Yuyutsu,

The part of your post that I was addressing was not asking any questions.

<<…I sincerely want to learn about the Muslim view over this question - shall we allow Grateful to explain it in his/her way rather than mine?>>

It was making specific claims.

<<Obviously it was not my intention to prove anything…>>

Oh, “prove”, “provide support for” - whatever you want to call it - why else would you follow a statement (i.e. “The so-called "problem of evil" doesn't exist”) with a justification for that statement?

<<…only to ask a question - "what makes your pleasures good and your pains evil?">>

Then I would suggest that you frame your questions in the format of a question; particularly if they immediately follow a statement that they are going to co-incidentally look like a justification for.

<<…the artificial "problem of evil" only arises from the Abrahamic expectation for God to do the bidding of humans (who were "made in his image") and operate according to their feeble standards, likes and dislikes.>>

Well, my comments WERE directed towards a person who is defending the Abrahamic god.

<<That could only be a fallacy had God been doing anything, but as I mentioned already on various other threads, God does not exist hence He doesn't 'do' anything.>>

Well then, when you have finally moved beyond this default position of yours, and your notion of God has progressed to something that actually requires you to think and allows others to get a toehold on, then come back to me. In the meantime, the rest of us will wait for you to catch up.

<<I see nothing wrong about holding separate standards for men and for God.>>

Then, in light of this discussion, if you still hold that view when your theological position progresses to something that can be discussed, you are an immoral person.

<<Why should we believe that our pleasures are good and our pains are evil?>>

Why would you continue down this line when I have already told you that it is a misrepresentation and oversimplification of what I had said?

aj/quote..<<.you are an immoral person.>>

even..out of context.thats harsh..aj

in response to..what?

<<..I see nothing wrong about holding
separate standards for men and for God.>>

NEITHER..do i
why..shouldn't we EXPECT>>MORE..[the ideal]..from god?

[who knows all..COMPARED..to us his creation..but mere fleas..to the great dog..[read god]..[my father..knows no offense is intended... unlike mere men that would judge other]..

TO WHOM MUCH..IS GIVEN
sure..MUCH BETTER..is..only..[UNIQUELY}..to*BE EXPECTED.

but why do you..avoid the expose..MAHMOUD said dont say slave..say brother/sister..[he must be..measured/by his own measure]..re any use of that slave word.[re point 3..so conveniently..ignored

its indicative of status..ie some are slaves..to working/religion/atheist-izm...yet..others slaves to drugs..or addiction..to sex..YET others SLAVES to..debtors..[enslaved..by govt/busines/marriage/kids and banks]

OUG,

Please don’t quote me out-of-context. There were two very important conditions in that statement of mine.

<<even..out of context.thats harsh..aj>>

What do you mean “even”? Out of-context it would have been downright rude.

Anyone who attributes an edict to some other being, in order to excuse it from evil acts, is an immoral person. It’s that simple. There is nothing harsh in pointing that out.

The reason I made such a statement so boldly and unabashedly is because I don’t think that Yuyutsu, or even grateful, truly believe that evil acts are excusable just because they are committed by a god. They simply use mental gymnastics to avoid addressing the conundrum.

<<NEITHER..do I [see something wrong in holding separate standards for men and for God] why..shouldn't we EXPECT>>MORE..[the ideal]..from god?>>

We should, and that only strengthens my point. But I haven’t even needed to go there.

However, that’s not what we were talking about and if it was what Yuyutsu was implying, then he/she was merely slipping in a red herring.

>>Yes, people have difficulty with pain and suffering, but that doesn't make pain evil<<

No, it doesn't. But what would you call somebody who willingly and with malice aforethought inflicts pain and suffering on other people? A bit of cvnt? A jolly nice chap? God?

Pain and suffering aren't evil: a child who touches a hot stove will suffer but they will learn from their suffering and not touch it again. But an God that deliberately inflicts pain and suffering on their 'children' in order to 'teach them a lesson' sounds like the sort of abusive parent that will hold a child's hand against a hot stove to demonstrate their love. On reflection, probably more than just a bit of a cvnt. And a bit unhinged by most people's metric.

Cheers,

Tony

What is the nature of god? By definition, god is unknowable. God may be nature with a capital N. The term god surely is archaic and belongs in the past.

Sir Roger Penrose, one of the great minds of this century, developed the theory of Quantum Consciousness ... that the nature of consciousness is a quantum process.

Penrose is internationally renowned for his scientific work in mathematical physics, particularly his contributions to general relativity and cosmology.

He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of London in 1972. Stephen Hawking and Penrose were jointly awarded the Eddington Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society, He was awarded the Royal Society Royal Medal. Along with Stephen Hawking, he was awarded the prestigious Wolf Foundation Prize for Physics in 1988. ...

His other awards - the Dirac Medal and Prize of the British Institute of Physics, the Albert Einstein Medal, the Naylor Prize of the London Mathematical Society, the De Morgan Medal for his wide and original contributions to mathematical physics. He served as President of the International Society on General Relativity and Gravitation ... and his not insignificant credentials go on ...

Penrose work on General Relativity led to an understanding of black holes. He developed the Twistor Theory

Penrose does not hold to any religious doctrine, and refers to himself as an atheist. In the film A Brief History of Time, he said, "I think I would say that the universe has a purpose, it's not somehow just there by chance ... some people, I think, take the view that the universe is just there and it runs along – it's a bit like it just sort of computes, and we happen somehow by accident to find ourselves in this thing. But I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it."Penrose is a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association.
(see wiki)

Dear Tony,

Would you call a mentally-ill parent who holds their child's hand against a hot stove "evil"? No.
Would you call tsunamis or falling rocks "evil"? No.
Would you call animals "evil"? There's a slight controversy, but most would say 'No'.

This indicates that evil is a property of the mind. No mind - no evil!

Although there were primitive sightings of mind in some animals, the mind is essentially a human appendage. The mind is centred around its core, the ego: that inflated notion of the importance of one's body, existing separately from all others.

This idea of God having an ego/mind like us, made in the image of man along with all man's faults and appendages, is crazy.

If you agree with me that God has no mind, then you must agree that God cannot be evil.

In contrast with the ego-centred mind, capable of evil because it sets us apart, goodness is defined as that which brings us together, so we realise our underlying common-ground rather than care for maintaining our boundaries. Our underlying common-ground being God, a corollary is that goodness is closeness-to-God.

Psalm 92 says: "It is good to give thanks to the Lord, to make music to your name O most high".
In other words, the psalm claims that giving thanks and making music are methods of coming closer to God, thus closer to all others and shedding off our ego/mind and its evil potential.

Dear AJ Philips,

Should that be your wish, I may be able to help you discard me as an immoral person.
In fact, I gave you a whale-sized clue in my last post, but you failed to take advantage.

God aside, I wrote in support of having different standards for different people, implying that those who no-longer perceive pain as evil are no-longer obliged to refrain from inflicting pain on others.

Of course, in order to cease perceiving pain as evil, one would need to get rid of their ego/mind, which is also the main obstacle to being with God, thus one would likely be doing God's will.