Re: Engaging Elliot
Hey Trickster, nice of you to butt in. 8)
I admit that Christian premises are circular and reinforce each other. What you have to do is enter the circle first, and that's usually by being attracted to a loci. I was attracted to objective morality. Once in the circle, positive feedback can easily kick in.
Having said all that, I've never met 2 Christians who *articulate* their faith the same (once you ask a few questions that is). Also, I'd like to think that I can find circular reasoning in all belief systems...but I'm not saying that to skirt your contention, which I agree with.
Yes...but there are two ways of explaining that.
One way is that God, in fact, *did* everything that is assigned to him in the Bible. By definition, all that he does is good.
Another way is that God did not in fact *do* the things in the Bible that we consider to be bad, and that the assignation was an unfortunate mixup by the people/writers in question.
Which way are you looking at, or, does it not matter?
Here's how I look at it. Good is completely contingent upon God. Good is a synonym for God. So, I'm really not saying ANYTHING when I say God is good. I'm just saying God is God. (of course good is an adjective and God is noun, but I think you can get my point). Personally, I pick and choose between the two ways I listed above (based on discernment and reason of course). It's a smell test I guess. Here's hoping my own particular take on objective morality is equivalent to God's, eh?
If I couldn't, or wasn't interested, in linking *good* to God, I wouldn't be a religious person. As I see it, it's the necessary corrollary to a true belief in objective morality.
I think it can only be defined as tautology (others would say faith, and I don't think I'd disagree with that either, but tautology may make more sense).
Right, some Christians may say that, but I think the general idea is that God allows bad things to happen to people. This idea has a very early depiction in the story of Job. Modern Christians (at least the fundamentalists and conservatives) believe that Satan has dominion and power in this world, and God only works in a sort of subterfugic way.
And it isn't he "may" have good reasons for allowing bad to happen. He does, in fact, have a good reason for allowing bad to happen, because all his reasons are, by definition, good.
I can certainly see how this would be frustrating to those outside the loop. Which is why I always say that logic is dependent on premises, and it's always better to say "I reject your premises" than "You're being illogical". It is, I think, extremely problematic for the materialist to speak of logic as if it is objective truth. Logic is a human construct contingent on not only the brain, but language and reasoning and the ability to construct arguments and the ability to frame ideas and senses into some coherent form. It just doesn't exist beyond the human brain (to the materialist that is).
A different meaning, but not completely different to the Christian. The Christian believes that he/she is created in God's image and is quite capable of being good, or doing good. Heck, God became a human in Christ, so it can't be completely different.
Where the difference lies is that humans can reject good, and God can't. I've read arguments in the past that God's inability to not do good is commensurate to his not being omnipotent. Shrug.
If it corresponds to truth that's a definite bonus.
Of course it's definitely true (I think) that if a belief system is internally INCONSISTENT, it can not be true. This is why a great deal of effort is exerted, by atheists, in exposing internal inconsistencies in Christianity. That is a markedly different approach from attacking the premises. The problem with that approach is, almost invariably, one man's internal inconsistency is another man's internal consistency. Argh!
Exactly! This goes for me triple! My conclusions existed before I really did a detailed exploration of the Bible. Going the other way around (starting with the Bible, and then forming my conclusion) never really occurred to me...
Most fundamentalists would not call me a fundamentalist, although I like to think of myself as one, if only because I feel like we're on the same side. But I think it definitely works for them, too. I think that many times people get active in a church, and that frames how they read the Bible. I really think that it is rare that people start with the Bible (and I mean really break it down) and then hook up with a particular church.
Now my question is...would you rather people, in fact, start with the Bible and then form their own conclusions? (Of course you'd rather people ditch the Bible altogether no doubt, but lets forget that for the moment
.) In my opinion, it is a good thing that people have an overarching frame of reference when reading the Bible. Without that, it's frankly a tough thing to get your head around, you know? It is true that God is described in many different ways in the Bible. You need something going into it in order to make sense of it all.
