polytheism vs. monotheism

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2003-02-10 02:18pm

I'm not going to argue for monotheism or polytheism, since most people here I'm sure have already made up their minds and won't change them no matter how much hot air is blown their way from opposing sides (and that includes "none of the above" people too). ; )

That said, I usually see polytheism as being a weaker system than monotheism.

Now this is looking at it as if the gods/God REALLY EXISTS rather than just characters in myth or metaphors for life or something.

If we accept the general idea (not necessarily a specific creed's version of it) of polytheism.. one strength I think it has over monotheism is in the problem of evil.

That is to say, if you ask a Monotheist, "Where does evil come from" if he says "God" then isn't he admitting that God is at least partially evil? So then how can he call God "good"?

Now I'm not saying God HAS to be good.. he could be a fatalist, and he acknowledges God exists surely as death and taxes do, and he doesn't have to like it, so it may not be a problem after all.

Does the Devil do it? If so, then why does God let him get away with it? Why did he create the Devil in the first place if he knew he was going to screw around with everyone?

But let's say you think God is good. How do you explain the presence of evil? Well, free will, but then why doesn't God give us better brains or show us the way better so we don't do evil, or not create those people, etc etc blah blah blah, argue till you're blue in the face.

So a polytheist just says.. well, see some of the gods are good, some are evil, and some are in between. The good gods do their best to help people, but they aren't all powerful. So you just have to keep praying and sacraficing and hopefully the good gods can win out for a time. So its really not any one god's fault that evil exists, and things may go back and forth.

Just an idea.

Now some theologians and scholars will debate whether the two terms even have meaning anymore.. because when you look at it, most belief systems that believe in the existence of "divine" (higher than human?) or supernatural beings, have many of them, not just one. "Monotheism" just tends to stress that the others are weaker (monocentric) like angels, demons, genies, spirits, ancestors, ghosts, prophets, demigods, etc.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2003-02-10 02:23pm

Also, in many non Western religious systems (Native AMericand, African), the "gods" as we know them didn't create the universe.

Usually an "all powerful" but aloof (think "divine watchmaker") God created everything, including the lesser "gods."

The lesser gods are the ones that are involved in everyday life, so you pray to them to help you out with your crops, family, or your struggle to be a better person, etc.

Of course, as a person, you can give thanks to God for making the world, and then to the little gods for doing the everyday stuff. Some would call these guys "angels" or "saints" instead of "gods" but it depends on the attitude and emphasis.

Some dispute this theory, but that's one version of it.

Other versions might have the lesser gods creating human beings, or creating the earth out of the chaos of the big God's creation (big bang or whatever).

On the other hand, I suppose you might have something else, like a "Captain Planet" kind of big God (I don't know of any tradition that has this, its just an idea I was thinking about). The small gods get together and combine their powers to create the big God, and then they use him to get the big jobs done.

Of course the question is always asked, where did God/gods come from? Again, noboby knows.. either they created themselves (?), were created by other gods/God (going back ad infinatum?) or simply existed outside of time and therefore "always."

lgot · Post by **lgot** » 2003-02-10 09:48pm

That is the problem, Good and Evil are relactives problems.
So, From where come evil ? From the others who does not act and believe like us is a commum answer from a Catholic in the middle earth from example.
Or the early hebrews never cared about such relative vallues as they are seem by us. God was good because he wanted the power to the people who worshiped them, The hebrews.
Therefore there was not such problem as to blame someone else for the evil in the world.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-10 09:58pm

I like a lot of the ancient creation myths; they're so very colourful and bizarre, like Minerva bursting out of Zeus' forehead or giant turtles carrying the Earth on their backs, some sky god vomiting us out (presumably after a drinking binge), etc.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-02-10 10:03pm

lgot wrote:That is the problem, Good and Evil are relactives problems.
So, From where come evil ? From the others who does not act and believe like us is a commum answer from a Catholic in the middle earth from example.
Or the early hebrews never cared about such relative vallues as they are seem by us. God was good because he wanted the power to the people who worshiped them, The hebrews.
Therefore there was not such problem as to blame someone else for the evil in the world.

