Accepting the "Christian" conception of the world makes you a Christian. Clearly one can condemn the validity of a position without holding to be true the position's framework. — Heister Eggcart

No, but if he wants to criticise the Christian God for allowing evil, then he cannot deny free will, cause free will is an essential aspect of the Christian framework. This in effect means that he's not even criticising the Christian God.

Because morality exists as a result of God's existence, his essence which is to create. God facilitates evil's presence in the world, and so he is ultimately responsible for that evil. This does not, however, remove the problem of evil from us - our actions still carry weight, but such weighted actions need not have ever been were God not to be at all. — Heister Eggcart

Ok.

A man needn't ask outright for a substantive answer, such is a subtle expectation, which is why I asked for more substance, seeing as you didn't understand the video. — Heister Eggcart

Well I don't find the video particularly meaningful to the problem of free will and theodicy. I don't feel God asks you to do something that is harmful to you.

Re the Schopenhauer essay - the only interesting thing I found there was S's support for metempsychosis, from a Christian point of view that is interesting. But what reincarnates? Do my atoms reincarnate into different bodies once I die? Sure. Do some of my thoughts reincarnate in people I've touched, talked to, etc. ? Sure. Does my DNA reincarnate? Well if I have children, it certainly does! So there surely is some form of reincarnation, but the soul - according to Christians - does not reincarnate. Schopenhauer does precious little there to address this.

And btw Schopenhauer is wrong that "the Jews" don't accept reincarnation - actually surprisingly, the Jews do accept reincarnation, it's Christians who don't. His religious anthropology isn't very good.

And the fact he thinks the Chinese laugh at the assertions of the Christians, etc. is utterly false. Christianity is the world's biggest religion, many times bigger than Buddhism, and very successful at the moment in Asia and Latin America, where most of the conversions are happening. The largest number of deconversions are in the West, but the West isn't telling of the whole world. In addition, Christianity and Islam are the only two religion posed to either grow or maintain their share of the world's population, all other religions, including Buddhism, are in decline.

A God who created the world just in order to act police. Can that really be Christ's message? — Beebert

No, it's not at all just to act police. But Justice is part of Goodness.

I believe not in Free will. — Beebert

So if you don't believe in free will, then you refuse to accept the Christian conception of the world, and thus you cannot condemn the Christian God in good faith if you don't at least accept the framework of Christianity.

"So what? No man if important. But immorality will still be punished " — Beebert

Yeah, what's bad about punishing immorality? That sounds like something great to me.

I asked you first. — Heister Eggcart

I don't see a question.

More substance please ;)

You haven't given me a good reason why. — TheMadFool

Actually I think I have, it's you who is frustratingly ignoring it.

Shouldn't that preclude any knowledge, including and beyond God's existence? — TheMadFool

Sure, except maybe the knowledge that He's incomprehensible ;)

To some extent, at least, isn't that both necessary and desirable? — Bitter Crank

Sure, but the question we were talking about had to do with what the Buddha actually said, so in that case it's problematic to put stuff in his mouth that there's no evidence he said. At least what's in the sutras, even if not accurate is better and more likely to be true than what was added 50 years ago ;)

Then how do you know God exists? — TheMadFool

Direct experience + faith. I do take belief in God as properly basic (as Plantinga would say) to be honest. Atheism isn't the default position for me, but quite the contrary, it's something one arrives at after effort.

I imagine to know what you might mean, but if you wish to elaborate it would be appreciated. Joking, not joking, half-serious, other? Thanks. — 0 thru 9

Read it.

And here's an Orthodox Saint.

So God thinks that it is better to live a short life with free will and then be eternally punished for it (something he apparently foreknew) than to live without Free will or to not live at all? — Beebert

No, God doesn't think from the perspective of one single human, but rather from the perspective of the whole of Creation. But even from the perspective of one human being, yes that may be better.

I disagree with God if so. — Beebert

That wouldn't change that He is God, and you are just a human being.

You say my actions are my fault. — Beebert

Yes, because in that case you're showing that you're not very wise.

But God knew Everything before creating me, and therefore he created me that certain way — Beebert

No He didn't create you that way. He created you with free will. You're using your freedom in that manner right now. Why? You could stop doing that for example.

In a way, it seems to be his fault of what you say is true. — Beebert

It can't be - you have free will.

Didnt Christ say "Do not resort evil "? And yet evil must be repayed with evil? — Beebert

You would be a fool if you repaid, say, a criminal who has raped, tortured and killed hundreds of people with anything but justice. Justice can entail harming another. Evil is not to be trifled with, it must be squished and eradicated. If you let evil grow, it will overtake you and your society and destroy you.

