N. T. Wright introduces Evil and the Justice of God

[geezusispan]

Nice anti-infomercial!! heheh

This guy has no shame.....

[geezusispan]

Evil can never be extinguished without also rising above good. They are two sides of the same coin. They can only exist together. dualism.... Human concepts, NOT a separate reality.

[cloudbusterman]

Why is the Problem of Evil unrecognized as a canard?

Look in Genesis 1-3 and you will find endless errors: Adam misquotes God, Eve misquotes Adam and snake, They pick the wrong tree in the centre of the garden. All told about 30 errors. So Original Sin is caused by ERROR not intent.

Since God is truth NOT error, by definition, Original Sin is not His, and entraps to use of one-sided snaky (= Draconian), impulsive, fork-tongued, urge-to-purge, evil/ good dualisms.

QED There is no Problem of Evil.

[horselaverda]

misleading advert,so,evil in its own right

[Pigroota]

And what's all this crap he's advertising every 5 seconds? Western society is arrogant and yet you see fit to make ypur own profit from it? It's just the epitome of hypocrisy

[Pigroota]

Crap on mate. This clip shows the recklessness of theologists - saying that western society is arrogant, we are doomed to evil and that somehow god will show us the path. What a load of bullshit. If you can't forge a path under your own moral code then how can can you be expected to follow an arbitrary one?And if you wanna talk society then educate yourself on the various ideologies like capitalism and reach a conclusion in a logical manner, not some mumbo jumbo written 2000 years ago

[teed60]

We have the only book we need to have some knowledge of these subjects.Scripture will teach and will strengthen you,Christ teachings are all there for us to see,be in spirit as he taught.Books are just a commodity for the consumers of the world,read the bible.

[Hkepfer]

Progress, like pornography, is hard to define on paper.

But one does know it, when one sees it.

Some clear a swamp, others declare eco-murder.

In terms of Orthodoxy, Bishop Wright lives up to the coincidence of his name; his academic credentials are substantial & his is highly articulate.

While, "why there is suffering and or evil" are profound questions that legitimately should be pondered, I submit that the universal & ubiquitous neurosis, has always been, is, and will remain, death.

[chukmaty]

It is impossible to objectively define god as evil, evil would simply mean "that which we wish were not." Thus morality would simply be reduced to the opinion of a finite being, and another finite being could just as easily have a different opinion on what they did not want and that would be evil to them. Morality would become irrelevant and discussion of morality more so, it would just be a waste of energy.

[ksmartialarts]

Religious beliefs and other superstitions have been around since the dawn of man.

To say that we need "more of the same" to improve the human condition is nonsense. We need more rational thought in outgrowing such creation myths and legends of a pie-in-the-sky life that reduces this one to a mere dress rehearsal....thus, making it easier to die or kill.

To repeat a behavior and yet expect a different result is one definition of insanity.

[chukmaty]

Please do not suggest that rationality can lead to the conclusion that the physical universe has either arisen from nothing or always existed in time. To consider special revelation as possibly from the prime mover in a miraculous creation process is not terribly unreasonable thing considering we live in a universe that apparently needs to come from somewhere.

[ksmartialarts]

"Apparently needs to come from somewhere?"

Before we go into how this could translate to "magically spoken into existence by a supernatural being," let's just start with what rationality you used to arrive that THAT conclusion alone?

[chukmaty]

Supernatural is simply "that which superimposes itself above the order of that natural which is inherently limited by forces we understand as being "natural laws."' This is essentially the root of deism, which is the smallest sort of god or supernatural force available to fulfill the natural worlds need for something unconstrained by those natural laws that make nature unable to explain itself.

[ksmartialarts]

That's an interesting definition of supernatural. And even THAT take on it somewhat points out the reality that there has never been any reason whatsoever to think that anything at all "supernatural" has ever existed outside the imagination of normal human beings.

If something we call "supernatural" were ever real, we'd just call it "natural." Until you have a reason to think your magical beliefs are real, you're in the exact same boat as all of those other beliefs you WEREN'T born to.

[chukmaty]

No, because if it were "natural" it would obey what we call "laws of nature." But there has to be something that does not do so, this is supernatural.