According to the Bible, God himself was the creator of evil. That didn't stop the Hebrews from being every bit as intolerant as any Christians, however, as Biblical massacres of Canaanites, Midianites, Philistines, and others attest - massacres which were reportedly carried out not only with God's blessing, but at his command no less.

lgot · Post by **lgot** » 2003-02-10 10:19pm

You didnt understood ?
To them our catholic view of Evil vs. Good was not that important. God created anything, their god was the most powerful and his acts are of no argumentation. The same god punish and gave rewards. Basically the good was "hebrewish society remains" and the bad "It disaper and be a slave".

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-10 10:21pm

lgot wrote:You didnt understood ?
To them our catholic view of Evil vs. Good was not that important. God created anything, their god was the most powerful and his acts are of no argumentation. The same god punish and gave rewards. Basically the good was "hebrewish society remains" and the bad "It disaper and be a slave".

And how is this any different from our interpretation that they were intolerant assholes who invented a god in their own image?

lgot · Post by **lgot** » 2003-02-10 10:27pm

Because the question was not about a judgement of vallue of them, but Kurgan said that monotheism have hard time to justify his existence due the "evil" part and I said that was irrelevant because the systems of those religions did not acted in the moderm view "evil vs good" to have such problem. And pointed the hebrewish religion as example. Just go and follow it

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-10 10:32pm

Irrelevant. If some ancient society defines "good" and "evil" in some twisted way, it has no bearing on our use of the terms.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-02-10 10:46pm

Darth Wong wrote:I like a lot of the ancient creation myths; they're so very colourful and bizarre, like Minerva bursting out of Zeus' forehead or giant turtles carrying the Earth on their backs, some sky god vomiting us out (presumably after a drinking binge), etc.

I'm sure there's one about a god throwing his father's nads into the sun. Or something.

lgot · Post by **lgot** » 2003-02-10 10:55pm

Irrelevant. If some ancient society defines "good" and "evil" in some twisted way, it has no bearing on our use of the terms.

Actually, however studies history or antropology would first worry with the meaning "they" use, but this is irrelevant.
There is no clash of vallues or terms to be argued. The answer is "they had different system of vallues" because of that they needed not to justify the "evil-good" clash as we do, therefore the monotheistic religion of them would not be weekear because of such thing. Simple as that. I am not saying their vallues is a good or not, just that they are different, so a moral question that affect us, would not affect them in the same way. No justification to their acts, just to answer the question about the monotheism stability.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2003-02-11 05:02am

Just to address this comment:

That is the problem, Good and Evil are relactives problems.
So, From where come evil ? From the others who does not act and believe like us is a commum answer from a Catholic in the middle earth from example.
Or the early hebrews never cared about such relative vallues as they are seem by us. God was good because he wanted the power to the people who worshiped them, The hebrews.
Therefore there was not such problem as to blame someone else for the evil in the world.

As others have stated, yes, this is one proposed "solution" to the problem of evil (namely.. that "evil" doesn't exist.. it's just a concept based purely on each person's subjective and probably wrong viewpoint based on self interest or brainwashing). However, as most of us could probably imagine, the problem with this solution is that there are definatley things that most of us would call evil, and few could reasonably challenging, like murdering millions of babies, or something along those lines.

Now people may still say, well yes, certain things are still evil, they're just NECESSARY EVIL or THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS.. meaning, its okay to do them because of some other reason, even if the act itself is morally offensive. But that's a different argument.

And when I say myths, I'm talking the stories. Some people would say the myths are true, they literally happened, others would say they're just metaphors, fables.. stories meant to teach a moral lesson while entertaining. Each religion that has myths views them differently.

For example, it seems the early Christians viewed the creation stories of Genesis metaphorically (until St. Augustine started writing about possible literal interpretations, and the idea seems to have caught hold in later times, especially among Protestants in the last few hundred years). Now we've come full circle, most Christians do not take the myths literally, though you wouldn't know that from some of the rhetoric you hear in the public sphere from fundies in North America.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2003-02-11 05:07am

I see what some of you are trying to say about different values.

Some of our values might change based on scientific knowlege.

For example, let's say that at one time people believed that rocks were alive, intelligent, and had souls. So they considered mining and rock breaking to be immoral, and proposed the death penalty for it, since it was murder.

