So you know to disable it

This isn’t about labels, but the substance of the thing itself

god can be “all good” if the definition is different to the one you or Epicurus is using.

To restate what I said above, all Epicurus is really saying is “god can’t be all powerful, all knowing and fully good according to Epicurus’ definition of good.”

For the Epicurean paradox to work one has to assume that his definition of good is both correct and universal. That’s all I’m pointing out.

I’m not trying to needlessly spilt hairs; abrahamic religions are quite up front that god’s idea of goodness is different to ‘human goodness’.

So whether or not the statement makes sense depends entirely on whose concept of goodness you assume at the outset.

I understand what you’re saying, but respectively I didn’t uncheck the “all good” box. I pointed out that there are two definitions of “good” in play and so the statement “god is all good” is meaningless without further inspection.

If we use god’s definition of good then the “all good” remains checked because god gets to define goodness itself and whether or not he wants pain to be necessary to achieve good.

On the other hand if we use our sense of good, then the question is begged because it establishes a hierarchy of values that does not have god at the top and then concludes god is a contradiction. But this is inevitable from our assumptions that there is such a thing as an infinite moral authority yet there is also our moral authority which is better.

In short, I think the Epicurean statement is a pithy way of saying god fails our human standards (which is true, by the way). But then religion doesn’t claim god follows our human standards in the first place, so it all seems a bit pedestrian.

I’m not sure how that’s moving goalposts. The two issues seem fundamentally connected.

I don’t think it’s an issue of capability, god is supposed to be capable of all things, pain free world included. It’s a question more of will.

God could have willed the world another way, or not at all, and still have been completely satisfied. But he has chosen this way because it’s his will and god tells us it’s good. If he regards his will as good, why would he change it to another?

I like your analogy. I am not a Christian, but I believe the majority of Christian writers had honest intentions and were working with the way the world seemed to be to them at the time.

Eg Paul telling women to be silent in the church assembly is harsh but makes a little more sense given he’s created this mixed male/female religious meeting that didn’t exist before. It’s similar to telling all the new people to be quiet and sit still because they’re new to this. His reasoning is that “Eve” is weak. But the very fact he’s admitting all the women to his meetings in the first place shows he thought Christian belief was bringing men and women into a more equal space when previously there had been an even deeper division. And so on.

In the sermon on the mount Jesus talked about resolving disputes by “taking it to the church” (literally “assembly” of believers) so there was some concept of church during his ministry. Church means “assembly” (of people) though, the greek word really bears no resemblance to the modern idea of church as a building with a carpark.

I feel that’s probably among the genuine sayings of Jesus because later editors have declined to inject verses supporting bishops and elders which was surely tempting to do.

then the being that made up that reality either doesn’t care (not all good)

You have again assumed that care for the individual trumps anything else and then tried to add ‘god’ to that worldwide and then concluded with the contradiction that you assumed in the first place

The god of Abrahamic religions does not care about individuals above all else and never says that it does. It cares about its own glory because it is the only uncorrupted being. As a part of magnifying that glory it “loves” the world, but that is very much on its own terms and definitions.

Pain is presented as a necessary consequence of god being good and - crucially - god is the only possible source of the definition of “good” (in that worldview), everything else, your own independent common sense included, is corrupted

All this causes an inward revulsion obviously, I’m just trying to present the alternative train of thought as clearly as possible

That very much depends on what “good” is

We can’t come to the debate with our Western humanist ideas as assumptions as that’s very much begging the question. We are bound to conclude god is a contradiction if we start with a value hierarchy that’s independent of god. Because that is, out the gate, inconsistent with what god even claims to be.

“god” is not just a cosmic dictator is a rather temporal position of great power (and therefore judged the way we judge a boss). The theological claim is that god defines reality itself. And must therefore necessarily be at the root of value hierarchies. “Goodness” in that view really is defined as “gods will and purposes” and nothing else. As to take any other view first necessitates conceiving of an existence independent of god, which necessarily involves setting oneself up as an independent judge of values and sets one on a course to conclude what one has assumed.

Hypothetically then, if one enters into that “god” reality, then the concept that evil is used to achieve the greatest good (and this is not capricious or wasteful but rather ideal) becomes consistent.

As you say, one can conceive that infinite power would surely find a way to avoid pain, but that assumes that pain does not, in some way, achieve the goodness of god’s greater will

And that is Epicurus’ assumption- that the greatest good is achieved in minimising pain. Whereas the theological view is that there may be something integral and fundamental in reality itself (that is, god’s being) wherein the suffering of pain is necessary in order for us to achieve the greatest end according to god’s purposes. Be that transformed into a “child of god” or made more similar to god ot to have ones soul “refined” in some sense ready for a future existence.

I’m quite partial to the idea that an inquisitive “child god” was sneakily playing around with the “universe making machine” and spawned this monstrosity. They’re now hiding under the table hoping none of the grown up gods notice the mess they’ve made. They did try and and dictate some clumsy random rules but that didn’t go well. Then a friend with a little more sense tried to inculcate a “spiritual” approach to life. But neither were much thought through and both child gods have long abandoned us.

While obviously unsatisfying the resolution to the Epicurean paradox is that evil serves a good purpose that is unknown to us but known to God.

Like a child screaming when a cut is disinfected by a parent. The pain is incomprehensible to a small child. So we too are “small spiritual children”, and the grotesque pain of the world serves as some sort of refining process that is incomprehensible to us.

Or so the thinking goes…

How would God even know if there was something he didn’t know?

In my experience the “it was written by people who never met each other” doesn’t quite land because the retort is “well how did prophecy all line up then?” suggestive stare

I find it’s more useful to show Christians the weak point of the New Testament from their respective political view…

To left leaning:

Jesus told individuals to personally decide to give to the poor, he never instituted a state wide obligation, he never called for the church to force taxes from the unbelieving. He also condemned “porneia” (typically translated debauchery) which meant unlawful sex which at the time included homosexual acts.

To the right leaning:

Jesus said to turn the other cheek in the face of physical violence and threat. He said to surrender your possessions to anyone who asks and not expect it back (Luke 6:29-30). St Paul followed this saying it’s preferable to be cheated out of money rather than sue someone (1 Cor 6:7)

Point being. Neither the left or right “own” Jesus. Nor does anyone else attempting to live a modern western lifestyle. It’s incompatible. Jesus and his followers espoused radical self sacrifice. They believed the end was nigh. He said “give no thought for the morrow” because he didn’t believe there were many left.

As foretold on the kitchen roll!!

Heretic. True believers know it was 8 seconds ago.

The cab was stationary at the time which I suppose made them think it wasn’t a bump in the road or anything. Strange for a car window to spontaneously shatter without a jolt but I guess it happens.

The Sun dredging this up after six years? Classy reporting.

Presumably to call it an “incendiary device” there’s a little more to it than a regular battery with a fault. A circuit designed to heat perhaps or some other clear trigger.

While these are both certainly true it has also been annoying when I’ve added a regular contact but it doesn’t show up in WhatsApp straight away

Seems incredible that leaders on either side of a conflict like this would set foot in their home yet it seems to be a norm…

Have often thought an electric chair w someone strapped to it more adequately conveys the shock and shame that a crucifixion did in the first century. It was something that only happened if you were a terrible person. Can see why the Jews thought Christianity was incomprehensible and why the Greeks thought it was mental…