theodicy

[iambiguous]

"A colossal explosion in the sky, unleashing energy hundreds of times greater than the Hiroshima bomb. A blinding flash nearly as bright as the Sun. Shockwaves powerful enough to flatten everything for miles.

It may sound apocalyptic, but a newly detected asteroid nearly the size of a football field now has a greater than one percent chance of colliding with Earth in about eight years." from MSN



"NASA is keeping a close eye on three giant asteroids that are set to make close approaches to Earth today.

One of them will come within just 77,200 miles of our planet, which is roughly one-third of the average distance between Earth and the moon." MSN


Whatever possessed God in Heaven to create asteroids?

[promethean75]

Meteors are mobile ballistic weapons systems created by god that he uses when it's time to destroy a planet. That's the 'fire raining down from the sky' part we always hear about in revelations.

But we've got Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck and the means to get them on any asteroid god sends our way, so don't worry about it.

[iambiguous]

Evil & An Omnipotent, Benevolent God
Zdeněk Petráček looks at the biggest problem facing monotheism.

The problem of evil is one of the most profound philosophical challenges to the belief in an omnipotent God. How can the existence of evil and suffering be reconciled with an all-powerful good God?

As some here know, "the problem of evil", is the part about God and religion I come back to over and again. Why? Because "here and now" I am, in fact, able to convince myself that a God, the God is one possible explanation for the existence of existence itself. But if this God does exist and He is both omniscient and omnipotent, I can only really understand Him as some sort of sadistic monster.

This part:

Epicurus is said to have provided a thought-provoking formulation of the problem at around the turn of the third century BCE, which can be summarised:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Of course, the faithful will subsume this by and large in a God, the God, their God's "mysterious ways". Yes, it is truly a grim fact that "acts of God" have caused a staggering amount of human pain and suffering. And still do. But since [ultimately] God is a loving, just and merciful Creator, our leap of faith includes accepting that one day it will all become crystal clear just how loving, just and merciful He is.

Besides, if we reject a God, the God, we run the risk of, well, the "or else" part for starters. Right?

These inquiries encapsulate the crux of ‘the problem of evil’ (also called ‘theodicy’): if God allows evil’s existence, does this not cast doubt upon either his benevolence or his omnipotence? The tension posed by Epicurus’s questions challenge the foundations of monotheism.

Not really. And not for millions upon millions. The only challenge many recognize here revolves around saving the souls of the infidels. Either that or, for some, mowing them down and sending them straight to Hell.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

"A colossal explosion in the sky, unleashing energy hundreds of times greater than the Hiroshima bomb. A blinding flash nearly as bright as the Sun. Shockwaves powerful enough to flatten everything for miles.

It may sound apocalyptic, but a newly detected asteroid nearly the size of a football field now has a greater than one percent chance of colliding with Earth in about eight years." from MSN

"NASA is keeping a close eye on three giant asteroids that are set to make close approaches to Earth today.

One of them will come within just 77,200 miles of our planet, which is roughly one-third of the average distance between Earth and the moon." MSN

Whatever possessed God in Heaven to create asteroids?

What a bunch of lying click bait. MSN and The Daily Heil are not information sources. Nothing to see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... th_in_2025 The biggest is 44m at the extreme most; 32m +/- 12, 0.75819 LD on 2025-02-04 Nothing near the size of a MASSIVE!!! bus comes within 0.37515 LD

'Your lifetime odds are

1 in 1,600,000

The probability of being hit by a meteorite is difficult to estimate, but Tulane University earth sciences professor Stephen A. Nelson published a paper in 2014 that put the lifetime odds of dying from a local meteorite, asteroid, or comet impact at 1 in 1,600,000. According to NASA, the probability of an asteroid capable of destroying a city striking Earth is 0.1% every year.' (National Geographic apparently, searching on the click bait).

Seeing as urbanization covers 3% of the world, that's 0.003% 3:100,000 chances EVERY YEAR!!!!! 300 in 10,000 years I.e. 99.997% not. And then multiply by 10.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Evil & An Omnipotent, Benevolent God
Zdeněk Petráček looks at the biggest problem facing monotheism.

The problem of evil is one of the most profound philosophical challenges to the belief in an omnipotent God. How can the existence of evil and suffering be reconciled with an all-powerful good God?

As some here know, "the problem of evil", is the part about God and religion I come back to over and again. Why? Because "here and now" I am, in fact, able to convince myself that a God, the God is one possible explanation for the existence of existence itself. But if this God does exist and He is both omniscient and omnipotent, I can only really understand Him as some sort of sadistic monster.

