Thank you both for understanding me .
4 Likes
But who created the world where sinning is possible? Thatâs my point. You canât have a God with perfect power and perfect competence and perfect will whom purposefully sabotages the odds of things they supposedly perfectly love if their desire is to be close to them.
It either suggests that God doesnât possess these characteristics (plausible, but now how scripture describes it) or it suggests God is not the sole playmaker which brings up the âwhy should I worship you if thereâs a bigger fish in the pond?â
Well, youâre free to worship whoever you want in the end 
This is called the âproblem of Evilâ.
The problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God
Hume summarizes Epicurusâs version of the problem as follows: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then from whence comes evil?
The logical argument from evil is as follows:
If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god exists, then evil does not.
There is evil in the world.
Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god does not exist.
You can expand this to:
God exists.
God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient.
An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.
A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
If there exists an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God, then no evil exists.
Evil exists (logical contradiction).
Both of these arguments are understood to be presenting two forms of the âlogicalâ problem of evil. They attempt to show that the assumed premises lead to a logical contradiction and therefore cannot all be correct. Most philosophical debate has focused on the suggestion that God would want to prevent all evils and therefore cannot coexist with any evils, with defenders of theism (for example, St. Augustine and Leibniz) arguing that God could very well exist with and allow evil in order to achieve a greater good. If God lacks any one of these qualitiesâomniscience, omnipotence, or omnibenevolenceâthen the logical problem of evil can be resolved. Process theology and open theism are other positions that limit Godâs omnipotence or omniscience (as defined in traditional theology).
Dystheism is the belief that God is not wholly good.
The problem of evil is sometimes explained as a consequence of free will. Free will is a source of both good and of evil, since with free will comes the potential for abuse. People with free will make their own decisions to do wrong, states Gregory Boyd, and it is they who make that choice, not God. Further, the free will argument asserts that it would be logically inconsistent for God to prevent evil by coercion because then human will would no longer be free. The key assumption underlying the free-will defense is that a world containing creatures who are significantly free is an innately more valuable world than one containing no free creatures at all. The sort of virtues and values that freedom makes possible â such as trust, love, charity, sympathy, tolerance, loyalty, kindness, forgiveness and friendship â are virtues that cannot exist as they are currently known and experienced without the freedom to choose them or not choose them. Such âgoodsâ benefit those who receive them and those who bestow them
The greater good defense is more often argued in response to the evidential version of the problem of evil, while the free will defense is often discussed in the context of the logical version. Some solutions propose that omnipotence does not require the ability to actualize the logically impossible. âGreater goodâ responses to the problem make use of this insight by arguing for the existence of goods of great value which God cannot actualize without also permitting evil, and thus that there are evils he cannot be expected to prevent despite being omnipotent. Skeptical theologians argue that, since no one can fully understand Godâs ultimate plan, no one can assume that evil actions do not have some sort of greater purpose.
The Euthyphro dilemma is found in Platoâs dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro, âIs the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?â
The dilemma has implications for modern monotheistic religions. Gottfried Leibniz asked whether the good and just âis good and just because God wills it or whether God wills it because it is good and justâ. Ever since Platoâs original discussion, this question has presented a problem for some theists, though others have thought it a false dilemma, and it continues to be an object of theological and philosophical discussion today.
Atheism challenges the assumption of the dilemma that God exists (or in the original formulation, that the many gods in Greek religion existed). This eliminates the need to decide whether God is either non-omniscient or arbitrary, and also eliminates the possibility of God as the source of morality. Secular humanism takes the positive stance that morality is not dependent on religion or theology, and that ethical rules should be developed based on reason, science, experience, debate, and democracy. Some secular humanists believe in ethical naturalism, that there are objective, discoverable laws of morality inherent to the human condition, of which humans may have imperfect knowledge. Others have adopted ethical subjectivism in the sense of meta-ethics â the idea that ethics are a social construct â but nonetheless by way of utilitarianism advocate imposing a set of universal ethics and laws that create the type of society in which they wish to live, where people are safe, prosperous, and happy. These competing resolutions represent different answers to a question similar to the original dilemma: âIs something inherently ethical or unethical, or is something ethical or unethical because a person or society says it is so?â
And this actually summerize the whole threadâs âpointâ
4 Likes
Iâm well aware of the problem of evil. But I always appreciate an exposition!