You are assuming that the Bible is the only data available. I would say that a whole mess of data (the world, the self, and everything) went into the conclusions, which frame the Bible when read carefully.
If the conclusions are INDEPENDENT of the Bible...surely that's a good thing, right?
This goes for atheists too, of course. The Gospels are "re-interpreted" by atheists to fit their own conclusions (they are fables, interpolated frauds, etc).
Let me try to say now what I thought I said earlier.
I fully accept that some theological notions were held by people thousands of years ago. I accept that as a fact (theological notions were held by others thousands of years ago). Now, I personally don't share those theological notions, yet that doesn't mean that the notions weren't in circulation during the times in question.
To extend that...I don't think that the point of the Bible is to have one consistent theology! I think the whole point is to have a developing theology. The Bible could have been a hell of a lot shorter if the theology was unified and consistent. I believe that Jesus would have been irrelevant if that was the case (I'm actually doing research on a book that will deal with this thesis).
I often feel like I'm talking past other people, or they are talking past me. Reading the Bible is all about expectations. If the expectations differ, so will the interpretations. This is why I always try to get the expectations on the table before I get into a big discussion about a specific biblical issue. Once I know the expectation, I can basically tell the person what interpretation they'll have, and vice versa.
The tricky part is that sometimes I don't think that the expectation, as said by a person, is the actual expectation that the person has. That's a touchy one, and you've got to tread lightly, especially when talking to a well-meaning and decent fundamentalist.
OK, here's why I think 100% true is important.
I don't want any of the Bible to be excised from the book. If I were to take a scientific field, like evolution, I could write a thick book that details the evolution of the theories of evolution. Where contradictions exist, I will explain them, identify the mistakes, and deal with each step of the way accordingly WITH A CONCLUSION IN MIND. In that way, such a book would be 100% true, even though some of the things stated in the book are not in fact true.
Now, most evolution texts will NOT include every rejected idea and hypothesis that came before. The vital ones, of course, will be included, and others will be shown for didactic purposes. But it's not necessary to include everything.
With the Bible, I think it is necessary to have all of the inconsistencies shine through without editorializing or editing. I want to see how we got to Jesus. I just don't want the finished product, or the theology that I agree with the most. That's why I say it is 100% true. The progression is vital and necessary to the fulfillment.
So even if X didn't happen, it matters that people really thought it happened. And even if idea Y about God isn't accurate, it matters that people really thought it was accurate.
I don't know if it's that we can't understand them. We may not be able to understand them as God understands them...or, we may not be able to understand everything. But understanding is possible. This goes back to my admitted belief in objectie morality. I believe that I understand the notion that some things are right and some things are wrong. I believe that the notion is true. My understanding is sufficient for me; it may be insufficient for others. It might be a bit like the calculus, which can be understood on different levels.
The difference between...
I think it's the F word.
The perfect truth, when comprehended and possessed completely, would make faith irrelevant I think.
No, it's all good.
I get snarky when people say demeaning things towards people of faith. When people assume people of faith are consumed by fear, or are stupid and illogical, etc. I don't take that personally, but I take it as if someone is insulting a family member. Moreover, it makes me angry to see a person make themselves look bad, for that is what happens when you define people who disagree with you in such a way.
I may or may not be polite, but I don't think anybody here is stupid or evil or whatever. If I get snippy with certain people, it is because I expect better from them.
It's quite likely if not certain that I have been incivil here, and it's usually if not always in response to, at the very least, perceived incivility. Not the most mature thing, and not turning the other cheek, but in this cynical medium I don't know if that can be conveyed.
In person I'm sure we're all wonderful people, and that goes triple for me.
-Elliot
Hey Trickster, nice of you to butt in. 8)
I admit that Christian premises are circular and reinforce each other. What you have to do is enter the circle first, and that's usually by being attracted to a loci. I was attracted to objective morality. Once in the circle, positive feedback can easily kick in.