This part:

Epicurus is said to have provided a thought-provoking formulation of the problem at around the turn of the third century BCE, which can be summarised:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Of course, the faithful will subsume this by and large in a God, the God, their God's "mysterious ways". Yes, it is truly a grim fact that "acts of God" have caused a staggering amount of human pain and suffering. And still do. But since [ultimately] God is a loving, just and merciful Creator, our leap of faith includes accepting that one day it will all become crystal clear just how loving, just and merciful He is.

Besides, if we reject a God, the God, we run the risk of, well, the "or else" part for starters. Right?

These inquiries encapsulate the crux of ‘the problem of evil’ (also called ‘theodicy’): if God allows evil’s existence, does this not cast doubt upon either his benevolence or his omnipotence? The tension posed by Epicurus’s questions challenge the foundations of monotheism.

Not really. And not for millions upon millions. The only challenge many recognize here revolves around saving the souls of the infidels. Either that or, for some, mowing them down and sending them straight to Hell.

Before we even get to The Problem of Evil, there's The Problem That The Unsmiling Cheshire God Completely and Utterly Convincingly Hides All Traces of Himself Even Better Than Baudelaire's Devil. That He Creates and Sustains the Cosmos As If He Doesn't.

[Belinda]

Evil & An Omnipotent, Benevolent God
Zdeněk Petráček looks at the biggest problem facing monotheism.

The problem of evil is one of the most profound philosophical challenges to the belief in an omnipotent God. How can the existence of evil and suffering be reconciled with an all-powerful good God?

As some here know, "the problem of evil", is the part about God and religion I come back to over and again. Why? Because "here and now" I am, in fact, able to convince myself that a God, the God is one possible explanation for the existence of existence itself. But if this God does exist and He is both omniscient and omnipotent, I can only really understand Him as some sort of sadistic monster.

This part:

Epicurus is said to have provided a thought-provoking formulation of the problem at around the turn of the third century BCE, which can be summarised:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Of course, the faithful will subsume this by and large in a God, the God, their God's "mysterious ways". Yes, it is truly a grim fact that "acts of God" have caused a staggering amount of human pain and suffering. And still do. But since [ultimately] God is a loving, just and merciful Creator, our leap of faith includes accepting that one day it will all become crystal clear just how loving, just and merciful He is.

Besides, if we reject a God, the God, we run the risk of, well, the "or else" part for starters. Right?

These inquiries encapsulate the crux of ‘the problem of evil’ (also called ‘theodicy’): if God allows evil’s existence, does this not cast doubt upon either his benevolence or his omnipotence? The tension posed by Epicurus’s questions challenge the foundations of monotheism.

Not really. And not for millions upon millions. The only challenge many recognize here revolves around saving the souls of the infidels. Either that or, for some, mowing them down and sending them straight to Hell.

Before we even get to The Problem of Evil, there's The Problem That The Unsmiling Cheshire God Completely and Utterly Convincingly Hides All Traces of Himself Even Better Than Baudelaire's Devil. That He Creates and Sustains the Cosmos As If He Doesn't.

The problem of evil as described by Iambiguous not a problem with no answer , and Martin's is not a problem with no answer.
Please see as follow:- Subtract God is all- powerful, and retain God is all-benevolent as apparent from the following evidence:

*people who are good despite danger to and suffering to themselves:

*animals and plants who are good because they know no evil and never did know evil:

*capability of humans to see evidence of good and evil and to judge between good and evil.

Omnipotence is a relic of the time when gods were a pantheon of beings that could be propitiated. That attitude towards God is what we now call superstition, or magic. To worship omnipotence is to be a slave and is the attitude that political dictators thrive on in the past and in 2025AD. Why, Martin. would you throw out omniscience and omni - benevolence because omnipotence ought not to be worshipped? That, BTW , is not a hypothetical question.

The creator ,Gaia, who is a personification of the order of nature, is a separate deity from him who is that part of the human psyche that demands that humans take responsibility for morality.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Evil & An Omnipotent, Benevolent God
Zdeněk Petráček looks at the biggest problem facing monotheism.

As some here know, "the problem of evil", is the part about God and religion I come back to over and again. Why? Because "here and now" I am, in fact, able to convince myself that a God, the God is one possible explanation for the existence of existence itself. But if this God does exist and He is both omniscient and omnipotent, I can only really understand Him as some sort of sadistic monster.

This part:

Of course, the faithful will subsume this by and large in a God, the God, their God's "mysterious ways". Yes, it is truly a grim fact that "acts of God" have caused a staggering amount of human pain and suffering. And still do. But since [ultimately] God is a loving, just and merciful Creator, our leap of faith includes accepting that one day it will all become crystal clear just how loving, just and merciful He is.

Besides, if we reject a God, the God, we run the risk of, well, the "or else" part for starters. Right?

Not really. And not for millions upon millions. The only challenge many recognize here revolves around saving the souls of the infidels. Either that or, for some, mowing them down and sending them straight to Hell.