I also explain how there is a difference between the transcendent God of nature and the mystical pagan religions.

Also it is interesting to imagine the natural world coming from absolute nothing, or that it might have always existed in some sense, that takes faith to you know as it is unprovable.

[ksmartialarts]

You write: "But there has to be something that does not do so."

Who says? How did you arrive at this conclusion? And why in the world would you make the next leap and think that this "something" that you are only blindly speculating exists is some sort of an intelligence with powers?

The "coming from absolute nothing" misconception isn't Atheism. But most religions (such as Christianity) believe in a god that "came from nothing," just creating everything from nothing.

[chukmaty]

It only seems magical or mystical to you or me because we cannot replicate it via natural processes. Our minds are confined to the same natural laws which prevent something occurring from absolute nothing.

Theism cannot be sustained without special revelation, we only accept a theistic belief systems after having realized at the very least the need for something beyond nature. Assumptions have to take place before even beginning a discussion on theism as expressed in the Judeo-Christian sense.

[ksmartialarts]

No, it IS "magic" and "mysticism" by very definition...not my opinion.

You are just not used to hearing these terms applied to what you have been conditioned to think of as real.

And it is the very assumptions you speak of that I was talking about. There is NO REASON to make them, yet they are necessary to believe the mythology you were born into....and any other superstition as well.

Sorry if this sounds harsh. But I'm not in the habit of tip toeing around the reality of it.

[chukmaty]

Really, so people only believe in religions which they were born into? That is an interesting perspective, no matter how obviously incorrect it is.

Mysticism has always been elemental, something expected from the pagan religions that focused on objects in nature as being supernatural. Science has shed light on nearly everything in nature to show that it behaves, not mystically, but according to natural law.

The God of the Bible was always different, since job he was transcendent and separate.

[ksmartialarts]

Not interested in the Straw Man ploy. I never said that it is ONLY those religions we are born into. Statistically, it's a safe assumption with you. Am I wrong?

Yes...SCIENCE has shed light on many things. But religions formed from primitive times....not a single thing.

to be continued....

[chukmaty]

Atheism, existentialism, and nihilism also have roots in ancient times. Most ideas were expressed at one time or other in primitive times. Also, we are arrogant in thinking that we have special knowledge now that is radically different today than back in "primitive" times when some of the most brilliant thinkers were from such ages of antiquity.

What they lacked in technology and in some scientific breakthroughs they did not lack in terms of philosophy, reason, and thought.

[ksmartialarts]

Are you kidding?

You say it is "arrogant" to think we are better prepared to explore questions of the universe than people who thought disease was caused by evil spirits? Seriously? Or who imagined that the stars could fall from the sky and stepped on, or that the Sun went around the Earth and could be stopped by yelling at it (both found in your bible)?

The most "brilliant thinkers" from the time your religion was formed couldn't compare to the average 4th grader today.

to continue..

[ksmartialarts]

You write: "What they lacked in technology and in some scientific breakthroughs they did not lack in terms of philosophy, reason, and thought."

Another interesting claim. Would you care to offer any examples?

Particularly in the areas of your claim of "reason and thought." But also if you think you know of a philosophy from those who formed your religion that was not already recorded in a previous society (anything "new" contributed).

[chukmaty]

Also, I saw your statement as saying we accept that which we are born into, if I misunderstood you, my bad.

[ksmartialarts]

Then you must have also seen the "Am I wrong?" question that I asked you. You seemed to have skipped it.

Yes, statistically (though no one claimed "only"), one is most likely to believe whatever god is presented to them while they are pre-abstract-thought capable (generally, pre-pubescent).

Since accepting the most bizarre things as "fact" (talking snakes and donkeys, humans living in a fish, tower of Babel, etc), they in turn will grow up to do the same to other trusting children.

[ksmartialarts]

to continue...

You write (as if it's connected to your Science statement): "The God of the Bible was always different, since job he was transcendent and separate."

The god written in the holy books that would later be VOTED on by a committee of ordinary men to be the Christian bible (and called the "word of God" anyway), is different due to the fact that the legends were written at different times in man's development. This is exactly why it seems more violent in the O.T. than the N.T.