Having said all that, I've never met 2 Christians who *articulate* their faith the same (once you ask a few questions that is). Also, I'd like to think that I can find circular reasoning in all belief systems...but I'm not saying that to skirt your contention, which I agree with.
Yes...but there are two ways of explaining that.
One way is that God, in fact, *did* everything that is assigned to him in the Bible. By definition, all that he does is good.
Another way is that God did not in fact *do* the things in the Bible that we consider to be bad, and that the assignation was an unfortunate mixup by the people/writers in question.
Which way are you looking at, or, does it not matter?
Here's how I look at it. Good is completely contingent upon God. Good is a synonym for God. So, I'm really not saying ANYTHING when I say God is good. I'm just saying God is God. (of course good is an adjective and God is noun, but I think you can get my point). Personally, I pick and choose between the two ways I listed above (based on discernment and reason of course). It's a smell test I guess. Here's hoping my own particular take on objective morality is equivalent to God's, eh?
If I couldn't, or wasn't interested, in linking *good* to God, I wouldn't be a religious person. As I see it, it's the necessary corrollary to a true belief in objective morality.
So even if the following logic can be made perfect, (which I have never seen, but I'll take it on faith that it can be done
I think it can only be defined as tautology (others would say faith, and I don't think I'd disagree with that either, but tautology may make more sense).
Right, some Christians may say that, but I think the general idea is that God allows bad things to happen to people. This idea has a very early depiction in the story of Job. Modern Christians (at least the fundamentalists and conservatives) believe that Satan has dominion and power in this world, and God only works in a sort of subterfugic way.
And it isn't he "may" have good reasons for allowing bad to happen. He does, in fact, have a good reason for allowing bad to happen, because all his reasons are, by definition, good.
I can certainly see how this would be frustrating to those outside the loop. Which is why I always say that logic is dependent on premises, and it's always better to say "I reject your premises" than "You're being illogical". It is, I think, extremely problematic for the materialist to speak of logic as if it is objective truth. Logic is a human construct contingent on not only the brain, but language and reasoning and the ability to construct arguments and the ability to frame ideas and senses into some coherent form. It just doesn't exist beyond the human brain (to the materialist that is).
A different meaning, but not completely different to the Christian. The Christian believes that he/she is created in God's image and is quite capable of being good, or doing good. Heck, God became a human in Christ, so it can't be completely different.
Where the difference lies is that humans can reject good, and God can't. I've read arguments in the past that God's inability to not do good is commensurate to his not being omnipotent. Shrug.
If it corresponds to truth that's a definite bonus.
Of course it's definitely true (I think) that if a belief system is internally INCONSISTENT, it can not be true. This is why a great deal of effort is exerted, by atheists, in exposing internal inconsistencies in Christianity. That is a markedly different approach from attacking the premises. The problem with that approach is, almost invariably, one man's internal inconsistency is another man's internal consistency. Argh!
Exactly! This goes for me triple! My conclusions existed before I really did a detailed exploration of the Bible. Going the other way around (starting with the Bible, and then forming my conclusion) never really occurred to me...
Most fundamentalists would not call me a fundamentalist, although I like to think of myself as one, if only because I feel like we're on the same side. But I think it definitely works for them, too. I think that many times people get active in a church, and that frames how they read the Bible. I really think that it is rare that people start with the Bible (and I mean really break it down) and then hook up with a particular church.
Now my question is...would you rather people, in fact, start with the Bible and then form their own conclusions? (Of course you'd rather people ditch the Bible altogether no doubt, but lets forget that for the moment
.) In my opinion, it is a good thing that people have an overarching frame of reference when reading the Bible. Without that, it's frankly a tough thing to get your head around, you know? It is true that God is described in many different ways in the Bible. You need something going into it in order to make sense of it all.You are assuming that the Bible is the only data available. I would say that a whole mess of data (the world, the self, and everything) went into the conclusions, which frame the Bible when read carefully.
If the conclusions are INDEPENDENT of the Bible...surely that's a good thing, right?
