It must be, then tell me, if evil is not in God, then were it is, outside of God? There is such thing as outside of God? If there is, God is not God, there is someone higher than God that contains both God and evil, in order for evil to not be in God.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Arguments for God's existence - of a lover trying to convince someone to be certain.
- Thread starter Link
- Start date
It must be, then tell me, if evil is not in God, then were it is, outside of God? There is such thing as outside of God? If there is, God is not God, there is someone higher than God that contains both God and evil, in order for evil to not be in God.
(V) Perfect Vision and absolute judgement or (G) God.
(D) Deeds having real value
If not V, then not D.
If D, then V.
D.
Therefore V exists.
Talking like this is easier for some people, but then people will exactly, why, what do you mean, and there where poetic metaphors help facilitate the detail.
Phrasing things exactly like that, is useful for some people, but for others, they rather talk in every day words. When I said God is required for our deeds to have a value in truth, it means, if not God, then our deeds can't have value but would be totally an illusion and who we are would have no reality as well, but be an illusion.
You can nitpick language and assume the worst or try to understand. Up to you.
(D) Deeds having real value
If not V, then not D.
If D, then V.
D.
Therefore V exists.
Talking like this is easier for some people, but then people will exactly, why, what do you mean, and there where poetic metaphors help facilitate the detail.
Phrasing things exactly like that, is useful for some people, but for others, they rather talk in every day words. When I said God is required for our deeds to have a value in truth, it means, if not God, then our deeds can't have value but would be totally an illusion and who we are would have no reality as well, but be an illusion.
You can nitpick language and assume the worst or try to understand. Up to you.
Evil is negative, absolute negative + absolute positive = 0. That means God worth nothing if what you say is true.
I like both the things you've written in this thread and consider it the best and most authentic and fair advice so far, the problem is, it might be a little more idealistic and honorable than realistically can be expected.
If we're dealing with real human beings, then there are a number of factors involved as to why it becomes difficult to simply let people go and do and believe whatever they want. So, though you're absolutely right, and even I would be better off in a different situation or some fantasy, it isn't always or doesn't always seem feasible or possible.
Lets consider the realities: its hard enough to get anyone to like a person or be liked, particularly a male, particularly in modern times, who is rapidly aging and becoming even more unattractive and unsuitable in general (I'm not meaning Link specifically or even myself, just in general). So by 30, a person is usually in a pretty bad way, with less and less people around the same age who are foolish enough to waste their time with us, with no major selling points to convince them of anything. The desperation increases and that anyone has even slightly shown interest or might be fooled into living with us eventually seems miraculous (thank God for mistakes).
Now the issue at hand becomes about comfort, and one of the factors related to comfort is that they share all the same beliefs if possible, but one will have to generally compromise (due to being poor, ugly, and old) to just a very general agreement of similarities at best.
Love is kind of a word people throw around, and probably mean different things to different people. I use Love to mean Care, and Care to mean Concern about what I want in my life and how I want it, and so I love my collectible action figures for example, and my collectible people as well, I want no harm to come to them, I don't want them to be sad or necessary even happy (like with someone else), I just want them to be safe and sound under my domain so I can call them "mine" and trust that they will likely not be sleeping around with other people (again!).
If a person is especially disturbed by the past of people or their intimacy with others, (since that means "Oh no, they did it before, they could do it again, they loved someone or did things that they do with me, I'm nothing (all probably true as well and difficult to mentally overcome)), that leaves the prospective silly heads typically young or otherwise somewhat backwards or from extremely restrictive backgrounds to make sure they have not accumulated much or any life experience or contact with others that might provide for stories or thoughts we don't want them to have or us to have about them. Lying might also play a role in some of this too, but ideally people want someone who is honest and honestly has nothing disturbing to say or mention which is true.
The great thing which keeps relationships together, is not sexual intercourse, but humor, laughter, and giving pleasure to each other through enjoyable contact, conversations, jokes, flirtations, affection, all that. Wasting your time with someone else, feeding them, helping each other, is the closest thing to love available really, so we get to have our cake and eat it too, because if you're not possessive about someone and are just ok with them being with other people intimately or that they might burn in hell you probably mainly don't give much of a hoot about them anyway. Of course, all these sentiments can be misplaced or go too far, and almost any version of a relationship of any kind can be considered ultimately full of "toxicity".
The reason men are mainly interested in women is their looks, their bodies, their faces, their sexual interest in them, maybe some of their personality, certainly not their religion usually, which is only of concern to make sure they are more trustworthy, relatable, under control, and that if one has children that those children are also brainwashed similarly with the Right and True Way. Lets be honest, blunt, and realistic. People tell a lot of lies, probably even to themselves, but my guess is that the reason anyone is attracted to anyone has to do with hormones and psychological factors and hopes. Maybe I'm a little too pessimistic and cynical or whatever though.
