our Lord admonishes us to endure to the end. Certainly, by that reckoning, Oleg Kalashnikov will hear from His Lord, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant!”
They can kill the flesh, but they can never kill the soul. And ideas are bullet-proof.
Robert M. Peters on April 19, 2015 · at 1:26 am UTC said:
“Oleg Kalashnikov will hear from His Lord, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant!”
Assuming his Lord has perfect foreknowledge this is ridiculous.
Oleg Kalashnikov should be furious at his Lord. He should be saying:
“Lord, you knew that evil men would take my life. You created them knowing what they would do. You disgust me”.
“Why hast thou forsaken me?”
Some things we cannot know.
Amerikanski on April 19, 2015 · at 3:01 pm UTC said:
“Why hast thou forsaken me?”
“Some things we cannot know.”
Ah, the known unknowns (or is it unknown knowns? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_known_knowns) of the mysterious multiple personality disorder as an excuse for absence of omnibenevolence.
I haven’t seen that listed as an excuse before http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil
We know he was killed by the Kiev regime, though not the identity of the individual(s) who perpetrated the deed. And we have a very good idea who supports that regime — it was dead broke, deeply in debt, and without massive infusions of money/weapons/mercenaries, it would simply pop like a soap bubble.
We do not know why the Lord allows such evil to persist, and seemingly prevail, for a while.
Amerikanski on April 19, 2015 · at 11:07 pm UTC said:
“We do not know why the Lord allows such evil to persist, and seemingly prevail, for a while.”
But you still assign omnibenevolence and omnipotence to the Lord.
Epicurus put it like this:
“The gods can either take away evil from the world and will not, or, being willing to do so, cannot; or they neither can nor will, or lastly, they are both able and willing. If they have the will to remove evil and cannot, then they are not omnipotent. If they can, but will not, than they are not benevolent. If they are neither able nor willing, then they are neither omnipotent nor benevolent. Lastly, if they are both able and willing to annihilate evil, how does it exist?”
Why can’t the sheeple wean themselves off the opiate?
Jesus taught love, personal responsibility, and self-determination. These are the things that Oleg was all about and what he died for.
Anonymous on April 20, 2015 · at 9:27 pm UTC said:
“Jesus taught love, personal responsibility, and self-determination. These are the things that Oleg was all about and what he died for.”
But prior to that, in fact prior to creation, Jesus decided to create Oleg’s killer’s – knowing that they would kill Oleg.
Give me some more opiate – please…
Re: tired old chestnut ” why doesn’t God make all the bad things go away “?
Perhaps in order to show in full color what the world becomes when the most of us don’t listen to God and we model the world in our image? We, ourselves, are the physical source of our own sorrows.
And let’s not be too brazen in our attitude toward God – as a refresher, we should reread ( or read for the first time as the case may be ) Genesis 6: 5 – 7.
I don’t expect you to believe a word anyone says who holds an opinion on God in contrast to yours, but the least you can do is avoid is that arrogance reflected in your Marx allusions that is endemic to those who scorn and disdain those of us who do believe.
You will change no one’s mind. You’ve decided to go down your road and take your chances – I’m sure you’re prepared for whatever/Whoever it is you will/won’t face whenever it is you move on.
Blue Horseshoe on April 20, 2015 · at 11:08 pm UTC said:
Re: tired old chestnut ” why doesn’t God make all the bad things go away “?
…[]…
You will change no one’s mind. You’ve decided to go down your road and take your chances – I’m sure you’re prepared for whatever/Whoever it is you will/won’t face whenever it is you move on.”
It’s of no particular interest for me to change your mind. What I am interested to discover is why you think what you think.
In that regard, can you please address Epicurus last point i.e why does evil exist?, as defined in his simple truth-table repeated again here:
“The gods can either take away evil from the world and will not, or, being willing to do so, cannot; or they neither can nor will, or lastly, they are both able and willing. If they have the will to remove evil and cannot, then they are not omnipotent. If they can, but will not, than they are not benevolent. If they are neither able nor willing, then they are neither omnipotent nor benevolent. Lastly, if they are both able and willing to annihilate evil, how does it exist?”
It’s really fairly straightforward – if you read it slowly you should be able to provide a straightforward answer.
PS:
While you’re at it, can you please explain why I would waste time in preparatione for:
“whatever you won’t face whenever it is you move on
?
Will we all soon follow; After Israeli elections, US Zionists cast votes of their own?