This goes for atheists too, of course. The Gospels are "re-interpreted" by atheists to fit their own conclusions (they are fables, interpolated frauds, etc).
Let me try to say now what I thought I said earlier.
I fully accept that some theological notions were held by people thousands of years ago. I accept that as a fact (theological notions were held by others thousands of years ago). Now, I personally don't share those theological notions, yet that doesn't mean that the notions weren't in circulation during the times in question.
To extend that...I don't think that the point of the Bible is to have one consistent theology! I think the whole point is to have a developing theology. The Bible could have been a hell of a lot shorter if the theology was unified and consistent. I believe that Jesus would have been irrelevant if that was the case (I'm actually doing research on a book that will deal with this thesis).
I often feel like I'm talking past other people, or they are talking past me. Reading the Bible is all about expectations. If the expectations differ, so will the interpretations. This is why I always try to get the expectations on the table before I get into a big discussion about a specific biblical issue. Once I know the expectation, I can basically tell the person what interpretation they'll have, and vice versa.
The tricky part is that sometimes I don't think that the expectation, as said by a person, is the actual expectation that the person has. That's a touchy one, and you've got to tread lightly, especially when talking to a well-meaning and decent fundamentalist.
OK, here's why I think 100% true is important.
I don't want any of the Bible to be excised from the book. If I were to take a scientific field, like evolution, I could write a thick book that details the evolution of the theories of evolution. Where contradictions exist, I will explain them, identify the mistakes, and deal with each step of the way accordingly WITH A CONCLUSION IN MIND. In that way, such a book would be 100% true, even though some of the things stated in the book are not in fact true.
Now, most evolution texts will NOT include every rejected idea and hypothesis that came before. The vital ones, of course, will be included, and others will be shown for didactic purposes. But it's not necessary to include everything.
With the Bible, I think it is necessary to have all of the inconsistencies shine through without editorializing or editing. I want to see how we got to Jesus. I just don't want the finished product, or the theology that I agree with the most. That's why I say it is 100% true. The progression is vital and necessary to the fulfillment.
So even if X didn't happen, it matters that people really thought it happened. And even if idea Y about God isn't accurate, it matters that people really thought it was accurate.
I don't know if it's that we can't understand them. We may not be able to understand them as God understands them...or, we may not be able to understand everything. But understanding is possible. This goes back to my admitted belief in objectie morality. I believe that I understand the notion that some things are right and some things are wrong. I believe that the notion is true. My understanding is sufficient for me; it may be insufficient for others. It might be a bit like the calculus, which can be understood on different levels.
The difference between...
I think it's the F word.
The perfect truth, when comprehended and possessed completely, would make faith irrelevant I think.
No, it's all good.
I get snarky when people say demeaning things towards people of faith. When people assume people of faith are consumed by fear, or are stupid and illogical, etc. I don't take that personally, but I take it as if someone is insulting a family member. Moreover, it makes me angry to see a person make themselves look bad, for that is what happens when you define people who disagree with you in such a way.
I may or may not be polite, but I don't think anybody here is stupid or evil or whatever. If I get snippy with certain people, it is because I expect better from them.
It's quite likely if not certain that I have been incivil here, and it's usually if not always in response to, at the very least, perceived incivility. Not the most mature thing, and not turning the other cheek, but in this cynical medium I don't know if that can be conveyed.
In person I'm sure we're all wonderful people, and that goes triple for me.
-Elliot
evildave
Unregistered
E
Minor correction: Circular reasoning does not reinforce its self. It's only circular.
What you describe seems more like reason circling the drain, and it really does spin faster as the last of it goes down.
Mr Clingford said:
Well, if salvation is contingent on Christ's death and resurrection, the main tenent of the faith would be human sacrifice. It was also an offshoot of Judaic animal sacrifices. Gruesome is a rather tame word when you consider deliberate death constitutes the only means of purifying the self. Although the faithful tend to concentrate on trading salvation for faith as the important part of the exchange.