Indeed. One of the primary justifications of worship is a monotheistic deity is that they being the sole absolute power in the universe makes them worthy of such. If they can be outplayed, this justification becomes questionable and a God being all powerful no longer appears to be a justification for worship of them, just having âsome measure of powerâ, because it would appear theyâre no longer the âsole powerâ. This invites the question of why I should not worship some other powerful thing then, if being omnipotent is no longer a hard requirement. Surely if I wish to increase my odds of success in the cosmic game, Iâd worship the thing that appears more powerful because logically they have greater means than the thing Iâm being told to worship, which suggests they can circumnavigate the while salvic framework the other works within.
Anyway Iâm derailing, TLDR is arguments from abnormality deriving from religion often falter under critical evaluation and give rise to one or more inconsistencies.
Donât worry!
Money trumps hate every time
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5538666/
Study that shows in the US the percentage of gay men in the military is the same as in the general population. What is your source for that statement?
3 Likes
Im ashamed of being straight when I see stuff like this topic.
Most gay people, like straight people, just want to live.
Go to work, get married, care for loved ones, watch a movie, give a goodbye-kiss at the trainstation.
Some even want to raise a child, wich also shocked pikachu doesnt have a higher chance of becoming gay.
There is nothing diffrent, except they fall in love with the same gender, thats it.
Same goes for most trans people.
They just want to swap over and move on and live a normal life.
Whatever extremety you are having a fantasy about does not speak for the normal sane person.
When I see LGBT-stuff in WoW and other media, I only see a âNodâ. A verification of being accepted.
11 Likes
This is so true, and it -infuriates- the you know what out of me. I want to shake people and go âCringe is a physical action, it is not a feeling! It is not a sense! Something cannot âbe Cringeâ, it can make you -want- to Cringe, it can be âCringeworthyâ but for something to âbe Cringeâ is butchery of the English language! Stop it!â
Donât even get me started on the misuse of the word âEdgyâ
Yes I realise how fuddy duddy I sound there, so even though Iâm Generation X, Iâll graciously take it if someone just responds with âOK Boomerâ
Yeah, totally valid point, absolutely agree, as you say, it does exist in so many cases in nature, with so many different species, that really, the argument should be, as you say, that it -is- normal, and it is the people who rail against it that are sort of the abnormality. Then hets like me who just go âNah man, Iâll pass on that, but you crack onâ as kind of a middle ground. Although to be honest, I view my het nature as being the same way that people have a âtypeâ when it comes to romantic partners, some female supermodels Iâll be like, âNope, not attractedâ Iâm sure Pamela Anderson is a lovely person, but I never found her attractive.
On the flip side, whilst I never feel inclined to act on it, I can look at a bloke and go âYep, you my friend have got it going on, you are peak you, lookinâ goodâ
So sexuality is kind of like having a âtypeâ to my mind. I donât want to do the horizontal tango with every one of my female friends, my gay buddies donât want to do the horizontal tango with every man they meet, and my Bi mates donât want to just be greedy and do the deed with everyone, but still âhave a typeâ, just âthat typeâ might be of either biological sex, rather than limited to one.
Iâm probably not explaining that well, but hopefully you get what I mean?
Though frankly, the day that someone can -ever- properly explain human sexuality that person needs to be given a Nobel Prize, Stat!
Meh, donât be. Iâm not.
I do wonder about some of the human race, but I donât think my sexuality comes into being a nasty or nice person, any more than I think every gay person is a saint, which oh boy, they really ainât.
Do you know where I have seen perhaps one of the most positive influencers on the whole thing? And I -never- thought Iâd say this, and no Iâm not Religious;
The Pope.
Because all thisâŚ
All that, he said is -Just fine- with God. People being gay is fine, gay people go to Heaven (As apparently do Atheists who are good people) gay marriage is fine with God, Gay people bringing up a child together is fine by God, Love is Love.