OT
“U.S. commander: Russia wouldn’t dare take on NATO”
Cue in some looney tune sounds.
Yeah, that ‘Battle of the Bulge thingie was a real proof of US strength. And that was against rag-tag, German divisions, so, guess what happens if you’re up against the guys who beat that army?
A better question is would NATO dare take on Russia.I don’t think so.I think they like to beat their chest and flex their muscles and jaws a lot. But when they are hit with a good shot to the jaw they would crumple like a rag doll.And I think they know that.Hence all the flexing and jaw wagging.The only problem is if they talk themselves into a corner with no way out (Putin has been good at giving them a way out so far).That is why I’m concerned over the new US elections.There will be 24/7 “flexing and jaw wagging ” then.We need to wrap up the junta before then.Liberate Ukraine and end the fascists soon.
Only a fool argues with a madman.
It’s dumb to say, “he would not use that knife.”
Yes, he would–and he already has.
Hiroshima, Nagasaki–no other reason except a threat to Stalin.
And so many lunatic moves, the 1950 march to the Yalu, and Quemoy, and offering two nukes to the French for Dien BIen Phu. And Cuba 1962, when Nikita saved the world and lost face.
Agreed. NATO and US commanders are demented when they talk.
Dempsey: We factored in the S 300 missiles in our attack plans against Iran.
Yeah. And they also factored in that the Iranians have missiles that will sink carriers.
So, how do they suppose they will attack Iran, get those bunker busters onto their targets?
Oh, and then remove all regional targets from counter-attack, like carriers, embassies, military bases, US assets in the ME.
Dempsey would have a tough time defeating stone-throwing Neanderthals.
When US and NATO talk military might, they mean missiles launched from 1000 miles away and air strikes over villages and towns made out of mud and clay bricks. Third world targets.
A half-hour over Russia and all Western planes would be grounded because the losses in that half-hour would be catastrophic to any air force. Jets just don’t fly fast enough to evade the Russian missile systems.
Without air power, NATO and the US are military midgets on the land.
As for threatening Russian from inside Ukraine, until you see the skies filled with US planes, there will be no movement on the ground by troops in numbers large enough to scare the militia much less the Russians. American troops cannot fight without air support. Simply isn’t there style, tactics or training.
It’s like the Blue Coats taking on the Indians. Without gatling guns, all they fought were old men and women left in the villages.
The entire world of sovereign nations wants the S 300s and S 400s because those systems are the guarantee that the US is neutralized from attacking.
@ Red Ryder,
Thsi might be of interest; “Ray McGovern: How can Putin trust serial liar John Kerry? – link to youtube.
It’s not about how you start wars; it’s all about how to end them…
Amazing history of just over 70 years ago few are even aware of, as we get near that MAY 9 70th anniversary date which almost every west country has boycotted:
real footage of air combat operations
37 min B&W
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPaH8mb2lRQ
World War 2: American Shuttle Bombing of Germany
During World War II America’s strategic bombing campaign utilized several Soviet bases. “Shuttle bombing” is a tactic where bombers fly from their home base to bomb a first target and continue to a different location where they are refuelled and rearmed. The aircraft may then bomb a second target on the return leg to their home base.
–Operation Frantic, from June to September 1944: This was a series of air raids conducted by United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) bombers based in Britain or the Mediterranean which then landed at bases built by the Americans in Ukraine in the Soviet Union.
was this today ?
Dear Saker/Ann
A question, I am Sanjay here again. Could you please tell us How to get us out of Nazism? or How the Nazism could be eradicated?
Thnx & Regds
Sanjay
Hi Sanjay…well I would ask you the same question….my answer would be that we can only do what we can do …. pray and help with alternative media … what else ? Perhaps prepare for nuclear war … Sanjay, are you in India ?
How does one get evil out of the financial/banking structures? How does one get the US from funding turmoil across the globe?
Why was the Ukraine in such a miserable economic state (as was Russia until recently)?
What brought Germany to such a state that National Socialism was able to grow (and who funded NS, and why?)
Follow the money and you will see through the puppets.
If you want to stop the American Empire of Chaos from funding phony “pro-democracy” (read: destabilization) campaigns around the world, then the United States of America must be ended as an entity.
The United States needs to be plunged into a Second Civil War that will finish what the first Civil War started: the dissolution of the United States of America.
Nothing less.
