Believing it is not proving it

Why?Why would a god have to be all good?

Any other concept makes Him an extraneous entity.

---

"Headpiece filled with straw, Alas!"--T. S. Eliot

Not looking for opinion, what is your reasoning?

If God is not the ideal being, the answer to everything, He doesn't matter. There would be something behind Him that is greater. He would be a mere Pagan God, a super-human or alien.

---

"Headpiece filled with straw, Alas!"--T. S. Eliot

That seems illogical. To say that a Christian must apply man's morals to GOD is to say that GOD is but a creation of Man. If that is the case, then GOD is not god but just some creation of man.To be a Christian, to believe in GOD regardless of religion, you must first acknowledge that GOD is not a creation of man and thus man's morals cannot be assigned to GOD. Why? Knowing right from wrong is totally unrelated to GOD. It is, in the Christian belief, a gift, charge and responsibility given by GOD but is something totally human. We are charged to try to do right. That seems to be a bunch of unrelated assertions. Let me try to parse it and show some areas that seem to be totally illogical. No, right and wrong are not objective. They are subjective and depend on the exact circumstance of any given incident. Well, Evolution is neither moral or immoral. It is. That's all, it is. Just as a lion eating a zebra is neither right or wrong, Evolution is neither right or wrong. Was it immoral that the dinosaurs died out and only a few evolved into birds? Where those dinosaurs that evolved into birds somehow more moral than those that didn't?Judging Evolution in terms of morality is illogical and infact, meaningless. Well, if you get a chance, read Canticle for Leibowitz. At the end of it there is an interesting discussion on just that subject.But man, if you are a Christian, is not the one to judge GOD. As I said above, to try to judge Evolution as moral or immoral is both illogical and meaningless. I've dealt with that question here at EvC many times. One place to look would be in a discussion I held with Gilgamesh is:Forum: Faith and Belief
Thread: How do we know God is "Good"?
Post #: 49This message has been edited by jar, 04-02-2006 12:07 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Besides asserting that he believes something, which is supposed to be a refutation, the only other argument Jar has been able to come up with is that evolution is "perfect."That's a rather strange use of the word "perfect." If a woman gave birth to 10 babies, and 3 of those had birth defects, I don't think we would say that her birthings were "perfect." True, she did give birth to 7 healthy babies, but we could hardly call the process perfect.That's the situation with evolution.

If morality is subjective, it is meaningless. Our sense of right and wrong would be no more meaningful that our preference for one color over another.A Christian, logically speaking, must believe in an objective morality.(And please don't reply, "Well, I'm a Christian and I believe in a subjective morality"--your usual ploy).

---

"Headpiece filled with straw, Alas!"--T. S. Eliot

Since I'm not a Christian, this injunction doesn't apply to me.

---

"Headpiece filled with straw, Alas!"--T. S. Eliot

Actually, I have many times gone over that issue in great depth. One such example can be found in Message 1.Your example might hold water if you consider the individual products to be the sole goal of some creator. Unfortunately, your example also reduces GOD to nothing more than some theological equivalent of a machine that should be judged on the reliability of the products it stamps out. That is not just illogical, it is anathema to either Christianity or any religion.So once again, IMHO your assertions are illogical and refuted by the evidence.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Why? How can something be judged as moral outside the context of the incident? Where in the Creeds does it say all morals are objective? Where in the Bible does it say all morals are objective?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'm guessing that you don't have any logical argument to prove this claim, either.If Christians must believe in an objective morality, then one presumes that the old testament sabbath law is part of that objective morality. Yet most Christians believe it does not apply to them.

Robin,Would you give me a sense of how you understand "meaning" and "meaningless". I take "subjective" to apply to contexts, think Einstein's ideas on frames of reference and relativity. "meaning" is then a function in a context but signs, gestures, even values can easily function differently in different contexts and yet be valid in the context and hence meaningful.My ultimate concept is non duality and that implies that subject and object is an illusory artifact of the ego process so ultimately I would deny that anything is objective or subjective because there is only All That Is and hence there is no object or subject so we can't even speak about objectivity or subjectivity.lfen

You seem to be confusing individual morality with "corporate" morality.Our individual sense of right and wrong is no more "meaningful" than our colour preference. The only thing that gives morality meaning is how we relate to other members of society.At the individual level, morality is subjective. At the social/corporate level, those individual "subjectivities" add up to something practical - but still not objective. "Meaning" is a practical matter, not a logical one.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Hi Robin,It seems to me that when you say "one cannot be a Christian and an evolutionist" that you are using your view of what it means to be a Christian. In your view, a Christian does not believe in a God who "created a situation in which, in order to survive, life forms must torture, kill, and eat other life forms".I think there are many people who don't share your view of what it means to be a Christian. There are other very common views of Chrisianity in which it is not considered contradictory to accept evolution. Catholocism and the Methodists come to mind.--Percy

Perfection is a subjective judgement, a criteria that is chosen for differing reasons at differing times by different people. I suppose in mathematics it's possible to set up a definition of perfection but that is I suspect a consequence of the formal structure of mathematics.lfen