Before we even get to The Problem of Evil, there's The Problem That The Unsmiling Cheshire God Completely and Utterly Convincingly Hides All Traces of Himself Even Better Than Baudelaire's Devil. That He Creates and Sustains the Cosmos As If He Doesn't.

The problem of evil as described by Iambiguous not a problem with no answer , and Martin's is not a problem with no answer.
Please see as follow:- Subtract God is all- powerful, and retain God is all-benevolent as apparent from the following evidence:

*people who are good despite danger to and suffering to themselves:

*animals and plants who are good because they know no evil and never did know evil:

*capability of humans to see evidence of good and evil and to judge between good and evil.

Omnipotence is a relic of the time when gods were a pantheon of beings that could be propitiated. That attitude towards God is what we now call superstition, or magic. To worship omnipotence is to be a slave and is the attitude that political dictators thrive on in the past and in 2025AD. Why, Martin. would you throw out omniscience and omni - benevolence because omnipotence ought not to be worshipped? That, BTW , is not a hypothetical question.

The creator ,Gaia, who is a personification of the order of nature, is a separate deity from him who is that part of the human psyche that demands that humans take responsibility for morality.

So human altruism, and animals and plants not knowing that they're suffering, despite suffering horribly and seemingly very well aware of it, which makes them moral, and humans perceiving and judging good and evil, makes God all-benevolent?

How?

[Belinda]

Before we even get to The Problem of Evil, there's The Problem That The Unsmiling Cheshire God Completely and Utterly Convincingly Hides All Traces of Himself Even Better Than Baudelaire's Devil. That He Creates and Sustains the Cosmos As If He Doesn't.

The problem of evil as described by Iambiguous not a problem with no answer , and Martin's is not a problem with no answer.
Please see as follow:- Subtract God is all- powerful, and retain God is all-benevolent as apparent from the following evidence:

*people who are good despite danger to and suffering to themselves:

*animals and plants who are good because they know no evil and never did know evil:

*capability of humans to see evidence of good and evil and to judge between good and evil.

Omnipotence is a relic of the time when gods were a pantheon of beings that could be propitiated. That attitude towards God is what we now call superstition, or magic. To worship omnipotence is to be a slave and is the attitude that political dictators thrive on in the past and in 2025AD. Why, Martin. would you throw out omniscience and omni - benevolence because omnipotence ought not to be worshipped? That, BTW , is not a hypothetical question.

The creator ,Gaia, who is a personification of the order of nature, is a separate deity from him who is that part of the human psyche that demands that humans take responsibility for morality.

So human altruism, and animals and plants not knowing that they're suffering, despite suffering horribly and seemingly very well aware of it, which makes them moral, and humans perceiving and judging good and evil, makes God all-benevolent?

How?

The God you are talking about is all -powerful to change the order of nature; this version of God does not exist, and if even if He did exist we ought to fight against Him.

Human altruism, innocence of plants and animals , and capability to judge good and evil are evidence of Platonic form of the Good. Because If there were no Platonic Form of the Good nobody could mirror or try to be a reflection of something that was not there. Yes, and the innocence of babies too, Trailing clouds of glory do we come from God who is our home
The omnipotence of God is a main function of the anthropocentric Abrahamic God. The young child understands nothing about the anthropocentric God until the growing boy or girl gets instructed and indoctrinated. Then shades of the prison house envelope him as you well know Martin

[Martin Peter Clarke]

The problem of evil as described by Iambiguous not a problem with no answer , and Martin's is not a problem with no answer.
Please see as follow:- Subtract God is all- powerful, and retain God is all-benevolent as apparent from the following evidence:

*people who are good despite danger to and suffering to themselves:

*animals and plants who are good because they know no evil and never did know evil:

*capability of humans to see evidence of good and evil and to judge between good and evil.

Omnipotence is a relic of the time when gods were a pantheon of beings that could be propitiated. That attitude towards God is what we now call superstition, or magic. To worship omnipotence is to be a slave and is the attitude that political dictators thrive on in the past and in 2025AD. Why, Martin. would you throw out omniscience and omni - benevolence because omnipotence ought not to be worshipped? That, BTW , is not a hypothetical question.

The creator ,Gaia, who is a personification of the order of nature, is a separate deity from him who is that part of the human psyche that demands that humans take responsibility for morality.

So human altruism, and animals and plants not knowing that they're suffering, despite suffering horribly and seemingly very well aware of it, which makes them moral, and humans perceiving and judging good and evil, makes God all-benevolent?

How?

The God you are talking about is all -powerful to change the order of nature; this version of God does not exist, and if even if He did exist we ought to fight against Him.

