|>> || >>201940 |
>When did I say that? I've only made two posts in this thread up until now.That was a mix up, the other poster clarified this.
>It's not a bet. There is never any doubt that Job will reach salvation in the end. One wonders why the whole ordeal was necessary, then.
>Its an explanation of the suffering in the world: the existence of sin and the existence of Satan.And exactly how does it explain the issue?
>Indeed. I imagine you're not a Christian then.Well, no shit.
>You're spot on there, if you understand that then you should be able to understand why we suffer. Well, no. I cannot, for the love of fuck, understand the place suffering has when framed within any Christian theology I'm familiar with, and I've been exposed to quite a few. With regards to this discussion, I specifically cannot understand why a supposedly benevolent God would create beings that are doomed to suffering by virtue of their sinful nature. Such a God would not be benevolent, which is the core tenet of all Christian theologies.
>My guess is you don't believe humans are sinful by nature though. Considering I said, in rather plain words, that I maintain that there is no such thing as *sin*, this should come off as no surprise.
>Which makes me wonder how you explain all the evil in the world?That'd warrant a very complicated, multi-layered answer. I'll try to compress it, if I do so beyond the point at which it loses intelligibility, let me know. I'll do so once I deal with what you wrote.
>He is in the process of doing this. Creation wasn't a one time event, it continues to happen now. We will attain a perfect sinless state eventually.This is all fine and dandy, except it makes not one shred of sense. Again, you fail to answer the ultimate question: why all of this? Why make it a process that involves apparently needless suffering rather than go straight away to the intended goal?
>Truth, morality , ethics don't vary with time and place. What was true then is still true now. You dun goof'd, and you dun goof'd hard.
I'll kill two birds with one stone and explain both my take on evil and why you're wrong with that in one go.
Firstly, morality is not objective and absolute, whether it supposedly comes from God or not. Not only because absolute, objective morality raises logical concerns (which you'd know if you read my earlier diatribe regarding the Euthyphro Dilemma), but also because historical records clearly demonstrate that various people held different notions on what is good and bad, depending on where they existed and when. Hell, even the comon canons of the Bible itself present inconsistent morality (as expected of the compiled work of many people), as evident through conflicting moral instructions given in them, and that's not even touching what is commonly considered apocryphal. Quick example: turn the other cheek or sell purse and scrip to get a sword? Of course, this is usually shrugged off by saying that these are all metaphorical statements and interpretations differ, which might have been possible to stomach if not for the fact that the differences in interpretations stem from different notions on morality that people have. Very quick example: Calvinists interpret the Bible to spell double predistination, whereas Catholics hold that it is too brutal and unjust, and criticize it on these grounds.
And that's not even getting to the fact that there is, uhm, a large part of the word that's *not* Christian. Such as, well, me. I, quite obviously, hold a different kind of morality than you do. There were and still are cultures that hold moral codes vastly different from what is decreed by the Bible. Of course, going with your line of thinking, they're simply all wrong and in sin, and have to be disregarded. You're the ones that got the Word right.
What was true then was true now? So is Deuteronomy still applicable? No, it fucking isn't, living by deuteronomical code will get you jailed for rape, slavery, murder and arson, because barely any of these - then perfectly acceptable - actions are acceptable now. Then there's the fact that over time, the perception fo Christian values changed: What Origen thought just, Thomas Aquinas would argue with, and the Pope would smite as inhumane.
It is impossible to ignore the fact that humans have vastly different *notions* on morality. In order to preserve your line of thinking, one would have to brush off everyone that maintains moral principles different from your own to be wrong and in sin - that is, the vast majority of the world. It doesn't matter if they honestly and staunchly follow what they believe is to the benefit of all, fuck them, sinners.
Still, the common assertion maintains that there are things that are held to be universally right or wrong, across cultures, such as how murder is wrong. It's also demonstratably false (murder is "unlawful" by definition, so the argument proves nothing without knowing what constitutes murder, and that hasn't been agreed upon).
Coming back to the logical side of the notion of objective morality, it raises the following questions:
Is there a meaningful, inherent difference between good and bad (as in, are there things, events, actions etc that are inherently good or bad in a noticeable way)?
What is the moral code, and how do we know what does it contain (in other words, how do we know what is right and wrong)?
Is morality justified, if then, how? (as in, if something is good or wrong, *why* is this so)?
Where does this morality come from (as in, what is the source of moral code, who decides what is right or wrong)?
If objective morality existed and was palpable (or if it was even possible, because it isn't), there would be a possible set of answers to these questions. there isn't. The issue can't be consistently resolved - as in, no set of answers can be formulated that will answer these four questions AND stay consistent. At the very least, noone managed to find one for 2500 years, and for a good reason. It's not merely unresolved, it's unresolvable. Because the notion of objective morality is invalid and unapplicable.
Now, with that in mind, the notion of "evil" is the product of humans. Evil is what we maintain it to be, for good or ill (heh). This renders the question regarding the "source of evil", as framed in terms of Christian theology, invalid. Since there is not a definitive set of actions, beings, events etc. that could be undisputably categorized as "evil", we cannot possibly divulge on the origins of it. We can only dispute the origins and the reasoning behind the applications of the notion of evil (ie. why is something evil or not).