Miracles. Doing amazing/supernatural things. Turning water into wine, etc. Do you believe other miraculous stories outside of Christianity?
KingMerv00
Penultimate Amazing
Re: Re: Engaging Elliot
You know I was going to refute you issue by issue with Powerpoint and visual aides and everything...
Then I realized you are in fact DEFENDING CIRCULAR LOGIC!
You have just torn down human civilization. Congrats.
I will now prove the existance of Zeus and my omniscience at the same time. Behold the power of tautology:
1) Zeus exists and is always right. How do we know? See #2
2) I am omniscient and I don't lie. I believe in Zeus. How do we know I am all-knowing and truthful? See #3
3) Zeus tells me so. How do we know? See #4
4) I said so. How do we know I am right? See #2
Just enter into my triangle of reason by faith and we are all set.
elliotfc said:Hey Trickster, nice of you to butt in. 8)
I admit that Christian premises are circular and reinforce each other. What you have to do is enter the circle first, and that's usually by being attracted to a loci. I was attracted to objective morality. Once in the circle, positive feedback can easily kick in.
Having said all that, I've never met 2 Christians who *articulate* their faith the same (once you ask a few questions that is). Also, I'd like to think that I can find circular reasoning in all belief systems...but I'm not saying that to skirt your contention, which I agree with.
Yes...but there are two ways of explaining that.
One way is that God, in fact, *did* everything that is assigned to him in the Bible. By definition, all that he does is good.
Another way is that God did not in fact *do* the things in the Bible that we consider to be bad, and that the assignation was an unfortunate mixup by the people/writers in question.
Which way are you looking at, or, does it not matter?
Here's how I look at it. Good is completely contingent upon God. Good is a synonym for God. So, I'm really not saying ANYTHING when I say God is good. I'm just saying God is God. (of course good is an adjective and God is noun, but I think you can get my point). Personally, I pick and choose between the two ways I listed above (based on discernment and reason of course). It's a smell test I guess. Here's hoping my own particular take on objective morality is equivalent to God's, eh?
If I couldn't, or wasn't interested, in linking *good* to God, I wouldn't be a religious person. As I see it, it's the necessary corrollary to a true belief in objective morality.
I think it can only be defined as tautology (others would say faith, and I don't think I'd disagree with that either, but tautology may make more sense).
Right, some Christians may say that, but I think the general idea is that God allows bad things to happen to people. This idea has a very early depiction in the story of Job. Modern Christians (at least the fundamentalists and conservatives) believe that Satan has dominion and power in this world, and God only works in a sort of subterfugic way.
And it isn't he "may" have good reasons for allowing bad to happen. He does, in fact, have a good reason for allowing bad to happen, because all his reasons are, by definition, good.
I can certainly see how this would be frustrating to those outside the loop. Which is why I always say that logic is dependent on premises, and it's always better to say "I reject your premises" than "You're being illogical". It is, I think, extremely problematic for the materialist to speak of logic as if it is objective truth. Logic is a human construct contingent on not only the brain, but language and reasoning and the ability to construct arguments and the ability to frame ideas and senses into some coherent form. It just doesn't exist beyond the human brain (to the materialist that is).
A different meaning, but not completely different to the Christian. The Christian believes that he/she is created in God's image and is quite capable of being good, or doing good. Heck, God became a human in Christ, so it can't be completely different.
Where the difference lies is that humans can reject good, and God can't. I've read arguments in the past that God's inability to not do good is commensurate to his not being omnipotent. Shrug.
If it corresponds to truth that's a definite bonus.
Of course it's definitely true (I think) that if a belief system is internally INCONSISTENT, it can not be true. This is why a great deal of effort is exerted, by atheists, in exposing internal inconsistencies in Christianity. That is a markedly different approach from attacking the premises. The problem with that approach is, almost invariably, one man's internal inconsistency is another man's internal consistency. Argh!
Exactly! This goes for me triple! My conclusions existed before I really did a detailed exploration of the Bible. Going the other way around (starting with the Bible, and then forming my conclusion) never really occurred to me...