Later, scientists proved beyond all reasonable doubt that rocks were infact NOT alive, and could feel no pain whatsoever, and there was no evidence at all that they were intelligent or whatever.

So then people come to accept that violence against stones is not a moral evil in and of itself.

So in that regard, I can agree that some things do change. Somebody who believes that there are universal moral principles (objectively) would simply say that those were morals all along, its just that our limited personal knowledge made it so we had to "discover" the truth.. or a more clear version of it, rather than it simply "changing."

Ie: it was always morally permissable to break rocks (without violating other moral principles of course.. like breaking it over some innocent person's head), we just didn't realize it, because we had no way of proving rocks were not alive.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2003-02-11 05:12am

And how is this any different from our interpretation that they were intolerant assholes who invented a god in their own image?

That is definately what many critics and skeptics would say (and its perfectly reasonable to argue that). However, what about people who honestly believed that God was speaking to them or that a God existed and they were doing the right thing?

I know, you'll say they were nuts. ; ) But the point is, we don't have to assume deciet and mallicious intent in these beliefs.

You could argue that (if no gods exist, period) that people heard their own desires or feelings and misinterpreted them to be those of God, and so that's how it came about, but that's different than saying they just made it up as a (fake) justification for doing bad things.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2003-02-11 05:14am

And not to open another can of worms, but

According to the Bible, God himself was the creator of evil.

Which passages are you referring to, so the rest of us can read it?

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-02-11 06:39am

Kurgan wrote:And not to open another can of worms, but

According to the Bible, God himself was the creator of evil.
Which passages are you referring to, so the rest of us can read it?

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." – Isaiah 45:7

lgot · Post by **lgot** » 2003-02-11 09:59pm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(namely.. that "evil" doesn't exist.. it's just a concept based purely on each person's subjective and probably wrong viewpoint based on self interest or brainwashing).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, No, You are making a mistake, perhaps a fault of mine.
The different vallue they had was not the definition of what is evil and good. The different vallue was the importance we gave to such moral questions. They gave less importance than we do for Good-Evil justification. Therefore they can accept a god that is both evil and good without doubting of his monotheism.
Killing was still evil. But they could accept the god doing a evil that was important to their society survival. Why ? Because the matter of survival was more important than evil-good. Then they do not question at the point of bringing that religion to danger.
We would rather ask that is evil or good before, then the today's gods must justify the evil (which Yaveh did have not)
See the difference ?
_________________
Muffin is food. Food is good. I am a Muffin. I am good.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2003-02-12 05:34am

Sure, I see what you're saying, and that makes sense.

That's different than implying what we consider good today will be what the society of the future considers evil, etc, because there are no moral principles objectively. If that was your contention all along, I stand corrected if I gave that impression. ; )

Perhaps it simply did not occur to these ancient people's to question certain long-standing ideas as good/evil (such as slavery)or it simply wasn't as important as their survival as a people.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2003-02-12 05:49am

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." – Isaiah 45:7

Excellent, now what translation are you using?

Mine, the Revised Standard Version (RSV) says:

"I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe,I am the LORD, who do all these things." -Isaiah 45:7

http://www.dictionary.com

weal
Prosperity; happiness: in weal and woe.
The welfare of the community; the general good: the public weal.

woe
Deep distress or misery, as from grief; wretchedness. See Synonyms at regret.
Misfortune; calamity: economic and political woes.

The New American Standard (NASB) translation also agrees:

Isaiah 45:7
The One forming light and creating darkness,
Causing well-being and creating calamity;
I am the LORD who does all these.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-02-12 07:07am

I am using the King James Version, which appears to be more accurate in the translation of this passage than the newer versions you cite.

First off, even if you substitute a word like "calamity" or "woe" for "evil" I'm not sure that solves the ethical problem here, but let's table that for the moment.

The word tranlated "evil" in the KJV, and "woe" in the RSV is the Hebrew word ra. If you look through the rest of the book of Isaiah it becomes apparent that the word ra does indeed mean "evil" in a moral sense. For example: "For before the child shall know to refuse the evil (ra), and choose the good..." (Isaiah 7:16), and "I will punish the world for their evil (ra)." (Isaiah 13:11). These, and other verses show that ra is the opposite of good, and deserves punishment. The word ra, is also clearly used to refer to moral evil in other books of the Bible besides Isaiah. The writer of Genesis mentioned the "tree of knowledge of good and evil (ra)."