The American Menace is a clear and present threat to the sovereignty of all peoples, nations, and religions that do not bow down and accept the superiority of that warped ideology known as American Values(TM).
As such, it has no moral legitimacy to exist.
All these pro-American apologists, alternative media, and “activists” desperately try to lie, deny, and spindoctor away this fundamental reality.
Wow, you sound like Lord Palmerston. And Napoleon III.
You are confusing the AZ Empire with the United States of America. Not the same thing. The AZ Empire is the warmonger and widowmaker, not the little united states, which is just a recruiting ground for cannonfodder in the Empire’s foreign wars. U.S. presidents serve the Empire, not the American people. That should be obvious.
The neatest ‘solution’ would be a global tactical ‘war of liberation.’
Takin Occupy as the template, a combination of hackers/guerilla units to neutralize the main suspects on all continents would be ideal. Hackers can disable command systems, including the banksters casino system, and the tactical GUs could abduct/neutralize the main political/fiscal players.
The www allows for the first time the identification of individuals directly responsible for war/atrocity across the globe – we know for example, all the main players both native and foreign responsible for the destruction of the Ukraine. Such would also avoid the worst aspects of war: the wholesale slaughter of entire populations country by country.
Taking out the architects instead of sending armies of brickies to certain doom makes much more sense to me.
Sorry to all I have a question for Saker
Why do Russian media call Navaly anti-corruption activist?
Navaly has many faces and he could be called many names, why to call him with a name which the Natoists are forcing on people?
And why there is not one single anti-corruption activist in Italy, Europe, USA, Canada… or at least nobody has got that title from media.
The Party of Progress headed by anti-corruption activist Aleksey Navalny has announced a strategic union with the RPR-Parnas party led by former Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov and invited all “people of good will” to run on their election lists.
http://rt.com/politics/250633-russia-opposition-party-navalny/
RT and Russian leadership seem to use words for their ironic meaning, and the population seems to “get it”, understanding the dissonance.
A character like Navalny is on the West’s payroll, is burrowed into corrupt and dishonest “democratic” agitation, so it shows why the voters never select these stooges.
“Partner” is one descriptor that is ironic, also. It drives many of us nuts to hear it, but they use it in ironic sense, although it is the parlance of diplomatic protocol to refer to anyone in negotiation or relationship in the most general way as partner.
The danger with these stooges is they become sacrificial to be gunned down for propaganda purposes. If RT and Kremlin had demonized them, it adds value to the sacrifice. Nemtsov was of no consequence until he was slaughtered. Trying to raise him to sainthood is Herculean because he never had status as worth to the people. He only had value to his handlers. Navalny is even less worthy. It will take millions of dollars of “preparation” to elevate him. Of course, because Kiev is bumping off so many opposition, the US may start killing many more in the streets of Moscow to cover the bloodletting in Kiev (if it ever gets notices in EU and US media).
Good explanation
Very good insights, Red. Moscow should go even further and call their western “partners” – friends. Yes, friends. Doesn’t the Bible tell you to pour hot coals over the heads of your enemies? What makes Putin and Lavrov so invaluable to world peace is that they know how to defuse a dangerous situation. The world is a big tinderbox and Russia is licking up the sparks. Nobody is better at ignoring carefully crafted provocations than the Kremlin.
rest in peace and so many others on the Ukrainian soil who wanted their land to be a land of peace!
In Montenegro, the anti-NATO activist Sasha Markovich has been assassinated by gunmen:
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=sr&u=http://www.vostok.rs/index.php%3Foption%3Dbtg_novosti%26idnovost%3D72954&usg=ALkJrhjvTWR3PntbYWAi4h9DUfX8x5jUTg#.VTPGjpMdzIU
Beware of the Natoists
“The power continues to be born from the rifle”:
http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=197811
He was listed on psb4ukr.org
PSB For Ukraine.
We know that NATO hosted the site on their domain, well here is some more info on PSB in Croatia from an official NATO site.
http://www.nato.int/sfor/indexinf/127/p11a/t0111a.htm
It even gives the name of the operatives involved in the ‘anti terrorism’ campaign.
From Blue Horseshoe
@ Anonymous on April 21, 2015 · at 7:35 am UTC
It’s of no particular interest for me to change your mind. What I am interested to discover is why you think what you think.
But it *is* of interest to you, otherwise you wouldn’t salt your attitude towards Christians ( and I guess to Jews, Muslims, or anyone else with the belief in a supreme being ) with that disdain common to those with atheistic arrogance ( that last a redundancy, I know ).