Now you donât have to be Christian, or even a Catholic, to realise what a -massive- change that is, for a Pope to be saying that. The -Pope-, who is supposed to be Infallible in his words to the Catholic faith worldwide.
Pretty powerful and bold statement. Gotta say, the more I see of this Pope, the more he looks like a keeper, especially as his first job was as a Nightclub Bouncer. I bet he still has a mean right hook.
I did a google search as to how many individual named NPCâs there were in the In-game Azeroth, (And expansions) and it was some ridiculous mad figure like 29,800 (Pretty sure going by memory I am within 50 NPCâs with that number) and then looked at how many LGBT+ NPCâs there were. Yeah, 6 or 7.
Now admittedly we donât know that every one of that 29,800 are all Het, and the chances are high we will never know.
But thatâs the point. Is such a tiny, tiny fraction, that youâd need a microscope to see it on a Pie Chart, really âForcing it down our throatsâ?
5 Likes
And also saves many kids from childrenâs home 
1 Like
I mean, Pope Francis isnât really all that buddy buddy either. After all, for many Christians, acting upon homosexuality is a sin for them, not being homosexual. So goodbye kisses, anything steamier in the bedroom etc. are still forbidden and problematic for LGBTQ+ religious people. Heâs also critical on gender theory and transitioning (calling it a sin) and so on, so I wouldnât personally put the Pope on a high pedestal.
I get what you mean, but itâs unnecessarily verbose, I think. And Iâd be wary of equating sexuality with âtypeâ. Your type can be dark-haired, hazel-eyed, tall and muscular, but that doesnât include gender. It can work for any. Sexuality just means your type falls onto a set of genders (or just one).
I think Blizzard intends to keep it that way, so they can just say âoh but many of those are actually LGBTQ+ ha haâ without showing it. Itâs a lazy way, and any conservatives can pretend they arenât.
Which is IMO why explicitly LGBTQ+ representation is important, as to me, it shows that Blizzard doesnât want to be lazy in a particular case and wants to show diversity, whether with pure intentions or not. And if they want to be lazy, they can add easier things as well - items with flavour text referencing something LGBTQ+, quest text becoming gender neutral or explicitly LGBTQ+ (without having to implement NPCs), etc.
But as you said, itâll still be such a tiny fraction that it hardly is âshoving it down our throatsâ. Conservatives and homophobes need to make an elephant out of a molehill so as not to look stupid in order to receive validation for their bigotry, since when you overdramatize the situation, an unassuming bystander might agree thinking âwow this kind of representation is oddâ or w/e, without knowing what actually happened.
Basic fearmongering etc.
Iâm not as such. I was more meaning that it was a remarkable stance for a Pope to take, and a step forwards, rather than the status quo or a step back. As I say, Iâm not Catholic or Christian so I donât really have a horse in that race, and for that matter Iâm not Homosexual, so again, it isnât a direct impact on how I live my life, I more meant that it was a somewhat momentous thing for a Pope to say. âGays go to Heavenâ Previous Popes said they didnât. âGay Marriage is Coolâ Previous Popes said it wasnât. âGay Couples should be allowed to Adopt and raise a child.â Previous Popes were -very- emphatic that this was not OK. âGood Atheists go to Heavenâ Again, no previous Pope said that. Previous Doctrine was that they went to âHell-liteâ or a part of Purgatory, even if they were simply Atheist because they lived before Christianity existed as a Faith âWe need more women represented in the Hierarchy, why are there no female Cardinals?â Again, No Pope ever said that.
I see what you mean, He could have went further, Iâm disappointed that he did not speak about Abortion and a womanâs right to choose, and about Transgender, but who knows, maybe the guy is picking his battles carefully. It was a step forwards, is more what I meant, rather than a perfect set of views.
Unfortunately, that is just my nature, both in verbal and textual communication, I tend to use a lot of words to make sure I am understood, rather than leaving words unused and having people misconstrue my statements.