Most fundamentalists would not call me a fundamentalist, although I like to think of myself as one, if only because I feel like we're on the same side. But I think it definitely works for them, too. I think that many times people get active in a church, and that frames how they read the Bible. I really think that it is rare that people start with the Bible (and I mean really break it down) and then hook up with a particular church.
Now my question is...would you rather people, in fact, start with the Bible and then form their own conclusions? (Of course you'd rather people ditch the Bible altogether no doubt, but lets forget that for the moment
You are assuming that the Bible is the only data available. I would say that a whole mess of data (the world, the self, and everything) went into the conclusions, which frame the Bible when read carefully.
If the conclusions are INDEPENDENT of the Bible...surely that's a good thing, right?
This goes for atheists too, of course. The Gospels are "re-interpreted" by atheists to fit their own conclusions (they are fables, interpolated frauds, etc).
Let me try to say now what I thought I said earlier.
I fully accept that some theological notions were held by people thousands of years ago. I accept that as a fact (theological notions were held by others thousands of years ago). Now, I personally don't share those theological notions, yet that doesn't mean that the notions weren't in circulation during the times in question.
To extend that...I don't think that the point of the Bible is to have one consistent theology! I think the whole point is to have a developing theology. The Bible could have been a hell of a lot shorter if the theology was unified and consistent. I believe that Jesus would have been irrelevant if that was the case (I'm actually doing research on a book that will deal with this thesis).
I often feel like I'm talking past other people, or they are talking past me. Reading the Bible is all about expectations. If the expectations differ, so will the interpretations. This is why I always try to get the expectations on the table before I get into a big discussion about a specific biblical issue. Once I know the expectation, I can basically tell the person what interpretation they'll have, and vice versa.
The tricky part is that sometimes I don't think that the expectation, as said by a person, is the actual expectation that the person has. That's a touchy one, and you've got to tread lightly, especially when talking to a well-meaning and decent fundamentalist.
OK, here's why I think 100% true is important.
I don't want any of the Bible to be excised from the book. If I were to take a scientific field, like evolution, I could write a thick book that details the evolution of the theories of evolution. Where contradictions exist, I will explain them, identify the mistakes, and deal with each step of the way accordingly WITH A CONCLUSION IN MIND. In that way, such a book would be 100% true, even though some of the things stated in the book are not in fact true.
Now, most evolution texts will NOT include every rejected idea and hypothesis that came before. The vital ones, of course, will be included, and others will be shown for didactic purposes. But it's not necessary to include everything.
With the Bible, I think it is necessary to have all of the inconsistencies shine through without editorializing or editing. I want to see how we got to Jesus. I just don't want the finished product, or the theology that I agree with the most. That's why I say it is 100% true. The progression is vital and necessary to the fulfillment.
So even if X didn't happen, it matters that people really thought it happened. And even if idea Y about God isn't accurate, it matters that people really thought it was accurate.
I don't know if it's that we can't understand them. We may not be able to understand them as God understands them...or, we may not be able to understand everything. But understanding is possible. This goes back to my admitted belief in objectie morality. I believe that I understand the notion that some things are right and some things are wrong. I believe that the notion is true. My understanding is sufficient for me; it may be insufficient for others. It might be a bit like the calculus, which can be understood on different levels.
The difference between...
I think it's the F word.
The perfect truth, when comprehended and possessed completely, would make faith irrelevant I think.
No, it's all good.
I get snarky when people say demeaning things towards people of faith. When people assume people of faith are consumed by fear, or are stupid and illogical, etc. I don't take that personally, but I take it as if someone is insulting a family member. Moreover, it makes me angry to see a person make themselves look bad, for that is what happens when you define people who disagree with you in such a way.
I may or may not be polite, but I don't think anybody here is stupid or evil or whatever. If I get snippy with certain people, it is because I expect better from them.
