Oliver wrote: The existence of evil is a problem it seems even for a believer. Why god would create evil by proxy is a major issue.

Dear Oliver,

Evil exists according to the Bible because God creates it directly, not by proxy, as He creates everything else.

From the King James Version Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

There's no problem.

"Religious fundamentalism and atheism are both oh-so-19th-century. That was the golden age of "absolute" truths, and people of small horizons always will absolutize whatever is in front of them. Might be the local religion, might be the latest science, might be their own egos. Sadly, this problem has always been with us and likely always will be. People of broader horizons will be humbled by what they don't know -- and they'll try to keep science and philosophy, two useful human pursuits despite their sniping at each other, asking questions proper to their competencies. The problem with many premodern societies was that they tried to do science philosophically, and the problem with many modern societies is that they try to do philosophy scientifically. The first introduces too much mystery, the second not enough. Personally, I like the borderland between religion and science. It's a fuzzy zone -- which means to me they are strangely linked, like the crease of a paper folded back on itself -- and it's a place where belief becomes less important than thought and action."

bushbasher>>what is a specific argument..of dawkins which you would describe as nonsense?>>>thats easy..i debated him/..on his flatfish eye evolution/theory...

watch his you tube talk on the topic...he claims...that the fish..[by some unexplainable reason...or unexplained..by the theorisng dorkins....he states..the fish dragged his eye in the mud..till it gradually 'evolved'...both on one side

only one huge problem..with this THEORY...the small poiunt young flatfish..look like normal; fish..go figure

<<this isn't demanding a line-by-line analysis.>>thats good bbecause the dorkins deleted the 3 page debate on it..ay his forum..[that he lost]..then deleted

david

Isaiah refers..to the Oriental belief in two coexistent,..eternal principles,..ever struggling with each other,..light or good,..and darkness or evil, Oromasden and Ahrimanen.

God, here,..in opposition.. asserts His sovereignty over both [Vitringa].

create evil-not moral evil (Jas 1:13),..but in contrast to "peace" in the parallel clause, war, disaster..(compare Ps 65:7; Am 3:6).

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

45:5-10 There is no God beside Jehovah.. There is nothing done without him...He makes peace,..put here for all good; and creates evil, not the evil of sin, but the evil of punishment.

He is the Author of all that is true,..holy,good,or happy;..and evil, error, and misery,..came into the world by his permission,..through the wilful apostacy..of his creatures,..but are restrained and overruled to his righteous purpose.

as some would realise...

the buck stops with the creator...but fot him NEITHER..could egsist...just as the car designer/or architect...is held to account..for the designes he designs...

all credit...[thus too...all blame....is due to god..who set this amasing..freechoice/freewill into these realms

One of the universal human traits is the need to seek patterns in everything. This is so in the sciences, as well as in any beleif systems.

It is pointless to argue with somone who only seeks a pattern in sciences, as opposed to someone who seeks understanding in a particular beleif sytem to the exclusion of everything else.

We may observe a pattern of explanation that is unique to what we new before, - such as Pythagoras, Jesus, or Enstein have done.

Another important issue we ought to remember is that, when the sacred text were written, may people were either illiterate, or at best, semi-literate. Stories were often passed on verbally only. As happens with stories, over time they became myths, although a kernel of truth remains.

Regarding miracles, one is reminded of Shakespear's "Winter Tale". The language available at the time is used to describe a natural event. In the play, a remorseful king has a statue made of his wronged wife. The statue comes alive. This was a simple way of describing that the wife was sent away (perhaps to a nunnery), socially cut off, - dead to the world, - who was later received back.

Could the miracles in the Old and in the New Testament describe the power of inclusiveness, of being in touch?

WTF

Welcome one under god, you have successfully logged on.

You will be automatically logged out after 120 minutes of inactivity.


under this new system im fairly sure..this is near my last posting

yet i must reply this one last... most interesting question

could the miracles..in the Old and in the New Testament describe the power of inclusiveness,..of being in touch?

in the new testiment...most definitly
in the old not allways

well thats it i guess

have a fun experience posting logging in each 2 hours..[lol]..on the forum

i suppose i should explain
but really believe as you wil

many miss the point of many writings...because satans many serving vile in ignorance..have simply been decieved...as many now know..not every spot or blemish is leprocy...nor nessesarilly a contagin...yet those who love power playus...love quoting their new interpritation of the rules...new rules for their neo way

rules often for rules sake
rules that have under lying reason...
but for reasons often hidden from us..the great unwashed..

i guess the neo forum rule has its reasons...but im losing intrest...in explaining anything to anyone...

logging in means this forum is making..new rules on the run...policy..or just a way..to make less postings...who knows...its not worth speculating...so its best that im gone...so yep

im gone

bushbasher,
>>you brought up dawkins as an example of nonsense (admittedly not your choice of word)<<
You are right, I would never use that word to describe other people’s world-views (and I am not going through Dawkins’ writings to find out whether he uses that word, although I think he is more into ridicule). I have to accept that some of my opinions expressed on this OLO do not make sense to you, and you are welcome to call them nonsense if that makes you happy. However, “nonsense” is usually not part of my vocabulary, whether or not Dawkins is involved.

I brought up not Dawkins as such but his UC Berkeley appearance as an example of what people can “invent” (again not my word) to make them happy when religion is abandoned. Therefore I did not compare Dawkins with other thinkers only with other preachers. Instead of “don’t worry, you will go to heaven not to hell, I can assure you” you have something like “don’t worry about faith and religion; I (and science) can assure you there is nothing you already don’t understand about them”. This, in both cases, has a soothing effect on the appropriate audience, and that is probably a psychological good; in both cases the actual contents of the talk/sermon will be accepted with satisfaction by some, and seen as a “blasphemy” or “nonsense” by others (who usually have had life experiences flying in the face of what the preacher is saying).

My criticism of Dawkins - as also expressed on this OLO a couple of times - concerns his “non-sequiturs”: In response to AJ Phillips I recently presented my world-view in a nutshell (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9389&page=0#150883). There I described two fundamental world-view alternatives with the comment: “There is no rational way to decide “logically” in favour of the one or the other ... There are only arguments and predilections that can support one’s preconceived preference.” Clearly, Dawkins believes in what I called here Carl Sagan’s alternative, most theists start from the other alternative. (ctd)