Love the Christian, but not the Christianity.

[thaiboxerken]

You're making alot of hidden assumptions there, Avalon. Thus, your argument is invalid.

 

[AvalonXQ]

you're making alot of hidden assumptions there, avalon. Thus, your argument is invalid.

qed.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Assumptions about what "all-powerful" means (I consider the term to be completely useless, personally), about what "benevolent" implies, about the nature of choice and cause. Basically your whole argument relies on a lot of hand-waving and equivocation. If you make yourself spell it out, you'll almost certainly see where I'll disagree.

So are you saying God is not all-powerful? If so, then that is a legitimate answer to my original question, which you could have presented when I asked it, instead of asking me to rewrite my question as a formal logic exercise and calling my argument ignorant. If God is not all-powerful, then a lot of the Bible makes more sense. Do you believe God is subject to rules of morality, or justice?

Or do you mean God isn't benevolent in the normal sense of the word, that is, he does not desire good for all of mankind? If so, then again, a lot makes sense, and you could have just said that to begin with.

On a side note, I think your tactic of just saying "you're arguments are wrong, look hard at them and you'll see why" is very poor conversation. If you believe I'm wrong about something, it shouldn't be hard to say where my error lies. Just trying to get me to "find out the truth on my own" is the kind of condescending nonsense that is responsible for many people hating Christianity, and some Christians.

Sorry. I should have just said "formal proof", but too many people think they can write persuasive prose and it qualifies.

Honestly, I think formal proofs are kind of clumsy. You can sometimes use them to point out errors in other people's statements, but telling others to write all their claims into formal proofs is just being a jerk, and lazy at that. Heck, if you want to prove me wrong, why not write a formal proof yourself? Just explain to me, showing all your premises, why God allows people to be damned. Or just answer me the following two questions: Could he save them if he wanted to? Or, why doesn't he want to?

 

[AvalonXQ]

So are you saying God is not all-powerful? If so, then that is a legitimate answer to my original question, which you could have presented when I asked it, instead of asking me to rewrite my question as a formal logic exercise and calling my argument ignorant.

...

On a side note, I think your tactic of just saying "you're arguments are wrong, look hard at them and you'll see why" is very poor conversation. If you believe I'm wrong about something, it shouldn't be hard to say where my error lies. Just trying to get me to "find out the truth on my own" is the kind of condescending nonsense that is responsible for many people hating Christianity, and some Christians.

My apologies; I didn't mean to imply that at all. I was honestly wanting to tackle the syllogisms to demonstrate where and why I disagree.

Since apparently wanting to see a formal construction of your argument is seen as offensive, I'll withdraw the request.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Yea, Mirror, that's what happens when you use English words in an argument. The apologists think you're assuming the reader can understand English.

I suppose I'd better get back to those Lojban lessons. That should convince them.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I suppose I'd better get back to those Lojban lessons. That should convince them.

I read through most of the standard Lojban primer. A neat idea, but there are currently insufficient network effects to learn it as any more than a curiosity.

 

[Mirrorglass]

My apologies; I didn't mean to imply that at all. I was honestly wanting to tackle the syllogisms to demonstrate where and why I disagree.

Since apparently wanting to see a formal construction of your argument is seen as offensive, I'll withdraw the request.

Nevermind the offense, perhaps I'm being a bit too snarky as well. I apologize too. Anyway, what annoyed me is not you asking me to reconstruct my arguments, but your failure to answer simple questions: Is God all powerful? Is God benevolent? If not, then how powerful, and how good is he?

 

[AvalonXQ]

So are you saying God is not all-powerful? If so, then that is a legitimate answer to my original question, which you could have presented when I asked it, instead of asking me to rewrite my question as a formal logic exercise and calling my argument ignorant. If God is not all-powerful, then a lot of the Bible makes more sense. Do you believe God is subject to rules of morality, or justice?

Again, the problem is that you're trying to "reason" like the ancient Greeks -- defining abstract terms and trying to draw far-reaching conclusins from them. It didn't work when they did it to "reason out" the nature of the stars or the earth, and it doesn't work when we try to do the same with God.
God is certainly not "all-powerful" as the term has been taken to mean by amateur theologians. God cannot act against the Nature of God, break his promises, prove the absolute ordinality of the reals under standard axioms, win a game of football without scoring any points, or create a married bachelor.
So talking about God as "all-powerful" is far less useful than talking about specific things that God can, and cannot, do.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Nevermind the offense, perhaps I'm being a bit too snarky as well. I apologize too. Anyway, what annoyed me is not you asking me to reconstruct my arguments, but your failure to answer simple questions: Is God all powerful? Is God benevolent? If not, then how powerful, and how good is he?

God is as powerful and as benevolent as it is possible for a Being to be. God is capable of doing anything that his Nature would cause Him to do. Every action God takes is designed to maximally benefit everyone.