It's quite likely if not certain that I have been incivil here, and it's usually if not always in response to, at the very least, perceived incivility. Not the most mature thing, and not turning the other cheek, but in this cynical medium I don't know if that can be conveyed.
In person I'm sure we're all wonderful people, and that goes triple for me.
-Elliot
You know I was going to refute you issue by issue with Powerpoint and visual aides and everything...
Then I realized you are in fact DEFENDING CIRCULAR LOGIC!
You have just torn down human civilization. Congrats.
I will now prove the existance of Zeus and my omniscience at the same time. Behold the power of tautology:
1) Zeus exists and is always right. How do we know? See #2
2) I am omniscient and I don't lie. I believe in Zeus. How do we know I am all-knowing and truthful? See #3
3) Zeus tells me so. How do we know? See #4
4) I said so. How do we know I am right? See #2
Just enter into my triangle of reason by faith and we are all set.
Mr Clingford
Then you post
elliotfc
Premise: murder is wrong
Those whom murder are wrong/bad (or technically committing bad actions)
God murders
God is good
Why?
Or should it be restated:
God is good
God murders
Murder is good
Basically I’m asking whether or not you believe in a universal morality and what is the source?
A developing theology would also nullify a universal morality (seeing as how it changes over time).
KingMerv00
After all human achievement is meaningless, all good things come from/thru god.
Ossai
No sacrifice at all then.
Are you stating that you believe that Adam & Eve were part divine before the fall?
As Diogenes said his resurrection voided the sacrifice.
Then you post
which contradicts what you said earlier.
The standard fare: creating food, healing, resurrection, etc.
elliotfc
<buzzer> wrong god, that was (insert god(ess)s name here).
Which time? There are two creation stories in genesis? Which one demonstrated love? As for the whole creation bit, lousy job there, since most of the universe can’t support life of any sort.
So you throw out what, 85% of the entire bible?
Wait a minute, you just threw out Job. BTW god not only allows bad thing to happen to Job, he does all the really nasty stuff himself.
Wait another minute. How can good not only allow but actively support bad? Or are you making up your own definitions?
To rephrase what you’ve just said.
Premise: murder is wrong
Those whom murder are wrong/bad (or technically committing bad actions)
God murders
God is good
Why?
Or should it be restated:
God is good
God murders
Murder is good
Basically I’m asking whether or not you believe in a universal morality and what is the source?
Of what point is the bible. You have to admit it’s caused a great deal of suffering over the millennium.
A developing theology would also nullify a universal morality (seeing as how it changes over time).
That means the bible should be a living book, i.e. continually updated and additions made.
KingMerv00
Exactly!
After all human achievement is meaningless, all good things come from/thru god.
Ossai
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't "assume" you know what's being asked...
So, if I create an obstacle course in my backyard, complete with all kinds of deadly traps and ways to get injured and killed, put my son at the entrance and say " see you at the exit ( if you make it, heh, heh, heh )"; this would be a show of love?
I know I said ' just one ' ( thanks for playing ), but you don't by chance have another one, do you ?
elliotfc said:
So, if I create an obstacle course in my backyard, complete with all kinds of deadly traps and ways to get injured and killed, put my son at the entrance and say " see you at the exit ( if you make it, heh, heh, heh )"; this would be a show of love?
I know I said ' just one ' ( thanks for playing ), but you don't by chance have another one, do you ?
KingMerv00
Penultimate Amazing
Re: Re: Re: Engaging Elliot
This reminds me of a Bible verse:
Matthew 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
Your house isn't even built upon sand. It's built on its own roof.
KingMerv00 said:
This reminds me of a Bible verse:
Matthew 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
Your house isn't even built upon sand. It's built on its own roof.
kuroyume0161
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2001
- Messages
- 1,628
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't "assume" you know what's being asked...
From the Bibble:
Wakovicz 0:
32900: And God so wanted a place utterly inhospitable to life as to make most of it so, that he created the void and it was done. "But, oh, wherein shall I place my playthings to live miserable short existences and wage war and die from disease, famine, accident, and failings of their fragily designed systems?" And thusly God placed the firmament and separated the waters (blah, blah). Behold, the world was created and all manner of ravaging beast and microscopic parasite was placed upon it.
