|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,469 Year: 3,726/9,624 Month: 597/974 Week: 210/276 Day: 50/34 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: God is cruel | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4981 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
If God created it all, then everything you see is evidence of Him. I think under the assumptions in the OP, what protomenace is getting at is that he/she cannot see the evidence that God created everything because God has created him/her without that ability. For God not to be cruel under the opening premises, and to fit in with your stance, then everyone should be able to look at our world and conclude that God created it. There may well then be the problem of which god it was of course, but the opening premises negate your 'free will' defence. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4981 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
HI Mike,
That is possible, but they have the choice not to. Not under the premises of the OP, which is what I think proto is on about. He/she is claiming that God made him/her ONLY with the ability to accept empirical evidence as the work of a creator. He/she doesn't include a choice in the OP.
I fail to see how, because it strikes me that the evidence is 100% in favour of us having choices in life. If you have the ability to choose to think a certain way, then you can dismiss anything. But, again, this is not what the OP is on about. Proto is claiming that God did not give him/her the ability to recognise that there is a choice. You are going outside the parameters of proto's argument. The only conclusion, under the premises of the OP's argument is that God is cruel. However, we can only say that God is cruel from our own perspective. While I would say that it was cruel of God to order Joshua to tell his soldiers to murder all the men, women, and children in Jericho, or it was cruel to murder innocent Egyptian babies, others may think that these deeds weren't cruel at all. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4981 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Hi Mike,
It doesn't seem a frightfully solid argument. Those premisses are certainly bold. Therefore they need supporting. I agree, it is a very weak argument, but proto did say that for the purposes of this discussion we were to assume that his/her premises are true. Anything we add to that is in addition to proto's premises. But, like any argument, the premises need to be tested to see if they are valid or not. Proto makes a logical conclusion based on the premises, but the premises may be false.
I'm not convinced atheism is a major problem. The bible talks more about sin in regards to hell. Sin has also been defined as separation from God, so it may well be a problem for atheists.
The bible talks more about sin in regards to hell. It's the requirement of perfection through Jesus Christ which might make it hard for an atheist to go therein, not the atheism itself(for it's the sins that are the imperfection remember, not the atheism). But, atheism is a very big sin. It doesn't even sit well with the decalogue.
It's a problem therefore, if an atheist won't acknowledge his life's sins. But for the atheist to acknowledge many sins would require the athiest to acknowledge that there is a God. Wouldn't you say that to deny that Jesus triumphed over death was a sin?
It is unclear as to whether atheism = hell, IMHO, because of important passages, such as the seperation of the sheep from the goats. Atheists are neither sheep nor goats.
There is no solid and conclusive position if we look at the bible alone, because of it's apparently contradictory positions. Regarding the Bible, there is hardly anything in it that is solid and conclusive, some group always manages to interpret the text to fit what they want it to. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4981 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
I don't understand how you arrive at that conclusion? Quite easily. We regularly have other 'gods', such as money that we worship. Regularly take God's name in vain. Never keep the sabbath. Regularly covet goods and wives. To deny Christ's victory over death rules out salvation according to Paul. If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. So, Paul maintains that Jesus did rise form the dead and Christianity is worthy of having faith in. Atheists deny Jesus' resurrection, therefore we think Christian salvic path is a fairytale. I've said a million times, if it isn't necessary to believe in the resurrection then Jesus' execution was a circus act. According to Christianity, salvation comes through Jesus Christ. I think Jesus was either a con man, a self deluded nut, some sort of social reformer, or a phantom. I can't see me checkin in at the pearly gates. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4981 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Hi CS,
I was just wondering why you left out the possibility that Jesus was the son of god and the things he claimed were true. I do not believe in god(s). Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4981 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
How are any of those unique to Atheists? They aren't. But an athiest is more likely to say "f*ckin Jesus H Christ" when they hit their thumb with a hammer than a Christian is.
What he says is that if there is not a resurrection of the dead, the regardless of wht you believe, there is no resurrection of the dead. Yes, but he still maintains that you should take the resurrection as a real event.
Yes, you have said that though I have not been counting. It's 100, 000, 003 now
According to the Bible and the Creeds, God, for us and our salvation, came down from heaven and became man. There are no restrictions on who the "us" refers to. Which particular creeds? Apostle's creed, Nicene Creed,Athanasian creed?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4981 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Yes, that is the Christian belief. But if the resurrection never happened then it's moot. It is THEE Christian belief. But, for a Christian to be a Christian they would have to belive in their hearts that this was true, and if the resurrection wasn't true, then the Gospels are unreliable and worthless. The Nicene Creed is pretty specific about who Jesus came to save, namely: We believe in one God,the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. It then goes on to say: For us and for our salvationhe came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. It is pretty obvious that the 'us' referred to are the 'we' in the first part. Apostles Creed: I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen Not much use to me LOL. The Athanasian Creed is more or less a proclamation about the Trinity. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4981 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Hi,
In the DAY thou eatest thou shall surely die. I think it is safe to assume that Adam and Eve knew that in the day that they ate the fruit they would only spiritually die! Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4981 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Hi Proto,
The general consensus seems to be that my argument is logically sound. Being logically sound doesn't really mean much when you yourself have made up the premises. For example: All four legged creatures are catsSaddlers Wells had four legs Therefore Saddlers Wells was a cat. This argument is logically sound as well. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4981 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Hi RR,
In the day This is different from my Bible (NIV), which states: Genesis 2:17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
Ultimately they died. But they were dying anyway. Adam and Eve were not immortal, they would have died regardless of whether they ate the fruit or not. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4981 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Hi Sidey,
We shall see what method of arguement this must entail to maintain a semblence of honest discourse on her part. Oh there will be some self-justifying excuse, my bet is on praying for help to understand. What I will say is that a physical death cannot be justified from that passage, that is why the apologists came up with the 'spiritual death' excuse. But, ultimately (love that word), they didn't know it was bad to disobey God, they didn't know what 'bad' was. At the same time, they didn't know it was 'good' to obey God because they didn't know what 'good' was either. I think the easiest way to accept this is to understand how ancient writers constructed their tales. They really weren't that bothered about the soundness of a story, after all their audience was hardly a collection of critics. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4981 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Yeah, it depends on what your definition of "in" is. Also depends on which version of the Bible you take as being the 'true' version. Holman's Christian Standard Bible is different: Genesis 2:17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat from it, you will certainly die." It clearly says 'on'. Here is an even more problematic version, the Contemporary English Version. except the one that has the power to let you know the difference between right and wrong. If you eat any fruit from that tree, you will die before the day is over!" They were to die before the day was over! We can even narrow it down with another version! The Message: except from the Tree-of-Knowledge-of-Good-and-Evil. Don't eat from it. The moment you eat from that tree, you're dead." The very moment you eat from it. It must be a nightmare being a literalist. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4981 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Hi Cs,
I read Genesis metaphorically. Do you take Jesus' execution and resurrection metaphorically? Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4981 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
I just wondering why you take Jesus' shenannigans literally, yet take Genesis metaphorically when they are both equally unsupported and implausible.
Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4981 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Hi,
you will see that what he did led to his death, which was told him that day. Adam was dying anyway regardless of whether he ate the fruit or not. Adam and Eve were mortal, so they,just like all of us, began to die the second they were created. The story is severly flawed. Brian.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024