HomerWSmith at lightlink.com
HomerWSmith at lightlink.com
Thu Jul 23 16:17:53 EDT 2015
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> What about the plagues, the earthquakes, the tidal waves, the
>>hurricanes, the volcanoes, the famines that destroy millions of lives,
>>crushing bodies, leaving little children homeless, splitting lovers
CB Willis (cbwillis at adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>We're talking about moral/ethical "bad", commonly known as "evil", not
>about non-ethically-related pain-"bad."
Exactly, morals have to do with CHOICES that we make. Since God
has a choice about what he creates, namely planets and men, and has a
choice about putting men on planets where the bugs can come feast on
their skin, I would say we very definitely have a problem in moral
If any *HUMAN* were to do to humans what God has done to humans
WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT, he would be hunted down to extinction.
You repeatedly fail to deal with this issue.
If God is 'The Father' and we are 'His Children', and a human
parent were to treat a human child the way God treats man, God would be
thrown in jail for child abuse.
Treating God as the Father and Man as his children leads to
infantile behavior on the part of adults in their relationship to God.
They never grow up to BECOME God again or even real men.
>> What about asteroids that take out half the planet and ruin life
>>for millions of years?
>> What about suns going super nova destroying entire solar systems
>>and all civilizations on them forever?
>Just nature doing its thing.
God made nature, God made man, God PUT MAN IN NATURE. That's
like putting your child in a tiger cage and locking the door.
>> Certainly these did not come from Man, even though Carol once said to
>>me that people had a choice about living at the bottom of the volcano
>>so they were responsible for their own suffering.
>Produce the quote. Doesn't sound like something I'd say.
>I may have said something about why live near volcanos.
It was a phone conversation Carol, and I was using the volcano as
an example of something bad that God does to humans that is not
human's fault, and you said it was human's fault for they could have
chosen to live elsewhere.
>> No these things did not come from man, they come from God the
>>creator, who created this universe of thermonuclear explosions and
>>put man on their planets to fend as best he could against the forces
>>of the night.
>> So is it true that Only Good comes from God?
I rest my case Carol. Thanks for putting it in writing.
>> If it is not true that only Good comes from God, if in fact both Good
>>and Bad come from God, what relationship then is there between the IDEAL
>>OF GOOD and God?
>Over the long course of the dialogue, "bad" was originally construed as a
>synonym of [moral/ethical] evil, at least it was so intended by me, now it
>seems to be construed in this post to mean fostering pain, though not
>necessarily evil, as natural events can cause pain to man if man gets in
>the way of them.
"If man gets in the way of them." So he should know better eh?
It's man's fault if nature hurts man?
Oh yeah, I left out congenital defects in my list of Good things
that God spawned.
Also what about the fact that good men are victimized by bad men,
whose fault is this, the fault of the Good men who happen to get in
the way of the Bad men? No it is God's fault for giving man the
ability to do bad in the first place, so that those who chose bad
could victimize the Good men.
>Assumptions aside, let's look at your question: the relationship
>between the IDEAL OF GOOD and God. The Ideal of Good is an eternal
>creative Idea (eidos) of God, used in the process of creation.
I do not see any Good to creation, I see a tiger cage with
a hungry tiger in it feeding on the bones of man and his hopes
>> Does God live up to that ideal of Good?
>Always, as all-goodness is an attribute of God's being.
I reset my case, you are nuts pushing party lines without
a consistency editor.
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Thu Jul 23 16:17:53 EDT 2015
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L at mailman.lightlink.com
More information about the Clear-L