32901: But God was lonely and saw that none of his creation had any truly sentient life on which to feed. And God said, "Let there be humans!", so that they may be fruit-like and multiply, ravaged by the beasts and infested by the parasites. From the earth, He fashioned the two, so alike as to be of the same kind, but with just enough difference so that they could never get along.
32902: Without haste, the suffering commenced and God was pleased. "You are my creation and I love you this much!" Immediately was the love of God shown bright as the microscopic organisms infested the humans and they were eaten by ravaging beasts. They would fall great heights to bone-crushing doom and face all manner of disaster. God saw this and knew that it was good...
Yeah, I think elliotfc has something there.
Robert - in no way, manner, shape, or form affiliated with the Wholy Bibble.
Diogenes said:
From the Bibble:
Wakovicz 0:
32900: And God so wanted a place utterly inhospitable to life as to make most of it so, that he created the void and it was done. "But, oh, wherein shall I place my playthings to live miserable short existences and wage war and die from disease, famine, accident, and failings of their fragily designed systems?" And thusly God placed the firmament and separated the waters (blah, blah). Behold, the world was created and all manner of ravaging beast and microscopic parasite was placed upon it.
32901: But God was lonely and saw that none of his creation had any truly sentient life on which to feed. And God said, "Let there be humans!", so that they may be fruit-like and multiply, ravaged by the beasts and infested by the parasites. From the earth, He fashioned the two, so alike as to be of the same kind, but with just enough difference so that they could never get along.
32902: Without haste, the suffering commenced and God was pleased. "You are my creation and I love you this much!" Immediately was the love of God shown bright as the microscopic organisms infested the humans and they were eaten by ravaging beasts. They would fall great heights to bone-crushing doom and face all manner of disaster. God saw this and knew that it was good...
Yeah, I think elliotfc has something there.
Robert - in no way, manner, shape, or form affiliated with the Wholy Bibble.
Re: Re: Question for Christians - #3
You misread - the implication of imperfection would be if god were NOT all-knowing, and the point was the whole thing simply doesn't make sense. Basically, what's the point of making choices or even having the ability to make choices if all our choices are known beforehand by god?
IF they weren't known beforehand by god, THEN god is imperfect.
frisian said:
You misread - the implication of imperfection would be if god were NOT all-knowing, and the point was the whole thing simply doesn't make sense. Basically, what's the point of making choices or even having the ability to make choices if all our choices are known beforehand by god?
IF they weren't known beforehand by god, THEN god is imperfect.
frisian
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2003
- Messages
- 561
Re: Re: Re: Question for Christians - #3
I still haven't seen it articulated WHY one must be all knowing to be deemed perfect....anyway...I suppose I don't understand. If someone or something knows what choice you will make what is the point? The actuality rather than the eventuality?
Belle said:
I still haven't seen it articulated WHY one must be all knowing to be deemed perfect....anyway...I suppose I don't understand. If someone or something knows what choice you will make what is the point? The actuality rather than the eventuality?
Frisian
Omnipotence, specifically the omniscience portion, negates free will.
If god knows Person A will do X. Person A must do X.
Now throw into the mix the rest of omnipotent and god knew before he created the universe exactly how everything would play out.
Or to put it another way we’re just actors going through the motions. We don’t know we’re actors and the illusion of freewill is there just to enhance our acting.
Ossai
-brings out dead horse whip-
Omnipotence, specifically the omniscience portion, negates free will.
If god knows Person A will do X. Person A must do X.
Now throw into the mix the rest of omnipotent and god knew before he created the universe exactly how everything would play out.
Or to put it another way we’re just actors going through the motions. We don’t know we’re actors and the illusion of freewill is there just to enhance our acting.
As a handy Christian, they usually just lump it into omnipotent with no real explanation.
Ossai