To Immanuel Can

[Dontaskme]

Or an ebola carrying venomous rattlesnake that has cancer, even.

The point I'm trying to make is that perhaps a human being can be good or evil but a cancer cell seems to serve no other purpose than evil. A rattlesnake might not be evil were it not for its venom, but add the venom and it is. Some viruses may be relatively harmless and therefore not necessarily evil, however, a malicious one like Ebola would probably qualify as nothing but evil. And viruses on the whole, thus far, seem to serve no constructive purpose in the world. Humanity would probably be better off without them unless one wants to cull the population the nasty way.

Life is a serial killer ..full stop...it's a torturous meatgrinding chamber from start to finish...any human who denies this is a lying idiot. Anyone who endorses suffering by making up a Loving caring God who lives in some kind of heaven is nothing but an overgrown toddler with severe separation anxieties.


God in my view is just another label for everything and nothing...so even Hitler was God.

Life sucks...because it doesn't have a mind to know any different...difference is an illusion where there is none. Science has already proved that reality is a dna replicating molecule from the very first cell ad infinity...it's all one big prison cell.

The only way to deal with this ...is to die...not physically die, for that will come all too soon anyway...but die in a way of surrender and acceptance to what is...and to look forward to death, not fear it.

All IC can do for you is throw bandaids at you in the form of biblical scripture. People will believe anything to assuage their existential fears.

[Dontaskme]

In relation to what, EXACTLY?

The ebola virus cell is a good thing to the 'ebola virus', the venom gland of a rattlesnake is a 'good thing' to a rattlesnake, and the cancer cell is a 'good thing' to cancer. But do you only LOOK AT the Life and living from the human being perspective only and expect Life, Itself, good and bad SHOULD revolve around 'you', human beings, ONLY?

The stage on which the actors strut their stuff is booby trapped, it's a bloody gory mine-field waiting to blow up in your face...the final humiliation is that there is no trap door through which one can escape...except the God idea which is about as useful as a chocolate hot-water bottle..

In relation to the audience. ... the play is a dumb deal.

The fact that no one chose to play anyway....because it's forced on you to play it. You had no other choice. Choice comes from KNOWING BETTER... where there is a choice not to get sucked into dumb deals...by imposing it on others who have no choice...namely, the unnamed.

Most people just go around thinking it's normal to be alive on a booby trapped planet...then there's the intelligent people who know better.

[Gary Childress]

And then, "Did God create both good and evil things?..." But there's a problem with that question, too. It supposes that evil is a "thing," like something one creates, rather than the deficiency or loss of a real thing, i.e. "good." But I think you're trying to ask, maybe, whether the world had evil in it when God created it...am I right?

In that case, the answer is found in Genesis 1:31 -- "And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good."

Is an Ebola virus cell a good thing? Is the venom gland in a rattlesnake a good thing? Is a cancer cell a good thing?

In relation to what, EXACTLY?

The ebola virus cell is a good thing to the 'ebola virus', the venom gland of a rattlesnake is a 'good thing' to a rattlesnake, and the cancer cell is a 'good thing' to cancer. But do you only LOOK AT the Life and living from the human being perspective only and expect Life, Itself, good and bad SHOULD revolve around 'you', human beings, ONLY?

I'm speaking entirely in reference to human beings. A virus is not a living organism. It has no feelings. It doesn't fear death. It doesn't feel pain, it has no concept of good or evil. It is only good or evil in relation to a human being. A virus isn't anything "to itself". According to the Bible which most accept, God created humans to have dominion over other creatures. According to the Bible, God created us in his image, NOT a virus. If that is true, then God created the evil things that plague us as well.

BTW: If you wish, we could reverse the argument, that God created humans to destroy viruses while seeking to avoid them and therefore making humans evil; again, the relationship is entirely antagonistic and if God is the creator, then he created the antagonism as well. So again, God is not strictly a good God from our perspective. He/she/it (it doesn't really matter how you wish to address God for the purposes of the argument at hand) created antagonisms that affect us very harshly at times.

[Age]

In relation to what, EXACTLY?

The ebola virus cell is a good thing to the 'ebola virus', the venom gland of a rattlesnake is a 'good thing' to a rattlesnake, and the cancer cell is a 'good thing' to cancer. But do you only LOOK AT the Life and living from the human being perspective only and expect Life, Itself, good and bad SHOULD revolve around 'you', human beings, ONLY?

The stage on which the actors strut their stuff is booby trapped, it's a bloody gory mine-field waiting to blow up in your face...the final humiliation is that there is no trap door through which one can escape...except the God idea which is about as useful as a chocolate hot-water bottle..