So, once you've tricked your mate into liking you, then you have the value or resource of them being around or available to give you attention, hear your rants, maybe if you're lucky you can take them out places or get them to be cooks for you as well and provide other helps and services, and no one is generally caring about the nature and status of Jesus really as they eat a delicious meal or are having sexual relations or whatever (I would hope). Religion plays a very minimal role in just about anything to do with people together. That is good news, and that means that you can get a person as far as agreeing to pretend and appear cooperative (for who knows how long), or outright reject it all, while still potentially providing every other benefit. That is as many hours and years as you can get out of this person, even if they end up falling apart or burning in hell at the end of it, so, just like you buy a bed or whatever, and the bed says "Till Death Do Us Deflate", even if it serves you well for a number of hours and days and months and years while being devoid of prayer for themselves or whatever, it might be a not so bad deal after all.
Now, the Qur'an says, thou shalt not marry a fornicator, but fornicators are for fornicators, adulterers for adulterers, non-virgins for non-virgins basically, and each of the religious groups for each other, especially idolaters for idolaters, and Muslims for Muslims. Also not to marry a person or have sex or children with them if they aren't tested and proven to be believers, best as Muslims, but there seems to be some leeway with Muslimified Jews and Muslimified Christians, though many Muslims have throughout history taken this as a permission to marry even full blown Trinitarian Christians. The stories from Muslims who marry Non-Muslims or former Non-Muslims are varied, but many of the stories I've heard include some sort of treachery from one or the other and divorces and separations, even when the other person is a born-Muslim or a convert to Islam. Sometimes the divorced party maintains their Islam in an even stronger practice than the person they married.
The best God, I think, might be the Vague One, the one that people avoid mainly discussing in much detail but both agree exists, lets focus on other things. That God has gotten many people through a lot of troubles, whereas Annoying Rant God (unfortunately, my God too), has gotten me into a lot of trouble with people, and the ladies, and caused me a lot of stress too. Nobody knows what any of us are ranting about, and no one cares, as it is supposedly (according to the Qur'an) God's knowledge and work which makes sure that a person is truly and sincerely a Muslim or not, we can never really know, and our rants may be entirely wrong anyway, or not be understood in the way we think and intend also.
So, I think, more than logic and reasoning, which seems to have always failed for me, there can be just a touch of that, but mainly it should be about being an excellent person yourself, dignified, and treating someone with all kindness and affection and mercy and grace, and if you two get along well, then that should be the important part and maintained, and if religion causes strain, consider if you really feel comfortable letting that attractive face and body to go or be with other people, and if you can't, then you'll have to suffer them and whatever errors they might hold in their heart, and you can just avoid the topic mainly.
That is my poor advice, from lots of personal experience, since I've also watched and advised numerous others in a variety of situations in real life. I'm still trying to trick people into at least being religious seeming or saying their prayers as exercise or something, lol.
Please keep in mind, this is tongue-in-cheek, not meant to be offensive. I think the pickle picture or whatever person that I liked the posts of is right, if you can skip women or people who are too different and who you're going to be annoyed by or constantly trying to convince, it makes for unpleasantness all around, so if you can skip em, skip em, if you can't do so because they are just too darn attractive or whatever, then you may need to tone it down for them or be willing to accept a lot of compromises for a relaxed experience and get what you can out of them, and that is the dark world we (maybe just I) live in. There are so many things in this world which people can extend the use of for a while, but many things degenerate also, like the pickle persons marriage or whatever too (I think something they wrote gave me the impression they are no longer with the nagging Christian who constantly bothered them about their Non-Christian-ness)? You must have had a lot of things you got and did for years though before the end? To me, as chauvinistic or objectifying as it might sound, its like a beloved car (I am watching Christine currently on my Halloween Horror Marathon), and sometimes that car just ends up eventually getting killed or sold or whatever happens...and sometimes...IT KILLS! But generally not, thank goodness, but if you treat your car like the guy in the movie Christine treats his car, I think Christine might end up feeling ok. I don't think he even had many religious discussions with her, just enjoyed riding her.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
That is a silly argument.
You cannot possibly demonstrate the truthfulness of premise one.
Premis one assumes the conclusion (begging the question) therefore is not valid.
Premis 2 is essentially a tautology and of no value.
The conclusion cannot be reached from the above invalid premises.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
So, you fell in love with her because of who she is, yet now you want to change her from who she is and turn her into what you want her to become?
So, you fell in love with her because of who she is, yet now you want to change her from who she is and turn her into what you want her to become?
False dichotomy, there is part of her I love, and part of her I don't like, and I do believe she can change for the better.
firedragon
Veteran Member
It must be hellish to believe someone you love, God cannot unless they join your religion. That's awful. I'm sure she probably feels that pain for you herself. She should. Maybe she should try to save you instead?
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
So you DO want to change her to the way you think she should be.
Here's what it comes down to:
- a proselytizer's relationship with their mark is predatory and unbalanced.
- in a healthy romantic relationship, the relationship is a partnership: it's a relationship founded on equality and mutual respect.
These two types of relationships are incompatible, so you really need to decide whether it's more important to you try to win a convert or to try to have a romantic partnership.
... and if you decide on trying for both, you'll be effectively choosing against the romantic relationship, because if you try to have both, the proselytizing will poison the romantic partnership.