Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Posted on 10/16/2007 3:49:18 PM PDT by neverdem
Baptist ping
Thanks
Thanks
You’re welcome You’re welcome
He had no choice. Everything ever created has a polar opposite.
Identify anti-truth, anti-freedom, anti-life individuals.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Much more should be said regarding the great contrast between love and goodness verses hate and evil.
Why ask the question, "Why does God allow evil"? Why not ask instead, "Why does God allow love?"
As much as I hate and detest evil (pardox, eh?), I would not know the beauty and wonder of love if evil were not present.
I don't have to believe in God to know that raping and murdering a 10 year old is evil.
The author is an philosophical lightweight.
First, animals do exhibit a measure of response to others' needs, one that sometimes (very rarely, but sometimes) exhibits outside of immediate kinship structures, such as the herd or the pack. You'll occasionally have the dolphin which boosts the sinking child up to the surface of the sea, or the nanny goat which suckles an orphan puppy. (I find such examples touching and very interesting, actually.)
But --- correct me if I'm wrong--- you never see animals exhort each other to be courageous or fair, or train their young to be self-controlled, or take responsibility for the well-being of an endangered species other than their own, or find one another of their kind innocent or guilty. They can be trained by us, but they do not train themselves. To even speak thus is plainly anthropomorphism, is it not?
My thought is that animals are acting on the basis of sensation and instinct only: the mother dolphin boosts her own babies up to the surface to breathe, and will react similarly to any small, flailing mammal. The nanny goat experiences pleasure and relief when her milk is sucked (that's true of all of us mammals) and would not kick away any little creature that suckles nicely. No conscious benevolence: just relief.
Second point: you are assuming that the motivation moving the moral theist is fear of punishment from divine disciplinarian. That such an element exists cannot be denied. But far more often, the motivation is not fear, but filial piety, gratitude: thankfulness for having been brought into existence, and a desire to please God, our ultimate maker and provider.
And it is filial imitation--- telling truth as you have learned that God tells truth, working beautifully as you believe God works beautifully, loving as you understand God loves.
Anyone at all familiar with the Lives of the Saints would have seen that: not fear, but gratitude and the kind of love that casts out fear.
You put it much better than I could have. Thanks.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Without God you wouldn't have an inclination one way or another, because you would have no rational soul. You would survive on an animal-instinct. And as there are certain species that eat their young, kill their mates, devour cubs, etc., without the constant moral compass of properly formed, rational soul, raping and murdering a 10 year old may seem "good" in your eyes. Perversion of the soul is what leads one to murder and rape 10-year olds - it's a distorted "good" to the killer.
You don't have to believe in God for any reason. But discernment of evil is proof that its opposite also exists. And the source of that constant good cannot come from beings who are not constant with it.
Which ones? There's a wide chasm between instinctively prolonging the species and discursively reasoning that there are choices to be made with various outcomes. Does the black widow reason that her mate has a right to be alive? Does the tiger play "fair" with the antelope he sneaks up on in the night? Does he leave a memorial for his prey or feel guilt in the aftermath?
If the common ape could be proven to be 99.999999% alike to a human being, it is infinitely sub-human by the fact it cannot have an emotion that responds to intellect. That is the origin of empathy. Not protecting the brood or nuzzling with a mate. An animal, insect, etc., cannot apprehend the emotion or condition of another as its own. A pack(?) of cheetahs doesn't share its prey because they decide to share. They share it because if they don't, the cheetah next to them will kill them to get what it needs to survive.
Compassion is not the same thing as acting under fear of punishment by some divine disciplinarian looking over your shoulder.
Who said they're the same? Acting under fear of punishment is anxiety. Some are rightfully anxious because they persist in sin and know it. Others simply have weak faith. Most of us fall into category one, which leads to category two. No one is compelled but to love God and his neighbor. Anything short of that results in the rightful fear of punishment from the constant good that resists evil - whether its corporal punishment of the law, or spiritual (and accidentally corporal) punishment of God.
Really? How would you know?
You cannot prove or disprove the existence of God so your conclusion is inherently unarguable.
Everything has an origin except That which has always been. If you believe you have a rationale, please point to its physiological origin.
The intellect is not corporeal. If nothing which is non-corporeal exists, then you have no intellect. Agree or disagree? If you agree that the intellect does exist, then it must have an origin and it must reside somewhere in our being. Where it resides is our soul. What put it there is God ("made in His image"). There is no other possible answer since there is nothing which cannot logically exist without a first mover. God is that mover - and no one created God, thus His existence is a mystery to man. But by apprehending your intellect, I am apprehending the existence of God.
You cannot prove or disprove the existence of God so your conclusion is inherently unarguable.
I cannot prove or disprove the existence of God to you, perhaps, if you choose to ignore logic. In the same vein, you can't prove or disprove that I exist, either, so why are you responding to my post?
Only most Christians believe in free will. The rest of us understand we are all enslaved by sin until the Holy Spirit drags us to Christ.
Besides, answering “free will” is simplistic and too easy of an answer.
And exactly how is the intellect non-corporeal?
Why does every civilization have a religion? If there was one true God wouldn’t everybody have the same religion? Shouldn’t these religions have something in common?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.