In hopes of helping people understand Orson Scott Card

[Ambystoma4]

Everything you say is factually accurate, but I believe how you've applied it to the problem of evil to be in error.

Possibly.

Secondly, I have never seen a Christian claim that God was not completely good. Sure, The fire and brimstone stuff doesn't sound too cool, but the fire and brimstone preacher will just tell you that He's only smiting evil guys, and bringing justice to the world, He's still the good guy.

I mean if you don't claim that God is good, then what's the difference between God and Satan?

I'm not quite convinced that Satan has any real power. I think we make him a scapegoat for our our weaknesses and inherant evilness; if we are inclined to be evil then god would be our natural enemy. I believe he would tell you that god is a malevolent entity because we are all wicked sinners. Now I'm going to have to find a fire and brimstone evangelical preacher to test out this theory... and a video camera.

I am way too tired to really be discussing this coherantly, and not to mention discussion of certain points is not a good way reveal my personal philosophy since I will just be contrary for balance. If this doesn't make sense drink until you reach intoxication level 5 then reread it, and see if it makes more sense afterwards.

[Ambystoma4]

nitpick: a "Deist" attempts to understand the Deity mainly through nature. A deist is one who believe in the existance of a Deity. Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Hindus are all deists.

Not necessarily If you apply the attempts to understand deity part of the definition. There are those who attempt to understand the religion and there are those who like being able to put the religion on their business cards.

You've got to be kidding - not religious? If we disagree on the plain meaning of the text to this degree, it's unlikely that either of us will change our minds. In my reading, anything which talks about rights which were "endowed by [our] Creator" is obviously influenced by religion.

Creator is an ambiguous term.
According to some cornors of the world it's referencing Satan.

It was pretty much a given we weren't going to agreement about this from the the start. I'm reading the words while you're trying to read meaning into it.

There really aren't any rights that endowed by a creator. It's all about what rights those in power allow us to have. For example if the majority thought it would be a good idea to live in a nudist colony we would live in a nudist colony.

I never said it did. However, it should inform the debate regarding the state of mind of the founding fathers - they obviously were people who used religious metaphor and language to a tremendous effect. It was either sincere, implying that there was at least some amount of genuine faith, or it was insincere, with the resultant implications for their work.

You're right you didn't; I just wanted to clear up what you were quoting.
The Declaration is more of a fire for effect document then anything else, and Jefferson could be a little bit overly dramatic at times. The thing is Shakespearian in it's execution.

[thegameiam]

I'm not quite convinced that Satan has any real power. I think we make him a scapegoat for our our weaknesses and inherant evilness; if we are inclined to be evil then god would be our natural enemy. I believe he would tell you that god is a malevolent entity because we are all wicked sinners. Now I'm going to have to find a fire and brimstone evangelical preacher to test out this theory... and a video camera.

I am way too tired to really be discussing this coherantly, and not to mention discussion of certain points is not a good way reveal my personal philosophy since I will just be contrary for balance. If this doesn't make sense drink until you reach intoxication level 5 then reread it, and see if it makes more sense afterwards.

You may or may not be interested in a Biblical anecdote *if not, skip now*



In Isaiah, God is described as the one who "makes peace and creates evil" - a slightly modified form of this sentence is included in the Jewish daily prayer service in the context of describing God as the unitary source of everything which we experience as good and evil. In the Jewish worldview, "Satan" is merely a prosecuting attourney: you don't necessarily have to LIKE him, and you certainly wouldn't want to hang out for a couple of beers, but his position with regard to God makes a bit more sense to me...

Many people who describe Satan as being an independent force in the universe are echoing pre-Christian Zoroastrian dualistic beliefs. I would assume that this is not intentional

yes it's too late...

-David

[Ambystoma4]

That would go along with my understand of original sin. Where we struggle against our own fallible nature not some outside force. That also goes along with some interesting theories about the nature of heaven and hell.

It's probably not. It's just their misinterpretation of the bible stemming from the Garden of Eden parable.

