Subject:
|
Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 7 Mar 2000 04:46:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1259 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Peter Callaway wrote:
>
> > Well you stated that Lucifer (aka the Devil) has no power other than to lie.
> > Let's assume for the argument's sake that there is
> > **a** devil (to stop me getting
>
> (emphasis mine, Peter said "a" without the stars)
>
> > in trouble from the people who don't believe there is). The lie is in fact
> > his most powerful weapon. He spreads the lie around that there is no such
> > thing as God, and does so in such a way that does not reveal his own
> > existence (he is cunning, you've got to give him that).
> >
> > The destruction brought about by this lie is when people act upon it. The
> > action could be to actively seek to disprove the existence of God, or as
> > simple as to do absolutely nothing, with the existence or non-existence of
> > God having no effect whatsoever on your life. Whichever it is, in the
> > context of the Bible it's destructive.
> >
> > I'm just throwing a hypothetical up for general debate. If the Devil exists,
> > and spreads the lie that God doesn't exist, does this prove the non-
> > existence of God, or prove that He is who He is because the Devil (through
> > spreading his lies) is out to actively disprove His existence?
>
> I LOVE hypotheticals.
>
> If we posit the existence of *A* devil, is his saying that god doesn't
> exist necessarily a lie?
>
> No. Something that might fit the generic definition of devil might
> actually be the supreme being of this posited universe, hypotheticallt
> speaking.
What is the generic definition of a devil (apart from the red tights and
pitchfork)? I ask this so we can all speak about the same thing. My definition
follows.
I believe a devil represents evil ("evil" with a "d", for darstardly?). What
then represents good. Evil cannot exist without good, otherwise we have no
basis for defining good or evil. So if we have evil (**a** devil) then by
definition we must have good (**a** god?).
Can man represent good? Not really, because there are good and evil men (and
women), and all of us have our good and bad traits. Apart from Jesus, who was
100% good (my belief and not necessarily yours), I don't think any human being
has been 100% good or bad 100% of the time from birth to death.
Can this devil we're talking about represent good. Well, if he represents
evil, he can't also represent good, since we're looking for an absolute
representation here. The definition of evil in the dictionary doesn't say "...
and sometimes means "good"".
> Only if we posit the existence of the specific christian devil, which
> carries with it the manner of his creation (implying the existence of
> the christian god, by definition), is the statement a lie.
True.
> So, sure. Let's posit the christian devil (with a side order of
> implications). Now show that there is harm caused by denying god's
> existence! Why? If your god is so great and so just, the righteous will
> still be OK and who cares about the rest of them, they deserve what they
> get. :-) In other words, has christianity actually benefitted mankind?
> How? Prove it.
You've almost answered your own question. You've said "If your god is so great
and so just, the righteous will still be OK and who cares about the rest of
them, they deserve what they get". Well the benefit is you *don't* get what
you deserve.
It depends on what you believe the purpose of human existence is. If you
believe that we're an evolutionary accident, complex amino acids and all that,
then it doesn't really matter what anyone believes, because in about 60 years
time, give or take, you'll be dead and will cease to exist, and all there will
be to show for a lifetime of thoughts, experiences, opinions, relationships
and good and bad deeds will be a handfull of ashes.
I believe there is more to life than that. To sum up what I believe, I am a
creation of God who is a sinner and falls desperately short of the
requirements of God to be a part His Kingdom (given everything that I have
researched so far, I can safely believe His claim that there is a Kingdom for
me to be part of, if I "meet the grade"). He knows this, and sent Jesus to fix
this problem of my personal shortcomings in the eyes of God, thus allowing me,
by His grace (and not by being a really good boy) to be part of His Kingdom.
In short, I have benefitted eternally from Christianity, and so have many
others and many others to come who believe.
Christians do benefit mankind in that they run missions, hospitals for the
underpriveliged, give substatial amounts of money to charities, etc etc, but
then again so do a lot of other religious and non-religious organisations. One
doesn't need to be religious to donate to any of these causes (ahhh, but how
do we *know* this is a good thing to do. We're back with the discussion at the
top about good and evil. Where do our standards come from?)
I agree with you though, if you don't believe in this God stuff then there is
absolutely no benefit to you from the existence of Christianity, other than a
bunch of people to argue with and label as inflexible fundamentalists ;-)
> > Here's another interesting thought. Out of all the religions in the world,
> > Christianity is one of the very very few (it may even be the only one) which
> > non-Christians actively try to disprove.
>
> Don't flatter yourself, all religions have their detractors, in proportion to
> their popularity and to their perfidiousness.
Compare the reaction to "The Satanic Verses" to that of the painting labelled
"Pissed Christ". And check the reactions to the initial reactions.
> > Why is this so? If non-Christians think it is such a waste of time why waste
> > so much time trying to disprove it?
>
> Because christianity is one of the most obnoxious religions in many different
> ways, and shutting it down might result in a little less strife and more
> freedom for everyone?
You really don't like Christians, do you? Anyone know where Larry can buy a
pet lion or two?
Freedom? <looking around in confusion> I don't see a ball and chain on my
ankle.
Pete Callaway
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| Briefly, my flight boards soon. (...) With you so far. A devil is an evil being. You can't know evil without knowing good. As I've said before, animals are amoral and know neither good nor evil. (well, except for cats. Cats are evil. :-) ) (...) (...) (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| (...) (emphasis mine, Peter said "a" without the stars) (...) I LOVE hypotheticals. If we posit the existence of *A* devil, is his saying that god doesn't exist necessarily a lie? No. Something that might fit the generic definition of devil might (...) (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
541 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