I might as well add that this ultra-rationalism with regards to morality is quite a "modern" invention. So while you're not - say - a secular progressive - you do share with them the same emphasis on reason with regards to morality, although obviously you come to different conclusions than they do.

This perhaps more than anything else forms the greatest barrier to my possible conversion. — Thorongil

I did notice this before. But you seem to have a very rationalistic/Kantian position with regards to morality. What if true morality is - dare I say - contradictory? For example, I remember you sent me Kant's commentary on the story of Abraham and Isaac - that's also a very rationalistic way of thinking and seeing morality. Kierkegaard's version though - as expounded in Fear and Trembling - is less trapped by the boundaries of human rationality, and opens up into an authentic relationship with the Divine.

"Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao" — 0 thru 9

Oh wow, sounds exactly like Christian theology!

But, again, must the good presuppose evil? — Thorongil

It's an interesting question... Is God beyond good and evil?

It seems like God's free choice. His knowledge about it and approval of creating the world that way means he wills it. — Beebert

He wills you to have free will, exactly. Therefore He cannot control what you do with your free will, if He did, you wouldn't have free will to begin with. It's really quite a simple thing, I don't know why you don't get it. It's not God's fault that someone is a rapist, etc. etc. - it's their fault for making that choice.

And to preempt an objection - if He knows you will misuse your free will and chooses not to create you, then His creatures effectively don't have free will. So either way, if God wants His creatures to have free will, evil must exist and be possible.

then it seems to me that not creating the world at all would be far better" — Beebert

Yes, from a limited human understanding. Apparently, God doesn't think so. He thinks free will is worth hell.


:s That's a red herring, since the situation with God isn't the same. Vice is punishment for itself, and virtue is reward in itself. If someone rapes, etc. then he will get punished, by other people, and by the damage his crime does on his own soul. People punish themselves, and its righteous that we are so constituted such that evil leads to destruction.

Why does the victim need his enemy to be punished eternally as well? — Beebert

It's uncertain what "eternal" means. It certainly doesn't mean infinite temporal duration, but more like timelessness.

Is it because he so hates the enemy that there can be no bliss unless the enemy is forever suffering? — Beebert

Nope, it's just that evil has to be rewarded with evil, unless there is repentance.

Is God = chaos? — TheMadFool

God is beyond order and beyond chaos.

But did God not know he would become like that before the foundation of the world? — Beebert

So what if He knew? It was still the man's free choice that made him so. God's foreknowledge does not mean lack of free will. The "morality" you're putting forth here is an abomination. Can you imagine, letting the unrepentant criminal who deserves the utmost punishment go? That is not justice, that is stupidity, cowardice, and injustice masquerading itself as benevolence. Benevolence towards everyone, except the criminal's victims.

Yes, biggest amongst other values, not at any cost. Otherwise if I'd have said something like "Knowledge", someone could have come back with, "But what if you were miserable?". — Sapientia

Well to me, the value that holds most power in your life is the value that you're unwilling to sacrifice for anything else. So since you're willing to sacrifice enjoyment for some things, then I think enjoyment isn't your fundamental value, the one that holds most power in your life. Maybe your value actually is something else - like integrity.

why did God create a psycopathic murderer? — Beebert

He didn't, that person became so, partly out of their own choice.

Vill du veta den stora skillnaden mellan Dostojevskij och de flesta kristna (Augustine och Aquinas ingår)? Dostojevskij found älskvärda trots deras "omoral", trots sina brister och sätt att vara. Eller tydligare: Människor är ontologiskt värd kärlek. Aquinas och Augustinus trodde mycket annorlunda. Människan är av sin natur förkastligt och ovärdigt kärlek. Dostojevskij sade man skall älskad genom Gud. Augustinus och Aquinas trodde man skulle bli älskad för "Guds skull" (särskilt Aquino). Det är en grotesk skillnad. — Beebert

Please translate this.

Guilty as in juridically guilty? — Beebert

Of course.

You want to know the great difference between Dostoevsky and Most Christians (Augustine and Aquinas included)? Dostoevsky found People loveable despite their "immorality", despite their shortcomings and way of being. Or more clearly: People are ontologically worthy of love. Aquinas and Augustine thought very differently. Man is by his nature reprehensible and unworthy of love. Dostoevsky said man shall be loved THROUGH God. Augustine and Aquinas thought man should be loved for "The sake of God" (especially Aquinas). That is a grotesque difference. — Beebert

No, sorry, I don't think a psychopathic murderer is worthy of love in any common sense of the term.