What is too late? You've gone past drunkeness level 5, and I make sense?

Interesting Quote...

Central to Zoroastrianism is the world's constant struggle between Good and Evil. In the beginning of creation, the Supreme God ("Ahura Mazda") (meaning wise God and characterized by endless light, omniscience, and goodness) opposed Angra Mainyu (or Ahriman) an evil spirit of darkness, violence and death. This cosmic dualism between good and evil stands in marked contrast to the Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam in which Satan is in no way the equal of God and is a creation of God.

Mardanfarrokh, a Zoroastrian theologian in the 9th century CE, posited, "If God is perfect in goodness and wisdom, then ignorance and evil cannot come from Him. If they could come from Him, He would not be perfect; and if He were not perfect, He should not be praised as God and perfectly good..." (117-123 from 'For students and novices" Complete Pazand and Sanskrit texts published by H.J. Jamasp-Asana and E.W. West; pioneer English translation by E.W. West, SBE. XXIV; transcribed Pazand text with French translation by P.J. de Menasce. From Textual sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism by Mary Boyce. University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1984.) - From Wikipedia

[GabrielTane]

The failure there is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I like that. Sums it up quite nicely.

I've read the posts between my last and this, and I've seen many things that I'm not going to jump into. Sorry... getting a bit too semantic (sp?) for me.

But I did want to interject 2 points here

1) Religion, faith, "believing" cannot ever be proven right or wrong... and this is coming from someone who almost religiously (tee hee) avoids using definates like "never" and "always". Religion, in my interpretation, is to be something that you believe without needing or having evidence to support that belief. As I've always held, there are two basic (please don't expand this into sub-types.. i know... they're there) typs of truths: those that are true with or without proof (i.e. gravity... Newton didn't invent it. it was always there). the second type would be truths that are true because we belive them. I'd like to add that these second-truths are true only to those who believe them.

Since those truths are true because we believe them, they cannot be proven false without first removing that belief. And, no, the evidence itself will not remove that belief just because it's presented. I can show you such compelling evidence (if I hadn't already sold it on Ebay) that Jesus never existed or that he was a Spanish midget bullfighter (did they do that in "30AD"?)... but it will not destroy the "truth" that he was the son of god and all that... at least it won't destroy the truth that is held by the believers.

2)Crap... forgot what my second point was. That's what I get for doing this at work. Grrrr.

OH! THAT WAS IT!!!! The whole kinder, gentler christian thing... I just wanted to point out that it's not a "new fad" per se. It's actually a return to roots (if you'll excuse the expression). If you strip away the literal interpretations of the gospels and you stop trying to use them to make political points (I am not accusing anyone here of doing that!!! I'm talking about christianity [espically in SE USA] at large's actions), you'll see that the basic message of Jesus was to be nice to each other.

The stories of Jesus and most of the second testiment, was supposed to be a guidebook. They are not literal stories (well, i guess they could be... i don't have evidence one way or the other), but are parables (sp? again) that teach a lesson. Like an early verson of Poor Richards Alminac... don't shoot me if I got that name wrong. I'm not sure it was "richard".

Christianity... no... the teachings of Jesus were, originally, not so much a faith, but an intended guide for inter-personal behavior. Loving thy neighbor, not judging, turning the other cheek, tolerance, and basic love... while they are still claimed as basic christian traits, I personally see them quite absent in most christian's day-to-day interractions. Sadly.

well, that's it really. Time to go find more coffee.

[Ambystoma4]

Of course not. That would kind of defeat the purpose of it if we could. Basically religion is just a vague generalized opinion. That doesn't mean that it doesn't have an effect on our psyche though.

The Bible. The cannot prove of disprove it's legitamacy as a non-fiction work. As such it's just a piece of literature.

Truth is such a subjective term; I prefer facts and opinions.

Fact: Eating Green Bean will allow your body to absorbe the nutrients out of it. There is evidence to support this.

Opinion: Tiger Tail is an effective way to treat skin diseases. There is no evidence of this.