God claims credit for being the creator of ra (evil).

Additionally, there are other Biblical passages proving God is responsible for evil.

"Thus saith the Lord: Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you." Jeremiah 18:11

"I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgements whereby they should not live. And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through fire all that openeth in the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord." Ezekiel 20:25,26.

Face it, the Biblical God created evil. He freely admits it. And "evil" is indeed the correct word. This is not mistranslation, not taking anything out of context; it's just the plain, simple truth according to the Bible. God - our supposedly just, merciful, and loving God - created evil.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2003-02-12 07:28am

I am using the King James Version, which appears to be more accurate in the translation of this passage than the newer versions you cite.

Only christian fundies will tell you the KJV is more accurate (see Jack Chick for example). The scholarly community has unanimously agreed that it has serious flaws in translation and the speech is archaic and hard to understand for modern english readers (though many agree that it "sounds pretty" for weddings and stuff if you're impressed by Shakespear style english). Which is why I bring it up.

Now this would be better if we both understood ancient Hebrew, I just have to accept the unanimous opinion of the scholarly community for now I guess.

First off, even if you substitute a word like "calamity" or "woe" for "evil" I'm not sure that solves the ethical problem here, but let's table that for the moment.

On the one hand, its saying God causes good things to happen and "bad" things to happen (from a human point of view.. I guess like earth quakes or poverty) and its his right to do so. The other says he created evil.. meaning, he bad things possible.

Now, perhaps you could get into a debate, by saying that by giving people Free Will, God is in fact (indirectly) "creating" evil because without that, it couldn't happen (if evil is knowning something is bad and doing it anyway).

But, different words, different meanings. I will say, that in Medieval times, the word "evil" didn't necessarily have the same meaning (as other words like "worship" had more meanings they don't today).

For example.. the common phrase.. "may evil come to those who evil think" which was a phrase in support of Monarchial Authority (ie: may bad things happen to those who think that the King's plans are bad).

"Evil" meaning bad things, ill fortune. Of course, in our terms, "evil" usually just means the opposite of good (actions). So the word changes to reflect the meaning of the passage more clearly to the audience.

The word tranlated "evil" in the KJV, and "woe" in the RSV is the Hebrew word ra. If you look through the rest of the book of Isaiah it becomes apparent that the word ra does indeed mean "evil" in a moral sense. For example: "For before the child shall know to refuse the evil (ra), and choose the good..." (Isaiah 7:16), and "I will punish the world for their evil (ra)." (Isaiah 13:11). These, and other verses show that ra is the opposite of good, and deserves punishment. The word ra, is also clearly used to refer to moral evil in other books of the Bible besides Isaiah. The writer of Genesis mentioned the "tree of knowledge of good and evil (ra)."

That sounds great, and if you know Hebrew, you've got a leg up on me. I would have attributed it to archaic usage. In context of the passage however, that interpretation doesn't seem to make sense. I'll do further research...

Additionally, there are other Biblical passages proving God is responsible for evil.

Thus saith the Lord: Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you." Jeremiah 18:11

"Now, therefore, say to the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: `Thus says the LORD, Behold, I am shaping evil against you and devising a plan against you. Return, every one from his evil way, and amend your ways and your doings.' "

Whether or not using evil to accomplish your goal is evil itself is another debate(is evil coming to those who do evil justice?). ; )

Why create evil and then warn against it and punish for it? Does it serve a purpose?

"I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgements whereby they should not live. And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through fire all that openeth in the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord." Ezekiel 20:25,26.

Of course, if God causes people to do evil, is Free Will a falsehood? Maybe the author believes this.

Face it, the Biblical God created evil. He freely admits it. And "evil" is indeed the correct word. This is not mistranslation, not taking anything out of context; it's just the plain, simple truth according to the Bible.

That's contestable, as I have pointed out. A word can have more than one meaning, and the context does matter. You disagree, that's fine.

God - our supposedly just, merciful, and loving God - created evil.