[chukmaty]

Um, no, not really.

The old Testament was not struck upon by ordinary men, we can find it compiled by religious groups before the time of Christ.

The New Testament was formed by correspondence from church to church primarily, the books which were accepted cannon came from apostles or which were accepted in collection with the works apostles penned and which were generally accepted by the apostles and the churches which followed the apostles. Later this was made "official" at Nicaea.

[ksmartialarts]

I'm not sure what you mean to say by, "struck upon" here. But what part of your statement do you imagine prompts a "Um, no, not really" from anything I pointed out?

[chukmaty]

The OT is not particularly more violent than the NT, both accept that the fallen nature of man leads to violence and even the moral need for violence. This is more clear in the OT because Israel as a nation had the moral imperative to destroy evil, sometimes for reasons not fully explained in Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, or Chronicles. This does not really change in he NT, it is simply that the arm of justice is seen as being in governments and in future judgment expressed in Revelation.

[ksmartialarts]

Have you actually READ the O.T.?

The god character doesn't even read like the same god as the one in the N.T.

You're trying to tell me that the one that destroys entire cities because they are "wicked" (which presumably means the infants and children too), and even committs genocide of the ENTIRE PLANET, and asks that all non-believers be put to death, and dictates that non-vigin wives be bludgeon to death on their wedding nights, and [running out of room] is equal to the one in the N.T.?

[shawry86]

yeah god was a cunt

[chukmaty]

While it might make me feel good to think that now that Jesus saves, that there is no need for justice and we can focus on love alone, it simply is not the case... the same justice expressed in the OT is present in the NT, it is not as central.

Also, the OT details many wrong actions without directly condemning them, polygamy for example, while indirectly demonstrating how it resulted in disaster. Also it shows how monogamy is preferable in books like Genesis or Song of Solomon.

[ksmartialarts]

I think you'd get a real eye-opener if you could read that holy book with some objectivity.

What "justice" do you want to talk about from your O.T.? Perhaps killing the infants of Egypt to piss off the Pharoah? Or the legend that says we are ALL condemned for the actions of the two mythical "first" humans?

And not only was Lot NOT condemned for offering up his daughters to be gang-raped by a mob, but actually sparred and rewared to be raped by these daughters later when made drunk.

[ksmartialarts]

to continue...

How about simply discussing the "justice" that the simple act of not believing in the god of this mythology, can land a person...no matter how kind, or intelligent, or loving, or giving... in an ETERNITY of torture?

Ever really THINK about this one? Not just BILLIONS of years...but ETERNITY for anything that one could possibly do in just 80 or 90 years on earth (let alone just not believing)? Justice?

This would be worse than any dictator beheading someone for J-walking.

[Yuratchka]

Why We Are On Earth? /watch?v=dpDAJyXwbmc

Why God Allows Evil and Good To Exist /watch?v=v_Ks6taUH1U

I'm pretty sure everyone knows how to work those two links above. If you do not, then just go to my channel and watch them from there.

Thanks. =)

[jwzoomie]

listen to this man!

[meowfairydust]

Thank you thank you thank you x 1000 for helping me remember what I used to believe and have forgotten. Ignorance may be bliss in the short run but certainly not the long.

[Timorio]

"Ignorance may be bliss for awhile, but now that I once again believe an all-powerful being that I've never seen created the universe and has a plan for me because an old book says so, everything's going to be A-okay! GOD DID IT ALL, BABY!"

[chukmaty]

*slaps forehead*

You seem perfectly comfortable in believing other old books that discuss the history of other people in times past, or if you don't you probably should. Now obviously some old books are in disagreement with other old and some new books and all the books cannot be right, but there is hardly new knowledge available now that challenges the Bible more so now than it was challenged back then.

Before the enlightenment the Bible was attacked by the mystical and now the materialistic.

[AnneRiceDotCom]

Wonderful to hear the voice of the Bishop of Durham as he instructs us and enlightens us. He is a great man of God, and I'm grateful for all his many books. They have shaped my vision of Our Lord, deepened my faith, and my hope for understanding. Anne Rice.

[chukmaty]

I like!