Human altruism, innocence of plants and animals , and capability to judge good and evil are evidence of Platonic form of the Good. Because If there were no Platonic Form of the Good nobody could mirror or try to be a reflection of something that was not there. Yes, and the innocence of babies too, Trailing clouds of glory do we come from God who is our home
The omnipotence of God is a main function of the anthropocentric Abrahamic God. The young child understands nothing about the anthropocentric God until the growing boy or girl gets instructed and indoctrinated. Then shades of the prison house envelope him as you well know Martin

I'm with you on the barricades. Or rather staring him in the eye on Judgement Day and spitting in it before we're napalmed.

[Belinda]

I meant anthropomorphic (NOT anthropocentric) I would not have minded if my error had been pointed out.

[Belinda]

So human altruism, and animals and plants not knowing that they're suffering, despite suffering horribly and seemingly very well aware of it, which makes them moral, and humans perceiving and judging good and evil, makes God all-benevolent?

How?

The God you are talking about is all -powerful to change the order of nature; this version of God does not exist, and if even if He did exist we ought to fight against Him.

Human altruism, innocence of plants and animals , and capability to judge good and evil are evidence of Platonic form of the Good. Because If there were no Platonic Form of the Good nobody could mirror or try to be a reflection of something that was not there. Yes, and the innocence of babies too, Trailing clouds of glory do we come from God who is our home
The omnipotence of God is a main function of the anthropocentric Abrahamic God. The young child understands nothing about the anthropocentric God until the growing boy or girl gets instructed and indoctrinated. Then shades of the prison house envelope him as you well know Martin

I'm with you on the barricades. Or rather staring him in the eye on Judgement Day and spitting in it before we're napalmed.

When you say you are with me do you refer to Platonism?

I don't feel angry about God of Bethel. I am sorry to part with God of Bethel who did sustain people I have loved.

Napalm is a fact of nature, to be precise an artefact of unreformed human nature. The Platonic version of God offers reason as our human way to make nature better than it is.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

The God you are talking about is all -powerful to change the order of nature; this version of God does not exist, and if even if He did exist we ought to fight against Him.

Human altruism, innocence of plants and animals , and capability to judge good and evil are evidence of Platonic form of the Good. Because If there were no Platonic Form of the Good nobody could mirror or try to be a reflection of something that was not there. Yes, and the innocence of babies too, Trailing clouds of glory do we come from God who is our home
The omnipotence of God is a main function of the anthropocentric Abrahamic God. The young child understands nothing about the anthropocentric God until the growing boy or girl gets instructed and indoctrinated. Then shades of the prison house envelope him as you well know Martin

I'm with you on the barricades. Or rather staring him in the eye on Judgement Day and spitting in it before we're napalmed.

When you say you are with me do you refer to Platonism?

I don't feel angry about God of Bethel. I am sorry to part with God of Bethel who did sustain people I have loved.

Napalm is a fact of nature, to be precise unreformed human nature. The Platonic version of God offers reason as our human way to make nature better than it is.

I refer to the fight against Lovelessness.

[Belinda]

I'm with you on the barricades. Or rather staring him in the eye on Judgement Day and spitting in it before we're napalmed.

When you say you are with me do you refer to Platonism?

I don't feel angry about God of Bethel. I am sorry to part with God of Bethel who did sustain people I have loved.

Napalm is a fact of nature, to be precise unreformed human nature. The Platonic version of God offers reason as our human way to make nature better than it is.

I refer to the fight against Lovelessness.

That's what it's all about.
Bring me my Bow of burning gold:
Bring me my arrows of desire:
Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold!
Bring me my Chariot of fire!

I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand:


( I omitted the name of that city in Israel because some folk here don't do metaphors.)


.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

When you say you are with me do you refer to Platonism?

I don't feel angry about God of Bethel. I am sorry to part with God of Bethel who did sustain people I have loved.

Napalm is a fact of nature, to be precise unreformed human nature. The Platonic version of God offers reason as our human way to make nature better than it is.

I refer to the fight against Lovelessness.

That's what it's all about.
Bring me my Bow of burning gold:
Bring me my arrows of desire:
Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold!
Bring me my Chariot of fire!

I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand:


( I omitted the name of that city in Israel because some folk here don't do metaphors.)

Jerusalem! I sing it often. I shall listen now to Greg Lake.

That's their problem Belinda. I mean I'm on the spectrum, but 'strewth! Blake is sublime. I have visited his gravestone often. Might again in July. One must always leave money for flowers. Or just take the flowers! The tradition is the former. At Bunhill. The most beautiful cemetery in the City.

I used reason to de- and re-construct God to Love. The trouble is it's too powerful for Him. I couldn't complete the final iteration. But it is liberating.

[Belinda]

"Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." From a letter from Paul to the Corinthians. The verse quoted synthesises the Platonic Form or' Idea' of love and the Christian ('afterlife') idea of love.