Or at least that's what the author thinks. ; )

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-02-12 08:05am

Kurgan wrote:
I am using the King James Version, which appears to be more accurate in the translation of this passage than the newer versions you cite.
Only christian fundies will tell you the KJV is more accurate (see Jack Chick for example). The scholarly community has unanimously agreed that it has serious flaws in translation and the speech is archaic and hard to understand for modern english readers (though many agree that it "sounds pretty" for weddings and stuff if you're impressed by Shakespear style english). Which is why I bring it up.

Since you evidently missed the qualifying phrase I added there, I've "emphasized" it in the quote. In general, I'd agree the KJV is less accurate. The flaws come from the fact that it was commissioned to be poetic rather than strictly accurate. But in this passage, it is more accurate, since it uses the correct, consistently used meaning of "evil" to translate the Hebrew word ra.

I think the more modern translaters are trying to use as positive a word as they can get away with to translate ra, because they are trying to avoid the rather embarrassing position of having to admit that, well... gee, yeah I guess the Lord rally did create evil.

Kurgan wrote: Now this would be better if we both understood ancient Hebrew, I just have to accept the unanimous opinion of the scholarly community for now I guess.

Scholars who have no ulterior motive are unanimous in translating ra as "evil".

Kurgan wrote: That sounds great, and if you know Hebrew, you've got a leg up on me. I would have attributed it to archaic usage. In context of the passage however, that interpretation doesn't seem to make sense. I'll do further research...

I am relying on scholars myself, since I am not a Hebrew scholar. But I choose to rely on independent ones, rather than scholars who are Christians themselves, and who have a vested interest in making as positive a translation as they possibly can.

Kurgan wrote: Whether or not using evil to accomplish your goal is evil itself is another debate(is evil coming to those who do evil justice?). ; )

Why create evil and then warn against it and punish for it? Does it serve a purpose?

But if the evil they do was created by God in the first place, it throws the ultimate responsibility for it squarely back on God's shoulders.

Kurgan wrote: Of course, if God causes people to do evil, is Free Will a falsehood? Maybe the author believes this.

He would not be the only one, since the author of Exodus showed God causing Pharaoh to harden his heart when Moses asked him to let the Israelites go:

"And I will harden Pharaoh's heart and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt." Exodus 7:3

"And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he harkened not unto them: as the Lord had spoken unto Moses." Exodus 9:12

"And the Lord said unto Moses, Go unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these signs before him:" Exodus 10:1 (N.B. this is not an inaccurate translation either. Here you have the Lord telling Moses explicitly that HE, God, is hardening Pharaoh's heart, and he is doing it for a specific reason - in order to have an excuse to "shew these signs", or in other words, visit these miraculous plagues on Egypt. The Lord is making the ruler of Egypt act in a certain manner in order to have a reason to show off, and flex his divine muscles.)

"But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let them go." Exodus 10:27

Kurgan wrote:
Face it, the Biblical God created evil. He freely admits it. And "evil" is indeed the correct word. This is not mistranslation, not taking anything out of context; it's just the plain, simple truth according to the Bible.
That's contestable, as I have pointed out. A word can have more than one meaning, and the context does matter. You disagree, that's fine.

It's only contestable if you willfully ignore the most accurate and consistent translation of the Hebrew word ra.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2003-02-12 11:14am

Since you evidently missed the qualifying phrase I added there, I've "emphasized" it in the quote. In general, I'd agree the KJV is less accurate. The flaws come from the fact that it was commissioned to be poetic rather than strictly accurate. But in this passage, it is more accurate, since it uses the correct, consistently used meaning of "evil" to translate the Hebrew word ra.

Not knowing Hebrew, I can't argue with this. So I have to plead ignorance and concede (for now at least). I'm sorry if I misjudged your position on the KJV, at least we agree on that.

I think the more modern translaters are trying to use as positive a word as they can get away with to translate ra, because they are trying to avoid the rather embarrassing position of having to admit that, well... gee, yeah I guess the Lord rally did create evil.

So they're being dishonest in their scholarship, correct?

Scholars who have no ulterior motive are unanimous in translating ra as "evil".

Assuming they too have no ulterior motive. I would hope that all scholars would attempt to be as objective as possible. I guess more research is needed by me.

I am relying on scholars myself, since I am not a Hebrew scholar.

Okay. That's too bad, because that would be fascinating to hear your findings. Wish I was too.