———-
It’s really fairly straightforward – if you read it slowly you should be able to provide a straightforward answer.
You’re so disappointing – stylistically I would’ve thought that you’d know better than to add the flourish of a double adverb and, as an atheist and English, I had hoped that you’d break with the stereotype of supreme arrogance for which your island nation is famous. Is it the water in the UK in general or is it particular to the Sheffield area?
————————–
In that regard, can you please address Epicurus last point i.e why does evil exist?, as defined in his simple truth-table repeated again here: “The gods can either… “
He never knew God.
I can’t really fault anyone who lived before the birth of Christ and so never managed to hear his words or the words of his Apostles – it is possible that Epicurus listened to Christ as he preached to all willing souls in Hades after his death and so now Ep could be in a much better place. One can only conjecture.
PS:
While you’re at it, can you please explain why I would waste time in preparatione for:
“whatever you won’t face whenever it is you move on?
Disregard it if it is a waste to you. That goes for everything. Best of luck :-)
Anonymous on April 21, 2015 · at 11:13 pm UTC said:
“But it *is* of interest to you, otherwise you wouldn’t salt your attitude towards Christians ( and I guess to Jews, Muslims, or anyone else with the belief in a supreme being ) .”
Epicurus logic is related to any god who claim omnibenevolence, omniscience, omnipotency – that includes God (at least in the version of Christianity I am familiar with, I think it also includes YWH and Allah. Jehovah, as in Jehovah witness, seem to sit on the fence regarding Jehovah and omniscience – hard to pin those guys down, they can swing either way depending on the situation specific argument.
Anonymous on April 21, 2015 · at 11:13 pm UTC said:
“with that disdain common to those with atheistic arrogance (that last a redundancy, I know)”
I’m not atheist, i’m agnostic. According to Epicurus logic the Abrahamic descriptions of the nature of their god is ridiculous. I don’t believe creation popped out of nowhere.
Anonymous on April 21, 2015 · at 11:13 pm UTC said:
“You’re so disappointing – stylistically I would’ve thought that you’d know better than to add the flourish of a double adverb and, as an atheist and English,
I’m an Engineer not a linguist – I barely remember what an adverb is. That doesn’t matter on most occasions – meaning is generally clear. I’m not English (i’m Irish) & as stated, i’m not atheist.
Anonymous on April 21, 2015 · at 11:13 pm UTC said:
“I had hoped that you’d break with the stereotype of supreme arrogance for which your island nation is famous.”
Not arrogance – frustration. The question is simple – non answer is frustrating causing imperfect behaviour. Apologies for that (if you were offended). I don’t think the Irish are generally stereotyped for supreme arrogance but haven’t searched for that. I also detest stereotypes based on pieces of dirt. Stereotypes are a safety mechanism for when people don’t have time to analyse the individual involved. Necessary for safety sometimes but not in a conversation with an individual.
Anonymous on April 21, 2015 · at 11:13 pm UTC said:
” Is it the water in the UK in general or is it particular to the Sheffield area?”
Did I mention i’m Irish? your stereotyping now seems arrogant to me – I know some fine people who were (accidentally, by birth) born English people and many scumbag people who were (accidentally, by birth) born in England (Nationalism is another infantile disease).
Anonymous on April 21, 2015 · at 11:13 pm UTC said:
“In that regard, can you please address Epicurus last point i.e why does evil exist?, as defined in his simple truth-table repeated again here: “The gods can either… “
He never knew God.”
I can’t really fault anyone who lived before the birth of Christ and so never managed to hear his words or the words of his Apostles – it is possible that Epicurus listened to Christ as he preached to all willing souls in Hades after his death and so now Ep could be in a much better place. One can only conjecture.”
Seriously, did you read all of Epicurus statement? it covers all possible situations that involve a god described as omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent (unless you can idenfify an ommission). These descriptions cover God. It is quite straightforward – can you please answer the question he poses at the end regarding the existence of evil – here’s the statement:
““The gods can either take away evil from the world and will not, or, being willing to do so, cannot; or they neither can nor will, or lastly, they are both able and willing. If they have the will to remove evil and cannot, then they are not omnipotent. If they can, but will not, than they are not benevolent. If they are neither able nor willing, then they are neither omnipotent nor benevolent. Lastly, if they are both able and willing to annihilate evil, how does it exist?”“
Anonymous on April 21, 2015 · at 11:13 pm UTC said:
“PS:
While you’re at it, can you please explain why I would waste time in preparatione for:
“whatever you won’t face whenever it is you move on?