In relation to the audience. ... the play is a dumb deal.

The fact that no one chose to play anyway....because it's forced on you to play it. You had no other choice. Choice comes from KNOWING BETTER... where there is a choice not to get sucked into dumb deals...by imposing it on others who have no choice...namely, the unnamed.

Most people just go around thinking it's normal to be alive on a booby trapped planet...then there's the intelligent people who know better.

Does this have absolutely ANYTHING to do with absolutely ANY 'thing'?

If yes, then what, EXACTLY?

[Age]

Is an Ebola virus cell a good thing? Is the venom gland in a rattlesnake a good thing? Is a cancer cell a good thing?

In relation to what, EXACTLY?

The ebola virus cell is a good thing to the 'ebola virus', the venom gland of a rattlesnake is a 'good thing' to a rattlesnake, and the cancer cell is a 'good thing' to cancer. But do you only LOOK AT the Life and living from the human being perspective only and expect Life, Itself, good and bad SHOULD revolve around 'you', human beings, ONLY?

I'm speaking entirely in reference to human beings.

WHY?

A virus is not a living organism. It has no feelings. It doesn't fear death. It doesn't feel pain, it has no concept of good or evil. It is only good or evil in relation to a human being.

So, could this mean that 'a tree' to you is NOT a living organism?

If no, then WHY NOT?

A virus isn't anything "to itself". According to the Bible which most accept,

What do you mean by, "which most accept"?

If that is in reference to human beings also, then I would like to suggest that MOST human beings do NOT accept the bible.

In fact most human beings were NOT even aware of the bible, but you may see very differently to this fact.

God created humans to have dominion over other creatures. According to the Bible, God created us in his image, NOT a virus. If that is true, then God created the evil things that plague us as well.

BUT there are NO 'evil things'. However, what 'you', adult human beings, do, could be 'evil'. Or, 'good'.

Will you list 'things', which you perceive to be 'evil things'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

BTW: If you wish, we could reverse the argument, that God created humans to destroy viruses while seeking to avoid them and therefore making humans evil; again, the relationship is entirely antagonistic and if God is the creator, then he created the antagonism as well.

WHY would you even envision God, Itself, to be a "he"? Let alone call and label God a "he"?

So again, God is not strictly a good God from our perspective.

When you speak of 'our perspective' who does the word 'our' refer to, EXACTLY?

He/she/it (it doesn't really matter how you wish to address God for the purposes of the argument at hand)

So, according to "gary childress's" "logic" we can address God as "gary childress" and this does NOT really matter, correct?

created antagonisms that affect us very harshly at times.

Name just one 'thing' that has supposedly affected EACH and EVERY human being, "harshly at times".

[promethean75]

Yeah you're doing theodicy, and these are design questions/problems. Say 'god' had to include those little seemingly unsubstantial details - poisonous snakes, cancer cells and ebola - because what he wanted to exist, couldn't exist without the world being that way, without the world including poisonous snakes, cancer and ebola.

If that's the case, 'god' wouldn't be omnipotently unlimited in his options for the design of the universe.

Or, he included (when having the option not to) those specific details for some weird reason.

Really you don't need viruses or poisonous snakes or ebola for the world to work. In fact you could purposely disclude snakes and viruses and ebola (isn't that a bacteria btw? I forgot.) and nary a soul would even notice.

And it's not about a finely tuned ecological system that needs those specific elements in order to function. You could not include viruses all together... or at least make em go extinct before humans came around. Same with poisonous snakes. Just another species that if extinct, would make no real difference.

It also suggests the possiblity of an extreme arbitrariness in 'god's' blueprint. Like a few more random things that would make life for most organisms more difficult than it already was, were thrown in after being picked from a hat. Filler material. Or again, maybe the shit was necessary. Say 'god' really didn't have any other option; that the material universe he created would at some point have to evolve biological organisms such as viruses and snakes and ebola that would give the main character in the story, man, something more to worry about.

It's all counter intuitive, bruh. The thought that 'god' didn't have to create a world like this, but chose to anyway, is just as disturbing and unsettling as the thought that he couldn't have done otherwise. Neither option bodes well with the intellect.

[Dontaskme]

In relation to what, EXACTLY?

The ebola virus cell is a good thing to the 'ebola virus', the venom gland of a rattlesnake is a 'good thing' to a rattlesnake, and the cancer cell is a 'good thing' to cancer. But do you only LOOK AT the Life and living from the human being perspective only and expect Life, Itself, good and bad SHOULD revolve around 'you', human beings, ONLY?

