3 ms·
Came here to write this. Relieved to see someone already wrote this. Only someone who has never actually taken the time to study the Bible could possibly claim
by adamtaylor_13 2y ago
Came here to write this. Relieved to see someone already wrote this.
Only someone who has never actually taken the time to study the Bible could possibly claim that it teaches “things are secretly good underneath”
The Bible teaches that things are so broken, so bad, and so irredeemable that God himself had to humble himself into the form of man, dying a physical death, to redeem it.
It’s only pop-Christianity that teaches that people are mostly good and make mistakes. The Bible teaches that man is a wretch, incapable of redemption within his own power, and deserving of damnation.
- timeon 2y agoSo what is your answer for Epicurean paradox?
- adamtaylor_13 2y agoFree will. If people are allowed to make choices, evil is a possibility. You can argue that free will isn't good, but I'm not sure what evidence supports that argument. So if God allows free will, then evil can happen. Just because he doesn't immediately stop it (read: eliminate free will) doesn't make God not-good. I think part of this is man's hubris in assuming we can know what is perfectly good. The Epicurean paradox is hinged on the description of "all-good," which is far too simple in most people's minds. A metaphor: If I shove my child to the ground to teach them the consequences of falling, I am a bad father. If I warn them to tie their shoes, or they will fall, but do not explicitly force them to, I am a father willing to let my child learn, but I am not a "bad father" because of this. Another aspect I think the Epicurean paradox misses is the concept of justice and eternity. If this physical life is all there is, then yeah, allowing people to suffer and die is an injustice. But if we are eternal beings in a temporary, physical body, suffering and dying in this world is a small blip on the timeline. What comes after has to be factored into the equation of "What is justice?" But that's where non-theistic reasoning can no longer come with us. The Bible is fairly clear about what comes after, and there is justice when viewed in that light. If you believe this life is all there is, then yeah it's not hard to argue that God isn't just. But again, the Bible, upon which the Judeo-Christian belief system is built, is very explicit that this life is NOT all there is. So the Epicurean paradox takes a small slice of the Bible out of context and points at it, without considering all the other context and argues, "Ha! See? Logical inconsistency!" when in reality it's just out of context.
- timeon 2y agoHow does free will explains children with cancer or is that good thing?
- halyconWays 2y agoYou should put more effort into addressing the very detailed and thoughtful reply you got (at your request) and which you're currently ignoring with just another challenge (with a grammatical mistake). You're currently a troll in the technical definition of the term: baiting for replies and then just mocking what you catch.
- timeon 2y agoYou are just dismissing my question without addressing it. I think free will can be attributed only to actions people are doing. But not everything can be attributed to people (or other animals).
- halyconWays 2y agoI'm not dismissing shit. I'm offering you an observation about your rude behavior.
- alienthrowaway 2y agoFree will -> original sin -> all manner of diseases, suffering tyat are part of the human condition. Even without the theology, a person suffering due to a forebear's poor decision is well-understood: a decent percentage if people think it's the natural order for a child to go hungry if their parents are drug-addicts or imprisoned.
- timeon 2y agoHow is hungry children, because of it's parents, relevant to my question? If someone gets cancer as toddler who's fault is that? If someone is born with disability, with caused by new mutation, who's fault is that? Are these part of free will? Do you thing that it is good that it is happening?