Disregard it if it is a waste to you. That goes for everything. Best of luck :-)”
The reason I must disregard that statement is because that particular statement doesn’t make any logical sense. If I won’t face it then I don’t need to prepare to face it.
It’s not a stereotype – it’s a lifelong observation of tendencies of those I deal/dealt with. A land breeds certain types. It is what it is and, unfortunately ( and fortunately in many cases ), it’s valid based on experience. Since you’re so sensitive about what you call stereotyping, I won’t get into what I’ve seen regarding the Irish – tendencies which, by the way, the majority would admit to themselves…
Anyway – sorry you went through the trouble of such a focused response. i reiterate, I am not here to make you believe – that is a waste of time. My goal was to shine a light on your outward disdain toward those who hold their Creator and their faith in high esteem. You may think that I’m stereotyping again, but my experience with both atheists and agnostics over the years has been one where they can’t help but insinuate their own opinions where it’s not called for or appropriate – for example in the ” Christ is Risen ” thread.
Re Epicurus, he comes from a place of pure logic and his argument is tight and linear. The Apostles who spread the gospel were witnesses to miracles and could perform miracles themselves. As an example: if Epicurus were to witness a man – beaten, flayed, crucified to death, and stabbed to make sure of death – rise from the dead after 3 days, how would his ” gods do this but not that ” argument hold up? Would he ask to be baptised like so many did in those days? People, witnesses to miracles and not, would hold to this faith on pain of torture and death. Faith which told them that God is beyond logic, beyond physics and math ( sorry :P ). He is not bound by his creation, but the opposite, no matter how much we may not understand or rail against our world’s sorrows, is perfectly true.
As to your problems with God when he allows bad things to happen – babies dying, people starving en masse, I suggest that you keep faithfully hunting down an answer; and when you find out, let the rest of us know since we don’t have God on speed dial.
He does what he wants, when he wants, how he wants. He = creator. We = creation. Having that particular type of humility that is required to go from day to day while we witness the sunshine and rain falling on the good and evil alike is what keeps us from getting lost. ” Thy will be done “.
Again, i am not trying to sway your belief or lack thereof, however I urge you to stop throwing stones at those who express their own.
Blue Horseshoe on April 23, 2015 · at 12:42 am UTC said:
“Since you’re so sensitive about what you call stereotyping, I won’t get into what I’ve seen regarding the Irish – tendencies which, by the way, the majority would admit to themselves…
Blue Horseshoe on April 23, 2015 · at 12:42 am UTC said:
“Apologies if I gave the impression of having any sensitivity to nationaliity – it have no sensitivity to it – I am an individual. You may wish to assign me to a group to which I have no affiniity. I know some fine people who were (accidentally, by birth) born Irish people and many scumbag people who were (accidentally, by birth) born in Ireland (Nationalism is another infantile disease).”
Blue Horseshoe on April 23, 2015 · at 12:42 am UTC said:
“Anyway – sorry you went through the trouble of such a focused response.”
No worries – I enjoy the debate.
Blue Horseshoe on April 23, 2015 · at 12:42 am UTC said:
” i reiterate, I am not here to make you believe – that is a waste of time.”
Not necessarily – I once considered myself a Christian. I’m now agnostic. If an argument makes sense I can change.
Blue Horseshoe on April 23, 2015 · at 12:42 am UTC said:
” My goal was to shine a light on your outward disdain toward those who hold their Creator and their faith in high esteem. You may think that I’m stereotyping again, but my experience with both atheists and agnostics over the years has been one where they can’t help but insinuate their own opinions where it’s not called for or appropriate – for example in the ” Christ is Risen ” thread.”
If you find I have been unpleasant I apologise.
Blue Horseshoe on April 23, 2015 · at 12:42 am UTC said:
“Re Epicurus, he comes from a place of pure logic and his argument is tight and linear.”
Correct
Blue Horseshoe on April 23, 2015 · at 12:42 am UTC said:
“The Apostles who spread the gospel were witnesses to miracles and could perform miracles themselves. As an example: if Epicurus were to witness a man – beaten, flayed, crucified to death, and stabbed to make sure of death – rise from the dead after 3 days, how would his ” gods do this but not that ” argument hold up?