The stage on which the actors strut their stuff is booby trapped, it's a bloody gory mine-field waiting to blow up in your face...the final humiliation is that there is no trap door through which one can escape...except the God idea which is about as useful as a chocolate hot-water bottle..

In relation to the audience. ... the play is a dumb deal.

The fact that no one chose to play anyway....because it's forced on you to play it. You had no other choice. Choice comes from KNOWING BETTER... where there is a choice not to get sucked into dumb deals...by imposing it on others who have no choice...namely, the unnamed.

Most people just go around thinking it's normal to be alive on a booby trapped planet...then there's the intelligent people who know better.

Does this have absolutely ANYTHING to do with absolutely ANY 'thing'?

If yes, then what, EXACTLY?

Why don't you just for once in your dull and stoooopid half brained head, go and figure it out for yourself, you lazy dumb moron.

[Age]

The stage on which the actors strut their stuff is booby trapped, it's a bloody gory mine-field waiting to blow up in your face...the final humiliation is that there is no trap door through which one can escape...except the God idea which is about as useful as a chocolate hot-water bottle..

In relation to the audience. ... the play is a dumb deal.

The fact that no one chose to play anyway....because it's forced on you to play it. You had no other choice. Choice comes from KNOWING BETTER... where there is a choice not to get sucked into dumb deals...by imposing it on others who have no choice...namely, the unnamed.

Most people just go around thinking it's normal to be alive on a booby trapped planet...then there's the intelligent people who know better.

Does this have absolutely ANYTHING to do with absolutely ANY 'thing'?

If yes, then what, EXACTLY?

Why don't you just for once in your dull and stoooopid half brained head, go and figure it out for yourself, you lazy dumb moron.

So, in other words, No.

Also, are you NOT ABLE to just answer a CLARIFYING QUESTION?

[Dontaskme]

So, in other words, No.

Congrats for figuring it out for yourself.

Also, are you NOT ABLE to just answer a CLARIFYING QUESTION?

Why don't you just for once in your dull and stoooopid half brained head, go and figure it out for yourself, you lazy dumb moron.

[Age]

So, in other words, No.

Congrats for figuring it out for yourself.

Also, are you NOT ABLE to just answer a CLARIFYING QUESTION?

Why don't you just for once in your dull and stoooopid half brained head, go and figure it out for yourself, you lazy dumb moron.

Have you worked out WHY you have NOT YET figured this out?

[Dontaskme]

Have you worked out WHY you have NOT YET figured this out?

I never asked the question, so nothing to figure out.

[Age]

Have you worked out WHY you have NOT YET figured this out?

I never asked the question, so nothing to figure out.

The first three words you used PROVES what you REALLY DID.

[Dontaskme]

The first three words you used PROVES what you REALLY DID.

So all you've done now, is you have read about some 'proof claim'... which in reality, is just some silly made-up imagined story, that doesn't NEED to be read.

It's ok, we all do it..I've read loads of fictional stories.. believing them to be proof that I wrote them..using words.

[Age]

The first three words you used PROVES what you REALLY DID.

So all you've done now, is you have read about some 'proof claim'... which in reality, is just some silly made-up imagined story, that doesn't NEED to be read.

You asked a question, as PROVED ALREADY and IRREFUTABLY True. So, there was some thing you could figure out for yourself.

It's ok, we all do it..I've read loads of fictional stories.. believing them to be proof that I wrote them..using words.

Okay. But considering what I ACTUALLY do this has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with me.

[Dontaskme]

You asked a question, as PROVED ALREADY and IRREFUTABLY True. So, there was some thing you could figure out for yourself.

Okay. But considering what I ACTUALLY do this has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with me.

The word (me)or (you) or ( I) or (we) or (us) is a word intentionally describing itself as the doer. In reality, a word does NOTHING.

There's only the perception of doing as and through the intentional descriptive power of words. Which are basically perceptions/stories that do not NEED to be read...except to gain some kind of model or storyline about what is in reality ABSOLUTELY without model or story.

The Absolute has no story of (I) which is just a word including all the synonym's and antonym's of the same symbolic word... ..except in this artificial conception/aka this divisible fictional self-arising story.

All stories are written, read, and re-told by the word ( I ) itself. In other words...nothing is being something which is really nothing.

Going nowhere, accomplishing and achieving ABSOLUTELY nothing. The ABSOLUTE has no copyright.....copyright is a fiction...it's the dream of separation believed to be real.

The real real is without belief or story or model...because it's ABSOLUTE...therefore, any relative, objective truth about the Absolute is ABSURD.