 

[gentlehorse]

God is as powerful and as benevolent as it is possible for a Being to be. God is capable of doing anything that his Nature would cause Him to do. Every action God takes is designed to maximally benefit everyone.

Nice non-answer--

 

[Mirrorglass]

Again, the problem is that you're trying to "reason" like the ancient Greeks -- defining abstract terms and trying to draw far-reaching conclusins from them. It didn't work when they did it to "reason out" the nature of the stars or the earth, and it doesn't work when we try to do the same with God.
God is certainly not "all-powerful" as the term has been taken to mean by amateur theologians. God cannot act against the Nature of God, break his promises, prove the absolute ordinality of the reals under standard axioms, win a game of football without scoring any points, or create a married bachelor.
So talking about God as "all-powerful" is far less useful than talking about specific things that God can, and cannot, do.

I guess we're getting somewhere now. So there is a "Nature of God" God cannot go against. Who created this Nature, though? And couldn't God change it, if he wanted to?

God is as powerful and as benevolent as it is possible for a Being to be. God is capable of doing anything that his Nature would cause Him to do. Every action God takes is designed to maximally benefit everyone.

So why can he not, instead of destroying the souls of practicing homosexuals, simply burn out their sin, turn them straight and then let them into heaven with the rest of the people?

 

[bookitty]

No. The message here is that only Jesus has the right to judge sin, and if you try to test Jesus' judgment, or do the judging yourself, you're going to find that it is you that comes out judged and looking foolish.
That, and the idea that Jesus is merciful.

Great! I am 100% behind this. Let Jesus judge who is a sinner among the Christians. Then the Christians here on earth can stop trying to block gay marriage, gay adoption, abortion, etc. That should free them up to do those good works their savior preached about.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Avalon is complaining about abstract terms when talking about "God", which is an abstract concept. Hmmmm.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Great! I am 100% behind this. Let Jesus judge who is a sinner among the Christians. Then the Christians here on earth can stop trying to block gay marriage, gay adoption, abortion, etc. That should free them up to do those good works their savior preached about.

Very glib.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I guess we're getting somewhere now. So there is a "Nature of God" God cannot go against. Who created this Nature, though? And couldn't God change it, if he wanted to?

I don't know the answer to either of those questions.

So why can he not, instead of destroying the souls of practicing homosexuals, simply burn out their sin, turn them straight and then let them into heaven with the rest of the people?

Being gay or straight has nothing to do with being Christian. Had I not made this clear earlier? There are faithful Christians of all inclinations and orientations.

 

[bookitty]

Very glib.

Nope, I am serious. If only Christ can judge and after a person is dead, there is no need for Christians to worry about sin. Especially in those tricky areas of personal choice, like sexual orientation. If Jesus doesn't like the fact that two gays got married, he can deal with them after they die.

Christians can take all the time and money spent lobbying against gay marriage and apply it to helping the poor. Gays have the legal protections offered by marriage and bonus! Get to make up their own minds about whether or not they are sinning. People who are ambivalent don't have to live in a society where a person's sexual orientation is any of their business. It's a win/win for everybody.

 

[Mirrorglass]

I don't know the answer to either of those questions.

Then how do you know God cannot go against the Nature of God?

Being gay or straight has nothing to do with being Christian. Had I not made this clear earlier? There are faithful Christians of all inclinations and orientations.

So you do not believe sex between two men is a sin? If so, then cool. I must have mixed you up with some other Christian I've been debating.

To be clear, who do you believe go to hell? Adulterers? Greedy people? Thieves? Murderers? Just those people who didn't accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior? Or is there some other criteria?

 

[Complexity]

I believe that sexual orientation has strong genetic and early environmental components and is much more a matter of biology than choice.
Since sexual behavior, and not sexual orientation, is what my religion is concerned with, this is entirely irrelevant. All of us have biological drives to do things that are sinful; all of us are expected to refrain.
There are many believing, faithful Christians that are attracted to members of their own gender. There are many believing, faithful Christians that are attracted to members of the opposite gender that they're unmarried to. There are many believing, faithful Christians who are attracted to children.
The only question is whether they sin by acting on these urges in a way prohibited by God.

Nonsense.

Even if I bought into the steaming pile that you're selling (and I do not), the fact remains that your lovely system would encourage you to have sex and forbid me from having sex, for you to have a family and for me to have none, for you to have a spouse, and for me to remain alone.

Feel free to go to your hell.

 

[bookitty]

Nonsense.

Even if I bought into the steaming pile that you're selling (and I do not), the fact remains that your lovely system would encourage you to have sex and forbid me from having sex, for you to have a family and for me to have none, for you to have a spouse, and for me to remain alone.

Feel free to go to your hell.

Oh bravo. This.

 

[Complexity]

Oh bravo. This.