His argument would be exactly the same – and end with “how does evil exist?”
Blue Horseshoe on April 23, 2015 · at 12:42 am UTC said:
“Would he ask to be baptised like so many did in those days?”
That depends on his moral position – if he thought this man was god then he would say “you have described yourself as omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient yet evil exists so you are a liar”
So, I cannot answer for Epicurus but I could not tolerate such a god.
Blue Horseshoe on April 23, 2015 · at 12:42 am UTC said:
“People, witnesses to miracles and not, would hold to this faith on pain of torture and death.”
Did they ask him the same question Epicurus would have?
Blue Horseshoe on April 23, 2015 · at 12:42 am UTC said:
“Faith which told them that God is beyond logic”
Why – it’s a simple question?
Blue Horseshoe on April 23, 2015 · at 12:42 am UTC said:
“beyond physics and math ( sorry :P ).”
Not really sure why you say sorry?
Blue Horseshoe on April 23, 2015 · at 12:42 am UTC said:
“He is not bound by his creation”
I haven’t said he is not omnipotent.
Blue Horseshoe on April 23, 2015 · at 12:42 am UTC said:
“but the opposite, no matter how much we may not understand or rail against our world’s sorrows, is perfectly true.
As to your problems with God when he allows bad things to happen – babies dying, people starving en masse, I suggest that you keep faithfully hunting down an answer; and when you find out, let the rest of us know since we don’t have God on speed dial.
He does what he wants, when he wants, how he wants. He = creator. We = creation. Having that particular type of humility that is required to go from day to day while we witness the sunshine and rain falling on the good and evil alike is what keeps us from getting lost. ” Thy will be done “.
Again, i am not trying to sway your belief or lack thereof, however I urge you to stop throwing stones at those who express their own.”
Do you consider your God as
(i) omnibenevolent
&
(ii) omnipotent
&
(iii) omniscient
?
If so, can you please explain how evil exists?
OK, the discussion has become interesting.
Before proceeding, may I ask: since you once considered yourself a Christian and now you are an agnostic – what would you say caused the change.
Also, going forward ( and this is a suggestion – if there’s a reason you do it and it helps you proceed with discourse, then fine ), you can proceed with paraphrasing with what I said as opposed to ctrl c/v – I’ll take it as face value that you’ve paraphrased correctly.
Before proceeding, may I ask: since you once considered yourself a Christian and now you are an agnostic – what would you say caused the change.
My father was a strong Calvinist including predestination of the “elect” e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_%28Calvinism%29
I came to feel this was unjust – why would a good god create something knowing that it was not one of the “elect” the result of which was eternal damnation on the creatures death (there is no purgatory in Calvinism).
Around this time I wrote a long letter to our Minister along the lines of “if I was unbounded and a good potter I would create a perfect pot every time – not one would be broken”.
I can’t remember his reply – but it didn’t help.
I began to feel that the Bible had been written by men only for men. I started to see that a particular religion was largely assigned by birthplace/culture – i.e. it was mostly accidental.
These were the beginnings of the change…
I haven’t forgotten our conversation – am out and about and not going into depth using a tiny keyboard with my hands. To be continued Monday / Tuesday…
Yeah, ” creating the elect ” (the belief in predestination), ” Sinners in the hands of an angry God ” type of rhetoric, et al is utterly rejected by where I come from.
And this isn’t a geographical accident or assignment – this is about where people have rejected a certain message, often to a laundry list of abuses by those in clerical power.
It’s as if you start out with a brilliant bottle of wine, you put it in a decanter and then, for whatever reason, you dilute it and pass it on. The next person thinks it’s off and so *they* dilute it and so on – each with a different taste and strength until, after enough time passes, people have forgotten the original taste.
It is a mess.
Is He all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing? Yes.
But why is there evil…
Try to look at it this way: you’re observing an artisan working on a stretch of quilt with ugly patterns, threads sticking out all over, random patterns, overall a mess. And you wonder why on earth anyone’s wasting time continuing with that mess and how that person calls themselves an artisan.
Then, when they choose, they present the other side of the quilt, the side meant to be shown – and it all makes sense. No weird patterns, no threads, no mess.
We shouldn’t ignore the evils and sorrows – we should do whatever is in our power to mitigate what we come across that is *within* our abilities. That’s our cross to bear. Leave the world that we can’t deal with to God – he’s already served his time on the cross for it.