So define guilty then. — Beebert

Guilty = having committed a sin.

I wouldn't trade what I've got for a joyful delusion of that scale. — Sapientia

And yet until a few seconds ago you were saying enjoyment is your biggest value. Sounds like you lied to us ;)

No they are guilty and unguilty at the same time. That is what Dostoevsky really means; there is Only one true sin: The failure to love. — Beebert

No they're not unguilty in any way. I don't know where you take that from, D never suggests otherwise. Failure to love is exactly what they're doing.

Yes. All are guilty. But compare Dostoevsky 's understanding of that to the understanding of Augustine and Aquinas. It is vastly different. Dostoevsky goes so much deeper. — Beebert

I don't see how what D says disagrees with A&A.

Yes. All are guilty. — Beebert

So then they are immoral.

They are so to say not guilty — Beebert

So this must be false.

The "immoral" People there are extremely loveable. They are so to say not guilty not rather unguilty guilty. — Beebert

:s - no I don't think so at all. Smerdyakov is guilty of murdering Fyodor Pavlovich, Ivan is guilty for teaching Smerdyakov that God is dead (for then everything is permitted), and so forth. They're all guilty and sinful - whether they know what they're doing or not.

Then I would say that actions can in a sense be judged by its consequences and motives, but in the deeper Course of things, the majority of immoral actions are not even understood by the one who commits them. — Beebert

So what if they're not understood? That suddenly stops making them immoral or what? :s

You first have to define what morality means according to you. — Beebert

Morality describes the rightness or wrongness of actions. As such, for morality to be relevant the person must undertake the respective action through their own will. If they are forced to do something then such an action cannot be considered moral or immoral, since they don't have a choice in the matter.

It can be dismissed, disagreed with, translations called into question and all that... but that I'm not giving examples is not one of them... — Wosret

This is NOT about translations being called into question. This simply cannot be found in the sutras.

That is part of Nietzsch's critique against christianity. Its judgements are in the end not Deep enough. Perhaps God and Christ goes Deep enough (probably and hopefully), but the Christian traditional thought doesnt. Actually, You find these thoughts a lot in Dostoevsky as well. — Beebert

Well you haven't really answered my questions...

How should we decipher the irrational forces and unconscious motives? — Agustino

And furthermore, if they are irrational and unconscious, then it would follow that no morality is possible, for we cannot call something immoral unless it's under the control of the person's will. — Agustino

Actions should be judged by the irrational forces and unconcious motives that lies in the depth of the one committing the act. — Beebert

How should we decipher the irrational forces and unconscious motives?

And furthermore, if they are irrational and unconscious, then it would follow that no morality is possible, for we cannot call something immoral unless it's under the control of the person's will.

I would not. In fact, it would encourage me to seek an answer. I think that's true for others too. — TheMadFool

No it's absolutely not true for others. On the contrary, if you know that knowing an answer would deflate your will to find out, you will postpone knowing, since you'll know, that in principle, it's possible.

Even this is expressible in words and the Buddha could've said so. ''If I tell you anything about God then you will lose the will to discover the truth'' - see? Easy. — TheMadFool

Yes, and if he said that, would they not lose the will to discover the truth? Of course they would!

I dont think so no — Beebert

Right, so then regardless of whether one is weak or strong, morality is the same?

Yet, Buddha didn't. Why? — TheMadFool

I answered that question. Because then people wouldn't be curious to find out anymore, they'd have a clear answer given.

An omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent being — TheMadFool

These words aren't found in the Bible - they are philosophical in origin, and they indeed are attributes of God that emerge from the Biblical narrative, but they're not found there. Also you have no idea what God being a "being" means, since God isn't a being the way you and me are beings. So by what means would you have an idea? "being" is not a determinate concept, the way "triangle" is. Anything you can think of is a "being". So that's not going to be helpful at all.

The things that he explains losing are the causes of suffering. — Wosret

Citations please. So far you're just offering us your blank assertions, one of which I've proven to be false.

Rather, he says what really is the Case. He tries to say how things really are. — Beebert

Ah, so if things really are that the strong burns the weak (because he's the strong, and hence can dominate the weak), then that's moral according to Nietzsche?

And not as tragic as the alternative of living on in insufferable torment. — Sapientia

What insufferable torment? Religion for me is full of joy! 8-)