But I choose to rely on independent ones, rather than scholars who are Christians themselves, and who have a vested interest in making as positive a translation as they possibly can.

I see what you're saying, Christian scholars can't help but being dishonest, in order to present each Bible passage in the most positive light possible. And you see secular scholars contesting these translations.

But then, that makes me wonder why the Christian translators of the KJV were more honest than modern Christian translators?

But if the evil they do was created by God in the first place, it throws the ultimate responsibility for it squarely back on God's shoulders.

In which case, why would people bother to condemn certain actions as evil, if God is forcing them to do it?

Or do you think these guys were proto-Calvinists or something, and they think God plays games with people, making rules that aren't applied consistently?

He would not be the only one, since the author of Exodus showed God causing Pharaoh to harden his heart when Moses asked him to let the Israelites go:

Yes. I'm well aware of that.

It's only contestable if you willfully ignore the most accurate and consistent translation of the Hebrew word ra.

The point I was trying to make is that a word could mean more than one thing, even if its an archaic word. But you're saying that it would be odd for it to be used in such a fashion if elsewhere it was used consistently in another. Agreed. Though, aren't we talking different authors here? Who's to say it all has to be absolutely consistent?

If in Hebrew "evil" is only used to mean moral evil (what we consider today) then you'd be right. But is that so?

Without being able to read Hebrew myself, I can't argue it, period. So, rather than say yes, I'm willfully ignoring the evidence, I'll concede and see what I can find out.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-02-12 11:56am

Kurgan wrote:
I think the more modern translaters are trying to use as positive a word as they can get away with to translate ra, because they are trying to avoid the rather embarrassing position of having to admit that, well... gee, yeah I guess the Lord rally did create evil.
So they're being dishonest in their scholarship, correct?

Essentially, yes. No doubt they are rationalizing it somehow in their own minds, but they are not being exactly honest. That's the problem with the Bible (or one of them I should say); the moral man's conscience revolts at much of what's in it, so it's necesary, if you confront the issue at all, to find often tortured rationalizations for what you find there.

Kurgan wrote:
Scholars who have no ulterior motive are unanimous in translating ra as "evil".
I see what you're saying, Christian scholars can't help but being dishonest, in order to present each Bible passage in the most positive light possible. And you see secular scholars contesting these translations.

But then, that makes me wonder why the Christian translators of the KJV were more honest than modern Christian translators?

It's hard to say. For one thing, back then, the range of scientific knowledge was far smaller, it was generally a more religious and superstitious age. Fewer people doubted God's existence, and fewer people actually could read the Bible. King James' translators probably simply had less of a problem with the notion that God was the originator of evil. The idea that he could be probably wouldn't shake people's faith back then the way it does today. That's my guess, but it's only a guess.

Kurgan wrote:
But if the evil they do was created by God in the first place, it throws the ultimate responsibility for it squarely back on God's shoulders.
In which case, why would people bother to condemn certain actions as evil, if God is forcing them to do it?

Or do you think these guys were proto-Calvinists or something, and they think God plays games with people, making rules that aren't applied consistently?

There may have been some who thought that. It's hard to say, but any given belief about God is likely to have been held by someone at some point. There were "heresies" too numerous to count. The problem of evil has always been a thorny one in Christian theology. If you accept the notion of a diety who is both omnipotent and omniscient, then it follows that he must be responsible for evil. If you accept the notion of a diety who is both omnipotent and omniscient, then predestination is also the logical consequence of this. The Calvin's logic was faultless if you accept that premise - the omnipotent and omniscient God. Thus, God created mankind, knowing ahead of time, and ordaining that billions would suffer unspeakable torture for all eternity. What amazes me is that anyone could revere such a being if he exists.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2003-02-12 12:17pm

A note in passing, since we brought up predestination:

Some within these traditions have tried to dispense with the idea of hell altogether... Reform Jews and Unitarians do this today.

So either you are only punished for a finite period of time in the afterlife (or in this life), everybody goes to heaven, or there is no afterlife, period. When you're dead, you're dead.

Supposedly many Muslims accept this as well (to varying degrees) that hell is only temporary (at least for "muslims" whether that means those who submit to God or just followers of Islamic religion probably depends on who you ask).

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

polytheism vs. monotheism

Not saying I'm a polytheist, but....