Have you ever been to Jerusalem?
Blue Horseshoe on April 30, 2015 · at 1:08 am UTC said:
“Yeah, ” creating the elect ” (the belief in predestination), ” Sinners in the hands of an angry God ” type of rhetoric, et al is utterly rejected by where I come from.”
They would say your opinion was an invalid interpretation of “the truth” (my dad did for sure).
“And this isn’t a geographical accident or assignment – this is about where people have rejected a certain message, often to a laundry list of abuses by those in clerical power.”
statistics say different – if born in the Irish Republic high risk of Catholicism, if born in Northern Ireland high risk of Protestantism.
“It’s as if you start out with a brilliant bottle of wine, you put it in a decanter and then, for whatever reason, you dilute it and pass it on. The next person thinks it’s off and so *they* dilute it and so on – each with a different taste and strength until, after enough time passes, people have forgotten the original taste.”
Maybe the original interpretation was wrong.
“It is a mess.”
True
Is He all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing? Yes.
But why is there evil…
Try to look at it this way: you’re observing an artisan working on a stretch of quilt with ugly patterns, threads sticking out all over, random patterns, overall a mess. And you wonder why on earth anyone’s wasting time continuing with that mess and how that person calls themselves an artisan.
Then, when they choose, they present the other side of the quilt, the side meant to be shown – and it all makes sense. No weird patterns, no threads, no mess.”
The artisan you describe would, by virtue of omniscience, have identified the ugly patterns before making such a quilt and would not (if also omnibenevolent) have started that quilt (or any other that had similar flaws).
Since the artisan you describe created the quilt knowing it’s future flaws then the artisan cannot be described as omnibenevolent – perhaps both omniscient and omnipotent but definitely not omnibenevolent.
“We shouldn’t ignore the evils and sorrows – we should do whatever is in our power to mitigate what we come across that is *within* our abilities. That’s our cross to bear. Leave the world that we can’t deal with to God – he’s already served his time on the cross for it.”
No comment.
“Have you ever been to Jerusalem?”
I haven’t. I visited Rome in December – fascinating visit. My favourite trip was to the Pantheon.
Simply put – I believe the nature of the god you trust in is not as it has been described to you.
@.. Anonymous on April 20, 2015 · at 9:41
pm
Jesus is not posited by Christians as the Creator/Prime Mover so he did not ‘create’ Oleg’s killers.
He is considered the ‘Way, the Truth and the Light’. (The Tao or ‘Way’ offers many similar insights.)
The New Testament essentially states humanity will best survive in toto if it rejects the Old Testament ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’ system of justice: the OT resulted in feuding carried inter-generationally and perpetual war/unrest.
The ‘meek will inherit the earth’ because pacifism (not to be confused with appeasement) allows the species to ‘go forth and multiply’. Aggression as a stock behaviour would ultimately result in humanity’s annihilation,( something we are all too aware of on this blog.) Basically, Jesus offers a code for conduct, as does Mohammed and Confucious. Which is why the Bloody Christ of the Rapture of so-called ‘Christian’ Zionism is a cult like Scientology, not branch of Christianity.
You are one of many who misunderstand Marx on observing that ‘religion is the opium of the masses.’ He meant that without the opiate of religion, reality for the masses would have been largely unbearable : he passed no judgement on the ‘comfort’ it offered, either directly or implied. That imputation came from later Marxists.
To illustrate: while 19c working-class German men had both clubs and pubs where they could both relax and fraternize, German women (the studies I read were on the lives of washerwomen/seamstresses) had neither. The only place where they could actually rest physically from labour was in the local church.
Sometimes high-falutin’ abstractions comes down to bums on seats.
Literally.
eimar on April 30, 2015 · at 2:35 am UTC said:
“@.. Anonymous on April 20, 2015 · at 9:41
pm
Jesus is not posited by Christians as the Creator/Prime Mover so he did not ‘create’ Oleg’s killers.
He is considered the ‘Way, the Truth and the Light’. (The Tao or ‘Way’ offers many similar insights.)”
Is Jesus God?
Is God Jesus?
Do you think the left hand does not know what the right is doing?
Do you think God the Father is omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent?
Do you think God the Son is omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent?
Do you think God the Holy Spirit is omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent?
Example reference http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/jesus-is-god
or
Is it all just a bit confusing?
These are all really great points made here. I hope many people gain access to this information. This is good quality writing deserving of attention.