That is kind of what I am saying though. Just because you are Het, doesnât mean you want to do the wild thing with everyone of the opposite sex, Just because you are gay, doesnât mean you want to do the wild thing with everyone of the same sex, and just because you are Bi, doesnât mean you want to do the wild thing with people of -either- sex. Because people just donât work that way. I mean to take your example, if my âtypeâ was dark-haired, hazel eyed, tall and muscular, Then yâknow, yeah, their downstairs plumbing wouldnât come into it. Iâd be Bisexual, or at least Heteroflexible. You only need to add one word to that âtypeâ to make someone Het or Gay, which is âwhatever sex they are, so female or maleâ.
I kind of get the whole thing, which is why I am careful to use the word âsexâ not âgenderâ. I have a cousin who is FTM Trans at the moment, so am pretty good at referring to him as his gender and sex, rather than the one I remember him being born with (Iâm the oldest of all my cousins)
By âTypeâ I meant we all have preferences, and they arenât as clear cut as âMen. Women. Both.â
Which is admittedly a sentence I could have just used in its own right, rather than going into a wordy discussion about it 
Itâs only a problem if you make it a problem.
Maybe because he thinks that abortion is killing a baby? A lot of christians believe that life begins with conception.
Which is fine, and I donât want to get into an argument with you Shu, we always seem to get on, but, Iâm gonna point out a few flaws there, and bear in mind my romantic interest in this world is Christian, so Iâm not bashing the religion.
God told Caine and Abel to sacrifice what was most dear to them. Abel was in charge of lots of Animals and sacrificed them, Caine was in charge of lots of crops and grain and sacrificed them, and God said âNope, not good enoughâ So Caine sacrificed what was most dear to him, which was his own brother. Thatâs on God. Thatâs not on Caine. God literally told him to do it.
It isnât the only time God has told his faithful to kill their own children either, I mean he has a pretty bad track record, and letâs not even get started on what God said Lot should let happen to his young daughter.
But essentially, Murdering your own siblings or children is -fine- once out of the womb, but before they are sentient and sapient is somehow a sin?
God needs to give itâs head a wobble, as it is way out of kilter with morality.
Lets not forget, It was pretty chill with watching itâs own Son being killed in an excruciating fashion, just to make a morality play?
I donât think the Christian God is in -any- position to teach humans about moralityâŚ
Well, Iâm atheist, so I donât think anyone(especially not some fictional deity) can teach me about morality - itâs my life and Iâll live it the way I want to.
As far as my post goes, I wasnât arguing that God thinks so, I was arguing that most christians think so, and that this has been official catholic position probably for centuries. To feel disappointed, that some group with which you have nothing in common, doesnât share your beliefs is folly.
[edit]
Hereâs a rather funny song about the catholic position about abortion(take it with a grain of salt as everything from monty python of course):
The practical problem with the bible is its essentially two different books the original Torah where God is to put it nicely a capricious dick. and the new testament where God is much more chill and benevolent.
Pretty much unavoidable though, since:
- Jesus and his thirteen original disciples, were Jewish.
- âChristianityâ was originally a sect within Second Temple JudaismâŚuntil Saul of Tarsus broadened the membership, to include Gentiles.
- If you wander out of the desert, after 40 days and nights without sufficient food and water, claiming to be the âSon of GodââŚa very considerable amount of accepted authoritative material, is helpful to base the claim on.
1 Like
Pretty much
But people still have a hard time to at least consider the idea, Jesus wasnât that tall, lean, long silky (brown⌠ish, blondish) haired, blue eyed white guy with a neatly trimmed (or no) beard they see every day in the pictures and artâŚ
Thoâ some of them sometimes wonder, how somebody from that part of the word looks radically different that the people living on that part of the wordâŚ
That âwell Jesus was a jew you know, like the disciples⌠aaaand Cristianity was a sect of jewsâ is a sensitive topic and most people rather not poke things such as it was indeed a jewish sect for a long time with prophets and cults everywhere, like Simon the Sorcerer, Apollonius of Tyana, Simon bar Kokhba the warrior-Messiah; the Cult of Isis, the Cult of Mithras and so on and slowly they absorbed and picked up traditions and all sort of things untill the original movement was basically considered heretical sub-sect and Jesus probably wouldnât recognise the Relegion today
2 Likes